Unbiased Experiment

55th Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the written article and pictures within the article. I also typed out the transcript for the video and the pop-up notes that appear throughout the video. I add commentary to everything. My commentary is in red text, the written article and transcript are in black text and notes within the video are in pink text.

Article was sloppy.​

Link to original article,
After Bill O’Reilly got his DC facts wrong, Muriel Bowser set him straight
​

GOVERNMENT By Stephen Hudson (Contributor) January 19, 2017

​

I hope they can look at this objectively just a little.​

DC mayor Muriel Bowser is creating a legal defense fund for immigrants who may be targeted for deportation during the Trump administration. Bill O'Reilly and a guest recently railed against the plan, saying a number of untrue things in the process.

What, like the tax fuck up?​

Bowser's office put out this video setting the record straight.

I also typed out the speech balloons throughout the video, which are in pink text
​

Bill O’Reilly: She’s outspoken/passionate about her beliefs. She decided to give judge bureau this segment. We hope she doesn’t blow it. (she laughs) “FYI! They’re about to blow it!” So what is your first outrage of the week?

Muriel Bowser: Well it’s an outrage that I think most Americans would be outraged about and that is there is a Democratic mayor in DC who is running what she calls a sanctuary city. Now we know there are a lot of them in this country, “There are more than 200 sanctuary cities in the United States.” which she’s doubling down as a lot of the democratic mayors are and that means that she is putting money into these cities to make sure that illegal immigrants are not deported. “The grant money will be used to protect the U.S. constitutional rights of DC residents.”

The verbiage is all fucked up here. It’s like describing sexual assault as rape. Like stealing a can of soup and calling it grand theft auto. Are you calling the illegal immigrants residents because they’re in a sanctuary city? ​

(Bowser cont.) She is putting half a million dollars into funds so that lawyers can be hired to represent illegals in the even Donald Trump makes the decision to deport them and we know that that’s what he’s going to do.

Bill O’Reilly: Alright, so tax money in Washington is federal tax dollars, because the federal government runs that. “WRONG, Bill - the DC government’s budget is funded by DC residents and businesses.”

I looked it up and I think Bill’s is wrong. Liberals 1; Bill 297.
​

Muriel Bowser: Right.

Bill O’Reilly: It’s not a state situation.

Muriel Bowser: Right

Bill O’Reilly: So that all of us are paying that $500,000 initial payment to the fund. “The DC Government, like all local governments, is funded by locally raised taxes and fees.” “In fact, DC residents pay more in federal taxes per capita despite not having a vote in Congress.” “We’ve got our social problems under control Bill. Violent crime and unemployment rates are down in DC while graduation rates are climbing.” Now I understand that DC has got a huge homeless problem, a big drug problem, a lot of social things that need attention, right?

Eh, they’re both probably right and wrong in a sense.
​

Muriel Bowser: And that’s the very issue that’s at the core here. “DC’s population is growing for the first time in decades, with an average of 1000 new residents moving in each month”.

That seems like more of a bad thing. Now if you said employment or graduates are rising, that would be different, but you literally just said new people are coming in haha.​

(Bowser cont.)If we’re going to use taxpayer dollars to prioritize “The Immigrant Justice Legal Service grant fund will ensure people are treated LE-GAL-LY.” or represent those people who have made the decision to come her illegally, then we’ve got to say to the Americans who were here legally, “Since taking office, Mayor Bowser has placed more veterans in homes- numbers of homeless vets are now down by a third.”

Because of the tax funded homes? Well, that’s a good thing. I’m an asshole.​

(Bowser cont.) many of them who are homeless, for example, in DC, they have had a 14% increase in homelessness in the last year, “In recent years, DC and HUD have made it priority to end veteran homelessness through permanent supportive housing sites like La Casa in Columbia Heights.”

Okay, so homeless vets are down by a third, but the overall homeless rate has gone UP 14%. I’m analysing your bullshit carefully. Liberals 1; Bill 298.​

(Bowser cont.) although homelessness in the country overall is down.

