O'Reilly denies 'Colluding' with Gang of 8 Republicans on Immigration then behaves as if he did

The charge was first alleged earlier this week in an article by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker. In essence, Lizza claims that gang of 8 Republicans in the Immigration debate (he names Rubio and McCain specifically) have lobbied Fox News hosts to garner support for the Immigration Reform (Amnesty) bill.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the New Yorker piece:

McCain said that he, Graham, Rubio, and others also have talked privately to top hosts at Fox, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto, who are now relatively sympathetic to the Gang's proposed bill. Hannity voiced support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which he previously dismissed as "amnesty," on the day after the 2012 election.

On his June 20th program, O'Reilly came out in his Talking Points Memo, right out of the gate, claiming that such a charge was ridiculous. He mocked the notion that he has 'colluded' with anyone, referring to his show as a 'no collusion zone' while also making reference to an off-air call he had with... wait for it... Marco Rubio. He then came out in full support of the Gang of 8's bill before going to a soft-shoe interview with another 'Gang of 8' Republican - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Click here to see the TPM / Flake interview.


When someone is busted doing something untoward or wrong, the response of an unrepentant suspect is almost universally similar; he or she smears either the accuser, the charge, or both as ludicrous. While this is not proof of wrongdoing, it is a trait of wrongdoers. People who are wrongfully charged, rightfully have similar reactions; this is what makes the response so effective.

Right after O'Reilly's powder puff interview with Flake, he had talk show host Laura Ingraham on to debate the issue further. O'Reilly had not one sound argument in response to Ingraham and came across as incoherent before ending the interview by telling Ingraham he disagrees with her "100 percent".



Interestingly, one of the biggest talking points to come out of the Gang of 8 and by extension - the Republican Party establishment - has been that immigration reform must be passed or the Party will destroy itself with Hispanics. You know who else has been making this argument?

Far left Democrats like Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is also in the Gang of 8:



In an article by Michael D. Shear at the New York Times, he reports that the Obama administration itself is the driving force behind the Gang of 8. Again, the same fatally flawed argument was put forth:

Passage of immigration legislation is critical to Mr. Obama’s legacy but could also help Republicans repair their image with Hispanics — a rare confluence of political interests that has stoked optimism among supporters that it will pass the Senate in the next several weeks.

So, a primary reason why the Republicans need to pass the bill is to prevent the destruction of its own Party and this is the same argument put forth by the opposing Party?!

To recap, in response to reports that O'Reilly talked privately with Republican Gang of 8 members who allegedly lobbied him hard / colluded with him to support the immigration bill, the Fox News host does the following:

1. Admits to having at least one private phone conversation with Marco Rubio but attempts to dismiss it.
2. Follows that up by giving another Republican Gang of 8 member a platform on which both men publicly align with each other on the Gang of 8 bill.
3. Interviews Laura Ingraham shortly thereafter and defends another Republican Gang of 8 member - John McCain - without offering one coherent response to Ingraham's problems with the bill.

O'Reilly appears to be looking out more for the Gang of 8 than for the folks.

There is definitely more to this.

Video: O'Reilly loses it; calls Alan Colmes a 'liar' to his face... several times

If I had to sit and listen to Alan Colmes spin Democratic Party talking points every week, I'd have a similar type of meltdown here. The argument started with O'Reilly asking Colmes where Obama committed to cutting federal spending. The only thing Colmes could come up with was an empty promise Obama to cut medicare. When O'Reilly asked for specifics, Colmes couldn't deliver.

The only missed opportunity from O'Reilly was that Obamacare does the exact opposite with medicare. In fact, the Democrats double-counted to get the CBO to score the cost under $1 trillion.

Via WND:

The question Bill O'Reilly didn't ask Marc Lamont Hill in interview about Christopher Dorner

"...If I was insensitive to the families, I offer them my condolences, but.." - Marc LaMont Hill on the O'Reilly Factor 2/14/13

The reason Columbia professor Marc LaMont Hill appeared on the O'Reilly Factor was because of his comments during a panel discussion on CNN a day earlier. During that discussion, Hill seemed to heap praise on cop killer, Christopher Dorner while making reference to Django Unchained and calling the comparison 'exciting'.

First, check out the short clip of Hill on CNN that led to his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor:



A day later, Hill appeared on O'Reilly's show. The host was right to confront Hill and didn't go easy on him but he did miss a huge opportunity to expose Hill for who the Columbia professor really is. While Dorner murdered several people, he was also a cop killer. Hill knows another cop killer quite well. In fact, quite well. His name is Mumia Abu Jamal, sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing police officer Daniel Faulkner.

