O'Reilly on Conservative Columnist List With Ann Coulter

  • 6-27-07 -- Billy says he is an Independent, often and loudly, then why is he listed at the Conservative Chronicle with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin?

    He is listed as one of their top conservative columnists, the list is all conservatives, and nothing but conservatives, yet Billy claims to be an Independent, what say you Billy.

    www.conservativechronicle.com/columnists

    Billy is listed with other great Independents like, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, L. Brent Bozell III, Ollie North, Tony Snow, Bob Novak, and many more.

    O'Reilly Still Lying About The American People

  • 6-27-07 -- Last night Billy said this in his right wing propaganda points memo, I mean talking points memo:
    "Most Americans are traditional people. And millions are conservative. Those two groups heavily outnumber the liberal secular progressive crew."
    The above statement is a lie, it is not true, and don't just believe me, go to www.pollingreport.com and look at the polls on the issues. From stem cells, to the economy, to health care, to energy policy to immigration, the majority of the American people agree with liberals on almost all the issues. The truth is Republicans are 30% of the country, Democrats are 36%, and Independents are 33%, this is a fact.

    Notice that Billy does not provide any evidence of what he claims, he just says it and expects people to believe it. Yet I provide evidence to back up my claims, I give you links to polls and studies that give you proof of what I am saying.

    Partial list of issues the majority of the American people agree with liberals on:

    Health Care: 69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage; and 76 percent find access to health care more important than maintaining the Bush tax cuts.

    The Economy: 77 percent of Americans believe Congress should increase the minimum wage; 66 percent believe "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes; 53 percent feel the Bush administration's tax cuts have failed because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs.

    Government's Role: 69 percent of Americans believe the government "should care for those who can't care for themselves."

    Immigration: 62 percent of Americans believe undocumented immigrants should be given a chance to "keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status."

    And that is just a partial list, it's the same on almost every issue facing America today. If most Americans are traditional or conservative, why is it the majority of people support the liberal positions in 95% of the polls on the issues like the economy, health care, etc.

    What say you Billy?

    Will O'Reilly Call Lugar a Traitor Who Helps The Terrorists

  • 6-26-07 -- When a Democrat calls for Bush to pull the troops out of Iraq, Billy calls them an Un-American traitor who wants us to lose in Iraq because they hate Bush, and that it helps the terrorists. When a Democrat says we can not win in Iraq, Billy says they should be tried for treason, and that everyone should support the President and give Bush more time to fix Iraq, even though they have had 4 years to fix it and things have only got worse.
    Yesterday Sen. Richard Lugar, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, announced his support for an immediate shift in Iraq policy, calling on President Bush "to downsize the U.S. military's role in Iraq and place much more emphasis on diplomatic and economic options."

    In a major speech on the Senate floor, Lugar said that victory in Iraq as defined by President Bush is now "almost impossible." The current course of the war has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond, he said.

    Lugar warned that persisting indefinitely with Bush's escalation strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term. He specifically rejected claims that withdrawing U.S. forces will increase instability. Downsizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq would strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities.
    Now the question is, will Billy call Senator Richard Lugar an Un-American traitor who helps the terrorists. If he does not then it will be 100% proof of his Republican bias. Because Lugar is only saying what all the Democrats have been saying for a year, or more. But when a Democrat says it somehow in the world of Bill O'Reilly they are only saying it because they are traitors who want us to lose in Iraq to hurt Bush and the Republican party.

    I can guarantee Billy will not call Senator Lugar an Un-American traitor, because he is a Republican. In fact, I predict Billy will not say a word about Lugar calling for Bush to change plans and start withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Billy will just ignore what Lugar said and continue to be the biased one sided partisan hack of a fraud journalist he always has been. Billy will continue to spin and lie for Bush and his war, and continue to divide the country by saying only liberals are traitors for calling on Bush to bring the troops home.

    Billy will ignore the Lugar statements because it does not fit his agenda, which is, all liberals hate America, and if you disagree with him or Bush you are an America hating traitor. And he will ignore the Lugar statements because he has to report on bears attacks, women posing in playboy, the stupid culture quiz, Miller time, Geraldo, body language crap, lesbian girls kissing on a bus, Paris Hilton, Rosie, etc.

    I call it the O'Reilly Tabloid Factor, because real news is rarely reported on anymore, it's all tabloid garbage. Maybe it should be called the no real news anymore O'Reilly factor, because all the news is bad for Bush and the Republican party, so Billy ignores it.

    6-27-07 --Update: As predicted Billy did not report on the Lugar statements, but he did mention it in another segment. He said he has to respect what Lugar said, which makes my point. When a Democrat says the same thing, they are called Un-American Bush hating traitors that want to help the terrorists, and who should be tried for treason. Yet when a Republican says it Billy says he respects what he said, it's bias, dishonest journalism, unfairness, hypocrisy, and a double standard.

