Friday, March 31, 2006

O'Reilly: The media is "blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually"

On the March 28th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly described the American media as "blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually."

O'REILLY: Surely, surely, every intelligent person has to say, "You gotta stop the illegal immigration." That's the bottom line. And you know our press does not care. Once again, just like with the kids, abusing the kids, MIA. No solutions, and anybody who puts forth a solution, particularly if it is an effective solution, is a racist. And that's our American press. I think the American press -- and I know you've heard me say this -- is the most damaging institution in the country today because it's so blatantly partisan and dishonest intellectually. No pressure put upon anybody to solve any problem they don't like. God help you, though, if you don't give welfare and -- and, you know, payments to everybody who comes into the country, legally or illegally. God help you if you don't do that.

But Bill is not referring to conservative media such as himself. On The O'Reilly Factor of the same day:

O'REILLY: I'm glad you're on my side, but I want everyone to know this is a struggle here. The defense attorneys buy politicians off, especially in small states like Vermont where they give a lot of money, and the liberal media working against Jessica's Law for ideological, crazy, nutty, far-left, insane reasons. And the folks have gotta know who the forces of darkness are.

In Keith Olbermann's words, "If that's true, Bill O, the American media is now partisan and intellectually dishonest, your work here is done. We've accomplished what you've set out to do." Olbermann named O'Reilly as his "Worst Person in the World" twice on the 30th, once for his comments about the American media, and again for claiming that Cardinal Mahony favors immigration to help church attendance.

O'Reilly's Attack on Cardinal Mahony

On the March 27th Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly accused Cardinal Roger Mahony, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, of opposing immigration reform laws for the sole purpose of increasing church attendance:

O'REILLY: From the very beginning when I started covering immigration more than seven years ago, I told you this is about social engineering; and this country's whole political process is being changed by millions and millions of people pouring in here with a totally different lifestyle and a totally different frame of reference as far as America is concerned.

So, the country that you grew up in, if this isn't stopped, will change dramatically. And the Ted Kennedys of the world like that because they know they'll get the lion's share of those votes. And you can make an argument Cardinal Mahony knows he'll get those people in church when he doesn't have anybody in church anymore. Americans have bailed on the Catholic Church. That's tragic.

He also alleged that we have a potential civil war throughout the program:

O'REILLY: OK. I'm doing this on TV tonight because we're going to have some interesting coverage on television as well. You'll be able to see the pictures of the demonstrations and things like that, as a potential civil war in the U.S.A. because you basically have Americans who don't have a dog in the hunt -- European Americans, black Americans -- watching a phenomenon -- and that's what it is: phenomenon -- that to them may not be serving their best interests.

So, you have millions and millions and millions of Americans saying, look, this has got to stop. This has got to stop. That's why they're doing stuff because it's critical mass right now. Critical mass. All the polls show that.

Heartland America , red-state America -- had enough. Had enough. But you've got an emotionally driven other side, Hispanic Americans -- not all of them but a lot of them -- saying, wait, what are you picking on us for? Stop picking on us. This is racism. And then you have the far left, the open border crowd, which thinks the U.S.A. is an evil nation anyway, and it's our fault that people in Mexico are poor.


O'REILLY: It doesn't matter. In this country, if you single out a group, any group, for criticism, you're going to be called a racist. I mean, that's just the way we play the game here. So, you have a potential civil war. You do.

You've got the folks who don't have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my ranch every day. I mean, I'm under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don't.

Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you're on a nice block, your kids are happy, and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country.


On The O'Reilly Factor with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) of the same day, he called illegal immigration a "natural disaster":

WEINER: You know, can I tell you something? I think you're right. I don't have any -- any, you know, gut or problem with an interagency effort to stop this, but let's not kid ourselves. You're talking about a 700-mile fence. You have 2,300 miles of just border with Mexico, and I don't know why you think Canada isn't a threat to have terrorists come in. Why do you think someone --

O'REILLY: Well, Canada's -- Canada's a terrorist threat, but it's not an illegal alien threat. There aren't hoards, millions of people coming down through Canada to work here. You don't need the fence if you use the guard.

WEINER: Well, even the guard -- listen, I can -- can I tell you -- first of all, you have to pull them back from Iraq, which I support doing.