In 2009, Hill allowed Jamal to write a weekly column for the former's website and introduced the cop killer thusly, via NewsReal:

I am thrilled to announce that Mumia Abu-Jamal has joined the Barbershop as a weekly contributor!! His column, Live From Death Row, will appear every Wednesday starting next week.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of the world's most celebrated journalists, freedom fighters, and political prisoners. Since his early days in Philadelphia, Mumia was an active member of the Black freedom sruggle. From his award-winning journalism to his involvement with the Black Panther Party, Mumia has devoted his life to Black liberation. Wrongfully incarcerated since 1981 for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia has continued to place a spotlight on various forms of injustice around the globe through his numerous columns, commentaries, and books. Mumia has generated international support for his own case, which has been one of the most glaring and repugnant reflections of the criminal (in)justice system.

So, in 2009, while giving a cop killer a weekly platform, Hill referred to that cop killer as a 'political prisoner' and was 'thrilled to make the announcement'.

In 2011, Hill and Jamal co-wrote a book entitled the Classroom and the Cell, which consists of very comfortable and agreeable exchanges between the two men. In fact, Hill likely found it 'exciting' to publish the book.

You can watch the interview between O'Reilly and Hill below but once again, when presented with an opportunity to expose a creature of the left for what he truly is, folks like O'Reilly take a pass. Are we to believe he didn't know about Hill's collaborative work with Mumia Abu Jamal? Considering that Hill used to be a Fox News Contributor who made regular appearances on O'Reilly's show, that's hard to believe. Even if it were plausible, it's an indictment of the Fox News host's research team. It's also false to call it irrelevant; it's extremely relevant because it makes the case against Hill that the professor is trying to prevent from being made.

The likely answer is that O'Reilly just didn't want to go there, a dynamic not all that dissimilar from Mitt Romney not wanting to call Obama a 'socialist'.

How'd that work out?

Via MediaIte:

Video: Sports Writer quoted by Bob Costas outed as a Racist

Not sure how I missed this but the letter written to Bill O'Reilly by Fox Sports writer Jason Whitlock in response to a request to be interviewed on O'Reilly's show was nothing short of over-the-top racist. Whitlock is the same guy whom Bob Costas quoted after the Jovan Belcher murder / suicide that found the NBC sportscaster in hot water almost two weeks ago.

In the days after Costas' elevation of Whitlock on a national stage, he went on Whitlock's radio show and didn't do himself any favors.

The good news? One of the consequences of Bob Costas' decision to line up with Whitlock on national television over a second amendment issue following a high profile case is that Whitlock is being exposed for the racist he is. The bad news (for Costas) is that aligning with Whitlock on any issue - especially one as controversial as the Belcher case and gun control - is a poor reflection on Costas.

If you haven't seen this, it's a must-watch.

Via the Daily Caller:

Benghazi-gate: Geraldo displays firewall protecting the common sense region of his brain... twice

To fully appreciate Geraldo Rivera's two appearances on Fox News (Fox & Friends and then the O'Reilly Factor) to discuss Benghazi-gate, consider three issues relative to the attack:

1. The lack of security for months leading up to the attack
2. The attack itself coupled with the Obama administration's failure to respond
3. The decision to point to the anti-Muhammad video for two weeks after the attack

Rivera has decided to side with the administration lock, stock, and barrel but he obviously believes that a vigorous defense of team Obama on issue number 2 is the best course. He obviously wants to talk about the other two issues as little as possible. When Eric Bolling brings up issue number 3, Geraldo shamefully doubles down on issue number 2 while also implying that Tyrone Woods' father is a liar but only because the father of the slain Navy SEAL has been misled by right-wing partisans (yes, that sounds like an insult to Charles Woods' intelligence).

Geraldo has no answers for issues number 1 and number 3 (this becomes blatantly obvious in his interview with O'Reilly, who made Rivera look like an unhinged adolescent who was growing increasingly frustrated with his inability to successfully argue with an adult).

First up, Geraldo vs. Bolling via MediaIte:

That night, Geraldo appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to discuss Benghazi-gate in general and his exchange with Bolling in particular. To call what Geraldo did filibustering would make a seasoned politician blush. O'Reilly kept pushing Rivera to talk about issue number 1 but the Fox News liberal simply couldn't go there until about three minutes in and even then, he meandered around the issue and actually said he hates to agree with O'Reilly, which could explain why he refuses to lower the self-constructed firewall he's placed in front of the common sense region of his brain.

