Bill's Weekly ColumnBlog's for March, 2024http://www.BillOReilly.comBill O'Reilly2024-03-19T08:23:02Z2024-03-19T08:23:02ZBill O'ReillyConspiracy TVBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Conspiracy-TV/64435538418546926.html2024-03-17T07:00:00Z2024-03-17T07:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<div>It is true beyond a reasonable doubt that a few powerful social media companies, sometimes at the behest of the FBI, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-Hunter-Biden-Deserves-to-be-Punished/593725098274148500.html" target="_blank">suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story.</a></div>
<p>That situation was finally exposed with troubling clarity. So, what else is being censored?</p>
<p>Well, how about traditional and conservative voices on network TV talk shows? This "conspiracy" dwarfs the Hunter masking.</p>
<p>There are three network morning programs and five late-night gabfests. When was the last time you saw a right-leaning person on any of them?</p>
<p>Fox News has many famous personalities who are smart and entertaining. No invites.</p>
<p>Mark Levin had a huge bestselling book last fall. Did he get any network airtime? No.</p>
<p>Clay Travis and Buck Sexton reach millions on radio, and so does Glenn Beck. Ever see them on Good Morning America? The Tonight Show? Today?</p>
<p>No, you don't. Yet liberal pundits and authors are booked extensively.</p>
<p>This is not an accident, nor has it always been this way.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Bill-OReilly-Reacts-to-Chris-Cuomos-interview-with-Tucker-Carlson/-452239806788558908.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>MUST WATCH: BILL REACTS TO CHRIS CUOMO'S INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON.</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Over the years, I have visited network programs 78 times. The appearances almost always went well, and ratings for the shows were high as my crew watched, jacking up their usual audiences.</p>
<p>My chats with David Letterman and Jon Stewart are legendary. If you want a few laughs, Google them.</p>
<p>That all stopped in November 2016, and it was not an accident. Network chieftains went ballistic after Trump's election. There has always been a collective mindset at the television networks, but now the ban was on; any pundit not despising Donald Trump need not apply.</p>
<p>So, for almost eight years, only liberal commentators are welcome on the talk shows. This, of course, is censorship at the highest levels.</p>
<p>If you follow me, you know I am not a conspiracy guy. From JFK's assassination to Barack Obama's birth certificate to fraudulent voting machine allegations, I have debunked them all. I well understand the conspiracy game is designed to get attention and make money.</p>
<p>But the traditional/conservative blacklist is real and affects American culture in a negative way. Millions of Americans who do not closely follow the news are presented with nonstop left-wing opinions on morning and late-night TV.</p>
<p>The result is a normalization of pernicious policies such as little punishment for criminals, racial preferences, and abortion with no limits. Woke culture dominates because of the now heavily restrictive entertainment industry.</p>
<p>Some may disagree with my reporting in this column, but I have the facts to back it up. The subject might even make an interesting TV discussion.</p>
<p>You won't see it on the networks.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-03-17T07:00:00ZWho's Zoomin' Who?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Zoomin-Who/196534223770769743.html2024-03-08T20:31:00Z2024-03-08T20:31:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<div><br />With apologies to the late Aretha Franklin, President Biden may be zoomin' us. I was surprised to hear that "fair share" is back in the <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-State-of-the-Union/-358341348831862366.html" target="_blank">State of the Union</a> address: an oldie but a goodie brought to us by a genuine oldie.</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>That's right. After three years under Joe, U.S. corporations are STILL not paying enough tax to the government, leaving Aunt Bea and Uncle Lester bereft, bothered, and bewildered as they struggle to survive because General Motors has all the money.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>But if we reelect Joe, he will get the cash from the fat cats even though he hasn't been able to do that yet. Be patient, Joe is on it, as they say in Australia, no worries, mate.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Also, until the President's speech, I didn't know the USA has the lowest inflation rate in the world, and apparently Canada, France, Switzerland, and a bevy of other countries aren't aware either, as they have rates almost a percentage point lower than we do.<br /></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>No matter. While the <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Predicting-Joe-Bidens-Upcoming-Speech/533153728593630099.html" target="_blank">essentials of life</a> remain about 17 percent higher since Joe took over, the U.S. inflation rate is falling on paper. But not in the grocery store. No joke.</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>At this point in my opus, let's turn positive for a moment. Then we'll get back to being snarky.<br /><br /><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-Highlights-Real-Scandal-Involving-the-Border-on-CUOMO/126356372853582267.html" target="_blank">MUST WATCH: O'REILLY HIGHLIGHTS 'REAL SCANDAL' INVOLVING THE BORDER ON 'CUOMO'</a></strong><br /></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>The President looked dapper and the Vice President was well turned out as she popped up and down from her seat applauding like a seal on steroids.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>In fact, about the only time Kamala didn't clap was when her boss said "Lincoln Riley" was killed by an "illegal."</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Uh-oh.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>The murder of 22-year-old Laken has become a key campaign issue.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>But, again, no worries. Nancy Pelosi told CNN that the President's use of the word "illegal" is no big deal.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Really? Saying that could get you expelled from Stanford, Madam.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>I was a bit surprised that Mr. Biden read the 68-minute speech with energy and was coherent through most of it. That will help him, no question. But there was nothing new; same old class and race stuff. The Ku Klux Klan and Hitler got shout outs.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Did you notice that Senator Chuck Schumer looked a bit like Rasputin as he walked in with the President? I mean, Chuck was right on top of him, close enough to pick his pocket or get in all the photos. Wearing his trademark light blue Coney Island suit, Schumer looked shifty, to say the least. I half expected him to pull out some Turkish Taffy.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>And then there were the Democrats dressed in white to salute " reproductive freedom." It's to America's great shame that an existence-ending medical procedure has now become a badge of honor in some places. What's next: a sports-like cheer? "Give me an A ..."</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Finally, riddle me this. What do Joe Biden and Donald Trump have in common? Easy one, neither will ever admit a mistake.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Joe did not acknowledge how his open border policy has led to massive pain and suffering. Instead, he told us that America is a "land of immigrants."</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Who knew?</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>So the Prez is feeling good today, thoroughly convinced he's doing a heckuva job and will get his "fair share" of votes.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Which he might.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span>God help us.</span></div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-03-08T20:31:00ZSuper Tuesday?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Super-Tuesday/-339810480869741838.html2024-03-03T08:00:00Z2024-03-03T08:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>Sixteen states hold primary votes on March 5, and it's billed as Super Tuesday. But everyone knows the outcomes, so there's not much "super" involved. Maybe we call it Predictable Tuesday or Ruby Tuesday if the Stones allow it.</p>
<p>The Democrats are seemingly stuck with President Biden even though he's too old to buy a place in The Villages.</p>
<p>Republicans are happy to give Donald Trump the nomination for a third consecutive time, some hoping the former president will finally run out of insults and run a more moderate campaign.</p>
<p>However, on Thursday, he called Governor Newsom of California "New-scum," so much for moderation.<br /><br /><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Listen:-OReilly-and-Hannity-on-the-Impending-Election-Rematch-Mitch-McConnell/-698653950465196075.html" target="_blank">MUST LISTEN: O'REILLY & HANNITY ON THE IMPENDING ELECTION REMATCH</a></span></strong></p>
<p>At this point in history, the country is so divided that consensus on anything seems impossible. The far left has caused incredible damage over the past three years, and you're a fool if you deny it. Just the <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Donald-Trumps-Winning-Issue/-191980494987846199.html" target="_blank">open border chaos</a> alone backs up that statement.</p>
<p>Watching from the golf course, Donald Trump understands the progressive failure but inexplicably fails to exploit it. Instead, he trashes and lashes and then dashes from one controversy to another.</p>
<p>So what are good citizens to do?</p>
<p>Turn to history, that's what.</p>
<p>Having just finished writing my upcoming book "<a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/p/Confronting-the-Presidents/Confronting-the-Presidents/65721.html" target="_blank">Confronting the Presidents</a>," I have a lot of solid research on both Biden and Trump, as well as the other 43 Chief Executives. Not dopey ideological stuff, but undeniable facts.</p>
<p>First, the President, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-and-Cuomo-on-the-Trouble-Biden-is-Facing/-329921903953798927.html" target="_blank">Joe Biden, is barely hanging on</a>. Inside the White House, he only works a few hours a day. He doesn't create anything. His staff and wife guide him through appearances and meetings.</p>
<p>He is still able to read the teleprompter but does not remember much about what he says or does. That was demonstrated when he asked a child where he had just traveled. The little boy correctly stated Ireland, as you will remember.</p>
<p>But Joe did not remember.</p>
<p>If re-elected, President Biden will not be able to finish his second term, in my opinion. And even while he's in the White House, his advisors are calling the shots, not him.</p>
<p>On the Trump front, it's complicated. If you read my book "Killing the Killers," you know the former president put together a whip-smart national security team that made things very difficult for America's enemies. Life for ISIS savages, for example, often ended in a quick death. Trump was engaged in foreign affairs. Biden obviously is not. One word: Afghanistan.</p>
<p>The Biden economy has been painful as real wages are down, and inflation is up. The price of food is hammering working Americans.</p>
<p>Under Trump, real wages were up more than 7 percent. Inflation was below 2 percent.</p>
<p>So, by those measures, Trump should defeat Biden by a landslide. Think Nixon-McGovern, 1972.</p>
<p>But that will not happen, as the election looks to be close. The polls say most Americans would prefer other candidates. I still believe Mr. Biden won't make the finish line, but Mr. Trump certainly will.</p>
<p>As for you, the honest voter, it's all about which party reflects your beliefs. Put the two men aside. They are both short-timers in a historical sense.</p>
<p>The future of America lies with traditional vs. progressive policies. That's what you must consider. Biden and Trump are simply shadows in the night, men in their twilight time.</p>
<p>This is obviously not a super situation. But it is one of great importance as the nation struggles to define itself.</p>
<p>Your vote will be vital.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-03-03T08:00:00ZThe Trump DilemmaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trump-Dilemma/460036915187694878.html2024-02-25T08:00:00Z2024-02-25T08:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>It is exceedingly difficult to get an accurate, fair assessment of Donald Trump. The liberal media despises him to a cartoonish degree, and some on the right have elevated him to cult leader status.</p>
<p>So, Americans and folks living abroad are being misled about a man who could be leading the United States again by this time next year. If that happens, Mr. Trump would join the hefty Grover Cleveland in the non-consecutive presidential terms category.</p>
<p>I know former President Trump as well as any journalist, with more than 30 years of interaction, dozens of interviews, sporting events, dinners, and telephone chats.</p>
<p>So here is the truth about the man.</p>
<p>He's disciplined in strategy when engaged. Most everything comes down to "the art of the deal." Although some foreign leaders despise him, there was far more order in the world on his watch than there is today under the apathetic, ideological Joe Biden. </p>
<div>
<div class="wide-content-host">
<div class="SlLx9 WWy1F byzS1 WWy1F">
<div id="UniqueMessageBody" class="XbIp4 jmmB7 GNqVo allowTextSelection OuGoX">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Joe-Biden-Faces-Reality-on-the-Border/585445047352512485.html" target="_blank">MUST WATCH: TALKING POINTS MEMO: JOE BIDEN FACES REALITY ON SOUTHERN BORDER</a><br /></span></div>
<div>
<p>Trump was able to largely stop the migrant invasion by "convincing" Mexican President Obrador to place troops on the Guatemalan border as well as the USA barrier. Once Biden took office, those Mexican troops stood down because that country makes money from unchecked border intrusions with which Biden has no problem.</p>
<p>The Trump administration had a first-rate national security team headed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien. The ISIS terror group, allowed to gain ferocity under President Obama, was virtually destroyed in the Middle East by U.S. Special Forces. Trump was feared in the terrorist precincts, including Iran and Afghanistan. Biden is not. </p>
<p>Putin was largely contained by the Trump administration. Bad Vlad's annexation of Crimea happened under Obama; the invasion of Ukraine is on Biden's resume. </p>
<p>Economically, Larry Kudlow and Steve Mnuchin basically imposed an anti-inflation, steady growth policy that allowed "real wages" for American workers to rise around 7 percent.</p>
<p>Covid stopped the economy cold, of course, but the pre-pandemic numbers are impressive.</p>
<p>Under President Biden, Americans are suffering from higher prices. Real wages are actually down.</p>
<p>So, on policy, the Trump administration was largely successful. That is if you are a fair assessor.</p>
<p>A mystery of the universe is why Donald Trump does not make his record the centerpiece of his current campaign. Once again, emotion clouds the situation.</p>
<p>The former President wanted to believe, and still does to this day, that the election of 2020 was a fraud. Trump then made that unproven opinion the centerpiece of his legacy. </p>
<p>To assist him in his election challenge, he rallied his supporters, some of whom attempted vigilante actions on January 6, 2021. Donald Trump's condemnation of that anti-American display never surfaced. A mistake of historical proportions.</p>
<p>That has overwhelmed his political profile and allowed his enemies to use the justice system, which is increasingly corrupt, to badly damage him.</p>
<p>Encouraged by the Biden White House, a variety of unprecedented legal cases and outcomes have badly injured Trump. There's a multi-million-dollar judgment to a woman in New York who cannot even remember the year Donald Trump allegedly attacked her. There's a half-billion-dollar judgment ordered by a leftist New York City judge in a contrived real estate beef that has no victims. There's a federal case against Trump for secreting top-secret documents while President Biden walks on the same charge, on and on and on. </p>
<p>All of this has infuriated Mr. Trump, who cannot stop lashing out against the machine arrayed against him. That lash includes many crude personal attacks, some of which damage the former President.</p>
<p>But he and his supporters don't see it that way. Trump, the "avenger," is the avatar.</p>
<p>The result is political chaos in America. The sitting President is hurting the nation with unfathomable policies like the open border and massive, irresponsible spending designed to buy votes.</p>
<p>Joe Biden will go down in history alongside Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>Therefore, Donald Trump, successful in running the country for four years, should easily defeat the hapless Joe Biden, who can barely function at this point.</p>
<p>But that is not the case. Polls show a close race. </p>
<p>It shouldn't be. But emotions are dictating on both sides.</p>
<p>Dangerous times.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-02-25T08:00:00ZCan Trump Win?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Can-Trump-Win/536754411867581195.html2024-02-18T16:28:00Z2024-02-18T16:28:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>In just over eight months, the United States will change drastically. If President Biden or a progressive replacement wins, kiss traditional America goodbye and welcome in a brave new world of high taxes, permissive social behavior, and marketplace outcomes based on skin color and gender.</p>
<div>
<div class="wide-content-host">
<div class="SlLx9 WWy1F byzS1 WWy1F">
<div id="UniqueMessageBody" class="XbIp4 jmmB7 GNqVo allowTextSelection OuGoX">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>If Donald Trump prevails, conservative policies will come storming back with a vengeance. I use that word literally, not as a cliche.</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Of course, the key question is: can Trump win?</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>He firmly believes he can despite all the legal and media attacks.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>The former president bases his outlook on polling and his philosophy of believing what he wants to believe. Of course, that belief system hurt him after the 2020 vote, as we all know.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>However, non-fact-based beliefs are not illegal. If they were, Joe Biden would be doing life.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>And on the subject of the president, a recent article from Politico points out that not one high-profile Democrat has called for him to resign. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Joe-Bidens-Memory-Lapse/425235690363090285.html" target="_blank">The party is holding firm on a Biden candidacy despite the fact that he is in cognitive decline.</a></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Better to have senility in the White House than Trump or any Republican. No matter how bad things get for Joe Biden on a variety of fronts, there will be no dissent from committed Democrats.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>That kind of blind loyalty is something Putin and Xi would admire. No thought, no honest assessment of damage to the country. It's party above everything else.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>I'm not sure Donald Trump fully understands the forces arrayed against him. Obviously, the justice system is being used to batter and bankrupt the man. The New York civil real estate case is a selective prosecution with no victims. The Atlanta vote prosecution is one of the biggest legal fiascos in recent history. The January 6 federal case is based on opinions, not hard evidence.</span></div>
<div><span> <br /><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-and-Cuomo-Debate-GOP-Messaging/-405288419295540427.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>MUST WATCH: O'REILLY AND CUOMO DEBATE GOP MESSAGING </strong></span></a><br /><br /></span></div>
<div><span>And then there is the corporate media that is now so anti-Trump that it is openly helping the Biden campaign. We cannot find a single pro-Trump pundit on any network TV news program. Please flag me if you see one.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Yet, Mr. Trump still has a chance to win because the Biden administration is a disaster. It has battered working Americans with inflation, compromised national security with the open border, and generally done nothing to solve ongoing problems.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>President Carter was plenty bad. President Biden is worse.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Donald-Trump-and-the-Progressives/4220445339471356.html" target="_blank">But that will not matter if Donald Trump does not course correct a bit. </a>Constant turmoil is not a pathway to the White House.</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Trump has a solid record to run on, and it does not include Nikki Haley's husband, disparaging NATO allies, or mentioning Taylor Swift.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>In order to beat Biden, Mr. Trump will have to choose his battles more carefully and stow the flame thrower, at least most of the time.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>The big guy, as Hunter Biden calls his father, is shrinking right before our eyes. Ironically, the main person propping him up is his predecessor in the Oval Office.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Strange bedfellows, indeed.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<p><em><br />Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-02-18T16:28:00ZDancing with DementiaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dancing-with-Dementia/314738070571744238.html2024-02-11T16:55:00Z2024-02-11T16:55:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>From afar, it looks like Joe Biden's biggest problem is Jill Biden, his 72-year-old wife. It is now beyond any reasonable doubt that the President is in steep cognitive decline, and Jill literally stands by her man, seemingly refusing to acknowledge reality.</p>
<p>About 15 years ago, I had to take my mother's checkbook and car keys. She objected. I can't even describe the feeling of doing that to the kindest person I have ever known. But Ann O'Reilly could no longer think with clarity. Her decision-making ability was shot.</p>
<p>That ordeal informed me about President Biden's condition. I knew he was impaired more than a year ago and incorporated that into my analysis. I take no satisfaction in doing so. I feel sorry for Joe Biden, the person. Someday, I might be in his shoes.</p>
<p>I do not have sympathy for Jill Biden, who is putting her country at risk by perpetuating the fiction that her husband has the cognitive ability to run the nation.</p>
<p>He does not.</p>
<p>The progressives who celebrate that Mr. Biden is their compliant tool are now ferociously lashing out at Special Counsel Robert Hur for stating the truth in his documents report: the President is impaired.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Bidens-Border-Boondoggle/-593574605919891208.html" target="_blank">These despicable far-left zealots could not care less about Biden or the 330 million people he leads.</a> Nope. The progressive fanatics have ideology poisoning. As long as their agenda is embraced, they don't care about the cost.</p>
<p>Listen to MSNBC if you don't believe me.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-Talks-Damning-Biden-DOJ-Report-on-Cuomo/-4239648697916090.html" target="_blank"><strong>MUST WATCH: <span>O'REILLY TALKS 'DAMNING' BIDEN DOJ REPORT ON 'CUOMO'</span></strong></a></p>
<p>Incredibly, there are still voters who would pull the lever for Joe Biden. The excuse is that Trump is worse than a leader who cannot remember information or formulate cogent thoughts. </p>
<p>So here is the brutal truth. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-You-Cannot-Vote-For-Joe-Biden!/-914813364428434583.html" target="_blank">Anyone who would vote for Biden at this point is putting the nation in grave danger.</a> If you don't want Trump, fine, skip the top presidential line and vote your party preference down the ballot.</p>
<p>Finally, the Jill Biden thing really disturbs me. I wrote truthfully about Ronald Reagan's mental condition and his wife Nancy's protective blanket in "Killing Reagan."</p>
<p>You won't find the book in the Reagan library.</p>
<p>But this Biden situation is so much worse. The President is now painful to watch. And America's enemies are watching closely.</p>
<p>For over a year, I've predicted that Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee. I am actually sad my analysis is close to becoming reality. </p>
<p>Why? Because Joe Biden does not deserve to go out this way. Someone should help him.</p>
<p><em><br />Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-02-11T16:55:00ZBordering on InsanityBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bordering-on-Insanity/-121916772925326285.html2024-02-04T12:00:00Z2024-02-04T12:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>So, the latest is President Biden saying he's done everything he can to solve the southern border crisis, which, of course, he created by destroying President Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy. </p>
<p>Simply put on his first day in office, Biden told border authorities to stand down, allowing an estimated ten million foreign nationals unsupervised entry into the United States. </p>
<p>For three years, Biden has watched his unlawful policy create havoc. He has done nothing, which is the exact opposite of everything.</p>
<p>Correction. He has done something. His Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against Texas, which is trying to protect its people by inhibiting illegal border crossings.</p>
<p>Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our worst presidents. The border madness will be at the top of his resume. </p>
<p>Now, the Democratic Party is desperate as the folks have largely turned against Biden. So, there's "new" legislation designed to give the President cover on the border issue. The media, which works closely with the Democrats, is solidly behind the proposal even though, as of Saturday, no one knows what it actually proposes.</p>
<p>Why should that even matter? We've got to protect our guy, Joe!</p>
<p>The progressive left controls all aspects of the Biden administration, and it believes the "white patriarchy" in America must be dismantled. The easiest way to do that is to flood the country with migrants, many of whom will eventually vote for progressive candidates.</p>
<p>The unintended consequences of the flood do not concern the leftists or Joe Biden. So what five Venezuelan migrants attacked two New York City police officers in Times Square? Who cares that cities are sinking financially because of all the free stuff border crossers are receiving? </p>
<p>Chaos is a small price to pay for destroying the white power structure forever. </p>
<p>President Biden does not likely understand any of this. He's in the early stages of dementia, as his wife and advisors well know. Joe is directed to do a few things but is largely off the grid. He's president in name only. </p>
<p>But that's okay with millions of voters who continue to support his destructive administration. A new poll says 55 percent of Democrats actually want an open border; they are bullish on uncontrolled immigration and deadly narcotic smuggling.</p>
<p>So, let's speak the truth. These voters are the ones actually destroying this country, just as the slavers tried to do in 1860.</p>
<p>Or am I wrong?</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-02-04T12:00:00ZBorder Personality DisorderBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Border-Personality-Disorder/130138924486873018.html2024-01-28T08:00:00Z2024-01-28T08:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>Anderson Cooper is extremely concerned, and so is Donald Trump. There's a new border security bill being formulated in Congress, and the former President is skeptical.</p>
<p>Anderson dismisses Mr. Trump's concerns as "political," saying on CNN that conservative dissenters don't want to solve the massive chaos at the border so they can use the issue against President Biden, who is seeking reelection.</p>
<p>One problem with all of this is that nobody knows what's exactly in the border bill. It's hundreds of pages, but details are not yet public. So, how could anyone be for or against it?<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Listen:-OReilly-Clay--Buck-on-the-Michelle-Obama-the-Border-Trump/538925336131137634.html" target="_blank"><br /></a></strong></span></p>
<p>How?</p>
<p>So, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-Border-Crisis-Just-the-Facts!/-750443106121436195.html" target="_blank">let's look at the facts</a>, even though they will probably upset the ideologues and media distortionists. President Biden single-handedly caused death and destruction on the border with Mexico by failing to enforce immigration law. Not debatable; that's what happened. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) says the border trek through Mexico is the deadliest migration route in the world.</p>
<p>Biden ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release most of those claiming asylum into the USA unsupervised. That's illegal. You must apply for asylum at a designated "port of entry," and, under Trump, you had to wait in Mexico or your home country for adjudication.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-Mexico-is-NOT-Our-Friend!/837427687628353177.html" target="_blank">More than ten million foreign nationals are very grateful to Biden for ignoring the law, and so are the Mexican drug cartels, which have reaped billions smuggling narcotics and human beings into the USA.</a></p>
<p>It is obvious that President Biden does not care about the destruction he has caused. He's been to the border once. He put Kamala in charge. She's been to the border once. When was the last time Mr. Biden addressed the crisis in any meaningful way?</p>
<p>Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas publicly stated the border is "secure." Then admitted about 80 percent of border jumpers are let go. Is Mayorkas an idiot, a liar, or both?</p>
<p>The House is set to impeach him shortly.</p>
<p>Joe Biden's dereliction of duty on immigration is one of the worst presidential actions of all time. It is beyond belief that he has destroyed security at the border, leading to public and fiscal disorder all over the country.</p>
<p>One more vivid example of Biden's dereliction.<br /><br />During the first three years of the Trump presidency, about 208,000 people died from drug overdoses in America.</p>
<div dir="ltr"><span>The three-year number under Biden is 323,000, according to the National Center on Health Statistics. On Biden's watch, border authorities have seized 2,118,000 pounds of illegal narcotics. The three-year number under Trump:1,656,000.</span><br /><br />It is estimated that about 20 percent of all drugs smuggled across the border are interdicted.<br /><br />Thus, America is awash in opiates with the killer fentanyl destroying a record number of lives. Meanwhile, President Biden doesn't even try to solve the problem or alleviate the suffering.<br /><br />It's a lock Mr. Biden will get the cartel vote.</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2024-01-28T08:00:00ZWelcome Back, TrumperBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Welcome-Back-Trumper/-638477388493085703.html2024-01-21T14:30:00Z2024-01-21T14:30:00Z<div style="text-align: center;">"Yeah, we tease him a lot <br />'Cause we got him on the spot</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">Welcome back"<br />- John Sebastian, "Welcome Back, Kotter"</div>
<p>Yes, massive attention is his once again. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Facing-Trumps-Monster-Campaign/973314729435292437.html" target="_blank">The most famous man in the world stands before the blazing spotlight, a space he relishes above all others.</a></p>
<p>Iowa came through. The snow angels delivered.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, the New Hampshire primary could seal the deal for Trump. The latest Boston Globe poll, just out, says he'll get more than 50 percent of the vote, soundly defeating Nikki Haley.</p>
<p>Governor DeSantis is in single digits. His campaign is over.</p>
<div><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-on-Whats-Next-After-Trump-Wins-Iowa-Caucus/-562318995104667387.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>MUST WATCH: <span>O'REILLY & CUOMO ON WHAT'S NEXT AFTER TRUMP WINS IOWA</span></strong></span></a><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/MUST-WATCH:-The-OReilly-Moment-Everyone-is-Talking-About/-415662465482297142.html" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<p>Then there is a four-week gap until the South Carolina vote, which Mr. Trump is expected to win handily.</p>
<p>That will be it for Ambassador Haley.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Why-Trump-is-a-Lock/-718920511795157539.html" target="_blank">At this point, it would be astonishing if Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee.</a></p>
<p>However, there are some unintended consequences.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-The-Media-Has-No-Credibility-at-All!/8801668859946494.html" target="_blank">The corporate media is furious it cannot take Trump out. It won't stop trying, but the former President has soundly defeated the press again.</a></p>
<p>The Democrats operating as law enforcement officials still have a shot to damage Trump, but those people are sketchy as well.</p>
<p>The Fani Willis/Fulton County, Georgia case is collapsing under the weight of corruption allegations. Ms. Willis apparently used the Trump case to enrich her married boyfriend and then traveled with him on the taxpayer dime for recreational purposes, if you know what I mean.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Calling-Governor-Kemp!/-76085260811107658.html" target="_blank">Fani is done. The entire case could very well be dismissed.</a></p>
<p>In New York, only some believe the legal system has been fair to Trump. His political position will not be damaged no matter what happens.</p>
<p>In Washington, Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6 conspiracy charges are a hodgepodge of speculation. Weak case. If Trump is convicted, the appeals process could take years.</p>
<p>Mar-a-Lago classified documents? Joe Biden walked on the same charges; Americans know it.</p>
<p>So, it seems that the Trump train will arrive much earlier than anyone thought.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Michelles-Message/500204433678824472.html" target="_blank">Barack and Michelle Obama are watching all this. They very well understand President Biden is incapable of running the country and campaigning for reelection.</a> Astute Democrats now know that Joe is at the end of the line.</p>
<p>In fact, the only hope the left has to defeat Donald Trump is if Michelle agrees to get in the race. That's it. That's the "Hail Mary."</p>
<p>Predictions are guesses.</p>
<p>What is not speculative is that Donald Trump is all the way back.</p>
<p>And as Wyatt Earp proclaimed in the movie "Tombstone," hell's coming with him.</p>
</div>
<div><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></div>Bill O'Reilly2024-01-21T14:30:00ZA Family AffairBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Family-Affair/-743036952404285687.html2024-01-14T08:00:00Z2024-01-14T08:00:00Z<p>So now the prodigal son says he'll sit for a Congressional deposition after all. As you may know, the President's boy Hunter, of whom Joe Biden is so proud, has defied two congressional subpoenas for more than a month by failing to show up for private depositions to discuss his acceptance of foreign money.<br /><br />In addition, perhaps on the advice of his loopy attorneys, Hunter pulled two public stunts on Capitol Hill, embarrassing his befuddled father.<br /><br />But, magically, he's finally seen the light. As Trump haters often say: "no one is above the law."<br /><br />If you watch the No Spin News, and I hope you do, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Contemptuous-First-Son/-638553580397123169.html">you heard me scold President Biden for being an indulgent father to Hunter</a>. Believe me when I tell you that if Teddy Roosevelt's sons acted the way Hunter has, the old Rough Rider would have tossed them in Oyster Bay.</p>
<div><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/MUST-WATCH:-The-OReilly-Moment-Everyone-is-Talking-About/-415662465482297142.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>MUST WATCH: The O'Reilly Moment Everyone is Talking About</strong></span><br /></a>
<p>Hey, Joe, you're the president. Tell your kid to obey the law and also, to pay all his back taxes right now! You are the nation's chief law enforcement officer, Joe. Figure it out.<br /><br />Now, the why of all this. As best I can determine, Attorney General Merrick Garland has privately informed the White House that Hunter will be indicted for contempt of Congress if his defiance continues. Garland has no choice since he prosecuted Trump guy Steve Bannon for exactly the same thing and Bannon has been sentenced to four months in prison.<br /><br />I don't use anonymous sources so I can't formally report the Garland story as fact. But I can tell you that's what happened.<br /><br />It's not like the Biden father/son combo has reversed themselves for the public good. It's selfish. They understand this entire fiasco is hurting the presidency as well as the Democratic Party, which continues to defend the hapless Hunter.<br /><br />Finally, I want to inject compassion into this column which I know will anger some Republicans. Joe Biden is 81 years old and not able to process complicated situations. But he knows his kid is being publicly humiliated and that's got to be brutal.<br /><br />Yes, you can say Joe could have ended the entire grift years ago. He absolutely could have.<br /><br />So now he's paying for his parental dereliction of duty when it comes to Hunter.<br /><br />Painful. And things will likely get worse.</p>
</div>
<div><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com to get the best 2024 election analysis - honest news and analysis is vital going into the most important election of our lifetime. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></div>Bill O'Reilly2024-01-14T08:00:00ZHere Comes the MudBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Here-Comes-the-Mud/366189998094120370.html2024-01-07T14:19:00Z2024-01-07T14:19:00Z<p>It will be the dirtiest presidential campaign in history, the one we are already experiencing. Pigs won't fly, but they will be ecstatic with the mud flow. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Biden-vs.-Trump-the-Rematch/721719346315196251.html" target="_blank">Already Adolf Hitler aka Donald Trump has a featured role, as does "Demented Joe," the incumbent.</a><br /><br />It wasn't that long ago that President Bush the Younger personally welcomed Barack Obama to the White House with a warm personal chat and a nice beverage.<br /><br />That will not happen in January 2025, as political vitriol is going to reach an all-time high.<br /><br />President Biden will not debate, so don't expect any face-to-face insults. It will be verbal hand grenades from afar, and the exposition will be vivid.<br /><br /><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly--Cuomo-Clash-Over-Bidens-Speech-Jan.-6/-278558576879433525.html" target="_blank">MUST WATCH: O’REILLY & CUOMO CLASH OVER BIDEN’S SPEECH</a></strong><br /><br />Mr. Trump has already called Mr. Biden the worst President in history, senile, lazy, stupid, corrupt, a drooler, a nitwit, and a snollygoster.<br /><br />Not to be outdone, the President describes or implies that Trump is sick, a Nazi, a racist, a miscreant, a vulgarian, corrupt, a traitor, and a climate denier. Biden says his likely opponent would impose fascism on America and perhaps relaunch U-boats.<br /><br />Or something.<br /><br />So, here's my question: is this really necessary?<br /><br />The answer is yes in the Biden camp but no for the Trumpets.<br /><br />Let me explain. By every popular measure, things were better during the Trump administration than now. Food and gas prices were much lower. Insurance premiums, utilities, buying vehicles as well as homes all cost less. Almost every necessity of life has risen under "Bidenomics."<br /><br />Ukraine, Gaza, social disorder in large cities, open borders, and 100,000 plus annual drug deaths were not present under Trump.<br /><br />In just three years, America's problems have dramatically increased on Biden's watch. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-Medias-Election-Lies/263219127366880222.html" target="_blank">Someone alert the media.</a><br /><br />So, all Donald Trump has to do is point that out using stone-cold facts.<br /><br />But noooooooooo. What fun is that?<br /><br />On the other hand, Joe Biden has to assume the role of an Exorcist in order to win reelection. The President has to force voters to acknowledge Trump's demons. "The power of Christ compels you," may very well become Biden's campaign slogan.<br /><br />Yes, it will be nasty. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams went after each other pretty hard. But those guys were muppets compared to the 2024 combatants.<br /><br />Democracy works best when there is robust debate and a concentration on problem-solving. It starts to wobble when hatred dominates the discourse and irrationality rules.<br /><br />Get ready for the wobble.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2024-01-07T14:19:00ZSocializing with GavinBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Socializing-with-Gavin/-821886537470227772.html2023-12-31T08:00:00Z2023-12-31T08:00:00Z<p>California Governor Gavin Newsom is a socialist. That means he wants the government to regulate the marketplace, telling folks what they can and cannot do.</p>
<p>And the biggest thing they can't do is accumulate personal wealth. No, Newsom is making that very difficult for Californians, and if he's ever elected President, no one's portfolio will be safe in this country.</p>
<p>Some backup. California entered the fiscal year 2022 with the highest budget surplus ever, close to $100 billion dollars.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly--Cuomo-Debate-the-Border-Situation/911738514440508992.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>MUST WATCH: O'REILLY & CUOMO DEBATE THE BORDER</strong></span></a><br /><br />Enormously high taxes will do that.</p>
<p>Then Newsom and the radical left legislature in Sacramento got down to business. Next year, the Golden State faces a $68 billion dollar deficit. It's almost impossible to believe that financial turnaround as California's annual spending has increased by $108 billion in three years.</p>
<p>Last week, Governor Newsom announced that every foreign national in his state will receive Medi-Cal, which is free healthcare. The Governor believes socialized medicine is a "human right."</p>
<p>The migrant health tab will cost California an estimated $2.6 billion yearly.</p>
<p>One problem. The state doesn't have the money. So, taxes will have to rise to record levels, working people and the affluent paying even more to Caesar.</p>
<p>Is this fair? Of course not. Hundreds of thousands of additional foreign nationals, many illegal border crossers, will flock to California for free health care while U.S. citizens pay their tab.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, legions of taxpayers are moving out of Newsom's fiefdom; this all ties into Joe Biden's open border policy.</p>
<p>The progressive movement, which controls almost everything Biden does, understands that traditional Americans will never vote for socialism. But down the road, the recent arrivals might.</p>
<p>That's why <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Drugs-Crime-and-Bidens-Border/346567660365156535.html" target="_blank">Biden's illegal and grossly irresponsible immigration policy</a> is on the board.</p>
<p>By the way, the President is getting hammered so badly in the polls that he sent Secretary of State Blinken and Homeland Security Czar Mayorkas to Mexico City for something; I'm not sure what.</p>
<p>I guess Abbott and Costello remain unavailable.</p>
<p>The two came back with nada to show for their journey, but who's surprised? Well, maybe Biden because there's a chance he forgot all about it.</p>
<p>Socialism is legal theft. It has never been successful in creating prosperity and harmony. But that's what Gavin Newsom and his progressive wrecking crew are after.</p>
<p>And if the Democrats win next November, we all might be staring at it.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-12-31T08:00:00ZBelieveBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Believe/-869862686548830148.html2023-12-17T08:00:00Z2023-12-17T08:00:00Z<p>In the early part of this century, I took on the secular-progressive movement that was attempting to intimidate businesses into canceling the word "Christmas."</p>
<p>Some stores actually ordered employees not to say the word to customers.</p>
<p>Using my platform on Fox News, I reported that a number of towns and retailers were banishing any mention of Christmas and insisting the phrase "happy holidays" become the universal December greeting. The O'Reilly Factor cited numerous examples of the "<a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-Successful-Campaign-Against-the-War-on-Christmas/-628709884444427807.html" target="_blank">war on Christmas</a>."</p>
<p>Well, we won. Victory was achieved when I mentioned on air the specific businesses that were promoting the secular attacks. Presto, many shoppers avoided going to those places and, quickly, the white flag waved.<br /><br /><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Boston-Mayors-Segregated-Holiday-Party/-343211547439167572.html" target="_blank">MUST SEE: BOSTON MAYOR'S SEGREGATED HOLIDAY PARTY</a></strong></p>
<p>Macy's then adopted a Christmas season theme that simply said: "Believe."</p>
<p>It was effective.</p>
<p>Today, America has a growing problem because too many of us "believe" what we want to believe. Persuading folks about anything is becoming very difficult. Facts are becoming secondary to "feelings."</p>
<p>This is particularly true in politics. The MAGA voters believe Donald Trump is a savior, and all else really doesn't matter to them.</p>
<p>On the liberal side, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Joe-Bidens-Fox-News-Defender/-474736597383602943.html" target="_blank">Joe Biden</a> is an exceptional president, and that's that!</p>
<p>Used to be that cogent arguments would be considered even by dissenters. Those days are gone. Today, rational assessments are rare because promoting ideology dominates.</p>
<p>Here's a vivid example. Writing in The Hill political website last week, ardent liberal Al Hunt laments President Biden's falling poll numbers and suggests Mr. Biden not run for reelection lest Donald Trump emerge victorious.</p>
<p>Writes Hunt about Biden: "He would be leaving as America's most successful one-term president, most likely with a successor intent on preserving most of that record."</p>
<p>One word sums up Mr. Hunt's belief: absurd.</p>
<p>First of all, President James Polk was the most successful one-term president, and Joe Biden is no Polk, as the saying goes.</p>
<p>Also, Al Hunt may want to check the colossal damage being done to the country from Biden's open border policy. In addition, the fact that Americans are paying far more for essentials than they did four years ago. And what about the horrendous public disorder plaguing many of the nation's cities, including Washington, where Al Hunt works?</p>
<p>But the progressive columnist is not interested in those realities because they intrude on what he wants to "believe."</p>
<p>The Constitution gives old Al the right to ignore reality and create a fantasy world, which he and millions of other Biden supporters have surely done.</p>
<p>And you, the reader, can certainly believe that.</p>
<p>Because it's true.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-12-17T08:00:00ZCorruption, Beyond a Reasonable DoubtBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Corruption-Beyond-a-Reasonable-Doubt/-129906898403206580.html2023-12-09T08:00:00Z2023-12-09T08:00:00Z<p> </p>
<p>The word "<a href="https://admin.billoreilly.com/b/Biden-Incensed-by-Question-About-Corruption/-379928625489311649.html" target="_blank">corruption</a>" is to easily thrown around. It is a dangerous thing, especially when embraced by the powerful, so caution should be used when alleging it.</p>
<p>The case of Hunter Biden is an incredibly vivid example of corruption by the federal government. The situation rivals Watergate and the Teapot Dome scandal, engineered by members of President Warren Harding's cabinet.</p>
<p>Because of Hunter, the Biden administration will go down in history alongside Richard Nixon and the Teapot.</p>
<p>The following facts are not in dispute.</p>
<p>From 2014 to 2019, Hunter Biden amassed millions of dollars selling influence to foreign concerns. The son of President Biden used his father's name in multiple financial deals where foreign nationals were promised access to the elder Biden.</p>
<p>The IRS, flagged by banks, began investigating Hunter during the Trump administration. But little happened even though it was obvious Hunter Biden had dodged his federal tax obligation for years. How obvious? He didn't even file.<br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://admin.billoreilly.com/b/A-Shock-and-Awe-Special:-Pearl-Harbor/496057818127973645.html" target="_blank">SHOCK AND AWE SPECIAL: PEARL HARBOR</a></strong></span></p>
<p>In a press conference on December 21, 2020, Trump Attorney General William Barr said he had full confidence in the Hunter Biden investigation and would not appoint a Special Prosecutor even though his boss, President Trump, favored that.</p>
<p>Barr was either badly mistaken or corrupt.</p>
<p>The incoming Attorney General under President Biden, Merrick Garland, also refused to appoint an independent counsel, saying the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, David Weiss, was doing a fine job.</p>
<p>That was a ludicrous and perhaps dishonest statement.</p>
<p>After at least five years of probing, Weiss finally charged Hunter with two misdemeanor tax violations and a low-level gun possession illegality. A corrupt plea bargain was reached where Hunter Biden would spend no time in prison.</p>
<p>Enter two IRS investigators who testified under oath that Weiss and Garland had no intention of getting to the truth of the matter. That happened on July 19 of this year.</p>
<p>Almost a month later, a federal judge rejected the corrupt deal put forth by the Justice Department. In an incredible display of arrogance, Garland signed off on that deal despite the testimony of the whistleblowers.</p>
<p>He couldn't be bothered with that.</p>
<p>Amazingly corrupt.</p>
<p>Up until this point, the powerful corporate news agencies, especially The Washington Post of Watergate fame, The New York Times, and NBC News, basically covered for the Biden family, even attacking those seeking the truth. In fact, only a very few media outlets, like The New York Post, pursued the story.</p>
<p>That abdication of journalistic responsibility lays the "corrupt" label on the American press. And there's no doubt about it.</p>
<p>Last week, under enormous pressure because of the Congressional testimony, the Justice Department filed three new felony charges and six misdemeanors against Hunter Biden. Essentially, the 56-page indictment says he broke tax law for three years from 2016 to 2019.</p>
<p>Whistleblowers allege Hunter's crimes began in 2014, but the statute of limitations has run out, which some believe was a goal of Garland's crew all along.</p>
<p>So, Merrick Garland and his merry men somehow cobbled all these new charges together in less than four months when the G-men were on the case five years prior to that.</p>
<p>Get the picture? There's more.</p>
<p>The latest federal indictment is filed in California, where Hunter Biden spent much of his time. But, the U.S. Attorney in that state is not cited in the court papers. Why? Because he flat-out refused to investigate Hunter Biden.</p>
<p>His name is Martin Estrada. He is still working for Merrick Garland. That is corruption.</p>
<p>The feds knew long ago that Hunter Biden was selling influence, dodging taxes, and literally spending millions on cocaine, sex workers, and luxury automobiles. Attorney General Garland knew President Biden knew, Jill Biden knew, and the corporate media knew.</p>
<p>But all of them did not want you to know because that revelation would have hurt the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement, which controls it.</p>
<p>Corruption? Off the chart.</p>
<p>Even Warren Harding would be appalled.</p>
<p><br /><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-12-09T08:00:00ZGavin Newsom and MeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gavin-Newsom-and-Me/-315410641416186558.html2023-12-03T08:00:00Z2023-12-03T08:00:00Z<p>After watching <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=873584699223823993" target="_blank">California Governor Gavin Newsom debate Ron DeSantis</a> the other night, I've come to the painful realization that the Golden State Governor will never do an interview with me, your humble correspondent.</p>
<p>The over/under applies for a Newsom one-on-one; over his dead body, under no circumstances.</p>
<p>Simply put, the slick spinmeister will never enter the No Spin Zone.</p>
<p>Therefore, I am bereft and left only with what might have been. Here's my "visualization."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-High-Cost-of-Joe-Biden/484717309721047409.html" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>MUST WATCH: THE HIGH COST OF JOE BIDEN</strong></span></a></p>
<p>O'Reilly: Governor, the average American household is now spending about $12,000 more on essentials than under Trump. So, how can you say the Biden economy is good?</p>
<p>Newsom: Because the president has created five billion and six jobs, the most ever in the history of mankind.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: That many?</p>
<p>Newsom: And I'm not even counting the positions he's created in Angola and Uruguay.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: Well, we're going to need those jobs because millions of migrants from all over the world are flooding into the USA. Do you favor the President's Open Border Policy?</p>
<p>Newsome: The border is secure, except once in a while, there's fog, and folks get in.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: In California, on your watch, folks pay about two dollars more for a gallon of gas than the rest of the country. Why?</p>
<p>Newsom: Because our gas is a special blend like Starbucks coffee. You pay more because it's special. Ask the gas station baristas.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: It seems like there's a lot of shoplifting in California, and no one is punished.</p>
<p>Newsom: Why would we punish people who steal less than $10 million dollars? It's just hijinks. It's not like they are the January 6 protesters who should be serving life. No, we in California are willing to share and care.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: The Census Bureau reports almost two million residents have departed your state in recent years. How come?</p>
<p>Newsom: Actually, we expelled them for bitching about high home prices. Let them live in Mississippi.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: But why are home prices in your state so high?</p>
<p>Newsom: Because, like our gas, California houses are special. Are you not understanding the Starbucks equation?</p>
<p>O'Reilly: I'm finding that a bit hard to believe, Governor.</p>
<p>Newsome: That's because you know Trump.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: Ironically, he's saying the same thing you are - that his properties are special and have high valuations.</p>
<p>Newsom: That's it, I'm leaving. You compared me to Trump.</p>
<p>O'Reilly: Well, you both use a lot of hair products, do you not?</p>
<p>Newsom: My hair is better. He uses the same kind of spray the Nazis did. Sieg Hair! Did you know that?</p>
<p>O'Reilly: No, I did not. One final question. You say Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doing fabulous jobs. But polls say the American people disagree. Who's right, you or the folks?</p>
<p>Newsom: Just for grins, let me be honest. I will never give a direct answer to, or even acknowledge the validity of, any data that makes progressives look bad. That will never happen. You can torture me with watching "Blue Bloods," where the traditional family is highlighted, and I still will not honestly address any criticism of leftist policies. Got it?</p>
<p>O'Reilly: Yes, I understand. Appreciate your time, Governor.</p>
<p>Newsom: An honor. If you ever need a table at the French Laundry, let me know.<br /><br /><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-12-03T08:00:00ZSneaker NationBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sneaker-Nation/507579434437614456.html2023-11-26T08:00:00Z2023-11-26T08:00:00Z<p>Things are changing fast in America, and some of the new looks are simply bizarre. If you watch the NFL halftime programs, you see guys in thousand-dollar suits wearing ugly sneakers. Why? It's not suitable, so to speak. They look foolish. Get shoes. That's not hard. But don't wear brown shoes with dark suits!</p>
<p>Why do I have to explain this?</p>
<p>The sneakers thing began about a decade ago when some women wore them with dresses. Again, why? Are they trying to look like Janis Joplin? Wait. Even Janis would be appalled. She possessed a sense of style.</p>
<p>Along with clueless dressing comes terrible manners. Many younger Americans believe they are entitled to the "kindness of strangers" and feel no need to reciprocate that largesse. There's a reason for that. When you live in the cyber world, standards of behavior are not present. You do what you want as long as your thumb is working. When you finally put down the device and actually walk outside, the cyber-mentality accompanies you.</p>
<p>Thank you notes? On the verge of extinction. Bringing a gift when invited to someone's home? Not the rage.</p>
<p>The culture is also in trouble. Book reading has drastically declined because people cannot concentrate for more than 20 minutes. They begin to fidget as they reach for the device. Did I miss a text while reading that darn book? Did some cyber gossip escape me?</p>
<p>Look at the junk on prime-time television. Naked people on islands stabbing each other in the back because that's easier to do unclothed.</p>
<p>Singers wearing masks, dancing with obscure celebrities, old guy bachelors. If this isn't "the end of days" in the entertainment world, then I don't know what.</p>
<p>The f-word is now as common as "please," bad grammar is a badge of honor, tattoos swallow up skin, and even the indigenous people of New Guinea are appalled by all the piercings.</p>
<p>Pot is legal, George Clooney is selling tequila on television, and 12-year-olds are betting the sports spreads even as gambling TV ads echo through American homes.</p>
<p>Here are some other things on the endangered species list: church-going, punctuality, saving money, self-discipline, self-sacrifice, respect and kindness to the elderly, due process, keeping your word, and sincere contrition.</p>
<p>Yes, I am an old-school guy. But I know things were calmer and much more sane when sneakers roamed the playgrounds, not the boardrooms. We may not be on the eve of destruction, but we are certainly not on the road to enlightenment.</p>
<p>And if you agree with me, maybe you tweet about it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2023-11-26T08:00:00ZJoe Manchin for President?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Joe-Manchin-for-President/-104238696978015594.html2023-11-19T15:36:00Z2023-11-19T15:36:00Z<p>We the people are living in turbulent times. Both front runners for the presidential nominations are deeply unpopular with the majority of voters. All the polls say that and it's true.<br /><br />But up in the sky, a bat-signal has suddenly appeared. The man apparently summoned to save us is the Senator from West Virginia, Democrat Joseph Manchin.<br /><br />This is important because if Manchin runs for president on a third-party ticket, he might well usher Donald Trump back into the White House. The Senator knows that and doesn't much like it. He voted twice to convict Trump on the bogus impeachment charges and overwhelmingly red West Virginia took note.<br /><br /><span>Polls say Manchin would be defeated if he ran for his senate seat again in 2024.</span><br /><br />So he's not. However, he is teasing a presidential campaign.<br /><br />Manchin believes President Biden is incompetent and the Democrats are now run by far-left zealots, which is certain. Out of control spending and the incomprehensible immigration system prove that.<br /><br />The current federal power structure in the USA is almost frightening. Monday, November 20, is Joe Biden's 81st birthday. He definitely is acting his age.<br /><br />The stark truth is that Biden has made almost everything worse in his first three years as president. The southern border has collapsed, prices for the essentials of American life have risen to painful levels, villains threaten us abroad, and public disorder has led to death and destruction in urban areas.<br /><br />The President has no solutions to any of those problems. His only strategy is to spend like a maniac.<br /><br />Joe Manchin opposes most Biden policies and is appealing to the "center" of the American electorate. He is a legitimate moderate who would govern far better than Biden is. However, the left will attack Manchin, as will the MAGA crew. The Senator believes Trump is a polarizing provocateur who will never unite the country.<br /><br />I hope Joe Manchin does make a run even if he can't win. Everything is difficult. It takes big money to even get on the presidential ballots as he must organize massive petitions in all 50 states. That will cost tens of millions of dollars.<br /><br />At age 76, this is the Senator's last shot. To me, it looks like he wants to get Biden and his crew out of there even if it means enabling Trump, who did well on policy as Manchin understands.<br /><br />Hate cliches but this one is clear and true: if Joe runs against Joe, it will be a game changer.</p>Bill O'Reilly2023-11-19T15:36:00ZThe Booking ProcessBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Booking-Process/-567143069951116666.html2023-11-12T08:00:00Z2023-11-12T08:00:00Z<p>The cancel culture is vicious, immoral, and gleefully embraced by all of America's media companies.</p>
<p>All. No exceptions.</p>
<p>Leftwing pundit Rachel Maddow has a new book out, and the networks are bullish. Ms. Maddow is everywhere, at least twice on the CBS morning shows, The Late Show with Colbert, and almost every NBC program.</p>
<p>And good for her. She's using the liberal media to sell her product. That's capitalism, which, ironically, is not exactly a leftist tenet.</p>
<p>But conservative Mark Levin is denied network opportunities. His book, "The Democrat Party Hates America," is a massive bestseller because he has his own TV and radio shows. But no corporate media invitations for him. Nada.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Ben-Stein-on-Hollywood-and-Israel/545790954698158706.html" target="_blank"><strong>WATCH: BEN STEIN ON HOLLYWOOD AND ISRAEL</strong></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=-315453574923461554" target="_blank">Attorney Alan Dershowitz does not have a show.</a> However, he does have a book about how Donald Trump is being "targeted" by the Justice Department. Interesting topic, right? Worthy of debate. No invites for Dershowitz.</p>
<p>Jason Chaffetz, the former congressman, has written a book called "The Puppeteers." Have you heard of it?</p>
<p>Didn't think so.</p>
<p>Yet Cassidy Hutchinson's hate Trump book has received massive exposure on the leftwing media outlets.</p>
<p>Over the last six months, not one book written by a conservative has been featured on the network morning programs, which have hours each day to talk about anything they want.</p>
<p>But they don't want anything to do with Republicans or conservatives. The network producers have canceled the entire group.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Trumps-Trial-Results/981114782546899123.html" target="_blank">This awful abuse of expression began when Trump became president in 2016.</a> Executives at Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBC, Paramount/CBS, and Warner Brothers/CNN all ordered their TV personnel to go after Trump and ignore his supporters. That's called blackballing.</p>
<p>Today, the cancel strategy is strongly enforced not only by media executives but also by rank-and-file. When CNN aired a highly-rated Trump Town Hall earlier this year, there was a revolt by many rank-and-file employees.</p>
<p>The message was clear. Stay on the left side of the road or else.</p>
<p>The cancel culture in the USA is not losing momentum. As I write in <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/p/The-Killing-Series/Killing-the-Witches/61561.html" target="_blank">"Killing the Witches,"</a> there is little opposition to it because, as the good people of Salem found out, if you challenge the unfairness, you become the next target.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm wrong about all this, and ABC will develop a traditional talk show to balance The View. Perhaps NBC might book a Newsmax anchor on The Today Show. Maybe CBS will suggest to Colbert that he bring on one non-liberal guest. Just one.</p>
<p>Place your bets, please.</p>Bill O'Reilly2023-11-12T08:00:00ZHunter, GathererBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hunter-Gatherer/480125629216330543.html2023-11-05T07:00:00Z2023-11-05T07:00:00Z<p dir="ltr">A somewhat cynical person might embrace a new adage concerning the Biden's: <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Joe-Bidens-Suspicious-Correspondence/645028054219746066.html" target="_blank">"The family that grifts together sticks together."</a> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>There is no question that most Americans believe members of the Biden family sold influence in order to gather millions of dollars from foreign interests. All the polls say that.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr">But there has been <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-Joe-Biden-Does-Not-Care!/-578291855228685948.html" target="_blank">no admission or contrition from the Biden camp</a>. And its supporters dismiss the entire thing as meaningless.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>In addition, first son Hunter has now gone on the offensive.<br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Bill--Monica-Crowley-on-Trump-Biden-2024-Witches-and-More/127575063849390503.html" target="_blank">O'REILLY & MONICA CROWLEY ON TRUMP, BIDEN, 2024, 'WITCHES' AND MORE</a></strong></span><br /></span></p>
<p dir="ltr">Writing in USA Today, a media vehicle often friendly to President Biden, Hunter excoriates conservative press outlets like Fox News and the New York Post for persecuting him.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Now, as one who has been savagely and dishonestly attacked by the liberal media, I know a bit about what's going on here. So, let's give Hunter Biden a fair assessment.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>He says he's proud of his recovery from substance abuse. Good. That's a positive.</span> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Then he says some conservatives have used his addiction to harm him. Exaggeration. Anti-Biden folks portray Hunter in negative terms, certainly, but the primary criticism is that he used his father's position as vice president to amass a fortune.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr">And there are other valid criticisms of Hunter, such as flying to a child custody hearing on a private jet to argue his payments should be less.</p>
<p dir="ltr">As they say, come on, man.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But Hunter Biden's main point is this sentence: "The weaponization of my addiction by partisan and craven factions represents a real threat to those desperate to get sober but are afraid of what may await them if they do."</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm confused. Does Hunter Biden really believe folks will not stop using crack because Fox News scrutinizes him? Is that what he's saying? Sounds like he's still smoking the drug.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So, the column has its share of malarkey. And nowhere in the essay does Hunter even address the allegations of influence peddling. That's quite an omission.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Maybe USA Today will run this column to provide some perspective about Hunter's victim posturing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">What are the odds? </p>Bill O'Reilly2023-11-05T07:00:00ZRighting WrongsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Righting-Wrongs/-619421134685394117.html2023-10-29T18:13:00Z2023-10-29T18:13:00Z<p>On Friday, I did a live show at the Paramount Theater in Huntington, Long Island, in front of a packed house. The theme of the show was an exposition of how the state of New York and much of the country has gone terribly wrong.</p>
<p>My wingman for the show was the most popular morning radio guy in New York City, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Listen:-OReilly-and-Sid-on-Israel-Hating-Americans-Maine-Shooting/145390193465257409.html" target="_blank">WABC's Sid Rosenberg</a></strong></span>.</p>
<p>In order to understand America's embrace of fallacious thinking, you have to accept one basic tenet: there is a right and wrong in the world. If you reject that, life becomes a shallow journey of selfishness.</p>
<p>My right-wrong education really began in 1917, when my 22-year-old grandfather was drafted in Brooklyn and sent to fight the Germans during World War I. John O'Reilly did his duty and became part of the "Lost Battalion." His regiment began with 550 young men. Fewer than 200 made it back home.</p>
<p>Pop, as we called him, then became a New York City police officer and sired three children. You can just imagine the tone in that house.<br /><br /><span><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Empire-State-OReilly:-Pro-Hamas-Protesters/-674459523662491851.html" target="_blank">EMPIRE STATE O'REILLY: PRO-HAMAS PROTESTERS</a></strong></span></p>
<p>My father, William O'Reilly, Sr., was also a military guy. A Naval officer who was sailing on the SS Oneida on its way to support the invasion of Japan in 1945.</p>
<p>The atomic bombings saved my dad's life as he would have been in the first invasion wave, almost certain death.</p>
<p>My upbringing was simple: it was expected that you do the right thing, and if you did not - you paid a price. I got that all day, every day in my tiny Levittown home as well as with the nuns In Catholic school.</p>
<p>I paid a lot of prices.</p>
<p>The basis of this judgmental upbringing was also simple. The Ten Commandments. If you have forgotten them, they are on display inside the Supreme Court building.</p>
<p>Again, simple. You are to be honest, respectful, and peaceful. No malice. That's essentially it.</p>
<p>In America today, right and wrong is no longer collective; it is now individualistic. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Crime-and-Lack-of-Punishment/-316446684101694943.html" target="_blank">The progressive left does not generally believe in punishment for hurting others</a>. In some places, that concept has been obliterated. Violent criminals are released time after time. Drug addicts are given tax money to buy more drugs. Personal betrayal is an industry. The justice system has collapsed as perjury goes unpunished in courts of law. There is little right-wrong accountability. Instead, excuses for harmful behavior are legion. Almost everything is socially acceptable.</p>
<p>The result is a rapidly deteriorating quality of life here in the land of the free. We the people, are subjected to corruption and dishonesty on a daily basis. Unlike my upbringing, today's kids see it every day.</p>
<p>Under my grandfather's and father's life code, I did not witness much evil growing up. But today, it's literally in your face.</p>
<p>There is a right and a wrong. According to the polls, three-quarters of adults believe the USA is on the WRONG track.</p>
<p>They are right.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-10-29T18:13:00ZMajoring in CowardiceBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Majoring-in-Cowardice/392196654451443627.html2023-10-22T16:40:00Z2023-10-22T16:40:00Z<p>The <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/A-Terror-Apologist-Gets-the-Axe/894403942598936528.html" target="_blank">ignorant anti-Israel displays</a> on many college campuses are all driven by one thing: fear.</p>
<p>College administrators are afraid of radical left students and faculty, so they allow them to run wild. What else explains the mealy-mouthed statements issued by Penn, Harvard, UCLA, NYU, and many others? It is shocking.</p>
<p>When a terrorist group murders more than a thousand civilians, there should be universal condemnation. There are not two sides to the story. Murder is murder. Hostage-taking is terrorism.</p>
<p>You expect some foolish, callous behavior from immature students but not from administrators and faculty who are supposed to be guiding them to productive and positive lives. But in today's cancel culture, the students hold power and can get people fired. The shout-downs of conservative speakers, the kangaroo courts dealing with allegations, and the acceptance of destructive leftist demonstrations are all indicators of colleges out of control.</p>
<p>Here's a vivid example. Marist College is a small institution on the banks of the Hudson River about 90 miles north of New York City. The school was built by the Catholic Marist brothers, whose collective vision was a place where children of working-class parents could achieve a college degree.<br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-Talks-Hamas-Support-on-NewsNation/181038748793428238.html" target="_blank">O'REILLY AND LELAND VITTERT DISCUSS HAMAS SUPPORT ON NEWSNATION</a></strong></span></p>
<p>I graduated from Marist with a BA in history. It was a great place; I made lifelong friends and went on to earn Master's Degrees from Boston University and Harvard.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-Marist-College/-855074451818697584.html" target="_blank">But the Marist College I attended is gone, replaced by a woke, leftwing campus where if you don't toe the liberal line, you had better watch out.</a></p>
<p>The president of Marist is Dr. Kevin Weinman, who was hired away from the ultra-liberal Amherst College in Massachusetts. Marist selection committee members praised his emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion in statements following his taking the job.</p>
<p>Soon after the Hamas murders, Dr. Weinman issued a statement that said he was "grappling" with the attack.</p>
<p>Grappling? What kind of weasel word is that? Grappling with what? Hamas has killed thousands of innocent people over the years. Does Dr. Weinman not know that? He should have clearly repudiated Hamas. He did not.</p>
<p>This is insulting to every Marist student and graduate. Grapple with that.</p>
<p>Developing honest and courageous leaders is the mandate of all higher learning institutions. But what we have now is a bunch of politically correct cowards in charge of many schools.</p>
<p>Enough.</p>
<p>Higher education in America is in line for a total overhaul. The woke faculty members will never wake up. They need some accountability, and that can only be done by alumni donors.</p>
<p>Don't give them a dime.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-10-22T16:40:00ZSympathy for the DevilBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sympathy-for-the-Devil/-425280884745926560.html2023-10-15T07:00:00Z2023-10-15T07:00:00Z<p>Here's something interesting. The cancel culture has turned against the radical left in America. Super ironic because the progressive movement, cheered on by the corporate media, has skillfully used social elimination via cancel culture to destroy its opposition.</p>
<p>But with the mass murder perpetrated by the terror group Hamas, the progressive Israel haters are on the run. Banishment looms for any American who is pro-Hamas. Even socialist Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is frightened.</p>
<p>The history of the current far-left movement is vehemently anti-Israel. That besieged country is considered to be fascist by the progressive loons. They believe Jews want to harm Palestinians and, therefore, are the evildoers.<br /><br /><span><strong><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Bernie-Goldbergs-Blunt-Take-on-the-Israel-Situation/383874381804335414.html" target="_blank">WATCH: BERNIE GOLDBERG'S BLUNT TAKE ON ISRAEL</a></strong></span></p>
<p>A vivid example of that kind of ignorance is Black Lives Matter.</p>
<p>Soon after Hamas terrorists using hang-gliders murdered about 250 innocent concertgoers inside Israel, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Woke-Corporations-and-BLM/-262195533210801408.html" target="_blank">the BLM Chicago branch put out a grotesque poster glorifying the atrocity</a>.</p>
<p>Almost impossible to believe any decent human being would do that.</p>
<p>From the jump, I have reported that Black Lives Matter is a destructive organization that peddles hatred. It also has used millions of dollars in donations to buy luxury real estate for its leaders.</p>
<p>Because BLM is a non-profit, it has to file IRS returns listing who gives it money. Here is a partial list of corporations that have assisted the radical group in amassing about one hundred million dollars.</p>
<p>Berkshire Hathaway, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, DoorDash, Nabisco, and Warner Brothers-Discovery.</p>
<p>That last company is especially interesting because it owns CNN. Surprised? I didn't think so.</p>
<p>To be fair, these politically correct corporations most likely gave BLM the money to virtue signal. But now, the devil has its due in the form of cold, hard cash.</p>
<p>Finally, don't expect a corporate "awakening" because it will not happen. Woke will continue to rule as innocent people continue to die.</p>
<p>Yes, you can now get canceled in America if you support Hamas. But what about all the progressives who have enabled the radical left all over the world?</p>
<p>What about them?</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-10-15T07:00:00ZA Teachable MomentBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Teachable-Moment/448877857837376415.html2023-10-08T07:00:00Z2023-10-08T07:00:00Z<p>(Oxford, England) So here I am in Harry Potter land, the medieval college town of Oxford. Very old buildings, tons of pubs with names like "<a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-in-England/-80034322703277877.html" target="_blank">The Fainting Goat</a>" and "The Depressed Sparrow." Exteriors of the Potter movies were often shot here because 16th-century buildings are all over the place, and Harry is wild about them.</p>
<p>German bombers avoided Oxford during World War II because the Nazis wanted to occupy the city once they vanquished England. Didn't work out, of course. Henry the Eighth shut down some of the schools here because they were run by Catholics. Didn't last long. The friars outlasted Hank.</p>
<p>The magic of Oxford is somewhat subdued by this fact: only about 23 percent of British students get a college degree. That low number is because access to higher education depends on how the teenagers score on their "A-Level" exam. Since the semi-socialist government in London pays for college, it keeps the university population down. And most high school students can't compete with the brainiacs. So, they learn trades and become working-class adults.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Shock-and-Awe---Surviving-the-Biden-Economy/799147926564035126.html" target="_blank"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">WATCH THE 'SHOCK AND AWE' SPECIAL: SURVIVING THE BIDEN ECONOMY</span></strong></a></p>
<p>In the USA, students have much more opportunity, with close to 60 percent having some college credits. But the government does not pay your way. Check that. President Biden will if you borrowed money from the feds to go to school. The catch is he wants you to vote for him.</p>
<p>As Harry Potter well knows, Oxford is one of the top higher educational systems in the world. But most Brits can't get near it, just as most American students can't get into Harvard. Unfair?</p>
<p>Not in a meritocracy where smarts and skills dictate outcomes. However, there is something very unfair about using a test for teens to define a life, is there not?</p>
<p>Many of us kicked into gear later than age 17. That was my situation. In America, potential is not suppressed by a single test. In Britain, it is.</p>
<p>Just another example of a very important thing: the United States has more opportunities to pursue happiness than any other place in the world.</p>
<p>The progressive totalitarians might not care about that, but the poor person wading across the Rio Grande certainly does. Maybe their kid may one day attend Oxford, as my son is doing.</p>
<p>But, trust me, he wouldn't be here if he were a British subject.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-10-08T07:00:00ZWitch Hunting 2023Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Witch-Hunting-2023/560400162000584519.html2023-09-30T21:08:00Z2023-09-30T21:08:00Z<p>Almost every day Donald Trump says he is the victim of a witch hunt. But what does that actually mean? If you read my new book "<a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/p/The-Killing-Series/Killing-the-Witches/61561.html?dispid=174">Killing the Witches</a>", you will see the American origin of destroying human beings over unfounded accusations. In 1692, hysteria broke out in Salem, Massachusetts as people were murdered, families wrecked.</p>
<p>Today we again have an organized movement to demonize people without due process or decency. This is called cancel culture, and it has been embraced by the corporate media. Let's examine what happened on Friday, September 22.</p>
<p>Soon after Rupert Murdoch resigned from running the Fox News Channel, its competitor, CNN, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/CNN-Smears-Bill-OReilly/-325219904452954291.html">ran a story in prime time asserting that FNC is a racist, bigoted enterprise</a>. The segment aired on a program hosted by Abby Phillip, a woman of the left.</p>
<p>Ms. Phillip introduced a montage of sound bites designed to demonize Fox News.</p>
<p>Among the sound was an <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/CNN-Smears-Bill-OReilly/-325219904452954291.html">eight second statement by me</a>: "slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the federal government."</p>
<p>There was no context to the statement which was taken from a 2016 discussion about the construction of the White House.</p>
<p>Now, anyone hearing those eight seconds might think that Bill O'Reilly is insensitive to slavery or even condoning it.</p>
<p>But that is a lie and CNN knew it.</p>
<p>The original 2016 discussion involved First Lady Michelle Obama saying that the house she once lived in was built by slaves. Mrs. Obama caught heat for that statement but it's true. Therefore, I came down on her side and <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/CNN-Smears-Bill-OReilly/-325219904452954291.html">said this</a>: "Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House. Records show 400 payments made to slave masters between 1795 and 1801. In addition ... slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government - which stopped using slaves in 1802."</p>
<p>Historical fact and I was happy to provide it in defense of Michelle Obama.</p>
<p>Three days after CNN demonized me on national television, my attorneys wrote to CEO David Zaslav asking for a retraction and apology. </p>
<p>Here's the reply from CNN counsel David Vigilante: "nowhere in Ms. Phillip's introduction ... does she accuse your client, or anyone else included in the montage, of racism. Instead, she lets the actual words speak for themselves, without intermediation, so viewers can draw their own conclusions." </p>
<p>No apology will be forthcoming from CNN.</p>
<p>The assertion that viewers "can draw their own conclusions" from a grossly out of context edited statement is dishonest in the extreme. But this is CNN, as the announcer intones.</p>
<p>The leftist corporate media has fully embraced the cancel culture by consistently using deception to demonize its perceived opposition. Like the evil clerics in Salem, the pursuit of truth has no place in their world.</p>
<p>The cancel culture villains can no longer use ropes to hang their targets, but they can use their media power.</p>
<p>And they are.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-09-30T21:08:00ZLeave it to KamalaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Leave-it-to-Kamala/-39379442427002471.html2023-09-24T07:00:00Z2023-09-24T07:00:00Z<p>Fresh off her tremendous success discovering the "root causes" and solutions to the border crisis, President Biden has appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to run the new White House office on gun violence prevention—another splendid decision by Joe.</p>
<p>I guess Sylvester Stallone wasn't available because he's out promoting the firearms exposition "Expendables 4."</p>
<p>It's amazing how astute the President is. Even though Kamala refused to spend any time at the border actually assessing the incredible chaos down there, she showed Biden enough to get another stellar appointment.</p>
<p>Not to confuse Ms. Harris, but there are basically two factors driving gun crimes. First (and most intense) is that criminals use firearms to control the narcotics traffic and create general mayhem. And secondly, mentally disturbed people can easily buy guns in many places because each state has different firearm procedures.</p>
<p>Mass shootings are defined as "three or more people being shot." More than 90 percent of mass shootings in America are generated by street criminals, most often drug gangs. But the Biden administration (and this means you, Kamala) refuses to define "gun violence" in that context. That's because the shooters are often African-American inner-city miscreants.</p>
<p>Of course, the victims of gunfire are disproportionately Black as well.</p>
<p>The media also generally ignores urban gun criminals for the same reason: skin color.</p>
<p>In progressive jurisdictions like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and St. Louis, criminals apprehended with illegal firearms are often not punished. No bail. No jail. Plea bargain down to a misdemeanor. Counseling.</p>
<p>As the former Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris has to know this. But she'll never say it. Ever. So, violent criminals continue to walk among us.</p>
<p>On the second front, there is no solution to lunatics killing innocent people. It will always happen. School security can mitigate that a bit, but dangerous maniacs will never completely vanish.</p>
<p>However, if the Biden administration really cared about "gun violence," it would propose harsh mandatory prison sentences for anyone who possesses a firearm in the commission of a crime. Five years first offense, ten years second. That's in addition to punishment for the criminal act being committed by the gun-wielder.</p>
<p>And, if you sell an illegal gun, ten-year minimum prison sentence in a federal penitentiary.</p>
<p>That would tamp down gun violence big time by isolating dangerous criminals in confinement while protecting innocent citizens.</p>
<p>So let's get on board with that, Kamala!</p>
<p>Kamala?</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-09-24T07:00:00ZHunting HunterBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hunting-Hunter/873961520331541570.html2023-09-17T07:00:00Z2023-09-17T07:00:00Z<p>Kimberly Strassel of The Wall Street Journal is an excellent columnist. On Friday, she reported that "suspicious banking transfers" were reported 170 times in transactions made by Hunter and Jim Biden, the President's brother.</p>
<p>That may be a record.</p>
<p>The FBI could have easily opened an investigation five years ago based on that information. Apparently, the Bureau did little or nothing even after an FBI informant reported that Hunter and Joe Biden each received $5 million dollars from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.</p>
<p>It's the FBI's mandate to look into allegations made against powerful politicians. Somebody tell Director Wray.</p>
<p>The House Oversight Committee, driven by Republicans, did investigate the banking red flags and came up with a labyrinth of shell corporations routinely funneling foreign money to Hunter Biden. Now, three house committees want to see the personal banking records of both Joe and Hunter Biden. Here's a shocker: the two men are refusing to hand them over.</p>
<p>That's why Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy announced a formal "impeachment inquiry." That designation gives the probing congresspeople more legal authority in the pursuit of the Bidens' finances.</p>
<p>Of course, if President Biden has nothing to hide, he should release said records and reinforce CNN's posture that there's no evidence linking Joe to Hunter's grifting.</p>
<p>Come on, Mr. President, give Jake Tapper and the rest of the "in the tank" crew a break by breaking the banking records story. No joke, not being facetious; you can walk away from all this tomorrow by doing the right thing.</p>
<p>But Joe won't do that because he knows Jake and the tank crew will continue the malarkey about "no evidence." With the Attorney General in his pocket, the President and his advisers believe he may get away with any wrongdoing.</p>
<p>I could be desperately wrong, but I think Joe Biden did do corrupt things while enriching his family. I also believe those things will, eventually, be on vivid display.</p>
<p>If so, Joe will have to go. In my mind, it's when not if. Again, I could be mistaken.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-09-17T07:00:00ZThe StingBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Sting/-286406884029567455.html2023-09-10T07:00:00Z2023-09-10T07:00:00Z<p>Picture this: You serve four years as president of the United States. During your term, inflation stays under two percent. Real wages and consumer spending power rises about 9 percent for American workers; unemployment is less than 4 percent after the pandemic.</p>
<p>Fairly good showing, correct?</p>
<p>In addition, migrant crossings at the southern border drop about 80 percent by the time you leave office. No wars erupt. The jihadist group ISIS is decimated by American power. Putin and Xi are relatively contained.</p>
<p>That seems to be a fairly good resume, but there is scant national reporting of it. Instead, salacious charges of corruption involving Russia dominated headlines for two years before and during your term. A Special Counsel is appointed to investigate. His report says there is no corruption. The national media does not celebrate.</p>
<p>You can despise Donald Trump all you want, but the facts are in stone. He ran this nation far better than Joe Biden. Comparing the two is similar to stacking FDR's achievements against Herbert Hoover's.</p>
<p>But millions of Americans do not agree with my analysis and continue to "hate" Trump. They have only one valid reason for that emotion: the colossal Trump-driven fiasco after the 2020 election.</p>
<p>None of that, including January 6, should have happened, and it has obliterated Donald Trump's Oval Office record as a successful manager.</p>
<p>Some history. The "get Trump" movement began in early 2016 when it became obvious he might secure the Republican nomination. It accelerated as Hillary Clinton's campaign failed to persuade many independent voters. Almost in lockstep, the liberal media pounded Trump on a daily basis while extolling the virtues of Hillary.</p>
<p>In print, the blitzkrieg was led by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, and USA Today. On television, CNN and NBC News actually competed to see who could damage Trump the most. It was a tie, but, ironically, CNN's over-the-top partisanship destroyed its credibility as a news-gathering operation. To this day, it has not recovered.</p>
<p>But no lessons have been learned. The aforementioned news agencies are openly currently supporting President Biden by hiding his deficiencies and alleged corruption. The leftist media is also cheerleading the legal cases against Trump without a shred of balance or skepticism.</p>
<p>If Hunter Biden were named Donald Trump Jr., do you think the "grifting" coverage might be a bit different?</p>
<p>Rhetorical question.</p>
<p>So that's the "sting." Honest, balanced reporting and news analysis are on the endangered species list. The scorpions who control most media companies are more driven than ever to impose progressive policies and get pliable people like Biden and Kamala elected.</p>
<p>The result is a lot of power and money is being used to prop up incompetence and corruption.</p>
<p>And that sting hurts every one of us.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-09-10T07:00:00ZBeyond BeliefBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beyond-Belief/-532683136001373902.html2023-09-03T07:00:00Z2023-09-03T07:00:00Z<p>One of my guiding principles is "people believe what they want to believe." I came to that rather late in life, so, to my regret, I wasted a colossal amount of time trying to persuade folks who simply wouldn't change their thinking because they didn't want to. Why did I bother engaging them?</p>
<p>Some backup: People believe in God because that brings them a measure of solace. Good will be rewarded in the end, and evil will be punished by a just higher power.</p>
<p>People generally don't believe because they don't want to be judged, and there is no demonstrable proof of God one way or another. My Catholic belief is based on the intricacies of nature and the human body. But I WANT to believe.</p>
<p>Another good example is abortion. People believe that destroying a fetus is justified for a variety of reasons. And no "human rights" argument will dissuade them. That's because they don't consider a fetus "human."</p>
<p>Of course that's an opinion, not a fact. Exactly when human life begins is subjective. I err on the side of life. That seems just to me. I believe adoption is a better option than the destruction of a potential human being.</p>
<p>Same thing in politics. President Biden and the Democrats will tell you that the economy is improving under Joe. That's what they want to believe. But the data says differently.</p>
<p>Under Biden, "real wages" have fallen more than 5 percent. That stat is from the House Budget Committee and is based on the purchasing power and take-home pay of American workers.</p>
<p>During Trump's four years, real wages rose nearly 9 percent because of tax cuts and low inflation.</p>
<p>But millions of voters don't want to believe that and blindly reject the statistics. And there's nothing you can say to make them believe the data which is true.</p>
<p>Right now, many voters think Trump is a criminal, even as others believe Biden trumps Trump in the felony arena. Obviously, there have been no criminal convictions yet, so the judgments are based on desirable outcomes. But even after the situations are legally decided, people will continue to believe what they want to believe about those two men.</p>
<p>If a person succumbs to false beliefs and rejects accepting verifiable truth, they live in a delusional state. This is dangerous for a society based on justice and fairness. And how many folks do you know who are delusional? I'm betting a lot.</p>
<p>I hate to end with a cliche, but I must quote one of the greatest actors of our time, Jack Nicholson. Facing Tom Cruise in a military courtroom, Nicholson's movie character blurts out the classic line: "You can't handle the truth!"</p>
<p>To many Americans, truer words have never been spoken.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-09-03T07:00:00ZReality CheckBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Reality-Check/-178490244787069465.html2023-08-27T18:21:00Z2023-08-27T18:21:00Z<p>My union, SAG-AFTRA, continues its strike against the Hollywood studios. This has been going on for about five weeks, and it is brutal. Most union members don't make all that much money, to begin with, and because of AI and other societal changes, the entertainment future is not bright.</p>
<p>Television will be affected the most. Programs like "Blue Bloods" and "NCIS Tupelo" are not filming. So-called "series" TV has joined San Francisco in the doom loop.</p>
<p>Therefore, we the people, are left with "reality" shows like "Dancing with the Special Counsels" and "America's Got Talent."</p>
<p>The "America's Got" franchise should be expanded this fall to include the following.</p>
<p>- America's Got Indictments. Each week, three politicians compete to see who will be charged with a felony first. Host: Rod Blagoveich.</p>
<p>- America's Got Hunter. The son of the president and his crew hustle various countries to see how much money they can grift in each episode. Host: Jill Biden.</p>
<p>- America's Got Migrants. This competition involves pitting border counties against one another to see who can admit the most illegal aliens in a 24-hour period. Host: Kamala "Root Cause" Harris.</p>
<p>- America's Got Tattoos. With a third of adults putting ink on their bodies, there will be no shortage of contestants attempting to see who can gross out the studio audience the most. Hosts: a rotating group of NBA players.</p>
<p>- America's Got Pot. Catchy title featuring cities competing to see who can air pollute the most with weed smoke. Host: Willie Nelson.</p>
<p>- America's Got Taylor. Each week, a group of Taylor Swift look-a-likes perform in a homage to the most popular singer in the world. Trans contestants are encouraged. Host: Dylan Mulvaney.</p>
<p>- And finally, America's Got Don and Joe. Each week, two contestants are selected to act out a presidential debate. Topics will include hiding documents, selling influence, personal insults, rigging elections, rioting at the Capitol, and falling asleep during a memorial service in Maui. Host: Michelle Obama.</p>
<p>Now, come on. The above are monster concepts. America deserves to see those shows.</p>
<p>Let's do it - Hollywood people!</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-08-27T18:21:00ZYou Get What You Pay ForBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/You-Get-What-You-Pay-For/18468459460569346.html2023-08-20T07:00:00Z2023-08-20T07:00:00Z<div>
<p>Women are being "erased" in Afghanistan. So says a recent article on the Daily Chatter website, our foreign news partner.</p>
<p>The Taliban retook the country two years ago this week after the botched U.S. withdrawal by the Biden administration. Today, Afghan women cannot be seen in public without a male escort, are denied education, and have absolutely no rights whatsoever.</p>
<p>That's terrible, of course, but the blame lies with the Afghan people themselves, who flat-out refused to fight for their own freedom. America gave them a 20-year window to embrace a civil society. Collectively, the Afghanis said, "Not interested."</p>
<p>San Francisco is a long way from Kabul, but it's a similar story. The nation's most liberal city destroyed the two-party system and is now in a " doom loop" of destruction and abhorrent public behavior. Left-wing loons run the city and were given power by the voters. So, who feels sorry for San Franciscans? Not me.</p>
<p>Over to Los Angeles where it's the same story, out of control crime and disgusting public expositions. DA George Gascon will not enforce the law, so concerned citizens launched a recall to boot Gascon out. It failed; not enough voters wanted Gascon to lose his job.</p>
<p>Say goodbye to Hollywood, as Billy Joel sings.</p>
<p>Angelenos are another voting bloc that has put ideology ahead of public safety and civility. So, does the city deserve sympathy?</p>
<p>In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul will not rescind the "No Bail Law," which she could drastically modify by Executive Order. In fact, Hochul supported the insane policy. Last November, she won reelection against a law and order Republican, Lee Zeldin.</p>
<p>Governor Hochul would have lost if not for getting 90 percent of the African-American vote in New York City. Interesting because the vast majority of violent crime victims in New York are black.</p>
<p>People often blame outside forces like the media, corruption, and money for political ineptitude. But it's the voters and citizens who are really at fault.</p>
<p>Thousands of American service people were killed or wounded in Afghanistan, trying to give those folks a better future.</p>
<p>The Afghans didn't want it, just as millions of Americans don't really care about safety in their own neighborhoods.</p>
<p>I know that sounds inexplicable, but stupidity and political fanaticism can bring down any society, including ours.</p>
<p>All Americans should heed this vivid warning. San Francisco, LA, Chicago, and New York are in atrocious shape. The progressive movement and voter apathy are the reason.</p>
<p>The adage is "People will eventually get what they deserve."</p>
<p>It's true.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2023-08-20T07:00:00ZSeeking CounselBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Seeking-Counsel/-243917289676684392.html2023-08-13T07:00:00Z2023-08-13T07:00:00Z<div>
<p>Attorney General Merrick Garland is scared. So is FBI Chief Christopher Wray. But most frightened of all should be President Joe Biden. I say should because, at this point, he might not understand or even remember how he enabled his son and brother to amass millions in foreign payments for doing nothing.</p>
<p>That is called "influence peddling." There are a variety of federal statutes in place to discourage dishonesty.</p>
<p>As has been widely reported, Vice-President Biden under Barack Obama spent time chatting and meeting with a variety of foreign nationals doing "business" with Hunter and Jim Biden. Joe says it was harmless chit-chat. He loudly proclaims he never helped his son and brother, who were grifting foreign enterprises using the "Big Guy's" name.</p>
<p>The odds that the President's denials ring true are about the same as Joy Behar running away with Tucker Carlson.</p>
<p>On Friday, the hapless Merrick Garland announced that the U.S. Attorney investigating Hunter Biden's crimes would be given "Special Counsel" status. This means David Weiss can bring charges in all American jurisdictions. But according to sworn testimony by Garland, Weiss has had the power to do that for five years. That's how long he's been investigating Hunter, and in all that time has basically uncovered nothing. House Republicans are exposing all the hidden cash.</p>
<p>But, suddenly, Merrick Garland wants to know the true extent of the Biden family grifting. He really, really does. But not really enough to order the FBI to aggressively get involved with the case. The Bureau is too busy surveilling Catholics anyway.</p>
<p>The tone of this column is cynical, I'm aware. But this entire Biden thing is bogus. The fix was in from the beginning, with Hunter not paying his taxes and generally behaving like a cartel member. The corrupt press helped Hunter out. The Justice Department didn't care.</p>
<p>Special Counsel Weiss may now take five more years to uncover Joe Biden's role in all this, but I suspect he won't even look. Old Joe is on the ropes anyway, so why bother? In reality, anyone with a smidgen of clarity understands that the corruption is staggering. But Weiss is on the record as saying there is no corruption.</p>
<p>So much for the new Special Prosecutor.</p>
<p>As The Who once sang: "Meet the new boss - same as the old boss."</p>
<p>Right on!</p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-08-13T07:00:00ZFYIBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/FYI/-565694579844496203.html2023-08-06T07:00:00Z2023-08-06T07:00:00Z<div>
<p>There is a profound change underway in America that few citizens understand. The way news is being consumed is drastically different than just ten years ago, and that does NOT bode well for the United States.</p>
<p>Some history. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all consolidated power by eliminating a free press. That situation remains today in China and Russia. Folks in those countries have no idea what's going on. They hear and read what the dictators allow.</p>
<p>The American Constitution protects freedom of information, but President John Adams did manage to get a law passed saying that criticism of his Federalist administration was "treason." It was revoked when he left office, but it happened.</p>
<p>Today, the media in the United States is widely loathed and ignored by most. My calculations are that about 20 million Americans consume television news on a regular basis. There are about 260 million adults in this country. So the math is grim on the information front.</p>
<p>Younger Americans have almost completely bailed. On the Fox News channel, if a program gets 200,000 viewers between the ages of 25 to 54, that is a strong number.</p>
<p>The O'Reilly Factor on that network routinely hit 600,000, sometimes elevating to a million. And Fox is the highest-rated cable News network; the others have smaller audiences.</p>
<p>The decline in network news viewership parallels cable.</p>
<p>As for newspapers, the "fat lady" has sung. It is largely over as a vibrant industry. Only the arrogance remains.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons for the stark media declines. First, corporate moguls, not seasoned journalists, now dictate most news coverage. The result is an ideological slant and groupthink. Pander to the audience.</p>
<p>Most news presenters, as they are called in England, do what they are told. As a result, many programs are so boring and predictable it's painful to watch. How many times do we have to be subjected to "what do you make of that" and "at the end of the day?"</p>
<p>The unwritten rule in every corporate media organization is "mavericks need not apply."</p>
<p>Some broadcasters like Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly, and myself have successfully formed independent information companies, but you have to have a strong stomach to do it. The attacks on people who speak their minds in America are malicious and never-ending.</p>
<p>Much easier to play it safe, cash the corporate check.</p>
<p>The smartphone has done grave damage to the news industry. Attention spans are much shorter, rank propaganda all over the device, and folks can build their own internet bubble. Cell phone addiction is the enemy of responsible citizenry.</p>
<p>Finally, the low standards of public schooling have devastated the will to even know what's going on. Civic apathy is at an all-time high. America has this in common with Ancient Rome at the end.</p>
<p>How many high school or even college students would even understand that reference?</p>
<p>The old adage is, "The truth will set you free." My question is: how many of us even care about truth these days?</p>
<p>I think you know the answer to that one.</p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-08-06T07:00:00ZWarm Enough?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Warm-Enough/593478577354464514.html2023-07-30T07:00:00Z2023-07-30T07:00:00Z<div>
<p>It's hot. That's what happens in the summertime heat. It's on.</p>
<p>But it's warmer for some than others. President Biden, for example, is on the verge of heatstroke. Hunter's amazing grifting has brought an intense spotlight on Joe, the family patriarch. No joke. The White House is turning into Death Valley.</p>
<p>It's plenty hot in Palm Beach, Florida, as well. But Donald Trump isn't there. He's in New Jersey trying to avoid the heat. But he can't. Every day he's charged with something else. The federal "Heat" is crazy after him.</p>
<p>Hunter and Joe, not so much.</p>
<p>Merrick Garland must be sweating. He's a lock for impeachment in the fall. The heat is bouncing off Trump right back on him.</p>
<p>The Attorney General has single-handedly brought the word "hapless" back into the lexicon. I mean, take a look at this guy. He makes Don Knotts look like Clint Eastwood.</p>
<p>Back to the tropics, White House mouthpiece Karine Jean-Pierre was heard singing "The Heat is On" by Glenn Frey. At least, that's the rumor. Karine has been a little snappish lately. Must be the heat.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is blaming the tepid temps on MAGA people. This has surprised folks in Bangladesh, where it is always hot. They thought the high temperatures might be India's fault because that country is a pollution paradise. But no, MAGA forces did it.</p>
<p>Hillary's position has also taken Al Gore back a bit. He was Vice President for eight years and heavily promoted climate change disruption to President Bill Clinton, who did nothing. Maybe Bill is secretly a MAGA person.</p>
<p>The heat is certainly on the liberal media, which continues to bodyguard Joe Biden. But the press does not care. It's worth some perspiration to protect the progressive movement and its water carrier, Joe.</p>
<p>Finally, Donna Summers' song "Hot Stuff" may become the new national anthem. Because from sea to shining sea in the good old USA, we should all agree with one dead on certainty.</p>
<p>It's hot.</p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-07-30T07:00:00ZWill Joe Have to GoBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Will-Joe-Have-to-Go/-266242388135227930.html2023-07-23T17:46:00Z2023-07-23T17:46:00Z<div>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/live" target="_blank">Monday, July 24, is an important day for Americans who can actually handle the truth, as Jack Nicholson once implied. At 8 pm Eastern, we will have a live town hall for BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, where I will answer emailed questions about the Biden family's financial situation.</a></p>
<p>Now, I don't have all the answers, but I have more than most. We've been diligently investigating this potential game-changer for every American.</p>
<p>First of all, it looks bad for President Biden. Evidence is mounting that he knew his son and brother were taking massive amounts of foreign money and selling influence to get it.</p>
<p>No reasonable doubt on that. They did it and derived close to $20 million, maybe more. But where did all that money go? That question remains unanswered largely because the Justice Department and many Democrats could not care less.</p>
<p>In fact, strong evidence has been presented that Attorneys General Holder, Barr, and, of course, Garland tanked the Biden investigation.</p>
<p>But what about Joe? On Monday, I will run down the likelihood that this scandal will take him off the board.</p>
<p>Here are some unanswered questions beginning with, who is paying the Biden family's legal bills? It's not them.</p>
<p>- Was Joe Biden actually sitting next to his son when he shook down a Chinese Communist guy for $5 million? Hunter Biden described that scenario, but the Justice Department blocked a location search for Joe Biden on the day the damning Hunter email was sent. However, it is not beyond the grifter Hunter to lie for money, so there's doubt.</p>
<p>- And why isn't the President's brother Jim under public scrutiny? He was a big part of the money scheme.</p>
<p>- Why did the wife of US Attorney Matthew Graves, who refused to investigate Hunter despite being formally asked, visit the White House 28 times? Extremely bad look that the Justice Department overlooks with enthusiasm.</p>
<p>What say you, Fatima Graves?</p>
<p>-And finally, $20 million is a colossal amount of money coming into a family for nothing. But it was not the FBI that traced the cash through a variety of shadowy banks. No, it was Republicans in the House who did the tracking because the establishment swamp in DC is corrupt and would not.</p>
<p>That kind of terrible behavior is the bad news. The positive development is the investigation continues at an energetic clip in Congress.</p>
<p>President Biden may not even know it, but I believe he's "this close" to going down.</p>
<p>And if he did, indeed, take Hunter's money, he should.</p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium or Concierge Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-07-23T17:46:00ZTwilight in the Politics ZoneBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Twilight-in-the-Politics-Zone/-593128619558337820.html2023-07-16T07:00:00Z2023-07-16T07:00:00Z<div>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Beginning in 1959, a TV program called "The Twilight Zone" captured the imagination of millions of Americans. The show opened with co-creator Rod Serling saying this:</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>"You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind... Next stop, the Twilight Zone!"</em></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Then, after a few commercials, bizarre things took place. The program became legendary.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Now it's back, in spirit at least, because of American politics. We the people are in the T-zone, no question. Bizarre things happen every day. Some backup...</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">The President of the United States could not remember his week-long trip to Ireland two weeks after he took it. A ten-year-old visiting the White House had to refresh his memory.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">The former President of the United States, running to return to office, says President Biden is using cocaine, and that's why a bag of blow was found in the West Wing. Perhaps that's also why Joe Biden couldn't remember his Irish jaunt.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">The Vice President of the United States explained the Russian invasion of Ukraine this way: "So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that's wrong."</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">That's right! Can we color now?</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Last week, Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, after watching FBI chief Christopher Wray dodge a myriad of questions about Bureau corruption, declared that Wray is doing a good job.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Christie also said he could beat up Donald Trump.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas continues to opine that the border is secure. Reliable, anonymous sources, the kind The New York Times always uses, say that Mrs. Mayorkas recently told her husband to "give it a rest."</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. said Covid vaccine mandates in the USA were worse than Third Reich policies because "at least you could escape to Switzerland."</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Whereupon Kamala Harris pointed out that Switzerland is a little country in Europe next to a bigger country Germany. I didn't actually hear Ms. Harris say that, but reliable sources say she might have.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, angry with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, accused her of running a "Gazpacho Police" at the Capitol building. Chaos ensued as Mrs. Pelosi was immediately reminded she did not have lunch.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Sensing a political advantage, Kamala Harris once again pointed out that Germany is a big country abutting little Switzerland and that the "Gestapo were wrong."</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Now, I have a hundred more of these Twilight Zone occurrences. The late Rod Serling simply could not fathom what's happening in this country today. It's insane.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">One more. Last week at the NATO conference, President Joe said: "Putin is clearly losing the war in Iraq."</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Whereupon Saddam Hussein's relatives immediately hired E. Jean Carroll's attorney. A defamation action will be forthcoming.</span></p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-07-16T07:00:00ZGoing After JoeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Going-After-Joe/311199559215952690.html2023-07-09T07:00:00Z2023-07-09T07:00:00Z<div>
<p>Let's keep things simple. My model for this column is the movie "A Few Good Men." You may remember the scene where Jack Nicholson, playing a Marine Colonel, is on the witness stand being interrogated by a Navy lawyer played by Tom Cruise.</p>
<p>Nicholson: "Are we clear?"</p>
<p>Cruise: "Crystal."</p>
<p>The investigation into the Biden family is vitally important for one main reason; did President Biden receive money from his son Hunter and his brother Jim - money that came from China, Ukraine, Romania, and, perhaps, Russia? Money that was secretly sent through a variety of complicated "shell corporations" and which Hunter Biden has admitted he failed to declare on his tax returns. The amount of cash involved could be as high as $20 million.</p>
<p>If Joe Biden received any part of that hidden money, he would have to resign and could be charged with a variety of tax and conspiracy crimes.</p>
<p>That's it. The Hunter and Jim Biden business is bad but does not rise to national security levels.</p>
<p>Here's what we know to be true about this very troubling situation.</p>
<p>- If the Democrats had won the House in 2020, there would be no Congressional investigation into the Biden's. The entire party is deeply invested in protecting the President. Democrats have absolutely no interest in finding out if their leader used his power as then Vice-President to enrich himself and his family.</p>
<p>- At this point, there is no public evidence that Joe Biden benefited financially from his son and brother's grifting. No mention of any monetary gifts is on Biden's publicly released tax returns.</p>
<p>- Attorney General Merrick Garland has consistently helped the Bidens in the matter. First, by refusing to order two U.S. Attorneys, Matthew Graves in D.C. and Martin Estrada in California, to cooperate with U.S. Attorney David Weiss - the lead investigator In Delaware. Both Graves and Estrada, nominated by Biden, told Weiss they would not help him even though Weiss had evidence that Hunter received tainted money in their districts.</p>
<p>Merrick Garland could have forced Graves and Estrada to participate in the investigation. He did not. Extremely unusual.</p>
<p>In addition, it took five long years for Weiss to bring low-level charges against Hunter, to which he has pleaded guilty. Garland signed off on the light prosecution despite saying he wasn't involved - which is nonsense.</p>
<p>By the way, the Florida judge hearing the case, Maryellen Noreika, may reject the plea deal. This has the Justice Department on edge.</p>
<p>And there's more.</p>
<p>The wife of Washington DC U.S. Attorney Graves, Fatima Goss Graves, has visited the Biden White House 28 times, according to visitor records. That's extraordinary and an obvious conflict of interest that Merrick Garland apparently allows. Again, there are credible allegations that Hunter Biden secured overseas payments in the District of Columbia.</p>
<p>Ms. Graves is a far-left activist who runs the "National Women's Law Center." For this, she is paid more than $400,000 annually plus expenses.</p>
<p>Fatima Graves has donated money to Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams, and Mandela Barnes. She is powerful inside the Democratic Party. She has not been called to testify under oath before the Congressional Committees investigating the Biden's. Obviously, she should be.</p>
<p>Because her husband works closely with Attorney General Garland, there is suspicion she is acting as a conduit between the Justice Department and the White House in the Hunter matter. Her visits to Pennsylvania Avenue need to be clarified for the American public.</p>
<p>Finally, the corrupt corporate media in America is not engaged in finding out what happened here. Compare coverage of the Biden family story to the Trump investigations. The Justice Department and FBI devoted massive resources to uncovering alleged crimes centered on Donald Trump. The press enthusiastically reported every morsel.</p>
<p>Recently, President Biden sat for an interview with NBC News. The questioner was MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace.</p>
<p>She did not ask one question about the Hunter Biden investigation.</p>
<p>Clear?</p>
<p>Crystal.</p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-07-09T07:00:00ZSaving AmericaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Saving-America/-318484789119366569.html2023-07-01T14:22:00Z2023-07-01T14:22:00Z<div>
<p>July 4th weekend. Americans celebrating their freedom which is eroding at a steady pace. Some of us don't really care about that because it's complicated and requires an understanding of what the United States was, and what it is turning into.</p>
<p>Thinking about freedom takes away from mindless activities that beckon you from the always present cell phone. Escaping reality is the new national pastime. Thank you, Apple.</p>
<p>So, let's begin. You are not a free individual if someone is controlling you. Could be a terrible boss, an insecure spouse, the monthly bill come due. Or it could be the government.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court last week dealt the progressive movement and its front man Joe Biden two harsh blows.</p>
<p>First, skin color cannot be used to provide or deny opportunity in this country. And second, the reckless spending Biden does not have a constitutional right to forgive personal debt, student loans or otherwise. </p>
<p>Both rulings are correct if the Constitution is to be followed. But the three progressive Justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown, dissented because the Constitution is anything they want it to be, not the actual words James Madison wrote down, and what was affirmed by the original 13 states.</p>
<p>Remember, most far-left people believe evil white men basically entrapped the citizens of a new nation into a life celebrating white, male privilege.</p>
<p>And today it is the mission of the progressive left to destroy that.</p>
<p>Therefore, the left posits, traditional tenets of equal opportunity for all are obsolete because minorities continue to be persecuted by whites and need giant payback in the form of preference or even cash payments. That's called "equity," a core policy of President Biden.</p>
<p>The man does not care if taxpayers foot the bill for other people's loan forgiveness, or if a qualified Caucasian or Asian is denied a college admission on the basis of skin color. To Biden and his followers that's "justice."</p>
<p>This is really all about socialism which requires a powerful central government that makes all decisions on who gets what. Competition is evil because the free marketplace is not free at all - it is stacked against minorities. The leftist media repeats that over and over. </p>
<p>Therefore, a select few on the far left should be empowered to make all societal and economic decisions in the name of diversity, inclusion and, of course, justice.</p>
<p>Thank God the majority on the Supreme Court understands and rejects this craven assault on true freedom.</p>
<p>And that is something worth celebrating this Fourth of July.</p>
<p>See for the No Spin News on Wednesday.</p>
</div>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-07-01T14:22:00ZThey're Not VictimsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Theyre-Not-Victims/81757992127683664.html2023-06-25T07:00:00Z2023-06-25T07:00:00Z<p>The United States has lost its way. But you knew that. We are living in a time where personal responsibility means little. And a vivid example of that is people who consume hard drugs.</p>
<p>How dare you? Your behavior has led to millions of deaths. You, yourself, are at grave risk and, depending on your addiction level, are worthless to society.</p>
<p>By buying narcotics, you fuel lethal domestic drug gangs and the ultra-vicious Mexican cartels. When you pollute yourself with intoxicants, you harm those who depend on you. Most child abuse and neglect is caused by substance abusers.</p>
<p>Often, you are so screwed up you can't earn an honest living. So you have to steal, sell poison to others, or prostitute yourself to buy drugs. You sometimes live in the streets, crashing civility and causing hard-working taxpayers to spend millions cleaning up after your "lifestyle."</p>
<p>You have literally destroyed entire neighborhoods in San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and other chaotic places that consider you a victim.</p>
<p>Of what? Nobody forced you to become a drug addict and lawbreaker. Yes, you may have an addictive personality, but so do millions of others who do not devote their lives to intoxication. The Constitution does not give you the right to "pursue happiness" by hurting people or walking around stoned all day.</p>
<p>The hard truth is you should be isolated from society, given "treatment", and, if you continue your druggie ways, isolated for a longer period of time.</p>
<p>You, Mr. and Ms. drug user, contribute nothing to this country. You cause pain by committing crimes and ignoring your responsibility as productive human beings.</p>
<p>You are not victims. Only fools believe you are. Clean up before you die in a drug haze. Stop hurting innocent people in your selfish pursuit of inebriation.</p>
<p>It is long past time to call these drug addicts out, alcoholics as well.</p>
<p>Enough. Stop the excuse-making. These people have to be confronted. Not coddled.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-06-25T07:00:00ZHandicapping Don and JoeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Handicapping-Don-and-Joe/202300012410745325.html2023-06-18T07:00:00Z2023-06-18T07:00:00Z<p>(County Donegal) Many Irish think we're crazy. In a land where political and religious division has led to thousands of violent deaths, the citizens of Eire have little time for impeachments and indictments on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.</p>
<p>Thus, there is some mention of the 37-count indictment against Donald Trump but little emotion. So what if he had nebulous documents in his basement? Few Irish even bother following the legal controversy. The Americans are divided. Now they know what it feels like.</p>
<p>How about President Biden? Ask the average Irish person about his recent visit here, and you're likely to get a stare. It's almost forgotten. In fact, Mr. Biden himself can't even recall it.</p>
<p>Used to be the Irish followed American politics enthusiastically. Not anymore. JFK is still revered in the land, and the folks remember Bill Clinton helping tamp down the sectarian violence. But that was a long time ago.</p>
<p>I believe the apathy over American politics extends throughout the world and, increasingly, has Americans themselves in a torpor. Yes, Mr. Trump should have returned the government documents to the National Archives when asked, and if he actively hid them, he'll pay for it. But does this really matter to people trying to make a living and raise children in an unsteady time?</p>
<p>Don't think so. Not much, anyway.</p>
<p>So here's what I believe may happen after thinking it over while walking some of the most beautiful countrysides in the world for a week. Many of the 37 counts against Trump will be dismissed because they are contrived by prosecutors doing the bidding of politicians.</p>
<p>Also, the Presidential Records Act, upon which the Trump case is based, will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. That will be extremely confusing and take time. Ultimately, however, the chances of victory for the Trump team are slim. Justices do not like redefining criminal law. That power is for Congress.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Donald Trump will continue his campaign for re-election, and his "retribution" theme will be front and center.</p>
<p>As for his case, he may have to plead guilty to some stuff down the lane. There is no way he will sit in a criminal courtroom as all the charges will not be thrown out. If the Justice Department offers a deal with no prison time, the former President should take it.</p>
<p>Best for the country.</p>
<p>Finally, keep your eye on the Biden "bribe" stuff. Democrat honchos are worried about that. Obviously, the corrupt Justice Department will not aggressively investigate the Biden's, but Congressional committees can do serious damage to the President.</p>
<p>Millions of dollars under the table trumps (sorry) hoarding paper secrets.</p>
<p>In fact, this whole Biden thing is eerily similar to Watergate, where Attorney General John Mitchell tried but failed to cover for President Richard Nixon.</p>
<p>Mitchell went to prison for that.</p>
<p>So back to reality. This week the green of Ireland will be replaced by the gray of partisan politics and general civic insanity in my home country.</p>
<p>I'll do my best to cover it in a fair, forward-looking way.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-06-18T07:00:00ZAnd Justice For AllBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/And-Justice-For-All/-962481781374248920.html2023-06-10T20:31:00Z2023-06-10T20:31:00Z<p>Donald Trump did it. He moved classified material from the White House to Palm Beach and then did not hand it over when a formal request was made by the National Archives.</p>
<p>But why? What was in it for him to defy the Archival request? Besides Trump himself, no one seems to know, and that's important. Criminal intent is necessary for a conviction in federal court.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton did it. As Secretary of State under Barrack Obama, she had a number of classified documents on her personal email system. Once discovered, some of Mrs. Clinton's devices were scrubbed or destroyed.</p>
<p>But then-Attorney General Eric Holder was never going to prosecute Hilary Clinton. So, he ordered FBI Chief James Comey to tell the public there was no "intent" to break the law by Mrs. Clinton. Ridiculous. She took the documents and then destroyed the evidence. The FBI confirmed this.</p>
<p>Incredibly, Donald Trump kept Comey on after he was elected. Of course, we now know Comey undermined Trump all day, every day. Quite a guy.</p>
<p>Joe Biden did it. As Vice-President, he took classified material from his office and spread it around all over the place. Biden's attorneys say he didn't know about the classified material and, when alerted, "cooperated" with investigators.</p>
<p>But here's what the Biden people don't say: Vice-Presidents do not have the authority to take any classified material ever. Old Joe broke a very simple law that a fifth-grader could understand. Maybe he was too distracted monitoring the ten million dollars flowing to his family from overseas. Was that classified, Joe?</p>
<p>The dim pundits on television love the mantra "No one is above the law." We've heard that 200,000 times. There should be T-shirts.</p>
<p>But what about "equal justice under the law?" Is that concept honored by our federal government?</p>
<p>If you think so, I have some documents I'd like to sell you.</p>
<p>Daily updates this week on my trip to Ireland. Please check the Message of the Day daily.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-06-10T20:31:00ZIf You Can Keep ItBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/If-You-Can-Keep-It/-970350818133064922.html2023-06-04T18:13:00Z2023-06-04T18:13:00Z<p>On Friday night, June 2, a sold-out crowd watched the L.A. Dodgers defeat the New York Yankees at Dodger Stadium.</p>
<p>So much for the "boycott" over the Dodger organization honoring the anti-Catholic hate group "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."</p>
<p>Believe me, when I tell you the totalitarian left, which now controls much of the media, is watching this situation very closely. Just last week, the incredibly militant Los Angeles Times printed a column praising the "Sisters" who have invaded churches and grossly denigrated Christianity in general.</p>
<p>The LA Times is down with that.</p>
<p>So what is really behind the bold attacks on Christians? Two main things. First, abortion, as Catholic theology describes it as a grave sin. And second, homosexual behavior, which most Christian religions see as counter to moral teaching.</p>
<p>The Islamic world believes that as well.</p>
<p>The Constitution allows for religious beliefs to be stated and supposedly protects spiritual organizations from harm.<br />In America today, that is not happening.</p>
<p>According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, there have been at least 260 attacks on church properties in the past two and a half years. Few have been prosecuted.</p>
<p>In San Raphael, California, north of San Francisco, local police actually watched thugs destroy a statue of St. Junipero Serra and did not intervene to stop the more than $40,000 in damage.</p>
<p>In New York City, cameras caught vandals defacing St. Patrick's Cathedral spray painting the F-word. The criminals were caught. Nothing happened to them, as far as we can tell.</p>
<p>Turning the other cheek is a Christian tenet, but cowardice is not. Jesus physically drove moneylenders from the Jerusalem temple. Most American Christian leaders are standing silent in the face of sometimes violent behavior.</p>
<p>Did the Conference of Bishops hold a press conference about the Los Angeles Dodgers' outrage? No, it did not. Did New York's Cardinal Dolan publicly address the Cathedral defacement? Meekly saying the criminals should be treated with "compassion."</p>
<p>The truth is that many Christian leaders are afraid, especially in the wake of the catastrophic Catholic clergy scandals. The anti-Christian crew understands that and is emboldened to destroy theological influence and openly mock religious beliefs.</p>
<p>By the way, the second Roman Catholic president in history, Joe Biden, refuses to comment on the Dodgers honoring a hate group. However, Biden is stridently vocal in supporting "abortion-rights," and considers far-right fanaticism the worst domestic threat to the USA.</p>
<p>Freedom to practice religion is a hallmark of America, deeply ingrained in our Constitutional Republic. But as Benjamin Franklin once opined, we have a republic IF we can keep it.</p>
<p>And it takes courage to do that.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-06-04T18:13:00ZGod and CountryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/God-and-Country/107972435459986764.html2023-05-28T07:00:00Z2023-05-28T07:00:00Z<p>Many Americans believe their country is going to hell, and it's hard to refute that. The internet has changed social mores, our leadership is mediocre at best, corrupt at worst, and personal narcissism is rising fast.</p>
<p>Plus, there's deep political division among the people.</p>
<p>The United States was forged using Judeo-Christian philosophy as a baseline. So what exactly is that? I can't fault any American for not knowing because the public school system has largely banished "J-C ethics" from the classroom.</p>
<p>Well, time to get out your notepad.</p>
<p>In researching my upcoming book "Killing the Witches," we found that the brutal religious-based murders in Salem had a profound influence on the Constitution. Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison fought against any definition of the new America as a "Christian" nation, while Patrick Henry and others wanted that description in writing.</p>
<p>Ben, Thomas, and Jemmy won the debate, but it was close. However, the brilliant secularists well understood that democracy would not survive unless there was a clear vision of "justice for all."</p>
<p>That's when Judeo-Christian philosophy kicked in, the concept of right and wrong based on the Ten Commandments. If you dispute that, visit the Supreme Court building in Washington, where a sculpture of Moses and the Commandments dominates the ground floor.</p>
<p>In a 1983 case, the Supremes found that state legislatures could pay a "chaplain" to conduct prayers "in the Judeo-Christian tradition."</p>
<p>Today, J-C tenets are under massive assault from the progressive left, which controls the President of the United States. The primary reason is moral judgments about abortion and "alternative" lifestyles, plus the fact that following any kind of "higher power" diminishes the influence of the state. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al., all persecuted religious faith. That continues to this day in totalitarian regimes.</p>
<p>In America, the corporate media largely sides with progressives and casts deep suspicion on religious expression. The indefensible child abuse crimes committed by some Catholic clergy have devastated Christian influence.</p>
<p>A recent study out of the University of Chicago indicates Judeo-Christian ethics are absolutely under siege in the USA. Thirty-four percent of Americans never attend religious services, the highest number ever recorded.</p>
<p>The decline of theology in the U.S. is apparent. Those identifying as Evangelical Protestants have fallen from 23 percent in 2006 to just 14 percent today. Catholics have sunk from 16 percent of the population to 13 percent, despite millions of new migrants who come from Catholic cultures.</p>
<p>The result of the secular intrusion is vividly apparent. In many places, laws are not enforced, and criminals are not punished. Intoxication is encouraged (legalized pot, acceptance of public hard drug use), people of faith are openly mocked on social media, and attacks on churches, like the L.A. Dodgers honoring an anti-Catholic group, are largely ignored by the corporate media.</p>
<p>Presiding over all this is Joe Biden, a weekly Catholic mass attendee. But instead of embracing Judeo-Christian tenets such as all life is sacred and the rule of law must be upheld if "justice" is to prevail, Biden rejects that and strives to make things like abortion and illegal entry to this country easy.</p>
<p>The result is a kind of brutal anarchy that once held sway in Salem, Massachusetts. Emboldened criminals kill thousands of innocents each year. Abortion on demand for any reason destroys thousands of unborn in places like California and New York.</p>
<p>Fearful of his far-left base, Mr. Biden, like Pontius Pilate, washes his hands of any responsibility.</p>
<p>The Founders well understood the dangers of imposed theology. But, equally, they knew that the elimination of right and wrong would severely damage this Republic.</p>
<p>And that's what is happening.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. Honest news and analysis are vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-05-28T07:00:00ZFear the Walking TrumpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fear-the-Walking-Trump/559042873735694896.html2023-05-21T07:00:00Z2023-05-21T07:00:00Z<p>History provides a pathway to the possible, and Donald Trump knows that. Americans who believe the former president has no chance of being re-elected are delusional in their understanding of human nature.</p>
<p>Trump is a populist, a political "strong man." In times of societal chaos, those kinds of leaders take on a stronger appeal. Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Hitler, etcetera. All ascended to power because their respective countries were in disarray.</p>
<p>In America, Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of the Great Depression and World War II to consolidate a tremendous amount of power as Americans rewarded him with four terms.</p>
<p>Writing in The Spectator, historian Niall Ferguson, generally favorable to Trump, points out that da Silva in Brazil, Netanyahu in Israel, and Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia all had serious legal troubles but were elected anyway. In times of mayhem, voters want quick action, and most other considerations recede.</p>
<p>Action is what Donald Trump promises. He'll solve Ukraine in a day, bring back prosperity to workers, and quickly solve the border crisis.</p>
<p>The corporate media totally discounts Trump's persona and has branded him a pathological liar. It doesn't matter. The public no longer trusts or even listens to the corrupt press. Today, public opinion is shaped by what folks WANT to believe, not by ideological news barons pushing an agenda.</p>
<p>So, as long as Donald Trump can remain upright with mouth open, he has a chance to reoccupy the Oval Office. And the fact that President Biden can no longer even process information, much less solve vexing problems, helps the former president dramatically.</p>
<p>Donald Trump, however, faces two serious obstacles in his reelection quest. The first is Special Counsel Jack Smith who's investigating Trump's behavior on January 6th as well as the classified documents/basement thing.</p>
<p>Smith is a Washington insider and understands his social status will fall apart in that town if he does not recommend Trump for prosecution. Thus, that is likely to happen. Everything is personal in our nation's capital.</p>
<p>The other obstacle is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who will soon announce his presidential run. The Governor is acceptable to most Republicans and can mount a serious challenge to the Don.</p>
<p>But, at this point, Mr. Trump is well ahead in the GOP polling and is intensely driven to reacquire the most powerful man in the world mantle.</p>
<p>And therefore, for those who despise him, there should be fear. Donald Trump is far from dead.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-05-21T07:00:00ZBiden's ShameBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bidens-Shame/-959995267387119998.html2023-05-14T18:39:00Z2023-05-14T18:39:00Z<p style="text-align: center;">"Borderline.<br /> Feels like I'm going to lose my mind."<br /> - Madonna</p>
<p>President James Buchanan was the worst chief executive in United States history, as I have mentioned. He sat in the White House for four years doing nothing as southern secessionists defied the federal government. That emboldened the movement that directly caused the Civil War. More than one million casualties in that conflict.</p>
<p>In 1866, after the war had ended, Buchanan published a book called "Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion." The tome is extremely hard to find, but last weekend I discovered a first edition signed by Buchanan himself!</p>
<p>The book is 300 pages of excuse-making. Essentially, James Buchanan says he could not stop the growing Southern rebellion because Congress would not give him the authority to do so.</p>
<p>Ridiculous.</p>
<p>As President, George Washington traveled to Western Pennsylvania, commanding the troops that put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. All Presidents have the Constitutional authority to quell uprisings. That's demonstrated by Mr. Biden sending the National Guard to the southern border just last week.</p>
<p>The truth is James Buchanan was a coward, and President Harry Truman, a true student of history, knew it. In a private letter dated May 18, 1959, Truman wrote this: "History will tell you that old Buch was short on decision, and had he acted with the firmness of Andrew Jackson in dealing with the problems of the South, the War between the States might well have been averted."<br /><br /><img src="/images/aandb/AP675713369047_50.jpg" alt="A portrait of President James Buchanan is on display at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, on Feb. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)" width="512" height="342" /></p>
<p>Enter President Joe Biden, who is emulating Buchanan's cowardice by failing to enforce immigration law, thereby enabling millions of undocumented foreign nationals into America. I don't have to explain this; you can see the video on television. What we can't see is the tremendous damage being done to the taxpayers who are providing billions to support the migrants. That will continue for years to come through entitlements.</p>
<p>It is difficult not to get angry at Mr. Biden and his incompetent administration for encouraging the immigration chaos and then denying all responsibility.</p>
<p>Like Buchanan, Biden blames Congress for not passing new immigration laws that would grant amnesty. Biden says two things: that he, himself, is blameless and that evil Republicans are responsible for the border madness.</p>
<p>History always repeats itself, and soon, Joe Biden will take his rightful place behind James Buchanan as the second-worst president of all time. I regret slighting Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover, all of whom tried hard to best Buchanan. They have now been passed by Joe Biden.</p>
<p>Whether it's the border, out-of-control federal spending, unfair and divisive equity policies, or blatant laziness on the job, President Biden is a disaster for America.</p>
<p>He's got about 20 months left in office. Then he can retire to Delaware to assemble his own book. He might call it: "President Biden's Policy Achievements."</p>
<p>The pages will be blank.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-05-14T18:39:00ZA Train to NowhereBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Train-to-Nowhere/53034178718447031.html2023-05-07T13:27:00Z2023-05-07T13:27:00Z<p>A few fact-based comments about another horrendous situation down under on the New York City subway system, which is used by an average of 2.4 million people every day, mainly to get to work.<br /><br />For the past nine years or so, the city has allowed dangerous public displays to go largely unpunished on the vast subway system which covers 665 miles of track.<br /><br />Thousands of law breakers roam the trains daily. Some are substance abusers who use the cars for shelter and to sleep off their latest inebriation. Others are mentally ill, often violently acting out. There are pickpockets, muggers, molesters, gang members and other miscreants on view continuously.<br /><br />City officials consider most subway misdeeds "low level crimes" and ignore them. The bad guys and crazy people know that. Game on.<br /><br />Last week, a 30-year-old street entertainer named Jordan Neely entered a subway car and, according to all reporting, began screaming and throwing debris at his fellow passengers. Soon, a 24-year-old Marine named Daniel Penny confronted Neely, putting him in a choke hold.<br /><br />Mr. Neely died a short time later.<br /><br />Police questioned Penny and witnesses. They did not charge him at the scene.<br /><br />Hours later all hell broke loose. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, the queen of due process, demanded the Marine be charged with murder.<br /><br />Racial arsonists then took to the streets. Video tape shows some of them blowing smoke into the faces of police officers and taunting cops at close range. A Black Lives Matter leader incited the crowd.<br /><br />Mr. Neely was black, and Mr. Penny is white, so immediately the agitators made the situation racial - hoping to put a George Floyd stamp on it. It's interesting to note that in the past three years, 27 human beings have been violently killed on New York City subways.<br /><br />There were no mass demonstrations in any of those cases.<br /><br />On May 6, The New York Times published an article by Maria Cramer that portrayed Jordan Neely as basically a lost soul. The Times is in business to stoke race resentment and hammer "white oppression."<br /><br />While sympathetic to the victim throughout the story, Ms. Cramer neglected to mention that Mr. Neely had been arrested dozens of times and, at the time of his demise, had a felony warrant against him for allegedly assaulting a 67-year-old woman.<br /><br />Somehow, The New York Times reporter failed to report that and her editors in the woke newsroom did not insist she write the story accurately.<br /><br />Surprised?<br /><br />The case is now in the hands of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the far left, George Soros funded prosecutor who is trying to put Donald Trump in prison.<br /><br />Care to speculate what Bragg will do?<br /><br />Jordan Neely is dead because New York City is woke. Authorities no longer protect the people. Troubled individuals are allowed to run wild.<br /><br />There is little chance the situation will improve anytime soon. Radical leftists control New York City and State. Voters are responsible.<br /><br />Gotham needs mercy. Madness has taken over. It's on display right before our eyes.<br /><br />Every day.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-05-07T13:27:00ZAmerica AdriftBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/America-Adrift/-598679972493222289.html2023-04-30T10:22:00Z2023-04-30T10:22:00Z<p>In just a little more than four months, the first Republican presidential debate will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The tottering <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Will-Fox-News-Suffer-for-Dropping-Tucker-Carlson/-984742085855181204.html" target="_blank">Fox News channel</a> is the sponsor.</p>
<p>Already there is a problem. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Donald-Trump-and-the-Debates/755524181084598639.html" target="_blank">Donald Trump says he won't show up</a>. His reasoning is that the moderators will not favor him, and the establishment press will falsely report on the exposition. So, the Don will attend to business elsewhere, perhaps on the fairway.</p>
<p>You may remember that Mr. Trump skipped a Fox News-sponsored debate in 2016 after being harshly questioned by Megyn Kelly in a previous extravaganza.</p>
<p>Didn't hurt him.</p>
<p>The Democrats have not announced any debates because President Biden may be incapable of the exercise. At a White House kids event on Thursday, he could not remember that he had spent four days in Ireland two weeks ago. Joe Biden is in big trouble, cognitively speaking. Sorry to state the obvious.</p>
<p>So, with 19 months left before Americans vote for president, the country is in deep political trouble because the flow of honest information is dubious, to say the least.</p>
<p>Donald Trump used the media to his advantage in 2016 and fought it to a draw in 2020. Fox News and talk radio largely supported him, while Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden had the rest of the national media in their pockets.</p>
<p>Now, it's different. Fox is diminished, and its ownership supports Ron DeSantis. So, Trump's media presence is far more difficult.</p>
<p>President Biden, on the other hand, will receive overwhelming support from the media even if he is reduced to eating jello in a small, locked room. The progressive press would support anyone, including Young Sheldon, over Trump.</p>
<p>Last time around, more than 150 million Americans cast presidential votes. Biden got more ballots than any Democrat in history, same with Trump in the Grand Old Party.</p>
<p>There could be a rematch, although I remain skeptical about Biden's short-term future. He's fogged out much of the time and obviously incapable of running the country.</p>
<p>Trump remains vibrant but has amassed more enemies than Genghis Khan, whose hobby was decapitating thousands of innocent people and placing their heads on sticks.</p>
<p>If old Genghis ran against Donald Trump, The New York Times would endorse the Mongol.</p>
<p>Millions of voters don't really understand or even care about America's leadership because they live in bubbles. But they hear things. Unfortunately, those "things" are often untrue, and finding an honest perspective is extremely difficult.</p>
<p>Our job here is to provide that daily.</p>
<p>And we will do it.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-04-30T10:22:00ZThe Two WorstBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Two-Worst/648502084958159815.html2023-04-23T18:52:00Z2023-04-23T18:52:00Z<p>March 4, 1857, was a cool, breezy day in Washington, D.C. Pennsylvanian James Buchanan had been elected the 15th President of the United States with one overriding mandate: keep the United States together.</p>
<p>Buchanan, a bachelor and career politician, was succeeding the hapless, often intoxicated Franklin Pierce, who allowed the country to fall into disarray over slavery. Buchanan was supposed to fix that.</p>
<p>It started badly. Old Buch's Inaugural Address was a mealy-mouthed batch of nothing.</p>
<p>"All agree that under the Constitution slavery in the states is beyond the reach of any power ..."</p>
<p>Foolish blather that engendered joy among plantation owners in Dixie. The new President would not confront the evil of slavery. And that's exactly what happened throughout the next four years; James Buchanan sat in the Executive Mansion doing nothing while the South destroyed any semblance of federal power.</p>
<p>It is said the White House is haunted. If so, the ghost of Old Buch must be best friends with the foggy Joe Biden, the 46th President of the United States. The two are kindred spirits, so to speak.</p>
<p>President Biden's mandate is to solve difficult problems like illegal immigration and racial animus. The truth is he has made those vexations far worse, just as Buchanan did with the slave issue.</p>
<p>The best illustration is the southern border which is under siege by foreign nationals trying to find a better life in America. On Biden's watch, nearly seven million migrants have illegally crossed the border, with thousands more coming every day. That collapse of federal authority has led to chaos throughout the country. Just last week, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a liberal Democrat, said the unfettered flow of migrants is destroying the fabric of the nation's largest city.</p>
<p>Biden's open border policy has also led to a record number of narcotics coming into the USA, including heroin and fentanyl. In 2022, the DEA seized 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, double the amount seized in 2021.</p>
<p>Of course, drug overdose deaths are at a record level as well, with hundreds of thousands of Americans dying.</p>
<p>Joe Biden rarely speaks to the press, but his administration says there is no crisis at the border. And in the President's clouded mind, there isn't. Like Buchanan, Biden doesn't want to confront the problem. He will not even try.</p>
<p>The proof of that is Biden's January meeting with President Obrador in Mexico City. Obrador has lost control of his country to the drug cartels. Last year, there were more than 50,000 murders or "disappearances" in Mexico. In the USA, with almost three times the population, there were 26,000 homicides.</p>
<p>Obrador has no interest in halting drug trafficking and illegal migration. Mexicans working in the USA send home an estimated $60 billion dollars every year. Cartel money fuels Obrador's economy. Outrageously, the Mexican President even taunts Americans for consuming narcotics saying the entire criminal mess is our fault.</p>
<p>So you would think Biden would be getting tough on Obrador, whose administration is hurting every American. But, no. Biden's trip to Mexico City looked like an outtake from the Three Amigos movie. The whole thing was an embarrassing slap-and-tickle display.</p>
<p>Somewhere, James Buchanan is nodding with a smile. Like slavery, there is nothing to be done by President Biden. Just go with the flow - of drugs and poor people.</p>
<p>President Buchanan was a dangerous incompetent whose apathy led to massive death and destruction.</p>
<p>So is President Biden.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-04-23T18:52:00ZA Reckless Disregard for the TruthBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Reckless-Disregard-for-the-Truth/557044569723917180.html2023-04-16T07:22:00Z2023-04-16T07:22:00Z<p>Malice. Tough word. There's plenty of it in this world as human beings try to hurt each other. The M word is the exact opposite of kindness.</p>
<p>In legal terms, malice is described as a "reckless disregard for the truth," as well as sinister actions to bring harm. Malice is the tipping point in the 1.6 billion dollar defamation lawsuit against Fox News by the Dominion voting machine company.</p>
<p>All news organizations are protected by the First Amendment to a great extent. The Founders did not want purveyors of information to be punished by those they exposed. But what about peddling false information? What about harming people and enterprises with "lies?"</p>
<p>Well, that assessment is in the eye of the beholder, which in the Fox defamation trial will be the individual jurors in Delaware. They have to decide whether Fox intentionally fostered a false presentation of the election of 2020 for commercial gain and whether the voting machine company suffered grave damage in the process.</p>
<p>If the jury concurs with that - malice is established, and Fox will pay big.</p>
<p>Now, it would be grossly irresponsible for anyone to convict Fox News without hearing cross-examined sworn testimony in court. But that's exactly what is happening, as every single corporate news agency in America has already convicted FNC and is openly rooting for the Delaware jury to do the same.</p>
<p>Malice? You betcha.</p>
<p>An example. CNN reporter Oliver Darcy wrote a hate Fox column that accused FNC of a legacy of deceit. I've dealt with Darcy in the past, and he is a malicious guy, in my opinion. He's also a leftist zealot, and that drives his animus toward FNC.</p>
<p>You may remember that CNN gleefully reported falsehoods for years regarding Russia and the Trump political machine. There was little balance, and the accusations of wrongdoing were non-stop. But when the Mueller federal investigation exposed the "Russian Collusion" hoax, Darcy and his network went largely silent. CNN did fire Darcy's pal Brian Stelter but old Oliver survived.</p>
<p>This is not "what aboutism," which, as you may know, I despise. No, if a jury finds Fox News guilty of defamation, that will stand in this precinct.</p>
<p>But everyone should know that the FNC trial will be covered with malice by many in the media. The verdict has already been rendered in the libel world - the actual trial is a mere formality.</p>
<p>And that's pretty malicious, is it not?</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-04-16T07:22:00ZReason to BelieveBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Reason-to-Believe/-311983045017437366.html2023-04-09T18:49:00Z2023-04-09T18:49:00Z<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Resurrect-Yourself-on-Easter/-963206716340022689.html" target="_blank">Happy Easter!</a> The most sacred day on the Christian calendar is based on the belief that the man Jesus of Nazareth ascended into heaven to resume his status as God, part of the Holy Trinity. About 2.3 billion people all over the world are convinced that this is true, including brilliant scholars and historians.</p>
<p>In the United States, Christianity, along with patriotism, is on the decline, according to recent studies. Many Americans find it easier to believe in nothing; not God, not country, not justice.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Resurrect-Yourself-on-Easter/-963206716340022689.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000000;">The great truism of the modern world is that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of verifiable facts or strong evidence. We are vividly seeing this in both politics and religion.</span></a></p>
<p>The overwhelming evidence says that President Biden is hurting the country. Most Americans know that, according to every poll. However, a substantial minority still supports Mr. Biden despite inflation, border chaos, foreign threats, and rising violent crime.</p>
<p>All of those things were relatively contained during the Trump administration.</p>
<p>And that's what is partially driving the Trump hatred today. Many who voted for Biden continue to justify that decision by desiring the worst for Trump.</p>
<p>"See how bad he is? Don't hold me accountable for Biden."</p>
<p>At this point, a number of Americans are actually giving up on their country, which is certainly in decline. That is a mistake.</p>
<p>History shows us that the United States is subject to cycles. A recovery in the national spirit is likely down the road. But I think it's true that we will never again be as united as we should be.</p>
<p>So there is a reason to believe this Easter season, whether it's in a benevolent theology that preaches peace and the true social justice tenet of loving your neighbor or in a nation whose citizens are the most generous on earth by far.</p>
<p>Yes, we all have the freedom to believe what we want. But there is truth in this world. The journey is to find it.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-04-09T18:49:00ZThe Right Thing To DoBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Right-Thing-To-Do/-161951267554490279.html2023-04-01T18:31:00Z2023-04-01T18:31:00Z<p>Night time, June 17, 1972, the "plumbers" have broken into the Watergate Hotel Democratic Committee headquarters in search of dirt against presidential candidate George McGovern.</p>
<p>The illegal operation was conceived by CREEP, the Committee to Reelect the President. That would be Richard Nixon.</p>
<p>The break-in was quickly discovered by a security guard, and for the next two years, the United States was thrown into turmoil as Nixon and his top aides tried to cover things up.</p>
<p>On August 8, 1974, Nixon resigned rather than be impeached and convicted, which he would have been. But, still, ferocious emotions enveloped the country as many Americans wanted the 37th President tried in a court of law and possibly put into prison.</p>
<p>Now, nearly 49 years later, America faces a similar situation but one that remains largely undefined; the legal attacks on former President Donald Trump.</p>
<p>Americans are starkly divided over the justice system punishing Mr. Trump, especially with so many political ramifications in play. Trump hatred has turned into a populist issue as some citizens turn on each other. Fair news coverage is rare; emotions rule.</p>
<p>The big picture is that every single American is hurt by the "get Trump" movement, whether they know it or not. And one dramatic moment in history proves that.</p>
<p>After Richard Nixon left office, Vice President Gerald Ford took over. He faced a difficult problem as law enforcement efforts against Nixon escalated.</p>
<p>So, on September 8, 1974, Ford pardoned his predecessor. His statement said: "The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.</p>
<p>"During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad."</p>
<p>Ford may have lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter because of the pardon. But he knew Richard Nixon and his family were being torn to pieces by vengeful opponents. He also knew Nixon could not afford the millions of dollars in legal fees that would accrue.</p>
<p>President Ford's pardon was humane and positive for the country.</p>
<p>Does President Biden have that kind of vision? The fact that Donald Trump is again running for President clouds the answer to that question. We also don't know exactly what the evidence is against Trump in multiple cases.</p>
<p>In addition, a Biden pardon of Trump would alienate his most rabid supporters and the corporate media that continues to back him. Thus, I don't see old Joe putting the welfare of the country above his personal situation. He's rarely done that in the past.</p>
<p>Therefore, America will continue to decline in civility and unity. No more "one nation under God." Now we are a country of bitterness and distrust.</p>
<p>Where's Gerald Ford when we need him?</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-04-01T18:31:00ZAmerica the ExhaustedBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/America-the-Exhausted/886937353208985130.html2023-03-26T07:00:00Z2023-03-26T07:00:00Z<p>Feeling a bit sluggish these days? I am. I'm tired of many things in this country, and I bet you are, too. Naps don't help. Soft lighting and soothing music don't either. What's going around is perma-weariness.</p>
<p>So now I'm going to vent. Consider this an exercise in listing some of the things that are wearing me out. Let's start at the top: <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Americans-Bailing-on-Biden/-488645310278473462.html" target="_blank">Joe Biden</a> and <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Donald-Trumps-Counterpunch/-270641576931982739.html" target="_blank">Donald Trump</a>.</p>
<p>President Biden is doing a bad job. Period. If you dissent, you need to stop watching The View and check yourself into reality rehab. The man is a policy disaster on most every front, and much of what he says is gibberish. Not being facetious.</p>
<p>Donald Trump is fighting too many battles. No one could possibly keep track of them. At times, Trump doesn't even know who he's yelling at. It's exhausting.</p>
<p>Charging Trump with malfeasance is extremely enervating. Every time the man makes a phone call, someone files something. Enough. He's not Al Capone, people. Documents in his basement are not responsible for Covid.</p>
<p>Very tired of hearing about LGBTQ stuff. As Dennis Miller once opined: "Can I get a day off from gay? Just one day?" La Cage aux Folles is a good movie. I don't want to watch it 'round the clock.</p>
<p>Apps wear me out. There's an app for everything except clear thinking. You come to me for that.</p>
<p>Cliches suck the life right out of me. Congress should put a tax on saying "at the end of the day" or "deep dive." That tax would wipe out the deficit.</p>
<p>It's exhausting watching CNN try to get ratings. It's not going to happen unless they hire Taylor Swift and Kanye West to do a debate show. CNN presently stands for Cable Nothing Nothing.</p>
<p>Stephen Colbert is the best sleep potion in history. I mean, I almost fell asleep writing this sentence.</p>
<p>Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are actually coma-inducing. Pictures of them bring on heavy eyelids. I wish them well in shopping for a $60 million dollar mansion. But it's making me tired and cranky.</p>
<p>Marjorie Taylor Green could wear out a greyhound. Maybe a game of chess once in a while, Congresswoman? You can run around the room after you make your move.</p>
<p>Putin now makes me nod out. He's taking so many steroids his face looks like a thumb. The guy makes evil boring. And exhausting.</p>
<p>Streaming services are dull. Contemplating watching eight consecutive episodes of Punky Brewster would drive anyone under the covers. Binge sleeping comes from this.</p>
<p>Finally, what the deuce has happened to 60 Minutes? Used to be interesting and stimulating. No longer. Now, there are trans people playing field hockey and ice receding near the South Pole. That story put the penguins to sleep.</p>
<p>I understand the program has been around since The War of 1812 when Leslie Stahl interviewed Andrew Jackson, but, come on, Sunday at 7 is too early to enter the land of nod.</p>
<p>So there you have it—my column on our weary country.</p>
<p>I'm exhausted after writing it.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-03-26T07:00:00ZThe Grievance FactoryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Grievance-Factory/212538338461421171.html2023-03-19T11:14:00Z2023-03-19T11:14:00Z<p><em>*This column was orginally published December 28, 2022.</em><br /><br />The mark of a noble life is the courage to challenge adversity. We all get hammered - betrayal and deceit are now bold signatures in American life as our culture declines.</p>
<p>And then there are birth defects, bad parents, accidents, medical complications, and inexplicable suffering; losing a child, being harmed by a criminal.</p>
<p>It is natural and healthy to go negative when something bad happens to us. But then, after the grieving time is over, the strong person begins the quest to overcome.</p>
<p>The problem is most human beings are not inherently strong. And many turn grieving into permanent grievance. They live lives of bitterness and look for opportunities to exploit their situations. Sometimes they become emotional vigilantes: I've been wronged, so I can do whatever I want (looting).</p>
<p>Enter the grievance mongers, politicians who cater to Americans who refuse to battle their negative circumstances. Those folks are soft targets for cynical manipulators. Hitler gained power by pandering to Germans, beaten down by the depression. He blamed their struggles on Jews and Communists. We all know how that turned out.</p>
<p>Today in our country, Senator Bernie Sanders is the grievance king. Elizabeth Warren and Al Sharpton are right behind him. But Sanders is the worst.</p>
<p>He understands that his socialist agenda has failed everywhere in the world. And he doesn't even walk the walk. Sanders lives a life of comfort and privilege; three homes and millions in assets.</p>
<p>And he didn't earn that in the marketplace. Much of his money comes from his wife's dubious educational career. You can look it up.</p>
<p>Sanders is an expert at demonizing the affluent, demanding the federal government seize their assets. He frames that as "economic justice," a bogus theory that puts forth that the "have-nots" are entitled to a massive amount of free stuff their fellow countrymen will be forced to fund.</p>
<p>This message is now the central tenet of the progressive movement, which has made deep inroads into the African-American community and with younger voters.</p>
<p>Sanders, Warren, and Sharpton are dangerous people who have no respect for private property, self-reliance, or accomplishment. They are dividers, exploiting personal jealousy and peddling a distorted picture of America - a country that provides more opportunity than any other.</p>
<p>Bernie Sanders will never acknowledge that because it would diminish his power base. Instead, he and his cohort in the Senate, Warren, use their platforms to stoke grievances and discourage individual effort.</p>
<p>The Sanders-Progressive movement is a plague upon the land. Horribly, the corporate media is enabling the contagion, and so we are witnessing a profound division in our society.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders sits in his Lake Champlain chateau, thinking up more ways to tear down capitalism and discourage personal resilience.</p>
<p>He poses as the champion of the underdog. But what he really wants is what you have. And, aided by a corrupt leftist media, he's on a determined quest to get it.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-03-19T11:14:00ZSlouching Towards SocialismBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Slouching-Towards-Socialism/323671733073339836.html2023-03-12T11:00:00Z2023-03-12T11:00:00Z<p>Joe from Scranton recently revealed himself in Philadelphia as a Bernie Sanders acolyte. In laying out his fantastical budget, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-Joe-Biden-is-a-Socialist!/-814375224964244951.html" target="_blank">the President unmasked the socialist within</a>. Somewhere, Mao, Fidel, Trotsky, and Stalin were celebrating, very likely in a hot place.</p>
<div>President Biden's vision is free healthcare, free child care, guaranteed family leave, and subsidies for expensive medicines, among a very long list of other government perks.</div>
<p>If you are earning less than $50,000, the feds would then subsidize much of your life.</p>
<p>That's socialism. No need to do much; the Democrats will take care of you.</p>
<p>Sweden operates like this, but there are just 11 million people in that frigid country - 330 million in the USA.</p>
<p>Joe knows his budget will never pass a Republican House but so what? He continues to enlist voters who want entitlements. And there are millions of them.</p>
<p>Even though "free ride" Biden espouses massive giveaways, they will not happen now. However, the seeds of socialism have been sown, a baseline established.</p>
<p>In order to pay for all the benefits, the President would heavily tax corporations and investors, raising the capital gains rate to an absurd level. If that ever happens, robust capitalism would be badly damaged as investment and business expansion dry up.</p>
<p>But there's something even worse in Biden's playbook. He wants to tax the assets of wealthy Americans. That's the seizure of private property - a communist tenet.</p>
<p>The 16th amendment gives the federal government the right to tax "income." Houses, unrealized stock and bond gains, and material things like art collections are not income if they are unsold.</p>
<p>So, this part of Joe's economic agenda is clearly unconstitutional. Again, he does not care. Progressive policies take time to evolve into reality. Hello, gay marriage.</p>
<p>But back to the budget speech. As usual, Joe Biden evoked his father, a working-class Scranton guy. Biden always does this to mask his radicalism under the cloak of a traditional upbringing.</p>
<p>Seems to me that the Biden family did pretty well without government handouts. Joe's father earned enough so his son and three siblings could enjoy prosperity. The working-class Bidens didn't seem to need an aggressive nanny in Washington, DC.</p>
<p>Same with my father in Levittown, New York. He worked hard, earned an honest buck, and provided enough so my sister and I had a decent shot at moving up.</p>
<p>My dad would have been embarrassed to take government handouts. He didn't want free stuff believing that it promoted weakness and dependence.</p>
<p>I think Joe Biden's father probably felt the same way.</p>
<p>But we'll never hear that from free ride Joe.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-03-12T11:00:00ZHostile TribesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hostile-Tribes/533950656978027744.html2023-03-05T19:46:00Z2023-03-05T19:46:00Z<p>Not since the Civil War have the people of the United States been more hostile to each other. The corporate media and some toxic internet sites are largely responsible. Many Americans no longer seek common ground; our new collective hobby is despising those who hold different points of view.</p>
<p>After the brutal attack on September 11, the country largely came together to oppose the evil Jihad. Initially, President Bush the younger had overwhelming support to right the wrong.</p>
<p>That lasted until the Iraq War went south.</p>
<p>Ever since then, creeping tribalism has badly damaged the USA. Barack Obama could not win over conservatives, Donald Trump was vilified by the left. No matter what these two presidents did, many of their opponents refused to treat them with respect or fairness.</p>
<p>That was largely fueled by a profit-driven media which well understands there is big money in dividing the public. Here are two irrefutable examples of that.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Fox-News-Loyalists/-353347601904923637.html" target="_blank">Fox News</a> is in major legal trouble because the company did not want to lose viewers and revenue by challenging fraud assertions over the election of 2020. There is no more to it than that. Money trumped factual reporting, with apologies for the pun.</p>
<p>Example two. NBC News, through its satellite MSNBC, seeks gold in luring African-American viewers. Thus, the cable station presents a steady stream of anti-white commentary, much of it inflammatory.</p>
<p>"Analysts" like Al Sharpton, Jonathan Capeheart, Joy Reid, Simone Sanders-Townsend, and others routinely feed black viewers grievance, some of it hateful.</p>
<p>By the way, CNN actually destroyed its news franchise by embracing "all hate, all the time" directed at Donald Trump.</p>
<p>But the race card is working for NBC. In February, MSNBC averaged 173,000 daily black viewers. CNN had 105,000, Fox News just 24,000.</p>
<p>The harsh truth is that news consumption in America is now divided by skin color as well as ideology.</p>
<p>The result of the money grabs by media companies is a dramatic loss of honest reporting and a troubling diminishment of American culture. Many immature folks now believe they have a license to loathe, and the most extreme of that crew acts out.</p>
<p>Hello, January 6.</p>
<p>Throughout our history, we have always had disagreements among the population. About half the American public didn't want to fight the fascists before Pearl Harbor.</p>
<p>Also, half of the colonists didn't want to show the English king the door.</p>
<p>But today, I fear the political and social divisions are permanent, barring an attack on the homeland. It's too easy and sometimes even fun to despise political opponents.</p>
<p>And it's far too profitable for the powerful and soulless media corporations.</p>
<p>The love of money is the root of evil.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-03-05T19:46:00ZKamala's MoneyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Kamalas-Money/-173879936055572771.html2023-02-26T18:52:00Z2023-02-26T18:52:00Z<p>The Vice President of the United States is a perplexing woman. Just inches from being the most powerful person in the world, she does not seem to understand what the deuce is actually happening in this country. I mean, one slip backwards on the Air Force One steps, and Ms. Kamala is in charge of us all.</p>
<p>In a recent appearance at Bowie State University located in Maryland, the Vice-President again spoke about the dubious U.S. economy, a subject that has always eluded her.</p>
<p>She told students that the Biden administration had done an excellent job lowering heating and electricity bills. Fox Business, not fans of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, fact-checked the claim, and here's what was found.</p>
<p>Over the past year, the American consumer has paid 12 percent more for electricity and 27 percent more for natural gas. Check your heating bills. Overall under President Biden, the price of fuel is up a whopping 28 percent in 12 months.</p>
<p>Now, is Kamala Harris deceiving the Bowie State students and everyone else on purpose? Impossible to tell. The Biden administration routinely misstates important data, relying on false scenarios to prop up economic failures.</p>
<p>They get away with it because a sympathetic media wants democrats in power.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, in his State of the Union address, President Biden said that he had cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion dollars. Using verbal sleight of hand, Mr. Biden arrived at that statistic by adding up federal Covid payments, which swelled the deficit by an incredible $3.1 trillion dollars.</p>
<p>So when the Covid giveaways stopped, the deficit naturally fell. Biden takes credit for that, which is so deceitful it's painful.</p>
<p>The truth (sorry to upset Joe's operation with that word) is that neither the President nor Vice President cares a whit about being honest with the folks. It's all propaganda, all the time. In a country that depends on honest government in order to make informed voting decisions, this is now a crisis.</p>
<p>Kamala Harris is just a small part of this massive problem. However, she gleefully goes out and says whatever she's told to say. On the economic acumen front, the woman couldn't run a car wash. But the worst part is - she doesn't care what the truth is.</p>
<p>In that, she's simpatico with her boss.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-02-26T18:52:00ZThis Column Will Offend YouBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/This-Column-Will-Offend-You/-642437430431705442.html2023-02-17T21:51:00Z2023-02-17T21:51:00Z<p>Paraphrasing Bobby Kennedy, a very effective public servant, all Americans should defend "the right to say it."</p>
<p>Kennedy was a big free-speech guy, and CNN host Don Lemon needs his spirit very badly. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=922327130292562224" target="_blank">Lemon made the preposterous statement that women cannot be "in their prime" after leaving their 30s.</a> Now, he's in big trouble. CNN has forced him to apologize, and the letter "S" has been branded on him: sexist.</p>
<p>But Mr. Lemon is no stranger to fallacious opinions, nor is CNN. Among other things, they were town criers for the false "Russian Collusion" allegations, personally denigrated Sarah Palin when she ran for Vice President, and attempted to justify the violent riots after the murder of George Floyd.</p>
<p>The truth is that all of us occasionally offer dopey opinions. So, let's cancel everyone!</p>
<p>This week President Biden called the black Governor of Maryland "boy." Mr. Biden meant no harm; he simply doesn't know what he's saying much of the time.</p>
<p>However, if a Republican had done that, the person would have been branded a racist, and the cancel assassins would have moved quickly. But few in the media even mentioned Biden. Selected outrage. Blatant hypocrisy.</p>
<p>The United States no longer has free speech. You will be punished if you say something "offensive." Don Lemon may lose his job.</p>
<p>What should have happened on the CNN morning show is that after Lemon delivered his foolish analysis, cohosts Poppy Harlow and Kaitlin Collins should have mocked him, putting forth how ridiculous his statement was. That's how you confront absurd opinions.</p>
<p>Running to management complaining about being "triggered" or "not safe" is just as dumb as Lemon's point of view.</p>
<p>Grow up. People say stupid stuff all the time. Did you ever watch MSNBC?</p>
<p>This story is important because it demonstrates just how powerful the "woke" trend really is. If a liberal guy like Lemon can be on the eve of destruction for dumb talking, critical mass has been reached.</p>
<p>Yes, irresponsible and hateful speech must be scrutinized. But the bar should be high. Under the banner of free speech, the Constitution guarantees the right to be a moron.</p>
<p>And from time to time, most of us have exercised that right.<br /><br /><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-02-17T21:51:00ZA Socialist Nightmare at the Super BowlBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Socialist-Nightmare-at-the-Super-Bowl/327837671880629587.html2023-02-12T19:02:00Z2023-02-12T19:02:00Z<p>(Phoenix) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would hate this. The NFL Commissioner's pre-Super Bowl party. Swanky Phoenician Hotel. Police dogs securing the entrance. Christina Aguilera performing. Staggering wealth everywhere.</p>
<p>New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft tells me what a miserable season the Pats had. As a young man, Kraft took over a packaging business in the working-class town of Worcester, Massachusetts. He's now worth billions.</p>
<p>Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, an oil "bidness" guy, explains how he turned the team from a money loser into perhaps the most valuable sports franchise in the world by "leveraging" his assets, a staple of capitalism.</p>
<p>The Commissioner, Roger Goodell, talks to me about the financial opportunities his league provides for thousands, including players who can quickly become merit-based millionaires. Goodell runs one of the most successful business operations on earth, using capitalism to produce prosperity.</p>
<p>Finally, I spent some time with the Speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy. Again, capitalism, not football, was the focus of the conversation as President Biden is now firmly entrenched in the socialist camp.</p>
<p>By the way, it's important to know why Mr. Biden refused to do a Superbowl interview with Fox News. Some far-left donors, all millionaires, objected because they despise Fox. So, as usual, Biden followed their "suggestion."</p>
<p>Anyway, Speaker McCarthy says he's on a mission to defeat the far-left movement which has gained control of an American president. That has never happened before.</p>
<p>The Valley of the Sun here in Arizona is greatly benefiting from the Superbowl, as do all venues that host the game. My driver out here is a guy I met in first grade and schooled with for 12 years. He's making a pile of money this week. The capitalists are in town.</p>
<p>Some people believe the Superbowl display is bad and that fat cats should forfeit as many assets as the government can possibly take from them. I'm no fan of greedy consumption, "possession obsession," as Hall & Oates sang, but I'm astute enough to realize that the land of opportunity will not be that if far-left loons advance much further.</p>
<p>Havana will never host the Superbowl.</p>
<p>So, as the limos depart the swell gathering and the "haves" get ready for the ultimate game, it is clear that capitalism provides almost unlimited opportunity to those who work hard and wind up earning a good fortune.</p>
<p>Socialism does not.</p>
<p>Somebody tell Joe Biden.</p>
<p><br /><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-02-12T19:02:00ZThe Truth About FreedomBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Truth-About-Freedom/729573162441738939.html2023-02-05T19:47:00Z2023-02-05T19:47:00Z<p style="text-align: center;">"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."<br />- Kris Kristofferson</p>
<p>Nope. Old Kris is wrong. Freedom is only acquired when you have options and when you are able to live mostly without interference or dependence on others. Many folks who think they are free are not.</p>
<p>The insidious progressive movement in America is far more of a threat to freedom than, say, China. It basically wants all Americans to be dependent on the federal government. Like Europe. Did you know that Americans, in general, have 25 percent more spending power than those living in Europe because of excessive taxation on that continent?</p>
<p>According to reporting by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, the average American home is about 2,200 feet. In Britain, it's 818 feet - not counting where the monarchy hangs out.</p>
<p>Luckily we booted the Brits, right?</p>
<p>British subjects and their European peers have largely traded personal freedom for government-funded health care, education, and pensions, as they fork over most of their earnings to the taxman.</p>
<p>That's what the American left wants. You lose significant take-home pay through taxation, and the swamp rats in Washington will take care of you.</p>
<p>But they won't because they're rats.</p>
<p>Joe Biden is down with all of this and more. For example, he wants the government to provide lifetime guarantees to the have-nots. And they don't have to work to receive them. They can layabout, intoxicate themselves, and contribute nothing. Yet, government money taken from hard-working Americans will flow to them.</p>
<p>Of course, those who choose to do nothing are slaves to the government, with total dependence.</p>
<p>True freedom is the ability to live life without fear of harm or unfair treatment. That's first. Then you layer on the option to pursue happiness in your own way. It takes money to acquire nice things, travel, and invest for the future. But the progressives don't want individuals to have many options, including self-protection. They essentially demand that all Americans subjugate themselves to the government, which, of course, knows best.</p>
<p>If you have "nothing left to lose," you are not free. You are aimless. I hope Kris Kristofferson knows that. The more personal assets federal and state governments seize by law, the less we will be able to accomplish in our lives.</p>
<p>Americans do not want to be socialist Swedes, at least not in the past. But now we have a leftist president and media - and we are losing true freedom at an alarming rate.</p>
<p>Finally, I'll submit to you that most Americans don't even know it.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-02-05T19:47:00ZHitler, Tojo, Putin, and XiBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hitler-Tojo-Putin-and-Xi/865655454926158867.html2023-01-29T09:43:00Z2023-01-29T09:43:00Z<p>Eighty years ago, the bloodiest battle in human history ended. The German army surrendered to the Soviets at Stalingrad. More than one million human beings were killed in six months of fighting along the Volga River.</p>
<p>The defeat ended Hitler's totalitarian expansion, and 28 months later, he committed suicide.</p>
<p>Today we have Hitler's soul mate, Putin, trying to expand totalitarianism to Ukraine, a country conquered by the Nazis and located fairly close to Stalingrad, which is now called Volgograd. It's almost exactly the same story we saw in the 1940s; a brutal dictator waging war because he wants to see death and destruction. Putin loves that.</p>
<p>In the Pacific, we also have a similar threat from Communist China. The dictator Xi would like to annex Taiwan as the Chinese have done with Tibet.</p>
<p>Back in 1943, Tojo and the Japanese fascists were well on their way to a fiery defeat. The American Navy and Marines pushed the Rising Sun back after a series of bloody fights. All told, more than 30 million people died worldwide in World War II.</p>
<p>Isn't it ironic that the world is facing like-minded threats in 2023? Hitler and Tojo were savages. So are Putin and Xi. They both live to subjugate humanity.</p>
<p>The difference now, of course, is nukes. The major powers have the ability to destroy the planet. Thus, armed conflict is exceedingly perilous.</p>
<p>In 1947, Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and other nuclear scientists came up with the "Doomsday Clock." The concept is a yearly update on how close mankind is to "global catastrophe."</p>
<p>This year the clock is just a few minutes away from midnight - doom. That's because of Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons in Europe.</p>
<p>Just that scenario alone should tell the world that old Vlad has to go. And that's what NATO and the USA are trying to accomplish through economic sanctions and sending weapons to Kyiv.</p>
<p>The arc of history repeats itself often. Eighty years ago, the world struggled against fascism and eventually defeated The Third Reich and the Empire of Japan.</p>
<p>Will the free world now do the same thing with the contemporary totalitarians?</p>
<p>As the cliche goes - it's complicated.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-01-29T09:43:00ZBiden Derangement SyndromeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Biden-Derangement-Syndrome/951889862725907296.html2023-01-22T06:39:00Z2023-01-22T06:39:00Z<p>By God, I think I have a malady, and there's no vax. It's been two years since President Biden took the oath of office, and I am becoming obsessed with the man. This is not good.</p>
<p>I mocked the Trump derangement people. Everything the former President did was evil, stupid, criminal, tasteless, tawdry, corrupt, moronic, or dastardly. Those hate-Trump Americans made a lifestyle out of disparaging the Don. It never ended.</p>
<p>Well, now, I may be doing the same thing with Joe Biden. The guy drives me nuts. Doesn't care about the border, fentanyl, collapse of the airlines. Claims he's bringing down inflation when he ignited it by attacking and over-regulating the energy industry. Says he's cut the deficit by a trillion when he had little to do with it - the deficit came down because the Congress-approved Covid spending stopped.</p>
<p>His latest has Biden saying he handled the top secret document thing perfectly even though the pro-Democrat New York Times reports the administration actively tried to cover it up.</p>
<p>It's enough to send you screaming into the night.</p>
<p>I know Trump said dumb stuff. I ignored most of it because he governed well.</p>
<p>Quick vaccine, robust economy, pretty much destroyed ISIS.</p>
<p>Biden, on the other hand, has mucked things up, has tried to divide the races, is incapable of problem-solving, and thinks Kamala is President.</p>
<p>I feel like that French police supervisor in "The Pink Panther" movies. Peter Sellers, playing Inspector Clouseau, slowly drives the guy insane with his incompetence.</p>
<p>Often when I think of President Biden, I get a facial tic.</p>
<p>This is bad. It's my job to cover the man in a fair way, but it's getting more difficult to do that. And then there are the legions of Americans who actually think he's doing a good job. More tics.</p>
<p>I realize I have to fight BDS because I risk joining the WashPost and the other liberal media that tried everything to hurt Trump. I do not want to be like them with Biden.</p>
<p>But the symptoms are there. I actually called the President "lazy and incompetent" on the air last week. I rarely use ad hominem attacks when discussing politicians and didn't feel good about it.</p>
<p>So, if there's a Biden rehab center, I will check-in. Maybe I can call a Democrat when the President overwhelms me. Talk me down from the syndrome.</p>
<p>Please.</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-01-22T06:39:00ZBlame MexicoBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Blame-Mexico/222567463455795198.html2023-01-15T18:21:00Z2023-01-15T18:21:00Z<p>As the South Park wise guys surely understand, the three amigos exposition in Mexico City last week was a total farce. I hope Biden, Trudeau, and Obrador got some good meals out of it, at least. I mean, all this working together for the good of the people stuff is a cruel lie. Mexico works against its own people and certainly harms the citizens of the United States and Canada. So, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Solving-the-Illegal-Immigration-Mess/142562077840964063.html" target="_blank">how about some truth-telling</a>?</p>
<p>Here's the backup written especially for Kamala "Root Causes" Harris. Right now, 44 percent of the Mexican people live below the poverty line, average annual wage short of $17,000.</p>
<p>So, yeah, millions of Mexicans want to go to a place where they have a chance not to be poor, like the good old USA.</p>
<p>Are you with me so far, Kamala?</p>
<p>In addition to being economically unsuccessful, Mexico is the most violent country on earth. Hope I'm not insulting Somalia.</p>
<p>There are 129 million people living in Mexico, and 44,000 of them were murdered in 2021 (last available stats). But wait. Another 22,500 went missing. That almost always means they are deceased. Snorkeling in Acapulco Bay is not a good idea.</p>
<p>So let's do the math together, Kamala. It looks like more than 66,000 human beings lost their lives to violence in a single year. The USA, with two and a half times Mexico's population, had 23,000 homicides in 2021.</p>
<p>It is the drug cartels who are committing mass murder south of the border and exporting the incredible violence here. Everyone knows this, even President Biden. But he may have forgotten.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Listen:-OReilly--Beck-on-Bidens-Document-Scandal-Mexico/412109611458777688.html" target="_blank">Mexican President Obrador obviously cannot control the cartels</a>, nor does he want to. The entire structure of his country is now built on corruption and flooded with narco-dollars. There is no law enforcement in Mexico unless you're an American who takes a U-Turn. The local police are bribed or killed; the national police are disbanded because of massive corruption.</p>
<p>This is why a record amount of deadly drugs are flooding into America, killing hundreds of thousands. So, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-Mexico-is-the-Problem!/-143537053163956410.html" target="_blank">where's the outrage against Mexico</a>? Where's the Biden plan to deal with this?</p>
<p>It really was infuriating to watch the three amigos standing side-by-side playing their cynical game. Nothing will get better on the border or with drug interdiction until Washington holds Obrador and his crew accountable. And that will never happen under Joe and Kamala because they don't give a damn.</p>
<p>But honest Americans should. Our southern neighbor hurts this country every single day by exporting violence, narcotics, and millions of poor migrants that Mexico has absolutely no interest in helping.</p>
<p>Comprende?</p>
<p><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-01-15T18:21:00ZThe Apathy FactorBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Apathy-Factor/656118872919109038.html2023-01-08T09:40:00Z2023-01-08T09:40:00Z<p>We all know people who don't know much about history or anything else for that matter. And don't care to know. If they cared, they would google—the easiest way to get information on the planet.</p>
<p>Because so many folks are apathetic about the world around them, they make bad decisions. Two things drive faulty outcomes: emotion and stupidity.</p>
<p>If you don't know anything, you are stupid. However, emotion can cripple even the most astute person.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-Slams-Dumb-and-Lazy-Biden-Over-Immigration/-255311331584601788.html" target="_blank">President Biden is a historically bad Chief Executive</a> rivaled only by the incredibly incompetent, apathetic James Buchanan and the hapless, apathetic Herbert Hoover - who thought the Great Depression was an apparition or something.</p>
<p>Fellow traveler Joe Biden is many things in his senior life, few of them good. But his apathy is beyond comprehension.</p>
<p>A record amount of drugs are being smuggled across the <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=343039482809049404" target="_blank">Mexican border</a>. Hundreds of thousands dead because of it. Heard anything from Joe about that?</p>
<p>Millions of poor migrants have been abused by Mexican cartels in terrible ways as they try to get to open-border America. Does Biden care? No evidence that he does.</p>
<p>The financial burden on working Americans has increased tenfold since Joe took office. Higher prices for almost everything, "real wages" down about four percent - a seven-point swing for the worse since Trump's last year in office.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly-to-Airlines:-Where-Did-All-That-Money-Go/-893788672874759444.html" target="_blank">The airlines have fallen apart on Biden's watch</a>. Millions of passengers have suffered. Has Joe addressed it? No, he has not.</p>
<p>In fact, I don't know of one problem that President Biden has dealt with in an effective way. Not one.</p>
<p>That leads me to believe that Joe is largely apathetic about the state of the union. He pretty much does what his far-left masters tell him to do and then takes a nap. His daily schedule, released to the public, shows plenty of nothing. I post it every night on the No Spin News.</p>
<p>Back in the late 1850s, radical separatists in the south routinely defied the federal government in Washington, stealing weapons, ignoring taxes, even attacking federal workers. President Buchanan did nothing. Apathetic and lazy, Buchanan sat in the Executive Mansion while the Civil War fuse was lighted and pretty much ignored it.</p>
<p>For that, James Buchanan will always be the worst President of all time. The WOAT, if you will.</p>
<p>Joe B. has much in common with Jim B. and the biggest shared trait is apathy.</p>
<p>Sadly, many Americans, including much of the media, are in that camp as well.</p>
<p>Apathy often leads to calamity. We are surely seeing that in the USA right now.</p>
<p>Somebody tell the President.<br /><br /><em>Sign up to be a Premium Member on BillOReilly.com. This news and analysis is vital during these uncertain times. <a href="https://nospin.billoreilly.com/buy01/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-safelink="true" data-linkindex="1">Sign up here.</a></em></p>Bill O'Reilly2023-01-08T09:40:00ZThe Grievance FactoryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Grievance-Factory/631402790921932121.html2022-12-28T13:00:00Z2022-12-28T13:00:00Z<p>The mark of a noble life is the courage to challenge adversity. We all get hammered - betrayal and deceit are now bold signatures in American life as our culture declines.</p>
<p>And then there are birth defects, bad parents, accidents, medical complications, and inexplicable suffering; losing a child, being harmed by a criminal.</p>
<p>It is natural and healthy to go negative when something bad happens to us. But then, after the grieving time is over, the strong person begins the quest to overcome.</p>
<p>The problem is most human beings are not inherently strong. And many turn grieving into permanent grievance. They live lives of bitterness and look for opportunities to exploit their situations. Sometimes they become emotional vigilantes: I've been wronged, so I can do whatever I want (looting).</p>
<p>Enter the grievance mongers, politicians who cater to Americans who refuse to battle their negative circumstances. Those folks are soft targets for cynical manipulators. Hitler gained power by pandering to Germans, beaten down by the depression. He blamed their struggles on Jews and Communists. We all know how that turned out.</p>
<p>Today in our country, Senator Bernie Sanders is the grievance king. Elizabeth Warren and Al Sharpton are right behind him. But Sanders is the worst.</p>
<p>He understands that his socialist agenda has failed everywhere in the world. And he doesn't even walk the walk. Sanders lives a life of comfort and privilege; three homes and millions in assets.</p>
<p>And he didn't earn that in the marketplace. Much of his money comes from his wife's dubious educational career. You can look it up.</p>
<p>Sanders is an expert at demonizing the affluent, demanding the federal government seize their assets. He frames that as "economic justice," a bogus theory that puts forth that the "have-nots" are entitled to a massive amount of free stuff their fellow countrymen will be forced to fund.</p>
<p>This message is now the central tenet of the progressive movement, which has made deep inroads into the African-American community and with younger voters.</p>
<p>Sanders, Warren, and Sharpton are dangerous people who have no respect for private property, self-reliance, or accomplishment. They are dividers, exploiting personal jealousy and peddling a distorted picture of America - a country that provides more opportunity than any other.</p>
<p>Bernie Sanders will never acknowledge that because it would diminish his power base. Instead, he and his cohort in the Senate, Warren, use their platforms to stoke grievances and discourage individual effort.</p>
<p>The Sanders-Progressive movement is a plague upon the land. Horribly, the corporate media is enabling the contagion, and so we are witnessing a profound division in our society.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders sits in his Lake Champlain chateau, thinking up more ways to tear down capitalism and discourage personal resilience.</p>
<p>He poses as the champion of the underdog. But what he really wants is what you have. And, aided by a corrupt leftist media, he's on a determined quest to get it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-12-28T13:00:00ZThe Rise of the TribesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Rise-of-the-Tribes/213525928866060478.html2022-12-18T13:00:00Z2022-12-18T13:00:00Z<p>In the run-up to the Civil War, Americans divided themselves into two tribes: the first, championed by Abraham Lincoln, swore fidelity to the Constitution, believing the federal government and Supreme Court had the ultimate say in how we, the people, were governed.</p>
<p>The second Tribe, led by General Robert E. Lee, rejected Lincoln. It said that the individual states should hold policy power. And if some states wanted to enslave human beings - they had a right to make that decision.</p>
<p>After Tribe number two was defeated, bitterness and prejudice lingered, but American authority was clear: Washington ran the show.</p>
<p>And so it was that our nation came together to defeat powerful enemies in World War I and II as well as unite against the murderous jihad. Not much dissent in those areas - we were one Tribe.</p>
<p>But now, in 2022, we are back to tribal division on a significant scale.</p>
<p>The midterm election in November went against almost all historical precedents. President Biden and the Democrats are presiding over a troubled economy, the collapse of US border security, and a vicious rise in violent crime that is harming urban Americans at a frightening clip.</p>
<p>Thus, the Dems should have been routed on election day. They were not. It was stunning.</p>
<p>After extensive historical analysis, here's my conclusion: the country is changing fast, spurred on by personal division. We are back to the 1850s; there are two Americas now.</p>
<p>The first, we'll call Tribe number one. These are traditional folks who generally follow the rules and believe America remains the land of opportunity. They purchase homes, invest in financial markets, and support robust education both in school and at home. They generally accept the pathway their parents followed. They buy into capitalism and the belief that the USA is essentially a generous, noble nation.</p>
<p>Tribe number two sees it dramatically differently. Driven by a "progressive" vision, they believe America is flawed and always has been. They want to overthrow the white, male-dominated power structure and replace it with a powerful central government that will redistribute income and dictates almost all policies from Washington.</p>
<p>The second Tribe largely rejects self-reliance and competition, preferring guaranteed outcomes dictated by liberal entitlements. Many members of this Tribe have little stake in the current system, believing it is rigged against minorities and the poor. In short, they have no chance to live in Beverly Hills, so why bother embracing an unfair playing field; tear it down.</p>
<p>Tribe two generally dismisses American tradition and wants a brave new world built on central government financial and lifestyle guarantees.</p>
<p>The truth is the progressive movement is growing faster than the traditional crew. And they will never vote Republican no matter how bad things get in the country.</p>
<p>Now, the reason for the rise in Tribe two is threefold. First, public education, including college, has moved dramatically left.</p>
<p>Second, the corporate media has bought into the "woke" movement, which progressives champion. Interestingly, most corporate executives are members of Tribe one but are too cowardly to go against the woke tide.</p>
<p>And third, the Trump phenomenon has alienated many independent voters who despise the former president. So, even though many of these folks don't understand they are empowering progressives, their votes directly lead to the second Tribe's success.</p>
<p>So that's the deal. A changing America. Doesn't mean Tribe two will prevail in the long run. But today, they have momentum.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-12-18T13:00:00ZThe DealBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Deal/580435478927375916.html2022-12-11T10:13:00Z2022-12-11T10:13:00Z<p>President Biden loves to say, "here's the deal." But very often, the actual deal is nowhere near Mr. Biden's capacity to understand it.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=171116065283118117" target="_blank">Take the Russian swap</a>. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=-781174219535264908" target="_blank">It was maddening watching the TV pundits yodel</a>, "Biden left Paul Whelan behind!" Paul is the Michigan man who's languished in a Russian prison for four years, convicted of "espionage."</p>
<p>The sad truth is that Joe Biden has absolutely no leverage with Putin whatsoever. I believe Biden is tied with Rapunzel on Putin's fear list.</p>
<p>So, if Washington wanted Mr. Whelan and basketball player Brittney Griner released from confinement, Putin dictated the terms. Take it or leave it.</p>
<p>With no options, Biden took Ms. Griner in return for freeing a brutal Russian arms merchant who was 14 years in American custody. When a radio interviewer asked me why Biden abandoned Mr. Whelan, I simply said that, short of war, the US government cannot force Putin to do anything.</p>
<p>Trump couldn't even get Paul Whelan released.</p>
<p>So that's the deal, and Putin gets the win, although Biden gets progressive cred because Brittney is an African-American lesbian feminist. All the boxes.</p>
<p>In the biggest deal sweepstakes - the welfare of America - Biden is making incredibly bad choices.</p>
<p>A few months ago, I wrote about "the plan," which is attached to "the deal."</p>
<p>President Biden is completely under the influence of the progressive left, which controls the Democratic Party through massive donations by the likes of George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg. The radicals have bought not only Biden but Schumer and Pelosi as well. There is little opposition on the left to the extremists, no matter how destructive their proposals are. Think open borders. Most foreign nationals have zero ties to traditional America. So let's flood the zone with them.</p>
<p>That fits right into "the plan," which is to change America into a brand new green country where the federal government runs the vast economic engine and dictates who gets what. Call it eco-socialism.</p>
<p>In order to make that happen, younger Americans and immigrants have to buy into the concept that the USA is, and always has been, a racist nation bent on harming minorities and destroying the planet by using fossil fuels. That's the main play: America must disavow its traditions and change everything, including capitalism.</p>
<p>No opposition is allowed, especially if you work in film, TV, or academia.</p>
<p>"The plan" has been remarkably successful because the corporate media is largely on board, and a weak president is clueless and pliant. Plenty of power behind the plan.</p>
<p>At this point, I don't know who will win this civil war. I did not anticipate the Biden-induced border-collapse. I do know most Americans have no idea what the stakes actually are - tremendous loss of individual freedom - as the federal government dictates the free marketplace and freedom of expression in all forms.</p>
<p>We are indeed living in perilous times. I am emulating Paul Revere. Please spread this column around.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-12-11T10:13:00ZElon Shakes it UpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Elon-Shakes-it-Up/111222849769635389.html2022-12-04T19:02:00Z2022-12-04T19:02:00Z<p>Donald Trump got very good news last week. Just minutes after Elon Musk released damaging 2020 election information about Twitter, the former President texted me: "Total corruption. Everybody is now admitting the election of 2020 was rigged."</p>
<p>Well, I don't think Joe Biden and his supporters are "admitting" that, but certainly, Elon Musk is bolstering the belief that the "fix" was in during the last presidential vote.</p>
<p>So, let's cut through the false reporting and lay out what's likely to happen in the next six months, all of it bad for Biden, some of it good for Trump.</p>
<p>My analysis is this. By donating a colossal 400 million dollars to harvest votes for Joe Biden, Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg undeniably and furtively helped Biden win. The problem for Trump and Republicans is - Zuckerberg did it legally. By law, you can give political action committees an unlimited amount of money to do your bidding. And Zuckerberg's bidding was to gin up the Biden vote in key swing states.</p>
<p>Nothing congressional committees can do about Zuckerberg and other PAC contributors other than to let the folks know what happened because the corrupt media will not.</p>
<p>However, the second "fix was in" situation will likely explode into a huge scandal once the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees change profiles in January - with Republicans taking over.</p>
<p>Incoming Oversight Chairman James Comer, a Congressman from Kentucky, told me last week that he believes Hunter Biden delivered secret payments to his father when he was Vice President.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen if "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof will surface, but it certainly could. Especially if the Oversight Committee subpoenas business records from James Biden, the President's brother, and his Lion Hall Group, which received millions in foreign cash from Hunter.</p>
<p>Where did that money wind up?</p>
<p>The second committee, Judiciary, is likely to zero in on how Twitter suppressed free speech in order to help the Biden campaign. Incoming Chairman Jim Jordan, the Ohio congressman, is relentless and will target not only Twitter employees but also FBI agents and other government officials who were allegedly "directing" Twitter into hiding the Hunter laptop story and other news that might have hurt Biden.</p>
<p>I expect Elon Musk will be of immense help to the Republicans. I also anticipate that many called before Congress will take the Fifth.</p>
<p>None of this is good for the Democrats, who are already struggling to govern the country.</p>
<p>Some of what will happen is likely to bolster Donald Trump's contention that 2020 was, indeed, rigged. That could reinvigorate the Trump campaign. But it will not if the former President continues to denigrate the Constitution.</p>
<p>Every responsible American citizen should want to know the truth here. There is no question that serious corruption allegations are now gaining credibility because of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter.</p>
<p>In the months to come, I will deliver only fact-based analysis, which means no anonymous leaks, about a story that could lead to the destruction of President Biden and his party.</p>
<p>That's how big this thing is.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-12-04T19:02:00ZEvil WaysBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Evil-Ways/-179600838669300624.html2022-11-27T08:58:00Z2022-11-27T08:58:00Z<p>Last week after another horrendous mass shooting by a psychopath in Colorado (quickly followed by the carnage in Virginia),</p>
<p>I cut through all the gun-control noise and defined the real problem: evil.</p>
<p>I did this on my fact-based TV newscast, "The No Spin News," and my analysis garnered significant reaction. Viewers wanted me to further define the concept of evil which is rarely discussed in this country anymore.</p>
<p>That's because the struggle between good and evil is biblically-based, and studying the Bible has been demonized, pardon the pun, in our hyper-secular society. Any kind of "religiosity" can get you labeled in a pejorative way.</p>
<p>But in order to understand evil, you have to channel Moses and the Ten Commandments. Uh-oh. A document that instructs folks about what not to do? Can't have that - far too judgmental.</p>
<p>Most Americans might be able to remember a few commandments - like do not kill or commit adultery - but it gets foggy after that for secular citizens who far outnumber spiritual Americans.</p>
<p>But the Commandments, which adorn the main chamber of the US Supreme Court, are simple: if you intentionally harm another person, that is an evil act.</p>
<p>But most of us have done that?</p>
<p>Yes, we're all sinners. We are often weak. We lie about others (bearing false witness), we steal (cheat), and we put our own desires over others, even if that hurts them.</p>
<p>So, most human beings commit evil acts, but it is those who consistently harm people who are truly evil. I put that number at about 15 percent of humanity, based on my experience and historical knowledge. Lot of folks.</p>
<p>Of course, few will admit they are evil. There's always an excuse. Here's a vivid example. The drug addict who steals, mugs, or sells narcotics to others in order to obtain money to get high. These people routinely commit acts of evil, but society has afforded them an out: they have a "disease." Therefore, the crimes they commit are ignored in many jurisdictions.</p>
<p>So, the addict or alcoholic is free to live a life of inebriation, harming their children and families and countless strangers in pursuit of mind alteration. These people are allowed to run wild while bringing pain and suffering to those they target.</p>
<p>It's evil; the entire substance abuse world is revolting.</p>
<p>Back to the Bible. One of the worst sins is harming children, which is made quite clear. Another evil is betrayal; that's why Judas Iscariot is featured so prominently in the New Testament. Sins of the flesh are largely forgivable unless incorporated into a lifestyle. Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist for pointing that out.</p>
<p>Murder is evil; that's a given. The psychotics killing innocent people may be emotionally disturbed, but that does not excuse them. The drug gangs gunning down thousands across the country are pure evil. So are members of the Mexican drug cartels who, if there is a higher power, will be spending the after-life time with the Nazis and Stalin/Mao acolytes.</p>
<p>Finally, the internet makes hurting others much easier on a variety of fronts as anonymous gutter-snipes wail away. Also, truly evil people can find cohorts much easier in cyberspace than they ever could in real life.</p>
<p>American public schools need to begin teaching about the struggle between good and evil, which defines the Judeo-Christian philosophy upon which the US Constitution is based. No religion is needed. Just a belief in right and wrong and why evil must be aggressively rejected by a just society.</p>
<p>Not optimistic that will happen because we live in a cowardly time - when many simply turn away from evil acts. They don't want to get involved.</p>
<p>This enables the brutal evil we see all the time the world over. Yes, evil-doers will always be with us. But now we are making it easier for them.</p>
<p>God help us.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-11-27T08:58:00ZTruth Be ToldBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Truth-Be-Told/-314835198160706609.html2022-11-20T19:52:00Z2022-11-20T19:52:00Z<p>One of the reasons the surf never came up for Republicans on Election Day was the barrage of Democrat propaganda which was relayed non-stop by the corrupt media.</p>
<p>It was relentless. "Democracy is on the ballot," implying a GOP victory would end the Republic.</p>
<p>"The Republicans want to destroy Medicare and Social Security." "Abortion will be illegal in most places." "Trump and his deniers will do heinous things!"</p>
<p>Yes, it is true that conservatives grind out propaganda as well, but they don't have a corporate media to peddle it.</p>
<p>It is also true that only a nitwit would believe the leftwing hysteria, but there are many nitwits.</p>
<p>One word: Crypto.</p>
<p>Sadly, many Americans believe what they want to believe and gobble up propaganda like it's Haagen Dazs, especially since there is no accountability. Foolish, ill-informed votes count. And intellectually limited Americans seek out friends in the same category.</p>
<p>Call it gooney birds of a feather flock together.</p>
<p>Here is a vivid example of propaganda that took deep root in this country. On March 25, 2021, Georgia passed the Election Integrity Act so the Trump chaos could not happen in the Peach State again. The new law streamlined the voting process and mandated voter ID, something very loathsome to the far left.</p>
<p>In response, President Biden read these words: "This is Jim Crow in the 21st Century. It must end."</p>
<p>Of course, it did not end, as the courts found no violations of "voter's rights."</p>
<p>Then another nitwit, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred, attempted to punish Georgia by moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver.</p>
<p>Said Manfred: "Major League Baseball fundamentally supports voting rights for all Americans and opposes restrictions to the ballot box."</p>
<p>The man is noble, is he not?</p>
<p>Well, on November 8, the state of Georgia had a record-high voter turnout for a midterm election. And the state accurately counted the four million ballots on Election Day - it didn't take a week.</p>
<p>So, I am expecting an apology from Joe Biden, Rob Manfred, and the legions of corrupt commentators who cynically manipulated the American people over the Georgia law.</p>
<p>No chance these people will ever acknowledge their deception because that's not part of the propaganda program.</p>
<p>Jesus said: "the truth shall set you free."</p>
<p>Not sure the Nazarene anticipated all the nitwits.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-11-20T19:52:00ZA Red FlagBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Red-Flag/605697818083222221.html2022-11-13T08:00:00Z2022-11-13T08:00:00Z<p>Let's begin with some truth. Joe Biden is a bad President. Inflation is hurting working Americans. Violent crime is surging in black, urban neighborhoods, and millions of foreign nationals have illegally flooded into the USA since Biden was inaugurated.</p>
<p>With me so far?</p>
<p>More truth. Republicans should have routed the Democrats last Tuesday. The progressive left, which controls Biden, has failed to solve vexing problems and made things worse. So traditional/conservative candidates had a big policy advantage going into the election.</p>
<p>It did not translate into votes.</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Tuesdays-Declaration-Of-Independents/576039841202438807.html" target="_blank">Independent voters broke for the Dems by four points</a>, that's why. Nobody predicted that. But it happened.</p>
<p>It looks like January 6 and election "denying" is the major reason. Republicans are associated with both. Democrats pounded that theme with TV ads. Yes, it's unfair and foolish to support Democrat incompetence because January 6 happened. But that's what many independents apparently did.</p>
<p>Abortion also swayed some independent women. But not as much as the denier thing.</p>
<p>In addition, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Listen:-OReilly--Beck-on-Post-Election-Chaos/91040718960079224.html" target="_blank">the Democrat machine successfully brought the specter of Donald Trump to the midterm pre-vote</a>. Remember, more than 80 million Americans voted against Trump in 2020 - even though he did a good job running the economy. And that was before the election denying and the January 6 riot that stemmed from it.</p>
<p>Thus, the "red wave" stayed out to sea, and the red flag was waived in places like Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.</p>
<p>Reality bites, as the saying goes.</p>
<p>So, we'll all continue to suffer under Joey Houdini, who somehow escaped again. More personal debt, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/OReilly:-None-of-Them-Care-About-How-Many-Dead-Minority-People-Are-Lying-in-the-Gutter!/-996949903765746211.html" target="_blank">more African-Americans killed in their neighborhoods by violent criminals</a>, more immigration chaos. Help is not on the way.</p>
<p>Americans get another chance two years hence. Maybe the red tide will roll in then.</p>
<p>In the meantime, hang onto that life jacket.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-11-13T08:00:00ZIf I'm Lying, I'm DyingBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/If-Im-Lying-Im-Dying/-412908509066993816.html2022-11-06T07:00:00Z2022-11-06T07:00:00Z<div style="text-align: center;">"You can't hide your lyin' eyes,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">And your smile's a thin disguise"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">- Eagles<span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<p>Pity the fool who's vote remains undecided, as Mr. T might say. Surely, all Americans understand the pain Mr. Joe Biden has brought. Even those who are standing by their man cannot deny it. A recent CBS poll says 79 percent believe America is "out of control."</p>
<p>However, if that survey were taken only among CBS News personnel, the out-of-control number would be around ten percent, if that.</p>
<p>Liberal voters know things are not well, but nothing is worse than supporting "the big lie." To them, inflation, violent crime, open borders, energy dependence, woke incoherence, and massive federal spending pales beside the giant deception - the belief that the 2020 election was tainted by fraud.</p>
<p>Nothing else matters except punishing the "deniers" who "encouraged" January 6.</p>
<p>Liz Cheney is the poster person for this voting bloc.</p>
<p>My question is, how many routine lies add up to a big lie? I'd like to see a reality show on this hosted by Stephen Colbert, who never met a leftist talking point he did not embrace. The audience could vote electronically about which falsehoods are most pernicious.</p>
<p>Last week, President Biden said the USA has a low inflation rate compared to most developed countries. Tremendous whopper. On the No Spin News, I reeled off about 20 countries not as bad off inflation-wise as us.</p>
<p>A few hours later, the White House posted a statement on its website saying President Biden is responsible for the 8.5 percent social security payout rise.</p>
<p>Elon Musk immediately waved his flag on Twitter because that's a lie and everyone knows it. The White House took down the post. By the way, the President also said republicans want to dismantle social security and Medicare. Any backup for that statement? No.</p>
<p>The Biden administration purports that the southern border is secure. The Mexican drug cartels agree and send their best wishes to the American jefe.</p>
<p>Finally, the Biden administration says violent crime is worse in areas controlled by Republicans. Whereupon Governor Hochul, Mayor Lightfoot, the entire populations of San Francisco and Los Angeles put out a one-word text.</p>
<p>"Really?"</p>
<p>That's a lie under the banner of jest. But Biden's misdirections are deadly serious like the economy is "strong as hell."</p>
<p>Check your investment statements this year.</p>
<p>To be clear, I'm not justifying any deceit. Election denial has been corrosive. But the terrible state of the United States right now is far worse.</p>
<p>And President Biden is responsible.</p>
<p>As he might say: No lie.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2022-11-06T07:00:00ZThe Saga of Paul PelosiBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Saga-of-Paul-Pelosi/-781111534956365301.html2022-10-29T07:00:00Z2022-10-29T07:00:00Z<p>When John David Chapman murdered John Lennon on December 8, 1980, the world was shocked. How could a mentally ill man do that? It was so unusual. Lennon didn't even have security.<br /><br />Today, it's not out of the ordinary. Psychos are running wild in San Francisco, terrorizing the city while authorities look away. The guy who broke into the home owned by Nancy and Paul Pelosi did so at 2:30am armed with a hammer. If the 82-year-old Paul had a gun, he might have neutralized the intruder who fractured his skull.<br /><br />But the Pelosi's don't believe in self-protection.<br /><br />They also don't even consider public safety. The maniac is allegedly a drug addict who lives on the streets of Oakland. There are tens of thousands of Bay Area people in the same circumstance. Authorities don't care and that includes Congresswoman Pelosi. Dangerous street people are allowed to do what they want.<br /><br />It looks like there is a political component to this story - the attack may have been ideologically motivated. And the terrible truth is that political hatred in America on both sides has reached critical mass.<br /><br />Some people were actually happy when the news broke because they despise Speaker Pelosi and, by extension, her husband. That is not a good mental state.<br /><br />Also, a few far left pundits could not wait to blame "MAGA people." It took Bob Woodward about 30 seconds to point his finger at Trump. The far left was salivating at the prospect. So, where's the compassion for an elderly man almost killed in his own home? It seems that political fanaticism has obliterated sympathy.<br /><br />We are living in a poisonous political time because there are so many extremists. The corrupt media, of course, enables the haters because there is money to be made in doing so.<br /><br />Maybe Elon Musk can bring some sanity to the Twitter universe leading others to follow. <br /><br />Or maybe we'll just have to accept our present status as the United States of Vitriol.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-10-29T07:00:00ZThe Legend of Sleepy BidenBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Legend-of-Sleepy-Biden/954339569254850837.html2022-10-23T08:57:00Z2022-10-23T08:57:00Z<p>It is late October, and a seasonal change is in the air; darkness falls earlier, and spirits awaken in anticipation of All Hallows Eve. Children look forward to the spooky time when they go door to door asking for "treats." If none are forthcoming, the specter of "tricks" may arise.</p>
<p>This Halloween season, President Biden is the reigning trickster presiding over a country sliding into recession, a true horror.</p>
<p>But Mr. Biden is not concerned because, in his opinion, the economy is "strong as hell."</p>
<p>"Hell" being the key word.</p>
<p>On the banks of the Hudson River, the Headless Horseman would have chuckled - if he could have - at Mr. Biden's statement. But without a head, chuckling is a challenge.</p>
<p>Goblins and ghouls are also confused because there are many undocumented among them. These apparitions from other countries are being bused all over the place while the American undead must fend for themselves.</p>
<p>Not fair, they wail! We've got to secure the border. It is a frightening situation down there.</p>
<p>No, it's not, the President replies. The border is secure! It's strong like the economy.</p>
<p>There isn't a Vampire in Transylvania who believes that. In fact, Dracula and his buds are angry because Americans are being bled white by incompetent leadership, leaving less blood for them.</p>
<p>These are difficult times for witches as well. If they cast a spell on Joe Biden, who would even know? Walking around in a daze? Speaking in a strange manner? Helloooooo!</p>
<p>Even sending a squadron of flying monkeys to annoy him would mean nothing because the President would deny the monkeys were flying or were even monkeys at all.</p>
<p>And if they ever landed, he'd bus them to Seattle.</p>
<p>Lady Karine, the President's spokesperson, is celebrating the harvest season by channeling Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes: "I see nooothing. I know nooothing."</p>
<p>It is survival time for Ms. Jean-Pierre as the administration slowly sinks into the morass. Baghdad Bob had an easier job.</p>
<p>So, Happy Halloween, Joe Biden. In the years to come, scary stories will be told about your administration. Young children will tremble in fear upon hearing details of this very strange time.</p>
<p>But all will be fine in the end.</p>
<p>Because it never really happened.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-10-23T08:57:00ZTrump's RevengeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trumps-Revenge/256317732877201401.html2022-10-16T18:35:00Z2022-10-16T18:35:00Z<p>Let's start off with a significant fact. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Listen:-OReilly--Beck-on-Media-Corruption-Trump--More/712718053966157958.html" target="_blank">The anti-Trump TV entertainers are failing</a>.</p>
<p>Big.</p>
<p>About 74 million voters supported Donald Trump in 2020, more than any other Republican presidential candidate in history.</p>
<p>In short, a lot of folks.</p>
<p>It is beyond any reasonable doubt that most Trump voters do not appreciate being labeled racist, fascist, stupid, immoral, destructive, and evil.</p>
<p>But that's what the media continues to do. In Hollywood, if you are pro-Trump, you will find getting work difficult.</p>
<p>So, there is anger in the Trump precincts, and the "Great American Act Out" is underway. Anti-Trump entertainment vehicles are sinking faster than Joe Biden's poll numbers.</p>
<p>Late-night television is a vivid example. All the network hosts are Trump critics. So, good chance that 74 million Americans are not fans. Let's deal with the situation factually.</p>
<p>On CBS, Stephen Colbert is a liberal activist proudly in bed with the Democratic Party. Therefore, non-Dems are not likely to watch. Also, Colbert is not particularly funny, so why stay up late with him?</p>
<p>Colbert savaged then-President Trump, but since he left office, old Steve has lost about a third of his audience, sometimes losing in the ratings to Greg Gutfeld, the late-night guy on Fox News. That's embarrassing for a network show.</p>
<p>Jimmy Kimmel on ABC/Disney is Colbert light. He despises Trump and has lost nearly 40 percent of his audience in six years.</p>
<p>NBC is widely considered the most blatant "hate Trump" organization, but Jimmy Fallon is not really into politics, preferring music and frat housing around. Nevertheless, Fallon has lost 60 percent of his audience over the past few years.</p>
<p>The other NBC late-night guy, Seth Meyers, has dropped from 1.5 million watchers in 2016 to 786,000 today.</p>
<p>Johnny Carson often did nine million daily viewers for NBC. I know, different times. A liberal man, Carson did not impose his personal politics on his audience and therefore had a full playing field available to him.</p>
<p>Finally, it looks like it's all over for Saturday Night Live. The program has dropped below four million viewers, down from almost 13 million in its heyday.</p>
<p>The Alec Baldwin-Trump imitation was largely nasty, unlike SNL parodies of past presidents. Millions of Americans noticed and tuned out.</p>
<p>So, somewhere on his Palm Beach estate, Donald Trump is having a measure of payback. Late-night network talk TV is not coming back, and SNL won't either. <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Woke-Damage/-726442187376954105.html" target="_blank">Liberal politics have killed the golden goose</a>.</p>
<p>It's simple: There is no one who can make late-night comedy great again.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-10-16T18:35:00ZThe Big BangBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Big-Bang/-411967400548495577.html2022-10-09T18:54:00Z2022-10-09T18:54:00Z<p>Uh-oh. President Biden is warning that "Armageddon" is closing in, and he's not talking about his administration's economic policies.</p>
<p>He's suggesting nutty Vlad Putin may unleash nukes.</p>
<p>Now, this is unsettling. Old Joe gets daily intelligence briefings, so is that theory held by the CIA and NSA? Impossible to answer the question, but it is possible. Sorry to overuse the word.</p>
<p>Sixty years ago, President Kennedy was openly advising Americans to build "fallout" shelters, and some did. I was in the seventh grade and remember our nuke drills. At the nun's signal, the kids would hit the floor and cower under the desks.</p>
<p>Not sure how that would slow down radioactive fallout but questioning the Sisters about nuclear physics would not have been well received.</p>
<p>Back then, it was all Nikita Khrushchev's fault as the Soviet Union had partnered with Fidel Castro to put ballistic missiles in Cuba.</p>
<p>Kennedy said nyet. A major confrontation brewed. The homely, rotund Khrushchev finally backed down, postponing a zombie apocalypse.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, nukes are back. Putin is getting his rear end kicked in Ukraine, and the humiliation is causing him to act out. Yes, his nuke bluster should be taken seriously. But Biden is making mistakes.</p>
<p>First of all, talking about "Armageddon" empowers Vlad. The diminutive dictator wants to frighten the world. So why help him do that, Joe?</p>
<p>I am assuming the United States has privately made it clear to Russia and China that any nuclear attack will result in massive damage to those countries. If you read my book "Killing the Killers," you know how awesomely destructive American weaponry is.</p>
<p>At the same time, President Biden should publicly make it clear that NATO will only tolerate so much insane behavior from Putin. But let's stop the nuke rhetoric.</p>
<p>Finally, back-channel discussions with Russian generals are taking place, I assume. This is key. Putin's power is greatly diminished after the debacle in Ukraine, and his oligarch allies know Vlad is an unstable mess. The world would be far better off if Putin would "retire" to his dacha.</p>
<p>If he resists, maybe an unfortunate accident.</p>
<p>Sadly, I have no confidence Joe Biden can handle Putin. Obviously, he is not JFK. And he's also not Trump, who handled Vlad pretty well.</p>
<p>Joe is Joe. We got what we voted for. It's not "Armageddon." But it's close.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-10-09T18:54:00ZTop of MindBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Top-of-Mind/-371067460961464057.html2022-10-02T18:28:00Z2022-10-02T18:28:00Z<p>Hunter Thompson once wrote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." And that's exactly what's happened in the White House communications office.</p>
<p>Jen Psaki was a spinner extraordinaire. But she dished in a way that was fairly rational. Now, we have her successor, Karine Jean-Pierre, and I have no idea what is taking place.</p>
<p>You might have seen President Biden last week looking for a dead person, the late Congresswoman Jackie Walorski. Mr. Biden wanted to thank her for working to end hunger. A noble gesture.</p>
<p>Problem is Ms. Walorski was killed in an auto accident about two months ago. Apparently, the President had forgotten and paced the stage asking for "Jackie."</p>
<p>Yes, it was bizarre. And disturbing because Joe Biden holds so much power. So, of course, Ms. Jean-Pierre was asked about it. Her reply and I'm paraphrasing: nothing of importance here. The President simply had Jackie "top of mind."</p>
<p>Now, I know the phrase 'out of your mind.' I know 'mind over matter.' And I recently advised someone to be 'mindful."</p>
<p>Top of Mind? No.</p>
<p>According to new speak, it means you are thinking of someone or something. Okay. But as a reporter said to Karine: "I have John Lennon, 'top of mind' just about every day, but I'm not looking around for him anywhere?"</p>
<p>Someone inside the White House invented 'top of mind,' and Ms. Jean-Pierre threw it out there like it's as common as "fries to go."</p>
<p>In fact, we are living in an age when new cliches are invented all the time: "shelter in place," "transformational," "it is what it is."</p>
<p>Karine loves them like kittens.</p>
<p>However, verbal masking cannot hide the big trouble this country is in. Two years ago, the USA had the most vibrant economy on earth. Today, it's heading for shambles territory, and Joe Biden has no clue how to reverse things or solve any problem, for that matter. The Dow was down another 500 points on Friday.</p>
<p>In words, the White House might understand: "it is what it is."</p>
<p>Mr. Biden is essentially finished. Few Democrats running this year want him campaigning for them. California Governor Newsome is circling like a turkey buzzard. Vice-President Harris is a cipher as she analyzes our "alliance with North Korea."</p>
<p>It is a dark time in America as regular folks are getting badly hurt. Charles Dickens, an expert on departed apparitions, would be the guy to portray it in literature.</p>
<p>This coming Christmas, late at night, Joe Biden and Karine Jean-Pierre should have one image, 'Top of Mind:' the ghost of prosperity past.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-10-02T18:28:00ZLife is a RerunBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Life-is-a-Rerun/714636089843296668.html2022-09-25T18:13:00Z2022-09-25T18:13:00Z<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">Network television is in trouble. Relatively few under the age of 80 are watching. NBC may actually give up the entire 10 to 11 PM hour on its primetime schedule. Why? Because much of its audience is already in the land of nod at that time.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">But I could save network TV with a first-rate idea: bring back successful shows of the past with modern narratives. Let's take a look.</span></p>
<p><strong>Leave It To Beaver.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> The Beav is transitioning, and his parents, Ward and June, want him to "find his truth." His brother Wally concurs as long as Beaver does not leave his room. However, friends Eddie Haskell and Lumpy Rutherford have some problems with this. Ward has to get stern with them.</span></p>
<p><strong>Sanford and Son.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Lamont wants to put a </span>"Black Lives Matter" sign in the junkyard. But Fred objects, referencing the millions of dollars in real estate BLM executives have purchased with donations. A compromise is reached, and the new sign says: "Black Real Estate Matters."</p>
<p><strong>Father Knows Best.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Too hot. Will have to be retitled "Father Is A Member of the White Patriarchy." Bud, Princess, and Kitten inform dad that, should he continue wearing sports jackets with patches on the elbows, they will all get visible tattoos of Satan on their necks.</span></p>
<p><strong>The Streets of San Francisco.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Michael Douglas and Karl Malden try to engage the homeless in North Beach and have their car stolen.</span></p>
<p><strong>I Love Lucy.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Mayhem breaks out as Ethel leaves Fred for Rosie O'Donnell. Lucy and Ricky refuse to pass judgment and are advised by guest star Megan Rapinoe.</span></p>
<p><strong>Gidget.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> The classic California girl resumes looking for "her truth" on the beaches of Malibu. There, she becomes friends with Barbra Streisand, and the two sing a new song entitled: "People Who Need Equity Are the Luckiest People In the World."</span></p>
<p><strong>The Untouchables.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Elliot Ness and his federal agents can't believe it when they finally arrest Al Capone, who is then immediately released without bail after extorting the entire Chicago White Sox baseball team. Mayor Lightfoot also scolds Ness because his agents said mean things to Big Al.</span></p>
<p><strong>Chico and the Man.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Chico moves to Martha's Vineyard to annoy the citizenry. However, he's finally accepted when Barack Obama invites him to play pickleball.</span></p>
<p><span data-preserver-spaces="true">And, finally, </span><strong>The Mary Tyler Moore Show.</strong><span data-preserver-spaces="true"> Lou Grant is also transitioning, and Murray is wising off about it. HR is called, and Murray is suspended. Mary steps in and tries to convince Murray to be inclusive by accepting Lou. But Murray quits, as does the entire newsroom leaving Mary wondering whether she has, indeed, "made it after all."</span></p>
<p>So how bout that? Quite a lineup, and it would fuel a big comeback for the networks. It also plays right into their philosophy: "if it ain't woke, we gotta fix it."</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-09-25T18:13:00ZCrime, No PunishmentBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Crime-No-Punishment/-324589160273073645.html2022-09-18T07:00:00Z2022-09-18T07:00:00Z<p>It has all become very dark for the designer sunglasses guy. Joe Biden cannot, as the biblical creator did, command "let there be light." No, Joe is governing in darkness.</p>
<p>The hits to the American people are certified: inflation, open border, record high narcotics on the streets, collapsing airline industry, declining test scores for students, woke, racial tension, breakdown of civility, and due process.</p>
<p>We the people are getting battered.</p>
<p>Especially the urban poor.</p>
<p>FBI stats say violent crime is accelerating at a record pace. New Orleans is one of the most violent cities in the world. Every weekend thousands of Americans are shot nationwide. Many of these crimes are so-called "mass shootings" where more than five individuals take a bullet. Most of the victims are African-American, but the press says little. Why? Because most of the perpetrators are young black males, which is now a protected class in the American media.</p>
<p>In Chicago, which has record violence, the Bears football team is moving to the suburbs, and the McDonald's corporation may leave as well. Other businesses have already departed. But many of the poor cannot afford to do that.</p>
<p>President Biden has not addressed this brutal reality in any meaningful way. He does not have a solution to inner city violence and knows most chaotic towns are run by Democrats. So, exactly like the border, Biden sees no evil. He lives in luxury. He doesn't have to cower in fear as drug gangs run wild. He doesn't care.</p>
<p>Think about it. The President of the United States has done absolutely nothing about violent crime. No meetings with local police and prosecutors. No strategy from the Justice Department. Few public statements.</p>
<p>The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund reports at least 75 progressive prosecutors are currently in office, all of them backed by George Soros, who has donated more than $40 million to elect "anti-incarceration" administrators.</p>
<p>Soros believes the U.S. justice system is racist and that minority criminals should not be held to account because of historical injustice. So, he funds the campaigns of people who see the world as he does.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, powerless Americans are being brutalized by violent thugs who avoid prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Ironically, the cities that refuse to hold criminals responsible are absolutely practicing racism against the hundreds of thousands of minority victims.</p>
<p>Joe Biden could not possibly understand that in his diminished state. But even if I sat with him in front of a giant blackboard filled with stats and talked very slowly, he would not react.</p>
<p>That's because Mr. Biden could not care less. He lives in a dark, protected world where problems, even life/death ones, are to be avoided. His eyes are shielded by designer lenses, his sensibilities limited to his own immediate needs.</p>
<p>This is the state of the most powerful man in the world. It is pitiful.</p>
<p>But the real pity should be directed toward the poor who are truly defenseless. Before the month of September is out, there will be hundreds more harmed.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-09-18T07:00:00ZDeceptionBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Deception/36257160625008764.html2022-09-11T18:43:00Z2022-09-11T18:43:00Z<div style="text-align: center;">"The Truth Shall Set You Free"<br /> John 8:32<br /><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">President Biden's contention that "MAGA" people and Donald Trump are attacking democracy did not bother me. That's because many, including your humble correspondent, believe the progressive left is harming freedom in America. So. Good. Goose. Gander.</div>
<p>Mr. Biden's stance is sincere as he believes that January 6 and denying the 2020 election results are anti-democracy plays. The mistake he and his speechwriters make is poorly framing the opinion, thereby alienating all Republicans.</p>
<p>Far worse is the President's outright deceit. In the same Philadelphia speech, he told the nation that the faltering economy is actually benefiting workers. That is false and insulting.</p>
<p>The stats are these: In the first six months of this year, the U.S. economy has contracted about one percent. No growth even though the pandemic has receded. That's terrible.</p>
<p>Even worse, real hourly wages have declined 3 percent and weekly earnings 3.6 percent. That's also terrible.</p>
<p>So, working Americans have taken a pay cut under Biden even as inflation has risen about 8 percent. That's way beyond terrible. That's painful and debilitating to many Americans.</p>
<p>Yet, Joe Biden says the economy is strong.</p>
<p>He says that because he wants to believe that. Reality doesn't matter to Joe. He surrounds himself with far-left zealots who are actively undermining the free marketplace in order to impose a government-run economy that seizes private wealth and redirects it to welfare and Global Warming concerns.</p>
<p>In my opinion, President Biden is not smart enough to understand what's really going on, but that does not excuse his deception. The American people are being harmed by his incompetence, yet he continues to deny what's happening.</p>
<p>In the past, the press would have countered presidential incompetence and deceit but no longer. Today, honest correspondents are rare. Most report what they are told to report by ideological management. Hello, MSNBC.</p>
<p>Therefore, deception is now easy. Joe Biden can pretty much say anything he wants without journalistic challenge. He denies knowing anything about his son Hunter's business dealings. He puts forth that the southern border is under control, he insists the government can spend trillions of dollars without igniting inflation.</p>
<p>It is actually frightening that an American president is this detached from reality and so willing to embrace deceit. But you know what's even more frightening than that? Many voters still support him and his party.</p>
<p>Self-deception? Has to be.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-09-11T18:43:00ZBiden's Battle of the BulgeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bidens-Battle-of-the-Bulge/386411331688215848.html2022-09-02T14:00:00Z2022-09-02T14:00:00Z<p>It was strange, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=963732313981273767" target="_blank">Old Joe Biden standing outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia</a> warning Americans their "freedom" is in peril.</p>
<p>Warm summer night. Labor Day Weekend upon us. Few following the news cycle.</p>
<p>But the President was on a mission. And here's what it is.<br /><br /><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f_AFVk8jAZY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <br /><br />Internal Democrat polling now shows a looming disaster in November's midterm elections. Even weak Republican candidates like Herschel Walker in Georgia and Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania have a chance to win. Despite pro-Biden propaganda spewing from the corrupt media, the House is likely to be painted red. The leftists running Joe know this.</p>
<p>In December 1944, Hitler was just about finished; his troops decimated, the German people demoralized. But the Fuhrer was not going quietly. He massed his western troops and attacked through Belgium, pushing back allied forces. The Nazi land advance was called "the Bulge."</p>
<p>General George Patton saved the day, as chronicled vividly in my book "Killing Patton."</p>
<p>The Philadelphia speech on Thursday is President Biden's counterattack. His administration is failing, his policies disastrous for most Americans. So, now, a final offensive before the November vote.<br /><br /></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biden says democracy only works if the "rule of law" is respected. Does that include immigration law? Just asking.</p>
— Bill O'Reilly (@BillOReilly) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillOReilly/status/1565494453745467393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 2, 2022</a></blockquote>
<p><br />Only CNN and MSNBC ran the speech live because it was a partisan exercise, not important enough to bump Young Sheldon from his spot. The President had little to say other than Donald Trump is a fascist, and so are the "MAGA Republicans" who support him.
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</p>
<p>Yawn.</p>
<p>Mr. Biden's offensive quickly ran out of gas, just like the German panzers. Old Joe sees a giant threat to democracy. Many Americans believe the real threat is wild inflation and nonexistent problem-solving.</p>
<p>It is clear the Democrats believe their only chance in November is to run against Trump. Again. Trump, the democracy denier. Trump, the white supremacist.</p>
<p>It's all so predictable and foolish. Those Americans who fear Donald Trump's return to power will, of course, side with Old Joe.</p>
<p>But the vast majority of "we the people" simply want a vibrant economy and laws enforced. That is obviously way beyond Joe Biden's capability.</p>
<p>Democrats stand behind the President at their peril. He's the problem in this country. Not Trump.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-09-02T14:00:00ZBeware, the PronounBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beware-the-Pronoun/235973375254252969.html2022-08-28T18:58:00Z2022-08-28T18:58:00ZWith sincere apologies to Jesus, there are some people I cannot abide by. I do believe we are all God's children, but certain folks I have encountered need to go to boarding school. Forever. So I don't have to deal with them.<br /><br /><span>UnChristian? Certainly. Intolerant, all day long. I hope the deity forgives me.</span><br /><br /><span>My judgmental attitude really kicked into gear during the late 1960s. That was the time when young people actually said things like: "It's far out, man. Groovy, not a drag at all. Know what I'm sayin'? Right on!"</span><br /><br /><span>Right back. Then I disappeared faster than a muffin on a cruise ship.</span><br /><br /><span>Cliches drive me insane but using words to fill the air with foolish garbage is far worse. So, now, I would like to warn you about contemporary words and phrases that signal danger.</span><br /><br /><span>Let's begin with "cisgender." This word is almost always used by leftists who flunked biology. It means "a person whose sense of identity corresponds with birth sex." So, if you're born a male you act like a boy and later a man. That's cisgender.</span><br /><br /><span>However, woke people object and I guess they also despise the Spencer Davis Group who once loudly wailed: "I'm a man, yes I am, and I can't help but love you so!"</span><br /><br /><span>If you hear a person lamenting "cisgender" behavior, run fast.</span><br /><br /><span>Next up is " empower." This word is mostly used by folks who believe they are victims and want to arrange some payback. Don't wait around.</span><br /><br /><span>Then there are people who demand "safe spaces." Once again, they are often among the victim crew who are constantly offended by "micro-aggressions." If you are near someone seeking a "safe space," follow Paul Simon's simple philosophy: "just slip out the back, Jack..."</span><br /><br /><span>And finally, people who object to "cultural appropriation." Those folks amuse me from a distance because I won't get anywhere near them. There is a big list of banned Halloween costumes because of CA.</span><br /><br /><span>Let's see. Want to dress up as Cochise, the great Apache chief? Are you freakin' kidding? Sociology students from Yale will burn down your house.</span><br /><br /><span>How about wearing a Mexican sombrero? Uh, no. But you can dress up like a leprechaun on St. Patrick's Day. Can't figure that one out.</span><br /><br /><span>Back to the Eve of All Hallows. Mrs. Doubtfire? No. Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie, don't even think about it. George Washington? Slaveowner. General Patton, way too many micro-aggressions!</span><br /><br /><span>Peter Pan? Watch it. Cinderella? Too dependent on the prince and cisgender to boot. Pinocchio, the nose might make some feel bad.</span><br /><br /><span>The list of banned costumes and words is endless. The entire cultural madness we are seeing is right out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". About the only thing sane people can do is employ another phrase from the 1960s.</span><br /><br /><span>Beat feet.<br /><br />*This column originally ran October 3, 2021</span>Bill O'Reilly2022-08-28T18:58:00ZMight, Maybe, PossiblyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Might-Maybe-Possibly/670579504846647802.html2022-08-21T18:50:00Z2022-08-21T18:50:00Z<p>No American industry is more troubled than journalism/media. It is now rife with incompetence and corruption, a largely destructive force that has betrayed its obligation to accurately inform Americans about events of importance.</p>
<p>The federal raid on President Trump's home is a vivid example of journalistic dereliction. Here we have the most important FBI action in history because of its high worldwide profile and Constitutional obligation. Yet, the reporting on the event has been shoddy, to say the least.</p>
<p>There are only two outcomes to the story. The first is that the Justice Department has a strong case that Donald Trump committed a felony. If true, that would justify the FBI's intrusion into his home.</p>
<p>The second outcome would be a disaster for Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Biden administration. No compelling evidence against Mr. Trump. No reason to use police powers to invade his home.</p>
<p>Honest reporters and pundits must say up front that they don't know how this story will play out because, at this point, no one does.</p>
<p>But if you read newspaper columns or watch TV News, you get a steady stream of ideological speculation. "Maybe this happened ... it could be that ... an anonymous source told me ..."</p>
<p>Garbage in, Garbage out.</p>
<p>At this point in history, it is Garland, not Trump, who has the most to lose. The pressure is on him to justify the raid. So far, he has failed to do that. His initial public briefing was shaky. The man looked frightened.</p>
<p>In order for Trump to face federal charges, there would have to be a "smoking gun" among all those boxes of documents. If there is not, Trump will go on offense against Biden and the Democrats, using the FBI's "abuse of power" to gin up his forthcoming presidential campaign.</p>
<p>That is not speculation. That is exactly what will happen.</p>
<p>But back to the befuddled press. No matter how preposterous all this "might, maybe, could happen" bilge is, the news agencies know most folks will forget it as another inevitable story washes up on the beach.</p>
<p>And in the end, it is the American people themselves who are really getting robbed here. In the interest of true freedom, the Founders wanted an honest, responsible press. They provided legal protections to ensure the flow of information without government interference. They understood that a free people must have honest information in order to select worthy leaders at the ballot box.</p>
<p>But in today's America, that founding wish has been eviscerated by corporations that control the information business.</p>
<p>And there is no maybe about it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-08-21T18:50:00ZThe DangerBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Danger/422413049928997768.html2022-08-14T18:35:00Z2022-08-14T18:35:00Z<p style="text-align: center;">"Let's bungle in the jungle.<br />Well, that's all right by me."<br />- Jethro Tull</p>
<p>No matter how it turns out, the Justice Department bungled its probe into Donald Trump's classified document deal. Just like it screwed up Russian/Collusion, Hillary emails, Hunter Biden, on and on.</p>
<p>Somewhere in a very warm climate, J. Edgar Hoover is blinking rapidly.</p>
<p>We don't yet know how serious the Trump transgression is, but it's safe to say that the raid is a symptom of a much more intense problem facing every single American. The Biden administration is blundering the country into dangerous territory. The President and his crew are creating intense problems and division among the citizenry. Let's examine the record.</p>
<p>Unless Donald Trump was actively undermining the security of the nation, the invasion of his home should have been handled differently. Drastic action requires precise explanation, at least in a democracy. We the people, have not gotten clarity from the Biden administration about the FBI raid.</p>
<p>Then we see the painful inflation ignited by the presidential attacks on fossil fuel, the incredible debacle at the southern border, the collapse of the airline industry, and the brutal rise in violent crime.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most dangerous federal screwup of all was Nancy Pelosi's unnecessary trip to Taiwan. Why did she provoke China? For what reason?</p>
<p>We don't know.</p>
<p>Writing in the journal "The National Interest," Harvard Professor Graham Allison puts forth: "If forced to choose between accepting an independent Taiwan and a war that destroys Taiwan and much of China, Xi and his team will choose war."</p>
<p>Allison's opinion is speculative, but he knows as much about China as anyone on the planet.</p>
<p>Therefore, competent leadership does not make the Taiwan situation worse, which is what the Pelosi visit did. What did the United States accomplish? Nothing, that's what.</p>
<p>The anti-Biden narrative is mostly based on his inability to govern in a positive way. He does not solve problems; he may not even understand them.</p>
<p>But I now believe Joe Biden is a dangerous President because he cannot anticipate serious situations, of which China is at the top of the list.</p>
<p>Under Biden, America is far weaker than it was when he entered office. Therefore, we are all in danger on a variety of fronts.</p>
<p>Pelosi sticking Bejing, the FBI battering Trump, millions of foreign nationals sieging the border, gas prices hurting workers. None of that had to happen.</p>
<p>But it has.</p>
<p>And, with apologies to Jethro Tull, it's not all right with me.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-08-14T18:35:00ZThe Unholy AllianceBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Unholy-Alliance/945420982187964285.html2022-08-07T09:28:00Z2022-08-07T09:28:00Z<p>The United States has the most powerful media industry in the world by far. That's because of capitalism and the Constitution, which give the press strong potential profits and legal protections.</p>
<p>In 1996, the Fox News Channel went on the air. Twenty-six years later, it has harvested tens of billions of dollars. Your humble correspondent is responsible for a good chunk of those profits. Therefore, I know what I'm talking about.</p>
<p>Today, the American media has morphed into something that is actually harming defenseless people. There are unholy alliances in play; that is, press agencies advancing the fortunes of leftists seeking power while at the same time ignoring injustice. Let's focus on a vivid example: The Los Angeles Times.</p>
<p>Like its namesake in New York, the LA Times is a liberal outfit. Nothing wrong with that if an attempt is made to provide straightforward news coverage. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening.</p>
<p>While crime is devastating LA and other California cities, the newspaper is desperately trying to save progressive law enforcement agents who are directly responsible for the death and destruction.</p>
<p>Quality of life in some parts of California has just about collapsed.</p>
<p>Perhaps the worst pro-criminal official in the Golden State is Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon. He took office on December 7, 2020. Since then, homicides have been up 94 percent over 2019, and shootings up 54 percent.</p>
<p>Why? Because Gascon embraces criminal justice "reform." That basically means he believes minority individuals charged with crimes should not be aggressively prosecuted by his office. Instead, they should be "diverted" into social programs that might convince them not to hurt innocent people.</p>
<p>Criminals love the diversion thing, and if they knew his name, they'd love George Gascon, too.</p>
<p>But 715,833 Angelenos do not approve of George and have signed a petition to fire him by a recall vote.</p>
<p>Enter the LA Times, which is appalled not by the staggering increase in violence but by the campaign against Georgie. It editorialized: "the notion that a D.A. can make crime rise or fall over a period of time is absurd."</p>
<p>Ahem. Here's what's absurd, the newspaper cannot process the violent crime rise that it reports every day.</p>
<p>The truth is the progressive movement believes the American criminal justice system is racist and wants to destroy it. The LA Times is part of the progressive movement; it has allied itself with it.</p>
<p>So, death in the streets of blighted neighborhoods really doesn't matter to the paper in the face of the greater good: decriminalizing crime and depopulating prisons.</p>
<p>The unholy alliance between the press and the far left is willing to accept some casualties in order to make that happen. Of course, this is as far away from "justice" as you can get. Doesn't matter to the progressive forces of darkness. They are on a noble mission. They are the enlightened ones.</p>
<p>And if folks get hurt because of the mission? Well, that's simply the price of true "reform." Isn't it?</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-08-07T09:28:00ZMy Imaginary FriendBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/My-Imaginary-Friend/-429118644076815904.html2022-07-31T18:31:00Z2022-07-31T18:31:00Z<p>Throughout my career, I have interviewed seven presidents. Only missed Ronald Reagan, who didn't do many one-on-one chats with journalists. These conversations were my most difficult assignments. You should ask tough questions and push for answers. But you have to be respectful of the office. I always was.</p>
<p>President Biden will never speak with me. While he was Vice President, I ran into him at a Washington DC event. After some pleasantries, I pointed out that his boss, President Obama, had granted me three interviews, but he would not consent to one. I acted hurt.</p>
<p>He laughed and said: "Why would I do that (interview)? "You don't need me."</p>
<p>"For fun," I answered.</p>
<p>Smiling, he strolled away.</p>
<p>So it's a hopeless cause. As Bush, the elder, once said: "Not gonna do it." But in my mind, I have a line of questioning and am submitting a fantasy Q&A for your approval. Let's begin.</p>
<p>"Mr. President, lots of bad news for the country. How are you holding up?"</p>
<p>"Listen, dog-faced pony soldier, the only bad news is you. No joke. I'm not being factitious. You and the prior administration caused the problems."</p>
<p>"Uh, what problems are those, Mr. President?"</p>
<p>"Look, we have a secure border, I mean it. But you say it's open. Just because millions of folks are crossing, it's not open. They have to swim!</p>
<p>"And what's all this recession stuff? The GPS is fine. It is, in fact, working, and the gas prices are temporary. I like muscle cars, okay, and there's plenty of gas in the reserve to fill them up."</p>
<p>"With respect, on the border, sir, about five times as many undocumented migrants are crossing yearly than under your predecessor."</p>
<p>"That guy? He ripped babies from their mother's bosoms? No joke. I saw it on CNN. Kamala told me at lunch she is, in fact, close to finding the root cause of illegal immigration. In the meantime, we are flying thousands of folks free to wherever they want to go! And they don't even have to pass through security. Great deal."</p>
<p>"On that note, Mr. President, American commercial planes are having trouble getting off the ground. Are you aware?"</p>
<p>"Hey, come on, the migrant flights at 3 AM have no trouble at all! What's this all about, champ?"</p>
<p>"Massive flight delays, Sir."</p>
<p>"Petey B., the Secretary of Airports, says he's on it. What's his last name, again?</p>
<p>"Budda Judge Judy? You know him. He has a sacred obligation."</p>
<p>"Overseas, in hindsight, should the USA have handled the Afghan withdrawal better?"</p>
<p>"Are you kidding me, pony guy? There was no withdrawal. The Afghans still live there."</p>
<p>"I was speaking about how our troops left."</p>
<p>"They all flew back and landed just like the migrants. Only our troops could fly during the day."</p>
<p>"Got it. Finally, any worries about your son Hunter being indicted?"</p>
<p>"For what? Fleecing a few foreign governments for millions? They do that to us all the time. This is payback! No joke. I might give Hunter the Medal of Freedom. I gave it to that girl with the purple hair who kicks balls. Didn't get too close to her for obvious reasons."</p>
<p>"Obvious reasons?"</p>
<p>"She might have Covid."</p>
<p>"Thank you for your time, Mr. President."</p>
<p>"You're welcome, Lester."</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-07-31T18:31:00ZJoe Biden Needs HelpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Joe-Biden-Needs-Help/-460062363693034020.html2022-07-24T09:50:00Z2022-07-24T09:50:00Z<p>The 1962 New York Mets were the worst Major League Baseball team ever. They lost 120 games, winning only 40. The manager, Casey Stengel, is said to have blurted out: "can't anyone here play this game?"</p>
<p>No, was the answer.</p>
<p>The cabinet of President Biden is channeling those Mets. Generally speaking, this is a collection of lazy sycophants who are "advising" an administration that is incompetent beyond belief.</p>
<p>Here is the starting lineup.</p>
<p>Leading off, Vice-President Kamala Harris. Her favorite phrase is: "we're gonna work together." On what? Remember, President Biden put Ms. Harris in charge of improving the border disaster. Has the nation seen ANY improvement? No. The Vice-President continues to research the "root causes."</p>
<p>Batting second, Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas. He's directly responsible for border security. Alejandro is batting zero. Nada. No hits. No hope of getting a hit.</p>
<p>Hitting third, Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He thought the U.S. exit from Afghanistan went well. Geez.</p>
<p>Batting fourth, the clean-up spot, Susan Rice, Domestic Policy czarina. So, how's domestic policy at your house? Sorry to ask.</p>
<p>Next up, Janet "inflation is transitory" Yellin, chief economic advisor. We might need a pinch hitter here. Soon.</p>
<p>The Designated Hitter is Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. When the U.S. airline industry began to collapse because of corporate greed and incompetence, Pete was on maternity leave.</p>
<p>He's now back in the Biden dugout and says he's "mad" at the airlines. Any federal action against them, Pete? No.</p>
<p>Pitching for the Biden team is White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre. She throws a mean slider. Standard answer: "I haven't seen that. I'll check. Let me get back to you."</p>
<p>Is there bullpen help for Karine? No.</p>
<p>And finally, there's Attorney General Merrick Garland. He's the third base coach who holds everyone up from scoring. Merrick is hot on the trail of the Supreme Court leaker. He's bearing down, working hard. Can't be that many folks who had access to Alito's file, right Merrick? No rush.</p>
<p>Also, Hunter B. The Grand Jury in Delaware has been probing Hunter for two years. They may be close, right, Merrick?</p>
<p>No rush.</p>
<p>So there you have it, the Biden dream team. The aces of civil service, protecting and serving the American people.</p>
<p>No joke! Right, Joe?</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-07-24T09:50:00ZWhat the Far Left Really WantsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-the-Far-Left-Really-Wants/-416474998765038936.html2022-07-17T18:41:00Z2022-07-17T18:41:00Z<p>One of the few positive things coming out of the incredible failure of the Biden administration is the decline of the progressive movement in America.</p>
<p>As is documented, Joe Biden campaigned as a moderate but immediately embraced far-left policies after his inauguration. That led to debilitating inflation, massive federal spending, worldwide embarrassment in Afghanistan, a woke culture that has damaged millions of Americans, and a stated presidential mandate to impose " equity."</p>
<p>The equity thing, where certain preferred groups get special treatment by both federal and state governments, has caused a horrifying spike in violent crime (minority criminals often go unpunished). In addition, Biden's ultra-dangerous open border policy (migrants dying as well as drug users) is inexplicable.</p>
<p>Because Mr. Biden's failures are so vivid, the progressive crew that directs him is getting hammered in the court of public opinion. The crazy-left District Attorney in San Francisco was recently fired by voters, and his counterpart in Los Angeles County currently awaits the same recall fate.</p>
<p>Progressives have lost hearts and minds but not the committed leftwing media. The Los Angeles Times, which supported DA Chesa Boudin in San Francisco and George Gascon in LA, remains unrepentant of its far-left fanaticism.</p>
<p>In fact, that newspaper is a good roadmap to where progressives really want to go. In a recent column, Times scribe Nicholas Goldberg actually dismantles the Constitution. Please read the next paragraph carefully.</p>
<p>"Let's be honest: the problem isn't just with the (Supreme Court) justices. The problem, at least a substantial portion of it, lies with the U.S. Constitution itself.</p>
<p>"Yes, the hallowed Constitution, the document hammered out by 55 bewigged men in Philadelphia."</p>
<p>Goldberg then goes on to quote radical leftist (in my opinion) David Law, who teaches at the University of Virginia: "How could it (the Constitution) possibly fit the needs of a highly diverse country of 300-plus-million people in the 21st century..."</p>
<p>So there it is, the real progressive agenda - get rid of that arcane system of government the "white landowners" imposed back in 1787. Knock that constitutional sucker out!</p>
<p>Goldberg then goes on to enumerate some new provisions the LA Times thinks are cool. No electoral votes, popular vote rules. So, because California has the most citizens, it would dictate many political outcomes for the entire country.</p>
<p>Also, the states should not have two senators, Goldberg says. California should have many more than Wyoming and other small states.</p>
<p>The right to "bear arms" is "antiquated and dangerous," writes Goldberg. It absolutely has to go.</p>
<p>The Second Amendment should be replaced by a new mandate: "environmental rights!" Of course, the federal government would define and enforce those rights, whatever they turn out to be (say goodbye to your car).</p>
<p>Old Nick also wants to protect "gay, transgender and women's rights" with another new constitutional amendment.</p>
<p>Sure. Let's divide Americans along gender and color lines. President Biden would love that.</p>
<p>The grievance list of the LA Times and its progressive staff is endless. Free everything for the "oppressed." Stick it to the haves!</p>
<p>That is the true progressive vision. And I very much thank Nicholas Goldberg for stating it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-07-17T18:41:00ZThe Clueless ClubBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Clueless-Club/706362817772286393.html2022-07-10T08:50:00Z2022-07-10T08:50:00Z<p>We all know them. People whose initial response to hearing almost anything is: "Really?"</p>
<p>Millions of folks live in the twilight. They don't know much. That's because it's hard to absorb complicated information. You have to listen and retain what you hear. Then you have to remember it. Oh, wow. That's a challenge.</p>
<p>Especially for Americans who sailed through the public school system doing very little actual work; sadly, there are tens of millions of them. They can't speak properly, and the last book they read was "Goodnight Moon."</p>
<p>If it's not on "Instagram," forget it.</p>
<p>Some years back, I invented a TV segment called Watters' World. I sent Jesse Watters all over the country to ask regular folks questions like "what is the Supreme Count?" Many of the answers were hilarious - catapulting Mr. Watters to television fame.</p>
<p>That exercise was not designed to humiliate but to enlighten. We are surrounded by people who only know what their apps show them. This presents a national problem.</p>
<p>Many charlatans and grifters get elected to powerful positions because the electorate is, well, unsophisticated, generally speaking.</p>
<p>Joe Biden is perhaps the best example in American history. Eighty million citizens voted for him even though he had demonstrated no problem-solving ability whatsoever. Why? Because they disliked Donald Trump. The nation voted on emotion. Few looked past Trump's personality and examined his record, which was pretty darn good, especially on the economy.</p>
<p>But members of the "Clueless Club" are not big on analyzing stuff. It takes them away from texting about how Shirley from across the street has a booze problem.</p>
<p>So how should Americans who do pay attention and seek the truth treat those who don't? Excellent question that requires some thought.</p>
<p>First, the Constitution guarantees the right to be a moron. If you don't want to know about your country and society, no one can force information on you once school is over.</p>
<p>Second, condescension is not good. If the person you're dealing with is not exactly a Ph.D., don't hire them or marry them. Otherwise, smile and wave as you depart.</p>
<p>Third, as a former high school teacher, I know learning cannot happen unless the person actually wants knowledge. Again, we live in the iPhone age where escape from reality and responsibility is a finger click away. Always. The option to fritter your life away with trivial pursuits has never been more powerful.</p>
<p>But if you are a phone-carrying member of the "Clueless Club," know there will be high dues. It is likely you will associate with others who enjoy the clueless lifestyle. That will make reaching your life potential much less likely to happen unless you can hit a 95 mph fastball.</p>
<p>When I was an urchin, I watched the Mickey Mouse Club. Annette was there, so I was there. At the end of each episode, Mouseketeer Jimmy told the audience that the Disney kids liked them. My clueless friends actually believed that.</p>
<p>But not me. My quest for knowledge was limited, but I understood the Mouse was a cartoon and the club kids were in it for the money.</p>
<p>Kind of like politics today.</p>
<p>Cluelessness was a contagion back then; it is an epidemic now. And it's spreading.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-07-10T08:50:00ZPride in AmericaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pride-in-America/420074333566387351.html2022-07-03T07:45:00Z2022-07-03T07:45:00Z<p>These days the word "pride" is often used when discussing the gay situation. Actually, the word "gay" is rarely used the way Luther Vandross did in one of his songs describing a happy outcome.</p>
<p>The English language has evolved in fascinating ways.</p>
<p>On this July 4th weekend, I am thinking about a new poll from Gallup, a generally reliable outfit, unlike some polling agencies, which are flat-out dishonest.</p>
<p>Gallup asked more than 1,000 American adults about pride in being an American.</p>
<p>Sixty-five percent of us are proud to be citizens. Thirteen percent are not. Twenty-two percent are wishy-washy about it. You know, I haven't used the term "wishy-washy" in a long time. I missed it.</p>
<p>The Constitution gives all Americans the right to despise the country. But only a few really do. These people are known as radicals and reactionaries - folks who never took Che's picture down or who continue to admire the Gestapo.</p>
<p>In other words, most of the America- haters are loons.</p>
<p>The 22 percent who aren't exactly jazzed about the red, white, and blue are generally focused on a personal grievance.</p>
<p>Remember during the 2008 presidential campaign when First Lady Michelle Obama said she was proud of her country for the first time? Whoa. Mrs. Obama grew up in Chicago and witnessed her father, a school janitor, live a tough life. That remains a part of her.</p>
<p>Yet, Mrs. Obama has prospered in this country far beyond almost every other American. She's wealthy and admired.</p>
<p>Had she been born in most other places on the planet, her current success would have been impossible.</p>
<p>Me too. My father got battered in the marketplace, although not nearly to the extent Michelle's dad did. Like her, I watched closely. William J. O'Reilly, Sr. had the opportunity but did not seize it. The Great Depression instilled a debilitating fear in him. He settled for less; he accepted unfair treatment for a light paycheck.</p>
<p>But I did not inherit that fear. We didn't have much in Levittown, but I figured out the essence of the country in my early 20s. Find a pathway. Develop my God-given talent. Work hard. Challenge corrupt authority. Persist when you're knocked down.</p>
<p>I have traveled to 84 countries. No other nation provides an opportunity the way America does. The immigrants know it - just ask them.</p>
<p>That makes me proud. I live in the land of opportunity. I replace grievance with productivity. It wasn't easy, but by paying my own way, literally and figuratively, I have become a successful American.</p>
<p>And I am grateful.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-07-03T07:45:00ZThe Real Danger to AmericaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Real-Danger-to-America/-520163954106170668.html2022-06-26T15:29:00Z2022-06-26T15:29:00Z<p>Once again, we've become the United States of Hysteria. The two Supreme Court rulings last week will not affect society much (as I will explain), but the <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=246806068343946609" target="_blank">outcry from the left-wing cadres</a> is instructive and very important for alert Americans to understand.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/b/First-Rate-Ruling-For-The-Second-Amendment/735321408048356058.html" target="_blank">By ruling New York State's restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying handguns unconstitutional</a>, the Supreme Court simply did what the Constitution states: allow Americans to "bear" arms.</p>
<p>The leftist view that legal self-protection will lead to more mass murder is actually foolish. Almost everyone in Vermont is allowed to carry a gun, and there are few murders there. That's because Vermont doesn't attract many violent criminals as it lacks an extensive drug market.</p>
<p>Again, thugs who purchase guns illegally are responsible for the overwhelming number of gun crimes. Oh, and banning weapons will not stop insane loons from killing, as the recent mass murder in Norway demonstrates.</p>
<p>Got it, Joe Biden?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=780268065695543759" target="_blank">The abortion ruling</a> is a bit more problematic. Even though the procedure will remain largely available in the USA, some states will attempt to eliminate most abortions now that Roe v. Wade is no longer federal law. Other states like New York and California will continue to allow abortion anytime for any reason - something even ultra-liberal countries in Europe reject because late-term abortion is barbaric.</p>
<p>But there is a public safety component here that pro-life Americans should consider. If a woman is in danger of physical harm by birthing a baby, that woman should have legal protection. Any state that denies that is violating the "equal protection" statute. Men cannot birth babies.</p>
<p>Thus, in medically dangerous pregnancies, doctors and the individual women should make the decision, not the state government.</p>
<p>Most Americans agree with that analysis; the polls prove it. So, I hope all states uphold the constitutional law and are legally challenged if they do not.</p>
<p>There is no question that the Democrats are using guns and abortion to advance party politics. Instead of respecting citizens who believe that killing the unborn is wrong, <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=-770837135880349630" target="_blank">Nancy Pelosi and her acolytes demean and defame them</a>.</p>
<p>Same thing with honest, law-abiding Americans who want firearms to protect themselves from harm. That view and the person who holds it is condemned by the far left. In progressive precincts, there is absolutely no tolerance for opposing points of view.</p>
<p>And where are those "precincts?" Here's a partial list: Hollywood, especially the Disney Corporation. Ivy League colleges and most other higher-learning institutions. Much of the corporate media, including legacy newspapers in New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston, and almost everywhere.</p>
<p>In addition, Democrats in the House and Senate are terrified of progressives and do their bidding, as does the Oval Office.</p>
<p>That's quite an assemblage of intolerance, is it not? Try being pro-life in Hollywood or at Yale. You'll be attacked and shunned.</p>
<p>That's the big takeaway from the Supreme Court reaction this week. And, by the way, intolerance should be unconstitutional.</p>
<p>But it's not.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-06-26T15:29:00ZIt's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad WorldBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-a-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-World/228654538495660148.html2022-06-19T18:39:00Z2022-06-19T18:39:00Z<p>The title of this column is cribbed from a 1963 comedy film starring Spencer Tracy. Big hit. Greed was the subject matter.</p>
<p>In June 2022, folks are also very mad, but not in the insane sense. They are flat-out angry.</p>
<p>The Biden administration's incompetent handling of the economy is hurting just about everyone in the marketplace. Inflation, falling stocks, and bonds eroding real estate values - disaster across the economic board.</p>
<p>I predicted this would happen weeks before the 2020 vote. Joe Biden is not smart enough to lead this country. Simple analysis but true.</p>
<p>Last week, the President granted a rare interview to the press. There was a strict time limit on it. Associated Press reporter Josh Boak had precisely 30 minutes. That's about it for Mr. Biden's attention span.</p>
<p>Boak got little out of the President as his answers were predictable and trite. Despite that, the reporter chose not to challenge, which is now the standard operating procedure for the establishment press. Gone are the days of confronting Trump with a variety of unverified allegations. Now, it's "whatever you say, Mr. Biden." No matter how dopey it is.</p>
<p>Joe Biden told the Associated Press that Covid, Putin, and the Republicans are responsible for America's mess.</p>
<p>Of course, the follow-up question should have been that President Trump had to deal with Covid, Putin, and Republicans, and the economy was stable when he left.</p>
<p>But that kind of question is waaaaayyy too much for the AP.</p>
<p>Mr. Biden also said this: "People are really, really down. They're really down."</p>
<p>He went on to say Covid is largely responsible for the downness.</p>
<p>This kind of malarkey is now a standard issue. However, the "down" description is interesting and wrong at the same time.</p>
<p>What Mr. Biden doesn't accept is that the American people are not "down"; they're furious at Joe Biden.</p>
<p>Counting "shrinkflation," where consumers get less for whatever they buy, the inflation rate is running about 11 percent. And we are all doing the math.</p>
<p>The next number is about 60 percent of Americans believe Biden is doing a terrible job.</p>
<p>That means the Democrats are in deep trouble, and the progressive movement, largely responsible for Biden's horrible policies, is collapsing. Good. These progressives seek to destroy the most successful country in history. There is no compromising with them.</p>
<p>Biden himself will not run again and may even resign for "health reasons." I could be wrong but file my predictions.</p>
<p>In the meantime, soldier on. We, the people, made a huge mistake in 2020, but we're strong enough to recover.</p>
<p>So don't get mad; get even. Let's turn on the incompetents and subversives. We may be down, but we're not out.</p>
<p>No more Joe Bidens.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-06-19T18:39:00ZClueless Joe BidenBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Clueless-Joe-Biden/-100858657047957091.html2022-06-12T18:58:00Z2022-06-12T18:58:00Z<div class="elementToProof">
<p>In 1920, a Chicago White Sox outfielder nicknamed Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from Major League Baseball for conspiring to fix the 1919 World Series. The accusation was that Jackson did not field his position properly, leading to the Sox losing to the Cincinnati Reds. Jackson and seven other players allegedly received bribes to "fix" the series.</p>
<p>A Chicago newspaper reporter allegedly told Jackson: "Say it ain't so, Joe."</p>
<p>Today, we have Clueless Joe Biden, who is presiding over a collapsing economy in America. Is Joe doing that on purpose?</p>
<p>Inflation is running white-hot at 8.6 percent, much more if you factor in gas and food prices.</p>
<p>In addition, the stock market is melting down this June, home values are dropping in many places, and a scary recession seems inevitable.</p>
<p>Yet, there was Clueless Joe telling a hapless Jimmy Kimmel that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world.</p>
<p>Well, it WAS in Trump's last year when inflation totaled 1.4 percent and growth was steady.</p>
<p>The folks know old Joe is jiving them. An ABC News poll released last week says just 28 percent of American adults think Biden is doing a good job handling inflation. Not sure, but I think some of the 28 percent were smoking crack when ABC called.</p>
<p>A Quinnipiac poll also last week has Clueless Joe at 35 percent job approval.</p>
<p>Again, who ARE those approving people?</p>
<p>So, as Joe might say, here's the deal. President Biden is shaping up to be the worst president since indoor plumbing was invented. He's a certified disaster, crack or no crack.</p>
<p>Donald Trump did a good job handling the economy. Americans across the board prospered. That's why the contrast to Biden is so shocking.</p>
<p>Now, some conservatives believe Biden is purposely tanking the economy just like Shoeless Joe, and his cohorts are alleged to have sunk the White Sox. Those folks think there's a conspiracy afoot to destroy capitalism.</p>
<p>But I don't believe that simply because I closely watch President Biden and understand these simple words: HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING.</p>
<p>Say it slowly.</p>
<p>And so we the people suffer. Our financial security is at risk. Our personal safety is threatened by criminals who are not prosecuted. Thirteen American soldiers were killed because Biden unnecessarily ordered a thousand vicious terrorists released from prison in Afghanistan. Millions of foreign nationals stream across the border illegally along with tons of lethal narcotics.</p>
<p>Does Joe even know? Did Jimmy K mention any of that to him?</p>
<p>No, he did not. Clueless meets Hapless.</p>
<p>Instead of primetime January 6th hearings, maybe we should have the networks cover the economic chaos in real-time. Liz Cheney could host and transfer her obsession with Trump to the Democrats who are hammering working Americans. We could have charts, live shots from gas stations, and interviews from grocery store checkouts.</p>
<p>All the while, Clueless Joe could chortle and blame Putin.</p>
<p>To quote SNL alum Jon Lovitz: "Yeah, that's the ticket."</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2022-06-12T18:58:00ZThe Fall of TV NewsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Fall-of-TV-News/858495247817009524.html2022-06-05T17:00:00Z2022-06-05T17:00:00Z<div class="elementToProof">My father watched Walter Cronkite on the CBS News' "Twentieth Century" broadcast back in the 1960s. It was a Sunday show; dad worked too late to watch the CBS Evening News that Cronkite also anchored.</div>
<div class="elementToProof"><br /><span>I can't remember my father ever talking about old Walt, who was kind of bland. William O'Reilly, Sr. preferred the more colorful Mike Wallace on "Nightbeat."</span><br /><br /><span>Cronkite was a titan for CBS. When he retired 41 years ago, about 28 million Americans tuned in each weekday evening to watch his broadcast. The U.S. population back then was around 200 million.</span><br /><br /><span>Today, there are 330 million people in America but only 5 million watches the CBS Evening News. So what the deuce happened?</span><br /><br /><span>Many things. None of them are good for television news.</span><br /><br /><span>First, most electronic news organizations are frightened of the cancel culture. So, story selection and actual reporting are cautious - not bold and creative as they should be.</span><br /><br /><span>Producers and reporters well know they could be fired instantly - without any due process - should they do something that angers the progressive left. We've all seen false accusations and labels such as "racist", "misogynist" and "homophobic" irresponsibly applied to public figures by "woke" fanatics.</span><br /><br /></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span>The most important point is this: those who run corporate media agencies aren't interested in fairness. They simply don't want the "cancel" guns trained on them.</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><br /><span>The result is dull news presentations and avoidance of important stories like inner-city gun violence, how drug addiction fuels social disorder, and the negative effects of President Biden's open border policy.</span><br /><br /><span>Instead, we get the storm du jour, a rehash of whatever is hot on the net, and feature stories about how Aunt Emma still knits sweaters by hand in Duluth.</span><br /><br /><span>Cable News is also in decline because it is very repetitive and overwhelmingly ideological. Preaching to the choir will not attract a wide audience. In general, the predictability of the presentations is stupefying.</span><br /><br /><span>There are exceptions on the networks and on cable but my general assessment is accurate. I worked for CBS, ABC, and Fox News. I know what I'm talking about.</span><br /><br /></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span>Recently, the New York Post, using anonymous sources, laced CBS News anchor Norah O'Donnell saying her salary has been cut in half - down to $3.8 million a year.</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><br /><span>CBS denied Ms. O'Donnell is under pressure but she probably is.</span><br /><br /><span>The TV news industry is in trouble as revenue is diminishing. It's going into Jurassic Park mode. The dinosaur era is still on display but a shadow of what it used to be.</span><br /><br /><span>Polling says the vast majority of Americans now get their news from largely undisciplined internet sites. That's because woke pressure, ideology, and venal management have joined together to execute the golden TV news goose.</span><br /><br /></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span>Norah should be grateful she's still getting the $3.8 million.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2022-06-05T17:00:00ZExtremely DisturbingBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Extremely-Disturbing/249778311212731684.html2022-05-26T17:28:00Z2022-05-26T17:28:00Z<p>(San Francisco) The most powerful cleric in Northern California is a marked man. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone is not backing down from denying Nancy Pelosi the Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion. And not only that, the Archbishop has publicly said that Mrs. Pelosi is in danger of "losing her soul," which is what eternal damnation is.</p>
<p>Of course, some in the secular city by the Bay see the Catholic Church as evil, not Nancy Pelosi. In many quarters, the Church is mocked and scorned by people who worship at the altar of "reproductive rights." To them, killing the unborn is a public service.</p>
<p>A woman named Susan wrote a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle stating this:</p>
<p>"An abortion is not just about controlling our own bodies, it's also about protecting the physical, emotional, and the intellectual life of the mother. The one too young to raise a child... the one who can't afford a bigger family."</p>
<p>No mention of adoption by Susan. If you don't want it, get rid of it, and don't let a pregnancy interfere with "intellectual life."</p>
<p>It seems harsh. Babies are precious. In Catholic theology, they are cherished from conception by God. Therefore, interfering with a pregnancy is not allowed.</p>
<p>But the United States Constitution forbids the imposition of religious beliefs. And abortion is legal in this country. However, some states want to impose limitations.</p>
<p>Nancy Pelosi opposes all restrictions. She wants abortion on demand for any reason, all the way up to birthing. That is an extreme position and difficult to defend if you are a practicing Catholic. This is not about rape, incest, or catastrophic health damage to the mother. Those are valid protections for women in the eyes of the state. What Mrs. Pelosi advocates is no consideration for the unborn whatsoever.</p>
<p>President Biden is in the same circumstance. But his Bishop, Wilton Gregory, stands silent.</p>
<p>For decades, Nancy Pelosi was not sanctioned by the Church because she accepted civil law, which is permissible. But over the years, Pelosi has become an enthusiastic abortion advocate, even supporting the use of tax dollars to destroy the unborn.</p>
<p>She must know that violates the consciences of her fellow Catholics, at least many of them. Nancy does not seem to care much about that.</p>
<p>So what is Archbishop Cordileone supposed to do in the face of abortion zealotry? Nothing? Many Catholic clerics are afraid to advocate on behalf of the unborn. They know they will be attacked in vile ways if they do. They understand the media will viciously demonize them.</p>
<p>But the Archbishop of this very troubled city has now made a stand, and the stones are predictably flying. Eventually, God will sort this out as life is short - especially for the aborted fetus.</p>
<p>In the end, I believe Salvatore Cordileone will be honored. In a much more important place than San Francisco.</p>
<p>As for Nancy Pelosi, it is not for flawed human beings to spiritually judge her even though she supports the executioner. Above our pay grade, as the cliche goes.</p>
<p>The Archbishop did his job. The rest of us should pray for all involved.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-05-26T17:28:00ZFearBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fear/-716395599889420959.html2022-05-15T10:13:00Z2022-05-15T10:13:00Z<p>Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has a new book out that hammers Donald Trump. In America, that's an industry, is it not?</p>
<p>Esper was fortunate enough to land an interview on "60 Minutes" where he told Norah O'Donnell that Trump wanted to attack the Mexican drug cartels with missiles. Ms. O'Donnell did not challenge the statement.</p>
<p>Esper was misleading Norah, and the "60 Minutes" producers let her down by not researching effectively. President Trump did, indeed, consider using drone strikes against the Cartels, which are killing thousands of human beings, but only after designating the criminals "terror groups."</p>
<p>That official action allows the United States to take military action, as I chronicle in my book "Killing the Killers," which, unlike Esper's work, is actually honest.</p>
<p>I know this story because I discussed the scenario with Mr. Trump in private and initially reported it two years ago. The subject also came up last December during the Trump "History" shows. The former president explained in detail why he did not slap the terror label on the cartels as Mexican President Obrador finally agreed to help the USA control the border.</p>
<p>Enter Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan who embraces and embellishes Esper's phony reporting by alleging Trump "wanted to attack Mexican drug cartels ... then deny the missiles came from us."</p>
<p>Although that is clearly preposterous and unnecessary with the terror designation, Ms. Noonan parrots it, apparently without doing any research whatsoever.</p>
<p>Deeply embedded in the Washington establishment, Peggy Noonan is a "never-Trumper" and has promoted the cancel culture witch hunt as well. The theme of her column involving Esper is that both political parties are now riddled with fear.</p>
<p>"The Republicans are afraid of the Trumpers. The Democrats are afraid of the progressives. Both parties fear large parts of their base. So they lie to them ..."</p>
<p>There is truth to that statement. If Donald Trump runs for president again, no high-profile Republican will primary him and risk alienating his supporters.</p>
<p>On the other team, President Biden fears the far-left so much that he has embraced many of their insane policies, thereby causing grave damage to individual Americans.</p>
<p>It would be wrong to designate the progressive left as a "terror group," but come on, the destruction of the U.S. economy speaks for itself.</p>
<p>Ms. Noonan's column then rambles along and suddenly veers into the twilight zone as she calls for rational political debate: "I have never met a human being yet who was completely impervious - completely - to a sincere, respectful appeal to reason."</p>
<p>Ahem. I assume that Peggy has never "met" Vladimir Putin, the Iranian Mullahs, the race-baiters on MSNBC, and thousands of other destructive fanatics who cause pain on this planet every day.</p>
<p>Ms. Noonan should open a theme park called "Peggy's World." Disney would likely help her with it. Fantasyland could use an expansion.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-05-15T10:13:00ZDon't Know Much About HistoryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Know-Much-About-History/-264760610788689888.html2022-05-08T08:35:00Z2022-05-08T08:35:00Z<p>If a teenage Kamala Harris had been a student in my American History class, she would have flunked. Same thing for Joe Biden, although chalk wasn't even invented when he was in high school. Our leaders are clueless when it comes to how the United States was actually founded. Frightening, right?</p>
<p>Let's go back in time to when Tom Jefferson, Jemmy Madison, and Ben Franklin were figuring out exactly how a government "by the people and for the people" would work. Remember, there were no models. In Europe, the peasants had few rights and did what the kings told them to do, or else it was a noose or a dungeon.</p>
<p>The American colonies were a divided bunch. In order to get all 13 to unite and fight England, compromises had to occur. Thus, slavery was not addressed even though Massachusetts and other areas in the north believed it was wrong. Colonial leaders well understood that about 50 percent of the population would not oppose the English King. So accommodations were made for those who would fight.</p>
<p>Tom, Jemmy, and Ben also did not want a powerful federal government because it would be too easy for an American "king" to emerge and obliterate constitutional rights. Also, the three architects of freedom feared a military coup.</p>
<p>That's why the Second Amendment is there - to guarantee that folks would have the "right to bear arms" in case a dictator tried to seize power in the country.</p>
<p>Memo to Ms. Kamala and Mr. Joe: the founders wanted the individual states to deal with all "social" issues - like abortion! That's why the Tenth Amendment was invented. It states that any policy not articulated in the Constitution should be handled by the states.</p>
<p>Hello, Roe v. Wade. There is no citation for abortion or marijuana or gay marriage, or most other personal matters in the Constitution. Therefore, these issues fall under state authority—different strokes for different folks in the individual 50.</p>
<p>However, if a state violates the constitutional rights of Americans, think Jim Crow laws, then the federal government has the authority to stop the state from doing that. With force if necessary.</p>
<p>Are you all with me?</p>
<p>In 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the USA, citing "privacy." But there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution. There is a private property provision, sorry, Bernie Sanders, that allows citizens to live without outside intrusion in their purchased domains as long as they don't violate the law.</p>
<p>With abortion "rights," however, there is not just one individual. There is another presence within the domain. That would be the unborn fetus. And that's the controversy. Do Americans have the "right" under the Constitution to kill the unborn?</p>
<p>In June, the Supreme Court is likely to rule 5-4 that each state has the authority to regulate abortion. Liberal states will continue unfettered access, conservative legislations may limit the procedure.</p>
<p>No doubt progressives and even some pro-life people will hate that ruling. Fine, despise it. But the Tenth Amendment will rule, as they say, as it should.</p>
<p>We live in a country where the law is interpreted by nine imperfect people. Those Supreme Court Justices head the judicial branch, which checks the power of the president and congress. Tom, Jemmy, and Ben clearly understood the system they devised was not infallible. But the American concept of freedom has led the world for almost 250 years.</p>
<p>Let's respect that as we sort out the complicated and emotional abortion situation. And stop the politics. Please.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-05-08T08:35:00ZThe Art of the GloatBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Art-of-the-Gloat/727313986472683074.html2022-05-01T18:25:00Z2022-05-01T18:25:00Z<p>Gloating is easy; it requires no skill or rigor. It is simply an unattractive technique used for one purpose only: to insult someone.</p>
<p>Right now, a major gloat is aimed at President Biden, a man doing enormous damage to the country he was elected to serve. There is no question about that. After 15 months in office, Americans are getting hammered because of Biden's foolish economic policies and his general befuddlement on just about everything.</p>
<p>Last week, the stock market finally capitulated, believing Joe would lead the country into a recession as George W. Bush did in 2008. Bush totally missed the crazy home lending spree, which eventually caused massive pain economically.</p>
<p>The Obama-Biden ticket was elected because of that.</p>
<p>Joe got the top job in 2020 despite a strong economy under President Trump. The bombastic former businessman handled economics well, his policies stimulating wages as well as energy independence before Covid shut the country down.</p>
<p>But more than 80 million voters turned away from Trump's accomplishments and embraced Biden, who barely campaigned at all. He didn't need to. The corrupt corporate media did it for him by demonizing 'The Don' and totally ignoring his economic success as President.</p>
<p>Today, the United States is weaker in almost every area than it was two years ago. Yet, many Biden voters are pulling a Tammy Wynette, continuing to stand by their man. It's amazing in the face of the facts, but, unfortunately, people believe what they want to believe. And some folks will never admit a mistake no matter what.</p>
<p>The truth is that President Biden is unable to govern. That's what's spooking the financial markets. It was painful watching him last week <a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/video/video-of-the-day?vid=-191943032422111312" target="_blank">trying to describe Russia</a> as a "plutocracy" and a "kleptocracy." The President could not get those words out of his mouth, and his verbal attack became "stumble-ocracy."</p>
<p>Embarrassing doesn't come close to describing it.</p>
<p>And so the anti-Biden legions brought out the gloat once again. "Look at this guy," they postured, "he's unable in the extreme."</p>
<p>Sadly for the country, it's true. Mr. Biden will be 80 in November, and he's not Paul McCartney, who turns 80 in June. The former Beatle is currently on a nationwide tour and apparently can remember the lyrics to his songs.</p>
<p>Joe Biden couldn't even sing the refrain to "Hey, Jude."</p>
<p>The United States has no choice but to tough out the Biden Administration. There's little we the people can do. The President, I believe, will not run again, and his Vice-President is as incapable as he is.</p>
<p>This is not gloating; it is stating the truth. Gloating is a waste of time.</p>
<p>Wising up so that something like this doesn't happen again is what every single American should be doing. Voting on emotion directly led to the leadership debacle we have right now.</p>
<p>It's there, right before our eyes.</p>
<p>Remember.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-05-01T18:25:00ZLiving the DreamBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Living-the-Dream/266577992318902935.html2022-04-24T19:03:00Z2022-04-24T19:03:00Z<p>You know them. Some folks are detached from reality and have constructed a fantasy place that provides comfort from the cold world. They hide in plain sight.</p>
<p>Let's get specific. According to the polls, about 35 percent of Americans still think President Biden is doing a good job. I guess these are the same folks who believe in the Easter Bunny who, just last week, led old Joe away from reporters.</p>
<p>On the other side, a few days after the election of 2020, I told my audience the vote would not be overturned unless massive evidence of fraud was presented to the federal courts. Well, I took some heat from the Trump dream team, who objected to my analysis which, of course, turned out to be true.</p>
<p>People believe what they want to believe. Most of us can be persuaded by facts, but a substantial minority cannot. They feel secure in the dream world they have created.</p>
<p>Hustlers of all kinds exploit the dreamers; craven politicians are at the top of that list.</p>
<p>The Green New Deal is a great example. It is simply preposterous to believe that "alternative energy" can fuel this country anytime soon.</p>
<p>Yet, we have a president who attacked the fossil fuel industry on his first day in office, using climate change as justification.</p>
<p>The result has been a painful reality: inflation.</p>
<p>Joe Biden lives in a dream world, of that I am certain. And part of that construct is looking away from vexing problems. Like chaos at the southern border. Like horrendous violent crime. Like progressive indoctrination of students.</p>
<p>We could go on.</p>
<p>The point is that the dream weavers who continue to back Joe don't care that he often walks with Dorothy and Toto on the proverbial yellow brick road. The Biden people have convinced themselves that their guy will return us all to Kansas in the end.</p>
<p>He will not.</p>
<p>Some Trump people remain dreamers as well, although the historical fact is the Don provided effective governance on many levels. Something Biden has not.</p>
<p>But progressive dreamers, including many in the corporate media, will not accept that and are now rejecting fact-based reality across the board. To them, Kamala is "amazing." The Black Lives Matter crew are noble. Cancel Culture is a positive. Socialism is justice.</p>
<p>Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream. And it was stellar. But the martyred Reverend did not live in a dream world. He understood the importance of character and the power of realism.</p>
<p>He also knew that people of fairness and positive accomplishment do not live in fantasy places. That flight obscures both accomplishment and wisdom.</p>
<p>President Biden, I believe, is incapable of understanding exactly where he is on the life chart. He lives in a place of bunnies and hazy ideological apparitions—a place where wishing on a star substitutes for effective policies.</p>
<p>The White House has now become a fantasyland. It is indeed a magical kingdom.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-04-24T19:03:00ZBlame PutinBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Blame-Putin/591091062893097557.html2022-04-17T18:57:00Z2022-04-17T18:57:00Z<div style="text-align: center;">"You did it, you did it,<br />you did it in a minute."</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">- Hall & Oates</div>
<p>Putin caused inflation. That's what Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Jen Psaki told the nation. We are dealing with the "Putin price rise."</p>
<p>Of course, all the stats say consumer prices were going up fast before Russia invaded Ukraine but damn those pesky facts. It was Putin, for sure. Just as the devil made Flip Wilson do it a long time ago, Bad Vlad is the instigator today.</p>
<p>And it's not just inflation. Not even close. Did you know that Putin made Will Smith slap Chris Rock? Didn't you know that? Old Will simply channeled Vlad, and boom, the Oscars stage was invaded.</p>
<p>Jennifer Lopez reunited with Ben Affleck because of Putin. No lie. Jen is so frightened of the diminutive Vlad that she sought protection from Big Ben. The actor, not the clock.</p>
<p>Rumor is Jen Psaki will soon blame the chaotic southern border on Putin. People in Honduras believe their country is on Vlad's invasion list, so they are getting the heck out while the getting is good.</p>
<p>Putin is also responsible for the rise in violent crime in America. Criminals are apparently under his spell and want to violate innocent civilians like Vlad's forces are doing in Mariupol.</p>
<p>President Biden sees this Putin thing clearly and knows his adversary is directly responsible for every single failure of his administration, and it's a long list that I can tell you.</p>
<p>Massive airline delays - Putin's fault.</p>
<p>Trans restrooms - Vlad did it.</p>
<p>Critical Race Theory - invented by Putin.</p>
<p>MSNBC - the dictator secretly runs it.</p>
<p>The Los Angeles Lakers - Putin.</p>
<p>Tom Brady coming out of retirement - Vlad ordered him to do it.</p>
<p>Hunter Biden? Don't even ask.</p>
<p>With Vlad having so much power over everything that happens in America, it is only a matter of time before the following occurs.</p>
<p>Vlad will be appointed CEO of Disney.</p>
<p>He will partner with Elon Musk to take over Twitter.</p>
<p>He will be a substitute host on The View.</p>
<p>He'll run Ocasio-Cortez's next campaign.</p>
<p>Vlad will make Kamala Harris stop giggling.</p>
<p>He will tour with the Rolling Stones.</p>
<p>And finally, The New York Times will discover, through anonymous sources, that Putin forced that bird to poop on Biden's suit.</p>
<p>I know all that sounds incredible. But it's not nearly as unbelievable as blaming the Vlad-meister for the nearly ten percent inflation rate now battering the USA.</p>
<p>Is it?</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-04-17T18:57:00ZHappiness is the TruthBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happiness-is-the-Truth/174253212857197311.html2022-04-03T10:38:00Z2022-04-03T10:38:00Z<p>Putting aside all the unhappiness over politics and social disagreements, all Americans should understand the concept that divides us. It is "the pursuit of happiness."</p>
<p>But what's that? Well, it's in the Declaration of Independence right after "life, liberty." Those concepts are self-evident, the Founders wrote. But the pursuit of happiness deal is a bit trickier.</p>
<p>Essentially, it comes down to this: government must set up a system whereby all citizens have an equal opportunity to develop their talents and seek success without hurting anyone else.</p>
<p>Therefore, the people have a good chance to live a prosperous life.</p>
<p>British philosopher John Locke developed the pursuit of happiness concept way back in 1689. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin bought Locke's vision and incorporated "happiness" safeguards into the Constitution.</p>
<p>But many Americans are now unhappy with the pursuit situation.</p>
<p>That's because there are many false roads on the happy map. Today, progressive and some liberal Americans believe the government should "guarantee" happiness by giving folks stuff. But in order to do that, the powers-that-be have to take from other citizens.</p>
<p>That causes angst which is in opposition to happiness. The federal government now spends trillions on giveaways and wants more.</p>
<p>Traditional Americans believe it is the individual who is responsible for using our freedoms to succeed. With protections in place by law, conservatives do not think the government should make life harder for some groups by showing favoritism to other groups.</p>
<p>So, the left and the right face a huge chasm.</p>
<p>A minority of Americans say the USA is an unjust country and always has been. They want a complete overhaul. That fight has become bitter.</p>
<p>Your humble correspondent believes America is a noble nation, but significant corruption is affecting our collective happiness. There are too many fanatics among us, and their actions can lead to oppression and suppression. Those things badly damage the happy pursuit.</p>
<p>The solution is for good people to work together in order to provide fairness and opportunity. But in order to do that, we have to see things clearly.</p>
<p>Recently, I gave the keynote address at a benefit for Geraldo Rivera's charity, Life's WORC. For 50 years, Geraldo has raised money to help Americans with autism. If a person has autism, they obviously cannot pursue happiness at the same level as others.</p>
<p>Geraldo and I believe different things. But we worked together to raise nearly a million dollars to help Americans who need help.</p>
<p>The government was not involved.</p>
<p>If more Americans grasped the concept of individuals helping individuals, our country would rise in power and prosperity. Our collective happiness would be enhanced.</p>
<p>That is undeniably true. And, as Pharrell Williams sings, happiness is the truth.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-04-03T10:38:00ZTruth, Lies, and Video TapeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Truth-Lies-and-Video-Tape/-927577468874320492.html2022-03-27T12:16:00Z2022-03-27T12:16:00Z<p>Apparently, Russia's Defense Minister has now gone missing, joining hundreds of journalists who have vanished after criticizing Putin. Another casualty of the Ukraine war, which is not going well for bad Vlad.</p>
<p>In the USA, we have many press people who are missing in a figurative sense: they don't know much about anything, weak backgrounds in history and civics. When I comment that President Biden might go down in history alongside President Buchanan, do you think members of the White House press corps know what I'm talking about?</p>
<p>Each morning, I get a bunch of newspapers delivered to my home. Sadly, the printed information is often old if you have a computer. The speed of the internet has made the papers obsolete in hard news coverage. And editorially, most print organizations live in the last house on the left. If you're not in a guest room there, why do you need the paper?</p>
<p>Because I run an independent news agency that delivers information on television and radio, my staff emails me a document called the "newsfax" early in the morning. Here, the information is current and accurate.</p>
<p>To supplement the newspapers and fax, I often monitor TV News to assess what video is available. And watching American electronic media has become depressing, generally speaking. That's because it's incredibly repetitive and mostly devoid of creative analysis and smart reporting.</p>
<p>The reason that's happened is that the corporate moguls who run the TV News operations want followers on the air, people who will gladly take orders.</p>
<p>CNN is the most vivid example. Time-Warner ruined the network by demanding that on-air talent tow a liberal line and, most especially, demonize Donald Trump.</p>
<p>The direct result of that corporate policy was a disastrous scandal starring Chris Cuomo and his direct supervisor, Jeff Zucker.</p>
<p>You may remember my on-air debates with Jon Stewart and the late Charles Krauthammer. Two very smart guys, one on the left, the other on the right. The conversations were spirited and unpredictable. Do you see anything like that on TV today?</p>
<p>Let me know.</p>
<p>The reason we don't often view unique content is that corporations don't need astute analysis, wit, or even curiosity. They make big money without all that. In addition to the cash flow, the moguls delight in shaping the news - not actually reporting it.</p>
<p>The stark truth is, in America, corporate and social media provide cover for the liberal philosophy and the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>That has resulted in the calamity that is the Biden administration. And all of us, even the corporate chieftains, are being adversely affected by the President's destructive policies.</p>
<p>This is truly a terrible situation, one the Founders could never have foreseen. Powerful social media combines with legacy corporations to promote and protect a leftist belief system.</p>
<p>That is the truth. But absolutely no one will be set free by it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-03-27T12:16:00ZThe Hunter Becomes the PreyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Hunter-Becomes-the-Prey/-993749467912469982.html2022-03-20T19:09:00Z2022-03-20T19:09:00Z<p>So now we know the laptop containing Hunter Biden's shady business dealings is real because the New York Times finally admitted it after 18 months of suppressing the story. Not that we didn't already know that Hunter grifted a number of foreign nations using his father's position as vice-president - we did. Honest Americans definitely realized that.</p>
<p>We also understand that the corporate media, including the giant internet operations, canceled a legitimate news story that might have influenced voters in the 2020 presidential election.</p>
<p>In addition, it is beyond any doubt that while Hunter's loathsome money-making schemes were being denied and censored, including direct repudiations from Joe Biden, the phony Russian-Collusion story was being heavily promoted by the corporate press. The deceitful one-two media punch absolutely influenced the election of 2020.</p>
<p>So by doing the math - this is the biggest media scandal in American history. And it's not even close.</p>
<p>Now, last week Vladimir Putin made it a crime in Russia to criticize the invasion of Ukraine. Should the US Congress make it a criminal offense to dishonestly influence a presidential vote?</p>
<p>Yes, it should. Heavy fines should be imposed for demonstrably false reporting on campaigns. When a presidential election can be battered by dishonest media partisanship, this country has to do SOMETHING.</p>
<p>Let's methodically review using only facts.<br />On October 19, 2020, the liberal website Politico ran a report alleging the Hunter Biden-laptop discovery was Russian "disinformation" designed to hurt Joe Biden and help Donald Trump. Politico cited 50 "national security" experts who agreed.</p>
<p>Politico is not and never has been a fair and trustworthy operation. Back then, it was primarily interested in hurting Trump.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the corporate media couldn't get on the phony Russian "disinformation" train fast enough. Night after night, NBC News and CNN pounded the story - so much so that legitimate reporting about the laptop got banned on Facebook and Twitter.</p>
<p>So you tell me, do we let this media outrage go? Or do we the people demand that Congress pass safeguards to protect presidential elections?</p>
<p>The Justice Department is currently investigating Hunter Biden, but the Biden administration oversees Attorney General Garland. What SHOULD happen is an independent counsel investigation because, according to Hunter, his father, the President, received a "taste" of the millions of dollars that somehow appeared in Hunter's wallet.</p>
<p>The presumption of innocence has to be in play here because Hunter might have been smoking crack when he wrote that, but clarity is definitely needed.</p>
<p>Over in Russia, 250 media people have either gone missing or been murdered under the Putin regime. Obviously, we don't have anything like that in the USA. What we do have is massive media deceit.</p>
<p>And while that's not life and death, it is badly hurting the country.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-03-20T19:09:00ZThe Prince of DarknessBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Prince-of-Darkness/357693481808864318.html2022-03-13T18:55:00Z2022-03-13T18:55:00Z<p>Billionaire George Soros is after Presidents Putin and Xi of China. He wants them canceled right this minute. The 92-year-old Soros recently wrote an internet column saying they were enemies of democracy. The Soros line that caught my eye: "We can only hope that Putin and Xi will be removed from power before they can destroy our civilization."</p>
<div>Well, this is rich, pun intended. The shadowy currency-trader is outraged by the two totalitarians. In the column, Soros claims he is promoting "democracy." How nice.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the real world, George Soros is sieging America, donating untold millions of dollars to destroy the criminal justice system and influence voting patterns. According to Forbes Magazine, Soros is worth $8.6 billion and recently pumped $125 million into something called "Democracy PAC," run by his son, Alexander.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you may know, but most Americans don't, George Soros is a driving force behind electing far-left prosecutors. He champions their insane soft on crime policies like "no bail" laws and failure to enforce criminal statutes at all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you follow the news, the situation is dire. Thousands of Americans have been killed in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia because violent criminals are often not prosecuted by corrupt DA's - many of whom received significant campaign donations from the Soros organizations.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, while the radical leftist is railing against violent foreign leaders, his cash is fueling dangerous American streets. Whether it's open borders, massive intrusions from homeless drug addicts, demonizing the police, or a permissive view of narcotics, George Soros and his heavy wallet are on board the pain train.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have no doubt that Soros wrote his condemnation of Putin and Xi as an attempt to rehabilitate his image in the United States. The damage this man has done to our society through his "Open Society" Foundation is incalculable, in my opinion. And it's all completely legal. His battery of lawyers knows every comma of the "non-profit" industry guidelines.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Putin and Xi are obviously dangerous to the world, just as Soros is a danger to America. His unlimited money is quietly used to advance the most radical politicians and causes; there is no question about that. Again, few truly understand how pernicious this man really is.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I call him the Prince of Darkness and if you don't believe me, look him up on Google. Then think about the horrific rise in violent crime, the collapse of civility and public safety, the porous border where migrants and fentanyl pour in on a daily basis while George Soros writes another check.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So it is absolutely hideous to see this guy "virtue-signal" over the Russian and Chinese dictators. I know what you're doing, George. Bucks instead of bombs.</div>
<div><br />But both are agents of destruction.</div>Bill O'Reilly2022-03-13T18:55:00ZDefeating PutinBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Defeating-Putin/-306317538267272457.html2022-03-06T19:45:00Z2022-03-06T19:45:00Z<p>So, Vlad the dictator is evil. When you order your army to attack civilians with deadly weapons, you are evil. You may be shrewd, short, balding, and beady-eyed, but the evilness kind of overshadows all that.</p>
<p>The question now becomes how to defeat Putin. Did I mention he's evil? Most people want to crush him, but not all. Incredibly, there are those who say Russia has a perfect right to inflict violence on Ukraine because that country was courting the west. Therefore, Russia was "threatened."</p>
<p>There is dumb, and there is dumber. That point of view is the dumbest.</p>
<p>Who in the west is threatening Russia? Joe Biden? Old Joe? You may remember Putin stole Crimea away from Ukraine in 2014, and President Obama did little about it. A few sanctions. Putin yawned. Biden said nothing as Vice President.</p>
<p>Is Germany threatening Russia? How about Lithuania? The truth is that all NATO countries do everything they can to avoid conflict. Most don't even pay their dues.</p>
<p>But Putin is threatened.</p>
<p>Sure.</p>
<p>Vlad is emotionally damaged, of that, I am sure. And he controls nukes that could barbecue the world. So, he has to go, and his "war crimes" in Ukraine provide a nice excuse to see that happen.</p>
<p>The initial sanctions are ripping up the Russian economy, the 17th largest in the world. Remember, the Russian people don't have very much to begin with, so destitution can set in fast.</p>
<p>The Ruble has lost about 40 percent of its value since Putin decided to murder civilians in Ukraine. Now, major credit card companies are refusing any charges made in Russia, denying people purchasing power. No longer easy to step out on the steppes. Nyet good, right former comrade?</p>
<p>To break Putin, more sanctions are needed, and so is a ramp-up in western and Saudi oil production, so nobody buys fuel from Russia. The climate warriors will howl, but I say this: you really want to see Global Warming? Just wait til Putin drops a thermal on Brussels!</p>
<p>How about we all wise up? It's time.</p>
<p>If the west can bring down Putin using economics, that friendly guy Xi in China will certainly get the message. And the world might be saved from a catastrophic Communist invasion of Taiwan.</p>
<p>Therefore, Putin must be defeated, and economic strangulation is the best way to do that. A shooting war could kill hundreds of thousands. It's the last resort.</p>
<p>But crippling Russia's capacity to conduct commerce is doable, and, eventually, the folks will turn on dictator Vlad and his evil madness.</p>
<p>Let's give the SOB a devil of a time.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-03-06T19:45:00ZPutin's Biden His TimeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Putins-Biden-His-Time/-539671022353175727.html2022-02-27T11:23:00Z2022-02-27T11:23:00Z<p>The Long Island newspaper Newsday is calling for all Americans to rally around President Biden in the conflict with Russia. Its editorial on February 26 states: "The undercutting of Biden by Republicans as he actively navigates armed conflict is shameful. The nation was stronger when domestic political squabbling ended at the water's edge."</p>
<p>Squabbling?</p>
<p>As a liberal paper, Newsday's analysis is to be expected. But what's happening in the USA and all over the world is far more than political disagreement. What we have here is a weak leader of the free world up against strong totalitarian killers in Russia, China and Iran.</p>
<p>In Ukraine, it is not really the Russian army against an independent country. It is Putin vs. Biden, mano-a-mano.</p>
<p>While Newsday and other media that favor the Democrats look away from reality, wise Americans should not. We the people, elected a weak man to lead us. Let's admit it. And now the country and the world are suffering.</p>
<p>Putin's Hitler imitation was not caused by Joe Biden, but he enabled it by attacking the American energy industry, thereby giving the evil Russian dictator billions in cash. While Biden was surrendering to the climate change warriors, Putin supplied oil and coal to the world - most notably to NATO allies.</p>
<p>So, are we supposed to ignore this colossal mistake made by President Biden pretty much all by himself? And even after the unforced error, Biden still refuses to ramp up American energy production!</p>
<p>What say you, Newsday?</p>
<p>Joe Biden will likely go down in history alongside disastrous presidents like James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover. Buchanan did absolutely nothing to stop the gathering Civil War in the late 1850s, even allowing secessionists to loot federal arsenals, reminiscent of Biden-Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression ( just as Biden didn't cause Ukraine), but he sat there denying federal relief to starving Americans for two exceedingly painful years!</p>
<p>What Buchanan, Hoover, and Biden all have in common is failure to govern from strength. That's a fact. Should Americans ignore that fact "at the water's edge"?</p>
<p>It is true that some partisans will hammer the other side no matter what the circumstance, and that is destructive to our Republic. But in order to stop destructive policies like open borders, rampant inflation, erosion of criminal justice, you can't just rally behind the guy who's responsible - even if Biden is trying to contain the homicidal Putin.</p>
<p>As a concerned citizen of the world, I want Biden and NATO to crush Russia. But I also want to banish weak leadership going forward. Biden is the poster guy for policy failure.</p>
<p>Rallying around that would be madness.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-02-27T11:23:00ZThe Mob MentalityBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Mob-Mentality/-655259028687170723.html2022-02-20T09:13:00Z2022-02-20T09:13:00Z<p>Be thankful you were not a pioneer in America. Life on the western frontier was brutal—few comforts, no law, and danger everywhere.</p>
<p>In the midst of that arose "frontier justice," where settlers dished out punishments to perceived miscreants without much deliberation. Steal a horse; you could be hanged by the neck until dead. Commit a violent crime; termination by the mob was common. In many places, the presumption of innocence did not exist.</p>
<p>Today, the mob mentality has returned to the United States driven by social media, where there are few protections. Anonymous "trolls" can assassinate individual characters, destroy businesses, and even threaten personal safety.</p>
<p>Few police agencies have the resources to investigate, and internet companies generally deny responsibility for injustice. The mob knows it can inflict grave damage to people with little risk.</p>
<p>Hello, Tombstone.</p>
<p>Freedom of Speech is now being used against the American people. Let's count the ways. Good people who might want to run for office are often dissuaded because they will likely be smeared and their families seared. Few candidates escape that.</p>
<p>Organizations funded by ideological fanatics like George Soros incite boycotts against businesses. It's easy on the net. Just put out an allegation and demand a company change something or fire someone.</p>
<p>Corporations often fold quickly, meaning few in the marketplace are safe. Attacks organized on the net can hurt profits, and the bosses know it. Better to give the mob what it wants.</p>
<p>Amid this madness, power has shifted. Anonymous character assassins on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media are on the march. Due process has been obliterated. Allegations become facts at light speed. Dark money allows dishonest political groups to threaten sponsors and anyone who might hold influence. If you don't do what the mob wants - it could very well come for you.</p>
<p>No one is safe. Every public person is one accusation away from ruin. Corrupt lawyers are lined up to exploit accusations, demanding big money "settlements." Blackmail, extortion, and defamation are now common occurrences against the social media backdrop.</p>
<p>This is our country and society today—millions of swords, no shields. If you fight back in civil court, the ordeal will last years and likely cost millions. The mob has all the weapons.</p>
<p>The result is massive injustice and a rapidly declining interchange of ideas. Most folks fear the mob and flee from it.</p>
<p>The bad guys are winning.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-02-20T09:13:00ZHow to Speak ProgressiveBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/How-to-Speak-Progressive/52844506971683331.html2022-02-13T19:47:00Z2022-02-13T19:47:00Z<p>If you are bewitched, bothered, or bewildered by how the far left communicates, then this column will be a safe space for you. Way back in 2006, I wrote a book called "Culture Warrior," which quickly became a number one bestseller. In that book, I put forth the goals of the progressive movement - what they really want besides power and money.</p>
<p>Now, 16 years later, it has all come true. The far-left controls the man in the White House, most TV News operations, newspapers, and Hollywood.</p>
<p>I'd say that's an impressive resume.</p>
<p>But many Americans still don't understand the progressive language, so I am here to help. That's just the kind of guy I am.</p>
<p>Behold, the lexicon.</p>
<p>Social Justice. The big one. The tent under which most minority grievances are displayed.</p>
<p>Equity. The solution to social injustice. The government and private enterprise favoring minority groups and sometimes women.</p>
<p>Restorative Justice. The movement not to punish criminals with incarceration. This, of course, has led to thousands of murdered Americans, most of them minorities.</p>
<p>Climate Justice. The destruction of the fossil fuel industry and the allocation of massive government funds to support mostly speculative alternative energy plans.</p>
<p>Economic Justice. Guaranteed jobs and salaries.</p>
<p>Income Inequality. Another big progressive tenet. This is the justification for socialism whereby the federal government controls the money flow to Americans - taking from the "haves," giving to the "have nots" with no work requirements or substance testing for the folks receiving other people's money.</p>
<p>Inclusion. Preference for certain social categories, i.e., gay, trans.</p>
<p>Food Insecurity. Free food for the poor.</p>
<p>Housing Insecurity. Free or heavily subsidized shelter for the poor.</p>
<p>Reproductive Rights. Abortion on demand at any time, for any reason, funded with taxpayer dollars. No rights for the unborn or their fathers.</p>
<p>There are other far-left codes, but those are the headlines. Progressives have now reached the apex of their power, with the ill-informed having no idea about what is actually happening.</p>
<p>So, this is quite the brave new world, is it not? And I don't think President Biden and Vice President Harris would object to any of it, which is frightening.</p>
<p>And know this: If progressives get what they want, there will be no safe spaces. What you have earned throughout your life with sacrifice will become a target of seizure by a powerful government. That's the plan.</p>
<p>However, there is still time to defeat it. The November vote will be key.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-02-13T19:47:00ZDoes the NFL Hate Cops?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Does-the-NFL-Hate-Cops/-211710069569511497.html2022-02-06T19:30:00Z2022-02-06T19:30:00Z<p>Never liked rap or hip hop. I'm an Earth, Wind & Fire, O'Jays kind of guy. Classic tunes that uplift and spread joy.</p>
<p>On Sunday next, during the Super Bowl halftime show, the world will be treated to a rap fest featuring performers who have embraced violent, anti-police lyrics. We used to see musicians like Paul McCartney and Prince perform at the Super Bowl. Not anymore.</p>
<p>Now under the banner of "diversity and inclusion," National Football League chief Roger Goodell is showcasing some pretty vile "entertainment." Remember, Goodell is the guy who allows "social justice" slogans like "Black Lives Matter" to be printed on helmets worn during games.</p>
<p>I have not seen "Back the Blue" on any football helmets, have you? Why is this slogan thing a one-way street?</p>
<p>The headliners this coming Sunday are Snoop Dogg (Calvin Broadus), Dr. Dre (Andre Young), and Eminem (Marshall Mathers, no relation to Jerry).</p>
<p>All three have made tens of millions of dollars putting out recordings that contain harsh, disrespectful lyrics, which can be corrosive, especially to children and other immature minds.</p>
<p>Let's look at the resumes. First Calvin.</p>
<p>"All you (n word) out there, take your guns that you use to shoot each other and start shooting these bitch-ass mother (fing) police."</p>
<p>That's from Snoop's latest recording, one I presume Mr. Goodell enjoys very much.</p>
<p>Next, there's Andre Young, aka Dr. Dre.</p>
<p>"Shoot that (mf-er), gas (mf-er) police."</p>
<p>And finally, the always effervescent Eminem.</p>
<p>"We hate po-po (police)."</p>
<p>On the surface, this halftime show is strange. The NFL is run by millionaire white guys who have little interest in street culture. Yes, many of the players listen to rap-hip hop, but I believe it is not yet piped into the huddle. Maybe next year.</p>
<p>Since the Super Bowl used to be a family-friendly event, what the deuce is Goodell doing, and why are American corporations sponsoring the exposition?</p>
<p>Two reasons. The fat cats want to be woke and cool. And they believe few will protest this anti-American stuff for fear of being canceled. I fully realize just by criticizing the halftime show; I'll be branded a racist. That's the way it works these days; go up against the "progressive" agenda, the demons will descend.</p>
<p>And the progressives do not like American law enforcement.</p>
<p>The truth is we all live in a society of corruption, and, incredibly, the white establishment is advancing the cultural danger. Rapping about killing police officers should be unacceptable in a civilized society, not rewarded.</p>
<p>I don't expect to hear the Snoopster or the Doctor or Mr. Mathers curse or threaten violence during the halftime performance on Sunday. Even the woke NFL will draw that line.</p>
<p>But we should all understand exactly how those guys got on that world stage. And who put them there.</p>Bill O'Reilly2022-02-06T19:30:00ZTeach the Children WellBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Teach-the-Children-Well/-57363910161106664.html2022-01-30T10:30:00Z2022-01-30T10:30:00Z<div>In the 1950s, American school kids celebrated the coming of summer with a poem:</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">"No more pencils,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">No more books,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">No more teacher's</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">Dirty looks!"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, the "dirty looks" are cast at traditional grading as much has changed in the nation's public schools. Progressive policies that harm children are being installed around the country, but many don't understand what's really going on because there is little media coverage.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let's analyze the effort to eliminate grades. According to leftist philosophy, traditional grading is racist because some minority students are deprived and can't compete with privileged white children. And there is some truth to that. I saw it first hand while teaching high school in a ghetto north of Miami, Florida.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The progressive solution is to eliminate "A to F" evaluations and replace them with a totally subjective "does the student understand the classwork" mandate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That system allows the teacher vast power because there's no specific academic baseline. Also, many schools are under pressure to promote kids even if they don't know anything and the teachers know it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those who embrace this soft academic approach justify it by citing slavery, societal bias, and anti-American grievance in general.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the real reason so many minority children don't compete well in school is poor parenting. The same goes for white and Native-American students. In fact, few children of any race can succeed academically if they live in chaotic homes with parents who don't care about them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That. Is. The. Truth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And unless the public school system acknowledges that truth, children in terrible circumstances will not prosper. I mean, how could they possibly compete in the marketplace with the "white privilege" crew? And if young Americans can't compete, what is likely to happen? You can do the math on that question.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The largest school district in the country, New York City, spends more than $28,000 per student each year. Yet, most kids cannot master Math and English. The average Catholic school spends half that, and those students perform much better academically.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why? Simple. Parents who pay to send their kids to Catholic schools obviously care about academic discipline because that's what most private schools provide.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Public schools often do not foster discipline. And now, in New York City, classroom attendance is no longer even required for academic evaluation, nor is civil conduct.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The cold reality is that the progressive educational zealots are setting up deprived kids for lifelong failure. There is no skin color factor when it comes to native intelligence. Under disciplined circumstances, almost every child can learn and develop their talents.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But just like the criminal-justice system, the progressives want to eliminate accountability and are playing the race card to do it.</div>
<div> </div>
<span>What a colossal mistake.</span>
<div><span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', 'Segoe UI', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> </span></div>Bill O'Reilly2022-01-30T10:30:00ZKilling the VampireBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Killing-the-Vampire/888176342424537409.html2022-01-23T20:03:00Z2022-01-23T20:03:00Z<div><span>While roaming the world for the syndicated reality program "Inside Edition", I found myself in the Eastern European country of Romania. The government there was trying to create tourism off the infamous fictional vampire Dracula. The Bram Stoker creation is actually based on a real guy; a vicious Medieval warlord named Vlad Tepes who annoyed his neighbors by impaling them. No Vlad Putin jokes, please.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>As I drove around the Carpathian Mountains, still primitive but beautiful country, I interviewed a number of folks who actually believe in vampires. They told me the only way to destroy one is to drive a stake through the creature's heart.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>For some strange reason, that Romanian trip popped into my mind while watching President Biden's unsettling press conference last week. I am certain old Joe is not among the undead because he'd be much more alert if he was.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Now, here's why I bring up the vampire thing. The progressive movement is so tied into the Biden presidency that if he falls, the radicals do, too. If the President continues to falter, progressive policies will receive a symbolic stake through the heart.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>And that's the best thing that may come out of Mr. Biden's tenure.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Here's why. Progressives, generally speaking, believe America is a bad place. So they want to change pretty much everything. Here's a list.</span><span><br /></span></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span><span>Replace capitalism with socialism where Washington runs the economy and levies draconian (had to use that word) taxation on corporations and affluent citizens.</span><br /></span></li>
<li><span>Crush existing immigration laws and open the borders to all.</span></li>
<li><span>"Reimagine" the criminal justice system so that most people who commit crimes are not punished.</span></li>
<li><span>Change election laws so even non-citizens can cast a ballot and voter IDs are abolished.</span></li>
<li><span>Institute a "One World" foreign policy where the USA could not take unilateral action.</span></li>
<li><span>Ban handguns for US citizens.</span></li>
<li><span>Ban all protections for the unborn.</span></li>
<li><span>Institute government-enforced "equity" for minority groups whereby they would get preferential treatment including reparations for slavery.</span></li>
<li><span>Institute Critical Race Theory teaching in public schools and abolish grades.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div><span>There's more but those are the headlines. So, here's my question: shouldn't the progressive movement receive a stake through the heart to end this madness once and for all?</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>I believe the correct answer is YES!</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Again, if Biden and Kamala Harris go down, they are likely to take the radical leftists with them. Ocasio-Cortez, George Clooney, and Bette Midler are worried. CNN and MSNBC, already on the run, would be finished.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Stakes are being sharpened. And the bad guys know it.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2022-01-23T20:03:00ZCall Him Mr. BlueBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Call-Him-Mr.-Blue/-610181209806839862.html2022-01-16T16:00:00Z2022-01-16T16:00:00ZBoomers may remember a song by the Fleetwoods called "Mr. Blue." It hit number one in 1959. If they do a remake, President Biden should demand royalties because he is that guy: the blue man without the group. The blue state commander. And if he's not feeling blue himself, he should be. Because nothing is going right for Mr. Blue.<br /><br /><span>Let's start with the dog he brought to the White House. Almost immediately, the pooch started biting Secret Service agents. An eviction notice went out, and Major was deported to Delaware.</span><br /><br /><span>Simultaneously, Joe Biden decided not to enforce immigration law at the border so millions of people are illegally crossing, most untested for Covid. How is this a good thing for the country, Mr. Blue? No answer has been forthcoming.</span><br /><br /><span>In conjunction with the open border came presidential attacks on the oil and gas industry in the name of climate change. Twelve months later, inflation has climbed 10 percent because energy prices surged. Mr. Blue said last week he is making progress solving the problem? But how?</span><br /><br /><span>No one knows.</span><br /><br /><span>Then came the cut and run from Afghanistan. Then another Covid surge. Then a proposed new election law that discouraged IDs for voters. But why? We did get an answer to that question. IDs are racist.</span><br /><br /><span>Oh.</span><br /><br /><span>Then Mr. Blue went down in flames on the two trillion dollar "Build Back Better" deal. No one could quite figure out where all the tax money would actually go. Joe didn't know just as he doesn't know how to contain Omicron. He again says he's making progress. Maybe inflation will catch Omicron.</span><br /><br /><span>I could go on singing the blues and directing the notes towards Mr. Blue who is still waiting for Kamala Harris' report on the "root causes" of border jumping. Maybe I can help here.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. President and Ms. Vice President: the root cause of illegal border crossings is that the USA is a better country than Honduras. You can fill in the names of other countries around the world to strengthen the point.</span><br /><br /><span>So let's wrap this up with a new poll that may make Joe Biden even bluer. A Quinnipiac survey says just a third of the country believes he is doing a good job as president. The rumor is many of the 33 percent are from Honduras.</span><br /><br /><span>As President Blue begins his second year in office the outlook for his presidency is dubious, to be kind. In about ten months a red wave may obliterate the blue power structure in place now. Those midterms are coming up fast and color me skeptical about Joe Biden's future. <span> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Next November it might very well be black and blue for the big guy.</span>Bill O'Reilly2022-01-16T16:00:00ZIt's a Propaganda World, After AllBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-a-Propaganda-World-After-All/-250265957594200290.html2022-01-09T15:00:00Z2022-01-09T15:00:00Z<div>One of the most evil men ever to walk the earth was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda. His lies about Poland led the planet into the Second World War and his demonization of the Jewish people was the foundation of the Holocaust.</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>As vile as Goebbels was, he murdered his own children in Hitler's bunker, he is considered a genius and is the orchestrator of today's incredible propaganda machine, which is aided and abetted by the internet.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Goebbels understood two basic things: that most human beings are generally uninformed and believe what they want to believe. And that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, many will think it's true.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Today in America the corporate media largely controls the flow of information to the people. Social media companies are the most dominant in that area. And to these powerful companies, information is money. Truth has little to do with it.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Media companies target audiences and serve up what those folks want to hear. Like Germany in the 1930s and early '40s, restraints are few when dishing out dishonest garbage.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Two recent examples of propaganda from both ideological perspectives.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The liberal line is that President Trump "instigated" the riot on January 6, 2021. But we now know that Mr. Trump made a request to the Pentagon on January 5 asking that 10,000 National Guard members be committed to protecting the Capitol and supervising the gathering crowd in Washington.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>President Trump could not directly order the Guard to the streets or to the Capitol grounds. By law, the DC mayor and the Speaker of the House have to make a request first.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Muriel Bowser and Nancy Pelosi did not do that even though both knew there was trouble brewing.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>So, if Mr. Trump really wanted violence why would he request the Guard? And why is the House panel investigating January 6 ignoring the Pentagon's documentation of his request?</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The media is also silent about evidence that destroys the "instigation" theory, as well as the possible January 6 culpability of Bowser and Pelosi. This is a propaganda scenario at the highest level.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>On the right, you also have madness about the Capitol riot. There is video of two men urging demonstrators to invade the building housing Congress. Neither man has been arrested. One man's name is known, the other anonymous so far.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>During a recent radio interview, the host asked me about "FBI undercover agents" spurring on the mob. She said she heard that on Fox News and talk radio. She believes the two men caught on video work for the FBI in some capacity and that's why they haven't been arrested.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Of course, there is no evidence showing any Bureau involvement - it's a conspiracy theory. And it's preposterous. How could anyone think the FBI, already under fire for the Russian Collusion fiasco, would participate in a seditious attack? But millions of people apparently do believe that.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Propaganda is dangerous. It can destroy the truth and distort reality. It can certainly lead to violence as history shows us.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>And it is here. In a big way.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2022-01-09T15:00:00ZThe Sun Shades the TruthBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Sun-Shades-the-Truth/62738683520145434.html2022-01-02T08:00:00Z2022-01-02T08:00:00Z<span>The Florida Sun-Sentinel is a struggling newspaper that serves the counties of Broward and Palm Beach. In December, the paper dishonestly covered the Trump/O'Reilly History show reporting that an abundance of seats in the Fort Lauderdale arena went unsold. The truth is the show grossed two million dollars in ticket sales, a reality that somehow went unmentioned by the newspaper which sought to denigrate the tour anyway it could.</span><br /><br /><span>In fact, the crowd was so large the Secret Service was caught by surprise resulting in a delay of folks getting into the building. The Sun-Sentinel used this opportunity to take pictures of empty seats that would eventually be filled.</span><br /><br /><span>So, this is a bad operation that needs to be examined. And I have done that. The paper is extremely liberal, despises Donald Trump, and routinely props up radical left ideology.</span><br /><br /><span>Recently, the Sun-Sentinel hammered Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for banning Critical Race Theory teaching in Florida Public Schools. The newspaper accused DeSantis and the entire Republican Party of perpetuating the notion "that racism did not have a major influence on American history and that it is not an issue now."</span><br /><br /><span>That's quite an accusation but I can find no statement Governor DeSantis has ever made that comes close to the Sun-Sentinel's allegation. Perhaps the paper can print some backup to educate me.</span><br /><br /><span>Don't count on it.</span><br /><br /><span>Again, the truth is that other than covering high school football games, this so-called newspaper is in business to help the progressive cause. So, admit it, Sun-Sentinel people! State the truth - it will set you free, so to speak.</span><br /><br /><span>If you doubt what I am reporting here's a nifty quote the paper ran supporting Critical Race Theory: "Racism in the United States is the ordinary experience of people of color. Often it takes the form of verbal or behavioral slights that may be subtle and even unconscious."</span><br /><br /><span>And who is promoting that "ordinary experience?" Well, that would have to be white people including young children, correct? I mean who else could be doing it?</span><br /><br /><span>Of course, even if it is "unconscious," evil racism should be placed in the backpacks of seven-year-olds by "woke" teachers who majored in witch-hunting, right Sun-Sentinel?</span><br /><br /><span>By all means, let's have CRT taught in schools - that's certain to foster racial harmony among students, right Sun-Sentinel? </span><br /><br /><span>Desperately wrong. Equating white skin with historical and contemporary evil crushes childhood while promoting confusion and division in undeveloped minds. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.</span><br /><br /><span>When idiocy is combined with dishonesty, malevolence appears and it is likely this awful Sun-Sentinel newspaper will soon go under.</span><br /><br /><span>It can't be soon enough.</span><br /><br />Bill O'Reilly2022-01-02T08:00:00ZThe Ghost of Policies PastBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Ghost-of-Policies-Past/436098939831822433.html2021-12-19T09:40:00Z2021-12-19T09:40:00ZAccording to legend, there are many ghosts residing in the White House, apparitions that go all the way back to President Martin Van Buren. The "Little Magician," as he was called, once allegedly appeared to a trembling Chester Arthur asking a simple question: "how the heck did you get in here?"<br /><br /><span>President Arthur hid under the covers.</span><br /><br /><span>As Christmas Eve evolves into early Christmas morning, I fear that Joe Biden may receive a visit from another spirit; that of Jimmy Carter. Stranger things have happened in the White House. Just ask Bill Clinton.</span><br /><br /><span>Anyway, if my intuition is correct, the scene might go this way.</span><br /><br /><span>"Jooooooooe, awaken Joe! I've been sent to warn you. Heed what I say!"</span><br /><br /><span>"Is that you, Jimmy. I'd know that accent anywhere."</span><br /><br /><span>"It is I, Joseph, the ghost of bad policies past. And I have a question: what in tarnation are you doing?"</span><br /><br /><span>"No joke. I don't know what I'm doing. Can you help?"</span><br /><br /><span>"Jooooooe! Don't you remember the gas lines in the late 1970s? I messed with the energy industry and got my tush kicked!"</span><br /><br /><span>"But climate change..."</span><br /><br /><span>"Silence! Gas and heating oil price rises have ignited inflation! People are angry, Joe. People are getting hammered financially!"</span><br /><br /><span>"If in fact ...."</span><br /><br /><span>"It is a fact, Joe. Just look at Tiny Tim. He can no longer afford a Big Mac."</span><br /><br /><span>"No, I can't bear it. Tiny Tim denied fast food?"</span><br /><br /><span>"And the border, it's wide open. Millions of folks just walking in here. Why, Joe, why?"</span><br /><br /><span>"Future Democrat voters, Jimmy. I'm not being facetious."</span><br /><br /><span>"Jooooooe, your approval rating with current voters is 9 percent. And can you explain Kamala?"</span><br /><br /><span>"Well, they like her less than me. If in fact."</span><br /><br /><span>"Joe, look out the window and see the future. There's Tiny Tim wearing a Trump hat. To the right is Nancy Pelosi retiring from the House after your party loses 100 seats next November. And finally, wait, I feel another ghostly presence! Why it's Ronald Reagan."</span><br /><br /><span>"Good evening, gentlemen, it's nice to be back in the White House this Christmas morning. It's tough riding horses in Santa Barbara when you're invisible."</span><br /><br /><span>"Do you have words of wisdom for me too, President Reagan?"</span><br /><br /><span>"Yes, Joe, I do. Just keep doing what you're doing!"</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-12-19T09:40:00ZThe Covid Hidden AgendaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Covid-Hidden-Agenda/422669439478689832.html2021-12-12T17:00:00Z2021-12-12T17:00:00Z<div>In the USA, the anti-vaxxers are dug in. Despite President Biden's promise to convince more than 70 percent of the adult population to accept the Covid shots, compliance remains in the 61 percent range. That's millions of folks vulnerable to the virus and the spread of it.</div>
<div><br /><span>Hard-right people and African Americans remain the primary resistors. Both groups say the same thing: they don't trust the government. So the Covid beat continues to vex the nation.</span><br /><br /><span>The progressive movement is firmly behind forcing people to get vaccinated. The US Constitution doesn't permit that unless Congress passes a new law, but the leftists are putting pressure on local governments to isolate the unvaxxed from commerce.</span><br /><br /><span>And it's worse in Europe. Starting in February it looks like Austrians could be fined just over $4,000 a month for refusing to get vaccinated.</span><br /><br /><span>Some on the right put forth that the totalitarian left, which dominates the progressive movement, is using the pandemic to set up an all-powerful central government in America. The corrupt media scoffs at that but I say - not so fast.</span><br /><br /><span>Let's travel down to New Zealand, an isolated island nation located between Australia and South America. Just 5 million people live there and they are known as Kiwis.</span><br /><br /><span>New Zealand is a very liberal country but has an extremely harsh Covid footprint. Even though only 46 Kiwis have died from Covid and 80 percent of the population is vaxxed, the Wellington government continues to lock down the country. Want to fly in for a look? You can't. All international travel is banned. Everyone is required to wear masks outside, no large groups are allowed.</span><br /><br /><span>Not a lot of protests over the tough measures. Kiwis are generally doing what they are told to do.</span><br /><br /><span>Now comes word that New Zealand plans to ban cigarettes. Not allowed, you'll be punished if you smoke them.</span><br /><br /><span>After successfully ordering strict Covid rules, the New Zealand government, a democracy, is now on the hunt to ban stuff, forever.</span><br /><br /><span>This is exactly what some conservatives in America predicted. That a centralized progressive government would use Covid to attack personal choice. You will comply or else.</span><br /><br /><span>Finally, I believe it is my patriotic duty to get vaxxed. I don't especially trust the government but I'm not a conspiracy monger. I believe the medical research and encourage others to do the same.</span><br /><br /><span>But the Kiwis have lost freedoms because the people have empowered the militant government. And that is worth thinking about.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-12-12T17:00:00ZStupid Is As Stupid DoesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Stupid-Is-As-Stupid-Does/-679852718356977176.html2021-12-05T12:21:00Z2021-12-05T12:21:00Z<span>Forrest Gump would be perplexed by the policies of the Biden administration. I hesitate to use the word "stupid" but Forrest might not be. Name-calling is tedious but sometimes a situation can only be described with a solid insult; thus stupid is in play.</span><br /><br /><span>Watching President Biden is now almost a full-time job for me. But I don't want to mimic the media Trump-haters who bashed the 45th president nonstop. That was corrupt and hurt this country dramatically.</span><br /><br /><span>With Joe Biden, I feel a mixture of sadness and anger. He is damaging America faster than any other president before him. A recent Trafalgar poll shows that we the people know that. Mr. Biden's job approval rating stands at 36 percent, a disaster by any measure.</span><br /><br /><span>My sadness comes because Joe Biden is a diminished man. I believe he is not in control of the Executive Branch and is growing mentally weaker every day. Of course, I could be wrong. But the evidence is on my side.</span><br /><br /><span>A few stark examples of President Biden's inexplicable decision-making.</span><br /><br /><span>What did he think was going to happen when he opened the southern border during a vicious pandemic to anyone who asked for asylum? Did he not understand that millions of foreign nationals would show up here, some with Covid? Biden has never explained his decision.</span><br /><br /><span>What did the President think would happen when he attacked the American gas and oil industry? Did he believe shutting pipelines and imposing regulations would lead to price stability in the energy markets? Now, Americans are getting hammered financially. He says it's just temporary. Maybe he's predicting a Trump re-election.</span><br /><br /><span>How about Afghanistan? Did the Commander-in-Chief think by cutting and running that something positive would happen? US weapons worth billions fell into the hands of the Taliban. Thousands of homicidal terrorists were set free from the Bagram prison. One of them murdered 13 American troops just days later.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden told the world his Afghan strategy was excellent.</span><br /><br /><span>Finally, crime. The progressive left controls Biden and its policies of no bail, far fewer prosecutions, and demonizing the police have directly led to the murders of thousands of Americans. You are not safe in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and many other big cities. The street violence is shocking. Has President Biden addressed this in any meaningful way?</span><br /><br /><span>No, he has not.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Gump nailed it with his mantra: stupid is as stupid does. For a moment, put aside the insulting word and just analyze Biden's policies.</span><br /><br /><span>What would you call them?</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-12-05T12:21:00ZA Very Biden ThanksgivingBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Very-Biden-Thanksgiving/549116982943046336.html2021-11-28T16:00:00Z2021-11-28T16:00:00Z<span>The Biden family has a tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving on Nantucket, an island belonging to Massachusetts. Very nice place if you can afford to live there. Few can.</span><br /><br /><span>The President's crew celebrated at the home of David Rubinstein, 72, a billionaire four times over. Rubinstein made his fortune taking over companies and then reselling them for huge profits. Elizabeth Warren hates him.</span><br /><br /><span>The Biden family had plenty of room to roam in the lavish, ocean-front estate worth about $20 million. Hunter Biden, in particular, found the environment much to his liking and was overheard saying: "Man, this is better than Ukraine."</span><br /><br /><span>His dad was also overheard asking Rubinstein: "You're richer than Barack's friends on Martha's Vineyard, right?"</span><br /><br /><span>The following is a partial transcript of the Thanksgiving dinner conversation. Be forewarned, it came to me from anonymous sources, people widely quoted in the Woodward books. So, I can't vouch. Anyway, here we go.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: If, in fact, it is Thanksgiving ...</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Joe, honey, it is a fact - it's Thanksgiving!</span><br /><br /><span>David Rubinstein: Welcome, everyone, to our beach house. We hope you enjoy the weekend, let the meal begin!</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter Biden: I'm expecting a call from Beijing. How's the cell service here?</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Hunter, sweetheart, let's say grace.</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter Biden: Grace? She's here?</span><br /><br /><span>Jill: No, the prayer.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: The Pope told me I'm a good Catholic, I know lots of prayers. At least I think that's what he said. He was speaking in rapid Spanish and kept asking if I wanted my parking ticket validated. If, in fact, I drove there which I think I did.</span><br /><br /><span>David Rubinstein: We have everything you could possibly want and I paid my fair share of taxes on the groceries which were 40 percent more expensive than last year.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: Here's the deal, pass the mashed potatoes. You know, David, we Bidens don't pay for anything. Never have. The government picks up everything. Right, Hunter?</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter Biden: It's the greatest deal! I don't even have a job!</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Let's pause to think about the less fortunate on this Thanksgiving.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: Man, that would be everybody. But I'm thinking specifically about Barack and Michelle.</span><br /><br /><span>David Rubinstein: So, Mr. President, how's Build Back Better going?</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: What?</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: You know, Joe, the five trillion dollar spending bills?</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: That's incredible. Can we really spend that much? How many zeros is that?</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: It's going great, David, we should get it passed by the lunar eclipse three years from now.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: Then everyone would pay their fair share except Hunter. We can't find his offshore accounts in the Caymans.</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter: You'll never find them, Dad ... (much chuckling and chortling).</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Oh, you guys! May I raise a Thanksgiving toast: here's to our gracious host, David, who has more money than anyone Michelle even knows!</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: And pays his fair share, that's what Anderson Cooper told me.</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter: I may have left another laptop at a pawn shop in Nantucket Town.</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Oh, honey, again?</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: If, in fact, he did, The New York Times will never run the story. That's so great!</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter Biden: Just thought of something. Where's Kamala today?</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Your father sent her to the border to give turkeys to the three million, six hundred and thirty thousand migrants who have joined us since the inauguration!</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter Biden: So, that means she went to LA.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: Kamala?</span><br /><br /><span>Jill Biden: Your Vice President, cupcake?</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: Yes, yes. So enjoy, everyone. Thanks, David. And to all, a goodnight!</span><br /><br /><span>Hunter Biden: That's Christmas, dad.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden: Zzzzzzz</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-11-28T16:00:00ZJoe and KyleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Joe-and-Kyle/-673822300283789746.html2021-11-20T21:39:00Z2021-11-20T21:39:00Z<div><span>The entire national media missed the second lead of the Rittenhouse verdict. While most fair-minded people anticipated an acquittal on the murder charges, the reaction to the not guilty mandate quickly took over reportage on the TV news networks.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>But instead of analyzing the only reaction that really matters, the statement from the President of the United States, the ratings-desperate networks gave us the Squad, Kaepernick, and the always astute Bette Midler.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Why? Everyone knows the far-left branded 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse a "white supremacist" moments after the story broke on August 25. And if you're a white racist, you are guilty of everything. You don't even deserve a trial.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The supremacist narrative was gleefully promoted by the progressive media even though evidence of Rittenhouse being a violent ideologue is non-existent. He is simply an immature kid who put himself and others in danger. He's lucky to be alive.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Two men he encountered on the white-hot streets of Kenosha are not alive. But there was overwhelming evidence they aggressively encountered Rittenhouse. Another man who was wounded even pointed a handgun at the boy at close range. In any civilized society, you have a right to self-defense even if you put yourself in a lethal situation, which Rittenhouse did.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Enter the increasingly irrational President. His office quickly turned out a statement saying Americans must "accept" the verdict. But Mr. Biden then said he was "angry" about the jury's decision.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>That is shocking in the historical sense. Why is the leader of the country angry? Does he think the folks on the jury are corrupt? Bigoted? Stupid? What's the deal, Joe?</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>What most likely happened is Biden's handlers told him to cast aspersions on the justice system. The progressive program is that most everything in the USA is manipulated by racist white men. So once again, Biden did what he was told to do despite admitting he watched none of the trial. Do the social math on that.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Last January I told my audience that I would give Joe Biden a chance. But it is clear to me today that the President is harming this nation in profound ways. His embrace of people who despise this country is inexplicable. His policies are a disaster across the board.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Mr. Biden's "anger" is just another pander to the dark forces who want to eliminate due process, foster racial hatred, and punish the "white patriarchy."</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Yes, he may not fully understand what he's doing. But another three years of him in the Oval Office will bring tragedy to this nation.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-11-20T21:39:00ZThe Titanic PeopleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Titanic-People/308958766991675342.html2021-11-14T20:01:00Z2021-11-14T20:01:00Z<div><span>They went down with the ship. Incompetence and poor planning doomed them. On April 15, 1912, around 1,500 passengers and crew died ghastly deaths in the freezing North Atlantic Ocean.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The Titanic hit an iceberg and there were only 20 lifeboats secured on the vessel - room for 1,178 people. That was the lethal problem as there were an estimated 2,224 on board.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Criminal negligence. The lack of planning led to horror.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Today, the United States of America lacks planning in any meaningful way because its President simply is not able to do his job. You know the list, humiliation in Afghanistan, no preparation for supply chain problems, disastrous energy decisions, damaging inflation. While the confused Attorney General threatens parents at school board meetings, thousands are murdered in big-city streets. Putin is massing Russian troops on the Polish border, China is salivating over the "Build Back Better" bill knowing it will reap billions of dollars in "green" product buys.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>In the face of all that and much more, polls say 40 percent of American adults continue to believe Joe Biden is doing a good job. Incomprehensible.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>I divide the daydream believers into three main categories. The largest group will not consume information unless a wildfire is in their front yard. Totally detached from reality, this crew could not care less what happens in their country as long as they can negotiate a Big Mac.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The second category is comprised of zealots, progressive fanatics who, unlike the first group, actually despise America. Black Lives Matter, George Soros, Colin Kaepernick, more than a few commentators paid by NBC/Comcast to utter far-left hate gibberish on MSNBC.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>That group relishes the decline of the country. When Mr. Biden recently said he would finally begin to "discuss" the corrosive inflation surge with "experts," the Bernie Sanders cadre smiled. When the government prints trillions of dollars to cover centralized spending, Joe, inflation will go up. Fast. Bring socialist Bernie in, he'll explain how worthy that is if you want a revolt in the free marketplace.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The last crew are the Trump haters. Biden is better than Trump, no matter what. See you at the bottom of the ocean.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Collectively, I brand the above-described Americans the "The Titanic People" because they support Biden's incredible ineptitude and seem to be willing to go down with the ship.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Just last week the President asked rhetorically, "did you ever think you'd be paying this much for a gallon of gas?"</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>No, Joe, we didn't. Not until you began destroying the American energy industry on your first day in office." Then many of us recoiled and knew.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>But not the Titanic people. They still don't know nor do they care.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-11-14T20:01:00ZCorruptionBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Corruption/399991530595324941.html2021-11-07T19:21:00Z2021-11-07T19:21:00Z<span>According to recent surveys, Americans don't trust the federal government nor do they have much faith in the press. Whether the topic is the 2020 presidential election, or the Covid vaccine, or spending billions of taxpayer dollars to stop global warming, suspicion reigns.</span><br /><span><br />And that skepticism is well placed.</span><br /><span><br />Back in 2016, when Donald Trump began succeeding in his quest to become the 45th President, a nasty scheme emerged to destroy him.</span><br /><span><br />The media dubbed it "Russian Collusion" and, for years, ran wild with speculation that Russia was either helping or blackmailing Donald Trump. Perhaps both.</span><br /><span><br />Here's how it worked. The FBI was fed phony accusations by "operatives" that led to the Bureau launching a formal investigation. Using unverified information which turned out to be fictional, secret federal warrants were obtained that allowed spying on the Trump campaign. Along with that, untrue information was leaked by "anonymous sources" to the leftist media led by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News.</span><br /><span><br />The Times even won a Pulitzer Prize for covering the phony story. Not for exposing it as bogus, but for printing the falsehoods without attribution. One Times reporter, Maggie Haberman, reportedly wrote more than 100 stories critical of Trump using anonymous sources.</span><br /><span><br />Let me repeat: the New York Times won the most prestigious journalism award in the world for essentially spreading false information.</span><br /><span><br />The American taxpayer then picked up a $35 million dollar tab for a "special investigation" headed by Independent Counsel Robert Mueller.</span><br /><span><br />The probe found there was no verifiable collusion with Russia. But it took two years for that to be determined. In the meantime, Donald Trump was savaged daily in the press.</span><br /><span><br />Now another investigation, this one headed by US Attorney John Durham, is finally issuing indictments in this incredible situation. Three individuals have been charged and the emerging picture is that the bogus Russian Collusion story was concocted and financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign.</span><br /><span><br />If true, that would be one of the most corrupt political actions in American history.</span><br /><span><br />Mrs. Clinton will, of course, deny any knowledge of criminality. And she is entitled to the presumption of innocence that Donald Trump did not receive. Mr. Trump, himself, is rightfully furious over this whole thing and has called for the Pulitzer committee to revoke the prize. </span><br /><span><br />That will never happen.</span><br /><span><br />Why? Because the media industry is so corrupt that false stories no longer matter. Not one news agency has apologized for dereliction of duty in using a fabricated scenario to vilify and smear the Republican presidential candidate.</span><br /><span><br />The lesson here is frightening: when the national press is corrupt, devious political players know they can get away with outright fraud and massive deceit.</span><br /><span><br />And that's where we are in the United States today. Ronald Reagan once said: "trust but verify." But verification no longer matters to a national press infected with an ideological virus. </span><br /><span><br />Thus, there is no trust.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-11-07T19:21:00ZThe Woke vs. The AwakenedBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Woke-vs.-The-Awakened/404217847049386639.html2021-10-31T18:43:00Z2021-10-31T18:43:00Z<span>So now the "tomahawk chop" that fans do at the Atlanta Braves stadium is racist. Does Jane Fonda know? While married to one-time Braves owner Ted Turner, the liberal icon was chopping all over the place.</span><br /><span><br />Shame, shame, Jane!</span><br /><span><br />Doesn't she understand doing a tomahawk motion in support of a baseball team demeans Native Americans? Especially when it's done by white fans who apparently are insensitive to what their ancestors did to the Indians.</span><br /><span><br />Wait, can I say Indians? Is "original settlers" better?" I don't know. Maybe the very woke Sports Illustrated magazine can tell me. It ran the piece calling millions of fans racist for doing the chop.</span><br /><span><br />Then there's the Melrose, Massachusetts school district which banished Halloween. Not sure why but something about minority kids being scared. That seems to be a bit racist, doesn't it? Only non-white children are frightened by the Eve of All Hallows? Who knew?</span><br /><span><br />How about those new US Passports with no gender listed. Just an "X." Why X, why not K? I can't answer that question but I will say if you try to enter Saudi Arabia with a passport stating you're an X, you might be in line for a while.</span><br /><span><br />I sense an awakening coming. A backlash against the woke monsters who are devouring American culture one display at a time. Woke is essentially a totalitarian movement perfected by that champion virtue-signaler Mao Zedong. Beginning in 1949, the corpulent Mao completely wiped out traditional Chinese culture, replacing it with communist woke stuff.</span><br /><span><br />And if you didn't accept Mao's version of woke-ism, he had you shot. Power to the people!</span><br /><span><br />Joe Biden is woke even though he is fond of naps. Last week he appointed a "gender-equity" czarina. Can I say czarina? If not, I apologize.</span><br /><span><br />The President likes diversity as well. And really loves social justice along with environmental justice. He wants to spend $550 million taxpayer dollars to ensure "justice" is served. Mr. Biden says it's "an investment." Got it!</span><br /><span><br />The woke monsters are everywhere, reminding us what we can no longer say or do. They are often snooty zealots who might have tried out for Mao's "Red Guards" in '49. They are on a mission to collapse independent thought and turn Americans into politically correct pod people.</span><br /><span><br />But some folks are awakening to the threat here. This woke madness has taken root and is largely supported by the corporate media. Disney is perhaps the most woke company on the planet even as it charges $235 a ticket to visit its theme parks over Christmas vacation. Not sure if that promotes diversity.</span><br /><span><br />The truth is that we the people, collectively, have more power than the corrupt media and we outnumber the woke monsters by a big margin.</span><br /><span><br />So we have to mobilize to defeat this madness. Let's peacefully confront those who are acting as thought police. Simply tell those people to knock it off in your presence.</span><br /><span><br />And then do the tomahawk chop.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-10-31T18:43:00ZProtecting JoeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Protecting-Joe/-603417423824564173.html2021-10-24T17:38:00Z2021-10-24T17:38:00Z<span>The stage was set. CNN had the evening nicely positioned for a Town Hall with President Biden. A liberal audience in Baltimore along with the very friendly Anderson Cooper who's been there before. What could go wrong?</span><br /><span><br />Nothing. Well, maybe one thing.</span><br /><span><br />Nobody watched.</span><br /><span><br />Just 1.3 million viewers tuned in. Fox News crushed the Biden exposition, even the hapless MSNBC had significantly more viewers. Now, that circumstance happens daily on the Cable News Network because it's largely boring and biased. But when you heavily promote a 90 minute special with the President of the United States, you expect more than 1.3. Come on, man, there are 330-million people in this country!</span><br /><span><br />Joe Biden, himself, was energetic and fairly relaxed on camera. He understood that CNN had gathered audience questions in advance and there would be few of a challenging nature. Mr. Biden also knew that Cooper would save him if he faltered - and old Anderson came through by quickly getting away from the border issue.</span><br /><span><br />From the start, Mr. Biden stayed on message by promising to give Americans trillions of dollars in government subsidies. Even when a civilian asked when gas prices would drop, Joe predicted next year but don't worry about it. There are government giveaways that will compensate for higher fuel costs. Joey Warbucks is on the case.</span><br /><span><br />Sadly, the question and answer format was tedious. Largely because the President has no solutions to problems and Cooper wouldn't ask probing questions because the fix was in.</span><br /><span><br />Example. Mr. Biden adamantly supports Covid mandates and the left-leaning audience applauded his opinion. At that point, Anderson Cooper could have asked a very simple but necessary question: "Mr. President, if mandates suppress the spread of Covid, why does Florida have the lowest transmission rate in the nation. As you know, Florida passed a law BANNING mandates."</span><br /><span><br />Again, Mr. Cooper could have asked that question. And CNN could apologize for totally botching the "Russian-collusion" thing.</span><br /><span><br />Neither will ever happen.</span><br /><span><br />My favorite moment was when Joe Biden actually told the world he hasn't had time to visit the southern border, which is under siege from foreign nationals. No joke, Mr. Biden said he has no time. Anderson Cooper just stood there, mouth closed.</span><br /><span><br />And now you know why the American people don't have time to watch the President on CNN.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-10-24T17:38:00ZThe StealBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Steal/-404536639918521996.html2021-10-17T18:44:00Z2021-10-17T18:44:00Z<span>It was always wrong. But no one could explain exactly how votes were being corrupted in the 2020 presidential election. Trump legal people like Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell ran around condemning voting machines and promoting shady allegations of fraud. But they could never produce forensic evidence of wrongdoing - and both have suffered greatly for their advocacy.</span><br /><span><br />Attorney General William Barr publicly stated that election fraud was committed. Then he disappeared. To this day, President Trump is crazed over the vote. But he and his supporters were on the wrong trail.</span><br /><span><br />I, your humble correspondent, watched closely as the situation unfolded. Corruption in precincts like Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia is not exactly unheard of - is it?</span><br /><span><br />But, again, no hard evidence came forward and I accurately reported that.</span><br /><span><br />Now, a terrible picture is beginning to emerge and ground zero is Silicon Valley, California.</span><br /><span><br />That's where Mark Zuckerberg lives. The Facebook chief apparently took a very large financial interest in the Trump/Biden race for the White House. How large? Well, how about $420 million dollars.</span><br /><span><br />According to a number of reports which have not been denied, Mr. Zuckerberg donated that colossal amount of money to </span><span>couple of "non-partisan," tax-exempt political operations: The Center for Technology and Civic Life and The Center for Election Innovation and Research.</span><br /><span><br />Turns out these two "centers" are about as non-partisan as Nancy Pelosi.</span><br /><span><br />Reporter Mollie Hemingway, who works for Heritage, investigated the Zuckerberg situation and calls it "genius."</span><br /><span><br />Here's how it worked.</span><span><span><br /></span></span>
<ul>
<li>"Vote Navigators" were paid well to canvas mostly poor neighborhoods that traditionally vote for Democrats. Often, these ballot mercenaries would go inside the homes of voters.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Even though it is a crime in all 50 states to "electioneer" at polling places where you walk into and vote, it is not a criminal activity for a third party to interfere with a mail-in ballot. That's the vital loophole.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Thousands of navigators flooded the democrat precincts In Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia - all states that were close between Biden and Trump.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The navigators "assisted" voters in filling out ballots and, at times, "cured" mistakes. That means they corrected ballots so they wouldn't be thrown out.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Sometimes the hired political guns took the actual ballots from the folks and brought them to polling places. That is called "bundling."</li>
</ul>
<span>The result was a much higher vote count for Joe Biden, as citizens who rarely participate in elections did so with the tutoring.</span><br /><span><br />So, now we know why the left loves mail-in ballots so much. They can easily be manipulated with guys like Zuckerberg donating cash to make it happen.</span><br /><span><br />By the way, Marky Mark broke no laws. What he did was perfectly legal and if the states don't crack down on this colossal con, it will happen again in 2024.</span><br /><span><br />Donald Trump lost some of the states mentioned above by extremely small margins. So, this is an enormously important story.</span><br /><span><br />But chances are you will not see it on the network news because the fix is in there, as well. A situation of this magnitude should be front page, lead on TV, for days.</span><br /><span><br />That will not happen and "the steal" could very well continue next time around. So goes our democracy.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-10-17T18:44:00ZEyes Wide ShutBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Eyes-Wide-Shut/-7195899720559134.html2021-10-10T09:25:00Z2021-10-10T09:25:00Z<span>Perhaps the most incompetent president in American history arrived in Chicago last week to encourage Windy City residents to vax up. Joe Biden was on a mission to save lives, he said. He was looking out for the folks. He is the Covid slayer.</span><br /><span><br />Long-time Chicago journalist John Kass was outraged as Biden met with Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker. Obsessed with the vaccine, the President failed to address the slaughter of primarily black people on the streets of Chicago. The violence has been going on for years and the Democratic machine that controls the city doesn't care if young black children become homicide stats as 7-year-old Serenity Broughton did a few weeks ago. Serenity and her six-year-old sister, Aubrey, were sitting in their parent's car when the bullets suddenly came. Aubrey was shot in the chest but survived.</span><br /><span><br />Joe Biden most likely doesn't know about the little girls and, based upon his rhetoric and actions, couldn't care less. What he SHOULD know is that Democrat prosecutors in the nation's three largest cities, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, routinely drop felony charges against violent individuals. Ask any cop in those towns. The law enforcement strategy embraced by the progressive movement is directly leading to thousands of violent deaths across this country.</span><br /><span><br />So, where is President Biden on the issue? Nowhere, that's where. He's too busy calling his own country a racist place to actually deal with real racism: the horrendous murder toll among African-Americans.</span><br /><span><br />Joe Biden doesn't have to think about that safe in his Rehoboth Beach enclave. He can't see the drug gangs wielding weapons from his cloister inside the White House. In fact, Mr. Biden is totally blind on just about every serious problem the nation faces.</span><br /><span><br />He's not alone. Governor Pritzker, a corpulent poser with a bad dye job, has run Illinois into the ground. This year alone, 185 people have been shot driving on Chicago Expressways. But Pritzker is safe; he has a state police escort.</span><br /><span><br />Biden and his band of progressive deconstructionists are gravely harming all Americans. The collapse of public safety on the streets and at the border is obvious if you want to look.</span><br /><span><br />But Joe Biden doesn't want to look. He is too busy doing what his far-left handlers tell him to do - too befuddled to actually run the country in an effective way.<br /><br /></span><span>He is truly a man with his eyes wide shut.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-10-10T09:25:00ZBeware, the PronounBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beware-the-Pronoun/937486520609359174.html2021-10-03T15:00:00Z2021-10-03T15:00:00ZWith sincere apologies to Jesus, there are some people I cannot abide by. I do believe we are all God's children, but certain folks I have encountered need to go to boarding school. Forever. So I don't have to deal with them.<br /><br /><span>UnChristian? Certainly. Intolerant, all day long. I hope the deity forgives me.</span><br /><br /><span>My judgmental attitude really kicked into gear during the late 1960s. That was the time when young people actually said things like: "It's far out, man. Groovy, not a drag at all. Know what I'm sayin'? Right on!"</span><br /><br /><span>Right back. Then I disappeared faster than a muffin on a cruise ship.</span><br /><br /><span>Cliches drive me insane but using words to fill the air with foolish garbage is far worse. So, now, I would like to warn you about contemporary words and phrases that signal danger.</span><br /><br /><span>Let's begin with "cisgender." This word is almost always used by leftists who flunked biology. It means "a person whose sense of identity corresponds with birth sex." So, if you're born a male you act like a boy and later a man. That's cisgender.</span><br /><br /><span>However, woke people object and I guess they also despise the Spencer Davis Group who once loudly wailed: "I'm a man, yes I am, and I can't help but love you so!"</span><br /><br /><span>If you hear a person lamenting "cisgender" behavior, run fast.</span><br /><br /><span>Next up is " empower." This word is mostly used by folks who believe they are victims and want to arrange some payback. Don't wait around.</span><br /><br /><span>Then there are people who demand "safe spaces." Once again, they are often among the victim crew who are constantly offended by "micro-aggressions." If you are near someone seeking a "safe space," follow Paul Simon's simple philosophy: "just slip out the back, Jack..."</span><br /><br /><span>And finally, people who object to "cultural appropriation." Those folks amuse me from a distance because I won't get anywhere near them. There is a big list of banned Halloween costumes because of CA.</span><br /><br /><span>Let's see. Want to dress up as Cochise, the great Apache chief? Are you freakin' kidding? Sociology students from Yale will burn down your house.</span><br /><br /><span>How about wearing a Mexican sombrero? Uh, no. But you can dress up like a leprechaun on St. Patrick's Day. Can't figure that one out.</span><br /><br /><span>Back to the Eve of All Hallows. Mrs. Doubtfire? No. Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie, don't even think about it. George Washington? Slaveowner. General Patton, way too many micro-aggressions!</span><br /><br /><span>Peter Pan? Watch it. Cinderella? Too dependent on the prince and cisgender to boot. Pinocchio, the nose might make some feel bad.</span><br /><br /><span>The list of banned costumes and words is endless. The entire cultural madness we are seeing is right out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". About the only thing sane people can do is employ another phrase from the 1960s.</span><br /><br /><span>Beat feet.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-10-03T15:00:00ZThe RulesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Rules/12427171480123798.html2021-09-26T10:43:00Z2021-09-26T10:43:00Z<span>Man, it's not easy to be a woke progressive these days. So many controversies, so little time to think up ways to justify a far-left lifestyle. It's crazy. So, I am here to help. Here are some rules to lighten the burden of woke Americans.</span><br /><br />No criticism of minority communities. Don't do it, ever. The CDC says only about 30 percent of African-Americans have accepted Covid vaccinations. A very low number. Blacks have a reason to be suspicious of authority but, again, ignore the situation. Concentrate on demonizing Trump voters who are anti-vax.<br /><br />Sometimes you will have to shake your head when President Biden comes up in conversation. But never, ever concede that he may be incompetent. Just deflect back to Trump. The best way to protect your guy Joe is to despise Donald. Easy one, right?<br /><br />On the collapse of the southern border always play the "compassion card." That makes you noble and then you can dismiss those who would like to see immigration laws enforced as horrible, mean individuals. Have a quote handy from Pope Francis to do this.<br /><br />But never use the Pope on abortion. He called it "homicide" last week. How dare he? That's an outrage. Fetal heartbeat - doesn't matter. Make it clear that you, the progressive, worship at the altar of reproductive rights. Play the "women's rights" card because you'll draw a straight flush.<br /><br />Do not, I repeat do not - say you're a socialist. Even if you are. Bernie Sanders has it covered so you don't need to be Leon Trotsky. If someone asks you point-blank 'are you a socialist?' you immediately quote John Belushi ..."nooooooooooo!"<br /><br />However, you should always point out that billionaires and corporations aren't paying their "fair share." Now, I understand that mantra may be vastly overused but so what? It shuts up those greedy capitalists, right?<br /><br />Finally, the most important progressive rule is to find offense. This is your daily chore. You must be offended at least five times a day so you can lash out on Twitter against the oppressors. This rule has been very effective on college campuses and is perfect for shutting down opposing points of view. Simply say "I don't feel safe." Then point out who is scaring you and demand they be punished.<br /><br /><span>This is the core woke rule: no opposition will be tolerated under any circumstances because you are frightened of "micro-aggressions" and have a perfect right to be.</span><br /><br /><span>Summing up, I hope all of you progressives feel better, safer, and more "empowered" after hearing these rules. And one more thing. Forget about the Golden Rule that says treat others as you would like to be treated. That's obsolete. Today, it's my way or we bury you under the highway.</span><br /><br /><span>An excellent progressive rule for the road, so to speak.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-09-26T10:43:00ZThe Deception ZoneBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Deception-Zone/-281513682966510154.html2021-09-19T18:13:00Z2021-09-19T18:13:00Z<span>Last week President Biden read the teleprompter for a few minutes touting his $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill. Even though the smart money knows this is a flat-out socialist scheme, the President says it is not and loudly proclaimed: "I'm a capitalist!"</span><br /><br /><span>Well, we know Hunter Biden is a crony capitalist but dad? Here's the truth: he is what his handlers tell him to be.</span><br /><br /><span>In the speech, Mr. Biden embraced deception the way my Corgi consumes dinner, ferociously. Let's run it down.</span><br /><br /><span>The overarching Biden point is that the U.S. tax code is crooked and rich white guys benefit most. Okay, so why doesn't the President call for a "flat tax" where all corporate and private loopholes are banished and taxation is based on a percentage of gross income and profits?</span><br /><span><br />The more you earn, the more you pay with reasonable caps so companies and private citizens are not "punished for success."</span><br /><br /><span>I'll tell you why Joe Biden doesn't do that. First, his home state of Delaware is the Shangri-La of corporate tax loopholes and Biden protects that. And secondly, a flat tax is fair to working Americans so the progressives would lose their grievance card.</span><br /><br /><span>Now back to the speech.</span><br /><br /><span>The President began his deception by saying this: "Here's the simple truth. </span><br /><span>For a long time, this economy has worked great for those at the very top, while ordinary, hardworking Americans ... have been basically cut out of the deal."</span><br /><br /><span>But that statement is misleading in the extreme.</span><br /><br /><span>Six years ago, the median household income in the USA was $56,516 according to Census.gov. Now it's close to $68,000. That's a colossal jump, especially because inflation was not a factor in the Trump economy.</span><br /><br /><span>Minority workers also benefited under President Trump. In 2019, the smallest gap in history between white-black unemployment rates proved that.</span><br /><br /><span>But Joe Biden is unfazed by facts and data. He sees his job as telling Americans they are getting screwed by greedy white men. "The fact is our economy faced challenges long before this pandemic struck. Working people were struggling to make it long before the pandemic arrived.</span><br /><br /><span>Struggling? The fact is Americans have one of the highest living standards in the world coupled with the most opportunity anywhere on the planet. That's because of capitalism. We produce far more than any European nation per capita. No one is even close.</span><br /><br /><span>Not enough for Joe Biden. He wants the federal government in charge of distributing wealth, not the private sector. His giveaways in the so-called "infrastructure bill" are endless with the goal of creating citizen dependency on Washington.</span><br /><br /><span>In response to Biden's massive spending proposal, even some liberal economists are worried about the deleterious effects of higher taxes on those who drive the economy. Writing in The New York Times, Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw says this: "Compassion is a virtue, but so is respect for those who are talented, hardworking and successful.</span><br /><br /><span>"The entire $3.5 trillion package is too big and too risky. The wiser course is to take more incremental steps rather than try to remake the economy in one fell swoop."</span><br /><br /><span>But President Biden and the word "wise" are not compatible. The progressives want a European-style socialist system immediately and old Joe has bought in.</span><br /><br /><span>There is no deception in that analysis. It is absolutely true. No joke.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-09-19T18:13:00ZLostBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Lost/105526475900303462.html2021-09-12T07:00:00Z2021-09-12T07:00:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>While various corporate news people spotlight the intense division in America, which the corrupt media cheers on, few will report the real story facing this country: the amazing ability of President Biden to create disastrous situations.</span><br /><span><br />The Covid mandates are the latest demonstration of Mr. Biden’s incompetence. Instead of rallying the nation to combat the virus on a personal level, the President demonizes the unvaccinated and tries to punish them.</span><br /><span><br />It’s not that the basic premise is wrong - it isn’t. Unvaccinated adults are allowing the virus to spread quicker. That’s the truth no matter what the far-right puts forth. But by going full-tilt authoritarian, Biden gives ammunition to the vaccine resistors, makes them sympathetic in some quarters. Thus, anti-vax opposition deepens and more Americans get sick.</span><br /><span><br />We all know how Mr. Biden screwed up Afghanistan, and his destruction of America’s border security is a big-time scandal - even if the corrupt corporate media ignores it.</span><br /><span><br />But the worst may be yet to come.</span><br /><span><br />Here’s the brutal truth: Joe Biden is not able to mentally assess cause and effect. He was stunned when Afghanistan fell, not understanding his foolish strategy led to it.</span><br /><span><br />He completely hides from the collapsing southern border even though his executive orders to stop the wall and cease immediate deportations to Mexico have caused millions of migrants to cross illegally into the USA.</span><br /><span><br />Biden’s attack on the American oil industry has directly led to higher pump prices, his embrace of late-term abortion has angered millions of human beings who were allowed to be birthed.</span><br /><span><br />The radical-left progressives who run Biden know full well the man cannot grasp the consequences of his actions. And the US economy is up next.</span><br /><span><br />The socialists understand that only making millions of Americans dependent on government handouts will incite a change from capitalism to federal control of the economy. Socialism will only happen if Americans give up trying to earn their prosperity and allow Washington to “provide.”</span><br /><span><br />That’s what the $3.5 trillion “infrastructure” bill is all about - creating dependence on government giveaways. Free stuff is a powerful drug.</span><br /><span><br />President Biden, in my opinion, is totally oblivious to the consequences of record government spending and the draconian tax hikes that will accompany it. And when the economy crashes, which it will if this insane spending continues, Biden will do exactly what he did with Afghanistan: declare some kind of “excellent” outcome.</span><br /><span><br />But this time Americans will feel the pain directly - just as the Afghans are today.</span><br /><span><br />President Biden is completely lost. And so are many of the folks who are enabling him. But not all. There are forces in this country actually rooting for the demise of traditional America. And Joe Biden, knowingly or not, is helping them.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-09-12T07:00:00ZThe Biden CircumstanceBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Biden-Circumstance/540832577157500458.html2021-09-05T10:16:00Z2021-09-05T10:16:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">Unintended consequences often lead to crushing reality. When we do something that doesn’t work out (job, marriage, investment) there is usually hell to pay, as the cliche goes.<br /><br /><span>That’s where President Biden finds himself on Afghanistan. The botched US withdrawal will haunt him the rest of his days and will hurt America in a variety of ways.</span><br /><br /><span>It doesn’t matter what Jen Psaki, the minister of propaganda, or the corrupt corporate media puts forth. The truth is that only a heroic action in the future by the President could mitigate this colossal screwup. Place your bets now if you think old Joe will deliver heroism.</span><br /><br /><span>Let’s start with the reinvigorated jihadist movement. Now, the fanatical Muslim killers have a huge safe haven. If they have cable in hell, Osama bin Laden is dancing with the devil.</span><br /><br /><span>As Americans endure the 20th anniversary of 9/11, terrorists all over the world have reason to mobilize. A weak US president encourages that.</span><br /><br /><span>Then there is Great Britain, America’s most important ally. The government there apparently thinks Biden is a ninny. Even leftist Brits are generally appalled the USA did not work with Downing Street in abandoning Afghanistan.</span><br /><br /><span>China and Russia have to be very pleased by Joe Biden’s failure. Expect trouble from those countries shortly.</span><br /><br /><span>But it is in the United States where the consequences will be most immediately felt. Joe Biden is now a weakened leader, all the job approval polling demonstrates that. So, his domestic agenda will be more difficult to pass. Many in Congress believe he is a detriment to the country so his “bully pulpit” is receding. Fast.</span><br /><br /><span>Independent-minded voters have eyes. They clearly see that Biden is not really in command and his policies have been terrible at the southern border and in Afghanistan. Economic hardship will likely follow and that will absolutely alienate working-class Americans.</span><br /><br /><span>Joe Biden can hide but he cannot run from his circumstance. Again, only a big win by the President can reverse his very visible failures. He is now being compared to Jimmy Carter as the midterm elections loom.</span><br /><br /><span>It isn’t completely over for Mr. Biden, but he’s behind by many touchdowns in the first quarter. And the world knows it.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-09-05T10:16:00ZTime for Straight TalkBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Time-for-Straight-Talk/326724391779452506.html2021-08-29T17:54:00Z2021-08-29T17:54:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>This column will take no prisoners. Nor will it evacuate anyone. No, what I am writing needs to be said and I will say it.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden is not able to effectively run the United States of America. He is directly responsible for the death and destruction in Afghanistan as well as thousands of poor migrants being brutalized in Mexico at this very moment.<br /></span><br /><span>These are humanitarian disasters on a massive scale.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Biden is a diminished man living in a world of delusion. And now the entire world knows it.</span><br /><br /><span>No one really understands who, exactly, is running the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. It is certainly not Joe Biden. But the President hired his staff and the cabinet members and the woke Generals, who are embarrassing the military and putting them in grave danger.</span><br /><br /><span>The corrupt corporate media is also responsible for the incredible mess Biden has caused in seven months. Its destructive hatred of President Trump has led us to this point. The press did everything it could, including peddling rank falsehoods, to demean and destroy Mr. Trump. The result: perhaps the most incompetent leader in American history today works in the Oval Office.</span><br /><br /><span>Even now, anti-Trump fanatics like Juan Williams and Matthew Dowd spew incomprehensible gibberish about what a great job old Joe is doing.</span><br /><br /><span>The Democratic Party is also responsible for the madness that’s on vivid display. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not answer questions about Afghanistan. Why should she? The Congresswoman can’t even explain why her own San Francisco district is overrun with criminality and social chaos. </span><br /><br /><span>In addition, every single American who voted for Joe Biden is indirectly responsible for America’s dramatic decline. And it’s not just overseas or at the border. Inflation is galloping, the individual work ethic is being destroyed - right along with important American traditions like due process and self-reliance.</span><br /><br /><span>Yes, most people who voted for Biden did so to get rid of Trump. But casting a ballot on emotion almost always leads to disaster. And that’s what we are now facing as a nation.</span><br /><br /><span>Like many Americans, I cringe when the President of the United States has to answer questions or read the teleprompter. I’ve been around long enough to know when a person is not able to do a job. There is no debate about this - Joe Biden cannot run the country and the damage he is doing is incalculable.</span><br /><br /><span>As for a comeback, come on, man (as Biden might say)! Biology is a definite science. Every person ages. All of us are slaves to time.</span><br /><br /><span>Joe Biden’s time has passed. He is not capable of complicated decision-making. He and his band of enablers are not going to improve.</span><br /><br /><span>That’s the truth. I’m glad I told it.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-08-29T17:54:00ZRiding Out the StormBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Riding-Out-the-Storm/75568649290389557.html2021-08-23T01:08:00Z2021-08-23T01:08:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>Sorry, this column is a bit late but it’s Henri’s fault. The hurricane whipped through my backyard in eastern Long Island but did little damage other than scaring Holly the Terror Dog.</span><br /><span><br />While preparing for Henri, I did a metaphorical thing; calculating the odds that President Biden will ride out storm Afghanistan.</span><br /><span><br />Trump and Bush, the younger, would have been decimated by the corrupt media had the Afghan chaos happened on their watches. Most sane people know that. Mr. Biden is getting some jazz from his enablers but, trust me on this, they are looking for a hard news diversion. One will arise soon.</span><br /><span><br />But it really doesn’t matter. The American people now know for certain that Joe Biden cannot do his job. And the fact that he refuses to acknowledge any screwups whatsoever just highlights his confused state of mind.</span><br /><span><br />For months, I have been telling you the President is a diminished man. I did not cheap-shot him with dementia allegations or other personal stuff. I simply know he is not able to run this country responsibly. This is not an ideological analysis even though the progressive left controls Biden. It’s simple: Joe Biden cannot retain information or absorb details about complicated situations. That is the truth.</span><br /><span><br />So what now? Well, the Republicans should do very well in the midterm elections. That vote in November 2022, is crucial if traditional America is to be saved. It’s not that GOP politicians are brilliant or noble. Many are a long way from that. But all this socialism woke fascism, and racial equity will never be a part of the Republican platform.</span><br /><span><br />I don’t expect President Biden to be replaced by Kamala Harris. The Democrat leadership understands she will never win over the majority of voters. So, the blue people will ride out Biden, hoping for a miracle.</span><br /><span><br />History does have a way of self-correcting and the United States has always come back strong from disasters. We will this time too, I believe. But not before more pain - express delivered by a federal government which has completely lost its way.</span><br /><span><br />So, it’s up to "we the people" to save the country once again. No other way out.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-08-23T01:08:00ZQuite a Cuomo-tionBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Quite-a-Cuomo-tion/942449361106470566.html2021-08-15T10:31:00Z2021-08-15T10:31:00Z<div style="text-align: left;"><span>CNN will not fire Chris Cuomo. Unless, of course, he refuses to get vaxxed. Then he’ll be outta there faster than the network’s falling ratings.</span><br /><br /><span>And Mr. Cuomo shouldn’t be sacked simply for being a good brother. Loyalty in America is now rare because it requires caring about another person enough to put yourself at risk. 'What? What’s that? Loyalty?' I can hear the millennial confusion from coast to coast.</span><br /><br /><span>Here’s how I see this: Chris Cuomo believes his governor brother is innocent of intentional misbehavior because that’s what Andrew Cuomo quite clearly says. And in close-knit families, you support your siblings.</span><br /><br /><span>Before the workplace allegations, Chris had put Andy on his CNN program a number of times and they yukked it up - despite thousands of senior citizens dying in New York nursing homes because of Governor Cuomo’s reckless Covid order. Chris might have been lifting weights when that happened because he didn’t really address it. And he should have known better than to play Bud Abbott to Andy’s Lou Costello.</span><br /><br /><span>So where was CNN’s management while the Andy and Chris show was flowering? Well, they were where they always are - practicing being “woke.” Old people? Not a money demographic. Unless they’re trans old people.</span><br /><br /><span>The CNN poohbahs encouraged the Brother Act so how can they now fire a guy they, themselves, allowed to run wild? And what would be the reason for termination? Violating journalistic standards? Come on. Chris Cuomo’s program has nothing to do with journalism - it is designed and executed to give leftwing folks solace. Cuomo isn’t a bad guy, he’s a pliant guy. He does what CNN wants him to do.</span><br /><br /><span>In fact, that network is doing so poorly, it might consider a new primetime show called “The Cuomo Promo.” Chris and Andrew would co-anchor discussing a variety of topics such as narcissism and capitalizing on your famous name. The bros seem to have some chemistry and maybe people would watch. Maybe not.</span><br /><br /><span>In the end, Chris Cuomo will keep his job because his boss, Jeff Zucker, likes him. That’s loyalty too, in a somewhat twisted way. And all this talk about “standards” is the biggest baloney sandwich in the world.</span><br /><br /><span>Summing up: the Cuomo brothers once had it all - just like Bogie and Bacall. But now the ghost of bad karma has paid them a visit and the confrontation was harsh.</span><br /><br /><span>No need to pile on.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-08-15T10:31:00ZThe MobBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Mob/597067098356760808.html2021-08-08T08:35:00Z2021-08-08T08:35:00Z<div style="text-align: center;"><span>“Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."<br /></span>- The Doors<br /><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><span>Most Americans are fed up with the woke mob. I firmly believe that. They understand the vicious premise of that crew. The virtue-signaling, the arrogant superiority, the condemnation of anyone who refuses to bow to political correctness.</span><br /><br />If you had to break down the mob’s philosophy to its essence it would be this: they think they are superior human beings, better than you and me.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />In reality, the woke fanatics are totalitarians. They want to hurt folks who hold opposing points of view. <br /><br />They support taking their jobs, humiliating them with unproven accusations (Bret Kavanaugh), even banishing human beings from society.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Recently, the woke mob in San Francisco tried to cancel Abraham Lincoln’s name from a school. The backlash was tremendous so even in the shining city of woke, the totalitarians had to back down. But, believe me, they have not learned their lesson.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />The truth is that anyone could be grievously harmed by the cancel culture movement. We are all fallible and weak in certain areas. And, if you are a traditional public person, the woke mob may very well come for you.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Here’s the proof. Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be canceled today because of his relationship with Lucy Mercer. America’s best general in World War II, George Patton, would be banished for his overall demeanor.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />General Dwight Eisenhower might be court-martialed today over his relationship with Kay Summersby. Don’t even ask about John F. Kennedy.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />President Nixon was effectively canceled and deserved it. Lyndon Johnson got away with his dastardly treatment of women. In this environment, LBJ would be in solitary confinement on his Texas ranch.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Ronald Reagan would have been canceled over his hijinks in Hollywood before his political career. The 'woke' came for President Bush the Elder over affair rumors. Mr. Bush escaped but he wouldn’t today.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Like JFK, don’t even mention Bill Clinton.<br /><br /></span>The point is the woke mob takes no prisoners if you are a non-liberal and, now, even the Andrew Cuomo’s of the world are in the destruction zone. I am certain the New York Governor is shocked by his demise. He shouldn’t be - he earned it - and even his phony woke posture in the past couldn’t save him.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Like Cuomo, many of the loudest woke voices have quiet resumes that are appalling; especially in the media and in Hollywood.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span><br />Summing up: we are all living in troubled times. Totalitarians are running wild. Senator Joseph McCarthy has finally succeeded.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-08-08T08:35:00ZMasking the TruthBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Masking-the-Truth/787273969185955904.html2021-07-30T15:59:00Z2021-07-30T15:59:00Z<span>There are so many things going on with the Covid resurgence, it is impossible for Americans to make sense of the problem. With the deconstruction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, there is no longer a trusted medical authority disseminating information to the public. CNN may still love Fauci, but few others believe him.</span><br /><br /><span>So, we are left with a symbolic Tower of Babel, a public discourse that is chaotic and even dangerous.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden is at fault, of course. He is incapable of leading a divided nation in any direction. His verbal skills are non-existent (repetition of words cartoonish), and his problem-solving ability mirrors that of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez; approximately zero.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Biden was extremely fortunate to inherit a miraculous vaccination development from the Trump administration. At first, the new president and his crew were successful in rolling out the vax nationwide. If you wanted the protection, it was available free at a pharmacy near you.</span><br /><br /><span>The developing problem is not every citizen will take the vax. Plenty of fear. Also, millions of foreign nationals are flooding across the southern border. Many, if not most, are not vaccinated.</span><br /><br /><span>President Biden has no strategy to stop the border madness and little ability to persuade anti-vaxxers. Therefore, when yet another strain of Covid gathered strength, the federal government had no coherent response. The result is the foolish and destructive panic we are seeing now.</span><br /><br /><span>There are two primary groups that will not cooperate in fighting Covid: skeptics in the conservative arena, and African-Americans. Surveys say about half of black Americans remain unvaxxed, and resistance in right-wing precincts is hovering around 30 percent.</span><br /><br /><span>Both groups have rare common ground: they don’t trust the government.</span><br /><br /><span>The corrupt media adds to the danger by irresponsible analysis, especially on television. The liberal networks refuse to criticize African-Americans, and the conservative outlets downplay resistance on the right. Once again, these corporate media companies and their mouthpieces are in business solely to make money. </span><br /><br /><span>They could not care less whether someone dies from Covid.</span><br /><br /><span>In the end, President Biden will pay a big price for his poor leadership regarding the virus. His latest attempt to bribe people to get vaxxed using taxpayer money is insulting. Voters will remember how weak and befuddled Biden is on a very personal issue. Most Americans don’t want to wear masks and are horrified their children may again be forced to wear them in school.</span><br /><br /><span>There is always a tipping point in any presidential term. For LBJ it was Vietnam. Nixon Watergate. Carter gas lines.</span><br /><br /><span>If Joe Biden can regain leadership credibility after the Covid redux, I will be surprised. He, Vice-President Harris, and Dr. Fauci can wear all the masks they want - but most folks see right through them.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-07-30T15:59:00ZCritical of Critical Race TheoryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Critical-of-Critical-Race-Theory/415026537240026303.html2021-07-25T10:00:00Z2021-07-25T10:00:00ZAs an adult who still has the protection of freedom of thought, I can ignore the Critical Race Theory (CRT) concept if I want to. And I do because it is largely destructive blather.<br /><span><br />But millions of American children cannot ignore it and that is a catastrophe.</span><br /><span><br />As you know, a number of school districts are allowing this progressive view of the United States to be taught to undeveloped minds. You don’t have critical thinking skills at six years old. Therefore, you can file much of the CRT lesson plan under “indoctrination.”</span><br /><span><br />Essentially, the theory seeks to marginalize all white Americans because selected ancestors persecuted minorities. That did happen so the CRT zealots are demanding contemporary sanctions for past behavior - such as citizens admitting the United States was founded on and still promotes, racism against blacks. If you reject that premise, well, you’re a racist.</span><br /><span><br />Once you cop to CTR then come the programs for penance. They can range from cash payments directly to minority Americans, all the way to preferential treatment by the government for certain groups.</span><br /><span><br />And there’s more. The CRT advocates want to destroy many American traditions including capitalism and due process in legal situations. Simultaneously, they would create a vast central government to enforce “anti-racist” behavior - which is whatever the totalitarians say it is.</span><br /><span><br />My question is simple: has there ever been a more dangerous theory promoted by some politicians and corporate moguls? The answer is no, in case you were thinking it over.</span><br /><span><br />History clearly demonstrates villainy. It happened everywhere on the planet. That’s what evil's all about. For example, if present judgment were based on past misdeeds, every religion on earth would be banned. No country could be considered noble.</span><br /><span><br />Decent people should not want to burden any child with historical sins. No responsible teacher should divide students along racial lines. Yet, this is happening.</span><br /><span><br />Boston University, my alma mater, has hired Ibram X. Kendi, the high priest of racial division, to head up an activist program under BU’s name. Thousands of other colleges are instituting policies solely based on skin color, as we know.</span><br /><span><br />But it is in the elementary schools where irreparable harm is being done. The kids will not quickly forget the pernicious propaganda being forced upon them.</span><br /><span><br />Simply put: Critical Race Theory is horrendous. And this country will pay a high price for it in the future.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-07-25T10:00:00ZMi Casa, Su CasaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Mi-Casa-Su-Casa/981188420698200641.html2021-07-18T07:00:00Z2021-07-18T07:00:00Z<span>President Biden seems to be a “welcoming” kind of guy. Especially to folks who want to live in the United States without legal credentials. While President Obama deported tens of thousands of foreign nationals, and President Trump shut down many immigration scams, Joe Biden has thrown the southern border wide open: hola, amigos!</span><br /><br /><span>Let's examine some facts that rolled in a few days ago. The Customs and Border Protection Agency reports 1.1 million “apprehensions” in the first nine months of the federal government’s fiscal year. According to The Washington Post, which is somewhat shockingly covering the story, the last time a million migrants were detained was in 2006, and that was for the ENTIRE year. Under Biden, apprehensions could reach 1.5 million this fiscal year, which would be a record number by far.</span><br /><br /><span>The acting commissioner of border protection, Troy Miller, told the Post: “We are in the hottest part of the summer and we are seeing a high number of distress calls from migrants abandoned in treacherous country by smugglers with no regard for human life.”</span><br /><br /><span>Of course, American agents rescue migrants even if they are in Mexico. They are treated by US medical personnel, as they should be. You don’t let human beings die.</span><br /><br /><span>However, they shouldn’t be in jeopardy in the first place. But they are because President Biden dismantled the Trump “remain in Mexico” policy, effectively opening the border to anyone who desired asylum, as tens of millions all over the world do. That enormous mistake has provided incentive to the poor and aggrieved to make the dangerous trek north.</span><br /><br /><span>Now, poor people are dying every day. And thousands of others are being horribly assaulted in lawless Mexico. And what does Biden say? Nothing. Does he even understand what’s happening?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Vice President Harris was put in charge of this humanitarian disaster, so what does she say? “Don’t come.” That’s what she said knowing full well her boss has wrecked border security.</span><br /><br /><span>What does Speaker Pelosi say? Nothing. How about the lapdog White House press corps? Are they peppering Jen Psaki with border questions? No, they are not.</span><br /><br /><span>What a disgrace across the board. What a colossal dereliction of duty by President Biden. It’s almost impossible to believe that any president would eliminate a border strategy that was working simply because far left kooks demanded it.</span><br /><br /><span>Biden is directly responsible for this horrible situation, just as he’ll be directly responsible for the painful economy which is coming soon to your house.</span><br /><br /><span>The truth is this guy in the White House is brutal. Just like the border policy he imposed and now ignores. Please pray for the suffering migrants.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-07-18T07:00:00ZWake Me When It's OverBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Wake-Me-When-Its-Over/131041701251909458.html2021-07-11T18:27:00Z2021-07-11T18:27:00Z<div>Where are all these woke people? I can’t find them. I’ve looked and even asked some acquaintances: “are you woke?”</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>No one will admit it.<br /><br /></span>I’ve seen a few woke bumper stickers like “No Person is Illegal!” Not many though. Most of the “Biden for President” stickers are gone. Never saw a slogan for Kamala. But I have one: “The Border’s That Way, Sucker.”</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Sorry, that’s not very woke, is it?</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>I suspect most progressive people fall into two categories. The first are mercenaries. Like the CNN hosts who are paid to be woke. If they don’t tow the PC line, they will be separated from lucrative paychecks. So, they stay up to all hours thinking of ways to be sensitive and inclusive.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The second group of "woke wonks" are folks who follow trendy things. If the crowd wants to obliterate due process, they do too. Although they might not fully understand the concept. More than a few woke individuals don’t know much about history, as the legendary Sam Cooke once sang.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Being woke is a time-consuming hobby. You have to be constantly vigilant, on guard against racist behavior by white folks. You must be easily offended by the un-woke and point out their many, many mistakes.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>It’s exhausting.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>And then there’s the weather. You can’t just say “it’s a nice day.” Nope. Somewhere a glacier is receding because the guy across the street has a Hummer. I mean, what’s up with that?</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>When it rains, snows, sleets, or is cloudy, you know the local Mobil station is behind it. Damn those oil drillers!</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Disney executives are all woke but I don’t know any of them. I think I saw Robert Iger eating kale in a Beverly Hills restaurant once but I could be wrong.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>It was reported last week that Disney announcers in the parks no longer say “ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.” That’s out despite objections from Minnie and Mickey who are now confused by the new restroom policy.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>In fact, all of the Disney characters are on notice: no more Peter Pan, Tiger Lily stuff. That’s cultural appropriation. Right, boys and girls?</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Sorry.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>As I said, it is exhausting to keep track of all the woke mandates. In fact, I need a nap right now.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Please wake me when the whole thing’s over.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-07-11T18:27:00ZThe Mean New DealBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Mean-New-Deal/251010758278193603.html2021-07-04T17:45:00Z2021-07-04T17:45:00Z<div>A few months ago, Disney executives held a secret meeting with members of the ABC News program “The View.” Things had become so hateful on the morning program that some Disney board members were loudly complaining.</div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>The message delivered was “knock off the hate, ladies.”</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>The primary culprit was Joy Behar, a bitter leftist. Another problem was Sunny Hostin, who’s even more to the left of Behar and equally as vicious. The two would routinely gang up on Meghan McCain, Disney’s token non-liberal. Ms. McCain often fired back emotionally. The presentation was about as entertaining as a snake bite. Last week Meghan McCain quit the show.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>"The View" always had an edge but its creator, Barbara Walters, maintained a strict civility. Rosie O’Donnell could not abide that but Whoopi Goldberg is not a vicious person and did her best to provide some decorum.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>But once Donald Trump began to dominate the discourse, civility collapsed on The View as well as many other TV forums.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>For example, late-night comedians have pretty much destroyed themselves as mass-market entertainers. Stephen Colbert was never the talent Jon Stewart is but could once deliver a satirical take that amused. No longer. Colbert is now a venomous left-wing zealot who is impossible to watch unless you live in his blatantly partisan tent.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Same thing with the snarky leftist Seth Myers, a man desperately in need of a funny reboot.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>Mean is not humorous or engaging or enlightening. Mean is simply mean, a posture with no socially redeeming value. There is an audience for sadistic, unfair attacks but it’s a pathetically narrow crew. This is why the late-night vitriolic can’t even get three million people to watch them. Johnny Carson got nine million.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>There is mean on the right as well but, on television at least, conservative haters are vastly outnumbered. On the internet, the mean new deal is on full display as wretched 'Cruella's' aggressively change lanes on the low road.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>It’s all pretty depressing and meaningless, pardon the pun. Our media culture is flat-out nasty, blatantly sadistic, and getting worse.</span><br /><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span>It's long past time to call these people out.</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-07-04T17:45:00ZJoe Biden, Life in the Slow LaneBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Joe-Biden-Life-in-the-Slow-Lane/33104103069710294.html2021-06-27T14:59:00Z2021-06-27T14:59:00Z<span>As part of reporting on President Biden, we list his “official” White House schedule on the No Spin News every day. We do this so Americans can understand that old Joe has a very soft day much of the time. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>There are days when the President has just one item on the schedule. Rarely does he have more than two. It’s the slow lane for Joe, the bunny slope.</span><br /><br /><span>This is not unprecedented. Back in 1857, the 15th president of the United States was a man named James Buchanan from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Jimmy did not load up on daily events. In fact, he almost totally ignored the threatened succession of the south, which was kind of a big deal. President Buchanan did not even put Union forces on alert. When southern troops attacked Fort Sumter, James might have said: “really?” Clueless doesn’t even begin to cover it. Abraham Lincoln inherited a colossal mess in 1861.</span><br /><br /><span>So my question is - is Joe Biden the ghost of James Buchanan past? Is he the reincarnation of Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned?</span><br /><br /><span>The answer to that question is maybe.</span><br /><br /><span> Here’s one vivid example of tactical avoidance. Mr. Biden’s speech on violent crime last week was bizarre and disturbing. He didn’t even mention the defund the police movement. Or no bail laws. Or drug gangs who are murdering thousands in cities like Chicago and New York.</span><br /><br /><span>Apparently, the President doesn’t see those things as drivers of violent crime. Nope, Mr. Biden says he’ll use the full power of the federal government to crack down on “gun dealers who violate the rules.”</span><br /><br /><span>That, of course, will do little to stop the murder rampage in America. And expanding community programs will not help much either. The only solution to violent crime is to harshly punish the criminals who are hurting and killing people, as history has shown us.</span><br /><br /><span>But Joe Biden and his progressive left cadre will not do that because 40 percent of all murders are committed by African-Americans. Biden will never even acknowledge that stat much less attempt to confront black criminals or any miscreant for that matter. His “equity” philosophy forbids a realistic, problem-solving agenda and so tens of thousands of people are getting hurt.</span><br /><br /><span>Many consider James Buchanan to be the worst president is history. I do. He did nothing to confront the heinous slave situation and the growing rebellion below the Mason-Dixon line. He was MIA as the nation fell apart.</span><br /><br /><span>Will Joe Biden descend to the historical depths of Buchanan?</span><br /><br /><span>Could happen.</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-06-27T14:59:00ZOne Country No LongerBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/One-Country-No-Longer/-445240580866684443.html2021-06-20T15:00:00Z2021-06-20T15:00:00Z<span>(Jackson, Wyoming) No masks. That’s the first thing you notice upon leaving the airport. Everyone is face-forward.</span><br /><br /><span>No homeless. It’s cold at night in the summer time Rockies and I didn’t see anyone sleeping on the streets. Somehow, shelter is available to all.</span><br /><br /><span>Skin color doesn’t seem to be a problem, either. Lots of different races touring the National Parks. Rangers say it’s calm on the human-agitation front, the way it should be in the land of the free. </span><br /><br /><span>Bears, however, are a different story. You don’t mess with them out here.</span><br /><br /><span>This western enclave is a unique part of America, but so is San Francisco, where thousands of homeless drug addicts now roam the streets assaulting the senses of fellow citizens, looting businesses without restraint, dying in record numbers from overdoses.</span><br /><br /><span>The difference between the two American towns is a simple concept. It’s called the will of the people.</span><br /><br /><span>In San Francisco, there is little concern about social order, so citizens have none. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the symbolic leader of the city, presides over a district that is dangerous. Mrs. Pelosi lives behind a wall. Others don’t have that luxury. They are at risk.</span><br /><br /><span>Speaker Pelosi is not interested is protecting people - quite the opposite. She’s an abortion zealot who’s been told by the city’s Archbishop not to receive Communion because of her dismal record on the unborn.</span><br /><br /><span>She is also a race-provocateur, using her power to divide Americans based on skin color. This causes unrest. President Biden is right behind Nancy on abortion and racial division.</span><br /><br /><span>The people of San Francisco have elected Pelosi 17 times. So they deserve the depravity they are getting. Not all. But most.</span><br /><br /><span>Here in Wyoming, it is unheard of for public school children to be taught that their country is essentially based on evil. No one is tearing down statues. Few are canceled for stating an opinion.</span><br /><br /><span>But in the mega-cities of Néw York and Los Angeles, careers are routinely destroyed by political witch-hunters. It’s now a macabre sport. Hollywood is the worst.</span><br /><br /><span>In Wyoming, almost every household has firearms. Yet the murder rate is one of the lowest in the country. </span><br /><br /><span>In Chicago, gun restrictions are severe. Yet thousands are murdered. Again, it’s the will of the people. They elect leaders who blame homicide on society, not actual criminals.</span><br /><br /><span>So there is no longer one America. Now we have fiefdoms like the Middle Ages. King Cuomo in New York has radicalized the state and street violence is surging. Yet according to the polls, most democrats would reelect him.</span><br /><br /><span>In western Wyoming, folks don’t even have to lock their doors because dangerous thugs are few as they are quickly punished. Thus, the bad people migrate to places like San Francisco where they go unpunished - there is no political agenda to protect the innocent.</span><br /><br /><span>This is not hard to fathom. The will of the people dictates what kind of neighborhood they will have, and whether fairness, order, or disorder prevails.</span><br /><br /><span>Today, there is little unity in the USA. We are no longer “one nation under God.”</span><br /><br /><span>Many citizens simply do not have the will to make that concept reality.</span><br /><br /><span>Do they?</span>Bill O'Reilly2021-06-20T15:00:00ZThe ThreatBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Threat/-356746052280218616.html2021-06-13T18:49:00Z2021-06-13T18:49:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><span>The threat is gaining strength. It is affecting every single American citizen. It is vicious, hateful and obscure. And the threat will diminish your freedom.</span><br /><br /><span>It doesn’t come from Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Not from Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell. The threat has nothing to do with Climate Change, Covid or China.</span><br /><br /><span>No, the forces who are punishing individual freedom are the powerful men and women who run the mass market information corporations.</span><br /><br /><span>Let me explain.</span><br /><br /><span>In order for Americans to make intelligent decisions about their society, leadership and personal security, they need honest information, above all. Those who formed our country obviously knew this because they gave the press specific Constitutional freedoms and privileges. But today honest reporting to enhance the knowledge of all citizens has largely disappeared. The media has been corrupted by craven corporations who see the American people as too stupid to know what‘s noble, too bigoted to do the right thing.</span><br /><br /><span>Let me back that up.</span><br /><br /><span>Recently, I paid $3.15 a gallon to fill my car with gas. Last year at this time, under President Trump, I paid $2.15. Why the price hike? Did Biden’s assault on fossil fuel have anything to do with it? Would be fascinating to see a fact-based report.</span><br /><br /><span>Border authorities report close to 200,000 foreign nationals are crossing the into the USA each month. So, why did President Biden dismantle Trump’s “Stay in Mexico” policy that had almost stopped mass illegal immigration? That might be important to know, right?</span><br /><br /><span>Inflation is growing at its fastest rate in 13 years. Why, exactly? NBC, ABC, CBS, helloooooo.</span><br /><br /><span>In the past five years approximately 3,000 African-Americans in Chicago have been murdered mostly by black criminals. Why? And why haven’t the democrats who control Chicago done anything about it? CNN? Bueller? Anyone?</span><br /><br /><span>I could give you 50 important stories that the corporate media companies ignore simply because they are trying to protect liberal politicians and “woke” causes.</span><br /><br /><span>The news blackout is corrupt and a threat to us all.</span><br /><br /><span>Finally, one of the CEOs most responsible for the destruction of honest information flow is Bob Iger, who runs Disney and its media arm ABC. We already know that ABC’s top entertainment programmer, in the name of inclusion, is rejecting great scripts if they are written by white people. We know this because she said so. She could not have done that without Iger’s approval.</span><br /><br /><span>Anyway, last week we learned that Bob Iger sold $100 million dollars worth of Disney stock. We know that because old Bob had to file the sale with the SEC. But why did Iger sell? Could it be he wanted out before Biden and his minions raise the capital gains tax?</span><br /><br /><span>Looking forward to getting the truth on World News Tonight.</span><br /><br /><span>Please don’t discount the corporate threat. It is very real.</span></div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-06-13T18:49:00ZTom Hanks, History GuyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Tom-Hanks-History-Guy/848418598610010402.html2021-06-06T18:06:00Z2021-06-06T18:06:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><span>The first of my history books, “Killing Lincoln,” was made into a movie with Tom Hanks doing the narration. He did a nice job weaving in the facts.</span><br /><br /><span>As one of the Executive Producers of the film, I signed off on Mr. Hanks but never actually met him during production. </span><br /><br /><span>Over the years, the liberal actor has taken a few verbal shots at me but so did many in Hollywood. One actress actually told a reporter she thought I would come after her with a shotgun. </span><br /><br /><span>Then, at an event honoring legendary Beach Boy Mike Love, I saw Mr. Hanks and approached him to explore his beef. Dennis Miller is fast friends with Hanks and told me he’s a good guy. So I went in neutral.</span><br /><br /><span>We chatted for a few minutes and he told me there was no animus. I suggested if he ever does a “Bosom Buddies” reunion, I want a cameo. Great show.</span><br /><br /><span>Anyway, I follow Tom’s career but did not go to the recent Mr. Rogers flick. Not for me. However, when Mr. Hanks recently weighed in on some serious history, I became engaged.</span><br /><br /><span>Writing in the New York Times, Tom put forth that America basically whitewashes atrocities against minorities. He points to the Tulsa massacre of blacks one hundred years ago. “My experience was common: History was mostly written by white people for white people, like me, while the history of black people - including Tulsa- was too often left out. Until relatively recently, the entertainment industry, which helps shape what is history and what is forgotten, did the same.”</span><br /><br /><span>To jar Mr. Hanks’ memory, I will point to the very powerful films “In the Heat of the Night” and “Mississippi Burning.” Both were big hits and made deep impressions.</span><br /><br /><span>Heat was released in 1967 and won the Best Picture Oscar. It was a vivid portrayal of southern racism that made Sidney Poitier a superstar.</span><br /><br /><span>“Mississippi Burning” was nominated for Best Picture in 1989 but lost to “Rain Man.” The film accurately depicted the brutal struggle for Civil Rights.</span><br /><br /><span>To me, writing history is not a racial issue. I wrote “Killing Crazy Horse” to chronicle what really happened in the forging of America. In the book, facts matter - my skin color doesn’t.</span><br /><br /><span>Tom Hanks goes on to ask: “Should our schools now teach the truth about Tulsa? Yes, and they should also stop the battle to whitewash curriculums to avoid discomfort for students. America’s history is messy but knowing that makes us a wiser and stronger people.”</span><br /><br /><span>I agree. But perspective needs to be part of the curriculum as well. Tulsa, Oklahoma is not the same place it was one hundred years ago. Past atrocities need to be reported but not assigned a modern permanence.</span><br /><br /><span>And that is exactly what the progressive left is doing. It uses historical wrongs to demonize and diminish the United States.</span><br /><br /><span>A shrewd guy like Tom Hanks has to know this. He has to understand that many schools now batter students of all colors with “historical injustice.”</span><br /><br /><span>America is a noble country. Its blood and treasure have kept billions of people free all over the world. That should not obscure the bad things that have happened throughout our history. But to allow the negative to become the dominant historical narrative - is desperately wrong.</span><br /><br /><span>And that’s the lesson the kids should be learning.</span></div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-06-06T18:06:00ZProtecting JoeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Protecting-Joe/545370706055601339.html2021-05-30T15:17:00Z2021-05-30T15:17:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">While researching Al Capone’s criminal enterprise in Chicago during prohibition for my book “Killing the Mob,” we came across evidence of bribes paid to newspaper reporters in the Windy City. Capone shrewdly corrupted the local press to portray him as a man of the people who supported a myriad of charities. In truth, the mobster was a psychopath who’s brutal behavior set a template for the mob to this day.<br /><br />The American press has always had elements of corruption within it. But today standards of honest reporting have collapsed not because of bribery, but due to other financial considerations.<br /><br />The national media is owned by a few massive corporations: Disney, Comcast, Viacom, Newscorp and AT&T on the broadcast side. The Sulzberger family and Jeff Bezos control The New York Times and The Washington Post respectively. A board of largely liberal business people run the Associated Press.<br /><br />During the four years that President Trump was in office, the reportage on him was more than 90 percent negative despite a strong economy, the rapid development of a Covid vaccine, and complete energy independence for the USA.<br /><br />It was obvious the fix was in - the coverage constantly spun negative and some of it like “Russian Collusion” was flat out false. The media corporations, in general, despised Donald Trump and made serious money doing so.<br /><br />Today we have a different side to media corruption - the protection of Joe Biden. Because the national press backed him to an absurd degree in the election, they are now in his pocket as he proceeds to run the country.<br /><br />President Biden has quickly become the most liberal president in American history by embracing record federal spending, a divisive racial policy based on “equity,” and a chaotic immigration strategy that has led to suffering and absolute chaos.<br /><br />It’s not that the corporate media is championing these things, although some far-left outlets are, it’s that they are blacking-out factual reporting about the consequences of Biden’s actions.<br /><br />Item: Most Americans have seen their energy costs rise by more than 30 percent since Inauguration Day.<br /><br />Item: Violent crime has spiraled out of control in the nation’s largest cities.<br /><br />Item: More than 500,000 foreign nationals have “encountered” federal authorities since Mr. Biden dismantled Mr. Trump’s border policy.<br /><br />Item: Since the Border Patrol and Immigration Agents are overwhelmed by the massive influx of migrants, narcotics interdiction has suffered enormously. Last week the Governor of Texas announced there is more fentanyl, a potentially lethal drug, being smuggled into his state than ever before. Of course, the free flow of narcotics enriches organized crime.<br /><br />So, let me ask a simple question: how much reportage have you seen on the above items? Even the border situation which did get some attention in the beginning is now being downplayed.<br /><br />It’s all about protecting Joe Biden and, in the process, deceiving the American people.<br /><br />And that is a clear and vivid example of corporate corruption.<br /><br />Al Capone would like it.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-05-30T15:17:00ZToo Cool for SchoolBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Too-Cool-for-School/-624520441705570199.html2021-05-23T17:33:00Z2021-05-23T17:33:00Z<p>Like millions of American parents, I am paying major dollars to send the urchins to college. My daughter graduated last week and did very well. I’m happy and proud because she is now prepared to venture forth and do some good in this world.<br /><br />It goes without saying that many college students are under severe pressure to conform to the “woke” culture being imposed on them by misguided teachers and administrators. In some schools it’s like a cult. The oppression is almost beyond belief.<br /><br />Penn State University was established in 1855 to give working class kids a shot at moving on up economically. In fact, it’s initial name was “The Farmer’s High School.“ For more than a 165 years, Penn State was a sane place. Now it is not.<br /><br />The craziness I am about to chronicle is happening at colleges all over the country. But Penn State, in particular, did not used to be dominated by cowardly, pinheaded faculty. Now it is.<br /><br />The faculty senate at the school recently approved a “Preferred Name and Gender Identity Policy.” As part of that, the “non-binary pronouns “they/them” will replace “he/him” and “she/her.” Also, the words “freshman” and “sophomore” are out. Now it’s “first-year” and “second-year.”<br /><br />Well, this is stupid. If any student is offended by the terms freshman or sophomore, he or she (I’m rebelling here) should immediately be deposited in daycare and given a blanket.<br /><br />The faculty senate explains it’s resolution by stating that common university descriptions “carry a strong male-centric, binary character.” Wow. Who knew? The Penn State faculty also claims terms such as “upperclassman” carry racist AND sexist connotations. A horrid double dip!<br /><br />Summing up, the faculty fabulists write: “this resolution will close the loop and ensure that all people are not only able to choose their name and gender identity within our systems, but that these systems are also structured to be inclusive from the start.”<br /><br />Pass the nobility! This is GREAT, to quote Flounder in the movie “Animal House.”<br /><br />So my question is simple: what if some students want to embrace proper grammar and identify by their birth gender? That would be he or she, right? Is that permissible Penn State Faculty Senate? Are traditional kids part of the “inclusive” deal?<br /><br />Or will you intolerant fascists make their lives miserable by branding them with a pejorative label? Or even shading their grades southward?<br /><br />I think I know the answer to my question.</p>
<p>Somewhere a Nittany Lion is weeping.</p>Bill O'Reilly2021-05-23T17:33:00ZIs It Lights Out for the USA?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-It-Lights-Out-for-the-USA/133266693935732417.html2021-05-16T07:00:00Z2021-05-16T07:00:00Z<div>During the Vietnam days some radicals became heroes in the liberal press. Let’s see, Jane Fonda, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Huey Newton - all became “far out” in the land of the groovy. There was even a media name for the far-left movement: “radical chic.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The revolution died out, of course, because it ran out of outrage. After the war in Southeast Asia ended, the radicals splintered. Ms. Fonda continued her movie career, John Kerry went into politics, Hoffman and Rubin self-destructed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, radical chic is back but it’s dramatically different now because corporate media companies embrace it. They promote it. They finance it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s what “woke” is all about. At the Disney corporation, employees are required to listen to a number of anti-American presentations. The mouse factory has bought into white supremacy and Caucasian privilege in a big way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Delta, Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball and other massive companies have attacked the state of Georgia for passing a more disciplined voting law. Apparently, requiring an ID to cast a ballot is racist even though scores of countries have that on the books.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, social power has shifted to the radical left courtesy of corporate America. Stacey Abrams was recently given a TV deal by NBC/Comcast. No traditional person has such a deal with NBC nor will they.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In addition, the radical left knows it can use the cancel culture to devastate opposition. It’s easy to do that when the national media could not care less about the truth - all allegations are fit to print.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A committed liberal named Scott Stringer is running for mayor of New York City. But he’s not left enough for the radicals. <br /><br /></div>
<div>Presto, a nasty “misconduct” allegation appears and Stringer is done, despite his vehement denial of wrongdoing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As Henny Youngman once said: “I’ve got a million of them.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Corporations will eventually pay a financial price for backing the radical left but the present CEOs don’t seem to care. They are frightened of the cancel thugs, they know there is little protection against them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So woke it is. No matter how much destruction befalls America. In 2015, a Gallup Poll showed the vast majority of Americans thought race-relations were good. Today, the populace is divided by race controversies including the heinous Critical Race Theory that places blame on white people for societal ills.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Meantime, American corporations have donated tens of millions of dollars to the Marxist-inspired Black Lives Matter Foundation. Simply incredible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are indeed living in a “woke” era. And if “we the people” don’t wake up and actively oppose the subversives, they will destroy American tradition.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It will be lights out.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2021-05-16T07:00:00ZPressing the PointBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pressing-the-Point/-182728101551598700.html2021-05-09T18:32:00Z2021-05-09T18:32:00Z<div>Donald Trump despises the national media. He believes its hatred of him led to massive corruption, as false stories often based on fallacious anonymous sources brutalized his administration.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>He is correct in his assessment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The historical fact is that never in this country has a president been as vilified. However, most chief executives loathed their critics, but did not confront dishonest press coverage as publicly as Mr. Trump has.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Harry Truman hated many American media people. In a private letter to his Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Truman wrote: “We have men, in this day and age, who are prostitutes of the mind. They sell<span class="Apple-converted-space"> t</span>heir ability to write articles for sale, which will be so worded as to mislead people who read them as news...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Prostitutes of the mind are skillful purveyors of character assassination and the theft of good names of public men and private citizens too. They are the lowest form of thief and criminal.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Give ‘em hell, Harry!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Any disagreement?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Alert Americans know that most of the media is no longer in business to seek honest information. The corporations that own the national press pretty much dictate how the news will be covered.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Studies show that about 90 percent of reportage on President Trump was negative. Approximately 65 percent of the coverage of President Biden has been positive. In fact, most of the national press likes Biden and loathes Trump. So the stats are not a surprise.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 2008, President Bush the Elder, certainly not a bomb-thrower, wrote me a letter that said this about the national press: “I think there is clear favoritism for the liberals and for the democrats. Of course, I may be biased because some like the N.Y. Times (they are the worst) mercilessly hammer the President all the time ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>George W. Bush was “the President.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is no question that Trump, Truman and Bush are correct. The left controls the national media and if you want to participate, you have to promote liberalism in your job. It’s a simple fact.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, that erodes freedom because the American citizenry is not getting fact-based reporting in order to make responsible decisions. Propaganda rules in the good old USA.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The United States was founded on the principle that individuals should be able to live their lives free of tyranny. But, today, massive corporations have imposed media dishonesty on we the people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Will they pay a price for that? Maybe. TV news ratings are drastically declining. Many newspapers are folding.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Karma? I think so.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-05-09T18:32:00ZLosing the RaceBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Losing-the-Race/-417242829532212078.html2021-05-02T18:35:00Z2021-05-02T18:35:00Z<div>The spearpoint in the intense progressive battle to dissemble traditional America is the anti-racism campaign. It’s an easy calculation: if the United States was founded on the philosophy of white supremacy, and the country is presently infected with “systemic racism,” then it’s the moral obligation of good people to destroy the society and build another more noble one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And if you disagree, well, you are racist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The strategy is brilliant in its simplicity and also presents the gravest social threat in U.S. history.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s because the corporate media, an industry full of cowardice and greed, has surrendered to the radicals thereby allowing the destructive movement to avoid scrutiny. Some of the nation’s largest corporations are openly cooperating with racial demonization - donating millions of dollars to the Marxist Black Lives Matter Global Foundation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But most shockingly of all is that the President and Vice President are supporting the racial subversion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden has openly advocated “equity” instead of equality. He has ordered the federal government to favor certain groups of Americans based on skin color. When criticized by Republican Senator Tim Scott for this divisive policy, Biden told the ever pliant George <span>Stephanopoulos</span> that he doesn’t believe the American people are racist, just our society.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Oh.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The reason the President is able to peddle this destructive malarkey is because the mass media is affirming it. The woman executive who controls TV production for Disney/ABC proudly told the world that she is rejecting first-rate programs unless the scripts conform to a racial litmus test.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After Senator Scott’s reply to Biden’s speech on Wednesday, bigots on Twitter labeled him “Uncle Tim.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most of the corporate media ignored the smear.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And now the race-baiting is coming to your house.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newsweek Magazine used to be a fine fact-gathering organization. Then it veered sharply left. Then it folded its print edition, now publishing only online.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Last week, the magazine ran an article by a radical leftist named Meggie Abendschein. She owns a business in Texas that prefers to hire women. Remember the bigoted “No Irish Need Apply” signs? Now it’s males instead of Irish.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, here’s what Newsweek and Meggie are serving up. “We need to deeply embed anti-racism into our identity, our purpose and every facet of our life. This work requires our full-throttle empathy and total commitment to dismantling an archaic, dangerous white supremacist system.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then Meggie brings it home. “I was speaking with another white woman recently who told me her husband wasn’t sold on the idea of racism being our problem ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“I told her that by not saying something ... was to choose comfort “</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s create marital strife if your spouse is not “woke.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And so the battle for America once again centers on skin color. Hello, Civil War.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But this time the sitting President is not focused on keeping the Union together. No, Joe Biden is a divider. And with the media as his ally, he is hell-bent on conquering.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-05-02T18:35:00ZRise of the Red GuardsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rise-of-the-Red-Guards/-350699224107977632.html2021-04-25T15:00:00Z2021-04-25T15:00:00Z<div>While individual Americans are trying to figure out if they are as racist as the corporate media believes, California has already reached its conclusion. The United States and its Caucasian citizens are, indeed, purveyors of bigotry and oppression.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, Golden State educators are damn well going to do something about it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to reporting by City Journal, California’s Department of Education has approved an “ethnic studies model.” This curriculum contains programs that advocate “decolonizing” the USA (open borders) and “liberating” students from capitalism, patriarchy, and “settler colonialism.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wow. That’s quite a lift for Middle School.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The California vision is not new. In fact it is directly cribbed from that old rascal Mao Zedong. Back in 1966, the Chinese Communist dictator, whose hobby was mass murder, stood in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square waving to hundreds of thousands of “Red Guards,” students who were rooting out all cultural opposition to Mao’s reign of terror.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The young people destroyed books and art deemed not to be red enough. They renamed streets and destroyed statues. They burned anything religious. About seven thousand pieces of private property were demolished because China had outlawed private property.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In just two months, August and September 1966, fanatical members of the Red Guards murdered nearly 1,800 people in Beijing alone. Many of the victims were designated as “capitalists.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back in California, Jorge Pacheco is doing his best to resurrect the non-lethal spirit of the Red Guards. Jorge is the radical left president of the California Latino School Boards Association and a top advisor to the state’s ethnic studies vision.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jorge Pacheco is not a shy guy. He openly admits the curriculum is based on<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>a Marxist tenet called “pedagogy of the oppressed.” That line of study calls for students to “understand” their oppression and eventually “overthrow” their oppressors.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The taxpayers of California are funding this hateful campaign and I have heard little public dissent from politicians and the media.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does Governor Newsome oppose? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does George Clooney see the danger here?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Has the local California media condemned this? Anyone?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How about President Biden and Vice President Harris? Well, <a href="/b/OReilly-Tears-Biden-Media-on-FALSE-Systemic-Racism-Narrative/-926810401929701743.html" target="_blank">last week both of them told the world America is surely a racist country</a>. And that means the USA has to be an oppressive nation. Right?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With little opposition, the nation’s largest state is embarking on a mass “re-education” campaign in some public schools; a curriculum that will surely lead to intense confrontation on the part of students who embrace it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Somewhere, in a very warm place, Mao Zedong is waving.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-04-25T15:00:00ZThe Victim PandemicBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Victim-Pandemic/-667254503482893.html2021-04-18T15:00:00Z2021-04-18T15:00:00Z<div>
