For Daily Updates and information about Bill O'Reilly, FOX news, the corporate media, and the crooked republicans in the White House, visit the oreilly-sucks Forum. You can get to it through the Forums link on the main page or Click Here

NOTICE: The mail to Bill should now be posted on the message board, click the link below and post your mail to Bill in the mail to Bill forum.

The O'Reilly-Sucks Forums

Have you noticed that when Bill reads his e-mail at the end of the show, he never reads any mail with specific examples of his spin, or his right-wing bias. Yet he will sometimes read a negative e-mail, then call for someone to give him a specific example. His reply is usually something like "you are biased by your ideology, you are wrong, and you can not prove I said it". I am pretty sure he then gets specific examples mailed to him.

Have you also noticed those specific examples never get on the air, I know he gets them, because I have sent 20 or 30 of them myself. Yet somehow they never get on the air.

For the record, I have sent Bill O'Reilly at least 30 e-mails since 8-26-01 asking to have me on the Factor as a guest. O'Reilly likes to call people cowards who refuse to appear on the Factor, it turns out he is the coward. I have been around since 8-26-01 and he has still not had me on the Factor as a guest. Bill O'Reilly is the coward, he is hiding under his desk in fear of me.


From: [email protected]
Subject: just plain working-class folks
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004

Last night you read a letter from a fan in Florida who accused you of being an "elitist" rather than the "working class" person that you would like us to believe you are. You editorialized as follows:

"That's balderdash! I come in to work every morning, just like you, and I work my butt off!"

From your demeanor and crudeness of language, I can conclude that this is something you feel strongly about. Unfortunately, you left something out. Most "working class" folks make less than $60,000 a year, and get paid by the hour. You make $4 to $10 million a year talking on radio and tv and writing books. That is not "working class" Bill.

I wonder if, in the interest of better bonding with us ordinary working class folks, you could tell us how much money you make when you work your butt off. I'm sure our friend from Florida will be relieved and enlightened to hear your answer.
N. Billerica, MA


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004
From: "David xxxxxxxxx" [email protected]
Subject: 4/22 Skordas interview
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Factor:

During a 4/22 interview with "Former sex crimes prosecutor" Greg Skordas, Bill O'Reilly expressed blatant disregard for long-established American constitutional rights.

The topic was a three-judge panel including a Judge Rapkin who had not imprisoned the man who later killed Carlie Brucia. An accuser in an earlier case had committed suicide before trial.

SKORDAS: "Judges are obliged, Bill, as you know, to withold, excuse me, uphold the constitution. The sixth amendment of the constitution says an accused has the right to confront the witnesses. And I guess they decided whether that was raised appropriately, whether his defense attorney had brought it up..."

O'REILLY: "...You'd think you'd have some sort of conscience. That even if this is constitutionally correct, for the greater good of society, let it go. You know, you've seen that, I'm sure."

SKORDAS: "But the greater good of society, just so you know, is that we all honor the constitution, which has been in effect for 225 years."

O'REILLY: "Sorry, Mr. Skordas. Uh uh. No. Not to me."

O'Reilly had earlier in the show derided the constitution-upholding judges as "activists, like those judges in Massachusetts" who had "found a way" to legalize same-sex unions.

In light of these comments, O'Reilly's frequent assertions that the Patriot Act is constitutionally sound and poses no danger to citizens are unworthy of serious consideration.

Are Bill O'Reilly's anti-constitutional rights views as he stated them on the Fox News Channel reflective of the network's institutional sentiment?

David xxxxxxxxx
Waterloo, Iowa


From: [email protected]
Subject: It must make a fella proud ....
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004

It must make a fella proud to be so wrong, and so far out on a stupid limb, as often as you are.

You have been quite emphatic and fervent in your complaints that the New York Times, L.A. Times, and Washington Post (the "elite media") used the term "uprising" instead of "insurgency". In the week since then, I've been amused at the references to the "uprising" in non-elite media, including people using the term in appearances on Fox News. Of course, Fox News can't censor things people say, and hence can't be blamed for occasional lapses like that.

But last night, at about 10:05 PM EDT, the news crawl on Fox referred to the "uprising". Did you see it?

If you want to switch to another network, try Al Franken.

Bill xxxxxxxxx
Billerica, MA


Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: An e-mail to O'Reilly

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

In a past show, shortly following his arrest, you had the audacity to compare Michael Jackson, a man who has given nothing but love and hope to the human race (not to mention close to $100 million to charities around the world), to Adolf Hitler, a man whose thirst for power and racist beliefs brought suffering and death to millions of people.

Furthermore, on several past shows, you've stated you feel that Michael Jackson is a "pervert" and a "weirdo."

I've got some news for you, Mr. O'Reilly: it takes one to know one.

Need I say more?


Francis Rogan
North Brunswick, New Jersey


Subject: fair and balanced ?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004
From: Mikey [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Your interview with the Georgetown professor was pathetic. A true journalist looks at both sides of every question. You should review your own ethics as to whether you are presenting to the public a no spin story ie uncolored by your own bias and prejudice.


Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004
From: xxxxxxxxxxx [email protected]
To: [email protected]

As a registered republican, I believe I will vote democrat for the first time. The reason is PNAC (Project for a New American Century), an organization spearheaded by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfield, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol to name a few. Its goal is American global leadership, outlining a path this administration is following.

Not once have I heard this organization and what it stands for mentioned in the media.

It is the reason many Americans are against this administration and I believe we are owed the truth in order to make an informed decision this year.

How about a ³no spin² report on your television program for the specific reason of getting to the bottom of PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org).

What say you?

Teri xxxxxxx
Orange, CA


These 2 e-mails were sent to me, not O'Reilly, I thought I would post them here anyway. It shows that when Bush and O'Reilly tell you everyone in the military supports them and agrees with them, they are lying to you. The country is split 50/50 democrats to republicans, and basically so is the military.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Great site
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004

Just wanted to give kudos to you guys on running a great site. I think my favorite thing is reading the hate mail alot of these cretins send you guys.

Be assured that many of us in the military feel the same way about O' reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and ol' Bush himself. I would say that at least 4 in every 10 military personnel I come across can't stand any of those guys.......especially Bush. In fact, my copy of Al Franken's latest book has been making it's way around my duty section for the past couple weeks.

The other 6 out of 10 people I come across in the military seem to have opinions that mirror the stupidity of those people sending in all these idiotic hate emails to you. Keep it up.

Dave xxxxxxx
US Coast Guard


Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004
From: Juan xxxxxxx [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: O'Reilly

O'Reilly is nothing more than a Political/Social Critic, with a biased conservative agenda. Any person that sees this guy as a Journalist is a complete idiot. He does not even know how to interview some one, with out jumping on them, he does not even give people the time to speak with out interrupting them.

Let's put aside his extreme political views for a second let's pretend that I was an idiot and I truly believed he was an independent, I'd still think he was a moron for the way he brings guests to his show.

What is the point of having some one on your show, ask them a question, then rudeley interrupt them. I am an Independent, I am not a Republican or a Democrat, they are both just a hypocritical. The main problem with O'Reilly is not O'Reilly, it is his "Cult-Like" fans that worship him and everything he says as if he were the Messiah.

I am reading some of the Hate mail posted, and some Yahoo went as far as to say this guy was a genius. But I genuinely believe that O'Reilly is a hyocrite and a bigot. (THis is a conclusion I have come to by reading various transcripts of past shows.)

This is a great site, and if I was in a better postition financially I would back it. (I am a broke college student at this time.)

Keep on exposing this Freak and his cult, and the bunch of conservative lap-dogs he is getting rich off of.

Take care,



From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004
Subject: Media Bias
To: [email protected]

Mr. O'Reilly,

Blaming a "vicious" left wing bias in the media for your lack of journalistic integrity only proves that you are actively misleading the American public. You are a shining example of what is wrong with the corporate media. Enjoy your money.

Christopher S. xxxxxxxxx

P.S. (I am willing to happily appear on The Factor to debate you about any topic)


From: "Peter xxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Hutton Report
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004

Do you honestly believe that the Hutton report exonerates the Blair government?

Maybe you should take the time to ask the British people about that. Perhaps you think O.J. didn't do it as well... since a jury found him NOT guilty. Or perhaps you actually think that the "Iraq could attack in 45 minutes" wasn't an exaggeration.

And since you are a "journalist", shouldn't you start wondering why the Bush Administration is stonewalling on so many fronts? They even want to resist an INDEPENDENT investigation about the unbelievable intelligence miscalculation that is supported by both (R) John McCain and Dr. Kay. Remember when the media actually took pride in holding the government accountable? The overwhelming evidence suggests that, holding this value for you, is dependant on which party controls the white house.

Peter xxxxxxxx
Peterborough, On.


From: "Joe xxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: coward
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004

Mr. O'reilly, please have Steve Senti from www.oreilly-sucks.com on the factor.

Joe xxxxxxx

New Haven Connecticut


Subject: Bush Was AWOL !
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004
From: Steve [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Peter (corporate sell out) Jennings. Bill (All right-wing Spin) O'Reilly should see it too.


Peter Jennings directed a question to General Wesley Clark about a statement by Michael Moore that George W Bush was a 'Deserter' from the military.

Mr. Jennings stated that the facts do not support this claim and asked General Clark why he did not correct Mr. Moore. General Clark said that he had not 'checked into' the facts about the statement, and said he would not respond since he did not know the facts.

It is well documented that George W. Bush never showed up for National Guard duty for a period of one year, possibly more, in 1972-1973. It is also well documented that his daddy got him the national guard gig to get out of actually fighting in the war.


AWOL: absent for 30 days or less.

Desertion: absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.

Under those definitions Bush was clearly AWOL and clearly a deserter.