O'REILLY: No, you don't. There's plenty of guard as you saw -- no, you don't.

WEINER: You have to pull them -- you have to pull them off of things like natural disasters and the like. I don't have any problem with doing that, but --

O'REILLY: This is a natural disaster.

This seems to me as just plain and simple racism on behalf of O'Reilly. These sound like things that would come out of Michael Savage's mouth. Speaking of Michael Savage's views on illegal immigration, I listened to a very disturbing Savage Nation the other day, in which Savage implied that Homo Sapiens are being invaded and replaced by Mexicans. He also said that Mexicans come here to rape, murder, and kill people, and suggested that everyone go out on the street and burn Mexican flags. I emailed the good folks at Media Matters about this, and they have since posted an article on that day's show, which I suggest you read. Its at:

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

O'Reilly Falsely Attacks Columnist While Lying

On the March 27 broadcast of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly attacked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for writing a column about illegal immigration without using the word "illegal." That is entirely untrue. The small portion of the column that O'Reilly read referred to all immigrants, but the column referred to "illegal immigrants" throughout.

From Krugman's column:

"Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should -- and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, ''We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.'' Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a ''modest role'' in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.

But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests -- legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care -- is simply immoral. "


The part of the column that O'Reilly referred to was "[b]asic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more." In the portion, Krugman is referring to all immigrants, not simply illegal immigrants.

From The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY: "Now, once they get here -- and this is very interesting -- the far left wants them to immediately go on the dole. This is from Paul Krugman, he's the quasi-socialist columnist in The New York Times, writing today, quote: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants" -- not illegal, he just says immigrants. He's writing about illegal immigrants, but he won't put the word "illegal" in there.

Let me start again, quote: "Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more," unquote. This is the quasi-socialist Krugman.

So not only do we have to let them all in, but we got to pay for everything that happens to them. We, we, the people of the United States, the 300 million of us. Now, this is insane."


O'Reilly also misrepresented Krugman in his show, falsely suggesting the Krugman said that we should "let them all in." In fact, Krugman said, "Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration."

I find this especially funny since on yesterday's O'Reilly Factor, he had a "Kool Aid Alert" that if you drink too much kool aid (referring to democrats and especially party-liners) that you will suffer from hearing loss. He said this in response to an email that O'Reilly felt the writer hadn't listened to the whole show. In this case, O'Reilly misrepresented the story, and didn't read about half of it.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Words of Theodore Roosevelt

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

— Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I think that somebody needs to email this to Bill O'Reilly. I will, but I need to create another email account first just for emailing him, since I have been blocked. I remember his "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" segment where he blasted Jessica Simpson for not wanting to meet with the President since she didn't agree with him, I believe he said that it was disrespectful and anti-American. As Theodore Roosevelt said, it is not wrong to criticize the President, and actually is unpatriotic not to do so when the President is in the wrong, as he often times is.

I actually found this quote in an editorial on The University Star's website, called "Right-wing venom reaches dangerous level". You can read it at:

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Will O'Reilly Survive Real Debate?

Interesting editorial I just read, mainly covering Bill's hilarious radio show on Friday. Pretty much covers everything O'Reilly said, especially good to read if you missed the show:

Steve Young: Will O'Reilly Survive Real Debate? - Yahoo! News

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Blacklisted from Bill's Inbox!

It looks like Bill O'Reilly cannot stand to hear from somebody who doesn't agree with him, as it appears that he has blocked my email address. I have only sent him 3 emails in the last month, all on different topics, one of them was read on the air, but just a minute ago, when I tried to send him a follow-up email regarding the Judge Connor situtation, it bounced back to my inbox. I tried 3 more times, each time with the same result:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.
Final-Recipient: rfc822;
Action: failed
Status: 5.2.2
X-Display-Name: Show -O'Reilly

I am very disappointed that Bill is not interested in my viewpoints, but this will not prevent me from getting my word across to Bill.

Here is the email that I tried to send to him:

Bill, Can you help me out? I'm confused here. When you were sued for sexual harassment, you thanked your viewers for giving you the benefit of the doubt when the media did not. Why can't Judge Connor be given the same? When you read my last letter on the air, you told me that it was your mandate as a member of the media to "look out for the folks." In your case, what was wrong with the media looking out for the woman who felt that you sexually harassed her, as wouldn't she be considered the "folk"? Why should the media had looked out for you, because in that case, you were not the "folk"? They were simply doing their job, just as you are doing? Or should we give Judge Connor the same benefit of the doubt that you expected?