O'Reilly makes mincemeat of Geraldo here. Actually, Geraldo does it to himself and O'Reilly seems to enjoy watching him do it.

Geraldo. Looking. Foolish.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Bill O'Reilly Channels John McCain over heckler in Rose Garden

Bill O'Reilly, once again, shows himself to be more interested in a public perception that he is above the fray than in taking a principled stand. First, he refers to Obama's granting amnesty to 2-3 million illegal aliens as "humane," spending no time on the fact that the president has circumvented Congress in an illegal and unconstitutional power grab to secure more votes (and put more illegals on Obamacare rolls - see Joe Wilson).

Then, he channels John McCain who, after Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, 'You Lie' at Obama in a 2009 during a Joint Session of Congress, demanded Wilson apologize. O'Reilly falls back on the same argument when talking about the exchange between Neil Munro and Obama in the rose garden, saying that regardless of what you think of the President, the office of the Presidency must be respected. That's a fair point but it's Obama who is disrespecting the office far more than Wilson or Munro.

At some point, doesn't Obama become responsible for these reactions? Lying to the country in 2008 about being a member of the socialist New Party should absolutely anger people. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly should crack open Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Use of those tactics by Obama is like breathing for most people. He knows that these overreaching actions will get reactions. Alinsky taught how to get your opponents to react to your advantage.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” -Saul Alinsky

Obama knows this and O'Reilly, who has taken the bait, does not.

Via MediaIte:

Video: CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson on O'Reilly Factor

Bill O'Reilly appears to be taking an increased interest in the Fast and Furious scandal, if his coverage this week is any indication. In this exchange, he interviews CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who is the one mainstream news reporter who has been on the story since practically Day 1. Attkisson released memos and e-mails earlier this week that call Eric Holder's May 3rd testimony before the House Judiciary Committee into question. That's only part of the story and not what prompted O'Reilly to have her on his show.

After the documents were released, Attkisson appeared on Laura Ingraham's radio show and conveyed to Ingraham that when she reached out to Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler to get a statement, she was subsequently yelled at. She then confessed that a White House spokesman named Eric Schultz 'screamed' at her, saying that she was the only 'unreasonable' reporter he had to deal with on the developing Fast and Furious scandal. Based on this exchange with O'Reilly, Attkisson gives the impression that she regrets opening that can of worms with Ingraham. Her answer seems to indicate that she doesn't want so completely tee-off the administration that another stonewall goes up.

Perhaps she's starting to feel real pressure from the administration as well. It's hard to say but there's no getting around the fact that what she told Ingraham on radio is making serious waves. Reports are that she has been inundated with interview requests. Her inclination may be to think she did wrong but based on the frenzy that may be about to ensue, it may have been the best thing she could have done.

Anyway, here's the interview.



h/t Hapblog

Video: CNN Hit Piece on Walid Shoebat

Some months ago, former PLO member Walid Shoebat spoke at a DHS-sponsored event. While there, Shoebat warned police officers and deputies about the dangers of Islam. Shockingly, two CNN reporters, one of whom was Drew Griffin, unexpectedly showed up at the event; they reportedly seemed to have little to no interest in talking with any of the speakers except Shoebat. They also had no interest in what Shoebat had to say, only in finding something to use against him.

Via CNN:



By the way, Drew Griffin was exposed by Bill O'Reilly as a liar. Something tells me the accused in this case (Shoebat) has similar goods on Griffin and they will be used. Stay tuned...

Here's the video of O'Reilly exposing Griffin:

Did Bill O'Reilly Scrub his Podcast?

First, if it wasn't for the question raised in the headline of this post, this post probably wouldn't exist. The portion of Bill O'Reilly's television podcast that appears to have been 'scrubbed' occurred during his viewer mail segment on April 13th. After reading a viewer email inquiring about the controversy surrounding Obama using a Connecticut social security number, O'Reilly defended the president by saying his father lived in Connecticut. While there are serious reasons to question O'Reilly's answer, the real question involves that portion of the segment being scrubbed from the podcast and the transcript.

Via WND:

In September 1962, Obama Sr. entered Harvard to pursue a Ph.D. in economics. Before completing the requirements to obtain the degree, however, he returned to Kenya.

The assertion that Obama is using a Social Security number issued to an applicant with a Connecticut address because his father lived in Connecticut can be traced back to a piece Carol Bengle Gilbert posted on the Yahoo blog "Associated Content."

In that piece, Gilbert claimed, without providing any documentation, that Barack Obama Sr. lived in Connecticut after divorcing Obama's mother.

"In fact Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider he might have checked out his father's alma mater?" Gilbert wrote.

