O'Reilly Caught Lying About Barack Obama
10-31-07 -- Once again www.oreilly-sucks.com has caught Billy lying about a Democratic candidate for President. On the 10-29-07 GMA show Billy said Barack Obama can not win the Democratic primary because he does not go on real news shows like the factor and GMA.
How do people watch this all spin zone, almost nothing Billy says is true, pretty much every word from his mouth is either right-wing spin or flat out lies. Here is what he said, in his own words.
SAWYER: So can Obama, this week, turn it around? Does he have another round in him?And now for the facts, Robin Roberts interviewed Barack Obama on the 8-27-07 broadcast of Good Morning America. She asked him about New Orleans, FEMA, Hillary Clinton, and his run for president. You can get that information with a simple google search, or a lexus search, or by going to media matters website, they have the transcript of the interview.
O'REILLY: Of course not! He's a -- this is ridiculous. What is his poll, 18 percent? Look, Obama -- and I told him this, face to face -- Tyra Banks ain't gonna get you elected, OK? You gotta go on the Factor, you gotta go on GMA and answer the questions. What has he been doing for six months? I guess he's been at Club Med. I haven't seen him. Have you seen him?
Yet Billy said Obama has never been on GMA, when he was just on the show 2 months ago. And why in the hell would he ever go on the factor when all the factor viewers are Republicans who are never going to vote for him, and all Billy and FOX do is trash him. Neither Billy or anyone at FOX ever say anything good about Obama, everything they report is negative, so why would anyone in his right mind do a show on a cable news network that does nothing but spin lies about him.
Now to mention O'Reilly is usually wrong on his political predictions, he said Hillary would lose her senate race against Rick Lazio by more than 10 points, and that she could never win an election in New York, she won by 13 points. Billy also said John Kerry would never win the Democratic primary in 2004, then Kerry won. So if you count on O'Reilly for political predictions you will be very disappointed.
When Billy makes predictions, he says what he wants to happen, not what really could happen. That's why he is usually wrong, because he lets his partisan Republican bias influence his prediction.
Billy reminds me of Lou Holtz, he is a Norte Dame loyalist, so he predicts a Norte Dame win no matter who they play, then they lose every game and Lou still picks them the next week. Billy does the same thing, he is a Republican loyalist, so he always picks a Republican to win, then they lose and he still picks more Republicans to win. Because he can not put his personal bias aside and give an un-biased opinion.
And he calls that the no spin zone, when it's clear to anyone with half a working brain that it's pretty much and all spin zone, and every issue discussed is Bill O'Reilly's right-wing spin on that issue.
Another Far-Right Republican Picked to be New Factor Fill-In
- 10-26-07 -- First it was Michelle Malkin, now Laura Ingraham is joining FNC as the primary fill-in for Bill O'Reilly as well as for Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.
What a shocker, NOT!
O'Reilly gets another right-winger to be his fill in, so much for Independence and being fair and balanced. Every fill in he has ever had was a Republican, yet he claims to be a non-partisan Independent. If Billy is a non-partisan Independent how come all the fill ins are far right Republicans?
What say you Billy?
O'Reilly Caught Lying About CNN & MSNBC Coverage of Lieutenant Murphy
- 10-26-07 -- This is absolute proof that Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest, and biased LIAR, and nothing more than a right-wing propagandist pretending to be a real journalist. O'Reilly claims that CNN & MSNBC ignored the Medal of Honor awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy.
O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Stunningly, some television news organizations ignored the Medal of Honor awarded to Lieutenant Michael Murphy. We'll tell you who did and who did not cover this story.There is one problem with all that, it's a lie, O'Reilly is lying when he says CNN & MSNBC did not cover the Murphy award ceremony. The only thing he got right is that they did not report it in prime time, because they had been reporting on it all day long, including live coverage of the ceremony. If you watched the factor lst night you would believe that CNN & MSNBC did not cover the story at all, ever, which is wrong.
Last night, our lead story on the Factor was the Medal of Honor awarded to Navy SEAL Lieutenant Michael Murphy who was killed in Afghanistan trying to save his unit. Lieutenant Murphy's bravery is chronicled in the best-selling book, Lone Survivor, and it is truly an incredible saga.
Why, then, did CNN and MSNBC fail to report the Medal of Honor story in prime time last night? Easy question, disturbing answer. Katie Couric on CBS News gave Lieutenant Murphy more than three minutes; Charles Gibson on ABC News more than two minutes; Brian Williams didn't report the ceremony although he did cover the story last week.