I have sent Mr. O'Reilly a request to unblock my email address:

ATTN: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel
March 25, 2006

Dear Mr. Bill O'Reilly,
I am writing this letter to respectfully request that you unblock my email address,, from emailing you at

I watch your show everyday, because I like to get my news from both liberal and conservative sources. I read blogs to get my liberal news, and watch your show, The O'Reilly Factor, to get my share of more conservative news. I like to hear from both sides.

I have always been fond of sharing my opinion, and have sent you email on occasion. Earlier this month, you read one of my emails on air, regarding Judge Connor. That was one of just three that I sent you, and in each all that I did was express my views. I value our First Amendment, and feel that we should be allowed to say what we want to say. I understand if you don't want to hear from me because my views are so different than yours, but please, at least humor me and let you send you my emails. One thing that I am very fond of on blogs is the easy ability to comment on the news story. You are making it impossible for me to comment on your news/opinions/rants.

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate, and respectfully request that my email address, is unblocked at once. Thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully Yours,

Vincent Richards

Update: It appears that I have been banned from the entire domain, so that email above didn't go through. I guess I'll just make a new one.

O'Reilly, editor spar over sex-offender case

According to Bill O'Reilly, the Dayton Daily News is "the most friendly (newspaper) to child rapists" in America:

Statement from Bill O'Reilly's website:

"What newspaper in the United States of America is most friendly to child rapists? Could it be the Dayton Daily News which has supported Judge John Connor's sentence of probation for a man who raped a 5-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy over a 3-year period.

"Not only that ... but the Dayton Daily News attacked the governor of Ohio, the attorney general of Ohio and Bill O'Reilly for reporting the story and actually asking for the removal of Judge Connor. The vicious personal attacks launched by the Dayton Daily News were strange when contrasted to the lack of condemnation for the judge.

"So, can one conclude therefore that the Dayton Daily News is a newspaper that has sympathy for child rapists and the judges who will not incarcerate them?"


The editor of the Dayton Daily News responded:

Statement from Jeff Bruce, the editor of the newspaper:

"They say only two things happen when you wrestle a pig: You get muddy and the pig enjoys it. So it's tempting to just let this pass, but, really, what O'Reilly has said on his Web site is so outrageous and such a distortion that I can't.

"No crime is more heinous than child molestation, so it is understandable that people would be inflamed by the notion that a pederast evaded the punishment he is due. But when Mr. O'Reilly asks the question on his Web site, "What newspaper in the United States of America is most friendly to child rapists," he's egging his readers on without giving them all the facts.

"As readers of the Dayton Daily News know, this newspaper is not soft of child molesters. Just the opposite.

"Here's what's really happening: Mr. O'Reilly is upset with the newspaper because in an editorial we referred to his own recent legal history in which he was accused of sexual harassment. His producer threatened that unless we published an apology they would resort to their 'bully pulpit.' That's what they've done. This isn't about being 'soft' on child molesters. It's about Bill O'Reilly getting even.

"We never defended Judge Connor's decision to sentence a child molester to a year of house arrest and five years' probation. What we said is that if the judge deserves to be removed from office then due process should be followed – the same sort of due process that Bill O'Reilly relied upon when he was sued and, ultimately, settled out of court.

"The editorial also noted that the prosecutor in the case, while disappointed with the judge's sentence, was afraid his evidence was so weak that he might have lost the case entirely if it had gone to trial. He agreed to settle the case.

"In America we have a system of checks and balances that includes the independence of the judiciary. There are rules in place to remove bad judges. Our editorial simply said we should follow those rules, not allow ourselves to rush to judgment because of a television commentator's opinions.

"That's not an endorsement of Judge Connor or his decision. The fact that a child molester got off so lightly is disgusting. If I would fault our editorial for anything it is that we could have said that and said it firmly.