Try this website Mr. Jennings:


So much for being a journalist, I found the facts and you lied about them. And you dare call yourself a journalist ?

Try these websites too Mr. Jennings:



Boston Globe article on Bush being AWOL One-year gap in Bush's National Guard duty


No record of airman at drills from 1972-73


Numerous articles on Bush AWOL/Deserter from Moore's website:


Bushwatch articles on Bush AWOL:


Code of Military Justice: Article 85 -- Desertion:


Copies of official documents:

Bush not only was AWOL, but after 30 days he was officially a deserter from the military.

Original -


After 30 days George Bush was reported missing, after another few months, on Aug 1 1972 George Bush had his flying rights officially suspended.

Original - http://www.awolbush.com/grounded-sm.gif

Now Mr. Jennings will you go on the air and admit you were wrong ?



From: "pat xxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: "Newt’s family value hypocrisy"
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004

As a straight male, who actually plans on practicing family values, I was shocked you didn't pick up on Newt's hypocrisy(on traditional marriage). This is a man who has been married several times, has had affairs, and even left one of his wifes on the hospital bed when she had cancer. Of course we all know you're a hypocrite(on if a liberal did these things at least). You also did not investigate Halliburton, the energy task force, the CIA leak, and didn't even question the Cheney-Scalia deals.

You suck!



Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004
From: "Brian D. xxxxxx"
Subject: sales of your book
To: [email protected]


I notice that on your web page that it says:

"Memo to Al Franken: For the fifth straight week, "Who's Looking Out for You?" remains #1 on the NYT Best Seller List."

But if you click on the link provided to the NYT Best Seller List, you'll see that Who's Looking Out for You? is actually fourth, and that Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) is first.

What do you say about that?


Brian D. xxxxxx
Chicago, Illinois


From: "Philip xxxxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bill O'Reilly
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I have heard you refer to liberals as "Anti-American" or "America-Haters" in the past, but who really hates America? This evening, I heard you make two Anti-American comments.

First, you feel that people should not be supporting Michael Jackson--Does this mean that certain Americans should not have a right to the freedom of Speech (unless they're conservative, or Bill O'Reilly of course)? You also mentioned that Anti-Bush advertisements should not be aired on television. What about freedom of the Press? Of course, in this country, where common citizens are brainwashed by Corporate Conservative media propaganda--only one side of the story is ever really told.

You should be ashamed of yourself! You want to crush the American constitution, and give these rights only to a select few people.

Mr. O'Reilly, you are an elitist!


From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004
Subject: Bill
To: [email protected]

On last night's show you made the claim that the DNC is buying up lots of Hillary Clinton's books, which you said is all right, but then you went on to say they are "buying a lot of the smear books too" Of course no facts to back this up so what do we call that Bill?

We call that 100 percent, unadulterated, good old American, let's spell it together Bill, S P I N. And I thought you said this was the no spin zone.


Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004
To: [email protected]
From: "Ron xxxxxxx" [email protected]
Subject: E-Mail to O'Reilly

Mr. O'Reilly

Now that the ACLU is helping to defend the constitutional privacy rights of your buddy Rush Limbaugh, are you going to acknowledge their help? And actually say something nice about a liberal organization that will defend a man who has trashed them for more than 15 years now? But oh yes, according to Rush Limbaugh last summer, we the people of America have no constitutional right to privacy. I'll shut up now.

Ron Charest


From: "Robert xxxxx" [email protected]
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003
Subject: aloha lying liar
To: [email protected]


"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"

Your'e so bought........So sucking up and kissing that corporate ass.......When are you finally going to apologize to you're brain dead audience and the american sheepole about the no find WMD'S..I thought someone with your'e education could actually connect the dots........Youv'e sold out and are a disgrace.........I bet you won't publish this one!



From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003
Subject: concerned republican
To: [email protected]

Congratulations on your violation of your personal hatred rules regarding lawyers and frivilous lawsuits. I'm pleased to see the response the judge gave your cronies --your claim was wholly without merit, both factually and legally.

You are a hypocrite, Bill. Furthermore... you seem pretty testy for a guy that supposedly operates in a no spin zone. Shouting "shut up!" at a fellow debator or turning off their mic is a far cry from "fair and balanced."

Enjoy your hit show, your riches, and your assumptions about the American left -- because at the end of the day you're still a hateful old man.

Eagerly awaiting your response,
Matt xxxxxxxxx


Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003
From: Michael xxxxxxxx
Subject: Liberal Professors (and Journalists...)
To: [email protected]

Mr. O'Reilly:

As your polls have pointed out, there tends to be a liberal slant in such professions as teaching and journalism. If I am not mistaken, these are not necessarily the most lucrative professions to work in (your job being the exception of course). Maybe if more wealthy people strived for these lower paying jobs, then the slant towards the left would be righted? I just wonder if you (or your viewers) could convince or would be willing to leave their high paying jobs behind to try right the horrible wrongs supposedly being committed by these people who at least take on these thankless positions.