<div>With the exception of Caucasian males, everybody can be a victim. It’s easy. Just summon up some unpleasantness in your life and assign blame. Use the word “systemic” a lot in formulating your grievances. Make sure you point out that you are expressing “your truth.” And certainly mention that you are speaking “truth to power.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is true that real victims are amongst us. The child born into a chaotic home, perhaps abandoned or abused by bad parents. Certainly that innocent person has been victimized.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you are treated unfairly because of skin color or gender, you should be angry. But you have two choices: live your life in the victimization zone. Or say "blank you" and succeed despite the hardship.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you have been bullied as a child or teen, that is victimization. Again, you have a choice. Fight back in a smart way, or fold and incorporate the ordeal into your persona. “I’m a victim of systemic whatever.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Being a devoted victim can be comforting because it gives you an excuse to fail. Or not even try. You need a “safe space.” You feel “marginalized” by the “patriarchy.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Well, everyone gets hammered at some point. And in today’s cupcake society the victim card is being dealt all the time. But it’s a bottom of the deck draw. You won’t accomplish much in life constantly whining about unfairness or bad breaks.<br /><br /></div>
<div>In order to achieve and succeed, you need to be strong and believe in yourself. Not whimper about injustice.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Americans used to be a pretty tough bunch. My parents survived the Great Depression and World War II. They lived very modestly with no personal power but did not see themselves as victims. They knew who the real victims were: the Americans who could not buy a house in Levittown because of their skin color.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s largely gone now because some brave folks fought hard for worthy change. They didn’t pout on the sidelines or disrespect the entire country. They mobilized in a strong, peaceful campaign that defeated some ingrained wrongs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It appears to me that in our society today, victimization is spreading faster than Covid. It’s almost unbearable on many college campuses and cable TV. Every white person is racist, every straight man a woman-hater. No non-white male has a fair shot.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Everything that goes wrong in a person’s life can be blamed on someone else. White supremacy did it. Homophobia caused it. Misogynistic traditions ruined my dreams.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yeah, okay. Life can be brutally unfair. Again two choices: go get that safe space. Or use your skills to step up and improve things without foolishly demonizing entire groups of people. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your call.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-04-18T15:00:00ZA Trifecta of ChaosBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Trifecta-of-Chaos/659986248979342326.html2021-04-11T07:00:00Z2021-04-11T07:00:00Z<p>It’s a one, two, three punch. Massive government spending and aggressive taxation, open borders, woke fascism. That’s what all Americans are facing even though many of them have no clue.<br /><br />Let’s discuss that for a moment. Always in this country we have had citizens too lazy or selfish to pay attention to the common good. During the revolution, historians estimate that half of the colonists supported King George. They were called Tories. Today, you can visit a street in Cambridge, Massachusetts called Tory Row to see where some of them lived. Others died with ropes around their necks. The rebels were an impulsive bunch.<br /><br />To support the king, you had to accept unlimited taxation by whim, total dominance over your private life, and subservient allegiance to an unstable monarch who didn’t give a fig about you.<br /><br />Remind you of anything?<br /><br />Right now, President Biden is as clueless as old King George. He actually believes that boycotting the state of Georgia is a positive step for democracy. Against every piece of evidence available, Mr. Biden thinks his border strategy is good even as hundreds of thousands of migrants pour into the USA. And then there are the massive taxes Biden is willing to impose because American taxpayers are going to have to support millions of foreign nationals, as well as stop worldwide climate change.<br /><br />Yet, according to the polls, about half the country thinks the President is doing a good job. Hello, George, hope you’re not too hot down there.<br /><br />As I wrote last week, socialism is on the rise and Joe Biden is not going to fight the trend. He, of course, already has his and now, in his diminished state, he has morphed into a woke social justice warrior - fighting for the “disenfranchised.” <br /><br />This is not going to work as the majority of Americans like their lives and don’t want the calloused hand of a powerful central government holding back their ability to achieve true independence. That King George thing again.<br /><br />But resisting the Biden calamity is not easy. Millions of voters are buying into the nanny state concept and may be willing to sacrifice personal freedom for a guaranteed life outcome, as paltry as that may be.<br /><br />And then there are the “neck-benders” who can’t stop looking down at their devices. Many in this crew have created a fantasy world of cyber-space gibberish that totally blocks out what’s happening in the real world.<br /><br />The combination of the “give me’s” and the clueless device addicts has allowed the progressive movement power.<br /><br />However, I believe the chaos trifecta will eventually destroy the Biden regime. And it can’t come fast enough. American freedom is in peril.<br /><br />But like way back in 1776, only half the country knows it.</p>
<p> </p>Bill O'Reilly2021-04-11T07:00:00ZComrade BidenBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Comrade-Biden/477630498464321502.html2021-04-05T11:30:00Z2021-04-05T11:30:00Z<div>Okay, now it’s getting serious. No more fooling around with this capitalism business. Nope, old Joe Biden has gone full socialist. Viva Fidel! Viva Venezuela! Che, we miss you!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President has proposed five trillion dollars in new spending. The US Treasury currently owes about $27 trillion. That means America has no disposable funds. So, since Albania and Sri Lanka are not going to give us any money, Joe has to get the cash from US citizens and businesses. There is no other way. Joe may know all this but then again, he may not. Depends on what day it is.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But his “people” certainly understand the $5 trillion spending play and they love it. All except Ocasio-Cortez. She wants at least $10 trillion in new government spending. She also wants to seize private property to fund the big government expansion. This is what socialism is.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Biden might get to the private property seizure (wealth tax) as long as it doesn’t include his nifty beach house in Delaware. But, for now, the President just wants to spend lots of taxpayer dollars and tax the country blind. Running up huge debt is fun for Joe, the working class guy from Scranton.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here’s a bit of what Joe Biden wants to spend our tax dollars on:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- $174 billion for electric vehicles. Global Warming play. I like the electric cars. But Tesla and other manufacturers should pay for the plug-in stations, not me. Someone tell Joe.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- $100 billion for “school construction.” This is what local property taxes are for, correct? Is Joe going to federalize public schools now?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- $20 billion for bike lanes. Insane. Again, this is a local spending issue. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>- $25 billion for “transformative” projects. A complete ruse. That could be anything. Can Joe Biden define “transformative spending?” In China, it’s building concentration camps.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- $400 billion on home care for seniors and disabled Americans. Noble intent. Almost a half trillion on top of Medicare and Medicaid. Will Jill Biden get a piece of that?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The horrifying truth is Democrats want the federal government to run everything; to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements. Free child care, elder care, health care, community college, food, housing, job and wage guarantees.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To fund that, President Biden is willing to cede his executive authority and allow progressives to dictate how much money hard working citizens and businesses can keep for themselves. And as the giveaways rise (checks for undocumented people), personal assets shrink. A lot.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Good day to you, Comrade Biden.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-04-05T11:30:00ZWhat Joe KnowsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Joe-Knows/817502059800312523.html2021-03-28T07:00:00Z2021-03-28T07:00:00Z<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr"> “They call me the Wanderer,<br /> Yeah, the Wanderer<br /> I roam around, around ...”<br /> - Dion<br /><br /></div>
</blockquote>
<p><span>That should be President Biden’s theme song based upon his first press conference. Man, was he all over the place. I mean, here’s the deal. Joe Biden is the most powerful person in the world and may not understand what he’s actually saying.</span><br /><br /><span>Item. The President told the world that he will not let migrant children “starve to death on the other side (of the border).” Well, that’s good. It would be bad for a President to let kids die from hunger. </span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Biden then said: “no previous administration did that either. Except Trump.”</span><br /><br /><span>Whereupon the White House press corps collectively nodded. Not one correspondent challenged the assertion. Even though no one has ever alleged that before. Not even The New York Times which would have been thrilled to place starving children at Donald Trump’s doorstep.</span><br /><br /><span>Item. Mr. Biden was asked some questions about the dangerous chaos on the southern border. Some Border Patrol personnel believe it’s the worst situation in twenty years. But the President says he doesn’t see a specific problem.</span><br /><br /><span>“There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter ... it happens every year.”</span><br /><br /><span>Oh. But a stat check reveals this: in February 2021, the Border Patrol apprehended 174 percent more illegal border crossers than in February 2020 under President Trump. Does Joe Biden even know that? Does he realize that on the same day he blamed winter for illegal migration, six thousand foreign nationals were processed by the Border Patrol?</span><br /><br /><span>Item. Despite the winter rationalization, the President says he is dealing with the border “challenge” and has a solution. Kind of. “We’re going to be moving within the next week over 100,000, I mean 1,000, people out of Border Patrol into safe, secure beds, and facilities.”</span><br /><br /><span>Now, there have been more than 100,000 migrants apprehended each month on Joe Biden’s watch. So moving one thousand into motels will not do much. By the way, about $82 million tax payer dollars has been allocated to shelter foreign nationals.</span><br /><br /><span>Summing up, President Biden isn’t going to let children starve. He’s getting some of them rooms. And he’s not worried because all this is a “winter thing.”</span><br /><br /><span>Does that make sense to you? Do you think President Biden really knows how to deal with the disorder he has created at the southern border?</span><br /><br /><span>But here’s what old Joe does know. It doesn’t matter what he says. It doesn’t matter if he wanders when speaking, if he says crazy stuff, if he forgets his narrative in mid-sentence. None of that matters because the press is on his side.</span><br /><br /><span>Yes, Joe Biden definitely knows the media is in the tank for him in every season. </span><br /><span>Starving kids or no starving kids.</span></p>Bill O'Reilly2021-03-28T07:00:00ZCreating RacismBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Creating-Racism/-18992774233337365.html2021-03-21T17:51:00Z2021-03-21T17:51:00Z<div>Imagine you are a third grader in the Wake County, North Carolina school district, the largest in the state. All around you are children of different ethnicities and skin colors. Your parents say that you are in school to learn things that will help you throughout life.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But there is something very wrong in your school. Because you’re just nine years old, you may not fully understand what is being presented to you, at least by some teachers. Their attitude about American society is hateful and this is being passed on to you.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to reporting by the magazine City Journal, more than 200 North Carolina teachers attended a racially provocative conference, and the Wake County public schools have launched a campaign entitled “whiteness in educational spaces.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Basically, some schools are forming “equity teams” that are pushing a concept called “anti-racism.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to documents obtained by journalist A. P. Dillion, teachers are being instructed that white “cultural values” include denial, fear, blame, control, punishment, and one-dimensional thinking. Of course any group could have elements that embrace those things but for the Wake schools it’s exclusively a white problem.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In one teaching session, the argument was made that “whiteness perpetuates the (American) system of injustice.” Therefore, teachers should challenge the dominant ideology of whiteness and actually disrupt white culture in the classroom.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This incredibly racist point of view is not just on display among the “woke” in Wake County. It has taken root all over the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The race hustlers who peddle this pernicious propaganda also advised teachers to disrupt any parent who might object have his or her child brain-washed.<br /><br /></div>
<div>“You can’t let parents deter you from the work,” City Journal quotes an instructor. “White children are benefiting from the system.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is simply horrible. Young children being taught skin color dictates their lives. Talk about creating division and bitterness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But if you confront the educational bigots, you are immediately branded a bigot yourself. You are canceled. Loathed. Your reputation sullied. This is the great far-left racist strategy. Oppose us and we will destroy you.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many public schools and colleges are now spreading a contagion far worse than Covid. It is a poison that harms the minds of American students who should be taught the virtues of brotherhood and sisterhood.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Instead, many kids are getting lessons on the evils of “whiteness.” For this illness, there will be no vaccine.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-03-21T17:51:00ZThe Death of FairnessBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Death-of-Fairness/-636342655056191104.html2021-03-14T15:40:00Z2021-03-14T15:40:00Z<p>All rational human beings have one thing in common: we are disappointed when treated unfairly. The doctrine that people should be given protection from malice and persecution is the essence of Judeo-Christian tradition. You must not bear false witness against another person. You are compelled to treat others as you would like to be treated.<br /><br />Totalitarian societies laugh at those tenets. China persecutes anyone it wants. The Soviet Union seized the personal property of tens of millions. Nazi Germany murdered innocent men, women, and children based on ethnicity.<br /><br />Many Americans believe that this country should be united against unfair treatment and, throughout history, we have vanquished brutal countries that rejected “fairness.” That is absolutely true. Millions of Americans have been killed defending the persecuted.<br /><br />However, our government was not fair to various groups including African and Native Americans. That is documented.<br /><br />However again, The United States has tried to correct historical and contemporary wrongs and that is documented as well. Fairness is the driving force in civil rights and other corrective legislation, and most Americans continue to support an equal shot for all citizens to pursue happiness.<br /><br />But, and this is big, fairness is now being brutalized in the USA.<br /><br />Donald Trump was not treated fairly by the media. It doesn’t matter whether you like the former President or not. If you don’t understand that Trump was denied any kind of balanced evaluation, then you, yourself, are not capable of fair assessment.<br /><br />Andrew Cuomo now stands accused. There is no doubt that his foolish nursing home order led to Covid deaths. But on the “misbehavior” front, the Governor is being denied the most essential part of American justice: due process. Cowardly politicians are convicting him on allegations and press headlines. But as any fair person knows, it is not unheard of for accusations to be exaggerated and orchestrated. <br /><br />Ironically, Cuomo, himself, denied due process to Brett Kavanaugh and others. It is fair to point that out - but unfair to deny Cuomo an investigation into the current controversy even if he is a hypocrite.<br /><br />Here’s the truth which is imperative to any society that respects fairness. The cancel culture is unfair. “Believe all women” is unfair. Taking skin color into account for anything is unfair. Allowing millions of foreign nationals to break immigration law is unfair; change the law if it’s pernicious.<br /><br />Denigrating heroes like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln is unfair. Persecuting non-liberal teachers and students is unfair. Forcing people of faith to contribute financially to abortions is absolutely a violation of fairness as well as morality. You would think President Biden might have processed that at weekly mass.<br /><br />Here’s more truth. Failure to speak out against unfair behavior because you are frightened that you may then be treated unfairly - will absolutely destroy the fabric of a just American society. The folks need to condemn the cancel abomination.<br /><br />I hope you agree that is a fair assessment.</p>Bill O'Reilly2021-03-14T15:40:00ZThe Biden ConundrumBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Biden-Conundrum/164261938949404134.html2021-03-07T08:00:00Z2021-03-07T08:00:00Z<p>After six weeks in office, President Biden has not yet held a press conference, but his spokeswoman promises one at the end of this month. That’s nice as a free country deserves to occasionally hear from the guy running it.</p>
<p>There is no question that Mr. Biden appears befuddled at times but, remember, he held his own in two debates with Donald Trump just a few months ago. So, it’s hard to evaluate the 78-year-old President’s mental capacity in any kind of responsible way.</p>
<p>Having written “Killing Reagan,” I know about cognitive decline in the White House. After President Reagan was almost killed by an assassin’s bullet, he was in and out mentally for a time. Some days he simply could not do the job and there was quiet talk among some of his senior staff of exploring the 25th amendment. That allows for temporary or permanent removal of a president if he or she is unable to function effectively.</p>
<p>In the book, we document what happened in Ronald Reagan’s first term and how it was kept from the public. Eventually, President Reagan made a stunning comeback.</p>
<p>Today, some anti-Biden pundits believe old Joe is being set up for removal using the 25th amendment, but I don’t see that. The President has been exceedingly accommodating to the progressive movement so why would the ardent leftists, who control almost all access to Mr. Biden, want him gone?</p>
<p>At this point, President Biden is supporting the Green New Deal, quasi-open borders, massive, pork-laden spending, and higher taxes. This is like a greatest hits album for leftists. So, there will be no “Joe Must Go” chanting by progressives. No way. Joe must stay because he’ll do exactly what they tell him to do.</p>
<p>The chief domestic advisor to President Biden is the infamous Susan Rice. She of Benghazi fame when, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, misled the world about the Libyan terror attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador. Ms. Rice is also a major pal of Michelle and Barack Obama. Believe me when I tell you that Ms. Rice is the exact opposite of befuddled. She is laser-locked into changing the United States. She wants to impose a paradise of equity, where certain groups of Americans get special treatment and government perks courtesy of everyone else. </p>
<p>Joe B. is absolutely on board with that even though it’s possible he might not understand what it all means.</p>
<p>The Biden administration is not going to end well. I could be wrong, but I don’t see perspicacious leadership in the Oval Office. I see a figurehead who may be unable to calculate the consequences of his policies. Does Joe understand Americans are paying a lot more for gas since Inauguration Day? Is he processing that thousands of undocumented foreign nationals, some with Covid, are now crossing the southern border? </p>
<p>Does Joe know that his “green” envoy, John Kerry, is in the pocket of the Iranians?</p>
<p>It would stun me if Joe Biden is actually aware that after six weeks, a number of bad things have happened in this country. Maybe he’ll be asked about all that in his end of March press conference. </p>
<p>But knowing the White House press corps, I kind of doubt it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2021-03-07T08:00:00ZThe Kavanaugh EffectBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Kavanaugh-Effect/-721780803967825212.html2021-02-28T18:38:00Z2021-02-28T18:38:00Z<div>It was a brutal exposition played out on world wide television. Judge Brett Kavanaugh rhetorically torn to pieces by ideologues who wanted him destroyed. A seat on the Supreme Court hung in the balance and if Kavanaugh and his family had to be humiliated, so be it. President Donald Trump could not be allowed to put a traditionally-minded judge on the court.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A devoted liberal named Christine Blasey Ford supplied the allegation. Kavanaugh, she said, had sexually abused her when they were both teenagers. Ms. Ford produced scant evidence but she had one thing that was more important than proof: a lockstep media which would believe her no matter what.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enlisting a far left Washington attorney, not paid by her, Ms. Ford wove a tawdry tale and the press printed every word of it. Of course, reasonable doubt quickly appeared, but to no avail. The media, many in Hollywood, and the majority of Democrats in the senate, gleefully convicted Brett Kavanaugh, shamed him, described him as a heinous individual.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the end, the judge did ascend to the Supreme Court thanks to Republican senatorial votes. But just barely. You may have noticed the public was relatively muted about the Kavanaugh appointment. That’s because decent people understand that while some allegations are true, others are lies. No honest person condemns on accusation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of those who did convict Brett Kavanaugh was the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. He demanded the judge take a lie detector test. He “believed the victims.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Well, karma is an interesting concept. Last week, Mr. Cuomo was accused of “misbehavior” by a woman in his administration. Like Kavanaugh, the Governor denied any wrongdoing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But unlike the judge, the corporate media largely ignored the story. Incredibly, on the day the allegations came forth, the CBS, ABC and NBC nightly newscasts did not mention it. MSNBC and CNN also declined to report the situation, despite having hours of air time to fill.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This kind of blatant media corruption is now common and undeniable. But here’s the thing. The corporations that own the TV news agencies could not care less if they are corrupt. So what? We make money. All that matters.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By the way, the champions of women everywhere, The New York Times, ran the Cuomo story on page 19. That’s where articles about recycling usually go.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is clear that the American people can no longer count on a fair press. As the Hunter Biden situation demonstrated, the corporate media has allied itself with the Democratic Party and, in that capacity, is quite willing to suppress and distort important information.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The harm that will do to each American is substantial. We should all be livid about it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Everyone, that is, except the Governor and Hunter.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-02-28T18:38:00ZTerror on the RightBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Terror-on-the-Right/900907977733781766.html2021-02-21T08:00:00Z2021-02-21T08:00:00Z<div>President Biden has ordered the Justice Department and Homeland Security to “deal with the rise of white supremacy.” He calls it the “greatest terror threat” to the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ISIS killers were stunned to hear that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are violent groups on the racist right like “Order of the Nine Angles” and the “New Aryan Empire.” Ever hear of them? I hadn’t either. But the feds know them and some members have recently been arrested for illegal activities.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some. Not many.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 2020, the Department of Justice brought exactly five criminal cases against “white supremacists.” 14 individuals were charged.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 2019, another five cases. 75 people charged. Many of them members of the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>“1488s”, a vicious Nazi-type group that deals narcotics and assaults people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It’s a similar situation on the state level. Last year in all 50 states there were only three prosecutions tied to “white supremacy.” Nine individuals were charged. Nine. In 50 states.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 2019, the number of white racists charged: eight.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, what exactly are Joe Biden and his far left supporters talking about? I mean radical leftists occupied blocks in downtown Seattle last summer. Based on arrest statistics, the white supremacists barely have enough personnel to occupy a deli.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After I heard the President define the reactionary threat from the extreme right, I tweeted a question: where is “the rise of white supremacy?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Almost immediately the Twitter assassins emerged smearing your humble correspondent. The worst was The Huffington Post, possibly the most hateful outfit on the planet.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The outrage against me was designed to send a clear message: you better not question the theory that white supremacy is dominant in America. If you do, we on the far left will hurt you. And it’s not enough to condemn white racism, you have accept that it’s pervasive.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So what’s REALLY going on here? Let’s examine a theory. Joe Biden doesn’t especially care about contextualizing the danger from the right. His supporters like the issue so he’s behind it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The reason that white supremacy is being promoted as a dire threat to America is because it diverts attention away from the real public safety menace - left wing governance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Chicago is the most dangerous city in the country. A place where thousands of African-Americans have been murdered. For decades, Chicago has been run by liberal politicians who have failed to stop the violence.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>New York City is dangerous and falling apart. Hundreds of thousands of residents are leaving. Far left mayor Bill DeBlasio is a disaster. Liberal Governor Andrew Cuomo is on the ropes after botching Covid.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gavin Newsom, the uber-liberal governor of California, will likely be recalled and may not survive the year. His home, San Francisco, is almost unlivable because of far left policies.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Should I mention Seattle, Portland, Oregon, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia? Leftist management has grievously hurt them all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The fact-based truth is that many thousands of Americans are being hurt, killed, and deprived in radical left precincts far away from any white supremacy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe someone should put that in a teleprompter so President Biden can read it.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-02-21T08:00:00ZToil and TroubleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Toil-and-Trouble/-555111014689086267.html2021-02-13T08:00:00Z2021-02-13T08:00:00Z<div>Hopefully, the witch’s spell that has been cast on Washington, D.C. will now be lifted as President Trump avoids an impeachment conviction again. Shakespeare would have loved all this in the context of his play MacBeth and its “Song of the Witches.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div> Double, double toil and trouble;</div>
<div> Fire burn and caldron bubble.</div>
<div> Cool it with a baboon’s blood,</div>
<div> Then the charm is firm and good.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But there is no charm in America as the country continues to destroy its credibility and sensibility of fairness. Few media and politicians care about objective truth anymore. Now, more than ever before, it’s all about power and money.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regarding the aftermath of the election, here is a truthful assessment: President Trump lost all perspective and acted irresponsibly in challenging the outcome. Instead of listening to people feeding his ego with unverifiable theories, he should have called for a federal forensic-based investigation of suspect voting precincts. When an incumbent president receives more than 74 million votes and loses, that is certainly a reasonable request.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But a thorough probe never materialized. Instead, both parties fed their supporters emotional propaganda as the courts walked away from intruding on the tabulated results, no matter how unlikely they seemed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As his frustration grew, Donald Trump encouraged Americans to reject the tabulations and millions did. The President believed that some magic might occur and proof of fraud could surface. It never happened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then, in a last ditch attempt to prevent Joe Biden from assuming office, Mr. Trump participated in the January 6 D.C. protest. That resulted in a national disaster as political violence shocked the country. But was Donald Trump directly responsible?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Michael van der Veen, a lawyer who defended Trump in the Senate trial, presented a strong argument: “At no point in their presentation did you hear House managers play a single example of Mr. Trump urging anyone to engage in violence of any kind. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>“He engaged in no language of incitement whatsoever...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, that doesn’t mean Donald Trump did not want a massive protest on his behalf, he did. But Trump is a smart man who had to understand that violence at the Capitol could not possibly do him any good.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After the impeachment acquittal, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell said Mr. Trump acted in a “reckless” manner, which is a defensible opinion. But the charge was “inciting violence against the government of the United States.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Very simply, evidence to convict on that is not there.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If being reckless is the standard, Vice President Harris could surely be impeached for urging Americans to bail out violent rioters last summer. Or am I wrong?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>History should record two things. First, that President Trump hurt his country by embracing destructive after-election tactics.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Secondly, that the Democratic Party, actively aided by a corrupt corporate media, persecuted Donald Trump in an unfair and unprecedented manner throughout his entire tenure in office and beyond.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s the truth. No witch's spell is needed to tell it.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-02-13T08:00:00ZThe Malarkey ZoneBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Malarkey-Zone/-588081346968766977.html2021-02-07T08:00:00Z2021-02-07T08:00:00Z<div>After less than three weeks in office, President Biden has imposed higher taxes on every American. Did you know that? We are paying dramatically more for gasoline and heating oil. In my Long Island town, a gallon of gas costs 40 cents more than it did before Mr. Biden assumed office. Can’t wait for my heating bill. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>You may remember that Biden promised not to raise taxes on working people. But he had to know that by attacking the fossil fuel industry with Executive Orders, the oil companies would immediately begin stockpiling cash by raising fuel prices. Everybody knew that. Well, maybe not Joy Behar, but everyone else.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, because of a government mandate, we pay more on necessities. It’s an indirect tax like Obamacare is a tax, at least according to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Remember? We pay higher health insurance premiums because of a government ordered health policy which Roberts said was legal because it’s a “tax.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most folks have no idea what the deuce is happening even as their wallets are getting lighter. And plenty more tax increases are on the way. You may have noticed that Joe B. Is trying to secure about $4 trillion to fight Covid and Climate Change. But the country doesn’t have an extra $4 trillion because the USA already owes close to $30 trillion, money it can never repay.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But Joe either doesn’t understand that or doesn’t care. Anyway, his administration will have to institute punitive income tax increases to go along with a myriad of “indirect” taxes like higher fuel costs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sometime in the fall, when gas prices hit $3.50 a gallon, the 80 million people who voted for Joe Biden might begin to figure this all out. But, of course, the corrupt media won’t help them. The press got President Biden elected. It will not turn on him unless he becomes “unwoke.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the folks may well turn on the President. Just as they have in California where uber-liberal Governor Gavin Newsom is about to be recalled. There will be a vote to boot him out by summer. Many Californians have had enough.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newsom, like Pritzker in Illinois and Cuomo in New York, has ruined his beautiful state. It’s all about getting high: high taxes, high crime, high numbers of homeless people (many of whom are literally high) invading neighborhoods.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, the high number of Covid restrictions that have brutalized most Californians. But not Gavin. His table at the lavish French Laundry restaurant remains reserved.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only way America is going to get fixed is for good people to get involved. For example, there is a new movement forming to actively oppose the cancel culture. It’s called “The Free Speech Movement” and you might check out its website: <a href="https://speechmovement.org/" target="_blank">speechmovement.org</a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Biden and every other politician should wise up and understand that Americans don’t want to be deceived. Yes, Biden is a massive tax and spend guy. Every voter should have understood that despite Joe vocally denying he would cause any tax pain for workers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After less than a month, the record shows that’s malarkey (Joe’s word). Now the question becomes what are we going to do about it?</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-02-07T08:00:00ZIs President Biden Calling the Shots?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-President-Biden-Calling-the-Shots/-745894526202773025.html2021-01-31T08:00:00Z2021-01-31T08:00:00Z<div>Although neither man would ever admit it, Presidents Biden and Trump have a major character trait in common: they both need approval in order to function effectively.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And this is crazy but it’s true, both men have sought approval from the same power sources. They are The New York Times and The Washington Post.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Late in 2019, Mr. Trump asked me if he should cooperate with Bob Woodward, an editor at the Post, who was writing yet another book on him. The first exercise hammered Trump and I believed the second would also do that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bob Woodward is a legendary reporter and a shrewd guy. He had to deliver an outline to his publisher in order to secure a multi-million dollar contract. Mr. Woodward could not just say he’d write whatever he learned. No, that kind of uncertainty does not lead to many dollars. Woodward had to produce a strong point of view, which he did. Simply put, President Trump doesn’t listen to anyone and is tremendously ill informed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s what Bob Woodward wrote, because that’s what his primary audience would pay money to read.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I explained the situation to President Trump just as I am explaining it to you. And then I asked him a simple question: why would he actually help Woodward trash him again?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President said he wanted his side of the story to be told. Which Woodward did. But only after at least three former Trump cabinet members pounded Trump into pudding for about 150 pages.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I could be wrong, but I think Donald Trump thought he could convince Bob Woodward that his administration was doing a good job. But if you understand that The Washington Post and its rival The New York Times promote an almost exclusively liberal point of view, Donald Trump’s effort was doomed no matter what he said.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter President Biden who will gladly cooperate with the Post and Times because he measures his success by their approval. In fact, I believe the two newspapers have more influence on Mr. Biden than any other vehicle in the world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was almost shocking to see Joe Biden become a clone of Bernie Sanders during his first week in office. Casting “unity” completely overboard, Biden signaled he’ll try to destroy the fossil fuel industry, open the nation’s borders to chaotic illegal immigration, and favor “marginalized” groups and individuals over white citizens.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That was even too much, too soon for the New York Times editorial board, which advised Biden to slow down on the Executive Orders so as not to produce a ferocious backlash.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Expect the President to slow down.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems incredible that two leftist newspapers could be formulating policy in America but the evidence is there. The corporate TV news agencies often imitate what the papers do and say. Biden, of course, knows that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Throughout his entire political life, Joe Biden has been a “go along to get along” kind of guy; a moderate in Democrat clothing, a backslapper who sought compromise.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that’s gone, baby, gone. Now Mr. Biden promotes tax dollars for abortion, is a Climate Change zealot, and believes equality should be diminished for the favoritism of “equity.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No accident that his voyage to the left wing promised land mirrors the stated beliefs of the Times and Post - which look to be the real captains of the good ship Biden.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you value American tradition, get ready for some rough seas ahead.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-01-31T08:00:00ZCan Donald Trump Mount a Comeback?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Can-Donald-Trump-Mount-a-Comeback/-480461310617847241.html2021-01-24T08:00:00Z2021-01-24T08:00:00Z<div>The “Turtle” snapped. Powerful Senator Mitch McConnell, aka the Turtle, is not opposing the impeachment trial of President Trump, signaling the two men are no longer “Happy Together.” If you don’t understand that reference, shame!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is no doubt that the traditional leaders of the Republican Party want nothing further to do with Donald Trump. However, they have a problem because so many Americans continue to support him, and believe he is being treated unfairly by the establishment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So the Turtle and other GOP power brokers should be very careful if they want to keep power. President Trump is not a man to be easily dismissed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The road back to authority for Mr. Trump is paved by just one person: Joe Biden. And I’m not talking about running for President again which is a long shot, but not impossible, for Donald Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No, I’m talking about political influence and credibility.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The conniving Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer well understand that President Trump will retain “people power,” much the way Barack Obama did when he left office. That’s what is driving this absurd second impeachment which could be worse than the first farce.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Donald Trump did encourage Americans to protest the election results. Absolutely, he did that. But he never even contemplated the violence that occurred on January 6. Maybe he should have. But a misjudgment, even when it’s drastic, is not a removable offense for a president. If it were, most of our Chief Executives would have been impeached. Or am I wrong?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, the latest impeachment is designed for just one thing: to finish Trump forever in the political arena. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>At this point, the betting odds are that Mr. Trump will not be convicted. Schumer needs sixteen Republican senators to support the democrats. A few like Mitt Romney are salivating to cancel Trump. But most are not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now back to President Biden. The smart play would have been for him to discourage impeachment in the name of national unity. <br /><br /></div>
<div>Instead, Biden did his best impression of Pontius Pilate and stood aside. Are you surprised? It would have taken courage to go against the howling left wing mob.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Somewhere Barabbas is smiling.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The overreach by Democrats and their media allies is just getting started, and it is here where Donald Trump might benefit.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>First, the cancel culture. This despicable trend is owned exclusively by the left. The cruelty and unfairness of the effort is obvious to any decent person. The more traction the cancel thugs get, the more anti-liberal backlash there will be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Immigration. Soon the southern border will be under siege again because President Biden is sending open border signals. The approaching chaos will anger many Americans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And finally the economy. Already gas prices are rising because oil companies know Biden will try to hurt them. So the energy moguls are stockpiling cash. Higher gas prices will hurt working people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I could list many other examples but here’s the headline. If President Biden’s liberal policies fail, and that’s almost a given, Americans will be looking for someone to stop the madness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And it won’t be the Turtle.<br /><br /><span>[</span><a href="https://billoreilly.com/membership" target="_blank">Sign up to watch O'Reilly's No Spin News on your TV or other device.</a><span>]</span></div>Bill O'Reilly2021-01-24T08:00:00ZThe Trump LegacyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trump-Legacy/30249500415154597.html2021-01-17T19:07:00Z2021-01-17T19:07:00Z<div>Liz Cheney got the headlines but the Wyoming Congresswoman’s vote to impeach President Trump was not the most damaging republican action recently. No, the largely unpublicized resignation of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao was. That’s because she is married to Senator Mitch McConnell who is now torturing Mr. Trump in a foolish display of power. Ms. Chao’s exit sent an anti-Trump signal that was surely endorsed by her husband.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As Senate majority leader, McConnell is delaying the impeachment trial until after Joe Biden is sworn in. But the Kentuckian is also saying it’s okay if GOP senators vote to ultimately convict the president on charges of inciting the violence at the Capitol building. Why would McConnell do that?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>He has to know that voting to convict Donald Trump in the Senate would damage the Republican Party immensely. Millions of people who voted for Trump would leave the GOP.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is not a Richard Nixon situation where the nation heard the President on tape conspiring to commit a crime. The Trump case is subjective, an opinion that he directly incited a mob to violence. However, he used the word “peacefully” in public remarks to the protestors so that is certainly exculpatory. Yes, he did not tamp down the visceral anger of his supporters as he should have. No, that is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It was a severe error in judgment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mitch McConnell knows all this so it is a mystery as to why he wants to hurt his own party. He, himself, is partially to blame for the Republican senate loss in Georgia because he blocked the $2,000 Covid relief checks. So McConnell is now emerging as a villain to many Republicans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fair-minded Americans should understand that President Trump was largely successful on policy during his term. His signature achievement is reviving the sluggish Obama-Biden economy - an action which benefited nearly all working people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Trump also managed “Operation Warp Speed” to success as a Covid vaccine is a reality. That is a colossal accomplishment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In addition, President Trump contained North Korea and Iran. Confronted the Chinese threat in a methodical way, and broadened U.S. power in the Middle East.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, Americans were rewarded with three traditional Supreme Court justices by Mr. Trump which protects against arbitrary changes to the Constitution.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, Mitch McConnell is playing an extremely dangerous game by diminishing President Trump in the eyes of Americans who still like him. And the crazy part is that McConnell doesn’t have to do it. Donald Trump will soon be a past president and the nation is not well served by an unnecessary impeachment trial that will stoke even more division and hatred.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wise up fast, Mitch. You’re misusing your power. You’re hurting the country.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2021-01-17T19:07:00ZPaybackBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Payback/-826845211832531638.html2021-01-09T19:58:00Z2021-01-09T19:58:00Z<div>Imitating the bloody baptism scene in The Godfather, anti-Trump zealots are coming with guns blazing. The horrendous display of sedition and treachery at the nation’s Capitol has provided some leftists with a license to figuratively kill and they are locked and loaded.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump is the primary target and he is badly wounded with more pain to come. Mr. Trump is obviously loathed by many powerful people and is now stripped of defenders. Those who would even grant the President a fair hearing are putting themselves at risk. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Trump’s failure to tamp down the angry protestors supporting him in Washington has destroyed his legacy. The Trump-haters are screaming that he “encouraged” the violence but I believe that’s false. The President is an opportunist and smart enough to understand that a calculated violent attack on Congress in his name would destroy him. Because of his bitterness over the election and the unprecedented press mistreatment he’s received, the President has lost all perspective and personal discipline.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not an excuse, just accurate analysis. I know the man.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now we have even more hatred. Let me ask a simple question: do you think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer care about “bringing the country together?” Of course they don’t. They want to punish Donald Trump and every single one of his supporters by ginning up another impeachment fiasco that they know will light yet another fuse in this nation. Joe Biden has not signed on because he understands the brutal consequences of totally emasculating his predecessor, a man who garnered 74 million votes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’m not even going to address the corrupt media which believes its reckless disregard of facts and perspective is a moral obligation. But social media? Now, that’s a different story. Pun intended.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree that violent threats and defamation must be policed by Silicon Valley. But denying the President and others the right to express opinions is dangerous to the nation. Companies have a perfect right to “flag” what they deem as inaccurate. But punishing political expression is obviously unconstitutional. The corporate media uses anonymous, unverifiable sources every day and social media aggressively distributes that. We are in a danger zone here that may require Congressional scrutiny.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is beyond any doubt that the assault on Congress by Trump supporters has created a national emergency. We are descending into the madness of irrationality. In addition, the anti-Trumpers are now exacting vivid revenge and there doesn’t seem to be any cease fire in sight.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And so our divided nation turns to you, Joe Biden. Defuse it. As best you can.</div>Bill O'Reilly2021-01-09T19:58:00ZHappy Birthday, JesusBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happy-Birthday-Jesus/-594048250162600490.html2020-12-20T18:55:00Z2020-12-20T18:55:00Z<div>President Ulysses S. Grant was a Christmas kind of guy. A practicing Methodist, he made December 25 a federal holiday in 1870. Ever since then, the birthday of Jesus the Nazarene has been a official day of rest.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And just last week, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order making Christmas Eve a federal holiday as well. Joy to the World! Or at least to the USA.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You may remember some years back there were attacks on Christmas by secular-progressives that went like this: “we don’t believe in Jesus and don’t want to see him and his parents displayed on public property. And we may sue if that happens. In addition, we don’t even want to hear the words ‘Merry Christmas,’ so don’t be saying them in places of business. Like stores where people buy Christmas presents. We’ll have none of that!”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Incredibly, some bosses actually ordered employees not to say “Merry Christmas.” It would be “Happy Holidays” or else.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter me, your humble correspondent, who found that bit of fascism very offensive. Also, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. If I want to say Merry Christmas while handing out burgers at the drive-through window, I’ll damn well say it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sorry for the wording, Jesus.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Once I brought the controversy to the attention of the nation on television and named some of the cowardly businesses, that “Happy Holidays “ mandate evaporated pretty quick. But not before some far left media people attacked me. Of course, in the true spirit of Christmas, I attacked back. Wait a minute. That might be the reason my stocking contained a measure of coal, and may have contributed to climate change.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, over the years there has definitely been a sea change back to a traditional Christmas landscape. Yes, there are still ideological hooligans who despise the baby Jesus, but most of them are now hiding in San Francisco.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So what about this Jesus guy? Why do most of us have his birthday off? Well, he was a fascinating fellow and you know that if you read my history book, “Killing Jesus.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Born into a family that lived communally in the small town of Nazareth, Jesus was trained as a stone-cutter by his father. However, his parents knew early on that their boy’s intellectual aptitude was off the chart. His eloquence was on display in the local Temple as he was not shy about challenging the Jewish clergy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Eventually, the Nazarene became a cult figure who could attract thousands of people to hear him speak. This meant he was a threat to the establishment and, in short measure, Jesus was brutally executed by Roman authorities.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After his death, Jesus became the most famous human being in history. Today, billions of people believe he is God.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In America, according to a Gallup survey, 93 percent of us celebrate Christmas even though 65 percent claim to be Christian. That’s down from 78 percent in 2007, as the secularists make inroads.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that Christmas thing is hanging tough. Perhaps because it is honoring a man who taught that your neighbor is as important as yourself, and you are to love both equally.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not a lot of downside in that if you are a holistic human being. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So have yourself a merry little Christmas. And you might think about how a laborer with absolutely no resources has dominated world culture for more than two thousand years.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>No wonder the anti-believers are so upset.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-12-20T18:55:00ZIs America Still a Noble Nation?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-America-Still-a-Noble-Nation/717947668242936510.html2020-12-12T23:01:00Z2020-12-12T23:01:00Z<p>There is a dark anger spreading across the land. President Trump and a majority of people who voted for him believe the election was marred by significant fraud and the system is allowing a dishonest vote to stand. Many Americans are furious and are questioning the nobility of America.<br /><br />On the other side, many committed leftists never thought the country was noble in the first place. They have cleverly set up a philosophy that tells people of color and the poor that they are victims of “white oppression” and that President Trump is the racist-in-chief. That grievance play, fronted by the Marxist Black Lives Matter Global Foundation, peddles hatred - aided and abetted by the corporate media.<br /><br />So now traditional-minded Americans face two dilemmas. There is little doubt cheating occurred during the election. Yet, the Supreme Court doesn’t want to hear the allegations because not enough hard evidence has been put forth. In order to overturn a vote, the nation’s highest court would have to see massive evidence of fraud. And there is not time to assemble that especially because some states and almost all the national media oppose investigating the election at all.<br /><br />Therefore, a good portion of the 74 million people who voted for President Trump are fighting mad, some are even considering walking away from their country.<br /><br />Then there is this question: if you stay, how do you deal with those who want to destroy the fabric of America and support using nefarious means to do so?<br /><br />In radical left precincts there is utter hatred for conservative and traditional folks. There is a loathing for many Constitutional rights. Also for religion. A disrespect for private property and self-reliance. The radicals want to diminish personal rights and empower a “woke” central government to impose “social justice,” which includes financially punishing the affluent and profitable corporations.<br /><br />In short, a socialist government in Washington would make almost all the calls about what we can have and what we can do.<br /><br />That scenario is already on display in California and New York where fanatical leftists are in control. The result is disaster. Violent crime is rising quickly, quality of life is drastically declining, and punitive taxation to fend off bankruptcy is harming workers and the affluent alike.<br /><br />The result: millions are leaving those places. Since 2010, close to two million residents have departed New York State with many others packing up. Millions more would leave if they could.<br /><br />In California, citizens in Los Angeles face this reality: officials will no longer enforce the law. For example, if a drunk driver hits you in LA, police will not arrive to document the crime. In addition, if you steal less than $900 of merchandise from a store, you will not be prosecuted. I could site many more examples.<br /><br />The radicals in New York and California would like to impose their anarchistic system on the rest of the country. And so, conflict is coming.<br /><br />I hope it will be peaceful. You are committing treason if you use violence to impose or even defend a political belief. The looters and destroyers in the wake of George Floyd’s death are traitors in addition to being common criminals.<br /><br />Our system is under severe pressure right now. I believe the good people will prevail, but the fight will be intense. The patriotic play is to use all legal means to right wrongs and defeat the evil people who threaten our liberties. If you walk away, the bad guys win.<br /><br />Saving traditional America can be done. But if it’s not done correctly, then we become as bad as the destroyers. America remains a noble nation. But the struggle to keep that way will be daunting.</p>Bill O'Reilly2020-12-12T23:01:00ZThe Trump Show Packs UpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trump-Show-Packs-Up/780385499913511249.html2020-12-06T08:15:00Z2020-12-06T08:15:00Z<p><span>Privately, President Trump knows he’ll be a regular citizen again shortly. But he dislikes talking about it even with close family members. Mr. Trump is still trying to resolve the fact that he received 74 million votes and lost! He is angry and truly believes the vote in at least vital five states was illegally compromised.</span><br /><br /><span>When the President leaves the White House in January, a number of things are likely to happen. Above all, the corrupt corporate media will continue to use him as cover. Every time Joe Biden makes a mistake or the country takes an economic hit, Trump will be blamed. No matter what goes wrong over the next four years, President Joe will get a pass as he gleefully watches his predecessor continue to be demonized.</span><br /><br /><span>But a bit of vengeance will emerge that may comfort Donald Trump just a bit. Because the press has abandoned it’s mandate of searching for the truth without ideology, many news consumers will abandon the news industry in response.</span><br /><br /><span>Ratings for all the television news programs will recede. I mean what exactly will they cover? Hating or loving Mr. Trump was the entire game for the past five years. Now, it’s Joe Biden. Talk about culture shock.</span><br /><br /><span>Maybe I’m missing it but there seems to be a lack of creativity on display. The three network news operations pretty much cover the same thing, the same way. Boring? I believe so.</span><br /><br /><span>Cable news is simply dour. When I was there we had a few laughs. We did different things. We had Miller and Goldberg and Watters running around annoying people. On a slow news day, there was still energy. Today, watching many cable presentations is like algebra class. Is it over yet?</span><br /><br /><span>Donald Trump used the media to get elected and may ultimately be responsible for destroying it. How ironic. It’s passive revenge. Covid and Trump could depart the stage at about the same time. Leaving what then? What’s the media plan?</span><br /><br /><span>There is no plan. Biden is dull. Senator Mitch McConnell will be the most powerful person in the country. Will Fox give him a show called “The Mitching Hour?”</span><br /><br /><span>No, they won’t.</span><br /><br /><span>And finally, there is only one thing that might stave off the disaster that TV news is facing. And that would be if one Donald Trump secures a commentary position, bringing a potential audience of 74 million with him.</span><br /><br /><span>Again, irony all over the place. The man who destroyed the media - could be the only one who might be able to save it.</span></p>Bill O'Reilly2020-12-06T08:15:00ZThe Pope vs. President TrumpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Pope-vs.-President-Trump/534827296434326129.html2020-11-29T08:00:00Z2020-11-29T08:00:00Z<p><span><span>Pope Francis is a good man. At least I think so. He’s seriously interested in alleviating suffering and corruption around the world and uses his influence to do that. His ultimate boss must be very pleased.</span><br /><br /><span>Jesus the Nazarene was a compassionate, practical guy who looked at the cold world with a realistic weariness. “The poor will always be with us,” he told his followers.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>With precision, Jesus spoke of ambition and achievement in his parable of the three workers given investment capital by their employer. The man who did nothing with that opportunity was scolded in the parable for squandering the gift he had received.</span><br /><br /><span>In his new book “Let Us Dream,” Pope Francis also speaks of practical matters, confronting the world of Covid and directly criticizing the actions of President Trump.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Having written “Killing Jesus,” a history of the most famous human being who ever existed, I think the Pope may be making a significant mistake in his analysis, one that the teacher Jesus would not have made.</span><br /><br /><span>On page two of the book, the Pope writes: “Think of governments having to choose in the pandemic. What matters more: to take care of people or keep the financial system going? Do we look after people, or sacrifice them for the sake of the stock market? Do we put the machinery of wealth on hold, knowing people will suffer, yet that way we save lives? In some cases governments have tried to protect the economy first, maybe because they didn’t understand the magnitude of the illness, or because they lacked the resources. Those governments have mortgaged their people.”</span><br /><br /><span>That is quite the indictment by Francis. So, playing devil’s advocate with His Holiness, let me challenge.</span><br /><br /><span>No country on earth has successfully eliminated Covid and a number of them badly damaged their own citizens by ordering intense lockdowns. That’s a fact.</span><br /><br /><span>I guess a case could be made that Sweden’s refusal to take strong isolation action led to more death in that country. That seems to be true.</span><br /><br /><span>As for the United States, President Trump did not want to panic the markets and create intense economic hardship. Remember, about 13 million Americans have contracted Covid. There are 330 million of us and we are all dependent on the market economy which slid into recession shortly after the virus hit.</span><br /><br /><span>Pope Francis is responsible for souls, an American president for bodies. Folks have to have money to support themselves and, under Mr. Trump, the U.S. economy has remained resilient while other nations have faltered.</span><br /><br /><span>It is true that Donald Trump did not aggressively promote mask wearing and punishing lockdowns. He was also far too optimistic about defeating the pandemic in the beginning. He might have handled those things with more touch and, surely, has paid a political price.</span><br /><br /><span>But the President did not “mortgage” his people. He protected their hard earned assets and investments. He also successfully fast-tracked a vaccine.</span><br /><br /><span>Capitalism comes through again.</span><br /><br /><span>Pope Francis is a disciple of “liberation theology,” a theory that demands social concern for the poor and political “liberation” for oppressed peoples. I believe Jesus would have endorsed that concept as well.</span><br /><br /><span>But it is HOW you provide for the downtrodden that separates the saints from the sinners. Allowing all citizens opportunities to improve their lives in this callous world should be the basis of “liberation theology.” Protecting folks from harm is equally as important as long as you don’t “destroy the village” in the process.</span><br /><br /><span>In the age of Covid, the USA continues to lead the planet in social and economic opportunities. With all due respect to the good man Pope Francis, President Trump contributed greatly in allowing opportunity to continue to knock through an extremely dangerous time.</span><br /><br /><span>At least that’s the take from this loyal American Irish-Catholic.</span></span></p>Bill O'Reilly2020-11-29T08:00:00ZThe Truth about the VoteBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Truth-about-the-Vote/-249063340486868371.html2020-11-22T20:12:00Z2020-11-22T20:12:00Z<p><span>Because I am a simple man, I pose an elementary question: do you believe the corporate media wants to know if there was any corruption in the presidential election? Simple yes or no answer will do.</span><br /><br /><span>Time's up! The answer is NO! With capital letters.</span><br /><br /><span>President Trump believes the vote was compromised in a number of places. So do many of his supporters. But, so far, solid legal evidence, the kind federal court rulings should be based upon, is scant.</span><br /><br /><span>From the beginning of the controversy, I have said the probe must start with analytics, the math. So, what are the odds that a 600,000 vote Trump lead on election night in Pennsylvania, can turn into a significant loss after mail-in votes are counted? Is that a ten percent chance? 50 percent? What percentage of Pennsylvania mail-ins went for Biden?</span><br /><br /><span>That kind of data is exactly how serious election doubt is raised. But analytics has not been introduced on a significant level in the vote controversy.</span><br /><br /><span>Why not?</span><br /><br /><span>Can’t answer that definitively, but educated speculation points to incompetence on the part of the Trump campaign.</span><br /><br /><span>If you take nutty left California out of the popular vote, Joe Biden won by about a million. Far less than one percent of votes cast. That means the country is equally divided with almost 74 million folks rejecting Biden.</span><br /><br /><span>So it’s easy to allege fraud against Trump as there is an enormous audience ready and willing to entertain that prospect. Add to that the fact that the corrupt American press won’t even consider electoral corruption - after it hysterically hyped bogus Russian electoral interference for two years - and you have very bitter feelings about the election of 2020 that are damaging the nation.</span><br /><br /><span>Since the November 3 vote, I have compiled a massive amount of electoral information for my news agency on BillOReilly.com. My fact-based assessment is that some democrat election officials in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas) cheated by breaking a variety of state mandated voting rules.</span><br /><br /><span>It is impossible for anyone to say whether the deceit was enough to win entire states for Mr. Biden. That’s where analytics could produce powerful circumstantial evidence. The federal judges might consider an evidence package based upon sworn affidavits and scientific “probability.”</span><br /><br /><span>But no such package has been produced and the Trump campaign is facing doom as state certifications loom in early December.</span><br /><br /><span>That’s exactly where we are. And it is certainly not a good place for the United States of America.</span></p>Bill O'Reilly2020-11-22T20:12:00ZIt's a Smug World After AllBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-a-Smug-World-After-All/-211929819233870037.html2020-11-14T23:32:00Z2020-11-14T23:32:00Z<p>Get ready. Big changes coming next year in politics and media. All of us will be affected. Spread the word.</p>
<p>Unless Moses comes back and parts the Potomac River, Joe Biden will be President. Old Joe grabbed more that 78 million votes, a record. Donald Trump garnered 73 million, the second biggest vote-getter ever with only Biden beating him. Doing the math, more than 150 million Americans cast ballots.</p>
<p>But on the day after the election, with the contest in dispute and drama high, only two million Americans watched the CBS News special. Just two and a half million watched ABC’s election special. Three and a half million tuned into see NBC’s special newscast.</p>
<p>Those are catastrophic numbers.</p>
<p>Cable News had more viewers but not many more. Astoundingly, CNN beat Fox News. </p>
<p>So what’s happening right before our eyes?</p>
<p>Well, most Americans who consume what the corporate media puts out know that dishonesty and unfairness is the lead story. From the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump has been brutally attacked by the press which openly allied itself with the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>Every honest person has to admit that. The Russian collusion fiasco and impeachment were historic embarrassments.</p>
<p>The smearing of Mr. Trump combined with the President’s lack of discipline in defending himself led to his defeat. In his heart, the President knows I’m right. Trump made too many unforced errors. But the way he was treated by the combined national media agencies was corrupt and unprecedented.</p>
<p>Americans who pay attention understand that no matter who they voted for. They know the media fix was in. And they will not forget.</p>
<p>Therefore, all of the corporate media will suffer and lose audience steadily over the next year. Because the fix will STILL be in. Readers and watchers of the news will continue to be misled. Every day. Every way.</p>
<p>President Biden will be fabulous. Everything he does will be magnificent and perspicacious. Forget Abe, FDR, and JFK. Joe will dwarf them all.</p>
<p>The media has to do this. It can never admit it backed a mediocrity. Maybe Joe will prove me wrong and I intend to give him a chance, but I foresee a guy who is exchanging a basement in Delaware for a cloistered office in DC. I don’t expect to see much of Joe B. Not too many press conferences or trips. Maybe a photo op here and there and some ice cream runs.</p>
<p>However, the new President will go to Sunday mass. He has to thank God for the kind treatment the press has bestowed upon him.</p>
<p>Not too many in the press corp will attend church because it’s a secular crew. They largely believe in themselves and are celebrating the demise of Donald Trump, which they are convinced they engineered. </p>
<p>But demise is a condition that can spread like Covid. These biased media people have become unbearable to many Americans; their smug condescension vividly on display over a painful four year period. And so, while many journalists continue to betray their profession with unbridled arrogance, the folks will slip out the back, Jack. They’ll make a new plan, Stan.</p>
<p>And, incredibly, the media chieftains do not even know the full extent of what’s coming - even as the draw up their job elimination lists.</p>
<p>Nope, these moguls don’t believe there is a major problem in their media domains. They remain, above all else, smug.</p>
<p>As a bug. In a rug.</p>
<p> </p>Bill O'Reilly2020-11-14T23:32:00ZThe Trump VoteBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trump-Vote/432641784728459306.html2020-11-07T19:39:00Z2020-11-07T19:39:00Z<span>More than 70 million American citizens voted for President Trump, the most in history. Except for Joe Biden. He got four million more. At least that’s what the “official” popular vote tally is at this point. But some of those Biden votes may be bogus. However, hard evidence is needed to define that. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Back to President Trump. It is incredible that he received so many votes. That is a true statement. It’s incredible. Even if he loses, he can go down to Palm Beach knowing he got more votes than Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Warren Harding.</span><br /><br /><span>But why did Mr. Trump get so much validation?</span><br /><br /><span>Two reasons: first he succeeded in putting money in the pockets of working people. The Trump economy allowed more reward in the marketplace. Can Joe Biden duplicate that? <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Second, millions of Americans despise the Trump-haters who are on display every hour on the hour. It’s amazing but some anti-Trumpers are so vile, they have made the bombastic Trump look sympathetic. We all know the hit list: phony Russian allegations, irresponsible impeachment, defamatory media, looters and arsonists, socialist politicians.</span><br /><br /><span>Let me be very clear: the “get Trump” and destroy traditional America movements motivated the pro-Trump vote.</span><br /><br /><span>Now there is wreckage. The entire election is suspect because some liberal places presented a massive amount of Biden votes AFTER election day. Many believe the fix was in. The old saying goes like this: “perception is reality.” The election of 2020 is tainted forever.</span><br /><br /><span>Also, the corporate media is finished. Companies like Disney, which owns ABC, allow commentators to smear any American who even voted for Trump. Would Disney have allowed irresponsible broadcasters to attack Obama voters? No.</span><br /><br /><span>Regular folks of all political views now understand the media is corrupt, generally speaking. Older Americans have a basis of comparison because they watched Cronkite and Mike Wallace. CNN? Sure. AT&T must be very proud.</span><br /><br /><span>So tens of millions supported President Trump largely because they are angry about how he was treated. Yes, you can make an argument that he brought some of it on himself, but that hypothesis falls apart when the “Russian collusion” fiasco is evaluated. And the Hunter Biden blackout. And the unending chaos that the Washington establishment along with their media allies tried to impose on the Trump administration.</span><br /><br /><span>So more than 70 million voters essentially said “blank you” to the establishment. That may not console the President or his supporters but it is a fact. And anti-establishment anger is growing. With every newly discovered mail-in ballot.</span>Bill O'Reilly2020-11-07T19:39:00ZThe DecisionBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Decision/-603656219841160645.html2020-10-31T17:55:00Z2020-10-31T17:55:00Z<span>There is danger in the national air and it has nothing to do with President Trump. But do the folks feel it? Do solid voters who embrace the vast goodness in America understand their country is on the cliff?</span><br /><br /><span>I don’t know.</span><br /><br /><span>Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Andrew Jackson. A man of impulse and, at times, colossal callousness. Yet, his political strategy is to create opportunities; mostly for himself but the economic trickle down effect has helped working people. The rise in wages will stop almost immediately if Joe Biden wins the election and begins increasing taxes.</span><br /><br /><span>Having researched and written a book about the President called “The United States of Trump,” and having known him for three decades, I well understand why millions of Americans want to fire him. What I cannot fathom is the unintended consequences of doing that.</span><br /><br /><span>It’s not as if Teddy Roosevelt is waiting to take over. Joe Biden is a corrupt, weak man who is fronting a subversive movement that will crush traditional Americans. The signposts are everywhere. Liberal cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle have collapsed. Quality of life in deep blue states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey has drastically declined.</span><br /><br /><span>Millions of citizens are fleeing dangerous and chaotic places run by radical left politicians.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Biden is not a radical but his running mate is. Senator Kamala Harris is a vicious due process denier who slapped Biden, himself, in the face with a racist accusation. Yet, he put her on the ticket because of skin color and gender, not because of vision and achievement. Joe Biden - looking out for you.</span><br /><br /><span>The radical left in this country makes the hard right look like the Muppets. This week, Senator Bernie Sanders accused police officers in Philadelphia of “murder” after they shot a convicted violent criminal dead as the man was coming at them with a knife. Sanders uttered not a word of criticism toward the hundreds of looters and “protesters” that injured scores of Philly cops.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Joe Biden will do the bidding of Sanders and the other far left zealots. He will stand by as the United States falls into disarray economically, socially, and educationally. He will allow totalitarianism to rise by imitating Pontius Pilate, washing his hands as the cancel culture, corrupt social media barons, and socialist politicians rob Americans of their rights and assets.</span><br /><br /><span>Obviously, millions of voters do not believe what I am stating. How could they and still support a Biden-Harris ticket? When Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were elected, I did not believe the country would suffer permanent damage. But that’s not the case with Biden. He’ll be a fiddler watching the flames engulf traditional America.</span><br /><br /><span>And that brings us back to Donald Trump. If he wins re-election, he’ll continue doing what he does; the tweeting, the feuding, the quest for never-ending approval. But he will not hurt you, your children, your grandchildren.</span><br /><br /><span>Biden, Harris, Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer et al, will. They want to impose a new America where centralized federal power dictates your behavior right down to what you can say and how much you’re allowed to have. They will try to alter the Supreme Court in an attempt to make this happen.</span><br /><br /><span>Think very hard about your voting decision. Danger is close.</span>Bill O'Reilly2020-10-31T17:55:00ZWhat Biden BelievesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Biden-Believes/-7472669339928478.html2020-10-25T07:00:00Z2020-10-25T07:00:00Z<div><span>By the end of the second debate, Joe Biden was tired. He looked at his watch and then appeared to be silently thinking: “who has my jammies?”</span><br /><br /><span>It was closing in on 10:30pm.</span><br /><br /><span>But old Joe was not a diminished guy on the stage. If the definition of a debate winner is which candidate was helped the most, then President Trump won. But Mr. Biden held his own until the last round when he blurted out that he wants to eliminate the oil industry.</span><br /><br /><span>I knew that all along but what I didn’t know until this week is exactly how Joe Biden feels about his country. Yes, he’s a long-standing public servant and that should be respected. But, as far as the nation is concerned, Biden’s heart is in the wrong place.</span><br /><br /><span>In a rare question and answer with a journalist, the former Vice-President said this: “America was an idea. We hold these truths to be self evident (that all men are created equal). We’ve never lived up to it ...”</span><br /><br /><span>That is a far-left view; that the United States is not a noble nation because some citizens were and are denied equal rights. So, we have to rearrange the country and create a powerful central government to “impose” social justice. You may remember that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said pretty much the same thing when he opined America was “never that great.”</span><br /><br /><span>It is apparent that Joe Biden has bought into a governing concept that harms some citizens to benefit others. And if he is elected President, many Americans are likely to be hurt in the name of economic, environmental, and racial “justice.”</span><br /><br /><span>It is certainly true that our country has treated blacks and Native-Americans unfairly throughout history. I document that in my books “Killing Crazy Horse” and “Killing Lincoln.” And, by the way, most Americans accept that history is flawed, not only here but in every single nation on earth.</span><br /><br /><span>The intent of the Founding Fathers was to provide a system that would allow freedom and the pursuit of happiness without government interference. We fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War to ensure that promise. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of Americans have died in conflicts against tyranny.</span><br /><br /><span>Many of the colonists, including some of the Founders, understood that slavery was an insult to God and to humanity. But the power did not exist in Philadelphia to force the southern colonies to outlaw it. So, a new nation arose with a brutal deficit.</span><br /><br /><span>Does that mean America has never “lived up” to its promise? No, it does not.</span><br /><br /><span>The truth that Joe Biden does not accept is that the United States today provides more opportunity to pursue happiness than any other country in the world. Poor and desperate people in Honduras understand that. Mr. Biden does not.</span><br /><br /><span>This is an unfair world and we are all sinners, capable of personal bias and destructive actions. But the promise of America is a nation where wrongs can be righted and individuals are allowed the freedom to choose their own destiny.</span><br /><br /><span>That promise has largely been fulfilled with the caveat that our system should constantly be improved because corruption and evil is never-ending on this planet.</span><br /><br /><span>After 47 years in government, Joe Biden does not seem to see the truth about America and he is not alone.</span><br /><br /><span>To me, that’s very sad.</span></div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2020-10-25T07:00:00ZWill the Media Defeat Donald Trump?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Will-the-Media-Defeat-Donald-Trump/-491634889278061861.html2020-10-17T07:00:00Z2020-10-17T07:00:00Z<div>President Trump and everyone else knew that the NBC Townhall exposition would be contentious and that the ABC Townhall with Joe Biden, broadcast at the same time, would be gentle.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s exactly what happened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The NBC moderator, Savannah Guthrie, was under heavy pressure to make Donald Trump squirm. The left had battered NBC for daring to put the President up directly against Mr. Biden. Apparently, they feared Trump would get higher ratings than Biden.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So Savannah spent almost all her interview time on the liberal attack line: why the President doesn’t promote masks, his taxes, white supremacy, QAnon; the usual greatest hits.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Meanwhile, George Stephanopoulos, an avowed liberal democrat and chief correspondent at ABC News, did not even ask Joe Biden about the biggest political story in America: the exposure of his son Hunter as a person who used his father’s political power to make millions of dollars.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>George, of course, knew he would look weak not asking about Hunter but his bosses at Disney, which owns ABC, want Biden to win the election so the fix was in.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That is the state of the corporate media in America today.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The question is, how did the national press become a political entity? Why have standards of journalism collapsed?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The short answer is Donald Trump. Many press chieftains despise the President because they see him as a vulgarian who panders to conservatives. Therefore, they are directing their power to remove him from office, not responsibly seek the truth about his administration.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The long answer is the “media culture.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some years ago, Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about CBS News called “Bias” that credibly reports the left wing slant of the organization - an outfit that employed him for more than 20 years.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I worked for CBS for three years and saw what Bernie saw: an organization that valued a liberal point of view. At the time, there was some discipline at CBS News so left wing bias was tamped down on the air, especially in local news where little political spin existed. But the Dan Rather crew was very liberal and hired many like-minded people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The same culture was in place at NBC News under Tom Brokaw and at ABC News starring Peter Jennings. I worked at ABC for two years and knew Jennings well. He was a social liberal but not aggressively left. The boss at ABC News, Roone Arledge, was in the same category.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But, generally speaking, those managers who did the hiring at all the networks were looking for journalists who would “fit in.” Thus, most network news employees were men and women of the left.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Reagan was not widely admired in the halls of the three networks. But, again, ideological reporting was keep under control with exceptions like Sam Donaldson. Most of the time, the digs against Mr. Reagan were far more subtle than they are today against Mr. Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The harsh truth is that today most corporate news agencies have openly allied with the Democratic Party. So, President Trump is not only running against a political organization, but also against companies that literally have billions of dollars and thousands of employees lined up to defeat him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The nation’s two most powerful newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are openly hostile to Donald Trump, as are the wire services which provide articles to smaller papers from coast-to-coast.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If, somehow, President Trump manages to win re-election, it would almost be a miracle and the Vatican should investigate. Never before in American history has the press and the powerful social media corporations joined together in a single mindset to crush a presidential candidate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And this colossal Constitutional abuse is happening right before our eyes. As the dueling network Town Halls proved beyond any reasonable doubt.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2020-10-17T07:00:00ZShe's SpeakingBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shes-Speaking/-827064573745276281.html2020-10-09T21:27:00Z2020-10-09T21:27:00Z<p>Kamala Harris is a dangerous woman. She may be President of the United States one day and if that happens, everything will change in this country. For the worse. And maybe forever.<br /><br />Senator Harris possesses many weapons in her quest for power. She identifies as African American and uses skin color to attack and deflect. Her running mate, Joe Biden, got a heavy taste of that when she told the world in a primary debate that Biden’s bigotry brought her pain as a little girl who was being bused to an integrated school.<br /><br />A stunned Biden had no cogent reply.<br /><br />Kamala is also a proud feminist who “believes women.” Brett Kavanaugh got a massive dose of that when the Senator convicted him of terrible crimes on nationwide TV. Despite being a career prosecutor, Ms. Harris totally denied Kavanaugh any semblance of due process, attempting to destroy him and, by extension, his wife and two daughters.<br /><br />Later, when the FBI found zero evidence that Justice Kavanaugh had ever violated anyone, Senator Harris continued her witch hunt posture saying she believed a woman who accused Joe Biden of a physical crime.<br /><br />But, incredibly, Mr. Biden does not hold a grudge against Kamala Harris and seems to be happy having her as a running mate. By the way, Senator Harris now believes Joe Biden is the greatest guy, not guilty of anything.<br /><br />After last week’s debate, a focus group of regular folks run by Frank Luntz all agreed that Kamala Harris came across as “arrogant and condescending.” Looked that way to me, too. When Vice President Pence tried to correct misstatements by the Senator she snapped: “I’m speaking.” Three times.<br /><br />And it was true, she was speaking - saying words that were false. She said President Trump called the pandemic a “hoax.” He did not.<br /><br />She said fracking would not stop if the democrats won. She said the exact opposite at a Town Hall.<br /><br />She said Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a Supreme Court judge while campaigning for a second term. Not true.<br /><br />So what we have here is failure to communicate in an honest way. But when Mr. Pence attempted to point that out, Ms. Harris gave him a look of contempt. The message was clear: how dare you contradict me, Kamala Harris! A woman who believes all women. A woman who will not be silenced by the likes of you or any other misogynist.<br /><br />Perhaps I am being too harsh on Kamala Harris. I have never met her. She has accomplished much in her life. But from what I have witnessed and heard, the Senator’s hobby is being ruthless, and her gleeful quest is to punish those with whom she disagrees. In Washington, she has plenty of company in those pursuits.<br /><br />This makes her dangerous if you are a traditional American who believes in due process, honest discourse, and a country that does not divide people into race and gender camps. So, if the Biden/Harris ticket wins, all of us including old Joe better had better watch our backs.<br /><br />That’s because the little girl on the bus is now a left-wing zealot consumed with obtaining power. When Kamala is speaking, you interrupt at your own peril.</p>Bill O'Reilly2020-10-09T21:27:00ZDonald J. Trump, RIP?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Donald-J.-Trump-RIP/984097000955302797.html2020-10-04T07:00:00Z2020-10-04T07:00:00Z<p>Well it was fun while it lasted. Kinda fun. A few laughs. But now many pundits believe it is all over for President Trump. He’s going the way of John Adams, Benjamin Harrison, and Jimmy Carter. One and done. Bush the Elder territory. Donnie, we hardly knew ya.<br /><br />The President has Covid. It got past his Secret Service shield. Some are happy. Don’t tell me they’re not. Trump haters believe they see the end in sight.<br /><br />But, wait. There’s a month to go before the vote. And Halloween has to be factored in. Joe Biden rising from his basement crypt, bellowing “if in fact” from behind his mask. Scaring the kids. Do Americans really want old Joe at the wheel? While Kamala lurks? Promoting San Francisco values? Joe doesn’t even like her. Is this the ticket the nation seeks?<br /><br />Polls say yes.<br /><br />President Trump interrupts. He’s a confronter. Not nurturing. The suburban ladies don’t like his style. But do they understand what Joe and Kamala will bring? Do they get that higher taxes and centralized government will constrain freedom? Do they want a no bail policy when a thug steals their car? Would they like drug addicts openly setting up shop in the neighborhood?<br /><br />A great mystery of the universe is that President Trump, perhaps the most blunt human being since Nero, has not spelled things out for the people of this country.<br /><br />So it’s left to me, your humble correspondent, to do it. <br /><br />Joe Biden is approaching the end of the trail. He is a man for no seasons, a fellow who will follow the left-wing agenda with no conscience pangs whatsoever.<br /><br />Abort babies in the third trimester? Altar boy Joe is down with that. Impose a “wealth tax” that essentially seizes private property? Joe has no objection even though he’ll have to pony up a percentage of his beach house to federal and state tax collectors every year.<br /><br />Ban most firearms? Joe will not object. Pay the healthcare costs for millions of undocumented people? Biden will sign the checks even as the federal debt is north of $30 trillion.<br /><br />The truth is that Joe Biden has changed almost all his beliefs to comply with the wishes of the far-left zealots who control his party. At this point, Joe stands for nothing and would happily watch the destruction of the Supreme Court and the free marketplace.<br /><br />Say it ain’t so, Joe!<br /><br />You can’t because it is so. You won’t answer that critique because, as you said in the debate, it would become “the issue.”<br /><br />So why the deuce isn’t Donald Trump going door to door warning Americans that their traditional country is about to be disassembled if Joe Biden is elected? <br /><br />We know Joe believes authorities in Oregon can “handle” the vicious destruction of Portland because Joe said so. Does Joe understand radical left violence has been going on in Portland for more than 100 days? Does Joe have a TV set?<br /><br />Instead of interrupting, President Trump needs to use his upcoming debate time to list the things that will happen to all of us if Joe and Kamala take over.<br /><br />Yes, some ideological zombies won’t believe it, but most hard working men and women will at least consider the incredible debacle facing this nation. Socialism is on the way, get set for Sweden on steroids.<br /><br />Mr. Trump may be the Covid kid today, but there will never be a vaccine for what Biden/Harris will bring. No doubt, we are all living in a time of fear and confusion.<br /><br />But if Democrats gain power, we ain’t seen nothing yet!</p>Bill O'Reilly2020-10-04T07:00:00ZThe Devil and Joe BidenBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Devil-and-Joe-Biden/127562914646122014.html2020-09-27T15:00:00Z2020-09-27T15:00:00Z<div>A front page article in the Wall Street Journal reminded me that a Roman Catholic priest in South Carolina denied Joe Biden communion just about one year ago. Reverend Robert Morey blessed Mr. Biden but refused him the host, later saying the former Vice-President’s liberal position on abortion defies church teaching.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As with many Catholic politicians, Mr. Biden fell back on the rationalization that he could not impose his “private” beliefs on other Americans. But in Biden’s case, that rings very hollow.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For decades then Senator Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which disallows federal money for the abortion procedure because that violates the religious rights of Catholics and other religious people. There are exceptions for rape, incest, and serious medical danger to the mother.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Hyde Amendment was fair because pro-choice Americans can easily donate money to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers thereby assuring legal abortions can be made available to all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is no need for the federal government to force religious Americans to fund a life-ending procedure they reject on moral grounds.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the new, progressive Joe Biden now repudiates the Hyde Amendment in a stunning reversal of conscience. He also selected Kamala Harris, an aggressive pro-choice advocate, as his running mate. Some describe the Biden-Harris ticket as the most pro-abortion political duo in history.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Democratic platform is very clear: there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. A number of states have rebelled against that using “science” to justify regulations. It is a medical fact that a baby is viable in the womb long before birth. Many legislators believe destroying a fetus after viability is a violation of human rights.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden has not responded to that point-of-view and that’s his problem with the Catholic Church. His political posture enables abortion at any time, for any reason. Just this week, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Vigano, warned Catholic voters that killing babies is “demonic.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With almost 70 million Catholics registered to vote, Biden’s flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment and his political embrace of Senator Harris, could be a problem for him on Election Day.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, the former Vice President is counting on the Catholic clergy remaining largely silent. The church is frightened, intimidated, and under financial siege due to the clerical abuse of children. Few American priests will speak out on anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the nation’s most powerful Catholic voice, said the opening prayer at the Republican National Convention, he was brutally attacked on social and traditional media. Some wealthy Catholic donors even resigned from church boards. The message was heard loud and clear by Catholic clergy in America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So Mr. Biden may well believe he has little to fear from the Church.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for Joe’s faithfulness to the faith, who really knows? In 1936, Stephen Vincent Benet wrote a short story entitled “The Devil and Daniel Webster.” In it, a good man sells his soul for prosperity. In real life, it would be unfair to suggest that any politician would ever do that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wouldn’t it?</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-09-27T15:00:00ZWelcome to LoonistanBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Welcome-to-Loonistan/-140406455278864681.html2020-09-20T15:00:00Z2020-09-20T15:00:00Z<div>The combination of Covid fear and a presidential campaign largely based on loathing, seems to have created a virtual army of loons who careen across the American landscape like decomposing zombies.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I mean mass hysteria doesn’t begin to cover it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the political front, both presidential candidates have obvious deficits yet many of their supporters refuse to acknowledge them. The absolute truth is that President Trump says whatever pops into his mind. No filter. Little verification. That can cause problems, obviously.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden’s mind is, well, hard to define. And it’s difficult to follow his thought process on many occasions. Bewitched, bothered, bewildered. Or something.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In his CNN Town Hall last week, Mr. Biden said “all the people” would still be alive today had Mr. Trump not botched the Covid response. Quite the statement.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, the electorate now has to decide between two guys who could say anything at any time that might confuse and/or enrage us.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As Rod Serling once said: “we are traveling in another dimension.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is my belief that Covid combined with racial tension fused with political hatred on both the left and the right, has created madness in some precincts. So let’s take a look.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the right, a number of folks seem to think that wearing a mask to ward off the contagion is a “hoax.” They apparently believe this despite the fact that New York successfully blunted Covid cases after everybody masked up.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the left, zealots are rooting for another lockdown so Trump gets hurt. Vaccine? Not until after November 3.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The racial thing is totally unhinged. On campuses, the witch hunt to identify “racists” makes Salem look rational. Writing for The Hill, Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan Turley reports this about the college environment: “An emerging view is that all whites are racist or at least presumptively racist. Angela Bell, an assistant professor of psychology at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, put it simply: ‘if you have to ask if you’re a racist, you are. And if you’re not asking if you are a racist, you are.’”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No word on whether Lafayette has a degree in being a racist. According to Ms. Bell, everyone has the credits.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So we are living in the golden age of lunacy where a battalion of nurse Ratchets vigilantly patrols the media and academia. There is no escaping these people and no denying the USA is quickly turning into Loonistan. New passports are on the drawing board.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So don’t be surprised if the nation’s next two big reality TV programs are “America’s Got Covid,” and “Dancing with the Racists.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There will be no shortage of contestants.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-09-20T15:00:00ZPutting Your Money Where Your Knee IsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Putting-Your-Money-Where-Your-Knee-Is/-734751200437267459.html2020-09-12T15:00:00Z2020-09-12T15:00:00Z<div>Fascinating to see the nation’s intense culture war played out in Kansas City before the NFL opening game. The Chiefs largely stood for the National Anthem and some players actually put their hands over their hearts. My deceased father and grandfather, both war time vets, would have been proud.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Houston Texans stayed in the locker room for the Anthem and I am thankful for that exposition. It hurts me to see my country insulted so I’m glad I did not have to witness mass kneeling.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I approve of clarity. I now know exactly how the Houston team feels about America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The football announcer Chris Collingsworth was extremely annoying, virtue-signaling that he “stands” with the players in their social justice protests. Hey, Chris, spare us. We all know how noble you are. And I’m happy to discuss your opinion on my news analysis program any time. But using your entertainment platform to push a political view is exactly what the Academy Award pinheads do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In truth, the bravest thing done at the game was play-by-play guy Al Michaels, a brilliant announcer, totally avoiding the culture stuff. By staying silent, Michaels knew he would be hammered by the “woke” mob, which is exactly what happened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here’s what’s GOING to happen to the National Football League.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Annoyed by the political correctness, many fans will stop buying merchandise from teams. That huge source of revenue will plummet - with the Houston Texans leading the way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>TV ratings for the first game were down substantially from last year. The teams are paid billions regardless, so they will not suffer there. But the networks will.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, the pandemic is severely limiting fans from going to the stadiums, so the ten dollar beers and six dollar hotdogs will be erased from the bottom line. Along with the 30 dollar parking fee.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Right now, the average salary for an NFL player is $2 million per season; the lowest of all the major sports. That’s because most players come out of college and sign for minimum union wages. The NFL means “not for long.” Many players are quickly injured and replaced by other young athletes. Average time in the league: less than three years.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What the players do not seem to understand is that the fans pay them. And many spectators, perhaps most, do not want to see politics on game day. I am among them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I do respect dissent and well understand social injustice. I have a charitable foundation that donates millions to help Americans who do not have equal opportunity for whatever reason.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not virtue-signaling, just reporting.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The reason that I am able to give away millions of dollars is that the United States provided me, who had zero money when I left college, the opportunity to prosper.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The climb up was tough, requiring a massive amount of hard work. I could not have done it in Sweden. The NFL players could not have done it in Sweden.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, this football fan objects to mixing politics with athletics. As the cliche goes: give me a break!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I am interested in what the players think but not at the expense of seeing my country insulted. So, no NFL gear for me this season.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And one more message to the protesting players. Your salaries will start to decline as team revenue does. Your knee will significantly affect your wallet. Team owners are blowing smoke at you guys now, but money will ultimately prevail.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Always does.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-09-12T15:00:00ZWhat's the Matter?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whats-the-Matter/-623470454173511351.html2020-09-06T07:00:00Z2020-09-06T07:00:00Z<div>A friend of mine has a sign on his lawn that says “Black Lives Matter.” Since I grew up with him in Levittown, New York, where blacks were not allowed to purchase homes, that piqued my interest.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>He explained to me that justice is important to him and he believes African-Americans are denied a fair shake in America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Millions of people believe that and their opinions should be respected.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I see the justice issue as more about poverty than skin color at this point in history. My opinion should be respected as well.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then I asked my friend if he was aware of the philosophy behind the Black Lives Matter movement. I mean a sign is one thing, a well thought out political plan is quite something else. Most Americans, including my boyhood chum, have no clue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter Alicia Garza, one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter Global Foundation and a proud Marxist, and we’re not talking Groucho here. Nope, Alicia is a follower of Karl Marx, one of the architects of communism. She freely admits that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ms. Garza is also an “opinion contributor” for USA Today and she lays it all out there - if you read between the lines.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On August 30, Alicia Garza wrote this: “We are in the midst of a black rebellion, spurred by decades of unequal treatment and undue violence against our communities...<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>“My work is about uprooting structural racism from every aspect of our society - our economy, our government and our communities.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You can read “uprooting” as “overthrowing” because that is exactly what the Black Lives Matter Global Foundation wants to do. The well thought out plan is to use racial disenchantment to batter the entire “white” power structure and eventually destroy the capitalistic system.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It could work because few understand the end game including the Democratic Party, and more than a few corporations that are pumping millions of donated dollars into the Black Lives Matter “movement.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The smoke signals are key. The far left including BLM are now demanding “economic” justice. That means onerous taxation on the affluent and the seizure of private property through a series of “wealth taxes.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then there’s “housing justice.” That means the government pays for sheltering low-income Americans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Education justice” means free college. “Worker justice” means guaranteed jobs and a “living wage.” You get the idea. A central government run by “woke” activists would provide pretty much everything and would confiscate private and corporate wealth to pay for it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So that’s what’s in play and, again, the pro athletes, the casual liberal folks, the corporate virtue-signalers have no blankin’ clue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, some in the media do understand, but will not report the truth for fear their bosses will harm them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So the next time you see a BLM sign please consider there is much more to this movement than words on paper or graffiti on a wall. Marxism is now being slyly mainstreamed in America. Somebody resurrect Paul Revere.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-09-06T07:00:00ZMobbed UpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Mobbed-Up/895083605017161061.html2020-08-30T15:00:00Z2020-08-30T15:00:00Z<div>You know President Trump scored some points at the Republican convention by the way his media enemies attacked after his nomination speech ended. Almost instantly, an after-party hate buffet was served up by CNN and NBC News but it amounted to little. By 11:30 on Thursday night only Trump supporters were still watching. Most of the resistance had gladly entered the land of nod.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Did you notice that the President barely mentioned the media in his 70 minute address? It was amazing. He disciplined himself to lay off Morning Joe and the other Trump-loathing zombies. Who knew the President could actually do that?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The reason the media was not scolded as usual is that Donald Trump had more important points to make. So the fun-bunch press people receded for the moment in his mind.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are two simple issues that could win Mr. Trump re-election. First, that he is the candidate that can best reignite the economy when Covid finally subsides. And second, that he will smash the radical left “mob” and Joe Biden will not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Voters with weak attention spans can understand those things without repetition. And folks who don’t pay much attention to politics will decide the election. There are legions of them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Donald Trump helped himself at the convention but angry, rampaging fanatics helped him more. Most Americans understand that police need stronger standards on using lethal force, but they despise the lawless conduct currently on display.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are not going to win hearts and minds by threatening Senator Rand Paul and his wife as they walk home from the White House. You will not hurt President Trump by terrorizing restaurant diners.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden looks weak on the radical issue even as Mr. Trump makes it a centerpiece of his campaign.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The truth is that the more threatening radical leftists become, the more likely it will be that President Trump and senate Republicans will prevail in November.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The backlash against radicalism is already on display. Let’s take the National Basketball Association for example. Players in the league are actively participating in the protest movement right now. And some of them are aligning themselves with the Black Lives Matter movement. Big economic mistake.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The BLM leadership is Marxist and destructive. It condones violent protests and seeks to destroy police authority. So, how much is that Laker jersey?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Millions of Americans disagree with BLM tactics and will not watch or support organizations that embrace violent chaos. Someone tell ESPN.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>History is a fluid thing. Weeks ago, it looked bleak for Mr. Trump. Covid, unemployment, schools struggling to reopen, racial tension, I mean who could get re-elected with all that?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But things are changing fast. And will change again and again before November 3. Both Trump and Biden are caught in a swirl of unpredictability.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even as the debates loom.<br /><br /><a href="/membership" target="_blank">Get smart, fair, tough analysis of the election every night on BillOReilly.com. </a></div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2020-08-30T15:00:00ZConventional WisdomBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Conventional-Wisdom/-200466044480358637.html2020-08-23T15:00:00Z2020-08-23T15:00:00Z<div>Here are some musings about the Democratic Convention. Apparently, I was one of the few Americans that actually watched some of it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>First off, no speaker mentioned the police. Does the Democratic Party generally respect American law enforcement or not? To completely avoid the “justice” issue was irresponsible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Next, it is clear to me that despite the syrupy calls for national “unity,” the Democrats want a society that shows preference to minority groups. This is based on historical wrongs that blacks experienced. Skin color is obviously very important to the left and, under the banner of social and economic “justice,” white Americans may not receive equal recognition in policy. That is certainly not a unifying platform.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But I must tell you there is no truth to the rumor that NBC will launch a new program called “America Has Racism.” Word is circulating that LeBron James, Joy Behar, and Stephen Colbert, would evaluate folks and select the biggest racist. Let’s see, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee; it’s got to be General Lee, right?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But again, that show is not happening and I’m glad to put the rumor to rest.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Dem convention also featured a variety of speakers and I liked Kamala Harris the best. The very intense Senator Harris came across like Richie Cunningham’s mother on Happy Days. So there you are, Mrs. C.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After smearing Brett Kavanaugh without any evidence in the Supreme Court hearing, Senator Harris now wants all citizens to be respected and beloved. Or something. Who knew?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Obama looked almost casual in his denunciation of President Trump. He believes the Trump administration is a “reality show.” Mr. Obama could have been a lot worse on Mr. Trump, so this display amounted to little.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pretty much admitted that she’s a communist in her 75 second speech. The Dems only had three consecutive hours that night so I guess time was tight. They had to go to Eva Longoria for an update on free Pilates for everybody.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden’s speech was crisply delivered but said little other than he wants mandatory mask wearing. He didn’t explain further, but blamed Mr. Trump for Covid deaths. If any press agency bothers to check, the record shows that Mr. Biden was much more permissive about the pandemic than the President was in the early stages. Maybe Joe doesn’t remember. His speech writers certainly didn’t.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All-in-all the virtual Democratic Convention was exactly like past traditional conventions. Lots of bloviating, little problem-solving.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I expect a similar exposition from the Republicans this week although President Trump may use his platform to scorch the earth. Mr. Trump is particularly angry these days over Covid destroying the economy, and the partisan press making his life miserable. So the President could give new meaning to the word “vent.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just that possibility will garner him higher TV ratings than Biden. And all the networks will carry every word.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So don’t fear the reaper, as Blue Oyster Cult once sang. But he is likely coming on Thursday.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-08-23T15:00:00ZThe Kamala FactorBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Kamala-Factor/-381523573966526753.html2020-08-16T17:57:00Z2020-08-16T17:57:00Z<div>Like the vicious Covid infection back in February, it is taking a while for many Americans to understand the danger that is looming. Joni Mitchell once sang: <em>“Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone ...”</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>So please pay attention for Joni’s sake.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Democratic Party, driven by its far-left spear point, senses it could win the presidency and both houses of Congress in November. The Dems well understand they have a rare opportunity to control pretty much every aspect of American life. They have a solid partnership with the powerful corporate media, an eccentric and unpredictable incumbent in President Trump, and a brutal weapon in racist and gender allegations. The “woke” movement is an unprecedented threat to freedom of expression.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The question then becomes a simple one: do you think most Americans are aware of the big picture here? The answer is no, by the way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let me provide a very vivid example of what I’m talking about. California and New York have both become one party states because of the massive influx of new foreign residents. Traditionally, immigrants favor the political party that “provides” more government assistance and that, of course, is how Democrats operate. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So today, Sacramento and Albany are ruled by liberal politicians who have imposed their philosophy: high taxes, less social order, aggressive restrictions and regulations on the private economy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The results have been disastrous. All you have to do is travel to New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco to see the anarchy for yourself. <br /><br />I don’t advise going to Portland, Oregon or Seattle because law enforcement in those places has collapsed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The harsh reality on display in liberal precincts should easily put President Trump back in office. But they will not. Because many voters are still dependent upon news outlets that provide propaganda, not facts. Also, Mr. Trump is the most controversial president in history.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So if the Biden-Harris ticket prevails and the Dems gain control of both houses of Congress, expect a blanket amnesty for undocumented aliens. In addition, those “legalized” by law will be put on the fast track to vote by mail. That will mean Texas and Florida, home to many undocumented folks, will likely become blue states.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And then the federal government will largely be controlled by the left, just like California and New York.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter Senator Kamala Harris who could very well preside over this Brave New World. She definitely sees the future and it is her. Joe Biden is Paul von Hindenburg in 1932 Germany. An old guy who is malleable. Kamala is the ticket, so to speak.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again, do you think most voters have any clue? Do you think The New York Times and Washington Post will tell them?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But Joni Mitchell has to know that traditional America and the society it supports could soon be gone. And Kamala can’t wait.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-08-16T17:57:00ZThe Amazon JungleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Amazon-Jungle/-815050016376671938.html2020-08-09T07:00:00Z2020-08-09T07:00:00Z<div>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is directly responsible for one of the most destructive actions in New York City history. The Congresswoman from the Bronx is an ardent socialist who runs around spouting sympathy and support for the poor and working class. Because of her far-left posture, she has become a media darling. Can I use that word? If not, she is promoted constantly by the leftist press as a force for good.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But it is just the opposite, at least where the folks are concerned.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You may have heard Governor Andrew Cuomo last week almost begging affluent New Yorkers to return to the city. Cuomo is a smart guy who knows that Gotham and the entire state is on the verge of financial collapse because of Covid and the vicious violent crime wave that Cuomo, himself, enabled by signing the insane no-bail law. The Governor did that to pander to the radical left, which has become a hobby of his.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rich New Yorkers and many businesses are fleeing the city taking their considerable tax dollars with them. Many will not return because who wants to live in a now dangerous place that has marginalized what was once the most effective police force in the nation? The socialist mayor de Blasio has destroyed the infrastructure of the world’s premiere financial center. It has been horrifying to watch.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But back to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Throughout the pandemic, the Amazon company has prospered as Americans are ordering products from home. Amazon is expanding and hiring. While many Americans are out of a job, Amazon workers are getting paid and have security.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You may remember back in 2018, Amazon wanted to build a plant in a working-class section of Queens. It was estimated that 40,000 jobs would eventually be associated with the plant, not to mention the huge financial benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But Ocasio-Cortez, in all her righteous indignation, raised hell saying New York City was giving Amazon too many tax breaks, which was rank propaganda. Even the loon de Blasio saw the economic benefit of the corporation coming to town.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tired of being attacked by socialist forces, Amazon quickly killed the deal knowing thousands of American municipalities would be thrilled to have the plant.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez then rhapsodized: “Today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.” That would be CEO Jeff Bezos.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Had Amazon come to New York City, analysts estimate more than 40 billion dollars would already be in the city’s pocket.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Instead, de Blasio and Cuomo both know bankruptcy looms. Ocasio-Cortez is either not smart enough to understand that or doesn’t care.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>She is expected to be re-elected in November.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-08-09T07:00:00ZBy George, Let's CancelBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/By-George-Lets-Cancel/130989948169978075.html2020-08-02T14:59:00Z2020-08-02T14:59:00Z<div>For decades, billionaire George Soros has been donating big money to progressive groups seeking to change America into an “open society.” In fact, that’s the name of some Soros non-profits; “the Open Society Foundations.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In essence, the soon-to-be 90-year-old Soros sees the USA as an unjust country and believes the socialism of Europe should replace our capitalist system. Soros wants to flood the American zone with foreign nationals in order to make that happen. He supports lax border enforcement, amnesty for millions of undocumented people, and putting them on the fast track to vote. That, of course, would cripple the Republican Party.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the criminal justice front, Soros believes the US system is racist and most criminals should not be incarcerated. He favors drug legalization and does not believe selling dangerous narcotics like heroin should even be a crime.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>George Soros has donated hundreds of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>millions of dollars to people and organizations that approve of his vision, including a number of ultra-liberal state prosecutors in places that are currently seeing an explosive rise in violence.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, who has occupied page two of that publication for decades. Kass is the Trib’s lead columnist, or was until a few days ago, when he wrote an opinion piece about Soros that highlighted his funding of far left politicians.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Almost immediately, Kass was accused of being “anti-Semitic” in a bizarre series of attacks. If you read the Soros article, you will see no mention of the man’s Jewish heritage, no reference to Judaism at all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But to those protecting Soros from scrutiny, any negative mention of his name is deemed “anti-Semitic.” It’s truly the Twilight Zone of defense mechanisms.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The absurdity continued with the editor of the Chicago Tribune, Colin McMahon. After receiving a letter from some “ woke” people demanding John Kass be punished for daring to criticize the radical Soros, McMahon folded almost immediately. He very publicly demoted Kass, who refuses to apologize for writing accurately about George Soros.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And so the cancel culture takes another scalp courtesy of editor McMahon.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you understand history, you might realize that the cancel hysteria we are seeing in America today, actually began in Germany.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> <br /><br /></span></div>
<div>In the early 1930s, the National Socialist Party could not get more than 37 percent of the vote across that country. So, the Nazis decided to silence opposition to Hitler by “cancelling” opponents in local governments, the press, and in the schools. The Nazis used a paramilitary organization called the SA to do this, often violently.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The result was Hitler’s appointment to Chancellor in 1933. Few dared speak out against it. Two months later, the Dachau camp was opened south of Munich to “officially” deal with the cancelled opponents of Nazism.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That strategy will not happen in the USA, there are too many safeguards in place. But the theory is the same - shut up voices that oppose, in America’s case, the radical left.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, the cancel culture is on a roll, becoming a powerful force of intimidation as corporations and media bow before it. Literally, no one who challenges or even annoys the radicals is safe.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As John Kass has found out.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-08-02T14:59:00ZToo Cool for SchoolBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Too-Cool-for-School/-700600768634133972.html2020-07-26T07:00:00Z2020-07-26T07:00:00Z<div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr"> “School’s out for the<br /> summer. School’s out<br /> forever.”<br /> - Alice Cooper<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
In Europe, 22 countries have allowed students to return to the classroom without any spike in Covid. Did you know that? If the answer is no, then you have once again been victimized by a dishonest American press which ignores facts that go against the anti-Trump narrative.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many believe the kids are a key to the November election. If schools cannot reopen, the psychological signal will be the pandemic has defeated the Trump administration. Already, Nancy Pelosi is calling the contagion the “Trump virus.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 2016, women voted for Hillary Clinton 54 to 42 percent. Today, the school issue is obviously very important to mothers and grandmothers because they tend to be closer to the urchin action on the ground. Most women want their kids back in school safely.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But some, not all, Trump opponents do not want in person classes to begin and they use a speculative argument that it might not be safe. Many teachers unions, fiercely pro-democrat, are opposed to classroom education this fall citing “danger” from the vicious contagion that might devastate the schools.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The national press, also pro-democrat, generally agrees. And if one child contracts Covid in school, you will definitely come to know his or her name.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta is pro in-person schooling but there may be some political pressure there, as the Trump administration is asking the medical establishment to help get the students back. So let’s go to another authoritative group that also believes kids should return to class: Harvard University medical researchers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is “science” for Joe Biden and his fans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To support anything Trump at Harvard is to jeopardize your position at the nations oldest and most prestigious university. Harvard has caved into political correctness and the “woke” movement that is crippling freedom of speech and robust debate, which can lead to problem-solving breakthroughs. Simply put: the PC left rules Harvard.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, when issuing perhaps the most authoritative study on Covid’s impact on schools, the researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health were sure to include some Trump bashing to cover their rear assets. Boring but necessary for their academic survival.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are two key provisions in the study. Here’s the first: “School closures may be among the least effective of (halting the spread of Covid). A study of county rates of Covid across the United States from earlier this year found ‘no evidence that school closures influenced the growth rate’ in Covid infections, and two international studies similarly found large reductions in Covid spread from social distancing policies in general, but no significant effect from school closures on their own.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Someone alert CNN.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Never mind. The anti-Trump movement will never acknowledge the study. Corruption at its most vivid.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But by reading this column as well as the entire study which is available online, the conclusion reached by the Harvard people is clearly stated: “Reopening schools should not be an us versus them argument. It’s not a Democrat vs. Republican argument. It’s about our children and about the evidence. We should be following the science that says in-person schooling for our kids is too valuable to give up and that the risks of school-based transmission appear to be low.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So there you go, Alice Cooper. With some exceptions in Covid danger zones, American schools should reopen with distancing and as many other protections as possible. Children need structure and the nation must regain some normalcy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s follow the “science.”</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2020-07-26T07:00:00ZThe Anthem BluesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Anthem-Blues/-584920451297696379.html2020-07-19T07:00:00Z2020-07-19T07:00:00Z<div>The Los Angeles Times, a newspaper in a wee bit of economic trouble, recently featured a column suggesting America embrace a new national anthem possibly because the Star Spangled Banner, with all that rockets red glare stuff, may make some sensitive souls feel “unsafe.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Writer Jody Rosen opined: “the very idea of a national anthem, a hymn to the glory of the country, feels like a crude relic, another monument that may warrant tearing down. But if we must have an anthem, it should be far different than the one we have now, positing another kind of patriotism ... and it would also be neat if if was, you know, a decent song.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ms. Rosen goes on to suggest that the new anthem of the United States be a song by the late Bill Withers called “Lean On Me.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is that neat, or what?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, I am envisioning the Olympics, an American has just won a gold medal and, as the honor is placed around his or her neck, the world hears this:</div>
<div> </div>
<div> “Sometimes in our lives,</div>
<div> we all have pain, we all</div>
<div> have sorrow.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> “But if we are wise, we know</div>
<div> there’s always tomorrow.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> “Lean on me, when you’re<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> not strong - and I’ll be your<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> friend, I’ll help you carry on ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fabulous. The entire stadium singing along. What a message. Everyone is safe. Everything will work out. You know?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Forget the relic lyric “land of the free, home of the brave.” That’s not inclusive enough! Some of us are wimps, don’t we have a right to be represented in the national anthem? Talk about triggering!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So Jody’s idea is cool, groovy, and, yes, neat. But it won’t work. The lean on me song is too emotional, the anthem must be stirring. If football players are going to brutalize each other, they can’t be singing “lean on me when you’re not strong” right before the on-field carnage begins.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, I am proposing that the new national anthem be a tune that cuts across boundaries. A song that reflects the vibrance of our country. <br /><br />That’s right, “Livin’ in America” by James Brown is the only choice.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I mean, seriously, how brilliant is this? Remember when Rocky IV knocked the pudding out of the big Russian guy, Drago?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> <br /><br /></span></div>
<div>Well, that happened immediately after the late Mr. Brown sang “Livin’ in America” just before the fighters were introduced. Believe me, Rocky would not have been ferocious had he just sung “Lean On Me.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Which is against the rules of boxing, by the way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So let’s get down with the new national anthem. Hit it: </div>
<div> </div>
<div> “Superhighways, coast to coast, easy to get anywhere ... when there’s no destination that’s too far - and somewhere on the way, you might find out who you are.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> “Livin’ in America, eye to eye -<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>station to station. <br /> Livin’ in America, hand to hand across the nation!”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Who needs the War of 1812? I can tell you, Francis Scott Key would gladly step aside for that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, it would be impossible for Colin Kaepernick and his crew to kneel with James Brown wailing! They’d be rockin’ in the free world along with everyone else. Another problem solved.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So let’s do this people! Take it home, James:</div>
<div> </div>
<div> “Livin’ in America, so nice with your bad self.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div> “Livin’ in America - I feel good!”</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-07-19T07:00:00ZBacklashBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Backlash/-305668617847631475.html2020-07-12T18:11:00Z2020-07-12T18:11:00Z<div>You may remember Patty Hearst, the heiress who was kidnapped by a radical left terror organization known as the Symbionese Liberation Army back in 1974. During her confinement, Ms. Hearst somehow became a victim of “Stockholm Syndrome” and began sympathizing with her captors.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So I am wondering if Joe Biden is visiting Stockholm as well. His recently released “platform” reads like a socialist manifesto, and Bernie Sanders is running around saying Mr. Biden enthusiastically embraces the progressive agenda. After months of confinement in his basement, “moderate” Joe has somehow morphed into Che Guevara.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter Professor Helmut Norpoth, who teaches political science at Stony Brook University on Long Island. Despite almost every poll saying Biden is well ahead of Trump, Dr. Norpoth is predicting that the President will win re-election with a 91 percent certainty.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Norpoth is not a poll guy. He uses a “model” that has successfully called five out of six presidential elections since 1996. The model only missed the George W. Bush victory over Al Gore, which was decided by the Supreme Court.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dr. Norpoth not only says Mr. Trump will win, but also predicts it will be a landslide with the President receiving 362 electoral votes. Trump won 304 in 2016.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With more than three months until the vote, some skepticism about Norpoth’s “model” may be appropriate but the professor, himself, is a true believer. He says he discounts all public opinion surveys and bases his conclusions on “enthusiasm” for each candidate.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>We’ll see, professor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But bolstering the Trump victory prognostication is a new poll done for The Sunday Express newspaper in London, England. It asked this question: “Are you strongly or very enthusiastic about your choice of candidate?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trump voters 77 percent.</div>
<div>Biden voters 43 percent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, I don’t believe the polls mean much until mid-October but this election year is bizarre, to say the least. Covid has engendered deep fear but not as much as the social disorder spearheaded by the radical left.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And here is the crucial point. Americans don’t want violent crime causing blood in the streets. Most of us don’t support defunding the police, or approve of anarchists destroying our history and “occupying” public spaces. Many of us despise the “cancel culture” and the assault on freedom of speech the cancel fascists embrace.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump is making his opposition to those things a central campaign issue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden is not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I believe there is a fierce backlash brewing against the radicals. Again, most Americans loathe this crew.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Mr. Biden understands that, he has made no indication of it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But then again, they build those basement walls thick in Delaware.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2020-07-12T18:11:00ZDoes Karl Marx Matter?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Does-Karl-Marx-Matter/-815235575565785161.html2020-07-05T07:00:00Z2020-07-05T07:00:00Z<div>They came for Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben with stunning speed. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson never knew what hit them. Teddy Roosevelt got canceled in New York City, Junipero Serra, a saint, was defiled in California. The Archbishop of San Francisco actually called that an evil act. Few publicly supported his statement.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But it is not social justice organizations driving this destructive train. It is not African-American citizens en masse.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No, this movement to demonize America’s history, traditions, religions and culture is led by Marxists and anarchists. And they know they have the sympathy of many corporations including those who run media operations. The radicals well understand they can do pretty much what they want to do especially if they live in “woke” areas.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The hyper-aggressive far-left tactics caught many including the President and the federal government by surprise. Already reeling from the insidious Covid attack, authorities are having a difficult time separating the peaceful justice protesters from the political insurgents. And very cleverly, the radicals are using some well intentioned Americans as shields to hide an absolute insurrection against the American system.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A few days ago, protesters marched to the homes of wealthy people in Southampton, New York, including the lavish estate of Michael Bloomberg. Their message bordered on incoherent but what did emerge was an attempt to shame the rich as well as demand that they give a good portion of their assets to the “people.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This, of course, is what communists want.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We have documented in this space that a leading radical group, the Black Lives Matter Global Foundation, was founded by three Marxists who want to destroy capitalism and the “white supremacy” power structure in America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks to recent reporting by the Capital Research Center, we now know a bit more.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The BLM Global Foundation uses the slogan “Black Lives Matter” to recruit street demonstrators and also to solicit donations. The Foundation has been very successful in raking in money while, at the same time, keeping its true political agenda hidden.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The corporate media helps because it has zero interest in scrutinizing the BLM Global Foundation. That would be politically incorrect.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the New York Times, Washington Post, or any TV news agency bothered, they would quickly discover, as I did, that the BLM Global Foundation has a close, financial alliance with the “Thousand Currents” group in Oakland, California. That organization is an ultra-left, anti-American concern.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to the Currents website, a woman named Susan Rosenberg is the Vice-Chairwoman of the board of directors. Ms. Rosenberg, 55, has an interesting history. She was a member of the May 19th Communist group, and also traveled to Cuba with the pro-Castro Venceremos Brigade.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 1982, the FBI put her on its ten most wanted list for terrorist activities. Then in 1984, she was arrested for possessing 600 pounds of dynamite and a sub-machine gun.<br /><br /></div>
<div>She was sentenced to 58 years in a federal penitentiary before being pardoned by President Clinton in 2001, right before he left office.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now Susan Rosenberg and the Black Lives Matter Global Foundation are associated. But they don’t want you to know that. Shortly after the Capital Research Center wrote about Rosenberg, Thousand Currents scrubbed her name from its website.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is not a reach to believe that fear and loathing will escalate in this country. We’ve all seen the looting, arsons, and assaults. We know American law enforcement is under siege, and many media chieftains will not confront the radical mob. We vividly see bad people on social media hurting their fellow citizens in ways never before witnessed in this country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But here’s something you might not know. More Americans are legally buying firearms than ever before, according to FBI background checks. Many folks have lost faith in the system to protect them. So now they are arming themselves.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As an old song once put it: “the air is full of suspicion.” </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not a good place for any of us to be.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-07-05T07:00:00ZBill's Column on the BLM Organization: 'It's News to Us'Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bills-Column-on-the-BLM-Organization:-Its-News-to-Us/-20554200728065000.html2020-06-28T18:32:00Z2020-06-28T18:32:00Z<p>Americans are divided, angry, sad, inspired in some cases, and watchful of the Black Lives Matter Movement. This week one of its leaders proclaimed on national TV that “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn the system down.”</p>
<p>Hawk Newsome continued saying he might be talking figuratively ... or literally.</p>
<p>Very macho. Very provocative. Might be a threat.</p>
<p>Now, you would think the national press would be all over this story, trying to get accurate information about the Black Lives Matter operation to the American people, who the press is supposed to serve. I mean, this is an important story, is it not?</p>
<p>Mr. Newsome, who heads the New York City chapter of Black Lives Matter, is the new Huey Newton, whom the 1960’s media largely adored. Mr. Newton cofounded the Black Panther Party.</p>
<p>Do you know who cofounded the current Black Lives Matter organization? Bet you don’t. Because the press has totally ignored the real story regarding the BLM movement.</p>
<p>Three women are behind “The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation,” which is the central organization that directs policy. Alicia Garza, 39, is the chief strategic advisor. Patrisse Cullors, 36, is also a top advisor.</p>
<p>Finally, Opal Tometi, 36, is the third force. She works with the BLM Foundation and is also the Executive Director of the “Black Alliance for Just Immigration.” That group is associated with the “Freedom Road Socialist Organization,” a Marxist-Leninist group that has received funding from the Tides Foundation run by George Soros.</p>
<p>Ah, the plot thickens.</p>
<p>The three women who essentially run the BLM Foundation keep a very low profile. No cable news interviews for them. </p>
<p>Nope, these ladies are serious.</p>
<p>In an interview with a professor from Morgan State University, Ms. Cullors said: “Myself and Alicia (Garza) in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on ideological theories.”</p>
<p>So, do you think the protestors chanting “Black Lives Matter” in the streets understand what the “Black Lives Matter Global Network” really is? </p>
<p>And then there’s the “Thousand Currents” operation out of Oakland, California. Ever heard of it? I didn’t think so.</p>
<p>Because the Black Lives Matter Foundation does not have tax exempt status, at least not yet, the radical left “Thousand Currents” outfit “fiscally sponsors” BLM. The means it holds their donations, which now number in the millions. Because the non-profit “Currents” is overseeing the cash, donors are allowed to write off donations to BLM, according to the IRS.</p>
<p>Karl Marx would love this; a capitalist government allowing tax deductions for money earmarked to destroy it.</p>
<p>And so ignorant celebrities and clueless corporations benefit financially when giving money to the radical left Black Lives Matter Global Organization Foundation. Right on!</p>
<p>Another question. When BLM receives the donated money where does the cash wind up? Well, according to FactCheck.org, 71 percent of it goes to salaries, benefits, and “consulting fees.”</p>
<p>Wow! How great is this? Your mom could be a “consultant.”</p>
<p>Interesting, right? The Black Lives Matter organization is run by Marxists who have access to lots and lots of money.</p>
<p>Who knew? Certainly not anyone who follows the national press. Those “news” organizations couldn’t care less.</p>
<p>As long as they can virtue-signal and damage “Donald Trump’s America,” the press is happy in its laziness and apathy.</p>
<p>Does the truth matter?</p>
<p>Not to the media.</p>
<p>Power to the people!</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>Bill O'Reilly2020-06-28T18:32:00ZIt's My Country and I'll Cry If I Want ToBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-My-Country-and-Ill-Cry-If-I-Want-To/-614432603392516048.html2020-06-21T15:00:00Z2020-06-21T15:00:00Z<div>It is almost beyond belief that America is being trashed the way it is. I mean, here we have a country that provides more opportunity to more people than any other nation the planet has ever seen, and millions of its own citizens apparently want to destroy the traditions making that possible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Never mind that tens of millions of folks all over world are trying to become American citizens. Forget the absolute fact that the USA freed billions of people enslaved by fascism, communism, and Islamic fundamentalism. Totally ignore our Constitution, and economic strength based on hard work as well as ingenuity. Throw out our willingness to spend trillions to support the poor, not only here but abroad.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, reject those facts and kneel in contrition to a false view of America. One that is championed mostly by radical leftists who see the USA as an evil institution built on the backs of slaves and poor, exploited minority people. Kneel and allow criminals to go unpunished, police to be demonized, babies to be aborted for any reason, private property to be destroyed, and your fellow citizens harmed if they dare challenge the liberal agenda.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kneel. Cower before the twitter mob that rejects President Lincoln’s statement “and malice towards none.” Hope the brutish mob bypasses you.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Virtue-signaling is now a pandemic. Insanity and psychic violence on gross display in prime time. The corporate media loves it, profits from it, embraces the potential destruction and “enlightened” change the mob demands.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Never again should American voters be allowed to elect a person like Trump. Now if you support him and the Republicans, you are not only deplorable, you are a racist. You are not worthy of any consideration or even a job in some cases. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus, all were terrible men. Their statues and accomplishments must be destroyed. It is virtuous to highlight their sins. It is noble to spread the big lie: America was founded on white supremacy and the country still runs on that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So kneel while the Woke mob burns our history, ignoring this reality: no person, no nation, is devoid of sin. But it is the totality of a life that must be honestly evaluated as well as the totality of a nation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The mob will never acknowledge that truism. The mob has no specific solution to any problem. It only wants revenge for past injustice so it can rule in the present. And the politicians, corporate chieftains, celebrities, professors, journalists, and even the clerics fear the mob.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So kneel. Or else.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-06-21T15:00:00ZThe Silence of the LambsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Silence-of-the-Lambs/552953784331004128.html2020-06-14T15:00:00Z2020-06-14T15:00:00Z<div>There is a big chill descending on freedom of expression in America. A few examples. Liberal journalists at the Philadelphia Inquirer and the The New York Times recently lost their jobs because they were not liberal enough. The successful cable show “Live PD” was canceled by the Arts and Entertainment Network because of anti-cop fervor, and the legendary movie “Gone with the Wind” has been banished by HBO because it’s “racist.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s just a small sample of the Stalinist thought-terror presently enveloping the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Everyone’s scared. The totalitarian left, using the brutal police killing of George Floyd, has basically told American corporations that they will be branded racist if they allow or support criticism of the far left agenda.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A vivid example is the vicious Media Matters organization threatening companies that advertise on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program. Media Matters, heavily funded by far left zealots like George Soros, accuses Mr. Carlson of “white supremacy.” Disney, T-Mobile, and Papa John’s pizza cancelled sponsorship last week.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We can expect much more of this as the Stalinists understand it is their time. The rush on the part of corporate America to “virtue signal,” that is, present themselves as champions of social justice and change, means any dissent from the Black Lives Matter agenda will not be tolerated. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>We have never seen this before in America, at least on this kind of scale. Individuals are losing jobs and careers simply for expressing honest beliefs. Even in the 1950s when the communist witch-hunt was underway, you didn’t have this kind of assault on personal freedom across the board.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Twitter and social media are largely responsible. In a blink, any American can be labeled a racist without a shred of evidence. And who will defend the accused? No one. Because if you do - YOU become a racist, or a misogynist, or a “nationalist.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The radical playbook written by Saul Alinsky is now dominating the media. There are currently phrases like “all lives matter” that absolutely cannot be said. If you put forth that you will stand and respect the National Anthem, you’re “insensitive.” If you believe most police officers are noble, you are the enemy of justice.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I never thought I would see freedom of expression crushed in my country. But that is what is happening.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We do need honest reform to help Americans, especially minorities, who are not treated fairly. This can happen using robust debate and the exchange of effective ideas. That’s the improvement process a free and mature society uses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the totalitarian left does not want a free society because things like the election of Donald Trump happen in it. No, the radicals want to shut down opposing points of view, punish opponents, and have designed a frightening strategy to accomplish that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is obvious corporate America is surrendering to the totalitarians, and many in the media are enabling the suppression of freedom by promoting far left actions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So who will stop this? It will have to be “we the people” vehemently rejecting the far left revolt. I think that will occur. But with so much damage being done, I pray it happens soon. Because the longer folks stay silent, the more we’ll be like lambs.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2020-06-14T15:00:00ZWhere There's a WillBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Where-Theres-a-Will/209831978880931074.html2020-06-07T18:36:00Z2020-06-07T18:36:00Z<div>The insufferably arrogant columnist George Will is demanding President Trump be removed from office for a variety of offenses that make Al Capone look like Shirley Temple, if anyone remembers The Good Ship Lollipop girl.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Will is an elitist D.C. Republican who sees Mr. Trump as a Visigoth that doesn’t know which fork to use. Since Will is syndicated by the ferociously anti-Trump Washington Post, his bread remains buttered. No margarine, please.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So Curious George wants Joe Biden to be the next president, even as he watches violent anti-American behavior hurt thousands of citizens and actually kill some of them. Question: will surrendering to the activist mob improve this country? Will Mr. Biden stand up to the destroyers?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No chance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Despite being clouded by his hatred for Donald Trump, George Will has to know that Joe Biden will never challenge Black Lives Matter or the other destructive groups that want to destroy the fabric of the nation. Under the banner of “social justice,” the radicals are now making gains which would only accelerate under a “woke” President Biden.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the former Vice President does win in November, here’s what “we the people” can expect.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many criminals will not be punished and will be released after arrest with no bail. That’s because “non-violent” offenses like possession of heroin with intent to sell are now considered crimes caused by white society. Or something.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The police, not lawbreakers, will be suspect and in some places like Minneapolis, traditional law enforcement will be replaced by holistic policies.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Our politically correct culture will vastly expand. All men accused by women will be guilty, all those who oppose liberalism will be branded bigots, due process will disappear.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> <br /><br /></span></div>
<div>Some college campuses will even ban non-liberal speech. Virtue-signaling, not facts or reason, will dominate education.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Taxes will rise along with entitlement spending. That will strangle the economy which will be increasingly regulated by the federal government in order to “combat” climate change.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A wealth tax will be passed, the first step in a program that would allow federal seizure of private assets. That’s something the socialists must have in order to impose a “just” society. Not all Democrats are socialists but plenty of them are.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Illegal immigration will be accepted. Amnesty for undocumented people a certainty. Sanctuary places that shield foreign criminals will continue their lawless conduct. Millions of foreign nationals will be encouraged to apply for asylum and flood into the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Abortion at any time for any reason will be funded by taxpayers. If you object on religious or moral grounds, you will be branded a “misogynist.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Overseas, Biden will do what Barack Obama did, allow other nations to set the agenda. Israel will get hammered. China will run wild. Putin will duplicate his seizure of Crimea elsewhere. Maybe, Michael Moore will be Secretary of State.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I could go on but you get it, I’m sure. A President Biden will do what the far left wants him to do. Mr. Biden has changed just about every core belief he’s ever held and, despite his excoriation of the Trump administration, couldn’t even come up with a single thing he would have done differently to combat the pandemic or quiet the riots. The man is not exactly a problem-solver.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>George Will’s personal animosity towards Donald Trump overrides all that I just enumerated and he is not alone. Many Americans are ignoring danger ahead because they are fixated on a controversial President.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here it is: traditional America is under siege. One presidential candidate will fight that. One presidential candidate will not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>See you in November.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-06-07T18:36:00ZIt's Not Black and WhiteBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-Not-Black-and-White/-675708398980295057.html2020-05-31T18:39:00Z2020-05-31T18:39:00Z<div>If you were looking for insight or intelligent analysis of the brutal Minneapolis police killing and its aftermath, television news has disappointed once again.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most of the commentators are either frightened or angry, failing to provide desperately needed perspective. With lightening speed, the unnecessary death of George Floyd quickly became an opportunity for exploitation. Looters and anarchists stole and destroyed, creating even more human misery. <br /><br />On TV and social media, anti-Trump people quickly blamed the President, while pro-Trump folks defended him, placing scorn on a hapless Minnesota mayor and street “thugs.” A word, by the way, that President Obama used to describe looters.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hour after hour, day after day, Americans learned little about the reasons behind a vitally important story. What readers and viewers did get was reinforcement of their own beliefs, as fallacious as many of them are.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, let’s get down to it beginning with the police. At present, there are approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers on the job in the USA. Most are good, honest civil servants but perhaps 10 percent are not. And that’s an army.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I use that number because human nature dictates about ten percent of every organization is corrupt. Always been that way. That’s the reason almost all police agencies have Internal Affairs squads that investigate misbehavior or incompetence.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some African-Americans believe a much higher number of law enforcement people are corrupt and actively target blacks. That belief is often based on negative, personal encounters they have had with the police or other white authority figures. There is no debating personal experience - we all are shaped by it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The essential problem between police officers of all skin colors, not just white, and African-Americans is crime. Blacks commit felonies and misdemeanors at a higher proportional rate than any other group. That means law enforcement confrontation is much greater, especially for young black males.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, African-Americans are the victims of crimes far more often than other groups and most of the time justice is not achieved. The horrendous, ongoing black on black murder rate in Chicago and Baltimore proves this beyond any doubt.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, there is bitterness in many African-American communities over the criminal justice situation. Add to that the fact that poor Americans cannot afford to hire experienced lawyers to defend them, and you have intense animosity towards the “white power establishment.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The cacophonous, empty slogans and virtue-signaling about “race” are almost painful to endure. Yes, there are emotionally disturbed bigots who diminish minorities. They will always exist. Ask Jewish people. However, the vile embrace of prejudice is largely shunned in the American public square.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that doesn’t stop idiot commentators from depicting the USA as a hateful cauldron of bias. Some of these pundits are even justifying the dangerous behavior of “protesters” who are attacking police officers and destroying property. Make no mistake, these violent rioters only want to tear down, not resolve anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is only one real solution to deprivation, crime, and helplessness and that is to teach the children well. But that’s absolutely not happening in this country. Many schools are simply holding stations with little discipline and standards of achievement.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If a child cannot read, write cursive, do math, speak properly, and does not understand that skills have to be developed so honest money can be earned, that child will likely become an impoverished adult without much hope.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, Americans fed up with “injustice” should focus on the only solution that provides a measure of protection against it: a disciplined and enlightened educational system. If good people begin to demand that for all children, then poverty and all the horrid consequences of it will be diminished.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If we don’t, the race dilemma will continue to suffocate our society - one citizen at a time.</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-05-31T18:39:00ZEscape from New YorkBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Escape-from-New-York/82419055352278700.html2020-05-25T03:47:00Z2020-05-25T03:47:00Z<p><span>In 1981, director John Carpenter released a movie that put New York City in a bad light, literally. Gotham was portrayed as a depopulated, dark prison where federal authorities dumped violent criminals to fend for themselves. Any attempt to “Escape from York” resulted in execution.</span><br /><br /><span>Today in real life, the pandemic has devastated New York City, bringing fear and grief to its eight and a half million residents. Even before the contagion, folks were getting out. According to the Census Bureau, 181 thousand people left New York state last year alone, an exodus that leads the country.</span><br /><br /><span>Many moved to Florida, land of sunshine and no state income tax. While New York ranks first in overall taxation, Florida is 47, and now has two million more residents than the Empire State.</span><br /><br /><span>In spite of that, Florida will spend around $93 billion this year, while New York’s budget is an incredible $177 billion. So the question becomes do New Yorkers get more services than Floridians?</span><br /><br /><span>No, they don’t.</span><br /><br /><span>Do New York kids get a better education?</span><br /><br /><span>No, they don’t.</span><br /><br /><span>Do New York drivers have better roads?</span><br /><br /><span>Nope.</span><br /><br /><span>And then there is the COVID invasion which could seal New York’s fate, at least short term. A significant number of businesses and workers may flee, having experienced hell for months. That means tax revenue will plummet. So Governor Cuomo and his fun bunch of democrat legislators will have to raise taxes even higher or risk default. New York currently runs a six billion dollar yearly deficit despite bleeding it’s workers for every cent.</span><br /><br /><span>After COVID, some folks will no longer use the squalid subway system so it will fall deeper into debt. Already the state has approved a new, punitive toll for driving into midtown. When does enough become enough? New York City is a tremendous cultural bastion but, for some, it has become painful to live and work there.</span><br /><br /><span>With so many residents packing up, city real estate prices will collapse, especially high end apartments. Restaurants and stores will shutter, and the city could approach the brink as it did in the 1970’s.</span><br /><br /><span>The incompetent totalitarian mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, is already demanding a federal bailout. The mayor has a very weak case after allowing his wife to spend close to a billion tax dollars on “educational” programs which amounted to little.</span><br /><br /><span>Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to leverage the pandemic into a White House bid, but he has to know the desperate shape his state is in. Because he is liberal, Cuomo is rarely challenged by the corrupt media but the stats speak for themselves. Many New Yorkers are fed up, fully understanding the chaos staring them directly in the face.</span><br /><br /><span>In the “Escape from New York” movie, a thug named Snake Plessken is sent to the decaying city to rescue a President who is being held hostage there.</span><br /><br /><span>The current President, Donald Trump, is a lifelong New Yorker or was. Realizing that Plessken or Batman or Green Lantern or anybody else cannot rescue Cuomo-land, Mr. Trump recently said adios and moved to Florida.</span><br /><br /><span>Where he will have plenty of company going forward.</span></p>Bill O'Reilly2020-05-25T03:47:00ZO'Reilly Editorial: It's Over - Open up the Country NowBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/OReilly-Editorial:-Its-Over---Open-up-the-Country-Now/92724186745976946.html2020-05-21T04:48:00Z2020-05-21T04:48:00Z<p>The United States of America has to open for business - now. </p>
<p>This pandemic is a war, and in order to fight a war, we must have a strong economy in motion. By opening the economy, and I mean everywhere - New York City, Los Angeles, everywhere – we are going to take casualties, people are going to hurt. There's no way you can avoid that. I am not insensitive to casualties, but the greater good is served by re-opening the nation now. </p>
<p>Here's how you do it. </p>
<p>The governors of all states have to tell businesses they can open with logical regulations they must follow. </p>
<p>Then you have to encourage senior citizens, those over 65, not to go out. It's safer if you're an older American to stay inside. I'm not saying you can't go get some fresh air, you can. But it's better if you don't go to the restaurant for a little while. If you can get somebody to go to the grocery store for you, it's better for you.</p>
<p>There is no data that says when you open the economy in populated states, you get an immediate spike in the disease. That data does not exist and that's a good thing. </p>
<p>Now, if Vegas opens up and you see a big spike, that will be page one, and that might happen. If it does, then the governor of Nevada will have to shut it down.</p>
<p>Disney World and Disneyland are getting ready to open, and on top of the exorbitant entry fee, you will now have to sign a waiver that says you are not going to sue if you think you got COVID from Cinderella. Don’t sign the paper, can’t come in.</p>
<p>The house of mouse knows that the bloodsucking lawyers are lined up to sue them if anybody who visits Disney gets COVID. Pelosi and Schumer know it too, but they don't want a federal law limiting litigation, because these lawyers give the Democratic Party hundreds of millions of dollars. </p>
<p>How corrupt this is? I mean, it's just beyond belief corrupt. Again, this never gets reported. </p>
<p>Now, why is the press rooting against re-opening? Everybody knows it's because of Donald Trump, but not everybody will acknowledge that. </p>
<p>These media people who earn lavish salaries, what do they care? When there's somebody out in Missouri who owns a hair salon and isn't making any money - what do they care? They don't care about the folks. They couldn't care less. Their ideology dictates. </p>
<p>And why would Donald Trump would come out and say, ‘hey, I'm taking that controversial drug, hydroxychloroquine’? </p>
<p>If you read 'The United States of Trump,' you know he's a provocateur, word of the day. But why would he take time out from trying to convince the nation to re-open? Why go down a diversionary path? I don't think that's good. I would not have done that had I been president. I would do what I just spelled out in this editorial. </p>
<p>President Trump should be very clear to the American people: This is a war. You want to win a war? You can't destroy your country – that is how you lose a war.<br /><br /><br /><a href="/membership" target="_blank"><strong>[Adapted from Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News, weeknights at 7 eastern right here on BillOReilly.com]</strong></a></p>Bill O'Reilly2020-05-21T04:48:00ZThe PlanBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Plan/-664033958490701696.html2020-05-17T18:27:00Z2020-05-17T18:27:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>Did you know that last year, Americans paid more taxes to the federal government than ever before? <br /><br />Two reasons: the robust economy meant workers were making more money. And the Trump tax reform law eliminated deductions for state and local taxes above $10,000. That means people like me have to fork over more federal income tax, because we can’t write off what we pay to the state, which, in liberal places like New York and California, is a lot.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, it was shocking to see that the new Nancy Pelosi pandemic relief bill, which passed the House on Friday, calls for eliminating the $10,000 ceiling, thus putting more money in the pockets of the affluent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bernie Sanders, who pays property taxes on three homes, has not said a word.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s because the Democratic Party is heavily funded by fat cats in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Manhattan and the Hamptons, as well as other wealthy, liberal precincts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This Bud’s for you, rich leftists. <br /><br />Nancy P. gives back despite the phony rhetoric about the rich paying their “fair share.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You might ask why a sop to the wealthy is included in a virus relief package in the first place. Or why quasi-amnesty for the undocumented is in there. Or major assistance to companies that legally sell marijuana. Or dozens of other things that have nothing to do with fighting the pandemic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The answer is politics. Ms. Pelosi is signaling the updated Democrat platform leading to the election. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Speaker knows the new relief bill will not be passed. Only one Republican congressman, Peter King of New York, voted for it and no GOP senators will. But Ms. Pelosi would like her party to understand where its future lies, and especially wants her fat-cat pals to realize that they will benefit financially.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This cynical and incredibly hypercritical game is not well understood by we the people and that’s why I have written this column. And here’s something else that is a hidden truth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the new pandemic bill ever did pass, the nation’s debt would increase to $28 trillion; money the USA can never fully pay. The Democrats have no interest in slowing down the massive government spending even though the gross fiscal irresponsibility is a real threat to eventually crash the economy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that is exactly what the socialists and their sympathizers want. If the private marketplace collapses, the federal government will have to take it over - completely. Something Bernie and his bros yearn for.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We live in a country full of distractions, distortions, and dismal challenges like COVID. Many of our leaders are not interested in problem-solving and often bury their true agenda in legislation that, in the case of the Pelosi bill, runs more than a thousand pages. The folks are not going to read the thing and neither are most members of Congress and the press, so let me give you the true headline: the Pelosi bill uses the contagion danger to advance left wing power.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And now you know the rest of the story.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-05-17T18:27:00ZTruth, Justice and the American WayBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Truth-Justice-and-the-American-Way/893003458562947768.html2020-05-10T16:54:00Z2020-05-10T16:54:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<p>Superman is appalled by the FBI’s abusive treatment of General Michael Flynn. Way back in 1952, when television was just beginning to influence the world, a show based on the comic book hero Superman debuted. George Reeves was the star and the program lasted six years - it is etched into the memories of many baby boomers. </p>
<p>At the beginning of each episode, a narrator would tell viewers that the Super guy was in business to promote “truth, justice, and the American way.” </p>
<p>So, now, the truth and justice thing is under siege because the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency, the FBI, launched a corrupt investigation designed to damage President Donald Trump by linking him to Russia during the campaign of 2016.</p>
<p>There is no longer any doubt about the FBI’s outrageous behavior. Last week the Justice Department dropped its prosecution of former Trump national security advisor General Michael Flynn. The DOJ did this after hand-written notes from an FBI investigator became public indicating the Bureau was discussing trying to entrap Flynn into a “lying to the FBI” crime. </p>
<p>Agents succeeded, and the General pleaded guilty. Some believe he did that because the FBI threatened to prosecute his son who worked with his father on overseas projects. That remains to be proven. </p>
<p>Subsequently, General Flynn withdrew with his guilty plea. </p>
<p>The reason the FBI tried to set the elder Flynn up was to get him to “flip” on his boss, Donald Trump. Then head of the FBI James Comey apparently was interested in harming the new President by linking him with Russia and may have believed Flynn had damaging information on Trump.</p>
<p>As we know now, there was never any legal basis for the FBI to even launch a Russian investigation, much less secure surveillance warrants. As we also understand today, much of the media reporting on “Russian-collusion” was false and defamatory.</p>
<p>Superman would like to know exactly who is going to be held accountable for this scandal. After all, the superhero disguised himself as Clark Kent, a “mild-mannered” reporter. Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen are asking the same question.</p>
<p>US Attorney John Durham is in charge of the investigation into the FBI. His upcoming report may lead to indictments.</p>
<p>But what about the press? Who will hold the New York Times and The Washington Post accountable for years of misleading reports and commentary?</p>
<p>Who will hold Comcast responsible for MSNBC’s hateful false narrative?</p>
<p>Is anybody investigating CNN? Is its plantation master AT&T under scrutiny?</p>
<p>What about Disney, will it be brought to justice for airing the blatantly dishonest “View” program among others?</p>
<p>The answer to those questions is simple: no one in the media is likely to be held accountable. No person will be fired, the massive corporations involved will not be fined, no explanations or apologies for the thousands of falsehoods broadcast and published will be forthcoming.</p>
<p>Because the sad truth is that the search FOR the truth is not part of the “American way” any longer. </p>
<p>And somewhere Superman is weeping.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-05-10T16:54:00ZRespecting the OfficeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Respecting-the-Office/-994699568452216592.html2020-05-03T18:56:00Z2020-05-03T18:56:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>During a dinner with President Trump a few months ago, I expressed regret to him for the general behavior of the press in America. I did this not to pander to the President, but to discuss the disintegration of decorum that, as an American, disturbs me.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the past, most credible journalists respected the office of the presidency, if not the person inhabiting it. President Nixon strained that respect as correspondents like Dan Rather openly loathed the man. But even Mr. Rather brought a modicum of respect to his White House beat.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 1992, NBC News reporter Stone Phillips interviewed President Bush the Elder in the White House. Using a poorly sourced newspaper allegation that alleged Mr. Bush had committed adultery, the journalist confronted the President.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Phillips: “Have you ever had an affair?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Bush: “I’m not going to take any sleaze questions. I gave you a little warning. You see you’re perpetuating the sleaze by even asking the question - to say nothing of asking it in the Oval Office. And I don’t think you ought to do that and I’m not going to answer the question.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Stone Phillips backed off and the appropriateness of the question was widely debated. To me, a journalist who has interviewed six Presidents, Mr. Bush was correct; the White House is the wrong place to attempt a tabloid exposition. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, many media people do not respect Donald Trump and, by extension, the position he holds or the place where he lives. The hate-Trump press explains its conduct by pointing to the President’s deficits. They attempt to justify their bad behavior by pointing to his bad behavior - as if a third grade rationalization excuses the media’s gross disrespect for the Executive branch.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Americans elect presidents and once that happens the person assuming the office should be afforded a blanket of respect simply for holding the position. The presidency is the apex of our republic, something President Bush well understood.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the summer of 2007, I interviewed then Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President. The chat was in York, Pennsylvania and was lively, to say the least. I challenged the senator and did not let him dodge. I had no problem describing some of his positions as misguided.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The next time I interviewed Mr. Obama he was President and we were in the White House. Whole new ballgame. My questions were still challenging but my tone was more measured. I mean, I couldn’t imply he was a pinhead as I can with senators and congresspeople. His status as the head of the country meant I had to respect his office.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I did.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I remember getting a flood of letters from anti-Obama people accusing me of being “too soft” on Mr. Obama. These critics wanted rhetorical blood. But that would have not only have been disrespectful to him, but to the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By the way, the three chats I had with President Obama were the toughest interviews he saw. Check them out.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, President Trump is obviously not afforded respect by the media. Many in the White House press corps have been encouraged by their corporate masters to make Mr. Trump look bad. Legitimate questions are often asked in blatantly hostile tones. It’s wrong.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Americans deserve accountability from all presidents and the job of the press is to seek clarity and truth. But that’s not what’s going on today. It’s “get” Trump all day, every day.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Respect for the office of the presidency has vanished and it is unseemly. Donald Trump was awarded his job by the people. To not respect that is to insult the people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s what’s happening.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-05-03T18:56:00ZMaybe the Press Should be QuarantinedBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Maybe-the-Press-Should-be-Quarantined/642925065022961160.html2020-04-26T18:15:00Z2020-04-26T18:15:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>If you are observant during this time of national isolation, you can learn a lot about your country and, perhaps, yourself. This is a once in a lifetime experience that will change many things in America; some for the better, some for the worse.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On display right before our eyes is the collapse of honest journalism. This has been brewing for a while. In fact, Ted Koppel believes that I, your humble correspondent, ignited the situation by injecting opinion into a prime time cable news program beginning way back in 1996. Mr. Koppel said that to my face on The O’Reilly Factor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But Ted ascribes far too much influence to me. All I did was take the newspaper editorial pages and hone them on television. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, the concept can be misused by dishonest people but that’s been going on since William Randolph Hearst.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What we are vividly experiencing now in America is a herd media mentality that is using the medical catastrophe to sell a narrative to the folks: the virus is largely Trump’s fault and voters must banish him come November.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My opinion is not stated to support or engender sympathy for President Trump. Americans have seen him talk about the pandemic for hours each week. Surely, we the people can arrive at a conclusion about the President using our eyewitness capabilities.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the actual news reporting on the government’s response to the virus is heavily skewed to make Mr. Trump look bad. The hostility of many in the White House press corps is stark and anyone who denies that is a deceiver. Obviously, the animus directed at Mr. Trump by “objective” reporters violates every journalistic tenet. Reporters can and should ask the toughest questions they can formulate. But they should not inject hostility into the query.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is happening here is failure to communicate honestly, with apologies to Cool Hand Luke. National news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, and CNN, among others, are all practicing “outcome journalism.” These outfits do not demand their employees search for factual truth. Instead, editors and TV executives want a clear outcome from the pandemic reporting. And that is Trump must go. Therefore, almost every bit of the President’s virus response will be portrayed as wrong, stupid, or even lethal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It should be noted that there are some pro-Trump expositions in the media, but the hate-Trump presentations heavily outnumber them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Once a free society cannot get honest, objective information, it becomes less able to make responsible decisions. That is absolutely happening right now in America. The relentless contagion of propaganda funded by massive media corporations has spread to every part of this country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is not an overstatement to say the press collapse is a virus that is harming us all. And there’s no vaccine in sight.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-04-26T18:15:00ZOne WorldBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/One-World/-401239585837988061.html2020-04-19T18:58:00Z2020-04-19T18:58:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>The global pandemic is the worst thing that could happen to the concept of “globalism,” a fervent left wing tenet. Famous people from Barack Obama to Pope Francis have touted the benefits of a world with no power index - that all nations should be pretty much the same, because human beings share universal qualities. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Out of the “One World” movement has come the open border concept, aggressive socialism, “inclusion” that intrudes on fairness and liberty, and a variety of other misguided and even dangerous policies. <br /><br />Now, because of the virus, the philosophy of global equality is in tatters.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>China is mainly responsible. Beijing’s communist human rights violators lied to the world about the severity of the contagion. And China was enabled by the United Nations through the colossally incompetent World Health Organization. Five days after the US government stopped flights from China, the WHO officially objected, issuing this statement: “We reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions inconsistent with International Health Regulations. Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little health benefit.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That incredibly irresponsible response from a UN agency led to intense condemnation of President Trump. Joe Biden called the flight ban “fear-mongering.” Congressman Eliot Engel said it was “racist.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As the pandemic spread across the globe, the WHO became even more dangerous. On February 29, it issued this statement: “Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just a few weeks later, almost the entire world went on lockdown. Now, in attempt to save the WHO, some entertainers are participating in a “virtual” concert to benefit the organization which is under extreme pressure.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Last week, President Trump announced a suspension of the almost $500 million a year the USA donates to the WHO. Mr. Trump saying the USA wants to investigate exactly why the World Health Organization misled the planet.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But almost immediately, Nancy Pelosi objected, calling the President a “science denier.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There comes a point when fair-minded people have to speak up. The far-left movement, of which Nancy Pelosi is a leader, is a demonstrably destructive enterprise. It generally despises capitalism, does not respect private property, and sees America as an “oppressive” nation which is consistently wrong if not downright evil.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That mindset has now taken root not only in foreign countries, but also right here at home. However, one of the few benefits of the pandemic is that far left concepts are increasingly being challenged with undeniable facts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The truth is we do not live in a “one world” situation, no matter how many ill-informed people say differently. There are enormous differences among countries and some nations are exceedingly dangerous to the human condition.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Like China. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So you can sing “we are the world, we are the children” all you want, but understand by doing that, you are not making the world a better place.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unless you think lethal pandemics are beneficial.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-04-19T18:58:00ZThe StrategyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Strategy/431809981594190092.html2020-04-12T18:51:00Z2020-04-12T18:51:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>There is a wall of doom being erected in America. The media is building it by sensationalizing coverage of the pandemic, instead of providing facts and honest context to people who desperately need it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here are some recent headlines found on the net.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>- Economic Devastation Looms</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>- Record Bankruptcies Predicted</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>- Pandemic Will Cleve Nation in Two</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>- Broke Americans Consider Selling Blood</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>- Czech Nudists Told to Wear Face Masks</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>Only the last story was based on a factual occurrence. The others used speculative opinion throughout the articles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While it is certainly true that the press has always used flaming leads, this time there is a dark reason to do it. The deadly virus spreads quickly and without warning. That creates mass fear. And fear creates opportunity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are Americans, including some media chieftains, who believe four more years of President Trump is actually worse for the country than the contagion. So while the virus is amongst us, it should be used to damage the President as much as possible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, doom is a much better context than hope. Any positive development is scrutinized while negative occurrences are quickly gathered and spotlighted. You cannot build a wall of doom upon a foundation of better times ahead.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The primary construction crew of the horror wall is the usual far-left apparatus that also sees a chance to damage the capitalist system. Thus, a spate of reports on how much Americans will suffer economically even after the virus abates.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We saw this when Bernie Sanders demanded the federal government pay every workers full salary throughout the pandemic. That, of course, would collapse the US dollar as the Treasury Department would have to print trillions in paper currency to meet the obligation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that’s what Sanders, George Soros, and elements at The New York Times, want - economic and societal chaos. So a new “world order” can be built based on Marxist redistribution principles.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With that in play, let’s welcome in the Thunder Doom spectacle. It is here for all to see. And please note exactly who is putting bricks in that wall.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>They are not looking out for you.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-04-12T18:51:00ZThe Winds of ChangeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Winds-of-Change/-356953464388738683.html2020-04-05T07:00:00Z2020-04-05T07:00:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>The pandemic will change many things on this earth including, very likely, your life. But if you are looking for guidance and perspective on the post-virus world, you will not get that from America’s news agencies. <br /><br />Instead, you will see and read blatantly dishonest appraisals of the contagion situation designed to promote ideology and social engineering.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The foolish presentations on many TV news programs are boring and depressing. More than a few “presenters,” as they call anchor people in England, are simply bewildered. They have no clue as to what is really happening. Whenever you hear an interviewer ask: “what do you make of that?”, please understand the questioner has no question. They have to say something, but they are really saying nothing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, for the benefit of you, the reader, let me lay out a post-pandemic vision.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>First and most important, the false, far-left belief that big government is the key to a satisfying life for people has been shattered. The repressive Chinese Communists, who Bernie Sanders admires for combating poverty, are directly responsible for the plague. Also, the UN-funded Word Health Organization enabled the totalitarians in Beijing to lie to the world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Never again should China and the WHO be trusted on anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Around the globe, no leader was perspicacious enough to sound an early alarm about the contagion. No one did it, despite the presence of the most sophisticated operational medical intelligence apparatus in history.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The first global action was taken on January 28 when the United States and Italy both stopped flights from China. That action saved President Trump, who is now totally dependent on American science to develop an antidote to defeat the virus. If that does not happen by September, Mr. Trump could very well lose the election - if it does come about, he will likely win.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s because the Democrats participated in three debates between January 1 and February 25 and there was not one mention of the Wuhan virus, nothing. <br /><br />But there was plenty of talk about impeachment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So now when the Democrats say the President was late sounding the alarm, they look foolish and dishonest. In addition, their leading candidate, Joe Biden, criticized Mr. Trump for stopping the China flights. This is not a good virus resume, no matter how the press tries to spin or ignore it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the issues front, the open borders crew, a significant part of the Democrat machine, is done forever. George Soros and his fellow travelers were always dangerous and now there is pandemic proof of that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In March, the FBI conducted a record number of background checks on gun buyers. Even the dimmest citizen now knows that governments cannot protect you from harm. You must protect yourself, and that includes financially. Stop spending money you don’t have.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, government-run health care is a virus victim. Many countries in Europe that have socialized medicine are running death rates ten times higher than the USA. Private care is always better. Always.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for your situation, here it is. The economy and stock market will come back but many jobs will not. Companies will use the pandemic to pare down on unnecessary workers and products. In the future, more folks will work from home. In the short term, salaries will drop because more people will be looking for work, and most companies have lost revenue during the great isolation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again, you need to protect yourself. You have to develop a skill the marketplace needs. Companies and unions will not provide you with economic security. Profit will continue to rule in post-pandemic America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When normality returns, we will still have our bread and circuses to divert us from reality. But during this hiatus from life as we knew it, you might want to look hard at your own life.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The world is changing. Get ahead of the curve.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-04-05T07:00:00ZYou Have the Right to Remain StupidBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/You-Have-the-Right-to-Remain-Stupid/-762529374681469116.html2020-03-29T07:00:00Z2020-03-29T07:00:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>The vicious contagion presents perhaps the most significant personal opportunity for change in our lifetimes. That’s because the bustle has broken down. The pursuit of money, sex, power, and other magnets are all on hold. We are now apart from the daily machine that can grind us into unthinking, callous people. At least most of us are.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, how about some introspection? Some inward evaluation. An honest appraisal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe we start with the country and then we’ll get to what’s really important - our own selves - as the country singers might say.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>An essential question for me is: how did this country get so hateful? <br /><br />If you are following the contagion news, you know the blame game has kicked in. It’s the 'Trump virus,' according to a New York Times columnist. Another far left writer in that liberal journal (it no longer meets the standards of a newspaper) says the virus is enabled by ultra-religious Christians who 'deny science.' Of course, she ties that into the climate change debate as well as President Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the right, some loons accuse China of weaponizing the contagion without a shred of evidence to back up the claim.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With so much craziness available on the net, often disseminated by corporate media, the divisive atmosphere has fueled a unique kind of American loathing. Many of us actively despise those with whom we disagree.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thus, in our newfound downtime, we might think about whether we are a part of the loathing movement and if we are, whether that is enhancing our individual lives.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And then there is 'what your country can do for you.' President Kennedy rejected that sentiment, but today the concept is warmly embraced by millions of Americans who firmly believe in the Bernie Sanders doctrine: that the government should provide. No need for self-reliance, that’s for fools. A vast central power structure will dictate what Americans can and cannot have. We the people are not the deciders. Bernie and his comrades would be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is simply incredible to me, a son of the Cold War, that socialism is on the rise in America. Perhaps during the contagion we can think hard about our individual freedoms which are under assault from the virus. Do you like being told how to live and where you can go? How about you, Democratic Party, are you embracing the restrictions we are seeing? They are obviously necessary. But they are also a vivid message. This is what can happen all the time when big government totalitarians rule.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the social front, are you a due process denier? Do you condemn neighbors based on gossip? Are you supportive of the trend that all allegations are convictions? When Brett Kavanaugh was almost destroyed, it was an accusation, not hard facts, that brought him to the brink. One brave woman, Senator Susan Collins, saved him. Hundreds of our elected officials embraced the noose.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, what about you? Do you fear the virus? Why? Are you afraid to die? Do you fear giving the contagion to people you love? Are strangers part of the equation? Do you feel for the suffering and dying? Do you pray for them? Do you pray at all?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All throughout history the world has suffered as it is suffering now. Those who see the big picture understand that dreadful plagues, wars, natural disasters, and human atrocities are all part of earthly existence. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>People who accept that and learn from the viral calamity, are likely to prosper in the aftermath.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>People who see themselves as victims and who lament the loss of individual pursuits, will stay in place. And, in America, we still have that right - to remain selfish and even more harshly - to remain stupid.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-03-29T07:00:00ZThe Contagion ChroniclesBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Contagion-Chronicles/858239749350595624.html2020-03-22T22:48:00Z2020-03-22T22:48:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>Terrorists all over the world are watching the world panic closely. Biological warfare has been a reality for decades. You may remember that Saddam Hussein expelled weapons inspectors from the United Nations after the 9/11 terror attack, which led to the Iraq war. Saddam’s terror thugs, the Mukhabarat, had indeed developed biological agents but secretly destroyed the program before the fighting began - completely fooling allied intelligence services.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, many nations have developed virus weaponry and terrorists would love to acquire the lethal bugs. COVID from China (sorry race-baiters) has succeeded in severely damaging the worldwide economy and will eventually kill more than one million people. There will, I believe, be a vaccine soon that will ease the disaster, but more viruses are coming.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some have speculated that Chinese researchers actually spread the virus after it escaped from a lab near Wuhan. But my investigation says that is false.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In October, 2007, clinical micro-biologists at the University of Hong Kong released a report entitled “SARS-CoV as an agent of Emerging/Re-emerging Infection.” The paper clearly states the danger:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Coronaviruses are well known to undergo genetic recombination, which may lead to new genotypes and outbreaks. The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb ... therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that warning was ignored. Because governments are rarely proactive. Most countries owe enormous amounts of money and the USA leads the league. Once we get out of this plague, America will owe close to $25 trillion dollars. Few countries spend money on medical theories because they simply can’t afford it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So respirators and virus test kits were not stockpiled. Disease threats from the backwaters of China went largely unknown. And now the contagion rages.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Corona will change many things in America, here are just a few. <br /><br />The Second Amendment will be strengthened as self-protection rises.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Socialism in America will be crippled as the vital virus vaccine will likely emerge from private drug companies, the ones demonized by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>America’s partisan media will lose even more credibility over foolish and distorted reporting designed not to inform the public, but to engender panic and disillusionment in order to harm the powers that be in Washington.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trust in the financial markets will plummet. Folks will not only hoard paper supplies, they’ll lockbox cash.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Summing up: many people will suffer in many ways because primitive fools ate infected bats in China. The damage is severe with evil people taking measure.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And the world should know it.<br /><br /><a href="/membership" target="_blank">Subscribe to watch Bill O'Reilly weeknights at 7pm ET.</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-03-22T22:48:00ZIt's SickBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-Sick/195812764922710627.html2020-03-15T07:00:00Z2020-03-15T07:00:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>It is the speed of the contagion that has folks spooked. That and the media play-by-play. There’s a virus coming to your house. Just like that Stephen King book.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just three weeks ago, life in America was pretty standard. Now everything is shut down and Tom Hanks has Corona. What happened? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Disease happened. Global travel happened. Worldwide government bureaucracies initially failed as they usually do. We have a list in this country: Al Qaeda, Katrina, Maria, Vietnam, Iraq. On and on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The committed left media is hyping and using the illness to try to drive President Trump from office. Here’s Trump-hater Gail Collins in The New York Times: “Let’s call it TrumpVirus. If you’re feeling awful, you know who to blame.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Really astute analysis from Ms. Collins. I don’t know how she does it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>More brilliance from Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. She puts forth that telling people NOT to panic, as the federal government is doing, is a bad strategy. Ms. Noonan apparently believes panic is okay.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you look up the word “panic” in the dictionary, you’ll see this: “Sudden uncontrollable fear and anxiety, often causing unthinking behavior.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Could it be that Peggy Noonan wrote her column in a panic? Just asking.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Clear-thinking people are right to fear the Coronavirus because it spreads quickly from even casual human contact. It’s an “airborne” contagion, unlike AIDS or Ebola. That’s scary even if you tend to be brave.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So caution is a good protection. Panic is not. And blaming the virus on Donald Trump is stupid and loathsome. No national leader could stop the illness and the USA is certainly trying to contain the infection.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course mistakes will be made. This is a sudden plague upon the land. Some things will work, some will not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump told the nation that “we are all in this together.” But I don’t believe that at all. Richer folks are better protected than the poor. Country people have a stronger chance to avoid infection than citizens packed into the cities. We are not together in America, we are badly divided politically, residentially, and culturally.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, there will be people who attempt to exploit the virus for political and/or financial gain. They will try to use human suffering to advance their own interests.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am watching these people. And I will report back. Because it’s sick.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-03-15T07:00:00ZHope and ChangeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hope-and-Change/426313044764970113.html2020-03-09T00:10:00Z2020-03-09T00:10:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>(Baltimore) Cruising around the poor neighborhoods of this troubled city it is easy to see why millions of Americans want to destroy free enterprise and allow a giant federal government to take care of them. The false promise of Bernie Sanders is just another in a long line of political deception. The truth is simply too difficult for some Americans to hear.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thousands of Baltimoreans live in hovels, surrounded by degenerate criminals selling narcotics and threatening lethal violence at any time. Liberal authorities now demand sympathy for these brutal poison pushers and the result is that millions of honest poor people all over the country are trapped in their dire circumstance.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>They can't flee because they have no money. Their lack of resources almost always correlates to a poor education. Simply put, these Americans cannot compete for a decent salary. And so they are prisoners, dependent on government subsidies to survive and subject to the daily indignities of danger and decay.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Barack Obama promised impoverished folks and all Americans “hope and change.” But little changed during his eight years in office except more hopelessness. That feeling often leads to addiction, making poverty and crime even worse. Baltimore is the poster city for that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Obama tried to improve the lives of the poor but, again, did not succeed. His “income redistribution” economic polices caused corporations and small businesses to freeze. Hiring was scant and salaries stagnant. Capitalism works best when the marketplace expands and workers are needed to increase profits. That did not happen under President Obama.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Donald Trump has done better in the economic area but he is not going to improve the ghettos of Baltimore. That’s because no government can do that. If an American cannot perform a job effectively, he or she will face deprivation no matter what promises charlatans like Sanders and Warren make.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The solution to poverty is education but the cold truth is that honesty does not exist in the public school system because if you do tell the truth, you will be branded a racist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here is the unvarnished truth: children from chaotic homes with irresponsible parents need the confidence that comes with individual achievement. And in order to achieve you need discipline and motivation. All students must respect the boundaries imposed by the educational process or they will fail in life. Got it, Bernie?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, every public school student in this country should be required to wear a uniform provided by the state. That will send a message to the child that they are involved in a serious enterprise that will require cooperation from each of them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Students should learn at a reasonable pace, and be taught the essentials of life in the United States. Not be given a curriculum of victimhood and failure. Social promotion should be banished.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the left in America opposes those things and provides a constant drumbeat that it’s impossible for non-affluent citizens to succeed. The kids hear that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Public schools must repudiate that terrible lie.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those students who refuse to cooperate, should be placed in therapeutic schools, where they can get personalized support - not be allowed to disrupt other students who want to succeed on society’s terms.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is my belief that committed leftists like Bernie Sanders really don’t care about elevating poor Americans because self-reliance and disciplined learning is the key to fighting poverty - not a giant state apparatus which the socialists adore.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bernie’s bro Fidel Castro used his power to insure most Cubans stay poor. That’s what happens when the state runs things.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Back in the USA, hope becomes sparse when a child has derelict parents and lives in a violent neighborhood. The only chance is to educate that child well and tell the kids the truth: learning, hard work, and honesty is your ticket to success in life.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sadly, that is not even close to happening in today’s America.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-03-09T00:10:00ZThe Tribal States of AmericaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Tribal-States-of-America/868440288000866456.html2020-03-01T22:12:00Z2020-03-01T22:12:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<p>As America emerged victorious after World War II, an era of unity swept the country. Then television arrived, causing a cultural unification of the American people. Everybody knew who Ed Sullivan was. The Bonanza boys, Mary Tyler Moore, the Fonz, all had national recognition beyond anything ever seen.</p>
<p>On the radio, the same pop music was played on AM stations all across the land and with the arrival of Motown, African-American entertainment finally went mainstream. In addition, black sports figures like Willie Mays and Bill Russell were admired from coast to coast. The word “united” really was appropriate in the culture and, to a lesser extent, in the accepted view of how the country should be run.</p>
<p>Now that is gone.</p>
<p>America is no longer a united assortment of states. We have devolved into tribalism because of technology. Our devices allow us to think small, to pursue our self-interest constantly with others who like what we like.</p>
<p>Stamp collecting, hunting, fitness, finance, sports, religion, if you want to lose yourself in a specific world, you can easily do it. And you don’t even have to leave the house.</p>
<p>Thus, our common culture is vanishing, no longer does entertainment or education or even faith bind us together. Today, it is every person for him, her or, insert your own pronoun, self.</p>
<p>So the question becomes how can a nation made up of millions of self-absorbed tribes govern itself? There is little prevailing national interest anymore. “We’re all in this together” has vanished.</p>
<p>It has been replaced by “where’s what I want?”</p>
<p>Tribalism extends to politics, of course, and we are vividly seeing that in the struggles of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders could not have happened ten years ago. Democrats were very happy with their liberal but conventional leader Barack Obama, a man who won the presidency while opposing gay marriage and espousing other traditional beliefs. Today, you cannot even run as a democrat if you don’t embrace gay nuptials or support late-term abortion.</p>
<p>But some “moderate” democrats do remain. However, they are being eclipsed by traditional liberals, far-left progressives, and the socialist/communist element. The democrats are now divided into tribes. Some love Bernie, others support Bloomberg, South Carolina dems rallied for Biden. But these men share little common ground and are propelled by the tribes that support them, not a central party.</p>
<p>The result, as we are seeing, is chaos. Senator Sanders leads the primary pack, but the democrat establishment does not want him to run against President Trump because the poobahs think he’ll lose. It is a becoming bitter situation.</p>
<p>In the past, political winds have shifted every few years in America and that might happen again if the Democratic Party gets destroyed in November.</p>
<p>But what will never happen again is a spirit of “E Pluribus Unum.” Out of many, one.</p>
<p>High technology has rendered that motto obsolete so we need a new slogan. Perhaps something like: “In tribes we trust.”</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-03-01T22:12:00ZCivility UnrestBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Civility-Unrest/-243474029136467263.html2020-02-24T00:41:00Z2020-02-24T00:41:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>Back in 1960, my working class parents voted different parties; my mom went democrat with JFK. My father voted republican for Richard Nixon. I remember sitting at the dinner table eating<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>“Spaghetti-o’s” listening to my folks tease each other about “canceling” their votes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Over the decades, my friends and family members supported a wide array of politicians and I never had a problem with any of them. In fact, I’ve interviewed seven presidents and respect them all for their service to America. I even enjoyed my brief time with George McGovern, about as left wing as they come.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But today I simply cannot understand how any intelligent American can support Bernie Sanders, who despises the United States and wants to burn down our traditions. I believe Senator Sanders to be a truly dangerous man and those who would allow him power, are putting my family in jeopardy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s start with Sanders saying, during the debate in New Hampshire, that America is “racist society” from top to bottom. In order to believe that, you have to accuse millions of Americans who hold responsible positions of actively persecuting blacks and other minorities.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To buy into Sanders’ irresponsible statement, you must also believe that the United States’ social system, by design and execution, denies the equal pursuit of happiness to millions of its citizens based on skin color. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is absolutely no factual basis to support that absurd point of view. Yes, individual bias exists, but to allege it is national policy is a lie.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And Bernie Sanders embraces that lie.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Senator also believes that private property is really federal property. He promotes draconian taxation on corporations and wealthy citizens. Beyond that, he wants to impose taxation on individual assets, acquired AFTER a citizen has paid income tax and other state financial demands. This is his so called “wealth tax.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To Sanders, it is a trade. The federal government will pay for a citizen’s medical bills, dental expenses, eye glasses, hearing aids, elder care, child care, education from pre-k through college, and provide generous subsidies to low income Americans for every other life need.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In return, Sanders believes the federal government has the right to take whatever it wants from affluent citizens and private companies in order to pay for all the free stuff. Sanders and Congress will decide how much of your pie will remain in the refrigerator. The feds will appropriate their “fair share,” and if you resist, you will be prosecuted.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, if an American works hard, takes risks investing, and lives frugally in order to build long term financial security for his or her family, the feds would be able to seize those personal assets under the banner of “fair share.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This frightening vision of Bernie Sanders would not only bankrupt the USA, it would punish every single American who has achieved economic success. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, folks who support Sanders and his socialist/communist viewpoint, are enabling a dangerous point of view that would directly harm me and my family. So, I can no longer engage those people. I must strenuously oppose them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If I wanted to live in Cuba, and have the state determine what I can and cannot possess, I’d move there.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is little economic difference between Bernie Sanders and the tyrants in Havana.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s the truth.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-02-24T00:41:00ZBarr the DoorBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Barr-the-Door/189366753970681431.html2020-02-16T08:55:00Z2020-02-16T08:55:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>The most important man in President Trump’s life right now is William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States. Yet, Mr. Trump may not understand that. However, the hate-Trump media brigades certainly do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Mr. Barr were to turn against the President, his re-election chances would be damaged. Significantly. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s because William Barr is a tough, honest prosecutor who is trying to uphold the crucial constitutional mandate of “equal justice for all.” That means a corrupt media is not the dispenser of justice, nor is a sitting President who may have a personal agenda.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The latest controversy over Roger Stone, accompanied by presidential tweets, has put the Attorney General in a tough spot. Mr. Stone was convicted of lying to authorities about his role in seeking damaging information against the democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The sentencing recommendation from Justice Department prosecutors is seven to nine years in a federal penitentiary. On average, a convicted rapist in this country serves four and a half years in prison so you know something is amiss.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Almost immediately, President Trump tweeted his outrage - targeting the prosecutors. A short time later, four of them quit. That caused great joy and a spate of anonymous-sourced articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post, two organizations that are devoted to injuring President Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Caught in the middle of the chaos is William Barr who then told ABC News that Mr. Trump’s tweeting about active criminal cases makes it hard for the AG to do his job.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Whereupon Fox Business Channel anchor Lou Dobbs questioned Barr’s “loyalty.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But an attorney general’s loyalty is to his oath to uphold the constitution, not to any human being and that includes politicians who sometimes defy the human description.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, now, the President and the Attorney General are, well, let’s use the word “unsettled.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The ridiculous side of all this is - it didn’t have to happen. All President Trump had to do was wait until Roger Stone is sentenced and then issue a pardon. Presto, Mr. Stone could go bowling with you that very night.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But waiting is not Donald Trump’s style, confrontation is. If you read my book “The United States of Trump,” you know the President always relishes the fight.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But a battle with William Barr is not like the dustup with the weak former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Barr is not a man to be pushed around and he does not want his professional reputation sullied. The crucial Durham investigation into federal corruption is underway and President Trump would be well advised to stay out of all Justice Department business and let those chips fall.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Trump should also understand that the national media is heavily invested in diminishing AG Barr because it fears what the Durham investigation might bring. The President would be foolish to help his enemies marginalize William Barr, who could expose disturbing FBI corruption that damaged Donald Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, President Richard Nixon tried to manipulate the Justice Department and that finalized his demise.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>History can repeat itself.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-02-16T08:55:00ZWhat's Left?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whats-Left/-61650271603880852.html2020-02-10T00:12:00Z2020-02-10T00:12:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div><span>After watching Friday’s debate, it is obvious the democrats have a conundrum. Joe Biden’s campaign is falling apart, Bernie Sanders is leading, and Michael Bloomberg is looming. All of that is good news for President Trump.</span><br /><br /><span>Let’s start with “say it ain’t so, Joe.” The man cannot seem to get a cogent sentence out of his mouth. In addition to incessantly saying the words “in fact,” he has no central message, nothing for voters to rally behind. </span><br /><br /><span>To use another of Biden’s overused phrases, “here’s the deal, Joe:” you say the current economy’s not good coming from eight years of economic malaise under you and President Obama? Do you think that’s going to resonate when unemployment is the lowest it’s been in almost 70 years? </span><br /><br /><span>You told the world you would not have killed Soleimani. You also opposed the raid that got bin Laden, the only member of the Obama cabinet to dissent. What kind of deal is that, Joe?</span><br /><br /><span>Now, it wasn’t your fault that Nancy Pelosi gave republicans a big stick during impeachment with the Ukraine stuff. That tape of you getting a guy fired over there, as well as your son’s money grab, is hurting you. It’s possible to overcome that with a cogent message but, in fact, you don’t have one.</span><br /><br /><span>The same cannot be said of socialist Bernie. His message is loud and clear. If he ever becomes president, America as we know it would be vaporized. Consider the Sanders wish list.</span><br /><br /><span>- the federal government would pretty much run the private economy. Profits and generous take home pay would be regulated by extreme taxation, and private property seized through a wealth tax.</span><br /><br /><span>- U.S. foreign policy would be totally non-confrontational even in the terrorist arena. Few American troops would be deployed overseas, provocations would largely go unanswered, and the military budget slashed.</span><br /><br /><span>- Criminal justice “reform” would replace punishment with “restorative justice” that seeks the “healing” of criminals. That begins with no cash bail for most offenses and, upon convictions, alternatives to prison.</span><br /><br /><span>- the total dismantling of US immigration law. That means open borders and federal payments to all immigrants for healthcare and other necessities.</span><br /><br /><span>In short, Senator Sanders is a dangerous man. He would destroy this country economically leading to staggering unintended consequences.</span><br /><br /><span>I wish I could analyze the energetic Pete Buttigieg, who is rising in the democratic polls. But I cannot ascertain exactly what he’s talking about. I do know that he wants to “turn the page,” but what page? What book? What does he want to do? I can’t figure it out.</span><br /><br /><span>With Elizabeth Warren no longer contending because few trust her, that leaves Mayor Mike Bloomberg who must be enjoying Biden’s collapse. I will analyze Bloomberg as Super Tuesday comes closer, but for now I’ll sum him up this way: smart guy, ran NYC efficiently, likes what money can buy, humorless, hates Trump, loves America, climate change zealot, has trouble connecting with minorities, a key group for democrats.</span><br /><br /><span>So there you have the definition of the democratic conundrum. The party isn’t over, not yet. But midnight is approaching.</span></div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-02-10T00:12:00ZThe No Gloat ZoneBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-No-Gloat-Zone/-554821379110497515.html2020-02-03T01:07:00Z2020-02-03T01:07:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>After enduring years of investigation for allegedly colluding with evil Russians and threatening hapless Ukrainians over the phone, the temptation for President Trump to gloat over the failure of these two “scandals” to destroy his presidency must be powerful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BUT DON’T DO IT, Mr. President.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Because there are more “bombshells” in the pipeline and these will be truly terrible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>CNN has also been looking into credible charges that Donald Trump diverted money from his re-election campaign to buy powerful hair products. Don Lemon has an exclusive on the allegation which will be followed by a panel of 17 people who despise both Trump and hair mousse. Carl Bernstein is particularly incensed by this scandal saying: “even Nixon wouldn’t do that.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not to be outdone, Rachel Maddow is developing a story based on very secret sources that President Trump is fond of ordering the Air Force One pilots to circle unnecessarily in order to exacerbate climate change. Ms. Maddow already has one source who actually witnessed Air Force One landing, and is working on getting John Bolton to confirm the whole sordid scenario.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In addition, word is The New York Times has been told, by a person close to another person, that President Trump browbeat a Sudanese official on the phone. The Times has even secured a quote by the President who allegedly said: “listen, buster, this is a perfect call but that won’t stop me from slapping a tariff on you people if you don’t come up with dirt on Buttigieg.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not to be outdone, The Washington Post is developing a report that pinpoints the exact part of the Constitution violated by Mr. Trump when he labeled Mayor Bloomberg “mini-Mike.” Some believe the newspaper may be interpreting the “disparagement clause” too broadly. Nevertheless, Congressman Gerald Nadler will hold hearings on it, calling Randy Newman, who wrote the song “Short People,” as his first witness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, Adam Schiff has apparently been told by a whistleblower that President Trump spoke harshly about Robert DeNiro in the Oval Office. That “venting,” as the whistleblower described it, has been classified but soon Schiff will also hold hearings on the allegation in the House Subcommittee on Unhealthy Obsessions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, in the face of all this, the White House should absolutely become a no gloat zone. <br /><br /></div>
<div>As the saying goes: it ain’t over til the fat lady runs out of bombshells.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-02-03T01:07:00ZA Fair WindBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Fair-Wind/-265539077052250010.html2020-01-26T08:00:00Z2020-01-26T08:00:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>Democrats are demanding a “fair” impeachment trial in the Senate where President Trump must be found guilty. If he’s not removed from office, that’s not “fair.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Got it?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It’s exactly like affluent Americans paying their “fair share” in taxes. Is 50 percent of your income fair? No? 60 percent? Keep going?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The leftwing fairness doctrine is kind of like a little kid deciding how many Skittles to eat. What’s the fair amount?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All of them, that’s what. Whatever I want is “fair.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The media, most of it, wants Mr. Trump expelled, but the word fair is not often used in press circles anymore. That’s because an even-handed examination of news stories will never again happen in America because the press is so proud of its liberal activism there isn’t even an attempt to fake objectivity these days.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wait, I’m not being fair. Recently, The Washington Post assigned a radical left columnist to criticize Rachel Maddow, a radical left TV commentator. The Post knows its reputation as an objective provider of information is in tatters so the editors came up with that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Everybody got a good giggle out of it with the possible exception of Ms. Maddow.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think it is entirely possible that no one in this country believes the impeachment exposition is fair. Certainly, those who support President Trump see no even-handedness in the exercise. And the “Resistance” against Trump can’t possibly see any fairness in his likely acquittal. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, finally, all Americans agree on a political issue: impeachment is not fair. Common ground at last.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And while we’re on the subject, was the hysteria surrounding the “Russian-collusion” allegations fair to Donald Trump and his administration? Did you see any “fairness” in that presentation? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This column is not about defending the President. He and all other Chief Executives should be scrutinized. There is nothing unfair about opposing or criticizing any politician unless you embrace dishonesty in the process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But this destructive impeachment thing should not have happened. President Trump can be removed by the voters in ten months. A partisan play to force him out of office may be legal but it’s certainly not fair, especially to the American people who deserve problem-solving in Congress, not partisan scheming.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The cliche is “fair is fair.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The reality is the entire concept of fairness may be on the verge of obsolescence.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fair warning.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-01-26T08:00:00ZShould You Hate the Media?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Should-You-Hate-the-Media/-458273529134308588.html2020-01-19T08:00:00Z2020-01-19T08:00:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>1975 was an exciting time to be at Boston University’s School of Public Communication. There we were, about 30 students seeking a Master’s Degree in Broadcast Journalism. All of us thought our quest was noble, that we would become purveyors of truth, skilled fact-finders and truth-tellers in the Watergate tradition. The lessons presented were well worth the tens of thousands of dollars I had to pay for them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Forty-five years later, having reached the top of my profession, I generally despise my own industry, something I never could have predicted. Here’s why.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The national TV press is presently controlled by six major corporations that use their vast power to profiteer while attempting to destroy ideological enemies. The coverage of Donald Trump’s presidency has proved that statement beyond any reasonable doubt. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The stage was set early when a New York Times columnist wrote that because Mr. Trump was so loathsome (to him and his liberal colleagues), the basic tenets of fair journalism no longer applied. Get Trump was the new rule.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The mandate of an honest journalist is to seek the truth, even if the facts of a story go against your personal belief system. It is wrong to simply publish accusation and allegations, you must scrutinize all charges. If you cannot find solid facts to prove a story, you then must balance it - giving both sides equal weight.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Did that happen in the Russian-collusion situation? Of course not. The New York Times and Washington Post printed story after story damning the Trump operation. The network news and CNN took their cues from those liberal papers, constantly deriding the President and those who supported him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then Special Counsel Robert Mueller blew it all up. Federal investigators could find no evidence of collusion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But no apology for unbalanced and fallacious coverage was heard from the corrupt national media. Instead, it segued into the shameful impeachment hysteria.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please understand this: the primary reason the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat members knew the national press would give them cover and blatant support. The media portrayed Adam Schiff and other anti-Trump zealots as heroes. This despite strong evidence the Ukraine whistle-blower secretly coordinated with Schiff, a blatantly political and deceptive act.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>From the very beginning, there was no balanced coverage of the impeachment story, no attempt to put forth both sides or to provide perspective. Mr. Trump was portrayed as guilty of “high crimes” in the Times and Post, as well as on television, in Hollywood, and in the publishing industry. Any high profile person who had the temerity to disagree was mocked or worse.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The cold truth is that the men who preside over The New York Times and The Washington Post, and they are all men, believe THEY should be running the United States, not Donald Trump, who is a vulgarian in their eyes. These men well know the Democratic Party will blindly follow their editorial lead as will TV news executives at CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thus, the so called “free press” in America has become an industry that now seeks power over Americans. The far left vision these operations usually champion cannot be realized at the ballot box, the bosses know that. So it must be imposed by destroying progressive opposition, which the media does with enthusiasm. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The key question is: how many of us realize what is actually happening with the dishonest, power mad media?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Impossible to say. But for those who do understand the corruption, the danger to American freedom is obvious. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that is why I have come to despise my own industry. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-01-19T08:00:00ZA Sharp Left TurnBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Sharp-Left-Turn/-12028781777808553.html2020-01-12T08:40:00Z2020-01-12T08:40:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">
<div>It is difficult to process just how far left some elements of the Democratic Party have moved since President Obama left office, so to speak, and that will definitely influence the upcoming primary vote.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You may remember that Mr. Obama once publicly opposed gay marriage, and his administration deported record numbers of foreign nationals who had illegally entered the United States. Compared to the leftist zealots today, Barack Obama could have filled in for Sean Hannity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To provide perspective about exactly where some Democrats are now, it is worth enumerating a few of the policies that ardent leftists support: changing the free market economy to socialism where the federal government controls profit, production, and investment.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Allowing millions of foreign nationals into America while they “await” asylum hearings that could take years, while also using tax dollars to pay for the healthcare of all illegal aliens.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Allowing felonies like robbery and drug dealing not to be prosecuted and forbidding cash bail for many arrested individuals. Police in places like San Francisco and New York now issue citations or tickets for even violent acts like physical assault.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Permitting abortion for any reason at any time. In some places, babies can be terminated after birth by an abortion doctor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just a few years ago, supporting those radical policies would have eliminated a political candidate from serious consideration for office. Now, many in the Democratic Party embrace them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The recent confrontation with Iran illuminates the situation. There is no question that the Iranian general Soleimani was a terrorist, responsible for attacks on Americans including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Yet, among the democrats running for President, only Michael Bloomberg supported the drone strike on the Quds Force leader. Bernie Sanders actually condemned the USA for killing the terrorist, a startling and disturbing position.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nevertheless, Senator Sanders continues to compete effectively in the presidential race despite the fact that he would completely disengage U.S. forces from the Middle East, and attempt to run the private economy from Washington, something that has never been done in the history of this country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Realistically, it would take a drastic shift in voter sentiment for Sanders or his fellow traveler Elizabeth Warren to win the White House. That most likely will not happen this year.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the dramatic shift to the left by the Democratic Party is now official and no one knows if the radical forces will grow.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Who would have thunk it?</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-01-12T08:40:00ZExposing the ThreatBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Exposing-the-Threat/-201685587435918283.html2020-01-06T06:26:00Z2020-01-06T06:26:00Z<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="BodyFragment">
<div class="PlainText">Perhaps the worst thing to happen in America last year was the continued rise of the totalitarian left, which now controls some democrat presidential candidates, and many college campuses, aided by a corrupt media.<br /><br />The “woke” movement is a threat to every American as the idea behind it is to literally destroy opposition to progressive policies.<br /><br />Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it this way: “The past decade saw the rise of the woke progressives who dictate what words can be said and ideas held, thus poisoning and paralyzing American humor, drama, entertainment, culture and journalism. In the coming ten years someone will effectively stand up to them. They are the most hated people in America, and their entire program is accusation: you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic; you are a bigot, a villain, a white male, a patriarchal misogynist, your day is over.”<br /><br />While Ms. Noonan’s description of the totalitarian progressive movement is stunningly accurate, she’s a bit late to the table. She once wrote that she believes all “misconduct” accusations because she doesn’t know any women who would falsely accuse, a preposterous piece of analysis when money is often involved.<br /><br />Yet, let’s give Peggy Noonan credit for clearly identifying a brutal American problem: the presence and acceptance by the media of culture assassins. <br /><br />“Bow to them,” Ms. Noonan writes, “and they’ll accuse you even more of newly imagined sins. They claim to be vulnerable victims, and moral. Actually, they’re not. They’re mean and seek to kill, and like all bullies are cowards.”<br /><br />But it is almost impossible to “stand up” to these brutalizers because they are well organized and funded. Corporations fear their boycott abilities and the media gleefully trumpets every accusation they spew without skepticism.<br /><br />So who could possibly bring them down?<br /><br />I don’t know. But I do know that many Americans indeed hate these people. Their media projects almost always bomb and their overall loathsomeness is apparent to anyone with a sprinkling of intelligence.<br /><br />However, like Senator Joseph McCarthy and other destroyers, they are having their day. And they are hurting the country.<br /><br />Drastically.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2020-01-06T06:26:00ZBe it ResolvedBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Be-it-Resolved/928599857233784710.html2019-12-30T00:34:00Z2019-12-30T00:34:00Z<div>Every new year, columnists suggest resolutions to powerful and famous people who promptly ignore them. Nevertheless, I am going to do this knowing full well that my effort might go unappreciated. So what else is new?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I fully realize that it is presumptuous of me to tell others how to conduct themselves in the public arena. But I do this with America’s welfare in mind. So here we go.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump might resolve to avoid consigning deceased people to hell. There just doesn’t seem to be much upside to doing this. Purgatory, okay, but Hades is a bit extreme.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nancy Pelosi should resist scolding reporters who ask if she hates Donald Trump. Even though she says she is praying for the President, it sure looks like she despises every fiber of his being. She hasn’t consigned him to hell yet, but she once suggested that he visit San Francisco, which is pretty much the same thing these days.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Adam Schiff might consider a resolution not to meet with federal “whistleblowers” until the whistle is actually blown. Advance coaching in whistle land smacks of corruption, Mr. Schiff. Are you not aware of that?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mitch McConnell should resolve to hold a fair impeachment trial providing it does not run longer than 90 minutes. Enough time for Senator Lindsay Graham to call the proceedings a sham, and Senator Chuck Schumer to bring in a medium to contact President Andrew Johnson, who may be spending eternity in San Francisco.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden has many resolutions from which to choose. One would be not to say the words “in fact” twenty times in every paragraph. Another might be to put Hunter up for adoption.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bernie Sanders should resolve not to say the word “billionaire” in 2020. But then Bernie would have very little to shout about in his speeches. Maybe he could replace billionaire with “Bloomberg.” Same thing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Elizabeth Warren might resolve to cut back on her “plans” because they are far too complicated. A fun resolution would be for her to endorse making the crime of home invasion legal. That way, people could take stuff from other people without the government’s help. Which would cut down on the bureaucracy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vice President Pence should take a hard look at resolving to say just one thing in 2020 that Americans will actually remember.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mayor Pete knows what his resolution must be. No more wine in caves. Far too dangerous with all those bats in there. And for some reason Elizabeth Warren is put off with this wine-cave scenario. Whiskey is okay.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rudy Giuliani also knows his resolution. No more Ukraine. Even though the beaches are fabulous. Wait. Putin has seized the beaches. Doesn’t matter. Ukraine should never see the mayor again under any circumstances.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>James Comey needs to resolve not to do anything in 2020. Self-induced coma. Tubes for nutrition. Nothing and Comey should bond. For the good of us all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, the corrupt media should collectively resolve to keep on keepin’ on. Why not? As long as Trump is president why bother gathering legitimate information that shows the big picture both good and bad? Why run with that when it is much easier and far more enjoyable just to hate Trump. It’s a gas, gas, gas, as the Stones once sang. Of course, the press has an election to cover this upcoming year and it will root, root, root, for the home team - the democrats! Yay. Be it resolved! The dems must win in 2020 or the media will be humiliated once again.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And so it goes, with thanks to Linda Ellerbee for coining that phrase.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Happy New Year!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unless Trump wins.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-12-30T00:34:00ZWisdomBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Wisdom/-536869466049209148.html2019-12-15T23:05:00Z2019-12-15T23:05:00Z<div>Americans are in danger and it’s kind of complicated so please stay with me here. Way back in 1722, an anonymous source who called himself “Silence Dogood” sent a newspaper editor a few opinions. One of them simply said: “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Silence Dogood was really Benjamin Franklin. And he was just 16 years old when he wrote that. Incredible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today, there are groups that are paid big money by private individuals and political action committees to attack freedom of thought by designing propaganda campaigns that aim to silence opposition. Through his “Open Society Foundation”, far left billionaire George Soros funds some of this but he is not alone. Millions of dollars from both left and right wing zealots flow to the assassins of wisdom, something that would have appalled young Benjamin Franklin.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s look at a few examples. If you believe abortion is morally wrong based upon a theological dictum that says only the Creator can alter life from conception to natural death, your belief is no longer respected. No, some will brand you a misogynist, a hater of women. You may very well be shunned as pro-life people were by the “Women’s March” organization.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you believe in traditional marriage, again dictated by a religious tenet, you are “homophobic.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, on some college campuses, your opinions will be shouted down because you violate “human rights.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And in some areas you won’t even be able to buy a sandwich from Chick-fil-A because its founder believes in man-woman nuptials exclusively, as is his right under the Constitution.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It’s the same for global warming. The fascist consulting groups are now saying that if you are at all skeptical of that, you are a “climate-change denier.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is particularly odious because the people who created that expression did so knowing that “holocaust denier” is a death brand all over the world. If that sticks to a person, he or she is finished.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The propagandists know what they are doing and the press loves the branding. It is provocative and hurts traditional people, something the media, in general, relishes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Which brings us to the 14-year-old boy in Florida who was beaten by other children because he supports Donald Trump. This is a stark warning to every thinking American.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That kind of violent action did not happen when Barack Obama was president even though there were strong feelings against him among some conservatives. The malicious “birther” movement stemmed from that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the difference is that the press, academics, and responsible political leaders all rejected that hateful birther campaign.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, however, hate directed at President Trump is considered acceptable among many in the groups I just mentioned. And the kids know it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Freedom of thought doesn’t always lead to wisdom as Ben Franklin surely knew. But lockstep rejection of different beliefs bolstered by loathsome propaganda does always lead to brutal tribalism.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The United States is headed down that road and we the people are in danger.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And only we the people can stop this by sending the fascists a message at voting time.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-12-15T23:05:00ZPray for the PressBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pray-for-the-Press/246552529748975633.html2019-12-08T23:48:00Z2019-12-08T23:48:00Z<div>
<div>Few know this, but the Catholic Church has a patron saint of journalists. His name is Francois de Sales and he was the bishop of Geneva in the early 1600s.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’m not quite sure just why the saint was assigned to monitor the press, but there is an actual prayer under his banner. A Christian journalist is encouraged to say this:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Lord, you have called me to serve others by means of information. Grant that I may always work in obedience to the truth, with courage to pay a personal price so that truth will never be betrayed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Help me to join truth to charity, to never injure anyone’s dignity, and to promote in all, to the best of my ability, justice and peace.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nice prayer, right? But the majority of journalists would never say it because the media is the most secular of institutions; agnostic and often hostile to theology, as it is deemed to oppress people by the “woke” mob.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>At this point in history, the press has become tribal. No longer is it in the “truth finding“ business. Today, corporations dictate how the news will be presented. And if you the journalist don’t like it - don’t let the door hit you.<br /><br /><a href="/c/Gift-Memberships/1/210.html" target="_blank"><strong>[[Give an O'Reilly Gift Membership this Christmas! Get a free book of your choice plus free IMPEACH THE MEDIA stickers with every annual gift certificate.]]</strong></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Don’t believe me? Check out the owner of the Bloomberg news agency. Michael Bloomberg recently ordered that his crew of journalists not scrutinize his run for president or any of the other democratic candidates.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But they can hammer President Trump all they want.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When asked about the outrageous direction on the CBS Morning show, Bloomberg essentially said that he pays his people so they will do as they are told.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe we should all pray for the journalists at the Bloomberg news operation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the truth is that most media outlets follow Mike’s dictum. Do as you are told or else.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s why the national press is so corrupt. The orders from many corporations are that President Trump must go, so don’t even bother with fair reportage. Get him and those who support him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As far as injuring a person’s dignity, this is now a sport for many media people. The more damning the headline, the better. Click-bait. Let’s brutalize individuals by portraying all allegations as facts. Due process? Not a press worry. Who cares if families are hurt, careers ruined, individuals destroyed?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why bother to search for the truth when that might delay or water down a salacious story?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sadly, I have come to despise my own profession. I know many of the people who run the news agencies and most prominent reporters and analysts. And I know that they know, the media industry in America is largely corrupt - driven by money and ideology.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But a paycheck is a paycheck and good media jobs are hard to get. Thus, orders are followed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Somewhere, Saint Francois knows all this too.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>And he is weeping.</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-12-08T23:48:00ZThe Smear StrategyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Smear-Strategy/532572582713164606.html2019-12-02T02:03:00Z2019-12-02T02:03:00Z<div>My <a href="/b/Listen-to-Bill-OReillys-Full-Interview-with-President-Trump/-103705275159635725.html" target="_blank">interview with President Trump last week</a> made worldwide news. Within an hour of a transcript being released, the government of Mexico was asking for an emergency meeting with Secretary of State Pompeo. Mr. Trump had confirmed to me that he will designate the Mexican drug cartels as terror groups and that means the United States can attack them militarily.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President’s statement that he did not know what Rudy Giuliani was doing in Ukraine also got big reaction because the former New York City mayor is being accused of interfering with U.S. foreign policy. That’s part of the impeachment movement.</div>
<div> <br /><a href="/c/Gift-Memberships/1/210.html" target="_blank"><strong>[[Give an O'Reilly Gift Membership this Christmas! Get a free book of your choice plus free IMPEACH THE MEDIA stickers with every annual gift certificate.]]</strong></a><br /><br /></div>
<div>In addition, President Trump made it clear that he believes former Vice President Biden committed “corrupt” acts in Ukraine and that was part of the aid holdup to that country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The success of the interview immediately brought out smear merchants like Media Matters to personally defame me. I knew that would happen, because any prominent person who gives President Trump a fair hearing will be attacked.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The strategy is obvious: punish any reporter, commentator, or politician who does not denigrate the President.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This, of course, is vile and hateful. And one of the reasons the President might win re-election. The folks know smears when they see them and honest people recoil from the garbage. The American press has badly damaged itself by treating Donald Trump so unfairly. You don’t have to endorse his presidency but you should report both the good and the bad - that is if you want to practice honest journalism.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My interview with Mr. Trump was old school: straight-forward questions designed to elicit important information.<br /><br /></div>
<div>So why would anyone attack me for doing a fair job?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The answer is simple: pure hatred. The anti-Trump movement despises the President and wants to do him great harm. And that loathing extends to anyone who does not participate in Mr. Trump’s destruction. It is absolutely outrageous that so many in the communications industry condone this kind of thing. Media Matters and all the other propagandists should be pariahs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But they are not. They are actually enabled by the corporate main stream media. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appalling. It really is.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-12-02T02:03:00ZCan America Handle the Truth?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Can-America-Handle-the-Truth/746913274526125987.html2019-11-24T15:41:00Z2019-11-24T15:41:00Z<span>“Income Inequality” is the new attack slogan of the far left. It is being used to disparage capitalism, and portray the United States as a selfish, insensitive place.</span><br /><br /><span>It is certainly true that there is a wide gap between the prosperous and the poor in America. But that gap can be diminished if the truth about “inequality” was acknowledged. But in our hyper politically correct society, it will not be.</span><br /><br /><span>In 1965, democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that the African-American family unit was under increasing pressure in poor neighborhoods. Back then, 24 percent of black children were born out of wedlock. Today, the number is a shocking 72 percent. For caucasian babies, the number is under 30 percent.</span><br /><br /><span>There’s your income inequality equation.</span><br /><br /><span>Cutting through the phony political rhetoric, there are two primary reasons that just 35 percent of African-American children are currently living with two parents. First, the welfare system; families headed by single mothers receive more government payments.</span><br /><br /><span>And second is substance abuse.</span><br /><br /><span>Drug and alcohol addiction is a scourge in America and the number one reason for child abuse and neglect. And it is absolutely neglect to fail to train your child to compete in a nation of 330 million people. Senators Sanders and Warren tell us that the federal government can mitigate economic failure but that is not true. Only individuals can do that.</span><br /><br /><span>The cold truth is that millions of American children of all colors are unable to develop their intellects and social skills because their parents don’t care about them. So we see a legion of teenagers unable to speak proper English, read a book, or write a coherent sentence. Many kids cover their bodies with tattoos, routinely spout vile obscenities, intoxicate themselves at will, and reject all discipline.</span><br /><br /><span>How will these kids ever prosper economically in adulthood?</span><br /><br /><span>They won’t.</span><br /><br /><span>Who will help them?</span><br /><br /><span>Not our government or public education system, that’s for sure.</span><br /><br /><span>In fact, some of those who scream loudest about inequality are pouring more gasoline on the fire. Many leftists are pushing for legalizing marijuana, an intoxicant extremely attractive to vulnerable teens.</span><br /><br /><span>By allowing pot to be openly sold, the government provides yet another easy opportunity for unsupervised children to harm themselves. Yes, illegal marijuana is widely available. But American society should continue to warn about drug involvement, not glorify and sanction it.</span><br /><br /><span>As a high school teacher, I saw up close what pot can do to unsupervised children. You think income inequality is bad now, wait until you see what’s coming.</span><br /><br /><span>And redistributing wealth from affluent Americans through onerous taxation is not going to stop that.</span><br /><br /><span>Only by acknowledging reality, can America begin to deal with the intense inequality problem. Responsible parenting is the key to defeating the economic failure that leads to poverty.</span><br /><br /><span>The truth should be told.</span>Bill O'Reilly2019-11-24T15:41:00ZThe SpectacleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Spectacle/-926495425625463302.html2019-11-18T00:06:00Z2019-11-18T00:06:00Z<div>Walking across the lobby of the Renaissance Hotel in Indian Wells, California, I was startled to see CNN on a very large TV in the lobby. Thank God the sound was down but the chyron on the screen silently screamed out: “Impeachment hearings, White House in crisis.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Crisis? Geez. Of course, no one working in the White House has spoken about a “crisis,” least of all the guy who runs the place - Donald Trump. Despite the anti-Trump press ginning up the impeachment follies, there does not seem to be much concern in the Executive Branch.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, that could change if information emerges that Tiffany Trump was paid $100,000 a month for serving on the board of the Ukrainian poultry commission. That might become a problem, even though Tiffany is said to like chicken salad sandwiches and therefore might be of help to the commission. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But lacking that kind of exposition, the impeachment evidence seems a bit scant. A guy wearing a bow tie says some State Department lifers were worried about something, I’m not exactly sure what. An American bureaucrat stationed in Kiev testified that he didn’t much like Trump’s policy in Ukraine. And an Ambassador that the President fired doesn’t like him and he doesn’t like her. Or so it seems.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Somewhere impeached President Andrew Johnson uttered: “really?” <br /><br />That quote came from an anonymous source familiar with the afterlife.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was not easy watching the impeachment hearings, that I can tell you. It got so boring that, for the first time in my life, I was hoping the network would cut away from the political bloviating and put Dr. Phil back on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I can’t say the same thing about Behar. I’d rather watch the bow tie guy than her.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If this continues, the nets will have to start livening things up, or they’ll have no audience. Perhaps flash a picture of Monica Lewinsky once in a while or Richard Nixon waving in front of the chopper. Anything, to stimulate the proceedings.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the end, President Trump will keep on keepin’ on, as the Grateful Dead once sang. At least I think it was the Dead. But maybe it was Wolf Blitzer. I’m not sure.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the Republican Senators say they are not even watching the Impeachment Show, preferring old Roseanne reruns. Those were the good old days.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only winner here is Congressman Adam Schiff who finally found some shirts that fit around his neck. Schiff may not bring the President down but he has become semi-famous and is likely to get a book deal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The working title is: “Are You Schiffing Me?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you and goodnight.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-11-18T00:06:00ZMichael Bloomberg for President?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Michael-Bloomberg-for-President/-692808032076774117.html2019-11-11T08:00:00Z2019-11-11T08:00:00Z<div>The former mayor of New York City knows what most astute Americans know: the Democrats running for president have little chance of achieving that goal. <br /><br />Some of the candidates are delusional, others befuddled. So Mayor Mike wants in. Kind of. No Iowa or New Hampshire for him. Nope. <br /><br />He knows liberal loons dominate those democratic primaries. His base is the liberal urban professional corps. Thus, he is signing up essentially for Super Tuesday.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is rich, so to speak. <br /><br />Mayor Mike is worth north of $50 billion mostly accumulated in the finance world. He is the poster boy for income inequality. He would be in the capitalist hall of fame, if it existed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Showing a picture of Bloomberg to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be like whipping out a cross in front of Dracula.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Michael Bloomberg’s political philosophy might be called “pragmatic.” In New York, he largely kept the tactics of the prior Giuliani administration intact. He inherited a falling crime rate from Rudy and for 12 years, supported aggressive policing including “stop and frisk.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The left howled.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But Mike didn’t listen on the subject of crime and punishment. He did, however, become a climate change crusader, and launched a jihad against soda and salt to combat obesity. Most New Yorkers yawned and popped open another Pepsi.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As president, I don’t expect Mike Bloomberg would do anything radical. Yes, he’ll bloviate about warming but will not attempt to dismantle America’s fuel industry. He’ll huff and he’ll puff about other liberal causes but he’ll never blow the house down.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The main reason Mike Bloomberg wants to run for president is that he can’t stand the thought of Donald Trump winning again. He sees Mr. Trump as a barbarian who somehow got under the gate. I call this the “Romney syndrome.” Mitt and Mike sit there all day muttering “how can this be happening?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It will be tough for Mayor Mike because he’s not exactly a man of the people. In fact, he refused to live in the big house that New York provides to mayors as a perk. That’s largely because Mike’s Manhattan townhome makes Gracie Mansion look like a lean-to.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bloomberg is also a private jet kind of guy, warming or no warming.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So get set for a possible rumble between “the Don” and “little Mike.” <br /><br />It could happen, especially if Democrats come to their senses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And if it does occur, I know one thing. There will be a wealth of opportunities to hammer both men.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>America certainly is the land of plenty.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-11-11T08:00:00ZA Fair WindBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Fair-Wind/-641204888729960994.html2019-11-04T07:35:00Z2019-11-04T07:35:00Z<div>Absent any new evidence about President Trump’s conduct, the impeachment play is likely to hurt the Democratic Party, which is already reeling from the lack of a potent presidential candidate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Ukraine phone call is being framed by the democrats and their media allies as a simple transaction: the President demanding dirt on political opponent, Joe Biden, in return for money from the American taxpayer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that simple allegation is wrong. Not because Mr. Trump didn’t want to hurt Biden, he did. But the President’s motivation is much more complex than a one-off political tactic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you read '<a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/p/The-United-States-of-Trump/The-United-States-of-Trump/52904.html" target="_blank">The United States of Trump,</a>' Donald Trump’s mindset will unfold before your eyes. He seeks vengeance for the wrong he believes was done to him by people in the Obama administration, including Joe Biden and Barack Obama, himself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Donald Trump thinks President Obama was behind the entire Russia-collusion fiasco and he is crazed about it. He believes Mr. Obama, through confidants, tried to destroy him, mainly because of Trump pushing the birther stuff. Here’s the truth: there is very bad blood between both men.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That bitterness was the President’s primary motivation for pressuring the Ukrainian leader. Mr. Trump wants to secure evidence of corruption by the Obama administration. Biden was a way in.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Donald Trump may get his wish because the Justice Department is currently investigating possible corruption within the Obama administration during and after the 2016 campaign. US Attorney John Durham is the point man and a criminal Grand Jury may be already seated.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, if President Trump had any patience, which he does not, the Ukraine call was totally unnecessary. Attorney General Barr’s Justice Departure will likely expose what really happened in the 2016 without Mr. Trump’s help.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Astute political observers know there is likely trouble ahead for the anti-Trumpers involved in trying to take him out three years ago. Thus, now, they must damage the President as much as they can before stuff starts hitting the Justice Department fan.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter the American people who will be the ultimate deciders here. Internal polling by the Trump side indicates a growing feeling of citizen anger by non-ideological voters who are tired of nonstop allegations against the President. It is unlikely that public opinion will support the removal of a President when there are two sides to the Ukraine story.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The failure to secure even one House republican vote for continuing the impeachment process underlines the situation. At this point, it is a partisan play.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump would be wise to explain himself directly to the American people via a televised address. He will never get a fair hearing from the press so forget using that vehicle.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But I believe a fair wind still blows in most places in this country. And Donald Trump should cast his fate to that wind.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-11-04T07:35:00ZThe HitBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Hit/680287310309065608.html2019-10-28T15:56:00Z2019-10-28T15:56:00Z<div>In May, 2011, U.S. intelligence pinpointed the hiding place of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. President Obama then canvassed his top advisors about how to deal with the situation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Almost all of them, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, encouraged Mr. Obama to order a special forces raid on bin Laden’s compound and, eventually, that’s what happened. But there was one major dissenter: Vice President Joe Biden. His counsel was not to use military force. Apparently, he feared “blowback” from Pakistan and political damage at home if the American action failed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I thought of that this weekend when the ISIS butcher Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed by U.S. Special Forces in Northern Syria. Joe Biden was quiet about the victory while President Trump was not; telling the world the ISIS leader got what he deserved and went out a coward.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Eight years ago, the bin Laden killing united most Americans. We were happy the architect of 9/11 was gone. I remember that my operation sold thousands of bumper stickers that read: "Navy Seals 1, bin Laden 0.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the Trump takedown of the ISIS maniac was not greeted with universal applause. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi whimpered that she wasn’t informed in advance. Well, that might be because the President believed you would leak word of the raid, madame. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not a crazy thought.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Her fanatical cohort Congressman Adam Schiff issued a statement saying it was not the end of ISIS and criticizing Mr. Trump for his Syrian policy. No joy from Schiff.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>CNN host Jake Tapper, a devoted Trump hater, asked, what would ISIS do in response? As if that should be a concern when trying to eliminate its leadership.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another CNN “analyst” said that because the raid was a success, people that help America might be put at risk in the Middle East as if they aren’t at risk now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Talk about ridiculous blather.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The sad truth is that Donald Trump will never be praised for anything, no matter how much it benefits the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most Americans rightly praised President Obama for bold action in taking out bin Laden. But President Trump gets little credit from the opposition in sending al-Baghdadi to the netherworld.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Something is very wrong when hatred overrides the national good.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Very wrong.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-10-28T15:56:00ZHe's Still the AvengerBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hes-Still-the-Avenger/-114634247263869380.html2019-10-20T16:33:00Z2019-10-20T16:33:00Z<span>The crowd in Dallas on Thursday apparently did not care about impeachment, or Syria, or the latest negative dispatch from CNN. No, about 30,000 folks showed up to hear Donald Trump give a 90 minute speech at The American Airlines Arena and what they wanted was action.</span><br /><br /><span>The President loves these rallies, you might say he lives for them. The mass adulation makes it all worth while. And, as his adrenaline flows, he gives the crowd what it wants.</span><br /><br /><span>Vengeance. Verbal action.</span><br /><br /><span>Beto O’Rourke is described as “very dumb.” Joe Biden is corrupt. The democrats are influenced by “loons,” a word the President borrowed from me. “Pocahontas” Warren doesn’t stand a chance against him!</span><br /><br /><span>The avenger has spoken.</span><br /><br /><span>If you read “The United States of Trump,” you will learn what Donald Trump knows very well: negative emotion is a powerful weapon. And nobody has a bigger arsenal than the President.</span><br /><br /><span>The press tries to match him in vitriol but cannot because Mr. Trump is such a good performer, such a bombastic soul, that the vicious guttersnipes in the media can’t compete, as hard as they try.</span><br /><br /><span>And Donald Trump’s supporters feel he is justified in lambasting his political opponents, including the press, because those entities not only attack the President, but also demean those who voted for him. So, the Trump people want payback and their leader is more than happy to provide it.</span><br /><br /><span>There is no question that the hatred towards Donald Trump has inoculated him from nonstop charges of incompetence and misbehavior. The “outrage du jour” has grown tiresome even as the President’s unforced errors mount.</span><br /><br /><span>The truth is that many Americans don’t care about the phone call to the President of Ukraine. It’s not important to them and certainly not enough to remove an elected president no matter what his intent.</span><br /><br /><span>Same thing with Syria. And North Korea. And using his Miami hotel for a summit meeting.</span><br /><br /><span>What Trump supporters do care about is the ability to protect themselves with firearms, stopping massive illegal immigration, having options in the job market, and defining America as a noble nation.</span><br /><br /><span>Trump people despise socialism, free loaders, politically correct virtue-thumpers, grievance peddlers, and arrogant far-left celebrities.</span><br /><br /><span>They believe they live in the best country on the planet and that Bernie Sanders’ revolution is an insane vision that has more in common with Havana than Houston.</span><br /><br /><span>Traditional folks are fed up with liberal zealots who deny Americans due process, and think the government has a right to seize private property in order to provide free health care not only to Americans, but to illegal aliens as well.</span><br /><br /><span>Faced with all that, Donald Trump has more material than Don Rickles at a Hollywood awards show. The President has an applause line every 30 seconds. Who needs speech writers when a clown like Beto is center stage?</span><br /><br /><span>The avenger and the folks both know that when he comes to town, rhetorical scores will be settled.</span><br /><br /><span>And to them, that’s the way it should be.</span>Bill O'Reilly2019-10-20T16:33:00ZO'Reilly's Column: 'The Hope'Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/OReillys-Column:-The-Hope/287475144712973795.html2019-10-16T05:20:00Z2019-10-16T05:20:00Z<div>Nothing much new in the fourth democratic debate. All the candidates say the country is essentially falling apart and needs a massive amount of giveaways from the federal government.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only thing different this time around is the paltry amount of time Joe Biden was given by the liberal moderators. Old Joe got two questions about his son vacuuming up money in China and Ukraine and that was it. He did not directly answer the queries, deflecting the issue by attacking Donald Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Elizabeth Warren seems to be emerging as Bernie Sanders fades. But none of the candidates has captured the imagination of liberal voters. There’s no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in the field.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s good news for President Trump who needs some cheering. If the Dems back the socialist Warren, I do not believe the working folks will vote for her in great numbers. In order to buy the Senator’s economic vision, you’d have to believe the federal bureaucracy is efficient and caring.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It isn’t. It never will be. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The debate was kind of sleepy but my eyes opened when some of the candidates proposed putting drug company executives in prison for causing the opioid epidemic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Since the democrats generally favor letting street drug dealers OUT of prison, how does that square?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>None of the somnambulant moderators brought that up and that’s the biggest problem with the debate format. The questions are predictable and the answers are rarely challenged. I mean, journalists should not be starting arguments but they should point out when questions are not answered or don’t make sense.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, you have to love the recovering Bernie Sanders who says unfettered capitalism is destroying the world. Beijing certainly agrees. No NBA controversy for Bernie.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are many more democratic debates ahead. The hope on the left is that some candidate will catch fire. Could happen but right now the campfire needs a few more logs.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-10-16T05:20:00ZThe GambleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Gamble/-159328578296143474.html2019-10-06T18:29:00Z2019-10-06T18:29:00Z<div>President Trump never folds ‘em, ignoring Kenny Rogers completely. The river boat gambler President now believes the impeachment deal is his straight-flush to reelection.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s examine his perspective.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>From the outset of his presidency, Donald Trump has believed that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton all did unethical, perhaps illegal things, and have gotten away with them. In '<a href="https://www.billoreilly.com/p/The-United-States-of-Trump/The-United-States-of-Trump/52904.html" target="_blank">The United States of Trump</a>,' I document how President Obama knew in August of 2016, that Russia was trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign. The US Intelligence services thoroughly briefed the White House about the intrusion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Obama keep that secret. <br /><br />Mr. Trump remains furious about it, believing the Obama administration was trying to set him up - and that they succeeded - Robert Mueller was appointed to take Trump down.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This deep-seated belief on the part of President Trump has caused him to seek payback through the Justice Department’s investigation’s of the 2016 election. That’s what prompted Mr. Trump’s call to the President of Ukraine. Donald Trump wants information that might “expose” corruption within the Obama administration and he doesn’t care where it comes from.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter former Vice President Biden, whose official dealings with Ukraine and China enriched his son. While CBS News among others continues to incredibly put forth there is “no evidence” that Biden used his position for family benefit, his own words on Ukraine contradict the dishonest spin.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump is not a subtle man and he is taking a major gamble by seeking to expose “corruption” in the Obama administration. The media will never acknowledge any wrongdoing took place under Mr. Obama no matter what information and evidence comes out.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, the nation’s press is heavily invested in destroying Donald Trump and will not admit he was abused in any way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, the press is saying that Mr. Trump is attempting to subvert the 2020 election by his attempts to gather information about corruption. Democrats are using that point of view to drive impeachment proceedings in the House. Because President Trump will certainly benefit by Biden’s diminishment, this argument has traction.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Donald Trump understands the media narrative but believes he can persuade the American people that it is false - that Mr. Biden is corrupt and he, the President, is a hero in his effort to expose that. Already, Joe Biden’s approval ratings and donations are declining so, initially, the President may be winning.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By the way, Mr. Trump’s campaign money is rising.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for the actual impeachment, no one knows how it will play out. Donald Trump believes many American voters will be angered by it and support him against the democrats. He sees impeachment as a ticket to reelection.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It’s a huge gamble, that outlook. But Mr. Trump has run the table before.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-10-06T18:29:00ZThe StingBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Sting/-598016635070326657.html2019-09-30T03:11:00Z2019-09-30T03:11:00Z<div>If you read my new book “The United States of Trump,” you will learn exactly why the President made the request for information on Joe Biden to the President of Ukraine. Simply put, Mr. Trump believes that Mr. Biden as well as President Obama and Hillary Clinton got away with unethical, perhaps illegal, political activities in the “Russia Collusion” thing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That belief has almost become an obsession for the President. He is driven to expose the three who he is convinced caused him and the country grave harm. Mr. Trump is determined to uncover the corruption he believes took place during the 2016 campaign and beyond.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter the “whistleblower,” an anonymous federal employee who has caused Donald Trump much harm. Apparently, the still unnamed person gathered hearsay, hired three attorneys, then brought a damning and “urgent” accusation to a federal Inspector General who, intriguingly, states the informer may have a political bias.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s allowed in our political system but the situation is a “sting,” no question. The whistleblower does not have to prove anything, just accuse. Think Christine Blasey Ford.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As soon as all hell broke loose, the Trump administration released a transcript of the Ukraine call, believing no wrongdoing occurred. But there doesn’t have to be wrongdoing. Just the allegation of “abuse of power,” is enough for the nation’s anti-Trump press to convict the President and demand he be removed from office.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The truth is Nancy Pelosi is hitching a ride on the impeachment train - she’s not the driver. She knows the press will provide cover for the democrats and believes the impeachment process, even if it doesn’t result in removal, will damage Donald Trump in his re-election bid.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If President Trump ever stops reacting and starts thinking, he should tell the nation that his conversation with the president of Ukraine had to do with gathering facts about possible government corruption at the highest level. Spell it out, Mr. President. As America’s chief law enforcement agent, you have the sworn duty to expose nefarious activity in the federal system past and present.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Trump should absolutely explain why he wanted Ukraine’s help in the Russian matter. It may be complicated but it’s necessary for the American people to hear.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The sting that has ignited an impeachment inquiry and damaged the president is absolutely NOT what it appears to be. There was a legitimate and important reason why President Trump asked a foreign leader about Joe Biden.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The corrupt American press will never report that reason. So Donald Trump must do it himself. Again, I detail some of this in the book and new information about “corrupt bargains” continues to come forth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Summing up: Mr. Trump should tell the folks what he knows and what he seeks from the Ukraine.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>His entire presidency might depend on it.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-09-30T03:11:00ZThe PromiseBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Promise/438243062047474911.html2019-09-23T14:42:00Z2019-09-23T14:42:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>“Well we’re waiting here in Allentown,</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>For the Pennsylvania we never found,</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>For the promises our teachers made,</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>If we worked hard, if we behaved.”</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em> - Billy Joel<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></em></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It takes more than that. Hard work and behaving, I mean. It takes discipline and persistence as well if you want to pursue happiness at a high level in the good, old USA.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most educators and even parents do not lay it out. They don’t tell children that economic success comes at a price in a competitive, capitalist system. An American must be able to make money for a company, or for his or her self in private business. Ability and production is everything in the “for profit world.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You produce by developing skills. Working intensely over a period of time to do certain things very well. Then you discipline yourself to fulfill every job expectation. That’s how you prosper.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you are unwilling to do that, and millions of Americans are, you can get by - but the struggle will be significant. You may live “paycheck to paycheck,” you’ll likely owe money. And, if a health or any other kind of crisis hits, you’ll get hammered.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s the deal the Founding Fathers set up. The government protects citizens from bad guys, foreign and domestic, allowing Americans to practice self-reliance, to “pursue happiness” the way they, the citizens, design the journey.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All of that is under siege right now. <br /><br />The Democrats have decided that the American system, as designed in 1776, is both rigged and obsolete. They want to destroy it, and much of the media has bought in.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are running for president on the “guaranteed outcome” ticket. They have both proposed that the federal government essentially pay your bills. In return, you will do as you are told and hand over a substantial amount of your earnings and assets to Washington.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you don’t have much in earnings and assets, this may seem like an attractive deal. Also, if you don’t want to work hard developing a skill, the senators have appeal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, the far-left promise is a cynical mirage. The federal government is incapable of administrating to 330 million people plus millions of foreign nationals who continue to pour into the country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fidel Castro could not even provide a decent standard of living for ten million people on a tropical island with verdant soil.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The United States has become a selfish nation with many of us demanding instant economic gratification. So it is easy for charlatans to set up a “victim” scenario. Most Americans have no chance, they wail. White supremacy keeps minority citizens down, greedy corporations steal from all workers. That’s what the “pay your fair share” stuff is all about. The wealthy are stealing from the non-wealthy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sanders and Warren are both millionaires who live in comfort. But neither really cares about money. No, what they want is power, and they have created a gigantic false promise in order to achieve it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As I’ve said before, these are dangerous people especially if you believe in freedom. Because they don’t.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-09-23T14:42:00ZThe Ignorance FactorBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Ignorance-Factor/447281708370450266.html2019-09-16T07:00:00Z2019-09-16T07:00:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>Many Americans, including this one, are perplexed by some disturbing opinions being put forth in this country. <br /><br />Let’s start with a recent Gallup Poll that says 43 percent of Americans, including 52 percent of democrats, believe it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attack.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you remember, the mass murder was enabled inside Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and his outlaw al Qaeda militants were based. The terrorists trained on Afghan soil and were protected by the Taliban government.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After the 9/11 murder, President George W. Bush demanded the Taliban arrest bin Laden and hand him over for prosecution under threat of U.S. and NATO invasion, which is exactly what happened after the Taliban refused to take action against al Qaeda.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Subsequently, Afghanistan has been an ongoing problem and fair-minded people can debate the policy there. But to say troops should not have removed the criminal Taliban in the first place, is absolutely irresponsible. <br /><br />If the USA did not avenge the al Qaeda attack, terrorism would have increased everywhere and President Bush would likely have been impeached.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And then there’s private property, which is protected from government seizure by the Constitution. According to polling on Realclearpolitics.com, about 35 percent of democrats support the socialist proposals of either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Both presidential candidates have made it clear they would impose a “wealth” tax on the assets of affluent Americans. That is seizure of private property because those assets have already been subjected to tax. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, there is now acceptance in liberal states like California and New York of abortion on demand up until birth, a practice some believe has Nazi-like implications. This view is so extreme that Hillary Clinton and others running on the democrat side never could have endorsed it even three years ago. Today, it is policy for many democrats including the aforementioned Sanders and Warren.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What has allowed the radical left agenda to flourish is a sweeping change in the national media. Reacting with rank hatred to the Trump administration, the press has now mainstreamed far left thought. No longer is a zealot like Elizabeth Warren an outlier. Nope, she’s presidential timber in many media precincts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The uninformed and/or apathetic American picks up on this. No longer are politicians who deny due process or advocate Constitutional violations even challenged. Now they stand on debate stages smiling at press moderators who have no problem with their radicalism and even, in the case of late-term abortion, embrace it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But it is the attitude of many regular folks, not the media, that is most worrisome. The ignorance and apathy being documented in national polling is frightening. The United States was founded on the philosophy that life and private property is sacrosanct and that an attack on the country where thousands of citizens die, is an act of war.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Apparently millions of us don’t get that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or don’t want those principles anymore.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Either way, we had better take notice.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-09-16T07:00:00ZO'Reilly's Weekly Column: 'The Con'Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/OReillys-Weekly-Column:-The-Con/114359156600848929.html2019-09-09T14:51:00Z2019-09-09T14:51:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>Elizabeth Warren is a dangerous person because she has little concept of the truth or responsible governance. The senator from Massachusetts apparently does not believe in honest reporting about herself or public policy. In short, she’ll pretty much say anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Recently, Ms. Warren put forth her assessment of the current “climate crisis.” <br /><br />That’s right, climate change has changed. Now it’s a crisis and we all may die. Soon. <br /><br />Unless Elizabeth Warren is elected president so she can change the entire economy and social structure in America in order to save all our lives.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And if you oppose Warren’s draconian changes to combat the climate crisis, then you are evil. You hate the poor and minorities. Here’s how Elizabeth Warren frames it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“To really address our climate crisis head-on, we must address the legacy of environmental racism and recognize that climate change doesn’t impact every community equally ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be exposed to air pollution than white Americans. Intense storms bear down on these communities - with recovery that is slow, painful, and often lacking total support from the government. Latinx families and workers are vulnerable to record heat waves and heat-related deaths.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, I know Senator Warren is smarter than your humble correspondent but I am challenging her assertion that hot weather is driven by demographics, that it seeks out “Latinx families.” I do not believe storms and extreme weather stalk minority groups. Sorry.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In addition, it is a fact that the tax payers funded Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts to the tune of $114 billion. $41 billion went to relieve Hurricane Maria carnage. At least $16 billion to Hurricane Harvey.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Warren has to know that but does not care about facts that do not fit her loopy narrative: climate change will kill us - minorities first.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Socialists like Elizabeth Warren have seized on the very real problem of worldwide pollution to attempt a power grab. And only “racists” oppose them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I wrote about this last week in a column called “The Trap.” But now things are escalating. Chicken Little is an amateur beside Elizabeth Warren who is hysterically warning that the sky is, indeed, falling. Only it will fall on Harlem and East LA first.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Senator Warren should host a podcast called “The Nonsense Zone.” Her entire presentation is preposterous. Yet millions of Americans are buying her overall wish list: that the government should run the economy, that men should be denied due process, and that your money and assets really aren’t yours at all - they are hers for the taking.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Elizabeth Warren is a menace to traditional American society. Her vision would curtail individual freedom drastically. She is far more dangerous than any storm.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If she ever achieves power, climate is the least thing we’ll have to worry about.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-09-09T14:51:00ZThe TrapBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trap/-34437648248273086.html2019-09-02T22:45:00Z2019-09-02T22:45:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<p>Just in time to capitalize on the race hysteria in America comes a new book entitled “How to Be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the antiracist center at American University in Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>I have not read the book, but I did see an interview with Mr. Kendi, who said some interesting things about the “new” social culture in the USA.</p>
<p>In his chat with a reporter, the author sets himself up as a definer of what is racist. “When someone says to me they’re not racist, my typical response is - what does it mean to be not racist?” Mr. Kendi said.</p>
<p>“I don’t know what a not racist is, other than someone who is denying their own racism. This denial is the heartbeat of racism itself.”</p>
<p>Wow, that’s quite the high bar. If you don’t think you are racist, that opinion proves you’re racist. Check, please.</p>
<p>Think about this. You can no longer defend yourself against charges of racism because your denial is racist. Same thing with denying accusations from a woman, as Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas did. If you say you’re innocent, then you are attacking women.</p>
<p>This is the “trap.”</p>
<p>If you watch TV news, and I hope you limit that, you know the left is branding an increasing number of opinions as racist. For example, if you oppose illegal immigration, you get the r-word label. Same thing if you support tough criminal penalties for drug dealers. And Ibram Kendi takes it a step further. If you are not actively involved in “combating climate change,” you guessed it, you are committing a racist act.</p>
<p>Says Kendi: “Climate scientists have found that the effects of climate change are harsher on the Global south, which is primarily populated by people of color. So to do nothing about climate change, or to support policies that are driving climate change, is to be racist...”</p>
<p>So by that thinking filling your car with gas is a racist action. Who knew?</p>
<p>This kind of racism litmus test is impossible to pass, and that’s the idea. The far-left cadres are setting up their opposition. If you oppose liberal policies, which have recently failed dramatically in places like Venezuela and San Francisco, you are a very bad person who must be marginalized or even shunned.</p>
<p>When you think about it, the “trap” is a brilliant piece of propaganda that the mass media has enthusiastically embraced and uses as a stone axe against anyone who dares to disagree with liberal orthodoxy. This is on display nightly during the leftist cable news programs.</p>
<p>There is no counter to the “trap” on TV, or college campuses, or on the editorial pages of the radical left newspapers. In our new politically correct culture, there is no room for respectful debate. And, anyway, “we don’t talk to racists.”</p>
<p>Again, quite an impressive totalitarian play. Of course by just saying that - I’m a racist.</p>
<p>Horrifying doesn’t even begin to cover it.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-09-02T22:45:00ZFascist Times at the University of MichiganBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fascist-Times-at-the-University-of-Michigan/-530439446122377984.html2019-08-19T05:46:00Z2019-08-19T05:46:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>Imagine donating $378 million dollars to a college and then have some alumni demand the school sever ties with you. Well, that’s exactly what happened to businessman Stephen Ross after he held a fundraiser for President Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ross is a billionaire seven times over. He owns the Miami Dolphins and the stadium where the team plays. He made his money in real estate and investments. Stephen Ross is obviously a rock solid capitalist who believes Mr. Trump’s economic vision is more in line with his than, say, Elizabeth Warren.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter Kumar Rao, a Michigan grad and hard left guy. Rao is senior counsel for a group called “Center for Popular Democracy,” an organization devoted to destroying political opponents. Funded by fanatics like George Soros, the CPD is “pro-immigrant,” attached to teachers unions, and promotes “social justice.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rao got some U. of Michigan alumni to sign a defamatory letter that stated: “We ask that the University remove Ross’ name from campus buildings and signage ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Simply stated, supporting Donald Trump’s predisposition and commitment to white supremacy, xenophobia, corruption, and clinical ignorance is flatly inconsistent with the values and legacy of the University of Michigan.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After receiving the letter, administrators at U of M essentially told Rao and his fellow fascists to stuff it. “We don’t exclude or include people from our university community based on their political views,” a spokesman said.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How refreshing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I sincerely hope most folks associated with U of M and Americans in general understand just how dangerous the attempt to punish Stephen Ross really is. The attacker Rao and his cohorts are clearly saying that citizens who support President Trump must be harmed. There’s no other way to read their demand letter.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s what happens in totalitarian countries. Rao is imitating Mao. Is he not?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Once again the deep villain George Soros is up to his neck in this. His Open Society Foundation donates to Rao’s crew.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are, indeed, living in turbulent times where political differences are no longer accepted. Today, it’s hurt your opponents any way you can. <br /><br />The strategy is up close and personal and there is big money behind it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The University of Michigan did the right thing. Many other schools have not. Fascism is on the march in the USA. And it’s likely coming to a theatre near you.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-08-19T05:46:00ZThe Return of the Loch Ness MonsterBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Return-of-the-Loch-Ness-Monster/879962084932949819.html2019-08-11T22:46:00Z2019-08-11T22:46:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>In 1933, most likely in a small, smoke-filled pub, someone came up with the idea of creating a giant lake bound creature to attract attention to a remote region in central Scotland.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was the middle of the depression and to say people were suffering economically in the Loch Ness area, is the understatement of the 20th century. Things were monstrous - so why not create one? Maybe folks might go up there to check out the mystery, then spend money in the pub.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It worked.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>All the world over folks heard about the Loch Ness monster (nicknamed Nessie) and more than a few believed the myth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tourists and money poured in, followed by actual scientists who eventually put out a statement: “The scientific community regards the Loch Ness Monster as a phenomenon without basis.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In other words - a hoax.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Today in America, the monster is Donald Trump. And those who would like to destroy the President are trying to create a fearsome creature: a White Supremacist with colossal power who is wrecking havoc on the nation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After failing to cripple Mr. Trump with charges of conspiring with Russia to subvert the election of 2016, the race card has been dealt again. But it’s not that Trump is a beneficiary of “white privilege” anymore. Nope. Now the President is a full-fledged “White Supremacist.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Listen to Senator Elizabeth Warren: “It’s just one piece of evidence after another, when he has been so embraced by the white supremacists and has not distanced himself, then he’s there.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Senator Kamala Harris: "[President Trump] is someone who empowers white supremacists, and who condones their behavior ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Well, in my opinion, the Trump-haters are creating a myth similar to Nessie. So let’s examine what’s happening in a fact-based way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you understand what white supremacy really is, you know the best example is The Third Reich. Under Hitler, the German people were told that they were the master race, based primarily on their “aryan” caucasian blood lines.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you read my book “Killing the SS,” you will learn how that white supremacist philosophy was put into policy. The result was millions dead, tens of millions brutalized.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While researching my upcoming book “The United States of Trump,” we could not find one example of the President discussing skin color in a pejorative way or promoting caucasian dominance. <br /><br />Of course, Mr. Trump’s statements against illegal immigration, Muslim terrorism, and the economic failure of some third world countries are being used to create a racial theory, but theories are not facts and are often wrong.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Likewise, when Mr. Trump criticizes a staunch opponent like Congressman Elijah Cummings, some allege that skin color motivates the controversy, but there is absolutely no evidence that is the case. Donald Trump castigates perceived enemies of every color and race. His speech is remarkably uninhabited, sometimes brutal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Without direct evidence, branding the President a white supremacy adherent becomes a cheap piece of political propaganda. And I would say the same thing about any politician maligned that way if flimsy evidence were used in the smear. In the upcoming Trump book, I spend some time on the Charlottesville controversy and the factual evidence will demonstrate that white supremacy did not play a role in the President’s statements.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, for Trump-haters, no amount of evidence will back them off of racial condemnation. They will use every possible slur to damage him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But fair-minded Americans should closely scrutinize the racial demonization that is currently embraced by some democrats and members of the national media.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The propaganda distributors in Nazi Germany were experts in how to create myths surrounding racial accusations. They were specialists in demonization. As the despicable Nazi Joseph Goebbels once said: “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many Americans do not approve of President Trump. That is their civic and constitutional right. But he is not a white supremacist and does not seek to “empower” those dangerous people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another myth that should be deposited at the bottom of Loch Ness.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-08-11T22:46:00ZDanger: Far Left Ideology ZoneBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Danger:-Far-Left-Ideology-Zone/-137644958473036048.html2019-08-05T04:54:00Z2019-08-05T04:54:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>Bernie Sanders could star in a slasher movie. With those hands wildly swinging around, all you’d have to do is put a blade in one of them. Bystanders would drop like Chinese stocks. No one would be safe.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Elizabeth Warren could be in a remake of The Wizard of Oz. Put a black pointy hat on her and she could easily direct those hyper-active flying monkeys to pluck corporate CEOs off the streets and drop them in a deep lake somewhere.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tarantino could direct both those films, although Senator Warren might object to all the swearing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bernie would be okay with it, as long as the crude verbiage was directed at billionaires.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But those cinema fantasies are nothing compared to the reality that millions of Americans apparently would like to see Sanders or Warren run this country. If that ever happened, and if the Democrats gained control of both houses of congress, America would become a very chaotic place. Fast.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Senator Sanders is the most dangerous.<br /><br /></div>
<div>A true zealot, Sanders actually honeymooned in the totalitarian Soviet Union and, by his own admission, found things to admire about a country in which millions of people were murdered in order to impose government control.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sanders is a product of the hippie movement and is a “share the land” kind of guy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The problem with that outlook is that you have to confiscate land in order to share it. Sanders does not hesitate on that front, bellowing that corporations and affluent Americans must “pay their fair share.” And that calculation will be made solely by Sanders and his followers. You won’t have a say in it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Old Bernie will also tell you exactly how your health maintenance will be handled. And you will do as you are told, under pain of law.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Elizabeth Warren is almost as menacing as Sanders but not quite as bellicose. She’s a hardcore socialist who wants the federal government to run the private economy so income inequality and social injustice can be banished. On the justice front, we don’t need that pesky due process thing. As she did with Brett Kavanaugh, Warren will decide who’s guilty in this country. That will certainly save everyone a lot of time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here’s the truth about both Senators Sanders and Warren if they ever achieved White House level power: the economy would likely crash. I’m not talking a recession, I’m predicting a full blown economic horror. Corporations would relocate overseas, private capital would also leave the country, jobs would be lost, and wages would collapse as more workers were laid off.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Catastrophe doesn’t begin to cover it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Millions of Americans are too distracted or foolish to understand that the free stuff train will run out of fuel quickly, especially since fossil energy will be banned. Then, the federal government would have to start punishing profit-makers, investors and savers in order to pay trillions of dollars in entitlement bills.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This Sanders-Warren movement is completely unhinged. It is even demanding American taxpayers fund health care for foreigners who break our immigration laws. In addition, it espouses direct government payments to Americans who “cannot or WILL NOT work.” In the latter category, we’re talking millions of substance abusers here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To me, an American who has worked hard all his life, support for a candidate or political party that wants to take away my money and my freedom is simply incomprehensible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But, sadly, millions of my fellow citizens disagree. They are ramped up to give up their ability to operate independently. They want Bernie or Elizabeth or Beto to tell them exactly what they can or cannot have.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As a product of parents raised during the Great Depression, I never thought there would be a replay. But a President Sanders or Warren, would likely guarantee one.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-08-05T04:54:00ZThe Evil White Man SyndromeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Evil-White-Man-Syndrome/688453868155595935.html2019-07-29T14:01:00Z2019-07-29T14:01:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>To understand the current “racist” label in politics, you must uncover the overriding current philosophy on the far left. And that comes down to this: the United States has always been a patriarchy run by evil, corrupt white guys who delight in delivering pain to everyone else.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Put Donald Trump’s picture next to that definition.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The radical left is so extreme on this that even socialist bomb-thrower Bernie Sanders is now being shunned by some of his fellow travelers. Old white guys do not have it going on in 2019.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Recently, a tape was uncovered where Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Illinois warned Americans that white men are the primary cause of violence in the USA and we had better watch them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Similar “white guys are malignant” stuff appears in the media nearly every day with the subliminal message being women and minorities should be running the country, calling all the shots.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, the aforementioned Donald Trump is the template for anti-white male sentiment. For more than three years, the President has been ruthlessly attacked by many leftwing women and minorities. But if Mr. Trump counterattacks, he is branded a racist and misogynist. So he can’t defend himself without bringing on further attacks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It doesn’t help that the President often personalizes his verbal missiles as the recent “go back to where you came from” controversy clearly demonstrates. The personal attacks by the President often obscure his valid points, thereby giving his opponents cover and momentum.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Elijah Cummings - Trump dust up illustrates this point. Congressman Cummings, head of the House Oversight Committee, is doing everything he can to wreck Trump’s presidency. No question about that. So the President is angry with Cummings and tweeted that he has not improved bad conditions in his own district. Then Mr. Trump gets personal and calls that area of Baltimore “rat and roach infested.” Presto! Trump’s a racist. Again.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President should have remembered the firestorm over his “S-hole countries” remark. Whenever you denigrate places where people reside those folks are going to be offended. And since many blacks live in Baltimore, the reoccurring drumbeat strikes up: Trump’s a racist, an evil white man.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It doesn’t matter that Elijah Cummings and everyone else in Baltimore knows his district is in tough shape. The media will not allow non-minorities to state that. In America today, speech that criticizes “people of color” is racist speech. And don’t you forget it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So far, the majority of Americans have not bought into the “white men are evil” campaign but the committed left media surely has.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, the political landscape now favors non-white men, at least in the Democratic Party precincts and that’s something of which Joe Biden should be acutely aware.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With the hugging attacks and the Kamala Harris busing thing, white guy Joe has taken two to the head.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One more and there could be a knock out. Another white guy bites the dust.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-07-29T14:01:00ZWe'll Tell You What to SayBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Well-Tell-You-What-to-Say/58048868788303974.html2019-07-22T01:11:00Z2019-07-22T01:11:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>If you research the city of Berkeley, California, you will learn that it is named after an Irish Catholic bishop, that it is home to about 112,000 people, and that it was the center of the “free-speech” movement during the Vietnam protest years.</div>
<div>
<p>So how, then, did Berkeley turn into a fascist enclave? It is a fascinating story.</p>
<p>First of all, if you live in Berkeley you know the prevailing philosophy is far left, politically correct, and not tolerant of opposing points of view.</p>
<p>It’s like living in Burma, not a lot of subtlety. They may call it Myanmar but the country is really just guys with guns telling you what to say and do as you traverse the road to Mandalay.</p>
<p>In Berkeley it’s not guys or guns. It’s a diverse city council enforcing it’s fascist dictums through ordinances and intimidation.</p>
<p>In an unintentional homage to George Orwell’s brilliant 1949 novel “1984,” the Berkeley junta has adopted an ordinance to replace “gendered language” in the city’s municipal code, in effect telling anyone dealing with the city what they can’t say.</p>
<p>Thus, the pronouns “she,” “he,” “her,” and “him,” are now banned. Also, many other words. Here’s a partial list: manpower, chairman, fireman and firewoman, fraternal, ombudsman, patrolmen, sister, brother, heirs, fraternity and sorority.</p>
<p>Far out!</p>
<p>The city leaders are graciously providing alternatives to the banished words. For example, “manpower” is now called “human effort.” A brother is to be called a “sibling.”</p>
<p>Berkeley councilman (sorry council member) Rigel Robinson told the San Francisco Chronicle that “gender-neutral language creates a lot of room to acknowledge that it’s not just men running the country.”</p>
<p>Right on, my man!</p>
<p>Sorry, my gender neutral friend.</p>
<p>George Orwell wrote of a society where totalitarianism and repressive regimentation of speech and thought ruled. Few thought his descriptions of “newspeak” would ever actually happen in America.</p>
<p>And speaking of America, the “Inclusive Language Guide,” put forth by Colorado State University suggests that students no longer say that word. That’s right, “America” is not to be uttered on campus.</p>
<p>Why? Here’s the explanation: “America encompasses more than just the U.S. (so) by using the word one erases other cultures ...”</p>
<p>OMG! How woke is that?</p>
<p>By the way, CSU also suggests students not use the word “straight” because it implies you’re abnormal if you’re not straight. Or something. Kind of confusing. If a college kid is asked directions, I guess it has to be: “turn left at the bookstore and then go forward without deviating. Yes, that sounds very inclusive.</p>
<p>America (sorry academic pinheads) has really changed, hasn’t it?</p>
<p>George Orwell saw it coming.</p>
<p>Here’s what I see coming: a citizen uprising against the social and political madness that is currently gripping this country.</p>
<p>I hope I’m as perspicacious as Orwell.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-07-22T01:11:00ZThe TruthBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Truth/-368995418865563787.html2019-07-15T00:35:00Z2019-07-15T00:35:00Z<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now the environment. If the home is full of conflict, loud noise, unpredictable behavior by one parent or both, the young child may not develop intellectual skills and will likely be unsteady and insecure.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then there is the work ethic: if a child does not understand that accomplishment is based on performance, doom is nearby. Hard work must be taught, it is not inherited or casually acquired. The word “hard” is there for a reason.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many parents are irresponsible, lazy, apathetic and self-absorbed. They intoxicate themselves in front of their children, they use inappropriate language the kid will also use, they avoid attention-giving to their precious offspring.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And then there are parents who abandon their children - surely reserving a prime spot for themselves in hell.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As a high school teacher in the 1970’s, I dealt with derelict parents and they always had a basket full of excuses. But they all had one thing in common: their gratification was more important than the success of the child. Educators, no matter how skilled, usually cannot overcome bad home environments.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And then there is the social aspect in America. Parents failing to teach their kids proper grammar, table manners, polite behavior. Permissive mothers and fathers who allow children to be tattooed and pay for skin-piercings. Does anyone really think those things will lead to more economic opportunity?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Parents who set no boundaries, who embrace crude behavior in the home, who fail to supervise smart phones and computers, are now legion in the USA.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Add all that up and the heavy odds are the neglected child will not become well educated or be able to command much money in the marketplace.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Charlatans like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tell us that the federal government will provide for children who are mistreated by their parents. That is a false promise. But republicans are misleading the country too, by failing to actively promote good parenting and self-reliance based on smart, disciplined behavior.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>When was the last time the GOP put that in their platform? How about never.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is too risky for politicians to call out bad parents, even though they are the primary source of generational failure. Too many judgements have to be made and, hey, it’s none of our business!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Income inequality will get worse in this country because parenting is getting worse. That is the cold truth that the presidential debates will never reveal. No political system can nurture individuals so they can achieve success if the basics of personal responsibility and education are absent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And only parents can instill those basics.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-07-15T00:35:00ZThe PlanBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Plan/653940925366471410.html2019-07-08T16:09:00Z2019-07-08T16:09:00Z<div>You should know that some powerful people like radical leftwing billionaire George Soros, and others who believe as he does, have a plan for your life. <br /><br />Of course, they would never state that plan, because many Americans would recoil from it. However, the plan has been largely accepted in many parts of the world, even if the folks enduring it don’t exactly realize what the deuce is going on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here’s how it goes: “inequality” is common the world over. The relatively very few who are affluent have much more than those folks who, for whatever reason, have not been able to compile assets. Therefore, an authoritative government must correct this wrong by making it extremely difficult for any person to become wealthy. As for those who already have money and property, they must pay their “fair share.” In true words that means the government must punish them by confiscating as much cash as possible from the “haves.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Led by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, this plan has now been embraced by the Democratic Party. Joe Biden gives lip service to parts of the plan but really doesn’t buy it. Therefore, Biden must be destroyed by the cadres who endorse the plan. <br /><br />That process is well underway.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you would like to see what may await you if the plan is implemented in America, you might travel to Munich in southern Germany. Other than the language and old buildings, Munich could be an American city. Most folks live in small houses or apartments, go to work everyday, have nice cars and drink alcohol on a regular basis.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But look beneath the surface and you can clearly see the results of the plan - people are dependent on the government in Berlin and there is little upward mobility.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The German economy is vibrant but workers cannot accumulate much money to invest, to make their assets grow. That’s because of taxes. Ready? <br /><br />German workers in Munich pay 8 percent of their income in local taxes. Then Berlin comes in for its piece: 12 percent “health” tax for government run medical care, 19 percent value added tax (VAT) on just about everything you buy, and an income tax that ranges from 14 to 45 percent of your gross wages.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Add it up, and German workers cannot save significant money or improve themselves much economically. Thus, they stay where they are, year after year after year. Today’s children will likely be in the same economic circumstance as their grandparents.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The result is that almost every German is the same materially. There are few ostentatious displays of wealth in Munich. There is not much “inequality” on display either.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The folks accept the plan because it offers security. After you pay the tax, medical care is free. Pensions are guaranteed. Housing is modest and subsidies will be provided if you can’t or won’t work. The addicted are supported but barely. Not much homelessness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But forget about ever accumulating enough money to buy that chalet in Gstaad or a villa on the Riviera. That is not going to happen in the working precincts. The German government makes it impossible.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That is the vision of the present day Democratic Party in America. From sea to shining sea, we will all be similar: dependent on Washington for medical care and retirement entitlements; happy to be secure with what we are allowed to keep after the government decides how much to take from us. On paper, “inequality” will be banished forever.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That is the Plan and it does not include gold stars for achievement. Most media and many American citizens are solidly behind it. Will it prevail?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-07-08T16:09:00ZParty TimeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Party-Time/-132342980768892218.html2019-06-25T04:29:00Z2019-06-25T04:29:00Z<div>The Democratic Party will be on vivid display this week in Miami. <br /><br />Two debates over two nights featuring twenty candidates for president and five moderators. Lots of folks bloviating with one common theme: Donald Trump is Satan.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NBC News is sponsoring the debate, and it should be quite a shootout. I say should because it likely will not be. NBC and its parent company Comcast have symbolically purchased a huge amount of land on the left side of the river and they are eagerly cultivating it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For a responsible journalist this debate is wonderland. Here are just a few penetrating questions that could be asked.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Senator Sanders, you said on CNN that as president you would try to put private health insurance companies out of business. Wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Senator Gillibrand, you told the Des Moines Register that opposing abortion is similar to racism. Many Christians believe abortion is the taking of a human life. Are these Christians racist in your opinion?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Senator Warren, you have called for the elimination of ICE. How would you deal with people who enter the USA illegally? Would there be any penalty? Please be specific.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Vice President Biden, in 1975, you said quote: “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather... and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” That’s a strong anti-reparations statement. Why did you say it?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. O’Rourke, you oppose all border barriers. But they have worked in San Diego and Yuma, Arizona, among other places. How would you stop millions of people from illegally crossing the southern border? Be specific please.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>Those questions are just appetizers. The democrats on stage are so far left that grammar school kids could put them on the spot. Free health care, free college, “decent” housing, guarantees of jobs and income. It’s an entitlement festival in a country that currently owes $22 trillion dollars.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is a national tragedy that the debate moderators will likely avoid scrutinizing their political soulmates with facts and incisive followup questions. Yes, Lester Holt and Chuck Todd might try to shake things up a little, but only a little.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After all, holding the democrats accountable for radical positions would help one Donald Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And on the debate stage in Miami, there will be no sympathy for the devil. That is unless the Stones show up.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-06-25T04:29:00ZSins of the PastBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sins-of-the-Past/30373287892909381.html2019-06-18T03:19:00Z2019-06-18T03:19:00ZA House subcommittee recently held a hearing on reparations for slavery.<br /><br /><span>The issue is a far left favorite because it does a number of things. It reinforces the radical belief that the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited.</span><br /><br /><span>It also defines poverty among minorities as not the fault of individuals but of an unjust society that exists to this day. Personal responsibility does not count when the legacy of slavery dropped a curtain of oppression on the black race and there is no recovering from that. At least in the eyes of the radical left.</span><br /><br /><span>According to a poll taken by Marist College, 58 percent of African-Americans favor reparations for slavery and other historical injustice. Just 8 percent of white Americans support reparations.</span><br /><br /><span>That eight percent must include most of the democrats running for president because only Bernie Sanders has clearly stated opposition to reparations. The others either support it, or want to “have that conversation.”</span><br /><br /><span>Which they really don’t want to have but are too gutless to oppose a bad policy.</span><br /><br /><span>I say that having some experience with brutal injustice as far as my ancestors are concerned. According to The Freeman’s Journal published in Dublin, my ancestors living in County Cavan, Ireland had their land seized by British authorities after failing to pay the onerous land tax. The Reilly family had no funds as the famine whipped out their crops. In a dispatch dated April 6, 1849, the correspondent witnessing the forced evictions writes: “The scene was heart rending in the extreme ... manhood was stript of means, and left to pine in want and misery. Women might be seen worn to skeletons with the clammy dew of death on their emaciated brows. Not content with sending these miserable creatures adrift in the world, they (the British) set fire to their once comfortable dwellings.”</span><br /><br /><span>The devastation to my ancestors led twin 16 year old boys, James and John, to sail on a “coffin ship” from Ireland to Brooklyn where they made their way in a hostile country without family or friends.</span><br /><br /><span>The point is that historical injustice has existed since the dawn of man. You cannot right the serial wrongs and it is brutally unfair to impose burden on innocent people in an attempt to do so.</span><br /><br /><span>Millions of white people in America were harmed by the Civil War when their ancestors died in the conflict that freed the slaves. To demand their tax dollars for reparations today or those of any contemporary American is unjust.</span><br /><br /><span>Native Americans surely deserve reparations if African-Americans receive them. And just the other day there was an oped in the New York Times suggesting that homosexuals receive reparations as well.</span><br /><br /><span>In my opinion, there is no way reparations will become policy unless radical leftists take control of the country. Cash for victims would cause far more damage than benefit as it would further divide Americans along racial lines.</span><br /><br /><span>Clear-thinking people understand the horror of slavery and the damage it has done to all black Americans. The federal and state governments have an obligation to help minorities in constructive ways. But cash payments and property grants will not be constructive.</span><br /><br /><span>In 1975, Joe Biden weighed in on the reparation issue saying: “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father or grandfather ... and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.”</span><br /><br /><span>Too harsh, in my opinion. And Biden would never say that now in the age of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><span>Political Correctness. </span><br /><br /><span>Summing up, it is time to put aside grievance and work together for a stronger, more just country. And, as Joe Biden surely knows, reparations would not accomplish that.</span><br /><br /><span>They just cause more strife.</span>Bill O'Reilly2019-06-18T03:19:00ZLife as We Know ItBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Life-as-We-Know-It/481418907533429377.html2019-06-11T06:04:00Z2019-06-11T06:04:00Z<div>When it comes to the subject of abortion there is far too much talking, and not nearly enough thinking. Terminating a fetus is a life-death decision that should be treated with grave concern for both the mother and the developing fetus which contains human DNA upon conception.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are scientific facts involved with taking life from a mother’s womb and destroying it. The most important fact is that no human being can know with certainty when life actually begins. Christian doctrine says that upon conception, a soul enters the human cell mass and therefore it is human, a creation of God.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those who justify abortion reject that belief and embrace a variety of other standards for defining a human being. But there is no exact scientific definition here, that is a fact.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One can have an opinion but is that enough to terminate a life that will enter the world after nine months? Christians and others say no. Secularists say no problem (aborting a fetus).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Doctors in America are apparently siding with the life movement. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies abortion in the USA, only seven percent of Obstetricians and Gynecologists will perform abortions. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, you will not hear that statistic much from the American media which has succeeded in framing the abortion-life debate as good versus evil. But, incredibly, the evil is on the pro-life side.<br /><br /></div>
<div>If you oppose abortion you are a denier of female equality, a misogynist. If you don’t subscribe to unfettered abortion you are violating “reproductive rights.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Recently, Georgia, Alabama, and some other states passed new laws placing limits on aborting fetuses. In response, the CEO of the Disney Corporation, Robert Iger, threatened to deny Georgia all Disney film business. For this, Iger is being celebrated as a hero in Hollywood.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In New York, where there once were limits on abortion, now there are none. The Roman Catholic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, championed a new law that says abortion can take place at any time for any reason up until birth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Cuomo describes himself as a practicing Catholic but acknowledges his enthusiasm for the very liberal abortion law puts him at odds with his faith. If there is a judgment day, that should be a very interesting discussion that Andrew Cuomo might have.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Bishop of Springfield, Illinois is already denying the sacraments to politicians in his state who did what Governor Cuomo did.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Former Vice President Joe Biden, now running for president, is also caught up in the abortion war. For 43 years, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal money for abortions outside of rape, incest, and permanent damage to the mother’s physical health.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The thinking behind the Hyde law is that the federal government cannot force Americans who oppose abortion on moral grounds to pay for it through their tax dollars. That seems to be fair, that is if you believe in freedom of religion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But suddenly Joe doesn’t think it’s fair. That’s because the far left, which is driving the Democratic Party, has villainized every pro-life position including the Hyde Amendment. So Joe is scared. He’s also a Catholic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A humane society should be able to limit abortion while protecting mothers in dangerous circumstances. Abortion should not be a political issue, used to demonize. Yes, American women have rights. But so, too, do developing cells that will shortly become human beings.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you deny that last statement, you might be accused of playing God. You don’t know and I don’t know when a human being becomes a human being. So shouldn’t we all respect and promote life?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s what human rights are all about.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or am I wrong?</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-06-11T06:04:00ZGoose/GanderBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Goose/Gander/358931760459212361.html2019-06-04T18:20:00Z2019-06-04T18:20:00Z<div>
<p>There’s a 16th century proverb that says “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Basically, it means that treatment should be similar for people in the same circumstances. Yes, there could be a gender thing here with the gander reference but back then, male-female equality wasn’t exactly in vogue, right Henry the Eighth?<br /><br />Anyway, I’m wandering. Today the goose thing illustrates that double standards are unfair and unacceptable. Except in American politics and journalism, of course.<br /><br />For two solid years, the federal government investigated Donald Trump and his associates. No geese involved but Russians were. Bad Russians who sabotaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential run. And according to CNN and others, Mr. Trump “colluded” with those nasty Russians and perhaps even drove them to the airport.<br /> <br />But along the way, investigators found out that some FBI people were not being fair in the probe, in fact evidence shows certain agents were out to “get” Donald Trump.<br /><br />Geese everywhere are appalled by that allegation and would like to know what exactly happened.<br /><br />So would the President and the Attorney General and, therefore, some of the investigators are now being investigated.<br /><br />Enter the editorial board of the uber-left San Francisco Chronicle which is objecting to finding out if the fix was in during the Russian Collusion probe even though the paper lustily cheered on the investigation of Mr. Trump.<br /> <br />The Chronicle had strong suspicions that Trump was guilty of all kinds of things and was not shy about stating that. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>But last week, the newspaper suddenly pulled back on it’s desire to know the truth about public malfeasance editorializing: “Americans should welcome objective examinations of law enforcement and intelligence, but Barr’s record predicts nothing of the kind. The attorney general has signaled enthusiasm for Trump’s deceptive and self-serving version of events by recklessly accusing authorities of ‘spying’ on his campaign.”<br /><br />Uh, how does the San Francisco Chronicle know the spying assertion is “reckless?” Surely, the paper understands that FISA warrants were obtained by the FBI using false information. And those warrants were used for surveillance on Trump campaign people.<br /> <br />It seems to me that disqualifying William Barr from overseeing an investigation into possible FBI corruption is kind of “reckless” itself, is it not?<br /> <br />Geese in and around the Bay Area know the Chronicle could not care less about learning the truth about anything that does not fit it’s ideological outlook.<br /><br />The paper is a political journal, not a vehicle for honest reporting.<br /> <br />For some, that statement might seem, well, a bit reckless. But it’s not. The San Francisco Chronicle can’t handle the truth. So it doesn’t even bother to seek it.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-06-04T18:20:00ZDefending TrumpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Defending-Trump/-575823110044399765.html2019-05-28T01:29:00Z2019-05-28T01:29:00Z<p>Because I am a simple man, allow me to pose a simple question: do you believe the national press in America really wants to find out if powerful government people actively tried to subvert the Trump campaign and/or his subsequent administration?</p>
<p>Yes or no?</p>
<p>Perhaps you have noticed that The New York Times is objecting to Mr. Trump declassifying government documents that may demonstrate exactly how the FBI and other agencies behaved during the Clinton email investigation and the Russian-Collusion thing.</p>
<p>You may also have observed that the ardently leftist media is angered because President Trump has given Attorney General Barr “extraordinary powers” to investigate the investigators.</p>
<p>Even if that were true, which it is not, why would the press object to finding out if our federal government embraced corruption during a presidential election? Isn’t that a vital thing for the nation to know?</p>
<p>But the anti-Trump media does not want that exposition for two reasons: first, corruption established would help Donald Trump in his quest for reelection. And second, if the fix was “in” that would implicate the press as enablers of the scandal.</p>
<p>As an American, I would like to know if elements of my government tried to illegally derail Donald Trump. My wish has nothing to do with ideology or party politics. I simply do not want my country to be a corrupt place.</p>
<p>But that assessment puts me at odds with most in the media who are fighting against any fact-finding about the FBI and others. The Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News and most political websites will use their power to try to derail and “cover up” the Barr probe.</p>
<p>Hear that Nancy Pelosi?</p>
<p>Do you care?</p>
<p>Why am I even asking her?</p>
<p>And just by writing this column, I will be scorned for “supporting” President Trump. That means I can be derided by Saturday Night Live, vilified on the net, threatened by zealots, and attacked personally by the media in a variety of ways.</p>
<p>All because I don’t want a crooked FBI or U. S. intelligence apparatus.</p>
<p>It is astounding that we, as a country, have come to this place. President Trump is certainly a controversial leader and, if you oppose him, that is legitimate political thought. You should not be scorned by anyone for holding it.</p>
<p>However, if you are fine with most of the national media actively trying to destroy a President and then desperately attempting to block the truth about what could be massive corruption in attempting to harm Mr. Trump - then you deserve to be scorned.</p>
<p>That’s not what a patriot does.</p>Bill O'Reilly2019-05-28T01:29:00ZMayor Pete vs. Thomas JeffersonBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Mayor-Pete-vs.-Thomas-Jefferson/150082525246310275.html2019-05-21T00:26:00Z2019-05-21T00:26:00Z<div>In order for any candidate other than Joe Biden to win the Democratic nomination for president, they have to get progressive far-left support. Mr. Biden doesn’t need that, because his name recognition and ties to President Obama have established a base for him outside the kook zone.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Pete Buttigieg understands the Democrat landscape and has made overtures to the far left in a number of ways. One of them is trying to diminish Thomas Jefferson.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you have read “Killing England,” you know that the brilliant Jefferson forged much of the freedom language contained in the Constitution. All Americans benefit from Jefferson’s incredible foresight to this day. Even Mayor Pete.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But, as with every human being, Thomas Jefferson was a flawed man. He kept slaves on his Virginia property and entered into a sexual relationship with at least one of them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Because of that, Mayor Buttigieg apparently believes that Jefferson should be held to account by removing his name from certain things. On May 17, there was this exchange on the radio:</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"> </div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><span>Hugh Hewitt: <em>“You talk about going to every Jefferson and Jackson dinner when you’re campaigning state-wide. Should Jefferson and Jackson dinners be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves?”</em></span></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"> </div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">Pete Buttigieg: <em>“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana and I think it’s the right thing to do.”</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jackson, of course, is Andrew Jackson.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Buttigieg’s standard becomes accepted outside the radical precincts, most American presidents, patriots and icons will be banished from positions of esteem. <br /><br />The cold truth is that black people, Native Americans and many other groups were, at times, treated badly in America mostly by white men in positions of leadership.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was wrong and cannot be justified.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But for Buttigieg to judge Jefferson and Jackson by modern codes of conduct is foolish. It is the totality of a person’s life that renders the final determination. It is the time and place concept that honest people must consider.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mayor Pete was heavily criticized in traditional circles for his rather shallow and politically driven mindset. He did not like that and lashed out, calling his detractors purveyors of a “right-wing media noise machine.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>He named Fox News commentators Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson as two of the biggest “noise machine” offenders.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But why isn’t Buttigieg, himself, a “left-wing noise machine”? He certainly is espousing far left thoughts, is he not?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most people understand that all historical figures have deficits. Martin Luther King, Jr. did. John F. Kennedy did. George Washington held slaves. Abraham Lincoln tried for controversy on the slavery issue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Should all the things named after those men be re-examined? And who will lead the Star Chamber doing that? Mayor Pete?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We the people get it. We know the far-left generally believes America is not a noble nation. It must be changed. Total make over.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The politicians who buy into that are kind of dangerous, I think.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, it is deeply distressing to watch the political correctness brigades try to tear down history. And if this continues, I don’t see how Yale University survives.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 1718, the prestigious school in New Haven, Connecticut was named after Elihu Yale, a slave-trader, Indian-abuser and all around bad guy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So the name Yale has to go, right? Maybe Mayor Pete and his crew can come up with a replacement name. How about Noam Chomsky U? Maybe Fidel U. Or Che University.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My vote goes to Che. Harvard vs. Che. Che Law School. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Somewhere Che Guevara, the communist revolutionary with the jaunty beret, is nodding in agreement.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Viva, Che! Long live political correctness.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-05-21T00:26:00ZNo Such Thing as Not GuiltyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Such-Thing-as-Not-Guilty/993806579454013420.html2019-05-14T05:03:00Z2019-05-14T05:03:00Z<div>In criminal proceedings, if an American is found not guilty of a crime, then charges cannot be brought again. That’s called “Double Jeopardy” and it is not permitted under our legal system.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If a prosecutor investigating a criminal allegation does not bring formal charges for whatever reason, the subject of the allegations must be considered innocent under the law. In fact, ethics dictates that investigators go out of their way to protect uncharged citizens so they will not be tainted in any way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But now the Congress of the United States along with the press are rejecting so called “due process,” undermining one of the pillars of the U.S. Constitution.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It began on social media when extremists put forth that “all women” must be believed when lodging allegations against men. Never mind that there is a lucrative industry set up to bring lawsuits claiming abuse and many of these cases have been found to be bogus. Nearly every corporation in America has insurance in order to fend off lawsuits demanding money for “misbehavior.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then came the horrendous Brett Kavanaugh hearings when sitting United States Senators like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker along with veterans like Dianne Feinstein tried to convict the judge of terrible crimes based solely upon accusation. Later, the FBI found absolutely no evidence against Brett Kavanaugh, but the senators who smeared him refused to apologize.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some of Kavanaugh’s defenders used the words “witch hunt” based upon the 17th century executions of alleged “witches” in Salem, Massachusetts. 19 human beings were put to death in the Salem hysteria and the current senator from that state, Elizabeth Warren, would have been very comfortable with the proceedings based upon her lack of support for due process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The situation is actually dire on many college campuses across the country. There, panels of administrators hold “hearings” on alleged misbehavior that can ruin a student’s life. Radical leftists are usually the ones supporting these tribunals.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the absolute worst is the American media which makes celebrities out of people like Stormy Daniels. Headlines scream about lurid occurrences regardless of validity. Again, this kind of irresponsibility almost destroyed the entire Kavanaugh family.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Think the media was remorseful?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sure.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, even though the Mueller Report found no crime on the part of the President, the media and many Democrats stand by their conviction of him. He colluded, he obstructed. Like the Salem judges, we know what happened, we don’t need “evidence.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So file the nation’s abandonment of due process under “social justice.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or lack thereof.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-05-14T05:03:00ZHate Masquerading as VirtueBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hate-Masquerading-as-Virtue/721422590521914200.html2019-05-08T16:29:00Z2019-05-08T16:29:00Z<div>If you want a vivid example of political hatred, look no further than the May 6 editorial on Tiger Woods in the reliably left Baltimore Sun. On that day, Mr. Woods received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Trump, a great honor.</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that’s not how the Sun sees it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The paper attacks Tiger Woods for associating with the President saying: “A growing list of athletes have declined invitations from President Donald Trump to visit the White House as a stance against his racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Sadly, Tiger Woods isn’t one of them ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Is Mr. Woods oblivious, or does he just not care that the president regularly demonizes minorities and emboldens those who hate?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Well that last bit may be true. The President certainly has emboldened the Baltimore Sun which obviously hates Mr. Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the rest of the editorial is brutally unfair and almost hysterical in its outrage.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump “regularly demonizes minorities?” How? By saying he’d like border security? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am writing a history book about Donald Trump and have not found a pattern of minority denigration. My guess is the Sun people are going back to Charlottesville and the birther thing. The editorial staff is, of course, entitled to an anti-Trump opinion but calling the President a racist is cheap. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Insulting Tiger Woods for his choice to accept the Medal of Freedom is even worse especially because his skin color is highlighted by the paper.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Baltimore Sun is doing exactly the same thing Hillary Clinton did when she called Trump supporters “deplorables.” You are a deficient person if you associate with the President, according to the paper. Especially if your skin is dark.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This kind of demonization is often used in totalitarian countries but it is unusual in America. Although Abraham Lincoln was cursed as a lover of blacks (much harsher terms were used), our political heritage largely stayed away from calling politicians vile names. And racist is the most vile label.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Baltimore Sun has largely endorsed policies and politicians who have just about ruined that city. The latest mayor resigned over corruption charges a few days ago.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The terrible governance supported by the Sun has badly damaged poor people in the inner city. Is that racist? Might be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The newspaper’s circulation has sunk to about 130,000 daily so it will soon be out of business, at least in print. But before it disappears into oblivion - expect more “virtue-signaling” from this crew.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, the very noble Baltimore Sun has no problem trashing Tiger Woods because he might not see the President as “racist.” Mr. Woods, you see, is not entitled to visit the White House or accept a personal honor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nope, Tiger Woods must bend to the Baltimore Sun’s smear. Or else, be smeared himself.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-05-08T16:29:00ZWise Up, Young PeopleBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Wise-Up-Young-People/-107219040539762312.html2019-05-01T15:56:00Z2019-05-01T15:56:00Z<div>There has always been a divide between older folks and youth, it’s normal - experience versus energy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But today in America the divide may be at historic levels. And because of that, there is danger to the nation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s start with the “Green New Deal.” All Americans should keep an open mind about climate change and treating the earth more gently. There are nearly eight billion human beings on the planet and pollution is a powerful problem. <br /><br />Clean energy, protecting nature, and zero tolerance for littering are imperative.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But rank speculation and empowering anti-freedom programs are even more dangerous than lax environmental enforcement. Younger Americans seem almost eager to have government bureaucrats tell them what to eat, what doctor to see, what appliance they can use.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Green Deal is based on totalitarianism, a central authority that compels behavior - or else. Does Beto or Ocasio-Cortez even understand that? I don’t know.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems, based on polling, that many younger Americans seek dependence on government. They embrace the nanny state. <br /><br />No longer is Horace Greeley’s self reliance adage “go west, young man” advice relevant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, it’s “we’ll take care of you, young person, don’t you worry.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The move toward dependency is a selfish play. <em>I want stuff - please provide it. </em> That, of course, includes protection against climate and a permissive culture.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I took some teens to the Santa Monica pier the other day. Hundreds of children were having fun on the rides, playing the games. But there they were - the public pot smokers - getting high in front of the kids.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>They did not care a whit. They are selfish and vastly inappropriate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And our society no longer calls them out.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What younger Americans will lose if the dependency and permissiveness continues is personal motivation, the will to accomplish things on your own. The leftists understand that young people are a power base for them and therefore feed youth a steady stream of gibberish about socialism and environmental doom.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It’s all about attaining power; give the folks pot and circuses. Keep them distracted and inebriated.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wise up, young Americans. You’re being used. You won’t like living in Cuba.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-05-01T15:56:00ZPropaganda UBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Propaganda-U/-992301590642992571.html2019-04-16T19:39:00Z2019-04-16T19:39:00Z<div>Speaking at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, conservative Michael Knowles was assaulted by a student who apparently objected to his opinion that “men are not women.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President of the college, C. Mauli Agrawal, was forced to issue a statement condemning “physical disruptions of peaceful activities.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But before Chancellor Agrawal got around to those words, he wrote this: “A student group brought a speaker to campus - a speaker whose professed opinions do not align with our commitment to diversity and inclusion and our goal of providing a welcoming environment to all people, particularly to our LGBT community.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How very virtuous.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The headline should have been violence against a speaker will result in expulsion. Instead Mr. Agrawal buried that lead under a pile of political correctness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many college administrators know they have to do that in order to keep their jobs. No longer are American higher learning institutions places where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged. Nope, now “social justice" is mandatory and dissent from the far-left line is punished.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The situation is so extreme that the President of the United States had to issue an Executive Order informing colleges that federal money will be denied if freedom of expression is denied.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Right now academic fascism dominates many college campuses. There are no longer two sides to a story. If you depart from liberal thought, a student or professor may very well be punished, shunned, or both.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The acceptable narrative goes like this: white men are the oppressors and just about everyone else is a victim. Minorities and women are routinely persecuted and exploited by a corrupt capitalist system that denies “justice.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The economy is fixed and white rich guys get all the stuff. Therefore, every person should be provided with health care, a free education, a good paying job, and cradle-to-grave security.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In addition, black Americans must receive cash payment for the slavery legacy, all migrants should be admitted into the country, and climate change danger should allow the federal government to mandate how we live on a day to day basis.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you are not “welcoming” - you are not welcome on campus. And Chancellor Agrawal will decide who is inclusive and who is not. All hail, C. Mauli Agrawal, our champion of “diversity.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hey, George Orwell, thanks for the heads up on the “Thought Police.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>They have arrived.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-04-16T19:39:00ZBernie's Taxing BehaviorBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bernies-Taxing-Behavior/-231549287333874687.html2019-04-10T03:04:00Z2019-04-10T03:04:00Z<div>Senator Bernie Sanders, 77 years old, says he will release his tax returns on Monday and that is very good news, indeed. Finally, the nation will have a role model when rendering to Caesar.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In fact, Bernie looks a bit like old Julius, before he was brutally stabbed to death by fellow Romans in the senate, none of whom Bernie knew personally.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As Americans well know, Bernie Sanders, originally from Brooklyn, would like the federal government to take a lot money from affluent citizens and give it to those less fortunate. In Brooklyn that has been known to happen by climbing through broken apartment windows, but Bernie favors legalizing the transaction.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You see, the Senator is a “democratic socialist,” which means no matter how we vote, the Feds would still take our money in great amounts and then “provide” fantastic entitlements to the folks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bernie Sanders, himself, knows something about money because he is a millionaire. Or as Bernie would pronounce it - a “me-yon-air” which in Brooklynese means “forgetabouit.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Senator and his wife own a cute condo in Washington, a kind of a big deal house on Lake Champlain in Vermont, and another property up there someplace.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Lakefront pad is worth about 700k.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even though Bernie is doing pretty well in the capitalist marketplace, his heart still lies with the Fidel vision: free health care, free education, housing and food supplements, and, just maybe, free Ben and Jerry’s for all but the rich.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Cherry Garcia guys are Vermonters and big Bernie supporters.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And there are a lot of those, supporters of Sanders, I mean. When he ran for President in 2016, cranky Bernie raked in $228 million campaign donated dollars.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nice haul. And with that money, Bernie got a big car, driver, meals, lodging, and get this, Fidel, private jets!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s right, Politico is reporting that since the election of 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders has spent $342,000 on private air travel.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Oy Vey.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Upon hearing that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “does he use Netjets?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s false. I’m sorry. She didn’t say that at all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, it is possible that senior-citizen Bernie Sanders misheard the “Green New Deal” platform. When he heard “Green” he flashed to his checking account.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I didn’t say that did happened, but it’s possible!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So this American citizen, who is skeptical of socialism, is looking forward to seeing the tax returns of Senator Bernard Sanders, especially the charity part where he helps the poor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 2014, Bernie donated just $8,350 to charities. Not a lot. On a private jet that would get you from Vermont to New Hampshire.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But maybe now that he’s a “me-yon-air” twice over, the Senator’s largesse will increase.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We’ll know on Monday. After the weekend with Bernie.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-04-10T03:04:00ZBiden His TimeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Biden-His-Time/623676833862322997.html2019-04-03T06:27:00Z2019-04-03T06:27:00Z<div>Former Vice President Joe Biden now wants the big job, but the radical left does not want him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Too old, too white, too capitalist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So this is presenting a problem for the Democrats because all the polls say the same thing: Biden might be able to best Donald Trump in the 2020 election.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bernie Sanders and his younger socialist comrades will not beat Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A quick glance at the field defines the problem.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sanders is so far left that it is inconceivable working class Americans will support his vision of Washington running everything: the economy, health care, education, what we eat for breakfast.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Elizabeth Warren is even more radical than Bernie plus she has the Indian thing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kamala Harris is California left, that means open borders, sanctuary cities, enormous taxes, militant climate change polices, and restorative justice. Ms. Harris is apparently not big on due process either having convicted Brett Kavanaugh. She also believed the “victim” Jussie Smollett.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tough resume for Kamala.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Beto O’Rourke does not think there is a “problem” on the southern border even though authorities say about 100,000 foreign nationals tried to enter the USA in March alone. Mr. Beto actually lives in the besieged city of El Paso but again, no problema en el pais.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker are all polling around two percent - a long climb.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe Biden and his advisors well understand how weak the democrat field really is, but they did not count on the radical playbook. Want to dust somebody off the floor - accuse the person of “misconduct.” </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So a number of women have embarrassed Biden by alleging that he acted “inappropriately” toward them years ago. Almost immediately, Elizabeth Warren proclaimed Biden guilty as charged. Anybody got a rope?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Biden does enter the race, there will be more women, and if you don’t believe me, ask Donald Trump, who might put it this way if he were chatting with Biden: “me, too, Joe.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trump survived, Kavanaugh survived, and Biden probably will. But at age 78, Joseph Biden from Scranton, Pennsylvania is now going up against an evil he could not even imagine just five years ago. The progressive monster is off the slab, out the door and no one in town is safe.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here’s my analysis and it comes in the form of a warning: the radical left doesn’t want you, Joe. And those people have no limits.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-04-03T06:27:00ZWolves and SheepBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Wolves-and-Sheep/-796349483748467197.html2019-03-25T01:10:00Z2019-03-25T01:10:00Z<div>After the big nothing Mueller Report, there should be severe scrutiny of liberal journalists who irresponsibly and dishonestly used the Russian-collusion investigation to convict President Trump and members of his administration of a variety of crimes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was the usual corrupt media play - no due process, biased speculation, incredible hatred toward a person they despise; Donald Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The worst offenders were CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. To say their coverage of the Mueller investigation was disgraceful is an extreme understatement. Using anonymous sources and false assertions, these news organizations ginned up a phony narrative that divided the country and interfered with its governance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And what price will these organizations pay? Who will hold them accountable for all the deceit and incompetence? The sad truth is that some Americans will continue to pay attention to them - that’s the sheep component.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the fault is not only on the left. A bunch of “never-Trumpers” on the right have embarrassed themselves as well.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Journalists have the absolute obligation to cover an important story like the Mueller investigation aggressively. That’s a given. Accusations of governmental misconduct must be vetted. But when personal or partisan emotion enter into news coverage, that’s corrupt.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s what happened during the last two years with the Mueller investigation. The situation became so extreme that Robert Mueller, himself, issued a statement saying a report that President Trump had ordered his attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie about the Russia thing was false.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That story came from the despicable website Buzzfeed and was quickly picked up by the hate-Trump media which is the game they play: disseminating unsubstantiated information from biased sources.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, the hate-Trump media will insinuate that the President did “something” wrong even though Mueller spent $30 million and cannot define what that “something” might be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, the partisan wolves will continue to howl, and jaded Americans will tune in to hear the deceitful braying, and vote for political charlatans who could not care less about truth or fairness.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This entire ordeal is terribly bad for America. Honesty in reporting has collapsed and partisan loathing is now the coin of the realm. This is not really about President Trump, although his election lighted the fuse.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No, this is about a Republic that has granted the press the power to make billions of dollars but, under the Constitution, is not accountable to anyone on how they derive profit.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And we now know beyond any doubt exactly how many media operations are making money. That is by peddling false narratives and rank hatred.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paging Edward R. Murrow.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-03-25T01:10:00ZCool it on Climate ChangeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Cool-it-on-Climate-Change/240632843972482713.html2019-03-21T15:50:00Z2019-03-21T15:50:00Z<p>Beto O’Rourke scared the kids recently. He likes the “Green New Deal” because if we don’t go back to the 18th century we will all be killed by storms or locusts or something.</p>
<p>Mr. Beto apparently believes “Climate Change” will threaten the kids fairly soon and wants unprecedented government regulations to stop that warm feeling. Yes, Washington, D.C. can reverse all this hot weather by telling Americans exactly what they can and can’t do in their lives.</p>
<p>It is encouraging to see that Mr. Beto has so much confidence in the Washington people. Maybe because he’s from El Paso, Texas, he stands in awe of the awesomeness of most politicians. Skeptical that the feds can neutralize climate change? Nah, not Beto. He’s seen first hand how well the VA system and Obamacare works. By all means, let’s have the feds tell Americans how they can travel, what they can eat, what kind of dwellings are acceptable, and how cows are killers.</p>
<p>The far left is now conducting a political seminar on how America really should be run. In addition to the “Green New Deal,” there should be a “New Deal” for unborn babies. And that new deal says if you are unwanted for any reason, you can be executed inside the womb at any time. Beto O’Rourke and others in the progressive movement are fine with that. Such a deal.</p>
<p>And in order to impose the new deal philosophy on Americans who don’t approve, let’s pack the Supreme Court with more Justices. Remember that show “Eight is Not Enough?” Now it’s nine is not enough. Let’s have 20 Justices or 30. As long as they all think like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.</p>
<p>Even though progressives like Mr. Beto and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez enjoy mostly favorable media coverage, the folks are wise to what’s going on. The Green New Deal is a big con, a power grab attempt based on the absurd belief that Washington can control the world’s climate.</p>
<p>Yes, all Americans should be environmentally correct. Don’t litter or waste resources. But we have a right to live our lives without Beto O’Rourke coming to our neighborhoods and scaring the young uns.</p>
<p>Finally, I have a new deal for the fanatical progressive movement: wise up and nix the nonsense. That’s what will really cool things down.</p>Bill O'Reilly2019-03-21T15:50:00ZDonald Trump's RevengeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Donald-Trumps-Revenge/834658341745860184.html2019-03-14T19:20:00Z2019-03-14T19:20:00Z<div>Here’s how powerful President Trump really is: fake news, he made the phrase part of America. The news media helped him by generally being unfair and blatantly dishonest, but Mr. Trump drove the point home with a vengeance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s the right word because both parties want to hurt the other.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While President Trump’s job approval numbers remain around 45 percent, the media’s favorability among Americans is plummeting. The left-leaning Columbia Journalism Review polled 4,214 adults and found that the American press now ranks lowest among all major institutions in the USA. Lower than Congress, even.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The poll goes on to say that 90 percent of Republicans believe the media is biased and 58 percent of Democrats agree.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Those are shocking numbers considering that after Watergate, the press was a glamour industry in America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A recent Investors Business Daily poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe the news media “is more concerned with advancing its points of view than reporting all the facts.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So Donald Trump’s withering criticism of the anti-Trump press seems to have taken deep root.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And here’s the thing: it is not difficult to cover a politician fairly, even if you don’t like the person. Just gather facts, people, and don’t ignore the truth if it helps someone for whom you hold disdain.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sounds simple and it is.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But here’s why that’s not happening. TV News in particular makes big money off either hating or loving Mr. Trump. Playing it straight down the middle does not motivate many viewers. They want partisan displays to reinforce their beliefs and that’s what they get.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newspapers are also slanting their coverage to an ideological base. Not many conservatives buying The New York Times perhaps because the paper’s liberal columnists outnumber right-leaning scribes ten to one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the unintended consequence of that editorial bias is the destruction of honest reportage. Most folks now understand that and if the still don’t get it - the President is there to point it out. Over and over and over.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The simple truth is that Donald Trump cannot fake it. Even if the press does.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-03-14T19:20:00ZThe Liberal EmergencyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Liberal-Emergency/-564702060396491437.html2019-03-07T15:53:00Z2019-03-07T15:53:00Z<div>Right this second, as you are reading these words, four committees in the House of Representatives are thinking up more ways to investigate President Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Instead of concentrating on solving vexing problems like a 22 trillion dollar debt, or a record trade deficit with China, or thousands of poor people trying to surge the southern border, these Democrats in the House are worried about things like Ivanka Trump getting security clearance from daddy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many Americans are confused by this. So many problems, so few Congressional solutions. Is Ivanka really that important? Why is so much time being spent on utter nonsense?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is an answer to that question, and it has to do with the national emergency situation and the liberal mind. Above everything the USA is experiencing in 2019, above all, is one simple but powerful belief on the left.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump himself, is the true national emergency. Destroying him is top priority, everything else is dust in the wind.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you understand that, you can prepare yourself for the near-term future.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Soon, the Mueller Report on alleged collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russians trying to sabotage the 2016 election will be released. Robert Mueller and his merry men have run up a $30 million tab on the taxpayers. Because of that, the report has to say there were bad things afoot, Watson. But don’t expect any heavy duty accusations. Don’t expect Sherlock Holmes to expose a villain with incontrovertible evidence.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If my guess turns out to be correct, most Americans will shrug and go about their business. But not those annoying leftwing zealots. Nope, they will continue to allege, accuse and insinuate, keeping those CNN panel people very busy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, for sure, the National Emergency is not at the southern border or any other threatening situation. The real emergency is getting rid of Trump using any and all means.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that’s what we will see right up until Election Day, 2020.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-03-07T15:53:00ZThe Woke NightmareBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Woke-Nightmare/941561042519509664.html2019-02-28T06:58:00Z2019-02-28T06:58:00Z<div>The media loves them and Colin Kaepernick would play for them if he could. They are out of the closet and in your face. They are on the march, determined to change America into a bright, shining beacon of socialism where white men are guilty and everyone else is a victim.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Say hello to your little friends, the progressive cadre now dominating cable news and the democrat agenda. It is a George Soros pity party where you get to bash the Founding Fathers and every American who respects them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The progressive wrecking crew wants reparations for all injustice, not just slavery. They are “woke” to the fact that women are always mistreated, blacks are targeted by police, LGBT folks are persecuted, and babies can be killed after birth in the name of “reproductive justice.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Above all, the progressive Huns want to loot, they will ride into the village and take 70 percent of your stuff. Don’t like it, you’re a racist, homophobe, misogynist, bigot who does not deserve to be heard. In fact, if you open your mouth, we’ll take more of your stuff.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The enlightened progressive well knows the planet will die from climate change denial unless we follow their directions explicitly. America is the problem, of course, because we don’t provide citizens with free healthcare, education, decent housing and food, a guaranteed job at a guaranteed wage where you can never be fired and where you get family leave and disability payments simply upon asking. What does any of that have to do with global warming?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Shut up or we’ll boycott you.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And what’s with these borders? What about migrant justice? All persons have the right to live in the USA! It’s only the bigots who oppose that!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ten years ago, the progressive movement could not have fielded five presidential candidates. They are now running wild, passing out the pitchforks and whipping up the groundlings. Backed by mobs of Twitter assassins and financed by shadowy groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, the far left can hurt you quick. And will. Happily.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But what the progressives don’t know is that a backlash is coming. They surely have intimidated corporate America and have the support of the corrupt media. But fair-minded Americans understand what is happening and they don’t like it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is a matter of time until a group forms that will confront the totalitarian left and fight for real justice. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is just a matter of time.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-02-28T06:58:00ZThe Extreme TeamBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Extreme-Team/852809687703239894.html2019-02-20T22:37:00Z2019-02-20T22:37:00Z<div>As part of the research for my upcoming history book on President Trump, I am speaking with a lot of people who know him. Most of the conversations involve compiling information that I will then confirm or, if I can’t, not use. There will be no speculation in the book and, most importantly, no anonymous sources. Everything I write, apart from opinion quotes, will be front and center fact, making the book almost unique in this age of corrupt media reporting built around invisible sources.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Recently, I spoke with the President’s eldest son, Don, Jr., about his father and the rank hostility surrounding him. He said something very interesting:</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>“I’m pretty damn conservative, but I have friends who are not. I used to be able to say, okay, I can put myself in their shoes and I can argue their side of the deal and do it pretty effectively. I can’t do that anymore, Bill.</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em> </em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>“Post-term abortion, the black face (Virginia), there is no double standard they won’t blow out of the water.”</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><em> </em></div>
<div>Trump, Jr. is essentially saying there is no reasoning or fairness in much of the liberal movement. And the fact is that not one high-profile Democrat that I know of spoke out against the Virginia Governor when he calmly discussed killing a baby after birth. Not one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No high-profile progressive person who condemned Trump supporters after the bogus Jussie Smollett story has apologized.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not one famous person who convicted Brett Kavanaugh of heinous crimes without a shred of supporting evidence, has said ‘maybe that was wrong.’</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the two decades that I analyzed the news on television, I tried to consider what the liberal message was. I wanted to evaluate it using facts as my guide. Sometimes I agreed with it. For example: the military strategy to pacify Iraq after the invasion was terrible and based on a faulty view of the world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But now the liberal movement has gone so far left it makes Scandinavian politics look moderate. In its denial of due process and hatred of all things Trump, the progressive movement has actually become dangerous to America. The Twitter mob that drives progressive thought has obliterated honest debate and pushed an extreme agenda onto the Democrat Party.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Every Democrat running for president is petrified of the Twitter mob.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And they should be. These people will viciously attack you if their insane views are criticized or even questioned. And the national, corporate-run media will now gleefully pick up the libel and defamation coming out of the far-left Twitter sewer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Politics has changed for the worse in the USA. No longer are opposing points-of-view acceptable. Today, it’s a pack mentality bent on vengeance. And it’s taken over an entire political party.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No one can justify that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-02-20T22:37:00ZHating on the PressBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hating-on-the-Press/89302042494222923.html2019-02-14T03:00:00Z2019-02-14T03:00:00Z<div>This week some unhinged guy wearing a Make America Great Again Hat pushed a BBC photographer at the Trump El Paso rally. Predictably, there were howls of indignation from the media, many placing blame on the President for the assault.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The man was ejected from the event but not arrested by Texas authorities. He should have been. Journalists are entitled to protection - no exceptions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But President Trump is also entitled to defend himself against verbal and written assaults from the press. The BBC has brutalized him and America in general for electing him. That editorial posture does not allow violence but certainly Trump supporters understand that the media hates their guy and actively wants to harm him. That kind of consistent venomous display leads to strong emotions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump, himself, often overreacts to the media. He is not a man who overlooks personal slights and they come at him 24/7. Yes, it would be better for the country if he fought selected press battles rather than launching a general anti-press campaign. But the truth is that the American media has become so corrupt, someone needs to fight back.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I understand what Mr. Trump is feeling because the press consistently attacks me. This week I spoke at a fundraiser for the Police Athletic League of New York City, a fine charity that has helped impoverished children for decades.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After it was announced that I would be the speaker, the lunch quickly sold out, and the PAL took in a lot of money. But on the day of the event The New York Times chose to run an article attacking me. The reporter wrote that he asked me to comment, a total lie. It was a hit piece all the way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some on the net picked it up and said I had been disinvited to speak, another lie. I spoke for 30 minutes, the event was a nice success. I am proud that I helped the kids.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump endures media garbage like that every day. Everyone knows this and many Americans don’t like it - even some who don’t like him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, yes, it is unacceptable for any person to assault reporters or camera people in any way. But it is also unacceptable for the press to lie constantly in pursuit of advancing a political agenda.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The press mandate in America is to seek the truth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President’s mandate is to lead the country to prosperity and safety.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The people’s mandate is to hold both the media and the President accountable for what they do.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In a responsible, legal way.</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-02-14T03:00:00ZIgnoring TruthBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ignoring-Truth/649495517692191490.html2019-02-07T07:18:00Z2019-02-07T07:18:00Z<div>It’s been a tough week in America for the truth. While the hate Trump media counts all the President’s “lies,” the Democrat who replied to Mr. Trump’s State of the Union speech put three whoppers out there with no scrutiny whatsoever.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Stacey Abrams, who almost won the governorship of Georgia, told the world that the U.S. economy is essentially bad. By every calculated measure, that is a false statement. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then Ms. Abrams stated that the federal tax cut has not benefited working Americans. Not true. An exhaustive study by the Cato Institute shows the average family of four pays about $3,000 in taxes less than it did before the cut.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, Ms. Abrams contends that “voter suppression” is a huge national problem when there is not a shred of evidence to back that up. In fact, Georgia had a near record turnout for the vote on Ms. Abrams’ candidacy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even though Stacey Abrams misled all who watched her speech, CNN’s Anderson Cooper said on the air that he liked her talk better than President Trump’s address.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only thing that I can think of is that Mr. Cooper is a big fan of Jon Lovitz, the compulsive liar on Saturday Night Live. Yeah, that’s the ticket.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then there’s the border wall thing. The left is saying it’s a fabricated crisis, that it’s fear-mongering by President Trump and his allies. Hard to believe when tens of thousands of migrants are being bused to the U.S. border with the intent of illegally crossing into the USA. And then there’s the tons of narcotics that are smuggled across the border by murderous cartels.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But no worries, mate. It’s fear-mongering bunky.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, late term abortion. It was actually applauded in New York State by people who apparently believe that the vague category of a “woman’s health” is a valid reason to terminate a baby who could live outside the womb.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In Virginia, the governor there agrees with Adolf Hitler that even a birthed baby can be executed if the mother doesn’t want it. The T-4 program in Nazi Germany killed an estimated 300,000 babies. What’s the difference from the brutal idiocy coming out of Richmond?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is truth in the world but it is now being obscured by fanatics who want to advance their political agenda at any cost - even if that means terminating infants alive in front of them. What say you, Kamala Harris?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is my job to tell you the truth so here it is - too many Americans are more than happy to accept lies and turn the other way while bad things happen.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That kind of national attitude will lead to disaster. It’s just a matter of time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-02-07T07:18:00ZA Bad Moon Rising in AmericaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Bad-Moon-Rising-in-America/-62789386519833896.html2019-01-29T16:09:00Z2019-01-29T16:09:00Z<div>In order to know what is truly happening in the USA you have to pay attention and many Americans, perhaps most, are refusing to do that. Headphones firmly affixed, texting fingers getting stronger by the hour, millions upon millions of folks have checked out from the reality of their country. It is my job to bring as many of them back as I can.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So here it is. Using propaganda techniques that would humble Stalin, the media has allied itself with the far-left progressive movement to crush traditional thought in America. They have turned President Trump into Czar Nicholas II, branding him a menace to society and a threat to democracy. Along the way, they have convinced some citizens that the President is a corrupt racist and anybody supporting him is in that category as well. Even if you’re a high school kid.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It doesn’t matter whether you approve of Mr. Trump or not; the above analysis is true beyond any reasonable doubt.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The result of the unprecedented Trump hate campaign is primarily playing out in two areas: economics and social. Let’s take money and property first.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you may know, two elected socialists, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have each proposed radical government action. Ms. Warren wants to confiscate wealth from high-asset Americans, Ms. Cortez would like a top income tax rate of 70 percent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Writing in The National Review, Kevin Williamson is perceptive about Senator Warren: “she has proposed to begin seizing a portion of the assets of some wealthy Americans, a course of action that the federal government has no constitutional power to undertake...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“What Warren is proposing is essentially a federal version of the hated asset-forfeiture programs that have been so much abused by law-enforcement agencies - minus the allegation of criminal conduct and made universal and annual.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Simply put: Elizabeth Warren believes the government has the right to take a portion of your stuff every year and it will decide exactly who gets looted and how much it will steal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hello, Fidel, how’s hell?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Warren’s communist impulses will most likely not get far, but the radical intrusion into social matters is quite another story. The ordeal of the Trump-supporting high school students in Washington, D.C. is a shocking example of the social fascism that is gripping America.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps the nation’s most astute columnist, Victor Davis Hanson, lays the frightening situation out on the website “American Greatness.” The article is entitled “Attack of the Techno-Lynch Mob.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr. Hanson opens by describing the boys who found themselves confronted by a native-American activist: “they were white (enough said) and smiling (indicative of their smirking privilege and lack of victim status)...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then Mr. Hanson puts forth the threat to us all. “Like racing dogs leaving their starting blocks, the electronic mob sprinted out in competition to lynch the Covington kids within seconds of the initial staged video posting that purportedly showed a supposedly solitary Native American ‘swarmed’ by a crowd of smirking Brett Kavanaughs intent on bullying and blocking the ‘elder’s’ passage...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“The competition to appear tough, cruel, defiant - and morally superior - is fed by crowds of anonymous laptop and smartphone shock troops. But what has altered is that we now have no sheriff. Or rather, our town marshal - Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc - are on the mob’s side, as if the bulwark between civilization and savagery has left the porch and (joined) the mob ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the past, the American press would have been all over the new social fascism, exposing and condemning it, using its constitutionally vested power to protect the attacked students. But not now because the press, generally speaking, has joined the mob.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the past, unconstitutional calls for seizures of private property would also have been challenged mightily by the media. No longer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s because the press now sympathizes with those who call for government strong arm methods against the prosperous. In addition, the media, in the tank for the “virtue” crowd, actively supports the denial of due process as the nation saw in the Kavanaugh hearings and during the Covington coverage.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Stalin, Fidel, and yes, even Adolph, would be very pleased.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So please pay attention to your country and urge others to do so. The bad moon has risen, it’s right before our eyes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-01-29T16:09:00ZHow the American Press CollapsedBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/How-the-American-Press-Collapsed/373946649274930281.html2019-01-24T15:37:00Z2019-01-24T15:37:00Z<div>The presidential campaign of 2020 is already underway, but don’t expect much accurate reporting about it. That’s because the national media has decided that Donald Trump must not be re-elected and has partnered up with the Democratic Party.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The coverage of Senator Kamala Harris is a perfect example of my contention. Ms. Harris’ announcement of her intention to run for president was greeted with warmth by the national media. On Good Morning America, her interview was almost a hug. Good for you, Kamala! You go, girl!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So where was the question about Senator Harris convicting Brett Kavanaugh of heinous crimes without any evidence?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Where was the scrutiny of Kamala Harris comparing ICE agents, hard working men and women, to Ku Klux Klan members?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Where? Nowhere.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Embarrassing doesn’t even come close.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So how did all this press corruption happen?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In 1983, 50 companies controlled 90 percent of the American media. Today, six conglomerates control the same 90 percent. They are National Amusements (CBS, MTV, BET, on and on), Disney (ABC, ESPN, Marvel, on and on), TimeWarner (CNN, HBO, TBS, on and on), Comcast (NBC, Dreamworks, Universal, on and on), 21 Century/Newscorp (Fox, NatGeo, FX, on and on), and Sony.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The corporate culture in these massive operations is always politically correct and most often liberal politically, with a few exceptions like the 89 year old Rupert Murdoch. With so few controlling news messaging, it is not difficult to form a political bloc.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In addition, the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, a liberal guy, and The New York Times is controlled by the Sulzberger family, avowed Democrats. That paper has not endorsed a Republican for President in almost 60 years.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is nothing new for the national press to lean left in America, but openly aiding a political party is unique. In the past, the media would half-heartedly fake it. Not anymore. Now, it’s “us” against Trump. <br /><br />And “us” is the press and the Democrats.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So don’t expect individual reporters and commentators to present the campaign fairly. Careers would be ruined if they did that. No, the spin will be Trump and his supporters bad - the Democrat candidate and leftist policies good. Inside national newsrooms, there is no room for the “diversity” to which liberals give lip service. The corporate chieftains have sent a clear message: get Trump out. And it will be acted upon.</div>
<div><br />All day, everyday.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enjoy it.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-01-24T15:37:00ZA Disturbing PartnershipBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Disturbing-Partnership/-160143827719130186.html2019-01-17T05:42:00Z2019-01-17T05:42:00Z<div>The conservative group Media Research Center has released its annual analysis of the three nightly network news programs. MRC says that coverage of President Trump on those three broadcasts was 90 percent negative for the year 2018.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paging Claude Rains? I’m shocked, shocked, gambling is going on at Rick’s Cafe!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Alert Americans know that the media fix was in from the beginning. Donald Trump, who the national media believes is a vulgarian, was never supposed to be president. And after he was elected, the press took the voters' repudiation of their liberal political views personally.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The President, himself, did nothing to court the media, which always wants its collective butt kissed. Quite the opposite. Using Twitter as a six-gun, Mr. Trump fires away at the press, branding many outlets fake news.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now it’s vendetta time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So with another presidential election less than two years away, the national media has pretty much partnered up with the Democrats to get Trump out.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I mean the Dems could run “El Chapo” and MSNBC would endorse him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Never before in American history has there been an alliance like this - powerful media corporations operating in concert with a political party to accomplish an electoral goal. All Americans should be concerned - even those who despise the President.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let’s take the massive Comcast corporation, for example. It owns the National Broadcasting Company, NBC. On its roster is NBC News which runs The Today Show, The NBC Nightly News, MSNBC, and CNBC. All of those vehicles are skeptical of Donald Trump, and one of them, MSNBC, is in business to destroy him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comcast also owns Saturday Night Live, a program that marginalizes Mr. Trump using Trump-hater Alec Baldwin. There has never been anything like this in the history of broadcasting.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then there’s print. Liberal Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post and the Uber-left Sulzberger family controls The New York Times. Both papers compete furiously to see who can damage Mr. Trump more. All reporters and columnists working for the papers well understand the prevailing wisdom of those who sign their paychecks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Democrats also understand that wisdom and take full advantage of it. The party knows that no benefit of the doubt will be given to the Trump administration while democrat policies will generally be praised. When a radical-leftist like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can become an overnight media star, you know the tipping point has been reached.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The gigantic Disney corporation owns ABC News which trots out former Clinton Chief-of-Staff George Stephanopoulos as its marquee anchor. <br /><br />Newsflash: George is not a fan of Donald.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>CBS features late night talk show guy Stephen Colbert who now uses his program as a safe space for democrats to make political announcements and hold bake-offs if need be. “We’ll be right back with Steny Hoyer’s impression of Mike Pence!”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The unspoken alliance between the nation’s most powerful media companies and a political party is flat out dangerous not only to accurate information flow, but also to democracy itself. When one political point of view dominates, it wins.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not 90 percent of the time - 100 percent. Right, Fidel?</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2019-01-17T05:42:00ZThe Cable News WarBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Cable-News-War/901369017233601976.html2019-01-10T13:47:00Z2019-01-10T13:47:00Z<div>
<p>For cable news, Donald Trump is no longer the gift that keeps on giving.</p>
<p>At first he was, but now big change is in the air - and it’s all because of the President.</p>
<p>When Mr. Trump initially announced his candidacy for President, the curiosity factor drove millions of Americans to watch him on cable news.</p>
<p>The shock of seeing a flamboyant political neophyte take on well known pols like Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee was immediate.</p>
<p>Then came the Republican debates - and the sight of Mr. Trump diminishing his opposition in very personal ways, blew up decorum.</p>
<p>This was reality TV at it’s best and viewers flocked to it.</p>
<p>There was Trump calling Governor Bush boring to his face. Senator Rubio became “Little Marco.” Carly Fiorina was labeled unattractive by Mr. Trump.</p>
<p>Anything could happen at any time.</p>
<p>The arrogant, mostly liberal national press dismissed Donald Trump as a vulgarian but gave him constant exposure. He was good for ratings and was destroying the Republican Party in the process. Both positive things for the media chieftains.</p>
<p>But then Trump won the nomination and faced Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>Once again the establishment TV news media derided Trump but hung on his every word. He remained great for business and couldn’t possibly defeat Mrs. Clinton.</p>
<p>They were absolutely certain of that.</p>
<p>But then he won again.</p>
<p>Almost instantly, business plans were put into place. CNN and MSNBC, with a large helping hand from NBC News, set themselves up as the “resistance,” openly demonstrating to their viewers that fair coverage was not even being considered.</p>
<p>The mandate became “destroy Trump.”</p>
<p>Anti-Trump Americans now had two networks that would bash the President non-stop. Because MSNBC was more vicious than CNN, it garnered the biggest audience of the two.</p>
<p>On the other side, Fox News made a corporate decision to support Donald Trump and appeal to the 60 million Americans who voted for him. Because FNC stood almost alone in defending Trump, it remained the highest rated cable news operation - there was no where else for the President’s supporters to go.</p>
<p>But all three cable networks basically stopped covering the news, devoting most of their presentations to Trump. Unending Trump. Always Trump.</p>
<p>Many viewers became exhausted.</p>
<p>So, Fox News has begun losing viewers especially in the 25 to 54 years old category. MSNBC is actually beating FNC in prime time on some nights which rarely happened in the past.</p>
<p>Correction, it never happened.</p>
<p>Many philosophers believe that hate is a stronger emotion than love, and that might be what we are seeing here. The MSNBC people are better haters than the CNN crew although it’s close. MS trounces CNN in the ratings because their Trump loathing is kept at a white hot temperature. It’s almost amusing to watch.</p>
<p>How do they keep it up every hour on the hour?</p>
<p>Fox News allows some of its on air talent to hate Trump too, and that is not sitting well with its core audience who now have alternatives on radio and the net.</p>
<p>But the basic problem with FNC is a lack of entertainment value.</p>
<p>Hating is fun for some; defending the object of hate, not so much.</p>
<p>When Donald Trump leaves the national stage, all three cable news operations will likely decline in a major way. Covering the news fairly and accurately is difficult. Today, cable news doesn’t even try. If you are looking for accurate information and honest perspective, you better bring a strong microscope.</p>
<p>Americans know that. They clearly see what’s happening. And when the blood sport of Trump-era politics finally ends, viewers will not be back for an encore.</p>
<p>They have had it.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2019-01-10T13:47:00ZThe Person of the YearBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Person-of-the-Year/262804348732268726.html2018-12-13T16:34:00Z2018-12-13T16:34:00Z<div>My person of the year is Senator Lindsey Graham who single-handedly exposed the enormous wrong-doing in the Brett Kavanaugh catastrophe. Graham stood up for due process and in the process of doing that, he saved Kavanaugh and protected all Americans. In this climate, any American can be accused of anything at anytime. All we have is a presumption of innocence which was on the verge of being destroyed by political partisans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Time Magazine also selected a person of the year. The struggling magazine departed from tradition and opted for a number of people; journalists at risk.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The murdered columnist Jamal Khashoggi was cited, as were the five journalists murdered by a psycho in Maryland. In fact worldwide, at least 52 journalists have been killed so far this year.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The theme of Time Magazine’s essay is that danger to journalists is increasing. And that is true. Putin in Russia, the Chinese Communists, and Islamic fanatics will kill journalists as a convenience. So will the drug cartels in Mexico, African warlords, and the little rocket man in North Korea among others.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But there is another aspect to the Time selection that is heavily implied but not stated. And that is the magazine’s opinion that President Trump enables danger to the press.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is standard operating procedure for the left-leaning press of which Time is a charter member. The irony of the media’s indignation toward the President is that the press fails to report the truth: yes, Mr. Trump has attacked “fake news.” But he is absolutely correct that much of the reporting about him has been unfair and, at times, fabricated. The use of anonymous sources is at an astonishing level, and much of the press coverage is driven by economics.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course Time and other anti-Trump media outlets will never admit the truth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here it is. Newspapers now direct their reporting to a specific readership. The editors at The New York Times, for example, know their careers depend on promoting liberal ideas and disparaging conservative opposition. If a reporter were to wear a “Make America Great Again” hat in the Times newsroom - that person’s career would be over.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Same thing at The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS. My question is when did the press become a monolithic institution?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, congratulations to Senator Graham for the “No Spin Man of the Year” award. I’m sure the rest of the press will applaud my choice even if it offends their corporate masters.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2018-12-13T16:34:00ZO Come All Ye FaithfulBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/O-Come-All-Ye-Faithful/-736983363443790784.html2018-12-05T20:54:00Z2018-12-05T20:54:00Z<div>The faithful are not coming, at least not the way they once did. Churches and Synagogues are seeing declining weekly attendance as America becomes a devoted secular nation. <br /><br />The winds of change have not been kind to the spiritual, even as the Christmas season is upon us once again.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Much of the diminishment of religion comes from the media - which often marginalizes people of faith, portraying them as zealots who intrude on the “rights” of others. For example, while LGBT progress is met with parades, those who promote biblical beliefs are accused of bigotry and shunned by some.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And on the subject of abortion, if you stand to protect innocent life, then you are a hater of women, not worthy of being taken seriously.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tough to fight that, so millions of folks don’t even try. And some of them are supposed to be religious leaders.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Centuries of Irish-Catholic tradition compel me to attend weekly mass, even though it is not always a rewarding experience. Yes, the hour honors the creator and that is always a positive, but the application of Christian theology to a complicated world is almost non-existent in many churches. <br /><br />Simply put, 90 percent of the Catholic sermons I hear are boring. And I have heard them all over the world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Having researched a bestselling book called “Killing Jesus,” I know the Nazarene was anything but dull. In fact, his sermons were so provocative and meaningful that they frightened the Roman Governor Pilate who ordered Jesus executed on grounds of alleged sedition about which no evidence was produced.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was the words of the Nazarene that got him executed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But today, the men in charge of channeling the words of Jesus to believers are largely timid and detached from the every day struggles that people of faith face. I suspect it is similar in Jewish houses of worship.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Instead of hearing for the six thousandth time about how the mustard seed fell on fallow ground, I’d like to hear something about confronting hatred. What should a Christian actually do when malice appears - as it so often does in our lives?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’d like a sermon on how to cope with hand-held devices that can instantly access evil.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How about bearing false witness against your neighbor, which is epidemic in America? How should we deal with people who do that? Turn the other cheek? Or slap them down?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have thousands of sermon suggestions that I know I will never hear because of clergy apathy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Organized religion is dying in America. Not because of scandal, although that has hurt. No, the churches have immediate seating because the environment they foster is often irrelevant to our lives. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jesus inspired. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>His stand-ins are tired.</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-12-05T20:54:00ZThe Silent ThreatBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Silent-Threat/-827332994506825569.html2018-11-29T16:46:00Z2018-11-29T16:46:00Z<p>While the public and congress are focused on the vicious condition of opioid addiction, another scourge has taken root in our society especially among young people ages 13 to 25: Internet Disorders.<br /> <br /> The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) formally classified “Gaming Disorder” as an addiction last June, placing it with drugs, alcohol, and gambling as a virulent scourge.<br /> <br /> But dopey games are just part of the overall problem. Addiction to devices and machines can destroy human potential in a variety of ways.<br /> <br /> Teenagers are at the greatest risk even though their parents can easily become addicted as well. The family that texts together has replaced the family that prays together.<br /> <br /> Let’s get very specific. Most teens cannot function without their iPhone. Their entire social world is built around them. No longer do kids call each other, it’s Snapchat and texting - especially Snapchat where they can send pictures with their words. Incredibly, email is obsolete in urchin-land. Everybody is snapping and chatting.<br /> <br /> The result is no voice or in person contact. Talk to a teenager face-to-face and it’s very likely the kid will not look you in the eye. They look down. Like they do when snap chatting.<br /> <br /> Witty conversation? Forget it. Here’s a typical lead sentence on a device: U there, dude? LOL. LMAO.<br /> <br /> If you don’t know what that means - good for you.<br /> <br /> So, the art of conversation has been largely destroyed. Along with that, personal empathy is declining. You can’t feel a person’s pain or joy for that matter through a machine.<br /> <br /> Then there’s the ability to concentrate. Killing the SS is a huge hit but one of the few books that is actually selling in America. Young people don’t want to break away from their devices to devote time to a book or even a TV show. It’s much easier to google anything and absorb information in 60 seconds or less.<br /> <br /> Why watch a scheduled show when there are a million clips on YouTube available 24/7? Do you know any young American that consistently watches a news program? I don’t. Headlines are available on the net and that’s what the kids want; quick, short dispatches that don’t take time away from Snapchatting.<br /> <br /> And then there are the games. Fortnite is big. But ask a kid what the word “fortnite” means and you’ll get a blank look. <br /> <br /> Fantasy football is huge. Minecraft used to be the rage. And you can shoot video zombies all day long without being arrested.<br /> <br /> All in all it is a bleak landscape. When I was a kid we were outside on the ball fields. Everyday. Weather did not stop us.<br /> <br /> Now young backsides are parked on computer chairs or couches. The outdoors is almost inconceivable. Nothing out there. Can’t charge the phone in the forest.<br /> <br /> Internet addiction is changing the world and not for the better. Human beings that resist the pull of the machines and strive to become well rounded people will prosper greatly in the future. But, sadly, most people will not resist internet addiction.<br /> <br /> And they will suffer the consequences.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-11-29T16:46:00ZThe Trump-Media WarBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trump-Media-War/946561633146775574.html2018-11-15T16:41:00Z2018-11-15T16:41:00Z<div>In a way, CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s editorial bomb throwing in a press conference with President Trump was a Pearl Harbor moment: the Trump administration has now officially declared war on the media, essentially banishing the provocateur by pulling his White House credential.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Predictably, CNN has sought to capitalize on the situation by filing a law suit asserting that First Amendment free press “rights” are at stake, even though CNN has other White House correspondents on the scene. No matter, the cable news network wants Jimmy there so he can continue to stir up chaos.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Putting aside the legalisms, it is clear that there is gamesmanship on both sides. CNN and most of the national media is no longer in business to bring information to Americans, their game plan now is to destroy the Trump presidency. It’s an ongoing news reality saga designed to get ratings and circulation: can the media bring down Trump?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For his part, the President is genuinely outraged by the constant press attacks but often tries to use them to his advantage. He knows conservative Americans generally distrust the media and plays to that perception. Press persecution gives the President a certain victim status and casts doubt on the negative reporting about him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While the animus between Mr. Trump and the media is truly terrible, the truth is that most presidents loathed the press. In my lifetime, only John F. Kennedy was able to control the media and use it to his advantage. Dwight Eisenhower basically dealt with a compliant media because TV was in its infancy and he was a hero of World War II.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But leave it to Ike’s predecessor to lay it out there about the American media. A few years ago, I came across a private letter that President Harry Truman wrote to a friend. <br /><br />Truman was furious about negative newspaper coverage and opined this way:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>“In going over the history of various Presidents I find that this is nothing new. Washington was abused in the press of his time and there was never a more thoroughly misrepresented President than Thomas Jefferson. Of course, you are familiar with how they treated Andrew Jackson but they did not get away with it in his case like they did with some of the others.”</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Truman continues pointing out that <em>“they almost hounded (Grover) Cleveland to his grave.”</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The difference today is that there is big money to be made with a hate-Trump format. CNN well understands that. Harry Truman would not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It remains to be seen if the judiciary understands that it is not journalism involved in the White House controversy but show business. The old adage is: the show must go on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jim Acosta and his corporate masters really hope that will be the case.</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-11-15T16:41:00ZMuzzling the White House Press CorpsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Muzzling-the-White-House-Press-Corps/112973439550161593.html2018-11-08T02:44:00Z2018-11-08T02:44:00Z<p><span>Critical mass has been reached concerning the hostility between CNN </span><span>White House correspondent Jim Acosta and President Trump. The display at the press conference this week was embarrassing and unnecessary.</span><br /><br /><span>The back story is important here. CNN is the lowest rated cable news network even though it has embraced a “hate-Trump” posture. Every on-air person in the organization well understands they are encouraged to incorporate a negative tone into anything Trump.</span><br /><br /><span>MSNBC also has that philosophy - and its personnel is better at bringing the hate than the CNN people, with one exception: Jim Acosta.</span><br /><br /><span>As someone who has interviewed five presidents, I know it is a difficult task. <br /><br />Viewers expect straightforward questions that elicit information. But often presidents do not want to answer certain queries and that’s when things can get bumpy.</span><br /><br /><span>Do you insist on an answer? Do you point out the dodge? How do you handle a president who is hostile to you?</span><br /><br /><span>Skilled journalists know that you can be persistent without being disrespectful. A reporter might not like the president, but he or she should always respect the office. That doesn’t mean you forgo tough questions, I never did that, but it does mean you think about your tone and phrasing.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Acosta does not do that. He apparently wants to goad Donald Trump into a confrontation. Here’s how Acosta lighted the fuse the other day.</span><br /><br /><span>“As you know, Mr. President, the caravan is not an invasion...”</span><br /><br /><span>First of all, that is Acosta’s opinion. It is a statement, not a question. Acosta knows that the President has labeled thousands of migrants heading for the southern border an invasion. So the White House correspondent for CNN is deliberately taking a contrarian point of view trying to provoke a response, rather than asking why Mr. Trump considers the march an invasion.</span><br /><br /><span>It is Jim Acosta’s job to get information to CNN viewers, not be captain of the debate team. If he wants to give opinions, CNN should give him a primetime show. </span><br /><br /><span>And then there’s the tone. In a followup, Acosta actually asked a question. But did so in an accusatory way.</span><br /><br /><span>“But do you think that you demonized immigrants ...?”</span><br /><br /><span>President Trump obviously does not think he did that. So why the edge on Acosta’s part? Why the fuse?</span><br /><br /><span>All he had to say was something like this: “Mr. President some people believe that you have overreacted to the migrant situation and used it for political gain. Have you considered that?”</span><br /><br /><span>Tough but fair, right?</span><br /><br /><span>But again, CNN does not want to secure information from President Trump, the network wants to make him look bad. And Mr. Acosta is happy to do that by being as insulting as possible.</span><br /><br /><span>Predictably, President Trump lashed out at Mr. Acosta calling him rude and a bad person. That’s gold for CNN as it hits the internet all over the world, and Acosta gets to play the victim. <br /><br />Another successful day at the office.</span><br /><br /><span>I really hate to say this, but the Trump administration would be in the right if it pulled Acosta’s credentials. The well is simply filled with too much poison and presidential press meetings are being disrupted by the CNN-driven carnival.</span><br /><br /><span>Maybe the network brings back Larry King to replace Acosta.</span><br /><br /><span>Well, that may be over-adjusting.</span></p>
<div class="yj6qo"> </div>
<div class="adL"> </div>Bill O'Reilly2018-11-08T02:44:00ZOur CountryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Our-Country/-903918301886558877.html2018-11-01T02:32:00Z2018-11-01T02:32:00Z<p>An outfit called “hiddentribes.us” recently put out a poll on why Americans are so divided politically. The results are somewhat predictable but instructive none-the-less.</p>
<p>When asked if America is a better country than most others, 82 percent of the respondents agreed. Only 18 percent did not.</p>
<p>But among that 18 percent were folks who describe themselves as “progressive activists.” 54 percent of Americans in that category do not think the USA is a better place.</p>
<p>While their raw numbers are small and often non-existent in rural America, the PA crew has clout. A number of billionaires (think George Soros) inhabit far left precincts and so do an increasing number of celebrities (think Robert DeNiro and Barbra Streisand).</p>
<p>Some internet and media barons also swim in progressive activist waters, using their wealth and cyberspace power to get the PA message out.</p>
<p>But it is the national press that most of all advances the far left agenda. The networks and major urban newspapers were always liberal. But now, after the election of Donald Trump, they have abandoned all moderation and have allied themselves with the PA movement.</p>
<p>What every progressive activist has in common is the often false belief that they are virtuous people. They strut around condemning folks who disagree with them, calling them racist, sexist, etc. The progressive movement is built on self/righteousness and grievance. As the study shows, the PA’s do not believe America is a noble nation and want a complete overhaul of our economic and political system. They also embrace political correctness which is designed to inhibit speech and, as we saw with Brett Kavanaugh, the progressive activist forces do not believe in the presumption of innocence when their political opponents are involved.</p>
<p>For the vast majority of Americans who do believe their country is a better place, the progressive extremists don’t really register all that much. Folks who closely follow the news sense the danger and are rebelling against the corrupt media. However, those who are politically engaged are the minority in this country. Most citizens can’t tell George Soros from Georgie Porgie.</p>
<p>The progressive activists are counting on a distracted populace. They have money, the media, and are driven to tear down the structure we have in place. The PA’s are largely ruthless people who brook no dissent and will destroy opponents if they can.</p>
<p>Those of us who truly understand this movement must spread the word about what’s really going on.</p>
<p>Where is Paul Revere when we need him?</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-11-01T02:32:00ZWho's Behind the CaravanBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Behind-the-Caravan/483215628865342841.html2018-10-25T16:17:00Z2018-10-25T16:17:00Z<p>By some accounts, there are 14,000 human beings walking thousands of miles to the southern border of the United States. Every person in the migrant caravan needs food, water, and facilities. There are vehicles involved and tents and other things that cost money. There are organizers on the scene.</p>
<p>So who is providing the money for the migrant march? The organization that put it together, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, depends on donations to operate. In August, the activist group based in Honduras put the word out on social media that asylum could be obtained in America if certain directions were followed. Thus, the planned mass journey began to take shape.</p>
<p>Because Pueblo Sin Fronteras is based in Honduras, it is not required to list its donors. But you can safely assume that it’s not money from Tegucigalpa that’s powering this engine. A good guess is that shadowy far left political groups in America are putting up the cash.</p>
<p>The plan seems to be to goad President Trump into doing something that will mobilize young liberals and Hispanics to vote for Democrats in the midterms. Earlier this year, the migrant child separation deal on the border worked well for the left as President Trump had to change his immigration policy because “babies were being ripped from their mothers.”</p>
<p>The anti-Trump forces got a lot of mileage out of that one.</p>
<p>Don’t count on the corrupt American media to uncover the money behind the caravan just as the press ignored the presence of far left zealots in the Kavanaugh controversy. Again, a journalist’s mission is to try to find the truth of a story. Do you think that’s happening in the age of Trump? Do you?</p>
<p>If the migrant caravan was secretly designed as a political play to hurt President Trump and the Republicans in the November vote, that is one enormous story. It would take resources and will to get the facts surrounding the march and its funding but the effort should be a top priority for an honest press.</p>
<p>Sadly, I don’t expect answers anytime soon.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-10-25T16:17:00ZHow the Left Helps the Violent Gang MS-13Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/How-the-Left-Helps-the-Violent-Gang-MS-13/581177789107870188.html2018-10-18T19:36:00Z2018-10-18T19:36:00Z<div>My local newspaper on Long Island, Newsday, is your typical center-left daily publication that is struggling to survive. Few working class Long Islanders buy into the paper’s politically correct posture, which is predictable and dull.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But there is one issue that Newsday cannot be PC about, and that is the influx of El Salvadoran gangsters into Long Island. The vicious gang, MS-13, has established a foothold here with an estimated 2,000 members causing violent havoc.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>About 40 percent of all the homicides on Long Island are attributed to MS-13 gangsters, most of whom are in this country illegally. The gang’s motto is “kill, rape, control.” They sell drugs, extort money from store owners, and force young, unsupervised Hispanic children into a life of crime.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newsday is appalled and devotes a lot of ink to exposing the foreign gang. Just about every day there is an article about MS-13’s crimes and the toll they are taking. But despite the intense coverage, Newsday has no solution to the atrocities and, indeed, has enabled them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The root of the problem is that vicious criminals are able to sneak into this country and then openly live here. The solution to the problem is to prevent them from coming in at all. That would take ultra-strict border enforcement including a stout wall.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does Newsday want a wall? No, it does not. Does the paper want a zero tolerance system for folks who enter illegally? Nope.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newsday even shows sympathy for the Sanctuary movement which protects foreign criminals from federal authorities. Does the paper endorse Kate’s Law, which would harshly punish convicted criminals who defy deportation and return? As far as I can tell, Newsday does not support Kate’s Law or any other targeted measure to control illegal immigration.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, all the articles about the terrible MS-13 violence ring kind of hollow. Newsday and its politically correct leftist brethren actually enable the foreign thugs by opposing tough, common sense methods to neutralize them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or am I wrong?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is estimated that more than ten thousand Salvadoran gangsters are roaming the streets of America right now. President Trump wants a wall, supports Kate’s Law, and opposes Sanctuary cities and counties.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newsday criticizes the President’s positions but then turns around and bemoans the huge damage being done by MS-13.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Makes no sense whatsoever. Unless, of course, politics are more important than human lives.</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-10-18T19:36:00ZYour Truth is a MythBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Your-Truth-is-a-Myth/837590643717699142.html2018-10-10T21:33:00Z2018-10-10T21:33:00Z<p>One of the hip sayings in the world of leftist politics is speaking “your truth.” But that is a false flag. </p>
<p>There is only factual truth. The rest is belief. </p>
<p>If “your truth” departs from verifiable truth, it is just bilge.</p>
<p>Enter The University of North Carolina, which is becoming a major bilge zone these days. UNC Professor Jennifer Ho has nominated Dr. Christine Ford for the Distinguished Alumna Award for speaking “truth to power” while accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.</p>
<p>Apparently, Professor Ho has totally discounted the FBI’s investigation that found no corroboration of Dr. Ford’s accusations. </p>
<p>Apparently, Ms. Ho herself has corroboration because she is flat out stating what Dr. Ford put forth is true. </p>
<p>But wait. There’s a subtlety here.</p>
<p>Professor Ho writes: “this letter nominating Dr. Ford is not about partisan politics, it is about recognizing that the simple fact of speaking one’s truth, especially when that truth involves sexual assault, is an act of bravery.”</p>
<p>Memo to Professor Ho: “one’s truth” is not THE truth, madame, unless it is verified and buttressed with proven facts. </p>
<p>But surely that opinion is not the prevailing wisdom at UNC. </p>
<p>So, if we are granting awards to brave people who speak their “truth to power” perhaps Brett Kavanaugh will be considered for one.</p>
<p>I mean, the Justice emphatically denied under pain of felony any misconduct involving Dr. Ford. He spoke “his truth” to the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. He forcefully called for the basic right of due process, the presumption of innocence. </p>
<p>For his efforts he was castigated worldwide. </p>
<p>Did he not show bravery? He could have walked away.</p>
<p>Of course the poobahs at the University of North Carolina will never honor Brett Kavanaugh. Any professor even advocating that would be shunned and perhaps fired if he or she lacked tenure. The entire university system in this country is biased left and the fix is in. Speaking “truth to power” is a one-way street where you make a sharp left to enter.</p>
<p>I say enough. UNC and most other colleges have no credibility with honest people. Many of their administrators and teachers are fanatical zealots who are running wild spreading their “truth.”</p>
<p>But it isn’t <em>the</em> truth, it’s ideological propaganda designed to attack and marginalize those with whom they disagree. Freedom of expression on college campuses is largely a myth in this country.</p>
<p>That is speaking the truth. And the one-sided award nomination at UNC backs it up.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-10-10T21:33:00ZThe Anger PollBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Anger-Poll/-285310037878138611.html2018-10-03T20:27:00Z2018-10-03T20:27:00Z<div>Have you noticed that most political polling is rigged? <br /><br />Agencies consistently ask more Democrats than Republicans about issues of the day. <br /><br />Why? Can’t they balance it out?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sure they could. <br /><br />But they don’t because they know most people will not look at the methodology behind the poll. But I always do. <br /><br />And the vast majority of the time, the fix is in. More Dems are polled.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s because the corporations paying the pollsters often skew left. Pollsters make nice money, so why derail the gravy train by being fair? Give the check writers what they want.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Enter polling about Brett Kavanaugh. <br /><br />Consistently, we are told more Americans believe his accuser rather than him. <br /><br />I don’t believe it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Certainly, the country is split over conservative vs. progressive values. It is true that many American women have been treated badly by men. It is also a fact that many in the media are gleefully participating in the destructive of Judge Kavanaugh. <br /><br />With all that in play, it seems logical the public might side against the Judge.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But there is much more emotion on Kavanaugh’s side. <br /><br />Many Americans like me are furious that the man is being denied due process by the left. Morons like Senator Richard Blumenthal loudly bellow that they believe the accuser. Based on what? <br /><br />The accusations remain uncorroborated in every way.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Simply put, America will become an unjust nation if stuff like this continues. There isn’t a man in the country safe from misconduct allegations. Not one. <br /><br />According to the leftwing mob, all “survivors,” “victims,” or whatever other label is used, must be believed, no matter if the allegations are denied. <br /><br />And if you don’t immediately believe the accuser, than you are an abuser.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I never thought I’d see this in my country. And I am angry about it. Very angry.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I don’t think I’m alone.</div>
<div> </div>Bill O'Reilly2018-10-03T20:27:00ZO'Reilly on Kavanaugh "Fighting for His Life"Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/OReilly-on-Kavanaugh-Fighting-for-His-Life/416285935079854179.html2018-09-27T18:31:00Z2018-09-27T18:31:00Z<p>The latest to emerge from the very busy left wing propaganda machine is that Judge Brett Kavanugh is essentially seeking a job, and therefore his fate should depend on a perception of him rather than affording the man the fairness of due process.</p>
<p>Pretty slick. <br /><br />If you apply for a job, your hiring depends on a subjective evaluation by your employer - not any rules of law. But there is a very different standard to confirming a Supreme Court Justice. <br /><br />It’s not the same as hiring a bus driver.</p>
<p>What’s at stake here is the attempted subversion of America’s political system based upon allegations. However, we do know some things about the Kavanaugh case with certainty.</p>
<ul>
<li>The Democratic Party was always adamantly opposed to Kavanaugh’s presence on the court and vowed to defeat him.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Senator Diane Feinstein held back the first accuser’s story for six weeks. By doing that, she avoided any serious vetting of the allegations before the Senate vote. She could have confronted Kavanaugh early on but did not apparently for political reasons.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The first accuser, Christine Ford, hired one of the most radical left attorneys in the country, who is working free of charge.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The second accuser refuses to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, nor has she filed a criminal complaint.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The third accuser also hired an attorney who is heavily invested in harming the Trump administration.</li>
</ul>
<p> <br />There is no debate on the above, thus circumstantial evidence indicates a political component in the attacks against Judge Kavanaugh.</p>
<p>If this is the case, and reasonable folks know it is, then the American people are watching a subversion of our Constitution. If unverified allegations can force a Supreme Court nominee to withdraw, than every other federal nominee to any position can be treated the same way.</p>
<p>Thus, vital appointments to our government will be dismissed and/or delayed based upon accusations that may be politically driven.<br /><br />The result: chaos at the federal level.</p>
<p>It is apparent that Judge Kavanaugh is not only fighting for a job, but also for his life. Should he withdraw, his reputation will be shattered forever.</p>
<p>Christine Ford was a polished witness, there is no doubt about that. So, those who want to believe that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her as a teenager will not be dissuaded. </p>
<p>However, for those Americans who will base their decision on facts, there are some troubling aspects to Dr. Ford’s assertions.</p>
<ul>
<li>She has identified by name three people who attended the party where the alleged assault took place. All three of them, including Dr. Ford’s former best friend Leland Ingham Keyser, deny any wrongdoing happened. Ms. Keyser’s lawyer issued a statement saying his client does not know Kavanaugh and was not at the party. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Dr. Ford does not remember who drove her home after the alleged assault and no one has come forward to say they drove her. Even at age 15, that’s a troubling memory loss.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Dr. Ford claims her therapist made a “mistake” writing notes documenting that she said four boys were in the assault room. Under oath, the Doctor now says there were two boys present: Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mark Judge signed his own sworn affidavit saying no assault happened.</li>
</ul>
<p>In this time of mob activism, it would be foolish to decide a vital issue based on emotion. The fair-minded American must evaluate facts and the personal testimony they have seen given by Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.</p>
<p>All I can say with certainty is that the Judge would never be convicted in a court of law based upon how the facts line up right now.</p>
<p>And that’s an important thing to consider when there’s a man fighting for his life.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>Bill O'Reilly2018-09-27T18:31:00ZWill Accusations Ruin America?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Will-Accusations-Ruin-America/-388042822695748862.html2018-09-20T16:20:00Z2018-09-20T16:20:00Z<p>It was sad but not surprising to hear liberal CNN commentator Chris Cuomo say that the presumption of innocence should only apply to court cases, not the court of public opinion in America.<br /> <br /> Think about that for a moment. That means that any unproven accusation can be validated on the whim of opinion. No one is entitled to a doubt benefit in his or her life.<br /> <br /> The media is already doing this, most often by putting the word “disgraced” in front of someone’s name when no action other than an allegation has been established. Thus, the national press drives the “accusation as fact” industry which is quickly destroying the fabric of a just society.<br /> <br /> Senator Diane Feinstein and her cohorts knew that Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his family would be grievously hurt by a 37 year old accusation of sexual assault very short on facts. Feinstein even admits she does not know the truth and held back accusation details until they could be used for maximum political benefit. Her and her party’s goal is to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court and, apparently, anything goes.<br /> <br /> Now, Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, will apparently forego testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee along with Judge Kavanaugh who is eager to testify.<br /> <br /> Why, Dr. Ford? Why not tell your story to the world if it has devastated you for 37 years? Most who oppose Kavanaugh will applaud your courage no matter what you say. The entire Democratic Party, Hollywood, and many powerful media chieftains are actively rooting for you. That’s a lot of support.<br /> <br /> The harsh truth is that corporate and political America is terrified of the metoo movement which can kill a career instantaneously. There is no defense possible when all “victims” must be believed. Right before our eyes, Americans are seeing due process disappear, trampled by an angry mob seeking vigilante justice for past abuses.<br /> <br /> When Dr. Ford hired a far left activist lawyer to go on television to smear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, I knew the storyline. Women who are abused, and there are millions of them, don’t usually wait almost four decades to seek justice. They don’t usually hire lawyers associated with a man like George Soros who spends tens of millions of dollars trying to destroy his political enemies.<br /> <br /> These are actions that need to be fully explained by Dr. Ford.<br /> <br /> But don’t count on Chris Cuomo or the rest of the leftist media to seek such an explanation. That will not happen. Because if the accusation is enough to cripple your political enemy then, hey, that’s a good thing.<br /> <br /> For in the world of shakedown money and hate politics there is no innocence at all, presumed or otherwise.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-09-20T16:20:00ZEvilBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Evil/374163090655407601.html2018-09-12T19:44:00Z2018-09-12T19:44:00Z<div>
<p>To understand true evil, you have to see it. That’s why the yearly 9/11 memorials are so important. Millions of Americans saw their lives grossly harmed after Muslim terrorists committed mass murder on that day in 2001. Their leader, Osama bin Laden, was pure evil and eventually was killed by Navy SEALs. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>But that event did not assuage the pain he caused.<br /><br />In my town there lives an elderly man whose two sons were killed in the World Trade Center. This man has led a life of honor, contributing mightily to his community and to his country. He and his devoted wife suffered unimaginable pain 17 years ago and every day since. There are tens of thousands of other Americans suffering as well.<br /><br />The man in my town still believes in a just God even though no justice was granted him. He well knows that he will never understand why evil visits the virtuous. He simply accepts the fact.<br /><br />In America, many of us tend to look away from evil. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>How can thousands of murders take place in Chicago without a national outcry? How can some call dope pushers who sell deadly substances “non-violent” criminals? How can clergy abuse children? How can people falsely accuse others for money or power ruining lives?<br /><br />The evil list is extensive. But those who actually acknowledge an evil presence in the world are relatively few.<br /><br />In writing my upcoming book “Killing the SS,” I saw first hand that evil lurks in every human being. The Nazi SS guards who oversaw massive murder and torture in Hitler’s concentration camps were usually common folks before the war; farmers, merchants, laborers. Yet they killed babies, children, and adults without objection.<br /><br />Then they ate dinner.<br /><br />Millions of Germans looked away from the evil of The Third Reich and some even helped the war criminals escape. It is simply incomprehensible. But it happened.<br /><br />Today, we give lip service to fighting ISIS and other evil barbarians. But very few Americans actually do the brutal work that needs to be done. The rest of us often take a “pass” when evil drives by - especially if it doesn’t attack us.<br /><br />But evil does, indeed, affect the righteous and the awful alike. It exists inside each human being and it is active in villains everywhere.<br /><br />We must see evil for what it is and fight hard against it. We must also understand that no one is immune from it. A good man on Long Island can tell you that first hand.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-09-12T19:44:00ZHating the PressBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hating-the-Press/206910918717137454.html2018-09-05T13:30:00Z2018-09-05T13:30:00Z<p><span>Writing for The Atlantic, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd delivers an interesting opinion - it isn’t Donald Trump who is most responsible for demonizing the American media. No, it began in 1996 when Roger Ailes opened Fox News up for public consumption.</span><br /><br /><span>I must say I was engaged in reading the piece since I was there when FNC began and saw the evolution of the network up close and personal. My take is that Chuck Todd is so wrong there isn’t an adjective in the world to describe it.</span><br /><br /><span>Now, I don’t know Mr. Todd at all. He never invited me on MTP as his predecessor the late Tim Russert had done. In fact, Mr. Russert and Roger Ailes were friends. In my conversations with Tim, he seemed amused that Fox News was going against the obvious liberal bent of the national press which was widely acknowledged in private conversations.</span><br /><br /><span>But I do know something about Chuck Todd and that is that he and his wife are social friends with many Democrats. In 2015, they hosted a dinner party for Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s former communications director. On the guest list was John Podesta, Secretary Clinton’s campaign chairman.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br /><br /><span>Kristian Denny Todd is a longtime worker for Democratic officials and also donates money to the party. Chuck Todd worked on the presidential campaign of Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.</span><br /><br /><span>There is nothing wrong with any of that but it shades Todd’s analysis of what is the real problem with the American media. Todd opines that Roger Ailes was heavily invested in harming perceived liberal scribes. The truth is that Ailes saw a business opportunity because the media just about ignored half the country by promoting liberal ideology in its presentations.</span><br /><br /><span>Yes, that personally offended the conservative Ailes but, generally speaking, media people were unimportant to his business plan. He saw moguls like the uber-liberal Ted Turner, creator of CNN, as foolish not dangerous. He devised a way to defeat them by putting on more interesting programs that included, sometimes heavily, a conservative point of view.</span><br /><br /><span>Chuck Todd makes the assertion that Ailes was really behind the rise of Donald Trump. That’s more baloney than even Subway could sell. When Mr. Trump began his campaign, Ailes, an astute political observer, was not on board at all. He wanted a more disciplined opponent to Hillary Clinton, whom he believed stood for nothing.</span><br /><br /><span>In the Trump-Megyn Kelly controversy, Roger Ailes openly supported Ms. Kelly, an impossibility if he was colluding in thought with Donald Trump.</span><br /><br /><span>What is also striking about Chuck Todd’s media analysis is that he, himself, works on the most biased news operation in American history: MSNBC. Yet, Todd ignores that fact entirely while lambasting Fox News for commentary he considers inflammatory. Maybe Chuck Todd might want to dial in his own operation from time to time.</span><br /><br /><span>Mr. Todd concludes his column by asking the press to “fight back” against attacks against it. He is convinced the American media is righteous in its search for the truth and the “facts.”</span><br /><br /><span>To me, this is pure delusion when more than 90 percent of network news coverage is negative towards President Trump. That’s a fact, Chuck.</span><br /><br /><span>I believe that if an employee of The New York Times or NBC News wears a “Make America Great Again” hat to work that would be a career killer. I believe that most national journalists print and broadcast anti-Trump stuff from anonymous sources without verifying anything.</span><br /><br /><span>I believe that the vast majority of New York and DC based media lean left. I believe there is no will to find the “truth” if it goes against corporate or personal ideology.</span><br /><br /><span>Of course, I could be wrong.</span><br /><br /><span>Not likely, though.</span><br /><br /><span>Finally, it is a good thing that Chuck Todd wrote his media call to arms article. It gave me a chance to rebut using on the record, eye-witness information. </span><br /><br /><span>Maybe it will become a trend.</span></p>Bill O'Reilly2018-09-05T13:30:00ZAttack of the Internet MonstersBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Attack-of-the-Internet-Monsters/724478420827449102.html2018-08-29T17:52:00Z2018-08-29T17:52:00Z<p>When I was a little kid, the bigger kids in my Levittown, New York neighborhood took me to a Saturday matinee to see “The Attack of the Crab Monsters.” </p>
