Friday, April 28, 2006

O'Reilly: The right wing doesn't smear

On the April 26th edition of The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly claimed that "The propagandists on the right are just holding water for the oil companies, but they're not trying to smear anybody. But on the left, it's all about the smear. All about the smear, ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is."

He also described the shows of Sean Hannity's, Rush Limbaugh's, and Laura Ingraham's as "ideology," not "smear."

One prime example of right-wing smear is O'Reilly's own television and radio programs, despite his claim the other day that "the smear stops here," then proceeding on to smear two people immediately after, including one man that died in 2002, whom he told viewers to call. Additonally, Media Matters for America has put together a compilation of example of smear tactics used by the three news commentators mentioned by Bill, you can read them here.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: You're going to have the propagandists on the right, primarily on the right -- now, they're not smear merchants. There's a difference. The propagandists on the right are just holding water for the oil companies, but they're not trying to smear anybody. But on the left, it's all about the smear. All about the smear, ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is.


O'REILLY: OK, we're talking about the appointment of Tony Snow. Of course, he was smeared immediately by the left-wing websites -- those despicable people who operate those. Harrisburg, PA, [caller], what say you?

CALLER: Well, I -- I'm just a little taken aback at what you're saying, Bill. Because I -- I -- it just -- you conveniently always omit the smear tactics of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, constantly. Why is that?

O'REILLY: Well, I don't see it the way you see it.

CALLER: They constantly smear the --

O'REILLY: Nah, I mean, look. I -- I see -- I hear those people all the time and I don't see any -- I don't -- I mean, look. Maybe I'm -- maybe I'm naïve. But here's my definition of a smear, [caller], so you can take it to the bank. OK?

It's taking a person like Tony Snow, who, across the board, is admired and respected, OK? Courageous guy -- wants to help this country, has a belief system that he does not make any bones about. And then you take a guy like Snow and you try to tear him to pieces. That -- that's smearing to me. OK?

Now, the three people that you mentioned are right-wing commentators, and they go after the left consistently and on a daily basis. OK. But I have to tell you, when I tune into their programs, I hear ideology. That's what I hear. And then I hear, you know, "This one's bad," but they keep it in the issue area most of the time. That's what I'm hearing. Maybe I'm missing it. But it's in the issue area.

It's not -- OK -- "Here, we have a new person for Ted Kennedy. Let's try to tear him to pieces and injure him personally." I'm not hearing that. There is one smear merchant on the right who does that and I despise him. But the rest seem to deal mostly in issues.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Bill O'Reilly's Hall of Shame

Bill O'Reilly has created a 'Hall of Shame' on his website to showcase media outlets that King Bill doesn't like. As O'Reilly now puts it, "The smear stops here." How's that for oxymoronic?

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Fighting the culture war in the media, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

There's no question, the committed left-wing media hates Fox News, along with me and some other commentators here because we provide a balance to the overwhelming secular presence in the media.

Now, every poll of journalists says the same thing. Secular media people outnumber traditional media people by a huge margin. And some left-wing media companies aggressively push their agenda in their news pages.

That is not acceptable, because the press in America is afforded special constitutional privileges. Thus, we have an obligation to be fair and balanced.

For a number of years, some media people have been using personal attacks and smears to try to marginalize people with whom they disagree. They do this because they can't win the debate. So, they try to demean and demoralize their opposition.

Well, that's no longer tolerable. And the Factor's now going to launch a campaign to hold these smear merchants accountable. You may remember a few weeks ago, the Factor investigated Ohio Judge John Connor, who sentenced a child rapist to probation, no prison time whatsoever.

The attorney general and governor of Ohio supported the evidence we presented that Connor is unfit to serve. Well, the Dayton Daily News didn't like that. It smeared the three of us. Thousands of you called that newspaper to complain. And it was badly damaged.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, I traveled to Syracuse, New York, to give a speech in support of the Boy Scouts, who had been thrown off the campus of Syracuse University after the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] complained.

For my trouble, I was smeared twice by the Syracuse Post-Standard. The villains at that paper are publisher Stephen Rogers and editorial writer Mark Libbon. These men are not only unprofessional, they are incompetent.