Murel’s office 0; Judge Pirro 1​

(Bowser cont.) They’ve got a drug problem. By the way, when you think about homelessness, who’s the biggest segment of homelessness in the country? “Last January officials counted some 350 homeless veterans in DC, down from more than 400 in 2014. -Washington City Paper, January 2017”

That’s good. Doesn’t make Judge Pirro’s statement any less legitimate or relevant though.​

(Bowser cont.) The vets. So we’ve got American vets who are fighting for us, who are not being taken care of “The day this segment aired, Mayor Bowser opened the John and Jill Ker Conway Residence, a housing program designed to end homelessness among veterans in DC.”

But when did you make it aware to the public? Should’ve Fox been aware of this? Regardless, that’s good.​

(Bowser cont.) while the illegals are being taken care of with our money. It’s an outrage.

Bill O’Reilly: Okay, so just to clarify the fund, this mayor Bowser takes a half million dollars of money she could use, “The Immigrant Justice Legal Service grant fund will…” discretionary money, “Help DC residents convert green cards to citenzenship” Yes that’s how it’s spelled

I don’t usually critique spelling, but what the fuck?​

(O'Reilly cont.) or anything in Washington, and she establishes a fund to pay lawyers “Help prepare asylum applications and provide legal representation at hearing for DC residents.” who are going then to challenge any deportations the federal government may make “Conduct Know Your Rights briefings and workshops” in Washington of illegal aliens. Is that correct? “Renew DACA (Deferred Action for Children Arrivals) applications and work permits for DC residents”

Well at least they’re giving their side like BAM BAM BAM BAM
​

Muriel Bowser: Right, and Donald Trump has made it clear that this is what he’s going to do. “Represent DC residents in deportation proceedings”

At least they can agree on one thing.
​

Bill O’Reilly: For criminals though. That’s the priority that president Trump has said. “Protect financial assets and custody for DC children in the face of potential deportation of parents or gaurdians”

Yes, that’s how it’s spelled. ​

(O'Reilly cont.) If you’re a criminal, we’re going to come right after you, so I don’t think they’re going to be sweeping up in DC chambermaids. “Help people and business conduct affairs through ITIN numbers” I don’t think….

Muriel Bowser: No, I don’t think that’s going to happen and even General Kelly today reaffirmed that, “File any lawsuits that may become necessary to challenge the use of DACA applications for finding or deporting undocumented persons”

It’s like they’re watching a video on specifically DACA without the mention of illegal criminals. It’s dumbfounding and I feel this overwhelming disrespect to whoever is writing this. At least Bill and Pirro addressed the women and children. Can Muriel’s office not give the same respect?​

(Bowser cont.) that it’s going to be the criminals that are prioritized here, “Help file applications for S, T, U and Special Immigrant Juvenile visas for DC residents or family members of DC residents” but the whole idea of saying look, “Provide legal help for family reunification efforts for families with at least one DC resident” we’re going to take taxpayer money, and by the way, California is talking about, what, $10 million. “Good Job California!”

Haha what is wrong with them? Why the hell would the written article on this be for this. Hopefully written by the same people so there’s one less fuckwaud in the world.
​

Bill O’Reilly: Sure, they hired Eric Holder and he’s getting $25,000 month, his law firm, “Local revenue from taxpayers of Washington DC.”

They might be right. Let’s go ahead and give it to them. Liberals 2; Bill 303​

(O'Reilly cont.) but see, that’s on the taxpayers of California.

“The 681,000 residents of Washington, DC pay more federal taxes than 22 states and more per capital than every state - yet DC residents don’t have a vote in the US Congress”

“The United States is the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies the citizens of its capital voting representation in its federal legislature.”

What does this have to do with anything?
​

“Only with statehood will we resolve this civil rights issue. It is time to spread the word that Washington, DC wants and deserves statehood.”

Okay, whatever.​

End of video, back to written article,
As one of many "sanctuary cities," the District’s law enforcement does not participate in federal efforts to deport undocumented workers – which total to around 25,000 according to government figures. Earlier this month, Bowser announced a plan to set aside grant money for defending illegal immigrants in danger of being deported.

In their discussion of the matter, O’Reilly and guest Jeanine Pirro stumble over the facts. And in each instance of them doing so, Bowser staffers add in an on-screen correction or clarification.

For instance,

Yeah, I know, you posted the fucking video. You probably need to explain it, because the people that stand with this bullshit are retarded.​

when O'Reilly sums up the fund by saying that Bowser will get a half million dollars to use however she wants in DC, and that the fund will "pay lawyers to challenge any deportations the federal government may make," neither of which are true, the corrections pile up.