Mike xxxxxxxx


From: Nara [email protected]
Subject: Sincere comments on your OReilly show on Fox
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:02:45
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]

Bill Oreilly,

As a recent viewer of your show, all I have to say is that it leaves me utterly annoyed, disgusted and surprised, looking at the callous and reckless manner with which you cut off people when they express their viewpoints and how all you do is FORCE yours throughout the show. Do you even understand that another human being can actually have a different viewpoint than yours. And knowing that you are an educated person, makes me wonder how you cannot get this simple fact straight.

A talk show involves more than one person, more than just you. Let others voice themselves. It reminds me of a rich adamant spoilt kid who couldnt agree with anyone, so he just bought his own show, invited guests and kept spoiling all possibilities of a conversation. Dont sneer and disrupt other when they talk. I doubt if I really want to watch this show much longer, but I do hope this sincere and humble opinion of mine somehow gets across to you and makes a genuine difference to your mindset.

If this offends you in any way, I am sorry about that.



From: "Zac xxxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Dogging
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003

I want to respond to yesterday's Dogging in London report which contained several inaccuracies. Firstly Dogging is not contained to just the London area as Bill kept suggesting. In fact during the report we were shown some footage of a Welsh Dogging internet site. The Welsh live in WALES, not ENGLAND and therefore not in London. Although there are several Dogging groups around the country, they are relatively small. Britain is not experiencing some kind of Dogging epidemic as Bill kept implying.

Bill's guest for this particular segment obviously knew very little about Dogging and English Law. Public sex is definitely illegal, the police do not have to wait until someone complains about it before they can act as Bill's guest stated. The majority of people who participate in Dogging are in their 30s or above. They are not kids as was implied in the report. The report alleged that Dogging had caused a sharp rise in STDs in England. There is no evidence to back that allegation, in other words it was completely untrue.

We do have a STD problem in this country but all the statistics show that it is more of a problem in the under 25 year olds. Most cities with a large student population tend to have higher STD rates. So it is the under 25s who are largely responsible for our STD problem, not Doggers as the report alleged. It may surprise you to know that there are people all over the world having sex outdoors, whether its in a park or elsewhere. Its not something that is unique to the English as your report seemed to imply. Believe it or not there are Americans who are into outdoor sex, there are Americans who go out looking for sex with strangers.

Why don't you get one of your researchers to look up some US sites which cater for people looking to have sex outside. Not only did the report fail to be fair and balanced, it was very inaccurate. Obviously I am aware why Bill needed to show something like this on his show. Time and time again Bill criticizes those who favour secularism on his show. By showing a misleading report like this only helps to support his cause. Bascially he was saying, look at England, its a secularist country and everyone's having sex in the park and walking around with all kinds of STDs, thats what happens in a secularist country, do we want that in America?

How about you guys doing some proper research before reporting a story to your viewers and how about Bill admitting to his viewers that the story on Dogging was not completely accurate and blown out of all proportion.

Zac xxxxxxx
Manchester, England


From: "Dona xxxxxxxx" [email protected]
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: An email he did not show on air

Bill, Although I agree with you once in awhile and have no use for Gray Davis, your preju- dice is showing when you rant and rave about his low poll numbers when here in Montana our Republican Gov Judy Martz just received only 18% of the people that said they will vote to reelect her for a 2nd term.

She finally got the message after thinking about it for a few weeks and decided not to run.

Dona xxxxxxxx Cascade. Mt.


From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Questions for the White House
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003

Bill, The next time you interview a White House spinmeister, ask him/her why Air Force interceptors were not scrambled immediately on 911....how more than 100 Saudis, including Bin Laden family members, were able to fly the country when all aircraft were grounded nationwide....why post -911 the Bush EPA and White House falsely annnounced that conditions were safe in Manhattan, shamelessly endangering the health of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of rescue workers and civilians, men, women and children alike. Why are you not outraged at that, and when do you plan to get to the bottom of it?

Bill xxxxxx

Cody, Wyoming


From: torsoul
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: O'Reilly spinning again!!!


You're spinning again O'Reilly. You took Franken's comments completely out of context. I saw him speak here in St. Louis a week or so ago, with 1400 others might I add, and he discussed the Brit Hume story. Why don't you show what Brit Hume said to draw that Franken outburst? The fact Hume was making light of the death of our troops in Iraq. That is shameless, as you are, and as your network is.

Matthew xxxxxxx.
Saint Louis, MO


From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003
Subject: A Recovering O'Reilly Addict
To: [email protected]

Feel free to publish this letter on your site. I am really passionate about it. You can even use my name and e-mail address when publishing it.

A Recovering O'Reilly Addict By Daryl Deino
Los Angeles, California
[email protected]

Bill O'Reilly used to be not only my favorite journalist, but my favorite entertainer, human being, political commentator, etc. I had not idolized a person this much since Wonder Woman back in the 1970s. During the Summer of 2001 (I jumped on the bandwagon a little late), I found my new religion: O'Reillyism. After listening to the news on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN for years, I was interested in getting "the other side of the story." I agreed with those who claimed there was a liberal bias in the mainstream media, but now think it's not as big as conservatives make it out to be. So I turned the channel and discovered Fox News, which I thought was fair and balanced. Their number one star was, and still is, Bill O'Reilly.