Over the past few years, the Post-Standard's circulation has declined nearly 30 percent. It is a disgraceful newspaper, nicknamed "substandard" by some in upstate New York.

Now, we've posted contact numbers for Rogers and Libbon on, should you want to speak with them.

And that is what we'll continue to do. Any media person who uses smear tactics in any way, not just on me, but any way will be featured on The Factor and inducted into the "Hall of Shame."

We will keep a running list of media smear merchants on the website, in addition to our "don't buy, don't advertise" list.

As you know, we debate issues all day long on this program. I have no objection to any media criticizing my stand on any matters of the day. But beginning today, the smear stops here.

You guys want to do that? We'll let everybody know about it. That's called accountability.

Media Matters put together a video clip of Bill's declaration to stop smear in the media, and a clip of Olbermann once again declaring him the "Worst Person in the World." You can find it here.

Monday, April 24, 2006

O'Reilly: In Massachusetts and Vermont, sex offenders "can go and molest children and get sympathy"

On the April 21th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, King O'Reilly declared that in states like Massachusetts and Vermont, sex offenders "can go and molest children and get sympathy." Just because these states haven't passed O'Reilly's beloved Jessica's Law, doesn't mean that they aren't cracking down on sex offenders.

As the Burlington Free Press recently reported, the Vermont "Senate unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday to a bill designed to crack down on sex offenses" by "increasing the number of investigators who focus on sex crimes, increasing the number of pre-sentence investigations that judges use to help determine a sentence, trying to better coordinate prevention programs and decriminalizing consensual sex between teenagers." The Senate also "approved a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for aggravated sexual assault." The Senate bill would "expand the sex offender registry to list more offenders on the Internet and add a registry for violent offenders."

Although the Vermont House of Representatives did not set a mandatory minimum sentence, the Free Press also wrote on April 5th that "Many prosecutors and victims' advocates" oppose mandatory sentencing laws "out of concern that the mandate would force more defendants to take their cases to trial, forcing more victims to testify and creating the possibility of more acquittals because sex crimes can be difficult to prove."

Although not as much progress has been made in Massachusetts, several legislators have supported or passed bills requring a mandatory sentence for sex crimes committed on children under the age of 14, but as of now, nothing has been passed.

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: And now the people may put the issue on the ballot, going around the pinhead politicians. That's what the folks in the great state of California did, and Jessica's Law is expected to pass there in a referendum next November. What is happening all across America is a tremendous victory for the folks and for democracy. Even the liberal Oregonian newspaper heard the people and supported Jessica's Law. We applaud the paper for doing so. So, things are looking up for the good guys and are looking black for the bad guys, especially the predators. Soon, there will only be a few states where they can go and molest children and get sympathy, states like Massachusetts and Vermont.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

O'Reilly Once Again Olbermann's 'Worst Person'

This is kind of old, but on the April 14th Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann once again named O'Reilly the 'Worst Person in the World'.

O'Reilly won the honor for switching his position on his so-called "War on Easter."

One of the two runner-ups was Ann Coulter for her remarks on the O'Reilly Factor on how to stop illegal immigration: "I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall and throw out the illegals who are here."

Transcripts from Media Matters:

OLBERMANN: That's next. But first, I've got Countdown's list of today's three nominees for Worst Person in the World. And it's a hat trick tonight. The bronze: Ann Coulter, explaining that the immigration situation could be resolved thusly. Quoting, "I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall and throw out the illegals who are here." You did read [the Edgar Allan Poe short story] The Cask of Amontillado, didn't you, Ann?

The runner up: comedian Rush Limbaugh. After Ben Domenech resigned from The Washington Post's new conservative Red America blog, admitting plagiarism as he did so, Limbaugh explained the Post had simply buckled to the left and, quote, "concocted some phony excuse that the guy that they had hired was a plagiarist." I wish Rush would plagiarize a good idea from somebody.

But the winner: Bill O. After a newspaper editorial chastising talk show hosts for railing against an attack on Easter, last night O'Reilly dismissed the piece as a "nutty diatribe" and reassured everybody, quote, "There is no attack on Easter." Tuesday, he had talked about how Christmas and Easter have been attacked by secular interests. His website says one of tonight's segments is titled, quote, "Easter Under Siege." Have I got this right? Tuesday, there is; Thursday, there isn't; Friday, there is. Maybe, there are multiple Bill O'Reillys. Run for your lives! Bill O'Reilly, today's worst person in the world.