But, apparently, Lieutenant Murphy was not ready for prime-time on our cable competition even though they had hours to get any mention of it on the air. The hard truth is that MSNBC and CNN are not going to report stories that reflect well on the American military because those people over there despise the Bush administration and believe anything positive like American heroes in war zones detract from their negative assessment of the administration.
O'Reilly suggested that the military has become "a casualty of a committed left ideology that is in play on our competition" and asserted, "I don't want to hear CNN or NBC News say they support the troops. I don't ever want to hear that."
Later in the segment, O'Reilly went further and suggested that CNN and MSNBC ignored the Murphy story altogether, asserting, "CNN and NBC News can't get enough of negative war zone stories. They run them all day long. And really, how many heroes are there these days? And you ignore, ignore a Medal of Honor winner? Awful."
The real cold hard truth is that CNN and MSNBC did not ignore Lt Murphy, MSNBC reported the story five separate times, and carried the ceremony live, and CNN covered it on seven different occasions.
On 10-22-07 both MSNBC and CNN provided extensive coverage of the Medal of Honor ceremony: MSNBC reported on Murphy five times, including carrying the award ceremony live, and CNN covered the Murphy story on seven distinct occasions.
On the 2 p.m. segment of CNN Newsroom, anchor Don Lemon introduced a report on Murphy by CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr by asserting, "The ultimate sacrifice, the highest honor, a Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan, he makes history as the first to receive the Medal of Honor from the war in Afghanistan," a report that also aired on the 7 p.m. segment of The Situation Room.
CNN also noted the award on the 6 a.m., 7 a.m., and 8 a.m. segments of American Morning, as well as the 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. segments of CNN Newsroom.
On the 11 a.m. edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer questioned MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs, a retired Army colonel and himself a Medal of Honor recipient, about Murphy's award.
The 2 p.m. edition of MSNBC Live aired live coverage of more than 11 minutes of the award ceremony, including the entirety of President Bush's speech, which ran more than seven minutes.
Murphy's award was also reported on the 10 a.m., 1 p.m., and 3 p.m. editions of MSNBC Live.
And now you have the facts, what say you Billy?
O'Reilly's Double Standard & Hypocrisy on Political Comments
- 10-24-07 -- When a liberal on MSNBC or NBC says something negative about a Republican, or something the Republicans do not like to hear, O'Reilly goes nuts and claims their comments are un-American and the network they work for should put out a statement saying they do not agree with his comments. O'Reilly said if that network does not put out a statement saying they disagree with those comments they support the comments.
So here we have Glenn Beck saying "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today."
Beck is talking about the liberal hollywood celebs who are losing their homes in the California wildfires. He says they hate America, only because they oppose president Bush and disagree with him politically. I guess Beck thinks losing their homes in the fire is payback for being liberals, in his mind they deserve to lose their homes in a fire because they are liberals.
Keith Olbermann even named Beck worst person in the world for the comments, From the October 22 edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
That's ahead, but first, time for Countdown's "Worst Persons in the World."
The bronze: CNN's Glenn Beck. He says, quote, "We're all one America. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you hate America, and I love America. We all love America. We just disagree on how we should function, what we should do, big government, small government. It doesn't mean you hate America." Next sentence: "I think there's a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today."Yet not a word about those comments from Bill O'Reilly, or Hannity, or anyone at FOX news. Can you imagine what they would say if Keith Olbermann made the same comments about conservatives losing their homes in a wildfire. All hell would break loose, O'Reilly would do a segment about it every night for a week, and FOX would cover it 10 times a day from morning to night. So if we use O'Reilly's standards, he supports the Beck comments because he has not spoke out against them.
Nice. Make fun of the California wildfires. How would you like to have to defend this guy at a sanity hearing?
And CNN has not spoke out against the Beck comments either, but O'Reilly has not said a word about them. Yet when William Arkin (the part time NBC military analyst) called the troops mercenaries in a blog at the washingtonpost.com O'Reilly ripped him to pieces for a week. And Billy called for NBC and the Washington Post to put out a statement saying they do not agree with, or support his comments.
This is a prime example of the right-wing bias, the double standards, and the hypocrisy from Bill O'Reilly. Just imagine what Billy would say if Keith Olbermann or Al Franken called conservatives who lost their homes in a wildfire America Haters, and made fun of it, claiming they got what they deserve for being conservatives.
I admit that I hate most Republicans, but I would never call them America haters because they disagree with me politically, and I would never make a joke about a Republican losing his home in a wildfire, or imply they got what they deserve because of their political views, which is exactly what Beck did. And remember when Republicans disagreed with everything Bill Clinton did for 8 years not one Liberal called them America haters.