"But that's not why O'Reilly asked his readers to write the newspaper. His producer, in a conversation with me, acknowledged the logic of our editorial's argument. But they felt dragging O'Reilly's own legal problems into the article was gratuitous. While I expected O'Reilly to take a shot at us, I was shocked that he would suggest that this newspaper 'has sympathy for child rapists.' That is a deliberate distortion of what we said and what we stand for, and nothing could be further from the truth.

"So you know, on the same page that we published our editorial, we also printed a package of opposing views, including those from O'Reilly himself. We made every effort to be fair and balanced in our presentation of this issue. It is a pity that sense of fairness was not reciprocated."


This whole incident further displays Mr. O'Reilly's inability to see anybody else's point of view, or even reason with anyone else, two qualities that you think a television news person should possess.

Friday, March 24, 2006

O'Reilly's Attack on this Site

Once again, this is old news, but this blog wasn't around in November, so I'm posting it now. On the November 15th edition of The Radio Factor, in one of Mr. O'Reilly's tantrums, he had this to say about the so called "smear sites" against him:

"...And the smear sites who kind of tried to use this issue to drive it are now on the defensive. And you know who they are, you know who they are. And only Kool-Aid zombies are going to get involved with them anyway. And it was good. I mean, I wanted to show our affiliated stations, all 400 of them, I wanted to show our sponsorship, all the people who buy time on The Radio Factor, I want to show everybody exactly where this was coming from, who these people are on the far-left smear sites.

And they are anti-American people. They hate this country. They do. And if you read their garbage day in and day out, we're the bad guys. We're always wrong. Blame America first. That's who these people are on the far left on the Internet. And they are well funded by George Soros and Peter Lewis, the radical billionaires. They're as dishonest as they come. And you need to know about them. Even --

Because most people don't go to these sites. They don't read this crap. And you need to know they're out there, because what they do is they have minions in the elite media that they feed stuff to, and the minions run with it. And here's what I'm going to do, ladies and gentlemen, every minion that does that, every one is going to be exposed on The Radio Factor, the television Factor, and on our website, Every one who carries their water, I'm going to put their face up there, their name up there, and tell you exactly what they're doing. So you know in your town who's doing it. Enough's enough."

And on The O'Reilly Factor the same day:

The far-left smear websites, which support the anti-military movement, have developed an effective way to punish people with whom they disagree. And here's how it works: The smear sites print analysis that distort someone's position on an issue by taking it out of context, reporting humor as being serious, or flat-out lying about tone and substance. Then the smear sites urge their readers to email threatening words to sponsors or demand a firing, whatever. The Internet guttersnipes also contact sympathizers in the mainstream media, who then publish the Internet defamation, often without hearing the original remarks which are at issue. Remember, there's a huge difference between a written transcript and actually hearing what was said.

In the past, the smear sites have been somewhat successful using these dishonest tactics, but now the game's up. Anyone, anyone who carries water for these far-left sites will be exposed on this broadcast. Your right to know. The Internet -- the intent, I should say, of the smear sites is to intimidate free speech. This is not what America is supposed to be about. So the smear sites must be exposed. They have hurt the country dramatically.

So there you have it. Our left-wing San Francisco guest last night would not agree we're fighting a war on terror. And he's entitled to his opinion, but we are entitled to believe the opposite and to fight against dishonest ideologues. And I believe we're winning that fight.

Anyways, I find this pretty funny, especially his claims that I am anti-American and hate this country. O'Reilly thinks that everything that he says is automatically correct, and that for some reason, all these "smear sites" pop up, and are completely unjustified. In fact, since I do not agree with him, I must hate this country. O'Reilly loves our country, so if I do not care for Mr. O'Reilly, I must be anti-American. I love America, I just cannot stand O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's Attacks on San Francisco

This is an old topic, this occured back in November, but I'm posting it here now because this blog would not be complete without it.

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

You can view a video clip of this outburst at

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Read on the Air!

I have sent Mr. O'Reilly many emails, but he finally read one of mine on the air today.