Actually, judging from what we found on the Internets, those stories about attacks on Easter, they're entirely backwards.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

O'Reilly's Latest Personal Smear on a Judge

On the April 18th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly launched his third personal smear campaign against a judge, despite his claim, "I don't do personal attacks here."

O'Reilly started out announcing that Arkansas and Nebraska had adopted Jessica's Law, adding them to his map of "child friendly states." He then attacked Judge John McCann of Massachusetts, a liberal state that O'Reilly commonly has a bone to pick with, for letting a child rapist off with probation and an ankle bracelet after fleeing probation and escaping to Florida. He brought on a mother of one of the molester's victims, who was telling her child's story, and taking her time doing so, which seemed to upset O'Reilly, so he seemed to rush her off so that he could ask the Fox News child advocate, " Does he (Judge McCann) sympathize with the rapists?"

For the opposing viewpoint, he brought on the Chair of the Massachusetts Bar Association, Ed Ryan, who was tackling O'Reilly with facts that he had a hard time refuting. Ryan also refuted the claims of Wendy Murphy, the Fox News child advocate, who was on earlier in the show. He also noted that he had already served his time for the rape, this was simply a sentencing because he violated his probation, and the D.A. had not even asked for more time, just 10 years of more probation or a tracking device that would tell his exact location at all times. To all this, O'Reilly angrily responded " Stop this legal mumbo jumbo!!", and he yelled "The judge should have given him 10 years!"

Although I admire Bill's work on getting Jessica's Law passed in all 50 states, I do not admire his presentation in doing so, using personal smears and "spinning the facts". O'Reilly tried to spin this to make it look like he was just given probation for molesting a child, time which he had already served, as this was just for breaking his probation. Good cause, poor presentation.

Read News Hounds

Friday, April 21, 2006

O'Reilly's Attack on the Homeless

On the April 18th edition of the Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated that the homeless will "not support themselves" because they "want to get drunk, or they want to get high [...] or they don't want to work (because) they're too lazy." This is absolutely not true. According to the National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness:
  • 38% report alcohol use problems
  • 26% report other drug use problems
  • 39% report some form of mental health problems (20-25% meet criteria for serious mental illness)
  • 66% report either substance use and/or mental health problems
  • 3% report having HIV/AIDS
  • 26% report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted diseases
  • 46% report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer

Additionally, many have had many other major problems in their life:
  • 23% are veterans (compared to 13% of the general population)
  • 25% were physically or sexually abused as children
  • 27% were in foster care or institutions as children
  • 21% were homeless as children
  • 54% were incarcerated at some point of their lives
Also from

As you can see, many of the homeless have suffered from sexual abuse, are mentally ill, or involuntary life-threatening diseases. Mental illness is by far the leading cause of homelessness.

From the April 18th edition of The Radio Factor:

Transcripts from Media Matters:

O'REILLY: OK, and that's exactly what happened in Los Angeles. The ACLU sued, saying that the police could not arrest or remove any homeless person on the street. Sleeping on the street, blocking the street, urinating or defecating on the street or anything. Now, they sued because the ACLU knew that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would eventually hear the case, which it did. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as you may know, the most liberal court this country has ever seen. Its rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court 75 percent of the time. But you take it there and you'll get probably a loony ruling, a loony ruling.

Now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-to-1 that Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks violates the Eighth Amendment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, ladies and gentlemen. Cruel and unusual punishment. An estimated 80,000 homeless are in L.A. County on any given night. An estimated 12,000 homeless live in Skid Row, a 50-block area in downtown L.A., the highest concentration of homeless in the USA. OK? Now, this lawsuit will be overturned by the Supreme Court if they hear it, and I believe they will. Because, just think about it, and the, and the [Los Angeles city] councilwoman, Ms. [Jan] Perry, made a very interesting point. This could happen anywhere in the United States.


The ACLU wants to force society to house people who will not support themselves, who will not do it, because they want to get drunk, or they want to get high, or they want -- they don't want to work, they're too lazy. They say, "OK, that's a person's choice. The government should give them a house, and food, and walking-around money, and everything else." That's what it's all about. This is the hidden agenda.