Beck thinks it's funny that hollywood liberals are losing their homes in a wildfire, when there is nothing funny about it, and it is nothing to joke about. Beck even said he was making a joke about it, so what kind of sick f__k makes a joke about people losing their homes in a forest fire, Glenn Beck that's who, just because they are liberals.
So what say you Billy, when are you going to publicly speak out against the Beck comments, if you don't then you support what he said.
Some Facts For Billy on Rendition And Torture
- 10-22-07 -- About 2 weeks ago Bill O'Reilly basically called Bruce Springsteen a lying un-American traitor, for saying the Bush administration has done things in the past 6 years that nobody ever thought they'd see in the United States. The Boss was talking about rendition, torture, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeas corpus, etc.
O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Is Springsteen's dissent legitimate or anti-American? While Springsteen is certainly anti-Bush, his words are legitimate dissent, in my opinion. However, I don't respect the dissent unless Springsteen can back up his opinions with facts. Violations of Habeas Corpus, Bruce? When and where? Attack on the Constitution? How so?
Well here you go Billy, here are the facts, the facts you know are real yet you ignore them to put out right-wing propaganda for the Bush administration.
The Bush administration has been doing 2 things, extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition. Which is an extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another, and the term Torture by proxy is used by some critics to describe extraordinary rendition by the United States, with regard to the transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture.
The program has raised a series of moral, judicial, and political issues, prompting several official European Union investigations. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments.
According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
One notable example is the "Imam Rapito affair" in Italy, in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a radical Islamist cleric, was kidnapped in a joint CIA?SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, was transferred to the Aviano Air Base, and was rendered to Egypt, where he was held until February 11, 2007, when an Egyptian court ruled his imprisonment was "unfounded."
Nasr was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. Italian prosecutors investigating the kidnapping have indicted 26 US citizens including the head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents. They have also sent extradition requests to the Italian Ministry of Justice, which has not delivered it to American authorities. SISMI chief General Nicolo Pollari and second-in-command Marco Mancini have been forced to resign, and were also indicted.
Someone should ask O'Reilly why he never talks about Egypt, Gen. Hosni Mubarak , who has ruled Egypt for 26 years and is grooming his son, Gamal, to succeed him, can torture and "disappear" dissidents-such as the Egyptian journalist Reda Hilal, who vanished four years ago-without American censure because he does the dirty work for us on those we "disappear."
The extraordinary-rendition program, which sees the United States kidnap and detain terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world, fits neatly with the Egyptian regime's contempt for due process. Those rounded up by American or Egyptian security agents are never granted legal rights. The abductors are often hooded or masked.
If the captors are American the suspects are spirited onto a Gulfstream V jet registered to a series of dummy American corporations, such as Bayard Foreign Marketing of Portland, Ore., and whisked to Egypt or perhaps Morocco or Jordan. When these suspects arrive in Cairo they vanish into black holes as swiftly as dissident Egyptians. It is the same dirty and seamless process.
We have nothing to say to Mubarak. He is us. The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights has confirmed more than 500 cases of police abuse since 1993, including 167 deaths-three of which took place this year-that the group ?strongly suspects were the result of torture and mistreatment.?
There are now 80,000 political prisoners held in Egyptian prisons. The annual budget for internal security was $1.5 billion in 2006, more than the entire national budget for health care, and the security police forces comprise 1.4 million members, nearly four times the number of the Egyptian army.
The United States has subsidized Egypt?s armed forces with over $38 billion in aid. Egypt receives about $2 billion annually-$1.3 billion in foreign military financing and about $815 million in economic and support fund assistance-making it the second largest regular recipient of conventional U.S. military and economic aid, after Israel.
This stuff is all known to anyone who reads the news, the real news, not O'Reilly and FOX news, and it proves the Boss was right, only right-wing stooges like O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, etc. deny it, and then call people who tell the truth about it anti-American. When the people who are really anti-American are the ones doing the rendition and the torture, and the people in the Bush administration who approve it. Not to mention the so-called journalists like O'Reilly who ignore the story and then call people who talk about it un-American traitors.
So there it is Billy, what say you?
P.S. I could fill this website with more detailed information on rendition, extraordinary rendition, rendition aircraft, CIA black sites, secret detention centers, and torture. All of it can be found with a simple google search, yet O'Reilly denies it all and calls the Boss anti-American for speaking out against these illegal and immoral practices. So who is really anti-American, the Boss for telling the truth, the Bush administration for doing it, or Bill O'Reilly for ignoring the story, and saying they never did it.
O'Reilly Spins The SCHIP Child Health Insurance Program
- 10-19-07 -- Last night Billy finally did a segment on the Bush veto of the SCHIP bill. And as you would expect it was a biased one sided debate with 2 Republicans, and nobody to provide the counterpoint, aka the truth.
O'Reilly and his guest Bernadette Healy shifted the blame and focus from Bush and Republicans to the parents of the kids eligible for SCHIP coverage. O'Reilly called it a confusing issue and then tried to make it simple for his audience. He stated that Democrats want free medical coverage for everyone and Republicans don't want socialized medicine.
Billy repeated the the Republican talking point lies that the vetoed bill would have given insurance to families earning $83,000 a year.
And now for the truth:
It is not a confusing issue, it is very simple. It has nothing to do with any health care plan by any Democrat, it is for child health care, period. The State Children's Health Insurance Program was enacted by Congress (a Republican Majority Congress) in 1997 to increase health insurance coverage for low-income children. Not poor children, they qualify for medicare. So it has nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, and their health care plans.
Families that make $83,000 a year are not eligible, and O'Reilly knows that, he was lying when he said it. The state of NY applied for a waiver to set the income limit at $83,000 a year because the cost of living is so high in NY. That waiver was DENIED, and was not in the bill. The upper limit is $62,000 for a family of four. So Billy lied to you, yes I said he lied, he is a liar.
Not to mention Billy never told you that 80% of the American people support the SCHIP expansion bill, and 71% of the people would support the bill even if they had to pay more taxes to pay for it. Funny how O'Reilly never told you that, what a coincidence, haha, yeah right.
Billy briefly commented on the attacks by the right-wing attack machine on 12 year old Graeme Frost and his family, he said it was wrong, but he never mentioned the attacks were from his friends Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and the right-wing websites and blogs. Malkin went to his house and harassed his family, and called their house, and Rush lied about the kids parents.
Billy never said a word about any of that, or how the right-wing website freerepublic.com published the 12 year old kids home address on the internet. The right-wingers made up lies about the income of the kids parents and then started a giant smear campaign that was all lies. And it was all done by O'Reilly's friends.
The SCHIP program is for low to middle income familes who can not afford, or cannot get health insurance for their kids. And it covers kids who cannot get health insurance at all, because no insurance company will give it to them due to a pre-existing condition.
The American people support it by a vast majority (80%), even it they have to pay more taxes to pay for it (71%). Yet O'Reilly put out the right-wing talking points and sent the message that the SCHIP program needs no expansion, especially since so many of the parents of eligible kids aren't even using it. O'Reilly's shameful partisan Republican display is unforgivable and clearly proves that he has no right to claim he is an advocate for children.
If Bill O'Reilly really cared about the kids (as he claims) and he was looking out for you (as he claims) he would support the SCHIP expansion bill 100%, as the vast majority of the people do. Instead he puts a Republican on the air to sit there and put the right-wing spin on the issue with him for 3 minutes, and nobody to give the counterpoint.
Must Read Article on O'Reilly Limbaugh & Malkin
- 10-17-07 -- Here is a great article written by Eric Boehlert, this is a must read if you want to see the truth about the dishonest and un-professional things O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Malkin do as so-called journalists.
Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly! Oh my!
by Eric Boehlert
Between Michelle Malkin Swift Boating a traumatically injured 12-year-old boy, Rush Limbaugh denigrating anti-war veterans, and Bill O'Reilly insulting black Americans, the mighty right-wing media machine is in the process of driving American conservatism right off a cliff. They have become the face of the Republican Party.
Read the full article here:
O'Reilly Spins General Sanchez Iraq Statements (Big Time Spin Alert)
- 10-17-07 -- In the 10-15-07 Talking Points Memo titled "Is the Press Killing American Military People?" Billy stated his belief that General Sanchez was "talking about liberal media outlets like The New York Times and NBC News" in his comments about the media's coverage of the war in Iraq.
O'REILLY: "General Sanchez was right on both counts: The Bush administration relied far too heavily on Iraqi cooperation. And when it didn't come, there was no Plan B. And at this point in history, the U.S. media is full of corrupt ideologues who put their world view above honest information. This is not only putting our military in danger, ladies and gentlemen, it puts all of us in danger."O'Reilly rails about Media Matters taking him "out of context," which is just another example of his massive hypocrisy. General Sanchez's comments can be read in full, if you want the whole truth, not just part of it. I suggest everyone read them for yourself, and unlike O'Reilly, when I give my opinion of what someone said I also post a link to exactly what they said, all of it, in context.
The corrupt idealogues in the media are people like O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, etc. They are the people who helped Bush hype the war and gain support for it from the American people. So they are the ones who put our military in danger, and got almost 4000 troops killed.
The liberals in the media, and in America in general, were opposed to the war, because they did not believe Iraq had WMD's. And they did not believe Iraq was a threat to America, and they believe you should not attack a country that did not attack you first.
We were right, O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, etc. were wrong, Scott Ritter was saying Iraq did not have any WMD's before the war, but bobody would listen to him. So the corrupt ideologues who put their world view above honest information and got the troops killed are people like Bill O'Reilly, and Sanchez could have been talking about him, and Rush, and Hannity etc.
Yet Billy speculates he was talking about the NY Times and NBC news when he never mentioned them, or anyone by name. And O'Reilly has claimed in the past that he never speculates, and he only deals in facts.
Then he speculates what media outlets General Sanchez was talking about, and he does it without the facts. Why not call Sanchez and ask him? Because then he might name FOX News, or the factor, or another right-wing media outlet, and that would ruin Billy's plan to spin the Sanchez comments.
O'Reilly did exactly what he accuses others of doing, he cherry picked the Sanchez speech by quoting three sentences to back up his agenda of smearing the media, and ignored important information relating to the Iraq war by not reporting the rest of what Sanchez said. Except for his soundbite summation of Sanchez's comments O'Reilly, as usual, ignores the Iraq war.
General Sanchez's main criticism was leveled at the Bush administration, which he said failed to mobilize the entire United States government, not just the military, to contribute meaningfully to reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq.
Sanchez admonished the press for what he obvioulsy feels has been unfair character assassination of himself, particularly with regard to the Abu Ghraib scandal, for which he took a great deal of blame. He went so far as to compare himself to the former FEMA Director, Michael Brown, in terms of being the target of unfair, "sensationalist" media coverage.
His speech was 45 minutes long, and he only spent 3 or 4 minutes talking about the media, yet O'Reilly focused on his comments about the media, if he were any kind of real journalist he would have let the viewers know that Sanchez lays the blame squarely on Washington, not the media.
Sanchez said "Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.
So General Sanchez blamed our leaders in Washington for getting troops killed, not the corrupt idealogues in the media as O'Reilly claimed.
Here are some quotes from the Sanchez speech that you will never see on the factor. Because it does not fit O'Reilly's agenda of spinning what he said. Especially the quote about the surge not working, Because if a Democrat says the surge will not work O'Reilly calls them an un-American traitor. So Billy has to ignore General Sanchez saying it, because he would never call him an un-American traitor, yet he has no problem saying it about a Democrat who said the exact same thing.
Sanchez blasted the Bush administration for:
"a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan" and denounced the current "surge" strategy as a "desperate" move that will not achieve long-term stability.
"After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism."
"There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties" and guilty of a "lust for power."
In Iraq the United States is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."
"National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone," he said. "Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
"It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management of this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in their performance of their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court martialed."
And now you have all the facts, not just the facts Billy wanted you to have.
Michelle Malkin Quits The Factor
- 10-15-07 -- According to Inside cable News, Malkin has quit the factor, the following is from an email they obtained written by Michelle Malkin:
From: "Michelle Malkin"Apparently after a back and forth battle concerning immigration, Geraldo said he would spit on Malkin if he ever saw her, but who wouldn't?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007
Subject: Re: Michelle no longer on the Factor?
I made the decision to quit appearing on the O'Reilly show in response to the poor handling of the Geraldo Rivera matter (the staged "apology" on The Factor was a complete farce). I won't go into details, but please know that your support means a lot to me. You can catch me on other Fox News shows and read my daily blog posts and weekly columns.
Funny how Billy never said a word about it, I guess his ego is so big he dont want to admit (or tell anyone) that someone would dare to quit his show. What's really funny is how Malkin attacks every liberal in the world for anything they say or do, yet if she is attacked she quits the show and runs away like a little baby. Not to mention she is an asian version of Ann Coulter, and should have never been given a spot on a national tv show to begin with.
More Proof That Bill O'Reilly is Lying to You
- 10-11-07 -- About once a week Bill O'Reilly tells his viewers that liberal talk radio is a total failure, that nobody wants to hear it, and their ratings are terrible. Not so fast king of spin, if that is true how is it that Ed Schultz has tied Bill O'Reilly in the talk radio ratings game.
Progressive talker Ed Schultz ties Bill O'Reilly in audience size
Published: Wednesday October 10, 2007
According to Talker's Magazine, a trade industry publication, the nation's largest progressive talk show radio host Ed Schultz is now tied in the number of radio listeners to conservative radio personality Bill O'Reilly.
Last November, Schultz leapt from 3pm to 6pm ET to the choice noon to 3pm ET slot, the same time slot as conservative talker Rush Limbaugh and, at the time, Air America's Al Franken.
