Hypocrisy Alert: O'Reilly Refers to a Liberal as a Nazi (Again)

  • 2-29-08 -- This is conclusive proof that Bill O'Reilly is a far right hypocrite with double standards. In his world it is never ok to refer to a Republican as a Nazi, he has said it is wrong, and that it should never happen.

    For example, in 2004 when moveon.org asked their members to submit political ads to run against George W. Bush, they revieved 1,512 entries. ONE ad compared Bush to Hitler, and it was removed from the website as soon as they found out about it. The ad was never used, and never ran on tv. And in fact, if the Republicans had not given the ad publicity, nobody would have known about it, and nobody would have ever seen it.

    When the ad became public O'Reilly, other Republicans, and FOX News spent a week criticizing it. O'Reilly condenmed the ad, said it was despicable and disrespectful, and that Nazi references should never be used. O'Reilly cited the ads as evidence that "right now in America the Democratic party is being held captive by the far, far left."

    RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie called the ad, "the worst and most vile form of political hate speech." Jack Rosen wrote about the ad in the Wall Street Journal. He said "comparing the commander-in-chief of a democratic nation to the murderous tyrant Hitler is not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous."

    Then on Wednesday night O'Reilly had Katherine Ham on to discuss the internet. He mentioned some comments made at the Huffington Post on a post concerning Nancy Reagan's injury, where a few people who do not write for the huffington post left a few nasty comments on the free speech comments page. Comments that have since been removed.

    O'Reilly said this:

    O'REILLY: "I don't see a difference between Arianna Huffington and the Nazis."

    O'REILLY: "What's the difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Arianna Huffington?"

    O'REILLY: "There's no difference between what Huffington and Nazis do."

    O'REILLY: "The whole (Huffington Post) is a sewer."

    Even Mary Katherine Hamm, the right wing conservative editor of Townhall.com found herself cringingly disagreeing with Bill. She knew what happened so she defended Arianna, even though she is a conservative.

    Here is what happened. Thousands of comments are left on articles posted at the huffingtonpost blog every day, thousands. The people who leave comments do not work for the huffingtonpost, or write for the huffingtonpost.

    A few nut jobs left some nasty comments on a Nancy Reagan article, saying they hope she dies in a bathtub etc.

    Then O'Reilly calls Arianna a Nazi, and says her blog is a sewer. Over a few comments (out of thousands of comments) left by people who do not work for or write for the huffingtonpost. Everyone knows that blog comments are free speech and generally not censored or edited. And many nasty things are left in the comments section on the right-wing blogs too. But O'Reilly dont send his spies to those blogs to report on what they are saying.

    It's total right-wing bias, total hypocrisy, and a double standard by O'Reilly. Not to mention, unfair, and misleading.

    The whole thing was a right-wing gotcha smear job by O'Reilly. The same thing he goes nuts over when someone else does it to him, or another Republican, when he does the exact same thing.

    Not to mention the total hypocrisy of using the Nazi reference when he has said nobody should use Nazi references, I guess it's ok when he does it, but not ok when anyone else does it. O'Reilly is the king of hypocrisy and double standards. If he wanted to he could find hundreds (if not thousands) of vile and nasty comments left on republican blogs, but he dont.

    He only reports on nasty comments left on liberal blogs. I could fill a book with nasty comments made about liberals on conservatives blogs, yet O'Reilly acts like people on the left are the only ones doing it. Not to mention the comments section is a free speech zone on blogs, they dont have to censor those comments, or remove them, but sometimes they do, O'Reilly just dont tell you about it.

    He is too busy trying to make liberals look bad by smearing them with Nazi references. And how in the hell do you justify calling someone a Nazi over a few comments made in the free speech section of a blog.

    It's 100% proof that O'Reilly is nothing but a spinning, lying, right-wing propagandist.

    Democratic Debate on MSNBC Sets Record

  • 2-28-08 -- Last night the debate on MSNBC with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama set a ratings record for the debate, it was the highest rated show in the history of MSNBC, and the 2nd highest rated debate in the history of cable news.

    MSNBC's telecast of last night's Democratic debate with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama drew 7.8 million viewers, becoming the most watched broadcast in the eleven year history of the network. The debate was the #4 program of the night, broadcast or cable, in total viewers and ranked second only to American Idol. It was the third most watched debate, and the second most watched on cable.

    The debate was also the #1 cable program of the night among Adults 25-54. Last night's debate averaged 3.24 million Adults 25-54, also a record for the network. The 25 to 54 demo alone had more total viewers then the entire total viewing audience (2.7 million) who watched the factor. Yet O'Reilly claims nobody is watching, nobody is interested, and nobody wants to see more debates. If that's true why are the debates setting ratings records?

    O'Reilly said this:
    O'REILLY: Please, no more debates until the two presidential candidates square off. We've got it. Universal health care, comprehensive immigration reform, repairing America's image abroad. We have absorbed all that.

    So enough already. Let the voting begin in Texas and Ohio and move the process forward. The horse race between Obama and Clinton is fascinating, but it's getting repetitive now and sometimes dopey.

    Also, the press "gotcha" game is boring, tedious and does the country no good. When the mocking on "Saturday Night Live" becomes more interesting than the real debate, it's time to take a rest. Please.
    O'Reilly claims nobody is watching these debates, says that he is tired of them, and says he dont want to see any more debates.

    Then MSNBC set a ratings record for the debate, it was the highest rated show in the history of MSNBC, and the 2nd highest rated debate in the history of cable news. But according to Billy nobody is interested and nobody is watching. The American people disagree, and they are watching these debates in record numbers.

    I bet if they were on FOX O'Reilly would want to see more of them. I bet if they were Republican debates he would want to see more of them. And I bet if the debates were setting ratings records on FOX, he would want to see more of them.

    Not to mention a couple weeks ago O'Reilly said he wants less talk of hope, and more specifics from Obama. So they have debates and Obama gives him more specifics, then O'Reilly says he dont want more debates.

    Which is it Billy, you cant have both. You ask for more specifics, and when Obama gives you more specifics you say you dont want to hear it. So Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he dont with O'Reilly.

    O'Reilly Continues Obama Attacks & McCain Lovefest

  • 2-27-08 -- Billy started the show with a talking points on the farrakhan endorsment of Obama and stated that it was no big deal and not really news, plus Obama denounced him and rejected him, case closed right?

    WRONG!

    Then O'Reilly made the lead story about Obama and Farrakhan, and spent the next 10 minutes talking about what he just said was no big deal, and not really a worthy news story. Not to mention making it the lead story.

    That is the most important news story in America?

    The lead story on a news show should actually be an important news story. Then later in the show O'Reilly talked about it with Dennis Miller. They also talked about the picture of Obama in african clothes, when the picture story died 2 days ago in the real media, but O'Reilly keeps it alive.

    For a story that is nothing, no big deal, and not much of a news story, O'Reilly sure spent a lot of tv time talking about it.

    O'Reilly finally admitted the Clinton campaign put the picture out. He said it was no big deal, and that it would not hurt Obama at all. Then why does he keep talking about it every night for 3 days in a row?

    In another example of total right-wing bias during the Miller segment, Billy and Dennis talked about John McCain, and shockingly (NOT) they both had nothing but great things to say about McCain.

    Miller said he now likes McCain, and thinks he might have a shot to win in November. O'Reilly agreed and cited a new LA Times poll that has McCain 2 points ahead of Obama. But he failed to mention the margin of error in the poll is + or - 3 points, so Obama could actually be 1 point ahead.

    And what's really funny is there are 8 polls that ask who would win Obama or McCain, and all 8 of them have Obama winning over McCain from 3 to 8 points. O'Reilly cited the 1 poll that has McCain winning, but never said a word about the other 8 polls that have Obama beating McCain.

    Those 8 polls with Obama winning over McCain by 3 to 8 points have been out for 2 weeks, yet none of them were ever mentioned by O'Reilly on the factor, ever, not once. But as soon as 1 poll comes out with McCain ahead of Obama by 2 points, Billy reports it the very next day.

    Not to mention these polls do not factor in the undecided vote, which has been unusually high this year, or the turnout for each party, where the Democrats have turned out to vote by a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 margin.

    This is the most blatant right-wing bias you can find anywahere on any news show.

    O'Reilly Spins Liberal Views on The NY Times

  • 2-26-08 -- A few minutes ago Billy said everyone on the far left in America read the NY Times, and love the NY Times because they smear Conservatives. And that the far left supports those smears of Conservatives by the NY Times.

    WRONG!

    1) I am an Independent liberal, and I do not support what the NY Times did to John Mcain. They should not have accused McCain of cheating on his wife unless they could prove it with named sources. They did not prove it, and they should have never implied it. I agree it was bad journalism, and that the NY Times should have never included it in the story.

    2) I do not read the NY Times, ever. I do not read the paper, and I do not read it online.

    3) For O'Reilly to imply that all liberals read and support the NY Times is also bad journalism. I am as liberal as it gets, and I do not read the NY Times, or support the wife cheating story about McCain, because they can not prove it with named sources.

    Bias Alert: O'Reilly Helping McCain by Ignoring Bad News About Him

  • 2-26-08 -- Bill O'Reilly is helping John McCain by ignoring all negative news about him. While at the same time, reporting every single night any news about Obama or Clinton that is even the slightest bit negative, no matter how petty or untrue.

    It is 100% clear to anyone who watches the factor that O'Reilly is in the tank for John McCain. Night after night, half the show is dedicated to spin and garbage about Obama and Clinton, mostly Obama because O'Reilly thinks he is going to beat Clinton.

    Yet all the negative news about John McCain is totally ignored and not reported at all. O'Reilly even had John McCain's attorney on the factor to defend him over the NY Times article. Which is ok, except O'Reilly put him on the factor without disclosing he is McCain's attorney, and hardly an objective guest. What happened to full disclosure Billy?

    In the last 2 or 3 weeks O'Reilly has ignored all the news that makes John McCain look bad, all of it. And it's a lot, here is a small list of things Billy has failed to report on about John McCain.

    -- McCain is trying to break a law in the campaign finance bill that he co-wrote. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
    A few months ago, John McCain applied for and was approved to receive federal matching funds. Because he couldn't find enough people to fund his campaign, he was also forced to apply for a $4 million line of credit, which he secured by using the federal matching funds as collateral.

    By taking the federal funding, he agreed to spend no more than $57 million until the Republican convention. But so far, his campaign has spent at least $49 million -- leaving him with less than $10 million to campaign with through September.

    Now that he's won the nomination and has the support of the Republican lobbyist and special interest machine, he's trying to act like it never happened. He recently wrote a letter to the FEC telling them that he was backing out, even though the FEC is very clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be approved, you can't just change your mind and take it back -- legally, you have to be given permission.