Okay, Bill was biased to say that. Bowser’s office or whatever wouldn’t give the same respect, but I will.​

​

Although immigration issues such as this have been politically contentious, one of the most concerning points of this discussion is the sheer lack of knowledge concerning DC government and finance. O’Reilly, for instance, says that tax money in Washington comes from the federal government, meaning all US taxpayers would be paying into DC's fund. That isn't true-- the District of Columbia raises money through taxes to pay for the fund, just as any other local government would.

This one time at band camp. Goddammit what a broken record.​

Here, O'Reilly has just claimed that "tax money in Washington is federal dollars," so meaning all US taxpayers would be paying into DC's fund. That isn't true.
​

O’Reilly and Pirro also accuse the District of having misplaced priorities, saying the city should instead focus on homelessness and violent crime While both of these are undeniably serious issues affecting the city, the Bowser administration has made affordable housing one of its key issues, and violent crime in the District is well below its 1990s peak.

What about opportunities instead of handouts?​

​

The legal defense fund for immigrants is not unique either; the District has numerous progressive policies on law and order, ranging from providing tenants free legal representation in civil suits to providing bail to people who cannot afford it.

And the only time they address illegal criminals is providing money for bail. This can’t be real.​

Although O’Reilly and Pirro were not right to talk about this issue without better educating themselves first, they are certainly not the only people to not understand the strange political status of DC. How do you think that we can better educate people about District civics?

And after all of the bullshit, they end with this smug-ass cocky close.​

Stephen Hudson resides in Southwest DC — the fourth quadrant he has lived in. He works for a government relations firm and has previous experience with transportation policy at a trade association. His professional interests include transportation and infrastructure, foreign languages, and comparative international politics. The views expressed are his own.

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with Bill- I was excited and curious about this. I really was. I wanted my point of view on politics to be a little more open, so the fact that people working for Muriel Bowser, the fucking mayor of DC, gave opposing viewpoints to O’Reilly and Pirro’s statements, made me feel great.

What I got was literal brainwashing from the left. Full throttle brainwashing. The only good point they made was the fact that Bill was wrong about federal taxes going to DC, but they had to bring that back up about 4 times. It really wasn’t even relevant to the topic.

A bunch of pop-up notes about DACA and overall the legalization of illegals popped up about every 2 seconds in the middle of the screen at the same time Bill and Pirro were discussing illegal criminals.

With a rerereview of this reading it back to my mom, the subject is also about what the money Muriel has for illegal immigration is specifically being used for, which is fine, but it’s just the fact they don’t even acknowledge the discussion of the criminals that gets me.

Feel free to comment if you wish. Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on December 17, 2017.

 

1,000 views! I would like to take this moment and thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to post these on your forum. I tried posting these on 2 other political forums before this and the moderators banned me from posting any after the first 2, despite one of the forums claiming to be "free." This forum is what truly defines freedom of speech, yet everyone still respects each other. Again, thank you all for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts and have a blessed day.

 

Okay, well whatever may be the case, this forum allowed me to express my thoughts with these critiques and I really appreciate that.

 

Lmao right. My comments on what they say throughout it are mostly satire and calling out the small bullshit manipulative tactics they use, but I won't just criticize everything they say. I'm posting them in the order I've done them, regardless of the ones I cringe at now, therefore displaying growth. The timelines of the critiques I am currently doing and the critiques I post on here are not linear, so most the ones I do now aren't from mainstream news outlets.

Hope this provides some insight.

 

56th Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I typed out the transcript for the video and I added commentary throughout. The transcript is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original video, (I wasn't able to have the video pop up in the forum)
Bill O'Reilly: No Spin News Excerpt - Bill O'Reilly Calls Attacks by 20-Times Deported Illegal Immigrant
​

By: Bill O'Reilly July 31, 2017

Twenty-times deported illegal immigrant Sergio Jose Martinez, a Mexican national, was arrested and charged with multiple felonies last week in Portland for attacking two women, one of whom is 65 years old.

Bill said it was one of the most outrageous stories he has encountered in his journalism career.