The story Obama told in his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," was that he saw his father only once after he left Hawaii to study at Harvard, during a return visit to Hawaii in 1971.

I have always found the controversy surrounding Obama's social security numbers far more intriguing than the one about his Birth Certificate. In the case above, I might be inclined to be less intrigued after hearing O'Reilly's explanation if not for Fox News and O'Reilly himself scrubbing the comments from the podcast and website respectively. On its face, it looks like an attempt by O'Reilly to debunk the questions before giving 'folks' something to fact check and hold him accountable to later.

Here's the video of the entire segment, including the portions scrubbed by Fox News:

VIDEO: FOX'S KILMEADE SAYS 'ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIM'

On October 14th, Bill O'Reilly told the easily excitable ladies on 'The View' that 'Muslims killed us on 9/11,' which sent Joy Behar and Whoopi storming off the set. On the morning of the 15th, Fox's Brian Kilmeade backed up O'Reilly by saying that 'not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim.' This angered the 'objective' publication known as the LA Times - the same LA Times that refused to release important video of Obama at a dinner for former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi before the 2008 election.

Here is what Tony Pierce at the LA Times said about Kilmeade's assertion:

The Real Irish Republican Army, Shining Path, and Ku Klux Klan certainly aren't Muslims. Domestic terrorism in the U.S. is so widespread that it has its own Wikipedia page and most of those groups don't appear to be Muslim; some blow up abortion clinics, some are eco-terrorists, some are just twisted Americans like the deceased Timothy McVeigh (who claimed to be a Christian).

Aside from the tired notion that McVeigh was a Christian being an outright lie, I'll concede one thing to Pierce - if it's ok to split hairs.

Perhaps Kilmeade should have said, '99.99% of all terrorists are Muslim.' In addition to naming three groups who have either been de-fanged or have minimal effect relative to Islamic terrorism, the Times actually links to the Wikipedia page for each of those 'terrorist' groups. The Wikipedia page for the KKK refers to the group as 'far right.' If that's true, how come it was the armed wing of the Democrat party, created by Democrats? FDR (a Democrat) put KKK member Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Robert Byrd (a Democrat) was in the KKK and utterly derided MLK in a speech six days before King's death in 1968.

And isn't it interesting how the KKK's influence decreased when the Democrat leadership began exploiting race for its own agenda? The other group the Times links to - Shining Path - is a soviet style communist socialist group. Uh, guys, we've been trying to tell you that communism is very bad.

As for the Real Irish Republican Army, their activities have certainly diminished over the years and are, for the most part, relegated to one small region of the world (Ireland).

Conversely, Islam commits acts of terrorism all over the world with the goal of implementing a world-wide caliphate and putting the entire world under Shariah law. Compare what the KKK, the Real Irish Republican Army, and Shining Path have done to what is taking place right now, all over the world.

There is one valid point Pierce makes and it has to do with the Saudi ownership of Newscorp. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is the second largest shareholder behind the Murdoch family. I have a big problem with that too. You'd think it's something the left and the right can agree on being wrong. However, instead of the left using that as a bone of contention against people on Fox who take on Islamic terrorism, wouldn't it make sense for them to expose bin Talal? Kilmeade works for an entity that will allow him to take on these issues. It's called, 'picking your battles.'

Here is the segment in which Kilmeade makes the claim.



h/t to Weasel Zippers

FINALLY! SOMEONE UNCOVERS LARRY GRATHWOHL

As I was traveling on I20 late Thursday night, I caught the audio of this episode of Glenn Beck on Sirius. As I heard him refer to Larry Grathwohl and then play the two minute video clip from 1982 of the only man to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground, a Bruce Willis line from 'Die Hard' came to mind:

"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!"

Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled that Glenn Beck discovered this video of Grathwohol. However, it was making the rounds on the internet before the 2008 elections. In fact, a link to the video was presented to Bill O'Reilly's producers. Though O'Reilly proceeded to interview Grathwohl in October of 2008, he never once asked Grathwohl about the shocking claims he made on the 1982 video. Instead, it was the usual questions about Bill Ayers being an unrepentant terrorist.

I have one question for Bill O'Reilly. Why didn't you uncover then what Beck is uncovering now? The photo of Grathwohl that Beck uses at the beginning of this clip is a still shot of Grathwohl's appearance on O'Reilly before the 2008 election. It was quite uneventful not because Grathwohl had nothing to offer but because O'Reilly avoided an extremely important story.

Better late than never, I guess...

VIDEO: O'REILLY SMACKS DOWN STATE DEPT SPOKESMAN

There are times when O'Reilly has my head spinning as I watch the no-spin zone - the culture warriors and the body language lady come to mind. Then there are times like this with State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley when he knocks it out of the park and redeems himself. It truly is moments like these when O'Reilly is at his best and he needs to continue bringing them to his viewers.

When Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner visited China last week, he - on his own - brought up the Arizona immigration law while discussing human rights violations; he apologized for one of the states in his own country to the leaders of another country. In this case, China.

Conspicuously silent on this matter has been Posner's boss, Hillary Clinton who has said nothing, which makes these comments by State Department spokesman Crowley those of Hillary herself.

While interviewing Crowley, O'Reilly focuses not so much on Posner's comments in China but why he was hired in the first place. Watch as he asks Crowley why Posner was even hired and follows it up with, "Was Raul Castro not available?"

Video via Gateway Pundit

VIDEO: AL GORE AMBUSHED BY O'REILLY PRODUCER

Bill O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronted Al Gore while the latter was on his way to lunch during a speech stop at Duke University. Gore said he didn't "like Ambush Journalism". Awwww. Well Vice President whack job, the American people don't like being de-frauded.

A nice little takeaway was when Watters prefaces a question by saying, "So while we have you here......." he was immediately on the receiving end of Allegory's saying, "You don't have me here."

It was interesting to hear Allegory - a visual symbol representing an abstract idea - respond that he would "consider" going on the O'Reilly Factor after viewers had only moments before heard the segment introduced by O'Reilly, who said they'd been trying to get Allegory to appear on the program for 13 years. I guess a hungry Al Gore will say anything to get someone out from between him and his pork.

The only question not asked I would have loved to have heard was whether or not Allegory would be eating meat for lunch.

Via MediaITE

VIDEO: EVIDENCE AL SHARPTON A LIAR

Ah, the irony of it all. Some of Bill O'Reilly's best work as he confronts Sharpton about the latter's allegations that the "N" word was hurled at black congressmen John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver on March 21st as they made their way to the Capitol through a crowd of Tea Party protesters. After making the claim, O'Reilly asks Sharpton what evidence he has. Sharpton claims he's seen the tape. Small problem.

There is no tape and O'Reilly calls him on it. Also worthy of note is that Lewis, Cleaver, and Jesse Jackson Jr. were all invited on the O'Reilly Factor program but declined, according to O'Reilly. Of all three, the absence of Jackson speaks volumes because he had a video camera in each hand, recording the entire time. There's apparently nothing on his recordings and since he was right there with Lewis and Cleaver, the fact that J.J.J. was recording video and can't back up any of these charges makes it even more damaging.

The whole interview is worth watching but if pressed for time, Sharpton exposed in a big way starting at the 4:00 mark. Sharpton lies, via Fox News.

FOX NEWS AND THE ISLAMIST THREAT

In the weeks after 9/11, Bill O'Reilly interviewed a man from Tampa named Sami al-Arian. O'Reilly grilled him so badly that al-Arian basically implicated himself. Many give O'Reilly credit for helping get al-Arian arrested for his ties to Islamic terrorists. Here is a transcript of the exchange: Transcript:

O'Reilly Interviews Al-Arian in September 2001
Thursday, February 20, 2003

This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, September 26, 2001.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. What is going on at the University of South Florida, a state-funded institution? Suspected terrorist Ramadan Abdullah Shallah actually taught classes there. He is now one of the leaders of the Palestinian Islamic jihad.

And the man who brought Shallah to the United States joins us now from Tampa. Dr. Sami Al-Arian is an associate professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida.

All right. What say you, Professor? This guy is now a big shot in the Islamic jihad, they're taking credit for all kinds of terrorist activity, and you know him pretty well. Got an explanation here?

SAMI AL-ARIAN, PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA PROFESSOR: Well, I mean, when he came here, he came as a volunteer. He was working in an intellectual think tank, and he taught at the university, and then he left. He said that his father was sick and he was going back to the occupied territories, and then six months later, we were shocked like everyone else in the world in which he became the leader of the jihad movement.

O'REILLY: You were shocked! You were -- you couldn't understand it. He never told you that his views -- political views were that extreme. You were just taken by surprise?

AL-ARIAN: Everyone was. Everyone who knew him here at the University of South Florida, everyone who knew him personally was extremely surprised.

O'REILLY: All right. You knew a man named Tariq Hamdi, correct? You know Tariq?

AL-ARIAN: Mr. Hamdi. Yeah.

O'REILLY: Yeah. You know him. Were you surprised that he set up an interview with ABC News with Usama bin Laden? Does that surprise you?