Whether or not I had agreed with Mr. O'Reilly, I thought he was passionate. He took on the United Way for incorrectly handling the 911 fund that I contributed more than $300 to. He drilled celebrities, politicians, and employees of the United Way like nobody I've ever seen. As a former school teacher who saw the corruption inside public schools first hand, he was one of the only entertainers (I can't honestly refer to him as an anchor anymore) to drill the teachers unions and the degrading political correctness that goes on in classrooms. He passionately took on VH1 for using murderers as entertainers and drilling more holes in the wounds of the victims' family members. He exposed terrorists disguised as college professors, immigrant activists who exploited the system, and other enemies that the general media refused to uncover. This guy had it all! There were many who called him racist, homophobic, a spokesperson for the Bush administration, etc. I blindly dismissed these people as ignorant. I even went as far as calling some O'Reilly detractors anti-American.

In early February of this year, I started to wake up from my blind nightmare. In doing another segment on illegal immigration, Mr. O'Reilly referred to Mexican immigrants as "wetbacks". I didn't mind that Mr. O'Reilly was dealing with the complicated issue of illegal immigration, but knew the term "wetback" was just as much of a racial slur as "nigger," "kike," etc. Though I've heard the term before, as well as other racial slurs, I never thought I would hear it from my idol. I tried to figure out how I could defend Mr. O'Reilly from his detractors, whom I thought would have a field day from this. Till this day, I am shocked by the lack of outrage from his comment.

Besides the racial slurs, I noticed how Mr. O'Reilly had been turning into some sort of political robot. I was still a Bush supporter (am ashamed to admit it now), so it didn't bother me as much until the war with Iraq had started. O'Reilly would do stories that could be thought of as insulting to African Americans. Very predictably, to show that he is not "racist," he would have an African American on his show that was a victim of racism. The biggest example of this is when he spoke out against an all White prom in Georgia right after making racial slurs about inner city school kids and hubcaps. After stories that could be though of as insulting to Latinos, he would have a victim of racism against Latinos on his show. The same goes for homosexuals and other minority groups. It was as if these victims were being used for Mr. O'Reilly to show that "I'm not racist." There was no passion in these stories; it looked as if he was reading off of a broken teleprompter.

Strike 3 against my passion with O'Reilly happened when he interviewed Jeremy Glick, the son of a 911 Flight 93 victim. In my thirty-two years of watching television, I had never seen a more degrading, insulting display of arrogance by an entertainer than what Mr. O'Reilly displayed. Jeremy Glick had signed an anti-war petition that accused the USA of terrorism. Mr. Glick was a little extreme, but backed up his opinions intelligently (though I disagreed with him), only to be yelled at by Mr. O'Reilly, who ended up cutting his microphone. Mr. O'Reilly couldn't deal with Mr. Glick's accusations of Bush's father training terrorists or his questioning of Mr. Bush's legitimacy as president. In O'Reilly's famous style, he kept repeating "Shut up!" and lost control. Mr. O'Reilly kicked Mr. Glick off the show and reportedly told him things that aren't worth repeating in this article. After watching Mr. O'Reilly's degrading performance, there wasn't any way I could defend him from his detractors.

Watching "The Factor" was still a habit that I couldn't control. The only difference was that I now started to despise the man on my television set. However, like people who stop to watch a train wreck, I had to keep on looking. I listened to O'Reilly call those who questioned George Bush's war "anti-American." I listened to him threaten celebrities and other national figures who spoke out against Bush in a McCarthyism type fashion. I listened to him say "shut up!" and "cut his mic!" over and over to the point where I couldn't take it anymore. Within a two month period, the man whom I looked up to almost as a religious figure had turned into the person I now hated. Hate is a bad word, but it really describes the feelings I had for Bill O'Reilly for scamming me, as well as others, into believing that his word was the only one that mattered. Even though it was a little too late, I had finally woken up.

Perhaps my O'Reilly worship days were really a good thing in disguise. It's important to realize how the media influences individuals who don't question what they are hearing. When an entertainer such as Bill O'Reilly criticizes someone such as Sean Penn, Hillary Clinton, or Madonna, they may have a point, but their criticism actually comes from a different place than where it's supposed to. In Mr. O'Reilly's case, that place is the "Pro-Bush" zone. It's also the "Extremist Right Wing" zone that is as dangerous as it was in the era of Senator Joe McCarthy. Therefore, anybody who criticizes George Bush, is an avid supporter of homosexuals, donates to the ACLU, or is against organized religion taking over our classrooms is fair game for The No Spin Zone. O'Reilly, like other slick propagandists, won't criticize public figures for being or doing any of these things but finds other things to humiliate them for. He publicly humiliated celebrities for giving their political opinions, referred to their supporters as "zombies," and told his audience that celebrities should have no say in the political world simply because they weren't knowledgeable enough. Why didn't those same standards hold up for Dennis Miller (the failed comedian who suddenly turned right wing after everything else fell) or Arnold Schwarzenegger, the successful actor turned candidate for governor of California (who also happens to be a Republican). O'Reilly will tell you he's independent and doesn't hold to a certain political ideology, but we know that's a lie, just like the "Peabody Awards" he supposedly had won. The master of the No-Spin Zone is spinning like a rocket and people are finally waking up.