Okay, so there’s no catch to this. He was actually deported 20 times. What the hell.​

“He has been deported 20 times, two-zero, 20 times, okay,” Bill said. “Multnomah County, Portland, is a sanctuary county. Last December, the feds asked Multnomah County to hold Martinez, a long rap sheet, he's 31 years old, hold him in jail so they could go and take him. Multnomah County didn't hold him, let them go. And now he's attacked, allegedly, these two women.”

How exactly? ​

Bill said there were two interesting parts of this story. One is Kate’s Law, a bill passed by the House in June that increases criminal penalties on individuals who defy deportation multiple times. The legislation is named after Kate Steinle, who was allegedly killed by a five-times illegal immigrant in San Francisco in 2015.

“Kate's Law is hung up in the Senate,” Bill said. “Tomorrow we'll find out if they're going to vote on it or when for you.”

The second angle of interest to Bill is the mostly muted reaction in Portland.

“And number two, the reaction in Portland, Oregon from the media and everybody else is like you know, we let them out but we're not really sorry,” Bill said. “And the poor women, they can't sue the city and the county. I mean, they could and I hope they try.

Yeah, but what exactly did he do haha?​

But you know, the Steinle family tried to sue San Francisco County and they lost.”

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with Bill- This illegal dude must be good at sneaking in, but not so good at remaining in. Vague description on what exactly he did to the women, but if he got deported 20 times, he’s done some bad shit.

Comment and share your thoughts. Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.

 

57th Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the written article and the picture within the article and I added my commentary throughout. The article is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original article,
Bill O’Reilly Explains What Donald Trump Really Meant About Scary Mexican Immigrants
​

By Amanda Marcotte


Just one man speaking truth to power. Screenshot via Fox

It's hard to believe anyone could be fooled by Donald Trump's I'm-not-saying-all-Mexicans-are-disease-ridden–rapists-but act.

Well I guess I’m retarded. I know he’s exaggerating, but that’s just the way it is.​

But Bill O'Reilly rallied and launched a defense of Trump on his Monday night show, spinning Trump's rhetoric in ingenious ways. Turns out that when Trump said of Mexican immigrants, “They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists,” he actually meant that they are rape victims.

“Many migrant women are sexually molested, and that is the rape situation that Donald Trump mentioned,” O'Reilly explained. In short: It's not rapists who threaten our country's integrity; it's their victims.

Haha what was he thinking?​

O'Reilly also did some fear-mongering about drug cartels, which are terrible and which are also largely irrelevant in this context. Immigration is mostly about people seeking work they wouldn't need if they were working for drug cartels.

A little valid in a lot of bullshit.​

But the crux of O'Reilly's agreement with Trump was in his kicker: The murder of a white woman named Kate Steinle in San Francisco by Francisco Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant who has been deported to Mexico five times.

That crime was horrific. No one disputes this. O'Reilly thinks it alone is reason enough to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

That’s just not true at all. ​

Stoking fears that white women will be raped and murdered by racial minorities in order to justify oppression has a long and ignoble history in this country, from Trump and O'Reilly's anti-immigrant rhetoric to the lynching of black men. My colleague Jamelle Bouie wrote about this deadly history in the wake of the mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, when Dylann Roof told his victims, “You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” This kind of rhetoric never shows any actual concern about the safety of women, of course. Six of Roof's victims were women. Most rape victims know their attackers. The majority of rape victims are the same race as their attackers.

Did a squirrel write this?​

People who actually worry about violence against women focus efforts on how and why that violence happens. They don't, as O'Reilly did when discussing a rape and murder in 2006, say, “She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning.”

Kinda shitty, but kinda true.​

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with O’Reilly- I think the writer of this had a 10 second attention span. This article was just all over the place. I don’t know why the hell Bill said Trump meant rape victims. Fuck it, it may not even be true.

 

But bro, what about the dollar menu haha.
No, but seriously from doing this I've learned a lot and notice they just repeat themselves over and over and over. I'm not just bashing them when I bash them just to bash them. I spend hours on some, giving my honest opinion throughout. (not the last one lmao) I know a lot of it comes off pseudo-intellectually, but I've been really obsessed with focusing on everything written or said in the article or video by looking up anything within I'm unfamiliar with or skeptical of. I'll say whatever the fuck I want in them and that's why I love doing them. I go over people who are bashing the mainstream media as well, which could be mistaken as me just going over a Fox News/CNN video at first glance.