<p>Made for about twelve dollars, this Roger Corman chiller featured radioactive crabs that role reversed - they ate people on a remote island. </p>
<p>Judging by their paper-like on screen appearance, these crabs were definitely soft shell and had an interesting quirk: once a crab consumed someone, the crab could imitate the digested person’s voice. So, in the middle of the night the crab would bellow: “Betty, this is Laura, please run out into the dark by yourself and save me. I fell into a cave! Betty, pleasseeee!” </p>
<p>Of course, Betty would skip right out into the night without telling anyone, and another dinner was served. </p>
<p>Those crab monsters scared me so much that for three weeks when my mother called me for supper I replied: “do you think I’m stupid?”</p>
<p>These days, the internet is far more frightening than anything Hollywood ever put out, with the possible exception of Gary Busey. </p>
<p>First of all, there are millions of cyberspace vehicles all over the world which are completely unsupervised. They distribute anything and, if it’s outrageous enough, it can go “viral.” </p>
<p>That sounds like a disease and it certainly can be. Human beings are routinely smeared on the net by other human beings seeking to do them grave harm. </p>
<p>And if you’re famous or a political candidate, forget it. America’s antiquated libel laws protect sociopaths who delight in defamation. There is absolutely no protection for people in the public eye. </p>
<p>So what happens is - everyone is slimed. If you “google” a famous person, you will likely see ghastly things written about them. No one is safe. </p>
<p>Back in the day, public slander and libel actually had to go through checkpoints to find its way into the public discourse. If great men like Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy were alive today, they never could have governed. Dwight Eisenhower would have been sacked as Supreme Allied Commander during World War II. Martin Luther King, Jr. could not have led his people. </p>
<p>Only after these men died did history reveal their human weaknesses. </p>
<p>Today, all of them would have been shredded on the net. </p>
<p>So think about that the next time some website or press vehicle quotes an anonymous source in order to destroy a person of influence. We live in a country where personal attacks are vicious and unceasing. We live in a time where accusations instantly turn into facts. </p>
<p>We live in a culture that seemingly has little problem with that. </p>
<p>It’s enough to make the crab monsters look like Shirley Temple. </p>
<p>Google her.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-08-29T17:52:00ZThe Age of BetrayalBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Age-of-Betrayal/775968227921306023.html2018-08-22T15:55:00Z2018-08-22T15:55:00Z<p>No matter how this Michael Cohen thing turns out, the lawyer has betrayed his former client Donald Trump. That’s a fact. As you know, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to a variety of crimes no one forced him to commit. And, now, in order to lessen his punishment, he is accusing his former friend of bad things.</p>
<p>The President must be getting used to this. Two alleged paramours both accepted cash from him to keep quiet about personal interactions that, again, no one forced them to do. Then after pocketing the hush money, they violated the agreements to keep quiet. More betrayal.</p>
<p>Of course, some will point to “circumstances” to diminish the betrayal part of these stories and, indeed, the media embraces the revelations no matter how they are delivered. In America, betrayal is now routine, accepted as standard behavior.</p>
<p>Divorce courts are packed with those betrayed by their intimate partners. Most judges couldn’t care less. It’s “no fault” time in the marital arena. No such thing as punishment for the betrayer anymore or even a stern word about it.</p>
<p>After all, there’s always an excuse, a rationalization. Rarely an admission that trust was violated.</p>
<p>American children see this up close and personal. As religion slowly recedes into non-relevance, the vivid story of Judas Iscariot is fading as well. But there is a reason the New Testament spends so much time on Judas. The act of betrayal is sinful the scriptures say, the betrayer of Jesus destroys himself in remorse.</p>
<p>That’s not likely to happen these days as betrayal is actually glorified in some ideological precincts, and in the awful world of gossip. If powerful people are harmed by those they once trusted, The View will pay the betrayer’s travel expenses to dish the dirt on TV. The women who betrayed Donald Trump have actually become celebrities.</p>
<p>Michael Cohen once publicly said he would always be loyal to “Mr. Trump.” He certainly knew the President’s character after working so closely with him. But now Cohen opines that his friend of many years is a danger to the country. Maybe Cohen is auditioning for the role of Brutus in the prison play.</p>
<p>The lawyer’s sudden impulse to protect America from Donald Trump is a bit dubious, don’t you think? Whether the President is guilty of anything or not is unknown at this point. But Mr. Cohen’s character is not unknown.</p>
<p>More worrisome is the fact that millions of married couples continue to proclaim their loyalty to each other in traditional wedding vows that were designed to emphasize fidelity. Sadly, these words mean little in modern America. Betrayal is now the order of the realm. And everyone should know it.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-08-22T15:55:00ZMedia DangerBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Media-Danger/-73404720246314686.html2018-08-16T13:17:00Z2018-08-16T13:17:00Z<div>It was perplexing to read a recent column by my friend Juan Williams where he hammered President Trump for attacking the media as the enemy of the people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Said Juan: “Trump doesn’t want his followers to trust the press. By tarnishing news reporters, he is telling his fans to ignore reporting on possible collusion and his possible obstruction of justice.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While it is true that the President does not want Americans to trust the press, isn’t it also true that he has a good reason for that? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Any rational person knows that the national media has been supremely hostile to Donald Trump from the very beginning of his political journey. That is way beyond any doubt.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And on a personal note, why would Juan Williams trust the leftist press after what members of it did to him?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The year was 2010, Juan was on The O’Reilly Factor and said he became nervous when some Muslims boarded his plane after what occurred on 9/11. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A few hours later, Juan Williams was fired from his position as a news analyst for the National Public Radio corporation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After the firing, Juan said this about NPR: “I don’t fit into their box. I’m not a predictable black liberal.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also after Juan’s sacking, Fox News gave him a new contract. He remains there today.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So Juan Williams should be very conversant on the biased media, and surely he has seen the statistics that show more than 90 percent of nightly network news coverage is against Donald Trump. It would be impossible for Juan Williams not to know that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, Juan’s outrage over the President’s anti-media screeds, doesn’t quite stack. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is Mr. Trump supposed to do? Not fight back against a media that actively seeks to destroy him? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juan fought back with words against the same liberal media, did he not?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, Donald Trump goes to extremes at times with personal invective and overstatements. That is certainly true. But it is him against the media hordes, so he apparently believes that scorched earth rhetoric is needed to protect himself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The real danger for the country is largely being overlooked in all this. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The culture of truth so important for the press and elected officials to embrace has been obliterated by ideology. No longer is the goal to find out what really happened. Now, politics and journalism is a series of battles designed to destroy the other side. The truth be damned.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juan Williams was hurt by a left wing news operation that has no tolerance for dissenting opinion from its employees. He might incorporate his experience into his current analysis of why President Trump is disparaging the media.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just some friendly advice from a fellow journalist who does want the truth to be told.</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-08-16T13:17:00ZEnabling EvilBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Enabling-Evil/-561716585792619058.html2018-08-09T17:11:00Z2018-08-09T17:11:00Z<p>Having spent a good part of the last year writing my upcoming book “Killing the SS: The Hunt for the Worst War Criminals on Earth,” I am tuned into violent behavior more than ever before.</p>
<p>Many of the German killers who slaughtered children, women, and defenseless men were ordinary people before Hitler started World War II. They held jobs as merchants, farmers, and local politicians. They had families. They believed in God.</p>
<p>Yet they murdered millions of civilians on orders from deranged Nazi leaders. They volunteered to serve in “Deaths Head” units. They relished working in Concentration Camps where they could brutalize at will because it kept them off the front lines.</p>
<p>Those Germans who were not a part of the SS certainly knew about the brutality against Jews and other civilians and, incredibly, most of them accepted it.</p>
<p>Human beings have a tendency to rationalize their bad behavior and to look away from evil, if they even think about it in the first place. Certainly we have seen that throughout history. Now we are experiencing open evil here in America.</p>
<p>Over the past two and a half years, more than seven thousand human beings have been shot in Chicago, the nation’s third largest city. The criminals causing the destruction are largely comprised of black street gang members who sell narcotics in poor, minority neighborhoods. They are callous, violent individuals who have no regard for human life.</p>
<p>These men gun down children, women, the elderly, and anyone else unlucky enough to be in their proximity. Just last weekend, gang murderers opened fire at people attending parties. The two day toll: 72 people shot, thirteen killed.</p>
<p>So what is the difference between the murderers in Chicago and the SS? If you want to be honest, there is no difference.</p>
<p>The Democrat machine runs Chicago. It is led by Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, a close confidant of former President Obama, who actually worked as a “community organizer” near where the unprecedented violence is now occurring.</p>
<p>Mr. Emmanuel has no clue and looks foolish at press conferences where the mass murder is chronicled by city officials. Mr. Obama has been largely MIA on the carnage, even while in the Oval Office.</p>
<p>While the media spends hours hyping the illegal immigrant situation in order to diminish President Trump, the press is very tentative about the Chicago gang story. They cover it only occasionally and with no passion whatsoever. They put people on the air who spout gibberish like if the government provides more money and jobs, the problem will be solved.</p>
<p>Here’s the truth. Those gang members killing innocents are evil and no social program will change that. They should be locked away for decades.</p>
<p>The political players in Chicago are largely cowards, just like most of the German population was during The Third Reich. I mean really, death is death, whether it’s on the South Side or in Dachau.</p>
<p>Finally, all Americans should engage on this issue. If we do not, we are looking the other way.</p>
<p>While innocent people die.</p>Bill O'Reilly2018-08-09T17:11:00ZGeneral Kelly vs. the PhantomsBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/General-Kelly-vs.-the-Phantoms/-33388895482258885.html2018-08-02T13:44:00Z2018-08-02T13:44:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>The announcement this week from General John Kelly, Chief of Staff to President Donald Trump, that he has agreed to keep his job until 2020, must have come as a shock to the anonymous sources who told a number of news agencies that Kelly would be replaced.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On June 29, citing “people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported that General Kelly was out this summer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Sources” told CNN’s Jim Sciutto that Kelly would not be around much longer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Sources say Chief of Staff John Kelly May also be on the way out,” CBS News headlined.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“Eight current and former White House officials tell Stephanie Ruhle and her colleagues there is eroding support for White House Chief of Staff John Kelly ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wow! Eight unidentified White House sources talking to MSNBC! Isn’t that something?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Again at CBS News, “sources say” a (White House) purge is coming.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The always reliable New York Times also predicted Kelly’s demise based on nothing but hatred for Donald Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The deal in journalism is that if you get a story wrong, you apologize. And if an anonymous source misleads you - you can identify that source.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does anyone think the news organizations that falsely reported Kelly’s departure will apologize?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyone?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s why reporting about the Trump White House is a corrupt joke. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Protecting sources who disseminate false information is against the rules of journalism. Printing and broadcasting erroneous information is a betrayal of the public trust. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>No wonder just 32% of Americans trust the media, according to a recent Gallup Poll.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Folks ask me all the time what can be done about press dishonesty. I tell them to walk away from media that deceives them. Sometimes that works. The despicable New York Daily News is collapsing, and many other newspapers are in dire trouble.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On television, once President Trump leaves the stage, look out below for falling news ratings. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, every journalism school in the country should show their students this column. But that will not happen because many J-School teachers sympathize with the hate-Trump press and have no problem with bogus hidden sources brutalizing the administration. The truth be damned.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So that’s where America is vis-à-vis freedom of the press. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The media is now playing a game called “Get Trump.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But there is no Maxwell Smart involved with this fiasco. Nope. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Only lame anonymous sources who can say pretty much anything that makes Donald Trump look bad and get it distributed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dishonest and disturbing.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-08-02T13:44:00ZThe Anti-Trump Theme of the WeekBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Anti-Trump-Theme-of-the-Week/-832610585771918632.html2018-07-26T12:59:00Z2018-07-26T12:59:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>Not many folks know it but there is organized messaging going on among political operatives in America on both the liberal and conservative sides. This is a shadowy world where smear campaigns are designed and executed with frightening ease.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But these days, the left has much more reach because of a national media that is eager to hear anti-Trump stuff. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here’s how things work.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Far left outfits like Media Matters, Mother Jones, the Bonner Group, and Avaanz, routinely contrive narratives in order to debase political opponents. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the case of President Trump, a kind of “theme of the week” is designed and fed out to sympathetic media people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This summer we have already seen the following themes: Stormy Daniels accusing Donald Trump of something after she was paid non-disclosure money for an alleged tryst years ago, migrant children being torn away from their mothers at the border, Putin running roughshod over the President in Finland, and this week a tape about money paid to a Playboy model who also alleges sex with Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>These stories dominate news coverage and are obviously promoted to demean the President. They give his legions of media critics easy opportunities to frame criticism anyway they want. It is nonstop sniping at its meanest.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The TV displays on the news and on late night shows almost totally obliterate anything positive happening in the country and put supporters of Donald Trump on almost constant defense. In fact, the far left organizations also target Trump boosters on television and radio with nasty invective, boycotts, and even rank defamation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The message is clear: defend Trump at your peril.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Obama was also the target of smears, the birther stuff being the most vivid example, but since the national media basically loved him, the Obama haters had a much tougher time getting the garbage picked up.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With Donald Trump there are few problems placing a negative lead story on MSNBC or other hate-Trump vehicles. Ever wonder where all these “anonymous” sources come from? Well, political groups run some of them, doling out the unattributed dirt to sympathetic media who don’t check anything. Every anti-Trump story is fit to print.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, it is not unusual for money to change hands when accusations are made. The far left groups are very well funded.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, all of this subverts our Republic. But you will not see much reportage about the political smear industry because many news organizations make good use of it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In reality, the guttersnipes have been around since George Washington was in charge. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But never have they been as powerful as they are right now.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-07-26T12:59:00ZRussian ConfusionBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Russian-Confusion/-727955733559652891.html2018-07-15T18:44:00Z2018-07-15T18:44:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>Forget about Russian collusion, it’s now all about Russian confusion. <br /><br />With President Trump meeting the Russian tyrant Putin in Helsinki, the story becomes what will happen between the two countries in the future, not what has happened in the past.<br /><br />Here are a few observations.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Mueller investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign or even Donald Trump himself cooperated with Russians in subverting the 2016 election is effectively over, and FBI guy Peter Strzok finished it off.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am now branding Strzok “Reasonable Doubt” Peter. Mueller’s criminal case hangs on providing proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Strzok was involved in the investigation and, after being dismissed by Mueller for bias-laden texts, never investigated himself by the Special Counsel, doubt about the whole case has now been firmly established. Thus “Reasonable Doubt” Peter has sunk the collusion ship.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There may be peripheral indictments but Mueller’s evidence must be incontrovertible. <br /><br />The left will be deeply disappointed by the outcome.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the policy front, President Trump does not really care about Crimea or what Putin has done in the past, he simply wants a “deal” with Russia going forward. I’m not exactly sure what Mr. Trump is hoping for, but that should soon become apparent. <br /><br />An agreement about reducing nuclear weapons is certainly in play - but I don’t see Putin cooperating on much else.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It should be clear to everyone that Vlad is a menace to the world and the President should certainly be aware of that. He is trying to neutralize the martinet going forward but that is not likely to happen. It’s worth a try but Vlad is a psychotic megalomaniac. Tough to play nice with a person like that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally, Putin has already won the Russian collusion campaign. <br /><br />Some of his high tech hackers have been indicted by Mueller but so what? They will not likely be apprehended anytime soon. <br /><br />Their interference in the 2016 election has succeeded in embarrassing our current president with ongoing allegations, gravely harming the FBI, creating partisan hatred among the American populace, and pretty much destroying the image of the American press as a seeker of truth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’d say that’s a huge overall victory for Putin the Disrupter. Wouldn’t you?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Too bad Vlad can’t take a victory lap. But that’s impossible. <br /><br />As he will tell the world this week, he and his country did not do a thing. Nyet.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-07-15T18:44:00ZExtreme MeasuresBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Extreme-Measures/-476091633843146278.html2018-07-12T13:26:00Z2018-07-12T13:26:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>Somehow, the Democratic Party believes the road back to power must include driving on the left even though America has always been a right side country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This week the extreme rhetoric from the left included demands to dismantle ICE, telling American women they might be killed by a Supreme Court nominee, and opposing a marketing campaign by the University of Wyoming that features cowboys. According to liberal loons on campus, cowboys conjure up the image of a heterosexual, white man and that is unacceptable to the “inclusion” crowd.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While the press is openly sympathetic to the hard left madness, the folks are getting annoyed. Very annoyed. It is hard to see the South and Midwest supporting any liberal democrat running this November.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In Florida, a key battleground state, it looks like Governor Rick Scott will pound liberal Senator Bill Nelson. Place your bets now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Because the left wing echo chamber is so loud, Democrats are missing signs of catastrophe. Yes, President Trump is bombastic and rude. But his base has accepted his presentation and stands firm behind him. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Liberal political rallies are actually frightening with a thread of violence in the air. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trump rallies are more like theatre, with many folks showing up for the verbal entertainment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was interesting to see the two socialists Bernie Sanders and Bill DeBlasio socializing together at Bernie’s Vermont lakefront estate recently. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both men want to be President. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Neither ever will be.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While Donald Trump is derided by many hard left people as an ignorant boor, he is clearly outwitting the liberal zealots. His Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, comes across as a nice guy and a patriotic American. So, when Democratic Senators inevitability attack him on television during the confirmation hearings, the country will once again see left-wing hate on display.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That will be unsettling to many independent voters who may not like the President, but know unhinged diatribes when they hear them. Paging Robert De Niro.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The truth is that the Democratic Party does not have an effective leader and most of their wannabes have a tendency to say foolish and deceitful things. That will not subside and is actually celebrated by Hollywood and the media - who apparently have forgotten that Election Day is less than five months away.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-07-12T13:26:00ZVirtue FascismBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Virtue-Fascism/-670070995296232094.html2018-06-25T16:41:00Z2018-06-25T16:41:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>Fascism is an overused word that essentially means a mindset where opposing points-of-view are not tolerated and must be punished.</p>
<p>The owner of that restaurant in Virginia who refused to serve presidential spokesperson Sarah Sanders certainly is guilty of a fascist display in my opinion. Ms. Sanders is a law abiding American who works for the federal government. That’s who she is. </p>
<p>Is that restaurant owner entitled to deny service to all government workers with whom she has a beef? </p>
<p>Do they have to pass some kind of ideological litmus test before she serves them? </p>
<p>This is about as un-American as it gets, yet the business owner sees herself as virtuous; as the guardian of enlightened moral thought and behavior. </p>
<p>Forget the fact that about half the country supports the policies of the President, this woman believes she has a right to discriminate against those people. </p>
<p>If you study history, you know that the “virtuous” mindset has been used by people who promoted the most bigoted and destructive belief systems on earth. Racial purity, economic equality (communism), religious intolerance, etc. In each of those cases, attacks on human beings were perpetuated in the name of “virtue.” </p>
<p>God is on our side. All power to the people. We are the master race!</p>
<p>In the case of Sarah Sanders, the expulsion from the restaurant was triggered by President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal immigration. The left is crazed over the temporary separation of migrant children from their parents during the processing period after an adult comes into contact with ICE. </p>
<p>But few liberals said anything when President Obama did the exact same thing. The southern border is a chaotic mess and overreactions are, indeed, hurting kids, as I have pointed out. Both President Trump and President Obama are obligated to protect ALL children if they can. </p>
<p>Thankfully, Mr. Trump recognized that last week and reversed most child separations with an Executive Order. But that action did not enable Ms. Sanders to get a meal. No, the restaurant owner is willing to shun Sarah and her family because she disagrees with her politics. </p>
<p>This “virtue fascism” is taking deep root in America. The MeToo movement, with tremendous help from a corrupt press, is obliterating due process and proudly celebrating its demise. </p>
<p>On college campuses, non-liberal students are under siege, sometimes receiving unfair grades designed to punish them, and even being falsely accused of bigotry. </p>
<p>All in the name of virtue. </p>
<p>We are heading down a dangerous path. </p>
<p>The Spanish Inquisition torturers believed they were extremely virtuous and justified their brutality because, in their warped minds, it advanced the cause of Christian righteousness. The Salem Witch hunters did the same thing. </p>
<p>Mao and his killer cadres preached virtuous equality as they killed millions. The same for Pol Pot and his Cambodian slaughter crew. </p>
<p>True virtue is loving your neighbor as yourself, and accepting honest differences from sincere people. It is decidedly not attempting to harm people who hold different views. </p>
<p>The restaurant lady in Virginia may think she is promoting virtue by her foolish passive-aggressive action against Sarah Sanders, but of course she is not. </p>
<p>Quite the opposite.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-06-25T16:41:00ZThe People Smuggling IndustryBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-People-Smuggling-Industry/880073800259692626.html2018-06-21T15:46:00Z2018-06-21T15:46:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>It is quite apparent that the national press in America is no longer concerned with finding the truth about important matters. Ideology and the crass pursuit of profits have pretty much destroyed honest journalism in this country. </p>
<p>A vivid example is the chaos surrounding the southern border. Millions of foreign born people have illegally crossed from Mexico and congress still cannot come up with policies that might stem that tide. The truth about what is happening down there is horrifying but largely unreported. </p>
<p>Smuggling human beings into the USA is now an enormous criminal enterprise that operates openly in Central America and Mexico. The process begins with the “vaquetones,” usually young men who scour poor neighborhoods for desperate people who want to live in America. The vaquetones (translation: the brazen) direct the migrants to the actual smugglers called coyotes, a term invented in the 19th century to describe Mexicans who provided laborers to the Southwestern United States. </p>
<p>The modern coyotes, often associated with the Mexican drug gangs, are ultra-violent and in charge of setting the fees the migrants must pay. Prices vary wildly and are negotiable but two thousand dollars a head is common. The coyotes arrange transportation to the border and lodge the migrants in cheap hotels before the crossings. The longer the trip, the higher the fee. Coyotes also dispense advice like “if you bring a child, the gringos are more likely to let you stay if you get caught.” </p>
<p>Mexican officials are bribed along the way as the migrant pipelines are well known to authorities. Coyotes are often brutal to the defenseless migrants, especially the women. Mexican police generally don’t care, so anything goes. </p>
<p>Once at the U.S. border, the “cuidanderos” (caretakers) enter the picture, guiding migrants across and bringing them to safe houses, where they stay just a few hours before going on their way. That is if they aren’t dead. Last year the International group “Migration” reported 412 migrant deaths but, of course, the number was much higher. Thousands of trekkers simply disappear. </p>
<p>The humane policy would be to crush the people-smuggling industry by making it extremely difficult to illegally cross the border. A well designed wall would go a long way in accomplishing that and so would mandatory e-verify for American employers with criminal penalties for those who refuse to comply. </p>
<p>The Democratic Party strongly opposes the wall and criminal penalties for violating immigration law even in cases of violent criminal aliens. Kate’s Law, which would mandate federal prison time for criminals who defy deportation, was killed by democrats under President Obama. </p>
<p>The press will never report the incredible violence and corruption surrounding the people smuggling cartels. For the far left, open borders should be the policy and anyone who opposes that is a bigot. The media is sympathetic to that point-of-view. </p>
<p>If Americans actually knew how awful the border situation really is, perhaps congress would move to protect we the people as well as the poor migrants themselves. But the folks don’t know. </p>
<p>Because the press will not tell them.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-06-21T15:46:00ZTrump's MomentBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trumps-Moment/-870961549166206358.html2018-06-14T13:06:00Z2018-06-14T13:06:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>Donald Trump is feelin’ groovy. Once again he has mashed his critics and emerged victorious - at least in the short term. His detente with North Korea is something Presidents Clinton, Bush the Younger and Obama could not secure, yet the bombastic Trump pulled it off, at least temporarily.</p>
<p>Already, two Norwegian lawmakers say they want the President nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Wouldn’t that be something? Mr. Trump swaggering into Oslo to eat a little herring and admire the big Viking statue.</p>
<p>The Bible says that those folks who disobey God will be banished and experience “weeping and the gnashing of teeth.” I can assure you that much gnashing is underway amongst the hate-Trump media. They know the Singapore display was a big win for the President, and despite attempts to diminish the meeting, they could not do it.</p>
<p>So, as I predicted, the press is quickly pivoting back to the Russia deal, its best hope to destroy Trump. Using yet another anonymous source, ABC News is reporting that the President’s long time lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, will turn against Trump and tell all.</p>
<p>We’ll see if this provocative story turns out to be true. If it does not, what will happen to George Stephanopoulos who reported it? Will ABC suspend him like it did with Brian Ross?</p>
<p>The flamboyant writer Hunter Thompson once wrote the following: “The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench ... a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason.”</p>
<p>Very true. And in America, it is the TV industry that is arrayed against President Trump. All except Fox News which is generally behind him.</p>
<p>The meeting with North Korea and its despot Kim Jung Un was a first step in trying to convince Little Rocket Man to stop being a menace to the world. There must always be first steps to solve any problem.</p>
<p>The American people know this. They also know that the media is generally hateful and dishonest, and that President Trump, himself, is undisciplined in his reactions to criticism.</p>
<p>Finally, most folks know that President Obama left America a far weaker country than it was before he took office. For all his faults, President Trump has already reversed some of that. The chat with Kim was a good thing even if the rotund martinet backs away from denuking.</p>
<p>Hope is usually positive. Hate is always negative. That should be the headline this week around the world.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-06-14T13:06:00ZThe News SnoozeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-News-Snooze/707948626266916084.html2018-06-07T13:38:00Z2018-06-07T13:38:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>By an overwhelming majority, more than 5,000 Americans told the Pew Research Center that they are “worn out” by the amount of news coverage on display in the USA. The exact number of those having news “fatigue” is 68 percent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I feel their pain because even though I have worked in the news business for 45 years, I too am enervated after news consumption. The way information is being presented these days is generally numbing and there are many reasons why.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On television the same phrases are used over and over. The lazy interviewer who will not formulate a specific question often asks a guest “what do you make of that?”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here’s what I make of that - you’re a moron if you can’t frame questions that do anymore than elicit tedious generalities. A five year old can ask “what do you make of that?” Good grief.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then there’s the inevitable answer to the unfocused question: “at the end of the day, blah, blah, blah ...”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I mean how many times must we be subjected to “at the end of the day?” Or “kick the can down the road?” Or “move the goalposts?” The cliches are exhausting. There should be fines.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then there is “breaking news.” Everything is breaking. Breathless anchors tell you that “sources close to the White House” say Trump eats cheeseburgers at 2am. I love the “sources close to the White House” thing. That could be the guy selling pretzels on Pennsylvania Avenue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Newspapers are worse. It’s always “a source familiar with the situation but who cannot be identified because he or she is not authorized to comment on anything for fear they might lose their job and their vacation home.”</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nevertheless, the anonymous source says that President Trump once yelled at a gardener at one of his golf courses in an undisclosed country. The source spoke to the Times on the condition that his quote be as boring as possible. He went on to say that the gardener may sue the President for defamation if he can find a sleazy lawyer to take the case on contingency. The source made it clear that he did not actually hear the gardener say the word “contingency” but another source told him that the man was mad and may have said it in Spanish.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Times has confirmed that the Trump organization has hired some Hispanic gardeners in the past and it is certainly possible that one of them got yelled at by Mr. Trump. White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that on Trump golf courses there are many workers who might screw up once in a while and gardeners might be included in that group. The Times “stands by” its story although we have no idea if it’s true and don’t really care.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On CNN, the gardener story leads the eight pm broadcast with a panel of eight discussing the likelihood of a defamation verdict against President Trump. On the panel are six pundits who, at the end of the day, believe the alleged gardener scolding was racially motivated. Also appearing on the panel is a convicted felon who supports President Trump, and an actual gardener named Francisco who claims a customer once yelled at him for killing a shrub.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The panel discussion lasts for 15 minutes until acrimony breaks out over whether Trump could have hit the unnamed gardener rather than just verbally abused him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>CNN then takes a break but not before promoting it’s next panel on Russians possibly colluding with Roseanne to move her show to Syria.</div>
<div><br />So the Pew team got it right: most of the country has been worn down by insane news coverage and the folks are tired.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or more accurately: sick and tired.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-06-07T13:38:00ZThe Roseanne DilemmaBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Roseanne-Dilemma/-807301401755771736.html2018-05-31T15:16:00Z2018-05-31T15:16:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>The culture war heated up this week with the self-destruction of Roseanne Barr. It’s a fascinating story that has wide implications for all Americans who care about free expression - but not in the way you might think.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The recent success of Ms. Barr’s sitcom on ABC set back the Stalinists who have succeeded in muting almost all non-liberal entertainment since President Trump was elected.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Roseanne galvanized millions of Trump supporters by simply playing a character that approved of the President. Of course, there were anti-Trump characters in the show, but the fact that the President was liked by Roseanne herself sent the leftist totalitarians into spasms of indignation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, that’s all gone. In an amazingly self-destructive act, Roseanne tweeted an attack on former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, an African-American, using a vile racist depiction.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Understanding that boycotts and disparagement were on the way, the Disney Company, which owns ABC, immediately cancelled Roseanne and cut all ties with the performer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That was the correct thing to do even though Disney has allowed incredibly vicious smears on the ABC network, and on one of its cable properties, ESPN. In fact, that sports channel recently hired one of the biggest haters in the country to broadcast on its air. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But you cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. As Roseanne herself admitted, she has no defense for her race-tinged attack.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The White House has pointed out Disney’s hypocrisy and it is up to consumers to decide whether their products remain worthy. But this incident has done damage to race relations in America and that is a damn shame.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most white Americans, I believe, do not dislike blacks, and have been unfairly tarnished with the “white privilege” accusations peddled by anti-American people.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the other hand, most black Americans do have personal stories of being scrutinized or worse because of their skin color. Those experiences are real and should be respected.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, unfair treatment is not a license to hate a country or a race of people (Caucasian). Most African-Americans understand that and also know that they are entitled to equality; the same chance at the pursuit of happiness to which whites are entitled. America has made great strides in this direction and the false narrative that we are a country driven by “white supremacy” is vicious propaganda.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But now that propaganda has been given momentum by a stupid tweet from Roseanne Barr. The freedom of expression that she used has damaged the country and made it more difficult for people of good will to find common ground.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Roseanne has given far left zealots and the race baiters a gift. It is awful to watch and we should all be noting who is exploiting the terrible tweet.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With freedom comes responsibility. Words to always remember.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-05-31T15:16:00ZDefending TrumpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Defending-Trump/311665565727507267.html2018-05-24T14:04:00Z2018-05-24T14:04:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>You may have noticed that the hate-Trump media is trying to ruin Sean Hannity. In recent weeks, both The New York Times and The Washington Post have run articles disparaging the broadcaster, leading CNN, NBC News and other leftist organizations to pile on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The goal is to silence President Trump’s most visible media defender, and in the process send a message to others on TV and radio that you can be destroyed as well if you approve of Trump.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One aside: The New York Times is very proud it got me off the air.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So far, Mr. Hannity has taken the pounding and not wavered. In fact, his stalwart defense of the President has enhanced his power. Talkers Magazine has selected Sean Hannity as the most influential voice on American radio, a first for him. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>That will just further infuriate the haters on the left.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It really doesn’t matter what you may think of President Trump. What matters is that almost all media coverage of the man is negative with the exception of Fox News. A recent study by the Media Research Center says that in the first quarter of 2018, the three nightly network newscasts delivered negative coverage of President Trump more than 90 percent of the time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Think about it. The economy is good, wages are rising, North Korea may suspend its nuke weapons program, and the American military is being rebuilt. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And TV News can’t find positive stories? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>You may call that corruption.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Sean Hannity and Fox News were off the air, where would Americans see anything positive about the President? Maybe Roseanne.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do the American people really want across the board vilification of their leader? You have that now on the three late night programs, in the newspaper industry (with some rare exceptions like The Wall Street Journal editorial page), in Hollywood, and on the network news.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is that a healthy thing for the USA?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>No, it is not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the Trump-haters manage to destroy a voice like Hannity’s, this country will suffer. Again, it doesn’t matter whether you subscribe to his support of the President but it does matter very much that his point of view is available.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One more thing. Many so called journalists take direct cues from their corporate masters and say what they think the bosses want to hear. These charlatans know that if you deviate from the party (liberal) line, your career will be hurt, and you may well be shunned on the personal level as well.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sean Hannity does not respond to corporate interference. He believes every word he says and does not embrace cues or threats from management. I’ve known the guy for more than 20 years so I tell you this with certainty.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Having experienced media attacks for decades myself, I can tell you they are maddening, frustrating, and debilitating. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I know what Hannity is going through and I know the far left won’t stop trying to destroy him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s the real price of free expression in America.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-05-24T14:04:00ZIs He Crazy?Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-He-Crazy/687993403904859703.html2018-05-17T16:34:00Z2018-05-17T16:34:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>My friend Billy Joel is one of the great lyric writers of all time. One of his more memorable lines is “you may be right, I may be crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you’re looking for.”<br /> <br /> When it comes to President Trump, keep that lyric in mind. All over the world, villains and allies alike are assessing Mr. Trump’s state of mind. For example, in eight years, President Obama got nowhere with North Korea. But in one year, President Trump is on the verge of getting that outlaw regime to freeze its nuclear weapons program.<br /> <br /> It is impossible to know exactly why NK dictator Kim Jung Un has rather suddenly agreed to stop his bellicosity (word of the day). But a very educated theory put forth by me says that Trump made a discreet deal with the Chinese to neuter Kim. <br /> <br /> As you may know, China could easily close its border with North Korea, denying the country a flow of oil and food. Also, Chinese agents might stir up big trouble with Kim’s population - folks who rarely have enough to eat.<br /> <br /> So if a powerful someone told the Chinese to wise Kim up in return for a relaxation of trade and tariff threats - that might be a motivator. In addition, Kim himself has probably noticed that Donald Trump has outwardly threatened him. Pulling the trigger on that threat is certainly a possibility.<br /> <br /> The vicious Mullahs in Iran are also considering Trump’s capacity for aggression. Surely, the theocrats did not fear past American Presidents. Now, it’s a different story. The Iranian leadership is in a similar position to Kim - the population is restive. Trump could severely damage the Mullahs economically and militarily.<br /> <br /> Back home, the American people know that Donald Trump is unpredictable and can be kind of crazy in his presentation at times. During the campaign, he called his opponent “Crooked Hillary.” He labeled Senator Marco Rubio “Little Marco” and told Governor Jeb Bush he was boring. Do timid politicians do that?<br /> <br /> Nevertheless, more than 60 million Americans voted for Mr. Trump. Was it a so called lunatic they were looking for?<br /> <br /> In some ways, yes. Most voters are tired of standard political garbage; they want a shakeup in Washington.<br /> <br /> They are getting one.<br /> <br /> It remains to be seen if President Trump’s dramatic departure from the political norm will benefit the country in the long run. But for now, his capacity for dramatic, unpredictable action is affecting the world. All thinking people should understand that it is wise to tread softly around the most powerful man in the world.<br /> <br /> Really, no one knows what the President is capable of doing. No one.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-05-17T16:34:00ZPolitical EvilBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Political-Evil/554926741886430139.html2018-05-10T13:06:00Z2018-05-10T13:06:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>The Democratic Party associated with the Kennedy family is gone. I’m not speaking of John and Bobby Kennedy but of the Yonkers, New York Kennedys - my maternal grandmother. She would be horrified about what is going right now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Last month in Atlanta, a bunch of wealthy democrats gathered very privately to plan political strategy. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Among those attending the conference were Democratic National Committee Chief Tom Perez and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, a very best friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to reporting by The Washington Beacon, the conversation was all about a future liberal agenda that might be imposed on the country. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Heading up the wish list were the following: free health care for all via Medicare, free college tuition, and reparations for slavery to African-Americans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course to pay for all that, the federal government would have to seize corporate and individual assets; it would have to go socialist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While many democrats would undoubtedly balk at a socialist system, the people in Atlanta are deadly serious. Headed by a group called “The Democracy Alliance,” the leftists have already enlisted organizations like Planned Parenthood and the Collective PAC to their cause. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But it is another group at the conference that is the most alarming.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Solidaire Network is made up of wealthy liberal donors who give money to groups and individuals who foster protest and take “direct action.” That could mean organizing sponsor boycotts, paying pressure groups to demonstrate outside a business, or even paying individuals to accuse public figures of wrongdoing. This kind of behavior has a name: Black Political Power.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most Americans are totally unaware of this revolting strategy even though it was made public when one of the women accusing President Trump of “misconduct” had her mortgage paid. In fact, for years big money has been secretly dispersed in order to destroy people. There is an audio tape of a far left lawyer offering hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Virginia woman if she would accuse Donald Trump of “misconduct.” A close associate of mine has heard the tape and we are urging the person who has it to turn it over to a U.S. Attorney.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>According to reports, the Solidaire Network has formed a “resistance” fund. It’s mandate is to combat “immediate threats” to immigrants, women, Muslim and Arab-American communities, black people, and LGBTQ communities. The fund has access to millions of dollars which means major damage can be done to anyone or anything targeted.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You will not hear about the Solidaire Network or the Black Political Power abusers from the national media that often sympathizes with the hard left point of view. But the next time you see a person in politics attacked, accused, boycotted, or investigated - take a pause. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is hidden evil in this country and it is causing grave damage.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do democrats really want to be involved with that evil? Open question. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But a few weeks ago in Atlanta some of them were.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-05-10T13:06:00ZDining With the PressBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dining-With-the-Press/-955369518486669464.html2018-04-29T17:00:00Z2018-04-29T17:00:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>The absolute collapse of the media in America can be seen through the prism of the White House Correspondents' Dinner held Saturday in Washington DC. Set up to raise scholarship money for under funded students who might want to pursue journalism, the event used to be an enjoyable evening that attracted hundreds of media and political notables.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This year the dinner was a sparsely attended disaster.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the reasons is that President Trump refused to show up, knowing very well the press generally despises him and would relish diminishing his presence. President Bush the Younger felt that way too, but did go to the dinner a few times knowing that some boundaries were in place.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When shock jock Don Imus viciously attacked President Clinton in 1996, the press was not pleased and Imus got hammered. He crossed the line.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Obama, of course, received gentle treatment from the likes of Jon Stewart and Seth Meyers. As emcees, they poked him a little but it was completely within reason and Mr. Obama seemed to enjoy himself.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On Saturday sans Trump, the emcee from a left wing satire show put on a hateful display that even liberals criticized. Anyone surprised? Obviously, the President made a wise decision not to go.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the past, I attended a number of the dinners mainly because my charitable foundation donated money to the kids. In 2015, I sat next to one Donald Trump at the Fox News table. The crowd was generally nice to him back then.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To me, the dinners were pretentious but fun. Many journalists take themselves ultra-seriously and that is always boring, but I met a lot of folks with whom I never would have spoken had I not been there.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One year the rapper Ludacris approached me and I thought all hell was going to break loose. I had criticized Pepsi Cola for using the guy in ads because his lyrics are violent and harmful, I believe, to impressionable young people. Ludacris and I had a private conversation which was instructive. I didn’t change my opinion but saw a human being rather than a caricature.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another time, I was seated next to Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia. When I told him that I was writing a book called “Killing Jesus” he actually scolded me saying the Gospels have that covered. It was amusing debating my book with the very powerful judge.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The highlight of those dinners was the big party held at the French Embassy afterward. One year, I spoke with Attorney General Eric Holder for a while. The conversation was respectful and I learned a lot about his point of view.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Later, I met Katy Perry and the actress Elizabeth Banks. Both are very liberal but we had a few laughs and they couldn’t have been nicer. In fact, all kinds of folks mingled with those who oppose them politically. But no meanness was on display.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s all changed now.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If President Trump and his wife Melania had attended the Saturday event, disrespect not humor would have been hurled in their direction. Nothing good natured about it. The emcee would have played to her base - a media that has changed both in its goals and presentation. Today it’s all about “getting” Mr. Trump and anyone who may support him.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gone is the actual search for truth by the press. That’s been replaced by lurid headlines often based on nothing more than self-serving allegations or political bias.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Last week Tom Brokaw seemed stunned that the media “perp walked him” based upon a misconduct accusation from 25 years ago. I was surprised by Mr. Brokaw’s surprise. Has he missed all the figurative executions in the press over the past year? Is that possible?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>President Trump has not missed those because he has been a prime target. If he had agreed to sit on the dais at the Correspondents Dinner you know some one would have invited Stormy Daniels and her attorney to the event simply to be crass.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The American people have picked up on the nastiness and unfairness that the media now embraces so warmly. That has made a deep impression, alienating millions of news consumers in the process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Because of that, the media will not recover its reputation - no matter how many dinners it throws. It’s become a hateful and unfair industry. For certain.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-04-29T17:00:00ZFlying Soon? Read This!Bill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Flying-Soon-Read-This!/979796629407925320.html2018-04-26T13:44:00Z2018-04-26T13:44:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>It is a cold fact that America’s airline industry has descended into a chaotic mess which is often painful for passengers and always exploitative. </p>
<p>Consider foreign people wanting to travel within the USA on vacation. The family of four decides to visit New York City, Washington DC, and Orlando, Florida. </p>
<p>Domestic plane tickets are needed so the dad, let’s call him Malcolm, calls any airline. </p>
<p> “Sir, what class of service would you like? Premium, Comfort Class, Efficiency, or Painful seating?” </p>
<p> “Uh, I don’t really know. Can you describe them?” </p>
<p>Certainly, sir. Premium Class will cost your family thousands of dollars. You will get a big seat and a choice of food. Not really much of a choice because we only stock three entrees for each selection and they always run out. Chances are your family will get the cold chicken plate. Drinks are free.” </p>
<p>“Is Comfort Class a better deal?” </p>
<p>“Depends on your family’s needs, sir. Comfort seats are small but you do board right after the premiums and can take a bag on the plane. You can purchase the cold chicken plate for ten dollars. You get water free.” </p>
<p>“So what’s comforting about Comfort Class?” </p>
<p>“The name, sir.” </p>
<p>“Oh. How efficient is Efficiency Class?” </p>
<p>“Excellent question, sir. Here your family will get seat selection 24 hours in advance.” </p>
<p>“What else?” </p>
<p>“Nothing else comes with that class, sir. But you can buy many things. Pretzels and soda, beer and wine, peanuts and chips - you can buy them all at outrageous prices. Also, you can take luggage with you on the plane for a fee depending on the weight and color of the bag. If we like the color it’s a little less. You can take a book with you free but a device will cost you ten dollars. There is no WiFi but some passengers just like to look at their devices. It’s a security thing.” </p>
<p>“And the Painful Section?” </p>
<p>“Very low unit pricing here, sir, if that’s a priority for you. You sit in the back of the plane, board last, and we can’t guarantee an actual seat number. We find many passengers wrestle for seating which can be challenging but satisfying if you win.” </p>
<p>“What about my family’s luggage?” </p>
<p>“We charge 50 dollars per bag unless it weighs more than two pounds, then it’s 75 dollars. Also, you may not get your bags when you land but sooner or later someone will take them off the plane. Then we’ll notify you about their location. Again, sometimes this is challenging but can be fun if you like scavenger hunts.” </p>
<p>“But Painful Seating is inexpensive, right?” </p>
<p>“That’s the beauty of it, sir. A family of four can fly DC to Florida for $125.” </p>
<p>“Wow, that’s tremendous!” </p>
<p>“There is some supplemental pricing that you should know about, sir. If anyone in your party has to use the lavatory, it’s ten dollars a visit. If you use a paper towel, that’s another five dollars. If you are wearing shoes, there is a one time charge of seven dollars. If by some miracle you get an aisle or window seat, there’s a thirty dollar supplement because it’s less painful. </p>
<p>“Water is five dollars but you can keep the bottle. If you look at the inflight magazine, the tariff is three dollars.” </p>
<p>“I don’t think Painful Class is for us. What about pets, we have a dog.” </p>
<p>“We kill pets, sir. So what can I book for you today?” </p>
<p>“A rental car.”</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-04-26T13:44:00ZThe Stalinists are HereBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Stalinists-are-Here/928509463573886422.html2018-04-19T13:34:00Z2018-04-19T13:34:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>The CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, recently showed an impressive bit of courage when a far left mob tried to intimidate him. Demanding that Cook pull the National Rifle Association’s video channel from Apple’s streaming platform, the Stalinists warned Cook that bad things would happen if he did not comply. </p>
<p>Cook rejected the censorship publicly, reportedly saying: “Democracy without discourse is not a democracy.” </p>
<p>But the American Stalinist movement has no use for democracy and that is a growing danger to this country. Using boycotts and threats, organizations like Media Matters and The Color of Change are attacking freedom of expression almost every day. And the establishment media just stands there with their collective thumbs in their mouths. </p>
<p>As long as the folks being harmed are conservative, there will be no outcry from the press. </p>
<p>Recently, the dean of the CUNY law school in Manhattan, Mary Lu Bilek, told students that preventing a conservative professor from speaking is itself “free speech.” That’s insane and destructive.</p>
<p>Somewhere far below, Joseph Stalin is smiling. </p>
<p>This mob mentality has gone far beyond political correctness. In the past year, America has witnessed a frightening number of Stalinist-type attacks on free expression. If you disagree with Black Lives Matter, for example, you are shut down as a bigot. If you suggest due process to the Me Too Movement, you are a misogynist. If you wear a sombrero as part of a Halloween costume at Yale, you are denigrating a minority group and therefore must be punished. </p>
<p>In addition, the totalitarians believe that religious Americans including clergy have no right to opt out of funding abortions. If you protest that your tax dollars are being used for fetus termination or birth control, you are a human rights violator, not worthy of being heard. </p>
<p>The situation is so extreme that, in some places, ALL Caucasians are being branded as racists simply because of their skin color. On more than a few college campuses, being white is considered a “micro-aggression” so “safe spaces” for minorities are demanded.</p>
<p>If you know your history, you are certainly aware that dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Fidel Castro totally eliminated free expression in their countries. Not only did their oppressive governments move to criminalize free speech, but individuals who objected became pariahs subject to brutalization. </p>
<p>That kind of demonization is happening right now here in the home of the brave. Just look at the scathing and well organized attacks on non-liberal media people. </p>
<p>By the way, have any left wing concerns been boycotted? Anyone on CNN or NBC subjected to organized smears and taunts? Don’t think so. </p>
<p>We are now at the point where fair-minded people need to rise up and punish the boycotters. I will soon buy an Apple product and I don’t even care what it is. I will also write down the sponsors of Laura Ingraham’s program and purchase their stuff as well. </p>
<p>Finally, I will not buy from companies that pull ads because they are scared of the Stalinists. Capitalism and free expression can defeat the totalitarians as the descendants of Joe Stalin found out. </p>
<p>But we must take the fight to them.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-04-19T13:34:00ZLeaking CredibilityBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Leaking-Credibility/-349394858988682984.html2018-04-12T16:16:00Z2018-04-12T16:16:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>Isn’t it strange that all the leaks being associated with President Trump are negative? Can’t some secret source “close to the President” whisper something like: “hey, Trump was really on his game today. He put China on the defensive very effectively.” </p>
<p>But as the late John Belushi once said, noooooooooo! </p>
<p>The leak situation is totally anti-Trump and completely out of control. The primary leaks are now coming from the Justice Department/FBI, from Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s office, and from the White House itself. </p>
<p>The information from anonymous sources is almost exclusively directed to hate Trump organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. </p>
<p>These self-described journalistic pillars use all kinds of shadows to cover their “sources.” We read “according to someone familiar with the situation,” or “a person close to the investigation,” or my personal favorite: “someone with knowledge of the conversation.” </p>
<p>It’s all a ruse of course; basic rules of journalism say a reporter must verify what anonymous sources say - not print or broadcast unattributed information as truth. That rule was established to keep self-serving or false statements from being widely circulated. </p>
<p>At this point, I rarely see any verification from the media. The disturbing truth is that anonymous sources are being used to drive an overriding narrative: Trump is bad as is anyone who supports him.</p>
<p>So no longer are there rules of journalistic engagement. It’s like due process in the media - gone. If we say you’re guilty- you’re guilty, honey. </p>
<p>It’s almost as if a bizarre game is being played out in front of the American people. Maybe we brand the game “Let’s get Trump.” But before we bring him down, we’ll make sure he suffers on a daily basis so everyone can watch while we sell advertising. </p>
<p>This is not about approving or disapproving of the President. This is about destroying the man. What a bitter play is on display before us. </p>
<p>Bill and Hillary Clinton have experienced a similar assault. But the Ken Starr investigation did not leak stuff everyday as the Mueller crew is doing. And the newspapers were largely sympathetic to President Clinton as was CNN. Maybe there were anonymous leakers trying to kill Bill Clinton but they couldn’t get their unverified stuff in print or on the air. I guess that’s possible. </p>
<p>To me as a loyal American citizen, this hateful leaking is depressing because it is harming the country by empowering corrupt journalists, and the loathsome leakers themselves. If you have something important to say - say it - with your name attached.</p>
<p>“Not for attribution” is the coward’s creed. </p>
<p>Isn’t it?</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-04-12T16:16:00ZThe Idiocy of WhitenessBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Idiocy-of-Whiteness/-566180980574210798.html2018-04-05T13:08:00Z2018-04-05T13:08:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>An American in pursuit of happiness, Dr. Marshall DeRosa teaches Constitutional Law and American Political Theory at Florida Atlantic University. But radical elements on campus do not like DeRosa because he is conservative. Therefore, they have falsely branded him a “white supremacist” putting his life and livelihood in a precarious place. </p>
<p>At the University of Denver, two “scholars” have one-upped Florida Atlantic. Cheryl Matias and Paul Le write about white skin color this way: “Whiteness embraces White ideology, and because Whites are at the apex of the racial hierarchy, whiteness becomes normalized and is invisible... </p>
<p>“This is particularly troubling because the normality of whiteness means that Whites do not believe that they are actively investing in White supremacy or racism, which keeps oppression intact.” </p>
<p>Wow. So if you are born Caucasian you practice white supremacy no matter what! Good grief, Charlie Brown. </p>
<p>This kind of nonsensical drivel has taken deep root on many college campuses and is being actively peddled as fact in some media precincts. College administrators are paralyzed with fear over the racial attacks, not wanting to be branded like Dr. DeRosa. </p>
<p>Thus, racism goes unchecked - only this time it is bigotry directed at folks with white skin. There is also a radical element that is attacking heterosexual people as oppressing those with alternative lifestyles. </p>
<p>The goal here is achieving power for special interests. Under the banner of “diversity,” demands are being made on campus ranging from special “safe spaces” for minorities, to alternative grading for students who are victims of “white supremacy.” </p>
<p>On the political front, reparations for slavery is the goal; cash payments to African-Americans for the suffering of their ancestors. </p>
<p>If you oppose the anti-white movement, you instantly commit a “macro-aggression” against non-white people and, of course, that must be punished. The way this racism is being framed is simply stunning. </p>
<p>And dangerous. </p>
<p>Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., brutally assassinated 50 years ago this week by a true racist, made it quite clear: people are not to be judged by the color of their skin. Dr. King, I believe, would be very upset with the growing attacks on “whiteness.” These racial assaults deeply divide Americans and create seething resentment. </p>
<p>The USA, as it stands now, is in trouble. We have lost due process in the public arena, standards of journalism have collapsed, and aggressive racism is accepted and even encouraged on many college campuses. We are a divided people; grievance is growing and so is hatred for each other. </p>
<p>It is sad for me to watch this. Skin color should never be an issue. After many years of anti-black policies, America has finally developed a system where racism against minorities can be responsibly confronted. It’s not perfect but it’s usually effective. </p>
<p>However, to demonize and accuse based upon a contrived white supremacy narrative is a display of staggering injustice. And there isn’t an antidote to that or even a public outcry. </p>
<p>We had better get this stuff under control, or very bad things are going to happen.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-04-05T13:08:00ZShooting Straight on the Gun ControversyBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shooting-Straight-on-the-Gun-Controversy/-591418303422712958.html2018-03-29T14:41:00Z2018-03-29T14:41:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>It is a good thing that millions of American young people are now engaged on the gun violence issue, as the country benefits from civic involvement. </p>
<p>But it is a bad thing that so many folks calling for government regulated gun policy have no idea how to really solve the problem. </p>
<p>The mayor of Chicago, an uber-liberal named Rahm Emmanuel, has been in office for six and a half years. During that time, nearly 20,000 people have been shot in the Windy City, close to 5,000 of them are dead. </p>
<p>In fact, almost twice as many Americans have been killed by gunfire in Chicago than in Afghanistan, where war has been raging for almost 17 years. Bet you didn’t know that. </p>
<p>Chicago and the state of Illinois have pretty strict gun regulations. Anyone owning a firearm of any type must register and get a card from the state police. You cannot carry an exposed gun in Illinois and the state does not honor carry permits from other states. </p>
<p>Of course, the gun killers in Chicago do not register with anyone; they buy guns from other criminals. They are armed, dangerous, and out-of-control. </p>
<p>Mayor Emmanuel has had long enough to mitigate the murder problem. He and his liberal city council cannot do it. Emmanuel is big on rhetoric, short on ideas. Guns are readily available to killers in his city. While gun crimes in other cities like New York have declined, the Windy City is more dangerous than Kabul. </p>
<p>The violence in Chicago is driven by gangs of hoods, mostly black. They sell narcotics, extort money from honest people, and war among themselves. </p>
<p>Gang members usually come from poor families where the father is absent. They are largely uneducated and disrespectful. To them, life is cheap. </p>
<p>The state of Illinois really doesn’t want to confront the gang member profile because it is politically incorrect to do so. The race hustlers will brand you a bigot if you define the root cause of the violence: the failure of the family. Illegal firearms should never be acceptable but guns don’t pull their own triggers. </p>
<p>The dissolution of the traditional family will never be fixed in our lifetime. Instead, white supremacy will be blamed for the chaos and nothing will change. The honest people living in the gang-ridden neighborhoods are terrorized every day. And Rahm Emmanuel is not coming to help them. </p>
<p>In truth, the federal government could diminish gun crime by making all criminal activity involving firearms a federal offense with mandatory time in the penitentiary. If you are caught carrying an illegal gun - that’s five years, first offense. Shoot someone - 25 years to life. The feds should take punishment for gun violations away from states like Illinois which have failed so miserably to protect their citizens. </p>
<p>But that would load up the federal prison system with more minorities - something the left cannot abide. After all, it is white supremacy and guns that force gang thugs to kill people. Not really their fault. </p>
<p>So the kids “marching for our lives” might consider just how complex this gun issue really is. But they will not be told the story of Chicago in any meaningful way. No, they will believe that gun bans and other legislative measures will stop the madness. </p>
<p>When, of course, they will not.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-03-29T14:41:00ZShutting You DownBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shutting-You-Down/-832852250874745102.html2018-03-22T16:08:00Z2018-03-22T16:08:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>When I began analyzing current events on the brand new Fox News channel in 1996, the country was a far different place than it is today. </p>
<p>Yes, the national media tilted left but conservative voices countered that on talk radio, still powerful at the time, and the political pressure groups were not much of a factor. </p>
<p>The rise of social media has changed all that. </p>
<p>The ardent left quickly realized the unchecked power of creating propaganda websites like Media Matters and The Huffington Post. While the right launched a few advocacy operations, Breitbart comes to mind, the far left moved quickly to create fear and chaos. </p>
<p>They have largely succeeded. </p>
<p>If Americans oppose leftwing policies, they become targets of scorn. I first experienced that pernicious activity a few years ago when Media Matters, aided by the despicable Mother Jones magazine, accused me of falsifying my network reporting during the wars in El Salvador and the Falkland Islands. </p>
<p>Even though I produced proof that what I did in those situations was true, there was no let up. The far left was determined to link me to Brian Williams, who lost his job anchoring the NBC Nightly News because he exaggerated his reportorial exploits. I only survived that ordeal because Fox News chief Roger Ailes knew the attacks were BS and stood up for me. </p>
<p>Emboldened by the damage they could do to political opponents, and using millions of dollars in donated money from guttersnipes like George Soros, the far left ramped it up on social media creating a Star-Chamber atmosphere where accusations were heralded as truth. </p>
<p>Using some minority and women’s groups as fronts, the left wing totalitarians have succeeded in demonizing opponents as bigots, misogynists, and racists. Hollywood has followed closely behind, sending the chilling message that anti-liberal thought will not be accepted by the industry. The black-list from the 1950’s has returned in a different form. </p>
<p>Then there are the sponsor boycotts. The far left knows who is advertising where and is threatening American corporations at will. We saw this a few weeks ago with the NRA. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and myself, among others, have been targeted with boycotts. Most sponsors cave and drop ads at the behest of leftist concerns, not wanting to engender ongoing controversy. It hurts the bottom line. </p>
<p>So freewheeling political debate is being badly damaged. On many college campuses, Republican students are under intense scrutiny. There is a far left mob-mentality in place. How many young people can stand up to that? </p>
<p>The result of all this is a tremendous fear that is stifling free expression. Any allegation is now a conviction, even those lodged by dishonest people who are paid directly, or are “accusing to profit” like Stormy Daniels. National TV programs such as The View allow unchallenged far left political attacks under the guise of entertainment. The Disney Company owns The View so you can see how far up the ladder the smear-machines have gone. </p>
<p>The uber-left now owns the destroy industry and is using its power to attack a presidency as well as drive political opponents out of business. </p>
<p>And all this is being done under the accepting eye of a media that no longer seeks the truth, preferring lurid, unverified reports to get clicks and viewers. </p>
<p>A dastardly situation has befallen America. And I don’t see a solution in sight. People are being destroyed because of their political viewpoints. No question about it.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-03-22T16:08:00ZShape UpBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shape-Up/161661103878844712.html2018-03-15T14:36:00Z2018-03-15T14:36:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>Alert people know that attending a funeral or memorial service is a solemn occasion that demands a certain decorum. You are there to honor the memory of the deceased and show respect to the family. </p>
<p>A few weeks ago, I sat in a non-denominational chapel awaiting an emotional service for a very kind woman I had known for 40 years. Her grown children and young grandchildren were devastated by her sudden death from a heart attack. </p>
<p>All the mourners in the chapel were appropriately dressed except for one select group. As an old school guy, I wore a tie and jacket as did many of the older men. Some guys had open collars but were neat and shoes were generally polished. </p>
<p>Most of the women had dressed conservatively and their clothing could best be described as “church going.” </p>
<p>Then there were the males under the age of 35. Many of them wore sneakers and hoodies, jeans or cargo pants. Most had not shaved. </p>
<p>The contrast in appearance to the women they were with was stunning. </p>
<p>Two questions: did these young men not realize they were dressed inappropriately or did they not care? </p>
<p>And why didn’t the ladies tell them to change their clothes before they arrived?</p>
<p>After the service which was held in Denver, I asked a well dressed younger man those questions. I did not want to confront the clothes violators themselves because of the venue. Conflict at a funeral is not good. </p>
<p>Anyway, the guy essentially told me that forethought is not big for many of his peers. They are not introspective people, thinking about proper etiquette and the like. It was a Saturday. Jeans and sneaks are their weekend uniform. So they wore them to the service, not thinking twice about it. </p>
<p>The woman question was more complicated and the young man had no answer. The ladies obviously understood how to dress for a solemn occasion but, apparently, did not share the insight with their male companions. </p>
<p>Over the past few years, standards of behavior in public have dropped dramatically. For example, folks used to be neatly dressed when they boarded an airplane. Now many passengers look like extras from The Walking Dead. On the plane leaving Colorado where the temperature was around 25 degrees, the guy in front of me wore short pants and an untucked floral shirt. He was going to New York, not Honolulu. I wanted to say “hey, Don Ho, are the bare knees really necessary?” </p>
<p>Fearing arrest by a federal marshal, I withheld the verbiage. </p>
<p>Doing your own thing can actually be a positive in America because many of us prize individuality. But there are lines that should be respected if you care about other people. </p>
<p>When the memorial service for my mother was held a few years ago, no one came dressed inappropriately. That’s because they knew what was acceptable in the church. My family does not deal with morons and that cuts down on the angst of life. </p>
<p>But getting back to the ladies and their foolishly dressed male companions in Denver. I think it’s all about judgments and standards. Younger people do not want to judge, generally speaking. They have been taught not to confront insensitive or even boorish behavior - don’t stress about it. Let it ride. </p>
<p>If I had told Hoodie Joe and Adidas Mike that their attire at the service was inappropriate, I would have been the problem, right? </p>
<p>“Who is this guy,” they might have said. </p>
<p>In an age of self-involvement and narcissism, traditional rules of engagement even at funerals are dissolving. Society now looks the other way, preferring to accept the appalling. </p>
<p>That’s the legacy of the “no clue generation” and you don’t have to attend an event to see it. </p>
<p>Simply turn on your computer.</p>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-03-15T14:36:00ZThe BridgeBill O'Reillyhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Bridge/489642053259911436.html2018-03-08T14:57:00Z2018-03-08T14:57:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<div>(Manalapan, Florida) Just south of Palm Beach is one of the wealthiest enclaves in the world; a place of privilege and entitlement where the benefits of capitalism shine forth like a harvest moon. Estates on the Atlantic Ocean here routinely sell for $50 million or more, and most every home in the area is groomed with a fairyland precision. Property taxes can easily exceed $100,000 a year.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The denizens of Manalapan mostly drive sleek foreign automobiles or tank-like SUV’s. They signal when turning into the parking lots of expensive restaurants. When they emerge from their vehicles, wealth is apparent from the design of their clothing to the chic time pieces on their wrists.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As with every other community in America, there are both good and bad people here. There is greed, there is charity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you drive north on A1A, you will quickly come to a light after the Eau Hotel (where high season rooms can run $2,000 a night, breakfast not included). Make a left at the light and you see a bridge crossing the Intra-Coastal waterway. If you drive over the bridge, you enter a different country.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The tiny town of Lantana is as far away from Manalapan, symbolically speaking, as Tierra del Fuego is. The area is solid working class where most people cut their own lawns and buy luxury items at Walgreens. I commandeered an outside table at the Kona Bay Cafe and watched the ebb and flow.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The first thing that struck me was the body ink on the young women. Almost every female had tattoos. Many of them. All over. I did not see one tattoo anywhere in Manalapan.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When I speak to young Americans about economics, I tell them the truth: if you secure a visible tat, many white collar operations will not hire you. The ink sends a class message about which cautious corporate executives form judgments.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As Dennis Miller opines: used to be that tattoos signaled bad-ass outlaws. Now your zoftig home health care worker may have one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It took me less than two minutes to cross the bridge separating fabulous wealth from paycheck dependence. The culture gap is vivid but folks on both sides of the divide have one big thing in common: they each get to cast ballots. All Americans are equal inside the voting booth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A few miles north of Lantana is President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Hotel. It is very high-end, a place where wealthy Americans relax with dirty martinis by croquet courts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the swells didn’t elect Donald Trump, working class folks did and millions remain supporters despite the unprecedented attacks on him by the media. But why do they stand by Mr. Trump? After all, he’s a rich guy, born into big money.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My take is that most Americans do not hate their fellow countrymen who have assets. The vast majority of folks do not covet thy neighbor’s goods.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hillary Clinton foolishly called some Trump supporters “deplorables” and they voted for the man because they are sick of phony politicians who peddle deceit. They don’t much care anymore about personal failings, knowing every human being has them. They also understand that the press actively protected John and Ted Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and other democrats from scandal. They bitterly comprehend that media rules change depending on which party is in office.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What the folks on the other side of the bridge really want is not TV news bilge, but a real chance for them and their children to improve their circumstance in the marketplace. President Obama did not deliver on that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We’ll see if President Trump does.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the meantime, there are far more voters getting breakfast in places like the Kona Bay Cafe than there are dining at Mar-a-Lago. Everybody should remember that because in the USA, it is the great equalizer.</div>
</div>Bill O'Reilly2018-03-08T14:57:00ZAn American Coup D'étatBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/An-American-Coup-Deacute;tat/499592620376520193.html2018-03-01T14:29:00Z2018-03-01T14:29:00Z<div class="WordSection1">
<p>The story of our time is the coup d’état that is being planned in this country. Sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? </p>
<p>In most countries, coup d’états happen when the military tries to overthrow the government. The United States military would never do that… but the national media certainly would. </p>
<p>With so many citizens refusing to pay attention to their country, the media is trying hard to influence policy rather than report facts. The mission of the press has largely shifted into liberal advocacy and a hatred toward conservative, traditional Americans. </p>
<p>If you visit political websites on the net – always risky if you care about truth – you will notice article after article based on anonymous sources. Accusations have become convictions, fodder for late night comedians and cable news yakkers. </p>
<p>It’s a vicious, corrupt system that has taken deep root in our political landscape. Well known newspapers and television networks are also doing it - especially to the Trump White House.</p>
<p>More often than not, these stories develop into a get-Trump jihad. Accusations – not facts - are being used to destroy the Trump administration. This is a coup by the news media. And at this point, there’s no way to stop it.</p>
<p>The media is rooting for the Democrats, and right now, I do not believe the Democrats want to know the truth. </p>
<p>The party is hoping that it will win the House next November and that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will accuse Mr. Trump of some wrongdoing. </p>
<p>If both of those things happen, articles of Impeachment will be drawn up in the House in early 2019. </p>
<p>The fundamental struggle of the left in this country is to destroy the Trump presidency using this two-pronged effort, with the media in coordination with the Democratic Party. The American left simply wants to get President Trump out of office. They are hell bent on destroying him. </p>
<p>The White House must know that there is a coup underway and powerful media companies are going to spin every story in a negative way to marginalize Donald Trump to the extent that he can’t even function. </p>
<p>The Trump White House needs discipline in all areas if it is to overcome the forces aligned against it. By now, the administration should understand there will be no fairness or perspective provided by the press. Donald Trump is guilty - of everything.</p>
<p>Yet there’s still far too little urgency in the White House about this. </p>
<p>President Trump and Chief of Staff John Kelly need to sit down and create a unit to combat this. Get the smartest lawyers and the most eloquent spokespeople, line them up and play whack a mole on these stories. Put that unit out and let them deal with all this horror. Because that coup is underway. </p>
</div>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-03-01T14:29:00Z"Shut Up," They ExplainedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shut-Up-They-Explained/905100426936033311.html2018-02-22T15:02:00Z2018-02-22T15:02:00Z<p align="left">Many years ago, Laura Ingraham politely advised Barbra Streisand, "Shut Up And Sing!" No one, not a soul, accused Laura of being anti-Semitic or anti-songbird. </p>
<p align="left">She also opined that The Dixie Chicks should do the very same thing and was not maligned for being anti-Texan or anti-overrated band. </p>
<p align="left">When Laura instructed Robert De Niro to "shut up and act," no one claimed she was anti-Italian or anti-prep school dropout. </p>
<p align="left">But, as you know, Ingraham crossed some strange line of demarcation last week when she suggested that LeBron James should "shut up and dribble." </p>
<p align="left">This all started when King James, as he is rightfully known, declared that President Trump "don't give a f*** about the people." Last year he also referred to the President of the United States as a "bum." Perhaps he thought his comments were protected under the "divine right of the King" doctrine.</p>
<p align="left">But in fact, profanely denouncing the president is offensive to about half the population, including Laura Ingraham, who has never been keen on celebrities' spouting off on subjects about which they know little. </p>
<p align="left">Let's stipulate that LeBron James is more than merely the greatest basketball player on Planet Earth. He is generous with his time and money, an intelligent guy with an engaging personality, and seems to be an all-around good person. </p>
<p align="left">But LBJ has lately become more political, and never let it be said that he can't go to his left. Beyond Trump-hatred, he has lent his tacit support to the Black Lives Matter movement, even though it has been plagued by anti-cop rhetoric. </p>
<p align="left">On the plus side, James has also decried the wanton violence that has killed so many young black men. No one should ever conflate LeBron James with Colin Kaepernick; James will never be seen in clothing adorned with cops portrayed as pigs. </p>
<p align="left">Of course LeBron James and other athletes are free to say whatever they wish, but they can't spew vitriol and then hide beneath the bench. If you denounce President Trump, don't expect to go unchallenged simply because you are a star or because you are black. </p>
<p align="left">Laura Ingraham was well within her rights to criticize LeBron James. But when she did, the well-oiled anti-Trump and anti-Fox machine immediately went into action. </p>
<p align="left">Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright appeared on the No Spin News this week and implied that Laura Ingraham singled out LeBron James because of his skin color. Seawright, usually a very reasonable and moderate man, described her words as "red-meat, right-wing racial rhetoric." </p>
<p align="left">The New York Daily News condemned Ingraham's "racist comments," while ESPN's Michael Wilbon said "she comes off like a bigot." Someone named Tiffany Cross actually went back in time on MSNBC, saying "the descendent of colonizers does not get to tell the descendent of slaves what they can talk about." According to Ms. Cross's illogic, a black person can never, ever be criticized by a white person. </p>
<p align="left">Do you think that applies to a white liberal mocking Justice Clarence Thomas or Senator Tim Scott? When it comes to standing up for black men and women, the left in America is very selective. Black conservatives are fair game for any and all criticism, no matter how demeaning or profane. </p>
<p align="left">No one can doubt we are in a dangerous time in America. The far left and the media, which frequently overlap, truly wish to destroy conservatives and President Trump. If they can't do that by making cogent arguments or by putting forth great candidates, they resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. </p>
<p align="left">One of the most useful implements in their tool box is the "R-word." Oppose unfettered immigration and open borders? Racist! Didn't like President Obama? Racist! </p>
<p align="left">Right now, that vile epithet is being hurled at a woman who has never exhibited the slightest trace of racism, and who has adopted children from Guatemala and Russia. It's not fair and it's not right, but that is the political hothouse in which we find ourselves in 2018. </p>
<p align="left">The word "racist" is actually meant to end any debate or conversation, and it's extremely effective in that regard. </p>
<p align="left">You might think of it as another way of saying … Shut Up!</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-02-22T15:02:00ZGold Medals in HatredBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gold-Medals-in-Hatred/-925168106607868219.html2018-02-14T23:20:00Z2018-02-14T23:20:00Z<p align="left">Some of you may have believed that Trump Derangement Syndrome was a condition that would gradually fade away, just as certain childhood syndromes can improve. </p>
<p align="left">Unfortunately, that belief was naïve and unrealistic. Rather than abating, TDS has metastasized and is actually growing more virulent in certain sectors of America, especially the far left arenas of the media and universities. </p>
<p align="left">As a public service (or disservice?), we hereby present a brief rundown of some of the despicable things that were said and written just over the past week. </p>
<p align="left">First, there is the mandatory stipulation that the White House badly bungled the case of Rob Porter, the alleged wife abuser who resigned under pressure. The administration put forth varying timelines and excuses, resembling The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. </p>
<p align="left">That being said, here are some of the more egregious and hate-filled syndrome sufferers: </p>
<p align="left">On ABC, Megan Murphy of Bloomberg News claimed that the qualifications for White House Chief of Staff include a willingness to "degrade your humanity, your integrity, your very being." </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, CNN guest Anushay Hossain slandered all women who support President Trump, saying, "they are trapped with their abuser, which is Trump." </p>
<p align="left">After the president tweeted his condolences to the mother of a young man who died of an opioid overdose, CNN contributor Dean Obeidallah declared that President Trump "should be charged with manslaughter" </p>
<p align="left">Speaking of health care, CNN asked New York Times' science reporter Donald McNeil why fewer Hispanics received flu shots this year. McNeil, with absolutely no evidence, theorized that it was perhaps due to President Trump's "hostility to Spanish language and Hispanics." </p>
<p align="left">MSNBC, in addition to the usual Trump-hatred displayed every morning on Morning Joe, gave a platform to Eddie Glaude, who insisted that the president "doesn't give a damn" about poor people. </p>
<p align="left">But the gold medal in derangement goes to a writer named Anand Giridharadas, a guest on Joy Reid's MSNBC show. Reid, who always seems to be auditioning for the role of that network's Trump-Hater-In-Chief, sat by meekly as Giridharadas called President Trump "the commander in chief of rape culture." </p>
<p align="left">Joy Reid, by the way, was recently forced to apologize for making anti-gay remarks. Despite that, the New York Times lauds her as "a hero of the resistance." </p>
<p align="left">In the print category, special mention goes to the Boston Globe's Kevin Cullen, who charmingly described President Trump as a "mean-spirited ingrate" who regularly embraces "racists and racist thought." </p>
<p align="left">Of course, it's not only President Trump who is subjected to unhinged abuse on a daily basis. Those in advanced stages of Trump Derangement Syndrome are eager to mock anyone associated with the president. </p>
<p align="left">Vice President Mike Pence was a major target this week when he attended the Winter Olympics. It was actually stunning to watch as so many in the mainstream media derided Pence while fawning over Kim Jong Un's younger sister Kim Yo Jong. </p>
<p align="left">Even though the younger Kim is North Korea's version of Joseph Goebbels, CNN gushed that she was "stealing the show at the Winter Olympics." To the Washington Post, she is "the Ivanka Trump of North Korea." This praise is for a woman whose family kills and tortures on an industrial scale. The word "shameful" doesn't even begin to describe the coverage. </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, the same media were denouncing Vice President Pence because he met with North Korean defectors and brought Otto Warmbier's father to the games. Warmbier, of course, was the college student who was arrested and tortured in North Korea before being sent home to die. </p>
<p align="left">The partisans on The View actually mocked Mike Pence for his deep religious faith. The always-lovely Joy Behar diagnosed the vice president as having a "mental illness." Whenever you think Behar can't go any lower, she finds a new way to plumb the depths. ABC must be proud. </p>
<p align="left">These are just a few examples in a week that was not at all atypical. Next week's cable news and papers will be surely filled with still more vitriol. </p>
<p align="left">But what happens if the media gets their wish and President Trump is someday impeached or forced to resign? The vicious disease will simply mutate into Pence Derangement. President Mike Pence will be greeted with nearly the same level of loathing, as will his new vice president, unless he decides to name Nancy Pelosi. </p>
<p align="left">Our chattering classes simply hate Republicans and want to drive them out of office, and there is no end in end in sight. Why? Simply because that's what they do. </p>
<p align="left">Trump Derangement Syndrome remains a disease with no known cure.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-02-14T23:20:00ZAn All-Too-American TragedyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/An-All-Too-American-Tragedy/108171004578833809.html2018-02-08T16:50:00Z2018-02-08T16:50:00Z<p align="left">You probably know that Indianapolis Colts player Edwin Jackson and his Uber driver Jeffrey Monroe were mowed down and killed last Sunday in Indiana. </p>
<p align="left">You may have also heard that the driver who killed them is Manuel Orrego-Zavala, an immigrant from Guatemala. But if you watch network news, you could be unaware that Orrego-Zavala is a twice-deported illegal immigrant who was without a license and whose blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. </p>
<p align="left">According to the Media Research Center, NBC's "Today" ignored the story. And when CBS finally got around to mentioning the killer's illegal status two days after the crash, its intrepid reporter warned against "politicizing" the death. Heaven forbid! </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, pundits and immigration activists started the usual caterwauling, saying this was a tragedy that says nothing, nothing at all, about illegal immigration. </p>
<p align="left">A little more about that Uber driver: Jeff Monroe was 54 years old, married, described as "a guy who would go out of his way for anybody." He had worked for the same company for 20 years and was driving to save up some money so that he and his wife could perhaps attend the 2020 Olympics. </p>
<p align="left">A little more about the Colts linebacker: Edwin Jackson was just 26 and a very unlikely NFL star. He was an outstanding high school wrestler but received nary a college football scholarship. So he walked on at Georgia Southern, wound up leading the team in tackles, and was voted captain by his teammates. </p>
<p align="left">Following a similar pattern, Jackson was not on the radar of any NFL team and was ignored in the draft. Instead, he tried out as a free agent and eventually wound up as a starter with the Colts. He was a much-loved man who beat the odds time and again. </p>
<p align="left">Then there is the villain: 37-year-old Manuel Orrego-Zavala was convicted of drunk driving in California in 2005. He was deported to Guatemala in 2007 and again in 2009, ordered not to return to the USA for 20 years. </p>
<p align="left">To the surprise of absolutely no one, Orrego-Zavala defied that decree and wound up in Indiana. Just last year he was using an alias when he was convicted of driving without a license. Local authorities did not notify federal immigration officials. </p>
<p align="left">The miscreant is now behind bars, facing both state and federal charges. One of his attorneys has complained that his client is "distraught and confused." Of course, that's far better than the status of Jeffrey Monroe and Edwin Jackson, who are are dead. </p>
<p align="left">This crime, especially because one of the victims was a prominent athlete, will add fuel to the already enflamed debate over illegal immigration and crime. </p>
<p align="left">President Trump declared it "disgraceful" that an illegal immigrant was again responsible for death. For the president and immigration hawks, this is more evidence of the need for a border wall.</p>
<p align="left">On the other side, liberal Democrats claim these killings had nothing to do with illegal immigration, ignoring the fact that the driver should never have been here. </p>
<p align="left">TV talking heads frequently tell us that immigrants commit proportionately fewer crimes than native-born Americans. That actually may be true, but they intentionally and misleadingly omit the word "illegal." People who came here legally from all over the world to join the American family are very possibly more law-abiding than born-and-bred citizens. </p>
<p align="left">But illegal immigrants are a far different story. Those who break into the country are far more likely to engage in criminal activity here, be it gangbanging or drunk driving. Isn't it simple common sense that someone willing to break the law to enter a country is more likely to commit other crimes? </p>
<p align="left">Far more important than mere numbers is a simple fact: Every single crime committed by an illegal immigrant, whether jaywalking or murder, would not have been committed if that person was not here to begin with. </p>
<p align="left">Just this week an interesting poll came out showing that the left's propaganda has been remarkably effective. According to a survey taken by Quinnipiac, only 17% of Americans believe "undocumented immigrants" commit more crimes than American citizens, while 72% feel otherwise.</p>
<p align="left">Unfortunately, that is impossible to check because there is no national database tracking how many crimes are committed by illegal immigrants. But no sentient person can doubt that many Americans would be alive today if our borders were more secure. </p>
<p align="left">We hear about the high profile cases like Kate Steinle and, now, Edwin Jackson. But thousands of other innocent Americans are dead, thousands of families are grief-stricken because we have porous borders and too many politicians and pundits like it that way. </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump is president in large part because he vowed to build a wall on the southern border. It is way beyond time to call in the backhoes and bulldozers.</p>
<p align="left">No, the wall will not prevent all illegal crossings, nor will it end all crimes by illegal immigrants. But had a wall been in place, it is likely that Manuel Orrego-Zavala would not have been able to enter the country repeatedly. It's also likely that Edwin Jackson and Jeffrey Monroe would be alive today and two more American families would not be in the depths of mourning. </p>
<p align="left">Can anyone disagree? Anyone?</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-02-08T16:50:00ZState of DisunionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/State-of-Disunion/82294229454666870.html2018-02-01T14:04:00Z2018-02-01T14:04:00Z<p align="left">MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was downright effusive after Tuesday night's speech. "This was earnest and lofty," she gushed, "and he is known for his earnestness." </p>
<p align="left">Of course, she was critiquing Joe Kennedy III, who delivered the official Democratic response to President Trump's State of the Union address. </p>
<p align="left">As for the evening's main event, Maddow accused President Trump of being a warmonger. "He wants a war with North Korea," she assured her left-wing viewers. </p>
<p align="left">That was actually mild compared to other post-speech media reactions. Maddow's MSNBC running mate Chris Matthews denigrated the reference to MS-13 gang-bangers as "very ugly." He was referring to the president's words, not the killers themselves. </p>
<p align="left">Over on CNN, one-time Obama aide and former proud communist Van Jones said the president "was selling sweet-tasting candy with poison in it." </p>
<p align="left">Another delusional CNN reporter put forth a truly bizarre analysis of Melania Trump. According to Kate Bennett, the First Lady was wearing off-white to protest her husband's policies toward women. Yes, she was serious. </p>
<p align="left">ABC's Cecila Vega claimed the president was "stoking" racial tension when he contended that the National Anthem should be respected. And MSNBC's hate-filled Joy Reid actually mocked President Trump for praising church, family, police, and military. You know, all those awful things that so many progressives regard as symbols of Amerikkkan oppression. </p>
<p align="left">Okay, so it's not exactly breaking news that most media types deeply despise the president. But they don't hate him nearly as much as Democrats in Congress. </p>
<p align="left">Anyone watching the speech on television had to be stunned when cameras caught reaction shots of the opposition party. Now, no one expects Democrats to be standing and cheering – Republicans were stoic and silent when President Obama put forth his progressive promises. </p>
<p align="left">But this week the Democrats went way beyond anything we have seen before. They were sour, angry, and bitter, even when the president mentioned the National Anthem or God, for God's sake. One got the feeling that if President Trump extolled the tasty virtues of apple pie, the Democrats would have staged a mass walkout.</p>
<p align="left">Members of the not-so-loyal opposition party, perhaps taking their cues from exceptionally dour Nancy Pelosi, failed to cheer higher wages, the defeat of ISIS, or even historically low black unemployment. </p>
<p align="left">The American people felt differently. According to a CNN snap poll, 70% of viewers had a "very positive" or "somewhat positive" reaction to the speech. A poll taken by CBS found that 75% of those who watched the State of the Union approved of what they had heard. </p>
<p align="left">All this raises one extremely important question: What will Democrats run on in the upcoming midterm elections? </p>
<p align="left">The party seems confident that it will retake the House, but based on what policies? Their number one issue at the moment seems to be raw hatred of President Trump. That may win some votes in far-left precincts, but not enough to win a House majority. Americans are just not that infused with vitriol. </p>
<p align="left">The Democrats' other major priority seems to be unfettered illegal immigration. They don't freely admit that, but just look at the parts of President Trump's immigration plan to which they object. </p>
<p align="left">The Dems say they want protection for DACA recipients, and the White House has offered that in spades. But they object to curtailing chain migration and booed when the president brought it up. Unlike most Americans, Democrats don't want to end the Diversity Visa Lottery, and they truly loathe the idea of building a border wall. </p>
<p align="left">So on what will they campaign? Rescinding the tax cuts? Reinstating burdensome federal regulations? Bringing back the individual ObamaCare mandate? </p>
<p align="left">Right now they can only hope that special counsel Robert Mueller comes up with something bad, really bad. If his investigation ends without a searing indictment of President Trump himself, the promise of impeachment will fall by the wayside.</p>
<p align="left">They also want the president to damage himself with some ill-conceived tweets or comments, which is certainly within the realm of possibility. But Trump's core supporters always seem to forgive and quickly forget. </p>
<p align="left">It is surely possible that the Democratic Party will win a majority in the House, maybe even the Senate. But they did not do anything to help their chances Tuesday night. Sitting like angry, spoiled, petulant children is not a winning election strategy. </p>
<p align="left">The Democratic lawmakers who actually came out best this week were John Lewis, Barbara Lee, Frederica Wilson, and a handful of others. They skipped the speech and were thus not seen scowling on camera. In retrospect, that was not such a bad decision.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-02-01T14:04:00ZThe DACA DilemmaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-DACA-Dilemma/397703644810941398.html2018-01-25T08:00:00Z2018-01-25T08:00:00Z<p align="left">Every president leaves office with messes that need to be cleaned up, and Barack Obama was certainly no exception. He departed with a sluggish economy, soaring debt, the lousy Iran deal, a strained relationship with Israel, and many other problems. </p>
<p align="left">But his greatest stink bomb was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, aka DACA. On June 15, 2012, with the stroke of his mighty pen, President Obama offered temporary sanctuary to young people who were brought to the USA illegally by their parents before they were 16.</p>
<p align="left">Republicans argued that the president was vastly overstepping his authority, but the "temporary" program endured. Conveniently, the DACA beneficiaries came to be known as "dreamers," a public relations coup that should have earned someone a promotion and bonus. </p>
<p align="left">Of course, a Hillary Clinton presidency would have enabled DACA to go on indefinitely and be expanded. But, to the Democrats' eternal dismay, the big prize went to a man whose calling card was opposition to illegal immigration. </p>
<p align="left">By last September, when President Trump announced that the program would end in six months, there were nearly 800,000 illegal immigrants shielded from deportation. And Democrats bizarrely decided that this was the single most important issue facing America today. </p>
<p align="left">Many Democrats recently demonstrated their willingness to shut down the entire federal government if they didn't get their way on DACA. That didn't exactly work out the way they had planned, and Chuck Schumer was last seen eating sautéed crow in the Senate Dining Room. But the issue is far from settled. </p>
<p align="left">Who are these "dreamers" who have become darlings of the far left and their allies in the media? Progressives usually describe DACA recipients as model citizens, valedictorians, and gallant soldiers fighting in the United States Armed Forces. Democrats want them to have not just legal status, but a path to full citizenship and the eventual right to vote. To quote The Church Lady, "how convenient!" </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, many conservatives contend that the DACA beneficiaries are simply illegal aliens by another name and have absolutely no right to be in the USA. Beyond that, they claim many of the "dreamers" are criminals or are taking low-wage jobs from American citizens. </p>
<p align="left">There is some truth on both sides. Economist John Lott recently found that while "dreamers" make up about 2% of Arizona's population, they are 8% of the state's prisoners. He concluded that illegal immigrants are far more likely to commit crimes than citizens or legal immigrants. DACA recipients, whose average age is 25, also tend to be less educated and less skilled than native-born Americans. </p>
<p align="left">Immigration expert Mickey Kaus, writing in the Washington Post, reported that most beneficiaries are not in school and are laboring at low-wage jobs. He added that many "dreamers" were not brought here as children, but crossed the border on their own, and that a grand total of about 900 have joined the military. By our rudimentary math, about one-tenth of one percent of DACA beneficiaries are in uniform. </p>
<p align="left">On the other hand, the majority of those protected under DACA are certainly law-abiding people, many of them living in the only country they have ever known. Giving them the boot would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. </p>
<p align="left">The latest poll on DACA and immigration comes from the Harvard-Harris organization, which surveyed Americans just prior to the government shutdown. Most voters support some form of legalization for the "dreamers," but a large majority also wants less immigration overall and far tougher border security. </p>
<p align="left">Congressional leaders and President Trump will be tweeting and arguing and running toward the cameras for the next few weeks, but the general outlines of a solution seem fairly obvious. </p>
<p align="left">There will be a deal that enables non-criminal DACA beneficiaries to remain in the USA, although whether they will someday be granted full citizenship will be a bone of contention. That would be tantamount to giving them preference over all the other eager immigrants who have been waiting in line and following all the rules. </p>
<p align="left">As a show of good faith, Republicans will probably ignore their more hawkish anti-immigration colleagues who want to penalize sanctuary cities and enact some form of Kate's Law. </p>
<p align="left">Democrats will agree that the visa lottery system, as it is currently managed, must be relegated to the dustbin of history, and that a "big, beautiful wall" is inevitable. They will also concede that preference should be given to skilled and educated immigrants who can contribute to America on day one. </p>
<p align="left">President Barack Obama, probably illegally, started a massive new program that was intended to be temporary. But, as the late economist Milton Friedman said, "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." </p>
<p align="left">Now it's President Trump's turn to dramatically change that program in a way that does not unduly punish innocent people, most of whom were brought here involuntarily. Everyone at the negotiating table has to remember that American citizens always take priority over illegal immigrants, no matter how heart-rending their circumstances.</p>
<p align="left">So let the bargaining begin. Or, as the recently departed Monty Hall said so many times, "Let's Make a Deal!"</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-01-25T08:00:00ZEmbracing LawbreakersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Embracing-Lawbreakers/566540785220476616.html2018-01-18T17:30:00Z2018-01-18T17:30:00Z<p align="left">"All Americans are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country … Our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders … by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before." </p>
<p align="left">President Trump? No, as many of you may know, that was President Bill Clinton in 1995. </p>
<p align="left">If you dismiss that as ancient history, how about this tough talk from Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer just eight years ago: "Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple … When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious." </p>
<p align="left">Then there was Hillary Clinton in 2014, arguing this: "Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay." </p>
<p align="left">What an astounding and rapid change there has been in the Democratic Party, which now embraces and implicitly encourages lawbreakers. As one example, just this week Senator Dick Durbin proudly declared that he is focused "full time" on making sure DACA beneficiaries are protected. </p>
<p align="left">Full time? One wonders what his Illinois constituents think about that. Shouldn't he devote at least a few minutes to the state's massive debt or the rampant murders in its largest city? </p>
<p align="left">The newest pro-lawbreaker Democrat is Phil Murphy, who was sworn in as Governor of New Jersey on Tuesday. He promises to be "welcoming" to illegal immigrants and has even vowed to establish an "Office of Immigrant Defensive Protection." </p>
<p align="left">Murphy wants to ensure that illegal immigrants get "free" legal representation, in-state college tuition, and are protected from those dastardly feds who are trying to enforce the law. New Jersey taxpayers, though their state is in financial peril, will pick up the tab. </p>
<p align="left">Why are so many "progressive" Democrats suddenly eager to put illegal immigrants ahead of American citizens? </p>
<p align="left">Some cynics suggest this is all about locking up future votes by making sure more people are dependent on big government. That could be part of it, to be sure, but there seems to be something else at work. </p>
<p align="left">Part of being a "progressive" these days is making sure that everyone else knows you are a very good and extremely virtuous person. And one sure sign of virtue is defending people who entered this country illegally. </p>
<p align="left">You can see this at work with our language police. One way of displaying your virtue is always using the proper terms, those that have been given the seal of approval by our elites. </p>
<p align="left">Saying "people of color" is an instant signal to others that you are "woke" and properly progressive. But if you ever mix the words just slightly and say "colored people," you will be forever banished to the cultural version of Siberia. </p>
<p align="left">Then there is "undocumented." As the above quotes indicate, not long ago Democrats and liberals spoke freely about "illegal immigrants." It is accurate and it is pithy. </p>
<p align="left">But how things have changed! The word "illegal" is almost up there with the "n-word" when it comes to hateful slurs. Immigration activists will tell you that "illegal" is out of bounds, and don't get them started on "alien," which is totally beyond the pale. </p>
<p align="left">The Associated Press has actually issued a total ban on the term "illegal immigrant," while the New York Times says it is code for "racial and ethnic hatred." You know, it's one of those dog whistles we hear so much about.</p>
<p align="left">So the country is divided. On one side are people who use politically correct terms to describe illegal immigrants. They argue, based on dubious statistics, that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, and that sanctuary cities are safer because illegal immigrants are more willing to come forward to report crimes. </p>
<p align="left">They should consider perusing a new study by the economist John Lott, whose research reveals that fully 8% of Arizona's inmates are so-called "dreamers." That's four times their representation in the state's population. </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, a new Homeland Security report shows that 73% of all individuals arrested for international-related terrorism since 9/11 were born in another country. Their despicable "dream" is to kill innocent people and destroy America. </p>
<p align="left">Right now, the open borders crowd is enraged because President Trump and Attorney General Sessions are not afraid to describe illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants. They decry sanctuary cities and want effective law enforcement. </p>
<p align="left">But the left, which dominates the news media and most universities, will continue to police our language and our thoughts, searching for any violations. </p>
<p align="left">One side endorses the rule of law; the other excuses lawlessness and gives sanctuary to lawbreakers. </p>
<p align="left">The battle lines are drawn, the differences could not be more stark, and the nation's Cold Civil War seems to grow more heated every day.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-01-18T17:30:00ZAnnus Horribilis for NFL, HollywoodBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Annus-Horribilis-for-NFL-Hollywood/685536757653051149.html2018-01-11T17:18:00Z2018-01-11T17:18:00Z<p align="left">At the end of 1992, Queen Elizabeth gave her famous ‘Annus Horribilis’ speech. It was a ‘horrible year’ that included plenty of royal scandals. </p>
<p align="left">Well, 2017 was pretty horribilis for a couple of American institutions – the National Football League and the movie business. And both were partly done in by the scourge of liberalism. </p>
<p align="left">The National Football League's woes began the year before when it chose to look the other way as Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the National Anthem. What started with a single player snowballed into a mass movement, especially after President Trump entered the fray. </p>
<p align="left">At the end of the year (as opposed to "at the end of the day") the league lost about 10% of its television viewers in the just-completed season, a slide that continued into last weekend's first round of the playoffs. </p>
<p align="left">The league has tried mightily to blame other factors, but the in-your-face disrespect of the flag and National Anthem turned millions of Americans away from pro football. It's not the sport itself, as last Monday's college football title game attracted 13% more viewers than the year before. </p>
<p align="left">The raw numbers: Monday night NFL football games on ESPN averaged about 11-million viewers this season. The Alabama-Georgia college game, also on ESPN on a Monday night, had more than 28-million. So let's not blame cord-cutting or head injuries or anything else. </p>
<p align="left">Of course, the NFL remains a rich and powerful organization. Rich enough to give Commissioner Roger Goodell, a disaster by most measures, a new contract that may be worth $40-million a year. Heckuva job, Roger. And the sport is rich enough to pay Jon Gruden $100-million to coach the Oakland Raiders for the next ten years. </p>
<p align="left">The National Football League actually has something very much in common with the Democratic Party. They can both come back from their recent setbacks, but both had better stop alienating average Americans whose support they both need so badly. </p>
<p align="left">Then there's Hollywood and the movie business. Fewer Americans went to movie theaters in 2017 than at any time in more than two decades. </p>
<p align="left">Sure, the industry was hit by the Harvey Weinstein scandal and others that followed in its wake, but the decline started long before that. </p>
<p align="left">Franchises like "Star Wars" continue to do well, but serious dramas have taken a huge hit. Part of it is that producers and directors and writers insist on ridiculing America and portraying this nation as a downright terrible place. </p>
<p align="left">George Clooney decided to direct an abomination called "Suburbicon," which mocked white America and the suburbs. The film brought in a whopping $5.8-million at the domestic box office, enough to cover the catering budget on some movies. </p>
<p align="left">Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Sequel" was another bomb as audiences never warmed to another lecture by the portly and wealthy environmentalist-in-chief. Other liberal offerings also sank big time in '17. </p>
<p align="left">Will the movie industry change? Possibly, but it's far more likely that film makers will continue to poke their fingers in the eye of middle America. It might not make for boffo box office, but it gets you invited to swell parties. </p>
<p align="left">Speaking of Hollywood and swell parties, last week's Golden Globes awards, at which left-wing celebrities lavish each other with honors and praise, lost a ton of viewers from the year before. Americans are simply growing weary of being slapped around by elites who look down on them and their lifestyles. </p>
<p align="left">Overall, 2017 was a pretty rotten year for institutions that insist on diminishing America and its traditions. And that made it a pretty good year for the rest of us.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-01-11T17:18:00ZChurchill, Islam, and Political CorrectnessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Churchill-Islam-and-Political-Correctness/-792777853352727986.html2018-01-04T15:19:00Z2018-01-04T15:19:00Z<p align="left">Winston Churchill, the subject of the movie "Darkest Hour," is considered one of the greatest human beings to live in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. In a BBC poll, citizens of the UK voted him the greatest Briton of all time. </p>
<p align="left">The plaudits are well deserved, as Churchill is widely credited with rescuing Great Britain from the depths of despair. </p>
<p align="left">In 1940, a Nazi invasion of Britain seemed inevitable and many British politicians wanted to cut a deal with Hitler. Not Churchill. He rose to his feet in the House of Commons and gave one of history's most stirring speeches. "We shall defend our island," he vowed, whatever the cost may be … We shall never surrender!" </p>
<p align="left">One month later, the German Luftwaffe began bombing British cities, killing more than 20,000 civilians. But the Brits endured and Hitler eventually abandoned his dream of a massive naval invasion. </p>
<p align="left">That was just one small chapter in the epic life of a truly remarkable man. But there's this one thing: By today's standards, Winston Churchill would probably be considered an Islamophobe. </p>
<p align="left">Churchill was in his mid-20s and a British Army officer when he wrote "The River War," which documented his experiences in the Sudan. </p>
<p align="left">"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities," he wrote. "But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." </p>
<p align="left">It's always dicey to criticize an entire religion, but Catholics and evangelical Christians get pounded all day long. </p>
<p align="left">Young Winston also wrote this: "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolutely property – either as a child, a wife or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." </p>
<p align="left">The words sound inflammatory to our sensitive ears, but in fact Churchill was laying out a very simple case: Muslims are often wonderful and peaceful and kind people, but the faith itself has a lot of problems. </p>
<p align="left">Among those problems is the fact that in most predominantly Muslim nations, half the population is treated horribly. We all know this, and it can be proven by posing a simple hypothetical: In which Islamic country would you feel comfortable raising your daughter or your gay son?</p>
<p align="left">While the argument about Islam is an interesting one, Churchill's words raise another question that is especially relevant in our era of widespread statue demolition. </p>
<p align="left">If Winston Churchill were around today, and had he written the same thing, would this incredible leader be destroyed by the forces of political correctness? We are pretty sure he wouldn't be invited to sit down with the ladies of The View. And if he were, Whoopi and Joy would storm out of the studio. It's actually an amusing image, come to think about it. </p>
<p align="left">It's a good sign that most of the Churchill statues in Britain have not been defaced. The few that have been damaged have been vandalized by isolated loons with various axes to grind. There is also a powerful statue of Churchill in Washington, and of course a bust in the Oval Office. So he seems to have thus far defied the recent trend of literally knocking heroes off their pedestals.</p>
<p align="left">If anyone is offended by a few words Winston Churchill said about Islam more than 100 years ago, they should remember a few words written much more recently by the historian John Lukacs, who pithily explained what Churchill accomplished in 1940: "Then and there he saved Britain and Europe, and Western civilization."</p>
<p align="left">As you may know, Winston Churchill's mother Jennie was born in America. His ties to the United States ran long and deep, which is why one particular honor probably meant more to him than any statue or medal. </p>
<p align="left">In 1963, shortly before Churchill's death, President Kennedy proclaimed him the very first "honorary citizen of the United States." It took an act of Congress, but Winston Churchill, who always loved and admired America, was finally an American.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2018-01-04T15:19:00ZEvil Vanquished, Media YawnsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Evil-Vanquished-Media-Yawns/-185804802562483178.html2017-12-28T15:03:00Z2017-12-28T15:03:00Z<p align="left">During his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump frequently told cheering crowds that he would absolutely destroy ISIS. "Their days are numbered," he vowed. </p>
<p align="left">That promise rang hollow to his political enemies. After all, the Islamic State had run roughshod over much of the Middle East. It had enlisted tens of thousands of bloodthirsty warriors, while more volunteers flowed in every day from around the world eager to fight for the radical Islamic cause. </p>
<p align="left">Wherever the ISIS savages ruled, there were beheadings, drownings, beatings, and assorted other subhuman acts of depravity. The group truly inspired terror and for a time seemed unstoppable.</p>
<p align="left">That once-dire situation is far different today. You didn't hear much about it, but this month Iraq declared complete victory over ISIS. The terrorist group, once the very face of evil in the modern world, has lost 98% of the territory it once held. Its dreams of an enduring, powerful caliphate have been dashed. </p>
<p align="left">How did all this happen so quickly, and with such little fanfare? Some military analysts credit President Trump for lifting many of the stifling rules of engagement that had been put in place during the Obama years. The new president gave his commanders free rein and they rained holy hell on ISIS. </p>
<p align="left">But others contend that President Obama and his team deserve the credit. They truthfully point out that ISIS began losing territory before Donald Trump's inauguration </p>
<p align="left">But take a moment to consider a simple question. <span>Would you trust your war strategy to James Mattis and H.R. McMaster,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">who have a total of seven stars</span></span><span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>on their epaulets? </span> Or would you prefer people like habitual liar Susan Rice and failed novelist Ben Rhodes? To ask the question is to answer it. </p>
<p align="left">No one should forget that in 2014 President Obama described the Islamic State as a "jayvee team." He actually considered climate change a "potential existential threat" to the world, but not ISIS. This is not to say that Barack Obama ignored ISIS, but fighting terror never seemed to be at the very top of his to-do list. </p>
<p align="left">Another question is why this great news has received so little play in the media. The reason is largely because the near-demise of ISIS took place during a Republican administration. Don't believe that? Just remember what happened with Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union. </p>
<p align="left">The media and the Washington elite despised President Reagan. The hatred didn't quite reach the levels of today's Trump-loathing, but that was only because Reagan didn't demean the press and never uttered the words "fake news." </p>
<p align="left">But the distaste for Reagan was very real. The scribblers at leading newspapers considered him a "cowboy" who could easily trigger a nuclear war. They assured themselves, and one another, that he wasn't very bright and had no business being president. Longtime Democratic power broker Clark Clifford famously referred to Reagan as an "amiable dunce" and predicted he would be "a hopeless failure."</p>
<p align="left">So the chattering classes were absolutely horrified on March 8, 1983. That was the momentous day when President Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as "the focus of evil in the modern world." Prior to that, U.S. presidents simply tried to get along with the Soviets and their succession of tyrants. </p>
<p align="left">The reaction was swift and merciless. New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis called the speech "primitive," while his Times colleague Tom Wicker said it was "smug and a near proclamation of Holy War." The times may change, but the Times never does. </p>
<p align="left">Then, lo and behold, a few years later the Berlin Wall fell and the truly evil ideology of communism collapsed. Hundreds of millions of people who had suffered through lives of misery and terror and deprivation were finally free of the communist yoke. </p>
<p align="left">Much credit was heaped on Ronald Reagan for his willingness to confront and outspend the Soviets. But the American left saw things differently. Many liberals declared that communism was destined to fail, regardless of who was in the Oval Office. </p>
<p align="left">The Cold War ended, according to Time magazine's Strobe Talbott, "because of internal contradictions" in the Soviet Union. He actually wrote this: "Even if Jimmy Carter had been reelected and been followed by Walter Mondale, something like we have now seen probably would have happened." He wrote it, and he probably believed it. </p>
<p align="left">Newsweek's Eleanor Clift agreed, opining that "the Soviet economy was collapsing." Of course, these geniuses never made any such observations prior to the Soviet demise. </p>
<p align="left">Many on the American left actually preferred to credit lifetime Soviet apparatchik Mikhail Gorbachev. Anyone but Reagan, that amiable dunce who rescued millions from oppressive and brutal existences. </p>
<p align="left">As for today, all sane and civilized people should be grateful that ISIS is a shadow of its former self. The terror group will still carry out and inspire individual attacks, but its fantasy of a massive caliphate is in ruins, much like the Soviet Union's dreams of worldwide communism were shattered. </p>
<p align="left">Was it Reagan who defeated communism? Trump who demolished the Islamic State? </p>
<p align="left">That brutal war of opinion will endure, but Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump have the superior weaponry - facts.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-12-28T15:03:00ZTaxes Reformed, Media DeformedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Taxes-Reformed-Media-Deformed/328628664053792885.html2017-12-20T21:17:00Z2017-12-20T21:17:00Z<p align="left">Did you know that President Trump pushed through tax reform primarily so he could enrich himself, his family, and his billionaire cronies? </p>
<p align="left">Yup, that was the prevailing media story line over the days and weeks before the bill finally passed. Here's a brief sampling of the unhinged commentary: </p>
<p align="left">New York Times: "Tax Bill Lets Trump and Republicans Feather Their Own Nests." </p>
<p align="left">Bloomberg: "Goodie for Trump Oozes Out of Tax-Reform Fog."</p>
<p align="left">Think Progress: "The president cashes in." </p>
<p align="left">MSNBC: "Millionaire Republicans are cutting THEIR OWN TAXES and those of the super rich."</p>
<p align="left">CNBC: "GOP tax bill includes a provision that could enrich Trump and Republican senators." </p>
<p align="left">New York Times, The Sequel: "The tax bill's generosity toward real estate titans stands in stark contrast to its stinginess toward the average wage earner." </p>
<p align="left">Those are just a few of the analyses put forth by media outlets, most of whom hit the gas pedal as the bill's passage became inevitable. To write this kind of tripe requires that a reporter totally ignore the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which predicts that lower income Americans will reap the largest percentage tax reductions next year.</p>
<p align="left">As usual, the worst of the bunch was the always-dishonest-and-getting-more-dishonest CNN. That once-respected network ran this headline on Tuesday: "Public opposition to tax bill grows as vote approaches." </p>
<p align="left">This is worth a closer analysis. CNN's numbers came from its own poll, which was conducted by an outfit called SRSS. The poll found that 55% of voters oppose the tax reform legislation, while 33% are in favor. </p>
<p align="left">But dig a bit deeper into the poll's methodology. Just 23% of SRSS's sample describe themselves as Republicans, while 33% are Democrats. Compared to actual voter registration numbers, the CNN poll had too few Republicans and too many Democrats. What a shocker! </p>
<p align="left">So this is the flow chart of dishonesty: First, CNN and other outlets denounce the tax plan as a gift to the rich, enabling America's plutocrats to make out like the bandits they are. Meanwhile, according to the stunningly biased coverage, the poor and middle class will be left with just a few scraps and crumbs. </p>
<p align="left">Then, after all that negative coverage, CNN commissions a poll about the plan. And just in case the overwhelmingly negative media coverage didn't have its intended effect, the pollsters overweight their survey with Democrats. Can you spell corruption? </p>
<p align="left">The Wall Street Journal, in an effort to bring a smidgen of honesty into the debate, opined that this entire media narrative "may go down as the most misleading political message" since President Obama's false assurances on ObamaCare. </p>
<p align="left">The truth is, the truth can't be hidden for very long. Either working people will see a bigger paycheck in January or they will not. And they will. Either the corporate rate reduction will stimulate growth or it won't. We'll know soon enough. </p>
<p align="left">The very worst case scenario for Democrats and Trump-haters is that this tax legislation will actually help the economy and working Americans.</p>
<p align="left">Their claims that it will fail are bad. But their <em>hopes</em> that it will fail are far, far worse.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-12-20T21:17:00ZThe Left's Winds of WarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Lefts-Winds-of-War/291636344020521869.html2017-12-14T15:00:00Z2017-12-14T15:00:00Z<p align="left">"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." </p>
<p align="left">Thus spake Bob Dylan in his 1965 "Subterranean Homesick Blues." As an aside, the violent Weathermen of Bill Ayers took their name from that famous verse. </p>
<p align="left">Right now you certainly don't need a meteorologist to know which way the wind is blowing, especially regarding efforts to get President Trump out of office. The winds are definitely blowing rapidly to the west, away from Russia. </p>
<p align="left">First, the whole notion of "collusion" has gradually been downgraded from a Democratic fantasy to a pipe dream. Then there was that brief burst of hope that President Trump might be deemed mentally unstable and ousted under the 25<sup>th</sup> Amendment. That notion is itself pretty darned insane. </p>
<p align="left">So now, as many had predicted, the left is revisiting allegations of President Trump's alleged sexual harassment in the 1980s and 1990s. The charges, which surfaced during the 2016 campaign and had little effect on the election, are now being resurrected. It's as if the left had a device reading, "In Case of Emergency, Break Out Sex Accusations." </p>
<p align="left">This week, three of President Trump's accusers were at a press conference arranged by a film maker named Robert Greenwald. To call him "liberal" is to call Roy Moore "moderately conservative." </p>
<p align="left">Greenwald is a long-time far-left guy who hates pretty much every Republican and what they stand for. All that is fine, of course, although his politics received scant mention when the media covered this week's event. It may have been the first news conference in recent memory that contained absolutely no news. </p>
<p align="left">At the same time, even though the allegations are long past their sell-by date, some Democrats in Congress are actually demanding that President Trump resign. That being somewhat unlikely, they are also calling for a Congressional investigation into the president's alleged misdeeds. </p>
<p align="left">Leading the charge is the newly self-proclaimed conscience of the Senate, New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand. She is one remarkable woman when it comes to political gymnastics. </p>
<p align="left">Not long ago she opposed gun control and received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. Because that wouldn't fly in statewide New York politics, she did an about face that any drill sergeant would admire. </p>
<p align="left">Gillibrand once stood for tough immigration policies, but it turns out she was making that stand while perched on quicksand. Most egregiously, she gleefully embraced Bill and Hillary Clinton, accepting their endorsements and their campaign cash. When the Clintons were no longer useful, she tossed them out like a stained dress. </p>
<p align="left">One incident speaks volumes about Senator Gillibrand's non-existent commitment to honesty. A few years ago, she took up the cause of Emma Sulkowicz, the so-called "Mattress Girl" who constantly lugged a mattress across the Columbia University campus. It was her not-so-subtle way of claiming that she had been raped by another student. </p>
<p align="left">Kirsten Gillibrand, knowing a terrific publicity stunt when she sees one, invited Sulkowicz to be her guest at President Obama's 2015 State of the Union Address. The mattress itself was not invited and had to stay home. </p>
<p align="left">As it turned out, Ms. Sulkowicz had a consensual sexual encounter with the young man and then exchanged affectionate Facebook messages with him. We don't claim to know exactly what happened, but the male student sued and recently received a hefty settlement from Columbia University. </p>
<p align="left">Put simply, Kirsten Gillibrand made life hell for a man who was most likely falsely accused. And she did it to further her political ambitions. How much lower does it get? </p>
<p align="left">Gillibrand and her Democratic colleagues have cleared the decks by hounding Al Franken and John Conyers out of office. Those two men were lambs, sacrificed in order to make the party look pure. Not coincidentally, both seats will safely be filled by equally liberal Democrats. </p>
<p align="left">Many of these newly-born puritans were probably hoping for a Roy Moore victory in Alabama Tuesday, which would have provided even more ammunition to use on Republicans and President Trump. </p>
<p align="left">But even without Moore to kick around, these people are relentlessly going after the president. Their singular, unwavering goal is to see him impeached or forced to resign.</p>
<p align="left">President Trump took some heat this week when he tweeted that Senator Gillibrand used to beg for his campaign contributions and would "do anything for them."</p>
<p align="left">That was a poor choice of words, but Gillibrand and her comrades will in fact do just about anything to destroy this president. They prove it every single day.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-12-14T15:00:00ZInsanity InsanityBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Insanity-Insanity/-244740500840752347.html2017-12-07T16:50:00Z2017-12-07T16:50:00Z<p align="left">Have you heard the one about the clinically insane commander-in-chief? </p>
<p align="left">If not, you just haven't been watching enough CNN and MSNBC. Those networks, along with some anti-Trump print outlets, have been gleefully and repeatedly questioning the president's mental stability. </p>
<p align="left">This is another effort by hard-core leftists to somehow get Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. Immediately after last year's election there were allegations of voter fraud, followed by the absurd hope that some Trump electors would break faith and vote for Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p align="left">Then Trump's legion of enemies settled on Russia and "collusion," which they believed would finally nail the coffin shut on Donald Trump's presidency. But barring something unforeseen, allegations of collusion are going nowhere. That's why the left has recently swung from collusion to "obstruction of justice."</p>
<p align="left">Throughout all this there has been another ominous undercurrent that the left believes could pull President Trump beneath the water. That is the notion that he is insane. Literally. </p>
<p align="left">MSNBC's Morning Joe and his merry band of armchair shrinks have been leading the way. Joe Scarborough has decided that President Trump is "completely detached from reality" and perhaps in the "early stages of dementia." </p>
<p align="left">Co-host Mika Brzezinski and the regular guests, following Joe's lead as always, also question the president's mental fitness. This is the very same crew that was roundly criticized for obsequiously fawning over candidate Donald Trump last year. </p>
<p align="left">Not to be outdone, CNN's odious Brian Stelter has tried to boost his anemic ratings by implying that the president of the United States is off his rocker. He recently sat spellbound as a historian declared that there is "a sick man in the White House."</p>
<p align="left">TV hosts and publicity-seeking historians are free to think and say whatever they want, no matter how irresponsible. But things get dicier when mental health "professionals" race to analyze the president from afar.</p>
<p align="left">Last weekend, MSNBC welcomed psychologist Bandy Lee, who bandied about some truly reprehensible implications. "We must act soon," she warned, because "things will get worse." Lee actually declared that President Trump is "mentally falling apart" and warned that he will "likely become violent." </p>
<p align="left">Evidently the esteemed Dr. Lee has never heard of the "Goldwater Rule," which was enacted by the American Psychiatric Association after scores of shrinks questioned the sanity of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. According to that edict, it is unethical and irresponsible for a mental health professional to diagnose a person they have never met. </p>
<p align="left">So who's nuttier? President Trump, who by all accounts commands the respect of his closest aides, or Bandy Lee, who smashed her professional code of ethics just to get a little face time on TV? </p>
<p align="left">The goal of all this is, as always, to get President Trump out of the White House. The best mechanism to do that, his antagonists now believe, is the 25<sup>th</sup> Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1967. </p>
<p align="left">Under Article Four, a president can be removed when the Vice President and a majority of Cabinet secretaries deem their boss to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump is certainly an unusual president, which is putting it mildly. His tweets, jokes, and comments can be strikingly odd. But he was making those same tweets, jokes, and comments during last year's campaign. His unconventional behavior was a major force behind his victory, and that behavior simply hasn't changed. </p>
<p align="left">His foes are desperately trying to find some way, any way, to overturn the results of the election. Their efforts began last November 9<sup>th</sup> and they have not stopped. </p>
<p align="left">Nor are they likely to stop any time soon. If the Republicans hold the House next year, hopes for impeachment are pretty much gone unless Robert Mueller comes up with a smoking cannon. Even if Democrats take the House, it will require two-thirds of the Senate to actually convict the president and remove him from office. </p>
<p align="left">So if impeachment is nearly impossible, the bitter clingers only have the 25<sup>th</sup> Amendment on which to pin their fading hopes. Trump-loathers in the media are trying to lay the groundwork with all this reckless talk about insanity. </p>
<p align="left">Do they really think Mike Pence and the majority of the Cabinet will stage a coup against a man they genuinely seem to respect? </p>
<p align="left">Now <em>that</em> is a true sign of insanity.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-12-07T16:50:00ZCowboy and (Fake) IndianBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Cowboy-and-Fake-Indian/319610726432742082.html2017-11-30T21:22:00Z2017-11-30T21:22:00Z<p align="left">Remember those pesky syllogisms from high school? Here's a reminder: </p>
<p align="center"><em>All Welsh Corgis shed fur.</em></p>
<p align="center"><em>Holly is a Welsh Corgi.</em></p>
<p align="center"><em> Holly sheds fur.</em></p>
<p align="left">A logical syllogism is pretty easy to follow. But this week the American media came up with an astounding syllogism that went something like this:</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="center"><em>Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage.</em></p>
<p align="center"><em>Donald Trump mocked Elizabeth Warren.</em></p>
<p align="center"><em> Donald Trump is a despicable racist.<br /><br /></em></p>
<p align="left">Any sentient person can see that the above syllogism is absolutely fallacious. It actually goes beyond fallacy into the realm of ridiculous. But not to many of our esteemed purveyors of "news." </p>
<p align="left">This week's dustup began when President Trump honored three Navajo code talkers in the Oval Office. These are amazing men who helped American forces in the Pacific by creating a complex and unbreakable code based on their language. </p>
<p align="left">Let's stipulate that it was the wrong time and the wrong place for President Trump to get in a dig at Senator Elizabeth Warren. But the president's mind works in mysterious ways: He is in the presence of Native Americans, he thinks of Elizabeth Warren, and he mocks her as "Pocahontas." </p>
<p align="left">It was a joke, and not a great one at that. But Senator Warren, in her customary high dudgeon, immediately described it as a "racial slur." CNN's Don Lemon, who has more anger than viewers, described it as a "racial slur." ABC's Matthew Dowd described it as a "racial slur." Notice a pattern here? </p>
<p align="left">Now, in what alternative universe is "Pocahontas" a racial slur? Is it an insult to all Native Americans? Did the president offend the Navajo code talkers? Apparently not, because after the ceremony one of them pointed out that the Marines made them yell "Geronimo" when they jumped out of planes. No one was offended, no one called it a "racial slur." </p>
<p align="left">But one thing is indisputable: Senator Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage. In fact, she lied repeatedly on her way up the academic ladder, the top rung of which was Harvard Law School, where she was paid $350,000 to teach a single class. </p>
<p align="left">Warren listed herself as a Native America, claiming she was 1/32<sup>nd</sup> Cherokee. And she most certainly didn't argue when a publication described her as Harvard Law's "first woman of color." </p>
<p align="left">A simple question: What would you do if you were accused of lying about your ethnicity in order to advance your career? Most people would immediately release all their records to prove they had never made such a claim. Or they would take a DNA test to prove their claims were accurate. </p>
<p align="left">Elizabeth Warren has done neither, and the only conclusion is that she knows she has been caught in a huge lie. High cheekbones or not, the woman has as much Native American blood as President Trump. </p>
<p align="left">Of course, the liberal media love Elizabeth Warren and are very eager to forgive all her past trespasses against honesty. So in yesterday's dustup, she was cast in the role of beleaguered heroine, while President Trump was the scowling bully.</p>
<p align="left">By the way, some media types also took great offense because President Trump honored the code talkers near a portrait of Andrew Jackson, who signed the notorious Indian Removal Act in 1830. </p>
<p align="left">Do they really think the president chose that location in the Oval Office to make some kind of racist statement? It's the same spot where he honored survivors of the USS Arizona. It's where he introduced Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson to the public. Was he sending some kind of subliminal message about hating Indians? No, it's just a place in the Oval Office where ceremonies are conducted.</p>
<p align="left">It has often been said that President Trump is kind of like the guy who gets great joy from teasing his cat with a laser pointer. The man points, the cat runs around helplessly and hilariously in pursuit. In this case, the cats are the media, who eagerly chase after every one of the president's faux pas. Or is it faux paw? </p>
<p align="left">How long can this continue? Either the president's laser pointer will run out of batteries or the media felines will finally give up and take a nap. Neither seems likely to happen any time soon. </p>
<p align="left">We also have some very bad news for the White House press corps. Those pointers come with plenty of spare batteries.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-11-30T21:22:00ZIt's A Wonderful CountryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-A-Wonderful-Country/-381391767506914321.html2017-11-24T17:35:00Z2017-11-24T17:35:00Z<p align="left">This is the time of year when many Americans sit back and watch Frank Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life.' For some of us it will be for the tenth or twentieth time. </p>
<p align="left">You probably know the story. Ambitious and adventurous George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, suffers a string of bad breaks and is actually considering ending his life. Fortunately for George, his quirky little guardian angel Clarence Odbody intervenes with a genius solution. </p>
<p align="left">The not-exactly-angelic-looking angel decides to show George what life in Bedford Falls would have been like had he never been born, and how his decency and goodness made his town such a far better place. Clarence, of course, earned his wings, and many of us shed more than a few tears. </p>
<p align="left">Now, let your imagination run wild for a moment. Substitute the United States of America for George Bailey, and the Planet Earth for Bedford Falls. </p>
<p align="left">Right now the USA is somewhat troubled, even despondent. A large number of Americans despise the president and all those who voted for him, while others believe he's the perfect guy for the job. Both sides of the ideological spectrum share the same land and language and currency, but we are as divided as any time since the Vietnam era. </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, polls show that most Americans say the country is on the "wrong track." Our cities are plagued with violence and many rural areas are suffering from malaise and joblessness and drug addiction. Summing it up, to borrow from Dickens, these are not the best of times in wide swaths of the USA. </p>
<p align="left">But what if Clarence the angel suddenly reappeared to show us what the world would be like if there had never been a United States of America? </p>
<p align="left">This is not an original exercise – conservative Dinesh D'Souza actually made a movie with a similar premise. It was widely mocked by our chattering classes, denounced as a "laughable embarrassment" and "the worst political documentary of all time." </p>
<p align="left">But in fact, it is worth remembering that America – both the idea and the nation – were born at a time when life expectancy was about 40, when women routinely died in childbirth, when disease was rampant and poverty endemic. There were no cars or street lights, let alone phones that allow us to instantaneously scour the world's entire accumulated knowledge. </p>
<p align="left">In just over two centuries, American genius, capitalism, liberty, and free markets have gifted the world with miracles that even H.G. Wells could not envision. The poorest among us are able to live longer, more prosperous, disease-free lives than the richest kings of ancient Europe and Africa.</p>
<p align="left">It's easy to argue that all of the advances would have come about anyway, whether or not there had ever been such a thing as the USA. But never forget that, prior to the Declaration and Constitution, the vast majority of the world was ruled by despots and tyrants, kings and queens. </p>
<p align="left">As Thomas Hobbes wrote in 1651, most humans endured lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes felt this was simply the natural state of mankind, but all that changed dramatically with a radical idea promulgated by some revolutionary men across the ocean.</p>
<p align="left">If there were no America, perhaps Europe would still be under the thumb of royal families. Maybe Karl Marx's odious ideology would have destroyed even more lives across the world than it did. Hitler, Stalin, or others like them, may have ruled the world with unimaginable savagery and brutality.</p>
<p align="left">Unfortunately, there is no Clarence to show us exactly what the world would be like without the United States of America. </p>
<p align="left">A few Americans on the far left feel the USA is inherently evil, a malignancy on the human condition. But most of us firmly believe that America, for all its obvious flaws, despite its treatment of Indians and slaves, is the single greatest experiment that ever was. And, yes, the greatest force for good in the history of humanity.</p>
<p align="left">We are blessed to inhabit this magnificent country, fortunate that some extraordinarily brave men risked everything in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Not only for themselves, but for all their progeny. </p>
<p align="left">For that, we can all be very thankful. Not just this week or this holiday season, but every single day of our lives. </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-11-24T17:35:00ZBeware of Dangerous, High Capacity MagazinesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beware-of-Dangerous-High-Capacity-Magazines/-893847978501765582.html2017-11-16T14:15:00Z2017-11-16T14:15:00Z<p>Okay, we're not talking about ammunition or assault weapons. </p>
<p>Those "high-capacity magazines" are the massive, phone book-sized glossy publications like Vogue and Glamour and GQ. </p>
<p>Their advertisers promote a dreamy lifestyle where beautiful people wear diamond watches, drive luxury cars, and purchase $2,000 suits. </p>
<p>But their editorial pages run the entire gamut from far left to farther left.</p>
<p>As just one example in the news, there is Glamour, which is crammed with high-end ads presumably aimed at extremely wealthy women. This week, the magazine held its annual "Women of the Year" awards, where the honorees included Maxine Waters, the new heroine of the far left and self-proclaimed champion of the poor. </p>
<p>When "Auntie Maxine" took the stage in Brooklyn Monday, she launched into her standard tirade: "Impeach 45! Impeach 45!" </p>
<p>Most of the crowd ate it up and chanted along, but you have to wonder how any Trump voters in the audience must have felt. Surely there were at least one or two.</p>
<p>The very glamorous Glamour crowd was also treated to video appearances by Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, as well as a pep talk from Planned Parenthood boss Cecile Richards. </p>
<p>The simple message is that if you are a traditional woman or opposed to abortion, Glamour sneers at you and doesn't even consider you a genuine female. </p>
<p>Then there is Vogue, perhaps the most amusing of the bunch. Long-time editor Anna Wintour, queen of the fashion world, didn't merely endorse Hillary Clinton for president. </p>
<p>She used her power and her position to raise money for the Clinton campaign, and demanded that all her editors help register voters. </p>
<p>Not those deplorable Trump voters, of course. </p>
<p>Just after the election, Vogue ran a morose piece called "How to Light a Spark on This Very Dark Day." But according to exit polls, it wasn't a dark day at all for about half of all married women in America. They had voted for Donald Trump, but Wintour was apparently quite content to alienate many of her prospective readers. </p>
<p>Perhaps Vogue and Anna Wintour are still trying to make amends for the single most embarrassing article in the history of publishing. In 2011, Vogue ran a glowing piece about Syria's Assad family. That was just as Bashar al-Assad was ramping up his mass slaughter. The article, called "A Rose in the Desert," has been erased from Vogue's memory and website, but can still be easily found.</p>
<p>Let's not forget the men. GQ, the trendy magazine formerly known as Gentlemen's Quarterly, just honored Colin Kaepernick as its "Citizen of the Year." The quarterback's fashion style leans toward tee-shirts with Fidel Castro photos and socks that depict police officers as pigs. Nice pick, GQ. Wasn't Michael Moore available?</p>
<p>GQ's other "men of the year" include Stephen Colbert, who has made a very nice living spewing anti-Trump vulgarities, and basketball star Kevin Durant, who proclaimed he would never visit the Trump White House. Anyone notice a trend? </p>
<p>The list of lefty magazines is a long one, including Elle, Cosmopolitan, and even Seventeen, which published an article with this title: "Watch This 13-Year-Old Totally Slam Sexist Donald Trump."</p>
<p>Of course, we shouldn't overlook Rolling Stone magazine, that fount of great journalism that ran wild with the University of Virginia rape hoax. The once-popular mag had Barack Obama on its cover ten times, the same number of covers as Madonna and Jimi Hendrix. </p>
<p>President Obama was perpetually fawned over by the magazine's writers, editors, and its founder Jann Wenner, who recently put the left-wing publication up for sale.</p>
<p>This brings to mind the song performed by the strangely-named band Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show. "The Cover of Rolling Stone" was a humorous tune about a group's burning desire to adorn the cover of what was then the bible of rock music. </p>
<p>Well, Dr. Hook, wherever you may be, we have some advice. If you still want to get your picture on the cover of Rolling Stone - or just about any other glossy magazine - adhere to two simple rules.</p>
<p>Rule #1: Lean far to the left politically. Rule #2: Never, ever forget Rule #1.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-11-16T14:15:00ZDear DemocratsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dear-Democrats/-602402685894096936.html2017-11-09T16:44:00Z2017-11-09T16:44:00Z<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">To put it mildly, it's been an interesting week for your party and your loyalists.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">You impressively ran the table Tuesday, winning gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, along with many other state and local elections. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Sure, those are predominantly Democratic states, but some of you feared the worst, which did not happen.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Then, the very next day, some of your crazier adherents took to the streets to "Scream Helplessly at the Sky." They were loudly lamenting the first anniversary of Donald Trump's victory. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">The screamers seemed to be imitating the sound made by loons, which is appropriate.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">It is now time to look ahead to next year and the midterm elections. To capture the House and/or Senate, you're going to need to win more than blue states like Virginia and New Jersey. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">First, you have to field candidates who can vanquish those dreaded Republicans in the middle of the country. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Those are the places where people only scream at the sky when they are begging for rain to help the crops grow. Where people work with their hands, where they only recognize two genders, and where they worship God, not government.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">To win in these places, we hereby put forth two Words of the Year. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">One of them should be strenuously avoided; the other should be added to your lexicon.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">The first is "sanctuary," as in sanctuary cities and states. </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">When most Americans hear that term, they firmly believe you are protecting criminal immigrants, that you seem to care more about the rights of malefactors than ordinary citizens. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">And, you know what? They're often correct.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Our morgues and cemeteries have far too many Americans who were killed by drunk drivers or other bad guys who were arrested and set free in a sanctuary city. </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">According to a Harvard-Harris poll, 80% of voters believe local authorities should comply with federal law and help the feds, but way too many of your party leaders disagree.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">You don't need a phonetic guide for "sanctuary" because you use it so frequently. However, our second Word of the Year is one you should learn to pronounce. It's "illegal." ih-LEE-gul. Go ahead, try it, it rolls right off the tongue. You've been very reluctant to use the word, except when referring to Donald Trump's presidency.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">If a person comes to this country without authorization or overstays a visa, he or she is here illegally. Thus, the term "illegal immigrant" is absolutely accurate and not intended to offend anyone. But progressives at the New York Times say it is code for "racial and ethnic hatred," while the venerable AP has actually banned the term.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">So if you have a candidate running for office in a state made up of mostly sane people, "illegal immigrant" is perfectly valid. When politicians start spewing ridiculous terms like "undocumented," "unauthorized," or "future citizen," they paint themselves as people whose primary concern is displaying their virtue.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Of course, these rules are off the table for your candidates in coastal California, the Northeast, and a few other liberal enclaves. So always use your discretion.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">One final thing. Palestinians frequently use the word "Nakba," which translates roughly into "catastrophe." It's their word for that day in 1948 when Israel became an independent state. Far too many Palestinians have used that as an excuse for everything that is wrong with their economy and society. Nearly 70 years after the fact, they seethe with anger and scream helplessly at Israel.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">The Democratic Party has its own Nakba Day, November 8<sup>th</sup>, 2016. But, unlike the Palestinians, you are already on the road to recovery, and Tuesday's results will accelerate the healing process.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Just don't blame President Trump for everything and put forth some candidates who are patriotic and endowed with common sense. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">And remember: Those two little words, one to forget and one to remember, will serve you far, far better than screaming helplessly at the sky.</span></p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-11-09T16:44:00ZDiversity and DeathBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Diversity-and-Death/-52152521156225627.html2017-11-02T15:26:00Z2017-11-02T15:26:00Z<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">A 21-year-old man in Uzbekistan won the lottery in 2010. This week, eight people lost their lives in Manhattan. </span>By now you know those two events are tragically intertwined. </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">What you may not know is that the man who attacked lower Manhattan this week is not the first terrorist to enter the United States thanks to the Diversity Visa Lottery.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">In the late 1990s, an Egyptian man became a legal resident when his wife won the lottery. A few years later, he pulled out two Glocks and opened fire at the Los Angeles Airport. This terrorist, a committed Islamist, targeted the ticket counter of El Al, the Israeli national airline.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Both men worked as drivers, both were married with children, and both fell under the spell of radical Islam. </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">And both were in the USA due to a program that is now coming under very heavy fire.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">By the way, another Egyptian named Mohamed Atta entered the Diversity Visa Lottery twice before he gained entry to the USA on a different type of visa. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">That's the same Mohamed Atta who was a ringleader of the 9/11 attacks.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">The now-notorious lottery was established in 1990, during the administration of George H.W. Bush. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Chuck Schumer, then a Representative from New York, promoted the idea as a way to allow more immigration from "low-admission" countries. Senator Ted Kennedy was also a driving force, supposedly because he wanted to increase immigration from his beloved Ireland.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">It should be noted that many Republicans voted for the larger immigration bill in which the lottery was included, and both parties have passed up opportunities to kill the lottery over the years.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">But while both parties are somewhat culpable, we all know that the very word "diversity" is the province of Democrats and liberals. It has become a religion unto itself, especially on college campuses.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">This all raises an uncomfortable question: What's so great about diversity? </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Immigrants from around the world have certainly contributed to America's prosperity. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">But would the United States be a worse place if we did not accept 55,000 lottery winners every year?</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Many of those visas go to people from cultures that make it difficult to assimilate. The NYC attacker’s upbringing in Uzbekistan didn't exactly prepare him to thrive in the USA's hyper-competitive society. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Instead, he became another ripe target for radical imams.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">There can be no doubt that the Diversity Visa Lottery has enabled some terrific people to come to the USA. The media will soon be filled with heart-warming stories of lottery winners who escaped horrible situations and are now living the American Dream.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">There is also no doubt the lottery has made the diversity-mongers feel much better about themselves. But the program has cost human lives, most recently the eight people who were mowed down Tuesday.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">A few years ago, Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte introduced a bill to kill the Diversity Visa Lottery, arguing that it could easily be used to get terrorists into the United States. </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">The bill went down in flames, but Goodlatte now looks like a modern Cassandra.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">President Trump, who also wants to ax the program, has endorsed a proposal that would give precedence to immigrants with more education and greater skills. In other words, diversity would take a back seat to competence. </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">It's exactly the kind of program that works so well in Canada and Australia.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Technology companies love the idea of immigration based on skill, but liberal Democrats hate it, partly because it would do away with the lottery. Democrats are more likely to side with ultra-liberal, Trump-loathing Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who has proposed doubling the number of diversity visas to 110,000 every year.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Just last month, liberal author Andrew Sullivan wrote a piece for New York magazine, which was headlined, "The Issue That Could Lose the Next Election for Democrats."</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">That issue is immigration, and the piece was a warning to all those Democrats who actively and vigorously oppose limits on immigration. While most progressives won't say it out loud, their ultimate goal is open borders and unfettered immigration.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">"This is the kind of madness," Sullivan lamented, "that could keep them from power indefinitely."</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Democrats and liberals and progressives, lend us your ears and your minds. The time has come to listen to one of your own and, far more important, to the vast majority of the American people who oppose schemes like the Diversity Visa Lottery.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">You should agree to embrace a sane immigration policy, which might begin by ending the diversity lottery. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Otherwise, as Andrew Sullivan says, you may be out of power indefinitely.</span></p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-11-02T15:26:00ZThe End of a Shameful SagaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-End-of-a-Shameful-Saga/203962697312765835.html2017-10-26T15:26:00Z2017-10-26T15:26:00Z<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Every presidency has some awful, cringe-inducing moments: </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">"Mission Accomplished" </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is"</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Very high on that list is what took place on May 31, 2014, when President Obama held a celebratory event at the White House. </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">He was flanked by Bob and Jani Bergdahl, whose son Bowe had just been swapped for five top Taliban warriors.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Whatever you think of him or his policies, Barack Obama is usually an astute politician who knows which way the wind is blowing. But in this case he was absolutely tone deaf. President Obama fully expected that Bowe Bergdahl's return after five years in Taliban captivity would be cheered by the media, the military, and the entire nation.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">But at that very moment the Obama administration already knew that Private First Class Bergdahl, who was promoted during captivity, left his post in Afghanistan without authorization. </span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">He was a deserter, one of the most heinous crimes in the military code of justice.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">President Obama could have skipped the celebration and the hugs to the Bergdahls, but he decided to go all in. Even worse, the very next day National Security Adviser Susan Rice made one of the more outrageous statements in recent memory: "He served the United States," she said of Bergdahl, "with honor and distinction."</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Keep in mind that Bergdahl had written this to his parents just prior to deserting: </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">"I am ashamed to be an American … the US Army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at." And before he walked away from his post on June 30, 2009, Bergdahl left a note indicating that he was about to start a new life.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">So the prevaricating Susan Rice knew, just as she had known that Benghazi was not caused by some Internet video, that Bowe Bergdahl had served with anything but "honor and distinction."</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Immediately after Rice's television appearance, military analyst Lt. Col Ralph Peters, with his customary pithiness, wrote this: </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">"Ms. Rice is aggressively stupid, immaculately clueless, and a disgrace to our system of government." </span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">He added that, by Rice's definition, Benedict Arnold also served with "honor and distinction."</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">This sordid chapter is about to finally come to an end. Bergdahl has pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, and a military judge at Fort Bragg in North Carolina will soon hand down a sentence.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">One important aspect to the sentencing is that the judge will hear testimony from men who were wounded when they went out to search for Bergdahl in the wilds of Afghanistan. These are the people we should be remembering and celebrating, not Bowe Bergdahl or Susan Rice.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">One of the injured soldiers is confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak. Another cannot use his right hand, while a third suffered a leg wound. There were also rumors, but absolutely no hard evidence, that other soldiers actually died in the search.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Bergdahl's lawyers argue that they can't get a fair shake because Donald Trump, prior to being elected, referred to their client as a "dirty, rotten traitor." Well, Mr. Trump was never one for understatement.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">But whatever was said by the candidate-turned-commander-in-chief, the facts in the case are beyond dispute. Bowe Bergdahl willfully deserted his post and put his fellow soldiers in harm's way.</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">And what about the Taliban Five, the terrorists who were freed from Guantanamo Bay so that President Obama could bask in his photo op and boast that the USA "does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind?"</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">Those terrorists were sent to Qatar, where they apparently remain. According to reporting by Fox News' Catherine Herridge, who has impeccable sources, at least three of them have tried to re-engage with their former terror networks. Heckuva job, Barack!</span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">We'll give the final word to Army Captain Chase Spears, who interviewed many of Bergdahl's platoon mates. "It was common knowledge inside the unit," Spears wrote this week in the Baltimore Sun, "that Sergeant Bergdahl had deserted." He added, "Soldiers who knew the truth were afraid to speak up, out of fear that they would be punished." That is simply a grotesque statement about the atmosphere in the military during the Obama years.</span></p>
<p class="s3"><span class="bumpedfont15">This entire episode has left no one draped in glory, least of all Bowe Bergdahl. He caused great pain to his fellow soldiers and to the nation he finds so embarrassing. We will soon learn his sentence, after which we all hope to not hear from or about Bowe Bergdahl ever again.</span></p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-10-26T15:26:00ZThe Late, Late, Hate ShowsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Late-Late-Hate-Shows/324072452765982124.html2017-10-19T15:20:00Z2017-10-19T15:20:00Z<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Charles Krauthammer always had the best explanation for the immediate and resounding success of the Fox News Channel. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">"The genius of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch," </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">he</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> quipped, "is that they found a niche – half the American people."</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Prior to Fox, traditional Americans simply didn't have a </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">TV </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">news outlet </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">where</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> their political </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">preferences</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> and </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">religious views</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> weren't </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">routinely </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">dismissed or </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">mocked.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">T</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">here is a very similar situation right now. The </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">network </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">late night </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">hosts</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">, or at least two of the three, </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">scorn</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> average Americans, who </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">scorn</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> them right back.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">We put up a poll this week on<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://billoreilly.com/">BillOReilly.com</a></span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">,</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> asking you to choose between Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">and </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Jimmy Fallon. </span></span></span></p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">The good news for Fallon, host of NBC's The Tonight Show, is that he is easily the winner. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">The bad news, though, is that 8</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">2</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">% of you said you would rather be shot than watch any of 'em. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Hyperbole, we presume!</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Of course, t</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">he most successful host ever was Johnny Carson, who was </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">the last person seen</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> each </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">week</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">night by about 15-million Americans. Even his successor Jay Leno, who </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">sat at the desk when Americans had many more viewing options</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">, </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">attracted</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">6-million or so.</span></span></span></p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">But now</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> the three would-be Princes of Late Night are more like paupers, with </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">fewer than</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> 3-million viewers each. </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">To be sure, it</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> is </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">a</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> different era in television and no network show in any time slot </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">will ever again have</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> the audience of Cheers or Bonanza or I Love Lucy. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">The same is true for network newscasts.</span></span></span></p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">But beyond audience fragmentation, there is something else at play. While Leno and Carson generally kept their personal politics out of </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">sight</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">, their successors </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">often </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">do</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> the </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">exact </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">opposite. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">But </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">they</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> should </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">also</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">be aware</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> that even Trump-haters eventually </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">grow</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> tired of a one-trick pony. </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Colbert and Kimmel, putting their </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">predictably </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">left-wing </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">views</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> on display every night,</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> have totally given up on half their prospective audience.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Colbert </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">was first out of the blocks</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> when he went on a profane rant that took</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Trump-bashing to a new low</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">. That </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">attracted</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> both attention and more viewers, with many </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">people </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">wondering what he might say next.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">More recently</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">,</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Jimmy Kimmel </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">dipped his toes into the political water, expressing his views </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">on </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">health care and gun control. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Liberals cheered, conservatives did not. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Knowing that it could cost him some </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Republican</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> viewers, Kimmel said, "I probably wouldn't want to have a conversation with them anyway."</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Colbert, the late-night basher-in-chief, </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">obviously took notice of the fact that Saturday Night Live used Trump ridicule as a springboard to </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">much </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">higher ratings last year. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">But </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">he</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> should </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">also</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">be aware</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> that even Trump-haters eventually </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">grow</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> tired of a one-trick pony. SNL's numbers are down this year, at least based on the first few shows.</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">T</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">he same joke, told over and over in different variations, can grow </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">extremely</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">tiresome.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Then there is</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> Jimmy Fallon, heir to Carson and Leno as host of The Tonight show. </span></span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">He is perhaps still licking his wounds after taking a severe left-wing lashing </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">last September</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">. </span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Fallon's great crime was having </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">candidate </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Donald Trump as a guest and mussing up </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">his famous orange-</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">tinted</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> hair. So, you see, he "normalized" Trump, rather than berating him.</span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Even before being chastened by that incident</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">, </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Fallon </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">tend</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">ed </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">to steer</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> clear of </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">politics, saying it is just not what he is good at. </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">But while he</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> trails Colbert in total viewers</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">, Fallon's </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">show</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">still has a very</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">comfortable lead</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> in the </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">younger demographic coveted by advertisers.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Rest assured that </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Jimmy Fallon will not be imitating Eminem</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">'s anti-Trump profanity</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> any time soon. He simply wants to be funny, which </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">has become</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> a </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">strangely </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">novel concept in the late night TV wars. </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">A left-wing writer at Salon </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">actually complains</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> that Fallon's </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">apolitical style is "too convenient and comfortable" and </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">of course</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> accuses him of displaying "privilege." </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">That's the word of the day, every single day</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> of the week</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">.</span></span></span></p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">But </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Jimmy Fallon</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> and his rivals</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> should keep in mind that "comfortable" worked </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">very, very</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> well for Johnny Carson </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">for three decades</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">, even when </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">the much-loathed </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Richard Nixon was in office.</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> </span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">And </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Fallon should be grateful that</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15"> the other two guys have </span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">given up on attracting conservative and traditional American viewers</span></span><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">.</span></span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">As Dr. Krauthammer would say, there's a niche market available for the taking in late night television. </span></span> </p>
<p class="s3"><span class="s4"><span class="bumpedFont15">Namely, half of America.</span></span></p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-10-19T15:20:00ZTrump Spikes the Ball, Dances in the End ZoneBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trump-Spikes-the-Ball-Dances-in-the-End-Zone/726897565782893310.html2017-10-12T16:40:00Z2017-10-12T16:40:00Z<p align="left">President Trump declared victory this week. The commander-in-chief is essentially boasting that he has vanquished the nation's most powerful sports league, its owners, and its players. In other words, "Mission Accomplished." </p>
<p align="left">And in fact, the president is correct, even if his end zone celebration is a bit unseemly. National Football League boss Roger Goodell, by all accounts, will soon demand that players stop kneeling or otherwise protesting during the National Anthem. </p>
<p align="left">The NFL, trapped in a box of its own making, is desperate to find some graceful way out. But there really is none. If, as expected, the league orders all players to stand during the Anthem, one player has already predicted an "uproar," and many on the left will immediately scream "racism!" </p>
<p align="left">We see it already. After Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said that his players will stand, the charming Al Sharpton said Jones has a "plantation mentality." The rapper Common went farther, accusing Jones of acting like a "slave owner." Even sports pundit Michael Wilbon, usually a reasonable guy, trotted out the "plantation" analogy. </p>
<p align="left">Are these people serious? Unfortunately, they are. But they are kneeling on very shaky legal ground. Any attorney remotely familiar with First Amendment law will tell you that Jerry Jones is a private employer who can make and enforce the rules in his workplace, which just happens to be the stadium. Same for Roger Goodell and the NFL. </p>
<p align="left">One player who has emerged as a very articulate spokesperson for the protesters is Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers. He asserts that players have a constitutional right to protest, which they do, but not in the arena. </p>
<p align="left">Reid also opined on Vice President Mike Pence's decision to leave a game when players kneeled. "That's what systemic oppression looks like," Reid declared. That's bizarre enough, but Reid is severely misinformed when he says that President Trump called neo-Nazis "very fine people." No, Mr. Reid, he did not say that. </p>
<p align="left">But while the law is with the owners, far more important are the fans and the American public. The NFL absolutely and totally misjudged their audience, apparently thinking that football fans would just sit back, have a beer, and endure some protests before watching their favorite gladiators give each other concussions. </p>
<p align="left">But football fans tend to be patriotic types, the very people who voted for Donald Trump. And while most presidents would have let this sort itself out, President Trump used his bully pulpit to, well, bully. It's what he does. In this debate, as is so often the case, the president was firmly on the side of average Americans who despised these protests from the moment Colin Kaepernick took that first knee. </p>
<p align="left">So what happens now? There will probably be some scattered protests this weekend, but that may be the end of it. The league has given very clear signals that it will soon ban the protests and demand that players follow league rules. Perhaps there will be some face-saving compromise under which protesting players can remain in the locker room during the National Anthem. </p>
<p align="left">Players won't like it, especially radical types like the revolting Marcus Peters of the Kansas City Chiefs, who wouldn't even stand the day after the massacre in Las Vegas. Peters has since been caught on camera berating one of his assistant coaches, and he was suspended in college after throwing a tantrum on the sideline. Lovely guy, that Marcus Peters. </p>
<p align="left">This entire episode could have been easily avoided if the San Francisco 49ers had simply told Colin Kaepernick to stop the nonsense on day one. But team CEO Jed York, heir to the family business, actually encouraged the malcontent quarterback. "I'm not going to tell the guys what to do," York sanctimoniously said, adding, "That's not my place." Well, who's place is it, Jed? </p>
<p align="left">But Jed York was far from silent when President Trump criticized players for kneeling. He said the president's comments were "callous and offensive," and even employed that tedious and meaningless catchphrase "social justice." The San Francisco 49ers, by the way, are one of only three teams in the league with an 0 – 5 record. To quote President Bush, "Heckuva job, Yorkie."</p>
<p align="left">This entire episode will end soon, probably with a whimper and not a bang. Some players will be angry, misguided executives like Jed York will demonize the president, race relations will be even more frayed, and millions of fans will be lost to the sport forever. </p>
<p align="left">It just did not have to happen. Baseball, anyone?</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-10-12T16:40:00ZWhen Evil TriumphsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/When-Evil-Triumphs/901678206641714709.html2017-10-05T16:31:00Z2017-10-05T16:31:00Z<p align="left">If you hang around Facebook or other social media, you've probably read about the mysterious "second shooter" who was firing from the 4<sup>th</sup> floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel. Or was it the 2<sup>nd</sup> floor? Then there was the mystery woman who warned concert-goers, an hour before the massacre, that their lives were about to end? </p>
<p align="left">You've also noticed that many self-proclaimed crime experts are absolutely certain that Stephen Paddock was merely a patsy and that he didn't kill himself. The Internet has been chock full of conspiracy theories this week, one more bizarre than the next. </p>
<p align="left">We know that tragedies bring out the best in many human beings. Heroic people rush to help the wounded, protect total strangers, give blood, and do everything possible to help ease the unspeakable pain. </p>
<p align="left">But tragedies also bring out the worst. Among them is the widespread willingness to believe almost anything about the horror. Anything, that is, except the most obvious conclusion: Stephen Paddock was the lone shooter last weekend in Las Vegas.</p>
<p align="left">Sure, it's possible that someone else was aware of his arsenal, maybe even suspected that he had some mental issues. But, really, it's almost a certainty that no one helped him cart those weapons up to the 32<sup>nd</sup> floor. </p>
<p align="left">Keep in mind that Las Vegas hotels host trade shows that attract tens of thousands of people, many of whom arrive with all sorts of very large and odd-shaped displays. Is it really that difficult to fathom that Paddock made numerous trips to his suite and kept his arsenal stored in boxes or cases? </p>
<p align="left">The urge to believe the unbelievable is certainly understandable. This was a guy who was nearly eligible for Social Security, far older than most mass killers. His brother describes him as a wealthy man and cops say he had no rap sheet. We know little beyond the fact that he worked for government agencies and later made some nice change selling real estate. The case of Stephen Paddock is as mystifying as any we have seen. </p>
<p align="left">But this is another example of Occam's Razor, the law that says the least complicated answer is almost always the correct one. How about if Stephen Paddock was simply a very bad man who became consumed by evil? </p>
<p align="left">Many modern Americans don't believe, or don't want to believe, there is such a thing as evil. But how else to explain Charles Manson? Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer? And, yes, Stephen Paddock. </p>
<p align="left">Based on all we know right now, Paddock spent months or years concocting a meticulous plan for mass murder and he did it all by himself. He brought powerful weapons into his hotel room, along with special equipment to transform a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun-style automatic weapon. </p>
<p align="left">He had many more guns at his homes and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, not to mention explosives. This was a bad guy who was locked, loaded, and ready to rain hell on innocent people. </p>
<p align="left">There was apparently no religious motivation, nor did he seem to be a political guy. We may learn otherwise, but that won't alter his sheer wickedness. We may even discover that there was some medical explanation. His Valium prescription, perhaps, or maybe even a serious condition. </p>
<p align="left">One of the most infamous mass killers in history was Charles Whitman, a seemingly all-American young man who climbed to the top of a tower at the University of Texas in 1965 and picked off students one by one. Some medical experts believe a malignant brain tumor was responsible for his murderous rampage. </p>
<p align="left">But it's hopeless to speculate and conspiracy theories, while tempting, are usually ludicrous. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in Dallas in 1963, but some people insist that he was part of some nefarious and yet-unsolved plot. The 9/11 hijackers, under the direction of Osama Bin Laden, carried off an incredible terrorist attack. Again, many find solace in believing that someone else was involved, maybe even the United States government. But to believe that, you have to be as moronic as Rosie O'Donnell or Van Jones.</p>
<p align="left">Sorry, folks, but right now we will skip the modern conspiracy theories and call on the 14<sup>th</sup> century English friar William of Ockham, originator of the that famous law. The most rational explanation is most likely the simplest. </p>
<p align="left">Stephen Paddock was an evil man who performed a dastardly deed. He provided a very painful reminder that pure wickedness is in our midst. Thus it has always been, and thus shall it ever be.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-10-05T16:31:00ZDr. Trump and His Salivating DogsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dr.-Trump-and-His-Salivating-Dogs/618285595873057318.html2017-09-28T16:27:00Z2017-09-28T16:27:00Z<p align="left">First, lather: President Trump, with his customary bluster, barks out something that 60% or 70% of Americans agree with. </p>
<p align="left">Then rinse: The left-wing media complex howls in unison, claiming the president is a racist or an Islamophobe or whatever.</p>
<p align="left">And, finally: Repeat … and repeat … and repeat … </p>
<p align="left">It has been pointed out elsewhere that Donald Trump is kind of like the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov rang his bell and dogs salivated; Trump's voice rings out and leftists everywhere froth at the mouth. </p>
<p align="left">We don't need to rehash all that has happened since last Friday, when President Trump denounced NFL players who take a knee or sit during the National Anthem. Most Americans most certainly agree, but the cable newsers and Sunday talk shows quickly invited guests who could not wait to call the president a bigot. </p>
<p align="left">They even attacked the song itself. On Meet the Press, a guest named Stephen Henderson criticized the National Anthem with today's go-to term, calling it "white supremacist." As you may have noticed, these days everyone and everything is "white supremacist." </p>
<p align="left">The most vicious attacks came from NFL players and other athletes, many of whom called the president names that can't be repeated here. Some jocks also expressed their unwavering support for Colin Kaepernick, the washed-up quarterback who started all of this. </p>
<p align="left">It's worth remembering that Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem last season, during the Obama administration. But that's not all he did. Kaepernick also wore socks that depicted police officers as pigs. Let that sink in for a moment. Many NFL players are supporting a man who disrespected not only our flag, but cops across the land. </p>
<p align="left">Among the first players to sit out the Anthem was linebacker Michael Bennett of the Seattle Seahawks, who wrote this: "I love football like any other American. But I don't love segregation, I don't love riots, I don't love oppression. I don't love gender slander."</p>
<p align="left">The amount of money made by Bennett ($16-million this year) or any other player is often brought up, but it is totally irrelevant to this debate. Whether you make $16,000,000 a year or $16,000, you either think America is a racist hellhole or a noble nation whose flag is worth at least respecting.</p>
<p align="left">One has to wonder whether Michael Bennett, who apparently views this country as a pretty appalling place, is living in the same nation as, say, Burgess Owens. He's a black man and an author who played ten seasons in the NFL. Owens doesn't blame President Trump for the ills affecting blacks in America, but rather puts the onus squarely on liberalism, which he says has destroyed the black family. </p>
<p align="left">"When I stood on the sideline," he said on Fox News this week, "I remember getting teary-eyed at points because I was so excited about being there." He continued, "We have come to the point because of liberalism, because of what Democratic policies do, where 70% of black men do not stay around." </p>
<p align="left">Another black man, the conservative economist Walter Williams, also wrote a truism this week: "Only 8% of black married-couple families live in poverty. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37%." </p>
<p align="left">It's unfortunate that President Trump, with his bombast last week, turned this into a debate about himself and his decorum. How much better would it be if we were discussing the state of the black family and how to make it more solid? Or how to improve education for blacks in the USA. </p>
<p align="left">The protests will continue, even if many of the players don't even know what in the world they are protesting against. But they should know that taking a knee will not give one more black child a loving father, nor will it get that child a top-notch education. </p>
<p align="left">Similarly, members of Congress can showboat by taking a knee on the floor of the House, or by demanding President Trump's impeachment. But they ignore the real problems that began to worsen around the time Donald Trump was in grade school. </p>
<p align="left">The kneeling players, the preening members of Congress, and the left-wing pundits are all busy congratulating themselves for their "courage." But true courage would mean examining the facts and speaking the truth. </p>
<p align="left">It's easier, much easier, to take a knee and tell yourself you are making a difference. You are not.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-09-28T16:27:00ZA Tale of One SpeechBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Tale-of-One-Speech/86345739575780735.html2017-09-21T16:44:00Z2017-09-21T16:44:00Z<p align="left">President Trump "borders on the threat of committing a war crime."</p>
<p align="left">No, President Trump was "bold and courageous and forthright."</p>
<p align="left">Same speech, two wildly different reactions. The first is from Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent who is as unabashedly biased as anyone on the air. The other is from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose nation is under constant existential threat. </p>
<p align="left">To quote Groucho Marx, "Who ya gonna believe?" </p>
<p align="left">If we are a polarized nation, and we are, President Trump's speech to the United Nations General Assembly provided more stark evidence. </p>
<p align="left">Left-wing journalists, pardon the redundancy, generally loathed the president's forthrightness regarding North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. </p>
<p align="left">Brian Fallon, a former Hillary Clinton mouthpiece now paid by CNN to hammer the president, described it as "intellectually confused if not outright incoherent." NBC's Andrea Mitchell called it "bombastic," while MSNBC guest Lawrence Wilkerson blasted it as "the most atrocious speech I've ever heard an American president give in any venue." Really, the "most atrocious ever?" Wow! </p>
<p align="left">On the right, Trump's tough talk won widespread praise, perhaps best summarized by former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. "This was the best speech of the Trump presidency," he declared, adding that President Trump "was as clear and direct as it is possible to be." </p>
<p align="left">Putting aside the speech and its merits or flaws, the post-game analysis provides a clear look at America in the age of Trump. Whatever he does, whatever he says, the president's supporters support, his critics criticize. It's just what they do. </p>
<p align="left">When the president refered to Kim Jong Un as "Rocket Man," his voters snickered and brushed it off as harmless humor. But his legion of enemies acted as if President Trump dropped the verbal version of a hydrogen bomb directly on Pyongyang </p>
<p align="left">When President Trump met with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to discuss DACA and the so-called "dreamers," his supporters gave him the benefit of the doubt. But left-wingers went as ballistic as Kim Jong Un, questioning how any Democrat could possibly talk with and "normalize" the president. You probably saw the amusing scene where Pelosi was shouted down by immigrants, normally her most reliable constituents. Simply because she spoke with the president of the United States. </p>
<p align="left">President Trump's approval rating, according to a new poll by Politico/Morning Consult, has ticked up to 43%, and he remains very popular among four in five Republican voters. But Democrats really, really dislike the guy. In the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, a whopping 9% of Dems approve of President Trump's performance. He is presumably less popular among liberal Democrats than Venezuela's President Maduro. </p>
<p align="left">Unfortunately, all of this is unlikely to change very much. The liberal media, which means pretty much all of the media, will continue to harp on the president's shortcomings. If the administration does something well, as it apparently has after the hurricanes in Texas and Florida, you will not hear much about it.</p>
<p align="left">Hollywood will continue to bash the president at every awards show, ratings be damned. Just this week Ellen DeGeneres declared that the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, is forever banned from her talk show. Why? Because he's "dangerous" to the country and the world. Will Ellen be asking prospective guests if they voted for this dangerous man? </p>
<p align="left">Barring some unifying event such as war or an act of terror, this unhealthy and unprecedented polarization will likely continue for four or eight years, as long as the loved-and-loathed Donald Trump resides in the White House. </p>
<p align="left">You knew this would be a very bumpy ride, so you probably buckled up a long time ago. But it's worth double-checking your air bags as well. It's getting bumpier out there by the day.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-09-21T16:44:00ZCOUR 101: Introduction to CourageBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/COUR-101:-Introduction-to-Courage/518834809603709010.html2017-09-14T15:18:00Z2017-09-14T15:18:00Z<p align="left">You may have heard the saga of law professors Amy Wax and Larry Alexander. In an op-ed published last month, they put forth a simple and common-sense prescription for getting ahead in modern America. </p>
<p align="left">Their piece, headlined "PAYING THE PRICE FOR BREAKDOWN OF THE COUNTRY'S BOURGEOIS CULTURE," first laid out some of the very serious problems affecting America. Among them: </p>
<p align="left">- Opioid abuse is widespread</p>
<p align="left">- Homicidal violence plagues inner cities</p>
<p align="left">- Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock </p>
<p align="left">It's hard to argue with those facts. But then came their prescriptions: Get married before you have children, strive to stay married, get educated, work hard, be a patriot, be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Go the extra mile for your employer, eschew substance abuse and crime. </p>
<p align="left">Again, most fair-minded people would say that makes a whole lot of sense. But college campuses, even highly-esteemed universities, are not populated by many fair-minded people these days. </p>
<p align="left">Larry Alexander has taken some heat at the University of San Diego, but it's Amy Wax who has really been hammered big-time at the University of Pennsylvania, whose law school is ranked among the very best in America. </p>
<p align="left">Almost immediately after the article appeared, 33 of Wax's colleagues signed what they called an open letter to the university community. Without making any actual counter-arguments, they condemned the op-ed and its authors, and wrote this astounding sentence: "We categorically reject Wax's claims." </p>
<p align="left">Categorically? Every single one of her claims? Do these highly-trained legal minds really reject the notion that it's better to be married before having kids? Or that it's a good idea to work hard, to study, to be neighborly and respectful? </p>
<p align="left">During a telephone interview this week, Amy Wax decried the existence of a "monoculture" and an "echo chamber" on most campuses, including her own. "What kind of example does it set for law students," she asked rhetorically, "when 33 faculty members say we 'condemn' Amy Wax's statements and 'categorically reject' her claims? It teaches students that they don't have to make an argument!" </p>
<p align="left">As for those students, Wax lamented that many are absolutely "terrified" by the current atmosphere of repression that reigns on campuses. "There is so much intimidation, there are so many threats, and there is a lot of peer pressure if any kind of dissenting thought is expressed." </p>
<p align="left">In the op-ed that so many academics and students found offensive, Wax and Alexander denounced the single-parent, antisocial habits that are prevalent among many working-class whites, and also blasted the "anti-'acting white' rap culture of inner city blacks" and the "anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants." </p>
<p align="left">It is very clear that Amy Wax and Larry Alexander want all Americans to have a shot at success. It is equally clear that they believe following the rules of "bourgeois culture" is the best way to achieve that success. They could just as easily have said "traditional values" or "middle class morality," which mean the same thing. But they are being accused, of course, of promoting "white supremacy." </p>
<p align="left">Professor Wax has been shunned by many of her colleagues and may be banned from teaching a required first-year course. You know, those dainty students, who have already been through four years of college, may need a fainting couch if they are anywhere in Wax's vicinity. "It's very clear to me," she declares, "that if I did not have tenure I would be out of here." That statement, while pithy, speaks volumes about modern education. </p>
<p align="left">Now, one might think that Professor Wax would be a feminist heroine. She is an opinionated, strong, and fearless woman who speaks what she sees as the truth, damn the consequences. But we all know that conservative women are not welcome on campus or in any other left-wing arenas. </p>
<p align="left">Defiant as ever, Amy Wax offers this advice for anyone who runs afoul of the PC police: "Never apologize, do not grovel, do not give them the slightest sense that you are intimidated by what they are doing to you. I see people scurrying to apologize and that is the biggest mistake you can possibly make because that just emboldens them." </p>
<p align="left">At the risk of offending even more people, we'll add one simple word: Amen!</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-09-14T15:18:00ZWhen Does the Media Love Christianity?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/When-Does-the-Media-Love-Christianity/-904489698118946721.html2017-09-08T15:38:00Z2017-09-08T15:38:00Z<p align="left">You probably know the answer to the above question. The media praises Christianity only when the Christian in question is a left-wing politician. </p>
<p align="left">What brings this up is a long and nauseating piece in the Boston Globe which essentially beatified Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. </p>
<p align="left">"Elizabeth Warren's Christian faith is deep and authentic," gushed reporter Victoria McGrane, "and it informs her work as a senator." How does McGrane or anyone else know whether anyone's faith is "authentic?" </p>
<p align="left">We were also assured that Senator Warren is never without her Bible, "a well-worn King James version she has had since the fourth grade." </p>
<p align="left">Can you imagine the Boston Globe or its former owner, the New York Times, writing that kind of puffery about a Republican? Mike Huckabee, for example, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, but most of the swells at the Globe surely despise the man. </p>
<p align="left">This drill is all very familiar and predictable: Religion as practiced by Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and their fellow travelers on the left is uplifting and honorable. Religion as practiced by Ted Cruz, Robert Jeffress, and Sarah Palin is worthy of nothing but ridicule. </p>
<p align="left">But let's get back to Elizabeth Warren and that well-worn Bible of hers. Like all of us, she has done plenty of things that are not advised by the Ten Commandments. A few examples: </p>
<p align="left">- She was paid some $400,000 to teach a single class at Harvard Law School. If Senator Warren checks that Bible, the Gospel of Matthew says it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. Presumably that also applies to women, even highly esteemed law professors. </p>
<p align="left">- While residing in Oklahoma, Warren made some very nice pocket change buying and selling homes. In one case she managed to turn a 383% profit in five months by flipping a home in Oklahoma City. There is nothing illegal about making dough, but she acted more like those Biblical money-changers than the fellow who ran them out of the Temple. </p>
<p align="left">- Elizabeth Warren almost certainly lied about her ancestry to advance her career. It's a subject that she scrupulously avoids and evades, but somewhere along the line Warren checked a box and claimed Cherokee ancestry. It certainly helped her in the world of academia, but there is this little thing in that Bible about lying. The Boston Globe, by the way, was glad to aid and abet Warren's bogus claims. </p>
<p align="left">- When it comes to abortion, which went unmentioned in the Boston Globe article, the Senator from Massachusetts is about as extreme as can be. She not only endorses late-term abortion, but she wants you to pay for it via federal funds. When faced with videos showing Planned Parenthood officials haggling over the price of baby parts, Warren questioned not the abhorrent practice, but the veracity of the video evidence. </p>
<p align="left">All of this is not to say that Senator Warren is not genuine in her faith. No one, not even a worshipful writer for the Boston Globe, can know what is in her heart and soul. She may well read from that Bible every single day and do her utmost to follow its teachings. </p>
<p align="left">This is more about the dishonest media than it is about one woman. The Globe, like most media outlets, sees Elizabeth Warren as a potential presidential candidate, someone who can lead them to the elusive promised land of unfettered immigration, universal health care, "free" college tuition, and unrestricted abortion. </p>
<p align="left">But before 2020 comes 2018, and Senator Warren is being challenged for her Senate seat by, among others, a brilliant scientist and entrepreneur named Shiva Ayyadurai. He was actually born in India and is naturally using the slogan, "Only a real Indian can defeat a fake Indian." </p>
<p align="left">The Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, and all the other left-wing media outlets will do whatever it takes to get Elizabeth Warren reelected to the Senate. Even if it means turning her into a Bible-toting, God-fearing woman whose faith is not to be questioned. </p>
<p align="left">That second term in the Senate will be one more stepping stone on the road to the White House, which is what many in the left-wing media are hoping for. Actually, they're doing more than just hoping. They're praying.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-09-08T15:38:00ZAnti Antifa, At Long LastBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Anti-Antifa-At-Long-Last/545542000121038619.html2017-08-31T14:13:00Z2017-08-31T14:13:00Z<p align="left">There was this astounding headline Monday in the Washington Post: "Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley." </p>
<p align="left">Put aside the question of how the Post determined that the demonstrators were "right-wing." What makes the headline remarkable is that a major liberal newspaper finally and accurately denounced the thugs. Antifa may be short for "anti-fascist," but it is in fact just the opposite. </p>
<p align="left">The Los Angeles Times soon chimed in, decrying "violence by far-left protesters." And on MSNBC, of all places, Joe Scarborough blasted the antifa goons as "fascists in their behavior." </p>
<p align="left">A few far-left politicians have also joined the anti-antifa chorus. Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, who actually applauded the mob that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos in February, now wants antifa officially classified as a gang. "They come dressed in uniforms," he observed, "and they have weapons, almost like a militia." Hey, Mayor Arreguin, good of you to finally notice. </p>
<p align="left">And the most stunning turnaround came Tuesday, when Democrat Nancy Pelosi issued a statement condemning the "people calling themselves antifa." She added that they "deserve unequivocal condemnation." </p>
<p align="left">What makes all this notable is that just over a week ago Reuters referred to the antifa agitators as "peace activists," while Democrats refused to say anything mean about the masked warriors. So what happened to turn the tide? Let us put forth some educated speculation.</p>
<p align="left">First, professor and philosopher Noam Chomsky openly questioned antifa's goals and tactics. Chomsky, always anti-capitalist and often anti-American, has been the guru of the radical left for decades. When he speaks, progressives listen. </p>
<p align="left">Two weeks ago Chomsky described antifa as "a miniscule fringe of the Left," and called their violence "a major gift to the right." The professor also hammered antifa for shutting down speakers with whom it disagrees. </p>
<p align="left">A few days later, professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, another lion of the left, warned that antifa-like groups are "trying to tear down America." He denigrated antifa as "radical, anti-American, anti-free market, socialist, communist, hard left censorial organization." </p>
<p align="left">All this criticism was pre-Berkeley, which was another black mark against the black clad antifa crew. Last weekend the left-wing gangsters assaulted a handful of people who gathered in Berkeley to march against Marxism. </p>
<p align="left">The antifa radicals, their faces masked as always, chased and beat down people whom they considered Trump supporters. It was an especially ugly scene, even by antifa standards, after which more than a dozen radicals were arrested. </p>
<p align="left">If antifa and other self-styled anti-fascist groups occupied the moral high ground after Charlottesville, they surrendered it last weekend in Berkeley. </p>
<p align="left">But perhaps the biggest reason for the recent opinion shift is old-fashioned politics. Democrats can read polls as well as anyone else, probably better. They know that most Americans do not are repulsed by masked marauders running wild in the streets. That could explain Nancy Pelosi's surprising statement. She desperately wants a Democratic majority in 2018, and she won't get it by ignoring or endorsing violence. </p>
<p align="left">In the Senate, the two darlings of the far left – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – have yet to call out antifa by name, although Senator Sanders did speak out against lefties who shout down campus speakers. </p>
<p align="left">Antifa will always have supporters, especially on elite campuses. A Dartmouth lecturer named Mark Bray has become a frequent guest on mainstream networks, where he rationalizes and defends violence. Dartmouth's president actually criticized Bray for "supporting violent protest," a rare show of courage from a university administrator. Naturally, the left-wing Dartmouth faculty was angry not with Bray, but with the president.</p>
<p align="left">But college professors aside, antifa may have overplayed its ugly hand with all the recent violence and vitriol. Pay close attention the next time there are masked antifa protesters fomenting violence and pelting cops with urine.</p>
<p align="left">Law enforcement, which once looked the other way, might step in to quickly stop the madness. And Democrats, who were once acquiescent, might rise up in unison to denounce antifa. </p>
<p align="left">That may be wishful thinking, but it would be a very welcome sign in extremely troubled times.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-08-31T14:13:00ZNazis, Nazis EverywhereBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Nazis-Nazis-Everywhere/839320182439127121.html2017-08-24T14:32:00Z2017-08-24T14:32:00Z<p>The magazine Foreign Policy was once a respectable and respected publication. It was co-founded during the Vietnam War by Samuel Huntington, a Harvard professor best known for predicting a "Clash of Civilizations." </p>
<p>Similarly, George Washington University (despite bearing the name of a notorious slave owner) was once a respectable and respected institution. Graduates include Colin Powell, J. Edgar Hoover, and dozens of other distinguished leaders. </p>
<p>But a little-known academic named Reuben Brigety has managed, in one fell swoop of a 1,500-word article, to sully and stain both the magazine and the university. Brigety is the dean of GW's Elliott School of International Affairs, and a man overflowing with hatred.</p>
<p>Foreign Policy gave valuable space to Brigety for an article in which he wrote this: "For the first time in our history, a Nazi sympathizer occupies the Oval Office." </p>
<p>For good measure, he added that President Trump is a man of "evil bigotry" who has shown "his support for white supremacist protesters." </p>
<p>Reuben Brigety's evidence? </p>
<p>He really has none beyond the bizarre news conference at which the president suggested that both sides in Charlottesville were at fault. Donald Trump was off base and, even if what he said was factually accurate, his tone-deafness allowed his many enemies in the media to run wild. </p>
<p>They even put Russia aside, magically transforming President Trump from a Russian agent and "Putin's Puppet" to a stone-cold racist and Nazi. </p>
<p>George Washington University and Foreign Policy Magazine got the attention they desired, but in a most shameful way. </p>
<p>Then there is MSNBC, which is neither respected nor respectable. That far-left network gave air time to a woman named Sarah Kendzior, an attention-starved columnist who writes for some foreign news outlets. This is what she said on national television about the White House: "You still have actual Nazis in the house. You have Jeff Sessions, who's a long-time antagonist against civil rights." </p>
<p>MSNBC host Joy Reid, who takes a back seat to no one when it comes to Trump-hatred, failed to point out that Jeff Sessions prosecuted the leader of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and obtained a death penalty conviction. </p>
<p>Yet the Attorney General of the United States was accused of being a Nazi, as contemptible a slander as can be hurled at a public official. Or anyone. </p>
<p>Earlier this week syndicated Michael Medved joined the No Spin News and denounced these fools who so breezily call others Nazis. </p>
<p>Medved's Jewish family fled from Germany just as Hitler was coming to power, so he has, as he puts it, "some skin in the game." </p>
<p>"What that dean at George Washington said is outrageous," he declared, "because what he is saying trivializes Nazism. When he says that Trump is a Nazi and our government is in the hands of Nazis, he is trivializing real evil. Because, unfortunately, there are Nazi people in the United States." </p>
<p>Yes, there are actual Nazis in 2017 America. Some of them showed their scowling and twisted faces in Charlottesville. They may be few in number, but the sheer evil of their beliefs makes them a threat to the rest of us. </p>
<p>But Donald Trump is not among them. Neither is Steve Bannon. Or Jeff Sessions. Or so many others who get labeled as latter-day Hitlers simply because they have different beliefs than their political opposites. </p>
<p>How bad has it become? Ask Ethan Van Sciver, a comic book artist who has used Nazi imagery when creating wicked characters. In other words, he was depicting Nazism as the ultimate evil. When another artist called Van Sciver a Nazi, he was forced to defend himself and his reputation. His real crime may have been that he is a Republican, which in some circles has become pretty much synonymous to being a Brownshirt. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, a Democratic politician in New York State described a political rival as a "clever Nazi" simply because he opposed her call to protect illegal immigrants. </p>
<p>People on the right, the left, and in the middle are absolutely correct when they denounce actual Nazis and Hitler sympathizers. But the left is now using "Nazi" as their all-purpose, go-to insult. </p>
<p>Like the "f-bomb," some words are sapped of their power every time they are used. They lose shock value and become only a sign of growing desperation. Reckless use of the word "Nazi" is growing tedious. So are those who toss it around so recklessly.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-08-24T14:32:00ZFirst They Came For the StatuesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/First-They-Came-For-the-Statues/425206911343892859.html2017-08-17T19:37:00Z2017-08-17T19:37:00Z<p align="left">As you know, a statue was destroyed this week in Durham, North Carolina. The monument of a soldier was not dedicated to anyone in particular, but symbolized young men who fought for the Confederacy. </p>
<p align="left">It was pulled down and then stomped on by a crew of radical leftists, identified by the local paper as members of the Workers World Party, Industrial Workers of the World, Democratic Socialists of America, and the ubiquitous antifa gang. In other words, these people are about as far left as you can go without falling off the edge of the earth.</p>
<p align="left">There is an ongoing and very uncivil war against Confederate statues. The impoverished and crime-ridden city of New Orleans recently spent more than $2-million to take down four monuments. Other cities and towns across the South are making plans to move or demolish dozens of other statues, and Baltimore trashed four monuments in the wee hours of Wednesday morning. </p>
<p align="left">Of course, reasonable people can make a powerful argument that statues of Confederate soldiers have no place in America. These men fought to defend the odious practice of slavery. </p>
<p align="left">But no one should ever believe this will end with a few dozen statues. The left is on the warpath against anything it considers distasteful in America's past.</p>
<p align="left">Slaveholders appear to be next in line, and in that regard Yale University is especially instructive. Last year university president Peter Salovey vowed that Yale's Calhoun College would keep its name, even though John C. Calhoun, Yale class of 1804, was a powerful defender of slavery. </p>
<p align="left">Just a few months later, Salovey caved to pressure and announced that Calhoun's name would be sandblasted off any buildings. Salovey exemplifies the "courage" many college administrators are displaying these days. </p>
<p align="left">But why stop with John C. Calhoun? Elihu Yale himself was a slave trader whose actions were arguably worse. You don't think there are lots of aggrieved people who want the entire university renamed? Think again. </p>
<p align="left">Then there's Brown, another elite Ivy League institution. It was founded by a slave holder who built the school with money donated by the slave-trading Brown family of Rhode Island. </p>
<p align="left">Princeton has its own issues, but not with a slave owner. Former school president Woodrow Wilson, who later moved to the White House and was a liberal hero, held some truly retrograde views of blacks. The university recently removed his photograph from a dining hall because it was deemed "unduly celebratory." It was also, you know, not in keeping with Princeton's eternal desire to be "truly diverse and inclusive." </p>
<p align="left">While Brown, Princeton, and Yale are in the North, hundreds of schools in the South are named for slave-holders and Confederate officers. If statues of Robert E. Lee have to come down, why in the world does Washington and Lee University get to keep its name? General Lee became the school's president soon after he surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Court House. </p>
<p align="left">When the left is finished with Robert E. Lee, they might begin tearing down all the monuments dedicated to slave-owners George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Sure, that'll take a while, but left-wing protesters seem to have little on their hands but time and anger. </p>
<p align="left">Back up north, some Philadelphia politicians and protestors are now demanding that a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo be removed from center city. Rizzo was a popular Democrat, but he was not exactly a racially sensitive guy. Ergo, his statue must go, his memory must be expunged. </p>
<p align="left">This is all reminiscent of the Soviet Union or China's Cultural Revolution, where out-of-favor officials simply got whitewashed. Their images vanished from photographs, their names were eliminated from history books. </p>
<p align="left">In the Soviet Union, the whitewashing of history finally ended when the evil of communism was toppled, along with statues of Lenin and Stalin. Now we are the ones doing the toppling. Civil War generals, slave owners, just about anyone who is not deemed politically correct by the standards of 2017. </p>
<p align="left">The movement was already well under way before last weekend, but what happened in Charlottesville is an accelerant to the flames. </p>
<p align="left">How far will it go, when will it end? That depends on how emboldened the protesters feel and when public officials will finally draw a line. People on the left, by nature and by definition, are always seeking new ways to be offended, new ways to destroy traditional America. After the schools and towns and buildings and statues, there will surely be something else to tear down.</p>
<p align="left">So while we don't give financial advice, it may not be a bad idea to buy stock in companies that specialize in sandblasting, demolition, and engraving. They seem destined to be growth industries for decades to come.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-08-17T19:37:00ZDemocrats and Their Waters ProblemBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Democrats-and-Their-Waters-Problem/-205328038002965009.html2017-08-10T20:04:00Z2017-08-10T20:04:00Z<p class="s3">The Republican Party should be in big trouble. President Trump's approval rating is somewhere in the 30s and the Republican-dominated Congress hasn't passed any major legislation.</p>
<p class="s3">So while it's premature to look ahead to next year's midterms, most analysts give Democrats a reasonable chance of retaking the House. The Senate, where Democrats must defend many more seats, is far more likely to remain in Republican hands.</p>
<p class="s3">One big problem for the Democrats is California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. </p>
<p class="s3">Waters has been on CNN more than Anderson Cooper, on MSNBC more than Joe and Mika. Because she takes the art of bomb-throwing to a new level, the Congresswoman is a favorite guest of the left and has become the scowling face of the anti-Trump "resistance."</p>
<p class="s3">Her hosts, most of whom hate Trump nearly as much as she does, rarely criticize Waters and let her say just about anything.</p>
<p class="s3">This week she was at it again, denouncing law professor Alan Dershowitz as a "racist." This is the same Alan Dershowitz who was a member of O.J. Simpson's "dream team," who marched in civil rights rallies, and who is a lifelong liberal. His crime, in Mad Maxine's eyes, came when he correctly stated that Robert Mueller's grand jury will be drawing from a pool of people in D.C. who generally aren't big fans of Donald Trump. </p>
<p class="s3">Wow, he might as well be David Duke.</p>
<p class="s3">In recent weeks, Waters also called for President Trump's impeachment, then said she did no such thing. With her customary wit and charm, she called the Trump team "a bunch of scumbags," and warned Ben Carson that she would "take his ass apart." She also expressed her unshakable belief in that ultra-fake "dossier" that accused Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious acts. Her constituents in California's 43<sup>rd</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>District must be very proud.</p>
<p class="s3">But then again, they don't see much of their representative. Her primary residence is a $4.3-million, 6,000 square foot home in a very posh Los Angeles neighborhood. It is not in her own district, which is impoverished beyond belief.</p>
<p class="s3">So just how did Maxine Waters become so wealthy? That is the $4.3-million question that some watchdog groups have been asking for many years, even though the mainstream media seems incredibly incurious about her wealth.</p>
<p class="s3">The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning organization, named Maxine Waters one of the most corrupt members of Congress. She made that dubious list four times, most recently in 2011!</p>
<p class="s3">During the financial crisis of 2008, the Congresswoman implored Treasury Department officials to meet with OneUnited Bank, which eventually received $12-million in federal bailout dough. Waters failed to mention that her husband held stock in OneUnited.</p>
<p class="s3">She has also put her relatives on her House payroll and paid them lavishly, but the very secretive House Ethics Committee ruled that she did not technically break any rules.</p>
<p class="s3">It's worth mentioning that Waters is the ranking Democratic member of the House Committee on Financial Services, and could chair that committee if the House switches from R to D. "Financial services" is certainly a topic with which she is familiar.</p>
<p class="s3">Maxine's bizarre behavior is<span> nothing new. Back in the 1990s, soon after being elected to Congress, Waters implied that the CIA was responsible for the crack epidemic. When deadly riots broke out in Los Angeles after the Rodney King trial, she labeled it a "rebellion."</span></p>
<p class="s3">Maxine Waters, who turns 79 next week, has gone from "most corrupt" to "Auntie Maxine," darling of the far-left. Her admirers don't much care about her very checkered past, her fact-challenged claims, and her outrageous allegations. </p>
<p class="s3"><span>But it would be very interesting to know what goes through the minds of the many sane and sober House Democrats when they see Maxine Waters spewing her vitriol on television. Do they really believe she is helping their cause and the Democratic Party? Would she be welcome to campaign with them next year?</span></p>
<p class="s3">On the other side of the aisle, Republican consultants must be drooling at the thought of running attack ads next year featuring Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters.</p>
<p class="s3">Waters refused to attend Donald Trump's inauguration and has since called him "the most deplorable person I have met in my life." She has often predicted that he will surely be impeached.</p>
<p class="s3">But despite all that, perhaps President Trump should be grateful to Congresswoman Maxine Waters for turning an old adage on its head. "With enemies like these," he might ask, "who needs friends?"</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-08-10T20:04:00ZPolitical Correctness KillsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Political-Correctness-Kills/-269401656404312382.html2017-08-03T20:17:00Z2017-08-03T20:17:00Z<p>Political correctness can be like a nagging cold. It's bothersome and a little painful, but it won't put you in the hospital or kill you. </p>
<p>Take the recent news out of Princeton University, the elite Ivy League institution attended by Woodrow Wilson, James Madison, and Jeff Bezos, to name just a few. </p>
<p>Princeton has just created a new position – "Interpersonal Violence Clinician and Men's Engagement Manager." The job holder's first task will be fitting that unwieldy title on a business card. </p>
<p>After that, he or she will seek out and try to eliminate "toxic masculinity" on campus. You know, as opposed to "wholesome masculinity."</p>
<p>Most people just shake their heads at this college nonsense. It probably won't do much lasting damage. Unless, that is, you're a tuition-paying parent of a Princeton student. </p>
<p>The school estimates that it will set you back about $67,000 a year - perhaps $67,150 after this latest hire. </p>
<p>Not to be outdone, the University of Iowa's student newspaper has discovered a heretofore unknown and unfair privilege – intelligence. </p>
<p>The paper theorizes that "cognitive privilege" is kind of like white privilege, conferring unearned benefits on people who were blessed by accident of birth. </p>
<p>Again, this is relatively innocuous, and it's pretty obvious that whoever dreamed up "cognitive privilege" has not been affected by that particular malady. </p>
<p>In the adult world, at this very moment progressives are incensed at the Department of Justice. That's because the DOJ is using the term "illegal alien," which is a highly offensive expletive in some circles. </p>
<p>Unfortunately for the easily offended, "illegal alien" is the very precise and official term for people who are in this country without permission. </p>
<p>They are aliens, and they are here illegally. </p>
<p>Hence, "illegal aliens." </p>
<p>But the Chicago Tribune, as one example, claims that the term implies that all illegal aliens are criminals. That's one of those "dog whistles" that can only be heard by the Tribune writer and his fellow travelers on the far left. </p>
<p>So, yes, political correctness can be almost comical when it dictates which pronoun is acceptable in polite company or how an illegal alien should be described. Just hearing "personhole cover" can bring a smile to most of us.</p>
<p>But there are far too many cases where P.C. is downright deadly, as it likely was in the death of Justine Damond. As you know, the 40-year-old Australian woman was shot and killed by a cop in Minneapolis. He was the shooter, but political correctness almost surely was an accomplice.</p>
<p>Ultra-liberal city leaders, desperate to find and hire Somalian cops, pinned a badge on Somalia-born Mohamed Noor, who seems to have been temperamentally unsuited for the job. Noor, who killed the pajama-clad woman as she approached the squad car, has yet to explain why he opened fire. </p>
<p>Then there is Sergio Martinez, the illegal alien who had been deported 20 times and returned to allegedly sexually assault at least two women in Portland. The feds had asked Portland authorities to hold Martinez in jail so he could be deported once again, but that sanctuary city doesn't think much of federal law. The meth-addicted thug was released, Portland officials and many residents were able to feel virtuous, but two women's lives have been altered forever. </p>
<p>Of course, the poster boy for P.C. madness is Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, accused of killing Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. Like his pal in Portland, Lopez-Sanchez was deported time and again before being released back to the streets of San Francisco. </p>
<p>People died at Fort Hood because Major Nidal Hasan's colleagues were reluctant to report his erratic behavior and radical sympathies, lest they be called "Islamophobic." </p>
<p>Similarly, Omar Mateen, who slaughtered 49 people at an Orlando nightclub, had been questioned by the FBI about his ties to terrorism. We will never be sure whether the hyper-P.C. of the Obama administration played a role in the agency's decision to remove him from the terror watch list. </p>
<p>The same thing has happened time and again throughout the USA and Europe, where P.C. has pretty much replaced God in the hearts and minds of the cognoscenti. </p>
<p>So, yes, we can enjoy a chuckle at the P.C. police, who rigidly try to enforce their laws and punish any malefactors who refuse to play along. But political correctness all too often leads to genuine human suffering. </p>
<p>Actor and director Clint Eastwood recently said about political correctness, "We are killing ourselves." He didn't mean it literally, but in fact people have died because of this scourge. </p>
<p>And more will surely die unless we stop the P.C. madness. It is way beyond being a laughing matter.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-08-03T20:17:00ZThe Left, Scouting for OutrageBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Left-Scouting-for-Outrage/-330284103066277957.html2017-07-27T16:22:00Z2017-07-27T16:22:00Z<p align="left">As the late Joan Rivers would say, can we talk? </p>
<p align="left">Many left-wing Americans don't particularly care for the Boy Scouts. In fact, many progressives downright despise the organization.</p>
<p align="left">It doesn't have much to do with past controversies over gay scouts and scoutmasters, nor does it concern transgender scouts, who are now free to join. </p>
<p align="left">This enmity runs far deeper and has been around for decades. Why? Well, consider the Scout Oath. The promise to "do my duty to God and my country" requires a trigger warning for many leftists. My God, who is this God to which they refer? And "my country" rings a bit xenophobic, wouldn't you say? </p>
<p align="left">The oath also mandates that a good Boy Scout be "morally straight," which does not exactly fit with the left's judgment-free and value-free teachings. </p>
<p align="left">Anyway, you get the point. Something about this 2-million-strong organization has been bugging progressives for a long, long time. Scouts strive to be wholesome, patriotic, and devout, the very antithesis of radical leftism. </p>
<p align="left">But there is something the left loathes with even more passion: President Donald Trump. So when the president spoke to the annual Boy Scout Jamboree this week, it formed the perfect storm of animosity. </p>
<p align="left">It is absolutely undeniable that President Trump went a bit overboard. A Boy Scout Jamboree isn't the ideal place to mock your political opponents, nor to promote legislation and boast about your victory. As is his wont, the president got caught up in the moment and carried it too far. Way too far. </p>
<p align="left">At the same time, the tens of thousands of scouts sure seemed to enjoy themselves the entire time. At one point, they burst into a spontaneous chant of "We Love Trump."</p>
<p align="left">So Trump was over-the-top, his audience ate it up, and there was no real harm done. But then the left wing and the media, pardon the redundancy, went absolutely, totally berserk. </p>
<p align="left">The New York Daily News called the president's talk a "self-congratulatory speech punctuated by jingoism." The HuffPost described it as an "embarrassing spectacle," while one columnist seriously declared it "an impeachable offense." </p>
<p align="left">That criticism was mild compared to all the tweeters who immediately trotted out the usual Hitler comparisons. The reliable Michael Moore called the rally "a scene out of Triumph of the Will," a Nazi propaganda film. Not content with that, Moore added that it constituted "shocking abuse of children." </p>
<p align="left">Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a former judicial adviser to President Obama, wrote this: "If I close my eyes, I see a sea of brown shirts, Germany, 1938." This preposterous hyperbole comes from a man who was on President Obama's short list for the Supreme Court. Open your eyes, professor, before the Scouts annex Mexico. </p>
<p align="left">This is not to say that one bad behavior excuses another, but those Trump-haters might consider the following. </p>
<p align="left">In 2012 President Obama visited a high school in Virginia and got into full campaign mode. The president told the students their futures were at dire risk if a certain college loan program was cut. He also urged them to tweet messages to their members of Congress, and to have their parents do the same. </p>
<p align="left">Inappropriate? Perhaps. But it essentially went unmentioned by the media that tended to fawn over Barack Obama. They also gave him a pass when he routinely used mass shootings to promote gun control.</p>
<p align="left">The point is not that President Trump did the right thing at the jamboree. He is an unpredictable man who says and does many unpredictable things, which is about the only predictable thing about him.</p>
<p align="left">But, come on! He can't be compared to Hitler every time he does something that is not considered "presidential." It is not the end of the republic every time he makes some wayward joke or tweet. </p>
<p align="left">No matter what he does, President Trump will face withering criticism from all directions, especially from the unhinged left. Knowing that, the best advice to the president comes from the Boy Scouts themselves and the motto they've followed for 120 years: Be Prepared, Mr. President, Be Prepared! </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-07-27T16:22:00ZA White Life that MatteredBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-White-Life-that-Mattered/686550609087272319.html2017-07-19T21:17:00Z2017-07-19T21:17:00Z<p>There are no marches in Minneapolis this week, no Black Lives Matter protests, no anti-cop diatribes from loud reverends.</p>
<p>But what happened last weekend in the city was in many ways custom made for round-the-clock outrage. An unarmed woman, clad in pajamas and not threatening in any way, was inexplicably shot and killed by a Minneapolis police officer.</p>
<p>Why the lack of indignation? </p>
<p>Because this shooting does not fit the standard narrative favored by the cop-haters. </p>
<p>The victim, 40-year-old Justine Damond, was a white woman born in Australia. She was a meditation and yoga instructor, engaged to be married to an American man next month. When she heard suspicious sounds coming from the alley behind her home, she called 911, like any responsible person would do. </p>
<p>Two cops arrived in a squad car and one of them shot her to death.</p>
<p>But it's the killer's identity and background that really blows the familiar storyline. Officer Mohamed Noor is a 31-year-old Muslim who was born in Somalia. </p>
<p>This is not the kind of guy Black Lives Matter has in mind when it denounces trigger-happy cops. </p>
<p>It's worth noting that Minneapolis is particularly troubled when it comes to Somalis. There are an estimated 25,000 immigrants from Somalia in the city, more than any other place in America. Assimilation has been rocky, and more than a few Somalis have even gone abroad to fight for ISIS.</p>
<p>Just two days prior to being elected President of the United States, Donald Trump said this at a Minnesota rally: </p>
<p>"You've seen first-hand the problems caused with faulty refugee vetting, with very large numbers of Somali refugees coming into your state without your knowledge."</p>
<p>In response, ultra-liberal city leaders have gone out of their way to tamp down any fears, to proclaim the city's inclusiveness, and to celebrate Somali success stories.</p>
<p>Ironically, one of those stories was Officer Noor himself, who joined the force less than two years ago. </p>
<p>Mayor Betsy Hodges went out of her way to praise the officer when he received his badge: "I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor," she wrote, "the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department." </p>
<p>She didn't single out other newly-minted officers, but Noor's ethnicity and religion were more important than his qualifications.</p>
<p>That was perhaps understandable in a city where there are few Somalis on the force, but it's also very possible that the mayor's praise put undue pressure on Officer Noor. Even before the fatal shooting, several complaints had been lodged against him, including one in which he was sued for allegedly assaulting a woman. During last week's fatal shooting, Officer Noor disregarded policy by failing to activate his body camera. </p>
<p>All this is not to say that Mohamed Noor is not an upstanding citizen. He graduated from college with a business degree and worked for a time in real estate. According to divorce papers, he is a doting and gentle father. But, putting all that aside, maybe he was simply not cut out to be a police officer, which requires far more than just being a good guy. Cops routinely face lethal danger and have to make instant decisions that could change – or end – a human life.</p>
<p>No one yet knows the details of Mohamed Noor's recruitment, qualifications, or training, but it is not unreasonable to assume that Mayor Hodges and other city officials were downright desperate to find and hire Somali police officers. This could easily be a case of affirmative action gone tragically awry.</p>
<p>The reaction in Australia has been far more vocal than here in the states, where many news outlets have either ignored the story or failed to mention Moor's name or religion. An Australian newspaper wrote this: "Somali-born policeman Mohamed Noor was not living up to his billing as a poster boy for the troubled Minneapolis police force."</p>
<p>Yes, Noor was indeed a poster boy for diversity and inclusion and all those comforting buzzwords, but was he a good cop? It's a question that can be asked down under, but seems to be taboo here in the USA.</p>
<p>When the Washington Post covered this story, the reporter's entirely predictable theme was that Somalis in Minnesota are "bracing for a backlash." You know, the same "backlash" that never seems to materialize after Islamic-inspired terror incidents. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Associated Press published a glowing profile of Officer Noor, the kind of profile not usually written when white cops use deadly force.</p>
<p>This case is still unfolding, there remain more questions than answers, and we may eventually find out that initial reports were wrong. Officer Noor has thus far refused to talk to investigators and cannot be forced to do so. We will learn more when and if he breaks his silence.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Justine Damond's family and friends in Sydney are devastated, calling this their "worst nightmare." Her American fiancée and her prospective step-son are absolutely shattered.</p>
<p>And Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, Antifa, and the rest of the usual suspects? They are quiet. Very, very quiet. Which speaks volumes.</p>
<p> </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-07-19T21:17:00ZDonald Trump, That Wascally WabbitBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Donald-Trump-That-Wascally-Wabbit/8721395376097246.html2017-07-13T18:43:00Z2017-07-13T18:43:00Z<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>This media's latest and shiniest "smoking gun" is aimed squarely at … Donald Trump, Jr. </span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>As you know, the New York Times reported that the president's eldest son met with a Russian lawyer during the campaign, thus igniting another media frenzy.</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>The Washington Post breathlessly declares that Donald Jr.'s emails may be the "smoking gun" that destroys the Trump presidency. Newsweek also speculates that this was the elusive "smoking gun." Not to be outdone, the Los Angeles Times pronounces, "At long last, the smoking Russian gun."</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>But wait, there was another smoking gun just two months ago, according to the Boston Globe. That was when President Trump was accused of shutting down the FBI's investigation into possible collusion.</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>In that same month of May, New York Magazine asserted this: "Comey's Memo Is the Smoking Gun of Donald Trump's Watergate." (Every scandal needs a "gate.")</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>But hold on! In April, Slate claimed that any Trump campaign involvement in hacked Hillary Clinton emails would be "an impeachment-level smoking gun."</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>You get the point. There have been so many smoking guns that the mainstream media should have stage 4 emphysema by now.</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Ever since Donald Trump was nominated, the press has acted like some famous fictional obsessives: Inspector Javert pursuing Jean Valjean, Lt. Gerard hot on the trail of Dr. Richard Kimble, or Captain Ahab hunting the elusive great white whale. </span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>If cartoons are more your style, the media have been some hybrid of Wile E. Coyote and Elmer Fudd (without the double-barreled shotgun, of course.)</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>CNN has been the most dogged in its pursuit of Moby Donald. Turn on that network at any point in the day and here is what you are likely to see: A very serious host surrounded in split screen by four or five "experts," most of them certified Trump-haters. There may be a token conservative just to make things look fair.</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>At the bottom of the screen there is probably a banner with an ominous-sounding headline about President Trump and Russia. And then, over to the right on most days, there is an "up" arrow for the stock market, a telling sign that most Americans just don't care all that much about the Russia deal.</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>CNN's most entertaining, if not terribly informative, segment aired on Monday when the network's ever-earnest morning guy, Chris Cuomo, grilled Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway. It was an endless back and forth, with Cuomo defending CNN against Conway's charges that the network is blatantly biased against her boss. Here are a couple of her many zingers:</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>"I admire your moxie sitting there with the CNN chyron right near you talking about credibility issues" … "You've made a business decision to be anti-Trump." The next day, Trump national security aide Sebastian Gorka told CNN point-blank: "You're not in the news business anymore, you are in the attacking President Trump business."</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>The allegation that CNN has made a conscious business decision seems irrefutable, and the hosts didn't even bother arguing. But it's a decision that has been questionable at best. The CNN morning crew is getting trounced by Fox & Friends and Morning Joe, while CNN in prime time is a total disaster. Nevertheless, they persist!</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>CNN, NBC News, the New York Times, and/or the Washington Post may eventually turn up something up that sticks, a smoking gun that fires real bullets, not merely blanks. But imagine if reporters had gone after The Clinton Foundation with such gleeful gusto. Or if they had been equally determined to look into Barack Obama's past associations. They would have certainly found something, don't you think?</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>It's worth remembering what happened to the other obsessive pursuers. In Victor Hugo's great "Les </span><span lang="EN">Misérables</span><span>," Inspector Javert wound up taking his own life by jumping into the River Seine. And Captain Ahab? He also met a watery demise when he was pulled to his death by the great white whale, who swam away unharmed.</span> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Come to think of it, perhaps Herman Melville's classic should be at the very top of the summer reading list for the monomaniacal media types who are so intent on destroying the duly-elected president.</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>While visions of Pulitzers are dancing in their heads, Donald Trump has thus far been the big one who just keeps getting away.</span></p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-07-13T18:43:00ZThe Day the Music DiedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Day-the-Music-Died/-781254308635811283.html2017-07-07T17:00:00Z2017-07-07T17:00:00Z<p align="left">A stunning – and stunningly disturbing - event took place this past weekend. But unless you were scouring the news very carefully, chances are you didn't even hear of it. </p>
<p align="left">The annual Bravalla Festival, one of the most popular summer music concerts in Sweden, was abruptly canceled. There will be no festival next year. Or ever. </p>
<p align="left">Given that tens of thousands of tickets were sold, the problem was not attendance. Nor was there any difficulty booking big-name rap and rock stars. No, this festival was canceled because of something far more ominous – Bravalla has become synonymous with rape and sexual assault. </p>
<p align="left">Festival officials, as they announced the end of Bravalla, complained that "certain men" don't know how to behave. You might wonder if those "certain men" are strapping blonde Swedes with names like Erik, Viktor, and Gustav. But in fact, the assailants are allegedly immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and other predominantly Muslim areas of the world.</p>
<p align="left">One year ago the Bravalla Festival gained a measure of infamy when police reported five rapes and a dozen cases of molestation. The story got minor coverage in some media outlets, including the New York Times, which described the assailants as "foreigners" and "refugees." Predictably, the Times also warned of a "far-right" backlash. </p>
<p align="left">This year the situation was even more sickening, with four reported rapes and 23 instances of sexual assault. And the Times? The "paper of record" chose to run a brief Associated Press dispatch noting that the festival has been shut down. Nowhere was there any mention that Muslim immigrants were the likely perps. </p>
<p align="left">Sweden, like many European socialist paradises, has been in a state of deep denial about its refugee crisis. If you believe authorities and tourism officials, immigrants are fitting in quite nicely in the world's most liberal nation. But what about those rumors of "no-go zones," where crime is rampant and where police fear to tread? Well, we're assured that's just "fake news" perpetrated by anti-immigrant groups.</p>
<p align="left">But earlier this year a courageous British reporter named Katie Hopkins decided to take a look for herself. She ventured into some of Sweden's imaginary "no-go zones" and spoke with women who are absolutely terrified of going out alone, day or night. They know that crossing onto the wrong street in some cities is an invitation to harassment, assault, even rape.</p>
<p align="left">These women are also afraid of feminists and liberals, who accuse them of being racists if they speak the truth. Hopkins wrote this about one woman she met in Stockholm: "The migrant men scare her. But it is the Swedish women who have silenced her." </p>
<p align="left">Bravalla is not the only music festival where women are in jeopardy. There were dozens of rapes and assaults at another concert a few years ago, allegedly committed by young Afghan men who had been embraced by Sweden's outstretched arms. </p>
<p align="left">And of course it's not just Sweden. In Germany, New Year's Eve of 2016 was marred by sexual assaults and rapes in many cities. Police reported that more than one-thousand women were victimized by hordes of young men. Again, the perps weren't Wolfgang, Hans, und Dieter. They were described by the women as men of "Arab or North African appearance."</p>
<p align="left">Governments in Europe and a compliant media do their best to ignore the unending and escalating threat of violence. It simply does not fit the liberal narrative, which dictates that all cultures and all religions are pretty much the same. But reality has a very harsh way of prevailing over fantasy. </p>
<p align="left">Sweden has the highest rate of immigration in Europe, having taken in tens of thousands of refugees from Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere. So you can think of the country as the canary in the coal mine. That proverbial canary is now gasping for air as European bureaucrats turn a blind eye. </p>
<p align="left">Most Swedes still embrace their reputation for tolerance and liberalism. Many even seem quite willing to sacrifice a music festival or two if that's what it takes to display their virtue. And they willingly pay exorbitant taxes to subsidize refugees who despise Sweden's libertine culture and sexual permissiveness. </p>
<p align="left">Let's put it this way: The world's most tolerant people are inviting the world's most intolerant people into their nation and their cities. The Swedes believe it's a noble experiment. But whether noble or foolish, it is an experiment doomed to fail. </p>
<p align="left">The Bravalla Music Festival was just one casualty. There will be many more. Ironically, the festival urged fans to "choke hatred and violence and let the music win." Well, hatred and violence won and the music lost. </p>
<p align="left">In the process, another small part of Europe has vanished, thanks to cowardly ideologues who so desperately cling to their open-border, one-world fantasies. A once-great continent and its cultures are slowly dying. To be more accurate, they are committing suicide.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-07-07T17:00:00ZRope-a-Dope, Russia, and Fake NewsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rope-a-Dope-Russia-and-Fake-News/-663393093482821169.html2017-06-29T18:25:00Z2017-06-29T18:25:00Z<p align="left">Remember that astounding 1974 fight billed as "The Rumble in the Jungle?" The "jungle" was the African nation of Zaire, and the "rumble" was between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. </p>
<p align="left">Foreman had won 40 fights, 37 by knockout, and had lost precisely zero. He was considered unbeatable, a super-human blend of Samson and Paul Bunyan. But, as you know, Ali unveiled his "rope-a-dope" and allowed Foreman to take wild swings, most of them relatively harmless. By the eighth round, Big George was totally exhausted, punched out, staggering around like a lumbering giant. A sudden flurry from Ali sent Foreman to the canvas and his first loss. </p>
<p align="left">What does that have to do with anything today? Well, many in the news media have been acting the part of George Foreman from the moment Donald Trump was elected, which they perceived as the opening bell in the fight of their lives. They've thrown all sorts of haymakers, uppercuts, hooks, and crosses at the man so many of them openly despise. </p>
<p align="left">The media hammered President Trump on his tax returns, financial empire, honesty, management skills, and scores of other issues. When nothing really stuck, they settled on Russia and alleged "collusion," even though there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. </p>
<p align="left">The Media Research Center, which follows this sort of thing, reports that the three broadcast news programs devoted 353 minutes of air time to Russia over five weeks in May and June. By contrast, they doled out 29 minutes to stories about terrorism, 17 minutes to health care, and a whopping five minutes to the economy. </p>
<p align="left">Things are even worse at CNN and MSNBC, which go round-the-clock with their Trump hatred. CNN is the worst of 'em all, and just this week that "news" network dismissed three reporters who got an anti-Trump Russia story totally wrong.</p>
<p align="left">Apparently Trump-hating humans aren't even enough for CNN – this week they actually interviewed the Sesame Street character Elmo, who expressed disgust with President Trump's travel ban. </p>
<p align="left">Of course, MSNBC is no slouch when it comes to disrespecting the president. Just to pick a day at random, this Wednesday the Morning Joe team was busy ramping up its daily dose of hate. This was Mike Barnicle, a "senior contributor" who contributes little but vitriol: "He has injected an anti-journalism virus into the culture," Barnicle said of the president. </p>
<p align="left">Really, Mike? You don't think that "anti-journalism virus" was self-administered? Trust in the media has been in a steep decline for more than a decade, largely because of the adoring coverage afforded to President Obama. Heck, they are still covering for Barack Obama by ignoring the news that he was aware of Russian meddling long before the November election and did nothing. </p>
<p align="left">Just a few minutes later, Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said this about President Trump: "There's not truthfulness, there's not love of country." That is both grotesque and astounding! One can dislike the president and accuse him of many things, but is she really saying he doesn't love his country? </p>
<p align="left">Perhaps that was the final straw that inspired President Trump's over-the-top and very personal Thursday morning tweets, in which he called Brzezinski "low I.Q. Crazy Mika" and labeled her fiancée and co-host "Psycho Joe." </p>
<p align="left">For better or worse, and this time it was worse, President Trump is not someone who lays back against the ropes and allows someone to question his patriotism. </p>
<p align="left">But this massive cloud of media negativity and irresponsibility may have a silver lining, which brings us back to George Foreman. The media Trump-haters could finally be punching themselves out. Even they seem to be growing weary of the never-ending Russia allegations, and their dwindling audiences are showing distinct signs of exhaustion. </p>
<p align="left">According to an editorial in Investors Business Daily, the "worm is starting to turn" as Russia fatigue sets in among American news consumers. If that's the case, and the ratings indicate that it is, the numbers-crunchers in green eyeshades will surely take notice and the media may finally move on to other issues. </p>
<p align="left">This is not to say they will give President Trump much of a chance, the hatred just runs too deep. Media outlets will continue to throw wild punches and the president will continue to hit back with jabs on Twitter. </p>
<p align="left">But maybe, just maybe, our leading newspapers and networks are about to get over their Russia obsession. They may realize that the time has finally come to get back to informing Americans about real and important issues that affect our daily lives and the future of this country. </p>
<p align="left">They threw their best punches, apparently certain they would deliver a knockout blow. But President Trump is still standing, while they are stumbling around the ring in a daze, looking more and more like Big George Foreman 43 years ago.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-06-29T18:25:00ZWhen Media Narratives CollideBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/When-Media-Narratives-Collide/832392251697420353.html2017-06-21T17:20:00Z2017-06-21T17:20:00Z<p align="left">When Nabra Hassanen was brutally murdered in Virginia this past Sunday, the media's collective ears perked up. She was a studious, friendly, innocent 17-year-old, a devout Muslim who was killed while approaching her mosque. </p>
<p align="left">Almost immediately, The Atlantic ran with this headline: "Muslims Feel Under Seige." The magazine instinctively linked Nabra's killing with the London incident in which a man plowed his car into a group of Muslims leaving their mosque. </p>
<p align="left">"Muslim Americans are mourning and terrified," The Atlantic breathlessly reported, "after two violent incidents left worshippers dead over the weekend during the holy month of Ramadan." </p>
<p align="left">USA Today and the Huffington Post both headlined Nabra's religion and her proximity to the mosque, clearly implying that this was a "hate crime" perpetrated against Muslims. </p>
<p align="left">The Council on American-Islamic Affairs, naturally, suggested bias and claimed there is "rising Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate attacks nationwide." </p>
<p align="left">We are not accusing media types of celebrating the killing, but they were enthused because this seemed to fit their narrative that America is a hate-filled country and Muslims are frequently targets of violence. </p>
<p align="left">But that familiar and comfortable story line fell apart almost immediately. Police reported that the young girl's killer was 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres, who apparently pursued a group of teens who were blocking his car. This was a case of road rage, not anti-Muslim animus. </p>
<p align="left">Even more inconvenient for the left-wing media, Torres is in this country illegally. Whether you prefer the term "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal alien," this loathsome killer came here from El Salvador and never should have been able to cross the border. </p>
<p align="left">On the night of the murder, Torres grew enraged when the teens were impeding his path. He got out of his car, chased them with a baseball bat, and smashed Nabra Hassanen in the head when she tripped and fell. He then abducted the young woman, beat her a second time, killed her, and dumped her in a pond adjacent to his apartment complex. There are new reports suggesting that Nabra was also sexually violated. </p>
<p align="left">So you can see the dilemma facing mainstream media outlets. A crime against one of their prized victim groups was committed by a member of another victim group. What to do?</p>
<p align="left">The Washington Post figured out how to handle the story without upsetting their liberal reader base. The paper, whose much-ridiculed motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness," described Torres as a "22-year-old construction worker." </p>
<p align="left">The Post managed to avoid the word "illegal," but did mention that immigration officials had requested that a detainer be placed on Torres. So, by assiduously reading between the lines, you could discern that Martinez Torres is in this country illegally. </p>
<p align="left">The New York Times, in its initial story on the killing, used the term "Muslim teenager" in the very first sentence of its 900-word story and bemoaned the reported rise in attacks against American Muslims. The Times also mentioned the London incident, but never once saw fit to use the words "illegal" or "immigration." </p>
<p align="left">And the networks? According to the invaluable Media Research Center, CBS and NBC totally ignored the story on their Monday evening newscasts. ABC mentioned the victim's religion and the mosque, but failed to note that Torres is an illegal alien. </p>
<p align="left">We should be very clear: Darwin Martinez Torres should not be in this country, and Nabra Hassanen should be enjoying her summer vacation. </p>
<p align="left">This sickening murder may not fit the legal definition of "hate crime," but what is more hateful and despicable than a young girl being beaten to death and tossed into a pond? </p>
<p align="left">The media were saturated last week, rightly so, with the news of a horrendous political shooting in Virginia. But we heard little about this awful crime in Virginia in which a young girl was savagely killed. </p>
<p align="left">Would it have been covered differently if the victim had been targeted because she was Muslim? Or if the killer was a white guy and not an illegal alien? Of course! </p>
<p align="left">This is one more indictment of our totally corrupt, agenda-driven, and dishonest media.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-06-21T17:20:00ZThe End of DecencyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-End-of-Decency/-125877306031045621.html2017-06-15T18:29:00Z2017-06-15T18:29:00Z<p align="left">Last week's news was dominated by the Senate hearing at which former FBI Director James Comey gave his much-anticipated testimony. <br /><br />This week, it was Attorney General Jeff Sessions' turn to be interrogated by a Senate committee.</p>
<p align="left">Coincidentally, 63 years ago, in June of 1954, another Senate hearing dominated the news and produced one of the most famous questions in American history. <br /><br />"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"</p>
<p align="left">That question, posed by attorney Joseph Welch was aimed at Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was investigating the U.S. Army and just about everyone else. McCarthy, even though he actually identified some card-carrying communists in the government, was a bully on a witch hunt. <br /><br />His very name became a noun, with "McCarthyism" defined as the practice of making false accusations.</p>
<p align="left">As for Joseph Welch's famous question, it could easily be resurrected and asked of all those public figures whose hatred of Donald Trump has gone beyond all decency. </p>
<p align="left">We're not talking about so-called "entertainers" like Stephen Colbert and Kathy Griffin, who scorn the president in the most vile terms. Or the New York theater company that fantasizes about the brutal stabbing of Donald Trump. <br /><br />A bigger problem is what now passes for political discourse in the media, the academy, and even Congress.</p>
<p align="left">CNN and MSNBC are wall-to-wall Trump-hatred, only interrupting the loathing for commercials and the occasional breaking news story. <br /><br />Our universities overflow with anti-Trump faculty, with one Washington professor even wishing that Republican legislators "be lined up and shot."</p>
<p align="left">And when it comes to common decency, or the lack thereof, some Democratic politicians have gone completely over the edge. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, speaking at a university, asked and answered a question about the president: "Has he kept any of his promises? No. F*** no!" <br /><br />This far-left senator, heralded as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, seems to think that dropping "F-bombs" is perfectly okay when talking about the president of the United States.</p>
<p align="left">Democratic Party boss Tom Perez tells anyone who will listen that President Trump "doesn't give a s***" about ordinary Americans, while Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi informs us that President Trump "needs sleep" and is unfit for office. <br /><br />By the way, she frequently refers to him as "President Bush," indicating that she may be the one in need of some rest. <br /><br />And of course there is Maxine Waters, the scowling new face of the Democratic Party, who is certain that President Trump is "absolutely lying." <br /><br />Even Senator Tim Kaine, who nearly became Vice President of the United States, advised his fellow Democrats to "fight in the streets."</p>
<p align="left">We should avoid directly blaming Democrats and their overheated rhetoric for Wednesday's attempted murder of Republican House members in Virginia. The shooter, James Hodgkinson, was certainly deranged, but he was also a far-left loon who had to be influenced by all the anti-GOP animus. One of his last Facebook posts was this: "Trump is Guilty & Should Go to Prison for Treason." Wonder where he got that idea?</p>
<p align="left">By the way, remember when Democrats and the media went wild and accused Republicans, particularly Sarah Palin, of inspiring the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords? There was absolutely no evidence that Jared Loughner had any political leanings, but that didn't stop the conspiracy theorists. <br /><br />Now those same liberals, moments after a wild-eyed Bernie Sanders supporter shoots Republican Congressman Steve Scalise, blame lax gun laws in Virginia. Unbelievable!</p>
<p align="left">There is some irony in the fact that Joseph McCarthy went way overboard when he was accusing his enemies of aiding and abetting the Soviet Union. Now, Donald Trump's legion of haters accuse him of being aided and abetted by Russia through some nefarious but ill-defined plot to "hack the election."</p>
<p align="left">They do not hesitate to smear honorable men and women, most recently Attorney General Sessions. Senator Cory Booker, another Democratic presidential prospect, actually implied that Jeff Sessions may have lied under oath and perhaps colluded with Russia. It does not get a whole lot lower.</p>
<p align="left">Those fanatics in Congress would be well-advised to read some history and learn what happened to Senator McCarthy after he hurled reckless and unfounded accusations. He was disciplined by the Senate, shunned by his colleagues, and died in disgrace less than three years after the Army-McCarthy hearings where Joseph Welch posed that devastating question.</p>
<p align="left">Perhaps Welch's rhetorical query should be repeated today in a slightly altered form: "Have you no sense of decency, Trump-haters, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"</p>
<p align="left"> </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-06-15T18:29:00Z'The King and I,' Starring Hillary ClintonBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-King-and-I-Starring-Hillary-Clinton/-221087216286188261.html2017-06-08T16:05:00Z2017-06-08T16:05:00Z<p align="left">Earlier this week, when we polled BillOReilly.com visitors, 70% of you said the president should cut back on his tweets or stop the Twitter nonsense entirely. And according to another poll, a majority of Americans say the tweets actually harm national security. </p>
<p align="left">Nevertheless, consider a simple question: Who would you rather have as commander-in-chief in the war against terror, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Before you answer, consider the following, which makes a few dumb tweets look downright Solomonic.</p>
<p align="left">Mrs. Clinton was in Baltimore Monday to speak at a charity fundraiser. For a change, she didn't give another list of excuses for her loss in November; instead, she put forth her prescription for dealing with terrorists and their sympathizers. Her message, boiled down to its essence, was that we in the West have to do a much better job at "getting to know one another." </p>
<p align="left">Does that phrase sound familiar? Maybe Mrs. Clinton was channeling the great Rodgers and Hammerstein musical "The King and I." One of that show's memorable tunes featured these lyrics: </p>
<p align="center"><em>Getting to Know You,</em></p>
<p align="center"><em>Getting to Know All About You,</em></p>
<p align="center"><em>Getting to Like You,</em></p>
<p align="center"><em>Getting to Hope You Like Me.<br /><br /></em></p>
<p align="left">Those words, written by Oscar Hammerstein II in 1951, are a pretty neat summary of the far left's approach to terror. If only we were more understanding, if only we were more tolerant, if only we were less belligerent, if only we kowtowed to every demand, the rest of the world would love us. </p>
<p align="left">Mrs. Clinton continued: "Getting to know one another, learning about the experiences, the lives, the cultures, the religions, the food." Yes, she actually said "the food." Apparently if we all stuck to a strictly Halal diet, hatred will be starved to death and terrorism will wither away. This is beyond infantile.</p>
<p align="left">Finally, Hillary Clinton told the audience they should be "putting yourselves in another's shoes, walking in them." Presumably she is not referring to the footwear favored by British-born radical Islamist Richard Reid. You may remember that Reid's specially-designed shoes were packed with plastic explosives that would have brought down an airplane packed with civilians had he not been subdued.</p>
<p align="left">Mrs. Clinton, who was very nearly our president, also went out of her way to praise London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Whatever his effectiveness in running the city, the mayor is most certainly not a tough bloke when it comes to terrorism. This week he insisted that his government simply can't do much about the hundreds of Londoners who have returned to the city after joining the jihad in the Middle East. And last year Mayor Khan infamously declared that terror attacks are "part and parcel of life in a big city." He's walking in the shoes of Neville Chamberlain. </p>
<p align="left">Right now, with his city under siege by Islamic terrorism, Mayor Khan is urging the British government to cancel a planned visit by President Trump. So if you're keeping score at home, it's perfectly fine for terror warriors to return to England, but the President of the United States should steer clear of the British Isles. </p>
<p align="left">So we'll return to that original question and add a few more options: Who would you prefer to see out front in the fight against terror, who would make you feel most safe and secure? Hillary Clinton, Sadiq Khan, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, or Donald Trump?</p>
<p align="left">Thought so.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2017-06-08T16:05:00ZThank You, Kathy GriffinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Thank-You-Kathy-Griffin/924097595683603276.html2017-06-01T17:41:00Z2017-06-01T17:41:00ZWe all may owe a tiny bit of gratitude to "comedienne" Kathy Griffin, who went all post-edgy this week and posed holding the severed head of the President of the United States. After being denounced from both right and left, the not-so-funny former funny-woman issued a groveling apology. "I went way too far," she confessed. How amazingly perceptive! <br /><br />So why would anyone want to thank this odious woman, who has a history of making crude and tasteless remarks? Well, Griffin may have finally shown that even hateful anti-Trump screeds have their limits. <br /><br />Think about it for a moment: She actually believed this outrageous stunt would be well-received, probably that she would be praised for her courage. <br /><br />And why wouldn't she believe that? <br /><br />Prior to this week, when Griffin set a new indoor world record in vulgarity, absolutely nothing was too offensive when it came to mocking the duly-elected president. <br /><br />Stephen Colbert paid absolutely no price for implying that President Trump has sexual relations with Vladimir Putin. Did Colbert apologize? Heck, no. He was cheered on by many on the left for that gross remark. Other late-night hosts try to outdo one another when it comes to bashing the president, and of course Saturday Night Live has been profiting handsomely by slandering the president every week. <br /><br />Many of these same folks, you'll recall, considered President Barack Obama simply "too cool" to ridicule. <br /><br />It's not just comedians. Consider what's been written and said just in recent days. MSNBC's "conservative" Joe Scarborough described President Trump as a "thug," an "idiot," and "an "embarrassment to the United States." The New York Times "conservative" columnist Ross Douthat compared the president to a "syphilitic emperor." If there are no limits whatsoever in the mainstream media, why would Kathy Griffin expect anything less than plaudits? <br /><br />Democrats haven't been much more civil than TV hosts and late-night quipsters. <br /><br />Senator Chris Coons actually claimed the FBI has transcripts proving collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. That is a flat-out lie. Hillary Clinton, giving a commencement address, strongly hinted that Donald Trump is another Richard Nixon and may well be impeached. Then there are those constant allegations that the Russians "hacked the election," whatever that means. The accusation of the week, you may have noticed, is something called "back channeling." <br /><br />Given the daily rantings of Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, we ask again: Why wouldn't Kathy Griffin think a mock beheading of the president would be just fine? The president, after all, is figuratively beheaded on a daily basis by the media, Democrats, and far left websites. <br /><br />The left is trying mightily to destroy the Trump presidency by claiming he is a racist, a fool, an ignoramus, and worse. The malady known as Trump Derangement Syndrome is not abating; it is actually growing more virulent by the week. Back to Kathy Griffin for a moment. We should mention that this is not her first odious remark aimed at a Republican. In 2010 the 'comic' referred to Senator Scott Brown's daughters as 'prostitutes.' She did that in the presence of CNN reporter Dana Bash, whose response was to giggle like a schoolgirl. <br /><br />Despite that remark and many others that crossed way over the line, CNN maintained its relationship with Griffin, who hosted the network's New Year's Eve show with Anderson Cooper. The duo rang in the New Year ten times before CNN finally decided to pull the plug after this week's 'beheading' outrage. <br /><br />But guess who won't pull the plug on Kathy Griffin? None other than Al Franken, that most-ridiculous senator from Minnesota. Franken, who made a name for himself on Saturday Night Live, will appear with Griffin next month at a promotion for his new book. "She has actually begged for forgiveness," Stuart Smalley explained, "and I believe in forgiveness." As do we all, although it's kind of hard to forgive Kathy Griffin … or the voters of Minnesota. <br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><span><br />(NOTE: Even Al Franken, one day after saying he was sticking by Kathy Griffin, changed his mind and disinvited her from his upcoming book event. Apparently forgiveness has its limits.)</span><br /><br />Finally, Kathy Griffin's stunt may well end her career, such as it was. CNN has thrown her overboard, upcoming comedy gigs have been canceled, and she has even been dumped as a celebrity endorser by the company that makes the Squatty Potty. <br /><br />So this New Year's Eve you will have to make do without Kathy Griffin on CNN. But perhaps Anderson Cooper can team up with another hate-filled, left-wing former comic. Hey, we hear Joy Behar may be free that night!BillOReilly.com Staff2017-06-01T17:41:00ZLeftists and the Loons They LoveBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Leftists-and-the-Loons-They-Love/-367237861674512059.html2017-05-25T22:10:00Z2017-05-25T22:10:00ZWould you march in a parade alongside a terrorist? If your answer is 'no,' you may be disqualified from holding office in New York City. <br /><br />As you may have heard, organizers of the upcoming Puerto Rican Day parade have bestowed the honor of leading the parade upon 74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera. <br /><br />Just a bit of background on this man: His supporters may hail him as a 'militant,' but in fact Rivera is a stone-cold terrorist. Long before he was leading parades, Oscar Lopez Rivera was leading the Puerto Rican independence group FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation.) <br /><br />FALN terrorists bombed government buildings, restaurants, banks, and stores, more than a hundred in all. One of their most infamous works was the bombing of Manhattan's historic Fraunces Tavern in 1975. Put simply, the FALN made Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground look like duds. <br /><br />After being convicted of various violent crimes, this truly bad hombre spent 36 years behind bars. He would have died in a federal lockup had not President Obama commuted his sentence just before leaving office. Rivera, who has never apologized or expressed contrition for his violent deeds, was released last week, just in time to be honored in New York City, the very city where many of his bombs killed and maimed. <br /><br />The upcoming hero's welcome is the idea of New York Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, a millionaire slumlord who rarely met a Marxist thug she didn't like. But this odious woman is not alone. Dozens of other New York politicians are also saluting the terrorist, chief among them Mayor Bill de Blasio, who will proudly join the parade. Even Governor Andrew Cuomo is considering marching, although he is first holding up his finger to see which way the wind is blowing [update: Cuomo has said he won't march. We'll see who, if anyone, follows]. <br /><br />The good news is that not all of Gotham has gone totally insane. Goya Foods, a sponsor of the parade for 60 years, has bowed out. So have the New York Yankees, JetBlue, Coca-Cola, NYC firefighters, AT&T, the New York Daily News, and others. Police Commissioner James O'Neill, expressing his disgust, correctly described Rivera as a 'terrorist.' Perhaps he remembers that the FALN bombed NYPD headquarters in 1982, severely wounding three cops. <br /><br />Of course, the passionate love affair between left-wingers and murderous thugs is nearly as old as Romeo and Juliet. Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Michael Moore and others made pilgrimages to Venezuela to worship at the feet of Hugo Chavez, a man who holds the distinction of destroying an entire country. <br /><br />Even further back, many American radicals had a soft spot for their 'Uncle Joe' Stalin, who rivaled Hitler in his genocidal ways. They were also hot for Fidel, Che, Mao, and assorted other communist thugs. <br /><br />Here at home, the cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal has been heralded as a 'political prisoner,' even though he savagely murdered Philadelphia cop Daniel Faulkner. Your tax dollars helped support Mumia's commentaries on National Public Radio for a time; he has also been invited to give various college commencement addresses. The left has no discernable sympathy for Officer Faulkner's widow Maureen. <br /><br />That Puerto Rican Day parade, coming up in two weeks, still has a few sponsors. Among them is the United Federation of Teachers, the union that represents New York City teachers. They are sending quite a message to their students, wouldn't you say? <br /><br />And Mayor Bill de Blasio? Well, even after the Manchester terrorist bombing, he defends his decision to march behind a terrorist. 'The parade committee made a choice this year on someone to honor,' Mayor de Blasio said, weasel that he is. But suppose that parade committee had decided to honor native New Yorker President Trump? Rest assured that the mayor and his left-wing cronies in New York City would have stayed home. To them, a terrorist is far preferable to a Republican president. <br /><br />Forget basketball, this is the real 'march madness.'BillOReilly.com Staff2017-05-25T22:10:00ZBOR Staff Column: Fully Documented LunacyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Fully-Documented-Lunacy/-122269199093791218.html2017-03-30T17:41:00Z2017-03-30T17:41:00ZSomething about sanctuary cities and illegal immigration brings out the absolute worst in the far left. Although they will argue that it is not the worst, but the best. <br /><br />For starters, many progressives would object to the above paragraph because it includes the word 'illegal.' Self-proclaimed immigration activists are eager to tell you that 'illegal' is a slur, even though it is absolutely, positively accurate. And don't even get them started on 'alien,' which is totally beyond the pale. <br /><br />An editorial in the Seattle Times lays it out for us unenlightened troglodytes: 'Stop using illegal immigrant,' the writer demands, adding that it is 'un-American, dehumanizing, derogatory, and destructive.' Not to be outdone, a New York Times editorial says 'illegal immigrant' is 'a code word for racial and ethnic hatred.' Wow! The fact that these are immigrants entered the country unlawfully apparently doesn't matter. <br /><br />And it's not just a couple of wacky columnists. The Associated Press issued an edict banning the term 'illegal immigrant.' Here's the AP stylebook: 'Acceptable variations include 'living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.' On the other hand, Latino writer Ruben Navarrette contends that the 'illegal immigrant' is perfectly accurate, while 'undocumented' is politically correct and absurd. As Navarrette points out, 'most of these people have plenty of documents.' <br /><br />At the end of the day (just seeing if you are paying attention), you will rarely hear a member of the Democratic Party, a network reporter, or a big-city newspaper use the term 'illegal.' It has simply been deemed unacceptable in polite conversation among the chattering classes. <br /><br />But those are mere semantics; far more important is outright treachery. This week we saw a politician commit an act that is truly reprehensible. Far left Massachusetts State Representative Michelle DuBois actually tried to warn illegal immigrants of a possible raid by federal authorities. <br /><br />Acting on a rumor, DuBois posted this on her Facebook page: 'If you are undocumented don't go out on the street. If there is a knock on the door of your house and you don't know who it is, don't open the door.' <br /><br />Just consider what she did. If ICE had been preparing to nab a criminal illegal immigrant, perhaps even a murderer or a would-be terrorist, Michelle DuBois in effect sided with the criminal and against her own federal government. Does it get any more despicable? Asked about her post, DuBois simply smiled and said she did nothing wrong. She then used the controversy to help raise money for her reelection campaign. Never let a crisis go to waste! <br /><br />Thomas Hodgson, a Republican sheriff in Massachusetts contends that Michelle DuBois should resign and perhaps even be tossed in the slammer. Hodgson, a guest on The Factor Wednesday night, accused DuBois of going out of her way to harbor criminals and put ICE officers at risk. <br /><br />Also this week, mayors of some sanctuary cities met with Homeland Security boss Gen. John Kelly. They defiantly insisted they are doing nothing wrong and vowed to fight any attempt to withhold federal funding from their municipalities. New York City's Mayor Bill de Blasio proclaimed, 'We are going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status.' That's the same Mayor de Blasio who described DUI as a minor infraction that does not merit deportation. Mayor Rahm Emanuel, boss of that idyllic and peaceful city called Chicago, added this: 'We're going to stay a sanctuary city, there is no stranger among us.' <br /><br />So once again the country is divided. On one side are people who use politically correct terms to describe illegal immigrants. They argue, based on specious statistics, that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, and that sanctuary cities are safer because illegal immigrants are more willing to come forward to report crimes. They essentially endorse open borders and are guided by emotion and a deep need to be seen as virtuous. <br /><br />On the other side are those who have no problem using the term 'illegal immigrant,' mainly because it is correct. They want stricter border enforcement and denounce sanctuary cities and politicians who defy federal immigration law. <br /><br />We know there is a blue America, situated largely on the coasts, and a red America, located just about everywhere else. This immigration debate breaks down pretty much along the same geographical lines. Right now the open borders crowd is on its heels because President Trump and Attorney General Sessions are not afraid to describe illegal immigrants as, well, illegal immigrants. They decry sanctuary cities and want effective law enforcement. How quaint! <br /><br />The left, which dominates the news media and most universities, will continue to police our language, searching for any micro-aggressions. But the right controls the levers of the federal government. They want to protect our borders and immediately deport bad guys. <br /><br />The battle lines are drawn. And they are stark.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-03-30T17:41:00ZBOR Staff Column: Lone Wolves and Other AnimalsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Lone-Wolves-and-Other-Animals/-794333674504578114.html2017-03-23T17:03:00Z2017-03-23T17:03:00ZBy now you probably know about the savage rape in Rockville, Maryland, where a young girl was brutalized by two men who are in this country illegally. As one newspaper described it, 'they took turns raping a 14-year-old girl in a high school bathroom.' Does it get any lower, any more despicable? <br /><br />We say 'you probably know' about the story because it was largely ignored by every network this side of Fox News. It is truly a shameful chapter in 'journalism' when a crime is disregarded, perhaps because it buttresses President Trump's warnings about illegal immigration. <br /><br />Want to know the worst of it? CNN did manage to mention the case on its website, only to say that the debate over the alleged rapist is 'moot.' Yes, CNN went out of its way to defend the school district and downplay the crime. And the 14-year-old victim, whose life has been changed forever? Well, never mind about her. <br /><br />If you want to know one harsh truth about the case, you'd have to turn to, of all places, Univision. An immigration attorney named Joseph Malouf explained that the prime suspect, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez, was allowed into the USA because of policies promoted by the Obama administration. Sanchez was nabbed at the Mexican border seven months ago and released with nothing more than an order to appear before an immigration judge. The lawyer Malouf was asked how things would be different under a Trump administration. His revealing reply: 'They would have arrested Mr. Sanchez and they would have detained him, and eventually he would have been deported.' <br /><br />Does it get any more clear? The Obama 'catch and release' policy enabled this 18-year-old animal to end up in trendy and lefty Rockville, where he and his compadre, 17-year-old Jose Montano, were free to commit their horrible act. <br /><br />Here's the Washington Post: 'After a stint in federal custody, they were allowed to join their relatives in Maryland.' But why? Why were they not immediately sent back to their home nations in Central America? A 14-year-old girl and her parents will be asking that question for the rest of their broken lives. <br /><br />Of course, this kind of heinous crime brings out the worst in sanctimonious sanctuary city advocates. Montgomery County schools boss Jack Smith stressed the importance of helping all students 'become productive members of society.' Empty words from an empty suit. <br /><br />Rockville and Montgomery County are home to many self-confessed 'bleeding heart liberals' who instinctively come down on the side of unfettered immigration, legal or not. Perhaps there are fewer bleeding hearts after this monstrous crime. Henry Sanchez and Jose Montano should not have been in Maryland, should not have been enrolled in the 9th grade, and should not have been free to prey on an innocent girl. It's as simple as that. <br /><br />Then there is London, where we are told that a 'lone wolf' Islamic terrorist killed three people Wednesday before being shot dead. Just a few months ago London's Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan said terror attacks are 'part and parcel of living in a big city.' Very prescient, Mr. Mayor, if not very reassuring. <br /><br />The multi-culturalists assure us that London can be a melting pot, with all ethnicities and religions living side-by-side in peaceful harmony. They are reminiscent of the obscure singer Timmy Thomas, best known for his 1972 hit 'Why Can't We Live Together?' 'Everybody wants to live together,' Thomas crooned, 'Why can't we be together?' <br /><br />For an answer to that rhetorical question, turn to the very courageous British columnist Katie Hopkins, who has toured the Muslim enclaves surrounding London. 'The Afghans hate the Somalis who loathe the Eritreans,' she wrote. 'London is a city of ghettos behind a thin veneer of civility kept polished by a London mayor.' Hopkins described her beloved London thusly: 'An entire city of monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Blind. Deaf. And dumb.' <br /><br />In the coming days we will be reassured that the London carnage was the work of one madman, and indeed the murders will soon be forgotten. Until the next madman arms himself with a truck and a knife. Back home, will also be told that Henry Sanchez and Jose Montano in no way represent the millions of peace-loving and hard-working illegal immigrants in America. That is certainly true, but the fact remains that they should not have been here to ruin a young girl's life. <br /><br />Many of Europe's cities are committing slow-motion suicide, sacrificing their once-great cultures on the altar of tolerance and self-righteousness. They look the other way as unassimilated Muslim immigrants adhere to their own repressive laws and backward traditions. The U.K. generally ignores the problem, while nations like Sweden flat-out lie about rampant criminality in its mostly-Muslim ghettos. Once you convince yourself and the world that you have created a socialist utopia, it is terribly difficult to admit error. <br /><br />In America, high-profile crimes like that in Rockville and the murder of Kate Steinle garner most of the attention, but there are many, many more. Criminals who should not be roaming our streets are creating mayhem in hundreds of cities. Europe provides a stark lesson of exactly what not to do. Tolerance sounds nice, but public safety is far, far more important. <br /><br />The madness has to stop. On both sides of the Atlantic.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-03-23T17:03:00ZBOR Staff Column: Send in the Media ClownsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Send-in-the-Media-Clowns/-266185244730225190.html2017-03-16T19:49:00Z2017-03-16T19:49:00ZIn just two months the famed Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus will fold up its tents for good. The 146-year old 'Greatest Show On Earth' was done in by high costs and expensive legal fights with animal rights groups. <br /><br />But if you're a fan of the circus, don't fret because there is an ongoing circus of ideology and cynicism in the media. One example is New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, normally a pretty rational guy. If you're not familiar with him, Kristof spends an inordinate amount of time displaying his earnestness, virtue, and self-righteousness. But to be totally fair, he has also trekked to some of the world's poorest places and issued very valuable dispatches. <br /><br />Last week, for no discernable reason beyond pure Trump-hatred, Mr. Kristof tweeted this: 'If you're in IRS and have a certain president's tax return that you'd like to leak, my address is: NYT, 620 Eighth Avenue, NY NY 10018.' <br /><br />Nicholas Kristof is encouraging government workers to commit a felony that is punishable by five years in jail and/or $5,000 in fines. But don't bother complaining to the Times' legal department, since Kristof's boss, executive editor Dean Baquet, has expressed his eagerness to go to jail if only he could publish President Trump's returns. <br /><br />A legal analyst at the Washington Post determined that Kristof is way out of bounds, writing this: 'Soliciting illegal conduct generally counts as a form of participating in the illegal conduct.' So there you have it – a well-respected, if little-known, columnist for the self-described 'paper of record' is encouraging his readers to commit a crime. Hey, Nick, maybe it's time to get back out on the road where you do some great work. <br /><br />Of course, the center ring this week was occupied by Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. In the most hyped non-event since Comet Kohoutek and Y2K (let's leave Geraldo out of this,) Maddow revealed on Tuesday evening that she had obtained Donald Trump's tax returns. To a hard-left progressive, this is slightly better than finding the Holy Grail. <br /><br />The two-page return magically showed up in the mailbox of far-left reporter David Cay Johnston, formerly of the New York Times. He has been hounding Donald Trump, Javert-like, for decades, and his Trump Derangement Syndrome is now deep into Stage 4. 'Donald Trump is a racist,' Johnston recently declared, 'and we need to recognize that we've put a racist in the White House.' <br /><br />Despite Johnston's irrational and undisguised hatred of the president, MSNBC gave him nearly an hour to spew vitriol Tuesday night. This despicable man actually speculated, 'It's entirely possible that Donald sent this to me.' <br /><br />As we know now, the 'scoop' turned out to be a bust. In 2005 Donald Trump paid $38-million in federal taxes, which most observers felt was pretty fair. The entire spectacle was considered a victory for President Trump, whose tax return refuted Hillary Clinton's oft-repeated charge that he had paid no taxes. But Rachel Maddow made no apologies and actually claims a journalistic coup. <br /><br />One thing went almost unnoticed during this unseemly episode. During his Tuesday night turn in the spotlight, David Cay Johnston said something beyond disgusting. He muttered this about Melania Trump: 'She did do very sleazy porn.' To her credit, Rachel Maddow gently chastised Johnston, but his slanderous comment was ignored by the rest of the media. Johnston also implied that President Trump may be hiding 'connections to the Russian oligarchs' and accused the president of nefarious associations with drug kingpins and mobsters. <br /><br />No doubt Johnston has an open invitation to spew his venom on MSNBC, so expect to see him again. Maybe next time someone will leave a copy of Donald Trump's college transcripts 'in his mailbox.' <br /><br />In the end, Rachel Maddow and David Cay Johnston came up empty Tuesday evening. But they did manage to use the word 'oligarch' six times, and also mentioned Deutsche Bank, the Bank of Cyprus, Turkey, Azerbaijan and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Maddow even implied that President Trump may shape tax policy to benefit himself and his family. Rarely have so many conspiracy theories come together on national television. <br /><br />Even late-night comic Stephen Colbert mocked Maddow and her methods: 'Rachel took us on an emotional rollercoaster because, like a rollercoaster, at the end we were right back where we started, and feeling a little queasy.' <br /><br />Despite this dud, the search for Donald Trump's tax returns will continue for four years, maybe eight. And many in the media, who were remarkably incurious about President Obama's college transcripts, will lead the charge. It brings to mind Steven Sondheim's beautiful song 'Send in the Clowns.' Remember the last line of that classic? 'Don't bother, they're here.' <br /><br />These particular clowns are here and they are on a singular mission. They want to destroy Donald Trump by any means necessary. And, to borrow from Captain John Paul Jones, they have not yet begun to fight.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-03-16T19:49:00ZBOR Staff Column: Slaves, Immigrants, and Double StandardsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Slaves-Immigrants-and-Double-Standards/-278843640170318170.html2017-03-09T18:58:00Z2017-03-09T18:58:00ZThis week Dr. Ben Carson, President Trump's newly-installed Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, was caught up in a maelstrom that is very revealing of blatant media bias. <br /><br />Dr. Carson, addressing HUD employees, said this: 'There were other immigrants who came in the bottom of slave ships, who worked even longer, even harder, for less.' Cue the umbrage machine. Carson's remarks ignited a predictable CAT 4 storm among the media and left-wing celebrities. <br /><br />The actor Samuel L. Jackson, who plays a racial justice warrior when he's not hawking credit cards, wrote an extremely offensive and unprintable tweet. But then again, Samuel L. also went all in on the 'Hands Up Don't Shoot' hoax. You can find him on YouTube denouncing 'racist police.' <br /><br />Whoopi Goldberg advised Carson to 'read or watch Roots,' while Chelsea Clinton declared, 'This can't be real.' And Ice T of 'Cop Killer' fame deemed Ben Carson to be an idiot. The reliably smug and pretentious professor Michael Eric Dyson went farther, calling Carson's remarks 'one of the most atrocious acts of historical revisionism that one might imagine.' <br /><br />Really? It's certainly arguable that the gentle and genteel Dr. Carson was wrong to equate slaves and immigrants, and he admitted as much the next day. <br /><br />But check out this recent observation from another very prominent black man: 'It wasn't easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves.' Of course, that was President Obama just over a year ago. His speech was described as 'impassioned' and 'heartfelt.' The Federalist has unearthed ten other instances where Barack Obama compared immigration and slavery. <br /><br />Both President Obama and Secretary Carson were talking about the inherent goodness of America and its promise, even if new arrivals were coming involuntarily on a slave ship. President Obama: 'They were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.' Secretary Carson: 'They too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.' <br /><br />Summing things up, the brain surgeon Dr. Ben Carson, raised in a single-parent home in Detroit, is considered racially inauthentic, a constant target for ridicule. But President Obama, the product of Hawaii's finest prep school and born to two parents with graduate degrees, can pretty much say nothing wrong to his acolytes. <br /><br />What in the world is going on? First, many in the media are out to completely destroy anyone associated with the Trump administration. Watch the non-Fox cable news morning shows and you'll walk away shaking your head over the loathing of President Trump. <br /><br />More than that, Ben Carson is a liberal's nightmare. He urges poor Americans to become as self-reliant as possible, to avoid reliance on the leviathan government. That is heresy to the NAACP, liberal Democrats, and so many others whose lives were shattered on November 8th. <br /><br />The good news is that Ben Carson will not likely change. He's 65-years-old, accustomed to liberal scorn, and will continue to preach the same message. This recent episode has already blown over. <br /><br />But the media jackals are ravenous, on the prowl for any slip-up by a member of President Trump's team. How bad are things? MSNBC's Chris Matthews admitted this week that he has a hard time saying the words 'President Trump.' The same guy who famously got a thrill up his leg while listening to Barack Obama cannot muster a modicum of respect for Donald Trump. Astounding! <br /><br />It's always fun to play 'what if,' as in 'what if a conservative anchor was unable to say President Obama.' He or she would be denounced as a racist, probably fired, and certainly drummed out of polite company. But now, disrespecting the president is a badge of honor among liberal media types. <br /><br />The election of Donald Trump was an incalculable blow to the left. And now, there are a few thousand reporters who wake up every day with the singular goal of bringing down a sitting president and hanging a pelt on their wall. An orange pelt.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-03-09T18:58:00ZBOR Staff Column: Mutual Abhorrence SocietyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Mutual-Abhorrence-Society/-327438751347691479.html2017-03-02T17:34:00Z2017-03-02T17:34:00ZAn insider's secret: Most reporters and editors in the national media lean to the left. In fact, many lean so far to the port side that they are in danger of falling overboard. But maybe you already suspected that. <br /><br />The bias has long been evident to every clear-thinking American, but it is even more glaring in the era of Donald Trump. Liberal media types were accustomed to having a punching bag like George W. Bush, whose strategy of absorbing blows was reminiscent of Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope. The only problem is that reporters, unlike George Foreman, never punched themselves into exhaustion. <br /><br />Now they are facing a far different opponent – and 'opponent' is the right word – in President Trump. He hits back, with a vengeance. This has led to open warfare between the media and the White House, which is certainly not healthy for either side or for the nation. <br /><br />In recent weeks, both the president and the press have been swinging wildly. The commander-in-chief referred to some outlets as the 'enemy of the American people,' slander that is usually reserved for traitors. That hyperbole only served to escalate the war, and the media has been throwing its own haymakers. <br /><br />Last week CNN welcomed a guest who directly accused President Trump of hating Jews. That bomb-thrower, Steven Goldstein, is executive director of – get this – the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. He may want to look up the words 'mutual' and 'respect.' <br /><br />Further up - or down - the cable dial, a MSNBC panel recently denounced the president for urging an increase in defense spending, implying that he is another Dr. Strangelove. 'It sounds like they want to go to war,' stated Mika Brzezinski. That's the same Mika who also accused President Trump of 'trying to create a dictatorship.' Really? A dictatorship! We know viewers are hard to come by when you're up against Fox & Friends, but is vitriol the answer? <br /><br />Loathing of the administration reached another low this week when Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, in recovery after being banned by Morning Joe, was apparently caught in violation of Oval Office feng shui. The occasion was a meeting between President Trump and leaders of historically black colleges. A photo showed Ms. Conway kneeling on the couch looking at her cell phone, which was taken by Trump-haters in the media as an act of great disrespect. <br /><br />The usually thoughtful Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal immediately complained: 'If Rice or Jarrett had sat like this in Oval Office conservatives would have screamed themselves hoarse for weeks.' <br /><br />That was nothing compared to CNN's Marc Lamont Hill. He played the only card in his deck, writing this: 'It is hard to believe that Kellyanne Conway would be sitting like this if the President were meeting with the NRA or White evangelicals.' Got that? It's all about race, all the time. This is the same Marc Lamont Hill who complained that blacks meeting with Donald Trump during the transition were 'mediocre Negroes.' <br /><br />As you may know, Kellyanne Conway was actually trying to find the perfect angle to take a photo of the dignitaries with her boss. Nothing disrespectful, not in the in the least. She said she wanted 'to chronicle this significant event.' We wonder whether Marc Lamont Hill called the black college presidents 'mediocre Negroes.' <br /><br />But what really makes the media salivate is the thought of linking the Trump campaign to Russia and Putin. So far that avenue has been pretty much a dead end, but they'll certainly keep trying. If the press can somehow show that Russia influenced the election, they can then try to convince Americans that the Trump presidency is invalid. <br /><br />This is largely a matter of ideology. Even though President Trump struck a more moderate tone during his Tuesday night address to Congress, most left-wing editors despise the man. They believe his positions on Islamic terrorism, climate change, abortion, and crime make him very dangerous. He is a president they wish to destroy, if and when the opportunity presents itself. <br /><br />To be fair, many media outlets gave reluctant praise to President Trump's speech, applauding him for 'softening' his tone. One outlier was the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, who accused President Trump of going off on a 'xenophobic rant.' Mr. Diehl may have been watching a different address than the rest of America. <br /><br />There will not be a détente in this war, not any time soon. The chasm between the president and the press is simply too wide for any bridge, no matter how large the coming infrastructure bill. <br /><br />The fact remains that for many in the media, there is one Donald Trump address that is absolutely, positively unacceptable. That address, of course, is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-03-02T17:34:00ZBOR Staff Column: Sanctuary to SlaughterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Sanctuary-to-Slaughter/-451289547222335245.html2017-02-23T17:56:00Z2017-02-23T17:56:00ZKarina Pulec will not see her 29th birthday. She was a lawyer in Denver, a devout Catholic who spent her free time doing volunteer work. Karina, described by a colleague as a 'lovely and gifted young woman,' died a horrible death when she was run down and dragged by a driver who immediately fled the scene. <br /><br />You can surely predict the rest of the sordid story – the driver was a criminal illegal alien from Honduras who had been previously deported. <br /><br />We should point out that one of Norlan Estrada-Reyes' prior arrests was for driving under the influence, a crime that left-wing loons like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio refer to as a 'minor offense' that does not merit deportation. Well, Estrada-Reyes was not deported; he was free to mow down Karina Pulec at an intersection in downtown Denver. <br /><br />Want more bad news from the mile-high sanctuary city? Timothy Cruz was recently shot and murdered at a train station in Denver. He was 32, the very same age as Kate Steinle when she was slain in San Francisco. <br /><br />The killer, not surprisingly, was a thug who should not have been in this country. Ever Valles had been arrested on various charges, among them a weapons beef, and had been flagged by ICE as an 'immigration enforcement priority.' Meaning, they wanted to deport this brutal and dangerous man. <br /><br />But after Valles posted $5,000 bond, he was released from a Denver jail without ICE even knowing about it. This is beyond sick! Denver officials say they told ICE that Valles was released. How? By fax! It is 2017, and they used a fax machine to notify the feds about a gun-toting hood roaming the streets. Hey, Denver, the 1980s called and want their technology back! A few weeks later, Valles and a pal walked up to Timothy Cruz and shot him dead. There is no word on whether authorities notified Cruz' next-of-kin via fax. <br /><br />The real 'bad hombres' in this story aren't here illegally, nor are they Hispanic. When asked about the murder of Timothy Cruz, Denver Sheriff Patrick Firman hid under his desk, from where he issued a cowardly and mealy-mouthed statement: 'Detaining anyone without a criminal warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.' Bull, Sheriff Firman! Valles was a gang member and there was an ICE detainer that you refused to honor. Sheriff, you described the killing as a 'tragedy.' No, it's an absolute and despicable outrage. <br /><br />Then there's Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, who says his police will not 'do the work of federal immigration authorities or violate the constitutional rights of any of our people.' What constitutional rights were being violated, Mr. Mayor, when you defied the feds? It may be a tired cliché, but Sheriff Firman and Mayor Hancock have blood on their hands. <br /><br />Equally bloody are the hands of all the left-wing loons who defend sanctuary cities and ignore the carnage. This noxious idea was begun, of course, in California, where local cops in San Francisco and Los Angeles were forbidden from stopping suspects simply to inquire about their immigration status. That policy, not irrational by itself, soon morphed into total madness when local officials provided sanctuary to convicted felons. <br /><br />A tedious talking point of the left is that sanctuary encourages illegal aliens to come 'out of the shadows' to report crimes, thus making those cities safer. Does anyone really believe that? It's akin to believing that migrants are not committing a disproportionate amount of crime in Sweden. Or that crime in Chicago is caused by guns, not fatherlessness and social breakdown. Truth is, being on the far left must be downright exhausting because you expend so much energy denying reality. <br /><br />Back to sanctuary cities. A tipping point has now been reached. Most sane Americans don't want thugs given protection from deportation. We finally have a president who speaks bluntly about the evil of sanctuary cities. So how many more innocent people will be killed before this insane policy finally dies its long-overdue death? How long before Congress passes some version of 'Kate's Law' and President Trump signs it? <br /><br />An especially sanctimonious guest on The Factor recently said this: 'I don't call them aliens, I call them undocumented residents.' Got that? It's no longer sufficient to say 'undocumented immigrants.' If you really want to display your virtue, use the term 'undocumented residents.' Norlan Estrada-Reyes and Ever Valles were just two of those lovely undocumented residents here in the USA. As a direct result, Karina Pulec and Timothy Cruz are dead.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-02-23T17:56:00ZBOR Staff Column: Civil Servants...or Uncivil Masters?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Civil-Servants...or-Uncivil-Masters/-882833235440129925.html2017-02-16T18:20:00Z2017-02-16T18:20:00ZAmerica's largest employer? That would be the federal government, which has something like 2.7-million civilians in its work force. <br /><br />Whether that is too many or too few is a matter for some future debate, but right now there can be no debate about one very troubling fact. An awful lot of those federal workers, especially at some very powerful agencies, absolutely despise their new boss. Let's just say they never boarded the Trump Train and some are now laying on the tracks. <br /><br />It's not just the big guy they don't like, it's also the men and women he has picked to lead federal departments. Imagine being Betsy DeVos, brand new on the job at the Department of Education. How many in her top staff are truly eager to help this woman, a longtime proponent of giving parents more school choice? She made things worse this week, at least within her own department, by vowing to search for ways to cut unnecessary programs. <br /><br />Secretary DeVos obviously skipped the chapter in the bureaucrat's manual that says department heads are supposed to find new programs to fund, not do away with old ones! <br /><br />Then there's Scott Pruitt, nominated to run the Environmental Protection Agency. As attorney general of Oklahoma, he was a party to more than a dozen lawsuits against the EPA. Pruitt worries about the agency's vast overreach and, even worse, he doesn't lose any sleep over 'climate change,' a holy crusade in the religion of environmentalism. If Pruitt is confirmed, do you suppose that a lot of EPA staffers will be enthusiastic about carrying out his priorities? In fact, some EPA scientists have reportedly begun plotting ways to impede new environmental orders. <br /><br />It's not hyperbole to contend that some federal bureaucrats are actively engaged in a mutiny, with President Trump in the unenviable role of Captain Bligh. One government worker, who of course chose to remain anonymous, vowed to resist President Trump at every step along the way, proclaiming that the president 'ain't the boss of me.' He might want to catch a quick grammar lesson from Betsy DeVos. <br /><br />There is in fact a permanent bureaucracy in Washington, an army of government workers with the power to make things difficult for the Trump administration. That is especially true in the national security agencies that collect and analyze all the secrets collected by our vast spy apparatus. According to a new report in the Wall Street Journal, U.S. spies are actually withholding sensitive information from President Trump. <br /><br />A former Obama official admits that the entire national security bureaucracy feels 'their commander-in-chief is a threat to U.S. national security.' In other words, many of them stand firmly opposed to the incoming president and his initiatives. A Democratic Congressman, Adam Schiff, actually defends the notion that intelligence officials are keeping the Trump administration out of the loop when it comes to secret information. <br /><br />Some unidentified U.S. spies recently displayed their impressive biceps when they leaked the information that General Michael Flynn, before he was national security adviser, spoke by phone with Russia's ambassador, quite possibly about sanctions. It's not yet clear whether Flynn, who has since been fired, did anything illegal. But there is no doubt that the U.S. intelligence operatives broke the law by leaking the contents of a conversation of a private American citizen. <br /><br />The transcript of that conversation, if and when it is released, will shed more light, and perhaps what Gen. Flynn did really was a firing offense. But the bigger picture right now is that the permanent government is letting President Trump know that they have a very powerful hand and a couple of aces in the hole. The anti-Trump media have jumped all over this story, hoping against all current evidence that it could lead to the administration's downfall. The reliably-ridiculous Thomas Friedman of the New York Times didn't disappoint when he compared Russian hacking to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Tommy neglected to mention how many men and women were killed by the hacking. <br /><br />So it's abundantly clear that Donald Trump, president for just four weeks, has some potent enemies. Many in the media hated him from the jump and it's getting worse, especially given his tendency to ignore the traditional pecking order at press conferences. CNN and NBC are apoplectic because the president didn't call on them during recent press conferences. But, hey, if you spend months denouncing a guy as a latter-day Hitler, you might get stiffed for a while. <br /><br />The media enmity is no great surprise. Neither is strident opposition from Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who has sunk to reading fake Michael Flynn tweets to denounce the Trump administration. What may be more worrisome for the president is that permanent state, all those associate deputy assistants to the under secretaries, functionaries whose cushy jobs are protected by civil service laws. Most of them voted for Hillary Clinton, and many of them truly despise Donald Trump. <br /><br />'We the People,' that stirring phrase in the preamble to the Constitution, has in some precincts been supplanted by 'We the Bureaucrats.' And some of our civil servants consider themselves not our servants, but our masters. <br /><br />Donald Trump has long been an unstoppable force, both in private business and during his march to the White House. Now he is coming up against Washington's immovable object, the permanent bureaucracy. This is a real-life version of the classic paradox: What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Anyone taking bets?BillOReilly.com Staff2017-02-16T18:20:00ZBOR Staff Column: Stuart Smalley, Smaller Than EverBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Stuart-Smalley-Smaller-Than-Ever/-476818716920042705.html2017-02-09T16:17:00Z2017-02-09T16:17:00ZSenator Al Franken, who once played the character Stuart Smalley in a previous career for which he was eminently more qualified, attended the absolute best and most expensive private school in Minnesota. Current tuition: About $30,000. Good for him, his parents could afford it and wanted the very best for their son. <br /><br />Franken's own children attended one of the finest and most expensive schools in Manhattan. Current tuition: Well over $40,000. Good for them, their very wealthy father could afford it and wanted the very best for his kids. <br /><br />But now Al Franken is standing, George Wallace-like, at the doors to private schools like those, essentially telling poor children they are not welcome. No, he isn't literally blocking the entrance, but in effect that's what Democrats tried to do when they unanimously voted against the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education. <br /><br />The left despises DeVos for various reasons, not least of which because she is an extremely wealthy woman. You'll rarely see her name in the New York Times or Washington Post without the adjective 'billionaire.' Even more egregious is the fact that Secretary DeVos poses an existential threat to the teachers' unions whose cash, extracted involuntarily from the rank-and-file, is the lifeblood of the modern Democratic Party. <br /><br />Franken himself has received something like $150,000 from teachers' unions and their affiliates. Put another way, that's almost enough for four years at his kids' posh school. <br /><br />Betsy DeVos, rather than leading the life of luxury she could easily afford, devoted decades and much of her family fortune to education. She is a major proponent of choice, a word that Democrats love in other circumstances but abhor in education. She is right in step with most minority parents, who want help in sending their kids to better schools. But Democrats like Al Franken seem to want poor children locked into unionized public schools that are often violent and failing. <br /><br />Franken complains that Betsy DeVos is inexperienced and unqualified. He insisted, 'It's not a job for amateurs who don't know the first thing about education.' That's almost as rich as Al Franken himself. His primary qualifications for winning a Senate seat in 2008 were being a celebrity and having a team of great electoral lawyers who somehow managed to unearth new votes in an endless series of recounts. <br /><br />Truth is, we don't know whether Secretary DeVos will be a successful revolutionary. She is up against some remarkably powerful forces - ultra-wealthy unions, an entrenched bureaucracy at the Education Department, and an entire political party. Democrats vowed to fight her nomination tooth-and-nail, which they did. But she is now in her office on Maryland Avenue, no doubt getting the stink eye from many of her subordinates, and setting off on a journey that would make Odysseus apprehensive. <br /><br />School choice and voucher programs have had mixed results, but can they really be worse than the status quo? During his campaign, Donald Trump posed a simple question to minority voters when asking for their vote: 'What do you have to lose?' We might ask the same thing now to Al Franken and other far-left zealots: What do you have to lose, other than some hefty campaign contributions? <br /><br />Cheryl Kirk, a black mother of three and a nurse, recently wrote an impassioned letter to Franken, one which is worth quoting: 'How in the world have you and those before you been willing and able to sit by while black and brown and poor children have been trapped in underperforming schools?' Ms. Kirk continued: 'Senator Franken, I realize that you have wealth and all this may be an exercise in pretending to solve problems that won't ever affect you. But this is my life. And my kids.' It's worth noting that Cheryl Kirk's children all attend private schools thanks to Indiana's voucher program. And, by the way, she headlined her blog post and letter: 'Dear Senator Franken, this isn't #SNL.' <br /><br />Which brings us full circle back to Stuart Smalley, Franken's self-help character on Saturday Night Live. His daily affirmation included this line: 'I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.' Well, Al, there are quite a few poor parents who don't like you all that much at the moment. Why not give them a fighting chance? Why not, Al?BillOReilly.com Staff2017-02-09T16:17:00ZBOR Staff Column: Dudgeon Hits a New HighBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Dudgeon-Hits-a-New-High/586980580069250573.html2017-02-02T18:19:00Z2017-02-02T18:19:00ZLet's call this the phrase of the week. To be in a state of <em>high dudgeon</em> is to be angry, indignant, downright vengeful. Right now that archaic term describes today's Democratic Party and its far-left base. <br /><br />No one doubted that President Trump, like candidate Trump and President-elect Trump, would face hostility, but the level of loathing has been astounding. Consider a few incidents from just the past few days. <br /><br />House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi smeared President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch, a thoroughly decent and eminently qualified man. She actually said this: 'If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.' Did she leave anyone out? <br /><br />Her counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, appeared to weep when talking about the administration's executive order that would temporarily halt the stream of refugees from seven chaotic nations. <br /><br />Think it's merely a case of unhinged leaders? Think again. Rank-and-file Democratic senators totally boycotted committee hearings on two of Donald Trump's cabinet nominees. Back-bencher Senator Jeff Merkley urged a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee … before he even knew who it would be! <br /><br />How about Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State? He's a former Boy Scout leader and widely-praised leader who ran one of the world's largest international companies. Only three Democrats voted for his confirmation, which was approved by the slimmest vote for any secretary of state ever. Yes, the word 'unprecedented' is getting an unprecedented workout these days. <br /><br />But could it be that the Democratic Party will pick someone sane and logical to lead them out of the political wilderness? Well, one top candidate for DNC chair is far-left former Labor Secretary Tom Perez. He is slamming President Trump as a graduate of MSU, an acronym for 'making s*** up.' Another contender is farther-left Congressman Keith Ellison, who is bashing Judge Neil Gorsuch as a 'right-wing extremist.' <br /><br />Naturally, the Trump-hatred overfloweth at universities and Hollywood, two bastions of far-left group think. Entertainers rush to the nearest microphone to denounce the president as, what else, a fascist. A couple of them have even sunk so low as to slander 10-year-old Barron Trump, who has yet to issue a single executive order in his young life. <br /><br />On campus, a college professor got his 15 minutes by claiming Tom Brady is less of a patriot, or Patriot, than Colin Kaepernick. Why? Because Brady once donned a 'Make America Great Again' cap. And we all saw what happened Wednesday evening when a gay, Trump-supporting provocateur named Milo Yiannopoulos tried to speak at Berkeley. Students at that former capital of the Free Speech Movement tried to burn the place down! <br /><br />All of this requires the requisite disclaimer. President Obama faced strong opposition during his two terms as president. Everyone remembers that Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated that his goal was 'for President Obama to be a one-term president.' What's forgotten is that he said that nearly two years after Barack Obama was sworn in, on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections. <br /><br />There are some very telling numbers that demonstrate the level of Democratic umbrage. On January 21st, 2009, President Obama's first full day in office, Hillary Clinton was confirmed to be secretary of state by a vote of 94 – 2. Attorney General Eric Holder, a career ideologue, was approved 75 – 21. <br /><br />President Obama's Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, received 68 and 63 votes, respectively. Any bets on Neil Gorsuch reaching 60? We'll lay some very tempting odds. <br /><br />So, yes, these are very troubling times. We're not quite ready to take up Dennis Miller's jocular suggestion to split the country in three. And it's a bit premature to start quoting from Abraham Lincoln's 1858 'House Divided' speech, even though there is a political civil war in the USA right now. <br /><br />Maybe it's more suitable to quote Cole Porter, who wrote this: 'The world has gone mad today, and good's bad today.' And if Porter isn't your style, there's the ultra-cool actor Matthew McConaughey. 'He's our president,' McConaughey said of Donald Trump, 'and it's time for us to embrace.' <br /><br />McConaughey may never work again in Hollywood, but perhaps there's a spot for him in Washington. Somebody, somewhere has to lower the dudgeon that just gets higher by the day.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-02-02T18:19:00ZBOR Staff Column: Hitting the Ground SigningBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Hitting-the-Ground-Signing/-192901011765370587.html2017-01-26T21:20:00Z2017-01-26T21:20:00ZAccording to a very unscientific poll on BillOReilly.com, 90% of you are totally unsurprised by President Donald Trump's flurry of executive actions. Well, either you're fibbing or you are unusually prescient and astute. We'll guess it's the latter. <br /><br />Truth is, almost no one else expected Donald Trump to spend the first week of his presidency signing orders, visiting agencies, and meeting with CEOs and union bigwigs. This is a time when most incoming presidents are still finding their way around the West Wing and striving not to bump into the furniture. <br /><br />But Donald J. Trump was a most unconventional candidate, a man who followed his instinct and totally befuddled the media and other politicians. If this first week is any indication, he will be an equally unconventional president. <br /><br />Some old Washington hands find this distressing, but many Americans consider it a tremendously refreshing change. Some examples of President Trump's unorthodoxy were evident during this week's much-hyped interview with ABC News anchor David Muir. <br /><br />When Muir pressed him about last weekend's anti-Trump Women's March in Washington, the president turned the tables and asked whether the media will give similar coverage to this week's massive March for Life. The networks have essentially ignored that event for four decades because it does not fit their worldview and narrative. <br /><br />In that same interview, the president accused Muir and his mainstream colleagues of blatant bias in their coverage of his talk at the CIA. 'You and other networks,' President Trump scolded, 'covered it very inaccurately.' Mr. Trump then gave Muir some very pithy and perspicacious advice: 'Turn on Fox and see how it was covered.' Wow! We've gone from a president who openly loathed Fox News to a commander-in-chief who respects the network's commitment to fairness. It's enough to induce a severe case of whiplash. <br /><br />While the media spent this first week focusing on President Trump's sometimes-over-the-top obsession with crowd size and voter fraud, it's worth remembering the substance of what he did. The actions on immigration and trade were simply a matter of keeping promises made during the campaign, so why should anyone be shocked? Donald Trump has long vowed that his primary concerns will be the safety of American people and the prosperity of American workers. <br /><br />Ending the reckless Obama policy of 'catch and release,' which endangered our citizens, will make this a safer nation. Punishing sanctuary cities will make those self-righteous enclaves think twice about harboring illegal aliens. Building a fence, dismissed by so many as campaign noise, truly seems to be high on the Trump agenda. If you caught The Factor this week, you may have noticed that even Geraldo Rivera has thrown in the towel and will no longer oppose the wall. Call it Geraldo's 'Road to Damascus' moment. Perhaps, in this case, 'Road to Brownsville' is more accurate. <br /><br />President Trump vowed again that construction will begin 'as soon as we can' and reaffirmed that, yes, Mexico will eventually reimburse the USA in one form or another. In the meantime, the Border Patrol, handcuffed by the Obama administration, will finally be able to put those cuffs on illegal immigrants. <br /><br />Of course, a president does not govern by executive actions alone. Mr. Trump will have to work with Congress on the really big-ticket items. Things like massive infrastructure spending and that pesky 'replacement' part of 'repeal and replace.' It will not be easy, he will face unrelenting opposition from Democrats, some Republicans, and almost the entire media establishment. <br /><br />But this week we got a first glance of President Trump in action, 'action' being the operative word. The president known as 'No Drama Obama' has been replaced by 'Perpetually Pumped Trump,' and many Americans seem to approve of the dramatic change. <br /><br />Now, we all know that Donald Trump will say and tweet some outrageous things that will be mocked by the cognoscenti and chattering classes. As the commercial says, 'It's what he does.' And it now seems equally predictable that he will take concrete steps to improve the lives of those forgotten Americans who helped put him in office. They are Donald Trump's constituency, the people about whom he seems to care most. <br /><br />And what's next? Well, there are those trifling issues of stopping the bloodshed in Chicago, stomping out ISIS by all means necessary, rebuilding the military, and improving education. It's a daunting agenda with nary a day off on the horizon. <br /><br />But, hey, even God needed a break. As it says in Genesis 2:2, 'He rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.' The newly-minted president has four years, maybe eight, to help create a safer and more prosperous America. It's not quite as tough as creating the Earth, the seas, the heavens, and the stars, but it's still a pretty heavy lift.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-01-26T21:20:00ZBOR Staff Column: The Thrill is Gone...Not!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-The-Thrill-is-Gone...Not!/-797640694805581394.html2017-01-19T20:23:00Z2017-01-19T20:23:00ZMSNBC's Chris Matthews received well-deserved ridicule when he confessed to getting a 'thrill up my leg' when listening to Barack Obama. More than eight years later, President Obama is still sending thrills and chills through the legs and spines of many media types who hang on his every word. <br /><br />This week the president held his final White House press conference. As you would expect, the questioners were respectful and polite. But as we should not expect, they were downright adoring and sycophantic. <br /><br />One 'reporter' complimented the president for 'expanding the rubber band of inclusion,' whatever that means. Another expressed fear for the status of illegal immigrants under a Trump administration and essentially urged Mr. Obama to lobby Congress in the future. <br /><br />All the while, the esteemed correspondents tittered at each presidential joke, resembling schoolgirls in the presence of Justin Bieber or Ross Lynch (that's why Google was invented!) <br /><br />There were a few substantive questions, most notably from Fox News White House correspondent Kevin Corke. He pointedly asked President Obama whether he supports the more than 60 House Democrats who will boycott the Trump inauguration. <br /><br />Kevin's question provided a great opening, a chance for President Obama to push for the unity he has so often promoted in his soaring speeches. But he totally dodged, saying this: 'With respect to the inauguration, I'm not going to comment on those issues.' He then issued a weather report for Friday in Washington. <br /><br />But why not comment, Mr. President? Five dozen members of your party are acting like petulant urchins, boycotting the swearing in of a legitimately elected president. Some claim it's all about Russian hacking or something else, but the simple fact is that they do not like Donald Trump. Let's be more candid: They loathe and despise the man, his demeanor, and his policies. <br /><br />The 'what if?' game can get tiresome, but what if dozens of Republicans had skipped the inauguration of Barack Obama? They would of course be pilloried as racists and even traitors. But now? The Los Angeles Times says the boycotters are correct because the Trump campaign was 'defined by divisiveness.' Editorial pages uniformly applaud Congressman John Lewis, a leader of the boycott who also sat out the inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001. It seems Mr. Lewis doesn't like sitting outside in Washington in January. Unless, of course, it's a Democrat being sworn in. <br /><br />These boycotters are protesting what they call Mr. Trump's 'disrespect' by disrespecting him and the office he is about to assume. They are wrong, but will never pay a political price in their overwhelmingly liberal districts. <br /><br />One thing should be very clear. It takes absolutely no 'courage' for a member of Congress to sit out the inauguration when it will help him or her with the voters back home. And there is no 'bravery' when an entertainer refuses to participate in the event, not when they are applauded by other Hollywood groupthinkers. <br /><br />Courage is dodging bullets and sidestepping IEDs in Afghanistan, bravery is rushing into a burning house to rescue someone or arresting a gang member in Chicago. What John Lewis did in 1965, when he put his life on the line for a righteous cause, required incredible courage. What he is doing now is pure showboating. And in the case of President Obama, bravery would have meant calling out his fellow Democrats and urging them to attend the inauguration for the sake of national unity. <br /><br />Instead, the president essentially voted 'present,' as he has done so many times before. Rather than stand up for what he knows is right, he took a pass. It was one final display of the leadership vacuum that has existed for the past eight years. <br /><br />We wish President Obama a prosperous and happy retirement, and no doubt it will be both, but the time is ripe for a change. The American people said that clearly in November, and now change is arriving in the form of a frequently bombastic and sometimes unpredictable man who has never held office. <br /><br />Many White House reporters will long for Barack Obama's cool style and seductive smile, which affected them more than they may admit. They certainly won't like Donald Trump, won't chuckle at his jokes, won't throw him softball questions. <br /><br />We the people don't need them to get a thrill up their collective legs. But how about giving the new president a chance? Is that really too much to ask? We are about to find out.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-01-19T20:23:00ZBOR Staff Column: Swan Song for a Lame DuckBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Swan-Song-for-a-Lame-Duck/832839269445132339.html2017-01-12T18:01:00Z2017-01-12T18:01:00ZPresident Obama can still deliver a scripted speech like few others. And he delivered the final one of his presidency this week in Chicago, cheered on by adoring fans and staff members and assorted sycophants. <br /><br />His oration was self-congratulatory through-and-through, as though he has presided over an age of unprecedented prosperity, racial harmony, and world peace. <br /><br />The president ended with a variation on the phrase that helped him get elected eight years ago. This time, instead of 'Yes, We Can,' it was 'Yes, We Did.' But did what, exactly? <br /><br />Mr. Obama absolutely, positively deserves credit for helping stabilize the economy, which was careering out of control when he took the wheel. As he has incessantly intoned, it was 'the deepest recession since The Great Depression.' Barack Obama also carried himself with grace and dignity, serving as a positive role model for everyone, not just minorities. <br /><br />But the president was in charge when much of the world spiraled into chaos, largely due to Islamic-based terrorism. His stubborn decision to pull out of Iraq left a vacuum that was filled by bad guys, really bad guys, while inaction in Syria led to a bloodbath and a refugee crisis. Meanwhile, the jihad exploded, literally, around the globe. <br /><br />Yet in his farewell address, which of course ran far longer than that of any previous president, Mr. Obama employed the word 'Islam' precisely once, namely when he denounced 'violent fanatics who claim to speak for Islam.' When it comes to terrorism, President Obama seems to believe he is a theologian, able to decide who is a true Muslim, who is not. <br /><br />Mr. Obama boasts about his two signature achievements, one on the home front and the other abroad. Here in the USA, his health care bill did much good for some people. That's true of any legislation – there are always winners and losers. In this case, the losers were millions of people who saw their deductibles and premiums soar, their health care choices decline. ObamaCare is in critical condition and will soon be euthanized by the Trump administration. <br /><br />The jury is still out on President Obama's cherished Iran nuke deal, but it is truly bizarre that he and John Kerry put so much faith in the mullahs who foment and fund terror. They seem to trust Iran more than Israel, a democratic nation where a gay person or a woman can actually lead a normal life. The administration's recent abstention of that anti-Israel vote at the UN was one final slap in the face. <br /><br />The most distressing thing about President Obama's tenure has been the lost opportunities. Americans of all races and religions wanted to believe he could help unite the country, that his politics would be as moderate as his demeanor. But the president, steeped in the left-wing ideology of Chicago and Cambridge, inevitably veered towards progressivism, alienating half the country in the process. <br /><br />He also displayed a condescension that is often found in the halls of Ivy League universities. As presidential historian Jon Meacham put it on The Factor this week, President Obama 'has given off the sense that if only the American people were commensurate with his brilliance, things would be better.' <br /><br />When things went wrong, as they do in any administration, the President was slow to accept responsibility, quick to point fingers at recalcitrant Republicans or Fox News or talk radio or implicit racism. Even in this week's speech, Mr. Obama could not resist bringing up 'the effects of slavery and Jim Crow.' No one says those effects no longer exist, but it is not Jim Crow laws that have destroyed our inner cities. The blame goes to lousy schools, broken families, and irresponsible men, things the president addressed far too infrequently. <br /><br />We are left with so many questions about President Obama's tenure. Why did he seem so dismissive of cops, instinctively siding against them? Why did he push income redistribution instead of growth? More symbolically, why did he sit down for interviews with clowns like GloZell Green and a radio host known as 'The Pimp With The Limp?' Yes, the leader of the free world gave an interview to a man who proudly calls himself 'pimp!' Even worse, why did Mr. Obama host leaders of the hate group Black Lives Matter at the White House, not to mention crotch-grabbing 'entertainers?' Did he really have to strive so hard to be hip? <br /><br />President Obama will always be an historic figure, largely because of his race. And he will always be beloved by a large swath of Americans, many of whom will sorely miss his humor and style. No president will ever glide down the steps of Air Force One with the same studied aplomb. But there were so many squandered opportunities over the past eight years. <br /><br />In sum, the man who promised 'hope and change' provided too little hope for too few people, and the change was often in the wrong direction. He spent so much time and money on 'climate change,' neglecting the actual change that could have improved the lives of American workers. <br /><br />So the man who worried so much about his legacy is leaving behind a shattered Democratic Party, blood in the streets of American cities, chaos overseas, and … President Donald J. Trump. <br /><br />Yes, Barack Hussein Obama could have been a champion for the vast majority of Americans. Instead, to borrow from 'On The Waterfront,' he will be remembered as merely a contender. It could have been better, so much better. <br /><br />As his successor might say: Sad!BillOReilly.com Staff2017-01-12T18:01:00ZBOR Staff Column: Celebrity Fear FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Celebrity-Fear-Factor/82781338780076150.html2017-01-05T18:59:00Z2017-01-05T18:59:00ZAndrea Bocelli may be blind, but even he could clearly see the writing on the wall. The gifted Italian tenor knew that his career would take a big-time hit if he dared to perform at Donald Trump's upcoming inauguration. <br /><br />After initial reports that Bocelli would take part in the celebration, he was savaged by left-wingers on social media and warned by his fellow performers. <br /><br />Bocelli is just one of many entertainers who have been intimidated in this 2017 version of a blacklist. Too strong a term? Well, here's how Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines 'blacklist:' <em>A list of persons who are disapproved of or are to be punished or boycotted.</em> <br /><br />And that is precisely what has happened in the entertainment world since Donald Trump defeated Hollywood's leading woman. Don't believe us? <br /><br />This was veteran actor and singer Robert Davi on Fox News this week: 'I know singers and artists that were for Trump but will not come out and say it because of the bias … This is the blacklist of the 50s, but in reverse.' There's that word again! <br /><br />So who will be performing? The Radio City Rockettes will be on hand (or leg?) to dance. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is also scheduled to sing, as is America's Got Talent star Jackie Evancho. How nasty is the left? Nasty enough to flood the 16-year-old Evancho with vicious hate messages. <br /><br />But what about all the other big-name entertainers? They have politely said no. Or not so politely. Elton John declared, 'Why not ask Ted f-ing Nugent or one of those f-ing country stars?' Very beknighted of you, Sir Elton. <br /><br />Could it be that some celebrities are simply standing on principle because they disagree with the President-elect? No doubt, but their 'principles' can be very, very flexible. Consider the following: <br /><br />- Rapper Nicki Minaj gladly accepted $2-million to perform for the brutal dictator of Angola. <br /><br />- Jennifer Lopez sang 'Happy Birthday' to the thuggish leader of Turkmenistan, described as 'one of the world's most repressive countries.' <br /><br />- Beyonce actually helped the murderous sons of Muammar Gaddafi ring in the New Year in 2010, charging a million bucks for five songs. <br /><br />- Mariah Carey also charged $1-million to help one of the Gaddafi son's celebrate New Year's Eve. Presumably her earpiece was working that night and she didn't storm off the stage. <br /><br />- Kanye West topped the despot charts by pocketing $3-million to rap at the wedding of Kazakhstan's brutal tyrant. <br /><br />Were any of them placed on some sort of blacklist by their ever-so-socially-conscious colleagues? Did they lose any bookings? Did they feel shame? No, no, and not that we can tell. <br /><br />It's not merely that Hollywood types disapprove of Donald Trump's policies, some are actively trying to sabotage his presidency before it has begun. A band of minor actors is now in a video begging Congress to 'obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.' They seem blissfully unaware of how much the foolish antics of narcissists like Lena Dunham, Madonna, and Katy Perry alienated working Americans. But, hey, it gives them street cred, at least on the mean streets of Rodeo Drive and Santa Monica Boulevard. <br /><br />Keep in mind that we are talking about the Inauguration of the President of the United States, a man who was fairly elected by the American citizens. This deserves to be celebrated as a peaceful transfer of power, something that is very rare around the world. Look no further than the nations in which Beyoncé and Kanye and Mariah strutted their stuff. <br /><br />Of course, entertainers have every right to withhold their talents. But it is downright un-American that many are facing intimidation and threats. Does this qualify as full-fledged McCarthyism? Not really, because no one in government is accusing these people of treason or restricting their speech. But let's just say that the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose name is synonymous with repression, would probably admire their tactics. <br /><br />Tail Gunner Joe might even be lifting a glass or two and toasting today's left-wing bullies with a Mariah Carey song: 'We Belong Together.' Yes, yes you do.BillOReilly.com Staff2017-01-05T18:59:00ZBOR Staff Column: Sweet '16, Sour '16BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/BOR-Staff-Column:-Sweet-16-Sour-16/-408985519296136341.html2016-12-29T18:27:00Z2016-12-29T18:27:00ZRemember 'annus horribilis?' Queen Elizabeth used that Latin term to describe 1992, a 'horrible year' for the British monarchy. Right now some people are looking back on 2016 as a lousy year, but for others it was actually an 'annus mirabilis,' a year of miracles. <br /><br />To steal from another Brit named Dickens, it was the best of years; it was the worst of years. <br /><br />Among the biggest losers were pollsters, who blew it big time on the world's two most significant votes. First, they were dead wrong about the United Kingdom's decision to withdraw from the European Union. The polling wizards, like the elite British establishment, assured everyone the unwashed and ignorant masses would be trounced in the Brexit vote. Bloody wrong, they were. <br /><br />A few months later, American polling gurus, unchastened by the British revolution, were just as certain that Donald Trump would go down in flames, taking the Republican Party along for the fiery ride. Again, their sophisticated computer models badly misjudged the mood of the American people. <br /><br />But a few observers were prescient, discerning that Donald Trump was tapping into a widespread sense of anger and despair. <br /><br />We humbly take you back to January 4, 2016, and the very first Talking Points Memo of 2016: <br /><br />'Watchful Americans know the economy is shaky, the jihad is on the march, and illegal immigration continues without restraint. The country is in trouble. The establishment has failed. And here comes Donald Trump.' <br /><br />Three days later, Talking Points said this: 'Many Americans are fed up with what has happened to America. They're tired of standard politicians lying to them and they believe Trump will blow up the system.' <br /><br />Like Poe's purloined letter, the Trump phenomenon was hidden in plain sight, there for all to see. But most pollsters, with very few exceptions, relied on methods that had served them well in the past. Their reputations are in tatters, although that won't stop them from polling again. <br /><br />It was also a stinkin' year for the mainstream media. TV networks used Donald Trump to pump up their bottom lines during the primaries. He was ratings gold and willing to go on any network at any time of the day. CNN and MSNBC were almost giddy, secure in their knowledge that a Trump nomination would mean certain victory for Hillary Clinton. <br /><br />Some pundits were open and honest about their Trump-hatred. Others were downright corrupt. John Harwood of CNBC, who colluded with the Democratic Party, may have set the world indoor record for smug perfidy. But he's still at it, now blaming 'white fear' for his party's big losses. Makes you wonder what it takes for a far-left hack to get fired these days. <br /><br />Neither was it a great year for Republican establishment types. Mitt Romney called Donald Trump 'a phony, a fraud,' and seemed willing to prefer a GOP loss to a Trump victory. Jeb Bush's lofty campaign sputtered and stalled when Donald Trump questioned his energy. <br /><br />Other losers of 2016 include a motley crew of malcontents and misfits: Racial hucksters like Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter; universities that spend half their time raising tuition, the other half enacting speech codes; radical professors who are finally being exposed as hateful and intolerant bigots; climate profiteers whose gravy train is speeding toward a head-on collision with the Trump Train; and all those open-border advocates and sanctuary city leaders who put illegal immigrants ahead of their own citizens. <br /><br />Speaking of world records, Mayor Rahm Emanuel set a new standard for chutzpah. He assured illegal immigrants, 'You are secure in Chicago,' even as his city's south and west sides were bloody war zones. The nation's tied-for-worst mayor (with New York's Bill de Blasio) actually created a $1-million fund to protect illegal immigrants. It just doesn't get much worse. <br /><br />The year's big winners, of course, aside from the Chicago Cubs, were Donald Trump, his campaign gurus, and the Americans who put their confidence in this billionaire tycoon. Talking Points described the victory as 'perhaps the most stunning political story in American history,' and it was just that. <br /><br />But now the time to govern is fast approaching, and therein lies the rub (lots of British folks in this column!) Donald Trump has to create an environment where good-paying jobs are created, and he must enforce our immigration laws. Those two things alone would put him on the road to a successful presidency; failing to deliver on his oft-repeated promises could make him a one-termer. <br /><br />No one, absolutely no one, knows whether Donald Trump will be a tremendously effective leader who will usher America into a new era of prosperity, or whether he will go down in history as little more than a prodigious tweeter. We are in uncharted waters, bringing to mind that ancient Chinese curse: 'May you live in interesting times.' Interesting times they are, although not very predictable. <br /><br />But looking ahead, we can confidently offer one prediction for the coming year - The Factor and Fox News will continue to destroy the competition and dominate the cable news ratings. So thank you, everyone, for giving us your time and your trust. All of us at The Factor hope 2017 brings you unparalleled success and joy. Put another way, we wish all of you an annus mirabilis.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-12-29T18:27:00ZStaff Column: Far Left, Dreaming of a Non-White ChristmasBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Far-Left-Dreaming-of-a-Non-White-Christmas/-50057050510853382.html2016-12-22T17:37:00Z2016-12-22T17:37:00ZYes, Virginia, there still is an MTV. And this week the once-relevant, long-ago-hip cable network gave all of us the gift of joyous mockery. <br /><br />MTV News (who knew, they have a news department!) produced a pathetic video called '2017 New Year's Resolutions for White Guys.' Very bravely, they singled out one particular racial and gender group for ridicule. <br /><br />Among their deeply profound tips: 'Try to recognize that America was never great for anyone who wasn't a white guy.' It makes one wonder why all those non-white men and women from all over the world have desperately tried to reach these shores for centuries. <br /><br />The video was universally ridiculed, and MTV took it down after two days. Even they were apparently embarrassed after the heaping helpings of scorn. Our inimitable Greg Gutfeld voiced what many others thought: 'I'm convinced,' he quipped, 'that Donald Trump created this video to help lay the groundwork for 2020.' <br /><br />A similar analysis came from Crystal Wright, an author and a black gal (the antithesis of a 'white guy.') 'White voters,' she pointed out, 'were tired of being told that they're all racists.' Wright also posed a hypothetical question: 'Would we ever see a New Year's resolution produced by MTV telling black men to stop killing each other and stop impregnating black women?' It's a question that needs no answer. <br /><br />Not to be outdone, an organization called 'Everyday Feminism' is promoting an online training course called 'Healing from Toxic Whiteness.' Seriously. These social justice warriors say the election of Donald Trump is irrefutable proof that the United States has 'deeply normalized white supremacy.' <br /><br />Their sure-fire cure: For a mere $97 you can get ten online lessons that will help you become a better white person. But you'd better hurry, as the TV hucksters say, because this limited-time offer ends in January. <br /><br />Demonizing white folks isn't limited to radical feminists and nearly-defunct cable networks. Former President Bill Clinton recently said that Donald Trump's one great skill is knowing 'how to get angry white men to vote for him.' Bubba himself sounds pretty much like an angry white fella these days. <br /><br />Clinton's Democratic Party, especially its far left wing, has spent decades perfecting identity politics. At the polling booth, it means slicing and dicing the electorate into interest groups based on color and gender and sexual preference. <br /><br />At universities run by leftists, meaning almost all of them, it means inane courses in 'Whiteness Studies.' Of course, these offerings aren't intended to celebrate Caucasians and their contributions; they are meant to denigrate and demonize always-oppressive whites. <br /><br />A young adult today has grown up hearing endlessly about all the bad things done by white men, and some of it is actually true. There have also been many bad deeds perpetrated by blacks and Muslims and Hispanics, but those are protected groups. Protected, that is, from any scrutiny or criticism. <br /><br />So that's where we are at the end of 2016. Like Claudius in Hamlet, American liberals have been hoist with their own racial petard. And they are frothing at the mouth. Presumably not literally, although that is a possibility. <br /><br />The fact is that non-Hispanic whites are still more than 62% of the adult population in America. Meaning those dreaded 'white guys' remain a formidable electoral force. And they went for Donald Trump by a two-to-one margin. The Democrats, when they stop blaming Russians, 'fake news,' James Comey, and the Electoral College, have to face reality. They need to appeal to white Americans, and not just those living in luxury in the Hamptons or Hollywood. The party of FDR has shunned, mocked, and alienated Middle Americans. Continuing on that path could lead to decades in the political wilderness. <br /><br />So enough with the white-guy-bashing, whether in silly TV spots or supposedly serious classrooms. The plain truth is that, like it or not, a bunch of white guys created and built this remarkable nation. The United States of America remains the most inclusive, tolerant, and welcoming country in the history of the world, largely thanks to a bunch of dead white males. That is simply the way it is, and no amount of denial can ever change that. <br /><br />Let's conclude with some very good news. For the third year in a row, the 'war on Christmas' has been pretty much invisible, other than a few minor skirmishes. The secular progressives have apparently moved on to other battles, including their crusade against whiteness. <br /><br />The New York Times, however, couldn't let the season pass without publishing a column describing the 'War on Christmas' as mythical. It was, to the Times, akin to visions of sugar-plums dancing in the heads of conservatives and religious Americans. Sorry, but the war was real. The good guys won, the smug coastal elites lost. Just like they lost Brexit and the recent election in America. <br /><br />So it is without fear of reprisal that we quote Dennis Miller, who says this when he wants to really annoy his secular pals in Hollywood: 'Merry Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior's Birthday.' Put more pithily, have a very, very Merry Christmas.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-12-22T17:37:00ZStaff Column: Campus Crazies, ContinuedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Campus-Crazies-Continued/-317709911310437659.html2016-12-15T19:00:00Z2016-12-15T19:00:00ZBy now you may have heard of Olga Perez Stable Cox. She is a woman of many names, the third of which is especially ironic. This college professor told her students this about the recent election: 'We have been assaulted. It's an act of terrorism.' <br /><br />If her words weren't offensive enough, the professor actually asked Trump-supporting students to stand and identify themselves. <br /><br />On her website, Cox boasts that it is her 30th year at Orange Coast College in California, adding, 'I love teaching!' <br /><br />That's great, professor, and your 'human sexuality' classes are no doubt enlightening and academically first-rate. But your students might love learning more about the subject at hand, less about your political views. <br /><br />The taxpayer-supported college has done nothing to discipline the professor, but at least the teacher's union is demanding punishment. Not for Cox, but for the student who captured the footage! <br /><br />Since that incident, there have been disturbing reports that Cox has received hate mail, which is just as odious as her statements. She deserves to be disciplined; she does not deserve physical threats or harassment. <br /><br />Then there are the universities that pompously declare themselves 'sanctuary campuses.' It essentially means they are willing to defy federal law and ignore federal requests to identify illegal immigrants, even those accused of crimes. <br /><br />There is no doubt that many of our 'institutions of higher learning' have been taken over by the loony left. About two-thirds of college professors identify themselves as 'liberal' or 'far left,' while only one in ten is 'conservative' or 'far right.' <br /><br />Outing yourself as a traditional thinker on an elite campus has become an act of self-endangerment. Imagine wearing a 'Make America Great Again' cap while strolling across the quad at Harvard or Stanford. The ever-so-tolerant students and faculty would find that absolutely intolerable, maybe even 'an act of terrorism.' <br /><br />Progressives will eagerly tell you that they dominate campuses because they are just plain smarter than conservatives. But in fact, traditional and religious Americans steer clear of places where they know they are not welcome. They tend to enter professions where they are not in a 'hostile environment,' to borrow a phrase from the far left. <br /><br />We mentioned once before that one long-dead academic would be delighted and unsurprised by the left's takeover. Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who preached the goodness and humanity of communism a century ago, understood that Marxism would never become dominant via armed revolution. So he urged his fellow leftists to infiltrate universities, the media, and mass entertainment. Gramsci called for a 'long march through the institutions,' a march that would someday lead to that ever-elusive communist paradise. <br /><br />His 'long march' has been effective and has led to the rise of a new class of academics. The writer Nassim Taleb, author of 'The Black Swan,' describes this group as 'The Intellectual Yet Idiot.' They are the well-educated but out-of-touch elites who tell their inferiors what to eat, how to think, what to say, and how to vote. <br /><br />Donald Trump's election was a severe blow to these 'intellectual idiots,' many of whom are right now working their way through the various stages of grief. Olga Perez Stable Cox lashed out and, unfortunately for her, was caught on video by a cell phone. (Ironically, technology that could only have come via capitalism.) There are many more like her, tenured radicals teaching nonsense and intimidating students. <br /><br />A website called 'Professor Watchlist' identifies the most radical professors and most egregious incidents. You may want to check it out the next time that hefty tuition bill arrives or before you send the young 'uns off to college. <br /><br />Campus radicals are upset right now, shedding tears and spewing invective. But no doubt they consider it a temporary setback, a mere speed bump along that long march. They have destroyed much of what was great about American universities. And, like Admiral John Paul Jones, they have not yet begun to fight.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-12-15T19:00:00ZStaff Column: Trump's Sisyphean TaskBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Trumps-Sisyphean-Task/815961741499659485.html2016-12-08T17:30:00Z2016-12-08T17:30:00ZYou all remember Sisyphus, history's first rock star. Or maybe you don't. <br /><br />He's the king in Greek mythology who was condemned by some angry gods to roll a massive boulder all the way to the top of a steep mountain. The rock would immediately roll right back down and he'd have to start all over. For eternity. <br /><br />It is a slight overstatement to say that Donald Trump may be looking at Sisyphus with a touch of envy right about now, but the president-elect does face some daunting and hellish tasks. Chief among them is how to live up to his vow to 'bring this country together.' <br /><br />Sure, he now has a favorability rating of about 50%, way up from a few weeks ago. But that means about half the country still disapproves of Mr. Trump, and many of those folks will never, ever be swayed into thinking otherwise. <br /><br />Compared to Donald Trump, Barack Obama had a romantic and lusty honeymoon with the American people. <br /><br />Part of the Trump resistance comes from people who depend on government help, which is traditionally the domain of Democrats. About 100-million Americans receive some form of government assistance other than Medicare or Social Security. In other words, they're 'on the dole,' to use a quaint expression that may now be considered hate speech. <br /><br />Welfare reform, enacted by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, forced millions of Americans to find meaningful work, but the rules imposed by that law have been unraveled. 'One of the most pernicious things that has happened in this country,' Karl Rove lamented on The Factor this week, 'is that President Obama has systematically and quietly undone a lot of what that welfare reform law did. He has made it easier for people to get on food stamps and get benefits.' <br /><br />The stark reality is that people receiving means-tested government benefits are far, far more likely to oppose reformers and reforms. They are not very likely to embrace Donald Trump over Democrats promising goodies. <br /><br />The incoming president faces another Sisyphean challenge. Most reporters, editors, and producers absolutely loathe the man, especially now that he has made so many of them look like utter blooters. (If you have not been paying attention to Word of the Day, that's synonymous with 'fools.') <br /><br />Time Magazine's editors, as you know, named Donald Trump as their Man of the Year. They really had no choice. But the author of the accompanying piece unloaded on Trump, writing this: 'He cheered when protesters got hit at his rallies, used sexist insults for members of the press.' The article continued, 'Trump regularly peddled falsehoods, without offering any evidence.' <br /><br />Eight years earlier, when Barack Obama was named Person of the Year, Time lauded his 'Obi-Wan Kenobi calm.' But Trump? He's a 'demagogue,' far more akin to Darth Vader than Mr. Kenobi. <br /><br />But Time did get one thing right when it snarkily described Trump as 'President of the Divided States of America.' The USA is divided, and the chasm will be exacerbated by the mainstream media's mendacity, pardon the alliteration. <br /><br />Time has plenty of company in that department. The absurd columnist Richard Cohen is comparing Trump's America to Weimar Germany, ripe for a tyrannical takeover. And Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, last seen wearing orange hunting gear to mock Dick Cheney, has already decided that the Trump team's guiding forces are 'chaos' and 'madness.' <br /><br />These Trump-haters have lots of company. Their profession was already in decline before he came along, and now it's in absolute free-fall. It is only natural that they resent the man who challenged and usurped their waning power. <br /><br />So, for starters, Donald Trump faces a hostile media, a recalcitrant bureaucracy, and the resistance of tens of millions of people who cherish their government assistance. Then again, no one said this would be easy. <br /><br />You should probably pay strict attention, Mr. President-elect, to that bright yellow road sign looming on the horizon: 'Falling Rock Ahead.' But perhaps you can look on the bright side and remember that Sisyphus had to perform his labor for all eternity, which is a darned long time. You are faced with a mere four (or eight) years of boulder-pushing. Feel better?BillOReilly.com Staff2016-12-08T17:30:00ZStaff Column: Barack Obama's Perpetual Fox News ObsessionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Barack-Obamas-Perpetual-Fox-News-Obsession/42336985169855020.html2016-12-01T16:26:00Z2016-12-01T16:26:00ZYou are President of the United States and you have an irresistible urge to sound off against media bias and 'fake news.' Would you really use Rolling Stone magazine as your megaphone? <br /><br />After all, a federal jury recently ruled that Rolling Stone defamed a dean at the University of Virginia. That is just the first fallout from Rolling Stone's infamous 2014 article called 'A Rape on Campus.' That 'rape' never happened, which the magazine's editors certainly should have known. <br /><br />But despite Rolling Stone's aversion to the truth, President Obama granted a post-election audience to that thoroughly disgraced publication. In fact, he actually took a moment to praise the 'great work' being done by Rolling Stone. Why? Because the magazine and its boss Jann Wenner have been licking the president's boots for eight years. <br /><br />President Obama and his dazzling smile have adorned the magazine's cover ten times, enough to make the long-forgotten band Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show jealous. You may remember Dr. Hook for these poetic lyrics: 'It's the thrill that'll getcha when you get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone.' <br /><br />So when he sat down with Jann Wenner, how did President Obama explain the Democratic shellacking on November 8th? 'Part of it,' the commander-in-chief told his commender-in-chief, 'is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.' Yes, he actually blamed Fox and those deplorable Americans who watch it! (Have any of you actually been in a bar or restaurant that has Fox News on the screen?) <br /><br />By the way, those 'chunks,' Mr. President, are the parts of the country that far too many Democrats sneer at. You know, the areas where people bitterly cling to their guns and religion. <br /><br />Jann Wenner is hardly the only sycophantic hero-worshipper. David Remnick of The New Yorker, the bible of coastal elites, has essentially served as the president's personal scribe. In his latest interview with the ever-adoring Remnick, President Obama analyzed the Democratic losses and said this: 'Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don't matter … If I watched Fox I wouldn't vote for me!" Do you sense a theme here? <br /><br />The Obama team has had it in for Fox News from the beginning. Just after his inauguration in 2009, he accused FNC of being 'entirely devoted to attacking my administration.' Soon after that, the president showed up on all the talk shows one Sunday morning. All except one, and you can guess which network he snubbed. <br /><br />During the 2012 campaign, President Obama advised a crowd to ignore 'your Uncle Jim, who's a little stubborn and has been watching Fox News.' More recently, while campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the president repeated his favorite line: 'If I watched Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me." <br /><br />Has any president ever been so obsessed with a single news outlet? Barack Obama has received the most favorable, fawning coverage of any president in history. Major newspapers, networks, and cable outlets have fallen all over themselves to praise and defend his policies, presidency, and personality. <br /><br />Yet he obsessively focuses on the one outlet that provides honest skepticism and actually challenges the president when appropriate. True there are some harsh Obama critics on Fox News, and they are very upfront about their enmity. But FNC analysts run the gamut and include both his foes and his friends. <br /><br />President Obama wants to be treated as a demigod, and many in the media have done just that. In fact, Newsweek's Evan Thomas once described the President as being 'above the world, he's sort of God.' Wow! Makes you wonder how Newsweek could be such a colossal failure. <br /><br />Every sentient person knows that most news outlets will be far, far tougher on Donald Trump. His every statement, his every tweet will be scrutinized and criticized. At Fox, President Trump will have detractors, supporters, and a lot of hard news reporters who will play it right down the middle. Kind of the way journalism used to be. <br /><br />And soon-to-be-former President Obama's obsession? We can confidently predict that Fox News will get more than a few mentions in his memoirs. And perhaps he will continue to blast FNC to worshipful writers like Jann Wenner and David Remnick. <br /><br />There's another possibility, of course. Perhaps Barack Obama, post-presidency, will appear on Fox News programs to share his expertise about politics and policies. It might not be the cover of Rolling Stone, but Fox News is on around-the-clock in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country. We heard that, Mr. President, from a very reliable source.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-12-01T16:26:00ZStaff Column: Give Peace A ChanceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Give-Peace-A-Chance/-659360214243543310.html2016-11-28T20:33:00Z2016-11-28T20:33:00ZAs you may have heard, there's a new book for kids called 'Give Please a Chance,' co-written by novelist James Patterson and a TV guy known for his 'Killing' series. The best-seller teaches tykes about the importance of civility and courtesy. <br /><br />Well, it seems that quite a few grownups could use a refresher course in civility, especially right about now. Many prominent Trump-haters, still in full tantrum mode after the election, are bashing the president-elect and his team without mercy and without fairness. <br /><br />One prime example is Randi Weingarten, capo di tutti capi of the American Federation of Teachers. She's got a nice thing going: The AFT extracts dues from teachers, then contributes millions to Democratic candidates. In return, those Dems are expected to fight any changes to the educational status quo. <br /><br />For doing her part to protect bad teachers, fight charter schools, and defend her immoral monopoly, Weingarten is paid about a half-million a year. <br /><br />As the cliché goes, nice work if you can get it. <br /><br />Weingarten is also a close personal pal of Hillary Clinton and stood side-by-side with her at numerous campaign events. The AFT even broke an agreement among unions by endorsing Mrs. Clinton nearly a full year before the first Democratic primary, defying the wishes of some of its members. <br /><br />And now? Well, Randi Weingarten is licking her wounds and sharpening her claws. When Donald Trump nominated Betsy DeVos to run the Department of Education on Wednesday, Weingarten immediately denounced her 'reckless and extreme,' and claimed DeVos actually wants to destroy public education. <br /><br />It's true that Betsy DeVos has challenged the public school monopoly by pushing charter schools and vouchers that could give poor parents more choice. The AFT, of course, wants impoverished kids to remain locked in failing schools. <br /><br />Summing up, Betsy DeVos promises to fight the status quo; Randi Weingarten calls DeVos 'an ultra-wealthy heiress who uses her money to game the system.' Who is being civil? <br /><br />Then there is Charles Blow, a dishonest deceiver who has a New York Times opinion column for no discernable reason. His most memorable moment, perhaps his only memorable moment, came when he mocked Mitt Romney's Mormon faith and 'magic underwear.' To be charitable, Charles Blow is essentially a smear merchant with a byline. <br /><br />Perhaps craving attention, Blow now calls President-elect Trump a 'fraud and a charlatan,' adding that Trump 'fills me with disgust.' (Charles is not big on subtlety.) <br /><br />The New York Times spent the recent campaign sliming Donald Trump, both on its news and editorial pages. Nevertheless, last week Trump paid a visit to the Times and reached out to its executives and editors. The paper will continue to oppose the new president, but perhaps in a slightly more civil way. <br /><br />But civility is a non-starter for Charles Blow, who is being praised as a 'hero' by some on the far left. <br /><br />That's actually a very revealing difference between left and right. Conservatives tend to praise the bravery and heroism of men and women who actually put their lives and reputations on the line by doing something dangerous, something that could result in personal harm. Progressives, by contrast, hail the 'bravery' of an actor who publicly embarrasses the vice-president elect and a hack columnist who hurls cheap insults. <br /><br />Of course, many on the right would be behaving the very same way if the tables were turned. Conservative columnists would be savaging Hillary Clinton for picking, say, Randi Weingarten as Secretary of Education. And some right-wingers would be vowing to fight Mrs. Clinton every step of the way. <br /><br />But the left just seems to do it better. <br /><br />To get progressives prepared for Thanksgiving, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee actually prepared a guide for dealing with stupid relatives. You know, anyone who voted for Donald Trump. The infantile guide accuses Speaker Paul Ryan of waging war on the poor and literally slanders Trump aide Steve Bannon, associating him with 'The KKK, white nationalists, and neo-Nazi groups.' It just doesn't get much slimier than that. <br /><br />The Democratic Party is in shambles, but its leaders apparently think the party can find its way out of the wilderness by insulting its opponents and moving even farther to the left. Randi Weingarten and Charles Blow are just two of the more odious examples of the strategy, but there are many more. <br /><br />It's worth remembering that most Americans, even those who voted against him, got behind President Obama when he took office in 2009. Perhaps something similar can happen in 2017, even though the far left will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. <br /><br />We'll pray for a Christmas Miracle. And we'll conclude with that timeless quote from John Lennon: 'All we are saying is Give Peace a Chance.' BillOReilly.com Staff2016-11-28T20:33:00ZStaff Column: Heckuva Job, Barack!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Heckuva-Job-Barack!/-379749527982038420.html2016-11-17T18:50:00Z2016-11-17T18:50:00Z'Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job.' President George W. Bush was roundly and soundly mocked in 2005 when he said that to FEMA boss Michael Brown in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. <br /><br />Now we are seeing similar praise, with President Obama being assured that he has obviously done a heck of a job over the past eight years. The only problem is that the praise is being offered by President Obama himself. <br /><br />Desperately trying to avoid any personal blame for last week's electoral carnage, the president is telling anyone who will listen that his policies worked, declaring, 'The country is indisputably better off.' <br /><br />We can all agree that President Obama did some very positive things during his tenure. The economy was on life support when he took over; his administration staunched the bleeding and stabilized the patient. Speaking of health, ObamaCare has certainly helped millions of Americans obtain insurance, although millions of others paid a steep price. <br /><br />However, there is a long list of things that did not improve, perhaps even got worse, over the past eight years. <br /><br />Our tax code is more complex and stifling than ever, and small business formation has been crushed. The number of Americans demanding and receiving free stuff has never been higher. <br /><br />President Obama is a man of very few regrets. And those he has are microscopic. He actually said this earlier this year: 'It is one of the few regrets of my presidency that the rancor and suspicions between the parties has gotten worse.' <br /><br />Earth to President Obama: You have presided over the weakest recovery in memory. While the official unemployment rate is low, tens of millions of Americans have given up looking for work and the national debt is approaching $20-trillion. <br /><br />Illegal immigrants have flooded across our border and some have committed heinous crimes. In too many of our metropolises, murder rates are up and hope is down. You remember 'hope,' don't you? The old sidekick of 'change.' <br /><br />Things are far, far worse for many others around the globe. The Middle East is in chaos, refugees have overrun parts of Europe, and Iran gives the USA the middle finger. Presuming that is not against Sharia law, of course. Worst of all, the bloodshed in Syria has been nauseating. But just this week, asked whether President Obama has any regrets about his inaction in Syria, his press secretary deftly, and earnestly, ducked the question. <br /><br />While President Obama is still personally liked by most Americans, he is fully aware of what happened to the Democratic Party and its progressive ideology under his watch. <br /><br />In January of 2009 Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, the presidency, most governorships, and were seemingly an unstoppable force. Books were being churned out about the inevitable and enduring Democratic ascendency. Well, as they used to say in movies, 'Stop the presses!' <br /><br />The Republican Party, once the subject of countless obituaries, has never been healthier. The GOP is indeed feeling quite Grand these days, with total control of most states and with its hands on all the levers of power in Washington. That can easily change, so conservatives might want to avoid writing books about the permanent Republican majority. <br /><br />American citizens, at least those not residing on the coasts or on elite college campuses, have made it abundantly clear that they are not big fans of liberalism. And the Democratic strategy of slicing and dicing the electorate into ethnic and racial and religious interest groups has failed, big time. <br /><br />But right now some leading Democrats, among them Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are urging their party to shift even farther to the left. They want to put the DNC in the hands of Congressman Keith Ellison, a man of the left who previously defended Louis Farrakhan. This guy, while associating with Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, actually identified himself as 'Keith X Ellison' and 'Keith Ellison-Muhammed.' <br /><br />An Israel-hating radical as head of the Democratic Party? Yeah, as Jon Lovitz might say, that's the ticket. <br /><br />The Republicans, meanwhile, have placed their fate in the hands of an untested tycoon who has made many vague and grandiose promises. If Donald Trump does not deliver on his own version of 'hope and change,' American voters will strike back like so many cobras. <br /><br />Surveying the current political landscape, one thing is absolutely certain. President Obama is leaving behind a nation that is far less blue than when he took office. Not less depressed, but far less blue on the electoral map. <br /><br />In the United States of America in late 2016, there can be little doubt about it: Red … is the new black. Heckuva job, Barack.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-11-17T18:50:00ZStaff Column: Trump's Silent PluralityBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Trumps-Silent-Plurality/173277026407848658.html2016-11-10T20:36:00Z2016-11-10T20:36:00ZLet's paint a not-unrealistic scenario. You're an ordinary American, someone who used to be called a 'working stiff.' <br /><br />While you are not a news junkie, you read and watch enough to know what's going on. And you find Donald Trump very, very appealing. Maybe it's his brusque demeanor, his refusal to kowtow to media swells, or his promises about restoring the economy and our nation. <br /><br />But for more than a year, ever since Trump took that fateful escalator ride, you've been hearing nothing but awful things about the man. He is a racist, a woman-hating reprobate, a business cheat, a tax evader, a xenophobe, and a whole lot more. <br /><br />And not only is Trump as despicable as they come, but all his voters just as bad. Heck, you might even call them downright deplorable. They must be, otherwise they wouldn't be supporting such a hateful man. <br /><br />Yes, that Trump Train is crammed with awful people, and you're one of 'em. <br /><br />Then you notice that entertainers vowing to leave the country – leave the country!! – if this heinous clown is elected. Bryan Cranston, Samuel L. Jackson, Barbra Streisand, and others say they'll pack their bags. As for Cher, merely moving out of the country isn't sufficient; she promise to go to Jupiter (Cher, that's the big one without the rings.) And when Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham join the USA-exiting crowd, tattoo artists start worrying about their livelihoods. <br /><br />So, that's the background in which you reside. And then, in the middle of all this, you get a call from the Acme Polling and Research Center. You know, the firm with that catchy slogan: 'Better Early Than Right!' The guy on the phone asks whether you'll be voting and for whom. What in the world are you going to say? Will you risk the pollster's unspoken ridicule by admitting you're voting for Trump? Or will you say you're with her? <br /><br />That scenario, embellished only slightly, has played out often over the past year. The media, mostly left-wing, largely corrupt, and almost exclusively anti-Trump, proudly cast aside any facade of objectivity. Their goal was to defeat the billionaire. More than that, he had to be utterly destroyed! <br /><br />Trump certainly provided ammunition to his ink-stained enemies, but they didn't need much. Anything he said that was even slightly dubious was turned into something beyond the pale. And then, when he was caught on tape making truly despicable remarks, the media finally possessed the nuclear weapon they felt would vaporize him and his candidacy. Or so they hoped. <br /><br />So you can understand why a Trump voter might be reluctant to admit his or her preference, especially when questioned by an anonymous interrogator. But couldn't the pollsters figure this out? Was it really that difficult to understand? <br /><br />Just two years after blowing the 2014 midterms big time, most polling outfits outdid themselves when it came to incompetence. On Monday, the day before the election, the Monmouth Poll and NBC News had Clinton ahead by six points. ABC, CBS, and Fox gave her a four point advantage. The much-cited RealClearPolitics average had Hillary Clinton ahead by more than three points, a decisive lead. <br /><br />The most accurate pollster, for the second cycle in a row, was the unwieldly-named Investors Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence. IBD/TIPP predicted a tight race and gave Donald Trump a slight lead in the final days. Its analytics measured the enthusiasm of Trump voters, a novel idea, and discovered that independents were breaking for the billionaire. <br /><br />Statistical guru Nate Silver also did pretty well, enduring widespread ridicule and giving Trump a 35% chance of winning. But other pollsters, including most in battleground states, resembled the Chicago Cubs. Pre-2016. <br /><br />Pollsters weren't the only big losers. Many journalists, or 'journalists,' came out smelling more like fertilizer than roses. WikiLeaks revealed that CNBC's smug and smarmy John Harwood, who was actually selected to moderate a Republican primary debate, had been getting marching orders from Clinton campaign boss John Podesta. Politico's Glenn Thrush did the same, and of course Donna Brazile – then with CNN – passed debate questions to the Clinton team in advance. <br /><br />So many losers, so little time. But who were the winners, other than the hypothetical silent voter described above? The entire Trump team defied the odds and the experts, re-writing the manual for how to run a presidential campaign. Also, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gave gracious day-after statements, promising to work for the good of the country. <br /><br />But political peace may be elusive when there are scores of nasty left-wingers like radio host Garrison Keillor. The day after the election he described Donald Trump as a 'severely learning-disabled man,' while demeaning Trump's voters as 'uneducated white males.' While it's true that some Trump voters may qualify as 'uneducated' in his world view, Keillor unwittingly identified himself as an especially stupid white male. <br /><br />Donald Trump has done what many deemed absolutely, positively impossible. His supporters are jubilant. His detractors are despondent, occasionally livid. And now the hard work actually begins. The country has elected someone they believe can solve problems, and problems are one area where the USA has a surplus. <br /><br />Good luck, Mr. Trump. And Godspeed.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-11-10T20:36:00ZStaff Column: Clinton Vs. Trump, Game 7BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Clinton-Vs.-Trump-Game-7/-224863530471872049.html2016-11-03T19:50:00Z2016-11-03T19:50:00ZIt's understandable if Donald Trump and his supporters find inspiration in the Chicago Cubs. <br /><br />Less than a week ago, the Cubs were down three games to one in the World Series. Armed with their computers and stats, the numbers-crunchers and odds-makers gave the Cubs a 17% chance of coming back to beat the Cleveland Indians. It would require winning three games in a row, baseball's version of pulling an inside straight. <br /><br />Of course, as we all know, the Cubs did exactly that and won game 7 by a single run in extra innings. In the wee small hours of Thursday morning, just days after being read their last rites, the Chicago Cubs were crowned World Series champions. It was the team's first title, as you have heard ad nauseam, since 1908. <br /><br />And what about the World Series of American Politics, that vicious and brutal cage match held every four years? <br /><br />Two weeks ago the much-followed FiveThirtyEight website fed all the numbers into its formulae and gave Donald Trump about 12% chance of winning on November 8th. <br /><br />Meanwhile, our pal John Stossel touts ElectionBettingOdds, a platform he helped create. Like any good Libertarian, Stossel puts his faith in the people and says the best poll of all is one that gauges where bettors put their own hard-earned money. Two weeks ago these self-interested Americans had Trump with a 14% chance of beating Hillary Clinton. <br /><br />But Donald Trump has closed that gap significantly, most significantly over the past week. Both FiveThirtyEight and ElectionBettingOdds now give Trump about a 30% chance of completing his unlikely comeback. And momentum definitely is on his side. To torture our baseball metaphor, it's the eighth inning of Game 7 and Hillary Clinton is desperately clinging to a one-run lead. <br /><br />Why the shift so late in the game? <br /><br />No doubt, FBI boss James Comey gets credit for an assist. His announcement that the FBI has resumed investigating the Clinton email situation turned a drip-drip-drip into a flood of rumors and accusations. Beyond that, every day there are new WikiLeaks revelations showing that the Clinton machine will do whatever it takes to win. The inescapable feeling is that they believe laws and propriety and ethics are for the little people. <br /><br />Meanwhile, there is still enough time for more dirt to be heaped on both sides. Perhaps Julian Assange has an ace up his sleeve regarding the Clinton Foundation, or there could be another video portraying Donald Trump as an uber-misogynist. <br /><br />As Joe Cocker and Jennifer Warnes asked in 1982, 'Who Knows What Tomorrow Brings?' <br /><br />No matter who wins the election Tuesday, most Americans will be very uneasy. And with good cause. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton presided over President Obama's countless failed policies around the globe. The world is a mess and Secretary Clinton's fingerprints are all over it. <br /><br />Beyond that, a Clinton victory means a lame duck president will be replaced by a badly wounded one. There will surely be more investigations, more questions about law-breaking, more immunity deals, and the constant threat of impeachment and a constitutional crisis. <br /><br />On the other side is Donald Trump, completely untested on the world stage. Having a clean sheet, politically speaking, he is able to make grandiose promises about returning American leadership abroad and economic prosperity at home. That brings to mind another song, this one by The Essex called 'Easier Said Than Done.' <br /><br />Donald Trump seems to be learning, finally, that running for the Oval Office is not the same thing as cracking wise with Howard Stern. <br /><br />In recent days Mr. Trump has been relatively disciplined, talking about ObamaCare and other policies. Mrs. Clinton has been busy denouncing her opponent's history with women, even trotting out the former Miss Universe for an encore performance. <br /><br />The good news is that it's almost over and the rest is up to us. We can hope for a fair election, an undisputed result, a gracious concession speech, and some real problem-solving. <br /><br />Sure, that's a lot to ask for and the odds are against it. But, hey, the odds against the Cubbies also seemed insurmountable. They rose to the occasion. <br /><br />Finally, there is one more thing we can all pray for: No extra innings!BillOReilly.com Staff2016-11-03T19:50:00ZStaff Column: A Nation Poll-ArizedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-A-Nation-Poll-Arized/307519555973006030.html2016-10-27T19:27:00Z2016-10-27T19:27:00ZIf you're a rabid Donald Trump supporter, your first stop each morning may be the Los Angeles Times tracking poll. <br /><br />That survey, which follows the same 3,000 eligible voters over the course of months, has been very favorable to your guy. On Thursday morning the LAT poll had Trump with a very slim lead. <br /><br />Trump fans also like to cite polls by Rasmussen and Investor's Business Daily, which have Trump and Clinton pretty much in a dead heat. Based on results from the past three presidential elections, IBD is heralded for its accuracy. <br /><br />But if you favor Hillary Clinton, you embrace the Associated Press poll, which gives her a commanding 14-point lead. ABC News also has Secretary Clinton up by double digits. <br /><br />To borrow from Marvin Gaye, 'What's Goin' On?' <br /><br />First, let's agree that the polls are not 'rigged.' Sure, some may sample more Democrats than others, but all of them want to be correct. If you're polling for AP and your results turn out to be absolute garbage, you won't be with AP next time around. <br /><br />A case in point is the Gallup Poll, first made famous when George Gallup predicted FDR's landslide in 1936. Gallup got it all wrong in 2012, predicting a win by Mitt Romney. What did the venerable firm do? It fell on its sword and abandoned its presidential tracking poll. <br /><br />Naturally, we are partial to the Fox News poll, a brand new version of which was just released Wednesday. According to our conjurers, soothsayers, and wizards, Donald Trump has cut Hillary Clinton's lead in half and trails by just three. <br /><br />As for enthusiasm, Trumpians are far more excited about their candidate, which can be a big plus on Election Day. On the other hand, the Fox News poll has Hillary Clinton with a massive 77-point advantage among blacks. <br /><br />But speaking with Bret Baier Wednesday, Trump aide Brunell Donald-Kyei claimed black Trump supporters are simply afraid to state their opinion and will 'speak up' in the election booth. <br /><br />That question of voter reluctance extends way beyond black precincts. If you're a Trump guy or gal in a liberal one-party town such as, say, Princeton, New Jersey, you may want to keep that a secret. At least if you care about being invited to the good parties and getting your kids into the right private schools. <br /><br />That fear effect does not mean polls are 'rigged,' but it does remind many observers of the Brexit vote, when Brits were afraid to admit that they wanted a divorce from the European Union. The pollsters got that one wrong, dead wrong. <br /><br />So are there hidden Trump voters out there, unwilling to display their allegiances and bumper stickers? We don't know, and neither do the pollsters. But, again, that does not mean the polls are rigged. <br /><br />However, you could legitimately make the point that the mainstream media are doing absolutely everything in their power to elect Hillary Clinton. And that power, while waning, is still considerable. <br /><br />The notion of 'objective' reporting went out the window in 2016, unless it means editors and anchors 'objecting' en masse to Donald Trump. They generally loathe the man and everything about him. Many outlets are reluctant to report on the very damning WikiLeaks revelations, while they tiptoe around Bill Clinton's past sins and questions about the Clinton Foundation. <br /><br />On the subject of 'rigged,' it certainly seems like FBI boss James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch put their thumbs on the scales of justice. Actually, they sat on the scales, pretty much breaking the darned device. Comey and Lynch seemed determined to give Hillary Clinton a pass, legally speaking, and a pass she got. <br /><br />Nevertheless, like her private server, Hillary Clinton's reputation remains in the basement. Something like two-thirds of Americans doubt her honesty, not a great measure for a would-be president. <br /><br />The simple fact is that no one can predict this election with any certainty. It could be that Hillary Clinton will win by double-digits and set off rapture in media circles. Or Donald Trump could eke by on the strength of his pitchfork brigades, sending the media elite into spasms of emotional distress. That is a delicious thought for any of you afflicted by that common malady known as schadenfreude.<br /><br />To sum it up, you can say the coverage is way, way skewed, maybe even 'rigged.' And you can say that the wheels of justice hit a major pothole on the Hillary Highway. But the pollsters? They're basically trying to get it right so they can live to poll another day. <br /><br />Once again, this has been an election unlike any other, and we will never see anything remotely similar in the future. For that fact alone most Americans are extremely thankful. And you sure don't need a poll to reach that conclusion.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-10-27T19:27:00ZStaff Column: Hill & Don's Mutual Animosity SocietyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Hill--Dons-Mutual-Animosity-Society/-756806137647056946.html2016-10-21T17:46:00Z2016-10-21T17:46:00ZTo paraphrase Sally Field, 'She hates me, he really hates me!" <br /><br />Any doubts that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton absolutely, positively loathe one another? You might watch a few clips from Thursday night's Al Smith Dinner at New York's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. <br /><br />Big name politicians show up every year to yuk it up and chow down at the event, which raises big-time money for Catholic charities. It is named, of course, in honor of the first Catholic presidential candidate, the so-called 'Happy Warrior' who was not so happy after being trounced by Herbert Hoover in 1928. <br /><br />The dinner traditionally enables candidates and office-holders to show off their humorous side by swapping good-natured and self-deprecating jokes. But Thursday's event, coming just one night after the heated third presidential debate, did not quite follow tradition. <br /><br />That is to be expected in 2016. <br /><br />Donald Trump actually said this about Secretary Clinton, who was sitting just a few feet away: 'Here she is in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.' And this: 'After listening to Hillary rattle on and on, I don't think so badly of Rosie O'Donnell anymore.' <br /><br />For good measure, he called Mrs. Clinton 'corrupt' a few times. Wow! As Trump likes to say about Generals MacArthur and Patton, Al Smith must be doing some serious spinning. <br /><br />When it was her turn at the dais, Secretary Clinton gave just as good as she got. Mocking Donald Trump's emphasis on female looks, she joked that he rates the Statue of Liberty a four, maybe a five 'if she loses the torch and tablet and changes her hair.' Mrs. Clinton also joked that Trump might wind up stiffing his campaign manager, and, more seriously, decried his 'appeals to fear and division.' <br /><br />The night before, of course, Trump called his opponent 'such a nasty woman' just as she was accusing him of being a tax cheat. In other words, the pundits finally got it exactly right. They predicted an extremely nasty presidential campaign filled with insults and invective, and they were on the money. <br /><br />Does all this have you down? Well, if it's any small comfort, presidential campaigns have not always been high-minded affairs. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson's campaign operative called John Adams a 'hideous hermaphroditical character.' Jefferson was ridiculed as the 'son of a half-breed.' In 1928, Al Smith himself was slandered as a drunkard who would allow the Pope to rule the USA. <br /><br />But nothing quite sank to the depths of 1828, when Andrew Jackson was vilified as a bigamist and the son of a whore. That was in addition to his being a mentally unhinged traitor. His rival, the incumbent President John Quincy Adams, was derided as a 'pimp.' Seriously. After Jackson won the election, JQA skipped the inauguration. <br /><br />So, yes, our current presidential rivals truly despise one another. But take some solace in the fact that past campaigns, despite similar rancor, did not destroy our great republic. <br /><br />You might also be reassured by something else that happened at the Al Smith Dinner. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton did something they had studiously avoided the night before - they actually shook hands and sort of smiled at one another. <br /><br />The handshake was encouraged by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who spent the evening right between the two rivals. If the man is ever considered for sainthood, that handshake could qualify as one of his two required miracles. <br /><br />That brief moment of civility signals something that should be important to all of us: On Saturday, January 21st, 2017, our remarkable nation will still be standing. Slightly less indivisible, perhaps, but still the most powerful and just nation in the history of this planet. <br /><br />The long and slow healing process, perhaps more difficult than any since 1828, will begin. And we'll put forth some unsolicited words of advice for whichever candidate loses this election: Put aside the hatred, let the rancor wash away, concede defeat with grace, and encourage your supporters to accept the result. For the good of this great country. <br /><br />That, when all is said and done, is the American way.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-10-21T17:46:00ZStaff Column: Hacks Exposed...By HacksBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Hacks-Exposed...By-Hacks/606239612129507867.html2016-10-13T19:13:00Z2016-10-13T19:13:00ZIn his farewell address at the end of his presidency, Dwight Eisenhower warned of an ominous 'military-industrial complex' that could endanger our 'democratic processes.' <br /><br />Well, today our democratic processes are more than just endangered. They are under full assault by another unholy alliance that can be pithily described as the 'Media-Democratic Party Complex.' <br /><br />Every day we are bombarded with new revelations from Wikileaks, whose email hacks illustrate the way-beyond-cozy relationship between powerful media figures and top Democrats. <br /><br />Party hacks and their lapdog media hacks claim the emails were stolen by Russians and therefore lack credibility. <br /><br />In legal terms, it's the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' argument. But this is not a court of law, it's the court of public opinion, and the fruit is especially rotten. <br /><br />Democratic Party apparatchiks have not actually disputed the content of the emails that expose their outrageous collusion. Here are just a few examples of media elites getting caught with their hands in the Democratic cookie jar: <br /><br />John Harwood is an oleaginous, far-left guy who works for both CNBC and the New York Times. Last year he immoderately moderated a Republican debate and earned recognition as perhaps the worst, most biased debate questioner in modern political history. <br /><br />We now know that, in addition to his day jobs, Harwood has been moonlighting as an unofficial consultant to the Democratic Party. He sent numerous emails to Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta, advising the Clinton folks on strategy and boasting about his harsh treatment of Trump. <br /><br />But while NBC is reportedly firing Billy Bush for his role in the lewd Trump tapes 11 years ago, John Harwood still has his comfy and well-paid jobs at the network and the Times. <br /><br />Speaking of the New York Times, the 'paper of record' also employs a usually solid political reporter named Mark Leibovich. While not as blatantly biased as Harwood, Leibovich apparently gave the Clinton campaign veto power over what would be included in a very flattering piece he wrote about Hillary Clinton. <br /><br />Speaking on The Factor this week, journalism professor Richard Hanley accused Leibovich of violating 'journalistic principles' and suggested that the New York Times might at least give the reporter a different assignment. <br /><br />Then there is Democratic Party stalwart Donna Brazile. While working for CNN, she provided the Clinton campaign with the precise wording of a question that would be asked at a town hall meeting. That is simply not done by anyone employed by a news organization, even a committed partisan like Brazile. <br /><br />We are not even mentioning the joined-at-the-hip relationship between the Democrats and MSNBC. That is to be expected because MSNBC is essentially an extension of the party. <br /><br />But the New York Times is a different story. While the paper's editorial pages have leaned left for decades, there was a time when the news pages were basically fair. But the Times has gradually become the MSNBC of print, minus Al Sharpton. <br /><br />The paper has even boasted about its Trump-hatred. The paper's media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote this: 'If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue … how the heck are you supposed to cover him?' To answer that rhetorical question, you might try covering him with a smidgen of fairness. Is that really asking too much? <br /><br />Media bias was nothing new. Many reporters fell head-over-heels for Barack Obama and helped him get elected by ignoring his flaws while portraying John McCain and Mitt Romney as demons. That was documented by our pal Bernie Goldberg in his book 'A Slobbering Love Affair.' <br /><br />This time is different. The media is not in love with Hillary Clinton; they are in hate with Donald Trump and will do whatever it takes to keep him out of the White House. We know that partly because nefarious hackers have shone a flashlight on some media cockroaches who are now scurrying for cover. <br /><br />Expect more Wikileaks dumps in the days and weeks ahead. Expect most in the media to downplay the importance of the hacked emails. And expect the media hacks to continue blasting Donald Trump with both barrels. <br /><br />This is a bizarre campaign and Donald Trump has certainly done his part to make it so. But perhaps the strangest aspect is this: The elite media's goal is not to sell more newspapers or attract more viewers. The primary mission for many reporters and editors is to stop one candidate from winning the election. Even if it means working hand-in-glove with the Democratic Party, even if it means jettisoning all ethics, that quaint stuff they learned in journalism school. <br /><br />'All the News That's Fit To Print' has become something else: 'All the News That's Fit To Stop Donald J. Trump.' As the saying goes, we are indeed cursed to live in interesting times. Interesting … but sickening!BillOReilly.com Staff2016-10-13T19:13:00ZStaff Column: Honeymoon...In Separate RoomsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Honeymoon...In-Separate-Rooms/584298925787931185.html2016-10-06T16:42:00Z2016-10-06T16:42:00ZLike newlyweds, newly-elected presidents traditionally enjoy a honeymoon with the American people. <br /><br /> It's that first month of marriage – a moon – when things are as sweet and delectable as honey. That period of affection and good will, usually lasting far longer than a month, has been an American tradition.<br /><br /> When Barack Obama took office in January of 2009, he had the support of 67% of the American people. Tens of millions of people who had voted for John McCain were eager to see Mr. Obama succeed.<br /><br /> What about eight years earlier, when the polarizing George W. Bush took office? Even after his long and contentious court battle with Al Gore, and despite having lost the popular vote, W's approval rating was about 57%. Once again, most rational people were willing to give him a break and wish him well. <br /><br />Go back another eight years to Bill Clinton, elected in 1992 with an anemic 43% of the vote. As he took the oath of office in January, Bubba had an approval rating well north of 50%. <br /><br />So you can see a long and comforting trend. Americans have come together to rally around a new president, as long as his name wasn't Lincoln and you weren't a slaveholder in the South. <br /><br />But this time around things are different. Vastly different. <br /><br />Fox News recently asked voters why they favor Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Incredibly, 57% say their primary motivation is fear that the other candidate might win. Are you getting that? Most Americans are not voting <em>for</em> someone they like, they're voting <em>against</em> someone they loathe. Yes, 'loathe' is the right word.<br /><br /> About six in ten Americans really, really dislike both candidates. So what will happen on Friday, January 20th, 2017? Will Americans put aside partisanship and embrace comity? As Eliza Doolittle famously said, 'Not bloody likely!' <br /><br />We conducted an admittedly non-scientific poll on the BillOReilly.com website, asking people whether they will support the winner of the election. 86% admitted that their deep dislike of their non-preferred candidate will endure. <br /><br />To be sure, President Trump will enjoy a legislative honeymoon with Congress if it remains in Republican hands. And President Clinton will have support from Congress if it flips to the Democrats. But 'we the people?' That's another story altogether, and not a very encouraging one. <br /><br />Hillary-haters will continue to see her as a corrupt and incorrigible liar; Donald-despisers, a group that includes the vast majority of the media, will still see him as a latter-day P.T. Barnum, only more insulting.<br /><br /> That's not a good omen for America. <br /><br />Take another look at history. JFK's approval ratings hovered near 80% in his first year, while LBJ was liked by three-quarters of the American people before he became another casualty of Vietnam. <br /><br />More recently, both Bushes topped 80% after the first war in Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan, respectively. Will any president ever again be so widely respected? <br /><br />Of course, an optimist might say that this is a one-off election, that both parties have nominated candidates who are just plain dislikable. But do you really think Ted Cruz would be any less loathed by the left? How about Scott Walker? Left-wingers in Wisconsin tried to destroy the man. <br /><br />On the other side, Tim Kaine is already deeply despised by many on the right, especially after Monday's vice presidential debate. Elizabeth Warren has an uncanny knack for eliciting the same kind of enmity. As the Democratic Party has moved left, the Republican Party has moved right, and the gap between them has widened. Red gets redder, blue grows bluer, and America is a country divided. <br /><br />The good news: It's not nearly as bad as when Lincoln took over and there will be no secessions any time soon. The bad news: Presidential honeymoons may be a quaint relic of the past, kind of like chastity prior to marriage. <br /><br />The truth is that most of us are somewhere in the political center, between those oft-referenced 40-yard lines. But, to mix sports and metaphors, too many of our politicians are way out there in left and right fields.<br /><br /> Perhaps the two major political parties will eventually veer back toward the center, that vast middle that was home to JFK and Bill Clinton, Nixon and Bush 41. And perhaps they'll nominate candidates who are generally likable human beings. Senators Cory Booker and Mike Pence come to mind. <br /><br />If and when that happens, we may eventually see the return of the presidential honeymoon. But this time around? Cue Ms. Doolittle!BillOReilly.com Staff2016-10-06T16:42:00ZStaff Column: The Despicable Dr. Dean's Deserved DemiseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-The-Despicable-Dr.-Deans-Deserved-Demise/-519471649368276695.html2016-09-29T17:32:00Z2016-09-29T17:32:00ZHoward Dean could have been a contender. In fact, he <em>was</em> a contender and actually had a chance at winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. <br /><br />He was an anti-war, far-left, quasi-socialist, and adored by many young people. You might call him the beta version of Bernie Sanders, minus the white hair and Brooklyn accent. <br /><br />But Dean's surging campaign was scuttled by the 'Dean Scream' that reverberated from Iowa across the nation. <br /><br />Now, it's worth remembering two things. First, Howard Dean went to medical school and once served as a family physician in Vermont. Second, there is a famous Biblical proverb from the Book of Luke: 'Physician, heal thyself.' <br /><br />This week Dr. Dean did the exact opposite. Rather than heal himself, he may have killed his career as a smug and surly political pundit. Dean not only chose to navigate the low road, he drove straight into the political gutter. <br /><br />You probably know the story. Early in Monday's debate, Donald Trump could be heard inhaling. (Some of his supporters blamed the microphone, much like 'Deaniacs' blamed the mic for that scream heard 'round the world.) <br /><br />Howard Dean, the former physician, decided it was a wise idea to put forth this tweet: 'Notice Trump sniffing all the time. Coke user?' <br /><br />That seemed like it might have been an awkward attempt at humor, and Dean could have positioned it as such. But he was actually serious. <br /><br />The left-wing Dean is employed by the left-wing MSNBC. You know, the network that gave us lovely folks such as Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, and Melissa Harris-Perry. <br /><br />The doctor paid a house call to his network the day after the debate and actually doubled down. Trump's audible sniffling, he declared, 'is actually a signature of people who use cocaine.' Continuing his bizarre diagnosis, Dr. Dean declared Trump 'delusional,' another trait common among coke users. <br /><br />So, according to this former physician, Donald Trump prepped for Monday's debate by snorting some blow in the men's room at Hofstra University. Does it get any lower than that? <br /><br />The worst thing a physician can be called is a 'quack,' from a Dutch expression meaning a doctor who is a total fraud and charlatan. Is Dr. Dean a quack? Well, if it walks like a duck … <br /><br />Now it's our turn to play doctor. <br /><br />Howard Dean is apparently deep in the throes of a malady that has spread wildly throughout the media lately, namely Trump Derangement Syndrome. <br /><br />You remember Bush Derangement Syndrome, a sickness first identified by our friend Dr. Charles Krauthammer, himself a former psychiatrist. He actually came up with the diagnosis when the one and only Howard Dean implied that President Bush may have been warned about the 9/11 attacks in advance. And, yes, many on the right have been similarly infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome. <br /><br />Howard Dean, obviously in Stage IV of Trump Derangement Syndrome, probably thought he did nothing wrong this week. He was, after all, simply mocking a man who is despised by most of his media colleagues. They actually abhor Donald Trump just as much as they adore Barack Obama, which is saying quite a lot. <br /><br />So Dean expected a few pats on the back and not much else. Instead, what he said may have been too much for even MSNBC, where he has not been seen since. <br /><br />After the debate, MSNBC and other networks went wall-to-wall with the story of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, who says she was 'fat-shamed' by Donald Trump twenty years ago. It turns out that Machado, suddenly a female role model for Democrats and the left, was credibly accused of taking part in a plot to kill a judge in her native Venezuela. She did not deny it when given the chance on CNN this week. <br /><br />Donald Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, admits that he got on Machado's case after she gained weight in 1996. But is this really what this campaign is about? <br /><br />Hillary Clinton has also been accused of demeaning and damaging women, namely Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinsky, and many others. But they are personae non grata to the very same media that is lionizing Ms. Machado. <br /><br />We do indeed live in very strange times, and Dr. Howard Dean is just the latest example. Like all physicians, Dean is surely familiar with the Hippocratic Oath: 'Primum non nocere.' Translation: 'Above all, do no harm!' <br /><br />He did irreparable harm to his already-suffering reputation this week and may not be seen on the air for a long time. He should consider taking the opportunity to work on his hostility and bitterness. <br /><br />Perhaps Dr. Howard Dean is still haunted by that long-ago scream that ended his greatest dreams and ambitions. And perhaps it is time for him to follow that sage and timeless advice: Physician, heal thyself!BillOReilly.com Staff2016-09-29T17:32:00ZStaff Column: The Reich StuffBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-The-Reich-Stuff/-797762311031434801.html2016-09-22T16:44:00Z2016-09-22T16:44:00Z<p>Jill Soloway has returned to her life as a relatively anonymous television producer. But for a few hours last week, she was the toast of the town—At least that town generically known as Hollywood. <br /><br />After winning an Emmy for her work on the show 'Transparent,' Soloway used her brief moment in the spotlight to demonize Donald Trump. Actually, 'demonize' is putting it mildly. 'He's a complete dangerous monster,' Soloway pronounced, adding that he is 'an inheritor to Hitler.' Yeah, that's the ticket! Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler's murderous progeny. <br /><br />She was of course praised for her 'courage,' although absolutely zero courage was required. That diatribe surely earned Soloway invitations to the very best dinner parties and enhanced her status in America's most status-conscious town. <br /><br />Soloway is not the only unhinged entertainer to employ the Trump = Hitler equation. Cher, both mononymous and monotonous, went one step further, equating Trump to Hitler <em>and</em> Stalin. Ironically, this raw hatred emanates from the woman who sang 'Love and Understanding.' <br /><br />But far more troublesome than attention-seeking Hollywood types are the allegedly 'serious' pundits and academics. <br /><br />The Washington Post gave space to crazy-left columnist Richard Cohen, who concluded that Trump 'is Hitlerian in his thinking.' And the long-ago respected Newsweek commissioned a history professor to conjure up an academic comparison. 'Like Hitler,' the esteemed professor wrote, 'Trump is capitalizing on a longing for charismatic leadership.' To his credit, he didn't accuse Trump of longing for a new Holocaust. <br /><br />Documentary maker Ken Burns also implied that Trump's only historical precedent is Hitler's Third Reich. <br /><br />This is truly despicable. We have reached a point where one party's nominee is considered, literally, beneath contempt. NBC's Matt Lauer was denounced for failing to tar and feather Trump during a recent forum. Even the congenial late night comic Jimmy Fallon is taking left jabs for being too easy on Trump. <br /><br />One television producer framed the campaign starkly: 'This is not a race between Democrat and Republican – this is a race between Democrat and demagogue.' <br /><br />The message is clear to journalists and hosts who reside in the New York/Los Angeles axis: Either hammer this latter-day Hitler or find yourself excommunicated from polite society. Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, and Anderson Cooper, moderators of the first two presidential debates, are surely aware of the pressure. Let's hope they can resist it in the pursuit of fairness. <br /><br />Donald Trump has said some questionable things. He clung endlessly to the silly 'birther' allegation, and he mocked individuals who did not deserve his ridicule. On the other side, Hillary Clinton may have put our national security at risk and abused her position as Secretary of State. <br /><br />Both candidates have made mistakes, both are fair game, both deserve some tough scrutiny. But we are witnessing a race where our chattering classes have totally disqualified one candidate. Beyond that, they sneer at half of Americans who feel otherwise. <br /><br />There is obviously panic on the left these days, especially since Donald Trump has essentially caught up in many polls. So you can expect to see even more heated denunciations of Trump and his policies. <br /><br />But can't we agree to leave Adolf Hitler out of this? <br /><br />Another former late-night comic, Jon Stewart, said something that bears repeating: 'Stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them. It demeans you, it demeans your opponent.' Stewart also posed a very relevant question and answer: 'You know who was Hitler? Hitler!' <br /><br />Stewart might want to come out of retirement to have a word with his some of his fellow leftists. Sure, their misguided comparisons may enhance their own reputations, but they diminish the genuine evil of a true monster. And they should knock it off. Schnell!</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-09-22T16:44:00ZStaff Column: A Comment Most DeplorableBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-A-Comment-Most-Deplorable/359145421483545231.html2016-09-15T19:20:00Z2016-09-15T19:20:00Z<div style="text-align: left;">Hillary Clinton's 'Basket of Deplorables' is considered one of the greatest political gaffes in recent memory. It's right up there with Howard Dean's scream, Christine O'Donnell proclaiming 'I am not a witch,' and Gerald Ford claiming there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.<br /><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">Notice that she didn't say half of Donald Trump's supporters are merely intolerant. No, they are <em>deplorable! Irredeemable!</em> Wow! </div>
<div style="text-align: left;"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">She essentially asserted that 50% of Trump voters are barely worthy of breathing the same air as the swells.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">But no sooner were the words out of her mouth than many liberal publications were running columns defending Secretary Clinton's comments. She wasn't politically correct, they conceded, but she sure was right! The New York Daily News won top prize in this odious category, writing that the number of Trump supporters who are bigots is actually 'closer to 100%'</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Former Obama aide Stephanie Cutter, so far left that she was fired by MSNBC, endorsed Secretary Clinton's statement. And Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist and Factor regular, contended that Hillary Clinton was very wise to demean and disparage Trump's supporters.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">We like and respect Mary Anne, who is always ready to defend her positions. But in this case, she unfortunately echoes the way many coastal elites view Middle Americans. To them, Trump supporters are a bunch of uneducated, bigoted, backward yahoos. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">It's as if they inhabit separate lands, and in many ways they do.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Let's put it another way: This election is Bloomingdales vs. Walmart, classical vs. country, The New Yorker vs. Reader's Digest, NPR vs. WWE. There are two Americas, as John Edwards said, but they are not always differentiated by income. The cultural elite include some not-so-highly paid left-wingers (Professor Melissa Click, who called for 'some muscle' to oust a photographer, comes to mind.)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">What becomes painfully evident at election time is how one group of Americans looks down its noses at the other. Many leftists genuinely feel our nation is an unjust place and has been a blight on civilization. And these same folks believe that many of their less enlightened countrymen and countrywomen are indeed deplorable.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Should we really be surprised? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Progressives run our universities and public school systems, and they have spent decades preaching about America's faults. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Here's what Charles Krauthammer observed Monday on The Factor: 'The current history textbooks are basically catalogues of the pathologies of American history. They're all about racism, sexism, xenophobia, all of the sins of the fathers. That's what the younger generation is being taught.'</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">If Charles' litany sounds familiar, it's because those same words were used by Hillary Clinton in her 'basket of deplorables' speech, which was given to wealthy East Coast ultra-elites, the very snootiest and snobbiest America has to offer. Trump's 'basket,' she declared, is filled with folks who are 'racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.' </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">So, listen up, you deplorables out there. If you believe refugees from terror nations be vetted strenuously, you are Islamophobic. If you endorse traditional marriage, you are most certainly homophobic. If you don't think cops are hunting down and killing young black men, there is no doubt that you are irredeemably racist. Don't want open borders? Xenophobic is the only word for you!</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">It sounds insane, but that is precisely how the editorial board of the New York Times views anyone who would even consider voting for Donald Trump. Same with the managing editors and muckety-mucks at CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast networks. They don't merely think Trump voters are wrong or misguided, they deem them to be downright evil.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">Now, it is certainly true that some Donald Trump voters are racists and immigrant-bashers. But half? Not even close. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">And don't forget that the despicable David Brock will vote for Hillary Clinton, as will the charlatan Al Sharpton. And Harry Reid, who is now childishly calling Trump a fatso, is squarely in Hillary's corner. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">Are these folks not deplorable?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Hillary Clinton made a tremendous gaffe the other day with her 'deplorables' comment. But there is no doubt that many of her supporters believe it wholeheartedly. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">Anyone who harbors such ill will against tens of millions of their fellow Americans is wrong and misguided. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="left">You could even call them deplorable!</div>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-09-15T19:20:00ZStaff Column: Trump, Clinton, and a Tale of Two TalesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Trump-Clinton-and-a-Tale-of-Two-Tales/132593271416196913.html2016-09-08T18:02:00Z2016-09-08T18:02:00Z<p align="left">There was some very unwelcome news this week for many of our media elites. According to a CNN poll of likely voters, Donald Trump has taken a slim lead over Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p align="left">It should be noted that most other surveys show Secretary Clinton leading. But the very fact that Trump may be closing the gap was a call to action for many media types.</p>
<p align="left">As just one glaring example, take the story of two for-profit universities and their connections with the candidates. </p>
<p align="left">The Washington Post, to its credit, published a detailed story this week about Bill Clinton's former position as 'honorary chancellor' of Laureate Universities. </p>
<p align="left">You may think that the word 'honorary' means the job would include a token honorarium, but Laureate paid President Clinton $17.6-million over five years. Written another way, that's $17,600,000! </p>
<p align="left">Even though Mr. Clinton didn't do much beyond lending his name to the school and visiting a few campuses, Laureate founder Doug Becker obviously felt he got his money's worth. </p>
<p align="left">Perhaps this is why: While she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton personally ensured that Becker was given a seat at the table when the State Department hosted a dinner dealing with higher education.</p>
<p align="left">To employ that Latin term we hear a lot these days, was there a quid pro quo? That's hard to prove, but let's just say the dinner invitation and the ensuing cushy job to Bill Clinton were a mutually beneficial coincidence. Laureate also donated as much as $5-million to the Clinton Foundation and Doug Becker has personally contributed to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. </p>
<p align="left">What's most interesting is how this bombshell story, reported by a highly respected media outlet, was handled by others. The conservative Media Research Center provided a rundown of the morning shows. ABC's Good Morning America and NBC's Today totally ignored the Laureate-Clinton connection, while CBS This Morning gave it less than 30 seconds.</p>
<p align="left">However, we <em>are</em> hearing a great deal about a candidate and a for-profit university. It's just not Hillary Clinton and Laureate. The media are now focused, laser-like, on allegations involving Donald Trump and Trump University. </p>
<p align="left">A few years ago Donald Trump's foundation donated $25,000 to the campaign of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was then investigating possible wrongdoing by Trump University. That investigation was dropped, and there are now allegations of – you guessed it – a quid pro quo. </p>
<p align="left">We do not know whether Donald Trump tried to improperly influence Pam Bondi. In fact, the Trump Foundation was fined $2,500 because charities are barred from giving to political campaigns. But what is astounding is the coverage. </p>
<p align="left">The New York Times, which wrote nary a syllable about the Laureate story, devoted 1,250 words to the Trump University allegations. This was despite the fact that, by our rudimentary math, $17,600,000 is about 700 times greater than $25,000. Other anti-Trump media outlets, as always, will follow the lead set by the Times. </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump, if he is not 'surging,' is certainly rising in the polls. If that continues, expect more 'investigative' stories about his past political donations, of which there were very many. </p>
<p align="left">It is no secret that many pundits and reporters despise Donald Trump and don't want him to be president. They will do everything in their power, which is fading but still considerable, to make sure he does not occupy the Oval Office. </p>
<p align="left">So, yes, expect to read and hear a great deal about Pam Bondi and Trump University. And if that accusation doesn't stick to the wall, more anti-Trump stories are on the way. Some of them may even be legitimate. Donald Trump is fully aware that he has many enemies in the media who are desperately seeking the story that will end his candidacy while earning them a Pulitzer Prize. </p>
<p align="left">This all inspires a word of advice: Over the next few weeks, Donald Trump should do whatever it takes to avoid any coughing fits. Hell, even if he sneezes twice in a row, the media will have him on his death bed, declaring him absolutely unqualified to serve as commander-in-chief.</p>
<p align="left">In the year 2016, that's just the way it is.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-09-08T18:02:00ZStaff Column: Two Amigos, Two TrumpsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Two-Amigos-Two-Trumps/2761827146053392.html2016-09-01T19:54:00Z2016-09-01T19:54:00Z<p align="left">To begin with an understatement, Donald Trump's hump day was pretty darned interesting.</p>
<p align="left">On Wednesday morning he flew to Mexico City to chat with his new amigo, President Enrique Peña Nieto. In the evening, he was in Phoenix to lay out his immigration policies to thousands of rabid supporters.</p>
<p align="left">Not to pick on our pal Geraldo Rivera, but in this case he serves as a perfect human barometer. Rivera is a perspicacious observer who has spent decades advocating a humane approach to immigration. </p>
<p align="left">This was Geraldo on the 8:00 PM edition of Wednesday's Factor: 'Donald Trump's tone was magnificent, this was a brilliant day for Trump. It was a smart and ballsy trip that came off well, he was great in Mexico City.' </p>
<p align="left">Then, just three hours later, on the 11:00 PM Factor, Geraldo was singing from a completely different hymnal: 'Why in the world was he so strident? Wasn't the whole idea to broaden the base, wasn't the whole idea to get women on board? Trump's got to be presidential if he wants to be president!' </p>
<p align="left">What happened in between those radically different observations? It's obvious: Donald Trump's speech in Arizona reinforced his tough positions on illegal immigration. Anyone who was anticipating and relishing a 'softening' was sorely disappointed.</p>
<p align="left">True, the Republican candidate hedged on mass deportation, but his other proposals were firm: There will be a 'great wall' to be paid for by Mexico, criminal illegal aliens will be deported post haste, there will be 'extreme vetting' of prospective immigrants from some nations. Also, the Border Patrol will be expanded and supplied with the bureaucratic version of steroids. </p>
<p align="left">Trump summarized his views thusly: 'There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people!' That sounds reasonable, does it not? But to the chattering classes, that statement is downright hateful. </p>
<p align="left">Trump also gave a ringing endorsement of 'Kate's Law,' which would harshly punish criminal felons who re-enter the United States of America. And he ended the Phoenix event by inviting moving testimonials from moms and dads whose children were killed by illegal immigrants who had no business being in the USA.</p>
<p align="left">Who can possibly argue with the notion of getting very tough on illegal felons? George Soros and his fellow travelers on the left, that's who. </p>
<p align="left">If you want a view from the anti-Trump, look to one of the most powerful men in all of Europe. Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Union, just said that national borders were 'the worst invention ever.' </p>
<p align="left">Read that back. Slowly. </p>
<p align="left">Mr. Juncker, who presumably lives in a safe and upscale Luxembourg neighborhood, probably protected by walls, is fine with Muslim refugees pouring into the continent's once-great cities. Most Europeans disagree with Juncker and want their borders honored, but he and other elites don't much care. </p>
<p align="left">Juncker was saying aloud what many on the left actually believe. They want open borders, pure and simple, but use terms like 'comprehensive immigration reform' to disguise their true desires.</p>
<p align="left">This is an issue where the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are stark. Secretary Clinton has been strenuously avoiding press conferences and tough interviews, but her running mate Tim Kaine appeared on MSNBC the morning after Donald Trump's immigration address.</p>
<p align="left">He vowed that a Clinton administration will 'reform our immigration system in a comprehensive way' and will enable illegal immigrants to 'earn the right to citizenship.' Donald Trump, meanwhile, declares that there will be no such path and no amnesty.</p>
<p align="left">The New York Times editorial board, despite its waning influence, still gives daily marching orders to much of America's mainstream media. The Times' Thursday morning verdict: Donald Trump's speech was 'empty words strung together and repeated.' </p>
<p align="left">The paper accused Trump of spewing 'relentless lies about the dangers' posed by immigrants. Consider telling that to the 'Angel Moms' who were sobbing as Donald Trump wrapped up his momentous and memorable Wednesday.</p>
<p align="left">The choice is pretty simple. The swells of the New York Times, who reside in doorman-protected buildings on the Upper West Side of Manhattan? Or the citizens of Arizona and Texas, who deal with illegal immigration every day? As the old commercial said, You Make The Call.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-09-01T19:54:00ZStaff Column: Hillary Clinton, Four Corners, and the Prevent DefenseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Hillary-Clinton-Four-Corners-and-the-Prevent-Defense/705270507281564867.html2016-08-25T22:10:00Z2016-08-25T22:10:00Z<p align="left">When his North Carolina Tar Heels had a lead late in a game, the revered college basketball coach Dean Smith relied on his 'Four Corners' offense. Keep the ball away from the other guys, run out the clock, chalk up another win for UNC.</p>
<p align="left">In football, another sport with a clock, the 'Prevent Defense' is employed to protect a lead near the end of the game. Sure, give up some yardage on short passes, but protect against the bomb.</p>
<p align="left">Well, if any sport is more vicious than pro football, it is politics, and we are now seeing Hillary Clinton running her version of the prevent defense. In this case, the clock is the calendar, and it is expiring quickly. </p>
<p align="left">The Clinton team, according to Politico, wants to 'run out the clock' against Donald Trump. </p>
<p align="left">So, amid all the swirling storms of controversy regarding her emails, the Clinton Foundation, and Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton is avoiding press conferences and tough interviews like they are the Zika virus.</p>
<p align="left">It is far less risky for the candidate to sit down with Jimmy Kimmel and, mocking rumors about her health, have him take her pulse. Reporters would also like to take her pulse, so to speak, but they just aren't allowed. Meanwhile, Clinton campaign boss Robbie Mook, smile pasted on his face, tells MSNBC that an actual press conference is 'under consideration.' Sure thing, Mr. Mook. </p>
<p align="left">And Donald Trump? He is turning up the heat on Secretary Clinton, focusing on the Foundation and the never-ending email revelations. Mr. Trump is demanding an independent prosecutor, but the chances of that are just south of zero. Hillary Clinton is more likely to sit down for a friendly chat with Judicial Watch, the organization that is playing the role of Inspector Javert to her Jean Valjean. </p>
<p align="left">In addition, Trump is moderating his tone, and this time he really means it! He says he is open to 'softening' his stance on mass deportation, and he even claims he is willing to meet with the president. President Nieto of Mexico, that is.</p>
<p align="left">Unfortunately, President Nieto is now being accused of plagiarizing vast portions of his law school thesis, so he may be preoccupied for a while. Then again, if Nieto cribbed from Michelle Obama, he will at least have something in common with Melania Trump.</p>
<p align="left">Anyway, Mrs. Clinton knows full well that her supporters don't give a damn about the emails or the accusations of pay-for-play at the Foundation, which is certainly showing some cracks. There seems to be a new drip every day, but she may be okay as long as the drip does not turn into a deluge. </p>
<p align="left">Right now the two pugilists must be looking ahead, either with dread or eagerness, to three dates on the calendar: September 26, October 9, and October 19. The presidential debates could change things dramatically. Voters will witness the spectacle of two widely disliked and distrusted candidates standing a few steps from one another, each trying to become slightly more liked and more trusted. </p>
<p align="left">Will Mr. Trump hurl invective across the stage, accusing Mrs. Clinton of all kinds of perfidy? Or will he focus on her record and that of President Obama? There's plenty of low-hanging fruit when it comes to ObamaCare, the Middle East, the spiraling debt, terrorism, and our economic malaise.</p>
<p align="left">Will Mrs. Clinton blast her opponent's temperament, portraying him as an emotionally unstable loon? Or will she concentrate on her own experience in statecraft and her ability to get things done in Washington?</p>
<p align="left">The truth is that even the candidates themselves don't really know what strategy they'll use in the debates. Getting back to sports, every boxer enters the ring with a plan, which promptly gets trashed the moment a punch lands on his jaw. </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two very competitive and aggressive fighters who simply do not like or respect one another. Even if they suspend the name-calling during the three debates, the nasty tone of this campaign will continue and will probably escalate over the coming 10 weeks. </p>
<p align="left">This is a presidential race unlike any we have seen in the past, unlike any we are likely to see in the future. The differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are enormous, their partisans are rabid.</p>
<p align="left">And the nastiness will probably only escalate. In other words, to plagiarize from songwriter Cy Coleman and lyricist Carolyn Leigh, The Worst is Yet to Come.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-08-25T22:10:00ZStaff Column: Inner City BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Inner-City-Blues/-219095958613208045.html2016-08-18T17:20:00Z2016-08-18T17:20:00Z<p align="left">The great R&B singer and composer Marvin Gaye famously asked a simple question that was impossible to answer: 'What's Going On?' </p>
<p align="left">That was the title of his ground-breaking album, which included the track 'Inner City Blues.' As much as a song, 'Inner City Blues' was a lamentation. 'Crime is increasing,' Gaye mourned, adding this: 'Panic is spreading, God knows where we're heading.'</p>
<p align="left">That was written and sung in 1970, nearly a half-century ago! And what has happened since? By most measures America's inner cities have only gotten worse.</p>
<p align="left">Crime is still rampant, young lives are snuffed out or wasted, home ownership is down, unemployment is a given, school achievement is dismal. Fatherlessness, quaintly called 'illegitimacy' in a previous era, is higher than ever. Young black men and women in Milwaukee, Baltimore, and other U.S. cities mourn at many funerals, but never celebrate a wedding. </p>
<p align="left">And through all these decades of misery, blacks have continued to vote for one party. If you're a Democrat in urban America, stick around; if you're a Republican, get back. </p>
<p align="left">But why? There was a revealing moment on The Factor this week when defense attorney Andell Brown tried to rationalize that party loyalty. He praised Democrats for equalizing the punishment between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Really, that's it? Less time for smoking crack!</p>
<p align="left">Mr. Brown also mentioned increased federal funding for education, but he ignored the inconvenient fact that Democrats almost uniformly oppose voucher programs that can provide young black children with a choice of schools. Teacher unions say 'jump,' Democratic politicians ask precisely how high. </p>
<p align="left">One of the more shameful incidents in President Obama's presidency occurred when he and other Democrats ended a successful voucher program in the District of Columbia. Our own Juan Williams described it as a 'sin against our children.' Thousands of black parents were distressed and outraged, but no doubt most of them still went to the polling booth and voted 'D.' </p>
<p align="left">To be fair, President Obama has tried to help and guide young men with his laudable 'My Brother's Keeper' initiative, but there has been little follow-up.</p>
<p align="left">Of course, no politician or political party can heal the psychic wounds that plague Americans who are mired in poverty and despair. But it's been demonstrated that one man or woman can make a difference. </p>
<p align="left">In the early 1990s, New York City Mayor David Dinkins essentially surrendered, telling his city that crime was a part of life, you'd better get used to it. Rudy Giuliani didn't believe that, not for a minute. Under the new mayor, crime declined at a much faster rate than any other major city. Mayor Giuliani can accurately be credited with saving thousands of black lives in New York City.</p>
<p align="left">Which brings us to 2016 and Donald Trump, who gave a much-hyped speech in Wisconsin this week about law and order, crime and punishment. Singling out nearby Milwaukee, Trump accurately reported that the murder rate is soaring. To no one's surprise, most of the perps and victims are young black men. </p>
<p align="left">He also pointed out that Milwaukee has been run by the Democratic Party machine for decades. The last time the city had a Republican mayor? How about 1908, when the esteemed Sherburn M. Becker left office. As an aside, Becker was elected at age 29 and was known as the 'boy mayor.' </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump has recently been employing the term 'law and order,' sounding like a hybrid of Nixon and Giuliani. And let there be no doubt that many black Americans, especially moms and dads, like the sound of that. They don't want to agonize every time their child leaves the house. </p>
<p align="left">But how many of them will make the leap and switch parties, even for one election cycle? Very few, not after being told for decades that Republicans are evil racists. And even if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton focus like a laser on the inner city, the problems run very deep and will take decades to ameliorate. </p>
<p align="left">On the bright side, or at least the slightly illuminated side, there are a few concrete steps a leader can take: Reduce crime, create incentives to marry and raise families, institute more choice in schools, break the vice-like grip of the teacher unions, and promote business and entrepreneurship. That could at least begin to make a dent.</p>
<p align="left">Back in 1970, Marvin Gaye cried out in despair: 'It makes me wanna holler, and throw up both my hands.' The time has come for responsible, law-abiding black Americans to holler at the right targets, the politicians and bureaucrats who have helped create this mess with their liberal policies and widespread corruption. </p>
<p align="left">No doubt some of those political leaders were well-intentioned, but they sowed the seeds of a rolling disaster that may even be accelerating. Americans are paying a steep price, no one more so than black citizens who still can't shake those inner city blues.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-08-18T17:20:00ZStaff Column: Sitting, Painfully, on the Horns of a DilemmaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Sitting-Painfully-on-the-Horns-of-a-Dilemma/-658684563130206692.html2016-08-11T19:29:00Z2016-08-11T19:29:00Z<p align="left">American voters are not very fond of the choice they will face this November. That's obvious, even to those of us not named Luntz or Rasmussen or Gallup.</p>