    The Associated Press report on February 21, confirms that Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason said McCain may not be allowed to leave the public financing system if it is found that he "used the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November of 2007," when his campaign was low on funds.
    -- At a townhall meeting in New Hampshire last November, Sen. John McCain told the audience that he's never allowed himself to be corrupted by lobbyist money.
    McCain said the letters he wrote to the FCC were normal business for a senator. But FCC Chairman William E. Kennard responded to McCain in 1999, saying his letters were highly unusual:

    "I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. I am concerned that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

    Commisisoner Gloria Tristani also objected, saying in 2000 that she had "never received such an out-of-line request" in her two years on the commission.

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other Senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.

    McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks - formerly Paxson Communication - receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006. John McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and a small number of broadcasters off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

    Two weeks later, McCain reversed himself. Then supported legislation that would grant a two-year reprieve for Paxson -- and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.

    Vicki Iseman has represented Paxson since 1998, longer than any of her other clients. The Washington Post reports that Iseman's clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000.
    -- In late 1999, McCain wrote two letters to the FCC urging a vote on the sale to Paxson of a Pittsburgh television station. The sale had been highly contentious in Pittsburgh and involved a multipronged lobbying effort among the parties to the deal.
    At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach.
    -- The Washington Post reported that McCain's political organization is actually built on the backs of lobbyists who play a central role in his campaign for president.
    Charlie Black, who serves as McCain's chief political adviser, "is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways." Though he is currently playing a prominent role in the McCain campaign, Black "is still being paid by his lobbying firm."

    Some of Black's other clients currently "have interests before the Senate and, in particular, the Commerce Committee" of which his client, John McCain is a member. As Greg Sargent noted yesterday, Black "does a lot of his lobbying work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."
    -- McCain's campaign said that "no representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter."
    Marking the second time that statements made by Sen. John McCain's campaign have been contradicted, Lowell "Bud" Paxson told the Washington Post that he did in fact meet with the senator about writing letters to the FCC in 1999. Paxson said they met "several weeks" before McCain sent the letters.

    Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson's quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.

    Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, attended the meeting in McCain's office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting.
    -- In 1998, McCain wrote the FCC a letter asking it to give "serious consideration" to allowing BellSouth to enter the long-distance market. Just four months earlier, on May 6, 1998, BellSouth officials had donated $16,750 to McCain. [Boston Globe, 1/9/00]

    -- In June 1998, McCain wrote to the FCC "on behalf of AT&T, Spring, and MCI Worldcom," even though he had "long favored the so-called Baby Bells." Two weeks later, Spring donated $2,000. In October 1998, AT&T officials gave him $25,800. [Boston Globe, 1/9/00]

    -- In May 1999, McCain wrote to the FCC and accused it of "bias against Ameritech and SBC Communications," two companies seeking to merge. Just before his May letter, "officials and lobbyists for the two companies helped him raise almost $120,000." Ameritech was led by Richard Notebaert, a "friend and leading fund-raiser" for McCain. [Boston Globe, 1/7/00; New York Times, 1/6/00]

    -- In 1998, McCain wrote two letters on behalf of satellite television companies Echostar and DirecTV, "in an effort to help them win permission to carry local broadcast signals. Echostar's chairman raised about $25,000 for McCain" in the period between the two letters. [Boston Globe, 1/9/00]

    -- On Dec. 1, 1998, McCain wrote a letter to the FCC advocating against tighter restrictions, which were "clearly not in the spirit" of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In the months before the letter, Paxson and Sinclair officials donated $17,000 to McCain's campaign. [Boston Globe, 1/9/00]

    In 2000, even George W. Bush criticized McCain for his unethical behavior. "I think it's really important for people who advocate reforms to live to the spirit of the reforms they advocate," said Bush.

    -- Last week Republican Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who is a member of Sen. John McCain's National Leadership Team and a co-chair of his Arizona Leadership Team, was indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and more.

    -- Renzi, who is one of CREW's 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress, has been under investigation by the FBI since 2006.

    -- John McCain knew all that, yet he still made him his campaign co-chair in his home state of Arizona, so what does that say about McCain.

    -- All told, McCain has received more than $400,000 from lobbying firms. And among his major fundraisers, 59 have been identified as lobbyists.

    NOTE: On top of all the above information about John McCain not being reported on the factor. This Rick Renzi story has not been reported either, none of it, not a word. Can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if Barack Obama's Illinois co-chair was indicted, while he was running for president, and he knew the guy was under investigation when he made him his co-chair.

    Looking at the above information you can clearly see that Bill O'Reilly is ignoring all that, to help cover for John McCain, so he can help him be the next president of the United States. A real journalist would report that information, yet Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it, not a word.

    Jesse Jackson on O'Reilly's Racist (Lynching Party) Statement

  • 2-25-08 -- Jesse Jackson was a guest on Keith Olberman friday night, here is the transcript from that interview.

    OLBERMANN: What would happen to you if you went on national radio and said that you didn't want to go on a lynching party against Mrs. Barack Obama unless there was evidence.

    But on the next day, you defended that by saying you have said you probably wouldn't. And what if you then went on television and made a dismissive, off the cuff remark about how you were sorry if you're statement offended anybody, but context was everything, and you try to rewrite the history of this thing by claiming you actually said there should be no lynching party.

    Of course, you would be fired by your radio and television employers and probably never be heard from again. But of course, you are not Bill O'Reilly. The Reverend Jesse Jackson joins us presently, befitting a dishonest man, Bill O'Reilly's I'm not sorry is said what I said, I'm sorry you didn't like that I said that apology. Two days after the fact was also accompanied by a lie about what he said to which you can compare it in just a moment.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    O'REILLY: While talking to a radio caller, I said there should be no lynching in the case-I comment off Clarence Thomas saying he was the victim of a high-tech lynching. He said that on "60 Minutes," you may remember. I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: Despite that claim, O'Reilly did not in fact say there should be past tense, no lynching. He said he personally did not want to go on a lynching party unless-well, judge it for yourself.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    O'REILLY: I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels-that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever-then that's legit. We'll track it down.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: You went on his program-Bill O'Reilly's program after the silvio's remarks. He did not apologize then. He tried to correct you when you called his comments offensive. He tried to lecture you on the causes of black poverty. Do you, as an African-American accept O'Reilly's apology for what he said about the African-American wife of an African-American man, now running for president?

    JACKSON: Well, he really didn't apologize. And what he said was hurtful, harmful, and even dangerous. President Bush no less said a few weeks ago that there is no good use of the word lynching, even in jest. Referencing nooses and Janet, President Bush said nooses are not pranks and lynching conjures too much fear and terror to be used in any way. The question to ask, what will Fox do about this over the line statement and what will the FCC have to say about this?

    OLBERMANN: Well, what do you think is appropriate? I mean, is this a dismissal level event. Is it suspension, is it sponsor boycott, or what it is right now, which is nothing?

    JACKSON: I guess it's not for me to say it, but it is though a burden upon the FCC that took a strong position on the Janet Jackson situation for example which was socially offensive to many people. What is the stand that Fox holds its step to? You know, Barack and Michelle are on a historic journey. It wants to change America for the better, but it's also a dangerous journey. Given this climate of violence and fear.

    They are taking America to a new zone of hope and possibility and even though who disagree with them should not put out the power of suggestion that might, in fact, impede them in this process of making us as a nation better.

    OLBERMANN: Yes. Of all times and of all people to make sure your language cannot possibly be misunderstood or be the inspiration for some lunatic, this would be the time and this would be the people.

    JACKSON: They say that if unless she said-what Michelle really was saying is that she's always been proud of our country, but not proud of our government. And there's a distinction. Our government has often been tested and passed laws that did not protect all citizens. And now you see America becoming healthier. Our men voting for women, whites voting for blacks, we see the best America emerge.

    And today, Barack is a conduit to this that new America is emerging and what a glorious moment we are now realizing. And those who want to see a new America, a new heaven, and new earth are celebrating. Not put in this dangerous suggestion in its path.

    OLBERMANN: Clearly, this was not a joke. This was a choice of language. O'Reilly could have said I'm not going on a vigilante raid against her. There are other terms he could have uses. Other phrases that would have made whatever his point was, but he didn't. He chose the lynching one. In your definition, is that racism?

    JACKSON: Well, I called him yesterday because, you know, I think we should talk with people, not talk at them. And he mentioned what Clarence Thomas has said. Clarence Thomas misappropriated the term, high-tech lynching to mobilize his opposition. Clarence Thomas was not going through a high-tech lynching, he was going through an interrogation. And he used that language to mobilize his opposition.

    And so even using what Clarence Thomas said does not justify today's suggestion that what she said had some conditional basis for a lynching. There's no condition for a lynching party and she said nothing that would even evoke such a feeling. Because Mr. O'Reilly is so strong and so powerful, others who are in the media, who are own radio and TV, if this is the acceptable standard, that's what makes the climate all explosive and dangerous.

    OLBERMANN: Has he responded sufficiently in your mind? Has Fox responded sufficiently in your mind?

    JACKSON: Well, Fox has not really responded at all. I think they called this free speech. It is free but it is real dangerous and provocative speech. So far, FCC has said nothing about it. And now just my appeal is to maintain free speech, but we must define some boundaries because words are powerful, words are suggestive, and given what we've seen at Virginia Tech and what was in NIU, this is also why we are celebrating. This isn't for a dangerous and exciting moment. We must not in some sense stimulate the danger to mention of this great moment.

    OLBERMANN: Agreed. The Reverend Jesse Jackson joining us from Atlanta. I'm sorry it was under these circumstances, but it's always a pleasure to speak with you, sir.

    Star Jones on O'Reilly's Lynching Party Comment/Apology

  • 2-23-08 -- Bill O'Reilly's Throwing a Lynching Party

    By Star Jones

    I'm sick to death of people like FOX News host, Bill O'Reilly, and his ilk thinking that he can use a racial slur against a black woman who could be the next First Lady of the United States, give a half-assed apology and not be taken to task and called on his crap.

    This week O'Reilly gave the following response to a caller on his radio show who was making unsubstantiated negative charges against presidential candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama:
    O'REILLY: "And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
    What the hell? If it's "legit," you're going to "track it down?" And then what do you plan to do?

    How dare this white man with a microphone and the trust of the public think that in 2008, he can still put the words "lynch and party" together in the same sentence with reference to a black woman; in this case, Michelle Obama? I don't care how you "spin it" in the "no spin zone," that statement in and of itself is racist, unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.

    O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of context. Please don't insult my intelligence while you're insulting me. I've read the comments and heard them delivered in O'Reilly's own voice; and there is no right context that exists. So, his insincere apology and "out-of-context" excuse is not going to cut it with me.

    And just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with the 2008 presidential election, me being a Democrat, him claiming to be Independent while talking Republican, the liberal media or a conservative point of view. To the contrary, this is about crossing a line in the sand that needs to be drawn based on history, dignity, taste and truth.