"Bill, while I agree Connor is letting people off too easy, it is not your job to say he is not fit for the bench." - Vincent Richards, San Francisco

He made some modifications from the original email that I sent him, as I hear he frequently does. Of the emails that I have sent to him, this one is the least critical of him, so surprise, surprise, he read it! He responded, lecturing me in a demeaning tone:

"Of course its my job Mr. Richards. I'm a news analyst whose mandate is to watch the powerful, and look out for the folks. The two kids who were raped are the folks. What exactly do you think we do here? "

My original email:
"Bill, while I do agree with you that Judge Connor is letting people off too easy, you have to remember that he is a judge, and if he is not fit for the bench, that is up to the proper Ohio officials, not you."

I've read that he frequently edits emails to make them sound more friendly towards him, as he obviously did here. Perhaps I was too truculent. :)

Friday, March 10, 2006

Call O'Reilly, Get a Free Book!

I just stumbled upon a posting at, where they will give you a free copy of their upcoming book if you call O'Reilly's radio show and mention Keith Olbermann.

"Each person who gets on The Radio
Factor and mentions Keith Olbermann
will get a free advance copy of the
Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly

Call the Radio Factor
between noon and 2pm EST"


Olbermann: "I can't hate" [O'Reilly]

In a interview with Brian Lamb for CSPAN's Q&A this weekend, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said the following:

"Somebody asked me the other day if he was - you know, if it seemed to me that he was going to retire soon, or leave this - leave the air, and I replied (ph), "I hope not," because he provides me with so much material. I can't hate him. He's so extraordinarily obvious and the antithesis of what I think broadcasters should do and what journalists should do and what people should do that he's necessary, in some way. I would be lost without him, in some respects. But, what he does on the air, everything is a simplification. It goes back to what we were talking about earlier, about inspiring fear in people, both in terms of what the world is going to be like, and also what the rest of the media is like. And I don't hate him. I'm entertained, to some degree, by him. I wouldn't watch him with a gun pointed to my head because I - people watch and actually think they're hearing the truth."

You can see the full interview on CSPAN this weekend.


Thursday, March 09, 2006

Olbermann on "The Radio Factor"

A recent segment on MSNBC aired about Bill O'Reilly's encounter with a caller who mentioned Keith Olbermann's name. He said that he would turn his number over to Fox security, and they would contact his local authorities. Fox security left a message on the caller's answering machine. O'Reilly claimed that it was harrassment, but it sounds more like Fox is harassing the caller.

"The only person that's going to get in trouble here is Bill O'Reilly. He's lost the plot entirely. To think that you can commandeer local law enforcement to be your personal henchman because you don't like something a caller said on the air is absolutely outrageous and absurd. It's an abuse of the media, it's an abuse of law enforcement, and he's now the one engaging in threatening behavior. You can't do that. He's crossed the line," says Susan Filan, a former Connecticut state prosecutor.

"Now, Bill O’Reilly is threatening callers to his radio show who mention Olbermann’s name. Ted Baxter told uncooperative listeners that he'll turn their phone numbers over to Fox security, and that Fox security will in turn contact the local authorities."

Read the full article at

Email Sent to O'Reilly

I just sent an email to Mr. O'Reilly, requesting that he presents the petition on air:

Hi Mr. O'Reilly,

I am aware of your petition to fire Keith Olbermann and bring Phil Donahue back to his time slot. You have advocated this petition on-air. I don't feel that this is 'fair and balanced" to Mr. Olbermann, you are just presenting your side of the issue. Therefore, I have created a petition to "Fire Bill O'Reilly", and I feel that it would only be "fair and balanced" for you to air this petition on your show, therefore presenting both sides of issue, which is "fair and balanced." The petition is located at Please present this petition, as I feel that this is fair for Mr. Olbermann and supporters of his.

Thank you,
Vincent Richards

O'Reilly's Olbermann Petition

In order to keep this blog "fair and balanced", I am providing you with the link to Mr. O'Reilly's petition to fire Keith Olbermann, in case you would rather sign that.

O'Reilly's petition:

Welcome to Fire Bill O'Reilly!

Welcome to my blog advocating that Mr. O'Reilly is shown the door at Fox News. As you may be aware, Mr. O'Reilly advocates his petition on-air that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is fired, and that Phil Donahue, formerly in Olbermann's time slot, is brought back onto the air. As Mr. O'Reilly insists, Fox News is a "fair and balanced" station, which is why I will be requesting that Mr. O'Reilly gives my petition equal air time to that of Mr. Donahue's.

You can sign the petition at: