Bill O'Reilly Thinks Kids Exercising Their Rights As Americans Should Be Punished
Reported by Deborah - November 11, 2007 - 24 comments

Bill O'Reilly claims that American kids are not taught enough about their country and their rights as U.S. citizens. His recent book Kids Are American's Too was supposedly written to educate and inspire patriotism. However, when O'Reilly is presented with real life situations involving flesh and blood kids, he becomes the harsh authoritarian more interested in punishing   more...than mentoring. On Thursday, 11/8/07, O'Reilly took a hard line with a small group of high school protestors in Chicago who staged a peaceful demonstration in the school cafeteria. Guess he doesn't really think that kids are Americans too.

So it seems, a group of high school students concerned about war decided to exercise their rights. They staged quiet and peaceful protest in the school cafeteria which was against the rules of the school. The school principal chose to force them outside which challenged the strength of their commitment thus almost guaranteeing their refusal to comply. This of course led to a harsh punishment of a ten day suspension and possible expulsion.

Bill O'Reilly thought the kids deserved the punishment because they dared to challenge authority. However, it's hard to say if Bill would have felt the same way if the kids were protesting to change " Winter Break" back to "Christmas Vacation". He devoted his TPM ,10/8 to the story.

He opened with an announcement that his book will be listed as #3 this week so his audience would realize that he is a bonafide expert on all things kid related.

"First of all, my new book "Kids Are Americans Too" will be number three on The New York Times list next Sunday. And I thank all of you who are supporting this very important book. "Kids Too" bluntly tells teenagers what their rights are and what they cannot do."

Then he slipped in a jab at Rosie O'Donnell although she has nothing to do with this story at all.

"Another example. If somebody like Rosie O'Donnell wants to accuse American soldiers of killing civilians and the government of orchestrating 9/11, then Ms. O'Donnell must be prepared to face the consequences in the court of public opinion."

BOR concluded that the students deserved their punishment not appearing to care if suspensions and expulsions hurt their chances of getting into college.

"These kids in Chicago intruded on the rights of other children when they didn't have to. And they were punished accordingly. Good."

Here's a report from the Chicago Tribune exploring the other side of this incident. The students and their parents are very upset by the harsh punishment.

An editorial in the Chicago Sun Times by Neil Steinberg calls the punitive reaction " A Shameful Act".

O'Reilly had Cheryl Reed as a guest after his TPM to talk about her editorial supporting the kids and her opinion that the incident should have been used as a teaching opportunity. When BOR pulled his " I was a teacher" routine, Reed shot back back that she was a teacher too. Here's Reed's take on her experience on The Factor.

comment: Once again Bill O'Reilly shows us how little he really cares about kids learning to become decent human beings.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/11/bill_oreilly_thinks_kids_exercising_their_rights_as_americans_should_be_punished.php  less

Now, I know this may come as a shock to some, but my girlfriend lost coverage of her daughter under the only health insurance that would accept a patient with the disabilities as her and her daughter is suffering under. Way to go bush for screwing up children who's insurance companies won't pay for any treatments due to pre-existing medical conditions. Only in the US of Assholes. STFU too brillo pad!


Bill O'Reilly Calls Parents Of Uninsured Kids "lazy or stupid"
Reported by Deborah - October 18, 2007   more...- 169 comments

Last night, 10/17, Bill O'Reilly finally got around to talking about the SCHIP controversy with. Bernadette Healy, on The Factor. After showing a clip of Paul Simone asking Republican supporters of the Bush veto SCHIP Bill, O'Reilly and Healy managed to shift blame and focus from Bush and Republicans to the parents of the kids eligible for SCHIP coverage.

O'Reilly called it a confusing issue and then tried to make it simple for his audience. He stated that Democrats want free medical coverage for everyone and Republicans don't want socialized medicine. He repeated the the Republican talking point that the vetoed bill would have given insurance to families earning $83,000 a year. Healy corrected him saying the cap was about $62,000 a year for a family of four, 300% of poverty level.

Healy then artfully shifted the discussion away from the Republican support of the veto telling BOR that a significant amount of children are eligible but don't get the coverage because their parents don't sign them up.

O'Reilly said the parents are " lazy or stupid" asking " Is it the governments job to go to their homes?" Healy chimed in with " It's like parents not having their children vaccinated." Then O'Reilly confirmed Healy's claim that most children could get insurance if they wanted it.