O'Reilly concedes: "there is no attack on Easter"

O'Reilly's war on Easter reversalAfter O'Reilly's claimed that there was a "war on Easter", O'Reilly finally admitted "there is no attack on Easter", giving himself credit: "After the thumping that the department stores and all-over crazies took over Christmas, these people say, 'You know, I don't think we want to come up against O'Reilly and these other people on Easter. Let's just let it go.' "

Let's ask Bill to lower gas prices.

The story is at

O'Reilly: Alleged Duke rape victim "put herself in jeopardy"

On the April 19th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated that the alleged Duke rape victim "put herself in jeopardy" because "she chooses to go to strange places and disrobe in front of strange men."

Transcripts from

O'REILLY: Duke University officials knew the lacrosse team often crossed the line, drinking and acting out in immature ways. The coach was warned last year to rein the players in. Apparently, he did not or could not. The coach has now resigned.

One of the players charged, Collin Finnerty, may be a violent guy. Last November, he was allegedly involved in an assault on a man in Washington, D.C., for absolutely no reason. And he entered a diversionary program.

Fighting, drinking to excess, and generally ignoring social boundaries always leads to bad, unintended consequences. Always.

Likewise, a 27-year-old woman put herself in jeopardy. She has two young kids to support and no fathers in sight. So, in order to earn money, she chooses to go to strange places and disrobe in front of strange men. Do the math.

"Talking Points" is not accusing anyone of anything, or making any judgments at all. What I just told you is on the record -- fact. The lacrosse team operated in a loose fashion. The alleged victim had little control over her environment.

Friday, April 14, 2006

O'Reilly Lies About GOP's Support of NAFTA

On the April 11th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "most Republicans didn't want" NAFTA, which was signed in 1993 by Canada, the United States, and Mexico. That could not be further from from the truth. In reality, not Billy O's little world, 134 Republicans voted in support of it in the House, with just 43 opposed to it, and 34 Republicans voted for it in the Senate, with just 10 against. It was actually Democrats that did not want it, with 28 opposed and 27 in favor in the Senate, and in the House, 156 opposed and 102 in favor.

Transcripts from

O'REILLY: Who wanted NAFTA? Who wanted it?

BARRON: Republicans and Democrats. Both.

O'REILLY: Mexico wanted it.

BARRON: America wanted it.

O'REILLY: Most Republicans didn't want it.

BARRON: Yes, they did. That's why they got mad at Bill Clinton for having him pass it.

O'REILLY: You think Pat Buchanan and those guys wanted NAFTA?

BARRON: They're -- they wanted free trade.

Stop spinning the facts, Bill!

O'Reilly On Immigration

Not much explaining to do here, just read it for yourself. O'Reilly claimed to expose a hidden immigration agenda. O'Reilly also told his listeners: "The bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." Barron discussed the 'white privilege' and the 'browning of America', but never made such statements.

From April 11th O'Reilly Factor:

Transcripts from

O'REILLY: Then why did so many people want to come here if we're so bad?

BARRON: Because there are places where they can do good here, if we allow for that to happen and we create change.

O'REILLY: Change?

BARRON: Change.

O'REILLY: So that means a changing America. You want a changing America.

BARRON: Of course America has to change.

O'REILLY: Right.


O'REILLY: And you'd like the changing America to be -- the dominant people would be people of color?

BARRON: That's going to happen anyway, whether you like it or not.

O'REILLY: But you want it to happen, do you not?

BARRON: That's going to happen anyway.

O'REILLY: Do you not want it to happen?

BARRON: That's going to happen whether you or I want it or not.

O'REILLY: And that's the bottom line on it, isn't it, Charles?


O'REILLY: Yeah, it is.

BARRON: The bottom line is that you fear your white --

O'REILLY: I don't fear anything.

BARRON: -- your white privilege will no longer exist.

O'REILLY: I just want the rule the law.

BARRON: Rule of law.

O'REILLY: You want a totally different country.

BARRON: It's going to happen whether you like it or not, whether I want it or not. Look at New York City. The majority of the people in New York City are people of color.