AL-ARIAN: I didn't know about that. I mean, Mr. Tariq Hamdi left us about eight, nine years ago. He became a journalist, and I'm not sure what kind of connections he has with whatever journalists are...

O'REILLY: OK. Were you surprised that he was implicated in the embassy bombings in Africa?

AL-ARIAN: Well, I understand he was never implicated.

O'REILLY: Yes, he was.

AL-ARIAN: My understanding is that the FBI has talked to him, they give him security clearance, and if the FBI gives someone security clearance, he must not be implicated.

O'REILLY: No. Right now, he's on the list of suspected terrorists. Did you know that?

AL-ARIAN: No. I'm not aware of that.

O'REILLY: All right. Does that surprise you?

AL-ARIAN: It -- I'll be -- I'll be shocked because this -- this guy has an American citizenship, he was given security clearance by the FBI. I can't imagine that he is...

O'REILLY: OK, but he is. So there's another shocker. So that's three.

In -- in 1988, you did a little speaking engagement in Cleveland, and you were quoted as saying, "Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel. Revolution. Revolution until victory. Rolling to Jerusalem." Did you say that?

AL-ARIAN: Let me just put it into context. When resident Bush talked about crusade, we understand what he meant here. The Muslim world thought he is going to carry a cross and go invade the Muslim world and turn them into Christians. We have to understand the context. When you say "Death to Israel," you mean death to occupation, death to apartheid, death to oppression, death to...

O'REILLY: But not death to any human being?

AL-ARIAN: No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.

O'REILLY: No.

AL-ARIAN: Absolutely not.

O'REILLY: All right. So now what we have here is you saying death to Israel. You're bringing a guy over here who gets paid by the good citizens of Florida and then goes back and becomes one of the lieutenants or generals of the Islamic jihad, but you don't know nothing about it. Another guy sets up an interview with Osama bin Laden for ABC, and you don know anything about that.

You know, Doctor, it looks to me like there's something wrong down there at the University of South Florida. Am I getting -- am I getting the wrong impression here?

AL-ARIAN: You're getting completely wrong impression because you can pick and choose and interpret it, you know, different ways.

The fact of the matter is we have been involved in intellectual-type activity. We brought dozens of people. All of them are intellectual type. You're going to get the apple -- a bad apple or two, but that -- if you focus on them, you get one conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that we've been investigated by the FBI for many years...

O'REILLY: Correct.

AL-ARIAN: ...and there has been no wrongdoing whatsoever even suggested.

O'REILLY: Well, I don't know about that. Your -- your brother-in-law is going to be deported right now. I mean, it looks like he's going to get kicked out of the country, correct?

AL-ARIAN: It has nothing to do with this. His deportation...

O'REILLY: It doesn't have anything to do with it? Your brother-in-law is going to get kicked out of the country and it doesn't have anything to do with it?

AL-ARIAN: No. Absolutely not.

O'REILLY: Does that come as a shock to you that he's going to get kicked out of the country?

AL-ARIAN: It was absolutely. As a Palestinian refugee, he lost his visa. He -- his status was not adjusted. It has nothing to do with all that. His deportation had to do with the denial of asylum. It has nothing to do with any of the stuff we're talking about.

O'REILLY: Yeah. Well, Doctor, you know, with all due respect -- I appreciate you coming on the program, but if I was the CIA, I'd follow you wherever you went. I'd follow you 24 hours...

AL-ARIAN: Well, you don't know me. You don't know me. You do not...

O'REILLY: That doesn't matter. With all of this circumstantial evidence...

AL-ARIAN: If you don't know me, you can't judge me by...

O'REILLY: I'm not judging you.

AL-ARIAN: ... simply...

O'REILLY: I'm just saying...

AL-ARIAN: That's exactly what you're saying.

O'REILLY: I'm saying I'd be your shadow, Doctor.

AL-ARIAN: We've been -- we've been looked at, and a judge -- a judge has said that we are not a threat to national security.

O'REILLY: All right.

AL-ARIAN: Even the government itself said we're not.

O'REILLY: OK. All right, Doctor. I'd still shadow you. I'd go to Denny's with you, and I'd go everywhere you went. We appreciate you coming on

Pretty strong, right? So why haven't we seen this type of thing with countless other guests since then? There is certainly more evidence available now implicating more people than what Bill had then on al-Arian.

The biggest example would be the Holy Land Foundation Trial (HLF). The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was an un-indicted co-conspirator in that trial and while O'Reilly has CAIR representatives on his show, he never challenges them on the group's ties to terrorist groups and individuals.