    Read The Full Article Here:

    www.huffingtonpost.com/star-jones/bill-oreillys-throwing-_b_88115.html

    O'Reilly Still Lying About The Political Debates on CNN

  • 2-23-08 -- Friday night O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on the factor to discuss politics etc. During the interview the Thursday night CNN debate with Obama and Clinton was talked about. At one point Billy said the debate was boring and nobody watched it.

    Then later the same night O'Reilly was on Jay Leno, I watched it, and during the Leno interview O'Reilly told Jay that a LOT of people watched the debate. So which is it Billy, it can't be both. Either nobody watched it, or a lot of people watched it.

    What probably happened is when O'Reilly went on Jay Leno he told the truth about the debate ratings, and then he forgot he lied about the debate ratings earlier on the factor. That is what happens when you tell so many lies, you forget what lies you told, and when you told them.

    The truth is a LOT of people watched the Thursday night CNN debate with Obama and Clinton. In fact, it was the 3rd highest rated debate, ever, in the history of debates on cable news networks. And CNN has 6 of the top 8 debate ratings records. The highest FOX debates come in at #9 and #10 with 3.7 million and 3.2 million total viewers. So if nobody is watching the CNN debates with 8.3 and 7.5 million total viewers, then nobody is really watching the FOX debates at 3.7 and 3.2 million total viewers.

    Here is the real truth, as in the facts, something O'Reilly has a hard time reporting. Because the best FOX News can do is 9th. These are the top 10 debate ratings.

    1) 1-5-08 -- Democratic debate on ABC News - 9,360,000 Total Viewers
    2) 1-31-08 -- Democratic debate on CNN News - 8,324,000 Total Viewers
    3) 2-21-08 -- Democratic debate on CNN News - 7,756,000 Total Viewers
    4) 1-5-08 -- Republican debate on ABC News - 7,350,000 Total Viewers
    5) 1-21-08 -- Democratic debate on CNN News - 4,910,000 Total Viewers
    6) 11-28-07 -- Republican debate on CNN News - 4,486,000 Total Viewers
    7) 11-15-07 -- Democratic debate on CNN News - 4,036,000 Total Viewers
    8) 1-30-08 -- Republican debate on CNN News - 4,018,000 Total Viewers
    9) 11-15-07 -- Republican debate on FOX News - 3,746,000 Total Viewers
    10) 9-5-07 -- Republican debate on FOX News - 3,207,000 Total Viewers

    Note to Bill O'Reilly: Stop lying about the debates, a lot of people are watching them on CNN, they are setting ratings records on CNN, but not on FOX News. CNN has the top 6 highest rated debates in the history of cable news, what part of that don't you understand?

    And if you claim nobody is watching the CNN debates that get 8.3 million and 7.5 million total viewers, what do you have to say about the 3.7 and 3.2 million total viewers the debates on FOX get?

    How in the hell does O'Reilly call it a no-spin zone when every night 90% of the show is nothing but spin, and it's all right-wing spin. You never see O'Reilly doing any left-wing spin. Yet he claims he is a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides. If that is true why is all his spin, right-wing spin?

    O'Reilly (Almost) Says he is Sorry About Obama "Lynching Party" Comment

  • 2-22-08 -- O'Reilly can't even get a simple apology right. Last night Billy (sort of) made an apology for the "lynching party" comments when referring to Michelle Obama.

    It was not a real apology, he did not say he was sorry for using the words "lynching party" he only said he was sorry if his statement offended anybody. Then he said it was taken out of context, and that he just did the same thing Clarence Thomas did, haha, wrong.

    O'Reilly stated:
    O'REILLY: "I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything."
    Wrong Billy, most of the time context is everything. But not when a white man uses the words "lynching party" when referring to a black person. There is NO context where a white person should use the word "lynch" or "lynching" when talking about a black person.

    And yes I understand you were defending Michelle Obama when you said you would not go on a "lynching party" against her. And guess what, I don't care, this is real simple Billy. At no time should any WHITE person use the word "lynch" or "lynching" when talking about ANY black person, ever, no matter what the context, not even if you are joking.

    There is no context where it is ok for a white person to say those words, none, ever.

    O'Reilly tried to explain his "lynching party" comments about Obama like this:
    O'REILLY: "While talking to a radio caller, I said there should be no lynching in the case -- that comment off Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas saying he was the victim of a high-tech lynching. He said that on 60 Minutes, you may remember."
    Yeah we remember Billy, but that is just flat out ridiculous. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Clarence Thomas is a black man, you are not, you are an old WHITE guy. And he was talking about what someone did to him, as a black man. You said "lynching party" when referring to a black woman, and you said it as a WHITE man.

    There is no comparison Billy. It is ok for a black man to call what was done to him a high-tech lynching, but it is not ok for a white person to do it. Because no black man ever lynched another black man, all the lynchings were done by white men to black men. You have a masters degree, surely you can understand that, right?

    And after you claim you only said there should be no lynching in the case, ummmm, that is not what you said. You said this:
    O'REILLY: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
    The key words are "lynching party" and "unless" there's evidence. Neither of which you mentioned in your lame apology. When you say you don't want to go on a lynching party unless there's evidence, and hard facts, you imply you would go on a lynching party if there was evidence that shows how the woman really feels.

    A real apology would look like this: I made a mistake, I used the words "lynching party" when I said I would not go after Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, and hard facts. As a white man the word "lynch" or "lynching" should never be spoken in any context when referring to any black person. It was wrong, I am very sorry, and I will never do it again.

    But O'Reilly did not do that, he misquoted himself, leaving out the part of his statement that was most offensive, and said he was sorry if his comment offended anyone. Then he used a terrible analogy that it's ok for him to say "lynching" because Clarence Thomas did it.

    Which is just ridiculous, because Clarence Thomas is BLACK, and it's ok for him to say that white people did a high-tech lynching on him. Bill O'Reilly is WHITE, and it is not ok for him to use the words "lynching party".

    Only a fool would even try to make such a comparison.

    So I sort of give O'Reilly credit for actually saying he was sorry, that is a first, but his apology was still spin, and not much of an apology.

    Hypocrisy Alert: O'Reilly Calls His Own News Network Irresponsible

  • 2-21-08 -- Keith Olbermann named O'Reilly worst person in the world for saying you don't legitimize nuts like the guy who claimed Bill Clinton hit him at a speech if you are a responsible news agency. When less than an hour later on Hannity & Colmes they not only covered the story, they did a live interview with the guy. And this from a guy who works at the FOX News Network, that covered the Anna Nicole Smith tabloid garbage story 5 times more than any other cable news network.

    From Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC:

    Speaking of which, our winner. A double header tonight for Bill O'Reilly. The other should get him suspended. This one will probably get him in trouble with his bosses.

    Complaining that NBC and MSNBC used a sound bite of the Obama supporter at whom President Clinton pointed a finger at a campaign trail.
    O'REILLY: "Now there are plenty of nuts on the campaign trail, but you don?t legitimize them if you are a responsible news agency. However NBC News gave the Clinton guy air time."
    Immediately there after, Sean Hannity put the Clinton guy on his FOX Noise show as a live guest. Remember Sean, you don't legitimize them if you're a responsible news agency. That's Bill O'Reilly as today declared that FOX News is not a responsible news agency. OLBERMANN: Bill O'Reilly, today's worst person in the world.

    More on O'Reilly's Lynching Party Comments

  • 2-21-08 -- Notice that just 2 weeks ago president Bush said nobody should ever use the word lynching, when joking or not. And notice that not one word about O'Reilly's use of the words lynching party has been reported on FOX News.

    But when Imus called the black girls nappy headed hoes, it was all over FOX News. And when the woman from the golf channel said lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley, it was all over FOX News.

    From the 2-20-08 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show.

    OLBERMANN: On February 12, celebrating black history month, President Bush said some Americans do not understand the effect that references to nooses and lynching can still have. A month earlier, Golf Channel sportscaster Kelly Tilghman said in order to have any hopes of defeating him, the younger rivals of the game's greatest player may want to quote, "lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley."

    She apologized. Woods said he took no offense and considered her a friend and she accepted without protest a two week suspension.

    But in our number one story tonight, Mr. Bush's most prominent TV cheerleader did not merely ignore the president's plea for restraint on this exact issue, nor glean any guidance from Kelly Tilghman. Bill O'Reilly spoke on national radio for metaphorically lynching a black person, a black woman and not just any black woman. First Mr. Bush's remarks from just last Tuesday.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For generations of African-Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder. It was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions. The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. Lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: O'Reilly yesterday acting on his radio show as though he were defending Michelle Obama, shooting down a listener's claim that she is an angry woman by saying he must investigate first to decide that for himself, then claiming he has sympathy for her and other public figures such as Bill Clinton leading up to this clip, which we have not edited in any way. The operative word in this may not in fact be lynching, it may be quote, "unless".

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    O?REILLY: They're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And as you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things and I think I've made that clear over the years. But he's trying to stick up for his wife. And every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

    That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels, that America is a bad country or a flawed nation. Whatever, then that's legit. We'll track it down.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: Let's go now to Eugene Robinson, political analyst for MSNBC and both columnist and associate editor at the "Washington Post." Thanks for staying with us, Gene.

    EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to be here, Keith.

    OLBERMANN: I'm sorry it's under these circumstances.

    ROBINSON: As am I.

    OLBERMANN: Can you convey what Mr. Bush apparently failed to get through to everybody, some sense of the obscenity, the moral obscenity involved in a national discussion of whether to launch a lynching party against the black woman married to the black man running for president?

    ROBINSON: I think you kind of said it, Keith. That's the offense. You know what lynching was? Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crowe South.

    It wasn't--the idea of course wasn't to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you. That you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.

    There's nothing funning about lynching. There's certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama and the word unless, followed by we'll track it down, is way beyond the pail. I?m almost speechless. But I have more to say, of course.

    OLBERMANN: As we both do. Hey, you're right. This is about disenfranchising people. It wasn't just about killing people. The rest were disenfranchised and people were essentially told black people will not take office, there will not be people in government.

    ROBINSON: You will not vote. You will not own property that we don't want you to own.

    OLBERMANN: We will not do anything. How many incidents like this does it take? And the Silvio's restaurant story and more iced tea now seems to lose all but one of its interpretations. How many of these stories does it take before a fair observer concludes this man is not color blind, he is not reckless with language, he has that insidious kind of low grade prejudice that we see in ordinary American society still, low grade prejudice against black people.

    ROBINSON: Well this is enough for me. But here's what's going to happen. By tomorrow morning, some defender will come out and say "I know Bill O'Reilly and he's no racist." And my response is, I don't care. How can anyone know what's in his heart, what's in his soul? That is irrelevant to me. All you can go by is his words and his actions. And he keeps saying these things that sound pretty darn racist to me.