I believe the internet is bringing us together and like you said, people will watch something so obviously biased and then complain how the liberals/republicans are pieces of shit and such and such.

 

58th Critique​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted a portion of the written article and the pictures within the article and I added my commentary throughout. The article is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original article,
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Debates Illegal Immigration Issue​

February 23, 2017

​

Daryl Deino

Bill O’Reilly dealt with one of his favorite topics on The O’Reilly Factor Wednesday evening — illegal immigration.

“An online Harvard-Harris poll provided to The Hill is shocking, but please maintain some skepticism,”

Always.​

O’Reilly began his “Talking Points Memo” segment by saying.

He noted that 80 percent of respondents in the poll oppose cities turning over arrested illegal immigrants to ICE officials. 53 percent of the people polled opposed building a border wall, while 47 percent support this idea. 53 percent support an executive order suspending the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, while 47 percent oppose the order.

It is statistically proven that this is a divided nation.​

When asked about 100,000 Syrian refugees being accepted in 2017, 51 percent of respondents said that number should be lowered. 34 percent agree with the number, and 15 percent believe more refugees should be allowed.



“If the polling is accurate, that survey is a stunning rebuke to the liberal sanctuary city movement,”

A stunning rebuke? That’s a little more than half true.​

O’Reilly continued and talked about a couple recent crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

One of those immigrants is 19-year-old Ever Valles, a gang member who was released from the Denver Sheriff Department, despite ICE asking that he be held. Then, Valles participated in the murder of 32-year-old Tim Cruz. O’Reilly condemned Denver Sheriff Patrick Firman, who said that detaining anyone without a criminal warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

These isolated incidences O’Reilly pulls are bullshit. It’s good to bring them up, but he consistently uses them as arguing points. I could make an isolated argument opposing fly fishing using the deaths of people who engaged in the activity.​

“The Sheriff Patrick Firman is full of it. There is no violation of the law in holding someone for the federal government. The sheriff upholds the sanctuary city mantra as does the mayor, Michael Hancock,” O’Reilly noted, adding that both men have blood on their hands.

Asshole O’Reilly is back.​

Bill O’Reilly then moved on to discuss the reaction inside Mexico to Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. He asked a journalist, Giselle Fernandez, if Mexicans (in general) are angry about the criminal illegal aliens being targeted for deportation.

“They’re angry and they’re protesting the streets over Trump’s ramped-up negative narrative against Mexican

Illegal. I think I’ve done this one.​

immigrants — legal and undocumented,” Fernandez told O’Reilly, who accused her of not really answering the question by avoiding the word “criminal.”

Because they have no argument​

Rather than talking about the illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, Fernandez told O’Reilly that it’s wrong to use the word “illegal” to describe an entire community. She then got more specific.

He’s not you dumb cunt haha.​

“What defines criminal? Is it an expired visa?” she asked O’Reilly and then said she doesn’t think Mexicans oppose criminals who commit violent crimes being deported.

Criminal: A person who commits a crime. Well I guess we’re all criminals. She’s just making this difficult.​

O’Reilly then asked journalist Ruben Navarrette the same question. He said that Trump administration may not be able to see the difference between those undocumented who come here to work and those who commit violent crimes. He noted that just in the last 72 hours, we’ve seen the administration blur the lines of what makes a criminal.

These liberals argue like they’re in middle school.​

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with Bill- I don’t like him using isolated incidences consistently, but I REALLY don’t like when people avoid questions and just talk like the bitchcunt he was debating. Because in a debate, you want to learn something. You want to see where people are coming from, but when people give a completely unrelated answer to a question, I just feel like I’m wasting my time. Yes, I know I shifted from 2nd to 1st person.

This type of debating does not help this country to agree to disagree on certain controversies, it drives us further apart. Calling a woman bitchcunt doesn’t help either.

Comment and share your thoughts. Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.

 

59th Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the written article and the picture and tweet within the article. Lastly, I added my commentary throughout. The original article is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original article,
Paul Ryan: We Have Not Pushed Kate’s Law Because We Do Not Want to Clog Jails with Illegal Drunk Drivers​

Such a misleading title.
​

by JULIA HAHN / 16 Jun 2016 / Washington D.C.