<p align="left">Hillary Clinton is widely viewed as deceitful, a perception that gets worse every time she talks about her emails, Benghazi, sniper fire, or being 'dead broke.' Secretary Clinton has the terrible problem of becoming less popular whenever she becomes more visible. It's not a great attribute for a politician. </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump, meanwhile, is seen as a loose cannon (a firearm not protected by the Second Amendment.) Remember the 'New Coke,' a 1980s debacle that set a new world record in disastrous marketing? Well, how many times have we been introduced to the 'New Trump,' a formulation that always seems to lose its fizz very quickly? </p>
<p align="left">On a week when Donald Trump could have focused on moribund economic growth and new questions about his opponent's veracity, he blurted out an inane 'joke' that soaked up all the attention. Sure, the media are looking to hang Trump, but does he really have to give a fresh supply of rope every day? </p>
<p align="left">What's truly bizarre is that these two nominees, who make one blunder after another on the campaign trail, are extremely smart and accomplished individuals.</p>
<p align="left">C'mon, you Hillary-haters, fess up. If your daughter was elected to the United States Senate and became the Democratic nominee for president, you'd be very proud mamas and papas. Sure, she married into power, but also relied on her own ambition and smarts. </p>
<p align="left">And, hey, you Donald-despisers. You'd be busting your buttons if your son created a real estate empire and was a success at just about everything he tried. Of course he got seed money from his dad, but Donald Trump's buildings are steel and concrete tributes to his competence and grit.</p>
<p align="left">So let's look at the bright side and consider just one major positive that each candidate offers. We're not talking about policies like education or military spending or immigration or energy, this is about the culture that dominates Washington. </p>
<p align="left">First, Donald Trump. There is no one who would shake things up more. Lots of candidates describe themselves as 'outsiders,' but Trump is the real deal when it comes to being the anti-DC guy. Perhaps that's part of the reason so many powerful people in Washington, including many Republicans, fear his presidency. President Trump would put the old-boy-and-girl network out of business. And business has been very, very good for a long, long time. </p>
<p align="left">Then there is Hillary Clinton, the consummate insider. She represents the status quo, but at least the national media would hold President Clinton accountable. For nearly eight years, many in the White House press corps have looked up at Barack Obama with puppy dog eyes, begging for a table scrap from a man they admire. There are exceptions, of course, Fox News correspondents chief among them, but we have witnessed an unseemly love fest between the president and the media. It's just not supposed to work that way.</p>
<p align="left">Hillary Clinton would be a different story. Sure, right now the media are rooting hard for her to beat Donald Trump. They would be doing the same even if the GOP nominee were Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Chris Christie. If Jesus himself showed up and had an 'R' beside his name, the media would mock his propensity to show off by walking on water and healing the infirm. </p>
<p align="left">But while they are now in her corner, many pundits and reporters don't much like Hillary Clinton. They hate her refusal to hold press conferences and they resent the fact that, like her husband, Secretary Clinton can be averse to the truth. The adjective 'Clintonian' was invented for a reason.</p>
<p align="left">So, American voters, we have one candidate who will turn Washington inside-out and upside-down, another who will inspire the media to return to their actual job of holding the powerful accountable.</p>
<p align="left">If you're among the tens of millions who dislike both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that may not seem like much. But it's something, which is usually better than nothing. Feeling better yet?</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-08-11T19:29:00ZStaff Column: Shrinkage, Big TimeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Shrinkage-Big-Time/945597267208287940.html2016-08-04T19:29:00Z2016-08-04T19:29:00Z<p align="left">This was a banner week for wannabe psychiatrists. Lots of media shrinks put Donald Trump on their couches and rendered their diagnoses.</p>
<p align="left">A left-wing columnist in the Washington Post declared, 'I am increasingly convinced that he's just plain crazy.' A New York Times opinion-shaper also weighed in, concluding that Trump has the emotional development of a 'toddler.' </p>
<p align="left">But when it comes to psychiatry, those guys are mere amateurs. We know of only one genuine psychotherapist-turned-pundit, and that's our own Dr. Krauthammer. </p>
<p align="left">The esteemed Dr. K has yet to render a clinical diagnosis, but even he seems totally perplexed by Trump's erratic behavior. 'You have to ask yourself,’ Charles pondered this week, 'is he capable of conducting himself in any other way?' </p>
<p align="left">Things are so dire that even Republican Party elders are reported to be considering an 'intervention' with Trump. That's a term usually reserved for people who have wandered very far off the deep end. </p>
<p align="left">So how did it come to this? </p>
<p align="left">Sure, the liberal media loathe Trump and eagerly leap on everything he says. That is a given in American politics and it is not unique to Donald Trump. Even if the Republican nominee's name was Rubio or Cruz, Christie or Walker, the press would be blasting away on a daily basis. </p>
<p align="left">Any other Republican candidate would be focused on the myriad failures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Middle East is a mess, Europe seems to have a weekly terror attack, while Russia and China point their middle digits in our direction. Most recently, the Obama administration apparently sent an illegal ransom to Iran's terror-sponsoring mullahs. </p>
<p align="left">Our own economy is moribund, wages are stagnant, the national debt has doubled under President Obama, illegal immigration is a mess, and race relations haven't been much worse. There is just so much red meat on which the Republican presidential candidate could feast, especially when his opponent is widely viewed as a more modern and only slightly-less-wooden Pinocchio. </p>
<p align="left">Instead, Donald Trump escalates a feud with a family that lost a son in Iraq and insults senators in his own party. He complains about debate schedules and 'rigged' elections when he should be pounding Hillary Clinton into pudding, metaphorically speaking. You can understand why he is such a tempting target for wannabe shrinks. </p>
<p align="left">When Trump entered the No Spin Zone Tuesday night, he wouldn’t budge an inch when asked about the Khan family. 'I was viciously attacked,' he declared, 'and I responded.' That may be true, but a politician cannot respond to every insult, especially when it comes from a Gold Star family. </p>
<p align="left">You can try to excuse this by saying that Trump is new to politics and, hey, this counter-punching stuff worked well in the primaries. But Donald Trump has been in the arena for more than a year now, and he should know that what was effective against other Republicans is no longer working. </p>
<p align="left">His only chance of winning is to stay on point: America is in decline and he can fix that. If he fights everyone who comes after him, he'll lose in a landslide.</p>
<p align="left">As you know, Donald Trump's supporters have been predicting a 'pivot.' There will soon come a time, they promise, when the man will ignore the insults and begin to focus on the many problems facing America and the world. But which will come first? The pivot … or Godot? We're still waiting for both. </p>
<p align="left">In the middle of this disastrous week, Donald Trump made a vow: 'We're going to focus more on Hillary Clinton, absolutely.' His loyal supporter and former rival Dr. Ben Carson added this Thursday morning: 'Donald Trump will focus much more on the issues and on his opponent.' But the question posed by Dr. Krauthammer remains: Is Trump actually capable of doing that? </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump would be well-advised to ease up on the tweets, shrug off the insults, and find some much-needed discipline. He may not require an intervention, but he absolutely, positively needs a 'reset' button. One that actually works.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-08-04T19:29:00ZStaff Column: Booing the War on TerrorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:-Booing-the-War-on-Terror/935441465849138021.html2016-07-28T17:26:00Z2016-07-28T17:26:00Z<p align="left">There was one especially revealing moment this week at the Democratic National Convention. It came as Leon Panetta was in the middle of his speech Wednesday evening. </p>
<p align="left">That's Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense, former Director of the CIA, former Congressman, a man widely respected by members of both parties.</p>
<p align="left">It was not surprising that this distinguished American, who knows a thing or two about foreign policy, brought up the fight against global terrorism. But the moment he did that, many in the crowd erupted in boos and chants of 'No More War.' Leon Panetta could only stand at the podium and smile wanly.</p>
<p align="left">'No More War' sounds great, but those protesters may want to bone up on the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The nations of the world got together and essentially outlawed war as a means of settling disputes. Noble in sentiment, foolish and feckless in reality.</p>
<p align="left">So Leon Panetta learned a painful lesson Wednesday, namely that terror is the issue that dare not speak its name in liberal circles. </p>
<p align="left">President Obama used the word 'terrorism' once while lauding Hillary Clinton's foreign policy chops. He mentioned the Islamic State - 'ISIL' to him - exactly twice. The president assured us that our troops have 'pounded ISIL without mercy.' </p>
<p align="left">How about the 'radical Islamic terrorism?' You might expect to hear that phrase with Islamists running wild in Europe, even beheading a beloved octogenarian priest in his French church.</p>
<p align="left">Francois Hollande, the President of France, proclaimed, 'France is at war.' But here in the USA, even as ISIS vows to strike Washington and New York City, one of our major political parties refuses to acknowledge the enemy.</p>
<p align="left">Some uber-liberals should check out Step One in the Alcoholics Anonymous playbook, which advises people to admit there is a problem. (Of course, they can skip all those other steps that mention God.)</p>
<p align="left">So right now President Obama and Donald Trump are putting forth radically different views of America in the year 2016.</p>
<p align="left">The Republican candidate paints an America beset with 'poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad.' The New York Times accused Trump of trying to 'terrify voters.' Well, voters apparently don't need Mr. Trump to do that, considering that about 7 in 10 Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction. </p>
<p align="left">On the other side, President Obama and Hillary Clinton put forth a rosier image of the USA, which is to be expected. </p>
<p align="left">They point to an economic recovery, even though growth has been sluggish. And they eagerly note a dramatic decline in violent crime over the past 25 years, although the murder rate is recently soaring in many of our largest cities. </p>
<p align="left">Some of those crimes are being committed by illegal immigrants, bringing us to another issue that is conspicuously absent from the Philadelphia convention. In the minds of hard-core progressives, who dominate the Democratic Party, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant because no person can ever be 'illegal.' </p>
<p align="left">Let's stipulate that Jesse Watters' humorous interviews fall far short of being scientific polls, but when he spoke with some folks in Philadelphia their responses were nothing short of remarkable. 'I believe in a borderless planet,' one man told him, while a woman said, 'People should come here and we should welcome them with open arms.' Watters reported that he couldn't find a single person opposed to unfettered immigration. </p>
<p align="left">We should all face facts about the problems facing America and the world: President Obama's decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, the savage group that can't be mentioned at this week's convention.</p>
<p align="left">The president and his secretary of state failed to destroy Assad's air force in Syria when they could. Laying down a 'red line,' then backing away from it, led to millions of refugees storming into Europe.</p>
<p align="left">The Iranian nuclear deal has bolstered the power of the mullahs across the region, while the Libya debacle has given ISIS a foothold there.</p>
<p align="left">Here at home, cops are getting murdered, race relations are much worse than in recent memory, and the far-left is running wild in our cities and universities.</p>
<p align="left">The New York Times and other left-wing publications have clearly taken sides in this election. They see Donald Trump as a lying demagogue trying to scare Americans to death, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are calm and rational leaders who can be trusted to make things better.</p>
<p align="left">The mainstream media, kind of like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, will put their thumbs on the scale to help Mrs. Clinton. But Donald Trump has the distinct advantage of being able to speak off the cuff about nearly anything, even when he gets into trouble doing so.</p>
<p align="left">We'll conclude with that ubiquitous quote from the movie All About Eve: 'Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.' In fact, the Bette Davis character said 'bumpy night,' but you get the idea. There are very many turbulent days and nights, weeks and months ahead of us. Buckle up!</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-07-28T17:26:00ZStaff Column: Fear and Loathing in the MediaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column: Fear-and-Loathing-in-the-Media/978003686377519778.html2016-07-21T16:30:00Z2016-07-21T16:30:00Z<p align="left">'Don't Believe The Liberal Media!' </p>
<p align="left">That message is hard to miss if you take a stroll near the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland this week. </p>
<p align="left">The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group that has been barking at the left-leaning media for 30 years, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for billboards and advertisements carrying that warning. </p>
<p align="left">But there's a little problem. The MRC, invaluable though it may be, is engaging in what the military calls asymmetrical warfare. Essentially, they are throwing spitballs at the battleship known as the mainstream media. </p>
<p align="left">Let's face it. Most people in the so-called 'media elite' don't much care for conservatives and Republicans. To be more precise, they loathe and fear them. </p>
<p align="left">It's in their bloodstream, it's who they are, it's what they do.</p>
<p align="left">This week, watchdogs notwithstanding, the media hounds have been unleashed in Cleveland. They reached deep into their bag of negative adjectives, finding new and innovative ways to characterize the GOP. </p>
<p align="left">'Dark,' 'divisive,' and 'humiliating' were among the words heard frequently. One CNN analyst, displaying his obvious command of the language, described the Republican message as 'doggie poo.' Seriously. Over at MSNBC, Chris Matthews likened the 'lock her up' chant to something one might expect in Venezuela. </p>
<p align="left">The media's list of Republican villains is a long one, but here are a few of their most-despised speakers:</p>
<p align="left">- Governor Chris Christie, who powerfully listed Hillary Clinton's alleged crimes and blunders. Immediately after his speech, ABC News' correspondent Terry Moran confronted the governor and accused him of inciting a 'mob.'</p>
<p align="left">- Patricia Smith, whose son was killed in Benghazi and who has accused Hillary Clinton of being responsible. According to the aforementioned Chris Matthews, her 'gross accusation' ruined the whole darned evening. Even if Ms. Smith was over the top, it's hard to recall the media bashing the sainted Cindy Sheehan when she accused George W. Bush of murdering her son.</p>
<p align="left">- Ben Carson, who invoked Lucifer during his talk. Whether joking or not, you just don't bring up the horned netherworld dweller around secular progressives. In response, CNN devoted an entire panel to smacking the good doctor.</p>
<p align="left">- John Tiegen and Mark Geist, survivors of the Benghazi attack. The Washington Post's fact-checker actually took them to task for claiming there was an order to 'stand down' that night in Libya.</p>
<p align="left">- And, of course, there was Melania Trump, whose aide apparently lifted a passage from Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech. That was wrong and embarrassing to the Trump campaign, but it was not the end of the Republic.</p>
<p align="left">Our pal Bernie Goldberg points out that the media expressed more outrage over Mrs. Trump's error than over the blatant lies told by Susan Rice after Benghazi or Hillary Clinton after her email debacle. Hey, folks, get a grip. Melania's speech and presentation killed, but only in the figurative sense.</p>
<p align="left">As we write this, Donald Trump has yet to deliver his big convention speech. But whatever he says, we'll confidently predict that some in the media will rip it as 'divisive,' probably even 'xenophobic' and/or 'racist.'</p>
<p align="left">All this would be perfectly fine if the scales were balanced. But any thinking person knows that most reporters, correspondents, and anchors are secretly, or actively, rooting for Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p align="left">Let's watch how they cover next week's Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Will the platform be described as 'doggie poo?' Will Secretary Clinton and other speakers be relentlessly fact-checked?</p>
<p align="left">There will certainly be some rare sightings of honesty and fairness, but the overall message will be crystal clear: Democrats are on the side of the angels, Republicans are on the side of Lucifer. Sorry, CNN, for that devilish reference.</p>
<p align="left">So Donald Trump's challenges going forward aren't merely winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. He also has to overcome a media that despises him and his party. </p>
<p align="left">They see Trump as a vulgarian who is beneath them and destructive to the ideology that is such an essential part of their identities. That, unfortunately, is the world in which we live. </p>
<p align="left">Conservative media watchdogs will continue to howl, but their complaints will largely go unnoticed. They might as well be baying at the moon.</p>
<p align="left"> </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-07-21T16:30:00ZStaff Column: Race and Crime, Facts and EmotionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column: Race-and-Crime-Facts-and-Emotion/-655624020003303927.html2016-07-14T18:48:00Z2016-07-14T18:48:00Z<p align="left">Barack Obama II, meet Roland Fryer, Jr. You are both highly accomplished black men who overcame difficult childhoods to reach the very pinnacle of success.</p>
<p align="left">Fryer, by his own admission a 'full fledged gangster' in his youth, teaches economics at Harvard. He is, in fact, the youngest black man ever to receive tenure at that celebrated school. </p>
<p align="left">Professor Fryer and President Obama are both intensely interested in matters of race and crime, but one deals mostly in fact, the other in emotion.</p>
<p align="left">You may have heard about Dr. Fryer's startling research and its conclusion, which he called 'the most surprising result of my career.'</p>
<p align="left">Along with a team of researchers, Fryer scrutinized police brutality in America. To no one's surprise, he found that black and Hispanic men are more likely to be physically manhandled by police. Any straight-thinking person knows that in most ways it's tougher to be black in America than white. </p>
<p align="left">But to almost everyone's surprise, the meticulously researched paper found no disparity when it comes to deadly encounters. </p>
<p align="left">Dr. Fryer's astonishing conclusion: 'On the most extreme use of force - officer-involved shootings - we find no racial differences.'</p>
<p align="left">Author and policy analyst Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute is another brilliant researcher who deals in facts. She has studied the intersection of race and crime perhaps more than anyone in America, and her findings are not exactly pleasing to the Black Lives Matter crew and their ideological soul mates.</p>
<p align="left">Ms. Mac Donald contends that the entire Black Lives Matter movement is 'based on fiction' that goes way beyond the lies told in in Ferguson. She has discovered that 40% of cop-killers in America are black and that police use deadly force against black suspects far less frequently than the racial arsonists claim.</p>
<p align="left">Those are the facts, just the facts, as put forth by two of the nation's most respected scholars. On the other hand, President Obama often prefers to skip over the facts and appeal to raw emotion. </p>
<p align="left">During a somber memorial service this week for cops mowed down in Dallas by a black killer, the president injected politics. The man just can't help himself.</p>
<p align="left">'We choose to under-invest in decent schools,' President Obama declared. Well, in his adopted city of Chicago, the public school system spends about $17,000 per student each year. In Washington, DC, school spending is $18,000 per student, while in Utah it's less than $7,000. Have you noticed all the gang-bangers and drive-by shootings in Salt Lake City and Provo?</p>
<p align="left">President Obama also claimed that in some communities 'it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.'</p>
<p align="left">Is he for real? Where are those communities, Mr. President? Show us one, just one. Hyperbole is one thing, outright deceit is another. For the record, Chicago has 80 public library branches, and many of them are actually known to have books. Even computers, or so we hear. </p>
<p align="left">One day after his Dallas eulogy, President Obama invited some 'civil rights leaders' to the White House for another of his countless 'dialogues.' On the plus side, there were mayors, ministers, and police chiefs.</p>
<p align="left">But, shamefully, the confab also included the notorious Al Sharpton and two co-founders of the odious Black Lives Matter terrorist group. That entire deadly movement was erected on the foundation of 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot,' which we now know was a grotesque lie.</p>
<p align="left">So here's a simple idea, Mr. President. Next time you decide to have a meeting about race and policing, how about inviting Heather MacDonald, Roland Fryer, and others who actually deal in facts. Yes, even facts that aren't always comfortable or convenient.</p>
<p align="left">Is your goal to amp up fear and anger in order to rally the base and enhance your street cred? Or would you rather take a sober look at an issue that is vexing America and threatening to tear our nation apart?</p>
<p align="left">President Obama, it's your call.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-07-14T18:48:00ZStaff Column: Move On? Not So Fast!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column: Move-On-Not-So-Fast!/248394725158560189.html2016-07-07T17:36:00Z2016-07-07T17:36:00Z<p align="left">You've surely heard of MoveOn, the website partially funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros. The group was formed in 1998 to demand that we all just 'move on' after Bill Clinton's impeachment.</p>
<p align="left">Now, eighteen years later, Democrats are once again telling us to move on after another Clinton has been thoroughly disgraced. </p>
<p align="left">This time, of course, it's Hillary Clinton, who was taken to the proverbial woodshed this week by FBI boss James Comey.</p>
<p align="left">Mrs. Clinton's many false statements were laid out in excruciating detail <em>(</em><em>d</em><em>elightful</em> detail for those Americans who loathe the woman). </p>
<p align="left">Whether you are a fan or foe, there can no longer be any doubt that Hillary Clinton attempted to mislead the American people. She and her aides were way, way beyond careless in the way they handled ultra-sensitive state secrets.</p>
<p align="left">But even if that has been settled, plenty of questions remain. For one, how did FBI boss James Comey determine that Mrs. Clinton was 'extremely careless,' but not grossly negligent? </p>
<p align="left">Highly-trained etymologists are having a field day explaining the difference. </p>
<p align="left">And what about Comey himself? Prior to this week we heard, ad nauseam, that the FBI's head honcho is a fearless and incorruptible 'straight shooter,' the very reincarnation of Eliot Ness. But now conservatives have decided that the big guy is corrupt, in the tank for his bosses.</p>
<p align="left">Over the past few days on The Factor we have heard some credible explanations for Comey's willingness, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, to give Mrs. Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card. </p>
<p align="left">Bernie Goldberg, among others, argued that Director Comey simply didn't want to be the one to throw the 2016 election into utter chaos. As if it's not chaotic already! </p>
<p align="left">And then there's Bret Stephens, the always-perspicacious columnist for the Wall Street Journal. During an appearance on The Factor Wednesday, Stephens laid out a convincing case that James Comey is a cunning political animal.</p>
<p align="left">"Comey is terrific when it comes to prosecuting Martha Stewart and other unpopular people," Stephens accused. "He does what the Washington beltway thinks is the right thing, but it's a very different story when going against the presumptive Democratic nominee who is going to save the world from Donald Trump."</p>
<p align="left">Stephens, who has vigorously opposed Trump's candidacy, described Comey's move as absolutely predictable and a "purely political decision." If that assessment is correct, we no longer live in a nation that has equal justice for all.</p>
<p align="left">There are also questions about Donald Trump. Even though the Justice Department has declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton in the legal sense, will he be able to verbally prosecute her on the stump? It's up to him and his surrogates to convince voters that she is unfit for office.</p>
<p align="left">Mr. Trump will have to ignore the minutiae in which he often gets tangled and focus on Mrs. Clinton's well-documented perfidy. We will soon see whether he is up to the task at hand.</p>
<p align="left">We would be remiss in not mentioning what may be the single most outrageous statement of the weird week that was. Democratic Congressman Xavier Becerra of California, who has been mentioned as a vice presidential prospect, actually declared that Hillary Clinton, kind of like George Washington, never told a lie in this email fiasco. </p>
<p align="left">Loyalty is one thing, Congressman Becerra, but outright deceit is another.</p>
<p align="left">In the end, we the people are being told that it is time to put this all behind us and focus on the issues that really matter. But honesty and trust are not things you forget about, they are perennials.</p>
<p align="left">The past few days have revealed much about the people who are vying to lead this great nation. And there is much more to learn. So you'll have to excuse us if we are not quite ready to move on. Not quite yet.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-07-07T17:36:00ZStaff Column: The Nobelist and the TerroristsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column: The-Nobelist-and-the-Terrorists/-154628006087523254.html2016-06-30T19:41:00Z2016-06-30T19:41:00Z<p align="left">Remember when President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? The honor was announced in October 2009, after he had been in office for less than a full year.</p>
<p align="left">The Nobel Committee praised the president for creating a 'new climate,' and for reaching out to the Muslim world. Well, let us ask the committee a clichéd and overused question: 'How's that working out for you?'</p>
<p align="left">One month after the Nobel announcement, Muslim fanatic Major Nidal Hasan slaughtered 13 people at Fort Hood in what was laughingly called an act of 'workplace violence.' </p>
<p align="left">Apparently Hasan did not get the memo about Muslim outreach.</p>
<p align="left">To his credit, when Mr. Obama accepted that Nobel Prize, he acknowledged that 'evil does exist in the world.' He cited Adolf Hitler and Al Qaeda as examples of evil men who had to be confronted by brute force.</p>
<p align="left">However, in the years since, the president has been a very reluctant terror warrior. To be sure, he has killed scores of terrorist leaders with drone strikes and has bombed ISIS facilities in Iraq and Syria.</p>
<p align="left">But he prefers to talk about 'containing' ISIS, not smashing it. </p>
<p align="left">Taking another trip down a memory lane that is littered with dead bodies, last November President Obama boasted that the Islamic State had been 'contained.' A few hours later the jihadist savages carried out their bloody attacks in Paris.</p>
<p align="left">More recently, two weeks ago the president reassured all of us that 'we are making significant progress' in the fight against ISIL, his preferred term for the Islamic State. Then came Istanbul and dozens more killed.</p>
<p align="left">Want another dollop of outrage? When President Obama met with the leaders of Canada and Mexico in the so-called 'Three Amigos' summit this week, the trio focused on LGBT rights and global warming. Seriously. This was less than a day after ISIS blew up another airport!</p>
<p align="left">While in Ottawa, the president also found time to denounce UK voters for opting out of the European Union, and he assailed the 'demagoguery' of certain politicians. He didn't name Donald Trump. He didn't have to.</p>
<p align="left">Our commander-in-chief is a study in inaction and evasion, always preferring to blame anything other than Islamic terrorism. That is the evil that dare not speak its name, at least in the White House. </p>
<p align="left">What in the world is going on? How unserious is this administration? </p>
<p align="left">While President Obama insists on calling the terrorists 'ISIL,' Secretary of State John Kerry refers to them as 'Daesh,' a term the butchers reportedly abhor. So while ISIS concentrates on Semtex, our leaders worry about semantics.</p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sounding more like John Lennon than John Wayne, implies that terror can be fought with 'love and compassion.' </p>
<p align="left">Such is the sad state of our war on terror. </p>
<p align="left">But what about the post-Obama strategy? </p>
<p align="left">During his appearance on The Factor Wednesday, Donald Trump laid out his plans for demolishing ISIS. He says NATO, under strong American leadership, 'ought to go in there and wipe them out.' He also predicted that Turkey will retaliate by unleashing a powerful assault on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.</p>
<p align="left">Hillary Clinton also talks far tougher than President Obama. After the Istanbul carnage, she vowed to 'defeat the forces of terrorism and radical jihadism around the world.' She didn't use the dreaded 'I' word, but she came close.</p>
<p align="left">President Obama was absolutely correct when he said, while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, that evil will always exist. But it must be confronted, not contained. The non-evil people in this world, meaning the vast majority of us, need to hit back at the savages with ferocity.</p>
<p align="left">There can be no more playing defense, no more name games, no more rejection of force. As counter-terrorism analyst Jim Hanson said on The Factor this week, 'somebody has to go in and cut down the ISIS flag.' </p>
<p align="left">But who will do that? And when? There is a nagging fear that not much will be accomplished on the terror front until a new commander-in-chief occupies the Oval Office. </p>
<p align="left">He or she will not have a Nobel Peace Prize on the mantle. Which may be a very, very good thing.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-06-30T19:41:00ZStaff Column: A Bizarre and Unholy AllianceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column: A-Bizarre-and-Unholy-Alliance/-271518402719164351.html2016-06-23T17:23:00Z2016-06-23T17:23:00Z<p align="left">Imagine a scenario: One week after the 9/11 terror attacks, 79% of Republicans blame Islamic terrorism, while 60% of Democrats blame airplanes.</p>
<p align="left">Of course that is unthinkable and ridiculous – every sane American understood that radical Muslims were the culprits.</p>
<p align="left">But now, in the wake of the Orlando terror attacks, 4 in 5 Republicans blame Islamism, while 6 in 10 Democrats point to easy access to guns. That is despite the killer's declared allegiance to ISIS and his professed devotion to Allah.</p>
<p align="left">There is something truly bizarre about the left's knee-jerk defense of Islam. And the farther left one goes on the political spectrum, the greater the reluctance to criticize the religion or its most radical practitioners. (Although they have no such reluctance when it comes to denouncing Christianity.)</p>
<p align="left">Put another way, people who incessantly proclaim their 'tolerance' often ally themselves with a religion whose adherents tend to be the most intolerant people on the planet.</p>
<p align="left">Yes, there are millions of peaceful and open-minded Muslims, and it goes without saying that most Muslims will never, ever commit a violent act. But polls taken in predominantly Islamic nations, even those considered moderate, are eye-opening … and depressing.</p>
<p align="left">In most of those countries, a majority of citizens believes that converting from Islam is a crime worthy of death. Attitudes towards women and gays make the most bigoted American redneck look like a diversity trainer.</p>
<p align="left">All ten countries in which homosexuality is punishable by execution share a common religion, and it's not Presbyterianism. One of those homophobic and homo-cidal nations is our good friend Iran, while others include Clinton Foundation benefactors Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.</p>
<p align="left">Nevertheless, despite the abysmal human rights records of nearly every Islamic nation, many on the American left have a blind spot when it comes to this true intolerance.</p>
<p align="left">When there is news of a bombing or mass killing, self-styled progressives strive mightily to avoid any connection with Islam or the Koran. </p>
<p align="left">You may remember the MSNBC anchor who said this after the attempted bombing in Times Square: 'Part of me was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.' She was, of course, sorely disappointed.</p>
<p align="left">But why? Why are so many on the left averse to denouncing Islamic-inspired terror? That question has perplexed many conservatives, some of whom have written entire books on the subject.</p>
<p align="left">One answer is that the far left and radical Islam share a few common enemies. They loathe American culture, capitalism, and the prosperity that our free market economic system has engendered.</p>
<p align="left">The radical left embraces the narrative that America is the wellspring of most of the world's ills. They see the USA as a nation of gross unfairness, a place where money is worshipped and minorities are victims.</p>
<p align="left">Radical Islamists also despise America and condemn it as a source of evil, especially when it comes to our sexual mores and freedom. So lefties and radical Muslims both hold a grudge against the United States, although often for far different reasons.</p>
<p align="left">To be sure, most Democrats unquestionably love this country. They are as patriotic as any flag-waving conservative and should not be conflated with the far left fringe. But far too many liberals, perhaps in an effort to display their self-proclaimed tolerance, simply refuse to acknowledge that one religion might be different from any other.</p>
<p align="left">This blindness is most apparent when there is a terrorist atrocity like the one in Orlando. How much easier to blame an inanimate metal object than the person pulling the trigger, especially if it enhances your own sense of self-righteousness.</p>
<p align="left">However, there is one unmistakable reality that has been put forth before, but which way too many Democrats refuse to hear: Not all Muslims are terrorists, far from it. But almost all terrorists are Muslim. There is simply no way to escape that fact, no matter how much leftists try. And they certainly do try hard, don't they?</p>
<p align="left">In Orlando they blamed guns and homophobia. After the next attack they will blame something else. Anything, that is, except radical Islam. While that ideology causes mayhem and misery around the globe, leftists prefer to look away. To their eternal shame. </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-06-23T17:23:00ZStaff Column: Islamic Terror, Idiotic ReactionsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column: -Islamic-Terror-Idiotic-Reactions/-262462582269266245.html2016-06-16T16:58:00Z2016-06-16T16:58:00Z<p align="left">First, we should give credit where credit is due. </p>
<p align="left">The administration, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media - all of whom play for the same team - pulled off an astounding feat of jiu-jitsu after the terror attacks in Orlando.</p>
<p align="left">Omar Mateen was an Islamic radical who had pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. Mateen's own words could not be more clear. On the very day of the attack, he wrote this on Facebook: 'May Allah accept me.' </p>
<p align="left">Got that? That's Allah, as in 'Allahu Akbar.'</p>
<p align="left">But many on the left, infused with an inexplicable aversion to Islamic-inspired terror, searched for some other rationale for the carnage. Just about any rationale would do. Here are a few of the more egregious examples:</p>
<p align="left">- The New York Daily News blamed the National Rifle Association for opposing a ban on 'assault rifles.' Never mind the fact that Mateen's Sig Sauer MCX may not actually fit the definition of an assault rifle. Then again, the wretched Daily News blames the NRA for psoriasis.</p>
<p align="left">- The New York Times, allegedly a more respectable newspaper, ran an especially despicable editorial. 'Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians,' the editorial writers omnisciently proclaimed, and blamed that on Republicans. </p>
<p align="left">- CNN contributor Sally Kohn theorized that the real villains in this slaughter are...Christians. Her logic is too twisted to follow, but it goes something like this: If you oppose same-sex marriage, you might as well have pulled the trigger at Pulse.</p>
<p align="left">- Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat, said, 'This is not about ISIS, this is not about any kind of foreign terror.' Apparently the congressman knows more about Mateen's motivation than the killer himself. </p>
<p align="left">There are countless other examples of perfidy that began within hours after the ISIS devotee's rampage. Our political leaders were only slightly more circumspect.</p>
<p align="left">President Obama finally proved that he can be absolutely enraged after an act of terror. Unfortunately, his palpable anger was directed at Donald Trump, who had chastised the president for eschewing the term 'radical Islamic terrorism.'</p>
<p align="left">The world might actually be a safer place if the president was just as angry at radical Islam itself. Perhaps we'd see that kind of visceral reaction if Donald Trump pledged allegiance to ISIS.</p>
<p align="left">On the other side of the political divide-turned-chasm, conservatives and Republicans tended to view the attack as pure Islamic terrorism. But they don't get a free pass.</p>
<p align="left">Many on the right stick their fingers in their ears when confronted about gun violence, which is indeed a deadly problem in America. They immediately invoke the sacrosanct Second Amendment and its 27 words.</p>
<p align="left">But the right to bear arms does not confer the right to possess a hand grenade, bazooka, or even a fully automatic machine gun. Congress should debate what kinds of weapons are to be banned in the USA, while individual states can decide for themselves who can carry concealed weapons.</p>
<p align="left">There are rare moments when a terror attack brings America together. Think of the reaction after 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing. But those horrendous acts did not involve firearms or a gay bar, so there was no way for the left to run their usual misdirection. </p>
<p align="left">We should be clear about a few things. It is blindingly obvious that many Islamic jihadists are at war with us and the West. Yet the American left, for whatever reason, always leaps to deny any correlation between Islam and terror. Even when the killers openly and proudly declare their faith. </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, too many on the American right leap to avoid any debate about high-powered weaponry. And, hey, it's not easy to leap while in the middle of a knee-jerk reaction. Gun people have to learn the definition of 'compromise.'</p>
<p align="left">Crazed ideologues on both sides actually help the terrorists. And so do weak leaders in Congress and the White House. On both fronts and on all sides, we can do so much better.</p>
<p align="left">Thoughts and prayers are good and valuable things. But they are just not enough to stop the madness.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-06-16T16:58:00ZStaff Column: Finally, The Main EventBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Staff-Column:nbsp;nbsp;-Finally-The-Main-Event/201569498537234220.html2016-06-09T16:45:00Z2016-06-09T16:45:00Z<p align="left">The undercard, while not always enlightening, was certainly entertaining.</p>
<p align="left">It all began fifteen months ago, in March of 2015, when Senator Ted Cruz uttered these words: 'I am running for president of the United States.'</p>
<p align="left">He was soon followed by Jeb, Marco, Rand, a couple of Ricks, and what seemed like a few hundred other Republicans who looked in the mirror and saw the next commander-in-chief staring back at them.</p>
<p align="left">And then there was Trump. </p>
<p align="left">Where were you one year ago, on June 16<sup>th</sup>, when he made that announcement at his eponymous tower in Manhattan? In a preview of coming distractions, Donald Trump reminded the gathering, 'I'm really rich.'</p>
<p align="left">In the other corner, Hillary Clinton jumped into the ring last April. </p>
<p align="left">She may have expected victory by proclamation, but then Bernie Sanders came and messed it all up. The supposedly pre-ordained victory, expected to be signed, sealed, and delivered in a few months, wound up taking more than a year.</p>
<p align="left">And now, at last, the two pugilists are glaring at each other from across the ring with mutual loathing and disgust. </p>
<p align="left">'Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit,' she insists, adding that he is an outright bigot. Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed counter-puncher accuses her of financial fraud and worse.</p>
<p align="left">This is merely the beginning. Over the coming months the personal attacks will grow more intense. The media will shed crocodile tears decrying the invective, all the while reaping the financial benefits of high ratings and increased newspaper sales.</p>
<p align="left">But forget for a moment the show business aspects of this brawl. We should always keep in mind that there are issues at stake that will determine America's future.</p>
<p align="left">Near the top of the list is illegal immigration. Secretary of State John Kerry recently applauded the idea of a 'borderless world.' Really? Mrs. Clinton, pushed far to the far left by Sanders, demands 'a path to full and equal citizenship' for most illegal immigrants in the USA.</p>
<p align="left">Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, seems to have absolutely no problem with sanctuary cities that provide safe harbor to illegal immigrants, even those with criminal records. </p>
<p align="left">Someone might want to ask the family of Kate Steinle about the wisdom of giving 'sanctuary' to felons.</p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump, of course, endorses a massive wall and mass deportation. The deportation deal is not realistic, but nowhere is the contrast between the two candidates more stark. Either we have a country with borders and laws, or we do not.</p>
<p align="left">Then there is terrorism and ISIS. There was another reminder of the savages' inhumanity this week when a couple of Muslim terrorists opened fire at a crowded mall in Israel.</p>
<p align="left">Hillary Clinton denounced the 'heinous' terrorist attack and affirmed that Israel has every right to defend itself against the barbarians. But Mrs. Clinton, like her former boss, generally refuses to utter the term 'Islamic terrorism.'</p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump is less reticent about identifying our enemies, although he seems to now realize that his notorious ban on Islamic immigrants is not going to happen. Nor should it.</p>
<p align="left">By the way, in case you wonder what Israelis themselves think, twice as many believe Donald Trump would be better at leading the fight against terrorism.</p>
<p align="left">Right now the news media are going absolutely wild over Donald Trump's ill-conceived comments about a judge. It's obvious that many in the press feel they have finally found the verbal straw that might break Trump's proverbial back. So they can not and will not let it go, at least for a few more news cycles.</p>
<p align="left">But this too shall pass. </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump will undoubtedly say more questionable stuff, Hillary Clinton will continue to bob and weave and duck accusations of chicanery and criminality.</p>
<p align="left">Like most of us, these are two deeply flawed human beings. But unless something very bizarre happens, one of these far-less-than-perfect individuals will soon be leading our nation. </p>
<p align="left">The time has come for all of us, including the media, to focus a little less on personal invective, and a lot more on the future of America. The stakes are truly enormous.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-06-09T16:45:00ZGorilla In The Midst...Of MadnessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gorilla-In-The-Midst...Of-Madness/-967685727258276005.html2016-06-02T17:43:00Z2016-06-02T17:43:00Z<p align="left">As you surely know, officials at the Cincinnati Zoo shot and killed Harambe the gorilla Saturday. They had absolutely no choice after a 3-year-old boy fell into Harambe's pen and was in mortal danger.</p>
<p align="left">But as you may not know, 69 human beings were shot in Chicago over the three-day Memorial Day weekend. Six of them died.</p>
<p align="left">There has been plenty of hand-wringing about Harambe the loveable ape. Americans flooded Facebook and Twitter, many expressing deep disgust at the zookeepers and the toddler's parents.</p>
<p align="left">Have you noticed a similar outcry about Chicago, where some young men spent Memorial Day weekend being memorialized? </p>
<p align="left">Of course not. </p>
<p align="left">According to one analysis, network news programs devoted 54 times more coverage to the gorilla than they did to the Chicago carnage.</p>
<p align="left">Part of this is perfectly understandable. The media went ape because the zoo incident was a very rare and thus newsworthy 'man bites dog' story. In this case, it was a 'gorilla threatens boy' story.</p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, many Americans view the mayhem in Chicago as old news. </p>
<p align="left">The Chicago Tribune actually keeps a running tally of the violence, kind of like a box score for the Cubbies. The latest stats show that 1,500 people were shot in the city thus far in 2016 and Chicago is on pace to easily eclipse last year's brutality. </p>
<p align="left">A few things go without saying. First, the vast majority of the shooting victims are young black men living in neighborhoods where many white folks fear to tread.</p>
<p align="left">Second, most of those victims, and their assailants, grew up in single-parent homes that are frequently chaotic.</p>
<p align="left">Third, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other officials will blame guns while avoiding family breakdown and other tough-to-talk-about issues. </p>
<p align="left">Finally, Black Lives Matter will be absolutely, totally, conspicuously silent. Until, of course, some white cop shoots a black person, justifiably or not. That will bring the BLM roaches out of the woodwork, where they await the next opportunity to bash cops.</p>
<p align="left">As an aside, can you imagine the uproar if Harambe had killed that 3-year-old black boy because zoo officials declined to kill the ape? We would be hearing endlessly that America, irredeemably racist to its very core, values the life of a gorilla more than that of a black child.</p>
<p align="left">Memorial Day is over and summer is here. We can predict with certainty that Chicago will continue to be plagued with more violence than New York, Los Angeles, and most other major U.S. cities. And we can predict with even more certainty that self-proclaimed progressives will blame guns. </p>
<p align="left">As the Geico commercial says, 'that's what they do!'</p>
<p align="left">There was a particularly sad exposition on The Factor this week when two veteran Chicago media types joined the fray. One of them blamed Chicago's 'segregation' and predictably declared, 'You've got too many guns on the streets.' The other guest denounced Chicago's 'racism' and blamed budget cuts and a lack of resources. </p>
<p align="left">C'mon, people, please get real!</p>
<p align="left">The killings in Chicago are beyond infuriating, they are an outrage against humanity and decency and morality. </p>
<p align="left">So forget about Harambe, the deceased 450-pound gorilla. As one of The Factor guests pithily reminded everyone, 'We've got a gorilla in Chicago, and the gorilla in Chicago is violence.' </p>
<p align="left">Unlike officials in other cities, Chicago politicians and police have been unwilling or unable to slay that metaphorical gorilla. The time has come for new leadership, beginning with the ultra-incompetent mayor. </p>
<p align="left">So why not do the right thing, Mayor Emanuel? Your good pals at Goldman Sachs have a plush leather seat waiting for you. We hear the hours are good and the pay is extravagant. Beyond that, you'll be doing a huge favor to the good people of Chicago. </p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-06-02T17:43:00ZAccentuating The NegativeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Accentuating-The-Negative/680315553028228195.html2016-05-26T18:21:00Z2016-05-26T18:21:00Z<p align="left">One of 1945's most popular songs had a rather bizarre title, which actually included phonetic spelling. </p>
<p align="left">'Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive' was written by Broadway legends Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer and has been covered by singers from The Andrews Sisters to Paul McCartney.</p>
<p align="left">'You've got to accentuate the positive,' Mercer's lyrics advised, 'and latch on to the affirmative.'</p>
<p align="left">We thought of those words after reading some astounding new poll numbers. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are setting records for latching on to negative feelings among voters.</p>
<p align="left">The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll has both nominees viewed unfavorably by 57% of the American people. </p>
<p align="left">Their positive ratings are slightly higher than lawyers and newspaper reporters, a bit lower than auto mechanics.</p>
<p align="left">Mrs. Clinton's popularity, which peaked during her tenure as Secretary of State, has been on a steep decline. And it may take another hit after this week's scathing report about her private email server.</p>
<p align="left">Trump has been moving in the other direction, but he started with some mighty lofty negatives. Even in his days as a reality show host, his favorables hovered around 50%.</p>
<p align="left">So where does this leave us with the general election just six months away?</p>
<p align="left">Both candidates claim they have enough time to win over millions of American voters. Trump will probably be a little softer and more dignified. And Clinton will eventually shake free of that annoying, yapping pup known as Bernie Sanders. Her campaign insists that being the official nominee will enable her to channel Dale Carnegie and win friends and influence people.</p>
<p align="left">But there's a problem in that analysis. </p>
<p align="left">Both Clinton and Trump are extraordinarily well known, having been on the national stage for decades. Only about 3% of Americans don't have an opinion on them. And those opinions will be tougher to turn around than the proverbial battleship.</p>
<p align="left">To Donald Trump's ardent supporters, he can do no wrong. So he has to go after the rest of the electorate by being less demeaning and insulting. Shock and awe have worked well thus far, but he has to cut down on the Vince Foster conspiracy theories and the more salacious Bill Clinton accusations.</p>
<p align="left">Hillary Clinton's base of fans is less enthusiastic, so she should focus on winning over the fevered Sanders crowd. She is not a natural campaigner, but she usually does well in one-on-one interviews. </p>
<p align="left">So, Madam Secretary, how about giving some interviews where you may face a few tough questions? You know, the kind of questions you won't get from George Stephanopoulos, Chris Cuomo, or the mononymous Ellen.</p>
<p align="left">Mrs. Clinton missed a great opportunity when she declined to participate in a Fox News debate with Bernie Sanders in California. True, she has little to gain, given that her nomination is a foregone conclusion. But it was a chance to reach a different audience and showcase her knack for thinking on her feet.</p>
<p align="left">Of course, it goes without saying that Hillary Clinton has an open invitation to visit the friendly confines of the No Spin Zone. Ours is a venue where independent thinkers will see her and make up their own minds.</p>
<p align="left">One more very interesting thing about favorability ratings in this strangest of years. A new poll looked at the popularity of candidates' spouses over recent decades. Barbara Bush was liked by 75% of Americans in 1992, while Laura Bush and Michelle Obama were also extremely popular. </p>
<p align="left">This time around? Melania Trump is viewed unfavorably by more than 30% of Americans, while potential 'First Man' Bill Clinton is even less popular. </p>
<p align="left">Over the past 25 years only one presidential spouse has been more disliked than Melania and Bill. </p>
<p align="left">Can you guess who? Of course, Hillary Clinton in 1996. </p>
<p align="left">The woman certainly has a knack for polarizing the American public. And now, in Donald Trump, she has finally met her match.</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-05-26T18:21:00ZMedia Vs. Trump, Cage MatchBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Media-Vs.-Trump-Cage-Match/-27784603858429189.html2016-05-19T21:52:00Z2016-05-19T21:52:00Z<p align="left">To borrow from the late Joan Rivers, 'Can we talk?' </p>
<p align="left">Just between us, many supposedly objective reporters simply can not hide their deep, deep disdain for Donald J. Trump.</p>
<p align="left">Want a very recent example? Almost immediately after the EgyptAir passenger jet went down on Thursday morning, Trump described it as quite possibly 'yet another terrorist attack.' He also posed the question, 'When will we get tough, smart and vigilant?' </p>
<p align="left">Meanwhile, more traditional politicians were hiding under their desks.</p>
<p align="left">In response, the properly liberal writer and editor Christopher Dickey accused Trump of engaging in a 'very cynical ploy,' also accusing Trump of launching his campaign by capitalizing on the deaths of terror victims. </p>
<p align="left">How typical! Trump says what he thinks, media swell voices strong disapproval.</p>
<p align="left">While reporters certainly appreciate Trump's accessibility, they generally don't much care for the man. He just doesn't comport himself the way one should at, say, a Manhattan or Georgetown dinner party. </p>
<p align="left">As we know, he is accused of boasting about his money, he has objectified women, and he has disparaged entire religions and ethnic groups. In other words, Trump not only touches the third rail of political incorrectness, he proudly hangs onto the rail while waving to his foes.</p>
<p align="left">This makes reportage on Donald Trump very problematic. </p>
<p align="left">If pretty much everyone at the New York Times finds him gauche and vulgar, who can cover him fairly? Last week the Times ran a long, long story about Trump's relationship with women, a piece that has since been mocked for its inaccuracy. </p>
<p align="left">Even the legendary Bob Woodward, appearing on The Factor this week, conceded that it was 'not one of the Times' best stories.'</p>
<p align="left">But what did anyone expect? The article was co-written by a young man who had written snarky Tweets about Trump and a young woman who obviously abhors Trump's beauty pageants and his macho demeanor. </p>
<p align="left">Let's just say neither reporter will be voting for Trump. Then again, neither will anyone else at the Times. At least no one who will admit it to their colleagues.</p>
<p align="left">Taking the handoff from the Times, CBS News used the questionable story as a springboard to grill Ivanka Trump about her father. The remarkably poised 34-year-old had to politely deny that her dad is a 'groper.' </p>
<p align="left">One wonders whether another candidate's daughter, 36-year-old Chelsea Clinton, will sit down with CBS News. And whether she will be similarly interrogated about her mother's financial dealings or her father's past indiscretions.</p>
<p align="left">The essential problem is the national media itself. </p>
<p align="left">With exceptions, they went to the same universities, have the same values, and share a tendency to sneer at average Americans. This indisputable bias, impeccably documented by our own Bernie Goldberg, is self-perpetuating. Editors at the Times and the Washington Post and the Boston Globe tend to hire their own types. </p>
<p align="left">A question: Do you think you'll find an open evangelical Christian in the New York Times newsroom or editorial board? Doubtful. </p>
<p align="left">Rather, the swells at the Times denigrate evangelicals as yahoos and superstitious hicks. And some job advice: Don't wear a large cross around your neck when interviewing for a position at the Times. Instead, talk about your deep concern over 'climate change' and your eternal quest for 'social justice.'</p>
<p align="left">Things are not about to get better, but this time around the media are facing a far different kind of Republican. </p>
<p align="left">Sure, they hit John McCain and Mitt Romney, two gentlemen who were loath to hit back. </p>
<p align="left">Donald Trump is a different story. </p>
<p align="left">After the Times story came out, he ridiculed the paper as a 'failing' enterprise and described the report as a 'joke.' 'Everyone is laughing at the @nytimes for the lame hit piece they did on me and women,' Trump gleefully wrote.</p>
<p align="left">Things are about to get even nastier, especially after the Democrats settle on Hillary Clinton as their nominee. The press is not fond of Mrs. Clinton, to be sure, but they do not despise her in the way they loathe Trump.</p>
<p align="left">So, yes, Donald Trump needs to be prepared for the coming onslaught. At the same time, the elite media should get ready for a guy who will punch them right back, often twice as hard. </p>
<p align="left">Who needs Rio and the Olympics? Let the real games begin!</p>BillOReilly.com Staff2016-05-19T21:52:00ZIgnoring Racial RealitiesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ignoring-Racial-Realities/47481.html2016-05-12T07:00:00Z2016-05-12T07:00:00ZPresident Obama's recent speech to newly-minted Howard University graduates was widely praised. <br /><br />'Obama gets all in his blackness,' gushed NPR, putting your tax dollars to work. Another writer described the speech as 'one of the best and blackest he's given.'<br /><br />Not all observers were quite so impressed. <br /><br />David Clarke, the black sheriff of Milwaukee County, opined that President Obama 'never misses the opportunity to play the race card.' And Rush Limbaugh, with his characteristic understatement, described the talk as 'hideous.'<br /><br />A great and honest dissertation on race? Or a shameless and pandering message to a sycophantic audience? <br /><br />The truth, as usual, lies somewhere between those extremes.<br /><br />Perhaps the talk was most notable for what was not in it. There was not a single mention of fatherlessness or the disintegration of the black family. Not one! <br /><br />The president, while decrying an 'unfair and unjust' system and a 'justice gap,' never once brought up the scourge of single-parent families.<br /><br />A major theme of the president's address was how much things have changed in America since his college graduation in 1983. Coincidentally, in that very year the New York Times published a story lamenting the fact that 55% of black babies were being born to unmarried mothers. <br /><br />And now? That number is north of 70%, a complete and utter social disaster.<br /><br />President Obama decried the number of black Americans behind bars, but apparently he does not notice the correlation between fatherlessness and criminality. Rather, cloaking himself in that accent he dons for certain occasions, the president implied that our drug laws are simply too harsh.<br /><br />Two items in the president's much-lauded speech stand out as particularly ill-chosen. First, this: 'We can't just lock up a low-level dealer without asking why this boy, barely out of childhood, felt he had no other options.'<br /><br />Is he serious? <br /><br />This is progressivism at its absolute worst, implying that a young man simply had 'no other options.' What an insult to the millions of teens who take entry-level jobs and try mightily to work their way up. The president, rather than excusing drug dealing, should be lauding those who eschew the lazy and immoral path of criminality.<br /><br />Even worse was the president's conscious decision to praise the odious group Black Lives Matter. No room in the speech for family disintegration, but plenty of time to mention BLM. Not once, but twice.<br /><br />We should be very clear. Black Lives Matter is a hateful, radical group that doesn't much like free speech, as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton learned when they were shouted down by BLM 'activists.' <br /><br />Black Lives Matter isn't too keen on cops, either. Who can forget their lovely chant, 'Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon?'<br /><br />But this is a group that President Obama chooses to hold up as a model of citizen activism? C'mon, Mr. President. What about your own very worthy initiative 'My Brother's Keeper,' which tries to help young men get their footing in life?<br /><br />Two mentions of Black Lives Matter, a big shout-out to Beyoncé, but nary a word about a corrosive culture that too often glorifies violence and anti-social behavior.<br /><br />At his best, President Obama uses his presidential pulpit to stress responsibility, family values, faith, and individual initiative. At his worst, he tells black Americans that the deck is stacked against them, that the country remains an unjust and unfair place.<br /><br />We should all hope that President Barack Obama spends his final eight months in office - and his long post-presidency - urging people to avoid excuses and take responsibility for their lives. Not just black Americans, but all Americans.<br /><br />Howard University was not President Obama's finest moment. He pandered to his audience, gave them just what they wanted to hear. That's not the mark of a true leader. <br /><br />Mr. President, you can do better. So much better.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-05-12T07:00:00ZDefying The Odds, DefiantlyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Defying-The-Odds-Defiantly/47435.html2016-05-05T07:00:00Z2016-05-05T07:00:00ZTurn back, not too far, to July of last year. An online website that measures public opinion laid out the odds of various candidates winning the Republican nomination.<br /><br />Front-runners Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio were all between 20% and 30%. And Donald Trump, who had thrown his coif into the ring a month earlier, was given a 1% chance.<br /><br />One in one hundred! <br /><br />Those were the same odds faced by the Boston Red Sox after they fell behind the New York Yankees three games to none in the 2004 ALCS. But at least the Sox had Big Papi and Curt Schilling. <br /><br />Donald Trump had no political experience, just an uncanny knack for tapping into America's anger at standard issue politicians.<br /><br />Trump's instinct has enabled him to stun the political world. And now he has to decide how much to soften his rhetoric. Too much Mr. Nice Guy and he is no longer the defiant one who attracted the disaffected. Too much Mr. Tough Guy and he risks alienating Democrats and independents that he badly needs.<br /><br />Between now and July, when the GOP holds its convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump will need to channel Goldilocks.<br /><br />Part of the answer will be picking cabinet members who will give establishment Republicans a thrill up their legs. How about Chris Christie at Justice, Ben Carson at Health & Human Services, Rudy Giuliani at Homeland Security? And there has to be a vice presidential pick with impeccable conservative credentials.<br /><br />We saw Trump make a pivot this week that would have induced whiplash in any mere mortal. <br /><br />One day after implying that Ted Cruz's father was an accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald, Trump was hailing Cruz as a great competitor. The Texas Senator, in the course of a few hours, went from 'Lyin' Ted' to 'Ted the Lion-Hearted.'<br /><br />But no matter how much he pivots, there are Republicans who will never, ever back Donald Trump. <br /><br />Charles Krauthammer, during a Tuesday night appearance on The Factor, doubted whether he would be capable of voting for Trump, questioning Trump's conservatism and temperament. Charles even went all nuclear, implying that Trump was not to be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.<br /><br />The next day both Presidents Bush said they will not endorse Trump, perhaps not surprising after Trump hammered Jeb Bush mercilessly and accused George W. Bush of making the greatest blunder in U.S. history.<br /><br />On the other hand, Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh concedes that Trump's economic message and promise of jobs could help him win industrial states that went for Obama, among them Michigan and Pennsylvania.<br /><br />The truth is, no one knows what will happen between now and November, so bet at your peril. <br /><br />Will Hillary Clinton be indicted? Will Donald Trump say something so outrageous that even his supporters will walk away? Will the candidates throw dirt or take the proverbial high road. That is usually the road less traveled in politics, but this is the most bizarre year in any of our lifetimes.<br /><br />On the media front, you can expect many reporters, anchors, columnists, and editorial boards to launch full-scale assaults on Trump. They despise the man, his policies, and his wealth. <br /><br />And finally, what about violence? <br /><br />The far left has been on a rampage, even dispatching little children to drop 'f bombs' on Trump supporters. Some Americans may vote for Clinton just to avoid the potential for mayhem; others will be so sickened by the protesters that they will move into the Trump camp.<br /><br />Right now Donald Trump remains an underdog. Bookies in London and the USA give him about a 30% chance of beating Hillary Clinton in November. Not great, but then again, it's a whole lot better than 1%.<br /><br />All this brings to mind an adage known as The Chinese Curse, which says this: 'May you live in interesting times.' We most certainly do, for better or worse.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-05-05T07:00:00ZThe Elites, the Unwashed, and Donald TrumpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Elites-the-Unwashed-and-Donald-Trump/47410.html2016-04-28T07:00:00Z2016-04-28T07:00:00ZGeorge W. Bush liked to say he was 'misunderestimated.' Well, when it comes to misunderestimation, Donald Trump puts 43 to shame.<br><br>Less than a year ago, lots of usually smart media types and politicians were busy predicting that Trump would never, ever run. Then they assured us that his candidacy would be short-lived, doomed to crash on the rocks of reality.<br><br>And now? <br><br>Very few people not named Cruz or Kasich raise much of a stink when Trump refers to himself as the 'presumptive nominee.'<br><br>Statistical guru Nate Silver is a case in point. Renowned for correctly predicting the results in 50 out of 50 states in 2012, he assured his followers that Trump essentially had no chance of winning the Republican primary. <br><br>The tarnished Silver now claims that Trump's success is a 'black swan,' an event so rare as to be absolutely unpredictable.<br><br>There's one big problem with that self-excusing analysis. <br><br>Lots of Americans, especially those oft-ridiculed folks who cling to their guns and religion, looked at Trump and did not see a black swan. They saw a white knight, an avenger who would rescue them from the dark forces of political correctness and elite smugness.<br><br>As an aside, an article called 'The Smug Style in American Liberalism,' written by a liberal in the liberal online publication Vox.com, has become one of the year's most-talked-about pieces. <br><br>The article lays out how progressive Americans came to view themselves as smarter, wiser, cooler, and far more enlightened than those God-fearing and Trump-loving hicks.<br><br>But back to Donald Trump and four issues that enabled him to strike the right chord with many millions of traditional Americans. <br><br>First and foremost is illegal immigration.<br><br>It's true that recent polls show that immigration is not a top priority for Trump voters. But the issue has been out there ever since he joined the race at that Trump Tower premiere gala. <br><br>Self-proclaimed progressives really don't like borders all that much. And the farther left you veer, the more you hear that borders and walls are actually 'racist' roadblocks that hurt the poor.<br><br>Donald Trump and his supporters have a far different take. They know that every country has to protect itself from illegal immigrants, especially those who would do harm. <br><br>Progressives look at Kate Steinle's murder and see one of those 'black swan' events. <br><br>Traditional Americans understand that there are far too many violent illegal aliens among us. They want a president who knows that as well.<br><br>A second Trump strength is his ability, despite his billions, to identify with the economic fears of less well-heeled Americans. Right or wrong, he blames much of the dislocation on trade deals with nations that are eating our lunch like John Kasich at a pancake breakfast. <br><br>Bernie Sanders took on the same problem from the left and it nearly earned him the Democratic nomination.<br><br>Third, Donald Trump has called out the Obama administration on America's weakness, especially the unwillingness to identify evil. <br><br>In his foreign policy speech Wednesday, Trump pointedly mentioned 'Islamic terrorism' four separate times. To President Obama and Hillary Clinton, that is a term that must never, ever be uttered. <br><br>But why? <br><br>Everyone knows that crazed Muslim fanatics are on the rampage, and that Christians and other infidels are their targets. Trump says it loud and clear, which resonates with millions of Americans.<br><br>Finally, there is political betrayal. <br><br>Many Americans are beyond sick and tired of the political correctness that has run roughshod over American institutions, beginning with college campuses.<br><br>Universities protect their delicate flowers with safe zones, speech codes, and kangaroo courts. Western civilization is portrayed as racist and sexist and all that other bad stuff, while the perfidies of the Muslim world are overlooked.<br><br>There is a common perception that President Obama identifies with the elites who just don't like or understand most Americans. And an equally common perception that Donald Trump understands the anxieties of the masses. Whether he can really fix things is open to question. <br><br>But Trump voters, all those millions who have defied the pundits, like the fact that he at least acknowledges their alienation from the Washington/Hollywood/Manhattan crowd.<br><br>This has been an election cycle unlike any other. A total newcomer, a guy who has never even been a political apprentice, has soared to the top of a major party. Along the way, Donald Trump defied all expectations and proved pretty much every expert wrong.<br><br>The 'black swan theory' holds that some events are so improbable that they can never be predicted, only recognized in hindsight. <br><br>Our elites now describe Donald Trump in those terms. But millions and millions of Americans, certainly not as well educated or cultured as those elites, do not need hindsight to understand the rise of Donald Trump.<br><br>Those 'low information voters' could have told the pundits many months ago that Donald Trump is the real deal, that they will stick with him to the very end. If only someone had taken the time to ask them.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-04-28T07:00:00ZGimme Shelter...And Lots Of Other Free StuffBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gimme-Shelter...And-Lots-Of-Other-Free-Stuff/47382.html2016-04-21T07:00:00Z2016-04-21T07:00:00ZJames Madison, 'The Father of the Constitution,' issued a prescient warning before the ink was even dry on that historic parchment. <br><br>The new American republic was perhaps a doomed experiment because, in Madison's words, 'There is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government.' <br><br>One of the great 'virtues' the Founders extolled was the absolute necessity for individual self-reliance. Without it, we would inevitably become a nation of givers and freeloaders.<br><br>Can anyone deny that's precisely what has happened? <br><br>Millions of voters, their hands outstretched like pitiful urchins in a Dickens novel, believe the federal government owes them. To them, all that jibberish about 'self-reliance' is a quaint relic, kind of like powdered wigs, breeches, and tricorne hats.<br><br>The government, meaning their fellow citizens, apparently owes them a job, education, health care, food, shelter, and financial security. That's just for starters. Let's not forget free condoms, intoxicants, and the other necessities of life.<br><br>But it's hard to blame the 'gimme' crowd. To borrow from Sam Cooke, they 'don't know much about history.' <br><br>They have been taught to scoff at the 'dead white males' who founded this nation, and they were raised to expect government goodies. Beyond that, it's part of human nature to accept freebies when they're offered. After all, how many well-heeled folks refuse to cash those Social Security checks that they really don't need?<br><br>No, let's place the preponderance of blame on our so-called leaders. <br><br>For months we heard Bernie Sanders, may his demagogic campaign rest in peace, railing against corporate greed and big banks. He was essentially telling his young and gullible followers that their lot in life is determined by some guys in slick suits on the corner of Broad and Wall. <br><br>That is false, and it is downright dangerous!<br><br>Then there are the odious race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter. They have blood on their hands, black blood, because they look the other way as young black men slaughter one another. They prefer to blame 'institutional racism,' white privilege, and even gun manufacturers. <br><br>Yeah, that's the ticket - it's the fault of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson!<br><br>Last week a professor named Eddie Glaude Jr., who teaches African-American Studies at Princeton University, actually decried the 'myth of black-on-black crime.' We'll mention again that 913 people have been shot in Chicago this year, most recently a one-year-old girl who was hit in the neck. Her family probably isn't buying into Glaude's 'myth' deal.<br><br>Presumptive nominees Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton aren't immune to wishful thinking. They say they'll punish U.S. companies who move jobs overseas. <br><br>Okay, but who will fill those jobs here when our broken schools and dysfunctional families turn out millions of young people who are downright irresponsible and ill-educated. They know how to ask for stuff, but have very little idea how to go out and get stuff on their own. Legally, that is.<br><br>What can society do for an 18-year-old who has ink on her neck, a baby on the way, and can't string together a coherent sentence? Let's face it, she's probably not going to be a CPA or RN any time soon. <br><br>The cycle continues.<br><br>Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton can vow to bring jobs back, but someone also has to have the guts to talk about the corrosive culture and the message that it sends to young Americans. Far too many of our citizens turn JFK's admonition on its head, asking only what the government can do for them.<br><br>It took decades to reach this state of affairs, which was accelerated by Barack Obama and his expansion of the welfare state. It will take decades to reverse course, if that is even possible.<br><br>It's worth considering a pithy quote from Benjamin Franklin, who was 81 during the sweltering summer of 1787 when the Constitution was hammered out in Philadelphia. He was the oldest person to sign the document, and tears streamed down his face as he affixed his signature.<br><br>When Franklin left the hall that September day, he was approached by a Philadelphia woman named Mrs. Powel. 'Well, Doctor,' she asked, 'what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?' Franklin's reply: 'A republic, if you can keep it.'<br><br>229 years later, sadly, that remains an open question.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-04-21T07:00:00ZThe Unmentionable Racial TruthBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Unmentionable-Racial-Truth/47362.html2016-04-14T07:00:00Z2016-04-14T07:00:00ZBill Clinton made a terrible mistake last week.<br><br>He told the truth. <br><br>As you know, the former president was challenged by some Black Lives Matter protesters, who believe Clinton's 1994 crime bill led to 'mass incarceration.' Mr. Clinton fought back, accusing the BLM agitators of protecting violent criminals.<br><br>For the record, that legislation was supported by leading lights of both parties and people of all races, and it was extremely effective. <br><br>Tougher sentencing saved thousands of lives over the past two decades, most of them in minority precincts. <br><br>So, do those black lives matter? Or do they not?<br><br>Criminal justice professor Barry Latzer, an expert on this subject if there is one, has laid out the facts, just the facts. Between 1960 and 1990 the USA endured a frightening wave of savagery, with violent crimes spiking 350%! Murderers released from jail in 1970 had served a median sentence of just over four years. Four years. After being convicted of violently removing another person from this earth.<br><br>Fed-up Americans finally demanded that elected officials get tough. The 1994 crime bill had bipartisan support, but it was predominantly a Democratic bill signed into law by a Democratic president. <br><br>'Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets,' President Clinton lamented as he signed the bill. <br><br>And his wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton, warned of a generation of 'super-predators.' She has since disavowed that description, and her husband says he 'almost' wants to apologize for telling the truth to Black Lives Matter.<br><br>The effects of the tough-on-crime initiative were immediate. As more very bad guys were sent to prison and kept there for longer periods of time, crime of course went down. <br><br>That should have surprised absolutely no one, although the New York Times was constantly flummoxed by the correlation.<br><br>This entire issue of crime and punishment is clouded by race. If Social Security is the 'third rail' of American politics, straight talk about race is the electric chair, especially for a liberal Democrat. <br><br>But facts can be stubborn, and sometimes inconvenient. <br><br>Black Americans, 13% of the population, commit about half the homicides in America. True, the vast majority of their victims are black, but those lives matter just as much as white lives. And on a per-capita basis, blacks are murdered eight times more frequently than their fellow citizens who are white.<br><br>Given those gruesome numbers, one would expect that black men, who commit a disproportionate share of violent crime, would also be disproportionately represented in U.S. prisons. <br><br>And they are. Very few Swedes or Japanese or Hasidim are locked up for violent crimes.<br><br>The causes of black criminality include family disintegration, slavery's enduring legacy, undeniable discrimination, and a host of other problems. Two major causes are the lack of education and a pervasive gangsta' culture that glorifies bad behavior. These are things many 'progressives' simply refuse to even consider.<br><br>When Hillary Clinton visited Harlem this week to kiss Al Sharpton's ring and pander to black voters, she implied that every problem in the black community is caused by racism and 'white privilege.' <br><br>Not a word about family breakup, corrosive culture, a lack of emphasis on education. Not a single word. <br><br>She also failed to deplore the fact that 857 Chicagoans were shot in the first 100 days of this year. One shooting every three hours! Maybe that paragraph was mistakenly omitted by the teleprompter operator.<br><br>To fix something, the first step is to acknowledge the problem. But when many Democrats are confronted with the above statistics, they tend to ignore, obfuscate, or lie. Some of them rely on the tired canard that thousands of minority Americans are in prison for smoking a joint. It's simply not the truth, but the truth doesn't seem to matter. There are far too many sickening charlatans who will not deal with the real issues, and that's the real racism in America.<br><br>Confronted by Black Lives Matter protesters a few months ago, Bernie Sanders simply allowed them to take over his microphone as he slinked off to the side. It was not exactly a profile in courage, but that kind of display has become par for the course in progressive circles. <br>There is a deep and pervasive fear of offending race hustlers, who are always so eager to denounce those who disagree with them as 'racists' and 'bigots.' Bill Clinton was an exception and it's unfortunate that he felt compelled to issue that semi-apology.<br><br>The 1994 crime bill benefitted Americans. White Americans, black Americans, and everyone else. The only losers were thugs and predators. But President Clinton's successors in the Democratic Party, which has veered far to the left over the past two decades, are running away from the bill with the speed of Usain Bolt.<br><br>We have reached a very troubling point in America where politicians actually feel the need to apologize for speaking the truth, especially when it comes to matters of race. <br><br>It is instructive. It is sad. And it is downright deadly.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-04-14T07:00:00ZA Much-Needed Break In The ActionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Much-Needed-Break-In-The-Action/47316.html2016-04-07T07:00:00Z2016-04-07T07:00:00ZHow about if we call this halftime of the primary season? True, more than 30 states have held primaries and caucuses, but the schedulers have mercifully built in a two-week break between Wisconsin and New York. The only exception is Wyoming's Democratic caucus on Saturday, with a handful of delegates up for grabs in our least-populated state.<br><br>So, what have we learned in the first half? Above all else, Donald Trump is the biggest political story of the year. He has routinely been denounced as a know-nothing, a bully, and of course a racist. The media, with some notable exceptions, despise Mr. Trump, his bluster, and his emphasis on stopping illegal immigration. But his legions of loyal followers, while a minority among Republicans, are standing by their man.<br><br>Trump's ascendance has entertainers and leftists, pardon the redundancy, queued up on Expedia to find the best way out of the country if he becomes president. That's the good news. Meanwhile, some Republican bigwigs are just as frightened, worried that he may actually shake up Washington in a way that politicians have promised for decades.<br><br>Nipping at his heels is Ted Cruz, perhaps the most disliked American politician since John Adams. Cruz is not a guy who wins friends, but his brand of pure, not-from-concentrate conservatism brings joy to the hearts of right-wingers. Of course, progressives consider that oxymoronic, since right-wingers are obviously heartless.<br><br>The Texas Senator is on a winning streak, but that could come to an abrupt halt in New York, kind of like when someone pulls the emergency brake on the subway. Speaking of subways, the always-dignified New York Daily News offers this advice to Cruz: 'Take the F U Train, Ted!' This is the same wretched and failing paper that called Trump a 'Dead Clown Walking' and the 'Anti Christ.' If anyone ponies up the $1 asking price for the Daily News, he or she is getting ripped off big time.<br><br>On the Democratic side, a woman facing indictment is barely defeating a hard-core socialist who has no solutions to anything at all. We ran it down on The Factor this week: Bernie Sanders offers nothing on ISIS, nothing on Iran, nothing on Putin. He wants more immigrants allowed into the country, more prisoners allowed out of jail.<br><br>Our $20-trillion debt is no big deal to Senator Sanders, but he is pretty keen on breaking up big banks. When pressed on just how he would do that, Bernie didn't have a flippin' clue. Really, no clue at all. Bernie Sanders is sincere, but you know what they say: Sincerity and $2.45 will get you a nice-sized cup of Starbucks coffee in New York City.<br><br>Then there is Hillary Clinton, who is campaigning hard in New York State while also glancing south to Washington. Our own Judge Andrew Napolitano has declared that she will be formally indicted by the Justice Department, which would effectively end her candidacy. Even if no indictment is forthcoming, a protest resignation by FBI officials could look even worse.<br><br>So the first half is in the books and here's a recap: Donald Trump is hanging on but he has to stop with the insults. Calling Ted Cruz names after Wisconsin was just not the stuff of greatness. Cruz is fighting hard, garnering as many delegates as possible, anticipating an open convention where he is the only alternative to Trump. And John Kasich? He's like little Gonzaga in the NCAA tournament, hanging around and hoping for a miracle.<br><br>As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton was supposed to have this all in the bag by now. But a wild-eyed socialist, like the pesky ant at the picnic, has ruined her coronation. Unless the FBI and DOJ get in the way, she will be the nominee. But even if she isn't, don't think for a minute that Bernie Sanders will emerge from The City of Brotherly Love as the Democratic standard-bearer. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the other party bosses just won't let it happen. They fear a Sanders candidacy more than Republican honchos fear a Trump victory.<br><br>So sit back, grab a healthy snack, and get ready. We hope the coming weeks and months include visits to The Factor by all the candidates, although Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and now even Donald Trump are avoiding us. C'mon in, folks, the water's just fine and you can certainly handle the tough-but-fair questions. You have an open invitation to inform America why you will be the best person to confront this nation's vexing problems.<br><br>We should all hope that the remainder of the primary season features the same level of skill and tough, high-level competition that we saw in this week's North Carolina-Villanova championship game. For political junkies, an open convention is every bit as exciting as a game-winning buzzer-beater. Maybe better, and certainly far less common. So enjoy the second half. And remember that the stakes are enormous.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-04-07T07:00:00ZSilly Season SquaredBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Silly-Season-Squared/47298.html2016-03-31T07:00:00Z2016-03-31T07:00:00ZUntil this week, Corey Lewandowski was known only to political junkies in the deepest throes of addiction. But suddenly Donald Trump's campaign manager is dominating cable news, especially CNN, which hasn't latched onto a story with such ferocity since the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.<br><br>At least that missing plane, and the fate of 239 human beings, was a genuine and newsworthy mystery. Right now we are devoting wall-to-wall coverage to scrutinizing, frame-by-frame, whether Lewandowski grabbed reporter Michelle Fields by the arm, with what amount of force, and the contradictory stories told after the fact. It's true that Trump's reaction says something about the candidate, but not much we didn't already know.<br><br>So, as a public service, we now remind you the voters what is actually at stake in the upcoming election. The next president, whether his or her name is Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Sanders, or Trump, will face some staggering problems.<br><br>One of them is income inequality. The wages of working Americans have stagnated for decades, while highly-educated people have prospered. Republicans will tell you that the flood of unskilled immigrants is pushing wages down, and there is evidence to support that. Democrats, especially those on the far left, believe the problem can be solved through government handouts and a much higher minimum wage.<br><br>The cold truth is that unskilled workers have to make themselves <em>less unskilled.</em> Learn a trade, develop your natural abilities, understand how to act in the workplace. The next president should level with the less-educated: Take responsibility for your own lives because no government handout can ever be as valuable as self-reliance.<br><br>Then there is the jihad, which is on the march around the globe. President Obama has tried to wish the problem away, but ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups, far from being 'contained,' have only gotten stronger. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, 30,000 people are being slaughtered by terrorists each year, nearly a tenfold increase from when President Obama took office. In far too many nations, the mere act of wearing a cross or carrying a Bible can cost you your life. That is inhumane, subhuman, and must be stopped.<br><br>It's true that attacks on U.S. soil are relatively rare, for which the Obama administration deserves credit. But it's also indisputable that the world is a far more dangerous place than it was eight years ago. The incoming president will have to reverse that trend. We have said repeatedly that the White House should mobilize NATO, the world's most potent military alliance, to combat the jihad with relentless might and force.<br><br>A third issue facing the next president is immigration and border security, and we can thank Donald Trump for bringing this to the forefront. In truth, only a wall can halt the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants across our very porous southern border. Democrats laugh out loud at the mere mention of a wall, but they might want to ask Israel whether a physical barrier can be effective.<br><br>Once the border is secure, which should not take long, Congress and the next administration can create some fair way to deal with illegal immigrants who have built lives here in the USA. They are not entitled to citizenship, but there is some humane way to allow them legal residence.<br><br>Those are just three issues among many. We have not even mentioned the $20-trillion debt, racial tension that only worsened under President Obama, a chaotic health care law, Iran's nuclear ambitions, Putin's belligerence, and a few thousand other life-and-death issues. Whoever emerges from the Final Five must deal with these from the jump.<br><br>So here's a novel idea. How about if we focus just a little more on some of the issues delineated above, a little less on who grabbed whose arm? Americans may find it slightly less entertaining, but it will be far more enlightening. The choice we collectively make in November will affect each and every one of us - our health, our economic security, our education, our overall well-being.<br><br>The candidates, we in the media, and Americans in general are too often treating this election as some combination of a horse race and a reality show. In fact, it is an election about the future of America itself. We need to realize that. And soon.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-03-31T07:00:00ZIf It's Tuesday, This Must Be BelgiumBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/If-Its-Tuesday-This-Must-Be-Belgium/47260.html2016-03-24T07:00:00Z2016-03-24T07:00:00ZThe title of that 1960s movie about a travel tour came to mind this past Tuesday when Islamic suicide bombers murdered dozens of innocent people in Brussels.<br><br>The jihadists have been on a very sick world tour of their own, with recent stops in Paris, San Bernardino, Turkey, and dozens of other places. They leave a trail of blood, dead bodies, and politicians spewing empty platitudes.<br><br>The Islamist terror spree has exposed the deep chasm between our political parties. On one side are some Republicans who advocate mass surveillance, carpet bombing, and immigration bans. Then there are the Democrats, who downplay the terror threat and wish it would just go away on its own.<br><br>Hillary Clinton, in a speech without any specifics, declared that we should 'stand with Europe,' whatever that means. And Bernie Sanders? He's probably worried that the bombs will cause more global warming and income inequality. The man is simply not to be taken seriously when it comes to fighting terror.<br><br>Meanwhile, their leader responded to the Belgium slaughter with a few predictable words, then did 'the wave' with a Cuban butcher named Castro (can't tell the brothers apart without a scorecard.) Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, during an appearance on The Factor Wednesday, said President Obama's behavior 'embarrassed me as an American.' He is not alone.<br><br>The American people, without advocating carpet bombing or monitoring of entire Michigan neighborhoods, are extremely troubled by the specter of terror. Whenever voters are polled about the issues that concern them most, terrorism and economy invariably top the list. Immigration is not a very important issue. And global warming? Well, it would require an electron microscope (solar-powered, preferably) to find it on most surveys.<br><br>It's obvious that we in the West are facing a growing problem, namely religious fanatics with a desire to cut off our heads or blow us into tiny pieces. Mr. Obama, our enemies are not The Little Sisters of the Poor; our enemies are young Islamic men who are filled with unimaginable hatred.<br><br>And it is time for our leaders to confront the threat with brute force. Lt. Col Ralph Peters put it this way the other night: 'This is not about winning hearts and minds, it's about splashing their hearts and brains all over the landscape.' But how to move from words to action?<br><br>The world's most powerful military alliance is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whose lavish Brussels headquarters sits between Tuesday's two targets. Right now NATO is issuing vapid statements, saying, 'We condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Brussels.' Of course, just days ago NATO also 'strongly condemned' a terrorist attack in Istanbul.<br><br>Enough with the condemnations, okay? An attack on any of NATO's 28 countries is considered an attack on all of them. So after the killings in Belgium, France, Turkey, and other member states, NATO should declare war on ISIS and the Islamic jihad.<br><br>As has been put forth many times on The Factor, NATO must attack the sites where ISIS is based. This does not mean 'carpet bombing' civilians, it means targeting the Islamic State's command and control structures. NATO could also establish safe zones in Syria and Libya that would enable refugees to remain in their own familiar lands.<br><br>NATO also must challenge all Muslim nations to contribute troops and hardware. We would then see which Islamic countries are truly interested in justice. Right now a small group of savages is terrorizing the world without much fear of reprisal. ISIS believes it is winning, which leads to more recruits eager to blow themselves up in the pursuit of some fanatical religious goal.<br><br>President Obama claims time and again that ISIS is not an 'existential threat.' He's right to a point, but many people in Paris and Brussels and Ankara would beg to differ. How about ISIS with a nuclear bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction? Would that count as an 'existential threat?'<br><br>The time has come to stop all the blathering, but right now there is not a strong leader who can mobilize the world. Not Barack Obama, certainly not Angela Merkel, whose willful blindness on Muslim immigration has actually caused human death and suffering.<br><br>So let's see what NATO can do. The organization's Secretary General is Jens Stotenberg, former Prime Minister of Norway, who proclaims that he is 'deeply saddened.' Fortunately, NATO also has a military commander in the person of U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, who warns that ISIS is 'spreading like a cancer.'<br><br>Instead of expressing our sadness, we in the West should make the ISIS beasts quiver in their caves and palaces. Gen. Breedlove's diagnosis of a metastasizing cancer is absolutely correct. It must be removed. Let the operation begin.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-03-24T07:00:00ZGhosts of Conventions PastBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ghosts-of-Conventions-Past/47227.html2016-03-17T07:00:00Z2016-03-17T07:00:00ZJuly 18, 2016. Many Republicans and conservatives are looking ahead to that Monday with a sense of foreboding. The party faithful, along with party apostates, will convene in Cleveland to select their presidential nominee. <br><br>Some fear a contentious battle between Trump delegates and the 'anybody but Trump' folks, including that nefarious but ill-defined 'Republican establishment.' This week the front-runner himself warned, 'I think you'd have riots' if the nomination is snatched away in what his supporters deem an unfair way. So you can understand why the Grand Old Party fears a not-so-grand scene that would embarrass them all and lead to defeat in November.<br><br>Then there are the malcontents who look ahead to the Republican convention with glee, rubbing their hands together at the thought of creating mayhem. Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, and other far-left outfits may have provided a preview of coming attractions last Friday when they shut down a Trump rally in Chicago. The mainstream media, neither for the first time nor the last, did not tell you the entire story behind the chaos.<br><br>Days before Trump was scheduled to speak at the University of Illinois at Chicago, MoveOn circulated an online petition protesting the rally. Tens of thousands of fellow travelers enlisted in the fight to deny a presidential candidate his First Amendment right to speak. Trump, citing safety concerns, heeded the advice of George and Ira Gershwin and called the whole thing off. The protesters were positively gleeful, boasting, 'We stopped Trump!' Yeah, great.<br><br>Which brings us to Cleveland, July, and the possibility of a long, hot convention. Cleveland is where Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old black boy, was shot and killed by two police officers who thought he was brandishing a gun. The officers were not indicted and Tamir Rice joined Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown as a symbol of the 'war on young black men.' <br><br>Soon after the case against the officers was dismissed, a Black Lives Matter activist issued this warning on MSNBC: 'Any opportunity we have to shut down a Republican convention, we will.' That threat was issued last year, <em>well before</em> the rise of Donald Trump and his alleged racist rhetoric. <br><br>More recently, some esteemed professors have weighed in. Cleveland will be the site of 'very major protests,' warns Susan MacManus, formerly of Cleveland State. Not to be outdone, current Cleveland State prof Ronnie Dunn warns that 'tens of thousands of people' will swarm Cleveland in July. And local 'activist' Basheer Jones promises 'civil disobedience,' which of course has a way of becoming anything but civil.<br><br>Some politicians have joined in. Former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, the LeBron of bomb-throwers, went on MSNBC (where else?) to remind the disaffected that 'this country was founded on racism and sexism.' And what would a threatened protest be without that distinguished NBC host Al Sharpton, who vowed, 'We are going to have another convention outside.' NBC and Comcast must be very, very proud.<br><br>Preparing for the worst, Cleveland authorities have ordered thousands of riot suits and 26" batons. The city is also renting miles of steel barriers known as 'Blockaders.' Ironically, that sounds kind of like a Trumpian wall to keep intruders in their place, does it not?<br><br>Now, it is worth remembering that predictions of doom often fall flat. It could be that Bernie Sanders' political demise will deflate the pro-Sanders MoveOn folks, and Donald Trump is likely to tone down his over-the-top remarks. He implied as much on The Factor this week, but says he first wants to close the deal.<br><br>It could also turn out that Republicans, even the most virulent anti-Trump types, realize that he could be the only thing standing between them and a Hillary Clinton presidency. So, sure, the GOP could come together prior to those four days in Ohio.<br><br>And as for the rabble-rousing rabble? Well, they should study history and 1968, the summer of Mayor Daley, Yippies, Tom Hayden, helmet-clad cops, Black Panthers, and the Chicago Eight. Americans watched that spectacle in horror and gave 'law and order' candidate Richard Nixon the keys to the White House. Similarly, last week's Chicago mayhem may have given a boost to Donald Trump, who romped to easy victories four days after he was left speechless in Chicago.<br><br>Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, and other radicals, if they actually go through with the threatened Cleveland disruptions, could wind up helping the Republican nominee, whether it's Donald Trump or someone else. Those groups aren't known for obeying the law, but they should remember one law that has stood the test of time. You know, the one about unintended consequences.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-03-17T07:00:00ZDropping The Other 'F Bomb'BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dropping-The-Other-F-Bomb/47179.html2016-03-10T08:00:00Z2016-03-10T08:00:00ZDon't like a politician? Just describe him or her with the 'f' word. Fascist, that is. Maybe Bernie Sanders, who wants onerous taxation and an all-powerful federal government, qualifies as a fascist. How about Barack Obama, who set up a big-government monstrosity that forces Americans to purchase health insurance?<br><br>But of course, the truth is that people on the left are rarely described as fascists, no matter what they do. Liberals have hijacked that word and regularly use it as a cudgel with which to beat their political opponents.<br><br>Italian dictator Benito Mussolini named his Fascist Party after an ancient Latin word, which literally meant a 'bundle of rods.' One rod might break, but when bundled together they were far more powerful.<br><br>One definition of fascism comes from Fox News regular Jonah Goldberg, who wrote a book on the subject: 'Fascism is the view,' he explained, 'that every nook and cranny of society should work together toward the same goals overseen by the state.' Sounds like a working definition of socialism, doesn't it?<br><br>Etymology and accuracy aside, fascism has morphed into a damning accusation hurled by leftists at anyone they don't like. And right now the f-bomb is pretty much reserved for one politician, namely Donald J. Trump. He is regularly assailed as an authoritarian thug who would run roughshod over the Constitution, maybe even the world.<br><br>The latest slander comes from south of the border, where Mexico President Nieto breezily compared Trump's popularity to that of Mussolini and Hitler. That's from the leader of a nation that leads the league in corruption. Nieto seems to be following an unwritten rule on the left - start off by assailing your opponent as a fascist, then work your way up to Adolf Hitler himself.<br><br>Not to be outdone, Lawrence O'Donnell, who reportedly hosts a show on MSNBC, said this: 'This is ugly fascism in America, this is 21st century American fascism.' Larry forgot to work in Hitler, but give him time.<br><br>Then there is columnist Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, still trying to live down the day he showed up as a guest on MSNBC clad in an orange hunting cap and vest. It was a joke - get it? - aimed at Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Anyway, Milbank is really stretching things by comparing Donald Trump's supportive fans pledging their allegiance to Hitler's Brownshirts giving a stiff-armed salute. Hey, Dana, maybe you're still suffering from shell shock after that lame hunting bit.<br><br>Milbank has company in the fever swamps. Abe Foxman, former director of the Anti Defamation League, also looks at Trump's crowds raising their right hands and discerns a resemblance to the 'Heil Hitler' salute. Are these folks serious? Unfortunately, they are.<br><br>Donald Trump defies an easy one-word description, but he has certainly been brilliant at channeling the anger felt by so many traditional, country-loving patriots. Over the past seven years this is what frustrated Americans have witnessed:<br><br>- Attacks on police officers who are accused of hunting down black men.<br>- A porous border that invites bad guys to smuggle people and narcotics.<br>- A stagnant economy in which wages are declining and prices are rising.<br>- A national security apparatus that will not utter the words 'Islamic terror.'<br>- A culture that is overrun by political correctness and is hostile to religion.<br>- A left-leaning press corps that describes conservatives as, yes, fascists.<br>- Universities that charge exorbitant fees to indoctrinate young Americans.<br>- Cities that give 'sanctuary' to illegals, leading to vicious and deadly crimes.<br>- A Congress that refuses to pass a life-saving measure like 'Kate's Law.'<br>- Elites who imply that every ill in the world is somehow caused by the USA.<br>- Race hustlers like Al Sharpton and 'Black Lives Matter' at the White House.<br>- A Justice Department that considers prosecuting 'climate change' skeptics.<br>- An administration that seems to ignore the deadly carnage in black precincts.<br>- A Secretary of State who falsely blames four deaths on an Internet movie.<br>- A refusal to bring up sensitive issues like the dissolution of the black family.<br><br>There is more, much more, and Donald Trump has tapped into the anger that is an understandable result of the above litany. Like all of us, he is flawed and his rhetoric has at times crossed the line. Trump should stop the QVC presentation, as Dennis Miller called it, and outline some real solutions to vexing problems. Go easy on the insults, begin outlining policy prescriptions.<br><br>And, by the way, it's worth mentioning that many of Bernie Sanders' supporters seem to be angrier than Trump's fans. They rail not against people who enter the country illegally, but against their fellow citizens who have done better in life than they have, at least in financial terms. Bernie Sanders is the head of a 'green movement,' but that green is mostly about envy, not the environment.<br><br>The bottom line is that the USA has been on the decline, both overseas and at home. It started long before Donald Trump threw his coif into the political arena, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Mussolini or Hitler or the 1930s.<br><br>Now, it is certainly true that some bad people are exploiting the Trump campaign to disguise their own racial hatred. Trump should condemn that, and he should tone down some of his own inflammatory language. But don't call him a 'fascist' or the next coming of Hitler. Reserve those vile insults for true thugs and actual mass murderers. The USA of the 2010s is troubled, but in far different ways than Italy and Germany of the 1930s. That is a history lesson worth studying.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-03-10T08:00:00ZPeople Get ReadyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/People-Get-Ready/47163.html2016-03-04T08:00:00Z2016-03-04T08:00:00ZThe headline comes from musical genius Curtis Mayfield, who sang about the <em>train a comin'</em>. Well, another train is coming at us, this one a freight train of media bias.<br><br>After Tuesday's primaries, it seems almost certain that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will emerge as the two finalists. Trump merely has to survive the long knives that are being unsheathed in his own party, while Clinton's only worry is an indictment. (Perhaps she should immediately name James Comey as her running mate!)<br><br>If this is indeed a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, the mainstream media, or what's left of it, will do everything in its waning power to influence the outcome. This week the New York Times provided a preview of coming attractions, accusing Donald Trump of having a 'flirtation with the Ku Klux Klan' and stoking 'racial hatred.'<br><br>Really? Whatever you may think of Mr. Trump and his bombast, he has spoken out forcefully against the Klan and its former leader David Duke. In contrast, just a few years ago Hillary Clinton eulogized her 'friend and mentor' Senator Robert Byrd. She implied that Byrd had already ascended to Heaven to be with his wife.<br><br>Byrd, as you may know, had once been elected Exalted Cyclops of his local KKK chapter. He warned about 'race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.' Have you noticed all the demands that Mrs. Clinton disavow her friendship with the late Senator? Didn't think so. For that matter, no one even noticed that Bernie Sanders has been endorsed by the Communist Party USA, which extolled his 'political revolution.'<br><br>That's pretty much how things work in America today. Liberal politicians, whether they have cozied up to foreign dictators or domestic miscreants, are essentially given a pass. Conservatives are grilled about comments uttered, or friendships made, in the distant past. Like Caesar's wife, they are expected to be above suspicion.<br><br>But then there is Donald J. Trump, who simply refuses to go along. He brings to mind something said by the legendary golfer Bobby Jones when he marveled at a young Jack Nicklaus: 'He plays a game,' Jones said, 'with which I am not familiar.' Similarly, no one is remotely familiar with the political game being played by Trump.<br><br>He shows up on pretty much every network to answer any and all questions, while Hillary Clinton drops in on friendly venues and avoids questions from her traveling press corps. Can you imagine anyone other than Trump holding a press conference after his resounding victories on Super Tuesday?<br><br>You might think the press would appreciate Trump's availability, but you would think wrong. Many reporters and editors thoroughly despise the man and don't give a fig about his candor. In truth, Trump brought some of this on himself when he declared that half the media are 'horrible people' and, yes, 'scum.'<br><br>Now, no one enjoys having their profession run down like that, especially media types who see themselves as having a higher calling. Nevertheless, the press should cover this race with at least some measure of honesty. If Donald Trump says something outrageous about Mexicans or Muslims, report it accurately. But when Hillary Clinton kowtows to the 'Black Lives Matter' race-baiters and is forced to apologize for a term she used 20 years ago, report that as well.<br><br>In 1896, during the second term of President Grover Cleveland, a young newspaper publisher named Adolph Ochs wrote a declaration of principles. The goal of journalists, he stated, should be 'to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests.' Ochs was then taking over the troubled New York Times, which he and his family soon built into a great institution.<br><br>120 years later, will the Times and other American newspapers cover the 2016 election 'without fear or favor, regardless of party?' In truth, most of them will be rooting, and rooting hard, for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. They will claim fairness and balance, but that is simply not possible when you favor one party and fear the other.<br><br>That is the reality of journalism in the 21st century and you are about to witness it every single day from now until November. So, yes, people ... get ready!BillOReilly.com Staff2016-03-04T08:00:00ZThe Trump JuggernautBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Trump-Juggernaut/47143.html2016-02-25T08:00:00Z2016-02-25T08:00:00ZBack in the late 80s Los Angeles Lakers coach Pat Riley trademarked the term 'Three-Peat,' hoping to cash in big if his team won three consecutive NBA titles. (Never mind Bill Russell's 'eight-peat' with the Boston Celtics.)<br><br>Well, Donald Trump has just completed his own three-peat, with resounding wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. The Nevada victory was almost unfair - Trump was the Harlem Globetrotters playing against Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and the Washington Generals. Come to think of it, there's an element of irony in that analogy, considering that Trump is running against Washington and its bungling business-as-usual politicians and bureaucrats.<br><br>The thus-far impregnable tycoon won every demographic category in Nevada, including Latinos, evangelicals, and left-handed croupiers. Just one week after condemning the pope and accusing President George W. Bush of war crimes, Trump was more dominating than ever.<br><br>Realistically, there are only two Republicans who can defeat Donald Trump, and both are still outwardly exuding confidence. Marco Rubio says he will surprise everyone next week on Super Tuesday; Ted Cruz, coming off a miserable week and a third-place finish in Nevada, claims he will turn the corner in Texas. A measure of how bleak things are for Trump's rivals is that they are pinning their fading hopes on home court advantage: Cruz in Texas, Kasich in Ohio, and Rubio in Florida.<br><br>Of course, exuding confidence is a job requirement. Even Dr. Ben Carson, who has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Michael Moore, joined The Factor this week and declared that 'a lot of things can happen.' True enough, but one of those things is not a Phoenix-like Carson comeback.<br><br>On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is a virtual lock, unless she is derailed by an indictment or some new scandal. All this means that voters in November could face one of the more bizarre choices in U.S. history. In this corner, a woman who is widely considered a congenital liar; in the other corner, a man who is reviled by a large plurality of Americans.<br><br>If it comes down to Donald vs. Hillary, the media, even those who have relied on Trump to deliver big ratings, will root hard for Secretary Clinton. Liberal editorial pages and pundits always pick a Democrat, no matter how flawed, over a Republican. Especially when that Republican is a bomb-thrower who vows to deport millions and temporarily ban an entire religion from entering the USA.<br><br>Conventional wisdom has it that Trump cannot defeat Clinton in the general election. But in this campaign the conventional wisdom has been anything but wise, especially when it comes to Donald Trump. He perceptively discerned that Americans are so totally fed up that they're ready to elect a profane guy who hurls insults like Don Rickles and has never held public office.<br><br>If we have learned anything about Trump over the past few months, it is that betting against him is a sure-fire way to go broke. It's kind of like plunking down your life savings in a Nevada casino. Without the benefit of free drinks.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-02-25T08:00:00ZRegrets? He's Had A Few, Too Few To MentionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Regrets-Hes-Had-A-Few-Too-Few-To-Mention/47104.html2016-02-18T08:00:00Z2016-02-18T08:00:00ZPresident Obama is a man of many words, but few regrets. That's not terribly unusual in anyone, particularly a skilled politician. But Barack Obama's rare admissions of error are instructive.<br><br>This week the president expressed regret for trying to block Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court in 2006. Then-Senator Obama joined other Democrats in an attempted filibuster, even though Alito was 'indisputably qualified,' as the president himself might put it.<br><br>Of course, President Obama's road-to-Damascus moment comes just as he is about to nominate a justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia. He now says it would be terribly unfair for those nasty Republicans to do exactly what he did a decade ago.<br><br>It is worth noting that the acknowledgement didn't come from the president himself. Rather, he sent spokesperson Josh Earnest out to do his dirty work. The quasi-apology was better late than never, but would have been better earnest than Earnest.<br><br>Last week President Obama offered another apology of sorts during a speech in Illinois. He lamented the fact that, as president, he was unable to 'pull the parties together' as he had vowed to do.<br><br>This is from a president who routinely ridicules pretty much everyone who disagrees with his agenda. He has mocked Republicans as cowards who are 'scared of widows and orphans.' Barack Obama, who once bemoaned 'pettiness' in politics, has polarized Americans more than any president in modern history. That's according to a Gallup poll, not some right-wing hate site.<br><br>But there is something far more disturbing than President Obama's resistance to admitting error. Again, that's not an uncommon human trait. It's the fact that his few regrets are so miniscule, almost inconsequential. He said something astounding during last month's State of the Union speech: 'It is one of the few regrets of my presidency that the rancor and suspicions between the parties has gotten worse.'<br><br>Few regrets? Are you bleeping kidding, Mr. President? You have presided over the weakest recovery from a recession in recent history. While the official unemployment rate is under 5%, tens of millions of struggling Americans have simply given up looking for work. The national debt has ballooned to $19-trillion under your watch, even though you accused your predecessor of being 'unpatriotic' for running up the debt.<br><br>Illegal immigrants, many of them unaccompanied children, have come across our southern border with impunity. The jury is still out on ObamaCare, which has no doubt helped some Americans while harming many others who are paying far more for health insurance. Racial tensions are high, too often inflamed by the president and his minions.<br><br>And take a look around the planet. The Middle East is in turmoil, 'red lines' have been drawn and ignored, Christians are being beheaded, and refugees are pouring into Europe. China creates missile bases on disputed islands, Russia's Putin thumbs his nose at the world, and Iran shows nothing but disdain for the Obama administration and the United States of America.<br><br>There can be little doubt that America has declined over the past seven years, both within our borders and in terms of our international reputation. But what does the president regret? First, a calculated political move he made ten years ago, and, second, his inability to curb the 'rancor' in politics. Other than those two minor items, President Obama apparently looks back at his two terms and sees nothing but sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. (Apologies to the late Lesley Gore.)<br><br>Last year President Obama took to the airwaves and identified the single 'greatest threat to our planet.' It isn't nuclear Iran or terrorism or Putin or China. It's climate change. Yes, the President of the United States is a man who has very, very few regrets. How about you?BillOReilly.com Staff2016-02-18T08:00:00ZTrump Derangement Syndrome & The MediaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trump-Derangement-Syndrome--The-Media/47072.html2016-02-11T08:00:00Z2016-02-11T08:00:00ZYou probably remember the virulent plague of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which debilitated parts of America in the early 2000s. The illness was discovered and named by a most eminent former psychiatrist named Dr. Charles Krauthammer. He described it as an 'acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people' when reacting to George W. Bush.<br><br>The outbreak began soon after Bush took office and metastasized throughout his presidency. Some on the far left wrote books and movies that actually fantasized about the president's murder. Meanwhile, loons like Howard Dean hinted that Bush may have been warned about 9/11 in advance.<br><br>BDS infected some of America's wealthier zip codes, places like Malibu, Manhattan, and Cambridge. Wherever liberal elites congregated, they pretty much all agreed that Bush was not merely incompetent, he was downright evil. The media didn't call them out on that hatred because, let's face it, many editors and reporters essentially agreed.<br><br>To be fair, some folks on the right have also been infected with a bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. They claim the president is an America-hater who is hell-bent on destroying this country and its traditions. It has been observed that people with severe ODS would find some way to blame the president even if he discovered a cure for cancer.<br><br>Now, of course, there is now a variation of the same mental sickness. Trump Derangement Syndrome, first diagnosed when the tycoon announced that he would run for the presidency, has become a full-fledged pandemic after Tuesday's vote in New Hampshire.<br><br>Minutes after Trump's huge victory, the online Huffington post ran this understated headline: 'New Hampshire Goes Racist Sexist Xenophobic.' Not to be outdone, the failing New York Daily News, desperate for attention, called the election the 'Dawn of the Brain Dead.' Naturally, the tabloid featured an image of Trump in clown makeup. Not on the editorial page, but the front page! Is it any surprise that owner Mort Zuckerman literally can't give that paper away?<br><br>Many self-proclaimed journalists eagerly joined the hate-fest. Columnist Joe Klein, who could serve as poster child for the mainstream liberal media, went on taxpayer-supported PBS and insulted any taxpayer who supports Trump. He described pro-Trump Republicans as 'low information voters' who pose 'a real threat to this country.' And this is just the start. If Trump actually goes on to win the nomination, he will be attacked like no politician in American history. TDS will make BDS look like a mild cold.<br><br>But what about Bernie Sanders, who is every bit as unconventional and bombastic as Trump? Media types, repulsed by Trump's shouting and grandiose promises, are generally smitten by Bernie's shouting and grandiose promises. <br><br>Want to know what's in store for the GOP? Consider that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, after moderating a Democratic debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, sprinted on stage to hug both candidates. Yes, she enveloped them in a loving embrace. Try to imagine Megyn Kelly doing that after the recent GOP debate. The media would have eviscerated her and Fox News.<br><br>The fact is that Donald Trump's insurgency is a grave threat to liberal America and the media, pardon the redundancy. True, he has put forth policies that will be impossible to achieve, whether mass deportation or a ban on Muslim immigration. But Bernie Sanders' policies are perhaps even more implausible because they require many trillions of dollars. Nevertheless, Donald gets smacked while Bernie gets hugged.<br><br>Republican candidates, even those named Kasich and Bush, must understand that they will never, ever receive fair and balanced treatment from the mainstream media. To borrow from Walter Cronkite, that's the way it is.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-02-11T08:00:00ZCampaign Chicanery, Media MalfeasanceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Campaign-Chicanery-Media-Malfeasance/47050.html2016-02-04T08:00:00Z2016-02-04T08:00:00ZTed Cruz won. Ted Cruz lost. As you know, the ultra-conservative Texas Senator racked up an impressive win in Iowa Monday, largely by convincing religious Republicans that he is their guy. He also got a huge boost when Donald Trump made an unforced error by snubbing last week's Fox News debate. Even Trump, not usually given to admitting fallibility, concedes that was a mistake. <br><br>But the Cruz campaign also took a hit this week with a nasty bit of business that led right to its doorstep. On Monday, just as Iowans were caucusing, CNN's Chris Moody tweeted some misinformation (or did he mis-tweet some information?) Moody claimed that Dr. Ben Carson was calling a halt to his campaign in New Hampshire. The clear implication was that Carson was on the ropes and, if true, the repercussions would be big. Presumably, many of Carson's evangelical supporters would decamp straight into the Cruz camp.<br><br>CNN political analyst Dana Bash went on the air and breathlessly reported that Ben Carson 'is not going to go to South Carolina, not going to go to New Hampshire.' That was flat out wrong, but the Cruz crew jumped on it, telling Iowans that a vote for Carson would be a vote wasted. Referring to the CNN report, the Cruz people urged caucus-goers to 'coalesce around the true conservative who will be in the race for the long haul.'<br><br>CNN is actually standing by its erroneous report, which is outrageous. The self-proclaimed 'worldwide leader in news' screwed up big time and apparently does not much care. Even the sonorous James Earl Jones must be hanging his voice in shame.<br><br>As The Factor has pointed out time and again, American journalism has become permeated by ideology. Honest reporting, especially about politics, is a breed that is fast nearing extinction.<br><br>CNN should apologize and Ted Cruz should demand that his campaign chiefs cut the bull. As for Ben Carson, the victim of the false reporting, he says he harbors no enmity toward Cruz, but groused about 'the culture within the Cruz campaign.' The good doctor, spanked by misinformation, is turning the other cheek.<br><br>Donald Trump, never a cheek-turner, now alleges that Ted Cruz won Iowa through fraud and says 'a new election should take place.' That's right, he wants a do-over. That's obviously not going to happen, but the Cruz team, even if not guilty of outright fraud, should be more careful going forward.<br><br>One more thing about the corrupt media. Ever desperate for a horse race, many pundits are enthusiastically peddling the fiction that Bernie Sanders is a legitimate threat to the Hillary Clinton juggernaut. Sorry, media types, but Bernie's campaign doesn't travel well and won't make it south of the Mason-Dixon Line.<br><br>Sure, the old socialist did well in Iowa and may do even better in New Hampshire, but that's the end of his road. Does anyone seriously believe that black voters in South Carolina will turn out for Bernie like they did for Barack? It's just not going to happen. The only legitimate threats to Hillary Clinton's nomination are FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.<br><br>Summing up, the odds of Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination are mighty long. Longer than, say, correctly calling a coin flip six times in a row. Yes, stranger things have happened, but not this time around.<br><br>Bernie and his acolytes, after an appropriate period of mourning, would be well advised to study the history of socialism, up to and including the basket case called Venezuela. Perhaps they can take solace in just one thing - unlike Venezuelans and other victims of failed utopian schemes, Bernie and his pals had a lot of fun while it lasted. The end is nigh.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-02-04T08:00:00ZEyes, Teeth, Cheeks...and Donald TrumpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Eyes-Teeth-Cheeks...and-Donald-Trump/47029.html2016-01-28T08:00:00Z2016-01-28T08:00:00ZAccording to scientific polling conducted by Gallup, President Obama is the most polarizing president since World War II. The Obama split has been across traditional dividing lines: Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal, faithful vs. secular, and - far too often - black vs. white.<br><br>Now we have another extremely polarizing man running for the Oval Office. That is, of course, Donald Trump. But there is a massive difference in that Trump's candidacy polarizes the right, pitting conservatives against other conservatives.<br><br>A few prominent right-wingers, Sarah Palin among them, have stepped forward to endorse the tycoon. He has also received the hearty support of many evangelical Christians. During an appearance on The Factor this week, Pastor Robert Jeffress stressed that evangelicals support Trump not because "he is the best candidate to lead Bible studies," but because he has the best chance of winning.<br><br>There is, however, a wide chasm between Trump's conservative supporters and those on the right who fear and loathe him. You've often seen Charles Krauthammer dismiss Trump's temperament and policies, and he has plenty of company. The reliably conservative National Review created a stir when it commissioned 22 prominent conservatives to pen articles making the case against Trump.<br><br>Meanwhile, Trump's supporters - many of them white working class men and women - are not swayed by the protestations of so-called 'elite and establishment' conservatives. The more the chattering classes dismiss, disparage, and demonize Trump, the more his poll numbers rise. Yes, this is the strangest campaign season we have seen in our lifetimes, unless you are old enough to remember Andrew Jackson and the election of '28. That would be 1828.<br><br>All this leads to the current feud between Donald Trump and Fox News. Trump entered the No Spin Zone Wednesday and explained why he plans to boycott the FNC debate. "I was not treated well by Fox News," he declared, referring to the first Fox News debate in August. "I'm not walking away, I was pushed away."<br><br>Trump theorized that his refusal to participate actually proves his fitness to be commander-in-chief. He opined that the USA should have walked away from the lousy Iran nuke deal, just like he is walking away from the FNC debate. "When I'm representing the country as president," Trump insisted, "I won't let our country be taken advantage of." Many of his fans are with him on this - just scroll through a few Facebook pages to feel the heat of their passion.<br><br>But there is another and more substantive side to this dustup. After seven years of Barack Obama, this nation is starved for an effective leader, which is precisely why so many see Trump as a welcome change. But by skipping this debate, he deprives the American people of an opportunity to determine whether he is the right man to occupy an office once held by Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, and other giants.<br><br>Yes, he is peeved and aggrieved, feeling that Megyn Kelly asked a question that was out of line back in August. But Newt Gingrich provides a valuable lesson in handling that precise type of situation. Four years ago CNN's John King started off a debate in South Carolina with a totally inappropriate question involving an accusation put forth by Gingrich's former wife.<br><br>Newt didn't sulk and walk off the stage. Instead, he let King and the media have it with both barrels. Gingrich earned the respect of millions of voters and won the South Carolina primary. The former Speaker of the House also visited the No Spin Zone Wednesday night and said Trump's excuses "make no sense." He concluded that all candidates owe it to the country to show up at every debate.<br><br>Which brings us to the Bible and the body parts mentioned in this column's rather odd headline. Donald Trump is currently employing a strategy of vengeance put forth in the Old Testament. People who had been harmed were advised to take 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' In this campaign, Trump has gone way beyond that - take one of his eyes and you'll soon be blind, chip one of his incisors and you will wind up toothless.<br><br>But suppose, just suppose, that Donald Trump were to skip ahead to the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Sermon on the Mount. That is where Jesus told his followers to forget about all that old school 'eye for an eye' stuff and instead offered another pithy piece of advice: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."<br><br>Again, Donald Trump did not make billions by being a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy, but this may be the perfect opportunity to display some magnanimity. Will Donald Trump forgive his perceived enemies, forget their alleged slights, and turn that other cheek? Will he heed the advice of Jesus? We will find out. Perhaps very soon.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-01-28T08:00:00ZEyes, Teeth, Cheeks...and Donald TrumpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Eyes-Teeth-Cheeks...and-Donald-Trump/47031.html2016-01-28T08:00:00Z2016-01-28T08:00:00ZAccording to scientific polling conducted by Gallup, President Obama is the most polarizing president since World War II. The Obama split has been across traditional dividing lines: Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal, faithful vs. secular, and - far too often - black vs. white.<br><br>Now we have another extremely polarizing man running for the Oval Office. That is, of course, Donald Trump. But there is a massive difference in that Trump's candidacy polarizes the right, pitting conservatives against other conservatives.<br><br>A few prominent right-wingers, Sarah Palin among them, have stepped forward to endorse the tycoon. He has also received the hearty support of many evangelical Christians. During an appearance on The Factor this week, Pastor Robert Jeffress stressed that evangelicals support Trump not because "he is the best candidate to lead Bible studies," but because he has the best chance of winning.<br><br>There is, however, a wide chasm between Trump's conservative supporters and those on the right who fear and loathe him. You've often seen Charles Krauthammer dismiss Trump's temperament and policies, and he has plenty of company. The reliably conservative National Review created a stir when it commissioned 22 prominent conservatives to pen articles making the case against Trump.<br><br>Meanwhile, Trump's supporters - many of them white working class men and women - are not swayed by the protestations of so-called 'elite and establishment' conservatives. The more the chattering classes dismiss, disparage, and demonize Trump, the more his poll numbers rise. Yes, this is the strangest campaign season we have seen in our lifetimes, unless you are old enough to remember Andrew Jackson and the election of '28. That would be 1828.<br><br>All this leads to the current feud between Donald Trump and Fox News. Trump entered the No Spin Zone Wednesday and explained why he plans to boycott the FNC debate. "I was not treated well by Fox News," he declared, referring to the first Fox News debate in August. "I'm not walking away, I was pushed away."<br><br>Trump theorized that his refusal to participate actually proves his fitness to be commander-in-chief. He opined that the USA should have walked away from the lousy Iran nuke deal, just like he is walking away from the FNC debate. "When I'm representing the country as president," Trump insisted, "I won't let our country be taken advantage of." Many of his fans are with him on this - just scroll through a few Facebook pages to feel the heat of their passion.<br><br>But there is another and more substantive side to this dustup. After seven years of Barack Obama, this nation is starved for an effective leader, which is precisely why so many see Trump as a welcome change. But by skipping this debate, he deprives the American people of an opportunity to determine whether he is the right man to occupy an office once held by Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, and other giants.<br><br>Yes, he is peeved and aggrieved, feeling that Megyn Kelly asked a question that was out of line back in August. But Newt Gingrich provides a valuable lesson in handling that precise type of situation. Four years ago CNN's John King started off a debate in South Carolina with a totally inappropriate question involving an accusation put forth by Gingrich's former wife.<br><br>Newt didn't sulk and walk off the stage. Instead, he let King and the media have it with both barrels. Gingrich earned the respect of millions of voters and won the South Carolina primary. The former Speaker of the House also visited the No Spin Zone Wednesday night and said Trump's excuses "make no sense." He concluded that all candidates owe it to the country to show up at every debate.<br><br>Which brings us to the Bible and the body parts mentioned in this column's rather odd headline. Donald Trump is currently employing a strategy of vengeance put forth in the Old Testament. People who had been harmed were advised to take 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' In this campaign, Trump has gone way beyond that - take one of his eyes and you'll soon be blind, chip one of his incisors and you will wind up toothless.<br><br>But suppose, just suppose, that Donald Trump were to skip ahead to the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Sermon on the Mount. That is where Jesus told his followers to forget about all that old school 'eye for an eye' stuff and instead offered another pithy piece of advice: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."<br><br>Again, Donald Trump did not make billions by being a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy, but this may be the perfect opportunity to display some magnanimity. Will Donald Trump forgive his perceived enemies, forget their alleged slights, and turn that other cheek? Will he heed the advice of Jesus? We will find out. Perhaps very soon.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-01-28T08:00:00ZA Socialist In The White House?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Socialist-In-The-White-House/47010.html2016-01-21T08:00:00Z2016-01-21T08:00:00ZRemember Eugene Debs? If you do, congratulations for passing your 100th birthday. The powerful labor leader ran for the presidency five times as a Socialist, peaking at 6% of the vote in 1912.<br><br>How about Norman Thomas? He did Debs one better, running for President of the United States six times on the Socialist Party ticket. Persistence did not engender popularity. Thomas' best showing came when he got about 2% of the vote in 1932, in the throes of the Great Depression. In 1944, with our troops fighting in Europe and Asia, he received 0.16% of the popular vote, convincing all of 79,000 Americans that he was the right man for the job.<br><br>So you can see that Americans, unlike Europeans, have not been all that fond of avowed socialists. The Socialist Party actually stopped running presidential candidates after a fellow named Darlington Hoopes captured a grand total of 2,000 votes in 1956. His percentage of the popular vote, to borrow from Animal House: 'Zero-point-zero.'<br><br>And yet now, 60 years after Darlington Hoopes, many Democrats are embracing the self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. According to one poll, the 74-year-old leads Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by a whopping 27%!<br><br>Bernie doesn't just talk the talk, the guy is the real deal. Right after his second marriage, Bernie and his new bride traveled to the Soviet Union. He says it was not a honeymoon, merely a trip to foster cooperation. He also paid a visit to communist Nicaragua, where he apologized for U.S. foreign policy and attended what was described as an 'anti-U.S. rally.' <br><br>Sanders called for a political revolution and denounced America as a nation where everything is 'based on greed.' His solution, naturally, was a government takeover of various industries.<br><br>But that was way back when Bernie Sanders was a mere pup in his 40s. What about now that the junior senator is a senior citizen? Well, Sanders advocates 'Medicare for all' and the abolishment of private insurance plans. The details are fuzzy, but let's just say that if you like ObamaCare, you'll absolutely adore BernieCare.<br><br>He relishes bashing Wall Street and wants to tax 'the rich' and profitable corporations at some undefined astronomical rate. Bernie might take a cue from his neighbors in Connecticut. General Electric is moving its global headquarters from the Nutmeg State to Massachusetts, largely because of onerous taxation.<br><br>If you tax companies excessively, they take their business and their jobs elsewhere, often offshore. If you tax individuals excessively, they have less to spend and the economy suffers. There is simply no way for Bernie Sanders to pay for the trillions of dollars his policies would require. Nevertheless, according to a Gallup poll, 6 in 10 Democrats say they would vote for a socialist. Meanwhile, 43% of Iowa Democrats describe themselves as 'socialist.' Unfortunately, the poll did not ask whether those self-proclaimed socialists even know what the word means.<br><br>As has been said many times on The Factor, Bernie Sanders seems to be an honest man who genuinely believes what he says. And despite his flirtation with despotic regimes, Sanders took some extraordinarily brave and principled positions here in the USA, especially on civil rights. But history has proven that his economic policies are misguided and would seriously damage the country.<br><br>Democratic bosses are trembling at the prospect of a Sanders nomination. Who would he pick as his running mate? Michael Moore is out because he is obviously averse to running. Truth is, Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee, the party just won't let that happen. But he has managed to move a major American political party far to the left. So far that it will be hard for Hillary Clinton or the eventual nominee to jog back to the center.<br><br>Perhaps Bernie Sanders can take some solace from Norman Thomas, the aforementioned six-time presidential candidate. For many decades there was actually a Norman Thomas High School in Manhattan. The school was recently shut down because it was performing so poorly, which could be seen as a metaphor for socialism itself.<br><br>And in all likelihood there will someday be a Bernard Sanders High School, probably right there in Burlington, Vermont. It will be named for a former Mayor, Congressman, and Senator, a man who spoke his mind and inspired a legion of young followers. But it will not be named for a former President of the United States.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-01-21T08:00:00ZMisstatement Of The UnionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Misstatement-Of-The-Union/46973.html2016-01-14T08:00:00Z2016-01-14T08:00:00ZThe USA and the world are generally pretty swell right now. Don't believe it? Then you didn't listen closely to President Obama's final State of the Union address this week.<br><br>The commander-in-chief assured us that the economy is purring, the United States is more powerful than ever, and the people should be content. It makes you wonder whether the president ever sees those polls showing that two-thirds of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track.<br><br>If he did, he would probably blame talk radio, Fox News, Republicans, and other 'nattering nabobs of negativism,' that famous phrase written for Vice President Spiro Agnew by wordsmith William Safire.<br><br>Just to be clear, Mr. Obama is correct when he says the United States remains 'the most powerful nation on earth.' Of course it is, but the USA has become less powerful under his watch. ISIS continues to sow panic and shed blood across large swaths of the Middle East and North Africa, while China and Russia and Iran thumb their collective noses in our direction.<br><br>Senator John McCain, who could have been presenting <em>his</em> final State of the Union address had he won in 2008, appeared on The Factor and accused the president of harboring an 'almost pathological denial.' McCain, who knows a thing or two about wars and turmoil, lamented that there are more crises and refugees than at any time since World War II. So who you gonna' believe, President Obama? Or Senator McCain and your lyin' eyes?<br><br>The president is also right on the money, so to speak, when he points to a low unemployment rate. But he ignores the fact that so many Americans have dropped out of the work force, while those who are working know they're getting hammered every time they open that paycheck. About half of U.S. workers make $30,000 a year or less. It's bad news for them, their families, and the political establishment, good news for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.<br><br>One word conspicuously absent from Tuesday's speech was 'debt.' As in the $19-trillion of debt the federal government has taken on, most of it amassed during President Obama's tenure. For a little perspective, every single day our national debt rises by about the same amount as that winning Powerball jackpot.<br><br>Sending your kids to college costs far more, health care costs far more, food prices are up, wages are stagnant. That is simply not a recipe for prosperity, Mr. President, nothing about which to boast. Sure, the price of gas has nosedived, helping average Americans immensely. But we all know that President Obama would actually prefer gas to be more expensive. Because, you know, climate change.<br><br>It's been seven years since President Barack Obama soared into office, riding a crest of good will and high hopes. Seems like a few decades ago, doesn't it? We have now reached the point where Joe Biden is being assigned to cure cancer. Old Joe better hurry, he only has one year left.<br><br>President Obama is not a man given to regrets. He has, as our friendly former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer points out, a rather lofty self-regard. But on Tuesday night the president did lament his failure to bridge the political divide. That came right after he ridiculed anyone who disagrees with him on climate change or Islamic terror or education or spending or just about anything else.<br><br>We all want 'better politics,' as you put it, Mr. President. But that comes from talking to the other side, searching for common ground, and solving problems. It doesn't come from dismissing and demonizing those with whom you disagree.<br><br>No question, President Obama can still give a pretty good speech. And his acolytes still see him as a near-deity taking on the malevolent forces of evil. But most Americans are sorely disappointed. We wanted so much more, Mr. President. To borrow from Terry Malloy in 'On the Waterfront,' you could have been a contender.<br><br>Our next president needs to focus on problem-solving, not ideology and speech-giving, from day one. On January 20, 2017, we will thank Barack Obama for his service and his efforts. But most of us will look back with regret. Sad.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-01-14T08:00:00ZMarket Mayhem and 2016BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Market-Mayhem-and-2016/46937.html2016-01-07T08:00:00Z2016-01-07T08:00:00ZWhat's in store for the stock market, someone asked famed financier J.P. Morgan more than a century ago. 'It will fluctuate, my boy,' Morgan replied, 'it will fluctuate.'<br><br>Apocryphal or not, it's one of the wisest and most enduring quotes in the history of capitalism and markets. Partly because that's all anyone can predict with certainty - prices will move up and move down, often for no apparent reason. That's the very nature of free markets.<br><br>But 'fluctuation' is one thing, 'chaos' is another. And this week has been about as wild as they come, with massive stock market declines in Asia, Europe, and here in the USA. Even tech stocks have been hammered into submission. Meanwhile, gold has been heading north, usually a sign of investor panic.<br><br>So what does all this have to be with the coming election? Let us count the ways. Perhaps Bernie Sanders will get a boost just in time for Iowa and New Hampshire. He is the only socialist in the race, pretty much the only socialist in America not living on a college campus, but his anti-capitalism rhetoric plays very well with many angry Americans. And a lot of them are far angrier this week now that they are far poorer. Bernie will blame the greedheads on Wall Street, his fans will cheer like trained seals, and he may well enjoy a bull market in the polls.<br><br>Then there's Donald Trump, a man to whom capitalism has been very, very good. Trump loyalists see him not only as a fearless straight-talker, but also as a financial wizard who can ride to the rescue and fix America's fiscal woes. Like Bernie Sanders, Trump has railed against Wall Street's bankers and traders, but he understands their world a lot better than the wild-eyed Vermont socialist. So if your 401K is under water, maybe even doing a passable imitation of the Titanic, who are you going to turn to? Sanders? Carson? Rubio? Cruz? Or a financial wizard who wrote the book on the art of the deal?<br><br>And then there is poor old Hillary Clinton, who just can't seem to catch a break. One day she's groping for answers about Benghazi, the next day she's groping for answers about her husband's groping.<br><br>This week she faced some tough interrogation from a usually reliable supporter. When MSNBC's Chris Matthews pressed Mrs. Clinton to define the difference between a socialist and a Democrat, she put on some dance moves that would be the envy of Ginger Rogers. Or, if you prefer, Jennifer Lopez.<br><br>'I am a progressive Democrat,' she insisted, 'who likes to get things done.' Well, yeah. And just who doesn't want to get things done? It's worth noting that just a few months ago Mrs. Clinton proudly described herself as a 'moderate.'<br><br>Truth is, Hillary Clinton again finds herself in the Twilight Zone, much like 2007. Back then, the nomination was hers for the taking, pretty much sewn up. But then defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory by Barack Obama and his fainting followers.<br><br>This time around, Mrs. Clinton is being attacked from the left as being way too cozy with Wall Street. She and her husband live like the one-percenters they are, which is their prerogative, and she has raked in campaign cash from her pals at the big banks and brokerage houses. That is red meat for Bernie Sanders, who accuses her of being - heaven forbid! - a capitalist.<br><br>Republicans, meanwhile, blast Hillary from the other direction, accusing her of moving far left to secure her party's nomination. She can't denounce President Obama's dismal economy without alienating his base, but she also can't heap praise on the economy and promise more of the same. So once again, like eight years ago, this Clinton cakewalk has turned into a run through the gauntlet. Over hot coals.<br><br>So how does this all end? First, don't ever let anyone tell you that they know how the stock markets will fare in the coming weeks and months. They do not! No one knows where oil, gold, Apple stock, or cattle futures are heading.<br><br>Similarly, when it comes to political prognostication, absolutely no one is really sure how American voters will react to the current stock market chaos. There is only one sure-fire prediction when it comes to the polls. They will fluctuate, my boys and girls, they will fluctuate.BillOReilly.com Staff2016-01-07T08:00:00ZAdieu, Adios, Farewell To 2015BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Adieu-Adios-Farewell-To-2015/46919.html2015-12-31T08:00:00Z2015-12-31T08:00:00ZRemember the song 'Sixteen Tons,' made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford? It included this memorable lamentation: 'Another day older and deeper in debt.'<br><br>Well, we are all another year older and much, much deeper in debt. About a half-trillion dollars deeper, actually. And what's really scary about the relentlessly growing debt is that so few Americans even seem to give a fig. That's partly because we have become numb to the trillions borrowed by President Obama and Congress. But it is also because so many other issues and dangers have taken precedence.<br><br>Just to jog your memories, we looked back at 2015's Talking Points Memos, a reliable barometer of what concerned traditional Americans.<br><br>The year began with the bloodbath in Paris, where Islamic fanatics massacred journalists at the magazine Charlie Hebdo. The Obama administration did not join world leaders in an anti-terror rally and again refused to utter the words 'radical Islam.' Terrorism would be front and center for the rest of the year.<br><br>Here at home, Eric Holder's Justice Department declined to file charges against the Ferguson cop who killed Michael Brown. 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' was a flat-out lie, something many people still refuse to admit. Because of that despicable falsehood, deteriorating race relations was a major story throughout 2015.<br><br>In the Middle East, ISIS accelerated its reign of terror, grabbing land while beheading Christians and other ideological foes. The administration assured us that ISIS was being 'contained,' despite all evidence to the contrary. <br><br>Exactly midway through the year - on July 1 - an illegal alien shot and killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle. The shooter had been deported five times but was free to roam the sanctuary streets of San Francisco. Six months later, there is still no Kate's Law, although Americans of good will have not given up hope.<br><br>The mainstream media continued down its path of bias and outright dishonesty. The New York Times urged the Army to give accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl a break, but scoured Senator Marco Rubio's driving records. Whenever it seems the liberal media can go no lower, they plumb new depths.<br><br>The city of Baltimore exploded in the spring when Freddie Gray died while in police custody. Many left-leaning Americans found every possible excuse to justify the riots that broke out in not-so-charming Charm City. As six cops await their dates with Lady Justice, Baltimore remains tense.<br><br>Murders were up in Chicago, New York, and other major American cities, especially those run by liberal Democratic mayors. The good citizens of those metropolises are paying a heavy price for decades of one-party rule.<br><br>Social conservatives took it on the chin big time in 2015. Same-sex marriage gained traction in the courts and in public opinion, while Congress supplied Planned Parenthood with more funding for their abortion mills. Not even those sickening videos, with PP officials talking about the best way to dismember babies in the womb, was enough to turn off the federal money spigot.<br><br>Of course, the year was dominated by presidential politics, especially the rise and much-predicted-but-never-materialized fall of Donald Trump. Other GOP candidates, including accomplished governors like Rick Perry and Scott Walker, came and departed. But Trump, to borrow from 'New York, New York,' remains 'king of the hill, top of the heap.' Hey, if he can make it in Iowa and New Hampshire, he can make it anywhere.<br><br>On the other side, Hillary Clinton's coronation continues apace as she slaps aside Bernie Sanders like a pesky, socialist, spread-the-wealth gnat. If the front-runners actually win, we are in store for a terribly interesting - and perhaps very ugly - general election.<br><br>There were so many other memorable moments and events. The debate over Muslim refugees, the CNBC debate debacle, the Benghazi hearings, mass shootings in Oregon and South Carolina, and the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Meanwhile, the debt rose, politicians promised more 'free stuff,' religion was diminished, while many Americans remained eternally lost in their handheld devices. <br><br>But of course all the news was not bad. The year included individual feats of courage, physical and otherwise. Outside of the major cities, crime continued its long downward glide, gas prices plunged, and America remains home to people of unshakable faith and immense good will. Despite the litany of bad news chronicled above, is there any place you'd rather live? Didn't think so.<br><br>Looking ahead, we offer only one unassailable prediction for the coming year - The Factor and Fox News will continue to dominate the cable news race. That is because of all of you, of course. So thank you, everyone, and Happy New Year. All of us at The Factor hope the coming year brings you countless blessings and immeasurable joy. See you in '16.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-12-31T08:00:00ZVictory In The 'War On Christmas'BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Victory-In-The-War-On-Christmas/46907.html2015-12-24T08:00:00Z2015-12-24T08:00:00ZLet's tell a few harrowing stories of past combat, at least the verbal variety. The War on Christmas, widely ridiculed by our cultural elites, was very real and genuinely damaging to many traditional and faithful Americans.<br><br>Remember this one? Only a decade ago some major retailers ordered their workers not to say 'Merry Christmas' because that might offend customers. When millions of outraged Americans threatened to take their money elsewhere, 'Merry Christmas' was soon back in the retailing lexicon.<br><br>How about the skirmish when Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee decided to call his state's tree a 'holiday tree?' Never mind that it was Christmas and the tree was adorned with Christmas lights, the word 'Christmas' was put out to pasture in Providence. Ironically, that city was named to honor 'God's merciful Providence.' Hard to believe Chafee didn't exactly mesmerize the electorate when he ran for the presidency this year.<br><br>There were other disturbing anti-Christmas efforts across America. School boards banned religious music from 'holiday concerts,' religious symbols were forbidden from 'holiday parades,' and so on.<br><br>Some of the anti-Christmas efforts were laughable, but others were downright despicable. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, a card-carrying secular-progressive, allowed atheists to put up a sign in the capitol rotunda. Their lovely message, that religion enslaves people, was just a few feet from a manger scene with the baby Jesus.<br><br>Truth is, the Christmas-haters were gaining ground, forcing their Grinch-like attitude on schools and stores and municipalities across America. Then something happened that might be considered a modern-day Christmas miracle. We fought back!<br><br>Fox News, churches, Christians, groups like the Thomas More Society, and sane people of all faiths decided it was time to stop the madness. We identified the most ridiculous examples, we called out the Christmas-haters by name. And, yes, we won. There was no formal ceremony of surrender, but most of the radical secularists retreated back to their caves and back into the woodwork.<br><br>Sure, they occasionally raise their heads and lob a few grenades, kind of like the Japanese soldiers who never gave up the fight on Iwo Jima. Right now the most militant anti-Christmas organization is the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with headquarters in the uber-left city of Madison, Wisconsin.<br><br>That contemptible group recently prevented little schoolchildren in Indiana from staging a Nativity scene. How proud they must be! The organization also spends money on banners and billboards that diminish religion as 'a myth and superstition.' One suspects the brave folks at the Freedom From Religion Foundation have yet to set up a chapter in Saudi Arabia or Syria. 'Bravery' comes cheap where liberty prevails and where a Constitution written by men of faith protects even the stupid.<br><br>But aside from those occasional dustups, the War on Christmas has been noticeably absent this year. Jon Stewart, who mockingly dismissed the war as a figment of Christian imagination, no longer has his Comedy Central megaphone with which to ridicule traditionalists. But even last year, when Stewart was still at the helm, there were few major battles.<br><br>So give yourselves a well-deserved pat on the back for defeating the Grinches, at least for the moment. But don't get too comfortable because they will almost surely be back. It's worth remembering that North and South Korea are technically still at war with one another, 66 years after the shooting began. They co-exist under an armistice signed in 1953.<br><br>Similarly, the pro-Christmas good guys are now living under a cease-fire of sorts with the secular naysayers. Enjoy it while you can. In the meantime, we here at The Factor wish all of you a very, very MERRY CHRISTMAS!BillOReilly.com Staff2015-12-24T08:00:00ZHitlerian HyperboleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hitlerian-Hyperbole/46888.html2015-12-17T08:00:00Z2015-12-17T08:00:00ZYou know the golden rule of debating: The first person to mention Hitler automatically loses. Well, when it comes to spewing invective against Donald Trump, the list of losers is growing long, and not just on the left.<br><br>Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, considered a moderate Republican by her supporters, a RINO by her detractors, is the latest to ratify the Trump = Hitler equation. She accuses the Republican front-runner of using Hitler's brand of 'hateful rhetoric' and claims to discern 'chilling' parallels between modern-day America and the pre-Hitler Weimar Republic.<br><br>During his visit to the No Spin Zone this week, the usually reasonable newsman Ted Koppel stopped short of any Führer references, but he didn't hesitate to liken Trump to Benito Mussolini, aka Il Duce. The Italian dictator founded the Fascist Party, allied with Hitler, and wound up hanging from a rope upside-down in a Milan public square.<br><br>Many other less respectable media types are employing the Hitler theme in a desperate quest for readers or ratings points. Chief among them are the Philadelphia Daily News and the New York Daily News, tabloids that share both a masthead name and a badly failing business model.<br><br>But seriously, whatever you may think of Donald Trump and his proposals, can't we skip the Hitler stuff? Unless, that is, Trump has been holed up in his magnificent Trump Tower office writing about his great struggles (Mein Coif?) and his wish to demolish the entire U.S. political system.<br><br>Trump's followers, and their number is still growing, view him not as a cartoonish dictator, but as a cartoon-like superhero, an avenger of sorts. They want someone who can dismantle the policies of President Obama. And who would be better at dismantling than a legendary builder?<br><br>The men and woman on that Las Vegas stage this week are a very impressive lot. There's a former high-tech CEO, a legendary neurosurgeon, a former ophthalmologist, three successful governors, and two brilliant Cuban-American Senators. But those eight were again dominated by the tycoon who has never held office.<br><br>The Trump-haters understandably point to some of his more incendiary comments. But does he really believe he's going to stop every Muslim in the world from entering the USA? Or that America's leading export in a Trump administration will be millions of hard-working Mexicans? Even Donald Trump has to know that many of his prescriptions simply can not be filled.<br><br>Nevertheless, he has a remarkable ability to feed off anger the way Popeye took strength from spinach. After seven years of Barack Obama's hollow oratory and failed policies, Americans are spitting mad. They see a president who won't identify our enemy, who dismisses their fears, and who seems to care more about 'climate change' than the stormy mood among many Americans.<br><br>Barack Obama's presidency has been a failure in many ways, especially for the working folks who flock to Trump rallies. They relish in Trump's role as the anti-Obama, while he relishes their adoration and applause.<br><br>So, yes, Donald Trump is a bomb-thrower, but he is also a skilled alchemist who can turn anger and fear into campaign gold. It's an open question whether he can ride that skill to the GOP nomination or the White House, but lots of people have gone broke betting against him.<br><br>Finally, the word 'demagogue' is being thrown around frequently these days. The definition: 'A political leader who gains popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.'<br><br>So, yes, call Donald Trump a demagogue who appeals to emotion in the tradition of William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long. But he is not Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama is not President Paul von Hindenburg, and America, whatever our ills, is not Weimar Germany.<br><br>Traditional Americans, no matter how angry, desperately want this country to succeed. After decades of being insulted and demeaned by Washington and the mainstream media, they want an avenger. Donald Trump is filling that role. With a vengeance.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-12-17T08:00:00ZObama Flounders, Trump FeastsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obama-Flounders-Trump-Feasts/46864.html2015-12-10T08:00:00Z2015-12-10T08:00:00ZWhile President Obama rambles and measures every tiresome word, Donald Trump rumbles and lobs verbal grenades. It raises an interesting question: How can two men with such ample egos, both of whom crave the spotlight, be so vastly different? That may someday be a terrific case study. But first, there is terrorism to be fought and an election to be held.<br><br>This president has been a remarkably reluctant warrior in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, the ideology that dare not speak its name in the Obama White House. His resolve seemed to decline precipitously on May 2, 2011, when Navy SEALs stormed that Pakistan compound and killed Osama bin Laden.<br><br>Mr. Obama, dancing (swimming?) on the terrorist's watery grave, repeatedly boasted about the killing. But beyond bluster, the president relied on drone strikes abroad, denial at home. You know the litany - Al Qaeda on the run, ISIS not ready for prime time, no credible threat at home, and on and on. Meanwhile, the terrorists ran wild in Africa, Europe, and finally the USA.<br><br>President Obama announced the formation of a 65-nation coalition to fight ISIS, but that was a PR stunt. He ordered bombing runs, but with restrictions that rendered the offensive as inoffensive as possible. The administration spent untold millions training Syrian rebels, with the end result being 'four or five' battle-ready individuals. 'Embarrassing' doesn't even begin to cover it.<br><br>So, after considering his options, President Obama came up with a familiar answer - fire up the teleprompter and talk. Last Sunday night, post-football, we got an earful of the same old stuff. The Oval Office address was panned by just about everybody outside of the president's immediate family and staff. Josh Earnest himself, the White House apologist-in-chief, must have been cringing.<br><br>All this hollow rhetoric has created a gaping opening for a man like Donald Trump. He loves the spotlight every bit as much as the president, but there is a stark difference. Trump talks extemporaneously, shooting from the hip without worrying about the consequences of any ill-aimed words.<br><br>The most recent ruckus, of course, resulted from his suggestion that all foreign Muslims be banned from entering the USA. During an appearance in the No Spin Zone Wednesday night, Trump would not back down. He never does.<br><br>Reminded that his ban would alienate the very nations we need to help in the war against ISIS, Trump simply dismissed that notion. Even when he is circled by 1,000 critics blasting away with heavy artillery, Donald Trump believes he has them surrounded. It is a valuable trait, especially this year.<br><br>New polls released Thursday show that the Republican front-runner has received still another bump. He has been riding a winning formula - the more he alienates Democrats, establishment Republicans, the media, and pretty much everyone else except his die-hard supporters, he seems to gain a few more Trumpiacs. If this holds up, the tycoon could arrive at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland with a plurality of delegates in his bank account.<br><br>But what if the party elders and graybeards, horrified by Trump's demeanor and policies, pull out all the stops and find a way to deny him the nomination? He has hinted, most recently Wednesday night on The Factor, that a third-party run is possible. Conventional wisdom says that Donald Trump would thus hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton, the woman he describes as 'a joke' and 'the worst secretary of state in history.'<br><br>But keep a few things in mind about 'conventional wisdom' in this election cycle. Conventional wisdom told us that Trump was a passing fancy, an updated version of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. Conventional wisdom assured us that Trump's attack on John McCain's war record and Carly Fiorina's appearance was his death knell. But that ominous bell has rung time and again and Trump is very much alive.<br><br>The bell is still ringing. Bill Kristol, a leading voice of the Republican establishment, is disparaging Trump as a 'talented demagogue' while extolling the virtues of Cruz, Rubio, and Christie. Kristol confidently predicts that Trump will be trampled in the cornfields of Iowa when voters come to their senses.<br><br>Haven't we heard it all before? That kind of analysis may be conventional, but it is not necessarily wise. It's less than two months before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. That interlude will be filled with bluster, predictions, pontifications, and endless bloviation. Some of the blather may even turn out to be accurate.<br><br>The overriding question is this: While the American people have had their fill of President Obama's fecklessness, are they really ready for another man who seems to flirt with recklessness? We will answer that hypothetical with the most-overused cliché of all time - stay tuned, only time will tell! Okay, that was two clichés, but you get the point.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-12-10T08:00:00ZProgressive Fascists & The Name GameBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Progressive-Fascists--The-Name-Game/46841.html2015-12-03T08:00:00Z2015-12-03T08:00:00ZAs you may know, some students at Princeton University are requesting - demanding! - that Woodrow Wilson's name be obliterated from campus buildings. Not only did Wilson graduate from Princeton, he was president of the school, governor of New Jersey and an impeccably 'progressive' president of the United States. So what's the beef?<br><br>Well, our 28th president was a dyed-in-the-wool racist who re-segregated the federal bureaucracy. His retrograde racial views have long been known to anyone who has taken the time to read about Wilson, and this latest campus dustup raises a question: Why stop with Woodrow Wilson?<br><br>The town of Princeton and the university itself are named after William III, Prince of Orange, whose family was deeply involved in the slave trade. Princeton has streets and buildings honoring native son Paul Robeson, the singer, athlete, actor, and unapologetic Stalinist. Robeson, undeniably a remarkable and talented man, clung to his affection for communism and the USSR even after being told that the Soviets were persecuting Jews. Perhaps his name should be vanished, Soviet-style, from the town square.<br><br>To the north in Connecticut, Wesleyan University got its name from John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church. A couple of centuries before San Bernardino, Paris, ISIS, and all the other Islamic-related mayhem, Wesley described Muslims as 'destroyers of human kind.' So shouldn't the trustees consider re-naming their ultra-liberal university? <br><br>Not to be outdone, Winston Churchill, whose name adorns numerous American schools, wrote that 'no stronger retrograde force exists in the world' than Islam. And let's not overlook President John Quincy Adams, who warned that the Koran advises 'perpetual war' against infidels. Yes, JQA was an Islamophobe, but don't mention it to the good folks of Quincy, Massachusetts.<br><br>Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a saint in the church of liberalism, had some serious issues with homosexuality. As secretary of the navy, FDR went on a crusade to find and weed out 'sexual perversion' in the Navy. The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln opined that the white race must always retain 'the superior position.' Think of all those 'Lincoln Elementary Schools' and "Roosevelt High Schools' across the USA and the big payday in store for stone masons.<br><br>In West Virginia, pretty much everything not nailed down is named after long-serving Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, whose career included a stint as Exalted Cyclops in the local Ku Klux Klan chapter. If there are calls to have his name sandblasted from all those edifices, we have not heard them.<br><br>Most towns, probably yours included, have streets named after slaveholders Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Yes, a stroll on Madison Avenue in New York City may require a 'trigger warning' for some of today's more delicate college students.<br><br>The point of all this is not to say that everything should be renamed, but rather that <em>nothing</em> should be renamed. Unless, that is, some horrible new disclosure comes to light. Anyone with a pulse and curiosity could have known that Woodrow Wilson was a stone-cold racist, that Honest Abe honestly felt blacks were lesser beings, and that Churchill loathed Islam.<br><br>These were men of their times expressing views that were common then, but which we now consider repugnant. They should be judged by the standards of the eras in which they lived, not by our notions of what is acceptable. Demonizing FDR for his views of homosexuality makes as much sense as criticizing his fondness for cigarettes.<br><br>However, if we suddenly discover that Wilson was, say, a pedophile, or that Lincoln was a serial killer in his spare time, a re-examination will be in order. Short of that, how about we just leave things the way they are? Sorry to all you brick layers out there.<br><br>As an aside, back in 1964 Shirley Ellis had a runaway hit with 'The Name Game.' If you're of a certain age, you can still recite her unique lyrics - 'Lincoln, Lincoln, bo Bincoln, Bonanana fanna fo Fincoln.' It was a light song infused with fun and joy. <br><br>But today's Name Game is one of bitterness, usually played by left-wingers who revel in feeling 'oppressed.' And if they really want to start down the slippery slope of erasing past leaders from public streets and buildings, why not go all the way? Out with Washington and Lincoln and Roosevelt, down with Churchill and Wilson and Madison. Let the re-naming begin!BillOReilly.com Staff2015-12-03T08:00:00ZStill Thankful, After All These YearsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Still-Thankful-After-All-These-Years/46825.html2015-11-27T08:00:00Z2015-11-27T08:00:00ZOkay, first the bad news. The Obama years have been pretty lousy for the folks. The economy is moribund, wages in many sectors have actually declined, and record numbers of Americans depend on the government for their daily bread.<br><br>And this malaise runs far deeper than economic issues. A recent Reuters poll revealed that 58% of Americans 'don't identify with what America has become.' In other words, they feel like strangers in their own country.<br><br>That alienation is understandable, given the growing chasm between our ruling elites and ordinary citizens. The swells in the media, the entertainment world, and the academy now tell us this:<br><br>* If you oppose taking in refugees from Syria, you are clearly an Islamophobe.<br><br>* If you believe that trigger-happy cops like Chicago's Jason Van Dyke are the exception and not the rule, you are evidently a racist.<br><br>* If you question same-sex marriage, or even the notion that a baker must cater a gay wedding, you're obviously homophobic.<br><br>The list goes on and on. We have now reached the point where our cultural arbiters demand that a high school boy be allowed to shower with the girls because he self-identifies as female.<br><br>Our mainstream media routinely mock conservatives, Republicans, and traditional Americans, while our colleges, usually run by simpering cowards, kowtow to radical students and silence others.<br><br>Race relations are tense at home, while overseas Islamic terrorists run wild. Meanwhile, merely using that 'Islamic' descriptor is taboo to many in our chattering classes. The national debt is stratospheric, crime in many of our big cities is on the rise, and we have a Congress that can't even pass a law that would protect Americans from predatory illegal aliens. What a mess!<br><br>But with all that out of the way, this is Thanksgiving and Americans still have much for which to be extremely grateful. This is not the oppressive and xenophobic country portrayed by radical leftists; in fact, there has never been a more welcoming and pluralistic nation in the history of this planet.<br><br>At our southern border, Mexicans are desperately trying to get into the USA. Have you ever heard of an American eager to cross the Rio Grande in the other direction? The poorest people around the world, who obviously don't read the left-wing blogs, still see this land as a shining beacon.<br><br>So while things may seem bleak at the moment, remember that timeless saying: 'This, too, shall pass.' America has survived wars, financial panics, recessions, depressions, and the tumult of the 1960s and 1970s. Our 'one nation indivisible' was even split in two for a few years and emerged stronger than ever.<br><br>More than 7 in 10 Americans now believe the USA is in decline, and a most believe their children face an America of limited opportunities. But Americans have been gloomy before, and gloom does not necessarily presage decline.<br><br>One final aside involves an R&B singer name William DeVaughn, now 67 years old. More than 40 years ago, while working at a government desk job, he spent his own money to record a song called 'Be Thankful for What You Got.' The record, with its inspirational message of gratitude and optimism, sold 2-million copies. DeVaughn quit his civil service job and was presumably more thankful than ever.<br><br>If you are an American reading this, you are presumably aware that you live in the greatest country that has ever existed. Never has there been a place more free, more generous, offering more opportunity to people from around the world. That extends to people of every nationality, every hue, and every faith.<br><br>So despite the daily chaos and the current lack of leadership, we can all be very, very thankful. Take William DeVaughn's advice, and not only on Thanksgiving.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-11-27T08:00:00ZOur Jayvee PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Our-Jayvee-President/46796.html2015-11-19T08:00:00Z2015-11-19T08:00:00Z"He seems disconnected from reality." That declaration, used to describe President Obama, did not emanate from Charles Krauthammer or Ted Cruz. No, the words were those of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, and they were not refuted by his mostly liberal panel of regulars.<br><br>"The only strategy that's working is the strategy that he tends to dismiss." That damning analysis came not from Ralph Peters or John McCain, but from CNN's Christiane Amanpour.<br><br>Even many of President Obama's most reliable supporters have awakened from their seven-year slumber. They can finally recognize that he is a commander-in-chief without a strategy, a president without a clue. The day before the Paris terror attacks, the president notoriously boasted that ISIS had been 'contained.' Then, after the attacks, he minimized the carnage as a 'setback.'<br><br>But when the subject turned to accepting refugees from Syria, President Obama finally displayed some real anger. Not at ISIS or Assad or his own strategy, which many believe led directly to the refugee crisis. The president's palpable ire was directed at Republicans and a few Democrats who are calling for at least a pause in accepting refugees from Syria.<br><br>The GOP, he said derisively, is 'scared of widows and orphans.' Truth is, Mr. President, a large swath of the world is scared of radical Islam, the ideology that dare not speak its name in your administration. And there is good reason for that fear. Just as the president was mocking his political rivals, the Islamists of Boko Haram were busy slaughtering 50 innocent civilians in Nigeria. Many of the dead were children. That bloodbath followed dual suicide bombings in Lebanon, the bombing of a Russian passenger jet in Egypt, and of course the Paris massacre.<br><br>Mr. Obama's opponents are not afraid of widows and orphans but they are rightfully worried that his fecklessness has contributed to the growing violence. And many people, both at home and around the world, are also fearful of President Obama's uncanny knack for ignoring reality. Earlier this year he said this to MSNBC: 'There is probably less war and violence around the world today than there might have been thirty, forty years ago.' The president went on to assure everyone that 'things can get better.'<br><br>On that front he is absolutely correct. Things can get better, but not until the president has a radical change of heart. Let's call it a 'fundamental transformation,' the kind he vowed to bring to the USA. Things may also improve if the next commander-in-chief is someone who can recognize the reality of the world as it exists, not the fantasy of what he or she wishes the world to be.<br><br>In two weeks President Obama will be back in his comfort zone, talking about the dire consequences of 'climate change' at a massive international environmental junket. If the past is any indication, he will declare 'climate change' to be the biggest threat facing the world today. But this year the conference just happens to be in Paris, whose shell-shocked residents know better. In fact, anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders understands that the biggest threat we face comes from the terrorists of radical Islam, not the possibility of a slightly warmer atmosphere.<br><br>The subhuman savages of the Islamic State, through their repeated atrocities, have declared war on the West. The time has come for the West to realize we are engaged in a full-scale fight against a determined and brutal opponent.<br><br>The butchers can be defeated, but we will have to be just as determined, just as brutal. And let's face it, we are in desperate need of a commander who can change strategy when necessary, someone who is strong and resolute and relentless. <br><br>ISIS is not just a jayvee team, far from it. And to defeat this malignancy, the West requires a leader who is not just a jayvee quarterback. That may sound harsh; it also happens to be true.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-11-19T08:00:00ZFascism 101BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fascism-101/46771.html2015-11-12T08:00:00Z2015-11-12T08:00:00ZIt took a mere instant for Melissa Click to establish herself as the scowling, angry face of left-wing intolerance on college campuses. Click, of course, is the University of Missouri professor who requested 'some muscle' to help remove a journalist who was documenting a protest.<br><br>The scene may have reminded movie fans of Frankie Pentangeli begging Michael for 'muscle' to get rid of those nasty Rosato brothers in The Godfather Part II. <br><br>But back to reality and the sad fact that there are thousands of Melissa Clicks on our campuses. They are desperately searching for some excuse, any excuse, to use their two favorite words: 'Shut up!' If you disagree with them on any number of issues - race, climate change, radical Islam, immigration, even Halloween costumes - these modern Mussolinis demand that you just keep quiet.<br><br>As a slight bow to the First Amendment, some schools have actually set up tiny and obscure 'free speech zones,' reserved for lonely outcasts who wish to express an opinion not in line with prevailing doctrine.<br><br>Speaking of the Bill of Rights, it seems a lot of self-styled 'progressives' would prefer that it be cut by about 20%. Of course the Second Amendment is always, pardon the expression, under fire. And now the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of expression has become an enemy to many on the left.<br><br>After all, if Madison, Jefferson, and their comrades had not stressed the importance of unfettered speech, we could emulate those European nations where it is a crime to insult certain groups, especially religions that begin with the letter 'I.'<br><br>So now we witness students at the University of Missouri demanding, and obtaining, the scalp (sorry!) of the school's president. He was guilty of 'inaction' or some such crime against humanity. Meanwhile, at Yale, a professor was viciously and verbally abused by students for worrying that universities 'have become places of censure and prohibition.'<br><br>Amid the chaos there are a few glimmers of hope. An editorial at Harvard called out the Yalies as 'fascists,' and The Daily Princetonian also ran a piece ridiculing the Yale protesters. But Yale's president cowered in fear and wrote some jibberish about 'fostering diversity.' Truth is, there are few species in this world more cowardly than campus administrators. Their knee-jerk reaction to controversy is to apologize, form committees, and speak platitudes.<br><br>Want to understand what's going on at some of our leading institutions of higher learning? Look no farther than Ithaca College in New York State, where every year of indoctrination costs parents north of $50,000. The school has proudly announced it will shell out vast sums on a diversity plan that includes a 'safe space' for multicultural students. Ithaca also created the new position of 'Chief Diversity Officer.' The salary has not been made public, but no doubt it is well into the six figures. Placating angry mobs doesn't come cheap.<br><br>After that diversity issue is fully resolved, Ithaca may wish to revisit its nickname. 'Bombers' has a very militaristic tone, reminding one of the B-52s that were American tools of hegemonic and patriarchal oppression during the Cold War. Well, maybe they can fight the mascot wars another day.<br><br>The point has been made that today's students, especially those attending elite schools, were raised to believe that America has generally been an oppressive and unfair place. Many administrators pretty much agree with that notion - after all, you don't climb the slippery academic ladder by wearing a U.S. flag on your lapel. Patriotism is just so yesterday!<br><br>And now it's time for universities to begin the process of inviting high-profile commencement speakers, and to consider which eminent folks are worthy of honorary degrees. In both cases, conservative thinkers are pretty much off limits. Why stir up the young fascists and give them another reason to protest and lament 'their pain?'<br><br>There can be absolutely no doubt that the modern university, with its 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions,' has been created by the radical left. And now, to borrow from Reverend Wright, these fascistic chickens have come home to roost.<br><br>All of this chaos brings to mind the famous Pottery Barn rule that was invoked by Colin Powell when talking about Iraq. That same rule now applies to progressives and the world of academia. 'You broke it ... you own it!'BillOReilly.com Staff2015-11-12T08:00:00ZCrime and Lack of PunishmentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Crime-and-Lack-of-Punishment/46741.html2015-11-05T08:00:00Z2015-11-05T08:00:00ZThere were more than 2,000 murders in New York City in 1981. To be more precise, 2,166 men, women, and children had their lives ended by other human beings in that one very bloody year.<br><br>Out of all that carnage, one murder stood out as a symbol of the liberal attitude towards crime and punishment. And it is very relevant today as thousands of criminals are being released from federal prisons.<br><br>22-year-old Richard Adan, an actor and the son of Cuban immigrants, was waiting tables at his father-in-law's Manhattan restaurant. He got into a beef with a customer who challenged him to step outside and promptly stabbed him to death.<br><br>That killer, as you may know, was 37-year-old Jack Henry Abbott, a career thug and murderer who had won the sympathy of some of America's leading bleeding hearts, most notably far-left author Norman Mailer.<br><br>Abbott, born to a prostitute and raised in foster homes, had spent most of his adult life behind bars. But he showed a certain talent for writing and began corresponding with Mailer, who considered Abbott a victim of American injustice. Those letters became the foundation for Abbott's best-selling book 'In The Belly of the Beast.'<br><br>Norman Mailer helped win Abbott's release from prison, then helped the newly-freed ex-con begin a new life in New York City. After just six weeks of freedom, Jack Henry Abbott, who had once killed another inmate and had boasted about his penchant for violence, shoved a knife into Richard Adan.<br><br>The day after that murder, still unaware of Abbott's all-too-predicable crime, the New York Times hailed his writing as 'awesome, brilliant ... an articulation of penal nightmare.' The ever-so-talented Mr. Abbott was soon back in prison, where he eventually hanged himself to death. Too late for Richard Adan.<br><br>Why bring all this up now? Because President Obama has ordered the early release of thousands of drug dealers from federal prisons. To be very clear, these are inmates who were convicted of drug crimes, not murder. There are no known Jack Henry Abbotts among them. But we should also be very clear that these are not college kids caught with a dime bag of weed. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of these men and women hastened the death of others.<br><br>Our legal duo of Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle revealed that one of the lucky miscreants is Roscoe Minns, who has already been released. Less than five years ago, Minns was arrested in Maryland in a conspiracy involving $3 million worth of cocaine and weapons. Minns also had a long rap sheet that included assault.<br><br>Then there's Regis Payne, a D.C. guy who had been arrested for selling PCP. With his prior arrests and convictions, prosecutors called him a 'calamity waiting to happen.' Thanks to President Obama, Mr. Payne may soon be coming to a street near you.<br><br>How about Tuan Evans, who made his living selling guns and cocaine but now says he learned haircutting skills in prison. Pardon the pun, but this aspiring barber just had nine months shaved off his sentence. Are you ready to have Mr. Tuan Evans standing behind you with a straight razor? Maybe there is an opening in the Senate barbershop.<br><br>These are not isolated cases. The AP has identified about 100 early release candidates whose past convictions include robbery, assault, and large-scale drug dealing. Of course, liberals and even some conservatives consider drug dealing a 'non-violent crime.' But tens of thousands of Americans die from overdoses each year, thousands more are killed by drug-addled drivers. Sounds pretty violent, no?<br><br>Federal officials say that about 40,000 prisoners will be eligible for early release in the coming years. The odds are that most of them will not commit violent crimes. But any oddsmaker worth his salt will also tell you that many of these folks will go back to selling drugs, inherently a very violent profession.<br><br>Drug dealing is one of the lowest forms of human activity, but our president is giving leniency to folks who sell hard drugs. Are you willing to risk public safety in the name of 'compassion' and 'racial justice?' President Obama apparently is.<br><br>Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor Bill Otis, who runs a blog called 'Crime and Consequences,' poses a very tough question: "When these people start up with a criminal life again, as we know many will, who will pay the price for the harm they cause?" Who indeed?<br><br>We should never forget that ultra-violent year of 1981, when bleeding heart liberalism helped kill Richard Adan. And we should all hope that same misguided sympathy does not lead to more bloodshed in 2015 and beyond.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-11-05T08:00:00ZIt's The Economy, Stupid CNBC!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-The-Economy-Stupid-CNBC!/46710.html2015-10-29T07:00:00Z2015-10-29T07:00:00ZLet's get this straight. On Wednesday morning a new national poll revealed that 54% of Americans rate the economy as 'poor.' That's after nearly seven years of Barack Obama's big government solutions. Republicans, of course, are especially gloomy about the economy.<br><br>That was Wednesday morning, teeing things up for CNBC, the self-described 'world leader in business news.' Surely the moderators would flood the zone with substantive questions about the U.S. economy.<br><br>Instead, Becky Quick quizzed Marco Rubio about his 'lack of bookkeeping skills,' Carl Quintanilla posed questions about homosexuality and fantasy football, and the astonishingly incompetent John Harwood expressed doubt about Donald Trump's 'moral authority.'<br><br>To be fair, CNBC's triumvirate asked many questions about taxes and spending and deficits and Social Security, but way too many of those questions did not elicit solid answers. They seemed crafted to bring attention to the hosts, not the candidates.<br><br>So the post-debate analysis focused on the moderators and the undeniably liberal leanings of the mainstream media. Chris Christie, one of the night's stars, summarized the questions as 'snarky, divisive, non-substantive, and biased.' Our own Charles Krauthammer, a star on any night, called it 'the most appalling performance by moderators that I can remember.' Media bias is a very valuable subject, but in this case it overshadowed what was supposed to be the main subject, the dismal American economy.<br><br>And that economy is a mess! New data from the Social Security Administration show that 51% of working Americans made less than $30,000 last year, and 40% made less than $20,000! The key word is 'working.' Those stats don't even take into account the millions of Americans who are officially unemployed. Or those who have thrown in the towel and dropped out of the economy.<br><br>President Obama can boast that the unemployment rate is about 5%, but a stunning 40% of Americans are not in the labor force. That's the lowest participation rate since 1977, when 'Saturday Night Fever' and disco were all the rage.<br><br>Median income has gone down under Barack Obama's watch, partly because employers are getting hammered by Washington. Whatever you think about ObamaCare, it has thrown a yoke around the necks of the small and mid-sized companies that do much of the hiring.<br><br>Let's put this is stark terms. The median weekly wage when Barack Obama took office was slightly above $800. It is now slightly <em>below</em> $800. Going way, way back, household income is pretty much the same as it was in 1995. Two decades of stagnation! Sure, those dastardly one-percenters of Wall Street have done very well, especially in the age of Obama, but workers are taking it on the chin.<br><br>The administration always has a ready answer. When the first quarter slumped, the White House and its minions blamed it on the snow and cold weather. Perhaps they should hope that those dire 'climate change' warnings come true. Now we have news that third quarter economic growth was just 1.5%. Maybe it was too warm. Goldilocks come to mind?<br><br>No doubt we have a real problem with a moribund economy and it is especially tough on lower income Americans. And CNBC had an ideal opportunity to probe prospective presidents about their solutions. Instead, we got a self-serving panel asking questions designed to go viral.<br><br>The next GOP debate is coming up in a couple of weeks, again hosted by business-oriented concerns. This time it's Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal, both part of the family that includes Fox News.<br><br>You can certainly expect some tough questions from Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo, and Gerard Baker. But their goal will be to elicit real answers about festering economic problems.<br><br>Fantasy football will not be part of the debate. Nor will Marco Rubio's student loans, Ben Carson's analysis of nutritional supplements, or whether Donald Trump is packing heat. Actually, if the candidates had been armed Wednesday night, their likely target would have been the CNBC logo draped around the auditorium. And the logo's peacock would probably be riddled with lead.<br><br>Any substantive moments in the Boulder debate were lost in the fog of war, a war that broke out between the candidates and the moderators. The Republican presidential hopefuls learned a lot this week. So did the upcoming debate moderators. Future debates will be more about the substance of the candidates, less about the style of the questioners. And that is good news for we the people.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-10-29T07:00:00ZGiving Sanctuary To AnarchyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Giving-Sanctuary-To-Anarchy/46632.html2015-10-22T07:00:00Z2015-10-22T07:00:00ZSomething absolutely appalling took place this week in the United States Senate. The so-called 'world's greatest deliberative body' had a choice between protecting American citizens ... and utter lawlessness. Lawlessness prevailed!<br><br>44 Democratic senators and one Republican blocked a bill that would punish cities that give sanctuary to illegal aliens, even those wanted for a serious crime. The sanctuary city bill was attached to Kate's Law, which mandates prison terms for illegal aliens who return to the USA after committing aggravated felonies.<br><br>Meanwhile, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors proudly voted to retain its insane sanctuary policies. That is the very city, of course, where 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who simply should not have been in this country.<br><br>One of the supervisors, Malia Cohen, displayed her great bravery by declaring, 'I am not afraid of Fox News.' The audience cheered like trained seals brought in from San Francisco Bay. Ms. Cohen has another reason to be extremely proud - last year she sponsored a bill prohibiting employers and landlords from asking about an applicant's criminal history.<br><br>She also voted against a measure that would have prevented people from lying about on city sidewalks, although presumably not in front of the $581,000 condo she owned before it was foreclosed. This woman has a real knack for protecting the criminal class.<br><br>During an appearance on The Factor after those votes, Kate Steinle's parents expressed their utter disgust with what happened in San Francisco and Washington. Disgust, but not surprise. Sadly, we are accustomed to being slapped around by liberal politicians who never pay a price for their votes.<br><br>Juan Francisco Sanchez-Lopez, charged with the murder of Kate, is a career criminal who has used more than 30 aliases and has been deported to his native Mexico time and again. During his most recent return to the USA, he picked San Francisco because that city is known for leniency toward illegals. That's where he broke into a car, stole a handgun, and recklessly fired that gun in a public place, killing Kate Steinle.<br><br>Astoundingly, the New York Times portrays this repeat criminal as a choir boy who apparently got lost on the way to church: 'Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was a homeless man,' the Times tearfully lamented, 'with drug convictions but no record of violent crime; the bullet he fired was found to have ricocheted off the pier, suggesting that he had not targeted anyone.'<br><br>So the Times, rather than worrying about cops being shot and killed in Harlem, is actually defending this felonious thug in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the odious supervisor Malia Cohen had the audacity to claim that her city's sanctuary policy played no role in Kate Steinle's death. And another supervisor, David Campos, worried about 'scapegoating immigrants.' These lefty loons genuinely care more about killers than victims, and it is utterly sickening.<br><br>But don't wait for President Obama to criticize his party's decision to side with sanctuary cities and counties, which now number more than 300. He doesn't hesitate to weigh in when a boy designs a clock that resembles a bomb, but he is conspicuously silent when localities protect ticking human time bombs. President Obama is sworn to uphold the law of the land, but he does not uphold immigration law.<br><br>It is inevitable that another innocent person will be killed or raped or maimed by an illegal felon who has returned to the USA after being deported. Those are the miscreants who would be targeted by Kate's Law - we are not talking about gardeners and chambermaids and plumbers. When it happens, Malia Cohen and her pals might want to answer a few questions.<br><br>Right now the political establishment is pulling out its hair, wondering how a guy like Donald Trump could be leading the race for the Republican nomination. Perhaps they should look to Capitol Hill in the East and Telegraph Hill in the West. Democrats in the Senate, led by Harry Reid, endorse laws that protect violent felons. And city 'leaders' in San Francisco express great pride in doing the same thing. <br><br>Yes, things in much of America are totally out of control. Some liberal precincts resemble Tombstone, Arizona, that infamously lawless town in the Wild West. And many people find themselves wondering when a new sheriff will finally show up to restore some order. Wyatt Earp, a nation turns its frightened eyes to you.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-10-22T07:00:00ZA Blameless, Clueless PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Blameless-Clueless-President/46607.html2015-10-15T07:00:00Z2015-10-15T07:00:00ZCharles Krauthammer frequently quips that he is no longer a practicing psychiatrist. But the good doctor put our president on the proverbial couch this week and declared him 'delusional.' Not once, but twice in the same segment.<br><br>Of course, it doesn't take a trained shrink to conclude that President Obama sometimes seems to inhabit another world. It's a realm where everything he does, or has ever done, is pretty much on the money. A world where he is doing a bang-up job. A place where only Republicans and Fox News don't recognize the wisdom of his governance.<br><br>Dr. K's perspicacious diagnosis was in reaction to the president's sit-down on '60 Minutes,' where he was pressed surprisingly hard by Steve Kroft. Even Kroft, who often goes pretty easy on the big guy, looked incredulous when President Obama assured him that the 'community of nations' will eventually destroy ISIS.<br><br>Have you seen that elusive 'community of nations' stepping up to the plate in the Middle East? Didn't think so. It's a community talked about in the faculty lounge, but seldom found in the real world.<br><br>Then there was President Obama's declaration that he knew all along that training moderate Syrians to fight Assad was doomed to failure. Why, then, did we authorize $500-million and wind up with four or five trained fighters? Not four or five platoons. Four or five <em>men</em> willing and able to confront the Syrian butcher.<br><br>Put another way, the president was against the training program before he was for it, telling Kroft he was 'skeptical from the get-go.' Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius, hardly a raging conservative, concluded that the president's claim was simply 'weird.'<br><br>The commander-in-chief habitually sets up a false choice in the Middle East. It's either do nothing or send in 'several hundred thousand troops,' as he accuses his critics of advocating. But surely there are other options between those extremes.<br><br>General David Petraeus, former boss of the CIA and a legendary military strategist, testified that we could be doing more in Syria, especially with air power. The president derided that as 'mumbo jumbo,' one more example of the many 'half-baked ideas' floating around.<br><br>He also dismissed Hillary Clinton's suggestion that a no-fly zone should at least be on the table. You expect Bernie Sanders to ridicule that notion, as he did in Tuesday's debate. But you don't anticipate the president of the United States giving the back of his hand to his former secretary of state.<br><br>In the end, the president seems to honestly believe that his Middle East strategy is working. Forget about his disappearing 'red line' or his demands for regime change in Syria. Never mind the hundreds of thousands who have been killed by Assad, or their luckier brethren who are flooding into Europe. To this president, we are winning, Putin and Assad are losing, and the refugee crisis has absolutely nothing to do with him.<br><br>No president wants to admit failure. Not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon. They prefer to remember whatever good things happened on their watch. Especially when they promised so much more. And no one has ever promised more than Barack Obama.<br><br>In 2009, soon after his first inauguration, President Obama implied that his election would radically and permanently transform relations between the USA and the world's Muslims. 'I am a Christian,' he told a crowd in Cairo, 'but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the Azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk.'<br><br>Six years later, that implied promise has run aground. President Obama looks to the Middle East and sees, instead of peace and progress, nothing but carnage and chaos. Faced with that reality, he tends to do two things. First, deny that he is in any way responsible. We saw that in the revealing '60 Minutes' interview. When that doesn't work, he'll just change the subject.<br><br>Climate change, anyone?BillOReilly.com Staff2015-10-15T07:00:00ZGunning For The TruthBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gunning-For-The-Truth/46532.html2015-10-08T07:00:00Z2015-10-08T07:00:00ZSomething about the gun debate brings out the worst in politicians. On both sides.<br><br>Last week, President Obama, exuding his usual certainty, put forth this definitive declaration: "We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."<br><br>No, Mr. President we do not know that at all. Some states with almost no gun restrictions, places like New Hampshire and Utah, have very few gun murders. Meanwhile, Maryland and the District of Columbia, with ultra-tough gun laws, are killing fields.<br><br>The same is true with nations as a whole. In Switzerland, where guns are plentiful, killings are rare. There is essentially no correlation between gun laws and violence. Statisticians have tried mightily to find correlation and causation, but simply can not.<br><br>Of course, there is one undeniable correlation: Demanding 'common sense' gun legislation leads directly to a corresponding increase in self-righteousness. Or is it the other way around?<br><br>Anyway, there are also fibs on the pro-gun side, where 'gun nuts' contend that more weaponry leads directly to less crime. They overlook states like Louisiana and Mississippi, which have few gun laws but an abundance of gun murders.<br><br>Politicians try to pettifog this issue with all sorts of mumbo-jumbo about 'gun show loopholes' and 'automatic weapons' and 'universal background checks.' The result, perhaps the intent, is not to enlighten, but to confuse.<br><br>But while advocates and fanatics deceptively trot out their favorite stats, there is a simple truth that every clear-thinking person acknowledges. It was expressed pithily last week by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: 'People who are insane and want to go ahead and murder don't follow the gun control laws.'<br><br>No amount of legislation is going to prevent a determined madman from killing. Not in Colorado, not in Connecticut, not in South Carolina, not in Oregon. And, for that matter, not in Scandinavia, either.<br><br>Would-be gun controllers prefer to forget about the subhuman cretin who slaughtered 77 people, most of them children, in that gun-free zone known as Norway. That's more than the death toll at Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, and Roseburg. Combined.<br><br>But politicians, especially in the wake of a tragedy, just can't help themselves. Hillary Clinton made this claim a few days ago: 'The gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.'<br><br>Absolutely false! Gun makers can be sued if their product is defective and malfunctions. But Clinton and some others on the left want gun companies to be held responsible for the actions of a person using a gun, even if that gun works precisely as intended.<br><br>It is true that Congress has granted gun makers some protection from lawsuits, precisely so that cities and states can not bankrupt companies that manufacture firearms.<br><br>And interestingly enough, when gun manufacturers pushed for that protection against frivolous lawsuits, Bernie Sanders voted with the NRA. The Democratic presidential candidate also voted against the Brady Bill, arguing that the feds shouldn't impose mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases. Sanders even voted for a law allowing Amtrak passengers to transport weapons. Bernie's adoring fans on the left, if and when they find out about their guy's mixed record on gun control, may be in for a surprise.<br><br>In one sense, the Senator from Vermont is one of the more honest politicians in this entire debate. He favors stricter background checks and more emphasis on mental health issues, both of which are eminently sensible positions.<br><br>Bernie Sanders may be a socialist living in an economic dream world, but he is entirely realistic when it comes to gun control, saying this: 'Some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not." He may want to have a word with his friends on the left who have demagogued this issue for decades.<br><br>Better tracking and record keeping are good things; they may help at the margins. Convicts and the insane should not be allowed to buy or own lethal weapons. Pretty much everyone this side of Charles Bronson agrees with that.<br><br>But let's also agree that no proposed legislation would have stopped the killings in Oregon. If a nut wants a gun, he'll find a way to get one. Rudy Giuliani understands that. Bernie Sanders also understands it. Why can't so many other pinheads grasp this one very simple fact: Laws cannot stop madness.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-10-08T07:00:00ZOne Nation, Very DivisibleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/One-Nation-Very-Divisible/46509.html2015-10-01T07:00:00Z2015-10-01T07:00:00Z"Anger Defines 2016 Electorate." That headline runs above a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the USA is headed in the wrong direction. And that was before Russia's Putin doffed his shirt, flexed his pecs, and thumbed his nose at us in Syria.<br><br>Another headline: "Biden Would Enter 2016 Race As Most Popular Candidate." Are you getting this? The same pollsters who find an "angry" America also discover that Vice President Joe Biden, acolyte of the president and the ultimate status quo candidate, defeats every Republican in a hypothetical matchup.<br><br>Among others, our good friend Charles Krauthammer points out that Biden's numbers will almost surely plummet the moment he enters the race. A theoretical candidate always looks better than a real one, and right now the VP is on the fence, doing his best Mario Cuomo impression.<br><br>Getting back to that anger, it is every bit as polarized as our nation. Many Republicans are ticked off over America's declining status in the world, political correctness run amok, Islamic-based terrorism, the sale of fetal tissue, the assault on religious freedom, and mayhem in our cities. That's just for starters. These are the folks attending rallies for Trump, Carson, Fiorina, and Cruz. Anger is not nearly as apparent at Jeb Bush events.<br><br>On the other side, many Democrats are peeved at an entirely different set of issues. Their fury stems from wealth disparity, the supposed scourge of 'climate change,' and racial animus. Again, that's just for starters. Ticked-off progressives are flocking to hear wild-eyed Bernie Sanders, who has now caught up with Hillary Clinton in the fundraising category. Hey, even socialists need lots of dough to run a campaign.<br><br>So there's no doubt that plenty of people in today's America are steaming. The 'hope and change' mantra of eight years ago has been transformed into Howard Beale's 'I'm mad as hell' rant.<br><br>That's not necessarily a bad thing if it is channeled into policy prescriptions and makes America a better place. Righteous anger over genuine racial injustice in the '50s and '60s was nearly universal and made the USA a more perfect union.<br><br>But today's rage is not nearly as focused, and it comes from vastly different places for conservatives and liberals. If Donald Trump or Carly Fiorina is nominated, it's not just that half the country will politely disagree with them. So-called progressives will actively hate them, much as they hated George W. Bush.<br><br>Similarly, if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, millions of right-wingers will despise them. Much as they loathe President Obama.<br><br>So anger can have its benefits, such as when it is channeled into effort and energy on the football field. But when we are infected with hate, fights break out, penalty flags are thrown, and people get hurt.<br><br>Right now there is no candidate who can soothe the restive electorate. The calm Jeb Bush is losing ground, while the happy warrior John Kasich trails his more belligerent rivals. Ben Carson is a likeable guy, but leftists will never, ever forgive him for being a black conservative and for criticizing Islam. By breaking those two left-wing taboos, the doctor is considered guilty of malpractice.<br><br>As for Democrats, Joe Biden is much liked and rarely loathed, but even he would have a hard time bringing Americans together. Good ol' Joe has a lot of baggage after carrying Barack Obama's suitcase for eight years.<br><br>There are plenty of reasons for conservative Americans to be fuming. The economy is stagnant, with wages for working men and women on the decline. Religious Americans have been diminished, while the country seems to be more impotent than ever overseas.<br><br>Liberals also have reasons to be in a foul mood. The rich are indeed getting richer, their beloved Planned Parenthood is under assault, they see Islamophobia and racism around every corner, and President Obama has not lived up to their grandiose hopes.<br><br>Sure, America has been divided and irate in the past, but people can now spread the hatred with 140 characters and the touch of a button. That may be helpful if your name is Trump or Sanders, but it is not good for we the people.<br><br>Want to hear something amazing? In January of 2009, just after President Obama was sworn in for the first time, 69% of Americans approved of the young and promising commander-in-chief. We may never see a number like that again, which is truly regrettable. Both for the incoming president, whomever that might be, and for the United States of America.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-10-01T07:00:00ZThe Pope, The President, The Press, and PoliticsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Pope-The-President-The-Press-and-Politics/46483.html2015-09-24T07:00:00Z2015-09-24T07:00:00ZWhen Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013, he sent a message by choosing Francis as his papal name. In the 13th century, St. Francis of Assisi renounced his family's wealth and worked with the poor and society's outcasts.<br><br>The original Francis and his band of followers shunned property, sold all their worldly goods, and walked the streets in bare feet. So you can see why some on the far left, who are often hostile to Catholicism, make an exception for St. Francis, thinking he was a 'redistribute the wealth' kind of guy.<br><br>Similarly, today's left-wing media and politicians have finally found a holy man they can admire. NBC News heralded the arrival of "Progressive Pope Francis," while socialist Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says Pope Francis has a "very progressive agenda."<br><br>So in addition to being the embodiment of Christ on Earth, Pope Francis has become a political Rorschach test. Pundits and politicians see what they wish to see, hear what they wish to hear, and conveniently ignore the rest. It's true on both sides of the aisle, but especially on the left.<br><br>Self-proclaimed progressives are fond of the pontiff when he pontificates about "climate change" or wealth inequality, especially when he rails against "the worship of the ancient golden calf." But they overlook his teachings on same-sex marriage and, most especially, abortion.<br><br>A few days before Francis touched down on U.S. soil, our House of Representatives considered a bill that would protect the life of any baby who miraculously survives a late-term abortion. To clarify, consider that an attempted abortion is unsuccessful and the baby is born alive. Is that newborn an actual person deserving of medical intervention and protection? Or just a worthless clump of tissue?<br><br>Stunningly, only five Democrats voted for the bill, while 177 voted no. One-hundred-and-seventy-seven elected officials believe it is okay to kill that baby, who is living and breathing in the operating room. (Their names are posted here on BillOReilly.com.) Talk about extremism!<br><br>President Obama lauds Pope Francis for caring about society's "most vulnerable." Is there anyone more vulnerable than those infants? Are progressives so delusional that they believe Pope Francis is okay with religious Americans being forced to fund abortions through their taxes?<br><br>The president and his acolytes also find common ground with the pope's criticism of capitalism. They all should be reminded that nothing - no system, no ideology - has done more for the poor than our capitalist society. In contrast, soul-less and God-less communist regimes have created misery, poverty, and a level of pollution that is unimaginable in the West.<br><br>In the foreign arena, liberals in the media are giddy when the pope seems to endorse the president's emphasis on diplomacy. But too many words and not enough action have directly led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria and the entire Middle East.<br><br>There is now a staggering flood of desperate refugees, a crisis largely due to our unwillingness to confront ISIS. Looking down the road, our diplomacy with Iran has empowered and enriched the nuke-envious, Israel-hating mullahs.<br><br>The pope's perceived politics have taken precedence thus far, but the primary purpose of his visit is to attend the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia. Like any thinking person, the pope surely knows that the "most vulnerable" grow more vulnerable when families are dysfunctional or nonexistent. And he certainly believes that the traditional family, headed by a married man and woman, is the best way to raise children. The Holy Father is not all that keen on same-sex parenting and adoption.<br><br>Which brings us to one of the week's more unintentionally amusing headlines. It was spotted on the website Vox, whose motto is "explain the news." Some genius at Vox lamented, "Pope Francis isn't as progressive on LGBTQ issues as you think."<br><br>In other words, this left-wing blogger came face-to-face with that eternal question: Is the pope Catholic? The progressive was evidently stunned and saddened to discover that the answer is "yes." How do you say "duh" in Latin?BillOReilly.com Staff2015-09-24T07:00:00ZAnger on the BallotBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Anger-on-the-Ballot/46449.html2015-09-17T07:00:00Z2015-09-17T07:00:00ZThere were a couple of very clear winners at Wednesday night's Republican debate. One was Carly Fiorina, who certainly proved she is more than ready for prime time. Because of CNN's selection process, Fiorina almost didn't make it to the main event in California. But in many ways she dominated the debate, and she unquestionably has dominated the post-debate analysis.<br><br>Even our perspicacious and professorial Charles Krauthammer, a notoriously tough grader, gave Fiorina an 'A.' Then, Charles being Charles, he felt compelled to lower that to an 'A-minus.'<br><br>The other big winner, aside from the always articulate and well-informed Marco Rubio, was not actually a candidate. It was an emotion - anger.<br><br>One of the night's most stirring moments came when Fiorina and anger coalesced. Speaking about Planned Parenthood's gruesome practices, Fiorina displayed sheer indignation, demanding a bill to end federal funding for the abortion provider.<br><br>Her take on Planned Parenthood has been the most talked-about sound bite of the debate, with the possible exception of Fiorina's response to Donald Trump's comments about her looks. That reply was also laced with righteous anger, which was primarily evident not in Fiorina's verbiage, but her visage.<br><br>Then there was normally amiable Jeb Bush, who angrily defended his brother, saying, "He kept us safe!" Marco Rubio was livid when criticizing the nuke deal with Iran, Chris Christie seemed ticked off while talking about terrorism, Rand Paul was peeved when pontificating on America's role in the world, and Mike Huckabee grew enraged when the subject turned to religious liberty. Meanwhile, Donald Trump often seemed irate, perfectly understandable considering he was under attack all night long.<br><br>The more amiable candidates in the GOP field - notably Ben Carson, Scott Walker, and John Kasich - had a harder time breaking through at the Reagan Library. Not on a night when anger was front and center.<br><br>On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders has been soaring in the polls because he has also tapped into a widespread sense of anger among millions of Americans. And, really, who can blame the folks?<br><br>Barack Obama promised to bring the country together, but he has been one of the most divisive presidents in history. His signature domestic achievement was rammed through with absolutely no support from Republicans, while the recent deal with Iran has zero support among the GOP and very little backing from the American people.<br><br>The economy is stagnant, with wages for working men and women on the decline. Religious Americans feel under siege. President Obama has strengthened secular groups who are hell-bent on destroying traditional American values, especially those in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Meanwhile, the country seems to be more impotent than ever overseas and the world is in chaos.<br><br>Given this bleak landscape, conventional candidates have no answers for the citizen fury. Trump, Fiorina, and Sanders currently own the stage and the curtain is not even close to coming down. They are ascendant because they have tapped into the anger of many voters who believe they are being abused and manipulated by craven politicians.<br><br>Meanwhile, we have a president who seems totally disengaged, even delusional. The day before the Republican debate, Barack Obama said something fairly remarkable. "America's winning right now," he boasted.<br><br>Winning? Mr. President, many millions of people simply don't agree with that assessment. Just ask Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Bernie Sanders.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-09-17T07:00:00ZDamn the Public, Full Speed AheadBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Damn-the-Public-Full-Speed-Ahead/46411.html2015-09-10T07:00:00Z2015-09-10T07:00:00ZThe Pew Research Center has just released a pretty amazing poll. According to Pew's scientific survey, just 21% of American adults approve of the nuke deal negotiated with Iran's leaders, while 70% believe the mullahs will cheat. You know, those very same mullahs who chant 'Death to America' and who gleefully predict Israel's demise.<br><br>One in five, by the way, is pretty much the same ratio of Americans who believe in witches or that a UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. <br><br>If you're thinking the poll was skewed by Obama-loathing Republicans, we'll point out that just 42% of Democrats endorse the bargain. That is despite all the hype claiming this is the very best deal we could have gotten. Secretary of State John Kerry might as well have waved a piece of paper while promising 'peace for our time.'<br><br>Okay, so the ill-informed public opposes the agreement, but what about our much wiser elected leaders? A grand total of 42 senators support the deal, while 58 stand opposed. In the House, dominated by Republicans, opposition is even more strident.<br><br>So here we have a landmark national security agreement being passed despite the objection of most members of Congress and the majority of Americans. Even ObamaCare had more support when it was rammed through in 2009.<br><br>Speaking of which, this Iran deal is every bit as polarizing as the amusingly-named Affordable Care Act. Republicans describe the Iran deal with an outpouring of hyperbole - Ted Cruz calls it 'catastrophic,' while Donald Trump demurely blasts it as the 'worst document' he's ever witnessed. 'We are led,' Trump adds, 'by very, very stupid people!' On the other side, Hillary Clinton defends the deal and vows to 'respond decisively' if Iran breaks its promises.<br><br>The cold, hard truth is that Iran got the better end of this long-negotiated bargain. The mullahs do not have to submit to snap inspections, which is an open invitation to cheat. And cheat they will, it's what they do.<br><br>Just ask Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former boss of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was the highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the nation for more than two years under President Obama.<br><br>Appearing on The Factor Wednesday evening, Gen. Flynn called the Iran deal 'sad for the country.' He also complained that the administration has been fooled by 'bad assumptions.' While acknowledging that the deal will eventually become a reality, Flynn accused Democrats of 'not voting for national security ... they're voting for the president's legacy.'<br><br>What a legacy it is! Millions of refugees are now fleeing Syria, where the president's notorious 'red line' was ignored. And innocent people are being hunted down and beheaded in Iraq, where the president refused to leave behind a residual force that could have resisted ISIS.<br><br>Sadly, much of the world is a mess right now, largely because our president was determined to withdraw and disengage. His actions - or inactions - call to mind an adage usually attributed to Leon Trotsky, a man we don't quote all that often. "You may not be interested in war," Trotsky observed, "but war is interested in you."<br><br>Right now war in its various forms is very interested in us, and it is affecting and infecting much of the globe. Things could get worse, much worse, when this ill-advised nuke deal takes effect, as it almost certainly will.<br><br>We'll end with a question posed by Lt. Gen. Flynn in the No Spin Zone the other night: 'Why are we giving the leading state sponsor of terrorism the ability to have a nuclear threshold state?' Why indeed?BillOReilly.com Staff2015-09-10T07:00:00ZStyle Trumping SubstanceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Style-Trumping-Substance/46370.html2015-09-03T07:00:00Z2015-09-03T07:00:00Z"Upside down, boy you turn me, inside out." Just as Diana Ross was making that musical complaint in the summer of 1980, 69-year-old Ronald Reagan was about to win the Republican nomination and, eventually, the presidency.<br><br>Ms. Ross' #1 hit had nothing to do with politics, but right now the Republican Party is being turned upside down, inside out by another 69-year-old maverick.<br><br>Party leaders and GOP candidates have been pulling their hair out, figuratively speaking, trying to deal with Donald Trump. (As an aside, and coincidentally or not, there is nary a bald man among the 17 Republican wannabes.)<br><br>But forget about the Republicans for a moment and consider how Trump's flamboyance is helping Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. His bombast, which has been hugely successful on the campaign trail, has masked the fact that a Democratic president and administration have failed to improve America.<br><br>Just peruse the dismal record. Millions more Americans are living in poverty than when President Obama took office in 2009. As the old adage goes, women and minorities have been hardest hit, but pretty much everyone this side of one-percenters is paying a price for failed economic policies and a tepid recovery.<br><br>Then there is Trump's calling card, illegal immigration. More than 2-million people have entered the country illegally during President Obama's tenure, including 150,000 unaccompanied minors. While those numbers come from an anti-immigration group, the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about 300,000 babies are born each year to at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant. That's 7.5% of all births in the USA, a staggering number.<br><br>The truth is that President Obama has managed to make immigration chaos even more chaotic. His party has ignored unlawful and shameful sanctuary cities, while turning its collective back on Kate's Law, a simple measure that would protect innocent Americans like Kate Steinle.<br><br>Meanwhile, speaking of protection, Democrats have consistently protected the gruesome butchery of Planned Parenthood, which gleefully sells baby parts while sipping red wine. But if you dare to raise the subject, you'll likely be accused of not caring about 'women's health' and 'reproductive rights.' Euphemisms abound when reality is unspeakable.<br><br>Overseas? Violence in Syria and Iraq was exacerbated when President Obama foolishly pulled all U.S. troops out of the region. He fulfilled a campaign promise, but the result has been death, rape, and widespread misery that is now washing up in Europe in the form of desperate refugees.<br><br>Don't forget what Joe Biden said about Iraq in 2010: 'This could be one of the great achievements of this administration ... you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.'<br><br>It was indeed moving that way until Biden's boss decided to pull the plug and abandon the Iraqi people. The commander-in-chief, who mocked ISIS as the 'JV team,' has now sealed the deal with Iran, giving the mullahs more moolah with which to sow terrorism across the Middle East.<br><br>The litany of Democratic failures goes on and on, and the dismal record should be sufficient to get a Republican elected next year. But, again, Donald Trump's ascendance and transcendence have overshadowed the record.<br><br>Sooner or later, though, style will give way to substance, sizzle will become steak, and Democrats like Hillary Clinton will have to answer for their party's failures.<br><br>Need a numerical measure of those shortcomings? A new poll that we mentioned on The Factor bears repeating. The highly-regarded Quinnipiac University folks asked American voters how things in America are going right now.<br><br>The results are downright stunning: 41% are 'very dissatisfied,' 30% are 'somewhat dissatisfied,' 26% are 'somewhat satisfied.' And how many proclaim themselves to be 'very satisfied' with the direction of the country? <br><br>A whopping 2%. Two percent!<br><br>That number alone should banish any party to the political wilderness. And it might do just that, as soon as the attention moves from Donald Trump's insults and follicles to the very real problems facing America.<br><br>The Republican shift from style to substance can't start soon enough. Gentlemen and lady, start your engines.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-09-03T07:00:00ZJorge Ramos, Univision's Port Side AnchorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jorge-Ramos-Univisions-Port-Side-Anchor/46326.html2015-08-27T07:00:00Z2015-08-27T07:00:00ZUnivision anchor Jorge Ramos is a man on a mission. He repeatedly describes himself as a 'reporter' and a 'journalist,' but in fact Ramos is an activist with a radical agenda. That was made clear again this week when he interrupted a Donald Trump press conference to harangue the candidate about immigration policy.<br><br>A few facts: The self-proclaimed journalist recently said this on CNN: "Donald Trump is the loudest voice of intolerance, division, and hatred right now in America." Not to be outdone, his top boss at Univision sent out a photo comparing Donald Trump with mass murderer Dylann Roof.<br><br>More recently, Jorge Ramos just wrote an article about a scary place called "Trumpland," where authorities are busy "raiding homes, workplaces, and schools, violating the human rights of millions of men, women and children." Those rounded-up illegal immigrants, according to Ramos' fanciful account, are then "held in stadiums or other giant facilities while they wait to be put on buses or planes back to their countries of origin." Trumpland, Ramos concludes, would be "a twisted utopia of walls and hate." Wow!<br><br>By now, you probably know that Jorge Ramos, a U.S. citizen, is often described as the most influential broadcaster in Spanish-language television.<br><br>But did you know that his daughter Paola is a paid advisor to Hillary Clinton? Probably not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and Ramos has every right be proud of his progeny's prodigy. <br><br>But how about some disclosure, Jorge?<br><br>If Fox News anchor Bret Baier had a son or daughter working for the Trump campaign, don't you think he would make sure every viewer was aware of that potential conflict? Then again, Baier is a genuine anchor, not an activist.<br><br>We have been trying to get Jorge Ramos on The Factor for weeks, hoping to ask him about the scourge of criminal illegal aliens like the savage who allegedly murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco. Ramos has been hiding under his escritorio, which is of course his right.<br><br>But he did go on Megyn Kelly's show this week to again boast about his journalistic chops and to defend his actions in the Trump presser and ridicule Donald Trump's proposal to build a wall, which he called a "waste of money." <br><br>The truth is that Jorge Ramos jumped the line at the Trump press conference. His goal was not just to ask a question, but to badger the candidate and get a ton of attention for himself. Mission accomplished!<br><br>Ramos is a full-fledge advocate for people, especially Mexicans, who enter the United States of America illegally. He wants amnesty for illegal aliens and actually doesn't seem to be very keen on the idea of a border between the USA and the country of his birth.<br><br>Again, that is his right, no question. But Jorge Ramos' stance on immigration is extreme, far to the left of even his daughter's employer or any other Democratic candidate.<br><br>Ramos says he simply wanted to ask Donald Trump a question the other night. Well, we have a few questions of our own.<br><br>Do you support Kate's Law?<br>Do you believe in national borders?<br>Should every illegal immigrant be granted immediate citizenship?<br><br>Whether or not you agree with Donald Trump on immigration or anything else, whether you adore or abhor the man, there's no doubt that he engages in the debate. The same cannot be said for Jorge Ramos.<br><br>So come on in and spend a segment or two in the No Spin Zone, Mr. Ramos. It will be painless, maybe even liberating. In the meantime, how about being open and honest about your positions and your potential conflicts of interest? In other words, just tell the truth. Or, as they say on Univision, "di la verdad."BillOReilly.com Staff2015-08-27T07:00:00ZTrump, Clinton, & the Great RaceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trump-Clinton--the-Great-Race/46248.html2015-08-18T07:00:00Z2015-08-18T07:00:00ZWhere would the Republicans be without Donald Trump? Well, it would certainly be a better world if your name happens to be Bush or Walker or Perry.<br><br>The campaign would be more sedate, but also far less interesting. No one would be talking about anchor babies, the 14th Amendment, and the need for a "big, beautiful, powerful wall" on our southern border.<br><br>This week, while entertaining a crowd in New Hampshire, Trump compared Jeb Bush to Sominex, joking that his rival was putting people to sleep at a similar event down the street. What politician talks like that? Trump not only gets away with it, but wins new converts with every brazen insult.<br><br>Yes, Donald Trump has stolen the show thus far. It's partly his slash-and-burn style, but behind that style there is also some substance - he regularly hammers both parties and the Washington establishment on things like the border, our treatment of wounded warriors, and a lack of respect for America in the age of Obama.<br><br>Trump has been pronounced dead and buried on numerous occasions, especially when he denigrated John McCain's war record, but the interestingly-coifed tycoon makes Lazarus look like a piker.<br><br>Back to the opening question: Where would the Republican Party be without Donald Trump? More predictable, more boring, far less inclined to confront some vexing issues facing Americans.<br><br>On the other side, where would the Democratic Party be without Hillary Clinton? That question seems to terrify the Democratic leadership. Who are their alternatives? A 73-year-old socialist with a Trump-like loathing of the establishment? An amiable and sometimes buffoonish 72-year-old vice president? A former Maryland governor who begged forgiveness for saying "all lives matter." These are not the '27 Yankees; they aren't even the '62 Mets.<br><br>As our pal and lifelong Democrat Kirsten Powers writes this week, party leaders are shielding Clinton from any and all competition. Yes, there will be a handful of debates, but not until October. Party boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz has taken on the role of Hillary Clinton's protector-in-chief.<br><br>And the Democratic front-runner really seems to need protecting. When she deigned to briefly speak with the media this week, Mrs. Clinton wilted under tough questioning from FNC's Ed Henry about that mysterious private server. As much as Donald Trump relishes the attention, Hillary Clinton obviously despises that part of the political process.<br><br>Much as she might wish, the email situation will not go away, certainly not before the FBI issues a report in a few months. The drip, drip, drip of revelations and accusations will continue to torture Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her acolytes. She expected an unobstructed march to the nomination, but now worries about an obstruction of justice charge.<br><br>Moving forward, Americans crave a strong leader who can reinvigorate the moribund economy, deport criminal illegal aliens who terrorize our cities, reduce the rising crime rate, and confront the Islamic jihadists who are running wild around the world.<br><br>Donald Trump is on the offensive right now, smacking Republicans, Democrats, foreign governments, and political correctness. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is playing defense, trying desperately to protect her lead and run out the clock.<br><br>These are the dog days (named for the dog star Sirius in the constellation Canis Major, which rises in the summer). Many Americans are on vacation and relaxing, but the campaign season has already kicked into high gear. <br><br>That's a very good thing in a troubled nation, and we owe a debt of gratitude to a certain real estate tycoon for shaking things up.<br><br>Does Donald Trump have the endurance of a marathon runner, or is he a sprinter whose fast-twitch fibers will soon cramp up and give out? We will find out... sooner or later.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-08-18T07:00:00ZThe $18-Trillion Elephant in the RoomBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-$18-Trillion-Elephant-in-the-Room/46210.html2015-08-13T07:00:00Z2015-08-13T07:00:00ZThe first Republican debate had fireworks and substance, passion and policy. But one of America's most ominous problems was barely mentioned. Perhaps Keith Hall should have been on stage in Cleveland.<br><br>You've probably never heard of Hall, but he recently issued an ominous warning that should frighten all of us. Hall runs the Congressional Budget Office, an agency whose name is almost always preceded by the adjective "non-partisan." The CBO advises its masters in Congress on federal spending and future levels of debt.<br><br>Which brings us to the little-known Keith Hall, whose latest report makes Cassandra look like a cockeyed optimist. It includes this passage: "The long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years."<br><br>That's because the national debt now exceeds $18-trillion. Or, if you prefer to spell it out, $18,000,000,000,000. That's more than $150,000 for every taxpaying citizen.<br><br>But what about those incessant claims by President Obama and his acolytes, who boast about a shrinking deficit? That's true when measuring from 2009, when the deficit was swollen by a drop in tax receipts and massive stimulus spending.<br><br>More relevant is the fact that every single day the U.S. government continues to spend a few billion dollars more than it takes in, even though tax revenue is at an all time high. That's no way to run a government. Or a business. Or a family.<br><br>Keith Hall - remember him? - also reminds us that the full costs of ObamaCare remain largely unknown, and could break the already fragile federal bank.<br><br>This depressing budget news didn't get a lot of play in the national media because it is devastating to Democrats. True, George W. Bush and his merry band of Republicans were lavish spenders who ran up the debt big time. But it's primarily the Democratic Party that argues for larger government, more "free stuff" for everybody.<br><br>At the debate in Cleveland, the staggering debt was mentioned in passing by Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, while Chris Christie actually outlined a plan to reduce the cost of entitlement spending. The New Jersey governor courageously suggested gradually raising the retirement age for Social Security. His prescription had the anti-Dale Carnegie effect - Governor Christie lost friends and didn't influence many people.<br><br>We are in dire need of responsible politicians, if that is not oxymoronic during a presidential campaign. They should begin by telling us a few hard truths. If the USA continues to spend beyond our means, the debt will continue to grow, our foreign lenders will demand for a better return on their money, and interest rates will rise. That would spell major trouble for an economy that has been mired in the most sluggish, least vibrant recovery in memory.<br><br>Right now our federal debt, measured against the overall economy, is at a level not seen since World War II. That 1940s debt spike was needed to fund a massive war effort and was quickly paid down.<br><br>We now live in a far different America, one where too many citizens expect the feds to hand out goodies. Let's hear some presidential candidates start talking seriously about our debt hole and how we begin the long process of climbing out.<br><br>Since we began with one relatively obscure economist, it is fitting to end with another. Herbert Stein, former adviser to Presidents Nixon and Ford, put forth an adage that will forever be known as Stein's Law: "If something can't go on forever ... it won't."<br><br>Stein's Law is simple, wise, and pithy, an edict that our leaders should heed. It is long past time for politicians to level with the folks. Our debt problem is out ofBillOReilly.com Staff2015-08-13T07:00:00ZWhither the 'Moderate' Democrats?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whither-the-Moderate-Democrats/46198.html2015-08-10T07:00:00Z2015-08-10T07:00:00ZThis week's focus has understandably been on the crowded Republican field, which is surely about to become less crowded. As the winnowing continues, it is very possible that the party will be represented next year by a moderate like Jeb Bush or John Kasich, or by a doctrinaire conservative such as Ted Cruz.<br><br>But there is no such diversity among Democrats, where the candidates range from very far left to even farther left. Moderate Democrats are so rare that they may soon be covered by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.<br><br>Coincidentally, 1973 is about when the party veered off into the left lane. That's when the Supreme Court discovered that abortion on demand is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Some Democrats objected to abortion, but they were slowly culled from leadership positions.<br><br>The party's extreme views were apparent again last week when the Senate took up a bill that could have led to the defunding of Planned Parenthood, America's leading abortionist.<br><br>This was not about "women's health" or banning abortion, merely a measure that would end the flow of a half-billion dollars to Planned Parenthood every year. Exactly two Democrats voted for the legislation. Two.<br><br>Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory and there is no question the group sells the body parts of dead babies or fetuses. A series of videos has proven that beyond doubt, but the Democratic Party does not care.<br><br>Liberals claim to believe in fairness for the underdog and helping the defenseless. But somehow unborn babies, even those who could survive outside the womb, do not count. Social justice, anyone?<br><br>On the immigration front, Democrats are also in lockstep on 'sanctuary city' policies that often protect violent felons who are in this country illegally. Despite rapes and killings by men who have been deported numerous times, Democrats defend the policy as justice for the downtrodden. But no one is more downtrodden, at least emotionally, than the family of the late Kate Steinle.<br><br>When it comes to economics, many Democrats embrace the Robin Hood philosophy. Except when it comes to their own wealth, of course, which they often shelter in foundations and tax dodges.<br><br>The "tax the rich" mantra dominates the party and its leadership. Take Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the Democratic National Committee. When pressed by Chris Matthews to delineate the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, she did a commendable impression of Ralph Kramden being inteterrogated by Alice. Then, given a mulligan by Chuck Todd a couple of days later, Wasserman Schultz was again totally stymied.<br><br>The free market has lifted more people out of poverty than any economic system in the history of the world, but liberal Democrats (are there any other kind?) refuse to acknowledge that fact.<br><br>The human toll of liberalism is most evident in our major cities, which are uniformly run by left-wing Democrats. Murder rates are soaring in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Chicago, and other urban centers.<br><br>Progressives look away from the black-on-black carnage while chanting "Black Lives Matter" to anyone who will listen. And any Democrat who knows the score had better not utter the words "All Lives Matter." Just ask Martin O'Malley, who got slapped around when he used that seemingly innocuous phrase.<br><br>In Bill de Blasio's New York City, some homeless use public fountains as their personal bidets while squeegee guys extort money from fearful drivers. Gotham is once again becoming Hell on the Hudson, thanks to liberalism and its acolytes.<br><br>So it's almost irrelevant whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or someone else. Don't expect to hear a discouraging word about Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities, confiscatory taxation, family breakdown, or black crime. Criticism of those problems is simply off limits.<br><br>The survivor of the Republican free-for-all, whether moderate or conservative, will surely be a traditional American who deeply loves this country and sings its praises without hesitation or embarrassment. He or she will come up against a woman or man who espouses the liberal philosophy that has wreaked so much havoc.<br><br>If the facts matter, the election should not even be close. But facts are often trumped by emotion, even when it comes to electing the most powerful person in the world. <em>Especially</em> when it comes to electing the most powerful person in the world.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-08-10T07:00:00ZDon't Let the Door Hit You, CongressBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Let-the-Door-Hit-You-Congress/46158.html2015-08-03T07:00:00Z2015-08-03T07:00:00ZThe United States Congress can be a little like Italy at times. It spends much of the year blowing through money it doesn't have, then heads off on vacation for the entire month of August.<br> <br>Our august body (although never in August) has also resembled the ancient Rome of Brutus and Julius Caesar lately. An obscure Republican Congressman tried in vain to oust Speaker of the House John Boehner, while Republican Senator Ted Cruz flat-out called Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar.<br> <br>But this is not meant to be a Roman column. The House is already packed for summer break, while the Senate will stick around for a few more days. That means the upper chamber has one final chance to make a very powerful statement.<br><br>Leader McConnell has promised The Factor that the Senate will soon vote to defund Planned Parenthood. He has described the abortion provider as "scandal-plagued," which is putting it mildly. The odious organization has been caught red-handed, pardon the imagery, peddling fetal body parts.<br><br>Republican Senator Rand Paul posits that there are about 58 votes in the Senate to end Planned Parenthood's long journey on the federal gravy train; two more would be enough to pass the bill. It would of course be vetoed by President Obama, who once actually urged God to bless Planned Parenthood, but would nevertheless let the folks know who is on the side of the angels. Literally.<br><br>Planned Parenthood aside, there are two other measures that Congress can and should pass when it returns after Labor Day. One is Kate's Law, named in honor of the late Kate Steinle. It would mandate that violent illegal aliens who defy deportation be sentenced to at least five years in the federal pen. If you believe the government's primary role is to protect citizens from harm, which it is, Kate's Law is simple common sense.<br><br>Another bill should stop federal funds from flowing to cities that provide sanctuary to illegal aliens, blatantly defying the law in the process. Once again, this is common sense and favored by a vast majority of Americans.<br><br>A Rasmussen poll reports that 62% of voters want the Justice Department to take action against cities that provide sanctuary, while just 26% oppose that idea. Even on vacation, members of Congress can count votes, and 62% - 26% is more than a landslide. It's an avalanche.<br><br>So who could be opposed to the sanctuary city deal? Well, of course there is Nancy Pelosi, who says, "I support the sanctuary." She also trots out the old standard about how "comprehensive immigration reform" would end all our woes.<br><br>But most Americans to the right of Ms. Pelosi, meaning about 99% of the USA, understand full well that protecting violent felons is downright evil. Sanctuary cities must face a choice - stop providing protection, or stop receiving federal dollars.<br><br>For the time being, Planned Parenthood will continue to get much of its financial nourishment, a half-billion dollars worth, from the federal teat. Also, taxpayer dollars will continue to flow into sanctuary cities and Kate's Law will have to wait. But we the people should put our representatives on notice that these three measures must be passed, or at least given a clean up-or-down vote. <br><br>So, Congress, those are three demands worth thinking about this August, whether you're lazing on the beach or pounding the pavement in your district. Talk to your constituents, the voters who put you in office. Unless you're in Berkeley or Madison or Burlington, you'll probably find that they want these three bills passed.<br><br>Until then, we'll quote that catchy song recorded in 1966 by The Happenings: "Bye-bye, so long, farewell. See you in September, See you when the summer's through."BillOReilly.com Staff2015-08-03T07:00:00ZThe Left's Deadly Wall of SilenceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Lefts-Deadly-Wall-of-Silence/46102.html2015-07-23T07:00:00Z2015-07-23T07:00:00ZAnd then there were two. Two Planned Parenthood officials have now been caught on tape nonchalantly discussing the sale of fetal body parts. <br> <br>It is quite possible that these executives were breaking the law; it is indisputable that their conversations were off-the-charts sickening. Even the organization's founding eugenicist Margaret Sanger might struggle to defend the inhumanity.<br> <br>Now we learn that four far-far-left Democrats in Congress are calling for an investigation. Not of Planned Parenthood and its ghoulish practices, but of the anti-abortion group that secretly taped those damning lunch conversations.<br> <br>Yes, those upstanding representatives are livid because the video was recorded "without the consent of the Planned Parenthood doctor." The House members also complain that the footage was "selectively-edited."<br> <br>But was there something in the red wine that forced Dr. Deborah Nucatola to talk about she can deftly crush a fetus to ensure that certain prized body parts remain intact? Or was the salad dressing spiked when Dr. Mary Gattner spoke about performing "less crunchy" abortions in order to get "whole specimens?" <br> <br>She actually seemed to find the whole fee-for-fetus discussion amusing, especially when joking that she wants to make enough money to buy a Lamborghini.<br> <br>As those Democrats were attacking the messenger, they received support from their ideological allies on the New York Times editorial board. The Times' hacks described the videos as a dishonest attempt to make the sale of body parts look "nefarious and illegal." <br> <br>Well, it's certainly nefarious, and it's possibly illegal.<br> <br>Many prominent Democrats are simply making believe the videos don't exist. There has been nary a sound from Hillary Clinton or other presidential candidates, although Bernie Sanders did concede that Planned Parenthood's "tone" was off. <br> <br>Yes, changing the "tone" should do the trick.<br> <br>Anyone with a spine might follow the lead of Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers, a lifelong Democrat. "This is stomach-turning stuff," she wrote. "But the problem here is not one of tone. It's the crushing." Powers concluded that when abortion doctors are considered immune from criticism, "society has officially gone off the rails."<br> <br>Meanwhile, another train is barreling straight at those progressives who are so out of touch with we the people. Criminal illegal aliens who return to the USA after being deported should go to jail. Period. That's the gist of Kate's Law, named to honor the late Kate Steinle, who was murdered by an illegal in San Francisco.<br> <br>Who could object? Well, enter Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. You may remember him as the guy who compared U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis and Pol Pot, saying they had "no concern for human beings." So, Senator, let's talk about "concern for human beings" who are maimed and murdered by thugs who should not be in this country.<br> <br>During a Senate hearing this week, Durbin skipped some moving testimony from families who were ripped apart when their loved ones were killed by illegal immigrants. Then he completely mischaracterized Kate's Law and lamented that it could be "an invitation for a lot of prosecutions."<br> <br>Got that? According to Durbin's priorities, we should worry about prison overcrowding, not felons who return to the country time and again.<br> <br>There have always been depraved "doctors" who butcher babies about to emerge from the womb, just as there have always been depraved criminals who kill innocent people, whether for profit or pique or pleasure.<br> <br>Before our society went off the rails, to borrow from Kirsten, we came together as Americans to denounce atrocities. No longer. Now we have politicians who depend on the abortion lobby for money and on Hispanics for votes. So when truly vile acts occur, these craven men and women avert their eyes. Or change the subject. Or deflect the blame.<br> <br>There is something terribly wrong when presidential candidates are too cowardly to renounce evil. Yes, "evil" is the proper noun when describing some of Planned Parenthood's practices and the Sanctuary City policies.<br> <br>All this raises an interesting question. A few years ago President Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood event, and ended with this praise: "Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you."<br> <br>If the president speaks to the group again, even after the new videos have surfaced, will he again implore the Creator to bless this depraved organization? Unfortunately, he probably will. <br> <br>And way too many of his fellow liberal Democrats will just nod their heads and say, "Amen."<br> <br>The depravity on the far left, the total lack of concern for human life, is beyond appalling. And it is getting worse.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-07-23T07:00:00ZPlanned Parenthood, Cut the Cord!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Planned-Parenthood-Cut-the-Cord!/46054.html2015-07-16T07:00:00Z2015-07-16T07:00:00ZYou have probably seen the newly-released undercover video involving Planned Parenthood. Any humane citizen, anti-abortion or not, has to be sickened by the conversation.<br><br>The video shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical research, discussing the sale of fetal body parts. Between sips of red wine, she breezily talks about crushing an unborn baby so as to keep certain organs intact.<br><br>The not-so-good doctor thought her dining partners were representatives of a biotech firm; in fact, they were actors hired by an anti-abortion group.<br><br>That organization, the Center for Medical Progress, is now public enemy number one to the hateful left-wing media. CMP is being accused of perpetrating a "hoax" and a "flimflam" by releasing excerpts from the conversation. Planned Parenthood itself denounces it as a "heavily edited video."<br><br>Of course the video was edited. But even her most ardent defenders are not denying what Deborah Nucatola said. Or how she said it. "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver," she casually boasted. "I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact." Nucatola charmingly added, "A lot of people want liver." She was not referring to that day's lunch menu.<br><br>Nucatola also spoke candidly about the fees for providing body parts to medical researchers, which she estimated at $30 to $100 per organ. It is not clear whether that is against the law - selling body parts for profit is illegal, but Planned Parenthood claims it is merely reimbursed for its costs. There may not be a smoking gun, but there is certainly a bloody forceps.<br><br>The man behind the video, anti-abortion activist David Daleiden, leveled some very serious charges Wednesday night on The Factor. He flat-out accused Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles of criminal behavior, saying the organization "has been involved in selling the body parts of the babies that they abort for decades ... they sell the body parts and they make money off of doing so."<br><br>Of course, this is far from the first outrage involving Planned Parenthood. The virulently pro-abortion group has come under fire for telling minors how to avoid reporting statutory rape charges against their much-older boyfriends, and for promoting questionable abortions. And now there is this nauseating video.<br><br>Planned Parenthood's defenders in the left-wing media have already rushed to their battle stations, unloading both barrels on the Center for Medical Progress. But, again, Dr. Nucatola is very clear on the video, laying out just how the abortionist can protect certain organs while killing the fetus. It all brings new meaning to that old adage: "The operation was a success, but the patient died."<br><br>This week a woman named Abby Johnson watched the video and then wrote an open letter to Dr. Nucatola. Johnson has some special insight, having run a Planned Parenthood clinic. "I used to be just like you," she wrote. "My former clinic used to harvest fetal body parts ... all of the blood, body parts, and extra tissue would be collected into a glass jar." Johnson added this: "After a grueling abortion day, we would all go out for margaritas and talk about harvesting fetal parts as if we were talking about harvesting a field of corn." This brings to mind what Hannah Arendt famously referred to as "the banality of evil."<br><br>We don't know if Planned Parenthood has broken the law in this case; the cops and the courts can sort that out. But we certainly know that taxpayers should not be contributing to the carnage wreaked by these abortionists.<br><br>We the people fork over more than $500-million to Planned Parenthood each year. A half a billion dollars! The group and its acolytes claim the money is used to promote "women's health" and "prenatal services." Is anyone fooled by that? That federal largesse helps support the country's largest abortion mill, plain and simple. A group that aborts about 1,000 fetuses every single day.<br><br>Whatever you think of abortion, can't we all agree that the time has come to end this outrageous subsidy that enables an ugly and dishonest group to continue its vile behavior?<br><br>Some members of Congress are now vowing to investigate and hold hearings. Let the tribunals begin, and let Dr. Deborah Nucatola step forward as a witness. We should warn her, though, that the hearings won't be providing any nice Chianti. On Capitol Hill, it's strictly BYOB.<br><br>One final word. Planned Parenthood accuses the Center for Medical Progress of "unethical video editing." Imagine being lectured about ethics by Planned Parenthood! Irony just doesn't get any richer. Planned Parenthood, though, gets richer all the time, thanks to you and me. It has to stop, it is long past time to cut the cord.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-07-16T07:00:00ZSanctimony and SanctuaryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sanctimony-and-Sanctuary/46014.html2015-07-09T07:00:00Z2015-07-09T07:00:00ZThe American left has promoted some astoundingly bad ideas over the past few decades. But when it comes to the safety of American citizens, none has been quite so damaging as the righteous-sounding "sanctuary city" policy.<br><br>The noxious scheme started - no surprise - in California. Local cops in Los Angeles and San Francisco were forbidden from stopping suspects merely to inquire about their immigration status.<br><br>Things then went from bad to wretched as other cities strove to demonstrate how "humanely" they treated those illegal aliens who were, as we heard ad nauseam, "living in the shadows." Finally, all that humaneness morphed into total insanity when local officials provided sanctuary to some truly bad hombres.<br><br>You know the story of Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot to death in San Francisco last week. Illegal alien Francisco Sanchez has pleaded not guilty after initially copping to the murder. A career criminal who reportedly used more than 30 aliases, Sanchez had been deported to his native Mexico five times. <br><br>During his most recent visit stateside, he chose San Francisco because it's common knowledge among the criminal class that the City by the Bay goes easy -- very easy -- on illegals.<br><br>Democrats have been running away from this putrid mess as fast as possible, not an easy feat while pointing fingers at the same time. <br><br>City leaders blame the feds, the feds blame anyone in sight, and the Obama administration, of course, blames Republicans. You know, for not passing "comprehensive immigration reform."<br><br>The ideological divide over sanctuary cities was very clear on The Factor this week. Juan Williams actually defended the policy, putting forth the familiar theory that sanctuary encourages illegal aliens to report crimes, thus making those cities safer.<br><br>San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi parroted that talking point on CNN, saying, "I firmly believe it makes us safer." The sheriff should resign immediately, and Mayor Ed Lee also has to go. Both men have blood on their hands, as do the city supervisors and all the past "social justice" warriors who enabled this gross injustice.<br><br>On the other side of the argument, conservative Charles Krauthammer condemned the cities that totally ignore federal law, choosing instead to make their own. His pithy summary: "Sanctuary cities are a disgrace."<br><br>Last week's murder was one of those events that captured attention around the country and the world. That is partly because Kate Steinle was gunned down at a tourist spot in one of America's famed cities. <br><br>And also because the murder came so soon after Donald Trump railed against criminal illegal immigrants.<br><br>If there is one positive, it's that all the attention could lead to action that would truly save lives. Congress needs to pass, and President Obama must sign, a law forcing localities to cooperate with federal authorities. Cities like San Francisco can no longer decide which laws they will enforce, which they will ignore.<br><br>Beyond that, any illegal alien who returns to the USA after being deported should face at least five years in the big house. Double that the second time. This absurd and deadly merry-go-round has to stop.<br><br>Consider this simple thought experiment: Provo, Utah and Montgomery, Alabama declare themselves "sanctuary cities." Not for illegal aliens, but for deeply religious Americans. Their public schools include Bible study classes and daily church services, while same-sex marriage is banned by local law. <br><br>How long before the Justice Department would stomp on those cities and prosecute their leaders? Can you count the minutes?<br><br>Yet dozens of cities throughout America are doing essentially the same thing with immigration. They do not follow federal law, they protect dangerous criminals, and they have fomented mayhem and murder.<br><br>So let's get on with it, Congress. Do your job by passing "Kate's Law." It will be a fitting way to honor a young woman who was killed by a vicious criminal, and by the policies that enabled him to roam free on the streets of San Francisco. Pass the law. Now.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-07-09T07:00:00ZSanctimony and SanctuaryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sanctimony-and-Sanctuary/46018.html2015-07-09T07:00:00Z2015-07-09T07:00:00ZThe American left has promoted some astoundingly bad ideas over the past few decades. But when it comes to the safety of American citizens, none has been quite so damaging as the righteous-sounding "sanctuary city" policy.<br><br>The noxious scheme started - no surprise - in California. Local cops in Los Angeles and San Francisco were forbidden from stopping suspects merely to inquire about their immigration status.<br><br>Things then went from bad to wretched as other cities strove to demonstrate how "humanely" they treated those illegal aliens who were, as we heard ad nauseam, "living in the shadows." Finally, all that humaneness morphed into total insanity when local officials provided sanctuary to some truly bad hombres.<br><br>You know the story of Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot to death in San Francisco last week. Illegal alien Francisco Sanchez has pleaded not guilty after initially copping to the murder. A career criminal who reportedly used more than 30 aliases, Sanchez had been deported to his native Mexico five times. <br><br>During his most recent visit stateside, he chose San Francisco because it's common knowledge among the criminal class that the City by the Bay goes easy -- very easy -- on illegals.<br><br>Democrats have been running away from this putrid mess as fast as possible, not an easy feat while pointing fingers at the same time. <br><br>City leaders blame the feds, the feds blame anyone in sight, and the Obama administration, of course, blames Republicans. You know, for not passing "comprehensive immigration reform."<br><br>The ideological divide over sanctuary cities was very clear on The Factor this week. Juan Williams actually defended the policy, putting forth the familiar theory that sanctuary encourages illegal aliens to report crimes, thus making those cities safer.<br><br>San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi parroted that talking point on CNN, saying, "I firmly believe it makes us safer." The sheriff should resign immediately, and Mayor Ed Lee also has to go. Both men have blood on their hands, as do the city supervisors and all the past "social justice" warriors who enabled this gross injustice.<br><br>On the other side of the argument, conservative Charles Krauthammer condemned the cities that totally ignore federal law, choosing instead to make their own. His pithy summary: "Sanctuary cities are a disgrace."<br><br>Last week's murder was one of those events that captured attention around the country and the world. That is partly because Kate Steinle was gunned down at a tourist spot in one of America's famed cities. <br><br>And also because the murder came so soon after Donald Trump railed against criminal illegal immigrants.<br><br>If there is one positive, it's that all the attention could lead to action that would truly save lives. Congress needs to pass, and President Obama must sign, a law forcing localities to cooperate with federal authorities. Cities like San Francisco can no longer decide which laws they will enforce, which they will ignore.<br><br>Beyond that, any illegal alien who returns to the USA after being deported should face at least five years in the big house. Double that the second time. This absurd and deadly merry-go-round has to stop.<br><br>Consider this simple thought experiment: Provo, Utah and Montgomery, Alabama declare themselves "sanctuary cities." Not for illegal aliens, but for deeply religious Americans. Their public schools include Bible study classes and daily church services, while same-sex marriage is banned by local law. <br><br>How long before the Justice Department would stomp on those cities and prosecute their leaders? Can you count the minutes?<br><br>Yet dozens of cities throughout America are doing essentially the same thing with immigration. They do not follow federal law, they protect dangerous criminals, and they have fomented mayhem and murder.<br><br>So let's get on with it, Congress. Do your job by passing "Kate's Law." It will be a fitting way to honor a young woman who was killed by a vicious criminal, and by the policies that enabled him to roam free on the streets of San Francisco. Pass the law. Now.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-07-09T07:00:00ZIndependence from GodBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Independence-from-God/45956.html2015-07-02T07:00:00Z2015-07-02T07:00:00ZYes, the above headline is intentionally ambiguous. Does it declare that independence derives from God? Or is it advocating the removal of God from our lives?<br><br>There's little doubt what Thomas Jefferson's interpretation would be. 239 years ago he unveiled the powerful words that would reverberate around the world. Words about people having unalienable rights endowed by <em>their Creator.</em> Yes, independence is a gift given to us by the Deity!<br><br>Thank God, pardon the expression, there was no ACLU at the time and that the First Amendment was still a gleam in Madison's eye. Otherwise, Jefferson, a government official, might have been sued for introducing religion into the public sphere.<br><br>Hyperbole? Of course, but consider what the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week. Not the United States Supreme Court, but the State Supreme Court in Oklahoma City, OK. The very state where, according to Rogers and Hammerstein, "the wind comes sweeping down the plain."<br><br>What plainly came sweeping down from Oklahoma's high court was a ruling that a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments must be removed from the state Capitol. We're not talking about the Confederate flag here, but the Ten Commandments!<br><br>Which of the "Thou Shalts" is deemed so offensive that the monument must be banished? Surely not the edicts dealing with murder, theft, and adultery. No, Oklahoma's robed wizards decided it is not OK to mention God. It was fine for Jefferson, but that was so two centuries ago.<br><br>The Oklahoma ruling, which has set off a tornado of protests, may make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The same court that keeps discovering new ways to offend religious Americans. So the faithful will probably not be singing, "Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin.'" Mourning may be more like it.<br><br>Oklahoma is just one state, but the ruling is another sign that organized religion is under attack. By the courts, the media, Hollywood, and anti-religious zealots - four groups that are not mutually exclusive.<br><br>Many on the left view religious Americans as dull-witted and naive, and they see churches, synagogues, and mosques as oppressive institutions standing in the way of a modern and libertine Garden of Eden.<br><br>When the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last week, the corridors of the left were overrun with glee. No doubt some were genuinely glad to see gays achieve the right to marry, but there was also an element of anti-religious vindictiveness.<br><br>Five liberal justices decided the time has come to scrap a tradition that has spanned almost all religions and a few millennia. The court insists there are protections, that no one will be forcing Cardinal Timothy Dolan to officiate at a gay marriage. But social change in America seems to move, ratchet-like, in just one direction. It's not hard to imagine what a few appointments by President Hillary Clinton could mean to the court and our traditions.<br><br>Now, if you believe the left-leaning culture warriors will gracefully declare victory and go home, you may be as naive as they suspect. Being a leftist means never being satisfied, always finding some new cause for complaint.<br><br>So we can now expect the ACLU and other anti-religious bigots to prepare new lawsuits and court cases. They may try to strip churches of their tax-exempt status if they fail to toe the line on gay marriage and other progressive causes.<br><br>What will make the left happy? Probably nothing, that's the nature of the beastly ideology. But Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was correct this week on The Factor when he pithily declared, "The left wants to redefine America."<br><br>That redefined America will be secular, libertine, a place where religious Americans are isolated and shunned. In other words, the left's utopia is a place Thomas Jefferson would find unrecognizable. A place where <em>our Creator</em> would be basically forgotten.<br><br>On this Independence Day, keep in mind that our Founders truly believed independence is a gift to be cherished. A gift from our Creator. A gift from God.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-07-02T07:00:00ZThe Slandering of AmericaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Slandering-of-America/45754.html2015-06-25T07:00:00Z2015-06-25T07:00:00ZBeen following the news lately? If you have, you've no doubt heard, time after sickening time, that America is a nation steeped in "white supremacy." That accusation is being tossed about liberally, pardon the expression, by people who desperately want to denigrate the USA and our history.<br><br>To them, Dylann Roof is far more than an evil psycho who slaughtered innocents in a Charleston church. <br><br>He is, to America-bashers, a natural consequence of our "white supremacist" culture - driven to kill by his hatred of blacks and his love of the Confederate flag.<br><br>The misguided people using Charleston to denounce America should answer a simple question. Why are so many "people of color," to use that trendy phrase, clamoring to move to the USA? Are they ignorant, masochistic, or blind? Perhaps all of the above?<br><br>Never mind the tens of millions of Mexicans who have found their way north. What about the immigrants from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and other black nations in sub-Saharan Africa?<br><br>According to a report put out by the pro-immigration Migration Policy Institute, "Black Africans are among the fastest-growing groups of US immigrants." In fact, the number of blacks moving from Africa to the USA doubled over the past decade.<br><br>Again, why are they so eager to come to a country where "white supremacy" rules? It would be akin to black Americans migrating to South Africa in the heyday of apartheid.<br><br>These black immigrants are living proof that many on the left are flat-out lying about America. Lying on a nightly basis, lying with impunity, lying without any fear of being challenged by our sniveling, cowardly media.<br><br>Our opinion-shapers deserve credit for accomplishing something truly astounding. Thanks to them, it is now considered racially insensitive to describe the USA as a "land of opportunity." If you want respect and tenure at a prestigious university, forget that "opportunity" stuff and start talking about "white supremacy." Yeah, that's the ticket!<br><br>Consider a few of the ridiculous statements put out by academic types on national TV over the past week: "We are a society that values white people more than people of color" ... "We are mired in prejudice and racism" ... "The source of the problem is white supremacy."<br><br>The hosts and anchors tend to nod in passive agreement, terrified of challenging the slander and thus being accused of racism themselves. Yes, we have reached a very strange point where running down your own country is considered a badge of honor, a sign of intelligence and sophistication.<br><br>This shameful episode is more proof of the adage put forth by ol' Mark Twain: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Well, right now the truth is standing in its bare feet while a bare-faced lie is being spread around the globe.<br><br>The truth is evident to most clear-thinking Americans. Our nation, like all others, is flawed. Many of our forefathers condoned slavery, brutalized American Indians, and looked the other way when racial discrimination was codified by law.<br><br>More truth: There are still anti-black bigots in the USA, but it is a grotesque lie to claim the country is defined by them. They wield little power or influence, they are generally dismissed as solitary losers. Except when one of them, namely Dylann Roof, takes out his handgun and becomes a terrorist.<br><br>Roof's carnage inspired the very best in many precincts. There was the immediate and incredible willingness of Christians, particularly black Christians, to offer forgiveness. But the act of terror also brought out America's worst - the politicians and pundits who seem almost gleeful now that they have another opportunity to diminish this country.<br><br>When it comes to race and America, not only do many on the left see the glass as half-empty, they're certain it's about to fall and smash into thousands of shards that will injure people. And most of the victims will of course be minorities.<br><br>Sadly, the race hustlers and liars are winning the war of words right now. They will continue to win unless and until truth tellers fight back. Yes, we may get labeled "bigots" or worse, but the truth is on our side: This is the greatest, most welcoming, and most diverse country in the history of the planet Earth.<br><br>The USA remains a land of opportunity. But don't ask an Ivy League humanities professor about that. Ask a Nigerian cab driver or a Kenyan scientist. They know the real truth about the United States of America.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-06-25T07:00:00ZA Most Dangerous DisconnectBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Most-Dangerous-Disconnect/45670.html2015-06-11T07:00:00Z2015-06-11T07:00:00ZOne very elite group in New York City consists of eighteen people, just one of them a black American. In addition, based on bios, names, and photos, not a single member of this group is of Puerto Rican heritage. Yet the city they serve is more than half minority. So where's the liberal outrage?<br><br>Well, it turns out that the organization described above is the editorial board of the New York Times. You know, the "paper of record." These are the very same people, comfortably ensconced in their doorman buildings, who tell New York cops how to properly police the city's poor precincts, where murders are soaring.<br><br>"Stop-and-frisk" may have lowered crime and saved thousands of black lives, but New York opinion-shapers groused that the police tactic disproportionately affected black New Yorkers. Kind of like the editorial board is disproportionately pasty-hued.<br><br>What are the odds that some of these influential Times editorialists have a son or daughter, a brother or sister, walking a beat in the Bronx? How about a nephew or uncle? The expression "slim to none" comes to mind.<br><br>Meanwhile, a few miles north of Times Square, the City College of New York named its student center in honor of Assata Shakur. You may remember her as Joanne Chesimard, a convicted cop-killer who fled to Cuba. In that same spirit, a teacher in suburban New York had her students send get-well cards to Wesley Cook when he fell ill recently. Wesley Cook? That's Mumia Abu Jamal, the celebrated thug who brutally executed a cop.<br><br>There is a wide and growing disconnect between liberal America and traditional America when it comes to the men and women who serve and protect. Far too many progressives look at uniformed police officers with dismissive disdain. Although they'll quickly yell for a cop the moment someone dents their Prius or Lexus or Tesla.<br><br>There is a striking parallel when it comes to our military. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this: "With each passing decade, fewer and fewer Americans know someone with military experience in their family or social circle." Admiral Mike Mullen, once the most powerful military man in America, echoed that, saying, "America doesn't know its military and the United States military doesn't know America."<br><br>It brings to mind a pithy observation put forth by a DC pundit: "Nobody at any Washington dinner party tonight ... personally knows any enlisted man or woman now defending the nation."<br><br>The very same thing can be said of the swells in New York City, who attend dinner parties where no one actually knows a uniformed cop. One exception may be Mayor Bill de Blasio, the ultra-liberal cop-demonizer-in-chief. We hereby concede that he is probably on a first-name basis with the well-armed NYPD officers on his security detail.<br><br>This is a very disturbing trend. Too many elite, educated Americans go through life without having any personal contact with a man or woman wearing a uniform. (Doormen and airline pilots don't count!) But they are never shy about denouncing cops and soldiers.<br><br>Right now there is an anti-cop conflagration in America, stoked by liberal cable networks, irresponsible public officials, and once-great newspapers that rush to judgment.<br><br>To be fair, the critics were absolutely correct in the most recent allegation of police misconduct. Corporal David Casebolt never should have drawn his gun at that pool party in Texas, nor should he have manhandled the teenager. Everyone knows that. Casebolt himself knows that, which is why he almost immediately resigned.<br><br>Casebolt is the rare exception, but he'll be held up as the personification of all that's wrong with America's cops. Many of the folks screaming the loudest have never met a cop they liked. But that's mainly because they've never met a cop ... period! To them, cops are those beefy guys who guzzle Bud and have barbeques in Queens and Staten Island.<br><br>There is a growing disrespect for police officers in some neighborhoods, a willingness to brazenly defy and confront the cops who face tremendously difficult situations every day. TV news and editorial boards are exacerbating this ominous breakdown in the law enforcement contract.<br><br>How about if our media elites put down their brie and wine and take a moment to actually meet a few cops? Maybe even talk over a Bud and a burger. Who knows what they might discover from a real-life encounter with the people who are charged with protecting all of us from harm? Actually, they may learn a lot if they'd be willing to stop lecturing for a few minutes ... and listen.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-06-11T07:00:00ZA Tale of Three CitiesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Tale-of-Three-Cities/45584.html2015-06-04T07:00:00Z2015-06-04T07:00:00ZCharles Dickens himself would be perplexed and depressed by what's going on in some American metropolises. It is not the squalor that he chronicled in England, but young men wantonly killing each another. <br><br>Meanwhile, many of our elites look around for someone to blame and point at the men and women who police these concrete killing fields.<br><br>There are scores of cities and towns where violence is getting worse. But the dire state of urban America can be summarized by what's going on in three large and famous cities.<br><br>New York City, in addition to being the nation's financial and media capital, was also the poster city for a miracle in crime reduction. There were more than 2,000 yearly killings not long ago, during the dreaded "Dinkins Years," named for famously feckless Mayor David Dinkins. Good ol' Dave was as liberal and as clueless as they come; he basically threw his hands up and went out to play a few sets of tennis.<br><br>Many in the pundit class considered Gotham just plain ungovernable, at least until Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg proved otherwise. Over their two decades, those 2,000 murders dwindled to about 300. A stunning achievement, and one that saved thousands of lives, almost all of them black lives.<br><br>So what did New Yorkers do? In 2013, their city pacified by Giuliani and Bloomberg, elected Bill de Blasio, a guy who's about as far left as they come, and who kisses the ring of Al Sharpton. It's probably a ring designed by one of those Jewish "diamond merchants" Sharpton slandered in one of his notorious violence-fomenting episodes.<br><br>One of Mayor de Blasio's first priorities was dismantling the 'stop-and-frisk' procedure that removed thousands of guns from the streets. <br><br>The results? Unfortunate and entirely predictable. <br><br>Murders are up about 20% this year. For the first time in two decades, shootings have increased for two straight years. You might say Mayor de Blasio had a dream, and poor New Yorkers are paying a steep price.<br><br>Fortunately for Chicagoans, the Second City has a boss who makes de Blasio look like Harry Callahan. Still, under Mayor Rahm Emanuel's watch, shootings and homicides are at a five-year high. The city is averaging more than a murder a day, and May was an especially cruel month.<br><br>99 years ago the poet Carl Sandburg wrote his epic salute to Chicago, which he called the "City of the Big Shoulders." He issued this dare to the world: "Show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning."<br><br>Sandburg's city is now run by operatives like Rahm Emanuel. After an especially brutal Memorial Day weekend, during which a dozen Chicagoans were murdered, Mayor Emanuel proclaimed that his city really needs stricter gun control. Ask a liberal a question about crime, any question, and that is the answer that comes right back. Go ahead, try it.<br><br>And then there is Baltimore, a city where public safety is declining even faster than its people are fleeing. More than 40 people were shot to death in May, the city's most violent month since the 70s, back when Baltimore had 200,000 more residents.<br><br>As an aside, there's an interesting tale behind Baltimore's nickname. <br><br>The moniker "Charm City" was conjured up by some ad executives in 1975 because the mayor was concerned about the city's image. <br><br>One has to wonder, what would those advertising geniuses come up with today? Perhaps "Armed City" would be accurate, but it might not attract tourists to the Inner Harbor.<br><br>Republicans quickly and gleefully point out that New York, Chicago, and Baltimore - like pretty much every other big city - are firmly in the grip of liberal Democrats. And that New York's miracle occurred under Republican mayors. But to be fair, there were simultaneous crime declines in Democratic cities. <br><br>It's not party affiliation - it's a mindset that says criminals must pay dearly for their crimes, that cops perform works of heroism every day, and that the men and women in blue are the only thing standing between civilization and barbarity.<br><br>That ideology, a victim of its own success, is now being shunted aside. Instead, we have politicians lamenting "mass incarceration," and rabble-rousers accusing cops of all kinds of heinous acts. This is a recipe for mayhem, and it's being cooked up right now in front of our eyes.<br><br>The Big Apple, Charm City, The City of the Big Shoulders. They are still filled with hard-working people who love this country, obey its laws and respect the cops.<br><br>But at the moment these great cities are led by scallywags and scoundrels, men and women who are the antithesis of problem-solvers.<br><br>Yes, things can change in cities across America. But only if those good citizens channel Howard Beale and finally say they are mad as Hell and just aren't going to take it anymore. <br><br>That would at least be a start.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-06-04T07:00:00ZIt's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. The Sequel.BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-A-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-World.-The-Sequel./45520.html2015-05-28T07:00:00Z2015-05-28T07:00:00ZThe original was a 1963 comedy with a cast of thousands, among them Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, and Jonathan Winters.<br><br>The 2015 version is a terrifying blend of horror and tragedy set in a dozen countries, all of them in various stages of chaos. Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations are reeling and under attack by ISIS and its affiliates.<br><br>Despite the carnage, this week President Obama actually used a sacred military holiday as an occasion to tout his foreign policy success, issuing this proclamation: "Today is the first Memorial Day in 14 years that the United States is not engaged in a major ground war."<br><br>True enough. But this was also the first Memorial Day that ISIS was beheading people in Ramadi, a city fought for and won by American troops. Mr. Obama lost Ramadi, just as he has lost large swaths of Iraq, through his determination to abandon that nation, thus leaving behind millions of vulnerable people.<br><br>As you know, President Obama recently warned our troops about that dastardly threat known as "climate change." Not to be outdone in the department of absurdity, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says we must confront ISIS on "the front of social media." She offered that wisdom from her usual perch in Oz just as ISIS was burning human beings alive.<br><br>The madness extends beyond Iraq and Syria. Yemen, once touted by our triumphalist-in-chief as a success, has no functioning government. Neither does Libya after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton helped oust the dictator Qadafi. He was a bad hombre, no question, as was Saddam Hussein. But Presidents Bush and Obama were both caught by surprise when they ousted tyrants and created vacuums that were quickly filled by bloodthirsty terrorists.<br><br>President Obama vowed to confront and "downgrade" ISIS, but that has obviously not happened. Islamic State, like some voracious conglomerate, is branching off into new countries, including Afghanistan. This is not a JV squad, but more like LeBron's Cavs and Steph's Warriors.<br><br>So now the Obama administration has just one hope of salvaging a Middle East victory, and that would be to reach a deal with Iran on nukes. But that is a bargain on which Faust himself might take a pass.<br><br>Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei just called the United States "a major enemy to human rights." The always-charming Khamenei describes Israel as "barbaric, wolflike, and infanticidal." This Holocaust-doubter has declared that there is only one cure for the cancer of Israel: total annihilation. It is not a stretch to theorize that Khamenei surveys the region and sees just one final solution.<br><br>This is the regime we are dealing with. Not so much "dealing," but cajoling, coaxing, wheedling, begging. The United States of America is desperate to strike a bargain with a country that has long supported some of the world's most heinous terrorist organizations.<br><br>If all the world's a stage, the very worst actors are right now front and center. Iran, China, Putin's Russia, and of course ISIS are hogging the spotlight.<br><br>The question is, how did we get to this terribly ominous place? And the answer seems evident: the people of the United States elected, not once but twice, a man who disdains American power.<br><br>President Obama's security advisers know the score. The Director of National Intelligence admits that global threats are the worst in a half century. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta writes that Barack Obama "avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities."<br><br>The president has frequently lamented that he inherited a mess, which is absolutely true. Unfortunately, his fecklessness and lack of leadership have made that situation far messier. This is not the change we were so frequently and so forcefully promised.<br><br>So let's look ahead. Inauguration Day of 2017 falls on a Friday. After a long weekend of lavish parties and balls and dinners, the new commander-in-chief will begin the process of trying to make the world just a little less mad than it is right now. It is about as daunting a challenge as that faced by any president in the history of this exceptional nation. He or she will need every hope, every prayer we can muster.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-05-28T07:00:00ZOur Truly Fantastic AdministrationBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Our-Truly-Fantastic-Administration/45474.html2015-05-21T07:00:00Z2015-05-21T07:00:00ZYes, fantastic is the proper word. As in the dictionary definition: "Unrealistic and irrational, based on fantasy."<br><br>What else can you call a White House whose spokesman, Josh Earnest, insisted Tuesday that the administration's track record on ISIS has been an "overall" success. Just two days earlier, ISIS butchers had captured the key Iraqi city of Ramadi, a mere 70 miles from Baghdad.<br><br>Earnest actually mocked a skeptical reporter by asking whether we should "light our hair on fire" every time there is a setback. That image is especially grotesque when one recalls the Jordanian soldier burned alive in a cage by ISIS.<br><br>A somewhat different assessment comes from ace military analyst Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a straight shooter who was right on the money about Bowe Bergdahl and many other issues.<br><br>"ISIS is on the move," Shaffer pithily declared on The Factor this week. He reported that ISIS has formed a partnership with a terror group in Afghanistan, and that the very unholy alliance now controls five provinces in northern Afghanistan. The trademark beheading has begun, and ISIS is reportedly eager to exploit Afghanistan's rich mineral wealth.<br><br>So, to paraphrase the old question: Who you gonna believe, Tony Shaffer and his impeccable Pentagon sources ... or the impeccably-groomed Josh Earnest?<br><br>Then there is Earnest's boss, President Obama himself. He has often seemed downright apathetic when it comes to assessing and confronting ISIS, but no one can say Mr. Obama can't identify a grave threat when he sees one.<br><br>The president spoke at this week's United States Coast Guard Academy commencement, addressing an ocean of newly-minted officers and their families. President Obama used his bully pulpit to issue a stark and ominous warning about ... climate change.<br><br>Yes, the president implied that "climate change" caused a drought in Africa, which in turn led to instability that was "exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram." Incredibly - fantastically? - the president also claimed that climate change led to crop failures and high food prices that "helped fuel the early unrest in Syria."<br><br>Rather than look anywhere in the vicinity of a mirror and reassess his policies and pronouncements (remember that "red line?"), our commander-in-chief urges future military leaders to confront the chimera of climate change. It is vaguely reminiscent of FDR: "The only thing we have to fear is temperatures that may - or may not - be rising."<br><br>Does our president actually believe this stuff? Or is it a convenient diversion from his countless failures in the war on global terror? Those are the only two possibilities, and it's hard to say which would be more alarming.<br><br>As Secretary of State Kerry, Josh Earnest, and President Obama point out, there are occasional bright spots. Last weekend an Army Delta Force team crossed into Syria and killed some ISIS jihadists, among them a top financial guy. It was a clockwork-like raid that demonstrated our military's phenomenal skills and indisputable bravery. Another Factor guest said this week that our fight against ISIS can be defined as "one step forward, two steps back." The Delta raid was certainly a very welcome step forward.<br><br>But on the "two steps back" side of the equation, a harsh assessment comes from Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. She bemoans the fact that ISIS is now a force in at least a dozen nations, where it "annihilates in the most brutal of ways." Feinstein, no conservative war hawk, described ISIS as "evil" and expressed the need to "eradicate" the terrorist group.<br><br>Senator Feinstein's unclouded judgment, her brutal honesty, and her grasp of reality can accurately be described as "superb." Which just happens to be an alternate meaning of ... "fantastic."BillOReilly.com Staff2015-05-21T07:00:00ZWhither Faith?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whither-Faith/45376.html2015-05-14T07:00:00Z2015-05-14T07:00:00ZA new study is comforting to some, downright alarming to others. Pew Research, the highly-respected polling outfit, questioned tens of thousands of Americans about their religious faith and affiliation.<br><br>The most striking finding: Christianity is in a steep and secular decline, pardon the pun. Only about 70% of Americans now identify themselves as Christians, a drop of 8 percentage points from just seven years ago.<br><br>So, where did all those missing Christians go? They have not converted to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religious "ism." No, they have basically dismissed religion altogether.<br><br>The biggest increase in the survey was among Americans who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, or "nothing in particular." Pew researchers characterized the trend as nothing less than "astounding."<br><br>That cheering you hear is coming from the left, home to "progressives" who agree with Karl Marx's odious comparison between religion and opium. Marx, whose theories led to more deaths than anyone in human history, added this: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness."<br><br>One slight problem is that Marx was dead wrong, as he was about pretty much everything. Social scientists universally find a powerful correlation between belief in God and worldly contentment.<br><br>But when a nation loses its religious bearings, there is something far more important at stake than human happiness. It's illustrated in a famous quote often attributed to the brilliant British writer and thinker G. K. Chesterton, who converted to Roman Catholicism in his late 40s.<br><br>"When men choose not to believe in God," he reportedly said, "they do not believe in nothing ... they become capable of believing in <em>anything.</em>"<br><br>At the extremes, Chesterton's warning was illustrated by the Nazis, who replaced God with the god of racial purity, and the communists, who worshipped at the altar of radical egalitarianism.<br><br>Of course, our own anti-religionists are much more benign. They often proclaim their deep faith in environmentalism, wealth redistribution, the welfare state, feminism, or the eternal pursuit of individual gratification.<br><br>These trendy causes and movements come and go, but the human need to believe in something - anything - is a constant throughout history. And the greatest, most free, most optimistic nation ever created was founded by men who firmly believed in Judeo-Christian principles.<br><br>Scholars debate whether Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the others were deeply religious men, and whether the Constitution omitted God for a reason. That may be interesting to academics, but what really matters is that the Founding Fathers formed a nation uniquely based on Christian principles.<br><br>The present decline of Christianity is good news to the swells. You know, the Hollywood types who routinely mock the faithful, and the editorial page writers who have never set foot in a church except when taking in the sights on their European vacations.<br><br>Let's face it, atheism is kind of chic. Book stores and Kindles feature popular authors who declare that "God is Not Great," and "God is a Delusion." The secular press heaps praise on these books, while the authors are in great demand on the talk show circuit.<br><br>But it's an ominous trend to those who believe America has a special and exceptional place among nations. The Judeo-Christian traditions that have been an integral part of America's greatness are withering away. That is not a cause for celebration, but for deep mourning.<br><br>John Lennon famously urged us to "imagine no religion," and touted the notion of "all the people living for today." Well, that dream of the secularists is slowly coming true, and millions of Americans are in fact living for today.<br><br>It is not a pretty sight to watch religious faith withering before our eyes, being replaced by rank self-gratification. Pardon the expression, but may God help us.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-05-14T07:00:00ZHillary's HelpersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hillarys-Helpers/45331.html2015-05-07T07:00:00Z2015-05-07T07:00:00ZRemember those pesky syllogisms from high school? You know - major premise, minor premise, conclusion. For example:<br><br>-The media generally prefers Democrats to Republicans<br>-Hillary Clinton is a Democrat<br>-Therefore, the media will favor Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race<br><br>If anyone disputes either premise or the conclusion, please pass the Kool-Aid. Now, this is not to say that Mrs. Clinton will get a free ride or receive the kind of adoring coverage that was heaped on Barack Obama eight years ago.<br><br>Right now some outlets are obviously peeved at Hillary Clinton's decision to scrupulously avoid interviews. The New York Times crunched the numbers and wrote this: "Since she declared her candidacy, Hillary Rodham Clinton has answered just seven questions from reporters."<br><br>The Washington Post then got out its trusty calculator and concluded that the Democratic front-runner has answered "roughly three-tenths of a question per day." Things are so bad that Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson may have to share his nickname with Mrs. Clinton.<br><br>The media doesn't like to be ignored, and right now many reporters are irked at the Clinton avoidance strategy. In fairness, we should also point out that the New York Times has done some real digging into the Clinton Foundation story. But don't leap to any "ergo" and conclude that major press outfits will subject Hillary Clinton to the kind of scrutiny they traditionally reserve for Republicans.<br><br>We got a sneak preview of pro-Clinton bias the other day when the New York Times and CBS News polled voters about her various qualities. Despite questions about the Clinton Foundation, despite the destroyed emails, despite all the evasions and word-parsing, the Times reported that Hillary Clinton has "initially weathered" the barrage of bad news.<br><br>The paper's headline was especially interesting: "Hillary Clinton's Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll Says." But does that headline itself survive scrutiny? True, the survey found that 81% of Democrats believe Mrs. Clinton to be "honest and trustworthy." But 51% of independents say she is "not honest and trustworthy."<br><br>And when Fox News conducted a similar poll, only 33% of independents characterized the former First Lady as honest. Those are abysmal numbers for a woman who desperately needs the support of independent voters, not just hard-core Democrats. Maybe her appeal hasn't "survived scrutiny" after all.<br><br>With the campaign season revving up, get used to news coverage that is, shall we say, less than balanced. As Bernie Goldberg said this week, after admitting his embarrassment at making such an obvious point, "the so-called mainstream media tilts left."<br><br>That is a given, despite protestations to the contrary by loony left-wing websites. The question is how much that tilting will help Hillary Clinton's candidacy. One mainstreamer, in a moment of candor, once suggested that media bias is worth about 15% to any Democratic presidential candidate. He later revised that downward to 5%, but that is still enough to swing pretty much every national election this side of Reagan-Mondale.<br><br>So here's a tip: Read the polls, analyze the news, follow the coverage, and never, ever overlook the fine print. It's often more revealing than the article, and especially the headline.<br><br>We The People are facing economic malaise, the threat of terrorism, widespread polarization, crumbling cities, and a debased culture. The next president will have much to do in determining whether the USA can overcome these dire problems. We all need to be high-information voters. Now more than ever.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-05-07T07:00:00ZThugs and ThuggeryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Thugs-and-Thuggery/45166.html2015-04-30T07:00:00Z2015-04-30T07:00:00ZTo borrow from the late Art Linkletter, grownups say the darndest things. Especially liberal grownups during a riot. Or shall we say ... an "uprising?"<br><br>This week in Baltimore was certainly no exception. We witnessed a CNN anchor blame cops who are military veterans and thus "ready to do battle." There was also the attention-hungry columnist who described the smashing of police cars as a "legitimate political strategy." <br><br>But the single dumbest comment in recent days may have been spewed by Baltimore City Council member Carl Stokes. Coincidentally, the councilman becomes eligible for Medicare this very weekend, so there's no way to ascribe his astounding ignorance to the foolishness of youth.<br><br>Stokes was on TV the day after hordes of young men burned and looted stores and tried their best to injure Baltimore cops. Most clear-thinking Americans would describe those miscreants as "thugs."<br><br>But not Carl Stokes, who compared the word "thug" to the most vile racial epithet. If the councilman has his way, we'll all be dancing around the truth, maybe referring to the "T word."<br><br>This is not an attempt to pick on one politician who said something idiotic, but it's instructive. A "teachable moment," as liberals like to say. If you look up Carl Stokes' official bio, it includes this passage: "Councilman Stokes was a successful businessman, having managed and ultimately purchased a chain of retail clothing stores."<br><br>So what would the esteemed councilman call young men who smashed the windows of his clothing store and cleaned out the joint? Perhaps he would characterize them as "undocumented shoppers." Or he might reach way back to West Side Story and those timeless lyrics by Stephen Sondheim: "Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived."<br><br>In a sane world, politicians like Carl Stokes would not excuse the thugs and their thuggery. Rather, city leaders would rush to console business owners whose stores were destroyed. For example, the entrepreneur who watched on a security camera as looters, some of whom he recognized as customers, emptied his sneaker store. If politicians don't convince people like that to stay and rebuild, it will be portentous for the residents of Charm City.<br><br>The clear losers in the Baltimore situation are that city's poorest residents, most of them black. There will be fewer tourists visiting the beautiful Inner Harbor, thus less revenue and fewer jobs. Fewer suburbanites will head downtown to take in an Orioles game, leading to less income for the vendors who hawk peanuts and Cracker Jacks.<br><br>The classic song "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" includes an ironic line: "I don't care if I never get back." That sentiment may now apply to baseball fans who traditionally crowd into the stadium at Camden Yards 81 times every spring and summer. If too many of them "never get back," the ultimate price will be paid by ticket-takers and security guards and the vendors who will sell you a Natty Boh beer for $8.75.<br><br>The riots in Baltimore were tragic, yes, but also criminal. The villains who robbed shoe stores and pharmacies also stole part of the city's future.<br><br>If you were a business person, would you build a new store in Baltimore today? Let's say, just hypothetically, you own a chain of retail clothing stores. Feel like it's a good idea to expand into West Baltimore? Didn't think so.<br><br>If there's any ray of hope, it may be that not all Baltimore politicians are as dense as Carl Stokes. Exhibit A is 31-year-old Brandon Scott, the youngest member of the City Council. He grew up in Baltimore during the heyday of crack cocaine, earning pocket change by washing the luxury cars of drug dealers.<br><br>Councilman Scott obviously loves Baltimore dearly, and he minced no words when describing the criminals who rioted and looted. "Obviously they're thugs," he declared, "and we can't let them ruin our city." The young councilman, wise beyond his years, added this: "If you are an adult and you're out there participating in this, you're ruining the future for these young people."<br><br>He was not referring to fellow councilman Carl Stokes, but he could have been. Because even though Stokes didn't participate in the riots, he excused them as the understandable result of "marginalized" kids.<br><br>Who marginalized those kids, Mr. Stokes? Who turned them into thugs? That is exactly what they are, and no sugar-coating of words can change that.<br><br>The thugs have done immeasurable damage to Baltimore and its residents. It will take years for the city to recover. Years ... and a few more truth-telling leaders like Brandon Scott.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-04-30T07:00:00ZA President in Dream LandBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-President-in-Dream-Land/45100.html2015-04-23T07:00:00Z2015-04-23T07:00:00ZIf you missed President Obama's "interview" on MSNBC this week, you had plenty of company. The man who once filled stadiums with screaming and adoring fans can't even win the coveted cable news demo of viewers between the ages of 25 and 54.<br><br>MSNBC's softball conversation with the president was beaten by Erin Burnett on CNN, and absolutely crushed by Greta on FNC. Of course, given his tendency to ignore bad news, President Obama may wish to focus on the fact that he attracted more young viewers than CNBC's Shark Tank.<br><br>It could well be that Americans have had their fill of the president's denial, especially regarding the miserable state of the world. Mr. Obama did concede in his MSNBC lovefest that there is "a lot of tumult and chaos," but quickly added this: "There actually is probably less war and violence around the world today than there might have been thirty, forty years ago."<br><br>Our friend Charles Krauthammer destroyed that argument, describing it as "adolescent." Charles pointed out that, by that measure, Lincoln was the lousiest president of the 19th century, FDR the worst of the 20th century.<br><br>Now, it's perfectly natural for any leader to stress successes and downplay failures. No one expects President Obama to say the globe is on fire and he's holding a book of matches. What's truly disturbing is that this president seems to actually believe what he's saying.<br><br>Does the president truly believe his current claim that the United States will "work with partner countries to try to resolve conflicts?" He apparently envisions a 60-nation coalition sweeping in, much like the mythical Justice League, to make the world right. If that's the case, that coalition had better get to work. Here are just a few of today's messes:<br><br>- Terrorists are running wild in the Middle East, slaughtering tourists, women, children, Christians, and others who don't fit their strict definition of faith.<br><br>- The butcher Assad is comfortably ensconced in Syria long after leaping over President Obama's "red line."<br><br>- In Russia, Vladimir Putin looks to the West and throws up his middle finger.<br><br>- The animalistic thugs of Boko Haram still terrorize central Africa a year after kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls.<br><br>- China has developed a wandering eye and is claiming territory belonging to its neighbors.<br><br>- Europe is overrun by desperate North Africans fleeing the chaos in post-Gaddafi Libya.<br><br>- And of course, ISIS is beheading Christians, while Afghanistan seems ready to explode.<br><br>After considering that litany of horrors, President Obama did identify the "greatest threat to our planet" in his weekly radio address last Saturday. It is not a nuclear Iran, nor is it terrorism or despots running wild. It is, of course ... climate change. Does he believe that? Really?<br><br>Well, maybe we can turn to Secretary of State John Kerry for a hard-nosed dose of global reality. This week he wrote a column for USA Today and admitted that "America is once again on a dangerous path, along with the rest of the world." And what is it that Secretary Kerry finds so dangerous? You guessed it ... climate change.<br><br>Most clear-thinking Americans want our president and secretary of state to identify and deal with villains, those terrorists and tyrants who make the world a far more dangerous place than it was thirty, forty years ago. Instead, the administration is chasing the chimera of "global warming."<br><br>We expect so much more from our leaders. We expect them to be realistic, rational, and truthful about the state of the world. Then again, perhaps that's a sign that we are the ones living in a dream worldBillOReilly.com Staff2015-04-23T07:00:00ZClinton's ConundraBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Clintons-Conundra/45028.html2015-04-16T07:00:00Z2015-04-16T07:00:00ZHillary's hat is in the ring. But what kind of hat? <br><br>She wants you to believe it's a Chicago Cubs cap, the kind they wear in the bleachers at Wrigley. Or maybe a cowboy hat, something that displays her common touch. <br><br>But more likely, it's a Christine A. Moore big brim variety, one of those $500 chapeaus favored by upscale ladies at the Kentucky Derby.<br><br>However mightily Mrs. Clinton tries to seem like a woman of the people, she just can't seem to pull it off. Whether making a "spontaneous" visit to a Chipotle restaurant, or talking with "everyday folks" in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton comes across as an elite and privileged woman of means. Of course, that could be because she is an elite and privileged woman of means. <br><br>Charles Krauthammer has pithily defined her overriding personality trait as "glaring inauthenticity."<br><br>But that is just one of the problems she faces as this presidential season begins. More substantively, what should the former Secretary of State say about her foreign policy accomplishments? Does she admit the world is in chaos and blame it on President Obama? <br><br>No, because she can't afford to alienate a man whose support she sorely needs.<br><br>Should she claim that she and the president helped make the world a safer place, that America is respected? That would be a good strategy if the only voters are hand-picked by Jesse Watters during spring break in Florida.<br><br>The truth is, this administration's foreign policy accomplishments are few and very far between. One liberal guest on The Factor, when asked to identify an Obama/Clinton success, pointed to Myanmar. Myanmar, aka Burma! As Peggy Lee pondered, "Is that all there is?"<br><br>How about pocketbook issues and President Obama's big government nostrums? After more than six years of his presidency, income for working Americans is down by about $1,700 per person. Does Hillary Clinton promise more of the same? <br><br>Again, she has to explain how she'll be different from President Obama without offending the man who vanquished her in 2008.<br><br>We can certainly expect to hear a few things over and over. How President Obama dug us out from "the greatest recession since the Great Depression." And how Hillary Clinton yearns to be our "champion." Whatever that means, it already seems to be a running theme of her nascent campaign.<br><br>So these are just a few of the dilemmas faced by Hillary Clinton. And one more - how does she endorse campaign finance reform while raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from those dastardly "fat cats?"<br><br>Right now Hillary Clinton seems ready to cruise to the Democratic nomination. That is distressing to many on the party's left wing, who despise her for endorsing the invasion of Iraq. And for her enduring courtship of those demons on Wall Street. Self-proclaimed progressives would be far more comfortable with Elizabeth Warren or the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. But the former seems unwilling to run, the latter unlikely to garner much non-loon support.<br><br>And what should we expect from the media? They will probably be fairly tough on Hillary Clinton for a few months. The press resents her evasiveness, her refusal to submit to tough questioning, her sense of entitlement.<br><br>But do not be fooled. If and when Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, the media will turn on a dime. Whatever her faults, the media and the left - pardon the redundancy - will rush to support her, while heaping scorn on her GOP rival. In their eyes, she is far preferable to any of those nasty Republicans.<br><br>To be fair, Hillary Clinton had some genuine accomplishments during her time in the Senate, and she deserves great credit for running, knowing all the slings and arrows that will be coming her way.<br><br>But it's apparent that the next president is going to inherit an incredible mess, both at home and abroad. Is Hillary Clinton the right woman for the job? 40% of Americans, mostly conservatives, say "no way." 40% or so, liberals and women among them, say "absolutely."<br><br>Next year's election, like most, will be decided by those Americans in the middle. We should all hope that voters put gender aside and simply pick the best man - or woman - for the job. Our future depends on it. <br><br>Perhaps more than ever.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-04-16T07:00:00ZIn Knots over BoweBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/In-Knots-over-Bowe/44930.html2015-04-09T07:00:00Z2015-04-09T07:00:00ZLet your imagination run wild for just a moment. <br><br>Suppose, just suppose, We The People were represented in Washington by a press corps that is tough but fair, a press corps that holds the powerful accountable. One in which correspondents like Ed Henry and James Rosen are the rule, not the exception.<br><br>Those fair-minded media folks might want to ask a question made famous in Watergate: What did the president know, and when did he know it? <br><br>In this case, the subject isn't a break-in, but a break-out.<br><br>Was President Obama fully aware, prior to his excruciatingly embarrassing Rose Garden ceremony with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's parents, that Bergdahl was a deserter and perhaps even an enemy collaborator?<br><br>The most recent revelations about Bergdahl have been reported not by the mainstream media, but by Tony Shaffer, an author and retired Army Lieutenant Colonel. Shaffer took some heat a few months ago when he predicted on The Factor that Bergdahl would imminently be charged with desertion. <br><br>Of course, he was proven correct.<br><br>Now, through his sources at the Pentagon, Shaffer has uncovered explosive new information. Way back in 2009, the highly-respected Naval Criminal Investigative Service examined the computer Bowe Bergdahl left behind when he vanished into the night. This was just after the soldier had sent an email to his parents that included this admission: "I am ashamed to even be american. [sic]"<br><br>After scouring Bergdahl's computer, the NCIS wrote a report stating that Private First Class Bergdahl had conspired with some Afghans and was intent on skipping out on the Army. His intended destination: the Republic of Uzbekistan, the former Soviet state just to the north of Afghanistan.<br><br>"He was going off to Uzbekistan," Shaffer reported this week on The Factor, "and he wanted to make contact with the Russians." Crazy stuff. Shaffer also reported that the NCIS report indicated that Bergdahl was considering aligning himself with the Taliban. Even crazier stuff.<br><br>Keep in mind that this damning report was compiled in 2009. Five years later, President Obama decided it would be wise to trade Bergdahl for five Taliban terrorists. An unscientific BillOReilly.com poll found that 98% of you believe that was a terrible deal. 98%! Of course, it's possible for smart people to defend the swap, as Charles Krauthammer has done. But no one can defend what happened next.<br><br>The president, proudly standing at the White House with Robert and Jani Bergdahl, reminded everyone that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been promoted in absentia, had missed birthdays and holidays with his family. <br><br>Then Susan Rice, who is apparently incapable of experiencing humiliation, infamously praised Bergdahl's service. <br><br>Her ridiculous assertion was, in turn, defended by White House spokesman Jay Carney.<br><br>This was outright deception. Fraud. The administration had to be aware of the 2009 charges against Bowe Bergdahl, yet it treated him like Sgt. Alvin York returning from the Argonne Forest.<br><br>The Obama administration deceived the American people, there's no way around that. The entire ruse, the White House ceremony, the talk show fabrications, all of it has contributed to the growing lack of trust in President Obama.<br><br>Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, now awaiting trial, has been charged with desertion and "misbehavior before the enemy," the latter of which carries a possible life sentence. We will learn the extent of his treachery, and whether U.S. soldiers were killed while searching for him.<br><br>And while a military court will determine the facts regarding Bowe Bergdahl, it is already clear that the White House has acted, to paraphrase Susan Rice, with absolute dishonor and a total lack of distinction. That is simply awful. <br><br>Even worse is the unwillingness of so many in the media to speak truth to power. This has been a shameful episode in modern American history.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-04-09T07:00:00ZPeople of Faith, Taking it on the ChinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/People-of-Faith-Taking-it-on-the-Chin/44864.html2015-04-02T07:00:00Z2015-04-02T07:00:00ZSome religious Americans are reeling this week. Woozy. Struggling to get up off the canvas after taking a left hook that would have made Joe Frazier proud. They are being branded as "intolerant bigots" by some of the least tolerant people this side of the Middle East.<br><br>This brawl began when the Indiana legislature passed SB 101, the now-notorious Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The vote in the Indiana Senate was 40 - 10, which sounds overwhelming. Trouble is, all 40 yea votes came from Republicans, while all 10 nays were Democrats.<br><br>So this bill was a partisan effort from the jump. Every bit as partisan as the Affordable Care Act. But in this case, in the view of the media and opinion-shapers, the bad guys won. And the bad guys, namely conservatives and Christians, had to be punished. Cue the hysteria, warm up the outrage.<br><br>The bill itself seems fairly innocuous, not very different from a federal version and similar laws in twenty states. It gives individuals and businesses a legal avenue to claim in court that their strongly-held religious beliefs shield them from government coercion.<br><br>We all know the familiar example. Should a Christian baker be compelled to deliver a cake to a same-sex wedding ceremony he finds objectionable? But while opponents of the law like to use Christianity, let's hypothesize about another religion that the left is terrified to criticize. Should a Muslim-owned restaurant in Indianapolis be forced to cater the union of two lesbians?<br><br>There are plenty of other caterers eager to provide that service, so the bride and bride will still get their food. It seems unreasonable, downright intolerant, for the state to compel the Islamic restaurateurs to go against their deeply-held beliefs.<br><br>The law has given secular progressives another chance to demonize people of faith, especially Christians. And it has exposed some rank hypocrisy among the enlightened. The CEO of one massive high tech company railed against the Indiana law, even though his firm gladly does business in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries where being gay is punishable by death. We won't name the company, but many of it's products begin with a lower case i. As in ... iPocrisy. Yes, Tim Cook, we're looking at you.<br><br>The secular left has pretty much won the gay marriage debate, and they did it almost overnight. The Supreme Court will likely follow the lead of many states and declare that same-sex marriage is fully protected by the Constitution. But whatever the court rules, some Christians and Jews and Muslims will continue to oppose same-sex marriage. That is, pardon the expression, their God-given right!<br><br>But the left won't be satisfied (is the left ever satisfied?) until every American of faith is punished for holding any beliefs that differ from those of the cognoscenti.<br><br>The Founding Fathers were very clear in stating that religious tenets should not be imposed on the people. Most Christians don't want to impose anything, they simply want to be free to act on their conscience. The real "imposers" here are the anti-Christian bullies who claim tolerance, but display absolutely none.<br><br>The media plays a particularly shameful role in all of this. They are supposed to be, like a boxing referee, fair and impartial. But if you read the New York Times, if you watch network newscasts or most cable outlets, the Indiana law is nothing but hate on parchment.<br><br>So people of faith, after being stunned by that left hook, are now being kicked and brutalized by the ref. We've actually seen the spectacle of media types hectoring mom-and-pop pizza parlors, demanding to know if they would cater a gay wedding. And woe be upon the mom or pop who gives the wrong answer!<br><br>Republican Senator Marco Rubio posed a good question: "What about the religious liberties of Americans who do not want to feel compelled by law to provide a catering service or a photography service to a same-sex marriage that their faith teaches is wrong?"<br><br>An equally good question: Where are the religious leaders when we need them? They seem to be hiding under their altars, taking sanctuary in their sanctuaries.<br><br>Yes, people of faith have suffered a blow. But it's early in the bout. The secular progressive movement has been denigrating, demeaning, and dismissing religious Americans for decades. The bullies are winning. And the time has come for the flock to get up off the canvas and fight back. <br><br>Turn the other cheek? Not this time. A right uppercut is a far better idea.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-04-02T07:00:00ZUnfair, Unbalanced, UnhingedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Unfair-Unbalanced-Unhinged/44709.html2015-03-26T07:00:00Z2015-03-26T07:00:00Z"Slimy" ... "dangerous" ... "bad news." Those were a few of the derogatory adjectives deployed by members of the mainstream media this week. The pundits and reporters weren't maligning alleged deserter Bowe Bergdahl or the five Taliban terrorists for whom Bergdahl was swapped. Nor were they savaging Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot who committed mass murder by crashing a plane into the Alps.<br><br>No, the "slimy" and "dangerous" guy is Ted Cruz, the ultra-conservative Republican Senator from Texas who announced his candidacy for the presidency Monday.<br><br>What can Cruz expect from the mainstream media? Well, no media outlet is more mainstream than the New York Times, the paper from which other reporters get their marching orders each morning. The Times greeted Cruz's candidacy with this: "His tenure in Washington has been marked by accusations of demagoguery." That was not an editorial, but a "news" story.<br><br>Eight years ago, when another first-term Senator announced his candidacy, the Times put forth a slightly different appraisal: "Speaking smoothly and comfortably, Mr. Obama offered a generational call to arms."<br><br>In 2007, as you know, 45-year-old Senator Barack Obama, inexperienced and liberal, was treated worshipfully by an adoring media. In 2015, 44-year-old Senator Ted Cruz, inexperienced and conservative, is being savaged by those same reporters and pundits.<br><br>It's very clear that to many liberals Cruz is not merely someone with whom to disagree on important issues. No, he is the enemy, a Mephistophelean figure. And it's not just Senator Cruz.<br><br>Here are a few of the media's assumptions about conservatives: <br><br>You believe life begins at conception and abortion is wrong? You are a worse misogynist than a Saudi royal. <br><br>Demand secure national borders? You are a jingoist and you hate Hispanics. <br><br>Question whether "man-made global warming" is destroying the planet? Well, you're an anti-science Neanderthal.<br><br>Dare to mention the social pathology that correlates with fatherlessness in black America? You are, ipso facto, an incurable bigot. <br><br>Want a more forceful response to the jihadists? You, sir, are an Islamophobe and a warmonger. <br><br>Believe in Jesus Christ as our savior? Well, you're obviously an intolerant Bible-thumper.<br><br>If you have any doubt about the depths to which political debate has sunk, consider an observation by lifelong Democrat Kirsten Powers. "Conservatives are maligned at a level that it hasn't been in the past," she lamented Tuesday on The Factor. "Disagreements are treated as bigotry and phobias, not just disagreements that we Americans used to have." In other words, to harbor conservative and traditional views is to suffer from some form of mental illness.<br><br>This is Ted Cruz's week to have a target on his back, and he is certainly farther to the right than his prospective opponents. But Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and other conservative Republicans can expect pretty much the same treatment.<br><br>And it won't just be the media. Hollywood types will ridicule them, Ivy League professors will dismiss them as extremists, and late night talk show hosts will have a field day. The very same talk show hosts who concluded that President Obama was "too cool" to mock.<br><br>If any minority group in this country was smeared the way conservatives are, Eric Holder would launch a Justice Department investigation. But this is simply a fact of life in 21st century America. In other words, as Walter Cronkite pithily put it, "That's the way it is."<br><br>Cronkite was the face of the mainstream media back in an era when reporters were far more adept at disguising their contempt for conservative Americans. That contempt is now very much out in the open for all to see. It's not a pretty sight.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-03-26T07:00:00ZThose Three Little WordsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Those-Three-Little-Words/44576.html2015-03-19T07:00:00Z2015-03-19T07:00:00Z"I was wrong." Those three words are not easy for most of us to say; for some people it's just about impossible. <br><br>But Jonathan Capehart, a very liberal Washington Post columnist, is an exception to that rule. <br><br>Capehart, who initially presumed Michael Brown was trying to surrender in Ferguson, now admits that the entire "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" mantra was based on an utter lie. His about face is perhaps even more difficult because Capehart is black and thus considered by some a "traitor" to his race.<br><br>Jonathan Capehart did something unusual for an ideologue of any stripe. He looked at the evidence in the Michael Brown case, specifically the voluminous report put together by Eric Holder's Justice Department. <br><br> Like his boss President Obama, Holder had rushed to judgment on the case and was seduced by the 'hands up' fabrication. So DOJ investigators had every impetus to declare Officer Darren Wilson the guilty party; instead, they exonerated Wilson and concluded that "Big Mike" was the aggressor.<br><br>There have been no Capehart-like apologies from the members of Congress who stood on the Capitol steps with their hands up. Or from the St. Louis Rams football players who used the same gesture prior to a game. And, of course, the MSNBC crew that convicted Darren Wilson has been pretty much silent. When that network's token Republican, Joe Scarborough, brought up the DOJ report, his colleague Lawrence O'Donnell essentially covered his ears and hid under the desk.<br><br>All this brings us to President Obama and his congenital inability to say, "I was wrong." The president recently granted an interview to an outlet called Vice News, which describes itself as a "news organization created by and for a connected generation." You've no doubt noticed that Mr. Obama studiously avoids tough questions by talking with admirers, most notoriously the self-proclaimed "Queen of YouTube" GloZell Green. She's the woman known for dunking herself in a bathtub filled with cereal.<br><br>During his softball interrogation by a perpetually nodding Vice News "reporter," President Obama implied that the rise of ISIS is all the fault of ... George W. Bush. In Mr. Obama's view, this savage group reared its ugly head, and started lopping off the heads of others, because President Bush ousted Saddam Hussein a dozen years ago.<br><br>President Obama, of course, overlooks the fact that he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq, in the process ignoring the advice of all his military and national security advisers. And the fact that he dismissed ISIS as the "jayvee team" just as the terrorist group was gaining strength and attracting wannabe jihadis from around the world.<br><br>Some things should be evident to all clear-thinking Americans: General David Petraeus led a surge that left Iraq in a relatively stable situation. President Obama, perhaps wanting to prove his Nobel Peace Prize was merited, mucked up the situation by insisting on a compete withdrawal. Muslim jihadists soon moved into Iraq from Syria and began their campaign of terror, slaughter, and mayhem. And President Obama blames his predecessor!<br><br>Obama's strongest critics on the right have been merciless. Laura Ingraham compares the president's blame-evasion to the actions of a 4th grader, while Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, in addition to questioning the president's manhood, reached this pithy conclusion: "If President Obama developed athlete's foot, he would blame George W. Bush."<br><br>But even non-ideological Americans, those who want to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, wish he would display just a bit more honesty, a bit less petulance. The president might learn from one of his staunchest admirers, the aforementioned Jonathan Capehart, who swallowed his pride and spit out those three little words. Give it a try, Mr. President. You may be glad you did. Confession, they say, is good for the soul.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-03-19T07:00:00ZI'm Hillary, and I'll Be Your ServerBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Im-Hillary-and-Ill-Be-Your-Server/44562.html2015-03-13T07:00:00Z2015-03-13T07:00:00ZThe headline above this column may be flip, but forget the "server" pun and follow the metaphor. Hillary Clinton, in her Tuesday press conference, basically played the role of a surly waiter telling us exactly what we'll be permitted to digest. We are to take whatever scraps she deigns to give us, and we will like it. <br><br>The choice is hers, not ours, and it is entirely out of line.<br><br>Mrs. Clinton has deleted 32,000 emails she sent and received during her four-year tenure as secretary of state. They were "private, personal records," by her own reckoning. But she will not allow the government to validate that assessment by making her server available to an independent arbiter such as the FBI.<br><br>Following that logic, any government employee is free to set up a private server, then later decide which emails are off limits to government archivists. That is not the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work, and Hillary Clinton is in a heap of trouble. <br><br>With very few exceptions, even her supporters in the mainstream media were thoroughly unsatisfied with Tuesday's presser. The former secretary has been pilloried and ridiculed in reliably liberal outlets.<br><br>Part of this is the media's wish for a horserace on the Democratic side, which would be good for ratings. Even political junkies will be reluctant to follow a coronation without a campaign. <br><br>There's also the fact that Mrs. Clinton is simply too moderate for many on the left who are hungering for an Elizabeth Warren candidacy. If this email affair has legs, or if new scandals emerge, look for Senator Warren to ride to the rescue of her Democratic Party.<br><br>Ratings and ideology aside, many folks in the media simply suffer from Clinton fatigue. Bill and Hillary have been surrounded by drama for more than two decades; they always seem to be explaining away some questionable decision or action. Yes, there are times when their many enemies concoct accusations, but many of the controversies are the Clintons' own fault.<br><br>Take the recent Clinton Foundation dustup. <br><br>While Mrs. Clinton incessantly positions herself as a champion of women, her family foundation has accepted millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations where women are oppressed beyond belief. Contributions were also gladly accepted from nations that sponsor terrorism. <br><br>Did the Clintons need the money that badly? Hillary Clinton was asked about the sleazy donations at this week's press conference, but totally dodged the question.<br><br>Mrs. Clinton may have hoped Tuesday's performance would put this email fiasco behind her. But to borrow from Churchill, this was not the end, it was not even the beginning of the end. She bobbed and weaved, and left the ring after just a few rounds of questions, but was bloodied nonetheless.<br><br>No, Hillary Clinton will have to do much more, and do it more effectively, if she wants to put this to rest. <br><br>First, she should allow the FBI or another agency to fully examine her private server. That third party will determine what is private, what is part of her government work. She also has to hold a genuine press conference or sit down with an interviewer who will ask the tough questions that remain unanswered.<br><br>At this point, it would be absolutely unfair to accuse Mrs. Clinton of committing a crime. Nor is it kosher to compare her to Richard Nixon, the man she once pursued with vigor. But, like Nixon, Hillary Clinton is "tricky" in her own way. That has many Democrats worried about their prospective nominee, and many Republicans rubbing their hands in gleeful anticipation. <br><br>Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is warming up in the bullpen. And yes ... she's a lefty.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-03-13T07:00:00ZBenjamin Netanyahu the antithesis of Barack ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Benjamin-Netanyahu-the-antithesis-of-Barack-Obama/44520.html2015-03-05T08:00:00Z2015-03-05T08:00:00ZBenjamin Netanyahu is the antithesis of Barack Obama. Decisive. Forceful. Unapologetic. Vociferously patriotic. A warrior, literally and figuratively. <br><br>Simply put, the man called Bibi is the most Alpha of males.<br><br>When the Israeli Prime Minister came to address Congress this week, our president petulantly said he would not watch the speech, and later gave it a negative review. <br><br>Let's be clear: Whatever diplomatic niceties they may express, despite all those "my friend Barack" utterances, these guys don't like each another. A top Israeli politician has actually said that Benjamin Netanyahu "loathes" President Obama.<br><br>But personal animus is not the main concern here. The issue is Iran, which is led by some of the world's most dangerous villains. The Iranian mullahs have vowed time and time again to redraw the map of the Middle East. <br><br>Of course, the map of their fantasies would not include Israel. It would be, to borrow from Nazi terminology, "Judenfrei." Free of Jews.<br><br>So it's easy to understand why many Israelis, Benjamin Netanyahu among them, are wary of the deal being negotiated in Switzerland. On one side of the table sit the United States and five other world powers. On the other side sits Iran, which is not keen on being told to curb its nuclear ambitions. The deadline keeps being pushed back, but Secretary of State John Kerry insists that progress is being made.<br><br>However estimable his eloquence and passion on Tuesday, Benjamin Netanyahu was premature when he declared this a "very bad deal." There is no deal and walking away now would be a terrible idea. Let's keep talking to the mullahs, let's try mightily to tamp down their nuclear ambitions. Not only for the sake of Israel, but for the sake of global security.<br><br>Meanwhile, back in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is using a tactical maneuver to pry the Senate into the procedure. In the process, he has angered Democrats and even some of his fellow Republicans.<br><br>McConnell would be well-advised to let the negotiators in Switzerland finish their work, which is supposed to be finished by the end of the month. Once a deal is struck, then let the Senate weigh in. If there is no deal or a bad one, draconian sanctions should be put in place that would strangle Iran's economy. As Charles Krauthammer said this week, sanctions are "what brought the Iranians to their knees in the first place."<br><br>Americans are desperate for clarity and honesty. A foreign leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, stood before Congress and laid out the dangers in a very powerful and persuasive way. Now it's time for our own leader to explain how these talks in Switzerland will prevent the world's most dangerous nation from building a nuclear bomb. And why a pact with Iran will make the world a safer place.<br><br>Whether or not you like Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. President, you should tell us, clearly and directly, where Bibi is wrong. Or right.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-03-05T08:00:00ZChristian Lambs to the SlaughterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Christian-Lambs-to-the-Slaughter/44508.html2015-02-26T08:00:00Z2015-02-26T08:00:00ZThe United Nations has just issued a new report documenting "widespread human rights violations" by ISIS. Even the UN's human rights boss, who has seen his share of atrocities, admitted to being "deeply shocked."<br><br>Let's not mince words about these "violations." The ISIS savages are guilty of rape, slavery, child abuse, beheading, crucifixion, and more. And while many ethnic and religious minorities are under siege, their favorite targets seem to be Christians.<br><br>This week, another 150 Assyrian Christians were kidnapped in Syria and taken hostage by ISIS. The Assyrians have practiced Christianity since the 6th Century and still speak a language very similar to that spoken by Jesus himself.<br><br>Now, dozens of these peaceful people, among them babies and the elderly, face the distinct possibility of being slaughtered. Exterminated. Just as Coptic Christians in Egypt and Assyrian Christians in Iraq were exterminated in recent weeks.<br><br>The depravity of ISIS has overshadowed that other Islamist terror group Boko Haram. Those evildoers kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls in Nigeria last year, most of them Christian. Boko Haram killed an estimated 2,500 people last year, usually targeting communities inhabited by Christians.<br><br>And now? There has been a spate of suicide bombings in Nigeria carried out by young girls. It is presumed that Boko Haram is forcing its kidnapped prey to don suicide vests. Just try to envision the sickness required to strap a bomb to a little girl, send her into a crowded market, and detonate an explosion that kills dozens of innocents.<br><br>Fox News analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters describes what is happening as nothing less than a religious cleansing. "What we are seeing," he said Wednesday morning, "is an Islamist attempt to exterminate the last vestiges of Christian civilization in the Middle East ... it is a genuine Holocaust against Christians."<br><br>"Holocaust" is a charged word, but we are witnessing the systematic execution of people because of their religion. And just as the world watched and dithered in the 1930s, little is being done to confront the ISIS menace that has spread across the Middle East and North Africa.<br><br>President Obama heralds a "60-nation coalition," but it has been invisible. Air strikes are sparse and ground action is shunned as a last resort. Instead, the White House holds conferences on "violent extremism," the State Department implies that a jobs program will assuage the nihilists of ISIS, and the United Nations issues reports.<br><br>Meanwhile, the savages continue their march of terror. Commentary Magazine put it this way: "ISIS has not lost any of the enormous territories it overran in 2014, it has also shown itself capable of conducting operations on different fronts simultaneously." In other words, ISIS is looking more and more like a varsity squad of killers.<br><br>Some Christians and Kurds are now fighting back against ISIS in northeastern Syria, where the latest abduction occurred. And the Pentagon confirmed that a few airstrikes were carried out in the region where the Assyrian Christians were kidnapped. But so much more is needed.<br><br>Col. Peters put it very bluntly Wednesday morning on Fox: "Christians are tortured and even crucified publicly and our president does nothing; Christian women are kidnapped and raped and our president does nothing." He concluded by comparing President Obama to one of the greatest villains of the Christian religion.<br><br>Is Col. Peters guilty of hyperbole? Perhaps. But many world leaders are guilty of something far, far worse.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-02-26T08:00:00ZThe President's Anti-'Islamic' CrusadeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Presidents-Anti-Islamic-Crusade/44476.html2015-02-19T08:00:00Z2015-02-19T08:00:00ZWhen he leaves office in 23 months, President Obama might consider a career in construction. Why? Because few leaders have ever been quite so proficient at building straw men. <br><br>The president's latest edifice was constructed Wednesday, when he proudly declared, "We are not at war with Islam." <br><br>Of course, no responsible person has ever claimed we are at war with Islam or all Muslims.<br><br>President Obama made his declaration of non-war during a conference on violent extremism. This week's three-day meeting probably can't do much harm, but it most likely won't do much good, either. Consider this statement from one of the speakers at the gathering: "We need to find new ways to amplify the voices of peace and tolerance and inclusion, and we especially need to do it online." Who uttered that vacuous sentence? <br><br>Yes, it was President Obama himself.<br><br>The president always seems to be overly concerned with the possibility that someone's feelings might be hurt if he speaks a little too harshly about Islamic-based terror. At that same conference, he warned that we should not "stigmatize entire communities," and declared "nobody should be profiled." Naturally, he also urged that we "address the grievances" of those who might join the jihad.<br><br>The president also wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, in which he complained that "many Muslim Americans across our country are worried and afraid." Is he serious? Has there been a rash of anti-Muslim hate crimes in America? Are U.S. Muslims living in fear like Copts in Egypt, Yazidis in Iraq, cartoonists in Paris, Jews in Denmark, Christians in Nigeria?<br><br>President Obama and his team simply must acknowledge the fact that tens of thousands of Islamic radicals are running wild around the world. Of course they are a minority of Muslims, just as the Nazis were a minority of Germans in the 1930s. But their savagery is unmatched, and they are determined to slaughter their way to an Islamic caliphate.<br><br>While President Obama spouts platitudes about tolerance, and while the State Department's Marie Harf suggests that a jobs program might soothe the savages, the administration is very reluctant to confront the brutal ISIS crew with ground raids that could actually do some serious damage. <br><br>No one wants a prolonged ground war fought with hundreds of thousands of troops, but elite U.S. warriors are the most effective in the world. A few well-planned ground assaults on ISIS positions would speak far louder than a thousand conferences.<br><br>World leaders are growing more ever more worried about ISIS. Pope Francis is speaking out, but, as Stalin famously asked, how many divisions does the Pope have? Egypt's el-Sissi and Jordan's Abdullah have also denounced the Islamists. But there is only one leader with the cachet and the military might to lead the fight against the Islamic State and its barbarity. <br><br>That reluctant warrior, of course, is President Obama.<br><br>The president is certainly correct when he says we are not at war with Islam. But we are at war with devout Muslims who want us dead. The Atlantic recently published an invaluable article under the provocative heading "What ISIS Really Wants." The piece lays out the Islamic State's philosophy and goals, and makes this bold assertion: "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers ... but the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."<br><br>If the world unites against the Islamic jihad, it can be defeated. The fight requires a decisive leader who understands that jobs programs aren't nearly as effective as Special Forces. The world is watching and waiting, President Obama. There is a Holy War underway and the last person to acknowledge that fact is the most powerful man in the world.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-02-19T08:00:00ZThe President's Anti-'Islamic' CrusadeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Presidents-Anti-Islamic-Crusade/44480.html2015-02-19T08:00:00Z2015-02-19T08:00:00ZWhen he leaves office in 23 months, President Obama might consider a career in construction. Why? Because few leaders have ever been quite so proficient at building straw men. <br><br>The president's latest edifice was constructed Wednesday, when he proudly declared, "We are not at war with Islam." <br><br>Of course, no responsible person has ever claimed we are at war with Islam or all Muslims.<br><br>President Obama made his declaration of non-war during a conference on violent extremism. This week's three-day meeting probably can't do much harm, but it most likely won't do much good, either. Consider this statement from one of the speakers at the gathering: "We need to find new ways to amplify the voices of peace and tolerance and inclusion, and we especially need to do it online." Who uttered that vacuous sentence? <br><br>Yes, it was President Obama himself.<br><br>The president always seems to be overly concerned with the possibility that someone's feelings might be hurt if he speaks a little too harshly about Islamic-based terror. At that same conference, he warned that we should not "stigmatize entire communities," and declared "nobody should be profiled." Naturally, he also urged that we "address the grievances" of those who might join the jihad.<br><br>The president also wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, in which he complained that "many Muslim Americans across our country are worried and afraid." Is he serious? Has there been a rash of anti-Muslim hate crimes in America? Are U.S. Muslims living in fear like Copts in Egypt, Yazidis in Iraq, cartoonists in Paris, Jews in Denmark, Christians in Nigeria?<br><br>President Obama and his team simply must acknowledge the fact that tens of thousands of Islamic radicals are running wild around the world. Of course they are a minority of Muslims, just as the Nazis were a minority of Germans in the 1930s. But their savagery is unmatched, and they are determined to slaughter their way to an Islamic caliphate.<br><br>While President Obama spouts platitudes about tolerance, and while the State Department's Marie Harf suggests that a jobs program might soothe the savages, the administration is very reluctant to confront the brutal ISIS crew with ground raids that could actually do some serious damage. <br><br>No one wants a prolonged ground war fought with hundreds of thousands of troops, but elite U.S. warriors are the most effective in the world. A few well-planned ground assaults on ISIS positions would speak far louder than a thousand conferences.<br><br>World leaders are growing more ever more worried about ISIS. Pope Francis is speaking out, but, as Stalin famously asked, how many divisions does the Pope have? Egypt's el-Sissi and Jordan's Abdullah have also denounced the Islamists. But there is only one leader with the cachet and the military might to lead the fight against the Islamic State and its barbarity. <br><br>That reluctant warrior, of course, is President Obama.<br><br>The president is certainly correct when he says we are not at war with Islam. But we are at war with devout Muslims who want us dead. The Atlantic recently published an invaluable article under the provocative heading "What ISIS Really Wants." The piece lays out the Islamic State's philosophy and goals, and makes this bold assertion: "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers ... but the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."<br><br>If the world unites against the Islamic jihad, it can be defeated. The fight requires a decisive leader who understands that jobs programs aren't nearly as effective as Special Forces. The world is watching and waiting, President Obama. There is a Holy War underway and the last person to acknowledge that fact is the most powerful man in the world.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-02-19T08:00:00ZSearching for a StrategyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Searching-for-a-Strategy/44456.html2015-02-12T08:00:00Z2015-02-12T08:00:00ZAnother week, another ISIS atrocity. And President Obama has finally taken off the gloves... kind of. <br><br>After confirmation that still another American, 26-year-old aid worker Kayla Mueller, had been killed by the savages, the president defined the killers as a "hateful and abhorrent terrorist group."<br><br>More importantly, the president asked Congress to endorse the use of military force against ISIS, although he seems to maintain that the battle can be won without employing ground troops. Right after the president's brief speech Wednesday, Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry summed up the commander-in-chief's overall war strategy:<br> <br><em>A, I'm not George W. Bush. B, no endless ground wars.</em><br><br>Despite the fact that his message was intentionally ambiguous, President Obama is sure to find resistance on both sides of the aisle. Some dovish Democrats are wary of any military force whatsoever, while some Republicans say the request is too vague, too limited, and does not lay out a concrete strategy to fight the terrorists. Of course, there are also those in the GOP who will oppose anything the president suggests, whatever the merits.<br><br>Washington's wise elders are fairly consistent in their views. Robert Gates, the former Pentagon boss who is anything but a partisan bomb-thrower, said this a few months ago: "There will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success." And just days ago, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said our strategy is "clearly not working ... you can't defeat an enemy that you don't admit exists."<br><br>It now seems that President Obama is admitting that an enemy exists, a dangerous enemy that is eager to kill Americans - whether in Syria or in Iraq or in the USA. They are not a jayvee team, and tens of thousands of eager jihadists from all over the world are joining their ranks. These barbarians will stop at nothing in their quest to establish a new Islamic caliphate.<br><br><br>Stopping the killers will require a long-term and coherent strategy, one that could include some U.S. ground forces. So far President Obama has scoffed at that idea, preferring to believe that a weak coalition and continued air strikes will be sufficient. <br><br>It's worth keeping something in mind: This is a man who won election in 2012 after boasting about having ended the war in Iraq, a man whose trophy case includes the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not hard to imagine how painful it must be for him to see Thursday's banner headline: <strong>OBAMA ASKS FOR WAR POWER</strong><br><br>The president's longtime friend and confidante David Axelrod visited the No Spin Zone this week - like his former boss, he seems to believe we are pursuing the right strategy and that air power will eventually be enough "degrade" the savages. Secretary of State John Kerry actually claims "we are on the road" to defeating the Islamic State, while President Obama says ISIL is plagued by "sinking morale." But even Pollyanna knows that the ISIS crew will not go gently. <br><br>This is a pertinent time to recall a famous quote attributed to Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." It is obvious that President Obama came into office without any interest in waging war - he preferred to pursue "social justice" through income redistribution and an expansion of the welfare state. Unfortunately for him, and for us, is equally obvious that the butchers of ISIS have given him absolutely no choice. War is very, very interested in President Obama.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-02-12T08:00:00ZSubhuman Depravity, RedefinedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Subhuman-Depravity-Redefined/44432.html2015-02-05T08:00:00Z2015-02-05T08:00:00ZThe video is out there for all to see. It shows a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage by ISIS savages. But while networks and websites were debating whether or not to show the gruesome footage, and just how much warning to give viewers, something else happened this week that has gone nearly unnoticed.<br><br>The United Nations issued a chilling report Wednesday detailing some other Islamic State atrocities. The victims aren't pilots or soldiers or journalists, but children. ISIS is routinely abducting boys and girls in Iraq, who are tortured, raped, and sold as sex slaves. Non-Islamic children have been crucified or buried alive, while others are used as suicide bombers or "human shields" to ward off air strikes.<br><br>Want more evidence of ISIS depravity? The UN reports that many of the children were "mentally challenged" to begin with, even before being subjected to "systematic sexual violence." The ISIS butchers seem to be even worse than the world had known, subhuman in the literal meaning of that overused term.<br><br>When it comes to body counts, ISIS is not close to Hitler, Stalin, and other 20th century villains. <br><br>But ISIS sure seems to take more pride in its evil. <br><br>The Nazis didn't announce to the world that cattle cars were transporting human beings to mass extermination camps; the Soviets tried to hide the fact (and did so, with the help of the New York Times) that millions of its citizens were being intentionally starved to death. But ISIS, apparently incapable of shame, proudly produces slick videos showing beheadings and immolation.<br><br>We can also compare the responses of world leaders. In 1938 Winston Churchill wrote "While England Slept," an attack on appeasement in general and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in particular. Then, in 1940, Churchill gave his first speech to the House of Commons after replacing Chamberlain. The nation's policy, he proclaimed, would be "to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime."<br><br>Well, now that ISIS is approaching Nazi-level degeneracy, the world looks to President Obama, who issues weak statements about "shrinking ISIL's sphere of influence." The president also sets the goal of "degrading" the Islamic State and turning it into a "manageable problem." Can you even begin to imagine Winston Churchill spewing that kind of pabulum?<br><br>There is at least one leader in the West who recognizes and identifies evil, perhaps because he studied in a Roman Catholic seminary and briefly considered the priesthood. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has identified ISIS as a "death cult" that is completely unashamed of its atrocities. "They absolutely revel in the killing," he said, while calling for "extreme force."<br><br>And then there is Abdullah ibn al-Hussein, a former special forces commander now known as King Abdullah of Jordan. The king sounded downright Churchillian this week when he vowed to pursue ISIS until his army "runs out of fuel and bullets." He then ordered the immediate execution of two Al Qaeda terrorists who had been languishing in Jordanian jails. Yes, at times it's good to be king.<br><br>Thankfully, we don't have a king who can order the immediate execution of prisoners. But we should be able to execute a plan that demands more than merely "degrading" the Islamic State and its mass murderers. 80 years ago the world looked away as madmen took over an entire country, then other countries. That chapter of history ended with a Holocaust and vows of "never again." <br><br>Well, something similar is happening again, thus far on a much smaller scale. Will strong, Churchill-like leaders rally the world against this pure evil? Or will the Chamberlain attitude prevail, where we consider making peace treaties with those who would behead, rape, and crucify our children?<br><br>During his recent sit down with NBC, President Obama defended his ISIS strategy with eight words: "Anything we could be doing," he insisted, "we are doing." Does anyone believe that? <br><br>Anyone? <br><br>The crisis is no longer approaching, Mr. President. It has arrived.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-02-05T08:00:00ZTerror and the State of the UnionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Terror-and-the-State-of-the-Union/44324.html2015-01-29T08:00:00Z2015-01-29T08:00:00ZPresident Obama barely mentioned terrorism in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation, spending a couple of minutes on the subject. It was actually the first time since 9/11 that a president failed to mention Al Qaeda - you remember them - and of course the term "Islamic terrorism" was completely off limits.<br><br>Instead of violent terrorism, President Obama preferred to focus on the slowly recuperating economy and a panoply of new proposals that would take from the productive in order to give "free" stuff to everybody else. <br><br>Hey, playing Robin Hood is fun. You get to be loved by just about everyone, especially the recipients of your largesse. It's far tougher being the Sheriff of Nottingham, tasked with finding and capturing the terrorists lurking in our global forest.<br><br>So the president's choice of topics was completely understandable. But there's also something known as reality. The speech came just two weeks after the murderous terror attacks in Paris by Islamic radicals. Yes, it's okay to use the word "Islamic" when killers claim to be avenging their prophet.<br><br>Beyond that, the State of the Union was delivered just one week after the release of a revealing new study. Each year Pew Research surveys Americans to determine what issues concern them most. Jobs, the economy, and education, as always, were near the top of the list. But in 2015, for the first time in five years, Americans' #1 policy priority is defending the United States against terrorism. Let that soak in: We the people want President Obama and Congress, above all else, to protect the homeland.<br><br>It should be mentioned that the poll was conducted soon after the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, so that attack was in our headlines and in our heads. But this is about more than just timing. Americans know in their gut that this administration, taking its cues from the boss, does not have a real strategy to defeat the jihad, even with ISIS firmly entrenched in Syria and Iraq.<br><br>There seems to be a new horror story from the so-called Muslim world just about every day. Jihadis throw men to their death for "engaging in homosexual activities," alleged adulteresses are stoned to death, accused thieves are killed by a mob, and Boko Haram continues its reign of terror. Most recently, ISIS shot and killed 13 teenage boys in Mosul, a city that was under U.S. control before President Obama abandoned Iraq. Their crime - watching a soccer match on TV, a violation of Sharia law. This is a strain of barbarism that would make Genghis and Attila proud.<br> <br>We have been on a 14-year horror odyssey during which we have spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of military people. Still, jihad remains a major problem. President Obama averts his glance from Islamic atrocities, and does not even want to define them clearly. But things are clearly getting worse overseas and Americans know that we, like Parisians, are not immune. Thus the Pew Research results.<br><br>By the way, Pew also gave Americans the opportunity to opine on the importance of global warming, which is usually dead last on the list of priorities. This time around, warming leapfrogged over global trade and came in second-to-last. Nevertheless, President Obama actually said this Tuesday night: "No challenge - no challenge - poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." Really, Mr. President? You can repeat that all you want, and you can even double up on the words "no challenge" for added effect, but the folks aren't buying it. The challenge for our generation, and for generations to come, is finding a way to stop Muslim-generated terrorism ... and the climate of fear it engenders. The American people have spoken. Is anybody listening?BillOReilly.com Staff2015-01-29T08:00:00ZThe Bergdahl Fiasco, Act IIBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Bergdahl-Fiasco-Act-II/44376.html2015-01-22T08:00:00Z2015-01-22T08:00:00ZIt was not a high point in Barack Obama's presidency. There he stood in the Rose Garden, beaming with pride, flanked by the parents of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. The younger Bergdahl had just been freed from captivitiy in Afghanistan, swapped for five Taliban terrorists, and the president seemed absolutely sure he would be widely praised for bringing Bergdahl home.<br><br>Looking on during that White House celebration last May were National Security Adviser Susan Rice and her deputy Ben Rhodes, who jubilantly exchanged hugs. The next day Rice went on a talk show to affirm that Sgt. Bergdahl had served his country "with honor and distinction." <br><br>It was her most embarrassing moment since infamously blaming an Internet video for the slaughter of Americans in Benghazi.<br><br>Immediately after Susan Rice's television appearance, military analyst Lt. Col Ralph Peters, with his inimitable pithiness, wrote this: "Ms. Rice is aggressively stupid, immaculately clueless, and a disgrace to our system of government." He surmised that, by Rice's definition, Bradley Manning and Benedict Arnold also served with "honor and distinction."<br><br>Susan Rice, President Obama, and every member of the national security team knew, or should have known, that Bowe Bergdahl had almost certainly deserted his unit in 2009. Before leaving his post, Bergdahl sent a heartfelt email to his parents. "I am ashamed to be an american (sic)," he wrote, adding, "The title of US soldier is just the lie of fools." Two days later he was gone, leaving behind a message that he was about to start a new life. This is not the behavior of a warrior serving "with honor and distinction."<br><br>The second act of this sordid tale unfolded this week. The Army has completed a lengthy investigation of the Bergdahl affair; the resulting report is now in the hands of four-star General Mark Milley, who will decide whether Berghdal should face charges. On Monday's Factor, military analyst Tony Shaffer, a retired lieutenant colonel with high-level sources in the Pentagon, confidently predicted that Bowe Bergdahl is about to be charged with deserting his unit.<br><br>Col. Shaffer has also reported that the administration is pressuring the Army to go easy on Bergdahl because President Obama embraced the family when he returned. Remember Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the former Obama speechwriter who was positively gleeful when Bergdahl was released? According to Col. Shaffer, Rhodes has been applying pressure from the White House, urging the Pentagon to treat Bergdahl with kid gloves.<br><br>Col. Shaffer is not out there on a limb all by himself. NBC's long-time Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, citing "senior defense officials," also reported on Tuesday that Bergdahl will soon be charged with desertion.<br><br>That's when all hell broke loose. The Pentagon trotted out three separate spokesmen to denounce the reports. Admiral John Kirby insisted that no charges are iminent, while vehemently denying that any pressure is being exerted by the Obama administration. He mocked that allegation as "the most ludicrous claim I've heard in the last couple of days."<br><br>Okay, let's assume the Pentagon is correct and Tony Shaffer was misled by his sources. If no charges are coming down soon, that raises one very obvious question: <em>Why not?</em> The Army has had months to comb through every detail of Bergdahl's service and his disappearance. Investigators have had plenty of time to interview Bergdahl's former platoon mates, who are unanimous in their belief that he deserted.<br><br>Here's where we are right now. Five war criminals sit in Qatar, perhaps waiting to rejoin the battle against American troops. Bowe Bergdahl, still a sergeant in the United States Army, sits at a desk at Fort Sam Houston in Texas, where he works as a clerk.<br><br>It is long past time to end this charade. Release the report and file the appropriate charges against Bowe Bergdahl. Pretty much every American this side of Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes doubts that Sgt. Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Far more likely, he walked away from his post in Afghanistan, endangering the men he left behind and those who went to search for him. We the people have every right to know what happened and whether we swapped five dangerous terrorists for one deserter.<br><br>One more thing. Retired Army Specialist Cody Full, once Bowe Bergdahl's roommate, says this about his former colleague: "He did not serve the United States with honor." Who you gonna' believe, Cody Full ... or Susan Rice? Let the court-martial begin. Soon.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-01-22T08:00:00ZHonesty and Islamic TerrorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Honesty-and-Islamic-Terror/44300.html2015-01-15T08:00:00Z2015-01-15T08:00:00ZAs any recovering alcoholic or drug addict will tell you, the first step on the road to sobriety is honesty. It can be excruciatingly difficult, but it's essential to admit your problem. <br><br>The same is true in politics and punditry. <br><br>As just one example, those of us who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq should now admit that it was not wise to fight two wars at once, and that we misjudged the tenacity of the resistance.<br><br>Now, a dozen years later, we are faced with a truly bizarre situation in which an entire administration dishonestly refuses to acknowledge the danger of Islamist terrorism, and can't even utter the word "Islamic." Earlier this week Martha MacCallum pressed State Department spokesperson Marie Harf about the weird determination to avoid calling Islamic terror by its name. "We're going to focus on all the different kinds of extremism," Harf replied. What on earth is she talking about? Presbyterian extremism?<br><br>It has become very clear to any fair-minded American that there is something sorely wrong with the Obama team's view of the threat from radicalized Muslims. From the moment the president took office, there has been a child-like view that certain words, even certain thoughts, must be avoided at all costs. As if that will make the hate-filled jihadists eventually like us.<br><br>The media are too often complicit in this blatant dishonesty. The new cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine has a cartoon drawing of Mohammed shedding a tear and holding a sign. There is nothing sexual or scattalogical or obviously offensive. But you didn't see that relatively innocuous cover in the pages of the New York Times, nor did you see it on CNN or MSNBC. Fox News aired the image for a very simple reason - it is news, big news, the biggest story of the week. It was shown not to deliberately offend, but to inform and illuminate FNC viewers.<br><br>Liberal outfits like the New York Times claim they don't run "incendiary images" that might insult millions of people. Do you recall those same outlets being circumspect about the "work of art" that depicted Jesus on a crucifix dunked in urine? How about the painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung? Those images were prominently displayed all over newspapers and TV, even cited as examples of the media's "bravery."<br><br>Media types also worry that speaking too harshly about Islam will unfairly tarnish hundreds of millions of peaceful, decent Muslims. There was no similar worry about tarnishing Catholics when reporting on the priest pedophile scandals. News flash for the news business: There is absolutely nothing brave about mocking Catholics, who tend to fight back with words, not scimitars and AK-47s. Nor is it particularly courageous to worry about a "backlash" against Muslims that never seems to occur. And really, it doesn't require stones of steel to show an image the entire world is talking about. <br><br>There's one more very interesting aspect to this entire episode. A central tenet of leftism is that America bears much responsibility for global terror. Long before Iraq and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, we got into the oil business with thugs and dictators and sheiks. But that is a ridiculously simplistic rationale for cold-blooded terrorism. The USA also sided with some unsavory hombres in South America and other parts of the world, but those people aren't blowing up children, knocking down buildings, and slaughtering cartoonists.<br><br>Right now there is a war between modern civilization and Islamic jihadists. The battlegrounds aren't just the badlands of Pakistan and terrorist training camps in Yemen, but also the streets of Paris and Boston. It seems elementary that one aspect of any war is honestly identifying the enemy. It's a necessary step on the path to victory. That's the honest truth. Just ask any recovering addict.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-01-15T08:00:00ZThe Left's Deep River of DenialBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Lefts-Deep-River-of-Denial/44268.html2015-01-08T08:00:00Z2015-01-08T08:00:00ZThe pattern is entirely predictable. First, a savage terror attack is carried out in the name of Islam, usually by men shouting "Allahu Akbar." Second, hard news reports list the number of dead, the weaponry used, and the status of the killers. And then, within hours, some mushy-headed apologists descend on liberal news outlets to reassure the rest of us that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the carnage.<br><br>First out of the gate this time around was the always-loony Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and darling of the far left. Appearing on MSNBC (of course!) soon after the savage murders, Dean said this about the killers: "They're about as Muslim as I am." Apparently Dr. Dean is not just a physician, but also a religious scholar qualified to define who is a Muslim, who is not.<br><br>The next morning MSNBC followed up with an entire crew of hand-wringing deniers. There was David Rothkopf of Foreign Policy magazine, who actually blamed the 2003 Abu Ghraib prison atrocities. According to Rothkopf, one of the Islamic killers became "radicalized" when he read about the human rights violations at the Iraq prison. Otherwise, who knows? Perhaps the terrorist would have become an accountant or electrician.<br><br>Not to be outdone, "journalist" Ayman Mohyeldin, who is on NBC's payroll, lamented the fact that the murderers were not "exposed to a variety of ideas." Yes, if only they had read John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Adam Smith! Another NBC News contributor, "terrorism analyst" Evan Kohlmann, tried to put the attack in perspective by saying, "Islamophobia and prejudice against Muslims and Arabs in France is a real problem." Finally, another left-wing guest, Christopher Dickey of The Daily Beast, concluded with this complaint: "We always discuss this as if it is somehow it is exculsive to Islam."<br><br>Yes, Mr. Dickey, it is pretty much "exculsive to Islam." Presbyterians and Buddhists and Sikhs are not brandishing Kalashnikov rifles and donning suicide vests. That is simply the cold, hard reality of the world today, no matter how many denials and apologies are put forth.<br><br>Perhaps these liberals should listen to another self-proclaimed "proud liberal." Bill Maher is a rude and crude bomb-thrower who insults all religions, just like the dead cartoonists and satirists at Charlie Hebdo magazine. But Maher is not afraid to say what is obvious to any thinking person. There is one religion at the locus of terror and mayhem today.<br><br>"To be a liberal," Maher said after the Paris massacre, "you have to stand up for liberal principles ... the part of the world that is against liberal principles is the Muslim part of the world ... it is mainstream in the Muslim world that when you make fun of the prophet, all bets are off, you get what's coming to you."<br><br>Bill Maher might want to have a word with his fellow progressive, President Obama. Soon after the bloodbath, the president lamented "the senseless violence of the few," while studiously avoiding the words "Muslim" or "Islamic." But it isn't just "the few." Jihadists have killed thousands of American military people, tens of thousands of civilians. They occupy vast swaths of land in the Middle East and regularly behead infidels on camera. The Muslim threat involves entire nations and millions of people, yet the left in America will not face that fact. Here in the USA we're very lucky - the vast majority of American Muslims are good and productive citizens who deplore the extreme actions in the Muslim world. But the truth is that jihad is an iminent and eminent threat.<br><br>We don't expect MSNBC regulars like Howard Dean to admit that. But it would be a great leap forward if the President of the United States were to publicly acknowledge the greatest problem facing the world today. It's not "climate change" or "structural racism" or "income inequality," Mr. President. It Islamic terrorism. You might begin by saying that out loud.BillOReilly.com Staff2015-01-08T08:00:00ZFox Hunters, Shooting BlanksBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fox-Hunters-Shooting-Blanks/44253.html2015-01-01T08:00:00Z2015-01-01T08:00:00ZSince it's time for New Year's predictions, here's one that is pretty much a sure bet: Fox News will dominate the cable ratings in 2015, just as it has for the past thirteen years. CNN will be a distant second, with MSNBC dragging up the rear, playing the role of the Washington Generals to FNC's Harlem Globetrotters.<br><br>Fox News may be the biggest media success story since the broadcast networks were formed in the 1950s. FNC crushes its competitors and is consistently near the top among all cable programs, not just news shows. Simply put, FNC is on fire, even after all these years. That raises two obvious questions. Why the big success? And why do so many media types and leftists (pardon the redundancy) absolutely loathe Fox?<br><br>The success part is twofold. There is no question that FNC leans to the right in that it gives conservative voices a prominent place on the air. Prior to Fox's inception, no other TV news operation did that. So conservative Americans tune in for long stretches, as do fair-minded Americans from the political middle.<br><br>More importantly, Fox News is never boring. There are smart hosts, provocative guests, and lively debates around the clock. FNC takes chances and does things differently, while many other news programs simply recite the days events or spend months droning on about one story. CNN did that in '14 when it obsessed over the missing Malaysian Airlines plane, while MSNBC devoted countless hours to Chris Christie and Bridgegate. After that "scandal" turned out to be much ado about very little, MSNBC's already-anemic ratings totally collapsed.<br><br>Of course, Fox News unleashes a special brand of deranged fury in its competitors and the ideologues running many of the nation's newspapers. They don't like the traditionalism and they seethe at the channel's success. Thus, on any given day, you can see scathing personal attacks on FNC and its hosts. Why the rage? After all, nobody is forced to watch. If you don't like Megyn, Sean, Bill, and Greta, the Food Network surely has something you'll find more appetizing.<br><br>A couple of months ago something very interesting happened when Americans went to the polls in the midterm elections. After casting their votes, many of them apparently settled in to watch Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and the crew report the results. Fairly and with balance. At 10 PM on election night Fox had 6.6 million viewers, far more than any of the traditional "big three" networks. Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC had about 3.5 million viewers ... <em>combined</em><br><br>After a year in which MSNBC's primetime audience dropped by 18%, Fox News now has more than triple the number of viewers. And the fact is that MSNBC's ratings can't get a whole lot lower. It is a cable channel that promotes left-wing causes and hands over one full hour each evening to America's most dishonest racial demagogue. Even the New York Times, MSNBC's ideological soul mate, recently pointed out that the network has sunk to new lows and has been surpassed by CNN. The slogan "Lean Forward" now seems like a big joke for a network that is moving backwards. Just this week MSNBC's boss conceded that it has been a "difficult year." Difficult? Jonathan Gruber, the Tampa Bay Bucaneers, and Rolling Stone magazine had better years than MSNBC! <br><br>Meanwhile, Fox News has become an entrenched part of the national fabric, a vibrant network that influences the debate in this country. Way back in 1996, when the Fox News Channel was born, could anyone have guessed that it would become so successful? And ... so despised?BillOReilly.com Staff2015-01-01T08:00:00ZHis Dishonor, The MayorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/His-Dishonor-The-Mayor/44249.html2014-12-26T08:00:00Z2014-12-26T08:00:00ZRemember when Rudy Giuliani was dubbed "America's Mayor," a salute to his actions in the days and weeks following the attacks of 9/11? Well, New York City is now led by a man who is absolutely unworthy of that office.<br><br>That was made crystal clear last summer when Mayor Bill de Blasio convened a City Hall "discussion" about policing. On his immediate right that day was highly-respected Police Commissioner William Bratton. And on his left (literally, because it's hard to get to de Blasio's left ideologically) sat Al Sharpton. In other words, Mayor de Blasio gave equal billing to a man who had helped save thousands of lives and a racial arsonist.<br><br>Bill Bratton arrived in New York City in 1990 to take over the city's Transit Police. That same year, more than 2,200 people were murdered in the city, most of them young, black, and male. Last year there were 335 homicides, an astounding 85% drop from the bad old days. The decline was certainly not the work of one man, but Bratton - who ran the entire NYPD in the mid 90s - unquestionably played a big role.<br><br>Then there's Sharpton, who was compiling a vastly different resume in the early 90s, when he referred to "Socrates and them Greek homos" and called Jews "diamond merchants." Beginning with the Tawana Brawley hoax, his words sparked mayhem and implicitly led to deaths (Crown Heights, Freddie's Fashion Mart), although it was never Sharpton himself who twisted the knife or lit the match.<br><br>Back to City Hall this past summer. Referring to Mayor de Blasio's multi-racial son, Sharpton said this: "If Dante wasn't your son, he'd be a candidate for a chokehold." Did the mayor take offense when this racial agitator characterized New York cops as racists? No, de Blasio put his tail between his legs and meekly uttered, "I take Rev. Sharpton's admonition to heart." Following that disgusting display of kowtowing, Mayor de Blasio has since invoked Dante's name numerous times himself, always to imply that New York cops are the bad guys. <br><br>But of course, the anti-cop vitriol reached a crescendo this month when protesters shut down parts of New York after the grand jury ruling in the Eric Garner case. The mayor endorsed the protests and looked the other way when hundreds of marchers screamed the ugliest chant in recent memory: "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want 'em? Now!"<br><br>As he finishes his first year in office, Mayor Bill de Blasio has never lifted a finger to defend his police department or its 34,000 men and women, whose morale has sunk even faster than the city's crime rate. Meanwhile, his "co-mayor" Al Sharpton has been leading protest marches against "police violence" and "police misconduct" and "police brutality." In Al's world, the police are always at fault.<br><br>Despite all that, one thing should be clear: In last weekend's assassination of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, neither Al Sharpton nor Bill de Blasio has "blood on his hands." The guilty one is Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the 28-year-old psychopath who pulled the trigger. But with their incessant anti-police rhetoric, the mayor and his preacher may have encouraged a madman to pick up a gun and hunt down some cops.<br><br>There are many reasons Bill de Blasio should not be mayor of America's greatest city. He is a far-left, income-redistribution, pro-teacher union, eat-the-rich kind of guy. But all that takes a back seat to the fact that de Blasio has, literally and figuratively, embraced the despicable Al Sharpton. That alone makes him ineligible to lead the city and its police force.<br><br>Throughout his life the mayor has gone by various legal names - Warren Wilhelm, Jr. by birth, then Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm, and finally Bill de Blasio. Whichever name he prefers is of course up to him. But for the good of the city and its people, a prefix should be added: Former Mayor of New York City. Bill de Blasio, by any name, is a total disgrace. He should resign!BillOReilly.com Staff2014-12-26T08:00:00ZPick a Better Country!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pick-a-Better-Country!/44236.html2014-12-18T08:00:00Z2014-12-18T08:00:00ZThe above heading was actually the title of a book written in the 1990s by black conservative Ken Hamblin. He grew up in the most impoverished area of Brooklyn, briefly embraced the Black Panthers, then concluded that the USA, for all its flaws, offers more opportunity than any other nation on earth. Not just to black people or gay people or Jewish people. To all people!<br><br>On the other side of the racial divide stands a black man who is even more successful and who also flirted with radicalism. Samuel L. Jackson, the millionaire actor who pockets additional millions by telling us to use the right credit card, apparently sees America as a pretty awful place. Mr. Jackson recently created a brief video in which he sings about "the violence of the racist police," before adding this: "We ain't gonna stop till people are free."<br><br>Free? Mr. Jackson makes it sound like we are still in the era depicted in his "Django Unchained." And he is not alone. For many on the far left, black and white alike, it is forever 1965 in America and we are always in Selma, Alabama. It doesn't matter how much progress is made, how many great success stories are shaped by grit and intelligence. The only thing that matters is grievance. The more, the better.<br><br>Samuel L. Jackson actually seems to seek out racial animus, even when there is none to be found. Earlier this year, when a befuddled TV anchor momentarily confused him with Laurence Fishburne, Jackson was positively gleeful: "We may be all black and famous," he scolded the reporter, "but we all don't look alike. You're busted!" Samuel L. Jackson, self-proclaimed champion of the underdog, kept twisting the knife like some sadistic character in a Tarantino movie.<br><br>It's certainly true that black Americans have a tougher row to hoe than most of us. So do Mexicans, Muslims, Filipinos, and just about every other identifiable minority. They are often pre-judged by people - not on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin or the shape of their garments. That is not the fault of the nation as a whole; it is a failing of ignorant individuals. And those being misjudged have a choice: Try to overlook the slights, or declare yourself a victim. For far too many, the latter is the preferred choice.<br><br>There is a simple message that bears repeating, even if it does little to change the sclerotic thinking of the perpetually angry. Success in America is achievable to anyone who adheres to a few basic rules: Finish high school, don't have babies until you're married, avoid drugs, don't break the law, present yourself respectfully. While those guidelines are blindingly obvious to most of us, they are unquestionably tougher for kids growing up in chaotic, fatherless homes.<br><br>It would also help if celebrities like Samuel L. Jackson weren't so intent on diminishing America, so determined to tell young kids that the world is out to get them. This may not be the land of perfectly equal and evenly distributed opportunity. But the fact is, there has never been time or a place that presents more opportunity than the United States of America in the early 21st century. And things will continue to get even better. Unless, that is, young Americans buy what the grievance merchants are peddling.<br><br>One joyous addendum on this week before Christmas: This is the first time in many years that the "war on Christmas" was not significant enough to merit an entire column or even a Talking Points Memo. Have the secular progressives finally surrendered? Or are they merely reloading before unleashing another mean-spirited salvo? Either way, we'll be on alert. In the meantime, as Dennis Miller likes to say when he really wants to annoy his secular friends: "Merry Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior's Birthday!" Or, more simply: Merry Christmas, everyone.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-12-18T08:00:00ZAmerica Haters Running WildBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/America-Haters-Running-Wild/44212.html2014-12-11T08:00:00Z2014-12-11T08:00:00ZThese are heady days for Americans who revel in running down their country. If you buy what they're selling, the USA is a place where white cops hunt down and kill young black men at the slightest provocation, where pretty much every college male is a rapist-in-waiting. And overseas? We torture our enemies with a level of sadism that would make Torquemada blush.<br><br>Given all that perfidy, and without even mentioning corporate wickedness and income inequality, it's strange that we have a problem with illegal immigration. If the America-haters are even close to being right, we should be building walls to keep people from fleeing this wretched place.<br><br>As usual, the self-loathing is driven by the far left, many of whose denizens get their daily sustenance from bashing America. Which brings us to the "torture report," released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is an early Christmas gift (or should we say "holiday present?") to the left wing.<br><br>Exhibit A is reliable lefty Joan Walsh, whose latest piece in Salon.com is titled "Police Abuse, Torture and Authoritarianism Run Amok." Walsh, a regular on a certain cable network in decline, insists that harsh interrogation of terrorists did not yield one smidgen of valuable intelligence. Her proof? The fact that al Qaeda and ISIS still exist. The total absence of logic boggles the mind.<br><br>On the other side of the argument are George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden, who wrote a detailed rebuttal of the Senate report. Those men actually ran the CIA for a dozen years, from 1997 to 2009. Their Wall Street Journal piece, which should be required reading for anyone interested in this issue, carries a pithy headline: "CIA Interrogations Saved Lives." President Obama's own CIA boss, John Brennan, agrees with his predecessors, and even the president doesn't claim that harsh interrogation was ineffective.<br><br>It is far too easy to forget those chaotic days and months after 9/11, when almost every American was certain that another al Qaeda attack was imminent, perhaps one using nuclear or biological weapons. So when we captured high-level terrorists, the CIA did what it could to obtain information that might prevent that universally-feared second wave.<br><br>Reasonable people can argue that water boarding is torture, and that torture is never used by a civilized society. Someone equally reasonable, let's say someone like John Yoo, can contend that water boarding falls short of torture. Yoo is the former Justice Department attorney who gave the legal rationale for enhanced interrogation. During an appearance on The Factor this week, he laid out the argument: "We knew stunningly little about al Qaeda at the time and we knew they wanted to carry out pending attacks." Yoo reached a conclusion that is inescapable: "We have not suffered a major attack on the United States homeland for the last thirteen years ... the moral choice was actually to save those American lives, even at the price of the rights of some al Qaeda leaders."<br><br>John Yoo was never interviewed for the Senate report. The Intelligence Committee also ignored former CIA leaders and Bush administration officials such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, who describes the report as "deeply flawed" and "full of crap."<br><br>Crappy or not, the report gives plenty of ammunition to the ideologues. California Representative Jackie Speier, as reliable a left-winger as there is in Congress, is actually demanding that the CIA apologize. To whom? The terrorists? Or to the thousands of Americans who were quite possibly saved by the interrogations? Should we also apologize, Ms. Speier, for the deadly drone strikes favored by the Obama administration?<br><br>The CIA and the Bush administration certainly made mistakes after 9/11. But it's almost equally certain that they saved lives. Three men who were water boarded were Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Rahim al Nashiri, all al-Qaeda big shots. KSM gave up vital information that crippled his terror group and ultimately led U.S. authorities to Osama Bin Laden's compound. Nevertheless, the far left and the America-haters won't budge. <br><br>Let's end with a question: Would you prefer to put your family's safety in the hands of George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden ... or Joan Walsh and Jackie Speier? You make the call.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-12-11T08:00:00ZAnd Nothing but the TruthBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/And-Nothing-but-the-Truth/44180.html2014-12-04T08:00:00Z2014-12-04T08:00:00ZThe truth is supposed to matter. We've all had that drilled into us since we were tykes, it's what we tell our own children and grandchildren.<br><br>But in 2014 America the truth is getting pummeled on a daily basis. We just endured an ugly episode that severely damaged race relations and still has America on edge. It was largely based on a lie told by a serial liar.<br><br>Dorian Johnson was hanging with Michael Brown that day in Ferguson when the duo robbed a convenience store and got into the confrontation with Officer Darren Wilson. It was Johnson, who had previously been convicted for lying to the police, who claimed Brown had his hands in the air. Thus began the 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot" mantra.<br><br>That lie is still being promulgated by National Football League players and, far more shamefully, by members of Congress. This week at least four U.S. representatives took to the House floor and made the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" gesture, even though they have to know it is almost certainly false. The lie has become a symbol, according to Texas Representative Al Green. But even symbolism should be based on fact, not on a fable.<br><br>There are a couple of other stories brewing right now that could use an injection of truth serum. In St. Louis, just a few miles from Ferguson, four black and Hispanic teens bludgeoned a white man to death with hammers last weekend. It was a ruthless, barbaric crime, but St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay immediately declared that it had nothing to do with Ferguson, and that race was definitely not a factor. Is that the truth, the whole truth? How does Mayor Slay know, and why the rush to judgment?<br><br>Imagine a pack of four white teens brutally killing a black man with hammers. Would the mayor be so quick to assure us that it was just a random act, and would you have heard about the murder in the mainstream media? In this case, there have been few mentions of the crime in the national press. By choosing which stories are inconvenient and must be ignored, the mainstream media lie to us every day.<br><br>Then there is the gruesome story out of the University of Virginia. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, writing in Rolling Stone, chronicles an awful gang rape allegedly perpetrated by seven young men who were pledging a fraternity. The story relies heavily on a single source, the alleged victim, identified only as Jackie. If this went all went down the way it is alleged, Jackie was brutalized, raped, and tortured for hours by savages who should spend decades be behind bars.<br><br>The question is, does the Rolling Stone story hold up? It has come under fire in publications left and right, among them the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times. Sabrina Rubin Erdely may be a truth-teller who is paying a price for a long line of lying "journalists." Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, and Rigoberta Menchu are just a few writers who put glory and potential Pulitzers ahead of the truth.<br><br>The stories those liars told, in addition to being false, shared another distinction. In nearly every case the fabrication verified some bias that would not be uncommon among secular progressives. Remember the Duke lacrosse hoax, and how eager the media and professors were to condemn the white frat boys who assaulted a poor black stripper? The young men were exonerated, the lying stripper is now in jail after being convicted of a subsequent murder.<br><br>The UVA story also reinforces the worst stereotypes about fraternities and college males in general. Again, if the story holds up the assailants should rot in jail. But if it is false, either Jackie or Ms. Erdely engaged in an appalling fraud, much like Dorian Johnson. Some ideologues insist that the article, even if not entirely true, is important because it shines a spotlight on campus rape. The feminist website Jezebel lauds the piece for opening a "much needed public conversation" and says skeptics "have no idea what they're talking about." And a New Republic writer worries that if Erdely's story falls apart, we "will all be allowed to happily forget" that there are real rapes on college campuses. The implication is that the message matters more than the truth.<br><br>But the truth is always paramount, whether a story involves Tawana Brawley, Jonathan Gruber, Michael Brown, or Jackie. The Bible is not popular reading material for many of our secular progressive elites. But they might consider a simple adage found in the New Testament: "The truth shall make you free." Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Son of God, those words of his should be taken as the truth. The gospel truth.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-12-04T08:00:00ZFerguson, Truth, and The End of TimeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ferguson-Truth-and-The-End-of-Time/44164.html2014-11-28T08:00:00Z2014-11-28T08:00:00ZRemember Time Magazine? The weekly journal that was once must-reading for informed Americans died long ago; in its place is a publication that shares the Time name but none of its former prestige or relevance.<br><br>So why bring up an irrelevant magazine? Because of all the idiotic things said and written about the Ferguson rioters, Time wins top prize for mind-numbing stupidity. A contributor named Darlena Cunha used her platform to praise the rioters who looted and burned and rampaged. Violent protests, according to Ms. Cunha, are "a necessary part of the evolution of society." That is, as long as they're not in her neighborhood.<br><br>Not to be too far outdone, the esteemed New York Times published the name of the street on which Officer Darren Wilson lives with his new bride, further endangering a man who is already a target of death threats. Meanwhile, a state senator in Missouri joyously proclaimed that this is "our race war," and assorted other pundits and politicians casually tossed around terms like "white supremacy" and "systemic racism."<br><br>So the anti-American crowd, as expected, used the non-indictment to vent their hatred and resentment, to insist once again that blacks and other minorities don't get a fair shake from the criminal justice system and our capitalistic economy.<br><br>To be fair, most Americans recognize that young black men are often viewed with more suspicion than, say, young Asian men. Not just by cops, but by shop owners and people walking down the street. Is it fair? No. But is it at least in part understandable? Of course.<br><br>All one has to do is examine a few stats. As the brave black columnist Jason Riley points out, blacks commit violent crimes at about ten times the rate of whites. Blame it on poverty or lack of education or anything else that makes you feel better, but the fact remains that black criminality is disproportionately high.<br><br>Not coincidentally, that mirrors another horrible statistic: More than 70% of black newborns don't have a caring father in the home. That is a recipe for mayhem, anti-social behavior, and lack of discipline. It has been pointed out that fatherlessness has done a far better job of destroying parts of black America than the Klan could have dreamed of.<br><br>Al Sharpton knows all of this. So does the pompous professor Michael Eric Dyson, who accused former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of harboring a "white supremacy" mentality. Dyson's evidence: Giuliani had the impudence to point out that black men are killing one another in America's cities and that cops are needed to protect the many decent residents in those precincts.<br><br>All of the above is often ignored by the mainstream press. It doesn't fit their biases, which led to so much misinformation being spread from the very beginning of the Ferguson saga. The media painted Michael Brown as an angelic figure, a latter-day Emmett Till, when in fact he was anything but that. As Jason Riley put it, Brown was "much more of a menace than a martyr." Who could watch the video of Brown strong-arming a diminutive store clerk and come to any other conclusion? But many in our corrupt media follow a simple mantra: If the facts don't fit the fable, print the fable.<br><br>There will inevitably be another racial incident in some American town. Will the media have learned anything from Ferguson, from the Duke lacrosse debacle, from the Trayvon Martin killing? Or will they once again go off half-cocked, crafting a story before knowing the truth? The odds are not great. Stories like Ferguson pump up ratings for some desperate cable outlets and give racial hustlers the attention that is their lifeblood.<br><br>But each one of these incidents chips away at the idea that we live in a fundamentally noble and just nation. Every fire set, every insult hurled, every stone thrown damages America itself. This nation has a unique ability to right its wrongs, to get incrementally better with each generation. But the America-haters believe our nation was born in sin, remains fundamentally flawed, and must be ripped apart. So they are absolutely gleeful every time another Ferguson comes along, providing another chance to spew anti-American poison. Without an honest media to set things straight, it's imperative for the rest of us to fight back. With facts, with honesty ... and without fear.<br><br>Let's start by calling out Time Magazine for publishing garbage. The aforementioned Darlena Cunha asks a question in her execrable column: "Is rioting so wrong?" Yes, Ms. Cunha, it is. And nearly as wrong was Time's decision to publish your incendiary diatribe.<br><br>If Time is still taking nominees for its Person of the Year, the magazine might consider honoring one of the masked rioters who ruined the lives of business owners in Ferguson. Because, like many of those little shops on West Florissant Avenue, Time Magazine has gone down in flames.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-11-28T08:00:00ZA Government of GrubersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Government-of-Grubers/44088.html2014-11-20T08:00:00Z2014-11-20T08:00:00ZJonathan Gruber let it slip. He thinks you're pretty much a moron. And, being a moron, you couldn't possibly understand legislation as complex and important as the Affordable Care Act. Actually, Gruber didn't merely let it slip - he repeatedly called Americans idiots, in the process affirming his own vastly superior intelligence.<br><br>And he obviously is a pretty smart guy. It's not easy getting into MIT and then earning a Harvard Ph.D. in economics. All his life Gruber was certainly told he was brilliant, destined for great things. But Gruber, blessed with a high IQ, was cursed by possessing not a smidgen of humility or common sense.<br><br>And so, over the past week, Americans have watched Jonathan Gruber, PhD go from Democratic star and savant to the man no one has ever heard of. Of course, if you rely on network news for your information, right about now you're scratching your head, asking, "Jonathan who?" But that's another story, one we'll leave to Bernie Goldberg and Howie Kurtz.<br><br>Do you think Jonathan Gruber is the only government big shot with a very low opinion of the American people? Or is he the one who happened to be the most in need of attention and got caught strutting and preening on camera?<br><br>President Obama's senior adviser on science and technology is a guy named John Holdren. Like Gruber, Holdren is among the cognitive elite, smart enough get accepted at MIT. Unlike Gruber, Holdren has kept a low profile. And that's probably a good thing; otherwise people might ask about some of the outrageous things he has written and said.<br><br>Back in the late 70s Holdren was worried about mass starvation due to overpopulation. He suggested that it could be reasonable for a benevolent government to sterilize people by spiking their drinking water. President Obama's science czar now insists he never actually advocated coercive approaches to population control.<br><br>But just a few years ago, Dr. Holdren suggested that 1-billion people could be killed by "global warming" by the end of this decade. Never mind that warming has taken an 18-year hiatus that has baffled scientists. John Holdren and many other "experts" want the government, not the marketplace, to decide which energy sources are best for you. Of course, they'll stick you with the bill.<br><br>Holdren and Gruber are just two prominent examples of influential government types who obviously doubt the ability of Americans to make rational decisions. And, let's face it, they're not totally wrong. As Jesse Watters proves almost every week, it's difficult to underestimate many citizens' lack of awareness. Public opinion polls are nearly as distressing as Watters' informal interrogations.<br><br>That being said, we don't need government officials who diminish and disparage average Americans. They should be engaging and persuading their fellow citizens, not demeaning us. If President Obama and liberal thinkers truly believe mass amnesty is a great thing for America, tell us why. Don't just write off opponents as nativist yahoos who are too dumb to understand. If they believe taxpayers should be pouring billions into inefficient wind turbines and money-losing solar farms, use the bully pulpit to explain. Don't simply assume that it's above our pretty little heads.<br><br>Elitism in government is nothing new. Woodrow Wilson could condescend with the best of 'em. But as government gets bigger and more powerful, so do the stakes. Jonathan Gruber helped President Obama perpetrate a massive fraud on the American people. It wasn't just a run-of-the-mill, Solyndra-scale, billion-dollar boondoggle. Transforming the health care system will resonate for decades, and it was based largely on lies and subterfuge.<br><br>The Supreme Court may overturn important provisions of ObamaCare, essentially leaving the law impotent. But even if that happens, picking up the pieces will affect every single American, causing widespread chaos and confusion. This entire mess did not have to happen, it could have been avoided if we had debated the law with honesty and transparency.<br><br>Americans, after being thoroughly "grubered," have lost more faith in our government, which was designed, as Lincoln put it, to be "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." We now have a government that is too often "of the powerful, by the experts, above the people." The rise and fall of Jonathan Gruber should be a wake-up call.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-11-20T08:00:00ZProfiles in ChutzpahBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Profiles-in-Chutzpah/44036.html2014-11-13T08:00:00Z2014-11-13T08:00:00ZFor a guy with a Nobel Peace Prize on his mantle, President Obama sure likes to fight. That is, as long as he's battling those nasty conservatives at home. The president's party was just hammered in midterm elections; now he's back with his pen, his phone, and an abundance of defiance.<br><br>The coming showdown involves amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Fox News has obtained details of a 10-point White House plan that will enable as many as 4.5 million immigrants to stay in the USA legally. The president's executive action could come as early as next week, giving Americans something to chew on - in addition to turkey and stuffing - over Thanksgiving dinner.<br><br>The amnesty plan has riled up extremists on both sides, and there is never, ever a shortage of extremists. Take the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is somewhere to the left of Fidel. The CPC says the president's plan doesn't go nearly far enough, and that amnesty should be granted to many millions more.<br><br>On the other side are those like our own Laura Ingraham. She has called for deportation of illegal immigrants "by the thousands." According to Miss Laura, "We keep families unified by deporting all people who are here illegally."<br><br>For most Americans who are somewhere in the vast middle, all this raises a simple question: Why now? President Obama could let the newly-elected Congress convene in January and draft a bill the old-fashioned way. Sounds quaint, but it's certainly possible. Instead, the president is apparently seeking an issue that will renew his credibility with the far left.<br><br>But the last thing America needs right now is a nasty fight over immigration, a battle that Speaker John Boehner ominously warns will "poison the well." That well has already been tainted by various other political disputes, so can't we just take a break for the holidays?<br><br>American voters have been very clear about a few things. Above all else, they want the White House and Congress to shore up the economy. Simplifying our Byzantine tax system and reforming our complex regulations should be at the top of the agenda. Not immigration, which is far down on the list of priorities for most Americans.<br><br>Take your time, Mr. President. Show some good faith to the other side by increasing border security and by deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes. Any crimes! That is something on which almost everyone can agree, maybe even the intransigent extremists on both sides of the debate.<br><br>And then, when the border is at least secure, politicians and immigration advocates can actually sit down and talk about what to do with the 10-million-plus who are here illegally. Most of them are decent, hard-working people who came here in search of a better life. Yes, they should have done it within the law, but previous administrations made it far too easy for them to cross our borders. That includes Republican administrations, including those of Ronald Reagan and a couple of presidents named Bush.<br><br>Most of us want a solution that is humane and fair. Immigrants should be required to register with the government and get in line with other prospective citizens. The back of the line, not the front. A plan for immigration reform is <a href="/b/The-Factors-Plan-to-Solve-the-Immigration-Crisis/865640677232010297.html">posted on BillOReilly.com</a> - it is simple, thorough, and will be acceptable to most clear-thinking Americans.<br><br>So again, there is absolutely no need for a confrontation right now, not after a bruising midterm election. But President Obama seems poised to enact a form of amnesty for millions. He is itching for a showdown and maybe more - our pal Charles Krauthammer says the president wants to dangle "impeachment bait" in front of his political rivals. Republicans shouldn't take that bait, which would only turn a dilemma into a full-blown crisis. Rather, they should contemplate, legislate, and navigate the high road in the immigration debate. It is a road very lightly traveled, but it could actually lead to a destination most of us will find acceptable. Perhaps not ideal, obviously not perfect, but acceptable. In these days of endless and bitter political conflict, that would be a true achievement.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-11-13T08:00:00ZShellacking, The SequelBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shellacking-The-Sequel/44010.html2014-11-06T08:00:00Z2014-11-06T08:00:00ZMidterms, like the Olympics and February 29th, come around every four years. Even though the president is not on the ballot, the quadrennial elections tell us a great deal about the mood of the country. And right now that mood is grim. According to exit polls, 65% of Tuesday's voters believe the USA is on the wrong track, and a majority disapprove of President Obama's job performance.<br><br>How could they not? The administration responded to the Ebola situation with confusion and incompetence. Things are a mess overseas, with Putin poking us in the eye, ISIS terrorists beheading Americans, and Islamic terror an omnipresent threat. ObamaCare remains chaotic, racial tension abounds, and there are more scandals than even Teddy Roosevelt could shake his big stick at.<br><br>But what always matters most to voters is dollars and cents, and seven in ten Americans believe the economy is in bad shape. The stock market has boomed under President Obama, great news for his Wall Street and Hollywood donors, but overall economic growth is anemic. Most important, American workers pocket less take-home pay than they did when the president took office nearly six years ago.<br><br>That's not entirely the president's fault, nothing is. But Mr. Obama's big-government prescriptions have turned a cold into pneumonia. Despite what Hillary Clinton recently said about corporations and businesses, it is the private sector and entrepreneurs that create jobs, not bureaucrats sitting in cubicles at the Department of Labor. The problem is that right now private companies are not expanding, partly because of the burdens imposed on them by regulation and taxation. And as fewer high-paying jobs are created, workers have less bargaining power in the marketplace.<br><br>President Obama and the Democrats repeatedly assure us that government will provide, and it's true that a record number of Americans are receiving government assistance. That is one area where the two parties differ most starkly. Many liberals believe that having more Americans on welfare is a positive sign of government compassion. In contrast, most conservatives say true compassion is getting people <em>off</em> welfare, making them less dependent and more self-reliant. <br><br>Tuesday's voters agreed that government is careening out of control - 53% say the feds are doing too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals. But will President Obama get the hint? Initial signs are not encouraging. In his day-after post mortem, the president bizarrely referred to the two-thirds of voters who didn't go to the polls Tuesday. It's as if he believes those non-voters are all in his corner. Of course, his ever-dependable echo chamber, the editorial board of the New York Times, also brought up that two-thirds statistic. The Times also warned Republicans that voters don't want to "erase the progress made in the last six years."<br><br>Progress? Smaller paychecks, more taxation, global chaos? Americans are not demurely asking for a minor course adjustment. They are demanding that the ship of state be turned around completely. And our captain, to belabor the metaphor, doesn't seem to have gotten that message. <br><br>When asked about the election, President Obama conceded, "Republicans had a good night." But our pal Charles Krauthammer put it a much different way: "This was the worst wall-to-wall, national, unmistakable, unequivocal, shellacking that you will ever see in a midterm election." To any sane and reasonable observer, Charles' description seems a lot closer to the truth.<br><br>Perhaps Tuesday's drubbing will eventually sink in and President Obama will moderate some of his ideological rigidity. If not, if he insists on pushing still more left-wing policies, we could all be headed for a very rough two years. It's up to him.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-11-06T08:00:00ZPoliticians to get their Midterm GradesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Politicians-to-get-their-Midterm-Grades/43984.html2014-10-30T07:00:00Z2014-10-30T07:00:00ZA new Washington Post/ABC News poll has some findings that should worry both parties. First, an astounding 68% of respondents say the nation is generally on the wrong track. And 72% - nearly three in four - feel the economy is "poor" or "not so good," while a miniscule 1% say the economy is "excellent." Perhaps those outliers are hedge fund managers or Hollywood producers. But before the GOP gets too cocky, they should consider that 39% of those polled feel Democrats are better suited to handle the nation's problems, while 37% put more faith in the Republicans.<br><br>The poll has one obvious flaw, however, and it is not the fault of the pollsters. 65% of those responding say they will certainly vote on Tuesday. But many of those people are expressing their good intentions, not what they will actually do. Turnout in midterms is usually around 40% and there is no reason to think this time around will be vastly different.<br><br>In fact, perhaps even fewer voters will cast ballots than in years past. Far too many Americans are apathetic, uninformed, and ill-educated. One doesn't have to tag along with Jesse Watters to realize that many people are simply not aware of what's happening in their nation and the world.<br><br>Millions of Americans don't realize that there are threats all around us. ISIS is growing in strength and would relish the chance to wreak havoc on the United States; the Ebola situation has been mishandled from the jump; and home-grown Muslim extremists are beheading people and assaulting cops.<br><br>But there is another situation that even more ominous than ISIS, Ebola, and Muslim terrorism, at least for the moment. Criminal illegal aliens are returning time and again to the USA, despite having been deported four times. In the most recent outrage, 34-year-old Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte allegedly murdered two police officers in California. The thug had been deported twice, once for selling drugs, but was nevertheless living with his wife in Utah before his shooting spree.<br><br>Bracamonte, also known as Marcelo Marquez, shot one officer in the head at close range, and later opened fire with an AR-15, killing the second cop. The officers leave behind a total of six children who will grow up fatherless, in large part because the feds simply will not do their jobs.<br><br>During an appearance in the No Spin Zone Tuesday night, immigration expert Jessica Vaughn laid it out starkly: "People who are convicted criminals keep coming back ... the Obama administration's priority has been to legalize as many people who are here illegally as possible." <br><br>Under our radical Attorney General Eric Holder, Justice Department officials have been extremely reluctant to prosecute criminal illegal aliens. Need proof? There are more than 200,000 illegal aliens in America who have multiple deportations, but fewer than 10% of them are behind bars. That is an outrage! <br><br>So before going to the polls, consider the threats facing you and your family. Which candidate is more likely to endorse travel restrictions from Ebola-affected nations? Who is more likely to take the fight to ISIS, or to call Muslim extremism what it is, not "workplace violence?" Above all else, which candidate is most apt to demand the imprisonment of criminal illegal immigrants?<br><br>Every single member of Congress should be demanding that President Obama and Eric Holder enforce existing immigration laws. They have not, and thousands of Americans have been harmed by criminals who should not be in America. It is a national disgrace, and every one of us is endangered by the fecklessness of our government.<br><br>We have far too many problems that are being ignored. American workers cannot earn the money they need to prosper, ObamaCare is a chaotic mess and a burden on the businesses that create jobs, and a record number of households are on government assistance. We need prosperity and we deserve security. Next Tuesday's election will either point us in that direction, or it will keep us on the same road to disaster. The question is ... will the folks wise up before it's too late?BillOReilly.com Staff2014-10-30T07:00:00ZFerguson, Missouri: Chapter IIBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ferguson-Missouri:-Chapter-II/43954.html2014-10-23T07:00:00Z2014-10-23T07:00:00ZThere are some rumblings and rumors emanating from Ferguson, Missouri, where 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot to death by Officer Darren Wilson in August. A grand jury has been examining all the evidence and hearing all the testimony, from people who were at the scene that day and from Wilson himself.<br><br>Former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch has confidently predicted that an indictment is highly unlikely. Sure, he may be biased in favor of the police officer, but even the New York Times, in a much-discussed article last week, seemed to be preparing its readers for a non-indictment.<br><br>According to leaked reports from inside the grand jury room, forensic evidence indicates that Brown reached into the car and tried to grab Wilson's gun. What happened after that depends on whose account you believe, and we won't try the case here because we don't have all the facts. But all fair-minded Americans should agree: If Officer Wilson used excessive force, he should be indicted, tried, and convicted; if he genuinely felt his life was in jeopardy and fired in self-defense, he should be exonerated.<br><br>Unfortunately, we all know it won't be that simple if the grand jury decides not to indict. The race hustlers will again descend on Ferguson to stoke resentment, and MSNBC will be at its round-the-clock, hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing best. That part is actually okay - rabble-rousing and protest are venerable traditions. <br><br>Far more ominously, there are already agitators vowing more riots if the grand jury doesn't see things their way. One young man in Ferguson put it this way: "If there is not an indictment, all hell is going to break loose."<br><br>The despicable recklessness extends beyond street thugs to public figures. Al Sharpton, MSNBC's hustler-in-chief, is already sowing doubt about the grand jury's judgment. And then there is Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a duly-elected official, who promised "havoc" if Officer Wilson is cleared. The senator managed to get herself arrested this week during a protest in Ferguson and spent Monday night in jail. She is demanding "justice," which of course means only one thing: Indict ... or else!<br><br>Whatever the grand jury's decision, and no one really knows what that will be, Michael Brown's death provides fresh kindling for America's racial arsonists. The agitators will claim this shooting proves once again that America is racist to the core, a place where "white privilege" is this nation's past, present, and future.<br><br>White liberals, who feel guilty that some minorities are not as successful as others, now have another reason to treat some groups like children, excusing bad behavior and ridiculing the notion of personal responsibility. For far too many people, everything is about race. Criticize President Obama? You're a racist. Call for a travel ban to prevent the spread of Ebola? Racist. And the race mongers, white and black, now have the death of Michael Brown.<br><br>Indictment or not, they will point to this case and tell young black Americans that they just can't make it, the deck is stacked against them. It is the perpetuation of that lie that keeps some black Americans from reaching their full potential. That is yet another tragedy to come out of Ferguson, in some ways the worst tragedy of all.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-10-23T07:00:00ZIncompetence, Going ViralBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Incompetence-Going-Viral/43830.html2014-10-16T07:00:00Z2014-10-16T07:00:00ZAs of now, two Americans have contracted Ebola in the United States, both of them nurses who had direct contact with Thomas Duncan, who was infected in Liberia and died in Dallas. Why was Duncan in the United States to begin with? Because he lied to airport screeners in Liberia, falsely telling them that he had no prior contact with Ebola victims.<br><br>Duncan arrived on our shores on September 20th, nearly four weeks ago. It is understandable that West African nationals were allowed entry into the United States back then. But why on earth is there not a travel ban in place by now?<br><br>One astounding answer to that question comes from Republican Congressman Tim Murphy, who was in the No Spin Zone Wednesday evening. Murphy revealed that he personally spoke about a ban with Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Here is Congressman Murphy's account of that conversation: "He explained to me that the concern was that these are fledgling democracies, and if we put a travel ban that might affect their economies and harm them."<br><br>Wow! If that is an accurate representation of what Dr. Frieden said, it ranks among the most irresponsible statements ever uttered by a public health official. He is focused on "nation building" in West Africa, risking the lives of Americans in the process. Frieden's job is to protect our health, not to worry about the economic health of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.<br><br>It's worth remembering that Dr. Frieden's last job was as Mayor Michael Bloomberg's health czar in New York City. He engineered the city's ban on large sodas, which was eventually overturned by the courts. And, according to the New York Times, Frieden had the proud distinction of being "the only city agency head who keeps a bowl of condoms in the reception area of his office."<br><br>You're getting the point here. Dr. Thomas Frieden is the very personification of the politically correct nanny state when it comes to soda, free condoms, cigarettes, and trans fats, but he risks American lives out of concern for "fledgling" West African nations. Perhaps he would be more diligent if Liberians were drinking Big Gulp sodas as they were boarding in Monrovia.<br><br>The not-so-good doctor is not the only bureaucrat spewing nonsense these days. Asked about a travel ban, White House spokesman Josh Earnest worried that it would "prevent the expeditious flow of personnel and equipment into the region." Wouldn't charter flights be equally "expeditious," Josh?<br><br>Let's be clear. There is absolutely, positively no reason that citizens from Ebola-stricken nations should be allowed into the United States right now. And there is no reason for Dr. Thomas Frieden to keep his job. He may have been ideally suited to fight a war on those dastardly big sodas, but he is intellectually unarmed when we are at war with a deadly disease. President Obama is urging hospitals across the country to protect Americans by learning and following the proper protocols. Well, Mr. President, how about protecting us from Dr. Frieden?<br><br>Beyond that, if Frieden actually said what Congressman Murphy claims, he should be investigated for dereliction of duty. We don't need a nanny or a foreign-nation-builder right now, we need a commanding general. <br><br>Doctors frequently quote the Latin phrase, "primum non nocere," which translates into "above all, do no harm." Dr. Frieden himself recited the "do no harm" dictum when he spoke with Megyn Kelly the other night. But he has already done great harm. And before he can do even more damage, he has to go!BillOReilly.com Staff2014-10-16T07:00:00ZDamning with Very, Very Faint PraiseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Damning-with-Very-Very-Faint-Praise/43814.html2014-10-09T07:00:00Z2014-10-09T07:00:00ZLeon Edward Panetta is the very embodiment of a patriot. Born to parents who emigrated from Calabria in southern Italy, he graduated from college and then embarked on a long career in government. Democratic Congressman, Director of OMB, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA, and, finally, Secretary of Defense. In a city of scandals and scoundrels, Panetta eschewed drama, made few enemies, and is highly regarded by Democrats and Republicans alike.<br><br>So when Mr. Panetta entered the No Spin Zone Tuesday, he was obviously in a tough spot. He's a loyal guy and was reluctant to criticize his former boss too harshly, but he also wanted to let Americans know the state of their leadership. What emerged were some very revealing statements. Here is some of what Leon Panetta said about Barack Obama: "This is a president who I think wants to do the right thing for the country, the real question is whether he's willing to fight to get that done" ... "I think this president is smart enough to understand the dangers, the real question is, can he translate that into the kind of action that will help protect this country" ... "I think deep down he knows what needs to be done, but what he's got to do is develop the will to fight, to get into the ring to make it happen."<br><br>Are you catching the theme here? Time and again, Panetta lauded President Obama's ability to see problems after they occur, but did not give a ringing endorsement to the president's ability to solve those problems. That is not a good thing, especially considering all the chaos in the world today.<br><br>On the same day of the Panetta interview, President Obama was attending one of his many fundraisers, this time squeezing money from those dastardly one-percenters in New York City. The president actually boasted about the USA's leadership on ... climate change. Ebola is in the air, ISIS is on the march, Putin is on the prowl, Islamism is on the rise, Iran is on the trail of nukes, but our commander-in-chief reassured his base that we are dealing with an issue that Americans consistently rank last on their list of concerns.<br><br>President Obama also said this to his wealthy admirers: "When there are challenges around the world, it's not Moscow they call, it's not Beijing. They call us." True, Mr. President, but why does it so often seem that no one is there to pick up the phone?<br><br>The left-wing fat cats who pony up big bucks to hobnob with President Obama will never admit the truth, that his passive world view and rejection of American leadership have thrown this planet into chaos. If Washington doesn't reverse things soon, something catastrophic is going to happen. And it won't be climate change.<br><br>Back to Leon Panetta, who carefully and diplomatically avoided saying anything too damaging about the president. But Charles Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist who knows how to listen intently, put Panetta on his metaphorical couch. "He's sympathetic to the president," Charles observed, "but he loves this country and he feels he has to say the truth. The content of what he said was utterly devastating. He was basically saying this president can not lead, he is indecisive, and he is weak."<br><br>Panetta concluded the interview with a veiled but ominous warning about the current state of America. "I'm worried," he confessed," about whether or not our children are going to have a chance at a better life." So are we, Mr. Panetta, so are we. Right now our nation is facing many, many problems, and one of them is a total lack of decisive leadership. Leon Panetta didn't explicitly say that on Tuesday. He didn't have to.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-10-09T07:00:00ZRevenge of the SpiesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Revenge-of-the-Spies/43774.html2014-10-02T07:00:00Z2014-10-02T07:00:00ZThe intelligence community is not amused. Last week President Obama explicitly blamed faulty intel for his failure to act more quickly against ISIS. As the president told '60 Minutes,' Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admits that "they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria."<br><br>Mr. Obama has an interesting way with pronouns. When something goes right, it's first person all day long. As in, "I said I'd end the war in Iraq. I ended it." Or, "We have killed Osama bin Laden." But when ISIS is running wild, it's because "they" missed all the cues.<br><br>But now "they" are getting even and setting the record straight. Like consumers lining up for the newest iPhone, America's top spooks are lining up to give their side of the ISIS debacle. Intelligence officials have told Fox News and other outlets that their warnings about the ISIS threat were consistently ignored by the White House.<br><br>Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, echoed that when she entered the No Spin Zone Monday. "We had heard about the group almost two years ago," she revealed, "and before Christmas we knew this was a real problem."<br><br>That would be Christmas of 2013, right about the time State Department official Brett McGurk testified before a House committee and laid out this conclusion: "There is no question that ISIL is growing roots in Syria and in Iraq."<br><br>So President Obama had to know that his own State Department and intelligence analysts considered ISIS a growing threat. But he did ... nothing! The president seems to believe a terrible situation will vanish if he just closes his eyes and wishes hard enough. Or if he gives another speech. But those dangerous situations do not disappear, they grow.<br><br>Pakistan has undermined Afghanistan and America for decades by providing safe haven to the Taliban; Iran has funded Hezbollah and trained Shi'a terrorists; some unknown nation is harboring Al Qaeda boss Ayman al-Zawahiri. The president is well aware of all those situations, but seems almost incapacitated.<br><br>President Obama deserves credit for authorizing drone strikes that have wiped out terrorists in the Middle East. But he obviously did not want to do much more than that, at least until he was forced into action by beheadings and a public outcry.<br><br>And now? The president still believes he can convince Muslim leaders to "speak out forcefully" against ISIS and other butchers. But many Muslims are terrified, knowing that speaking out can lead to a gruesome death. No, the only forces that can combat the savagery are the West, particularly the United States.<br><br>What is holding Barack Obama back? Our own Monica Crowley gave this armchair analysis this week: "This is a man who won the presidency as an anti-war leftist, and he is completely committed to that. He has spent his presidency minimizing and miniaturizing the jihadi threat."<br><br>If General George Smith Patton were around today, he would want to take his Third Army into Syria to wipe out the ISIS evildoers. And if things went wrong, he would take the blame, not pass it off on some anonymous "they." But we don't have Patton, we have Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Susan Rice, and James Clapper. And, to paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the leaders you have. Unfortunately.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-10-02T07:00:00ZA Wartime PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Wartime-President/43750.html2014-09-26T07:00:00Z2014-09-26T07:00:00ZAll pretense ended Monday night, when President Barack Obama became Commander-in-Chief at a time of war. He has never been reluctant to kill terrorists with unmanned drones, but now the United States military is bombing ISIS targets inside Syria. The president has authorized strikes by fighter planes, bombers, and Tomahawk missiles, the same weapons brandished by President Bush a decade ago.<br><br>This is obviously not what Barack Obama envisioned when he called for a "fundamental transformation" of America, nor when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after less than a year in office. But at least Mr. Obama was realistic at that ceremony in Norway, saying military force can be "justified on humanitarian grounds."<br><br>This is one of those instances where even committed peaceniks can recognize the inhumanity of our foes. ISIS has managed to turn Jimmy Carter into a hawk, such is the wickedness of their goals and means. And, miracle of miracles, ISIS even united Congress, if only momentarily. Both the House and Senate passed a measure to arm and train Syrian rebels in their fight against ISIS.<br><br>So now what, with America once again lobbing missiles at targets in the Middle East? We should all hope that President Obama is treated with more deference and afforded more latitude than his predecessor. A decade ago, some far-left Democrats called for President Bush to be impeached or tried for war crimes, while loony websites ran wild with Bush-hatred. Many in the mainstream media echoed the anti-Bush derangement, albeit a bit more politely.<br><br>The media will be more compliant with President Obama, and the opposition party will also be wise to exercise some restraint. Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois put it this way: "Once Americans engage against the forces of evil, we should be pro-American." Even Rand Paul, the most fervent anti-war Republican in the Senate, said on Tuesday that he "supports military action against ISIS." Senator Paul simply wants the President to get the official imprimatur of Congress, not an unreasonable suggestion.<br><br>The truth remains that many Republicans loathe President Obama; the House has even voted to sue the President. More than a few independents, and even some Democrats, are also disenchanted. Mr. Obama oversaw a health care monstrosity, his administration has abused its power time and again, and his stewardship of the economy has been woefully inadequate. The President seems to care far more about "social justice" and "climate change" than securing our borders and protecting the homeland. But all those complaints, valid though they may be, are temporarily on the back burner.<br><br>It's also valid to criticize President Obama for waiting too long to confront ISIS; intelligence sources tell The Factor that the administration knew about the dire threat a year ago! President Obama now seems to believe that ISIS can be defeated without sending ground troops to Syria and Iraq. Military analysts disagree, almost unanimously. But whichever argument proves correct, we are now united in our desire for success.<br><br>Back in 1947, when a World War was over and a Cold War just beginning, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously declared that "partisan politics stops at the water's edge." Politicians from both parties have sometimes ignored that sage advice, most notoriously a decade ago when President Bush went to war in Iraq. But whatever mistakes were made in the past, Vandenberg's adage bears repeating. We are engaged in a war with a savage enemy, a war that must be won.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-09-26T07:00:00ZConfronting Evil, ReluctantlyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Confronting-Evil-Reluctantly/43662.html2014-09-18T07:00:00Z2014-09-18T07:00:00ZA large majority of Americans want to see U.S. warplanes bomb the amorphous Islamic State, aka ISIS. If those savages wanted to get our attention by beheading young men and proudly showing the gruesome executions on the Internet, mission accomplished. They have our full attention, at least for the moment.<br><br>But while we are generally united in our contempt for these latter-day Nazis, we are less confident in our own leadership. According to one poll, only 28% of Americans are confident that President Obama and his team will actually be able to defeat the ISIS threat.<br><br>Sadly, that lack of confidence is well-founded. Mr. Obama is a very reluctant commander-in-chief, a man who continually tells the enemy what he <em>won't</em> do. This week he again vowed that American troops will not be placed in harm's way in Iraq or Syria. Meanwhile, America's highest ranking military man, Gen. Martin Dempsey, says U.S. ground forces may in fact be needed to defeat ISIS.<br><br>The mixed messages coming from this administration are downright cacophonous. Not long ago President Obama derided Syrian rebels as "farmers, dentists, and folks who have never fought before." Now we are arming those local rebel groups and expecting them to take on the ISIS savages. Perhaps the farmers and dentists took a crash course at Parris Island when no one was looking.<br><br>The truth is that the Syrian rebels are just too weak and disorganized to defeat ISIS. Pretty much everyone knows that, yet the deception continues. Why? Because President Obama, who was elected as a charismatic anti-war crusader, has painted himself into a corner, not an easy trick in an Oval Office.<br><br>It's easy to start wars, he likes to say, but harder to end them. In fact, ending wars is not all that tough if you don't care what happens afterwards. It was easy to pull every American out of Iraq, damn the consequences. And those damned consequences are now coming back at us with a fury. The president has promised to do the same in Afghanistan, much to the delight of the Taliban.<br><br>The brutal fact is that the Islamic jihad is getting stronger, while we have a president who can't even use the word "Islamic" when describing our enemy. President Obama wants it all to go away so that he can focus on things near and dear to his heart, things like "wealth redistribution" and "social justice." But it won't go away.<br><br>Much like LBJ's Great Society fantasy was overwhelmed by a distant war, this president finds himself in a war he'd rather not be fighting. But ISIS makes the Viet Cong look like Quakers. They enthusiastically kill babies and children, enslave women, slaughter Christians, and behead all infidels. We are up against sheer evil, a wickedness that has to be confronted with overwhelming power.<br><br>Sure, it would be ideal to have a broad coalition. But aside from our perpetual ally Australia, who is willing to step up big time? Some European nations will lend tepid support, and a handful of Muslim states will help behind-the-scenes. But a "grand coalition" is a chimera.<br><br>When the world faces evil, there is always one force for good. President Obama may dismiss the notion of "American exceptionalism," but only the USA has the might and moral standing to defeat savages such as ISIS. The question is, do we have the will?<br><br>No one should expect President Obama to be Patton or Grant, but we do need him to speak with clarity and lead with purpose. Islamic terrorists are expanding the boundaries of evil, and if our president really wants to protect Americans and defeat ISIS, he has to be a much stronger presence.<br><br>No one will ever follow a leader who tells the enemy what he won't do, and whose go-to strategy is retreat. We need a president who is fully committed to killing terrorists before they kill us. Wherever they may be. However long it may take.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-09-18T07:00:00ZTake us to Your Leader ... PleaseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Take-us-to-Your-Leader-...-Please/43634.html2014-09-10T07:00:00Z2014-09-10T07:00:00ZOn Wednesday night President Obama commandeered prime time to lay out his strategy for dealing with the savage terrorists of ISIS. Mr. Obama appeared to have some passion when he spoke about airstrikes in Syria and the need to "ultimately destroy" the ISIS army. Finally!<br><br>But why has the president been so reluctant to call out evil and to label Islamic terrorism for what it is? Just put yourself in his place for a moment. Barack Obama came into office infused with a preternatural confidence, an absolute certainty that the world would bend to his will and personality.<br><br>Consider what he told a radio interviewer in 2007: "I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently but the world looks at America differently. If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country ... I understand their point of view ... That will ultimately make us safer."<br><br>He was then a 46-year-old who had been in the United States Senate less than two years. But his mere presence, he assured us, was going to calm the ever-turbulent Middle East. Along with that lofty self-regard, President Obama came into office with a great reluctance to use American power. Like many on the left and in the academy, pardon the redundancy, he believed that the USA has often been a destructive force in the world. He preferred that America remain on the sidelines rather than confront difficult situations.<br><br>It is a mere seven years since Barack Obama predicted that he would fundamentally transform the Middle East. And now Islamists are slaughtering infidels, Libya and Egypt are in chaos, Iraq is a mess, and Israel faces existential threats. It is not easy for anyone to admit error, and that seems especially difficult for Barack Obama, whose charmed life was largely bereft of criticism until his near-magical ascent to the presidency.<br><br>So now what? The time has come for President Obama to take a step back and survey the world. Putin has gobbled up Crimea and may have more conquests on his menu; Syria's Assad has annihilated tens of thousands; Iran's mullahs continue their quest for a nuclear weapon; even China is growing more belligerent.<br><br>We are in desperate need of leadership from the Oval Office, and it has to begin with ISIS. We now know that President Obama was aware of the growing threat more than a year ago, but he and his advisors apparently did not think a well-funded terror army was going to be much of a problem. The president himself notoriously dismissed the ISIS killers as a "jayvee team." But what in the world did he think these people were going to do? They are the worst of humanity, and even including them under the umbrella of "humanity" is a stretch.<br><br>The long-overdue wakeup call came when the Nazi-like terrorists beheaded two Americans and posted the gruesome killings on the Internet. By murdering those two men, ISIS effectively declared war on the United States and led most Americans to demand action from our leaders.<br><br>President Obama's Wednesday night speech was a start, but it is just that - a start. His worldview has been proven wrong time and again, and he's repeatedly been cowed by the world's bullies. Everyone knows how to deal with a bully - you fight back. And you fight back hard!<br><br>As Thomas Paine wrote late in 1776, "These are the times that try men's souls." Now, like then, America requires leadership that promotes good and confronts evil. The time for passivity is long past, it is time for action and resolve. That is now obvious to everyone, even the most powerful man in the worldBillOReilly.com Staff2014-09-10T07:00:00ZUptight, Everything's <strong>Not</strong> AlrightBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Uptight-Everythings-strongNot/strong-Alright/43562.html2014-08-28T07:00:00Z2014-08-28T07:00:00ZQuick, who wrote these lyrics: "With this Glock in your face ... you betta' not make a sound." Need another clue? The same guy came up with this gem: "S*** talker, s*** talker, whatcha gonna do when a real killer killer come for you?" Nope, it's not Stevie Wonder or Jerry Butler. The artist in question is Michael Brown, the late teen who was gunned down by a cop in Missouri.<br><br>This is not meant to besmirch "Big Mike," who is remembered fondly by many of his friends. Nor is it meant to imply that the killing was justified. That will be determined by the facts and a grand jury. No, the obscene and hate-filled lyrics are here to show just how pernicious the rap culture has become. It is a poison that reaches pretty much every young person in America.<br><br>Michael Brown rapped about violence, smoking weed, making big money, and having sex with "hos." Again, that does not automatically mean he was a thug. Far worse, it shows that he was not all that different from so many other young men who are stewing in a pernicious culture that glorifies violence and misogyny.<br><br>The "progressive" left excuses the lyrics as merely a "reflection of society." And they heap scorn on anyone who is "uptight" enough to point out how much things have changed. But let's point it out anyway.<br><br>Fifty years ago, just prior to LBJ's Great Society, Mary Wells sang "My Guy" and Marvin Gaye hit it big with "You're a Wonderful One." Teens, black and white, heard songs about searching for love, finding love, maybe even getting hitched. Darlene Love said it all when she gushed, "Today I Met The Boy I'm Gonna Marry." And it was downright scandalous when the Shirelles made that seductive promise, "Tonight's the Night."<br><br>Today there is no love, no romance, no seduction, no marriage, only sex and violence and money. To suburban kids in two-parent homes, the music is often an amusing diversion as they head to soccer practice and the SAT prep course. But to young men with no fathers, no guidance, no structure, and very little hope, the thug life depicted in the music is a siren song. And just like the sirens of mythology lured men to danger and death, today's rap culture leads down a path of destruction.<br><br>There's another rap verse that is relevant: "These hoes crazy, all they jackets should be straightened, Yeah my nigga sold 'caine, he don't need no old lady." That's from a lovely song called "Big Nut Bust" by the rapper Big Sean. The rest of "Big Nut Bust" would take way too many asterisks to quote.<br><br>Why does it matter? Well, Big Sean, nee Sean Michael Leonard Anderson, was the first rapper invited to sing at the White House. Despite those lyrics, and his arrest for sexual assault, Big Sean performed as part of this year's White House Easter Egg Hunt. Barack and Michelle Obama had the 20-year-old perform for a few hundred little kids because nothing says Easter like Big Sean on the South Lawn. We'll just hope "Big Nut Bust" was not on Sean's playlist that day.<br><br>A few years ago Michelle Obama also invited the rapper "Common" to the White House, where he read poetry. The invitation was bizarre because Common had previously glorified convicted cop killers Joanne Chesimard and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Nothing common about that!<br><br>So the President and First Lady honor a dubious "poet," invite a foul-mouth rapper to "sing" as part of an Easter celebration, and regularly pal around with Beyoncé and Jay-Z. That's when Beyoncé isn't slithering salaciously and Jay-Z isn't talkin' 'bout some bitches. The First Family sets a stellar example for young blacks in many ways, but they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to popular culture.<br><br>Back to Michael Brown. Rap music didn't kill him, a policeman's bullets did. But who knows whether his attitude towards cops, shaped by violent music, played some role in any possible confrontation? We will never know for sure, but does anyone doubt that parts of our culture have crawled deep into the gutter?<br><br>We've gone from "One Less Bell to Answer" to "One Less Bitch," from "Be My Baby" to "Return of Da Baby Killer." Popular music sure has come a very long way in a very short time. And, far too often, young black men and women have paid the toll.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-08-28T07:00:00ZFueling the Ferguson FireBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fueling-the-Ferguson-Fire/43556.html2014-08-21T07:00:00Z2014-08-21T07:00:00ZThey are drawn like moths to a flame. In this case, an inferno. Press, pundits, politicians, and provocateurs rub their hands together with glee when there is a racial incident like the one in Ferguson, especially when the actors in this oft-repeated drama are cast in the proper roles. If the victim is black and the shooter white, analysts and agitators saddle up and ride to the scene, verbal guns blazing.<br><br>Americans should be concerned when an unarmed citizen is shot by a police officer. That applies to any citizen, whatever his race or age or size or state of mind. Because the shooter, in this case Officer Darren Wilson, is an agent of the government, a full investigation is required.<br><br>But some of the protesters don't give a fig about the late Michael Brown or the investigation. Many are thugs and anarchists, America-haters who come from distant places hoping to inflict damage on the country they loathe. The trouble-makers and the mayhem they create are always irresistible to reporters, whose bright lights attract even more bad guys. It is the most vicious of vicious cycles.<br><br>Not surprisingly, the circus-like atmosphere in Ferguson has inspired some absolutely asinine analysis. Even CNN's Jake Tapper, normally a fair and sound reporter, seemed convinced that he is a better police tactician than the police tacticians. Surveying the police presence in Ferguson, Sgt. Tapper concluded, "This doesn't make any sense."<br><br>But when it comes to stone-cold stupidity, the bronze medal goes to Michelle Bernard, a former legal analyst at - where else? - MSNBC. During a guest appearance on her struggling former network, Bernard declared, "There is a war on black boys in this country." A war on black boys? Only if she is referring to the war being waged by other young black men in so many of our cities.<br><br>We'll award the silver medal for foolishness to the media outlets that gave out Officer Wilson's home address. CNN aired a report showing the home and house number, while the Washington Post published the name of the street. It brings to mind Spike Lee, who tweeted out what he thought was George Zimmerman's address. It turned out that the home belonged to an elderly Florida couple, who won a handsome settlement from the genius auteur.<br><br>But the dumbest, most inflammatory outburst came from Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed. "If you should decide not to indict this police officer," she ominously warned, "the rioting we witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur." So there you have it - an elected official threatening violence if the grand jury does not see things precisely her way. "Irresponsible" doesn't even begin to cover it.<br><br>But amid all the terrible behavior and incendiary comments, there have actually been a few uplifting moments in Ferguson. Ministers and bishops, black and white, have done their best to calm the situation. Call them the anti-Sharptons of the world, people for whom "reverend" is a fitting adjective. And many citizens, genuinely heartbroken by Michael Brown's death, have expressed their grief with tears and words, not Molotov cocktails.<br><br>Then there is Mumtaz Lalani, an immigrant from India who opened the Dellwood Market 20 years ago. He was at home monitoring store surveillance cameras when he saw thugs shoot their way into his market and clean it out. "They broke in and looted everything," he calmly told an interviewer. "But a lot of community members, a lot of church members, even one mother came in to help."<br><br>Lalani worried that the looting will tarnish the memory of Michael Brown. So will many other things that have been taking place in Ferguson, which is now Ground Zero is America's explosive racial situation. The looting will eventually stop, Sharpton will move on to the next stage, and the out-of-town anarchists will head back from whence they came.<br><br>But what about Ferguson itself and the good people who live there, which is to say the vast majority? They will have fewer places to shop, their homes will be worth less, their town's name will live on in some measure of infamy. The tragic death of a teenager may well lead to the figurative death of the town he called home.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-08-21T07:00:00ZHorror, Lost Among the ChaosBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Horror-Lost-Among-the-Chaos/43528.html2014-08-14T07:00:00Z2014-08-14T07:00:00ZUnless you're a true news junkie, you probably missed the outrageous story of the illegal alien who tried to sexually molest an infant. The crime took place in Florida last Saturday, but got scant media coverage. That's partly because there was so much other news - terrorists beheading children in Iraq, a Missouri town engulfed in the flames of race hatred, and a beloved celebrity taking his own life. Also, the media generally has great sympathy for illegal immigrants and isn't keen on covering stories that put illegals in a bad light.<br><br>But this immorality tale deserves attention. It serves as a sickening reminder of the immigration chaos that is devastating parts of America, especially the poorer precincts. 46-year-old Pompillo Alvarado Flores, a Honduran who is reportedly in this country illegally, was actually in the process of taking the diaper off of a sleeping infant, apparently intent on molesting the child. Fortunately, the baby's parents caught this demented fiend in the act and the dad chased him down the street with a machete.<br><br>Pompillo Alvarado Flores is lucky that the cops got to him before the irate father; he is in jail and faces a possible life sentence. We don't yet know the details of Flores' background, but logic dictates that the guy has done this sort of thing before. Perverts don't usually begin molesting infants at age 46. So why was he here in America, yet another bad guy preying on children?<br><br>Meanwhile, four illegals in California were just charged with kidnapping a woman and tying her up for two days without food and water. One of the kidnappers has been deported to Mexico at least three times, but keeps finding her way back to the states, where the livin' and thievin' is easy.<br><br>If you're a Factor regular, you may have seen last week's interview with Mary Ann Mendoza, whose son Brandon was killed by yet another illegal alien, 42-year-old Raul Corona. Corona had been arrested for burglary and assaulting a police officer in Colorado, but a judge there sentenced him to probation. Probation! The guy wasn't even deported. Three months ago, the drunken Corona drove the wrong way on an Arizona highway and smashed head-on into Brandon Mendoza's car, killing the young man.<br><br>Mrs. Mendoza has written an angry letter to President Obama, asking why Corona was not sent back to his home country of Mexico long ago. "I am furious," she wrote, "that the Federal Government allowed this criminal to stay in this country and KILL my son!" Mary Ann Mendoza probably won't get a response because there is simply nothing to say. So she has begun a crusade for laws that would make it easier to deport illegal alien criminals, the thugs who are inexplicably allowed to remain here in the land of the free, the home of the ever-less-brave. <br><br>These are not cherry-picked, isolated incidents. The Center for Immigration Studies has obtained documents that reveal some disturbing facts. Last year federal officials released thousands of illegals who had committed crimes. Most were minor beefs, but nearly 200 had been convicted of murder, more than 400 of sexual assault. The rogues gallery also included lots of drunk drivers, car thieves, and assorted other felons.<br><br>These dangerous criminals could have been detained, but the feds turned them loose and expected them to come back for deportation hearings. One Texas Congressman described the situation this way: "This would be considered the worst prison break in American history, except it was sanctioned by the president and perpetrated by our own immigration officials."<br><br>When an illegal alien commits a crime, any crime, he should be on the next plane out of here. Unless it's a felony, in which case the perp needs to be thrown in prison. You don't give them probation and let them walk, that is absolutely insane! But it happens way, way too often.<br><br>Yes, we all know that the vast majority of undocumented workers are good, hard-working people who are trying to help their families. But there has to be absolutely zero tolerance for criminal illegal aliens. They must go. Go home, or go to jail. Those are the only two options.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-08-14T07:00:00ZThe World's Oldest HatredBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Worlds-Oldest-Hatred/43512.html2014-08-07T07:00:00Z2014-08-07T07:00:00ZScreenwriter Ben Hecht was known as "The Shakespeare of Hollywood." His remarkable portfolio included "The Front Page," "Notorious," "Mutiny on the Bounty," and dozens of other classics. Hecht also wrote a one-sentence lamentation that resonates today: "How sad that in the warmest hearts I knew lurked always a little cold spot for the Jew." That cold spot is growing icier.<br><br>In Miami Beach last month, a Jewish family found its car defaced with the words "Jew" and "Hamas," and a nearby synagogue was spray painted with swastikas. Meanwhile, the chant of "Death to Israel" echoed at a demonstration in New York City.<br><br>But the United States is absolutely serene compared to some precincts in Europe. At a rally in London, one protester held up a sign saying, "Hitler you were right." In Germany, haters shouted, "Jew, Jew, cowardly pig." And in France, synagogues have been vandalized and Jewish-owned shops burned, while demonstrators shouted, "Death to Jews." <br><br>Thousands of French Jews, reading the swastikas on the wall, are packing their belongings and heading for Israel, and one French official openly worries that a "new form of anti-Semitism" is infecting the country. In fact, there is absolutely nothing new about it. The demonstrations are a (thus far) less violent reincarnation of Kristallnacht, the infamous anti-Jewish rampages in 1938 Germany.<br><br>Today's protesters, most of them denizens of the far-left and far-right fringes, will tell you their anger is justified, inspired by Israel's war against Hamas and the killing of Muslim civilians in Gaza. But their outrage is stunningly selective.<br><br>In his Wall Street Journal column this week, Bret Stephens put forth a litany of recent violence across the Middle East: 1,500 civilians slaughtered in Pakistan, thousands of Christians and Shiite Muslims killed and tortured in Iraq, thousands more butchered in Syria, Christians massacred in Nigeria by the savages of Boko Haram. But the media, Islamic organizations, and pinhead celebrities pretty much ignored all that carnage. Why? Because it was Muslims doing the killing, which apparently doesn't register on the indignation scale.<br><br>So the question is inescapable: Why does Israel's offensive against Hamas, a direct response to being attacked by rockets, inspire such fury? When Israel unintentionally kills civilians, the U.N. calls it "a moral outrage and a criminal act." But when Muslims <em>intentionally</em> kill thousands of civilians, the U.N. expresses its "concern." How touching!<br><br>Yes, Israel is held to a higher moral standard, both by its own government and by the world. That's fine, but how high should that standard be? Some Israel bashers complain because the death toll in Gaza is "disproportionate," with many more Arabs killed than Jews. The bombing raids on Dresden were also disproportionate, and Hiroshima set the standard for disproportionality. So what? The object of war is to defeat your opponent, not to die in equal numbers. Again, it's always Israel that seems to come under the harshest criticism.<br><br>Steve Bucci, a Middle East expert at the Heritage Foundation, posited on The Factor that the war in Gaza is a convenient excuse for Jew-haters around the world to emerge from their holes. "Anti-Semitism has been below the surface," he surmised, "and this conflict has now allowed it to come to the surface."<br><br>So what's behind the "world's oldest hatred," which was first documented in ancient Egypt. One pretty smart Jewish guy suggested that jealousy and envy may be in play: "Despite the fact that Jewish people have always been thinly populated in various countries, they have always had a disproportionate number of outstanding public figures." Those are the words of Albert Einstein, who left Germany just as history's worst outbreak of anti-Semitism was beginning.<br><br>Today's Jew-bashing is mild compared to the vile culture of death created and nurtured by Hitler. But anti-Semitism, which has endured for thousands of years, remains a reprehensible part of modern culture. It may never be eradicated, but all of us have a moral duty to fight it at every turn, and with all the strength we can muster.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-08-07T07:00:00Z(Ain't No Cure For) The Summertime BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Aint-No-Cure-For-The-Summertime-Blues/43491.html2014-07-31T07:00:00Z2014-07-31T07:00:00ZWe all need a vacation, perhaps no one more than President Obama. It's been a rough summer for Mr. Obama, and it's getting rougher. Let us count the ways.