Graeme Frost got a brief mention with O'Reilly saying it was a shame that he was attacked by the blogs but he didn't mention Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh as major attackers of 12 year old Frost. BOR also made sure to set the Frost family apart from the other recipients of SCHIP saying it was a catastrophic situation and the family really needed help.

comment: So O'Reilly and Healy managed to convey the message that the SCHIP program needed no expansion especially since so many of the parents of eligible kids aren't even using it. O'Reilly's heartless partisan display is unforgivable and clearly proves that he has no right to claim he is an advocate for children and his new book, " Kids are Americans too" is just a sad joke.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/18/bill_oreilly_calls_parents_of_uninsured_kids_lazy_or_stupid.php#more  less

Posted a memory hole on Blabbermouth O'Reilly's Shawn Hornbeck Comments, courtesy of Crooks & Liars, props goes to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC/Countdown for not letting go of this story.

When you are busted for saying something horrible on right-wing radio there are multiple methods that are used to deal with any controversy. Here is a partial list. I have an example in mind for all of them. They range from:

* sincere apologies
* fake apologies
* no apologies
* non-apologies
* aggressive non-apologies
* attacks on your accusers
* attacks on the people connect to your accusers
* attacks on people NOT connected to your accusers
* deny the words were ever said
* retroactively remove the words
  more...* claim the words were only a metaphor
* claim the words were a joke
* claim the words were twisted
* claim that the words weren't said recently so they don't count anymore
* claim the people didn't hear the word(s) they thought they heard
* Agree with the words and make more horrific remarks
* Call everyone names
* Cry that they are being picking on
* Threaten anyone who reflects the words back to them with lawsuits
* Have critics shut down using bogus legal maneuvers (Spocko waves hand)
* Call people more names, associate the accuser(s) with followers of one of the worst mass murders of the 21st century
* Claim you have "a wide stance when going to the bathroom." (oops, that's Larry Craig's)
* Claim the words were "out of context


http://www.spockosbrain.com/  less

O'Reilly says men shouldn't be left alone with small children in any context - come on!!!
Reported by Chrish - October 2, 2007 - 15 comments

Now I don't want to take anything out of context so let me set it up: on the Factor last night 10/01/07, Bill O'Reilly was discussing the very upsetting story about the video that's surfaced depicting the rape of a very small child. Guest Bob Massi was also outraged. But without knowing anything about the circumstances of the crime or the recording of it, O'Reilly   more...stated that authorities should be looking at charging the mother with neglect, at the very least, and made his obligatory outrageous statement.

O'Reilly always has to have a villain, a target for viewer's outrage. Virtually everyone condemns this crime so O'Reilly had to create a bad guy besides the obvious, the perpetrator, who has everyone united - can't have that! So he went after the little girl's mother for her lack of judgment and inattention, without knowing the facts. He didn't even know who the "main players" in the situation were until Massi laid it out for him. Both insinuated that the mother or other persons might have been complicit either before or as part of a cover-up.

How can he blame her without knowing the circumstances? Why, make up a hard and fast rule that was apparently broken:

"You don't allow a three-year-old girl, or boy, to go with a man, unsupervised, in any context, Bob!" and a minute later "And again, you can't have a house, as Allen did, or an apartment, and then allow - it was not only the three-year-old, there was another child in the videotape, not molested police say - in a room, with a guy! You don't allow that! That doesn't happen!"

O'Reilly said there were things that might exonerate the mother, though he wasn't about to do that, and he said we need clarity (a.k.a. FACTS) on this.

O'Reilly recently railed about the media trying people (using the Duke lacrosse players as the prime example) without knowing all the facts, yet here he is doing it himself. Now there's a false divide - there are those who think they've got it figured out (and if it turns out they are correct there will be much "I told you so" crowing) and those who are just as sickened but are waiting for the story to unfold. There's a certain competitiveness on exhibit here, a desire to "scoop" the other networks which requires a suspension of journalistic professionalism. But this is nothing new, to O'Reilly or on FOX.

"So once again, we don't know what to believe, but that doesn't stop the media from speculating all over the place." O'Reilly was in exactly the same headspace then (about 13 months ago) as he is now - on defense and lashing out, trying to keep a personal controversey alive for ratings yet calling other media out for trying to riff off his ratings, and trying to convince viewers that the media is corrupt and untrustworthy - except him, of course.

Like his unintentional insult to black Americans, O'Reilly in his zeal has just taken a broad swipe at men. I see the context, I understand the context, but it's an outrageous statement and he should know by now, for chrissake, words matter.

And just so he knows, it does happen. Men care for children. Men help dress and bathe children, and nap with them, and cuddle with them, and it's all good. Until we know the facts let's assume the woman was guilty of trusting, nothing more.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/02/oreilly_says_men_shouldnt_be_left_alone_with_small_children_in_any_context_come_on.php  less