A new survey by Talkers Magazine listed Schultz's weekly audience at 3.25 million weekly listeners, the same number of listeners enjoyed by O'Reilly.
So here we have the liberal Ed Schultz getting the same numbers O'Reilly does, but you never hear O'Reilly say anything about it, ever, not once.
It shows exactly how dishonest O'Reilly is to claim that liberal talk radio is a failure with no ratings, while Ed Schultz is getting the same ratings that O'Reilly does for his radio show. And before Al Franken decided to run for the Senate his radio show was #1 on the internet, and he beat or tied O'Reilly in almost every market he was on. Despite him not having a national tv news show to promote his radio show as Bill O'Reilly does.
Yet you never heard a word about any of that from Bill O'Reilly. It just shows once again that O'Reilly only tells you what he wants you to know, not everything he should tell you, and it shows how much of a right-wing spin doctor he really is.
Keith Olbermann Names Billy Worst Person in The World (Again)
- 10-10-07 -- From the 10-9-07 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show.
The unanimous winner tonight, Bill O'Reilly. Today comes the revelation from a hearing in a Missouri courtroom at which Michael Devlin, the fiend who kidnapped Sean Hornbeck admitted days after kidnapping the then 11-year-old boy he decided it was time to kill him, he took him to a rural area and began to strangle Sean Hornbeck but the boy talked him out of it and spent the next four years as Devlin's sex slave.
Bill O'Reilly, January 15th, 2007, about Sean Hornbeck.
"This situation here for this kid to me looks to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted. And I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid here liked about his circumstances."
To this day, when it has clearly all come down, Bill O'Reilly has never apologized for those comments nor the sickness inside him they represent nor the pain they caused because he is not only not enough of a man to do so, but not enough of a human being.
Bill O'Reilly today's worst person in the world.
The Boss Responds to Unpatriotic Label
- 10-10-07 -- Rocker Bruce Springsteen answers critics who call his anti-war sentiments unpatriotic by saying the real sin against patriotism is saying nothing while your country is being harmed. Springsteen discusses this and other topics, including why he's still writing songs and performing, in an interview with Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes.
When reminded that his anti-war views, prominent on his new album, "Magic," will cause people to say he is unpatriotic -- as his critics have charged before -- Springsteen says "That's just the language of the day... the modus operandi for anybody who doesn't like somebody... criticizing where we've been or where we're going," he tells Pelley.
"I believe every citizen has a stake in the course, direction of their country. That's why we vote... It's unpatriotic at any given moment to sit back and let things pass that are damaging to some place that you love so dearly and that has given me so much," says the 58-year-old musician.
In the interview, Springsteen points out the direction in which the U.S. is going, by his estimation. "I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States," says Springsteen.
"When people think of the Unites States' identity, they don't think of torture. They don't think of illegal wiretapping. They don't think of voter suppression," he tells Pelley. "They don't think of no habeas corpus," he says, referring to the people being held by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Those are things that are anti-American," Springsteen says. "There's been a whole series of things that... I never thought I'd ever see in America," he tells Pelley.
O'Reilly Spins For Bush And Trashes The Boss
- 10-9-07 -- Last night O'Reilly was in full spin mode for George W. Bush, claiming that the Bush administration did not do "rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, or eliminating Habeas Corpus for what they decide are enemy combatants. Even though it had been documented and proven that the Bush administration has done all of that.
Then he said Bruce Springsteen is Anti-American. On his foxnews.com webite he has this:
'Scorn' in the USA? Is rocker Bruce Springsteen anti-American?
O'REILLY: Is Springsteen's dissent legitimate or anti-American? While Springsteen is certainly anti-Bush, his words are legitimate dissent, in my opinion. However, I don't respect the dissent unless Springsteen can back up his opinions with facts. Violations of Habeas Corpus, Bruce? When and where? Attack on the Constitution? How so?
Here is how so Billy.
Making major news across the country in the last three years (though obviously not denting O'Reilly's monumental ignorance) were two major Supreme Court verdicts undermining the White House's attempts to limit habeas rights: Hamdi and Hamdan (both vs. Rumsfeld). Jose Padilla's case turned on habeas rights too, he was held for an extended period of time without being presented to a judge before the administration relented and tried him in court.
O'Reilly claims Bush did not allow torture, or do secret rendition, illegal wiretapping, or eliminate Habeas Corpus. When the facts show otherwise, of course Billy never let the facts get in the way when he is defending his favorite president, George W. Bush.
Billy sure has a short memory. A ruling by the Supreme Court in Hamdan that the President's interrogation and detention policies violated the law led Congress to enact the Military Commissions Act to legalize those policies.