In a Wednesday Fox News interview, Speaker Paul Ryan seemed to suggest that the reason the House has not pushed Kate’s Law is because he is opposed to “clogging up our jails” with illegal alien drunk drivers.

Yeah it’ll be up there with drug possession. Get the fuck outta here.​

Kate’s Law—named in honor of Kate Steinle—would increase the penalty for illegal immigrants who return to the U.S. after being deported. Last year, Steinle was gunned down in broad daylight by a five-time deported criminal alien. In congressional testimony last summer, Steinle’s father recalled holding his daughter in his arms as she was bleeding to death and hearing her dying words: “Help me, Dad.”

Nice touch.​

On his Wednesday program, Bill O’Reilly pressed Ryan—who is the leader of the pro-illegal immigration wing of the Republican Party—on why the House has yet to push Kate’s Law nearly a year after her murder:

O’Reilly: “Right now we have a system where we can’t protect Americans from violent criminal aliens, who defy deportation four, five, six times. We still can’t protect Kate Steinle, a 32 year-old woman in San Francisco from being killed. Kate’s Law would make it easier for the authorities to apprehend foreign criminals … and it would also provide mandatory sentences just for defying deportation. And Congress can’t get it done, and the folks don’t understand why.”

“You know this”​

Ryan: “Well, first of all, the guy shouldn’t have been here in the first place if we actually enforced our immigration laws. That’s point one. Point two: we have to take after sanctuary cities. We have to deal with—and we’ve been doing this through the appropriations process—we have to deal with cities that are openly defying our immigration laws because that gives safe haven to people like this—so that’s point one, two. Point three: what we have to figure out is how do we write Kate’s Law so that we’re not clogging up our jails so much for, say, DUI, but for the true violent criminals? … We need to get the details right so that we actually are going after the people that are doing this. … Trust me, you know we’re frustrated about this.”

What he ACTUALLY said was logical.​

Ryan’s suggestion that the House doesn’t want to “clog” U.S. jails with illegal alien drunk drivers might come as a surprise to the many Americans who have been victimized and have lost their loved ones to the reckless driving of illegal aliens, who may not only be illiterate, but addicted to drugs and alcohol.

BLLLLLLLLLLLLUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllllAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Sorry I morphed into a liberal. That paragraph alone turned me into a liberal. (You wish)​

As CBS Los Angeles has reported, illegal aliens are responsible for the high hit-and-run rate in Los Angeles:

Imagine a world where nobody just said LA. LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES​

The number of hit-and-run accidents in Los Angeles is four times higher than the national average, with one in five fatal crashes involving an unlicensed driver, according to a new report.

Wait, so someone with a revoked license? So if a KKK member with a revoked license drove to LA, was at fault for a hit and run, she would be involved in the one in five fatal crashes right?​

….

“The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reports unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to kill, they will flee the scene over 50 percent of the time, five times more likely to drive drunk,” said [Don] Rosenberg.”

Yeah of course they’re more likely to flee cunt. They don’t have a license haha. And how stupid is it to use statistics for unlicensed drivers for anti-immigration? “Oh well how many illegals do you think have a valid driver's license?” No, the question is how many people who are not illegal immigrants are in the unlicensed driver category that you’re using for a illegal immigration argument? FAKE NEWS​

Rosenberg’s 25 year-old son, Drew, was killed by an illegal alien who ran over Drew’s body with a car three times.

Julia Hahn needs to quit journalism.​

“Unlicensed drivers were involved in more than 7,600 fatal crashes — about 20 percent of fatal crashes nationwide,” CBS Los Angeles writes. “There were an estimated 21,000 hit-and-run collisions that were reported as “accidents” in Los Angeles in 2010 alone, according to the study.”

How the hell did I get from Bill O’Reilly pressing Paul Ryan about Kate’s Law in 2016 to unlicensed driver statistics in Los Angeles in 2010? And Kate wasn’t even killed there! Haha! This is below shitposting. It’s like if an alt right squirrel for really bad shitposts decided to write political segments. If I took the best liberal based argument vs this article to push me to the left, this article would be more than likely.​

Sgt. Brandon Mendoza, a 32 year-old Mesa police officer, was murdered by an intoxicated criminal illegal alien who was driving the wrong way down a freeway. As Mendoza’s mother wrote in a letter to President Obama, “I had my son’s life STOLEN from me by a man who didn’t value his life, was 3X the legal limit drunk, was high on Meth, drove for over 35 miles THE WRONG WAY on 4 different freeways.”