Diana West at the Washington Examiner does even further analysis on what Fox News is doing and it isn't good.

Should Fox News register with the State Department as a foreign agent -- an agent of Saudi Arabia?

First off, is that a far-fetched question? Not when a leading member of the ruling family of the Shariah-totalitarian "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has made himself the second-largest shareholder of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., Fox News' parent company.

Just as Steven Emerson believes that American universities using Saudi mega-millions (many from Alwaleed) to set up Islamic studies departments should register as Saudi agents, I believe an American news channel part-owned and part-influenced by the Saudi prince should, too.

Alwaleed's long march through U.S. institutions is a mainly post-9/11 progression greased by his purchase of a 5.6 percent stake in News Corp. in 2005, and his purchases, I mean, gifts, of $20 million apiece to Georgetown and Harvard universities, also in 2005.

There have been other eye-catching displays of Alwaleed's largesse -- $500,000 in 2002 to the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Hamas- and Muslim-Brotherhood-linked entity, and a whopping $27 million, also in 2002, to the families of Palestinian "martyrs," aka suicide bombers.

At some point, the O'Reilly Factor in particular and Fox News in general is going to have to admit its blatant refusal to investigate actual threats to this nation.

The Culture Warriors come up a little short in this regard.

h/t to Special Guests

BILL O'REILLY AND COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS

What is it with Bill O'Reilly? No, seriously. He continues to have people on his show like Marc Lamont Hill, who is a known supporter of at least two cop killers, despite his boss Rupert Murdoch firing Hill as a Fox News contributor over the revelations. Then last week, O'Reilly had CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper on his program to debate the profiling issue.

I addressed this on my January 10th SHOW. Personally, I don't have a problem with O'Reilly having Hooper on the show and while he debated him vigorously, he didn't get to the heart of the issue by challenging Hooper on his group's affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. By keeping the debate in the arena of profiling exclusively, O'Reilly was able to appear confrontational and challenging while being anything but.

WND is addressing the issue of O'Reilly calling Hooper a "Stand-up guy" after the segment, along with the larger issue of why Fox News is giving CAIR a pass:

Long a reliably patriotic media source in the war on terror, Fox News may now be among news outlets who have fallen under the spell of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' propaganda machine.

"We own the media," CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper privately brags, according to a source currently working inside the aggressive Islamist lobby group.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week invited the TV-savvy Hooper on his show to debate passenger profiling, the second guest appearance by the CAIR spokesman in a month. At the end of the segment, O'Reilly thanked Hooper and called him a "stand-up guy," sending shockwaves through the conservative blogosphere.

As a sidebar here, I have personal first hand knowledge that former Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat is not being allowed to appear on O'Reilly's program despite several attempts to do so. The question is, why would someone leading a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorism be allowed on the top-rated cable news show while not being challenged on those affiliations when a man who would offer an opposing view is basically being shunned? WND makes a good case for the reason being Saudi Arabian money.

Given CAIR's proven ties to terrorism – which O'Reilly failed to mention – why would Fox offer the group's top executives a virtually uncritical forum on prime-time cable TV? Saudi Arabian money may be a factor.

It turns out that the same billionaire Saudi prince who owns a major stake in Fox's parent company also bankrolls Washington-based CAIR. And sensitive State Department records reveal Hooper – despite his repeated public denials – has personally solicited cash from the prince and other members of the ruling Saudi royal family during recent trips to the kingdom.

Playing a big role in exposing CAIR has been the blockbuster book, Muslim Mafia, which WND also features in the story.

I realize that the issue of CAIR getting both a forum and a pass on O'Reilly's program may be bigger than O'Reilly himself but based on these indisputable facts, O'Reilly should do one of two things.

1.) Resign
2.) Stop saying he's "looking out for the folks"

Read the entire WND piece - SHOCKING.

VIDEO: O'REILLY DEBATES CAIR SPOKESMAN IBRAHIM HOOPER

The enraging thing about this exchange is that Bill O'Reilly has a high-ranking individual who represents a group that was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial in which the defendants were found guilty; a group that has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood; the FBI has severed ties with the Council of American Islamic Relations.

Yet, they continue to get a forum on O'Reilly's program while men like Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist who converted to Christianity is consistently denied appearances on the Factor (yes, I know this first hand).

As for the exchange itself, it's not bad. A couple of premises to keep in mind before viewing if possible.