O'Reilly humiliated himself during a book convention in Los Angeles, where he lost his cool after comedian and author, Al Franken, exposed Mr. No-Spin of his "Peabody Award" lies. Mr. Franken was somewhat disrespectful in using a book convention as a forum to ridicule Mr. O'Reilly. The millions who saw the event on television or the Internet can't deny, however, that seeing the master of the No-Spin Zone fidget, turn blue, and burst out screaming "Shut up! Shut up!" wasn't a moment in pop culture History. As Mr. O'Reilly learned, things are different when you can't "cut the mic." The No-Spin Master has recently ridiculed himself more by prompting Fox News into suing Al Franken for calling his best-selling book "Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at The Right." Apparently, Mr. O'Reilly thought that "Fair and Balanced" is a trademark that can only be used by Fox News. Not only did a judge throw this frivolous lawsuit (you know, they kind that O'Reilly speaks out against) out of court, but Al Franken's book instantly jumped to the top of Amazon.com's best-selling list weeks before its scheduled release. Mr. O'Reilly, who has shown his skin to be far thinner than those he judges, now criticizes Franken and the media for bashing somebody because they have a different political ideology. Oh really, Mr. O'Reilly?

The master of the No-Spin Zone better do something to thicken his skin soon, because it's only going to get worse. Like New Kids on The Block, The Spice Girls, Arsenio Hall, and other entertainers have realized, every star falls. The difference with Mr. O'Reilly is that when his star (which is already dimming) completely falls, his legend of enemies that he built up through his years of bigotry are going to be dancing and singing on his professional and political grave. Unfortunately, he won't be able to "cut their mics."

Mr. O'Reilly wasn't my first idol that let me down. OJ Simpson, my childhood football hero, turned into a murderer. Michael Jackson, my childhood pop idol, completely sold his soul when trying to make a comeback after his child molestation allegations had surfaced. Whitney Houston, who inspired me with her amazing voice and beautiful music, turned into a drug addict. I've come to the conclusion that the reason people build up celebrities such as Bill O'Reilly to be their idols and icons is because they are trying to fill an empty space in themselves. As human beings, we need to open that impressionable space and use it to critically think for ourselves rather than let someone else dictate what how we should think, act, and talk. I thank Mr. O'Reilly for indirectly making me realize this.


From: "pat xxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comments
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003

How dare you call leftists and the like America haters. It is they that stand for the very freedoms and rights our country was founded on. It was liberal thinking that led to every major progressive movement in U.S. history(like the abolishment of slavery, womens' rights, workers' rights, civil rights, and personal freedom and free-speech rights). It was the conservatives that always stood in the way of change for the better. It is the far right that is the danger to America, got it?

So tell me Bill, which God should we fear? People have many different ones. Should we just tell people that there is a God just so they will be moral out of fear? Even if we are not sure one even exists? It is possible to be moral without a God you know. Religion however, has been used for so much evil in the past that it's not even funny. Again Bill, move to Iran if you want a state theocracy.

BTW Bill, I'm pretty sure if Jesus were alive today he would be a liberal.

Pat xxxxxxxxx


From: "Dave" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: An email Bill O'Reilly refused to place on his show.
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:46:49

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

Differing views and our constitutional right to publicly state our dissent is the only thing separating the American people from dictatorships like Iraq.

If we as American's label every citizen with a differing or dissenting viewpoint as "Un-American", then we seriously risk silencing any future generation that will be expected to defend our constitution in the future.

Who among us will publicly announce our dissent if we risk being "branded" Un-American, at war, or in peacetime?

The liberation of the people of Iraq is partially based on giving them their inherent right of "freedom of speech". Lets hope that we keep the same rights and values in America.

David xxxxxxxxx
Geneva, Ohio


Date: 8/23/03 11:35:59 AM
From: xxxxxxx
Subject: "fair and balanced"
To: [email protected]

As a retired law professor, I can't help but chuckle over the fact that O'Reilly's lawsuit against Al Franken brought this comment from the federal judge handling the case: U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Denny Chin said Fox's claim was wholly without merit, both factually and legally.

In other words, Billy Bob filed a "frivolous" lawsuit. Of course, I sent Billy Bob an email congratulating him on his personal violation of his own hatred rules regarding lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.