    Journalist Political Donation Story

  • 6-25-07 -- O'Reilly claims that the 9 to 1 political donations by journalists to Democrats from the 144 so-called journalists is proof of the liberal bias in the media. Even though many of the donating journalists cover topics far from politics: food, fashion, sports, etc.

    Today I found out there are 100,000 employees/journalists in newsrooms across America, so the 144 who gave political donations represent less that two tenths of one percent. Which basically blows O'Reilly's argument out of the water, and makes him look like a total fool.

    Especially when 20 or 30 of the 144 do not write or report on politics, they are food critics, fashion critics, sports reporters, auto critics, graphic design artists, etc. who have nothing to do with politics, so they have no way to bias the news, even if they wanted to.

    O'Reilly Caught Lying About Newspapers And Ideology

  • 6-23-07 -- Bill O'Reilly Rips Newspapers at Columnists Confab
    Bill O'Reilly said newspapers have a dismal future and also criticized a writer in the audience during a speech Friday at the National Society of Newspaper Columnists (NSNC) conference.

    "Newspapers are dying, and there are two reasons why," said the Fox News host and Creators Syndicate newspaper columnist. "One reason is the Internet. The other is ideology."

    O'Reilly contended that many newspapers are losing circulation because they've allowed the "liberal" ideology of their editorial pages to "bleed into news coverage" -- despite, he said, there being a greater number of "traditional conservatives" than liberals in the American population.
    Full Story Here:

    www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602624

    And now for the facts, pretty much everything O'Reilly said is basically a lie, and nothing but his biased opinion. Except for the fact that the internet is one reason why newspaper circulation is dropping, that's the only thing he said that is true.

    The State of The News Media 2007

    Is the newspaper industry dying? Not now. On an average day, roughly 51 million people still buy a newspaper, and 124 million in all still read one.

    The industry is recording pre-tax profit margins in the high teens, and online editions are adding readers and advertising revenues at a healthy pace. When online and print readers are combined, the audience for what newspapers produce is higher than ever.

    But the print newspaper is unquestionably ailing. Circulation is declining. Advertising is flat.

    Full Story Here:

    www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_newspapers_intro.asp?cat=1&media=3

    Billy said liberal bias is the 2nd reason, WRONG. Bias is listed as one of nine reasons why people have stopped reading newspapers, only 8% said bias is why they stopped.

    The biggest reason by far, according to data from the Pew Research Center, is people saying they don't have time (23%). That trend has been building since the 1960's, and the ever-expanding array of new technologies no doubt contributes to its acceleration, particularly among younger people.

    Perceptions of time, of course, can reflect a combination of factors - the length of stories, the fact that print newspapers are usually read at home, the ease of accessing other sources. The second most cited reason, indeed, was a related one ? lack of convenience (10%).

    www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_newspapers_publicattitudes.asp?cat=7&media=3

    Billy also said there are more conservatives than Liberals, this is a 100% proven lie, it is not true at all.

    In 2004 the Gallup poll showed that 35% of registered voters identified themselves as Republicans, while 34% identified themselves as Democrats. Hardly the vast majority O'Reilly claims, a 1% difference is pretty much a statistical tie.

    According to a recent Gallup poll the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans has dropped to 30.2%. The proportion of Americans who call themselves Democrats has grown to 36.3% now.

    Independents, just 29.5% of the electorate in 2004, have now surpassed the GOP share, at 33.4% -- an increase of nearly 4 points. So the Democrats are now the majority, that means when you hear O'Reilly say there is a Conservative majority in America he is lying.

    Full Story Here:

    www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/2006

    Read this study.

    The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth

    For anyone interested in where the American public really stands on the big issues that distinguish progressives from conservatives -- including the issues at the forefront of today's political debates -- "The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth" offers hard facts and analysis based on decades of data from some of the nation's most respected and nonpartisan public opinion researchers.

    This report shows that in study after study, solid majorities of Americans take progressive stands on a full spectrum of issues, from bread-and-butter economics to the so-called "values" issues where conservatives claim preeminence.

    Full Story Here:

    home.ourfuture.org/reports/20070612_theprogressivemajority/

    O'Reilly Report on Journalist Political Donations Highly Flawed

  • 6-22-07 -- Billy did a report on the 144 journalists who donated money to political campaigns, and he was outraged they gave 9 to 1 to Democrats. But he calls for full disclosure, yet he left out a lot of very important facts in the story.

    Like the fact that a Factor producer gave $5000 to a Republican PAC.

    Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor," $5,000 in June 2006 to Volunteer PAC, which gave to Republican candidates. Her father was once a campaign treasurer for former Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

    Banker didn't return calls. A Fox News spokesman said donations are allowed.

    And he failed to report on these facts too:

    -- The study only covered 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, with no explanation why they did not go back to 2003, 2002, 2001, or 2000. Not a word from O'Reilly about this.

    -- Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at ABC, CBS, and CNN.