<br><br>The economy continues to wobble, ObamaCare is still a mess, Benghazi hearings are set for September, the IRS looks more and more like a rogue agency, and tens of thousands of poor children are flooding across our southern border.<br><br>But for the really bad news, take a look overseas. Vladimir Putin seems determined to humiliate the president by violating treaties, attacking Ukraine, and interfering with the crash site of the Malaysia Airlines flight shot down by pro-Russian separatists. Apparently eager to reconstitute the old Soviet empire, Putin is also restoring close relations with the tyrants in Cuba.<br><br>In Gaza, Israel is pounding the terrorists and their tunnels, and Secretary of State John Kerry's effort to broker a truce was widely ridiculed as the height of diplomatic bungling. Meanwhile, many in Europe are taking to the streets for protests that are openly anti-Semitic. Jew-hatred has a long pedigree in the salons of Europe, and it is again rearing its ugly head.<br><br>In Iraq, the terrorist ISIS army, an offshoot of Al Qaeda, is conquering land and slaughtering Christians. Remember President Obama's campaign assertion, "Al Qaeda is on the run?" Well, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn of the Defense Intelligence Agency just said this about Al Qaeda's murderous ideology: "It's not on the run ... it feels like it's exponentially growing." Al Qaeda "on the run" ranks right up there on the veracity scale with "you can keep your plan."<br><br>In Libya, the State Department has been forced to close the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and evacuate all our people. And in Afghanistan, where the administration can not account for hundreds of thousands of weapons that were supplied to Afghan forces, the Taliban grows bolder and stronger.<br><br>Surveying the globe, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put forth this pithy summary: "The world is a mess!" President Obama's defenders, including our own Kirsten Powers, insist that the world has always been messy. She points to the Reagan years, when a Soviet fighter shot down a Korean Airlines passenger plane. But Reagan called the incident "monstrous," and denounced the Soviet Union as "a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life." Have you heard anything remotely similar from our current commander-in-chief?<br><br>Considering all the woes of the world, President Obama deserves some time to relax, and he will again be hanging out on the island of Martha's Vineyard. He has vacationed there every summer of his presidency, except for 2012, which just happened to be an election year. It was deemed unsuitable to pal around with the swells while campaign aides were painting Mitt Romney as an evil and out-of-touch plutocrat.<br><br>As for this year's two-week stay, one publication laid out the details: "President Obama and his family will vacation at the $12 million, 8,100-square foot, beachfront home of a Democratic donor that includes a pool, hot tub, basketball and tennis court." If it weren't for liberal one-percenters and their beachfront mansions, who knows what the president would do.<br><br>In addition to the luxurious digs, Martha's Vineyard offers another pleasant advantage. The president will be among friends and supporters on the island, where conservatives are considered a rare and exotic breed. And he'll be following in a rich tradition, pardon the expression. The first president to spend time on the Vineyard was Ulysses S. Grant in 1874, who was dealing with a financial panic and various scandals. There was no intrusive White House press corps, so Ulysses could sip cocktails all day long, which apparently was his primary vacation goal. <br><br>President Obama will be far more active - he'll bike and shoot hoops and, of course, hit the golf course a few times. Perhaps he should also emulate President Grant and settle back with a beverage or two. He might contemplate how everything got so chaotic on his watch, what he had to do with it, and what he can do in the remainder of his term. Our country, and the world, are in dire need of strong leadership right now. If only they sold it on Martha's Vineyard.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-07-31T07:00:00ZIgnorance is <strong>Not</strong> BlissBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ignorance-is-strongNot/strong-Bliss/43460.html2014-07-24T07:00:00Z2014-07-24T07:00:00ZThomas Jefferson was well into his 70s when he founded the University of Virginia and issued this warning: "Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight."<br><br>Wow. If only President Jefferson could take a glance at the country he helped create. 43% of Americans are unable to define the Bill of Rights, conceived in large part by Jefferson's fellow Virginian James Madison. Meanwhile, the same number of people actually believe the U.S. government may have known about 9/11 in advance. That's a pithy summary of modern American - equal parts ignorance and looniness.<br><br>The question about the Bill of Rights was included in a survey taken by "Newsweek," which gave Americans the same test administered to foreigners applying for citizenship. 29% of the native-born respondents could not identify our vice president, 40% did not know our adversaries in World War II, and 67% were unaware that our economic system is a capitalistic one. That's a total, unadulterated disaster!<br><br>So what's going on? It's clear that the public school system is one major culprit. Schools are no longer teaching history, geography or civics in an effective way. Too many curricula are more focused on America's alleged past sins, not on the wonders of this grand experiment.<br><br>Number two, the Internet and popular culture have created a generation of self-absorbed, distracted and ignorant people. The allure of texting, watching cat videos, and keeping up with the Kardashians has diverted a lot of Americans away from real life. Simply put, millions of us are wasting a huge amount of time pursuing trivial things, and if a citizen is not interested in the outside world, he or she will simply not be equipped to make intelligent decisions.<br><br>More than two-thirds of Americans lament that we are a country in decline, and that is partly because citizens just aren't paying attention. They do not seem to be interested in the welfare of their country. Those of you reading this column are almost surely not in the "ignorant" category. But if you add up all the Americans who watch TV news and read the newspaper, it is a minority.<br><br>If there is one small bright spot, it's that 93% of those applying for U.S. citizenship pass the test, meaning they get at least six out of the ten questions correct. We are not talking about the hordes of desperate people now coming across the Rio Grande into Texas, but immigrants who take the legal route to citizenship. They generally know the workings of this country better than native-born people who were "educated" in our woeful public schools.<br><br>Unfortunately, Americans' ignorance does not stop at the water's edge. Just this week the intrepid Jesse Watters asked some New Yorkers to describe what's happening in the Middle East. "I know there's a lot of stuff going on," one woman told Jesse, "but I don't like to pay attention to it." Another man said this: "I gotta be honest with you, I haven't been up to date." Hey, at least he was honest.<br><br>Some accuse Watters of picking the dumbest, most ill-informed people to interview. Sure, he seeks out folks who look "interesting" and are willing to talk to him, but their ignorance is in no way surgically enhanced for the cameras. To verify that, just read some of the polls that seek to determine what Americans know, and what they don't know.<br><br>If Thomas Jefferson stood in for Jesse Watters one day (and he did have kind of a turned-up collar), he would probably be severely unhappy. After all, Jefferson also said this: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be." America is in danger from without, faced with a host of enemies wishing to do us harm. But we are also in danger from within, the result of our growing obliviousness. Which threat is more frightening?BillOReilly.com Staff2014-07-24T07:00:00ZBorder WarsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Border-Wars/43405.html2014-07-17T07:00:00Z2014-07-17T07:00:00ZIn a world filled with turmoil and chaos, there is at least one thing we can always count on. Namely, the editorial board of the New York Times. Whatever the issue, whatever the crisis, the paper's "thinkers" are absolutely certain to spout the most conventional of conventional liberal wisdom.<br><br>This week, as always, the Times did not disappoint. "The besieged border is a myth," its editorial declared, "and the arrival of a few thousand weary refugee children on buses does not make the myth true."<br><br>Apparently the tens of thousands of children living in makeshift camps are merely a mirage. And the Border Patrol agents are evidently lying when they lament that things are completely out of control. After all, who are you going to believe? An editorial writer living on Manhattan's Upper West Side, or the lying eyes of people who are actually at the border trying to help tens of thousands of desperate kids?<br><br>The Times also describes the illegal aliens as "refugees," thereby implying that they are leaving their homes in Central America to escape violence and the threat of death.<br><br>But a far more honest assessment of the situation comes from Fox News intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, who has revealed the findings of a report assembled by U.S. authorities at the border. Agents interviewed 230 immigrants who had recently crossed the Rio Grande. 219 of them - 95%! - said their main reason for coming to the USA was their expectation that unaccompanied children will be allowed to stay.<br><br>These poor children and their parents are well aware that the United States under President Obama is not likely to deport them. The numbers bear that out: In 2008, President Bush's final year in office, more than 8,000 children were sent home to their native countries; last year fewer than 1,700 were returned. Obviously, parents in El Salvador and Guatemala and Honduras can read the tea leaves - paying a smuggler to get their child to Texas is a pretty good bet.<br><br>Something else very interesting happened this week. When mostly white folks in Murrieta, California protested against illegal immigrants being housed in their town, it was easy for liberal outlets to mock them as nativists and Neanderthals. But now there are also protests in mostly black precincts, where locals complain about the billions being spent on foreign children. Meanwhile, comedian Paul Rodriguez, who came here legally from Mexico, shocked a host on CNN when he urged the feds to return the kids to their countries. It does not fit the left-wing playbook when American minorities protest the influx of illegal immigrants.<br><br>This entire crisis belongs squarely to President Obama. Just as he should have seen the coming of a terrorist state in the Middle East, he and his advisors should have known that this border crisis was on the southern horizon. There were plenty of warnings from Texas Governor Rick Perry and many others.<br><br>So now, while the president vacations, tees it up, and raises millions from fat-cat Democratic donors, we are faced with a bizarre and tragic situation. The federal government is flying frightened and lonely children to various states without even notifying the governors of those states. Legal analysts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl report that the feds are acting within the law. But forget the law for a moment, what about decency and cooperation? Shouldn't the governors of Iowa and Nebraska be informed that hundreds of children are being settled in their states?<br><br>The Central American children must be treated with decency and respect during their time in America, but their stay here should be as brief as possible. President Obama must let Central Americans know that entering the United States illegally will lead to a return trip, post haste.<br><br>Democratic Congressman John Lewis sent out this message the other day: "This is America. Our doors are open." No, Congressman, our doors are not open, no more than the doors to your house are open. We expect visitors from other countries to do the right thing. Before barging in and expecting to be housed and fed, they should try knocking first. Just as they would be expected to do at Mr. Lewis's home, or at the swanky townhouse of any of those loons on the New York Times editorial board.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-07-17T07:00:00ZThe Aging Radicals Among UsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Aging-Radicals-Among-Us/43325.html2014-07-10T07:00:00Z2014-07-10T07:00:00ZYou probably saw Megyn Kelly's riveting interview - actually, "harsh interrogation" is more like it - with 60's radical Bill Ayers. The despicable terrorist was nimble and slippery, but Megyn blasted him with dates and facts the way his Weather Underground once set off bombs. Of course, the 69-year-old Ayers was as unapologetic and unrepentant as ever, refusing to even rule out the possibility that someday he'll again take up arms against the USA.<br><br>Hearing Ayers excuse his vile behavior brought to mind Jane Fonda, who just received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Film Institute. Her Hollywood pals were, pardon the expression, extremely liberal with their praise. Lily Tomlin actually called Fonda "a role model for the American modern woman." But many Vietnam veterans have a far different assessment. "She should not be given any other award other than a jail cell," said Peter Forbes of the group Veterans of the Vietnam War.<br><br>Jane Fonda's road to polarizing infamy began exactly 42 years ago. In July 1972, she arrived in Hanoi for a two-week tour that was used as propaganda by the North Vietnamese. She made numerous radio broadcasts, denouncing some Americans as "war criminals." But of course, no North Vietnamese or Viet Cong were cited as such by her. Faced with an unpopular war, the Nixon administration declined to prosecute Fonda, who went on to achieve great wealth by starring in movies, selling exercise videos, and marrying a billionaire. She remains a liberal icon.<br><br>Unlike Bill Ayers, Fonda has at times been somewhat apologetic about her treachery, or at least one aspect of it. She admits that she never should have been photographed gleefully sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, the same type of gun used to shoot down American pilots. Here's how Fonda now explains the incident: "It happened on my last day in Hanoi. I was exhausted and an emotional wreck after the 2-week visit ... I hardly even thought about where I was sitting."<br><br>Nevertheless, her sympathy for the devil endured. One year after the trip to Hanoi, she named her newborn son Troy in honor of a Viet Cong who tried to assassinate U.S. Secretary of defense Robert McNamara. So it's certainly no surprise that Jane Fonda has been known to her many enemies and detractors as "Hanoi Jane." That dubious nickname is a reference to "Tokyo Rose," another wayward woman whose story bears repeating.<br><br>Iva Toguri was an American citizen studying medicine in Tokyo when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. She voluntarily stayed in Japan and began broadcasting propaganda on Japanese radio, aiming her vitriol at American troops in the Pacific. A 1944 broadcast went this way: "Hello, boneheads. This is your favorite enemy. Are you enjoying yourselves while your wives and sweethearts are running around with 4F's in the States?"<br><br>After Japan was defeated, Iva Toguri remained every bit as unrepentant as Bill Ayers is today, even signing autographs as "Tokyo Rose." She was convicted of treason and spent seven years in a federal prison.<br><br>So is there a difference between Iva Toguri and Jane Fonda? Certainly, the scale of Toguri's crimes was greater. Yet many Americans insist that Jane Fonda's actions were treasonous, and only the politics of the time saved her.<br><br>Fonda has always been a naïve, easily led person who seems desperate for approval. If you believe her own words, she has led an unhappy life; even in softball interviews, she is always strident and on edge. An inner turmoil is clearly evident on her surgically smooth face.<br><br>However she may rationalize her visit to Hanoi, Fonda's actions undeniably hurt brave Americans trying to survive in the brutal killing fields of Southeast Asia. She says all she wanted was peace, that's why she did it. Ironically, Jane herself has known little peace since then. Her life has been marred by conflict, defensiveness, marital disasters, and estrangement from her daughter.<br><br>So, when you think about it, Jane Fonda has served a life sentence of sorts. Compared to her, Tokyo Rose might have gotten off easily. And Bill Ayers, a violent criminal who wound up teaching at a public university, got off the easiest of all. As Ayers himself once put it: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird. It's a great country!" Yes, Bill, it is, but not because of you and your radical friends.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-07-10T07:00:00ZWhither Patriotism?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whither-Patriotism/43312.html2014-07-03T07:00:00Z2014-07-03T07:00:00ZYou've probably heard about the new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. One notable and unfortunate finding: Only 28% of Americans believe this nation "stands above all other countries." That's down ten points from just three years ago, when 38% considered this the greatest country in the world. Even Republicans, usually stalwart defenders of American exceptionalism, are somewhat down on this country.<br><br>Perhaps even more troubling is the number 44%. More than four in ten of the folks don't "often feel proud to be American." Who knows, maybe that's even lower after our World Cup loss to Belgium.<br><br>Our perspicacious pal Charles Krauthammer places some of the blame on President Obama's early focus on America's ills. Not to be outdone, Republican Kate Obenshain claims, "We have a president who has been insisting that things are our fault." No doubt President Obama has not been America's most enthusiastic cheerleader, but the trend runs far deeper than just one person. The very notion of American exceptionalism is routinely mocked by the eggheads in Harvard Yard and the swells in Hollywood.<br><br>For nearly a half-century, America's coastal elites have taken great pains to focus on this nation's shortcomings, of which there are many. These are the same people who create our popular entertainment and dominate our universities. As a result, many of our children grow up steeped in a toxic brew of negativity, ridicule, and downright anti-Americanism. They've learned, courtesy of "intellectuals" like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, that the USA is an imperialistic and racist power.<br><br>Of course, anyone reading this already knows the other side of the argument. Is there a legacy of racism in America? Yes, but what other nation has done more to correct that? Which other country has been as welcoming to people from around the world? Have we undertaken ill-advised military adventures? Without doubt, but who else liberated tens of millions from fascism, death camps, and communism? As one general noted, America doesn't demand territory or spoils after a military victory, only enough ground to bury our dead.<br><br>So on this July 4th weekend, we might take a moment to contemplate what began 238 years ago. The founding of America ushered in an explosion of freedom, creativity, and inventiveness. Jefferson, Adams, and even wise old Ben Franklin would be totally flummoxed by the America of today, with people talking into strange devices, watching glowing screens, traveling on metal behemoths in the sky. Would these wonders have happened without America? It's possible, but doubtful.<br><br>But while the exceptionalism of America is obvious to all but the willfully blind, the downward trend of USA pride may continue for a while. The generation that came of age in the 60s, and its members who mock flag-waving and patriotism, will be dominant for a while. Perhaps a new generation will eventually come along with a more generous assessment of this remarkable nation. Their teachers might counter the negativity of Zinn and Chomsky with some observations from Toqueville and, yes, Krauthammer.<br><br>The American Revolution was the spark that ignited an incredible and ongoing experiment. Whatever its flaws, America has been a force for good, a noble country inhabited by mostly noble people. The nay-sayers have some momentum, but the truth about America will win out in the end. Because this is indeed an exceptional country. A country that remains, as Lincoln put it, "the last best hope of earth."BillOReilly.com Staff2014-07-03T07:00:00ZBorderline InsanityBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Borderline-Insanity/43293.html2014-06-26T07:00:00Z2014-06-26T07:00:00ZTake a moment to contemplate the number. 52,000 children, unaccompanied by any adult, have illegally crossed our southern border in recent months. 52,000! That's the population of Port Arthur, Texas, or a sellout crowd at Yankee Stadium. Tens of thousands more are expected to arrive in the coming weeks.<br><br>Immigration has usually been something to celebrate. As Neil Diamond put it: "On the boats and on the planes, They're coming to America." But this wave of illegal immigrants is not coming by boats and planes; they're walking or using Jet Skis, usually after a long ride atop a train called "The Beast." And they aren't coming here to take advantage of their skills, since most are too young to even have skills. Instead, they are being shipped north by parents in El Salvador and Honduras and Guatemala.<br><br>This is yet another crisis caused by the Obama administration and "compassionate" Democrats. The president long ago decided to stop enforcing immigration laws, while he dangled the alluring promise of amnesty for anyone who could find some way to get here. That less-than-subtle message was relayed by the media in Central America, where many parents are desperate enough to entrust their children to criminal smugglers, quaintly known as coyotes.<br><br>Who can blame the parents? We often hear America portrayed as a violent nation where just about everyone is packing heat. Well, our annual murder rate is about 5 killings for every 100,000 people. The murder rate in Honduras is 90 per 100,000, meaning a typical Honduran is <em>eighteen times</em> more likely to be slain than an American. Guatemala and El Salvador also have astronomical rates of violent crime. If you had the chance, wouldn't you send your kids to a place where they are more likely to survive childhood?<br><br>But while it's easy to understand the motives of Central Americans, it's far harder to decide just what U.S. authorities should do. The debate breaks down along fairly predictable lines. The uber-liberal New York Times describes the children as "refugees" and demands massive aid. And our own Kirsten Powers actually said this: "I would say every child that comes into this country, we should take care of." <em>Every child?</em> Suppose 200,000 enter illegally? How about 2,000,000?<br><br>On the other side of the ideological border, so to speak, are conservatives such as Laura Ingraham, a longtime foe of illegal immigration. "We have to start deporting people," she recently declared. "If you don't deport anyone, you're going to keep getting people coming over the border." Folks like Laura understand that innocent children can not immediately be shipped back from whence they came. But neither can they be allowed to stay forever - not when there is already massive debt, not when low-skilled Americans have enough trouble finding jobs without added competition from illegal immigrants.<br><br>What is needed right now is a border that truly and finally secure. Rather than flying children around the country to be warehoused, immigration authorities should be using every tool they have, as well as some they don't yet have, to prevent further border crossings. And if the Border Patrol can't do the job alone, send in the National Guard.<br><br>But a militarized border is anathema to President Obama and his friends on the left. Their instinct is have borders that are wide open and a big government that provides for new arrivals, legal or not. Beyond that, more than a few cynics eagerly point out that every illegal immigrant who crosses our southern border is a potential Democratic voter.<br><br>Liberals claim that welcoming poor immigrants is humane and Christian, which is true. Accepting poor people fleeing oppressive governments is how America came of age, and compassion for the downtrodden is a hallmark of Judeo-Christian philosophy. But there is also that stubborn thing called reality. Despite what Kirsten Powers and others may wish, we simply cannot support all the world's poor. And since the Obama administration will not control the southern border, the USA is now facing a major crisis. Texas and Arizona are being hammered, they don't have the resources to handle all of these children.<br><br>So the USA is now enduring a self-inflicted humanitarian crisis. As a noble and compassionate country, we will take care of the children before ensuring that most of them return to their homelands. More than anything else, we have to gain control of our border. Full control. But there is a nagging fear among many Americans: Securing the border may be an impossible dream as long as Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-06-26T07:00:00ZNoble Nation, Noble WarriorsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Noble-Nation-Noble-Warriors/43266.html2014-06-19T07:00:00Z2014-06-19T07:00:00ZWho lost Iraq? Pose that question to a liberal Democrat, and the dastardly Bush gets the blame. Ask a conservative Republican, and feckless Obama is the culprit. According to Bernie Goldberg, both sides are right: President Bush was ill-advised to go in, and President Obama was naive to get out with such nonchalance.<br><br>But let's call a brief timeout in the blame game and ask another question that matters just as much. 4,486 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012, more than 30,000 were wounded. Now that Iraq seems on its way to becoming a state ruled by bloodthirsty terrorists, was their sacrifice worth it?<br><br>The brave men and women who served in Iraq have every reason to be proud. They defeated the forces of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who oppressed millions, used poison gas on his own people, tortured political enemies, and paid blood money to the families of suicide bombers. The depth of his depravity was illustrated when he bribed United Nations officials and skimmed billions of dollars from the UN's humanitarian Oil-for-Food Program. So, yes, ousting Saddam Hussein was a noble thing to do.<br><br>True, the subsequent occupation was mismanaged and, in retrospect, perhaps it was a fool's errand to even think we could pacify centuries-old Sunni-Shiite hatred. And yes, President Obama's decision to exit, stage left, seemed motivated more by politics than by genuine concern for Iraq's future. But while our politicians and their advisers fumbled and dithered, our troops performed magnificently. The anti-American cabal can point to Abu Ghraib and a few other embarrassments, but that was a minuscule part of the much larger picture forged by the brave men and women in the U.S. military.<br><br>That should surprise absolutely no one, it's in keeping with how our troops have always performed. Soon after liberating Europe from the Nazis and rescuing Asia from the death grip of imperial Japan, U.S. forces prevented a total communist takeover of Korea. The bad guys got the North, now a hellhole of backwardness and fear and repression. The good guys, the guys we fought with, got the South, a model of modernity.<br><br>Then came Vietnam, where our armed forces battled communist totalitarians. When we left Southeast Asia at the behest of the left, and when Congress cut off all funding, the communists murdered millions. Some 900,000 South Vietnamese were sent to "re-education" camps after the North Vietnamese violated the peace treaty and overran the South. Meanwhile, communists in neighboring Cambodia slaughtered two million human beings after the USA withdrew from the region. We made plenty of mistakes in Vietnam, but no one should question whether we were fighting the good fight.<br><br>And now there's Afghanistan. President Obama wants out, so out we will get. But what will be left behind in our wake? Savage terrorists who will repress women and attempt to impose brutal Sharia Law? People say we can't stay in Afghanistan forever. Advise them to ask the folks in South Korea whether our 30,000 military personnel should pack their duffle bags and go home.<br><br>President Obama should have left a similar residual force in Iraq. Even he probably knows that by now, although the man is not big on admitting error. Now there is a bloodbath of beheadings and executions, a direct consequence of our premature departure.<br><br>Again, blame the politicians and the pundits all you want. But don't ever blame the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought with honor and nobility. It's just what they do.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-06-19T07:00:00ZA Deal with the DevilBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Deal-with-the-Devil/43234.html2014-06-12T07:00:00Z2014-06-12T07:00:00ZOn one side - five battle-hardened terrorists, men who live for killing Americans and returning the Taliban to power. On the other side - one U.S. soldier who unquestionably deserted his unit in eastern Afghanistan. Would you have made the deal? When pollsters put that question to military veterans, 68% said President Obama made the wrong decision, while just 16% endorsed the swap.<br><br>Let's be very clear. Bowe Bergdahl was not a prisoner of war captured on the battlefield. And to be even more clear, he did not serve with "honor and distinction," as claimed by serial prevaricator Susan Rice. Our pal, the always-quotable Lt. Col Ralph Peters, says this about the president's National Security Adviser: "Ms. Rice is aggressively stupid, immaculately clueless, and a disgrace to our system of government." Peters points out that, by Rice's definition, Bradley Manning and Benedict Arnold also served with "honor and distinction."<br><br>Of all the scandals and controversies enveloping the White House, this one could be the most damaging of all. President Obama's admirers in the media, which means pretty much everybody, have studiously avoided delving into Benghazi or the IRS. But in recent weeks even some on the far left have been criticizing their guy - first for the V.A. fiasco and now for this questionable-at-best swap.<br><br>Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified on Wednesday that the deal had to be made quickly, that there wasn't time enough to notify Congress. He also assured legislators that the five scoundrels will be kept under a watchful eye in Qatar for the next year. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has declared that the Taliban five "are not a threat to the United States." She doesn't know that, no one knows that, which is why so many Americans are giving this deal two thumbs down. (As an aside, a State Department spokeswoman actually referred to the Taliban killers as "gentlemen.")<br><br>As for Bergdahl, the Obama administration has claimed that he was in poor health, lingering at death's doorstep. But doctors who examined the sergeant in Germany and Afghanistan say he is physically fine. His psychological state is another matter, and no one should dismiss the possibility that Bergdahl suffered brutal treatment during his five years in captivity. We all should cut him some slack in that regard.<br><br>But we should also respect the opinions of Bergdahl's former platoon mates, who are unanimous in their opinion that he is, pure and simple, a deserter. The New York Times shamefully tried to discredit those honorable soldiers and their former unit, but most clear-thinking Americans aren't fooled by the Times' smear tactics.<br><br>The Taliban is in some ways similar to Hitler's Nazi Party. Both believe their ideology gives them the right to murder civilians and commit crimes against humanity. So let's go back in time 70 years for a thought exercise: Soon after D-Day, the U.S. Army captures and imprisons Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, Rohm, and Eichmann. Would FDR or Truman trade those five evildoers for, say, the notorious World War II deserter Pvt. Eddie Slovik. Of course not. The comparison is imperfect, but the truth is that we released five dangerous war criminals in exchange for one man who may well wind up in the stockade at Fort Leavenworth.<br><br>Make no mistake, the Taliban poses a grave danger to Afghanistan, the region, and even the world. They will stop at nothing to impose their vision of an oppressive Islamic state. And now this evil organization has five of its best and brightest walking free, perhaps anticipating future battles against the infidels.<br><br>President Obama, as commander-in-chief, has an obligation to protect this country from harm, but freeing five notorious war criminals does just the opposite. This whole fiasco is a huge victory for the jihadists and will inspire even more violence in the world.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-06-12T07:00:00ZCarter, Take Two. Or is it Nixon?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Carter-Take-Two.-Or-is-it-Nixon/43204.html2014-06-05T07:00:00Z2014-06-05T07:00:00ZYou know things are tough for President Obama when some his biggest fans start taking shots at their guy. Over at NBC News, usually a reliable cheerleader for the president, foreign correspondent Richard Engel has accused the administration of being less "forthcoming" than the Taliban in the Bowe Bergdahl fiasco. The Taliban! And just last week, Engel was unable to name a single nation with which our relations have improved under the Obama administration.<br><br>The New York Times editorial scribes recently described the president's big speech at West Point as "uninspiring," concluding it "did not match the hype." And that was before the Bowe Bergdahl controversy and the president's unilateral decision to swap five high-level Taliban jihadists for one alleged deserter. Law experts left and right questioned the legality of the move, and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley actually characterized Barack Obama as "the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be." To borrow from a certain bard, that has to be the unkindest cut of all.<br><br>So what's going on behind closed doors at the White House? Sadly, precious few truly know. What we do know is that a man who ran on his competence is making Jimmy Carter look like a hybrid of Bismarck and Steve Jobs.<br><br>It was simply stunning to see Susan Rice trotted out to declare that Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction." Everyone other than Bergdahl's father knew that was almost certainly not true. A lie. Shouldn't Ms. Rice have spoken with a bit of caution after her shameful misstatements about Benghazi? Apparently the Obama gang doesn't put much credence in the adage about experience being the best teacher. Then, to add insult to implausibility, the White House's shell-shocked spokesman Jay Carney tried mightily to defend Susan Rice's laughable claims.<br><br>Rice and Carney probably weren't tuned in five years ago when Fox News strategic analyst Lt. Col Ralph Peters said this: "The media has been turning this guy, a probable deserter and certainly AWOL in the combat zone, as some kind of hero." Now that Bergdahl has been released by the Taliban, his former platoon mates are finally free to talk about his service, which was apparently not so honorable. "He violated his oath when he deserted us," said one of them, while another accused Bergdahl of a "very big betrayal."<br><br>As for the thugs released from Gitmo, they are not soldiers. These five killers are now enjoying their freedom in Qatar, perhaps savoring a return to the battlefield. The president asserts that the war is winding down, and that prisoner exchanges are customary at the end of conflict. But the Taliban will never stop fighting. What else are they going to do, watch sitcoms and play Candy Crush in the Hindu Kush? Fighting against the West is their reason for living; they sit in the mountains, determined to usher in the return of a barbaric Islamic state to Afghanistan.<br><br>President Obama seems to be under the misguided impression that pretty much anyone can be reasoned with, with the possible exception of Congressional Republicans. That inability to recognize evil brings to mind Jimmy Carter, whose ambassador to the United Nations (the same position formerly held by Susan Rice) was the naive Andrew Young. How naive? He referred to the murderous Ayatollah Khomeini as a "saint." Carter also worried that we suffered from an "inordinate fear" of communism, an ideology that killed tens of millions of people. And now, three decades later, the Obama crew has praised the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood and believes we can work things out with the Taliban.<br><br>Once again, why are so many monumental mistakes being made inside the Oval Office? The VA scandal is still fresh and now we have this, in addition to the IRS, Benghazi, NSA, and on and on. Is it possible that any administration could simply be this incompetent? Not merely bumbling or wrong-headed, but breathtakingly bad at looking out for the American people.<br><br>One person very familiar with the inner workings of the Obama White House offers an explanation. He says the president is fully aware that the economy will remain stuck in neutral, that ObamaCare will be an unpopular mess for years, and that his job approval will stay under water. And therefore, President Obama will simply do what he wants. Full speed ahead, public opinion be damned.<br><br>That is a chilling analysis, but how else can anyone explain what's happening on Pennsylvania Avenue? To any sentient person, anyone other than an Obama zealot, the chaos in Washington is embarrassing and downright frightening. Things are so bad that people might be excused if they find themselves longing for a certain peanut farmer.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-06-05T07:00:00ZWhat's Up, Docs?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whats-Up-Docs/43176.html2014-05-30T07:00:00Z2014-05-30T07:00:00ZThe Medicus Firm regularly takes the pulse, pardon the pun, of America's physicians. When the company recently asked 2,500 docs to grade ObamaCare, the results were unnerving. A mere 6.3% of physicians gave the law an "A," with most physicians saying it will not lower costs or improve the quality of care. But hold on. Weren't those the incessantly-repeated goals of the Affordable Care Act? At the other end of the scale, 30% of the doctors surveyed gave ObamaCare an "F" and 20% were more charitable, handing out a "D." Let's hope grade inflation is not in play here.<br><br>Other polls have consistently shown that many physicians are mulling over the possibility of abandoning the profession they once cherished. A broad Deloitte survey concluded that many doctors will retire earlier than they had planned, while others are cutting back their hours. Remarkably, 57% of America's doctors say the practice of medicine is in jeopardy. That is stunning! <br><br>So while ObamaCare may eventually lead to more people having insurance, the question is, who will treat them? The highly respected McKinsey consulting company says "narrow and ultra-narrow hospital networks are more prevalent." Translation: Fewer choices of doctors and hospitals for us.<br><br>CNN recently ran a story about an Oklahoma woman whose son has a serious heart condition. The piece began with this chilling paragraph: "Terri Durheim and her family now have health insurance, thanks to Obamacare. What they don't have are local doctors and hospitals who will take it." Even National Public Radio, hardly a right-wing outlet, reported on a pregnant Texas woman: "Rachel recalls two days in January when she sat down and called every doctor on the list of 28. According to her, most of the practices told her, in one way or another, that they didn't take the plan. Some would just come right out and say, 'We don't take Obamacare.'" Well, guess what? Rachel and her family simply stopped paying premiums and re-joined the ranks of the uninsured.<br><br>There are essentially two reasons that some doctors are feeling nauseous over ObamaCare. First, control. Medical people do not want federal pinheads telling them how to treat their patients. The profession attracts intelligent, assertive people who are motivated to help others. This is not a docile crowd.<br><br>Second, there is the issue of money. Many doctors are already seeing too many patients in order to pay their bills and provide a decent living for their families. ObamaCare does nothing to bring down the outrageous expense of medical malpractice insurance, and it is likely to cut some reimbursements. Even if they focused on chemistry and biology during their grueling years in med school, doctors can still do the math.<br><br>In Canada and Great Britain, where fully socialized medicine is practiced, it is difficult to actually see a doctor in some places. Instead, nurses, physician assistants, and other medical personnel fill the need. That is what could happen in the United States as the feds begin calling the shots.<br><br>Not since the Iraq war has America been so divided on an issue. Conservatives despise government intrusion in the marketplace, liberals love it, and polls have consistently shown that the majority sides with the GOP. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 57% disapproving of President Obama's handling of health care, with just 37% approving. In the game of politics, a 20-point margin is a wipeout, a shellacking.<br><br>So here's a hypothetical question: What would Marcus Welby, Ben Casey, and Dr. Kildare say about ObamaCare? These guys usually had the answers back when wise doctors were heroes on TV and health care seemed to be a glamorous profession.<br><br>Would Drs. Welby, Casey, and Kildare support the law? Or would they be among the 50% of doctors who give it a "D" or "F?" The liberal sawbones in M*A*S*H might approve, particularly Dr. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce, but who knows?<br><br>What we surely do know is that this is not a TV drama, it's more of a horror movie. We also know that many Americans are really sick - sick to death of the entire health care debacle. And the best doctors in the world can't do much to make us feel any better about it.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-05-30T07:00:00ZChaos at Liberalism's Daily BibleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Chaos-at-Liberalisms-Daily-Bible/43147.html2014-05-22T07:00:00Z2014-05-22T07:00:00ZTen years ago, just before Memorial Day in 2004, you could have bought one share of stock in the New York Times Company for about 47 bucks. Then, if you were patient, if you held on to that share through thick and thin, if you resisted all urges to sell, you would now have.... 15 dollars. Investors in the Times took a 68% haircut over that decade. More like a buzz cut!<br> <br>Of course, other daily newspapers have also suffered in the Internet age, but people still pay far more attention to the Times. That was obvious again last week when executive editor Jill Abramson was abruptly axed by the paper's hereditary boss Arthur Sulzberger Jr. The ensuing soap opera was covered everywhere, and camera crews flocked to North Carolina Monday to tape Abramson's commencement speech at Wake Forest. It's a pretty good bet that some papers devoted more ink and trees to Abramson's downfall than to Benghazi and the IRS scandal.<br> <br>So why does the New York Times matter? Largely because other media outlets still get their marching orders from the Times. Look around any network newsroom and you're bound to see the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. It's primarily the Times that sets the agenda for reporters everywhere. If a story is important enough to be in the Times, it must be worth covering. At least that's the thinking of many reporters, lazy ones and their more energetic colleagues. <br> <br>The paper's lofty place in American journalism was hard-earned. There is no question that the Times Building and the paper's far-flung bureaus house a wealth of journalistic talent; Times reporters and editors routinely scoop up the prizes and awards that newspaper folks care about. The problem is that, under Sulzberger and recent editors Howell Raines, Bill Keller, and Abramson, the paper veered far to the left. The Times features liberals in every section of the broadsheet and they hit low, often using personal invective to smear perceived opponents. Their barely-disguised hatred for conservatives and traditional values borders on the pathological. <br> <br>So it's no surprise that many on the right were gleeful to read about last week's turmoil, especially the juicy part where Sulzberger was accused of paying Abramson and other women less than men in comparable positions. The self-righteous Times has spent years pushing the phony "Republican war on women" canard, so it's ironic to see the paper hoist on its own petard. (Any near-rhyming in the preceding sentence is purely coincidental.)<br> <br>Five years ago, when the Times was in a particularly precarious financial situation, the Mexican billionaire and monopolist Carlos Slim rode to the rescue with a $250-million bailout. He has increased his holdings since then, putting the Times deeply in debt to a guy who vies with Bill Gates for the title, "The richest man in the world." So while it rails against those dastardly one-percenters, the Times owes its very existence to a .0000001 percenter. Beautiful!<br> <br>Arthur Sulzberger's New York Times has made some horrible investments (About.com, Boston Globe) that hemorrhaged hundreds of millions of dollars. It is poorly managed by a guy whose only real qualification is his surname. And it is an ideology-driven enterprise that gives valuable space to guttersnipes like Paul Krugman.<br> <br>But despite its bias and mismanagement and abysmal news judgment, the New York Times still matters to America. Not just American journalism, but also our politics and culture. So rather than hope for the Times' demise, perhaps we should wish for its transformation into a paper that is more "fair and balanced," to borrow a phrase. A paper that would be equally tough on Democratic and Republican administrations, one that wouldn't look down its nose at traditional Americans who reside in "flyover country."<br> <br>Sure, it's unlikely. But then again, what were the chances that America's most important newspaper would be run by a multi-tattooed woman who then accused her ultra-liberal employer of sexism? This country would be well-served by having a national newspaper in which "All The News That's Fit To Print" is more than just an empty slogan.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-05-22T07:00:00ZAmerica's Expensive Indoctrination CampsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Americas-Expensive-Indoctrination-Camps/43125.html2014-05-15T07:00:00Z2014-05-15T07:00:00ZWho says America is going downhill? When it comes to at least one measure, our nation is way out in front, with the ten most expensive universities in the world. Leading the way is Sarah Lawrence College, where a year of room and board goes for around $62,000. In other words, it'll set you back about a quarter-mil to have your urchin spend four years in the Bronx.<br><br>True, elite colleges offer financial aid to poor students, and many American professors, especially in math and science, are among the best on the planet. But what's disconcerting is the infection that's been spreading through U.S. campuses for decades, a virus of political correctness and leftist conformity. One pernicious side effect of the disease is the perceived right to never, ever be offended.<br><br>You've probably seen the scorecard this year when it comes to commencement speakers: Condoleezza Rice, one of the most accomplished and admirable people in America, was called a "war criminal" by protesting students and faculty at Rutgers. The former secretary of state withdrew, as did Christine Legarde at $60,000-per-year Smith College. Madame Legarde runs the International Monetary Fund, but some members of the "Smith community" circulated a petition accusing the IMF of aiding "imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide." (That's how the enlightened speak on campus these days.) So the first woman to run the IMF condones the abuse of women! It's worth mentioning that Smith's recent commencement speakers have included Rachel Maddow, Gloria Steinem, and Arianna Huffington. Seriously! But Christine Legard is persona ultra non grata.<br><br>Prior to those outrages, $60,000-per-year Brandeis notoriously rescinded its decision to grant an honorary degree to the Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who actually suffered abuse in the form of a clitoridectomy at age five. She has spent her adult life crusading against the abhorrent treatment of women in much of the Muslim world. However, after hearing from Muslim groups, cowardly officials at Brandeis decided that Hirsi Ali is not worthy of being honored. Previous honorary degrees at Brandeis were bestowed upon left wing, Israel-bashing playwright Tony Kushner and dictator-loving calypso singer Harry Belafonte. <br><br>Universities were once bastions of free thought and open discourse, but that is no longer the case, not if your "free thought" is based on Christian or conservative principles. According to a recent poll by researchers at UCLA, 63% of college professors identify themselves as "liberal" or "far left," while just 12% are "conservative" or "far right." And the imbalance has only been getting worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in recent years. Loons like Ward Churchill used to be the exception, but not any more.<br><br>Liberals will actually tell you that they dominate the academy because they're simply more intelligent than conservatives. But in fact, conservative Americans tend to go into other professions, while liberals flock to the secure, cozy, and values-free campus environment. And when campus liberals are doing the hiring, as is also the case in the media, it's only natural that they hire like-minded people. Far left ravings have become acceptable and sometimes even embraced by fanatical faculty, while legitimate dissent has degenerated into hate speech and vile descriptions of America. And if you call them on their irresponsibility, you are labeled a fascist or a racist.<br><br>So the pressure to conform on campus is stifling. Try to imagine a Smith professor with a pro-life sticker on her Prius, or a Brandeis prof who questions the accepted wisdom of catastrophic climate change. The very institutions that were intended to be our most open, free, and inquisitive are now the most conformist. It's depressing and downright dangerous.<br><br>But there's one man who be absolutely delighted by all this. Nearly a century ago the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci realized that Marxism could never prevail in the West through armed revolution. So he called for a gradual takeover of universities, the media, mass entertainment, and other foundations of Western culture. He urged leftists to embark on a "long march through the institutions" in order to foment radical change. Judging from the repressive atmosphere in today's universities, Gramsci's march has been eminently successful. We should all hope and pray that it can be reversed.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-05-15T07:00:00ZA Decade Most TurbulentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Decade-Most-Turbulent/43106.html2014-05-08T07:00:00Z2014-05-08T07:00:00ZIn its first episode on AMC, the hit series "Mad Men" was set in early 1960; now, as the show nears an end, Don Draper and his pals are in 1969. That was a decade during which America went from Ike to Nixon, from chimps in space to men on the moon, from The Andy Griffith Show to The Mod Squad, from bow ties to bellbottoms. So much more happened in American culture, for better and worse, and we are still living with the consequences today.<br><br>In the early 1960s, the United States was of course a much more conservative place. Even though the civil rights movement had won some hard-fought victories down south, and Vietnam dissension was heating up, most Americans were still tied to the traditional values of their parents. So if an unmarried girl got pregnant it was downright scandalous. Abortion was fully legal only in New York, Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska, so a pregnant young girl usually got married to the father quickly and quietly.<br><br>Drugs were not acceptable, addicts were shunned, and even marijuana was generally considered out of bounds. But things changed dramatically in 1967 with the "summer of love" in San Francisco. Young people streamed into that city, where they were introduced to pot and hallucinogenic drugs by local dealers. It led to an epidemic of overdoses and social diseases.<br><br>The press, however, did not concentrate on those negatives. Instead, the media exalted the era of "flower power," creating a glamorous subculture. The glorification and marketing of that subculture forty years ago swept the nation and remains with us today. Most stories about now-legal marijuana in Washington and Colorado portray happy stoners getting high and loving it. The media ignores the elementary school kids selling pot, or the sudden rash of home explosions in Colorado. That state's main burn center has been busy lately, treating people who have been maimed while cooking up hash oil. You may have missed that in the New York Times.<br><br>The music industry hopped on the 60s bandwagon and rebellious, drug-addled pop stars soared up the charts. No question, the summer of love changed America's attitudes towards drugs, sex, and rock 'n roll. But the unintended consequences were staggering. Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison all died at age 27 from drug and/or alcohol abuse. Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead made it into his early 40s, but his heroin intake ultimately did him in. All told, the damage the drug scourge has done to America is incalculable.<br><br>Again, you'd never know that from the media, which continues to glorify our permissive culture. There's little mention that 72% of black babies are now born out-of-wedlock, while the overall birth rate outside of marriage has gone from 8% percent in the mid-60s to 41% today. And if you only consider babies born to women under the age of 30, an astounding 53% come into the world without a dad in the house. Single mother homes, of course, are the major driver of poverty in America.<br><br>So even if you enjoyed the music and the clothing, maybe even an occasional toke, you can understand why not everyone is terribly nostalgic about the Mad Men era. Let's put it this way: <strong><em>Men</strong></em> are far less valued, much less responsible than back then, while the entire culture is a whole lot more <strong><em>Mad</strong></em>.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-05-08T07:00:00ZBeyoncé, Role Model?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beyoncé-Role-Model/43010.html2014-05-01T07:00:00Z2014-05-01T07:00:00ZWhen Time recently named the world's "most influential" people, the formerly-influential magazine decided to put the mononymous Beyoncé on the cover. The gifted singer has also won high praise from none other than President Obama, who called her the perfect "role model" for his daughters. Meanwhile, Mrs. Obama has expressed her desire to trade places with Beyoncé for just one day.<br><br>Well, the object of their admiration has released a song called "Partition," which includes these charming lyrics:<br><em><br>Now my mascara running, red lipstick smudged<br>Oh, he's so horny yeah he wants to f***.<br>He popped all my buttons and he ripped my blouse,<br>He Monica Lewinsky-ed all on my gown.<br></em><br>Not exactly Mary Wells singing "My Guy" or Lesley Gore doing "It's My Party." The video version features a nearly-naked Beyoncé at her sultriest, and the entire album has been described as "misogynistic, risqué, and irresponsible." There is no issue with adults opting for this form of entertainment - but does President Obama really believe Beyoncé is a perfect role model for his children? Would he allow his daughters to watch the video and sing the lyrics? And what's the thinking at Pepsi, which is paying Beyoncé $50 million to promote its soda?<br><br>Then there's Beyoncé's husband Jay-Z, who performed at President Obama's inauguration last year and who claims to exchange text messages with the president. You know Jay-Z. He's the rapper who became ultra-rich by referring to women as "bitches" and "hos" - and now he has the ear (and phone number) of our president. Only in America.<br><br>Barack and Michelle Obama seem very genuine in their desire to help poor children, but their pals are damaging poor children. Jay-Z degrades women and glorifies violence, while Beyoncé implicitly tells young girls to sex it up. Who has more influence? The First Family? Or the First Family of Entertainment?<br><br>Talk to educators in poor neighborhoods and they will tell you that the debasement of our culture, of which music is a big part, has coarsened children in general and put high-risk kids in a dangerous place. Taking drugs, having sex, and being violent is not only socially acceptable in many precincts, it is downright glamorous.<br><br>So here's some unsolicited advice for President Obama: If you really want poor black children to have a better shot in life, why not send a three-word text to Jay-Z: "Knock it off!" And ask him to pass the message along to his wife.<br><br>As for Michelle Obama, she should be on television every day telling young women that getting pregnant outside of marriage is destructive, both to mother and child. The real role models for young black children are Barack and Michelle Obama, not their very talented but misguided pals.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-05-01T07:00:00ZOne Man's 'Terrorist' is Another Man's 'Rancher'BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/One-Mans-Terrorist-is-Another-Mans-Rancher/42982.html2014-04-24T07:00:00Z2014-04-24T07:00:00ZWhat does it take to get labeled a "domestic terrorist" in certain precincts on the left? Slaughtering your fellow soldiers at Fort Hood doesn't make the grade, nor does maiming and killing innocent people at the Boston Marathon. And illegally occupying land in New York and Washington to protest Wall Street greedheads doesn't even come close.<br><br>No, if you are Harry Reid and you are the Senate Majority Leader, the real "domestic terrorists" are Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters. To be sure, Bundy is on the wrong side of the law and should be punished by the feds. But labeling him a "terrorist" is an outrageous slander, apparently intended to fire up the left-wing base and win some votes in November. Especially now, with Bundy bringing race into the mix, the media are sure to have a field day. <br><br>The distinguished Senator Reid has also taken to the well of the Senate to assail two charitable brothers as "un-American," and to falsely claim that Mitt Romney went a decade without paying taxes. You may have noticed the media's outrage at Reid's serial slanders. Maybe not.<br><br>Meanwhile, New York City's ultra-liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio has disbanded a unit that specialized in keeping tabs on some mosques and other places where radical Islamists tend to congregate. The new mayor claims his cops will now be able to "go after the real bad guys."<br><br>Well, former NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne knows a lot more about "bad guys" than the mayor. Browne recently recounted the case of Raees Alam Qazi, a Pakistani who biked around Manhattan in 2012, scouting for places to detonate bombs. Does Qazi count as a "real bad guy," Mr. Mayor? Paul Browne also documented numerous other plots that were intended to kill and injure hundreds of New Yorkers, plots that were foiled by undercover surveillance.<br><br>Terrorists, by definition, want to terrorize, and the best way to sow fear is to attack the capital of American commerce and culture. There is good reason to worry that Bill de Blasio's priorities have just made it a little easier for jihadists to accomplish their nefarious goals.<br><br>But to some people, Islamic terror is pretty much a figment of our imagination. This week on The Factor, Osama Siblani, the respected publisher of the Arab American News in Michigan, made this stunning claim: "I don't know if there is a militant jihadist in Detroit, and I don't even know if there are militant jihadists in New York." Siblani might want to brush up on some of the terror attacks that were stopped by the now-disbanded surveillance unit.<br><br>One enduring theme in post-9/11 America is the stubborn refusal by many on the left to use the words "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same paragraph. One suspects Mayor de Blasio would not be quite so blasé if Christian evangelicals were threatening to bomb abortion clinics, but Muslims are another story. It recalls the horrible case of Mohammed Shafia, a Canadian Muslim who drowned his three teen daughters because they had become too "Westernized." When reporting on these "honor killings," some major U.S. media outlets totally avoided mentioning the man's religion. But just suppose a Catholic killed his daughter for disobeying the Bible or for getting an abortion? Wouldn't the killer's Christianity be worth mentioning? The politically correct U.S. media is cowed by Muslim violence and avoids the issue whenever possible.<br><br>Is it too much to ask for a smidgen of honesty and candor? Major Nidal Hasan is an Islamic terrorist and his massacre at Fort Hood was a act of pure terror. The Tsarnaev brothers were Muslim terrorists and their Boston bombing was also an act of terror. Cliven Bundy may be a lawbreaker and a scofflaw, but he is not a "domestic terrorist." No matter how many times Harry Reid claims otherwise.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-04-24T07:00:00ZA Booming American IndustryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Booming-American-Industry/42924.html2014-04-17T07:00:00Z2014-04-17T07:00:00ZUnemployment remains unacceptably high, millions of Americans have given up looking for work, but at least one USA industry is humming on all cylinders.<br><br>The grievance industry manufactures a very successful product, the seductive message that the USA is an unfair nation and always has been. The deck is stacked, the grievance sales force says, against women, gays, atheists, Muslims, the poor, illegal immigrants, and various other groups.<br><br>President Obama himself, who vowed to unite Americans, is now exploiting grievance to divide and conquer, at least in the electoral sense. Needing to fire up his liberal base for November, he is playing the gender card, repeatedly claiming that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. That phony stat has been debunked time and again, but it comes in handy if your goal is to foment resentment and increase voter turnout.<br><br>On the racial front, the president recently paid homage to the notorious race hustler and hoaxer Al Sharpton, giving the keynote speech at Sharpton's organization. The one-time beacon of "hope and change" warned the mostly-black audience that evil Republicans are trying to suppress their vote. How? By pushing for photo IDs in order to vote. Not exactly a Jim Crow era poll tax or literacy test, but the crowd felt properly aggrieved. Mission accomplished.<br><br>Attorney General Eric Holder, the grievance industry's chief counsel, was there as well. He absurdly claimed that no previous attorney general has ever been treated so disrespectfully by Congress. Is he serious? Has he heard of John Mitchell, Alberto Gonzales, Janet Reno, or Ed Meese? The worst part of Holder's indignant rant was his clear implication that the alleged mistreatment is racially based. As one writer to The Factor put it, Eric Holder's real problem isn't his black skin, it's his <em>thin</em> skin.<br><br>FNC's Bernie Goldberg expressed his absolute disgust with Holder and his boss. "The one thing this president does well," Bernie complained, "is turn Americans against one another." But President Obama's divisiveness was promptly eclipsed by another Democrat, Congressman Steve Israel, who went on CNN to claim that much of the GOP is "animated by racism."<br><br>Despite its exaggerations and outright falsehoods, the grievance industry is booming because it provides a convenient excuse for those who like to blame "the system" for their own failures. And the industry has another pernicious effect that is downright frightening. Portraying entire groups of people as victims inoculates them with special protected status.<br><br>When it was recently discovered that a CEO believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman, as it was for thousands of years, he was promptly fired. And when a brave woman condemned the treatment of females in much of Islamic culture, she was declared persona non grata at an elite university. The overriding message is loud and clear: If you value your career and reputation, either buy what the grievance industry is peddling or shut up. Consider it an offer you can't refuse.<br><br>One university president who clearly gets the message is Bruce Shepard, head of Western Washington University. He says the success of his school depends, above all else, on being "not as white" in the future. Shepard, it should be noted, is a white guy himself, but he has not yet offered his position to someone of a darker hue. His stepping aside would certainly make Western Washington "not as white," as well as not quite as nutty.<br><br>The race hustlers, the radical gender feminists, and the Muslim fanatics at CAIR do harm to our nation. But like the "victims" they claim to defend, they have been granted immunity from criticism by the mainstream media, which serves as the public relations arm of the grievance industry.<br><br>The grievance machine is ruthless. Go against it and the push-back will be immediate and intense. It is an industry that rules by intimidation and fear, and it grows more powerful by the day.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-04-17T07:00:00ZThe Tax Collector KnockethBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Tax-Collector-Knocketh/42901.html2014-04-10T07:00:00Z2014-04-10T07:00:00ZNext week Caesar comes calling, demanding that Americans do some serious rendering in the form of federal income taxes. Speaking of old Julius, back in the glory days of the Roman Empire he decreed that citizens should work two days a year to pay their fair share of taxes. Things are a bit different now, with the average American anteing up about a quarter of his or her income to the taxman.<br><br>Most folks pay without too much griping; it's a relatively small price for living in a country with remarkable freedom and opportunity. But wouldn't it be good to know that our "contributions" are being well spent, that government officials spend our tax dollars as if it were their own money? Ask yourself: Would any official at HHS spend his or her own money to create infantile ads promoting ObamaCare? Would a bureaucrat at Energy shell out personal bucks to bankroll Solyndra? How would it go over if we took up a collection at the Pentagon to ensure that Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan received his full salary while awaiting trial? The examples of government waste go on and on and on, and one doesn't have to be a libertarian to get enraged.<br><br>The problem for President Obama and the big spending liberal movement is accountability. The former boss of Medicare candidly admitted that about 30% of all payments are wasteful, with the health care money either stolen or used for unnecessary treatments. You may have seen the news this week that Florida ophthalmologist Dr. Salomon Melgen billed Medicare for $21-million in 2012. That's $21,000,000! We might add that, coincidentally or not, Melgen is a close pal and wing man of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez.<br><br>President Obama continues to expand the federal government, and the Democratic Party wants more of our pay diverted to them so they can give it to those not earning very much. But the Obama administration, like others before it, refuses to watch how the money is dispatched. Therefore, tens of billions of dollars are abused every year. Even as federal debt nears $17-trillion, government waste continues to climb right along with the red ink.<br><br>Meanwhile, progressives bizarrely and brazenly tell us that federal spending is actually kind of skimpy. "The cupboard is bare," Nancy Pelosi actually said last year, adding, "There's no more cuts to make." Big spenders like Ms. Pelosi warn that any cuts, or even a freeze, will break the backs of the poor. In fact, if the government continues racking up debt, all of us will be in traction because the economy will collapse.<br><br>There comes a time when the truth must be told. The federal government is not built to run massive entitlement programs or health care or even the post office, which lost about $5 billion last year. By the way, the New York Times cited that as a "significant improvement over last year, when the agency reported a record $15.9 billion loss."<br><br>There is merit in President Obama's theme that a just society should help the downtrodden. Many of us fall down, and a helping hand is necessary in any fair society. But what's happening in America is not a helping hand - it's more like the back of the hand being given to taxpayers. We notice it more in the middle of April, but it is constant, ongoing, and only getting worse.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-04-10T07:00:00ZA Climate of FearBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Climate-of-Fear/42702.html2014-04-03T07:00:00Z2014-04-03T07:00:00ZThe climate mavens at the United Nations have issued their latest ominous warning. They say we should expect "changes in the availability of food, fuel, medicine, and income." Actually, that quote comes from the first UN climate report, written 25 years ago, just around the time the World Wide Web was invented.<br><br>The latest UN missive, released last week, ups the ante, warning of melting ice, heat waves, storms, and food shortages, all due to man-made global warming. Meanwhile, Chicago just endured its coldest winter ever, beating the former record set during Roosevelt's first term. Teddy Roosevelt! 1903! Of course, any scientist will tell you that weather is not climate, but the fact is that the world's most sophisticated climate models have failed spectacularly, almost unanimously predicting much more warming than has actually occurred.<br><br>So what to do? Whether you think the climate scolds are latter-day Chicken Littles, or whether you believe the end is nigh, all of us should support initiatives that lead to cleaner air and less reliance on OPEC oil. That means more efficient gasoline engines as well as electric cars like Tesla, even though free market guys John Stossel and Eric Bolling say the government should not be helping a private company like Tesla with loan guarantees and tax credits. <br><br>Truth is, in the climate debate there is money under every glacier. Al Gore may have begun his proselytizing to do <em>good</em>, but he also did quite <em>well</em>, pocketing tens of millions of dollars. On the other hand, "green investing" didn't turn into green for T. Boone Pickens, who invested in wind farms and got blown right off the Forbes 400 list. "I lost my ass," is how the down-home Pickens put it.<br><br>The scandal involving British climate researchers burying facts that challenged the warming theory was disturbing, but to be expected when so much grant money is at stake. There is also an age-old human tendency to prophesize doom, which garners awards and book deals. Remember Paul Ehrlich, whose "The Population Bomb" predicted that "hundreds of millions of people will starve to death" because of overpopulation. He didn't account for scientific genius that increased crop yields and avoided catastrophe. Now 81, Ehrlich is still around, still prophesying doom, still cashing in on the lecture circuit.<br><br>Author Matt Ridley, who writes about scientific controversies, summed up the doom mentality in the Wall Street Journal: "Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated ... In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different."<br><br>The right is wrong to reject man-induced climate change outright, but correct in being skeptical of the proposed solutions. And the left is wrong in calling for the massive transformation of our energy consumption, which could wreck the teetering economy.<br><br>Climate change is one of those issues that will never be settled beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter what Al Gore says. So the sane thing to do is for the world to develop cleaner energy options but not ruin economies doing so. We will all be better off if clean and cheap energy becomes the norm.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-04-03T07:00:00ZThe Media's March of MadnessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Medias-March-of-Madness/42676.html2014-03-27T07:00:00Z2014-03-27T07:00:00ZThe Pew Research Center just released its 11th annual "State of the News Media" report. The section on cable news is informative, but if you happen to be a fan of MSNBC, you may want to have some tissues handy. That far-left network, which shamelessly, tirelessly and loyally promotes President Obama's policies, lost 24% of its prime-time audience last year. 24%! CNN suffered a 13% decline, while Fox News fell by 6%. Despite FNC's small drop, the network still attracted more prime-time viewers than CNN, MSNBC, and HLN ... combined!<br><br>Of course, some audience decline is to be expected in the year after a big presidential election, but the huge declines at MSNBC and CNN go beyond that. Many Americans have long believed the national press is biased left, but a more damning charge is now being debated: Is the U.S. media actually corrupt? Those who believe it is point to the fawning coverage of Barack Obama, and now to the recent coverage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.<br><br>If someone really wanted to assess the "state of the news media," all he or she had to do was tune in cable news over the past few weeks. The moment the jetliner was reported missing, the cable outfits pounced. And with good reason. It was a genuine news story that possibly involved terrorism and tragedy. <br><br>But then CNN, desperate for viewers, decided to go round-the-clock and whole-hog. When there was no more news to report, the network resorted to asking guests about the "supernatural" and even "black holes." Not to be outdone, CNN's poor little sister HLN invited a psychic to speculate about the plane's fate. "I see a lot of trees," she said. Unfortunately, CNN and HLN seemed to have missed the forest.<br><br>Fox News media analyst Bernie Goldberg pithily described CNN's questioning as "stupendously dumb and jaw-droppingly stupid." Meanwhile, Goldberg's FNC colleague Howie Kurtz worried that media credibility itself was "vanishing into a black hole."<br><br>It's worth remembering that when the Founding Fathers granted the press special privileges, they did so with some trepidation. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams loathed the early press in America because it often operated irresponsibly; it was not unusual for money to change hands in the production of a news story. But Jefferson, Adams, and their peers understood that the people needed information in order to make informed decisions in the voting booth. Therefore, the greater good was served by allowing a free press in the hope that the honest journalists would outnumber the dishonest ones.<br><br>But we now have a problem. Entire news operations are devoting themselves not to reporting events honestly, but to promoting a certain ideology and ignoring events that interfere with their politics. When a network spends 24 hours a day "reporting" rumors and theories about a missing plane, that leaves exactly zero time for other stories that are crucial. Remember the IRS targeting conservative groups? ObamaCare's dismal numbers and countless delays? Benghazi? How about Vlad the Invader and his annexation of Crimea? You didn't hear much about them over the din of speculation.<br><br>News organizations are not supposed to be attack dogs that demonize the Tea Party and conservatives, nor lap dogs that await orders from their masters in the White House press office. The media is intended to be watch dogs, guarding the rest of us against government malfeasance and corruption. But too many media outlets have become corrupt themselves. It's worth pondering what Jefferson and Adams and Madison would think if they were around today. Hey, maybe we'll call a psychic to find out.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-03-27T07:00:00ZVlad the InvaderBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Vlad-the-Invader/42634.html2014-03-21T07:00:00Z2014-03-21T07:00:00ZThe violent history of Eastern Europe and a real-life villain inspired Irish author Bram Stoker to create the frightening character Dracula in 1897. Stoker based his vampire on the 15th century Romanian ruler Vlad III, who took sadistic pleasure in carrying out unspeakable atrocities, among them roasting little children and mutilating women. Old Vlad's favorite tool of terror was impaling, which he did to thousands of his enemies. <br> <br>The tyrant is known to history as "Vlad the Impaler." <br> <br>Now we have Vladimir Putin, the Russian martinet, who has annexed Crimea and made it part of his Russian Federation. Using the old Third Reich ruse of "protecting" ethnic Russians living in Ukrainian territory, Putin instigated an action that has angered most decent people. <br> <br>This modern tyrant should be known to history as "Vlad the Invader." <br> <br>But why is Putin doing this? Well, like Dracula, it is in his blood. The former KGB thug relishes using harsh methods to achieve his goal of expanding Russia's scope and power. Under his rule, Russia has become a crime-ridden state where dissenters (and homosexuals) are beaten, imprisoned, and even murdered. <br> <br>His vision is a Russia that dominates the countries on its borders and competes with the United States and China for global influence. But with Russia's economy moribund and its population in a downward spiral, Putin is forced to look outside his own borders. <br> <br>A few weeks ago Fox News strategic analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters predicted that Vladimir Putin would run wild after the Sochi Olympics. Peters was prescient then, and his crystal ball is clouded with violence now. He says Putin has only just begun, and that his next target will be eastern Ukraine. "We are witnessing an aggressive dictator," Peters warns, "dismantling a major European country. Putin has never backed down from anybody. He has Obama's number, and Obama's number is zero!" <br> <br>Meanwhile, President Obama, while ruling out military action, tweaked Putin by imposing sanctions on a handful of Putin confidants. Wow, can't you just feel Vlad the Invader trembling? This brutal man senses weakness in America and Europe, weakness that will likely drive him to become bolder. The only thing a guy like Vlad understands is the stick. <br> <br>But how to wield it, that is the question. President Obama is organizing an emergency G7 meeting for next week, hoping to convince other leading economies to come down hard on Russia. But Europe needs Russia's natural gas and oil and is not likely to challenge Putin by supporting tough sanctions. <br> <br>If the West doesn't find a way to effectively neutralize Putin, Vlad the Invader - much like Vlad the Impaler - will continue to run roughshod over Eastern Europe while thumbing his nose at the West. The dire situation makes a missing airliner in Asia seem, well, downright trivial.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-03-21T07:00:00ZCommon Sense in Short SupplyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Common-Sense-in-Short-Supply/42544.html2014-03-14T07:00:00Z2014-03-14T07:00:00ZPresident Obama is a case study in the value of persistence and pluck. Despite having no father present and a rather loopy mom, he was able to achieve the most powerful position in the world. If young Barack Obama could overcome his somewhat chaotic upbringing, many American kids in difficult circumstances can do the same.<br><br>There is no question that President Obama is an astute and smart man. After graduating from Harvard Law, he worked his way up the political ladder, using Chicago's south side as a launching pad. That's tough turf, so Obama had to combine book smarts with guile.<br><br>And so it is simply stunning to see how poorly Obama is faring in the common sense zone as president. One recent example of his failure to anticipate trouble is his nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Because he had helped cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal get off death row, Adegbile was certain to be controversial. Police organizations protested the nomination, which was defeated in the Senate, despite Harry Reid's rule change that makes it much easier for a nominee to win approval. With so many vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in a few months, President Obama had to know the nomination would ignite a firestorm, and indeed Adegbile went down in flames.<br><br>So, common sense would dictate that President Obama learned a valuable lesson from that DOJ fiasco. But common sense is in short supply in the West Wing. The president's nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy is virulently anti-gun and has exchanged fire with the powerful NRA. That might be excusable if Dr. Murthy were the reincarnation of C. Everett Koop, but he is just 36 years old and has never run a hospital or medical unit. So what is the good doctor's primary qualification? He formed Doctors for America, which lobbied tirelessly for the dubious Affordable Care Act. Once again, the president has unnecessarily put Senate Democrats in a precarious position. They can vote against Murthy and alienate their left-wing base, or vote for him and provide ammunition to right-wingers and the NRA.<br><br>At least Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy is a physician and has a few qualifications for the job. Recent nominees for foreign ambassadorships have been downright embarrassing. There is George Tsunis, who seems totally ignorant about Norway, the country in which he will represent the United States. Noah Bryson Mamet and Colleen Bradley Bell are equally befuddled about Argentina and Hungary, where they are tapped to head U.S. embassies. It's as if President Obama nominated a first-year medical student to be surgeon general. However, Tsunis, Mamet, and Bell did bundle huge sums of cash for the Obama campaign, thus "earning" their ambassadorial nominations. Of course, all presidents nominate political cronies, but President Obama has taken it to a new level. According to the Center for Public Integrity, he has named 23 big donors to ambassadorships.<br><br>These missteps come on top of the chaos of ObamaCare, which has already given Republicans plenty to work with in November. Earlier this week, in what might be the first drip in a coming deluge, Republican David Jolly won a special election in Florida. His vanquished opponent is Alex Sink and she is not just any Democrat. Sink is highly-regarded, experienced, and she out-spent Jolly by a vast margin. Nevertheless, she lost in a district that had twice voted for President Obama, largely because Jolly kept hammering away on ObamaCare.<br><br>Much can happen between now and the midterm elections, but things look bleak for Democrats. And President Obama's blunders are making things worse. All this raises a question: If President Obama is so smart, why does he continue to make so many unforced errors?BillOReilly.com Staff2014-03-14T07:00:00ZA Disgraced Giant ReturnsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Disgraced-Giant-Returns/42486.html2014-03-06T08:00:00Z2014-03-06T08:00:00ZBarry Bonds, baseball's all-time home run king (with a few dozen asterisks), wants to return to baseball. And his old team, the San Francisco Giants, is allowing him to take the first step. Bonds will work with the Giants next week in Arizona as a "special hitting instructor."<br><br>Bonds was the main character in a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare. He was without question a fabulous player, gifted with a rare blend of power and speed. He was good for 30 to 40 home runs every season, while stealing about the same number of bases. But apparently great power, adulation, and millions of dollars just wasn't enough. Barry Bonds wanted to be baseball's Superman, the greatest star ever to put on a pair of cleats.<br><br>In 2000, he hit a career-high 49 home runs at the age of 35. And for an encore? The next year he blasted 73 dingers. Meanwhile, his body, once sleek, had been transformed into something out of Hans and Franz. What happened? The juice is what happened. Steroids. It was later revealed that Bonds had tested positive for steroids, although he only admitted to using some mysterious "clear substance" given to him by his trainer. In fact, everyone knows Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs to pump up his body and his statistics. It really doesn't matter what the man took, it only matters that he did not achieve his records naturally, as Hank Aaron did.<br><br>Bonds was a cheater, but every good tragedy has room for more than one villain. The truth is that Major League Baseball enabled Barry Bonds and others to play with chemicals in their systems. The league commissioner, Bud Selig, knew what was going on, but all those home runs were good for business. So Selig, and the union representing the players, did nothing.<br><br>There are apologists for Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and the other chemical wonders of that era, but I don't want to hear it. Cheating is cheating. Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and other baseball greats used their God-given abilities, along with hard work, to achieve incredible success. Their performances did not come out of a laboratory or a syringe.<br><br>In present day America, too many believe the end justifies the means, that success is the object, no matter how you get it. In 2012 the Josephson Institute of Ethics surveyed 23,000 high school students and found that 51% admitted to cheating on a test within the past year. But the study also contained a smidgen of good news - that was down from 59% a few years earlier.<br><br>An optimist might conclude that cheating is on a slight decline partly because of Barry Bonds. He has not been voted into the Hall of Fame, he is despised by many in baseball, and he is a convicted felon. After years of lying to fans and teammates, Bonds made the mistake of lying to a grand jury, and in 2011 he was convicted of obstruction of justice. That conviction, along with a total lack of contrition, separates Bonds from the other cheaters such as Mark McGwire, now a hitting coach for the Los Angeles Dodgers. McGwire admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs and expressed deep regret, saying, "I wish I had never touched steroids."<br><br>I don't want to be cruel to Mr. Bonds, who has been vilified for years. But he does not deserve respect, and he does not deserve applause. He should tell everybody exactly how he pumped himself up, apologize profusely, and tour the nation telling kids not to do what he did.<br><br>He'll be back in a San Francisco Giants uniform (XXXL) next week, but only for a week. Barry Bonds' journey back to respectability will be long and difficult, and he may never reach that destination. Not unless he comes clean, pardon the expression, and admits what everyone else already knows.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-03-06T08:00:00ZFrosh, Jocks, Dopes, and the WebBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Frosh-Jocks-Dopes-and-the-Web/42462.html2014-02-27T08:00:00Z2014-02-27T08:00:00ZIf you're a Factor regular, you know I've had some spirited debates recently with Mary Katharine Ham, John Stossel, and others. They generally view the Internet and social media as wonderful things that make our lives immeasurably better. They say that the machines enable us to look up information in an instant. True, but on the other side there are some cold, hard facts. Very cold and very hard.<br><br>The Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine in Rhode Island just did a study of female college freshmen. The findings are beyond disturbing. These young women spend, on average, 12 hours a day engrossed in some form of media - often texting and perusing Facebook. 12 hours! Half a day! Can anyone tell me that's a good thing?<br><br>The students apparently weren't using the web to read James Joyce or to solve complex chemical equations. The researchers found some simple correlations: The more social networking, the lower the grades. The more social networking, the more classes skipped and the shoddier the homework assignments.<br><br>Why focus on college freshmen? Because today's teens are the first generation to grow up with the ability to be on line all the time, and the lives of younger Americans have changed drastically from back in the day.<br><br>It used to be that you'd see kids playing sports in the streets and on the playgrounds. I don't see too much of that anymore. Instead, many kids are playing sports games on the net, where they can experience the thrill of victory without the agony of getting sweaty. They are playing a game, but not the game.<br><br>This is personal because growing up on Long Island, sports saved me. In my neighborhood, there were the jocks and the hoods. I had friends in both camps. The hoods hung around the shopping center smoking cigarettes and weed. I found that kind of stuff boring and hit the ball fields.<br><br>Many of the hoods bottomed out and some even died, while most of the jocks became prosperous. Competition builds discipline and perseverance. Smoking and getting high builds nothing. I was lucky to have made the right choice.<br><br>Today's fantasy world of the Internet is like a high-tech narcotic, for boys and girls, men and women. Highly motivated people still venture out to conquer the world, but many folks are retreating into an artificial world that is just a click away.<br><br>People often tell me they fear for America, that is has become a place of individual pursuits and selfish short-term desires. They say there is little sense of patriotism or civic responsibility.<br><br>That fear is worth thinking about as machines become more and more vital to our lives. Succeeding in the real world requires a lot more skill and determination than just flipping a switch.<br><br>When Miller and I were in San Diego last weekend for a Bolder & Fresher show, a man in the audience asked what I consider the greatest danger confronting our nation. I didn't hesitate. It's the apathy that is definitely made worse by the Internet and social media. Don't believe me? Take another look at that study of college freshmen. It's sobering. And it's tragic.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-02-27T08:00:00ZA Climate of DistrustBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Climate-of-Distrust/42446.html2014-02-20T08:00:00Z2014-02-20T08:00:00ZWhat's the fastest-moving object in America? Possibly a Democratic Senator who is up for reelection in a red state running away from President Obama. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and many other Democrats want the president to steer clear of their states, although they'll gladly accept some of the cash he raises from those dastardly one-percenters in New York and Hollywood.<br><br>But it's not just President Obama they're running from, it's also his vision of a massive federal government. There has long been a civil war in America that is really an un-civil debate about whether to trust the feds. Right now there's little doubt as to who is winning. According to a recent Pew survey, only 19% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right at least "most of the time." 19%! More Americans are unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but that's a sad story for another time.<br><br>The nation was once solidly in President Obama's corner. His approval rating hovered at around 70% after his initial election. Americans looked forward to better times under a young and dynamic leader. But that was then. The president's approval now sits at around 40%.<br><br>The biggest factor is President Obama's health care reform, which was recently described as a contraption that could have been built by Rube Goldberg. The only thing is, Goldberg himself could not have created such a convoluted mess of subsidies, regulations, and perverse incentives. ObamaCare has actually harmed many of the very people it was intended to help.<br><br>Conservative Americans, almost 40% of the population, have always been outraged at Obama's expansionist policies. The right simply does not trust the president and never will. Liberals, about 20% of the folks, are standing by their man; they want a huge federal presence to dictate who gets what in health care and they love the idea of income redistribution.<br><br>But it is the other 40% of Americans, mainly independents, who have lost faith. Most Americans are not hardcore ideologues and were willing to give the president a chance. But with the economy still causing massive pain, with health care in chaos, many of those independent folks have simply given up on "hope and change."<br><br>Look for President Obama to try and change the subject. He'll soon be flying around the world to Europe, Saudi Arabia, Asia, and back to Europe. Along the way he'll probably warn about "climate change," which is now being blamed for pretty much every drought, flood, typhoon, and blizzard.<br><br>There has indeed been a drastic "climate change," but it has nothing to do with the temperature. There is a climate of distrust in America when it comes to their leaders in Washington. President Obama didn't cause it all by himself, but the failures of his big-government vision have alienated millions.<br><br>You've all heard the adage: Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. It was originally written about individuals, but it is just as applicable to the trust we place in our leaders and our government. For many Americans, that trust is gone ... possibly forever.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-02-20T08:00:00ZPresident Obama and 'His Majesty'BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Obama-and-His-Majesty/42326.html2014-02-13T08:00:00Z2014-02-13T08:00:00ZNancy Pelosi says I showed "disrespect" to President Obama. A weasel at the Washington Post claims I was "nasty." And even my sparring partner Geraldo Rivera accuses me of stripping the president of "his majesty." How did I do that? By accurately reminding Mr. Obama that he was once a community organizer in Chicago.<br><br>Many of the president's supporters apparently believe he is beyond criticism, that he can never be challenged or interrupted. But the "majesty" is inherent in the office, not the man. I wonder what Geraldo would say to Sam Donaldson, who constantly hammered President Reagan? Or Dan Rather, who made his name by confronting President Nixon? Were they stripping those presidents of their "majesty?"<br><br>All presidents get slammed, and pretty much anyone who achieves power in America will be a victim of character assassination. It goes with the territory. The higher you rise in this country, the more darts you'll have to pull out of your skin. Those darts sting a little more if you are thin-skinned as President Obama seems to be.<br><br>It is clear that he is not used to criticism. Unlike President Bush, who didn't really care what was said about him, Mr. Obama does pay attention to the bricks tossed his way. And his distaste for Fox News is obvious. He has brought up FNC numerous times, most recently during our White House interview when he disparaged my "TV station."<br><br>Truthfully, I can feel Barack Obama's pain, because it took me years to develop a psychological mechanism that allowed me to ignore the dishonest personal attacks. I used to react angrily to the character assassins. Now I mostly ignore them, although the clown at the Washington Post did raise my ire a bit. (By the way, "ire" does not derive from "Irish.")<br><br>Americans expect the powerful, the rich, and the famous to take the slings and arrows without whining. When you have millions of dollars and everybody knows your name, you cannot expect an outpouring of sympathy. But I have learned that most Americans are fair-minded and make up their own minds about people. They know the guttersnipes from the people of good will.<br><br>Finally, there are some who do treat the president shabbily. They go beyond criticism of his policies and demean his character. But on balance, he has gotten a much softer ride from the media than any other president in my lifetime, with the possible exception of John Kennedy. Brit Hume, who has covered politics for nearly 50 years, told Factor viewers this week that the traditional "adversarial relationship" between the president and the White House press corps no longer exists. So even though Mr. Obama is having trouble solving vexing problems, even though there are many unanswered questions about Benghazi and the IRS, and even though ObamaCare chaos mounts by the day, much of the media remains firmly in his corner.<br><br>Underneath it all, I believe Barack Obama truly feels that his critics are unfair. He is a man who had rarely experienced the wrath of negative public opinion before becoming president. Now that wrath is a daily occurrence, and the president is having trouble processing it.<br><br>The other day Barack Obama told me that, as president, "you know that you're going to be subject to criticism." That's been true of every president in U.S. history, whatever the "majesty" of the office. Just ask a few guys named Carter, Clinton, and Bush.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-02-13T08:00:00ZJon Stewart and Fox NewsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jon-Stewart-and-Fox-News/42299.html2014-02-06T08:00:00Z2014-02-06T08:00:00ZFor many liberal Americans, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is must-see-TV. Stewart's sarcasm and wit delight self-proclaimed "progressives," largely because his ridicule is overwhelmingly directed at conservatives. According to the conservative Media Research Center, Stewart devoted ten times more coverage last month to mocking Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/liberals. Sure, he'll occasionally take a shot at CNN or MSNBC, but his dietary staple is roasted Fox ... on a skewer.<br><br>This week Mr. Stewart spent much of his time disparaging my interview with President Obama. After I asked the president about Benghazi, the IRS, and ObamaCare, Stewart accused me of "dipping wholesale into the faux Fox scandal grab bag." A funny line, but a farce. Echoing the president, Stewart claimed those issues have been thoroughly investigated, which is simply not true. I'm surprised he didn't declare that there "is not even a smidgen of corruption" in the IRS deal.<br><br>But in spite of all that, I think Stewart has a soft spot for Fox News. I just can't imagine his legion of writers sitting there watching the boring stuff that CNN and MSNBC put out. But I can envision Jon lapping up the vibrant debates on FNC, even on the shows he ridicules with regularity. What kind of material can he get from Wolf Blitzer or Andrea Mitchell? He gets plenty from me and Cavuto and Kelly.<br><br>Jon Stewart seems genuinely upset when ObamaCare is compared to socialism or when "global warming" is challenged. He supports a "nanny state" in which everyone, slackers included, is provided life's basic necessities. As he put it on Larry King's old CNN show, "I do believe there is some value in policies that derive from a more socialist ethos." So his political views, misguided though they may be, seem heartfelt and genuine.<br><br>As I have said before, I like Jon Stewart, a very smart and funny man, and I believe the respect is mutual. He and I raised a bunch of money for charity with our "Rumble," a debate just prior to the 2012 presidential election. USA Today called it the year's "most entertaining" debate and posed this question: "Who needs President Obama and Mitt Romney when you can get your politics with laughs from Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly?"<br><br>Stewart has visited the No Spin Zone numerous times, and I have ventured into his lion's den, where most of the "lions" are actually more like trained seals who clap and cheer after just about everything their hero says. Especially when he's ridiculing me or Fox News.<br><br>Last week President Obama asked me, in effect, what Fox News would do without him. Perhaps a better question is what Jon Stewart and Comedy Central would do without Fox News.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-02-06T08:00:00ZThe President and Me, Together AgainBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-President-and-Me-Together-Again/42268.html2014-01-30T08:00:00Z2014-01-30T08:00:00ZAs you probably know, your humble correspondent (that's me) will conduct a live interview with President Obama before Sunday's Super Bowl. The chat is fraught with danger. Not for the President, but for me. <br><br>That's largely because the rules are different when it comes to interviewing the President of the United States. For example, he is addressed as "Mr. President," and there is a respect for the office that formalizes the conversation. In other words, this back-and-forth will have little in common with Erin Andrews questioning Richard Sherman after the Seahawks won the NFC title.<br><br>Three years ago I also interviewed President Obama prior to the Super Bowl and some critics compared it to an athletic contest, a war of wills. Media analyst Howard Kurtz, then of CNN and now my colleague at Fox News, gave this post-interview analysis: "While the Fox pundit scored a few points, the president emerged the victor." Truth is, I wasn't trying to "score points," I was trying to elicit information that people didn't already know.<br><br>Others took me to task for asking this question: "Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?" It was a legitimate question to ask a president who was, and remains, widely disliked. He handled it well, saying this: "The folks who hate you, they don't know you. What they hate is whatever funhouse mirror image of you that's out there ... you don't take it personally."<br><br>On Sunday, I can ask the president the best questions in the world, but he doesn't have to answer them. He can say what he wants. Barack Obama is a loquacious man and he can easily run out the clock. If I interrupt too much, I look like a Visigoth. If I simply let him pontificate, I look like a sycophant. And because the interview is live, there's no editing, nowhere to hide if things don't go well.<br><br>Experienced journalists know that any interview with a powerful person is more like a chess match than a football game. Your job is to get information and to deliver something that the audience has not heard. The interviewee may not want to answer certain questions and might even refuse to answer by spinning. With anyone else, I can interrupt in mid-spin. But with the President of the United States, you have to be careful.<br><br>So I fully expect to get hammered after the interview is over, maybe even by my pals Howard Kurtz and Bernie Goldberg. Depending on how you feel about the president, the questions will either be too soft or too intrusive. The first time around, the interview benefited both Mr. Obama and me. He looked gracious for coming on a network that he has frequently vilified; I benefitted by reaching viewers who aren't Factor regulars. To borrow a phrase from President Obama, some people got to see something other than the "funhouse mirror" version of O'Reilly they had heard about.<br><br>This is the ultimate challenge for an interviewer, as well as the ultimate opportunity and privilege. I can't wait to see how it goes, can't wait to read about the reaction. We'll have all the highlights and post-interview analysis on The Factor on Monday. Wish me luck.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-01-30T08:00:00ZAtheism's Fateful FlockBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Atheisms-Fateful-Flock/42244.html2014-01-23T08:00:00Z2014-01-23T08:00:00ZSo an atheist walks into a church. If you're waiting for the punch line, it's not a joke. According to a recent AP report, something called "atheist mega-churches" are springing up across the USA. There's music, talks about science, maybe a sermon, but one element is missing: God.<br><br>Atheism is chic. An organization called the Secular Student Alliance has more than 400 affiliates at American colleges and high schools, a 500% increase over the past few years. Another group, American Atheists, will hold its annual convention in April in Salt Lake City, right there amid the Mormon faithful. The group's motto: "Think Again." I would say the same to them.<br><br>Meanwhile, book stores are filled with authors declaring that "God is Not Great," God is a "Delusion," and you are a moron if you believe in the Deity. The secular press, of course, loves these books and the reviews are largely favorable. <br><br>That's not to say there aren't believers in the mainstream media. Soon after swimmer Diana Nyad completed her remarkable swim from Cuba to Florida last year, she described herself as an atheist who is in awe of "the beauty of this universe." Oprah Winfrey got in hot water, pardon the expression, for informing Nyad that she is therefore not really an atheist.<br><br>Polling the folks about faith is tricky, but most surveys show that about 90% of Americans believe in God. Impressive, but that's down from 98% in 1967. And younger people are less considerably likely to believe than their parents.<br><br>Hollywood plays a role in this trend. According to the book Celebrities in Hell, a number of big stars may be aligned with the universe, but not with the force that most of us believe created it.<br><br>The book quotes the following:<br>- George Clooney: "I don't believe in heaven or hell. I don't know if I believe in God."<br>- Angelina Jolie: "There doesn't need to be a God for me."<br>- Carrie Fisher: "I love the idea of God, but it's not stylistically in keeping with the way I function."<br><br>Indeed. Believing in God is not very stylish in mainstream media circles these days. The question then becomes, is there anything wrong with that? After all, we have freedom from religion in America; the Constitution makes it clear that no power in this country has the right to impose religion on anyone.<br><br>So the atheists have clear sailing, and I say: Thank God. People of faith should be challenged and made to think about their beliefs. Critical thinking in all areas makes your mind sharper, your philosophy stronger.<br><br>Back in 2007, I was looking forward to debating the most successful of the atheist proselytizers, Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion. He basically says that science can explain everything and no one has any direct evidence there is a God.<br><br>But I knocked him out in the fourth round with this right hook: "[The earth] had to come from somewhere, and that is the leap of faith you guys make - that it just somehow happened."<br><br>Dawkins replied: "You're the one who needs a leap of faith. The onus is on you to say why you believe in something ... you believe in, presumably, the Christian God Jesus."<br><br>"Jesus is a real guy," I said. "I'm not positive that Jesus is God, but I'm throwing in with him rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here."<br><br>"We're working on it," Dawkins said.<br><br>"When you get it," I shot back, "maybe I'll listen."<br><br>But the atheists will never get it. The universe and the earth are so complex, so incredibly detailed, that to believe an accidental evolutionary occurrence could have led to the nature/mankind situation we have now requires a giant leap of imagination.<br><br>Richard Dawkins and I had a rematch a couple of years ago when he wrote a book aimed specifically at children. "The book is about science," he told me, "and everything about the natural world can be explained by science."<br><br>I chastised Dawkins for promoting atheism to youngsters. "You want children to reject God and religion," I told him, "and you're trying to get to the kids and say you're an idiot if you believe in God."<br><br>Richard Dawkins and all the other non-believers are free to think and say whatever they want. As long as they don't attack people of faith and leave the kids out of it, I have no problem with them. As my eighth grade teacher Sister Martin once said, "Faith is a gift." But not everybody gets to open the box.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-01-23T08:00:00ZHyper-Partisanship at Warp SpeedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hyper-Partisanship-at-Warp-Speed/42148.html2014-01-16T08:00:00Z2014-01-16T08:00:00ZAre you a hyper-partisan? If you are, stop it right now. These rabid ideologues are damaging America and I'm continuing to call them out.<br><br>First, a definition: A hyper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth; rather, he or she tailors information to fit a preconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the world is not important to these ideological zombies; it's all about reinforcing their core beliefs.<br><br>Thus, no matter what President Obama does, he's wrong to the hyper-partisans who oppose him. Even if he had killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands, the President's enemies would have accused him of showing off. Meanwhile, to hyper-partisans on the left, true-believing conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum are evil all day, every day.<br><br>If it were just a few Kool-Aid drinking nuts, no one would care. But we have entire media outlets that have gone hyper-partisan. Newspapers like The New York Times are just about entirely left wing. That paper's circulation has dropped dramatically, but lots of other media outlets still take their cues from the Times, which defends President Obama at every turn.<br><br>Want a recent example of hyper-partisanship in the media? When Pope Francis criticized capitalism and income inequality, the networks and major papers lapped it up, doing numerous stories about the new "liberal" pontiff. But when the Pope condemned abortion as an example of the "throw-away culture," the media came down with a case of mass laryngitis.<br><br>Then there's Chris Christie and the George Washington Bridge affair. According to the conservative Media Research Center, the three major networks covered that story 17 time more than they covered the IRS scandal <em>over the past six months</em>. That's not reporting, it's cheerleading.<br><br>Conservative pundits and talk radio can also fall into hyper-partisanship. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Life simply cannot be that simple, can it? But for the hyper-partisans it is. Nothing stands in the way of their belief system. Not facts, not provable truth.<br><br>I believe there are more hyper-partisans on the left, and they certainly dominate our media and universities. Many conservatives were openly angry with the Bush administration over enormous government spending and the chaos in Iraq. I don't see as much independent thinking on the left, where President Obama is rarely criticized by his acolytes.<br><br>So let's start mocking all these hyper-partisans, and let's begin to encourage critical thinking in America. It's much more interesting and it's far better for the country, because an acceptance of fact-based reality is crucial to solving problems.<br><br>And if you still don't believe me, imagine being stranded on a desert island with Nancy Pelosi or Michael Savage. Or both! I'd hit the ocean in a second. You'd get a fairer shake from the sharks.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-01-16T08:00:00ZHigh (and Getting Higher) on CompassionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/High-and-Getting-Higher-on-Compassion/42128.html2014-01-09T08:00:00Z2014-01-09T08:00:00ZIt seemed like a good idea at the time: The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 allowed Californians to use marijuana with a doctor's permission to alleviate pain. The act was put on the ballot and California voters passed it 56% to 44%, making California the first state to legalize weed for medicinal reasons.<br><br>Almost immediately, thousands of pot "clinics" opened across the Golden State. In San Francisco, things got so out of control that then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, a very liberal guy, had to shutter many of the "clinics" because drug addicts were clustering around them, causing fear among city residents.<br><br>Some California high school kids, with the emphasis on "high," found a huge loophole in the law. Incredibly, there was no age requirement to secure medical marijuana and no physical examination was required. So some teens just told a friendly doctor that they had a headache, paid $150 for a card, then bought all the pot they wanted. Unbelievable, but true.<br><br>A prosecutor in San Diego told me at the time that some "clinics" were even marketing medical marijuana under names like "Reefers Peanut Butter Cup" and "Baby Jane." Cheech and Chong would have been proud. The unintended consequence was that some kids made an industry out of it. Hey, why work at Burger King when you can sell pot cards?<br><br>After years of chaos, in 2013 some California legislators, at least the remaining few with a dollop of sanity, introduced a bill laced with common sense. It would have created new rules for growing and dispensing medical marijuana. But because medical weed has sprouted into a multi-billion dollar industry, complete with the usual "special interests," the bill went up in smoke.<br><br>And by the way, medical marijuana is no longer just for the folks. A Los Angeles veterinarian, aka the "Vet Guru," has led a movement to dispense pot to ailing dogs. That's right, cannabis for canines.<br><br>As is often the case, and for better or worse, much of the nation followed California's lead. 20 states have legalized medical marijuana to some extent, while voters in Washington and Colorado, oblivious to the dangers, approved pot even for recreational use. It's worth noting that a 2-year-old toddler was hospitalized just last week in Colorado after munching on one of her mom's pot-laced cookies.<br><br>And now it's New York's turn at the plate. Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to legalize medical marijuana for chronic pain and other serious conditions, but pledges to keep a tight rein on the weed. Doctors in New York will be required to certify that a patient meets strict qualifications, and review boards will, in theory, confirm that the prescriptions are merited. The Empire State has apparently learned a thing or two from the other coast's unbridled "compassion." Whether or not the kids in New York will really be protected remains to be seen. <br><br>Of course, there is nothing "compassionate" about kids being intoxicated. It changes them forever. Once a child alters himself with chemicals, childhood vanishes. If marijuana can help those suffering with debilitating diseases, doctors should have the power to prescribe it and licensed pharmacies should carry it. But storefront "clinics" run by irresponsible adults aided by compliant doctors are a joke that only a confirmed stoner would find funny.<br><br>Bottom line: Be careful what you vote for. Compassion can easily turn into corruption and chaos.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-01-09T08:00:00ZEyes on the PrizeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Eyes-on-the-Prize/42104.html2014-01-01T08:00:00Z2014-01-01T08:00:00ZA recent report in Variety, based on the latest stats from Nielsen, started with this: "Fox News Channel maintained its grip on the cable-news ratings prize in 2013, drawing more viewers than the combined averages of CNN, MSNBC, and HLN." It's become an annual year-end story, one you might not read about in your local paper.<br><br>The reason that FNC is doing so well, while at the same time some committed left-wing media operations are failing, is a mix of remorse and reality. 63 million Americans voted against Barack Obama last November, many of them convinced that his vision for America was misguided. Also, we now know that many of those who supported the President did so based on false assurances. Did you hear the one about "If you like your plan, you can keep it?"<br><br>Aside from the Obamacare chaos, the president also faced allegations involving Benghazi, NSA spying, and the IRS's jihad against conservative groups. So, with a scandal du jour on the menu in 2013, news consumers flocked to agencies that have been a bit skeptical of the president. Obviously, organizations considered to be deep in the tank for Obama are of little use to people worried about their country and their future.<br><br>In politics, there is always an element of hatred, even in a noble country like the United States. If you are an Obama-hater, you are likely to go where your opinion is reinforced. And if you are neutral on the president but worried that he may be in over his head, you might seek a more skeptical view of the man and his policies. Thus, the rough bumps for president have been deadly for the liberal media that cheer-leaded Mr. Obama to re-election while portraying Mitt Romney as a hybrid of the Grinch and Mr. Potter.<br><br>I have been a beneficiary of the president's troubles, as my ratings are through the roof. Folks know that while I respect Barack Obama and do not cheap-shot the president, I am very skeptical of his big government, nanny-state philosophy. Also, my guests represent many points of view, unlike my cable news competition that spins nearly everything as positive in Obama-land. That's when they are not denigrating their political opponents in the most vile ways.<br><br>But despite my ratings bonanza, I do not want Barack Obama to fail. I want him to see the light, however unlikely that may be five years into his presidency. This is a great country because most of its citizens are responsible, hard-working people who realize that cradle-to-grave entitlements will ultimately bankrupt the nation. Call me crazy, but I want to persuade the President that his entitlements vision for 300 million Americans is an opium-fueled pipe dream. Self-reliance has made this country great, not food stamps and federal foot massages.<br><br>So, I will consistently deliver that message to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the gang who can't spend straight. I'll do it in hopes that the profligate progressives will wise up and impose some discipline in the fiscal area. If they do not control federal spending, and if Obamacare continues to careen out of control, they will suffer huge losses in the midterm races that are less than a year away.<br><br>Until then, here's looking at you, Mr. Nielsen.BillOReilly.com Staff2014-01-01T08:00:00ZDon't Let the Door Hit You, 2013BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Let-the-Door-Hit-You-2013/42100.html2013-12-25T08:00:00Z2013-12-25T08:00:00ZAs always, some bad guys got a real blast of karma in 2013. The monster Ariel Castro, who imprisoned and tortured three girls for a decade in Cleveland, was sentenced to life in prison. It turned out to be a very short sentence, as Castro hanged himself after just one month.<br><br>Another villain who got his due was abortionist Kermit Gosnell, whose Philadelphia clinic was described as a "house of horrors." An understatement. Some babies who had the misfortune of being born alive were brutally murdered by the butcher and his assistants. This evil Gosnell is serving life, but claims he is "spiritually innocent." Tell it to those babies, "doctor."<br><br>One Boston Marathon bomber got justice within days of that despicable act; his little brother, who sits in a tiny cell, may wish the same had happened to him. And in a case of a Patriot being a pinhead, the inked-up Boston Patriots' tight end Aaron Hernandez, a wannabe gang-banger, was cuffed and charged with murder. Jodi Arias was convicted of killing her boyfriend, while George Zimmerman walked in Florida.<br><br>Anthony Weiner, Miley Cyrus, Lance Armstrong, and others were deservedly hammered in the court of public opinion. Far more distressing, hundreds of innocent Americans were killed or injured when a vicious tornado wiped out their Oklahoma town in May.<br><br>But disasters, natural and self-induced, happen every year. The primary reason that 2013 is not a year to celebrate is because of one thing: the folks continue to get a bad deal.<br><br>Most Americans work hard, are honest people, and look out for their neighbors. They deserve prosperity, and capitalism has been the best system ever devised for providing it. But as technology changes, so do the rules, and the U.S. government has not acknowledged that. The official unemployment rate is around 7 percent, which doesn't even include the millions who have given up looking for work. But if you have a college degree, you're far less likely to be jobless. And if you have a valued skill like plumbing or auto repair, you'll work as much as you want. However, if you can't write a sentence, if you speak like the Jersey Shore crew, and/or you have a bad attitude in the workplace, the odds are against you.<br><br>In most situations, the employer is holding all the cards. Competition for jobs is intense, both here and abroad, which drives wages down. President Obama wants you to believe that the feds can change all that and can right those private marketplace wrongs. That is, to be pithy, total bull! They can't, and they are bankrupting the country with false hopes. Only individuals can improve their own circumstances. Pinheads in Washington cannot help us.<br><br>The most important thing for workers to understand is that you have to make yourself indispensable. You must make money for your employer or make his life easier, preferably both. Also, you have to learn as much as you can about your chosen endeavor. Again, if you can fix things, you will earn good money. If you can sell things, you will prosper. If you're primarily interested in tattoos and social media, you will suffer economically - unless you're touring in 2014 with Garth Brooks or Lady Gaga.<br><br>In prosperous times, the marginal workers get by. But in tough times, they get the shaft. Let's hope that 2014 finally brings relief on the economic front. But don't count on that happening. If you make your own way, a happy new year - and a prosperous one - will be far more likely.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-12-25T08:00:00ZWhy Christmas MattersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Christmas-Matters/42092.html2013-12-19T08:00:00Z2013-12-19T08:00:00ZIn 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.<br><br>Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that they believe have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change. Deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.<br><br>Nearly a decade ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.<br><br>After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of "Merry Christmas" quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long.<br><br>This year there were a few more Christmas controversies that we confronted immediately. The sports network ESPN refused to air an ad for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis. Why? Because the spot mentioned "the birth of Jesus" and referred to "God's healing presence?" Are you kidding? Do the good folks at ESPN think Christmas got its name from basketball player Christian Laettner? Or maybe soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo? When we reported ESPN's snub, the network quickly issued a statement saying it would run the ad after all. Good for them.<br><br>But some other assaults on Christmas aren't so easily beaten back. In a remarkable display of meanness that is the antithesis of the Christmas spirit, a group called American Atheists paid big bucks to put up a billboard in New York City. "Who Needs Christ During Christmas?" the sign asks. And the answer: "Nobody!" Why go out of your way to insult the 75% of Americans who identify themselves as Christians? During an appearance on The Factor, the group's public relations director, Dave Muscato, explained it this way: "Jesus has been dead for a really long time, you don't need him." Thanks, Dave, but I'll decide for myself whether or not I need Jesus in my life. And by the way, you might benefit from reading a few of Jesus' teachings about kindness toward your fellow man.<br><br>Then there's the city of Tallahassee Florida, which put up a Nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus. That greatly offended a guy named Chaz Stevens, who insisted that he be allowed to erect a "Festivus" pole alongside the manger. As "Seinfeld" aficionados know, Festivus is a fictitious "holiday" invented by a particularly dysfunctional character. So the birth of a man many consider the Son of God is now juxtaposed with a pole celebrating a phony "holiday!" Insulted yet? Well, just wait until next year when the atheists figure out some new ways to demean and insult millions of believers.<br><br>According to Jon Stewart, the "war on Christmas" is a figment of my imagination. And even my pal Bernie Goldberg chastised me on the air, wondering why I "get so worked up over this." If the examples cited above aren't enough to convince Stewart and Goldberg, there are plenty more outrages across America every December.<br><br>The atheists and secularists feel some bizarre compulsion to attack the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men and whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace.<br><br>Atheists well understand that Christmas is the most visible display of religion in the world, and that any diminishment of it is a good thing to militant secularists. But it is inconceivable that Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a perfect issue with which to unite a fractured country, could have foreseen the social civil war we have today.<br><br>Sadly, we are no longer one nation under God. But those of us who truly understand the spirit of Christmas - the simple message of good will toward all men - understand that Ulysses S. Grant was on to something. Christmas should be a time of peace and understanding. It's sad that we now have to defend that.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-12-19T08:00:00ZMerry Christmas, 1913BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Merry-Christmas-1913/42044.html2013-12-12T08:00:00Z2013-12-12T08:00:00ZOne hundred years ago in America, Christmas was a mighty different situation. Based on newspaper reports, a website called MyHeritage recently put together a list of most asked for gifts by children who lived back then. Here are the top five requests:<br><br>- Candy<br>- Nuts<br>- Rocking Horse<br>- Doll<br>- Mittens<br><br>Modest, to say the least, but reflective of a time that was far less complicated than society is today. Now, kids rule in many homes. And Santa is under siege. <br><br>This year, the top five kid wants according to retailers are:<br><br>- Furby Boom<br>- Teksta Robotic Puppy<br>- LeapPad Ultra<br>- Flying Fairy<br>- Bug Hugs Elmo <br><br>Let's begin with Furby. This is a robot toy that resembles an owl. The "all new" Furby has a mind of its own and can interact with the tykes. Let's hope Furby isn't a member of the Hell's Angels.<br><br>The Teksta puppy is allegedly just like a real dog except there is no bathroom component. Teksta will dance and respond to your hand gestures. Not including the middle finger. The puppy can even perform back flips, which will amuse and amaze. I guess.<br><br>The LeapPad Ultra is yet another high-tech gizmo that will hypnotize your child. It's a tablet that kids can write on as well as summon up apps, videos and games. If your child isn't a net-zombie by now, he or she will be once the LeapPad gets in the house.<br><br>Flying Fairy is marketed toward little girls and, according to the manufacturer, puts "enchanting" fairy flights directly in the hands of the child. There's never been a more magical experience, says the toy maker. Obviously, they've never been to a Metallica concert.<br><br>And finally the Big Hugs Elmo toy moves his arms to return hugs, plays songs, dances with your children, and might even kick in towards their college educations. Elmo is for both girls and boys and is capable of making more than 50 animated sounds. If that sounds like your Uncle Vinnie, it's a coincidence.<br><br>All of these toys cost substantial money and you'd better have an engineering degree if something goes wrong. The high tech dog is especially interesting conjuring up all kinds of horror movie possibilities. Don't tell me the toys don't have chips in them that can be activated by some crazy scientist in Bavaria. No way this thing is getting in my house. I already have a dog named Fiona who would attack the bogus dog on sight.<br><br>For my money, I think toys are too complicated these days. I like the rocking horse and toy train scenario. But if I gave those things to my kids, their response would be somewhere between the Bay of Pigs and Woodstock. Much angst and chaos.<br><br>Luckily, Santa Claus has adapted and his new high-tech sleigh and reindeer have him finished his rounds in Guam long before dawn. But don't mention the Flying Fairy to old St. Nick. He's not into competition.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-12-12T08:00:00ZFleeing TVBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fleeing-TV/42012.html2013-12-05T08:00:00Z2013-12-05T08:00:00ZMarketing surveys now show that when Americans come home from work, more folks turn on their computers than their television sets. That is a first.<br><br>The reason is twofold: first you can create your own world on your PC, and secondly TV is awful. Flat out awful. For years, television has been losing viewers because the product, generally speaking, has collapsed.<br><br>Reality TV has destroyed the tube. Cheap, mindless shows featuring people who should be deported rule the airwaves. Don't believe me? Well, TV Guide recently listed "Reality TV's most startling moments." The choices were, indeed, startling.<br><br>Among them, Marie Osmond fainting on Dancing With the Stars. That was unforgettable, was it not? All ten of her siblings attempted to resuscitate her.<br><br>Laurie has a breast-baring meltdown on a program called "She's Got the Look." I don't know who Laurie is but believe she may be overexposed. Or something.<br><br>Rebecca gets dentures on Breaking Amish. I am not fabricating this. I didn't even know the Amish broke anything. Hopefully, Rebecca can clean the dentures without electricity. At least she's in better shape than Laurie.<br><br>An Elvis impersonator is overwhelmed by memorabilia on the show Hoarders. I missed that. I'm sorry.<br><br>Tom Delay dances to "Wild Thing" on Dancing with the Stars. That was why Marie Osmond fainted.<br><br>The Osbourne's examining the aftermath of Ozzy's ATV accident. Does it get any better than that? Does it?<br><br>Kim Kardashian weds Chris Humphries on Kim's Fairytale Wedding. This was the nadir. An untalented but ambitious woman marrying a young basketball player then divorcing him about twenty minutes later. And the guy got hurt. So why are people watching that? Disturbing question.<br><br>Monica Lewinsky hosts Mr. Personality. This was an actual TV show - insert your joke here.<br><br>On a show called "The Surreal Life," the guy who played Mini-Me in an Austin Powers movie rides a scooter naked. Why didn't Kim Kardashian think of that?<br><br>The Queer Eye guys go nude. Did they have scooters as well? I honestly don't know.<br><br>Michelle Obama appears on The Biggest Loser. This is a weight loss program not the Republican Convention.<br><br>And finally, chef Gordon Ramsey "fat-shames" a Hell's Kitchen contestant. All I can say is that Jackie Gleason would have taken Gordon out.<br><br>So it is beyond dispute that television is in deep trouble. These reality shows make Gilligan's Island look like MacBeth. They are like unspeakable zombies destroying the entire structure of the TV industry.<br><br>Thank God PBS is still on the air. But even here there is some worry. Elmo has been seen hanging with the Kardashians. It's just a matter of time until someone gets engaged.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-12-05T08:00:00ZThe Technology of NatureBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Technology-of-Nature/41996.html2013-11-28T08:00:00Z2013-11-28T08:00:00Z(Anguilla, the British West Indies) So here's the setting: the warm azure-colored water of Maundy's Bay sliding up and down bright soft sand. In the distance, the islands of St. Maarten and Saba can be seen. The blue sky overhead is dotted with huge white clouds that bob along propelled by a warm breeze. IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS!<br><br>Yet on the beach, some human beings barely look up at the incredible vista. Their machines are enveloping them like a Venus flytrap. They are texting, emailing, chatting with folks somewhere else on earth.<br><br>Welcome to our brave new world.<br><br>H. G. Wells wrote a book called The Time Machine where most humans were reduced to a trance-like existence, ruled by bad guys called Morlocks. You should read this book because we are rapidly heading in that direction. By the way, the Morlocks were cannibals.<br><br>Texting is addicting. Once you get emotionally involved with constant outside stimulation assaulting your brain, it is hard to stop looking at your machine every two minutes. Without rapid fire words appearing on a screen, you feel bored, not part of the action. It really doesn't matter what is being sent to you - the fact that words are flashing in front of your eyes is hypnotizing.<br><br>Kids are most vulnerable to the embrace of the machines. Children today don't really watch TV anymore. I mean they still sit in front of the set, but they are texting along with watching. They are multi-tasking. Thus, their concentration is diverted and much is missed, not only on the tube but in life. <br><br>Nature is a brilliant teacher. But how can you learn if you can't even sit on a beautiful beach without playing with a machine. Forget about thinking. No time for introspection. Nope. There are messages that have to be answered. Stuff is happening and has to be acknowledged.<br><br>There is no question that communications and information flow are enhanced by the high tech gizmos. Instantly, we can engage anyone in the world if we have their cyberspace information. But, again, if we allow the machines to dominate us, we will miss out on real life which, to be fully absorbed, needs to be seen and heard. Machine distractions prevent that. <br><br>When I tell children that they are far too dependent on their gizmos, they do not deny it. But they really don't care. This is their real life - texting about trivial things; listening to numbing music on their private headphones. The machines block everything out - you create your own little trivial world.<br><br>Socrates once said: "the unexamined life is not worth living." I concur. The world is a fascinating, difficult place and in order to take full advantage of what the planet has to offer, we need to see and hear natural things.<br><br>That is, if you don't want the Morlocks to get you.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-11-28T08:00:00ZThe French WayBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-French-Way/41962.html2013-11-14T08:00:00Z2013-11-14T08:00:00ZReaders of The New York Times must have been confused the other day when the paper ran an article entitled: "Under Strain, France Examines Its Safety Net."<br><br>Because The Times is ultra-liberal on its editorial page, pretty much advocating for every entitlement possible, the hard news story seemed somewhat out-of-place. It chronicled the enormous benefits that French citizens receive: paid child care, free higher education, free health care, a mandatory five paid weeks vacation, monthly government payments for each child, two years of government-paid unemployment insurance, generous pensions, the list is endless.<br><br>But there is huge trouble in the socialist paradise. Times reporter Alissa Rubin wrote this: "The spiraling costs of cradle-to-grave social welfare programs have all but exhausted the French government's ability to raise the taxes necessary to pay for all of it, creating growing political problems for President Francois Hollande, a Socialist ...<br><br>"Investors are shying away from the layers of government regulation and high taxes."<br><br>The French economy is stalled because employers must pay 48% of every workers salary to the government. That means for every $1,000 a hotel clerk receives in gross pay, another $480 bucks goes from the hotel to Paris. So fewer jobs are created and more French people are unemployed because employers get hammered when they hire anyone. <br><br>But that's okay for many over there. Ms. Rubin's article quotes an unemployed guy named Louis Paris: "You cannot take away guns from Americans, and in the same way you cannot take away social benefits from the French people. They won't stand for it."<br><br>There are 66 million people living in France, more than 320 million reside in the USA. Yet the Democratic Party and President Obama want to create a French-style nanny state here despite the evidence that France is falling apart economically. Does that make any sense?<br><br>And how can an ultra-liberal newspaper like the New York Times continue to advocate for a nanny state when it's hard news pages are full of stories about Greece, Italy, France and other countries in dire economic trouble because of entitlement debt?<br><br>The answer lies in crazy ideology. Some liberals (and conservatives on other matters) are so committed to their philosophy that they don't care about reality. As long as the program fits into their utopian vision they'll support it no matter what the consequences.<br><br>Here's backup for that statement. I submit that President Obama and all the democrat politicians that voted for Obamacare never even read the proposed law. Nancy Pelosi admitted it. So, now, when chaos reigns, they act surprised that things aren't working.<br><br>There comes a point when ideology has to be put aside and what's good for the country must be embraced. France is a selfish nation, that is going down the drain economically because the folks there want stuff and economics be damned.<br><br>The United States is not far behind.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-11-14T08:00:00ZThe Kids are AmazingBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Kids-are-Amazing/41918.html2013-11-07T08:00:00Z2013-11-07T08:00:00ZFor many American children, the floor has become their closet. This drives me crazy. I walk into a room where an urchin resides and there are clothes scattered everywhere. Believe me, I know the passive-aggressive tactics that kids use to torture their parents, but something else is going on here.<br><br>More than a few times, I've heard parents describe their offspring as "amazing." If you look that word up you will see this meaning: "To cause great wonder or astonishment." That's what amazing means. So occasionally, I will ask the parent of an "amazing" child to tell me exactly why that word applies to the tyke. I mean what is the "great wonder" associated with him or her?<br><br>"He just is," comes the usual reply, along with a look that could kill a cactus.<br><br>Many children fully realize their parents see them as astonishing creatures and incorporate that into their daily presentations. That is, they throw their stuff on the floor because if you are truly amazing you can pretty much do what you want. Right?<br><br>When I confront the urchins about strewn clothing, I sometimes get a blank look. So I read their minds. And the brain wave comes back this way: "why are you bothering me? This is interfering with my texting. Someone will pick up my clothes, and if they don't, so what?"<br><br>American children are being done a great disservice by adult society. For reasons only Dr. Phil understands, many parents have decided to attach their own self-images to their children. So if the kid is "amazing," that means the father and mother are amazing as well. That's what's going on.<br><br>The huge downside is that it takes a lot of work and perseverance to become amazing, and most human beings never reach that status. But children are generally not told that. They are rarely confronted with the fact that life is tough and to succeed you have be honest, industrious and disciplined. The discipline part kicks in when you hang up your clothing.<br><br>The disturbing thing about childhood these days is that some parents and grandparents excuse a lot of questionable behavior because they want their kids to approve of them. It all goes back to amazing again. If your extra-special kid doesn't like you at the moment, maybe you aren't top notch.<br><br>Americans who have parents raised during the Great Depression or World War II understand how drastically things have changed on the home front. My father did not care a whit whether I liked him and it would have been unthinkable for him to pick up my stuff. There were rules in the house and they were enforced.<br><br>So today as an adult, I still pick up my stuff and recycle and keep a neat house. That is routine and not at all amazing.<br><br>But I'm not sure that tradition will survive the next generation.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-11-07T08:00:00ZWelfare NationBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Welfare-Nation/41754.html2013-10-31T07:00:00Z2013-10-31T07:00:00ZMy parents were children during the Great Depression of the 1930's and it scarred them. Especially my father, who saw destitution in his Brooklyn, New York neighborhood; adults standing on so called "bread lines," children begging in the streets. My grandfather was a New York City cop, so my dad did not suffer as some others did. But he never forgot the brutal scenes and worked hard his whole life to build some financial independence.<br><br>Fast forward to the severe recession of 2008, when millions of Americans lost jobs and equity in their homes. No bread lines but much pain. The Obama administration responded by pouring trillions of dollars into stimulus and rescue programs - some of which succeeded in stabilizing tottering banks and auto companies. But along with that, the President and his acolytes openly encouraged Americans to use the welfare system. And now the entitlement culture has exploded.<br><br>According to the Census Bureau, more people in America today are on welfare than have full time jobs. There is a culture of dependency being created that is truly shocking. A recent study by the Cato Institute says that welfare now pays more than minimum wage work in 35 states. So why enter the work force at the bottom, if the government will give you the same compensation for sitting on your butt?<br><br>Some believe that the Democratic Party, which champions the entitlement culture, is doing so to assure future votes from those receiving benefits. And right now, about half of all American households are getting some kind of compensation from the feds. Some of that like social security and Medicare has been earned, but nearly 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps and 83 million are on Medicaid.<br><br>The United States became the world's strongest economy by folks working hard. Layabouts and people who game the system actually harm our country. Safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged are a must for any compassionate nation but encouraging folks to go on the dole when not absolutely necessary is disgraceful.<br><br>And that's what the Obama administration is doing. How else can you explain a 40% rise in food stamp recipients in just three years (2009 to 2011, the last statistics available) and a rise of 15% in federal disability payments over the same period to time? Is the workplace that dangerous? Really?<br><br>As a person who has worked extremely hard for more than 40 years, I don't want my tax dollars going to drunkards and drug addicts. And in America, there is no substance testing for welfare recipients. Every time that comes up, the civil liberties lobby screams. <br><br>America has become a much weaker nation since 2001. The wars we have fought to protect ourselves against terrorism have drained our treasury and created a deep distrust of authority. The hope and change espoused by President Obama has led to chaos in the health care arena and a massive entitlement industry that is growing larger every day.<br><br>Unless the voters wise up and get back to self-reliance and responsible government, this nation will continue down the nanny state road. It is unsustainable but even worse - it is un-American.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-10-31T07:00:00ZIs the Party Over?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-the-Party-Over/41708.html2013-10-24T07:00:00Z2013-10-24T07:00:00ZThe Tea Party is on the run. New polls say less than 25% of Americans now view the movement favorably. That is a stunning turnaround because in the fall of 2010, the Tea Party achieved huge victories in Congressional races all across the country.<br><br>So what happened?<br><br>Unlike the far left Occupy Wall Street movement, the Tea Party does not embrace violent tactics or infringe on the rights of the folks. Also, it is not a central force - its leadership goes state-by-state. There is no national spokesperson or party headquarters. The Tea Party is simply a loose description of local activism driven by Americans who want smaller government and more self-reliance.<br><br>That sounds like what the Founding Fathers had in mind, does it not?<br><br>But now the Tea Party finds itself with an image problem and there are two primary reasons why. First, the media. Generally, the national press embraces a progressive vision that is at odds with Tea Party beliefs. In addition, many journalists and celebrities don't know any Tea Party members who tend to be regular folks that don't hang out in swell places. I think it's fair to say that the media looks down on Americans who embrace religion, gun rights and conservative values. So the media demonizes the Tea Party all day long calling it racist, stupid and even worse - unsophisticated!<br><br>The second reason for the decline of the Tea folks is the right wing media, which generally loves the party. Many in this crew are rhetorical bomb throwers - using personal attacks to slander and libel those with whom they disagree. Calling President Obama a communist, a Muslim and a fraud (birth certificate) is cheap. And independent-minded Americans know it.<br><br>While the majority of Tea Party citizens do not use defamation - some of those who claim to represent them do. It's the same thing on the left. Some progressive commentators are so hateful that they damage their own cause. Hate is hate no matter what ideology you embrace.<br><br>The fascinating thing here is that I believe most Americans support the Tea Party philosophy of freedom and local control. But that message has been lost in the heat of the political battle.<br><br>The only way the Tea Party can resurrect itself is for it to coalesce around a strong leader. There has to be a central message delivered by someone with charisma, a person who is reasonable and persuasive. The movement has been damaged both inside and out. Only a very intense public relations campaign will turn the tide.<br><br>I don't think that will happen. It would take millions of dollars in TV ads and organizational infrastructure for the Tea Party to negate the national media's contempt. And that kind of big money operation goes directly against what the Tea Party people want to be - a citizen movement that operates independent of party structure.<br><br>Americans do like to party. And someday we the people will wise up and regain power over our lives. And, hopefully, at least some of us will remember who started that movement.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-10-24T07:00:00ZZombie NationBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Zombie-Nation/41516.html2013-10-17T07:00:00Z2013-10-17T07:00:00ZWhen I first heard folks discussing "The Walking Dead," I thought they were talking about Congress. But, no, it was zombies. The undead. Flesh-eating creatures. Bodies that do harm.<br><br>The nation of Haiti embraced the zombie legend a long time ago. In fact, there's an old Bela Lugosi movie about that. Apparently, in the voodoo culture, you can get a curse put on you and rise from the dead. Or something. This voodoo stuff is not easy to assess.<br><br>Way back in the early 1970's, a movie director named George Romero put out a film called "Night of the Living Dead." I remember seeing it and thinking, "what the heck was that?"<br><br>Romero put his zombie hordes in Pittsburgh and they ran around cannibalizing Pirate fans. Nobody was quite sure how these zombies came to be, something about a comet, but they were nasty. They were also slow. If you were in shape, you could taunt the zombies and run away. Of course, there's always the "I tripped over something" factor, and so many zombie-taunters got their just desserts, so to speak.<br><br>Anyway, now we have a cable TV series that attracted more than 16 million viewers last Sunday. Most of the viewers were ages 18 to 49. Apparently, younger Americans love this zombie stuff. Earlier this year, they flocked to see Brad Pitt fight the undead in movie theatres. I missed the Pitt film but heard it was so intense that Brad's hair got mussed up on at least three occasions. Zombies generally have bad hair. In fact, their entire grooming resume is sorely lacking because they have no interest in anything over than eating the flesh of human beings. No, you don't have to be a lawyer to be a zombie.<br><br>Over the years, horror movies have become increasingly graphic and the zombie surge exploits that. Vampires only bite you on the neck. Zombies are buffet people. No limits on the intake. Also, various monsters, like the Wolfman and Frankenstein's creature, often had a soft side. Before Lon Chaney, Jr. became a hungry wolf, he confessed to a nice gypsy woman that the whole thing was not his fault and he regretted ever having to see a full moon. You almost felt sorry for Lon. Until, of course, he disassembled some guy walking through a mist-shrouded forest in the middle of nowhere.<br><br>Zombies could never show a soft side to a gypsy woman. That's because they would eat her before any conversation would start. There is no reasoning with zombies. As our cliché-ridden society says: They are what they are!<br><br>But we Americans apparently like the zombie culture very much. Somehow, we identify with humans like Brad Pitt slaying as many zombies as possible. By the way, that's legal. Zombies have no protections under the law. And liberal Americans are not objecting to using heavy weapons to kill the undead. Assault weapons are fine as long as you undergo a background check. But that policy can be waived if the zombies are actually rampaging through your house.<br><br>As a positive person, I am not on the zombie bandwagon. Too much angst. I believe when you die, you go either to heaven or hell. Not to cable TV. But that's just me. Millions of my fellow citizens obviously see it differently. To them I say: Boo!BillOReilly.com Staff2013-10-17T07:00:00ZAmerican Graffiti 40 Years LaterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/American-Graffiti-40-Years-Later/41488.html2013-10-10T07:00:00Z2013-10-10T07:00:00ZSaturday night at my house I often trot out classic movies and force the urchins to watch them. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I think it's important to teach kids about American culture, and films are certainly a big part of it. Actors like John Wayne, Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn are worth seeing and remembering.<br><br>So the other night I trotted out American Graffiti, a film released 40 years ago. The movie was directed by Star Wars guy George Lucas and chronicles one night in the lives of some California teenagers in the year 1962.<br><br>The first thing the kids noticed was Harrison Ford, playing a young hood driving a hot rod. That got their attention. The movie featured other great actors like Richard Dreyfuss and Charles Martin Smith along with Ron Howard and Cindy Williams. Those two later turned the Graffiti success into the TV shows Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley.<br><br>About twenty minutes into the movie, which is heavy on dialogue, light on explosions, the urchins pulled out their iPads and began typing away. Dismay enveloped me.<br><br>"So you don't like this?" I asked the 14 year old. <br><br>"It's okay, I'm listening."<br><br>"But you're playing with that machine!"<br><br>"I can multi-task!"<br><br>A few minutes later the ten year old demanded popcorn. I told him we'd get it halfway through the flick.<br><br>"Do they get out of the cars ever?" The urchin wailed.<br><br>"That's the culture in California. They cruise around in cars listening to the radio."<br><br>"But there's so many cars!"<br><br>I was losing them.<br><br>So I paused the movie and brought in snacks. I demanded they shut off the machines while eating.<br><br>"Why?" The 14 year old asked.<br><br>"Because you can't text, eat, and watch a movie at the same time."<br><br>"Yes I can. I always do that."<br><br>"They're still in cars," the eight year old said.<br><br>We got through the movie but just barely. Interest peaked when the Pharaohs, a gang of juvenile delinquents, forced Dreyfuss to vandalize a police car. Finally some destruction!<br><br>After American Graffiti concluded I asked for their reviews. I got them while their heads were down looking at their iPads.<br><br>The consensus: It was okay. Too many cars.<br><br>These days the machines and awful films that blow things up every ten seconds are delivering heavy blows to American culture. The graffiti is on the wall. Attention spans for young people average about 30 seconds. Baseball? Forget it. Chess? Are you kidding me?<br><br>We live in a time where machines that deliver instant gratification rule. But I will continue to fight the cyberspace power. Coming attraction: Hitchcock's The Birds.<br><br>Let the texting begin.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-10-10T07:00:00ZTrusting the FolksBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trusting-the-Folks/41452.html2013-10-03T07:00:00Z2013-10-03T07:00:00ZAmidst all the madness over Obamacare and the government shutdown comes a fascinating poll about "we the people." Beginning in 2005, the Gallup organization has asked the following question: Do you trust the American people to make good judgments about political issues?<br><br>Eight years ago, 63% of those polled said they had trust in the folks. This year that number had plummeted to just 46%.<br><br>The reason is President Obama. There is now much buyer's remorse about his reelection. All the polls show his job approval rating is below 50% and falling fast, the Syrian debacle and the Obamacare chaos adding to the general dismay about the soft economy.<br><br>The key disenchantment with the economy is that the median salary for American workers has dropped on Mr. Obama's watch. After five years, paychecks continue to be stagnant. Also, tax revenue is at an historic high. Doing the math, workers are paying more to the government and taking home less from their check.<br><br>Not good.<br><br>And it is the fault of the American people that our politicians continue to let us down. Let's be honest, many of us simply don't pay attention to our country. We are too caught up in our own situations to be bothered with public policy. And it has never been easier to escape reality. High tech gizmos give individuals the power to create their own isolated worlds. Millions of Americans now spend the majority of their leisure time texting, tweeting, gaming, porning, emailing, and surfing the net.<br><br>We are facebooking, googling, blogging, flaming, spamming and downloading. We are becoming a nation of cyberspace zombies; addicted to machines that shut out real life. H.G. Wells said it would happen and it has.<br><br>Talk radio hosts call them "low information voters." Americans who don't know much about history, current events or anything else and who often vote on pure emotion. If they like somebody, he or she gets the chad. And Barack Obama is a very likeable guy.<br><br>We live in a complicated, dangerous age. Democrats have seized on the economic collapse and a bad war (Iraq) that happened on President George W. Bush's watch. They have convinced the majority of voters to embrace a new America - one that gives the federal government extraordinary power. One that runs up a record amount of debt in pursuit of social justice and "income equality."<br><br>Well, it is simply not working out. The gap between rich and poor under President Obama is getting bigger because fewer well-paying jobs are available. Corporations are being taxed to the hilt and are loathe to add more workers. Thus, salaries fall because there are more than enough applicants to fill any job vacancy.<br><br>As the Gallup Poll suggests, we are beginning to blame each other for the confusing state of this country. And, indeed, it is collectively our fault. We should be electing problem solvers - not charismatic ideologues who can whip people up into a frenzy.<br><br>But in order to make the internet cut, you have to make a flamboyant play to a specific crowd.<br><br>Not a smart crowd, a specific crowd.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-10-03T07:00:00ZGoing to Hell (without a hand basket)BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Going-to-Hell-without-a-hand-basket/41346.html2013-09-26T07:00:00Z2013-09-26T07:00:00ZWhile writing my latest book, Killing Jesus, I knew I would catch hell once it hit the marketplace. Your mom was right when she told you never to discuss politics and religion because emotions run so high in those arenas. Especially religion.<br><br>Even before Killing Jesus was released, the mail began pouring in. And some of it was very nasty. <br><br>Brent in Texas opined: "O'Reilly, you are not someone who has the right to write a book about Jesus."<br><br>Eric in South Carolina: "You are helping to deceive people with your ignorance about Jesus."<br><br>Al in Louisiana: "Bill, what do you know about Jesus? You are Catholic and they don't know anything about the Bible."<br><br>And Raleigh in California really let loose with some disturbing stuff: "Bill, please repent before it is too late. You seem to be angry at God because he put a black man in the White House."<br><br>Again, none of those folks had actually read Killing Jesus because it had not been released. The book is pure history; there is no religion in it. The people lashing out at me for daring to address their savior in any capacity are so intense in their beliefs that they have lost all sight of reality. <br><br>Now, a sad fact of life in America is that there are some very unstable folks running around and they have always been with us. But from my perch as a national TV commentator, I can tell you with certainty that the level of fanaticism is rising not only here, but all over the world.<br><br>The reason is the Internet. In the past, kooks were kind of isolated. But now, they can find other loons in cyberspace with whom to commiserate. That encourages bizarre behavior because disturbed people think their outlook is acceptable as others are saying the same thing on their machines.<br><br>The chief al Qaeda recruiting tool is the net. Neo-Nazis campaign heavily in cyberspace. NAMBLA, the child rape club, is a worldwide presence on the net.<br><br>There is little anyone can do with fanatics. Reasoning with them is a fool's errand. Avoiding them is mandatory. These people are dangerous; they spread poison and could not care less who they hurt. Thus, the Internet has become a hate-filled town square with no limits put on destructive verbal behavior.<br><br>And millions of children have access to all the vitriol.<br><br>Freedom has always had a downside. With technology allowing for instant communication, hate groups, perverts, and killers now have many more opportunities to cause harm than ever before. Again, there's little anyone can do about it.<br><br>But everyone should be aware of it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-09-26T07:00:00ZNo RestraintsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Restraints/41320.html2013-09-19T07:00:00Z2013-09-19T07:00:00ZWe live in a vicious world. It took about one hour before the Russians started gloating about the Navy Ship Yard massacre. Alexei Pushkov, chairman of a foreign affairs committee in the Russian Parliament tweeted: "A new shootout at Navy headquarters in Washington - a lone gunman ... nobody's surprised anymore. A clear confirmation of American exceptionalism."<br><br>The last line off Vladimir Putin's New York Times op-ed from last week says there is no such thing as "American exceptionalism."<br><br>Russia remains a bad country, full of internal corruption and, in its foreign policy, is supporting the worst elements on earth. Folks like the Syrian tyrant Assad and the murderous Mullahs in Iran can expect the full cooperation of Russia - along with all the arms they can buy.<br><br>Outrageous? You bet. But the sad truth is that the United States has largely lost the moral authority to call Russia out and the world knows it.<br><br>Much of America's problem lies within. We are living in a narcissistic age where millions of folks have withdrawn from life as we used to know it and fabricated a false world for themselves on the internet. Instead of experiencing life in its many natural forms, folks are now rejecting face-to-face social interaction, preferring to spend their time on machines.<br><br>According to his friends, the Navy yard killer, 34 year old Aaron Alexis, spent almost every night playing violent video games, isolating himself from reality. Then he apparently snapped. It will happen again.<br><br>With its emphasis on abundance, the United States has become a target of intense jealousy all over the world. Even poor Americans have conveniences many people overseas will never have. A recent study by the Census Bureau says the most poor Americans have color TVs, air conditioners, computers, cell phones, almost every modern convenience. Poverty is a serious situation and I don't mean to belittle it, but here in the USA the poor are better off than most other places on the planet, proving that democracy and capitalism do work.<br><br>But you'll never convince the anti-American people of that. Therefore any excuse to diminish this country will be seized by them. And we, the people are giving our foes tons of ammunition, so to speak. We continue to be a violent society with much of the carnage fueled by angry young men who lacked a father while growing up.<br><br>The only solution to the violence problem in America is a return to traditional parental involvement. This should be encouraged by every elected official. Also, the abandonment and neglect of children by their parents should have civil consequences. I mean who exactly is looking out for children who are ignored? The answer right now: No One!<br><br>America remains a great country, a place where most people have a decent chance at a successful life if they're honest and work hard. But we have lost our way when it comes to family matters.<br><br>And the bullets prove it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-09-19T07:00:00ZA Higher CallingBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Higher-Calling/41270.html2013-09-12T07:00:00Z2013-09-12T07:00:00ZHere's the crime story of the week. New York City cops busted a heroin ring comprised of five religious Jewish guys. Prosecutors allege that the men sold a variety of hard drugs out of a Brooklyn apartment, but would not deliver the narcotics from Friday night to Saturday morning because of Shabbat. The rest of the week they would sell you all the heroin, cocaine and oxycodone you want.<br><br>This might seem bizarre unless you think about it. Many on the left, including some in the media, are peddling the sick scenario that selling hard drugs is not a violent crime and should not even be harshly punished. In New York State, liberals have been screaming for years to end tough mandatory prison sentences for hard drug dealers because, in their opinion, the punishment does not fit the crime.<br><br>Drug abuse, you see, is not a criminal act in their eyes. It's a disease and the pushers are only serving a demand. They are not doing anything immoral or destructive to society.<br><br>That is so wrong-headed it's frightening.<br><br>According to the latest statistics available from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, nearly 40,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2010. Between 1999 and 2010, the drug death rate rose an astounding 102%. Why? Because the narcotics are more powerful than they used to be.<br><br>In 2011, about 2.5 million people were treated in the nation's emergency rooms for drug emergencies including tens of thousands of children. That's not a disease, that's an epidemic.<br><br>Making the death and suffering possible is a small army of callous drug dealers who sell poison. They know that hard drugs can enslave and even kill human beings. They don't care. They also know that once they sell the drugs, they could be used by children. They don't care.<br><br>When I was a teenager, drug dealers were pariahs in my Levittown neighborhood. Yes, that was in the suburbs but it was a fairly tough place. Pushers were the lowest rung. Nobody respected them, and few outside of junkies, associated with them. Karma being what it is, many of the pushers wound up dead or in prison breaking the hearts of their working class families.<br><br>Now drug dealing is acceptable in some quarters and a segment of our society actually feels sorry for pushers. Editorials describe these parasites as committing "non-violent" crimes. The kind of crimes that should be overlooked. The kind of crimes where you can attend Temple or Church with no problem.<br><br>Let me be clear about this. Anyone who sells drugs is a degenerate criminal, a person who should be shunned by decent people. There is no excuse. If you're addicted, get help. If you need money, work for it. When the left shows sympathy for these devils, I ask them how they would feel if their young daughter or son was shooting up heroin. Okay with that?<br><br>Blank stares usually follow.<br><br>America is in decline and one big reason is that we the people now often refuse to condemn destructive behavior. Many of us have lost perspective.<br><br>Drug dealing is a violent crime. It harms human beings. That's it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-09-12T07:00:00ZA Higher CallingBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Higher-Calling/41274.html2013-09-12T07:00:00Z2013-09-12T07:00:00ZHere's the crime story of the week. New York City cops busted a heroin ring comprised of five religious Jewish guys. Prosecutors allege that the men sold a variety of hard drugs out of a Brooklyn apartment, but would not deliver the narcotics from Friday night to Saturday morning because of Shabbat. The rest of the week they would sell you all the heroin, cocaine and oxycodone you want.<br><br>This might seem bizarre unless you think about it. Many on the left, including some in the media, are peddling the sick scenario that selling hard drugs is not a violent crime and should not even be harshly punished. In New York State, liberals have been screaming for years to end tough mandatory prison sentences for hard drug dealers because, in their opinion, the punishment does not fit the crime.<br><br>Drug abuse, you see, is not a criminal act in their eyes. It's a disease and the pushers are only serving a demand. They are not doing anything immoral or destructive to society.<br><br>That is so wrong-headed it's frightening.<br><br>According to the latest statistics available from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, nearly 40,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2010. Between 1999 and 2010, the drug death rate rose an astounding 102%. Why? Because the narcotics are more powerful than they used to be.<br><br>In 2011, about 2.5 million people were treated in the nation's emergency rooms for drug emergencies including tens of thousands of children. That's not a disease, that's an epidemic.<br><br>Making the death and suffering possible is a small army of callous drug dealers who sell poison. They know that hard drugs can enslave and even kill human beings. They don't care. They also know that once they sell the drugs, they could be used by children. They don't care.<br><br>When I was a teenager, drug dealers were pariahs in my Levittown neighborhood. Yes, that was in the suburbs but it was a fairly tough place. Pushers were the lowest rung. Nobody respected them, and few outside of junkies, associated with them. Karma being what it is, many of the pushers wound up dead or in prison breaking the hearts of their working class families.<br><br>Now drug dealing is acceptable in some quarters and a segment of our society actually feels sorry for pushers. Editorials describe these parasites as committing "non-violent" crimes. The kind of crimes that should be overlooked. The kind of crimes where you can attend Temple or Church with no problem.<br><br>Let me be clear about this. Anyone who sells drugs is a degenerate criminal, a person who should be shunned by decent people. There is no excuse. If you're addicted, get help. If you need money, work for it. When the left shows sympathy for these devils, I ask them how they would feel if their young daughter or son was shooting up heroin. Okay with that?<br><br>Blank stares usually follow.<br><br>America is in decline and one big reason is that we the people now often refuse to condemn destructive behavior. Many of us have lost perspective.<br><br>Drug dealing is a violent crime. It harms human beings. That's it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-09-12T07:00:00ZBack to SchoolBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Back-to-School/41245.html2013-09-05T07:00:00Z2013-09-05T07:00:00ZUsed to be most kids hated early September. Those back to school ads all over the place, and the dreaded specter of another long year sitting in front of Miss Crabtree or whomever. Most baby boomers like me equated Labor Day with a trip to the dentist.<br><br>No longer.<br><br>These days many urchins actually LIKE school. They look forward to getting up early, hopping on the bus and learning their buns off. How is this even possible?<br><br>I think I know.<br><br>Simply put, many American children want to get away from their parents, some of whom micro-manage every move they make. These days, everything is set up for the kids. No longer do they have any freedom. It's play date this, sporting activity that. Camp here, seminar there. Climb a tree? You could be arrested and you might even get dirty!<br><br>So children experience more freedom at school than they do at home. In the hallways, they can relate to other kids and have actual conservations and horseplay without mom hovering around. Also, the high tech gizmos in many classrooms give kids some power over their academic performance. So school is cool and much more stimulating than home.<br><br>My high school experience was mainly tedious. I had to take Latin. Amo, amas, amat. I am bored, you are bored, he, she or it is bored (loose translation). Five days a week, I fought slipping into a coma.<br><br>But when I got home, the fun began. My mother wanted me out of the house. The rule was be home by six and don't assault anyone. I ran wild. Tackle football without equipment, stickball in the street and competitive basketball on a cement court. It was non-stop action with no adults in sight. Why would anyone want to go to school?<br><br>Today adults are swarming their kids like ants on Haagen-Dazs. The tykes are rarely unattended. Instead, they are shuttled from venue to venue in enormous SUV's driven by mothers holding huge cups of Starbucks in one hand and a cell phone in the other. Leisure time is often contrived and full of pressure to win a black belt or perfect ballet moves.<br><br>Wouldn't you rather be in school?<br><br>The obsession with offspring is part of an overall narcissistic plague that has infected the USA. Children are now extensions of their parent's egos. They are scorecards. The parents win if their kids do well in whatever. The children feel this very personal pressure so much that school demands are almost a relief.<br><br>So three cheers for the beginning of the school term. After a summer of smother, the urchins are finally free to express themselves in classrooms all across America.<br><br>Amazing how things have changed.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-09-05T07:00:00ZThe Content of CharacterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Content-of-Character/41233.html2013-08-29T07:00:00Z2013-08-29T07:00:00ZThe singer Billy Ray Cyrus was supposed to be interviewed on television this week but cancelled. And who can blame him? His daughter, Miley, embarrassed herself and her family on worldwide TV. Her narcissism on full display, the 20-year-old pop singer-actress simulated sexual activity with an older male singer while singing some kind of suggestive song. With millions of young people watching, the scene was as degrading as it was unnecessary.<br><br>As her father, Mr. Cyrus should be mortified by Miley's behavior. But he's made no direct comment about it - although he should have.<br><br>Generally speaking, there is an epidemic of bad parenting going on in America. The three teenaged boys accused of murdering a young Australian man in Oklahoma were constantly in trouble, according to local authorities. After being apprehended, there were cries that they are "good kids." Bull. The overwhelming evidence is that they are thugs. A background check on their parents finds they are largely irresponsible and apathetic. One mother is even in prison.<br><br>In Spokane, Washington, two 16-year-old boys have been charged with beating a World War II veteran to death. The father of one of the accused killers told the press he doesn't understand how this could have happened. Then he admits he hadn't talked with the boy in weeks and that his grandmother was essentially raising him.<br><br>There is no question that American society is becoming increasingly callous and coarse, and part of the reason is that derelict moms and dads refuse to set boundaries for their children. Many parents are distracted, simply caring more about themselves than their children - and the kids know it.<br><br>Some liberals want the government to replace bad parents by pouring billions of dollars into social programs that often wind up being baby-sitting services. This is a fool's errand. The government cannot overcome bad parenting. What our leaders can do is publicly condemn irresponsible parental behavior in vivid terms.<br><br>When was the last time you heard a powerful politician do that? The truth is the powers-that-be are mostly afraid to mention the collapse of the traditional family because the secular-progressives will attack any judgmental behavior by a politician. Unless a public person is a saint, he or she has no right to cast aspersions on any parental situation according to the secular left.<br><br>Sociologists well understand that chaos at home causes violent behavior, educational failure and social alienation among children. Yet, many of us in America stay far, far away from this topic.<br><br>That in itself is a national scandal. Bad parenting is gravely harming this nation. Let's get that out in the open. And the campaign should begin with the President of the United States.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-08-29T07:00:00ZThe Old DaysBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Old-Days/41183.html2013-08-22T07:00:00Z2013-08-22T07:00:00ZOne of the highlights of my summer experience was the 50th reunion of my graduating class from St. Brigid's elementary school on Long Island. Back in 1963, sixty children sat in a small classroom hoping for big things in the future. We had spent eight years together but now high school beckoned, and all our lives would change dramatically.<br><br>America back then was a far different place than it is today. John F. Kennedy was president, but had less than six months to live. The Beatles were just emerging. Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds was scaring everybody in the movie theatres. The Andy Griffith Show dominated on TV. There was no war but civil unrest in the south was intense. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was making great strides in securing human rights for black Americans.<br><br>Twenty-two of my classmates made the reunion and it was good to see all of them. Their lives had unfolded in mostly conventional ways. Most remained in the middle class and still believed in the fundamental goodness of their country and religion. Although some were no longer practicing Catholics.<br><br>The reunion deal is the same all over. Folks who don't succeed in life often don't show up. The happy people usually come armed with pictures of their children and grandchildren. My reunion was very family focused.<br><br>Many of my classmates have led interesting lives but, unfortunately, I was the center of much attention. My visibility on television engendered much discussion and I was happy to answer the questions. Since I was always a loudmouth, my classmates delighted in reminding me that I haven't changed a bit and pointed out that only in America could I be well paid for doing something that got me a slap from Sister Thomas way back when. <br><br>The thing that is so different today is that children have little time to be innocent. We only had each other at St. Brigid's. There were no cell phones, computers, video games, or Facebook. In fact, outside intrusions were rare. We played games like dodge ball and keep-away. We attended square dances and Christmas concerts. It was all so basic, so simple. And there was a magic to it.<br><br>Today, children are thrust into an adult world at warp speed. I remember a kid named Billy McDermott explaining to me and the other eighth-graders that his older brother knew some girls who were "easy." Easy? We were all confused. So was Billy as he struggled to define the term.<br><br>Today, many eighth graders are thinking about tattoos and drugs. We all know how graphic the Internet is and, believe me, the kids know how to access this stuff. So I ask you: wasn't it better to be a kid in 1963? By the way, the answer is yes.<br><br>I feel sorry for the urchins these days. Responsible parents can mitigate some of the cultural damage, but not all. We are living in a fast time. An era of selfishness and narcissism where lowbrow entertainment envelops children like the chilly fog in San Francisco.<br><br>Good memories are forever. I had them back in 1963.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-08-22T07:00:00ZA Chilly Place for the PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Chilly-Place-for-the-President/41154.html2013-08-15T07:00:00Z2013-08-15T07:00:00Z(Juneau, Alaska) Up here many folks don't much like President Obama's vision of a big government colossus dictating health care, doling out entitlements, and generally meddling in the affairs of the citizenry. Alaska voted against Mr. Obama by 14 percentage points in 2012, and if another election were held today, the anti-Obama vote would most likely be higher.<br><br>This is a tough, self-reliant state. The weather is harsh and expenses high. But there is work. With a 6.1% unemployment rate, Alaska is doing much better than the nation as a whole (7.6%). The median household income in the 49th state is $69,000 - $16,000 higher than the national average.<br><br>Historically, Alaska is a place that has attracted those fed up with conventionality. On my trip here, I did not see one person dressed in a jacket and tie. The prevailing wisdom promotes individuality. Alaskans are basically "leave me alone" type people who respect and embrace different strokes.<br><br>Maybe it's because nature is right on top of them that the folks don't seem to care much for trends. The weather changes dramatically and quickly, there are far more dirt than paved roads, and wild animals are everywhere. Nobody is really interested in the latest fashion when you can be snowed in for weeks at a time. I mean, who's gonna see you?<br><br>With a population of 731,000, Alaska is ranked 47th in size, only beating out North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. Of course, Alaska is the largest state in the union by far, so there is plenty of space to get away from the trappings of modern America. Most everybody has a gun - there are big bears around - and the majority of folks are happy not to be dealing with bureaucracies.<br><br>So, the Alaska mentality is directly opposite the federal intrusion that is being fostered by the Obama administration. Mention Obamacare and you'll likely get icy stares, even in the summer. And while poor people do receive entitlements, and the oil industry kicks in some money for the folks, few Alaskans are asking for handouts. This is an old fashioned place that still embraces the Klondike mentality: take chances and maybe you'll hit it big, but if you don't - don't whine about it.<br><br>Alaska has some of the best scenery in North America but it is the spirit of rugged individualism that I found most interesting. Capitalism is firmly embraced and hard work is the order of the day. I visited a tourist dog-sledding site on top of a glacier where the young employees stayed for weeks at a time. No showers, no computers, no TV. They made some good money but paid the price. And they seemed happy to be up there far away from the BS that is floating around this nation.<br><br>There is something to be said for living life on your own terms. Many Americans simply don't want the pinheads in Washington or the various state capitals to be telling us how to live. But we are absolutely going in that direction. President Obama is hell-bent on imposing a bureaucracy that levels all playing fields at great expense in coin and in freedom.<br><br>So, visit Alaska if you get a chance. It's far away from everything but well worth the trip. This is America the way it used to be. And the way things are going in the lower 48, the way it used to be is likely gone forever.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-08-15T07:00:00ZHelping the KidsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Helping-the-Kids/41127.html2013-08-01T07:00:00Z2013-08-01T07:00:00ZAs President Obama heads for a nice vacation in Martha's Vineyard, a place of wealth, I want him to work on a simple math calculation. One of the major themes of the President's administration is that there is a tremendous problem of "income inequality" in this nation and it must be addressed.<br><br>Mr. Obama's solution is to redistribute income using seizure tactics. His plan is to have the federal government provide subsidies for those with low incomes by taking money from the affluent and business. The problem is that high taxation restrains economic expansion and inhibits the country from creating new avenues of wealth. If the affluent spend less and business invests less in expansion and development, wages for workers stagnate because there is heavy competition for jobs.<br><br>The President does not seem to understand that.<br><br>But the core problem of "income inequality" stems from failure to seize opportunity. If an American is ill-educated and does not develop useful skills, he or she will not be able to earn much money in the marketplace. And little is being done about that.<br><br>So here's the math deal, Mr. President. Right now 48% of American children living in female-headed households are poor. That's compared with a poverty rate of 11% for kids living in a married couple situation.<br><br>The out-of-wedlock birth rate for African-Americans is close to 73%. For Hispanics it's 53%, for whites 29%. And, sadly, most of those children are growing up without fathers in the home.<br><br>So where is the national campaign to discourage women from having babies out-of-wedlock? Is the Department of Education doing anything about that? The media? Anyone?<br><br>Back in 1992, then Vice-President Dan Quayle derided a TV character named Murphy Brown (played by Candace Bergen) for doing episodes about having a baby outside of marriage. Quayle was mocked unmercifully by the elite media and the salon set.<br><br>But Dan Quayle was right. According to the U. S. Census, 34% of unwed mothers do not work and that is driving abject poverty. <br><br>America offers the most amount of people the best opportunity to pursue happiness on the planet. That's why millions of illegal immigrants have poured into the country - most of them poor. They believe they have a shot to improve themselves economically.<br><br>But children living in poverty without fathers to guide them are at a strong disadvantage in our competitive society. Mr. Obama's solution is to throw as much money as he can into programs to help those kids. But that will never work.<br><br>The traditional American family has always been the foundation for success in America. But now it is being destroyed in some precincts. Welfare programs and public schooling will never overcome disadvantage on the home front. It is time for President Obama to lead. The way to improve "income equality" is to encourage traditional upbringings and discipline.<br><br>Simply do the math, Mr. President.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-08-01T07:00:00ZThe Color of HopeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Color-of-Hope/41101.html2013-07-25T07:00:00Z2013-07-25T07:00:00ZThe Color of Hope<br>by Bill O'Reilly<br><br>My friend Charles Krauthammer, a thinking man's pundit, believes some problems cannot be solved. Charles points to the Palestinian-Israeli situation and to the collapse of the traditional black family in America. I disagree. It is possible to change black attitudes but it will take a dynamic person to lead the way.<br><br>The primary reason that Trayvon Martin is not alive today is that George Zimmerman feared him. Making his neighborhood watch rounds, Zimmerman saw a young man wearing clothing that unsettled him. Zimmerman profiled the teenager and from there things rapidly got out of control.<br><br>There is a perception in America that young black males can be trouble. According to a study out of Northeastern University, black men between the ages of 14 and 24 commit homicides at a rate ten times that of young white and hispanic males combined. This disturbing fact drives profiling and fear.<br><br>The reason that crime among young black males is so intense is the collapse of the traditional black family. Fifty years ago, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among African-Americas was 25%. Today it is nearly 73% and growing, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By contrast, 29% of white babies and 53% of hispanic children are born out-of-wedlock.<br><br>Single parent situations drive poverty and often lead to unsupervised kids. Many boys growing up without fathers often feel angry and abandoned. Thus, they seek comfort in all the wrong places.<br><br>President Obama and our leaders in Washington surely understand the root of the black crime problem. So do self-appointed civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But they rarely discuss the matter in public. That might anger their constituency and be bad for business.<br><br>When was the last time you saw a demonstration discouraging young black girls from getting pregnant outside of marriage? When was the last time the President held a press conference on the issue? When was the last time we saw the federal government put out a public service ad encouraging children to reject drugs and violence? <br><br>Maybe Jay Z could do such an ad. How about Lil Wayne? Kanye West? These guys make millions rapping about dubious behavior. Sometimes they glamorize it. So why don't they lead the charge to improve things on the south side of Chicago and other places under siege?<br><br>There was plenty of outrage in the black precincts over the Zimmerman verdict. Understandable. But there is little national anger over thousands of African-Americans being gunned down in the streets by out-of-control young men, the vast majority of them black.<br><br>Until the American leadership begins to encourage the return of the traditional black family, the enormous problems of black poverty and crime will continue. And the fear of young black men will continue. And the death of innocents will continue.<br><br>Maybe Jay Z can rap about that.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-07-25T07:00:00ZThe Exploitation of Trayvon MartinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Exploitation-of-Trayvon-Martin/41067.html2013-07-18T07:00:00Z2013-07-18T07:00:00ZAlthough they may not realize it, some supporters of the dead teenager Trayvon Martin are actually exploiting him. Using his death to advance their own personal agendas. That is very disturbing when you think about it.<br><br>After the acquittal of George Zimmerman, one loon out in San Francisco justified some mob-driven property damage saying: "We have to grow a new society. A people society. Not one where Wells Fargo, the Federal Reserve, all these big banks. We need a whole new system!"<br><br>Another protestor in DC said: "We don't get democracy. We get capitalism. We get white supremacy."<br><br>And then there was race. Radical priest Michael Pfleger in Chicago told his congregation: "We are not in a post-racial area. In fact, racism has a second breath in America today and (the verdict) gave it new oxygen."<br><br>So, if you believe the fringe, the reason George Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of six women is that they are racists who want big business to dominate the country.<br><br>Makes sense to me.<br><br>And then there are the grievance folks. Talk radio guy Tavis Smiley told ABC News that it is open season on black men in this country. According to Mr. Smiley, the Zimmerman verdict is "just another piece of evidence of the incontrovertible contempt that this nation often shows and displays for black men."<br><br>Wow.<br><br>At the top, President Obama used the verdict to call for stricter gun control measures. And Attorney General Holder told the nation that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law should be repealed. All of this said in the name of a Florida teenager who died unnecessarily.<br><br>The truth is that cynical opportunists often use tragedies to their advantage. For me, the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent prosecution of George Zimmerman was a lesson in confrontation, not anything else.<br><br>We live in a country where citizens must understand that intense personal interactions can often lead to disaster. I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to confront somebody who was doing something wrong in my presence. But I simply can't. There are legions of sleazy lawyers lined up to attack the affluent in court. If you have money, these parasites will find a legal way to harm you. Just fighting nuisance suits can cost tens of thousands of dollars.<br><br>And then there are the unstable folks who will do you physical damage. Road rage, verbal assaults, threats - you have to walk or drive away. It is far too risky to confront the perpetrator and "work it out."<br><br>Of course sometimes you must stand your ground. But not often. George Zimmerman was told by a 9-1-1 operator to stay in his car. He did not. Disaster followed. It didn't have to happen.<br><br>Exploiters of the Trayvon Martin case should be ashamed. For everyone else, there is one huge lesson: avoid confrontation if you possibly can. No good will come of it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-07-18T07:00:00ZThe Politics of FameBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Politics-of-Fame/41041.html2013-07-11T07:00:00Z2013-07-11T07:00:00ZOne of the downsides of being famous is that folks pay far more attention to you than they should. American celebrities are constantly under surveillance and every word they say is subject to scrutiny. So be careful what you wish for if you desire fame. No human being should be a goldfish.<br><br>That being said, some celebrities simply cannot keep their mouths shut, weighing in on topics they know little or nothing about. And when that happens, the famous person often undergoes even more scrutiny.<br><br>You may remember that, in the wake of the Newtown shootings, comedian-actor Jim Carrey mocked the death of Charlton Heston in an anti-assault rifle rant on the Internet. Since Mr. Carrey's career is not exactly in an upward trajectory, the controversy he created was not to his benefit. So this week old Jim recanted, at least somewhat.<br><br>Here's what he tweeted: "Asslt rifle fans, I do not agree with u, nor do I fear u but I love u and I'm sorry tht in my outrage I called you names. That was wrong ... calling ppl names is inappropriate but my position on assault weapons hasn't changed." <br><br>Now, why is Carrey asking for forgiveness? Is he genuinely consumed with love and remorse, or is it a career ploy by his management people to bring him some positive attention? Impossible to say but one thing is clear: Jim Carrey does not want to talk about his gun position in detail. When offered a hearing on the highest rated cable news show in the country, he declined.<br><br>I suspect Mr. Carrey is an emotional guy who often speaks before he thinks, something most human beings are guilty of from time to time. But there is now a growing trend in Hollywood - using cyber-space to opine on all kinds of things. This does not often lead to prosperity.<br><br>A few weeks ago, a bunch of famous folks released an Internet video calling for "an end to nuclear weapons." That's very nice, is it not? Who wouldn't want a world free of nukes? Well, maybe Iran. Perhaps North Korea. China kinda likes their nuclear arsenal. And that Putin really likes the flash-bang concept.<br><br>So while Alec Baldwin, Michael Douglas, Whoopi Goldberg, Matt Damon and others opine that all nukes should go, the world's villain lineup giggles. I mean, can't you just see the Chinese big shots meeting in the Forbidden City saying, "hey, Baldwin and Damon don't want nukes! We must comply immediately!"<br><br>Here's why this dopey stuff happens. It's all about approval. Somebody comes up with a concept for a video and some famous people hop on the bus. Why not? All their friends agree that nukes are bad and certainly taking liberal positions is a resume enhancer in show business.<br><br>But in the end, "stupid is as stupid does," to quote Forrest Gump. If celebrities want their opinions to be taken seriously, get off the net and into the debate arena. Otherwise, you're just tweeting in the wind.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-07-11T07:00:00ZThe Alien PlightBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Alien-Plight/41013.html2013-07-04T07:00:00Z2013-07-04T07:00:00Z(Galway, Ireland) The intense debate over immigration reform in the USA has riveted many in this bucolic area in the west of Ireland. That's because in addition to millions of Hispanic aliens, a significant number of Irish would benefit from immigration clarity. Just ask anyone in the Woodside section of Queens, New York.<br><br>The census estimates that there are nearly 35 million Americans of Irish descent currently living in America, and many of them had ancestors who fled to the United States to literally save their lives. The vicious Irish famine reached its height in 1847 as hundreds of thousands of starving people boarded so called "coffin ships" to come to the USA. Many died on those ships - victims of disease on the long voyage. Their bodies were often thrown over board into the sea.<br><br>In Ireland itself, more than a million people died from hunger and disease during the famine years. The British controlled the country and, incredibly, exported grain to London even as Irish children were dying in the streets. British soldiers actually had to guard the grain stores killing the Irish who stormed the storage facilities.<br><br>Thus, there are still deep wounds in this country of less than five million. More than a few Irish noticed a visiting American news commentator and asked about the proposed immigration reform. All favored it because of the sensitivity to the suffering of poor people.<br><br>The United States today is a far different place than it was in the mid-nineteenth century, when our vast land needed folks to settle and expand into the west. Then, there was no such thing as an "illegal alien." If you physically made it here you were an American. Simply showing up entitled you to pursue the dream of prosperity.<br><br>But today, our country is fragile. The economy is stagnant and social problems dominate the landscape. Back when my people arrived from Galway in the 1840s, there was little social welfare or entitlements. You either earned your way or you wound up in the street. America did not support immigrants; it simply gave them a chance.<br><br>What has not changed is the humanity of most Americans. People without an agenda realize that most illegal aliens are here to feed their families - not cause trouble. But we also realize that our federal government has allowed and sometimes encouraged immigration chaos that has damaged the fabric of the nation. You simply cannot allow more than ten million people to occupy your territory without any accountability. And that's what has happened.<br><br>I told the good people in western Ireland who approached me that I hoped a fair but tough immigration bill would pass this year. One that will put an end to the porous southern border and make undocumented aliens earn their citizenship over an extended period of time.<br><br>The most powerful nation on earth should be able to pass a fair, effective immigration law that combines compassion with responsibility and does not injure hard working Americans who are taxed up to here.<br><br>We SHOULD be able to do that. It will be shameful if we don't.<br><br><br>Check out photos from Bill's trip to Ireland <a href="/freephotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=50">here</a>.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-07-04T07:00:00ZLosing Your ReligionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Losing-Your-Religion/40993.html2013-06-20T07:00:00Z2013-06-20T07:00:00ZIt was interesting to watch the state of Texas recently pass a law that allows anyone to say the greeting "Merry Christmas" in the state's public schools and buildings. Governor Rick Perry signed the law saying he wished it wasn't necessary but, in his opinion, protecting the words "Merry Christmas" has to be done because they are under fire from the freedom from religious crew.<br> <br>America has been heading down the secular road for decades and a new Gallup Poll reinforces that. When asked if religion is losing its influence on American life, 77% said yes. Just 20% disagreed.<br> <br>But another question in the same poll was more instructive: "If more Americans were religious, would that be a positive or a negative for American society?" An astounding 75% said a positive. Only 17% believe it would be a negative. 8% don't know.<br> <br>Here's what I know. It is not easy to be religious in a culture that encourages individualism and materialism at the same time. Little children are by nature selfish, they want what they want. They must be taught to be generous and to think about the needs of others.<br> <br>But many parents do not do that. They don't have time. They are too busy getting stuff for themselves. Thus, the urchins grow up to be selfish and insensitive.<br> <br>More than 80% of Americans describe themselves as "Christian", a philosophy that demands self-sacrifice and loving others as yourself. But that message has been largely lost because it's not a moneymaker, and there is no charismatic Christian leader in sight.<br> <br>I mean, when was the last time you saw any American religious leader capture the attention of the American public? Billy Graham was the last Christian preacher to have a national following.<br> <br>My own religion, Roman Catholicism, is in steep decline in this country. Many churches are half empty on Sunday, especially in the big cities. The priest scandals have badly damaged the moral authority of the church, but for the faithful the problem goes far beyond that.<br> <br>Last Sunday, I took my two children to mass and we had a priest from Nigeria. He's a nice man but you can't understand him - unless you're from Nigeria, which my family is not. So, we sat there for almost 20 minutes while the priest spoke about Jesus from the pulpit. I did recognize the name Jesus but little else. My kids slipped into comas.<br> <br>Religious leaders have an obligation to spread the good word. How many of them are doing that effectively?<br> <br>If you believe the Gallup Poll, Americans want a religious nation because they know a strong moral foundation brings much more freedom than a free-fire zone of self-absorbed behavior. Once upon a time, most Americans did not have to lock their doors or watch their children every second of the day. Now, drug addiction and other destructive behavior has driven crime and degeneracy into almost every American neighborhood. Religion opposes self-destruction and criminal activity. It is sinful. It does not lead to prosperity in this world or the next.<br> <br>Communicated in the right way, Judeo-Christian philosophy and the religions that uphold it bind a citizenry together in pursuit of a just and generous society. That is the spirit that most Americans admire and want to relocate. But we need some leaders to light up the pathway. <br> <br>Where are they?BillOReilly.com Staff2013-06-20T07:00:00ZWho's Your DaddyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Your-Daddy/40965.html2013-06-13T07:00:00Z2013-06-13T07:00:00ZWith Father's Day on Sunday there is good news and bad news. First the negative: single mothers head up almost nine percent of American households. The good news? Fathers who care are making a huge difference in this country.<br><br>How do I know? It is estimated that close to 40 percent of all those incarcerated in the USA did not have a father in their childhood home. So doing the math, a responsible father seems to be a strong force for promoting righteous conduct.<br><br>It was never easy being a father. Did you know that American icon Davy Crockett abandoned his children? And many other famous men did as well. Shameful. You can't be a real man if you don't look out for your kids. They need you.<br><br>There are plenty of books by dads explaining the dilemma of contemporary fatherhood, and it is true that dadism in today's high tech world is not easy. My father firmly embraced the Ralph Kramden philosophy: he was king of his Levittown castle. He worked hard and his family deferred to his wishes. Except me. I did not defer and was disciplined accordingly.<br><br>But today, most fathers don't rule as my father did. In general, modern dads are more enlightened. We bring diplomacy to the home rather than the "my way or the highway" post-World War II paternal strategy. But, looking back, I clearly understand that seeing a "chain of command" approach in my house was a positive thing for me. My father provided a strong point of view on life and was a leader. Boys, especially, need that.<br><br>Even though I am now a one-percenter economically, I rarely waste money. Every time I am tempted to buy some dopey thing, I hear my late father's voice: "do you really need that?" He was big on saving money and buying as much security as possible. He also encouraged charitable giving. So I am responsible with currency.<br><br>Also, I go to church every Sunday because my family always went to church. It didn't matter if the priest was speaking Flemish from the pulpit - we went. It was an obligation. Now, I fulfill my obligations. All of them. <br><br>My father also taught us to respect our country. He was a naval officer. So there was no slacking on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Veterans Day. We knew what they were. Today, a flag flies daily in front of my house.<br><br>Finally, I was never really tempted by drugs and alcohol. My father thought addicts were weak and intoxication was stupid. I never saw him high. He had a beer or two but never lost control of himself. By osmosis, I have adopted the sober attitude. It has really served me well.<br><br>As a teenager, I called my dad "the monster" to his face. He laughed. He even referred to himself as "the monster" when doling out orders to his offspring. There were many times I resented my tough dad and wanted Ozzie Nelson to replace him.<br><br>But now, I'm a father and realize that status is the most important thing in my life. No question who provided that perspective. So on Father's Day 2013, I remember my dad and the indelible gifts he gave me.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-06-13T07:00:00ZThe Heat is OnBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Heat-is-On/40919.html2013-06-06T07:00:00Z2013-06-06T07:00:00ZSo last Saturday, I'm back on the ball field coaching my nine year old boy's little league team along with three other fathers. We lose big. Why? Because it was hot. Yes, I know what you're thinking - wasn't it hot for the other team? Stop with the logic, okay?<br><br>My team wilted in the fourth inning. In fact, three of the players cried. One missed his mother. I told him the game would be over shortly and she was looking forward to seeing him. He accepted it but struck out anyway.<br><br>The right fielder cried after the ball hit his thumb after he booted it. The catcher shed tears when he was called out at first base. Where was Tom Hanks when I needed him?<br><br>But above all the heat dominated the game. It was around 90 degrees and the field was dusty. The kids were appalled. They are used to being climate controlled. When it's hot they stay inside, enjoying air conditioning. When it's cold, the house is cozily warm. So when they are forced to play six innings outside on a scorching day, there is much angst.<br><br>When I was nine years old, I was hot all the time in the summer. My tiny Levittown house had no air conditioning and I slept upstairs, directly underneath the tar-infested roof. So one August day I had the following dialogue with my father.<br><br>"Dad, could we get air conditioning?"<br><br>"Why, you have a fan in your room?"<br><br>"But the fan just blows the hot air around."<br><br>"So don't turn it on."<br><br>End of conversation. Later at the dinner table, my father told my sister and I about how hot it was in Brooklyn, where he grew up. At least on Long Island, there was a "sea breeze."<br><br>My sister and I looked confused. The ocean was fifteen miles away.<br><br>Our dog, a German Shepherd named Barney, was so hot he didn't move for hours, laying supine on the linoleum kitchen floor.<br><br>"I think Barney may be dead," I told my parents.<br><br>"Don't be a wise guy," my father retorted.<br><br>We never did get air conditioning - until I moved out in 1971. THEN two units arrived. I still hold a grudge.<br><br>But back to the ball field. We lost the game 12 to 4, but the team didn't really care. They quickly left the diamond for more comfortable precincts. Most of them are really good kids, far smarter than I was at their age. But far softer as well.<br><br>America is a place where you can succeed no matter who you are. I am proof of that. But you must work very hard and be willing to endure pain. You must set a goal and win in the marketplace no matter what the air temperature. You must pay the price for success.<br><br>These kids don't know that. But they do know two things: first, they don't want to be hot. And second, they don't have to be.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-06-06T07:00:00ZA Wrong Against the RightBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Wrong-Against-the-Right/40863.html2013-05-30T07:00:00Z2013-05-30T07:00:00ZOnce again, graduation time is upon us, and a new study by the Los Angeles Times says plenty about the state of higher education in America. The paper looked at the invited commencement speakers for 150 colleges and universities. There are just four conservative speakers, as opposed to at least 69 liberal ones.<br><br>In fact, Newark, New Jersey mayor Cory Booker, a very liberal guy, has as many campus addresses as all elected Republicans combined.<br><br>There is no shortage of intellect or accomplishment on the right. The reason few conservative speakers are invited is that college administrators are frightened by radical left students and faculty. Last month, Karl Rove's speech at the University of Massachusetts was disrupted, and so was one by Senator Rand Paul at Howard University. Nobody wants a graduation ceremony turned into an ideological circus - and that's what often happens when perceived conservatives are invited to speak on many campuses.<br><br>Last year, I headed up a benefit for the "It Happened to Alexa" foundation at Boston University, where I received a Master's Degree in Broadcast Journalism. As a freshman, Alexa Branchini had been raped in a BU dorm, had to withdraw from the school, and eventually founded, with her parents, an organization to help victims of violent crime. I felt the campus of Boston University would be the perfect place to hold a fundraiser for this fine charity. How wrong I was.<br><br>A number of far-left professors and administrators, including a university vice-president, boycotted the event. The school did little to promote it and essentially folded under the pressure of the zealots. It was an absolute disgrace, and an insult to Alexa and her family. That tells you all you need to know about the mentality of fanatical college professors and the cowardly administrators who enable them.<br><br>There is no question that liberal indoctrination is a fact of life on most American college campuses. Tenure means never having to say you're sorry or you're wrong. And, overwhelmingly, tenured college teachers are left wing. They dominate and intimidate the students. If you go up against them, your grade often suffers. There is a tyranny in higher education that is gravely harming this nation.<br><br>When a distinguished medical doctor and author like Ben Carson has to withdraw as a commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins University because some loons don't like his conservative point of view, you know there is trouble in River City. And little is being done about it.<br><br>It is long past time to call out America's colleges, especially those funded by taxpayers, and demand that they be fair in their hiring practices and speaking forums. I give a nice annual donation to Marist College where I obtained a degree in History because it is fair. But I've stopped giving to Boston U. and to Harvard (where I received a Master's in Public Administration) because those schools are not fair. All college grads should evaluate their contributions.<br><br>That's the only way the liberal higher-education stranglehold will be broken. Many of those pinhead professors may espouse socialistic tenets, but believe me, they want the money. The goal of higher education should be to champion the airing of all honest viewpoints. Nothing less is acceptable.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-05-30T07:00:00ZAssessing BlameBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Assessing-Blame/40835.html2013-05-23T07:00:00Z2013-05-23T07:00:00ZSo, there I am coaching third base for my nine year old son's little league team. Man on second, one out. The batter hits a ground ball to third, the fielder promptly boots it so I send the runner in to home plate. He's ahead of the ball then, suddenly, the KID STOPS RUNNING! He's tagged out. We lose by one run.<br><br>Now, I am old school. I played baseball for 15 consecutive seasons, winding up on an adult team called the New York Monarchs. We played Sunday doubleheaders under the scorching Long Island summer sun. I mostly pitched the second game because the majority of my working guy teammates were so hung over from Saturday night we usually got pounded in the first game.<br><br>When I was nine, I pitched for O.E. McIntyre, which I think was a furniture store near Levittown. Our coach chewed tobacco. We never stopped running. Too afraid of the coach.<br><br>But today it's a whole new ballgame. Most parents are so happy their kids are out of the house and away from the computer, they don't care what they do on the field. Just getting them out there is a huge victory.<br><br>I did not scold the kid who stopped running. But I did ask him why. He looked at me in a daze. I let it go.<br><br>The after game meal was at Friendly's, where a fried clam dinner will cost you nearly 2,000 calories. Add the free ice cream sundae that comes with the dinner and you're up around 4,000. It says that right on the menu. I ordered an "Asian Salad" and picked off a few clams from my son's plate.<br><br>Foolishly, I tried to make a lesson out of the play at home that went against us. I asked my son: "do you know why Ian stopped?"<br><br>He looked up from his "monster sundae" and said: "Dad, you shouldn't be assessing blame."<br><br>I swear he said that.<br><br>Immediately, I called the State Department looking to get him a job on John Kerry's staff.<br><br>"I'm not assessing blame. I'm just talking about the play."<br><br>"But, dad, he's just a kid."<br><br>I forged on: "the reason Ian stopped running is that he was afraid he might be thrown out. He hesitated because of fear. You can't play anything afraid."<br><br>My nine year old digested that along with his sundae, comprised of chocolate mint ice cream covered with hot fudge (3,500 calories). <br><br>"But, dad, it's not his fault."<br><br>And it really wasn't Ian's fault. We now live in a world where many parents micro-manage their children. Outcomes for the urchins are almost assured. So when a situation arises where the kid has to make a fast decision, there is almost always hesitation.<br><br>Way different than 1959 when I was making life-death decisions daily. Should I climb the "old oak" tree, which was 50 feet high? Of course I should. Right to the top. Did I ask my dad for permission to do that? Would Eddie Haskell have asked his dad? (Google that).<br><br>Protecting the kids is usually good. But it comes with a price. A lesson in life is don't stop running if you want to score. And watch those calories at Friendly's.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-05-23T07:00:00ZWhat Happened, Mr. President?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Happened-Mr.-President/40783.html2013-05-16T07:00:00Z2013-05-16T07:00:00ZNot a great week for the Obama folks, as the scandal du jour tour has firmly taken hold. Every day it seems another federal agency is exposed as either intimidating, snooping, covering up, or going to Vegas on the taxpayer dime. Zimbabwe is even making fun of us.<br><br>On January 21, 2009, in remarks welcoming his new presidential staff, Barack Obama said: "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."<br><br>So what happened, Mr. President? Why so much stonewalling? <br><br>Let's take this one by one. Barack Obama has to know that nobody is buying the assertion that Ambassador Susan Rice made a simple error when she blamed the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on a spontaneous Muslim uprising caused by a stupid anti-Islamic video. No one believes that was an honest mistake, Mr. President!<br><br>So it is on Mr. Obama himself to explain the Rice deal and also why armed U.S. assets in Tripoli were not immediately sent to help the Ambassador and other Americans under siege in Benghazi.<br><br>But for eight months, the President has refused to explain.<br><br>The IRS chaos is newer and the president was forced to respond by firing Steve Miller, who ran the agency. But again, how could the powerful IRS get so out of control? Was it loyalty to a liberal president that made agents unfairly target conservatives? We need some clarity here.<br><br>On the Associated Press front, all the president has to do is what Attorney General Holder refuses to do - explain in general terms why the Justice Department thought it necessary to secure the phone records of AP reporters. Explain why there was an urgency to the investigation. Mr. Obama can certainly do that without compromising national security. So why isn't he doing it?<br><br>The answer to that question lies in accountability. When has Barack Obama ever been held accountable for anything? The press has largely covered for him when mistakes were made and the public seems to be in a very forgiving mood, especially on economic matters where, according to some polls, almost half the voters believe the sluggish economy is Bush's fault.<br><br>Sensing blood in the water, the president's ardent opponents will continue to take the scandals as far as they can. The only way this stops is for Mr. Obama to take control, admit whatever mistakes were made, explain how and why they happened, and hope the public understands.<br><br>If he doesn't do that, his second term could well be a national nightmare.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-05-16T07:00:00ZFreedom Under FireBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Freedom-Under-Fire/40703.html2013-05-09T07:00:00Z2013-05-09T07:00:00ZEvery time there's a horrendous story about kidnapping or child molestation America loses another ounce of freedom. The Cleveland situation where three young girls and were held in sexual slavery for ten years, is a perfect example of my statement. Although kidnapping by strangers is rare in the USA, the shocking media accounts of stories like Cleveland make a deep public impression.<br><br>According to the FBI, 411 Americans were abducted by strangers in 2012.<br><br>The primary motive for the abductions was sexual assault and in case of missing children, 89% of them are murdered by their kidnappers according to the Washington State Attorney General's office. So the numbers are very small but the outcomes very severe.<br><br>Twenty years ago in America, children could play unsupervised in most neighborhoods. I grew up on Long Island about 30 miles from New York City and was out of my house more than I was in it. I had a gang of junior hoodlums and we played sports and games constantly. My mother and father were actually relieved when I went out to play knowing that I would be annoying people other than them.<br><br>As far as I know, nobody was ever abducted in Levittown back in the 1960's and it was teeming with kids. The Lindberg baby kidnapping in 1932 pierced the national consciousness but up until about twenty years ago, most suburban and rural streets were considered safe.<br><br>Now, nobody's safe or so it seems. Parents rarely let children play on their own. Playdates and organized activities rule. The urchins are deprived of creating their own playtime agendas, problem-solving without adult supervision, and thinking up crazy, fun games. Playtime in Levittown usually consisted of dodging, kicking, batting or shooting a ball. Plus, there were games of running around smashing into each other. That was called ring-a-levio.<br><br>It is important for children to feel secure, to grow up safe. So it is not unwise to keep close track of the kids these days. Kidnapping and molestation may be rare but it happens and is a life-altering experience.<br><br>The cliché is "better to be safe than sorry". And it's true.<br><br>It is also true that we were a much freer nation back when stories like Cleveland were not driven by the news media 24/7. The evil doers have robbed us of security and created massive apprehension. Many schools now have armed guards, cameras are everywhere and children are suspicious.<br><br>The predators have forced us to guard the kids.<br><br>And so they stay inside far more than I did. They become addicted to machines which provide them with easy stimulation via games where they never lose or get bruised. The urchins sit there and stare at a screen full of high tech opium that quickly overwhelms their senses. Rain or shine - the net is always there.<br><br>Fear and high tech mania has changed our country in ways most of us can't even comprehend. And every time there is a story like Cleveland, our independence takes a hit. We are living in a brave new world, for sure. But I liked it better back when.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-05-09T07:00:00ZThe War on Terror: Up Close and PersonalBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-War-on-Terror:-Up-Close-and-Personal/40657.html2013-05-02T07:00:00Z2013-05-02T07:00:00ZLiving in the shadows of the ongoing war on terror are 1,715 American military people who lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few of those brave folks lost all four limbs when bombs blew apart their bodies. In addition, there are now at least 20 new amputee victims because of the brutal terror bombing in Boston.<br><br>When reality sinks in and the injured realize how dependent they are without all functioning limbs, often there are severe psychological consequences. Many of the soldiers and Marines who lost limbs were self-reliant achievers, who lived life on their own terms.<br><br>The bombs changed all that.<br><br>When I visit Walter Reed hospital outside of Washington DC, I am struck by the determination of the amputees to put their lives back together. But the rehab process is exceedingly difficult for them and their families. Sometimes, the wounded warrior feels guilty that his or her condition is causing emotional pain to their families and friends. You can see that in their eyes. They don't feel sorry for themselves so much, they are sad for those who love them.<br><br>The United States is a great country, but we do have our failings. Providing for the severely wounded should be a top priority, but it is not. Responding to a lack of urgency on the part of the Defense Department and the VA, a private organization called "The Independence Fund" was started in 2007 to provide support for the amputees. And now something amazing has happened.<br><br>A small company in Michigan has invented the "Track Chair," an all-terrain wheelchair that can literally go anyway. On sand, in the forest, through shallow streams, you name it. The chairs are a high-tech marvel; small switches give physically challenged folks almost full mobility and an acute sense of independence - thus the name of the fund.<br><br>The chairs cost about $15,000 each, and therein lies the problem. The federal government is broke after wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars on misguided overseas nation-building projects, social justice boondoggles here at home, and failed green energy investments like Solyndra. Just this week, the New York Times reported that the CIA is giving millions of dollars in cash to Hamid Karzai, the corrupt leader of Afghanistan. Karzai is a guy who would make Al Capone blush. If you took just 20% of the Karzai payoff money, you could buy every American military amputee a track chair.<br><br>But that's a pipedream. Not gonna happen. So we the people have to help our wounded warriors regain a semblance of control over their lives because the federal government will not.<br><br>I hope you check out the website: Independencefund.org. All of us need to right this wrong. The technology is available to help multiple amputees and there is no reason on earth that every single person who needs a track chair shouldn't have one.<br><br>So let's make this happen, people! We are Americans. We owe it to those who sacrificed their bodies for our country to do everything we can to help them.<br><br>Finally, I've discussed the situation with President Obama himself, and believe that in the weeks to come a national effort will be launched to help the grievously wounded and their families. <br><br>That story - still developing.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-05-02T07:00:00ZDroning OnBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Droning-On/40617.html2013-04-25T07:00:00Z2013-04-25T07:00:00ZShortly after the terror bombings in Boston last week, there were two statements made by media people that were alarming, to say the least. Two days after the attack, McClatchy newspaper reporter Amina Ismail asked White House spokesman Jay Carney: "President Obama said that what happened in Boston was an act of terrorism. Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan (the same thing)?"<br><br>As usual, Mr. Carney didn't have an answer and referred the reporter to the Department of Defense.<br><br>What Carney should have said is this: "are you kidding me? U.S. policy in Afghanistan is designed to protect civilians and thousands of our military people have been killed and wounded doing just that. Your question is an insult to them, this country, and to the intelligence of any sane person."<br><br>That's what Carney should have said.<br><br>Four days later, Tom Brokaw appeared on Meet the Press. The former NBC News anchor has drifted sharply to the left as he ages, much like Walter Cronkite did. Amazingly, Brokaw equated drone warfare with the Boston bombings.<br><br>"I think we also have to examine the use of drones that the United States is involved in and there are a lot of civilians who are innocently killed in drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in Iraq," he said. "And I can tell you having spent a lot of time over there, young people will come up to me on the streets and say 'we love America, but if you harm one hair on the head of my sister, I will fight you forever.' And there is this enormous rage against what they see in that part of the world as presumptuous of the United States."<br><br>When I heard Brokaw say that, I was stunned. Isn't this the guy who made millions of dollars writing about the glory of "The Greatest Generation" winning World War II? Didn't the Greatest Generation kill millions of civilians in Japan and Germany in order to defeat atrocious villains whom those populations supported? I believe they did.<br><br>So now America is not supposed to defend itself against a different set of atrocious villains who hide amongst civilians in mountain redoubts? As I said on television: "would you invade Pakistan, Tom, or just sit back while al Qaeda and the Taliban send more killers our way? It's either-or, Tom - one or the other."<br><br>I believe invading Pakistan might cause some civilian casualties.<br><br>Tom Brokaw's loopy analysis wants you to believe that "good" Muslims are being alienated by how the USA defends itself in the war on terror. Well, so what? Are the "good" Muslims actively helping the world fight Jihad? Are they, Tom?<br><br>And then there's the Boston equation. Drone attacks are designed to kill mass murderers. The Marathon bombing was designed to kill an eight year old boy. One of the terrorists put his bomb right at the boy's feet on Boylston Street. Does Ms. Ismail and Tom Brokaw not understand that injecting battlefield measures into a civilian terrorist attack situation is inappropriate to say the least?<br><br>Apparently they do not.<br><br>Everyone makes mistakes. Tom Brokaw just made a huge one. I hope he acknowledges it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-04-25T07:00:00ZCasual TerrorismBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Casual-Terrorism/40403.html2013-04-18T07:00:00Z2013-04-18T07:00:00ZOn Monday night I went before a live television audience and tried to put the Boston terror attack into some perspective. I told the viewers that as an American, I was angry. I said the attack was vile and cowardly; designed to injure innocent people - including children. I put forth that the Nazis did that kind of thing.<br><br>And finally, I said that President Obama made a mistake by using the word 'tragedy' to define the attack.<br><br>While the dictionary defines 'tragedy' as "a disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life," the word is not precise enough to define what happened in Boston.<br><br>If the bombers are foreigners, the event is an act of war.<br><br>If the killers are Americans, it is high treason because by committing a terror act you have essentially declared war on your own country. There is a difference between detonating a bombs that kill and maim innocent people and shooting up a school or movie theatre. Both are murderous acts but only one is politically motivated.<br><br>And it is the political factor that takes tragedy out of the descriptive equation.<br><br>President Obama did not do anything wrong in describing the Boston massacre as a tragedy. But he did not use his pulpit to clearly define the issue. Americans need to know that this country is under attack by a variety of forces both from within and without. U.S. authorities have performed brilliantly in keeping terror attacks on American soil to a minimum, but too many folks do not understand the danger this country is facing. There are fanatics who would kill each and every one of us if you they could. That is not tragic, that is real. And we must deal with it.<br><br>Freedom puts all of us at risk. We are living in a time when just about every security measure is controversial - from drones to Internet snooping with a warrant. In New York City, liberals rail against the police "stop and frisk" policy, designed to control illegal weapons. Never mind that the policy has saved thousands of lives, the zealots don't like it and that's that. Security be damned.<br><br>Hanging in the New York City office of the ACLU was a sign that read: "We reserve the right to check all bags." But if the cops want to check a suspicious bag on the street or in a subway car - get ready for the usual yelping by the ACLU.<br><br>President Obama should bring a sense of urgency to terrorism. At times, he doesn't even like using the word. His style is cool while the issue is hot. Americans react emotionally when children are blown up on the streets.<br><br>Mr. Obama's use of the word 'tragedy' is a small thing and, again, he did not do anything wrong. But I want my Commander-in-Chief to command. All Americans are under attack. Let's sound the alarm in very vivid terms.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-04-18T07:00:00ZSympathy for the DevilBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sympathy-for-the-Devil/40380.html2013-04-11T07:00:00Z2013-04-11T07:00:00ZAs this column has been reporting, there is a growing movement in America to "reform" the nation's tough laws against drug dealing. The pressure is coming primarily from liberal and libertarian groups who see the use of narcotics as a personal choice, something that freedom should allow.<br><br>That opinion is fallacious in the extreme because of the public safety issue involved.<br><br>In 2010, more than 38,000 people died in the USA from drug overdoses, far more than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars combined. If you add two years of drug OD's, you get more deaths than occurred during the Vietnam War. <br><br>The Department of Health estimates that an astounding 22 million Americans, ages 12 and older, currently need rehabilitation for substance abuse.<br><br>Also, a variety of studies say that up to 70% of all child abuse and neglect cases are caused by parents who are drug-involved.<br><br>Still think drug abuse is a victimless crime?<br><br>The pro-drug people often point to alcohol to make their legalization case. Why should one intoxicating agent be legal while another is not? But everybody knows you can have a beer or a glass of wine without losing sobriety, right?<br><br>The sole reason for ingesting narcotics is to alter consciousness. It is the apple compared to the booze orange. Comparing drugs to alcohol is an invalid comparison.<br><br>People who sell drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin and other opiates are certainly committing a violent act. They are delivering an agent of destruction to another person. While all who use hard drugs do not become addicted, millions do. There is a reason certain substances are categorized as "dangerous drugs."<br><br>But to hear the pro-drug people tell it - the pushers are victims because of some of them are drug addicted themselves. I guess when you become an addict, you get a get out of jail free card. Don't blame drug users for stealing, dealing or mugging. They shouldn't be held accountable for criminal behavior because they have a disease!<br><br>In one of the most absurd things I've seen in a long time, a list of celebrities including Will Smith, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Kim Kardashian and Jim Carrey signed a letter to President Obama asking him to "address the increased incarceration rates for non-violent crimes."<br><br>Nonviolent crimes? Are you kidding me? Ask a parent whose son or daughter is in the cemetery because of an overdose if the drug pusher is committing a "nonviolent" crime.<br><br>Since the nation began sentencing drug dealers to major prison time (circa 1979), the nation's violent crime rate has fallen more than 32%. After vicious crack cocaine traffickers started getting decades in the slammer, cocaine use dropped 71%.<br><br>But now the Hollywood pinheads and many other Americans want those tough mandatory sentences repealed.<br><br>That is sympathy for the devil. But we are living in strange times. Let's hope Kim Kardashian isn't appointed Attorney General.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-04-11T07:00:00ZZombies vs. JesusBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Zombies-vs.-Jesus/40353.html2013-04-03T07:00:00Z2013-04-03T07:00:00ZOn Easter Sunday evening, there was a TV showdown between good and evil. On The History Channel - the final installment of the Bible mini-series where Jesus is executed. On AMC, the season ending episode of The Walking Dead - the series where zombies try to eat the brains of human beings. One footnote: the world might have been a better place had the zombies preemptively gotten to the guy who thought up this series in the first place.<br><br>Anyway, the zombies won. They beat Jesus in the ratings especially among viewers ages 18 to 49.<br><br>So what lesson can be derived from Jesus losing to The Walking Dead? Well, it proves that about 12 million Americans want to see blood and gore. Wait, there was plenty of that in the Bible's crucifixion scenes. Maybe the zombie viewers simply wanted cheap thrills. Yeah, that's it. Cheap thrills triumphed over a spiritual experience. Cannibalism beat baptism.<br><br>Base entertainment almost always beats higher brow stuff but watching flesh-eating zombies on Easter does put a different spin on things, does it not? I mean, how soon can we digest dismemberment on television after eating our baked ham dinner? One hour, two?<br><br>At least Jesus was in context. The New Testament says the son of God rose from the dead on Easter. The zombies rise from the dead whenever their makeup is finished. <br><br>Honestly, I have no idea what this zombie phenomenon is all about. Way back in the 1960's, I saw the first explicit zombie movie "The Night of the Living Dead." Things were creeping along okay until a little girl turned into a zombie and tried to eat her mom. At that point my entire group decided enough was enough and we bolted the theatre.<br><br>But today that scene would be tame. Now zombie kids will eat their entire family if given the opportunity. Depravity doesn't even begin to cover it. Apparently, we Americans have an unending appetite for gross behavior. Pun intended.<br><br>So what must Jesus think? Here he is getting nailed to the cross by smirking Romans and getting trounced by TV zombies at the same time. The prince of peace preached that everyone on earth should love their neighbors as themselves. I do not believe that Jesus would condone eating your neighbor even if you are dead. <br><br>Many folks who like this zombie business freely admit it's a low form of entertainment but so what, they say. It's fun to envision yourself outsmarting the zombies, blasting them all to hell with shotguns and then escaping to some tattoo parlor. I guess that's fun in some precincts. <br><br>But not for me. I threw in with Jesus even though the guy who played him looked a bit like Spicolli in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". Sure, I knew how the mini-series turned out but there are worse things you can do on Easter Sunday. Like watching man-eating zombies.<br><br>All I know is this: when Jesus appeared to the apostles after he died - thank God they did not have access to AMC.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-04-03T07:00:00ZHey, Isn't that the Spring Bunny?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hey-Isnt-that-the-Spring-Bunny/40335.html2013-03-28T07:00:00Z2013-03-28T07:00:00ZBecause this is the holiest week of the year on the Judeo-Christian calendar, it might be useful to look at how theology is faring in the age of secularism.<br><br>As you may know, there is a movement in America to remove the word God from the currency, to replace the word "Christmas" with "winter," and to replace the word "Easter"' with "spring." On Long Island where I live, one school is running a "spring egg hunt" with a special appearance by the "Spring Bunny." <br><br>Of course this kind of stupidity is insulting to Christians, but it's been going on for years. Committed secular folks feel no shame or fear whatsoever in attempting to diminish Christian celebrations.<br><br>But those same people would never intrude on Ramadan because they fear reprisal. And you very rarely hear the anti-religious loons go after Jewish traditions because the Jews have powerful organizations that will respond quickly to anti-Semitic behavior.<br><br>It is, however, a different story in the Christian precincts. Here there is no organized resistance to attacks despite the fact that about 80% of the U.S. population describes itself as Christian.<br><br>Perhaps the lack of response to assaults on Christian tradition can be attributed to the "turn the other cheek" mandate that the theology espouses. But more likely the Christian community is complacent. Unlike Jews and Muslims, they generally don't feel urgency when their faith is attacked.<br><br>Recently at Florida Atlantic University, a communications instructor, Dr. Deandre Poole, ordered his students to write the name "Jesus" on a piece of paper, drop the paper to the floor and stomp on it. Dr. Poole contended the exercise was necessary in order to develop "critical thinking."<br><br>One of the students, Ryan Rotela, a Mormon, refused the order. He was quickly disciplined by the university and removed from the class.<br><br>After my TV program began investigating the situation, FAU quickly reversed their decision, apologized to Ryan Rotela, and allowed him to continue in the class without answering to the instructor who, incredibly, is a Democratic Party official in Florida.<br><br><br>What struck me about this case was the lack of outrage by the Christian community in Florida. Ryan's story was reported in the local media but nothing really happened until it got to the national level.<br><br>There is no question that secular forces in America feel emboldened and are pushing their anti-religion envelopes as far as they can. They know the media is largely behind them and they also have seen little pushback from Christian leadership. So why not demand that the Easter bunny be rechristened? Why not attack manger displays in public? What's the downside?<br><br>While contemplating the resurrection of Jesus this week, American Christians might want to resurrect themselves. Because if the anti-Christian movement continues and does not see opposition rising up - in twenty years the spring bunny will be placing spring eggs into a spring basket everywhere.<br><br>The Easter bunny? Extinct.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-03-28T07:00:00ZTax and StealBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Tax-and-Steal/40318.html2013-03-21T07:00:00Z2013-03-21T07:00:00ZSo my vacation plans to Cyprus have been cancelled. Something about the government there seizing everybody's wallet because the country is bankrupt. Another nanny state bites the dust. When will they ever learn?<br><br>Never.<br><br>Here in the good old USA, there are 73 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Folks like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Charles Rangel, Rep. Maxine Watters and Rep. Alan Grayson. Sanders is the only honest one of the bunch. He comes right out and admits he's a socialist. He'll take all your stuff while telling you tales of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. <br><br>The CPC recently released their budget vision. They want a 49% income tax rate for the nation's highest earners. Half of the take. They also want to eliminate most deductions for the rich crew and, when they die, the progressives want 65% of what they leave to their families.<br><br>Sound reasonable? Sure, if you're Joseph Stalin.<br><br>Of course the CPC wants to couple the onerous taxation with even more spending. To them, Barack Obama is Jack Benny. Look him up.<br><br>Yep, despite the nearly $17 trillion debt the progressives want an additional $2.5 trillion for "job creation." That means giving tax money to folks they like. Doesn't matter what kind of jobs are created, if you have anything to do with fighting global warming, the progressives want to send you a check.<br><br>The CPC also wants an additional $2.2 trillion to spend on science and technology, the environment, income security (that's direct welfare payments) and of course that time-tested money pit "education."<br><br>I love the education deal. The USA now spends more money per student than any nation on earth. But it's not enough. It will never be enough. The kids can't learn without more money, don't you know that?<br><br>Flashback. Eighth grade, 1963. St. Brigid's School, Westbury, New York. One nun against 60 working class kids. Every kid could read, write, do fractions, diagram a sentence. Everybody knew what Congress was and how Kennedy beat Nixon. Nobody had any money. Sister Martin worked for free. I ate tuna sandwiches and apples. So did everybody else.<br><br>Somehow the nuns educated even the dimmest kids. And I can attest to that, as I was beyond dim.<br><br>But back to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They do want to cut one bit of federal spending: defense. They want to go back to the 2006 level. Never mind that the former Secretary of Defense, ardent democrat Leon Panetta, says that would put the nation in peril, the CPC doesn't care. To them, the military are imperialists.<br><br>The truth is that the CPC doesn't like America. Capitalism is bad. Share the land. Take from rich. Power to the people. Abbie Hoffman would have loved these people.<br><br>But they are entrenched on Capitol Hill. Voters put them there. That's democracy for you. Pinheads can achieve power. And the rest of us suffer.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-03-21T07:00:00ZHow the Feds are Conning YouBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/How-the-Feds-are-Conning-You/40254.html2013-03-14T07:00:00Z2013-03-14T07:00:00ZThis week, President Obama told ABC News that the current national debt, approaching $17 trillion, is "sustainable" and he does not feel the need to try to balance the budget.<br><br>Where is Herbert Hoover when we need an economic genius?<br><br>Just about every honest economist knows that running up massive debt without an effective strategy to improve the economy is flat out dangerous. If the U.S. dollar collapses, there will be a worldwide depression that will make the recent recession look like an after-party at George Clooney's house.<br><br>In the meantime, I can report the following federal expenditures that the President apparently has no problem overseeing:<br><br>- $27 million to the country of Morocco to teach the folks over there how to make pottery. I guess the Moroccan government is not capable of pottery instruction. This con is courtesy of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which now has the nerve to tell us that the pottery project is "not on track to achieve its goals." Translation, the dollars we've sent are likely to have been stolen.<br><br>- $1.5 million to the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston to study why many lesbian Americans are overweight. The National Institutes of Health calls the situation "an issue of high public health significance." Sure. Everybody's talking about it.<br><br>- $947,000 to research a "Mars menu." What astronauts would eat on the planet Mars if they ever get there. NASA says it will send six volunteers into a barren Hawaiian landscape to eat stuff so it can figure out what tastes good on Mars. I am NOT making this up, with apologies to Dave Barry. <br><br>- $325,000 to develop a robot squirrel. The National Science Foundation wants the robots to scare rattlesnakes. The agency also says the robosquirrels will help in "public outreach." Does anyone know what that means? Rocky? Bulwinkle?<br><br>- The National Science Foundation strikes again by funding a New York City theatre company called "The Civilians." They got nearly $700,000 tax dollars to put on a play about "climate change and biodiversity." Have you seen that play? No? That might be because it only played in Kansas City. Even Al Gore hasn't seen it.<br><br>Finally, if you go to the Alabama Watermelon exposition this year, you paid for some it. If you visit Nebraska, you should know that your tax dollars funded a company that makes shampoo and toothpaste for pets. And if you like caviar - you paid for a website designed to bring those exotic fish eggs to "the masses."<br><br>These expenditures are so stupid it hurts. But I also think they are a criminal misuse of our tax dollars. It is estimated that the federal government could save $400 billion a year by eliminating wasteful and redundant programs.<br><br>There comes a point when folks get the government they deserve. The American people reelected Barack Obama knowing he is the biggest spending president in history. In fact, Mr. Obama has spent more federal money than every president combined up until George W. Bush's second year in office. And to this day, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party are proud of their spending record.<br><br>The Donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party. It should be the robosquirrel.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-03-14T07:00:00ZOh My GodBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Oh-My-God/40187.html2013-03-07T08:00:00Z2013-03-07T08:00:00ZWith the term 'OMG' (oh, my God) becoming a huge cliché, it might be worth taking a look at how Americans are seeing the Almighty these days - that is, if they are looking at all.<br><br>A recent Gallup Poll says just 31% of Americans worship publicly on a weekly basis, while 43% rarely go to a church, synagogue or Mosque.<br><br>Growing up under the heavy hand of the School Sisters of Notre Dame, it was drummed into me that attending weekly mass was not an option. It was a must to avoid eternal damnation, which was not a prospect filled with many positives. Hell fire was perpetual and no parole would be offered.<br><br>And so I went to mass and was even an altar boy, memorizing a variety of Latin prayers, which basically said Jesus was a good guy and that everybody should avoid offending him. Not a bad message, so I really had no beef unless I was assigned to the 6:30 am mass. Was Jesus even up at that hour?<br><br>Today, only 24% of American Catholics attend weekly mass, so Lucifer must be very busy expanding accommodations. There are many reasons for this but two stand out. First, mass is often deadly dull. Sometimes the priest is from Botswana and you can't understand him. Other times you can understand the Padre, but twenty minutes on the Corinthians can be challenging, if you know what I mean.<br><br>It would be good if priests, ministers, rabbis and Imans would gin it up a little.<br><br>The second reason that church going is in decline is that we are living in a narcissistic time when self-gratification has largely replaced the golden rule of treating others as you want to be treated.<br><br>Far be it for the public schools to teach this, but the USA was founded on basic Judeo-Christian principles. Don't believe me - take a trip to Washington DC and tour the Supreme Court building. There you will see a sculpted copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall.<br><br>But why? Moses wasn't an American. He didn't cross the Red Sea into Delaware. The reason the commandments are on the display is that the Founding Fathers based the American legal system on honesty, and the avoidance of doing harm to others. The basic tenets of the Commandments.<br><br>But many secular Americans, including the ACLU, would dismantle the Supreme Court display if they could. We are now in the age of anti-religion, where pious folks are looked upon as odd. Religion is a bad thing to the secular-progressive. It's too judgmental and stands in the way of unfettered abortion, gay marriage and other sacred causes of the S-P movement.<br><br>Faith-based organizations like the Catholic Church should be fighting against secularism but they rarely do. Instead, they are on the defensive as scandals and apathy have devastated organized religion. The Gallup poll reflects that.<br><br>But for me, a sinner, it is worth an hour a week to think about things of a spiritual nature in order to try to improve my life. I even turn off my cell phone. In pursuit of a higher calling, it is just not needed.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-03-07T08:00:00ZCalifornia Dreamin'BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/California-Dreamin/39998.html2013-02-28T08:00:00Z2013-02-28T08:00:00Z(Los Angeles) It is Academy Award weekend in the nation's entertainment capital, and the one percenters are out in force. Wealth displays are running riot, robust consumption the philosophical standard.<br><br>I am staying at the legendary Bel-Air Hotel, a place where a cheeseburger and fries cost more than $30. Business is good. Money for most guests - no concern. They have it, they spend it. Life for the swells is sweet - at least they want you to think it is.<br><br>President Obama has little use for these wealthy people but, strangely, many of them fervently love him for despising their circumstance. Unlike Bill Clinton, who couldn't get enough west coast "hospitality," Mr. Obama takes their political donations but then gets out of town faster than Wile E. Coyote. He knows show business is a shallow pit where almost everyone is disposable. <br><br>Above all, the president is a social justice man. And despite all the celebrity liberal blather, social justice is not exactly a top priority in the elegant salons of Beverly Hills, where hair treatments can run a thousand bucks. It must be hard for the president to cozy up to people who spend $20,000 on a weekend vacation after his experience on the south side of Chicago. True compassion for the underprivileged must extend further than celebrity fundraisers at Spago and the president knows it. <br><br>It is certainly difficult for good, selfless people to defend the excesses of capitalism, and Barack Obama has capitalized on the resentment. He has seized the greed to fund his level-playing field dream by demanding the wealthy pay "their fair share." The president is going to take as much money from the affluent as he can before he leaves office. He has turned the White House into Sherwood Forest; taxing the rich and redistributing the cash to the less well off. <br><br>But the unintended consequences of the money grab have escaped the president. The folks who drive the economy don't trust him. Banks continue to sit on billions in cash that could be lent to expand the economy. Many small business owners are actually cutting back their payrolls because of the massive Obamacare regulations.<br><br>So instead of encouraging the private marketplace to create opportunities for Americans, Mr. Obama is actually strangling upward mobility. This defeats his purpose of economic justice and the rising debt that he is championing may, in the end, crush the underclass.<br><br>All of this is far too complicated for many show biz types to absorb. It is much easier to feel than to think. And they feel much better about their $100,000 cars when they cheer for the social justice president. But like Hollywood itself, America's current fiscal situation is primarily smoke and mirrors. And believe me, there is no wizard behind the curtain.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-02-28T08:00:00ZThe Big ConBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Big-Con/39939.html2013-02-21T08:00:00Z2013-02-21T08:00:00ZPlease listen up. We are all being conned by the Obama administration. This year, the American taxpayer will fork over about $571 billion dollars to pay for educating children in the nation's public schools. All told, the country spends close to $16,000 per student every year on primary through college education. That's the highest per student spending rate in the world.<br><br>However, it's not enough according to President Obama. He wants more tax dollars especially for "early education." He said so in his State of the Union address, drawing big time applause from his crew. Of course we need to spend more on education. And anyone who opposes that - hates the kids!<br><br>The centerpiece of the president's early education vision is the program "Head Start," which has been in place since 1965. Over the past 48 years, the feds have spent close to $200 billion dollars on Head Start. But there's one big problem: the program is not working.<br><br>According to a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services, by the end of third grade, Head Start children remain academically disadvantaged compared to their same-age peers. So why did the president not mention that? Why is he still pounding the drum for more funding on a program that is not cutting it?<br><br>The answer is social engineering. <br><br>Mr. Obama will not say this, but one of his devoted followers, Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz, will. What the left really wants is to redistribute income through the public education system.<br><br>In a recent New York Times column, Stiglitz called for the following:<br><br>- More spending on pre-school education.<br><br>- More spending on before and after class programs.<br><br>- More entitlements to insure that pregnant women are protected from "environmental hazards." That means increased payments to prospective moms for better food, housing, and medical care.<br><br>- And finally the topper: direct cash payments to parents of poor children who make sure their kids participate in school programs and show up for class. If that ever comes to be, America will be essentially paying parents to parent.<br><br>It is all about control. President Obama believes the deck in America is stacked against the poor and wants to get lower-income citizens as much cash and entitlements as he can. And masking those payments under "more money for education" is a clever way to do that.<br><br>It is certainly true that poor children have a much tougher academic road than affluent kids. And smart educational policy can close that gap. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush told me the reason Head Start is not delivering is that it doesn't concentrate enough on reading. In many school districts, it is primarily a baby-sitting service.<br><br>As a former high school teacher and a student in a class of 60 urchins at St. Brigid's grammar school, I know that education is all about discipline and motivation. Disadvantaged students need extra attention, a stable school environment, and enough teacher creativity to stimulate their imaginations. Those things are not expensive.<br><br>But that's not what all the federal educational spending is all about, is it? It's about redistributing income. We are being conned big time. And it's the kids who suffer the most because of it.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-02-21T08:00:00ZRockin' in the Free WorldBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rockin-in-the-Free-World/39844.html2013-02-14T08:00:00Z2013-02-14T08:00:00ZWhile watching the Grammy awards last Sunday, it occurred to me that American culture has been defined by music ever since the end of World War II. After the Germans and Japanese surrendered in 1945, millions of GI's returned home to marry and begin families. The big band era of good time music accompanied that, and romantic singers like Frank Sinatra ruled the day.<br><br>In the fifties, many young people, tired of conformity, began to rebel. The rise of Elvis Presley illuminated that rebellion. Then the angst kind of died out as Chubby Checker ushered in the Twist in 1960 and Americans began dancing all over the place.<br><br>Exhausted from doing the Pony, young consumers eventually began to respond to the snappy melodies of an English group called The Beatles and, once again, music mania gripped the nation. The British invasion featured the four mop-tops, The Rolling Stones and The Animals, among others.<br><br>Then Vietnam emerged.<br><br>That led to protest music, drug-fueled lyrics, as well as introspective tunes by The Doors, The Jefferson Airplane, and Bob Dylan. Acid rock soon followed and everything was very far out, man.<br><br>After about seven years, that intensity died out. The dark themes receded and dancing once again came back. The age of disco took hold as The Bee Gees and other polyester-clad groups dominated the charts. The good times of the late 1970's unleashed Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Earth, Wind and Fire. But it all ended when the AIDS scare arrived in 1984. Suddenly, the uninhibited party became dangerous.<br><br>Then music kind of meandered around for a while until rap emerged. At first, the anger-fueled recordings were confined to urban radio stations and a niche audience. But when Elton John sang a duet with the white rapper Eminem on a Grammy telecast, rap went mainstream. Massive parental headaches followed.<br><br>The rise of the Internet signaled the slow collapse of record stores and the music industry quickly fragmented after the turn of the century. Consumers could now download songs into portable machines and bop at will. Americans no longer had to depend on the radio to hear their favorite tunes.<br><br>Since then, there have been a series of pop superstars but no real purpose or point-of-view in the music which, again, may reflect the current time. I mean what do Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez really stand for? Narcissism? Just asking.<br><br>The talent is still there. I heard Justin Bieber do a knockout version of Paul McCartney's classic "Let it Be." And Bruno Mars with his little hat was pretty good on the Grammy show this year.<br><br>We are definitely living in confusing, rapidly changing times as machines are now dominating leisure options for many consumers. Fifty years ago, we all were humming the same tunes heard over and over on AM radio. The good vibrations of The Beach Boys thrilled Maine as well as Malibu. The music actually brought Americans together.<br><br>Today, the tuneless lure of cyber-space has pulled us apart. Perhaps forever.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-02-14T08:00:00ZBorn on the BayouBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Born-on-the-Bayou/39773.html2013-02-07T08:00:00Z2013-02-07T08:00:00Z(Kraemer, Louisiana) Roland Torres wants you to know a few things. He lives in a rural area where life is pretty straightforward. His family has been active on the bayou for five generations, witnessing a daily battle of survival of the fittest. The birds, animals and reptiles who inhabit the vast swamps of south central Louisiana live only as long as their wits and luck hold out. They are on their own 24/7.<br><br>So is Roland.<br><br>A former game warden, Torres is of Spanish descent and still speaks the language of his Cajun ancestors: French. He makes a decent living giving tours of the bayou and asks for nothing from the powers that be. What he has, he earned. He does not understand why some Americans accept government assistance. In this very poor part of America, someone who works hard can still earn a decent living.<br><br>Roland Torres also has guns. And they came in handy immediately after Hurricane Katrina when a horde of folks fled New Orleans about 70 miles away. Roland says "the good, the bad, and the ugly" flooded his zone, looking for safety from the storm, which just glanced his bayou. When some city thugs began to show menace, Roland calmly produced his arsenal. The danger quickly passed.<br><br>For almost 70 years, Roland has lived on the bayou. He has never ventured out of Louisiana, yet loves America. He cherishes the values his family handed down to him. He and his wife have been married for 51 years. They met in high school at age 16. Roland calls his wife an "angel."<br><br>They have three sons, two of whom work the bayou with Roland. They are entirely self-reliant. If he had to, Roland says, he could survive in the wilderness with a penknife, a spool of thread, some matches and a cache of dried rice. That's for luring birds which he would trap with the thread and cook with the matches. He says he could live for years off the land, even explaining how to eat sawgrass. "That can keep you alive if you know what you're doing," he told me. <br><br>Roland Torres watches some of the news programs on cable TV. Almost every modest dwelling in the swampland has cable. He likes the conservative shows. He doesn't quite understand the big social changes taking place. He protects his family with guns. Why should that bother anyone, Roland asks? I have no answer.<br><br>To Roland, President Obama is an enigma. He doesn't understand "income redistribution." Roland charges a fair price to show you his world and you can take it or leave it. If you leave it, he'll find other work. There's always something a man can do to feed his family.<br><br>Millions of Americans believe exactly what Roland Torres believes. But they are seldom heard. Not many live shots coming out of the bayou.<br><br><a href="http://www.billoreilly.com/memberphotos?action=viewPhotoSet&photoSetID=48">[Premium Members can check out photos from Bill's trip to the Bayou here!]</a>BillOReilly.com Staff2013-02-07T08:00:00ZWhat the Babies Would SayBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-the-Babies-Would-Say/39721.html2013-01-31T08:00:00Z2013-01-31T08:00:00ZIt is one of life's great mysteries that so many liberal people are so callous when it comes to aborting fetuses. I mean, the Democratic Convention last summer was almost a pro-abortion pep rally, as a variety of pro-choice speakers, including the self-proclaimed "Catholic woman" Caroline Kennedy, knelt at the altar of "reproductive rights."<br><br>Recently, another woman who calls herself a Catholic, Mary Elizabeth Williams, wrote a shocking article on the website Salon. Entitled "So What If Abortion Ends Life?" Ms. Williams starkly states: "I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice."<br><br>In the body of the article Williams says this about her own pregnancies: "I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside me.<br><br>"(But) here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about ... a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her ... should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."<br><br>So now a developing fetus or viable baby ingesting in the womb is a "non-autonomous entity." Good grief!<br><br>The measure of a decent human being is how he or she treats the defenseless. The philosophy of Ms. Williams echoes past tyranny: "Might makes Right!" What gives Mary Elizabeth Williams the right to determine that her life is better than the baby she carries? Who appointed Ms. Williams the arbitrator of who lives and who dies? Always, Ms. Williams? Abortion is acceptable always?<br><br>We are not talking about life endangerment or catastrophic damage to the mother here. No. What Williams believes, and she's not alone, is that a woman can execute her fetus simply because "she's the boss."<br><br>You may remember the late term abortion doctor George Tiller. For $5,000, Tiller would drill a hole into the skull of a baby anytime up until birth. Tiller had an assistant in his Kansas clinic, Dr. Kirstin Neuhaus, whose assignment was to put on paper a reason for the late termination. Pretty much any reason would do - including "anxiety."<br><br>On May 31, 2009, Dr. Tiller was shot through the eye while attending a church service. His killer, Scott Roder, is serving life in prison. The murder made national headlines and in many press dispatches, Tiller was portrayed as a martyr. People like me, who had criticized Tiller before the vicious crime, were accused by far left loons of encouraging the assassination. <br><br>On June 22, 2012, Dr. Kristin Neuhaus was informed that Kansas authorities had revoked her medical license. A judge ruled that she did not properly perform medical examinations of eleven abortion patients. The prosecution said that Neuhaus was a "threat to any future patients she might have."<br><br>Not to mention the babies she helped Tiller abort.<br><br>There comes a time when a human being has to either face evil or admit to allowing it. Abortion is legal in the United States but it should not be celebrated or used as a political tool. Viable babies are human beings. If they could talk they would tell Mary Elizabeth Williams and other pro-choice zealots that their lives should not be marginalized by someone who thinks she's the boss. That's what the babies would say.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-01-31T08:00:00ZPumping Up the LiberalismBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pumping-Up-the-Liberalism/39634.html2013-01-24T08:00:00Z2013-01-24T08:00:00ZSo now the president is a committed man of the left. No longer is he faking moderation, or even trying to bring the nation "together." Nope. As he made clear in his Inauguration speech, Barack Obama is dedicating himself to achieving "social justice," no matter what the cost. <br><br>And the cost is high. The annual federal deficit is more than one trillion dollars, the national debt approaching seventeen trillion. Just last week, the non-partisan Government Accounting Office warned once again that federal spending is "unsustainable." That means if government spending is not curtailed, and quickly, the U.S. dollar could collapse.<br><br>But you would not know that by listening to the President's address. He was decidedly upbeat when telling the nation that more needs to be done (code for spending) to insure "equality."<br><br>That's the big leftwing word these days - "equality."<br><br>But can we be real here for a moment? Does anyone, even those of you living in San Francisco, believe that an American who earns a PHD in economics is going to be equal to the high school dropout in the marketplace? Anyone? Bueller?<br><br>So, let's drop the equality business - at least in the capitalist arena. The strong and smart prosper, the weak and lazy fail. <br><br>But not in Obama world. Not there. The president sees his mandate as "providing" for those who can't cut it. He is the biggest spending president in the nation's history by far.<br><br>Mr. Obama is proud of his belief that government knows best. When he told the world that individuals were not totally responsible for their personal success, that government has a major role in it, many Americans were taken aback. But Barack Obama sincerely believes that.<br><br>Let me prove him wrong with a vivid comparison.<br><br>In 1979, a man named Rupert Murdoch started a company that today employs 48,000 workers worldwide. The employees of the News Corporation, of which I am one, pay taxes and support families. The company gives us an opportunity to succeed on our own without any financial assistance from the government. In turn, we provide assets to the government. We don't take from it.<br><br>Some of our tax dollars go to pay the salaries and benefits for government workers. Since he was elected, President Obama has increased the federal payroll by more than 130,000. Most of those folks work hard but, again, they are paid by private sector workers.<br><br>So which scenario is better for America? The private sector situation or the expanding government workforce? <br><br>If you don't know the answer to that question, you don't want to know. <br><br>President Obama is a utopian at heart. He wants to improve the lives of the downtrodden, which is a good thing. But, he doesn't understand that damaging the free marketplace in pursuit of "social justice" will eventually harm those whom he wants to <br>help. The nation's crushing debt is a tsunami brewing off shore.<br><br>Let's hope President Obama wises up before we all get swept away.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-01-24T08:00:00ZJust Say YesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Just-Say-Yes/39531.html2013-01-17T08:00:00Z2013-01-17T08:00:00ZIf you have kids, you most likely prayed hard that they would avoid drugs and alcohol. Once a child becomes intoxicated, childhood is over. The young person will never be the same again.<br><br>Thus, a sane society does not encourage substance abuse simply in order to protect children. A sane society does not put a happy face on inebriation.<br><br>We are not a sane society.<br><br>With almost 30 million Americans currently categorized as "substance abusers," you would think that Nancy Reagan's "just say no" campaign, which launched in 1983, would be resurrected. But saying no is not what America in 2012 is all about. Saying yes to whatever you want to do - is the rule of the day.<br><br>Washington State and Colorado have legalized the use of marijuana, and many Americans are celebrating. As Bob Dylan once sang: "everyone must get stoned!" The usual excuses are put forth. It's a freedom issue. We can tax the drug to get revenue. It will get the criminal element out of it.<br><br>But the truth is that legalized pot (or drugs of any kind) creates massive unintended consequences.<br><br>- In Holland, so many problems have arisen from pot being sold in "coffee shops" that just last week a new law banning the sale of cannabis to "foreigners" was enacted. It seems the streets of Amsterdam, in particular, have become saturated with stoned people doing things outside that should be done inside.<br><br>- The Netherlands also passed a new law forbidding children from smoking pot IN SCHOOL. That's right, some of the urchins were getting high between classes. One teacher told the press it's hard to stop that when pot is being legally sold across the street, where hardcore drug addicts buy it and then sell it to the kids in order to get heroin money.<br><br>- In Portugal, they have legalized all drugs. The result: drug-related homicides have increased 40%. Drug overdoses are up 30%.<br><br>- In Switzerland, drug-related deaths doubled and the health care system was overwhelmed after heroin was made legal in Zurich. The law was rescinded.<br><br>But here in the USA, we are now bullish on pot. Willie Nelson wrote a book glorifying the drug. Snoop Dogg says he wants to teach his kids how to smoke reefer. And the media in general sees marijuana as a harmless diversion. If you are down on pot, you are decidedly uncool.<br><br>Fine with me, I'll risk the stigma. According to the federal government, 8,400 Americans begin using drugs every day, half of them under the age of 18. And 68% of folks who become addicted to drugs begin with marijuana. Get the picture?<br><br>So celebrate the pot culture if you want. But know you are not helping the kids by taking the high road.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-01-17T08:00:00ZFreedom LostBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Freedom-Lost/39467.html2013-01-10T08:00:00Z2013-01-10T08:00:00ZIf you see Kris Kristofferson around, please tell him thanks for writing the line, "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" in his song "Me and Bobby McGee." That thought is sage, and very appropriate for America in the year 2013.<br><br>In California, Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law an astounding 876 new mandates. They all took effect last week. Now in the Golden State you cannot do the following:<br><br>- Hunt a bear using trained dogs. Untrained canines are okay, I guess. And how would the authorities be able to tell? Would the dog have to take a test in the forest?<br><br>- Sit in an off road vehicle without being in a seat. You can't sit on the floor. Or on the roof. Do off road vehicles even have roofs? I don't know.<br><br>- Use a boat in a "freshwater body" without paying a separate fee. That's to raise money to control the influx of "invasive mussels." I thought that was a 1950s monster movie.<br><br>- Drive a party bus without a special license. Can't wait to see that test. Do you know the words to "Celebrate" by Kool and the Gang? <br><br>The list of new laws is almost endless, and it is clear that Governor Brown and the California legislature have been very busy thinking up ways to control every aspect of people's lives. And that's what's basically happening throughout this country. Politicians, some of them well-meaning, are trying to legislate everything.<br><br>New York's Mayor Bloomberg doesn't want us to be chubby, so he's trying to ban soft drinks in large cups. If a child rides his bike, he often looks like a Roman Gladiator with all the protective gear. Drive through a yellow light, and you may be ticketed thanks to a camera tied onto a pole. Everybody's watching everything. And then sending it out to the world via email.<br><br>The more laws that governments pass, the less individual freedom there is. Any student of history will tell you that. Totalitarian countries ban pretty much everything. The Taliban whipped people in public for dancing. Mao would execute you for saying a prayer. Hitler would send you to a concentration camp if he thought you were gay.<br><br>We Americans need to stop this nanny state stuff. Reasonable protections are fine. It should be a crime to text while driving. But in California it is now against the law to park at a broken meter for more time than you could if said meter were working. I can just see the cops standing there with a stopwatch.<br><br>I consider myself a law-abiding person. But I'm exhausted. I don't know where to put the bottles, newspapers, cans, and other stuff for garbage pickup outside my house. The rules are so thick you need someone from M.I.T. to explain them.<br><br>So here's my pitch to Jerry Brown and other elected officials. Relax. The bears will be fine. The mussels will invade no matter what you do. The parking meter deal isn't important.<br><br>Okay?BillOReilly.com Staff2013-01-10T08:00:00ZHappy Holidays, Saudi ArabiaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happy-Holidays-Saudi-Arabia/39412.html2013-01-03T08:00:00Z2013-01-03T08:00:00ZWith Christmas now in the rearview mirror, it is perplexing that some far left bloggers are still bemoaning the fact that Newsweek Magazine proclaimed folks who respect the traditions of the Christmas holiday "won" the battle against secular-progressives who want to diminish the birth of Jesus in the public square.<br><br>Because of that ongoing angst, and because I am still in the Christmas spirit, I offer some travel tips to the anti-Christmas crew in preparation for next December. If you don't like Christmas, book your trip now.<br><br>North Korea: according to reporting by ForeignPolicy.com, that feisty little country does not permit the celebration of Christmas - and anyone caught worshipping Jesus can be tortured or executed. Sounds like Rhode Island. Right now, there are about 70,000 Christians in North Korean labor camps, decking the halls with rocks and concrete ten hours a day.<br><br>The North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, even threatened "unexpected consequences" if the South Korean government allowed lights on trees within view of the border. Leader Un calls that a provocation and a "mean form of psychological warfare."<br><br>Saudi Arabia: here, all non-Muslim religious activities are banned in public - so unless Santa puts a prayer rug in his sleigh and heads directly for Mecca, he is persona-non-grata in this nation. The Saudis even have a religious police force, which runs around checking to see who has been naughty and nice, in the Islamic context. <br><br>According to ForeignPolicy.com, several dozen Christmas trees imported from Holland were seized by Saudi authorities, hacked to pieces, and then sent back to the Netherlands. So there. No Christmas for you!<br><br>Cuba: comrade Fidel banned the holiday in 1969, saying Cubans were needed to harvest sugar cane on December 25 - and don't even think about Christmas dinner. That ban lasted three decades - until the Pope told Fidel to knock it off. Most Cubans are Catholic and didn't really appreciate the government calling Santa a symbol of "consumerism" and "mental colonization." When asked what exactly the "colonization" deal meant, Santa replied: "ho, ho, ho."<br><br>Today, the communist government does not decorate buildings (there is little private property in Cuba) but does allow Cubans to put up Christmas stuff inside. However, the Cuban air force is likely to fire on any reindeer intruding on the country's air space.<br><br>Cuba, Saudi Arabia and North Korea give American secular progressives three good options in which to avoid Christmas in 2013. Also, there are no public displays of Yuletide in Antarctica because there are no buildings. The country of Mali does not have much Christmas stuff going on, but watch out for al Qaeda. Finally, Bikini Island in the Pacific remains largely uninhabited, so there's not much about Jesus on display.<br><br>Finally, I hope there is calm this year - especially in December. As Yoko Ono is fond of saying, let's give peace a chance (and, by extension, drop the whining about Christmas).<br><br>If you can't do that, Fidel and Comrade Un will be happy to see you.BillOReilly.com Staff2013-01-03T08:00:00ZSemper Fi, Unless It's Not ConvenientBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Semper--Fi-Unless-Its-Not-Convenient/39398.html2012-12-27T08:00:00Z2012-12-27T08:00:00ZJon Hammar saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, but his most brutal foreign experience was in Mexico. Last August, the 27-year-old former Marine Corporal was incarcerated by Mexican authorities in Matamoros for trying to register an antique shotgun with customs agents. Foolishly, Corporal Hammar followed instructions given to him by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Brownsville, Texas. He registered the gun with them and the brought the paperwork to the Mexicans to get their stamp of approval in order to carry the gun through the country. Hammar and a friend were driving a Winnebago, hoping to have a nice surfing vacation with some hunting on the side.<br><br>Even though the Mexican authorities clearly saw that Hammar was trying to follow the rules, they seized the Winnebago and locked the Corporal up in the notoriously corrupt CEDES prison anyway. There he was threatened by other inmates and told by guards that he could buy his way out of the hellhole by paying money to the "right people".<br><br>Hammar's parents, who live in South Florida, immediately contacted the State Department and were told to be patient. And so they were. Three months later, Hammar was still incarcerated, had not even seen a judge, and things were becoming increasingly desperate.<br><br>That's when his parents gave up on the State Department and contacted the media.<br><br>When the story crossed my desk, I found it hard to believe. Corporal Hammar had served his country honorably, returned to the USA with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, was treated for nine months in California, and simply wanted a vacation after his ordeal. He was obviously being held on bogus charges, and the State Department seemed impotent. When we asked Secretary Hillary Clinton for a comment, she refused to say anything about the case. A few of her deputies visited Jon in prison, but the official line was that State could do nothing more.<br><br>Senator Bill Nelson and Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen raised some hell about the situation, but things continued to deteriorate. Mexican authorities actually chained Hammar to his bed. Another inmate sent a picture of that out to the press.<br><br>In mid-December, a Fox News White House Correspondent asked Jay Carney about the case. President Obama's spokesman looked perplexed and said he did not know anything about it. As unbelievable as that sounds, I believe Carney was telling the truth. And by telling one truth, Carney indicated another truth: neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Clinton had come to the aide of an American combat veteran who was being abused by Mexican authorities.<br><br>Disgusted by our apathetic government, I took the case directly to the government of Mexico. On national television, I bluntly told the new Mexican Presidente, Nieto, that if he did not release Corporal Hammar by Christmas, I would lead a boycott of Mexican tourism and products. The next day, Jon Hammar was released after a Mexican judge ruled there was no intent to commit a crime.<br><br>The ordeal cost the Hammar family tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and untold emotional damage. Thankfully, the Corporal did arrive home to South Florida in time to have a nice Christmas with his family. But this story is a cautionary tale for any American traveling outside the USA. If you get into trouble, you will be essentially on your own - even if you are a combat veteran. Our leaders in Washington are basically bureaucrats with short attention spans. If they couldn't work up the energy to help Jon Hammar, they are not going to help you.<br><br>True leadership means helping those who are powerless and sincerely need help. That takes time and energy. President Abraham Lincoln set aside one day a week to answer calls for help from the folks. The current administration would not answer a desperate call for months. <br><br>As for Mexico, it remains a corrupt country hostile to the rule of law. Let the buyer beware.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-12-27T08:00:00ZThe Christmas SpiritBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Christmas-Spirit/39384.html2012-12-20T08:00:00Z2012-12-20T08:00:00ZAnyone offended by public displays of Christmas needs to see a psychiatrist. Are we clear on this? You are a loon if the sight of baby Jesus arouses anger or sadness in you. Get help.<br> <br>Which brings us to the Governor of Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee. He recently told me on national television the reason he will not use the word "Christmas" in describing the state Christmas tree. The idea is that the word might offend non-Christians. The Governor calls the state-purchased symbol a "holiday tree."<br> <br>My reply to the governor was that by excluding the word "Christmas," he might be offending the 73% of Americans who describe themselves as Christian - not to mention the 2.2 billion Christians worldwide. Chafee chafed when he heard that, but had no answer.<br> <br>And then the Governor did a very interesting thing: he announced the lighting of the "holiday tree" in Providence a full 30 minutes before the cord was plugged in. Very few Rhode Islanders even knew about the tree lighting because it was done so surreptitiously. Chafee did that because he feared protestors would do what they did last year: sing Christmas carols at the lighting. And we can't have that now, can we?<br> <br>Jon Stewart and his merry band of elves will tell you that the so-called "War on Christmas" is a figment of the imagination, perhaps a result of indigestion after eating too much holiday pudding. Stewart's posture is similar to what Ebenezer Scrooge put forth when the Ghost of Christmas future told him he was bound for hell. I am channeling Charles Dickens to see if the Ghost can visit Jon Stewart on Christmas Eve. I'll let you know what happens.<br> <br>There is something to the argument that there are more important things to worry about than whether people like Christmas. But the assaults against the national holiday are annoying, unnecessary, and often disrespectful. I mean, here's how bad it is in this country. A pastor in Arkansas cancelled a play called "Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown" because some nutty atheist objected to public school kids seeing it on church grounds. So Charlie, Snoopy and Linus were thrown under the bus by a Christian cleric. Good Grief!<br> <br>For all of you separation of church and state fans, here's the deal. Jesus of Nazareth was a man. In fact, he was the most influential person ever born. A third of the world's population has signed on to the Christian edict "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." That sounds like a good thing.<br> <br>So, when President Grant honored Jesus by signing into law the national holiday of Christmas in 1870, the nation certified that a positive message of generosity and peace was a worthy of a day off. Pretty much everybody was on board.<br> <br>But not today. In our current state, the Thomas Moore Law Center has to litigate against attacks on Christmas every year. Anti-religion zealots put up billboards in Times Square denouncing Christmas as a "myth." Rabid secularists bridle at any mention of Jesus or his nice mom and dad.<br> <br>To them I say: Peace on Earth and tough. You don't like the federal holiday, try to rescind it. Start with our pal Lincoln Chafee. See how far you get with that.<br> <br>And by the way, Merry Christmas to all. Even you loons.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-12-20T08:00:00ZWhat Happens in VegasBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Happens-in-Vegas/39301.html2012-12-13T08:00:00Z2012-12-13T08:00:00Z(Las Vegas) This is a town that looks better at night. Millions of lights pierce the darkness creating a visual that is both energetic and trance-enducing. The multi-layered light show is dazzling and unique in America.<br> <br>But when the sun comes up, Las Vegas speaks directly to the recession. Half- completed buildings loom over the landscape like giant steel skeletons. Some developers ran out of money and simply walked away leaving huge hulking abandoned structures to absorb the desert wind.<br> <br>But just down Las Vegas Boulevard are the winners: Lavish hotels that cater to one's every need. This is a city that best defines the two Americas and our very competitive capitalistic system. If you want to understand the free marketplace, Las Vegas is an excellent classroom.<br> <br>Millions of hard working folks come here to have fun. In order to maximize the entertainment, you have to spend money. Whether you spend it on gambling, live shows, or fine dining, it's up to you. The money flow supports tens of thousands of service workers and, at a much higher level, the movers who run the tourist businesses. If you can't make a decent living in Vegas, you are in major trouble. Responsible workers are badly needed.<br> <br>But still there is destitution on display. Addiction is the primary driver of that although laziness is featured as well. Some of the poor in this town simply want to play all the time. And they pay a price for that as prosperity eludes them.<br> <br>Some of the have nots sit on sidewalks hoping for money from passersby. Sometimes, gamblers give the beggars casino chips. Panhandlers say the best time for them is after midnight when the winners emerge from the gambling dens. Redistribution is much easier when you've just run the table.<br> <br>President Obama should spend some time in Vegas. Maybe then he would understand capitalism better. No matter how many handouts the panhandlers get their circumstances rarely change. The money is mostly used to feed their compulsions.<br> <br>On the other end, the rich one-percenters hustling the gambling tables are trying to increase their affluence by taking chances. In the process, they are providing salaries for the hard working men and women who keep the entertainment establishments running. Bottom line: both the wealthy and the poor in Vegas are exercising their personal freedoms.<br> <br>From observing the action in Vegas, Mr. Obama might finally realize that is freedom of choice that most often dictates who fails and who succeeds in the capitalistic system. In Vegas, no outcomes are guaranteed and no government can level the playing field. Prosperity or lack thereof is all about individual decision making.<br> <br>But the President would most likely never admit that because it goes against his belief that government can impose a form of social justice by forcibly redistributing the wages of the successful.<br> <br>For Barack Obama, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-12-13T08:00:00ZBonding, Fifty Years LaterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bonding-Fifty-Years-Later/39236.html2012-12-06T08:00:00Z2012-12-06T08:00:00ZIf you really want to understand the vast changes that have occurred in America over the last 50 years, all you have to do is watch James Bond. Back in 1962, the first Bond movie, Dr. No, was released - catapulting Sean Connery to international stardom. Even President Kennedy expressed admiration for Ian Fleming's fictional British Secret Agent.<br> <br>Connery's Bond was ultra-suave but amazingly politically incorrect. The guy smoked constantly, drank, gambled, and womanized without remorse. He was a rogue and couldn't care less what anyone thought. He was also brutal, using his license to kill liberally - for the cause of justice, of course.<br> <br>Now we live in a new age, and we have a different James Bond: Daniel Craig. He's a much more sensitive soul than Sean Connery. In the 23rd Bond film, Skyfall, Craig rarely smiles, goes about his business with grim determination, and looks like he's in the gym quite often. While Connery spent his spare time chasing ladies and drinking martinis, Craig is apparently training for the triathlon.<br> <br>However, the biggest difference between Connery and Craig is that old Sean seemed to be having fun racing around the world doing the bidding of the British government. Craig does not seem to be having a lot of laughs. In fact, Craig is a major brooder - and so is his boss, Judi Dench. Watching these two have a conversation is like watching Dr. Phil yell at some guy who just abandoned his family. <br> <br>Nevertheless, Skyfall is a huge moneymaker, especially overseas. The formula is this: blow things up every ten minutes. It's kinda like the old Elvis movies where the King broke into song every eight minutes no matter what was happening in the storyline. They needed to fill up an album, so Elvis sang on cue.<br> <br>Perhaps the biggest difference between Dr. No and Skyfall is the subordinate casting. Ursula Andress was the femme fatale in Dr. No. She spent the entire film in a bikini except for about three minutes when she wore a robe. Ursula, a Swiss actress, did not say very much. But she liked James, that much was clear.<br> <br>The ladies in Skyfall also like James. I think. But they were shuttled in and out of the film so quickly, it was hard to tell. Dealing with the opposite sex cuts in to Daniel Craig's brooding time and we can't have that.<br> <br>Also, the villains say something about our changing world. Joseph Wiseman played Dr. No. Yes, he was a mean guy, but not very menacing. The worst thing he did was give a henchman a tarantula to put in Bond's bed. That could never happen today because PETA would picket.<br> <br>In Skyfall, Javier Bardem is the bad guy, and the script implies that he may be gay. But it's not really clear. What is certain is that Javier is a computer wiz bent on killing Judi Dench. While Dr. No wanted to dominate space, Bardem simply wants a little revenge for a past slight - a hallmark of many bloggers.<br> <br>My sentiment lies with Connery. Craig is better than Pierce Brosnan, but he doesn't have Sean's charisma. The old guy wins.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-12-06T08:00:00ZTeenaged WerewolvesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Teenaged-Werewolves/39164.html2012-11-29T08:00:00Z2012-11-29T08:00:00ZBack in the 1950s, Little Joe Cartwright starred in a movie called "I Was a Teenaged Werewolf". That's right: after seeing a full moon, Michael Landon ran around a public high school foaming at the mouth and pretty much out of control. Since there was little difference in his behavior from the normal students, he got away with it for two semesters.<br> <br>As I watched the film, I remember thinking that it was going to be tough for Landon to get into college with that on his resume. But then the 1960s happened, so that was that.<br> <br>Which brings me to the present. My life these days is largely confronting political and social madness on television, and then going home to deal with teenaged drama from a soon-to-be 14-year-old girl. I vaguely remember being 14, because I was ensconced at a Catholic High School that gave out homework assignments like they were M&M's. Believe me, I had plenty of angst. But nobody paid much attention to it.<br> <br>Like today, many teenagers back then brooded full time. Check out James Dean, an outstanding cloudy guy. But now, teens have two things that embolden their disenchantment: The net and permissive parents.<br> <br>Earlier this week I was encouraging my urchins to speed it up because the bus was coming. <br> <br>"I can't go faster cause you're staring at me," the teen wailed.<br> <br>"I'm not staring at you. I just came into the room."<br> <br>"But I can see you!"<br> <br>You get the idea. My daughter also did not want to wear leg cover even though it was 39 degrees. She wanted to wear shorts. At that point, I started wishing she'd turn into a werewolf. At least the fur would keep her warm.<br> <br>But it is the Internet that is truly changing the teenage dynamic in America.<br> <br>Used to be that teenagers would hang out together and swap stories of woe. I remember seeing Billy Joel and his crew at stores on Levittown Parkway. They were just slouching around same as my guys were. Just being with other teenagers was comforting, but we actually had to leave our houses to do that. Now, teens can gang-brood from their rooms on the net.<br> <br>Because nearly every awful occurrence is highlighted on various Facebook pages, teenagers now find it easier to justify their own craziness. "How can you criticize me for getting a C when Shelley got all F's and crashed her dad's car?" That kind of thing.<br> <br>Nothing is private anymore. Teenagers are subjected to (and some participate in) incredibly destructive behavior on the net.<br> <br>And parents have few options. Even if you ban home computers, the hand held devices are all over the place. You'd have to put a full time bodyguard on the child in order to provide complete protection.<br> <br>In the end, all parents can do is try their best to impose a sense of responsibility on the kids. But don't expect any appreciation, and be watchful at all times. Kids today are growing up at warp speed as the machines march them into adulthood way before they're ready. <br> <br>Even with fangs, Michael Landon had it easier.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-11-29T08:00:00ZCrushing AmbitionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Crushing-Ambition/39083.html2012-11-21T08:00:00Z2012-11-21T08:00:00ZThe leftwing media went wild after the election, when analysis showed that many poorer Americans supported President Obama and entitlements could have been a major reason why. Liberals always like to think of themselves as noble, and the thought that some vote buying could have occurred is deeply offensive to them. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.<br><br>Americans earning less than $30,000 a year gave the President about seven million more votes than Governor Romney. All told, Obama defeated Romney by three and a half million votes. The math is clear.<br><br>But what about motivation? How can you assign entitlements as a voting factor? Well, what else is there?<br><br>Were lower-income Americans voting to support the $16 trillion dollar debt? The eight percent unemployment rate? The nearly five thousand dollar a year decline in wages for working people?<br><br>No, many lower income voters were supporting the expansion of means-tested entitlements like food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare payments along with Obamacare where about 30 million Americans will have their health insurance paid for by other Americans. When you have individuals in more than 100 million American households receiving some kind of federal subsidy outside of Medicare and Social Security, that will mean something at the ballot box.<br><br>Especially because Mitt Romney proposed to change all that.<br><br>But, why is doling out so-called "means-tested entitlements" a bad thing? Isn't it a sign of a humane society?<br><br>Financial safety nets are surely worthy. We can't let the elderly and children suffer because they don't have resources. But what's happening in America is far more than simply expanding a needed safety net.<br><br>Twenty years ago, the feds spent 9% of the total budget on entitlements other than Medicare and Social Security. Now the number is 16%. Liberals scream that's because of the bad economy! Not true.<br><br>Twenty years ago, unemployment among African-Americans was 14.3%. This year it is 14.3%. In the Hispanic-American precincts, unemployment in 1992 was 11% - today it's 10%.<br><br>It is the liberal culture that is driving the entitlement mentality, and that is destructive to the country. The truth is that folks who get stuff are not likely to be as motivated as people who work for things. Freebies sap initiative. <br><br>We are living in a "where's mine" age. "If at first you don't succeed, then ask for things to be given to you." A record amount of Americans are receiving food stamps, and more workers are on federal disability than ever before. The Democrat Party actively supports the entitlement expansion and that absolutely helped Barack Obama get reelected earlier this month.<br><br>However, if we continue down this road, say hello to Emperor Nero. Same thing happened in Ancient Rome. Look it up. The population became weak and unmotivated and Roman power collapsed as individual ambition was crushed by selfishness and dependence on the state.<br><br>The question used to be: "Who's your daddy?" Now, "it's who's your nanny?"<br><br>And we all know the answer.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-11-21T08:00:00ZAre We Puritans?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-We-Puritans/39030.html2012-11-15T08:00:00Z2012-11-15T08:00:00ZWith Thanksgiving fast approaching, it is time to talk about Puritans. But not the crew who fled England for the New World, establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony back in the 17th century. No, let's talk about the modern Puritans: We, the American people.<br> <br>The United States is considered a puritanical society by many Western nations. For example, they can't believe we hassle public servants like General David Petraeus because he had a mistress. In France, if a powerful man doesn't have a mistress he's considered a wimp. In Italy, they elected Silvio Berlusconi who allegedly puts together old-fashioned Roman-type orgies and brags about it.<br> <br>You may remember the outcry in Western Europe over the impeachment of President Clinton. They couldn't believe it over there. Lying about sex? In some countries, that's the national pastime.<br> <br>So the question is this: are we Americans basically puritanical? Throwbacks to the days when Cotton Mather was hunting down witches in Salem?<br> <br>The answer, surprisingly, is yes - to some degree. While it's true that secular forces are whittling away traditional standards of behavior, we Americans still expect some decorum from our elected officials.<br> <br>If you're a rock or film star, or play professional sports, we expect you to cat around and do self-destructive things. But, if we count on you to protect us, like we did General Petraeus, we want your full attention. Part of the outcry over President Clinton's behavior was that it took place in the Oval Office; right beneath portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Turning the most powerful room in the world into a Motel Six is not acceptable to most Americans.<br> <br>The truth is that many powerful guys have fooled around while working for the people. Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Warren Harding to name just a few. Grover Cleveland even fathered a child outside of marriage. We all know these things happen. But we don't want them to happen - at least most of us don't. I can't speak for San Francisco.<br> <br>That may be because American tradition is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, and that tradition has served us well. Honesty and loyalty are still esteemed values in most parts of this country. When the defenders of Bill Clinton wailed that it was "just about sex", they were wrong. In cases where powerful people get caught in compromising situations, there is always more to it than a physical act.<br> <br>I am deeply saddened that General David Petraeus is no longer protecting this nation. He is a patriot and a brilliant warrior in the cause of freedom. Frankly, I don't care what the General does on his personal time. It is a damn shame he had to resign.<br> <br>We are all sinners but here's what comes along with that: you always pay for the sin. Unfortunately, all of us will suffer along with the General and that is why he had to go. If the folks trust you, don't burn them.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-11-15T08:00:00ZA Personal Note to President ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Personal-Note-to-President-Obama/38973.html2012-11-08T08:00:00Z2012-11-08T08:00:00ZDear Mr. President:<br><br>You must be tired. Please take some time off; you worked very hard to get reelected. As a loyal American, I want you in good health - and that means some rest and relaxation once in a while.<br><br>But when you ramp it up again, I hope you will consider some suggestions from a citizen who's a bit disappointed in your overall performance. Please understand that I am not looking at this from an ideological perspective, rather from a sports point-of-view.<br><br>I want American leadership to win the game. That means improving the economy, bolstering protection for the folks, and running an honest operation from the White House. At this point in history, that's what winning means to me.<br><br>Let's take the economy first. Apparently, you believe that massive government spending can create well-paying jobs in the private sector. But after four years and almost a trillion dollars of federal money being fed into the economic system, that has not worked. Unemployment is about the same as it was when you took over in 2009, and wages are down sharply.<br><br>You spent a ton of our money, Mr. President; we didn't even get a tee shirt.<br><br>Now, I know some of my fellow citizens see it differently, and voted for you believing your economic vision is working. But let's be honest, the voter breakdown clearly shows that folks receiving some kind of government largess supported you big time, while those avidly competing in the marketplace voted for Governor Romney.<br><br>It was no accident that the day after your victory the stock market plummeted 313 points.<br><br>So, I hope you'll rethink the big spending deal and begin to make it easier for small business people to make money. When they are flush, the job market surges. When they feel threatened, hiring shuts down.<br><br>I well understand that the "tax the rich" mantra got you some political currency. But we both know that strategy will do little to stimulate anything other than jealousy.<br><br>On the security front, may I suggest that you be a stand up guy. Please hold a press conference and tell the folks what you know about the Libyan terror attack and why things are such a mess. This "we're investigating" stuff is a ruse. Telling us what you know does not impede any investigation.<br><br>Dodging Libya hurt your honesty index. And that hurts the country. It is very important that the folks trust you - even if they don't like you. Take that from me. My television program has been top-rated for nearly 13 years, and it's not because I'm Dale Carnegie. Most Americans respect straightforward talk even if they are annoyed by it.<br><br>In closing, congratulations on your victory. You and your guy Axelrod designed a campaign that Romney's Boston boys could not match. But that's not what's important now. Fixing the economy is. <br><br>Do that and your legacy will be assured. Fail, and all hell will break loose.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-11-08T08:00:00ZSandy's LessonBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sandys-Lesson/38923.html2012-11-01T07:00:00Z2012-11-01T07:00:00ZHere's the big lesson from mega storm Sandy. Mother Nature sneers at high tech, mocks modern convenience and couldn't care less about what kind of person you are - she will smack you if she wants.<br><br>Many of us have forgotten about nature as we have become addicted to machines. We must have gizmos. Sandy laughed and took them away. Power, gone. Internet, dark. Cell phones, not happening. Even your landline phone - not available because "all circuits are busy."<br><br>Suddenly, it was 1850 with one exception: battery operated flashlights and radios.<br><br>So what is the lesson here? <br><br>Well, actually there are a few. First, that no government agency can help you when disaster strikes. Any assistance will be after the fact and painstakingly slow. <br><br>Second, that in order to ride out any storm effectively, you should be self-reliant and resilient. That means you have to anticipate problems and have some solutions at the ready. <br><br>For example, where I live on Long Island, the power infrastructure is a disaster and has been for years. The power company, LIPA, simply cannot keep the juice flowing under any duress. I have accepted that, so I bought a generator. However, during Sandy, the generator did not work. You can imagine how many four-letter words were uttered. But, I had a Plan B. I know some guys who can repair generators, and they fixed mine very quickly. I have a long-term relationship with these guys and will reward them. <br><br>So, I rode out the storm pretty well, and that's good because there are children in my home. <br><br>Never one time did I think the local, state or federal government was going to help me in any way. When President Obama speaks about government being there for you, I roll my eyes. In the history of mankind, no government has ever been there for the individual. Ever. <br><br>Sadly, we are becoming a nation dependent on other people, and very reliant on machines. Sandy's destruction brought us back to the 19th century, as the collapse of the machines was something to see. Many people were lost without their appliances because they are not self-reliant. They also do not think ahead. They do not figure out Plan B because they don't even have a Plan A. <br><br>Life is hard, and then you die. But, while you're alive, you'll be far better off if you forget about the big government nonsense, deemphasize the machines, and begin incorporating the discipline of self-reliance into your life. <br><br>Sorry for the lecture, but my father always said that out of bad things can come some good. Americans need to wise up, and with the election just a few days away, we have an opportunity to do so. We the people need leadership that will solve problems, be fiscally responsible, and promote individual responsibility. The charlatans that promise big government protection will always be around, but are no match for Sandy and her furious friends.<br><br>That is the lesson of this terrible storm.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-11-01T07:00:00ZAre the TV Anchorpeople Rooting for President Obama?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-the-TV-Anchorpeople-Rooting-for-President-Obama/38735.html2012-10-25T07:00:00Z2012-10-25T07:00:00ZIt is widely perceived that the national television news industry skews left and, in some cases, actively supports liberal political candidates. While that is debatable on a case-by-case basis, the evidence is overwhelming that the folks who deliver the news to the nation are sympathetic to liberal causes, and that obviously favors President Obama during this election cycle.<br><br>Let's run it down:<br><br>- NBC News anchor Brian Williams interned for the Carter administration early in his career. He has no registered political affiliation and I can find no political donations he has made. However, he has denigrated conservatives on late night TV.<br><br>- ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer once worked for Richard Nixon. She has no political affiliation and no donations on the record. She is perceived to be a social liberal but downplays any partisanship on television.<br><br>- CBS News anchor Scott Pelley is not affiliated with any party and has given no donations. He plays it straight on TV.<br><br>- Anderson Cooper hosts a primetime program on CNN. In 2004, he was a registered democrat. No political donations have been made in his name. He has openly criticized the Tea Party on a number of occasions and is perceived to be liberal.<br><br>- Piers Morgan is also a CNN primetime host. A British subject, he is openly liberal on the air and, earlier this month, wrote an opinion article for London's Daily Mail newspaper where he called Mitt Romney all kinds of names.<br><br>- Charlie Rose cohosts the CBS Morning News and was a registered Democrat early in his career. He is widely considered sympathetic to the left but has asked tough questions to liberal politicians on occasion.<br><br>- George Stephanopoulos cohosts ABC's Good Morning America and is a registered Democrat who worked as an advisor to President Clinton. Stephanopoulos downplays his political affiliation on the air.<br><br>- Matt Lauer is the cohost of the Today Show on NBC. He is not registered with a political party and there are no political donations in his name. Widely considered to be socially liberal, Lauer is generally courteous to all points of view on the air.<br><br>The one thing all of the above newspeople have in common is that none of them is conservative. Also, I would be stunned if any of them votes for Mitt Romney.<br><br>So, how will that affect press coverage with the election around the corner? Well, the actual on air reporting will likely be straight, but expect stories like Libya, not favorable to the President, to be downplayed. In addition, any gaffe the governor might make will definitely be highlighted.<br><br>As Walter Cronkite, a devoted liberal man, once said: "and that's the way it is." It shouldn't be that way. There should be more balance among TV news anchors. But that will never happen in this country.<br><br>Such is life.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-10-25T07:00:00ZMissed OpportunitiesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Missed-Opportunities/38597.html2012-10-18T07:00:00Z2012-10-18T07:00:00ZHere's the good news for Mitt Romney. In the first two debates, he has established himself as President Obama's equal on the events of the day. The governor is well versed on the issues and has shown a mastery of the both foreign and domestic policy.<br><br>Here's the bad news: he has failed to pin the president down on his obvious policy shortcomings.<br><br>As someone who makes a nice living debating on television, I watch the president and governor go after each other with a professional eye. And I can't understand why Romney doesn't close the deal. Three examples.<br><br>First, when Barack Obama says that his energy programs are helping the nation, all Romney has to do is keep it simple and ask: "why, then, have gas prices more than doubled on your watch, Mr. President? That doesn't sound like a good policy to me."<br><br>Second, the president continues to say that he has created millions of jobs. But all Romney has to do is retort: "so what? The average income for working class households in America is down almost $5,000, Mr. President. Workers are getting hosed and your policies are at fault."<br><br>Finally, number three, the Libyan deal. This is crazy. There are just two vital questions, and Romney has not asked them: who pulled two American security teams out of Libya in August despite the concerns of slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens? And, who ordered U.N. Secretary Susan Rice and White House spokesperson Jay Carney to mislead the world about what happened?<br><br>If the President doesn't know, he looks incompetent. If he does know and won't say, he looks corrupt. If he does answer the questions, Romney wins just by asking.<br><br>The problem with many politicians when they debate is that they cram so much information into their heads in anticipation of spitting it out there, that they don't actually listen to what their opponent is saying. In any debate, simple is best. Just state the facts clearly and ask obvious questions about your opponent's weaknesses.<br><br>Governor Romney has a big advantage over President Obama in the debates, because Obama has to defend a record that contains some massive screw-ups. Nobody really cares about Romney's record in Massachusetts, and he could easily pettifog any specific questioning of it.<br><br>But with the economy sluggish after almost four years, four dead Americans in Libya, and Iran still chugging along the nuclear weapons highway, the president has a good deal of Ricky Ricardo 'splainin' to do. But, the governor has not put him on the spot in a precise enough way.<br><br>Next Monday, Romney will have one final chance to pin the president against the rhetorical wall. The foreign policy debate opens up Libya big time. If Romney wants to win - he'll keep it simple and demand some answers.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-10-18T07:00:00ZThe Obama ChallengeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Obama-Challenge/38531.html2012-10-11T07:00:00Z2012-10-11T07:00:00ZPresident Obama is in trouble. Poll after poll shows Mitt Romney gaining ground almost everywhere, and Gallup even has the Governor ahead by two points nationally. Also, reports say there is a low level panic going on inside the Obama reelection headquarters in Chicago. So, it is crunch time for the president. He must perform well in the debate next Tuesday night - or begin auditioning for a cable pundit job.<br><br>Anyone who knows Mr. Obama understands that he likes being the underdog, and will most likely deliver a rousing performance at Hofstra University. Mr. Obama is certainly aware that another emotional no-show will doom him. In Denver, he looked like he spent the pre-debate hours at a medical marijuana shop.<br><br>But the "Town Hall" debate format on Tuesday gives a slight advantage to Governor Romney. The candidates will field questions from undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization. After the question is posed, Obama and Romney will have two minutes to answer it. The moderator, Candy Crowley, a CNN correspondent, will then jump in to "facilitate a discussion." <br><br>What this means is simple: The regular person asking the question will most likely frame it in a general way, so the candidates can pretty much say whatever they want. <br><br>For example:<br><br>Question: "My cousin Otis has been unemployed for eight years. How can you get him a job?"<br><br>Answer (President Obama): "If Otis had worked at an American car company he'd be employed today because I saved that industry ..."<br><br>Answer (Mitt Romney): "I had a cousin named Otis too, and when I turned the Olympics around I gave him a job ..."<br><br>You get the idea.<br><br>What will most likely happen in the Town Hall is that Mr. Obama will harken back to the first debate, and list all the "lies" he and his handlers believe Mr. Romney told. Only he won't call them "lies." He'll imply that and try to paint the governor as a charlatan who changes opinions the way Lady Gaga changes costumes.<br><br>But the governor should be able to easily counter because he has to know what's coming. All he has to do is watch MSNBC, which chronicles his "lies" daily. So, Romney will most likely counter with the old Reaganism, "there you go again." He can't actually say that - but he'll use words to that effect, and continue portraying the President as a clueless socialist.<br><br>In the end, the Town Hall debate will be less punchy than the Denver back and forth. The smart money is predicting a draw with both candidates bloviating at will. It will be almost impossible to pin them down.<br><br>Next up - foreign policy in Boca Raton, Florida. With the Libyan fiasco hot in the news, that debate could be quite a challenge for the president.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-10-11T07:00:00ZThe Debate Report CardBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Debate-Report-Card/38433.html2012-10-04T07:00:00Z2012-10-04T07:00:00ZYou know there's trouble on the left when the MSNBC people declare Mitt Romney the winner in the first presidential debate. I mean, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth on the uber-liberal cable network: Why oh why did our guy look so awkward? Even though we don't believe in God, we'd now like him to help our president if he can.<br><br>Governor Romney won the debate because the economy is bad and the president could not explain how he's going to make it better. The governor kept pounding Mr. Obama in the midsection, pointing out that his vision of a country filled with green energy jobs paying world-class salaries with tremendous benefits for all workers is not happening - and is not likely to happen anytime soon. All Mr. Obama could say in reply was that he created millions of jobs. Apparently those are secret jobs, because the unemployment rate hasn't dropped below 8% in 40 weeks, which, of course, Romney pointed out.<br><br>Barack Obama looked a little tired in Denver. Mitt Romney looked energetic - although the hair is close to being out of control. Both men wore nice suits and crisp ties. Both completely ignored moderator Jim Lehrer and said what they wanted to say. Over and over. But what Romney highlighted made more sense than what the president put out there. America is not prospering economically. No matter what Mr. Obama says he's done, the facts are that personal income is down, good jobs are hard to get, the debt is north of $16 trillion, and everybody who's paying health insurance is paying higher premiums. And don't even ask about gas prices.<br><br>Romney's closing statement at the end was markedly stronger than Obama's. The president basically said that if you vote for him, he will continue to work hard. I believe him: he does work hard. So do the New York Mets. But they are not winning.<br><br>The governor wrapped things up by confidently promising that he will create a gazillion jobs and bring back the free market principles that have made the USA great. The president also said he likes the free marketplace but when a guy like Hugo Chavez endorses you, the capitalism thing can get a bit dicey.<br><br>Upcoming polls should be much better news for Mitt Romney, as perception is reality in today's America. Most voters depend on others to tell them what exactly is up and, as mentioned, many left wing pundits headed for the Valium cabinet before the bloviating was even over. There was twittering, tweeting, and texting - most of it not good news for Barack Obama. And the right wing analysts were so giddy I thought Pat Buchanan was going to do the Lambada.<br><br>So, the first debate is history and Romney is back in the hunt. But there will be a next time and, I expect, President Obama will be much more assertive. After all, Barry from Honolulu didn't get to be the most powerful man on earth by slinking off. October 16 can't come soon enough for him.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-10-04T07:00:00ZCaught in the NetBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Caught-in-the-Net/38359.html2012-09-27T07:00:00Z2012-09-27T07:00:00ZCaught in the Net<br>by Bill O'Reilly<br><br>When I was kid back in the Paleolithic Age, we used to play sandlot football after school. My group of thug friends chose sides, and the mayhem began. We played tackle without equipment - accompanied by bloody noses, bruised knees, and bumps on the head. It was a blast.<br><br>If you did that today, the law firm of Greed, Deceit, and Extortion would be on the sidelines, eagerly waiting to sue the municipal locale, the property owner, and the parents. So, after school these days, many playing fields are largely unused, the children kept safely away from any dose of reality. And where are the urchins parked? In front of the computer - that's where. <br><br>It's all so easy. No sweating, no losing, no angst. Just clicking. Presto, there's your fantasy world. Why face uncertainty outside when you can idle away your time in a climate controlled electronic world of your choosing?<br><br>The world's growing addiction to high tech is doing two pernicious things: it is sapping ambition and it is fostering escapism. When I suggest to my children that we explore a nature trail, they look as if I am ordering them to a gulag. A nature trail? Why? It's dirty and there are bugs. I can look at nature on my PC anytime I want.<br><br>The escape scenario is even worse. Surveys show that for the first time ever, more Americans turn on the PC than the TV when they come home from work or school. At least on television you can watch a news program. On the net there are headlines but most of the reportage is shallow and slanted. When The Huffington Post becomes your primary news agent, you're in trouble.<br><br>I submit that's why President Obama is running ahead of Mitt Romney right now. Many voters simply have no idea what's going on. In this brutal economy, Mr. Obama should be running way behind. But he's not. His mixture of charisma and confidence is keeping him competitive because many voters don't know a deficit from a donut. They do know, however, how to play X-Box.<br><br>You can tie many of the nation's problems into the tech age. Obesity is certainly driven by sitting around looking at various screens. Your fingers may be in great shape but your butt is threatening to visit your ankles.<br><br>And how about speaking the language? LOL! U r kidding me. OMG! If you don't know what those letters mean, say a prayer of thanks. Many Americans today have trouble putting two grammatically correct sentences together - and that's not a laughing matter.<br><br>So, it's safe to say that we are living in a rapidly changing world where a few folks will rule, and many others will sit passively by not even watching as crucial events unfold. There's simply too much going on in tech-land where achievement and face-to-face human interaction don't really matter.<br><br>OMG, indeed.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-09-27T07:00:00ZWhere's Our Energy?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Wheres-Our-Energy/38301.html2012-09-20T07:00:00Z2012-09-20T07:00:00ZSo, there I am pulling into a gas station in my town and Tarek is smiling. He owns the station and right now he's charging me $4.25 a gallon. American motorists may not be better off than they were four years ago, but Tarek certainly is.<br><br>When President Obama took office the average price for a gallon of regular gas was $1.84. That means gas prices have more than doubled on Mr. Obama's watch. But why?<br><br>The primary reason is that the system is rigged. Oil companies watch the worldwide speculation market, and if the traders are bidding the price of oil up because Iran misbehaves or something - up goes the pump price. When the speculators sell short, the price of gasoline drops but not nearly as much as it jumped. That cycle is repeated a few times a year.<br><br>Then there's OPEC, which raises prices every time the United States pumps dollars in the economy. Last week the Fed released $23 billion dollars into the marketplace hoping the cash would spur lending by the banks. The oil sheiks well understand that flooding the zone with currency devalues the worth of the dollar, so they raise their prices to get more greenbacks in the hope of keeping their staggering profits stable.<br><br>Another reason Americans are getting hosed at the pump is that President Obama loathes the fossil fuel industry, and does everything he can to inhibit production. He stopped the oil pipeline from Canada, makes ocean drilling very difficult, and taxes the hell out of traditional energy. Of course, the folks pay the taxes.<br><br>Mr. Obama is a green guy and his administration has invested about $100 billion taxpayer dollars in clean energy projects. In theory, that sounds good. Wind power, solar energy, electric cars, all would make the planet cleaner and the sheiks poorer. The problem is that the technology is not developed yet. The President knows that but tilts at windmills anyway.<br><br>In truth, the USA does not have an energy policy. The Department of Energy apparently has a giant dartboard and whatever alternative energy industry is hit that day gets money. The bankrupt Solyndra solar company cost the taxpayer more than $500 million dollars. Other failed Green enterprises have added to the incredible national debt as well.<br><br>A few people are riding around in electric cars (something that infuriates Tarek) but not many. Those automobiles are generally expensive, and the plug-in stuff complicated. American society is largely driven (sorry) by easy, convenient products. Risking electrocution in a rainstorm while ginning up a Prius might hold some folks back.<br><br>Finally, there may be big trouble ahead at the gas station. If Israel attacks Iran over nukes, worldwide oil prices will explode as well. $8 a gallon? Could happen.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-09-20T07:00:00ZLosing Your ReligionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Losing-Your-Religion/38216.html2012-09-13T07:00:00Z2012-09-13T07:00:00ZOn January 8, 1962, President John F. Kennedy wrote a letter expressing condolences on the death of James Cardinal Gibbons. Kennedy, who rarely discussed his Catholicism, did so while describing the Cardinal: "He nobly expresses the essential traditions of my church in the United States ... the deep sympathy for the plight of the working man and of minorities, the steady concern for the betterment of society and mankind..."<br><br>Thus, it was somewhat startling to see JFK's daughter, Caroline, invoke her father's name and describe herself as a "Catholic woman" when espousing a passionate defense of abortion rights at the Democratic Convention. President Kennedy never publicly commented on abortion and, indeed, his brother Teddy was ardently pro-life when he began his political career. Of course, that changed over time as Senator Kennedy evolved into a liberal lion and enthusiastically entered the pro-choice den.<br><br>Caroline Kennedy has to know that the Catholic Church condemns abortion. It is a mortal sin in the eyes of the institution. There is no debate on that. So for Ms. Kennedy to describe herself as a Catholic woman in the context of promoting "reproductive rights" is a direct insult to her religion. Why would she do that? Other Catholic politicians like Mario Cuomo say they don't personally believe in abortion but respect the legal process that allows it. Not Caroline Kennedy - she openly told the world that she is an abortion crusader and the stated belief of her church be damned.<br><br>A Gallup poll says 24% of practicing Catholics believe abortion is morally acceptable. At first glance, that's hard to fathom but not when you analyze the landscape. After Caroline Kennedy's speech, not one American Catholic leader publicly criticized her. There was complete silence from the Archbishops. Given a huge opportunity to explain why all life should be considered sacred, and why Ms. Kennedy is misguided - to say the least - the clerics passed. Call it the silence of the lambs.<br><br>It was obvious at the Democratic Convention that President Obama and the Democratic Party are extremely bullish on "reproductive rights" and are using the issue to promote a fabricated "war on women" by the Republican Party. In response, the GOP has little to offer. It fears being branded "anti-woman."<br><br>But theologians don't have to run for office or curry favor with any group. They supposedly have a moral obligation to define their beliefs and stand up for what they consider God's will.<br><br>Abortion eliminates life. That's what the procedure does. Human DNA is present upon conception. If the Catholic Church believes that abortion is against what God intended, then it should be just as adamant about stating its case as Caroline Kennedy is about stating hers.<br><br>It is not.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-09-13T07:00:00ZLeft BehindBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Left-Behind/38171.html2012-09-06T07:00:00Z2012-09-06T07:00:00ZAccording to a new poll by The Hill newspaper in Washington D.C., 54% of likely voters believe President Obama does not deserve another term based on his economic record. With rising gas prices once again punishing working Americans, and with fear in the air over unemployment, there is a very good chance that Mr. Obama will join Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as one-term presidents.<br><br>And, if Barack Obama does go down, so does the liberal movement in America, which has made great strides over the past three and a half years. Consider the following developments:<br><br>- Gay marriage is now accepted by most folks.<br><br>- "Medical marijuana" is openly sold in many cities to people with no maladies whatsoever.<br><br>- Anyone who opposes abortion can be categorized as biased against women.<br><br>- Successful Americans and prosperous small business owners are not paying their "fair share" in taxes.<br><br>- And, you are racist if you oppose Barack Obama's liberal political viewpoint.<br><br>In addition, nearly half of American households are now receiving welfare - but if you want to control entitlements, you are anti-poor. Almost 50 million folks are receiving food stamps, and a record amount of workers are filing for disability payments. The federal colossus in Washington is reaching into every area of American life - even as President Obama has increased the debt by more than five trillion dollars in less than four years. This is liberal nirvana: a big spending central government dispensing "social justice" and calling many shots in the free marketplace. Soon the feds will control the health care industry. <br><br>Of course, the results of the leftwing blitz have been disastrous. The economy is moribund with banks refusing to lend capital for expansion because they fear business failure. Our currency is tottering because the USA has to borrow billions of dollars every day in order to service debt. And employers are loath to hire because they don't know how Obamacare will affect their bottom line.<br><br>You would think the left would take a look at the chaos in Europe and slow down a bit. Not happening. If you watched the Democratic Convention coverage you heard some incredible stuff. Sandra Fluck and her crew not only want you to pay for female birth control; they also want you to pay for "transgender medical needs." That means if Harry meets Sally and they want to switch genders through expensive surgical procedures, the American taxpayer gets the bill. And if you oppose that - you are a bigot.<br><br>I believe most Americans are uneasy with the liberal direction even if they are not fully convinced it is at stage three. But it is. The USA is on the verge of becoming a combination of Greece and Sweden - where almost anything goes and fiscal responsibility is a joke. If the president wins reelection, this country will continue to undergo a radical social and economic upheaval.<br><br>But if Barack Obama loses, the liberal movement in America will be dealt a crushing blow. That's what's at stake on November 6th.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-09-06T07:00:00ZAre You a Bad Citizen?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-You-a-Bad-Citizen/38099.html2012-08-30T07:00:00Z2012-08-30T07:00:00ZThe comedian Jeff Foxworthy has a great routine called "You Might Be a Redneck If..." He sets up a series of questions, and if you answer yes, well, you might be... you get the idea. But, during this convention season, perhaps a more penetrating question is: are you a bad citizen? I mean, let's be truthful: there are millions of Americans who don't care about their country at all. How can you tell? Easy. If an American does not pay attention to events or educate himself enough to know the basics about how the USA works, than he or she is a bad citizen.<br><br>I do believe the good citizens far outnumber the bad, but those millions of derelict Americans do the country harm. First off, their vote (if they even bother) is most likely uninformed, so charlatan politicians have an easier time of it. And many bad citizens are simply lazy. That means they often fail in the competitive marketplace and must rely on those who prosper to support them, at least in part. Simply put, slackers drain strength from any country.<br><br>So here is a short quiz, in case you are still in doubt as to what comprises a bad citizen. You are one if:<br><br>- you can't explain the three branches of government. <br><br>- you can't name ten former presidents.<br><br>- you don't know who the present vice president is.<br><br>- you don't know who issued the Emancipation Proclamation or what it is.<br><br>- you can't explain why World War II started.<br><br>- you don't know where Vietnam is.<br><br>- you can't name 15 foreign countries.<br><br>- you think Jimmy Carter was a great president.<br><br>- you believe the Founding Fathers would support banning handguns.<br><br>- you think Americans invented pizza.<br><br>There are approximately 320 million Americans, and every one over the age of 12 should be able to answer those questions. There is simply no excuse if you can't. You are a bad citizen.<br><br>But if you fall into that category, there is something you can hold onto. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers designed a Constitution that gives every single citizen the absolute right to be a moron. No one can force you to pay attention to current events, learn history, or understand how the USA became the greatest country in the world.<br><br>And believe me, America's greatness was achieved despite the presence of bad citizens. They were simply overwhelmed by the good folks. The people who respect their country enough to pay attention to it.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-08-30T07:00:00ZShrinking from the DebateBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shrinking-from-the-Debate/38055.html2012-08-23T07:00:00Z2012-08-23T07:00:00ZA recent episode of the HBO program "The Newsroom" featured an exposé of the lame presidential debate procedure we have accepted in America. The producer of the series, Aaron Sorkin, set up a confrontation between some Republican flunkies and the noble newsroom folks who wanted to change the debate format. Sorkin, a committed leftist, used the scenario to mock the GOP primary contenders, but the point is valid: the debates are largely a sham.<br><br>First of all, the candidates don't have to answer the questions posed, and often fly off into rehearsed bloviating that is as boring as it is offensive. The debate moderators rarely interrupt the bilge so the politicians are free to say whatever they want, basically unchallenged. Any interruption would be considered "rude." Yes, there is a follow-up question but it is rarely, "is it me, or did you just completely ignore the question I asked you?"<br><br>Instead of saying, "you have 60 seconds to answer the question," the moderator should be honest and state: "you have a minute to dodge what was asked and talk about anything you want."<br><br> This year, Jim Lehrer, Bob Schieffer, and Candy Crowley will moderate the three presidential debates. All are veteran hard news people who know their stuff. All are also polite establishment journalists who well understand that they can ask whatever they want but will rarely get a direct answer. All seem fine with that.<br><br>The third debate will be the most excruciating because it will be "Town Hall" style. That means that some regular citizens will get to ask some questions and stand there while Obama and Romney dodge them.<br><br>The candidates prep for the debates by having a series of likely questions thrown at them by surrogates and then memorizing scripted retorts. They pay consultants big money to advise them on the debates but, really, fifth graders could do it. The president knows he'll be hit with statistics that indicate he has badly mismanaged the economy. Governor Romney knows he'll be asked things about being a rich guy who wants to decimate entitlements for working Americans so that Donald Trump can buy another golf course. These guys know what's coming and should one of the moderators actually surprise them with a query that is not expected, they'll fall back on how they love America and reality TV or something.<br><br>The face-to-face confrontations are also largely bogus although here there is at least some drama. Only two presidential contenders really benefited from debating: John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Kennedy looked vibrant standing across from Richard Nixon who appeared to be auditioning for a role in "The Night of the Living Dead." Reagan looked powerful next to Jimmy Carter and openly mocked him for being weak and incompetent, which he was. Once voters got a look at Reagan and his confident pro-American demeanor, it was back to the peanut farm for Jimmy.<br><br>By the way, Carter also won the presidency largely because of a debate, but it was nothing he did. Incredibly, President Gerald Ford told the world that Poland was a free country - which sent the Soviet leadership into spasms of laughter. Ford did that because he was so over-rehearsed he completely lost his thought process.<br><br>So, don't expect much substance from the debates this October, because it will not be there. It is conceivable that Obama and Romney could go after each other personally, which would at least be entertaining. I'm not expecting that but, hey, if one guy is down in the polls big he'll have to go for the jugular. But if that were to happen, expect the moderators to break tradition and interrupt. Enough is enough; honest emotion simply will not be tolerated.<br><br>BillOReilly.com Staff2012-08-23T07:00:00ZAre You An Extremist?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-You-An-Extremist/37990.html2012-08-16T07:00:00Z2012-08-16T07:00:00ZAfter Paul Ryan was announced as Mitt Romney's running mate, it took less than 24 hours for The New York Times to define Congressman Paul Ryan as an "extremist". In a lead editorial the paper bannered this subheadline: "With no plan of his own, Mr. Romney can't distance himself from Mr. Ryan's extremist vision."<br><br>That "vision" would be federal spending cuts and entitlement reform.<br><br>While Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan sent two spending bills to the full House, both of which passed but were killed in the Senate - which is controlled by the Democrats. The bills cut federal programs across the board. Mr. Ryan is also a fan of reforming Medicare and Social Security, which are going bankrupt.<br><br>In the bubble that is the liberal media, trimming government spending and making entitlements more fiscally viable ARE extreme positions. That's somewhat ironic because President Obama's strategy of massive government spending and borrowing is perhaps the most extreme economic plan in the nation's history. Never before has the USA run up such an enormous debt and had so little to show for it.<br><br>So, defining Congressman Ryan as extreme is an interesting scare tactic. And one that might be extended in the days to come. Here are some other positions that the committed left media considers extreme:<br><br>- If you believe traditional marriage should be kept as the exclusive standard, you are not only extreme, you are a homophobe.<br><br>- If you believe that all Americans should pay less in taxes, you are greedy and an anti-poor extremist.<br><br>- If you believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to buy and possess guns you are promoting violence in an extreme way.<br><br>- If you believe the government has a duty to combat overseas terrorists without giving them Constitutional protections, you are an extreme anti-human rights individual.<br><br>- If you believe that abortion is the taking of a human life - you are an anti-woman extremist.<br><br> - If you support securing the nation's borders and regulating immigration, you are anti-Hispanic.<br><br>The list goes on and on.<br><br>By labeling someone as extreme, you can dismiss what he or she says. That's the strategy being used against Congressman Ryan. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."<br><br>So in Ms. Dowd's estimation, Paul Ryan is in politics to harm the folks. He gets up every day and plots the personal damage he might be able to achieve.<br><br>This is now where we are in American politics. If Ryan's reform vision will harm Americans, let's hear some specifics. So far, under President Obama, we have a sluggish economy, high unemployment, and record debt. Sounds harmful to me.<br><br>But then again, I'm an extremist.<br><br>BillOReilly.com Staff2012-08-16T07:00:00ZBoys in the HoodBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Boys-in-the-Hood/37917.html2012-08-09T07:00:00Z2012-08-09T07:00:00ZThe presidential campaign made a stop this week in Sherwood Forest, as President Obama has declared his opponent, Mitt Romney, "Romney-Hood," a play on the Robin Hood legend. The President is contending that Romney wants to take money from working Americans through taxation and give it to people like Donald Trump. Of course, that's the opposite of what the British brigand Robin did. He stole from the rich and gave the loot to the poor. Far be it from me to accuse the president of doing that, but others have.<br><br>Robin Hood's persona began taking shape in 14th century English ballads where the woodsman clashed with the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. Over the years, the songs became more elaborate, and characters like Maid Marion and Friar Tuck came into being. Then, in the 20th century, dashing actors like Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn immortalized Robin. There was even a TV show starring a guy named Richard Greene who, appropriately, wore green tights.<br><br>By the way, no one knows whether Robin Hood ever actually existed - but we are pretty sure Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do.<br><br>The president is basing his Romney-Hood label on analysis by The Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank. It says that Romney's proposed tax plan would raise income taxes on the middle class by $2,000 on average, and that Trump and his cronies would get that money in the form of tax cuts for them.<br><br>The Wall Street Journal editorial page, a conservative crew, analyzed the TPC's take and put forth: "It's a highly ideological tract based upon false assumptions, incomplete data and dishonest analysis. In other words, it is custom made for the Obama campaign."<br><br>More ale, Friar Tuck?<br><br>But, really, who cares? Certainly not Mr. Obama. His entire campaign is now based on convincing voters that Romney is, indeed, the Sheriff of Nottingham, Henry VIII and Louis XIV all rolled into one.<br><br>So don't be surprised to see the president sporting green tights and a hat with a feather in it when he campaigns in San Francisco, where outfits like that are readily available.<br><br>As a one-percenter, I would feel mighty bad if my mailman is forced to subsidize my lifestyle. It just doesn't seem right. I've been lucky in my career and have done well. I really don't want some guy working at Taco Bell contributing to my electric bill.<br><br>So, if Mitt Romney is really considering taking money from the folks and giving it to Warren Buffett, I hope he will reconsider. This is not the way the America should work. In this country, we are supposed to work hard and render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. That rendering is now becoming quite extensive and complicated. With all the campaign rhetoric and spin, it's not easy to know for sure who's really 'Robin'.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-08-09T07:00:00ZPlaying Chicken with Gay MarriageBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Playing-Chicken-with-Gay-Marriage/37845.html2012-08-02T07:00:00Z2012-08-02T07:00:00ZWhen the <i>New York Post</i> puts a fast food chicken franchise on page one, you know some feathers have been ruffled, so to speak. And, indeed, the Chick-fil-A outfit can forget about catering any gay marriage receptions, because the company's president, Dan Cathy, recently told an Atlanta radio station that by supporting gay nuptials, America is "inviting God's wrath."<br><br>While that remains to be seen, the wrath of pro-gay marriage advocates is vividly on display. The mayors of Boston and Chicago, playing to their liberal bases, both came out against having any Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities. In the case of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, his condemnation of the fast food chain came just days before Chicago was named the most dangerous city on earth by a local TV news station.<br><br>Maybe some good chicken would calm things down in the Windy City.<br><br>Anyway, the attacks on Chick-fil-A are un-American and here's why. Gay marriage is not a civil right in the USA, and until the Supreme Court rules that it is, there is no bias case to be made against those who, in good conscience, oppose it. Mr. Cathy and millions of other Americans believe in the sanctity of man-woman marriage based upon religious tenets. Some secularists even oppose homosexual nuptials because they believe nature dictates that marriage and procreation go together; that it is a societal stabilizer.<br><br>To brand someone a hater or bigot because he or she opposes an expansion of traditional marriage to one selected group is unfair and narrow-minded.<br><br>The converse is true as well. If someone sincerely believes that so called "marriage equality" is the fair and just thing to do, that belief should be respected.<br><br>What is truly disturbing are the threats. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee recently tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."<br><br>You strongly recommend, Mr. Mayor? Why? Might something happen to a Chick-fil-A business that opens in your town? Are you sanctioning threats?<br><br>That's the crux of this matter, Lee's belief that he has a right to punish those with whom he disagrees. Hey, Mr. Mayor, the vast majority of black preachers publicly oppose gay marriage. Are you going to tell them not to set up shop in your town?<br><br>Bet he won't.<br><br>The Chick-fil-A deal is basically a grandstand play by some politically correct left-wing zealots. But it has backfired big time. All across the country, thousands of folks stood in long lines this week to buy chicken from Chick-fil-A. They are making an important statement: Don't mess with freedom of expression.<br><br>That is one foul thing to do.<br>BillOReilly.com Staff2012-08-02T07:00:00ZWhere were you in '62?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Where-were-you-in-62/37779.html2012-07-26T07:00:00Z2012-07-26T07:00:00ZFifty years ago, in the summer of 1962, America was a far different place than it is today. President John Kennedy was presiding over Camelot and despite fouling up the invasion of Cuba, his approval rating hovered around 80%. Unemployment was 5.2% with the average family income at $6,000 a year.<br><br>Most Americans did not have much money but made do. Millions bought Elvis Presley's record "Return to Sender" and went to see "Lawrence of Arabia" in movie theaters. At home, "Wagon Train" was the top TV show.<br><br>Years later, the film "American Graffiti" featured the ad campaign "Where were you in '62?" Well, I was on Long Island, hanging around. During the day, we swam at the Levittown pool, played stickball in the street, and in August my father took us to a lake in Vermont. Also, we went to Jones Beach and baked in the sun without block while second hand cigarette smoke engulfed us on the blanket.<br><br>My folks had little disposable income, certainly not enough for air conditioning or a color television set. But, again, there was little whining in my working class neighborhood. We had fun with what was available. Most everybody worked. Nobody was on welfare.<br><br>In fact, just 6% of Americans received welfare payments in 1962. Now that number is 35%. More than 100 hundred million of us are getting money from the government, and that does not count Social Security and Medicare, programs workers pay into. This is a profound change in the American tradition.<br><br>Also, we now have close to nine million workers collecting federal disability checks. In 2001, that number was about five million. Here's my question: is the workplace that much more hazardous than it was 11 years ago? Are we that much more unhealthy?<br><br>The answer is no. What we are seeing is the rise of the nanny state.<br><br>Self-reliance and ambition made the United States the most powerful nation on earth. But that ethic is now eroding fast. Instead, many Americans are looking to game the system and the philosophy of "where's mine" has taken deep root. About half of American workers pay no federal income tax, the burden being shouldered by the achievers. As The Edgar Winter Group once sang: "Come on and take a free ride. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!"<br><br>Presiding over and joyously encouraging this societal shift is the purveyor of social justice President Barack Obama. His entire campaign is now built around making the rich "pay their fair share." And where will that money go? To those in need, of course. And those legions are growing larger every single day.<br><br>Fair-minded people do not begrudge a safety net for Americans who, through no fault of their own, need help. A compassionate society provides for those battered by life. But what is happening in this country is far beyond a helping hand. We are creating a dual society: in one corner - Americans who work hard to succeed. In the other corner: folks who want what you have.<br><br>And the second corner is the growth industry.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-07-26T07:00:00ZThe Secret to SuccessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Secret-to-Success/37681.html2012-07-19T07:00:00Z2012-07-19T07:00:00ZReally, I don't know why so many folks are annoyed with President Obama for saying that personal success is almost always a product of our system in America with the benevolent federal government leading the way. Certainly, that's true and I will attempt to prove it based upon a brand new investigation of very successful folks.<br><br>New York Met pitcher R. A. Dickey was once a mediocre performer, but has become a star by perfecting the knuckleball. Word is that Nancy Pelosi took the pitcher aside and demonstrated just the right spin to put on his delivery. The former Speaker of the House is too modest to take credit, but does want to tax Mr. Dickey at a higher rate now that he's a one-percenter.<br><br>Did you know that Clint Eastwood was a struggling actor until California Governor Jerry Brown taught him to squint and say things like "feeling lucky, punk?" Apparently Brown learned that phrase from his former girlfriend singer Linda Ronstadt, and generously passed it along to Mr. Eastwood. However, there is no truth to the rumor that Governor Brown's autobiography will be entitled: "Dirty Jerry."<br><br>She won't admit it, but Lady GaGa's career took off when New York Senator Chuck Schumer advised her to lose the poker face and "loosen up a little." Taken aback by the blunt advice, the former Catholic schoolgirl took it to heart replacing her blue blazers with ripped fish net stockings and rhinestone halter-tops. The rest, of course, you know - but what you might not know is that Schumer was the inspiration for the GaGa hit: "Born This Way".<br><br>Likewise, Simon Cowell. The Englishman was looking for a TV niche when he ran across Congressman Barney Frank who advised him to insult just about everybody and wear tight undershirts in public. After watching Frank on cable TV, Mr. Cowell adopted his scorched earth verbal style and, ever since, has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortunately for Cowell, when Frank also told him to invest in Fannie Mae, he declined, believing Fannie was an obscure rapper.<br><br>But the topper is LeBron James. As a kid in Akron, Ohio, LeBron was directionless, wandering around the boulevards looking for something to do. Then, one day, a suave stranger showed up on the playground and began shooting around with LeBron and his crew. The man showed the youngsters a variety of basketball moves, including the fade away jump shot. From the jump, LeBron was enthralled and thus began his steady climb to basketball greatness. That stranger's name: Barack Obama!<br><br>And now you know the rest of the success story.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-07-19T07:00:00ZThe Ghost of Ronald ReaganBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Ghost-of-Ronald-Reagan/37617.html2012-07-12T07:00:00Z2012-07-12T07:00:00ZThe ghost of Ronald Reagan is about to haunt President Obama. If Mitt Romney has any political savvy at all, he will begin channeling the late president and introduce his ghost into the economic debate forthwith.<br><br>Back in July 1980, when Reagan was challenging President Jimmy Carter, the unemployment rate in America was 7.8% - close to what it is now. But the inflation rate was over 13% and that was eroding American wealth at a frightening clip. Ronald Reagan seized on the economic turmoil to hammer Carter as an incompetent, and that won the election for the former actor and governor of California.<br><br>After Reagan moved into the White House, he walked the walk. He convinced Congress to drop the federal income tax rate for the wealthiest Americans from an incredible 70% to 28%. Reagan also held the line on federal hiring. During his eight years in office, just 12,000 federal workers were added to the payroll. By contrast, Jimmy Carter hired 100,000 federal employees in four years.<br><br>As history unfolded, the American economy roared back during the Reagan era making him a hero to free-marketers and small government devotees. His legacy was built on robust capitalism and effective opposition to the communist world.<br><br>In 2012, America is not bedeviled by inflation but is stuck in the economic mud. Under President Obama, government spending has reached record levels and in three years Mr. Obama has added about 130,000 federal workers to the payroll - more than TEN TIMES what Reagan added in five fewer years. It is breathtaking.<br><br>And now Mr. Obama wants to jack up tax rates on the affluent all over the place. Income, capital gains, and dividends would all be taxed at a significantly higher rate if Congress goes along with the president. Again, this is the exact opposite of what Ronald Reagan did.<br><br>What Mr. Obama hopes to accomplish is hard to ascertain. The feds would derive about $85 billion in extra revenue a year if the President's proposed tax hike is passed. But listen to this: the feds spend $85 billion every eight and a half days, according to the Treasury Department. Talk about putting your finger in a leaking dike.<br><br>Of course, the downside of raising taxes on the wealthy is that it might constrict investment and consumer spending further, thereby harming the already fragile economy. Is that risk really worth eight and a half days of revenue?<br><br>And so the ghost of Ronald Reagan hovers: just waiting for a Romney seance in order to make his presence felt. We do indeed live in scary times.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-07-12T07:00:00ZBreaking the ConnectionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Breaking-the-Connection/37551.html2012-07-05T07:00:00Z2012-07-05T07:00:00ZCAPE FEAR, NORTH CAROLINA — So the plan was this: take seven urchins, ages 3 to 17, on an old-fashioned vacation without high tech gizmos. A noble intent, correct? Well, you know what they say about noble intentions. The road to hell is paved with them.<br><br>Back in the pre-tech era, family vacations usually involved fresh air. But now, many American kids don't want to go outside, unless there is someone handing out money. Many modern children stay indoors so they can feed their machine addictions. Why bother risking the elements when any kind of visual you want is a click away?<br><br>The ferry to Bald Head Island at the southern point of North Carolina takes about twenty minutes. There are no cars allowed on the island; you transport by golf cart. The beaches are pristine, and the island marshlands teem with wildlife. Radio Shack is not there.<br><br>I rented a beach house that immediately bewildered the tykes. "Where is the Xbox?" one of them asked, a hint of panic in his eyes. "The TV only has shows! Where are the games?"<br><br>When informed there were no electronic games available, profound silence descended on the room.<br><br>But there were other options. We explored the marsh and saw red foxes running around. We hit the surf, where the water was clean and warm. "But what about the sharks?" an urchin urgently asked. When told they can't survive the large breaking waves, so they remain far off shore, the kid was mollified a bit, but remained suspicious. <br><br>One night, we all participated in the island "ghost walk," a $10-per-ticket tourist play. Three college kids dressed in pirate gear led a stroll to the island lighthouse and to an old cemetery. Along the way, they told of shipwrecks, pirate atrocities, and civil war mayhem. Apparently the ghost of Aaron Burr's kidnapped daughter, Theodosia, roams around the island, lacking cash to buy a ferry ticket out. For a while, the kids were enthralled and I was encouraged. They had to use their imaginations to picture the stories being told; there were no high tech visuals.<br><br>But arriving back at the hacienda, I discovered one of the urchins had smuggled in an iPod, and three of the boys were huddled around it shrieking with joy. They were cyberspaced-out in a matter of minutes. <br><br>The three older girls were getting more into the swing. Now they wanted to get up at one in the morning to look for turtles coming ashore to lay eggs. The boys were asked if they wanted to do that as well. "Turtles?" the eight-year-old said. "Don't they bite?"<br><br>"Not as hard as sharks," I replied.<br><br>The girls went on their mission, but did not see any turtles. They did see more foxes hunting for turtle eggs, however. They also saw deer without the assistance of the Animal Planet channel.<br><br>In the end, the vacation received mixed reviews from the kids, even though I suspect they liked it more than they were admitting. Three of them got to drive the golf carts around, everybody enjoyed the surf, and when water guns appeared, laughter filled the air and the machines were momentarily forgotten.<br><br>But the minute we arrived home on Long Island, a long way, culturally speaking, from Bald Head, the urchins headed for their sacred space. The PCs were alight faster than you could say "Theodosia."BillOReilly.com Staff2012-07-05T07:00:00ZRunning on EmptyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Running-on-Empty/37471.html2012-06-28T07:00:00Z2012-06-28T07:00:00Z‪Fresh off my jaunt down memory lane with the Beach Boys, I decided to revisit another iconic group, Crosby, Stills and Nash. Sadly, the results were much darker than with the "Good Vibrations" crew.‬<br><br>‪Back 1969, CS&N first played together at Woodstock and immediately became a counter-culture sensation. Their anti-establishment anthem "Ohio" defined the Vietnam era for many Americans. While the Beach Boys were surfin' the days away, CS&N was agitating for societal change using soaring harmonies and relevant lyrics.‬<br><br>‪Along the way, the guys became millionaires, and David Crosby perpetrated a series of bizarre drug-fueled incidents. He only survived his excess by receiving a liver transplant.‬<br><br>‪But there he was on stage, still sounding pretty good. Graham Nash can also hit most of his notes. Stephen Stills, however, has trouble replicating his voice on the old tunes. He also looks like an Amish guy. I thought he was going to sell furniture to the crowd.‬<br><br>‪At first, the folks loved the liberal old timers. They opened with "Carry On" and played a few more of their classic hits. But then, as so often happens in concert land, the group began playing stuff nobody ever heard of. The crowd became restless.‬<br><br>‪The low point of the concert arrived when CS&N sang a protest song about the allegedly traitorous Army Pvt. Bradley Manning. He is charged with leaking classified information to the anti-American website WikiLeaks. If the charges are true, Manning put many of his fellow soldiers fighting in Afghanistan in danger. He is currently being held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and, if convicted, could be sentenced to life in prison.‬<br><br>‪Nevertheless, Crosby, Stills and Nash believe Manning is a political prisoner who has been brutalized by the U.S. military. So they sang a song lamenting that. The folks who paid good money to savor old memories mostly listened in silence. My bet is that many in the crowd had no idea what was going on. It was certainly a far cry from "tin soldiers and Nixon coming."‬<br><br>‪There is something to be said for remaining consistent in your values, so I am not down on CS&N for their leftist sensibilities. I simply believe their sympathies are misguided, and protest songs about an obscure man who may have committed treason are useless. Despite their righteous indignation, the truth is that CS&N has no idea what Manning did or did not do.‬<br><br>‪Also, there is irony in the fact that the trio are one percenters who live very well. Crosby bunks in toney Santa Barbara, Stills in Bel-Air right near Nancy Reagan, and Nash on the lush island of Kauai. Nothing wrong with that; those guys earned their affluence. But a system that allows them to profit from protest might be one to applaud. Hey, guys, how about a song on that theme?‬<br><br>In the end, I was disappointed by the CS&N concert. At one time, their voices soared both musically and socially. Now, they just are shadows of a long time gone.‬BillOReilly.com Staff2012-06-28T07:00:00ZThe Boredom FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Boredom-Factor/37415.html2012-06-21T07:00:00Z2012-06-21T07:00:00ZPresident Obama's press conference at the G-20 summit in Mexico was the most boring political exposition I have ever seen. Not only did the president ramble on about nothing, he did it in a halting manner that was excruciating to witness. How Mr. Obama thinks he can convince the world that he is a strong leader with that kind of a presentation is an intense mystery.<br><br>Let's break it down. When asked if Putin was cooperating in trying to get the Syrian tyrant Assad removed from power, the president would not answer yes or no. Instead, he chose to tell the world that maybe... perhaps... could be, someday... that the Russians might help out. <br><br>Not only were the president's words garbled, they were untrue. Putin is now supplying Assad with helicopter gunships which are being used to murder innocent Syrian civilians. That's the truth, but President Obama would not say the truth.<br><br>When asked about the economic mess in Europe, all Mr. Obama could come up with was that European leaders are concerned. A five-year-old could have arrived at that conclusion. Mr. Obama has no idea how to solve the worldwide economic crisis, so he tries to do a verbal rope-a-dope and tell everybody that solutions are in the wind. They are not. Countries like Greece, Spain and Italy are on the verge of economic collapse, and Mr. Obama is powerless to do anything about it. In fact, I don't even think he understands why these countries are going bankrupt. Because if he did, he would be trying to cut federal spending in America.<br><br>For this observer, it was almost painful to see the once-eloquent Barack Obama flounder around like a reality show housewife. I take no joy in reporting this. But at the G-20 summit, Mr. Obama was inarticulate, confused and tedious. There was no leadership on display and no candor coming forth from the president.<br><br>Now, I'm going to make an excuse for Mr. Obama. I believe the man is exhausted. I think he knows he's in trouble and that his re-election chances are getting slimmer by the day. The economy has beaten down the president. He has no answers. He knows the American people are scared and losing confidence in his leadership. Put yourself in his executive shoes. With all that on his mind, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the president to focus, especially on issues that are perplexing him. Mr. Obama is not ready to raise the white flag, even as his hair turns that color, but he is clearly dazed.<br><br>Despite his situation, it would be foolish for the president's opponents to diminish his capability. Yes, he's lost his mojo, as Austin Powers might put it, but he is still personally popular among the electorate and badly wants to hold on to his job.<br><br>But he'd better liven up and sharpen his presentation. The election is only five months away.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-06-21T07:00:00ZIceland is HotBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Iceland-is-Hot/37331.html2012-06-14T07:00:00Z2012-06-14T07:00:00ZREYKJAVIK — President Obama would like Iceland. Geothermal energy, free health care, and high taxes dominate the landscape. Mr. Obama would be in his element, even if the actual elements are a bit harsh. Iceland is definitely worth a look if you want to understand the president's vision for America, which is why I have traveled here.<br><br>In 2008, Iceland's three largest banks collapsed after making risky overseas loans. The unemployment rate shot up from less than 2% to more than 8%—tame by some European standards, but a disaster for this nation of about 325,000 people. Even worse, per capita income fell from nearly $60,000 to $33,000.<br><br>Icelanders responded by doing little. This is the most isolated nation on earth, and outside of manufacturing aluminum and fishing for cod, there's not much money making activity available. The government makes sure that Icelanders pay for their free health care and retirement entitlements by heavily taxing just about everything. For example, gas is taxed at just under two bucks a gallon.<br><br>On the positive side, Icelanders do have cheap heat. This is a volcanic island and geothermal energy means the average Icelandic household pays about $100 a year to keep warm. Heat, of course, is vital. They don't call it Iceland for nothing.<br><br>Renewal energy and a pristine environment are Iceland's strong suits. The market economy is its weakness.<br><br>Many Icelanders emigrate in order to make more money. There is a shortage of doctors here, frustrating the national health care system. Physicians are paid poorly compared to most of the industrialized world, so some doctors split as soon as they have their certification. The ones who stay do so primarily out of patriotism.<br><br>The brain drain continues in business. With a high income tax, a whopping 25% VAT tax (7% on food and alcohol), and levies on most everything else, it is difficult to accumulate wealth. Many Icelanders don't see that as a problem because the government does take care of their essential needs. But if you want a spring break in Bermuda, you have to have cash. Icelanders don't have much to spare.<br><br>I did not see much poverty in Iceland or much conspicuous wealth, either. Most folks live in small homes, drive reasonable cars, dress neatly, and speak English (it's compulsory in school). On the weekends, drinking is a national pastime, despite the high cost. But that's not much different from many other places.<br><br>Iceland has managed to flatten out its society so most folks have pretty much the same circumstance. The very ambitious leave; the others seem satisfied to live under a security blanket, breathing in the clean air and enjoying a relaxed culture.<br><br>President Obama wants to squeeze some of the excess out of America and, to some extent, Iceland can show him the way to make that happen. But, for me, the challenge of life is competing and developing your potential to the fullest.<br><br>No way I could ever do that in Iceland. And President Obama couldn't have done it, either.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-06-14T07:00:00ZThe Fear VoteBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Fear-Vote/37253.html2012-06-07T07:00:00Z2012-06-07T07:00:00ZIf the election were held tomorrow, Mitt Romney would be the next president of the United States. Why? Because many voters are afraid, that's why. And fearful people usually try to change their circumstances.<br><br>If you listen to talk radio or watch cable news, you'd think everyone was an ideologue, obsessed with party politics. But many, perhaps most, American voters are not wedged into a voting pattern. The same country that elected the conservative George W. Bush voted for the very liberal Barack Obama the next time around. It is perception that wins national elections.<br><br>President Bush was perceived to be a terror warrior, and that's why he won two terms. Voters wanted payback for 9/11, and Mr. Bush, along with the fierce Dick Cheney, simply had more tough guy cred than Al Gore or John Kerry. At least that was the perception.<br><br>Barack Obama isn't nearly as tough as John McCain, but by 2008, the faltering economy had overridden the terror threat, and the slick senator from Illinois promised hope and change-a return to prosperity and fairness. Senator McCain promised "Country First." Nobody quite knew what that meant, and voters did want a change from the vicious recessionary economy, so Obama won.<br><br>Now, voters are scared that their jobs may disappear. They already see their retirement and educational funds evaporating, and most of us know folks who are desperate for money. So the economic fear is real, not perceived, and President Obama has done little to soothe the angst. He's still hoping his big government policies will stimulate the economy, even as the TV flashes pictures of Greeks rioting in the streets.<br><br>Mitt Romney is not exactly John Kennedy, so Mr. Obama still has a chance to squeak out a victory in November. Governor Romney must perform well in the debates and convince Americans that the president simply does not understand economics, while he has the magic capitalistic touch that will rebuild the empire. If the governor can stay out of foolish controversies and dodge the landmines the pro-Obama media will lay for him, he will be living larger than he lives now. The White House dwarfs even Romney's lavish beachside shack in La Jolla.<br><br>I believe President Obama knows he's in trouble, and that's why he is courting his left-wing base so hard. He's got to get all of them out on election day, and if that means "evolving" on gay marriage, so be it. Mr. Obama is a hardball player who will do everything he can to keep his job. There are not that many openings for messiahs these days in the private sector.<br><br>The election is about five months from now, and many things can happen in that time. But fear is a powerful emotion and not easily diminished. So the president should be afraid. Very afraid.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-06-07T07:00:00ZJustice for JustinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Justice-for-Justin/37169.html2012-05-31T07:00:00Z2012-05-31T07:00:00ZIn this corner, weighing 110 pounds and standing 5'7", 18-year-old pop star Justin Bieber. In the other corner, some guy who was aggressively taking his picture in a California shopping mall.<br><br>Los Angeles County police are investigating accusations that Justin struck a photographer which, if true, would violate California Penal Code 242, even if the striking blow was, well, glancing. Detectives want you to call them if you saw the brawl or if Justin attacked you as well.<br><br>So far, Bieber is not talking.<br><br>Apparently, the Malibu-Lost Hills sheriff's department was called by the photographer last Sunday afternoon. The victim says he was "battered" by the singer who was accompanied by his girlfriend, Selena Gomez. The victim complained of "pain" and was transported to a local hospital, treated and released into the custody of a lawyer who immediately contacted the media.<br><br>Now, I am certain being attacked by Justin Bieber is no laughing matter. If the guy ever got a haircut and a neck tattoo he could look menacing. Perhaps Justin knows kung fu.<br><br>But the odds are that this is yet another shakedown generated by a loser and his sleazy attorney who will game the system, hoping Bieber will throw some money to them in order to make the annoyance go away.<br><br>There are now legions of lawyers who will file lawsuits against famous and rich people for just about anything. Lawsuits cost money to defend, and the media is overjoyed to publicize any and all alleged "transgressions." No evidence has to be provided to the press; just a lurid accusation is enough. This is now an industry--Fleecing the Rich and Famous. In fact, it could be a reality show. Paging Robin Leach.<br><br>But if you really look at what's happening, it's despicable. Legalized extortion and blackmail is now an epidemic in America.<br><br>Famous people are routinely slandered, libeled, followed, and menaced in public. And there's little they can do about it. If you are a public figure and/or have money, you are a huge target, and will get little sympathy from the courts or in the court of public opinion.<br><br>Recently I took three young teenagers to see the play "Jesus Christ Superstar." Upon leaving the theatre, a guy who identified himself as an "occupy protestor" was waiting for me with a camera and recorder. He began screaming nonsense. I told the guy to knock it off because he was scaring the kids. He actually yelled louder and even chased my car down the street. The girls were unnerved.<br><br>I truly wish Justin Bieber had been with me that night so he could have smacked down that guy. I guess I could have done it, but the line of attorneys responding would have stretched from Broadway to Michigan.<br><br>We absolutely need tort reform in this country, and we need to adopt a brand new slogan as well: "Free Justin Bieber."BillOReilly.com Staff2012-05-31T07:00:00ZAre Teenagers Really Americans?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-Teenagers-Really-Americans/37093.html2012-05-24T07:00:00Z2012-05-24T07:00:00ZAs a former high school teacher, I know one of the great challenges in education is to get teenagers interested in their country. Many of them take their freedom for granted and have no interest in even learning about what it takes to be a good citizen. They are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to absorb John Adams.<br><br>So I have undertaken a new project: teaching a 13-year-old girl to care about being an American.<br><br>Lesson number one: obey the rules. We start with open doors. The rule is that no door in the house is closed unless there is a dressing situation. The reason for the rule is to discourage Internet chicanery and encourage lively conversation.<br><br>"I can't have my door open, I just can't," the teen wails.<br><br>"What's the problem?"<br><br>"People are annoying. I don't want to see any people."<br><br>"Then look away when a human being passes."<br><br>"YOU are SO annoying!"<br><br>I know.<br><br>Lesson number two: discuss intelligent things. Not just reality shows and music maniacs.<br><br>"Nobody wants to talk about politics. That's boring!"<br><br>"The presidential election is boring?" I am sincerely curious about this one.<br><br>"No one cares about Obama and Romney."<br><br>"Well, at least you know their names."<br><br>"But I don't want to TALK about them."<br><br>"I do just fine talking about them; millions of people listen."<br><br>"But you have no social skills. That's why you're on TV. I can't be like you."<br><br>She may have a point.<br><br>Rule three: learn about your country's past. <br><br>"My school says we have to read your book <em>Killing Lincoln</em> over the summer." This soon-to-be eighth grader is nearly distraught. "I can't believe it costs $20. What a ripoff!"<br><br>"It's worth it; you'll learn a lot about the greatest president America has ever had."<br><br>"No one cares."<br><br>"So what do you guys care about?"<br><br>"Harry Potter and Glee."<br><br>Sounds like the situation is hopeless, right? Well, it's difficult, no question. When I was a kid, there was boredom to contend with. Some days nothing was happening, so you might actually read a book about your country. Not anymore. The machines have made boredom obsolete. There are thousands of video games, chat opportunities, gossip sites, and Facebook exposure all available if your fingers work. There is always action in cyberspace, much of it pernicious.<br><br>Therefore, you have to either force the urchins to pay attention to important things like their country, or bribe them to do it. There's no other way, unless you have a savant like Bill Clinton running around your house.<br><br>But educating America's youth about the value of their country is second only to educating them about the value of their souls. So against all odds, I'm attempting to do it. Abe Lincoln would approve.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-05-24T07:00:00ZHating the RichBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hating-the-Rich/37019.html2012-05-17T07:00:00Z2012-05-17T07:00:00ZMy late father was a man of strong opinion. He despised phonies, cowards and liars. He named names—sometimes in very close proximity to those being singled out. A veteran of World War II, he recognized a weasel when he saw one.<br><br>But my dad never denigrated rich people in general.<br><br>We lived in Levittown, New York, where everybody had pretty much the same—that is, not much. We ate tuna casserole, hot dogs, and Hamburger Helper. My parents never owned a new car.<br><br>Ten miles away, my dentist, a college classmate of my father's, lived in Garden City. Lovely place, filled with rich people. My father often drove us through there and never said a discouraging word about the fine lawns and shiny foreign cars. America was the land of opportunity and Garden City proved it.<br><br>But that was then.<br><br>Today, many Democrats believe the wealthy are bad to the bone. A new Gallup poll asked, "Do you think the U.S. benefits from having a class of rich people or not?"<br><br>An amazing 46% of self-described Democrats answered "not."<br><br>When I asked two left-leaning pundits about this, they said it is all about "income inequality." They asked me if my father would approve of that. I said he would most likely reject the entire concept of "income inequality" by giving the pundits the same advice he gave me: "If you don't like what they're paying you, work someplace else."<br><br>And I followed that advice, moving ten times in 15 years on my way up the television news ladder. It wasn't easy, but if I thought my employer was hosing me, I began looking around.<br><br>That's how capitalism is supposed to work. America is mandated to provide "equal opportunity," not equal outcomes. The boss man can pay what he wants. It's our choice whether to take it or leave it.<br><br>President Obama doesn't seem to get that. He often puts forth that wealthy Americans are not paying their "fair share," that somehow the fix is in and the rich folk are gaming the system at the expense of working people. But for two years, Mr. Obama had an adoring Democratic Congress which did absolutely nothing to further the concept of "income equality." The reason: it's unconstitutional. The feds cannot dictate salaries and benefits in the private marketplace. Obamacare is an attempt to breach that Constitutional wall. We'll soon see what the Supreme Court says.<br><br>Capitalism is no beach day. The strong and sometimes ruthless prosper. The ill-educated and unfocused often fail. For many Americans, failure is unfair and unacceptable in a "just" society. But my dad knew and accepted the truth of capitalism: some will win big, some will lose big, but most will live comfortable lives in the middle. Just as he did.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-05-17T07:00:00ZStill Making WavesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Still-Making-Waves/36925.html2012-05-10T07:00:00Z2012-05-10T07:00:00ZQuick question: What is the most enduring American pop group of all time? It has to be the Beach Boys, right? They are currently on their 50th anniversary tour across the country, if you can believe it.<br><br>I saw the Boys the other night, and they can still bring it. Lead singer Mike Love is 71, and musical genius Brian Wilson is nearly 70, as is keyboardist Bruce Johnston.<br><br>The audience was primarily aging baby boomers who were not only singing along to the surf tracks, they were memorializing their youth. When the Beach Boys first began harmonizing in 1962, America was a kinder, sweeter place, where long summer days defined many young lives.<br><br>John Kennedy was president, and Camelot was in full flower that year. "Where were you in '62?" later became the ad campaign for a film called "American Graffiti," but many senior citizens well remember where they were: Watching the number one rated TV program, "Wagon Train." Listening to Elvis sing "Return to Sender." Maybe going to the movies to see the blockbuster "Lawrence of Arabia."<br><br>Johnny Carson debuted on The Tonight Show in 1962. The unemployment rate was 5.2%. Average family income: $6,000, which didn't leave much cash left over for recreational drugs.<br><br>I was 12 years old and loved the Beach Boys. "Surfer Girl" and "Little Deuce Coup" were my favorite songs. I lived on Long Island and, like the Boys, I had access to an ocean. I used it frequently, catching waves, feeling the warmth of the sun. It was a happy time. The girls were pretty, my parents clueless, and all things seemed possible.<br><br>But life has a way of intruding on happiness. Two of the original Beach Boys, Carl and Dennis Wilson, are dead. And their brother Brian is one of the walking wounded, a poster boy for the downside of drug abuse. The picture the Beach Boys continue to paint with their upbeat lyrics is idyllic, but their lives, generally speaking, have included much turbulent water.<br><br>In that, they are just like most of us. So when we get a chance to revisit the past in a positive way, we should take it. I actually embarrassed myself at the concert by singing "In My Room." I didn't care. I remember my small, un-air conditioned room in Levittown. I could go there to soothe my troubles. I did much dreaming in that space.<br><br>So right on to the Beach Boys, even though they are now ancient mariners. The waves today are far more intense than they were back in '62. In the face of the incoming tide, sometimes we need some relief, some positive perspective about our lives.<br><br>God only knows just how much the baby boom generation has experienced.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-05-10T07:00:00ZIt's Boring, PeopleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-Boring-People/36861.html2012-05-03T07:00:00Z2012-05-03T07:00:00ZIn just about six months, the nation will vote for president. But if things continue the way they're going, I don't know how I'll make it. The campaign blather is unbelievable, but even worse, it's boring. Tedious. Painfully insipid.<br><br>Let's start with the phrase "at the end of the day." Overused by pundits and politicians alike, those words are now making my ears bleed. Lights out on this one, please.<br><br>Then there's the "war on women." It doesn't exist. The left made it up. American women have more opportunity than they would have anywhere else on the planet. Don't believe me? Book passage to China, Japan or even Italy. There is no war on women in the USA, so let's knock that boring stuff off right now.<br><br>Obama is a Muslim? No, he's not. His children were baptized in a Christian church. If he were a Muslim, the president would be damned just for that. He's not a Muslim and the folks who think he is are insane.<br><br>Global warming? It's made Al Gore about $100 million. That's all you need to know. Yes, the planet is getting a little hotter. But it could be a natural cycle; nobody knows except God. I'm fine with buying the $60 light bulbs to save energy, because that might help the earth. But I would like those light bulbs to actually shed some light. Moths couldn't find the last ones I bought. Much of the global warming hysteria is a con; almost all of it is boring.<br><br>Dogs in danger? Mitt Romney tied his canine to the roof of his car and drove him to Canada. Barack Obama ate a Doberman in Indonesia. Can we please stop this? It's so boring, dogs are howling all over the country.<br><br>Protesting the word "illegal?" The loons at MoveOn.org are posting diatribes by cranks that say if you call an illegal alien an illegal alien, you are committing a "hate crime." I am not making this up. Not only is this amazingly tedious, it is also confusing illegal aliens who are demanding to know what exactly their status is.<br><br>Medical marijuana? Mellow out—this is a huge con, and everybody knows it. In states that have legalized pot for medicinal purposes, all you have to do is tell a doctor you feel anxious and your nose hurts. You then pay the doc a couple of hundred bucks and he writes you a script for the pot. Cheech and Chong wrote this law, and it's boring.<br><br>Occupy Wall Street? It's over. We don't want to live in Cuba. Go home. Shut up.<br><br>So there you have it from the heart. The two presidential candidates are boring enough. They don't need any help from us. So let's all band together and stop the tedium. Do it for your country.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-05-03T07:00:00ZUnderstand Rich GuysBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Understand-Rich-Guys/36755.html2012-04-26T07:00:00Z2012-04-26T07:00:00ZMitt Romney says he will not apologize for being a rich guy who lives large and can buy whatever he wants by writing checks from his offshore bank account in the Caymans. The former Governor of Massachusetts believes what he and his father before him accomplished—that is, raking in big bucks—is to be celebrated. Perhaps Romney's campaign slogan should be "I'm rich, deal with it."<br><br>As a rich guy myself, I completely understand Mitt's mindset. Somehow, I have managed to become a one-percenter, and while I don't care very much about material wealth, I am proud that I've made my money honestly through hard work. When I graduated from Boston University in 1975, I was broke. I had to borrow money to travel to Scranton, Pennsylvania for my first job in television. Over the years, I sacrificed much to become a proficient TV news guy and I also took some big risks. That has paid off.<br><br>Class envy is a fact of life everywhere. That's what drives socialism and communism. Why should one human being have more than another? That is a divisive moral question which is certainly relevant in this year's presidential election.<br><br>Barack Obama apparently believes that the fix is in, as far as American capitalism is concerned. The president thinks his Republican opposition wants to help greed-heads at the expense of working folks. That is what Mr. Obama is putting out there. Maybe his slogan should be "Greed is good, just ask Mitt Romney." <br><br>According to the polls, most Americans believe the wealthy should pay more in taxes, and I don't disagree. The United States must bring down the record-breaking $16 trillion debt, and this one-percenter is ready to help out. But, like any reasonable investor, I want to see exactly where my money is going. So far, President Obama has not told me that.<br><br>Here is a partial list of things I DO NOT want my tax money going for:<ul><li>Vegas junkets featuring hot tubs and $4 shrimp appetizers for federal bureaucrats</li><li>Seed money for the president's environmental friends and donors</li><li>The Chevy Volt</li><li>A swanky condo in London for the corrupt Afghan leader Karzai</li><li>Hillary's hairdresser</li></ul>Unlike Mitt Romney, my father did not succeed in building wealth. He was a spaghetti-and-clam sauce guy who counted every penny. In his entire life, my dad never bought a new car or a big-screen TV.<br><br>But I do believe my late father would be proud of my success and would not be supporting the class warfare tone that President Obama has embraced. William O'Reilly, Sr. had no use for the swells, openly mocking material show-offs. But he admired honest accomplishment and, I believe, would look Mitt Romney in the eye and tell him he has nothing for which to apologize.<br><br>But he'd also tell the governor to go easy on the Cadillacs.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-04-26T07:00:00ZCharity and PoliticsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Charity-and-Politics/36615.html2012-04-19T07:00:00Z2012-04-19T07:00:00ZAmericans are being asked to decide many things this election year, but perhaps the most important is how the United States should take care of its poorest citizens. President Obama and the Democratic Party in general believe that income redistribution is the way to go. Since Mr. Obama has been in office, entitlement spending has risen 41% to about one trillion dollars a year. There are currently an astounding 126 separate anti-poverty programs in place.<br><br>Mitt Romney and the Republicans reject the concept of "income inequality" and say that a rising economy should lift all households. The GOP wants the free marketplace to provide income opportunity, not a giant federal nanny state. With the nation more than $16 trillion in debt, the Republicans have economics on their side, but emotion is another matter.<br><br>Americans are a generous people. The group Giving USA says that last year we donated almost $300 billion to charity. That largesse was voluntary. When the government decides to take our money forcefully through taxation, that's when things get dicey.<br><br>And so it is instructive to examine the charitable contributions of politicians that are driving fiscal policy. In 2011, President and Mrs. Obama's adjusted gross income was $789,674. The first couple donated about 22% of that to charity. Very generous.<br><br>But Vice President Biden is another story. He and his wife donated just 1.46% of their $379,035 income to charity. Paltry? You bet. And not unusual. Since Joe Biden took office in 2009, he has made close to $1.1 million. His charitable donations: $16,710. Advice to kids: don't go trick or treating at the Biden house.<br><br>During his time in office, President and Mrs. Clinton gave generously to charity, despite big-time legal bills. So did George and Laura Bush. But Dick and Lynne Cheney topped all of them, giving a whopping 77% of their income to charity in 2005: a total of $6,800,000.<br><br>The all-time miser seems to be Al Gore. As Vice President in 1997, Gore donated exactly $353 to charity off an income of close to $200,000. Plus, Gore has all that family trust fund money. Hey, Al, come on, man. That's just embarrassing.<br><br>A recent Google study shows that conservative Americans give twice as much to charity as liberals do. Some researchers believe that's because more conservatives than liberals go to church; therefore, they are tithing. Mitt Romney gives a lot of money to the Mormon Church, so there may be something to that. By the way, Romney's campaign estimates, that in 2011, the governor and his wife gave about 19% of their $21 million income to charity.<br><br>The Bible says, "To whom much is given, much is expected." President Obama has paraphrased that while urging higher taxation on the rich. But there is a huge difference between taking money away from folks under threat of prison and charitable largesse. My tax dollars don't count towards my moral obligation because I must render to Caesar. But otherwise, as Al Gore well knows, I am free to do as much or little as I want.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-04-19T07:00:00ZThe Book of SantorumBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Book-of-Santorum/36541.html2012-04-12T07:00:00Z2012-04-12T07:00:00ZMitt Romney would be wise to take a good hard look at what Rick Santorum did right and what he did wrong during his campaign. Because in his quest to unseat President Obama, Romney will face some of the same challenges Santorum faced.<br><br>Back in the summer of 2011, nobody thought Rick Santorum had a shot at the Republican nomination. Nationally, he was polling about 3%. But through sheer hard work and persistence, he won the Iowa caucus, and thus was catapulted into the big time.<br><br>There are many lessons to be learned from Santorum's political journey, beginning with having a dream and fighting like hell to make it happen. The senator did that, and it makes him a noble figure to those of us who admire achievement.<br><br>But Santorum also made some vivid mistakes, underestimating the secular culture and the intent of the media. And it is here where the Romney tutorial begins. The national press is generally biased left and has the long knives out for anyone spouting spiritual beliefs. Once Rick Santorum began answering questions about his theology, it began to damage his political message. And when he criticized John F. Kennedy on the separation of church and state issue, the media went wild. You don't mess with JFK.<br><br>The skeptical tone toward Santorum was defined in January by ABC's George Stephanopoulos in the New Hampshire debate. He zeroed in on the senator's moral view of contraception and, foolishly, the senator engaged. He should have simply said this: "Hey, George, I have seven kids. I don't know much about it." That's it. End of exposition.<br><br>But, no, Santorum rambled on about the downside of birth control, something most Americans simply don't want to hear about. Although most citizens are believers, the USA has become a largely secular country, and voters do not want politicians telling them how to conduct their private lives.<br><br>Soon, Santorum was besieged by questions about his faith-based belief system and, again, he entered into the conversation, answering questions about the morality of homosexuality and the like. By doing this, he walked into a swamp he couldn't get out of and was marginalized as a religious zealot.<br><br>Memo to Mitt Romney: If the press asks you about Adam and Eve, simply say they didn't have jobs, and it's Obama's fault. Keep the conversation on issues that matter to the voters. The media doesn't really care what you think about Cain and Abel or what you believe spiritually. They simply want to make you look like Elmer Gantry.<br><br>In the end, Rick Santorum's spirited challenge to Mitt Romney actually defined the governor better for the voters, which may be either a good or a bad thing, depending on your viewpoint. But going forward, Romney will face the same sand traps that bedeviled Santorum. Best to walk around them, governor, because once you get in, you'll never get out.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-04-12T07:00:00ZPlease Pass the ShrimpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Please-Pass-the-Shrimp/36465.html2012-04-05T07:00:00Z2012-04-05T07:00:00ZSay goodbye to Martha Johnson. This week she was forced to resign as chief of the General Services Administration, the federal agency that manages real estate for the government.<br><br>Somehow Martha managed to spend an incredible $820,000 for a conference outside of Las Vegas. Among the expenditures she okayed: $31,000 for a "networking reception," $146,000 for catered food and drinks, as well as $130,000 in expenses to "scout" the conference's hotel location. Apparently, Martha's advance team had to travel to Vegas six times to get a handle on where was best to discuss GSA business. Somebody had to do it. <br><br>In her resignation letter, Ms. Johnson acknowledged "a significant misstep."<br><br>Thanks.<br><br>President Obama's Chief of Staff, Jacob Lew, says Mr. Obama "was outraged by the excessive spending."<br><br>Oh, yeah? Has he seen the federal budget lately?<br><br>This all ties in together. Federal bureaucrats well know that tax dollars roll in no matter what. It's the law. If you don't want to wind up in the penitentiary like Wesley Snipes, you pay what the feds tell you to pay. And Martha Johnson gets a taste.<br><br>After all, what's the big deal? The Obama administration is the biggest spending outfit in the history of the country. Why shouldn't federal employees eat shrimp at $4 apiece at a cocktail party? If the rich guys would only pay their fair share in taxes, they could even swallow more shellfish.<br><br>I love the shrimp deal. A quick check with Shop Rite confirms that one shrimp from that grocery store chain sells for 30 cents. Peeled. But at the GSA bash, the shrimp was on a platter, so there's that. By the way, the cheese display at that party cost $19 per person, and the sushi station, another $7,000. And just in case the federal employee was hungry the next morning, breakfast was $44 per person. Egg McMuffins, anyone?<br><br>In case you haven't noticed, President Obama is fighting hard against cutting federal spending. He is now calling Congressman Paul Ryan's austere budget proposal "Darwinism." Mr. Obama contends that if the feds don't continue to fund the money train, that some folks will be denied the American Dream. Like eating $4 shrimp.<br><br>But my dreams have turned to nightmares, with folks working for the federal government purloining my wallet and running wild in Vegas. This causes me to toss and turn, because I have worked very hard for the money they are wasting. Yet the president still tells me that I am not paying my fair share.<br><br>So how about this trade-off, Mr. President: I'll stop whining about taxes if you order all future federal "conferences" to be held at Shop Rite. Fair?BillOReilly.com Staff2012-04-05T07:00:00ZTake Me Out to the BallgameBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Take-Me-Out-to-the-Ballgame-/36389.html2012-03-29T07:00:00Z2012-03-29T07:00:00ZThe urchins were startled. "Hey, let's go outside and play some baseball," I said.<br><br>Outside? Are you kidding me? Inside, the two eight-year-old boys have Xbox, iPads, and personal computers at the ready. Outside?<br><br>So I dragged them down to the ball field.<br><br>"I need a helmet," one wailed. "Where's the helmets?"<br><br>"And what about a heart-guard," the other one asked. "Mom says I have to get a heart-guard before I can play."<br><br>"We're just going to practice," I replied. "No danger. Let's just throw the ball around and hit a few."<br><br>The boys looked confused.<br><br>"But we need helmets!"<br> <br><center>***</center><br><br>The year was 1957 and two Central Nassau Little League teams were on the field. There were no helmets. No heart-guards. Just a dusty field with dirty bases and a coach who sat on a splintered bench, drinking beer.<br><br>I was seven years old. Billy Weir was on the mound. I was at the plate. He threw, I swung the bat. The ball rocketed into left field. My first hit ever. I'll never forget it. <br><br><center>***</center><br><br>"Okay, I'll hit you guys some grounders and you throw the ball home. Got it?"<br><br>The boys looked even more confused.<br><br>"What happens if the ball hits me?" the smarter one asked.<br><br>"Pain," I said. "But that's why you have a glove. You catch the ball in the glove and that protects you."<br><br>I hit a slow grounder to the slower boy. He stood like a statue as the ball rolled through his legs.<br><br>"What was that?" I asked.<br><br>"It was too low," he replied. "It has to be higher."<br><br>"You're supposed to bend down and catch the ball, " I said gently. "That's how you get guys out. You catch the ball and throw it to first."<br><br>The kid looked bored. The kid was bored. There were no electronic zombies to kill. There were no gadgets in sight.<br><br>"Okay, let's do some hitting," I said attempting to refocus the boys.<br><br>"I only use aluminum bats," one of them said. "Mom says wood bats are too dangerous."<br><br>Luckily, I had the aluminum model.<br><br>"It's too heavy, " the kid wailed.<br><br>"Choke up, move your hands up the handle of the bat."<br><br>I threw the urchins some soft tosses and they began to hit the ball. On contact, the bat made a loud noise which they liked. Reminded them of the noises that feed their gaming addiction. <br><br>"Okay, now we're going to run the bases."<br><br>"Why?" They said in unison.<br><br>"Because after you hit the ball you run from base to base. That's how you score runs." <br><br>"My mom doesn't want me to get dirty."<br><br>"How about I bury you under the pitcher's mound."<br><br>The kids ran to first. But they began to tire after reaching second. They both stopped and just stood there looking at me.<br><br>I looked back.<br><br>"How long are we going to do this?" the smarter one said. "I need a helmet if we're gonna keep playing."BillOReilly.com Staff2012-03-29T07:00:00ZObama MoneyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obama-Money/36317.html2012-03-22T07:00:00Z2012-03-22T07:00:00ZFilmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy's daughter, has unleashed a firestorm of social controversy by interviewing some welfare recipients who told her on camera that they believe they're entitled to "Obama money." That is, welfare checks. A number of those that Ms. Pelosi spotlighted are young men who are not even looking for work. They have plenty of excuses for that. But, bottom line, they want money handed to them, and stuff you if you don't like it. Also, some of these men have multiple children by multiple "baby mamas." Again, their posture is "blank you" if you don't approve.<br><br>That attitude appalls many hard-working folks, but truthfully, there have always been layabouts and there always will be. But now, in some circles, it's almost stylish to be a parasite. Recently, Mitt Romney was confronted by a heckler in Illinois who said, "What about pursuit of happiness? You know what would make me happy? Free birth control!"<br><br>Whereupon Romney shot back, "If you're looking for free stuff... vote for the other guy. That's what he's about, okay? That's not what I'm about."<br><br>And therein lies the theme of the 2012 presidential campaign.<br><br>This has not been a good week for President Obama. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that Obama-care will cost about $50 billion more than last year's projection. In addition, the president's budget for 2013 will add another $9.6 trillion in debt over a ten year period. Not exactly the austerity spending the nation desperately needs.<br><br>But Mr. Obama is unswayed. He is running as a "provider" and believes that there are enough Americans who want free stuff to catapult him to victory in November.<br><br>Of course, the president is not going to openly endorse the nanny state. Instead, he will demand that the rich pay "their fair share" and hope voters buy into the insinuation that they are getting screwed by the economic system; therefore, it is perfectly permissible to want pay back in the form of government entitlements. That's just making things "right."<br><br>The labor unions are pounding that drum very hard. Speaking on public broadcasting, SEIU board member Stephen Lerner said, "I think there's never been a more exciting time... [to] really talk about redistributing wealth and power." Again, the theme is that America is an unjust society that needs a socialistic overhaul, and now is the time to make that happen.<br><br>And Lerner may be on to something. Presently, we are a nation adrift. We are deeply divided on fundamentals: Capitalism, the power of the federal government, the rights of the have-nots. These are the things the upcoming election will address.<br><br>It really is all about "Obama money," which is really our money. How much should be spent, and where should it go? The battle lines are drawn. At stake: The future of the USA.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-03-22T07:00:00ZThe Media Endorses Barack ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Media-Endorses-Barack-Obama/36134.html2012-03-15T07:00:00Z2012-03-15T07:00:00ZWriting in the this space two months ago, I laid out the media advantage that President Obama has in his quest for reelection. According to a study done by the Pew Research Center, 32% of journalists say they are liberal, 53% moderate and just 8% conservative. Ask John McCain how the press treated him in 2008 if you want specifics on the tilt toward Barack Obama.<br><br>A great illustration of media bias is the recent dustup over Sandra Fluke. She is the liberal activist trotted out by the Democratic Party to deflect the contraception issue away from the "church-state" controversy which the White House was losing, into the more emotional "women's health" arena. Nancy Pelosi herself organized a press dog and pony show for Ms. Fluke, who portrays herself as a law school student having a rough time paying for birth control pills. She wants the feds to pick up the tab through mandated insurance benefits even though the pills cost about $9 a month at places like Wal-Mart, and are distributed free at health clinics under Title Ten legislation.<br><br>But you won't find those facts being discussed much in the national media. No, for them Ms. Fluke is a victim of a cruel system that wants to unduly burden American women.<br><br>Sure.<br><br>Of course, Ms. Fluke was handed an enormous gift by Rush Limbaugh when he made demeaning comments about her. Immediately, the committed left wing media machine, led by the amazingly dishonest Media Matters internet site, cranked up two themes: that Limbaugh should be deported to Tonga, and that he is the real power behind the Republican Party.<br><br>MSNBC, which is now partnered up with Media Matters in the quest to disseminate left wing propaganda, went wild and so, to a lesser extent, did other national media outlets. The story line is that because the Republican candidates did not call for Limbaugh to be sent to Guantanamo Bay, they endorsed his attitude toward Ms. Fluke. The analysis was so hysterical that it could have been a Jon Stewart bit, and in fact it was. <br><br>The bigger picture is this: voters who do not pay close attention to public policy and political controversies are at the mercy of so called "prevailing wisdom." That is what they hear around town, from their friends, etc. As long as most of the media, including the entertainment industry, promotes one particular candidate for President, that person will have a major advantage in November.<br><br>But informed voters know the fix is in although there's little they can do about it. Another Pew survey taken in January finds that 67% of Americans believe there is bias in news coverage. They are right and it is to the left.<br> <br>Few in the press are reporting the truth about Sandra Fluke. That is an indicator of what the American media has become, as well as what is likely to come as the election campaign unfolds.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-03-15T07:00:00ZDecent Citizen BehaviorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Decent-Citizen-Behavior/36067.html2012-03-08T08:00:00Z2012-03-08T08:00:00ZThe <em>Washington Post</em> fancies itself a very influential newspaper, an opinion-shaper among the powerful DC ruling class. So when it editorialized last week about Rush Limbaugh's commentary concerning Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, some heads snapped back. It is very unusual for the poobahs at the <em>Post</em> to involve themselves with talk radio. It's kind of like Al Gore playing rugby—far too rowdy and dirty.<br><br>The primary point of the <em>Post</em> editorial is that demeaning a fellow American with personal attacks is not the way "a decent citizen" behaves. Fine. In general, that is true. However, there are times when evil must be confronted and vigorously attacked using very personal terms.<br><br>Of course, Sandra Fluke is not evil; in fact, she looks to be a very sincere young woman. Her argument for government-subsidized birth control should be debated on its merits. Whatever she does in private has nothing to do with the issue; it's nobody's business.<br><br>But Ms. Fluke's announced sense of entitlement is every taxpayer's concern. And it is here where the rhetorical battle should be fought. President Obama is trying to force health insurance companies to provide things like female birth control free of charge. Of course, the companies will pass the cost of that on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Since Obama-care appeared in the public square, my health insurance costs have risen by about 30%. If the Supreme Court rules Obama-care unconstitutional this year, which could very well happen, I doubt I will get a refund.<br><br>Sandra Fluke and millions of other Americans apparently believe it is their birthright to receive <em>gratis</em> contraceptives any time they want them. But why do they believe that? Where does it say in the Constitution that we the people are responsible for the personal behavior of our fellow citizens? Paging James Madison! Where does it say that?<br><br>Besides, under Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the feds do provide free female birth control for Americans at taxpayer expense. You can pick that up in clinics all over the USA. And if you don't want to do that, a local Target store just three miles from where Sandra Fluke lives sells a monthly supply of the Pill for just $9.<br><br>The <em>Washington Post</em> is a liberal paper which generally supports government subsidies for social justice causes. With a $16 trillion national debt, the <em>Post</em> can be easily challenged on its editorial posture, and surely the editorial people know the pill issue is bogus—a contrived controversy designed to fog up the real issue, the imposition of the federal government on the teachings of the Catholic church.<br><br>There is also the continuing advancement of the nanny state involved in the Sandra Fluke case. I hope I am not getting too personal in mentioning that. Decent citizens have right to know.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-03-08T08:00:00ZReagan vs. ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Reagan-vs.-Obama/35999.html2012-03-01T08:00:00Z2012-03-01T08:00:00ZLast week I ambled on up to the late Ronald Reagan's ranch high in the mountains of Santa Barbara County. Called Rancho del Cielo (Ranch in the Sky), it comprises 688 acres and one very small home. In fact, I was very surprised by how modest it is. <br><br>The Reagans purchased the property in 1974, shortly before the late president completed his second term as Governor of California. The story goes that Nancy Reagan was not thrilled because the property is so isolated and the house is actually tiny-six rooms, including a small master bedroom and kitchen, and no air conditioning. The Young America's Foundation has been kept the house exactly as it was when President Reagan died in 2004.<br><br>It is obvious that Ronald Reagan didn't care about amenities. He wanted to ride his horses, chop his wood and get in some alone time. My visit to the ranch confirmed that Mr. Reagan was a regular guy who valued basic things.<br><br>And that's why he defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980.<br><br>It's eerie. That presidential election 32 years ago is strikingly similar to the one we have today: a Democrat incumbent having big trouble with the economy and Iran. Sound familiar?<br><br>President Carter had to deal with a bad economy, folks lined up to buy gasoline, Iran taking and holding 52 American hostages in Tehran, and the perception that he was too inexperienced for the job. But Carter thought he could beat the shallow Hollywood guy, Reagan, who the Democrats labeled as out of touch with the folks.<br><br>Reagan, however, kept his message simple. He simply stared into the camera during one of the debates and asked Americans: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"<br><br>The answer was a resounding no. Reagan won in a landslide, as Carter had no effective comeback.<br><br>President Obama is a much stronger presence than Jimmy Carter ever was, so his challenger will have to do more than sloganeering. But the Republican guy will have to keep it simple. If he allows himself to get bogged down in social minutiae, Mr. Obama will win.<br><br>It will not be enough to do what Mr. Reagan did-to compare the present day to four years ago. No, the Republican challenger will have to convince independent voters that he can do something Barack Obama cannot do. He will have to be very specific about that.<br><br>Finally, there is the authenticity factor. Walking around the Reagan property, I saw that the president lived the same way he talked-simply. There were no Jacuzzis, no canopies over the bed, no designer furniture. The house could have been in Albuquerque. Reagan actually was the same guy on and off the stage.<br><br>In debating President Obama, the Republican candidate will have to channel Ronald Reagan's demeanor; that is, he'd better be cool, calm, and precise. The Gipper knew how to win. So does Barack Obama. His challenger better learn fast.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-03-01T08:00:00ZThe Devil and Rick SantorumBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Devil-and-Rick-Santorum/35921.html2012-02-23T08:00:00Z2012-02-23T08:00:00ZIf you watched the movie "The Exorcist," you know that the Catholic church believes there is an active evil in the world that, at times, must be confronted. Thus, the church trains certain priests to perform rites that expel evil from troubled human beings. Exorcisms are rare, but they happen.<br><br>Enter Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic who sometimes uses his faith-based beliefs to define public policy. That is causing fear and loathing among the secular press, for whom all religious-based judgments are the very definition of evil.<br><br>Speaking at a Catholic university in 2008, Santorum laid many of America's social problems directly at the devil's doorstep: "The Father of Lies has his sights set on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on—a good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States."<br><br>Santorum then went on to say that secularism was overwhelming Judeo-Christian values and even Protestant religions were in a "shambles."<br><br>Of course, there are many Americans who believe the way Santorum does, but if he were to win the presidency, he might be the most overtly religious man ever elected. Jimmy Carter embraced Christianity, but not to the extent Santorum does. Most of the other presidents paid lip service to the deity, but rarely invoked Satan as an enemy of the nation.<br><br>As a fellow Catholic, Santorum's spiritual opinions don't bother me. But I do understand why some Americans find him over the top. We the people value individualism and the freedom to design our own lives. Nobody likes to be judged, and Jesus himself warned against doing that. As for Satan, he is best kept at bay, for sure, but blaming MTV on him might be a bit simplistic.<br><br>Rick Santorum will likely be branded a male Church Lady (the SNL character played by Dana Carvey who often said, "Could it be Satan?") by the secular press if he continues doing well in the campaign. Already, <em>New York Times</em> columnist Maureen Dowd and others are painting him as a fringe revival-type player—an honest Elmer Gantry. They see him as a threat against gays, women, and atheist editors. The hysteria is growing.<br><br>But all Santorum is really doing is what Billy Joel once sang about: keeping the faith. He believes what he believes, and sees the world through that prism. Voters obviously know that and will make their decisions about the Senator based upon his well-reported resume. They don't need Satan or the liberal press to define him. Santorum speaks for himself, and very clearly.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-02-23T08:00:00ZWhy Whitney DiedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Whitney-Died/35777.html2012-02-16T08:00:00Z2012-02-16T08:00:00ZThe media has no bleepin' clue how to cover the death of Whitney Houston. That's because she was slowly dying for years, and many in the press simply averted their eyes. It was ultra-disturbing that a beautiful woman blessed with an extraordinary singing voice chose a self-destructive path in full view of the world. I mean, here is a person who signed a $100 million recording contract, actually sold 170 million albums, and commanded high six figures to deliver a 90-minute concert. Ms. Houston was a genuine worldwide star, yet was often seen in public disheveled and confused, her substance addiction apparent. The media simply did not know what to say.<br><br>We live in a time where addiction is categorized as a disease, and to do what Nancy Reagan once did, urge people to reject narcotics, is considered uncool. How many young performers do we see doing public service announcements warning children to avoid intoxication? Right now, I can't think of one.<br><br>The national media prides itself on being non-judgmental unless you are against abortion. Then you are dismissed as "anti-woman" or a religious zealot. But in the arena of personal behavior, there's an excuse for just about every non-violent activity or bad decision.<br><br>There is no question that some of us have a history of addiction in our families. There are folks who can use drugs casually and avoid dependence. But they are the exception. Once a person decides to dabble in cocaine, or opiates like heroin and Oxycontin, they are putting themselves at grave risk. And they know it. There are legends of famous people who wound up dead just like Whitney Houston. From Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson, the signposts are impossible to miss. No matter how rich and powerful you are, drugs can and will destroy you.<br><br>The current medical marijuana ruse is a great example of a society walking away from a responsible position. Ask any drug rehab counselor and he or she will tell you that pot often leads a person to harder drug use and is mentally addictive itself. Yes, most people can function while stoned. But the more you alter your mind, the more your perspective on life changes. Believe me, I know people who get stoned or drunk every day. They become incredibly desensitized to those around them.<br><br>On the kid front, the situation is dire. Once a child enters the world of intoxication, their childhood is gone. Presto—they are jaded. That's how dangerous drugs and alcohol are to immature minds. Society has an obligation to protect its children, not to tacitly accept or embrace mind-altering agents like marijuana.<br><br>Whitney Houston, however, was an adult who made a decision to embrace the drug life. Reports say she tried to rehabilitate herself a few times, but you know how that goes. Once a person enters the hell of addiction, there is no easy way out.<br><br>And that's how the Whitney Houston story should be covered. As a cautionary tale. Another life vanquished by substance abuse.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-02-16T08:00:00ZA Gay Time at JCPenneyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Gay-Time-at-JCPenney/35709.html2012-02-09T08:00:00Z2012-02-09T08:00:00ZEach Halloween, residents of New York City are greeted by homosexual parade marchers dressed to impress bystanders with a message that "gay is good." Some folks take the parade in stride, some are offended by more than a few outrageous displays, and others simply could not care less.<br><br>That parade is a microcosm of how Americans, in general, feel about the gay movement. And those who oppose the in-your-face tactics of some homosexuals do have a legitimate gripe. They simply want to be left alone. They don't want to see explicit displays in public that offend their moral or religious points-of-view.<br><br>Enter Ellen DeGeneres and JCPenney. The Texas-based department store has hired Ellen as a spokesperson, and that is royally teeing off a conservative group called "One Million Moms." On their website, they are calling for Penney's to "replace Ellen DeGeneres and remain neutral in the culture wars."<br><br>The Moms go on to say that Ellen is not a "true representative" of the type of families that shop at JCPenney.<br><br>While I sympathize with folks not wanting to deal with homosexuality, I think the Moms are wrong. Ellen DeGeneres is an American citizen. She has committed no crime. If she wants to promote equality for gays or gay marriage, that is her constitutional right. She should not be dismissed from anything.<br><br>But the Moms have rights, too. They don't have to shop at Penney's if they believe the company does not hold their values, and they are doing nothing wrong by making their disenchantment known. As long as they don't try to hurt Ellen or any other individual, I have no problem with the Moms.<br><br>In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy got a whole bunch of Americans fired from jobs because he said they were communists. There was even a blacklist in Hollywood that banished perceived left-wing job seekers from employment in the entertainment industry. That was awful and flat-out un-American. In this country, you have a right to be a communist, and nobody should punish anyone for political beliefs.<br><br>In my opinion, Kim Kardashian is a far worse role model than Ellen DeGeneres, and the Million Moms might want to check that out. Ms. Kardashian is all over the media, peddling an aggressively self-involved image that is anything but healthy to teenage girls. In fact, there are scores of media people who are celebrated for bad behavior. If the Moms want to be consistent in their outrage about dubious behavior, they are going to be very busy.<br><br>So let's leave Ellen alone and allow the marketplace to dictate exactly what Americans believe is worthy. That is the American way. Witch hunting against certain people and groups is not.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-02-09T08:00:00ZPolitical Correctness and MuslimsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Political-Correctness-and-Muslims/35641.html2012-02-02T08:00:00Z2012-02-02T08:00:00ZThe story is grisly: A husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17, and 13, by drowning them along with their stepmother. The couple was assisted by their 21-year-old son. All were found guilty of first-degree murder in Ontario, Canada. They were sentenced to life in prison.<br><br>Mohammed Shafia and his wife Tooba emigrated to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007. Muslims, they believe in Sharia Law, which, in some cases, allows so-called "honor killings." That is, if a family member deviates from strict Muslim teaching, they can be executed by other family members. Of course, that's insane. But under the Taliban in Afghanistan and in some other parts of the world, "honor killings" are allowed.<br><br>Shafia's three daughters were guilty, in his eyes, of becoming Westernized—wearing non-traditional Muslim clothing and associating with the dreaded Christians. So this demented father ordered the girls killed, as well as his first wife, whom he believed was aiding them in their alleged transgressions.<br><br>Reporting on the story in America has been scant and strange. According to the Media Research Center, the initial Associated Press report made no mention of the fact that the convicted murderers are Muslim. They were described as "Afghan." In fact, the only theology mentioned in the AP dispatch is Christian, used while describing the boyfriend of one of the daughters.<br><br>On NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams said this: "A verdict has been reached in a murder case that's gotten a lot of attention because it involved so-called honor killings of family members. In this case, an Afghan family living in Canada. It is a culture clash getting a lot of attention to our north."<br><br>Culture clash? Between whom? "Afghans" and Canadians? What is Williams talking about?<br><br>The reporter on the story, Kevin Tibbles, also avoided using the word "Muslim." He described the motivation for the violence as "a strict religious family that felt it had been disgraced."<br><br>What religion? Incredibly, the reporter didn't say.<br><br>This is no coincidence. The politically correct U.S. media is frightened by Muslim violence. It avoids the issue whenever it can.<br><br>Just think about what would happen if a Catholic father had murdered his daughter for having an abortion. Would the AP and NBC News not have mentioned the religion involved? I think we all know the answer to that question.<br><br>Political correctness is dangerous because it obscures the truth. It allows certain people and groups to avoid scrutiny for destructive actions. Today, the press in America is dominated by liberal editors who believe they are protecting "minorities" by failing to mention facts that might cast them in a negative light. Thus, honest reporting is becoming almost obsolete when certain groups are involved.<br><br>Mohammed Shafia, his wife, and his son are Muslim fanatics who believe they have the right to commit murder in the name of their religion. Somebody get that dispatch to the media.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-02-02T08:00:00ZNewt, the Media, and MomentumBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Newt-the-Media-and-Momentum/35577.html2012-01-26T08:00:00Z2012-01-26T08:00:00ZIf Newt Gingrich is elected President of the United States this year, he will owe it all to John King and to his former wife, Marianne. Let's go back to the final presidential debate in South Carolina. There stood Newt Gingrich, gripping his podium, staring at King, the CNN debate moderator. The former Speaker of the House had to be delighted. King was doing just what Gingrich and his advisors thought he might do: He was trying to embarrass Newt by asking him about salacious stuff his bitter ex-wife had told Nightline.<br> <br>"She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage," King said, as the crowd hushed. "Would you like to take some time to respond to that?"<br> <br>Gingrich paused a beat. Then with a slight sneer, he let loose: "No, but I will. I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office." Gingrich was rolling.<br> <br>"And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that."<br> <br>King was thrown off his game. He backpedaled. Gingrich continued to lash out. Finally, King sought a mandatory eight count: "As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network (CNN)."<br> <br>Forget it. Gingrich hammered him again: "John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else."<br> <br>It was all over. Romney, Santorum, and Paul should have just walked off the stage. Newt Gingrich had slain the media dragon and blood was on the ground. Nothing else would matter that night, and now Newt Gingrich has a decent shot at securing the Republican nomination. Before John King and Marianne, the Speaker was dead in the water.<br> <br>One thing is certain: Gingrich knows about anger. He well understands that many conservative Americans have had enough of being loathed by Hollywood and by the media chieftains in New York and Washington. The condescension shown to the right is undeniable. Every media survey ever taken shows the vast majority of press and entertainment people are committed liberals. And, unlike Walter Cronkite, who largely hid his left-wing ideology, today's media folks are out of the closet.<br> <br>Newt Gingrich also understands that he cannot win the Republican nomination without a populist uprising. His targeting of the media was brilliant, and now the Speaker says he will go after the anti-religion crowd. <br> <br>But there is one big problem. It is difficult to sustain outrage. It gets exhausting and it can become circus-like if not used wisely. Gingrich had his moment, and he nailed it. It will be hard for him to duplicate what happened in South Carolina on a regular basis.<br> <br>But everybody now knows there is a deep-seated anger among many Americans who believe they have lost their country. They are looking for a champion. If a candidate can truly fit that profile, he just might become the next President of the United States.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-01-26T08:00:00ZThe One Percent BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-One-Percent-Blues/35501.html2012-01-19T08:00:00Z2012-01-19T08:00:00ZGrowing up in Levittown out on Long Island, I remember my father buying pants through the mail. This seemed strange to me. There was a Robert Hall clothing store nearby and it had pants all over the place. But my dad said he could buy two pairs for the price of one from some guy in South Dakota. One problem: the pants never fit.<br><br>My father didn't much care. He saved some money which he put in the bank, affording me an opportunity to go to private schools.<br><br>My parents never wanted to be rich and did not resent those who were, although my dad did not like Joseph Kennedy. He called JFK's father a bootlegger. The truth is, we O'Reillys did not even know any rich people. They lived in Garden City, about five miles away.<br><br>Today, I am a rich guy, a one-percenter. I can buy all the pants I want. My late father could not even fathom how much money I make. I have trouble processing that as well.<br><br>But I never worked for cash. I always wanted to do something interesting and actually walked away from a high-paying TV job back in the 1990s to attend Harvard, where I secured a Master's Degree in Public Administration. There were tons of rich folks at Harvard. I did not resent them.<br><br>Today, the Occupy Wall Street crew and many progressive Americans believe that I am a greedhead, even though they have no idea what I do with my money. Just the fact that I have it gives them license to brand me as a dreadful "one-percenter."<br><br>The reason that I have prospered monetarily is that I put freedom to good use. I worked hard, got a great education, paid my dues in journalism, and finally hit it big. America gave me the freedom to do all those things. In the past, my achievements might have been celebrated. Not today. Now, more than a few folks say I am not paying my fair share to ensure the security of my fellow citizens.<br><br>According to the IRS, the 1.4 million households that comprise the "one percenters" (that is, taking in $350,000 a year or more) pay 37% of the nation's income tax. That's a big number, is it not? And the <em>New York Times</em> reports that the one percenters contributed about 30% of all charitable donations in 2007. Another big number.<br><br>So I've decided that those demanding more of my money for "social justice" are really attacking freedom. In this country, it is not wrong to prosper. You should not be demeaned for "having."<br><br>President Obama will be doing the nation a huge disservice if he bases his upcoming campaign on class warfare, because that's really an assault on individual freedom. Yes, we are all Americans, and we should all be in it together. But that doesn't mean the government can guarantee individual outcomes. In a free society, it can't.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-01-19T08:00:00ZThe President Wants My MoneyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-President-Wants-My-Money/35421.html2012-01-12T08:00:00Z2012-01-12T08:00:00ZA few days ago, a Democrat handed me an Obama fundraising brochure, even though he knows I never give political donations. I guess the guy wanted me to see what I'm missing. <br><br>Anyway, the two-sided pamphlet extolled the president's record on, among other things, "women's rights," health care, and the economy. The economy? <br><br>Yes. According to the Obama for America organization, which paid for the pamphlet, Mr. Obama is responsible for "an economic recovery program [that] supported as many as 3.6 million jobs by cutting taxes, investing in clean energy, roads and bridges, keeping teachers in classrooms, and protecting unemployment benefits." Those claims were made under the heading "Job Creation."<br><br>Wait a minute. "Protecting unemployment benefits" is directly tied to job creation? Who knew?<br><br>Now, I don't want to sound like a partisan here, because that's boring. As with all presidents, Mr. Obama has both good and bad on his resume. But the phrase "supported as many as 3.6 million jobs" is a masterful piece of propaganda. I mean, who counted those jobs? What does "supporting jobs" really mean? I don't want to brag or solicit donations, but I support billions of jobs worldwide simply because I want folks to work.<br><br>The Obama for America people also claim that the president "called for closing tax loopholes to ensure millionaires and billionaires don't pay less in taxes than the middle class." Notice the words "less in taxes." Of course, high income folks pay far more income tax than everyday Americans. What this is all about is the 15% tax on long-term capital gains and interest income. But in order to buy investments or deposit money in savings vehicles, you have to use "after-tax" money—take home pay. So if you're lucky enough to make some money on an investment, then you're supposed to pay another big chunk of it in taxes? Yeah, that sounds good. That's the way to encourage investment and savings. Do the words "risk-reward" mean anything? Apparently not.<br><br>There's an old song called "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," and that's what is happening in America right now. Political machines and parties are blowing so much smoke it is almost impossible for fair-minded voters to know the truth. Gone are the days when a Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman could look the country in the collective eye and tell the absolute truth about what they wanted to accomplish. Now we have professional pamphlet writers who parse every word in their never ending quest to deceive.<br><br>The upcoming presidential election is, perhaps, the most important since the Great Depression. It is shaping up as an epic class warfare battle. And propaganda will be a big part of it.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-01-12T08:00:00ZLaughing at the Presidential ElectionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Laughing-at-the-Presidential-Election/35371.html2012-01-05T08:00:00Z2012-01-05T08:00:00ZPresident Obama may not know it, but he has a nice advantage in the world of late night TV. A new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University says that in 2011 late night comedians mocked Republicans three times more than they did Democrats. The biggest ideological difference was between David Letterman and Jay Leno. Letterman did 77 jokes at the expense of President Obama while Leno did 156—about 100% more.<br><br>The Republican presidential candidates got whacked across the board in late night precincts. Herman Cain was mocked 191 times; Rick Perry, 186; Michele Bachmann, 128; and Newt Gingrich, 110.<br><br>Interestingly, Mitt Romney was only singled out for teasing 79 times, perhaps signifying a certain blandness on the part of the governor.<br><br>The George Mason survey doesn't count the GOP mocking by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, possibly because researchers would have collapsed trying to chronicle that. The fact is that every late night comedian is liberal and so are most of their writers. Leno is the most neutral; Letterman, Stewart, Colbert, and Jimmy Fallon are the furthest left.<br><br>The question is, how much will this matter in the election of 2012? Tough to answer, but one thing is certain: the late night shows are not as well watched as they used to be. However, popular culture does have an effect on the distracted voter, those people who do not pay much attention to the news. They often pick up the political narrative from entertainment programs and stuff they read on the 'net. There is no question that Barack Obama's rock star status in 2008 was largely defined by Oprah and other entertainers, while that stodgy old John McCain was not exactly dominating the rundown of Entertainment Tonight.<br><br>If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, boring jokes will rule the day. If a committed conservative like Rick Santorum were to run, the writers would go wild. I can see a Santorum impersonator on Saturday Night Live now wearing a sleeveless sweater and a "Re-elect John Adams" button. Huey Lewis once sang, "It's hip to be square." Not on late night TV, it isn't.<br><br>Americans should expect the media to back President Obama again, although the enthusiasm can't possibly match 2008. We live in sobering times, and even though many believe it's all George W. Bush's fault, that punch line is not working anymore. There will be a new narrative and it will most likely be highlight the dumbness of the GOP guy, not the accomplishments of the president.<br><br>In the end, the election will not be decided on late night TV. Republicans have already lost there. Luckily for them, the Electoral College is a daytime operation.BillOReilly.com Staff2012-01-05T08:00:00ZGood Riddance, 2011BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Good-Riddance-2011/35313.html2011-12-29T08:00:00Z2011-12-29T08:00:00ZBad year, 2011, even though some bad guys and charlatans got a karma blast. Osama bin Laden got it up close and personal from a SEAL, while his cohort al-Awlaki got drilled from the sky. Khadafy went down, and Assad is tottering.<br> <br>Schwarzenegger, Weiner, Sheen, and Cain all got hammered in the court of public opinion. Blagojevich, Bonds, and Mubarak were held accountable in actual courts.<br> <br>Casey Anthony got away with killing her two-year-old daughter. Amanda Knox finally beat the rap in Italy. And Kim Kardashian continued to be the poster girl for narcissism.<br> <br>Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, by all accounts a stellar human being, survived a brutal gun attack. But more than 20,000 Japanese did not survive the earthquake and tsunami that hit in March.<br> <br>But things like these happen every year. The primary reason that 2011 is not a year to remember is focused around one thing: The folks continue to get a bad deal.<br> <br>Most Americans work hard, are honest people, and look out for their neighbors. They deserve prosperity, and capitalism was set up to provide it. But with technology changing the way we live, the rules of capital engagement are changing, and the U.S. government has not acknowledged that. The unemployment rate is just below 9 percent. But if you have a college degree, the jobless rate is cut in half. If you are educated, you most likely will get a decent paying job. If you have a skill like plumbing, you'll work as much as you want. But if you can't write a sentence, you speak like the Jersey Shore crew, and/or you have a bad attitude in the workplace, you are up against it.<br> <br>In most situations, the employer is holding all the cards. Competition for jobs is intense, and that drives wages down. The boss man can make demands and set a strict workplace regimen. If you are supporting a family, this is not the greatest scenario. So, the Occupy protestors are right about one thing: the American worker is on the defensive.<br> <br>President Obama wants you to believe that the feds can change all that and can right those private marketplace wrongs. That is bull. They can't, and they are bankrupting the country with false hopes. Right now, only individuals can improve their own circumstances. Pinheads in Washington cannot help us.<br> <br>The most important thing for workers to understand is that you have to make yourself indispensable. You have to make your employer money or his life easier. Preferably both. Also, you have to learn as much as you can about your chosen endeavor. Again, if you can fix things, you will earn good money. If you can sell things, you will prosper. If you're primarily interested in tattoos, you will suffer economically unless you're a member of Green Day.<br> <br>In prosperous years, the marginal workers get by. In tough times, they get the shaft. Let's all hope 2012 finally brings relief on the economic front. But don't count on it. Make your own way and a happy new year will be far more likely to occur.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-12-29T08:00:00ZChristmas in ChurchBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Christmas-in-Church/35287.html2011-12-22T08:00:00Z2011-12-22T08:00:00ZThis column is about religion, so please alert the American Civil Liberties Union. There may be some very offensive stuff coming up, and God knows the public should be protected.<br><br>When I was a kid, my parents usually took me to Midnight Mass on Christmas. I think they did that so I would not get up at five in the morning looking for what Santa had left. If my dad was going to stay up past ten, there had to be a reason other than praising the Lord.<br><br>Anyway, my church was always packed back in the early 1960s, when only about 3% of the American population was not affiliated with a specific religion. Today, 13% say they are non-affiliated religiously but, still, an overwhelming 78% of Americans profess to be Christians.<br><br>So you would think that on Christmas Day the churches would be packed with folks celebrating the birth of Jesus. Well, some of them will be, but many will be half full, because on any given Sunday church attendance throughout the USA is bleak.<br><br>Let's take my religion, Roman Catholicism. There are about 66 million American Catholics. But, according to a study done at Georgetown University, just 22% of them attend weekly mass. And that's an obligation. The Church says you must go to mass on Sunday, or it's a sin. Long ago, when the nuns held me captive in St. Brigid's School, missing mass was a huge deal. Apparently, not any more.<br><br>So what's going on? There is no question that secularism is on the rise in America, and the media is happy about it. Openly religious people like Tim Tebow are often mocked. You are quickly branded a zealot if you talk up your faith in public. But if you act like one of Caligula's running buddies, you are often glorified as cool and "with it." South Beach is in, Lourdes is out, assuming you actually know what Lourdes is.<br><br>But the churches themselves have to share some of the blame. Too often, the person preaching in the pulpit does not have much to say, especially to younger people who are looking for life guidance. I mean, St. Paul had the Corinthians mesmerized, but back then there was no internet, no Blackberrys, no cable. Paul had the stage to himself. Not much competition in ancient Syria.<br><br>Today, the challenge is to get the attention of the faithful, and that takes some doing. Christmas seems to be a good place to start. Jesus changed the entire world in less than 35 years. How did the guy do it? Talk about a great narrative. What did a baby born into poverty possess that persuaded billions all over the world to believe in his philosophy? There are about 1.2 billion Christians on earth today, 17% of the world's population.<br><br>Something to think about on the birthday of the most influential man who ever lived.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-12-22T08:00:00ZIdeology TVBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ideology-TV/35231.html2011-12-15T08:00:00Z2011-12-15T08:00:00ZTalk about an excruciating experience. The media research company Experian Simmons spent an entire year surveying diehard Republicans and Democrats regarding what they watch on TV, and the results are now in. The top non-auction Republican shows are "This Old House" on PBS, "The 700 Club," "Swamp Loggers" on the Discovery Channel, "Top Shot" on the History Channel, and "The Bachelor" on ABC.<br><br>The Democrats favored these: Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," "Masterpiece" on PBS, "30 Rock" and "Parks and Recreation" on NBC, and "The View" on ABC.<br><br>So let's break it down. Apparently conservatives enjoy fixing stuff and building things. "This Old House" is basically a repair program without Tim Allen. "Swamp Loggers" takes the viewer into the woods of North Carolina where trees are cut down and hauled away on camera. Please stop reading if the excitement is getting too much.<br><br>"The 700 Club" features spiritual guidance, "Top Shot" is about shooting guns and stuff, and "The Bachelor" is looking for love in all the wrong places (network TV). If we bring in an FBI profiler, the person who watches all these shows would likely pray before going out on a date with an armed lumberjack.<br><br>On the liberal side, the analysis is easier. Jon Stewart and Stevie Colbert are experts in bear-baiting conservatives and have developed half-hour faux news programs to mock people like Mitt Romney. Stoned college kids are a big part of their audience.<br><br>"Masterpiece" is very highbrow, as the people in Cambridge, Massachusetts apparently can't get enough of angst among the British aristocracy. "30 Rock" stars Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, and just thinking about them makes liberals warm all over. Same with "The View." When Whoopi and Joy let loose, there is true joy in San Francisco.<br><br>It is obvious that liberal Americans enjoy personalities that see the world the way they do. Conservatives, on the other hand, want action. Shooting, tree cutting, praying. All action verbs. In fact, the only two personalities on the extended Republican show list are Larry the Cable Guy and Jay Leno, who is most likely mortified. The number 12 show for right-wingers is "Swamp People" on the History Channel. Here we go again with the damp woods.<br><br>What is it about backwaters that Republicans like? I simply don't know. "Swamp People" are citizens who ride around in airboats fishing and dodging water moccasins. Talk about must-see TV.<br><br>On the extended liberal list we find "Cougar Town" on ABC. This is a Courtney Cox vehicle whereby aging ladies socialize with younger guys. If those men would only live in the swamps, perhaps we could finally have détente between the right and the left in this country.<br><br>In the end, the television choices that both liberals and conservatives are making really tell us just one relevant thing: they all have too much time on their hands.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-12-15T08:00:00ZThe Tax Man ComethBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Tax-Man-Cometh/35157.html2011-12-08T08:00:00Z2011-12-08T08:00:00ZThis week Caesar came for me, demanding my tax obligation. As a one-percenter, my burden was substantial, but I'm not whining. I love my country and understand it needs money to fulfill its obligations. So the check is in the mail.<br><br>Thirty-five years ago, I was broke, having just graduated from Boston University with a Master's degree in Broadcast Journalism. I was lucky enough to get hired as a reporter in Scranton, Pennsylvania, at $150 a week. One problem: I couldn't pay my rent on that. So I picked up another $80 a month writing dopey gag lines for "Uncle Ted's Ghoul School," a Saturday night monster fright fest. Stuff like, "Listen, Drac, here's what's at stake."<br><br>Over the years, I worked hard, took chances, moved all over the country, and finally attained affluence. Along the way, I always felt I was paying my fair share to the government. I still do, and I'm getting a bit teed off by President Obama implying I am not. Hey, Mr. President, the massive debt is partly your fault. I have nothing do to with it. This is not a give-and-take situation. I've taken nothing from the government.<br><br>The problem for Mr. Obama and the big spending liberal movement in America is accountability. The outgoing doctor in charge of Medicare, Donald Berwick, told the press that about 30% of all payments are wasteful; the health care money is either stolen or used for unnecessary treatments. In New York State, Medicaid investigators are fed up with the "pay and chase" philosophy sanctioned by the pinheads in Albany. Pay the dubious claims, chase the perps later if enough proof is developed that they are cheating.<br><br>President Obama is big on using "income inequality" as a campaign slogan. And there is that in America. Folks without a good education or a technical micro-skill are not likely to earn good money. Unions are on the decline, and the public sector is collapsing economically. No longer can the taxpayers afford lavish pensions and overtime payments. The working class is getting hammered all over the place.<br><br>So the Democratic party wants more of my take home pay diverted to them so they can give it to those not earning very much. But the Obama administration, like others before it, refuses to watch how the money is dispatched. Therefore, billions of dollars are abused every year. Medicare waste alone costs the country $168 billion per annum.<br><br>There comes a time when the truth must be told. The federal government is not built to run massive entitlement programs or health care or even the post office, which is now going bankrupt. Washington simply cannot administrate to 300 million people, no matter how much money pours in there.<br><br>I work hard and want to pay my fair share. But I don't want my hard earned dollars wasted by lazy, incompetent politicians pandering for votes. Call me crazy.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-12-08T08:00:00ZIs it Over for Lady Gaga?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-it-Over-for-Lady-Gaga/35047.html2011-12-01T08:00:00Z2011-12-01T08:00:00ZA few months ago in this space, I wrote a column about the cultural phenom Lady Gaga that ended with me politely telling her to save her money. That's because the treacherous world of popular culture is not usually a long-term proposition. Entertainment idols often pass through the fame obstacle course very quickly.<br><br>In showbiz, there is the term "jumping the shark" that is used to describe a project in decline. It is derived from the hit sit-com "Happy Days" which, sorely lacking for material after years on the air, featured a show wherein The Fonz went waterskiing in a leather jacket and encountered a shark. You guessed it: the Fonz jumped over the shark on the skis. After that, the days were not so happy on that program.<br><br>Now we have Lady Gaga, the ultimate edgy, anti-establishment pop star, swimming in dubious waters. Recently, she fronted a Thanksgiving special. The <em>New York Times</em> described it this way: "Lady Gaga performs before family and friends and offers a glimpse of her personal life in an interview with Katie Couric...<br><br>"She also whips up a feast of deep-fried turkey and waffles with the chef Art Smith."<br><br>Somewhere Janis Joplin is weeping. By the way, Gaga's special was trounced in the ratings by the 237th airing of the "Charlie Brown Thanksgiving Special."<br><br>And that's not all. The Associated Press reports that "Gaga's Workshop" is now open at the Barney's clothing store in Manhattan. Apparently, Gaga designed a special holiday shop featuring "a gigantic cartoon statue of the superstar herself in a pinup pose surrounded by jagged mirrors and sitting atop thousands of back plastic discs."<br><br>Forget the Rockefeller Center tree—the Gaga shop represents the true holiday spirit, does it not?<br><br>Now, some of you may think I am making this up, but it's all true. What I can't figure out is why Gaga's (Stefani Germanotta) management team seems to know nothing about history. The biggest pop icon ever, Elvis Presley, sabotaged his own career by starring in a series of movies like "Kissin' Cousins" and "Clambake." I mean, there was the once culturally dangerous Elvis, doing a dance called the "Clam" on a beach wearing black shoes and white pants. It took the King years to get back on track after those dopey flicks. <br><br>Last year, Gaga (Stefani) made $90 million from her songs and shows. Does she really need the Thanksgiving special? Or the Barney's exposure? Really?<br><br>The answer is "of course not." Gaga has now gone middle class mainstream, and at this rate, she will be co-hosting with Kelly Ripa any day now. The Lady may be trying not be a tramp, but she certainly has met the shark. And jumped it.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-12-01T08:00:00ZMemo to the OccupiersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Memo-to-the-Occupiers/34893.html2011-11-24T08:00:00Z2011-11-24T08:00:00ZListen up, you protest people! You have gone and alienated Newt Gingrich, who wants you to take a bath and get a job. Or vice-versa. And his words were greeted with applause from coast to coast. You guys should take notice.<br><br>A couple of months ago, the polls showed that many Americans sympathized with your movement. After all, who likes greed-head Wall Street folks manipulating the financial markets? They bathe, but so what? They're corrupt, and you are right to demand the government provide oversight of them.<br><br>But that point has been largely lost, because the "Occupy" movement is now perceived as radical and incoherent. The loons moved in and the sincere protestors ceded the spotlight. All of a sudden, the Sons of Anarchy were getting all the camera time. Most Americans are willing to listen, but not to guys with scorpions tattooed on their necks. And then there were the ugly displays of police baiting and mindless destruction. The result? According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 28% of Americans now approve of the "Occupy" movement, and James Carville will no longer take their calls.<br><br>But the primary reason this correspondent has turned bearish (sorry) on the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is hypocrisy. Recently, the feds announced that executives at the near-bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies would receive close to $100 million in bonus money. Also, the guy who ran Solyndra into bankruptcy got a nice departure package, despite the fact the solar panel company wasted about $500 million in taxpayer money.<br><br>So where are you on those things, Occupiers? Why are you sieging a Burger King in San Diego when the real corruption is in Washington, DC? <br><br>All the evidence says the protesters have no clue what they want or who the bad guys really are. They have some vague idea that the "one-percenters" are evil and therefore the "99 percenters" don't have enough money to buy an SUV. Or something. <br><br>A few weeks ago, I looked into taking a trip to Cuba where there are no "one-percenters" because the Castro brothers have terrorized the wealthy into leaving the island. I've been to 75 countries, but never to the socialistic paradise ninety miles from the Florida Keys.<br><br>My travel agent informed me that it would probably cost me a thousand dollars a day to visit. I would be assigned a government minder and could not travel outside Havana. While in the capital city, I would be able to visit with some artists and eat dinner with a Cuban family while my bodyguard sat next to me. All my movements would be monitored, and if I stepped out of line, "the man would come and take me away," as Buffalo Springfield (big "Occupy" fans) once sang.<br><br>As a "one-percenter," I can afford the trip, but does that sound like fun to you? Perhaps the Occupiers might do a little reading up on socialism and its side effects. I'd be happy to send them my brochure from Cuba.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-11-24T08:00:00ZGood Morning, Barack!BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Good-Morning-Barack!/34789.html2011-11-17T08:00:00Z2011-11-17T08:00:00ZWith his poll numbers dropping like dissidents in Syria, President Obama has to be hoping the national media will continue to help him out. Last time around, the network news organizations swooned over the junior senator from Illinois, and marginalized his opponent John McCain as much as possible.<br><br>According to a new study by the conservative Media Research Center, the president has some reason to be optimistic about the media in 2012. The group examined the morning shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC in order to ascertain campaign attitudes. The headlines are these:<ul><li>So far in 2011, morning network correspondents have labeled Republican candidates as "conservative" 49 times. But only once have they referred to Mr. Obama as a liberal.</li><li>By a four-to-one margin, the morning show hosts have used adversarial questioning against Republican interview subjects as compared to Democratic guests.</li><li>The morning programs routinely run positive "human interest" stories about the president and his family. No Republican contender has received that kind of coverage.</li></ul>The conclusion reached by the MRC is that the morning programs are not likely to "cheerlead" for the Obama campaign as some did in 2008; instead, they will be more likely to scrutinize his Republican opposition.<br><br>Having worked at both CBS News and ABC News, I can tell you there is a managerial culture that is decidedly liberal. Some places are worse than others. Under Dan Rather, the CBS landscape was openly left. Under the late Peter Jennings, ABC News was more politically correct than agenda-driven. Jennings did not like political advocacy on either side.<br><br>Americans can expect a vicious campaign next year. The Republican candidate will have to go after President Obama on his record, and that will bring hard blowback. Mr. Obama himself rarely uses personal attacks. But some of his supporters, especially on the internet, certainly do. Gutter sniping will be all over the place.<br><br>Last time around, Senator John McCain did not take the fight to Barack Obama, preferring to highlight his own experience for the country. That was a mistake that the Democrats exploited. Senator Obama's political record was weak; he was essentially running on charisma. Instead of pinning him down on specific solutions to targeted problems, Mr. McCain allowed his young opponent to dazzle the public with rhetoric.<br><br>This time around, the Republicans have cold, hard facts to present to the American people. And the only answer to those damning statistics is diversion—pettifogging the issue with ginned up controversy and smoke.<br><br>So, we can expect the national media to embrace the pettifog and flog it all morning (and evening). The media is loathe to admit any mistake, and its support of Barack Obama is on the record. There is little chance the Republican challenger will receive fair and balanced coverage.<br><br>Will media support for the president be enough to give him the edge in 2012? If the vote is close, the answer is most likely yes.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-11-17T08:00:00ZSelling John Lennon's Body PartsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Selling-John-Lennons-Body-Parts/34735.html2011-11-10T08:00:00Z2011-11-10T08:00:00ZThe cult of celebrity has reached a new low. No, I'm not talking about Kim Kardashian making millions from her wedding and then dumping the groom less than three months later. We could have predicted that. What is even worse is that one of the late John Lennon's body parts has sold for more than $31,000 at an auction.<br><br>Here's the story. Back in the mid-1960's, Dorothy Jarlett worked as Lennon's housekeeper at his home in Surrey, England. According to Ms. Jarlett's son, the two were very close, so much so that Lennon gave her a tooth he had removed by a dentist. Now, I know what you're thinking. What's the big deal? Famous people give housekeepers their extracted teeth all the time. Why are you making a big deal out of this, O'Reilly?<br><br>Well, there's more.<br><br>Dorothy Jarlett is now 90 years old and, her son says, she believes it is the right time to pass the tooth on, rather than risk the incisor getting lost. Of course, that makes perfect sense.<br><br>The owner of the Omega Auction House says he cannot prove the tooth actually came from Lennon's mouth because it is too fragile for DNA testing. But the guy says he has "no doubt" the tooth is authentic. And that settles that.<br><br>A dentist in Alberta, Canada, Dr. Michael Zuk, forked over the $31 grand for the tooth. He says he will eventually have it mounted and displayed in his office. That would certainly be in good taste, would it not? But before the doctor mounts the fragile tooth, he says he wants to carry it around in his pocket and show it to a few people. I pray that I am one of those lucky few.<br><br>I just hope the "Occupy Wall Street" people don't hear about this. They're already down on capitalism, and the tooth transaction will not likely change their opinion. But, truthfully, selling the body parts of dead people has been going on for a while. Various auctions feature locks of hair from folks like Elvis, Abe Lincoln, and George Washington (George lost his teeth, so that isn't an option). There are collectors who will pay big money for anything physical attached to celebrity icons.<br><br>So if Kim Kardashian and her peers are smart, they will begin stockpiling various body parts they no longer need. I mean, you really don't have to be dead to have value. Kim could begin selling her hair and other stuff on cable. Might divert her attention from the tragic marriage.<br><br>We obviously live in strange times where some folks will buy anything, and some will sell anything. It used to be that ghouls were society's outcasts. Now, they are sought out by auction houses. As John Lennon himself once sang about Strawberry Fields, "Nothing is real."BillOReilly.com Staff2011-11-10T08:00:00ZWhy Experience MattersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Experience-Matters/34649.html2011-11-03T07:00:00Z2011-11-03T07:00:00ZPut aside Herman Cain's social problems for a moment, and look at his resume: Successful businessman with a patriotic streak. That's pretty much it. Yet, Mr. Cain leads the Republican field in some polls, prompting a new Quinnipiac survey to ask, "Does the fact that Herman Cain never served in public office make you more likely/less likely to vote for him, or doesn't it make a difference?"<br><br>Well, 43% said it doesn't make a difference, 41% would be less likely to vote for Cain, and just 14% are more likely to support him.<br><br>The takeaway from this poll is that close to 60% of Americans don't believe any political experience is necessary in order to run the country.<br><br>Looking back, only two American presidents have ever been elected without political or military experience. William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover had scant public sector exposure (and we know how that turned out with Hoover), but the vast majority of chief executives had politics in their blood.<br><br>Barack Obama might be an exception to that rule. His experience in the Senate was short and rather ordinary. The president has a strong legal background, but little hands-on policy experience.<br><br>That has caused him major problems, especially with the economy. Mr. Obama, a devoted liberal, bought the idea that massive federal spending would ramp up the private sector. It did not. It never has. But because the president believed he could combine economic growth with social justice, he did not listen to opposing points of view. And here we are three years later with massive economic pain.<br><br>The lesson is that experience counts. Like President Obama, Herman Cain is a charismatic speaker. He is forceful, yet accessible. Millions of folks like him and that for which he stands. But, truthfully, Cain simply does not know enough about the world to formulate specific future strategies. If he is elected to the presidency, he would have to rely on a bevy of advisors, just as President Obama has done. Paging Lawrence Summers!<br><br>We are living in a complicated, dangerous world where what happens in a chaotic nation like Greece can cause the Dow to drop 300 points in a day... where a rogue country like Iran can directly threaten us and get away with it... where our alleged ally Pakistan can hide bin Laden for years, and not pay any price. Even Lincoln and Washington would be up nights dealing with problems like these.<br><br>Thank God that President Obama appointed Leon Panetta to blow up the al-Qaeda and Taliban thugs. As CIA chief, Panetta has served the president extremely well and largely taken foreign policy criticism off the election table. Mr. Obama got lucky with Mr. Panetta. The president has been unlucky in other advisory areas.<br><br>So, experience does matter. Voting for any political candidate is a gamble. But supporting one who is light on policy achievement is a long-shot play.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-11-03T07:00:00ZAmerica in DeclineBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/America-in-Decline/34433.html2011-10-27T07:00:00Z2011-10-27T07:00:00ZAccording to a new poll by <em>The Hill</em> newspaper, 69% of Americans now believe the USA is in "decline." In addition, a whopping 83% indicate they are worried about America's future.<br><br>Very sobering. So what's going on?<br><br>If you study history, you know that America was built on self-reliance and personal achievement. In the early years of the Republic, the federal and state governments pretty much stayed out of the way as folks built businesses and communities. There were absolutely no public safety nets. If you failed, it was up to you to survive.<br><br>Because of that circumstance, the citizens of America became strong. The motto "Don't Tread On Me" was absolutely appropriate. Hardship was accepted as a part of life. Self-sacrifice for the good of others was the order of the day. Cowardice and narcissism were condemned everywhere.<br><br>And so, the world's greatest and strongest country was built. Not by pinheaded bureaucrats, but by the blood and sacrifice of hard-working folks. Each generation had strong role models to follow. There were rules of conduct, and a dominant Judeo-Christian signpost. As Superman well knew, it was "truth, justice, and the American way."<br><br>But things have changed.<br><br>The collapse of tradition began in the late 1960s when the Vietnam War raged. For the first time, Americans could see the horrors of combat in their living rooms. And that war was largely undefined, especially for younger people. What the hell was the USA doing in southeast Asia? Why were young men being drafted into a conflict few understood? In order to win any war, you need dynamic leadership. President Lyndon Johnson failed to provide it.<br><br>Out went the baby with the bathwater. In came drugs, free love, and a suspicion of authority. No longer was the United States a noble nation in the eyes of many of its own citizens who began to see their country as an oppressor. America became a divided nation. Traditions eroded quickly as many people began doing their "own thing." No longer was there a widely accepted code of conduct.<br><br>Self-reliance remained the key to success in our capitalistic system, but for those who declined to compete, the federal government stepped in to lend support. As the family structure collapsed, entitlements became more common as children and single mothers had to be supported. The vexing issues of racial inequality and persistent poverty brought about ultra-expensive social engineering. Liberal Americans looked to the Western European model of cradle-to-grave support as a panacea for "income inequality." The view that Washington has a moral obligation to provide a decent lifestyle for everyone took root.<br><br>That philosophy, currently embraced by President Obama, has led to massive debt, which, in turn, has created chaos in the private marketplace. In this world, a strong economic base is the foundation of power. America has lost that base.<br><br>And so, once again, the folks are right. The United States is in decline. And only we the people can reverse that. We have to depend on ourselves.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-10-27T07:00:00ZAre the Wall Street Protesters Us?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-the-Wall-Street-Protesters-Us/34357.html2011-10-20T07:00:00Z2011-10-20T07:00:00ZIf you believe a column in <em>Newsweek</em> magazine, most of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are just regular folks, people like you and me. Writer Michael Daly puts forth that the demonstrators have simply had enough of an unfair economic system, and what's wrong with that?<br><br>But a survey taken at the protest site in New York City tells quite another story. Pollster Doug Schoen, who once worked for President Clinton, had his staff ask 200 protesters to define themselves.<ul><li>Just 15% are unemployed</li><li>Most voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but now only 44% approve of the job the president is doing</li><li>52% have participated in political demonstrations before</li><li>31% say they would support violence to advance their agenda</li></ul>And what is that agenda? Schoen writes, "The protestors have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies... [The movement] comprises an electorate that believes in the radical redistribution of wealth..."<br><br>In other words, these folks want our stuff.<br><br>Throughout history, there have always been human beings who did not want to compete in the marketplace. And that sentiment drives a hatred of capitalism. The American economic system is a meritocracy. If you work hard and do well in your job, you will usually prosper, providing you practice patience. If you don't work hard and smart, you will be out on your keister, unless a union saves you. Some believe that this survival of the fittest system is unfair because all people are not born with equal aptitude. And that's true. Capitalism is not fair to everyone. But it gives the largest amount of folks the best chance to succeed because there are many different routes to prosperity, and some disinterested bureaucrat isn't standing around calling the economic shots.<br><br>But the "Occupy Wall Street" protestors want those bureaucrats. They believe that governments have a moral obligation to <em>provide</em> a measure of success and education to everyone, no matter what the cost. This, of course, is impossible. <br><br>I respect dissent, but not stupidity. Do these anti-capitalistic folks ever read a newspaper or a history book? Greece and the other European countries are collapsing under entitlement debt, and the entire world is suffering economically because of it. <br><br>The Soviet Union fell apart under Communism. Cuba is a disaster. Zimbabwe is unspeakable. Every place on earth that tries to seize private property implodes. Most human beings are built to better themselves, not throw their talents into a collective kitty usually run by corrupt killers.<br><br>Generally speaking, the "Occupy Wall Street" crew is comprised of bored morons who want handouts. Every American has a legitimate beef about something, but most of us don't want to burn the system down. The protestors do.<br><br>Maybe if their brains were occupied with some perspective, we could get someplace.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-10-20T07:00:00ZKids' StuffBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Kids-Stuff/34245.html2011-10-13T07:00:00Z2011-10-13T07:00:00ZEvery generation has a tendency to mock younger folks. It's in the American DNA. My father did it, my grandfather did it, and now, God help me, I'm doing it.<br><br>Recently I had occasion to travel to New Hampshire with seven children ranging in age from 3 to 16. Don't even ask how this happened. It was kind of like an earthquake—things began to rumble and soon there was destruction everywhere.