Larry X. Xxxx
Oakhurst, Ca


From: "pat xxxxxxx"
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: E-mails Bill refused to publish on air.
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003

Here are a few e-mails I sent Bill over the past year, but he was too scared to print them on the air.


Hey O'reilly-

When are you going to talk about Newt Gingrich's affairs? He left his first wife on the hospital bed when she had cancer. Is that a good role model? What about Henry Hyde's, Bob Dole's and other Republican's affairs? What about their hypocrisy?

What about the corruption of that lying talibanesque neo-fascist Pat Robertson? You were given evidence in previous e-mails about that. Will you respond to this e-mail? Or are you just another right-wing hypocrite?


So, you did not investigate that lying talibanesque corrupt charlatan Pat Robertson, did you? Even after you were given evidence. Did you know that the current secretary of defense once shook hands with that fascist Saddam(who was also a good friend of president Ronny)? What about that professor you nailed down in Florida? Did you know that he met President Bush(before the election), and even tried to convert some people to conservative causes? Why didn't you add any of that to your commentary?


Although I’m an agnostic, I do agree that Christmas is now a secular holiday, just as America was founded on the secular enlightenment ideas of equality and freedom. Although it may seem ridiculous that the ACLU takes it a little too far sometimes, give them a break. I respect them more than the neo-fascist talibanesque religious right.


From: xxxxxxxx
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003
Subject: Your bully tactics are failing!!!!

Mr. O'lielly,

Thanks to you and Faux News' suit, Mr. Franken's book is selling like crazy. This lawsuit is as frivolous as the fast-food lawsuits, and you and your network will lose the suit while Franken's sales will continue to climb. I find it extremely funny that you always talk of exposing people but when someone exposes you for what you are, a lying right-wing nut, you attempt to use bully tactics to silence them as you do on your show. You sir are a coward and a liar, and will be rightly exposed in September. I know you'll never see this, one of your staffers will read it and promptly discard it, avoiding the psychotic rage you'd fly into if you ever saw it or one like it. So thanks for the time staffer, I do feel for you and your boss is a bully but ultimately a coward.

Matt xxxxxx
Saint Louis, MO


Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:03:05
From: "xxxxxxxxxxx" [email protected]
Subject: Here Is Some Actual Reporting About The California Recall
To: [email protected]

Dear Bill O'Reilly,

It is common knowledge that the California Recall effort has been funded primarily by Rep. Darell Issa, a Republican Congressman from the San Diego area. Issa has spent more than $1.7M of his own money in the Recall effort. Somewhat shockingly, Issa hopes to be the next Governor of California.

Without Issa's money(and ambition), the Recall effort would have never gotten off the ground. The California Recall is hardly the populist uprising that you are trying to spin it into.

If you were not motivated by a desire to simply attack Gov. Gray Davis, then you would have provided "Factor" viewers with these facts. Sadly, you made no such effort.

Wake Forest, North Carolina


Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:02:22
Subject: hi... i wrote this to bill o'reilly today
From: G. Xxxxxxxx" [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Dear Bill,

When history looks back on these days, I guarantee you that you will be remembered as a parasite. What good have you contributed to humanity?! Nothing. You lie for your fascist masters. That is your job. No spin? You are ALL spin. You fuel hatred and fear and division. You attack people who speak out against tyranny.

Bill, you are a gutless wonder. And gutless wonders do not stand up to tyranny.

You now know full well that Cheney's Energy Task Force in March, 2001 focused entirely on Iraqi Oil Resources and their current contracts. Thus giving clear motive for the Bush Administration to pursue its imperialistic interests. You do not question this.

You know full well about George W. Bush's questionable history, from his family fortune that came from stolen Jewish art laundered through Florida banks and business connections that ultimately used slave labor at the NAZI concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, to his DWI arrest, cocaine abuse, paying for an abortion for a 15 year old girl, going AWOL in the National Guard. Etc. Ad nauseum. You do not question this.

You don't even question Bush's involvement with the Carlyle Group.

You don't even question apparent conflicts of interest in the government.

Whoop-dee do, you got Bush once on the Jesus thing, I'm sure they let you have that so you can seem credible.

You're not credible, Bill. You're full of shit, you spineless weasel.

You do not rail against Ann 'Anthrax' Coulter, obviously just like yourself - a well-paid, priviledged Republican-sycophant who practices, like yourself, fascist propaganda 24/7. That hag reminds me of you every single day. Are you lovers? Do you fantasize about one another, rubbing the feces that your beloved Bush spews from his mouth every day?!

Consider even this:

In 1961, JFK considered ordering an American plane to be shot down as a pretext to convince the American people that the US should invade Cuba. So 9/11 is not beyond the US government's syphilis-ridden imagination to orchestrate as a pretext to invade Iraq.

It's called the ol' Bait & Switch.

Don't you find it ironic that everything the Bush Junta promised to Iraqis sounds a little too socialist? Free health care? Education? Utilities? Democracy?

Wow. Wouldn't we like some of THAT at home, Bill?