    -- NBC, MSNBC and MSNBC.com say they don't discourage or encourage campaign contributions, but they require employees to report any potential conflicts of interest in advance and receive permission of the senior editor.

    Funny how Billy did not report that ABC, CBS, and CNN do not allow political donations, yet FOX News does. So he left the impression that every news outlet allows political donations. You also have the hypocrisy of hammering other journalists for making political donations when FOX News employees are allowed to make them too.

    He also failed to mention the NY Times does not allow political donations either. I do not think any journalists who report or write about politics should be making political donations, it seems to be a conflict of interest. But if you do not report or write about politics I do not see anything wrong with it.

    This is where the study becomes a joke, they list journalists who are graphic design editors, movie critics, sports copy editors, travel columnists, technology correspondents, hollywood reporters, theater critics, health and medical story reporters, design editors, automobile critics, food writers, photographers, entertainment reporters, classical music critics, section designer/artists, arts editors, sports statisticians, business reporters, graphic artists, sports editors, sports columnists, fine arts reporters, fashion editors, and energy editors.

    Those people were counted as journalists who donated money to Democrats, yet none of them report on politics or write about politics. They should not even be on the list, you should only be on it if you report on politics or write about politics.

    O'Reilly implied that all 144 journalists on the list were actual journalists who report on politics, so they are biased and they help Democrats with the job they have, which is just not true. How can a food writer or a fashion editor use his job as a journalist to help a Democrat, answer, they can't.

    It's flat out ridiculous to claim that when most of the people on the list are unknown local tv or radio or newspaper people. And they do not report on or write about politics. How can their liberal bias do anything when they write about food, or do graphic art design, none of that has anything to do with politics.

    I think MSNBC is a joke for putting most of those people on the list when they have nothing to do with politics, they are just people who happen to work for a news outlet that reports on politics, but they do not write or report on politics.

    If you saw O'Reilly's report on the list you would think all 144 people on the list reported on or wrote about politics, and you would be wrong. I believe it is a conflict of interest for any journalist who reports on politics to make political donations, but only if they write or report on politics, food critics and sports editors should not be covered. I call on all journalists who report on or write about politics to not make any political donations, what say you Billy.

    You can see the list yourself here:

    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

    Earth to O'Reilly: Ratings For News Shows Are Meaningless

  • 6-18-07 -- What counts is the quality, the honesty, the story selection, the impartiality, and the integrity of the news, not how many people watch it. The News shows should not even have ratings, the media should be in the business of reporting the news so the people can make an informed vote, not in the business of ratings so the news show can make more money selling ad time.

    Here are the list of Murrow Award winners, the Murrow awards by the Radio-Television News Directors Association honors outstanding achievements in electronic journalism, they handed out 77 awards, not one went to anyone at FOX News.

    Seven went to NBC, three to CBS, two for CNN, and one to ABC.

    Overall Excellence: NBC News
    Continuing Coverage: CNN, Coverage of the Middle East Conflict
    Feature - Hard News: Dateline NBC, Colorado Shooting
    Feature Reporting: ABC News, The Blind Trumpeter
    Investigative Reporting: Dateline NBC, Bitter Pills
    News Documentary: CBS News: 60 Minutes, Duke Rape Case
    News Series: CBS News, Ramadi Embed
    Newscast: NBC Nightly News, London Terror Plot
    Sports Reporting: CBS News, Uphill Battle
    Spot News Coverage: NBC Nightly News, High-Rise Plane Crash
    Videography: Dateline NBC, Rescue on Roberts Ridge
    Website: www.cnn.com
    Writing: NBC News Today, American Story with Bob Dotson

    Website Non-Broadcast Affiliated

    Large Market: www.washingtonpost.com
    Small Market: www.publicintegrity.org

    More Evidence FOX is Misquoting John Edwards to Smear Him

  • 6-13-07 -- Billy says if anyone has evidence of FOX bias send it to him and he will report it, haha, yeah right. I send him evidence all the time, yet he never reports any of it. Well here is more evidence why FOX has a right-wing bias, they are all misquoting what Edwards said, and it's another reason why Democrats should boycott all FOX news shows.

    Discussing Paris Hilton's jail sentence on the June 10 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday, host Greg Kelly stated:
    KELLY: You know -- well, let's see what John Edwards said -- according to John Edwards, this kind of drives home his point about two Americas. He said this on the campaign trail: "I still believe," he said, "with regard to Paris Hilton, that we have two Americas." This kind of underscores his theme.
    WRONG: As the video and the transcript clearly shows, Edwards said: "I still do believe, without regard to Paris Hilton, that we have two Americas."

    [begin video clip]

    EDWARDS: I'm going to stay out of the Paris Hilton story. Although I saw it seems to be completely dominating the news. I had the television on just before I came down.

    I still do believe, without regard to Paris Hilton, that we have two Americas, and I think what's important is obvious -- it's obvious that the problem exists. The issue is what are we going to do to create one America with universal health care, with more economic equality, having a -- raising the minimum wage, access to decent housing, access to college for kids who can't afford it?