    OLBERMANN: He's not going to apologize, he's not going to stop because the moment he would do that, he'd have to admit that he was wrong, there was a reason for him to stop. I mean, do people have to then start nevermind talking to him, but talk to people who are keeping him on the air? Call Westwood One, the radio proprietors of his show, or his boss at FOX News Roger Ailes or the advertisers and say get rid of the guy, suspend him, whatever, or give up being accepted in 21st century American society where this is not tolerated anymore?

    ROBINSON: Well I think that's what happens. I think frankly that's basically what happened to Don Imus. And the reason he lost his job at MSNBC and CBS although he's now back on the radio. I think television is a bit different from radio. I don't know that this will create a huge splash. Radio is a more kind of - it's a medium where people can kind of be alone with their prejudices and so it might just slip by.

    OLBERMANN: I hope not. Especially under the circumstances, thanks Gene.

    O'Reilly Spins Cynthia Tucker Article on Huckabee & Religion

  • 2-20-08 -- On the 2/18/08 O'Reilly Factor with Senior McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer, Billy misrepresented and put his right-wing spin on Cynthia Tucker's column about Mike Huckabee to portray her as an anti-religion liberal.

    Tucker's opinion piece, titled VP Huckabee is a sincerely scary prospect asserts that "Huckabee's theocratic tendencies are dangerous, and he shouldn't be on any ticket, even as vice president."

    She quotes him in the article:
    "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee said. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
    She says "The last thing we need is another president or vice president who believes he can intrepret God's standards." She credits his sincerity and his "core of decency that makes his conservatism more compassionate than that of President Bush, who liked the sound of the phrase but never seemed to grasp its meaning."

    She concludes:

    "Huckabee has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency - especially if McCain is the president. If the Arizona senator were to win the White House on Nov. 4, he would be the oldest person to be inaugurated for a first term. While he has been robust enough to compete well in the grueling nominating process, his vice president matters.

    Her concerns are valid, and shared by many, not just liberals. But how did Billy (No-Spin) O'Reilly present her arguments to his audience and his guest. He misrepresented what she said of course.

    In the teaser Billy called Tucker a far left zealot, and said she wrote that Huckabee is "unfit to be even Vice-President, because of his faith in God."

    When that is not what she said.

    Introducing the topic to Pfotenhauer later in the segment he called Tucker an anti-religionist far left zealot, and said that Tucker said that "Huckabee is unfit to hold any national office because of his belief in God."

    Which is not what she said. She said Huckabee should never be president or vice president because he said he would amend the constitution to match the will of God.

    She did not say Huckabee should never be president or vice president because he believes in God, ever, not once. O'Reilly totally misrepresented what she said, and lied about her article to make people think all liberals are against any religious person being president or vice president.

    It was a total right-wing smear job by O'Reilly, and pretty much all lies.

    Liberals do not care what religion you are, or that you believe in God. They only oppose mixing politics and religion, and crossing the line between the separation of church and state. You can be the most religious person in the world, then be president or vice president, and no liberal will care. As long as you keep your religion out of Government and the schools. Which is what Huckabee said he would not do, he said he would amend the constitution to match what (he believes is) the will of God.

    O'Reilly Makes Racist Lynching Party Comment About Michelle Obama

  • 2-20-08 -- O'Reilly made the statement on the radio factor, not on FOX News O'Reilly factor.
    O'REILLY: You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them.

    And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

    That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.
    No white person should ever use the word lynch or lynching when referring to any black person, ever, no matter what context. Even if it is in a joke, you should just never do it, and it is a racist comment. The statement O'Reilly made was not part of a joke, and he should not have used the word lynching when talking about a black person.

    Only a racist would use the word lynch or lynching when referring to a black person. And this statement from O'Reilly is just one more racist comment that shows a history and a pattern of racist statements.

    Recently a female anchor Kelly Tilghman on the golf channel joked that the other young guys on the tour should form a lynch mob and beat Tiger Woods in an alley.

    She was suspended for 2 weeks, and she was clearly joking, she said it to Nick Faldo in the context of joking about how you stop Tiger from winning all the tournaments, then they both laughed at her statement, not to mention she is good friends with Tiger Woods.

    O'Reilly was not joking. The comment by O'Reilly was not in the context of a joke, so I consider what O'Reilly said worse. And if she was suspended for 2 weeks, O'Reilly should get a month.

    I dont think he should be fired, but he should be suspended, and maybe donate some money to a black charity, and of course give an apology for saying it.

    O'Reilly Helps RNC Spread Obama Plagiarism Lies & More

  • 2-19-08 -- Last night in the talking points memo O'Reilly said that Barack Obama's use of Deval Patrick's "Just words" soundbite was not plagiarism because it was not written. Minutes later in the Top Story segment guest Karl Rove disagreed, insisting it was.

    Rove said Obama was guilty of plagiarism from Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Then later in the show O'Reilly had McCain Senior Policy Advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer on, and she said the same thing.

    It's all lies. And nothing but right-wing propaganda.

    Deval Patrick has endorsed Obama, and the two men are close friends. Patrick told Obama to use his language, and gave the text to his speechwriters. None of that was reported by O'Reilly, ever. Instead he let Karl Rove and the senior McCain advisor put out their right-wing propaganda, with nobody to give the counterpoint.

    In a NY Times article yesterday they report that Patrick told Obama to use his words, and he even gave the text to Obama's speechwriters. Yet O'Reilly puts Karl Rove and other Republicans on the air to spread known lies.

    O'Reilly also said SOME people say the fainting spells at Obama speeches are staged by the Obama campaign. Then he said there is no evidence to prove it, and that he dont believe it is true.

    WHY IN THE HELL IS O'Reilly REPORTING IT THEN?

    O'Reilly said he never speculates, and that he only deals in the facts. Yet here he is letting Karl Rove and other Republicans spread lies about the Obama plagiarism, when it is known that Patrick told Obama he could use his words, that they are close friends, and that he has endorsed Obama.

    O'Reilly also hammers any journalist who uses anonymous sources to report a story, and he says it is wrong. Then he says SOME people say the fainting spells at Obama speeches are staged by the Obama campaign.

    That is using an anonymous source to report a story, which is exactly what O'Reilly says no journalist should do. And of course the story is not true, yet he uses an anonymous source (some people) to report it anyway. Not to mention it is a negative story about a Democrat, which is just a coincidence, yeah right, and I'm Mother Teresa.

    Who are the (some) people, they are other Republicans who started the lie. That is why they are not named, because the (some) people are all Republicans. And if they are named everyone will know it is a Republican lie put out by Republican operatives.

    And what a coincidence that O'Reilly just happens to be in LA this week?

    This past weekend, The RNC held their winter retreat in Los Angeles to discuss campaign tactics to fight Democrats and especially the steadily increasing momentum of Barack Obama's popularity.

    After watching his show last night, it was like O'Reilly is a member of the board for the RNC. The entire show was like a paid campaign ad for John McCain and the Republican party.

    It sure looked like O'Reilly was following RNC instructions perfectly. Karl Rove was on first to say Obama was guilty of plagiarism from Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

    Then Nancy Pfotenhauer, from McCains campaign, joined Bill to discuss media bias against McCain. They tried to dismiss the AP article about McCain's temper claiming that voters are more concerned with a candidates substance Then they concluded that the media wants Obama to win and Clinton and McCain to lose.

    Billy complained that the media is trying to make McCain look like "Dr Strangelove."

    What's really funny/hypocrisy is O'Reilly putting the (John McCain senior campaign advisor) on to discuss media bias in an AP story about John McCain.

    The real bias is from O'Reilly, by using the Senior McCain campaign advisor to discuss bias about her employer, now that's bias. A real journalist would have put an objective/Independent guest on to discuss the AP story, not his senior campaign advisor. And then they both admitted it was a valid story to report, and said it was unfair and that is shows the bias from AP toward McCain, which is laughable.

    Then O'Reilly did a story about Bill Clinton finger pointing at an Obama supporter harrassing him who later claimed that Clinton may have hit him but he wasn't sure. Although Billy attacked MSNBC for running such an irresponsible story, he still used it on The Factor to discredit both Hillary and MSNBC.

    Billy implied it was only reported on MSNBC, and said it was outrageous to even run that story, when CNN and Hannity & Colmes (on FOX) also ran the story. Hannity & Colmes actually interviewd the guy who claims Bill Clinton hit him. Talk about lies, spin, and hypocrisy, O'Reilly had all 3 last night.

    Then the factor viewers got to see a chat with Lauren Reis about Barack Obama's popularity and the power of celebrity endorsements.

    The campaign was labeled a "popularity contest" and O'Reilly was concerned about "the folks" being influenced by celebrities who he claimed "don't know much" He seemed especially upset that young people who don't watch The Factor might be swayed. Then he expressed hope that once Obama is forced to deal with the issues, people will get a better perspective.

    Funny how O'Reilly never says he is worried about "the folks" being influenced by celebrities when it is Chuck Norris endorsing Huckabee, or Sly Stallone endorsing McCain. It only worries Billy when a celebrity endorses a Democrat. Bill O'Reilly never says one bad word about any celebrity who supports a Republican, not one, ever.

    It's also interesting to note that O'Reilly will be a guest on Jay Leno, especially since Leno's new segment producer, attended the RNC retreat and made a comment that probably made Billy very happy.

    "Berg, the "Tonight Show" segment producer, delivered an informal talk about the pride and pitfalls of being a conservative working in Hollywood. Peppering his speech with references to Michael Moore, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and other Tinseltown lefties, he argued against the liberal mindset that he believes dominates the industry."

    The Monday night O'Reilly Factor was basically an hour long speculation and lie filled RNC campaign ad. It was full of lies and rumors and attacks on Democrats, mostly Barack Obama. Because they are scared to death Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President, and that he is going to beat McCain in November.

    So O'Reilly and his Republican friends have already started the swiftboating/smearing with lies of Barack Obama. A full 9 months before the election has even started, and before we even know if Obama is going to beat Hillary Clinton.

    This shows that Bill O'Reilly is a loyal Republican who does whatever the Republican party wants him to do. He pretends to be a fair and balanced non-partisan Independent, then does a full hour smearing Obama, and other Democrats, with specualtion, rumors, and known lies from anonymous sources, which he claims no journalist should ever do.

    And in the one segment where they talked about John McCain, O'Reilly defended McCain, and even put the MCain senior advisor on to back him up and agree with him. With no Democrat or Liberal on to provide the balance, or give the counterpoint. Even though O'Reilly claims he is an Independent who is fair to both sides.

    The show name should be changed from the O'Reilly Factor, to The John McCain For President Factor.