Bill, do you own a dildo that reads 'GOP only' and ram it up your ass? Cause we here at the office really think you do. I've got $20 bucks down that you do it before your show.

Bill, does it bother you that you're a spastic, parasitic, conniving, petty, Republican-sycophant with a massive inferiority complex??!

Your every words and actions convey, to me, that you aim to live for yourself and for no-one else. Your message to the rest of the world is: I'm going to get mine. I'm going to support those who will help me get mine. I only care about my issues.

Bill, you've even told a 9/11 victim's relative to shut-up. You're gonna burn, pal.

Say hi to Hitler when you finally get to corner office reserved for you in hell, Bill. You poor excuse for a human being.


G. Xxxxxxxx


Back in march Bill said it was un-american to criticize the president, especially during war. Funny how O'Reilly did not say it was un-american to criticize the president during the Kovoso war. And yes his show was on the air, the Factor started in 1996. Here is the e-mail I sent him on 3-22-03.


Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:27:46
From: Steve [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Bill wants the american people to believe it is unamerican to criticize the president, especially during war. Funny how republicans criticized president Clinton during wars, but O'Reilly did not say it was un-american to criticize Bill Clinton when he was president during a war. It's called hypocrisy, and right-wing bias.

Note: From March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999, the United States and NATO engaged in a military campaign to protect ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Serbian aggression. While American troops engaged in battle, Republican presidential candidates and leaders in the House and Senate criticized the Clinton administration and the war in Kosovo, including the proposed supplemental funding for the conflict.

Here are a few quotes for Bill to think about:

-- Pat Buchanan: “And what are we doing bombing and attacking this tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away from them a province that does not belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face. And that does not justify sending in an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans.” [NBC, “Meet the Press,” 4/25/99]

-- The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, said at the weekend: ‘I think that, as Jesse Jackson would say, give peace a chance here. There seems to be some momentum. There seems to be an opportunity - we should seize this moment. As a matter of fact, you know, I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.’” [Scotsman, 5/4/99]

-- Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “I had the utmost confidence in President Bush. He had laid the groundwork, and our national interest in the Middle East was clear. In the gulf we had a country that was invaded [Kuwait], and an oil interest to defend. … [In the Balkans] we have a president I don’t trust, who has proven my reason for not trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a huge humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing.” [Washington Post, 5/4/99]

-- Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “I think he’s [Clinton] gotten us into a mess. I don’t think you can bomb a country into signing a peace agreement.” [Washington Post, 4/13/99]

-- GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee voted to prevent the use of any of the funds in the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization to fund NATO’s efforts -- combat or peacekeeping -- in Yugoslavia. Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor (TX) offered an amendment to remove the Yugoslavia funding restriction, but Republican committee members defeated the measure 27 to 31. [CQ House Committee Coverage, 5/20/99]

-- While speaking on the floor of the Senate Banking Committee about funding air assaults in the Balkans, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) said, “I don’t see how we are going to save Social Security if we keep spending the surplus.” [Washington Times, 5/21/99]

I guess it's ok to criticize a president, as long as that president is a democrat. But if you criticize a republican president, somehow it is un-american and un-patriotic.

The fact that not one democrat called any republican un-american or un-patriotic when they did it to Clinton proves how hypocritical and ridiculous they are.

Steve Senti
Peoria, Il.

Note: Notice that O'Reilly ignored all this, he did not report any of this on his show. He then spent months calling democrats and liberals who criticized president Bush un-american and un-patriotic. Yet when the republicans did it, he did not call any of them un-american or un-patriotic. Now tell me O'Reilly does not have a republican right-wing bias.


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 01:00:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: O'Reilly is a Coward
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]

Bill O'Reilly:

You are a coward. Steve Senti, who is the proprietor of the website, http://www.oreilly-sucks.com , has repeatedly asked to appear on your progam, and you have consistently hidden under your desk. You also sent your lawyer after Mr. Senti, but when he stood up to her, you again ran and hid under your desk.

When are you going to stop being a coward and have Steve Senti on your show?


Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:28:34
From: Fred [email protected]
To: [email protected]

I thought O'Reilly said Fox news and the Factor were right on everything they reported about the Iraq war.

Read this and find out the truth:

Fibbing It Up at Fox

by Dale Steinreich



P.S. Someone should tell O'Reilly the 30 days is now 47 days and counting. Still no WMD and still no follow up show with Col. Maginnis. They should also tell him he is making a fool out of himself covering for Bush and Blair on the WMD issue, the whole world now knows they lied about WMD in Iraq to justify the war.

He also made a fool of himself on C-SPAN with Al Franken, the best part was when he said "I name names, I don't call names" then 5 minutes later he called Franken an Idiot, pathetic, pinhead, left-wing loonie, propagandaist, etc. Another funny part was how he was invited to represent the right with Tucker Carlson, Franken and Ivins were invited to represent the left. Then O'Reilly sat there telling everyone he is not a conservative, ha, ha, yeah right, and I'm Bill Gates.