    Transcript:

    Reporter: Senator, you speak all the time about two Americas, can you just tell us briefly, you know, what you think the message sends that Paris Hilton got out of jail after three days, when she was originally supposed to spend 45 days in jail?

    Edwards: Um, I'm gonna stay out of the Paris Hilton story. Although I saw it seems to be completely dominating the news, I had the television on just before I came down. Uh, I still do believe, without regard to Paris Hilton, that, uh, we have two Americas and I think what's important is, it's obvious that the problem exists.

    The issue is what are we going to do to create one America with universal health care, with more economic equality, having, raising the minimum wage, access to decent housing, access to college for kids who can't afford it? Those are the tools, some of the tools, that allow us to close the gap that exists in America today between those who are doing well and everything else. I think the next president of the United States is going to have a huge responsibility. Last. It's not healthy for our economy, it's not healthy for our democracy, and I think we need to do something about it -- without regard to Paris Hilton.

    ---------

    And Billy wonders why the Democrats dropped out of the FOX debate, and why people think they are a right-wing news network. It's right here, in black and white, if you just read it you will see it. Unless you are a dishonest right-wing spin doctor, like O'Reilly and 99% of the FOX News employees are. Can anyone show me one example of a FOX News host misquoting a Republican, just one, if you can e-mail it to me. I can not find any examples, but I could fill a book with examples of Democrats being misquoted and smeared on FOX.

    More Proof O'Reilly & FOX Are Out to Smear John Edwards

  • 6-12-07 -- On June 8th, Billy was a guest on Your World with Neil Cavuto. During the interview both of them falsely asserted that John Edwards has used the controversy surrounding Paris Hilton's recent jail sentence "in part of his campaign comments" talking about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor.

    That is a 100% lie, it was made up by the right-wing smear machine. It's part of the O'Reilly and FOX News crusade to smear Edwards because he refused to do the FOX News presidential debate, which led to all the other candidates dropping out too.

    Edwards was asked at a June 7 press conference to comment on the message of the Hilton story as it pertains to the class divide in America. Edwards responded that he was "gonna stay out of the Paris Hilton story" and went on to note his goal of closing the gap that exists in America today between those who are doing well and everything else.

    Edwards offered no judgment regarding Hilton's jail sentence, none, zip, zilch, zero, contrary to O'Reilly and Cavuto's claim. And to prove it, here is a transcript of exactly what Edwards said. Notice that neither O'Reilly or Cavuto show the transcript or the video of what he said. Because they mis-quoted him out of context to misrepresent what he said.

    If they show the full transcript, or the video, it would expose the truth and their lies about what Edwards actually said. And if you can tell me why it is wrong for a Senator (who was elected by the people in his state to represent them) with a 30,000 square foot house who gets $400.00 haircuts, to speak out on the gap between the rich and the poor I want to hear it.

    Partial transcript of the June 7 press conference:
    Reporter: Senator, you speak all the time about two Americas, can you just tell us briefly, you know, what you think the message sends that Paris Hilton got out of jail after three days, when she was originally supposed to spend 45 days in jail?

    Mr. Edwards: Um, I'm gonna stay out of the Paris Hilton story. Although I saw it seems to be completely dominating the news, I had the television on just before I came down. Uh, I still do believe, without regard to Paris Hilton, that, uh, we have two Americas and I think what's important is, it's obvious that the problem exists.

    The issue is what are we going to do to create one America with universal health care, with more economic equality, having, raising the minimum wage, access to decent housing, access to college for kids who can't afford it?

    Those are the tools, some of the tools, that allow us to close the gap that exists in America today between those who are doing well and everything else. I think the next president of the United States is going to have a huge responsibility. Last. It's not healthy for our economy, it's not healthy for our democracy, and I think we need to do something about it.
    That is what John Edwards said, then O'Reilly and Cavuto twisted that statement into John Edwards is using Paris Hilton to insert it into his class argument on the campaign. Now if that is not spin then there is no such thing as spin. They misrepresent what he said, then the two biased right-wing liars sit together on the Cavuto tv show and agree with each other about the lie they started, one guy lies and the other one swears to it.