The current policies of the Bush administration still include, in undiluted form, the Bush administration's theories of unlimited presidential power; the lawless powers of indefinite, due-process-free imprisonment even of U.S. citizens (as applied to Jose Padilla); the use of black sites; the asserted right to spy on Americans with no warrants or legal constraints. None of that has gone away. We just decided to accept it.
It is real easy to show that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a spinning liar who is trying to cover for the Bush administration, while at the same time calling anyone who points these facts out, Anti-American, as in Bruce Springsteen. He used to call them un-American traitors, but he took so much heat over that he has now changed it to Anti-American.
All you have to do is read these articles, then you will see what a spinning liar Bill O'Reilly is, and what a partisan hack he is for George W. Bush and the Republican party.
Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations
The debate over how terrorist suspects should be held and questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote, choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of a handful of partisan political appointees.
The Latest Revelations of Lawbreaking, Torture and Extremism
As a country, we've known undeniably for almost two years now that we have a lawless government and a President who routinely orders our laws to be violated. His top officials have been repeatedly caught lying outright to Congress on the most critical questions we face. They have argued out in the open that the "constitutional duty" to defend the country means that nothing -- including our ?laws? -- can limit what the President does.
"This Government Does Not Torture People"
Under the broad mantle of national security, the Bush Administration has claimed exemption from the protections enshrined in our Constitution and defined in International agreements. Prisoners continue to be detained for years without acknowledgment of their whereabouts, without counsel. They are subjected to extremes of deprivation and torture.
And then after all that is known and true, O'Reilly calls Springsteen Anti-American for telling the truth. He offers $25,000 to charity if the Boss will go on the factor and talk with Billy, yeah Billy he will, when hell freezes over. And Billy says if he don't come on the factor then you should not believe anything the Boss says, and called what he said iiresponsible.
So here is what Billy said, Springsteen's words are legitimate dissent, but if he does not go on the factor to discuss it, he is an iiresponsible Anti-America traitor. And Bush did not allow torture, or rendition, or illegal wiretapping, or allow eliminating Habeas Corpus for what they decide are enemy combatants, even though the Boss is exactly right, and Billy is lying to cover for Bush.
And that's what Billy calls a no spin zone, even though it's all partisan right-wing spin to cover for Bush, and attack yet another liberal for telling the truth. It also sends a message to anyone else that dares to speak the truth about the Bush administration, that if you do speak out you will be called Anti-American by Bill O'Reilly on his fake news show.
Dan Abrams Nailed Rush & O'Reilly For Their Dishonesty
- 10-4-07 -- Last night Dan Abrams did a report on how Rush is spinning the phony soldiers comment, and how other right-wingers like O'Reilly defend him and help him spin the truth. Here is a partial transcript, and a link to the full transcript.
And lets get real here, Rush Limbaugh is a big time far right conservative, he called a few veterens who disagree with the war "phony soldiers," he said it, that is a fact. Now you have other conservatives spinning for him, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. Yet O'Reilly said he is a non-partisan Independent, he even said it again about a week ago to Newt Gingrich. So if only conservatives are spinning for Rush, and O'Reilly is one of them, how in the hell can he claim to be a non-partisan Independent when he is lying to help his buddy Rush.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Poor Rush Limbaugh. The big, bad, left-leaning world is out to smear him, to impugn his good name, to intentionally twist his comments to help the far left-wing forces in a liberal war to silence him. Please.
Rather than just apologizing for his controversial comments, where it sure sounded like he was calling antiwar soldiers "phony soldiers," or even just saying there was a misunderstanding and moving on, Rush has joined a chorus of right-wingers playing the blame game rather than owning up to their own mistakes.
Today, Rush spent three hours attacking everyone from Hillary Clinton to Harry Reid to General Wesley Clark to other vets who criticized him-anyone, anything to change the subject away from his own misstep.
My take. No surprise here. He is taking a page from the far right handbook. Offense is your best defense. Attack your attackers. Never apologize. Never admit weakness. And don't let the facts get in the way.
If you look back at just the past couple of weeks, it seems Rush is in good company among his brethren on the radical right-from Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who made, at the least, ignorant comments about African-American diners in Harlem, to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, accused of making inappropriate comments to an employee, and now Rush.
The key-portray yourself as the outraged victim of a liberal campaign.
Full Transcript Here
Factor Ratings Drop to 1.7 For 3rd Quarter of 2007
- 10-4-07 -- Billy had a slight drop in ratings for the TV factor, from the 2nd quarter to the 3rd quarter. So if you hear him say his ratings went up you will know he is lying, they went down.