<br><br>The primary purpose of the trip was to get the urchins away from their electronic gadgets and show them the wonders of nature. The fall foliage in Bretton Woods was magnificent. Upon landing in the shadow of Mount Washington, one of the children looked around and immediately said, "I'm cold."<br><br>It is a struggle getting many kids out of the house these days. The lure of computer games is substantial. I mean, these things are like opium. Pretty soon they'll be growing them in Afghanistan. The games often feature explicit violence. They are not encouraging kids to read <em>Tom Sawyer</em>.<br><br>And then there's texting. Today, every nuance of a child's life must be broadcast immediately. After all, the adults are tweeting about things like what kind of vodka they drink. Why shouldn't their offspring join the trivia extravaganza?<br><br>Mark my words: These machines are taking over. Many younger Americans are so addicted they can't function without them. Never mind nature, witty in-person conversation, and games like stickball or keep-away. Those things are soooooo obsolete. Why bother braving the elements or actually thinking up creative activities? The machines provide instant excitement.<br><br>So there I am, trying to coax a bunch of machine-heads to commune with nature. It is not going well. A room at the hotel is quickly cleared because a spider has been sighted. Blood-seeking Internet zombies, all day long. A tiny spider? No way.<br><br>"We're going hiking," I say. Silence. Finally, a reply. "Hiking?"<br><br>"Yeah, in the woods. The leaves are changing, the air is clean. Let's go!"<br><br>No one moves. "Are there animals in the woods?" The 12-year-old girl is concerned. <br><br>"Moose, deer, and plenty of squirrels. Let's hope we see some."<br><br>"Are there BEARS?"<br><br>My policy is to never fib to an urchin. Total credibility is needed to get anywhere. So I tell the truth: "Yeah, black bears live in the woods."<br><br>Chaos. Frowns all around. Weeping close. "Bears?" an eight-year-old says. "And you want us to SEE THEM?"<br><br>My reply is pithy: "I will protect you."<br><br>No one buys it.<br><br>We wind up going mountain tubing with a forest in sight. Then the kids ride a zip-line over the forest. Then they go by car to the Mt. Washington train station, where they can see more forest from the cafeteria. We never actually venture into a forest.<br><br>Finally, I try to channel the Kennedys and organize a touch football game on the vast lawn of the Mt. Washington Hotel. The urchins were reluctant.<br><br>The eight-year-old: "It's too hot."<br><br>The seven-year-old: "Everybody's bigger than me."<br><br>Enough was enough. "Okay, we're all playing football. Does everybody understand me?"<br><br>We played. Water had to be brought almost immediately.<br><br>When these children grow up, I pray they don't have to fight the Chinese. War is always bad. And if the Chinese are hiding in the forest, we lose.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-10-13T07:00:00ZWhy Chris Christie MattersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Chris-Christie-Matters/34200.html2011-10-06T07:00:00Z2011-10-06T07:00:00ZSo what happens now to Chris Christie? Will he campaign for the Republican nominee? Will he settle back into New Jersey politics exclusively? Not since William Taft graced the White House in the early 20th century has there been a national political presence like Christie. Larger than life both physically and emotionally, Christie plays the political game like a blitzing middle linebacker: if he zeroes in on you, you'll feel it.<br><br>Christie is not yet ready to be president, though, because he lacks enough executive experience. Perhaps the biggest problem President Obama has is a lack of problem-solving experience. Through no fault of his own, Mr. Obama was handed a damaged economy and promptly made it worse because he had no frame of reference in economic matters. He hired a bunch of liberal people who sold him on the preposterous idea that the federal government could manage the private sector. Disaster.<br><br>New Jersey is a mess. It's the highest taxed state in the nation, its unemployment rate at 9.4 percent. Unions have a stranglehold on education and public services. The state has run up a $33 billion debt. In addition, the insidious TV program "Jersey Shore" is now the projected image of the Garden State. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse than Tony and Carmella, here comes Snooki.<br><br>So Governor Christie should do what he's been called to do—solve difficult problems. As a federal prosecutor, he successfully nailed a variety of bad guys, including gang members, child pornographers, and the terrorists who tried to attack Fort Dix. Christie is a tough guy who brooks no nonsense. Most Americans admire that.<br><br>There is a sea change going on politically in this country. Barack Obama is a cool, composed guy who inspired hope, especially among minorities and younger Americans. The president's confidence is still on display, but his record speaks for itself. A new ABC News/Washington Post poll says 55% of Americans now want a Republican in the White House.<br><br>That Republican will not be Chris Christie, but someday it could happen. We are living in a complicated, dangerous age and many folks are confused. The nation needs direction and a clear pathway. Christie is blunt. He describes the problem, tells you what he's going to do about it, and also tells you to go nuke yourself if you don't like it. As long as the problems get solved, he can get away with that kind of presentation. But, as Barack Obama has learned, if things don't improve, it gets mighty hot under the Christie collar.<br><br>I've never met the governor, but I have deep roots in Jersey. I don't like what has happened to the state. If Christie can turn things around, the next stop may well be Pennsylvania Avenue. That would be quite a change for that venue. But one that may be needed.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-10-06T07:00:00ZSolar Power to the PeopleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Solar-Power-to-the-People/34114.html2011-09-29T07:00:00Z2011-09-29T07:00:00ZNobody likes buying oil from OPEC. Nobody likes coal dust dropping on them from the sky. We all know that pollution is bad, and greedy oil sheiks are not looking out for us. The problem is that we don't have a realistic alternative fuel option. So we have to live with a bad situation.<br><br>President Obama has fast-tracked green energy projects and the results, thus far, have been awful. The Solyndra scandal is the best example. The feds provided this solar panel company $528 million in loans. Shortly after that, the company declared bankruptcy. See you later, half-billion taxpayer dollars.<br><br>Many Americans were upset by the colossal waste of money, but not the <em>New York Times</em> editorial page. It headlined, "One company's failure should not deter robust public investments in clean energy." Now we know why the nation is more than $14 trillion in debt.<br><br>The <em>Times</em> editorial goes on to urge the government to pour more money into the "green" industry in conjunction with raising fuel taxes, because that's what's good for America. "The surest way to guarantee that America gets its fair share of [green] business... would be to enact a comprehensive energy strategy that raised the price of older, dirtier fuels." <br><br>Swell. Americans are already taxed to the max, and the <em>Times</em> wants the feds to impose even more taxes to discourage "dirty" fuel use. So folks who have to drive would pay more as the government artificially drives the price of energy up. That would help the bad economy, wouldn't it? Consumers saddled with higher utility and gasoline costs. Yeah, that's the ticket to an economic rebound for sure.<br><br>But the <em>New York Times</em> doesn't care. The paper wants global warming to stop <em>right now</em>! And it blames fossil fuels for the heat wave. So, whatever it takes to get green energy on everybody's plate is going to be supported by the paper and some others on the liberal side, even if it means wrecking the economy and running up massive debt.<br><br>A few months ago, I had an interesting conversation with T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire investor. He put up his own money to develop a massive wind power project in the heartland. T. Boone thought he'd found the answer; wind would drive the clean energy movement. But the windmills couldn't deliver enough energy to make a profit. So T. Boone Pickens folded and put the wind deal up for sale.<br><br>If the United States could develop green energy, I'd be first in line to buy some. I recognize the need for clean, efficient fuel. But you don't punish hard-working Americans by wasting their tax dollars and raising their taxes to fund the green dreamscape. That is irresponsible and brutally unfair. With literally trillions of dollars to be made, the private marketplace is where alternative energy should be developed.<br><br>If there's real green in it, things will happen.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-09-29T07:00:00ZWho's Your Daddy?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Your-Daddy/34014.html2011-09-22T07:00:00Z2011-09-22T07:00:00ZFor millions of folks, the federal government is now their sugar daddy. According to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, 47% of people in this country, both citizens and non-citizens, are receiving one or more federal benefits payments. That is the highest entitlement percentage in U.S. history.<br><br>And that's just the way some in the Democratic Party want it. Get the folks hooked on government benefits, and you'll have their votes for life because those mean Republicans are so full of self-reliance they'll always oppose federal largesse.<br><br>From 2007 to 2010, the Democratic-controlled Congress added $5.3 trillion to America's already astronomical debt, a record spending spree over a four-year period of time. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid led the wild ride with Presidents Bush and Obama signing off on the binge.<br><br>Now, the USA is approaching bankruptcy, and the Democrats <em>still</em> don't want to rein in spending. They fight cuts every step of the way, offering up phony "tax the rich" mantras to deceive the voting the public into believing that increasing revenue can dig America out of its well of red ink.<br><br>Liberal Americans like to think of themselves as compassionate, championing a vast public money flow to those who have not. But what is compassionate about wrecking an entire economy? America's economic status was downgraded because our government has failed to aggressively deal with deficit spending. The dollar is being hammered because confidence in it is flagging all over the world. While countries like Switzerland and Germany retain healthy balance sheets, the USA is following the philosophy of Zorba the Greek-dancing all day long rather than confronting the reality of irresponsible behavior. Simply put, the federal government cannot continue fiddling while the economy burns. It must begin implementing aggressive spending cuts across the board.<br><br>If that would finally happen, then we could look at revenue enhancement in a fair and effective way.<br><br>But it's a lot easier to trot out Warren Buffett in the role of ancient mariner. My secretary pays more income tax than I do, he whines. Well, Warren, you can write a monstrous check to the Treasury any time you wish in order to right that wrong. But demanding the feds raise the capital gains tax will assure a long winter for the stock market, would it not?<br><br>President Obama will not win reelection on the class warfare ticket, but it seems that he is determined to try. By all means, close up loopholes that allow corporations like General Electric to avoid paying taxes. Yes, dial back lavish deductions that fat cats use to dodge responsible tax payment. But let's knock off the "fair share" myth, okay? Affluent Americans have been paying a disproportionate amount of income tax for decades, and still the nation remains deeply in debt.<br><br>Punishing achievement is not the road to fiscal solvency, Mr. President. Just ask the Swiss.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-09-22T07:00:00ZAre You Poor?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-You-Poor/33814.html2011-09-15T07:00:00Z2011-09-15T07:00:00ZThe folks are getting hosed. According to the American Debt Advisor outfit, 80% of us now owe money to creditors. If you exclude mortgages and car payments, 50% of us are in debt. And that's why the economy is having so much trouble. Consumers have to be very careful what they buy, or they risk sinking into insolvency.<br><br>Some pundits place the blame on unemployment, currently just over 9%. But that's not what is driving debt. Taxation is.<br><br>The mean salary in America is just about $50,000. But if you live in Los Angles, Boston, San Francisco, or New York, earning $50k means you're poor. The cost of living in most urban areas is now so high that a $250,000 salary is middle income. President Obama might not understand this, but we the people do.<br><br>Let's take the situation in New York State. New Yorkers like me pay federal income tax, state income tax, New York City income tax, and property taxes if we own a home. In fact, per capita, property taxes in the Empire State are about $1,900 a year. Sales taxes, per capita, are another $1,700 per year.<br><br>Gasoline tax in New York: 45 cents a gallon. Cell phone tax and fees? 23% added to your monthly bill. There are also tolls, taxes on your driver's license, cigarettes, and alcohol. The hits just keep on coming.<br><br>The only relief for New Yorkers is knowing the tax situation is worse in New Jersey.<br><br>All over the USA, working folks are bleeding take-home pay. President Obama says he wants to extend the payroll tax cut, and that's fine. But that's a proverbial drop of water into a bottomless well.<br><br>Folks just don't have much money to spend. So, how on earth is the economy going to improve? Who's going to buy stuff? With so much money being taken from everyday Americans by their elected representatives in Washington and in the state capitals, there's simply not enough cash being spent in the marketplace to return the nation to economic prosperity.<br><br>Recently, I saw a bumper sticker that read, "Taxes buy civilization. Progressive values are American values." Well, balderdash. Taxes are strangling working Americans. They are creating a society not of self-reliance (almost unaffordable), but of dependence on institutions we can't control--banks, credit card companies, government-generated hand-outs. Now the feds have seized control of the health industry. That will mean even more taxation down the road.<br><br>President Obama made a bet that his big government vision would create jobs and prosperity. It has not worked; it never works. Ask Cubans and Venezuelans. Americans now find themselves struggling to pay the bills and utterly dependent on who is paying them a salary.<br><br>Upward mobility? Please. Most Americans are just trying to survive. This is not what the pursuit of happiness is all about.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-09-15T07:00:00ZState of the UnionsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/State-of-the-Unions/33744.html2011-09-08T07:00:00Z2011-09-08T07:00:00ZThere's lots of angst in the air after Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa called Tea Party people SOB's and urged voters to "take them out." Immediately, voter registration jumped among members of the Gambino family. Apparently, Mr. Hoffa is angry that some Americans want to put a lid on public sector pensions and perks which are bankrupting municipalities all over the country. Old Jimmy believes this is "taking the bread out of the mouths" of American workers.<br><br>For decades, union power has intimidated politicians in both parties. I mean, if you were running for office, would you want big union money flowing into your opponent's campaign? Would you want organized demonstrations at your rallies? How about work slowdowns, sudden mass worker illness, or anti-you phone campaigns? Unions have power and power rules.<br><br>Thus, many American unions have secured lucrative benefits for their members—benefits that have drained treasuries. The Post Office, for example, is on the verge of bankruptcy, not able to repay $5.5 billion in loans from the Treasury Department. The huge cost of postal retirement benefits is one of the main reasons an American institution may collapse.<br><br>All of this is not the fault of the workers. They did their jobs and are entitled to what was negotiated. But public money has run out, and going forward, big changes will have to be made if the American economy is to expand. Jimmy Hoffa can huff and puff all day long, but if he succeeds in blocking economic reform, he will indeed blow the entire house down.<br><br>President Obama needs union votes to win reelection. Therefore, he did not condemn Hoffa's over-the-top rhetoric even though he campaigned for verbal restraint in his Arizona speech. Mr. Obama will also not go up against the unions and demand fiscal reform. He will position himself as the champion of the working stiff, even if it means more disasters like the Post Office.<br><br>Previously in this space, I discussed my membership in AFTRA, a union that represents TV and radio people. When some greedy suits tried to con me and my colleagues at the syndicated program "Inside Edition" out of pension money, AFTRA fought them and won. So, unions are needed, but they should be optional. No American worker should be forced to pay union dues. Employees must weigh self-reliance against union protections.<br><br>With union power in decline, Jimmy Hoffa needs an enemy to rail against, and the Tea Party provides him that. But if he were honest, Hoffa would see the Tea folks simply want financial responsibility and fairness in the public sector. Living within your means is a key to economic success. Gaming the system through intimidation and threats is not.<br><br>Hoffa's not looking out for his country on this one.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-09-08T07:00:00ZThe Romney/Perry FeudBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Romney/Perry-Feud/33648.html2011-09-01T07:00:00Z2011-09-01T07:00:00ZPolitical feuds are entertaining, especially when they involve presidential contenders. Thus, the alleged bad blood between Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is worth examining, because those two guys are currently the frontrunners to challenge President Obama next year.<br><br>According to the reporting by the <em>Boston Globe</em>, there are two issues in play. First, back in 2002 when Mitt Romney was rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympic games from chaos, Rick Perry wanted the Boy Scouts of America to be named the official volunteers of the games. Romney said no because most scouts are under 18, the minimum age required to work at the Olympics. <br><br>Perry, however, thought there was a gay component to Romney's decision, since the scouts do not accept declared homosexuals as Scoutmasters. Romney denied that.<br><br>Then, in 2006, Romney traveled to Texas as the Chairman of the Republican Governor's Association. He met with Perry, who was furious that a man named Alex Castellanos had been hired as an advisor by Romney. It seems that Castellanos was also advising Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who was running against Perry for governor. It was a chilly meeting.<br><br>On paper, those incidents look small, and they are. But now Romney and Perry find themselves in a "high noon"-type situation; soon they will have a showdown, most likely in a debate situation. At the end of the primary season, only one will be standing tall.<br><br>I say that because there is not much chance that Michelle Bachmann, currently running third in the polls, will gain enough traction to threaten the governors. The Congresswoman is waging an energetic campaign, but big money Republicans are looking for "gravitas" this time around, not ideology. Those running the GOP well understand that economics will decide the next presidential election.<br><br>Both Romney and Perry are well positioned in the economic area. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts, a liberal bastion, state bonds received an upgrade by Standard and Poors, the agency that just downgraded the USA.<br><br>Perry's economic story is solid as well. Texas leads the league in job creation in the teeth of a stubborn recession, and tort reform has attracted major medical concerns and personnel to the state. So, on balance, both governors match up well with Mr. Obama in the economic arena.<br><br>Perry is counting on his conservative credibility to hold his poll lead over Romney, who is suspect in some right-wing precincts because of the Massachusetts health care law. You may remember that President Obama gave Romney credit for passing the law which, of course, was like putting a nail in the governor's shoe.<br><br>The Romney-Perry matchup should be interesting, especially if it gets vicious. Both men are capable of slinging some mud. And with the hair situations they both have, that could get messy.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-09-01T07:00:00ZGone Fishin'BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gone-Fishin/33560.html2011-08-25T07:00:00Z2011-08-25T07:00:00ZThe press covering the president's vacation in Martha's Vineyard is being discouraged from photographing Mr. Obama playing golf. There is no access. Apparently, the White House is nervous that in tough economic times, whacking a small white ball could be construed as insensitive.<br><br>How insane is that?<br><br>Presidents are entitled to goof off once in a while, as Warren Harding and Teddy Roosevelt both understood. Harding was a card sharp, and Teddy ran around shooting animals. Almost every president took advantage of recreational opportunities, with the possible exception of Franklin Pierce, who did little except brood.<br><br>As you may know, George W. Bush was vilified for spending time at his Texas ranch when the Iraq war was going south. Even though W. entertained guys like Putin (no holiday is complete without him), liberals kept a close count on how many days Bush was cutting brush in 100-degree heat and riding around on his dirt bike.<br><br>Today, some right-wingers are criticizing Mr. Obama for his island jaunt during a bad economy. But come on—isn't the president entitled to spend a few days with his family at the end of August? Is the country going to be downgraded again because he eats a little taffy?<br><br>All American presidents are under enormous strain. John Quincy Adams blew off steam by swimming naked in the Potomac River. Harry Truman got a massage most mornings before he began stopping the buck. Dwight Eisenhower spent almost as much time on the golf course as Sam Snead.<br><br>The truth is that creative people need downtime in order to operate at their best. Bad decisions are often made when a person becomes exhausted. All day, every day, presidents are under siege to deal with one problem after another. Everybody wants something. The job never stops.<br><br>Thus, I have no problem with vacationing presidents. I want them to have fun, but also set a good example doing it. I'd like to see these guys move around a bit. The Vineyard is a great place, but there are tons of good vacation spots that could use the promotional boost that a presidential visit would give them. What about the Outer Banks of North Carolina? The boundary lakes of Minnesota? The Tetons and the Cascades? All great American places, and there are thousands of others.<br><br>On paper, being president looks like a blast. You are the most powerful person in the world and fly on private jets all the time. You live in a great historical house and have a weekend place in Maryland. You have a great chef, and unlimited entertainment options.<br><br>But the dark side is that you can never really relax. Everything you say and do is scrutinized, and there are always folks ready to betray you for book or interview money. Every second of your life is scheduled, and the days are very, very long.<br><br>So, enjoy yourself on the Vineyard, Mr. President. Just don't get used to it.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-08-25T07:00:00ZThe Obama DilemmaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Obama-Dilemma/33476.html2011-08-18T07:00:00Z2011-08-18T07:00:00ZComing soon to a bus stop near you may be the President of the United States. Faced with growing criticism of his economic leadership, Barack Obama is following the lead of Willie Nelson and traveling by bus to selected parts of the USA. Mr. Obama wants to calm the folks and show them that he is in high spirits. That is a bit different than Willie, who usually leaves off the word "spirits."<br><br>Anyway, what the president will likely encounter on his road trip is confusion. After more than two and a half years in office, many Americans simply do not understand exactly who he is. Even pundits, paid to analyze him, see him in drastically different ways.<br><br>For example, writing in <em>Time</em> magazine, columnist Fareed Zakaria calls Mr. Obama a "centrist and a pragmatist." But in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, Norman Podhoretz describes him as "the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president." Two guys, two views—not even close.<br><br>The problem with Barack Obama is that he is not forthcoming about what he is really thinking. Therefore, it is difficult to assign him a category. On economics, his actions portray a screaming big government liberal who gambled heavily that the feds could jump-start the economy by redistributing wealth. He lost his shirt and so did many of his constituents.<br><br>But as far as the war on terror goes, Mr. Obama is General William Sherman, scorching the earth with Predator Drone missiles. A true liberal like George McGovern must be wondering what the deuce is going on.<br><br>If you listen to conservative talk radio, the president is an ardent socialist, and perhaps even a communist. But you don't allow real estate sharks like Tony Rezko to set up land deals for you if you're channeling Karl Marx. Yes, Obama-care is a quasi-socialistic program that, I believe, the Supreme Court will rule unconstitutional, but the true intent of national health care is to create more dependence on Washington, not to pay homage to Fidel Castro.<br><br>If you pay close attention to Barack Obama, he emerges as a man of contradiction. Surely, he is a devoted left-wing guy who believes the private marketplace favors the rich and government power must temper that, providing perks for the have-nots. But he's also a man who understands that America is still a traditional country that believes in God and the flag. The president does not often mess with that, angering many far-left zealots who supported him big in 2008.<br><br>Going forward, it is clear the president's base is shrinking while his opposition is mobilizing. George Soros and his band of wealthy ideologues are on record: they believe he has let the radical left down by not seizing IBM or something. The right-wing is simply crazed. They see Mr. Obama as a combination of James Buchanan and Che Guevarra. There is nothing good about him.<br><br>So, in order to win reelection, Mr. Obama must count on the non-ideological folks who are getting hammered by the awful economy. <br><br>At this point, there are not enough buses in the world to drive home a happy ending to that scenario.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-08-18T07:00:00ZCalling an AudibleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Calling-an-Audible/33234.html2011-08-11T07:00:00Z2011-08-11T07:00:00ZAs a former quarterback, I know that when a game plan is not working, you change strategy. Fast. If you don't, you will likely lose the contest and have to endure the ignominy of failure.<br><br>If President Obama were calling signals for the Washington Redskins, he would have been relieved a long time ago. His economic blueprint of spending a large amount of federal tax dollars in order to stimulate consumer spending and create government-suggested jobs has obviously not worked, and it's run up a huge debt in the process.<br><br>Remember "cash for clunkers," whereby the feds gave you money to upgrade your car? Well, Mr. Obama's entire economic vision might be classified as a clunker, if the truth be told.<br><br>Everybody makes mistakes, but the president's economic team is leading the league. Only Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner remains from the original money gang, and he can't even leave his house after saying the U.S. economy would not be downgraded. So it is obvious that a new economic game plan is needed. Wait—maybe it's not so obvious. The president is not sold.<br><br>After seeing the Dow drop about 400 points in a few hours earlier this week, Mr. Obama gave a short speech saying America would essentially stay the course. What course? Almost immediately, the Dow dropped another 200 points.<br><br>A few days earlier, Mr. Obama called for federal construction "loans" so that companies could hire folks and "rebuild America." What loans? The country doesn't have any money. We owe 14 and a half trillion dollars. Under Mr. Obama, the USA runs up more then four billion dollars in debt every single day. What loans?<br><br>The president's Hail Mary pass seems to be the notion that somehow taxing the rich will lead to economic prosperity. Well, after the market decline, there are now far fewer rich than there used to be. Actually, enhancing revenue would be a good thing, and we could do that by instituting a flat tax and cutting loopholes that allow American corporations to stash trillions of untaxed dollars overseas. The president's big pal, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, is doing just that. But Mr. Obama seems reluctant to tackle tax reform.<br><br>He's also hesitant about easing up on regulations and mandates that are strangling corporate profits. Obama-care and all the new business rules are running up overhead big time. Memo to the president: If private health insurance companies have to pay for stuff like birth control and breast-feeding supplies, they will pass the cost along to their customers in the form of higher premiums. So, companies will cut back personnel to avoid paying those higher premiums. This is called "doing the math."<br><br>It is perplexing that the president does not seem to smell the panic. You don't have to be an economic genius like Barney Frank to know that government mandated economic stimulus has been a disaster. It is time for new solutions.<br><br>Blaming the Tea Party is not a solution. Blaming W. is not advancing the ball. Let America be America. Unleash the private sector, Mr. President.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-08-11T07:00:00ZIt's Only MoneyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-Only-Money/33138.html2011-08-04T07:00:00Z2011-08-04T07:00:00ZJudging by the low TV news ratings, most Americans were out fishing or watching "Pawn Stars" when the debt debacle debate was taking place in Washington, and I can't blame them. This was truly pinheads on parade, with propaganda and craziness all over the place.<br><br>A new Rasmussen poll says that just 22% of likely voters approve of the deal, while 53% disapprove. A substantial 26% of the voters simply don't know what to think.<br><br>Another survey, this one from Pew Research, says that more than 70% of Americans believe everyone involved in the madness looked bad. And it's hard to argue with that.<br><br>When you are talking about $14.5 trillion in debt, things do get a bit surreal. The feds throw around numbers like peanut shells. Yeah, we'll cut $300 billion from this, $200 billion from that. And then we'll borrow another $2 trillion so we can get through the year 2013. If you watch too much of this stuff, your head will explode.<br><br>So let me make one simple economic point here. Under Presidents Bush and Obama, the United States has nearly bankrupted itself. We have spent so much money so quickly that it is almost impossible to believe. Every single day under Mr. Obama, the nation spends more than $4 billion more than it takes in. Every single day.<br><br>And what do we have to show for it? How about a shaky economy, and political division.<br><br>The president continues to believe that massive federal spending will make the lives of most Americans better. But he's wrong. And here's a great example.<br><br>Beginning on January 1, 2013, American health insurance companies will be forced to provide a variety of health services for women absolutely free of charge. They include birth control, breast-feeding supplies, "wellness" visits to doctors, and counseling about a variety of things.<br><br>There will be no co-pay or deductibles. Those services will be picked up entirely by the insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Of course, the enormous cost will be passed along to consumers, as health insurance premiums will rise big time. Self-insured individuals and businesses will pay a lot more for coverage.<br><br>Because of the increased overhead, companies will be less likely to hire new employees, and those they do hire will likely be paid less because they'll receive more medical benefits. Thus, unemployment will probably stay high, and take-home pay will remain stagnant.<br><br>On paper, it looks great that American women will get preventative medical services free. Liberals love that. But if you want to grow the economy, increasing the cost of doing business is not exactly a great strategy.<br><br>Our capitalistic system is now being handcuffed by ideology—a huge co-pay for the American people.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-08-04T07:00:00ZDemonizing ChristianityBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Demonizing-Christianity/33094.html2011-07-28T07:00:00Z2011-07-28T07:00:00ZThe front page headline in the <em>New York Times</em> last Monday was stunning: "AS HORRORS EMERGE, NORWAY CHARGES CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST."<br><br>That would be Anders Behring Brevik, the 32-year-old mass murderer who took at least 76 innocent lives apparently because he doesn't like Muslims living in Europe.<br><br>But why would the <em>Times</em> brand Brevik as a Christian? The killer is not attached to any church, has no history of Christian activity, has openly criticized the Protestant philosophy, and has committed acts counter to all Christian teaching. <br><br>Defenders of the headline point to a Norwegian police officer describing Brevik as a Christian and the maniac's desire to be a member of the "Knights of Templar," a medieval society that avenged anti-Christian behavior.<br><br>Perhaps the <em>New York Times</em> might watch out for the Knights.<br><br>According to reporting done by the website NewsBusters, the <em>Times</em> wasn't so quick to brand the men who killed 52 people in the London subway back in 2005. The <em>Times</em> story on that terror incident described the situation this way: "The plot was carried out by a sleeper cell of homegrown extremists rather than highly trained terrorists exported to Britain."<br><br>Homegrown? The four London killers were all Muslim extremists, yet the <em>Times</em> avoided the religious label. <br><br>If the paper was consistent, it would have described Brevik as "homegrown," right? The guy was born and raised in Norway.<br><br>So why are the <em>New York Times</em> and some other liberal media playing the "Christian extremist" card?<br><br>Two reasons. First, some on the left want to make an equivalency argument between Muslim terrorism and other kinds of violent acts. The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was often branded "a right wing terrorist" in the media. Terrorism is terrorism, the analysis goes; it's not fair to constantly emphasize Muslim terrorism without acknowledging the others. Besides, bad men like George W. Bush overhype the Muslim threat and use it to do evil things like invade Iraq.<br><br>The second reason is purely political. The left well understands that Christian opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization makes those liberal causes more difficult to achieve. Thus, anything that diminishes Christianity is fair game to be promoted. Every newsworthy sin committed by a Christian is highlighted with a sneering reference to hypocrisy. Any whiff of Christian intolerance is celebrated in the press.<br><br>Anders Brevik did not kill in the name of Jesus. He was not a member of a Christian-based al Qaeda-like group. He was not funded by Iran or enabled by Pakistan. He is simply a murderer, a man devoid of any spiritual conscience. A direct descendent of Cain.<br><br>Yet, somehow, Brevik is now a member of a peace-loving, compassionate group, at least according to some media. He's a Christian. <br><br>Who knew?BillOReilly.com Staff2011-07-28T07:00:00ZLying and Cheating in the Home of the BraveBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Lying-and-Cheating-in-the-Home-of-the-Brave/33026.html2011-07-21T07:00:00Z2011-07-21T07:00:00ZSo, I'm trying to channel Moses here to find out why so many Americans are bearing false witness against their neighbors. Ask any attorney or judge, and they will tell you that lying under oath is now the rule, not the exception, in the nation's courtrooms.<br><br>In addition, the national cheating epidemic has exploded as a Georgia investigation alleges systematic cheating occurred at 44 public schools over a ten-year period. But it's not the kids who were caught. No, the state says at least 178 <em>teachers and principals</em> did the deeds. It seems the remarkable improvements in student scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests were fraudulent. Educators doctored the tests in order to make their schools look good. They have all been fired.<br><br>Lying and cheating almost always comes down to betrayal, and is most often driven by selfishness. America has become a nation obsessed with immediate gratification. Public schools have embraced secularism with a vengeance, therefore Moses and his Ten Commandments have been banished. There are, of course, good people who understand that honesty is, indeed, the best policy if you want to live a worthwhile life. But their numbers are dwindling. In fact, a recent study out of the University of Connecticut says that an astounding 95% of high school students have admitted to cheating in the past year.<br><br>For a variety of reasons, our society now embraces and empowers scoundrels. Many of them are fun—exciting. Charlie Sheen commands headlines. Bad guy rappers make millions. In the 1960's, it was "If it feels good, do it." Today, it's "If it looks good, steal it." Or "If it sounds good, say it." Many of the moral boundaries that once elevated this country have collapsed.<br><br>President Obama talks about "shared sacrifice" and we used to have that in the USA. My parents pulled together with their neighbors during the Great Depression and World War II. Americans looked out for each other in those trying times. Lying and cheating were considered shameful and could get you ostracized. Generosity and honor were celebrated in even the poorest precincts. This is not some romantic remembrance; that's what happened.<br><br>Not today. Now it's a free-for-all of getting what you want as quickly as possible. Lying and cheating are considered by many to be useful tools on the road to accomplishment. If society does not hold us responsible for deceit, why should we hold ourselves responsible?<br><br>It's a tough question to answer when students see their teachers cooking the books. And God help the public person who addresses the issue. That person will be branded a hypocrite if he or she has any wrongdoing on the resume. <br><br>Truth be told, even Moses would have a tough time in this environment.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-07-21T07:00:00ZCaylee's LawBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Caylees-Law/32950.html2011-07-14T07:00:00Z2011-07-14T07:00:00ZThe moment Casey Anthony walks out for jail in Florida, America will be a poorer place. This woman's negligence and apathy towards her precious two-year-old daughter, Caylee, eliminates her as a responsible citizen. She's simply another barbarian who couldn't even be bothered to protect her baby.<br><br>Debate Anthony's acquittal on murder charges all you want; the woman is not innocent. She should not be walking free. Therefore, another adjustment must be made to serve justice in America and to protect the kids: Caylee's Law.<br><br>At this point, 18 states are pursuing new laws that would make it a felony not to report a missing child within a couple of days. Each state is deciding on the time frame. The intent of the law is to compel derelict parents like Casey Anthony to alert authorities should something bad happen to their children. You may remember that Anthony told no one her daughter was missing for 30 days. If Caylee's law had been in place, Casey Anthony would be going to prison right now.<br><br>There are Americans who object to any new laws, believing the states already have enough power. But when it comes to protecting defenseless kids, that point-of-view doesn't wash. A few years ago, ten-year-old Jessica Lunsford was murdered by a convicted child sex offender, John Couey, who never should have been walking free. After that horrible crime, 44 states passed a version of Jessica's Law mandating long prison terms for convicted child rapists. The result: No longer is much of America plagued by misguided judges giving heinous child predators light sentences.<br><br>You have to wonder why Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Vermont, Idaho, and Colorado have failed to pass Jessica's Law. You also have to question why anyone would oppose Caylee's Law. There is simply no excuse for any parent or guardian not to alert authorities when a child under the age of 12 goes missing. And 12 is the age most states are targeting for the new law.<br><br>With the Supreme Court legalizing virtual child pornography, and the internet providing child predators with the most powerful, perverse tool they've ever had, society must come to grips with the dangers presented to all children.<br><br>Casey Anthony is a narcissistic sociopath who got away with the death of her daughter. Whatever happened, she bears an enormous responsibility. There is no way this woman should be walking free, and all Americans should shun her.<br><br>The larger question of protecting kids remains frustrating. This week, eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky was walking home from day camp in a secure Brooklyn neighborhood. A few hours later, authorities found the little boy's dismembered body. Police believe the man responsible will be convicted of murder.<br><br>But that's what many of us believed about Casey Anthony. It didn't happen. So we must provide even more protection for the children of this country. Pass Caylee's Law now.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-07-14T07:00:00ZWhy Bill Clinton Likes Michele BachmannBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Bill-Clinton-Likes-Michele-Bachmann/32878.html2011-07-07T07:00:00Z2011-07-07T07:00:00ZThere is something strange in the air when former President Clinton compliments Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann. Speaking on CNN last week, Mr. Clinton said that he is not surprised the Congresswoman is rising in the polls because she is a "compelling public figure" and comes across as "real."<br><br>Since Mrs. Bachmann pretty much opposes everything Bill Clinton believes in, the question becomes exactly why does he think she's compelling. It can't be her ardently pro-life views. Or her lower taxes, smaller government beliefs. Or even her call to abolish national health care. Bill Clinton can't find those things attractive at all. And the Congresswoman absolutely loves the Tea Party. Is the former president down with that?<br><br>Can't be. So, I sense some gamesmanship in the air, and I suspect it has to do with Sarah Palin. Most Democrats loathe Governor Palin so much that they are happy to see a candidate who is taking up some of her air time. Both Bachmann and Palin appeal to the same audience: traditional, conservative working folks. Their views are almost identical on many subjects, but Mrs. Bachmann, for some reason, seems to be easier for the Democrats to accept.<br><br>This might come down to personality. Sarah Palin has a harder edge than Michele Bachmann. A new Granite State Poll in New Hampshire puts Palin's unfavorable opinion rating among registered Republicans at a whopping 52%, with 41% approving of her. On the other hand, 52% like Congressman Bachmann; just 23% do not. <br><br>So you would think that Democrats would want to promote a Republican who has high negatives instead of one who is gaining momentum. Not in this case.<br><br>It seems that Sarah Palin has replaced George W. Bush has the person many liberal Americans love to hate. That has benefited Michele Bachmann, who is getting compliments aimed at bolstering her candidacy at Palin's expense. Democrats well understand that the GOP does not have room for both women in the primary fray. They would split the Tea Party vote.<br><br>On paper, the Democrats should want that split. But they don't seem to be promoting it. Clearly, big liberal guys like Bill Clinton are openly rooting for Mrs. Bachmann to hold the Tea Party banner, and, if you believe the polls, it has to be personal. Because tactically at this point, Bachmann is more of a threat to the Democrats than Palin is.<br><br>The end game, of course, will be quite different. If Michele Bachmann were to win the Republican nomination, I have no doubt that Bill Clinton might not find her as compelling as he once did. In light of that, here's a memo to the former president: Let's keep it real, sir.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-07-07T07:00:00ZThe Decline LineBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Decline-Line/32822.html2011-06-30T07:00:00Z2011-06-30T07:00:00ZOver the Fourth of July weekend, many Americans take some time out to think about their country. This year, those thoughts might not be as festive as in the past because the United States is in decline.<br><br>A new Associated Press poll says that 80% of Americans believe the economy is in bad shape, and they are correct. With each passing hour, America's $14.4 trillion dollar debt rises, with no end in sight. Tight money has crippled the housing industry, and Wall Street's lack of confidence in the Obama administration is retarding business expansion. Thus, fewer jobs are being created in the private marketplace.<br><br>Washington has not been able to stem the grim economic tide because of ideology. The president and most Democrats believe more government control of the economy and higher taxes on the affluent will improve the situation. Republicans are demanding smaller government, no tax increases, and less federal regulation. The stalemate is hurting the folks, no question about it.<br><br>A poor economic outlook erodes power, both personal and governmental. One of the reasons President Obama cited for "drawing down" troops in Afghanistan was economic. He wants to spend more money at home rather than nation build in Afghanistan. That may be a good thing, but it is not a strong thing. A cash-strapped America spells weakness to the rest of the world.<br><br>On the cultural front, things are also going downhill. Millions of Americans are now addicted to the Internet, spending countless hours playing games and Twittering their lives away. What was first envisioned as technological recreation has now become a lifestyle for many, especially younger people. The machines are dominating lives, leaving little time to explore the real world or develop non-online relationships. <br><br>On the entertainment front, cheap reality TV programs showcase the worst of human nature. Crude displays, greed, narcissism, and sadistic impulses are all celebrated nightly on the tube. Where once the country appreciated great writers like Hemingway and Twain, now people like Snooki are being paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak on college campuses. "The Situation" is right. There is a situation. And it's appalling.<br><br>President Obama often laments the growing gap between the rich and the rest of America. And it's true. A fortunate few are able to ride capitalism to the extreme, living lives of incredible luxury. But there is also a growing cultural divide. The masses are being fed electronic garbage 24/7 in the form of hostile music, gross-out movies, and the aforementioned reality TV atrocities. Meantime, a select few are being intensely educated in amazingly expensive high-end universities. They will be the future Masters of the Universe. Most other Americans will just get by.<br><br>This depressing scenario is not how a nation expands its power. America became the most powerful country on earth because its people pulled together economically, and fought worldwide to create freedom and dignity for those less fortunate than ourselves.<br><br>Now, we are running out of money to fight the good fights, and we are fracturing along class lines. This is not what the United States should be. E Pluribus Unum? Not this Fourth of July.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-06-30T07:00:00ZThe Glee ClubBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Glee-Club/32732.html2011-06-23T07:00:00Z2011-06-23T07:00:00ZAlthough they have not made it an especially big deal, some conservative Americans object to the Fox program Glee because it is a politically correct extravaganza that often deals with sexuality among teenagers. This season actress Gwyneth Paltrow provided some sizzle that awakened any parent in the room, I'll tell you that.<br><br>But there is an important social upside to the show. Gays, physically challenged people, and overweight kids are all put in a positive light compatible with the show's liberal tone. An occasional verbal shot at Fox News solidifies Glee's PC presentation. <br><br>The other day on Long Island, a live Glee concert troupe sold out two shows at the Nassau Coliseum, grossing more than two million dollars in the process. The crowd was predominately white, middle class teens, many accompanied by their parents who seemed to enjoy the presentation. This was a rather staid event compared to Lady Gaga or your standard-issue rapper. No profanity, songs with lyrics you could understand, and dancing without much groin activity. <br><br>In other words, the Glee concert was clean-cut, and the young people loved it. <br><br>The trendiness that Glee embraces on the tube doesn't much bother me, and I like the fact that chubby performers are often front and center. Also, the kid in the wheelchair sings great, and his presence sends an anti-stigma message as well. So, there is much good in the program. <br><br>At this point in America, young people are being barraged with tattooed vulgarians who dominate the rock and reality show world. The kids see anti-social behavior, hear poor grammar, and understand that crude conduct is often rewarded with fame and fortune. You don't have to go to the Jersey Shore; just arrive at your local beach or pool this summer, and you'll see young boys and girls with body ink and piercings all over the place. Do these children not have parents? Are their no mirrors in their homes? <br><br>The Glee crew is basically clean cut, and do you know what? It's refreshing. That's right, it's nice to see some young Americans on stage who don't look like living dead zombies or Charles Manson. I'm not asking for a comeback from the Kingston Trio or an Up With People convention, I'm just promoting equal time as far as grooming is concerned. <br><br>Also, the PC stuff on Glee is in context. It doesn't slap you in the face, like the faux trendy garbage you see on the nightly news, for example.<br><br>In person, the Glee kids perform well and seem pleased to be entertaining people. Their songs are upbeat, the primary message is "don't hurt anybody," and the performers give you your money's worth. <br><br>Yeah, it's positively gleeful. And I'm happy about it.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-06-23T07:00:00ZThe Great Palin Email HuntBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Great-Palin-Email-Hunt/32672.html2011-06-16T07:00:00Z2011-06-16T07:00:00ZBecause I am a simple man, allow me to pose a simple question: What the deuce were 30 reporters doing in Juneau last week sifting through 24,000 pages of emails written by then Governor Sarah Palin? Why did a bunch of news agencies spend money to send their people north to Alaska after the state government released the correspondence? <br><br>Maybe they want to know more about oil shale on the North Slope. Perhaps fishing off the coast of Nome interests them. Could it be urban renewal in Skagway?<br><br>Sure. We all know the reason why the media barbarians descended on Juneau. They wanted to find something on Palin. As Don Henley once sang, "Give us dirty laundry!" <br><br>And not only did the reporters go on location but, incredibly, both the <em>New York Times</em> and the <em>Washington Post</em> asked for unpaid volunteers to read some of the emails with the hope of finding something, anything, on Mrs. Palin. So I guess this is the journalism of the future—"Hey, you, can you research this story for me? I have to go to dinner."<br><br>After all that, here is what the <em>Washington Post</em> came up with: "The emails provide a revealing look at an ambitious rookie politician finding her way in the corridor of power." If that's not Pulitzer stuff, I don't know what is.<br><br>Here's the <em>New York Times</em>' assessment: "What is clear in the 24K pages of her emails is that her governing style was not necessarily an either-or proposition. Sometimes she seemed to be everything all at once." Really? Fascinating.<br><br>Like Casey, the media struck out. The laundry was clean and neatly-folded.<br><br>The Palin-email exposition is the best example of a political witch-hunt that I have ever seen. Did the media demand to see Senator Obama's correspondence while in office? How about Governor Romney's email experience? No, the media did not.<br><br>A fair-minded person has to wonder what it is about Sarah Palin that makes the press so aggressive towards her. Putting aside her conservative ideology which makes many media people ill, I think it's her glamour. The governor is good looking and feisty. She commands attention by her very appearance.<br><br>In our shallow, reality-show driven society, Mrs. Palin has become a star not because of her public service, but because of her movie star-like marketing. There she is in the Alaskan woods looking great on camera. Here she comes in a new film touting her love for America. Move over Jennifer Anniston, there's a new friend in town: Sarah Palin.<br><br>In the end, the media's obsession with Sarah Palin actually helps her. Americans know when a person is being persecuted. Like her or not, Mrs. Palin does not deserve the level of scrutiny being foisted upon her and her family. She's just a politician, people, not Kim Kardashian.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-06-16T07:00:00ZWhat Kind of a Country Do You Want?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Kind-of-a-Country-Do-You-Want/32494.html2011-06-09T07:00:00Z2011-06-09T07:00:00ZThroughout the ages, Robin Hood has carried a very positive image: a dashing hero who steals from a corrupt kingdom and distributes the loot to the poor. Errol Flynn was among the first to bring Robin to life in the movies and, recently, Russell Crowe advanced the legend.<br><br>President Obama, I believe, sees himself as the noble Robin. Certainly, his "tax the rich" mantra and health care giveaways demonstrate a strong desire to redistribute income from the affluent to the poor in America. So how is that playing in Peoria?<br><br>Well, a new Gallup poll tells us. The question was simple: "Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?" Most Americans said no. 49% do not support President Obama's vision, including 69% of Republicans and 53% of independents. But 47% of Americans do want to be shown the money, including a whopping 71% of Democrats.<br><br>The demographic breakdown is instructive: 52% of women, but just 42% of men, support wealth redistribution. But the real gap is white/non-white. Here, 64% of non-white Americans want federal money given to those who have not, while just 41% of whites do.<br><br>Gallup concludes that most Americans do support the wealthy paying more in order to solve specific problems (like Social Security), but Americans are not "anti-rich," the majority believing the USA does not have "too many" rich folks.<br><br>For President Obama, the call is easy. His core constituency fervently believes that a "just society" takes from the rich and gives to the poor. The problem is that the founding fathers did not believe that, so to institute legislation mandating the redistribution of private wealth runs up against a variety of Constitutional issues. That's why the Supreme Court will have to decide on Obama-care.<br><br>Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and the boys did not want a strong federal government meddling in economic affairs, or much else, for that matter. They did not impose a federal income tax (that first arrived during the Civil War), and they did not support government intrusion on the free marketplace. In the latter part of the 18th century, the colonists were absolutely fed up with King George intruding upon their economic lives. That anger drove the revolution. Those of us who actually studied history remember the war cry, "No taxation without representation!"<br><br>But today, the founding fathers are considered obsolete by some on the left who want to join Western Europe in the cradle-to-grave entitlement zone. Never mind that countries like Greece and Spain are going under economically because of their nanny state spending; liberal doctrine requires "sharing the wealth," consequences be damned.<br><br>With the country almost evenly divided over wealth redistribution, the next presidential election really becomes a referendum on that concept. Things were never this complicated in Sherwood Forest.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-06-09T07:00:00ZPoverty and the PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Poverty-and-the-President/32343.html2011-06-02T07:00:00Z2011-06-02T07:00:00ZThis time next year, we should have a Republican in place to challenge President Obama for the title of "World's Most Powerful Man." The campaign, of course, is the ultimate reality show, and it could get really nasty.<br><br>As it stands now, Mr. Obama has to be considered the favorite, despite the shaky economy. The Bin Laden take down was huge for him, and the Medicare debate is going his way as well. The president is a shrewd campaigner, and may have as much as a billion dollars in donated money at his disposal. That kind of cash can buy a lot of things.<br><br>If the Grand Old Party nominates a populist candidate, it will lose the election. Independent voters will decide the race, and they are looking for someone to improve their lives, not drive ideology. The Tea Party is a force, but unless it is willing to compromise in some areas, there will be no celebration in Boston Harbor come November 2012.<br><br>The key to defeating President Obama is understanding him. He is driven by one thing above all: Social justice. He fervently believes that prosperous Americans have a moral obligation to help the deprived not only in the United States, but all over the world. This cause influences just about all of his decision making.<br><br>The problem is that Mr. Obama does not really understand what drives poverty and hopelessness. Writing in the publication "Public Square," theologian R. R. Reno clearly defines the issue: "A Christian who hopes to follow the teachings of Jesus needs to reckon with a singular fact about American poverty: Its deepest and most debilitating deficits are moral, not financial; the most serious deprivations are cultural, not economic. Many people living at the bottom of American society have cell phones, flat-screen TVs, and some of the other goodies of consumer culture. But their lives are a mess."<br><br>For the president, social justice is all about money. And he is well on his way to bankrupting the nation in attempting to achieve it. The only cultural point that the president has emphasized is that fathers need to be held accountable in supporting their children. Otherwise, the cultural aspect of poverty does not seem to exist for Mr. Obama.<br><br>The Republican Party seems lost to define the real issue: Can the country survive four more years of a president who simply does not want to cut entitlement spending? The risk is enormous because, once re-elected, Mr. Obama can veto any spending-cut bills that cross his desk. Right now, the Democrats are scaring senior citizens into believing their present benefits will be cut if Mr. Obama and the Democrats lose. In order to counter that fiction, the GOP must scare right back. If America's debt is not arrested, the country will decline rapidly and in drastic ways.<br><br>The cold truth is that Americans will have to become more self-reliant if the country is to maintain its superpower status. Americans must begin planning for their future medical and financial needs with some government help, but not total dependence. Transitions are usually difficult, but crunch time is here. If the Republican challenger cannot persuade the voters that real danger is on their doorstep, the president will win reelection. No spin.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-06-02T07:00:00ZWhat Gaga Owes ElvisBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Gaga-Owes-Elvis/32281.html2011-05-26T07:00:00Z2011-05-26T07:00:00ZThe success of 25 year old Stefani Germanotta, aka Lady Gaga, is really the fault of Elvis Presley, who would completely understand the woman's immense drawing power. Back in the mid-1950s, the United States was largely a conformist nation. Americans had endured the strict discipline of a vicious World War and those who had served in the military were strongly committed to obeying the power structure and playing by society's rules. Largely because of that, there was a sameness to American life in the '50s that bored some younger Americans. And so, like James Dean, millions of teenagers became rebels without a cause.<br><br>Enter a young singer from Tupelo, Mississippi named Elvis Presley. Armed with long, slicked back hair, sideburns, and a non-threatening sneer, Presley captured the imagination of young people everywhere. Although polite in speech, Presley's actions were daring—swiveling his hips suggestively as he sang about rocking in a jailhouse. Before long, Elvis was America's biggest star, sending some conservative Americans into spasms of indignation.<br><br>Today, Lady Gaga is channeling her inner Elvis as our time, in some ways, parallels the 1950s. Faced with a non-stop barrage of high-tech gibberish, some young people have become jaded and are tuning out the recession, the wars, and the intense competition to make a buck. They value individuality and excitement, which Lady Gaga provides almost non-stop. Thus, Gaga has become a symbol as well as a entertainer.<br><br>Ms. Germanotta's music is okay—a series of dance tunes that are almost disco-like. But her voice doesn't come close to what Elvis had going. No, it is Gaga's persona that has pushed her to the top of the charts. Here's a young woman who doesn't seem to give a flip about what anyone thinks of her. Flashing her tattoos, she is the epitome of a working class girl, even though she attended private school and studied music at the Tisch School of Arts. Her outrageous stage presence is right out of the Madonna playbook, and there is no question that she is marketing herself to an audience who, to quote the song "Grease," believes that conventionality belongs to yesterday.<br><br>The problem is that while the lady may portray herself as a tramp, she cannot possibly keep up the frenetic pace. Watching her HBO special, your eyes glaze. Running all over the stage, Gaga makes Mick Jagger look like Rip Van Winkle. She changes costumes after almost every number, finding a multitude of ways to expose herself to an audience that loves every minute of it.<br><br>But how long can you do that?<br><br>Elvis burned out after a few years, went into hiding as the Beatles took over, and then emerged as a comeback kind of guy. The struggle, however, took his life. He died at 42, but his legacy endures.<br><br>Stefani's legacy is anyone's guess, but the odds are that she will have to settle for being a period piece. It is indeed Lady Gaga's time. I just hope she's saving her money.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-05-26T07:00:00ZRunning on Empty?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Running-on-Empty/32205.html2011-05-19T07:00:00Z2011-05-19T07:00:00ZBad week for the Republicans, good week for the president. Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump said no to running against Mr. Obama, and Newt Gingrich may already be on the ropes after criticizing Medicare reform—a key issue for conservatives. Meantime, the president kept a low profile while still basking in the demise of Bin Laden.<br><br>The Republican field is still wide open, but whoever decides to run should know this: You are not only challenging an incumbent president who will likely raise close to one billion dollars, but you are also going up against the elite media. If you thought the established press promoted Mr. Obama the first time around, wait until you see what lies ahead.<br><br>Even though the president has had a rocky time, especially where the economy is concerned, he remains the most liberal chief executive since Jimmy Carter. He shares many values with the majority of media people, and they are very protective of him. One example: Recently on NBC's "Meet the Press," the moderator, David Gregory, questioned whether Newt Gingrich's description of Mr. Obama as the "food stamp president" was a racist statement.<br><br>Mr. Gingrich told Gregory his question was "bizarre."<br><br>It was also typical.<br><br>When Donald Trump advised the president to "get off the basketball court" and down to business, he was branded racist by a variety of mainstream pundits.<br><br>In my Super Bowl Sunday interview with Mr. Obama, I asked him if he was a football fan. Some loon on HBO immediately branded that question racist. <br><br>So we can expect anyone who challenges the president to be hit with the same nonsense. GOP candidates will have every word they have ever uttered analyzed for racial purity. The media will also closely scrutinize their social activities and associations, all with an eye on diminishing and ultimately destroying the challenger.<br><br>The upcoming election is personal for the media. If the president loses and his liberal philosophy is repudiated by the voters, the media who have promoted him will lose as well. The upcoming election is not about a man, but a philosophy. The liberal press wants liberal policies. That trumps any kind of fair reporting.<br><br>So the Grand Old Party is up against it, and whoever emerges with the nomination better have a strong stomach. I don't expect President Obama to sling the mud—it isn't his style—but his Internet supporters and newsroom boosters will be ready, willing, and able to do the dirty work.<br><br>Huckabee and Trump are smart guys. They know what's ahead. And it won't be pretty.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-05-19T07:00:00ZRapping at the White HouseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rapping-at-the-White-House/32115.html2011-05-12T07:00:00Z2011-05-12T07:00:00ZOnce again we have an association controversy at the White House. This week, a rapper who calls himself "Common" was invited by Michelle Obama to read some of his "poetry" to a hand-picked audience in the "People's House." The problem is that Common (real name Lonnie Rashid Lynn) has glorified convicted cop killers Joanne Chesimard and Mumia Abu-Jamal.<br><br>You may remember that Ms. Chesimard, a member of the Black Liberation Army, was found guilty of first-degree murder in 1977 for killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. After being stopped on the Jersey Turnpike, Chesimard and two accomplices opened fire on Foerster and his partner, James Harper, who was wounded. <br><br>Chesimard was sentenced to life in prison but escaped in 1979, fleeing to Cuba, where she has been granted asylum.<br><br>Even though Common wasn't even born when that murder took place, he has insisted in his raps that Ms. Chesimard is innocent. He has said the same thing about Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.<br><br>While Common is entitled to rap any way he wants, it is troubling that he would be sought out by the White House for a prestigious exposition. Is this not a tacit endorsement of the man? Presidential spokesman Jay Carney says no, explaining that sympathy for cop killers is not "the sum total of this particular artist's work."<br><br>The number of poets who would like to read their work at the White House is almost unlimited. This is huge honor. Among those reading with Common were Steve Martin and Elizabeth Alexander. Surely, the First Lady could have chosen a more appropriate artist than Common.<br><br>So, once again, we have a judgment issue. Many police agencies across the country are outraged by the embrace the White House has given Common, and, I submit, millions of Americans are not comfortable with the selection either.<br><br>I have been a fan of Mrs. Obama's tenure as First Lady. She has brought grace and dignity to the White House. Her campaign to fight child obesity is right on, and I have personally witnessed Mrs. Obama going out of her way to show great kindness to regular folks.<br><br>But both Barack and Michelle Obama have a blind spot when it comes to social controversy. The Reverend Wright situation was obviously disturbing. Then, on Easter Sunday, the First Couple sat in a church where the cleric, a known verbal bomb-thrower, sermonized about slavery injustice. Now, the questionable Common. <br><br>The black experience in America is far different than the white experience, and honest people understand that. But the President and First Lady represent all of us, and should always be aware of sensitivities. Common may be the best rapper on earth. But his words have brought pain to the families and friends of two slain police officers.<br><br>That is enough to disqualify the man from a White House honor.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-05-12T07:00:00ZTruth vs. IdeologyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Truth-vs.-Ideology/31987.html2011-05-05T07:00:00Z2011-05-05T07:00:00ZFrustrating! That's the appropriate word for what is happening in the wake of the Bin Laden raid. Besides the precision of the Navy SEALs, the big story to emerge from the action is that coerced interrogation gave the CIA vital information used to track Bin Laden to his lair. That has been confirmed by current CIA chief Leon Panetta.<br><br>Of course, that exposition is embarrassing to the left including President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton, all of whom are on record as saying coerced interrogation does not work. But, apparently, they are wrong in a big way.<br><br>The nails-on-the-blackboard part of this story is that some liberal pundits are trying to deny the undeniable. The spin they are using now is that a "mosaic" of intelligence led to the CIA to bin Laden. It was not <em>just</em> waterboarding or whatever. To paraphrase Director Panetta, we'll never know if we could have gotten the same intel without the water.<br><br>That's true, but who cares? It is the duty of the federal government to protect Americans from harm. And that's what the Bush administration did when it signed off on coercive questioning. <br><br>The record shows that just three men were waterboarded: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Rahim al Nashiri, all al-Qaeda big shots. Under duress, KSM gave up vital information that crippled his terror group and ultimately led U.S. authorities to watch Bin Laden's top Pakistani courier. Eventually, that man led the CIA to the compound outside Islamabad.<br><br>But still, the far left won't budge. No matter what the facts are about the effectiveness of coerced interrogation, they will deny them. Infuriating.<br><br>The sane policy going forward is this: The president, and only the president, should have the power to order coerced interrogation, including waterboarding, if national security is endangered or American lives are on the line. One man makes the decision, and his orders are carried out by an elite intelligence team answerable directly to him.<br><br>So, if President Obama doesn't want to order waterboarding, fine; that's on him. But the elected leader of the nation should have the power to make the decision.<br><br>It is ironic that many on the far left openly celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden. So, guys, let me get this straight: It's okay for U.S. forces to shoot a terrorist in the head, but not okay to waterboard him if lives are in danger? Good grief.<br><br>It is long past time for Americans to reject ideology that endangers human beings. We live in a dangerous world chock full of doomsday weapons. Common sense should dictate how the federal government defines strategies to protect us. How many times have you heard ideologues say that coerced interrogation does not work?<br><br>Well, it does. Ask Bin Laden. Wait, we can't.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-05-05T07:00:00ZThe President and the PreachersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-President-and-the-Preachers/31907.html2011-04-27T07:00:00Z2011-04-27T07:00:00ZIf anyone can explain President Obama's choice of preachers to me, please do so, because I am very confused. You would think Mr. Obama would have learned his lesson after the Reverend Wright debacle, where his pastor of twenty years was exposed as an America-hating zealot. Then, after being outed, Wright turned on Obama, denouncing him.<br><br>But on Easter Sunday, the president and First Lady took their kids to the Shiloh Baptist Church, where Pastor Wallace Charles Smith holds court. The pastor is a race-activist who last year said this at a private Christian College: "Now Jim Crow wears blue pinstripes, goes to law school and carries fancy briefs and cases... he doesn't have to wear white robes anymore because now he can wear the protective cover of talk radio, or a regular news program on Fox."<br><br>Now, I have worked at Fox News for nearly 15 years, and don't know any racists on or off the air. At the very least, Pastor Smith is irresponsible in making that statement. And the whole tone of that diatribe is unfair and undisciplined. No fair-minded person indicts lawyers as racists. Barack Obama went to law school.<br><br>This whole deal is troubling. After the Wright fiasco, shouldn't the president's staff be more protective of their guy and not put him in front of another bomb-throwing preacher? Or did the president insist on going to that service? If so, why?<br><br>As the First Family sat in their pew, Smith did not hold back during his sermon, talking about his baby grandson who was trying, the Pastor posited, to say his first words: "I am here... they tried to write me off as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now... I am not going to let anybody stop me from being what God wants me to be."<br><br>The three-fifths reference is to the Constitutional mandate of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in the U.S. House. That, of course, was overturned by the 13th Amendment in 1865, but apparently Pastor Smith holds a grudge.<br><br>And he is entitled to do so, under the First Amendment.<br><br>But, again, why does President Obama want to hear the pastor's bitter prattle from the pulpit? Mr. Obama, himself, is perhaps the finest example of a man being allowed to reach his full potential, is he not? In what other country could a mixed race child from a broken home grow up to lead his nation? Does that not speak well of America?<br><br>I bear no ill will towards Pastor Smith or Reverend Wright. They are both products of their life experience that was most likely very difficult. But President Obama has a deep responsibility to promote this country as a place of freedom and opportunity.<br><br>Do you think sitting before a guy like Wallace Charles Smith on Easter Sunday accomplished that?<br><br>I don't.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-04-27T07:00:00ZCan the Republicans Save President Obama?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Can-the-Republicans-Save-President-Obama/31847.html2011-04-21T07:00:00Z2011-04-21T07:00:00ZWith President Obama now in full campaign mode, the question becomes, can he win reelection despite some misgivings from the vast majority of the American people? A new Marist College-McClatchy poll delivers this bad news to the president: 64% of Americans now think the country is moving in the wrong direction, while just 31% believe the USA is on the right track. That is the highest "wrong direction" number since November 2007, when the country was heading into a deep recession.<br> <br>In normal times, that kind of poll number would be catastrophic for a president about to enter the re-election season. But these are not normal times. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll says that, despite the country's dour mood, Mr. Obama would still beat every single Republican who's shown any interest in running. Mitt Romney provides the closest challenge; he loses 49% to 45% in the survey. <br> <br>Of course, polls are just snapshots in time, and the truth is that anything could happen in the election of 2012.<br> <br>The president's main problem is the economy, including the massive debt his administration is running up. Few believe that Mr. Obama is serious about cutting entitlement spending, and with gas prices exploding, the folks are getting hammered. This week the president blamed speculators for the oil debacle, and he's right. But what's he going to do about it?<br> <br>Flogging the "tax the rich" mantra is not going to work this time. With Standard & Poor's warning the United States that the country's AAA bond rating may be in jeopardy, the spending madness must be arrested or our entire way of life will be threatened. Once U.S. bonds are downgraded, it will become much more expensive to borrow the trillions needed to fund the entitlement society that the Democrats, including Mr. Obama, extol.<br> <br>The Republicans should be all over this, and to some extent they are. But the GOP lacks a charismatic leader and a united front. The Tea Party folks are hell-bent on changing everything right now. Compromise is looked upon as weakness in those precincts. But independent voters are not as strident, and the GOP needs those indies to win.<br> <br>Bomb-throwers like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin get a lot of attention, but neither fares well against the president in the polls. That, of course, could change, but any third party run by a conservative would assure Mr. Obama's reelection. Liberal Americans will rally around the president, no matter what he does. The same cannot be said for the Republican Party. The primaries will be bruising.<br> <br>All of this makes for an exciting election season. The polls may be dreadful for Barack Obama, but his competition remains in disarray. Meantime, many people are waiting patiently for somebody to save the country. That's where we are right now, and it's not a great place to be.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-04-21T07:00:00ZSchool Lunch MadnessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/School-Lunch-Madness/31771.html2011-04-14T07:00:00Z2011-04-14T07:00:00ZBack in the stone age, I brought my noon meal to school in a Davy Crockett lunch box. It was made of cheap metal and, had I eaten it, the taste would have been similar to the sandwich inside—usually bologna or tuna on soggy bread. My mother also included an apple (usually thrown, not ingested) and some Mallomars cookies: 800 calories each.<br><br>According to an article in the <em>Chicago Tribune</em>, my standard lunch would not have been acceptable at the Little Village Academy public school in the Windy City. The principal, Elsa Carmona, is quoted as saying that her students can either eat the school cafeteria food or "go hungry." Wow! Tough dietary deal.<br><br>Ms. Carmona went on to say that some parents are morons who allow their children to eat garbage, and that is not going to happen on her watch. The Tribune quotes her: "It's about... the excellent quality food that they are able to [eat here]. It's milk versus Coke."<br><br>Many students at the Little Village Academy qualify for free or reduced price lunches. Those who don't pay $2.25 for a meal. Some parents say that $11.25 for the week is far more than the brown bag lunches cost.<br><br>Predictably, Ms. Carmona's edict has caused an outcry, and now she says she was misquoted by the <em>Tribune</em>. Her lunch opinion is not a mandate, just a suggestion, she insists. But this story is not exactly an analysis of the federal budget. It strains credulity that the <em>Trib</em> got it wrong. What most likely happened is that Ms. Carmona got some heat from on high and is backtracking.<br><br>About one third of American kids are now overweight, and poorer children are the most likely to be in that category. So, educators are correct to be concerned about the nutritional welfare of their students. Every school should be encouraging good health, right?<br><br>But forcing parents to buy school food is going too far. This is nanny state stuff. I know that under President Obama, the nation is heading in that direction, but it is now time to pause and smell the meatloaf. Parents are the primary caregivers when it comes to raising children. The school educates kids, but has no right to dictate lifestyle choices. If there is a problem that impacts a student's ability to learn and socialize, the school has an obligation to bring the situation to the parents' attention. But telling kids what they can eat at lunchtime usurps parental authority.<br><br>Now, it is true that some parents usurp their own authority by neglecting their children or acting like nitwits when making decisions for them. But that is the price of a free society. The government cannot legislate good parenting, event though it has spent trillions of dollars trying.<br><br>The folks running the Little Village Academy need to wise up about this free society business. In America, we allow freedom of choice. And while kids can't choose their parents and vice-versa, when it comes to choosing the meal plan, parents should rule.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-04-14T07:00:00ZThe Beck FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Beck-Factor/31711.html2011-04-07T07:00:00Z2011-04-07T07:00:00ZMy pal Glenn Beck is leaving his program on the Fox News Channel later this year. This has caused great joy among some uber-liberals who object to free speech as well as to anything Beck. The Media Matters outfit took just seconds to misstate why Beck is changing venues, but what else is new? George Soros partially funds Media Matters, so why would the website ever say anything truthful when far left propaganda is so much easier to dish?<br><br>When you get past all the rubbish, Glenn Beck is really Norm, the guy on the sitcom "Cheers." He sits on a symbolic barstool and vents. He sees bad things happening to his country and objects. Because his rap is so interesting, millions of Americans want to hear it. So what on earth is wrong with that?<br><br>If you just got off the plane from Mongolia and dialed into the left-wing U.S. media, you might think Glenn Beck is the anti-Christ. The hue and cry about Beck is downright hysterical. Why do they care? Beck isn't an elected official; he's not even a journalist. He's just a guy with an opinion. So what's the beef?<br><br>Well, again, it goes to free speech. Many hardcore ideologues in both camps simply do not want to hear opinions other than their own. And if someone is successfully bloviating views that differ from their orthodoxy, they go ballistic. And Glenn Beck is certainly successful.<br><br>Remember, he's the guy who exposed Obama's "green jobs czar," Van Jones, as a communist sympathizer and 9/11 truther. Jones said a quick goodbye before the White House door hit him in the butt. Beck also drove a campaign against the ACORN group that was taking taxpayer dollars and using them to commit voter fraud in some places. Subsequently, Congress defunded ACORN.<br><br>These are big accomplishments, the kinds of things that can get powerful people upset. Thus, Beck became a target, an object of derision and hatred for some in the media.<br><br>But it is Glenn Beck who will have the last laugh. His media empire is now so expansive, he doesn't need the daily grind of TV news analysis. The guy has a hot website, The Blaze, has a syndicated radio program, even has an imprint at a prestigious publishing house. Plus, his speaking fees could considerably reduce the national debt.<br><br>So three cheers for Glenn Beck, aka Norm-a regular American who loves his country and is willing to suffer the slings and arrows to make his voice heard. We'll miss seeing him as much on Fox News, but his voice will still resonate throughout the media. And, to those who respect Glenn Beck, that's all that really matters.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-04-07T07:00:00ZLeadershipBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Leadership/31653.html2011-03-31T07:00:00Z2011-03-31T07:00:00ZThis time next year, we could have the two presidential candidates in play. Only God knows who the Republicans will decide upon, but President Obama is a lock on the Democratic side. The big issues that will most likely decide the election of 2012 will be the economy and leadership. And now there's new data on the leadership front.<br><br>According to a Gallup poll released this week, President Obama has fallen more than 20 points in the leadership category in less than two years. Right now, 52% of Americans believe he is a strong and decisive leader, while 47% say he is not. Bad news for the prez.<br><br>Truthfully, much of the leadership issue these days is driven by style. The last strong leader America had was President Reagan, who came across as a tough, but not belligerent, guy. Mr. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers (thereby busting the union), demanded that the Soviets tear down the wall in East Germany, and generally governed with a good-natured confidence. His acting experience helped him project authority and benevolence at the same time—not an easy thing to do.<br><br>President Bush 41 came across rather fatherly, even when waging war against Saddam. Bill Clinton had little authority because of his controversies. And Bush 43's battlefield setbacks eroded his leadership image.<br><br>Barack Obama is a deliberative leader, a man who seeks consensus before acting. He took months before committing more troops to Afghanistan, did not alter the Bush strategy in Iraq even after criticizing it, and seemed to be indecisive about Libya. French President Sarkozy was the guy who drove the military action, with Mr. Obama hitching a ride on the Frenchman's passion.<br><br>In turbulent times, people naturally look for leaders who can bring them comfort and reassurance. At this point, President Obama is having trouble doing that, and the Gallup poll reflects that reality. Mr. Obama's style is cool and sometimes distant. When waging war or trying to prevent economic disaster, detachment can be detrimental. Rallying the troops usually wins the day. <br><br>President Lincoln was the nation's strongest leader, with George Washington second and Franklin Roosevelt third. All three had huge problems to solve and did so with courage and bold decision making. Lincoln, in particular, was constantly under siege. If the Confederates had won the battle of Gettysburg, the Union might have been shattered forever. Lincoln knew that. Yet, he remained strong, in control, and did what he had to do to hold the country together... even suspending Habeas Corpus.<br><br>President Obama is a big admirer of Lincoln, as is George W. Bush. Both men understand that true leadership requires stone-cold courage and a brilliant decision making capability. Most human beings fall short in both categories, which is why true leadership is rarely on display.<br><br>But if it is in 2012, the person who shows it will be president.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-03-31T07:00:00ZThe Triumphant of EvilBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Triumphant-of-Evil/31593.html2011-03-24T07:00:00Z2011-03-24T07:00:00ZThe opposition to military action in Libya is fascinating. President Obama is taking incoming from both the left and the right as various agendas collide against neutralizing Qaddafi in Libya. The dissent is all over the place, so let's try to simplify the situtation.<br><br>We begin with a quote from Edmond Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."<br><br>That's true. We have seen it time and again throughout history. When evil is not confronted, it can win, often with devastating results.<br><br>There is no question that Qaddafi was on the verge of slaughtering his opposition. His mercenaries and highly paid military were closing in on the rebel strongholds and amnesty would be not be forthcoming, as the colonel himself publicly proclaimed. So, finally, the U.N. acted, and a no fly zone was approved. After waffling around for weeks, President Obama then swung into action, ordering U.S. planes and missiles into the skies. Then he went to Brazil.<br><br>Immediately, the far-left erupted. Ralph Nader is calling for impeachment. Michael Moore suggests that Obama give back the Nobel Peace Prize, and Congressman Dennis Kuchinch wants to cut off funding for any military action against Libya.<br><br>On the right, Pat Buchanan banged the isolationist drum: "Why is the United States, all the way across the ocean, got to go in and stop Arabs from killing Arabs ... why are we in there?"<br><br>To prevent a massacre? I believe that's the reason, Mr. Buchanan.<br><br>Congressman Ron Paul was equally blunt: "What are we doing? We are in this crisis and they decide to spend all this money. It makes no sense at all."<br><br>So here's my question for Mr. Paul. Would you be comfortable, Congressman, watching thousands of human beings being slaughtered by a terrorist dictator when you know that your country has the power to prevent that?<br><br>In fact, the no fly zone was up and running in hours, and Qaddafi's forces have been badly damaged. Now the rebels have a chance to eventually overthrow the terrorist dictator, and mass murder has been avoided, at least for the time being. <br><br>This is not a complicated issue. If America is, indeed, a noble country, it should act to save lives when it can. That doesn't mean we get bogged down in quagmires like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam again, but when quick, decisive action can defeat evil, it should be taken. <br><br>I believe in the basic nobility of America. I also believe few other nations have the motivation and power to confront evil as this country does. If it's only all about us, if all we think about is our own sacrifice, then American exceptionalism disappears.<br><br>We did the right thing in Libya.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-03-24T07:00:00ZGetting GadhafiBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Getting-Gadhafi/31505.html2011-03-17T07:00:00Z2011-03-17T07:00:00ZPresident Obama is a dispassionate guy; a man who likes to analyze problems without emotion. He also likes to take his time while making important decisions. To some, this is an effective way to govern. To others, it is dithering. But one thing is certainly true: being indecisive while people die is no virtue.<br><br>A couple of weeks ago, the Libyan tyrant and terrorist Gadhafi seemed to be on the ropes. Rebels were advancing on the capital city, Tripoli, and it looked like Gadhafi would join Mubarak in the house arrest zone. Those of us who believe Gadhafi is responsible for killing 189 Americans who were aboard a Pan Am Flight when it was blown out of the sky by a bomb on December 21,1988, were clamoring for a terror trial.<br><br>Realizing there was nowhere to hide, Gadhafi stood and fought. His largely African mercenary corps and hardened Arab military fanatics, all well paid by the dictator, have now regained momentum in the battle. Air power has made it difficult for the rebels to advance. There are few trees in Libya, and the vast open spaces make bombing easy.<br><br>Thus, there was an early call for a "no-fly" zone like the one imposed on Saddam Hussein in Iraq. NATO forces could easily destroy Gadhafi's air power allowing the rebels a fighting chance to defeat the dictator. The Arab League even endorsed a no-fly strategy giving President Obama cover should he lead the effort. But no such leadership has emerged.<br><br>On March 15th, President spokesman Jay Carney faced CBS Chief White House Correspondent Chip Reid:<br><br>Reid: On the no-fly zone, what is the administration's position before the (UN) Security Council?<br><br>Carney: Our position remains that we are evaluating a number of options, military included.<br><br>Reid: But a decision has to be made now.<br><br>Carney: We feel that it is important that any action that might be taken should be done in concert with our international partners.<br><br>In other words, we are going to fiddle while the greatest procrastinating organization in history, the United Nations, screws around. Meantime, the anti-Gadhafi forces are losing.<br><br>The central question is about leadership. What kind of leader does Barack Obama want to be? At this point, it seems he wants to be the talk not action guy. When anti-government riots broke out in Iran, the President issued a statement saying the U.S. would not interfere in Iranian affairs. When American generals requested more troops in Afghanistan, the President took months to decide. And now he continues to "deliberate" over Libya while Gadhafi destroys his opposition.<br><br>Again, some believe this kind of cautious calculation serves America well. But if we are indeed a nation that values freedom and fights against worldwide terror, why are we not making life hard for Gadhafi?<br><br>I hope the President deliberates on that question forthwith.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-03-17T07:00:00ZCharlie Sheen, Cable News Star?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Charlie-Sheen-Cable-News-Star/31445.html2011-03-10T08:00:00Z2011-03-10T08:00:00ZWe live in strange times, and cable news is in business to chronicle that. As you may know, there is big money in the cable news universe, but two of the big players, MSNBC and CNN, are having major ratings problems. Last month in primetime, the Fox News Channel was the second highest rated cable channel in the United States behind the USA network. MSNBC came in 26th, CNN 29th. Not good for them.<br><br>So if I'm an executive at those two networks, I may be looking for a program host who is filled with tiger's blood—an unchained warlock who is all about "winning." That man, of course, is Charlie Sheen.<br><br>Here are his qualifications for hosting a cable chat show. Sheen believes the attack on September 11th was an inside job, asserting that the Bush administration was behind the mass murder. Hear that, MSNBC? <br><br>Sheen is also extremely successful by his own account. He told ABC's 20/20, "Every day is just filled with wins. All we do is put wins in the record books. We win so radically in our underwear before our first cup of coffee, it's scary." Sheen riffed that off the top of his head. THAT's scary. And I believe CNN needs some wins.<br><br>If you read the <em>New York Times</em>, you know that Charlie Sheen would be a moderate compared to the anchors on Fox News. Almost every day, the <em>Times</em> tells the world how heinous the Fox News people really are. Sheen would almost be, dare I say it, conservative by comparison. A welcome breath of fresh air from the rantings of yours truly and Glenn Beck.<br><br>In this crazy high-tech age, cable news is all about being provocative. Larry King found that out the hard way. So who is more provocative than Charlie Sheen? Qaddafi? Maybe. Bin Laden? Assured. But both would have trouble getting green cards, so they'll probably wind up hosting shows on Al Jazeera.<br><br>Charlie Sheen might be better suited for the E! network, but that is not where the money and prestige is. Today in America, the cable news primetime people can become stars. That is something Sheen embraces, telling the Today Show, "I'm tired of pretending I'm not a total bitchin' rock star from Mars. And people can't figure me out; they can't process me. I don't expect them to. You can't process me with a normal brain."<br><br>That bio might be a bit much for CNN, although I'd love to hear James Earl Jones introduce Sheen using the outer space terminology.<br><br>In the end, somebody will hire Charlie Sheen. Mark Cuban says he might do it. You may remember that Cuban hired Dan Rather and put him on some kind of internet show. I believe Sheen and Rather might go well together. "Good evening, this is the Cuban Nightly News with Dan Rather alongside a totally bitchin' rock star from Mars."<br><br>I like it.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-03-10T08:00:00ZLook for the Union LabelBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Look-for-the-Union-Label/31353.html2011-03-03T08:00:00Z2011-03-03T08:00:00ZIn order to form a more perfect union, many of my ancestors joined one. My maternal grandfather was a train conductor, my paternal grandfather a New York City police officer, my uncle a fire captain in the Big Apple. Around my dinner table as a kid, working people were revered, evil corporate bosses vilified. Unions were big in Levittown, New York.<br><br>And I am a union guy as well. AFTRA (the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) has represented me for more than 30 years. And they've been good. When the King World Company tried to dodge pension payments for "Inside Edition" employees (of which I was one) in the early 1990s, AFTRA took them on and won a settlement. Without the union, we would have been hosed.<br><br>But now things are different in America. Over the years, some powerful unions, representing both public and private workers, have succeeded in gaining so many benefits that the entire U.S. economy has been damaged. Many states cannot pay health and pension benefits because the tax revenue is not nearly enough to cover expenses. Also, millions of jobs formerly held by Americans are now done by Chinese and Indian people because labor is so much cheaper in those countries.<br><br>Thus, we have economic warfare between the cost-cutters and the union folks who want to protect what they have.<br><br>While I am absolutely sympathetic to hard working union folks, I truly understand the danger of the United States government not being able to pay its bills. Chinese investors currently own more than a trillion dollars of U.S. debt and our nation is more than $14 trillion in the red. President Obama recently put forth a budget for 2012 that would add another trillion dollars to that total.<br><br>That, of course, is insane.<br><br>If Chinese investors unload their U.S. investments, our economy would collapse. That is not a good place to be. In order for America to continue to drive the world's economy, we must return to a responsible spending spreadsheet, and that means union give-backs. It also means a decline in union negotiating power, especially in the public arena.<br><br>Many liberal Americans continue to scream about raising taxes to bring down the debt. But that crushes economic expansion. Corporations and rich folks will only take so much taxation before they leave the building, as Elvis once did.<br><br>Capitalism is a tough system. It's not touchy-feely like Sweden, where cradle-to-grave entitlements rule. But there are less than ten million Swedes, so they work it out. With more than 300 million Americans, we can't "provide" for everyone.<br><br>The cold truth is that unions are on the way out. High tech means big changes in the workplace, and labor protections are not needed as much as they once were. What we are seeing in Wisconsin is the beginning of a new attitude toward the American worker. And there will be pain until we get things sorted out.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-03-03T08:00:00ZGetting Schooled In WisconsinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Getting-Schooled-In-Wisconsin/31275.html2011-02-24T08:00:00Z2011-02-24T08:00:00ZHere's a lesson that is both ironic and sad at the same time. According to the U.S. Department of Education, two-thirds of the eight graders in Wisconsin cannot read proficiently. But assuming the kids are skilled enough to watch TV, they can now see their teachers demonstrating to keep their generous union benefits. So, while things do not seem to be going well in the classroom, any thought of holding teachers somewhat responsible is cause for a protest march.<br><br>As a former high school teacher, it pains me to criticize those trying to educate American children. You will never become rich doing that and the job can be maddening. Today, many children are the victims of a permissive society that often refuses to hold kids responsible for their actions. Cowardly parents make excuses for the failure of their kids rather than finding a solution to their poor academic performance. Instead of preparing their children for rigorous academic challenges, derelict parents sit it out.<br><br>But teachers are supposed to overcome apathetic parenting and at least give the kids a fighting chance to succeed. That is a challenge that's supposed to be met.<br><br>As I've written before, in my eight grade class at St. Brigid's School on Long Island there were 60 students and one nun in the classroom. All of them could read proficiently and, believe me, some of the parents were not exactly Ozzie and Harriet if you understand what I'm saying. The nun brooked no nonsense. She forced us to learn.<br><br>But that was then.<br><br>In ten years starting in 1998, Wisconsin doubled the amount of money spent on each public school student to more than $10,000 per pupil, per year. And test scores went down! Doing the math, the equation seems to be that money is not the key to knowledge.<br><br>Discipline is.<br><br>The teachers in Wisconsin should be compensated to the best of the state's ability. But the educational gravy train is off the tracks. There's no more money. The taxpayer is tapped out.<br><br>So, in the future, if you want to teach kids you'll have to take less to do it. That may not be fair but that's the lesson that Wisconsin is teaching us. The writing is very clear on the blackboard: No more public money is on the way.<br><br>I left teaching because I understood the limitations of the job. I knew at a young age that my income would be restricted and that my life would be fairly predictable.<br><br>Selfishly, I wanted more.<br><br>But I respect those who devote their lives to teaching immensely. I want them to have as much as the market will bear.<br><br>Sadly, that point has now been reached.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-02-24T08:00:00ZNo OffenseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Offense/31231.html2011-02-17T08:00:00Z2011-02-17T08:00:00ZWe live in a touchy age where any ethnic remark is a blowtorch. Your mom might have told you never to talk about politics or religion, but these days, mother should include race and ethnicity in her maternal guidance.<br><br>Recently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg showed up at the American-Irish Historical Society to do a little schmoozing. After the beating the mayor took on the blizzard debacle, he is busy visiting just about every society that exists in order to do some good will hunting. Unfortunately, Mr. Bloomberg pulled a Jackie Mason and told the Irish crowd that he lived nearby and was used to seeing "people that are totally inebriated hanging out windows" of the society's building.<br><br>Did somebody say avalanche?<br><br>Some in the crowd actually booed Bloomberg, which was unusual because the mayor stood just a few feet away from them. There were very few Irish eyes smiling, and the ensuing media reports made the situation even worse.<br><br>You don't get much more Irish than me, but somehow I am not offended by Mr. Bloomberg's ethnic one-liner. I am troubled that it was very lame in the humor department, but the clichéd drinking reference is meaningless to me. Consuming alcohol, as we all know, extends to every ethnicity, and the destruction that alcoholism causes is no laughing matter.<br><br>Historically, social life in Ireland was built around pubs, at least for men. The culture embraced beer and good cheer; there's no question about it. When the Irish immigrated to America, that culture came with them so much so that when the police removed drunks from the streets, they called the transport a "paddy wagon," referencing the Irish name Patrick.<br><br>Even today, the St. Patrick's Day parade celebrations, at least in New York and Boston, feature a heavy alcohol component which does little to tamp down the cliché Mayor Bloomberg embraced. My advice to my Irish brothers and sisters has always been this: It is a great day for the Irish. Don't sully it by drinking like a camel.<br><br>My grandfather and first cousin both died from alcohol-related illness. But, again, those tragedies were not caused by their ethnicity. Booze is a temptation that must be controlled or bad things will happen. There is no evidence that one group is more susceptible to drinking than another. The abuse of alcohol is a problem for every society on earth.<br><br>Perhaps because I don't drink and never have, I chalked Mayor Bloomberg's gaffe up to a bad decision. I've said a lot of dopey things in my life and so have you. The mayor harbors no disdain for the Irish; he was born in Boston, for crying out loud. It was a simple mistake. And as an Irishman, I am very familiar with those.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-02-17T08:00:00ZTrue BelieversBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/True-Believers/31131.html2011-02-10T08:00:00Z2011-02-10T08:00:00ZPresidents Obama and Bush 43 have one striking similarity: self-assurance. After speaking with both men recently, I am firmly convinced that they are convinced their policies are/were right for the nation.<br><br>Let's take Mr. Bush first. The Iraq war has cost America more than $750 billion dollars since it began in March 2003. So far, more than 4,400 Americans have been killed in that country, in addition to about 32,000 who were wounded. Many of those wounds were life-altering. Yet President Bush thinks the great sacrifice was worth it because Saddam Hussein is dead and Iraq is on the road to democracy. There is not an argument in the world that can dissuade Mr. Bush from this belief.<br><br>It is likewise with Mr. Obama. He sincerely believes that the country was on the verge of another Great Depression when he took office and that the massive federal spending he has championed prevented economic catastrophe. Again, there is no way anyone is going to persuade the president otherwise.<br><br>Strong leadership requires a sense of surety. In order to motivate folks to support your vision, you must demonstrate bold conviction. General George Patton, for example, convinced his troops that they were better than the German "Huns." His confidence was contagious and victories emerged. <br><br>But what happens when a person's conviction is wrong? There is no question that Saddam Hussein could have been destroyed by other means. Surely the world is a better place without him, but would most Americans support the Iraq invasion if we could do it all over? I don't think so. In hindsight, the Iraq situation should have been handled by the Air Force and Navy. Saddam's regime could have been strangled without so much American blood.<br><br>Things are a bit murkier on the economic front. Since the Obama administration has been in power, the feds have spent an astounding seven trillion dollars. This has left the United States vulnerable in the world marketplace because we need to borrow so much money from nations like China. The massive $14 trillion debt has now become as big a threat as the economic meltdown of three years ago. No matter how you frame the issue, federal spending must be cut back, and Mr. Obama has to know this. But, like Mr. Bush, the president does not regret his controversial policies.<br><br>Presidents Obama and Bush are true believers. Mr. Bush says that he did his best, and that's the end of the story. Because Mr. Obama's story continues to unfold, he must continue to sell his policies as wise and effective. The problem is problems. Sometimes they are so overwhelming that people, even presidents, simply cannot solve them.<br><br>Even if they believe they can.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-02-10T08:00:00ZTalking With the PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Talking-With-the-President/31091.html2011-02-03T08:00:00Z2011-02-03T08:00:00ZAs some readers might know, your humble correspondent (that's me) will be conducting a live interview with President Obama a few hours before the Super Bowl game begins on Sunday. The chat is scheduled to last about 12 minutes and is fraught with danger. For me, not for the president. <br><br>That's because the rules are different when it comes to interviewing the President of the United States. Since the beginning of our republic, only 44 men have held that office, and when a citizen is in the presence of the Chief Executive, there is strict protocol. For example, he is addressed as "Mr. President." No one says, "Yo, Barack, how you doin'?" There is a respect for the office that formalizes all conversation. <br><br>I well remember President Bush 41 telling an NBC correspondent, Stone Phillips, to be "careful" after Phillips asked Mr. Bush about a rumor concerning his personal life. The president's tone stopped Stone cold, pardon the pun. <br><br>Back in September 2008, I interviewed then-Senator Obama on the campaign trail. There was no protocol involved, except for civility. I asked Mr. Obama a series of specific questions and interrupted him if he didn't answer them directly. I had 30 minutes of his time and made them count because I could say pretty much what I wanted to say. <br><br>But that was then. On Sunday, I can ask the president valid questions, but he doesn't have to answer them. He can say what he wants. If I interrupt him too much, I look like a dope. And with only 12 minutes to work with, I have to frame my questions with precision. The president is an eloquent man; he can easily run out the clock if he wants to. Also, the interview is live, so there's no editing. In other words, there's nowhere to hide if things don't go well. <br><br>Experienced journalists know that any interview with a powerful person is a chess game. Your job is to get information—to deliver something that the audience has not heard. Many times, the interviewee does not want to answer certain questions and, indeed, might even refuse to answer them by spinning or deflecting. With anyone else, I can call the spinner on that. With the President of the United States, you have to be careful, as President Bush pointed out. <br><br>So I fully expect to get hammered after the interview is over. Depending on how you feel about the president, the questions will either be too soft or too intrusive. The first time around, the interview benefited both Mr. Obama and myself, as it was a virtual free-for-all: a spirited back and forth about a variety of subjects. <br><br>This time, I will have to bring a completely different game plan to the White House. The president has home field advantage, an established presence as the world's most powerful quarterback, and has the clock running to his advantage. Vegas won't even put out a line on this one. Can't wait to see what happens.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-02-03T08:00:00ZWinning the FutureBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Winning-the-Future/31011.html2011-01-27T08:00:00Z2011-01-27T08:00:00ZFinally, an issue all Americans can rally behind: Winning the future! Surely most of us would like to be victorious down the road. The alternative is losing the future, and that doesn't sound very good, does it? If the future is lost, then what will become of us?<br><br>Thus, President Obama's new mantra, "Winning the Future," got immediate traction. His State of the Union speech was full of optimistic ways that we can win. Most of those ways involve "investing" in stuff like education, infrastructure jobs, and alternative fuels. "Investing," of course, is the new word for government spending. The president doesn't want to spend anymore—he wants to "invest."<br><br>So Mr. Obama's speech was uplifting, to say the least. We are going to beat those Chinese people in the marketplace and our kids will be smarter than those Korean kids. Yes we can! And the federal government's checkbook will lead the way.<br><br>In response, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan essentially said, "No, we can't." We're broke. How uplifting is that?<br><br>Barack Obama is a liberal man who is convinced that a large federal government can, indeed, improve the lives of most Americans. With a $14 trillion debt, however, Mr. Obama can no longer trumpet expanding the federal apparatus, but that doesn't mean he's against it. Let's take the high-speed train deal as an example.<br><br>The president loves the idea of these trains, and they do work well in places like Japan. But over the last ten years, the government-run Amtrak outfit has lost an astonishing $13 billion dollars. So what makes Mr. Obama believe that pumping even more tax money into high-speed rail will be good for the country? Talk about losing the past.<br><br>And then there's ethanol. Tons of federal money spent; little to show for it. T. Boone Pickens, a very savvy guy, tried wind power. He got blown away. The complexity of wind driven energy makes it almost impossible to market.<br><br>As some of you know, I am a simple guy. My questions are not complicated. So here's another one regarding the winning thing. Didn't the Soviet Union want to win the future? I think they did. The pinheads in Moscow spent gazillions of dollars trying to dominate the world. And exactly how did that giant central government run operation turn out? I believe it evaporated, did it not? Huge bureaucracies are not set up for winning the future. They exist to tell folks what to do and take their money.<br><br>But the president and I do have some common ground on this winning the future theme. We are both for it. I, however, believe the folks are the key component to future success because they have repeatedly won in the past. So, let's stop the massive government spending, Mr. President, and unleash the American people by lowering taxes and encouraging private enterprise. Yes we can.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-01-27T08:00:00ZShow Me The Money, HaitiBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Show-Me-The-Money-Haiti/30968.html2011-01-20T08:00:00Z2011-01-20T08:00:00ZSo now we're back to ground zero, literally. A few weeks after the attack on 9/11, actor George Clooney and a bunch of celebrities fronted a television telethon to raise money for the families of the victims. It was a well-intentioned project that raised about $150 million.<br><br>Unfortunately, the distribution of the money was somewhat chaotic, and I led the charge to have the celebrities pressure the charities to be more transparent about where the funds were going. Mr. Clooney took umbrage at my request, and a big controversy ensued.<br><br>Now we have the charitable debacle in Haiti. A year after the devastating earthquake that killed more than 300,000 people, more than a million Haitians are still living in the streets. This, despite the fact that the United States alone has sent almost two billion dollars to that nation. Another ten billion has been pledged by other countries, but it is impossible to track that money.<br><br>The brutal truth is that no one knows where much of the aid designated to help the Haitians is. There is absolutely no transparency and little accountability. Dozens of brand new donated trucks sit idle at the Port-au-Prince airport, because the Haitian government wants thousands of dollars in "import duties" before it allows the trucks to transport vital goods to the suffering people. That's just one example of the madness going on.<br><br>Presidents Clinton and Bush 43 headed up the private relief effort in America, which raised $53 million for Haitian relief. In the middle of a wicked recession, Americans gave their hard-earned money to help people they will never know. I asked President Bush if he knows why there is so little progress in Haiti, even after so much money has poured in there. He said he does not.<br><br>President Clinton will not even answer my questions, despite the fact that he has been deeply involved with Haiti for years. We have called the "Clinton Initiative" many times and they say they have distributed tens of millions of dollars to help the Haitian people and can provide documents to back that up. But, again, once the cash arrives in Port-au-Prince, darkness descends.<br><br>The moral question is this: Should good people continue to send money to a place that has been corrupt for aeons? The scenes this week of Baby Doc Duvalier, the gangster former dictator of Haiti, returning to his country after an exile in France is symbolic of the problem. Despite all the good intentions in the world, Haiti remains a place of squalor and hopelessness. Nothing seems to get better.<br><br>I would like to see Presidents Clinton and Bush demand accountability from the Haitian government right now. These guys should go on television and call some people out. Mr. Clinton, in particular, knows what's going on, and he has a responsibility to let us know.<br><br>It is easy to ask for money. It is much more difficult to see that it is honestly spent.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-01-20T08:00:00ZConfronting Hate in ArizonaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Confronting-Hate-in-Arizona/30930.html2011-01-13T08:00:00Z2011-01-13T08:00:00ZFaced with rising anger against ideological zealots who have turned the murderous atrocity in Arizona into a political circus, President Obama had to respond. In an excellent speech eulogizing the six dead and the critically injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Mr. Obama appealed to the nation to cool down and stop the nonsense. His signature line was, "What we cannot do is to use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other."<br><br>Unfortunately, his words came too late.<br><br>The struggle for political dominance in this country is now so intense that scorched earth is the order of the day. The left is furious that the progressive agenda is failing, while the right believes it is on the cusp of losing traditional America and must take drastic measures to save the Republic. In the middle of all this is a relatively inexperienced liberal thinking President who often looks stunned by the vitriol directed toward him.<br><br>There is no question that, with the rise of the Internet, where anonymous bloggers can level the vilest accusations, the political debate has changed for the worse. No longer is the smartest guy in the room awarded the trophy. Now the accolades often go to smear merchants who delight in personal attacks and injurious invective.<br><br>But when a federal judge, a sitting Congresswoman, and a nine-year-old girl hit the floor riddled with bullets, you would think the nasty rhetoric might be shelved for a couple of days to allow for grieving. You would think.<br><br>Americans well understand what has happened this week and they are outraged by irresponsible pundits blaming their political enemies for contributing to the murders. President Obama must know that things are getting out of control, and that he must begin calling people out. The problem is that some of the president's most ardent supporters are responsible for the current madness. So Mr. Obama kept his criticism generic and avoided specificity, to the vast relief of the <em>New York Times</em>.<br><br>The question now becomes whether the public will walk away from the guttersnipes—and I am betting 'no' on that question. The easy and provocative stimulation provided by the net has numbed some folks. What used to be outrageous is now commonplace. Standards of behavior in political analysis are gone and will not come back unless viewers, listeners, and readers demand it, and why should they? After all, it is far more entertaining to hear trash talk than civil discourse.<br><br>Of course, there are times when bad guys need to be confronted in tough ways. Villains must be called out in no uncertain terms, and robust debate can be a very good thing, if facts are used to illuminate harmful situations. But using death to fan speculative defamation should be unacceptable in a noble country. That is rock bottom.<br><br>President Obama did a service to the nation by asking people to stop hurting each other with irresponsible words. He is now on the record as decrying the ideologues who are damaging the country. Critical mass has been reached.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-01-13T08:00:00ZLet It Snow, But Clean It UpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Let-It-Snow-But-Clean-It-Up/30897.html2011-01-06T08:00:00Z2011-01-06T08:00:00ZOne of the signature moments of the Bush administration came when the federal government failed to immediately react to the carnage caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. As you'll remember, Mr. Bush seemed lethargic about the death and destruction, and the media buried him because of his lackluster posture.<br><br>But we now know that the president could not have seized control of the situation because he was not asked in by former Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. Mr. Bush could have appeared more engaged in his public pronouncements, to be sure, but legally he could not exert federal authority unless state authorities officially asked him to do so.<br><br>Now we have the great blizzard screw-up of 2010 in New York. The day after Christmas, a storm dropped about 20 inches of snow on the nation's largest city. That's spring break for places like Moscow, but in NYC, chaos almost immediately broke out.<br><br>Based on solid reporting by the <em>New York Post</em> and other media, it now appears that members of the city's Sanitation Union may have sabotaged snow removal because of anger over budget cuts and layoffs. More than ten percent of sanitation workers called in sick the night they were most needed. Two adults died, and a baby was born in a vestibule and later died because emergency workers could not get through the snow.<br><br>When I raised the question of federal intervention in cases like these on my TV program, some conservative viewers said "hell no." They don't want big government intruding on local issues. But what happens when local authorities are so incompetent they put your life in danger? What happens then?<br><br>The U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn is now investigating whether any federal laws were broken by union workers laying down on the job. Good. Municipal unions all over the country need to know there is oversight on them. One of the big reasons states like California and New York are tottering on the edge of bankruptcy is lavish state benefits paid to union members. Local politicians rarely stand up to union power because the workers can make their lives very difficult. Ask New York Mayor Bloomberg. Ask outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.<br><br>Federal power is no panacea, as we have seen first-hand on the southern border. But it is a check against local corruption and incompetence. The civil rights laws would have never been enforced in the 1960s if not for aggressive action by Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. Sometimes, it takes a big stick to keep the smaller sticks in line.<br><br>The good people of New York and New Orleans are ultimately responsible for their own fate. Blanco and former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin are out in Louisiana. Mr. Bloomberg has taken the political beating of life in the Big Apple. But, always, there should be checks and balances on corruption. The feds should turn up the heat on the snow debacle.BillOReilly.com Staff2011-01-06T08:00:00ZThe Truth About GritBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Truth-About-Grit/30869.html2010-12-30T08:00:00Z2010-12-30T08:00:00ZOn April 7, 1970, John Wayne received the Academy Award for Best Actor after wowing them in the movie True Grit. For Wayne, it was really a lifetime achievement recognition, as he beat out the likes of Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight, all considered "serious" actors, unlike the personality-driven performances Wayne specialized in.<br><br>Wayne's portrayal of the hard-drinking U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn was a classic. The actor totally blew away his costars Kim Darby and Glenn Campbell (yes, that Glenn Campbell). In one scene, the Duke is riding the range between Ms. Darby and Mr. Campbell, and they look like Lilliputians to Wayne's Gulliver. Whatever else you might think about John Wayne, he dominated the screen whenever he appeared on it.<br><br>Forty years later, there is a remake of True Grit starring Jeff Bridges as Cogburn. Bridges is a serious actor and plays the part well. But he can't touch Wayne. By the way, another serious actor, Matt Damon, plays the Campbell part, and Bridges blows him away. Some advice for the younger leading man: Stay away from the old pros; they know how to move the audience in ways you don't.<br><br>The True Grit comparison also reflects the times the films were released. Back in 1969, the United States was in turmoil over Vietnam, and the rise of the Woodstock generation. Revered traditions were breaking down fast, confusing and angering many Americans. John Wayne was a throwback to better times, a man respected by traditional folks. And it was Wayne they were watching on the screen, not Rooster Cogburn. It was Wayne who protected the young girl out to avenge her father and it was Wayne who imposed justice on the brutal bad guys. The strong-minded actor brought audiences comfort amidst chaos both on the screen and in real life.<br><br>Today we are a country once again experiencing turbulent times. But Jeff Bridges offers no antidote to that; in fact, his portrayal disturbs rather than comforts. Bridges plays the flawed Marshall well, and might very well be nominated as Wayne was, but he revels in Cogburn's neurosis while the Duke used it as a prop. John Wayne was accessible to the audience as basically a good guy. Jeff Bridges puts the troubled character he plays right in your face.<br><br>And that's the difference in America over these forty years. We once were a country with boundaries and rules of behavior. Now many of those boundaries are gone. We expect explicit violence and personal angst. Many of us relish seeing that. In 1969, when True Grit played in the theatres, Americans were looking for heroes like John Wayne to show them nobility. Today there are far fewer heroes and we don't expect much nobility, even in the movies.<br><br>I liked both True Grits. But for me, it was Wayne who still deserves most of the cheers. The man was larger than life, a symbol of the insurmountable American spirit. Boy, do we need that today.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-12-30T08:00:00ZCoal in Their StockingsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Coal-in-Their-Stockings/30838.html2010-12-23T08:00:00Z2010-12-23T08:00:00ZTraditionally, if kids were naughty, Santa Claus would place coal in their stockings instead of nice things. But now, because of global warming, the coal stigma has advanced to the next level. This being Christmas time, I am trying to stay positive, but it is my columnist duty to list some folks who truly deserve coal in their stockings because they were definitely not looking out for us.<br><br>That preacher nut in Florida who threatened to burn the Koran deserves to be trapped in a coal mine, never mind the stocking. That's all these crazy jihadists need to kill more Americans--a Koran burning on the worldwide net.<br><br>The Westboro Baptist Church crew (no affiliation with the Baptist church) who demonstrate at military funerals should have coal thrown at them. These religious fanatics believe God is punishing the American military because this country does not persecute gays. The Taliban is actively recruiting Fred Phelps and his vile gang. By the way, the Supreme Court should be issuing a ruling on these haters soon. <br><br>Governor Rod Blagojevich and Congressman Charles Rangel used their positions of responsibility to try to enrich themselves. Or maybe they are just misunderstood. You make the call. Santa has ordered coal.<br><br>Michael Moore believes the Wikileaks guy is a hero. Of course he is. So what if informers are now intimidated by the prospect of seeing their names on the Internet? So what if the United States and other countries don't get vital information about the jihad and other threats? It makes Moore feel good to call for "a more open society." And did you catch Cuba banning Moore's propaganda movie about health care? Yeah, the Castro brothers think the film portrays the Cuban health care system too positively! Moore makes it look too good! If Cubans see the flick, they'll get mad because they don't have the stuff Moore says they have. Or so says Fidel. I say Moore deserves to eat coal.<br><br>Alan Grayson told the world that Republicans want Americans who get sick to die. So the voters in central Florida kicked him out of Congress after just one term. During the campaign, Grayson distorted his opponent's words about women in a way that was so dishonest Blagojevich was disgusted. Much fossil fuel should be deposited in Grayson's stocking.<br><br>Sharron Angle told a group of Hispanic students that they looked "Asian" to her. Upon hearing that her opponent, Senator Harry Reid said many prayers to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. Hispanic voters in Nevada then went overwhelmingly for Reid. Ms. Angle shouldn't get coal. She has suffered enough.<br><br>Of course, there are many other folks we could put on the coal patrol but, again, this is the season to be jolly. Have a great one.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-12-23T08:00:00ZA Very Liberal ChristmasBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Very-Liberal-Christmas/30788.html2010-12-16T08:00:00Z2010-12-16T08:00:00ZSince the forces of good overwhelmed the anti-Christmas brigades a few years ago, the annual yuletide controversies have been rather muted. This year the always reliable ACLU threatened schools in Tennessee with doom if they promoted Christmas and there were a few other atrocities, but generally the traditions of Christmas are on display, bringing happiness to American children.<br><br>But there remain dissenters. An atheist put up an anti-Christmas billboard outside the Lincoln Tunnel in New Jersey which reads, "You Know It's a Myth. This season celebrate reason!" You know, I would like to celebrate reason too. That's why I support honoring a federal holiday that allows citizens a day off to think about a man who changed history by preaching "love your neighbor as yourself."<br><br>The view some liberal folks have of Christmas is interesting. <em>New York Times</em> columnist Gail Collins is a moderate lefty who says this about the tunnel billboard: "In this battle for the hearts and minds of commuters, the atheists seem to have been overly belligerent, although it is understandable that they get a little testy this time of year."<br><br>It is?<br><br>Why would any rational person get testy about a federal holiday that brings joy to the majority of their countrymen and helps the economy to boot? As a Christian, I don't mind the winter solstice people doing whatever it is they do. If it involves ice hockey, I might even participate. Why resent the happiness of others especially if no harm is being done? That's not reasonable.<br><br>Some liberal people believe that Muslims, Jews and atheists might feel "left out" of the Christmas revelry. Well, I feel left out when folks eat onions because my stomach can't tolerate them. That's just the way it goes. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and most every other religious group have their own special days, do they not?<br><br>Jesus, I believe, would be shocked that his own humble birth has now become an occasion for attack billboards. The Wise Men would also be appalled. King Herod might approve, but he also might have executed the atheists involved just for fun, because that's the kind of guy Herod was.<br><br>In the end, the anti-Christmas people are tiresome and petty. Christmas is about the birth of a child and the happiness of all the children who followed him into this world. The day is set up to create magic for youngsters and steep them in giving and receiving. Fanatical adults should not be intruding or interfering with the positive spirit of Christmas. That means you, ACLU.<br><br>Finally, there is a reason that Congress designates special days for official celebration. As far as Christmas is concerned, it benefits the individual citizen and the country in general to think about others. That is what Christmas is truly about. It's the reason for the season.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-12-16T08:00:00ZKeep Christ in UnemploymentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Keep-Christ-in-Unemployment/30748.html2010-12-09T08:00:00Z2010-12-09T08:00:00Z'Tis the season to be jolly, but you can forget about that in political circles. The current angst about the economy and taxes is so intense that even Santa's reindeer are spooked. Speaking the other day on a cable news program, liberal Congressman Jim McDermott put it this way: "This is Christmas time. We talk about good Samaritans, the poor, the little baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff. And then we say to the unemployed we won't give you a check to feed your family. That's simply wrong."<br><br>As I wrote in this space a couple of weeks ago, the liberal agenda in America is expanding and now includes demands for guaranteed jobs at good wages for all who want to work. Unemployment benefits were extended this year for the seventh time and, if the Obama tax compromise is passed, $150 billion more will be added to the deficit. Adding it all up, the total debt of the United States will soon exceed $14 trillion.<br><br>By invoking the baby Jesus, Congressman McDermott puts an important question in play: What does a moral society owe to the have-nots? How much public money should go to those in financial trouble? <br><br>Many liberals believe there should not be any limits. Just this week, California Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency because his state is bankrupt. The liberal legislature in Sacramento has spent so much money on entitlements for the poor and state union workers that it owes an astounding $158 billion.<br><br>If the wild spending continues on the federal level, the entire country will be adversely affected. Right now, the financial future of most Americans hinges on the dollar retaining its dominant position in the world. But if our currency collapses under unpaid debts, so will personal assets.<br><br>There comes a time when compassion can cause disaster. If you open your home to scores of homeless folks, you will not have a home for long. There is a capacity problem for every noble intent.<br><br>America remains the land of opportunity, but you have to work for it. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 5%. For high school drop-outs, it is 16%. Personal responsibility is usually the driving force behind success. But there are millions of Americans who are not responsible, and the cold truth is that the rest of us cannot afford to support them.<br><br>Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own. But guys like McDermott don't make distinctions like that. For them, the baby Jesus wants us to "provide," no matter what the circumstance. But being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive.<br><br>The Lord helps those who help themselves. Does he not?BillOReilly.com Staff2010-12-09T08:00:00ZJimmy Carter Gone WildBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jimmy-Carter-Gone-Wild/30706.html2010-12-02T08:00:00Z2010-12-02T08:00:00ZThere used to be a code among former presidents that you did not speak ill of other occupants of the White House. In the summer of 1998, President Ford told me that he would not comment on President Clinton's personal problems, saying only that he hoped "respect for the presidency would be restored soon." A couple of weeks ago, George W. Bush also declined to speak about President Obama, except to say that raising taxes on anyone right now would not be a good idea.<br><br>But former President Jimmy Carter is apparently not a code keeper. On his recent book tour, Mr. Carter has taken to blasting the Republican Party and Bush-the-Younger. Carter is also very, very disenchanted with Fox News.<br><br>Speaking to liberal NPR host Diane Rehm, Carter put forth, "Public broadcasting networks on radio and TV basically tell the honest and objective truth. I think republicans who [want funding for public broadcasting cut] basically would like everyone to have one channel and that's Fox News."<br><br>Since there are very few conservative commentators on the public broadcasting payroll while dozens of liberal pundits are collecting paychecks, the fair and balanced claim by the committed liberal Carter is kind of suspect. But his hatred of Fox News (he calls us vicious) is interesting in light of his stature.<br><br>Mr. Carter's main beef seems to be that the media is not totally dominated by left-wing thought as it was during his time in office. If you analyze the campaign between Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976, you will find that the media tilted strong for the man from Plains. Ford was portrayed as a bumbling fool on Saturday Night Live and that was often echoed by the press. The fact that President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for Watergate activities sent the liberal media into a frenzy that persists to this day.<br><br>But now it is President Obama who is getting roughed up, and Mr. Carter doesn't like it one bit. In fact, the former president has even implied that some of the current criticism is race-based. Carter is a big Obama fan and is very protective of the president.<br><br>Nothing wrong with that, unless you become hysterical, which Jimmy Carter has. I believe he identifies with the Obama administration because the same kind of problems that sunk him, the economy and Iran, just to name two, are vexing the White House today. Carter does not believe he received a fair shake in the court of public opinion and sees President Obama as being in the same boat. Thus, he's acting out.<br><br>But Jimmy Carter should remember that he once held the most prestigious position this country has to offer. Running around whining about unfair media coverage and Republican meanness is beneath his station. As much as Carter loathes what George W. Bush stands for, he should take a page from W's posture on public criticism. Button it, Jimmy. It's just making you look small.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-12-02T08:00:00ZThe Borrowed Buck Stops HereBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Borrowed-Buck-Stops-Here/30676.html2010-11-24T08:00:00Z2010-11-24T08:00:00ZBe thankful this holiday weekend that you don't live in Ireland or Greece. Those countries are in very bad economic shape and have to take bailout money from other countries just to survive. There are riots in the streets, fear and loathing on display. The luck of the Irish has run out, and Zorba the Greek is broke. So what happened?<br><br>The primary problem is that the Western European model of providing cradle-to-grave entitlements to the folks is no longer sustainable in a world where recession has replaced expansion. Many countries, including the USA, have so much debt they simply can't pay it. America can still borrow what it needs, but not even Zeus is investing in Greek bonds. <br><br>With all the economic chaos on display, you would think the Democratic Party and liberal America would rethink their attachment to massive government spending. You would think. But you'd be wrong.<br><br>Led by the editorial people at the <em>New York Times</em>, the American left wants to spend even more money while raising taxes on the affluent and a variety of businesses to raise the cash. In a column called "Hiding From Reality," uber-liberal <em>Times</em> columnist Bob Herbert laments the destruction of the American dream. Herbert cities statistics that say foreign-born workers in America have gained jobs in the past year, while 1.2 million jobs held by native-born workers have been lost.<br><br>Then Bob Herbert writes something truly incredible: "What this shows is not that we should discriminate against foreign-born workers, but that the U.S. needs to develop a full-employment economy that provides jobs for all who want to work at pay that enables workers and their families to enjoy a decent standard of living."<br><br>Notice Herbert did not say the country should provide jobs to its citizens; he said "all who want to work."<br><br>Now, in a capitalist country, no one is guaranteed a job. The marketplace and competition drive employment. Also, while union contracts can mandate wages, the government does not. It allows private enterprise. But that's not what the far-left wants. They seek a socialist society.<br><br>My question: Are these people blind?<br><br>The United States cannot afford to give everyone a job and pay them a nice salary. No country on earth can do that. And those who try, like Cuba, wind up destitute. Did Bob Herbert miss the dissolution of the Soviet Union?<br><br>There are some Americans who believe that President Obama is a socialist. I can't believe the man is that far left, but certainly some of his friends and supporters are. I am keeping an open mind on the subject, however. If Mr. Obama continues his spending madness in the face of what is happening in Europe, than all Americans will be in trouble. It is one thing for a loopy newspaper columnist to demand socialist reform. It is quite another if a sitting president buys into it. <br><br>The next two years will be very interesting.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-11-24T08:00:00ZObama vs. BushBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obama-vs.-Bush/30643.html2010-11-18T08:00:00Z2010-11-18T08:00:00ZAmerica is a fascinating country, and if you don't believe me, consider this: In the space of just ten years, we have elected two men to the presidency who could not be more opposite. That fact was clarified for me last week when I spent some time with George W. Bush.<br><br>After disappearing for almost two years, Mr. Bush is back in the public arena with a book about his decision-making during the eight years he spent in the Oval Office. But the former president is not interested in commenting on Barack Obama, nor does he want to re-involve himself in the political process. He simply wants to sell some books and go back to the golf course. In a televised interview, he told me that he would most likely not campaign for Republicans in 2012 and will only offer private advice if it is sought.<br><br>Also, the former president feels no obligation to comment on his policy decisions (or lack thereof) that continue to this day—things like Iraq, Afghanistan and the brutal economy. Simply put, George W. Bush did his time and believes he has no further obligation to the public.<br><br>This was my fourth televised conversation with President Bush, and it is clear to me that he is a reactive guy, not a proactive person. His major decisions were all made after something happened. They were not foisted upon the country. The one exception is Social Security reform. He tried to change the system and got hammered. Aside from that, Mr. Bush basically watched events dictate which way his presidency turned.<br><br>Contrast that to Barack Obama's administration, and you have two different galaxies. President Obama is proactive to the max, seeing his mandate as reshaping the nation into a more just society. Mr. Obama has a huge agenda and is not shy about blaming the country's problems on his predecessor. It is hard to imagine President Obama going quietly into the night once his tenure is over. He sees himself as a reformer, a person who must fight for change he can believe in. I don't think that will stop when he returns to private life.<br><br>President Bush did not seek much social change because he believes it is not needed. He's a traditionalist, a man who thinks the country is noble and doesn't require an extensive overhaul. President Obama is the exact opposite, believing that United States policy is flawed both at home and abroad and a new set of rules must be instituted. Both men are sincere, but they could not be more opposed in their points-of-view.<br><br>But we the people elected both of them. What does that say about us? Well, it says we are open to suggestions and are willing to give different philosophies a chance. We remain, however, a performance-driven society. The folks want results from our elected leaders.<br><br>Both presidents have felt the sting of those expectations. That may be the only thing they have in common.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-11-18T08:00:00ZFox-o-phobiaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fox-o-phobia/30566.html2010-11-11T08:00:00Z2010-11-11T08:00:00ZEven though some of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson didn't much like the press, they gave the Fourth Estate special Constitutional privileges in order for information to pass to the folks. The founders well understood that a republic must have honest discourse so that voters are kept well informed. Without facts at their disposal, voters are simply blind.<br><br>As with most other institutions, the press has had problems over the years with corruption, and now those difficulties are becoming a direct threat to a very important check on political power in America. Let me give you a stark illustration of media dishonesty.<br><br>After last week's election results rolled in, some on the left became distraught and went after Fox News big time. Of course, we are used to the growing problem of Fox-o-phobia: An irrational fear of the Fox News Channel. On election night, FNC won the national ratings race, even defeating the networks' news operations, which is incredible because cable channels are much harder to access than single-digit network channels. <br><br>Immediately after the votes were counted, the incoming fire began. <em>Washington Post</em> columnist Dana Milbank wrote that Fox News held "a victory party" for Republicans on the air. Milbank then stated, "To be fair and balanced, Fox brought in a nominal Democrat, pollster Doug Schoen."<br><br>A nominal Democrat?<br><br>Well, that is flat-out false. FNC had seven Democrats on the air that night, and I believe Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Trippi might be surprised to see themselves described as "nominal."<br><br>So why did Milbank mislead his readers, and how does he get away with it?<br><br>We put the second question to Fred Hiatt, Milbank's editor at the <em>Post</em>. After a few hours of deliberation, he told us he didn't think Milbank implied only one Democrat was booked on FNC's election coverage. Either Fred is having trouble with the English language, or he really doesn't care. I'm betting the latter. Neither Fred nor Milbank would come on my program to explain themselves.<br><br>As to why the columnist wants to mislead readers, it's simple. He despises Fox News and wants to spread the loathing. But that's lazy. There are plenty of things to criticize about any national news organization, especially one broadcasting 24 hours a day. Milbank simply wanted to vent and he didn't care about being accurate. He cared about being hostile and bitter.<br><br>There is nothing anyone can do about dishonest journalism if standards are nonexistent inside media operations. The government has no power over us, thanks to Tom Jeff and Jimmy Madison. We in the press are supposed to be noble enough to police ourselves.<br><br>Even in a nominal way.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-11-11T08:00:00ZCoasting to the LeftBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Coasting-to-the-Left/30528.html2010-11-04T07:00:00Z2010-11-04T07:00:00ZSo here's my question: If this week's election returns demonstrate that the vast majority of the country is moving to the right, why do the West Coast and the Northeast continue to embrace liberalism, especially when it has led to economic disaster?<br><br>Both California and New York are on the verge of bankruptcy and, according to <em>Forbes</em> magazine, are hostile to business due to high taxation and strict regulation of commerce. California currently owes $158 billion and New York is holding $60 billion in debt. But Senator Barbara Boxer in the Golden State and New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, all big spenders, won their respective races easily.<br><br>Mrs. Boxer is a classic tax-and-spend liberal who never met an entitlement program she didn't want to vacation with. So why did she coast on the coast? The answer has to be that the "where's mine" culture has taken deep root out west; people want stuff from government, and deficits be damned. <br><br>In the Atlantic states north of the Mason-Dixon line, it is union power and Democrat machine politics that hold sway. In Philadelphia, for example, it is all liberal all the time. Even Ben Franklin couldn't move that bunch. New York City and Boston politics are similar—Democrats dominate the union vote and most ballots in the inner city.<br><br>So while the rest of the country has thrown the big-spending rascals out, the liberal power structure holds on in select areas, no matter how dismal the economy is. In his press conference after the Democrats got hammered, President Obama showed some humility, but he also knows that come 2012, he'll begin with 86 electoral votes courtesy of California and New York, no matter what he does.<br><br>Thus, the United States is not really united anymore. We are now a nation of coalitions. The Tea Party movement is largely supported outside the big cities, while the progressive base is mostly urban. If you listen closely to what the two groups are saying, there is no common ground at all. The president says he wants to work with his opponents and find policies that all can embrace. Does that seem likely to you?<br><br>Politics should be a performance game, and for many independent-thinking Americans it still is. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, 70% of the folks were behind him. But less than two years later, about 45% approve of the job he's doing. That's because the economy is still a mess despite a massive amount of government spending. Mr. Obama says his economic vision saved America from another depression, but that's impossible to prove. It's like saying John McCain would have been a better president.<br><br>If Barbara Boxer can win reelection based upon her economic vision, than Joy Behar should be appointed Secretary of State. All Americans should vote for problem-solvers and people who have proved their ability to improve the country for all of us. I know... I'm dreaming.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-11-04T07:00:00ZWhy is NPR Getting Our Money?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-is-NPR-Getting-Our-Money/30459.html2010-10-28T07:00:00Z2010-10-28T07:00:00ZOne of the big reasons the Democrats may get hammered next Tuesday is that under that party's Congressional leadership, the nation has run up an astounding $5 trillion in new debt over the past three years. And what do we have to show for all that deficit spending? Nancy Pelosi flying home to San Francisco in a private jet?<br><br>As part of the federal gravy train, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is set to receive $420 million this year alone. No wonder Elmo is smiling. This is free money for a group of people who should be competing in the private marketplace.<br><br>And what are the taxpayers getting for their money? Well, this much is beyond dispute: The news-based programming on PBS and NPR is heavily tilted to the left. In fact, as far as news analysts are concerned, there are 18 liberal-leaning individuals on the air and one moderate, David Brooks. There are no conservative voices heard in the national public broadcasting precincts.<br><br>The incredible firing last week of the 19th liberal analyst, Juan Williams, has unmasked the NPR operation, which is deeply invested in liberal causes. A few days before Juan was sacked, far-left billionaire George Soros donated $1.8 million to NPR so they could hire some reporters. NPR snatched up the Soros money faster than a raccoon could down a cupcake. So I am asking myself: Did Soros get the Bill Haley and the Comets oldies package, or the Disco Explosion CD set for his largesse?<br><br>The fact that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting denies it is an ideological operation is pretty stunning. There are plenty of conservatives who would like to bloviate on a weekly TV program like Bill Moyers did for twenty years. And old Bill was canny. Not only did he draw a salary from PBS, but his production company had the right to market videotapes of his programs. Wow. Nice perk from the taxpayers, right, Bill? But PBS simply can't find any right-wingers worthy of the Moyers treatment. I know they are looking very hard.<br><br>This dishonest shell game has got to stop. We live in a time where cable TV rules and satellite radio is all over the place. If PBS and NPR have good product, there are plenty of places for it in the private sector. Let these people compete for their dollars. I will miss seeing the Drifters performing on fundraisers every two months, but I'll bite the bullet. No more public funding, please.<br><br>A number of Republicans on Capitol Hill say they will introduce legislation to defund public broadcasting. That will probably pass. But President Obama will, I believe, veto the attempt. After all, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a liberal cathedral, and the president will not want to disturb the service.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-10-28T07:00:00ZView to a KillBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/View-to-a-Kill/30418.html2010-10-21T07:00:00Z2010-10-21T07:00:00ZNow that I've had a week to think about the big controversy on The View, I've come to the conclusion that my comment "Muslims killed us on 9/11" was really not what caused Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set. No doubt that pithy piece of analysis ticked them off, but there is more to this deal than meets the eye.<br><br>Keeping in mind that I could be wrong about my speculation, let's walk through this. I've been on The View a number of times and usually things are lively but under control. Sometimes we even have some laughs. But when I entered the studio last week, I picked up a different vibe, especially from Ms. Goldberg. I even mentioned it when I walked out, telling Whoopi she didn't look happy to see me. She replied that she had gas. Sometimes, I have that effect on people.<br><br>The conversation was centered on my book <em>Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama</em>. From the jump, Ms. Behar seemed offended that I mentioned the president's falling poll numbers; in fact, a chill descended that would have made Frosty the Snowman nervous.<br><br>The ladies quickly disposed of the economy as a "Bush problem," but became agitated when I put forth that Mr. Obama had created a gulf between him and some regular Americans. I backed up my analysis by saying the president's refusal to comment on the "wisdom" of building a mosque near Ground Zero was a mistake. Ms. Goldberg asked why. I replied that the mosque location was inappropriate, because "Muslims killed us on 9/11."<br><br>That caused Ms. Goldberg and Ms. Behar to head for the locker room, and it wasn't even halftime.<br><br>Believe me when I tell you that I had no idea the conversation was going to end up like that. I simply went on that program to reach an audience that might not watch me on the Fox News Channel. Plus, The View gave away my book to all the people in the audience. Plus, I got a banana and juice in the green room.<br><br>When the ladies walked out in a huff, I was surprised but kind of pleased, I have to be honest. I knew that everybody would see the incident on the Internet and that I could milk a number of segments for my TV program. Seemed like a good deal to me at the time and, looking back, I think the display had as much to do with President Obama's declining fortunes as it did with Muslims.<br><br>But as it turns out, an important point has emerged from all of this. Political correctness was breached, and millions of folks heard the truth. Muslims did kill us on 9/11, and there is a Muslim problem in the world. <br><br>If you want to walk away from that truth, I can't stop you. But a better strategy would be for all of us to acknowledge the danger coming out of the Muslim world and work together to mitigate it.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-10-21T07:00:00ZSo, Barack, What Happened?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/So-Barack-What-Happened/30389.html2010-10-14T07:00:00Z2010-10-14T07:00:00ZTwo years ago, Barack Obama was the political equivalent of Elvis Presley, rolling into towns across America, performing before adoring crowds. Like the King, then-Senator Obama relished the adoration and gave the crowd a great show. I saw it myself in New Hampshire. <br><br>But now everything has changed. President Obama is not welcome in many parts of the country. Even some members of his own party don't want to be seen with him. It's so bad that Joe Manchin, the Democratic Governor of West Virginia who is now running for the Senate, actually put out a TV commercial where he takes a rifle and shoots a hole into paper explaining "cap-and-trade" legislation. <br><br>Mr. Obama, a deeply sensitive individual, must be asking himself what the deuce is going on. How could things change so quickly in 24 months? Of course, the bad economy is the major reason for his fall, but that doesn't fully explain the extent of the president's problems. <br><br>The <em>New York Times</em>, a flea market of liberal activism, is chalking Mr. Obama's decline up to the stupidity of the American people. A recent <em>Times</em> editorial put forth, "Insurgent Republicans don't need details when they can play on the furious emotions of voters who have been misled into believing that positive changes like the health care law are catastrophic failures." <br><br>Yeah, that's it, the majority of Americans are being "misled" by some mysterious force that comes in the night, planting anti-health care thoughts in their brains. <br><br>In case the <em>New York Times</em> hasn't noticed, the American media remains solidly liberal and continues to give President Obama the benefit of many, many doubts. If you don't believe me, just compare the coverage of Hurricane Katrina to the BP oil spill. Both were handled poorly by the feds. But the media hysteria over Katrina dwarfed any coverage of the greatest environmental disaster America has ever experienced. President Bush was vilified beyond belief for Katrina. President Obama was mildly criticized over BP. <br><br>The <em>Times</em> did get one thing right, though; many voters are furious. That's because their health care premiums have gone through the roof, and they feel insecure in the work place. My own health insurance premium went up $2,100 this year. Why? Because the insurance company is gouging customers to stockpile cash in order to pay the increased costs of Obama-care. Did the Democrats mention that would happen? I do not believe they did. <br><br>Thus, the perception right now is that the unintended consequences of Mr. Obama's big spending, big government agenda are not good. That is not a misleading indicator; it is the truth. That's how most Americans are genuinely feeling. <br><br>It should be noted that Elvis had a fallow period as well, after the Beatles stormed America and changed the pop culture. But the E-man made a big comeback based upon his talent and charisma. <br><br>No doubt President Obama believes that comeback formula will work for him as well. I'm not counting him out in the long run, but for now he is living in the Heartbreak Hotel.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-10-14T07:00:00ZIs Hate Speech Protected?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-Hate-Speech-Protected/30347.html2010-10-07T07:00:00Z2010-10-07T07:00:00ZSo put yourself in this position: You lose a son in Iraq. He is killed fighting for his country. You arrange a funeral for him, an event that is emotionally devastating for your family and friends. Outside that funeral, a group of people hold signs saying that God killed your son because he fought for a country that "tolerates" homosexuals. Some of the protestors curse at people attending the service.<br><br>That's exactly what happened to Albert Snyder and his family in Maryland. In response, Mr. Snyder sued the leader of the hate group, Fred Phelps, and a jury awarded him millions. But the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia overturned the verdict on appeal and even imposed court costs on the Snyder family. The judges rationalized their misguided ruling by writing, "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."<br><br>Reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps protest? Are you kidding me? Who exactly thinks God wanted Matthew Snyder dead because America does not persecute gay people? Osama bin Laden?<br><br>The federal court's ruling is a legal ruse, a bunch of pinheaded mumbo-jumbo that seeks to justify injurious behavior under the guise of free speech. Forty-eight attorneys general have filed an amicus brief in support of the Snyder family. These prosecutors well understand that words can be used as weapons designed solely to harm American citizens. There is no "reasonable" debate in what the vicious protestors did. They intentionally wanted to inflict emotional distress on the grieving family of a dead soldier. That is against civil law.<br><br>One footnote: When Albert Snyder told the court he could not pay the court costs, Phelps told the press he should use his son's death benefits to satisfy the judgment. I hope those judges are sleeping well.<br><br>If Phelps and his crew had put forth that God wanted a soldier to die because his family was part of a minority group, the federal court ruling might have been different. Hate crime legislation was attached to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the legal system takes hateful action against minorities very seriously, as it should.<br><br>The Supreme Court is now hearing the Snyder-Phelps case and the outcome is important for all Americans. With the rise of the internet, cyber-bullying and threatening behavior has become a plague upon the land. Kids are committing suicide because they are humiliated on the net and anyone can be targeted by sick individuals. Inflicting emotional distress on another human being is just a mouse click away.<br><br>I well understand the slippery slope free speech argument being put forth by those who believe the federal judges did the right thing constitutionally. I make my living under the First Amendment, and I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't say. But evil is evil, and attacks are attacks. The Snyder family has a constitutional right to privacy and the pursuit of happiness. The despicable Phelps mob infringed on those rights.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-10-07T07:00:00ZProgressive ValuesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Progressive-Values/30300.html2010-09-30T07:00:00Z2010-09-30T07:00:00ZOne of the admirable things about President Obama is that he seems to be a man of principle. He does not seem to waver under public pressure; he sticks to his guns, as the old cliché goes. But those proverbial guns may now be directly pointed at him.<br><br>A few months ago, in the face of declining poll numbers for the liberal president, the debate was whether he would move toward the center like Bill Clinton did in order to mollify public opinion. Well, that question is now being answered: Mr. Obama is moving even further left.<br><br>Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, White House spokesman Bill Burton said that Mr. Obama believes those media people who support "progressive values" provide an "invaluable service." Okay. But what exactly are the "progressive values" the president believes are so important? Depends on who you talk with, but there is some consensus. <br><br>Above all, progressives believe that the federal government should have a mandate to impose "social justice." That means the country's resources should be shared to elevate conditions for the have-nots. Thus, high taxation to fund government-run entitlement programs are a must. And not only that—progressives believe that things like welfare should be granted with no strings attached. The poor must be provided with decent housing, food, health care, and even spending money upon demand.<br><br>Progressives also embrace unfettered immigration and abortion—few, if any, restrictions should be put on those controversial situations. Also, working Americans should be guaranteed a "fair" wage and generous benefits by the government.<br><br>As far as foreign policy is concerned, progressive values put peace above all. The far left generally believes that America is an aggressive bully that has exploited people all over the world for its own benefit.<br><br>It is hard to ascertain just how deeply Barack Obama embraces the progressive vision, but he certainly has not refuted much of it. He is, however, running into big problems with the massive spending his administration has imposed on the nation. In fiscal year 2009, the Obama administration spent a record-breaking $3.52 trillion, racking up a breathtaking $1.4 trillion deficit. That kind of balance sheet cannot be sustained. <br><br>The truth is that most Americans couldn't care less about progressive values, as they are locked in on their financial futures. If the United States can't meet its fiscal obligations, every single one of us will suffer grievously. The folks are beginning to understand the danger of massive debt.<br><br>So, Mr. Obama has a dilemma. While he is moving to the left on his social justice agenda, the voters are clearly not following. All the polls show that. We are a generous nation; most of us want people to have good lives. But there comes a time when theory bangs up against reality. And, in order to secure a second term, President Obama will have to get real.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-09-30T07:00:00ZVelma Hart, Citizen JournalistBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Velma-Hart-Citizen-Journalist/30260.html2010-09-23T07:00:00Z2010-09-23T07:00:00ZShaming the White House press corps, a regular American named Velma Hart recently asked President Obama the toughest question he has heard since being elected to the Oval Office. After describing herself as a middle-class American with two kids attending private school and a person who supported the president's vision and promises of a better future for Americans, Mrs. Hart dropped a bomb: "My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs-and-beans era of our lives. But, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door that that might be where we are headed again... is this my new reality?"<br><br>Devastating.<br><br>The president was taken aback and, after an awkward smile, fell back on his accomplishments. He ticked off a few things he has done for the middle class and promised better times ahead.<br><br>For her part, Mrs. Hart later told CNN that she still believes in the president, but is frustrated with the political climate in America. She is beginning to doubt that the hope and change Mr. Obama promised are attainable.<br><br>And she's not alone. The truth is that millions of Americans are doubting whether the supremely confident Obama can solve the vexing problems that are facing the nation and, indeed, there is a growing belief that he is making things worse by imposing a big government strategy in a time of economic crisis. There is no way for the president to rebut that belief because the economy is still a mess despite massive federal spending. All Barack Obama can tell Velma Hart and other Americans is that he believes things will get better and that the country is on the right path. But that sounds like typical political spin, and the president has to know it.<br><br>If Mr. Obama were in sync with the folks, he might be able to buy himself a bit more time, but he's not. Things like not addressing the "wisdom" of the Ground Zero mosque and his Justice Department suing the state of Arizona over their tough anti-illegal alien law have made the president suspect in many middle- and working-class precincts. Not only is Mr. Obama getting crushed by the economic numbers, but his cool leadership style is not playing well in a white-hot 24/7 media cycle that zeros in on every piece of bad news.<br><br>It took guts and conviction for Velma Hart to make her case face-to-face with a president she admires. But Mrs. Hart was honest, to the point, and genuine. She spoke for millions of Americans who are frustrated and confused with the state of the union. And the president, for all his rhetorical skills, had no real answer.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-09-23T07:00:00ZAre You Ready For Some Football?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Are-You-Ready-For-Some-Football/30230.html2010-09-16T07:00:00Z2010-09-16T07:00:00ZTake it from me, because I see the television Nielsen ratings every day—NFL football is riding a huge wave of popularity in America. In the first week of play, the ratings are up by double digits, and the games have even taken some audience away from my news program, which is a complete and utter outrage.<br><br>So why are more people watching football?<br><br>The first reason is economic: It's free. Because of the recession, fewer people are going out for entertainment. Instead, they grab popcorn and a beverage and watch huge men run into each other. Simple and inexpensive.<br><br>The second reason expands on the simplicity factor. We are living in a time of incredible spin and gross dishonesty in the public arena. Propagandists are everywhere spitting out so much bilge it is sometimes hard to even breathe. Football is an honest game. The toughest, smartest team usually wins. There is something pure in the presentation.<br><br>As this weeks primary votes prove, Americans are fed up with B.S. Most of us understand that we are being used by powerful forces beyond our control. The country slid into recession because greedy fat cats decided to create risky mortgage schemes and guys like Congressman Barney Frank, who were supposed to be watching out for bogus investments, allowed it to happen. Let me ask you something: Did you ever hear of subprime mortgages before President Bush told us they had ruined the economy? I'm in the news business, and I had no idea this giant con was in play. And if I had to bet, I'd say Bush and Frank didn't understand the situation, either.<br><br>Thus, many Americans have developed a bunker mentality and are being very cautious with their money and time. The folks are walking away from flim-flam artists and are throwing the bums out with their votes. They want a simple, understandable message. And football is one of the things Americans understand.<br><br>The downside, of course, is the brutality. NFL injuries are reaching catastrophic levels. Three-hundred-pound guys running up and down 100-yard fields will yield some brutal collisions. The danger of the game, of course, is part of its attraction, and there's no doubt that a well played contest is a tremendous escape from the real, sorry world. The worse things get, the more escape mechanisms are needed. Welcome to the NFL.<br><br>But the league should be careful. There is a move to expand the schedule to eighteen games from sixteen. That would lead to even more injuries and carnage. Also, many teams have priced tickets so high that working class folks can't afford to go to the stadium. Nobody likes to be excluded from something because of money.<br><br>So, football is flying right now, one of the few beneficiaries of the recession. But what goes up, can also come down. In a hurry.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-09-16T07:00:00ZDogging the PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dogging-the-President/30191.html2010-09-09T07:00:00Z2010-09-09T07:00:00ZOn Labor Day, President Obama injected some mirth into one of his speeches while attempting to explain away the annoying economy. Speaking before a crowd in Milwaukee, the president said, "Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time [are] not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog."<br><br>The president was smiling when he said that and, although some unfair press people reported it as a serious comment, it was obviously a jest.<br><br>But there is an important truth here. All presidents get hammered, and pretty much anyone who achieves power in America will be a victim of character assassination. That goes with the territory. The higher you rise in this country, the more darts you'll pull out of your skin. And if you are thin-skinned, as President Obama may be, those darts can cut deep.<br><br>It is clear to me that the president is not used to criticism and bridles when some of it rolls in. Unlike President Bush, who didn't really care very much what was said about him, Mr. Obama does pay attention to the bricks. His distaste for Fox News, my employer, is obvious. The president takes a lot of the scrutiny very personally. So did Bill Clinton.<br><br>Truthfully, I can feel Barack Obama's pain, because it took me years to develop a psychological mechanism that would allow me to ignore the dishonest personal attacks that come my way. As a TV commentator, I am a big target, and I used to react angrily to the character assassins. Now I mostly ignore them.<br><br>Americans, in general, expect the powerful, rich, and famous to suck it up and take the slings and arrows without whining. Life is tough, and when you have millions of dollars and everybody knows your name, you cannot expect tea and sympathy in the marketplace. I have learned, however, that most Americans are fair-minded and make up their own minds about people. They know who the guttersnipes are and who the good people are.<br><br>There are those who do treat the president poorly. But, on balance, he has gotten a much softer ride from the media than any other president in my lifetime, with the exception of John Kennedy. And even though Mr. Obama is having trouble solving some vexing problems, much of the media is still rooting for him, sometimes openly. If he's a dog, then he's Lassie.<br><br>Underneath it all, I believe Barack Obama feels that his critics are unfair and unbalanced. He is a man of achievement who, before becoming president, had rarely experienced the wrath of negative public opinion. Now that wrath is a daily occurrence, and the president is having trouble processing it.<br><br>Maybe he should call a guy in Texas for advice.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-09-09T07:00:00ZDeath in MexicoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Death-in-Mexico/30166.html2010-09-02T07:00:00Z2010-09-02T07:00:00ZOne of the most under-reported ongoing stories around is the war in Mexico between the government and the drug cartels. Here are the grisly stats: More than 28,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence since 1996. In Iraq, 4,421 Americans have been killed. In Afghanistan, 1,141.<br><br>The truth is that Mexican drug merchants are even more deadly than al-Qaeda. They have more firepower, more money, and are just as willing to kill civilians as the homicidal jihadists. Yet we Americans know little about the chaotic situation south of the border.<br><br>The reason is that the drug cartels don't seem to threaten us directly. But, of course, they do. Illegal narcotics from Mexico wind up in almost every community in the United States. The FBI estimates that about 70% of crimes from coast-to-coast are drug-fueled.<br><br>The latest atrocity in the Mexican drug war was the discovery of 72 bodies on a ranch 100 miles south of Texas. The dead, 58 men and 14 women, were migrants from South and Central America. The lone survivor of the massacre says that cartel gunmen shot the unarmed folks because they resisted an extortion attempt.<br><br>The reliably anti-American <em>New York Times</em> partially blamed the mass killings on the USA: "Mexico's drug cartels are nourished from outside, by American cash, heavy weapons and addiction; the northward pull of immigrants is fueled by our demand for low-wage labor."<br><br>I had to read that editorial three times to believe it. Here we have the <em>Times</em>, which opposes putting the National Guard on the border, the tough anti-alien law in Arizona, and most other measures that might secure the border, complaining about the illegal gun and drug traffic. Can you believe this? Hey, you pinheads, if the United States would send ten thousand National Guardspeople to help the Border Patrol, drugs and guns would not be able to cross the border so easily. Comprende?<br><br>This entire grisly charade is infuriating. This country has the power to stop the smuggling of human beings and drugs across the southern border. We could do that. But we don't do it for political reasons. Meantime, the drug cartels kill at will and create terror on a scale not seen anywhere else on earth at this time.<br><br>Mexico itself is at fault because it won't ask for American help. Apparently, they think 28,000 dead is acceptable. Well, it's not. U.S. law enforcement and troops should be assisting Mexican authorities in the destruction of the cartels. The fact that these drug animals have been able to operate their murderous industry so openly for so long is beyond shameful.<br><br>When Manuel Noriega turned his country, Panama, into a narco-state in 1989, President Bush the Elder sent the Marines in to remove him. President Obama might study that campaign. Something needs to be done in Mexico.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-09-02T07:00:00ZScaring White PeopleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Scaring-White-People/30129.html2010-08-26T07:00:00Z2010-08-26T07:00:00ZWith polls showing about 70% of Americans believe building an Islamic cultural center containing a mosque just two blocks away from Ground Zero is inappropriate, the far left is once again on the run. Failing with the bogus "freedom of religion" argument, the crew that is offended by the manger scene at Christmas is now saying the mosque controversy is another attempt to "scare white people." <em>Washington Post</em> columnist Eugene Robinson has put forth that loopy argument on his second home, MSNBC.<br><br>You may remember that the radical left designated the Shirley Sherrod story, the ACORN scandal, the New Black Panther/voting booth/Justice Department situation, and the resignation of White House "green jobs" czar Van Jones as previous attempts to scare white Americans. I don't know about you, but I'm white, and those stories did not frighten me. I hope I'm not out of the "white loop."<br><br>But here's a key question. Why are Howard Dean and Senator Harry Reid trying to scare white people? Those committed liberals both believe the mosque should be built somewhere else. Why are these guys trying to frighten Caucasians, and what can we do to stop them? It is simply unfair to have the Senate majority leader and the former Governor of Vermont running around trying to instill fear into white guys and gals. This must stop.<br><br>What is somewhat scary is that the far-left media continues to peddle this stuff, even in the face of economic disaster. CNN and MSNBC are in deep ratings trouble. <em>Newsweek</em> magazine recently sold for one dollar, and <em>Time</em> is having a tough go of it as well. Air America is bankrupt. The <em>New York Times</em> and the <em>Washington Post</em> are not nearly as successful or influential as they used to be. Not all of those concerns are far-left, but they do have an ideological kinship with the loons; it's just a matter of degree.<br><br>Meantime, the anti-liberal Fox News Channel and the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, whose editorial page is conservative, are both doing very well.<br><br>It is because of situations like the Ground Zero mosque that the far left has lost credibility as well as viability. Americans are not stupid, no matter what color they may be. They understand that New York City has more than one hundred mosques and one more located near the site where thousands of innocent people where murdered by fanatical Muslims is certainly not necessary., especially because the building would offend thousands of people who lost loved ones on 9/11. Why would anyone want to offend them? Paging President Obama.<br><br>In the end, I believe the Muslim center will not be built. Some kind of compromise will most likely be reached. If not, I can't imagine any New York City construction firm lifting a hammer to build this project. So I predict it will not happen.<br><br>I know that may be scary to far-left people, and I apologize if my prognostication upsets you in any way. I never want to frighten anybody. I'll leave that to Congress.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-08-26T07:00:00ZThe Best Place to LiveBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Best-Place-to-Live/30096.html2010-08-19T07:00:00Z2010-08-19T07:00:00ZAnd the winner is: Finland! According to <em>Newsweek</em> magazine, that is the best country on the face of the earth. Who knew? The United States is the 11th best place to live, just behind Denmark, which, of course, is close to the promised land of Finland.<br><br>A few years ago, I visited Helsinki, Finland's small capital city. There were saunas everywhere, and that's a good thing when you are that close to the Arctic Circle. In fact, unless you're a polar bear, going outside in the winter can be breathtaking. Literally.<br><br>Nevertheless, the five million-plus Finns are relatively fine. 80% of students make it to college, and life expectancy is close to 80 years old. There are few poor people floating around because you'd be a block of ice in that circumstance.<br><br>As <em>Newsweek</em> is a relatively liberal publication, I was struck by the magazine's choice because there is little "diversity" in Finland, and the left loves that diversity deal. 94% of citizens are of Finnish extraction; the rest are Swedes or Russians. That means blacks, Asians, and other ethnic groups are in short supply. In fact, about the only time Finns get to see them is on videotape. <br><br>How about religion? Well, 83% of Finns are Lutheran, and 15% do not believe in God. That means if you are Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, you might be very lonely. There could never be a mosque controversy in Finland because there would be no one to go to the mosque.<br><br>My time in Helsinki was pleasant but boring. I mean, how much herring can one eat? There aren't too many attractions, but there are plenty of trees and 60,000 lakes. But if you swim in the lakes, you will get hypothermia, which puts a crimp in water sports, as we all know.<br><br>Finns are generally liberal thinkers, with the exception of global warming. Why fight that, many ask? If the warming trend increases, perhaps we can get out of the house by May. It is hard to argue with that logic.<br><br>As an American, I always think my country is best and, truthfully, I never thought Finland was in the same league until <em>Newsweek</em> magazine enlightened me. I kind of like options in my life, and the USA offers plenty of those. If I want to freeze, I can sidle on up to Alaska. If I want it hot, Florida is a short plane ride away. We also have plenty of lakes here and you can actually swim in most of them. We have two oceans, the Rocky Mountains, the desert southwest and San Francisco, which is really another planet.<br><br>But I am happy for the Finns because they don't get much attention. And Finland is a fine place, although <em>Newsweek</em> is definitely overstating things. Unless I missed it, I don't believe millions of people are sneaking across the Swedish border trying to take up residence in the paradise of Finland.<br><br>Or am I wrong?BillOReilly.com Staff2010-08-19T07:00:00ZO and RoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/O-and-Ro/30046.html2010-08-12T07:00:00Z2010-08-12T07:00:00ZOprah Winfrey is a savvy businesswoman whose perspicacity in presenting herself to the public has earned her hundreds of millions of dollars. Recently, Ms. Winfrey announced she is getting out of broadcast television and into cable, with the startup of her own channel fittingly entitled the Oprah Winfrey Network, or OWN. Yes, she owns much of it.<br><br>One of Oprah's first moves was to hire Rosie O'Donnell to do a daily afternoon talk show. As you may know, Ms. O'Donnell flamed out on "The View" after saying things like 9/11 was an inside job and that radical Christianity is "just as dangerous" as radical Islam. Even Joy Behar blanched at that one.<br><br>For years, Rosie has tried to get back into the TV game. In 2008, NBC hired her to do an Ed Sullivan-type variety program which lasted exactly one episode. Nobody watched. Not even radical Muslims. For many media companies, Rosie is damaged goods, a person who has alienated millions of Americans.<br><br>But Oprah is bringing her back.<br><br>Now, anyone achieving the success that Oprah has must be taken seriously, but I am betting against Rosie. It's not because of her political viewpoint; I'd have her on my program anytime. But I simply do not believe she can entertain the folks at the level required to have them tune in every day. Rosie is angry. She is a true believer in left-wing causes, and that's okay if you have the frame of reference to back it up. But it's death for a comedian who depends on making folks laugh and feel good.<br><br>According to the polls, America remains a center-right country, with just 20% of the citizenry defining themselves as liberal. That's not enough to drive a successful mass market TV or radio program. Despite having big left-wing names like Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, the Air America radio network went into bankruptcy. After comedian David Letterman came out as a left-wing guy, his late night ratings took a dive. Even after all the trouble Jay Leno has had, he still beats Letterman by more than 20% in total audience.<br><br>It is true that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do well catering to left-wing viewers on Comedy Central, but their audience totals are nowhere near that of the Fox News Channel, which is consistently ranked in the top five of all primetime cable programs. FNC is not a liberal concern.<br><br>So, Oprah is taking a gamble with Rosie, not only in the ratings department, but also in the public relations area. If Ms. O'Donnell displays her radical side, Oprah will be held somewhat responsible. But maybe she's at the point where she doesn't really care.<br><br>President Obama received a huge lift when Oprah embraced him on her program. She also campaigned for him and made no secret of her admiration for Mr. Obama and his philosophy. In the past, Ms. Winfrey has been largely above the political fray, but now, perhaps, her move to cable is signaling a new era of Oprah activism. If so, expect much hell to break loose.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-08-12T07:00:00ZPanic on the LeftBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Panic-on-the-Left/30007.html2010-08-05T07:00:00Z2010-08-05T07:00:00ZDavid Letterman is a liberal kind of guy and, like many on the left, old Dave is kind of frustrated these days. A new Gallup Poll has President Obama's job approval rating at just 41% with 53% disapproving. Those are the lowest numbers Gallup has posted since Mr. Obama was inaugurated more than a year and a half ago.<br><br>So Dave is seeking answers to the President's diminishing popularity and that kind of conversation usually involves the Fox News Channel, which is considered by the left to be all anti-Obama, all the time. Since I work at FNC, I dispute that perception but there is no doubt that Fox News is the most skeptical TV news organization when it comes to analyzing the President.<br><br>But consider this. If President Obama was being worked over the way President Bush was by the establishment media, his job approval rating would probably be in 20% range. Remember the brutal media beating that Bush took? Today, the mainstream press is largely neutral or positive on Mr. Obama even as the many Americans are having doubts about him.<br><br>But let's get back to Letterman. Speaking with a far left MSNBC News commentator on his program, Dave listened as she put forth the preposterous theory that Fox News wants to frighten white Americans by reporting negatively about black Americans. "Scaring white people is good politics on the conservative side of the spectrum and always has been. The idea is that you sort of rile up the white base to be afraid of another, to be afraid of immigrants, or scary black people ..."<br><br>Now, in the past paranoid, dishonest rants like that would have been dismissed as fringe speak. But not anymore. Without a shred of evidence, a guest on the David Letterman show, (who by the way gets trounced in the ratings by FNC every night), defines an entire news organization as a racist enterprise. And Dave goes along with the program adding: " these people are continuing to fan this flame and ... that is cancer."<br><br>Please.<br><br>The only people Fox News is scaring are far left loons who see their shining city on the hill on fire. For 18 months, the United States has been governed from the left and things are not going well. I'm sorry if this analysis might frighten some folks but when you spend a half trillion dollars trying to stimulate the economy and create just 600,000 jobs, well, people are going to notice.<br><br>When the war in Afghanistan turns chaotic, Americans are not going to be pleased. When the nation's debt is increased by more than a trillion dollars a year because of record spending, folks are going to get a bit nervous. So, in order to counter those realities, the far left must divert attention from them. Thus, the scary black people deal.<br><br>In reply, here's a top one list for David Letterman and his uber liberal guest: The American people don't need to be "riled" up by phony race baiting. They are already riled up by reality. And the polls prove it.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-08-05T07:00:00ZNo Winning the RaceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Winning-the-Race/29971.html2010-07-29T07:00:00Z2010-07-29T07:00:00ZFormer NAACP leader Julian Bond wants President Obama to lead a "national dialogue" on race, but the president is not going to do that, and he's making a smart political decision. In the wake of the Shirley Sherrod story, the race issue is back in the news, but any public discussion is fraught with danger. Trying to define and heal racial divisions in America will inevitably lead to verbal roadside bombs—anything can explode at anytime.<br><br>The problem is common ground. Ms. Sherrod, for example, was raised in the deep South at a time when white oppression put her family in fear for their lives. In fact, her father was murdered, and Ms. Sherrod has said it changed her entire life. Black Americans raised before federal civil rights legislation was passed have indelible memories of the racial horror that was heaped upon them. No matter what anyone says, those experiences have shaped attitudes that are set in stone. And if you didn't live through what Ms. Sherrod did, it is impossible to know exactly how she feels.<br><br>President Obama says that Americans should understand and celebrate the enormous racial progress that's been made in this country, and that is a sensible, positive request. But for many, Mr. Obama's vision is naïve. Race remains an exposed electrical wire. If you say the wrong thing, even innocently, you risk being branded a bigot by those who use racial division as a political club or as a profit center. There is big money to be made in the grievance industry.<br><br>Barack Obama witnessed this first-hand in Chicago. His former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, recently bought a million dollar property in a mostly white neighborhood. Wright sells CDs of his anti-American speeches in the lobby of the First Trinity Baptist Church. Despite the recession, business has been good. By the way, as Mr. Obama has pointed out, Reverend Wright was raised before the feds began to right racial wrongs. <br><br>Many Americans believe that blacks began to sample freedom once the Civil War was completed. But it was not until President Harry Truman began a program to lend money at 1% interest to black sharecroppers that African-Americans outside the cities truly had a chance to compete in the free marketplace. Older black Americans remember the struggles of Jackie Robinson, Lena Horne and many others. They also remember the assassination of Dr. King at the hands of a white racist. All these turbulent events are still playing out today.<br><br>President Obama knows all this. He well understands that he cannot get caught in the swamp of racial politics and still effectively lead the nation. So, he is promoting expensive entitlements and tax the rich policies in trying to help poor Americans of all colors, believing African-Americans will benefit most of all. But do not expect Mr. Obama to engage in color discussions. He will not.<br><br>The essential divide in America right now is this: Does the country owe a debt to those who were wronged throughout history, or should we get past the past and drop the color and ethnic divisions? Opinion on this question is, of course, divided. And rarely are hearts and minds changed on the matter.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-07-29T07:00:00ZFairness for ShirleyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fairness-for-Shirley/29945.html2010-07-22T07:00:00Z2010-07-22T07:00:00ZThis time last week, few Americans had ever heard of Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod. Now, she is a household name in households that actually follow the news. A few days ago, Ms. Sherrod was fired by the Obama administration for admitting that, more than 20 years ago as an administrator in Georgia, she did not treat a white farmer as fairly as she would have treated a black farmer. Her admission came as part of a speech she made before the NAACP in March. Ms. Sherrod is black.<br><br>The problem was that Ms. Sherrod was relating the story as part of an epiphany she said she had. After mulling things over, she came to the conclusion that what she had done was wrong. Unfortunately, that message was overlooked in the initial reporting, and I was one of the culprits.<br><br>Regretfully, I did not examine the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks closely enough and, after hearing that the white farmer got hosed, I said she should resign. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack made the same mistake; so did the NAACP. Like all Americans, Ms. Sherrod deserves to be treated fairly, and she should be reinstated at the Department of Agriculture. However, the situation deserves a top-to-bottom examination by the feds. <br><br>Shirley Sherrod is a long-time liberal activist who peppered her NAACP speech with racial references such as this: "I figured I'd take [the farmer] to one of them [white lawyer]—that his own kind would take care of him."<br><br>His own kind?<br><br>Now, we all make mistakes, and that just might be a harmless comment. But if a white federal official referred to an African-American by using the term "his own kind," you know what would happen.<br><br>Then Ms. Sherrod went on to tell the NAACP audience this: "I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism that we thought was buried, didn't it surface? Now we endured eight years of the Bushes, and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black president."<br><br>The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from endorsing political parties while on the job. Ms. Sherrod was invited to speak at the NAACP meeting because she was in the administration. So you make the call.<br><br>There are two main points here: First, Shirley Sherrod was not initially treated fairly by me, some other journalists, the NAACP and the Obama administration. She deserved better.<br><br>And, secondly, Ms. Sherrod may not be a great fit for the USDA. She is obviously a very political person with a strong point of view. Public servants are supposed to look out for all the folks; it is tough for polarizing people to do that.<br><br>So this is a fascinating story on many levels. We have not heard the last of it.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-07-22T07:00:00ZThe NAACP vs. the Tea PartyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-NAACP-vs.-the-Tea-Party/29894.html2010-07-15T07:00:00Z2010-07-15T07:00:00ZAccording to the president of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, the Tea Party is chock full of racist people bent on harming African-Americans. Speaking at the organization's annual convention this week, Mr. Jealous let loose on the Tea Party folks: "Here comes the genetic descendent of the White Citizens Council, burst from its coffin, carrying signs and slogans like 'Lynch Barack Hussein Obama' ... "<br><br>An exhaustive search of media reportage about the Tea Party turns up no mention of signs like that. And even if they existed, is it fair to demonize an entire movement because a few nuts are associated with it?<br><br>Does the NAACP want to be evaluated on that basis?<br><br>From the beginning of its ascent, the Tea Party has been targeted by the far left in America. They fear the populist movement because of its small government philosophy and its successful activism. The cheapest, easiest way to attack any political opponent is to level accusations of bigotry. Almost every conservative broadcaster and columnist in America has been subjected to that.<br><br>The NAACP picked a bad time to brand the Tea Party with the racist label. Recently the New Black Panther Party has been in the news because the Justice Department declined to prosecute a case where three of their members apparently intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place. One DOJ lawyer even quit his job, saying he was ordered not to pursue the case because it involved race.<br><br>In response to the story, a number of New Black Panthers have been shown on TV saying incredibly bigoted things. One guy, King Samir Shabazz, even suggested that black Americans kill white babies. This is on tape. Obviously, racial bigotry cuts both ways. <br><br>It is true that there's a big difference between the Tea Party and the New Black Panthers. The Tea Party people have quickly become a potent political force in America, while the black militants are few in number and brain cells. If it were just about the Panthers, the story would be meaningless. But because Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges, the situation takes on some importance.<br><br>One of the weaknesses of the NAACP is that is has rarely acknowledged black racism. The organization is silent on Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Yet it is outraged about the Tea Party. There might be something hypocritical about that.<br><br>It is long past time for all Americans to drop the skin color deal. President Obama was smart and correct when he ran as an American, not as an African-American. The president made one misstep—involving himself in the Cambridge police-Harvard professor controversy, but otherwise has steered clear of racial politics. <br><br>The NAACP, however, is obviously not as astute as Mr. Obama. By saying the Tea Party followers are sympathetic to racism when proof of that is scant, the organization has defined itself as irresponsible. America's motto continues to be "Out of Many, One."<br><br>Don't tread on that.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-07-15T07:00:00ZBlood and TreasureBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Blood-and-Treasure/29854.html2010-07-08T07:00:00Z2010-07-08T07:00:00ZBela Lugosi must be turning over in his grave—that is, if the stake through his heart would allow that. Mr. Lugosi, as you may know, became famous as Dracula in the 1931 movie based upon Bram Stoker's novel of a villainous Transylvanian blood-sucking vampire. For more than a century, Dracula and vampires in general were spooky cinema stalkers, usually dispatched with a sharp object in the chest.<br><br>But now, they are a cultural phenomenon and a billion-dollar business.<br><br>CBS News is reporting that some crazed American teenagers are actually biting each other, even drawing blood at times. Apparently the internet is full of vampire-type activities, primarily posted by nutty fans of the <em>Twilight</em> series of books and movies.<br><br>For those who lack a frame of reference about Romanian folklore, a vampire is a creature who can live forever but must drink blood to survive. Dracula was the big daddy, but now there are all kinds of vampires living in neighborhoods near you. At least that's according to author Stephenie Meyer, whose <em>Twilight</em> books have sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. Ms. Meyer specializes in creating young, attractive vampires who are not all bad like old Bela, the pasty, nasty icon. No, the <em>Twilight</em> undead can be romantic and emotional, and the kids just love 'em.<br><br>At the movies, the three <em>Twilight</em> flicks have grossed close to a billion and a half dollars and have glamorized the fanged creatures almost beyond belief. Want to be cool? Suck a little blood, stay out all night.<br><br>So why is this happening? Boredom, that's why. Many kids today spend nearly every waking moment stimulated by some kind of machine. The younger crew is texting, playing video games, listening to up-tempo music on headphones, or networking on their personal computers. All day, all night, these machines are available. After a while, real life means little. It's too slow. Everything comes quickly on the machines. The kids are wired all the time.<br><br>Enter the world of the supernatural. Vampires don't need school or jobs; they just float around having dramas. And they look great. Even their big long teeth are sparkling white. Their hair is perfect. When Bela Lugosi emerged from his coffin, wolves howled. When these <em>Twilight</em> vampires show up, plastic surgeons take notes.<br><br>When I was ten years old, the hula hoop was the big trend. THE HULA HOOP. Now, most ten year olds know all about these vampire types and their werewolf friends. And some of the kids are actually acting this stuff out in real life, at least according to CBS News. So what is to be done?<br><br>Actually, nothing. If you believe the worldwide book sales and film grosses, there aren't enough stakes in the world to kill this vampire movement. These people may be dead, but boy, are they living large.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-07-08T07:00:00ZShooting Down the ConstitutionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shooting-Down-the-Constitution/29816.html2010-07-01T07:00:00Z2010-07-01T07:00:00ZEven a simple guy like me can figure out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's contained in the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week vote to infringe on the right to bear arms?<br><br>The court ruled 5 to 4 that 76-year-old Otis McDonald, an African-American Democrat who lives in Chicago, can own a handgun. Mr. McDonald, a retired working class guy, sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald was blunt. He said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he, Otis, has to protect himself from harm.<br><br>But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all basically told Mr. McDonald to take a hike. They opined that guns cause a lot of damage to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that is a policy belief, is it not? Where in the Constitution does it say if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does it say that?<br><br>The Founding Fathers well understood the need for individual protection. Under King George, British soldiers routinely threw Colonial families out of their homes using a bogus law called the "Quartering Act." Also, the colonists had little protection from harm because there was no federal authority and state governments were in their infancy. The Founders also recognized that armed rebellion was a possibility even after we threw the British out. So they allowed the new American citizens the right to "bear arms" as protection and, indeed, wanted the folks to form "militias" in case of emergency.<br><br>A smart fifth-grader understands all that, but apparently four Supreme Court justices do not.<br><br>If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of ten years. That would mean that any thug who carried a gun illegally, or used one to commit a crime, would be facing a ten-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done. You want bad guys with guns off the streets? That's the way to do it.<br><br>My opinion on gun control changed drastically when I saw the chaos in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Armed bands of looters in boats cruised the city, taking pretty much any thing they wanted, because the local police presence had collapsed. If you had remained in town in order to protect your property, you would have been at the mercy of these looters unless you had the firepower to ward them off. That is why all Americans have the right to bear arms.<br><br>It is depressing to think that the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of this world do not care a whit about the welfare of Otis McDonald and other Americans who find themselves at risk. For Justice Ginsburg, it is all about her liberal philosophy, not what benefits the American people.<br><br>The Supreme Court is just one justice away from giving Ms. Ginsburg and her leftist crew the power to completely usurp the Constitution. Be very afraid.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-07-01T07:00:00ZThe Chaos FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Chaos-Factor/29764.html2010-06-24T07:00:00Z2010-06-24T07:00:00ZWith apologies to Rod Serling and his classic "Twilight Zone" TV series, there is a signpost up ahead in America, and it reads "The Chaos Zone." The firing of General Stanley McChrystal is just one piece of a jumbled public policy puzzle that now threatens the presidency of Barack Obama.<br><br>Let's take it step by step. Afghanistan is going poorly because the Afghan government is corrupt, and the folks distrust their leadership. So there's not great enthusiasm to fight the Taliban, even though those killers are despised as well. Also, to avoid civilian casualties, U.S. and NATO forces rarely call in air strikes and have a virtual checklist before firing at bad guys. Now, their commander has been fired because of a stupid article in <em>Rolling Stone</em> magazine, of all publications. Couldn't it have at least been <em>Reader's Digest</em>?<br><br>Back home, the oil spill continues to gush unabated. To say this situation is chaotic is understating it by miles. Recently the Coast Guard stopped vessels from vacuuming up oil slicks in order to check out the life vest situation. Geez.<br><br>The economy may not be in chaos, but is anyone banking on it, pardon the pun? I mean, anything could happen at any time. Stocks could drop 1,000 points in a day. Is anyone in charge here? <br><br>And then there is Mexico. Chaos in Spanish is "caos." Drug cartels run entire cities, and more than 23,000 people have been murdered since President Felipe Calderon declared war on the cartels. Like the Afghanis, many Mexicans despise the corruption they see all around them. And so they try to come to the United States to escape poverty and violence. The U.S. government knows all this, and yet it will not secure the southern border, adding to the chaos on both sides of it. This has been going on for decades.<br><br>Smack in the middle of all this sits President Obama in the Oval Office. Is the oil slick his fault? Was he the cause of the dumb comments made by General McChrystal and his staff? Is Mexican violence on the president? The answer to all those questions is no. Mr. Obama had nothing to do with them.<br><br>But now he does. He must clean up the oil, the fallout from McChrystal, and stop the border madness. These things are all in motion on his watch.<br><br>The problem for the president today is one that Herbert Hoover had back in 1929. So many things are out of control that it may be impossible to round them all up. That is the chaos zone. It brought down Hoover, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, to name just a few.<br><br>President Obama was slow in reacting to the oil spill. He seems loathe to send the National Guard to the border. Afghanistan? Who the heck knows? Same thing with the economy.<br><br>Americans like strong leadership that appears to have things under control. Anybody seen that recently?BillOReilly.com Staff2010-06-24T07:00:00ZThe Left Turns on ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Left-Turns-on-Obama/29738.html2010-06-17T07:00:00Z2010-06-17T07:00:00ZHell has frozen over! The far left in America is turning on their guy Barack Obama. After his speech on the oil disaster a few days ago, the crazy left Greek chorus on MSNBC hammered the president. He wasn't specific enough; he was too weak; I don't sense "executive command," they wailed. You would have thought they were talking about President Bush. In fact, many of the anti-Obama criticisms echoed the Hurricane Katrina invective directed towards Mr. Bush in 2005.<br><br>Usually the far left covers for its folks and provides them excuse after excuse for their failures. But this time, generally speaking, conservatives have been more generous toward President Obama's oil spill predicament than liberals. Fair-minded people understand that nobody on the planet knows how to plug that gushing broken pipe. As far as reacting slowly, Mr. Obama is guilty, but how many times do you slam the man for allowing BP to dictate the initial play when the oil rig collapsed? Yes, it was foolish. But Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't really get us anywhere once that has been established.<br><br>So there has to be something more in play, and there is. Far-left policy in America is largely a coordinated effort. The point place is the Huffington Post, which has replaced MoveOn.org as the driving force for radical left propaganda. People like John Podesta, George Soros, Arianna Huffington and lesser known leftists discuss policy agenda among themselves and then send it out to their willing accomplices in the mainstream media.<br><br>One of those accomplices is Cynthia Tucker who writes for the Atlanta <em>Journal-Constitution</em>. After hearing the president's speech, Ms. Tucker opined, "He didn't use the moment to assert a resolute sense of command. Nor did he use it to call on Americans to make the sacrifices that will be necessary to make the transition from petroleum to cleaner fuels."<br><br>Aha! So, it's not really about the oil spill. It's about global warming! Apparently, some on the far left believe President Obama is not doing his job as a warming warrior. Therein lies the genesis of the disenchantment.<br><br>The global warming crew is furious that Mr. Obama expanded ocean drilling a few months ago, and they are crazed that the cap-and-trade bill is stalled in Congress. Along with expanded entitlements for the poor, combating global warming has become a fanatical issue for those who graze in pastures owned by George Soros. If you listened to the president's speech, it wasn't horrendous. He put forth the case that he's doing everything he can, and will hold BP accountable for the cleanup and for compensating Americans who are getting hurt. You may disagree with the president, but the speech certainly wasn't a disaster.<br><br>Therefore, the hysteria displayed by far-left commentators is totally out of proportion, until you factor in the climate change angst. Very simply, his once-devoted supporters are now giving Barack Obama the cold shoulder over global warming.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-06-17T07:00:00ZThe Oil RaceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Oil-Race/29710.html2010-06-10T07:00:00Z2010-06-10T07:00:00ZPresident Obama and I may have one distinct thing in common. Often when folks disagree with my analysis, they label me as an angry white man. The far left loves to do that. Any passion shown by forces opposed to the "progressive" agenda is often described as irrational and vitriolic.<br><br>Now Mr. Obama finds himself in a similar place. For weeks the president was criticized for being disengaged regarding the oil spill catastrophe in the Gulf. Even fellow liberals like Spike Lee and Bill Maher implored the president to get angry—to show some visible displeasure.<br><br>Ever the cool customer, Mr. Obama did not immediately heed that advice. But this week, an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 69% of Americans believe the feds are doing a bad job dealing with the spill. Uh-oh. The president took notice.<br><br>So he booked himself on the Today Show and told Matt Lauer that he is fully engaged in seeking solutions to the disaster; he's speaking with all kinds of experts. The president then said, "We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."<br><br>Oooooh! Let the kicking begin.<br><br>But the punt threat didn't quite turn out the way the president envisioned. Instead of the media getting behind the behind kicking, they have turned this into a racial deal! <br><br>Writing in the <em>Washington Post</em>, far-left columnist Jonathan Capehart put forth: "Let me ask you a question. When was the last time you saw your black male colleague... show anger or rage? My hunch is never... African-American men are taught at very young ages (or learn the hard way) to keep our emotions in check, to not lose our cool, lest we be perceived as dangerous or menacing..."<br><br>Are you kidding me? So if Mr. Obama shows displeasure, he's "menacing?" Three minutes ago he was a wimp for not drowning the CEO of British Petroleum. Now he's dangerous because he says he wants to kick some butt?<br><br>Even if you don't like the president, you have to admit this: The guy can't win.<br><br>The underlying story here is why some in the media continue to embrace this race business. Why are they bothering with this nonsense? I think the answer is that race provides cover.<br><br>To his credit, Barack Obama has largely rejected the race card. Only in that absurd Massachusetts incident where a white cop confronted a black Harvard professor could Mr. Obama be accused of entering racial waters. He ran for president as an American, not an African-American.<br><br>But every time Mr. Obama gets into trouble, devoted acolytes like Jonathan Capehart trot out skin color. I guess they think being black makes it more difficult for the president to govern. But linking race with the president's reaction to the oil spill is really beyond the pale.<br><br>The truth is President Obama is a cool guy. But sometimes heat is needed to get things done. Skin color has nothing to do it.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-06-10T07:00:00ZSlick Is as Slick DoesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Slick-Is-as-Slick-Does/29676.html2010-06-03T07:00:00Z2010-06-03T07:00:00ZPresident Obama is angry. His brisk demeanor while giving a speech at Carnegie-Mellon University a few days ago signaled that loud and clear. No cute remarks, no comic relief—just straight-ahead knives directed at the oil companies and the Republican party.<br><br>Somehow it is all going wrong for the president these days. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll among likely voters has the president's job approval rating hovering around 45%, and even stalwart Democrat James Carville yelled at him the other day.<br><br>Mr. Obama has big problems on the following fronts: Illegal immigration, terrorist trials, Israel's aggressive posture, and, most importantly, the economy. But it is the oil spill that, I believe, galls him the most. There is simply nothing the president can do. No one on this earth has come up with a way to cap that oil gusher a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, they are even consulting with Avatar director James Cameron, who once shot an underwater flick. What is he going to do, send Leo diCaprio down to plug the hole?<br><br>And some folks like Carville are actually blaming the president for disaster-related stuff. James is demanding the Prez "come down heaah." And then what? Mr. Obama has already made an appearance on the Louisiana shoreline wearing pants better suited for lunch at the Capitol Grill. The president looked forlorn. But not as forlorn as the oil covered pelicans.<br><br>Fed up with being a piñata, Mr. Obama has now ordered his attorney general, the fearsome Eric Holder, to launch a criminal investigation into the British Petroleum Corporation. I just hope Holder doesn't demand the trial be held in New York City. Also, the president is promising to "roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy and development."<br><br>That means big oil will most likely sell more product to China and India, even as the Obama administration spends more money on energy that might work someday. I'm kinda thinking Jimmy Carter and long gas lines at the pumps. Remember that horror in 1979?<br><br>Intellectually honest people understand that President Obama had nothing to do with the spill, and even with all the power the United States has, the country has no gizmo to fix the problem. For anti-Obama people, the fact that the president is getting slimed by the slick is karma. For pro-Obama folks, it's very bad luck.<br><br>There comes a time when fate can determine success or failure. President Obama is a man who is used to controlling his environment. But this environmental disaster in the Gulf is out of everybody's control. And Obama knows it.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-06-03T07:00:00ZWho Will Save Lindsay Lohan?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Who-Will-Save-Lindsay-Lohan/29631.html2010-05-27T07:00:00Z2010-05-27T07:00:00ZBack in the late 1960s, it seemed like every few weeks another rock star would drop dead. The big three, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison of the Doors, all died in their 20's from alcohol and drug related causes. Even bigger names like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe abused themselves into early deaths. Lately, Michael Jackson continued the tradition, although he made it to age 50.<br><br>I've always wondered whether, back in the Woodstock days, the folks who were applauding obviously intoxicated stars on stage ever thought about that connection when the musicians bit the dust. I mean, many concerts were simply drug- and alcohol-fueled free-for-alls, and it's still that way today. As a young reporter, I remember being stationed in the medical tent at a Rolling Stones concert in 1979. Hundreds of young people were treated for gross intoxication.<br><br>Now we have a young actress named Lindsay Lohan who apparently is out of control. A former childhood star, her sad drama is being played out in the worldwide press. This week, a Los Angeles judge ordered Ms. Lohan to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet and submit to drug testing. This is because she was convicted of driving under the influence and possession of cocaine. Lindsay Lohan is 23.<br><br>If you believe the celebrity press, Ms. Lohan has been used by a number of people for a long time. At age 11, she began to have success in a series of family films like "The Parent Trap" and, subsequently, "Freaky Friday." Her parents profited from her movie fees even as the family dissolved during a nasty divorce action.<br><br>Lindsay Lohan then went on to have a number of public affairs with both men and women, all the while looking lost and confused. But after age 18 in America, you are pretty much free to destroy yourself. Obviously, Judge Marsha Revel is trying to prevent that by holding the actress accountable for her substance intake, but there's only so much the justice system can do. <br><br>So who will save Lindsay Lohan? If history is any indicator, the answer is no one. Elvis had a big entourage around him and so did Michael Jackson. Both men perished with doctors actually assisting them.<br><br>Truthfully, the only person who can save Ms. Lohan is Ms. Lohan. Millions of American parents anguish over the sons and daughters who are caught in the vicious cycle of addiction. Therapy, rehab, and interventions all have little chance of success unless the addicted person uses their free will to fight their disease.<br><br>Chances are Lindsay Lohan has been presented with that fact. And even though her life is on constant display, nobody really knows what the young woman truly wants. Some people want to die and slowly kill themselves. That is a brutal thing to watch. Some people finally wise up and save themselves. That redemption gives us hope.<br><br>We should all pray for this woman Lindsay Lohan. Her clock is ticking.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-05-27T07:00:00ZFree RadicalsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Free-Radicals/29597.html2010-05-20T07:00:00Z2010-05-20T07:00:00ZIn yet another example of the federal government spinning out of control, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, in a human rights discussion with the Chinese, brought up the new Arizona illegal alien law as an example of an example of American "discrimination." Posner saying he discussed the law "early and often" with Chinese officials, even though they didn't even initiate the conversation.<br><br>So let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton's State Department is trying to convince China to close its political concentration camps, to stop incarcerating dissidents, and to cease brutalizing the people of Tibet, and in the course of that discussion, Hillary's guy says, "Oh, yeah, we're pretty bad too—look at Arizona!"<br><br>Is this bizarro world or what?<br><br>The Arizona law will not even take effect until the end of July, but already the USA is violating human rights. The law simply says that authorities in Arizona can question people about their nationality <em>if they are already involved in a police matter</em>.<br><br>But if you listen to NBC News, you'd never know that. No, the liberal media is telling the world that Arizona law enforcement officers will be dragging Hispanics out of Kmart. Be careful walking your dog in Phoenix—you could wind up in handcuffs.<br><br>Now, I expect this kind of stuff from the dishonest, ideological press, but from an assistant secretary of state? That takes the issue to another level. So, what's really going on?<br><br>Well, it's ideology again. Michael Posner is a committed left-wing zealot who joined the State Department in September 2009. Before that, he founded an organization called "Human Rights First," which is generously funded by radical left-wing billionaire George Soros. HRF is a very lively group. In 2005 it joined with the ACLU in trying to sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torturing people. Posner's group opposes the PATRIOT Act, Rendition, all coerced interrogation, and Guantanamo Bay.<br><br>Also, in 2005, Posner made a speech comparing the treatment of American Muslims to Japanese-Americans rounded up during World War II. If this guy isn't a left wing loon, nobody is. So, what on earth is he doing in the State Department, negotiating with the Chinese?<br><br>We called Secretary Clinton and, surprise, received no response. But if you think about it, Posner's presence at State really isn't a surprise. You may remember that White House environmental advisor Van Jones was sacked after it was learned he was a member of a Marxist group in San Francisco and that he had accused the U.S. government of attacking itself on 9/11.<br><br>Another far-left person, former Georgetown professor Rosa Brooks, currently holds a position of responsibility in the Defense Department.<br><br>Critics of this column will cry McCarthyism, but there comes a point when a person's credentials should matter, especially when they are representing the United States in delicate matters like human rights. Michael Posner should be hosting a program on Air America, not speaking on behalf of the American people.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-05-20T07:00:00ZThe Gospel According to NancyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Gospel-According-to-Nancy/29549.html2010-05-13T07:00:00Z2010-05-13T07:00:00ZDespite global warming, hell might be freezing over, because the very liberal Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is apparently encouraging the Catholic clergy to campaign for immigration reform from the pulpit during Sunday mass! Wow. <br><br>Speaking at the Catholic Community Conference in Washington, Mrs. Pelosi said, "Cardinals, the Archbishops, the Bishops, that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' [I say] I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct... the people [that] oppose immigration reform and are sitting in those pews... that this is a manifestation of our living the Gospels."<br><br>Amen?<br><br>For decades, liberal Americans have been hammering conservatives about the alleged "wall of separation" between church and state. Many on the left fervently believe that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted no exposure of spirituality in the public arena and no political discourse disguised as religious instruction. If a church does that, it could lose its tax-exempt status.<br><br>But now, apparently, everything has changed, and it's "say amen, say hallelujah" to a new immigration law. Building on the speaker's newfound strategy, I guess we can expect preachers to be commenting on government spending, drilling for oil, and a VAT tax as well. I, for one, am looking forward to this. Father Smith's mustard seed sermon is used up, and I can't wait for the good padre to tackle cap and trade. <br><br>But the most stunning thing about Nancy Pelosi's point-of-view on political sermons is that it's coming from Nancy Pelosi. Remember, she's a Catholic who is stridently pro-choice. In fact, if the speaker lived in Rhode Island, she might have been told what Congressman Patrick Kennedy was told by the Archbishop: You can't receive the sacraments until you obey church teaching on abortion.<br><br>The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State says the speaker is "fundamentally misguided." They put forth that the clergy should not be politicizing church services, at least not on the tax free dime.<br><br>But Mrs. Pelosi does not seem to be swayed. Emboldened by Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles who has made "humane" treatment for illegal immigrants his signature issue, the speaker is hell-bent on converting the Sunday faithful to her side, separation or no separation.<br><br>Of course, the church-state issue has been greatly distorted in this country. The Constitution is crystal clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, cultural signs of spirituality, such as crosses and Stars of David, are perfectly permissible in public places as long as authorities don't force Americans to believe in what they stand for. Also, there are plenty of issues that cross political and moral boundaries like abortion, and, yes, how to treat illegal immigrants. Certainly, religious leaders have a right to address them in moral terms.<br><br>So, Nancy Pelosi is partially correct. Moral issues should be addressed by the clergy, and if they are relevant to current legislation, so be it. But you can't cherry pick your issues, Madame Speaker, and the Gospels are quite clear about the sanctity of life... are they not?BillOReilly.com Staff2010-05-13T07:00:00ZBarack Obama's Money TrailBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Barack-Obamas-Money-Trail/29517.html2010-05-06T07:00:00Z2010-05-06T07:00:00ZJust when we thought the socialism accusations against the Obama administration were subsiding, the president himself reignites the debate. Speaking in Illinois about his vision to reform Wall Street excess, Mr. Obama put forth: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. But part of the American way is you can keep on making it if you're providing a good product or... service."<br><br>The tone of the "enough money" comment is interesting because it reflects a core liberal belief—that affluence should be controlled by the federal government, primarily through high taxation of the wealthy. Certainly, Barack Obama has embraced that philosophy. He freely admits he supports the redistribution of income in America—that is, taking assets from the rich and recycling them to the not-so-rich through entitlements like subsidized health care.<br><br>Conservative capitalists, of course, fume at intruding upon income and profits. They want the free marketplace to roar, believing wealth and prosperity will "trickle down" to regular folks. President Reagan was the poster guy for that theory.<br><br>President Obama is a moderately wealthy man, thanks to penning two best-selling books. Last year, the Obamas reported $5.5 million in income on their tax returns. The president and First Lady donated $329,100 to charity, not including the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize award that Mr. Obama says will be split among a variety of charities.<br><br>The Obamas also have a nice house in Chicago, and the president has a bunch of nifty suits and ties he did not get in a shopping mall. There is no question that Mr. Obama has profited handsomely from the free marketplace, and one wonders if he himself has reached that certain point where he's made enough money. Somehow I doubt it. After leaving the White House it would not be at all surprising to see the president make millions on the lecture circuit, just like Bill Clinton has done.<br><br>But the question of making "enough money" is an interesting one, especially if, like me, you are a follower of Jesus. According to scripture, Jesus had little use for unrestrained capitalism, as demonstrated by his thrashing of the merchants inside the temple. Somehow, I can't envision Jesus strolling around with a wad of cash in his robe. It is true, however, that when you can multiply loaves and fishes on demand, you don't really need big money... but you get my point.<br><br>Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. And Mr. Obama is correct when he tries to constrain financial institutions from hurting the country in pursuit of dubious profits.<br><br>But the president is wrong to make judgments about how much is too much if legal tender is obtained legally. In America, all wage earners must render to Caesar. After that, our money is a personal, not governmental, matter.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-05-06T07:00:00ZHeckling President ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Heckling-President-Obama/29312.html2010-04-29T07:00:00Z2010-04-29T07:00:00ZWith the 24/7 cable TV news cycle now beamed all the world, President Barack Obama must be wondering whether he will ever have a moment of peace again. If it isn't the Tea Party people calling him a socialist, it's disenchanted Republicans saying his administration couldn't care less about being bipartisan. As the nation becomes further polarized ideologically, the president is given no quarter in the criticism department.<br><br>And now the far left is after him. Recently the president's speech was interrupted in Los Angeles by protestors yelling about the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Signed by President Clinton, this directive orders military authorities not to inquire about homosexuality and tells gay military personnel not to talk about it.<br><br>President Obama is on record as saying he wants to revoke the policy and allow gays to serve openly. But that does not seem to be enough for some dissenters. They want revocation <em>right this minute</em> and are confronting Mr. Obama. Last week, police had to clear Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, because the protestors became so rowdy. That was extremely unusual, as the park is traditionally set aside for dissenters.<br><br>Also, peace activists Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan have now branded the president as a "war-monger" for not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which, of course, would immediately lead to thousands of deaths. It's interesting; the peace-niks apparently don't care if many people die violent deaths as long as "peace" is embraced. And they don't seem to be bothered by the fact that Afghan women would be brutalized if the Taliban returns. Give peace a chance? Sure, if you don't mind women not being able to leave the house.<br><br>Before television and radio, presidents largely had it made. Teddy Roosevelt often groused about unfair attacks in the print press, but old Teddy could shoot animals all day long and nobody said a word about it.<br><br>James Buchanan had no idea what he was doing, and his incompetence directly led to the Civil War. Yet Buchanan could sleep well at night knowing that few knew he was a nitwit.<br><br>Even John F. Kennedy understood that he had the media under control and could do pretty much what he wanted in his off hours. The presidency is a stressful job; apparently Kennedy dealt with that stress in ways that would have made him an Internet sensation today.<br><br>The truth is that the modern American president is a piñata. It's Whack-A-Mole time on Pennsylvania Avenue. Every second of every day, somebody is hammering the Chief Executive.<br><br>This kind of stuff takes a toll. Many brilliant Americans simply will not enter politics because they don't want their spirits crushed. I admire the resiliency of President Obama, just as I admired President Bush's pluck. These are tough guys, like 'em or not.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-04-29T07:00:00ZJon Stewart Really Loves Fox NewsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jon-Stewart-Really-Loves-Fox-News/29290.html2010-04-22T07:00:00Z2010-04-22T07:00:00ZIt may seem strange, but a cornerstone of the liberal media in America is The Daily Show starring Jon Stewart. Younger Americans, in particular, love him, and his sarcastic, cool wit delights left-wingers coast-to-coast. That's because his barbs are overwhelmingly directed at conservatives, although, from time to time, he will mock some far-left loons who are simply too stupid to ignore.<br><br>Mr. Stewart's current jihad is against the Fox News Channel, which he considers to be in the tank for the right wing. Often, the comedian will point out "hypocrisy" at FNC, mainly objecting to criticisms leveled at the Obama administration, which is almost revered on The Daily Show.<br><br>But do you know what? I think Stewart actually LIKES Fox News.<br><br>While it is true that he has called FNC terrible, cynical, disingenuous, and "an autoimmune disorder," he admits that he and his legion of writers watch often. And while he has told Fox News personnel to go "F" themselves about 600 times, he seems to do that affectionately. <br><br>So, my theory is that Jon Stewart has a crush on Fox News and, if you think about it, the speculation makes sense. I simply can't imagine Stewart and his minions sitting there watching the boring stuff that CNN and MSNBC put out there. But I can envision old Jon lapping up the vibrant debates seen daily on FNC. And what kind of material can Stewart get from Wolf Blitzer? Believe me, he gets plenty from me and Glenn Beck.<br><br>Of course, for Stewart to tell his audience (some of whom are in various states of altered consciousness) that he is a big Fox News fan would break many hearts in San Francisco. Thus, the standard bearer of liberal TV comedy must fight the good fight against Fox News, even though he may really, really like us.<br><br>By the way, why are there not any conservative comedians with TV shows? Surely the overwhelming success of the non-liberal Fox News Channel proves there is an audience looking for more traditional presentations. I don't want to sound racist, but is there a black list?<br><br>But let's get back to Jon Stewart, who recently called FNC "the lupus of news." I will concede that, at times, the man seems to be genuinely upset when Obama-care is compared to socialism. And he gets a bit riled up when global warming is challenged as well. After Fox News reported that ice masses in the Arctic are actually increasing, Mr. Stewart looked ashen. Or maybe it was the lighting.<br><br>I will admit that I like Jon Stewart and perhaps that's why I am rooting for him to like Fox News. He is a great talent, and my sparring with him on TV brings us both great rewards. There is no way I would ever call him lupus or lumpen or even Lumpy Rutherford.<br><br>And I'd never tell him to go "F" himself, either.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-04-22T07:00:00ZSpeaking of the DevilBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Speaking-of-the-Devil/29254.html2010-04-15T07:00:00Z2010-04-15T07:00:00ZSo there I was, speaking at a forum sponsored by Al Sharpton's National Action Network—not exactly my core audience. But since the Reverend comes on my TV program from time to time, I felt it was worthy to return the favor. Besides, I like chatting with the unconverted.<br><br>Facing a sea of skeptical faces, I told the largely left-leaning crowd that President Obama was smart to avoid racial politics. The president has consistently said he is not interested in being a "black" leader; he wants to represent all Americans. He has rejected referencing his skin color or even mentioning most racial issues. Some black leaders have even criticized Mr. Obama for not doing enough to help African-Americans. <br><br>But I also told the crowd that some supporters of the President are playing the race card all day long. The latest example happened after Newt Gingrich told a Republican gathering that Mr. Obama may be good at basketball, but the country needs a president, not an athlete, in order to improve the job situation. That prompted NBC News reporter Norah O'Donnell to say that since blacks are good athletes, the remark struck her as racial. <br><br>As they say at Ridgemont High: "Oh... my... god."<br><br>Most of Ms. O'Donnell's colleagues in the discussion gently mocked her, the exception being Jonathan Capehart, an editorial writer at the <em>Washington Post</em>. He, too, felt the racial "implication."<br><br>My question is simple: Is this insane or what?<br><br>There is no question that some Obama supporters are using a racial baton to bludgeon opponents of the president, and even though Mr. Obama has criticized that tactic, he may suffer from it. Many Americans are becoming angry that race-baiting has become a political staple. They clearly see it as an attempt to stifle robust debate.<br><br>Also, by crying racial wolf, important race matters may be ignored. Once everything becomes racial, than nothing is. There is absolutely racism in America, but Norah O'Donnell has no idea what it is.<br><br>I also told Sharpton's group that branding the Tea Party a racist group would be a huge mistake that could actually create racism. Already, there is a backlash against the Tea Party crashers. According to a new Rasmussen Poll, 24% of Americans now align themselves with the movement, up nine points in a month.<br><br>Finally, I said the only positive thing that came out of the attack on 9/11 was the unification of the American people. From my view, blacks, whites, Latinos and Asian-Americans all came together to deplore the senseless terrorism. That comment actually drew a few boos from the crowd, which was perplexing. <br><br>At the end of my talk there was a smattering of applause. A small smattering. Perhaps smattering is too strong a word. I gave it my best shot, though. Can't fault me for trying.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-04-15T07:00:00ZIs the American Press Corrupt?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-the-American-Press-Corrupt/29220.html2010-04-08T07:00:00Z2010-04-08T07:00:00ZWhile many Americans believe the national press is biased left, a more damming charge is now being debated: Is the U.S. media actually corrupt? Those who believe it is point to the cheerleading of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and to the recent reportage on the Tea Party movement.<br><br>As you may know, the Tea Party people have been branded in some media quarters as a bunch of racist, far-right loons. TV commentators on MSNBC and CNN have actually called the Tea Party folks dirty names on the air... all of this in an attempt to diminish the growing influence of the party.<br><br>But a funny thing happened on the way to the gutter. Regular Americans have apparently decided to decide for themselves about the Tea Party, and the polling is interesting. Despite all the rhetorical madness on TV, a new Gallup poll says 28% of Americans support the movement, 26% oppose it, and 38% have not yet formed an opinion about support or opposition. Thus, there is a persuadable factor in play, and that is what the liberal media fears the most.<br><br>This time last year, there was no Tea Party. Now, it is perhaps the most vibrant political force in the country. If millions more Americans sign on, liberalism will take a huge hit. By the way, Gallup also says that the Tea Party movement breaks down this way: 49% Republican, 43% Independent, and 8% Democrat. The issue that binds the Tea Party folks together is a fear of big government.<br><br>When the founding fathers granted the press privileges beyond those of everyday citizens, they did so with some trepidation. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, opposites in political thinking, both loathed the early press in America because it often operated irresponsibly; that is, it was not unusual for money to change hands in the production of a news story.<br><br>But Jefferson, Adams, and their peers understood that the people needed information in order to make informed decisions at the voting booth. Therefore, the greater good was served by allowing a free press in the hope that the honest journalists would outnumber the dishonest ones.<br><br>Today, we have a problem in America. Entire news operations are devoting themselves not to reporting events honestly, but to promoting a certain ideology or party. The Fox News Channel, where I work, has been accused of this. But a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found FNC's coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign was tough on both candidates, while most other news networks blatantly favored Barack Obama. <br><br>Now, we have a systematic media campaign to demean the Tea Party. At first, organizations like the <em>New York Times</em> ignored the movement. Then they mocked it. Didn't work. As the rallies grew larger, the liberal press got meaner. There was little reporting being done; it was all about bashing.<br><br>This isn't bias, it's corruption. News organizations are supposed to be watch dogs, not attack dogs. The Tea Party should be scrutinized like every other political movement. But that's not what's going on here. A large part of the national press is out to destroy these folks. And that's flat out wrong.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-04-08T07:00:00ZThe Catholic QuandaryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Catholic-Quandary/29184.html2010-04-01T07:00:00Z2010-04-01T07:00:00ZOver the years, I have occasionally written about being a practicing Roman Catholic, a fact that sometimes leads to incredulous statements like "YOU go to church?" Somehow, I don't believe the question is a compliment.<br><br>This is a tough Holy Week for Catholics, as once again the terrible specter of child molestation is in the air. Driven by a series of articles by the <em>New York Times</em>, the church now faces questions about whether Pope Benedict XVI ignored some past abuse cases when he was a cardinal. The evidence is scant, but damning anyway, because of the previous priest-pedophilia scandals.<br><br>A number of Catholics have left the church because of the priestly sins, but not me. From the beginning, in Sister Claudia's first grade class, I understood that the Catholic Church was about Jesus, not Father Flannery. Believe me, I saw so many loons in my Catholic school days that I should be a Buddhist. But it is the theology, not church leadership, that keeps me in the fold.<br><br>You may remember that I was a driving force in bringing down the villainous Cardinal Law in Boston, a man who allowed child molesting priests to run wild. When Law was forced to resign, I was happy. But then the late Pope John Paul II gave him a cushy job in Rome, where he remains today. If it were up to me, the cardinal would be in prison.<br><br>Even though I respected Pope John Paul's holiness, I was deeply disappointed that he did not meet with molestation victims when he visited the United States in 1999. The pope should have done that simply to show devastated American Catholics, and the victims themselves, that he cared and understood their pain. When I publicly criticized Pope John Paul for avoiding the issue, the Catholic League scorched me. And that's fine. They are entitled to their opinion.<br><br>Throughout it all, however, I stayed with the church. If you cut through all the bull, the doctrines of treating others as you want to be treated, forgiveness and redemption, and charity for all stand the test of time. Even if the atheists are right and there is no God, the philosophy of Jesus is full-force positive. Live the way he lived, and the world will be a better place.<br><br>The actions of others must be considered, of course. But I like this analogy: We've had some pretty bad leaders in America, right? Do they make you want to renounce your citizenship? The United States is not the people who lead it. It is all of us.<br><br>Same thing with the Catholic Church. It's not corrupt priests or apathetic leaders in Rome. It's Jesus and his followers, the folks who sit in the pews on Sunday. And that's good enough for me.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-04-01T07:00:00ZThe Freedom FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Freedom-Factor/29158.html2010-03-25T07:00:00Z2010-03-25T07:00:00Z<em>"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."</em> —Kris Kristofferson<br><br>The raging debate over Obamacare is not exactly all about health. It's really about freedom, or lack thereof. It's simple when you cut through all the overheated rhetoric: The anti-Obama folks believe the president is imposing a massive federal presence that will erode personal freedoms. The pro-Obama crew supports a huge federal apparatus to impose "social justice," believing that is the government's moral responsibility.<br><br>The personal freedom issue is pretty clear as well. We have less of it today than we did this time last year. In an aggressive power grab; the feds now control the health care industry, and the IRS has increased its already enormous power because it will enforce Obamacare mandates. In addition, your private medical records will no longer be private. They will be accessible by federal bureaucrats. If that doesn't make you queasy, nothing will.<br><br>And then there's higher education. The president wants the feds, not private lending institutions, to distribute college loans, and it looks like that will happen. <br><br>And then there's the banking industry. The Obama administration seeks tough oversight rules and wants to call major shots in the financial world. Federal regulation could strangle some banks and force most of them to do exactly what the government wants.<br><br>And then there's the energy industry. The president wants to mandate how private business consumes energy and dish out financial punishment if federal rules are not followed. That's the cap-and-trade deal.<br><br>In addition to the direct intrusion on business and private behavior (vis-à-vis health insurance), the redistribution of wealth train is roaring towards its next destination. That would be a national sales tax like they have in Europe. The president well understands the huge debt that is piling up because of all the federal spending. So he has to raise more money. Wealthy Americans are going to get hammered by income tax and capital gains hikes, but there are simply not enough rich folks to counter the red ink. So get ready for a new tax proposed on stuff you buy.<br><br>Even though everyone will pay the sales tax, there will be a variety or rebates for poor Americans so they will not suffer from the sales tax. The middle class will most likely bear the brunt of it. But it may not happen because the Democrats in Congress might well be voted out of power next November. That's one of the high stakes in the midterm election.<br><br>Not since the early days of the Vietnam War has there been such a stark divide between liberal and conservative Americans, between Republicans and Democrats. The battle lines are clearly drawn: individual freedom versus federal power. Take your pick.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-03-25T07:00:00ZPaging Doctor KildareBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Paging-Doctor-Kildare/29093.html2010-03-18T07:00:00Z2010-03-18T07:00:00ZSo now we find out that if Obamacare becomes law, about 30% of the primary care doctors in America will consider leaving the medical profession. That bit of brightness comes from a survey published by the prestigious <em>New England Journal of Medicine</em>. According to the Medicus Firm, which interviewed more than a thousand American physicians, 55% of them believe that the quality of medical care in America will decline if the Democrats pass the present health care reform proposals. And, apparently, many of them want no part of it.<br><br>Although the media largely ignored the Medicus study that the NEJM picked up, the story is huge. Perhaps as many as thirty million more Americans may have access to health insurance, and the question is, who will treat them? <br><br>The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a 22% increase in practicing physicians over the next decade, but that will not be enough to treat the universal health care crush, especially if a bunch of doctors now on the job pack it in. <br><br>There are essentially two reasons that some doctors are nauseous over Obama-care. First, control. Medical people simply do not want federal pinheads telling them how to treat their patients. The medical profession attracts intelligent, assertive people who are motivated to help others. This is not a docile crowd. <br><br>Second, money. Right now, many doctors are already seeing too many patients in order to pay the bills and to provide a decent living for their families. Obamacare does nothing to bring down the outrageous expense of medical malpractice insurance, and it is likely to cut Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Doctors can do the math. Their expenses remain high, their incomes decline. Again, these are smart people who could make good money doing something else.<br><br>In Canada and Great Britain, where socialized medicine is practiced, it is difficult to actually see a doctor in some places. Instead, nurses, physician assistants, and other medical personnel fill the need. That is what could happen in the United States once the feds begin calling the health care shots.<br><br>Not since the Iraq war has America been so divided on an issue. Yes, ideology is playing a part. Conservatives despise government intrusion in the marketplace, but liberals love it. Right now, however, most polls show the majority have turned on Obamacare. The latest <em>Wall Street Journal</em> poll, for example, shows 48% opposing and just 36% supporting.<br><br>So here's my question: What would Marcus Welby and Dr. Kildare say? These guys usually had the answers back when wise doctors were the subjects of TV programs and health care seemed to be a glamorous profession.<br><br>Would Ben Casey support Obamacare? We know the M*A*S*H guys would. Dr. Jekyll might like it, but Mr. Hyde? I don't know.<br><br>What I do know is that many Americans are sick of the whole health care thing. And no prescription on earth will change that.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-03-18T07:00:00ZNo Politics at the Oscars, PleaseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Politics-at-the-Oscars-Please/29018.html2010-03-11T08:00:00Z2010-03-11T08:00:00ZFor the first time that I can remember, there were no politically-charged comments at the Oscars ceremony last Sunday. I mean, I was all ready. We had left-wing bomb throwers like George Clooney, Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, and co-host Alec Baldwin all lined up in the "let it fly" zone. But the show turned out to be the silence of the lambs.<br><br>So what's going on? <br><br>The answer to that question is money, pure and simple.<br><br>The rise of the machines has dislocated entertainment all over the country. Now you can program your life on your computer and endlessly amuse yourself with iPods, Nintendo DS machines, and Blackberries. No longer do you have to drive to a movie theater to see something interesting.<br><br>Therefore, the pool of movies, recordings, books, and other entertainment is becoming shallow. For the most part, companies are not throwing around big dollars to actors and singers anymore. Now, you have to earn your bread by selling product. And alienating potential customers is not a good business model.<br><br>You may remember George Clooney, for example, saying the federal government under President Bush was run like the Sopranos. That was in 2003. Since that time, Clooney has pulled back from provocative political statements. I am guessing commerce has something to do with it.<br><br>Alec Baldwin continues to toss grenades at the right, but even he has tempered his commentary. Back in 2002, old Alec told a Florida audience that George W. Bush's victory in 2000 did as much damage to America as the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Last Sunday night, Baldwin was like your hip uncle; a few wisecracks, then it was off to the bar.<br><br>Even Sean Penn, as rabid a left winger as can be imagined, refrained from blasting anyone. A few days earlier, however, he did say that he hoped his critics died "screaming from rectal cancer." I guess it's comforting to know that some things never change.<br><br>Barbra Streisand continues her political website, but what used to be "bombs away" prose has turned surprisingly mild. Ms. Streisand has resumed touring and recording so, again, marketing may be in play.<br><br>Mass market entertainers simply cannot survive by alienating much of the country. Polls show that 40% of Americans currently identify themselves as conservative. As Ms. Streisand well knows, people need people to buy their records and see their movies. That's the way we were and continue to be, with apologies to everyone for those lines.<br><br>I kind of miss the embarrassing Oscar moments where some celebrity would bash his or her country or call out a right-wing politician. Yes, those were cringe-worthy experiences, but they broke the tedium of the long-winded Academy Award telecast. <br><br>So next year we should have a retrospective of crazy stuff said at past Academy Award programs. Michael Moore might host it.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-03-11T08:00:00ZLiving LegendsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Living-Legends/28968.html2010-03-04T08:00:00Z2010-03-04T08:00:00ZStay with me, because you are not going to believe this column. This month in Chicago, a show will honor three men as "living legends." The men are Minister Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Barack Obama's church, and Father Michael Pfleger, a radical left-wing Catholic priest. The men will stand together and thousands of spectators will pay to see them.<br><br>The press release announcing the program says that the men were chosen "because of their legacy of educating, [and thus] they are being honored as Living Legends for their unfailing work and dedication."<br><br>And who, exactly, selected the three men as honorees? Uh, well, that would be Reverend Jeremiah Wright!<br><br>That's right, the good reverend is honoring himself and his bomb-throwing pals. And charging up to $100 for the event. Who gets the proceeds? Again, that would be Reverend Wright. His school and day care center will divvy up most of the dollars. Pfleger's parish and Wyclef Jean's charity will also get some cash, according to the release.<br><br>There are many interesting things about this exposition. First, it has received almost no media coverage, even though Farrakhan, speaking before a crowd of 20,000 a few days ago, accused the "white right" of planning the assassination of President Obama. The minister, wearing a Muammar Gaddafi-style hat, then went on to say that the "Zionists" were derailing the president's agenda, and white Christians were praying for Mr. Obama's death. Sounds like "living legend" stuff, doesn't it?<br><br>Also, what is a Catholic priest doing standing with Farrakhan and Wright? Catholics follow Jesus, a man who preached peace and love for all men. My staff called the Archbishop of Chicago, Francis Cardinal George, for comment. But he doesn't have a comment. Are you kidding me? I'm a Catholic—I'd like to know what's going on!<br><br>If you decide to attend the "Living Legends" event, you will hear some music from the "Soulful Sounds," and you will be able to purchase Reverend Wright's new book, "A Sankofa Moment." I don't exactly know what that is, but it sounds like a thriller. By the way, there is no truth to the rumor that Farrakhan's new book will be entitled "Marley, Me, and the Zionists." <br><br>This whole deal is pretty amusing and, even if you don't like him, you have to give Jeremiah Wright some credit. The retired minister now inhabits a million dollar house in a largely white gated community and, apparently, has some time on his hands. So, he comes up with an award ceremony that promotes his interests, and I'm betting the Chicago theater will sell out.<br><br>But as much as I'd like to, I will not be going. Somehow, I don't think old Louie, Jerry, and Mike would appreciate me sitting there as the "Living Legends" program unfolded. Just a hunch.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-03-04T08:00:00ZPresident Obama and the 'S' WordBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Obama-and-the-S-Word/28932.html2010-02-25T08:00:00Z2010-02-25T08:00:00ZRadio guy Rush Limbaugh recently mocked me because I do not call President Obama a socialist. Although I asked Mr. Obama to explain his "socialistic tenets" in my last interview with him, I have not branded him with the "S" word because the label does not exactly apply to his governance thus far.<br><br>As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, socialism is a social organization in which the means of distributing and producing goods is owned collectively. Last time I looked, my production of material was owned by my corporation; the government was not involved. Yes, the feds, state, and local governments can tax me at will, and they do. But that's a constitutional mandate and part of our capitalistic system. So until President Obama begins seizing condos, I cannot put the "S" word on his resume.<br><br>Of course, millions of Americans disagree with me, and I have plenty of emails to prove it. The basic theme is, "We don't need no stinkin' dictionary to tell us Obama is a socialist." Okay, fine. I admit the man wants a huge federal presence to control as much of the economy as possible. I will agree that he is a big income redistribution guy. But as long as he isn't nationalizing industry or purloining private property, I don't think the socialist label is accurate.<br><br>But what I think doesn't matter. If socialism and President Obama become linked in the minds of most voters, the president is done. Thus, the campaign to label him "Hugo Chavez lite." According to a recent Gallup Poll, 36% of Americans view socialism positively, but 58% see it as a negative. No American president could win a reelection if deemed a socialist.<br><br>There is only one socialist in Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Sanders is proud to state that he wants the government to call the economic shots and make sure there is "economic justice." That means if your house is too big, the feds should be able to subdivide it. Sanders is a frightening guy. They love him on NBC News.<br><br>But let's get back to the president. If he does not begin tamping down the big government "nanny state" strategy, I believe the socialist label will gain traction. Even with all our problems, the United States remains the most successful economy in the world, offering the most opportunity to the most people. Just ask the 12 million illegal aliens currently in this country. So, capitalism is not going anywhere, and socialism will not take root here. If Mr. Obama gets on the wrong side of this, he is a one-termer for sure.<br><br>But short of putting Bernie Sanders in handcuffs, there really isn't much the President can do to turn the "S" word situation around. Except, maybe, hang around with Donald Trump.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-02-25T08:00:00ZHe Won't Be BackBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/He-Wont-Be-Back/28893.html2010-02-18T08:00:00Z2010-02-18T08:00:00ZLOS ANGELES — Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will leave office in November, but, unlike the Terminator, he will not be back.<br><br>According to a recent Field Poll, the governor's job approval rating stands at a paltry 27 percent; 64 percent disapprove of the job he's doing. Also, 59 percent of Californians say Arnold will leave the state worse off than it was seven years ago, when then-Governor Gray Davis was recalled—that is, thrown directly out of office by the voters.<br><br>Right now, the Golden State is spending $20 billion a year more than it takes in. Even Lehman Brothers could predict looming bankruptcy. In fact, Governor Arnold flat-out says the state cannot pay its bills, so it is issuing IOU's. Wouldn't you like one of those?<br><br>The primary problem out here is massive entitlement spending and out-of-control pensions and disability funds for state employees. The unions are so strong they can kick sand in Arnold's face any time they want. The golf courses are full of former state employees too impaired to work any longer. Thank God they have enough cash for greens fees.<br><br>In addition, elected far-left loons are running wild. In San Francisco, for example, the city now wants to spend taxpayer money on measuring how much sunlight hits city parks. I am not kidding. The environmental nuts rule, and the folks pay and pay and pay.<br><br>I believe Governor Arnold was well-intentioned in the beginning, but the arcane system wore him down. Faced with an overwhelming Democratic presence in the state legislature, the Republican governor simply could not stop the madness.<br><br>While his charisma worked with voters, it was mocked by career politicians. So Arnold eventually folded, and the rest is history: his approval rating fell from 65 percent to below 30 percent.<br><br>A great fear is that President Obama will follow in the big guy's footsteps. The federal government now owes $13 trillion, and if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tried in New York City, that could quickly add another trillion.<br><br>There is little fiscal discipline in Washington right now, and the president has at least three more years in office. If Mr. Obama does not reign in federal spending, the USA could very possibly experience a Greece-like economic meltdown. The president only has to look west to California to see the wreckage of poor financial management. <br><br>So the folks here in the Golden State can't get rid of Arnold fast enough. The Terminator has been terminated. A once-promising charismatic outsider gets elected to run the nation's largest state. Hope was in the air. But the good feeling has vanished as California's finances have collapsed on Governor Arnold's watch.<br><br>Quite the cautionary tale, isn't it?BillOReilly.com Staff2010-02-18T08:00:00ZMy Special ValentineBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/My-Special-Valentine/28866.html2010-02-11T08:00:00Z2010-02-11T08:00:00ZMy special valentine this year is a beautiful ten-year-old girl named Madeline. She is a typical American kid confronted by a vastly different world than the one in which her parents grew up. Instead of inventing games and projects with other children, Madeline has an array of high tech gizmos to keep her occupied. While my transistor AM radio kept me up to date on the Beatles, Madeline's small music machine holds thousands of tunes that are piped into her ear on demand. And she doesn't even have to go to a record store! She can download any song she wants from a computer.<br><br>On the playtime front, Madeline has a Nintendo DS and Wii. Instantly, games appear on small and big screens. She doesn't have to go bowling; she can simulate bowling using the Wii on her giant TV set. She can play tennis there as well. In fact, Madeline never even has to go outside to play sports. They are all virtually in her living room.<br><br>"Can Eddie come out and play?" That was my question after I knocked on my friend's door back in Levittown. But Madeline has never said those words. She can call her friends on a cell phone and the playtime is arranged in advance by nervous parents who wouldn't dare allow their young children to roam the neighborhood unattended. Madeline has fun on her "play dates," but spontaneity is missing, as are gangs of kids. "Play dates" are usually limited to one or two urchins.<br><br>Despite all the tech and protection, Madeline has somehow developed interests in time-honored hobbies like horses, pop idols, and volleyball. Also, she has developed a deep sensitivity towards other people. Like many children, Madeline has seen her peers brutalized by cyber-bullying, and she finds it cruel and unacceptable. She even wrote a school paper about it.<br><br>But the tech revolution has also made it easier for Madeline to escape from reality. The machines allow her to avoid thinking about problems and solutions. With a flick of a finger, Madeline can enter a fantasy world where she doesn't have to think about bad things or work out complicated situations. She can play emotional hide-and-not-seek all day long.<br><br>It is not easy for an adult to talk with Madeline; she prefers to be otherwise occupied, which is normal at that age. Her favorite phrases are "I don't know" and "I don't care." Perhaps for Valentine's Day I'll get her a shirt with those words printed on the front and back. But, most likely, I'll get Madeline a card that says I love her more than anything, or some such Valentine's endearment. She is America's future, and I know she will make this country better... machines or no machines.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-02-11T08:00:00ZPresident Obama and Common SenseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Obama-and-Common-Sense/28820.html2010-02-04T08:00:00Z2010-02-04T08:00:00ZA few months ago I wrote an article for <em>Parade</em> magazine about what President Obama can teach America's kids. Basically, the piece told children that despite having no father present and a rather loopy mom, the president was able to prosper and achieve the most powerful position in the world. If young Barry Obama could overcome his rather chaotic upbringing (which included a stint in Indonesia), most American kids in difficult circumstances can do the same.<br><br>There is no question that President Obama is a brilliant man. After graduating from Harvard Law, he worked his way up the political ladder quickly using Chicago's south side as a launching pad. That's tough turf, so Obama had to combine book smarts with guile, which he did.<br><br>And so it is simply stunning to see how poorly Obama is faring in the common sense zone as president. The best example of his failure to anticipate trouble is how he's handling Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I remember sitting there with some friends in New York City last November when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that old Khalid would be leaving Guantanamo Bay and heading for the Big Apple to be tried by civilians instead of by a military tribunal. We looked at each other incredulously. Is President Obama joking? Doesn't he know how raw emotions still are in the city? And then the expense estimates began rolling in—it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to try Khalid and four other al-Qaeda thugs.<br><br>Then I was reminded that Congress had passed a law specifically allowing captured overseas terrorists to be judged by the military. Since a military trial would cost about $39.95 a day (participants are already on the federal payroll), why on earth would anyone okay an incredibly expensive dog and pony show for these murderers?<br><br>Remember, Khalid Sheik Mohammed has already admitted to planning 9/11 and given up his confederates in the effort, most of whom, upon capture, have confirmed Khalid was Mr. Big. Also, Khalid says he personally slit the throat of <em>Wall Street Journal</em> reporter Daniel Pearl. <b>He has admitted to doing this.</b> So why are we wasting time?<br><br>Attorney General Holder says it's because we want the world to see the U.S. justice system on display. Again, why? The people who hate us are not going to change their minds because a jury condemns the terrorists to death instead of three military officers. Do Holder and the president not get that?<br><br>Polls show that most Americans realize the Khalid decision is stupid, and now big-time Democrats like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have publicly told the president to wise up. And he has. Last Friday the White House announced it was looking at other venues. Swell.<br><br>But why was this deal allowed to get out of control? That is very troubling. If President Obama is so smart, why did he not realize the absurdity of the situation?<br><br>At this point, I simply don't know.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-02-04T08:00:00ZThe Right StuffBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Right-Stuff/28794.html2010-01-28T08:00:00Z2010-01-28T08:00:00ZWatch out, America is moving to the right and it's happening fast. The vote in Massachusetts was an ideological earthquake whose tremors are still being felt all over the country. When a big government guy like President Obama takes to the lectern to announce that he wants to freeze some federal spending, you know hell might be freezing over as well.<br><br>But nowhere is the rejection of liberal doctrine being seen more clearly than in the TV news industry. Last week, the Fox News Channel, the only network that has brought some scrutiny to Barack Obama from the beginning, was the number one rated cable operation in America. If you listen closely, you can hear Sponge Bob and Hannah Montana weeping.<br><br>In addition, a stunning scientific survey was released by the Democratic outfit Public Policy Polling. It asked Americans which TV news operation they trusted. Hide the kids, here are the results:<ul><li><b>Fox News:</b> 49% trust, 37% don't trust</li><li><b>ABC News:</b> 31% trust, 46% don't trust</li><li><b>NBC News:</b> 35% trust, 44% don't trust</li><li><b>CBS News:</b> 32% trust, 46% don't trust</li><li><b>CNN:</b> 39% trust, 41% don't trust</li></ul>This is a rout. Nearly half the country trusts FNC, and nobody else is even close. Can you imagine the Fox bashers at NBC and the <em>New York Times</em> reading this poll? I'd pay to see the reaction.<br><br>Fox News can thank President Obama for all this. From the beginning of his astounding rise, most of the main stream media loved Barack. Ask Hillary Clinton. But FNC treated Mrs. Clinton, then Senator Obama, and Senator John McCain pretty much the same. We scrutinized them all. In fact, the McCain campaign kept the senator off my program, fearing tough questioning.<br><br>But it was the scrutiny of Barack Obama and the exposure of people like Jeremiah Wright that brought Fox News bitter criticism from the left. And the folks saw that; they watched as FNC was bashed all over the place. Today, many Americans have lost some confidence in the president, and they remember who was in the tank for him and who was not.<br><br>According to a new Gallup Poll, 64% of Americans believe the American press is not watching the Obama administration closely enough. Clearly, news consumers are asking the media to get back to basics: Stop cheerleading and start reporting. Look out for the folks. <br><br>Because the Fox News Channel gives voice to both the right and the left, while most of the other networks are heavily invested in liberal philosophy, when the country moves into a more conservative mode that will be reflected in their TV choices. It is hard to believe that über-liberal media outlets that trumpeted government-run health care and civilian trials for terrorists will prosper any time soon.<br><br>No, the winds of political change are buffeting the "progressive" press. They had a brief shining moment last year. But now that's all gone.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-01-28T08:00:00ZThe Far Left, Down for the CountBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Far-Left-Down-for-the-Count/28748.html2010-01-21T08:00:00Z2010-01-21T08:00:00ZMore than anything else, it was the foolishness of the far left that harpooned Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Independents broke big for Scott Brown and his own internal polling showed that national security issues like civilian trials for al-Qaeda thugs and the president's perceived soft approach on terrorism in general helped Brown to a smashing victory.<br><br>President Obama, of course, is a big loser along with Ms. Coakley. His trip to Massachusetts last Sunday was gutsy, but foolish in hindsight. Voters in a very liberal state simply rejected his request to elect another liberal. The president lost face and power and has to know it.<br><br>Now, Obamacare is in great jeopardy, cap and trade is dead, tax increases will not happen, and liberal policies across the board are on the run. All of this is the fault of the far left, a group led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a number of radical journalists. Scott Brown should send these people fruit baskets.<br><br>As President Obama acknowledged on Wednesday, the same voter dissatisfaction that swept him into office gave Scott Brown a Senate seat. But why are voters so disenchanted after only one year of the Obama administration? The short answer is ideology.<br><br>With the exception of Afghanistan and firing drones at terrorists, Mr. Obama has governed far to the left. He's allowing the Democratic Congress to spend a record amount of money, and that may lead the USA into bankruptcy. He is trying to engineer a government takeover of the health care industry. He is allowing heinous terrorists captured overseas full constitutional rights. He is trying to tax corporations and wealthy Americans any way he can.<br><br>In addition, he entertains über-left guys like George Soros at the White House. He gives radical unions like the SEIU tax breaks, while most other unions don't get them. He fails to criticize Pelosi and Reid when they hide their health care negotiations from C-SPAN, even though the candidate Obama openly promised such negotiations would be public. If this isn't far left governance, I'm Hugo Chavez.<br><br>And do you know what? Independent-minded Americans don't like it.<br><br>Just look at the polls, where 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. So you figure the far left is less than half of that. In addition, radical left-wing media outlets life MSNBC and Air America are failing. Yeah, Al Franken won in Minnesota, but that's was an anomaly. Today, he'd lose big.<br><br>If President Obama wants to avoid the fate of Jimmy Carter, he must move quickly to the center. He must be a tougher guy on terrorism, rethink the health care deal so Americans can understand it, and stimulate the economy by targeted tax cuts, not massive government spending.<br><br>With his power waning quickly, Mr. Obama has no time to lose.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-01-21T08:00:00ZChatting with SarahBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Chatting-with-Sarah/28728.html2010-01-14T08:00:00Z2010-01-14T08:00:00ZThe phenomenon known as Sarah Palin made her debut this week as an analyst on Fox News. You should have heard the braying on our competitors CNN and MSNBC. She's a dunce, they wailed, a conservative shill! Foaming at the mouth doesn't begin to describe the reaction.<br><br>Well, here's my question. If you guys are so smart, how come your ratings are softer than Jell-O?<br><br>Governor Palin appeared on my program and began by knocking President Obama around a bit on health care and terrorism—standard issue right-wing stuff. But then I asked her about charges on "60 Minutes" that her frame of reference is so weak, she doesn't even understand why there are two Koreas. Mrs. Palin just shook her head and said the man who made the charge, author John Heilemann, is a liberal guy who simply is not telling the truth.<br><br>So there.<br><br>Whatever your opinion of her, you have to admit the bashing of Sarah Palin is almost unprecedented in the media. Newspaper critics and über-liberal TV commentators are the worst. Reviewing my interview with the Governor in the <em>New York Times</em>, Kate Zernike wrote, "After marveling that '60 Minutes' spent eight minutes on Ms. Palin on Sunday night, Mr. O'Reilly spent about 20 minutes with her."<br><br>Well, yeah, she's a brand new FNC analyst and was the lead guest on my program. The "60 Minutes" story was about a book featuring dozens of politicians. Palin, however, got most of the airtime. And it was all bad for her. <br><br>And that's the point. If you hammer the governor, the <em>Times</em> will have no beef. But give her a forum so she can respond to her detractors, and watch out.<br><br>David Zurawik, the TV critic for the <em>Baltimore Sun</em>, makes that point better than I ever could. Reviewing the Palin chat, Zurawik said, "In a protected TV environment like the one Fox and O'Reilly skillfully provided for her Tuesday night, I think [Palin] could be a red hot ratings winner. And the country and our political conversation are going to be the poorer for it.<br><br>"I can only imagine what kind of power these two might come to wield in the elections of 2010."<br><br>Ah-ha!<br><br>Never mind that I asked Sarah Palin about the perception her intellect is not up to Presidential standards; Zurawik and his soul brothers and sisters on the left are very worried that, now, Sarah Palin has a place to state her case. A very well-watched place.<br><br>That presents a clear and present danger to the liberal ideologues masquerading as press people. No longer can they mock Sarah Palin with impunity. Now she can mock them back, big time, and perhaps convince open-minded folks that her message is worthy and that she is not a reincarnation of Georgette from the "Mary Tyler Moore Show."<br><br>Simply put, Governor Palin has a big opportunity to balance the playing field. Boy, do her critics hate that.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-01-14T08:00:00ZBrit Hume, Tiger Woods and BuddhaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Brit-Hume-Tiger-Woods-and-Buddha/28692.html2010-01-07T08:00:00Z2010-01-07T08:00:00ZMy colleague Brit Hume has aroused the ire of some secularists as well as some Buddhists by advising Tiger Woods to seek redemption through Christianity in place of his mother's religion of Buddhism. Said Mr. Hume about Mr. Woods, "He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn your faith—turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"<br> <br>Almost immediately, the far left began mocking Hume as a religious fanatic. Some of the comments directed at him were as hateful as anything directed towards Tiger Woods.<br> <br>So, let's look at what happened. According to the Buddhist journalist Barbara Hoetsu O'Brien, Hume is correct about Buddhism. That faith does not offer forgiveness and redemption the way Christianity does. That's because Buddhism has no concept of sin.<br> <br>On my TV program, I asked Brit if he was proselytizing, as he is a devout Christian. He said no, and put forth he was just giving Mr. Woods some advice he might consider. Thus, the question becomes, what it is Brit Hume's sin? Why are people like <em>Washington Post</em> critic Tom Shales and TV's Jon Stewart going after him?<br> <br>The answer, I believe, lies in the explosive nature of right and wrong, good and evil—also, the unease some Americans feel when a religious conviction they don't hold is displayed before them.<br> <br>A woman named Nancy Spagnolo who lives in Bethany, Connecticut e-mailed me shortly after I interviewed Hume. "Religion is such a deeply personal issue and it is wrong to discuss what another person should believe. Mr. Hume should have contacted Tiger Woods privately instead of taking it public."<br> <br>That's not a bad point. I'm sure Brit Hume had noble intentions when he addressed the golfer publicly, but it was a deeply personal assessment of Woods' predicament. We are all sinners. How many of us want to be told how to achieve forgiveness in a public forum?<br> <br>That being said, Brit Hume has a perfect right to espouse what he believes is a healing tonic. The forgiveness Christianity offers has helped millions of human beings throughout history. The world would be a better place if every person on earth understood the basic philosophy of Jesus. Mr. Hume was simply exercising his free speech rights and the fact he is paid well to do that speaks to his intellect and insight.<br> <br>Anti-religious sentiment is currently chic in America. You can see it displayed in the media almost everyday. Brit Hume sent some advice to Tiger Woods. He did so meaning well. Mr. Woods is free to take it or leave it. There was no harm in this.BillOReilly.com Staff2010-01-07T08:00:00ZMerry Christmas, al-Qaeda StyleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Merry-Christmas-al-Qaeda-Style/28665.html2009-12-30T08:00:00Z2009-12-30T08:00:00ZIt was puzzling to read opinion pieces in liberal newspapers like the <em>New York Times</em> and <em>Newsday</em> lamenting the Christmas Day al-Qaeda attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet. Most of the liberal press agreed: That was not a nice thing to do, and those terrorists should stop the attacks this very minute. But no actual solutions to stopping terrorism were put forth by the progressive press.<br> <br>Of course, 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a loser from Nigeria, was not exactly 007 in executing his mission. That might speak to how badly al-Qaeda has been downgraded by aggressive measures put in place by the Bush administration. Now, the al-Qaeda agents of slaughter are smuggling explosives in their underwear instead of trying to hijack the entire plane. This Umar nitwit will be tried in civilian court instead of being handed over to the military so the world can understand that the U.S. justice system really, really works. Like the world cares. <br> <br>Apparently, Abdulmutallab was trained in Yemen, the same Yemen that, on December 20, accepted six Guantanamo Bay detainees. That's another puzzling deal. In the fall of 2007, the United States sent two other Gitmo terrorists to Saudi Arabia for "rehabilitation." Now one those guys, Said Ali Shari, is reportedly a top al Qaeda commander in—wait for it—Yemen! As the Church Lady once said, "How convenient!"<br> <br>I am beginning to think we are in the Twilight Zone in this country. The liberal press screams all day long about closing Gitmo and providing civilian trials for captured foreign terrorists. Then, when an overseas terrorist almost blows up 300 innocent people, the press goes, "Gee, that's not acceptable." Also, everybody except Al Franken knows that Yemen is an al-Qaeda stronghold, but the Obama administration sends six incarcerated terror suspects to Yemen? Paging Rod Serling.<br> <br>This would be laugh-out-loud absurd if lives were not at stake. I mean, why don't we just close Gitmo and send the misunderstood inmates there directly to the mountains of Pakistan? Why delay the process with stops in the Arabian Peninsula? I'm surprised at CIA chief Leon Panetta. He surely understands that countries like Yemen are chaotic cauldrons of violence where terrorists openly roam. Leon, why are you sending Gitmo bad guys there? Help me, I'm trying to understand.<br> <br>Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad really is. If they did, the Obama administration and the liberal press could never get away with the lunacy that is now underway. The latest al-Qaeda fanatic may have gotten tangled up in his underwear, but some other killer will do better down the road. And don't be surprised if he's from Yemen.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-12-30T08:00:00ZPerson of the YearBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Person-of-the-Year/28643.html2009-12-23T08:00:00Z2009-12-23T08:00:00ZPity Ben Bernanke. The guy was named <em>Time</em> magazine's Person of the Year and the reaction rivaled fish sticks in the enthusiasm category. Old Ben might well be the guy of 2009, but few know who he is or understand what he does. Being chairman of the Federal Reserve may have advantages, but public visibility is not among them.<br><br>Here's all you need to know: After being honored by <em>Time</em>, Oprah did not call Ben.<br><br>When you think about persons of the year the list is short. Perhaps Lady Gaga, Nancy Pelosi... maybe the late Edward Kennedy who drove the health care bill. This was not a good year for actual people.<br><br>My person of the year is Senator John McCain. He iced the honor last week when he hammered the insipid Al Franken for being disrespectful to Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor. McCain smacked Franken good because the former actor known as Stuart Smalley would not give Lieberman a few extra moments to finish his remarks on health care, a major breach of Senate etiquette.<br><br>Earlier this year, McCain told the world the Iranian government was punishing its own people and urged President Obama to support dissidents inside Iran. The president did not and McCain made a big deal out of it. Good for him.<br><br>Also, McCain has been articulate in warning Americans that the new health care legislation will lead to financial and medical chaos. McCain may be wrong, but he's been clear and consistent about his opposition to the bill, giving Americans another side to consider.<br><br>So where was this John McCain during the campaign last year?<br><br>There are some Americans who now have buyer's remorse because they voted for Barack Obama. But, really, John McCain did not do much to inspire confidence. The former fighter pilot refused to launch aggressive attacks on the liberal positions of his opponent (like government-driven health care), and he shied away from raising questions about Obama's dubious associations (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers). If you believe Sarah Palin, she was salivating to make Wright the poster boy for Barack's campaign. McCain shot Palin down--sorry for the choice of words.<br><br>But in 2009, McCain became unleashed, using his credibility and visibility to urge the president to commit more troops to Afghanistan and to stop putting America last in his foreign speeches. Unburdened by expectations, McCain seemed almost gleeful to debate the Howard Deans of the world over fiscal responsibility. He also led the exposure of bribes to Democratic senators to vote for health care. It could not have been easy for McCain to lay out his colleague Ben Nelson of Nebraska, basically a good man, for accepting a unique Medicare deal for his state. If that wasn't a vote bribe, nothing is.<br><br>Thus, John McCain is my person of year. His ascendancy might have come a little late, but at least we know there's an honest guy in the Senate who is taking no prisoners. (Sorry, again.)BillOReilly.com Staff2009-12-23T08:00:00ZPartying With The PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Partying-With-The-President/28603.html2009-12-17T08:00:00Z2009-12-17T08:00:00ZOne of the good things about being a media loudmouth is that occasionally you get invited somewhere you actually want to go. This year, I was lucky enough to get an invitation to the White House media holiday party which would have been called a Christmas party if U.S. Grant was still president.<br><br>Anyway, this is the fourth time I've attended the annual event, and I count myself very fortunate. I love the White House; it symbolizes the greatness of America. The courage and goodness that has been displayed inside this residence ever since John Adams moved in has dramatically changed the world for the better.<br><br>Last year, President and Mrs. Bush hosted their final party, and it was fairly extravagant. This year, the crowd was much smaller and the atmosphere toned down a bit, perhaps because of the government spending controversy and the recession.<br><br>My brief meeting with President and Mrs. Obama went well. Even though I have challenged the president on a number of occasions, I believe I have been fair to him. We chatted briefly and he said that I looked to be in better shape than the last time we saw each other. I said that's because he's keeping me on my toes.<br><br>Michelle Obama, whom I had never met, was stunning. She was warm and kind to my ten-year-old daughter and gracious to me. My quick assessment of her: Strong, charismatic, and beautiful.<br><br>After seeing the Obamas, I ran into the president's cadre of advisors and gave them some jazz about the war on Fox News, a campaign that did not go well for the White House. Basically, I told the president's men and women that Americans love spirited conversation, and that if they have a beef with something on Fox News, they should come on my television program and hash it out. Look what happened to Al Sharpton. His appearances on Fox News have helped his image immensely. You may not agree with what the Reverend says, but at least he has the guts to debate the issues.<br><br>At Christmastime we should all put politics aside. And that's what the Obamas did. There were a number of Republicans at the party and everybody I talked with had a great time. I was pleased with the event and, again, feel privileged to have had the vantage point.<br><br>I wish everybody could visit the White House in December. There is something about seeing all the portraits of past presidents, hearing the Marine Corps choir sing Christmas songs, and seeing each White House room perfectly decorated for the season that is invigorating—even thrilling.<br><br>So, I received my Christmas present early. Thanks for the party, Mr. President.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-12-17T08:00:00ZIs It Warm In Here?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Is-It-Warm-In-Here/28581.html2009-12-10T08:00:00Z2009-12-10T08:00:00ZAt the opening of the COP15 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark this week, they showed a video where children were trapped by onrushing water. One little girl was left hanging onto a tree limb. Chicken Little had to be proud.<br><br>But I am not here to run down the global warming industry, I am here to explain it. My take is that only the deity knows for sure if the planet is in danger from warming, but the cleaner the earth is, the better. I feel that position encourages positive environmental behavior without going into hysteria land. <br><br>However, you should know that Al Gore and others attached to the warming industry are making tens of millions of dollars by investing in companies trading in new technologies. There is big money in play here as governments are paying billions to clean up dirty industries. T. Boone Pickens has invested big money in wind energy. While that's nice, I do believe the savvy Mr. Pickens wants a return on his investment.<br><br>The recent scandal involving British warming researchers burying facts that challenge climate change is disturbing. And now we have one of America's best hurricane forecasters, Dr. William Gray, saying the fix is in: "There has been an unrelenting quarter-century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and various scientists and governments concerning a carbon dioxide induced global warming disaster...<br><br>"[This is] but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy..."<br><br>Wow.<br><br>But it does make sense. When huge companies like General Electric invest heavily in green industries, there is heavy pressure to convince the world to abandon fossil fuels and use more natural products like sun and wind. The problem is, the technology is not there yet, and conversion costs are through the roof. Thus, the bitter debate.<br><br>The right is wrong to reject global warming outright, but correct in being skeptical. This week Sarah Palin wrote a opinion piece in the <em>Washington Post</em> calling for a boycott of Copenhagen because, she believes, the whole thing is hooey.<br><br>Al Gore quickly responded that physics proves man-made global warming is a reality. And the beat goes on.<br><br>All this disagreement does not help the polar bears or the little girl hanging in the tree. Climate change is one of those issues that will never be settled beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter what Mr. Gore says. So the sane thing to do is for the world to develop cleaner energy options but not ruin economies doing so.<br><br>The free marketplace is a great thing. If you develop a product that is better and cheaper than competing products, you will win. I'd love to heat my house with solar panels that are affordable and easy to use. So, let's get that in motion. <br><br>A little girl in peril is counting on it.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-12-10T08:00:00ZHave Yourself A Godless Little ChristmasBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Have-Yourself-A-Godless-Little-Christmas/28543.html2009-12-03T08:00:00Z2009-12-03T08:00:00ZOnce again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it. This year the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say, "No god? No problem! Be good for goodness sake." The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho.<br><br>A second front was launched by the virulently anti-God group "Freedom from Religion." It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say, "Yes, Virginia, there is no God."<br><br>Nice.<br><br>The question is, why bother? Why spend money at Christmas time to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher. There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.<br><br>But there is a serious side to this, and the American "humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that's the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.<br><br>The head humanist guy, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn't be vilified as immoral. Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here's a bulletin: Many parents don't want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax. That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much goodwill among believers.<br><br>Of course, Roy Speckhardt knows that, and he is being disingenuous with the "just looking out for atheists" posture. What many non-believers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better, because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.<br><br>The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72% of Americans like saying "Merry Christmas," while just 22% prefer the greeting "happy holidays." So the evidence suggests that, despite the ACLU, atheist groups, and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence. <br><br>Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true as well. That's why they know these anti-God signs at Christmas time are dumb and unnecessary. Isn't that right, Virginia?BillOReilly.com Staff2009-12-03T08:00:00ZFaithfully AngryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Faithfully-Angry/28514.html2009-11-25T08:00:00Z2009-11-25T08:00:00ZIt took a while—we're�talking decades—but finally, some American religious leaders say they �are fed up. � A few days ago, a faith-based group including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan issued a scathing indictment of secularism in the USA entitled "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience."<br><br>The document, which includes input from protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, basically says that Christian values are under siege in America and people of faith need to act aggressively to stem the tide. � The Declaration goes so far as to encourage civil disobedience and uses Dr. Martin Luther �King, Jr. as a model for that.<br><br>So why now? Why are some Christians leaders coming out of the sacristy at this point in time?<br><br>The Declaration�gives a strong hint that abortion is the lead issue. � There is no question that the Obama administration and the media in general are ardently pro-choice... no surprise there. � But the fact that so many Democratic Congresspeople are supporting public funding for abortions as part of �health care reform has rocked the pro-life world. � The issue is simple: Should a country that values sincere conscience require taxpayers who believe abortion is murder to pay for the life ending procedure? � Obviously, millions of Americans say no.<br><br>The intensity of the debate is made crystal clear in the showdown between the Bishop of Rhode Island, Thomas Tobin, and Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of the late Ted Kennedy. �The bishop has ordered the congressman not to receive communion because of his support for abortion rights. �Kennedy, like many pro-choice Catholics, falls back on personal belief versus public policy. � He says that just because he takes a pro-choice position�doesn't mean he personally approves of abortion.<br><br>The bishop is having none of it.<br><br>On my television program, Bishop Tobin said flat-out that Kennedy has a moral obligation as a Catholic to fight against abortion. � And if he doesn't, his soul is in danger of damnation. Words don't come stronger than that. �<br><br>So it is apparent that some religious leaders are engaging in high stakes rhetoric, including condemning homosexual marriage. � After abortion, gay nuptials dominate the Manhattan Declaration, and once again, the language is stark. �The tract states that the drive for same-sex and multiple partner marriage is diminishing "true" marriage. "Marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman... no one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as marriage."<br><br>The Christian manifesto concludes with a call to arms and, some believe, a direct arrow aimed at the Obama administration: "Unjust laws degrade human beings. �They lack any power to bind in conscience. �[Dr. Martin Luther] King's willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring."<br><br>So, with the stroke of a pen, the Christian writers have turned the tables on those who say gay marriage and unfettered abortion are civil rights and therefore should be constitutionally protected.�Obviously, there is severe disagreement on that.<br><br>With polls showing that more than 80% of Americans believe in God, the question now becomes, will they rally behind the Manhattan Declaration? �So far, the secular media has given it little attention and that might well continue. �But even if the manifesto gets a full airing, are people of faith as upset as some of their leadership with secularism of America?<br><br>At this point, I simply don't know.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-11-25T08:00:00ZHammering SarahBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hammering-Sarah/28484.html2009-11-19T08:00:00Z2009-11-19T08:00:00ZWith the possible exceptions of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, no politician of the modern era has been more derided by the media than Sarah Palin. And the attacks did not stop with her; they included nasty rumors about her family and even the mocking of her children.<br><br>Now, Mrs. Palin has responded to some of the vitriol in her new book, hoping to give readers her side of controversies like the expensive clothes, the interview gaffes, and the Alaskan "trooper-gate" case.<br><br>So, how has the media received the governor's side of the story? Not well. She is being called a whiner and an ingrate, among other things.<br><br>Writing in the Atlanta <em>Journal-Constitution</em>, über-liberal Cynthia Tucker says, "There is absolutely nothing in Sarah Palin's past that suggested she was ever going to let the past go. She's always been petty. She's always been vindictive."<br><br>So let's get this straight: Media people like Ms. Tucker can hammer Sarah Palin all day long, but if she defends herself, she's "petty and vindictive."<br><br>Isn't the American media swell? By the way, it is worth noting that the left has not been able to knock Governor Palin out, despite trying very hard. A study by the Culture and Media Institute looked at a two-week period during last year's campaign. During that time, the network nightly newscasts ran 18 negative stories about candidate Palin for every positive one. Fair and balanced? Give me a break.<br><br>Somehow, Sarah Palin has gotten under the skin of the far left. The latest propaganda was put forth by feminist Naomi Wolf and crazy-left <em>Washington Post</em> columnist Eugene Robinson who, independently, have dubbed Mrs. Palin the "new Evita." Now, what are the odds of Ms. Wolf and Mr. Robinson, who operate worlds apart, both referencing the Argentine Eva Perón at pretty much the same time? Coincidence? Sure.<br><br>Eva Perón was a demagogue who appealed to the common man. She was also an incompetent leader. The song "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" has immortalized her.<br><br>So, I am expecting a new song to be sung by Bruce Springsteen entitled: "Don't Cry for Me, Wasilla, Alaska." I hope the lyrics aren't whiney.<br><br>My theory is that liberal America fears Sarah Palin. Even though a CBS News poll has her approval rating at just 23%, a whopping 37% say they are still undecided about the governor. That means that millions of Americans are potential converts to her populist cause—bad news for the left if the country turns against the Obama administration.<br><br>Thus, the liberal media is hunting Mrs. Palin, trying to drive a stake through her heart once and for all. But the woman is tough, wily, and unafraid. She's driving them crazy.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-11-19T08:00:00ZTerrorism or Tragedy?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Terrorism-or-Tragedy/28198.html2009-11-12T08:00:00Z2009-11-12T08:00:00ZIt's somewhat disconcerting, but the Obama administration continues to dance around the terrorism question. While a new Rasmussen poll shows 60% of Americans want the Fort Hood massacre investigated as a terrorist act, the president sees the mass murder as a "tragedy" and a violent crime. He told ABC News, "In a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts that are inexplicable."<br><br>But Fort Hood is not one of them.<br><br>When you have a killer emailing an al-Qaeda recruiter in Yemen 20 times, and then yelling "Allah Akbar" (God is great) while gunning down innocent people, the math is on the blackboard. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a terrorist; he murdered 13 people in the name of Jihad.<br><br>So why does President Obama have a problem accepting that?<br><br>The answer was given last February when Mr. Obama told CNN, "I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations. But that those organizations aren't representative of a broader Arab community [or] Muslim community.<br><br>"I believe we can win over moderate Muslims to recognize that destruction and nihilism ultimately leads to a dead end."<br><br>And so the president has dictated that the phrase "war on terror" become "overseas contingency operations," whatever that means. But what if the terror activity is not overseas? What if it happens in Texas? Well, then Mr. Obama says it is "a crime against our nation."<br><br>Notice the word "crime."<br><br>I'm not one to nitpick, but this is important. Technically speaking, the slaughter of human beings at Fort Hood was a crime. But the motive was born out of jihad, the Muslim holy war. So if you want to be honest about it, the Fort Hood massacre was an act of terrorism to further a war goal: the destruction of infidels.<br><br>Also, Fort Hood is not a "tragedy." That word signals an individual flaw that leads to great sadness. Give me a break. Hasan was a hater driven by a fanatical Islamic point of view. He isn't some morose guy contemplating why life dealt him a bad hand.<br><br>President Obama often says that words matter, and that is certainly true. We Americans are at risk because Muslim terrorists want to kill us. That doesn't mean most Muslims subscribe to jihad, but it does mean the problem is exclusively Muslim. <br><br>It is good that President Obama wants to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. But he'll never do it by avoiding reality. He should be appealing to decent Muslims to help the west defeat the terrorists in their midst. Calling the obvious act of terrorism at Fort Hood a tragic crime is naïve at best.<br><br>The folks are not dunderheads; they understand not all Muslims are terrorists. They also know politically correct politicians failing to define murderous acts accurately is unacceptable in this very dangerous world.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-11-12T08:00:00ZVisiting the White HouseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Visiting-the-White-House/28143.html2009-11-05T08:00:00Z2009-11-05T08:00:00ZThe day before Halloween, the White House released a partial list of visitors since January 20 of this year. The list is fascinating and highlights exactly what kind of house the Obamas are running.<br><br>Topping the visitor chart is Andy Stern, the president of the far-left union SEIU. Andy has been received by the Obamas 22 times. Wow. He must be quite a guy. In fact, shouldn't he be getting frequent visitor points like they give in hotels?<br><br>Kim Gandy, the President of the National Organization for Women, clocks in with 14 visits. This has to be a Michelle Obama play. I know the president is a sensitive guy, but hanging around with Ms. Gandy that much is incomprehensible—unless she plays basketball, which I believe she does not.<br><br>John Podesta has visited 17 times. He used to advise Bill Clinton and now runs some wacky far-left organization that specializes in vile personal attacks against conservative Americans. Podesta is one mean motor scooter. I hope he's not scaring the Obama kids.<br><br>Showing up for six visits while keeping hope alive was Jesse Jackson. Not sure what the Reverend is offering the Obamas, but they seem to like him better than Al Sharpton, who's visited the White House twice.<br><br>The late Ted Kennedy chalked up seven visits. You have to assume that was on health care. The liberal lion was a prime backer of Obama-care, which is shaping up as an absolute disaster.<br><br>General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was chauffeured to the White House five times. As you may know, NBC News, owned by GE, has been extremely generous to Barack Obama, and now GE is hot on the trail of government contracts for environmental work. This has the appearance of a quid-pro-quo, and NBC News has one of the best investigative reporters in business: Lisa Myers. I hope she looks into it.<br><br>Radical left financier George Soros showed up to see the Obamas four times. This is a tough one to figure out. Word on the street is that Soros has been shorting the U.S. dollar, which is not a good thing for the economy. Soros is a slippery guy who once nearly ruined the British pound and was convicted of a felony in France. But, hey, those incidents could make for some great story-telling, so perhaps that's why Soros is a repeat visitor.<br><br>Al Gore must miss the White House, so he's been back four times, courtesy of the Obamas. I understand why Al was a guest. Here's a guy who's made a reported $100 million from global warming projects and investments. Certainly, the Obama administration, which is running up deficits in the trillions, could use a little savvy financial advice. So you go, Al.<br><br>Finally, Oprah has visited the Obamas twice. This is nice. Oprah is basically responsible for Barack's fame, and now she is being warmly received. I like this. I like loyalty to friends. <br><br>By the way, your humble correspondent has not been invited to the White House... yet. But I am thinking about shorting the U.S. dollar, so anything could happen.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-11-05T08:00:00ZGetting RadicalBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Getting-Radical/28132.html2009-10-29T07:00:00Z2009-10-29T07:00:00ZIn the beginning, there was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a fire-breathing Chicago preacher who believes America is a bad place. The reverend and Barack Obama were friends for twenty years.<br><br>Also, radical Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, another Chicago cleric, was part of the Obama neighborhood gang. Father Mike was the guy who mocked Hillary Clinton, portraying her as a white woman of entitlement.<br><br>Then there was Bill Ayers, a casual acquaintance of Mr. Obama in Chicago. Ayers, a former Weather Underground guy, is unrepentant to this day about the group's violent activities in the 1960's.<br><br>Barack and Michelle Obama were also friends with Rashid Khalidi, a radical professor who routinely condemns Israel. Mr. Obama spoke at Khalidi's farewell dinner in Chicago just before the professor took a job at Columbia University.<br><br>After being elected president, Mr. Obama appointed Carol Browner as Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. Formerly, Ms. Browner was a leader in the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a group that calls for "global governance." That group is an arm of the Socialist International organization.<br><br>The president also hired Kevin Jennings as the "safe schools czar." Mr. Jennings believes that sexual orientation lessons should begin in kindergarten. <br><br>And, of course, there is Van Jones. The president brought him into the White House to be the "green jobs czar." Unfortunately, Mr. Jones has a radical left resume which includes support for the convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. He was forced to resign when the folks found out exactly how far out there the man really is.<br><br>Judge Edward Chen might be on par with Jones. On August 7, the president nominated Chen for a lifetime federal judgeship in San Francisco. Chen used to be a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberities Union and, just a few days after the terror attack on 9/11, Chen stated he had a "sickening feeling in his stomach about what might happen to race relations and religious tolerance on our own soil.<br><br>"One has to wonder whether the irresistible forces of racism, nativism and scapegoating which has recurred so often in our history can be effectively retrained."<br><br>Sounds a bit like Reverend Wright, does it not?<br><br>So what does all this tell us about Barack Obama? Some conservatives say it indicates that the president is committed far left guy. I'm not so sure.<br><br>What I am sure about is that the Obama administration hates to be associated with the far left and will hammer anyone who makes the link. If you want the bottom line on the White House/Fox News controversy, that's it.<br><br>But it is important to understand the precincts in which the president feels comfortable, and there is no question that he has snuggled up to the far left. <br><br>Does that mean he's Che Guevara in disguise? Not necessarily. But it does mean Barack Obama is somewhat out of step with mainstream America.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-10-29T07:00:00ZFighting the Good FightBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fighting-the-Good-Fight/28106.html2009-10-22T07:00:00Z2009-10-22T07:00:00ZPresident Obama should fire Rahm Emanuel and hire me as his top advisor. Don't laugh. I can almost guarantee higher poll numbers for the president if he brings me on board. <br><br>The first thing I would do is declare a truce with Fox News. Right now, the president is spending more time launching offensives against FNC than the Taliban. I mean, come on, the American people want Bin Laden's head on a stick, not Glenn Beck's. What exactly does attacking FNC get the president? Plus, it's hypocritical. Didn't Barack Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize?<br><br>Next, I would suggest that the Commander-in-Chief actually listen to his top general in Afghanistan and his Secretary of Defense. After listening, the president should immediately send 40,000 more troops to provide more security in that God-forsaken place. As a trusted advisor, I would remind the president that the United States military is a vital enterprise and deserves a chance to win in Afghanistan. <br><br>After accomplishing those two things, President Obama and I would get lunch. Then, back to work.<br><br>Bringing down health care costs is huge for the president, and I would advise him to drop the so called "public option" and concentrate on increased insurance competition across state lines. If insurance companies could compete nationwide, health premiums would begin falling. And if you add tort reform to blunt the out-of-control medical lawsuit industry, doctors and medical personnel could charge less because their enormous medical malpractice bills would shrink. <br><br>By the way, the vast majority of Americans would support both of those things because they are free. They don't cost the taxpayer anything. The public option would cost trillions. A good advisor should be frugal with taxpayer dollars.<br><br>Having dealt with all of that, the president and I would sit down for a heart to heart. I would tell him that he has to tamp down his fascination with far-left guys. Hanging around with Reverend Wright was okay when Barack Obama was a Chicago community guy playing hoops in the school yard, but now that he's the most powerful man in the world, the left-wing loon factor becomes a red flag. I would gently suggest to the president that he might tell his top aides not to publicly say Chairman Mao was a great philosopher, as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn recently did.<br><br>In fact, while Mao was weaving his philosophy, more than 30 million Chinese died grisly deaths. So, as the president's top advisor, I would advise the following: NO MORE REFERENCES TO MAO!<br><br>Finally, I would advise Barack Obama to stay off TV for a while. There is no question he is overexposed. However, I would advise him to go on The O'Reilly Factor. Because O'Reilly is no longer in the anchor seat, having taken the White House position, the president might even be able to complete a sentence. So, okay, to Fox News. Detente, at last.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-10-22T07:00:00ZGive War A ChanceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Give-War-A-Chance/28076.html2009-10-15T07:00:00Z2009-10-15T07:00:00ZWith apologies to Louis Armstrong, it is not a wonderful world any longer. Today, it's a strange and dangerous world where reason and humanity have largely been replaced by fanaticism and treachery.<br><br>Leading the league in villainy are the Iranian mullahs and their chief enabler, the Russian tyrant Putin. While America, Britain, and France are desperately trying to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Russia has announced it does not want to threaten the mullahs with economic sanctions.<br><br>According to the Associated Press, Putin says that talking about sanctions could scare the Iranians and be counterproductive to negotiations. Of course, negotiations with Iran have been going on since Hammurabi was running around, so this sounds a bit insincere.<br><br>Putin also says we should "compromise" with Iran. Let's see, how would that work? Perhaps the Iranians could promise to destroy only half of Israel. Maybe the mullahs could only finance and train Hezbollah and let Hamas go elsewhere.<br><br>This Putin is some piece of work. For years he's been arming Iran, and even sends them components for missiles. He does this because he knows Iran causes the USA and Israel much grief and he likes that. President Bush's response was to take Putin to his ranch for some barbecue. President Obama's response has been to remove some defensive missiles from Eastern Europe that Putin doesn't like.<br><br>Looks like old Vlad has our number.<br><br>Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the latest American official to visit Russia and she told Nightline, "I'm very pleased by how supportive the Russians have been in what has become a united, international effort [against Iranian nukes]."<br><br>This is just dumb. Russia is doing everything it can to make sanctions impossible. I understand that Secretary Clinton has to be diplomatic, but come on—the USA is getting its rear end kicked here.<br><br>By the way, I am nominating Putin for the Nobel War Prize next year, a brand new category.<br><br>In Afghanistan the situation is almost as bad because the countries of continental Europe are missing-in-action. Only Holland and Denmark allow their troops to conduct offensive combat operations. Large NATO nations like France, Spain, and Italy refuse to confront the terrorists.<br><br>They love President Obama in those countries, but the love is shallow. He's asked Europe for more military help to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, two dangerous entities. Europe gives the president a double cheek kiss and does nothing, even though Great Britain has shamed them by sending 500 more troops to the Afghan theatre. <br><br>Many in the world despised President Bush for acting alone in fighting the war on terror. President Obama has promised to change the unilateral approach and seek consensus in defeating the bad guys.<br><br>So how's it going so far, Mr. President?BillOReilly.com Staff2009-10-15T07:00:00ZHappy Birthday, Fox NewsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happy-Birthday-Fox-News/27780.html2009-10-08T07:00:00Z2009-10-08T07:00:00ZBig birthday this week—Fox News Channel is 13 years old. I was there on October 7, 1996, when the channel was launched with about 15 million subscribers. Now we have about 90 million. Back then, if the Factor received 50 emails a day, we were happy. Now we average about 2,000 electronic letters daily.<br><br>FNC is perhaps the biggest media success since the broadcast networks themselves were formed in the 1950s. Fox News is a billion-dollar enterprise that dominates cable news ratings and is consistently in the top five among all cable programs. Simply put, FNC is on fire, even after all these years.<br><br>There are two compelling questions on our birthday. First, why the big success? Second, why do many media people despise us?<br><br>The success part is twofold. There is no question that FNC leans to the right because it gives conservative voices a prominent place on the air. No other TV news operation does this. So, logically, conservative Americans tune in for long periods of time.<br><br>Also, Fox News is not boring! This, I believe, is the biggest reason for our success. Like us or not, we move things along. We have lively people on the air. We take chances and do things differently. In primetime, especially, Americans do not want dull programming. Many news programs simply recite the days events. That will not cut it anymore. You have to give viewers something unique and entertaining. FNC does.<br><br>That makes our competitors and the ideologues running many of the nation's newspapers furious. They don't like the traditionalism of Fox News and they seethe at our success. Thus, on any given day, you can see scathing personal attacks on FNC anchors. I mean, think about it... why the rage? Nobody is forced to watch Fox News. If you don't like Beck, Hannity, or O'Reilly, watch the Food Network. <br><br>The hysteria over Glenn Beck is a great example of why Fox News dominates. Here is a guy with an opinion. He has a television show. That's it. Glenn freely admits he's not a news guy in any sense. He's just a guy who loves his country and wants to talk about it.<br><br>Apparently, that is driving the intelligentsia insane. They can't stand a guy like Beck mouthing off. But why? Last time I looked, Glenn Beck held an American passport. So he's entitled to speak his mind. A big corporation is smart enough to pay him to do that, and millions watch. Isn't the USA a great country?<br><br>Obviously, I'm happy to be celebrating 13 years on Fox News. When I took the job, I was just looking to make a nice living and have a little fun. But now, The O'Reilly Factor is part of the American fabric, a broadcast that actually influences the debate in this country.<br><br>Way back in 1996, who knew?BillOReilly.com Staff2009-10-08T07:00:00ZPresident Obama and the Far LeftBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Obama-and-the-Far-Left/27754.html2009-10-01T07:00:00Z2009-10-01T07:00:00ZYou've got to love Michael Moore. He's running around promoting his new film that says capitalism is a terrible system, a rotten-to-the-core philosophy. But hold it. Didn't Moore have to raise money to make the movie through capitalistic vehicles? Or did his dad give him the dough?<br><br>In one of his many interviews, Moore began lecturing President Obama: "You are one of us... this is not the time to be the representative of the private health insurance industry. We need you to stand up... and we want universal health care for every single American and we want it controlled in a single payer system..."<br><br>Wow, anything else, Mike?<br><br>I'd love to know how President Obama feels about being told what to do by the likes of Michael Moore, a man who admires the Cuban political system. I'd like to believe the president tunes radical stuff out, but there is growing evidence that he does not.<br><br>When asked about the ACORN scandal, Mr. Obama said he wasn't paying much attention to it. Hard to believe, but possible. He also said he had more important things to worry about. True, but you can walk and chew gum at the same time. The president should have condemned the corruption at ACORN, a group that fervently supports him. But the president did not.<br><br>The far-left also wants out of Afghanistan, continuing to believe that al-Qaeda and other terrorists can be contained by simply ignoring their presence. At first, President Obama labeled Afghanistan as a "war of necessity." Now, he can't decide whether to honor his commanding general's request for more troops there. Is Obama listening to the radical left on the issue?<br><br>And then there's the loopy Center for American Progress group run by Obama advisor John Podesta. They want a huge value-added tax dumped on consumers in order to pay for entitlements. A VAT would pick your pocket when you buy stuff. That would hurt working Americans big time.<br><br>Didn't President Obama promise not to raise taxes on working people? I believe he did. But the far left doesn't seem to care about that, and is pushing the president to hike taxes.<br><br>So, the picture is pretty clear. The president remains under pressure from the far left to radically change the country. But all the polls say most Americans don't want radical change. They don't believe in it, to use an Obama platitude.<br><br>President Clinton faced the same pressure in the early 1990s, but manned up. He disappointed the radical left with welfare reform and a number of other moderate/right positions. He was easily re-elected in 1996.<br><br>But I'll make a prediction: Barack Obama will not be reelected if he continues dancing on the far-left side of the floor. Michael Moore and his crew speak for a very few Americans. Thank God.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-10-01T07:00:00ZThe Wide World of ChaosBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Wide-World-of-Chaos/27718.html2009-09-24T07:00:00Z2009-09-24T07:00:00ZIt may be time to start channeling Noah and start building an ark. The world is a huge mess and it's getting worse everyday. Iran is on track to develop nuclear weapons, but global warming may incinerate us first. The Israeli-Palestinian hatefest rolls on, and Afghanistan is falling apart. Mexico is overrun by drug criminals and third-world poverty is as horrific as ever. I think things are okay in Finland.<br><br>This week President Obama implored the United Nations to do something, <em>anything</em> to combat terrorism and warming. The president was blunt: "Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world... protracted conflicts that grind on and on... genocide and mass atrocities... more and more nations with nuclear weapons... melting ice caps and ravaged populations... persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action."<br><br>The response from France was to indicate it would no longer support tough sanctions against Iran.<br><br>So what we have here, with apologies to Cool Hand Luke, is failure to communicate. But is that President Obama's fault? He laid it out there clearly: the nations of the world must unite against evil and begin problem solving.<br><br>The response from China is that it will "look into" its massive pollution problem.<br><br>The hard truth is that the USA can't force nations to do the right thing. We can't force the Afghans to fight for their country against the brutal Taliban. We can't force India to adopt cleaner energy policies. We can't even persuade Russia to cooperate against Iranian nuclear ambitions. <br><br>President Obama must try, but there does not seem to be a plan B. It will be a miracle if tough sanctions are applied against Iran and, even if they are, there's no guarantee the crazy Mullahs will stop their nuke program. Therefore, Israel will most likely attack them, and a huge war will break out. Of course, the Muslim world will blame America.<br><br>It must be tough for Mr. Obama to sleep at night knowing the world is such a malevolent place.<br><br>The Bush administration basically did what it wanted to do without world approval. That made President Bush deeply unpopular, but it also caused bad people to fear him. The signature achievement of the Bush years was a ruthless campaign against terrorists--and it worked. Al Qaeda was decimated, and no further foreign terror reached American soil.<br><br>Now, we have a kinder, gentler president who is desperately trying to build world cooperation to solve problems. But Mr. Obama is getting hammered. Europe doesn't help much in Afghanistan, China and Russia actually help Iran, and North Korea can pretty much do crazy things all day long.<br><br>It's enough to give Uncle Sam a facial tic. There is big trouble brewing overseas. How much wood does it take to construct that ark?BillOReilly.com Staff2009-09-24T07:00:00ZObama and UsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obama-and-Us/27480.html2009-09-17T07:00:00Z2009-09-17T07:00:00ZThe announcement this week by the Fed that the recession could be ending should have been great news for the Obama administration. After all, it is the president's economy now, and if it turns upward, he will be celebrated, right?<br><br>Uh, maybe not.<br><br>It may seem insane, but the ACORN scandal could now be diminishing any good economic news. The community activism outfit has been embarrassed by two amateur journalists who used hidden cameras to expose ACORN employees who discussed how to set up houses of prostitution, including one containing underage girls.<br><br>Soon after the exposé, the Senate voted 83-7 to deny ACORN further federal grants. And even though the committed left media pretty much ignored the story, millions of Americans are engaged.<br><br>Just like they are engaged on the health care controversy. A recent Rasmussen poll shows most Americans now oppose Obama-care, even after the president's emotional plea last week. So what exactly is going on here?<br><br>I think President Obama is experiencing some buyer's remorse. The furious opposition to his policies have made for great television, and those images are now overriding what policy success he may be having. During the campaign, Obama appeared cool and in control to the public. But now, he seems bewildered at times, taken aback by the strident and persistent attacks on his vision for the country.<br><br>Those are not going to stop. Conservative Americans deeply distrust the president on philosophy, not just policy. So the White House must come up with a strategy to blunt the emotional anti-Obama displays, or risk being marginalized in year one. The Obama people must convince those who supported the president, with reservations, that they did not vote for the wrong guy.<br><br>From my perch in the media, it seems that the president thought the left-wing press would protect him against right-wing media scrutiny. After all, liberal media outlets heavily outnumber their conservative counterparts. But that is not happening. MSNBC and CNN are not competitive with Fox News, and newspapers like the <em>New York Times</em> and the <em>Boston Globe</em> are in serious economic trouble as readers have turned away by the thousands.<br><br>In public relations land, the biggest mistake the president is making is avoiding moderate conservatives who would give him a fair shake. This Sunday, Mr. Obama is going on all the Sunday chat shows to talk up health care—all except Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Bad decision.<br><br>Mr. Wallace is no ideologue, and Fox News is dominating the national conversation right now. By avoiding Fox, the President looks weak. I mean, he is preaching to the choir on the network news shows. But the choir is obviously losing members. All the polls show that.<br><br>So if I'm Barack Obama, I take the economy, the aggressive stuff I'm doing against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and I bring it over to the loyal opposition. That would get some attention. And it might also bury the ACORN scandal in the process.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-09-17T07:00:00ZThe John Adams ProjectBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-John-Adams-Project/27182.html2009-09-10T07:00:00Z2009-09-10T07:00:00ZWhen I think of the terrorist atrocity that happened eight years ago, I feel deeply for people like Vic and Christine Colaio. These two fine Americans lost their sons Stephen and Mark who both worked in the World Trade Center. Along with their daughter Jean, the elderly couple suffers their loss on a daily basis. Time does not heal those kinds of wounds.<br><br>That is why I am so enraged by the John Adams Project, a group of subversive Americans affiliated with the ACLU who are sneaking around taking pictures of CIA agents who may have interrogated captured al-Qaeda guys in the wake of the 9/11 attack. This insidious outfit believes the CIA tortured casually and the USA is a "human rights violator."<br><br>After taking the surreptitious photos, the Adams Project then passes them on to lawyers representing incarcerated terrorists, hoping that an accused man will, in turn, accuse a CIA agent of torturing him. This nasty business is now being investigated by the Justice Department, but the Obama administration has kept very quiet about it and, strangely, so has the media.<br><br>Only two newspapers, the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> and the <em>Washington Times</em>, have reported on the John Adams Project and there is something very disturbing about that. Remember Valerie Plame? She was the CIA operative publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak in an Iraq weapons of mass destruction controversy. After that happened, the left wing media went wild with indignation. How could anyone name a CIA person, thereby putting he or she in danger? The <em>New York Times</em> was on fire over the story. But when faced with the facts about the John Adams Project, the <em>Times</em> passed.<br><br>There comes a time when Americans get fed up with hypocrisy and simply walk away from the hypocrites. That is happening right now in the mainstream media. Newspapers are going out of business; network TV news is losing audience. Weekly news magazines like <em>Time</em> and <em>Newsweek</em> are barely surviving as Americans look elsewhere for their news.<br><br>Many media analysts blame this sad state of affairs on the internet, which can provide instant information free of charge. But I believe many news consumers understand that the fix is in and are furious about selective and distorted reporting. Thus, they are voting with their wallets.<br><br>By exposing CIA agents to accused terrorists and their lawyers, the John Adams Project is obviously putting lives in jeopardy. This is a thousand times worse than the Plame affair, which saw top Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby convicted of a felony while the press largely celebrated.<br><br>But where is the coverage of the Adams story? Where is President Obama on the issue? Why are these people being allowed to terrorize the Central Intelligence Agency?<br><br>Relevant questions. We await the answers.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-09-10T07:00:00ZPanic at the White HouseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Panic-at-the-White-House/27146.html2009-09-03T07:00:00Z2009-09-03T07:00:00ZIn the dark days of the Iraq war when valiant U.S. troops faced down multiple enemies who obeyed no rules of war, President Bush never panicked. Even when his approval rating dropped below 35%, the president slugged it out for better or for worse, depending on your worldview.<br><br>The same cannot be said for President Obama, who is now reeling from the pressure of his collapsing health care vision. The latest evidence of this was a posting on the "Organizing for America" website that was set up by Mr. Obama in January and is housed at the Democratic National Committee. The message, since scrubbed from the website, said this in part:<br><br>"Stay at home [for Health Care Organizing Day.] Call your Senators that day [September 11] ... as we fight back against our own right-wing domestic terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox propaganda network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders."<br><br>Again, that posting came from an organization created by President Obama. And even though somebody saw the insanity of the words and removed them, if this isn't panic, than nothing is.<br><br>I believe it is safe to say that many liberals are stunned by the president's decline in the polls and his inability to sell a government-run health care system. I mean, it all sounds so compassionate; helping the poor get quality medical care, ensuring that insurance companies do not gouge working Americans. How can you oppose that?<br><br>But theory is one thing; actual performance is quite something else. As you know, the president had months to clarify the details of the massive health care program, but could not do it. Also, the Congressional Budget Office keeps embarrassing Mr. Obama by contradicting his optimistic financial prognostications. Americans may not like math, but they can do it. This health care deal is adding up to chaos.<br><br>Add to that the fact that hardcore leftists like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are almost hysterical in pushing federal health care, and a deep distrust has set in. Seniors in particular are skeptical that they may go to the end of the line when the feds begin calling the medical shots.<br><br>And then there is the senseless viciousness on the part of some who support national health care mandates. Calling those who oppose your health care point of view "domestic terrorists" is a slander no spin doctor can deny. <br><br>There is no question that the Obama administration has been badly damaged this summer, but it can still regroup if it doesn't panic. Most Americans want a fair health care system and are worried about protecting their families from devastating illness.<br><br>But at this point, they may be more worried about a White House that is not only losing the health care debate, but is failing to control the crazies on their side. Not exactly a healthy situation.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-09-03T07:00:00ZThe Leadership FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Leadership-Factor/27117.html2009-08-27T07:00:00Z2009-08-27T07:00:00ZWhen I think of recent effective leaders, two names top the list: Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan. Using their sharp personalities, these guys motivated others to work effectively for a cause and, of course, that is what true leadership is all about.<br><br>Faced with a powerful German Werhmacht that had rolled over Europe, Churchill showed iron resolve while other British leaders broke down. He simply told British subjects that there would be no surrender and they would fight to the finish. Churchill's crisis leadership defeated the dreaded Nazis as much as anything else.<br><br>President Reagan's leadership was of a different sort. He promoted an optimistic pride in America and convinced millions that the USA was a noble nation. It was Reagan's tough resolve, however, that fatally damaged the Soviet Union's evil empire. While Churchill was blunt and blustery, Reagan was charming and smooth. But both men accomplished great things by sheer willpower.<br><br>Today, President Barack Obama is in the leadership slot. Relatively young and untested, the president is facing tough situations in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq as well as back home with the economy and health care. So far, Mr. Obama's leadership has been shaky. To be fair, he's only been in office eight months, but the polls show that many Americans are rapidly losing confidence in his ability to deal with vexing problems.<br><br>Writing in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, Fouad Ajami said this: "The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic... in the newly minted U.S. Senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.<br><br>"All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership."<br><br>Now the president has been tested and it has not gone well. He tried but failed to explain his health care vision, giving his opponents an enormous opportunity to beat him down. Americans respond to clarity. Obama-care is so complicated Moses couldn't explain it.<br><br>When I interviewed Barack Obama nearly a year ago, I could not ascertain his leadership potential. The talk was intense and Obama showed a quick mind. But what about his resolve, his ability to stand firm on principle? It was impossible for me to tell while facing him.<br><br>But the Reverend Wright situation gave me pause. A true leader does not compromise on certain things. Wright is an America-hater. He believes the country is a deeply flawed, racist enterprise. Somehow, Barack Obama embraced Wright as a pastor and as a friend. What kind of leadership does that show?<br><br>I believe President Obama is a man who is brilliant at accommodation. His gifts lie in mass communication and acceptance of situations that might help him, even if those situations are dubious. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as accommodation can lead to great success. But leaders lead based on belief, not accommodation.<br><br>It is too early to tell whether Barack Obama is in over his head as the world's most powerful man. But his leadership profile is beginning to sag. We are living in complicated, perilous times and Americans know it. They want decisive, clear direction from their President.<br><br>Right now, it's not there.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-08-27T07:00:00ZHave A Nice Vacation, Mr. PresidentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Have-A-Nice-Vacation-Mr.-President/27081.html2009-08-20T07:00:00Z2009-08-20T07:00:00ZPresident Obama can't seem to catch a break. He's heading to the island of Martha's Vineyard for vacation, but so is Hurricane Bill. The big storm may brush the Atlantic Coast, bringing even more wind and rain into the president's life.<br><br>It has been a rough summer for Mr. Obama. The economy continues to wobble, the Afghan war is brutal, and the health care chaos has diminished the president in the eyes of many Americans. His leadership on that vital issue has been inconsistent and, at times, downright confusing. I dare you to sit through an entire Obama health care town hall meeting and then explain what the president said. Talk about a tower of babble.<br><br>So, the president obviously needs to relax, and he picked a good place. Obama carried the Vineyard with 75% of the vote last November and the Clintons vacation there all the time. The chances of running into Rush Limbaugh on the island are slim.<br><br>Actually, the first president to relax on Martha's Vineyard was U.S. Grant. Back then, there was no intrusive White House press corps, so Mr. Grant could sip cocktails all day long, which apparently was his primary vacation goal. But Mr. Obama is a more active guy. We can expect to see pictures of him swimming, biking, and perhaps writing prescriptions on White House stationary just to practice.<br><br>The Vineyard has a fascinating history. Settled in 1642 as a whaling center, it is four miles off the Massachusetts coast, and about 16,000 people live there year round. A bunch of swell folks own island property-people like Mike Wallace, Diane Sawyer, Michael J. Fox, Spike Lee, Bill Murray and Ted Danson.<br><br>President Obama will rent somebody's house for the week, and he's lucky. Last year, an estate on the island sold for more than $25 million. Actually, the president will be able to see the rich people he wants to heavily tax up close and personal on Martha's Vineyard, so this could be called a working vacation.<br><br>There is a heavy rumor that Oprah may show up to party with the Obamas during their vacation week. But there is no truth to a report that the talk show star will give an acre of Vineyard land to a selected studio audience. Even Oprah has to draw the line somewhere.<br><br>I believe it is important that no one yell at President Obama during his vacation. He has certainly had enough of that recently. He needs some peace-some down time. He needs to recharge using the Vineyard sun and wind. The president must get away from talk radio, tea bag protesters, and cap and trade.<br><br>Like President Grant before him, Mr. Obama should just settle back with a cold one, turn on Fox News, and enjoy the moments.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-08-20T07:00:00ZAn Unhealthy TacticBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/An-Unhealthy-Tactic/27048.html2009-08-13T07:00:00Z2009-08-13T07:00:00ZCan you believe this health care chaos? I mean, what a tremendous story. A charismatic president puts all his currency behind remodeling America's health care system and, at this point, is getting his back pocket kicked.<br><br>A recent Rasmussen poll has 53% of Americans opposing the president's health care vision; just 42% now support. Also, a whopping 44% of voters <em>strongly</em> oppose, while only 26% strongly support Obama-care.<br><br>In response, the president traveled to Portsmouth, New Hampshire this week for a town hall meeting in front of a largely friendly crowd. He then told the folks that the AARP supports his reform plan. About ten minutes later, the AARP issued a press release saying, uh, not so fast, Mr. President—we do not support any specific health care plan at this time. Asked about this later, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president did not mean anything "untoward." I believe the issue is untrue, not untoward, with all due respect.<br><br>Also in New Hampshire, an 11-year-old girl named Julia Hall asked this question: "I saw a lot of signs outside saying mean things about reforming health care. How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can help more of us?"<br><br>The president responded smoothly about bad health care "rumors" and why his plan is worthy. It all sounded great.<br><br>But then the <em>Boston Globe</em> reported that young Julia is the daughter of Kathleen Manning Hall, who ran the Massachusetts Women for Obama organization during the campaign. Uh-oh. Does the word "plant" come to mind?<br><br>Considering that President Obama has described some health care protesters as disingenuous ideologues, you would think the president's team would avoid having disingenuous questioners at town hall meetings. You would think.<br><br>All of this points to one thing: There is a serious breakdown in Obama's health care message. The White House is reeling under falling poll numbers and intense pubic displays of hostility. And the administration's response to that? Well, this week Mr. Gibbs said this to Matt Lauer: "I think we all have something to lose, Matt, if we let cable television come to town hall meetings and kill health care reform for another year, and put the special interests back in charge."<br><br>So to what "cable television" is Mr. Gibbs referring? CNN and MSNBC are largely supportive of the president. I don't think Spike TV is in play here, so he must be slamming Fox News. Is that smart?<br><br>Since the town hall protests began, FNC's ratings have soared because we cover the events fairly. We don't mock the protesters or label them as subversive. We actually put both sides of the issue on display. I've invited Robert Gibbs on my program, but he has always declined. <br><br>The end game here is that the Obama administration is badly mishandling the health care debate. Attacking critics and planting favorable questions is not the remedy for fixing health care confusion. If there is a wise up pill available, the administration needs it fast.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-08-13T07:00:00ZA Matter of TrustBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Matter-of-Trust/27014.html2009-08-06T07:00:00Z2009-08-06T07:00:00ZThe current civil war in America is really an uncivil debate about whether to trust the federal government or not. Policy aside, fundamental beliefs are now separating Americans into two very intense camps.<br><br>On the left side sit the "give hope a chance" crew which supports the dramatic increase in government influence and spending. These pro-Obama citizens believe that the president can right economic and social wrongs by dramatically expanding federal power.<br><br>Cruising on the right are those suspicious of increasing federal power. These folks generally believe President Obama is, indeed, an agent of hope—he hopes the nation will embrace a form of neo-socialism. Emotions are now running high on both sides of the debate.<br><br>Polls show the nation is almost evenly divided when it comes to Obama's vision for the country. A Rasmussen poll this week has the president's approval rating at 49%, while 51% disapprove. That's even with the margin of error factor kicked in.<br><br>So, we are a country at odds. Just six months ago, the president's approval rating approached 70% as the nation looked forward to better times under a young, dynamic leader. But that was then.<br><br>Now, there is chaos in the air. The massive spending the Democrats have championed has unsettled many who understand that foreign lenders, in particular the Chinese, are becoming a lifeline for America. If these people pull out, disaster drives in. With bankruptcy looming in California, it is not far-fetched to see the federal government drowning in debt as well.<br><br>Also, few understand Obama's health care vision, and he has not been able to explain it effectively. Most human beings highly value security. Are you feeling secure these days?<br><br>But it is the trust factor that has really frayed tempers. Conservative Americans, almost 40% of the population, are outraged at Obama's expansionist policies. The right simply does not trust the president, and probably never will.<br><br>Liberals, about 20% of the folks, are standing by their man; they want a huge federal presence to dictate who gets what in health care and they love the income redistribution strategy in general. In President Obama, the hopes of the committed left are being realized.<br><br>But it is the other 40% of Americans, mainly independents, who are losing hope fairly quickly. Most Americans are not hardcore ideologues and are willing to give any new president a chance. But with the recession still causing massive pain, and a president who increasingly seems unsure of himself, the independent folks are getting a bit nervous.<br><br>Since last January, there certainly has been plenty of change. But, as the polls prove, fewer and fewer folks are believing in it.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-08-06T07:00:00ZPresident Obama vs. Benjamin FranklinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Obama-vs.-Benjamin-Franklin/26969.html2009-07-30T07:00:00Z2009-07-30T07:00:00ZAs President Obama struggles to sell his massive reorganization of the health care industry, it is important to understand what is driving the president. This is a classic liberal vs. conservative battle, pitting government money for the poor against rugged individual competition in which the winners get more security than the losers.<br><br>Mr. Obama, of course, is a liberal guy—a community organizer who fundamentally believes that the American deck is stacked against many poor folks who, through no fault of their own, have been denied opportunities by society. So the president believes that it is government's responsibility to give those people as much money as possible. Free health care is free money.<br><br>That puts Obama squarely against Benjamin Franklin who said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Dr. Franklin realized that politicians who attempted to buy votes by promising rich entitlements could not look out for the good of the entire country. Thus, an inevitable decline would occur.<br><br>There is no question the American health care system needs reform. But that can be done by strict federal oversight on abuses in the industry, and tax breaks for folks who put money away for their medical care. Of course, safety nets for the poor and destitute must be available, and those should come in the form of free government-run clinics.<br><br>But President Obama wants to take it much further—he wants the government to control costs and give free health insurance to millions. That might very well bankrupt the USA. You don't have to look any further than the universal health care mess in Massachusetts to see disaster ahead.<br><br>Even though he remains a popular politician, President Obama is becoming increasingly estranged from the American people. According to a new Rasmussen Poll, 69% of Americans believe the USA is a fair and decent country. 65% want fewer government services and lower taxes. Despite a hard sell from the hard left, the socialist vision of "providing" for the poor is not taking root in America. Simply put, most folks support making your own way and do not believe the feds should be creating massive entitlements.<br><br>So, here's the interesting question: How far will President Obama push government-controlled health care? Will he risk his entire administration on it? Right now, the folks are extremely skeptical because the president cannot articulate specifics. I do not expect that to change.<br><br>America is the most successful nation the world has ever seen. It provides more freedom and opportunity to its citizens than any other place. But there are millions of Americans who have failed and will continue to fail to pursue happiness effectively. President Obama wants to assist them using the nation's treasure, which is basically derived from its hard-working population. He wants to redistribute wealth in the name of compassion.<br><br>The argument has its emotion. But remember, Benjamin Franklin would not have supported national health care.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-07-30T07:00:00ZWhat Obama Fails to Understand About AmericaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-Obama-Fails-to-Understand-About-America/26921.html2009-07-23T07:00:00Z2009-07-23T07:00:00ZThe stunning collapse in public opinion for President Obama's health care plan demonstrates a weakness in the president's overall vision. According to a new Gallup poll, 55% of Americans now believe Obama is doing a poor job on health care reform, his signature issue. The big reason for this is that few understand what the deuce is going on. I mean, I analyze the news for a living and I can't explain what the House bill would do. It's more than a thousand pages long, for crying out loud, and reading it could cause your head to explode.<br><br>Americans elected Mr. Obama to change things that are failing. No question that the health industry is in chaos--price gouging, frivolous lawsuits, poorly run hospitals all add to the apprehension of the regular folks. But the president is not reforming, he's reinventing. He wants the government to set up a parallel health care apparatus, a giant entanglement of entitlements.<br><br>Did I mention that nobody can explain it?<br><br>And it's not only confusion that is causing Americans to bail on Obama-care. Most of us value freedom and have a healthy distrust of government. Time after time, we have seen the feds screw things up: Iraq, Katrina, immigration, Vietnam, the war on drugs, public schools... the list is endless. And we are going to put our troubled appendix in the hands of these people?<br><br>If the president's plan were clearly presented with the costs spelled out, I believe it would have a chance of passing. But just about everybody knows the USA might be facing bankruptcy, which would damage Americans far more than a troubled health care system. Even though the president will not admit it, there is huge financial risk in Obama's health care vision and Americans are starting to wise up about the danger. <br><br>Finally, there is the freedom factor. Your health is obviously very personal. You want to have as much control as possible when you get sick. In Canada, where the government runs the health care industry, there are waiting lists for treatment in some places, a shortage of doctors in others. Americans fear that if medical choices are dictated by the feds, that kind of chaos will happen here.<br><br>Also, federal health care means all your medical records are in the hands of the government. Do you want that?<br><br>So, don't be surprised if the federal health care plan goes down in flames and President Obama is dealt his first major setback. This whole thing is poorly thought out, rushed, and full of peril.<br><br>It's almost enough to make you sick.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-07-23T07:00:00ZMarginalizing Sarah PalinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Marginalizing-Sarah-Palin/26893.html2009-07-16T07:00:00Z2009-07-16T07:00:00ZAbout a month ago in this space, I told you that the <em>New York Times</em> had rigged a poll about Americans wanting to pay higher taxes to fund government-run health care. The <em>Times</em> poll said 57% were willing to pay more tax; 37% were not willing to do so. But what the <em>Times</em> did not tell its readers was that 48% of those polled voted for Barack Obama. Just 25% supported John McCain. So of course the poll results would skew left.<br><br>Now we have another media deceit. In the most recent <em>Newsweek</em> magazine, there is a nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin by a guy named Rick Perlstein. The piece is presented as hard news, not an opinion column, and basically says that the governor is a moron who is supported by dimwitted conservatives at odds with smart Republicans. Perlstein also submits that the dumb GOP folks are led by me and other Fox News people.<br><br>Anyone reading the story would think that a <em>Newsweek</em> correspondent put it together. I mean, the magazine has a staff of trained journalists to do its reporting and analysis. But Rick Perlstein is not a <em>Newsweek</em> correspondent, and is identified only as an author at the end of the piece. Very strange.<br><br>It gets even more strange.<br><br>Turns out that Rick Perlstein is a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called "Campaign for America's Future." Perlstein lists one of his "interests" as "conservative failure." In 2007, Perlstein wrote, "I've just become a proud Fox [News] attacker. Now, you can too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what Fox says. Fox can't survive that."<br><br>So, <em>Newsweek</em> magazine hires a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Sarah Palin, conservatives, and Fox News, and does not inform its readers about the loon's dedicated point-of-view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage. Awful.<br><br><em>Newsweek</em> magazine is in dire financial trouble and is seeking to survive by cultivating a liberal, urban audience. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the editors are up-front about it. But this sneaky media stuff is harming America, and it must be unmasked.<br><br>With Barack Obama in the White House, the country is facing profound change. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy and federal intrusion into private business, health care, and the environment is unprecedented. The far left is trying to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." Also, the left sees a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.<br><br>In order to accomplish this, the left-wing media is marginalizing people like Sarah Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media is pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930's.<br><br>Americans need to wake up and smell the corruption. If crazy ideologues have infiltrated the news business, we need to know about it. And now you do.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-07-16T07:00:00ZOff the Wall: Race and Michael JacksonBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Off-the-Wall:-Race-and-Michael-Jackson/26847.html2009-07-08T07:00:00Z2009-07-08T07:00:00ZLike Elvis Presley before him, the demise of Michael Jackson has engaged the entire world. The parallels are spooky. Both Presley and Jackson lived isolated, somewhat bizarre lives, eventually destroying themselves with drugs administered by doctors on their payrolls. A proven fact in Presley's case—strong evidence in Jackson's death.<br> <br>But while Elvis was mourned primarily as a great entertainer, Michael Jackson is being sold by his supporters as much more. In fact, if you listen to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the troubled singer was the second coming of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At Jackson's memorial service earlier this week, Sharpton put forth that Michael brought blacks and whites together, teaching us all how to love.<br> <br>Wow, who knew?<br> <br>A Pew Research poll shows that African-Americans are far more interested in the Jackson story than white Americans, and some speakers at the memorial referred to Jackson as a black icon. But how can this be? As everyone knows, Jackson bleached his skin to make it lighter and paid white men to donate sperm for his three in vitro children, at least two of which were carried to term by a white woman.<br> <br>Does that sound like a black icon to you? So what is really going on here?<br> <br>My colleague Bernard Goldberg says this is an example of a minority group sticking together, rallying around one of their own. It is true that many African-Americans celebrated the acquittal of O.J. Simpson from murder charges, as well as a jury finding Jackson not guilty on child molestation charges. I guess it's natural to root for the home team, especially when history has been brutally unkind. Black Americans well understand the injustice of the past.<br> <br>But the truth is that Michael Jackson's contribution lies in entertainment and little else. He is not a role model. His admitted conduct with children is simply unacceptable for any adult. His use of cosmetic surgery is troubling, to say the least. And the enormous amount of money he spent on prescription drugs speaks for itself. <br> <br>Of course, it is the corrupt media that is driving the deification of Mr. Jackson. Rather than challenge the St. Paul-like portrayal, the press is cynically exploiting it to the fullest.<br> <br>Remember, these are the same people who covered the molestation trial gavel to gavel. When Jackson was found not guilty, did the media label him a hero? It certainly did not. But now that he's dead (very possibly from an accidental drug overdose), Michael Jackson has become a hero. How does that happen? What kind of media con is this?<br> <br>I'd like to put that question to every single national anchorperson who sat there doing play-by-play at the memorial service. I do not believe I'd get a cogent answer.<br> <br>Listen, I have no desire to intrude on anyone grieving for Michael Jackson, especially the people who truly loved him. But the entire planet is watching this play out, and there is such a thing as truth in this world.<br> <br>We should be telling it.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-07-08T07:00:00ZDon't Say ThatBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Say-That/26821.html2009-07-02T07:00:00Z2009-07-02T07:00:00ZWith Americans busy celebrating the 233rd birthday of the USA this week, freedom of speech comes to mind. We Americans are big on speaking freely, but the words we are using are quite another matter. In fact, we are becoming a nation of braying sheep, using the same words and phrases over and over again. Benjamin Franklin, a wordsmith if there ever was one, would have some issues with that.<br><br><b>Issues.</b> That is a drastically overused word that is being used to avoid the proper word: "problems." "He has issues" sounds a lot better than "the guy is dramatically screwed-up." So, my friend, issues, not problems, is the new polite.<br><br><b>My friend.</b> Is it just me, or does calling someone you just met "my friend" sound a bit condescending? Friendship takes time and commitment. I don't want somebody telling me I'm their friend. Alexander Hamilton, who could be a mean guy, would understand, and if he were still alive, he would give me a shout-out.<br><br><b>Shout-out.</b> That clich� comes from the hip-hop world which has done more to ruin the English language than Paris Hilton. But the rappers have won this lexicon battle. Millions of Americans are now "shouting out" to their friends and neighbors. What's next? Dick Cheney giving a "shout-out" to Don Rumsfeld? Could happen and if it does, it will be Cheney's "bad."<br><br><b>My bad.</b> This may be the worst clich� to hit the country since "groovy." Again, it comes from the hip-hop industry, where "they be chillin'" over using actual phrases like "that was my fault." Why say four words when you can say two, and rhyme at the same time? "My bad, I'm mad." Awesome.<br><br><b>Awesome.</b> Why? Why not "splendid?" Or "excellent?" Or "super?" Sorry, we had "super" a few years ago and it almost drove me to learn Farsi. But, really, why awesome? Why is everybody saying that? And don't tell me "it is what it is."<br><br>I hate that. <b>It is what it is.</b> What does that mean? Should we go around and saying stuff like "hey, look at that alligator over there—it is what it is." I know that. I know what I'm seeing and hearing. I don't need someone to tell me "that refrigerator is what it is." That is sooooo not cool.<br><br>Sooooo. Pleeeeease. Stopppp. <br><br>And <b>cool.</b> When Brando said it in the 1950s, it sounded good. When Edd "Kookie" Byrnes said it on "77 Sunset Strip," it was in context. When President Obama says it, I want to turn in my passport. Grown-ups should not be saying "cool" unless they are wiling, like Brando, to ride big motorcycles very fast. Then it's okay. "You go, girl!"<br><br>Yikes. <b>You go, girl!</b> Another expression from the 'hood made popular by Oprah and other TV people. Now all the girls are going. But to where? Where are the ladies heading? I don't know.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-07-02T07:00:00ZDon't Be DeceivedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Be-Deceived/26794.html2009-06-25T07:00:00Z2009-06-25T07:00:00ZIt seems everyday there is another example of media deception in America. With the Fourth of July approaching, it is well worth remembering why the founding fathers gave the press special privileges. They wanted journalists to report honestly—to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power. Many of the founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams didn't much like the press, but they well understood that, for a democratic Republic to work, voters need honest information.<br><br>Unfortunately, the vision of a free and honest press is fast disappearing in America. Let me give you yet another vivid example. This week a poll by the <em>New York Times</em> asked, "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance... ?"<br><br>57% said they were willing, 37% not willing, and 6% said "no opinion."<br><br>So, according to the <em>Times</em>, overwhelmingly, Americans want government-financed health care. That's what the poll says, right?<br><br>But if you read all the way down to the bottom of the poll, you see another question. "Who did you vote for [in the presidential election]?"<br><br>48% said Obama; just 25% answered McCain. The rest, 19%, did not vote. Wow, that's almost two to one for Obama.<br><br>But the popular vote tally in the election last November was 53% for Barack Obama, and 46% for John McCain. Wait a minute. That's a lot closer than two to one. So apparently the <em>New York Times</em> skewed the polling by offering the questions to mostly Obama voters. I'm shocked they supported higher taxes for federal health care, aren't you? <br><br>This kind of dishonesty is not uncommon in the media. The <em>Times</em> says its poll is "scientific." Sure it is—scientifically stacking the deck.<br><br>I believe very few people read the entire poll before digesting the health care headline. The result is a flawed perception of what the American public really wants. The folks may, indeed, support Uncle Sam paying some heavy medical bills, but this poll is not a reflection of anything other than a <em>New York Times</em> deception.<br><br>By the way, CBS News also had its name on that poll.<br><br>As a media guy who wants accurate information, that kind of stuff tees me off. As soon as the pollsters learned most the respondents were Obama people, they should have thrown the results out. But the <em>Times</em> ardently favors national health care and a huge federal government. So the con played out.<br><br>The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The <em>Times</em> has an ombudsman, but he's a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.<br><br>It is true that the <em>Times</em> and some other media outlets, most on the committed left, are on the brink of bankruptcy. The liberal papers say the Internet is to blame, and that's partly true.<br><br>But the folks are beginning to understand that the informational fix is in. What good is "all the news that's fit to print" if the news is bogus?<br><br>The <em>Times</em> might want to poll that question.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-06-25T07:00:00ZThe Last LaughBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Last-Laugh/26760.html2009-06-18T07:00:00Z2009-06-18T07:00:00ZThat was some firestorm David Letterman found himself confronting, wasn't it? Do you think the comedian had any idea his jokes mocking Governor Sarah Palin and her family would lead to such condemnation? I didn't.<br><br>What Letterman and his writers failed to see is the growing anger in America over personal attacks leveled against public people. The issue is primarily about partisan insults. Mr. Letterman is now considered a liberal guy by many, and so his remarks about Palin were viewed as more political than satirical. If Jay Leno (who is more non-partisan than Dave) had told the jokes, he would have been criticized, but not to the same extent.<br><br>According to a new Gallup Poll, 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% say they are moderate, and just 21% answer to the liberal description. So, liberals are outnumbered by almost four to one. Thus, when a conservative icon such as Sarah Palin is demeaned by a high profile entertainer who leans left, it becomes a big political story. Cable news and the blogs blow it up.<br><br>In the media world in which David Letterman lives, many people are outspokenly liberal. New York City and Hollywood are unabashedly left. But the folks are not. And they do not want nasty stuff directed at a working mother like Mrs. Palin who holds traditional values. To hear the liberal pundits try to defend Letterman was something out of the Twilight Zone. They put forth that, because 18-year-old Bristol Palin appeared with her mother at political rallies, she was fair game. Pure idiocy.<br><br>And the folks also zeroed in on the hypocrisy of the Letterman-Palin situation. If somebody had mocked President Obama's family that way, they would be destroyed! Of course, there's a difference between a president and a governor, but the analysis is valid.<br><br>What liberal entertainers do not understand is that President Obama was elected because the economy collapsed under a Republican president. While some liberal zealots believe Obama's ascension certified a national ideological move left, they are exceedingly wrong. The folks are closely watching Mr. Obama. And if the economy does not improve significantly, he'll have a battle in 2012.<br><br>Now, I believe David Letterman when he says he's sorry about the Palin dust-up. I don't think Dave meant to hurt the Palin daughters; he's not that kind of guy. But he definitely has an edge when it comes to people who do not fit into his ideological comfort zone. I've been on the Letterman program five times. Last time around, he called me a goon and mocked Rush Limbaugh's weight. I asked him why he was doing that. He did not have an answer.<br><br>And so it was the mean-spirited perception that dunked Dave. Robust debate over issues has made the USA the great country it is. But, increasingly, personal attacks are being used to marginalize opposing points of view. And when those attacks involved kids, even on the periphery, Americans will not stand for it.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-06-18T07:00:00ZFarewell, War on TerrorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Farewell-War-on-Terror/26732.html2009-06-11T07:00:00Z2009-06-11T07:00:00ZDid you notice in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world last week that President Obama did not use the word "terrorism?" Interesting, in light of reports that some in the Obama administration no longer refer to actions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban as the "war on terror," instead calling them "overseas contingency operations." But why? What is the reasoning behind this?<br><br>Apparently, the president believes that in order to forge a "new start" with the Muslim world, America must spotlight the common ground between the two cultures. Emphasizing atrocities committed by terrorists under the banner of Islam obviously does not aid that strategy. So out with the war on terror, in with the spirit of cooperation.<br><br>Now, some conservatives find this appalling. They say it shows weakness on the part of Mr. Obama. I disagree. As long as the United States stays strong on the battlefields and in the security area, diplomatic euphemisms don't really mean very much. President Obama wants more friends in the Arab world, and he's willing to give Muslims a rhetorical break to get them.<br><br>That, of course, pleases the American left, and herein lies a problem. The liberal media is now actively downplaying Muslim terrorism, and that was vividly demonstrated last week when two soldiers were shot by an American Muslim in Arkansas. One of them, 24-year-old Private William Long, was killed.<br><br>There is no doubt the cold-blooded murder of PVT Long by Carlos Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdulhakim Muhammad, was a shocking story. But if you were watching Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News, you missed it, as Ms. Couric did not mention the murder. On ABC, Charles Gibson ignored the story as well. On NBC, Brian Williams spent less than two minutes on the situation.<br><br>But the murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller by a pro-life zealot was enthusiastically covered by the network news operations and most other national media as well. According to a new study by the Pew Research group, Tiller's murder received 90% more news coverage than the crime against PVT Long. Unbelievable.<br><br>It is flat-out wrong for the news media to under-report a story where a American Muslim guns down two American soldiers in a small Arkansas town. Just a few years ago, that kind of journalistic irresponsibility would have severely criticized. But not now. Today, news reporting is a whole different story.<br><br>As has been well documented, the American media is now in the ideology business, and President Obama has been a big beneficiary of that. Not only did most journalists vote for Obama, as the president recently pointed out, but the media actively aided his candidacy by providing him with favorable coverage.<br><br>And that continues to this day. However, by avoiding the constant violence of Muslim terrorism, the news media may believe it is helping Obama, but it's actually putting all of us in danger. How many more Carlos Bledsoes are there roaming around?<br><br>Good question. Unfortunately, you won't get answer on the nightly news.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-06-11T07:00:00ZThe Killing of George TillerBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Killing-of-George-Tiller/26686.html2009-06-03T07:00:00Z2009-06-03T07:00:00ZThe liberal outcry over the murder of Kansas late-term abortion doctor George Tiller demonstrates exactly where American discourse is going. Shot dead in a church by an anti-government militant, Tiller did not deserve his fate. Even though the man destroyed an estimated 60,000 fetuses that could have lived outside the womb, he was an American citizen entitled to protection. No matter what you think about abortion, it is a sad day for the country when vigilantism takes a life.<br> <br>It took just minutes after the report of Tiller's murder for the far-left loons to hit the websites. Postings on the Daily Kos and The Huffington Post immediately blamed me and Fox News for inciting Tiller's killer. Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was "hateful."<br> <br>Chief of among the complaints was the doctor's nickname, "Tiller the baby killer." Some pro-lifers branded him with that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources. But the bigger picture here is the glorification of Tiller.<br> <br>The �ber-liberal <em>New York Times</em> led the way, editorializing, "For his principled devotion to women's health and constitutionally protected rights, Dr. Tiller was the target of protests at his clinic, his house and his church."<br> <br>The <em>Times</em> made Tiller out to be a hero. The paper's editorial never mentioned that he aborted fetuses after 21 weeks when they could live outside the mother's womb. The <em>Times</em> opinion also did not mention that Tiller became a millionaire doing this, or that only three late-term abortion clinics exist in the entire country. Nor did the editorial writer put forth that 36 states restrict late-term abortions without violating the Constitution.<br> <br>As usual, the <em>New York Times</em> editorial page failed to tell its readers the whole story.<br> <br>But that was nothing compared to NBC News, which went full tilt in blaming pundits for the death of Tiller. NBC anchorman Brian Williams led that charge, overseeing a report that emphasized the verbal criticism of Tiller rather than the militancy of the person who shot him. NBC pundits filled the night with slanderous wails against those who opposed the deadly practice of Dr. Tiller.<br> <br>But behind all the bluster was a well thought out, coordinated campaign. By exploiting the death of Tiller, the far-left is seeking to silence Americans who are appalled by late-term abortion. By demonizing people like me who believe that terminating viable fetuses must only be done when there are catastrophic health ramifications, the pro-abortion zealots are trying to inhibit dissent on the abortion issue in general.<br> <br>That's the same tactic in play on gay marriage: oppose it, and you're a homophobe. The far left well understands the media will pick up the demonizing tactics and shove them down the throats of the American people.<br> <br>The debate in America is no longer about rational points-of-view. It is now about the strategy of destruction. The murder of Doctor Tiller, as misguided as he was, can never be condoned.<br> <br>But neither can the hateful, dishonest tactics of the far left.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-06-03T07:00:00ZThe Birds, Bees and Cell PhonesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Birds-Bees-and-Cell-Phones/26642.html2009-05-28T07:00:00Z2009-05-28T07:00:00ZWith America moving left politically and socially, it might be wise to take a moment and consider what might happen to kids if the drift continues. Already, children are under pressure from high-tech machines that can instantly provide them with images and information, far beyond their ability to emotionally comprehend the material. Even vigilant parents are up against it. On nearly every playground in America, there are cell phones that can transmit X-rated material in the blink of an eye.<br><br>The result is grim. Children in a dozen states have been charged with child pornography for "sexting." That is sending nude pictures of themselves or others using cyberspace. A published study last December claims that 20% of American children had participated in some form of "sexting," including the extreme act of kids actually photographing themselves having sex.<br><br>But instead of outrage, the reaction has been largely muted, and in some cases, adults are even excusing it. This week in Ottawa, Canada, about eight thousand academics from around the world attended a convention to discuss the latest in social trends. At the event, a college professor named Peter Cumming, who teaches English at York University in Toronto, introduced a paper on "Children's Rights." The loon put forth that "sexting" is actually no worse than the old kissing game "spin the bottle." Cumming then went completely off the rails, writing:<br><br>"In Bush's America, is there no middle ground between child pornography, sexual assault, abuse, and exploitation on the one hand and children's 'abstinence' on the other? When, in Western culture, did nudity become pornography, did children's sexuality become perverse, and when and how and why have we forgotten children's participatory rights as sexual beings?"<br><br>Wow! That's right out of the North American Man-Boy Love Association handbook. The loopy teacher says he is not advocating child-adult sex, only that the kids should be allowed sensual freedom with each other. Oh, is that all?<br><br>By the way, bud, it's "Obama's America" now.<br><br>There was a time when Peter Cumming would have been ostracized from serious discourse, but those days are long gone. There was no widespread outcry from the academics over his thesis, and most media chose to ignore the situation. After all, a condemnation of Cumming would require making a judgment, something far-left secular progressives are loathe to do.<br><br>You don't have to support charging kids with child porn to figure this one out. "Sexting" will not do any child any good. Children should be taught that America has become the most powerful country in history by embracing a Judeo-Christian philosophy based upon good works, noble intentions, and personal discipline. None of that is found in exposing yourself.<br><br>The far left wants to tear that down traditional tenets and what better place to start than with the kids. It never was "Bush's America." It was always our America. And if we want to keep it the way we've known it, we'd better start confronting the barbarians soon.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-05-28T07:00:00ZOpposing Gay MarriageBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Opposing-Gay-Marriage/26610.html2009-05-21T07:00:00Z2009-05-21T07:00:00ZSo, here's the thing about homosexual marriage in the United States: It is going to be legal in about half the states. There is no stopping the gay nuptials now, even though most Americans say they are opposed to extending marital law to same sex couples.<br><br>Right now, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and Maine allow gays to marry. New Hampshire will soon do so. Once the legislatures of New York and New Jersey get finished taxing the life out of their citizens, they, too, will most likely pass gay marriage. And, even though the folks in California voted down gay nuptials, the Supreme Court there is desperately trying to find a way to nullify the vote.<br> <br>A new CNN/Opinion Research Poll says 54% of Americans oppose gay marriage, while 45% support it. But if you oppose gay marriage, your opinion makes you a bigot. Did you know that? That's what the Miss California controversy was all about.<br> <br>Your humble correspondent doesn't really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we're dead. I take a libertarian position on issues like gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally.<br><br>However, I do understand that most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society. Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father—certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children.<br> <br>I also understand that once America changes marital law for one group, homosexuals, it will have to allow plural marriages and other types of situations under "equal justice for all." Also, there is no question the Scandinavian marriage model of anything goes has led to a drastic decline in traditional marriage.<br><br>But you rarely hear those arguments articulated in the media, which is largely sympathetic to gay marriage. And not only that, but people who feel strongly about maintaining a special status for traditional marriage have allowed themselves to be intimidated. When was the last time you saw a Catholic cardinal or archbishop speak against gay marriage on television? I know—I've invited some of them. They all turned me down.<br> <br>The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. Because they won this public relations war, you can expect to see the racist, bigot label marketed in other controversial situations. Already, abortion zealots are branding pro-life people "anti-woman" and "anti-privacy." The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.<br><br>So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won't pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-05-21T07:00:00ZUnchaining CheneyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Unchaining-Cheney/26561.html2009-05-14T07:00:00Z2009-05-14T07:00:00ZDick Cheney is unleashed! After eight years of being nearly invisible to the media, the former vice president has come forth bearing wrath. He is now a man on a mission, an angry messenger. Very simply, Dick Cheney believes the Obama administration is putting the United States in danger by dismantling the Bush anti-terror programs.<br><br>And Mr. Cheney has one very large point. After the sneak attack on September 11, 2001, America has not suffered another violent terrorism episode on its soil. That is not in dispute and the former vice president believes tough interrogations and aggressive anti-terror moves were the cornerstones of the shield.<br><br>Mr. Cheney also has two big bullets in his rhetorical arsenal. First, the Obama administration recently released classified interrogation memos, but did not release the follow-up reports detailing what was gleaned by water boarding and other rough stuff. Cheney wants those memos out.<br><br>And second, there is no doubt that Democrats like Nancy Pelosi knew all about water boarding and went along with the interrogation program because the CIA told them it was vitally important for national security.<br><br>So, believing the truth is on his side, Mr. Cheney has launched a one-man jihad against the Obama administration for canceling what he believes are life-protecting anti-terror strategies.<br><br>The reaction on the left has been just short of hysterical, with personal attacks on Cheney all day long. At the White House correspondents' dinner last week, comedian Wanda Sykes said she advised her kids to get in a car with strangers rather than with Cheney.<br><br>Writing in the <em>New York Times</em>, Maureen Dowd spoke for many liberals when she called Cheney, among other things, "batty" and "jejune" (lacking value). Ms. Dowd's disdain poured out as she described the former vice president's "Genghis Khan side," his "numbskull ideas," and his "nasty campaign of fear and loathing."<br><br>The only thing missing in Dowd's column was holding Cheney responsible for the swine flu. <br><br>As best I can tell, the left is growing desperate because they are losing. This week, President Obama announced he will fight the ACLU over releasing pictures of captives hurt by the American military, with the President rightly saying those pictures were part of criminal investigations, some of which led to the conviction and punishment of the American perpetrators. Even though the vile ACLU doesn't care a wit, Mr. Obama understands that any damaging photos put U.S. forces in the field in even more danger.<br><br>Also, the President has no heart for a witch hunt against those who ordered tough interrogations on al-Qaeda big shots. Again, this would damage America. Mr. Obama understands his own party would be hurt as well, as Nancy Pelosi and others would have to testify under oath about what they knew.<br><br>So the vengeance-minded far left is bereft. They so want to "get" Bush and Cheney, but now their dreams of revenge show trials are vanishing quicker than MSNBC's ratings. <br><br>And to make matters even worse—Dick Cheney may be the one getting revenge.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-05-14T07:00:00ZThe Destruction of Miss CaliforniaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Destruction-of-Miss-California/26471.html2009-05-07T07:00:00Z2009-05-07T07:00:00ZChecked on your freedom of speech lately? If not, consider the plight of 21-year-old Carrie Prejean, a student at the San Diego Christian College who was selected as first runner-up in the Miss USA pageant last month. During the question-and-answer part of the competition, Ms. Prejean was asked if every state should legalize gay marriage. Smiling brightly, the young woman said: "I think that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there."<br><br>Now, most polls show that the majority of Americans agree with Ms. Prejean, including the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Yet since she made that statement as Miss California, the woman has been persecuted in the media.<br><br>MSNBC allowed a guest to call her vile names and the far-left cast of characters on that cable network has delighted in mocking and demeaning Ms. Prejean almost nightly. The left-wing blogs have been especially vicious, and now, even her own pageant is turning against her—she's being investigated for possibly violating pageant rules by giving unapproved interviews. Of course, she gave those interviews trying to defend herself against the media assaults.<br><br>This is a disgraceful exposition with wide implications for all of us. Here we have an American citizen answering a direct question respectfully and honestly and being punished for it. You don't get more un-American than that. Where is the ACLU on this? That great defender of speech freedom has been totally silent. Once again, the American Civil Liberties Union displays its biased hypocrisy like a giant float balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.<br><br>And where is the National Organization for Women? A young woman is being victimized by hate speech, actually being called a bitch on a variety of television programs, and NOW has no comment? Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.<br><br>Finally, where is the homosexual community? Do they not respect freedom of speech? They don't want to be punished for their expression, right? It would be incredibly smart for a gay leader to pull a Voltaire and publicly state, "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it." So who's going to be courageous and step up on this one? <br><br>The issue of gay marriage has been defined by some of its supporters as a civil rights situation. Isn't freedom of speech a civil rights situation? Therefore, let's call this Miss California deal exactly what it is—a gross violation of the spirit of America. If a 21-year-old beauty contestant can be persecuted for uttering an opinion based upon a sincere belief, then all of us are at risk as well.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-05-07T07:00:00ZObama DerangementBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obama-Derangement/26086.html2009-04-30T07:00:00Z2009-04-30T07:00:00ZRemember the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which perfectly captured the hateful invective directed at the former president? Many conservatives roundly condemned "BDS," as they should have. Like him or not, the president tried hard to serve and protect America; he did not deserve to be cheap-shotted all day long by crazy left-wing loons.<br><br>But now the proverbial shoe is on the other foot, and there is "ODS" (Obama Derangement Syndrome) in play. The dictionary defines "derangement" as a form of insanity. And, after listening to some partisans evaluate Barack Obama's first one hundred days in office, I have to say there is some madness in the air.<br><br>On my TV program the other night, I graded President Obama on his performance thus far. I gave him a "B" for domestic policy, largely because the stock market has stabilized and the recession-panic mood is receding a bit. I then awarded Mr. Obama a "C" in the foreign policy category, because he has little to show for his public criticism of America. The Obama people will tell you that the President "planted a seed" while speaking overseas, but his spouting off about America's ills seemed weak to me.<br><br>Finally, I gave the President a "C+" for leadership. While his job approval poll ratings remain high, his waffling about the interrogation deal did not demonstrate a strong and forward-looking point-of-view, to say the least.<br><br>Well, after that on-the-air report card, I received quite a few dissenting letters. One guy in Arizona said he was glad I wasn't actually teaching, because I'd be the new Ward Churchill. Another man in Denver said I had lost my mind because Obama deserved "F's" across the board. Still another guy opined that the President had accomplished nothing and that I should be ashamed.<br><br>So, let me ask you, is ODS the same as BDS? I think it is.<br><br>Fairness is a hallmark of America. Our legal system, with its appeals process and litany of rights for the accused, is a great example of that. Greatness of any kind cannot be achieved without being fair. Tyrants may rule for a time, but they are never great.<br><br>Holding sincere opinions is also an honorable trait. There are fair-minded Americans who simply do not believe President Obama's liberal view of the world is good for the country. Fine, no problem with that. But everything the man does is not awful, and to assign him sinister motives is blatantly unfair—the same kind of inequity we saw heaped upon President Bush.<br><br>President Obama may turn out to be a disaster or he may rise to greatness. At this point, nobody knows what will happen. That is the great thing about democracy and about capitalism. When done right, those things give people a fair chance to succeed and there's nothing deranged about it.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-04-30T07:00:00ZThe End of Times?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-End-of-Times/26048.html2009-04-23T07:00:00Z2009-04-23T07:00:00ZThe nation's largest left-wing newspaper and the bible for network news producers and bookers may be going under. This week, the <em>New York Times</em> announced more staggering losses: nearly $75 million dollars in the first quarter alone. The <em>New York Post</em> is reporting the Times Company owes more than one billion dollars and has just $34 million in the bank. A few months ago, the company actually borrowed $225 million from a Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim, at a reported 14% interest. With things going south fast, pardon the pun, Mr. Slim might want to put in a call to <em>Times</em> publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.<br><br>The spin from Sulzberger is that the Internet is strangling the newspaper industry, and there is some truth to that. Why read an ideologically crazed paper when you can acquire a variety of information on your PC? But other papers are not suffering nearly as much as the <em>Times</em>, so there must be more to this.<br><br>There is no question that the <em>Times</em> has journalistic talent. This week the paper won five Pulitzers. It's true the Pulitzer people favor left-wing operations (the past eight Pulitzer prizes for commentary have gone to liberal writers), but good reporting is often done by <em>New York Times</em> journalists.<br><br>The problem is that, under Sulzberger and his editor Bill Keller, the <em>Times</em> has gone crazy left, attacking those with whom the paper disagrees and demonstrating a hatred for conservatives (particularly President Bush) that is almost pathological. The <em>Times</em> features liberal columnists in every section of the paper and they hit low, often using personal invective to smear perceived opponents.<br><br>That unfair and unbalanced approach has alienated a large number of readers and advertisers. According to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 46% of Americans define themselves as conservative. Just 34% say they are liberal. In this very intense marketplace, insulting half the country on a daily basis may not be a great business plan.<br><br>The New York Times Company also has a major problem with the <em>Boston Globe</em>, which Sulzberger bought back in 1993. That paper is on the verge of bankruptcy and recently told its employees that it will cut their pay and health benefits. Since the <em>Times</em> and the <em>Globe</em> are big on "universal" health care, that caused some giggling in anti-<em>Times</em> precincts.<br><br>Over the past few months, newspapers in Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver have either folded or filed for bankruptcy. With the exception of <em>The Rocky Mountain News</em>, all the papers were committed left-wing enterprises. The truth is that most Americans are traditional-minded folks; they believe their country is noble, they want respectful discourse. Fanaticism of any kind is not the American way.<br><br>The <em>New York Times</em> is most definitely a committed left-wing concern that is openly contemptuous of the conservative, traditional point-of-view. That is the primary reason the paper may soon dissolve. And all the cash in Carlos Slim's fat wallet is not going to change that.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-04-23T07:00:00ZKids Gone WildBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Kids-Gone-Wild/25989.html2009-04-16T07:00:00Z2009-04-16T07:00:00ZThese are dark days for traditional Americans-folks who believe that the Judeo-Christian principles of right and wrong should be considered when making public policy. The other day, former "Focus on the Family" chief Dr. James Dobson actually told his crew that the culture war was being lost in America. And it is hard to argue with Dobson's opinion.<br><br>All over the USA, secular-progressives are on the move, promoting gay marriage, legalized drugs, unfettered abortion, and attacking almost all judgments on personal behavior. And nowhere is the movement more intense than in the nation's most liberal state: Vermont.<br><br>The legislature in the Green Mountain State recently voted to legalize gay marriage, overriding the veto of Governor Jim Douglas. Vermont is the first state to actually legislate in favor of homosexual nuptials, as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all had gay marriage imposed on the citizenry by judges.<br><br>It is worth noting that Vermont is one of the few states that voted down Jessica's Law, the tough mandatory prison sentence legislation against child sexual predators. An investigation into Vermont's criminal justice apparatus reveals the state embraces "restorative justice," whereby criminals often receive "holistic" treatment as part of their sentence for even heinous crimes like child rape. The goal is not so much to punish the offender, but to "restore" him or her to their rightful place in society. That is a secular-progressive hallmark.<br><br>While Vermont is coddling child predators, it is also sending a message to kids: Hey, you can do pretty much what you want. Somewhat incredibly, the Vermont senate has passed a bill decriminalizing consensual "sexting." That is the process by which children send sexual pictures of themselves to other children using cell phones or computers. The proposed Vermont law says that 13- to 18-year-olds will be allowed to do that, but not distribute the photos to more than one person or an adult.<br><br>Supporters of the sexting law say it's necessary so that teenagers will not be prosecuted as sexual offenders and have their lives ruined. There is some validity to that, as dopey kids do dopey things. However, the sane solution would be to categorize sexting as a misdemeanor breach of the peace, thus sending a message that it is unacceptable for kids to send other kids sexual images.<br><br>But secular-progressives are loathe to make that judgment. Remember, these are the same people who believe a girl has the right to an abortion without telling her parents. So if a kid can undergo a major life altering operation (especially for the fetus), why should it be a big deal to do a little sexting?<br><br>With a liberal federal government and media, there is little opposition being voiced to what is happening in Vermont and other secular-progressive enclaves. Culture war issues have been forced to the back room by the awful economy, and the S-P's are taking full advantage. If American children are legally allowed to send explicit pictures of themselves to other kids, then say goodbye to traditional boundaries of behavior.<br><br>The slippery slope is here.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-04-16T07:00:00ZWhy They Won't FightBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-They-Wont-Fight/25916.html2009-04-09T07:00:00Z2009-04-09T07:00:00ZLet's begin by emulating Al Gore and stating an inconvenient truth: If every law-abiding nation in the world would join together to oppose the Taliban, Iran, and North Korea, presently the biggest troublemakers on earth, they would be neutralized. For example, if NATO and Pakistan joined forces, the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be routed from their mountain sanctuaries within days. If the world refused to trade with Iran, that government would fall very quickly. If China cooperated, North Korea would run out of fuel and that dictatorship would collapse.<br><br>But none of those things are likely to happen.<br><br>President Obama went to Europe to ask for more NATO combat troops in Afghanistan. The crowds cheered when he spoke; the press wrote glowing things about him. The President then came home with no more fighting capacity than when he left.<br><br>The European excuse used to be that they hated Bush, the Texas gunslinger. That's why Germany and France and Spain wouldn't cooperate against villains. So what's the excuse now?<br><br>In London, President Obama met with Putin's Russian surrogate and asked for cooperation in stopping Iran from developing nukes. Everybody knows that Israel will likely attack Iran if the Mullahs don't cease and desist from the weapons of mass destruction platform. But Russia, according to reports, told Mr. Obama that they would not stop trading with Iran because the Mullahs are NOT developing nuclear weapons.<br><br>Sure. Thanks so much, as the President often says.<br><br>So there you have it--a world of apathy and cowardice. A world that is content to allow terrorism and nuclear threats to exist. But why? Well, there are multiple answers.<br><br>After World War II, Europe basically said "no mas" to war. With the exception of Great Britain, the Europeans were happy to let the USA fight the Cold War and every other conflict. And even while we were protecting them, many Europeans resented us, because if they acknowledged our sacrifice and courage, they would also have to admit their own spinelessness.<br><br>Right now, the Taliban are killing innocent people in Afghanistan. They have thrown acid in the faces of young girls who have dared to attend school; they have beheaded young men deemed not militant enough for them. Like Darfur, the atrocities are well documented, and again, everybody knows that if the Taliban regains power, al-Qaeda gets a nice safe haven again.<br><br>But still, Europe, Russia and China do little.<br><br>Currently, only the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and Poland are actively fighting the Taliban. The other NATO countries have all kinds of rules of engagement which are confusing and often contradictory. There is little coordination in the Afghan theater.<br><br>President Obama loudly trumpets the change he believes he is bringing to America and to the world. But there seems to be little change among the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese. They continue to ignore or enable evil throughout the world. And I think it is safe to say that this posture will not have a happy ending.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-04-09T07:00:00ZThe Loyal OppositionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Loyal-Opposition/25631.html2009-03-26T07:00:00Z2009-03-26T07:00:00ZShocking many of its listeners, the left-leaning National Public Radio recently ran a commentary pointing out that Fox News, which NPR considers to be very conservative, is amassing record ratings in the wake of the Democratic takeover in Washington.<br><br>All things considered, that was not great news for some NPR folks.<br><br>The reason that FNC is doing so well, while at the same time some committed left-wing media operations are failing, is what I call the remorse factor.<br><br>Almost 62 million Americans voted against Barack Obama last November, many of them convinced that his vision for America was... well... kind of dangerous. Also, exit polling showed that some who supported the president did so out of disgust with the Bush administration, which lost control in its last two years in power.<br><br>So, when financial chaos intruded on Mr. Obama's honeymoon period, millions of news consumers flocked to agencies that have been a bit skeptical of the young President. Obviously, news organizations considered to be in the tank for Obama are of little use to people worried about their financial well-being.<br><br>In politics, there is always an element of hatred, even in a noble country like the United States. If you are an Obama-hater, you are likely to go where your opinion is reinforced. If you are neutral on the president but worried he may be in over his head, you might seek a more skeptical view of the president's policies. Thus, the rough bumps that the President is experiencing have been deadly for the liberal media that, just a few months ago, cheer-leaded Mr. Obama into office.<br><br>Truth be told, I have been the beneficiary of the president's early troubles, because my television ratings are through the roof. Folks know that while I respect Barack Obama and do not cheap-shot him, I am very skeptical of his big government, nanny-state philosophy. Also, my guests represent many points-of-view, unlike my cable news competition that spins nearly everything as positive in Obama-land.<br><br>However, I do not want Barack Obama to fail. I want him to see the light. This is a great country because most of its citizens are responsible, hard-working people who realize that cradle-to-grave entitlements will ultimately bankrupt the nation. Call me crazy, but I want to persuade the ultra-intelligent president that his Swedish-entitlements vision for 300 million Americans is an opium-fueled pipe dream. Self-reliance has made this country great, not federal foot massages.<br><br>So, I will consistently deliver that message to the president, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the gang who couldn't spend straight. I'll do that hoping the Democrats will wise up and impose some discipline in the fiscal area. If they do not control federal spending, they will suffer big losses in the Congressional races just a year and a half from now.<br><br>Until then, here's looking at you, good ratings.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-03-26T07:00:00ZBlame BushBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Blame-Bush/25567.html2009-03-19T07:00:00Z2009-03-19T07:00:00ZThe other day a left-wing reporter named Seymour Hersh went on MSNBC and said he had information, provided by the usual anonymous sources, that Dick Cheney was running an assassination squad out of the White House.<br><br>I have but one simple observation: If Cheney really had such a crew, Hersh would have been dead a long time ago and so would most everybody at MSNBC.<br><br>Would they not?<br><br>In the months to come, we can expect all kinds of horror stories from the left about alleged Bush-Cheney atrocities. These will deflect attention from present day problems and provide liberal thinkers with the intense indignation they so desperately need. In addition, the bevy of Bush-Cheney sins will supply the media and individual opportunists with "product." So, in order to get ahead of this inevitable situation, I will now predict some future headlines.<ul type="square"><li><em>Newsweek</em> will report that Bernard Madoff has told unidentified friends that it was George W. Bush who actually forced him to develop the $65 billion Ponzi scheme that ruined thousands of people. Friends of Bernie say Madoff was ready to be an honest broker until Bush came to him in a dream and urged him to commit massive financial fraud. Also, <em>Newsweek</em>'s "Periscope" feature hears that it was W. who told Jim Cramer to recommend Bear Stearns.</li><li>In his new book <em>Squealing</em>, Jose Canseco writes that he injected George W. Bush with steroids while W. was president of the Texas Rangers and again in the Oval Office immediately before the President met with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Canseco dismisses claims that W.'s mountain bike regimen kept him toned and says the Iraq invasion was actually caused by "'roid rage."</li><li>The <em>New York Times</em> will run a page-one story saying that after the Iraqi shoe guy embarrassed Mr. Bush in Baghdad, the President, himself, waterboarded the man and kept him tied up in a cold room while looping excerpts from Wolf Blitzer's program at high sound levels. The <em>Times</em>, citing unidentified sources close to the footwear industry, will allege the shoe guy gave up bad information because torture never works.</li><li><em>Vanity Fair</em> Magazine, in between pictures of Lindsay Lohan partying in Baja, will present a most startling scenario: It was Dick Cheney who contaminated peanut butter with <em>E. coli</em> because, according to anonymous sources speaking only to <em>VF</em>, the VP had "had it" with the kids.</li><li>Finally, Will Ferrell will star in a new movie called "Crawford Nights: The Ballard of Dickie/Georgie." In this film, directed by Oliver Stone, it will be purported that the real head of the Cali drug cartel was George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney as consigliore. The screenplay, written by Sean Penn and Jessica Alba, is being closely guarded, but word is that it will portray Cheney as the guy who provided Michael Phelps with the substance-filled bong.</li></ul>So, it will likely be a busy 2009 for the Bush-Cheney team. No doubt they are the perfect stimulus package for the far left.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-03-19T07:00:00ZShared SacrificeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Shared-Sacrifice/25538.html2009-03-12T07:00:00Z2009-03-12T07:00:00ZIn these very tough economic times, the left in America is calling for "shared sacrifice," which is code for soaking affluent folks as much as possible. You may have heard some radio ads paid for by the Service Employees International Union beseeching Americans to support higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy so we can all "share" the economic pain.<br><br>Of course, that message is incredibly stupid. Higher taxes on corporations will inevitably lead to even more worker layoffs. Also, the less money the affluent have, the less they will spend in places where service employees actually work—like hotels and resorts.<br><br>So there seems to be a major "duh" factor in the sacrifice call by the SEIU, but not if you know what's really going on.<br><br>That union is a great supporter of far-left causes like open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and giant government entitlement programs. In addition, the SEIU has taken the lead in attacking the non-union Walmart corporation and calling for non-secret ballots in union voting. The SEIU is a socialist outfit right down the line. The union doesn't just want you to share their sacrifice, whatever that may be—they want to take your furniture.<br><br>One of the SEIU's favorite politicians is the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. They love her. But, these days, it doesn't look like Mrs. Pelosi is doing much sacrificing. According to Freedom of Information documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch, Mrs. Pelosi is racking up enormous mileage on Air Force Gulf Stream 5 jets, costing the taxpayers millions.<br><br>My staff asked Mrs. Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, exactly how many Air Force jets she's used since becoming Speaker in January 2007. Mr. Daly said he didn't have that information.<br><br>Oh.<br><br>It seems to me that with many Americans getting hammered financially and trillions of dollars being spent to counter the recession, Speaker Pelosi might want to keep track of her taxpayer-funded trips. Or am I wrong?<br><br>To be fair, Mrs. Pelosi is legally entitled to the perk. After 9/11, the government decided that the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, should not fly commercial. Okay. But does anyone think Nancy Pelosi is not milking this jet deal? Anyone?<br><br>If that's shared sacrifice, I would like to become the Speaker's friend. After all, she recently flew to Rome with an entourage. I assume it was aboard an Air Force jet but don't know for sure because even though I asked, Mrs. Pelosi won't tell. By the way, the Pope scolded Nancy over abortion during their meeting.<br><br>Anyway, are you feeling the sacrifice being made by Nancy Pelosi and many other politicians who are living large on the Hill? I'm not really feeling it. But like the SEIU, I really believe that sharing is good. And with my tax rates going up big time, I have no doubt I'll soon be paying more than my share.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-03-12T07:00:00ZRushing ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rushing-Obama/25509.html2009-03-05T08:00:00Z2009-03-05T08:00:00ZMan, I got out just in time. Last week I gave up doing the Radio Factor after seven years because I needed to get some sleep. Working 65 hours a week is fine when you're 30, but as Clint Eastwood once opined, a man must know his limitations.<br><br>My radio program competed against Rush Limbaugh's show in some markets, and now, in an amazing bit of political gamesmanship, the Obama administration has elevated Mr. Limbaugh to Alps-like heights. By publicly attacking the broadcaster, the Obama crew has not only galvanized his loyal audience, but also sent curiosity seekers into his domain. I mean, what a ratings bonanza for Limbaugh! Who would want to compete against that?<br><br>According to the website Politico, Democratic strategists Stanley Greenburg and James Carville polled Limbaugh's popularity and found it lacking among voters younger than age 40. So, the website contends, they convinced the president's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel to go after Limbaugh and define him as the behind-the-scenes leader of the Republican party. The strategy was to paint the GOP as a leaderless outfit fearful of a high profile radio guy. Emmanuel dropped the propaganda bomb on a morning TV show last Sunday.<br><br>In conjunction, Obama's former campaign manager, David Plouffe, wrote a sarcastic op-ed in the <em>Washington Post</em> claiming the Republican Party is "paralyzed with fear of crossing [Limbaugh]."<br><br>Presto—the liberal mainstream media pounced on the new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, mocking him for being a second fiddle to Limbaugh. Steele did not like that and told CNN that the broadcaster is an entertainer who often pops off. Limbaugh did not like that and lambasted Steele. Under pressure, the RNC chief apologized.<br><br>Meantime, the Democrats are "LOL," as they say on the Internet.<br><br>But there may be an unintended consequence from all of this for the White House. By empowering Rush Limbaugh, who already commands an enormous audience, the Obama administration is supplying weaponry to the enemy. Sure, the Democratic home team is yukking this stuff up, but most Americans are steaming mad about the economy and are in no mood for shallow political games. If the President cannot get Wall Street to believe in him, demonizing Rush Limbaugh will begin to look like a diversionary tactic, which it might well be.<br><br>It is certainly true that the Republican Party is currently taking some lumps, especially in the pro-Obama media. But in politics, things can turn fast. If the GOP can develop some strong leadership and a populist vision, it will compete in the 2010 election.<br><br>We are living in dangerous times and the folks know it. Fighting with a radio talk show host may be entertaining, but it is certainly not presidential.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-03-05T08:00:00ZThe End of Obama-ManiaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-End-of-Obama-Mania/25476.html2009-02-26T08:00:00Z2009-02-26T08:00:00ZThe TV ratings for February have been tabulated, and in the world of cable news, there is weeping among the left. The two networks that most favor President Obama, CNN and MSNBC, got hammered by the Fox News Channel, which is generally tougher on the president. In fact, Fox News was the third highest prime-time rated cable network in America, behind USA and TNT. CNN was 15th, MSNBC... a dismal 23rd. <br><br>Also, unique visitors for the Obama-loving website Daily Kos have declined a whopping 73% since last fall—a disaster. So what's going on?<br><br>It all has to do with fear. While President Obama retains a high approval rating, many Americans are flat-out scared about the economy. The recession is bringing massive pain to America, and responsible citizens want the truth about public policy, not partisan cheerleading.<br><br>Thus, news operations and websites that have a vested interest in seeing Barack Obama succeed in the White House are not trusted by many news consumers. One look at NBC News, for example, and you know the company line is to help President Obama, not report the unvarnished truth.<br><br>Spinning the economy does not really help people whose jobs may be in jeopardy. They need solid information about what is actually happening in order to make difficult decisions on personal spending and, perhaps, seeking new employment in a more secure industry. So, self-protection dictates they secure the most reliable sources of information available.<br><br>On the other side, Obama bashing doesn't do the folks much good, either. Why waste time on attacks, when information is what the folks need? I think it's fair to say that this brutal economic downturn took most Americans by surprise. It certainly shocked me. Even though I'm a journalist, I had no idea that mortgage companies were gaming the system by bundling risky loans and selling them to dunces at Lehman Brothers. I was clueless. In hindsight, I should have been more skeptical of the housing bubble.<br><br>The point is that concentrating on ideology rather than accumulating information can lead to a distorted view of reality. Much of the media these days is in business to promote a political philosophy rather than to protect the folks by exposing dangerous situations. The watchdog press that the Founders envisioned has been corrupted by ideology.<br><br>And so the folks are left to fend for themselves, and they are gravitating toward news agencies that seemingly tell it like it is. Committed left wing newspapers are folding in Seattle, Minneapolis and perhaps in San Francisco. The <em>New York Times</em> had to borrow money from a Mexican guy at 14% interest. The far-left TV news operations are sinking fast.<br><br>President Obama still has wide support, but not fanatical support. Most of the folks simply want the truth, even though these days the truth can be hard to handle.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-02-26T08:00:00ZTesting ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Testing-Obama/25444.html2009-02-19T08:00:00Z2009-02-19T08:00:00ZJoseph Biden is a prophet. On October 19, 2008, the now-Vice President said, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."<br><br>Forget about six months; the foreign affairs insults arrived within three weeks of Obama's presidency. And with the economy dominating the news cycle, very little attention has been paid. <br><br>Let's take them one by one.<br><br>By far, the most important insult to the Obama administration came this week. Shortly after Obama's envoy, Richard Holbrooke, visited Pakistan, that country surrendered to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, putting the entire world in danger.<br><br>In a shocking abdication of responsibility, the Pakistani government now says the Taliban has the authority to impose sharia law in the northern part of that country. That means the Pakistani government is allowing these terrorists to do whatever they want, and that will include continuing their attacks on American forces in neighboring Afghanistan.<br><br>This is huge, and President Obama would be wise to respond quickly and punish the Pakistani government. They have thrown in with terror killers; the USA cannot accept that, nor should any responsible country.<br><br>Insult two: The government of Kyrgyzstan is closing the big U.S. air base on its soil. That air base supplies NATO forces in Afghanistan. Again, this is huge.<br><br>The reason the base is being closed is because the Russian tyrant, Putin, doesn't like America assisting nations like Poland and the Ukraine in their defense strategies. So Putin, who the Kyrgyzstan government fears, has succeeded in hurting NATO's war against the Taliban. Nice.<br><br>The third insult comes from Iran. No surprise here. While the mullahs yak about talking with President Obama, they continue to fast-track nuclear weapons. A report by the Institute for Science and International Security says that Iran could have weapons-grade nuclear material this year. So there is now an urgency to the situation and Obama must respond quickly or the nuke genie will be out of the bottle.<br><br>And finally, insult four: Crazy Kim Jong-Il, the leader of North Korea, celebrated his 67th birthday this week by threatening a nuclear missile test.<br><br>Again, because of the terrible economy, many Americans have no idea all of this stuff is going on, but there is no question Barack Obama is being tested and the villains are watching closely to see what he will do.<br><br>In his speech last October, Joseph Biden also told Americans to "gird [their] loins." I'm not exactly sure what that means vis-�-vis foreign policy, but it doesn't sound good. I also don't know whether President Obama is "girding" right now, but he had better be doing something.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-02-19T08:00:00ZThe Only Thing to Fear...BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Only-Thing-to-Fear.../25409.html2009-02-12T08:00:00Z2009-02-12T08:00:00ZFear is a great motivator. Back in the 1958, one small nun controlled 60 unruly kids in the third grade class at St. Brigid's School in Westbury, New York. We all learned to read and do math. We all memorized our prayers. Why? Fear. That good sister wielded a mean ruler.<br><br>In politics, fear also can get things done. President Bush used the fear of another terror attack to convince Americans to support the Patriot Act and an aggressive worldwide war against terror killers. The results were mixed, but Mr. Bush had little problem getting the money and consensus he needed.<br><br>Now, President Obama is using a page from the Bush playbook. He is flat-out saying that if his giant stimulus package is not embraced by the country, the United States will experience "catastrophe." He uses the c-word often. He is very clear about the fear.<br><br>Interestingly, during the campaign, Mr. Obama derided both President Bush and Senator McCain for using the fear factor. Speaking in Ohio on March 1, 2008, Obama said, "America is at its best when it's not fearful. I mean, if you think our history, our most shameful times have been when we were afraid."<br><br>Wow, how quickly times change. Now, President Obama is very afraid that the economy will get worse, and he is not shy about saying so.<br><br>So, how should we the people process the fear equation?<br><br>Well, when George W. Bush and Barack Obama agree on something, I think we have to pay attention. President Bush was genuinely concerned the entire U.S. financial system would melt down last fall unless a massive government bailout was passed immediately. And it was. Who knows if the TARP bailout was smart? But the financial system is still standing, although not exactly on solid ground.<br><br>President Obama implies we are heading for another great depression without almost a trillion dollars in government spending to "create and save" four million jobs. So Obama is going to get the money. The interesting thing in the "create and save" scenario is that it is impossible to calibrate. How does anyone know how many jobs are "saved?" This is a smart ploy by Obama on the accountability front.<br><br>Cynics will rarely accept political warnings. Many Americans simply don't trust the government to look out for them. And I believe that skepticism is sometimes warranted. Both Republicans and Democrats allowed the U.S. economy to implode. What, they got smart all of a sudden?<br><br>But with job loss accelerating and millions of Americans suffering, I think we have to give the powers-that-be the benefit of the doubt despite our suspicions. However, we should be honest. President Obama does not know whether the trillion dollar rescue strategy will work because no one knows. <br><br>That being said, President Obama is right about one thing: He was definitely elected to deal with America's problems, especially the economy.<br><br>So now he has the chance.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-02-12T08:00:00ZEight is More Than EnoughBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Eight-is-More-Than-Enough/25371.html2009-02-05T08:00:00Z2009-02-05T08:00:00ZThe stunning announcement that a California woman had given birth to eight babies, octuplets, was greeted warmly in some circles. The birthing doctors were all smiles and the media was hyping the "human interest" part of the story. Eight babies! Wow! <br><br>But behind the high-fives lies a very troubling situation. This may be child abuse at the highest level.<br><br>Here are the facts: The mother, Nadya Suleman, is a 33-year-old single mom already raising six young children in the small home of her parents. Nadya is a health care worker who, according to her mother, became pregnant with all the children through in-vitro fertilization.<br><br>But six was not enough for Nadya, so last spring she allowed multiple embryos to be implanted in her womb and, subsequently, the octuplets were born on January 26th.<br><br>In Great Britain, Nadya and her doctor would be under arrest. There, the law permits only two embryo implants at a time. But in California, there are no rules at all. Fertility clinics and the doctors who make big money from them can do anything they want.<br><br>So, now, Nadya has eight new babies, all of whom weigh less than three pounds. The littlest is about a pound and a half. Doctors say there is a strong likelihood that some, if not all, of the babies will experience major health problems growing up.<br><br>When the babies finally leave the hospital in suburban Los Angeles, they will be taken to a three bedroom house in Whittier, California. Seventeen human beings will be living in that house. Eight babies will have to be fed, washed, and cared for around the clock almost simultaneously.<br><br>Who will pay for that? Chances are the taxpayers. Nadya has little money and her parents filed for bankruptcy. By the way, the hospital bill for the octuplets and mom is estimated to be around $1.3 million.<br><br>But Nadya seems to have a plan. She has hired a "spokesperson," a woman named Joann Killeen. Joann has been running around various TV shows telling the world what a great person and mother Nadya is, and what a joy she is to be around. When asked if the mother of the year wants major money to tell her story, Ms. Killeen dodges and weaves.<br><br>This is child abuse of the worst kind and few seem to care. The taxpayers will wind up paying for much of Nadya's irresponsibility, and the fourteen children will pay an enormous price... just wait and see.<br><br>Meantime, a callous media and a largely apathetic state medical system will watch to see whether it will be Oprah or Barbara or Katie to give the babies their first TV starring roles.<br><br>America is a great country. This is the worst of it.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-02-05T08:00:00ZComputing AmericaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Computing-America/25077.html2009-01-29T08:00:00Z2009-01-29T08:00:00ZAnyone who spends time around young children or teenagers knows that high tech has changed everything in toyland. Today, the babes aren't running from a mean old landlord named Barnaby, they are dressed provocatively doing X-rated stunts all over cyberspace. And if adults are not vigilant, kids can grow up real fast.<br><br>But even if parents closely monitor what their children see on the Internet, the lives of younger Americans are changing drastically because of machines. It used to be that you'd see kids playing sports in the streets and on the playgrounds. I don't see too much of that anymore. Instead, many kids are playing sports games on the net, where they can experience the thrill of victory without getting sweaty or bloody. They are playing <em>a</em> game, not <em>the</em> game.<br><br>Growing up on Long Island, sports literally saved me. In my neighborhood, there were the jocks and the hoods. I had friends in both camps. The hoods hung around the shopping center smoking cigarettes, and in the late 1960s, doing dope. I found that kind of stuff boring and hit the ball fields.<br><br>Many of the hoods bottomed out; some even died. Most of the jocks became prosperous. Sporting competitions build discipline and perseverance. Smoking and doing dope builds nothing. I was lucky to have made the right choice.<br><br>But the fantasy world the Internet can provide is almost like a narcotic. People can quite literally build their own worlds without ever leaving the house. Highly motivated people still venture out to conquer the world, but many folks are retreating into an artificial world which is just a click away.<br><br>I believe the long-term ramifications of cyberspace are enormous for the USA and for the world. You can see it in the current recession. Many folks are stunned when they lose their jobs. They simply don't know what to do. A few days ago, a fired worker in Los Angeles murdered his wife and five kids before killing himself. Instead of starting over, the guy flipped out.<br><br>Life is hard. The Greatest Generation, shaped by the Depression and World War II, understood that very well. Baby boomers who were drafted into the Vietnam War quickly learned that as well. But now, kids and many adults are becoming hypnotized by a technological world that requires little accountability and massive escape possibilities.<br><br>Some old-timers tell me they fear for America, that is has become a place of individual pursuits and selfish short-term desires. They say there is little sense of patriotism or civic responsibility anymore.<br><br>That fear is worth thinking about as machines become more and more vital to our lives—because succeeding in the real world requires a lot more skill and determination than flipping a switch.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-01-29T08:00:00ZThe Collapse of the Left-Wing PressBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Collapse-of-the-Left-Wing-Press/25027.html2009-01-22T08:00:00Z2009-01-22T08:00:00ZThere is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, the left-wing media is collapsing all over the place. In the past couple of weeks, the Seattle <em>Post-Intelligencer</em>, the Minneapolis <em>Star Tribune</em> and the mother of all liberal publications, the <em>New York Times</em>, all have issued SOS announcements.<br><br>The Seattle paper will cease publication in March unless a buyer is found. Even though it can't pay its bills, the <em>Post-Intelligencer</em> should get into the left wing hall of fame after its publisher told the FBI to buzz off when the agency asked for media help in locating two possible terror suspects.<br><br>The Minneapolis paper, called the "Red Star" by some in Minnesota, has filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50% in one year. That, despite the Presidential vote and a vicious election between Senator Norm Coleman and Al Franken.<br><br>As for the <em>New York Times</em>, it is Twilight Zone time. The paper is already trying to use equity from its Manhattan office building to pay debts and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this—the <em>Times</em> is paying old Carlos an astounding 14% interest rate! What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description "loan shark" mean anything to the ideologues running the <em>Times</em>? I mean, the prime lending rate in America is 3.25%, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14%! Wow.<br><br>On the TV front, the über-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked #31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that's right behind the "Roller Derby Channel." General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy, while at the same time it watched its stock price decline from about 50 dollars a share to around $13. The fact that CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the US Airways water landing.<br><br>So, why is the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren't we warned that the finance industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Senator John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.<br><br>But that doesn't mean that the American people suddenly became liberals over night. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot them off.<br><br>Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy left media will never get that. They think most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They think everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.<br><br>Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch... and, soon, may be out of work.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-01-22T08:00:00ZBush ExitsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bush-Exits/24980.html2009-01-15T08:00:00Z2009-01-15T08:00:00ZPartisan blather aside, let's take a no spin look at President Bush's two biggest legacy items: The terror war and the economy.<br><br>Mr. Bush leaves office with a 34% approval rating, according to a recent Gallup poll. That ties him with Jimmy Carter's approval rating when he left office in 1981—not exactly a place you want to be. However, the war on terror issue is still being defined and will likely help Bush when history is written, down the line.<br><br>Immediately after the attack on 9/11, the Muslim jihadists had a big wind at their backs. We saw TV pictures of Muslims dancing in the streets as the great Satan America was humbled by al-Qaeda. Almost instantly, the invincibility of the United States was challenged and the physical safety of Americans was at risk. It was very possible that further attacks were close.<br><br>Moving quickly, the Bush administration reorganized the FBI into a terror-fighting organization and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, disrupting al-Qaeda's command and control. Those successful tactics blunted a number of active terror plots and resulted in the capture of a number of al-Qaeda big shots, all of whom broke under coerced interrogation. The information they gave up allowed the Bush administration to further damage the terrorist infrastructure.<br><br>Then came Iraq, an operation designed to cleanse the Muslim world of the huge terrorist enabler Saddam Hussein. The price of that war is still being debated, but what is not disputed by honest people is that the al-Qaeda foot soldiers that invaded Iraq hoping to defeat the U.S. military were eventually decimated. The price for America in Iraq has been enormous, but al-Qaeda has also paid big.<br><br>Today, the terror threat still exists, but it is no longer centralized and has lost most of its momentum. In short, the United States is winning the shooting war and President Bush should get credit for that.<br><br>On the economic front, however, the picture is different. The dramatic rise in oil prices last spring was artificially driven by greedy speculators, some of whom worked out of some brokerage houses like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The oil company chieftains quickly realized they could make billions raising their prices to reflect the upward price speculation and did so with gusto. Thus, millions of consumer dollars were diverted to gas bills instead of other obligations. That lit the fuse of the recession.<br><br>At the same time, banks were making risky home loans to unqualified consumers. The banks then sold many of those loans to quick-buck artists at places like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. When consumers began to default because money became tight, panic ensued and the recession roared in.<br><br>So, where was President Bush while all this was happening? He continued to put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not. That is on the President. If he was misled by his economic advisors, he should have said so. But Mr. Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for the collapse.<br><br>The Democrat-controlled congress also stood by and did nothing to protect the folks. Last July, Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House finance committee, told the world that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were "in good shape going forward."<br><br>A few weeks later, those mortgage entities collapsed. Frank is now blaming the Republicans, but he is being flat-out dishonest in not taking any responsibility.<br><br>Like a sports team that loses big, the head coach is the main guy. After Iraq and the wobbling economy, the folks lost confidence in President Bush, and Barack Obama capitalized on that. <br><br>But the truth is that the Bush administration did very well protecting us against the terror killers—not so well protecting us against Wall Street greed-heads.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-01-15T08:00:00ZObama's Big GambleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obamas-Big-Gamble/24936.html2009-01-08T08:00:00Z2009-01-08T08:00:00ZWho knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former Congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now Mr. Panetta is being tapped by President-elect Obama to be a tough guy spy, the head of the CIA.<br><br>The choice is perplexing. Mr. Panetta is very smart but has absolutely no intel experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed up the agency's Bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."<br><br>Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.<br><br>Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Barack Obama declined to vote on the issue.<br><br>But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man, he's taking a huge gamble. If the United States is attacked again by terrorists, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach will also come under attack. Simply put: a successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.<br><br>So why is Obama putting himself in this position? Well, the media has convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers-people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now, the committed left-wing media are demanding Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen-to appease the left wing zealots.<br><br>It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.<br><br>As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges still have to see the data after the fact and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.<br><br>It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Leon Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."<br><br>Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.BillOReilly.com Staff2009-01-08T08:00:00ZThings I Learned in 2008BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Things-I-Learned-in-2008/24900.html2008-12-31T08:00:00Z2008-12-31T08:00:00ZTough year, 2008. Many Americans got badly hurt by the economic chaos which hit them like a back alley mugger. What a disgrace. Wall Street hustlers gamed the system by trafficking in bad loans while Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission looked the other way. Awful.<br><br>So, I learned a painful lesson from all that: Big Brother is not watching out for us. Orwell had it wrong. We are pretty much on our own, as the federal government simply cannot or will not protect the folks from danger. Never again will I assume the feds are looking out for me.<br><br>I understand that sounds cynical. And I do believe that the Bush administration did apply very tough policies that made it much more difficult for terrorists to attack us. But on the homefront, federal and state governments continue to tax workers to the max while wasting much of the revenue on foolish projects designed to get politicians votes. If this continues, it is only a matter of time before America's economy completely tanks.<br><br>But many Americans, perhaps most, have not learned that lesson. They still believe the federal government should "provide" for them. President Obama has promised many things, most of them expensive. Of course, the United States does not have the money to pay for those things... just like many home buyers did not have the money to pay their mortgages. I hope Obama has learned from that. If he has not, duck.<br><br>The past year also taught me that the media can no longer be trusted. This has been developing for a long time, but media bias reached critical mass during the presidential campaign. Many in the press slanted their reporting to help Barack Obama; every independent study shows that. And all you have to do is compare the treatment Obama received to how the media portrayed Sarah Palin. That's all you have to do.<br><br>So, the lesson here is clear: No longer can the American media be relied upon to bring us fact-based information. The news media has entered the ideology business, much like talk radio. This will greatly harm the nation, as unbiased information is critical for an informed citizenry. The collapse of journalistic standards was a huge but largely untold story in 2008.<br><br>Finally, I learned last year that, despite the terrible economy, Americans continue to be a generous people. My website has been able to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help poor children, wounded vets and their families, and the homeless. We were able to do this because folks bought stuff on the site knowing the money they spent would flow to the less fortunate.<br><br>That's a big positive story of 2008. Despite the cruel economic blows, the generous spirit of Americans remains intact.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-12-31T08:00:00ZHappy New Year, Barack ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happy-New-Year-Barack-Obama/24797.html2008-12-24T08:00:00Z2008-12-24T08:00:00ZPut yourself in Barack Obama's sensible shoes. In less than a month, you'll be President of the United States and, upon entering the Oval Office, one of the biggest messes in history will be yours to sort out. So let's make a list and see exactly what the new president will be facing.<br><br>On the plus side, the media is still firmly on Obama's side and will continue to blame George W. Bush for everything until at least 2011. The media, in general, has a lot invested in the new president and will spin most events his way. That gives President Obama some public relations room. He'll have a few months before any pressure from the media comes directly at him. Heck, if the liberal press didn't scream about the conservative preacher Rick Warren praying at the Inauguration, you'd know the fix is in.<br><br>Also, Congress is now dominated by pro-Obama Democrats and it will do pretty much what the new President wants, so that will make Obama's life a lot easier.<br><br>On the downside, Congress simply does not know what it is doing. The financial crisis caught our lawmakers by surprise and the continuing chaos clearly demonstrates that these people have no idea how to deal with the recession. So Americans are just going to have to tough it out and pray the president and Congress don't make things even worse.<br><br>On the terrorism front, some Americans, including this one, are worried for a number of reasons, beginning with Obama selecting Eric Holder to be Attorney General. This almost defies belief. In addition to lobbying for the pardon of über-tax cheat Marc Rich, Holder was part of the Janet Reno gang that made it impossible for the feds to investigate terror-related activities inside the USA. You'll remember that then-Attorney General Reno, with her assistant Holder's guidance, actually ordered the FBI not to share information with the CIA. Thus, the 9/11 hijackers were free to roam this country until doing their deadly deeds.<br><br>Now, Holder may be running the show at Justice and unless he has had a complete epiphany (apologies to you secular-progressives), his selection is chilling. The fact that President-elect Obama has had so much trouble finding a new CIA chief speaks to Holder's situation. CIA veterans well understand that an anti-agency Attorney General could cause them great harm.<br><br>Overseas, the military is calling the shots and Obama will not take on General David Petraeus, the genius behind the Iraq turnaround. So here the fight against terror will continue to be waged aggressively. However, the prison at Guantanamo Bay will be shut down, and coerced interrogation will not be allowed on Obama's watch. So the terrorists gain an advantage.<br><br>Barack Obama is a brilliant man. He knows his success hinges on getting us out of the recession and preventing another terror attack at home. He also understands that he has to do both of these things if he wants a second term. <br><br>And a Happy New Year to you, Mr. President-elect.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-12-24T08:00:00ZWhy Christmas MattersBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Christmas-Matters/24778.html2008-12-18T08:00:00Z2008-12-18T08:00:00ZIn 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.<br><br>Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that, they believe, have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change—things like redefining marriage to include homosexuals and other redefinitions of tradition.<br><br>Thus, deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.<br><br>A few years ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.<br><br>After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of Christmas quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long. <br><br>This season there is another Christmas controversy, this one engineered by some atheists who want to display signs on public property if Christmas or Hanukkah symbols are present. So far, only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington state have caved in to the atheists, but it is just a matter of time before the non-believers come to a state house near you.<br><br>The problem with the atheist displays in Washington and Wisconsin is that the message is hateful, an attack on religion rather than a positive message. In Madison, then-Governor Tommy Thompson allowed the anti-religious sign, but posted it far away from the Nativity scene and the Menorah.<br><br>But in Olympia, Governor Christine Gregoire, a secular-progressive politician, has allowed a sign in the capitol rotunda that says religion enslaves people, among other not-nice things, to be placed within a few feet of Jesus in the manger. And peace on earth to you, too, Governor.<br><br>Of course, Gregoire did not have to do that. The legal settlement in Washington clearly states that any holiday display must be appropriate and reflect the decorum of the state capitol building.<br><br>So, the atheist anti-religion sign could have easily been rejected as being inappropriate. If the non-believers want a seasonal display, make it a positive thing. Put a picture of Charles Darwin and Bill Maher up there with the words "These are our guys... happy Winter Solstice!"<br><br>But, no, the atheists have to attack the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men and whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace.<br><br>Atheists well understand that Christmas is the most visible display of religion in the world, and any diminishment of it is a good thing to militant secularists. But it is inconceivable that Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a slam-dunk issue in which to unite a fractured country, could have foreseen the social civil war we have today.<br><br>Sadly, we are no longer one nation under God. But those of us who truly understand the spirit of Christmas, the simple message of good will toward all men, understand that Ulysses S. Grant was on to something. Christmas should be a time of peace and understanding. It's sad that we now have to defend that.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-12-18T08:00:00ZPerson of the YearBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Person-of-the-Year/24741.html2008-12-11T08:00:00Z2008-12-11T08:00:00ZThis is the time of year when media types begin bloviating about the person who has most impacted the country in 2008. Well, there's not much drama this time around because of Barack Obama's amazing achievement. But there are other folks who have influenced us greatly as well. Please consider the following list.<br><br><b>Congressman Barney Frank, Senator Chris Dodd & Security and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox</b><br>These three were given the charge to watch the financial system in America, to make sure Wall Street greedheads and other pernicious people did not hurt the folks. So tell me, how did these guys do?<br><br>Mr. Cox, a former Republican congressman himself, simply did nothing, allowing bad mortgages to be traded like sports cards as he fiddled in his lavish office.<br><br>Frank and Dodd, as finance chairmen in the House and Senate respectively, actually promoted irresponsible mortgages in the name of "inclusion," the liberal concept of giving people stuff if they can't buy it. Also, Dodd took a sweetheart mortgage from the failed Countrywide credit company, which saved him close to $100,000! And Frank publicly said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape "going forward," just weeks before both government entities collapsed.<br><br>I'd say these three had quite an impact in 2008.<br><br><b>Sarah Palin</b><br>The governor of Alaska completely upstaged John McCain and, depending on your political point of view, was either a breath of fresh air or the ruination of the Republican Party. Either way, she impacted in a huge way.<br><br><b>Senator Ted Stevens & Governor Rod Blagojevich</b><br>These two proved once again that political corruption knows no party. The Republican Stevens and the Democrat Blagojevich should now get their own reality program entitled "Scamming with the Pols."<br><br>I especially like the Governor speaking on the phone about getting bribes for delivering Barack Obama's Senate seat, all the while knowing he was under investigation by the Feds. I mean, even O. J. Simpson would not have been that dumb. Well, maybe I'm overstating.<br><br>On the positive side, <b>Hillary Clinton and John McCain</b> both ran spirited campaigns against President-elect Obama, and that helped the nation decide a new direction.<br><br><b>Michael Phelps and the U.S. Olympic Team</b> performed with class and skill in Beijing. When Phelps hits the water, the impact is amazing.<br><br>But above all this year, <b>the U.S. military</b> has had a major impact on the country and the world. Overcoming enormous obstacles to bring a measure of stability to the beleaguered people of Iraq, our forces have performed brilliantly. And, along with NATO troops, American troops continue to protect the Afghan people from the horrors of the Taliban.<br><br>These brave, unselfish men and woman proved once again in 2008 that America is a noble nation, and their impact and sacrifice should be positioned in the forefront of any "person of the year" exposition. <br><br>Bloviating aside, that's the truth.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-12-11T08:00:00ZJesus vs. the AtheistsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jesus-vs.-the-Atheists/24709.html2008-12-04T08:00:00Z2008-12-04T08:00:00ZJust in time for the Christmas season, the Governor of Washington State, Christine Gregoire, has insulted Christians all over the world. Inside the state capitol building in Olympia, there is a traditional holiday display featuring a tree and the Nativity scene-perfectly appropriate since the Christmas federal and state holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.<br><br>But this year, Governor Gregoire decided to add another item to the display. Standing alongside the baby Jesus is a giant placard designed by atheists that reads, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."<br><br>You read that correctly. The governor of Washington State has permitted an attack on religion to be displayed in her office building as part of a Christmas presentation.<br><br>Now, even the producers of 'The Twilight Zone' would have rejected this script as being too far-fetched. Governor Gregoire's behavior is offensive, insulting to all people of faith, and totally incomprehensible.<br><br>Unless you know what's going on in Washington State.<br><br>Seattle now rivals San Francisco for secular-progressive nuttiness. The city fathers are allowing public nakedness in city parks, nude bike riding, and in Fremont, a Seattle suburb, they actually put up a statue honoring Lenin, the father of communism.<br><br>Some on the Seattle school board actually supported denigrating Thanksgiving by teaching children about the atrocities against Native Americans by the Pilgrims.<br> <br>In addition, Washington State voters have passed assisted suicide, and the state gives out free birth control pills, including the "morning after" pill.<br><br>On the quality-of-life front, the streets of Seattle are full of homeless people, but they don't have to be out in the rain. The city will pay to house alcoholics and drug addicts if they want it. They can actually get free furnished apartments. Taxpayers, of course, pick up the tab. <br><br>Outside of the Seattle area, Washington State is fairly conservative. But the big city population base rules, and far-left zealots are running wild. However, they may have overstepped on this Christmas deal.<br><br>I believe that most Americans, even those living in far-left enclaves, respect uplifting traditions like Christmas where peace and love are the theme of the great day. Calling religion "enslaving" doesn't exactly fit into the peace and love scenario, does it? Can't we all just get along for a few weeks in December?<br><br>The answer to that question is "no." Not in Washington State, where the governor believes a few nuts have a legal right to run down the Christmas tradition in the lobby of the capitol building. At this point, there is little left to say except this: Where are the wise men when you need them?BillOReilly.com Staff2008-12-04T08:00:00ZThanks for the AdviceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Thanks-for-the-Advice/24668.html2008-11-26T08:00:00Z2008-11-26T08:00:00ZOne of the things that I am deeply grateful for this Thanksgiving season is that my father was a frugal guy and made a big deal out of it. A child of the depression, William O'Reilly, Sr. hoarded his dollars and lectured his children on saving not spending money. Sure, it was boring. My sister and I had visions of Snickers and Good Humor ice cream dancing in our heads. But as soon as I started making some money cutting lawns and shoveling snow, I saved a nice piece of it primarily because my father was six feet, three inches tall.<br><br>But not everybody got that lesson. The current economic horror can be traced back to one major occurrence—Americans borrowing money they can't pay back. Buying houses they can't afford, running up credit card debt like crazy. Of course, the banks were only too happy to help out, providing massive amounts of credit to Americans of limited means. What's the difference between a drug dealer and a mortgage broker? Interest.<br><br>So now we are all getting pounded, but some are better off than others. I still hear my father's voice when my paycheck rolls in and much of that check gets deposited in the bank. It does not get spent. It sits there in insured accounts winking at me. But it's there and will protect me and my family if any disaster happens.<br><br>Along with the saving habit, my father also mocked materialists. Living in Levittown, we had the basics, and that was that. If my dad saw somebody buying something dumb, like a foreign car or something, he'd make fun of it. Our "pre-owned" Nash Rambler wasn't exactly stylish, but it got us to the beach.<br><br>When my father died, he left my mother no debt and enough cash to live on for the duration. My mom is now approaching 86 years old, and if she wants a steak, it is there for her. My father's legacy is rock-solid responsibility with every obligation met. <br><br>If all Americans were like my dad, the following things would happen. First, Starbucks would go bankrupt. Spaghetti joints would replace the overpriced coffee houses. There would be no sign of Bentley automobiles. Costco would rule from coast to coast. Nobody would pay ten bucks to see a movie except if Clint Eastwood returned as Dirty Harry. Any restaurant with "fusion" on the menu would be empty. No one would ever eat "gelato." Ever.<br><br>But everybody would have money in the bank and the credit card companies would be weeping. Also, there would be no bailouts for slacker corporations or white-collar thugs like the AIG guys.<br><br>My father always said be thankful for what you have. And make sure you have enough.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-11-26T08:00:00ZJust Say NoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Just-Say-No/24645.html2008-11-20T08:00:00Z2008-11-20T08:00:00ZYou may remember that Nancy Reagan fought against drug consumption by urging Americans to "just say no." And now we need Mrs. Reagan again, because some badly run corporations are asking for tax payer bailouts and loans-they want charity from hard-working Americans who are getting pounded in a chaotic economy primarily caused by irresponsible businesspeople.<br><br>The situation is totally out of control. Leaders of the American car companies showed up on Capitol Hill this week stating that if billions in government loans were not forthcoming, they would go bankrupt. And how did many of these people get to Washington from Detroit? By private jet, of course.<br><br>Paging Imelda Marcos.<br><br>The reason the car companies are in such bad shape is that they cannot compete with Toyota and other foreign automakers. Governor Mitt Romney, whose father actually ran the American Motor Company, says that union contractual obligations add about $2,000 to each American car above what a corresponding Toyota would cost. Romney says that if the unions don't renegotiate, the U.S. car companies will never be able to compete in the global market, no matter how much money they borrow.<br><br>So for our dazed senators and congresspeople, the equation should be: if the union won't bend, we won't lend.<br><br>But the head of the House Finance Committee, the brilliant Barney Frank, disagrees with Romney and calls his analysis "union bashing." Frank, who said last July that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "in decent shape going forward," submits that the auto workers union should be applauded for promoting "income equality."<br><br>Swell, Barney, but here's the rub. If the company goes out of business, there will be no income at all. Am I getting through here, Congressman? I often wish Barney Fife, not Barney Frank, headed the House Finance Committee.<br><br>But back to "we the people," who are far more sensible than the ideologues in Congress. There is no question that an apathetic federal government allowed risky mortgage lending and the subsequent irresponsible sales of bad paper to financial institutions like the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers. The fed knew this was going on and did nothing.<br><br>So the economy collapsed and people stopped buying stuff like cars. With little money in reserve because so much cash goes to union pensions and disability, the auto companies may collapse as well.<br><br>Meantime, you and I who work hard, pay our bills, and had nothing to do with any of this watch our investments get hammered and the job pool shrink.<br><br>Both political parties are at fault and we should tell them there will be no loans to private industries that use private jets. The scam stops here.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-11-20T08:00:00ZJohn McCain and Sarah PalinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/John-McCain-and-Sarah-Palin/24605.html2008-11-13T08:00:00Z2008-11-13T08:00:00ZCan someone please explain to me why Sarah Palin is still getting trashed a week after the election? I mean, I understand the left-wing media hammered her during the campaign because they obviously favored Obama, and I also realize that scapegoating has become a national sport, but isn't enough enough with Governor Palin?<br><br>Apparently not.<br><br>The fascinating thing about the latest round of Palin-bashing is John McCain's reaction. A day after the election, Fox News political correspondent Carl Cameron reported on my TV program that some anonymous McCain staffers were frustrated because Palin didn't know much about the world. The now famous accusation is that the Governor did not even know that Africa is a continent.<br><br>Palin immediately denied it, and you would think McCain would have stopped that kind of vicious garbage in its tracks. But it took the Senator six days before he publicly stuck up for Palin. So let me ask you something. If a friend of yours was getting humiliated, would it take you six days to lend support?<br><br>Finally this week, McCain went on Jay Leno and said he was very "proud" of Sarah Palin.<br><br>Simultaneously, the liberal media continues to pound the Governor as a Marie Antoinette clone, a person who spends lavishly on silk shorts and "self-tanner," as Maureen Dowd wrote in the <em>New York Times</em>.<br><br>But even if that's true, <b>who cares</b>? The woman lost and will not be the vice president. Somebody tell the <em>New York Times</em>.<br><br>So why is all this happening? Well, Sarah Palin is a strong pro-life voice, and as such, has a giant target on her back, as far as the left-wing media is concerned. She must be destroyed as an example to other women who may try to promote a pro-life position.<br><br>On the right, some Republicans believe that Palin is simply not smart enough to win a national election and they don't want to have to deal with her again in 2012. So, if she can be marginalized now, that is a good thing for them.<br><br>As for John McCain, my colleague Juan Williams believes he just didn't care enough to step up and defend Palin. He lost, he's resigned... that's that. It's impossible to read anyone's mind, but McCain demonstrated the same lack of urgency in dealing with the Palin-bashers that he did throughout the campaign. There's an economic crisis in this country. Did you get the feeling John McCain understood that?<br><br>It's impossible to ascertain exactly why Sarah Palin continues to get hammered, but fair-minded Americans surely know that it is unnecessary and mean-spirited. This time enough really is enough.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-11-13T08:00:00ZThe Culture War and Barack ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Culture-War-and-Barack-Obama/24571.html2008-11-06T08:00:00Z2008-11-06T08:00:00ZThe fascinating thing about Barack Obama's election is that few Americans seem to know exactly how the man is going to govern. Is he going to be a Nancy Pelosi enthusiast, a far-left guy? Or will he move to the center like President Clinton did? Even his devoted followers don't really know how the man will initially use his power.<br><br>There's an old country saying: "You dance with the one who brung ya." Just hours after Obama's victory, the far left MoveOn.org outfit issued a press release saying that, during the campaign, it had raised an astounding $88 million on behalf of the president-elect. The timing of MoveOn's statement was no accident: It was a subtle reminder that payback is expected.<br><br>For far-left zealots, the goal is a European-like entitlement culture where the feds provide direct assistance to those not having a lot of money. In places like France and Sweden, there are no demands placed upon those receiving government money; cradle-to-grave financial support is simply given to anyone earning under a certain amount. So, if you want to gamble all day long or drink vodka until your legs give out, fine—you still get the check, the housing, the medical care.<br><br>Traditionally, Americans have rejected that kind of nanny state, but make no mistake, that is what the far left sees as "economic justice."<br><br>And then there are "San Francisco values." That is the George Soros vision of legalized narcotics and prostitution, unfettered abortion rights, legalized euthanasia, and gay marriage, to name just a few social issues. Soros, a big time contributor to MoveOn, believes America should be a libertine society where moral judgments about social behavior are unacceptable.<br><br>So, where will Barack Obama be on those issues? He says he personally opposes gay marriage, but I can't imagine him working against it. He's also fine with abortion in cases where the health of the mother is an issue. Of course, the health of the mother could be a panic attack or a headache. Based upon his voting record in the past, I expect Obama to be extremely liberal when social legislation is presented to him. I also expect Ruth Bader Ginsburg to have a new best friend if a Supreme Court opening occurs.<br><br>However, if Obama tacks to the left on entitlements and the controversial social stuff, his appeal to working Americans might quickly diminish... especially if the economy doesn't turn around. Even while Obama was winning liberal California, voters were overturning the gay marriage law imposed upon them by activist judges. The United States is still a center-right country when it comes to traditional values.<br><br>I believe Obama and his advisors understand that. But I am also sure that the MoveOn brigades and devoted liberal media outlets are hungry for more "progressive" change. This is a real dicey situation for the newly elected President. The words "rock" and "hard place" come to mind.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-11-06T08:00:00ZThe Fear FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Fear-Factor/24538.html2008-10-30T07:00:00Z2008-10-30T07:00:00ZFear is driving the presidential election of 2008. Since the economic meltdown in early October, Barack Obama's poll numbers have steadily risen as millions of Americans are afraid of losing their investments. They fear the federal government has lost control of the financial marketplace and are looking for a white knight to turn the situation around.<br><br>That fear is well founded, as the Bush administration has allowed speculators to run wild in the stock and commodities markets. This column stated last spring that oil speculators were artificially driving up prices and the oil companies were taking advantage of the situation by raising prices based upon "futures contracts," not supply and demand. Naysayers criticized me, but when the speculators pulled out, oil prices cratered. The entire gas price deal was a scam and the folks got hurt.<br><br>That, of course, happened on President Bush's watch, and so did the mortgage mess. Under the nose of the Security and Exchange Commission, supposedly federal watchdogs, banks and brokerage houses like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were allowed to buy up risky loans that banks made to folks who didn't have much money. When the unqualified homebuyers couldn't meet their payments, the market crashed. The feds simply stood by and watched the whole economy unravel.<br><br>So who can blame the folks for being angry and fearful? It seems nobody is looking out for them. And so they flocked to the new guy: Barack Obama.<br><br>But now the fear factor may be shifting. For the first time, a new Rasmussen Poll shows that more Americans believe John McCain is better on economic issues that Senator Obama. You can thank Joe the Plumber for that.<br><br>When Obama told Joe that he wanted to spread the wealth around, many Americans were startled. Is it the job of the federal government to take money from private citizens and give it to other citizens? Isn't that socialism? That one statement from Obama has turned fear to McCain's advantage.<br><br>Despite deep disenchantment with the Republican Party, most Americans remain traditional in their beliefs and do not admire entitlement cultures such as those in France and Scandinavia. Certainly, the founding fathers did not want a huge federal apparatus interfering in personal finance. So, many voters, especially senior citizens who understand income redistribution, are now becoming fearful that an Obama administration might bring not only change, but drastic change. <br><br>The McCain campaign has seized on this, but with just a few days to go, it might be too late. However, fear can make folks do things quickly. This election is not over until the very frightened fat lady sings.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-10-30T07:00:00ZThe Powell EndorsementBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Powell-Endorsement/24496.html2008-10-23T07:00:00Z2008-10-23T07:00:00ZAfter General Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama last week, I got to thinking about Powell, who is kind of a mystery man to me. Of course he's a patriot. He has served his country well in the military and also as Secretary of State under President Bush. No question, Powell loves America and has contributed greatly to it.<br><br>Also, I have no problem with his support of Senator Obama. Powell is simply exercising his voting freedom, so more power to him. The problem is the General's explanation for defecting from his party.<br><br>On TV, Powell said he was angry that some extreme right-wingers have called Obama a Muslim and he feels that the Republican establishment has been disrespectful towards the Senator. Okay, there have been some absurd things said about Barack Obama, but John McCain has challenged them publicly, and has even rejected bringing up Reverend Wright as a campaign issue, feeling it is too divisive.<br><br>Seems to me that McCain is rejecting ugly politics and the Senator is the guy running against Obama, not some nut shouting invective at a rally.<br><br>What is also dubious is Powell's lack of fair play. Recently, Barack Obama appeared on an NBC News program whose host has called John McCain a "fraud" who "tacitly [incites] lunatics to violence."<br><br>That assertion, of course, is absurd and grossly irresponsible. So, why would Senator Obama go on a program like that? Shouldn't Powell be concerned about it?<br><br>And then there is the Daily Kos. As readers of this column may remember, I chastised the Democratic presidential contenders last summer for attending the Kos convention in Washington. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the others lent their credibility to a website that routinely revels in hatred.<br><br>For example, DailyKos posted a picture of Senator Joseph Liebermann about to engage in a sex act with President Bush and displayed that disgusting thing for more than year.<br><br>When Tony Snow's fatal cancer returned, the website allowed a posting that said the world "would be better off without him."<br><br>And, most recently, the Daily Kos put forth that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter, not the Governor herself, gave birth to the Down syndrome baby. It doesn't get any worse than that.<br><br>Again, Senator Obama visited the Kos convention, mingling with these vicious character assassins. I respectfully submit to General Powell that visit is as troubling as anything that has happened in the Republican precincts.<br><br>I know Colin Powell only slightly, but I believe his endorsement of Barack Obama really stems from two things he did not say. First, Senator Obama has cultivated Powell, treating him with respect, asking for his advice.<br><br>And, secondly, Powell remains bitter over the way he was treated by the Bush administration and some rank and file Republican stalwarts. The friction between him and the so-called "neo-cons" has been widely reported.<br><br>So, I think that's the true story behind General Powell's shift to the Democrats. The Muslim factor has nothing to do with it.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-10-23T07:00:00ZThe Betrayal FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Betrayal-Factor/24460.html2008-10-16T07:00:00Z2008-10-16T07:00:00ZOutside of violent crime, one of the worst things a person can experience is betrayal; that is believing in someone or something and then being hurt by the sincere belief.