    More Proof O'Reilly Spins Democratic Opposition to Bush on FISA

  • 2-19-08 -- Four days ago O'Reilly said this:
    O'REILLY: Twenty-eight Democratic senators voted against coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects and warrantless surveillance of overseas phone calls made to suspected terrorist locations. That means that these senators want only Army Field Manual interrogation procedures, which would allow only psychological interrogation, and want to ban immediate listening of terrorist communications. Do you feel safer because of that?
    O'Reilly implied that only Democrats are opposed to the illegal wiretaps the Bush administration is/was doing on American Citizens. Wrong, many people oppose it, the majority of Americans are opposed to it, including many Republicans. And even Andrew P. Napolitano is opposed to it, and he is the current senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. Yesterday he wrote this op-ed in the LA Times, maybe O'Reilly should read this and stop using RNC propaganda to smear and lie about Democrats.

    The invasion of America

    Creeping intrusions against our privacy rights are an assault on the Constitution.

    By Andrew P. Napolitano
    February 18, 2008

    When President Nixon was in his pre-Watergate heyday, he ordered the FBI and the CIA to electronically monitor the private behavior of his domestic political adversaries. Shortly after Nixon resigned, investigators discovered hundreds of reports of break-ins and secret electronic surveillance. None of it was authorized by warrants, and thus all of it was illegal. But it had been conducted pursuant to the president's orders. Nixon's defense was, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

    He made that infamous statement in a TV interview years after he left office, but the attitude espoused was obviously one he embraced while in the White House. He, like his present-day successor, rejected the truism that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from conducting electronic surveillance of anyone without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime, restrains the president.

    In response to the abuses during the Nixon administration, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in 1978. The law provides that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.

    The 4th Amendment was written in response to the Colonial experience whereby British soldiers wrote their own search warrants, thus literally authorizing themselves to enter the private property of colonists.

    The amendment has been uniformly interpreted by the courts to require a warrant by a judge; and judges can only issue search warrants after government agents, under oath, have convinced the judges that it is more likely than not that the things to be seized are evidence of crimes. This standard of proof is called probable cause of crime. It is one of only two instances in which the founders wrote a rule of criminal procedure into the Constitution itself, surely so that no Congress, president or court could tamper with it.

    FISA also created the bizarre, constitutionally questionable procedure in which federal agents could appear in front of a secret court and, instead of presenting probable cause of a crime in order to obtain a search warrant, would only need to present probable cause that the target of the warrant was an agent of a foreign government.

    The foreign government could be friendly or it could wish us ill, but no illegal or even anti-American behavior need be shown. Subsequent amendments to this statute removed the "agency" requirement and demanded only that the target be a person physically present in the U.S. who was not born here and is not an American citizen, whether working for a foreign government or not.

    The FISA statute itself significantly -- and, in my opinion, unconstitutionally -- lowered the 4th Amendment bar from probable cause of "crime"to probable cause of "status." However, in order to protect the 4th Amendment rights of the targets of spying, the statute erected a so-called wall between gathering evidence and using evidence. The government cannot constitutionally prosecute someone unless it has evidence against him that was obtained pursuant to probable cause of a crime, a standard not met by a FISA warrant.

    Congress changed all that. The Patriot Act passed after 9/11 and its later version not only destroyed the wall between investigation and prosecution,they mandated that investigators who obtained evidence of criminal activity pursuant to FISA warrants share that evidence with prosecutors. They also instructed federal judges that the evidence thus shared is admissible under the Constitution against a defendant in a criminal case. Congress forgot that it cannot tell federal judges what evidence is admissible because judges, not politicians, decide what a jury hears.

    Then the Bush administration and the Congress went even further. The administration wanted, and Congress has begrudgingly given it, the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans without even a FISA warrant -- without any warrant whatsoever. The so-called Protect America Act of 2007, which expired at the end of last week, gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are spied on -- illegally -- in the process.

    Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee last year that hundreds of unsuspecting Americans' conversations and e-mails are spied on annually as a consequence of the warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States.

    So where does all this leave us? Even though, since 1978, the government has gotten more than 99% of its FISA applications approved, the administration wants to do away with FISA altogether if at least one of the people whose conversations or e-mails it wishes to monitor is not in the U.S. and is not an American.

    Those who believe the Constitution means what it says should tremble at every effort to weaken any of its protections. The Constitution protects all "persons" and all "people" implicated by government behavior. So the government should be required, as it was until FISA, to obtain a 4th Amendment warrant to conduct surveillance of anyone, American or not, in the U.S. or not.

    If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?

    Andrew P. Napolitano, a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel.

    What say you Billy?

    O'Reilly Still Lying About Democrats And Warrantless Wiretapping

  • UPDATE - 2-18-08 -- For anyone who does not know, The Bush administration secretly conducted spying in violation of the Constitution and the law for four years before The New York Times disclosed it in 2005.

    For years, the White House lied about these activities to the American public. For example, in 2004, Bush gave a press conference where he said "a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way." At the time he said that he was lying, because they were secretly doing wiretaps without a court order. And at least one telco refused to comply with the Bush administration's request because it knew the actions were illegal.

    Even now, the administration continues to lie about the consequences of the Protect America Act expiration. Just a couple days ago, Bush stated that it will now "be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack."

    But as an expert from the Cato Institute admits, this statement isn't true: "There's no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006."

    And don't be confused by the right-wing talking points from O'Reilly and other Republicans, all the Democrats support wiretaps on suspected terrorists, they just want it done legally. I am as liberal as it gets and I support the wiretaps, as does every liberal I know, we just want it done legally, and we want Bush to stop lying about it.

    2-15-08 -- Last night Billy said 28 Democrat Senators voted against warrantless wiretapping (actually it was 29, but since when did facts mean anything to O'Reilly) and coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects.

    Billy said this:
    O'REILLY: Twenty-eight Democratic senators voted against coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects and warrantless surveillance of overseas phone calls made to suspected terrorist locations. That means that these senators want only Army Field Manual interrogation procedures, which would allow only psychological interrogation, and want to ban immediate listening of terrorist communications. Do you feel safer because of that?
    Talk about spin, I thought it was the no spin zone.

    Earth to Bill O'Reilly: The Democrats do not want to ban immediate listening of terrorist communications, you are a liar, a bold faced liar. They support the FISA law, what they oppose are warrantless wiretaps, because they are illegal. They only want the Bush administration to get a warrant from a FISA judge to do the wiretaps.

    Let me say this again: THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT WIRETAPS. And they do not want to ban the wiretaps, they only want it done legally. O'Reilly is lying when he says the Democrats want to ban wiretaps on suspected terrorists.

    O'Reilly also said this:
    O'REILLY: And in this high-tech world, if U.S. intel cannot zero in on communications immediately, then crucial information will be lost. Everybody knows that. All surveillance should be catalogued and reviewed by a federal judge after the fact, and any abuse of surveillance should be a felony.
    That is more spin and lies from Billy. The FISA law already allows for immediate wiretaps, they can listen in anytime, then they have 72 hours (post wiretap) to get a warrant from a FISA judge. They do not have to wait for a warrant to start a wiretap as O'Reilly claims. Then he says any abuse should be a felony, it is already a felony, that is the law Bush violated, and it has already been abused, O'Reilly just wont admit it.

    The New York Times revealed in 2005 that Bush has allowed spying "without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying." In a Janurary Senate hearing even the Republican Arlen Specter admitted Bush violated the FISA law.
    Under questioning from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mukasey said he "can't contemplate" a situation where President Bush would assert "Article II authority to do something that the law forbids."

    Specter shot back, "Well, he did just that in violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." Specter explained that the question was a no brainer, as FISA "expressly mandates you have to go to a court to get an order for wiretapping. There's really no dispute about that."
    What the 29 Democrats also voted against was "waterboarding" which is illegal, and torture. The FBI and the Department of Defense say that waterboarding is unnecessary. The Pentagon has banned employees from using the tactic, and the FBI said "its investigators do not use coercive tactics when interviewing terror suspects."

    In fact, during a February hearing FBI Director Robert Mueller and Lt. Gen. Michael Maples of the Defense Intelligence Agency stated why their agencies do not use coercive interrogations:
    MUELLER: Our protocol is not to use coercive techniques. That is our protocol. We have lived by it. And it is sufficient and appropriate for our mission here in the United States.

    MAPLES: The Army Field Manual guides our efforts and the efforts of the Armed Forces. We believe that the approaches that are in the Army Field Manual give us the tools that are necessary for the purpose under which we are conducting interrogations.
    So it is not just 29 Senate Democrats who oppose waterboarding, as O'Reilly claims. The head of the FBI and the DIA testified to Congress that they will not use waterboarding, and that they do not need to use it to get the information they need.

    Even John McCain and Mike Huckabee oppose waterboarding, as do many other Republicans, and the majority of Americans. John McCain said waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices.
    "Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak," said McCain after a campaign stop.
    O'Reilly is trying to make it look like Democrats are the only people who oppose waterboarding, when the FBI, the DOD, McCain, Huckabee, many Republicans, and the majority of Americans oppose waterboarding. Recent polls show that 68% of Americans said waterboarding is torture, and 58% said the U.S. should not be allowed to use the technique against suspected terrorists. So these Democrats are with the majority of Americans, only O'Reilly and a few others on the far right think waterboarding should be allowed.

    In summary, Billy is lying about the Democrats position on wiretaps of suspected terrorists. The Democrats support wiretaps of suspected terrorists, they just want it done legally, as does Arlen Specter, a Republican. So dont believe the right-wing propaganda put out by O'Reilly on these two issues.

    Billy wants to make the people think ONLY Democrats oppose waterboarding, and that Democrats oppose wiretaps of suspected terrorists, when it's a lie, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. It's the kind of crap you expect from Rush Limbaugh, not a so-called real journalist on a tv news show.

    O'Reilly Falsely Claims Obama Has no Specific Policy Plans

  • 2-17-08 -- From the 2-13-08 -- O'Reilly Factor:
    O'REILLY: Now on to Senator Obama. After six months, I believe most Americans understand that hope is good.

    OBAMA [video clip]: Some people will tell you that I've got my head in the clouds, that I am still offering false hopes, that I need a reality check, that I'm a hopemonger. But you know, it's true, my own story tells me that in the United States of America, there has never been anything false about hope.

    O'REILLY: Got it. Faith and charity are good, too. We love hope, faith, charity, all that. But that doesn't wipe out the Taliban inside Pakistan or pay for a trillion-dollar entitlement, universal health care.

    As with Senator McCain, the folks want specific solutions to difficult problems. How will illegal immigration be dealt with? What happens if Iran threatens Saudi Arabia after you pull American troops out of Iraq? That kind of thing.

    So the advice "Talking Points" is giving -- the love we are sharing, if you will -- is the same for both Obama and McCain. Get real on tough issues. Get solutions that will benefit the entire country. With the primary season winding down, rhetoric should be replaced by creative solution.
    Basically O'Reilly is saying all we get from Barack Obama are speeches about hope, faith, and charity. Billy says Obama has no specifics on the Economy, Iraq, Iran, Health Care, Pakistan, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, etc. There is one problem with that, it's all lies.