    Now read what Cavuto and O'Reilly said, and you will see how they twist Edwards words around to mean what they want them to, not what he said, or meant to say. They just make it up, he never said any of what they claim he did.
    CAVUTO: Let me ask you: John Edwards, who you've been saying some pretty strong things about...
    O'REILLY: Is he in jail with her?
    CAVUTO: He has used her, as you know, in part of his campaign comments, talking about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor --
    O'REILLY: John Edwards has.
    CAVUTO: -- and that Paris gets special breaks like the rich.
    O'REILLY: The guy with the 30,000-square-foot home?
    CAVUTO: Four hundred dollar haircut.
    O'REILLY: Yeah. This is the guy who's -- the disparity?
    CAVUTO: Yes. What do you make of that?
    O'REILLY: He's the biggest phony in the world. John Edwards? And you know me, I don't endorse candidates, and I don't really care about them, and I actually admire people who run for president because they have to go through hell. And they're all patriots on both sides. But this guy, this guy Edwards, he's a phony. This guy's a phony. We went out -- the "Factor" went out to -- across the street, there's a trailer park from his 30,000-square-foot mansion. And we interviewed the guys and the gals in the trailer park. They hate him. He won't talk to them. He goes jogging, and he doesn't even pay attention to them.
    CAVUTO: So when he uses Paris Hilton to insert it into his class argument on the campaign, what do you think of that?
    O'REILLY: What does he want? To give Paris Hilton 10 years? What does he want to do?
    CAVUTO: Well, he's -- this was the first, when it looked like she was going to escape prison.
    O'REILLY: He wanted her in jail, Edwards did?
    CAVUTO: Right.
    O'REILLY: So he doesn't really want to chase down the bad guys in Iraq, but he wants to put Paris Hilton in jail. Is that what you're telling me John Edwards wants?
    CAVUTO What do you think of that? That's effectively what he's saying.
    O'REILLY: I think he's a phony. I think he's ridiculous. I think the Republicans would be the luckiest party in the history of the republic if he got the Democratic nomination. That's who they want. The Republicans would love to run against John Edwards because it would be like 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern. He'd get slaughtered. Because Americans know that this guy is a phony.
    And they wonder why they are seen as a right-wing news network, the answer is right here staring you in the face. Show me one time where O'Reilly or Cavuto, or anyone on FOX, has called a Republican a phony, and made up lies about what he said. You can't, because it has never happened. And O'Reilly claims he don't endorse candidates, that's true, he just trashes all the Democrats who run for office, and tells people to vote against them, but he never trashes any Republicans who run for office, and he never tells anyone to vote against a Republican, ever.

    O'Reilly Edited Edwards Statement on War on Terror

  • 6-7-07 -- Billy was caught using dishonest journalism tactics again, he cut out part of the answer Edwards gave in the debate that did not fit Billy's agenda.

    His agenda is to smear John Edwards every chance he can, because Edwards was the first one to drop out of the Democratic presidential debates on FOX, and this led to everyone else dropping out too. So now Billy and everyone at FOX are going to smear Edwards as a payback.

    On the June 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, discussing former Sen. John Edwards response to a question from moderator Wolf Blitzer during the June 3 Democratic presidential debate, host Bill O'Reilly aired a video clip of Edwards.
    O'REILLY: Now, this is the hallmark of the far left. We saw it again last night in the Democratic debate when the far-left candidate John Edwards once again called the war on terror a bumper sticker.

    EDWARDS [video clip]: What this global war on terror bumper sticker -- a political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does.

    O'REILLY: Now, Senator Edwards isn't smart enough to understand that his strategy is killing him. In the latest ABC News poll, he's down to 8 percent among Democratic voters, losing six points in less than a month.

    The good news here is that most Americans in both parties understand that Muslim extremists want to kill us and will if they get the chance. So John Edwards looks dopey. The New York Times looks dishonest. And the far left loses all day long, which of course is a good thing.

    What is not a good thing is the press using its power to help a political party in its news pages. That is corrupt.
    If it's corrupt for the press to use its power to help a political party then FOX News is the most corrupt of all. Their entire platform is to help Republicans and make them look better, while they smear Democrats and make them look bad.

    And now here is all of what Edwards said, not just the part Billy wanted his viewers to see. O'Reilly did exactly what he complains that other people do to him, he cut out most of Edwards answer, only played a small portion of what he said, and then misrepresented what Edwards meant.
    EDWARDS: I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf. And that's exactly what it is. It's a bumper sticker.

    As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.

    Every tool available -- military alliances, intelligence -- I will use.

    But what this global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture.

    None of those things are OK. They are not the United States of America.
    What Edwards said is that Bush has been using the war on terror as a bumper sticker and a political slogan, but he did not say he does not think we should be fighting the war on terror.

    O'Reilly implied that Edwards thinks there is no need for a war on terror at all, which is a total lie, and it is misrepresenting what Edwards said. It's the same trick he uses to claim that if you criticize George W. Bush you hate America. Billy takes what a liberal says and twists their words around to mean something he wants them to mean, and not what they really said, or meant to say.

    And Billy claims John Edwards has dropped 6 points in a month with Democrats because of what he said about the war on terror being a bumper sticker. This makes no sense at all, because Democrats agree with Edwards, and it's true. How could he drop 6 points with Democrats when they agree with him. O'Reilly is just spewing out more right-wing propaganda that makes no sense at all.

    And notice he never does this to a conservative, he only does it to liberals.