In the 2nd quarter of 2007 from April to June O'Reilly had a 1.9 rating with 2,211,000 total viewers, and 442,000 in the 25-54 Demo.
Now for the 3rd quarter from July to October O'Reilly had a 1.7 rating with 2,016,000 total viewers, and 403,000 in the 25-54 demo.
Hypocrisy Alert: O'Reilly Does Same Thing he Attacked Media Matters For
- 10-3-07 -- O'Reilly claims that media matters misquoted him and took his statements out of context in the black restaurant story. Yet the quotes were word for word from his own transcripts, they also published the audio, and they put it in context. But O'Reilly said they were assassins and compared then to Nazis, he basically said anyone who quotes someone out of context and misrepresents what they said are Nazi assassins.
Yet Monday night Bill O'Reilly did the exact same thing with a Rush Limbaugh tape. And he actually quoted Rush out of context to misrepresent what Rush said and who he was talking about. O'Reilly even admitted he has not listened to the whole tape, that he has only seen the transcripts that do not represent the whole story because crosstalk does not get on a transcript.
The tape O'Reilly played on the factor was the edited version, it was edited by Rush Limbaugh. Rush removed 1 minute and 30 seconds from the original tape, and that was the part where Rush called veterans who disagree with him about the war phony soldiers. O'Reilly used an edited tape to help Rush lie that he did not call them phony soldiers. And dont just believe me, go to media matters and liten to the unedited tape, they have it.
And remember that O'Reilly could have used the unedited tape from media matters, but he decided to use the edited tape Rush Limbaugh doctored up to remove the 1 minute and 30 seconds where he called them phony soldiers. So Billy knowingly helped Rush lie to cover up his statements.
O'Reilly was parroting Rush Limbaugh's false claim that he was talking about Jesse Macbeth (who was indeed posing as a soldier). But if you listen to the original audio, not the edited version Limbaugh is using for his defense, it is clear that he and the caller are talking about the previous caller, a self-identified Republican, and former military man, who is calling for an end to the war. Limbaugh attacked him (Caller 1) and insisted he could not be what he claimed to be because of his anti-war views.
So O'Reilly defended Rush, and quoted him with a partial quote then misrepresented who Rush was talking about. Which is the very same thing O'Reilly said only Nazi assassins do. Except he did it to defend Rush Limbaugh.
Then O'Reilly had one right-wing radio guy on to tell him he is right and so is Rush, not a soul in sight to put out an opposing view. Billy and his right-wing buddy sat there unchallenged spewing right-wing spin, so where was the counterpoint Billy?
Here are the facts if anyone wants to read them:
Misinformation: On September 28, Limbaugh asserted that his "phony soldiers" comment was a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran.
Fact: Limbaugh did not refer to MacBeth during his September 26 broadcast until 1 minute and 50 seconds after making his "phony soldiers" comment. Indeed, at no point during his September 26 radio show did Limbaugh refer to any soldiers he considered to be fake prior to making his "phony soldiers" comment.
Moreover, in the September 28 broadcast, Limbaugh expanded the group of "phony soldiers" to include Vietnam veteran Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is currently serving in Iraq.
In asserting that he was originally "talking about a genuine phony soldier," Limbaugh went on to state: "And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"
John P. Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.
Read The Real truth here, the truth Bill O'Reilly and his buddy Rush Limbaugh do not want you to know. And remember that Bill O'Reilly is helping Rush Limbaugh cover up his attacks on Veterans who do not agree with them on the Iraq war.
FACT CHECK: "Phony Soldiers" and Limbaugh's Revisionist History
Bill O'Reilly: Open Mouth Insert Foot
- 10-2-07 -- Billy is at it again, while discussing the case of a man who raped a 3 year old girl O'Reilly made another insane statement about men being with children.
Billy said this:
"You don't allow a three-year-old girl, or boy, to go with a man, unsupervised, in any context"Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it does happen, and it happens millions of times every day. Millions of men are alone with children every day, feeding them, bathing them, playing with them, and being alone with them. And most of them (probably 99.9%) do not rape children. So it is totally ridiculous to say no child should ever be left alone with a man in any context. It is a tragedy the 3 year old girl was raped, but the other 99.9% of men who do not rape children should not be lumped in with the 0.1% who do rape children.
"And again, you can't have a house, as Allen did, or an apartment, and then allow - it was not only the three-year-old, there was another child in the videotape, not molested police say - in a room, with a guy! You don't allow that! That doesn't happen!"
Once again you see the stupidity of Bill O'Reilly, how in the hell did this guy get a TV News show. Oh yeah it's FOX, so it's not really a TV News show, it's entertainment. They hired him to say crazy things, attack Democrats, and get ratings.