    Senator Obama has been very specific, in many speeches, but especially on his website.

    www.barackobama.com

    It is true that Senator Obama does not get very specific in some of his public speeches, because he does not want to bore people to death with the standard boring political speeches that put most people to sleep. But it is a lie that he never gets specific in his speeches, and that he has no specific answers to policy questions.

    The truth is, O'Reilly does not report about his specific policy positions. He just says all he talks about is hope, with no specific policy statements. While not telling you he has an issues page on his website with more specifics than you would ever want to read. O'Reilly never mentions the Obama website by name when he reports on Obama, ever, not once.

    To believe Obama has no specifics, you have to ignore reality, because if you go to www.barackobama.com and click on the issues page you will find all the specifics you want.

    On the BarackObama.com issues page is a 64 page (pdf file) policy book you can download. It's called The Blueprint For Change - Obama's Plan For America

    And on the issues page he gives a summary with his position on every issue, from Civil Rights, to the Economy, to Health Care, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Education, etc. Then on each issue summary you can click on a link to another page with specific details about his plan for every issue facing America, and the world.

    Bill O'Reilly never tells you about any of that, ever, not one time in the history of the Factor. Billy has never mentioned the name of Obama's website, or reported to his viewers that you can download Obama's 64 page Policy Book on his website. But he claims Obama only talks about Hope and Faith with no specifics.

    A real journalist would report on the Obama speeches, then say if you want more specifics go to his website and read them. But O'Reilly is not a real journalist, he is a biased and partisan right-winger, so he does not do that. Instead he lies to the American people when he claims Obama has no specifics.

    It is dishonest and unethical for a journalist to say Obama has no specifics, just because he does not get specific in most of his speeches. The Obama speeches are entertaining, energetic, and exciting. They are meant to excite the people and fire them up to vote for him, and to keep people from falling asleep watching a boring political speech. If you want the specifics you go to the website and read them.

    O'Reilly claims Obama is all talk with no specifics because he is scared to death he is going to be the next President of the United States. And that is why he does not mention his website, or tell people to visit the website if you want specifics. Billy wants people to think Obama is just all talk with no specific policy statements. Because he is a biased Republican who is trying everything he can to make sure a Democrat is not the next President.

    Un-Spinning More Right-Wing Propaganda From O'Reilly & FOX

  • 2-16-08 -- O'Reilly and the FOX News Network run stories pretty much every day telling their viewers how Bad Democrats are for Business, the Stock Market, and the Economy. This is all Republican talking points spin, the facts show a whole different story.

    There is a widely held belief that Republicans are better for business than are Democrats. At last week's press conference, Bush again said that he's reduced the deficit to $239 billion, created 8 million jobs and generated unemployment at a low 4.5%. He said the economy is strong, mostly due to his tax cut policies.

    Let's look at the facts. The wild stock market ride of recent weeks does not compare to the two worst stock events, the crash of 1929 and the 1987 free fall, which also occurred under Republican administrations. Since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3% annual return on the S&P 500, Republicans only 8%. Gross Domestic Product growth since 1930 is 5.4% for Democratic presidents and 1.6% for Republican presidents.

    Bush inherited from Bill Clinton an annual federal budget surplus of $236 billion, the largest in American history. Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. Budget surpluses were expected to total $5.6 trillion between fiscal year 2002 and 2011.

    Despite this, Bush transformed the surpluses into a $1.1 trillion annual deficit in just three years because of the Iraq war and his relentless push for permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

    Bragging about a $239 billion deficit sets such a low standard that Bush can claim horrific failure as a good thing for the country. The Bush administration's annual loss of three-quarters of a trillion dollars is unprecedented. Bush presided over the loss of 2 million American jobs in his first 2.5 years and has net gained 5.6 million in seven years, the worst since Hoover. In contrast, the economy created 23 million jobs during the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

    It's not rocket science to figure out the difference. Bill Clinton gave tax breaks to the middle and lower income Americans who actually spend the money. George W. Bush gave disproportionate tax breaks to the wealthy (50% to the wealthiest 1%), and $750 billion for a war benefiting only a few military contractors.

    Democratic presidents spread the wealth through spending on needed social programs and targeting tax cuts to lower and middle-income Americans, stimulating the economy more broadly. Republicans give money to defense contractors and high-income Americans, creating a significant detriment to the whole economy with larger deficits and higher interest rates.

    Economist John Maynard Keynes was right in 1936:

    When you "prime the pump" into people programs (like jobs or lower income tax cuts to help Americans buy what they need), you get people results. On the other hand, when you move money from the economy into tax cuts for the rich and military spending, you don't prime the economic pump, you deplete it.

    Those are facts, yet virtually every day O'Reilly, Cavuto, Hannity, etc. tell their viewers on FOX, that Democrats are bad for Business, the Stock Market, and the Economy. The facts show that Republicans are far worse than any Democrat, but you will never hear that reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on the FOX News Network.

    More Proof Media Matters Goes After Everyone With a Bias

  • 2-16-08 -- Whenever www.mediamatters.org reports on a spin or lie from O'Reilly, he calls them far left smear merchants who only go after Right-wingers like him and Rush Limbaugh etc.

    But if you visit their website right now, you will see they go after every media outlet who shows a bias. O'Reilly claims that Media Matters never go after "what he says" are liberal media outlets, like CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, AP, The NY Times, etc.

    That is all lies from O'Reilly, it is Billy's lame attempt to discredit them as a media watchdog with a liberal bias, who only go after Conservatives. Here is a list of media outlets they have bias stories on right now, at this very moment, and they are all sources O'Reilly claims are liberal.

    MSNBC
    CNN
    The NY Times
    NBC
    AP
    ABC

    So as you can see they do not just go after Conservatives, as O'Reilly claims. They go after bias in the media, wherever they find it. In fact, in the "Media Matters Action Center" they call for people to contact MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, and Chris Matthews, they do not even ask for people to contact O'Reilly or FOX News.

    O'Reilly is just mad at Media Matters for exposing the truth about his right-wing bias, his spin, his hypocrisy, his double standards, and his lies. So Billy attacks them whenever they report on him, and he tries to discredit them by saying they only go after Conservatives. But if you look at the facts, you will see they go after (so-called) Liberal media outlets more than they do Conservative media outlets.

    More Reasons Why FOX is Biased & Why Democrats Boycott Them

  • UPDATE - 2-15-08: As I predicted O'Reilly did not say one word about the racist and Nazi comments made by two people who work for FOX, Tom Sullivan and Julie Banderas. Note to Billy, this kind of crap is why FOX is seen as a right-wing News Network, and why Democrats boycott your shows.

    2-14-08 -- O'Reilly claims the FOX News Network is fair to Democrats and they never say a bad word about them, but to believe that you have to ignore the facts. Just yesterday a FOX News radio host Tom Sullivan compared Obamas speeches to Hitlers speeches, and a FOX News host Julie Banderas called Obama a Halfrican.

    Fox News Radio host Tom Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated that when listening to Barack Obama speak, "it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell."

    Sullivan then played a "side-by-side comparison" of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech. Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, "Yay! Yay!" When a later caller complained that Sullivan was "denigrating" Obama with the comparison, Sullivan said he wouldn't play it again, then begged: "Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time?

    And that was just yesterday, they have insulted many Democrats from John Edwards to Hillary Clinton, and they do it every day, yet O'Reilly ignores it all as if it never happened. Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News even made a joke saying Barack Obama = Osama. And O'Reilly wonders why Democrats are boycotting FOX, and he wonders why FOX is seen to have a right-wing bias, maybe he should open his eyes.

    When moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler O'Reilly went nuts said the Nazi Comparisons are Deplorable, he said anyone who uses Hitler comparisons should be ignored. But he only reports it when the left does it, when someone at FOX or on the right does it he never says a word.

    Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust.

    On Fox News, on the very same day that Gibson, Hannity and O'Reilly were talking about the Hitler/Bush comparison as evidence of the left's extremism, a column ran in the New York Post that described Howard Dean as a follower of Josef Goebbels, referred to him as "Herr Howie," accused him of "looking for his Leni Riefenstahl," called his supporters "the Internet Gestapo" and compared them to "Hitler's brownshirts."

    In June of 2004 O'Reilly compared Michael Moore, and Al Franken to Goebbels, then compared Hollywood celebs to Nazi faithful.
    O'REILLY: Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." All right? "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." And that's what Stuart Smalley, and Michael Moore and all of these guys do. They just run around.
    O'Reilly concluded by smearing Hollywood celebrities who attended the premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 as equivalent to Goebbels's credulous followers:
    O'REILLY: So who turns out for the screening of this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] last night? You ready? Now, here are the celebrities that turn out. Here are the people who would turn out to see Josef Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich. It's the same thing, by the way. Propaganda is propaganda. OK? Billy Crystal. Martin Sheen. Leonardo DiCaprio. Ellen DeGeneres. David Duchovny. Sharon Stone. Meg Ryan. Ashton Kutcher. Demi Moore. Norman Lear. Rob Reiner. Jodie Foster. Chris Rock. Larry David. Jack Black. Matthew Perry. Diane Lane.
    On his FOX News Channel show that same day, O'Reilly continued the Nazi analogy by comparing Michael Moore to infamous Nazi-propaganda filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. In March of 2007 on the 3-12-07 O'Reilly Factor, Billy said this:
    O'REILLY: The Soros-Lewis mob despises FOX News because we have their number and report on them accurately. They use the MoveOn Web site to smear this network and others with whom they disagree.

    These people use propaganda techniques perfected by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of information -- they lie, distort, defame all the time.

    So it's not surprising that MoveOn objected to a debate sponsored by FOX News and the Nevada Democratic Party. MoveOn immediately tried to boycott the August event and persuaded John Edwards to drop out.

    That was simply stupid.
    So it looks like Nazi Comparisons are only deplorable when Republicans are the target, but it's ok for O'Reilly or any other right-winger to use the Nazi comparisons. The question is, will Bill O'Reilly report on what Tom Sullivan and Julie Banderas said on the FOX Radio Network and the FOX News Network yesterday. Here is a clue, dont hold your breath, you will die before O'Reilly reports what either one of them said.

    O'Reilly Spins & Lies About David Shuster, MSNBC, & NBC

  • 2-12-08 -- Last night O'Reilly talked about David Shuster saying the Clintons were pimping out Chelsea. Then he said this:
    O'REILLY: Senator Clinton has two things going against her: her controversial image and the left-wing media that has decided Obama is the better candidate. It's hard enough to run a presidential campaign, but when an entire news organization like NBC is openly helping your competitor, that is really tough. So were you surprised when NBC News correspondent David Shuster said this?