    This is Why Democrats Should Never Debate on FOX

  • 6-6-07 -- Billy can not understand why Democrats do not want to debate on FOX, or go on any of their shows. O'Reilly claims they are afraid, but that is just right-wing propapganda. Here is just one reason why, notice that neither CNN or MSNBC made this mistake, only FOX News did.

    On The Live Desk, Fox News showed footage of Rep. John Conyers while Brian Wilson reported on the expected indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, who just happens to be an African American Democrat. This was done to smear John Conyers, and link him to corruption. Funny how they never make that mistake with any Republicans, it only happens with Democrats.

    A Fox anchor, Martha MacCallum, gave a 10-second apology today, but it made no reference to Mr. Conyers and did not explain why or how the erroneous video made it to air.

    Conyers responded today in a statement:
    Fox News has a history of inappropriate on-air mistakes that are neither fair, nor balanced. This type of disrespect for people of color should no longer be tolerated. I am personally offended by the network's complete disregard for accuracy in reporting and lackluster on-air apology.
    This is just one reason why Democrats should never go on any FOX News shows, or do any presidential debates sponsored by FOX News. They should boycott FOX News for being a biased right-wing propaganda News network. It has nothing to do with fear Billy, it's about giving credibility to a fake News network, if they go on FOX they give them credibility.

    Here is another reason Democrats should boycott FOX News. Yesterday Roger Ailes, the president of FOX News, said if a Democrat can not face FOX then they can't face Al Qaeda. So let me get this straight, if a Democrat does not go on the FOX News network then they can not fight terrorism. What does boycotting a right-wing propaganda news network have to do with terrorism?

    Answer: Nothing. It was just more political smears from the biased right-wing president of FOX News, and they wonder why Democrats are boycotting their debates.


    O'Reilly Caught Red Handed Lying About NY Times JFK Terror Plot Coverage

    6-5-07 -- Last night Bill O'Reilly devoted an entire segment to attacking the NY Times for not covering the arrests made in the JFK airport terrorist plot on the front page.
    O'REILLY: In Sunday's Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on - ready - page 37, right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker's restaurant," O'Reilly said. He claimed the Times "isn't real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11.


    One problem there Billy, the New York Times did cover the JFK terror plot on the front page of its Sunday edition. You wouldn't know it from watching O'Reilly, who chose to show only the top half of the front page. "Now I'm not making this up," he told his viewers. "You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact."

    But his fact is a lie, and he was making it up, he literally made it up, here is what Billy had on the screen.



    And now the real facts, the Sunday New York Times did feature a headline on the alleged JFK terror plots on its front page. It was below the fold, the bottom half of the front page that O'Reilly chose to hide had the story.



    Now does any Republican want to write me and tell me how this was just an accident by Billy, and how he did not lie on purpose to make the NY Times look bad, anyone?

    O'Reilly Claims His Viewers Are The Smartest in Cable News

  • 6-4-07 -- On Friday 6-1-07 Billy said this in his talking points memo:
    Ninety-nine percent of "The Factor" audience is responsible and perceptive. Polls show this program has the smartest, most affluent, and most influential people watching in the country, not only on cable news, but in all of TV news.
    What polls Billy, name them, where are they. I can't find them, I can not find any poll that says your viewers are the smartest.

    In fact, the only poll I can find that even mentions your viewers is a pew media study. And in that study your viewers rank 4th, the Daily Show/Colbert Report viewers rank 1st, and FOX News viewers were tied for next to last, one point from dead last.

    Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgable

    A new study by the Pew Research Study shows that viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last.

    people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

    That is a real study, done by a valid polling company, we have a link to it, and we have the name of it. What poll are you talking about Billy, and if it is real, name it. Ask yourself why Billy did not name the poll he was referring to, could it be there is no poll showing his viewers are the smartest. I am saying Billy is lying, if he is not lying he will name the poll.

    Boulder High Parent Writes to Bill O'Reilly

  • 6-1-07 -- Here is a letter to Billy from a Boulder High School parent.

    Mr. O'Reilly,

    Recently you have seen fit to attack Boulder High School. As always you have drawn a conclusion without doing your homework, one would think that you would have learned by now!

    As a Boulder High Parent I might have the right to disparage the school, however, considering you were not present, you have no interaction or knowledge as a parent or student and do not have accurate information about the situation, you have no authority or right to do so!

    Why don't you ask the multitude of other students that attended this session, or the parents of these students what they think.

    I challenge you to come to Boulder to face the people you are slandering, Chicken?

    I think you should worry about your own morality and reputation, it is not so pristine!

    "Face the Music, Bill! That is if you are going to sing the tune!"

    JS

    Boulder High Parent

    O'Reilly Ignores Attack on Liberal FOX News Employee

  • 6-1-07 -- Billy is constantly reporting on the actions of bad liberals, like having constitutionally protected protests where Billy screams bloody murder because a liberal dared to have a protest and some of them even called a Republican a bad name. And the case where Ann Coulter was hit with a pie in the face, he reported that and he wanted the person charged with a crime.