<br><br>Up until a few weeks ago, millions of hard working Americans who play by the rules thought they were doing the responsible thing by investing in U.S. companies. Many of these folks were saving for retirement or for their child's education by buying stocks and bonds from what they thought were responsible institutions. No one mentioned that a massive fraud was occurring in many of these brokerage houses and banks. No one told the folks that the system was rigged.<br><br>So, when their investments suddenly vanished in the chaos of sub-prime mortgage corruption, many Americans felt the sting of betrayal and it has left them bitter. After all, they did the right thing and got punished because corruption and greed was allowed to go unchecked by the federal government which is supposed to provide strict oversight.<br><br>That is the backdrop of the Presidential vote this year. On September 21st, John McCain was tied with Barack Obama in many national polls and running ahead of Obama in most battleground states. Three weeks later, McCain was well behind.<br><br>It's not that Senator Obama is picking up steam. According to the Gallup Daily tracking polls, Obama's numbers have stayed about the same since mid-September. But McCain's polling has totally fallen apart. He's getting pounded primarily because he's a Republican and the party holding the White House when the economy implodes always gets hammered. Just ask Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover.<br><br>What is somewhat inexplicable is that neither McCain nor Obama seem to understand the betrayal factor. Neither of them mentioned it in the debates. They both campaign as though the financial chaos is just another in a long line of problems. But it's not. People will remember this debacle as long as they live. It's like their money was stolen from them.<br><br>And in a way it was. When a guy like Stanley O'Neal can run Merrill Lynch into the ground and walk away with $100 million while stockholders see their investments evaporate, that is a moral crime. When Congressman Barney Frank, the House financial committee chairman, tells the country in July that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "fundamentally sound" and two months later they collapse, that needs to be investigated.<br><br>When Senator Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate finance committee, accepts a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Credit and, shortly afterward, that company implodes, well, maybe some legal authority should investigate. Or am I wrong?<br><br>Betrayal is a terrible thing and the folks were badly betrayed by the American financial system. My question is: Who's gonna do something about it?BillOReilly.com Staff2008-10-16T07:00:00ZConfronting BarneyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Confronting-Barney/24424.html2008-10-09T07:00:00Z2008-10-09T07:00:00ZOne of the things lacking in the second presidential debate this week was anger. With the economy brutalizing millions of Americans, I expected both candidates to be furious that, once again, the government failed to warn us about impending disaster. Before the 9/11 attack few Americans had ever heard of al Qaeda even though Presidents Clinton and Bush certainly knew of the growing danger the group posed. Now, there's compelling evidence that the feds stonewalled the present economic chaos. So why aren't McCain and Obama livid about it?<br><br>It is not hard to understand why Americans who work hard, obey the law and believe in the capitalistic system, are sick to their stomachs when they lose investment money through no fault of their own. Corrupt Wall Street greed heads and stupid, lazy federal overseers have combined to deliver one of the most punishing blows to regular folks in U.S. history.<br><br>So, again, why aren't Obama and McCain pounding the table? <br><br>Recently, I interviewed the Chairman of the House Finance Committee Barney Frank and it was quite a shootout. According to The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and my own research, Frank presided over the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a casual disdain for the American investor.<br><br>In fact, last July, Frank went on television and said this: <br><br>"Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward."<br><br>Sure. Less than three months later Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and even though he was in charge, Frank says he is not at fault. Of course, he blames Republicans.<br><br>After hearing that, I let Frank have it calling him a coward for not admitting any culpability. He then called me stupid. You get the picture.<br><br>Now, I remain furious with Barney Frank. To me, he epitomizes everything that is wrong with the federal government. He was incompetent in his oversight of the federal mortgage agencies and then when they folded, causing a chain reaction financial disaster for honest investors, he blamed other people.<br><br>Unacceptable and every elected official in Washington should feel the same way. This is not some political theory here, real people are getting badly hurt, lives are being dramatically affected. Those responsible need to be held to account.<br><br>But in the land of conventional politics anyone showing anger and passion is deemed to be "out of control." You must appear calm and cool in the face of any storm. Therefore, Obama and McCain showed little emotion about the terrible economic situation.<br><br>You know sometimes cool doesn't cut it, fellas. There is a time for anger. <br><br>And that time is now.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-10-09T07:00:00ZThe Culture War at the MoviesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Culture-War-at-the-Movies/24395.html2008-10-02T07:00:00Z2008-10-02T07:00:00ZThis week marks the opening of two highly charged movie comedies. The first, "Religulous," is a Borat-style journey starring Bill Maher that is designed to demonstrate that anyone who believes in God is a total moron. The second, "An American Carol," is a slapstick satire that pokes fun at the far left. Director David Zucker, who did the "Airplane" movies, mocks Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and other liberal enthusiasts. Full disclosure: I have a small part in "Carol."<br><br>Now, it will be interesting to see how the critics react to these films. Most people who review movies for a living are liberal thinkers. Are they godless? I have no idea. Are they ready to embrace Bill Maher's point of view? I believe they are.<br><br>Already, the <em>New York Times</em>, <em>Variety</em> and the <em>Hollywood Reporter</em> have labeled Maher's fable "hilarious" while conceding that many religious folks may not share that point of view. It is obvious the Deity likes a good laugh, or else Congress would not have been created. But whether the Almighty will be chuckling over "Religulous" is, well, highly doubtful. Bill Maher might pray for a long life.<br><br>What is not doubtful is that most critics will hate "An American Carol." Far-left internet sites like Salon are hammering Zucker and his movie even though they haven't seen it. That's because the producers of "Carol" suspected they would be treated very poorly by the press and avoided all advance screenings. Why do they believe this? Well, it might be because not one American media company would distribute the film, even though it features big name stars like Kelsey Grammar and James Woods. "Carol" is being distributed by a French company whose executives may not be all that fluent in English.<br><br>No question that both movies are going to anger some folks. Maher in particular is a provocateur. Promoting his film on "The View," he told one of the ladies who is a believer that she should go to a mental hospital. Borat would be proud.<br><br>On the "Carol" front, more than a few people will be horrified that movie icon George Clooney is mocked. Talk about roping a sacred cow! Belittling God is one thing, but denigrating Clooney? Are there no limits to the madness?<br><br>It will be very interesting to see which movie wins at the box office. Will the pagans score big? Or will the first conservative satire ever clobber the atheists? At this point, only God knows, with apologies to Mr. Maher.<br><br>And if this culture war cinema battle isn't enough, Oliver Stone will be out with his movie on President Bush in a couple of weeks. I'll make a bold prediction: Many critics will love it! Can you imagine anyone sticking up for Mr. Bush at this point in time?<br><br>I don't know whether Oliver Stone believes in God. But he should.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-10-02T07:00:00ZThe Game ChangerBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Game-Changer/24358.html2008-09-25T07:00:00Z2008-09-25T07:00:00ZThe financial meltdown will change many things in America, and we can start with campaign promises. You can say goodbye to universal health care, a cornerstone of Barack Obama's campaign strategy. Massive medical benefits are now impossible because the bailout will take all the money.<br><br>Also, sayonara to John McCain's across-the-board tax cuts. The Democrats will likely control Congress again and, in the face of a $750 billion expenditure, there is little chance taxes will decline in any significant way.<br><br>So, both candidates find themselves losing a major core issue because of the greedy, stupid mortgage scandal.<br><br>Polls show that the folks are angry, as they should be. A Fox News survey puts President Bush's approval rating at 26%. Shortly after 9/11, the President had an approval rating of 88%, so you can clearly see how the once-mighty have fallen.<br><br>Just two weeks ago, the Palin bounce had John McCain leading Barack Obama in just about every national poll. Now McCain has fallen behind Senator Obama, and it's directly because of the economic madness.<br><br>Some Americans object to the feds bailing out companies that trafficked in risky mortgages. But if the government does not allocate taxpayer money to stop the economic bleeding, then what? Do you let the United States slide into a depression? The American economy is greatly dependent on foreign investment—oil sheiks and Chinese entrepreneurs buying our stocks and bonds. If overseas investors believe the U.S. economy is fundamentally unstable, they will pull their money out. That would be catastrophic for America.<br><br>Basically, the feds are playing a confidence game right now. They are assuring the world that our economy will not collapse. That assurance is vital.<br><br>But, once again, it is the folks who have to pay the bills, and pay we will. For the next four years, our tax dollars will be basically used for two things—fighting terrorists abroad and bailing out greedheads on Wall Street.<br><br>The FBI is investigating some corporate managers who made big money while their companies burned. People like former Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal who allowed his company to buy bad mortgage paper and then, when things went south, walked away with a reported $150 million severance package. Meanwhile, millions of Merrill stockholders got hammered.<br><br>In any federal bailout, two things have to happen. First, the companies involved must pay back any "loans" after they get back on their feet. Secondly, the government must control the pay of the managers. That is non-negotiable. No more tax dollars for greedhead incompetents like O'Neal.<br><br>In the end, the American working person will pull the country out of this mess, just like we always do. But no longer can we the people trust the government to look out for us. The covenant between the folks and Washington has been badly damaged, there's no question about it.<br>And that may take a longer time to repair than the stupid mortgage mess.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-09-25T07:00:00ZKatrina Hits Wall StreetBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Katrina-Hits-Wall-Street/24288.html2008-09-18T07:00:00Z2008-09-18T07:00:00ZOnce again the federal government has left Americans in a precarious state as a terrible storm is passing through the U.S. economy. Like Hurricane Katrina, some folks thought the government could keep them from harm, but, as in New Orleans, things have gotten out of control quickly as bad housing loans have shredded the economy.<br><br>Christopher Cox, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, knew for perhaps a year that some large financial and insurance companies were buying risky housing loans, hoping to make a quick buck on consumers paying mortgage interest. But instead of issuing strict warnings against such irresponsible business moves, Cox sat in his Washington office and fiddled.<br><br>Unlike Cox, most investors in companies like AIG and Merrill Lynch did not know that bad loans were becoming part of their portfolios; they had no idea their so-called "blue chip" stocks were really Las Vegas-type situations. And Cox did not tell them.<br><br>Congressman Barney Frank also sat by as mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made bad loans even though Frank, as head of the House Banking Committee, certainly knew the score. Instead of demanding responsible business practices from Fannie and Freddie, Frank continued to pound the table to extend even more credit to "low income" families. The mortgage companies were happy to accommodate him, giving big money to folks with little collateral.<br><br>So now the U.S. economy has imploded along with President Bush's legacy. He appointed Christopher Cox and it is on his watch that millions of Americans are suffering economically. This is certainly not the way the President wanted to go out.<br><br>In the movie "Wall Street," Michael Douglas tells the audience that "greed, for lack of a better word, is good." Of course, that is false. Greed leads to chaos, always. And now we have it. <br><br>Capitalism is the best economic system on earth because it allows people to work hard and reach their potential. But like everything else, capitalism can be perverted. Bad guys can game the system.<br><br>That's why the federal government set up the SEC and other alleged safeguards--to protect the folks from corporate criminals and incompetents. It is simply wrong for a CEO to bankrupt a company and walk away with a multi-million dollar severance package. But that has happened at Merrill Lynch and many other badly mismanaged companies.<br><br>Greedheads aside, there is a thing called "economic justice." If Americans lose faith in capitalism, if they think the system is rigged, then the United States will enter a steep decline.<br><br>That could happen this time around. Poor leaders like Cox and Frank are just a small part of a corrupt system that is now harming honest Americans. Whoever the next President is must put an end to this.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-09-18T07:00:00ZSome Advice for Sarah PalinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Some-Advice-for-Sarah-Palin/24242.html2008-09-11T07:00:00Z2008-09-11T07:00:00ZA new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll says that 50% of Americans believe John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was the most effective pick in the campaign. 40% say Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden was the smarter choice. That confirms the prevailing wisdom that Governor Palin is dramatically helping McCain's chances to become President.<br><br>Going forward, Governor Palin must consolidate her initial gains, and it will not be easy. First of all, the tabloid press is all over Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and you can bet they'll come up with something. No human being is perfect. And then there's the mainstream media, which took a beating last week after trying to marginalize Palin as some kind of country bumpkin—a religious fanatic who is not fit to serve. The personal attacks against Palin and her family angered millions of Americans and, almost instantly, made the Governor a folk hero in some circles.<br><br>Of course, that infuriated the establishment press which doesn't like getting pounded in the court of public opinion. So you can take it to the bank that many left-leaning press people are laying in wait.<br><br>But Sarah Palin has some skills which can protect her against the inevitable attacks. She is a natural performer; the TV camera loves the woman. She is also a plainspoken American who connects emotionally with the folks. Therefore, she can set her own agenda. As Ronald Reagan once did, she can go directly to the people and around the press.<br><br>If I were advising Mrs. Palin, I would have had her defend Barack Obama in the lipstick/pig incident. If Governor Palin would have stated that she doesn't believe the Senator would compare her to a pig, that would have been a compassionate gesture. The folks love compassion. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in the pig deal would have meant more votes in the barnyard, and also made it harder for the Obama campaign to lash her in the future.<br><br>In addition, I would tell Sarah to be Sarah: Feisty, down-to-earth and funny. Don't try to be Henry Kissinger. Just demonstrate a grasp of the issues and a determination to look out for the folks. The key phrase for Palin should be "Here's what we want to do." Then, using simple terms, state that.<br><br>Right now, Americans voters want to be reassured that their jobs are safe and that some crazy terrorist won't blow up their neighborhood. Palin has dealt with economic issues successfully in Alaska. On national security she has no record. But I'm sure there are things she wants to do in order to keep her five children safe. Just say them.<br><br>The elite media has little in common with everyday Americans, and Palin should just laugh off their attempts to demean her. She can best capitalize on her incredibly fast start by simply keeping it simple. Nice goes a long way in life—also, in politics.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-09-11T07:00:00ZChatting with ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Chatting-with-Obama/24183.html2008-09-05T07:00:00Z2008-09-05T07:00:00ZLike him or not, you have to give Barack Obama credit for waging a smart, focused campaign. Destroying the Clinton machine was a major achievement and so was putting together a successful convention in Denver. Obama is now firmly a part of U.S. history, no matter what happens in the presidential election.<br><br>The problem some Americans continue to have with the Senator is that he is long on charisma but short on detail. This frightens some voters. Who the heck is this guy, anyway? So when Obama finally agreed to speak to me this week, specifics were on my mind.<br><br>First, the man. The Barack Obama I witnessed is self-confident, determined and driven. He was acutely aware of his surroundings from the moment he entered the room. He looks you in the eye and touches your shoulder. He understands how to connect one-on-one.<br><br><center><img src="/images/behindscenes/billobama.jpg"></center><br>As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.<br>The Senator also believes that poor Americans have a basic right to free health care and monetary supplements from the government with no strings attached. The American substance abuser, for example, would derive the same benefit as a hard working, laid off worker would. Again, classic liberalism. No judgments made regarding entitlements.<br><br>So, if Barack Obama does become president, there will definitely be change. His left-wing base will demand it, and he will come through. You can decide if that's change we should believe in, but keep in mind that the unintended consequences of government interference in the marketplace are impossible to predict. Free markets have a way of chafing under government imposition.<br><br>On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.<br><br>After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy-that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.<br><br>It is true that we don't know whether Senator Obama has the ability to solve complex problems, but you can say that about all presidential contenders.<br><br>Like most politicians, Obama has used guile and good luck to accumulate his power. He can be ruthless, kind, unfair, and generous. In short, he's a real person trying to achieve an unreal position-that of the most powerful person in the world.<br><br>God help him.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-09-05T07:00:00ZThe Peacock and Barack ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Peacock-and-Barack-Obama/24133.html2008-08-28T07:00:00Z2008-08-28T07:00:00ZDENVER — With much of the nation sampling TV coverage of the Democratic Convention, things are getting a bit dicey for NBC News. For months, that organization has tilted heavily toward promoting Barack Obama for president, thereby violating traditional journalistic tenets.<br><br>According to a recent study by the Media Research Center, NBC News has the most lopsided pro-Obama coverage among national TV news operations. The MRC found that pro-Obama reports outnumber anti-Obama reports by 10 to one on NBC News, an amazing statistic.<br><br>With that in mind, let's take a look at how the NBC Nightly News might look sometime very soon.<br><br>"Hi, I'm Brian Williams, thank you for joining us tonight. Before we get to our lineup this evening, I should tell you that I am wearing the same kind of suit Senator Obama had on yesterday, and I like it very much. The fabric is soft and has an air of authority. I want to thank the Senator for his good taste.<br><br>"Our first story tonight is from Andrea Mitchell, who has learned that Senator Obama is indeed related to Moses. NBC has discovered the wicker basket in which Moses floated down the Nile River before being rescued by the Pharaoh's wife. We can tell you tonight that DNA traces found in that basket match Barack Obama! Incredible.<br><br>"Also ahead, NBC News correspondent Lee Cowan is traveling with Senator Obama and reports that he is a really big tipper, and his teeth are perfect.<br><br>"Continuing with our election coverage, Chuck Todd will analyze exactly how Michelle Obama came to be so smart. And good looking. By the way, my wife has a dress very similar to the one Mrs. Obama wore on stage in Denver. She likes it a lot.<br><br>"After Chuck files his report, Maria Menounos has an exclusive story on how Rev. Wright has undergone a radical transformation. Maria has learned that after going to Lourdes, the Reverend now believes all Americans are really neat people, and is wearing the same kind of American flag pin that Barack Obama wears. Rather than damning America, Wright now believes the Deity likes the country especially because Senator Obama might be President.<br><br>"Finally, Tom Brokaw will take a look back at the entire Obama family tree. This is amazing. New evidence suggests that Barack Obama is not only a distant cousin to Dick Cheney, but is also related to General George Patton, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and St. Francis of Assisi. DNA found on a bird in Chicago confirms this.<br><br>"As for John McCain, there is a rumor he has been denied AARP membership because he is too old.<br><br>"So we have quite a program for you this evening right here on NBC News. Please stay tuned."BillOReilly.com Staff2008-08-28T07:00:00ZBarack and VladBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Barack-and-Vlad/24090.html2008-08-21T07:00:00Z2008-08-21T07:00:00ZIf Barack Obama somehow loses the presidential race, he might partially blame Vlad "the Assailer" Putin. Since Russia invaded Georgia last week, the world's attention has been focused on NATO's response to the brutality. On balance, the response has been tepid, to say the least. President Bush says Russia better get out.<br><br>Or what?<br><br>Senator Obama is calling for "restraint by both sides." Swell. Asking Putin to restrain his violent tactics is like asking al-Qaeda to celebrate Christmas—not gonna happen.<br><br>The Russian action is a reminder to all that we live in a dangerous world where just about anything can happen at any time. And, in America, the reaction from the far left, which enthusiastically supports Obama, is also a stark wake up call.<br><br>The liberal base is basically putting forth two sets of talking points on the Georgia situation. The first was articulated by <em>New York Times</em> columnist Maureen Dowd:<br><br>"The Bushies can hardly tell Russia to stop doing what they themselves did in Iraq: unilaterally invade a country against the will of the world to scare the bejesus out of some leaders in the region they didn't like."<br><br>So here again we have the left making a moral equivalency between removing a murderous dictator who violated the Gulf War ceasefire 17 times and hammering the democratically elected Georgian government. To left-wing nuts, Saddam Hussein is as worthy as President Saakashvili; there is no difference between confronting homicidal fascism and undermining a legitimate democracy.<br><br>That kind of thinking marginalizes the far left more than anything a conservative critic could come up with.<br><br>But wait, it gets worse. A far-left commentator working for NBC News put forth that Putin is not the villain in the Georgia action—America is, because it encouraged Georgia to join NATO, thereby annoying Russia. So, once again, it was the United States that really caused the violent confrontation.<br><br>NATO, of course, was set up to protect democratic countries like, well, Georgia. But in the creepy world the far left inhabits, whatever happens is inevitably America's fault.<br><br>On the heels of Putin's great adventure, a new Zogby/Reuters poll startled some by concluding that John McCain is now leading Senator Obama by five points. Although these polls don't mean much two and a half months before the vote, they are a snapshot in time.<br><br>Non-ideological Americans recoil from the "blame America first" crowd, and that crew is firmly behind Obama. Thus, Putin's aggression reminded folks of that. Advantage McCain.<br><br>In the end, Barack Obama will lose the election if independent voters see him as part of the vast far-left conspiracy which, in today's dangerous world, has become a symbol of appeasement and anti-American attitudes. MoveOn.org, NBC News and the <em>New York Times</em> will not get Obama elected. He needs to tell Americans exactly what he thinks of Putin's desire to expand Russian power and influence. And he needs to do it without restraint.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-08-21T07:00:00ZVlad the AssailerBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Vlad-the-Assailer/24055.html2008-08-14T07:00:00Z2008-08-14T07:00:00ZThe violent history of Eastern Europe resulted in the classic horror character Dracula being created by the Irish author Bram Stoker in 1897. Stoker based his vampire character on a Romanian ruler named Vlad Tepes who, in the 15th century, committed incredible atrocities like impaling thousands of captured people on felled trees. Nice guy. <br><br>For this, Tepes was called "Vlad the Impaler."<br><br>Now we have Vladimir Putin, the Russian martinet, who is orchestrating the violence in Georgia in order to show the world that the Russian military is back in fighting form. Using the old Third Reich ruse of "protecting" ethnic "Russians" who are living in Georgian territory, Putin has launched a violent action that has angered most decent people.<br><br>For this, Putin should be known as "Vlad the Assailer."<br><br>But why is Putin doing this? Well, like Dracula, it is in his blood. As a former Soviet Secret Police director, Putin has no problem using harsh methods to achieve his goals. Under his former presidency, Russia turned into a crime-ridden state where dissenters (and Putin's business competitors) were routinely beaten, imprisoned and, on occasion, murdered.<br><br>No question in my mind that Putin is a thug and is still calling the shots in Russia despite the election of his protégé, Dimitry Medvedev, as President.<br><br>Putin's vision is a Russia that dominates the countries on its borders and competes with the United States and China for global influence. He has done everything he can to weaken America, even selling Iran sophisticated weaponry including the Tor-MI air defence system as well as 500 surface-to-air missiles. Obviously, Putin is no friend of ours.<br><br>The United States has tweaked Putin back by supporting Georgia's entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and that is the crux of the current conflict. Realizing that the Bush administration cannot handle another armed conflict right now, Putin decided to show the world that he could punish America's friend, Georgia, without a meaningful response. He has succeeded in doing that.<br><br>Down the road, either John McCain or Barack Obama will have to deal with Vlad the Assailer. This dour, brutal man senses weakness in both America and Europe, weakness that will drive him to become bolder. The only thing a guy like Vlad understands is the stick. <br><br>But how to wield it—that is the question. As with Iran, diplomacy is not likely to deter Putin, because Europe needs Russian natural gas and oil and is not likely to challenge Russia by supporting sanctions. So it will come down to the USA vs. Russia, mano-a-mano.<br><br>Putin is one tough customer. It will be interesting to see if the United States will elect a leader who can effectively neutralize him. Because if that does not happen, old Vlad, like Dracula, will commit scourge on the countryside.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-08-14T07:00:00ZRockin' in the Free WorldBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rockin-in-the-Free-World/24022.html2008-08-07T07:00:00Z2008-08-07T07:00:00ZThe other night I went to see the legendary R&B group Earth, Wind and Fire at Radio City Music Hall. Toward the end of the show, lead singer Philip Bailey startled me and others in crowd because he actually said: "I thank God and America for allowing us to have success for 37 years."<br><br>Shocking. <br><br>Call me cynical, but I am used to hearing performers bad mouth their country and promote things like drugs and violence. This is routine these days. People like Nas and Ludacris spit out poison like sesame seeds. That's why it took some guts for Mr. Bailey to say what he said. In some precincts, it is cool to run down America from the stage not praise it.<br><br>Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and Chris Martin of Coldplay, all have demeaned the United States this summer. These guys say it's about the evil Bush administration but, believe me, their message is clear: America, itself, is one screwed up place.<br><br>Now, some commentators say that performers should just shut up and sing because that's what the folks have paid to hear. But artistic license and the first amendment are on the side of the rock stars. People freely pay to hear them and, in a free society, they can pretty much do what they want.<br><br>All throughout history, music has been used to protest injustice. That is a good thing. Protest songs in the 1960's, for example, effectively focused attention on America's societal problems and the awful conflict in Vietnam. There is no doubt about that.<br><br>But there is a responsibility that comes along with protest. To simply run your country down because you don't like a politician or the party in power is simply stupid. America is a huge mosaic, there are great things and there are bad things in this country.<br><br>What really annoys me about Springsteen, Young, and Martin in particular is that they never debate issues. They never show us exactly how deep their political thinking is; how wide their frame of reference. Instead, they yell out dumb stuff to their zombie followers and revel in the applause. Overseas, especially, any knock on America is greeted with rapture.<br><br>Country music artists generally do not go in for this kind of stuff because their audience has little tolerance for it, as we saw with the Dixie Chick debacle. However, it is certainly refreshing to see some rock and pop people singing a different tune. Billy Joel opened his recent Shea Stadium show by playing "The Star Spangled Banner," and the Beach Boys consistently praise their country.<br><br>Add Philip Bailey and Earth, Wind and Fire to the list. Take that, Bruce Springsteen.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-08-07T07:00:00ZFlying LowBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Flying-Low/23962.html2008-07-31T07:00:00Z2008-07-31T07:00:00ZWith less than six months left in office, George W. Bush has already been branded one of the worst Presidents in history by some in the left-wing press. To them, Bush is the worst thing to happen in America since the advent of talk radio.<br><br>To be fair (something the liberal media rarely is), President Bush was dealt a tough hand. Less than one year into his first term, Muslim assassins in civilian clothing started a worldwide war. To his credit, Bush has fought that war tough, if not always smart.<br><br>The campaign against terror has occupied most of the President's time. Therefore, things like illegal immigration, energy prices and the nation's airline system, which became enormous problems on Bush's watch, were not dealt with aggressively. Thus, the President will leave office in a few months saddled with very low approval ratings.<br><br>For anyone who travels in America, the flying experience has become almost painful. The airlines have cut back on basic services and the comfort level while flying is now a joke. Customers are jammed into seats, forced to undergo unexplained delays and are often treated with apathy if not outright disrespect.<br><br>Any other industry would have folded years ago, but many Americans HAVE to fly; they must travel for business or family concerns. The airline and oil industries have similar profiles--the folks need their services; we can't walk away.<br><br>The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for keeping the airline industry safe and efficient. It is safe, that's a fact. But efficiently run? Sure. So is Zimbabwe.<br><br>The FAA chief is Bobby Sturgell, whose greatest achievement is that no one has ever heard of him. Sturgell is a former pilot and apparently is unaware that many American pilots still on the job are slowly being driven crazy because of the chaos in the skies.<br><br>And this is not a complicated situation. There are simply too many planes in the air for the air traffic controllers to safely handle because takeoff and landing times are not regulated. Thus, the airports in New York City, Atlanta and Chicago are beyond saturated almost all day long. And, if a cloud rolls in or if a rabbit runs across the runway, planes begin stacking up back to Katmandu.<br><br>If someone would wake Bobby Sturgell, something could be done. The federal government has the power to control takeoffs and landings. It is dangerous and a colossal waste of oil for planes to be circling all over the place and sitting on active runways for hours. Apparently, everyone understands this but Bobby.<br><br>And his boss, George.<br><br>It's not that the President is a bad man or even incompetent; I do not believe that. But he simply has no sense of urgency in many matters. Problems like the airline chaos mount and are rarely solved. Hey, Mr. President, people are suffering at the airports--this should not be happening in America.<br><br>Somebody on Air Force One should tell the guy.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-07-31T07:00:00ZA Cash TransactionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Cash-Transaction/23930.html2008-07-24T07:00:00Z2008-07-24T07:00:00ZIf Senator Obama becomes President Obama, my taxes will go up... way up. But I know neither Argentina nor anyone else will cry for me, because I am the rich guy Al Gore warned you about—the one that got all those tax cuts from the evil Bush administration.<br><br>Yes, I am part of the one percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40% of all federal income tax in 2006. According to recently released IRS figures, about 50% of my fellow Americans paid no federal income tax at all that year. My fellow one-percenters and I covered for them. But, for some, it is still not enough.<br><br>Senator Obama believes in "income redistribution," a concept practiced by Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest. Like Robin, Obama wants to take from the rich and give to the not-so-rich. He wants to raise taxes big time on those making $250,000 or more.<br><br>That means that if you live in New York and earn a quarter of a million bucks, you could be paying close to half of your income in taxes. Even Robin Hood might find that somewhat extreme.<br><br>And then there's the accountability factor. Without being forced by the federal government, I give plenty of cash to folks who need a hand. But I check out the charities before the check goes in the mail. I make sure my donations go directly to people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in difficult circumstances.<br><br>Will Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do that when the massive income redistribution train gets ready to roll? No, they will not.<br><br>President Obama and a Democratic congress will likely dole out entitlements like free health care, child care and cash payments to anyone who falls under a certain income level, no matter what their circumstance. That means that people who drink gin all day long will be getting some of my hard-earned money. Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, and who smoke reefer 24/7 will all get some goodies in the mail from Uncle Barack and Aunt Nancy, funded by me and other rich folks.<br><br>There will be no drug testing, no background checks, no accountability for those receiving the government's largesse. If you're an American citizen (or even an illegal alien) who doesn't make much money, you'll get stuff.<br><br>There is something unsettling about that. Under the Republican Bush administration, tax money presently pays for abortions, Viagra, condoms, sugar-laden food, dangerous housing in blighted neighborhoods and prescription drugs that will send you to the land of Oz. <br><br>But if you complain about any of this, you're an uncharitable greedhead.<br><br>Well, I am complaining. I don't want my money supporting some layabout who wants to get high all day long. Robin Hood wouldn't give those people money. The feds shouldn't either.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-07-24T07:00:00ZDisrespecting TonyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Disrespecting-Tony/23893.html2008-07-17T07:00:00Z2008-07-17T07:00:00ZThe recent death of Tony Snow brought sadness to millions of Americans who admired the man's public service and optimism about his country. But not everybody felt the need to honor Mr. Snow. Just hours after he died from cancer, the Associated Press released an obituary that has shocked some people and badly damaged the AP's image, at least in the conservative community.<br><br>AP reporter Douglass Daniel began the article by listing some of Tony's accomplishments, but then suddenly veered into ideological territory, writing: "With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook-if not always a command of the facts-he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses...<br><br>"Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation."<br><br>Now, remember, that was written just hours after the man passed away at age 53. To accuse Mr. Snow of factual inaccuracies without citing evidence is itself irresponsible, but to do it in an obit is outrageously inappropriate and an insult to the Snow family. If the Associated Press wants to do an opinion piece about Tony Snow's public service, fine. But at least wait until after the funeral.<br><br>The AP's treatment of Tony was in marked contrast to its sendoff for the late Tim Russert. That obituary was a glowing tribute to the man, as it should have been. Russert had a lot in common with Snow. They both worked for political guys; Russert's boss was the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan, and they both hosted Sunday morning network news programs.<br><br>But while Russert was suitably honored by the AP, Snow came in for some snarky jibes.<br><br>Of course, this is all about ideology. The Associated Press has no use for President Bush and, increasingly, that opinion has creeped into its hard news coverage. And this is a serious situation. The AP is America's primary news service; its dispatches go out to thousands of media organizations all over the world, many of which simply print whatever the AP sends them.<br><br>And, increasingly, the AP is sending them opinion, not fact. <br><br>The head of the Associated Press, Tom Curley, told my producers he "stands by the obituary," so we invited him on the Factor to defend it. Immediately, Curley turned standing into running away. He refused to come on the program or issue a further statement.<br><br>I think Curley's treatment of Tony Snow should be included in his own obituary. And furthermore, the Associated Press may now be dead as an objective news organization.<br><br>How ironic that one obit could so quickly lead to another.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-07-17T07:00:00ZJesse and BarackBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jesse-and-Barack/23859.html2008-07-10T07:00:00Z2008-07-10T07:00:00ZEarlier this week on my television program, we broke the story of Jesse Jackson criticizing Barack Obama for "talking down" to black Americans. In Chicago, Jackson was speaking to Dr. Reid Tuckson, a health care official, when a microphone picked up the Reverend saying in part:<br><br>"See, Barack been talkin' down to black people on this faith based [situation]. I want to cut his [body part] out. He's talking down to black people."<br><br>Pretty rough. So what exactly is this all about?<br><br>Recently, Senator Obama came out in favor of the federal government continuing to help private religious organizations assist the poor with tax dollars. President Bush's program of faith-based federal assistance has angered ACLU types who see it as a violation of church and state separation. But since Reverend Jackson's non-profit organizations benefit greatly from government-mandated tax breaks, you would think he would be pleased with Obama's position.<br><br>Apparently not.<br><br>Soon after the story broke, Jackson issued a statement saying that even though he disparaged Obama, he still supports his campaign. However, Jackson has avoided specifically stating what his beef with the Senator really is. Was there condescension toward black people in Obama's faith-based charity statements? Not that I can see.<br><br>In his statement, Jackson mentions the "moral responsibility of black males." That indicates that he didn't much like Senator Obama recently calling out black fathers who abandon their children. Jackson writes that the government is also responsible for the intense abandonment problem in the black community, a position he's held for years.<br><br>Some political pundits believe that Jesse Jackson and other committed social activists are fearful that if Obama is elected President, the "victimization" industry will be damaged. After all, if Americans vote for a black man to lead the nation, it will be hard to continue labeling the country as prone to racism.<br><br>That, of course, is simply an opinion. If Jesse Jackson says he wants Obama to be President, there's no reason we shouldn't believe him.<br><br>But it is also apparent that Jackson has some "issues" with the Senator from Illinois and the Reverend should put them on the table, not make snide behind-the-back remarks. That's not charitable and not fair. If Jackson has a beef, he should tell the folks exactly what it is.<br><br>Come November, black voters will overwhelmingly support Senator Obama; of that there is no doubt. But it is also apparent that some liberal blacks like Jackson do not like the Senator's message of personal responsibility and support of faith-based government funded charities.<br><br>Debate on those issues is healthy. Might be good for Jesse Jackson to man up on this one.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-07-10T07:00:00ZA Nation in Decline?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Nation-in-Decline/23824.html2008-07-03T07:00:00Z2008-07-03T07:00:00ZJust in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, the <em>New York Times</em>, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline." Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.<br><br>The <em>Times</em> bases its claims on two primary situations: The negative view of America abroad, and income inequality at home. So let's take a look at the supposed "decline."<br><br>Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule and there's no letup in the India-Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?<br><br>Russia continues to lead the league in corruption, Mexico is fighting a brutal war against its own drug traffickers, and South America remains mired in poverty. Call me crazy, but I don't see many immigrants pounding on those doors.<br><br>Of course, many liberal Americans blame the USA for the world's misfortunes and side with those who, for whatever reason, verbally downgrade the United States. However, considering the sad state of a world that will not even unite against a nuclear weapons-seeking Iran, our so-called "decline" is a terrible misreading of the global picture.<br><br>Against all odds, U.S. forces have almost single-handedly defeated Islamic fascism in Iraq, one of the most complicated battlefields in history. In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops continue to hammer the vicious Taliban on every front. The only reason those fascists are operating is that Pakistan protects them. If the Pakistanis would ally themselves with NATO, the Taliban would be wiped out.<br><br>Back home, the Bush administration has succeeded in making it ultra-difficult for terrorists to kill us. The FBI and other federal agencies have been effectively reorganized, and the nation is much safer for it. That doesn't sound like a decline to me.<br><br>But what really has the <em>New York Times</em> furious is the gap between rich and poor Americans, a gulf that is now being exacerbated by escalating gas prices that rob workers of take home pay. Never mind that it is largely liberal policies that have shut down much U.S. oil exploration and made America even more dependent on foreign oil; the left believes that capitalism must now be "tempered" by the federal government. That means income redistribution through higher taxation on wealthy Americans.<br><br>In this month's <em>Harvard Magazine</em>, the liberal position is clearly stated: "Americans, on average, have a higher tolerance for income inequality than their European counterparts. American attitudes focus on equality of opportunity, while Europeans tend to see fairness in equal outcomes."<br><br>"Equal outcomes," of course, means socialistic entitlements, something many European countries have embraced and a philosophy the <em>New York Times</em> deeply endorses.<br><br>So, it comes down to this: the committed left believes that America has been too aggressive fighting the war on terror and not aggressive enough when it comes to government mandated economic and social engineering. Thus, in their view, the country is in decline.<br><br>But that's opinion, not fact. There's no doubt that times are tough right now but, from this vantage point, the American people are still as creative and hard working as they've always been. Our pinheaded politicians have mucked it up recently, but we are certainly not a nation in decline. With another Independence Day upon us, we remain strong and the world's greatest hope.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-07-03T07:00:00ZObama's AdvantageBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Obamas-Advantage/23783.html2008-06-26T07:00:00Z2008-06-26T07:00:00ZRight now the smart money is betting the next President of the United States will be named Obama, and dollars are the primary reason why. As you may have heard, the Senator has flip-flopped on public campaign financing, and now says he will not accept it even though he once thought it was a swell idea.<br><br>The government set taxpayer-based funding for presidential candidates at $85 million because, the wisdom went, it would prevent fat cats in the private sector from donating big dollars to influence a potential POTUS. But, like the military, it's voluntary, and Senator Obama is no longer interested in signing up, even though John McCain says he will.<br><br>That's because, in his defeat of Hillary Clinton, Obama raised about $300 million and his campaign believes he can raise another $300 million before the vote next November. Of course, that is an astounding amount of cash, and puts Obama light years ahead of McCain's paltry $85 million.<br><br>Money might not be able to buy true love, but it can certainly buy TV and radio air time, an army of mercenary consultants, and legions of staff members in every state. Add in the fact that the media generally loves Barack Obama, generously giving him positive news coverage, and you can see some dark clouds on the horizon for Senator McCain. <br><br>So it seems like Senator Obama has everything going his way right now. The Bush administration is unpopular, the economy is tanking, and his opponent is 71 years old. Yet, according to Gallup tracking polls this week, Obama and McCain are tied.<br><br>As Obama supporter P. Diddy might say: What's up with that?<br><br>Despite his charisma, his appeal to young Americans and the support of a frenzied liberal media, millions of working class Americans, primarily white, remain a bit skeptical of the young Senator from Illinois. That's what's up, my man.<br><br>Senator McCain has earned respect by his war service and long-time Senate record. You might not agree with him, but there's no question he has served his country faithfully.<br><br>Compared to McCain, Barack Obama is new to national public service and his record troubles some voters. In a largely traditional country, Senator Obama is considered by the <em>National Journal</em> as the most liberal senator on the Hill. Not a great thing in many precincts.<br><br>The world is a very dangerous place, and the next President will be intensely challenged. We are talking life and death, prosperity or decline. Many voters understand the stakes and are keeping their options open.<br><br>That, of course, is a good thing. Money and the media should not decide the next election. The wisdom of the regular folks should. Both Obama and McCain would be smart to figure that out.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-06-26T07:00:00ZHell No, Baby Alex Won't GoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hell-No-Baby-Alex-Wont-Go/23745.html2008-06-19T07:00:00Z2008-06-19T07:00:00ZHave you seen the Baby Alex political ad that the radical left, George Soros-funded organization MoveOn.org has produced? To some, it plays like a Saturday Night Live skit, but the intent is deadly serious: to damage John McCain.<br><br>In the ad, a young mother is holding a baby and says, "Hi, John McCain, this is Alex and he's my first... so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."<br><center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sq30lapbC9c&hl=en&rel=0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sq30lapbC9c&hl=en&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center><br>I know, you think I'm making that up. No way. These loopy MoveOn people spent more than a half million dollars making and marketing the ad. No word on what Baby Alex's cut was.<br><br>My question is this: Who on earth would take that message seriously? What kind of voter is that supposed to reach?<br><br>The basic premise of the ad was a conversation between Senator McCain and the late Tim Russert last January. McCain told Russert that U.S. troops are needed around the world, but we have to keep them safe. The Q-and-A went like this:<blockquote><b>Russert:</b> President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.<br><br><b>McCain:</b> Maybe 100. We've been in South Korea and Japan for 60 years. That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed.</blockquote>Now, Baby Alex might not understand the geopolitical implications of the comment, but honest adults should. The U.S. military is stationed overseas to protect our interests and to defuse dangerous situations, like turmoil in the Persian Gulf. That's tough for a child to digest but, come on, it's not a kooky position, even if you disagree.<br><br>Propaganda aside, I liked the Baby Alex ad so much that I'm suggesting MoveOn produce a series of them. Let's see... how about Baby Alex thanking his mom for not aborting him. That has a political theme to it.<br><br>Also, Baby Alex could extend his gratitude to the FBI for keeping his parents safe since the attack on 9/11. Alex could also, through his perspicacious mother, demonstrate his eagerness to see Islamic fascism defeated so he and all the other babies won't have to deal with it when they grow up.<br><br>Perhaps Baby Alex's mom could also explain to him that he will never have to live under a tyrant like Saddam Hussein because his country embraces freedom. And then, after all that, Alex could settle in for a nice nap, knowing that a nutritious meal will be ready for him upon waking--a meal millions of babies in other countries will never get.<br><br>Those ideas should keep MoveOn very busy this election year and I am definitely looking forward to seeing the spots on TV. Thank you, George Soros, you're a patriot.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-06-19T07:00:00ZOil and TroubleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Oil-and-Trouble/23719.html2008-06-12T07:00:00Z2008-06-12T07:00:00ZThe gas station guy in my town is exhausted from climbing the ladder every day in order to change the price sign. Of course, it's up, up and away. High gas prices, I predict, will become the biggest issue in the presidential campaign. <br><br>This week, Republican senators blocked a Democratic-sponsored bill that would have imposed a "windfall profits" tax on the five major oil companies. Since these companies made about $36 billion in profits in the first quarter alone, "windfall" may be understating it.<br><br>The GOP says the bill would not have lowered gas prices, as any tax punishment would be passed along to gasoline consumers. But let me break this to the Republicans gently: the folks are angry with the oil companies. Unless you guys can help bring some relief to beleaguered American working people, the Democrats will wipe you out.<br><br>Of course, both parties are at fault. Every president in the last 50 years has whiffed on alternative energy. While Brazil emphasized flex-fuel vehicles operating largely on sugar-based ethanol, our presidents and Congresspeople took junkets to the Middle East to hug Saudi Arabian oil sheiks. And now, as Reverend Wright is fond of saying, the chickens have come home to roost.<br><br>The gangsters that run OPEC understand that technological advances will diminish oil demand down the road. So, they are accumulating as much cash as possible right now. It costs Saudi Arabia about two dollars to market each barrel of oil. Last week, those huggable Saudis charged the world $138 for that barrel.<br><br>The oil apologists say it's a "supply and demand" thing. Sure. Here's a bulletin: when you limit the supply, as OPEC is doing, the demand will skyrocket. Yeah, China and India are using more oil. Yeah, the U.S. dollar is weak. But in most competitive businesses, if your customers want more product, you put out more product. Not in oil. OPEC keeps production down to maximize profits.<br><br>So, enough. The oil scam is hammering the U.S. economy and, if Iran keeps causing trouble, gas prices might double from here. Israel stated this week that it will take military action against Iran if it continues developing nukes. Since I believe the crazy mullahs actually want that to happen because it would inflame worldwide jihad, this is a obviously a crisis situation.<br><br>Congress must mandate, by law, that American car and truck manufacturers begin to produce a high percentage of flex-fuel vehicles. Once that law is passed, gas stations will begin installing alcohol-based fuel pumps. Congress must also drop import tariffs on alcohol-based fuel so countries like Brazil could sell them to us.<br><br>We simply have got to get away from the oil cartel. It's a national security issue.<br><br>What say you, John McCain and Barack Obama?BillOReilly.com Staff2008-06-12T07:00:00ZWar and ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/War-and-Obama/23686.html2008-06-05T07:00:00Z2008-06-05T07:00:00ZCutting through all the fog, there are two primary reasons behind Barack Obama's stunning victory over the Clinton machine: Authenticity and the war in Iraq.<br><br>As amply demonstrated, there is simply no comparison between Obama and Hillary Clinton as far as public speaking is concerned. He is eloquent and natural, talking directly to the folks. She is more stilted and rehearsed, talking at the listener. Senator Clinton comes across as the typical politician, while Senator Obama seems like a genuine human being.<br><br>He also outflanked her on the Iraq war. In the beginning of the campaign, Senator Obama bolted from the starting gate flashing his anti-war cred. From the jump, he had been against the action. And now he was the guy who would pull the USA out of the Iraq swamp.<br><br>Senator Clinton was immediately put on the defensive, as she initially supported the use of force to remove Saddam. Also, her entire outlook on confronting Islamic fascism was far too bullish for far-left America. So, the netroots, as they call themselves, flocked to Obama and provided him with vast amounts of money via the internet. By the time Hillary rallied Democratic moderates, it was too late.<br><br>So, now, Barack Obama has achieved the nomination, but his winning primary strategy on Iraq could come back to haunt him in the general election when the far left becomes rather insignificant. Already, John McCain is painting Obama as a terror appeaser who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.<br><br>And McCain has some heavy ammunition to back up his attack. In May, American causalities were the lowest since the Iraq war began in 2003. In addition, Iraqi oil production is now at its highest level since Saddam fell. Even the liberal Reuters news agency calls the current situation in Iraq a "dramatic turnabout."<br><br>Of course, you won't hear much about that in the U.S. press, as the liberal media has much invested in an American defeat in Iraq. But there is no question that the war there can now be won. It's not a lock, but it's certainly a possibility.<br><br>Senator McCain must make the case that a victory in Iraq, which means the country stabilizes and becomes an ally against Islamic terror and Iran, means a much more secure United States. For the past few weeks, McCain has been spotlighting Iran's villainy, pointing out its support of terror groups like Hezbollah and its outright killing of our forces in Iraq.<br><br>Quietly, McCain is setting Obama up for a hard right to the jaw. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too quickly, the pressure on Iran immediately lightens and the potential for aggression by the bitterly anti-Jewish and anti-American mullahs rises dramatically. Does Obama understand that? Does it matter to him? McCain will confront his young challenger with those questions.<br><br>Senator Obama's advisors know the Iraq scenario is changing fast. They also understand that the media will ignore the good news for as long as it can. But word will get out and, after years of frustration, Americans could be staring at a success story after all.<br><br>Not good news for Obama.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-06-05T07:00:00ZThe Vast Left-Wing ConspiracyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Vast-Left-Wing-Conspiracy/23632.html2008-05-29T07:00:00Z2008-05-29T07:00:00ZThis just in: Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan has written a new book that hammers President Bush! Among other things, McClellan says Mr. Bush did not handle Hurricane Katrina correctly, botched the Iraq war which never should have been fought in the first place, and partied hard as a young guy.<br><br>That sounds like it's worth $30, does it not?<br><br>But the far-left media is swooning. Yeah, baby, a former Bush guy coming clean. Can't get enough of that!<br><br>Some inside baseball: Last November, Factor producers contacted McClellan's "people" about the book and were assured the author would be anxious to appear on my program since it routinely sells a ton of books. Great.<br><br>But now old Scott has had second thoughts, and has booked himself on every far-left venue around, avoiding your humble correspondent. Interesting. Maybe that's because McClellan knows that in April of 2007, he appeared on Bill Maher's program still supporting the Iraq action. On that show, former Senator Bill Bradley actually got annoyed with McClellan for his hawkish stance.<br><br>But that was then.<br><br>McClellan's former boss, Ari Fleischer, says that Scott confessed to him that the publisher, Public Affairs, made him "revise" some of the book, putting in more negative stuff about Bush. If that's true, it makes sense. Few people these days are in the mood to read anything good about the President.<br><br>Now, I predict McClellan's book will disappear in a few weeks, but the media angle here is fascinating. Today in America there is a "vast left-wing media conspiracy," no question. Overwhelmingly, the press has made a sharp left hand turn even as there is little traffic in the right hand lane.<br><br>That's because many in the conservative media do not like John McCain, so there's no drive to support him as there was with George W. Bush. The right may not like Barack Obama, but, without a champion, their zeal for the election is muted.<br><br>But the left-wing media simply loves Senator Obama. It is all affection all the time, a constant drumbeat of good vibrations. Bush and McCain bad, Barack good. And, as the election draws closer, the Obama media chorus will grow louder.<br><br>So, how will this affect the actual vote? No way of telling at this point, but it can't hurt Obama. Independents will decide the election, and they will be subjected to quite an avalanche of glad Obama tidings. Once Hillary gets out of the way, the summer of Obama love will commence.<br><br>There is something rather unsettling about the situation. With Gore vs. Bush and Kerry vs. Bush, the media was divided but equally passionate. Talk radio leading the way for Bush, the networks and big city papers heralding the Democrats. But this time, the deck is stacked for Obama.<br><br>Good break for him, bad deal for McCain. That's all there's left to say.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-05-29T07:00:00ZBoiling OilBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Boiling-Oil/23588.html2008-05-22T07:00:00Z2008-05-22T07:00:00ZNext time you give your credit card to the gas guy and sign away another $60 or so, consider that both political parties have sold you out. For decades, no President or Congress would confront that fact that corrupt third-world countries control most of the world's oil supply and those nations are definitely not looking out for us.<br><br>In the 1970s, when poverty-stricken Brazil began a massive investment in sugar-based ethanol, the United States shrugged and did little research into alternative fuel. <br><br>But when OPEC choked the Carter administration, leading to long gas lines, plenty was said about weaning the USA off foreign oil. Nothing was done.<br><br>Presidents Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger, all did little. There was no big push to conserve oil or to find another way to fuel the nation.<br><br>So now we're paying for their sins and, truth be told, some of our own as well. American liberals still don't want to drill in the Arctic Circle, still don't want more nuclear power (something that saves France and Sweden), and still oppose expanding refining capacity.<br><br>Conservatives still won't support government-mandated vehicle fuel efficiency, tighter controls on commodity speculators, and stricter oversight on American oil companies that are exploiting world tension.<br><br>And, sadly, we the people are not cutting down on our energy consumption. <br><br>With that kind of performance, expect more pain ahead. The oil companies will continue to make more profit than any business in the history of mankind, OPEC will continue to raise the price of oil, and China and India will continue to buy cartel oil at almost any price. <br><br>Both John McCain and Barack Obama promise to convene a kind of Manhattan Project to fast track alternative energy development. Since the situation is now desperate, I believe those guys. But economically viable alternative energy is years away and fraught with danger. <br><br>Just a year ago, some of us thought corn-based ethanol was the answer. But be careful what you wish for. Converting corn to fuel has caused food prices to rocket. You see, corn is used to feed livestock, so when the price of corn goes up, so does the cost of meat and poultry.<br><br>Meanwhile, Brazil would like to sell us some of their sugar-based ethanol. But Congress has imposed a tariff on it in order to help American farmers who, of course, are now paying record prices for oil. Is this a mess or what?<br><br>Here is the tough love solution:<ul><li>All American made vehicles must get 30MPG by 2010 or pay a major tax surcharge to the government.<li>Oil and commodity speculators must put up 50% of their transactions in cash. That would weed out some of the gamblers who are manipulating the market.<li>American oil companies must supply the federal government with a written explanation every time they raise the price of gas and oil.<li>Americans would be asked to cut back at least 10% on leisure driving and not to buy gas at all on Mondays.</ul>There is little we can do about OPEC as long as China, India and others are willing to pay what the traffic will bear. But here at home we can send powerful messages to the auto, gas, and commodities industries. If we don't get tough, our enemies, along with greedy Americans, will drive oil prices so high a worldwide depression will ensue.<br><br>Which, by the way, is exactly what the terrorists want.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-05-22T07:00:00ZIt's the Sexism, StupidBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-the-Sexism-Stupid/23552.html2008-05-15T07:00:00Z2008-05-15T07:00:00ZCould it be possible that Democratic voters are discriminating against Senator Hillary Clinton simply because she's a woman? Is sexism the reason she is losing to Barack Obama? Say it ain't so, Gloria Steinem.<br><br>But Gloria says it is so and so do some other female pundits. Writing in the ultra-liberal <em>Boston Globe</em>, a woman named Michal Regunberg claims that the mainstream media "[has] a tough time with Clinton and criticized everything from her pantsuits to her laugh ..."<br><br>Ms. Regunberg goes on to say: "They would not excoriate a man for [these things]. What's worse, they get away with it. They use her as a punchline."<br><br>Four words: "Are you kidding me?"<br><br>Presidents Bush and Clinton are not used as punchlines? Come on. Did Ms. Regunberg miss Barack Obama being mocked incessantly for bad bowling? What was that man-ism?<br><br>This is just nonsense. The reason Hillary Clinton is running behind Barack Obama is that he is perceived to be more liberal than she is, and the committed left dominates the Democratic primaries. Among other things, Senator Clinton's Iraq war resume has rankled the far left who, early on, enthusiastically threw in with Obama.<br><br>In addition, because much of the media has moved dramatically to the left and, above all, is ardently politically correct, Senator Obama's candidacy was greeted with great joy by many press people. They love him simply for being him. Is it a sexism deal? No. It's an Obama-mania deal with the press.<br><br>If John McCain had a shrill laugh, "Saturday Night Live" would surely use it as a mocking device. If McCain wore polyester leisure suits (I know where to get some), he'd be hooted. The truth is that any trademark, tic, or idiosyncrasy will be used as a satirical tool against those in the public eye. Pantsuit jokes are easy; Letterman's writers love them. It has nothing to do with womanhood, it has to do with fabric.<br><br>Before Reverend Wright battered his image, Barack Obama was perceived to be more likable and more energetic than Hillary Clinton. He remains the new kid in town, as the Eagles sang, and everybody's talking. <br><br>No doubt, Senator Clinton is disliked by some for her aggressive demeanor, but so am I. Is that Irish-ism? Some folks like type A's, some don't. Both genders get scrutinized for feisty behavior.<br><br>Finally, 22% of West Virginia democrats said race was a factor in their vote, which gave Hillary Clinton a huge win. That, I believe, is a real concern. No vote should ever be cast for racial or for gender reasons.<br><br>But sexism didn't seem to matter in the Mountain State. Did it?BillOReilly.com Staff2008-05-15T07:00:00ZRace and the Presidential ElectionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Race-and-the-Presidential-Election/23412.html2008-05-08T07:00:00Z2008-05-08T07:00:00ZWell, Barack Obama should be one happy guy. His big victory in North Carolina has pretty much locked up the Democratic presidential nomination. Now, it is virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to defeat him in the popular vote or in the elected delegate category.<br><br>Thus, Obama has the nomination won, unless another Reverend Wright crawls into the picture. Spinners who talk about re-votes in Florida and Michigan are dreaming; that will not happen. The Obama campaign would be foolish to participate. They played by the Democratic party's rules and won. They're not going to sanction do-overs.<br><br>Also, as Al Sharpton told me, any kind of superdelegate shenanigans will lead to massive demonstrations at the Democratic Convention in Denver which, of course, would be disastrous for the party.<br><br>So, Obama seems to be in.<br><br>Now comes the hard part—convincing Americans that he is the best choice for president without all hell breaking loose on the race front.<br><br>Thanks partly to Reverend Wright's now immortal "the USA of KKK" remark, the race factor has emerged big time in this election. If you don't believe me, just look at the vote in North Carolina and Indiana.<br><br>About 60 percent of whites voted for Hillary Clinton, as opposed to an astounding 90% of African-Americans pulling the lever for Obama. And working-class whites went even bigger for Clinton. No question there is a race divide.<br><br>Accepting that, Senator Obama has two basic problems in the race arena. First, militant blacks reinforce negativity on race, and these pinheads just keep popping up. In addition to Wright, a black Philadelphia preacher, Derick Wilson, wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that Barack Obama is a "house negro" for not supporting Wright.<br><br>Of course, that is insane, and a responsible newspaper would not have printed the lunacy. But in this hyper-partisan country, race-baiters will find a forum, and every time stuff like that gets exposure, racial animus comes back.<br><br>Obama's second dilemma is convincing skeptical white voters that he and his wife are sympathetic to their concerns. Let's be honest—few white Americans would tolerate a Reverend Wright for five minutes, much less 20 years. And Obama's comments in San Francisco about blue collars seeking refuge in guns and church hurt him badly.<br><br>So, the Senator must clarify his philosophy without belaboring the issue. Even with his verbal eloquence, that will not be easy.<br><br>I do not expect Obama or Senator McCain to dwell on race, but, surely, some of their surrogates and the media will exploit the issue to the fullest. Any kind of perceived racial comment will be splashed all over the place.<br><br>That, of course, will be bad for the country and bad for the candidates. But it's coming. No question.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-05-08T07:00:00ZConfronting HillaryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Confronting-Hillary/23362.html2008-05-01T07:00:00Z2008-05-01T07:00:00ZSouth Bend, Indiana — Well, it took nearly 12 years, but I finally convinced Senator Hillary Clinton to speak with me on television. Emboldened by Barack Obama's Reverend Wright disaster, the Senator is aggressively reaching out to independent voters, many of whom watch The Factor.<br><br>After meeting and speaking with her face-to-face, my assessment is that health care is Senator Clinton's strongest issue and Iran is her weakest. Polls show that most Americans are fed up with exorbitant medical costs and a callous insurance industry. So, any presidential candidate that offers relief from this mess will get a hearing. Of course, the cost would be staggering, but Senator Clinton has a well thought-out plan. Whether it is possible, I don't know.<br><br>However, Mrs. Clinton stumbles on Iran. Both she and Barack Obama want out of Iraq, but the unintended consequence of that would be a much bolder Iran. Those fanatics will spin a U.S. withdrawal as an "Islamic" victory. And then, most geo-political experts agree, Iran would attempt to dominate Southern Iraq.<br><br>That kind of aggression would likely cause world oil prices to double, causing major chaos in the economic marketplace. When I described that likely outcome to Senate Clinton, she had had no specific answer.<br><br>The thing about this presidential race is that some vital issues are so complicated they can give you a permanent migraine headache. Iraq is a mess. The Iraqi government is largely corrupt. But if we fold, Iran causes big trouble. Awful.<br><br>In Afghanistan, the vicious Taliban are hiding in plain sight inside Pakistan. But the Pakistani government is afraid of the radical Islamists, and so it allows these killers to operate. That means the Taliban has a sanctuary in which to violently destabilize Afghanistan, and there's little the U.S. can do about it. The Pakistanis have made it clear that NATO forces are not welcome to cross into that country.<br><br>Back home, oil prices are hurting most Americans. Senators Clinton and McCain want to suspend the federal gas tax this summer. Fine with me, but the truth is that both parties have sold out the folks on oil. Senator Clinton voted against drilling in Anwar and the expansion of nuclear energy.<br><br>And that's pretty much the problem with her and most politicians; they are shortsighted. A closer look at "universal" health care costs may upset your stomach. California is running a 20 billion dollar deficit, largely because of out-of-control medical costs. Senator Clinton's home state, New York, is $5 billion in the red. Again, health costs are driving the debt train.<br><br>So how on earth will Hillary pay for HillCare? There aren't enough rich people in America to foot the bill. Canada has sky-high taxes with just 30 million people receiving government health care. The USA has 300 million people. Do the math.<br><br>In the end, I enjoyed my conversation with Senator Clinton, although I believe she thinks I'm a pinhead. If so, at least I'm a fiscally responsible and national security-driven pinhead. Those issues are vital to all of us. No spin.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-05-01T07:00:00ZFight Back Against Big OilBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fight-Back-Against-Big-Oil/23338.html2008-04-24T07:00:00Z2008-04-24T07:00:00ZSo now we have the presidential candidates running around telling voters that they will help solve high gas prices. Well, if you believe that, you'll believe that Hugo Chavez drives a Yugo. It's just bull.<br><br>Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are calling for "investigations" into "price gouging" by American oil companies. Good. There's plenty of price manipulation going on and, under Presidents Bush and Clinton, little federal oversight. If a big oil company wants to tighten supply, for example, it's a snap. Just slow down the refinery process by ordering some extra "maintenance" or something.<br><br>But who is going to investigate Senators Obama and Clinton over their opposition to oil drilling? The Democratic Party has consistently opposed new drilling, and nuclear energy as well. Even the dedicated liberal governments in France and Sweden bought into nuclear. But not the American left, no way.<br><br>On the Republican side, President Bush has done absolutely nothing about rising gas prices, which is part of the reason is approval rating is approaching 20%. He blames the Democrats. Fine. But the President should be telling all Americans to cut back their gas consumption by 15%. He should be urging us to use less gas. That would at least cut into big oil's record profit margins.<br><br>Senator John McCain proposes a gas tax "holiday" this summer. True, that would save the folks a few bucks, but it would also add to the massive spending deficit. The government better start balancing the budget soon before Häagen-Dazs becomes more valuable than the U.S. currency.<br><br>The sad truth is that both political parties have sold out the folks. For decades, economists knew China and India were industrializing and those countries would demand much greater amounts of oil. Everybody knew that OPEC could slow down production and gouge the world if it could and, of course, now it can. <br><br>But if Americans would get angry and begin punishing the oil bandits, then prices would drop. However, we are often a selfish people. We want those gas-guzzling Hummers and SUVs, and we're paying a big price for that above and beyond the sticker.<br><br>If I were president, I'd be on every program leading the charge to buy less gas, urging folks to conserve energy in creative ways. I'd create peer pressure against the guzzle crowd. I'd name the names of greedy oil company CEOs who are making tens of millions of dollars while working folks suffer.<br><br>We need leadership on this energy business, or it is going to cripple our economy. Our energy incompetence has already empowered our enemies.<br><br>So let's get angry out there. We the people can do this. Big oil is not looking out for us. Let's stop rewarding it.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-04-24T07:00:00ZThe Pope and MeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Pope-and-Me/23280.html2008-04-17T07:00:00Z2008-04-17T07:00:00ZIn the first grade at St. Brigid's School on Long Island, Sister Mary Claudia made sixty urchins, including me, say a prayer to St. Peter because he was the "rock" upon which the Catholic Church was founded. I can't remember much more than that because I was six, but I do recall liking St. Peter which, of course, made the good Sister happy.<br><br>Now, more than 50 years after my first grade prayers, St. Peter's successor is here in America and I have mixed feelings about it.<br><br>Like millions of American catholics, I was deeply disappointed by the Vatican's response to the priest pedophilia scandal. The fact that the late Pope John Paul II actually rewarded Bernard Cardinal Law, who covered up massive crimes by New England priests, with a cushy job in Rome was almost inexcusable.<br><br>But unlike some other Catholics, I never confuse the actual theology with the people who run the church. Jesus had nothing to do with those horrendous clerical crimes. Men committed them and other men enabled the criminals. So, despite my deep anger, my faith was not impacted by the scandal. I simply felt Pope John Paul made a huge mistake.<br><br>The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has been more condemning of the crimes but still has not explained to Americans how cover-up guys like Roger Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles can keep their powerful positions. I respect Pope Benedict, but that is a major unanswered question.<br><br>In our increasingly secular world, spiritual leadership is a touchy proposition. The anti-religionists will use every admission of wrongdoing as a sledgehammer. So, it is understandable that Pope Benedict must be cautious. <br><br>But there comes a time when a Pope has to demonstrate leadership no matter how difficult the circumstance. Believe me, when the pedophilia deal broke, Catholics were looking for strong public outrage from the church leadership. It never showed up.<br><br>Why? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I call on a Catholic leader to respond to a difficult moral problem, he ducks it. For whatever reason, the Church leadership in America is afraid to speak out.<br><br>Are you telling me that Jesus would not have used TV, radio and the Internet to spread his word? Come on. If Jesus were here right now, he'd definitely have a cable program or at least be doing commentary on "60 Minutes." Clerics might think about that.<br><br>So I wish Pope Benedict well in America. I sincerely hope he is able to challenge destructive secularism and reinforce Jesus' message of peace, love and compassion. But with all that has happened, Benedict has a tough task here in the USA. God help him.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-04-17T07:00:00ZFighting for AmericaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fighting-for-America/23254.html2008-04-10T07:00:00Z2008-04-10T07:00:00ZIt was interesting to see my old pal Phil Donahue making the rounds this week promoting his new anti-war documentary. Shining eyes opened incredibly wide, Donahue fulminated against the Iraq war and brooked no dissent: The war is evil and that's that.<br><br>Donahue's performance brought back memories of my debate with him on "Good Morning America." Shortly after the U.S.-backed campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan had begun in October 2001, Diane Sawyer sat us both down and the rhetoric flew like hungry bats at dusk. Poor Diane. When the dust settled, Donahue had proclaimed that America was wrong for unilaterally disturbing the Taliban and that a world consensus should have been reached. After that agreement, he said, a "police action" could begin.<br><br>I think I might have called Donahue a pinhead.<br><br>Back then, Donahue was routed by public opinion and retreated to his compound in Connecticut to lick his wounds. But after a period of quiet, the left-wing zealot is re-energized by the mismanaged Iraq war. To paraphrase Austin Powers: Phil has his mojo back.<br><br>Now, what Phil Donahue thinks is not important in the grand scheme, but what Barack Obama thinks is, and there may be some intersection here.<br><br>Recently, a far-left radio guy called John McCain a "warmonger" at a Democratic event in North Dakota. The senator was on the scene, but did not make a comment.<br><br>Since Senator McCain immediately chastised a far-right talk show host who insulted Obama at a McCain event, some believe Obama might have been smart to return the favor.<br><br>But, again, he did not.<br><br>I believe the reason Senator Obama avoids criticizing the far-left is because he needs it. Phil Donahue's strongest ally in denouncing the U.S. action in Afghanistan was MoveOn.org, the organization that is now helping Barack Obama raise records amounts of campaign money.<br><br>MoveOn, of course, has received millions from far-left billionaire George Soros, who is a huge supporter of a "one world" foreign policy that demands the USA seek world approval before any aggressive action against another country.<br><br>It would be unfair to link Barack Obama's foreign policy vision to that of Donahue and Soros because we simply don't know what the Senator's overall world view is. His rhetoric on Iraq and other trouble spots remains rooted in the past, and he has not yet clearly defined his future strategy.<br><br>But there is a chance that, like Soros and Donahue, Senator Obama has some "one world" sympathies. If so, it would be great if the American people could know that before they go to the polls. <br><br>With Iran, al-Qaeda and other dangerous groups causing major trouble for America, it is vital to know exactly how Barack Obama sees this troubled world.<br><br>Isn't it?BillOReilly.com Staff2008-04-10T07:00:00ZMemo to HollywoodBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Memo-to-Hollywood/23227.html2008-04-03T07:00:00Z2008-04-03T07:00:00ZHey, Hollywood people, thanks for taking this meeting. I wish I had some good news about the new movie "Stop Loss." But I don't. It's a bomb, a major disaster at the box office, despite the presence of Ryan Phillippe. Sorry.<br><br>One thing. Why do you guys keep making these Iraq war films when nobody wants to see them? I mean, "Home of the Brave" went straight to video, and most theatres wouldn't even consider "Redacted." I understand that billionaire Mark Cuban has no clue, but come on, the guy spends more than five million bucks on "Redacted" and it grosses about $65,000? Wow, that's some write off.<br><br>As you know, even the big boys are getting hammered with these anti-American movies. Tom Cruise and Robert Redford took in just $15 million for "Lions for Lambs." That doesn't even pay Cruise's Scientology tab. And what about Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon grossing less than $7 million for "In the Valley of Elah," a.k.a. "In the Valley of Failure?" Most films have peaks and valleys. No such luck in Elah.<br><br>With all due respect, maybe you guys in Hollywood should actually leave Los Angeles and talk to the folks in the heartland. You see, most Americans believe their country is a noble nation. They love America. And while many are disenchanted with the war in Iraq, they don't think the USA is evil for removing Saddam Hussein. Instead, they are disappointed the war is dragging on with no clear resolution in sight.<br><br>Also, most folks deeply respect the sacrifice our military people are making in Iraq and Afghanistan. So here's a clue—people are not going to pay ten bucks to see Mark Cuban or anyone else portray our forces as savages.<br><br>Perhaps, Hollywood people, you might want to examine some stars of the past. Did you know that James Stewart earned a chest full of medals for bombing the Germans? And Clark Gable flew B-17's in World War II as well.<br><br>Charles Durning actually won a Silver Star at Normandy. Also, Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson both fought the Japanese in the vicious Saipan campaign.<br><br>Contrast those men with the stars of today, most of whom will not even visit our troops in the field even though the USO will pay for the trip. Scarlett Johansson and Robin Williams are exceptions, but many movie people are roughing it in Malibu, happy not to think about Islamic fascism.<br> <br>Finally, because I know how busy you all are, let me wrap things up. There is a difference between loyal dissent, a good thing, and trying to make your country look bad. You, Hollywood people, often do the latter. And the folks know it. <br><br>So, please stop.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-04-03T07:00:00ZLeft-Wing Civil WarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Left-Wing-Civil-War/23203.html2008-03-27T07:00:00Z2008-03-27T07:00:00ZWhen war broke out between conservative media people and John McCain a few months ago, the liberal press stoked the flames. Thousands of articles and TV reports deluged Americans; there was no anti-McCain slight overlooked. And those reports were legitimate because a split between a Republican presidential nominee and the conservative base would no doubt influence the upcoming election.<br><br>Well, now the converse is happening. On hateful left-wing websites like the Daily Kos, venom between liberals is being spit out so fast that a cobra would be stunned. Consider these recent anti-Clinton Kos postings from Obama supporters:<ul><li>Hillary Clinton is a destructive, degenerative liar.<li>She's a coward and will sacrifice other people's lives.<li>She might as well say 'don't vote for the scary black man, he may touch your daughter.'</ul>The situation is so hateful that some pro-Clinton bloggers are now boycotting the Daily Kos. One of them, using the name 'Alegre,' asserts that pro-Obama people have been trying to get personal information about him and other Hillary supporters. <br><br>Obviously, this is nasty stuff.<br><br>You may remember that I warned Hillary Clinton last summer not to attend a Kos convention in Chicago. I told the Senator the website despised her. She went anyway.<br><br>So what we have here is Democrat versus democratic. But have you heard a word about this Internet warfare in the mainstream media? Have you read anything about some Obama supporters actually threatening Clinton people? I haven't, and I researched the situation. There is almost a total press blackout over liberals brutalizing liberals. <br><br>Surprised?<br><br>So once again, the corrupt American press parades its incredibly blatant bias for all to see. NBC News, the <em>New York Times</em>, and other committed left-wing media well understand the danger of a compound fracture within the Democratic Party. It will be very difficult for people on the receiving end of hateful attacks to turn around and support a candidate whose supporters launched those attacks.<br><br>Of course, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain cannot control what some of their irresponsible supporters do; that's impossible. So the fault here lies solely with these emotionally disturbed individuals who cannot accept people with differing points-of-view. No, they must try to demean or harm those people. <br><br>In the past, those individuals were somewhat marginalized. No responsible campaign would recruit these people—no fair-minded media would give them a voice. But with the rise of hate websites, these kooks now have a worldwide forum for their disgraceful behavior.<br><br>A fair and responsible media reports that story. But the hideous Kos situation remains largely hidden from the public. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they bestowed protections on the press so we could honestly inform the folks.<br><br>Or am I wrong?BillOReilly.com Staff2008-03-27T07:00:00ZMcCain's KarmaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/McCains-Karma/23181.html2008-03-20T07:00:00Z2008-03-20T07:00:00ZJohn McCain must be wondering where it all went wrong. Way back in 2001, the Senator joined with ultra-liberal Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold in championing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which was supposed to get the fat cats out of the election process. President Bush signed the legislation into law and it has become forever known as the "McCain-Feingold Act."<br><br>Apparently, John McCain resented wealthy Americans gaining influence by giving politicians big dollars to finance their campaigns. He felt that gave unfair advantages to corporations and rich people. So the new law limited those campaign contributions, supposedly "empowering" the regular folks.<br><br>Enter radical left-wing billionaire George Soros, who quickly drilled a number of loopholes into the law. Realizing organizations could pour unlimited amounts of cash into the political process if they didn't "endorse" a certain candidate, Soros and his far left guys set up MoveOn.org and other so-called "527 organizations" to wreak havoc during voting season.<br><br>Under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, a political organization can get tax-exempt status and spend unlimited money if it champions causes rather than specific candidates. You can't use money to promote a "Vote for Hillary" theme; however, you can buy TV time saying Hillary is a bad woman, you can opine that McCain and the Iraq war are evil, and you can put forth that Obama hangs out with a nasty preacher.<br><br>Get the ruse? The money cannot be used to tell the folks whom to vote for, but it can be spent to demonize a candidate on the "issues."<br><br>So now we learn that Soros and his merry band have put together a number of 527's that will pony up an astounding $350 million for "issue" ads in the upcoming presidential campaign. That means much of that money will be used to pound John McCain into pudding.<br><br>So karma has visited Senator McCain. His vision of the folks controlling election funding is in tatters. Now, radical guys like Soros hold a tremendous amount of power, while regular Americans are limited in what they can contribute. Back in 2001, some astute political people warned John McCain that the zealots would reap the rewards of his legislation, but he didn't listen.<br><br>There is no question that a war chest of $350 million can do a lot of damage to any person or cause, especially when there's no honesty involved, as these ideologues can say just about anything. The print and TV ads will be relentless —everything McCain stands for will be hammered. After Soros gets through with him, uninformed voters will think Genghis Khan is running on the Republican ticket.<br><br>In theory, Senator McCain tried to do the right thing with campaign finance reform—he wanted to limit the corrupting electoral power of overwhelming wealth. But Soros outsmarted him. <br><br>Now, McCain's got a $350 million steamroller coming at him, reminding all of us of an old adage: "Be careful what you wish for."BillOReilly.com Staff2008-03-20T07:00:00ZThe Belushi SyndromeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Belushi-Syndrome/23152.html2008-03-13T07:00:00Z2008-03-13T07:00:00ZLet's analyze this Eliot Spitzer situation without emotion, because there are lessons to be learned here. First of all, Spitzer is obviously a smart guy, having graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School, so his conduct is perplexing for its stupidity.<br><br>Spitzer made his reputation as a tough prosecutor; he understood money transfer traces, wiretaps, informants, and the rest of the law enforcement landscape. He also knew how to build cases against powerful people who were doing shady things.<br><br>So Governor Spitzer was no huckster preacher, trying to make bucks off God while privately playing games with devil. And he was no Wilbur Mills, the former Arkansas congressman who got drunk out of his mind with a stripper in the back seat of his limo.<br><br>No, Spitzer is a completely different animal.<br><br>If you watch cable TV news, you will hear the braying pack talk about Spitzer's arrogance, his "I'm above it all" mentality. But if you examine the facts, this shallow analysis doesn't wash.<br><br>Governor Spitzer had to know that repeated visits with people breaking the law, prostitutes, put him at enormous risk. At any time, any one of those ladies might have been arrested and, facing prosecution, could have easily offered authorities Spitzer's name in return for having all charges dropped.<br><br>The ladies also could have blackmailed Spitzer, could have sold their stories about him to the tabloid media, could have done many things to destroy his life.<br><br>And then there's the money. Spitzer well knew that wire transfers to offshore facilities are closely monitored because of terrorist surveillance. One of the ways that the Bush administration has damaged al-Qaeda has been to choke off its funding; money moved to and from the USA is closely watched by banks and the IRS.<br><br>Spitzer also knew that talking on the telephone to pimps, people setting up liaisons with prostitutes, left him open to being tapped, especially because the ladies were being moved across state lines, which is a federal offense. Spitzer knew all of the above.<br><br>So you're telling me that Eliot Spitzer thought he wouldn't get caught? Sure, and I'm Paris Hilton.<br><br>No, what's in play here is what I call the "Belushi Syndrome." That's when a famous person who has money and success subconsciously tries to destroy himself. You see it all the time-movie stars, athletes, and politicians doing incredibly stupid stuff.<br><br>By all accounts, comedian John Belushi was repeatedly warned by his wife and closest friends that his rampant drug use could kill him. Nevertheless, he continued to take deadly combinations of heroin and cocaine, knowing the danger involved. <br><br>Death found him at age 33.<br><br>Eliot Spitzer also knew the danger he was facing. But some kind of deep self-loathing propelled him to dismiss the inevitable. I mean, think about it-you are a sitting governor spending tens of thousands of dollars on hookers? Come on. Maybe Caligula could get away with that, but not an American politician in a tabloid age.<br><br>This is not some dime store psychoanalysis. There are many people walking around who are deeply self-destructive and who will hurt themselves and others around them. That's a fact.<br><br>A self-destructive, self-loathing personality will find a way to blow everything up, and it doesn't matter what kind of career the person has. We all know people like this. Stay away from them.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-03-13T07:00:00ZWhy Hillary Has Come BackBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-Hillary-Has-Come-Back/23121.html2008-03-06T08:00:00Z2008-03-06T08:00:00ZHillary Clinton should send the Saturday Night Live writers fruit baskets and expensive bottles of wine. That's because without them, she might be out of the running for the presidency right now.<br><br>Allow me to explain. According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-partisan press watchdog group, Barack Obama has been getting unprecedented favorable coverage from the American media. From the middle of December to the middle of February, 83% of the reports dealing with Obama on the network news telecasts were positive. That is truly astounding, as the media's traditional role is to be skeptical of those seeking power.<br><br>Now, Hillary Clinton didn't do badly either: 53% of the stories about her were nice and easy. A good number, but nothing like the Obama lovefest.<br><br>In the debate last week, this bias was clear. You may remember NBC News interviewer Tim Russert hammering Senator Clinton with a barrage of tough questions. That was legitimate, as Mrs. Clinton should be facing difficult fire. But Russert and his mate Brian Williams did not put Barack Obama to the same test when they easily could have. <br><br>Millions of Americans, including the Saturday Night Live gang, witnessed that. And so, last Saturday, SNL skewered Russert and Williams, mocking their bias towards Obama. The devastating satire got major play on the internet and the cable news programs.<br><br>I believe that exposition helped Hillary Clinton in both Ohio and Texas. Americans of all political stripes do not appreciate the media trying to manipulate an election. We saw that after the New York Times hatchet piece on John McCain, when liberals and conservatives alike condemned it.<br><br>Exit polls from Ohio and Texas show that Senator Clinton routed Senator Obama among Democrats who made their choice within three days of the vote—exactly the time frame of the SNL skit. In Ohio, Hillary won those voters 58% to 40%. Could be a coincidence, but I don't think so.<br><br>It is true that Louis Farrakhan's endorsement did not help Senator Obama, and neither did his economic advisor telling some Canadians that Obama really isn't an anti-NAFTA guy after all—that his rhetoric is a campaign ruse. That was not good.<br><br>But, among everyday voters, those are small deals. However, the mocking of the press was huge; everybody was talking about it.<br><br>So, the liberal media has now hurt their own guy because it got greedy. Instead of doing the usual stealth bias number, the committed left press sensed blood in the water and openly tried to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race.<br><br>It didn't work, and with that attempt now in tatters, some in the liberal media realize they must repair the damage and actually report the race fairly or face the rising anger of the electorate. <br><br>Not good news for Barack Obama.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-03-06T08:00:00ZThe Nader FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Nader-Factor/22818.html2008-02-28T08:00:00Z2008-02-28T08:00:00ZSo Ralph Nader is running for president again, and there is no truth to the rumor that the nominating convention will be held in his garage. Too spacious.<br><br>With a few exceptions, the left-wing press was openly hostile to Nader's announcement this week, taking it very personally:<br><br>"[Nader] remains as obstinate, prickly, and egotistical as ever," said the New Jersey <em>Star-Ledger</em>.<br><br>"Nader: Unsafe at Any Age," headlined the Louisville <em>Courier-Journal</em>.<br><br>And the Boston <em>Globe</em>, while saying Nader has a "right" to run, wrote, "Nader has come to believe in his own indispensability."<br><br>The left-leaning media is mad because they believe Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 by siphoning votes away from him in Florida. You may remember that old Ralph received 97,499 votes in the Sunshine State and that President Bush defeated Vice President Gore by less than one thousand ballots. Doing the math makes many liberals cry.<br><br>So Ralphie boy, as Ed Norton might put it, is not in real solid with the Democratic establishment these days.<br><br>Not that he cares. I've known Nader for decades and he is a hard-core socialist, a man who fervently believes the government must control evil corporations, regulate wages, and even set prices for what consumers buy. Nader has far more in common with Raul Castro than Howard Dean. He thinks the Dems are almost as bad as the Republicans, as far as exploiting the folks are concerned.<br><br>That's why Nader's presidential announcement was a one-day story. No New York <em>Times</em> profile for him, not this year. No NBC News feature story. Ralph Nader is going to be mighty lonely on the campaign trail because the far-left has abandoned him.<br><br>Feeling sorry for the guy, I called him a few days ago to appear on my syndicated radio program, heard on more than 400 stations. At first, Nader's "person" was excited. Free media! But a short time later, she told us that Ralph was "unavailable." Perhaps a conference call with Raul?<br><br>The reason, I believe, that Nader passed on the Radio Factor was that he knew I would poke a bit of fun at him. Let's face it, Jane Fonda has a better chance of winning the presidency than Ralph. But unlike the lefty media, I have no problem with Nader running. He entertains me. I never know what he's going to say or who he's going to hammer. Give him points for that.<br><br>Next November, Ralph Nader will get less than one percent of the vote, and won't even appear on most state ballots. Sadly for him, the Ralphster will not be a factor this time around. His time has passed, and his socialistic struggle is completely irrelevant.<br><br>But I still like Ralph Nader. Even if he is unavailable.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-02-28T08:00:00ZHate Speech and the 'NetBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hate-Speech-and-the-Net/22771.html2008-02-21T08:00:00Z2008-02-21T08:00:00ZWhat do Nancy Reagan and Michelle Obama have in common besides being political wives? Well, they were both under heavy scrutiny this week. <br><br>As you may know, Michelle Obama gave two speeches in Wisconsin where she said that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of America because her husband's campaign has been so well-received. That statement, of course, caused major controversy. Michelle Obama is 45 years old—are you telling me she's never been proud of her country before?<br><br>Nancy Reagan is 86 years old. A few days ago, she fell down in her California home and was rushed to the hospital. She's OK, but it was a painful ordeal for Mrs. Reagan.<br><br>It was also painful to see how the political Internet sites analyzed both of these situations. On the far-left, they basically ignored the Michelle Obama controversy. Only one prominent far-left site dealt with it, and it blamed conservatives for trumping up hostility against Mrs. Obama.<br><br>As for Nancy Reagan, it was a far different story. On the crazy left Huffington Post, the following hateful comments were posted about the former first lady:<ul><li>"Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub."<li>"The old bat will probably steal everything in the hospital room."<li>"I feel no pity for the b---- who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs."</ul>There are dozens of other vile comments available for your reading pleasure on the Huffington Post. Apparently, Arianna Huffington, the woman who runs the site, has no problem with publishing hate speech. Ms. Huffington has the power to remove this trash immediately, but she chooses not to.<br><br>Incredibly, some Americans still do not understand how powerful the Internet has become in a very short time. Many of us are also unaware of how hate speech is flourishing on the net. The haters can post their threats and defamation anonymously and can attack at will with no consequence. Instead of wearing white hoods, these despicable people hide behind a machine.<br><br>Defenders of the political Internet sewer say freedom of speech is the issue. But that's a canard. Hate speech is hate speech, whether it's being spewed by some nut wearing a Nazi armband, or some gnome hunched over a keyboard.<br><br>People like Arianna Huffington should be taken out to the village square and publicly scolded. Their enterprises diminish this country, and nothing good can come of that. <br><br>A few years ago, people who spewed hatred in public were ostracized. Now they can join clubs on the 'net. There is something very disturbing about all of this. In order for a country to be truly free, people must be responsible and fair-minded. Right now, I believe the Internet is taking us in the opposite direction. And there are few voices speaking up against it.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-02-21T08:00:00ZSome Excellent Advice for McCain and ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Some-Excellent-Advice-for-McCain-and-Obama/22750.html2008-02-14T08:00:00Z2008-02-14T08:00:00ZAs a pundit who gets paid to give his opinion whether you want it or not, it is my civic duty to dispense some worthy advice to the current front runners in the presidential race. Let's start with Barack Obama.<br><br>Senator, there is a good chance you will pull off one of the biggest upsets in modern political history and defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. So far, your theme has been: "Give Hope a Chance." And it's working—good for you.<br><br>But as with the John Lennon/Yoko Ono song "Give Peace a Chance," hearing it over and over is worse than being waterboarded. So you might think about upgrading from "hope" rhetoric to actual statements about policy. Now, I understand that the more specific you get about universal health care or Iraq, the more you invite criticism. But the folks like you, and effectively rebutting policy criticism might even make you stronger.<br><br>Shorthand: You might seal the deal if you boldly distinguish yourself from Senator Clinton on a vital issue. <br><br>Over to you, Senator McCain. After winning the Potomac primaries, you said that "we dare not let" the Democrats win in November. As I told Senator Obama, that kind of general statement doesn't move the debate dial. "We dare not," why? What would happen if the Dems win the White House?<br><br>It's not like Americans are cheering over the Republican party these days, with President Bush's approval rating hovering around 30%. Most Americans are not liking oil at $100 a barrel and an Iraqi government that makes Moe, Larry, and Curly look astute.<br><br>So, Senator, you must get very precise about the danger of a Democratic president. And you can't play the "inexperienced" card with Obama, either. President Bush the Elder did that with Bill Clinton and we all know how that turned out.<br><br>Likewise, with JFK versus Richard Nixon in 1960. Inexperience won. <br><br>Senator, you have pulled off a political miracle comparable to Senator Obama's. So it's important that you understand most Americans want new ideas and creative solutions to complicated problems. Thanks for listening.<br><br>Now, you may have noticed that I did not offer advice to Senator Clinton. That's because punditry only goes so far. Mrs. Clinton is up against a charismatic opponent who is able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. That's a happy meal if I've ever seen one.<br><br>Every since 9/11, American politics have been dark and intense. Folks are tired, unsure. Then along comes a candidate who is optimistic and full of positive energy. Obama is like a Caribbean vacation in February. It's tough to say no to that.<br><br>So like the Patriots losing to the Giants in the Super bowl, Senator Clinton may be facing destiny. Even punditry is powerless against that; bloviating can't dent it.<br><br>But maybe not. Perhaps Hillary Clinton can derail the Obama express in Ohio and Texas. Then we'll have yet another amazing political comeback.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-02-14T08:00:00ZWater Over Their HeadsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Water-Over-Their-Heads/22670.html2008-02-07T08:00:00Z2008-02-07T08:00:00ZLost in the swirl of the Super Tuesday vote was a very important story about your safety and security. In order to better define the debate on torture, the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating the interrogation technique known as "waterboarding," whereby a bound captive is placed upside down underwater.<br><br>It is not a nice feeling.<br><br>CIA director Michael Hayden told the Senators that, since 9/11, the agency had used waterboarding exactly three times in order to extract information from reluctant captives. The men involved were all al-Qaeda big shots and, according to the CIA, they all gave up information that prevented terror attacks that could have killed thousands.<br><br>Also, the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, told the Senators that al-Qaeda is being protected inside Pakistan and is currently training agents to infiltrate the United States with the purpose of killing civilians.<br><br>Now, this is nothing new to those of us who understand that the leader of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, has failed to control both al-Qaeda and the Taliban inside his country. So those evil people now have a sanctuary from which to launch their murderous operations.<br><br>My question is, what will the presidential candidates do about that, and about the interrogations of captured terror suspects?<br><br>John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all say waterboarding is torture and should be outlawed. So let's assume it will be after President Bush leaves office. Let's also assume that most captured terrorists will not give up their comrades under standard Geneva Convention interrogation methods.<br><br>Who wins under that scenario? Well, it looks like the terrorists do, right? With waterboarding out and chatting in, the bad guys have one less thing to worry about. Do you feel safer knowing name, rank, and jihad number is all that's required of a captured al-Qaeda?<br><br>And then there's Pakistan. What exactly are the candidates going to do about that country? I understand that change and hope and health care are big themes this year, but I'd like my health care program to include not being blown up by fanatical killers trained in Pakistan. File that under "preventive medicine."<br><br>Of course, it's the media's fault. Instead of concentrating on vital life-death issues, the press goes nuts when Bill Clinton scolds a reporter. With the "gotcha" game paramount, the waterboarding and Pakistan/al-Qaeda stories are largely ignored. The candidates are rarely even asked about them because questions about Hillary's Wal-Mart connections are so important.<br><br>The American people need to wise up. Yeah, the Presidential horse race is fun and interesting. But on vital questions of the day, the candidates spit out flimsy, general rhetoric and walk away.<br><br>To protect my family, I want the waterboarding option included amongst presidential powers. As for Musharraf, I want this guy held accountable.<br><br>Sorry if that interrupts the hope train.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-02-07T08:00:00ZWhat NOW?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-NOW/22644.html2008-01-31T08:00:00Z2008-01-31T08:00:00ZTed Kennedy's Obama endorsement moment a few days ago lifted the 76-year-old Senator into a zone he hadn't seen for years. All the TV news programs wanted him on, some of his nieces and nephews actually split with him, and he even managed to upstage the State of the Union Address.<br><br>Predictably, nasty stuff about Kennedy instantly appeared on some far-right Internet sites, but more than a few left-wing concerns also hammered him for abandoning his former pals, the Clintons.<br><br>In short, there was minor hysteria in liberal circles because Kennedy and his niece Caroline are supporting Barack Obama over the Democratic machine's candidate, Hillary Clinton. And nowhere was the hysteria more pronounced than in the National Organization for Women.<br><br>The non-partisan website Politico reported that the New York President of NOW, Marcia Pappas, was furious with Kennedy. The website quotes Pappas as saying:<br><br>"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic Presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him ... and now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."<br><br>Good grief. <br><br>So what this means is that any guy who doesn't support Senator Clinton for President is a traitor to all things feminine. I don't even want to think about how Ms. Pappas would characterize women who don't support Hillary.<br><br>Sensing danger, the national head of NOW, Kim Gandy, issued her own statement directly contradicting her New York Lieutenant:<br><br>"Though [NOW] has proudly endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Senator Kennedy's endorsement." <br><br>Sure. <br><br>This is damage control. Ms. Gandy and other liberal big shots understand a strong tinge of bitterness is sweeping through the progressive ranks, and that is disaster for the secular-progressive movement.<br><br>According to every survey done on the subject, traditional-thinking Americans outnumber S-P's by more than two to one. If the liberal lobby fractures, especially over the explosive issues of race and gender, permanent damage may be done to the progressive movement.<br><br>At the State of the Union address, Senators Clinton and Obama would not even look at each other. I've been watching this very closely and I think Mr. Obama took great offense at the slumlord remark. I mean, it's one thing to say Jesse Jackson won South Carolina so what's the big deal if Obama also won it, but it's quite another for Hillary Clinton to accuse Obama of selling out inner city African-Americans. <br><br>This liberal civil war is now overshadowing the entire primary process, and it's ironic that the liberal media is enthusiastically driving the story. NBC News and others are spending major time parsing every single perceived insult coming from the Clinton and Obama camps.<br><br>It will all end, of course, when the Democrats select their nominee. Then the competitors will stand together, smiling for the cameras.<br><br>But underneath those smiles will be memories and, with apologies to Barbra Streisand, they won't be "misty water-colored." Trust me.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-01-31T08:00:00ZNo SurrenderBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Surrender/22632.html2008-01-24T08:00:00Z2008-01-24T08:00:00ZAs a former high school teacher, I like to speak to students across the country and one of the most common questions I get is: What does it take to succeed in life? And my answer is very simple: Hard work and perseverance. I know it's a clich�, but it's a good clich�.<br><br>One year ago, New York Giants football coach Tom Coughlin was on the ropes. His team had underperformed, his star player, Tiki Barber, had quit—partially because he didn't much like Coughlin—and the New York media was pounding the coach into pudding every hour on the hour.<br><br>I mean, it was bad.<br><br>Watching from a distance, I felt sorry for Coughlin. I've seen public figures get hammered, but this was brutal. <br><br>Sportswriters were digging his grave and dancing on it at the same time. There weren't enough negative adjectives in the universe to describe the man.<br><br>Showing more bravery than most sports concerns, the Giants' management rejected public opinion, deciding to give Coughlin one more year to turn things around. Once that was announced, even more vitriol descended on the coach.<br><br>But now, against all odds, The New York Giants are going to the Super Bowl. The team is good, not great. Injuries have piled up. But game after game, the Giants played hard and won, sometimes ugly. But they won.<br><br>Coach Coughlin, of course, is the champion of this effort, the guy in charge. He has every right to gloat, to mock those who diminished him last year. But he has done none of that.<br><br>What Coughlin did do was work his whistle off. He brought in some new coaches, lessened his authoritative manner, and let the passes fall where they may. His game plan worked.<br><br>But most importantly, Coughlin did not allow his attackers to beat him down. That is the key to his Super Bowl journey. The negativity directed at Coughlin was almost non-stop, the derision he faced astounding. Many of us would have packed it in and headed out of town.<br><br>Coughlin, however, did not get bitter; he got busy. And, now, he's a winner no matter what happens in the big game.<br><br>It takes a person of strong character to absorb life's pain. But this is the key to almost all success. Nobody gets a pass; we all get worked over sometimes. You simply have to fight your way through adversity if you want to prosper.<br><br>I'm rooting for Tom Coughlin and his team to win the Super Bowl. The Patriots are an amazing story as well, but Coughlin's grit is something every American should admire. This kind of story only happens once in a while; it is the stuff of legend.<br><br>Win or lose, there is a giant in the Super Bowl.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-01-24T08:00:00ZParty OnBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Party-On/22588.html2008-01-17T08:00:00Z2008-01-17T08:00:00ZIf you ask Americans how many political parties are contesting the presidential race this year, most will say two. They are wrong. Right now there are five parties in play—two on the Democratic side, and three in the Republican arena.<br><br>On the Democratic front, the establishment candidate is Hillary Clinton. That means the old guard Dems who supported Bill Clinton are now using their organizational capacities to help his wife become president. New Hampshire was a great example: Clinton "people" from all over the country poured into the Granite State, making sure traditional Democratic voters got to the polls. That effort made the difference for Senator Clinton.<br><br>The other Democratic party-within-the-party is the far-left element, the "give peace a chance" crowd. I call them Yoko Ono Democrats. They are adamantly against the Iraq war and aggressively challenging worldwide terrorism. These people feel Hillary Clinton is too nuanced in her Iraq posture and don't trust her to set up the "new" America they desperately want.<br><br>By the way, the Yoko Ono people are split between John Edwards and Barack Obama.<br><br>On the GOP side, there is no establishment candidate, which is why we are seeing a virtual free-for-all in the voting. The social conservative choice is Mike Huckabee, who is ardently pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. The economic conservatives like Mitt Romney, who is a big business guy. And the moderate Republicans support either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.<br><br>So there are really three separate and distinct Grand Old Party voting blocs.<br><br>If the big issue is "values," then Huckabee wins as he did in Iowa. If the primary concern is security and cutting waste, then McCain and Giuliani score. But if it's the economy, stupid, Mitt Romney comes out on top.<br><br>Of course, nobody knows how all of this will shake down in the general election, and that's why the campaign of 2008 is so interesting. I suspect the Clinton machine will prevail on the Democratic side, but, at this point, Barack Obama has come too far to be dismissed. So expect him to be the vice presidential nominee.<br><br>On the Republican side of the court, it is still a jump ball, with Romney and McCain having the best position. Traditional Republicans realize Governor Huckabee would have big trouble in the general election, not being able to compete in big states like California and New York.<br><br>Rudy Guiliani could compete in those states, but got clobbered in the initial voting, so Florida is his last stand. But remember, the mayor is one terror incident away from re-igniting. And if he does well in the Sunshine State, he's back in contention.<br><br>So there you have it—a great presidential campaign so far. No spin.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-01-17T08:00:00ZJournalism as a Contact SportBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Journalism-as-a-Contact-Sport/22545.html2008-01-10T08:00:00Z2008-01-10T08:00:00ZThere is a chance that before this presidential election year is over, somebody is going to get hurt. Knowing that partisan hostility is boiling over in America, the Secret Service is tense because the candidates are exposed when they campaign in public. Hatred is definitely in the air, and the media is partially to blame.<br><br>The enormous success of the Fox News Channel has created a bitterness unprecedented in the American press. CNN has been dethroned as the cable news leader and NBC News, which runs two cable outlets, is far behind both Fox News and CNN in the ratings. Some estimates have Fox News making six times as much money as MSNBC. General Electric, which owns NBC, has seen its stock price remain stagnant for the past six years, a humbling fact for the corporate giant.<br><br>And then there is ideology. Traditionally, the so-called mainstream media has leaned left. Retired anchormen like Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw now openly discuss their liberal beliefs, and former CBS commentator Bill Moyers is a flat-out far-left zealot.<br><br>So it comes as no surprise that Fox News, which gives equal time to conservative thought, is despised by many in the liberal press. Not surprisingly, that hostility has now carried over into the political arena.<br><br>Last spring, the Democratic presidential candidates informed the public they would not participate in a debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News. People like John Edwards and Governor Bill Richardson, who had frequently appeared on FNC and were treated well, suddenly informed the nation that the network was unfair and unbalanced. This blatant falsehood was stunning.<br><br>The reason the Democratic candidates boycotted Fox News was that the far-left Internet crazies told them to do it. Websites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters, which spit out anti-conservative hatred everyday, made it clear to the Democrats that anyone dealing with Fox would be punished. The creepy radical-left organization MoveOn.org, which raises serious money for liberal candidates, seconded the motion.<br><br>It is worth noting that the Republican presidential candidates have not played that game, appearing on ultra-liberal MSNBC and every other news network.<br><br>Anyway, I saw the anti-Fox hatred firsthand when I traveled to New Hampshire last week. Fox News vehicles have been vandalized, FNC correspondents cursed, and all Fox News personnel are cautious. Although the far-left nuts are generally the problem, some supporters of Congressman Ron Paul are also out of control.<br><br>At a campaign rally for Barack Obama, one of his staffers attempted to block a Fox News camera from photographing the Senator. This was a blatant assault on press freedom, and I had to remove the man from in front of the camera. You may have seen the pictures on TV.<br><br>In the subsequent coverage of the story, not one media outlet criticized the Obama staffer—not one. Had he interfered with a CBS News crew, I believe the story would have been reported quite differently.<br><br>Senator Obama has been respectful to Fox News and the incident was not his fault. But the Senator and all the Democratic candidates should understand the unhealthy climate some of their supporters have created, and they should do everything they can to discourage this kind of garbage.<br><br>And here's the kicker: A recent study by George Mason University about the campaign thus far named one network which has been the fairest to all the candidates... Fox News.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-01-10T08:00:00ZThe No Solution ZoneBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-No-Solution-Zone/22525.html2008-01-03T08:00:00Z2008-01-03T08:00:00ZAm I being unreasonable for wanting the presidential candidates to have solutions for the difficult problems the nation is facing? It was striking that during the Bhutto assassination news cycle, not one of the candidates put forth a solution to deal with the dangerous situation in Pakistan.<br><br>Some of the comments the candidates made were flat-out dumb. For example, Democrat Bill Richardson said this: "President Bush faced a choice with Pakistan—he needed to choose whether to support the dictator or the Pakistani people. He chose the dictator."<br><br>Please. The Pakistani people comprise about three hundred different factions, many of which would lop off Richardson's head if they got the chance. So give me a break, Governor. Did you not learn anything from the Shah of Iran debacle? Did the Ayatollah Khomeini thing turn out real well for the USA? <br><br>On the Republican side, there was Congressman Ron Paul, who said this about Pakistan: "We don't need to be involved over there."<br><br>Sure, Congressman, good thinking. Let's just let the Islamic fundamentalists take over that government and play around with the nuclear arsenal. Swell.<br><br>Pakistan epitomizes the difficult world in which we all live. That chaotic nation is ultra-violent, divided by religion and ideology, and a complete mystery to the vast majority of Americans.<br><br>The military dictator Musharraf can't control the jihadists, so he makes deals with them. Those deals have allowed the Taliban a Pakistani sanctuary from which they can kill Americans in neighboring Afghanistan. Musharraf's double-dealing also means Osama bin Laden and his murderous crew can continue living unmolested in northwest Pakistan.<br><br>Barack Obama says we have to do something about that. But what, Senator? Are you going to send a few American divisions into the mountains? That would mean massive casualties on both sides and a possible Pakistani civil war. Do you realize that, Senator?<br><br>The Republicans say we have to figure the whole thing out. Well, that's terrific. We've been fighting the Islamic terrorists for more than six years now—trying to "figure out" Pakistan is not exactly a plan, is it?<br><br>There are two entities at fault here: the seemingly clueless politicians, and a corrupt media that is more interested in ideology than demanding cogent answers to specific questions. Here's a clue: Calling Musharraf a corrupt dictator and President Bush a dunce is not a policy.<br><br>So, permit me to put forth a strategy. Pervez Musharraf remains in power because he controls most of the guns. He retains that control because the United States sends him billions to buy military support and weaponry. If we stop sending the cash, Musharraf will go down—fast.<br><br>Thus, the U.S. government must demand that the strongman aggressively attack the Taliban and al-Qaeda with help on the ground from NATO and America. Yes, this will tee off the radical Islamists, and that is risky. But that's the price Musharraf will have to pay.<br><br>It's either throw in with the good guys, us, or you're on your own.<br><br>That's a plan. If the candidates have a better one, I'd like to hear it.BillOReilly.com Staff2008-01-03T08:00:00ZGod and the Presidential ElectionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/God-and-the-Presidential-Election/22515.html2007-12-27T08:00:00Z2007-12-27T08:00:00ZYou've got to hand it to the committed left media, they are ruthless and fanatical - much more so than the relatively few right-wingers currently inhabiting America's newsrooms. The latest leftist tactic is to put the "hypocrite" label on any Republican presidential candidate that dares mention his "faith."<br><br>Leading the charge is The Washington Post, a newspaper that is densely populated with secular-progressives. Their chief anti-religion hatchet man is columnist Harold Meyerson, a self-proclaimed "non-believer" who routinely smears public people that demonstrate spirituality.<br><br>Earlier this month, Meyerson wrote a column entitled: "Hard-liners for Jesus," and it was a beauty. The lead paragraph went like this: "As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party."<br><br>But Meyerson was just warming up. He then went on to assassinate the characters of GOP politicians including the President: "Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety..."<br><br>Blood dripping from is keyboard, Meyerson ended his brutal diatribe this way: "The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party's rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week. And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn't be better calibrated to expose the Republicans' rank, fetid hypocrisy."<br><br>Joy to the world, Harold, right?<br><br>The strategy here is obvious. Any republican who dares mention God or faith on the campaign trail will be vilified as full of "fetid hypocrisy" if the man has ever done anything wrong in his entire life. Using this tactic, the secular American media hope to get any faith-based issues out of the campaign.<br><br>That would be good news for the democrats, of course, because a Pew Research Study shows that only 29% of Americans believe the Democratic Party is friendly to religion. Thus, discussions about faith and values aren't going to help the democrats very much.<br><br>But there is a larger issue in play for The Washington Post, The New York Times and other committed left media. Standing in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, unfettered abortion, and other sacred liberal causes, are people of faith. They are the primary opposition to the social liberal agenda fervently embraced by the leftist press. If you can demonize (sorry) people of faith, if you can shut them up by playing the hypocrisy card, then say hello to a Swedish social system.<br><br>Ah, Sweden, a country of nine million people enjoying, perhaps, the most "progressive" political system on earth. The quasi-socialistic government provides cradle-to-grave entitlements, most people never get married, and just about anything goes socially. By the way, about 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.<br><br>Harold Meyerson would love Sweden. The Washington Post should begin publishing there. What a country! None of this God stuff, none of this vile "fetid hypocrisy." Just an enormously high suicide rate while everybody does his or her own thing.<br><br>But back to the USA. In the months to come you will hear and read countless news commentaries about the moral hypocrisy of the GOP. The secular-left media will hammer Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee et al., while Senators Clinton and Obama will get a pass. Unless, of course, they start up with this God stuff. Then, all bets are off.<br><br>So a word to the wise: The upcoming presidential election will not only be about important issues facing America. It will also be a test of faith.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-12-27T08:00:00ZCan Al Gore Save Christmas?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Can-Al-Gore-Save-Christmas/22497.html2007-12-20T08:00:00Z2007-12-20T08:00:00ZHere's a Christmas story that may make you cry, but not for sentimental reasons. The town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, population 7,000, has ordered a curfew on "holiday" lights this season because of Global Warming.<br><br>By a vote of 4 to 0, the Barrington selectmen have decreed that all decorative lights must be shut off by 10pm. Selectman Ronald Dlugosz opining: "I hate to be Scrooge here, but we're really doing a lot in this community to be fuel efficient, to reduce our carbon footprint."<br><br>Swell. Since a cow belching does more damage to the environment than a string of Christmas lights (sorry, <em>holiday</em> lights), it is inconceivable that these loons are trotting a "carbon footprint" argument to help the environment. The real strategy here is to diminish the public display of Christmas in that secular town.<br><br>So how do I know that? Well, thanks for asking. As it happens, I sent a Factor producer, Jesse Watters, up to talk to this Dlugosz guy:<blockquote><b>Watters:</b> Isn't this a just ruse to de-emphasize Christmas? <br><b>Dlugosz:</b> These are holiday lights ... we don't think we should be putting lights all over the place and impacting our environment. We're taking a realistic approach to holiday lights."</blockquote>Did you notice the term "holiday lights?" <br><br>So I am calling for an intervention. The good people of western Massachusetts deserve to have a bright Christmas (holiday) season! I am asking Al Gore to arrive in a horse-drawn sleigh and talk some sense into these incredible Great Barrington pinheads.<br><br>I mean, how stupid is this? For a few weeks every year, the United States of America gets festive in honoring the birth of a man whose philosophy helped shape this country. That, of course, would be Jesus, not Barry Holiday.<br><br>And every year we now have to hear whining from dolts who are offended not only by a baby laying in a manger, but also by images of decorated trees and a jolly old man in a beard. Call me a theocrat, but I have had enough of this politically correct bilge.<br><br>Great Barrington, Massachusetts is controlled by people who somehow believe that Christmas decorations are harming the world. These numbskulls are so crazed by melting polar ice caps and perceived church-state "issues" that they are imposing fascist declarations on folks who just want to enjoy the season.<br><br>So Al Gore must get involved. Since he has been driving this global warming stuff, he now has an obligation to calm the citizenry down. Dick Cheney can't do it; he's off shooting animals. And President Bush holds no sway among the far-left loons in Great Barrington.<br><br>No, it must be Gore. He's the only one who can save Christmas in the Berkshires. Shine a light on this insanity, Al. Tell them the inconvenient truth.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-12-20T08:00:00ZInternet CorruptionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Internet-Corruption/22471.html2007-12-13T08:00:00Z2007-12-13T08:00:00ZHere's what many parents and grandparents do not understand: The Internet is profoundly changing the behavior of American children and stunting their emotional growth. Many eight-year-olds now exposed to things that 13-year-olds didn't know just a decade ago.<br><br>In Syracuse, New York, not exactly Sodom, at least nine girls, ages 11 to 13, took nude pictures of themselves and electronically sent them to various boys. Quicker than you can say "incredibly dumb," said pictures were posted on the Internet so that every kid in town could take a look.<br><br>A 17-year-old, Michael Wixson, has been arrested but not for posting the pictures on the 'net; apparently that's legal in New York state if there's no sexual activity involved. No, Wixon was only charged after he sent the naked pictures to a 15-year-old—that involved "corrupting a minor." <br><br>Police say they were stunned that some of the parents of the involved girls thought this was no big deal. In fact, according to reporting by WSYR-TV, a few of the parents are angry with the cops for even investigating!<br><br>So now we get a hint as to why their children would do such a thing.<br><br>Look, the truth is that many kids are stupid, but kids have always been dumb. I broke records for dumbness. The difference today is that dopey kids find each other very fast on the 'net, and what they see and hear on the machines that now dominate their lives has changed their thinking patterns.<br><br>Every child can see images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton flaunting their sexuality without consequence. Kids have instant access to salacious material that was very difficult to obtain just ten years ago. If a parent is not proactive in monitoring computer and cell phone use, children can run wild in cyberspace.<br><br>Sadly, adult reaction in some cases is capitulation. As reported in this space a few weeks ago, the school board in Portland, Maine, not exactly Gomorrah, voted to give 11-year-old girls birth control pills and not tell their parents. Now every kid in that city has gotten the message: If you want to have sex, it's okay with school authorities.<br><br>The Internet has broken down almost all boundaries. There are now actual clubs for child molesters—websites that tell predators how to abuse kids, where to find them, and how to get away with the evil act.<br><br>There are torture websites, virtual child porn displays (which the Supreme Court ruled legal), and all kinds of criminal acts acted out on the computer screen. And every kid with a mouse can find these things.<br><br>Just think about what's happening here. Children as young as eleven sending nude pictures of themselves to their friends. No fear, no hesitation.<br><br>It is a high-tech "Lord of the Flies," a free-for-all of destructive behavior driven by millions of innocuous-looking machines that sit openly in family rooms all across the country. <br><br>Here's an instant message every parent should understand: The situation is dire.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-12-13T08:00:00ZNowhere to RunBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Nowhere-to-Run/22456.html2007-12-06T08:00:00Z2007-12-06T08:00:00ZThe actress Julia Roberts, driving a Mercedes SUV, recently ran a man off the road, got out of her car, and demanded he stop following her and photographing her young children. Good for Ms. Roberts! She stood up for herself and millions of other Americans who are being victimized by video intruders—people who are actively destroying the right to privacy for all Americans.<br><br>While the ACLU and other far-left zealots are screaming about U.S. intelligence agencies listening in on calls made to suspected terrorist locations overseas, we hear little about Americans being stalked and hounded by camera-touting, cash-seeking weasels.<br><br>No famous person can even vacation anymore without fear of someone photographing them in a bathing suit or playing with their kids. Jennifer Love Hewitt, a 28-year-old actress, recently went for a swim in Hawaii. Presto: pictures of her were splashed all over the net, with mocking commentary about her rear end.<br><br>Ms. Hewitt is furious and she should be. Because of the internet, people can instantly become objects of worldwide derision by simply wading into a pool.<br><br>There are now literally hundreds of websites that pay for pictures of famous people captured in awkward positions; the more demeaning the shot, the more money paid. There is no privacy anymore.<br><br>And it's not just and the rich and famous. All over the country, net postings mock regular folks who happen to be caught in an embarrassing moment. With so many Americans armed with cell phone cameras, it is easy to zoom in on missteps.<br><br>This collapse of privacy rights should disturb all Americans. Under civil law in most states, you can sue someone for "unreasonable intrusion on one's seclusion." In a famous 1972 case, Jacqueline Onassis did just that. Fed up with being stalked by a photographer named Ron Galella, Ms. Onassis took him to court and won. Galella was ordered to stay one hundred yards away from Ms. Onassis.<br><br>But most regular folks don't have Onassis money and can't afford an expensive court case where damages tend to be minimal. So what's the solution to this assault on privacy rights?<br><br>To answer that question, we travel to Great Britain. There, judges hear civil cases 99% of the time; juries are rarely involved. There, the person who loses a civil suit usually pays all the court costs, including those of the plaintiff.<br><br>If America would revise its corrupt civil court system, judges could hear privacy cases and quickly punish individuals who, trying to earn a fast buck or are simply mean-spirited, violate a person's privacy rights. That kind of justice would restore a semblance of sanity.<br><br>The rise of the computer age means many freedoms are under assault. Hiding behind the technology, evildoers are defaming, demeaning, and embarrassing their fellow countrymen on a daily basis. Just check out some of these political websites; to call them sewers is to insult garbage.<br><br>But actually stalking people with cameras is beyond the pale, and something has to be done. Congress must enact new laws and tort reform to stop this Internet madness, opposition from the legal lobby be damned.<br><br>This is not a private matter anymore.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-12-06T08:00:00ZWhat America Owes the TroopsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/What-America-Owes-the-Troops/22433.html2007-11-29T08:00:00Z2007-11-29T08:00:00ZNow that the holiday season has arrived, many Americans will be preoccupied with festivities and celebrations. Meantime, more than 200,000 of our fellow citizens are serving overseas in the military, perhaps preoccupied with surviving. So what do we Americans owe these people?<br><br>First of all, the U.S. government owes them an effective war plan. After years of strategical chaos, the so-called "surge" in Iraq has finally allowed the military to carry the fight to the terrorists. The Iraqi civilian population saw this and began to cooperate with the good guys, Americans, informing on the bad guys, terrorists. Thus, things are improving on the ground in Iraq.<br><br>The Democratic leadership, of course, opposed the surge. So while the Bush administration has made big errors in Iraq, the Democrats have now joined the mistake zone. Have they not?<br><br>In Afghanistan, more folly. Brave U.S. and NATO forces have the Taliban on the run but, unfortunately, they have a safe place to run to: Pakistan.<br><br>If the new budget passes, the U.S. taxpayer will provide an astounding $785 million to the Musharraf government next year, and what do we get for all the cash? Taliban sanctuaries, that's what. Completely unacceptable.<br><br>The Bush administration owes it to our brave men and women in the Afghan theatre to stop the nonsense. Either the Pakistani armed forces cooperate with NATO to hunt down these terrorists, or no money. Period.<br><br>Back home, the USO has sent very few famous people to visit the troops in Afghanistan. Again, completely unacceptable. As a few readers of this column stated, more American celebrities have visited the tyrant Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than have gone to Afghanistan.<br><br>The yearly budget for the USO is a whopping $150 million, so money is not at issue—motivation is. Where is the modern-day Bob Hope? Where are American entertainment, sports, and music celebrities when they are needed? Are you telling me that famous people won't go to Afghanistan and Iraq to say thanks to the troops?<br><br>USO chief Ned Powell told me he hopes to improve this dismal situation, and all Americans should encourage him to do so. Our troops in the field need to know that we appreciate their sacrifice even if some disagree with the war on terror strategy. <br><br>You may remember that huge celebrities traveled with Bob Hope to entertain the troops in Vietnam, certainly a controversial war. People like John Wayne, Raquel Welch, Danny Kaye, and Ann Margaret brought entertainment directly into combat zones and Americans greatly respected that effort.<br><br>In the past year only a few people like Toby Keith, Tom Arnold and myself have showed up in Afghanistan.<br><br>All loyal Americans should help the war on terror effort. We should give to military charities, hire vets, and individually applaud their service.<br><br>Christmas is coming not only to America, but also to the battlefields overseas. Let's all do what we can to help our troops.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-11-29T08:00:00ZThe Afghan DilemmaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Afghan-Dilemma/22409.html2007-11-21T08:00:00Z2007-11-21T08:00:00Z(Afghanistan) On the road from the airport into the capital city of Kabul you pass a stone wall adorned with iron rings. These were used by the Taliban to chain Afghans who had transgressed in some way. Then the poor souls were publicly stoned to death. This was justice, Taliban-style.<br><br>Let's go back to the beginning. After the al Qaeda attack on 9/11, the United States quickly defeated the Taliban government, which had aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's terror killers. America could have walked away right then, leaving Afghanistan to whatever warlord could achieve power. <br><br>But once again, the USA tried to do something noble: The Bush administration poured billions into Afghanistan, where more than half the population is illiterate and life expectancy is just 44 years. Also, America convinced NATO forces to help occupy the country so that an infrastructure could be built and one of the most impoverished peoples on earth might have some hope for better lives.<br><br>For our trouble, we are now engaged in a vicious guerrilla war starring the remnants of the Taliban allied with al Qaeda killers. Right now, there are about 25,000 Americans in the Afghan theatre as well as approximately 26,000 NATO forces. These men and women are protecting the Afghan population as best they can, but chaos is everywhere.<br><br>That's because the neighboring government of Pakistan allows both the Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuary. U.S. and NATO forces are not allowed to hunt down the bad guys inside Pakistan; thus, they have a safe place from which to launch attacks.<br><br>The Pakistani border town of Quetta is command control for the Taliban. Every intelligence agency in South Asia knows this. Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharif could move against the Taliban and badly damage them. But he does not. He takes billions in U.S. aid and allows these vicious thugs a good night's sleep after they murder at will. <br><br>Picture yourself at Bagram Air Force Base, a huge facility north of Kabul. The air is almost always full of dust because people seeking wood for fuel and grazing pasture for animals have destroyed the trees and grass. The terrain is barren and brown. The summers are brutally hot, the winters very cold. You are halfway around the world trying to help folks who are frightened and barely have enough to eat. You are fighting the good fight but you know that the ultimate battle will never be won until the terror killers are confronted in their lair. No matter how many engagements are won, there will always be more fanatical killers coming across the border.<br><br>Yet the Western forces soldier on, most in a disciplined, heroic fashion. The Afghan conflict is far removed from the minds of most people in the world, many of whom couldn't care less or blame America for worldwide terrorism.<br><br>Thus, Afghanistan remains one tough neighborhood. But in the past six years much progress has been made. There is a brilliant new hospital, <br>hundreds of new schools and other public works are operating, and the beginnings of an organized society have taken root.<br><br>However, there are miles and billions to go before anybody sleeps. America and NATO are trying hard in this forlorn backwater, but most of the world is sitting it out. As usual.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-11-21T08:00:00ZBetraying the TroopsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Betraying-the-Troops/22382.html2007-11-15T08:00:00Z2007-11-15T08:00:00ZJust in time for Thanksgiving, the vile movie "Redacted" is opening in a few theatres this week. The film, financed by billionaire Mark Cuban and directed by far-left bomb thrower Brian DePalma, features drunken American soldiers in Iraq raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl and then slaughtering her family.<br><br>As stated in this space two months ago, a depiction like this will be displayed prominently on jihadi websites, and will be used as a recruiting tool by terrorists. No doubt.<br><br>Both DePalma and Cuban are unrepentant and apparently could not care less about putting U.S. troops in even more danger. Cuban opines that it is wrong to condemn the film without seeing it, but that's incredible nonsense. No one denies the movie puts American soldiers in the worst light possible. As one reader emailed, "Saying you can't condemn 'Redacted' without seeing it is like saying you can't condemn crystal meth without taking it."<br><br>So what's to be done here? In a free society, Mark Cuban is entitled to make this despicable movie. Our military people have fought and died to give him that right. Isn't that ironic? Cuban uses his freedom and his money, made in America, to put our troops at further risk. How does the guy live with himself?<br><br>This isn't about the Iraq war or the war on terror. This is about fellow citizens. Even during the ultra-contentious Vietnam conflict, Hollywood didn't make films that aided the enemy. Jane Fonda made a personal appearance in North Vietnam that did that, and she is still paying for it to this day.<br><br>Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Maverick basketball team and has been seen gyrating on TV's "Dancing With the Stars." While Cuban is doing the cha-cha, almost 200,000 brave Americans are on far-away battlegrounds. Picture the image of Cuban dancing around juxtaposed with scenes of the hardship our troops face everyday. Sounds like it would make an interesting movie sequence, don't you think?<br><br>There comes a time when good people must make a stand, and this is one of those times. Cuban and DePalma have done a bad thing; they have made life even harder for our troops. So Americans should stand in front of any theatre showing "Redacted" and hold a simple sign: "Support the Troops."<br><br>There is no excuse for "Redacted." The incident is based on a true story, but those who committed the crimes are in prison for life. You don't celebrate this kind of aberration with a movie—you don't brand the U.S. military with this stigma.<br><br>Charles Manson is an American too, but does he represent this country in any way? Of course not. And I believe even the odious Manson would not make a movie like "Redacted."BillOReilly.com Staff2007-11-15T08:00:00ZCourting RosieBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Courting-Rosie/22318.html2007-11-08T08:00:00Z2007-11-08T08:00:00ZWhat are we to make of the fact that NBC News wanted to hire Rosie O'Donnell as a show host? Was Hugo Chavez not available? What the heck is going on?<br><br>The national news network that once brought you Huntley and Brinkley, John Chancellor, and Tom Brokaw, apparently wanted to give Ms. O'Donnell a daily program on MSNBC, which, in more than eleven years on the air, has not developed one well watched news program. Not one.<br><br>In the round-the-clock Nielsen ratings for October, the latest survey, MSNBC averaged a paltry 278,000 viewers per hour. That's down 7% from October '06. By contrast, Fox News about tripled that delivery; CNN doubled it.<br><br>Thus, in desperation, NBC News turned to Ms. O'Donnell, a woman who asserts that the United States military has killed more than 650,000 Iraqi citizens, claims that 9/11 was an inside job, and opines that Evangelical Christians are just as threatening as al-Qaeda.<br><br>Paging Tim Russert!<br><br>What is interesting here is that Ms. O'Donnell's departure from ABC's "The View" has not hurt that program at all. In fact, ratings for "The View" with Whoopi Goldberg this October were 9% higher than they were last October when Rosie presided.<br><br>But NBC News didn't seem to care. Move over, Brian Williams... Rosie O'Donnell could have been the new sheriff in town if only the terms had been worked out. Why they were not remains a mystery.<br><br>But the interest was there, and in that spirit, I'd like to propose some other NBC moves because the network's entertainment programming is down the drain as well. Let's take a meeting and discuss the following:<ul><li><b>Dancing with the Panthers.</b><br>A one-hour dance show featuring Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin cutting some rug with members of the New Black Panther Party. Power salutes all around.<li><b>CSI: Havana.</b><br>Fidel and Raul Castro head an elite squad that tracks down owners of private property on the island nation. Mucho anti-Bush dialogue will be incorporated into the program, which will also star Michael Moore as the Cuban Health Minister.<li><b>Welcome Back, Ahmadinejad.</b><br>The zany Iranian president returns to Columbia University to teach a course on International Relations. Lectures on driving the Jews into the sea and the absence of gay people in Persia will be front and center.<li><b>Code Pink Knows Best.</b><br>Cindy Sheehan stars as a woman elected President of the United States on the third party "Kool-Aid" ticket. Her first actions are dissolving the military and giving Uday and Qusay Hussein the Medal of Freedom, posthumously, of course.<li><b>Are You Smarter Than Al Gore?</b><br>A quiz program with a global warming theme. Sample question: If a polar bear is forced to leave Barrow, Alaska because of melting icebergs, and that bear can travel seven miles per hour, how long will it take him to reach San Francisco?</li></ul>That kind of primetime lineup will synergize perfectly with the new image of NBC News. In fact, if NBC revives talks with Rosie, she could actively promote the new primetime lineup from her daily news perch. <br><br>Remember, where there's a will, there's a way! NBC News and Rosie O'Donnell, perfect together.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-11-08T08:00:00ZDon't Worry, Be HappyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Worry-Be-Happy/22269.html2007-11-01T07:00:00Z2007-11-01T07:00:00ZSo now the far-left loons in the media are saying there really isn't an organized terror threat in the world and that this whole war on terror deal is a hype job. That must come as great comfort to the thousands of families who lost loved ones on 9/11. They must really appreciate the <em>St. Louis Post-Dispatch</em> editorializing, "After nearly six years of hearing the Bush administration make assertions about the war on terrorism that turn out—to put it kindly—overblown..."<br><br>I'm just wondering how "overblown" the terror war is for the five thousand individuals injured when al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa, not to mention the 257 human beings who were murdered in that attack. But it might be hard to comprehend "overblown" when you're dead.<br><br>The nutty professor Paul Krugman, who teaches at Princeton and writes op-ed lunacy for the <em>New York Times</em>, is also on the diminish terror bandwagon. This is from his desk: "There isn't any such thing as Islamofascism—it's not an ideology; it's a figment of the neocon imagination."<br><br>That's like saying there is no such thing as stupidity... right, professor? <br><br>Maybe we should ask the families of the 40 dead and 300 injured in the London subway bombings, or the friends of the 202 dead in the Bali, Indonesia attack on a Kuta beach nightclub to comment on Krugman's opinion. I believe they might have some reaction.<br><br>And how about Professor Paul Campos, who teaches at the University of Colorado, still the home of Ward Churchill. Campos wrote in the Rocky Mountain News, "[Conservatives] have helped create a fear of terrorism out of all proportion to the actual threat terrorism poses."<br><br>Let's run that by the 1,500 human beings hurt in the Madrid train bombing. Unfortunately, the 197 people killed in that al-Qaeda attack are not available to comment.<br><br>The hits just keep on coming in the liberal media. General Wesley Clark, a commentator on NBC News, says that Osama Bin Laden is not an "existential" threat to America. The General believing that the terrorist and his crew could not destroy the entire nation. Just some of us.<br><br>Swell. <br><br>The reason the committed left-wing media is putting out this nonsense is politics. The biggest strength on the Republican side this Presidential season is fighting terrorism. All of the Democratic candidates are perceived to be soft in this area because they do not support specific anti-terror measures, and are scared stiff by the far-left internet smear merchants who believe worldwide terrorism is America's fault.<br><br>This is no ideological game here. All over the world, thousands are dead and maimed because Muslim killers believe they can attack civilians at will and the West is too weak to stop them.<br><br>Judging by what is passing for editorial comment these days, bin Laden and his cutthroats may be right. Differences in opinion over how to fight terrorism are legitimate and necessary. But downgrading the lethal threat is irresponsible in the extreme.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-11-01T07:00:00ZDusk for the Sundance KidBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dusk-for-the-Sundance-Kid/22243.html2007-10-25T07:00:00Z2007-10-25T07:00:00ZThe actress Reese Witherspoon can't be pleased with the performance of her new movie "Rendition." It is a colossal bomb and will disappear as quickly as one of the movie's characters, courtesy of the evil CIA, of course.<br><br>Once again, Hollywood is on a "let's make America look bad" binge. This is directly caused by loathing for the Bush administration, which the entertainment left sees as a combination of the Third Reich and Emperor Nero.<br><br>Thus, a series of earnest "America is a human-rights violator" films are coming to a theatre near you, and the odds are you will ignore them.<br><br>Good. <br><br>The Sundance Kid, Robert Redford, has directed a movie called "Lions for Lambs," of which Variety opines, "Back-bendingly liberal but also deeply patriotic."<br><br>Well, that doesn't sound so bad, but then Redford goes to Rome and says this about the USA: "We have lost lives, we've lost sacred freedoms, we've lost financial stability."<br><br>Really, Bob? You seem mighty rich to me, and I believe you can make movies that say anything you want them to say. So what's this loss of "sacred freedoms" deal?<br><br>While researching this column, I came across a letter written by Samuel Goldwyn in 1961. Goldwyn was a major movie mogul responsible for hundreds of classic films. In this letter, Goldwyn tells producer Jerry Wald, "Today we are at a very crucial period in history. Even if the cold war never develops into a hot one, our country still has its hands full all over the world. The pictures we send abroad have an effect in every corner of the globe.<br><br>"We should never lose sight of the fact that, no matter how entertaining a picture may be or how much money it may make, it can do our country a great deal of harm if it plays into the hands of our enemies ... we have a great responsibility in this regard--far greater than almost any other segment of our country--and we must guide ourselves accordingly."<br><br>I believe Samuel Goldwyn, if he were alive today, would be appalled at how radical left the American entertainment industry has become. He would, I suspect, also suggest to Robert Redford that he tone it down. <br><br>There is no question that every time a Redford, Sean Penn, or Barbra Streisand bashes the USA to the overseas press, millions of America-haters rub their hands with glee. Prop up Hugo Chavez, sure. Shake hands with the Iranian fascists, certainly.<br><br>But the tide has turned against these showbiz pinheads, and the failure of movies like "Rendition" prove it. Dissent is fine. Dishonest propaganda is not. <br><br>Robert Redford and his crew might bemoan the loss of "sacred rights," but I'm with Samuel Goldwyn. These Hollywood big shots have an obligation to a country that has allowed them to become wealthy and speak their collective minds on any subject they choose.<br><br>The Sundance Kid has truly been out in the sun way too long. Wise up, Bob.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-10-25T07:00:00ZIraq and RollBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Iraq-and-Roll/22225.html2007-10-18T07:00:00Z2007-10-18T07:00:00ZWhile rockers Bruce Springsteen and David Crosby continue to run around the country spouting the preposterous assertion that America is doing evil in Iraq, the tide is quietly turning against the real bad guys: Terrorists who kill innocent civilians in the name of Allah.<br><br>A front page article in the <em>Washington Post</em> says that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated since the beginning of this year and casualties, both civilian and military, are steadily dropping.<br><br>Despite the apparent progress, much of the media is still focused on the undeniable screw-ups that have occurred in Iraq. When the former commander in that country, General Ricardo Sanchez, lashed the Bush administration for poor planning in the campaign, the press went wild. Sanchez's remarks were page one news.<br><br>But the General also had something else to say that the liberal press totally ignored. Speaking before the Military and Editors Association, the General hammered the media: "What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war."<br><br>Sanchez was talking about the hysterical coverage of Abu Ghraib when he was in charge. The <em>New York Times</em> printed an incredible 50 front-page stories about the crimes, and most of those reports were picked up by foreign newspapers.<br><br>Thus, worldwide perception of the U.S. military, in many quarters, is that it is a brutish, undisciplined crew bent on sadistic torture.<br><br>Most clear-thinking individuals know that is false. The rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are so strict they actually put our troops at risk. Every combat soldier and Marine understands they will very likely be hung out to dry if they make a mistake. <br><br>General Sanchez understands that the liberal press despises President Bush and the Iraq war. Because of that, negative reportage is ordered and executed while positive developments are put on the shelf. <br><br>For example, the <em>New York Times</em> totally ignored Medal of Honor winner Navy Seal Michael Murphy, who was killed in Afghanistan. Lt. Murphy's parents live on Long Island in the <em>Times</em>' primary coverage area. On the surface, it is hard to believe a hometown newspaper would not mention a brave American who lost his life fighting the Taliban. But the editorial posture of the <em>Times</em>, as well as many other leftist media outlets, is so toxic, that positive stories about the military are not deemed newsworthy.<br><br>Nobody knows if the USA will prevail in Iraq. It is still a mess. But hundreds of thousands of our troops are in the theatre, and we should all be rooting for them. Atrocities like Abu Ghraib must be reported, but should never be celebrated. They should never be 'I told you so' situations.<br><br>General Sanchez is right. Iraq has been mismanaged and the media is putting our troops at risk. We the people should be demanding the truth about both situations.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-10-18T07:00:00ZThe Truth HurtsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Truth-Hurts/22173.html2007-10-11T07:00:00Z2007-10-11T07:00:00ZRocker Bruce Springsteen is running around telling everybody that he was born in the USA, but now his country is in the "torture" business. Springsteen is echoing far-left propaganda which wants the world to believe that American policy is to rough up legitimate prisoners for the fun of it. Suddenly, in the dark world of the radical left, we are a gulag nation.<br><br>It is hard to get the truth about this torture business because much of the reporting on it is flat-out dishonest, and the President himself refuses to define what is permissible in the interrogation of captured terrorists.<br><br>A year ago, I interviewed Mr. Bush about the issue: <br><blockquote><br><b>O'Reilly:</b> Is water boarding torture? <br><b>President Bush:</b> I don't want to talk about techniques, but I do assure the American people that we were within the law. <br><b>O'Reilly:</b> But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?<br><b>Bush:</b> What the American people need to know is that we've got a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people. And we've used it to stop attacks.<br></blockquote><br>So the President is not going to debate interrogation methods, and this gives a huge opening to his opponents. <br><br>The best example of coerced interrogation, or torture, depending on your sensitivity level, is what happened to al-Qaeda big shot Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Captured in Pakistan in 2003, U.S. authorities used tough methods, including "water boarding," to break Mohammed. And break him they did. According to a multitude of reports, Mohammed gave up scores of al-Qaeda operatives and detailed a number of potential terror attacks.<br><br>Both former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA official Michael Scheuer, once the head of the bin Laden unit, told me that coerced interrogation methods often provided accurate intelligence that potentially saved thousands of lives. <br><br>So what, then, are we to make of a recent <em>New York Times</em> editorial that says, "Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions."<br><br>But that is simply not true, and the <em>Times</em> knows it. Also, like President Bush, the newspaper does not define exactly what torture is. Could it be reading fallacious editorials?<br><br>Scores of left-wing newspapers are self-righteously calling for an end to harsh interrogation techniques. How these people would get information from hardened terrorists is left unexplained. The only reason America hasn't been attacked again by al-Qaeda is that aggressive U.S. action has aborted their plots and damaged their infrastructure.<br><br>Playing hypothetical games with people's lives is unacceptable. In a perfect world, a noble nation like the USA would not need to submerge killers in water. But thousands of dead Americans have changed the rules. To allow captured killers wearing civilian clothing and fighting for no nation the privilege of name, rank, and serial number status is not only stupid, it could be lethal.<br><br>How about a little truth in this debate? Our lives may depend on it.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-10-11T07:00:00ZRules of EngagementBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Rules-of-Engagement/22150.html2007-10-04T07:00:00Z2007-10-04T07:00:00ZOn a cool autumn day just about one year ago, Sgt. Troy Anderson, a Green Beret sniper, had a terrorist in his sights near the Afghan border with Pakistan. The man, Nawab Buntangyar, was on a ten most wanted list for training and outfitting suicide bombers who targeted civilians. The Taliban terrorist was an elusive guy, but had been lured out of his home by Afghans friendly to NATO forces. On the order of Green Beret Captain Dave Staffel, Sgt. Anderson shot Buntangyar dead.<br><br>And so began a nightmare for the two Special Forces soldiers that never should have happened. The Afghans involved reported the killing to their government and the United States Army was asked to investigate. Two separate probes cleared the Green Berets of any wrongdoing. But that wasn't enough for Lt. General Francis Kearney, who ordered the soldiers back to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where they faced possible court-martial.<br><br>At that point, I got involved and reported the story on my television program. The <em>New York Times</em> reported it as well. No other national media touched it.<br><br>Since the friendly-fire killing of Sgt. Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, American authorities have been jumpy. The pro-U.S. Kharzi government usually plays to its fundamentalist Muslim base in any controversy, demanding investigations into the conduct of Western forces for show. It's all about public relations.<br><br>Thus, seemingly employing a bizarre political correctness, General Kearney prolonged the ordeal of the two Green Berets when he shouldn't have. It was a political play, pure and simple.<br><br>After months of agony and uncertainty, Major General Thomas Csrnko, commander of Army Special Forces at Fort Bragg, exonerated Captain Staffel and Sgt. Anderson of any wrongdoing. Said the General: "[We] take all credible allegations of misconduct seriously."<br><br>Great. Only one problem: There were no credible allegations of misconduct. According to investigators, the Green Berets did their duty. They killed a known terrorist on the battlefield.<br><br>General Kearney, feeling the media heat after the acquittal, issued his own statement: "[The investigation] demonstrates the effectiveness of the Military Justice System."<br><br>To that I say, bull. <br><br>Most troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will tell you the rules of engagement are dangerous and stupid. The terrorists can and will do anything, including hiding behind children to shoot at Americans. But U.S. troops have to restrain themselves at nearly every turn because some opportunistic officers and a corrupt American press are ready to turn every mistake into a scandal.<br><br>Remember, the <em>New York Times</em> did 50 front page stories about Abu Ghraib. Interestingly, after its initial report on the Green Berets, the <em>Times</em> did not mention their acquittal. Nice.<br><br>Mark Waple, the attorney for Captain Staffel, said this: "General Kearney presumed the guilt of his soldiers rather than their innocence. To accuse these men was an abuse of command authority, unlawful, and morally and ethically wrong."<br><br>I totally agree with the counselor. We Americans are asking our military to protect us from vicious terrorists who murder at will. But often we are not willing to give these brave men and women the benefit of the doubt. There is no way the USA will win the war on terror if this nonsense continues.<br><br>Despite his ordeal, Captain Dave Staffel is returning to the battlefield. Sgt. Anderson says he will retire. Both of these men should be promoted and honored publicly. The Army owes them. <br><br>And one more thing—enough is enough with this PC nonsense. Fight to win, or get out.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-10-04T07:00:00ZTrashing Mother TeresaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Trashing-Mother-Teresa/22127.html2007-09-27T07:00:00Z2007-09-27T07:00:00ZWhenever I start feeling sorry for myself over personal attacks by my far-left media opponents, and those have been known to happen, I think of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Here's a woman who devoted her adult life to helping the poor and sick in one of the worst hellholes on earth. In 1979 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and up until her death in 1997 she was revered around the world.<br><br>A couple of weeks ago, <em>Newsweek</em> magazine ran a story by atheist Christopher Hitchens about Mother Teresa's crisis of faith, which she articulated in a number of letters to confidants. Mr. Hitchens, who had previously blasted the nun over abortion and birth control, wrote a nasty diatribe against the woman and the Catholic church.<br><br>Now, I don't blame Hitchens. He has been totally up-front about his loathing for organized religion and his contempt for the intellects of those who believe, including Mother Teresa. But why would <em>Newsweek</em> print a stand-alone attack on a good woman, an article that called Mother Teresa "miserable" and a "confused old lady?"<br><br>If <em>Newsweek</em> wanted fair and balanced controversy, all it had to do was print two articles: the one by Hitchens, and another by someone challenging the guy. But no, just the hatchet job appeared in the magazine.<br><br>I asked the editor of <em>Newsweek</em>, Jon Meacham, to explain, but he declined to be interviewed. Since Meacham wrote a book about faith and the founding fathers, which he was happy to discuss, I found that strange. In fact, the whole deal is strange. <br><br>Two years after her death, Mother Teresa was still the most admired person in the world, according to a nationwide Gallup Poll. There are 65 million Catholics in the United States, and more than 80% of Americans say they are Christian. So does it make any sense to hire an atheist to trash Mother Teresa? Does it?<br><br>The answer is no. It is bad journalism, awful economics (trust me, there are now more than a few former <em>Newsweek</em> readers), and just plain unfair. Mother Teresa deserves better.<br><br>Most people of faith have doubts. The New Testament tells us Jesus had a crisis of faith in the Garden of Gethsemane shortly before he was executed. Faith is a tough thing when the going gets tough. But until the end, Mother Teresa attended to Christian doctrine by helping those in dire need. <br><br>The evidence is overwhelming that the good sister was a kind and generous woman. I can't read minds, and it would be unfair to assign motives to those who run <em>Newsweek</em>, but the Mother Teresa article was disturbing, to say the least. <br><br>The bestseller lists are full of books telling us God is a fraud and religion is spawned by the devil (sorry). In a free society, those points of view should be heard. But Mother Teresa's legacy deserves respect. <em>Newsweek</em> has done her and its readership a huge disservice. <br><br>However, knowing Mother Teresa's philosophy, she would forgive them. Because that would be the Christian thing to do.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-09-27T07:00:00ZPresident Hillary Clinton?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Hillary-Clinton/22112.html2007-09-20T07:00:00Z2007-09-20T07:00:00ZNewt Gingrich, one of the most partisan Republicans in the nation, says there's an 80% chance the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. Gingrich believes the country feels let down by the Bush administration over Iraq, Katrina, illegal immigration, and enormous federal spending. The former Speaker of the House says the folks want change, and that could very well mean Hillary in the White House.<br><br>For me, it is hard to imagine Senator Clinton as president because, according to he polls, almost half of registered voters say they would never vote for her even if she ran against someone like Michael Moore. Her poll negatives are huge and, seemingly, intractable. But people do sit out elections and if the Republicans don't put forth a dynamic candidate, Hillary could very well win by rallying her base while the opposition sulks. <br><br>Certainly, even far-left Democrats, who generally dislike Mrs. Clinton, would pull the lever in her direction the next time around. To elect another Republican would be unthinkable.<br><br>Republicans, however, are not so united. Many on the right are caught up in selective issues like abortion and gay marriage. If a candidate doesn't see things their way, they won't support that candidate, even if it's Hillary staring at them from across the divide.<br><br>There are two wild cards right now. If Iraq improves, the Democrats lose momentum on their big issue. So some Democrats are actually rooting against their own country in Iraq. That is dangerous territory, as the MoveOn.org blunder over General Petraeus demonstrated.<br><br>Also, the far left is totally out of control in this country, and a smart Republican candidate will tie those loons around the necks of Hillary or Barack Obama. Few Americans want to see Rosie O'Donnell and George Soros spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Separately, of course.<br><br>What the Democrats do have going for them is the general feeling that Republicans are out of touch and hypocritical. Believe me, Senator Larry Craig will find his way into some campaign ads, and it won't be pretty. But I think the presidential race will be much closer than many think. Senator Clinton has a penchant for not answering direct questions and avoiding the non-partisan media. Twice she was asked if the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad was appropriate. Twice she dodged the issue. I believe many voters will find her evasiveness off-putting.<br><br>In the end, unforeseen circumstances will dictate the election, and it will most likely come down to Florida and Ohio again. The Democrats have a powerful coalition of motivated black, Hispanic, and white liberal voters. The Republicans must turn out all their crew, as well as convince 60% of independent voters that Hillary will turn the country into a socialistic nightmare. That is a very tough task.<br><br>So Speaker Gingrich is correct in listing the Democrats as the favorites in this crucial upcoming election. But, for the moment, the smart money is holding out. Stuff can and will happen. Hillary shouldn't be buying that inaugural gown just yet.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-09-20T07:00:00ZCan Movies Kill?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Can-Movies-Kill/21915.html2007-09-13T07:00:00Z2007-09-13T07:00:00ZComing to a theatre near you this autumn—a slew of films critical of America. That's just great, isn't it? We have about 200,000 men and women presently in combat zones, and a bunch of far-left Hollywood loons want to denigrate the country.<br><br>Loon number one is Brian de Palma, who has directed films such as "The Untouchables" and "Scarface." His new movie, "Redacted," focuses on U.S. soldiers who rape an Iraqi woman and murder her family.<br><br>The film is based on a real-life event that has resulted in three soldiers being tried, convicted, and sent to prison for life. <br><br>Yet DePalma wants the world to see this horror in living color. He wants this for political reasons, as he freely admits. Speaking before journalists in Italy, DePalma said: "The movie is an attempt to bring to reality what's happening in Iraq to the American people ... the pictures are what will stop the war."<br><br>Here's how stupid that statement is: Overwhelmingly, American forces in Iraq have behaved with restraint and are trying to protect Iraqi civilians from terrorists who blow up women and children. That is the reality, pal. Your movie takes the exception and attempts to make it the rule.<br><br>Not only that, but "Redacted" will play around the world and may well incite young Muslim men, already steeped in hatred toward America and the west, to act on their hatred. If just one of those men straps on a bomb vest and murders people, that is on Brian DePalma.<br><br>My question is, why make a film like this? Most people will avoid it; who wants to see that kind of stuff? It definitely smears the military, and may even put our forces in physical danger. Why do this?<br><br>In the summer of 1942, the Office of War Information, set up by President Franklin Roosevelt, censored American films which depicted scenes that might be used as "enemy propaganda." Few in Hollywood objected to the so-called "Production Code."<br><br>The OWI even sent a manual to the movie studios suggesting they answer seven questions before any film was put into production. The first question was, "Will this picture help win the war?"<br><br>The liberal icon, FDR, understood that war is so gruesome and chaotic that no civilian population could absorb it visually and still remain upbeat and committed to victory. Imagine seeing live shots of the D-Day invasion or the horror of Iwo Jima.<br><br>Even during the Vietnam War, Hollywood did not examine the terrible conflict on film. It was only after the war had ended that you had movies like "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now."<br><br>But things have changed drastically in America. Today, it is chic among some in the entertainment industry to bash America and put it in a harsh light... even while Americans are dying overseas.<br><br>It's freedom of expression, they say. Well, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it right. <br><br>Fair-minded Americans should realize that in any war, mistakes will be made; horrifying things like Abu Ghraib will happen. These things need to be dealt with, but not exploited for political gain. The American military is doing important, noble work. Brian DePalma and the others who back him should be ashamed.<br><br>They are hurting their own country.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-09-13T07:00:00ZSubverting DemocracyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Subverting-Democracy/21795.html2007-09-06T07:00:00Z2007-09-06T07:00:00ZThe <em>Wall Street Journal</em> did a good job this week of exposing the vicious tactics of the far-left outfit "MoveOn." The story centers on Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, an ardent opponent of the Iraq war, who recently traveled to that hellish country and, surprisingly, came back saying that the "surge" is improving things there.<br><br>Well, MoveOn and its internet hit men immediately began damning Baird and even funded a TV commercial airing in his Washington State district aimed at getting him out of office.<br><br>As the Journal put it, "[MoveOn] doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats who dare think for themselves."<br><br>And MoveOn has largely succeeded. Few Democrats want to be defamed and attacked by an organization that has millions of dollars and no standards of honesty. MoveOn and its character assassins have infiltrated a variety of political websites and there are no rules.<br><br>The funding behind MoveOn comes from radical left-wing billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis, from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund which has assets of nearly $400 million, and from the ultra-liberal "Tides Foundation." MoveOn members also donate.<br><br>So the operation is awash in dollars and can buy attack advertisements all day long. Last year, Senator Joseph Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut largely because of MoveOn's blistering campaign against him.<br><br>The two party system in America has always been delicate, and I believe we need a vibrant third party to prevent just what is happening right now: The Democratic Party is being pulverized by far-left loons who are intimidating moderate Democrats and, in turn, imposing a radical agenda on the party.<br><br>It is hard to picture John F. Kennedy embracing extremism like this, but Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all seem to be fine with MoveOn and its tactics, which is frightening, to say the least.<br><br>Congressman Baird is the rare exception in today's political arena. You may disagree with his assessment of Iraq and his liberal voting record, but the guy has guts. He made an independent assessment of Iraq after he traveled there. He then came home and stated said assessment to his constituents. He did what elected officials are supposed to do—examine situations honestly. He does not deserve to be attacked by anyone.<br><br>There is nothing on the right that compares with the tactics used by MoveOn and the reach it has purchased. These people have co-opted fanatical left mainstream media people at the <em>New York Times</em> and NBC News, among others, and can get their propaganda spread quickly. The far-right has little, if any, access to the mainstream media.<br><br>So only a fool would dismiss the MoveOn outfit. Armed with tons of money and zero scruples, it is subverting democracy by creating fear in the political marketplace. When good men like Senator Lieberman and Congressman Baird become targets of hate and defamation—and their own party doesn't stick up for them—you know something is very wrong.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-09-06T07:00:00ZPolitics of DeathBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Politics-of-Death/21749.html2007-08-30T07:00:00Z2007-08-30T07:00:00ZThe eerie kabuki dance that is Iraq is about to enter a new phase where death is the only certainty. The Democratic party is hell-bent on pulling out of the desert killing fields, while the Bush administration is trying to buy time with an aggressive push against the murderous "insurgents."<br><br>Polls show that most Americans are sick of the entire mess and the left is capitalizing on the disenchantment. There is no question the war has been mismanaged and the Iraqi government is corrupt and cowardly. But the stakes in Iraq are enormous, and that point has been consistently hidden from the American public by a media that despises the Bush administration and is openly rooting for a Democratic president in 2008.<br><br>The cold truth is that Iran will dominate Iraq if the USA withdraws. That dominance will lead to increased terror activity against American interests not only in the Persian Gulf region, but also around the world. Iran's goal is to humiliate America and establish a powerful Shiite juggernaut that will target Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States itself. Using terror surrogates trained and armed inside Iraq, Iran will unleash them all over the world. Chaos doesn't even begin to cover it.<br><br>There is little difference between al-Qaeda and the Mullahs who call the shots in Iran. Both groups want to annihilate Westerners and Jews. This is not a secret. Iranian President Ahmadinejad delights in stating his homicidal urges every chance he gets. <br><br>But living in relative safety, many Americans simply don't want to hear it. It was the same thing in the late 1930s when millions of Americans didn't want any part of Hitler or Tojo. It was only after Pearl Harbor that the country rallied against the evil that threatened it.<br><br>9/11 was Pearl Harbor II, and for a time, Americans came together to fight the enemy. All of that evaporated, however, in the fog of confusion called Iraq. President Bush and his advisers truly believed the Iraqi people would choose freedom over carnage. They were wrong.<br><br>Yes, there are good, brave Iraqis, but not enough of them. Ancient tribal hatreds and terror-for-hire madmen rule the day. The United States military has performed magnificently. But no nation can impose order on a population that believes God requires them to murder people.<br><br>So what should be done in Iraq? A rapid U.S. pullout would likely result in massive death, as the various Muslims sects would try to obliterate each other. The cut-and-runners don't mention that very much, but the Democrats already have their talking points. If thousands are murdered after the Americans leave, it would be Bush's fault because he got us in there in the first place. <br><br>So it's a win-win for the left. They can claim they saved American lives by getting the military out, and if civilians are murdered as a result, they'll put it on Bush and the Republicans. The politics of death is alive and well.<br><br>Those of us bright enough to understand the big picture in Iraq know that the USA must keep a strong presence there, but cannot continue to support a corrupt government. So a new defensive strategy must be put in place. Protect Iraq against an Iranian incursion, but increasingly let the Iraqis manage their day-to-day problems. By next March, Americans will have sacrificed for five years in this place; that's more than enough time for the Iraqis to step up.<br><br>Finally, all Americans should listen very closely to what the presidential candidates say about Iraq. The next president will have to manage this problem, and if he or she makes a mistake, it could lead to worldwide catastrophe.<br><br>That's how intense this whole thing is.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-08-30T07:00:00ZHigh School Musical BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/High-School-Musical-Blues/21731.html2007-08-23T07:00:00Z2007-08-23T07:00:00ZThere is no doubt that some entertainment critics have glorified rap "artists" like Eminem, Snoop Dogg, and Ludacris. Twenty years ago, pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics would not have been embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash. But today, bring on perversity in the name of diversity. Anything goes.<br><br>The same thing can be said for these revolting torture movies. A number of critics believe they're just great—the more eye-gouging, the better. The director Eli Roth, whose sadistic films are beyond disturbing, is considered a genius in some quarters.<br><br>Thus, when wholesome movies like <em>High School Musical</em> and its sequel become big hits, there is cheering among many traditional Americans. But not among some critics.<br><br><em>Entertainment Weekly</em> magazine said <em>High School Musical 2</em> was "too simplistic." And writing in the <em>Chicago Tribune</em>, critic Maureen Ryan gently mocked the movie writing: "How strange and amazing that the most popular teen musical of our time features so little kissing. Honestly, <em>High School Musical</em> and its sequel make <em>Grease</em> look like <em>Caligula</em>."<br><br>So now I must break this to Ms. Ryan and <em>Entertainment Weekly</em>: These movies are not being viewed by high school kids—little children are watching them. "Simplistic" plays among 7-year-olds. Get a clue.<br><br>More than 17 million children and their parents watched the second installment of <em>High School Musical</em>, giving Disney an enormous money making machine. Even Caligula could figure this out: Many American parents are desperate for clean-cut entertainment for their kids. Kissing isn't an issue for most elementary school urchins; they just like singing and dancing minus the obscenities.<br><br>But that concept is unsettling among some liberal entertainment people. Richard Roeper, the film critic for the liberal <em>Chicago Sun-Times</em>, put out a column entitled "Disney Hit is No Victory for Right-Wing."<br><br>In said column, Mr. Roeper says that he doesn't believe critics would hammer <em>High School Musical</em> simply because it is wholesome. Roeper goes on to say that conservatives might distance themselves from the movie because it embraces "liberal" (his word) values like tolerance and interracial dating.<br><br>That's right, Richard, all those mean conservatives would never like anything tolerant, would they?<br><br>Here's what I believe, based upon more than thirty years of working in the media: Many critics are jaded and cynical. Most are extremely liberal. If the property is "edgy," anti-American, or over-the-top offensive, they will like it. If the writers of <em>High School Musical</em> had turned the dancing kids into flesh-eating zombies, the critics would have been wowed.<br><br>The sad truth is that if an entertainment project espouses traditional values, applauds the USA, or embraces religion, a good number of American critics will hoot at it, and demean those who find it worthy, sometimes even citing Caligula.<br><br>So here's my review of <em>High School Musical</em>. It makes little kids happy without encouraging stuff parents don't approve of, therefore it's a good show. <br><br>With apologies to decadent Roman emperors, that's the veritas.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-08-23T07:00:00ZThe Immigration InsurrectionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Immigration-Insurrection/21709.html2007-08-16T07:00:00Z2007-08-16T07:00:00ZAll around the country, certain cities are refusing to inform federal authorities about the activities of illegal aliens, even foreign nationals who commit crimes in their jurisdictions. This week the police department in New Haven, Connecticut issued a memo ordering officers not to cooperate with Homeland Security on enforce warrants for illegal immigrants. This follows New Haven's distribution of ID cards to illegals so they can access city services.<br><br>This, of course, is outrageous, and verges on anarchy. New Haven officials have violated Federal Statute 1373(a), and if Attorney General Gonzalez still has an office, he should prosecute them.<br><br>But he won't. And President Bush will remain mute as well. The President could urge Congress to cut off federal funding to New Haven and every other municipality that violates federal immigration law, but again, that will never happen. Every politician knows that calling for tough action against illegal immigration will bring accusations of bigotry.<br><br>The so-called "sanctuary city" policies of cities like New Haven, New York, Los Angeles, Houston and on and on have now become life and death issues, not simply ideological defiance. Let's take a look at what happened in the "sanctuary city" of Newark, New Jersey.<br><br>Jose Carranza, an illegal from Peru, was known on the streets as a very bad dude. Authorities knew it as well, because Carranza was charged with raping a 7-year-old girl and assaulting four adults.<br><br>Nevertheless, when Carranza appeared before Judge Thomas Vena on the child rape charge, Vena cut his bail in half, allowing Carranza to walk free. Ten months later, police say Carranza executed three college students in a Newark schoolyard by shooting them to death.<br><br>Because Newark is a "sanctuary city," no official notified Homeland Security (ICE) about Carranza. Had they done so, the feds could have detained Carranza the moment he walked out of Judge Vena's courtroom.<br><br>There are many villains in this dreadful story. If convicted, Carranza is obviously an animal. Judge Vena may have the deaths of three people on his conscience. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Newark officials are apparently fine with criminal aliens running around because they support the "sanctuary" policies.<br><br>Americans are rightfully confused as to how all of this can be happening. We have immigration laws in place, yet New Haven, Newark and scores of other places will not obey them. And nothing happens to the scofflaws. Following that logic, why should any law be obeyed?<br><br>The brutal truth is that three young Americans are dead in Newark because irresponsible politicians and a stupid judge would not protect them. Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal aliens, and the only thing that can stop the madness is a public outcry because our politicians are too cowardly to crackdown.<br><br>We the people have to demand action. But will we?BillOReilly.com Staff2007-08-16T07:00:00ZThe Bourne BuffooneryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Bourne-Buffoonery/21662.html2007-08-09T07:00:00Z2007-08-09T07:00:00ZWhen <em>The Simpsons Movie</em> turns out to be more realistic than <em>The Bourne Ultimatum</em>, you know something is up. Nevertheless, the thriller is a big hit, proving once again that film audiences now want live action cartoons rather than crisp realistic films like <em>The Ipcress File</em> or <em>The French Connection</em>.<br><br>For those of you not familiar with the Bourne series, Matt Damon plays a CIA agent who becomes involved in the "Program" (as in, "get with the"). This sinister plan results in Damon being brainwashed, making him a lean, mean killing machine with no personal memories. Thus, he can murder without conscience, kind of like what Hollywood producers often do to scripts.<br><br>Anyway, Damon runs around beating up four guys at a time and eluding authorities all over the world. However, he turns on the CIA, so they must kill him. But they can't, since Matt is Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery times ten. Plus, he has Julia Stiles helping him. No way the CIA has a chance.<br><br>I knew this movie was trouble when I read the reviews. Almost all the critics liked it. The only way American movie critics would like a violent car chase film like this was if it bashed the USA, which, of course, it does.<br><br>The CIA guys are bad, bad, bad. And just to make sure Indonesian and Pakistani audiences get the picture, the CIA chief issues his evil orders with the American flag clearly seen on his desk. No language barrier here, no sir. The U.S. intelligence agencies are fiendish enterprises, which want to hurt Matt Damon and actually force Julia Stiles to cut her own hair. How could they?<br><br>Actually, both Mr. Damon and Ms. Stiles don't have to do much acting. Damon does work for the far-left MoveOn organization and is on record as having requested the Bush daughters serve in Iraq. The actor also told the <em>Idaho Statesman</em> that the CIA's use of waterboarding is an erosion of our American values.<br><br>Guess what? There's a waterboarding scene in the flick. What a coincidence!<br><br>Julia Stiles is also down with the far-left. On a cable program she explained why she missed a MoveOn event by saying, "I was afraid that Bill O'Reilly would come with a shotgun at my front door and shoot me for being unpatriotic."<br><br>Look it up if you don't believe me.<br><br>In the Bourne movie there are no shotguns to frighten Julia, but plenty of automatic weapons fired at U.S. intelligence agents, not by al Qaeda, but by American Matt Damon. As the casualty count rose, I kept thinking about all those disability payments we taxpayers would have to pick up.<br><br>Now, all of this is harmless nonsense to those of us who understand the hero and villain business, and realize the simplistic bias that permeates Hollywood. But to impressionable audiences, the anti-American theme could resonate.<br><br>The director of the movie, Paul Greengrass, told the <em>Times</em> of London that he purposely tapped into the mistrust the world has of the USA. In my opinion, Mr. Greengrass has used his skills as a filmmaker to create a slick propaganda package that will make him millions of dollars. And standing between Mr. Greengrass and real life terrorists who would slit his throat are, of course, real life American intelligence people.<br><br>In the end, the America-haters will love <em>The Bourne Ultimatum</em> and apolitical others may enjoy the action and carnage. The movie is a perfect storm of misguided ideology, silly plotting, and absurd conclusions. In other words, it's a blockbuster.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-08-09T07:00:00ZTwisting in the WindBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Twisting-in-the-Wind/21650.html2007-08-02T07:00:00Z2007-08-02T07:00:00ZYo, have you heard of a rapper named "Twista?" As with many in the hip-hop industry, his chants are full of violence and ho, ho, ho's, with no connection to the Yule season. He liberally throws around the "N-word," which I believe the NAACP wants banned, and often mentions shooting people to death with guns. He's quite a fellow.<br><br>So, naturally, the McDonald's corporation, which features a clown as a pitchman and has installed playgrounds in front of many stores, hired "Twista" to appear on a promotional concert tour. But many people were not "lovin' it." They loudly protested the hiring so, after a few days, McDonald's fired the guy.<br><br>At first glance, this is no big deal. A major corporation makes a dopey decision and then wises up. Happens all the time. But looking deeper, there are some very troubling things in play here.<br><br>There is no question that McDonald's markets its food to families and younger people. "Twista" appeals to a young demographic, but his product is so disturbing that you have to wonder what kind of corporate executive could possibly think it would be appropriate for any mass market presentation.<br><br>But, sadly, some people do not think saying the "F-word" dozens of times in a three-minute recording is inappropriate. Nor do they see any harm in glorifying drug use or demeaning women. That attitude is a significant change in our country in the past few years.<br><br>Far more importantly, however, is the effect "Twista" and his fellow thug rappers are having on race relations. In the 1960s and '70s, when civil rights advancements were being made all over the country, black athletes and entertainers were almost all positive role models.<br><br>As a kid growing up in the all-white suburb of Levittown, New York, I loved baseball player Willie Mays and I couldn't get enough of the Motown sound. I bought every Temptations and Four Tops record as soon as I could.<br><br>So, when I heard some nasty stuff about blacks from Neanderthals in my neighborhood, I didn't get it. Willie Mays was terrific. Bill Russell was phenomenal. If you didn't like Aretha Franklin, there was something wrong with you.<br><br>I remember challenging the bias by asking, "You don't even know any black people. Why are you ripping them?" I never got a clear answer to that question from the anti-black constituency in Levittown.<br><br>In my estimation, the sports and musical success of black Americans back then greatly aided the fight for equality. I'm sure millions of American kids like me rejected bigotry because of what we saw in the media: blacks doing good things and adding fun to our lives.<br><br>But today if you turn on the music channels and even Black Entertainment Television, you see vile things. Does this combat or reinforce negative African-American stereotypes? You know the answer to that question.<br><br>So "Twista" and his twisted brethren may seem to be a minor annoyance but, in reality, they are negatively impacting the entire country. Their garbage helps no one. They don't deserve a break today. Or any other day.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-08-02T07:00:00ZThe Demise of Ward ChurchillBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Demise-of-Ward-Churchill/21634.html2007-07-26T07:00:00Z2007-07-26T07:00:00ZWell, it took two and a half years, but the University of Colorado finally axed the nutty professor. Ward Churchill has been fired for academic misconduct, including plagiarism. Despite those assertions, this was really about an out-of-control teacher earning nearly $100,000 a year saying things so foolish that no institute of learning could support them.<br><br>Imagine losing a loved one in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and then hearing a tenured professor of "Ethnic Studies" accuse your dead relative or friend of being "a little Eichmann," a Nazi. All because the murdered person worked in a capitalistic enterprise.<br><br>That statement from Churchill is the equivalent of a teacher denying the Holocaust happened, or saying that slavery wasn't evil. How could any school allow a teacher that misguided to instruct students? Talk about academic malpractice!<br><br>Predictably, the "free speech" corps rushed to defend Churchill's "opinion." The ACLU urged CU not to fire the man, and a bunch of other phonies screamed "academic freedom."<br><br>That must have amused old Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard. In January 2005, Summers publicly mused that maybe women were not as proficient in math and science as men because more males were employed in those disciplines.<br><br>Well, you would have thought that Summers had called women Nazis. The Harvard faculty pounded Summers into pudding, and he was forced to resign. The P.C. forces destroyed him with barely a peep from the "free speech" lobby. In fact, the ACLU's Women's Rights Project demanded that Summers rescind his remarks.<br><br>Now, please, can we put this ACLU thing to bed once and for all? This is a far-left advocacy group with no interest in anybody's speech they don't like. Yeah, once in a while they'll stick up for a non-liberal cause, but it's a contrived public relations move. You want free speech? The ACLU is a dishonest group that hides behind the First Amendment in order to promote a secular-progressive America. So sue me.<br><br>More free speech: Ward Churchill hates the United States and defamed innocent people brutally killed on 9/11. The charade of firing him took far too long. He's now suing, and that's fine. Even though he loathes this country, he's in love with the protections it affords him. What a guy.<br><br>This entire sordid episode demonstrates that fanatics on the left like Churchill have a built-in fan base in the media and in the corridors of higher education. The University of Colorado finally did the right thing, but did it the wrong way.<br><br>College professors may have cushier jobs than the rest of us, but they also have a responsibility to tell the truth. Most of those murdered in the World Trade Center were decent human beings just trying to do well by their families.<br><br>Churchill called them Nazis. For that he deserves to be shunned forever.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-07-26T07:00:00ZPumping Up OsamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pumping-Up-Osama/21620.html2007-07-19T07:00:00Z2007-07-19T07:00:00ZFor a guy thought to be sleeping in some shack in the middle of nowhere, Osama bin Laden is certainly a hot topic of discussion. A front-page headline in the <em>New York Times</em> this week blares: "Bush Advisers See a Failed Strategy Against al-Qaeda." Really? Do all the President's men believe that, after hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, Osama and his killers are prospering? Can that be possible?<br><br>Well, it depends on whom you're speaking with.<br><br>Despite the <em>Times</em> headline, White House spokesman Tony Snow told me that al-Qaeda's capability has been severely diminished in the last six years. But, of course, Snow would say that. So who are we to believe?<br><br>A new National Intelligence Estimate released by the White House says that al-Qaeda still poses a persistent threat to the United States, and that the primary operating branch of the terrorist outfit is now in Iraq.<br><br>The Bush administration thought that assessment might galvanize some Americans to support the President's surge to get the Iraqi al-Qaedas. But, in a nice piece of counter-spin, the left has used the White House's own intel to hammer it.<br><br>Thus, the <em>Times</em> analysis that President Bush has not only botched it in Iraq, but also has done little to diminish the overall threat from Osama's legions worldwide. So what used to be a Republican issue, aggressive action against terrorists, is now being framed by the left as a competency issue: Once again, Mr. Bush has failed.<br><br>For independent Americans, the chess game over al-Qaeda is interesting but ultimately frustrating as answering the key question is elusive. Is America winning the overall war on terror? The fog is so thick it is difficult to know.<br><br>The private intelligence outfit, Stratfor, scoffs at the <em>New York Times</em> and says, "Bin Laden is probably gone for good, and al-Qaeda lacks the ability to strike in any strategically meaningful way."<br><br>Stratfor contends that since 9/11, Osama and his pals have only been able to launch one major operation—the train bombing in Madrid. All the rest were done by freelance al-Qaeda wannabes.<br><br>And that seems to be the truth of the matter. Global terrorism committed by fanatics not formally attached to bin Laden, but using the al-Qaeda banner, remains a potent threat. However, the crazed jihadist himself continues to be incommunicado somewhere in the mountains of northwest Pakistan.<br><br>With that scenario in play, ideologues are free to pick their position. The right believes aggressive anti-measures have been effective and have prevented terror attacks on U.S. soil, while the left believes President Bush has made the terror threat worse by invading Iraq and failing to capture Osama.<br><br>My belief is that the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies have stepped it up and made a sophisticated terror operation in America much harder to accomplish. I also realize that "getting Osama" would involve invading Pakistan, a major escalation of war. I'd very much like to know if Barack Obama and the other Democratic Presidential contenders are in favor of doing that, since they are big on getting the big O.<br><br>In the end, it is a great disservice to all Americans to politicize the war on terror. I cannot say with certainty whether Osama and his thugs are truly gaining power. I only know that a divided America makes it easier for these savages to do so.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-07-19T07:00:00ZSocializing with SocialismBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Socializing-with-Socialism/21601.html2007-07-12T07:00:00Z2007-07-12T07:00:00ZNo question that the chaos in Iraq has emboldened the far-left in America.<br>They now have some momentum and are on the march not only over the war, but also about introducing a bit of socialism into mainstream America. <br><br>Socialism is loosely defined as government distribution of services and goods. In the wish fulfillment catalog of the far-left, that means the feds would, among other things, run the health care industry, control corporate behavior and profits, and provide significant entitlements to those Americans deemed to need them.<br><br>Since the federal government is even having trouble issuing passports to the folks this summer, I am not real optimistic about the feds making sure my health is top notch or instituting any other massive program. Call me crazy.<br><br>Right now the point man for socialized medicine is Michael Moore, whose new movie says Cuba is a great place for medical treatment. Unless, of course, you dissent from Fidel. Then you might not have to worry about medical treatment because you could be dead.<br><br>In the making of his movie, Moore took his cameras to Cuba but, alas, failed to mention that, according to The World Health Organization, the health system in the USA is better than in Fidel's socialist paradise. I'm sure Moore's oversight was accidental.<br><br>But far-left propaganda aside, national health care paid for by the taxpayers will be a big issue in the next presidential election. And it may get done. According to a recent Pew Research Center study, 69% of Americans believe the government should care for those who can't take care of themselves. Many in the survey believe health care is a basic human right.<br><br>Okay, but isn't nutritious food a basic human right as well? How about decent housing? And a dignified retirement for the elderly? And child care for working parents? The "rights" list is endless.<br><br>The statistics show that 15% of Americans lack medical insurance and some of those simply would rather buy a flat-screen TV than spend money on insuring their health. It is certainly true that medical costs are very high in this country and, I believe, there should be federal oversight of insurance companies to make sure Americans get what they pay for and are not dropped when they become ill. Also, there should be safety nets for citizens who simply are too poor to pay for medical care.<br><br>But the notion of the federal government as a nanny state is a frightening one. This isn't Sweden with eight million people. America, with 300 million citizens, is the most powerful nation on earth because of competition and individual achievement, not because of a benevolent and intrusive federal bureaucracy.<br><br>And if you don't believe that, take a tour of your nearest federally run Veteran's Hospital. Walk the halls and look around. And by all means, sample the Jell-O while you're there. Or better yet, wrap up the Jell-O and send it to Michael Moore. He needs a dose of reality.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-07-12T07:00:00ZAvoiding the JihadBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Avoiding-the-Jihad/21580.html2007-07-05T07:00:00Z2007-07-05T07:00:00ZAfter another terrorist incident last week, it is obvious that Great Britain is paying a huge price for allowing millions of Muslims to enter the country largely unsupervised. If those bombs had gone off in central London, scores might have been killed, and it was just luck the lethal cars were discovered before they blew.<br><br>Even though the British authorities have much more latitude to detain terror suspects than American police do, London remains a soft target. Muslims dominate entire neighborhoods and the jihadists can hide in plain sight, as there is plenty of sympathy for mass murderers among the true believers in London-istan.<br><br>Here in he United States, we don't seem to have the same kind of militancy among Muslim-Americans. Once in a while some Muslims are arrested for cooking up terror plots, but, to be fair, Muslims in the USA seem to be disgusted by their psychopathic brethren and are loathe to help them. <br><br>In fact, the biggest boost to the jihadists in America comes from the committed left-wing press. Most liberal politicians wouldn't dare downplay terror activity, but certain media will. The <em>New York Times</em> took a huge hit when it ran the recent JFK Airport terror plot story on page 37. Even the Times' own "Public Editor" said it was page one material. When the London stuff hit last weekend, the Times did put the story on page one.<br><br>However, a Times "analysis" piece written by Alan Cowell contained this gem: "[Prime Minister] Brown played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with [Tony] Blair's apocalyptic view of terrorism."<br><br>That's right, we can't be having any dim views of worldwide terror killings, can we? Ironically, the headline right below Cowell's analysis read: "Pakistan's Battles Against Islamic Militants Reach the Capital." <br><br>Elements at NBC News, which has become the most liberal of the three network news organizations, also attempted to diminish the London story. One NBC guest actually said this: "You have a non-event in London, and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the old hairy eyeball to every Muslim."<br><br>A non-event? Incredibly, that statement went unchallenged on NBC's air.<br><br>It is hard to believe that some American media put partisan politics above common sense and national security. The New York Times and NBC News know that any heightened fear of terror activity helps the Republicans. That's why they diminish the threats and concentrate on making America look like the bad guy in the war on terror.<br><br>That is infuriating. At this point, I don't really care what party wins the Presidency in 2008; I just want a realistic problem solver in the White House who recognizes the danger from the jihadists. The far-left wants to shut down virtually every anti-terror measure put in place by the Bush administration including Guantanamo, NSA overseas wiretaps, and CIA interrogations overseas. They also want to revoke the Patriot Act.<br><br>If that happens, more dead Americans are almost a certainty. I understand there are people in this world who do not want to acknowledge the murderous jihad and will not support aggressive action against it.<br><br>Those people are wrong and, more importantly, they are dangerous. Sorry, <em>New York Times</em> and NBC News, global terrorism is no "crime threat." It's war.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-07-05T07:00:00ZThe Summer of LoveBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Summer-of-Love/21563.html2007-06-28T07:00:00Z2007-06-28T07:00:00ZForty years ago the United States was a much more conservative place than it is today. Even though the civil rights movement had won some tough victories down south, and Vietnam dissension was heating up, most Americans were still tied to the traditional values of their parents. <br><br>For example, in my heavily ethnic neighborhood of Levittown, New York, if an unmarried girl got pregnant it was a huge scandal. Rarely was abortion even discussed because most of us were Catholic. The young girl usually got married to the father quickly and quietly. This happened to my cousin and two of my friends. An unwanted pregnancy was a major deal.<br><br>Drugs, also, were not acceptable. Addicts were shunned like lepers, and even marijuana was considered way out of bounds. In 1967, while some of my high school friends were drinking beer whenever they could, nobody in my crowd was even thinking about dope.<br><br>But out in San Francisco the "summer of love" was unfolding. Young people streamed into that city and congregated in the parks, where they were introduced to pot and hallucinogenic drugs by local dealers. According to a recent series of reports by the <em>San Francisco Chronicle</em>, thousands of young Americans spent the summer stoned and having sex with a variety of their compatriots. This led to an epidemic of overdose situations and social disease problems.<br><br>The press, however, did not concentrate on those negatives. Instead, the media immediately branded the summer of love crew as "hippies" and proclaimed the era of "flower power," thereby creating a glamorous subculture. The glorification and marketing of that subculture forty years ago swept the nation and remains with us today. <br><br>Almost immediately, the music industry hopped on the hippie bandwagon and rebellious, drug-addled pop stars soared up the charts. The names are now icons: Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison, Slick, Garcia, and so on. No question, the summer of love changed America's attitudes towards drugs, sex, and rock 'n roll. <br><br>The unintended consequences of that summer are staggering. Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison all died at age 27 from drug and/or alcohol activity. Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead lasted longer, but his heroin intake ultimately did him in. All told, the damage the drug scourge has done to America is incalculable.<br><br>But you'd never know that by the media, which generally continues to glorify our permissive culture. There's little mention that 70% of African-American babies are now born out-of-wedlock, while the overall birth rate outside of marriage has gone from eight percent 40 years ago to 37% today. Single mom homes, of course, are the major driver of poverty in America.<br><br>So, call me a fogy, but I'm not real nostalgic about the summer of love. I like the music it engendered, but you can have the acid trips and the poor hygiene. Certainly, love is a good thing in any season. But it must be accompanied by responsibility to truly flower.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-06-28T07:00:00ZBribing Bad ParentsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bribing-Bad-Parents/21541.html2007-06-21T07:00:00Z2007-06-21T07:00:00ZAs Michael Moore runs around the country telling everyone that America is horrible because it does not provide free health care, intelligent people understand that there are limits to what a free, capitalistic society can do. The founding fathers set up a system that heavily relied upon self-reliance and competition, with only a small dose of governmental intrusion. And that means some people are going to live irresponsibly. But unless they break the law, nobody can stop them.<br><br>A good example of this is bad parenting. Millions of American parents are just terrible, routinely abusing and neglecting their children. But unless the abuse is extreme, those children usually remain in the charge of bad parents. It is not against the law to be ignorant or inappropriate in front of your kid.<br><br>Now there is a move in New York City to bribe bad parents. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has set up an anti-poverty initiative, financed by private donations, including his own, that would pay bad parents to do things that good parents do without thought.<br><br>For example, if a parent takes a child to the dentist for a checkup, that parent would get $100 for each kid the dentist sees.<br><br>If a parent secures a library card for the child, that warrants a $50 payment.<br><br>Attending parent-teacher conferences, another $50.<br><br>The program would also give money to kids who perform well in school.<br><br>Under Bloomberg's initial offering, 13,000 poor families would be eligible to get the cash, which could add up to $6,000 a year.<br><br>There is no question this is a bribe. What kind of parent doesn't take his kid to the dentist or encourage the child to read? A bad parent, that's what kind. Is paying bad parents going to change their parenting? Probably not.<br><br>So why do it?<br><br>The reason is desperation. Take a look around; you can see troubled kids everywhere. And these children are likely to cause an enormous amount of damage to society in the coming years. If you can even get a small amount of normalcy into their lives, it's better than nothing.<br><br>In China, the totalitarian government tells parents how to raise their children and even how many kids they can have. If a child doesn't show up for school in Beijing, bad things will happen not only to the kid, but also to the parents. There is little truancy in China.<br><br>But here in the land of the free, chaotic homes are relatively safe from scrutiny. Again, unless there is violence or extreme deprivation against children, the government stays out of it.<br><br>I support Bloomberg's parental bribe program as long as it is privately funded. But I know it will fail in most cases. There will be fraud; there will be chaos in implementing the payments. But if it only helps a few children, then go ahead, because there is no other way. Poverty, crime, addiction, and social estrangement are all driven by adults whose parents let them down in childhood. Go to any prison or rehab center and ask.<br><br>Finally, most poor parents are good parents. And some rich parents are bad parents. This is not an economic issue in my opinion, even though the payments are directed at the poor.<br><br>Parents who abuse or neglect or corrupt or abandon their children are simply doing evil. There is nothing worse. And all the money in the world won't change that.<center><hr noshade width="75%" height="1"></center>I would like to correct the record. A few weeks ago I wrote that reporter Andrew Buncombe of the <em>Independent</em> neglected to tell his readers that Roger Ailes of Fox News was joking in a remark where the names Obama and Osama were used. In fact, Mr. Buncombe did mention the joke. My apologies to him.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-06-21T07:00:00ZFixing ImmigrationBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fixing-Immigration/21524.html2007-06-14T07:00:00Z2007-06-14T07:00:00ZHere in the New York City area, where I am writing this, there could be as many as a million illegal aliens living in the region. Nobody really knows the exact number because the local authorities don't ask--they don't want to know.<br><br>What the authorities do know is that the city's economy would collapse if all the illegals were rounded up and taken away.<br><br>And, certainly, the powers-that-be in New York, in California, and everywhere else illegal labor is embedded don't want disruption. I mean, who's gonna drive the cabs and clean the dishes?<br><br>It is important to understand that mentality in deciding what to think about the illegal immigration mess. Business in America is solidly behind the chaos, and so are many politicians, although they'd never admit it. That's why nothing has been done to solve the illegal immigration problem for more than 20 years.<br><br>But many regular folks are angry about the immigration crisis. Neighborhoods are different, crimes are committed by foreign nationals who shouldn't be here, press one for English on your telephone, and so on. We are all impacted by this colossal mess, but divided as to how to deal with it.<br><br>The hard line anti-immigration people want the illegals out. They broke the law, they must go.<br><br>Many liberal Americans want compassion. The illegals are poor, let them stay.<br><br>And the great middle watches the ping-pong game of charges and counter-charges. The result: nothing is getting done.<br><br>So here is my no spin immigration plan which, I believe, is fair and would be acceptable to most Americans.<br><br>First, the southern border must be protected by at least 700 miles of barrier, backed up by a doubling of the Border Patrol. To assist those federal agents, ten thousand National Guardsmen would be stationed near the border.<br><br>That would effectively close the border to smugglers of humans and drugs. If you oppose that strategy, you do not want a secure border. Period.<br><br>Second, all illegal aliens currently in the USA must register with Homeland Security at their local post office. If they do not register, they would be subject to immediate deportation. After processing by the feds, the aliens would then receive a tamper-proof identification card, allowing them to temporarily work here.<br><br>Third, any business hiring aliens who do not have the government-issued ID would be criminally charged.<br><br>Fourth, all registered illegal aliens would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Those deemed by federal authorities to be self-sufficient, law-abiding people would receive the so called "Z-visas," giving them resident status, but not automatic citizenship. That would have to be earned over a number of years by complying with a set of obligations including paying fines, back taxes, learning English, and staying employed.<br> <br>Any alien with a criminal record or who is unemployed would not be eligible for the Z-Visa.<br><br>That takes the blanket amnesty issue off the table and shifts responsibility to those who entered the USA illegally. They must prove they are responsible enough for citizenship.<br><br>Unfortunately, some on the left object to strenuous regulations for illegal aliens, but that point-of-view has no future. Most Americans, according the polls, will accept new compatriots provided the southern pipeline is shut down, and a fair penalty for illegal behavior is imposed.<br><br>My plan is just one page long, not 800 pages like the Senate madness. It can be done.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-06-14T07:00:00ZBeyond BeliefBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Beyond-Belief/21508.html2007-06-07T07:00:00Z2007-06-07T07:00:00ZAtheism is chic, it's cool, it's the latest craze. The book stores are chock full of authors declaring that "God is Not Great," that God is a "Delusion," that you are a moron if you believe in the Deity.<br><br>The secular press, of course, loves these books and the reviews are largely admirable. Some of the books are also selling very nicely, as it's been a long time since atheists had much to cheer about.<br><br>Polls show that about 90% of Americans believe in God, but that leaves 30 million folks who just say no to a higher power. If only one percent of that group buys a certain anti-God book, you have a bestseller.<br><br>But the atheist chic trend is not just on the page; Hollywood is involved as well. According to the book <em>Celebrities in Hell</em>, a number of big stars may be aligned with the universe, but not with the force that some believe created it.<br><br>The book quotes the following:<ul type="square"><li>George Clooney: "I don't believe in heaven or hell. I don't know if I believe in God."<li>Angelina Jolie: "There doesn't need to be a God for me."<li>Carrie Fisher: "I love the idea of God, but it's not stylistically in keeping with the way I function."</ul>Indeed. Believing in God is not very stylish in mainstream media circles these days.<br><br>The question then becomes, is there anything wrong with that? After all, we have freedom <em>from</em> religion in America; the Constitution makes it clear that no power in this country has the right to impose religion on anyone.<br><br>So the atheists have clear sailing, and I say: Thank God.<br><br>That's because people of faith should be challenged and think about their beliefs. Critical thinking in all areas makes the mind sharper, your philosophy stronger.<br><br>Thus, I was looking forward to debating the most successful of the atheist authors, Richard Dawkins, who wrote the bestseller <em>The God Delusion</em>. Dawkins basically says that science can explain everything on earth and no one has any direct evidence there is a God.<br><br>But I stopped him in the fourth round with this right hook: "[The earth] had to come from somewhere, and that is the leap of faith you guys (atheists) make—that it just somehow happened."<br><br>Dawkins replied: "You're the one who needs a leap of faith. The onus is on you to say why you believe in something ... you believe in, presumably, the Christian God Jesus."<br><br>"Jesus is a real guy," I said. "I know what he did. I'm not positive that Jesus is God, but I'm throwing in with him rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here."<br><br>"We're working on it," Dawkins said.<br><br>"When you get it," I shot back, "maybe I'll listen."<br><br>But the atheists will never get it. The universe and the earth is so complex, so incredibly detailed, that to believe an accidental evolutionary occurrence could have exclusively led to the nature/mankind situation we have now, is some stretch of the imagination. I mean, call me crazy, but the sun always comes up, while man oversleeps all the time.<br><br>So bless you, Richard Dawkins, and all the other non-believers. As long as they don't attack people of faith, I have no problem with them. As my eighth grade teacher Sister Martin once said, "Faith is a gift."<br><br>But not everybody gets to open the box.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-06-07T07:00:00ZHillary's OrdealBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hillarys-Ordeal/21485.html2007-05-31T07:00:00Z2007-05-31T07:00:00ZLike her or loathe her, you have to admit that there are plenty of thorns in Hillary Clinton's life. Now, two new books once again rehash Hillary's difficult marriage and cast doubt on her overall persona. It's not that the books are designed to humiliate the woman, but they do so just the same. I mean, who wants to have marital embarrassments discussed on national TV and radio over and over again? <br><br>So right now I'm going to do the Senator from New York a major favor and lay out a game plan that she should follow for the next eight months until the big primary blowout next February 5. If Mrs. Clinton follows my advice, her life will be much easier. If she doesn't, well, she's nuts.<br><br>First, the Senator should begin making herself available to the electronic media, with the request that personal issues not be brought up. She should make that condition public so that any media pinhead that violates the agreement will be seen as untrustworthy.<br><br>Hillary should calmly explain that all Americans are entitled to marital privacy, and just because she's running for President doesn't mean she has to tell you anything about her private life. In short, Mrs. Clinton should make this a privacy issue, because most Americans value privacy and understand the malicious intent that many in the media have toward people in power.<br><br>Second, Hillary Clinton should begin answering some direct questions about policy. Her avoidance of specifics bothers me far more than any of her past indiscretions. Is Senator Clinton a tough cookie who did some dastardly things? Sure. But I'll wager that every other Presidential candidate fits that description as well.<br><br>According to the polls, about 44% of registered voters will not vote for the Senator, no matter what. You could put Marilyn Manson up against her and those voters wouldn't change their minds. So Mrs. Clinton must convince the rest of us that she is a decent person with creative solutions to vexing problems like the jihad, Iraq, Iran, and health care.<br><br>The reason that it's easy to snip at Hillary is that she is invisible. A quick sound bite here, a fleeting glance there. If she really wants to be President, she has to become much more accessible to the folks.<br><br>I suspect that Hillary Clinton is mortified by all the attention her marriage continues to receive and does not know how to handle it. So once again, Senator, don't handle it. Just claim privacy. Period.<br><br>That being said, Hillary must stop the ivory tower routine. Her handlers are making a huge mistake if they think they can trot her out next fall to woo the voters. You need to let the folks get to know you now, because for years you've been defined as a Dragon Lady.<br><br>Like most Americans, I don't know Hillary Clinton. I met her once at a crowded event and we passed a few words, but nothing of substance. So maybe she is the Dragon Lady. Maybe she can't relate to the folks. I just don't know.<br><br>But I do know that Senator Clinton will never become President if the folks don't get to like her better than they do right now. The two new books aren't going to help Hillary, but if she makes a high profile effort to engage the public, the books will quickly pass from memory.<br><br>So that's my no spin advice, Senator. I don't care about your private life. But I do care about your problem solving ability. I also resent your absence from the fray. <br><br>Few will begrudge you your right to privacy in the marital arena. But most of us want the next President to be up-front and accessible. And at this point, Hillary Clinton, you're not.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-05-31T07:00:00ZWho Do You Believe?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Who-Do-You-Believe/21411.html2007-05-24T07:00:00Z2007-05-24T07:00:00ZEarlier this month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed his nation about his resignation. Blair, whose poll numbers are very low due primarily to Iraq, looked the camera straight in the eye and said that every decision he made while in office came from a sincere effort to do what was best for his country. Blair touched his heart when he said that. Watching him across the ocean, I believed Tony Blair.<br><br>That same evening, I stumbled across Jane Fonda on CNN, her second home. Ms. Fonda looked glassy-eyed as she rambled on about being in love--this time it was real, you know the drill.<br><br>I was about to switch off when Larry King abruptly changed the subject and asked Fonda about Iraq. The actress pursed her lips and launched into the "Bush lied" routine. Her thesis was that macho men got us into the war to bolster their manhood. She ended her diatribe by saying that all the leaders who supported Iraq were afraid of "premature evacuation."<br><br>Of course, Tony Blair is one of those leaders.<br><br>There is no question in my mind that President Bush had no plan "B" when the Iraqi people decided not to fight for their freedom after Saddam fell. That is the crux of the mess in Iraq. If the Iraqis had cooperated with America and Britain the way the Kuwaitis did when we liberated them after the first Gulf War, President Bush and Tony Blair would have been riding high. But the Iraqis did not.<br><br>Instead, many Iraqis embraced ancient hatreds and corruption, and some even cooperated with al-Qaeda. The ensuing chaos and death is heartbreaking to those of us who believe Iraq could be a free nation, if only the people had the will.<br><br>So the struggle in Iraq was a tactical failure on the part of the Bush administration and Tony Blair got caught up in it. But to Jane Fonda and the "blame America" first cadre, it's all about "lies."<br><br>The striking thing about comparing Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell <em>et al.</em> to Tony Blair is the demeanor factor. I mean, put your politics aside for a moment; who do you want to have dinner with--Blair or Fonda?<br><br>Growing up in Levittown, New York, there was always vigorous debate in the neighborhood over everything. In the sixth grade, I remember my class divided over Kennedy or Nixon. But nobody hated anybody. We all kicked it around and remained friends, which, of course, is the American way.<br><br>But gimlet-eyed Jane and her crew despise people with whom they disagree and routinely assign them sinister motives. And instead of being called on it, these far-left fanatics actually are accepted in many quarters and glorified in much of the media.<br><br>Well, I'm tired of it. Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, and the other irresponsible America haters should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, is there a rational person on earth who believes President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Secretary of State Colin Powell purposely lied to the world in order to remove Saddam Hussein? If you believe that, you need to see somebody.<br><br>Bottom line on this is that there are Americans who despise their country and, increasingly, they are becoming accepted. This makes me queasy. And that comes from the heart.<br><br>Let me ask you this simple question. If you could have dinner with Jane Fonda or Tony Blair, which one would you pick? If each told you something, which one would you tend to believe?BillOReilly.com Staff2007-05-24T07:00:00ZThe National PastimeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-National-Pastime/21263.html2007-05-17T07:00:00Z2007-05-17T07:00:00ZWith Barry Bonds closing in on the Major League Baseball home run record, the country really has to decide what the true national pastime really is: Baseball, or cheating.<br><br>There is no question that Mr. Bonds used chemical enhancements to pump up his body and his batting statistics. It really doesn't matter what the man took, it only matters that he did not achieve his statistical position naturally, as Hank Aaron did.<br><br>Thus, there should be no celebration marking the occasion of Mr. Bonds passing Mr. Aaron for hitting the most home runs in Major League history. The League should give Bonds the ball, let him take a bow, and that's it.<br><br>The truth is that Major League Baseball enabled Barry Bonds and others to play with performance-enhancing chemicals in their systems. The baseball commissioner, Bud Selig, knew what was going on but all those home runs were good for business so Selig, and the union representing the players, did nothing. Baseball's image will never be the same.<br><br>There are legions of apologists for Barry Bonds--Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa and the other chemical guys. But I don't want to hear it. Cheating is cheating. Mr. Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and other great baseball stars used their God-given abilities to achieve their records and earn their money. Their performances did not come out of a bottle.<br><br>But in present day America, many believe the end justifies the means, so success is success no matter how you get it. Young people especially are buying into this. According to a 2006 study by the Josephson Institute, 60% of American high school students have cheated on tests. Despite that number, 92% of the kids said they were satisfied with their personal ethics.<br><br>That "no remorse" stance is the key number. Do you think Barry Bonds is sorry he took chemicals? I don't. The man has made millions and is heavily lobbying to be recognized alongside the brave and honest Hank Aaron. Success for Bonds is all that matters.<br><br>Hank Aaron says he will not take part in any ceremony that includes Barry Bonds. Some may think that is small, but I think it's a courageous stand. There is no place in American life for achievement based upon deception. That is not what our competitive society is all about.<br><br>But I am most worried about young Americans, mostly male, who think the incredible bulk, Barry Bonds, is a cool guy, and so what if he took a few needles? It is obvious from the Josephson study that a culture of cheating is now firmly in place in the youth zone. A celebration of Bonds would simply reinforce that culture.<br><br>I don't want to be cruel to Mr. Bonds, who has been vilified for years. But he does not deserve respect, and he does not deserve applause.<br><br>He should tell everybody exactly how he pumped himself up, apologize profusely, and tour the nation telling kids not to do what he did.<br><br>Then Hank Aaron might be seen with him.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-05-17T07:00:00ZGetting HosedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Getting-Hosed/21222.html2007-05-10T07:00:00Z2007-05-10T07:00:00ZEvery time you gas up your vehicle and that hose locks into the tank, you, American person, are getting hosed. The energy scam we are presently experiencing is one smooth operation. This time the Arabs aren't raising prices on barrels of oil. This time it's not saber-rattling from Iran that is driving up the price of gas. No, this time the problems are in Whiting, Indiana and Norco, Louisiana.<br><br>There are oil refineries in both those towns, and they've had a few annoying problems. A little power outage here, a small fire there. And whenever the speculators hear of any problem in an American refinery, they bid the price of oil up. The oil companies see that and immediately tell your gas station guy to charge more.<br><br>There has not been a new oil refinery built in the United States since 1976. Conservatives say the environmental people are blocking construction. There is some truth to that, but the biggest problem in building more refineries is money. Big oil doesn't want to spend billions on a new facility because they are making record profits now, and alternative energies may be coming. The oil barons love the slow-downs in Whiting and Norco, especially when they occur at the start of the summer driving season. Let the profit party begin.<br><br>The free marketers hate me for telling you all this. They say it's a "supply and demand" issue. Sure. If you stifle the amount of gasoline refined when everybody wants to drive, yeah, that price is gonna go up. But is that a "free market?"<br><br>You, yourself, cannot get into the oil "bidness." It takes all kinds of government approvals every step of the way to market gas and oil. Believe me, "Lenny's One Stop Energy Emporium" is not going to happen. Subway is not going to be franchising oil refineries anytime soon.<br><br>It is beyond frightening that both Democratic and Republican administrations have not insisted more oil refineries be built. We, as a country, are totally dependent on gas and oil, and the economy will collapse if America doesn't have enough of these commodities. But the government has good reason not to impede oil prices: Taxes. The more you pay at the pump, the more money rolls into DC.<br><br>But, again, no refineries have been built in 31 years, while demand has increased about 31%, one percent a year.<br><br>Appeals for Americans to conserve energy are swell, but they won't work. We are an immediate gratification society. We want what we want, and if it's a Hummer, blank you if you don't like it.<br><br>The only way a catastrophe can be headed off is for Congress to get serious with the oil companies and demand they upgrade and expand refining capacity, and play fair on prices. If Congress does not do that, major pain is coming for America.<br><br>Besides terrorism, the energy squeeze is the story of our times. Remember, you read it here.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-05-10T07:00:00ZTo Protect and ServeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/To-Protect-and-Serve/21205.html2007-05-03T07:00:00Z2007-05-03T07:00:00ZWell, Virginia Beach folded. In the face of growing anger from its citizenry, the city announced it will stop its "sanctuary" policy of failing to inform federal authorities about criminal illegal aliens.<br><br>The back story here is brutal. On March 30, 17-year-old Alison Kunhardt and 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant were killed when illegal alien Alfredo Ramos slammed into their car. Ramos was drunk and had four previous beefs with the law, including a DUI conviction.<br><br>Yet, Virginia Beach Chief of Police Jake Jacocks told the press he had ordered his officers not to call Homeland Security Agents (ICE) about any "low-level" offenders because he, Jacocks, didn't believe it was his job to help the feds.<br><br>What?<br><br>It seems to me that every law enforcement officer should want as few criminals in town as possible. Since Ramos was here in the USA illegally, and was a consistent lawbreaker in Virginia Beach, the feds could have easily removed him from the area and sent him back to Mexico. Apparently, Jacocks had a problem with that.<br><br>But not any longer, at least in public. After my reporting battered the government of Virginia Beach, it has changed its dangerous and irresponsible policy. But Jacocks got in a last shot calling me, your humble correspondent, "pathetic."<br><br>But that was an improvement over what Denver Post columnist Joanne Ostrow called me after she saw my coverage of the Virginia Beach story. Ms. Ostrow called me "racist."<br><br>So why all the anger? Doesn't it make sense that any person who is in the country illegally in the first place be deported when convicted of committing a crime on American soil? I can't read minds, but there is something very strange going on inside the "pro-immigration" movement.<br><br>When President Ronald Reagan delivered citizenship to almost three million illegal aliens in 1986 through his "amnesty" program, the entire problem of people coming to America without proper credentials was supposed to have been solved. At the time, the Atlanta Journal editorialized that "it will help stem the tide of future illegal entrants."<br><br>The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post all rhapsodized that Reagan's vision would be great for America.<br><br>So now we have four times as many illegal aliens waiting for another amnesty, with more coming every hour of the day.<br><br>With emotions running high, the federal government, never a tower of courage, does not seem able to fix the chaos. Most Americans understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants simply want a better life and will work hard to get it. So I ask you, who wants to deny anyone a better life?<br><br>But by failing to institute standards of behavior in the immigration arena, the U.S. government puts us all at risk. There's no way on this earth that a four-time loser, in this country illegally, should have been driving around drunk. Didn't Allison and Tessa deserve to live? We have millions of Americans who drive around smashed--do we need to add to that number with insane "sanctuary" policies that protect criminal illegal aliens?<br><br>The power brokers in Virginia Beach were forced to do the right thing, but still don't believe they were ever wrong. How did things get so out of whack in America?BillOReilly.com Staff2007-05-03T07:00:00ZAdieu to RosieBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Adieu-to-Rosie/21150.html2007-04-26T07:00:00Z2007-04-26T07:00:00ZThree weeks ago in this space, I wrapped up my column on Rosie O'Donnell by stating, "Launching personal attacks on Donald Trump is one thing. Accusing your country of trumping up 9/11 and committing war crimes is quite something else. Rosie O'Donnell has cast her fate to an ill wind. Nothing good will come of it."<br><br>That piece of prognostication was easy, and when Rosie announced her exit from ABC this week, it was no surprise. As Ms. O'Donnell became increasingly unhinged on television and in public appearances, the Disney Company, which owns ABC, found itself in an impossible position. Disney has one of the most endearing images in corporate America, and one employee was ransacking that image. Anyone who knows anything about the corporate culture knew the iceberg collision was looming ever closer.<br><br>The ship really began listing after Ms. O'Donnell appeared at a chi-chi women's award luncheon and launched into an obscene tirade against Trump. Scores of corporate power brokers witnessed the embarrassing display, as did some teenage girls who were receiving college scholarships from the "Women in Communications" group. Despite strenuous spinning by Rosie's handlers, Disney realized that not even Peter Pan could fix this one.<br><br>The amazing thing is that Ms. O'Donnell lasted so long. Never in the history of American television has one performer alienated so many people. Rosie compared "radical" Christians to Muslim terrorists. Rosie announced that no American Catholic should be allowed to be a judge because of the Church's condemnation of abortion. Ms. O'Donnell accused President Bush of committing treason. The hits just kept on coming.<br><br>For those of us in the television industry, it was fascinating to watch. While Don Imus was figuratively burned at the stake, and Ann Coulter exiled from polite society for using a gay slur, Rosie kept rolling right along, with Fortune 500 companies paying her way.<br><br>The low point for me came when Ms. O'Donnell was defending Alec Baldwin. She looked into the camera and said that she, too, cursed at her kids. Almost in a panic, Barbara Walters said, "But you hug them afterwards."<br><br>Rosie quickly said she did.<br><br>The truly bizarre thing about the cursing statement was that some in the audience actually applauded when O'Donnell said it. I was stunned. I looked at the tape five times. What the deuce was going on?<br><br>Here's how I process all of this. Rosie O'Donnell is a far-left individual who has the sympathy of many who believe what she believes, including some in the mainstream press. Unlike Imus and Coulter, O'Donnell's anti-Bush, anti-conservative tirades were useful to the radical left. If O'Donnell's opinions could become mainstream, then other radical bomb throwers could get away with a lot more on the tube.<br><br>Thus, while Fox News and a few newspapers covered Rosie O'Donnell's wild adventure, most of the other media ignored it—the same media that had feasted on Imus and Ann Coulter.<br><br>In the end, the everyday folks got Rosie, although I do believe she isn't sad about leaving ABC. Ms. O'Donnell is a woman who wants 100% affirmation; dissent is not tolerated in her life. Disney knew that Barbara Walters and the company, itself, were both taking a public opinion beating and enough was enough. Rosie realized that Disney was no longer thrilled with her act and wanted out.<br><br>And so this columnist has reached oracle status, at least for this week. Say goodnight, Rosie.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-04-26T07:00:00ZIdeology and Virginia TechBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ideology-and-Virginia-Tech/21122.html2007-04-19T07:00:00Z2007-04-19T07:00:00ZVisiting Dublin last week, I was struck by how anti-American the Irish press is. I mean, Eire is not France; the Irish people generally like Americans--many of the Irish have family here.<br><br>But the reportage on America is shabby and sometimes downright dishonest. A reporter for the Irish Independent newspaper, for example, told readers that Fox News chief Roger Ailes had callously compared Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden. If you read the article, you'd think the company I work for assassinated Senator Obama's character.<br><br>What really happened, of course, is that Mr. Ailes made a joke about President Bush mixing up the names "Obama" and "Osama." The jibe was directed at the President.<br><br>The reporter, a guy named Buncombe, surely knew that, but distorted the truth to take a shot at what he believes is a "conservative" network. This kind of blatant dishonesty happens everyday in the world press, which is now picking up garbage from American radical-left websites and printing the propaganda as fact.<br><br>Last Friday, I appeared on Ireland's version of "The Tonight Show" and the host had scores of cue cards from "Media Matters," the far-left internet smear-factory.<br><br>When I asked the man why he was quoting from an obviously biased source, he blinked nervously and put down the cards.<br><br>There is no question that the anti-American media worldwide is now taking its cue from Americans themselves. After all, if our own citizens are portraying the USA as evil, why would the foreign press not pick up on it?<br><br>Here's another illustration. Just hours after the Virginia Tech killer did his evil deeds, the far-left websites began cranking up the hate.<br><br>On the Huffington Post, this missive appeared: "Bush pretends he cares about life. He has more blood on his hands than this guy [the Virginia Tech killer] or any other loser that senselessly kills."<br><br>That rant on Huffington had lots of competition, stuff like this: "Thirty-five innocent students have died because Republicans and George Bush were successful in using gun rights as a wedge issue."<br><br>Not to be outdone, the radical left Daily Kos posted this preposterous comment: "Compared to what the U.S. has unleashed in Iraq, this [the massacre] is pretty darn minor."<br><br>The day after those vicious postings appeared, the world press spit out waves of anti-American opinion. "Massacre in the Paradise of Weapons," blared a headline in the Buenos Aires <em>Pagina</em>.<br><br>"The United States should be looking at why these kinds of horrible crimes happen so often," offered Germany's <em>Der Spiegel</em>.<br><br>Excuse me, but it might be instructive for the Germans and Argentines to take a look at their own societies and histories. Those nations have a track record of, well, dubious policies (to say the least).<br><br>The sad truth is that, at this point in American history, much of the world has turned against us. We are the villains and only a more liberal governmental point-of-view can save us.<br><br>Deep inside his sanctuary somewhere in a remote part of the world, Osama bin Laden must be overcome with joy. Once again, the world is turning away from lethal evil and directing its hostility in the wrong direction.<br><br>It's the 1930's all over again. God help us.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-04-19T07:00:00ZImmigration AnarchyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Immigration-Anarchy/21102.html2007-04-12T07:00:00Z2007-04-12T07:00:00ZMy friend Geraldo Rivera and I had quite the verbal shootout the other day over the needless deaths of Allison Kunhardt, 17, and Tessa Tranchant, 16, in Virginia. 22-year-old Alfredo Ramos, an illegal alien from Mexico, killed the girls when he slammed into their car while drunk.<br><br>Ramos had three previous alcohol-related convictions and an identity theft beef as well. Despite all the criminal activity, the feds had no idea Ramos was even in the country because Virginia Beach is a "Sanctuary City" and its police chief, Alfred Jacocks, had ordered his officers not to ask about immigration status when dealing with most criminals.<br><br>Judge Colon Whitehurst didn't care that Ramos was illegal, either. He released him with only a $250 fine after Ramos pleaded guilty to a DUI, his fourth conviction. In some cities you pay that much if your car is towed. Oh yeah, Judge Whitehurst also suspended Ramos' drivers license even though he didn't have one.<br><br>The result of this incredibly irresponsible behavior on the part of Judge Whitehurst and the Virginia Beach authorities is that Allison and Tessa are dead.<br><br>My argument is that coddling criminal illegal aliens is unconscionable. Geraldo disagreed, saying the story was about drunk driving, not illegal immigration. I parried with a simple question: Is it okay with you that an illegal alien remains in the United States with four criminal convictions?<br><br>Geraldo did not answer that question.<br><br>There is no question in my mind that we now have anarchy regarding illegal immigration in this country. Our four most populous cities, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, all have "Sanctuary" policies in place, as do scores of other places. Thus, criminal aliens can avoid detection by Homeland Security in many parts of the nation.<br><br>This, of course, is insane. Think about it--the open border and blanket amnesty crowd are actually promoting a society where not only do we have to deal with American criminals, we have to accept the criminal behavior of foreign nationals as well.<br><br>A sane immigration policy would deport any illegal immigrant who committed any crime while in the USA. I understand that most undocumented workers are good people, and I believe in a fair guest worker program. I would even allow millions of illegal aliens to stay in this country while authorities investigated their situations. Pathway to citizenship? Sure, if undocumented workers are productive and law abiding, and prove that over a number of years. But there should be zero tolerance for criminal illegal<br>aliens. They have to go.<br><br>However, some Americans oppose that. Writing in the Denver Post, TV critic Joanne Ostrow accused me of using the deaths of Allison and Tessa to "spew racist bile."<br><br>This is the tactic that has many politicians cowering. If you oppose immigration chaos, you are a racist.<br><br>I wonder what the families of the two Denver police officers shot last year by a scofflaw illegal alien think about Ostrow's analysis? One of those policemen, Donald Young, died from his wounds.<br><br>Finally, I respect that Geraldo Rivera wants to protect people who are basically defenseless. But anarchy leads to death. The nearly 500 illegal aliens who died trying to cross American deserts last year were not done any favors by the "compassionate" crowd that looks the other way on immigration chaos. <br><br>America needs strong leadership to protect Allison, Tessa, the Denver cops, and those poor people dying in the desert. And we are not getting it.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-04-12T07:00:00ZThe Rosie FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Rosie-Factor/21085.html2007-04-05T07:00:00Z2007-04-05T07:00:00ZWith <em>Investor's Business Daily</em> crowning Rosie O'Donnell with the nickname "Tokyo Rosie" for bad-mouthing America, critical mass has been reached for the acerbic comedian. She has crossed the entertainment Rubicon into the dark land of bitter performers who have allowed personal demons to become their public messengers.<br><br>The list of these individuals include Morton Downey, Jr., Michael Richards, and, way back when, Lenny Bruce. Americans will tolerate a lot from eccentric show biz types, but hate-filled diatribes are almost always rejected and careers are put at risk if the entertainers continue to spew bile.<br><br>A few weeks ago, the Rosie-Trump show was good theatre and many Americans enjoyed the uncharitable joust. But it was nasty and personal and crude, not descriptions on which to build a r�sum�. However, both Ms. O'Donnell and Mr. Trump did receive major publicity, and while egos were bruised, there was no permanent damage.<br><br>But make no mistake, Ms. O'Donnell's snarling demeanor made a lasting impression on many people—a harsh impression. Now her image may be damaged beyond repair.<br><br>The problem is that Rosie O'Donnell is accusing her own country of heinous things. She has embraced the insane theory that 9/11 was an "inside job." She has apparently bought into the notion that elements inside the USA killed Americans on that terrible day. This kind of garbage is peddled on the internet by America haters, and has been debunked step-by-step by <em>Popular Mechanics</em> magazine, which has actually published a book on the subject.<br><br>Ms. O'Donnell then took up Iran's cause. After the 15 British service people were kidnapped by the Iranians, Rosie told her audience on ABC that the British government had set up the situation in conjunction with the USA. The intent, according to the comedian, was to start a war with Iran. This crackpot analysis is anything but funny.<br><br>Armed with propaganda and dangerous with passion, Rosie O'Donnell has turned a morning coffee klatch TV program into al-Jazeera West. Where once <em>The View</em> dealt with menopause and shopping tips, the program now routinely assassinates the characters of anyone Ms. O'Donnell finds objectionable. The forum is mean-spirited, foolish, and demeaning.<br><br>But it is the America bashing that has done Ms. O'Donnell in. She will tell you it is the Bush administration that she loathes, but that distinction is often lost on an audience barraged with her hostile, radical left rhetoric. It is hard to believe, for example, that a Jewish person in the world is comfortable with O'Donnell's sympathy for Iran. <br><br>The Disney Corporation, which owns ABC, has an enormous problem on its hands. If it fires O'Donnell, the left will attack the company on free speech grounds. If Disney allows the morning madness to continue, conservative and traditional Americans may well hold the company and its advertisers responsible.<br><br>After the Trump brouhaha, ratings for <em>The View</em> declined drastically, although they are still up year-to-year. But now with the 9/11 conspiracy and sympathy for Iran in play, it may be just a matter of time before the bottom drops out of the program.<br><br>Launching personal attacks on Donald Trump is one thing. Accusing your country of trumping up 9/11, and committing war crimes is quite something else. Rosie O'Donnell has cast her fate to an ill wind. Nothing good will come of this.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-04-05T07:00:00ZTony SnowBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Tony-Snow/21061.html2007-03-29T07:00:00Z2007-03-29T07:00:00ZMy friend Tony Snow is once again fighting for his life, his cancer having returned. You may remember the White House press secretary underwent six months of chemotherapy after cancer was found in his colon two years ago. His mother died of cancer and Tony was very aggressive in treating his condition.<br><br>Now cancer lesions have spread to his liver and Tony Snow is once again facing a painful struggle to defeat the disease. But if anyone can beat the beast down, it's Snow. He is a courageous guy.<br><br>I worked with Tony Snow at the Fox News Channel and I often gave him jazz for the button-down conservative views he put forth as an analyst. "Snow," I would bellow on the air, "where's Dick Cheney hiding?" Stuff like that. Snow would give it right back to me with a wry smile. Even die-hard liberals liked the guy's style. He has charisma.<br><br>Tony Snow was perhaps President Bush's best hire. One of the reasons I cut the Bush administration some slack is that Snow answers my questions on and off the record. And if Tony Snow tells me something, I can bank it. He doesn't lie or mislead, ever.<br><br>Tony Snow would never work for people who "lied" to get us into a war for "oil." He would never defend policies that he deemed dishonest or harmful to Americans. He has three young children, a smart wife, and a loyal extended family. He loves them as he loves his country, with passion and selflessness. <br><br>So, I believe what Snow tells me and I believe he's looking out for all Americans. There is no question the Bush administration has failed in Iraq. Snow knows it but has not given up, unlike many Americans. He believes, and I do too, that America tried to do a noble thing in Iraq, but the religious and social hatred that envelopes that country has prevented victory.<br><br>When I examine the other side, the Bush-haters and far-left zealots, I compare them to Tony Snow. If I'm in a foxhole, if my life depends on another person, do I want Snow or Howard Dean?<br><br>I think you know the answer.<br><br>I truly wish I could do something for Tony Snow and for Elizabeth Edwards, for that matter. But there's little to be done. Cancer took my father as I sat there powerless. It takes millions of people.<br><br>But Tony Snow will fight hard with dignity and faith. During his first go-around, I often talked to him during his strenuous treatment and rehab. Never once did he mention pain or his ordeal. He was always optimistic and directed the conversation outside himself.<br><br>There is no explaining life. Tony Snow is a good man who does good things all the time. By all accounts, Elizabeth Edwards is a good woman. Both are now in battles beyond their control for reasons no one knows.<br><br>But I do know one thing. Tony Snow makes this country a better place. He deserves your prayers and respect.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-03-29T07:00:00ZHigh on CompassionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/High-on-Compassion/21040.html2007-03-22T07:00:00Z2007-03-22T07:00:00ZIt seemed like a good idea at the time: The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which allowed Californians to use marijuana with a doctor's permission to alleviate pain. The act was put on the ballot and California voters passed it 56% to 44%.<br><br>The biggest bankroller of the referendum was George Soros, the secular-progressive billionaire who champions drug legalization. He pumped about $350,000 into pro-med-pot ads, according to published reports.<br><br>Since the act was passed into law, thousands of pot "clinics" have opened across the Golden State. In San Francisco, things got so out of control that Mayor Gavin Newsom, a very liberal guy, had to close many of the "clinics" because drug addicts were clustering around them, causing fear among city residents.<br><br>In San Diego, there's another problem. Some high school kids have found a loophole in the Compassionate Use Act. Incredibly, there is no age requirement to secure medical marijuana in California and no physical examination needed either. So some kids tell a doctor they have a headache, pay him $150 for a card, and then buy all the pot they want. Unbelievable, but true.<br><br>Catherine Martin, a school official in San Diego, actually sent letters to parents in the Grossmont Union School District warning that some students are getting the medical marijuana cards and then selling them to other students. The result: an increasing number of kids arriving at school stoned. Ms. Martin warned parents to supervise their children. <br><br>San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told me that some "clinics" are even marketing medical marijuana under names like "Reefers Peanut Butter Cup" and "Baby Jane." Cheech and Chong would be proud.<br><br>Now, I'm sure George Soros doesn't give a hoot about this, but the unintended consequence of non-prescription medical marijuana legalization is that some kids are making an industry out of it. Sure, pot is available illegally in most places, but now children have a legal option. Why work at Burger King when you can sell pot cards?<br><br>Of course, there is nothing "compassionate" about kids being intoxicated. It changes them forever. Once a child alters himself with chemicals, childhood vanishes. A national study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse says more teenagers are in rehab for marijuana than any other intoxicant, including alcohol.<br><br>Society needs to rethink its strategy on intoxicants in general. If marijuana can help those suffering with debilitating diseases, then doctors should have the power to prescribe it and licensed pharmacies should carry it.<br><br>But storefront "clinics" run by irresponsible adults who are aided by corrupt doctors are a joke only a confirmed stoner would find funny.<br><br>Bottom line: Be careful what you vote for. Compassion can easily turn into chaos.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-03-22T07:00:00ZThe Illegal Immigration TangoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Illegal-Immigration-Tango/21026.html2007-03-15T07:00:00Z2007-03-15T07:00:00ZIt was fascinating to watch the tango between President Bush and Presidente Felipe Calderon in the Yucatan a few days ago. Mr. Bush pledged to try to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform, while Se�or Calderon put forth that America needs to "do more" for Mexico.<br><br>Okay, so what are these guys really saying?<br><br>First of all, President Bush has no heart for the immigration fight. As the former Governor of Texas, he well understands the myriad of problems chaotic illegal immigration has caused. But Mr. Bush, I believe, sincerely believes that most migrants are honest, hard working folks who simply want a better life. He also calculates that tough action against illegals will ultimately cost the Republican party crucial votes, because the pro-alien lobby demonizes politicians who try to crack down.<br><br>For his part, Presidente Calderon claims he wants to stem the flow of immigrants and narcotics into the USA, but it's baloney. Calderon actually told the truth when he said that because millions of Americans want drugs, the supply would continue to flow through Mexico.<br><br>South of the border, this immigration/narcotics deal is all about money, and we're talking billions of dollars. The cash illegals send home to Mexico and the narco-trafficante dollars fuel Mexico's entire economy, with only oil competing.<br><br>The old saying is "where there's a will, there's a way." But there's little will in the USA to get illegal immigration under control. Right now there are at least 37 so called "Sanctuary Cities" ranging from Anchorage, Alaska to Katy, Texas. These are municipalities that have flat out told the Homeland Security department they will not cooperate with any investigations into the status of illegal workers.<br><br>In New York, for example, many officials look the other way while immigrants, both legal and illegal, pack into dwellings, organize into criminal gangs and generally do whatever they want. On Long Island, where I live, 60 men were living in one suburban house. When Suffolk Country authorities finally responded to desperate complaints from neighbors, the newspaper Newsday went wild, calling attempts to control the illegal situation "anti-immigration mania."<br><br>The unintended consequence of all this chaos is, unfortunately, death. Last year, 453 people died while trying to cross into the USA illegally--all of them victims of the deserts or criminals preying upon them. <br><br>Recently, in the Bronx, nine children were killed in a horrific fire after a row house ignited into flames. I have the floor plan of that dwelling. It was designed to house eight people at most. Seventeen children and five adults from Mali were living there with no fire escapes, bad heating, and no sprinkler system. Sanctuary isn't much good if the shelter is lethal.<br><br>A mixture of political cowardice, idealistic nonsense, and corrupting cash has resulted in a crisis that is hurting just about everyone but the businesspeople who exploit the illegals. And judging by the performances of Presidents Bush and Calderon, I don't see real reform on the horizon.<br><br>The USA needs to secure the border with barriers and the National Guard, develop a fair, disciplined guest worker program that serves legitimate business needs, and require all illegal aliens already here to register so they can be evaluated as potential citizens.<br><br>Mexico needs to police its border and stop the drug runners and poor migrants from doing whatever they want to do. <br><br>Both countries could accomplish those things, there is a way. But, truthfully, there's no will.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-03-15T07:00:00ZSan Francisco Values: The SequelBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/San-Francisco-Values:-The-Sequel/21008.html2007-03-08T08:00:00Z2007-03-08T08:00:00ZA couple of weeks ago in San Francisco, the following proclamation was issued: "Be it resolved that I, Gavin Newsom, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, congratulate Colt Studios on the occasion of their (sic) 40th anniversary and proclaim February 23, 2007 as Colt Studio Day in San Francisco!"<br><br>That evening the Colt folks held a big party in the City by the Bay, attended by State Assemblyman Mark Leno and other local dignitaries.<br><br>There is, however, one small problem with all this, and it is spelled out on the Colt website, which states: "Come inside to experience the hottest man-on-man action!"<br><br>Somehow, I don't think they're talking about the World Wrestling Association here.<br><br>No, Colt Studios is a major gay porn outfit that markets hard core films all over the world. There are many movies available including the "legendary bodies series - the pinnacle of masculine erotica."<br><br>So the logical question becomes why, exactly, does Colt Studios rate a "day" in San Francisco? I put that to Mayor Newsom who said he didn't really know about the proclamation. Somebody in his office just signed his name without telling him, according to the Mayor. In the future, he said, he'd "review" the proclamations himself.<br><br>Might be a good idea.<br><br>But Assemblyman Leno was aghast that I would ask about this. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that "the owners of the studio are taxpaying, law-abiding San Francisco employers who promote safe sex."<br><br>Leno went on to tell the newspaper that the Colt "products" had "contributed to his development as a gay man."<br><br>This, of course, is the same Mark Leno who torpedoed tough legislation to punish child molesters. The good folks in California had to put a referendum on the ballot in order to pass "Jessica's Law" because Leno and his cronies blocked it in the legislature.<br><br>Mark Leno also had no problem with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passing an ordinance banning military recruiting in city schools. Nor did he object to the supervisors passing a resolution condemning a Christian youth rally at AT&T Park, the home of the Giants. The Supervisors called the rally "anti-gay and anti-choice."<br><br>When my book <em>Culture Warrior</em> was released last fall, a number of critics put forth that I exaggerated the agenda of the secular-progressive (S-P) movement. On the basis of what's happening in San Francisco, I was na�ve. The S-P's are crazier then I thought.<br><br>I mean, think about it. Even if you believe, as I do, that adults should be able to consume so-called "adult entertainment" without government intrusion, don't children live in San Francisco these days? "Hey, Louie, the mayor just said it's gay porn day. Do we have to go to school?"<br><br>San Francisco is one of America's great urban showplaces, but the city has been hijacked by radical politicians who are destroying it. Mayor Newsom is in alcohol rehab after having an affair with his best friend's wife, the homeless situation is out of control because the city gives everybody cash, and now these loons are honoring pornographers.<br><br>What's next? Barry Bonds steroids day?BillOReilly.com Staff2007-03-08T08:00:00ZA Journalistic Cover-UpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Journalistic-Cover-Up/20996.html2007-03-01T08:00:00Z2007-03-01T08:00:00ZIn the summer of 2003, Operation Predator was launched by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. The investigation has targeted individuals who make and consume child pornography worldwide. Because much of this stuff is manufactured overseas and shipped to America, ICE agents took the lead in tracking down the bad guys in the USA.<br><br>In case you don't know, child pornography features children from infants on up, being raped in a variety of ways by adults. It is expensive to purchase and, because of the Internet, the distribution of this evil material has become easy. Have a credit card, you can get it.<br><br>According to ICE agents, one of those who used a credit card to purchase child porn is attorney Charles Rust-Tierney, the former President of the American Civil Liberties Union in Virginia. Tierney was arrested and charged on February 23rd.<br><br>Tierney apparently told the feds that he paid for the child porn using a PayPal account and then downloaded images of prepubescent girls being violently raped onto CD-ROM disks, which the authorities seized in his home.<br><br>One of the images Tierney was in possession of showed a little girl tied up and screaming while being violently raped.<br><br>This shocking case received little media attention even though Tierney, 51, is a well known figure in the Washington, DC area and strenuously fought against limits on internet access in libraries.<br><br>On December 1, 1998, Tierney issued this statement: "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."<br><br>And included among those "resources" is child porn. The ACLU in Virginia successfully blocked any filtering of objectionable material in Loudon County libraries.<br><br>This is off the chart disturbing, and you would think the media would be all over it. When Ted Haggard was scandalized by a male prostitute in Colorado, the media relentlessly hammered the preacher. He deserved much of it, but the coverage was everywhere.<br><br>How many of you have heard of Charles Rust-Tierney?<br><br>The only major liberal news organization to cover the story was the Washington Post. It ran a small mention of it in the second section of the paper, essentially burying the situation. The New York Times ignored the story entirely. So did NBC News, CBS News, and CNN. ABC News mentioned it on its website.<br><br>There is no question that an ACLU big shot who fought against library filters being busted on federal child porn charges is a big story. So what's going on?<br><br>The truth is the committed left press in America is no longer interested in reporting the news. Anything that hinders a favorable view of the far left will be ignored; anything that advances liberal causes will be celebrated. News reporting today is largely about ideology and shaping the culture, not about informing the public.<br><br>This is dangerous. The Constitution gives the news media a wide variety of protections because the Founding Fathers wanted information to get to the folks. So answer me this: Did the media do its job covering the case of Charles Rust-Tierney?<br><br>It did not. Another example of the downward spiral of American journalism. The New York Times masthead says "All the News That's Fit to Print."<br><br>Sure.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-03-01T08:00:00ZDisrespecting JessicaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Disrespecting-Jessica/20979.html2007-02-22T08:00:00Z2007-02-22T08:00:00ZThe national media won't tell you, but in Miami right now, a man named John Couey is on trial for brutally killing a 9-year-old girl named Jessica Lunsford. Couey, a convicted sex offender, kidnapped Jessica out of her modest Florida home, brought her to a trailer, sexually abused her, and then buried her alive. When authorities found her body, she was clutching a stuffed dolphin.<br><br>Because of that heinous act, the state of Florida passed "Jessica's Law," which mandates that a first-time conviction for felony sexual battery on a child will result in a 25 years-to-life prison sentence. No plea bargain, no parole, no nutty judge dispensing light punishment. You do it once—you're gone.<br><br>In the past three years, 41 out of 50 states have passed a version of Jessica's Law, but there is still powerful opposition to it. Many trial lawyers object because they want the ability to plea bargain. Some judges dissent because their egos are bruised. They are taken out of the equation after a child predator is convicted. And many in the left-wing media object to Jessica's Law on the grounds that it is cruel and unusual punishment; these people want rehabilitation for violent sexual offenders who brutalize children.<br><br>Let's deal with the rehab situation first. In our system of justice, the punishment must fit the crime. If you rape or sexually brutalize a child, that child will never fully recover. For the rest of that person's life, the crime will be played out in a variety of ways. Thus, the punishment must be the forfeiture of freedom for much of the abuser's life. That's punishment fitting the crime.<br><br>The defense lawyers simply should be ashamed. Crimes against children are the worst crimes. There's no way lawyers should be bartering the suffering of kids. Again, society has no obligation to rehab or to be lenient with sexual predators, especially when they brutalize children.<br><br>In the case of Jessica Lunsford, John Couey told police he did it. He wrote me a letter stating that he had help in brutalizing the child. Yet his three "roommates" were never charged by a cowardly district attorney named Brad King. And a judge threw out Couey's confession because of a Miranda violation.<br><br>I have no doubt the despicable Couey will be convicted in the Miami courtroom. But you won't hear much about it from the New York Times or the Washington Post or the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. That's because these papers continue to look away from the horror of child sexual abuse. It doesn't fit into their "restorative justice" philosophy, where the criminal as well as the victim must be "healed."<br><br>Finally, cowardly politicians in states like Vermont, Massachusetts, and Colorado, among others, have succeeded in blocking Jessica's Law. In the Colorado legislature, all six Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee voted against allowing Jessica's Law to come to the floor for a full vote. The same six Democrats voted against forcing sexual offenders to register online so that people would know who is addressing them on the Internet. The names of the Democrats in Colorado who voted against protecting children are Terrance Carroll, Mike Cerbo, Andy Kerr, Rosemary Marshall, Claire Levy, and Morgan Carroll. These individuals are misguided and their actions will lead to more children being brutalized.<br><br>Americans of all political persuasions must rise up and demand that their representatives protect the children. No plea bargaining on this one. You vote against Jessica's Law, you're hurting the kids.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-02-22T08:00:00ZIt's the Christian Thing to DoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-the-Christian-Thing-to-Do/20901.html2007-02-15T08:00:00Z2007-02-15T08:00:00ZImagine, if you will, a presidential candidate hiring David Duke to work the Internet for him or her. Mr. Duke, an avowed anti-black, anti-Jewish provocateur, spews out hate pretty much everywhere he goes. Recently, he showed up in Iran to deny the Holocaust.<br><br>Any American politician who associated with the likes of Duke would be finished immediately; there's no question about that.<br><br>Yet former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards apparently felt comfortable hiring two anti-Christian bloggers named Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan to work on his campaign. Both women have a far-left, bomb-throwing history that was vividly illustrated on their respective Internet sites.<br><br>But let's give Edwards the benefit of the doubt because he's a busy guy. Let's say he wasn't aware of the vitriol the ladies were spitting out, and this led to the hiring mistake.<br><br>Fair so far? Now comes the crusher. The Catholic League informed Edwards that Ms. Marcotte wrote a description of Mary, the mother of Jesus, having sex with the "Lord" on her website. It was a vile piece of business that can't even be printed in this newspaper.<br><br>And what did John Edwards do? He said he "disagreed" with Marcotte's words, but would not fire her or Ms. McEwan, who wrote on her blog that Christian believers were "mother-f---ers."<br><br>I couldn't believe it. So I had my TV producers call Edwards and ask his Chief of Staff what was going on. Neither Edwards nor anybody in his campaign would talk to us about the issue.<br><br>So I went on TV and told the country exactly what I have just told you. Within minutes of the broadcast, the Edwards campaign got rid of Marcotte. McEwan left the next day.<br><br>So how could John Edwards be so stupid? I asked that question to Jane Fleming, the President of the Young Democrats Association. Ms. Fleming replied that the bloggers didn't really do anything wrong, although she also "disagreed" with them. I then asked her if she would hire a person who said vile things about blacks. She said no. So why is it okay to say vile things about Christians?<br><br>Ms. Fleming had no answer to that question, but I do. In the far-left, Christian-bashing is totally acceptable and rarely are any consequences imposed. The only reason these two women are not working for John Edwards right now is that he didn't want to take the heat my program was giving him.<br><br>This entire shoddy episode has badly damaged Edwards, in my opinion, but it also points out that American culture, especially in the swampy blogosphere, is extremely tolerant of Christian-haters. Again, this could never have happened to any other religious or minority group.<br><br>To me, all bigotry is unacceptable in a just society. You can criticize any group on the issues, but using obscenity and sacrilege to demean perceived opponents should be condemned in no uncertain terms.<br> <br>Even by John Edwards.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-02-15T08:00:00ZThe Perils of ObamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Perils-of-Obama/20879.html2007-02-08T08:00:00Z2007-02-08T08:00:00ZSenator Barack Obama seems to be a nice guy; I won't say he's "articulate," because some African-Americans hear that word and take offense. In fact, I won't give the Senator any compliments other than the nice guy description, just to be on the safe side.<br><br>Is there any question that we are living in an age of hypersensitivity? Some of that, of course, is justified. When Senator Joe Biden described Obama as "clean," it was a verbal disaster—adjectival Armageddon. "Clean?" As opposed to what? <br><br>Some whites thought the reaction to Biden's remark was overblown, but consider this: If someone described me, an Irish-American, as a "sober thinker," surely most Irish folks would raise a collective eyebrow.<br><br>But when President Bush said Senator Obama was articulate, I'll confess to thinking he was giving the guy a genuine compliment. I mean, who knew some African-Americans would find the "a" word offensive? Many of us are still confused.<br><br>According to some columnists, if you label a black person "articulate," you are implying that other blacks are not. You are expressing surprise that an African-American can actually speak English well. And that's condescending, is it not? <br><br>Well, I guess it could be. But Mr. Bush's tone wasn't condescending at all. So I chalk this one up to mild paranoia and/or a victimization play.<br><br>Many of us know people of all races who are professional victims. They see slights everywhere. The world is against them, and if you live in the world, so are you. These people are tough to deal with. Anything you say to them can and will be used against you.<br><br>Few want to deal with this victim mentality and that's the danger in this "articulate" controversy. I know some white people who don't know what to say to black Americans, so they completely disengage. They don't want to offend, and they don't really understand the "rules," so they play it very cautious.<br><br>This is not a good thing for America. All responsible citizens should be trying to break down racial and religious barriers and work together. But, believe me, there is fear in the marketplace—fear along racial lines.<br><br>None of this, of course, is Barack Obama's fault, but he may suffer because of it. On January 17th, a Rasmussen poll had him tied among Democrats with Hillary Clinton in the presidential sweepstakes. Two weeks later, Obama was behind Hillary by 14 points in the same poll.<br><br>It is speculation, but all this word controversy stuff can't be helping Senator Obama. For any candidate to be elected to high office, there has to be a certain comfort level with the folks. I don't know about you, but the articulation thing wasn't comfortable for me.<br><br>The solution here is for honorable people to give other people the benefit of the doubt. Senator Biden made a mistake, but it was not born from malice. President Bush simply did nothing wrong. We have enough problems in this country without creating phantom annoyances. And that's about as articulate as I can be.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-02-08T08:00:00ZWhy They Dislike HillaryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Why-They-Dislike-Hillary/20846.html2007-02-01T08:00:00Z2007-02-01T08:00:00ZA few days ago on television, I asked why Senator Hillary Clinton would put herself through two years of personal attacks in her quest to be President. Is it ambition, a thirst for power, or a belief that she can help Americans in unique ways?<br><br>There is no question that Mrs. Clinton will be viciously attacked in every way imaginable. The stuff thrown at her will be malicious and unrelenting, designed to humiliate her and break her spirit. I said I felt sorry for the Senator, just as I feel sympathy for what President Bush is now going through.<br><br>Well, the mail poured in. Some of the letters vilified me for being "soft" on Hillary Clinton. There was more than a little hate contained in those missives, and I'm curious about it. What is it about Senator Clinton that causes so much animosity?<br><br>Statistically, about half the country doesn't like Hillary Clinton. Both a Fox News poll and and ABC News/Washington Post poll say the same thing: 44% of Americans disapprove of Senator Clinton. That is a very strong negative for any politician, particularly one that wants to be President.<br><br>But, again, why? Why do so many folks despise this woman?<br><br>I put that question to my radio audience and the phone lines jammed up. From Alaska to Miami, the beefs rolled in. But in the end, they all fit into three separate categories.<br><br>First, many women don't like Hillary because they believe she made a deal with her husband. That is, she'd stand by him and ignore his infidelities in return for his help in her political life. The ladies who called me did not like that alleged deal at all.<br><br>Second, many men objected to her leftist ideology. They see the Senator as a big government, limousine liberal who lives large herself, but wants to impose high taxation on those who are achieving in America.<br><br>And finally, some of the callers see Hillary as a cold, calculating woman with a sense of entitlement. There was anger that she rarely sits for tough interviews and speaks in generalities about important subjects like the war on terror.<br><br>On one level, I understand all of those opinions but they don't rise, at least for me, to the hatred level. I reserve that territory for true villains like Saddam and Fidel Castro. But there is no question that hatred towards some American politicians like President Bush and Hillary Clinton is becoming an obsession for some people. An unhealthy obsession, in my opinion.<br><br>Much of this bitterness can be laid at the doorstep of an increasingly ideological and irresponsible mainstream media which reports rumor, propaganda, and outright slander on a regular basis. Talk radio also fuels resentments. So does the Internet and cable TV. Unfortunately, many people believe what they read and hear, especially if it fits their political disposition. Thus, it is easy to demonize people these days; it is easy to sell loathing.<br><br>This, of course, hurts America because many decent, brilliant people will not enter the brutal world of elective politics. For those who do, there will be pain. But to some, like Hillary Clinton, the sought-after gain is apparently worth it.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-02-01T08:00:00ZAl and the OscarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Al-and-the-Oscar/20834.html2007-01-25T08:00:00Z2007-01-25T08:00:00ZAnd the winner is... Al Gore for "An Inconvenient Truth!"<br><br>Take it to the bank--Al Gore's film will win the Academy Award for Best Documentary and high-fives will be flying in Hollywood; George Clooney may even break dance in the aisle.<br><br>Mr. Gore's warning about global warming and the consequences thereof is in competition with four other films: One about wild and crazy Christian kids at "Jesus Camp," another dealing with the Catholic church-pedophilia scandal, and two more about the chaos in Iraq. Gore wins without breaking a sweat, no pun intended.<br><br>But did you notice that all five of the nominated documentaries have left or secular themes? In general, conservatives are not rallying to Gore's hypothesis that fossil fuels are damaging the planet, although the right should keep an open mind on that strong possibility.<br><br>The two anti-Christian films are devastating. Writing in <em>Variety</em>, Ronnie Scheib says this about "Jesus Camp": "[The film] may shock viewers, especially liberals, when it shows children speaking in tongues, their faces glowing in ecstasy and tears running down their cheeks."<br><br>And Robert Koehler's review of "Deliver Us from Evil" opines, "It's hard to imagine even devout Catholics coming away from the film without a sense of rage at a religion that appears to value members of the priesthood over the well-being of children."<br><br>Of course, the priest-pedophilia scandal has nothing to do with the Catholic "religion." Theology played no part in it. The scandal happened because evil men working inside the Catholic Church did evil things. When Richard Nixon and his henchmen disgraced America, no sane person could blame it on the Constitution. It's the same thing with the Catholic scandal.<br><br>There is no question that Hollywood continues to pour out product designed to promote a secular society and boost liberal political positions. And the entertainment industry is a powerful colossus. Millions worldwide closely follow the attitudes and themes Hollywood puts forth.<br><br>So in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I challenge Hollywood to produce to following documentaries this year.<br><ul><li><b>"Tiller the Baby Killer."</b> A documentary profiling Kansas abortionist George Tiller who, for $5,000, will abort a fetus up until birth.<br><br><li><b>"The Streets of San Francisco."</b> A look at the thousands of homeless people, many addicted, who have flocked to the City by the Bay for free money and other perks the city bestows on them.<br><br><li><b>"Fidel Camp."</b> This film chronicles the plight of thousands of "subversives" who are or have been incarcerated in dungeons because Fidel Castro doesn't like them. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Maybe Oliver Stone could direct this.<br><br><li><b>"The Kyoto Blues."</b> An honest look at the Kyoto Protocol which, in order to blunt pollution, would require major economic changes in the USA, but would allow massive pollution to continue in China and India. Is Al Gore available to narrate?<br><br><li><b>"NBC and Me."</b> A peek inside a once proud network news organization that now promotes a leftwing agenda on a daily basis. I'd like Whoopi Goldberg to voice over this one.</ul>These are all high concept, ready-to-roll subjects that are just waiting for some talented people in Hollywood to take them on. What say you, Steven Spielberg?BillOReilly.com Staff2007-01-25T08:00:00ZVermont's ShameBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Vermonts-Shame/20818.html2007-01-18T08:00:00Z2007-01-18T08:00:00ZOnce again, the State of Vermont has let a vicious child molester off lightly, and once again a child's life has become a political cover up.<br><br>Bennington County, Vermont is a pretty, touristy area which is supposed to be relatively crime free. But 37-year-old Andrew James is a known troublemaker, a man convicted of a violent felony—attacking his wife with a screwdriver in front of his own small children. For that, James served 30 days in jail.<br><br>But then James upped the criminal ante and molested a 4-year-old boy. After cutting a deal with prosecutor Andrew Costello, James pleaded guilty and Judge David Howard sentenced him to probation and mandatory "treatment," which means this monster is walking around free right now.<br><br>In the spring of 2006, the little boy told his aunt that he was afraid of Andrew James, who lived very close to him. The aunt investigated and found out that James was molesting the boy in a terrible way. The police were called and, according to the affidavit in the case, the boy told social worker Kyle Hoover and police Officer Paul McGanns that James had molested him ten times. The boy pointed to anatomically correct drawings to describe his ordeal.<br><br>After examining the situation, prosecutor Costello came to the conclusion that the boy would be a weak witness and cut the deal. But Costello also had the social worker, the cop, the aunt, and the boy's older brother to back up the 4-year-old's account. Yes, it was a circumstantial case. But with James' violent background, a decent prosecutor takes the shot in court.<br><br>Vermont is one of two states that practices "restorative justice," Minnesota being the other. That philosophy says for true justice to take place, the criminal as well as the victim must be "healed." Restorative justice states that a "holistic" approach to crime is best for society.<br><br>Of course, the U.S. code of justice states that the punishment must fit the crime. Allowing a brutal child molester to walk free while getting "treatment" is certainly not punishment enough for traumatizing a 4-year-old perhaps for life.<br><br>Last year, Vermont Judge Edward Cashman initially sentenced a man who sodomized a six-year-old girl over a four-year period to just 60 days in jail. The ensuing national outcry forced Cashman to up the sentence to three years. Still, far too lenient.<br><br>Vermont's elected officials and media supported Cashman, and now have once again rallied to support Judge Howard. They have also attacked me for reporting this awful situation to you. Shortly after Cashman's abomination last year, the Vermont legislature had a chance to pass Jessica's Law—tough mandatory prison terms for child predators. The legislature voted down Jessica's Law.<br><br>There is no excuse for what is happening in Vermont. Its Senators Patrick Leahy (ironically, the head of the Judiciary Committee), Bernie Sanders, and its Governor, Jim Douglas, have all run away from the situation. Meantime, children in their state continue to be brutalized with relatively small consequences for the predators.<br><br>America is a great country, but this situation shames us all. Every society is judged by how it protects its weakest citizens. In Vermont, an innocent 4-year-old boy and an innocent 6-year-old girl have been violated in unspeakable ways.<br><br>And not just by their predators.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-01-18T08:00:00ZThe Future of IraqBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Future-of-Iraq/20790.html2007-01-11T08:00:00Z2007-01-11T08:00:00ZIt is my contention that no matter what happens in Iraq in the future, the world press will spin it negatively as long as President Bush is in the White House. Quite simply, most of the media believes the Iraq conflict is a disaster and even if things were to improve there, the media now has a vested interest in America's failure. Thus, honest assessments about the war in Iraq will be hard to come by.<br><br>I'll back up my belief by pointing to two facts. First, the <em>New York Times</em> summed up President Bush's speech on Iraq this way: "There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq." That doesn't leave the <em>Times</em> much wiggle room, does it?<br><br>And second, the execution of Saddam: We now know that the Bush administration asked the Iraqi government to postpone the hanging by two weeks, at least. The Iraqis said no and demanded the dictator be handed over. The President complied.<br><br>The Iraqis then totally botched the execution and the long knives came out. The American press pounded the Bush administration for being incompetent once again. NBC's Tom Brokaw called the execution a "wild west hanging," and flat out said it would lead to more violence in Iraq.<br><br>Well, so far violence levels have not risen and while Mr. Brokaw is certainly entitled to his opinion on the wild west front, I can only wonder what the anti-Bush press would have said if the USA had not handed Saddam over to the Iraqis. The likely headline would have been something like "Bush Insults the Iraqi Justice System." The articles and punditry would have emphasized that America was usurping Iraqi authority.<br><br>At this point, Mr. Bush cannot win in Iraq, no matter what he does. If he tries to pull victory out of chaos by sending in more troops, the press condemns him as delusional. If he were to draw down troops and the violence ramped up, then the press would hammer him for losing the war and creating more instability in the Middle East.<br><br>President Bush must be wondering where it all went wrong. After the fall of Saddam, it looked like America had followed up its victory in Afghanistan with another triumph. The President was in tall cotton, as they say in Texas.<br><br>But Iraq soon went south, and here is the reason why.<br><br>The President and his advisors counted on the Iraqi people to work together in forming a democracy. Obviously, that did not happen. The powerful Mullahs who pretty much control entire neighborhoods saw an opportunity to kill their ancestral enemies. Al Sadr became Al Capone.<br><br>With that situation unchecked, al Qaeda and Iran exploited the violence by inciting more of it. As Iran trained killers and manufactured bombs, America took casualties. When al Qaeda blew up a Shiite mosque, the U.S. command could do little more than sweep up the wreckage.<br><br>And so the violent chaos grew and the Bush administration's vision of a vibrant Iraqi society cooperating with the West against terrorism dissolved in cloud of desert dust.<br><br>So now the President is giving Iraq one more chance to fight for its freedom. He will be vilified for doing it. But he should do it. Iraq is that important.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-01-11T08:00:00ZA Free Press? In Your DreamsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Free-Press-In-Your-Dreams/20775.html2007-01-04T08:00:00Z2007-01-04T08:00:00ZHere are two entertainment predictions for 2007 that you can immediately take to the bank. First, Al Gore's global warming documentary <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em> will win an Oscar, and second, the Dixie Chicks will win a Grammy for their latest album.<br><br>Everybody in the entertainment industry knows the truth of what I'm predicting, but few of them would find it inconvenient. And here's another truism: The media defines American culture and those doing the defining are almost all liberal or far-left individuals.<br><br>As Hyman Roth once asked Al Pacino in <em>Godfather II</em>, "What does that tell you, Michael?"<br><br>It tells me the fix is in.<br><br>For months, my research staff has attempted to find one television critic writing for a major American newspaper who is a conservative thinker. They could not find one. Scores of TV writers are registered Democrats—we can't find a single registered Republican.<br><br>The same is true for film reviewers. As far as we can tell, only syndicated movie critic Michael Medved is a conservative thinker. Nearly every other writer analyzing film has left-wing credentials. <br><br>Same thing with book review editors; likewise for music critics. The field of popular culture in America is not even close to being level. It drains to the left all day, everyday.<br><br>Want more? One company, Reed Business Information, owns the leading media trade publications <em>Variety</em>, <em>Publisher's Weekly</em>, <em>Broadcasting and Cable</em>, and <em>Wireless Week</em>. That company is run by Tad Smith, a far-left true believer who is a big donor to people like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton.<br><br>And Mr. Smith has a perfect right to put his money where his mind is. He also has a right to hire editors who reflect his very liberal beliefs. And he does.<br><br>Thus, lefty projects put out by Michael Moore, Al Gore, the Dixie Chicks and scores of others generally receive fawning reviews in the trades and newspapers. Don't even ask about the relatively few conservative entertainment projects.<br><br>Well, if you have to ask, contact Patricia Heaton who played the wife on <em>Everybody Loves Raymond</em>. Ms. Heaton is pro-life, and some in Hollywood deeply resent her for it. If the actress were a liberal activist, I believe, her employment situation would be much easier. <br><br>The question, of course, is why should you care? Most Americans don't read trade journals or listen to pinhead critics. Well-educated people who have come by their political beliefs honestly will not be affected by media propaganda or unfairness.<br><br>Unfortunately, the pool of well-informed, clear thinking Americans is shrinking and the rise of ideological popular culture is beginning to influence the debate. Entertainers like Jon Stewart, David Letterman, and Stephen Colbert have become purveyors of information for many young Americans. Also, the pronounced left-wing media "group think" inhibits dissenting points of view. The result is that many "secular-progressives" are considered heroes in the press. And the dreaded "neo-cons" are certainly the villains.<br><br>This situation has a major influence on the discourse in America, and things are getting out of hand. Almost every major pop culture magazine tilts left. The network news broadcasts tilt left. Hollywood is a bastion of far-left thought. The teacher's unions are far-left. The nation's universities are dominated by liberal, activist instructors.<br><br>Despite all that, most Americans remain traditional in their thinking and all the polls say conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by a healthy margin. But that situation can and probably will change in the very near future. <br><br>Perhaps Al Gore might want to make a documentary about that.BillOReilly.com Staff2007-01-04T08:00:00ZOde to '06BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ode-to-06/20765.html2006-12-28T08:00:00Z2006-12-28T08:00:00ZIt was a lively year in every way<br>With American voters having their say,<br>The ballots were cast - the count was quite fast<br>The Democrats ruling the day<br><br>Mr. Bush was confident he'd win<br>But the polls said his ear was pure tin,<br>He didn't back down - and watched his guys drown<br>Takin' it straight on the Presidential chin<br><br>Iraq was the main driving force<br>Americans not staying the course,<br>The Shia and Sunni - the whole thing is looney<br>Brutality lacking remorse<br><br>Dick Cheney shot his friend in the head<br>Our noggins not compatible with lead,<br>While Dick wasn't tellin' - the media was yellin'<br>Something certainly needed to be said<br><br>Iran remains a very dark cloud<br>It's leader constantly saying it aloud,<br>Israel must go - Americans should know<br>The Persians will never be cowed<br><br>Back home machines are the rage<br>With computers replacing the page,<br>Little reading last year- with IPODS in ear<br>Are Blackberries becoming a cage?<br><br>TV news ratings continue to drop<br>But American Idol had plenty of pop,<br>The war on terror is boring - so that show is soaring<br>One wonders when all this will stop<br><br>Media gossip was also big stuff<br>With Paris and Britney and fluff<br>Undergarments went missing - even before they were kissing<br>The word for this display is simply "enough."<br><br>Of more importance is campaign '08<br>Much better to run early than late,<br>While Hillary's a mama - her competition's Obama<br>The outcome's a matter of fate<br><br>So in essence the year was confusing<br>In Iraq are we winning or losing?<br>Only time will due tell - what will become of that hell<br>No matter how many continue their musing<br><br>My wish is a peaceful new year<br>One lacking in violence and fear,<br>The one thing I'm sayin' - is for that I'll be prayin'<br>Let's hope that serenity is near.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-12-28T08:00:00ZIraq Up CloseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Iraq-Up-Close/20747.html2006-12-21T08:00:00Z2006-12-21T08:00:00ZBAGHDAD — There is a Christmas tree inside Saddam's big palace at Camp Victory on the outskirts of this beleaguered city, and there is also a Menorah. I bet Saddam loves that. An actual Rabbi from New Jersey, on assignment to the Army, sang at the Menorah lighting. I kind of wish Saddam could have been there with me to see it.<br><br>The rest of Camp Victory is full of American soldiers and support personnel. They eat well, have access to computers so they can email home, and morale is pretty high for being in a country as chaotic and violent as Iraq.<br><br>I have traveled to this country for one reason only: To say thank you to the men and women serving in this dangerous theatre. No matter what one thinks of the war, a clear-thinking person has to respect the sacrifice these Americans are making.<br><br>With Fox News and CNN available 24/7, the troops know full well that many Americans have turned against the war and that much of the media does not support the mission in general. But, amazingly, the soldiers and Marines I talked with, which numbered in the hundreds, were confident their presence in Iraq was necessary and noble. Well, good for them.<br><br>Because of American forces, millions of Kurds are free in northern Iraq, and that area is prospering. Likewise, some provinces in the southern part of the country are relatively calm and Saddam's reign of terror is a distant memory.<br><br>But new terror lurks, and that is the reality of post-Saddam Iraq. Muslim killers of all stripes are causing daily death and destruction, and U.S. forces are trying to stop them. In a perfect world, all decent people would be supporting that effort. But, as everyone knows, this is far from a perfect world.<br><br>So American and British troops shoulder a tremendous burden and carry on, waiting for their civilian leaders to figure out what to do in an unbelievably complex and dangerous situation.<br><br>At four o'clock on a Saturday morning, I sat watching the Dallas Cowboys-Atlanta Falcons game with a lone Marine. We could have been in any living room in the USA. The plasma TV was glowing, we both had chips and drinks, and the game was dramatically close.<br><br>The only thing different about the situation was that, occasionally, the announcer's voice was interrupted by distant gunfire. The Marine didn't seem to notice but I did. In my world, distant gunfire is an issue. In his world, it is the norm.<br><br>No one knows how the conflict in Iraq will turn out, but I can tell you this: The U.S. military are the good guys. Despite Abu Ghraib, the crimes at Haditha, and a few other bad occurrences, American forces are fighting the good fight, trying to bring freedom to people who have never experienced it and may not even appreciate the effort.<br><br>A warrior's credo is to do his duty with honor and courage. I can report with certainty that U.S. forces are doing that in Iraq. They deserve nothing but our prayers and admiration.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-12-21T08:00:00Z'Tis The SeasonBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Tis-The-Season/20724.html2006-12-14T08:00:00Z2006-12-14T08:00:00ZWell, the Supreme Court punted. The justices were supposed to decide weeks ago whether or not to hear a blatant example of anti-Christian bias in New York City. But still no decision.<br><br>The case concerns a policy by the New York City public schools to allow displays of the Star and Crescent flag for Ramadan and the Menorah for Hanukkah, but to ban the Nativity scene at Christmas time. The decision makes no legal sense, as the federal courts have previously ruled that so-called "religious" displays can appear on public property, as long as there is no preference given to one religion over another.<br><br>As one of the lead players in defending the traditions of Christmas in the public arena, I must say that I am tired of it all. It's just so dumb. There is no need to deny students a Nativity display. Don't they get enough bad stuff? How about some nice stuff? I mean, how threatening and offensive can a baby, two loving parents, and three wise men really be?<br><br>All the polls say that most Americans believe as I do: That the traditional signs of Christmas are a good thing. So leave them alone, okay?<br><br>The Supreme Court, of course, could have made things a lot easier by taking the case, discussing it for ten minutes, then ruling that New York City school officials are crazy. Would that be so hard to do? <br><br>But no, the Supreme Court justices are now on their <em>Christmas</em> break, and have left the country adrift once again. The anti-Christmas forces are still clinging to the bogus separation of church and state argument that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner.<br><br>The good news is that despite the cowardice of many public officials and the anti-Christian bias of many in the media, the forces of Christmas cheer are winning in America. Most retail stores are saying "Merry Christmas" again, and the ACLU can't stop them.<br><br>Again, all of this is so stupid it hurts. With so much strife and evil in the world, why can't we have a celebration that honors a baby who grew up to espouse "love your neighbor as yourself?" So what if it has spiritual overtones? Why can't we introduce children to Judeo-Christian philosophy in a joyful way? Everything about Christmas is positive except the commercialism. And even that can be beneficial if resources are redirected to the poor.<br><br>Here's the bottom line: If you're offended by Christmas, you have a problem. See somebody or tough it out. But enough with the petty nonsense. When Christmas images have to be decided by the Supreme Court, you know things are out of control. <br><br>So give Jesus a break, enjoy the season no matter how you celebrate it, and be thankful you live in a country where the philosophy of peace on earth, good will toward all people is honored with a federal holiday.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-12-14T08:00:00ZStudying IraqBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Studying-Iraq/20706.html2006-12-07T08:00:00Z2006-12-07T08:00:00ZReaction to the Iraq Study Group report has ranged from hysterical to depressing. Right-wing newspapers and commentators are tending to dismiss the report as a surrender document, compiled by frightened bureaucrats who do not understand war or the stakes in Iraq.<br><br>The left-wing media is actually giddy, using the report to bash their least favorite guy: President Bush. Of course, both positions do not do Americans much good because they are based on emotion, and not what's most beneficial to the country.<br><br>Let me give you a few examples. <em>New York Times</em> columnist Thomas Friedman, who is often incisive in his analysis, actually said on the radio that the Iraqi insurgents have defeated the U.S. Army.<br><br>That statement is completely absurd. It would be like saying the IRA defeated the British Army in Northern Ireland, or Hamas has defeated the Israeli Army in Gaza.<br><br>No military organization on the face of the earth can stop thugs from bombing and murdering civilians. The truth is the U.S. military has kept Iraq together and functioning for nearly four years. Mr. Friedman's assertion is irresponsible.<br><br>Likewise, basing your opinion of Iraq on hope is irresponsible. At this point, the evidence says the Iraqi people are not willing to make the sacrifices needed to defeat the anti-democratic forces. Hoping that will change is not a strategy, particularly when Americans are dying. President Bush's responsibility in this area is two-fold—first, to give the military the best chance to succeed, and second, to define the consequences of failure.<br><br>The most important accomplishment of the Iraq Study Group is that it has created a sense of urgency. Surely, the new Iraqi government now realizes that the presence of the United States and Britain are not guaranteed. The massive amount of corruption and duplicity in Iraq must be dealt with by the government, or it will perish. The poobahs in Baghdad have been put on notice.<br><br>In America, the Study Group's findings have been used by the usual partisans in the usual ways. NBC News, which has taken a pronounced turn to the left, led the way by focusing on the Iraq "failure" rather than on what can be done to make a bad situation better. NBC White House correspondent David Gregory was even branded a "partisan" by Tony Snow in a press conference. Snow is correct.<br><br>With so much on the line in Iraq and the Middle East, it angers me that the press and individual Americans cannot rise above their petty ideological hang-ups and work for success in Iraq. Is Democracy not a noble goal in that country? Do the dopey partisans not understand Iran is a deadly threat that will benefit greatly if Iraq goes under?<br><br>It is long past time to point fingers at those who are hurting the United States. A big digit goes to the Iraqi people, who are not making the sacrifices needed to defeat the forces of totalitarianism. And the second finger of fate is pointed at the American media, which has allowed its hatred of President Bush to distort it's objectivity.<br><br>If you really want to study what has gone wrong in the quest to bring democracy to a vital, turbulent part of the world, let those two fingers point you in the right direction.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-12-07T08:00:00ZCharity: It's The Right Thing to DoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Charity:-Its-The-Right-Thing-to-Do/20684.html2006-11-30T08:00:00Z2006-11-30T08:00:00ZSo what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called "Who Really Cares" by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.<br><br>The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about "nurturing" people who need help. The "tax the rich" crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.<br><br>That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is "income redistribution;" that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed "economic justice," things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.<br><br>But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in "income redistribution" give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential.<br> <br>I believe this is a religious thing. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street.<br><br>But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge "help your neighbor" guy. For J.C., it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.<br><br>The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45%.<br><br>So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don't like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.<br><br>So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned in this column. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What's left is not even close.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-11-30T08:00:00ZHere Comes the LeftBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Here-Comes-the-Left/20666.html2006-11-22T08:00:00Z2006-11-22T08:00:00ZEmboldened by the Democratic victory earlier this month, the far-left is rising like Dracula at midnight. Just days after the vote, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to ban Junior ROTC in the city's high schools, tossing more than 1,600 students out of those clubs. The Massachusetts legislature refused to allow a vote on gay marriage, even though more than 170,000 Bay State voters signed a petition demanding to be heard on the subject, and a Vermont press group honored Judge Edward Cashman, the guy who sentenced a brutal child molester to 60 days in jail.<br><br>Don't kid yourself; while the majority of Democrats are moderate, there is a fanatical subdivision of the party that is off-the-wall secular-progressive (S-P) and bent on radically changing America.<br><br>San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told the press he was glad the Board of Education waited until after the election because "cheap-shot artists like O'Reilly and Fox would have exploited (the vote)."<br><br>Not exploited, mayor, reported. I coined the term "San Francisco values" and well understand they have little to do with democracy. How nutty is the San Francisco Board of Ed? We're fighting a lethal worldwide terror movement and these people are telling high school students the U.S. military is bad, that's how nutty. <br><br>By the way, the ACLU is MIA in the JROTC controversy. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Board of Ed had banned a gay high school club? S.F. values strike again.<br><br>The far-left in Massachusetts is almost as bad. Gay marriage was imposed in the Commonwealth by three judges who found a loophole in the state Constitution. Marriage was not expressly defined as between a man and a woman. Presto, traditional marriage has company.<br><br>But my question is this: If marriage is a Constitutional right, which it is not, why can't polygamists get legal? How about triads? Why can't you marry your mom?<br><br>If one alternative lifestyle, homosexuality, is granted license to marry, you have to include other alternative lifestyles as well. That's equal protection under the law, is it not?<br><br>But the secular-progressive movement doesn't care about the Constitution. It wants a brand new America where the people don't call the shots—the "enlightened" minority sets the agenda.<br><br>So get ready for more of this kind of thing. The state of Vermont has already left the building. It elected Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, as junior Senator. Compared to Sanders, Patrick Leahy, the other Vermont Senator, is Dick Cheney.<br><br>By the way, in case you went to public school, a socialist is someone who believes the government has a right to seize private property and do whatever it wants with it. Apparently, Vermonters are down with that, as well as with judges who give child predators the same amount of jail time as bar brawlers. This is the first secular-progressive state to drop all pretense and declare itself Havana-friendly. Wait, that might not be fair. Even Fidel harshly punishes child rapists.<br><br>If you think I'm exaggerating, you're wrong. The far-left feels liberated, and it sees daylight. Expect these people to make a strong power run, led by S-P mom Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House. <br><br>Let's recap: No tolerance for the military, no voting on controversial issues, and let's ease up on those adults sexually brutalizing children. Welcome to the land of the secular-progressive. Have a nice day.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-11-22T08:00:00ZWho Will Save the Babies?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Who-Will-Save-the-Babies/20636.html2006-11-16T08:00:00Z2006-11-16T08:00:00ZThere is something terrible going on in Kansas and you should know about it. A doctor named George Tiller is performing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of late-term abortions using a variety of medical reasons, including the depression of the mother.<br><br>In Kansas, there is a mental health exception which allows an abortionist to terminate a fetus at any time up until birth. The exception is vague, and so is Tiller's oft-used depression diagnosis, according to documents currently under investigation by Kansas authorities. So the deal is this: If you want to walk away from your pregnancy at any time, just contact Dr. Tiller; he'll help you out.<br><br>But only if you have at least $5,000. The doctor, known as "Tiller the Baby Killer" among some people who object to his practice, lays it all out on his website. He'll terminate your baby, and even cremate it for you if you wish. He's one-stop shopping.<br><br>According to published reports, Tiller injects the fetus with poison while in the womb, removes it, and disposes of the body. While it's true that sometimes a mother's health is severely impacted in late term, most doctors agree this is rare. Babies can now live after 22 weeks when removed by C-section. Late term abortions are almost never necessary. <br><br>Unless the mother wants out, that is. And that's what some people believe Tiller is doing—terminating viable, healthy babies because the mother simply doesn't want the child.<br><br>While the American media wails about alleged human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, champions fetal stem cell research in the name of compassion, and hollers aplenty at the atrocities in Darfur, the press is largely ignoring the Tiller story, with the exception of the <em>Los Angeles Times</em>. It has glorified Tiller.<br><br>An article by <em>Times</em> reporter Stephanie Simon focused on Tiller terminating babies who are seriously ill. Ms. Simon makes no mention of the "depression" factor. She does, however, report that Tiller is aborting Down Syndrome babies which, when you think about it, is kind of chilling.<br><br>George Tiller could not do what he's doing in ultra-liberal France or even in permissive Holland. In France, a baby cannot be aborted after 12 weeks unless two doctors certify a woman's physical health is endangered, or the fetus has a serious abnormality. <br><br>In the Netherlands, abortion is prohibited at all times once the baby is viable outside the mother's womb. <br><br>But in Kansas, if the mom is feeling a bit blue on Tuesday and carries a certified check, Dr. Tiller is willing and able to terminate the baby. Is this what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution?<br><br>I don't think so, but the secular press disagrees. Just this week <em>The New York Times</em>, whose editorial writers worship at the altar of abortion, called the investigation into Tiller's gruesome practice a "gross assault on privacy and legal rights [...]". You see, to the <em>Times</em> editorial board, no baby in the womb deserves any protection at any time. It's all under the secular-progressive banner of "reproductive rights."<br><br>But even the secularists who run France and Holland are not that militant. It is hard to believe that babies have more protections in Paris and Amsterdam than they do in Wichita. But that's the truth.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-11-16T08:00:00ZSaddam's RevengeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Saddams-Revenge/20623.html2006-11-09T08:00:00Z2006-11-09T08:00:00ZAt the moment the hangman's noose tightens around Saddam Hussein's shriveled neck, he can take solace in one major unintended consequence of his defeat by coalition forces: America and the Bush administration have suffered enormously in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.<br><br>Every exit poll last Tuesday said the same thing: Most Americans do not believe the Iraq conflict is good for the country. Some believe our military action was immoral, but most simply want victory, not stalemate, in Iraq.<br><br>The thinking behind that lies in the deep respect most Americans have for the U.S. military. I mean, who in their right mind wants to see soldiers and marines killed and maimed for a campaign that is still chaotic after three and a half years? Left-wing loons aside, clear thinking Americans are willing to accept war if the violence is justified and benefits the country. But this Iraq deal remains unresolved, and there is little good news coming out of Baghdad.<br><br>As I mentioned in this space a few weeks ago, the Iraqi people have not stepped up to control the terrorists in their midst. It does not take three years to train a national police force or even a standing army for that matter. Corruption and religious hatred is rife in Iraq. A country that was deemed "secular" and desiring of freedom by U.S. intelligence has turned out to be a place of ancient hatreds and incredible, mindless violence.<br><br>You don't see the Muslims of Afghanistan, as primitive as that country is, drilling holes in each other's heads and forming roving death squads. At least the Afghanis are giving democracy a chance by not embracing the Taliban uprising coming out of Pakistan, or protecting homicide bombers who can paralyze any free society.<br><br>But millions of Iraqis are either too afraid or too apathetic to join their countrymen who simply want to live in peace and freedom. How many hateful Iraqi Mullahs are ordering their brainwashed minions to kill innocent people? How many crooked cops and military people are creating fear and loathing by committing loathsome crimes?<br><br>There is no army in the world that can impose democracy or any other kind of government on an unwilling population. Remember, the Soviets brutalized Afghanistan using hundreds of thousands of troops and a ruthless secret police, but could not make communism acceptable there. <br><br>So the Bush administration is caught in a situation that once looked like a "slam dunk," to use former CIA Director George Tenet's phrase, but has now evolved into an election-turning debacle.<br><br>However, a bad situation could rapidly become worse if ideologically crazed politicians implement policies that give the terrorists a major victory. Remember, Iraq is a stalemate, not a defeat. The terrorists can strut around all they want, but Saddam is facing the gallows and Iran is not controlling the Gulf oil flow—at least not yet.<br><br>President Bush is correct when he says that Iraq is now the central battlefield in the war on terror. And the demise of Donald Rumsfeld finally signals that a new strategy might be on horizon.<br><br>All Americans should hope so. Fighting Islamic fascism is the most important issue in the world today. We'll now see if the Democrats have a better idea as to how to do that.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-11-09T08:00:00ZA No-Win SituationBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-No-Win-Situation/20603.html2006-11-02T08:00:00Z2006-11-02T08:00:00ZWith the nation about to vote on the Iraq war, and don't kid yourself—that's exactly what the upcoming election is all about, it may be interesting to examine the emotions in play. Most Americans, I believe, have turned against the Iraq campaign because the USA is not winning it. We're not losing either, but a bloody stalemate halfway around the world is no sane person's idea of a success story.<br><br>And so all the polls show a deep disenchantment with Iraq, but it is based on performance, not a moral objection, as we saw in the Vietnam era.<br><br>Clear-thinking Americans understand that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a noble effort. Giving a devastated country a chance at freedom is hard to knock. But there comes a point when American blood and treasure is exhausted, and that point has been reached in Iraq. If those people will not step up and stop the chaos themselves, then they will have to live the result. The United States cannot absorb much more punishment on behalf of a population that, at this point, doesn't seem entirely committed to fighting for freedom.<br><br>Predictably, the far-left in America has seized upon the Iraq situation to once again paint their country as villainous. That is both sad and infuriating. Recently, I appeared on "The View" and "Late Show with David Letterman," flogging my book "Culture Warrior." Both Rosie O'Donnell, the new lead on "The View," and Mr. Letterman are liberal people who vehemently object to the war. So I asked them: "Do you want your country to win in Iraq?"<br><br>Neither would answer the question.<br><br>Ms. O'Donnell told me the query was an example of "antiquated thinking." Mr. Letterman said he couldn't answer because he was "thoughtful." I say, with all due respect, baloney. Every American should want Iraq to be free and an ally against Islamic fascism.<br><br>There is no question that if Iraq and Afghanistan become functioning democracies, Al Qaeda and Iran will suffer major blows. That's why Iran is actively fostering violence in Iraq and why Al Qaeda continues to murder people in both theatres. Freedom is the archenemy of Jihad. At this point, even the dimmest among us should realize that.<br><br>So why do Rosie O'Donnell, David Letterman and others hesitate to say if they want a U.S. victory in Iraq? The answer, of course, is ideology.<br><br>Any success now in Iraq would help the beleaguered Bush administration, and that is intolerable to the far-left. Thus, hurting the President and his crew has become more important to some Americans than seeing a victorious Iraqi campaign. That kind of thinking is damaging to the country because, in the long run, Americans are going to have to confront the jihadists and defeat them. Sorry, Barbra Streisand, the terrorists are not going away even if we do pull out of Iraq.<br><br>That doesn't mean Americans should support "staying the course." The course must be shown to be smart and effective because lives are at stake. There is nothing wrong with believing the Iraq war has been ineptly waged. That debate is certainly valid.<br><br>But pulling against your country in Iraq is simply not acceptable. The American military has fought long and hard to defeat terrorism and oppression there. We are the good guys, and all the twisted ideology in the world is not going to change that.<br><br>I may be an "antiquated" thinker, and I might not be as "thoughtful" as some liberal entertainers. But I do understand right from wrong. And it is wrong to root against America in Iraq.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-11-02T08:00:00ZDon't Tell Mom or DadBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Tell-Mom-or-Dad/20563.html2006-10-26T07:00:00Z2006-10-26T07:00:00ZA few days ago actress Jane Wyatt died. She played the mom on the 1950's TV show "Father Knows Best." I was thinking about Ms. Wyatt while analyzing the upcoming referendum, Proposition 85, in California.<br><br>The proposed law is called "Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy." If passed, it would require a doctor to inform an underage girl's parents before performing an abortion, and wait 48 hours unless there was a medical emergency.<br><br>The proposed law does have the so-called "abuse exception." If the girl feels she would be harmed by the parental notification, the court would make the call. It also gives the girl a chance to explain to the judge that she is mature enough to make an abortion decision on her own. So a judge could waive the notification if he or she was convinced the child was emotionally equipped to handle the situation.<br><br>Now, all of this sounds more than reasonable to me. The rights of parents to know the mental condition of their children is upheld, but if notification could cause potential damage to the child, the court decides. Good law, right? Wrong, if you are a secular-progressive (S-P).<br><br>That group adamantly opposes any legal restriction involving a young girl's access to an abortion. Thus, your 14-year-old could leave the house one morning, show up at a Planned Parenthood clinic, undergo major surgery, and be back home in time for dinner. So how was your day, Tammy?<br><br>This is insane. And Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting the insanity. She actually recorded an audio spot urging Californians to vote "no" on parental notification. And, by the way, Hillary neglected to tell voters about the "exceptions" in her ramble. She pleaded for "kids at risk" without mentioning that the courts would bend over backwards for those kids. Shameful.<br><br>Do you believe for one second that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin would support a legal system that allows children alone to make decisions about elective surgery-surgery that terminates a potential human being? No rational person could believe the Founding Fathers would violate the doctrine of parental responsibility in that way.<br><br>So what the heck is going on? <br><br>Well, it's all part of the S-P movement that sees the state, not the parent, as the final authority over a child's welfare. S-P's want a breakdown of traditional family roles, replacing them with a uniform code of governmental child rearing. In that way, the youth of America will become "emancipated" from their parents and be more susceptible to S-P thinking.<br><br>Which brings us back to "Father Knows Best" 2006. In this show, "Kitten," the youngest child, has just been impregnated by a local hooligan. Her brother, "Bud," drives her to the clinic and the fetus is history.<br><br>Later, the entire family goes out for burgers. But father doesn't know best in this updated sitcom. In fact, father doesn't know anything.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-10-26T07:00:00ZBush at the BrinkBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bush-at-the-Brink/20529.html2006-10-19T07:00:00Z2006-10-19T07:00:00ZThe call came last Saturday: President Bush would do an interview with me at 11 a.m. Monday morning. Be there or be square.<br><br>This was the third time I had interviewed George W. Bush, but the first time that he was on the defensive, back on his heels. I first met the man when his campaign had momentum in the fall of 2000, and spoke with him again six weeks before the 2004 vote, when he was confident he would defeat John Kerry.<br><br>But in the fall of 2006, the President's job approval poll numbers are hovering around 40%, and he is taking a beating over the stalemate in Iraq. So I was interested to see what kind of a toll all this had taken on the man. Most presidents age in dog years while occupying the White House; how was Mr. Bush faring?<br><br>The answer is quite well, at least physically. He works out like crazy and mountain bikes in his rare spare time. Six years have given him a few more wrinkles, but honestly, I have aged far more than he has and I don't have to deal with Putin or the nutty North Korean guy.<br><br>My theory about President Bush is that he is a true believer; he sincerely thinks he is looking out for America in the best ways possible, the polls be damned. That kind of certainty provides solace and calm.<br><br>However, this type of attitude is a double-edged sword. Mr. Bush reportedly sleeps well; he is not prowling the White House at 4AM the way Bill Clinton was, but true believers often do not react quickly to changing circumstances. They tend to set a course and stay the course. Sometimes that philosophy drives one off-course.<br><br>Iraq is the defining issue of Mr. Bush's presidency. His administration has succeeded in badly damaging Al Qaeda and making it very difficult for terrorism to take root on American soil. This is undeniable. The Bush haters will tell you that the President is fear-mongering and the like, but this is just hyper-partisan nonsense. Stopping Al Qaeda is a huge job and President Bush is on top of it.<br><br>But few anticipated that Iran would pile on the Iraq situation, and that is why the conflict over there remains bloody and unstable. The Iranians are arming and funding Shia killers and do not want a stable government in Iraq. They are promoting chaos so the USA will leave—leaving Iran calling the shots in Baghdad. If that happens, Muslim terrorism will dramatically increase in power everywhere, and moderate Muslim Gulf States will lose faith in the USA.<br><br>Most Americans are depressed over Iraq and blame the Bush administration for failing to win the war. That is understandable. But Mr. Bush believes he can outlast the insurgents, and that his strategy is the only viable way to blunt the savage jihad. The President sees himself as a modern day Abraham Lincoln before Gettysburg, under siege but standing firm.<br><br>Nobody knows how Iraq will play out in the two years the President has left in office. But what I can tell you is that he is committed to the fight, and believes in it with all his heart.<br><br>Is that enough for victory? Impossible to tell. But I'm praying it is.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-10-19T07:00:00ZCocktail Party CredBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Cocktail-Party-Cred/20502.html2006-10-12T07:00:00Z2006-10-12T07:00:00ZIf you can handle yourself on the avenues of urban America, the wise guys will say you have "street cred." That means you are savvy in the ways of the hood and have credibility among the denizens thereof. "Street cred" allows you acceptance in some tough neighborhoods.<br><br>In the media salons of Manhattan and Los Angeles, there is also a hunger for social credibility. Let's call it "cocktail party cred." That is an acceptance among your peers at swell gatherings where expensive wine and canapés are served.<br><br>"Cocktail party cred" has a bit in common with "street cred," in that you must have the right attitude. On the pavement, you have to be physically tough and creatively profane. In the media soirees, of course, that is not necessary—but you must think a certain way.<br><br>Let me give you an example. The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric recently began a commentary segment featuring a variety of Americans spouting off for about ninety seconds. One of the first guys invited to speak was Brian Rohrbaugh, whose 15-year-old son Daniel was murdered in the Columbine High School massacre. Ever since that terrible tragedy, Mr. Rohrbaugh has been thinking about why it happened; what drove two teenagers to murder 12 of their peers for absolutely no reason?<br><br>Brian Rohrbaugh came to the conclusion that the secularization of public schools and a permissive society led to his son's death. So, on the Katie Couric newscast, he said this: "For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak without consequences.<br><br>"And life has no inherent value. We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you, the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion."<br><br>Uh-oh.<br><br>The CBS News website was deluged with viewers indignant that Mr. Rohrbaugh was allowed to utter such heresy. Many people vowed never to watch CBS News again. How could this happen, they asked. How could that kind of opinion be allowed on CBS?<br><br>So Katie Couric replied on her blog: "We knew when we decided to put on this segment that a lot of people would disagree with it. We also knew some might even find it repugnant."<br><br>Repugnant?<br><br>Why would Ms. Couric use such a loaded word? If a pro-choice person delivered a commentary on CBS News, would Katie have used the "R" word? I don't think so, because there would have been no controversy. The pro-choice position is standard issue at almost every media operation in America.<br><br>But it's not among the folks. A recent CNN poll says that 45% of Americans believe abortion should be outlawed unless the mother's life is threatened. That's almost half the country. But, trust me, those people are not sipping cocktails with the media elite.<br><br>In the toney world of the national media, a pro-life American who believes that God deserves some academic exposure is a commoner, a groundling, a prole. If you question a woman's "reproductive rights," there will be few party invitations for you. Believing that secularism has, indeed, led to social problems would melt your "cocktail party cred" quicker than a snowman in Aruba.<br><br>The truth is that the national media is dominated by a "groupthink" that does, indeed, find Brian Rohrbaugh's analysis repugnant. I do not believe Katie Couric meant to offend Mr. Rohrbaugh, I think she just couldn't believe what he said. I may be wrong, but in her social circles that kind of world view is rarely if ever heard.<br><br>So listen closely. The American media is now addicted to politically correct discourse garnished with brie and whatever tartare. Brian Rohrbaugh may speak for millions of everyday Americans, but to the press poobahs he is from another planet. At one time in this country the media was supposed to respect and look out for the folks. But that was then and this is now.<br> <br>Another cocktail, anyone?BillOReilly.com Staff2006-10-12T07:00:00ZHappy Birthday, Fox NewsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happy-Birthday-Fox-News/20485.html2006-10-05T07:00:00Z2006-10-05T07:00:00ZThis week marks the tenth anniversary of the Fox News Channel and because of an early gift by President Clinton, the operation is getting maximum exposure. As you may know, Mr. Clinton became very annoyed when Chris Wallace, the anchor of Fox News Sunday, pressed him as to why Osama Bin Laden did so much damage on Clinton's watch without being held to account.<br><br>The President responded that Mr. Wallace was conducting a "right-wing hit job."<br><br>Having lived through the past ten years anchoring a news analysis progam on FNC, I found Mr. Clinton's annoyance amusing. The Bin Laden question is certainly valid, and while Larry King would not have asked it, most other CNN correspondents, I believe, would have. So what's the real beef here?<br><br>To understand what's going on, we begin with the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, who greeted the arrival of FNC a decade ago with the quote, "We'll squash them like a bug."<br><br>That squishing sound you hear is Mr. Turner's prediction ground into pulp. FNC hammers CNN in the ratings all day, every day. That is not making the liberal Turner and his fellow travelers very happy, and that is the heart of this matter.<br><br>For decades, the left in America was treated with deference by the electronic media. As I chronicle in my book "Culture Warrior," nearly every past and present network anchor and commentator is either a committed liberal or leans left. Just look at what Walter Cronkite and Bill Moyers have done since they left CBS News; both men allied themselves with the far-left and are proud of it.<br><br>So there was certainly room in America for a network that gave equal time to the conservative point of view and actually hired, God forbid, some right-leaning commentators. To those used to getting information from enterprises like CNN, PBS, and NPR, this sudden departure from liberal orthodoxy was shocking and terribly annoying. There was a new kid in town, and his game plan allowed the right to be heard as well.<br><br>As Fox News gradually began dominating the cable news landscape, bitterness grew along with FNC's ratings. The media establishment was aghast; it was being openly challenged and, worst of all, it was losing influence to a bunch of outspoken barbarians. So the attacks intensified.<br><br>Hollywood put out a hit movie about FNC, liberals like Howard Dean openly disparaged the network, and the far-left blogs did everything they could to damage those working at the network. It was, and is, very nasty.<br><br>But think about it; what is the beef? Even if FNC is a conservative think tank, which it is not, there are five other networks that give enormous benefit of the doubt to the left. So what if one operation leans right? Shouldn't there be room in this country for one newsroom that doesn't think like Ted Turner?<br><br>Last week on my program, I challenged Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala to give me one example of an unfair presentation on FNC. They could not cite one. Certainly, Chris Wallace's questioning was professional. The liberal Alan Colmes balances the conservative Sean Hannity, and the rest of the FNC cast is evenly split between the right and the left. The guest list is the same way.<br><br>That's why FNC is so lively and, yes, so loud. We embrace robust debate and want to hear all sides. We challenge the powerful and do it with panache and a sense of humor. Like us or not, Fox News has changed the entire broadcast news business and provides a trusted service to far more Americans than every other cable news channel.<br><br>Sounds like a great recipe for success, and I, for one, am glad President Clinton could be a part of it. As with all our guests, Mr. Clinton had his say, was challenged, and is free to think whatever he wants.<br><br>He doesn't even have to be nice to us on our birthday.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-10-05T07:00:00ZJackie Robinson StadiumBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Jackie-Robinson-Stadium/20432.html2006-09-28T07:00:00Z2006-09-28T07:00:00ZNext week the baseball playoffs begin, and millions of Americans will turn their attention to the National Pastime. But there is one baseball story every American should know. On the wall of my office hangs a cover of "Sport Magazine" signed by Hall of Fame baseball legend Jackie Robinson. It pictures Robinson, playing second base for the Brooklyn Dodgers, pivoting on a double play throw. Shortstop Pee Wee Reese is pictured behind him.<br><br>Jackie Robinson is one of America's great civil rights heroes, yet his story is fading from public view. Born in racially segregated Georgia in 1919, Robinson's father abandoned the family leading his mother, Mallie, to move the five Robinson children to Pasadena, California in search of a better life.<br><br>Jackie excelled at sports and won a scholarship to UCLA where he was an All American halfback and a superstar baseball player. Upon leaving school, he enlisted in the Army to fight in World War II. But after refusing to go to the back of the bus while training in Texas, the Army charged him with insubordination. Subsequently, he was acquitted of all charges and honorably discharged.<br><br>After playing baseball in the Negro League, Brooklyn Dodger General Manager Branch Rickey brought him to the Major Leagues in 1947. Robinson was then 27 years old, and was the first black front line player ever.<br><br>Predictably, all hell broke loose when Robinson hit the diamond that year. He was vilified on and off the field, called obscene names non-stop, and some opposing pitchers even threw at his head. Only once did he lose his cool in public. An umpire actually said to him, "Go back to the jungle, you little n-----."<br><br>Robinson punched the ump in the mouth.<br><br>The Philadelphia Phillies and Cincinnati Redlegs were particularly nasty to Robinson. In one incident, the Cincinnati players were screaming at the Dodgers, stuff like "how can you play with that n-----?"<br><br>Having heard enough, Pee Wee Reese, from Louisville, Kentucky, walked over to Robinson and put his arm around him.<br><br>Jackie Robinson played in the big leagues for nine years and, while things improved a bit over time, he was constantly demeaned and humiliated by fellow Americans. Yet Robinson prevailed. He compiled Hall of Fame statistics and was the National League's Most Valuable Player in 1949, the year I was born.<br><br>Try to imagine what Jackie Robinson endured in the land of the free. Just for a moment, put yourself in his cleats. Hatred is a brutal thing; personal attacks can cut right to the heart of a human being. For Robinson, they were non-stop.<br><br>How brave was this man? Because of him, the face of American society changed quickly and decisively. Opportunities for millions of black and Hispanic athletes opened up, and that changed attitudes everywhere. Suddenly, Willie Mays was a hero, and Bill Russell a role model.<br><br>Jackie Robinson died young at 52 from diabetes complications. His suffering, triumph and legacy must be remembered. In a couple of years, The New York Mets will unveil a new stadium just a few miles from where Jackie Robinson played in Brooklyn. The Mets are now considering what to name their opulent new home.<br><br>But, really, there is only one name that should be attached to that building. In bold letters, forever, in Queens, New York, the name "Jackie Robinson Stadium" should stand as a monument to one of the most courageous Americans of all time.<br><br>Number 42 deserves no less.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-09-28T07:00:00ZThe Attack of the Hyper-PartisansBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Attack-of-the-Hyper-Partisans/20415.html2006-09-21T07:00:00Z2006-09-21T07:00:00ZAre you a hyper-partisan? If so, stop it right now. These people are damaging America and I'm calling them out.<br><br>First, a definition: A hyper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth; rather, he or she tailors information to fit a preconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the world is not important to these ideological zombies; it's all about reinforcing their core beliefs.<br><br>Thus, no matter what President Bush does for example, he's wrong. There is absolutely nothing the man can do that would please the hyper-partisans who oppose him. On the opposite ideological page, Bill and Hillary Clinton are Satan's spawn. They are evil all day, every day.<br><br>How boring is this? If it were just a few Kool-Aid drinking nuts, no one would care. But now you have entire media outlets that have gone hyper-partisan. Newspapers like The Boston Globe and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution are just about entirely left wing. Yes, their circulations are in a freefall, but no journalistic enterprise should be hyper-partisan.<br><br>The infotainment industry and the internet are also full of hyper-partisans because, unlike newspapers, you can make money with that approach, at least in conservative circles. The Air America radio network, on the left, tried to imitate the conservative template but failed. That's because while the right generally cheerleads for America, the far-left fanatics often despise their country and few want to hear that kind of vitriol.<br><br>Actor Sean Penn is a hyper-partisan. Last week on the Larry King program, Penn, as usual, was hammering the Bush administration when King actually challenged him by asking what was wrong with trying to spread democracy in the Middle East.<br><br>Penn replied the Bush administration doesn't even promote democracy in the USA. I thought that was a riot. Here's Penn ripping those in power on national TV and, at the same time, complaining there's not enough freedom here. If he tried that in Iran, his tongue would be in a museum.<br><br>Tom DeLay is a hyper-partisan. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Life simply cannot be that simple, can it? But for the hyper-partisans it is. Nothing stands in the way of their belief system. Not facts, not provable truth. <br><br>To be honest, I believe there are more hyper-partisans on the left. Many conservatives are actually angry with the Bush administration over the unsecured southern border, enormous government spending, and the stalemate in Iraq. That's why the President's poll numbers remain low. Some on the right who were behind him now have doubts about his stewardship. I don't see much independent thinking on the left. <br><br>It is hard to imagine Rosie O'Donnell, for example, becoming disenchanted with the liberal agenda, no matter what. Somehow, I don't think Nancy Pelosi is going to reevaluate "taxing the rich," even if the country descended into a deep recession after more "progressive" tax laws were enacted. However, I could be wrong. And since I'm not a hyper-partisan, I can say that.<br><br>So let's start mocking all these hyper-partisans and begin to encourage critical thinking in America. It's much more interesting and it's far better for the country, because an acceptance of fact-based reality is crucial to solving problems.<br><br>And if you still don't believe me, imagine being stranded on a desert island with Howard Dean or Michael Savage. I'd hit the ocean. You'd get a fairer shake from the sharks.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-09-21T07:00:00ZRed Hot TortureBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Red-Hot-Torture/20369.html2006-09-14T07:00:00Z2006-09-14T07:00:00ZThanks to the New York Times, we now know the dreaded torture methods the sadistic CIA used on captured al-Qaeda big shots shortly after the 9/11 attack. I warn you: Reading this column any further will subject you to unvarnished brutality.<br><br>According to a front page article in the Times on Sunday, September 10th, Pakistani authorities captured Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's personnel director, a few months after the terror attack five years ago. Zubaydah, wounded in the confrontation, was turned over to American authorities and whisked away to Bangkok, Thailand, where FBI interrogators began questioning him.<br><br>According to unnamed sources in the Times article, the FBI and CIA clashed over whether to use soft or tough questioning methods on the captured terrorist. Because it had jurisdiction, the CIA took over, and the inquisition began. Agency interrogators stripped Zubaydah, put him in a freezing room, and subjected him to Red Hot Chili Peppers.<br><br>Not the vegetables, the rock group.<br><br>Apparently, the CIA sadists cranked up the volume on some Red Hot Chili Peppers recordings and Zubaydah broke. Wouldn't you?<br><br>Now, I am not making this up. The dreaded torture machine that is the Bush administration unleashed the Red Hot Chili Peppers on an al-Qaeda big shot. How could they?<br><br>According to the article, Zubaydah gave up a number of his fellow killers, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. But come on, the ends do not justify the means. Using the Chili Peppers is beyond the pale.<br><br>Somewhere, Attila the Hun is weeping with laughter.<br><br>But this whole thing is deadly serious. Thanks to the American thugs at Abu Ghraib and the hysterical left-wing press, the entire world thinks the USA is a nation of brutes who torture for pleasure. Human rights groups can't condemn us fast enough for our terrible treatment of people captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo Bay is a Gulag, Dick Cheney is Henrich Himmler. And the beat goes on.<br><br>But amidst all the hew and cry, there are few specifics. As far as I can determine, waterboarding—that is, submerging a suspect in water—was used a couple of times, but is now banned. Stress positions and sleep deprivation have been used in limited situations. And now we know the Peppers were in play.<br><br>Of course, in reporting the interrogation story, the Times played up the conflict between the FBI and the CIA big, but buried the lead. In the final two paragraphs of the lengthy report, the importance of the Chili Pepper story emerges. Times reporter David Johnston quotes yet another anonymous "government official" as saying, "The fact of the matter is that Abu Zubaydah was defiant and evasive until the approved procedures were used. He soon began to provide information on key Al Qaeda operators to help us find and capture those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."<br><br>That sounds like a good thing to me, but I do have some advice for the CIA the next time around: Use Ludacris, and you'll get bin Laden.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-09-14T07:00:00ZThe Return of Lethal FascismBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Return-of-Lethal-Fascism/20353.html2006-09-07T07:00:00Z2006-09-07T07:00:00ZSeventy years ago this month, Adolf Hitler began seizing the assets of German Jews. He had waited until the summer Olympics in Berlin were finished and the world had seen the might of the Third Reich. Already, Hitler had established concentration camps for "undesirables" and forced many Jewish professionals out of their jobs. He had also harassed Catholics and Protestants who dared speak out against his racist polices.<br><br>The parallels between the rise of fascism in pre-World War II Germany and the rise of Islamic fascism today are startling. And just as it was in the 1930's, the world is refusing to confront the growing danger.<br><br>Iran, a nation committed to wiping Israel off the map, is defying the United Nations by refusing to obey the nuclear disarmament treaty. Hitler defied the League of Nations and rearmed, creating a fierce military threat while openly advocating the diminishment of Jews and "Aryan racial purity." If Iran manages to obtain nuclear weapons, it, too, will become a menace to the entire world.<br><br>But many do not believe that. In fact, a recent Harris Poll taken in Europe shows that 30% of the 10,000 people surveyed believe the USA is the world's greatest threat to stability. Just 26% think Iran is the greatest danger to world peace.<br><br>But the most unsettling situation is here in the United States. According to polls taken in the 1930's, as many as 80% of Americans were against confronting Hitler at that time. Only Pearl Harbor caused public opinion to shift.<br><br>But today, five years after 9/11, many Americans still do not understand the worldwide Jihad and buy into the false premise that there is no linkage between what is happening in Iraq, the policies of Iran, the murderous actions of al-Qaeda, and the lethal anti-Jewish strategy of Hamas and Hezbollah.<br><br>While there are certainly rivalries and differences among all the Islamic fascists, their goals are very similar: Kill Jews and damage America.<br><br>So why is history repeating itself? Why can't we Americans wise up and see the Islamic fascist threat? I blame the news media first, and irresponsible politicians like Howard Dean second. The hatred the committed left-wing press has for President Bush is almost unprecedented. The liberal media is obsessed with Bush and devalue him 24/7. This means that even when the President is correct on policy, the Bush haters will not admit it. They have succeeded, especially overseas, in convincing millions of people that Bush is the world's greatest threat, not the fanatical Muslim jihad.<br><br>How dangerous is that? Then, you pour Governor Dean on the fire. He and his far left cadre actively undermine the war on terror. I can't read his mind, but if Ms. Cleo is still in business, I'm asking her if Dean actually wants the U.S. to lose in Iraq. I am betting he does as long as Bush is in power.<br><br>The Iranian Mullahs, Osama, Hezbollah and the rest of the racist killers well understand that America is a divided nation. In the new book "The Looming Tower," it is well documented that bin Laden preached openly about America's lack of resolve. Time after time, the Islamic fascists have attacked; time after time, the USA and world have failed to respond with a knockout punch.<br><br>And that is the crux of this matter. Americans are certainly entitled to debate the wisdom and effectiveness of the current campaign to defeat Islamic fascism, but defeat it we must. For if we don't, it is just a matter of time before more of us lie dead in the streets. Like Hitler and his evil ambitions of seven decades ago, the Jihadists of today are not going to stop until we make them stop.<br><br>Somebody tell Howard Dean.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-09-07T07:00:00ZPut Up or Shut UpBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Put-Up-or-Shut-Up/20334.html2006-08-29T07:00:00Z2006-08-29T07:00:00ZThe TV Emmy Awards were broadcast a few days ago and it was the usual: a bunch of smug, self-satisfied show biz types cloyingly parading their liberal views in front of an adoring Los Angeles audience. I mean, come on, you show biz people are supposed to be creative—how about something new and exciting: Maybe demonstrating to the country you might have a clue about what's going on in the world.<br><br>I am an independent who believes good policy can be found on both the left and the right. For example, Al Gore has the right idea about global warming, and President Bush is correctly defining Islamic fascism. It annoys me greatly that some Americans are so fanatical about ideology that they have lost the ability to think. Many of those Hollywood types mugging to the camera the other night are in that category. Largely dressed in borrowed clothes and spouting borrowed ideas, these people constantly vilify conservatives as complete idiots. How irresponsibly condescending.<br><br>So let's be straight here. My money says Tina Fey doesn't know anything about the roots of terrorism or how to prevent the next terror attack. The woman can sneer all day long, but I'll put her on my TV program in a heartbeat if she wants to prove me wrong.<br><br>Neil Young can write all the mediocre music he wants about how evil the Bush administration is, but while he is rockin' in the free world, I know it wouldn't be free if Young were in charge.<br><br>My pal Jon Stewart and his legion of writers think they're ultra cool and hip because they embrace every left wing cause that comes down the pike. Yeah, you won an Emmy, Stewart, but the fix was in. The choir to whom you preach dominates the award voting. You Daily Show guys can be funny but how many Americans want you people standing between them and Iran? Maybe Larry David, but that's it.<br><br>One of the few positives in the Emmy program was host Conan O'Brien, who was funny in a good-natured way. Although he didn't say so, I believe O'Brien understands the absurdity of these entertainers displaying their knee-jerk left-wing politics in an entertainment venue. Even if you're a liberal, you've got to see how obnoxious this is.<br><br>So I say this, Bill Maher. You're a witty guy, but out of your league on complicated matters like national security. When you can tell me what Ansar al-Islam was doing in Northern Iraq, then I might watch your HBO show.<br><br>When George Clooney can explain exactly how the Pakistani secret police broke a captured al-Qaeda big shot who subsequently gave up the London terrorists arrested for planning an attack on American airliners, then I'll rent "Syriana."<br><br>When the pouty Dixie Chicks, who are having big trouble selling concert tickets this summer, can tell me the origin of the Islamic Brotherhood, then I might go to one of their shows.<br><br>But I'm not holding my breath on any of these challenges. As the saying goes: Opinions are like lips, everybody has them. But some opinions, like some lips, are razor thin, and there ain't enough collagen in the world to help these misguided showbiz people.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-08-29T07:00:00ZThe Iraq SolutionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Iraq-Solution/20323.html2006-08-24T07:00:00Z2006-08-24T07:00:00ZWar is a performance business. That is, if you get in it—you better win it. Stalemates are not acceptable, especially in America where we worship victory and do not suffer defeat easily. Despite what revisionist historians say, the USA did not lose militarily in Vietnam; we simply did not defeat the Communist enemy. And shortly after we withdrew, they violated the signed treaty and took over South Vietnam. <br><br>Today, we are facing a similar situation in Iraq. The latest Opinion Research poll says 61% of Americans now oppose the Iraq war; just 35% support the action. But this is misleading. The opposition is not against the campaign to bring democracy to Iraq—the dissent is about our performance there. In other words, if the Coalition was winning in Iraq, the folks would be behind the effort.<br><br>The far-left is trying to make this a moral issue; it is spinning that somehow America is bad for deposing a murderous dictator and making free elections possible. If that's bad, then George Washington is Satan. That's how dopey the moral objection to Iraq is.<br><br>But the folks are correct when they say that unlimited sacrifice in Iraq is not good for the nation. So far, the USA has spent hundreds of billions and lost thousands of good people to death and grievous injury in that chaotic place. If victory is not assured, then we need to change direction.<br><br>There is no question that Iran, the world's most dangerous country, is behind much of the instability in Iraq. If the USA follows John Murtha's advice and pulls out quickly, Iran will partner up with the killer Shiite cleric al-Sadr and dominate Iraq. That will heighten Iran's power in the Gulf region and give Hezbollah and other terrorist outfits, including al-Qaeda, far more opportunities to develop their homicidal plots.<br><br>So cutting and running is irresponsible and dangerous to America, and anyone who promotes that strategy should be aggressively challenged. <br><br>But the Bush administration does owe a new battle plan to the fallen American soldiers. If the sectarian violence cannot be brought under control by, say, the end of this year, then a partitioning of Iraq should occur.<br><br>Already, the Kurds in the north have a state that pretty much does what it wants without Baghdad's approval. Similar states could be established in the Shia south and the Sunni triangle, with Baghdad becoming an open city. There would be a centralized government in the capital, but all three states would largely be autonomous, sharing oil revenue based upon population.<br><br>Iran would influence the Shia, no question, but it would not be able to dominate the entire country if the US kept a strong presence to make sure coups did not take place.<br><br>This might be the best solution to a bad situation. President Bush should realize his current Iraqi policy is not acceptable to most of the folks. If Mr. Bush continues to stay the course based simply upon hope, his party and his legacy will suffer dramatically.<br><br>So, once again, no good deed goes unpunished. The United States and Britain held a mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, accountable for his misdeeds and his repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire. They removed him and gave millions of Iraqis a chance at freedom. That was noble. But the action has gone unappreciated, because the world is not a noble place. <br><br>Time to recognize that and impose a new, workable solution.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-08-24T07:00:00ZProfile in SanityBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Profile-in-Sanity/20308.html2006-08-17T07:00:00Z2006-08-17T07:00:00ZWe are living in treacherous times and terrorists well understand that; even when one of their murderous plots is uncovered, the fallout from the aborted action is a big win for them. After British authorities prevented a couple dozen Muslim fanatics from blowing up a number of American jetliners, the ensuing airport chaos caused pain and inconvenience for thousands of people. Unfortunately, that will continue for the foreseeable future.<br><br>Osama and his pals must take great joy at watching 80-year old grandmothers being patted down and their creams confiscated by jumpy security people. This is the ultimate al Qaeda reality program: "Survivor: Airport."<br><br>Add to that the foolish political bickering over who is protecting Americans better, and you have great joy in Mudhutville; the hiding Qaeda leadership wins again.<br><br>Of course, the sane way to protect Americans in the sky is to stop looking for nail files and begin profiling people who might actually cause terror damage. That is not "racial" profiling; that is "terror" profiling. Most of the recent terror activities have been perpetuated by young Muslim men. So it is these people that need greater scrutiny when they check in for a flight.<br><br>I know that's mean, but believe me when I tell you that if the Irish Republican Army was attempting to blow up American planes, I'd have no problem being patted down before I stepped on a plane. I would understand and appreciate the common sense behind the close look. I would not consider myself a victim, but would be furious that my ethnic cousins were causing so much trouble.<br><br>I believe some Muslim-Americans feel the way I do. They understand that some of their co-religionists are remorseless killers.<br><br>But not all Muslims think that way, and certainly the ACLU and other far-left groups oppose profiling. They fight hard against most strategies designed to make terror attacks more difficult. Except, of course, when it involves them.<br><br>You may remember the New York Civil Liberties Union sued when the NYPD instituted random bag searches on the subway. Yet a sign at the NYCLU building warned that the organization had the right to search the bags of all people entering there. Hypocritical? You make the call.<br><br>The biggest problem we have in America when it comes to defeating terrorism is that some of us live in the real world, and some of us live in a theoretical zone where all problems could be solved if only we just talked things over with those who want to kill us. For those people, actions like profiling, unilateral military campaigns, and tough interrogation methods are simply too drastic. These Americans believe aggressive terror countermeasures actually encourage violence against us and create more willing terror killers.<br><br>Looking back, the actions of Presidents Clinton and Bush in his first year pretty much ignored the growing terror threat from the Muslim world. Little aggressive action was taken against al Qaeda when it blew up our Embassies in Africa and attacked our warship off the coast of Yemen.<br><br>There was no airline profiling going on when 19 Muslim killers boarded three airliners on 9/11, all with one way tickets to hell. Had we been wiser then, three thousand Americans could be alive today.<br><br>But we were not wise then, and we are not wise now, either. Call it what you will, but lay off Granny at the airport and zero in on higher risk subjects.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-08-17T07:00:00ZBaghdad JoeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Baghdad-Joe/20268.html2006-08-10T07:00:00Z2006-08-10T07:00:00ZThe latest causality in Iraq is Senator Joseph Lieberman, an honest man who is the victim of an emotional vote against the chaotic situation in Saddamville. As you know, Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont, a rich guy who wants to pull American troops out of Iraq right now, the consequences be damned.<br><br>Lieberman's defeat is a dangerous sign. Even though some people believe the far left that is currently dominating the Democratic party will ultimately lead it to another presidential defeat, I'm not so sure.<br><br>Everyday Americans are certainly frustrated with the war in Iraq; the polls prove that. Slightly more than a third of Americans believe the war is going well. And those folks are wrong—the war in not going well.<br><br>According to the private intelligence firm Stratfor, an excellent source of information, Iran now controls many Shia' militias in Iraq and is encouraging the sectarian violence that is making true democracy impossible. As with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Iranians are ordering up as much violence as possible, believing the United States and Israel lack the will to fight long term.<br><br>There is no question that Iran wants to dominate the Gulf oil flow, and it will if it the USA withdraws from Iraq, allowing Iran to become the power behind the scenes. China, especially, is dependent on Iranian oil right now, and if the Iranians begin to call the shots on Iraqi oil exports, Iran increases its power dramatically. With oil as a lever, there would be no stopping Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. <br><br>I don't believe Ned Lamont and those who voted for him understand any of this. Geo-politics is complicated, it requires a sophisticated knowledge of how the world works and an acknowledgment of the evil that Israel and America and the west in general is facing. <br><br>The fog that is shrouding the big global picture is the coalition's failure to control terrorism in Iraq. There is no getting around this; the Bush administration has not been able to get Iraq under control and Americans are sick of the whole thing. Thus, quick fix political candidates get traction, while the Bush people continue to look incompetent.<br><br>Iran is a true danger to the world. But the world will not confront that country, and now it is emboldened. The crazy Mullahs of Teheran want to kill Jews and Americans and have thousands of thugs at their disposable to carry out that mission. The rise of Islamic fascism is now centered in the Persian police state.<br><br>The United States needs a new strategy to deal with this ominous threat. Slugging it out in Iraq may be necessary, but there might be another way. President Bush needs to level with the American people and begin putting this country on a war footing. That means a limited draft and a major commitment to defense. The President needs to shake things up and get people's attention.<br><br>Ned Lamont does not frighten the Iranians. He and his fellow travelers will not defend you and your family effectively. Those who voted for Lamont over Lieberman made a major mistake. I suspect a lot more of those wrong-headed decisions are coming.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-08-10T07:00:00ZLiberal JihadBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Liberal-Jihad/20241.html2006-08-03T07:00:00Z2006-08-03T07:00:00ZPerhaps the biggest reason why so many Americans are confused about the chilling dangers posed by Islamic fascism is the reportage of the terror war by the liberal print press. Day after day, committed left-wing newspapers frame their coverage with an emphasis on the inadequacies of the Bush administration or Israel, not the aggressive worldwide jihad that seeks nuclear weapons. Routinely, those who act confrontationally against the fascists are marginalized and sometimes personally attacked. Rarely do the left wing dailies give a fair hearing to both sides of the terror war controversy.<br> <br>But, of course, the journalists toiling at the committed liberal papers don't see it that way. In a recent appearance on National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times reporter Tom Hamburger presented a point of view that is anything but rare in liberal circles: "Targeting the mainstream, even establishment media ... as having a liberal bias, has been one of the most successful campaigns that's been organized by the conservative right. And it's made editors and reporters cautious about what they say."<br> <br>According to Hamburger, his paper and others like The New York Times, are not liberal at all; their images have been distorted by the right. Well, let's examine the facts.<br><br>The New York Times has four über-liberal op-ed columnists whom, within the last 18 months, have written more than 150 columns about the Bush administration. None of the columns were positive—not one. The Times has no pro-Bush columnists.<br><br>In addition, the TV columnists for the Times, its business media writer, and the lead film critic, A.O. Scott, are also committed liberals, as is sports columnist William Rhoden. I don't know about the head obit writer.<br><br>And it's the same thing at most of the other left-wing papers—the deck is stacked with liberal writers, not only on the editorial pages, but also in every other section of the paper. The result is a constant barrage of negativity towards those who believe we are fighting World War III, and we'd better get serious.<br><br>The Fox News Channel generally takes a strong anti-terrorist position, and it is not well received by the print press. I get a clip file every day from newspapers around the country and the coverage of FNC, and my program "The O'Reilly Factor," is relentlessly negative. Yet every day Americans somehow overwhelmingly choose us over our competition, so at least there is some balance in the media.<br><br>Truthfully, this nonsense about "conservatives" falsely describing the newspaper industry as predominately liberal is flat-out dishonest. Even a recent media study done by UCLA professor Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri professor Jeffrey Milyo came to the conclusion that "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left."<br><br>And the tilt becomes a freefall when President Bush's name comes up. The liberal newspapers generally consider him an inarticulate bumbler, too unsophisticated to deal with complicated issues like stem cell research and global warming. The committed left editors remain furious Bush defeated Al Gore in the Supreme Court and are crazed that many of them bought into the WMD threat in Iraq.<br><br>Thus, no matter what the President does now, and no matter how much danger nations like Iran present to the world, the liberal dailies are not going to play it strong. The big story is, and will remain, that Bush is an idiot.<br> <br>That kind of narrow media groupthink is dangerous. Granting Hezbollah moral equivalency with Israel, putting forth that America is a nation of human rights violators, and labeling Iraq a failure before the all the dust has settled—all these things absolutely makes life easier for the jihadists.<br><br>That may not be the intention of the left-wing press, but that very well may be the result of their own jihad.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-08-03T07:00:00ZViagra for the United NationsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Viagra-for-the-United-Nations/20226.html2006-07-27T07:00:00Z2006-07-27T07:00:00ZThe United Nations is impotent. That's the only diagnosis an objective person can arrive at if you look at the facts. Time and time again, the UN has been called upon to protect innocent people and has failed.<br><br>In Rwanda, in the Balkans, in Somalia, in Iraq and now in Lebanon, perhaps as many as a million people have died on the UN's watch.<br><br>Let's take Lebanon. On July 29, 2004, the Security Council reiterated its strong support for the "terroritorial integrity" of that tiny country. To back up that support, the UN continued to fund a force of soldiers to make sure any misbehavior on the part of terrorists, Syria or Israel was kept to a minimum.<br><br>Less than two months later, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559 calling for, among other things, the disbanding and disarmament of all militias inside Lebanon. That means you, Hezbollah.<br><br>Well, the Hez guys and Syria and Iran were all greatly amused by Resolution 1559, and soon thereafter thousands more long range missiles began finding their way into southern Lebanon, where some of them were placed in private homes and Mosques.<br><br>The UN did nothing. <br><br>Then, three weeks ago, Hezbollah attacked, killing eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two others inside Israel! Obviously, an act of war, to which Israel responded by bombing Hezbollah positions throughout Lebanon.<br><br>UN Secretary General Kofi Annan then swung into action and called for an immediate cease-fire. Annan is real good at doing that. He is an expert at giving peace a chance while innocent people are being attacked. Would Kofi want a cease-fire if thousands of missiles were pointed at his house? I don't think so. Kofi might want those weapons destroyed. Maybe I'm wrong.<br><br>Anyway, there is no question that once again the United Nations was supposed to diffuse a bad situation—chaos in Lebanon—and actually made things worse. There is not enough Viagra in the world to fix the UN's impotency problem.<br><br>So now the world faces an onslaught on Islamic fascism with no credible international body to stand in its way. The left in the USA and Europe have no solution to the growing menace, and the right is on the defensive because of the bloody stalemate in Iraq.<br><br>Meantime, the terrorists believe they are winning. <br><br>Put yourself in the sandals of an Iranian Mullah who hates Jews and Americans. He sees that the world is not going to help Iraq form a democracy. He sees the United Nations failing in every attempt to impose order. He reads the New York Times and grins while its columnists savage any anti-terror measure the Bush administration comes up with. He sees Russia and China not willing to take action against Iran as it continues to pursue nuclear weapons. And, finally, he sees much of the world siding with Hezbollah against Israel.<br><br>This Mullah is one happy guy, is he not? <br><br>So that's where we are right now in the war on terror. Just as in World War II, the bad guys have gotten off to a fast start. The good guys turned it around 60 years ago but, today, the betting line in Teheran is that Kofi and the world body he represents will continue to be no problem.<br><br>Sounds like a safe bet to me.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-07-27T07:00:00ZThe Wake Up CallBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Wake-Up-Call/20212.html2006-07-20T07:00:00Z2006-07-20T07:00:00ZWhile millions of Americans are enjoying the summer, taking nice trips and relaxing on the sand, the leaders of Hezbollah are also enjoying the season. From their sanctuary in Iran, the terrorists have announced that they are armed and ready for World War III. Taking a cue from President Bush, the killers are gleefully trotting out the taunt: "Bring it on!"<br><br>So now we have al-Qaeda and Hezbollah threatening to kill Americans, and what are many Americans doing about it? Playing politics or ignoring the situation, that's what.<br><br>Instead of presenting a united front to the world, the USA is bickering over the "rights" of captured terror suspects, war strategy in Iraq, and whether it's bad for newspapers to alert terrorists about top secret investigations designed to stop them from murdering people.<br><br>When are we all going to wake up? I mean, what is it going to take for "we the people" to understand the goal of the terrorists? There is no reasoning with this group, no negotiating with them. They hate Jews and Americans and, in general, all non-Muslims. They want to cause as much destruction as possible. They are loving this recent violence in the Middle East which they, alone, started.<br><br>Are you hearing me, San Francisco? <br><br>Immediately after 9/11, the vast majority of Americans were engaged in the terror war. We wanted strong leaders who would right that terrible wrong. We demanded action, justice for the murders of three thousand Americans. We didn't care to hear Phil Donahue say the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. We condemned loopy University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill for comparing the 9/11 victims to Nazis. The American public was in a fighting mood.<br><br>No longer. <br><br>Now we are weary of this unending, complicated terror war business. We are besieged with misinformation spit out to us by ideologues on both sides who seek to use the terror war to advance a political agenda. We are exhausted.<br><br>But that is no excuse, because we are also in grave danger. Iran is the primary threat. That country is enjoying the death and destruction its terror proxies are causing, and desperately wants to up the ante by developing a nuclear weapon.<br><br>The sad truth is that apathetic and misguided Americans are actually helping the fanatical Iranian leaders as well as the terror killers themselves. Every political division in this country is cheered on by our enemies. They believe the American people are selfish and weak, a group more interested in foolish entertainment and blind ideology than in aggressively defending itself.<br><br>The Germans and Japanese made the same calculation in the 1940's, and they were wrong. But Ho Chi Minh was right when he said America would not pay the price in Vietnam.<br><br>So who's correct now? Will Americans pay the painful price to win the war on terror? Or will we retreat to our BlackBerrys and iPods and video games? Will we continue to allow partisan politics to divert attention from the real threat, or will we demand that our leaders win the conflict?<br><br>In the summer of 2006, that is the hot question. And, at this point, there is no clear answer.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-07-20T07:00:00ZThe Great American Media WarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Great-American-Media-War/20196.html2006-07-13T07:00:00Z2006-07-13T07:00:00ZSo here's the question of the hour: Who is really looking out for you—the very secret Bush administration, or the anti-Bush media? Let's examine both positions.<br><br>The President says he is fighting an effective war against worldwide terror and points to the roundup and destruction of many top al-Qaeda people, as well as the fact that the homeland has not been attacked since 9/11. Mr. Bush asserts that his aggressive and clandestine policies have put the terrorists on the defensive, and that the war in Iraq has kept them bottled up where the American military can kill them.<br><br>The anti-Bush press, led by The New York Times, believes the Bush administration violates human rights, is overly secretive and is dismantling civil liberties. The Times and other committed left-wing journalists justify exposing national security programs because the Bush administration, they say, cannot be trusted.<br><br>For the everyday American, the debate is filled with fog. Is the Bush administration really compromising the nation's integrity in the terror war? Does the anti-Bush media really want the USA to lose in Iraq?<br><br>The answers to both those questions are complicated. <br><br>Recently, the heads of five journalism schools wrote a piece for the magazine "Editor and Publisher" which stated: "In the aftermath of 9/11, a new climate of caution was a sensible response to a sophisticated terrorist foe. But Bush's reaction—declaring a 'war on terror'—and claiming the Constitution grants almost limitless powers to the president in a time of war—is excessive."<br><br>The men who wrote this piece are all committed liberals. These guys love The New York Times. One of them, Harvard's Alex Jones, used to work there. Thus, their analysis of the war on terror is viewed through an ideological prism, the same problem that exists at the Times itself, where publisher Arthur Sulzburger is liberal in the extreme and generally hires people who agree with him.<br><br>So what we have here, to quote the film "Cool Hand Luke," is "failure to communicate," at least honestly. Liberal people do not generally approve of armed conflict and certainly do not like coerced interrogation, wire taps, internment camps, and just about every other anti-terror measure the Bush administration has come up with. So with all due respect to the journalism deans, what does the left propose be done to diminish the threat of terror? I haven't heard one concrete suggestion. I have heard all kinds of theoretical gibberish that must send Osama into gales of laughter.<br><br>The problem for the regular folks is that the Bush administration is secretive. The President does believe he has the authority to institute anti-terror strategy without strict oversight. Mr. Bush well understands that any and all secret programs will be publicly outed by people who don't like him. And there are a few of those.<br><br>In the end, it comes down to this: I believe there will be more blood in American streets if the government eases up on aggressively pursuing the terror killers. But the anti-Bush media doesn't believe that, and some are putting forth that the President's policies are the primary threat to this country, not the killers themselves.<br><br>I think that's downright dangerous. I'll also tell you a secret: Fighting a two-front war on terror, with the second front being the media controversy here at home, has weakened America substantially. <br><br>On that point, there's nothing left to say.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-07-13T07:00:00ZSuperman and the Culture WarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Superman-and-the-Culture-War/20177.html2006-07-06T07:00:00Z2006-07-06T07:00:00ZThe culture war has tugged on Superman's cape, and it is not pretty. In the new film "Superman Returns," Daily Planet editor Perry White responds this way after being told the man of steel has come back after a five year absence: "Does he still stand for truth, justice and all that stuff?"<br><br>And all that stuff?<br><br>The original line, of course, was "truth, justice and the American way." But no way the "American way" gets in the film.<br><br>That's because Warner Brothers, the studio distributing the movie, doesn't want to tee off any foreign viewers with pro-U.S. sentiment. It's bad enough Superman was raised in the Midwest; we can't be having the hero actually standing for the American way, now can we? Some jihadist in Pakistan might throw popcorn at the screen.<br><br>You don't need x-ray vision to know that things have changed drastically in America in the past five years. When Superman left to go visit the planet of his birthplace, the USA was not engaged in a terror war; the country was merrily drifting along, hoping that rap music would follow Monica Lewinsky into obscurity.<br><br>But that was then. Now, America is a divided country. We are fighting a fierce war on terror overseas, and an intense culture war at home. No longer is the "American way" something to be proud of; today, forces abroad and at home believe we are a deeply flawed nation that is a danger to the world.<br><br>According to a Pew Global Attitudes survey, almost 30% of Americans believe that America's presence in Iraq poses a greater danger to world peace than Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. In Turkey, 65% of the people feel that way. This kind of muddled thinking reflects the sentiment of the anti-American press worldwide and here in the USA. It is also the product of the rise of a well-funded and well-organized secular-progressive movement in America.<br><br>The secular-progressive philosophy would rattle even Superman. Led by moneymen George Soros and Peter Lewis who have bought enormous internet access, the secular-progressives are selling the theory that the USA needs radical change, a complete overhaul. Think about it: Almost every day, the secular-progressive press bombards us with messages that America violates human rights, that it is bigoted against gays and other minorities, that the rich control everything and don't pay enough tax, and that the rights of women are trampled if any restrictions are placed on abortion.<br><br>And the secular-progressive scribes are becoming increasingly emboldened. Writing in The New York Times, David Nasaw, a professor at the ultra-left City University of New York, made this comment about the charitable gifts of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett: "While we can only applaud the decision by Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates to give away so much of their fortunes ... is society served by <em>permitting</em> (italics mine) so much capital to be accumulated by so few?"<br><br>Fifty years ago, Professor Nasaw would have received an invitation to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Today, he is a lion in the secular-progressive movement which seeks to have a large centralized government decide who can earn what.<br><br>That's not the American way Superman used to uphold. This is a brave new world that threatens even superheroes. The old ways of respect for the basic nobility of America, the capitalistic free enterprise system, and the Judeo-Christian philosophy of personal responsibility are all under siege by stealth forces more powerful than a locomotive. They can even exorcise a classic pro-American line from a movie about a traditional comic book hero.<br><br>Please tell Perry White there is no justice in eliminating the American way. And that's the truth.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-07-06T07:00:00ZDo You Want to Know a Secret?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Do-You-Want-to-Know-a-Secret/20163.html2006-06-29T07:00:00Z2006-06-29T07:00:00ZJust one day after outing yet another secret intelligence program designed to catch terrorists, the New York Times editorialized: "When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on."<br><br>And that "outside entity," of course, is the New York Times. <br><br>But the paper's belief that any investigation that might infringe on privacy is fair game for exposure is dangerous. By that measure, there are no government probes the Times would not consider publishing because all investigations might lead to privacy violations.<br><br>Investigations, by their very nature, are trying to find something out that is not public. Therefore, the Times' rationalization is not only harmful to an America fighting a terror war, it is also incredibly dopey. <br><br>By all accounts, the Bush administration obeyed the rules in tracking the transfer of money to suspected terrorists overseas. Even the New York Times admits that. So why blow the covert program when the President specifically asked the Times not to? The answer to that question is the key to unlocking the war currently going on within the USA.<br><br>The New York Times and other committed liberal entities believe the Bush administration is damaging the country and is using the war on terror to do it. Therefore, the Times uses its power and constitutional protections to actively work against the administration's anti-terror strategies.<br><br>Just look at the record. The committed left believes the Bush administration encourages torture, illegally intrudes on the private phone conversations, routinely violates the Geneva Convention and commits a host of other mortal sins.<br><br>So the battle lines have been drawn. Just about anything the Bush administration does to combat terror will be opposed and sometimes actively undermined by the Times and other liberal media. Also, the ACLU has allied itself with this leftwing media jihad to challenge the Bush administration's anti-terror measures in court. <br><br>Does all that make you feel safer? <br><br>This strategy has deeply angered some right-leaning Americans who believe national security should trump ideological struggles. Former Undersecretary of Defense Jeb Babbin said on my TV program that the publisher and editor of the New York Times should be charged with crimes. The debate is obviously intense.<br><br>But the truth is that the Bush administration has brought some of this on itself. The President knows the left despises him, yet does not cover his rear flank. For example, the NSA has 72 hours after it listens to suspicious phone calls to secure a legal warrant—surely that could and should be done. The administration claims its NSA program is legal, but why bother with the debate when you can have your tap and hear it with a little effort?<br><br>There is no question that some media and politicians are playing politics with the security of the American people. There's no reason on earth that folks need to know how the CIA is legally tracking the money flow to suspected terrorists.<br><br>And nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay, either. The International Red Cross has an office located a few yards from the prisoner's cells. Most of the hysteria generated by the "civil rights" crowd is nonsense, designed to marginalize an administration it can't stand.<br><br>Well, I think that's garbage and I resent it. Almost five years after 9/11, the United States has escaped another murderous attack on its soil. That's a good thing even if you're on the left, right?<br><br>But what this really comes down to is simple: Who do you trust to keep you safe—The New York Times or the Bush administration? You make the call.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-06-29T07:00:00ZThe Fight of Our LivesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Fight-of-Our-Lives/20139.html2006-06-22T07:00:00Z2006-06-22T07:00:00ZOnce again, the terrorists have given President Bush an opportunity to defeat them, but this could be the last time that happens for quite some time. The brutal torture-murders of Privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker in Iraq have angered Americans and put the country in a vengeful mood. On the heels of the demise of al-Zarqawi comes a call by many for the U.S. military to take the fight to the enemy.<br><br>But what does that mean? <br><br>There can be no victory in Iraq without security. Coalition forces are fighting a counter-insurgency campaign that requires a strict discipline to succeed. First, the chaos must be stopped and the only way to do that is by imposing martial law, where authorities have the right to intern anyone and impose shoot-on-sight curfews. The new Iraqi government should do this immediately in cities like Ramadi that harbor terrorists.<br><br>Now, critics of tough anti-insurgency methods will say that if they are implemented, then we are no different than Saddam. And those critics have a small point. For almost 25 years, Saddam managed to control insurgencies against him by using brutal totalitarian methods. So we know those work in Iraq. The difference is that Saddam used murder and torture, while the coalition would not. Martial law is a legitimate tool of social control in any dangerous situation; it is a short-term strategy to allow the new government to curtail violence.<br><br>Truthfully, there is no other solution in Iraq. The terrorists understand that if they are defeated in that country, the cause of Islamo-fascism will be greatly damaged. So they are going to continue to commit atrocities in the hope of breaking our will. Either the Bush administration okays tough methods to root those people out, or we should get out of Iraq altogether.<br><br>No American wants another Vietnam, where the military is exposed to death but cannot use its full force to protect itself. I mean, how ridiculous was it to allow the North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia? How many Americans died because Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon would not confront the enemy using the full power of the US military?<br><br>The Sunni triangle in Iraq and certain parts of Baghdad are sanctuaries for terrorists. These places should be totally inundated with Iraqi and Coalition forces conducting house-to-house searches and imposing dusk-to-dawn curfews. No insurgency can exist without the cooperation of the civilian population. All Iraqis should get the message that cooperating with terrorists will no longer be tolerated.<br><br>Presently, there are more than 400,000 Iraqi and Coalition troops in Iraq. Most provinces are pacified. Everybody knows which areas are dangerous. This is not a jungle-covered country where the enemy is supported by Russia and China. These insurgents can be defeated, but only a fierce determination will do that.<br><br>I believe the Bush administration has been intimidated somewhat by the anti-war media and the lack of support from our allies abroad. Public opinion for the war has been falling steadily throughout the past two years. But now Americans are in a payback mood-now the public wants to see these savage terrorists in Iraq killed.<br><br>That feeling will not last long unless more victories like Zarqawi are forthcoming. Most Americans will walk away from a stalemate and simply will not tolerate an administration that allows its soldiers to be brutalized one by one.<br><br>So if we are truly in it to win it, this is the time to strike hard against an enemy that hacks our soldiers up with knives and blows up women and children. If not now, it could be never.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-06-22T07:00:00ZMessage to AnnBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Message-to-Ann/20119.html2006-06-15T07:00:00Z2006-06-15T07:00:00ZAnn Coulter should listen to me. But she doesn't listen to anyone, so that's not going to happen. In the past, I've told Ms. Coulter that using personal attacks to make ideological points is short-term gain but not long-term pain. You can make money doing that, but respect in the mass market will elude you.<br><br>There is hypocrisy running wild in the Coulter controversy. The same media voices that embrace the smear tactics routinely used by the far-left Air America radio network and displayed daily on the nutty political blogs, are all huffy about Ms. Coulter attacking a group of 9/11 widows called the 'Jersey Girls.' I mean, give me a break, the vicious Al Franken-Michael Moore crowd is now appalled by Coulter? That's like Hulk Hogan being offended by Barry Bonds.<br><br>However, bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior, and if conservatives support the personal attacks that Ann Coulter trades in, then they must accept them from the "Bush lied" crew. <br><br>But back to Ann. Having spoken with her a number of times, I can tell you a few things. She likes the attention. She is a true believer; that is, her disdain for the left is not an act. She is rigid in her scorched-earth approach, believing that just about any tactic is legitimate when it comes to marginalizing liberals. In other words, she is Howard Dean extreme and just as wild as he is.<br><br>But like Governor Dean, Ms. Coulter can only sing to her soul mates. Most Americans are not ideological and respond to logic, not politically-driven emotion. Whether you agree with the liberal politics of the Jersey Girls or not, few people want to see these women harmed in any way. Thus, many unaligned people will now never be persuaded by Ann Coulter about anything because they think she's mean.<br><br>Ms. Coulter's primary point about the left using people like the Jersey Girls to attack conservatives is valid. That was on display in my dust-up with David Letterman. Last January on his program, I said Cindy Sheehan was wrong to call insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters." Mr. Letterman contended I had no right to criticize Ms. Sheehan about anything because she had a son killed on the battlefield.<br><br>Coulter picked up on that and other examples of left-wing exploitation of tragedy. But, interestingly, the right does it as well. How many times have we seen President Bush in photo-ops with supporters who have lost loved ones in the war on terror?<br><br>In the current media jungle, vicious attacks can bring down prey. Both the left and the right use them. But I truly believe that, ultimately, the winners in the war of ideas will be those who out-reason their opponents, not out-smear them. Again, Americans have always admired fairness along with perseverance and honesty. There are plenty of ways to criticize the Jersey Girls without bringing their dead husbands into it.<br><br>But Ann Coulter is not going to listen to me, and neither will others who delight in using personal attacks against those with whom they disagree. They won't listen because they are being celebrated by their chorus, and are being well paid by corporations who are more than happy to light their flaming arrows.<br><br>Welcome to the ideological jungle. It is not a nice place.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-06-15T07:00:00ZA Taxing PropositionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-Taxing-Proposition/20104.html2006-06-08T07:00:00Z2006-06-08T07:00:00ZOne of the goals of the far-left in America is "income redistribution." That is taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less well off in the form of entitlements, or sometimes direct payments like welfare and food stamps. The problem with that philosophy is that there are relatively few wealthy Americans; less than ten million of us make more than $100,000 a year, while about 30 million citizens live below the poverty line.<br><br>Thus, the tax burden on the wealthy has to be enormous in order to effectively "redistribute" income. And one of the primary ways the government seeks to do that is through the estate tax. When rich Americans die, the Feds move in and seize more than half the deceased person's assets over 2 million dollars. <br><br>One problem: That seizure of private property may be, by definition, "unreasonable." Thus, unconstitutional. <br><br>You see, in order to possess anything, you have to acquire it. Mostly, we buy our assets with dollars that have already been taxed. So before we purchase stocks, bonds, houses, cars, or anything else of value, we should have, by law, already rendered to Caesar.<br><br>But this is not enough for the far-left. They want half our stuff after we die. They want to SEIZE private property. This, I believe, is what Karl Marx had in mind. Right, Fidel Castro?<br><br>One of the chief proponents of income redistribution is the New York Times, which frames the estate tax issue this way: "There is no moral justification for cutting estate taxes. Much of the wealth taxed after death has never been taxed because profits ... are not taxed until the asset is sold."<br><br>By that way of thinking, you really don't own anything. You are partners with the government in everything you buy (with after-tax dollars) that is worth more than $2 million bucks. Partners unless what you buy declines in value--then you are on your own. Your Uncle Sam will not reimburse your loss.<br><br>The goal of the far-left is to create a monstrous central government that will "nurture" the have-nots in America. Therefore, disproportionate taxation for the prosperous has to become permanent. New York State, for example, has the highest taxation in the nation because of out-of-control spending. And guess what? Nobody in Albany is watching the money. A new report says there may be as much as $4 billion in Medicaid fraud EVERY YEAR. But who cares? The tax money is endless.<br><br>Did you know that education spending in USA is now the highest for any country in the history of civilization? And, according to reporting in Newsweek magazine, American 15-year olds rank 15th worldwide in reading assessment. Surprised? You shouldn't be. Effective teaching and discipline, not money, are the keys to learning.<br><br>But money is what the far-left wants the government to have--your money. This "tax cuts for rich" ruse is blatantly dishonest. Let's be up front about the tax issue. The progressives want social engineering and economic "equality." Conservatives believe that private property is sacrosanct and, while taxes are necessary, the government should use the money wisely and responsibly to create opportunities, not to ensure lifestyles.<br><br>The estate tax debate going on right now in Congress is just a small skirmish in the raging American culture war. But it is an illuminating one.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-06-08T07:00:00ZThe iPod PeopleBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-iPod-People/20089.html2006-06-01T07:00:00Z2006-06-01T07:00:00ZIn a world as complicated as ours, there's no way we can really understand what's happening unless we're willing to make an investment of time. But many of us simply will not do that. We are too involved in our own lives, too busy, too distracted, and too apathetic to pay attention to most vital issues. Thus, huge problems like illegal immigration and energy dependence go unsolved for decades because the powers that be know we're not paying attention. <br><br>The rise of worldwide terrorism is the best example of the powerful failing to be proactive. President Clinton knew al Qaeda was growing in strength and militancy, but failed to warn the nation. When President Bush took over in 2001, he also mostly ignored the festering threat. The result was 3,000 Americans dead in the street.<br><br>Ask yourself this question: Before September 11, 2001, had you heard the name Osama bin Laden? Did you know anything about the Taliban? Even those of us in the news business had little frame of reference about those killers. So there was virtually no pressure on Clinton and Bush to do anything.<br><br>Machines are part of the reason Americans continue to be ill-informed. Younger people, especially, spend hours in front of the computer, playing games and engaging in idle chat. When they do get their butts up off the chair, they slap on iPods and have sound piped directly into their brains. Tiring of that, they flick on the tube and watch a variety of mind-numbing "reality" shows.<br><br>The result: According to a survey done by National Geographic, 63% of Americans ages 18 to 24 can't find Iraq on a map of the Middle East. And, incredibly, 25% of that age could not even identify Dick Cheney as Vice President. <br><br>Research shows that news consumption amongst Americans under the age of 50 is drastically declining. TV news ratings skew old, and newspaper circulation is generally plummeting. One explanation is that Americans can now get the news online. Okay, fine. But those internet headlines barely skim the surface of complicated matters, and many websites have absolutely no editorial standards. They print rank propaganda and libel all day long.<br><br>So the USA is now entering an age of issue illiteracy. Older Americans still remember civics classes and geography tests and dinner table discussions about their country. Many younger Americans will never experience those things. Thus, as technology shrinks the globe, it is also providing an escape from the world. The iPod people can avoid real life constantly and entirely.<br><br>Our society is so intellectually undemanding that uninformed entertainers like the Dixie Chicks can comment negatively on foreign policy and be rewarded with a Time Magazine cover. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie can have a baby and receive more attention than the Senate vote on illegal immigration. And Barry Bonds can cheat his way to home run records and still command standing ovations in San Francisco.<br><br>The USA used to be a nation that valued knowledge and rallied around national standards. Now we have become Balkanized—each of us can easily create individual electronic fantasy worlds. Why face a world full of terror and confusing angst when you can drift off into iPod land?<br><br>Ultimately, mass electronic escape will lead to a very few exercising vast power over the distracted many. That, of course, is not the system the Founders envisioned. But when more votes are cast for American Idol contestants than for Presidential candidates, you know "the times, they are a changin'." And not for the better.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-06-01T07:00:00ZHaving A Gay Time In SchoolBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Having-A-Gay-Time-In-School/20078.html2006-05-25T07:00:00Z2006-05-25T07:00:00ZHere's some sobering information: According to a National Election Study, 25% of Americans aged 18 to 24 could not identify Dick Cheney as Vice President of the United States, and 63% of them could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East.<br><br>That might be because 80% of the younger set in America do not own a world map and therefore 90% of them could not find Afghanistan either.<br><br>In the face of that depressing situation, the state of California is taking action. Earlier this month, the state senate voted 22-15 to prohibit textbooks or instructional materials that "contain any matter that reflects adversely" on persons because of their ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, and religion.<br><br>In addition, the proposed law would mandate textbooks include the study of "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, (and who have contributed) to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America ..."<br><br>In other words, California kids might soon be studying Gay 101. <br><br>Even liberal newspapers like the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee think this legislation is dopey. The Times is lamenting that books would recount history, in part, through a gay and lesbian "prism."<br><br>The educational madness in California is part of a secular strategy to de-emphasize academic discipline in the classroom and replace it with an imposed worldview of tolerance and diversity. No longer are facts the primary focus in many public school lesson plans. Now, it's not what you know, it's how tolerant you are.<br><br>As a result, ten percent of California high school seniors cannot pass a statewide exit exam that requires just 60% of the questions be answered correctly. And the student gets six tries to pass the test. Talk about tolerance.<br><br>But don't fret. A California judge, Robert Freedman, ruled the test unconstitutional because all schools are not equal, and therefore, in Freedman's view, the test is unfair to some students.<br><br>Since it is impossible for schools to be equal, there always will be variables like the proficiency of teachers and principals; that would mean every standardized test would flunk constitutional muster. Thankfully, the California Supreme Court recognized Freedman's lunacy and overturned his decision this week.<br><br>But Judge Freedman and his supporters are not going to go quietly into the night. The future of America's public schools may well involve deep-sixing academics and creating a student body nourished on the achievements of homosexuals and other minorities. Was Columbus gay? If not, some California kids might never know who discovered America. <br><br>The left continues to scream about the great economic divide between wealthy Americans and everybody else. Do you think this insane school situation is going to cure that? Many affluent parents will take one look at the California public school landscape and immediately put their kid into private school. There, he or she will be forced to learn the three R's instead of the three T's: Tolerance, Totalitarianism and Total Failure.<br><br>Thus, ten years from now, we'll have adults who'll know all about Liberace, but can't count. Meantime, the private school graduates will be counting all their money.<br><br>I'm sorry if this column doesn't sound tolerant. I want all good people to be respected in America. But the "progressive" forces running California are creating an army of young Americans that will not be able to compete in the worldwide marketplace. And that is absolutely the straight story.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-05-25T07:00:00ZGuarding the BorderBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Guarding-the-Border/20058.html2006-05-18T07:00:00Z2006-05-18T07:00:00ZSenator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, says the National Guard is not the right outfit to back up the Border Patrol on the Mexican border. So my question is a simple one: The organization is called the <b>NATIONAL GUARD</b>, is it not? Aren't they supposed to guard us if need be?<br><br>Well, need be is here. <br><br>Right now there are more than 100,000 illegal aliens imprisoned for committing felonies in the USA. The governmental cost of illegal immigration per year is north of $68 billion taxpayer dollars. While some companies are making money exploiting cheap illegal labor, legal workers, you and I, are paying fantastic sums of money because the federal government will not stop the flood of foreigners illegally entering the country.<br><br>So finally President Bush does something, ordering a few thousand National Guardsmen to the border, and the chorus of naysayers begins their extremely annoying bray.<br><br>When I called Senator Hagel's office and asked what he would do in place of the National Guard, his flack told me the Senator wants to hire 2,500 more Border Patrol agents a year for the next six years. With all due respect, Hagel needs to get a calculator. Millions of illegal aliens are trying to hop over the border. A few more Border Patrol people are not going to stem that rising tide.<br><br>So why doesn't Senator Hagel truly want to stop the invasion? I don't know. For Republicans like Hagel, law and order is usually a core issue.<br><br>On the left, the focus is more clear. On October 12, 1986, The New York Times editorial page celebrated the amnesty Ronald Reagan gave almost three million illegal aliens by writing: "The new law won't work miracles, but it will induce most employers to pay attention, to turn off the magnets, to slow the tide."<br><br>Of course, the Times editorial people turned out be completely wrong. The Reagan amnesty led to the chaos we have today.<br><br>But has the Times learned from their mistaken analysis? To quote John Belushi: "Nooooooooooooooooo." <br><br>In response to the deployment of the National Guard to the border, The New York Times stated: "It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate."<br><br>Interesting comment in light of a CNN poll showing 75% of Americans support the Guard deployment. Could it be The New York Times is on the fringe? Just asking.<br><br>I believe the Times and other committed left-wing organizations want as many foreign nationals as possible to become U.S. citizens. In my humble opinion, the left believes the white power structure that currently runs America is <em>muy malo</em> (very bad), and that the country can only be saved by a new "multi-cultural" power elite. But that can never happen unless America's demographics change. A massive influx of new citizens would precipitate that change.<br><br>Thus, the left's opposition to strict border controls. It was amusing to see the ACLU issue a press release opposing deployment of the Guard just minutes after President Bush's address.<br><br>And so it goes. In America today, hidden agendas are everywhere. Some believe the only reason President Bush did anything at all about the border was to shore up his falling poll numbers. And then there is the brave new world envisioned by hard core leftist Americans.<br><br>It's enough to make you want take a long vacation someplace warm. What's happening in Mexico, anyway?BillOReilly.com Staff2006-05-18T07:00:00ZA New Low for Higher EducationBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/A-New-Low-for-Higher-Education/20046.html2006-05-11T07:00:00Z2006-05-11T07:00:00ZIt is graduation time and all over the country colleges are lining up influential speakers to bid their graduates adieu. The liberal folks have been very busy fielding invitations. Senator Clinton will speak at Adelphi University, Senator Schumer at Buffalo State University, Senator Boxer at Mills College and far-left actor Mike Farrell at Utica College.<br><br>So far as I know, few are objecting to those people imparting their wisdom to the students. <br><br>But a funny thing happened on the way to academic freedom. Some liberal college people don't want it. If you veer away from liberal orthodoxy, you are not welcomed at commencement.<br><br>The most egregious example of this is happening at The New School, a college in New York City. Former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey, the President of the New School, is under fire for inviting Senator John McCain to speak at its graduation.<br><br>A bunch of students and faculty members are demanding that McCain's invitation be rescinded. In an open letter the dissenters said: "Senator McCain's voting record and public pronouncements are starkly at odds with the progressive social values for which this university once stood, and which we want to see upheld."<br><br>In other words, if you are not a progressive liberal, get the deuce away from the New School. <br><br>Now how loopy is this? Senator McCain has served his country heroically as most sane people know. He is certainly no bomb throwing conservative. He is a patriot who may be the next President of the United States. But for some at the New School, he is not worthy to address them. Isn't tolerance supposed to be a liberal tenet?<br><br>About 200 miles to the north, some loons at Boston College are doing the same thing to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Historically, BC is not known as a far-left place, yet more than 150 Boston College faculty members have signed a letter objecting to awarding Secretary Rice an honorary degree at graduation.<br><br>The prevailing wisdom among these pedagogues is that Rice is a warmonger. When one BC professor put that forth on my TV program, I told him it was a shame three thousand Americans would not be able to attend the college's graduation this year because they are dead. The man stumbled for words.<br><br>Isn't it interesting how close many far-left individuals come to embracing fascism? The hallmark of totalitarian right-wing regimes is to stifle all opposing points-of-view. No dissent is permitted.<br><br>But the far-left is the same way, and all their talk of diversity and freedom of expression is just so much BS at BC. Stifling opposing points-of-view at any American college is simply unacceptable.<br><br>For the record, both Condoleezza Rice and John McCain are great Americans who are trying to make their country a better, safer place. You may disagree with their policies and opinions but their dedication is unassailable. <br><br>The fanatics at Boston College and the New School have embarrassed their institutions. Ignorance is not supposed to be part of the University experience. Those schools and many others surely need to wise up.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-05-11T07:00:00ZOil and ImmigrantsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Oil-and-Immigrants/20015.html2006-05-04T07:00:00Z2006-05-04T07:00:00ZOne of the things I don't understand about liberal thinkers is their desire for big government—their lust for a giant colossus in Washington that, in theory, would solve all our problems. How delusionary is this? Why don't liberals just demand the country be handed over to the people who run Disneyland?<br><br>Those of us old enough to remember lining up for gasoline during the Carter administration understand that, for three decades, the federal government has known America is vulnerable to oil profiteers. Yet no serious attempt was made to develop alternative fuels like Brazil has done.<br><br>Likewise on immigration. The feds knew that by granting citizenship amnesty to almost three million foreign nationals living here illegally in 1986, others would surely try to get to the USA any way they could with the hope of obtaining the same largesse. Yet, no effort was made to secure the borders or to monitor people who overstayed their visas. Al Qaeda figured that one out, and thus came 9/11.<br><br>The question, of course, is why did both political parties and five Presidents neglect alternative energy and border security? And the answer is simple: Big Business did not want those things. And in America, Big Business is more important to most politicians than the folks are, because Big Business gives cash to politicians to fund their reelection campaigns.<br><br>There is no question that illegal workers deliver more profit to business than American workers do. A Harvard study says that the employment of illegal foreign workers has driven down wages among American high school dropouts, the lowest labor pool rung, by 7%. The availability of "off-the-books" workers also saves employers from paying social security, health benefits and other overhead costs. Illegal labor has been <em>muy bueno</em> for many bottom lines.<br><br>Likewise, the oil and automobile companies want no part of ethanol or fuel cells, because that would require an expensive restructuring and more competition would emerge. There's no way the ethanol industry could be dominated by five mega-companies. I mean, corn and sugar cannot be carteled. The oil racket is simple: we control the marketplace, and you have to buy from us. With ethanol, we can buy from Farmer Fred.<br><br>So, despite warning after warning about oil and massive illegal immigration, the Nero's in Washington simply fiddled. And now we've all been burned.<br><br>It is hard for me, a person who loves his country, to be so cynical about America's leadership. But this is flat-out true: the politicians have sold out the folks on immigration and on energy. The special interests were allowed to run wild in both areas and now we, the people, are paying the bill.<br><br>If you don't believe me, you are crazy, with all due respect. But I'll give you two indisputable facts. If Brazil can develop an ethanol industry that makes it completely independent of foreign oil, then the USA can.<br><br>And every President has the power to employ the military to secure the borders of this country. <br><br>But no President has done that. And there's no ethanol either. Figure it out.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-05-04T07:00:00ZThe Bush DecisionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Bush-Decision/19996.html2006-04-27T07:00:00Z2006-04-27T07:00:00ZBack in November of last year, I wrote in this space that the political forecast for the Republican Party was "dark." Six months later the darkness has not lifted; in fact, bats are now hanging from the White House ceiling.<br><br>The bleak outlook is because of three major issues: Iraq, gas prices, and immigration. <br><br>The Iraq conflict is simply too confusing. Now in its fourth year, the geo-political strategy of establishing a democratic beachhead in the terror-filled Gulf region is still a jump ball. Will Iraq ever become a free country? Who the heck knows?<br><br>But we all know about gas prices. According to a Gallup Poll, 69% of Americans say the rocketing cost of fuel is hurting them every day. Even though President Bush might not be at fault here, he is the coach of team America. And when the fans are angry, the coach usually gets fired. And the fans are angry.<br><br>On immigration, the President's position is nuanced. He wants a "guest worker" program, but is hazy about how to secure the border so millions more "guest workers" don't come dashing into this country uninvited.<br><br>Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, most Americans are not nuanced about illegal immigration. They don't like it. They want it stopped. After the border is finally secured, many Americans will consider some kind of orderly process to mainstream those who have entered illegally, but not before.<br><br>So the President finds himself in an unlit cave with no clear way out. He can bloviate all he wants about the worthiness of Iraq, the pain of high gas prices, and the humane way to deal with illegal immigration, but the folks want some results. Dreaming about ethanol is not going to cut it.<br><br>With his administration on the verge of entering Jimmy Carter territory--that is, losing the confidence of the public, President Bush must act boldly. Here's how he can turn things around:<ul type="square"><li>Move the National Guard to the southern border to back up the Border Patrol. That would shut down most illegal entries and stunt the rampant drug smuggling. The press would scream, but the President's base would be energized, and his poll numbers would shoot up immediately.<li>In conjunction with the troop movements, the President could then demand Congress pass a "fair worker" program that would provide a "pathway" to citizenship for those illegal aliens who pay a fine and register for proper working credentials. Some conservatives might not like that, but would accept it, knowing troops were helping control the border.<li>Strongly suggest that oil companies voluntarily roll back prices to 2005 levels for the good of the country in a time of war. Remember, the oil companies made record profits last year. They'd still be swimming in money if they cut prices 20%.<li>Stay the course in Iraq. That country's future is now vital to America's future. Whatever it takes, we have to win there. A loss in Iraq gives Iran major power in the Gulf. God help us.</ul>So those are some daring moves the President could make tomorrow. The President might also seriously think about exactly where he is in history. Maybe somebody should tape a picture of Jimmy Carter on his bathroom mirror.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-04-27T07:00:00ZGas PainsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Gas-Pains/19977.html2006-04-20T07:00:00Z2006-04-20T07:00:00ZThe next time a gas fill-up costs you 40 bucks or more, consider this: Lee Raymond, the retired CEO of Exxon-Mobil, was paid close to a billion dollars by that company from 1993 to the present. Raymond's retirement package is about $400 million, according to published reports. Does everybody love Raymond? I don't. I think he's a greed-head.<br><br>The Exxon-Mobil board of directors approved Raymond's compensation, and guess who appointed most of those well-paid board members to their positions? Does the name Lee Raymond ring a bell?<br><br>And guess who is paying all those Exxon-Mobil salaries, including our pal Lee's? The regular folks who must buy gas to go to work and heat their homes. This is called "predatory capitalism."<br><br>Let me explain, and please keep in mind that I am a big-time supporter of capitalism. Gasoline supplies are at an eight year high, according to OPEC. There is plenty of gas selling on the open market, more than enough to meet the worldwide demand.<br><br>So rising gas prices are not a supply and demand issue. <br><br>What the American oil companies are doing is exploiting the uncertainty in the world. Every time the nutty Iranian government threatens to kill the Jews or the Americans or whoever, speculators bid up the paper price of a barrel of oil.<br><br>These speculators operate in the so-called commodities markets. They gamble on where the price of oil and other tangible assets will be months from now. These Vegas-type people sit in front of their computers and bid on "futures" contracts.<br><br>Every time the oil company executives, guys like Lee Raymond, see these people bidding up oil "futures," they order their retail gas station owners to jack up prices to you. Supply and demand my carburetor-this has nothing to do with the free market. <br><br>If you don't believe me, try to start your own oil company. Just try. The government has to approve almost everything these conglomerates do, and there's no room for any "startups."<br><br>So everyday Americans are at the mercy of a complicated shell game that is manipulated by a few people playing high risk financial roulette. But it is no game to millions of Americans who have to buy gas. We have no choice.<br><br>That's because the U.S. government declined to do what the government of Brazil did. Next year, Brazil, population 188 million, will be totally independent of imported oil. Back in the 1970's, the Brazilian government mandated that all cars sold in that country run on sugar-based ethanol. And now they do. <br><br>These are the same cars we drive. But in Brazil, the fuel situation is sweet. Vehicles run on sugar. <br><br>Back here in the USA, the federal government rejected ethanol, and all other alternative fuels, because Lee Raymond and his brethren wanted none of that. Raymond is in the oil business, not the sugar business.<br><br>In the time of the French Revolution, Lee Raymond and his $400 million pension would be running one step ahead of the guillotine. But today, some in America admire Raymond and support his unbelievable compensation.<br><br>But to those of us who really understand what's going on here, Raymond and his ilk are hurting the country and the government is their enabler. Talk about gas pains. There isn't enough Alka-Seltzer in the world.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-04-20T07:00:00ZThe Judas FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Judas-Factor/19954.html2006-04-13T07:00:00Z2006-04-13T07:00:00ZSo now in this Easter season we find out that Judas Iscariot, one of history's great villains, was really a good guy. A recently published text written about 1,700 years ago and discovered in Egypt says that Jesus ordered the Apostle Judas to betray him to fulfill God's will. In other words, Jesus wanted Judas to deliver him to his enemies and Judas did that as a friend.<br><br>Well, I believe my third grade teacher at St. Brigid's School, Sister Mary Lurana, would not be having any of this. The good sister understood that the Gospels were teaching tools, not history, and that the story of Judas was consistent with one of Jesus' central messages: "Don't sell out what you believe in for money."<br><br>Remember Moses smashing the Golden Idol? Remember Jesus driving the money changers from the Temple? Remember the parable of the rich man, the eye of the needle, and heaven? If not, grab a copy of the Bible. It's a bestseller, you know.<br><br>Anyway, Judas has been dead for more than 2,000 years so it really doesn't matter much to him how he's perceived on earth, especially if he's in heaven, right? But the lesson of betrayal is very relevant to us all.<br><br>These days in America, money is a driving force and many of us have been personally betrayed by people seeking our money. It is also quite common for people to use other people in pursuit of currency. In fact, I believe the love of money is the root of much evil. Where did I hear that before?<br><br>The revelation of the so called "Gospel of Judas" has some theologians in a tizzy. The original Gospels are now being reexamined and debated, and one Princeton professor even wrote that discoveries of this kind are "exploding the myth of a monolithic Christianity..."<br><br>Sister Lurana would have definitely scolded that professor in no uncertain terms. <br><br>The good Sister would likely say that the Judas tract explodes nothing. It is simply another early Christian writing explaining an author's viewpoint on this particular Apostle and his relationship with Jesus. Again, the scriptures are not history; they were written to instruct people as to how Jesus lived and what his message was. Whether Judas was a traitor or not is really not important. What is imperative to those who want to follow in the footsteps of Christ is to understand that hurting another person for money is not acceptable. Got it? I'm glad.<br><br>Anything to do with religion in America is touchy these days, so I fully expect one of Judas's descendants to get a lawyer and demand restitution for all Judas has suffered over the years. I mean, there are a myriad of damages in play here. By some accounts, Judas hung himself after he realized what a scoundrel he was. Wrongful death suit?<br><br>And what exactly happened to those thirty pieces of silver he was paid to betray Jesus? Compounded over the centuries, that would be a major stake today. Surely, Judas would want the money in the hands of his people, would he not? <br><br>Also, don't even bring up the subject of libel. How many kids are named "Judas?" Do Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have any traceable assets the libel lawyers can go after?<br><br>Not that money has anything to do with all this, no; there's a principle in play here. And, as any good lawyer will tell you, that principle can only be illustrated by the payment of money to the aggrieved estate of Judas Iscariot. God bless him.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-04-13T07:00:00ZChoose Booze or NotBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Choose-Booze-or-Not/19934.html2006-04-06T07:00:00Z2006-04-06T07:00:00ZNext time you see a teenager sitting around with a soda can, especially at night, ask him or her if you can have a sip. If they offer you the can, you don't have to drink. If they don't, there's a good chance the beverage inside isn't Dr. Pepper.<br><br>Drinking is cool again in America's high schools—way cool. <br><br>My father broke his back working in order to send me to Chaminade High School on Long Island. This is a college preparatory school with a strict code of behavior. My dad knew that if I got through that place, there would be a chance I would not wind up in Sing-Sing, a situation my grammar school teachers had predicted.<br><br>While Chaminade taught "values" and a Christian philosophy on life, off campus many students were wild men. Back then, the drinking age was 18 and most seniors could legally buy all the booze they wanted. And many did, leading to the usual chaos.<br><br>Now, the drinking age in America is 21, if the state wants federal highway funds. But, according to my high school teacher friends, student drinking is worse than it ever was. It's so bad that Chaminade and other private schools have cancelled proms this year, citing after-prom parties where many kids drink themselves sick.<br><br>The principal at Chaminade, Father James Williams, places much of the blame on parents. And remember, these parents aren't struggling in the inner city to put food on the table—these are affluent parents who believe kids will be kids, so why not let them get wasted once in a while?<br><br>This attitude is more common than you might think in America. The primary rationalization is, you can die for your country in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you can't drink? Come on.<br><br>Okay, fine, it is tough to tell an 18-year old that his Bud's not for him. But let's be realistic. Intoxication can lead to many things, and not many of them are good. Drunk adults often get away with the overindulgence, but the risk goes through the roof with kids.<br><br>Most guidance counselors will tell you that many pregnancies occur when teenagers are drunk. STD's are also easily passed along when teens are too out of it to use protection. Fights break out, destructive traffic accidents are common, and so is destruction of property.<br><br>If a teenager is drunk and unsupervised—look out. <br><br>Often, parents have an unrealistic view of their offspring. How many moms and dads that you know will say, "Yeah, I know Jack's a lush, but hey, I'm not committed enough to control him." How many times have you ever heard THAT?<br><br>No, the usual dance is for parents to say they have "good kids," and to slough off substance abuse with a shrug. After all, many baby boomer parents routinely got blasted in their youth.<br><br>That kind of thinking is foolish, and if you don't believe me, have a medium set you up with Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Substance abuse was dopey then, and it's dopey now. Just because you survived it doesn't mean your daughter will.<br><br>So the best plan is to lay out the pros and cons of getting loaded. Discuss the good things about it with your kids, and the bad things about it. Use some visuals to make points. Baby pictures, hospital rooms, wrecked cars, that kind of thing.<br><br>Then keep track of your kid. As long as he or she is getting laundry done in the house, you have a right to do that. <br><br>In short, do everything you can to discourage the intoxication deal. In that way, if you fail, at least you know you tried.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-04-06T07:00:00ZFrench WhineBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/French-Whine/19919.html2006-03-30T08:00:00Z2006-03-30T08:00:00ZWe have seen the possible future of America—and it is France! This week thousands of young French citizens took to the streets to demand job security and more guaranteed entitlements, as if they don't already have enough.<br><br>If you get a job in France, you immediately get more than seven weeks vacation each year, and five of those weeks are guaranteed between May and October. Also, short of executing your coworkers or something, the company that hires you cannot fire you. They are stuck with you for as long as you show up.<br><br>The result of this insane labor policy is that many French companies simply will not hire young people who don't have solid references and an experienced track record. It's just too risky. So the unemployment rate for workers from 18 to 26 is an astounding 24%. Overall, French unemployment stands at 10% as opposed to less than 5% in the USA.<br><br>So, in order to encourage job expansion, the French government proposed a law that would give employers a little room. A company would be allowed to lay off anyone under the age of 26 for cause within two years of their first day on the job. After that, Jacques and Marie are almost guaranteed a lifetime job, provided the company stays solvent.<br><br>Sounds reasonable, right? How'd you like that deal? <br><br>But for the young French, this is an abomination! This is an insult! They believe they are entitled to a good job no matter how they perform. So they took to the streets.<br><br>Those of us in America who have fought our way up the employment ladder are, of course, amused by this display. And we understand that the quasi-socialism France has embraced since we freed them from the Nazis in 1945 has led to this absurd situation.<br><br>The French government is now a giant colossus that employs more than 25% of the entire French population! Paris pays for health care, provides lucrative pensions, subsidizes a lot of housing, and has set up a 35-hour work week. In fact, it is illegal in France for any company employee to work more than 44 hours a week.<br><br>Viva la France! <br><br>There's just one downside to this labor paradise; France is running out of money. As the population ages, the government is not going to be able to pay the freight.<br><br>Uh-oh. <br><br>To tell you the truth, I don't care. France will likely descend into economic oblivion, and other European countries will follow. But my concern is with the USA. Will this country go the way of France?<br><br>The far left certainly wants to. They love the entitlement culture. Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman rails against "income inequality." Secular-progressive guru George Lakoff demands "broad prosperity" and "economic justice."<br><br>These are code phrases signaling a belief that the federal government should be calling the shots about how much money we all earn and how much profit should be "permitted."<br><br>A core holding of the far-left portfolio is "income redistribution," where the government imposes sky-high taxes on the affluent and then gives the money in the form of entitlements to the less well-off. Thus, the liberal hatred of "tax cuts for the rich."<br><br>Many Americans watching the French display understand that hard work and ambition are the keys of economic success. The entitlement culture, of course, undermines ambition. Chances are these young French people will spend much of their lives sipping lattes and chanting about how bad America is. Certainly they have the time.<br><br>But on the other side of the pond, we Americans must decide whether we want to earn our own stuff, or take other people's stuff. Because, in any language, for each entitlement given, there must be someone to provide it.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-03-30T08:00:00ZTo Punish or Not To PunishBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/To-Punish-or-Not-To-Punish/19895.html2006-03-23T08:00:00Z2006-03-23T08:00:00ZHere's the state of American justice right now: <br><br>- Andrew Selva, 46, confesses to raping two young boys in Ohio and is sentenced to probation by Judge John Connor who believes Selva has a curable "disease."<br><br>- Debra LaFave admits to having sex with a 14-year-old boy in Florida but does not receive prison time. The 25-year-old LaFave was a teacher at the school she seduced the student.<br><br>- Andrea Yates murdered her five children by drowning them one by one. A Texas jury found her sane and very guilty. She was sentenced to life in prison. But the conviction was overturned because an expert witness falsely testified about a TV program that had little to do with the crime.<br><br>Despite that, The Houston Chronicle is calling for "enlightened justice" in the case. The paper wants Ms. Yates sent to a mental hospital instead of prison.<br><br>Enlightened justice? Sounds to me like that might be avoiding punishment for violent actions. Somehow, Andrea Yates walked around the planet for almost 40 years and did not kill anyone. Then, suddenly, she was compelled to drown her five little kids? She couldn't stop herself? That is what the people who don't want Yates in prison believe.<br><br>The jury did not see it that way. After hearing both sides, they came to the conclusion that while Yates is undoubtedly disturbed mentally, she CHOSE to kill her kids. She planned it and then phoned police when it was done.<br><br>Does that action not warrant punishment? Five human beings destroyed? What's "enlightened" about not fitting the punishment to the crime?<br><br>Debra LaFave looked good at her press conference. Hair freshly dyed, makeup perfect, eyes sparkling. Before the cameras, Ms. Lafave wove a tale of sorrow and pity. She was contrite, she announced she is bi-polar, she told the world she is being treated.<br><br>Okay. She didn't kill anybody but, again, she CHOSE to molest the kid. No prison time because the prosecutor did not seek it.<br><br>In Ohio, it is far worse. Andrew Selva admitted everything. He confessed to the court he sexually abused two young boys. One of the boys told me on television, Selva physically forced him to perform a sexual act. But Judge Connor, who has two D-U-I convictions himself, was unmoved. Casually, he issued this stunning statement to the court: "he (Selva) has a disease, like I have a disease." <br><br>Selva nodded and then went home to serve his probation. Connor's incredible sentence was supported by most newspapers in Ohio and the largest legal group in the state.<br><br>I understand that I am not "enlightened," but this is insane. Selva should be sitting in a prison cell for at least 20 years. Chances are those boys will be screwed up for life. Selva robbed them of their childhood and their dignity. Yet, this very evening, Selva will eat dinner in his own home and enjoy the comforts of that sanctuary.<br><br>Something is desperately wrong in America. The doctrine of "moral relativism" where judgments are not made about even dastardly behavior is taking root, just as it has in Western Europe. There is nothing "enlightened' about allowing violent criminals to escape punishment; It is flat out dangerous for society.<br><br>Selva, Yates, and Lafave are just the beginning. There will be more of these kinds of stories coming. Count on it.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-03-23T08:00:00ZThe Most Dangerous States for American KidsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Most-Dangerous-States-for-American-Kids/19789.html2006-03-16T08:00:00Z2006-03-16T08:00:00ZFor those of you who still believe the justice system in America is working, consider the following. For three years, 46-year old Andrew Selva sexually brutalized two boys, ages 5 and 12, in a small town outside of Columbus, Ohio. In a plea bargain, Selva admitted to the court that he raped the boys in a variety of ways. By all accounts, it was savage criminal activity.<br><br>But when Selva appeared for sentencing before Ohio Judge John Connor, he received no prison time at all. Instead, Connor placed him on probation, saying, "He's got a disease like I've got a disease. I don't know that prison would have helped, except for revenge, and revenge is not in the sentencing guidelines."<br><br>What the sentencing guidelines did call for was a ten-year stretch in a state prison. But Connor believes he knows better, so it is probation for a child rapist. By the way, the "disease" Connor referenced in his own case is apparently alcohol-related; the judge has at least two DUI convictions on his sheet.<br><br>This kind of sentencing insanity is increasing across the country because many states, like Ohio, have no mandatory minimum prison terms for child predators and, as we all know, there is no shortage of loony judges like Connor.<br><br>While some states have passed Jessica's Law, which harshly punishes child molesters, other states simply will not do anything. The following are the most dangerous to a child's welfare.<br><br><b>Vermont:</b> Even after the national scandal of Judge Edward Cashman sentencing the rapist of an 8-year old girl to just 60 days in prison (under pressure, Cashman later revised the sentence to a paltry three years), the Vermont legislature failed to pass mandatory minimums for child sexual predators. The effort was blocked by Democrats, and Republican Governor Jim Douglas refused to get involved.<br><br><b>New York:</b> Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for Jessica's Law, Democratic Assemblyman Sheldon Silver continues to single-handedly block any vote. Governor Pataki vows to go around Silver.<br><br><b>Maryland:</b> No mandatory minimums for sexual crimes against children. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democrat Joseph Vallario, has consistently blocked efforts to pass Jessica's Law.<br><br><b>Massachusetts:</b> Absolutely no mandated protection for kids who are brutalized sexually. The judge is free to bestow any sentence. Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, a Democrat, has killed every piece of tough sex offender legislation that has been introduced.<br><br><b>Wyoming:</b> No minimum prison sentences and no GPS tracking for convicted sex offenders. Governor Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, doesn't seem to care.<br><br><b>Arkansas:</b> No minimum prison sentences. Governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican, doesn't seem to care. <br><br><b>Tennessee:</b> No minimum prison terms for child sex crimes. Democratic Governor Phil Bredensen doesn't seem to care. <br><br><b>Idaho:</b> No minimum prison terms for child sex crimes. Republican Governor Dirk Kempthorne doesn't seem to care. <br><br><b>North Dakota:</b> No minimum prison sentences for any sexual acts with minors. Governor John Hoeven, a Republican, says he is "studying" ways to change that.<br><br>Also, the states of Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine, Kansas, and Montana have weak laws protecting kids, but at least there are politicians in those states trying to change things.<br><br>In the Ohio case where the child rapist received parole, and in the Vermont case where the man who raped the little girl initially got 60 days, the three victims were poor kids. Their parents had no money, no influence, and no hope of challenging the wicked judges. I submit those awful sentences would not have been handed down if the rapists had abused wealthy children.<br><br>But be that as it may, any state that will not severely punish an adult who rapes a child is a disgraceful state. And everybody living there should know it.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-03-16T08:00:00ZIt's Hard Out HereBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-Hard-Out-Here/19730.html2006-03-09T08:00:00Z2006-03-09T08:00:00ZAnd the winner is... "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp!" The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences would like to inform the world that this is the best movie song of the year, and you best believe it.<br><br>Taking its place beside other best movie songs like "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head," "Moon River," "A Whole New World," and "Fame," the pimp song, performed in the film "Hustle and Flow," is now enshrined forever in movie history.<br><br>You ain't knowin'?<br><br>Actually, that's the refrain from the song chanted about seven thousand times within the body (no pun intended) of the work. <br><br>The basic theme of "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" seems to be that selling women for sex is a competitive industry with no health benefits or paid vacation. That is hard, indeed. Pimping isn't all it's cracked (no pun intended) up to be. The long hours and demanding clientele do take a toll.<br><br>As the show business community looked up to the Oscar stage last Sunday, they could not help but be impressed with the lyrics of the best song selection:<br><br><blockquote>Wait I got a snow bunny, and a black girl too<br>You pay the right price and they'll both do you,<br>That's the way the game goes, gotta keep it strictly<br>pimpin - gotta have my hustle tight<br>Makin' change off these women,<br>Yeah!</blockquote><br><br>Where have you gone, Henry Mancini?<br><br>Now, what are we unenlightened, non-showbiz people to think about the best movie song of the year? If you saw the rap group "Three 6 Mafia" perform their classic, you can decide for yourself. But, no question, the Academy voters were sticking it "to the man."<br><br>And who's the man? That's us, folks. The people who pay to watch movies. They are sticking it to us.<br><br>But why? All we do is enable many foolish people to become wealthy and famous. We buy magazines to read about them, we watch TV programs that kiss their posteriors, and some of us pay ten bucks to see their movies, which are often incomprehensible.<br><br>No serious person could think that awarding a song that describes the "pimp life" would play well in Tulsa. So whas up with that, as they say in the hood?<br><br>The pinhead apologists for a decaying music industry will trot out the same canard: The pimp song simply reflects street life as it exists today. Okay, fine. If you find that reflection worthwhile, well, that's why you live in America.<br><br>In Al Qaeda dominated Northern Pakistan, "Three 6 Mafia" would find themselves beheaded. By the way, it's not easy being a terrorist, either.<br><br>The truth is that Hollywood doesn't really like the folks very much. They see us as marginal intellects who couldn't possibly understand the art on display in the pimp song. So they voted for an effort they knew would displease many Americans. This is called "arrogance."<br><br>It is hard to believe that any sane person could think "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp" is worthy of an artistic award. I know I "ain't knowin'," but I'll submit this thing was written in five minutes on a bar napkin someplace.<br><br>However, I will concede that being a pimp is probably more difficult than it appears. But it isn't nearly as difficult as sitting through that best movie song of the year.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-03-09T08:00:00ZTheology and Illegal AliensBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Theology-and-Illegal-Aliens/19645.html2006-03-02T08:00:00Z2006-03-02T08:00:00ZAs an American of Irish descent, Roman Catholicism has been in my family for hundreds of years. I respect the Church because I've seen first-hand the good that it can do. Worldwide, no organization does more for the poor and downtrodden than Catholic Charities.<br><br>Thus, it was no surprise when Roger Cardinal Mahony spoke from his pulpit in Los Angeles on Ash Wednesday and urged compassion for immigrants. Surely, people seeking a better life in the USA legally should get help from the Christian community. But the Cardinal's message turned out to include illegal immigrants as well, and then came the crusher: Cardinal Mahony said he will order his priests not to obey a proposed new federal law that cracks down on people aiding "undocumented aliens."<br><br>House Bill 4437, passed last December 16th, would make it a criminal offense to knowingly assist illegals in evading immigration laws. The proposed law also calls for a wall at the Mexican border, mandatory detention of illegals caught inside the USA, and a number of other tough enforcement provisions.<br><br>Cardinal Mahony opposes them all. <br><br>Instead, the Cardinal wants a "humane" approach to the illegal immigration problem and calls the tough measures "hysterical."<br><br>In a startling conversation with the LA Times, Mahony is quoted as saying that Al Qaeda operatives would not trek through the Arizona desert to infiltrate the USA and "the war on terror is not going to be won through immigration restrictions."<br><br>How the Cardinal arrived at these conclusions remains a mystery. I do believe, however, that thousands of Al Qaeda have trekked through arid areas in Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Somebody inform the Cardinal.<br><br>Mahony defiantly says that his priests are not going to become "immigration agents," but nobody is asking for that. The intent of the law is to eliminate so-called "sanctuary" policies whereby Americans shelter and generally provide for illegal aliens while helping them avoid detection.<br><br>As a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, Mahony's job description is to act as an "emissary" of Christ. So the question becomes, "What would Jesus do?"<br><br>It is hard to believe that Jesus would ask the nationality of anyone before giving the person food and drink, or tending to them if they were injured. But if you follow the "render to Caesar" parable, Jesus might not be fine with setting up an underground railroad that violates a nation's right to regulate who enters its territory.<br><br>Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems absolutely lawful and logical for any country to want to know who is living within its borders. Is border control a human rights violation? What say you, Cardinal Mahony?<br><br>It is somewhat unfair to bring this up, but I must, in the interest of full disclosure. Cardinal Mahony was not proactive in protecting children from predator priests in his diocese. In fact, many believe Mahony is a villain in the matter, stonewalling authorities and not holding some criminal priests accountable.<br><br>There is no common ground between the issues of predator priests and illegal aliens, except respect for the law. Urging his priests to violate a proposed new federal immigration law, after handling the priest scandal poorly, puts Cardinal Mahony in a tough spot both morally and legally.<br><br>Back in the Vietnam War days, a number of priests violated the law by participating in illegal protests. Some of them spent time in prison for doing so. Will that happen to Cardinal Mahony if the new immigration law passes and he defies it? <br><br>Only God knows.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-03-02T08:00:00ZReporting on the PortsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Reporting-on-the-Ports/19610.html2006-02-23T08:00:00Z2006-02-23T08:00:00ZConfused yet? Republicans like Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert say no way a company owned by the United Arab Emirates should take over administrative duties at six American ports from a British corporation. And Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer agree: No Arabs in charge of anything at U.S. ports!<br><br>Also, for the first time since the Paleolithic Age, The New York Post and The New York Times concur: No Arabs in charge of anything at U.S. ports!<br><br>But wait a minute. The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post also agree: Let the UAE do the job, and those papers are about as similar editorially as Rush Limbaugh and Al-Jazeera.<br><br>So what's going on here? <br><br>First, the United Arab Emirates is, along with Jordan and Kuwait, America's strongest Middle Eastern ally in the war on terror. The UAE allows the U.S. military to base on its soil and run combat operations into Iraq and Afghanistan. The Emirates also allows the Germans to train Iraqi police candidates on UAE land.<br><br>In addition, the UAE cooperates with the CIA and actually captured Al Qaeda big shot Abdul Raheem Al-Nashiri, who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole, and turned him over to the U.S.A. The Emirates has become a huge help in the war on terror, according to both the Pentagon and the State Department.<br><br>The downside is that the UAE is a conservative Muslim nation that does not recognize Israel, and has supported fascists like the Taliban in the past. Throughout the country, as in all Arab nations, there are jihadists who would kill Americans if they could.<br><br>But the key question in this controversy is simple: What is more dangerous for America--to spit in the eye of an Arab ally, or to allow that ally to work in some of America's ports?<br><br>I believe Osama bin Laden would love for the U.S.A. to humiliate the UAE by firing their company without cause. If Washington says to the Arab world, "Hey, it's fine for a British company to work in our ports, but you guys have to hit the road," how do you think that's going to play on Al Jazeera?<br><br>Talk about racial profiling! <br><br>So, the USA is caught between a Mosque and a hard place. What the Bush administration must do is honor the contract, but install strict oversight and accountability, as it should do on every foreign company doing business in the USA in this age of terror.<br><br>Finally, Congress should pass legislation that would, in the future, ban all foreign companies from controlling operations at U.S. ports of entry, so this kind of mess doesn't happen again. As Al Gore might say, we need to be the controlling authority.<br><br>But for now, the cold truth is that the U.S.A. will not win the war on terror without the help of nations like the United Arab Emirates. We simply cannot afford to fire that nation. If we lose these people, we'll lose the war.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-02-23T08:00:00ZThe Good, the Bad, and the Pup TentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Pup-Tent/19596.html2006-02-16T08:00:00Z2006-02-16T08:00:00ZOne of my favorite western movies ever is "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," a sprawling three hour Sergio Leone shoot-'em-up where Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach star as weapons of mass destruction. I like this film because it's easy to understand: Three macho guys are looking for gold and you better not get in their way, pardner. <br><br>The old American west was a place where men were men, and women were, well, in short supply. I mean, covering thousands of miles in a dusty covered wagon wasn't exactly an enchanting experience for the ladies. Don't even ask about the plumbing.<br><br>But the new American west is a bit different, at least according to the new widely praised film "Brokeback Mountain." I haven't seen the movie because the lead actors play bisexual shepherds and, please forgive me, that isn't on top of my viewing wish list. I understand I'm a barbarian.<br><br>According to friends of mine who have seen "Brokeback," the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds "bond" in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint and Lee and Eli have done, had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.<br><br>I also believe "Brokeback Mountain" will win the Oscar next month for Best Picture of the Year. I could be wrong, as left-wing bomb thrower George Clooney is very popular in Hollywood, and his movie about Ed Murrow might prevail. But it looks to me like Academy Award voters will throw Clooney the Best Supporting Actor award, opening the tent flap for "Brokeback" to win it all.<br><br>These days, Hollywood considers itself not only a place of entertainment, but also a cultural trendsetter. There is no question that many showbiz types would like to banish any societal stigma associated with homosexuality. Thus, a mainstream movie that portrays gay conduct as nuanced and complicated, as "Brokeback" reportedly does, contributes to a more broadminded approach to homosexuality--a more accepting view.<br><br>So that's what's in play this year at the Academy Awards--a social and political statement. And that's why Star Wars and Harry Potter and Narnia, the three largest grossing movies of the year, are not in the best picture running. Spectacular movies often make tons of money, but they do not advance any cause. Gone are the days when "Gone With the Wind"-type entertainment ruled the Hollywood day.<br><br>So how should we process the current Hollywood award process? Well, I don't have a problem with it. Certainly, it is wrong that some gay Americans, especially teenagers, are made to suffer because of their predilections. Every American should be able to pursue happiness on an equal basis, including gays.<br><br>But I also think the entertainment industry should be up front in explaining what films it values and why it finds them especially worthy. Most Americans are not gonna see "Brokeback Mountain" because they don't relate to the subject, and if Hollywood is now in the "culture-shaping business," it should admit it.<br><br>So look for Oscar night to be a huge night for shepherds who roam the range in their own consensual way. Hollywood is making a statement and Americans should be geting the message loud and clear.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-02-16T08:00:00ZGet the Picture?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Get-the-Picture/19577.html2006-02-09T08:00:00Z2006-02-09T08:00:00ZSo here's my question, and it's a simple one because I am a simple man: The New York Times will not print any of those Danish political cartoons that mock Islamic violence, but it will publish a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered with dung. What's up with that?<br><br>Here's what the Times wrote about the cartoons: "(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."<br><br>Okay, fine, I agree with that editorial which appeared on February 7th. But the next day, the newspaper ran a picture of the dung-covered Mary accompanying an article entitled "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery."<br><br>So we can't see the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban in the Times, but we can see a sacrilegious "gratuitous assault" on Mary that came from a shameful Brooklyn Museum exposition in 1999. Do I have that right?<br><br>Once again, we have a huge double standard in play in the secular-progressive press. In 1989, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe, among others, published a picture by photographer Andres Serrano that showed the crucified Christ submerged in urine. Serrano was also featured in a New York Times fashion spread, according to reporting in The Washington Post.<br><br>And then there was the play "Corpus Christi," which featured a gay Jesus who had sex with some Apostles. The New York Times opined that folks who protested the play had "contempt for artistic expression."<br><br>Maybe I'm wrong, but dung on Mary, Christ submerged in urine, and a gay Jesus just might be "gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." But, again, I'm kind of dense when it comes to "artistic expression," so I could be way off here.<br><br>The real question is this: Do the editors of The New York Times intentionally want to denigrate Christianity? I don't know. I can only go by the best available evidence, and the case I just made seems air-tight. Religious minorities in the USA seem to be given much more respect by the Times than the religious majority. Remember, 84% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.<br><br>If you read The New York Times and the other secular-progressive papers, you know they often see the Christian majority as "oppressive." And its easy to see why. Many Christians oppose unfettered abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage--just to name three issues that the secular-progressives champion. Resistance to "progressive" change in America is strong in quite a few Christian communities. So they have become "dangerous" to some in the secular-progressive press.<br><br>Therefore, any denigration of Christian symbols is far more acceptable than the negative depiction of minority religions. Would The New York Times print a picture of Mohammed covered with dung? If you think so, I have a condo in Baghdad I'd like to sell you.<br><br>The cold truth is that it is open season on Christian symbols in much of the American press. That was demonstrated during the Christmas controversy which the secular-progressive press denied even existed. Insulting Christian icons is wrong, just as mocking the prophet Mohammed is wrong. The difference might be that Christians are taught to turn the other cheek, while militant Muslims might react a bit differently. And The New York Times knows it.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-02-09T08:00:00ZDarfur vs. VermontBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Darfur-vs.-Vermont/19560.html2006-02-02T20:00:00Z2006-02-02T20:00:00ZHere's an update on that young Vermont girl whose life has been made a living hell by a justice system that literally could not care less about her. You may remember that 34-year old Mark Hulett confessed to raping the child over a four year period, beginning when she was just six years old. The judge in the case frowned when he heard the confession and promptly sentenced the vicious criminal to <em>60 days</em> in prison. A few journalists, including myself, picked up on the outrage, and, under enormous pressure, Cashman was forced to change the sentence to three years.<br><br>The girl is now 10 years old, and is being raised by foster parents. Vermont authorities believe her mother and stepfather are incapable of properly protecting the child. She is undergoing counseling and is in school, but, according to those who see her every day, she's confused and unhappy.<br><br>Surely, this young girl's human rights have been violated; no person on this earth should have to suffer the way she has.<br><br>A few weeks ago in this space, I wrote about New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who criticized me for reporting on the Christmas controversy. Kristof believes that I fabricated the Yule story. He also accused me of ignoring "real" stories like the suffering in the Sudan.<br><br>On December 18th, Kristof wrote, "So I have a challenge for Mr. O'Reilly: If you really want to defend traditional values, then come with me on a trip to Darfur. I'll introduce you to mothers who have had their babies clubbed to death in front of them, to teenage girls who have been gang-raped..."<br><br>Now, I would love to report from Darfur and raise awareness of that terrible situation. But as Kristof must know, I do three hours of daily news analysis on TV and radio. There's no way I can go to Africa in light of that obligation. I'm glad Kristof can go, however, because somebody needs to spotlight the situation.<br><br>But an interesting thing happened shortly after that Kristof column: The 60-day sentence for a child rapist came to light. Because Kristof had referenced teenage rape in his criticism of me, I fully expected to see him and The New York Times all over the Vermont story. After all, this human rights violation happened just a few hundred miles north of New York City.<br><br>But The New York Times did not cover the Vermont story--did not even mention it. And there was not a word from my pal Nicholas Kristof, the human rights guy.<br><br>So what's going on here? <br><br>The truth is, I don't know. I am stunned the Times, The Boston Globe and the other big liberal newspapers ignored the story. Surely, this little girl is one of the downtrodden in our society. Aren't liberal press advocates champions of the downtrodden?<br><br>So maybe Nicholas Kristof can write another column explaining to me why the Vermont child does not matter to him or his newspaper.<br><br>I hope that doesn't sound bitter, because I don't mean it to be. I am genuinely perplexed by the sanctimonious left-wing press, which doesn't consider a 60-day jail term for a child rapist an outrage.<br><br>While The New York Times rails against alleged human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay and other far off places, it apparently has no interest in protecting poor American children from predators and bad judges.<br><br>Something isn't right here. What say you on the left?BillOReilly.com Staff2006-02-02T20:00:00ZThe Left-Wing BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Left-Wing-Blues/19545.html2006-01-26T08:00:00Z2006-01-26T08:00:00ZWith all the problems the Bush administration is having in Iraq, with surging oil prices, and with the media hammering the president 24/7 on just about everything, you would think liberalism would be getting some traction in North America. But apparently it's not.