    DAVID SHUSTER, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: There's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities saying support my mom. And apparently, she's also calling these super delegates. Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

    O'REILLY: Now Shuster has been suspended by NBC, but shouldn't be working in the news business period. He's a far-left ideologue. However, he fits in perfectly with the crew at NBC News.

    Senator Clinton is rightly outraged over the treatment NBC News has given her, but she should understand that operation has been allowing that kind of smear tactic for years. The only difference now is the left is attacking the left.
    O'Reilly tells so many lies here is is hard to respond to them all, so here goes.

    1) O'Reilly claims an entire news organization like NBC is openly helping Obama, which is just crazy. They have been fair to Hillary and Obama, and all the Republican candidates too. They have no bias at NBC, for anyone, none.

    2) NBC does not give an opinion on anyone, Brian Willams is on NBC, David Shuster is not, he is on MSNBC, not NBC.

    3) O'Reilly has even stated that the mainstream media wants a Democrat in the white house. So how can he now claim the entire NBC News Network is going after Hillary, after one guy on MSNBC had a poor choice of words when he described what Chelsea was doing.

    4) O'Reilly takes what Shuster said about Chelsea on MSNBC, and claims it shows the bias toward Obama on NBC, when Shuster is one guy, he never said it on NBC, and he does not work for NBC. David Shuster is a correspondent for Hardball with Chris Matthews and other MSNBC programs, he is not on NBC, ever.

    5) O'Reilly says Shuster should not be working in the news business at all because he's a far-left ideologue. Which is just insane, he worked at FOX News for 6 years hammering the Clintons and covering John McCain, so how in the hell can he be a far left ideologue?
    From 1996 to 2002, Shuster was a Washington, D.C.-based correspondent for the Fox News Channel. He was at the Pentagon at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks and led Fox's coverage of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

    During the Bill Clinton administration, Shuster led Fox's coverage of the Clinton investigations including Whitewater, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Starr Report and the Senate impeachment trial.

    Shuster was also a member of Fox's "You Decide 2000" political team. He spent four months on John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" bus and was Fox's lead correspondent for McCain's presidential campaign.
    Funny how O'Reilly never said Shuster was a far left ideologue who should not be working in the news business, when he was attacking the Clinton administration during the 6 years he worked at FOX News. If he should not be in the news business, why did he work at FOX News for 6 whole years?

    6) O'Reilly keeps saying (NBC correspondent) David Shuster, this is done on purpose, and it is wrong. Shuster is a correspondent for MSNBC, and you can not smear the entire network for what one guy says. Not to mention he was not trying to smear the Clintons, he just had a poor choice of words by using the word pimping out.

    7) Shuster just used the wrong word to describe what Chelsea was doing. And he has said he was sorry 2 or 3 times, he was just making an observation about what she was doing. He just used the wrong word, and he admitted it was a mistake. Yet O'Reilly not only wants him fired for saying it, he says he should not even be in the news business.

    8) If people in the news business got fired for saying something they should not have said (even if it was an accident) then O'Reilly should have been fired 1000 times over, and banned from the news business for life.

    9) Every day someone on the FOX News Network says something bad about Obama, a Clinton, a Democrat, or a liberal, yet O'Reilly has never called for any of them to be fired, ever, not once. In fact, he never even mentions it. But if anyone at any other news network says anything O'Reilly thinks is wrong he instantly calls for them to be fired.

    10) When O'Reilly says something wrong and people call for him to be fired, he says that is wrong because he is in the media and he has free speech.

    Hey Billy, David Shuster is in the media too, and he also has free speech rights. Your statement on David Shuster shows you are a biased right-wing hypocrite. He should not be fired for one bad choice of words, if you had said it you would say you should not be fired, so why the double standard.

    Bill O'Reilly is a flat out liar, Shuster works for MSNBC, not NBC. It was said on MSNBC, not NBC, it was a simple mistake made by one guy on MSNBC. Not to mention the guy worked at FOX News for 6 years, funny how O'Reilly just happened to forget all that, yeah right.

    Billy's (Big?) Thursday Night Announcement

  • 2-9-08 -- The so-called big thursday announcement from O'Reilly was garbage. I thought O'Reilly was going to put his money where his mouth is, and announce he would help the veterans by setting up a charity (or a foundation) with a million or two of his own money.

    That is what O'Reilly should have done after saying there are no 247 veterans under a bridge in New Orleans (or anywhere) when we know there is, and for saying John Edwards was lying about the 200,000 homeless veterans, when we know Edwards was right.

    Instead the big announcement was that Billy is going to support a New GI Bill in Congress by John Kerry and Peter King. Big freaking deal, everyone supports a New GI Bill. And the Bill will pass whether O'Reilly supports it or not, so basically he is doing nothing more than reporting that Congress will pass a New GI Bill.

    So once again O'Reilly shows his true colors, he could have done something good for the veterans by setting up a charity and get it going with some of his own money. But all we got is an empty promise from Billy that he will report on the progress of the New GI Bill.

    Thanks for nothing Billy.

    Read This if You Are a Democratic Primary Voter

  • UPDATE - 2-12-08 -- Two more national polls have Obama beating John McCain by 4 points and 6 points, the same two polls have Hillary losing to McCain by 1 point, and beating McCain by 1 point.

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 8-10, 2008:

    Obama - 50% -- McCain - 46% -- Obama + 4.0
    Clinton - 48% -- McCain - 49% -- McCain + 1.0

    Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Feb. 7-10, 2008:

    Obama - 48% -- McCain - 42% -- Obama + 6.0
    Clinton - 46% -- McCain - 45% -- Clinton + 1.0

    2-9-08 -- I am a registered Independent so I can not vote in a Democratic primary. But if I could, I would vote for Barack Obama. I do like Hillary Clinton, and I will vote for her in the Presidential election if she is the Democratic nominee, but I support Barack Obama because he voted against the war, and I like his positions on the issues.

    The main reason you Democratic primary voters should go with Obama is two national polls show he would beat John McCain by 7 and 8 points, and 4 other national polls have Obama beating McCain. The same polls have Hillary winning by 3 points in one and tied in another, Yet Obama is beating McCain in all 6 polls.

    Obama vs McCain:

    RCP - Obama - 47.3% -- McCain - 44% -- Obama + 3.3
    Rasmussen - Obama - 46% -- McCain - 43% -- Obama + 3.0
    Time - Obama - 48% -- McCain - 41% -- Obama + 7.0
    CNN - Obama - 52% -- McCain 44% -- Obama + 8.0
    Cook/RT - Obama - 45% -- McCain - 42% -- Obama + 3.0
    ABC/Wash Post - Obama - 49% -- McCain - 46% -- Obama + 3.0

    Clinton vs McCain:

    RCP - Clinton - 45.1% -- McCain - 46.6% -- McCain + 1.5
    Rasmussen - Clinton - 44% -- McCain - 46% -- McCain + 2.0
    Time - Clinton - 46% -- McCain - 46% -- Tie
    CNN - Clinton - 50% -- McCain 47% -- Clinton + 3.0
    Cook/RT - Clinton - 41% -- McCain - 45% -- McCain + 4.0
    ABC/Wash Post - Clinton - 45% -- McCain - 48% -- McCain + 3.0

    In the Time magazine poll, Obama beats McCain by 7 points, 48% to 41%, in the same poll Hillary and McCain are tied at 46%. In the CNN poll Obama beats McCain by 8 points, 52% to 44%, in the same poll Clinton is only beating McCain by 3 points, 50% to 47%, wich is within the margin of error of + or - 3 points.

    The difference between the two candidates, according to Time, is where the key Independent vote goes: The poll indicates a larger share of Independent voters will chose to support McCain over Clinton than McCain over Obama.

    Exit polls taken from the early primary contests have indicated that both McCain and Obama have strongly benefited from the support of Independents. In combined surveys of the 22 states that voted on Super Tuesday, Obama beat Clinton among Independents by roughly 20 points.

    This is why the Democratic party should nominate Barack Obama. Then it will pretty much guarantee a win for the Democrats against McCain in November. But if Hillary wins the nomination it is possible McCain could beat her, because she does not get as many Independent votes as Obama does against McCain.

    And it looks like the Independents are going to decide who the next president is, so if you Democratic primary voters want to make sure a Democrat is the next president you should vote for Barack Obama.

    O'Reilly Totally Spins Huckabee Takes Votes From Romney Story

  • 2-5-08 -- Last night on the factor O'Reilly did a 5 minute interview with Mike Huckabee. During the interview Huckabee mentioned that Romney and his surrogates have suggested Huckabee is draining votes from Romney and splitting the "christian conservative" vote.

    Then O'Reilly said this:
    O'REILLY: "I don't know if I would believe those people, Governor, with all due respect to you, you're a much smarter guy than I am - don't believe the press, unless you hear it here. Unless you hear it from me, don't believe them, because these people all have agendas all day long, CNN and AP."
    Billy just told everyone to not believe FOX News, and all the Republicans in the media who are saying it. O'Reilly is also saying dont believe the so-called liberal media, as in CNN, AP, etc. And he claims it is a liberal media driven story. And O'Reilly has more of an Agenda than just about anyone in the media, except for maybe Sean Hannity.

    Earth to O'Reilly: The Romney campaign is saying it, newsmax.com is saying it, townhall.com is saying it, Ann Coulter is saying it, Rush Limbaugh is saying it, Pat Buchanan is saying it, Tucker Carlson is saying it, Joe Scarborough is saying it, Hugh Hewitt is saying it, Sean Hannity is saying it, the FOX News political analysts are saying it. The story that Huckabee is taking votes from Romney is being put out by the REPUBLICANS.

    Every Republican I have seen on every news show (including FOX) is saying that Huckabee is taking votes from Romney. I have never seen anyone (Liberal or Conservative) deny it. Because it's true, Huckabee and Romney are both religious Conservatives, and they are splitting the religious Conservative vote.

    This is a Conservative story, put out by Conservatives, and driven by Conservatives. Yet O'Reilly has twisted the whole thing around to claim CNN and AP are putting it out, that it's a lie, and you should not believe it. When it is true, and the media is just reporting what all the Conservatives are saying.

    This is a perfect example of dishonesty and right-wing spin from Bill O'Reilly, he denies the truth, then blames it on the liberal media, when it's 100% true, and being put out by Conservatives.

    Update - 12:10pm cst -- Mary Matalin (Former Advisor to Dick Cheney) was just on the FOX News Newtork with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. She said that all the exit polls show Huckabee is taking votes from Romney by splitting the christian conservative vote, and she said Huckabee should drop out so Romney can beat McCain. This is what the Conservative Republicans are saying, not the so-called liberal media, as O'Reilly claimed. It was said by a Conservative, on the Conservative FOX News Network.