O'REILLY: That -- hey, Charles --

BARRON: And that's why you have problems with immigration.

O'REILLY: And that's why I love you.

BARRON: Because of the browning of America.

O'REILLY: That's why I love you.

BARRON: You want to stay in control.

O'REILLY: Because now --

BARRON: You want to stay in power.

O'REILLY: I don't care about control at all.

BARRON: Yes, you do.

O'REILLY: But I love you, because now everyone knows what the true agenda is. That's what it is.

BARRON: The true agenda is to treat all immigrants fairly as they treated your ancestors.

O'REILLY: I gotta go. Charles Barron, everybody. Now we know.

From the April 12 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY: You know, sometimes in an interview you get lucky. And our goal is always to expose the underside of every, every issue we cover. Because there is usually a hidden agenda. Now, nowhere is this more apparent than in the illegal immigration debate. There is a hidden agenda in this debate that no one will tell you -- press won't tell you, politicians won't tell you, the illegal immigrants themselves won't tell you that. But there is. And it's vitally important to the country. Now, last night on the television side, we had New York City Councilman Charles Barron on the program. I hope you saw that. If you didn't, we're gonna play you the highlights of the interview in a couple of seconds.


O'REILLY: All right. There you go. White privilege. The browning of America. There it is. There it is. Bottom line on this? That's what it is. Change the complexion of America. Have an open border where Hispanics, people who live in the Caribbean, people who live in Africa and Asia can walk in and become citizens immediately. And there you have the white power structure would decline, of course. Because the numbers of people coming here would be people of color. Right? That's the hidden agenda.

See, nobody'll say that. Nobody'll say it. That's what it's all about. It's all about that on both sides, too. Because you have some white people saying, "I don't want to live in a country that has people of color in the majority."

Now my take on it is this: I know where Charles Barron's coming from, and at least Barron was man enough to admit it. How many other programs have you heard anybody say that? But it's absolutely true, absolutely true. At least Barron's honest enough to say it.


O'REILLY: The unintended consequence of that is that America is going to change. It's going to change in cultural ways, in racial ways, in intellectual ways, in voting ways, in every way. Now, do we, as American citizens, all of us, want that change to come about through illegal methods? This isn't the ballot box. This is, throw it open, let anybody come, and then we'll have a new America. That's what Charles Barron wants, and it's absolutely what the left-wing press wants. They see an opportunity to overthrow what they call the white, privileged, Christian nation. They overthrow that.

Even though most Hispanics are Christian, the left believes that Hispanics who come to the USA will vote left. Now I'm not so convinced of that myself, but Barron certainly believes it. "People of color will vote the way I vote, and we'll kick out all the white people and we'll have a rainbow nation, not a white power structure."

That's -- "white privilege" is the key words. The browning of America. Ladies and gentlemen, you know I hate to say it, because I don't like to debate this kind of stuff, I don't like to do colors-based programs, but that's the bottom line on this whole thing. That's where it is. There's no reason on earth the federal government doesn't secure the border. No reason on this earth. But they're afraid to be demonized as racist, because the real racists who want a color-based country attack them vehemently if they put up a wall or put the military on the border.


O'REILLY: But the bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out, quote-unquote, "white privilege" and to have the browning of America. And, you know, we got it out; we got it out. Now it's out there in play. But, boy oh boy, you're not gonna hear that on anyplace else. You're not gonna hear it, but it's true. A lot of people want that.

Stop spinning the facts, Bill.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

O'Reilly Makes False Claims About Kennedy-McCain Immigration Bill

On the April 10th edition of the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill only increases the size of the the border control. O'Reilly said, "They add 2,500 border patrol a year and that's it." Actually, from a factsheet provided by Kennedy, the law would:
  • Double interior enforcement by adding "1,000 investigators per year for next 5 years"

  • Create a "[n]ew [s]ecurity [p]erimeter" by "add[ing] new technology at the border to create [a] 'virtual fence' "

  • "Tighten[] [c]ontrols" by "expand[ing] exit-entry security system at all land borders and airports"

  • Call for the "[c]onstruction of [b]arriers" by "mandat[ing] new roads and vehicle barriers at borders"

  • Call for the "[c]onstruction of [f]ences" by "provid[ing] additional border fences at specific vulnerable sectors"

  • "[A]uthorize new permanent highway checkpoints near border"

  • Demand a "[c]omprehensive [s]urveillance [p]lan" that would "mandate[] new land and water surveillance plan[s]"

  • "Create[] new crime for construction, financing, and use of unlawful tunnels."