<p>
Polls show that Americans support conservative Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court by a wide margin, Canada just elected a conservative Prime Minister after 13 years of liberal rule, and the President's terror warrior poll numbers dwarf those of any Democrat, despite all the controversies over eavesdropping and interrogation.
<p>
So what's going on?
<p>
The answer to that question can best be summed up by a new Gallup poll which says that 51% of Americans will not vote for Senator Hillary Clinton under any circumstances, should she secure the Democratic nomination for President.
<p>
So, apparently, it doesn't matter what Mr. Bush is doing, most Americans don't want the most well-known liberal Democrat in the country sitting in the White House.
<p>
That's a tough situation for the left. All the Bush-bashing in the world does not seem to be making liberal candidates more attractive. And the bashing might just be the problem.
<p>
For example, the four Bush-hating columnists at The New York Times, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, have written an astounding 148 anti-Bush op-ed pieces in the past 13 months. That represents 47% of their total work output. I mean, how much loathing do you need? Why doesn't the Times just put a "We Hate Bush!" banner on its op-ed page, and have everybody take a long lunch?
<p>
This kind of over-reaction to a sitting President actually creates some sympathy for him among fair-minded Americans. After a while, the cacophony of hatred from the left is just numbing.
<p>
And it's also mean. American women, particularly, do not respond well to nastiness. Do you think Ted Kennedy's attacks on Samuel Alito and the subsequent tears from this wife helped the Democrats? Do you?
<p>
To be fair, Republicans made the same mistake with all the Clinton bashing. After a while, it just became boring.
<p>
But that was then, and this is now. We are living in a much more dangerous time. All the polls show that Americans remain uneasy about terrorism and their own personal security. And in this area, the Democrats poll far below the Republicans.
<p>
That's because the Dems do not put forth concrete solutions to vexing problems. What's the liberal solution to the chaotic illegal immigration situation and the porous southern border? How would the left handle Iran if it continues to develop nukes? And on Iraq, the Democratic message is mixed. Hillary wants to win it; Howard Dean says we can't achieve victory. When it comes to cohesion, the Democrat Party rivals the Balkans.
<p>
Finally, the left-wing media unknowingly hurts the Democrats, the very party it wants to promote. By making celebrities of loons like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte, the press spotlights the radicalism on display on the fringes of the Democrat party.
<p>
Republicans and conservatives hoot down Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Belafonte all day long, but liberals are largely silent. Believe me, that silence does not go unnoticed by independent-minded Americans.
<p>
And the Democrats have little chance to regain power in America without a substantial number of independents shifting to their cause. But right now, that is not happening, and I see no liberal strategy on the horizon to change the situation.
<p>
At this point, the champions of the blue states are, indeed, singing the blues.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-01-26T08:00:00ZVermont JusticeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Vermont-Justice/19531.html2006-01-19T08:00:00Z2006-01-19T08:00:00ZRalph Page is a problem. The 35-year old Vermont man has twice been convicted of drunk driving, and now faces charges of theft and assaulting his girlfriend. He's a typical low-level offender who shuffles around causing trouble and clogging up the justice system.
<p>
On January 17th, Page ambled into Judge Patricia Zimmerman's courtroom to answer charges that he punched a woman in the face. Apparently, Page did not like hearing the charges against him and screamed out "this is effing bull----." That annoyed Judge Zimmerman, who promptly found Page in contempt of court and sentenced him to 60 days in a Vermont jail.
<p>
Nothing wrong with that, but listen to this: That 60-day sentence is the same amount of jail time another Vermont judge, Edward Cashman, awarded 34-year-old Mark Hulett. But it is here where the Vermont justice system collapses. Incredibly, Hulett pled guilty to a variety of felony sexual assault charges against a six-year-old girl. Over a period of four years, Hulett, a friend of the girl's mother, confessed to raping the child in her own home. It was a methodical and brutal series of actions on Hulett's part, and it has devastated an innocent little girl.
<p>
But when it came time to sentence Hulett, Judge Cashman suspended all but 60 days of a potential life prison stretch, because Cashman wanted Hulett to get "treatment." At sentencing, the Judge said: "I keep telling prosecutors, and they won't hear me, that punishment is not enough."
<p>
So here's justice in the state of Vermont: Cursing at a judge merits the same prison time as repeatedly raping a six-year-old girl.
<p>
If Hulett had committed the same crime in Florida, he would now be serving 25-to-life in the penitentiary because that state has passed mandatory minimum sentences for felony battery on children. But Vermont has no such minimums. So Mark Hulett, child rapist, is set to walk free on March 4th.
<p>
The philosophy of our nation is "equal justice under the law." Obviously, the abused little girl and her family did not get justice by any measure. Clear-thinking people understand that true justice requires that the punishment fit the crime.
<p>
But Judge Cashman does not understand that. His sympathies are with the rapist, and he did not even attempt to hide that fact. Because of Cashman's outrageous sentence, you would think Vermonters would be calling for his gavel and robe.
<p>
You would think. But you'd be wrong.
<p>
Most of the state's liberal newspapers are supporting Cashman. The far-left Brattleboro Reformer editorialized: "Lengthy jail terms without rehabilitation will not accomplish anything."
<p>
Really? How about keeping child rapists away from children? Doesn't a lengthy prison term accomplish that?
<p>
Vermont's shameful story is being played out in other places as well. But it is in this tiny state, the second-least-populated behind Wyoming, that a horrendous violation of human rights is taking place.
<p>
Yet we have heard nothing from former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, or Senators Leahy and Jeffords, or social activist Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, which is based in the Green Mountain State.
<p>
Also, current Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, is nowhere to be found on the issue, and the ACLU is silent as well.
<p>
Meantime, an abused little girl will likely live out her life in anguish and confusion, her low-income family is devastated, and the crazy left media believes Judge Cashman is the victim of unreasonable "demagogues."
<p>
They say the skiing is great this winter in Vermont. But I'm not going. There's something in the air there that I cannot abide.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-01-19T08:00:00ZBush, Iran and the PressBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bush-Iran-and-the-Press/19517.html2006-01-12T08:00:00Z2006-01-12T08:00:00ZWith most of the American press firmly against the war in Iraq and many media types portraying President Bush as a bumbling fool, the danger we all face from Iran is being shrouded in a fog of partisan bitterness.
<p>
In a very under-reported story, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran is resuming its uranium enrichment program, which is necessary to develop nuclear weaponry. The Iranians say they don't want a nuke, they want more electricity. And if you believe that, I have a Victoria's Secret franchise in Tehran I'd like to sell you. The Mullahs control plenty of electricity.
<p>
Iran is clearly thumbing its nose at the world and is doing so because it believes the USA has been weakened by the war in Iraq, and Europe is too cowardly to do anything other than complain. The fanatical Iranian Mullahs are, as one diplomat put it, rolling the dice and daring the world to stop them.
<p>
Of course, if Iran does develop nukes, the odds of Al Qaeda gaining access to them are high. What better way to attack the "American devil" than by using a nuclear device? And the Mullahs could always claim they had nothing to do with the attack. Remember, it was a rogue Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold nuclear stuff to Libya and, perhaps, to North Korea. The Pakistani government claimed to know nothing about it.
<p>
Now it is hard to imagine that the left-leaning, anti-Bush press, both here and abroad, would encourage President Bush to take aggressive action against Iran. In fact, my guess is any saber rattling by Washington would be greeted with partisan skepticism and scorn in the media.
<p>
The question then becomes: Has the White House been intimidated by the chaos in Iraq? With faulty CIA intelligence both before and after 9/11, has Mr. Bush lost the credibility, and perhaps the confidence, to take bold action against Iran?
<p>
This is a crucial question as the Mullahs challenge the world. Even though Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin <b>say</b> they are fed up with Iran, talk is cheap, and these guys are a discount warehouse. In the end, it will probably be left to the USA and Great Britain to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, although Israel is a wild card.
<p>
This is the real deal, and every American should understand the danger. The chief Iranian Mullah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth and denies the Holocaust ever took place. Obviously, Israel is not going to allow nukes in Iran.
<p>
So, while some in the anti-Bush media continue to pile on the President at every opportunity, those of us who understand the war on terror are growing increasingly uneasy. The Mullahs and terrorists believe the Bush administration is seriously weakened and are watching with great glee. No way in the months directly after 9/11, these guys would have pulled this stuff. But now they are emboldened by the struggle in Iraq and the apathy at the U.N.
<p>
The Mullah's are arrogant, dangerous, and heading for trouble. I hear Iran's new motto might be a steal from Vegas: "What happens here, stays here. And blank you if you don't like it."
<p>
With nukes now in play, that's a recipe for disaster.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-01-12T08:00:00ZDavid Letterman and the Culture WarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/David-Letterman-and-the-Culture-War/19481.html2006-01-05T08:00:00Z2006-01-05T08:00:00ZEven though the war on terror dominates the headlines, the culture war in America is almost as intense. On one side you have traditionalists, people who believe the country was well founded, does mostly good things, and has become the most powerful nation on earth by adhering to Judeo-Christian principles like generosity, justice, and self-sacrifice.
<p>
On the other side of the culture war are the secular-progressives who believe that the USA is fundamentally a flawed country, which has caused considerable misery both within and outside our borders. The S-P's want drastic change and a new direction for America.
<p>
The two most intense issues in the culture war right now are how to deal with terrorism, and what role spirituality should play in the public arena.
<p>
The S-P's want little or no public displays of God or religion. That's what drove the attacks on Christmas images and traditions--knock down the big Christian holiday, and the secularists achieve a big victory.
<p>
On the terror front, traditionalists largely want aggressive action to wipe out the "evildoers," and if lraq is the battlefield, then so be it.
<p>
Secular-progressives are appalled by the Iraq war and generally believe the USA has no right to act unilaterally to hunt down terrorists or their enablers.
<p>
So the stage was set for my recent appearance on the David Letterman show. I am a traditionalist; Mr. Letterman tends to mock traditionalists. And he often does it very well.
<p>
Our discussion began with the Christmas controversy. Dave did not see it as a big deal. When I pointed out the absurdity of a library in Memphis, Tennessee okaying a manger scene but then telling the woman donating it that she had to remove Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the three Wise Men, Dave said he did not believe the story. And, generally, that was the opinion of the liberal media: There was no Christmas controversy - the whole thing was fabricated by religious zealots bent on establishing a theocracy.
<p>
Dave's skepticism must have come as a surprise to Memphis resident Brandi Chambless, the woman ordered to remove statues of the Holy Family and their visitors from the east. But, hey, the shepherds could stay, staring into an empty stable.
<p>
The subject quickly shifted to Iraq, a conflict both Letterman and I believe has been poorly managed. We also found common ground on the terrific performance of the U.S. military.
<p>
But then Cindy Sheehan came up. Uh-oh.
<p>
Dave, as well as many in the entertainment community, feels that Ms. Sheehan should not be criticized. He believes she is above reproach because her son Casey was killed in Iraq.
<p>
I do not see it that way, so sparks flew. My contention is that Ms. Sheehan is entitled to grieve and dissent in any way she wants, but her grief is being exploited by far-left elements.
<p>
And when Ms. Sheehan told Mark Knoller, a correspondent for CBS radio, that the terrorists in Iraq were "freedom fighters," she insulted thousands of other Americans who lost loved ones in Iraq.
<p>
Simply put, terrorists who blow up civilians, women and children are not freedom fighters in any sense. They are murderers and I called Mr. Letterman on Sheehan's support of them.
<p>
I hope you saw the program. It was a rare display of the culture war on television. I told Dave I respected his views and he should respect mine. I enjoyed the joust.
<p>
By far more important is the wake up call many late night viewers got. We in America are becoming a deeply divided country along cultural lines. The more we all understand what the issues are, the better. The culture war is real, and now everybody that watched Letterman that evening knows it.BillOReilly.com Staff2006-01-05T08:00:00ZThe Hate Bush SyndromeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Hate-Bush-Syndrome/19460.html2005-12-29T08:00:00Z2005-12-29T08:00:00ZNo question that the two big stories this year were Katrina and the continuing chaos in Iraq. Both contain lessons. Katrina demonstrated just what can happen when the water hits the dam; no branch of government can save you from disaster. Those who didn't have the smarts or the wherewithal to flee the Hurricane got blasted especially in New Orleans. A metaphor for life: Get smart and depend on yourself. No bureaucracy can protect you from crisis or disaster.
<p>
Iraq taught us that well intentioned theory can be trumped by unpredictable behavior. Before the invasion, the Bush administration was convinced the Iraqi people would be so thrilled by the prospective of a life free from tyranny, that they would embrace coalition forces and a chance for democracy. It turns out that some Iraqis are addicted to tyranny and enjoy inflicting terror on anyone who opposes it. Should the USA have known that before it began nation building in a chaotic land? Probably.
<p>
The Iraq effort might still be successful, and that would be a huge plus for the world, but believe me when I tell you that America will not be invading another Muslim country any time soon.
<p>
There was one important story this year that went largely unreported, and that is the full-blown emergence of the "hate Bush media." This phenomenon is unlike anything the country has seen since the final days of Richard Nixon. Liberals will tell you that Bill Clinton was vilified in the media, but compared to the loathing directed at President Bush, Clinton's press plight was a foot massage.
<p>
Led by the increasingly vitriolic New York Times, the mainstream media spins negative and attempts to undermine just about everything President Bush does. Almost every anti-terror strategy is opposed. The press, in general, doesn't like the Patriot Act, the CIA Rendition program, or phone monitoring by the NSA. The mainstream media is disgusted by coerced interrogation, appalled by military detention for terror suspects, and outraged by the denial of Geneva Convention rights for terrorists captured in civilian clothing. As for the fighting in Iraq, well, don't ask.
<p>
So how exactly would the press fight the war on terror? Perhaps by treating all captured foreign terrorists as criminals and providing them with Constitutional protections, including civilian lawyers. This, of course, would make the terror fight impossible to win, but hey, that doesn't seem to concern the Bush haters.
<p>
The genesis of that hatred is the feeling that President Bush was illegally elected in 2000, and subsequently put forth calculated lies about WMD's in Iraq. Those beliefs are deeply ingrained in the media power centers and so Mr. Bush has completely lost the benefit of the doubt. To many editors and their acolytes, he's bad, dumb, dishonest, a holy roller, a fascist, a human rights violator, a violator of the Constitution, and the final straw - he takes too much vacation.
<p>
This loathing of the President is, without a doubt, dangerous for the nation. Any kind of irrationality on the part of the American media impedes the honest flow of information and causes damage to our system of checks and balances. The press is supposed to be an honest watchdog, not a vicious pit bull bent on destruction.
<p>
Most importantly, if the mainstream media will not give Mr. Bush a fair shake, the terrorists score a major victory. Chaos at the top aids the enemy. Right now, America desperately needs an honest press. It does not need a vengeful press.
<p>
The media absolutely should verify and fully explain what Mr. Bush does wrong, but it also needs to stop vilifying him across the board. The media hatred of the President is the stealth story of 2005, and it shows no sign of improving as we enter 2006.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-12-29T08:00:00ZPressing the PointBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Pressing-the-Point/19444.html2005-12-22T08:00:00Z2005-12-22T08:00:00ZJust when you think you have it figured out, life kicks you in the back of the knee. Over my 30-year career in journalism, I have tried to resist generalizing about the media. You know--that it is rife with left-wing loons bent on imposing a secular society on the country. In the past, I would have never said that. But that was then, this is now.
<p>
I have come to believe that the American press is so secular Karl Marx would be appalled. And here's my proof: a few weeks ago, I stuck up for Christmas. I said it was wrong for retail operations to ban the words "Merry Christmas" in their stores. I said it was misguided for the ACLU to sue people because they put up images of the baby Jesus in the town square. I wrote it was awful that the federal holiday of Christmas was under siege.
<p>
In reply, I received gentle criticisms from my peers in the press; a few simple reminders that most of them disagreed with me on the issue and, in general, think I have the intellect of a Visigoth. For example, my friends at the San Francisco Chronicle called me a "Field Marshal," which I believe is a Nazi reference. My pals at The New York Times compared me to some fundamentalist Islamic preachers (so now people are calling me Mullah Omar O'Reilly).
<p>
The fine folks at the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia opined that I should be "ashamed" for saying there's a war on Christmas. The Telegram & Gazette in Massachusetts described me as "a right-wing demagogue." And Sam Donaldson said I made the whole controversy up to get "ratings." Now that's going over the line.
<p>
I have a very long list of media insults directed my way, and I'm checking it twice. I want to find out who's been naughty and nice. Sorry to say, nobody in the media's been nice.
<p>
But the folks are on my side. A new Gallup Poll taken on the non-existent Christmas controversy says that 69% of Americans feel replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" is a bad thing. Only 3% of Americans object to hearing or seeing the words "Merry Christmas."
<p>
Even the House of Representatives weighed in on the non-existent Christmas controversy. By a vote of 401- 22, the House passed the "Resolution to Protect Christmas Symbols and Traditions." All the Congress people who voted against the measure inhabit the far left precincts. Don't they know that Santa runs the biggest entitlement program in history?
<p>
It doesn't really bother me that my media cohorts feel I am the spawn of Pat Robertson. I'm actually glad so many press outlets made their true feelings about Christmas known because now we all know where everybody stands. The American press is overwhelmingly secular and you better duck if you're a traditionalist.
<p>
That is bad news for the baby Jesus, but good news if you want the USA to become like Holland. The secular-progressive movement, led by the always reliable ACLU, has a invaluable ally in the media and the culture wars will become even more intense as more press people emerge from the secular closet.
<p>
But we traditionalists can point to the fact that 95% of Americans say they observe the Christmas holiday and that is an overwhelming mandate. But don't get too optimistic. While we are still free to celebrate Christmas, actually saying the word is becoming a bit more problematic. The holidays may be happy, but Christmas is getting less merry every year.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-12-22T08:00:00ZThe Lieberman FactorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Lieberman-Factor/19432.html2005-12-15T08:00:00Z2005-12-15T08:00:00ZSenator Joseph Lieberman has a lot of guts. No matter how you feel about the Iraq war, we should admire Lieberman for sticking up for what he believes. As widely reported, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut recently traveled to Iraq, sized up the situation, and returned home to report that the war there could be won, and he's not backing down despite all kinds of grief being directed his way.
<p>
The totalitarian wing of the Democratic party, led by the increasingly irrational Howard Dean, has continued to disparage Lieberman's point of view and is even threatening the man. The George Soros funded propaganda factory MoveOn.org called Lieberman's Iraq position "like a betrayal" and James Dean, Howard's brother, is leading the charge to marginalize the Senator in his home state.
<p>
You may have noticed that the far left has recently stepped up its fascist-like tactics. Last week at the University of Connecticut, invited speaker Ann Coulter was shouted down by students who opposed hearing anything she had to say. This came on the heels of loons in Chicago trying to shout down Senator Hillary Clinton for not condemning the Iraq conflict. And just this week, a far left outfit took out a full page ad in The New York Times urging Americans to disrupt President Bush's State of the Union address next month. What's next for the radicals, blowing up satellite dishes?
<p>
Senator Lieberman knew his point of view would be attacked, but is willing to take the heat even though he's up for reelection next November. No question Lieberman is a stand up guy and, as we all know, that is rare in American politics these days.
<p>
Lieberman's position on Iraq is born out of his vast knowledge of the situation in Israel. The Senator realizes that any show of weakness in the face of international terrorism will lead to more attacks. If the USA and Britain bail on the new Iraqi government before it can defend the country, the terrorists will likely have a new playground to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. And this theme park would be much more dangerous because Iran would control the southern part of Iraq, arming and financing al Qaeda's worldwide operations.
<p>
Of course, Howard Dean and his minions, people like Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, are clueless when it comes to terror strategy but no one is shouting them down. In fact, it's important for Americans to hear what the Iraq defeatists have to say because it is so short-sighted. Here's the essential question: Do you think Osama bin Laden is rooting for Joseph Lieberman's point of view, or Howard Dean's?
<p>
The Bush administration has made too many mistakes in the Iraq campaign. That is quite clear to any fair-minded observer. But those mistakes can and must be overcome by determination, negotiation and courage. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha do not know how to protect America against the terrorist jihad. The far left is actually helping terrorists worldwide by failing to acknowledge the danger and having no idea as to how to deal with it. In addition, their tactics in this great debate are often anti-democratic and embarrassing. Someone should remind the insane left that the USA isn't Munich in 1928.
<p>
Senator Joseph Lieberman has reminded America that politicians can be courageous. He is standing up for what he thinks is best for his country. We need more Liebermans and fewer ideological zealots on both sides of the political spectrum. Although the radical left would shout him down if they could, the rest of us should also let our voices be heard. Let's hear it for Lieberman.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-12-15T08:00:00Z'Twas the Night Before SolsticeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Twas-the-Night-Before-Solstice/19418.html2005-12-08T08:00:00Z2005-12-08T08:00:00ZWay back in 1822 Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem called "'Twas the Night Before Christmas," which was first published in the New York Sentinel journal. Moore, the son of the New York Bishop who had presided at George Washington's inauguration, had no idea his verse would become world famous, beloved by people everywhere.
<p>
But because there is mention of a certain "Saint Nicholas" in the poem it may, alas, have to be revised in order not to offend Americans who don't believe in saints or even Christmas for that matter. We cannot be having any exclusionary poems now, can we?
<p>
So with apologies to Clement Moore and everybody else, I humbly submit this updated poem for your consideration:
<blockquote>
'Twas the night before Solstice, and all through the land<br>
the ACLU was watching to keep things in hand.<br>
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,<br>
while forces kept Christmas out of their heads.
<p>
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,<br>
I sprang from my bed and heard desperate chatter.<br>
Someone had seen my manger display,<br>
And wailed very loudly - go away, go away.
<p>
How could I be so crass, so utterly wrong<br>
So show the infant Jesus and sing him a song?<br>
<p>
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof<br>
An ACLU lawyer, looking stern and aloof.<br>
No manger! No caroling! he said with a snort,<br>
And if you don't comply immediately, I'll take you to court!
<p>
He was chubby and plump, a right surly old elf,<br>
And I laughed when I saw him in spite of myself.<br>
He dallied no more, but went straight to his phone<br>
Lamenting the manger, in a most pitiful moan.
<p>
But I in the spirit, said nothing unkind<br>
Christmas is forgiveness whatever you find.<br>
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,<br>
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
<p>
Christmas will survive, the folks will demand it,<br>
Even if secular lawyers will not understand it.<br>
Then I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight,<br>
Happy Solstice to all, and to all a good night!
</blockquote>BillOReilly.com Staff2005-12-08T08:00:00ZHey, It's the Solstice Buying SeasonBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hey-Its-the-Solstice-Buying-Season/19402.html2005-12-01T08:00:00Z2005-12-01T08:00:00ZCorporate America should get down on its knees and thank God that the baby Jesus was born two thousand plus years ago. Okay, how many people did I offend with that first sentence? Let's see, I mentioned praying to God, the baby Jesus, and even hinted at the celebration of Christmas. Totally out of line, don't you think?
<p>
The federal holiday of Christmas is once again under siege this year by secular forces that want to wipe out any public display of America's Judeo-Christian traditions. And what a problematic situation this has become, especially for big business. Sears and Kmart will absolutely not mention the word "Christmas" in advertising this year. Wal-Mart will not either, along with scores of other retail stores. The reason these operations give for avoiding the C-word is that they don't want to offend anyone by mentioning a holiday they might not celebrate. These stores believe the greeting "Happy Holidays" is more "inclusive," although I'm sure there are some Americans who don't believe in <em>any</em> holidays, so what about them?
<p>
Frankly, the executives who have banished Christmas from their advertising are insane. By doing that, they are offending tens of millions of traditional Americans who respect the Christmas season and want it called exactly what it is - Christmas.
<p>
Back in 1870, President U.S. Grant signed a law making Christmas a holiday for all American citizens. That's why you have the day off. That's why no mail is delivered. Santa is the only designated delivery guy on December 25. Can I say Santa? Is that inclusive?
<p>
There is a huge backlash brewing on this Christmas deal. Judging from reaction to my reporting on television and radio, millions of Americans have had enough of denigrating the birth of Jesus. The holiday honors peace and generosity in the name of a great philosopher who has had a tremendous influence on the USA. Eighty-five percent of Americans call themselves Christians and believe me, many of them are not happy with "Happy Holidays" as the imposed greeting of the season.
<p>
Federated Department Stores (that's Macys, Bloomingdales and others) learned its lesson last year when it pushed the "Merry Christmas" greeting out the door and sales suffered. This year Federated is back in the Christmas spirit, so to speak, using "Merry Christmas" along with other seasonal greetings to advertise stuff.
<p>
It's all so blatantly dumb. All these corporate geniuses have to do is incorporate all the greetings into the store brochures and displays. Most Christians are more than happy to acknowledge Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Happy Winter Time or whatever. Use them all, and to all a good night.
<p>
But no. The incredibly dense grinches that run many American companies are so infected with political correctness, so afraid somebody might complain about the word 'Christmas,' that they throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
<p>
Well, humbug. You do that - I'm shopping elsewhere. Three wise men once came bearing gifts to honor a baby who would grow up to bring a great message to the world. If corporate chieftains are not wise enough to honor that message as well, they don't deserve any Christmas cheer. Simple as that.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-12-01T08:00:00ZSan Francisco BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/San-Francisco-Blues/19370.html2005-11-23T08:00:00Z2005-11-23T08:00:00ZIt is hard to figure out the mindset of many Americans living in the secular-progressive paradise of San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago they voted to oppose military recruiting in the city's public schools including colleges. In the middle of a vicious war on terror, the City by the Bay says no to the people who volunteer to protect us.
<p>
When I criticized the vote on radio and television, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth. The basic thrust of the indignation was that San Francisco objects to the methods some military recruiters use. Of course, Proposition One on the ballot said nothing about that. It asked a simple question: should the city oppose military recruitment in schools? Sixty percent of San Franciscans voted yes.
<p>
That vote is flat-out disrespectful to the American Armed Forces. Remember, the military has no political power. It goes where America's elected leadership orders it to go. Men and women sign up to protect their country and they do their duty. Yet they are not welcomed in San Francisco's schools.
<p>
No one should be surprised by that vote. The San Francisco area is rated the most liberal in the country, according to a study by the non-partisan Bay Area Center for Voting Research. Nancy Pelosi is the congresswoman, and the district went for Al Gore by 61 points over President Bush.
<p>
In the recall of former California Governor Gray Davis, 80% of San Franciscans voted to keep him while the rest of the state voted overwhelmingly to boot him out. So you could say that not only is San Francisco out of touch with traditional America, it is out of touch with its own liberal state.
<p>
And San Francisco is the city that never learns. It passed an insane law that handed out $410 a month to any homeless person who showed up. Predictably, thousands of indigents, many of them addicted, poured into the down town area, panhandling and using the parks as outdoor restrooms. Businesses and families went crazy and the city council was forced to cut the payments down to $59 a month.
<p>
The progressives also gleefully hopped on the medical marijuana bandwagon. But now Mayor Gavin Newsome wants to shut down most of the 35 "clubs" that have opened up, selling pot to anyone who has a headache. SFPD Captain Rick Bruce told me, "A lot of our local drug dealers actually have medical marijuana cards, and they're using them as get-out-of-jail free cards every time they're arrested for dealing drugs on the street."
<p>
It has been said that people get the government they deserve, and in San Francisco's case, that could not be more true. The city's streets are chaotic, quality of life has deteriorated, and the prevailing wisdom would please Fidel Castro.
<p>
But most of us don't live there, so why should we care? Well, it is still part of America and we're supposed to be all in this war on terror together, right? But by banning military recruiting, are those folks looking out for us?
<p>
My solution is to have San Francisco form its own militia, a concept first put forth by the Founding Fathers in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. A S.F. militia could take over for the U.S. military if that city were ever attacked.
<p>
But there's just one problem with that militia idea. On the same day San Francisco voted to oppose military recruiting, it also voted to prohibit the "sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms."
<p>
Never mind.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-11-23T08:00:00ZCongress and the Iraq WarBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Congress-and-the-Iraq-War/19352.html2005-11-17T08:00:00Z2005-11-17T08:00:00ZPresident Bush is right when he says that politicians and media who insist he "lied" or "mislead" America into the Iraq conflict are damaging the war effort and hurting the country. Many Americans are tired of hearing Howard Dean and The New York Times whine about "misleading." If you have verifiable information that the President knew there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction but went ahead and invaded anyway, please post said information. If not, please go back to demanding all Supreme Court justice nominees embrace abortion.
<p>
And by the way, please consult Dan Rather and Mary Mapes if you are going to use documents to prove President Bush a liar.
<p>
For me, the issue is fairly easy. Bob Woodward, the hero of Watergate, reported that CIA chief George Tenet told Mr. Bush face-to-face that Saddam's possession of WMDs was a "slam dunk." I believe Woodward and Tony Blair and a variety of foreign intelligence agencies who have acknowledged believing Iraq had WMDs. Forgive me, but I don't believe Howard Dean.
<p>
Anyway, let's do what's best for the country, shall we? Wouldn't that be a nice surprise for all Americans? Let's get out of Iraq as quickly as possible without allowing the terrorists a victory. Can we do that?
<p>
Maybe. President Bush must know the Iraq campaign is not turning out the way he thought it would back on that Naval ship a few years ago. The mission of removing Saddam was accomplished, but many of his merry men are still running around blowing up people. And no military machine on earth can stop that. Terrorists will be assassinating folks long after all of us alive today are dead and buried. If a nut wants to blow somebody up, chances are good the nut will succeed.
<p>
The problem for America now is that we have politicians trying to get elected using the chaos of war. This is wrong. The USA is far better off if Iraq becomes a stable ally against the terror jihad. There is no denying that. So why all the undermining? Let's win the damn thing.
<p>
But there must be a time limit. Mr. Bush and his crew have to understand that American blood and treasure is not unlimited. It is not undermining the war to suggest giving the Iraqis a realistic private timetable to defend themselves. Basic training for a U.S. soldier is six weeks. We've been training the Iraqi army for almost two years now. Even Gomer Pyle would be up to speed.
<p>
The polls show most Americans have turned against the war, and who can blame them, with the media pounding home a depressing picture every day. And there are plenty of depressing images to show. Although most of the country is pacified, Baghdad remains a nightmare. And that's the big dog.
<p>
Fox News correspondents tell me they can't go out for a cup of coffee in the capital city because it's too dangerous. That's brutal. Based on that scenario, the war is not being won.
<p>
But voting is happening, and business is being done. So let's build on that and give the Iraqis a realistic time frame to fight their own fight. I don't want to mislead anyone, but that's what the USA should do. We need to get out of there.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-11-17T08:00:00ZForecast for the GOP: DarkBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Forecast-for-the-GOP:-Dark/19329.html2005-11-10T08:00:00Z2005-11-10T08:00:00ZThe Republican Party is in trouble. Deep, dark trouble. The off-year election a few days ago clearly demonstrated that many folks have had it with the Grand Old Party. And more storm clouds are on the horizon.
<p>
The fact that the bright red state of Virginia elected a Democrat Governor, and the citizens of New Jersey elevated an ultra-liberal like Jon Corzine to the top spot, signal a major turn to the left in America. The Republican establishment should be afraid, very afraid, and it can forget about even competing in California; the nation's largest state even voted down parental notification for minors having an abortion. If you're a California girl, you can't get a tattoo without parental permission, but you can abort a fetus. Welcome to the secular paradise.
<p>
The Republican problem is a President Bush problem. So far, he has vastly underperformed in his second term, and no spin in the world is going to mitigate that. Either the President improves his standing with the public, or next year at this time the Democrats will regain control of Congress and Mr. Bush's power will turn into the ghost of Christmas past.
<p>
The Bush/GOP woes lie in three major areas:
<ul type="square">
<li>The public largely does not understand the importance of Iraq. With the elite media lined up against the conflict and casualties mounting every day, the folks simply don't know what's going on and why the sacrifice is necessary. The President hasn't been able to spell it out.
<li>We the people are teed off over exploding gas and oil prices. Nobody warned us, nobody explained. Americans are known to vote their wallets, and Mr. Bush better get a handle on this situation or he's done. Record profits for Exxon while working Americans bleed is not going to drive any President's popularity.
<li>And finally, the Presidency is a performance business, and performance is largely defined by the economy and the media. Outside of high energy prices, the economy is still good. But the media is pounding President Bush into pudding. He must fight back against that pounding. If he does not engage the negative media, it will overwhelm him. Mr. Bush needs to take his case directly to the people in terms everybody understands.
</ul>
The hidden danger for Republicans is that President Bush may not care about public perception. He is known as a somewhat stubborn guy, and he might say 'to heck with it, I'll stay the course.' If he does that, the course will lead right down the drain for the GOP.
<p>
While some nutty partisans hate President Bush with a passion that rivals other nutty partisans' hatred of Bill Clinton, most Americans continue to like the President as a person, the polls show. So he can come back.
<p>
But it will take determination and changes. The Bush administration needs new blood and viable solutions to Iraq, energy, illegal immigration, and enormous government spending.
<p>
No question Mr. Bush has lost his mojo, but, like Austin Powers, he can recapture it. However, there are more than a few lurking Dr. Evils that Mr. Bush will have to defeat. Interesting bet as to whether he'll be able to do it.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-11-10T08:00:00ZOh No, AlitoBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Oh-No-Alito/19304.html2005-11-03T08:00:00Z2005-11-03T08:00:00ZThe left wing media has already labeled the new Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, a crazed right wing zealot who, if he had lived back then, would have been Attila the Hun's right hand man. That's right, that dreaded conservative, Alito the Hun, is up for the highest court in the land.
<p>
If you listen to the far left, Sam Alito is a grave danger to civil rights, reproductive rights, animal and vegetable rights, and your right to watch a wide screen TV in the privacy of your own home. The man is bad, awful, horrendous and not good at all.
<p>
So what exactly has the Alito guy done that has raised so much liberal ire? Well, he ruled that notifying a husband that his wife was having an abortion did not put an "undue burden" on the woman. Now, you may disagree with that but it's certainly not a loopy point of view. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a husband is not entitled to know about his wife's abortion but the ruling was and is highly debatable.
<p>
Somehow the far left has overlooked the fact that Judge Alito also ruled against a partial birth abortion ban in New Jersey. That decision was based on a previous federal ruling concerning a Nebraska case. So it seems Alito is following established law, doesn't it?
<p>
But all the facts in the world don't matter because the issue is not really about Alito - it's about the culture war. The far left, secular-progressive movement realizes it is losing the highest court in the land and the judiciary is the only way the S-P's can impose their radical agenda. The folks are simply not going for it on Election Day.
<p>
The secular-progressives have made a lot of gains recently. They own the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California as well as many federal judges in the Northeast. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is hard core SP and so is the Supreme Court of Florida and Oregon. But now all that is threatened.
<p>
With John Roberts and Sam Alito sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, radical changes to law in America will be difficult to achieve. Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas all lean toward a traditional interpretation of the Constitution and the two newcomers also fit into the category. That means taps for gay marriage, euthanasia, legalized narcotics, exorcising the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and tearing down public displays of Christmas - all the things that make the ACLU and other radical groups warm all over.
<p>
So Judge Sam Alito is definitely a cold front blowing in from New Jersey and he has got to be stopped; the stakes have never been higher for the secular-progressives.
<p>
The problem for them is that Alito, like Judge Roberts, looks to be a pretty solid guy. An attempt to label him "Machine Gun Sam" fizzled when it was found that his ruling allowing the intrastate movement of machine guns was based on the Commerce Act rather than an affinity for the NRA. But you know the far left isn't going to stop - they'll find something on Alito, wait and see.
<p>
But I believe the public is finally catching on to the demonizing game and backlash is a very real possibility. Judge Alito is certainly not a crazed ideologue and is obviously qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Any attempt to slime him is fraught with the danger for the mudslinger. And that is a good thing.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-11-03T08:00:00ZHarriet, We Hardly Knew YouBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Harriet-We-Hardly-Knew-You/19262.html2005-10-27T19:00:00Z2005-10-27T19:00:00ZThe retreat of Harriet Miers from Supreme Court consideration once again highlights the vicious ideological war being fought around the country.
<p>
Ms. Miers seems to be a nice woman about whom nobody knows very much. But from the get go, some conservative activists opposed her nomination because they deemed her unqualified. Unqualified? The woman daily advises the most powerful man in the world on legal issues that shape U.S. policy. I mean, that may be an indicator Ms. Miers has at least some knowledge of the law, right?
<p>
My position was, give Harriet Miers a chance to answer the questions in front of the Senate and the world. But noooooo--right wing ideologues simply did not believe she would advance the conservative cause aggressively enough, so she was unacceptable. And without conservative support in the Senate, there was no way she would have been confirmed.
<p>
Enter Senator Edward Kennedy, who voted against perhaps the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in decades, John Roberts. In a statement shortly after Miers withdrew, Kennedy said: "The only voices heard in this process were the voices of the extreme factions of the President's own political party. They had a litmus test, and before giving her a fair chance to have her own voice heard, they decided Harriet Miers didn't meet it."
<p>
Yes, you read that right. Ted Kennedy is complaining about a Republican litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. The senior Senator from Massachusetts, a man who demands total acceptance of all facets of abortion before he'll even consider a judicial nomination, is lamenting that Harriet Miers was denied a fair hearing. Rod Serling would have loved this.
<p>
Is there anyone in this country who believes Kennedy would have supported Harriet Miers, knowing she is an Evangelical Christian who attends a church that is pro-life? Anyone?
<p>
The whole Miers episode is another shoddy example of how the political process is now so ideological, it is damaging to all Americans. The Bush administration is beset with problems and needs a counterattack issue. Harriet Miers was simply another negative, so Bush bailed. Now, he'll nominate a more ideological person in order to energize his conservative base. If he can jazz up his core supporters, it will make it easier for him to get through his other trials.
<p>
But what about us, the folks? Many of us don't want politics being played when a vital Supreme Court vacancy needs to be filled. I don't want litmus tests from any Senator. I want a judge who understands the intent of the Constitution and will check his or her ideology in the cloakroom. Can't we just have smart, fair judges in this country?
<p>
Harriet Miers got a raw deal. Power politics did her in. Nobody should be happy about any of this. She got supremely hosed.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-10-27T19:00:00ZDe-PressedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/De-Pressed/19247.html2005-10-20T07:00:00Z2005-10-20T07:00:00ZHere's a story the print press doesn't really want to report - many American newspapers are in big trouble. Earnings at The New York Times Company, for example, are down more than 50% this quarter, the Los Angeles Times has changed its editor and editorial director in the face of steep circulation declines, and scores of other papers are having major problems convincing consumers to buy their product.
<p>
There are a number of reasons for the depressing situation, pardon the pun. The internet provides news efficiently, the decline of public education means fewer Americans care about what's going on, and people are very busy these days. Many of us don't have time to spend an hour reading the paper.
<p>
But the collapse of journalistic standards is another reason some have turned away from the press. Most Americans are not ideological junkies, craving their daily dose of political propaganda. Just give us the facts, and some lively opinion based on the facts. The political jihadists who have taken over some newspapers are driving people away.
<p>
Here's an example. In the 30 days following Hurricane Katrina, The New York Times ran 53 columns criticizing President Bush on its editorial pages. Even Barbra Streisand might consider that overkill.
<p>
The Boston Globe, which is owned by The New York Times, has one conservative columnist and ten liberal ones. So why would any conservative bother with the paper?
<p>
Over at the Washington Post, an editor named Marie Arana criticized her own paper saying: "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and we are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions ... if you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat."
<p>
So why would any Republican buy The Washington Post?
<p>
Every newspaper has the right to take a point of view on its editorial pages, but when a political bias becomes so pervasive it affects everyone in the newsroom, you know things are out of control. Imagine a New York Times reporter walking into office and asking colleagues: "Hey, did you see 'The O'Reilly Factor' last night? It was great."
<p>
I'm sure that happens all the time.
<p>
And then there is the hate factor. Not only do many newspapers aggressively push an agenda, but they demonize those with whom they disagree.
<p>
Recently, a columnist for The Dallas Morning News wrote that I, your humble correspondent, was partially responsible for the murders of six Mexicans in Georgia because I support strict security on the southern border. The woman actually wrote that I had said hateful things about migrants.
<p>
When Fox News produced videotape which showed the exact opposite, that I had openly sympathized with migrants, the editors at The Dallas Morning News at first refused to issue a correction, and only after a torrent of outrage from subscribers did it finally do so.
<p>
With all this dopey stuff swirling around the print press, it is no wonder millions of Americans are saying "see ya." But nobody should be celebrating this. Newspapers have the space and resources to do reporting the other media cannot do. Newspapers are vital to the American electorate.
<p>
But the print press needs to clean itself up and fast. Because once the folks leave the party, it's tough to get them back.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-10-20T07:00:00ZExpress YourselfBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Express-Yourself/19181.html2005-10-13T07:00:00Z2005-10-13T07:00:00ZYou can now open a business in the state of Oregon that includes live sex acts as part of your inventory. You might call it "Vinny's Deli and Sex Act Cabaret," or "Miss Sally's Spa and Kama Sutra Emporium." That's because the Oregon Supreme Court recently ruled 5 to 1 that telling a business it cannot have a live sexual exposition on its premises is a violation of freedom of expression under the Oregon Constitution.
<p>
Incredibly, the Oregon Supreme Court believes that the state or local governments have no right to limit sexual "expression" in a public place. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again that authorities do have a right to regulate expression when it collides with public safety or community standards. You can't have sex on your front lawn even though you are "expressing" yourself on private property because that expression would violate a societal norm.
<p>
But the Oregon Supreme Court doesn't seem to care about society. That state now has doctor-assisted suicide (being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court as we speak), some of the nation's most lenient drug laws including almost total access to medical marijuana (have a headache, forget aspirin, here's a brownie), and now live sex at a saloon near you.
<p>
But don't do any cigarette smoking in that saloon. That's been banned in Oregon, and it's also illegal to pump your own gas. Apparently, smoking and filling up your vehicle are not expressive enough for these dopey judges.
<p>
The driving force behind the sex in public deal was, no surprise, the ACLU, which filed a friend of the court brief egging the Oregon judges on. The ACLU is big on expression, as long as it doesn't involve singing Christmas carols. Yes, you do have this right: the ACLU is bullish on public displays of sex, but bearish on public displays of the baby Jesus.
<p>
A person from Lithuania might think this is a humor column, that I must be joking. I'm not. This is exactly what's going on in Oregon and with the ACLU.
<p>
I'm not analyzing this from a moral point of view; the live sex act thing isn't all that important, in the vast scheme of things. Nevada has legal prostitution in rural areas, and the state has not crumbled. But the perversion of Oregon's state constitution is troubling.
<p>
Freedom of expression as defined by the founding fathers is a concept subject to time, manner and place limitations. Laws against hate speech, disturbing the peace, public lewdness and scores of other "expressions" are enforced daily in order to impose some order in a nation of 300 million people. The judges in Oregon understand that, but don't like it - so they have decided to erase societal boundaries under the banner of freedom.
<p>
This is where the nation is headed under the secular-progressive jihad that is being waged all over America. With apologies to Home Depot, you can do it - the ACLU can help. It has been said that freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. But if we lose all standards of behavior, are we really free?BillOReilly.com Staff2005-10-13T07:00:00ZWho's Looking Out for the Christians?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Looking-Out-for-the-Christians/19167.html2005-10-06T07:00:00Z2005-10-06T07:00:00ZSupreme Court nominee Harriet Miers reminds me of June Cleaver, who birthed Beaver and Wally in 1960's sitcom land. Standing next to President Bush, I kept envisioning Harriet holding a tray of cookies for the President and any Senator who might want one.
<p>
Now I realize this portrayal of Ms. Miers is immature and possibly offensive to people who resent this kind of foolishness when professional women are involved. But trust me, my daydream about Harriet Miers is not nearly as offensive as what is going on in some media precincts. Many conservative pundits don't like Harriet because she's not "right" enough. And some lefties believe she's not qualified to serve her country because she's a practicing Christian.
<p>
Writing in the secular temple that is The New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd states: "[President Bush] is asking for a triple leap of faith. He has faith in Ms. Miers as his lawyer and as a woman who shares his faith. And we're expected to have faith in his faith and her faith that could change the balance of the court and affect women's rights for the next generation."
<p>
Of course Ms. Dowd worships at the altar of Roe v. Wade, and any person who might be pro-life is automatically unsuitable in her mind to hold a decision-making position. But the truth is, Harriet Miers has not publicly stated her position on abortion and probably will never do so. Thus, Ms. Dowd is objecting to Ms. Miers because she attends an evangelical Christian church in Texas, and we can't have those kinds of people on the Court, can we?
<p>
Some liberal journalists and politicians are clearly saying conservative Christians need not apply to serve their country. This, of course, is outrageous and unconstitutional. If that kind of bias was directed at any other American group, there would be hell to pay. But Christians are fair game for media scorn, mockery, and dismissal.
<p>
A recent Gallup survey puts the number of Americans who call themselves Christians at 84%, and that kind of majority is dangerous to the goals of the secular-progressive movement. The main opposition to things like gay marriage, euthanasia, legalized drugs and all kinds of abortion on demand for any girl or woman are faith-based people who form judgments about behavior and object to a society that does not. If you eliminate people of faith from positions of power in the USA, well, hello Holland.
<p>
It is worth noting that according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, journalists are much less "Christian" than the country as a whole. A 1997 study says 59% of newspaper people call themselves Catholic or Protestant and 20% say they don't believe in God at all. According to Gallup, just 9% of the American population is atheist or agnostic.
<p>
Mark my words, in the weeks to come you will hear all kinds anti-Christian stuff in the media when Harriet Miers is being discussed. Some of it will be subtle, but not all. This is a clip-and-save moment. The secular media knows Ms. Miers will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but they will get their anti-Christian digs in during the process.
<p>
As a Christian, I have already forgiven my misguided peers for what they will inevitably do. Also, after 12 years of Catholic school, I know a thing or two about demons. The demonization of Harriet Miers will be very instructive to watch. And she looks like such a nice woman.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-10-06T07:00:00ZGive Chaos a ChanceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Give-Chaos-a-Chance/19151.html2005-09-29T07:00:00Z2005-09-29T07:00:00ZIt is hard to fathom, but there are Americans who believe that if the USA cuts and runs from Iraq, there will be no negative consequences. The far left is banging the "get out now" drum but, fortunately, the beat is not exactly catching on. While last week's peace demonstration in Washington drew a decent crowd, it was certainly not overwhelming. And few politicians showed up. Instead we heard the noted political scientist Jessica Lange call for U.S. troops to withdraw or she'll be mad.
<p>
Cindy Sheehan was there, of course. Her latest analysis is that the attack on 9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a "crime." And the USA was mean to disrupt the lives of the Afghan people by removing the Taliban. Cindy wants everybody to get along; she doesn't believe there is a worldwide terror war, and even if there is, we started it.
<p>
By the way, I told you in this space a few weeks ago that President Bush would be crazy to meet with Cindy Sheehan because right after the meeting, she'd run out and bad mouth him to the press. Well, Senator John McCain did take the time to meet with Ms. Sheehan, who then promptly called McCain a "war-monger."
<p>
A new Rasmussen poll says 54% of Americans understand that if America cuts and runs from Iraq, that country will descend into chaos. Just 20% believe Iraq would be better off if we split. I'll bet Jane Fonda is one of those 20%, and boy would I like to ask her this question: "You know, Ms. Fonda, after the USA pulled out of Southeast Asia in the mid-70's, the communists slaughtered about three million human beings in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did you ever mention that in your subsequent peace comments?"
<p>
It is hopeless to try to reason with far left or far right zealots on any matter, but, thankfully, most Americans reject extremes. Iraq might not be the best battlefield to conduct the war on terror, but here's what would happen if America pulled out quickly.
<ul type="square">
<li>Iran would step into the security breech and back the Sh'ia in the fight against the Sunni insurgents. Thus, Iran would exert control in the southern half of Iraq and increase its power in the Gulf.
<li>Sensing weakness in America, Iran would harden its nuke position and accelerate developing nuclear weapons. Iran is already harboring and funding al Qaeda terrorists, so you can do the math on this scenario.
<li>The al Qaeda terrorists currently inside Iraq would transit through Iran into Afghanistan and begin to destabilize the new democratic government in that country. With experienced al Qaeda fighters undermining security, the Karzi government would come under siege and the USA would have to commit more forces to that country.
<li>Syria would step up its support of Hamas and Hezbollah which would lead to more violence inside Israel and Lebanon.
<li>And finally, the jihadists worldwide would proclaim a great victory over the great Satan. Terrorist funding and recruitment would skyrocket and the USA would be humiliated.
</ul>
All of that is likely to come true if the far left has its way on Iraq. Their "vision" would put us all in danger.
<p>
The Bush administration must win the war in Iraq and then reexamine the most effective way to defeat worldwide terrorism. It has become clear that the terror state of Iran, not Saddam's Iraq, was and is the USA's most vicious enemy.
<p>
Jessica Lange may not get this but most Americans do. It is vital that we defeat those who would kill us, no matter where they are.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-09-29T07:00:00ZBenefit of the DoubtBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Benefit-of-the-Doubt/19136.html2005-09-22T19:00:00Z2005-09-22T19:00:00ZSomebody better send some of that Hurricane Katrina aid to President Bush quick because he is certainly a victim of that killer storm. His job approval ratings have collapsed in the national polls and his delay in taking command in the immediate wake of the storm surge has eroded confidence in some of his other policies as well.
<p>
According to the latest Gallup poll, support for the war in Iraq tumbled eight points to a dismal 32% in the days after Katrina hit. What has happened here is that George W. Bush is no longer being given the benefit of the doubt by many Americans who previously afforded him that luxury.
<p>
There is no question that Mr. Bush defeated John Kerry last November because independent voters trusted his competency more than Kerry's. Both men were flawed candidates. Bush had to deal with mistakes in Iraq and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. Kerry could not illustrate what he would do to improve the Iraq situation or fight the terror war in general.
<p>
So when it came to pulling the voting lever, three million more Americans choose Bush over Kerry because they felt the doubts about Kerry were stronger than those about Bush. After all, the President had dealt firmly with the Taliban after 9/11 and presented himself as a man who could stand up to the Islama-fascists.
<p>
But now the deadly winds of Katrina have obscured that image and the President is no longer inspiring confidence among many. He is trying to spend his way out of the Katrina debacle, but that might not work. His poll numbers did not bounce after his New Orleans reconstruction speech.
<p>
Of course, Bush haters around the world are ecstatic about his eroding status. The gloating in the European press after Katrina hit was downright despicable. The British Broadcasting Corporation was particularly nasty, implying the USA is a racist country led by a man who intentionally wanted to see poor people suffer. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was so incensed by this anti-American propaganda he denounced the BBC publicly.
<p>
At this point, there is little President Bush can do but wait things out. Obviously, he needs a big win like the capture of bin Laden, something dramatic like that. Also, there will be a backlash against the Bush haters if they don't watch it. Americans are disappointed with the President, to be sure, but most still like him as a person. Every time a foolish person like Bette Midler makes a nasty joke about Mr. Bush (Midler referenced a cocaine dealer providing him with concert tickets), fair-minded Americans feel sympathy for the President.
<p>
But make no mistake about it, the Bush presidency is in trouble. W needs to regain his leadership credibility and he needs to show the nation his administration is in command, especially in Iraq, which the elite media will spin negative all day long.
<p>
Finally, President Bush must directly engage the American oil companies and make sure working Americans are not brutalized by home heating costs this winter. If that situation is not brought under control soon, Mr. Bush will be doomed.
<p>
Just four weeks ago, the President was enjoying his summer vacation in Crawford, Texas with only the minor annoyance of Cindy Sheehan causing him angst. Now, his entire legacy is wobbling. The levees have been breached on Pennsylvania Avenue. But in this situation, no evacuation is possible.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-09-22T19:00:00ZPoor BehaviorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Poor-Behavior/19120.html2005-09-15T07:00:00Z2005-09-15T07:00:00ZSoon after the horror of Hurricane Katrina, Americans were subjected to another high wind warning when Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean began exploiting the situation for perceived political gain. These guys will never learn. Ardent Bush haters, they had a perfect opening to ask exactly why the President was at least 24 hours late in responding to the chaos. Once the levees breached in New Orleans, the situation became one of national security. I mean, no sitting President can allow a major American city to be wiped out. President Bush should have signed an Executive Order, sent in the Army and regained control. Instead, he allowed a frightened Governor and an overwhelmed Mayor to continue making mistakes. All of this while hundreds of Americans died in front of a stunned population watching on television.
<p>
So Jackson and Dean had some powerful ammunition but, as usual, they used it to shoot themselves. Jackson immediately brought race to the forefront (what a shock) and said blacks were treated like they were on "slave ships."
<p>
Dean pointed out that the poor got hammered, and that was Bush's fault because of tax cuts for the rich or some such nonsense. Jackson and Dean ran around grabbing cameras and microphones, howling at the moon, booking first class seats on the cheap shot express.
<p>
Their rhetoric was so over the top that even though I'm not a Republican, I feel it is my patriotic duty to provide some truth in the matter of the Bush administration vis-à-vis the poor. So here are the facts with apologies to the propagandists.
<p>
We'll begin by comparing the halfway point of President Clinton's tenure to the fifty yard line of the Bush administration. In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins.
<p>
As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard?
<p>
For a country that is often accused by leftwing loons of not caring about the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well.
<p>
So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet.
<p>
So those are the facts, Max. I'm sorry it took a disaster like Katrina to bring them to the forefront.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-09-15T07:00:00ZKatrina and the PoorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Katrina-and-the-Poor/19095.html2005-09-08T07:00:00Z2005-09-08T07:00:00ZAmerican middle and high school students everywhere should be required to watch video tape of the poor people stranded by Hurricane Katrina. Teachers should point out that many U.S. citizens without the financial means to get out of New Orleans wound up floating face down in the water or, at the very least, were subject to gross indignities and suffering of all kinds.
<p>
The teachers should then tell the students that the local, state and federal government bureaucracies failed to protect those poor people, even though everybody knew the storm was coming days in advance. The lesson should then segue into how the most powerful nation in the world was powerless to stop 9/11, and scores of other natural and man made disasters throughout our history.
<p>
After presenting those undeniable facts, the teachers should then present two questions to the students: Do you want to be poor? And do you believe the U.S. government can protect you if you are poor?
<p>
For far too long, charlatan ideologues and dishonest politicians have sold the concept that government can and will make your life better. Well, if a cot in the Astrodome is the standard, maybe the promises are true. But if you expect the government to provide you comfort and protect you... P.T. Barnum had your number when he said "there's a sucker born every minute."
<p>
The affluent of New Orleans had options. Most of them got out ahead of the storm simply by turning their ignition key. But a professor friend of mine stayed. However, when things got rough and the levees breached, he was able to drive right out of town in his SUV.
<p>
But if you couldn't afford a vehicle, you might have wound up in the Superdome where there were few supplies and little security. With 20 thousand folks in the building, bathrooms quickly broke down, and so did civility. I covered the story almost non-stop for days. I didn't see one affluent person in the Superdome. Not one.
<p>
The Bible says "the poor, they will always be with us." But it doesn't have to be that way here in America. Here we have compulsory, free public schools, scholarships and aid galore for higher education. We also have affirmative action, job training, GED opportunities, military training, and options all over the place.
<p>
It is no accident that millions of poor people from all over the world sneak into America because they can make money here if they work hard. There are opportunities for people who can't even speak English.
<p>
Yet the racial hustlers and far-left demagogues continue to sell victimization to Americans living in the poor precincts. The poverty pimps can't blame the establishment fast enough for ghettos and deprivation and even hurricanes. But you rarely hear the words 'personal responsibility' when it comes to attacking the poverty problem.
<p>
Here's the end zone on this: the government can force your parents to send you to school but can't force you to learn. If you do not educate yourself or develop a marketable skill, the chances are you will be poor and powerless. If you react to that situation by committing crimes or becoming addicted, you will sink further into the swamp of hopelessness and your life will be largely meaningless.
<p>
Let the kids see the poor in New Orleans and the suffering they endured. Then prod the children to connect the dots and wise up. Educate yourself, work hard, and be honest. Then when disaster occurs you will have a fighting chance to beat it.
<p>
If you don't do those things, the odds are that you will be desperately standing on a symbolic rooftop someday yourself. And trust me, help will not be quick in coming.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-09-08T07:00:00ZGoing to ExtremesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Going-to-Extremes/19079.html2005-09-01T07:00:00Z2005-09-01T07:00:00ZHurricane Katrina wiped out "Camp Casey" and that could be a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view. The storm diverted attention from Cindy Sheehan's anti-war protest in Crawford, Texas and caused President Bush to ditch his vacation and high-tail it back to Washington where, reports say, Ms. Sheehan will follow.
<p>
Like the Terri Schiavo controversy a few months ago, the Cindy Sheehan saga contains some peril for ideologues, even though they might not know it. Smart conservatives realized that fanatical rantings about the health of Ms. Schiavo and criticism of a Florida judge who appeared to be upholding the law were risky. When the autopsy was finally made public and proved Terri Schiavo had no chance to recover, the image of conservatives did, indeed, sustain some damage.
<p>
Now the same scenario is playing out on the left in the Cindy Sheehan circus. Perceptive liberals know the woman is an extremist who is being used by the radical left to bludgeon the Bush administration. Ms. Sheehan may be sympathetic on the surface, but underneath she is a committed far-left individual who believes the USA is a force for evil in the world.
<p>
Let's look at Cindy Sheehan's resume.
<p>
On April 4, 2004, her son, Army SPC Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq during a fierce firefight. He was awarded the Bronze Star posthumously.
<p>
On June 17, 2004, Ms. Sheehan and her husband Patrick met with President Bush. A week later she speaks kindly about the President with a reporter from a Vacaville, California newspaper.
<p>
On July 12, 2004, Cindy Sheehan begins working with the anti-Iraq war group "Families Speak Out."
<p>
On September 9, 2004, she is quoted by The San Francisco Chronicle as saying: "Our only goal is to have people understand the human cost of war."
<p>
Three weeks later, however, Cindy Sheehan takes a sharp left turn and begins to attack President Bush personally. On October 3, she is quoted in The Washington Post as saying, "(My son) died for someone who wouldn't even fight for his country."
<p>
Sheehan then begins to lend her voice to ads financed by the far left "MoveOn.org" organization, and her protest becomes more strident. She begins showing up at Bush events, calling the President a variety of nasty names.
<p>
As 2005 begins, Cindy Sheehan introduces a new organization called "Gold Star Families for Peace." She begins to question why Barbara and Jenna Bush are not in Iraq, and is quoted on the far-left website, AfterNet, as saying that American children are being killed or maimed for "a series of lies, mistakes and miscalculations."
<p>
On March 22, 2005, Ms. Sheehan ups the ante further and is quoted on another radical left website, TruthOut.org, as saying: "Casey was sent to Iraq to be killed by the same pack of cowards and murderers who so valiantly and tirelessly fought for the right for Ms. Schiavo to live!"
<p>
On April 27, 2005, Ms. Sheehan appears at a rally to support convicted terrorist supporter Lynn Stewart and says that because the USA has nuclear weapons, it has no right to tell Iran it can't have them. Cindy Sheehan also goes on to say that Israel is "occupying" Palestine.
<p>
By now a full blown radical, Cindy Sheehan is incorporated into the far-left media machine and begins tuning up for her Crawford, Texas demonstration by telling various TV interviewers that the U.S. military is in Iraq "killing innocent people."
<p>
In early August, Sheehan begins informing the press that insurgents in Iraq are actually "freedom fighters." And that the murderous terrorist acts are justified because of the "occupation" by the USA. Her protest outside the President's ranch draws huge media notice, but few report on her increasingly radical ideology.
<p>
On August 8th, I chronicle Cindy Sheehan's left-wing contacts and her actual statements about America on my television and radio programs. She replies that "The O'Reilly Factor is an obscenity to the truth and to humanity."
<p>
By the end of August, three newspapers, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Baltimore Sun had printed that I called Ms. Sheehan's actions "treasonous." All three papers agreed to retract that false assertion, but clearly Ms. Sheehan and her allies were angry at me for my exposition of them.
<p>
My hunch is that Cindy Sheehan has peaked. However, liberals would be wise to understand that any future partnering up with Ms. Sheehan and her committed radical pals will not advance their cause in mainstream America, which has rejected extremism for 230 years. Cindy Sheehan is now actually a danger to the moderate left in this country. Somebody tell them.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-09-01T07:00:00ZEndangering the TroopsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Endangering-the-Troops/19063.html2005-08-25T07:00:00Z2005-08-25T07:00:00ZEvery time I turn around, another anti-war person is saying how much he or she "supports" the troops. No matter how vicious the attack on the policy in Iraq or the Afghanistan situation or the proactive strategy to confront worldwide terror, it always seems there's a "support the troops" caveat at the end of the blistering dissent. Okay, fine, opposing the Iraq war doesn't mean disrespect for the military, that's true. But the benefit of the doubt only goes so far. Now there's a litmus test, a way to expose the folks who really don't support the troops no matter what they tell you.
<p>
As you know may know, the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding the release of all Abu Ghraib photographs and videotapes and any other damning evidence of prisoner abuse by the American military. The ACLU filed suit last year and the case is now coming to a head in New York City.
<p>
General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in front of the judge that any further public exposition of prisoner abuse could endanger the lives of U.S. and allied troops. He is livid about the ACLU's action.
<p>
Of course, Myers is right, and the Newsweek Quran fiasco proved it. Looney Muslims rampaged in a number of countries after that magazine falsely reported the holy book had been abused at Guantanamo Bay. At least 15 people were killed, hundreds injured.
<p>
Myers, himself, has seen the abuse images that have not been made public and says, "The release (of them) would aid the recruitment efforts and other activities of insurgent elements, weaken the new democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan ... and increase the likelihood of violence against the United States interests, personnel, and citizens worldwide."
<p>
But the ACLU does not care what Myers thinks - it wants to embarrass the Bush administration, and if people die because of that, tough.
<p>
This despicable attitude is being enabled by some interesting ACLU allies. In a "friend-of-the-court" brief, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and a few other media outfits urged the judge to reject Myers' argument and dump 87 Abu Ghraib photos and four videos into the public square.
<p>
As an American journalist, I am simply ashamed that some of my colleagues have sided with the ACLU and would risk further endangering Americans fighting this brutal war on terror. An action of this type would have been unthinkable during World War II. But, today, the media operates outside patriotic constraints or even public safety considerations.
<p>
What is the point of more Abu Ghraib pictures? We all know what happened there, how dismal and inexcusable it was. If the pictures advanced the story I could understand it, but this is just more of the same according to General Myers and his staff. And in a time of war, you give the benefit of any doubt to the top military commander, don't you?
<p>
The mainstream media, on the whole, has consistently underestimated the danger America is facing from the Islama-fascists. Most press outlets supported John Kerry for President when the Senator could not articulate a single strategy to fight the enemy other than enlisting the help of France and going to his website. That's why Kerry lost. He had absolutely no war plan.
<p>
The elite media doesn't have one, either. They love the Abu Ghraib story, the chaos in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the "abuses" at Guantanamo Bay. They run with those stories all day long.
<p>
But ask them how they would protect Americans from killers who obey no rules, who believe Allah wants them to murder babies, who are willing to die themselves while slaughtering innocent civilians - and you get blather about the "international community" and "constitutional rights."
<p>
The truth is that the ACLU and its "friends" don't care if they help the jihadists and don't know how to defeat the enemy. Those who are demanding more abuse pictures are not supporting the troops and are not looking out for everyday Americans. They are putting our fighting people and U.S. civilians in even more danger. And there is no excuse for doing that.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-08-25T07:00:00ZDéjà Vu, All Over AgainBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Deacute;jagrave;-Vu-All-Over-Again/19044.html2005-08-18T07:00:00Z2005-08-18T07:00:00ZThirty-five years ago this summer, the USA was exploding in protest over the Vietnam War. And today, the radical left wants to revisit those awful days by replicating the anti-war movement over the Iraq conflict. The question is - will they succeed?
<p>
As you know, the radicals have latched on to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq. Mrs. Sheehan strikes me as a decent woman who has no clue with whom she is currently swimming. Sensing a chance to humiliate President Bush, the Michael Moore crowd has rallied around Mrs. Sheehan, who has become the anti-Iraq war poster person. But it's sad to watch this woman being used by organizations that not only oppose the Iraq war, but believe the USA is a fundamentally flawed nation. Cindy Sheehan's byline now leads the Michael Moore website. Is she really that bitter?
<p>
It is one thing to object to a war; it is quite another to throw in with people who are consistently hateful towards traditional America. Cindy Sheehan now calls President Bush a murderer, and the USA an "imperialistic" country. But the woman has paid a price for her political leanings. Her husband filed for divorce last week, and some reports cited his wife's radicalism as one of the reasons.
<p>
I don't believe Cindy and her radical left pals will succeed in dividing the country this time around. It is true that most Americans now believe the Bush administration is fumbling the war, and that may well be true. Certainly, the continued violence in Iraq is troubling, and it is an open question as to whether the Iraqi people themselves will fight hard enough to win freedom, and that is the crux of this matter.
<p>
The communists prevailed in Vietnam because they had a stronger will to win than the U.S.-supported South Vietnamese. At great sacrifice, America gave the South a chance to be free. They did not step up. The result was decades of totalitarianism that continues to this day, and millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians murdered by the communists. Funny how the radicals never mention that, or the decades of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.
<p>
President Bush has made two major mistakes in Iraq. The first is keeping Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld, understandably, is simply exhausted. He needs to be replaced by a battle-hardened commander who will bring a fresh perspective to the conflict.
<p>
Second, Mr. Bush must define the danger he sees if the USA "cuts and runs." The WMD controversy and poor post-Saddam planning doesn't matter now. Terrorists want to kill us, and a victory in Iraq will embolden them and deliver huge momentum to their jihad. Why isn't the President on TV everyday saying this? If America cuts and runs in Iraq, the place will devolve into another terror state where Al Qaeda will have free reign.
<p>
No one in their right mind would want Michael Moore or George Soros or Cindy Sheehan calling shots in the war on terror. If Mrs. Sheehan had any perspective at all, she would also protest outside the homes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Tony Blair, all people who understand that cutting and running will lead to disaster for the USA. But in my opinion Mrs. Sheehan isn't interested in the big picture, she just wants to embarrass Mr. Bush.
<p>
The question is, will Americans buy what Cindy Sheehan is selling, or, instead, focus on what is really going on here? Unlike Vietnam, we are now fighting a war against people who want to come to our country and destroy it. These people are the driving force behind the "insurrection" in Iraq. They have chosen this battlefield because America made a mistake by underestimating the difficulty of imposing democracy in a culture that does not revere it.
<p>
Once again, that mistake is history. What President Bush must do now is clarify the stakes in Iraq and rally Americans to support the global war on terror. If Mr. Bush does not do that, America will be in big trouble.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-08-18T07:00:00ZWorking for a LivingBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Working-for-a-Living/19039.html2005-08-11T07:00:00Z2005-08-11T07:00:00ZClass warfare and victimology have been around a long time, and no one is better at using these political techniques than Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. The Senator leads the league in "tax cuts for rich" references, and is now taking to the streets because Treasury Secretary John Snow admits that the American economy does not benefit less educated Americans as much as those with a solid education.
<p>
Is that a bulletin? No economy will benefit people who are ill-educated unless it's run by Fidel Castro.
<p>
Kennedy immediately seized on Snow's comment to say this: "The Bush economy does not work for everyone--particularly the millions of Americans who work hard everyday at low wages ... it won't be 'mission accomplished' until average Americans are secure in their jobs and can provide for their families."
<p>
So the Senator wants to raise the minimum wage (okay with me) and further tax the rich folk so the poor folk can have more government entitlements. The same old song.
<p>
The truth is that the U.S. economy should be moribund like economies of France and Germany. After 9/11, American commerce took a tremendous hit but bounced back fast because of across the board tax cuts. When Americans have money to spend, everybody wins because jobs are created by that spending.
<p>
But politicians like Kennedy want the government to dole out the money to people who "should get it." They believe in income redistribution; the taking of one person's assets and transferring it to another person. Benjamin Franklin would be horrified. There is nothing in "Poor Richard's Almanac" about that.
<p>
The federal government is spending record amounts of money on public education even as local property taxes continue to rise almost everywhere. But no matter how much is spent on the schools, some kids will not respond in the classroom. Take it from this former teacher. Those slacker children must be identified and put on another track--they must be taught a skill so they can make a decent living in a competitive society.
<p>
Senator Kennedy likes to portray less educated Americans as "victims." Some of them are: victims of stupid, irresponsible parents. But many simply don't care for one reason or another. Add to the equation addiction, mental incapacities and other serious maladies, and you have a full explanation as to why some Americans fail in the marketplace.
<p>
Kennedy and his cohorts in government cannot force individual Americans to become educated. Those who make the choice to live in intellectual chaos will pay a price for that foolish decision and all the "welfare" programs in the world won't change that. And by the way, these are not "average" Americans who are earning six bucks an hour. These are adults who most likely sleepwalked through their school years.
<p>
American life is complicated but simple at the same time. If you become educated, work hard and live an honest life--the heavy odds are you will become self-sufficient and won't need to take other people's stuff. If you buy into Edward Kennedy's view of life--that the system is screwing you and rewarding the fat cats--that you are entitled to be handed things--then you will surely fail, no matter how many press releases Kennedy stuffs in your pocket.
<p>
So here's my press release to Kennedy: hard work and self reliance leads to success on the job, Senator. Wise up, spread the word, and get your hand out of my pocket.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-08-11T07:00:00ZGod Help UsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/God-Help-Us/19037.html2005-08-04T07:00:00Z2005-08-04T07:00:00ZThe relentless attack on public displays of spirituality and religion by progressive secularists has been extremely effective worldwide. Church-going in Western Europe, for example, has collapsed in many countries. Harvard professor Niall Ferguson calls the decline of Christianity in Europe "one of the most remarkable phenomena of our times."
<p>
Ferguson cites a Gallup Poll that shows barely 20% of West Europeans attend church services at least once a week. The number is 47% and falling in the USA. In Britain, only ten percent of those polled said they would be willing to die for their religious beliefs. And guess who loves that statistic? Can you say the Islama-fascists?
<p>
The decline of religious influence in the west can be seen in two very important areas. First, how the world is responding to the terrorist Jihad. And second, how societies deal with citizens who commit the most dastardly of crimes.
<p>
As this column has stated before, if all the world's nations would unite against terrorism, it could not exist. If the fundamental moral tenet of protecting the lives of innocent people superceded all other political concerns, Osama Bin-Laden and the boys would be on the gallows right now. But that is not the case, as we all know.
<p>
Terrorist acts are routinely justified and accepted by people who feel little for their fellow man. A once-proud country like Spain essentially surrendered to Al Qaeda after those killers bombed a Spanish train. The citizens of Spain had to know that pulling out of Iraq after that bombing gave Al Qaeda a huge victory. But many Spanish citizens simply didn't care. To them, Al Qaeda should be someone else's problem.
<p>
In America, the anti-religious forces are led by the ACLU and activist liberal judges who are aided by an increasingly secular media. It is no accident that we have thousands of child sex offenders running wild in this country. The crime of child sexual abuse used to be second only to murder. Now the ACLU defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association in court, claiming their free speech rights are being violated.
<p>
The founding fathers knew that religion, if handled correctly, could be a powerful force for good. The moral guidance provided by The Ten Commandments constrains bad behavior; that's why the Commandments appeared in Scripture. But, now, the secularists insist there is no place in the public square for the Commandments. There is no place for constraints that may offend.
<p>
Think it over. If every human being chose to set up his or her own moral program, there would never be a consensus of what is proper and what is not. There would never be universal outrage over terrorism or terrible crimes.
<p>
Moral outrage is the only way to defeat terrible behavior. Today, many of us don't even know what terrible behavior is. Could gangsta rap music have existed 30 years ago?
<p>
How about partial birth abortion?
<p>
Hitler and Tojo were defeated by men and women who were willing to die so those villains could not enslave and kill other human beings. It was moral outrage over Pearl Harbor that led to the demise of the dictators.
<p>
We had a semblance of the same moral outrage in America after 9/11, but that is ebbing away. The terrorists and perverts understand that only moral outrage will beat them back. A person or nation with no moral compass will never be able to summon up that outrage. A human being that lives in the gray area of right and wrong is likely not to make a stand against evil.
<p>
And that's what the evil doers are counting on.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-08-04T07:00:00ZAlien InvasionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Alien-Invasion/19016.html2005-07-28T07:00:00Z2005-07-28T07:00:00ZWith housing prices soaring and property taxes punishing in many states, owning your own home has become a life defining situation. Millions of Americans struggle to make mortgage payments in order to raise their kids in a safe environment, free from danger and chaos.
<p>
In the New York town of Farmingville, on Long Island, Woodmont Place was once considered a nice street, full of working class Americans enjoying a slice of suburbia. But that was before a woman named Rosalina Dias bought a house on the block.
<p>
Dias is a slumlord, and soon 33 Woodmont Place was packed with illegal immigrants. Up to 64 of them lived in a 900 square foot house with two bathrooms. These men slept on mattresses scattered around the floors and, neighbors say, often used the backyard to relieve themselves.
<p>
Predictably, the folks living in the neighborhood complained to authorities. Predictably, the authorities did little. In fact, it took more than five years before Rosaline Dias was arrested for refusing to comply with a court order to close the house. When police raided the structure, they found electrical wires hanging from holes in the ceiling, a propane gas tank next to exposed wires, and garbage all over the place. The house was condemned.
<p>
Just imagine you and your family living on Woodmont Place. Your kids seeing scores of strange men come and go around the clock. Each time you pass the dilapidated house, you are reminded that the value of your property has drastically declined. Who would want to live near that situation?
<p>
Rosalina Dias was charging the illegal aliens $200 apiece to live in squalor. That means this vile woman was taking in about $12,000 a month for a house that cost her $86,000. Dias was able to do this for more than 60 months.
<p>
The only reason Dias was shut down was because a politician named Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, demanded it. And what did Levy get for his trouble? Well, he was roundly criticized by The New York Times and Newsday, and viciously attacked by ideologues. One of them, Reverend Allan Ramirez, told Newsday Levy was guilty of "ethnic cleansing."
<p>
That was music to Newsday's ears. One of its headlines tipped the newspaper's hand: "Dozens of Men Now Left with Nowhere to Go."
<p>
How about going home to their respective countries and obeying the law, Newsday?
<p>
But The New York Times was even worse. In an editorial, the paper stated: "Mr. Levy sang the law-enforcement tune ... bemoaning the dread danger posed by Latino flophouses and charging that TV stations and newspapers ... had been wrong to point out the problems with Mr. Levy's callous assault on slumlords."
<p>
Callous assault on slumlords? Is the New York Times kidding? This Dias woman is a parasite who ruined an entire neighborhood and exploited destitute individuals for money. And Levy's insistence that the law be enforced is a "callous assault" on her?
<p>
This is what we have come to in America. Despicable behavior is now justified by media people so steeped in bone-headed ideology they literally can't think straight.
<p>
The folks living on Woodmont Place are finally rid of a dangerous situation that should have never been allowed to exist. Illegal aliens have no right to live on your block; they are not supposed to be in this country. Soulless slumlords have no right to violate building codes and destroy neighborhoods. Irresponsible media have no right to attack a public servant who is enforcing the law and looking out for the folks.
<p>
Woodmont Place has been liberated. But there are many other battles to be fought.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-07-28T07:00:00ZUnhealthy and UnwiseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Unhealthy-and-Unwise/18965.html2005-07-21T07:00:00Z2005-07-21T07:00:00ZThe devil has frostbite because hell has just frozen over. The New York Times, the elite media champion of government entitlements, has printed a "knock your socks off" investigation of Medicaid fraud in New York State.
<p>
The headline is that 40% of New York's $45 billion a year Medicaid tab is paid to crooks who have figured out how to beat the chaotic system. The Times ran down a list of thieves including doctors, dentists, transportation providers and individuals. The paper did a nice job exposing the scams and fraud but just dented the crime wall, because to steal about $20 billion a year, there has to be an army of villains and there are.
<p>
Now, I don't think anyone is surprised that entitlement fraud is rampant in New York State, which is the highest taxed state in the union and has two U.S. Senators that love the entitlement gravy train: Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. But the state also has an allegedly conservative governor, George Pataki. However, Pataki has little power because the State Assembly is controlled by perhaps the worst elected official in the country, Speaker Sheldon Silver, who makes Boss Tweed look like Elliot Ness. Silver has consistently and unrepentedly stalled bills that would provide more legal oversight on entitlement fraud.
<p>
So why should you care if you don't live in New York? Well, because the liberal mantra that all Americans are entitled to government-funded health care has gained momentum over the years, and is likely to be one of the cornerstones of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.
<p>
Can you imagine the federal government sending checks out to hundreds of millions of Americans and their health providers? Can you just picture the chaos and the theft potential? We have massive fraud now with targeted health plans for the poor and elderly. Universal health entitlements would send the country into fiscal disaster.
<p>
The truth is that our Constitution does not mandate any responsibility on the part of the feds to pay you anything. There wasn't even a federal income tax withholding before 1913. But now the American left has decided that a "compassionate" society must provide health care, even though it is virtually impossible to do that in a nation of 300 million. The national health system in Canada is chaotic and they have just 33 million citizens.
<p>
I am not talking about an "every man for himself" national policy. Clearly, the federal government should provide responsible and effective safety nets for Americans who cannot provide for themselves. Nobody should live under a bridge, nobody should die for lack of a doctor. But government assistance should be well thought out and delivered in a targeted, disciplined way. So far, that has not been case, not only in Medicaid, but in most "Great Society" programs.
<p>
Rampant entitlements have bankrupted Germany and France and the high taxation that fuels these programs has made it impossible for the German and French economies to grow. More entitlements and higher taxation in the USA would lead to the same situation. We have been warned.
<p>
It must be galling to the left-wing columnists at The New York Times that their own newspaper has illustrated the economic dangers of massive entitlement programs. People like Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman envision a quasi-socialist paradise where the feds provide you with everything from tranquilizers to a colonoscopy. And judging from the exposition of out-of-control Medicare fraud in New York State, the colonoscopy reference is disturbingly appropriate.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-07-21T07:00:00ZProtecting the KidsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Protecting-the-Kids/18963.html2005-07-14T07:00:00Z2005-07-14T07:00:00ZHere's the stark truth in the land of the free: Many American children under the age of ten can no longer play on their front lawns unsupervised for fear they may be abducted. Time after time we read about young kids being snatched, raped and murdered by known sexual offenders and our society seems powerless to stop the madness.
<p>
The latest is the horrific case of Joseph Duncan, a convicted child rapist who apparently murdered two adults, a 13-year-old and a 9-year-old boy in Idaho. When police arrested Duncan, he was having breakfast with the murdered boy's 8-year-old sister, who told authorities Duncan had brutally molested her for weeks.
<p>
Duncan was allowed to do this by Minnesota Judge Thomas Schroeder. Last March, Duncan stood before Schroeder charged with yet another child molestation. The monster had already served 16 years in Washington State for raping a 14-year-old boy, and admitted to 13 other child rapes. He even talked about them on this website. Yet Judge Schroeder set Duncan's bail at just $15,000. A friend of Duncan's gave him the money, Duncan paid the bail, and then skipped town.
<p>
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports Judge Schroeder was aware of Duncan's past, and even if the Judge didn't know, he could have easily found out by having the prosecutor call the FBI's Crime Information Center in Washington. Schroeder has no excuse. He's a disgrace.
<p>
But there are many disgraceful judges, either too lazy or too apathetic to protect children. The solution to the problem is to take the power away from the judges altogether. It is not a hard thing to do.
<p>
First, every state in the union must pass a criminal statute like Florida's Jessica's Law. That calls for a minimum 25 year-to-life prison term for a first offense sexual assault conviction against a child. And second, if these predators do manage to leave prison, they have to register their addresses with the federal government so a national database can track their movements. Any failure to do this--ten years in federal prison.
<p>
Basically, that would take sentencing discretion away from the judges, but the nation would have to depend on prosecutors to aggressively pursue those involved with child molestation... something that has not been done in Jessica Lundsford's case.
<p>
So the solution is there for everyone to see--why then do our elected officials fail to enact it?
<p>
Only 13 states currently have mandatory prison sentences of ten years or more for convicted child sexual offenders. The other 37 states are mostly chaotic in the way they adjudicate these cases. My staff contacted all 50 Governors and their interest ranged from intense (Governor Rick Perry of Texas) to ho-hum (Governor Don Carcieri of Rhode Island).
<p>
The bottom line is that Jessica's Law could be and should be enacted quickly in every state. There is an urgency to this. And if your Governor doesn't get the urgency, give him a call and let him or her have it. Enough is enough with the brutalizing of American children. Every one of us must hold the lawmakers accountable and demand protection for the kids.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-07-14T07:00:00ZThe New PBSBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-New-PBS/18961.html2005-07-07T07:00:00Z2005-07-07T07:00:00ZBecause I am a simple man, I have but one simple question: If PBS is politically balanced as Bill Moyers says it is, why, then, are only liberal Americans objecting to impending changes at the network? I mean, every far-left crank in town is in a frenzy over a couple of Republicans moving into management positions. After decades of liberal leadership, isn't it fair to give some conservatives a shot? After all, the tax dollars of right-wing Americans also pour into the Public Broadcasting trough. So, hey, let's be fair about things.
<p>
Of course, there is a chance that the conservatives will not be fair, and will turn Elmo into a contributor to Tom DeLay's travel fund. That would be tragic and should be prevented at all costs. So I have come up with some new PBS programming designed to heal all partisan wounds. Here is what the upcoming fall PBS lineup should look like.
<p>
<b>"Tax the Rich"</b> is a news analysis program hosted by Congressman Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont. Each week Sanders and his panel of regular folks from Cambridge, Berkeley and Seattle, will select one wealthy American and take all his stuff. The panel will then decide which other Americans should get said stuff and why. This program would also be broadcast from Havana on special occasions.
<p>
<b>"Santorum's Sanitarium"</b> will be hosted by Rick Santorum, the conservative Senator from Pennsylvania. It will focus mainly on the latest word from God about American policy. The Deity will weigh in each week with solutions to complex problems and communicate through the Senator who will occasionally speak in tongues.
<p>
<b>"The Gay Newlywed Game"</b> will star Congressman Barney Frank and be broadcast from Provincetown, Massachusetts. Each week, the editors of "The New York Times" will select a panel of lucky homosexual or lesbian or bisexual or transgender couples from the hundreds of articles the Times has done on these alternative lifestyles over the past few years. Barney will ask the couples questions about each other but try to avoid the double entendres that made the straight Newlywed Game so tacky. After all, this is PBS.
<p>
<b>"Savage Behavior"</b> is a confrontational hour where radio talk show host Michael Savage plans the nuclear destruction of America's enemies. Each week, another annoying nation is vaporized using the latest high-tech computer graphics and simulated skin meltdowns. This one is a ratings lock. Provocative talk, awesome destruction and unlimited savagery make the program a can't miss hour of TV viewing.
<p>
<b>"The Streisand Factor"</b> features the singer/political scientist making a rare television appearance. Babs will fill us in on her latest "war on terror" strategies, macro-economic suggestions and secular-progressive fantasies. There's high power star wattage here as Barbra brings us out leftwing pals like Whoopi Goldberg and Robert Redford to dish national security and massive entitlement spending. She'll also make reference to her friendship with Bill Clinton but avoid the touchy Hillary "issue."
<p>
And finally <b>"The Conundrum with Moyers and Liddy"</b> features those zany ideologues Bill Moyers and G. Gordon Liddy debating the latest issues and zinging each other with good-humored barbs. Moyers hammers home his philosophy that President Bush is the anti-Christ and also demands the Chief Executive actually undergo an Exorcism even if that does violate separation of Church and State. Liddy will do the program armed and, at least once during the hour, will burn his hand in an open flame without flinching. He may also, on occasion, call Moyers "fey."
<p>
So there you have it, the new PBS where all Americans can be equally offended. Can't wait to see it.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-07-07T07:00:00ZCulture War of the WorldsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Culture-War-of-the-Worlds/18959.html2005-06-30T07:00:00Z2005-06-30T07:00:00ZSo there I am watching Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" with a bunch of swells at the movie's premiere in New York City. The film is a sci-fi extravaganza where Spielberg takes the basic premise of the 1898 H.G. Wells novel, borrows freely from his previous suspense films "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park," and creates a special effects bonanza that is bound to please a mass audience hungry for thrills and chills.
<p>
But, early on in the movie, something stranger than gross-looking aliens chasing humans all over the place emerges. A rather populist political subtext takes shape that is somewhat surprising, coming from a Hollywood insider like Spielberg. "War of the Worlds" parallels the attack on 9/11.
<p>
Narrator Morgan Freeman opens things up by stating that forces with "envious eyes" have targeted earthlings for destruction. They simply want the planet for themselves. No one is safe, no target off limits. Civilians are routinely destroyed without reason or rational explanation. Sound like anyone we know? Osama somebody?
<p>
The actual first wave alien attack comes from the sky, just as 9/11 did. Then it's a grind-it-out process as the invaders stalk humans. Some of us fight back, some of us run.
<p>
At one point in the movie, one of the characters makes the point that an occupying army can never win. Iraq reference? Sure it is.
<p>
The messages in the film, however, are not overtly political. There is no left-wing, right-wing thing going on. Tom Cruise cruises along without much point-of-view other than to save his kids from the alien killers. Spielberg is not Michael Moore. His aim is to entertain and to make a few a subtle points that do not intrude on the suspense. By the way, Spielberg is right; history shows that occupying armies cannot win in the long run.
<p>
This is the first post-9/11 movie I've seen that is actually influenced by the death and destruction visited upon us by the Islamic killers. It was clear to me that Steven Spielberg is teed off about what the terrorists are doing. His view is reflected by Cruise's teenage son who desperately wants to confront the aliens and kill them. The boy seethes with anger throughout the film because of the alien barbarity. Good for him.
<p>
So this isn't the usual Hollywood cheap shot leftist propaganda. "War of the Worlds" actually reflects the view of everyday Americans, rather than a few Beverly Hills pinheads. I liked the movie for that.
<p>
In the end, the aliens are actually confronted by God, if you can believe it. Another huge departure from the Hollywood playbook. I'm not going to dent the suspense and tell you more, but trust me, the ACLU will not like the film's conclusion.
<p>
The downside to "War of the Worlds" is that it's kind of loopy in its execution of the story line. The special effects overshadow everything and the resolution of the basic plot would make Mr. Welles shudder. But you might like the tone of the film, and if you crunch enough popcorn you might even swallow the thesis that Tom Cruise and his 11-year-old daughter are able to walk from New Jersey to Boston without changing clothes.
<p>
Strange things happen when aliens invade. Even in Hollywood.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-06-30T07:00:00ZThe Limits of DissentBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Limits-of-Dissent/18939.html2005-06-23T07:00:00Z2005-06-23T07:00:00ZNo country can win a conflict the way the USA is fighting the war on terror. Every move the Bush administration makes is scrutinized, criticized and roundly chastised by dissenters who firmly believe the President, himself, is responsible for much of the anti-American hatred around the world. The chorus is deafening. Bush "lied" about Iraq. Bush is violating civil liberties by supporting the Patriot Act. The President sanctions torture and is a major human rights violator. Every day there is another page one story telling Americans we are the bad guys.
<p>
The dissenters claim that what they're doing is patriotic, that they love America and just want to improve it. They claim that loyal dissent is one of the finest traditions of democracy.
<p>
But there is a difference between dissenting from a war and trying to undermine a war, which is clearly what some Americans are doing. Senator Richard Durbin's recent comments comparing a few rough interrogations at Guantanamo Bay to what the Soviets and Nazis did was number one with a bullet on Al Jazeera. That anti-American network couldn't get enough of Dick Durbin. For days his opinion echoed through the Arab world, inflaming even more hatred toward the USA.
<p>
Like Jane Fonda, Durbin claimed he was just trying to stop an immoral policy. But that argument is hollow in the face of the facts. More than 68,000 interrogations have taken place since 9/11 and the alleged abuses number in the hundreds. The Pentagon says it is actively prosecuting valid cases of abuse and, in a time of war, it might be wise to give the U.S. military the benefit of the doubt.
<p>
During World War II, widely considered the last "good" war, there was tight government control of information. No pictures of dead American soldiers were released to the public until 1943, two years after the conflict began. The Office of War Information made it quite clear to the press that any intentional undermining of the conflict would be punished. Even Hollywood scripts and newsreels were vetted. The U.S. government strictly censored what Americans saw and heard about the war, even where atrocities were concerned.
<p>
After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on December 17th, 1944, some units like the US 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers. In the Pacific, relatively few Japanese prisoners were taken in the brutal island fights. But the folks back home never heard about those things or what techniques were used to interrogate prisoners who might know where the next ambush would be. The American military did what they had to do in order to win. As General Patton once said to his army: "I do not advocate standing Germans up against the wall and shooting them ... so shoot the sons of bitches before you get them to the wall."
<p>
George Patton would not be allowed to serve in combat today. The New York Times would make sure of that. The International Red Cross would be all over Patton and his aggressive Third Army. Dick Durbin would be appalled. But it is Patton that we need right now to defeat the barbarians who would kill all of us in the name of Allah. The "human rights" people really have no clue. The war on terror is the ultimate war. If Al Qaeda gets nuclear weapons, those people will use them.
<p>
It is true that the United States must stand above the Huns. We must not stoop to torturing detainees or committing battlefield atrocities. But mistakes happen in all wars and we are now fighting an invisible enemy. They wear no uniforms, they obey no rules of engagement.
<p>
It is time for Americans to decide exactly who is looking out for them. The government and military, which is trying to defeat vicious killers, or those who are on a jihad to undermine the war on terror in the name of patriotism? The battle lines are clearly drawn. Which side are you on?BillOReilly.com Staff2005-06-23T07:00:00ZExtreme DeanBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Extreme-Dean/18937.html2005-06-16T07:00:00Z2005-06-16T07:00:00ZThis week a bunch of newspapers in places like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh tried to rally support for the beleaguered Howard Dean, and I am with them... well, somewhat.
<p>
The thing you've got to love about Howard Dean is that he is sincere in his hate. No phony is he, Dean despises Republicans and everything for which they stand. If it were up to Dean, those white, Christian layabouts would be shunned, scorned and mocked. Come to think of it, it is up to Dean. As the DNC chief, he is launching personal attacks against Republicans all over the place.
<p>
Honestly, where would Howard Dean be without hate? Last year it made him the darling of the far-left internet crowd, which poured millions into his presidential campaign. Dean's loathing of the GOP sent the self-described "Deaniacs" into ecstasy. The more Dean poured on the vitriol, the more money came rolling in. Dean embraced abhorrence with a vengeance Joseph McCarthy would have admired.
<p>
But that was then, and this is now. Some democrats like John Edwards and Senator Joseph Biden have recently criticized Dean's personal attacks, but that's akin to ordering salmon for dinner and then, when it arrives, complaining that you don't like fish. Democrats knew Dean was a character assassin when they elected him chairman of the National Committee. This is like the scene in "Casablanca" when Claude Rains announces he's "shocked" there is gambling going on in Rick's place.
<p>
The truth is that hate has been very good to Howard Dean. Without his animus, he'd probably be running a bed and breakfast in Bennington. Dean broke away from the bland political crowd by being a mean guy. He relished calling people names and surrounded himself with media smear merchants. Can you imagine a responsible politician saying publicly that he "hates" Republicans? That's alienating about half the country with one sentence. So much for Dean's insistence that the Democrats are the party of "inclusion."
<p>
To be fair, at the height of the Clinton bashing hysteria, there were Republican politicians throwing defamation bombs all over the place. But they were very specific. Clinton was the devil. The GOP did not expand its hatred to include Sally and Joe who voted for the man. They kept their fire concentrated on Bill Clinton and pretty much left the civilians alone.
<p>
Fair-minded Americans know trafficking in hate is foolish and destructive. Howard Dean's anger may be amusing, but the unintended consequence is it has made him a joke. Dean can command a forum of true believers now, but America has always dismissed haters over time. And that's what will happen with Dean and anyone else who deals in character assassination.
<p>
I know some readers will disagree with that assessment, because the hate industry can be very profitable. But there's a price to pay for blood money. Let's look at two examples, one from each side. Ultra-right wing radio talk show host Michael Savage was recently ignored by most media when he attempted to hawk his new book, a kindly tome that says liberalism is a "mental disorder." Savage couldn't get booked anywhere in the national media. His use of personal attacks has made him radioactive.
<p>
Far-left guttersnipe Al Franken, whose defamation skills dwarf those of Savage, still has access to some media (which says something about industry bias), but in the last presidential campaign, John Kerry's handlers kept their candidate far away from Franken. Jimmy Carter took major heat for sitting close to Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention, and Kerry's advisors took note. Extremist associations are not good for any candidate.
<p>
Which is why Howard Dean's conduct is so strange. Do you think Hillary Clinton or any other democratic candidate for president in 2008 will want Howard campaigning for them? I can just hear it now: "I hate Republicans and so does Hillary! Hooorah!"
<p>
Despite the absurdity of Dean's demeanor and the chorus of fellow Democrats who want him to button it, the Governor remains unrepentant and seemingly untroubled with his tactics. Many in the left-wing press are solidly behind him, and the guy continues to talk the trash talk.
<p>
He does this because ol' Howard Dean knows something that many of us do not know: Hate means never having to say you're sorry.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-06-16T07:00:00ZSharing the WealthBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sharing-the-Wealth/18935.html2005-06-09T07:00:00Z2005-06-09T07:00:00ZRiddle me this: What do Madonna, Bono, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair all have in common? They want to help poor Africans, that's what. But how to do that is the rub.
<p>
Madonna has signed up for the latest Bob Geldorf concert series to heighten "awareness" of the dire African situation. She will join Paul McCartney and other pop stars in a series of shows next month.
<p>
This is a nice, if somewhat fuzzy, idea. The last time Geldorf swam into these waters, in 1985, his "Live Aid" project raised about $150 million dollars for Ethiopian famine victims. The project got great press and was a huge financial success. Then reality intruded.
<p>
According to the watchdog group Charity Navigator, the Ethiopian dictator Mengistu stole much of the donated money and used it to pay his thuggish army to continue to oppress starving people in the countryside. That part of "Live Aid" was mostly ignored by the press because it would have been politically incorrect to point it out. The truth is that in the chaos that is Africa, whoever has the most guns controls any aid that flows into their area. Madonna can sing her heart out, but that's the fact.
<p>
Enter Bono, the U-2 superstar who wants a coordinated effort by the industrial world to deliver help to the poorest people on the planet. Bono, a smart and good man, understands corruption and apathy. But while Bono has the power to persuade, he does not have the ability to coordinate a massive relief effort.
<p>
So who does?
<p>
The United Nations could do it, but will not, because that agency is almost as chaotic and corrupt as Africa. While U.N. diplomats dine in splendor in midtown Manhattan, thousands of destitute human beings waste away all over the world. Kofi Annan is ineffective, and until there is a crusader for justice at the helm of the United Nations, little will be accomplished there.
<p>
So that leaves Bush and Blair. Both men recognize the tragedy of a continent that cannot feed itself and can't even deliver basic medical care to its people. But with an intense war on terror going on, both leaders are a bit distracted, and resources, especially in the USA, are stretched very thin. However, if the President and Prime Minister would team up with private agencies like Catholic Charities and Doctors without Borders, which are already on the ground in Africa, then at least a good beginning could be made.
<p>
The money, food and medicine is available. This is a delivery and accountability situation. Africa needs a disciplined "Marshall Plan" that would provide the continent with medicine, food and an educational infrastructure. Unfortunately, few African nations have demonstrated the competence to implement such a plan, so the Western powers must take the whole thing over.
<p>
Remember, post-World War II Europe and Japan were rebuilt mostly by American administrators. It was literally "our way or no highways." And if African nations don't buy into that, then they should be on their own.
<p>
So it is good that the "Material Girl" wants to ship material over to Africa. I am with Bono when he sings "we have to carry each other." The world's wealthy nations do have a responsibility to combat suffering along with terrorism. But no longer can we allow chaotic nations to call the shots on how aid programs are run. If we really want to help the poor - we have to get up close and personal.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-06-09T07:00:00ZHurting Your CountryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hurting-Your-Country/18933.html2005-06-02T07:00:00Z2005-06-02T07:00:00ZSo how did the USA go from being a beacon of freedom to a champion of the gulag? How exactly did that happen? Well, pull up a chair, here's what happened.
<p>
After President Bush won re-election last November, there was much consternation among some powerful anti-Bush Americans. They were stunned that John Kerry lost and feared that if Bush succeeds in his second term, the Democrats would lose again in 2008.
<p>
Then came the successful election in Iraq, and the fear on the left multiplied. If Iraq turned out to be a success, Mr. Bush would become a hero. So the need to undermine the Bush administration became more intense than ever. But how to do it? Social Security wasn't emotional enough, particularly for young voters. What could be done to hurt Bush?
<p>
Then came the revelation--let's torture the President.
<p>
The New York Times had already primed the pump, running more than 50 front-page stories on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Then came reports from the International Red Cross that more abuse was happening at Guantanamo. The American Civil Liberties Union was already challenging detentions there and so a strategy was sealed: the Bush administration was full of torturers and human rights violators. It was ruining America's reputation throughout the world. Bush was a villain.
<p>
It was easy to get that thesis out. The left-wing websites fed anti-Bush columnists like Bob Herbert and Richard Cohen information and the drumbeat intensified. There was torture and abuse and murder all sanctioned by the evil Bush administration. Article after article appeared and soon some TV people followed along. It didn't take long before the torture seed was fully sown.
<p>
The Newsweek debacle slowed things down a little, but the anti-Bush press quickly banded together and pronounced that Newsweek's mistake would never have happened if Bush wasn't torturing everybody. I'm sure you read those opinion pieces, as they appeared in liberal newspapers all over the country. The theme and wording was so similar that one person could have written all of those articles. And that was no accident.
<p>
All the while this was happening, the President and his crew were doing what they usually do when the press pounds them: nothing. They did not engage the abuse propaganda until it was obvious Newsweek had screwed up. But even that effort was derided by many in The White House press corps, who chided the administration for scolding Newsweek.
<p>
Now the torture theme has new momentum. A liberal federal judge in New York City has ruled the Defense Department must release more photos and videos of Abu Ghraib to the ACLU. Of course, that will incite even more hatred against the USA and put our soldiers in more danger but, hey, politics comes before protecting the troops. The anti-Bush people want those pictures almost as badly as Al Jazeera wants them. Another nail in the President's coffin is more important than bodies in real coffins.
<p>
If you think I am exaggerating, I assure you I am not. This torture campaign is being run brilliantly, and if Mr. Bush doesn't wise up soon, he will be bloodied just as Lyndon Johnson was in the Vietnam debacle.
<p>
The truth is that abuse has occurred, but on a relatively small scale. According to General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. has detained about 68,000 people since 9/11 (most have been released), and there have been 325 investigations into alleged abuse. At this writing, about 100 cases of wrongdoing have been substantiated.
<p>
That's not a big number, but it doesn't matter to the anti-Bush cabal, which understands that perception is reality in a nation where "reality programming" is the rage of the day. If you can sell the nation that America is now a war criminal, President Hillary Clinton is a real possibility.
<p>
So there you have it. For the anti-Bush folks, it is simple: no pain, no gain. Torture is selling and the media is buying. For those of you who are appalled by this analysis, I can only say one thing: sometimes the truth, like torture, hurts.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-06-02T07:00:00ZDrawing the Line on the BorderBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Drawing-the-Line-on-the-Border/18931.html2005-05-26T07:00:00Z2005-05-26T07:00:00ZOne of the problems with demanding that the feds enforce immigration law is that you will immediately be branded a mean guy or gal. If you want to stop poor people from illegally coming to the land of milk and money, the USA, some of your fellow citizens will define you as insensitive, selfish, racist, ghastly and downright anti-Christian. Those are tough charges to digest.
<p>
A coworker at Fox News caught me in the hallway and said, "You don't like immigrants very much, do you, Bill."
<p>
I gave my usual answer, which is if I were a poor man with a family in Mexico, I'd jump the border as well. I don't blame the aliens, I blame the corrupt Mexican government which cannot build an effective economic infrastructure, and a cowardly U.S. government which will not enforce immigration laws.
<p>
I then asked the guy, "So it's okay with you that we pretty much let anyone into this country who can get to the border?"
<p>
The man said it was okay with him. Immigrants are good for the USA, and how could any feeling person deny them entrance?
<p>
And so it goes... the compassionate want the doors to the nation left wide open, the mean people would like some order to the immigration process.
<p>
Cardinal McCarrick of Washington has also weighed in on this from a theological view. He says that true Christians must treat illegal immigrants with compassion, because that's what Jesus would do. And the Cardinal is right. Jesus would probably not be a Border Patrol agent. But, then, Jesus did direct us to "render to Caesar, the things that are Caesar's." And the law comes under the Caesar heading.
<p>
The good Cardinal would not talk with me, but his spokesperson did. I wondered if Jesus had a spokesperson, but that's another topic. Anyway, the Cardinal's guy said illegal immigrants should be given all the assistance possible. Then I asked him if the Cardinal had any solutions to prevent about eleven million human beings from sneaking in here. The man said the Cardinal believed the American government should reform the economies of poor nations so folks would not have to come here. That is what the man said.
<p>
Jesus might be able to do that, but no amount of American largesse can lift countries like Mexico and Honduras out of poverty. We simply do not have the power to do that. Somebody tell the Cardinal.
<p>
What we do have the power, but not as yet the will, to do is to tell the world we will accept foreign workers in a well-organized program that requires applicants to clear background checks and obey our laws. Is that so unreasonable?
<p>
But in order to implement such a program, the borders of the USA would have to be secured. Why bother to register and wait for legal status, when you can dance across the border and have dinner in Tucson that very evening?
<p>
A new study by the "Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus," which is fighting illegal immigration, says that deploying 36,000 military personnel to back up the Border Patrol would stop the flow of people from the south and severely dent the narcotics traffic as well. This, of course, is the immediate solution to the problem and President Bush could do that with a stroke of the pen--he could simply sign an executive order and it would happen.
<p>
But the President will most likely not do that, and the chaos will continue. Illegals will die in the desert, border states will face bankruptcy from providing services to thousands of non-citizens, and some very bad people will enter this country unsupervised.
<p>
It is hard to image that Jesus would be down with that picture, but I could be wrong. Caesar certainly would not have permitted it. And so the debate goes on; the compassionate people versus the mean people.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-05-26T07:00:00ZBlood in the WaterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Blood-in-the-Water/18913.html2005-05-19T07:00:00Z2005-05-19T07:00:00ZThe Newsweek and Dan Rather situations are so similar it's eerie. Both got snookered because they bought scenarios that, if true, would have made President Bush look bad. Both ran with said scenarios. Both crashed and burned.
<p>
Whenever you want anything in this world too much, it is unlikely to happen. Desperately desiring a person, a job or a lifestyle just about ensures disaster. All of us must pursue our goals with our eyes wide open or else we will hit the rocks.
<p>
What is it about President Bush that causes such anger in the press that they are salivating for a story that will hurt him? Wait, I can answer that question. It's the same emotion that drove right-wingers crazy whenever they saw President Clinton acting as Commander-in-Chief: partisans just don't believe these guys deserve the title.
<p>
The left-wing print press has rallied around Newsweek, blaming the whole debacle on the Bush administration for its systematic "abuse" of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. If the abuse had not happened, the papers wailed, then Newsweek wouldn't be in this fix. From the Los Angeles Times to the Minneapolis Tribune to the Baltimore Sun to the Oregonian in Portland, the editorials were almost exactly the same. Talk about group-think!
<p>
To be fair, Newsweek Magazine is not even close to being the biggest Bush-basher in town. That publication is far less ideological than most of the leftwing newspapers. It also does excellent reporting on a regular basis. But its Achilles heel is the politically correct germ that infects most New York City-based media. Newsweek has a tendency to be very PC, and displays far more secular tendencies than traditional ones. It is Newsweek's prerogative to do that, but it is also risky these days. Most Americans believe the press is unfair and unfit, and if you make a mistake that is perceived to be anti-American, you will pay a big price.
<p>
Ever since Woodward and Bernstein used an anonymous source (the so called "Deep Throat") to bring down the Nixon administration, the American press has been comfortable hiding behind phantom leakers who often hurt people for revenge. That has got to stop. Newsweek's anonymous source burned it, and what the magazine should do is put that person's picture on next week's cover. That would stop these cowardly weasels from spreading false stories.
<p>
But Newsweek will not do that, and now must rebuild its reputation. That's not going to be easy, as Dan Rather is finding out. Americans are jittery these days in the face of killer terrorists, and we are in no mood for bogus news reports that inflame our enemies. The left-wing media ignores that fact at its peril.
<p>
As with Dan Rather, I do not believe Newsweek knew what it put out there was false. It was duped. But that happened because the magazine was comfortable with a sensational item that would make the Bush administration look bad. As the old adage says: Be careful what you wish for.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-05-19T07:00:00ZDon't Kid Around in the ClassroomBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Kid-Around-in-the-Classroom/18909.html2005-05-12T07:00:00Z2005-05-12T07:00:00ZThink back to when you were six years old. What was your world like? Mine consisted of playing baseball, cowboys and Indians (I didn't know from Native Americans), and watching a goofy guy named Howdy Doody on TV. That filled much of my leisure time.
<p>
In school, a glaring nun named Sister Lurana taught me to read 'Dick and Jane' stories. I had a book that said stuff like, "Look at Jane. See Jane run. Dick likes Jane." It really didn't matter to me whether Dick liked Jane or not--I wanted to climb a tree. But the nun insisted I learn to read the book, so I did.
<p>
Today, in Lexington, Massachusetts, six year-olds have another book. It is called "Who's In a Family?" This book features not only Dick and Jane but Jennifer and Lauren and Charles and Henry. The pages tell little kids about different kinds of families: mixed race, gay and lesbian, and even traditional family units. They are all discussed in very positive ways.
<p>
A father named David Parker took one look at the same sex part of the book and made an appointment to see the principal of the Estabrook Elementary School, a woman named Joni Jay. Mr. Parker asked Ms. Jay to inform him when the gay family stuff was going to be presented, because he felt his little son was too young to learn about homosexuality and he would keep him home that day. Sounds reasonable, right?
<p>
Not so fast.
<p>
Ms. Jay informed Mr. Parker that the family book had nothing to do with sexuality, and so he was not entitled under the Massachusetts sex-ed law to get a heads up. When Mr. Parker pointed out that same sex situations contain the word 'sex,' he was asked to leave the principal's office. He refused. So the Lexington police arrested him on trespassing charges.
<p>
See Dad get arrested. What does Jane think?
<p>
Very quietly all over the country, these kinds of culture war expositions are being played out in assorted public school systems. Under the banner of teaching tolerance, many school boards have okayed books that delve into social issues far beyond the comprehension of most six-year-olds. I don't know about you, but I thought gay meant "happy" until I was eleven years old, and even then, I could not have cared less whether Lenny and Squiggy were a couple. I wanted to steal second and see monster movies, not understand what happens in Key West.
<p>
But today we have a massive mission of indoctrination going on in America, and millions of traditional parents don't like it. I am siding with that group. I don't want to tell my little kids about "alternative lifestyles" unless we're talking about the Munchkins in the "Wizard of Oz."
<p>
I think both Dick and Jane would agree that we should all back off and give the kids a break. Let's bring back childhood in America, okay? No more "diversity" books for kindergarteners. No more bare midriffs for nine-year-old girls. No more gold chains for boys going into third grade. Got it? Let's work together on this.
<p>
The world is a tough, nasty place and children will learn that soon enough. Shouldn't we make their first years fun years, free of political and social agendas? Why do some little kids these days look like Britney Spears and Kid Rock? What the deuce is wrong with us?
<p>
Summing up, Dick likes Jane and that's enough for six-year-olds. Larry and Bruce can wait a few years.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-05-12T07:00:00ZThe Politics of CowardiceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Politics-of-Cowardice/18905.html2005-05-05T07:00:00Z2005-05-05T07:00:00ZIt took the brutal sexual assault and murder of a nine year-old girl to force the state of Florida to pass a law to protect children. Just days after Jessica Lunsford was found murdered, buried alive, the state legislature passed a law mandating a penalty of 25 years to life for any person convicted of molesting a child under 12 years of age. And if the molester ever did get out of prison, he or she would have to wear an electronic monitor for life.
<p>
The law passed because of citizen outrage; the guy who confessed to killing Jessica, John Couey, was a convicted sex offender who was running around unsupervised.
<p>
The media made a big deal out of photographing Governor Jeb Bush signing the law, but why didn't he and every other American governor sign a law like this years ago? Everybody knows that kids are being molested in great numbers. A new study out of Hofstra University says that 10% of American school kids are molested by their <strong>teachers</strong>! Unbelievable.
<p>
The system that is supposed to protect children has broken down in the United States for two reasons: first, there is no national database for sexual offenders, so they can roam from state to state without people knowing who they are.
<p>
And second, the apathy of some judges and prosecutors is stunning. In Jessica Lunsford's case, John Couey failed to register as a sex offender as required by Florida law and the state did not track him down. In fact, Couey's sister, his niece and another man, admit they hid the pervert when police were searching for Jessica. According to the niece, Couey's sister then bought him a bus ticket so he could flee the state.
<p>
Investigators also believe that Jessica was being tortured inside the trailer where those people lived with Couey. Yet no charges have been filed by Florida prosecutor Brad King against the three individuals who protected Couey and may have known about Jessica's abduction and murder.
<p>
This is simply obscene, but it is not unusual. King has told the local media there is no law in Florida that would allow him to prosecute these three revolting people. Lawyers I've spoken with disagree, but King is standing firm despite growing outrage.
<p>
King's inaction is what kills children. An aggressive prosecutor finds a way to bring those three to justice. A judge who cares puts child molesters away for the longest time possible. But all over the USA this is not happening.
<p>
Florida is ground zero for attacks on children, but they are happening everywhere. Don't believe the propagandists who say the problem has always been there, that it is no worse now. It is worse. That's because our justice system is chaotic and many judges are consumed by politics, making liberal rulings that allow the most vicious people imaginable to roam the streets.
<p>
Jessica Lunsford died for our sins. In the end, her gruesome demise did motivate Florida pols to at least do something. But three people who did nothing to save Jessica are still not being held accountable. And the shame of our society continues.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-05-05T07:00:00ZHappy Birthday, Mike WallaceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Happy-Birthday-Mike-Wallace/18895.html2005-04-28T07:00:00Z2005-04-28T07:00:00ZWord for word, the best American broadcaster in history has to be Mike Wallace. The guy turns 87 in a few days and he's still hitting cleanup for CBS on Sunday night. Wallace must have some kind of Dorian Gray thing going on, because he looks 25 years younger than he is, and can still put your fanny on the canvas during an interview. Here's the absolute bottom line on Mike Wallace: If you see him in a restaurant, have what he's having.
<p>
For those of you without a calculator, Mike Wallace was around for Al Capone, Adolf Hitler, Hiroshima, the birth of television and all the chaos that followed. In the 1950's, he hosted a TV program called "Nightbeat" which featured confrontational interviews with the powerful and the pompous. My late father thought most TV guys were wimps and phonies but he liked Wallace. He thought the broadcaster had, well, manhood.
<p>
The New York Times reports that Mr. Wallace did his full complement of 20 stories this season on "60 Minutes." At his age, the man's public persona should be a likeness at Madame Tussaud's, not a slot in prime time. But, somehow, he continues to be the best interviewer in the business. A few weeks ago he brushed back steroid monster Jose Canseco to such an extent that Canseco pretty much repudiated the key parts of his tell-all-book. Jose never knew what hit him. Wallace picked his pocket and left him for dead.
<p>
This whole Mike Wallace deal is downright spooky. Even Dick Clark has faltered, but Wallace just keeps humming along. When he interviewed me last fall, I had to be on guard at all times. Any inconsistency, any statement I couldn't back up, any bit of hesitation, the guy was on it. I kept repeating in my mind: "The man is 86 years old, I am much younger and stronger. The guy can't touch me." A fairy tale. Wallace controlled the interview.
<p>
To be honest, there are few television broadcasters that I respect. Most are politically correct robots driven by ego to do only what is best for them. In my 30 years of broadcasting, I have seen behind-the-scenes atrocities that would turn even Mike Wallace's hair gray. So my praise for Wallace does not come from a cheerleader.
<p>
Like most network news people, Mike Wallace is a liberal thinker, but he is not an ideologue. He's made some mistakes in his career, but everyone in the business has. Most of all, I believe Wallace is a fair man who does not go out of his way to hammer a person without cause. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I've watched him closely for decades.
<p>
As everyone knows, the old school of broadcasters is closing down. Brokaw, Walters, Rather, Koppel, and maybe even Jennings are cutting back. In their place are some highly skilled people without much panache. Americans are incredibly distracted with all the new gadgets, and to get their attention, you almost have to break into their homes. The age of broadcast superstars is almost over. The age of "Who's that, again?" is just about here.
<p>
So, happy birthday, Mike Wallace; I hope you get some nice presents and a big cake. And, with all due respect, you know what you can do with those 87 candles. Throw them at Morley Safer. You, sir, need just one candle, signifying your status in the broadcasting industry.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-04-28T07:00:00ZThe Wrath of GodBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Wrath-of-God/18893.html2005-04-21T07:00:00Z2005-04-21T07:00:00ZThe elevation of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to head the Roman Catholic Church is a clear and concise message from the College of Cardinals: "We are royally teed off."
<p>
Everybody knows that the new Pontiff is a tough guy who will not only throw the moneychangers out of the Temple, he'll kick them in the behind as they leave the building. Pope Benedict believes strongly in good and evil and he's not shy about pointing fingers. His letter to American bishops about politicians and abortion cost John Kerry dearly in the last election.
<p>
The Cardinals, of course, perfectly understand that Benedict is not exactly a cuddly guy, and will not be "reaching out," as they say in California. But his hard-line theological approach appeals to Church elders who have had enough.
<p>
In the past three decades, church attendance in the USA and Western Europe has dropped through the floor. Just 25% of American Catholics attend mass weekly and the number is in the single digits in long-standing Catholic countries like France. Secularism now rules the western world, and there are not enough priests to serve the remaining faithful. How do you say things are not good in Latin?
<p>
In the face of this spiritual decline, the Catholic Church has decided to make a stand. It will not compromise and it will not pander. You either toe the line or hit the bricks. Up to you.
<p>
As a life-long Catholic, I don't like this approach, but I understand it. The west is now besieged by forces that want to wipe spirituality completely out of the public square. The American Civil Liberties Union is the point organization in this effort. It supports all abortion-on-demand, including late term, no parental consent for minors having abortions, euthanasia with consent, gay marriage, and the free speech rights of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which has posted instructions on how to rape children on its website.
<p>
The ACLU opposes public funding for the Boy Scouts because their oath mentions God, the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, public displays of the baby Jesus at Christmas and any restraint on internet pornography in public libraries.
<p>
For the most part, the western media sympathizes with the ACLU and promotes its point-of-view. Thus, the secular message is a constant in our society, and the hits just keep on coming.
<p>
And where is the opposing point-of-view? Well, there are a few media outlets that give traditionalists a fair shake, but very few.
<p>
So the Catholic Cardinals feel isolated and surrounded. They can preach to the choir on Sunday but get battered by the news and entertainment media the rest of the week. A strong Papal voice countering that situation is soothing. And that's why Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI.
<p>
I believe organized religion can be a champion of human rights and provide resistance to secular societies which, if they progress much further, will never be able to defeat the fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. The more permissive the western world becomes, the more it rejects discipline and avoids confronting evil, the greater the danger to freedom will be.
<p>
Pope Benedict is facing a rapidly changing world and perhaps he will be a strong and persuasive shepherd against evil. The danger is that he will be so rigid that he will erode the spiritual core even further, thereby helping the secularists.
<p>
But the new Pope may have an epiphany and realize good people will rally against evil if the case of clear and present danger is made rationally and with compassion. I am praying that happens. The other side is hoping it will not.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-04-21T07:00:00ZSee Jane RunBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/See-Jane-Run/18887.html2005-04-14T07:00:00Z2005-04-14T07:00:00ZThe reemergence of Jane Fonda is causing a bit of angst, especially among some of the 2.4 million Americans who served in Vietnam. The liberal actress is selling a biographical book and stars in an upcoming movie with Jennifer Lopez. CNN has given Ms. Fonda almost as much air time as the Pope, and there is anger in the air.
<p>
In July 1972, Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi and began a two-week tour that was used as propaganda by the North Vietnamese. Fonda made ten radio broadcasts denouncing some Americans as "war criminals." Of course, no North Vietnamese or Viet Cong were cited as such by her.
<p>
She also tried to convince some American POW's to deny they had been tortured. Captured airman and present Senator John McCain has called her actions "reprehensible."
<p>
Facing an unpopular war, the Nixon administration declined to prosecute Ms. Fonda, who went on to achieve great wealth and fame in the movies and by selling exercise videos to women. She remains a liberal icon.
<p>
In July 1941, Iva Toguri arrived in Tokyo from Los Angeles. An American citizen, she wanted to study medicine in Japan where she had family. When war broke out with America five months later, Iva voluntarily stayed in Japan and soon began a new job: broadcasting propaganda on Japanese radio.
<p>
She was called "Tokyo Rose," and she was some piece of work. Most of her vile words were aimed at American military personnel in the Pacific. A 1944 broadcast went this way: "Hello, boneheads. This is your favorite enemy. How are all you orphans of the Pacific? Are you enjoying yourselves while your wives and sweethearts are running around with 4F's in the States?"
<p>
After Japan was defeated in 1945, Iva Toguri was jailed in Tokyo, unrepentant. She even signed autographs as "Tokyo Rose." Four years later she was convicted of treason and spent seven years in a West Virginia federal prison.
<p>
Interestingly, Toguri was pardoned by President Ford in 1977. She is believed to be still alive in Chicago.
<p>
So is there a difference between Iva Toguri and Jane Fonda? Certainly, the scale of Toguri's crimes was much greater. Fonda gave aid and comfort to the enemy for two weeks, Toguri for nearly four years. Also, the necessity of World War II was far different from the controversial Vietnam experience.
<p>
Yet many Americans still believe Jane Fonda's actions were treasonous, and only the politics of the time saved her. President Nixon had huge problems in Vietnam and on the homefront. To prosecute an anti-war star like Fonda would have caused a major uproar.
<p>
My take on the situation is this. Jane Fonda was and remains a naïve, easily led person who is desperate to please those who accept her. If you believe her own words, she has led a very unhappy life, and, watching her on television, I almost felt sorry for her. Even in softball interviews, the woman was strident and on edge. Her inner turmoil is clearly printed on her surgically smooth face.
<p>
That said, I understand the bitterness that many people have toward Ms. Fonda. But what goes around, comes around. Her actions did hurt brave Americans trying to survive on the brutal killing fields of Southeast Asia. Fonda says all she wanted was peace, and that's why she did it. But, ironically, Jane, herself, has known little peace since that time. Her life has been a series of marital disasters, self-inflicted diseases and estrangement from her daughter.
<p>
So, when you think about it, Jane Fonda has served a life sentence of sorts. Compared to her, Tokyo Rose might have gotten off easily.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-04-14T07:00:00ZSaying Goodbye to the PopeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Saying-Goodbye-to-the-Pope/18885.html2005-04-07T07:00:00Z2005-04-07T07:00:00ZIt's too bad that the cable TV news coverage of the Pope's death has desensitized some Americans. The wall-to-wall commentary quickly became tiresome to many and millions tuned out. That's a shame because Pope John Paul's life is very much worth examining.
<p>
Here is a man who was undeniably saintly, a person who lived on this earth but operated in a spiritual zone few of us could ever contemplate. He considered worldly matters only in the context of what God "expected." Practical problem solving was not the Pope's priority. He was truly a faith-based man.
<p>
In the summer of 2003, I traveled to Rome to find out why the Pope had been so publicly detached from the American priest scandal. As a loyal Catholic, I was angry that the Pontiff had not been more proactive in punishing people like Cardinal Law who obviously had stonewalled the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy members. My public criticism of the Pope led the Catholic League to bitterly criticize me, so I wanted to be absolutely sure that my opinion of the Pope's conduct in that terrible matter was based on facts.
<p>
While in Rome, I learned a lot about the Pope from people who worked with him daily. They were fearful of speaking on the record because the Pope's advisors did not brook dissent. Any open criticism of John Paul was not tolerated by the Holy See.
<p>
Off the record, I found out that the Pope was deeply hurt by the sexual abuse situation, but was convinced by his advisors that it was an "American" problem. Thus, when he visited Canada in 2002, he declined a meeting with some sexual abuse victims. Apparently, the Pope's advisors felt the meeting would be too stressful for the ailing Pontiff.
<p>
For the last few years of his life, Pope John Paul was almost totally disengaged from temporal matters. Ravaged by disease, he prayed and meditated most of the time, leaving the day to day running of the Vatican to others. Those "others" were mostly conservative European clergymen who tended to view the USA as a self-absorbed, materialistic country out of touch with much of the world.
<p>
So, when the War on Terror erupted, the Vatican was sympathetic to America but tentative in condemning Islamic extremists. The Church did not want to exacerbate Catholic-Muslim tensions and avoided specific policy recommendations.
<p>
Then came the war in Iraq, which put the Holy See directly at odds with the Bush administration. Once again, the Pope did not really get directly involved, but this time, his Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, denounced the attack on Saddam, pointedly saying that the war was not a necessity.
<p>
Up until the end of his life, the Pope remained consistent in his belief that prayer would overcome evil. He saw the Nazis destroyed and the Soviet Union fall. He believed good would triumph over evil if good people prayed and stayed loyal to values of freedom, life and belief in God.
<p>
For some of us, that spiritual stance in the face of terror and sexual abuse was hard to take. Americans are a people of action, a problem solving bunch. We want results now--not on God's time.
<p>
But perhaps Pope John Paul was wise in his determination to put faith ahead of activism. I still believe the next Pope should be more of this earth, but I cannot fault the philosophy of John Paul; that all life is sacred and human beings have a God given right to live in freedom. The Pope prayed for that constantly. So should we all.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-04-07T07:00:00ZDeath, Liberty and the Pursuit of HappinessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Death-Liberty-and-the-Pursuit-of-Happiness/18883.html2005-03-31T08:00:00Z2005-03-31T08:00:00ZYou know the Apocalypse is near when Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity join forces. But that's what happened in the Terri Schiavo case. Both men believe the American system should have saved Terri's life regardless of her condition.
<p>
Jackson's take on the situation is especially interesting. He contends that the judges and politicians should have shown mercy in this matter. The Reverend is a liberal diehard, but believes the greater good would have been served by allowing the Schiavo family to care for their daughter. It's hard to argue with that position.
<p>
But some do argue with it, including our pals at the ACLU, who have labeled this a "privacy" issue. According to the ACLU zealots, Terri Schiavo wanted to die and anybody who doesn't believe that is violating her privacy rights. There is no room for doubt in ACLU-land--they know what Terri wanted, because her husband said so, and since his position agrees with the ACLU position, the truth has been anointed. I guess it really doesn't matter that two court-appointed guardians for Terri testified it was impossible to ascertain her wishes because of Michael Schiavo's conflicts of interest.
<p>
The ACLU may be big on privacy, but it is not big on life in general, unless it is the life of a convicted murderer. The ACLU believes in any kind of abortion on demand. It believes a 12-year-old girl should be allowed to abort her fetus without telling her parents. It believes in doctor assisted suicide but not doctor assisted capital punishment. How strange.
<p>
But if you think about it, the philosophy of the ACLU is fairly consistent: The gratification of the individual is paramount. If a person wants to die, fine. If a woman wants to abort a fetus even after viability, no problem. It really doesn't matter why; WHAT a person wants is all that matters.
<p>
On the gratification front, did you know that the ACLU wants no limits placed on child pornography on the internet? Did you know that the organization is representing the North American Man Boy Love Association <em>pro bono</em> in a Massachusetts civil case? The ACLU puts forth that NAMBLA has a free expression right to instruct adults on how to rape children and get away with it. It doesn't get any more misguided than that.
<p>
Many Americans have no idea what is really going on underneath the surface of the Schaivo case and other culture battles. The United States has become the most powerful and wealthiest country on earth because it combined freedom, discipline and a clear sense of right and wrong based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. That formula has allowed millions of us to pursue happiness in a way that benefits society not just ourselves.
<p>
But that formula is now under siege by the forces of progressive secularism. While Jesse Jackson asks for mercy, the ACLU demands death. While traditionalists wonder why saying "Merry Christmas" has become an issue, secular forces have ensured that young girls can get abortions without parental permission. While most parents cannot let their small children out of their sight, the ACLU champions the rights of NAMBLA.
<p>
Janis Joplin once sang, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." But Janis was wrong. Terri Schiavo has lost her life, American parents are losing their authority and America, itself, is losing her way. Does that sound like freedom to you?BillOReilly.com Staff2005-03-31T08:00:00ZSchiavo HysteriaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Schiavo-Hysteria/18881.html2005-03-24T08:00:00Z2005-03-24T08:00:00ZFor those of you wondering why the Terri Schiavo story is receiving massive attention the answer lies deep within the culture war. Terri's sad saga is rooted in the battle over who has the final say on human life: the State or the Creator?
<p>
Followers of the secular philosophy believe that the government has the authority to terminate life in the womb and in the hospital. In Texas, for example, a 2003 law gives medical personnel the final say over who receives life-sustaining care and who doesn't. A few weeks ago, 5-month-old Sun Hudson died just seconds after being removed from a hospital ventilator in Houston. His mother desperately fought the hospital's decision but a Texas medical ethics committee ruled that the baby's lungs were incapable of growing and the condition was irreversible. Baby Sun died in his mother's arms.
<p>
People who believe in the Christian philosophy generally reject these man made life-death decisions. To them, all life is sacred because it comes from a higher power which has the ultimate say about who is born and when they die. Thus, abortion is rejected as is euthanasia. Christians and others of like mind are convinced that man should not have the power to take life unless it's a matter of self defense.
<p>
This battle between the two philosophies is never going to be settled. Emotions run high on both sides and Terri Schiavo was the fuse that reignited the brawl. At least the Christian side is focused about it. The Vatican released a statement that supported Mrs. Schiavo's life purely on theological grounds. The secularists are all over the place. They cite legalities, states rights, humane treatment and on and on.
<p>
But what it comes down to is a belief system. Who should control human life? The legal system or a higher power?
<p>
For those of us who realize that secularism must be the basis for common law in a democracy, the Schiavo case was especially frustrating. Both sides demagogued the issue and both sides are full of it. No third party really knows what Terri Schiavo wanted. Her court appointed guardians in Florida freely testified that her husband, Michael, had ulterior motives in the case. The guardians also testified that Terri's family grew to despise Michael Schiavo and much of the controversy was born from that hatred.
<p>
In a clear thinking world the solution to this terrible case would be obvious. Michael Schiavo would have dropped his litigation and allowed Terri's family to care for her. Mr. Schiavo could have made a statement that he tried to carry out his wife's wishes that she not be kept alive by extraordinary means, but for the greater good he would grant her family the right to keep her alive.
<p>
What is the downside to that? Who gets hurt with that solution? No one. According to doctors, Terri doesn't feel anything while on the feeding tube. So if the family wants her around in that state - why not? Her family could even raise private funds to pay for Terri's care, thereby taking Medicare out of it.
<p>
But reasonable solutions and thought are rare in the battle between the secular and the religious. It is a titanic struggle and the culture of America hangs in the balance.
<p>
I don't know who will ultimately win the struggle. I do know that everyone has lost in the Schiavo case.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-03-24T08:00:00ZTo Protect and ServeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/To-Protect-and-Serve/18871.html2005-03-17T08:00:00Z2005-03-17T08:00:00ZHere's how bad things really are in America as far as your security is concerned. Ebner Anibal Rivera Pax is a hardcore gangster from Honduras. In the past four years, he has been arrested eight times in California and deported four times by federal authorities. Four times!
<p>
Police agencies say Rivera Pax sold drugs, stole cars, assaulted people and may have even murdered 28 people in a Honduras bombing. Finally, after causing pain in this country for 12 years, the guy is now being held in a Texas prison, but it is likely that he'll be deported once again.
<p>
The reason Rivera Pax and thousands of other criminal illegal aliens are allowed to hurt Americans time after time after time is that the federal government will not stop illegal border crossings, and places like Los Angeles, where Rivera Pax wreaked much havoc, are "sanctuary cities" which will not allow local authorities to report illegal aliens to the feds. City officials in Houston, Chicago, Denver and New York City actually forbid any local inquiry of immigration status.
<p>
There are all kinds of rationalizations and excuses for the failure to protect Americans from illegal alien criminals, but they all become hollow PC madness when real people are hurt or killed. All but one of the 9/11 killers were here illegally; so was sniper mass murderer John Lee Malvo, and last week the feds rounded up more than 100 members of the violent Central American gang MS-13, almost all of them illegal aliens.
<p>
Last November, Americans had two choices for President: Bush or Kerry. Neither man even faked it as far as the border was concerned. Both said they would beef up the Border Patrol but do little else. Both men know the illegal alien invasion cannot be stopped by the BP alone. But Bush and Kerry said no when asked if they would allow U.S. troops to assist the Border Patrol. So, in effect, both men put politics over public safety because they knew the border chaos would continue.
<p>
The "do little" strategy worked for President Bush, who was re-elected largely because 9% more Hispanic Americans voted for him than did in 2000. The Republican plan of wooing Hispanics was very effective. A crackdown on the southern border would have derailed that strategy because the anti-Bush media would have played it as bias against Mexicans.
<p>
All of this was very good news for the likes of Ebner Anibal Rivera Pax, who committed a multitude of crimes against Americans without much punishment. While Rivera Paz ran around hurting people, Mr. Bush carried the state of New Mexico.
<p>
I don't want to sound cynical, but there is no question that both political parities are not looking out for you regarding the immigration mess. This column has stated before that it will take another 9/11 before we the people demand that elected officials protect us. It will take blood in the streets. Most Americans have no idea what kind of danger they are facing, and the elite media will never tell them. Once again, it is politically incorrect to mention that immigration laws must be enforced and the borders effectively monitored.
<p>
Immigrant bashing is an ugly thing. But demanding that U.S. authorities enforce laws already on the books is not bashing anyone. Two months ago President Bush swore to uphold the laws of the land. It is time he did.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-03-17T08:00:00ZAdieu, Dan RatherBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Adieu-Dan-Rather/18867.html2005-03-10T08:00:00Z2005-03-10T08:00:00ZDid you see that the most trusted man in America, Walter Cronkite, disrespected Dan Rather by saying CBS News should have dumped him a long time ago? Wow, with an uncle like that, who needs extended families?
<p>
Cronkite's critique came 24 years too late. When I worked at CBS News in the early 80s, everybody knew that Walter resented Dan for pushing him out. ABC News wanted to hire Rather, and the only way CBS could keep him was to throw Cronkite out the door with a one million dollar a year stipend. Walter took the cash and shut up. Until now.
<p>
Welcome to the wonderful world of broadcast journalism, where I have toiled for nearly 30 years. It is a brutal arena, where the knives are sharp and the toughest Kevlar vest in the world will not protect you forever. A variety of CBS News people are now hammering Rather because his power is greatly diminished. And that's the way it is, with apologies to Mr. Cronkite.
<p>
So why should you care that a bunch of overpaid men and women dissect each other in the halls of network TV news buildings? Don't they all deserve what they're getting? I mean, nobody's forcing them to earn six figures assembling information.
<p>
The reason you might want to care is that TV news is now the main source of information for the Republic. Most Americans don't even watch it, but perceptions are formed by what the tube spews out. The late night comics, the bloggers, the cable guys (that's me) and the radio big mouths (me again) all pick up stuff from network news and pass it along to you. The problem is that the folks who set the agendas for TV news are not like you. In fact, many of them DON'T like you. You are groundlings, semi-barbarians who can't tell excellent sushi from the cheap stuff.
<p>
Thus, what matters to you is often ignored or slanted by the TV big shots. For example, radical Professor Ward Churchill, a traitor earning $92,000 at the University of Colorado, was all but ignored by the network evening news broadcasts. Also, the Social Security debate is heavily weighted toward the Democratic position because, in the eyes of the network people, you're not smart enough to invest your own money. They need to protect you from yourself. Not that they really care, but it does make the network overseers feel better knowing they can control what you can and can't do.
<p>
Regular folks don't often venture into network news employment, because it is a strange and frightening world. The competition and pressure is unrelenting and backstabbing rules the day. Only the calculated and tough survive. Most people simply don't want to live that way, leaving the network news locker rooms chock full of ambitious strivers.
<p>
Which brings us back to Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. Both men are superstars, American icons. Both are millionaires many times over and can have pretty much anything they want.
<p>
They should be slapping each other on their respective backs. But we all now know that is not where the slaps are landing. Another defining moment in the world of network TV news.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-03-10T08:00:00ZThe Terror Tactics of the ACLUBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Terror-Tactics-of-the-ACLU/18865.html2005-03-03T08:00:00Z2005-03-03T08:00:00ZIt would be hard to imagine a better friend to Al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits than the American Civil Liberties Union. If that statement shocks you, please allow me to back it up with facts.
<p>
A few days ago, the ACLU announced it will sue Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of eight foreign nationals who say they were abused by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ACLU contends that the ultimate responsibility for the physical and psychological injuries sustained by the men lies at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Thus, Rumsfeld is their poster boy. By the way, the word "alleged" is not mentioned by the ACLU in their brief.
<p>
The suit is a farce and will go nowhere, I predict. The terror war is now three and a half years old, there are more than 300,000 American forces deployed around the world, and the allegations of torture against those forces number about 300. That is very, very low. The ACLU is simply blowing far left smoke, doing what it usually does: undermining policies it dislikes.
<p>
There is no question the ACLU opposes just about every pro-active measure taken to fight terror. Consider the following:
<ul type="square">
<li>The ACLU opposes the Patriot Act. But, in 2003, when asked by liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein to produce examples of government abuse under the act, the ACLU did not produce one.
<li>The ACLU opposes the "No Fly List" complied by the Transportation Security Administration to keep known bad guys off American airliners.
<li>The ACLU has sued to stop federal authorities from giving information about illegal aliens to state and local police agencies. You read that right. The ACLU does not want local authorities to know who is illegally living in their neighborhoods.
<li>And the ACLU believes that terrorists captured wearing civilian clothing are entitled to the rights legitimate soldiers receive under the Geneva Convention. Thus, no coercive interrogation.
</ul>
Now I ask you, who is Al Qaeda's best friend in the USA? Am I wrong here? I tried to find out just what anti-measures the ACLU did support, but was told that was not the organization's mandate. They are committed to the protection of rights. Well, what about the right to live, ACLU, a right Al Qaeda denied three thousand Americans on 9/11?
<p>
I am angry about this. The ACLU is making the war on terror much more difficult to wage. Under the guise of protecting the liberties of Americans, the ACLU combs the world to find foreign guys who say they were treated badly. Maybe they were, and it shouldn't happen. But I believe exploiting the situation to embarrass the Bush administration is the ACLU's goal, not protecting the little guy rounded up in Kabul.
<p>
One final example. Mohammed Atta most likely loved the ACLU. The dead 9/11 hijacker was in the USA illegally and roamed around planning the deadly attack. If the Feds had information on Atta in a database and a local Florida cop had managed to pick him up, the ACLU says the cop had no right to know any Federal information about the illegal alien Atta. That extreme position sums up just how much the ACLU is looking out for all of us.
<p>
And that is not at all.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-03-03T08:00:00ZBusting BusterBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Busting-Buster/18861.html2005-02-24T08:00:00Z2005-02-24T08:00:00ZBuster the Bunny is causing a lot of trouble, and he had better knock it off right now. The PBS cartoon character has instigated a brawl between the Federal government, PBS, and everyday Americans that is shaping up to be a signature battle in the nation's culture war.
<p>
For those of you unfamiliar with Buster, he is a curious rabbit that hops around on public TV introducing small children to the wonders of American life. In one of his adventures, Buster showed up in Vermont to check out the maple syrup industry, and wound up surrounded by a bunch of lesbians and their children. The connection between the syrup business and lesbians was never really explained, but Buster posed for a picture with the group, and looks very happy.
<p>
But the new Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, wasn't happy and fired off a letter to PBS saying that federal money should not be used to "introduce this kind of subject matter to children." Since the Public Broadcasting Service gets around $80 million dollars a year in taxpayer funds, that kind of letter gets PBS' attention fast.
<p>
The pressure caused PBS to fold, and it did not air the "Buster in Vermont" episode nationally, but some individual stations did show it. Soon after the controversy, PBS president Pat Mitchell announced she was going to quit, but not because of Buster. Although, rumor has it that the bunny feels terrible about the entire situation.
<p>
But not as terrible as Congressman Barney Frank who, as a proud gay man, is outraged that Education Secretary dissed Buster visiting the lesbians. Frank wrote a letter to Spellings, spelling it out: "You have said that families should not have to deal with reality of the existence of same-sex couples, and the strong implication is that this is something from which young children should be shielded."
<p>
Well, yeah, Barn, that's correct. Many Americans believe that little kids should have a childhood and not be subjected to any kind of sexuality. I don't want to be offensive here, but who in their right mind wants to explain Norma and Barbara's lifestyle to their four-year-old? Give the kids a break, okay?
<p>
It is well known that many in the communications business believe that a subliminal "gay is okay" message is imperative to foster tolerance in America. On paper, the theory looks good, and is good if the child is mature enough to process the situation. But introducing homosexuality into the little kid culture angers many Americans who believe sex in general is an inappropriate topic for small children, and that is a legitimate point of view whether Barney Frank or PBS likes it or not.
<p>
The sexualization of children is one of America's great scandals. Kids today are blasted out of a G-rated life far too early thanks to a greedy, irresponsible media and fanatical special interest groups. Yes, there is bigotry against gays, and kids must be taught to reject that at an appropriate age. There is also crazy stuff coming from some religious zealots who believe Spongebob is cruising gay bars in Key West. That kind of nonsense diminishes the argument that young children need to be protected from too much information, which they do.
<p>
So I am teed off at Buster the Bunny because this is all his fault. The guy went up to Vermont to get some syrup and got stuck in a huge jam. Buster should absolutely stay out of sexual politics. It's okay to be happy, Buster, just don't be gay.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-02-24T08:00:00ZDestiny in AmericaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Destiny-in-America/18859.html2005-02-17T08:00:00Z2005-02-17T08:00:00ZDestiny Ashe was an American citizen for just five weeks before her mother savagely beat her to death in Atlanta. The baby died in December of 1998, but the woman who killed her, Carisa Ashe, was not arrested and the case was "dead docketed"--that is, put aside--for two years.
<p>
Finally, Fulton Country District Attorney, Paul Howard, took Destiny's case off the shelf and charged Carisa Ashe with murder. Again, she was not arrested, nor was she incarcerated. Ashe simply walked around free, doing what she had done her entire adult life: getting pregnant.
<p>
Incredibly, after killing Destiny, Ashe managed to give birth to two more children, bringing the total number she has to eight. Authorities say multiple men fathered the children, but will not say how many men. Ashe is not married, nor does she have much support for the kids.
<p>
Of the seven remaining children, one is missing (authorities believe she ran away but don't know for sure), four are in foster care, and two are being raised by Ashe's mother. There is no question that Carisa Ashe is a grossly irresponsible human being who has killed one baby and put seven other children at risk.
<p>
But the Fulton County authorities don't seem to care much about that. They obviously took their sweet time getting around to dealing with Carisa Ashe. It was almost six years before DA Howard finally approached Judge Rowland Barnes with his solution to the case: Ashe would avoid jail time if she agreed to undergo a tubal ligation--become sterilized.
<p>
Carisa Ashe, facing twenty years in prison, jumped at the offer, and the deal was sealed. So now we have a dead baby in the ground, while her killer continues walking around, living free. By the way, the taxpayers of Georgia will pay for Ashe's sterilization operation.
<p>
Let me ask you a few questions. If this had been a white baby born to an affluent mother, do you think Howard, who is black, would have cut this deal? And what if Carisa Ashe had brutally murdered a ten-year-old girl? Would the woman have avoided jail time? So what's the difference between a baby and a ten-year-old?
<p>
The harsh truth is that America doesn't care about babies like Destiny; few are looking out for them. DA Howard couldn't care less; the case was a nuisance to him. Jesse Jackson and the other race hustlers are invisible because there's no money in the situation, and a black man, Howard, is the villain.
<p>
White America is not engaged, and one of the reasons is because the national news operations have ignored Destiny's case. Why bother with a poor murdered baby when Michael Jackson might get sent to prison for child molestation? There's no money in Destiny Ashe for the media, but plenty of bucks in the Jackson exposition.
<p>
The sad and brutal plight of Destiny Ashe spotlights the dark side of America. This is truly racism and classism at its worst. Carisa Ashe is allowed to murder her baby and pay a minimal price six years after the fact. That's justice?
<p>
Societies are judged by how they treat their most defenseless citizens. Destiny Ashe was denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a powerful District Attorney let it happen. No one can justify this. There once was Destiny in America, but no longer. This terrible situation taints us all.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-02-17T08:00:00ZThe New Dean On CampusBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-New-Dean-On-Campus/18857.html2005-02-10T08:00:00Z2005-02-10T08:00:00ZTwice I have underestimated Howard Dean. I never thought he'd be competitive in the democratic primaries and, not learning my lesson, I foolishly predicted he would never get the top job at the Democratic National Committee. So I won't blame you if you stop reading my latest thoughts about Dean.
<p>
The Governor is a driven man who brings a sense of certainty to a party in trouble. The Democrats are waffling around all over the place. The left-wing of the party got battered by the successful Iraqi election, a beating that caused Ted Kennedy to skip the State of the Union address. The uber-liberal faction of the Democratic party simply has no traction whatsoever in the court of public opinion.
<p>
Moderate democrats are in much better shape, which is why you are seeing Hillary Clinton running to the center. Senator Clinton now says she understands and respects those who oppose abortion, and she's demanding tough action on national security problems. No more touchy-feely for Mrs. Clinton, no way. She's now tough on the bad guys and understanding of those with whom she disagrees.
<p>
Not so Howard Dean. He remains a defiant guy. At a meeting for democrats on January 29th, he made things quite clear by saying "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
<p>
On Fox News two weeks earlier, Dean, with apologies to Richard Nixon, again made things perfectly clear: "There's nothing I admire about the Republicans. They can't manage money. They've gotten us into a war without telling us why we're there."
<p>
This kind of in-your-face condemnation of Republicans is soothing for many hardcore Democrats who are beyond furious that the GOP is running things. Dean's denunciation of all things right, as in right-wing, gets juices flowing on the left. Thus, the Governor has become the second most powerful Democrat in country behind Senator Clinton.
<p>
By most accounts, Hillary and Bill Clinton aren't real thrilled with Dean. In order to win the presidency, Mrs. Clinton has to sway some traditional voters to her side. A bomb-throwing, left-leaning DNC chief does Hillary no good at all.
<p>
Dean is a tremendous fundraiser, but Hillary doesn't need the bucks. She will raise an enormous amount of money with or without Dean. So the bottom line is that Governor Dean brings nothing but potential grief to Mrs. Clinton.
<p>
On the other side, those hateful Republicans love Dean as head of the DNC. They can put him into the Michael Moore category and demonize him all day long. The truth is that Howard Dean is not a flaming left-winger, but many of his supporters are, and Dean has embraced them. Also, the more successful President Bush is in Iraq, the worse Dean will look and, by extension, so will most Democrats including Hillary. So why did the party turn to a man with so many negatives?
<p>
The answer is that Dean can fire people up. And that's no small feat in Democratic circles. John Kerry was the ultimate party pooper. He had all kinds of trouble getting folks, including the Democratic choir, to sing along. Stodgy is probably the best word for Kerry. The Dems badly need charisma, and Dean has it.
<p>
But all in all, Howard Dean will probably hurt his party. He is generally intolerant of red state values, and Republicans will seize upon this to serve up Dean, Hillary and liberal extremism in one puffed-up souffl�. And that will certainly be a tasty dish for the party in power.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-02-10T08:00:00ZWhat's Left for American Universities?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whats-Left-for-American-Universities/18853.html2005-02-03T08:00:00Z2005-02-03T08:00:00ZThere are so many nutty professors around this country Jerry Lewis could sue all day long. The Ward Churchill controversy is just the headline--the real story is the radicalization of the nation's college faculties.
<p>
Churchill, as you may know, is the University of Colorado "Ethnic Studies" teacher who wrote an essay saying that those Americans killed inside the World Trade Center on 9/11 were not actually civilians, they were "little Eichmanns" (as in the nazi Adolf)--people who hurt innocents because they worked for large corporations. Churchill went on to call the 9/11 killers legitimate "soldiers."
<p>
Seeing merit in Churchill's ravings, a Hamilton College literature teacher named Nancy Rabinowitz invited him to speak at the upstate New York school and agreed to pay the man $3,500. Previously, Rabinowitz tried to hire 1960's radical Susan Rosenburg to be an "activist-in-residence" at Hamilton College. The problem was that Rosenburg had spent 16 years in prison for possessing explosives. When the alumni at Hamilton found out about that, some short fuses were lit. Rosenburg got the boot.
<p>
And so, eventually, did Ward Churchill, but not before major angst. When some journalists exposed Churchill and questioned the appropriateness of giving him a platform, the administration at Hamilton vowed they would not be swayed, the man would appear at the college in defense of free speech! Less than a day later, Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart canned him after a nationwide outcry against her foolish position.
<p>
So what exactly is going on here? To understand the craziness on campus, you have to first look at the stats. According to a survey done by UCLA, 48% of college faculty members and administrators identify themselves as either liberal or far left. Just 18% say they are conservative or far right. So the prevailing wisdom on campus is decidedly progressive and aggressively politically correct.
<p>
If you challenge the leftist orthodoxy, watch out. Harvard President Lawrence Summers is still bruised after saying some women might not be as good as men in math and science. Well, I did the math on this one. The women who complained defeated Summers 800 to 0 or something like that.
<p>
But at Northeastern University across the river from Harvard in Boston, Economics Professor Shahid Alam opined that the 9/11 killers were similar to the founding fathers. According to Alam, the Al Qaeda thugs died so "their people might live free, and in dignity." In response, the faculty at Northeastern has said nothing, no doubt distracted by the women-math deal.
<p>
All over the country far left ravings on campus are acceptable and sometimes even embraced by fanatical faculty. Legitimate dissent has degenerated into hate speech and vile descriptions of America. Many of these so-called teachers, like Ward Churchill, have tenure, a dastardly con that protects teachers for life. They know they can't be fired so they become little Ayatollahs. And if you call them on their irresponsibility, you are a fascist or a racist.
<p>
One more example. That rascal Michael Moore ran around the USA before the presidential election speaking at more than 50 colleges. Moore said he was trying to rally the campus troops to vote against Bush, as if they needed rallying. But what Moore really rallied was his bank account. Conservative estimates put Moore's take for his bloviating at more than a million bucks, much of it paid for by student union fees.
<p>
America--it's a great country. Especially if you don't like it.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-02-03T08:00:00ZThe Great DivideBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Great-Divide/18851.html2005-01-27T08:00:00Z2005-01-27T08:00:00ZAlthough he'd never admit it, President Bush is not a "uniter." In fact, I don't think any human being could unite America right now. Three primary issues form the wedge: Fighting terrorism, redistributing income, and accepting controversial behavior.
<p>
Progressive Americans want the government to impose high taxes on affluent Americans and spend the money on entitlements like medical treatment for those less well off. Conservative Americans believe this kind of tax imposition goes against the capitalistic system and would greatly damage the economy.
<p>
Many progressives also want to change societal norms; they want gay marriage, drug legalization and a general tone of acceptance for actions traditionally deemed unacceptable in America. Traditionalists are appalled at that possibility.
<p>
But, by far, the most divisive issue in America today is how to confront worldwide terrorism. According to a new Pew Research Center poll, just 17% of Americans who voted for John Kerry believe using military force is the best way to defeat terrorists. By contrast, 66% of those voting for President Bush think military action is the most effective anti-terror tactic.
<p>
That divide is disturbing. If you look at the history of terrorism over the past 22 years, you find again and again that the USA has done little to confront foreign terror killers. In April of 1983, terrorists bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Ten years later, the first World Trade Center bombing resulted in the deaths of six Americans; more than a thousand others were wounded.
<p>
The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 killed 19 more Americans in Saudi Arabia. The bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa left 12 Americans dead in 1998. Two years later, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole resulted in 17 American sailors being buried.
<p>
In each of those cases, the core group involved (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda in the others) was not confronted militarily in any serious way. In fact, in the two decades before the 9/11 attack, the government of the United States allowed Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to grow in strength and ferocity, preferring to talk about the situation rather than confront it.
<p>
Senator Edward Kennedy and his supporters want still more conversation. If you go to Kennedy's website, the only terror solution he offers is to enlist the help of our allies in Iraq, and continue to talk to the U.N. about Al Qaeda. I'm sorry, but this is dangerous. The attack on 9/11 happened because we did not attack Al Qaeda soon enough.
<p>
America needs a tough, smart military strategy designed to kill as many terrorists as possible. It also needs a consistent, persuasive diplomatic corps to try to enlist reluctant nations to actively fight the terrorists. We should try to make diplomatic deals for the help we need. But if those deals are not forthcoming, we must not back away from hunting the terrorists down, wherever they may be.
<p>
The war in Iraq has not gone well, and that is blurring the vision of millions of Americans who somehow believe we can reason our way out of this conflict against the Islamofascists. Go the root causes of terrorism, they wail. If we become a more generous, kinder nation, they will stop trying to kill us.
<p>
Sure. And I'm George McGovern. American blood and treasure has freed millions all over the world. We were the good guys then, we are the good guys now. But the bad guys want to kill the good guys, and the words of Ted Kennedy and others will not change that. United we can defeat worldwide terror, divided we cannot. And right now, we're divided.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-01-27T08:00:00ZHow To Make Them Like UsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/How-To-Make-Them-Like-Us/18847.html2005-01-20T08:00:00Z2005-01-20T08:00:00ZAt the senate confirmation hearings for Condolezza Rice, Senator Joseph Biden announced that the world pretty much dislikes America these days. And he's right, the numbers prove it.
<p>
In Spain, for example, an Associated Press poll says while just 35% of Spaniards have a favorable opinion of Americans, 49% do not like us at all. The situation is better in France but not by much; there, 41% approve of Americans and 52% believe we are "mal."
<p>
Canadians like us, Aussies are generally on our side, and 60% of the Brits think we're swell. However, don't even ask about the Third World: in Pakistan, 65% of the folks think Osama Bin Laden is a swell guy.
<p>
So what can be done? Well, a few things. First, American tourists should be arrested if they leave this country with orange-colored velour sweatsuits packed in their luggage. Have you ever seen an American group disembark a tour bus in Europe? Cher would be appalled.
<p>
Second, well, there really isn't anything else we can do. Just dress like a human being and be nice if you travel abroad.
<p>
The reason the situation is kind of hopeless is that most of the foreign media despise the USA for a variety of reasons. In many countries, dictators like Egypt's Mubarak tell the press what to say and how to say it. Independent media thinking is rare--a truly free press exists in only a very few places.
<p>
In countries like France, Germany and even in the United Kingdom, it has become chic to bash the USA. The BBC, Le Monde and whatever they're reading in Düsseldorf usually pander to the left, kind of the like the elite media does here. There's little difference between what The New York Times writes and what's printed in The Guardian of London. Both operations think President Bush is a dunderhead and America is a nation packed with religious zealots who would revive the Salem Witch Trials if they could.
<p>
In countries like Spain and Sweden, socialism has taken root, so of course they think the American drive to make and keep money is horrendous. Again, there's little we Americans can do about that. Western Europe has generally embraced the entitlement culture, and many on the continent sneer at the American work ethic. Especially when we use our earnings to buy orange sweatsuits.
<p>
President Bush and his crew are not exactly reaching out to the world, no matter how much Tsunami money is ponied up. Bush believes France and many other countries put profits over an aggressive approach to the war on terror, and he's correct. For example, if China had its way, Osama and his pals would be running a nuclear power plant built with Chinese parts.
<p>
So don't expect detente soon. The USA is fighting a vicious terror war, while much of the world remains on the sidelines. The anti-American factions, of course, want to keep this can of divide going. Who do you think is making all those sweatsuits?BillOReilly.com Staff2005-01-20T08:00:00ZMaking WavesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Making-Waves/18843.html2005-01-13T08:00:00Z2005-01-13T08:00:00ZGeorge Clooney is writing me letters again and that can only mean trouble. You may remember the actor and I went at it over whether celebrities had a responsibility to make sure donated 9/11 telethon money was efficiently dispensed by the charities which recieved it.
<p>
I opined that if you ask somebody for a charitable contribution, you have an obligation to do everything you can to see that it gets to the right place. Clooney disagreed, even insisting I fabricated the chaos that initially engulfed the United Way, Red Cross and other charities involved with helping the 9/11 families.
<p>
Now it is deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra might put it. Clooney is again involved in a charity telethon, this time for tsunami victims. And I am watching what happens with the money.
<p>
The truth is that it is enormously difficult to help people in need, especially overseas. In 1999, Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America. Countries and individuals around the world pledged nine billion dollars to help those affected. But according to the Center on International Cooperation, most of the money never materialized, and most of the hurricane victims had to fend for themselves.
<p>
In 2003, an earthquake flattened the city of Bam in Iran. One billion dollars was pledged to help the people there. The Irainian government says only $17 million arrived.
<p>
When money is involved, there are usually problems. Hostile governments like the one in Iran and chaotic situations like in Sri Lanka make it almost impossible for aid to get to those who need it, unless Western organizations are on the ground, actually handing it to the folks. For years, corrupt leaders have been stealing foreign donations. How did Yassir Arafat become a multi-millionaire? Did he win Lotto?
<p>
Even in the USA where the government is supposed to oversee the charity business, problems abound. The United Way recently had a huge scandal in Washington DC. And according to its own chapter in Bergen Country, New Jersey, the United Way screwed up big time in the first few months after 9/11, even if George Clooney won't admit it.
<p>
So now Mr. Clooney and other stars are asking for money again. In a great public relations stroke, he even asked me to be a part of the tsunami telethon. His invitation stated, "Mr. O'Reilly, either you ante up and help out and be that watch dog that you feel we clearly need, or you stand on the sidelines and cast stones."
<p>
My reply: "Woof."
<p>
Because the telethon donations are all going to the American Red Cross, I have agreed to help the cause. The ARC is now transparent and accountable, and I respect the changes its leadership have put in place since 9/11.
<p>
Whether all the money the telethon raised will really help the tsunami victims, I can't say. But generosity is its own reward, and if we can help we should. Nothing in life is guaranteed, but Americans have always helped the downtrodden and continuing the tradition is worthy.
<p>
Besides, maybe now George Clooney will be my pal. You think?BillOReilly.com Staff2005-01-13T08:00:00ZThe Iraq Litmus TestBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Iraq-Litmus-Test/18841.html2005-01-06T08:00:00Z2005-01-06T08:00:00ZWith the Iraqi election looming, the predictable violence by anti-democratic forces inside that chaotic country is causing angst among many loyal Americans. On the one hand, most of us want the USA to prevail in Iraq; to succeed in seeding democracy there. On the other, it is tough to watch young Americans get killed on a daily basis.
<p>
Opposition to the war in Iraq should, of course, be respected. But that opposition has to be responsible in order to deserve respect. Let's look at two examples.
<p>
First, former Presidential candidate George McGovern, an ardent anti-Vietnam War opponent, is continuing his dovish philosophy. Writing in The New York Times, McGovern states, "Once we left Vietnam and quit bombing its people, they became friends and trading partners. Iraq has been nestled along the Tigris and Euphrates for 6,000 years. It will be there 6,000 more, whether we stay or leave..."
<p>
With all due respect, Senator McGovern's view is naive at best, dangerous at worst. He conveniently forgets that, according to an analysis by The Los Angeles Times, more than 900,000 South Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps after the North Vietnamese violated the U.S. negotiated peace treaty and overran the South in 1975. McGovern also fails to mention that communists in neighboring Cambodia slaughtered two million human beings after the USA withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Trading partners indeed.
<p>
From the very beginning, Senator McGovern and many other Americans played down the evil that is communist totalitarianism, just as many anti-Iraq war people are diminishing the evil of the Saddam loyalists and Zarqawi terrorists inside Iraq today.
<p>
It is true that fighting evil in Iraq may not be feasible. To be successful in any war, you must choose your battles wisely. But to actually think the North Vietnamese and Iraqi "insurgents" are some of kind of reasonable opposition is nuts.
<p>
Which brings us to the second example of war dissent, those Americans who actually want the USA to lose in Iraq. They are out there, and they are shameless.
<p>
On December 17th, I interviewed Professor Jeffrey Stone who teaches law at the University of Chicago on my television program. The topic was whether one could be a loyal American and want to see the USA defeated militarily in Iraq. Stone said yes:
<blockquote>
<strong>O'Reilly:</strong> "I want to make sure you want to stand by your statement, that you can be a loyal American rooting for your country to lose militarily in Iraq. Do you stand by that?"
<p>
<strong>Stone:</strong> "I stand by that. One can be a loyal American and still root against the country."
</blockquote>
Stone went on to say that wanting the USA to lose in Iraq could save lives in the long run. I said that any military loss would have to mean more causalities for the U.S. military, which is absolutely true. You don't lose militarily without taking casualities, so how could any loyal American want that to happen?
<p>
Subsequently, Professor Stone wrote an op-ed in The Chicago Tribune accusing me of, among other things, spewing "ugly invective" and "inflaming my audience."
<p>
Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.
<p>
Rationalizations walk. If you are rooting for the insurgents, you are one.BillOReilly.com Staff2005-01-06T08:00:00ZWar PartyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/War-Party/18839.html2004-12-30T08:00:00Z2004-12-30T08:00:00ZYou don't have be a soothsayer to figure out that in 2005 two stories will continue to bedevil America: the war in Iraq and the culture war raging throughout the USA.
<p>
On the Iraq front, every American should be hoping that democracy will take root and that terrorism will be defeated in that chaotic country. If you are not hoping that, there is something very wrong in your outlook. It is simply disgraceful that so many in the free world cannot put aside political differences and help the USA defeat the brutal villains who are creating mayhem in a country that has suffered for decades.
<p>
The world is a screwed up place these days, and the terrorists know it. The United Nations has allowed thousands of innocents to be slaughtered in Darfur, and has turned its back on the suffering Iraqi people. The U.N. is impotent, and there's not enough Viagra in the world to reverse the condition.
<p>
Back home, we are coming off of a Christmas season where the federal holiday was bruised and battered by secular forces that see any Christian public display as an affront. Writing in Newsweek Magazine, the liberal columnist Anna Quindlen extended sympathy to those offended by Christmas: "It has little to do with separation of church and state or liberal politics and everything to do with the way the blunt cudgel of Christianity has been heedlessly used, the tyranny of the majority."
<p>
To Ms. Quindlen, I ask just one simple question: What tyranny? Last time I looked, every form of spirituality was alive and well in the USA. Am I missing some kind of Christian persecution going on? Is Jerry Falwell holding witch trials or something? What exactly is Anna Quindlen talking about?
<p>
The answer is she's blowing smoke. If you are offended by the image of a baby in a manger displayed in front of public building, you don't need reassurance by a PC columnist, you need therapy. The heroic Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian minister whom we will honor with a federal holiday on January 17th. Should we not see pictures of Dr. King displayed on public property?
<p>
The unbelievable nonsense surrounding the culture war is not going to end anytime soon. Billionaire secularist George Soros is pouring millions into the ACLU so it can sue your butt off if you step out of the politically correct progressive line. The defamation pipeline that extends from libelous liberal internet sites to carefully selected newspaper columnists to radio and television talk shows is designed to defame and destroy any high profile person who dares fight the progressives. Talk about a cudgel!
<p>
Of course, intimidation tactics also extend to the right, which often smears liberal politicians and commentators. The big difference, however, is that conservatives don't have access to the elite media, and progressives do.
<p>
Unfortunately, I am a warrior in this take-no-prisoners culture war, and it is a brutal occupation. As you may know, I have been slimed every which way for taking a traditionalist stand. When I defended public displays of Christmas, I was branded an anti-Semite. When I pointed out the deleterious effect "gangsta rap" has on children, I was called a racist. After arguing for border controls, I was labeled anti-Hispanic. But the topper was an accusation that I "despised the Pope" because I criticized him for not being proactive enough during the priest scandals.
<p>
In the coming year, I expect things to get even worse. I truly hope I am wrong. In open defiance of the ACLU, I am praying things improve dramatically in Iraq and that the culture war dissolves into a discussion of the issues, rather than the carnival of slander we have today.
<p>
So Happy New Year America, and keep fighting the good fight. And pray the good guys win.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-12-30T08:00:00ZSergeant CourageousBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sergeant-Courageous/18837.html2004-12-23T08:00:00Z2004-12-23T08:00:00ZThe first thing you notice about Army Sgt. Manuel Mendoza is his charismatic smile--Tom Cruise would be envious. The second thing you notice as he lies in his hospital bed is that half his body is missing, blown away by a roadside bomb that destroyed the Armored Personnel Carrier he was commanding in Sadr City, Iraq.
<p>
Mendoza's life was altered forever last October 3rd. Within a week of his injury, he was under treatment at the Walter Reed military hospital in Washington, DC. Now he spends his days coming back. He undergoes rigorous physical therapy and exercise sessions designed to strengthen his upper body and his will. Sgt. Mendoza will soon be fitted with artificial legs and will need all the determination he can muster to regain his mobility.
<p>
I'm betting Mendoza will do it because he is a special guy. Born in Los Reyes, Mexico in 1981, he and his family legally entered the United States, four years later becoming resident aliens. His father worked as a logger in Northern California and the little boy and his two siblings barely had a slice of the American dream. Mendoza's family struggled with dignity.
<p>
After graduating high school, Manuel Mendoza did what so many poor young men before him had done: he joined the military to secure educational benefits and discipline. Mendoza loved the army, quickly moving through the ranks. As a sergeant he was in charge of men years older. He told me he was proud to serve in Iraq, believing America is trying to bring freedom to that chaotic country.
<p>
Mendoza's wounds are terrible. He lost one leg all the way up to the hip, the other above the knee. Other men sink into depression when faced with that kind of catastrophe; Mendoza did not. He joked with the doctors and nurses. He encouraged his depressed mother, brother and little sister. He did not complain and did not feel sorry for himself, although he had a perfect right to do so. He did, however, ask his government for one favor. He asked to be made an American citizen.
<p>
And so in early December, Manuel Mendoza took the oath of citizenship. He is now a full-fledged American. But those who know Manuel also know he is much more than that. He is a symbol of what America is at its core: generous, optimistic and tough. Sgt. Mendoza's face should be on a stamp.
<p>
Often it is difficult for strangers to talk with wounded military people. You want them to see your respect and your sympathy, but not too much of the latter. You want them to talk about themselves, but you don't want to intrude on their suffering. You want to help them, but you really can't outside of the conversation, and perhaps a gift or some letters.
<p>
But talking with Sgt. Mendoza was easy. He vividly remembered his time in Iraq and was clearly proud of his service. He overwhelmed me with his positive outlook and hope for the future. Mendoza wants to attend college, marry, have children, and have an exciting career.
<p>
And he will. I do not doubt this for a moment. For sitting and working out in Walter Reed hospital right now is a man every bit as heroic as any American icon. A man who was willing to sacrifice everything so that people half way around the world could have a shot at freedom. A man who is challenged every second of every day and meets the challenge with true grit and an uplifting smile.
<p>
On paper, Sgt. Manuel Mendoza may be one of the newest Americans. But in his heart and mind he has always been one. We fellow Americans salute you, sir.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-12-23T08:00:00ZJudges to Parents: Mind Your Own BusinessBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Judges-to-Parents:-Mind-Your-Own-Business/18835.html2004-12-16T08:00:00Z2004-12-16T08:00:00ZJust in time for the holidays, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that children have an expectation of privacy at home and parents cannot eavesdrop on phone conversations.
<p>
The case involved a 17-year-old boy who told his 14-year-old girlfriend that he mugged an old lady, knocking her to the ground and stealing her purse. The mother of the girl, Carmen Dixon, was listening on another phone line and called police. Oliver Christensen was subsequently convicted of a felony and served nine months in prison before the judges overturned the conviction, saying: "The right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers." The court also said the mother was acting as an agent for the police.
<p>
So now parents in Washington State cannot snoop around, even if a child is having a phone conversation with a mugger, dope dealer, or child molester. Listen up, Seattle parents: You have no right to know.
<p>
The Associated Press, no bastion of conservative analysis, called the ruling "a victory for rebellious teenagers."
<p>
Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union loves the ruling. ACLU Attorney Douglas Klunder filed a brief, saying "I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children."
<p>
Of course not. Why would any parent want to know their 14-year-old daughter was chatting up a 17-year-old criminal? Parents shouldn't be proactive in scrutinizing their children in this age of internet sex, drug dealers in school hallways, and alcohol-fueled sleepovers. Better to let the teens crash and burn instead of keeping a close eye (ear) on them, right, ACLU?
<p>
This is yet another intrusion by the American courts into the parent-child relationship. Traditionally, the state ceded all child raising responsibilities to parents except in cases of child abuse and neglect. But that is changing. Now your offspring have rights, and you'd better not violate them.
<p>
Interestingly, it is the totalitarian societies that historically have interfered with the parent-child relationship, something the ACLU might want to ponder. In Nazi Germany, parents were encouraged to turn their kids over to the "Hitler Youth." In the Soviet Union, Red China and Cuba, children were taught in school to inform on parents who spoke disparagingly of the government. Breaking down parental influence makes it easier for the state to "persuade" young people to be loyal.
<p>
This case is yet another example of how American society is changing rapidly and drastically. Judges in liberal areas like western Washington State often have a social agenda, and make rulings based upon their vision of a "just" society. No longer can we count on the courts to uphold traditional law, or even to respect the intent of the law. Now we are faced with rulings that come down to "improve" the law.
<p>
Today, American children are subjected to more temptations at an earlier age than ever before. Machines filled with harmful material dominate their lives. Instant messaging and cell phones have created opportunities for mischief only dreamed of in years past.
<p>
But don't you listen to any of that. The Washington State Supreme Court says you can't.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-12-16T08:00:00ZTake Your Christmas and Stuff ItBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Take-Your-Christmas-and-Stuff-It/18833.html2004-12-09T08:00:00Z2004-12-09T08:00:00Z"Christmas with the Kranks" is not only the name of a holiday movie this year, it is also a national trend. Once again, Christmas is under siege by the growing forces of secularism in America. Put these facts in your stocking:
<ul>
<li>Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy's, has suggested that managers avoid displaying "Merry Christmas" banners and have ordered employees not to talk about it.
<li>In Denver, a church was banned from the "Festival of Lights" parade because it wanted a religious theme to its float.
<li>The Maplewood, New Jersey school board has banned all religious music from "holiday" concerts. (Would somebody please tell me exactly what holiday this is?)
<li>And New York City Mayor Bloomberg insists that the lighted tree outside City Hall is not a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree." (What holiday, Mr. Mayor?)
</ul>
Surveys show that more than 90% of Americans celebrate the Federal holiday of Christmas, signed into law by President Grant in 1870. Despite that overwhelming number, the tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.
<p>
The anti-Christmas forces say it's all about diversity, protecting the sensitivities of those Americans who get offended by the mere mention of the birth of Jesus. Somehow, I haven't been able to locate any of these people--folks who find a baby in a manger so off-putting, it ruins their day.
<p>
So the diversity excuse is a bunch of bull. What's really going on here is a well-organized movement to wipe out any display of organized religion from the public arena.
<p>
The secular-progressive movement understands very well that it is organized religion, most specifically Christianity and Judaism, that stands in the way of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized narcotics, euthanasia, and many other secular causes. If religion can be de-emphasized in the USA, a brave new progressive society can be achieved.
<p>
It has happened in Canada. Once a traditional religious country, Canada has become like Holland in its embrace of the secular movement. Some facts: In 1980, 79% of Canadians said that religion was important to the country. That number has now fallen to 61%, according to an Environics Focus Canada poll.
<p>
In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion whatsoever; now that number has risen to 16%.
<p>
The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to a change in public policy. Unlike Americans, Canadians have legalized gay marriage and any kind of abortion. Also, the age of consent for sex up north is just 14 years old. Can you imagine American adults being allowed to fool around with children that age? I can't.
<p>
Even drug legalization is close to being a reality, as the city of Vancouver is developing a heroin give-away policy, and pot has been largely decriminalized across the country.
<p>
The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for, and so religion must be dealt with. Since Christmas is the most demonstrative display of organized religion, the strategy of minimizing the birth of Jesus makes perfect sense.
<p>
I know this sounds kind of conspiratorial, but it really isn't. Most of those marginalizing Christmas have no idea about the big picture I've just presented. They simply think they're looking out for the minority of Americans who don't celebrate the birth of Christ.
<p>
But committed secularists in the media, in the courts, and in the education system know exactly what's going on. And now so do you. Merry Christmas!BillOReilly.com Staff2004-12-09T08:00:00ZIt's News to UsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-News-to-Us/18831.html2004-12-02T08:00:00Z2004-12-02T08:00:00ZThe changing of the guard at NBC and CBS News is more a media event than a people event. Even though there is some sentimentality attached to the departures of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, few of us have emotion invested in them simply because our lives are so frenetic. Long gone are the days when guys like Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley had an honored place in millions of American homes. That time in America featured an early family dinner and a ritual of national news viewing. Talk about Jurassic Park!
<p>
Another factor that has eroded the power of TV news is the deep suspicion among many Americans that the press is not looking out for them. While there is some paranoia in this area, there is also some truth to the notion that what you get with TV news is not always "the way it is," to quote Cronkite.
<p>
Many of the news decision-makers today were children of the anti-war, anti-establishment 1960's. Their perceptions were formed in those free-wheeling, anti-war years and core liberal philosophies were ingrained. So, now, we have a bunch of baby boomer journalists imparting their view of life to a nation that, often, does not share the 60's sensibilty. Remember, survey's showed that about 80% of the media favored John Kerry for President. The divide between the press and the everyday folks is enormous.
<p>
There is no question that the daily headline service provided by the big three networks is valuable. But it is a random, often timid, reportage. The intense culture war in America is often ignored or presented in a one-sided manner. Even network news supporters would have to admit that the presentations are extremely politically correct. For example, the joke in the industry is that the only time you hear a pro-life point of view is when some nut blows up an abortion clinic.
<p>
Thus, traditional and conservative Americans often feel they are underserved by national news services which pander to the elite and see the world from a Manhattan or Georgetown point-of-view. Folks in Tupelo have figured out their values don't matter in Rockefeller Center.
<p>
So, the guard is changing, and the more traditional Fox News Channel is the chief beneficiary. That, of course, has caused enormous fear and loathing among the media establishment. In one of his last interviews before stepping down, Mr. Brokaw made it a point to say that the network news still dominates in the ratings. He pointed out that "Bill O'Reilly maybe gets 2-1/2 or 3 million viewers a night."
<p>
Well, my total audience last month doubled Brokaw's estimate, but that's not really the point. Fox News continues its dramatic rise as our competitors fall, because it makes room for the traditionalist point of view and provides provocative analysis that is lacking in the network operations.
<p>
In this age of spin, deception and defamation, honest analysis is a must, even if one disagrees with the analyst. Most Americans realize the danger this country is facing both inside and outside our borders. Confronting that danger in a straightforward way will attract an audience. Doing a politically correct dance no longer will.
<p>
And that's really the way it is.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-12-02T08:00:00ZDan RatherBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dan-Rather/18829.html2004-11-24T08:00:00Z2004-11-24T08:00:00ZThe ordeal of Dan Rather goes far beyond the man himself. It speaks to the presumption of guilt that now rules the day in America. Because of a ruthless and callow media, no citizen, much less one who achieves fame, is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to allegations or personal attacks. The smearing of America is in full bloom.
<p>
Weeks before the election, Kitty Kelley put out a book defaming the entire Bush family. The allegations were primarily made by anonymous people, but that didn't stop the media from gleefully recounting all the sordid accusations. Some newspapers even put them on page one.
<p>
That smear came on the heels of the "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry, an ordeal which may have cost Kerry the election. While some of the Vietnam Vets had valid points, more than a few of the accusations against Kerry were simply untrue. It didn't matter though... Kerry's war record became a negative.
<p>
Right-wing talk radio, in particular, pounded Kerry and also bludgeoned Dan Rather for his role in another smear incident - the charges against George W. Bush vis-à-vis his National Guard service. Again, Rather was found guilty without a fair hearing. Charges that he intentionally approved bogus documents that made President Bush look bad were leveled and widely believed. It was chilling.
<p>
As a CBS News correspondent in the early 80's, I worked with Rather and have known him for more than 20 years. Listen to me: there is no way on this earth that he would have knowingly used fake documents on any story. It may be true that Rather did not vet the information supplied to him by producers, but few anchor people do. They are dependent on other journalists, and this is a huge flaw in the system.
<p>
Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was politically loaded. I believe Rather, along with Andy Rooney, Walter Cronkite and other guardsmen of the old CBS News, are liberal in their thinking. That is certainly a legitimate debate, how for years CBS News has taken a rather (pardon the pun) progressive outlook. But holding a political point of view is the right of every American, and does not entitle people to practice character assassination or deny the presumption of innocence. Dan Rather was slimed. It was disgraceful.
<p>
But you'll be seeing more of this kind of thing in the future. All famous and successful Americans are now targets. Unscrupulous people know that any accusation can be dumped on the internet and within hours it will be picked up by the mainstream media. It will be printed in the papers, discussed on radio and TV, and will become part of the unfortunate person's resume, whether he or she is guilty or not. A click of the internet mouse can wipe out a lifetime of honor and hard work. Just the accusation or allegation can be ruinous. Let me ask you something: In the future, do you think potential public servants and social crusaders are going to risk being brutally attacked within this insane system? I don't. I think many good people are simply going to walk away from the public arena.
<p>
Dan Rather did not get what he deserved in this case. He made a mistake, as we all do, but he is not a dishonest man. Unfair freedom of speech did him in. This is not your grandfather's country anymore.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-11-24T08:00:00ZSemper FiBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Semper-Fi/18827.html2004-11-18T08:00:00Z2004-11-18T08:00:00ZAs soon as I saw the tape of a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded insurgent in Fallujah, I knew there'd be trouble. The Iraqi had violated the rules of war by fighting from a Mosque and was left for dead in combat. But he wasn't dead. So when a squad of marines entered the Mosque in a mop-up operation and the prone insurgent moved, a young Marine shot him dead.
<p>
But the tape of the incident actually helps the Marine because you can clearly hear him yell to his squad, "He's (blanking) faking he's dead! He's (blanking) faking he's dead!" Then the soldier shoots. On the tape you can see the insurgent move before the soldier pulls the trigger.
<p>
One day earlier, another Marine in the same unit was killed by a booby trap which was strapped to a dead insurgent's body. The enemy in Iraq rejects all rules of warfare, and American troops know it. Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists routinely dress in civilian clothes, hide behind civilians while shooting, mount operations from inside Mosques, wear the uniforms of pro-American Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, attack civilians, and on and on and on.
<p>
Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash. If that wounded insurgent had a grenade or other explosive device, the entire marine squad and the photographer could be dead right now. In a killing zone, one cannot afford the luxury of knowing what is certain.
<p>
If that young Marine had homicide on his mind, he would have entered the Mosque firing. But he did not. The Marine proceeded cautiously, and reacted to perceived danger. Another wounded Iraqi in the same room identified himself and was taken prisoner. This was not some My Lai action.
<p>
But the so called "human rights" groups are all over the incident, calling it a "possible war crime." What a bunch of bull. The Marine made a decision that was reasonable. His own words before the fact clarified the danger he felt.
<p>
Most of the American press has been cautious in covering the Marine controversy, although the LA Times ran this sub-headline: "Marine May be Charged in the Fallujah Killing of an Unarmed Fighter. The Footage Airs on Arab TV, Further Tarnishing America's Image."
<p>
Now, there's nothing factually wrong with that headline. But does it reflect what actually happened? Or is it designed to put the Marine and the USA in a dubious light? You make the call.
<p>
The Pentagon is not releasing the name of the Marine, and is investigating. Both of those things are fair. But this case is not complicated, and anyone condemning that soldier should himself be condemned.
<p>
The war in Iraq as well as the war on terror is as ugly as it gets. Mistakes will be made. But this action is not one of them.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-11-18T08:00:00ZIraq and RollBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Iraq-and-Roll/18817.html2004-11-11T08:00:00Z2004-11-11T08:00:00ZMadonna recently told the BBC that she wants American troops out of Iraq right this minute, and she's, like, serious. Although there is no truth to the rumor that the diva is being considered for Colin Powell's position should he leave the Bush administration, Madonna is paying attention to world events and wants everybody to know it.
<p>
The problem here is that Madonna's desire is pretty much shared by most Americans. Who the heck actually wants U.S. forces in Iraq? No sane person can be happy Americans are targets there. So the issue becomes a simple question: For the sake of national security, do U.S. troops have to be in that chaotic country?
<p>
Three reasons say yes. First, if we withdraw from Iraq, the country will likely be run by terrorist sympathizers who will cooperate with Al Qaeda and neighboring Iran. If it were a movie, it might be called "Taliban 2: The Return of the Maniacs."
<p>
Two, a civil war could break out inside Iraq and the bloodbath would be brutal. Any Iraqi who cooperated with the U.S. or Britain would be in grave danger. The Kurds would probably break away and the chaos would be unbelievable.
<p>
And three, no country would ever trust America again when called upon to actively help us fight terror. Also, if the U.S. bails out of Iraq, it would be seen as a major victory for the terrorists and the jihadists would take the offensive even more aggressively against the west.
<p>
Now, I don't want to upset Madonna with a whole bunch of cause-and-effect analysis. She has enough on her plate spending enormous sums of money and tending to her image. The woman simply does not need the burden of complicated thought.
<p>
But for the rest of us who would like some security in this world, the Iraq war is a frustrating, history defining experience that requires patience and discipline. We are, indeed, caught between Iraq and a hard place. This situation is crucial for the world.
<p>
Unfortunately, most of the world doesn't care. Western Europe, Russia and China simply don't want to get involved, even though a terrorist friendly Iraq would cause massive problems for everyone. This apathy is maddening, but it's reality.
<p>
So what's the Bush administration to do? The American public is not going to sit by for years and watch body bags come home, even if the administration continues to bar the press from showing them. Thus, the President must develop a cohesive timetable for the Iraqis to take over their own defense. As long as the Iraqi people think we will fight their battles for them - they'll let us. Some sense of urgency must be imposed on the Iraqi people by their leaders. Perhaps Iraqis should be shown a TV documentary on how the South Vietnamese are living these days. Maybe we call it "Police State Blues."
<p>
So I hate to admit this, but Madonna and I share some common ground. I want to get our soldiers out of Iraq as well. But unlike the Material Girl, I live in the real world. And, unfortunately, that world is a complicated and terrifying place.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-11-11T08:00:00ZMemo to HillaryBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Memo-to-Hillary/18804.html2004-11-04T08:00:00Z2004-11-04T08:00:00ZMany readers will not believe this, but I am trying to look out for Senator Hillary Clinton. She's a fellow American who badly wants to be President, but based upon the vote a few days ago, Britney Spears has a better chance than Hillary of achieving that. Unless, of course, Mrs. Clinton follows my advice.
<p>
John Kerry lost the election because he did three major things wrong: first, he refused to allow Americans to get to know him. He was the soundbite king, but who the heck is this guy? Dr. Phil couldn't even get Kerry to open up. The folks couldn't get a handle on the Senator.
<p>
Secondly, Kerry did not have an alternative plan to counter the chaos in Iraq. You could go to his website all day long but there was little he was going to do differently than President Bush. And Americans don't want to go to anybody's website to get answers to questions. They want you to look them in the eye and tell them what you're going to do. Kerry didn't do that.
<p>
And third, John Kerry's progressive pals in the media killed him. Most Americans don't want arrogant movie stars and partisan fanatics ramming stuff down their throats. I understand that talk radio is the epicenter for that, but you choose to dial those programs up. When newspapers and entertainment shows begin unfair attacks on any American, there is always a backlash.
<p>
So Hillary Clinton would be wise to think about the above. Right now she is perceived as being even further left than Kerry. She has lots of pals in Hollywood, and the progressive media loves her. She rarely gives interviews to journalists who will ask tough questions, and few know what makes her tick.
<p>
That's John Kerry's recipe, and it's a loser. I thought that John Edwards would be competition for Hillary in the 2008 democratic primaries, but the Kerry campaign put him into the witness protection program, and he all but disappeared during the campaign. Edwards has brains and talent, but his luster has been diminished big time. It's Hillary's nomination to lose.
<p>
But lose she will if she continues running as a secular progressive. It should be obvious to everyone short of the Dixie Chicks that Americans want to maintain a traditional society based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. This time around, eleven states voted on gay marriage, and eleven states rejected it. And even multiple reruns of "Will & Grace" isn't going to change that situation.
<p>
So here's my advice to Hillary Clinton: morph into a modern version of June Cleaver. You don't have to wear a dress everyday and be deferential to your husband, but you do have to show Americans that you could live on their block without Secret Service agents keeping everyone fifty yards away. You have to demonstrate some kind of rapport with the folks. Right now, millions of Americans think you played a primary role in "Rosemary's Baby." You're a devil to those on the right, and in traditional precincts, you are distrusted and sometimes loathed. You must change that.
<p>
Pandering to your left-wing base is not going to cut it anymore. The progressive left has become detached from working America. Ralph Nader got nine votes, okay? Traditional values and a respect for normalcy is the prevailing wisdom during a time of terrorism.
<p>
Frankly, I don't know if Hillary Clinton can pull this off, because I simply don't know anything about her, even though I read her book. She remains guarded and remote, a woman of intellect--but not of definition. Exactly what does Hilary Clinton stand for, besides massive government entitlements? I don't know, and you probably don't either.
<p>
So reruns of "Leave It to Beaver" should be on the Clinton TV screen, in both Georgetown and Chappaqua. The Senator should spend some time at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. She should dish at Dunkin Donuts and Wendy's, ride a bike once in a while, and maybe even vacation in Florida. Americans generally like their leaders to have something in common with them. John Kerry did not. George W. Bush did. Hillary, I'm looking out for you. Get the "Everybody Loves Raymond" makeover. Right now.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-11-04T08:00:00ZAssessing the Kerry ChallengeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Assessing-the-Kerry-Challenge/18796.html2004-10-28T07:00:00Z2004-10-28T07:00:00ZIf John Kerry wins the presidential election, he can thank Donald Rumsfeld. The Secretary of Defense truly believed the Iraqi people would rise up and help the United States pacify their country, and therefore did not plan adequately for the guerrilla war that began after Saddam was toppled.
<p>
That war has put President Bush on the defensive and is, perhaps, the defining issue in the campaign.
<p>
Senator Kerry has done an effective job pointing out the mistakes of the Bush administration and a sympathetic media has aided him every step of the way. That's a potent one-two punch; the Kerry challenge echoed by network news broadcasts and major urban papers like the LA and New York Times. Together they are pounding home a simple message: Iraq is screwed up, Kerry can do better.
<p>
But the Kerry challenge stalls after leaving the Iraq issue, because the senator has not defined himself to the American people. Many of us simply do not know how he will handle complicated problems, and how he has arrived at this belief system.
<p>
Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, the Watergate guy, recently appeared on my TV program saying that John Kerry would not give him an interview even though he submitted his questions to Kerry in advance! Woodward and I agreed that we have no idea where Kerry stands on the following:
<ul type="square">
<li>How would he pay for the massive government medical insurance he says he will provide? Taxing the rich cannot cover the trillions of dollars that will be needed.<br><br>
<li>How many new troops will he will send to Iraq and where will they come from?<br><br>
<li>What will he do to prevent more than three million illegal immigrants from crossing the border from Mexico each year?<br><br>
<li>And why does he oppose gay marriage when he voted against The Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton?
</ul>
In addition, I would like to know why, in 1991, Kerry voted against removing Saddam's army from Iraq by force, in light of the fact that at least five thousand Kuwaiti women were raped by Saddam's brutalizers, according to the European Journal of International Law.
<p>
I'd also like to know what he would say to General Tommy Franks about Osama Bin Laden. Franks has said Kerry is flat out wrong to accuse the Bush administration of "outsourcing" the job of catching Bin Laden in Tora Bora to "warlords." According to Franks, U.S. Special Forces were embedded with Afghan locals in the hunt for Bin Laden. Who's right, Franks or Kerry?
<p>
Also, Senator Kerry has also been a staunch supporter of legalized partial birth abortion. Why does he think 64 senators voted to ban the procedure?
<p>
All of these questions remain unanswered by the junior senator from Massachusetts, thus his challenge is really built on the chaos in Iraq, not a publicly stated clear and present vision.
<p>
I've known John Kerry for 25 years and he's always been a hard man to read. If he becomes President of the United States, there's no reason to believe he will not remain that way.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-10-28T07:00:00ZAssessing the Bush PresidencyBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Assessing-the-Bush-Presidency/18794.html2004-10-21T07:00:00Z2004-10-21T07:00:00ZHide the plants! Political partisans are sucking much of the air out of the environment with insane rants, and it's tough to get oxygen. So I am going to try something new by attempting to evaluate the Bush presidency using simple logic and stone cold facts. Please don't hate me.
<p>
The President's biggest problem is bad foreign intelligence. The CIA bungled the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction scenario and failed to predict the toxic problems that have occurred in Iraq after Saddam's fall. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI both failed to detect the 9/11 plot. All of this happened on Bush's watch.
<p>
In response to those catastrophic intelligence failures, the President has said little. It took him forever to remove CIA chief George Tenet and Mr. Bush is reluctant to address the WMD and Iraqi controversies, preferring to paint an optimistic picture of the future.
<p>
But millions of Americans are deeply troubled by the chaos in Iraq and the President's hopeful outlook is not soothing that apprehension. Thus, Mr. Bush is fighting for his political life.
<p>
On the homefront, things are better. Despite democratic hysteria, the economic sky is not falling. Unemployment is less than it was when Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, and most Americans are living comfortable lives. The situation does vary from state to state, however. Florida, for example, is booming, while Ohio is struggling. That situation makes the electoral vote outlook a tossup.
<p>
Gas prices are way up, but Americans seem to be taking that in stride. Once again, the President has not said much about rising fuel prices, concentrating on the big picture, which is that the U.S. economy is much better than that in most other developed countries.
<p>
On social issues, Mr. Bush has played it smart. He and his conservative base are compatible and the President sincerely believes that gay marriage, partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives are subjects worth taking a strong stand on. Bush's support is much more fervent than Kerry's, according to all the polls, and that's because of his social outlook.
<p>
The presidency of George W. Bush is hard to evaluate because of the war on terror, which has consumed much of his time. The No Child Left Behind Act is a vast improvement over the directionless academic chaos that had been plaguing many American school districts. The funding issue is largely bogus: many states simply can't spend all the money that is available because of poor administration.
<p>
Homeland Security is debatable, but what is undeniable is that we have not been hit again by Al Qaeda. That's a big win for Mr. Bush.
<p>
So summing up, the President's big downside is the intelligence debacle and his failure to adequately explain it. His big plus is that most Americans like him, and his conservative base reveres him. If he defeats John Kerry, he will do it on who he is, rather than what he's done.
<p>
Next week in this space we will analyze the Kerry challenge. See you then.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-10-21T07:00:00ZFight or DieBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fight-or-Die/18786.html2004-10-14T07:00:00Z2004-10-14T07:00:00ZSometimes in life you have to stand and fight even if it means extreme discomfort. That's what's going on inside Iraq right now and, personally, each one of us will have to face a vital confrontation sometime in our lives.
<p>
Iraq may not be the right place to engage Islama-fascism, but it is the reality America faces. Incredible circumstances like 9/11, faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and a unique world war against terrorism, have conspired to bring America a challenge that is simply brutal. But to surrender to that challenge would open a door of unintended consequences that would threaten all of us.
<p>
An Iraq run by terrorists would be another Afghanistan under the Taliban. Jihadists would be trained and dispatched to spread fear and death throughout the world. Eventually, the nuclear scientists in Iran could very well provide that kind of weaponry to the terrorists in neighboring Iraq. That's a doomsday scenario if there ever was one.
<p>
You would think the rest of the world would understand the threat, but many countries simply look the other way, calculating that America or Israel will take the brunt of any high tech terrorism. We know now that Saddam bribed high-ranking officials in France and Russia, and perhaps even China, through the UN's oil-for-food program. So it's not hard to understand why those countries refused to move against a gravy train dictator spending billions to keep himself in power. But Saddam is gone, so why not help stabilize Iraq now? Surely, that would enhance world security.
<p>
The leaders of France, Germany, Russia and China have no answers to that question. And so the chaos in Iraq which is largely being driven by homicidal terrorists is being confronted by the U.S. and a few allies when every civilized nation should be clamoring to help defeat the terrorists inside Iraq.
<p>
This fight is a defining moment in American history. All the screwups in the past mean little when the future of that country is considered. Both President Bush and John Kerry have failed to define the seriousness of the situation to Americans, many of whom are still in a fog of anti-war state induced by Howard Dean and other cut-and-run types.
<p>
The difficulty and frustration of the war in Iraq is almost painful to contemplate as Americans are dying nearly every day. But no president can allow terrorists to create a nuclear jihad zone.
And there is no question that is what the terrorists want; a place where they can operate with impunity, a place of hatred and unlimited violence.
<p>
Sometimes you must stand and fight even when others do not have the will or the courage. This is one of those times.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-10-14T07:00:00ZClosing the DealBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Closing-the-Deal/18782.html2004-10-07T07:00:00Z2004-10-07T07:00:00ZPresident Bush and Senator Kerry would be wise to check out New York Yankee relief pitcher Mariano Rivera, the best closer in the baseball business. Because with just about three weeks left in the campaign, the most determined political closer will win the election.
<p>
At this point, the Kerry campaign seems to have brought out all its heavy artillery, especially on the primary issue this year: Iraq. I mean, how many times can John Kerry tell us the Bush administration has screwed up in the land of sand? We've got the picture. Whether we believe it or not is a personal choice, although there is no question, after the Duelfer Report, that the Bush administration bought into bad intelligence about WMDs.
<p>
The Bush campaign has held some of its powder, and that is focusing on John Kerry's historical liberalism. During these three terms in the Senate, Kerry has consistently voted against defense projects and in favor of entitlements and left-wing causes like partial birth abortion. The Senator is now running to the center, but the Bush people are readying some new, withering attacks on his fundamental philosophy. Kerry is vulnerable as an opponent of the Reagan defense policies and the first Gulf War. Expect that stuff to be all over the place in the final days.
<p>
John Kerry can counter that the Bush administration is simply incompetent in Iraq and on the economy, but the Senator needs some new fuel to light the fires of undecided voters. One of the reasons the President lost the first debate was that he kept repeating the "hard work" mantra when questioned on Iraq. Voters want answers and fresh perspectives. Numbing repetition is boring and annoying, and not a good thing for any candidate.
<p>
And then there is the physical toll. I'm exhausted just analyzing this race while sitting on my butt! Can you imagine how tired the candidates are? Many thought Mr. Bush was too spent to mount an energetic presentation in the first debate, and that might be true. Both Bush and Kerry are in the middle of a cross-country marathon where mental and physical stamina is a must, because any mistake can cost them dearly.
<p>
So the winner will be the guy who closes tough and keeps his endurance and energy level high. Both men are notoriously competitive and driven. When I first met George W. Bush four years ago, I didn't see that fight in his eyes - but when I interviewed him a few days ago it was there.
<p>
John Kerry has always been crazed about winning. Most politicians would have given up last December when Howard Dean was dancing the Lambada with democratic voters. Kerry did the opposite. He trudged through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire while pinhead pundits like me were writing him off. If Kerry is denied this time, it will only be because Bush is even more determined.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-10-07T07:00:00ZHigh HopesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/High-Hopes/18776.html2004-09-30T07:00:00Z2004-09-30T07:00:00ZLet's face it, no matter who you vote for a few weeks from now, you are doing it on hope. President Bush firmly believes democracy will prevail in Iraq--lots of hoping going on in that analysis. John Kerry wants us to believe that he can persuade allies like France and Germany to help stabilize Iraq. For that to be even remotely possible, the Senator will have to speak softly and carry a big checkbook, because turning that kind of hope into reality is likely to cost plenty.
<p>
The sad truth is that many countries dislike America, and it has little to do with the USA's proactive policy in fighting perceived terror threats. The acrimony is caused by severe differences in philosophy and priorities.
<p>
First, there's the economy; it is steadily growing in the USA, but essentially flat in the European Union. The reason is that Americans work longer hours and have fewer work restrictions. Europe is deeply into entitlements, and those extend into the marketplace. If you don't want to work in Scandinavia, for example, the government will support you. And even if you do work, taxes are so high in many European countries that after a while, wage earning isn't worth it. So many ambitious and creative people simply hit the sauna, limiting their accomplishments.
<p>
And then there's the secularist philosophy. In the Netherlands they have legalized euthanasia even for children. If you want drugs, you will find them sold openly in Amsterdam. After you score, you can walk on over to the red light district and have sex with a government-approved prostitute. Then you might want to use your drugs in a public coffee shop. No problem. Going Dutch no longer means splitting the check, now it means party hardy.
<p>
In Spain, the new socialist prime minister mocks the Catholic Church and surrenders to Al Qaeda. Across the border in France, Jacques Chirac refuses to provide help needed to safeguard elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Russia, Putin shuts down the press and incarcerates potential rivals. And John Kerry's going to rally these guys to our cause?
<p>
Canada has gradually turned into a secular paradise with socialized medicine, an increasing acceptance of drug use and trafficking, and a bitterly anti-American press. Mexico remains poor and corrupt, and then blames its neighbor to the north for the chaos. That's hilarious when you consider that the U.S. government allows millions of Mexican citizens to live and work here, many of them illegally. In fact, money sent home by Mexican workers accounts for that country's second largest industry after oil.
<p>
The truth is that the USA is disliked by many countries because of our Judeo-Christian traditions, as well as our economic and military power. This charade that Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder simply disagree with us about Iraq is nonsense. These men play to their left-wing base and to the anti-American media. In fact, they are both in office because of their anti-Americanism. The German and French economies are a mess. These guys mask that by criticizing the barbarians in the USA.
<p>
So good luck, John Kerry, in finding common ground with foreign politicians who personally benefit from giving the USA a hard time. The envy and shortsightedness that is gripping the world is Al Qaeda's best friend. The USA has unquestionably made mistakes in Iraq, but consider this: if the entire world was united against terrorists and brutal dictators, they could not exist. But the world is not. And all the hope on earth won't change that.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-09-30T07:00:00ZPresident Bush Enters the No Spin ZoneBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/President-Bush-Enters-the-No-Spin-Zone/18774.html2004-09-23T07:00:00Z2004-09-23T07:00:00ZPresident Bush doesn't really like the press and with good reason. The media "gotcha game" has been elevated to almost hysterical levels, and any mistake or misstatement by a President is front page news. Would you want to walk a high wire everyday?
<p>
So the President rarely gives in-depth interviews, and his press conferences are held to a minimum. One on one, Mr. Bush is an engaging guy, but it's tough to be relaxed when every word you say is parsed and dissected. Unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush does not seek personal approval, at least not openly. Mr. Clinton loves adoration; Mr. Bush is much more private in his presentation.
<p>
Therefore, I approached my thirty minute interview with the President cautiously. I kept my presence low key, which is a tremendous departure for me. There are certain rules that have to be followed when talking with the most powerful man in the world, and I respected the guidelines.
<p>
For example, I am known for confrontational interviews, but you simply cannot tell a sitting President that you, the interviewer, know more than he does. That would make you look like a moron. So open confrontation goes right out the window.
<p>
Also, the tone of your questions must be respectful. Although I asked everything I wanted to ask and there were no restrictions in the interview, my queries were posed less aggressively than usual. I was direct, but subdued, another departure for me. By the way, I never show my questions to anyone in advance, and that rule applied to the President.
<p>
Security is massive for every presidential appearance. To even get to the interview room in a New York City hotel, I had to go through hoops that make U.S. airport security look like the Mexican border. Back elevators were taken, I was perused by at least a dozen Secret Service Agents, and everything was bulletproof except my questions.
<p>
The President, himself, is a different man than the one I interviewed four years ago. Back then, as the Governor of Texas, he was more casual in his language, both body and verbal. He carried himself with authority in 2000, but now he seems to be aware that he is a life and death decision maker and that awesome responsibility has seeped into his persona. He's very aware of his position in life.
<p>
Mr. Bush was much more business-like this time around. He kept the chit-chat short and seemed anxious to answer the questions. I believe he likes the joust when he thinks the playing field is fair. I gave him a square deal last time around, and he remembered.
<p>
A TV interview is far different than a print one in the sense that facial expressions and posture play a key roll. My job is to break down the image and give viewers a glimpse at the real person sitting in front of me. I asked the President very short questions about very precise things: his National Guard service, the Swift Boat ads, Iraq and Iran, the Mexican border, Jacques Chirac, the fairness of the press and how his faith in God influences his decisions.
<p>
Most of the time, Mr. Bush was direct and to the point. A few times he evaded. He was, however, intensely focused, and so was I, except for one secret lapse. In the middle of my talk with the President, my mind flashed back for just a second to my childhood in Levittown, New York. The most powerful man on earth was answering my questions. Who woulda thunk it?BillOReilly.com Staff2004-09-23T07:00:00ZThe Terrible Truth About TerrorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Terrible-Truth-About-Terror/18770.html2004-09-16T07:00:00Z2004-09-16T07:00:00ZWhat are we to make of the New York Times describing terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a "Jordanian militant?" I mean, this guy is one of the most vicious al Qaeda thugs in the world; right now he's behind much of the violence in Iraq and has been active in the worldwide terror network since at least 1990.
<p>
On June 17th of this year, a U.S. intelligence official provided my researcher Nate Fredman with the following information: In early 2000, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to assume a leadership position in an al Qaeda training camp. There he and his associates trained other terrorists how to develop and distribute "toxins."
<p>
Zarqawi stayed in the Al Qaeda area until war broke out after 9/11/01. He actively fought against U.S. forces and was wounded. After the collapse of the Taliban, he fled to Iran and then traveled to Iraq where his wounded leg was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein.
<p>
In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi went to Northern Iraq to train terrorists with the group Ansar al Islam, which is affiliated with al Qaeda. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Zarqawi went underground to organize resistance. The CIA believes Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostage Nicholas Berg, and there is now a $25 million bounty on his head.
<p>
U.S. intelligence officials say there is no question that Zarqawi is associated with al Qaeda, but to the New York Times, he is a "Jordanian militant." That seems to be a rather benign description of a vicious terrorist killer, doesn't it?
<p>
The reason the Times and some other liberal media operations continue to downplay Zarqawi and, indeed, the entire worldwide terror threat is twofold: first, the liberal press does not want another pre-emptive strike against terrorists like the one the USA launched against Iraq. By denying Zarqawi was an al Qaeda guy, the liberal media can falsely claim Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda.
<p>
And secondly, the anti-Bush press believes that terrorism is the president's strongest issue. So keeping the very real danger of coordinated terror down is good political strategy for those who want to see President John Kerry.
<p>
That's why the al Qaeda relationship with the brutal Chechen terrorists was muted. Both Russian and U.S. intelligence say al Qaeda is deeply involved with training and funding the Chechen killers. But you wouldn't know much about that by reading many American newspapers which described the Chechen child murderers as "insurgents" or, yes, "militants."
<p>
The truth is that terrorists do seek each other out and cooperate. The IRA, for example, used PLO training facilities in North Africa and the Middle East. And Zarqawi himself traveled to Lebanon in the summer of 2002 to meet with leaders of Hezbollah, another lethal terror group. The terrorism fraternity is small but determined. These guys know and often help each other.
<p>
That's what's happening in Iraq right now. With foreign terrorists infiltrating into that country through Iran and Syria, Iraq has become the battle ground for worldwide terror and that's why the struggle is so important. And Zarqawi is right in the middle of it.
<p>
So let's call worldwide terror what it is: a fanatical confederation bent on destroying a variety of targets, including the USA. Zarqawi, the Chechen killers, and all the other fascist barbarians aren't militants or freedom fighters. They are all part of the terror club and the duty of an American President is to somehow render them defeated. And the duty of the press is to tell it like it is.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-09-16T07:00:00ZSay It Ain't So, Ted TurnerBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Say-It-Aint-So-Ted-Turner/18756.html2004-09-09T07:00:00Z2004-09-09T07:00:00ZSo now we find out that CNN commentators James Carville and Paul Begala have signed on with the Kerry campaign as unpaid advisors. Traditionally, that would mean they would have to take a leave of absence from CNN or any news organization which employed them because journalistic ethics (oxymoron?) dictate that news organizations remain totally separate from political campaigns. But since we live in strange times, CNN says it will keep the guys on the air.
<p>
In the wake of the vicious attacks on Fox News for allegedly being "GOP TV," I expected the media to brutally dismember CNN and the new boys on John Kerry's bus. But instead it's been the silence of the lambs from the press. Can you say media bias?
<p>
A central thesis of the mainstream media is that Fox News caters to conservative Republicans. That thesis has been played out in newspaper articles, books and even in movies. Those right-wing bully boys from Fox, they're just awful aren't they? How many times have we heard that?
<p>
But when it comes to CNN, well, that's another story. That network apparently feels comfortable allowing daily commentary from two Kerry strategists. Shouldn't CNN now be compelled to give equal time to the Bush campaign? How about a new program called "What's Up, George," starring Mary Matalin?
<p>
The CNN decision should come as no surprise since CNN's founder and still-involved mogul Ted Turner despises President Bush. Last July, Mr. Turner opined on The Charlie Rose program that "history will look back on this debacle in Iraq as one of the greatest mistakes that any major country has ever made."
<p>
Turner went on to say that the USA has no right to the high moral ground in Iraq when "we're terrorizing and sodomizing prisoners of war ..."
<p>
Keeping the press and political campaigns apart is what the founders had in mind when they granted us special first amendment privileges. Thomas Jefferson and the gang hoped the press would keep an eye on those seeking power--not try to help them obtain it. Editorial endorsements of candidates are fine and there's nothing wrong with former political operatives being hired to analyze the news. However, there is plenty wrong with CNN's present situation.
<p>
The fact that the media is allowing CNN to get away with this tells you all you need to know about how fair the American press is these days. I'll submit to you that if Greta Van Susteren and I signed on with Bush/Cheney 2004, The New York Times would have passed out torches and the media mob would have stormed the Fox News castle. There's a fox in the hen house all right--it's called the left-wing press allowing their brothers to slide.
<p>
Personally, I don't care if Carville and Begala want to help Kerry. And I don't care what they say on CNN. Everybody knows those guys are Kool-Aid liberals; they're not going to change many minds.
<p>
But I must say that CNN has some gall. It has consistently put itself up as the beacon of broadcast journalism and taken snarky shots at those it considers of lesser quality.
<p>
Well, the halcyon days at CNN have now come to an end. The network's ratings have collapsed and so have its ethical standards.
<p>
I don't know what's in your pipe, Ted Turner, but if there's room, put that assessment in there, and smoke it.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-09-09T07:00:00ZNight of the Living DumbBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Night-of-the-Living-Dumb/18746.html2004-09-02T07:00:00Z2004-09-02T07:00:00ZNo question that President Bush has regained some momentum in his quest to retain power. The Iraq war defense put forth by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain at the Republican convention actually silenced media critics for a few days, and the populist Arnold Schwarzenegger painted Mr. Bush as an effective, inclusive leader.
<p>
But world events have also helped the President. As terror rises all over the place, it becomes increasingly difficult for the Bush haters to diminish the President's own hatred for the "evil doers."
<p>
Iraqi terrorists slaughter a dozen waiters from Nepal. Chechen terrorists hold little children hostage and blow up two airliners. Even France was assaulted, as Islamic terrorists demanded that country rescind its ban on the wearing of headscarves in public schools. At this point, it is almost impossible to make a rational case against an aggressive war on Islamic fascism.
<p>
The people protesting the Republican Convention also helped Mr. Bush. With more than a thousand arrests, some cops badly injured, and innocent people harassed, the protestors are looked upon as fanatical and irrational by many Americans. And some of them are. A survey by The New York Sun newspaper found protestors favored a socialistic government more than any other. That kind of attitude is not a help to Senator Kerry.
<p>
Increasingly, the visible anti-Bush forces are defining themselves as way out there. A new Zogby poll found that almost half of New York City residents believe some in the Bush administration knew the USA would be attacked on 9/11, and did nothing to stop it. Of course, there's not a shred of verifiable evidence backing up that insane belief. New York City is overwhelmingly anti-Bush, and the rest of country is noticing the caliber of criticism. If I were making a movie about the irrational Bush haters, I would entitle it "Night of Living Dumb."
<p>
The fundamental problem with the anti-Bush zealots is that they desperately want to believe the President is a bad man, and will reject all rational discussion that goes against their thesis. That kind of fanaticism frightens mainstream American voters and creates sympathy for the President. Irrational displays will never win an election. Ask Howard Dean.
<p>
A few months ago, I wrote in this space that John Kerry would not be seen in public with the likes of Michael Moore and the other far left bomb throwers, and that has proven to be true. Mr. Kerry knows he must convince centrist voters to support him if he wants to win, and radicals like Moore alienate the center.
<p>
If you still don't believe me, consider this: Fox News and your humble correspondent have come under horrific attack from the radical left. But every time a smear book or movie comes out defaming us, our ratings go up. My television program "The O'Reilly Factor" easily won its timeslot in the cable news wars during the Democratic Convention, and we beat the opposition three to one during the Republican gathering.
The more the crazies tell Americans that I am unfair and unbalanced, the more people tune in. Where do I send the gift?
<p>
So there has been a momentum shift towards the Bush camp that should last until the debates, which begin at the end of September. Those displays will mean more than all the protests, all the mud slinging and all the spin. Not since Kennedy-Nixon have Presidential debates been so crucial. I can't wait.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-09-02T07:00:00ZThe Convention BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Convention-Blues/18788.html2004-08-26T07:00:00Z2004-08-26T07:00:00ZCovering a political convention is kind of like watching a porn film; you know what's going to happen by its very definition. My coverage of the Democratic Convention in Boston brought tears to the eyes of some television critics who loudly wailed that I was an irresponsible cad for not broadcasting the prime-time speeches on my program. This, of course, is nonsense. Why would I waste time on partisan presentations? My job is to analyze what is going on, not let politicians bloviate unchecked.
<p>
The speeches, of course, are broadcast on other TV outlets, as they should be. If you want 'em, you should get 'em. But remember this: Anybody can say anything. Most words are hollow. In politics, sports and dirty movies, it is actions that count. And one more thing, the most dishonest individual on earth can <em>sound</em> honest, if given the right script.
<p>
So what about the Republican Convention in New York? Once again, I will not broadcast the partisan speeches, because they are agenda-driven. Of course, I'll read the speeches and watch them, if I'm not on the air. Then I'll give you my opinion on what's genuine and what's spin.
<p>
Too many Americans are not skeptical enough about what is said to them. Fast-talking con people can hurt you badly. These politicians have a battery of writers parsing every word they say, and their pre-speech rehearsals tend to drain the blood out of their presentations. These people don't talk from the heart, they talk from a script that is designed to rally the faithful, not put forth solutions to problems. So why should we listen?
<p>
Curiosity is the primary reason. The only thing really on the line during those speeches is how the politician will perform. And if you can't deliver a pre-packaged speech laid out in front of you on a giant teleprompter after days of rehearsal, well, you may lose a few votes.
<p>
The contrived convention display on the part of both political parties isn't offensive to me, it's just meaningless. What is offensive is the debate structure. This year, the Presidential candidates will meet three times, the Vice Presidential guys once. But the format has a tragic flaw. The debate moderator can't interrupt the candidates. So if a guy decides to dodge the question or deliver a false fact or dance around an issue, there's really nothing the moderator can do. And if the questioners point out any spin, deception or obfuscation, they will likely be criticized as being a boorish or partisan.
<p>
The candidates, of course, know all this. They also know the likely line of the debate questioning, so once again they can rehearse with their professional "handlers." Whatever happened to just answering a question honestly? Where is Harry Truman when we need him?
<p>
So here's a bulletin about the Republican Convention and the upcoming debates: Help is not on the way. Hope is not on the way. Nothing is on the way, except how well the candidates can put across their preprogrammed points.
<p>
Obviously, this is not the way it should be. The nation deserves rigorous debate and tough, incisive questioning of the candidates. Our lives could be at stake in this election, and the stage play that has become the election process is certainly not making us any safer.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-08-26T07:00:00ZWith Liberty and Slander for AllBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/With-Liberty-and-Slander-for-All/18734.html2004-08-19T07:00:00Z2004-08-19T07:00:00ZWith just about ten weeks until the Presidential vote, smear merchants on both sides continue to run wild. The internet is one big Defamation.com; John Kerry is a traitor, George W. Bush is a deserter. And there's big money behind the purveyors of this vile brew.
<p>
But this is nothing new for America. What's changed is the machinery that delivers the slander. All throughout our history character assassins have surfaced every four years to attack anyone daring enough to run for the highest office in the land. The freedom of screech extends all the way back to 1796.
<p>
In that election, campaign supporters of John Adams really went after his opponent Thomas Jefferson, calling him, among other things, an atheist, anarchist, demagogue, coward, trickster and a mountebank.
<p>
A mountebank is a guy who sells phony medicine, in case you're like me and didn't know.
<p>
Jefferson's crowd immediately struck back by labeling Adams: egotistical, erratic, eccentric and jealous-natured.
<p>
Historian Paul Boller describes all this in his lively book "Campaigns" (Oxford Press). Boller chronicles each Presidential contest, and it's clear that we have learned little over the years. The mud stays eerily similar throughout the ages.
<p>
In 1828, for example, backers of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were totally out of control. Jackson won the vote despite being accused of adultery, gambling, cock fighting, bigamy, slave trading, drunkenness, theft, lying, and murder. I guess the voters figured anyone with that much energy deserved the top job.
<p>
But Jackson's people didn't silently stand by. No way. They hammered Adams hard, accusing him of having premarital relations with his wife and traveling on a Sunday. It doesn't get lower than that.
<p>
The slime machine behind James Polk went to work in 1844, announcing that his opponent, Henry Clay, had systemically violated every one of The Ten Commandments.
<p>
Clay's mudslingers immediately replied calling Polk "unimaginative." Polk won the election carrying much of the non-creative vote.
<p>
U.S. Grant was, perhaps, the most vilified Presidential candidate in history. Running against Horace Greeley in 1872, Grant was called a crook, an ignoramus, a drunk, a swindler, and an "utterly depraved horse jockey."
<p>
It's entirely possible that last attack caused much sympathy for Grant who carried 31 of 37 states. A depraved horse jockey indeed!
<p>
In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt was actually shot in the chest while campaigning in Milwaukee. He got up, finished his speech, and then went to the hospital. Woodrow Wilson won the election, but let's give the Rough Rider some credit here.
<p>
During the campaign of 1928, hysteria reigned because Al Smith was a Roman Catholic. Some supporters of his opponent Herbert Hoover got this message out: If elected, Smith would annul all Protestant marriages and extend the newly completed Holland Tunnel in New York City all the way to Rome! Talk about a big dig.
<p>
Compared to the above, calling Bill Clinton a "pot smoking, draft dodger," or labeling John Kerry a "flip-flopper" doesn't even rate. President Bush's intelligence is being challenged but nowhere have I seen him accused of fathering an out-of-wedlock child as was Grover Cleveland (who actually did). So while we have been assaulted by Swift Boats and taunted by the likes of Michael Moore, the slime peddlers are not nearly as creative as they used to be.
<p>
I just pray Bush and Kerry don't travel on Sunday.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-08-19T07:00:00ZThe Swift Boat BluesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Swift-Boat-Blues/18730.html2004-08-12T07:00:00Z2004-08-12T07:00:00ZThe partisans are running wild over this Swift Boat business, talk radio is crazy with it and the smell of blood is in the air. John Kerry has made a major deal of his Vietnam War record and now his opponents have opened fire on the Senator's experiences. It's all tawdry and distasteful of course, but let's examine things unemotionally.
<p>
First off, I believe Jim Rassmann when he says that Kerry saved his life by pulling him out of a Vietnam river while under fire. Rassmann is a former Green Beret, a former police officer and a long time registered Republican until earlier this year. If he says John Kerry is a hero, nobody should doubt it. Rassmann has earned the right to be trusted and insulting his testimony is way out of line.
<p>
But I also believe Steve Gardner, a former Navy gunner who was also present on one of Kerry's Swift Boats. He says the Senator wrote up a false report, neglecting to inform the Navy that he, Gardner, had accidentally shot a Vietnamese child during a firefight. This is a tough one. Gardner is implicating himself and has no reason to do so. But perhaps Kerry was looking out for him by not reporting the incident. Only Kerry knows.
<p>
It is very possible to perform heroically on some occasions and do less than admirable things on others. All human beings are flawed and we are capable of both valor and deceit. That's what I think happened here. John Kerry was brave, but was also calculating. His heroism impressed most of his Swift Boat mates, but his civilian anti-war activities and perceived grandstanding also alienated many other Vietnam Vets. And so the battle lines are drawn.
<p>
What should we, on the sidelines, make of all this? Well, it's a judgment call. It is absolutely wrong for Americans to condemn Kerry's war record because he demonstrated provable valor. However, those who distrust him do deserve to be heard although facts not emotion should be demanded.
<p>
I think the Swift Boat political advertisement calling Kerry a charlatan is in poor taste, and if this kind of thing continues it might well backfire on the Kerry haters. Most Americans are fair minded, and bitter personal attacks do not go down well with folks who are not driven by partisanship. Remember, General Wesley Clark was knocked out of the Presidential sweepstakes when he would not disown Michael Moore's insane remark that President Bush was a "deserter." Mr. Bush received an honorable discharge from the National Guard. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt pinned a medal on John Kerry's chest. The record is the record, unless rock solid proof refutes it.
<p>
The lesson here is that blind partisanship is not an attribute. No person or candidate is all good or all bad. In America today, with both sides peddling lies and defamation and spin, it is alarmingly difficult just to get simple facts on which to base a responsible vote.
<p>
Somewhere Jack Webb is weeping.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-08-12T07:00:00ZUp In SmokeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Up-In-Smoke/18724.html2004-08-05T07:00:00Z2004-08-05T07:00:00ZStar Miami Dolphin running back Ricky Williams has walked away from millions of dollars, in part because of marijuana. Williams told the Miami Herald that he smoked weed constantly and masked his use by consuming a substance called "Extra Clean." Nevertheless, Williams failed three drug tests administered by the NFL, and finally decided to retire at age 27, citing his desire to continue smoking pot as one of the reasons.
<p>
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, less than 2 percent of American youths had ever used marijuana, back in the year 1962. Forty years later, that percentage had increased to an astounding 54%. The simple question is: What dynamic has changed in America to account for the drastic increase in the consumption of marijuana?
<p>
The watershed event, of course, was the rise of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s. Smoking pot became the appetizer for the Vietnam protest entree. The rock world immediately got involved, and an intoxication celebration was underway.
<p>
Since that time, marijuana use, especially among young people, has steadily increased, and now about 20% of high school seniors smoke pot on a regular basis.
<p>
Interestingly, up until 1992, marijuana use was far more common among whites than minority Americans, according to a study by the National Institutes of Health. But in the nineties, pot consumption by African-American men and women between the ages of 18 and 29 increased 224%!
<p>
The ten years between 1992 and 2002 coincided with the rise of the rap industry. Icons such as Snoop Dogg and Ludacris consistently glorified marijuana, and I believe their message fell on willing ears. A generation of Americans kids, of all colors, were (and continue to be) pounded by rhythms and lyrics encouraging a libertine lifestyle with a heavy emphasis on drug use and exploitative sex. How could this not take a toll?
<p>
Anyway, Ricky Williams and millions of other young Americans love their pot, and are willing to make great sacrifices to consume it. Think about all the good Williams could have done with the money he was earning. Life in the National Football League is no easy venture, but athletic ability is a gift that should not be discarded lightly.
<p>
The bigger picture is that marijuana use is now largely accepted by American society even in the case of young people. This is a disaster for kids. Awash in drugs and alcohol, we are now a culture where children are exposed to intoxicating agents practically from the time they reach the age of reason (7 years). And any child who becomes involved with mind altering substances loses their childhood instantly. They are never the same.
<p>
But how often do you hear the media speak out against substance consumption? It is winked at, excused, and even tacitly encouraged by many pundits and activists. That is the great change since 1962. Getting high is no longer even an issue in many quarters - it is standard procedure.
<p>
Ricky Williams should be the poster boy for the marijuana debate. The man obviously is seeking emotional comfort, and the price of that comfort is somewhere around $15 million dollars. You can't get much higher than that.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-08-05T07:00:00ZMoore Sense PleaseBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Moore-Sense-Please/18722.html2004-07-29T07:00:00Z2004-07-29T07:00:00Z(Boston) Well, I finally tracked down Michael Moore. I saw him walking in the street outside the Democratic Convention Center and pounced on him like the paparazzi on J-Lo. Moore had been dodging me because his movie was becoming increasingly indefensible by something called "facts." But, to his credit, Moore took up my street challenge and agreed to appear on "The Factor".
<p>
We debated for ten minutes and Moore put forth the following:
<ul type="square">
<li>That President Bush "lied" about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation and Lord Butler's British Investigation all say Bush did not lie.
<br><br>
<li>Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.
<br><br>
<li>Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.
<br><br>
<li>Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms build up had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.
<br><br>
<li>The filmmaker then went on to say that pre-emptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time ask him how he would have done that but I assume commandos would have been involved.
</ul>
So, hey, Michael Moore this bud's for you. Thanks for showing up and debating. Now we know the under-pinnings of your world outlook.
<p>
What is still astounding to me is how many people continue to embrace the fantasies and deceptions of Michael Moore. Some people actually applauded him at the Democratic Convention, but the heavyweights stayed away.
<p>
In one bizarre scene, Moore was seated next to Rosalyn and Jimmy Carter. The couple stared straight ahead, looking like contestants about to eat bugs on the "Fear Factor," and the Kerry campaign has made it quite clear that Moore and other left-wing bomb throwers are not to be seen around the candidate.
<p>
In fact, the Kerry people actually censored some of the speechmakers from using inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric. That is almost unheard of at a political convention.
<p>
But old reliable Howard Dean came through. He continues to be Michael Moore's best pal, appearing with him at a Bush bash in a Cambridge hotel. It is absolutely frightening how close Governor Dean came to being the Democratic presidential nominee.
<p>
This may surprise you, but I do not dislike Michael Moore. He is a true believer. He wants a completely different kind of country, and he'll do anything to make that happen.
<p>
The problem with Moore is that the ends justify the means. He knows his statements and movies are not based on facts, but he continues to say they are. Even in Moore's world where truth doesn't exist, there should be some kind of ethical standard, but there isn't. And the fact that Howard Dean and other powerful Americans accept that situation is more troubling than anything Michael Moore could ever say.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-07-29T07:00:00ZWho's Sorry Now?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Sorry-Now/18720.html2004-07-22T07:00:00Z2004-07-22T07:00:00ZAt this point, we have four independent sources that say there was no lying by President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's British investigation and Vladimir Putin have all stated that the WMD intelligence was faulty, but the politicians did nothing untoward.
<p>
So what should be done with the people who accused Bush and Blair of intentionally lying to bring war to the world? Have you heard any of these folks apologize for their slander? I haven't.
<p>
And let's take the issue one step further. As you know, the 9/11 Commission report criticizes both President Bush and Bill Clinton for failing to act on the Al Qaeda danger. That's what the Richard Clarke controversy was all about. The former White House terrorism advisor ran wild in the media, suggesting that Bush ignored him. Being a partisan, Clarke played down the fact that Clinton also failed to act on his advice to actively engage Bin Laden, but the 9/11 Commission filled in that blank.
<p>
For the sake of argument, can you imagine if President Bush had ignored the CIA's assertion that Saddam had anthrax and other deadly substances? Can you just picture what would have happened if Al Qaeda attacked America with deadly weapons acquired from Baghdad, and Bush had rejected intelligence reports about WMD's? My God! President Bush would have gone down in history as the biggest incompetent of all time.
<p>
So based on intelligence, Bush had to confront Saddam, and tried to work within the framework of the United Nations to do it. But it was obvious the U.N. was going to procrastinate as long as possible, just as it is doing now in the Sudan. While thousands of innocent people die every week at the hands of the brutal Khartoum regime, U.N. diplomats sit there and eat lunch.
<p>
What would you have done if you were Bush? You are told by U.S. and British intelligence that a brutal dictator had WMD's. That dictator had funded and supported terrorism all over the Middle East. Known terrorists, including Bin Laden pal al-Zarqawi, were living inside Iraq. And you sit there while Hans Blix runs around the desert? Come on. President Bush could have delayed the action and planned better for the aftermath but, ultimately, he had to act.
<p>
Every time I hear some extremist rant about Presidential "lies," I get furious. These people are putting all of us in danger. Many far-left websites are simply out of control, spewing forth deceit and allegations that have no basis in fact whatsoever. Unfortunately, these people now have sympathy in the mainstream press, and can get their libel widely distributed. Let me give you one example from personal experience.
<p>
In my analysis of the attack on September 11th, I tried to bring all voices to the table. Thus, I gave airtime to a young man who lost his father at the World Trade Center. This guy said on my TV program that President Bush and his father were responsible for the three thousand deaths, and that his own father had "allegedly" been murdered by Al Qaeda. The guy went on to imply that America was the true terrorist nation.
<p>
The man had no evidence to back up his claims, and was dismissed by me in a not very gentle way. I would have given it to him worse, if not for his widowed mother, and I said that to him on the air. The guy was, and is, a disgrace.
<p>
But not to the far left--to them, he's a hero. And these people have used this guy time and time again as an example of someone persecuted by "conservatives."
<p>
It is all so dishonest and disheartening. The ultra left fanatics will pretty much say and do anything to destroy those with whom they disagree. These people are hurting all Americans by obstructing the true terrorist danger we are facing today.
<p>
The lesson here is simple. Bush and Blair did not lie. And it far past time that clear thinking Americans begin holding the true liars accountable. Our lives may depend on it.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-07-22T07:00:00ZThe Price of FreedomBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Price-of-Freedom/18718.html2004-07-15T07:00:00Z2004-07-15T07:00:00ZA recent poll taken in Canada says that 40% of Canadian teenagers believe the United States is an "evil" country. Among French-Canadian teens, the number rises to 64%. This, of course, is hard to believe, and must be laid right on the doorstep of the often viciously anti-American Canadian press as well as irresponsible educators supposedly teaching Canadian kids about the world.
<p>
And all over the world, America is getting slaughtered in the arena of public opinion. Therefore, what can we expect from children? When government funded press agencies like the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation portray America as the world's chief villain, there's little anyone can do to balance the picture. The Fox News Channel, for example, isn't even allowed in Canada.
<p>
So for the benefit of the Canadian kids, and, indeed, children all over the world, I am going to set the record straight right here in this column.
<p>
Let's start with an undeniable fact: The United States of America has set more people free than any other country in the history of mankind. We all know about World War II, but here's what's happened recently:
<ul type="square">
<li>In Eastern Europe, the policies of Ronald Reagan led to the freeing of at least 122 million people from Soviet domination.
<br><br>
<li>More than 48 million South Koreans remain free because of American protection.
<br><br>
<li>Nearly 23 million Taiwanese remain free because of American protection.
<br><br>
<li>The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.
<br><br>
<li>By removing the brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and Britain have given almost 50 million people at least a shot at some kind of self-determination. Also, the American-driven campaign against the butcher Milosovic in the Balkans saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslims.
<br><br>
<li>America is sending $3 billion a year to Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic. By comparison Canada is sending $270 million, France a paltry $60 million.
</ul>
And those countries have the nerve to portray America as a villain? How many human beings has France freed over the past 60 years? The same question can be asked of Canada. Yes, those nations have helped the USA on occasion, but they are drifting away from reality now.
<p>
It's not only Canadians and the French who are misguided about the USA; there's also a fifth column in America itself. The "anarchists" are hoping to disrupt the Republican convention in New York City. Police believe they will use violent means to do so.
<p>
And the verbal violence on display daily by partisan fanatics is growing more despicable by the moment. Michael Moore and his acolytes hide behind the "dissent" label, but they are not dissenters, they're destroyers. Moore has been quoted as saying capitalism is "diabolical," even as he trucks his millions to the bank. By the way, did you know that associates of Hezbollah want to help distribute Moore's movie in the Middle East? What does that tell you?
<p>
The truth is that America is a great country striving to protect itself in an ungrateful and dangerous world. We, the people, have sacrificed blood and money so others could have a chance in life. Yet many teenagers in Canada are convinced we are an evil nation. The powers-that-be in Canada should be ashamed that their young people are so ignorant but I know they are not. Ignorance, you see, is most often a contagious disease.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-07-15T07:00:00ZCosby's CrusadeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Cosbys-Crusade/18714.html2004-07-08T07:00:00Z2004-07-08T07:00:00ZLet's take the gloves off regarding this Bill Cosby deal. Recently, the entertainer has made a number of pointed comments about black America that engendered some loathing but, also, some applause.
<p>
Cosby is correct when he says that moral standards have declined drastically among many African-Americans. For example, in 1969 the out-of-wedlock birth rate for black Americans stood at 35%, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2002 that rate was a shocking 68.2% as opposed to 28.5% for white Americans. With single black women now heading 54.4% of all African-American households, the seeds of social chaos are deeply planted.
<p>
But it was his analysis of black American culture that brought Cosby the most reaction. He openly derides blacks who refuse to become educated, who embrace anti-social attitudes, and who disrespect authority. Cosby understands that the ticket out of poverty is assimilation into the competitive system of capitalism that drives America. Failing to develop marketable skills will doom most Americans to a miserable life, and all the hollow promises of exploitative politicians will not change that.
<p>
Thus, the widespread acceptance of "gangsta rap," the "street life," and a posture of defiance by many black Americans has brought blight upon countless communities. The question is: Why does Bill Cosby have to lead this fight? Where is the black leadership in America?
<p>
The most visible black leader, Jesse Jackson, said this after listening to Cosby's remarks: "Bill is saying let's fight the right fight, let's level the playing field. Drunk people can't do that. Illiterate people can't do that."
<p>
This is rich. Jackson has vilified me and a number of other white Americans for spotlighting the same things Cosby spoke about. Jackson has mostly disappeared in the face of the enormous cultural collapse in the black community; the last Jackson statement I could find where he publicly criticized gangsta rap was in 1997. Once upon a time, the Temptations and Four Tops contributed positive music that American of all colors embraced.
<p>
Now we have rapping thugs urging young people to sell drugs and disrespect women, while Jackson and most other black leaders stand mute, apparently hearing no evil.
<p>
Bill Cosby is wrong on some things. He continues to tell black Americans that whites will do the same things to them that their "grandfathers did." That is simply insulting to millions of non-black Americans who sincerely want African-Americans to prosper.
<p>
Cosby preaches self-reliance, and that's a good thing. Many white Americans are afraid of blacks, and rather than engage them honestly, they patronize and flee. And forget about the politicians, they are clueless on both sides of the aisle. Democrats mostly want to throw money at social problems without strict oversight, and Republicans have absolutely no frame of reference when it comes to minority citizens. You can't solve a problem unless you understand it. When was the last time a Republican leader tried to understand the minority community in America?
<p>
The solution to reviving black culture and improving economic fortunes for African-Americans and, indeed, for all the poor, lies in providing disciplined education in the public schools. Forget about counting on parents, that's a pipe dream. The truth is that many parents are addicted to the pipe or the bottle or to pursuing an irresponsible life. Even Bill Cosby can't force a screwed up mother or father to be responsible.
<p>
But the public schools can be forced to give disadvantaged children a chance by doing the following:
<ul type="square">
<li>All public school children should wear uniforms. This sends a signal that the child is in school, a place that is different from the street.
<br><br>
<li>Students who fall behind academically should be placed into special tutorials beginning in the second grade. Students who consistently behave inappropriately will also be placed in special classes where socialization will be taught and counseling provided.
<br><br>
<li>Summer school will be mandatory for every student who fails the grade tests given at the end of each school year.
<br><br>
<li>Students who are truant will be sent to special "opportunity schools" where class sizes are small and individual attention will be paramount. Parents who cannot control their children vis-�-vis truancy may be charged with child neglect or lose the child altogether to social services.
</ul>
That's the way to give disadvantaged children a chance to grow into productive adults. Bill Cosby has enough guts to point out the problems, but I'd be shocked if the powers that be in this country have enough courage to provide disciplined solutions. It's all too messy and too loaded with racial controversy. And so millions of American kids will continue to wander in a man-made social wilderness that should shame us all.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-07-08T07:00:00ZNo Brie for MeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/No-Brie-for-Me/18712.html2004-07-01T07:00:00Z2004-07-01T07:00:00ZEnough with France. That country is not a friend to the USA, or to peace-seeking Iraqis and Afghans. French President Chirac continues to block efforts by the USA and Britain to bring stability to former dictatorships and make it more difficult for homicidal terrorists to operate. Take a look at Chirac's recent resume:
<ul type="square">
<li>Last week, he blocked a newly created NATO strike force from going to Afghanistan to provide extra security for elections. Chirac said: "(the strike force) should not be used for troop shortages on routine operations."
<li>Chirac continues to insist that any NATO training of Iraqi forces be done outside that country. Of course that would create a logistical nightmare not to mention enormous extra cost.
<li>In Istanbul last week, Chirac again refused to consider Turkey as an allied partner. You may remember in February, 2003, France vetoed any NATO defense of Turkey in case it was attacked by Saddam.
<li>According to the London Times, and not denied by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke on my television program, France lied to Colin Powell in the run-up to the Iraq war. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin apparently told Powell that France would support military action against a defiant Saddam, and then reneged at the last minute. Many analysts believe that action gave Saddam hope that war would not come, and led to his disastrous decision to continue violating UN weapons inspection procedures.
<li>Instead of attending the funeral of Ronald Reagan as Tony Blair and others did, Chirac passed on the event even though he was in Georgia 24 hours before the commemoration in Washington, just an hour plane ride away.
</ul>
Even if one opposes the war in Iraq, a humane, clear thinking person would have to want peace and freedom in that country. But time and time again, Jacques Chirac has made it more difficult for that to happen.
<p>
Of course, he is doing it to spite President Bush. But he's also doing it because his approval rating in France now stands at 35%, according to a recent poll. Chirac apparently believes he can rebuild his support at home by being anti-American.
<p>
The consequence of that strategy is that American lives are being lost and things are made easier for the terror killers. Iraq and Afghanistan will never be free of totalitarianism unless there is security in those countries. But Jacques doesn't care about that. Jacques cares only about Jacques and I've had enough.
<p>
So no more brie for me. No more Evian, Air France, Provence and no more escargot, which I don't like anyway. As a free American, I am using my economic choice to send the French government a message. I am boycotting French goods and services and hope you will do the same. As they say in Brooklyn, which is not similar to Paris, Chirac is a bum.
<p>
The big dog and pony D-Day show last month in Normandy was a cynical exercise. Bush and Chirac despise each other and Jacques' hope that W loses in November is driving his agenda. Meantime, innocent civilians get their heads chopped off by terrorists and Jacques can't help out. As his role model Marie Antoinette once said: "Let them eat cake."
<p>
There is a slight chance that the oil-for-food scandal will expose France as being a corrupt enabler of Saddam. Remember, the bank where all the bribe money was stashed is in Paris, and some FOJ's (friends of Jacques) made millions dealing with Saddam and his sons. I have little confidence the United Nations will get to the bottom of this but I am praying for a miracle. In the meantime, I have another Brooklynism for the despicable Jacques Chirac: You know what you can do with your Eiffel Tower, pal.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-07-01T07:00:00ZThe Evolution of Michael MooreBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Evolution-of-Michael-Moore/18706.html2004-06-24T07:00:00Z2004-06-24T07:00:00ZThe evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
<p>
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."
<p>
"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.
<p>
But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.
<p>
So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
<p>
No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.
<p>
Uh-oh.
<p>
But just when Michael Moore was floundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's
film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."
<p>
Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.
<p>
But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "
<p>
So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."
<p>
I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal.
It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.
<p>
Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.
<p>
So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-06-24T07:00:00ZSign of the TimesBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Sign-of-the-Times/18708.html2004-06-17T07:00:00Z2004-06-17T07:00:00ZOn the day Ronald Reagan was buried, The New York Times ran a page one analysis of how history might evaluate his Presidency which stated: "(Reagan's) conviction that words counted for more in politics than mere deeds--enabled him to convince large majorities that as long as he was in charge, it would remain 'Morning in America.' They made it possible for him to redraw the nation's political map, moving the center so abruptly to the right that even Bill Clinton would proclaim the end of big government...
<p>
"(Reagan's) brand of radical conservatism had a counterpart in Britain under Margaret Thatcher, but it achieved little success elsewhere (overseas)."
<p>
Radical conservatism? Ronald Reagan was a Barry Goldwater clone? According to R.W. Apple, the Times associate editor who wrote the piece, he was indeed. And so another example of how The New York Times, itself, has become radicalized is in the books.
<p>
Somewhere along the line, the Times got out of the news business and into the nation-building business. Its primary intent is no longer to provide objective information and fair-minded analysis to its readers, but to convince them to support a brave new world in the USA. The power of The New York Times is being used to promote the formation of a new America, a bright, shining progressive city on a hill of steep government entitlements.
<p>
But why should you care what an individual newspaper does? With a circulation of a million and a half, most Americans don't read The New York Times. True enough, but consider this. Every morning, the powerful barons and anchor people who run the network TV news operations read the Times first thing. They often take editorial direction from the paper, sometimes duplicating story selection and even point-of-view. All news radio does the same thing, and the Times' wire goes out to thousands of newspapers across the country and around the world. This is one extremely powerful outfit.
<p>
The transformation of The New York Times from news source to ideological journal has taken years. The absurdity of labeling Ronald Reagan a far-right radical is just the latest in a long line of over-the-top "reportage." Two further recent examples:
<ul type="square">
<li>The New York Times ran 43 front page stories in 47 days on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. By contrast, the Chicago Tribune, certainly no conservative bastion, posted 27 front page stories on the situation. There is no question the Times is using the scandal to hammer the Bush administration, as often its front page expositions contain little new information. But the steady drip of scandal undermines the President's credibility and makes his administration look brutal and inept.</li>
<li>Over the past few months, The New York Times has run eleven stories on the start-up liberal radio network which is now having trouble paying its bills and is heard on less than 20 stations. The last time the Times tried to prop up this propaganda operation, its correspondent opined the network had a "significant" audience. That is flat out untrue.</li>
</ul>
In almost every section, the Times the reader is confronted with liberal ideology. Even the feature sections are skewed. Times business reporter Geraldine Fabrikant wrote an article on me a few months back, and described your humble correspondent as a "conservative" four times. I guess the label was used the fourth time in case you might have missed the other three.
<p>
In the world of the Times, Americans like Ronald Reagan who want a smaller federal government are radicals--mean people who want to hurt minorities. Those who believe symbols of Judeo-Christian philosophy should be freely exhibited in public are "fundamentalists." If you oppose abortion you are "anti-woman." If you're against gay marriage, you are, quite possibly, homophobic. The number of personal attacks in the Times has increased dramatically over the past few years, and if you don't believe me, just ask Mel Gibson.
<p>
As the Blues Brothers once remarked, "We're on a mission from God." The Times, of course, would remove God from that quotation. The paper is definitely on a mission, and the gloves are off. Arthur Sulzberger and his tribe want a secular nation with few judgments on personal behavior, income redistribution through taxation of the affluent, and a foreign policy that seeks consensus at almost all costs.
<p>
That's the sign of the Times today. And God (sorry) help you if you're standing in its way.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-06-17T07:00:00ZRonald ReaganBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Ronald-Reagan/18702.html2004-06-07T07:00:00Z2004-06-07T07:00:00ZOne of the reasons I fought so hard a few months ago against that sleazy TV Reagan movie was that the former President simply didn't deserve that kind of display. CBS, I believe, came to the same conclusion when programming boss Les Moonves finally began paying attention to the project and decided to dump it. Although the film was ultimately broadcast on a cable station, few Americans saw it.
<p>
The left-wing ideologues screamed censorship, but the real issue was respect. Ronald Reagan deserved the respect of Americans even if you disagreed with his political point-of-view. The truth is that Reagan was a decent, honest man who tried to improve his country. In short, he was a patriot who did not deserve to be mocked during the final days of his life by some Hollywood pinheads with agendas.
<p>
Generally speaking, Americans responded to Ronald Reagan because he seemed accessible to them. He came across as a nice guy who loved his country and respected its traditions. No question his acting ability helped him foster that public image, but everybody I've spoken with who knew the man said the same thing: There was no malice in him. He had strong beliefs but was not ruthless in imposing them.
<p>
There are some Americans who believe that President Reagan was one of our finest leaders. Certainly, his strong stand against the Soviet Union changed the world for the better. He also put forth a good moral example and America's image throughout the world was greatly enhanced during his tenure.
<p>
The biggest deficit I saw in Reagan was his failure to capitalize on his enormous popularity to initiate social change. He was brilliant in illuminating issues so that most everyone could understand them. But he lacked the "crusader" gene. He was cautious and did not use his gift of persuasion as well as he might have.
<p>
Here's an example. Ronald Reagan was firmly against abortion on moral and historical grounds. I have a handwritten letter by him dated January 14, 1980, when he was trying to capture momentum in the presidential primaries. The letter says this: "I have a very strong belief that interrupting a pregnancy means the taking of a human life. In our Judeo-Christian tradition this can only be justified as a matter of self-defense."
<p>
A simple statement, but one that could have engendered worthwhile debate about a divisive issue and about America's Judeo-Christian tradition, which today some are seeking to deny and destroy. But Reagan was not a confrontational guy; he did not want to market his personal beliefs to the nation and to the world. I saw that reluctance as an opportunity lost, especially since Ronald Reagan often transcended party lines. Many Democrats respected and listened to him.
<p>
It has only been sixteen years since Reagan left the presidency, but things have changed a bit, haven't they? President Clinton was a polarizing figure, and so is George W. Bush. Today we have bitter ideologues on both sides that see politics as blood sport and any dissent as a threat. The age of Reagan was notable for its lack of viciousness, at least in public. Because of his Alzheimer's, the former President missed the degeneration of the political debate over the past decade. I believe it would have saddened him.
<p>
History will be kind to Ronald Reagan because he, himself, was kind to so many people and what goes around definitely comes around. We Americans should be proud we elected this man to the presidency and should remember what he stood for: Freedom, self-reliance and pride in the land of his birth. You can't go wrong with a legacy like that.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-06-07T07:00:00ZAiding OsamaBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Aiding-Osama/18700.html2004-06-03T07:00:00Z2004-06-03T07:00:00ZThe anti-Bush zealots are right about one thing--the current mess in Iraq is hindering the war against Al Qaeda but not in the way the far-left envisions. The Iraq situation is so polarizing that it has fogged the terror playing field. In their disgust over how Iraq is being handled, many Americans simply have lost sight of the enemy, but believe me... he has not lost sight of us.
<p>
As we discussed last week in this space, Osama bin Laden and his fanatical followers kill at random and will use any method, including nuclear, that becomes available to them. That is the danger we Americans face. Unlike the nuclear threats of the past, there is no doomsday deterrent. Many of these terrorists actually want to die.
<p>
There has been far more outcry in the United States over the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib than the video beheading of Nicholas Berg or the civilian executions in Saudi Arabia last week, both reportedly the work of Al Qaeda.
<p>
The constant media drumbeat of Abu Ghraib, more than 50 front page stories in The New York Times alone, has taken the high moral ground away from the USA in the war on terror and dimmed the spotlight on the fanatical killers. In some parts of the world and even in the minds of a few misguided Americans, the USA has become villain number one, not Al Qaeda.
<p>
While the media is partially to blame for using Abu Ghraib as a hammer to bludgeon the Bush administration, thereby inserting a political agenda in the middle of an important news story, the President is to blame as well.
<p>
Clearly, something is very wrong when inexperienced, poorly trained military reservists are allowed to run wild and abuse prisoners. Clearly, something is wrong when enormous mistakes are made in the occupation of a country whose defeat was a foregone conclusion. I mean, everybody knew the USA would defeat Saddam, so why was the aftermath of the war so screwed up? Is this another intelligence failure? Is this a strategic failure on the part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team? We don't know, because Mr. Bush rarely holds anyone publicly accountable for doing his or her job poorly.
<p>
So now we have lost momentum in the terror war. A furious Al Gore accuses Bush of creating "gulags." A dangerously na�ve ACLU demands we treat captured terrorists like Martha Stewart, providing them with defense attorneys and the fifth amendment right to remain silent. Meantime, Al Qaeda plans more mayhem and murder, no doubt enjoying the paralyzing divisions bedeviling its despised target.
<p>
I hate to say this, but it looks like it will take another 9/11 attack in order for many of us to understand that we are now in the most dangerous age in America's history. Hitler and Tojo did not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan does. Al Qaeda owns parts of Pakistan. Do the math.
<p>
There's a bestselling novel out right now called "Memorial Day" written by Vince Flynn. He knows that the U.S. war on terror is unbelievably screwed up, and tells you how and why in a gripping way. Al Gore and every member of the ACLU should read this book and so should you.
<p>
President Bush should also read the book and wise up. The President is right in waging an aggressive war against worldwide terror, but he must get better people to do it. Enough with the chaos and foolish mistakes like Abu Ghraib. Clean house, Mr. President. There are smart, tough and experienced people who realize what's at stake here. Find them and protect us.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-06-03T07:00:00ZFighting to WinBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fighting-to-Win/18698.html2004-05-27T07:00:00Z2004-05-27T07:00:00ZGenghis Khan was perhaps the most successful warrior the world has ever known. During the 13th century, he conquered most of civilization with an army of less than 100,000 Mongol horsemen. According to Genghis' biographer, Jack Weatherford, the warlord's philosophy went this way: "Warfare was not a sporting contest or a mere match between rivals; it was a total commitment of one people against another. Victory did not come to the one who played by the rules; it came to one who made the rules and imposed them on his enemy."
<p>
Osama Bin Laden is unquestionably one of history's greatest villains, a man who has ordered the deaths of thousands of civilians to fulfill a perverted vision of religious thought. Does anyone doubt that, if given the chance, Bin Laden would commit mass murder by using a nuclear device or a chemical weapon to annihilate as many people as possible? Would any rational person dispute that?
<p>
The answer, of course, is no. Bin Laden wants to kill as many "infidels" as he can. And so America is locked in a war against this maniac and thousands of terrorists who agree with his philosophy.
<p>
But is America fighting that war the way Genghis Khan would fight it? The question is almost absurd because the answer is so clear: not a chance. This country has nothing close to a "total commitment" in defeating terrorism. We are divided on tactics as well as ethics, and the terrorists know it.
<p>
Writing in The New York Times, Elizabeth Alexander, the Director of the National Prison Project for the ACLU, puts forth: "The Pentagon-approved interrogation techniques that deprive prisoners of sleep and force them to stand in stress positions for extended periods are both disturbing and illegal.
<p>
"It is time for the military to unequivocally ban such officially sanctioned abuse of prisoners."
<p>
Make no mistake, the ACLU wants captured terrorists to have the same rights as American criminals do. So sometime in the future it's very possible that a captured terrorist, who has knowledge of an impending chemical or biological attack, would be interrogated as a bank robber would be. You could not deprive the suspected terrorist of "sleep" nor make him or her unusually uncomfortable.
<p>
My questions: Do you think that's a sane strategy? And do you think the ACLU is looking out for you and your family?
<p>
The kind of theoretical nonsense that the ACLU and others are putting out there must be giving Osama and his boys huge laughs. Look, fair-minded Americans are embarrassed by Abu Ghraib and never want anything like that to happen again. We are better than the terrorists. We should never violate human rights in any circumstance.
<p>
But a middle ground must be found and fast. The terrorists have no rules, they kill at will. But we, the primary targets, have all kinds of boundaries, many of which put us in danger.
<p>
President Bush and Congress should have declared a formal war shortly after September 11th, along with defining new rules of incarceration and interrogation to fit this unique combat situation. U.S. military courts should handle cases of accused terrorism, and harsh interrogation techniques should be approved when there is an "imminent" danger.
<p>
A divided America playing by obsolete rules of engagement is not going to win the war against Bin Laden and his mass murderers. We need to wake up and wise up. As Genghis Khan well understood, it is defeat the enemy or die.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-05-27T07:00:00ZSaving George W. BushBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Saving-George-W.-Bush/18692.html2004-05-20T07:00:00Z2004-05-20T07:00:00ZIf President Bush loses the election next November, it will be his own fault. For some reason, the President refuses to explain the issues that are defining his administration so the folks can understand what the deuce is going on.
<p>
Mr. Bush's policy in Iraq has gone south, but it is not a lost cause. All wars have reversals, and it is the Commander-in-Chief's duty to rally the troops. Do you feel rallied? I don't.
<p>
Likewise on gas prices. Why have they risen so quickly, and what is the President doing about it? I don't know, and it's my job to follow this stuff. The President did tell us he would not release petroleum reserves to drive down prices, but he has not explained why the cost has gone up in the first place.
<p>
The President scored big after the 9/11 attack because he accurately reflected the mood of the country. He was angry, we were angry. He told us exactly what he was going to do in Afghanistan and why. His popularity soared.
<p>
Now he sends his wife to defend him on the Jay Leno program. I like Laura. She's a good spokesperson for the President. But the folks want to hear from him.
<p>
The latest Newsweek poll has Mr. Bush's approval rating at 42%, the lowest of his tenure in office. Even his top campaign advisors admit if the President's approval numbers drop below 40% and stay there, he's toast. One would think Mr. Bush would change his "Cool Hand Luke" strategy of "failure to communicate."
<p>
The thing that might save President Bush is that, despite all the negatives right now, John Kerry has failed to move up significantly in the polls. That same Newsweek poll has the race tied, even with Bush's low job approval number.
<p>
The reason Kerry is languishing is that he has not put forth a clear war-on-terror strategy, and that many independent Americans fear the "far-left" factor which we talked about a few months ago in this space.
<p>
Historically, Americans have rejected extremists in all parties. Barry Goldwater got clobbered and so did George McGovern. General Wesley Clark's presidential run was demolished by his embrace of Michael Moore. So John Kerry has to distance himself from the ultra-liberal wing of his party and so far that has not happened. Hugging Ted Kennedy in Iowa didn't help.
<p>
But Kerry has an even more serious problem on the horizon. Extremist billionaire George Soros is pouring millions into the Democratic cause by funding propaganda websites like MoveOn.org, which runs anti-Bush attack ads all over the country. Soros is a scary guy. An avowed atheist, he wants an "open society" where legalized drugs and few limits on private behavior would be policy. He also loves "income redistribution" through taxation. On thing he doesn't love is how America is fighting terror.
<p>
Speaking at Columbia University last week, Soros said that the U.S. war on terror had claimed more innocent lives than the September 11 attacks. He also put forth that, although America claims to be a liberating country, we're really the oppressors.
<p>
That kind of view might get a standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival, but it's not going to get anyone elected President of the United States. Thus the Soros money could easily become a huge problem for the Candidate Kerry. Sooner or later, he will have to stand up and say how he feels about this sugar daddy Democrat.
<p>
So, ironically, the people who despise President Bush the most, leftist extremists, are actually doing him a favor. The majority of Americans may not like the way Bush is handling the job right now, but do they want a guy like Soros having access to power? Do they share the far left "vision" of America?
<p>
My guess is they do not, and that's why the President is still hanging on. So if Mr. Bush goes down to defeat in November, it will be entirely on him. You can't blame those who hate him. They've helped him out a lot.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-05-20T07:00:00ZLet's Hear It for the Good GuysBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Lets-Hear-It-for-the-Good-Guys/18690.html2004-05-13T07:00:00Z2004-05-13T07:00:00ZFor once, let's hear it for the good guys. If every country in the world fought terrorism as aggressively as the USA and Great Britain, the truly bad guys would be beaten down, perhaps forever.
<p>
But hoping that the nations of the world will respond cohesively to the savagery and potential mass destruction of modern terror is a lost cause. We live in a world of denial and self-interest. You have as much chance of finding the Wizard of Oz as you do persuading some timid and misguided countries to join the fight against the Islama-fascists.
<p>
Even countries like Canada are no longer dependable allies. According to a Macleans poll, 38% of Canadians say their attitude toward the USA has worsened since 9/11. Almost half of our friends to the north see America as arrogant, bullying or dangerous.
<p>
To be sure, the Bush administration's non-compromising stance in Iraq and insistence that terror-enabling states be confronted (Axis of Evil) have put off many foreigners who embrace a far more passive approach toward terrorism. But the Canadian situation exemplifies what is truly going on in this world.
<p>
Over the past two decades, Canada has become committed to secularism and government entitlements. Subsidized medical care, decriminalization of marijuana, gay marriage, extensive welfare for newly arrived immigrants and an aggressively liberal Canadian Broadcasting Company have all become part of the culture. The eastern Canadian press is especially anti-American, and delights in hammering their more traditional American neighbors.
<p>
Thus, it should not have come as a surprise when some high school hockey players from Massachusetts were booed at a match in Montreal. Many Americans were annoyed but quickly forgot the incident. Now, however, our Canadian ally has a far more serious situation on its hands.
<p>
Last January, Army Private Jeremy Hinzman deserted from 82nd Airborne Division and fled to Canada. In March, he was followed by another 82nd Airborne private, Brandon Hughey. Both had voluntarily enlisted in the US military and split only after their unit was ordered to Iraq. They have been granted temporary residence in Canada and hearings will be held on their cases this summer.
<p>
But here's the salt in the wound. The Canadian Broadcasting Company and the Toronto Globe and Mail have reported on the deserters and put them in a sympathetic light. The CBC reporter, Gillian Findlay, said Hughey wanted no part of "George Bush's war..." her words, not Hughey's.
<p>
And the Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick says the two guys are "fine American men."
<p>
Canada has an extradition treaty with the USA, and its law says that political asylum can only be granted to those who could be executed or persecuted if returned to their home countries. Since Iraq is not a declared war, Hinzman and Hughey cannot be executed, and, if returned to the US, they would most likely face five years in prison--hardly a persecution for a crime as serious as desertion.
<p>
Most Canadian observers believe the two will be extradited to the USA, but if they are not, a serious situation will erupt. A country harboring deserters would undermine the US war on terror and demonstrate outright hostility toward America.
<p>
These deserters should have been detained, and their cases quickly heard. Instead, they have websites, media sympathy and a forum in which to bash their country. This circus is insulting to America and especially to those American soldiers who have lost their lives fighting terrorists and supporters of the brutal dictators Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein.
<p>
On my television program, I have advised the Canadian government that if the deserters are not returned post-haste, I will no longer buy Canadian products or visit the country. I believe many Americans will take the same stance.
<p>
A true friend does not hurt you even if he or she disagrees with something you do. Canada may reject the Iraq strategy and we respect its dissent. But actively undermining the U.S. military is quite something else. Ottawa best remember that cold fronts can originate from the south as well.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-05-13T07:00:00ZFifteen QuestionsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fifteen-Questions/18688.html2004-05-06T07:00:00Z2004-05-06T07:00:00ZSince many of the powerful, famous and rich in America have perfected the technique of spin and run, I am enlisting you, the reader, to please ask these people the following questions if you happen to see them at Wal-Mart or something.
<p>
To President Bush: Since CIA chief George Tenet presided over the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the failure to stop 9/11, the failure to find Iraqi WMD's and finally the gross underestimating of post-war problems in Iraq, why does Tenet still hold his job?
<p>
To Donald Rumsfeld: Why did you not inform your boss, the President, the moment you found out about the Iraqi torture allegations?
<p>
To John Kerry: Your Iraq strategy seems to center around giving the United Nations more power in that country. Is that the same United Nations that cut and run after their building was attacked in Baghdad, or another United Nations?
<p>
To Kofi Annan: You have to be aware that UN officials are trying to stonewall the investigation into the oil for food bribery scandal, as letters presented to you prove that. But based upon your lackluster answers on "Meet the Press," you don't seem to care much. Why?
<p>
To Dan Rather: Did you believe that anti-American forces would use the torture pictures you aired to promote violence against America? Because that's what many of them are doing.
<p>
To Barry Bonds: Every time you're asked about whether or not you took high-tech steroids, you give a wise guy answer. Why do you do this and did you take the juice?
<p>
To Howard Stern: No question you're a smart, funny guy who could get high ratings without all the gross out stuff. You just turned 50-years-old and you're a gazillionaire. Is it time to modify your on-air approach?
<p>
To Hillary Clinton: You campaign on the promise that you would improve things for upstate New Yorkers. Yet in many places like Buffalo and Syracuse, things are worse. Do you feel any remorse?
<p>
To Bill Clinton: According to Vanity Fair Magazine, you do not want John Edwards to be chosen as Kerry's running mate. Why do you feel this way, and will you come on the Factor to promote your new book?
<p>
To Howard Dean: Do you believe Bill Clinton and DNC chief Terry McAuliffe sabotaged your campaign?
<p>
To Colin Powell: There is more opium coming out of Afghanistan than ever before. Did you make a deal with the Afghan warlords that in return for keeping the countryside quiet, you would let them deal drugs?
<p>
To Frank Rich: As a columnist for The New York Times you put forth that Mel Gibson's film about Jesus was likely to cause anti-Jewish sentiment. Not one incident of that has been reported. In light of that, do you feel silly?
<p>
To Michael Jackson: Do you feel silly?
<p>
To Janet Jackson: Oh, forget it.
<p>
And finally to Osama Bin Laden: You apparently believe that Allah will reward you for ordering the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, including innocent women and children. How disappointed will you be when that doesn't happen and have you ever read Dante?
<p>
Just asking.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-05-06T07:00:00ZPaging Don CorleoneBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Paging-Don-Corleone/18686.html2004-04-29T07:00:00Z2004-04-29T07:00:00ZIn the last week or so, some of the liberal media like The Village Voice and the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times has hammered John Kerry for being, well, John Kerry. The general criticism is that the guy is not anti-war enough and can't rally the faithful like Howard Dean did.
<p>
But underlying the brickbats is the belief by some Democrats that if Kerry can't surge in the polls now, then when can he?
<p>
President Bush has taken a mauling from the 9/11 Commission theatrics and the bloody theater of battle in Iraq. There is no question that the Bush administration made major mistakes by ignoring Al Qaeda warnings and underestimating anti-American feeling once Saddam was deposed.
<p>
Despite those errors, the President has actually gone UP in some polls and Senator Kerry has either gone down or stayed the same.
<p>
But the more distressing poll question for democrats is the one Fox News/Opinion Dynamics asked: "Regardless of how you plan to vote, who do you really believe will win the 2004 presidential election - Bush or Kerry?"
<p>
Only 29% of the respondents said Kerry. That kind of response would get him booted off "American Idol."
<p>
So some Democrats are worried, even though the Senator has five months left to strut his stuff. The question is, does Kerry even have any stuff?
<p>
I say don't underestimate a guy who was dead last December but made Bela Lugosi look like an amateur two months later. However, Kerry needs to get some policies. The reason Bush hasn't faded is that he is steadfast in fighting the terror war while the best alternative Kerry has is to let the U.N. handle it.
<p>
Here's a news flash, Senator. Many Americans don't trust the United Nations and well remember it cut and ran in Iraq as soon as the going got tough.
<p>
The Bush people, of course, are watching all this carefully. A high-ranking Bush advisor told me that as it stands now, the White House doesn't think John Kerry can beat the President unless Mr. Bush makes a huge Jerry Ford-like mistake. You'll remember that President Ford told a stunned Jimmy Carter and national TV audience that Poland wasn't in the Soviet orbit back in 1975.
<p>
The high-ranking Bush person also told me that if I used his name in any way, I would disappear to the place where Dick Cheney goes and never be seen again.
<p>
So, at this point, the Republican strategy to retain power seems to be a 'rope-a-dope' tactic. Some of you may recall that when Muhammed Ali fought the younger, stronger George Foreman in Africa in 1974, he stood against the ropes, covered his body and face with his hands and arms and allowed Foreman to punch away doing minimal damage. When George finally got tired, Ali knocked him out.
<p>
The President believes he can absorb the media punishment because John Kerry does not have a better plan. Kerry can exhaust himself running around the country spouting slogans, while Bush leans against the White House ropes looking calm and tough-minded.
<p>
Will this work? It will, unless things get dramatically worse in Iraq and/or in the other aspects of the terror war. Or, unless John Kerry comes up with a tough, cogent plan to heighten America's security. All this dopey stuff about lost medals and National Guard attendance will mean little come November. Americans want to punish those who would kill us and keep them on the defensive. They will vote their own security this time.
<p>
Savvy democrats know that and thus are huddling to come up with something to counter W's "firm resolve." Partnering up with the UN guy Brahimi won't do it and neither will promising better relations with the hated France.
<p>
John Kerry needs a wartime consigliore. Paging Don Corleone.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-04-29T07:00:00ZO'Dodge BallBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/ODodge-Ball/18684.html2004-04-21T07:00:00Z2004-04-21T07:00:00ZLet me ask you a direct question: Do you get angry at politicians who avoid answering tough questions? Don't dodge now. Does it bother you that President Bush has only held three press conferences in more than three years? Does it grate on you that Hillary Clinton considers Larry King her media guru? Does it drive you nuts that Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney have sought sympathetic media venues since the war in Iraq started going south?
<p>
If none of the above rankle you, then you're in tune with the latest trend in politics: "Forum Shopping." That means whenever a politician is faced with a controversy or a situation whereby he or she is looking bad, they have certain friendly "forums" where their spin will not be challenged.
<p>
Thus, a politician can seem accessible to the public because they appear on Oprah or Leno or The Daily Show. But these forums are purely entertainment and rarely is the politician put on the spot. They can pretty much say what they want to say.
<p>
Now, there is nothing wrong with our leaders going on entertainment venues. Talking to Jay Leno helped get Arnold elected governor. But if that's all they do--if the only interview deal is a sweetheart deal, then we have a problem in this country.
<p>
Here's an example. I would like to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld one simple question: Why didn't your department warn the country that the aftermath of the war could be very bloody? Was it another intelligence failure?
<p>
I cannot get Rumsfeld to answer that question.
<p>
That's simply wrong. All Americans, including the thousands of families who have sons and daughters serving in Iraq, deserve to know as Rummy might put it, "what the hell is going on."
<p>
Speaking before the Hollywood Radio and Television Society, Ted Koppel said: "I have no problem whatsoever with entertainers and comedians pretending to be journalists; my problem is with journalists pretending to be entertainers."
<p>
With all due respect to Mr. Koppel, whom I do respect, most electronic journalists must have an entertainment component these days, or they are out of business. We can't all work for PBS. It is the rise of ideological entertainers doing quasi-news programs on cable and talk radio that has changed the playing field. Politicians now have many more sympathetic ears in the media than ever before.
<p>
So a calculation is made: Avoid the tough guys and gals who have been trained to ask incisive questions, and meander on over to the cozy little studio on the prairie. All of those seeking power know they can avoid scrutiny and still be "out there" if they choose their conversations wisely.
<p>
Dennis Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher and Michael Savage all have a perfect right to make a living analyzing current events. None of these guys are deceptive. You know what you're getting when you sign up to listen.
<p>
But powerful people making decisions which affect all our lives are being deceptive and cowardly if they avoid answering questions that are sometimes about life and death matters. And that is happening more and more.
<p>
This is a big issue for our Republic. Pay attention to it.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-04-21T07:00:00ZWho's Watching UsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Watching-Us/18680.html2004-04-15T07:00:00Z2004-04-15T07:00:00ZThis checks and balances deal the founders set up has worked pretty well for us here in America. We have a process whereby most powerful people in the public sector can be held accountable for their actions by other powerful people. Hi, there, Richard Nixon. But there is no oversight on the press, which is a private enterprise. We get a free pass and now that's beginning to hurt the nation.
<p>
As you may know, the Federal Communications Commission is cracking down hard on Howard Stern and his outrageous brethren by fining companies that employ them if the shock jocks venture into the murky world of "indecency." You can't have sex on your front lawn, and you can't detail sexual activity on the airwaves owned by the public. Fine. But, to be fair, "indecency"
should be explicitly defined by the FCC.
<p>
When it comes to the news media, there is no FCC to fine us when we do something unsavory like intentionally mislead the public. Let's cite a few examples, and please forgive me because some of these exhibitions are personal. Unfortunately, I am a primary source these days in confronting declining media standards.
<p>
When a fanatical Shi'ite militia attacked American troops in Iraq, many in the press labeled the situation "an uprising." But it wasn't. It was a well-planned power grab attempt directed by a militant cleric with ties to Iran. An uprising is when regular folks throw off those in power. The collapse of the Berlin Wall was an uprising.
<p>
But many newspaper editors chose to headline an "uprising." Some simply made a mistake, but others wanted to put the worst possible face on that action for political reasons. That is deceitful.
<p>
Here's another example. As you may know, The New York Times has done everything it could to disparage Mel Gibson and his movie about the death of Jesus. The Times lost the battle, but continues its jihad.
<p>
Last week Times reporter Anne Thompson played down the success of the film and wrote this: "(Gibson) was able to deploy partisan news-media pundits like Fox's Bill O'Reilly � to appeal to their constituents to show their support by seeing the movie."
<p>
Thompson's statement is flat-out false. I never recommended the film. I told Gibson on television the movie was too violent. That's on the record. And when I attempted to ask the Times to supply evidence that Gibson had "deployed" me, Ombudsman Daniel Okrent refused to take my call.
<p>
The declining standards in journalism extend to television news as well. Recently, right-wing bomb thrower G. Gordon Liddy appeared on CNN and MSNBC and asserted that my radio program was a "failure." Westwood One, the company that syndicates the show, fired off a memo to those networks providing detailed information proving the opposite. Both CNN and MSNBC refused to correct the record.
<p>
I could give you dozens of other examples, but the point is that press accountability no longer exists in this country. Ten years ago most of the media policed itself, at least somewhat. Today that's rare.
<p>
What's changed is that many press outlets are now run by ideologues on a mission. The gloves of fairness are off. These editors have set the journalistic rules on fire, and there is no one to put out the flames. Thus, Americans who depend on information to make responsible decisions about their country are often hoodwinked.
<p>
One more example. A few years ago, The Washington Post ran an article that said I lied about my upbringing--that I was not raised in Levittown, New York as I stated. The article was intended to damage my credibility. That untruth was picked up by scores of media outlets, and was even exploited by a major publishing house.
<p>
Over Easter, I was rummaging through the attic at my mother's home. There I found the house <a href="/images/PDF/deed.pdf" class="homeLinks">deed from 1951.</a> It was sent to my parents by the County Trust Company. The address on the deed is Levittown.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-04-15T07:00:00ZRunning Against HimselfBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Running-Against-Himself/18678.html2004-04-08T07:00:00Z2004-04-08T07:00:00ZAt this point, President Bush is actually running against himself. With the situation in Iraq tenuous, Mr. Bush finds himself in a race against time to straighten things out in the land of Saddam. Even though the U.S. economy is improving, chaos on an overseas battlefield is emerging as the end-game issue in the upcoming election.
<p>
Wisely, John Kerry has said little about the Iraq fighting. You don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale. Kerry would be smart to keep it zipped.
<p>
Also, the Senator can read the polls. President Bush is sinking into the morass that Iraq is threatening to become. If things are this messed up over there next October, Kerry won't have to say a word. He can wave at the voters, and they'll wave him right in.
<p>
So George W. Bush has to stabilize things in Iraq over the next few months, or he goes the way of Lyndon Johnson. Thus, Bush is really running against himself. Can the Commander get things under control in a land rife with fanatics and terrorists?
<p>
Bush should expect no help from the elite media. It has been grossly unfair to him on the economic front, and will spin negative on Iraq as well. There is no question that Bush has made policy mistakes, but economic growth in this country is jumping, and job creation is rising. However, whenever the economic picture is discussed by the elites, there's always the "but factor:" ...but Harvey in Ohio lost his job to Ramal in Calcutta. What about that?
<p>
I think Bush has done a good job on the economy, especially since we are smack in the middle of World War III. The terrorist attack on 9/11 set back any dramatic economic recovery years. Let's be honest about that.
<p>
By November, most Americans will have a republican-driven picture of the economy. The Bush people have nearly 200 million dollars to buy ads trumpeting their economic achievements. Talk about an uptick in spending!
<p>
But Iraq is quite something else. Americans are not going to go for another Vietnam. A war of attrition is not going to cut it, especially since the removal of Saddam was sold as a quick, surgical action with overjoyed Iraqis at the end of the rainbow. That obviously has not happened.
<p>
So the race is on to stabilize Iraq, and fast. The terrorists know Mr. Bush is up for reelection and, interestingly, it seems like they want W out. An increase in terrorist activity would signify that, wouldn't it?
<p>
The President does have a fighting chance, however. Osama bin Laden could be caught, and the Iraqi fanatics could be beaten to their knees. If those things happen, Bush wins. But if the terrorists remain the aggressors, say hello to First Lady Theresa Heinz Kerry.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-04-08T07:00:00ZRadio DazeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Radio-Daze/18670.html2004-04-01T08:00:00Z2004-04-01T08:00:00ZWe are living in desperate times and the radio industry in America proves it. Now we have an "all liberal" network. Just what we need. It isn't enough that conservative bloviators sling radio propaganda all day long; it's apparently imperative that we have constant left-wing bleating as well, even though National Public Radio is heard on more than 700 stations. Here's what we can expect on the left side of the dial.
<p>
"Lou in Seattle, you're on the air."<br>
"Bush is a liar."<br>
"Good call, Lou."<br>
"Halliburton owns Cheney and Laura Bush has hair extensions."<br>
"What about Rumsfeld?"<br>
"He has hair extensions too and lies about them."
<p>
Can't get enough of that, can you? Let's turn the dial to the right.
<p>
"Lorraine in Orlando, what's on your mind?"<br>
"Ditto."<br>
"Ditto what, Lorraine?"<br>
"Kerry is a communist. He has botox."<br>
"And the government probably paid for it, right Lorraine?"<br>
"No doubt. And Hillary dated bin-Laden at Yale..."
<p>
But it's not all politics on the radio, there's other talk as well.
<p>
"Moon Man, how's it hangin' bro? You're the best except for Howard Stern."<br>
"Yo, dude, I am your freedom of speech guy."<br>
"Excellent, Moon. What up with Janet Jackson?"<br>
"I had sex with her, dude, that's a fact ..."
<p>
How about some music, didn't we used to have music on the radio? Let's dial up some rap:
<p>
"My glock is nice<br>
I shot her twice<br>
The ho no mo'<br>
I got ta go ..."
<p>
Number one with a bullet on Felony 97 FM.
<p>
If you think I'm exaggerating, you're wrong. These days radio will put you in a daze. The bilge is unbelievable. Let's go to NPR for some relief.
<p>
"Time for 'All Things Considered' except for competing in the marketplace without public funding. Here's a report from our NPR correspondent in the Middle East."<br>
"There was sadness over a mentally-challenged Palestinian boy wired up as a suicide bomber but by no means is this PLO policy, say reliable Hamas sources who spoke to NPR on the condition that we make them look sympathetic ..."
<p>
Well, maybe NPR isn't the answer. As I mentioned, some believe that network provides plenty of liberal commentary. It sure sounds that way. Maybe it's the soothing tone they use in explaining that anyone opposing gay marriage is a cousin of George Wallace. Perhaps it's the way they frame the debate:
<p>
"Joining us now from Washington is the senior senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, who's policies have enlightened this country for decades. Senator, can we send you an NPR tote bag..."
<p>
Anyway, there's little relief on the radio dial. It's worse than television.
<p>
The ghost of Joseph Goebbels is haunting most radio talk stations and the music people should all be in jail. One last chance for the new liberal network...
<p>
"Shirley in Aspen, what's on your mind?"<br>
"Bush hates cats!"<br>
"How do you know that, Shirl?"<br>
"Read it on Barbra Streisand's website."<br>
"Shirley?"<br>
"Yes."<br>
"What do you think about Bush's lies?"<br>
"Think? Isn't this talk radio?"BillOReilly.com Staff2004-04-01T08:00:00ZActivists Should Not Be JournalistsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Activists-Should-Not-Be-Journalists/18668.html2004-03-25T08:00:00Z2004-03-25T08:00:00ZA few weeks ago in this space, I opined that partisan journalism was getting out of the control in America, and that ideological fanaticism was badly damaging journalistic standards because, in some cases, facts were being altered to fit the agendas of certain reporters and commentators. Now comes more disturbing news about the news.
<p>
According to an article in The New York Times Magazine, a non-publicized meeting was held in New York City early last December, attended by Senator John Kerry and a number of liberal leaning journalists including CNN's Jeff Greenfield, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and Frank Rich of the aforementioned New York Times.
<p>
Now this pow-wow might have been just an innocent 'get to know you' soiree, but there are hints it might have been quite something else. One of the attendees, Jim Kelly, the managing editor of Time Magazine, was quoted as saying that Kerry was asked a number of times about his vote on Iraq and, according to Kelly, "by the third go-round the answer was getting shorter and more relevant."
<p>
The "third go-round?" That sounds like coaching to me but I could be wrong.
<p>
Maybe the Senator simply wasn't making himself clear. What I'm not wrong about is that more than a few so-called journalists have turned into "activists," people who are dedicating themselves to getting a certain party or person elected and are using their positions in the media to do it.
<p>
There is nothing wrong with news organizations endorsing a candidate or a columnist writing about his or her political preferences. But actively participating in political campaigns by coaching candidates and strategizing with them is absolutely against every journalistic standard, and it is happening, usually under the radar.
<p>
John Kerry invited me to his Nantucket home a couple of years ago, and I went over to chat with the Senator and meet his wife. Nice time. We both have deep New England roots, and that's what we talked about. I stayed away from politics, and so did he. Nothing wrong with a journalist getting a personal look at a Senator.
<p>
But let's face it, with the rise of entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show people who openly root for the Republicans, those on the left feel they are at a disadvantage. Thus, we now have that vacuum being filled by some opinion journalists who never met a left-wing cause they didn't espouse. Again, fanatical news analysts are allowed, even though they're boring. But crossing the line into actively helping a political campaign cannot be tolerated by any news operation.
<p>
The exposure of the liberal journalists who met with Kerry received scant attention from the media. Can you image if executives from The Fox News Channel, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Times had gathered at Camp David for a little slap and tickle with W? ...and nobody was told about it? And The New York Times found out about it? Can you say PAGE ONE BOLD FACE HEADLINE?
<p>
So, you, as a news consumer, should know that American journalism is becoming increasingly partisan, and that ideologues on both the right and the left have infiltrated the news business at very high levels. But remember this:
passionate news analysis is one thing--abusing the public trust is quite something else.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-03-25T08:00:00ZWho's Looking Out for the Babies?BillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Whos-Looking-Out-for-the-Babies/18662.html2004-03-18T08:00:00Z2004-03-18T08:00:00ZThis Melissa Ann Rowland case in Utah is a fascinating window on gender politics in America. Here we have a depraved woman who has badly damaged two babies and possibly murdered another one, yet the National Organization for Women is portraying her as the victim.
<p>
The 28-year-old Rowland is a horror. A few years ago, she punched her 2-year-old daughter in the face for taking a candy bar from a store.
Pennsylvania social services placed the child in foster care.
<p>
Then last January 2nd, a doctor at a Salt Lake City hospital told Rowland she had to have an emergency C-section if she wanted to save the life of one of the twin girls she was carrying. Rowland refused, reportedly telling hospital personnel she didn't want "scars."
<p>
Eleven days later, Rowland consented to the C-section, and one of the babies was born dead. An autopsy showed that the baby would have lived had the C-section been performed when the doctor ordered it. The other twin was born with alcohol and cocaine in her bloodstream.
<p>
Rowland's estranged husband, the father of the babies, told a television station that the scar excuse was a ruse, that Rowland simply didn't want doctors to know she was using cocaine during her pregnancy.
<p>
Prosecutors in Utah have now charged Rowland with first degree murder, citing "depraved indifference to human life." She is currently in prison being held on $300,000 bail.
<p>
Enter NOW, perhaps the most radicalized women's group in the history of this country. A few days ago, it issued a press release saying that Rowland's incarceration "is absolutely inhumane treatment." NOW president Kim Gandy opined, "Our legal system recognizes every person's bodily integrity, and the right to make your own medical decisions."
<p>
You might expect NOW to take an extreme position like this because it has quite a track record. Remember, NOW's Texas branch raised money for the defense of Andrea Yates, who was subsequently convicted of killing her five children. NOW claimed she was the victim of "post-partum depression."
<p>
But here's the interesting thing about Ms. Gandy's argument in the Rowland case: she claims every person has "bodily integrity." Okay, fine. So doesn't that description fit a viable baby in the womb? A child who can be birthed and live on its own? Apparently not in Ms. Gandy's view.
<p>
The truth is that NOW and other misguided groups do not believe any unborn child has rights. According to those people, a woman can do whatever she wants during her pregnancy, and even afterward as NOW's Yates defense proves, and not be held accountable.
<p>
It is beyond me how any human being can devalue life in this manner. There is no question that Melissa Ann Rowland damaged her twins in the extreme. Yet NOW opposes the prosecution.
<p>
Fortunately, most Americans reject this kind of barbarity and want protections for babies. Last November Congress overwhelmingly passed a ban on partial birth abortion and it is the law of the land. That hasn't stopped the constitutional challenges, but it does give comfort to those who believe America has lost all moral courage.
<p>
Melissa Ann Rowland is a danger to defenseless children. NOW really doesn't care much about that. To them, Rowland is the person who's rights are being violated... because unborn babies really aren't persons at all.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-03-18T08:00:00ZThe Reluctant Culture WarriorBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Reluctant-Culture-Warrior/18658.html2004-03-11T08:00:00Z2004-03-11T08:00:00ZA new Gallup Poll says George W. Bush is the most polarizing President in the history of its surveys on the subject. It's hard to believe that the good ol' Texas guy is more divisive than, say, Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, but apparently he is.
<p>
Gallup says 91% of Republicans like the President, but just 17% of the Democrats do. In a bad news situation for Mr. Bush, Gallup also sees independent voters shifting away from the Chief Executive.
<p>
What's in play here, I believe, is the increasing polarization of the country, not just the policies of President Bush. We have entered an age where character assassination in the political arena is handsomely rewarded by media chieftains, and standards of civility in the general debate have declined drastically. Political bombthrowers are everywhere: on the radio, on cable, on the pages of smear books. Everybody's a liar, everybody's a cad or cad-ette, and, unfortunately, some of us are eating this stuff up.
<p>
So President Bush shouldn't take the polarization thing personally; it's more about the culture than him. But there is danger here for the President, as it can be difficult to change strong perceptions that can emerge from sensational accusations, proved or not.
<p>
Therefore, it is puzzling that the President does not want to do battle in the culture war, which might bring him more supporters. At this point, his "people" believe he can win re-election as a terror warrior and a tax cutter.
<p>
I don't believe that will be enough.
<p>
Americans are an emotional people, and right now, the emotion is in social issues like job outsourcing, gay marriage and the eviction of God from the public arena. Senator Kerry is hitting the outsourcing thing all day long, so that leaves the President with the "decline of civilization" issues. But he doesn't like them. Neither did his father.
<p>
My observation is that George W. Bush is not a confrontational guy unless you disrespect him, his family or the country. Saddam made a huge mistake by trying to pull a Soprano hit on Bush the elder in Kuwait. When riled up, the President is a hard guy to rile down.
<p>
But he doesn't rile easily. Do you really believe the President cares if Vinnie marries Eric? Mr. Bush may sabre-rattle against the lawlessness of issuing gay marriage licenses, but, believe me, he couldn't care less what gays are doing as long as they don't do it in Crawford.
<p>
As for the crass media culture, well, the President was asleep during the Janet Jackson exposure, and will probably stay in the land of nod on this issue. Steroids are one thing, but mentioning Ludacris and his pals in a presidential speech simply will never happen.
<p>
One of the problems that Mr. Bush has (and Senator Kerry has as well) is that he is not down with the folks and never has been. The concerns of parents vis-a-vis the culture are mostly theoretical to him. While campaigning for President the first time around, Mr. Bush could not name the leader of Pakistan. My money says he doesn't know who 50 Cent is either.
<p>
That kind of distance from the streets is a big deficit for the President because he is not a snobby guy. He genuinely relates to people and must use that personality trait to his advantage against Kerry if he is to win. Mr.
Bush has got to convince the traditional folks, who heavily outnumber the "progressives," that he understands their values and will fight for them.
<p>
But we have seen little of that from the President. We know he likes God, but besides the ACLU, who doesn't? We don't know if Mr. Bush will stand and fight against our cultural collapse, or turn in early. We're all tired, Mr.
President, but there's a big national brawl going on. Get in it and you might win. Stay away and you can turn out the lights.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-03-11T08:00:00ZThis Bud's Not For MeBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/This-Buds-Not-For-Me/18656.html2004-03-04T08:00:00Z2004-03-04T08:00:00ZA couple of years ago I chastised Pepsi for hiring "gangsta" rapper Ludacris as a pitchman. There was a public outcry, Pepsi folded, Ludacris was sacked.
<p>
Now, incredibly, Anheuser-Busch has done the same thing. The company will pay this guy Ludacris big bucks to push beer.
<p>
My basic objection to this is simple: Some American corporations are rewarding bad behavior in pursuit of more profit. Ludacris puts out raps that celebrate criminal activity (such as selling narcotics), general debauchery, and violence against women. There is no question about that.
Does Anheuser-Busch believe that kind exposition is good for the USA? Does the company realize that millions of children, many of them unsupervised, digest the garbage Ludacris puts out? Does the company care?
<p>
Lest you think Ludacris is some kind of Ozzy Osborne, here are some of his
lyrics:
<blockquote>"I got my twin glock .40's, cocked back<br>
Me and my homies, so drop that"
<p>
"My shotguns are cold and hard ... my triggers are always talking about some squeeze me, squeeze me."
<p>
"Hollow bullets I put it<br>
I'm about to live in vain<br>
And then I drill 'em, refill 'em<br>
make sure they feel the pain."
<p>
"I smack bitches with no (breasts) ... "</blockquote>
Talk to most educators in poor neighborhoods and they will tell you that the debasement of our culture, of which gangsta rap is a big part, has coarsened children in general and put high risk kids in a dangerous place. Taking drugs, carrying guns, and disrespecting human beings is now not only socially acceptable in many situations, it is downright glamorous.
<p>
Anheuser-Busch has a gleaming headquarters in St. Louis. It is a place of wealth and power. But a few miles east across the Mississippi lies East St.
Louis, a devastated city where drug gangs rule entire neighborhoods.
Children as young as ten work as look-outs for these gangs; 13-year-olds sell heroin and crack cocaine on the streets. Violence is as common as a garbage pickup.
<p>
Ludacris sells big in East St. Louis and other dangerous neighborhoods across the country. His rap is something these criminal kids can identify with. He understands and encourages the "life."
<p>
Isn't it time Americans demand that corporations stop polluting the country? Whether it's dumping PCB's in waterways or promoting degenerate CD's, corporate chieftains should be held responsible by consumers. Hiring a person like Ludacris to push beer is reprehensible to me and so I will exercise my right not to do business with Anheuser-Busch which, by the way, owns a series of family theme parks across the country.
<p>
On his latest CD, ol' Ludacris has a rap song called "Hoes In My Room." It's a harsh diatribe about, well, women the man does not respect but who somehow inhabit his "space." The last few lines go like this:
<blockquote>"Then it got to my head, and somethin' reminded me<br>
I know who let 'em in, it was Bill O'Reilly - faggot."</blockquote>
So add a gay slur to the list of crudities Ludacris embraces as he gleefully dances down the road to millionaire status. Anheuser-Busch should be very proud to be in business with a guy like this.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-03-04T08:00:00ZLaw, Order and the LeftBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Law-Order-and-the-Left/18654.html2004-02-26T08:00:00Z2004-02-26T08:00:00ZThe rule of law--it's what America is based on. We have very specific rules in this country designed to promote the general welfare and protect the citizenry, and if we don't obey those laws, we are punished. That's the way it's supposed to work.
<p>
Judge Roy Moore did not obey the law. He defied a Federal court order to remove a statue of The Ten Commandments he had placed in the courthouse where he worked as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. So his fellow justices fired him as they should have. Hundreds of newspapers across the country applauded that action on their editorial pages.
<p>
"His supporters don't see (Moore) as the scofflaw that he is," the Washington Post opined, "a man who feels free to ignore the constitutionally designated system by which law is interpreted in a democratic society."
<p>
The Orlando Sentinel put forth, "Mr. Moore's style is reminiscent of another popular Alabama politician - George Wallace. Just like Mr. Wallace, Mr. Moore has little respect for the Constitution or the rule of law."
<p>
And the San Antonio Express-News put it this way: "Moore's refusal to follow the law was clearly out of bounds."
<p>
Very noble, don't you think? Newspapers passionately standing up for the rule of law in the Ten Commandments case. Those editorial writers were certainly looking out for us.
<p>
But wait a minute. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsome has decided that California's law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, a law that was voted on directly by the citizens of the Golden State in a proposition, is not worthy of being obeyed. Newsome took a hard look at that marriage law and not only gave it a thumbs down, he gave it a middle finger up.
<p>
And by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples himself, Mayor Newsome may have actually broken the law in addition to defying it. California Penal Code Section 115 prohibits the filing or recording of any false instrument in any public office.
<p>
Uh-oh.
<p>
So I fully expected to see those tough "rule of law" editorials reprised in The Washington Post, the Orlando Sentinel, and the San Antonio Express-News vis-a-vis Newsome. But, alas, they did not appear in those publications or in most other newspapers. Apparently, the law rules in Alabama, but not in San Francisco.
<p>
This blatant hypocrisy has landed hard on the doorstep of the American left where Newsome is being hailed as a hero. Apparently, if you break laws that liberals don't like, it's okay, but you had better back off from those troubling Ten Commandments.
<p>
If Gavin Newsome really cared about the rule of law, he would have had the San Francisco police chief arrest him. The time honored tradition of civil disobedience is an American strength. But you're supposed to pay a price for that action. Newsome has paid zero. He fought the law and the law lost. California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, and Governor Arnold are still hiding under their desks.
<p>
What kind of message does this send to Americans who don't like a variety of other laws? What if some California mayor started issuing handgun permits because he believed the Second Amendment was being trashed in the Golden State? You think the media, Governor Arnold and Attorney General Lockyer would do nothing? Yeah, and I'm Annie Oakley.
<p>
Either the law rules or it doesn't. And in California and much of the liberal press, it doesn't.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-02-26T08:00:00ZHating MelBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hating-Mel/18652.html2004-02-19T08:00:00Z2004-02-19T08:00:00ZHere's a no spin review of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ," which opens on Ash Wednesday. First off, the film is a faithful rendition of the execution of Jesus according to the four Gospels. Only twice does Gibson stray from scripture. The initial departure is to introduce Satan into the narrative; that does not happen in the Bible.
<p>
Second, Gibson beefs up the role of Simon of Cyrene, the Jew who was forced by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross when he could no longer do it. Simon emerges as a heroic figure.
<p>
The film runs two hours and at least half of it is explicitly violent. The pain Jesus endured at the hands of the brutal Roman soldiers became numbing to watch after a while, at least to me. Gibson clearly wants the audience to be uncomfortable, because the torture scenes are unrelenting. This kind of exposition, of course, is not for everyone.
<p>
If you are familiar with the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, nothing in the film's script will surprise you. There are Jewish villains and Jewish heroes. Most of the Romans are awful. The story line does not depart from traditional Christian teaching. Yet the movie and Gibson himself continue to be viciously attacked. Why?
<p>
Even Abraham Foxman, the militant leader of the Anti-Defamation League, now admits the film is not anti-Semitic. Yet Foxman continues to object to it on the basis of what it might do. And that's the crux of this matter. Some Jews believe persecution is just a shout away, to quote Mick Jagger. This perspective must be respected. For thousands of years Jews have been treated with brutality and disrespect, often by the followers of Jesus.
<p>
So fair-minded people can understand the emotion that some Jews feel when they hear that a Jewish character, Judas, betrays Jesus and another Jewish character, Caiphas, who agitates for his death in the movie. The apprehension is real and understandable, but it is wrong to use it as an excuse to vilify a man who wants to tell a scriptural story that he believes illustrates his faith.
<p>
As the Muslim killers on 9/11 and the pedophile Catholic priests prove, there are bad people in all religions. Rational individuals understand that although evil has many faces, it does not reside in any particular race. Even at the height of Third Reich atrocities, there were good Germans.
<p>
People who hate Jews don't need a movie to fuel their neurosis. Haters will find a way. And ironically, Mel Gibson's movie is about love. Christians believe Jesus loved mankind so much that he was willingly gave up his life to give human beings redemption from their failings. Also, please remember that Jesus, above all, was a Jew.
<p>
The brutal attacks on Gibson may themselves create bad will. Most Americans who see this movie, I believe, will respect Gibson for making it. They may well see the defamation that has been heaped on him as grossly unfair.
<p>
In the interest of full disclosure, I have done some business with Mel Gibson. His company optioned my novel "Those Who Trespass" for the movies. This was long before "The Passion" was in production.
<p>
So I know the guy a bit and I know his passion is to persuade people that Jesus was a man to be admired and imitated. It is Gibson's prerogative to use the Gospels to make that point. It is also the prerogative of his critics to frown on the project.
<p>
But trying to destroy the man's reputation is something else. It reminds me of Roman justice: guilt or innocence really didn't matter as long as the harsh punishment set a frightening example. Ad hominem, indeed.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-02-19T08:00:00ZThe Press is a Weapon of Mass DestructionBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Press-is-a-Weapon-of-Mass-Destruction/18640.html2004-02-11T08:00:00Z2004-02-11T08:00:00ZLife is hard, and then you go on "Good Morning America." A few days ago I told Charles Gibson that my analysis of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction situation was wrong. Well, you would have thought I had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, the left-wing press was so overjoyed.
<p>
Take this passage from the Reuters News Service: "Popular conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly, usually an outspoken Bush loyalist, said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration ..."
<p>
An outspoken Bush loyalist?
<p>
How about this from The New York Daily News, which, in its wisdom, carries this column: "When even Bill O'Reilly starts snapping at him, the President has difficulties."
<p>
Even?
<p>
Even the London Telegraph got into it: "A cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq apologized to Americans yesterday ..."
<p>
Give me a W! Give me an M! Give me a D!
<p>
All I did was admit that my analysis was wrong, and guys like U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter were right. And I placed the blame for the faulty intelligence right where it belongs--on CIA chief George Tenet. Not on Bill Clinton. Not on Tony Blair. And not on President Bush, although I do believe all of those men were not skeptical enough about the WMD intel in the run up to the war.
<p>
Anyone who reads this column or listens to my commentaries on television or radio knows that I think independently. President Bush has done some good things, and some not so good things; likewise, President Clinton and every other Chief Executive.
<p>
But the ideological press has a hard time with commentators who don't fit a predictable mold. In the world of the partisan, you are either with 'em or against 'em. In the foggy world of committed ideology, facts are things to be used to advance various causes.
<p>
I have been critical of the Bush administration for its lax border policy, for its failure to encourage fuel standards for American vehicles, and for its secrecy, among other things.
<p>
I have praised Mr. Bush for lowering taxes, aggressively fighting terrorism and for confronting a corrupt United Nations, among other things. My job is to look out for the folks and call 'em as I see 'em, not sink into the morass of partisan politics.
<p>
The good news is that the nation's most powerful news service, the Associated Press, covered my "apology" fairly. The AP pointed out that I still support the removal of Saddam because the world is a safer place and terrorists have lost much opportunity in the Middle East.
<p>
Once again, I will tell you that much of the nation's press is far too ideological, and hard news coverage is being twisted in the process. In many cases, you are getting only part of important stories, and you are being misled by ideologues masquerading as journalists.
<p>
We are living in dangerous times when information is critical to the well being of you and your family. Fanatics overseas want to kill us, and fanatics at home want to manipulate us. Every politician, journalist and, indeed, every person makes mistakes. Owning up to them is the mark of an honest individual.
<p>
I made a mistake on my analysis of the WMD threat in Iraq. I acknowledged said mistake. But that's all there is to it. There is no need for joy in Mudville.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-02-11T08:00:00ZAmerican Culture ExposedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/American-Culture-Exposed/18632.html2004-02-05T08:00:00Z2004-02-05T08:00:00ZParis Hilton and I hung together at the Super Bowl. Well, that may be overstating things a bit. Twice I happened to find myself standing next to her at parties, but the woman had no idea who your humble correspondent was.
Instead, her vacant look clearly signaled to the world the essence of her philosophical outlook: "Here I am."
<p>
The Super Bowl and Miss Hilton were perfect companions, as both are glitzy, hyper and well financed. And the event itself accurately portrays what is good and what is bad about America. The actual game was magnificent; hard working athletes performed heroically on both teams, and the competition was breathtaking. American society was built by hard work, competition and self-reliance. All of that was reflected on the field.
<p>
But the excesses of the Super Bowl got just as much attention as its champions. Janet Jackson's sleazy half-time performance symbolizes the debasement that has befallen American culture. But far from being outraged, I'm glad Ms. Jackson and the Timberlake kid did what they did. Now there is nowhere for the purveyors of crude to hide.
<p>
Let's walk through this. As a regular guy, I have no problem with Janet Jackson's chest. Quite the contrary! If the diva were to offer me a private look, I'd charter a plane. However, Ms. Jackson's half time exposition was inappropriate and disrespectful. If she is capable of one lucid moment, she had to know that millions of families were watching the performance, and her sexual writhing and breast baring would offend many of them.
<p>
But like Madonna and Miss Spears, Janet simply did not care. She makes a ton of money acting lasciviously, and blank you if you don't like it.
<p>
I got a great kick out of MTV and the NFL honchos being shocked, just <i>shocked</i>, that something crude happened on stage. MTV produced the program, and for years, that outfit has reveled in debauchery. It should be named DTV. I mean, come on! What did the moguls expect would happen when Kid Rock, Nelly and the rest took the stage? In the world of rock and hip-hop, anything goes--the more provocative, the better.
<p>
Perhaps now Americans will face the facts. Our popular culture has collapsed. For every Beyonce who shows a bit of class, there are dozens of performers who can't write lyrics about whores, glocks and drugs fast enough. The sex and violence available on the net, CD's and DVD's is numbing. Children are exposed to a constant media barrage of degenerate behavior, and if they want a break, commercial television now offers them a variety of "reality" programs where they can watch people eat bugs and demean women.
<p>
Of course, the rich and powerful in this country couldn't care less about all this. Howard Dean, for example, doesn't know what all the fuss is about vis-�-vis Ms. Jackson. You won't be hearing much about the debasement of our culture in the upcoming presidential race because, more than likely, the candidates will be contributing to it with slanderous personal attacks on each other.
<p>
Here's why all this matters: Children who admire crude performers are likely to incorporate some of their attitudes into their own lives. Already you see millions of young Americans covered with tattoos, unable to speak proper English, unwilling to read a book or a newspaper. How do you think these people are going to compete in our hypercompetitive economic marketplace?
The answer is that millions of them will be unable to compete, and will be doomed to a low wage existence. IBM will not hire you if you have a tattoo on your neck. And P. Diddy won't help you either.
<p>
So maybe this Super Bowl half time controversy will finally wake some people up. American culture has collapsed and big corporations are responsible.
However, they, Janet Jackson and the MTV executives are laughing all the way to the bank... a bank millions of young Americans may never even need if they continue to buy into this garbage.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-02-05T08:00:00ZEnslaving KidsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Enslaving-Kids/18622.html2004-01-29T08:00:00Z2004-01-29T08:00:00ZEven after the mass murder on September 11, 2001, some people still have trouble accepting the fact that evil is a formidable presence in this world. This column will break down that resistance. There are hundreds of thousands of children the world over who are being sold into sexual slavery, and little is being done about it even by the United States government.
<p>
I first encountered this story in 1991 when I traveled to Thailand and bought an 11-year-old girl for less than $200. The negotiation was captured on tape and reported on the program I was then anchoring, "Inside Edition."
On the streets of Bangkok, thousands of young children are sold into prostitution. The pimps and brothel owners bribe police, and evil parents gave up their offspring for a pittance.
<p>
The New York Times Sunday Magazine recently provided an update on this story and, according to its reporter, the sex slavery industry is now firmly embedded in the USA. In many cases, the children are smuggled here through Mexico, where it is easy to bribe authorities. Once the border is reached, the children are shepherded across and vans take them to cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. Of course, crossing the border is easy, as our federal government will not secure it.
<p>
Some of these child sex slaves are Mexicans, but some come from other poor countries. Sex traffickers funnel them into Mexico and introduce them to prostitution using threats of violence and mayhem. You can imagine the fear and pain of a child in this situation. It is unspeakable.
<p>
The rise of the internet has spurred the child sex slave industry. Kiddie porn is big business, and pictures of horribly abused kids can now be accessed by anyone with software. When evil and technology merge, the situation becomes catastrophic.
<p>
Enter the American justice system. Shamefully, in some cases it is doing everything it can to "protect" people who brutalize and enslave children:
<ul>
<li>The American Civil Liberties Union is representing the North American Man-Boy Love Association pro bono in a Massachusetts case.
<li>Federal judge Dennis Chin denied the FBI a warrant in the notorious "Candyman" Internet sting case. The feds busted a child porn website and secured the names of Americans who did business with it. They then asked various judges for warrants to search the homes and computers of said individuals. Chin said no, because he believed one could do business with child pornographers and not commit a criminal act.
<li>An American named Jorge Pabon Cruz distributed more than 8,000 pictures of children being raped, sexually abused, and brutalized during a three month period in 2001. Pabon Cruz advertised his sick site on other websites, one of which was named "childrape." Pabon Cruz trafficked in the most vile images imaginable including pictures of infants being raped.
<p>
In October 2002, this monster was convicted of advertising for the receipt, exchange, and distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to ten years in a federal prison. That was a mandatory sentence approved by a vote of Congress.
<p>
But the presiding federal judge in New York City, Gerard Lynch, publicly objected to the sentence, saying he would have given Pabon Cruz just five years. Lynch, who was appointed by President Clinton, as was Chin, made a big deal of this. Talk about sympathy for the devil!
</ul>
So, recapping, Judges Chin and Lynch witnessed the most vile acts adults can do to children short of murder. Yet these judges did not fully cooperate with a system trying to harshly punish the adults involved... adults who are literally destroying the lives of defenseless children.
<p>
Add that to the incredible actions of the ACLU, which apparently believes an organization devoted solely to encouraging pedophilia and legalizing sex between children and adults is entitled to a free defense.
<p>
So the logical question is, aren't these judges and this so-called "civil liberties" organization enabling evil? To me, the answer is obvious. Evil cannot exist without human involvement and cooperation. And there's plenty of that going around.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-01-29T08:00:00ZLet's Hear it for PersistenceBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Lets-Hear-it-for-Persistence/18578.html2004-01-22T08:00:00Z2004-01-22T08:00:00ZLet's Hear it for Persistence<br>
for BillOReilly.com<br>
by Bill O'Reilly<p>
No matter what happens to John Kerry in the presidential campaign you have to give the guy enormous credit. His tenacious work ethic in Iowa symbolized what makes an American successful: Never giving up and working your butt off.<p>
Two weeks ago Senator Kerry's campaign was dead and ready to be buried; people were throwing dirt on it. Donations were drying up and Kerry had to refinance his own home to pay his campaign bills. Granted that home is a palatial affair on Boston's Beacon Hill, and his wife is one of the wealthiest women in the world but, still, Kerry had hit rock bottom politically speaking.<p>
However, like Rocky Balboa, John Kerry kept coming back again and again. He continued punching and finally his chief opponent, Howard Dean, went down under the weight of media scrutiny and a prickly temperament. Kerry was left standing tall.<p>
All Americans should learn from this. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thought John Kerry would win Iowa. But he did by sheer determination.<p>
So, what now? Well, here is where the music behind Kerry's victory dance stops. <p>
Outside of New England the Senator has some major problems. He is typed as a Massachusetts liberal and his appearance with Ted Kennedy in Iowa will do nothing to dispel that. While John Edwards is a stranger to the folks in New Hampshire, Kerry is simply strange to many folks south of the Mason-Dixon line and throughout much of the Midwest. Big spending, secularists like Kennedy are not real popular with the folks in flyover country. Kerry must define himself to these people without Teddy giving him a big hug. It won't be easy.
<p>
President Bush and his man in the shadows Karl Rove were not real happy with the Iowa results. They badly want Howard Dean as an opponent feeling he could set himself on fire (symbolically speaking) at any moment. If he wins the nomination, John Kerry will be a far cagier opponent.
<p>
In his State of the Union Address, the President fired the first volley at Kerry. Mr. Bush will stand behind traditional marriage between a man and a woman while Kerry represents a state that is trying to redefine the institution to include homosexuals. Kerry will fall back on supporting "civil unions" and not gay marriage but suspicion will remain especially if droves of gays start honeymooning on Cape Cod next summer.
<p>
Senator Kerry must be very careful about how he goes after Mr. Bush. His "regime change" rant hurt him because the President is perceived in many quarters as protecting Americans against the Al Qaeda Huns. Kerry could diminish the President's military service but that would be a major mistake and Kerry, I believe, will not do it. Most Americans do not want that kind of slash and burn campaigning and the Senator is smart enough to know it.
<p>
So Kerry must debate policy with an incumbent who has an improving economy and the bully pulpit in his pocket. Very, very tough.
<p>
Still, if Kerry is the nominee the guy will be everywhere. He'll make Richard Simmons look comatose. John Kerry will race around the country and come to your house if he knows the address. He will pound on your door, pry open your window and cook breakfast for you if that what it takes.
<p>
This guy wants to be the President of the United States - hide the children.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-01-22T08:00:00ZFair Warning to the DemocratsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Fair-Warning-to-the-Democrats/18558.html2004-01-15T08:00:00Z2004-01-15T08:00:00ZThis is my second attempt in this space to convince the Democratic Party that it is committing political suicide by aligning itself with the far left. Now listen up. This country needs two strong political parties, and should have more. If the democrats self-destruct, the Bush people will run wild. They are already taken with themselves, and largely unavailable to the folks. With no competition, Dick Cheney might never be seen again.
<p>
A poll by the Pew Research Center says that just 20% of Americans consider themselves "liberals," and you have to assume half of that crowd is somewhat moderate. That leaves only 10% running around calling the President a nazi and worshiping at the altar of secularism.
<p>
But that ten percent is making a lot of noise, and has a ton of influence on the Democratic establishment. Billionaire George Soros is the big money man for the Democrats this season, and old George is one far out character. He wants to legalize pretty much every vice, sees merit in euthanasia, and is moaning there isn't enough "income redistribution" in the world. Maybe that's because the Soviet Union collapsed, George. Get a clue.
<p>
Soros is pouring millions of bucks into radical movements like MoveOn.org, a website that never saw a left-wing issue it didn't embrace. Recently in New York City, the MoveOn people held a contest to see who could come up with the best anti-Bush ad. When a few Bush-nazi commercials showed up, the website panicked because of the bad press. But why the commotion? Surely, these people know their propaganda makes the most extreme radicals dance.
<p>
And guess who showed up to judge the MoveOn contest? James Carville and Donna Brazile, two card carrying members of the democratic establishment. They were surrounded by the usual suspects: Janeane Garofalo, Stuart Smalley and the rest of the Mao-sketeers.
<p>
Carville and Brazile looked on with glee as rock star Moby called the President "a f---ing liar."
<p>
As rapper Chuck D opined: "We don't want eight more years of a Colon, a Bush, and a D--- (Cheney)."
<p>
As actress Julia Stiles said: "I was afraid Bill O'Reilly would come with a shotgun at my front door and shoot me for being unpatriotic."
<p>
Good grief! I don't even own a shotgun. No worries, Julia, just enjoy the land of Oz.
<p>
Exactly what are everyday Americans supposed to think when they see the likes of Soros and these show biz people launching into the most far out political discourse in memory? And Carville and Brazile are right in the middle of it?
<p>
So I am sending a final warning to the Democratic Party, which my family belonged to for more than one hundred years. Wise up before it's too late.
People judge you by those with whom you associate. To paraphrase a 60's protest song: "You don't believe you're on the eve of destruction?"
<p>
Well, you are.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-01-15T08:00:00ZYes We Can'tBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Yes-We-Cant/18542.html2004-01-08T08:00:00Z2004-01-08T08:00:00ZHere's how President Bush and the republican establishment see it: African-Americans make up 13% of the population, and Hispanic-Americans are at 14%.
<p>
Doing the math, that is a big number to cede to the democrats every four years. Forget about converting most blacks--the GOP has no clue. But there are millions of conservative Hispanics, and this amnesty's for you.
<p>
Mr. Bush's new proposal to allow about ten million illegal aliens to work and live in the USA is a calculated political move. He is betting that his supporters, many of whom will not like the quasi-amnesty, will vote for him anyway, especially if Howard Dean is his opponent.
<p>
And by showing compassion to millions of Hispanic illegals, the President hopes to win some hearts and minds and, most importantly, votes.
<p>
The question is: Will the new program help America? The answer is no. That's because Mr. Bush has proposed a situation that is all carrot cake and no stick. Once the poor of the world realize that anyone who sneaks into America illegally can get the benefits of living in this country, the flood gates, which are already open, will crack completely.
<p>
Remember, the immigration mess we have now started after Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegals in 1986. Since that time, tens of millions of undocumented people have found a way to the USA, hoping for exactly what Mr.
Bush has now given them. Why wouldn't millions more follow that lead?
<p>
I actually support the President's program, if he would get serious about supervising the borders and prosecuting companies who continue to hire illegals after the amnesty kicks in. The Border Patrol flat out admits it cannot stop the flood of people and narcotics coming from Mexico.
<p>
So why not have the National Guard assist the Border Patrol? The President could make that happen, but will not. He also has no plan to crack down on employers who continue to break the rules. Mr. Bush has a "yes, we can't" attitude when it comes to imposing discipline on the illegal problem.
<p>
Finally, it is a pipe dream to think that allowing millions of poorly educated people to assimilate into the USA will not be without unintended consequences. Under the program, millions of illegals will be bringing family members here, and their period of adjustment will not be easy.
<p>
Right now, 34% of all LEGAL Mexican immigrants are on welfare, and 25% of illegals are getting government assistance. That number will not decline, as some illegals will make it and some will not.
<p>
So get set for massive new human smuggling operations as the world's gangsters see gold at the end of the illegal immigration rainbow. Billions of people the world over would love to come to America. President Bush has not solved the immigration problem, and may have made it much worse. Ten years from today this country will be a much different place. Count on it.BillOReilly.com Staff2004-01-08T08:00:00ZBad Year RisingBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bad-Year-Rising/18522.html2003-12-25T08:00:00Z2003-12-25T08:00:00ZAccording to a recent Gallup poll, most Americans want Saddam Hussein tried in an International Court, but 24% say a U.S. military court should decide his fate. This, of course, would be a disaster, because America's legal system is so screwed up, Saddam might wind up a winner. Here's what could possibly happen.
<p>
The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco, a legal body modeled on the philosophy of Che Guevara and the most overturned federal court in U.S. history, might well rule the military court unconstitutional because as we all know, military people have strict rules of behavior and make judgments. The Ninth would never abide that.
<p>
Immediately after the Ninth ruled, Saddam would find himself in civilian criminal court and would hire Mark Geragos and Johnnie Cochran to represent him.
<p>
Geragos would book himself on the Larry King program and declare that Saddam was not responsible for the mass murderers in Iraq... devil worshipers were. Geragos would convince Larry that the devil people infiltrated Saddam's inner circle without his knowledge. Only Saddam's sons knew about the insidious activities. Too bad they're dead.
<p>
At the same time, Cochran would be asserting that U.S. forces actually planted the tens of thousands of bodies that were dug up in mass graves. Yes, that would have been difficult, Cochran would tell the E Entertainment Network, but if the Los Angeles police department could plant evidence on every single criminal case it had ever investigated, then surely the American Armed Forces could transport one hundred thousand dead bodies into Iraq.
<p>
E! would also report that Cochran had evidence Colombian drug dealers actually held Saddam hostage and ordered him to invade Kuwait.
<p>
In the preliminary hearing, Geragos would demand Saddam be let out of prison and housed at the Neverland ranch so he, Geragos, could do the needed leg work on the Michael Jackson case and Saddam's situation at the same time. Geragos would also file a motion to suppress everything Saddam has ever said in his entire life.
<p>
Meantime, Cochran would raise the race issue. He'd produce an American corporal who had uttered anti-Arab remarks while taking machine gun fire in a foxhole. Using that evidence, Cochran could then weave a brilliant line of logic: If Americans were so hateful towards Saddam's forces, why wouldn't they develop hideous weapons and violate international law? Anyone would, it was absolutely a matter of self defense.
<p>
Cochran would then have Saddam try on all his old uniforms and they would not fit. Obviously, then, this man isn't really Saddam after all. He's Scott Petersen.
<p>
Geragos would then jump in quickly. If Scott Peterson were in Baghdad all these years, he couldn't possibly have killed his wife Lacy and their unborn child. Different devil worshipers did that. And Geragos would convince Larry King that those people worked at Fox News. Al Franken would back him up.
<p>
In the end, Saddam Hussein would be acquitted by a jury which found reasonable doubt indeed. No weapons of mass destruction. Planted bodies all over the place. Devil people running wild. No wonder things went wrong in Iraq. But you can't blame Saddam.
<p>
The delighted dictator would then move to Florida and buy a nifty home near O.J., because the Sunshine State will let you keep your assets no matter how many people you kill and torture.
<p>
A few months later, Saddam would appear on Dateline and proclaim that he would spend the rest of his days trying to track down the real culprits in Iraq. He would also file suit for millions, claiming Michael Jackson had molested him at Neverland.
<p>
American justice. There's none better.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-12-25T08:00:00ZThe Secrets of SaddamBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Secrets-of-Saddam/18516.html2003-12-18T08:00:00Z2003-12-18T08:00:00ZIn August of 2002, thugs from Saddam Hussein's secret police shot notorious terrorist Abu Nidal dead in a Baghdad residence where he had been staying as Saddam's "guest." The Iraqis immediately labeled Nidal's death as a suicide, causing much commotion among fans of CSI as the man apparently shot himself four times in the head.
<p>
Nidal, you may remember, was a Palestinian killer who roamed Europe and the Middle East in the 70's and 80's, creating mayhem and murdering civilians. He felt right at home in Iraq. So why was he murdered? Good question.
<p>
The importance of this execution may be enormous. The Sunday Telegraph in London is reporting that a document discovered in Iraq details a meeting between Nidal and the leader of the 9/11 attack, Mohammed Atta. The document was allegedly written by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (ISI) and a man still on the run.
<p>
Dated July 1, 2001, three months before 9/11, the text says that Atta, along with a man named Abu Ammer, met with Nidal for three days under the direct supervision of the ISI. The document mentions "targets that we agree must be destroyed."
<p>
If this memorandum is legitimate, it will obviously change many things because it establishes that elusive link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. First, Howard Dean's credibility will be shattered, and he will cease to be a viable candidate for the Democrats.
<p>
Second, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Nations will be humiliated. And third, the far-left anti-war people will be marginalized for years to come in this country.
<p>
One must assume that the Bush administration knows about this captured document which is now believed to be in the hands of Iraqis working for the interim government. But it has not been mentioned in any public way in the U.S. Since disinformation is common in Iraq, and since the anti-Saddam Iraqi contingent was woefully wrong about WMD's, the Bush people may be prudent (as Bush the elder might say) in keeping quiet about this until its validity is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.
<p>
Saddam, of course, knows every devious thing his government did. This is why there should be no rush to bring him to trial. The CIA should take all the time it needs to find out everything this psychopath knows. And they should use all methods short of instrumental torture to get answers.
<p>
Saddam should be deprived of sleep, loaded up with truth serum, kept isolated and underfed, confronted with noise... whatever it takes. While the United Nations and the Vatican complain about his "dignity," most Americans would like to be protected from another 9/11, thank you very much.
<p>
With CIA analyst David Kay still searching for those annoying WMD's, with Saddam in custody, with a potentially explosive ISI memo in play, just about anything could happen in the next few months vis-a-vis Iraq. There are a lot of very powerful people sweating these developments as they could be career altering.
<p>
Even though he is now a common prisoner, Saddam Hussein retains a vast amount of power simply because of what he knows. It will be fascinating to see how he uses that power.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-12-18T08:00:00ZAnother Win for the FolksBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Another-Win-for-the-Folks/18500.html2003-12-11T08:00:00Z2003-12-11T08:00:00ZAbercrombie and Fitch has raised the white T-shirt and surrendered. It is pulling its soft-core porn clothing catalog because the outcry has hurt the only thing that matters to A&F: the bottom line.
<p>
Same store sales in November were down 13% in an approving economy. Apparently showing naked people in the catalog was stimulating--just not to clothing sales.
<p>
As you may know, Abercrombie and Fitch's target customer is between 12 and 25, so it is no wonder that a catalog promoting group sex would get some parents upset. A&F claimed the catalog was not sold to anyone under 18, but let's get real here: Kids were seeing it.
<p>
The catalog itself was perplexing as a marketing tool. It describes how great group sex is, and that dolphins do it. So what kind of clothing are dolphins wearing these days? Do they have little sweatshirts on while jumping each other under the waves?
<p>
The secular New York Times described the situation using the same tactic it did during the Reagan movie drama. The controversy was generated by "conservatives," those kill joy pessimists who want to ruin all the fun.
<p>
Here's how the Times put it: "After loud and sustained protests from socially conservative groups and feminist groups, the company announced ... it was withdrawing the (catalog)."
<p>
Sure. It's only those nasty right-wingers and feminists that stirred this up. Liberal or independent thinkers would never object to their kids seeing a half-dozen nude models doing the lambada together. In the world of The New York Times, everyday Americans would have no trouble with any of that.
<p>
Are you getting the picture here? Every time an issue of incredibly bad taste arises, like this catalog and the Reagan movie, the secular press tries to marginalize the opposition by defining it in political terms.
<p>
The truth is that most non-ideological Americans are getting sick and tired of offensive displays and outrageous behavior being rammed down their throats. Secularists do not want any judgments made about personal behavior, and if you oppose that, they try to make you out to be some kind of junior Jerry Falwell, demanding that everyone convert to Christianity. It's simply dishonest.
<p>
Here's proof that regular Americans have had enough. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll says that 87% of Americans approve of Nativity scenes being displayed on public property during Christmas. Perhaps that's because the federal holiday of Christmas honors the birth of Jesus so there might be some context here.
<p>
But you probably did not read about that poll in the secular press. Maybe if they threw some group sex questions in that survey, it would get wider exposure.
<p>
Never before in this country has such a slender secular minority had so much power. The ACLU has succeeded in knocking nativity scenes out all over the country against the will of the people. The New York City school system even forbids any display of the birth of Jesus in its buildings. So much for the history of a national holiday.
<p>
The one-two punch of outrageous and offensive behavior and the diminishment of public spirituality is something this country is going to have to come to terms with.
<p>
Time after time commerce and the polls show that Americans want traditional values and are appalled by inappropriate material marketed to children. In the end, the will of the people will likely prevail, as the Abercrombie and Fitch situation proves. But the proponents of a secular society are fierce, and they are not going away anytime soon.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-12-11T08:00:00ZBush and the StarsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Bush-and-the-Stars/18454.html2003-12-04T08:00:00Z2003-12-04T08:00:00ZYou may have heard that some Hollywood types are organizing to unseat President Bush next year. "So what," you say. "What can these people really do?"
<p>
Well, they've got money, number one. Far-left billionaire George Soros has pledged ten million to a group called "America Coming Together" which is recruiting celebrities like Julia Louis Dreyfuss, Rob Reiner, and Mike Farrell to spread the anti-Bush word.
<p>
But money is not really the issue here... access is. Here's what's going on.
<p>
Right now, only about half of the voting age population in America actually votes. And for Americans under the age of 30, the percentage is far less than that. The anti-Bush forces believe if they can reach young Americans, they can boot the President out. But the only way to connect with many of those people is through entertainment vehicles. And that's where the celebrities come in.
<p>
Increasingly, singers like Bruce Springsteen and the Dixie Chicks, to name just four, are using their venues to talk up liberal politics. So are other performers like Sean Penn, George Clooney and Susan Sarandon. While promoting their films, they drop anti-Bush grenades that millions of people hear. The message is getting stronger and louder: Bush is a menace.
<p>
This strategy will become even more organized and intense in the coming campaign year. The danger for Republicans is that only the anti-Bush side will be heard as many entertainment venues do not actively seek political balance. Let's take a look at the landscape.
<ul>
<li>Jay Leno is a fair guy and books people on all sides of the political spectrum so there's no problem here.<br><br>
<li>David Letterman is a different story. Since Labor Day, for example, his guest list has included far more liberal thinkers than right-leaning people. The anti-Bush people will have support on this program.<br><br>
<li>The network morning programs are hosted by people who are primarily socially liberal, but these shows do present a wide variety of guests. However, conservatives are usually challenged harder, and celebrities are mostly given soft treatment. The democrats have an advantage in the morning.<br><br>
<li>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a liberal funhouse, but right-wingers with a sense of humor are welcome, so this venue is a political wash.<br><br>
<li>Oprah wields enormous power, but does not get involved with partisan politics much. However, she will allow celebrities almost free reign. Advantage: Hollywood liberals.<br><br>
<li>The View ladies take a decidedly liberal approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they are not exclusionary. You can get a contrarian point across on the program, but you'd better be quick.<br><br>
<li>The late night gabfests like Conan O'Brien play to their young viewership which means the mean, old Republicans don't have a chance there.
</ul>
So if liberal entertainment people really invest some time and effort, it might be bad news for President Bush. We are living in a time where perception is reality, and impressions are formed from rank propaganda and outright deception. A flood of anti-Bush celebrities on the chat shows could help the Democratic candidate bigtime, and the GOP really has no answer. Can you imagine Dick Cheney dishing with Star Jones?
<p>
The left-wing sharpies see an electoral potential in the young vote and they believe they've found a way to tap into it. Seven hundred votes decided the last presidential election. This time Letterman is good for at least that.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-12-04T08:00:00ZSchooling AroundBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Schooling-Around/18440.html2003-11-26T08:00:00Z2003-11-26T08:00:00ZAfter a decade of pouring billions into the public school system, the final exams are in: American kids are not reading much better than they did ten years ago and there's no way to spin it otherwise.
<p>
The National Assessment of Educational Progress says that only 31% of fourth graders read at a "proficient" level; for eighth graders, the percentage rises to 32%.
<p>
This, of course, is a disaster and one that will lead to economic deprivation for millions of Americans in the coming decades.
<p>
Presidents Bush and Clinton both promised that more money would solve the educational problem, but that has turned out to be false. The reason so many American students can't read very well is two-fold: first, many parents do not encourage reading, allowing their kids unfettered access to TV, computers and crude music.
<p>
And second, discipline in many public schools is woeful. Students simply are not held accountable for behavior and academic performance.
<p>
Consider the following as a microcosm of what's going on. In the small town of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, a 16-year-old high school junior named Alexander Smith stood up in the cafeteria of his public school and called the Principal, Betty Kirby, a "skank" and a "tramp."
<p>
Smith was suspended for ten days. Enter the American Civil Liberties Union which sued on Smith's behalf. The ACLU said his speech was a "parody," and therefore protected.
<p>
A federal judge agreed and struck down Michigan's verbal assault law. While the judge did rule that the school had a right to discipline Smith, it could not do so simply on his abusive statements alone.
<p>
This kind of nonsense is happening all over the USA. The ACLU, which I believe is the most dangerous organization in America, is on the prowl. It will bring litigation against anything it sees as limiting "freedom of expression," even if that expression demeans and humiliates school teachers and administrators.
<p>
Think about it. How can teachers possibly keep order in large schools when students know there are few consequences to outrageous behavior? Anything said can be described as "satire" or a "parody." In Houston, a survey of public school teachers finds 70% of them have been the targets of profane language by students. That's an awful lot of parody.
<p>
We are living in a hypercompetitive society where the kids who can read, think, and are respectful will prosper, while the children who do not learn those things will, most likely, find it difficult to earn a good living as adults.
<p>
The ACLU and its acolytes are succeeding in undermining almost every traditional institution in the country. Patriotism, spirituality, respect for authority, and basic moral values are all under siege from a well-funded, secular lobby that envisions a society free of judgments about personal behavior. And if that society falls apart in the process, so be it.
<p>
It is certainly true that you have a "right" to be an illiterate, unskilled person under our Constitution. You have a "right" to be irresponsible and to be lazy. Those attributes are strongly defended by the ACLU and some federal judges who believe responsible Americans should support irresponsible ones with their tax dollars. And anyone who disagrees with that thesis is immediately labeled a dreaded "conservative."
<p>
I feel badly for Alexander Smith and for the Principal he verbally assaulted. Both have been poorly served by our rapidly degenerating social system. Many Michigan kids now know they can call just about anybody a "skank" and a "tramp." But the question is, can they even spell those words?BillOReilly.com Staff2003-11-26T08:00:00ZJuicedBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Juiced/18424.html2003-11-20T08:00:00Z2003-11-20T08:00:00ZIn August of 2001, I had the privilege of singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" at Wrigley Field in Chicago. After brutalizing that tune, I was asked to do an inning of color commentary on the game between the Cubs and the Cards for Fox Sports.
<p>
I agreed and sat down with announcers Joe Buck and Tim McCarver who, to be honest, didn't look all that thrilled with my presence. Would you?
<p>
Anyway, I opened up with an observation that Cardinals' slugger Mark McGwire could not even pinch hit in the game because his body had broken down. Then I asked if Buck and McCarver thought his condition might have something to do with all the "supplements" McGwire had admitted taking to bulk up his body.
<p>
There was an awkward silence and finally Buck said, "It was such a nice afternoon, what happened?"
<p>
We all laughed, but the question was never answered, primarily because Major League Baseball didn't want it to be answered. However, the dirty secret in pro sports is now out in the open: steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are all over the place.
<p>
I know this because a friend of mine, the former NFL lineman Lyle Alzado, told me years ago that steroid use was common among pro football players. He told me that a few months before he died from cancer. He strongly believed the steroids contributed to the cancer.
<p>
He described his routine of injecting himself with what he called "juice" very vividly. I will never forget it.
<p>
Pumped up athletes are now common, and few believe you can change your entire physical makeup in the weightroom. Young people know that big stars make millions and drugs are how some of them got there. Many spectators don't care, but they should.
<p>
Sports are really an art form, and the skill players bring to their games can be beautiful to watch. But bodies built by chemicals are not beautiful, they are perverse. The professional sports leagues in America should be ashamed for looking the other way all these years.
<p>
How many American kids are ruining their bodies by using the latest supplemental junk? It's impossible to say, but think millions. Lyle Alzado never imagined he would die in his early 40's. But he did, and he was one tough guy.
<p>
Growing up, I was thrilled by the exploits of Willie Mays, Frank Gifford, Walt Frazier and Rod Gilbert. These guys were magical. They were blessed with tremendous skills and brought joy to the millions of fans who watched them compete with discipline and flair. There was something clean about sports back then. That is no longer the case.
<p>
Now we have superfreaks, driven by money and tacitly encouraged by leagues which put dollars above all. Want to ruin your body? Fine. As long as you can hit that baseball or sack that quarterback.
<p>
You can still take me out to the ballgame, but I know it will never be the same. The juice is no longer in cups, it is running through veins. The "supplement" pushers have changed everything but, as Alzado and McGwire found out, there is always a price to pay.
<p>
To quote an old ad line: "It's not nice to fool around with Mother Nature."BillOReilly.com Staff2003-11-20T08:00:00ZThe Great DivideBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Great-Divide/18404.html2003-11-13T08:00:00Z2003-11-13T08:00:00ZAnger can be a terrific motivating force, and we are seeing that in the run-up to next year's presidential campaign. The far-left literally hates President Bush, and is putting its money where its loathing is.
<p>
I believe Howard Dean is the most shocked man in America. He's leading the Democratic pack, despite being a guy who supports gun ownership.
The simple fact that he is vehemently against the Iraq war has caused the Bush haters to pour millions of dollars into this campaign. Do they know the NRA loves this guy?
<p>
They might, but they don't care. So intense is the displeasure with anything Bush that some committed liberals will support the person who attacks the President the hardest, which Dean has done.
<p>
But anger is a funny thing. Used sparingly, it can lead to positive change. But used constantly, it is destructive, and far-left anger may, indeed, destroy the Democratic party's chances of capturing the White House next year.
<p>
Even The New York Times, generally friendly to the left, realizes this and in the last few weeks a few of its columnists have hinted that liberal angst should be tamped down.
<p>
Americans are getting annoyed with defamation and over the top accusations. Even when there is some validity to charges, such as the Schwarzenegger-women exposition, Americans do not want a witch hunt or smear campaign. The California recall vote proves that.
<p>
President Bush also realizes that the more the bomb-throwers bellow, the easier it will be for him to stake out "the voice of reason" territory.
<p>
Thus, Mr. Bush is adopting the Muhammed Ali technique of rope-a-dope. He is laying back, letting the frenzied opposition flail away, knowing it will eventually exhaust itself and collapse in a heap. Most Americans are not ideologues and will soon find the fanatics tiresome.
<p>
The far-left is also allowing the Bush administration to dismiss legitimate criticism over the tottering Iraq situation. By accusing Mr. Bush of intentionally lying about WMD's, and Vice President Cheney of promoting war to help his business buddies, the accusers marginalize themselves.
<p>
Unless there is direct proof of intentional deceit and wrongdoing, the charges become vicious propaganda and many Americans tune out.
<p>
There are certainly legitimate questions about how the Bush administration could apparently be so wrong about WMD's and the violent aftermath of the formal war. But the President can avoid addressing those questions if they are lost among irrational harangues by his opponents, many of whom are still seething over the last election.
<p>
The far-left also has another enormous problem. Even though it is driving the Democratic agenda now, its positions on a number of social issues are extremely offensive to much of the country.
<p>
All the polls say the vast majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion and want parent notification when their daughters become pregnant. Americans overwhelmingly want the Pledge of Allegiance to contain the words "under God." They do not want legalized narcotics, or higher taxes on anybody.
<p>
The far-left is on the wrong side of all of those issues, and therefore anyone associated with them has no chance to win the Presidency.
<p>
If Dean is nominated, he will lose even if Iraq falls apart. If Hillary Clinton or Al Gore jump in, they have no chance if they partner up with the ACLU.
<p>
So here's a tip for all you "progressives" out there. The country may not like what is happening in Iraq, the groping of women, or a huge federal deficit.
<p>
But what Americans like even less are fanatics that scorn America's traditions and mock any sense of fair play. And if you left-wingers are angry now, wait until you see what happens if you don't cool off. Four more years.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-11-13T08:00:00ZDon't Mess With the FolksBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Dont-Mess-With-the-Folks/18368.html2003-11-06T08:00:00Z2003-11-06T08:00:00ZIt is simply astounding that some people are spinning this Reagan movie controversy as a censorship issue. The usual left-wing suspects are screaming the "conservatives" forced CBS to abandon the project. <p>
The New York Times editorialized, "It should have come as no surprise that conservatives, protective of Mr. Reagan's image at all times, would launch on the fierce assaults that have become so familiar whenever the right wants to scare the media... "
<p>
And Barbra Streisand, an increasingly amusing presence, says, "This is censorship, pure and simple." One wonders if The Times and Streisand would react the same way if Bill Clinton, on his deathbed, was mocked in a network docu-drama starring Pamela Anderson as Monica Lewinsky.
<p>
The truth is that the Reagan movie demeans a dying President and the wife who is caring for him. Ten years from now, this Reagan film could run all day long, and most of the public wouldn't really care. <p>
Certainly, the Kennedy family has been worked over by the TV movie czars. But Americans are not big on cruelty when it can be associated with current tragedy. Nancy Reagan, herself, called the movie cruel and many Americans see it that way.
<p>
CBS, wisely, does not want to be in the "cruelty business," as they say in the bistros of Beverly Hills. But there are two questions in play here. First, how could a hokey, over-the-top film like this get greenlighted in the first place, and second, what about Dr. Laura?
<p>
Let's take Laura Schlessinger first. You'll remember the radio advice-giver tried to launch a syndicated TV program but was picketed by gay rights activists. They objected to her Biblical take on the morality of homosexuality. They threatened to boycott sponsors and implored Paramount to cancel Laura. Her show went down in flames.
<p>
Maybe I missed the New York Times editorial deploring "politically correct" censorship in this case. As for Babs? Well, the silence was deafening.
<p>
So could this be a case of selective outrage over perceived right-wing "censorship?" Or are we dealing with outright hypocrisy here? You make the call.
<p>
I have often stated that the media is not looking out for you, because it doesn't understand you, nor does it care about you. The "folks" are seen as ratings points--dollar signs.
<p>
You might think that a movie about the Reagans written by a liberal, produced by two liberals, directed by a left-winger, and starring the husband of Barbra Streisand might have raised a red flag or two. But not in the hallways of CBS Entertainment. That kind of roster is common in show business, so why would anyone question it?
<p>
And even when the film was screened, few at CBS understood the brewing perfect storm. They simply don't know how much of the country thinks.
<p>
But there's something else. Do you think CBS would have financed a movie about the Gores written by Rush Limbaugh? Of course not. Anyone pitching that would have been mocked and scorned. But it's okay to carve up the Reagans? More hypocrisy?
<p>
In the end, this is another victory for the folks, not for the political ideologues. CBS could not care less if a few million conservative zealots object to a program.
<p>
But when the wind shifts and the fire of indignation starts taking hold in the minds of everyday Americans who value fairness, then CBS and every other media outfit must care.
<p>
For if they ignore those alarms, they will surely go down in flames.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-11-06T08:00:00ZThe Truth About BushBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/The-Truth-About-Bush/18310.html2003-10-30T08:00:00Z2003-10-30T08:00:00Z<p>
A couple of weeks ago in this space I ran down the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic presidential contenders, so now to be "fair and balanced" let's evaluate President Bush.
<p>
His strongest suit is the bond he forged with the American people immediately following the terror attack on September 11th. Mr. Bush reacted the way most Americans reacted: with anger and a stark determination to right the wrong.
<p>
And he did, he dethroned the Taliban and sent Al Qaeda into the caves. That sequence of events provided Bush with an emotional attachment to the folks. Only two other American Presidents in my lifetime have had that: John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
<p>
George W. Bush is also a strong leader. He doesn't waffle around, and he isn't poll driven. He makes determinations and sticks to them. Some believe this is a minus, but I think a strong leader is a major plus in this time of terror.
<p>
So, the President's determination to stay the course could very much help him win re-election if the course is deemed successful. That's the hard part.
<p>
Also, Mr. Bush is seen as an honest man who espouses traditional values. That will shore up his conservative base, and even though he's a huge spender, the right-wing will not abandon him.
<p>
Finally in the plus department, the President is helped by those who are demonizing him. The criticism is so over the top in many quarters that legitimate questions about Bush's leadership are sometimes lost among all the vitriol.
<p>
The loony left's defamatory attacks persuade no one; they are simply shrill notes to the choir that already despises the President. Bush rarely responds to the grenades, wisely calculating that the excessive venom will turn off independent-thinking Americans.
<p>
And now for the downside. The President rarely shows his affable side, because he distrusts his ability to communicate. He cloisters himself behind iron gates when he should be holding town meetings and interacting with the people. When Mr. Bush speaks from the heart, he comes across well.
<p>
When he relies on canned speeches and statements, he looks like Don Knotts. He has good reason to distrust the press, but that doesn't mean he should avoid it. Mr. Bush's inaccessibility is a major drawback.
<p>
While the economy is picking up and will recede as a major campaign issue, the President has enormous problems in Iraq. He must acknowledge those difficulties and explain the mistakes his administration has made.
<p>
Mr. Bush continues to run a tightly controlled, closed shop. This will hurt him in a close election race. Americans will accept mistakes from a President, but they will not accept uncertainty. Bush's failure to get out in front of the administration's problems and define the payoff a stable Iraq will deliver is the biggest weapon the democrats have against him.
<p>
The President is generally disliked overseas and that's not good. He is portrayed in many places as an American chauvinist with a poor frame of reference. Thus, he is underestimated by prigs like Chirac and Schroeder.
<p>
The upside is that Mr. Bush is feared by the bad guys. Osama will not be visiting a Club Med anytime soon. But the President should make an attempt to be conciliatory to countries that might possibly help America down the road. He must swallow some pride, and if he doesn't, the country will suffer.
<p>
All in all, George W. Bush could go either way in the history books. If his Iraqi gamble pays off and worldwide terrorism is kept on the defensive, he will be well remembered. If Iraq degenerates into a fiasco, he'll sidle up alongside Lyndon Johnson.
<p>
Like him or not, the President is a man of strength and weakness. But the war on terror will define him, and that war is still to be determined.BillOReilly.com Staff2003-10-30T08:00:00ZMedia BiasBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Media-Bias/18288.html2003-10-15T07:00:00Z2003-10-15T07:00:00Z<p>
A recent Gallup Poll says nearly half the country believes the media is biased left and this poll proves one thing: The people who told the pollsters that are smarter than I am.
<p>
For most of my journalistic career, I did not believe there was institutional bias on the part of the media. I felt there was an exclusionary bias.
<p>
That is certain opinions and issues simply were ignored by the major media. For example, I worked for two network news organizations and the only time you'd hear a pro-life opinion would be if some nut blew up an abortion clinic.
<p>
But I've now learned the hard way that liberal bias is a way of life for many media organizations.
<p>
Over the past few months I have been slimed, smeared, and pilloried primarily by leftists who do not approve of my commentary.
<p>
I am not whining, I'm reporting. And to put things into perspective, what actors Mel Gibson and Arnold Schwarzenegger have recently suffered at the hands of the left-wing press makes my situation look like an episode of "Happy Days."
<p>
These guys have been viciously attacked and even their own fathers have been used as bludgeons against them. Awful doesn't even begin to describe it.
<p>
In my case the attacks are very personal but also designed to advance the far-left agenda.
<p>
<b>Item:</b> When my new book "Who's Looking Out for You?" hit number one on the New York Times bestseller list, it was described as an "attack" vehicle.
<p>
In reality the book is a primer for everyday Americans on how to achieve success and stability.
<p>
In the past ten years only two people have had three number one non-fiction bestsellers on the Times list: Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and your humble correspondent.
<p>
Yet somehow the Times has not gotten around to reviewing any of my books while tomes by the liberal "satirists" are given major exposure.
<p>
<b>Item:</b> People Magazine assigned a man who loathes me (I know, I know it's hard to believe) to review "Who's Looking Out for You?" Newsflash - he didn't like it.
<p>
<b>Item:</b> A National Public Radio interviewer insisted on reading that People Magazine review on the air during her chat with me. When I strongly suggested she read the very positive review in Publisher's Weekly magazine as well, she refused.
<p>
<b>Item:</b> Matt Lauer on The Today Show sat there smirking as one of the far-left "satirists" defamed me. When my publicist called The Today Show asking for a chance to respond, the program turned me down.
<p>
To be fair Barbara Walters gave me fair play on "The View" and did challenge the "satirist" so there is not a left-wing monolith in play here.
<p>
But there is no question that scores of left-winger press people have now emerged from the closet and are out for blood, the same way hard right-wing ideologues were during the Clinton administration.
<p>
However, the hard right did not have access to the elite media and that's a key however.
<p>
The assault from the left is directly because of the unprecedented success of the Fox Newschannel.
<p>
Perceived by the "progressive" community to be conservative, the network drives the far-left absolutely crazy. That politically correct bastion, CNN, has been decimated in the ratings by FNC, and traditionalists finally have a place on television to put forth their points of view.
<p>
Of course, liberal voices are given the same opportunity on Fox but it doesn't matter to the far-left ideologues. For decades, they controlled the agenda on TV news.
<p>
Now that's over. All voices are heard.
<p>
So the far-left is counter-attacking and God help you if you're in their sights.
<p>
My name is no longer Bill O'Reilly, it's "gasbag," "bully," "liar," and "blowhard." Those descriptions are not confined to opinion pieces but are routinely used in hard news stories as well.
<p>
The far-left media has loaded up on sticks and stones and is eager to hurl them.
<p>
There is some good news, though. Never again can many news organizations claim any kind of fairness or non-partisanship.
<p>
They have been flushed out of the weeds for all to see.
<p>
Excuse me for a moment, something just went whizzing by my head.
<p>BillOReilly.com Staff2003-10-15T07:00:00ZIt's The War, StupidBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Its-The-War-Stupid/18200.html2003-09-10T07:00:00Z2003-09-10T07:00:00Z<p>
For a country smack in the middle of World War III, we are certainly a blas� bunch.
<p>
We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost and whether we have an "exit strategy" in Iraq.
<p>
Craven politicians and crazed columnists are second guessing President Bush who, at times, looks like he's first guessing the nation's foreign policy.
<p>
Since Mr. Bush, for some inexplicable reason, will not spell it out for you it falls on me to do so.
<p>
There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that.
<p>
These people are taught from the time they are children that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet.
<p>
There is no negotiation with the most of these zealots; there is nothing one can say to dissuade them.
<p>
They want blood and they will use any and all means to get it.
<p>
A number of nations help these killers and allow the murderous anti-American indoctrination to continue generation after generation.
<p>
Iran, Indonesia, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the most threatening to us, although the Saudis do have some pro-American government officials like Prince Bandar, its ambassador to the United States.
<p>
Iraq used to be a terrorist enabler primarily by helping the homicide bombers kill civilians in Israel but Saddam Hussein was open to causing trouble for the USA however he could.
<p>
The Islamic killers thrive on the Palestinian situation. As long as the Palestinians are denied a state of their own, the propaganda machine that demonizes Israel and America will roll along unchallenged in the Arab world.
<p>
So the only way to break down the hatred many Arabs have toward us is to forge a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement that both sides can live with.
<p>
In order for Israel to cooperate in this effort fully, it needs to feel secure. Having the Americans in Iraq helps that effort.
<p>
Also, the USA needs a democratic outpost in the Middle East to put pressure on the terrorist states of Iran and Syria.
<p>
A foothold in that region makes it infinitely more difficult for Al Qaeda to carry out its evil doing.
<p>
Just the huge CIA presence in Iraq alone, gives the USA a major advantage in learning about terrorist operations before they hurt we the people.
<p>
This nonsense about the United Nations rescuing America in Iraq is something Aesop would have published.
<p>
The UN is a chaotic chamber with no sense of urgency about terrorism and no sympathy towards the USA.
<p>
Now some of that antipathy might be justified but not when American lives are at stake.
<p>
In a perfect world, all countries that aid and abet terrorism would be isolated and embargoed. But this is far from a perfect world.
<p>
The failure of France, Germany, Russia and China to aggressively help America neutralize terror states is an outrage of historic proportions. France is the worst.
<p>
The Chirac government lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell about enforcing the UN resolution demanding Saddam cooperate with the weapons inspectors.
<p>
Then France actively undermined both the war and the occupation. President Bush should level with the American people about the duplicity of France and, to a lesser extent, Germany.
<p>
I know this would cause an uproar but what the French have done to hurt America and Israel is unconscionable.
<p>
At the same time, the Bush administration must begin earnestly persuading nations that are not overtly hostile to us that we don't want to dominate the world, we want to make it safe for everyone.
<p>
Finally, World War III is unlike any war in history and mistakes will be made in the fighting of it.
<p>
The Bush administration has the correct global view regarding terrorism but poor communications skills both within the country and abroad.
<p>
The sad truth is that most people don't even know that World War III is underway and have little understanding of the strategies and stakes.
<p>
But believe me, you and your family are in danger. We must stop the partisan bickering and acknowledge that brain-washed fanatics have us in their sights.
<p>
And this time there's no Geneva Convention and no limits on deadly weaponry. This time there is no "exit strategy."
<p>
It's us or them.
<p>BillOReilly.com Staff2003-09-10T07:00:00ZHearts and MindsBillOReilly.com Staffhttp://www.BillOReilly.com/b/Hearts-and-Minds/18062.html2003-07-25T07:00:00Z2003-07-25T07:00:00ZPresident Bush is currently engaged in two battles: One against terrorists and the other for the hearts and minds of Americans.
<p>
On the terror front things picked up with the killings of Uday and Qusay Hussein, two unspeakable villains who might be having some "issues" with Allah right at this moment.
<p>
Before the demise of the torture twins, Mr. Bush was riding low. His intelligence apparatus was in chaos.
<p>
The Hussein boys, Osama Bin-Laden, Mullah Omar and a bunch of other evil doers were still doing bad things and the CIA seemed clueless as to how to stop them.
<p>
Also, the weapons of mass destruction continued to be MIA and Tony Blair had to fly in to calm things down.
<p>
Let's not even mention the president's poll numbers.
<p>
So seeing Uday and Qusay on slabs was a respite for the Bush White House which remains a tense place. The anti-Bush ideologues are running wild and the President, himself, refuses to confront them.
<p>
This is a great mystery because the Democratic party is actually split on the issue of Bush's leadership.
<p>
The left-wing of the party is calling the President a liar and incompetent, the moderate wing led by Senator Joseph Lieberman is saying that's nonsense, the war made sense and the WMD's were there.
<p>
Even Bill Clinton now says Bush did not lie but made a very understandable mistake about nukes in his State of the Union address.
<p>
According to the polls, the American people are not buying the lying scenario seeing it as a weak excuse to demonize Bush.
<p>
The folks are, however, exceptionally concerned about a body-a-day coming back from Iraq. The guerrilla war over there is especially unsettling because we were not prepared for it.
<p>
The bluster of Donald Rumsfeld did not cover the possibility of a protracted fight after the fall of Saddam.
<p>
The Bush administration won the war but did not fully defeat the enemy and therein lies the President's main problem.
<p>
The Pentagon allowed most Iraqi soldiers to go home totally unsupervised. Some of these guys have lived to fight another day. Now we have to beat them all over again.
<p>
There is no plan B here for Mr. Bush. The USA has to stay in Iraq at all costs. To withdraw would be a catastrophic failure and would not only ruin the President, it would embolden America's enemies the world over. So there is really no choice in Iraq.
<p>
We must subdue the guerrillas and stabilize the place.
<p>
With that in mind the President needs to send in more soldiers and convince some of our allies to help.
<p>
Russian troops are definitely needed. A combined American and Russian force would send a powerful message to the troublemakers of the world.
<p>
President Bush must level with Vladimir Putin. The USA has pumped up Russia's economy with billions of dollars. Now that debt must be paid or all future economic help will be severely cut back.
<p>
Americans have become the wallets of the world and when we need help, chits should be called in or the giant wallet will be closed in the future.
<p>
The fortunate deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein have given President Bush a temporary reprieve.
<p>
George Tennant, the CIA chief, also gets a small amount of slack. But the Bush administration better find Saddam, Osama, and Omar and it better explain the WMD situation.
<p>
If it does not, history and the American people will render judgment and it will most likely not be kind.
<p>BillOReilly.com Staff2003-07-25T07:00:00Z