    He has also said many times that if anyone has any news of a Republican doing something bad to send it to him and he will report it. I send him news of Republicans doing bad things all the time, like the Republicans who took bombs to the Falwell funeral protest, etc. Yet Billy never reports any of it, ever. So he is a liar, a flat out 100% partisan liar who only reports bad things liberals do.

    Recently Bob Beckel (a FOX News Employee) was attacked by 2 Bush supporters for having anti George W. Bush bumper stickers on his car. He was punched in the face, and he got a black eye from it. Yet not a word about it on the factor.

    Alan Colmes talked about it on his radio show, and he even read some e-mails from conservatives about it. Most of the e-mails said it was nice to see a fat liberal get what he deserves and other vicious comments. These are the so-called "civilized" conservatives that O'reilly claims would never stoop to such a level.

    So here is the bottom line. If a conservative is called a name by a liberal, at a peaceful legal protest, O'Reilly reports it.

    If a conservative is hit in the face with a pie by a liberal, O'Reilly reports it, and calls for the pie thrower to be prosecuted.

    But if a conservative takes bombs to a funeral protest, O'Reilly does not say a word.

    And if a conservative punches a liberal in the face for having anti Bush bumper stickers, O'Reilly does not say a word, even when the liberal is a FOX News employee.

    And even though he tells his viewers he will report any bad actions by any Republicans if you send it to him. And this is the so-called no spin zone?

    Letter to The Editor on Boulder High School Conference

  • 5-31-07 -- Read this folks, it seems that Billy has taken the quotes he used on the Factor to smear Boulder completely out of context, and misrepresented what the speakers were actually saying to the kids. Read the letter to the editor below, it was published on May 30, 2007, in the Boulder Daily Camera Newspaper.
    O'Reilly slandered our school and city

    As a diligent, well-educated, and open-minded sophomore at Boulder High School, I was extremely offended by the outlandish slanders Bill O'Reilly made against my city, my school and my community on his show, "The O'Reilly Factor."

    Unlike Mr. O'Reilly, I attended the Conference on World Affairs panel in question, "STDs: Sex, Teens and Drugs," and the "quotes" that he used were taken completely out of context. The panelists were not telling the students to go out and have sex and do drugs and not worry about any repercussions; they were using those comments as beginning statements. Each panelist went on to explain that having sex and doing drugs is not something that can be swept under the rug, because it is happening. They were emphasizing the point that ignorance can lead to the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies and that education about safe sex and drug use can prevent these calamities.

    The panelists, especially Joel Becker, applauded those who choose abstinence for themselves, but stated that these individuals have a responsibility to educate themselves as well. We were not forced to go to these conferences, and any student could have left at any time. The auditorium was used as an outside location for certain conferences and was open to the general public. This was not a scheme designed to poison children's minds with evil thoughts, but an informative and engaging conference.

    Also, the school board and administration, including our principal, Bud Jenkins, had no part in organizing this conference. All of the conferences at Boulder High were created and produced by students who decided on the topic and contacted the panelists themselves. Therefore, it is unfair to judge our school's administration for "promoting" the views of the panelists.

    In Mr. O'Reilly's report, he not only portrayed a false claim, but also wrongly humiliated us. This whole issue has been blown way out of proportion. The report is the perfect example of corruption and political agenda in today's media. It is so pathetic, and I am disgusted that someone like Bill O'Reilly has used a renowned source to slander us.

    No one is going to be fired, because they had no jurisdiction over the conference, and Mr. O'Reilly had no right to say those outrageous claims. He should be the one held accountable for his actions. Mr. O'Reilly needs to check his facts and his sources before he presents another report.

    I sincerely hope that Mr. O'Reilly makes a public apology to our city, our school, our administration and the students of Boulder High.

    GABRIELLA HECHT

    Sophomore

    Boulder High School
    More Proof O'Reilly Spins Anti War Views

  • 5-29-07 -- When anyone on the left speaks out against the War in Iraq Billy calls them un-American traitors who hate America. He does numerous segments on it to show that the left in America are haters. What O'Reilly does is make it look like only the far left is against the war. When many Republicans are also against the war, yet Billy never reports what they say.

    Even though that is just right-wing spin, a lot of people believe it. And the left does not hate America, they only hate George W. Bush. Billy spins opposing Bush into hating America. Funny how he did not spin opposing Clinton into hating America when the Republicans opposed everything Bill Clinton did.

    Here is an article from 5-27-07, it was published in the International Herald Tribune. They talked to a Conservative Republican from Texas who is the leader of Delta Company. This is no liberal, he is a Conservative Republican, yet you will never hear his story on the factor. Because that does not fit the agenda of Bill O'Reilly. His agenda is to make everyone think only the far left oppose the war in Iraq. Read what Sergeant David Safstrom says, then ask yourself why you never see any of this reported on the factor.

    With allies in enemy ranks, GIs in Iraq are no longer true believers

    Staff Sergeant David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

    "In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place," he said. "There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome."

    But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

    "I thought, 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?' " said Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."

    His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.

    With few reliable surveys of soldiers' attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in Delta Company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.

    They had seen shadowy militia commanders installed as Iraqi Army officers, they said, had come under increasing attack from roadside bombs - planted within sight of Iraqi Army checkpoints - and had fought against Iraqi soldiers whom they thought were their allies.

    "In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war," said Sergeant First Class David Moore, a self-described "conservative Texas Republican" and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. "Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me."

    In Safstrom's view, the American presence is futile. "If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy," he said. "It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here."

    oreilly-sucks.com owner: When a liberal says exactly what Sergeant Sasftrom said above, Billy calls them America haters who want us to lose in Iraq. Yet when a Republicans says it Billy is silent. And remember that when Billy came back from Iraq he said 90% of the troops he talked to supported the war. When here we have a Delta Company Sergeant saying 95% of his guys oppose the war. Who do you believe, Billy or the Delta Company Sergeant in Iraq.

    Their many deployments have added to the strain. After spending six months in Iraq, the soldiers of Delta Company had been home for only 24 hours last December when the news came. "Change your plans," they recall being told. "We're going back to Iraq."

    Nineteen days later, just after Christmas, Captain Douglas Rogers and the men of Delta Company were on their way to Khadimiya, a Shiite enclave of about 300,000. As part of the so-called surge of American troops, their primary mission was to maintain stability in the area and to prepare the Iraqi Army and police to take control of the neighborhood.

    "I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force," said the barrel-chested Rogers of San Antonio, Texas. "The Iraqi security forces would step up." It has not worked out that way.

    O'Reilly Ignored Story of Republican Who Took Bombs to Protest

  • 5-28-07 -- Billy says there is no radical-right in America. And if anyone has an example of it send it to him and he will report it, haha, fat chance. I don't know about you, but I think taking bombs to a funeral protest is pretty radical. Billy has ignored this story, not a word about it on the factor, nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Can you imagine what he would say if a Liberal took bombs to a protest by the conservatives.

    Billy also ignores the far right pro-life groups who call people who shoot and kill abortion doctors heros. These people are far right religious nuts who kill abortion doctors. They are worshipped on all the pro life right-wing religious websites, yet Billy never says a word about any of them. Somehow he can not find anyone who is radical right in America, even though there are 844 active hate groups in America, and the vast majority of these hate groups are right-wing hate groups, as listed by the southern poverty law center.

    Recently Billy covered a protest where liberals were calling religious right conservatives names. He made a big deal about it, even though there was no violence, just a peacful protest that the constitution gives them a right to do. Billy did not like it, and he said no conservatives do anything like that.

    Yeah, they do much worse. They take bombs to a funeral service protest.

    Hey Billy, report this you hypocrite.

    Liberty U. student arrested over 'napalm-like' bombs

    5-22-07 -- A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize Jerry Falwell.

    During the protest, Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

    The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent.

    www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543

    Example of How Conservatives Claim The Media is Liberal

  • 5-23-07 -- Here is a great example of how Conservatives like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. claim the media is liberal. Basically they lie to you.

    Earlier this month, the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer had a segment with far-right radio talk show host Melanie Morgan and VoteVets chairman Jon Soltz. Morgan turned the segment into an unwatchable shouting match.

    Viewers contacted the station's ombudsman and called Morgan's appearance on the NewHour a "dilution of the integrity" of PBS; one viewer asked, "Who in the world thought she would be a rational voice to counter Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org?" In response, NewsHour Executive Producer Linda Winslow promised that "you will never see her on our program again."

    So last night on Hannity and Colmes, Morgan accused PBS of "censorship," saying that the network "has a blatant anti-conservative bias. They don't want to hear a proud pro American, pro-troop point of view. They've clearly demonstrated that in the past. I think PBS should be ashamed of itself."

    And now for the facts. PBS did not ban all conservatives, they only banned her. Because she is a loud mouth far right idiot who screams and yells so nobody else can be heard. And to prove she is a liar, a study published last fall found that from October 2005 to March 2006, "Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1," and "'stay the course' sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1."

    O'Reilly does the exact same thing. He will cherry pick one isolated example of liberal bias in a newspaper, or on a cable news show. Then report that example as proof there is a liberal bias. When I could find 2 or 3 examples of conservative bias from the same source for every 1 example O'Reilly found. But he does not report the examples of conservative bias, so he leaves the false impression that news source has a liberal bias.

    Billy does it with MSNBC. They have one liberal, Keith Olbermann, and many conservatives, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Tucker Carlson. Yet O'Reilly said they are a liberal news network with no conservatives. He is lying, plain and simple, Joe, Tucker, and Pat are all conservatives. Dont just believe me, watch them and decide for yourself.