1.) America's Islamic enemies use projection (accusing the west of what they themselves are doing)
2.) Like the left, America's Islamic enemies generally say exactly the opposite of what they actually mean

Example #1: Listen as CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper says profiling is a "victory for al-Qaeda". What this tells us is that profiling would harm al-Qaeda.

Example #2: Listen as Hooper says al-Qaeda's talking point is that the West is at war with all of Islam. No, Mr. Hooper, it is al-Qaeda that claims Islam is at war with all of the west and that Islam should rule the world.

Example #3: Hooper says "profiling is ineffective and counter-productive". Considering that Hooper is a member of a group that should be labeled an enemy of the United States, it only means that it's ineffective and counter-productive for America's enemies.

There are plenty more but see for yourself.



h/t to H4A

VIDEO: BILL O'REILLY FALLS OFF THE TIGHTROPE

Not in the literal sense but in the figurative sense. While talking with Fox News anchor Jane Skinner of the Fox news channel, O'Reilly plays a clip of Pat Robertson identifying Islam itself as the problem instead of radical terrorists who practice Islam.

Now for the tightrope. After O'Reilly plays Robertson's quote, he distances himself from Robertson by saying this:

I continue to believe most Muslims are good people all over the world and I'm not saying that to be PC (Politically Correct). I think that's true.

Then, before pitching it back over to Skinner, he builds Robertson up by saying he believes he's an honest man but that....

I'm not sure that helps the country.

Aside from sounding politically correct - which he denied being only moments earlier - O'Reilly is doing all he can to dismiss Robertson's claim without having the intellectual courage to explore the facts of those statements. O'Reilly is obviously more concerned about wishing something to be true rather than exploring the facts to determine if his conclusion is true.

Another disturbing aspect of this video is when Skinner refers to Muslim groups that came out after the shooting and condemned "what Hasan had done". This is a perfect example of not digging deep. One of the groups that "condemned" what Hasan had done was CAIR, which was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial and has ties to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is intellectually dishonest for both Skinner and O'Reilly to take the public statements of groups like CAIR at face value. It also perfectly illustrates O'Reilly's erroneous tactic of drawing conclusions based not on truth and facts but on what "helps the country". It doesn't take long to discover that the most obvious reason for why Muslim groups would come out and condemn Hasan would be to create the exact perception O'Reilly and Skinner seem to have bought hook, line, and sinker. Someone should tell O'Reilly that sometimes the truth hurts but that doesn't mean it should be avoided.



John Nampion at the David Horowitz NEWSREAL blog has more on this.

h/t to Barrackaid #7

VIDEO: O'REILLY FINALLY WAKING UP TO OBAMA?

Wow! Talk about a strong statement (not). Nearly one year after Obama was elected, Bill O'Reilly says, "I'm starting to lose a little confidence (in Obama)". Wow, Bill! That's brilliant. What took you so long?! The Frank Marshall Davis story was brought to your attention before last year's election and there were plenty of people who knew what you're just now starting to realize.

I'm not going to pretend to know what's inside O'Reilly's head but he seems to be more concerned about being perceived as middle of the road so he can alienate both sides of an issue and be above both. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's just holding out and building capital so he can lay the hammer down with more force but if that's the case, he's doing so at his own country's peril.

Ignoring the truth on one side merely for the sake of being viewed as an independent is an ends-justify-the-means mentality. Feigning objectivity for the sake of appealing to a larger audience is disingenuous. I'm not saying that's what O'Reilly is doing but it has appeared to me that way for quite some time.



In light of that clip, Cliff Kincaid's slamming of O'Reilly at ACCURCY IN MEDIA'S 40th anniversary event on 10/23 takes on added significance.

h/t to GP

VIDEO: DICK MORRIS EXPLAINS OBAMA'S WAR ON FOX

Dick Morris on O'Reilly explains, among other things, why Obama has decided to go after Fox News despite all of the conventional wisdom available that says it's a bad idea. If I'm interpreting Morris correctly, he believes Obama is basically going on offense out of desperation.

In short, if Obama doesn't keep feeding the leftwing base, he could lose them and if he does that, he is toast. The reason Obama is sensing a need to do this is because he hasn't accomplished anything after 10 months.

Unemployment - Bad and getting worse.
Afghanistan - Bad and getting worse.
Chances of passing ObamaCare - bad and getting worse.

Morris makes a lot of predictions and is often wrong (Remember Condi vs. Hillary) but he is insightful and has a very interesting perspective. In this exchange with O'Reilly, he compares Obama's tactics to those of FDR. Be sure to watch the video all the way to the end as he does a good job of summarizing his points.

CLICK HERE for the video.

h/t to HOTAIR PUNDIT