That is much more than increasing the border patrol by 2,500. What were you thinking, Bill? Don't you read up on things before you lie about them?

O'REILLY: Now, what's happening in the debate is deplorable. Number one, if you want to secure the border and hold illegal aliens accountable for breaking immigration law, you're inhumane. You're inhumane. Americans seeking strict enforcement of immigration laws are bad people, and even worse, conservatives. But the open border crowd is humane and holistic. Just read The New York Times and other left-wing outlets.

Well, "Talking Points" is fed up with the bull. So, here's the truth. The Kennedy-McCain bill would not secure the border or stop rampant illegal entry. The bill provides for more border patrol agents, but little else on the security side. The [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] bill's a bit tougher, but not much. So, at this point, the Senate simply doesn't want to secure the border, period.


LINDA CHAVEZ: Michelle [Malkin], my point is that this is like a three-legged stool. You can't fix one leg. The stool will not stand. There really are three issues. One is border security. It certainly is the top of the list. The second is what to do about the 12 million people who are here. And the third is what to do about our own needs as a country for new faces, new workers. We have --

O'REILLY: OK. But, Linda --

CHAVEZ: -- a need for those workers.

O'REILLY: -- the Senate bill does not address border security in any meaningful way, neither the McCain-Kennedy nor the Frist versions. They add 2,500 border patrol a year and that's it.

CHAVEZ: Well -- absolutely --

O'REILLY: That's not going to cut it when you have hundreds of thousands of people coming across.

Transcripts from:
You can find the factsheet at:

Email Bill,, and call him on the carpet.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

O'Reilly: If Clinton elected "the first thing [Osama] bin Laden and his killers are gonna do is say, would say 'Oh yeah, this is good,' "

On the April 3 edition of Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly had another go at potential Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton (D-NY). He says that if Clinton was to be elected President, "the first thing bin Laden and his killers are gonna do is say, 'Oh yeah, this is good. We like this.'" He also said that "they'll test her, they'll test her. And then she's put in a very difficult position that she may have to overreact to prove herself, you see? Very complicated." He also said, "What she will have is, "OK, we have a weak person."

This to me looks like sexism. O'Reilly's just saying that she's "weak" because she's a woman. She's taken a very tough stance on the war. But O'Reilly doesn't care. He made further comments, proving that this is gender-based: "If you got a Giuliani or a McCain, these are tough guys, these are street fighters. Bin Laden and the crew, they're gonna know right away these guys mean business. Her they're gonna test."

Just ridiculous. Note how he says "these guys mean business", but "her they're gonna test." To me, he's clearly implying that Ms. Clinton would be unable to be a successful President because she's a woman. That's unacceptable.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Bill O'Reilly Only Attacks Mexican Flag Wavers

Many media figures, including Mr. Bill O'Reiily, have attacked people for waving Mexican flags, which O'Reilly describes as a "race war".

O'REILLY: You have no policy unless you have border security. There's no policy. All the other stuff doesn't matter. Because you just cannot keep assimilating millions of people in here at the rate they're coming without unintended consequences. And you've got them all day long.

So now, it's becoming a race war. That's what it's becoming -- a race war. You see half a million people show up in L.A. and they were waving Mexican flags. And they're saying, "Hey, we have a right to be here." No, you don't. If you're illegal, you don't have a right to be here. But they don't see it that way.

But why isn't O'Reilly mad that on St. Patrick's Day people wave Irish flags, or that on Columbus Day people wave Italian flags, or that on Israel Day people wave Israeli flags? It sounds to me like O'Reilly is the one instigating his so-called race war, for only picking on Mexican flag-wavers while not caring about people of other nationalities waving their own respective flags.

On O'Reilly's show somebody brought up this point, which he quickly dismissed. The guest said that the Mexican flag is waved "[e]xactly the same way [as at] the St. Patrick's Day parade," to this, not being able to think of anything better or somewhat intelligent to say, O'Reilly retorted: "Come on."