    Actual Ratings For The 8pm O'Reilly Factor

  • 2-3-08 -- To begin with, I do not care about ratings for news shows on tv, I do not care if O'Reilly has 2 million viewers, or 20 million. I do not think any tv news show should be rated, and if O'Reilly would quit lying about his ratings I would not even report them. I only report the ratings for news shows because O'Reilly keeps saying he has 4 million viewers, or more than 4 million.

    Here is the real truth, the facts, and not my facts, these numbers are right from nielsen:

    O'Reilly Factor Ratings For January of 2008

    Rating - 1.9
    Total Viewers - 2,379,000
    25-54 Demo - 494,000

    Those are the monthly average ratings for the O'Reilly Factor for January of 2008. Notice the total viewers is 2.37 million, that is how many total viewers he had per night. It is not 4 million, or more than 4 million as O'Reilly claims, it is 2.37 million. So when you hear Billy say he has 4 million viewers, he is simply lying, 2.37 million is not 4 million.

    The O'Reilly Factor has NEVER had a 4 million viewer a night average, ever, in the history of the show. The most total monthly average viewers per night he ever had was 3.1 million in 2004, then the Andrea Mackris phone sex scandal hit and his ratings dropped about 200,000 per month, over the next 5 months to about 2.2 million a night, and they have stayed at 2.2 million since 2004.

    About every 2 months or so O'Reilly will say his ratings have increased and thank his viewers, this is a lie, he is reporting a one or two night increase, and not the monthly average. The O'Reilly Factor monthly average total viewer ratings have not increased in close to 4 years, they have stayed flat at roughly 2.2 million per night. I document this on my cable news ratings page, and it is a fact, not my opinion.

    And think about this, if he will lie about his ratings, when he knows anyone with a computer can get the real ratings, he will lie about anything. Billy has the #1 rated show in all of cable news, yet he still lies about his ratings, so what does that say about him. It tells me he is so crazy he can not just be happy with being #1, he still has to lie about his ratings to make it look like he has more viewers than he really has. That is pretty pathetic if you ask me, and it shows how he will lie about anything.

    O'Reilly Still Lying About Edwards & The Homeless

  • 2-2-08 -- On the January 30, 2008 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly repeatedly mocked a portion of John Edwards speech, in which Edwards announced his withdrawal from the 2008 presidential race.

    In his speech, Edwards stated: "I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them."

    Responding to Edwards remarks, O'Reilly said that homeless community did not exist, saying: "We called the Edwards campaign and asked where exactly is that bridge so we could help those people. Apparently, they don't know or they wouldn't tell us. The Edwards campaign can't pinpoint the bridge."

    O'Reilly later stated to guest and Democratic strategist Kiki McLean: "Just tell me where the bridge is. We will help those people. They can't tell me ... Kiki, all you need to do is tell me where the bridge is, Juan and I will go out there and we'll help those folks. OK?"

    It's pretty clear O'Reilly is lying again, and that he did not try very hard to find them, a simple google search (that any 5 year old with a PC can do) on "200 homeless under bridge in New Orleans" brings up 181,000 results. On January 11,2008, the Times-Picayune published an article on a "homeless encampment" under the interstate 10 overpass near Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans.

    EARTH TO BILL O'REILLY: They are under the bridge on Interstate 10 at Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans.

    City Councilwoman Stacy Head, whose district includes the Claiborne Avenue encampment, said a Wednesday night count by her staff found 247 people staying beneath the overpass. She said there were no children at the site and about 90 percent of the people were men.

    Hey Billy, If I can find out where they are in 5 seconds from my home computer surely you can find them with all your staff and money, right?

    Now you know where they are, go help them, yeah right, like that's gonna happen. Before you find them you need to admit you lied about John Edwards, admit you never even tried to find out what bridge those 247 people are under, and report how you were wrong about them and John Edwards.

    O'Reilly Used RNC Propaganda to Claim Obama Most Liberal Senator

  • 2-2-08 -- The RNC sent out a mailer based on a study from the allegedly "non-partisan" (yeah right) National Journal.

    O'Reilly repeated the lie that Obama is the most liberal Senator on the Factor, does he ever fact check any of the RNC propaganda he gets, clearly not.

    Looking at the analysis, the numbers do not add up. What a shocker, NOT!

    They claim that Obama and Clinton only differed on 10 votes, but somehow Obama comes in first and Clinton is #16. In fact, looking at the voting chart the National Journal uses to draw their conclusions, it's obvious that there are a few senators who are clearly more liberal than Obama.

    As Progressive Punch reports, every Democratic Senator has a more liberal voting record than Obama, except Baucus, Biden, Pryor, Dodd, Landrieu and Ben Nelson. But since when do right wing journalists like O'Reilly let the pesky facts get in the way? And don't forget that in 2004, they also claimed that......you guessed it, John Kerry and John Edwards were the most liberal senators. What a coincidence, not hardly.

    It's just more propaganda put out by right-wingers like O'Reilly to make Democrats running for President look bad by claiming they are too liberal to be President.

    More Proof O'Reilly Lies About Democratic Debate Ratings on CNN

  • 2-2-08 -- On the 1-21-08 O'Reilly Factor Newt Gingrich talked about the debates on CNN, and O'Reilly said dont worry nobody is watching the debates on CNN, wrong oh great right-wing propagandist.

    Last night's Democratic debate on CNN drew 8,324,000 million total viewers, making it the most-watched primary debate in cable news history, and the second-most watched on TV this election cycle (ABC's Democratic debate on Jan. 5 drew 9,360,000)

    The debate gives CNN the top five highest rated cable debates this cycle in total viewers.

    In the A25-54 demo, the debate finished with 3,257,000 viewers, the #1 take in cable news history as well.

    And just last week the Democratic Debate in South Carolina on CNN was the No. 1 most-watched primary debate in cable news history among total viewers and all key demos.

    The South Carolina debate on CNN averaged 4.9 million Total Viewers and 2 million in the 25-54 demo.

    None of this was ever reported on the Factor, ever. So after O'Reilly told Newt (on 1-21-08) nobody is watching the CNN debates, they set the top 5 ratings records for total viewers, and the 25 to 54 demo. A real journalist would have issued a correction and reported those ratings numbers, and admitted they were wrong.

    Of course O'Reilly is not a real journalist, so no reporting was done on those CNN debate ratings, and no correction was issued by Billy. Now imagine what reporting O'Reilly would have done if FOX News had set the top 5 debate ratings records.

    Keith Olbermann Reports on O'Reilly's Refusal to Meet Homeless Veterans

  • 2-1-08 -- From the 1-31-08 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show:

    OLBERMANN: Today, two weeks after challenging a guest to show him a single homeless veteran so he could help them. Bill O'Reilly, the Frank Burns of news, had a chance to meet one for himself. More than one, in fact, and in our third story in the "COUNTDOWN," he chose not to.

    More than that, just a few hours ago, just two blocks from here, O'Reilly turn the veterans away back out into the cold. Not only did Bill O cold shoulder away, the men who served their country, he broke his public pledge to make sure veterans no longer had to sleep under bridges, literally or metaphorically. He did not even have the courage to meet them face to face, to shake their hands, to hear their stories, to have them forbid summon the grace to apologize.

    Instead, a producer asked the woman whose group provides transitional housing for 83 vets whether they have an appointment. This despite the fact that Bill O literally said on TV, quote, "We are still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, so if you find anybody let us know."

    The producer took them into the lobby so that our cameras could not get a shot at of him except in their petition with 17,000 signatures calling on O'Reilly to apologize for saying there are no homeless vets. Instead of meeting with those veterans, O'Reilly had one of his, Stuttering-John-Type guys, tell the vets group, please leave a message, somebody will get back to you.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    CAROLE GARDENER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FITZGERALD HOUSE: They were very thankful. Thanks for coming with the petition and that they will get back to us.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you feel?

    GARDENER: Great.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: It all began after John Edwards started pledging to help the average 200,000 U.S. military veterans who go without a roof on any given light in this country. Instead of helping Edwards, Bill O called him a liar, saying quote, "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain," whatever that means. In fact, two minutes on the intertubes, would have told Bill O, the 200,000 estimates came from the Bush administration.

    And that number is a lot lower than the official government number that's who are homeless at some point over the course of the year. That's closer to 330,000. Of course, when facts like that did emerge, O'Reilly, changed his story--OK, maybe there are homeless vets, but not a lot.

    OK maybe it is a lot, but they all have substance abuse problems or mental problems and the government can't help them. OK, the government should help them. OK, anything but I was wrong, Edwards was right. Today those homeless veterans and Bill O would not meet, would not hear, and spoke to us about O'Reilly.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    GREGORY ROLLINS, HOMELESS VETERAN: What you got to hide? We're right here. We brought it to you. What you got to hide? You know what I mean. If you make the statement, if your man enough, own up to it. If you didn't make it, then own up. I mean, at least you're man enough to apologize if you did make the statement. You know, if your man enough, own up to what you do. That's a real man.

    NESTOR CABRERA, HOMELESS VETERAN: You know, Mr. Bill O'Reilly, I would like to escort you to the shelters. I would like to escort you to the V.A. Hospitals and to the streets. I would like to know where you get your data from. We need to sit down so we can get add this up and get back to business. You know? This is a great nation. You know? Wouldn't we fight for our country? I love my country. Don't treat us like this. Help us.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: Mr. Cabrera, he gets his data from what he sits on.

    O'Reilly Refuses to Meet With Homeless Veterans

  • 2-1-08 -- O'Reilly refused to meet with a group of homelss veterans who visited his FOX News studio in New York, so he would not even talk to them, let alone do anything to help them. Once again we see that O'Reilly is an all talk coward who does not back up his word.
    A group from Fitzgerald House, an "organization representing homeless veterans," plans to bring their fight for recognition to Fox's doorstep. They visited the Fox News Channel Studios yesterday at 3:00 pm, they had a petition signed by 17,000 people demanding an apology from O'Reilly for his ignorance and abuse. In a press release, Fitzgerald House say thay "have found that it is very easy to locate homeless veterans and are willing to help O'Reilly find them if his desire to help homeless vets is sincere."

    O'Reilly, who regularly defamed John Edwards as a phony, has a lot to answer for. In attacks on the former North Carolina Senator, O'Reilly has repeatedly belittled his compassion, issued inflammatory statements and mocking attacks, and denied both the "existence and significance" of homeless veterans. As recently as January 16, O'Reilly took to the airwaves to rain ridicule upon Edwards, saying, "Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges,...so if you find anybody, let us know."
    O'Reilly is a joke, actual homeless veterans went to his studio, and O'Reilly did nothing for them, zero. The coward would not even talk to them, he hid out in his office under his desk.

    And this was after O'Reilly said if you know of any homeless veterans to call him and let him know and he will help them. So they did not just call him, they went to his actual FOX News studio in New York, and O'Reilly did nothing to help them, nada, zero. He sent a producer down to accept their petition and told them they would get back to them later, yeah right, and if you believe that I have some land to sell you.