Sunday, April 02, 2006

O'Reilly: Only "nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself"

On the March 28th edition of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly falsely stated that only the "nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself." This is certainly not true, as many non-liberals have joined the fight to have Scalia recuse himself from the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case that questions the legality of the military commissions set up in 2001 by George Bush for detainees of war crimes.

A number of people are in on the Center for Constitutional Rights and Representative John D. Conyers's fight to have Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the case, including retired conservative Fox News judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano, and a group of retired military officials.

Justice Anthony Scalia has dismissed the idea that detainees have any rights. When asked if they have any rights under the Geneva Convention or ither international conventions, Scalia replied:

"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."

The president of the Center for Constitutional Rights said:

"This is clearly grounds for recusal. I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him -- without hearing the arguments."

And O'Reilly's own colleague from Fox News, Napalitano, certainly not from the "nutty left", said on The Big Story with John Gibson from March 28th:

"So, look, here's the rule. If a judge or a justice has formed an opinion about a case, based upon some effect on the family member, you got to get off the case. In -- in this particular instance, there is no provision to force him off. "


"But when you go into a court, you expect the judge to have an open mind, not to have decided the case before it's even argued. "


"But, remember, their job [the lawyers involved in the case] is not to change his mind from one position to another. Their job is to take him from a position of neutrality and win him over. "


"I think, morally, he must [recuse himself]."
And he speaks with certainly no bias against Scalia, also stating that he "love[d]" Scalia, and later, "He's a great man. He can deal with this."

And the original transcripts from The Radio Factor from March 28th:

O'REILLY: Finally, chief justice -- not chief justice but Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made some comments about how captured terrorists should be treated by the USA. Now, the Supreme Court is going to hear -- going to hear a case where the crazy left wants all of the captured terrorists to be tried in civilian court, no matter where they're caught. This is insane. But that's what the far left wants. Now, Scalia was in Switzerland and said this.

SCALIA (audio clip) We are in a war here capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in war. We captured a lot of Germans during World War II, and they were brought not to Guantánamo, but to the soil of the United States. We didn't give them a trial.

O'REILLY: All right, so obviously, Scalia's not going to vote for civilian trials for terrorists, and I don't think most of the other Supreme Court people will either. But now, the nutty left wants Scalia to recuse himself from the vote. You know, it's just the same -- on and on and on and on. But these nuts -- aye-aye-aye.


Saturday, April 01, 2006

Dealing With Nigerian Scam Emails

This doesn't have to do with Bill O'Reilly himself, but is a spoof of the Olbermann radio incident.

Everybody gets those annoying emails from people in Nigeria wanting you to assist in a financial transaction with millions of dollars, and claim they'll give you a large percentage. Needless to say, these are scams, but here's a way to deal with them and put Fox security on them.

I received an email from a young woman in Nigeria wanting me to assist her in retrieving $8 million from a European bank. When she asked for my contact information, I told her my name was Keith Olbermann, and gave her the number for The Radio Factor, and told her to call Monday-Friday between noon and 2 PM GMT-5 and ask for Keith Olbermann:

Hi Janet,

After reading your email, I am touched by you choosing me to help you with this. I'm glad to know that you can trust me. I would love to do this with you.

I currently do not have a phone at my home because of a mixup with the phone company, so you will have to call me while I am at work. It's a toll free number, because I work at a radio show. The number is
1-877-966-7746. You will need to call between noon and 2 PM Eastern time (GMT-5), on Monday through Friday (no weekends) if you want to get through to me. My name is Keith Olbermann. So when you call, ask for Keith Olbermann, and they'll transfer you to me. If you call outside of those hours, you'll just get a recording and you won't get through. Then we can talk and work out the details.

I am looking forward to talking to you. Please call as soon as you can, which would be on Monday between noon and 2 PM GMT-5. Thank you very much for coming to me, and I am thrilled to get to work with you and help you out. Also, I am very sorry about your father, he sounds like he was a great man.

Best Regards,
Keith Olbermann


Of course she'll never actually get onto the show, but the operator will get mad and maybe Fox Security will follow up on it, because she's harassing Bill.