And Mendoza’s mother is right, (not in writing to Obama) but Julia is going to hell.​

This is like taking a required class that has nothing to do with your major.​

Sarah Root, a 21 year-old woman who had just graduated from college with a 4.0 GPA,

The younger the person and the higher the GPA, the sadder it is. Na, I liked that they added this, because it shows she could’ve been beneficial to society. ​

was killed in January by an illegal Honduran who was street racing while drunk. Root’s mother told Breitbart News that Sarah’s killer had rear-ended her at more than 70 mph: “It severed her spine and broke her skull in two places when her head came back and hit the headrest.”

These descriptions: Totally necessary. Oh yeah, you can only read the words. I was being sarcastic.​

Root’s killer is not currently “clogging up our jails” because he was quickly released after posting bail and remains at large. In emotional congressional testimony, Root’s mother said that her daughter’s killer “spent four days in jail and is believed to have fled the country.” His bail was “less than the amount it cost to bury my baby,” she said.

Okay, now that is a better example. It’s not clear if him being an illegal immigrant had anything to do with the release, but this is the best example compared to the others in this article with exception to Kate’s. Still wasn’t good though.​

Dominic Durden, a 30-year-old 9-1-1 dispatcher, was murdered by an illegal alien

I bet Breitbart jizzed in their pants after hearing this story.​

who was driving without a license and who had two prior DUI charges.

Okay, fuck. I hate this. I fucking hate this. So they just used the word “murdered.” To murder someone, it has to be premeditated jackass! Same technique used by the left using rape to describe some instances of sexual assault. ​

O’Reilly concluded the segment by practically begging Ryan to pass Kate’s Law:

But it’s [been] almost a year, and now, the Steinle family is so brokenhearted that they’re suing the federal government because the federal government won’t right the wrong. … Put the Kate’s Law standalone. Do something. See? Americans just want you to try. They want you to try. And if Obama doesn’t do it, or Reid doesn’t do it, let them take it. You try. You do the right thing.

Ryan replied:

You know that we are trying. You know that.

Bill- “Yeah I do, but you know how these things go”​

The reason we’re so frustrated is that in this divided government, we can’t pass our principled conservative reforms through into law. … That is why we’re offering an agenda that we’re asking the American people, give us the kind of government that can get these things into law.

Julia’s part of the problem.​

However, in a Sunday CBS interview, when speaking to a different audience, Ryan announced that deporting the illegal population is “not part of our agenda.”

Researched it. Seems accurate.​

Paul Ryan has a two-decade history of pushing open borders immigration policies. Ryan also has a long history of fighting to maintain illegal immigrants’ access to social services paid for by U.S. taxpayers—including Ryan’s efforts in the “crusade” against California’s Proposition 187, a popular ballot initiative that would have prevented illegal aliens from accessing public benefits.

Paul Ryan has previously said that he believes it is the job of U.S. lawmakers to put themselves in the shoes of foreign nationals, such as a “gentleman from India who’s waiting for his green card” or the illegal alien “DREAMer who is waiting.”

If the context is to speed the process of it, that’s great, but if the context is being pussies to illegal activity, that’s BAD.​

Last year, Ryan’s omnibus spending bill rewarded sanctuary cities with federal grants.

When Kate Steinle was murdered, Republican leadership failed to meaningfully address the issue. Indeed, at the height of national focus and public outrage about the issue, the Republican-majority Senate adjourned for its August recess without taking any substantial action against sanctuary cities.

This stands in stark contrast to the messaging campaign Paul Ryan has done in recent days articulating his opposition to Donald Trump’s plan to curb Muslim migration. In the past three days alone, Ryan has denounced Trump’s call to pause Muslim migration in multiple high-profile media appearances.

Ryan showed no such enthusiasm for pushing Kate’s Law. While Ryan has found new and creative ways to make his concerns about Trump front-page news, no such effort has been made on behalf of Americans murdered by illegal aliens—the former whom Congress represents.

While Democrats, during their time in the majority, made one high-profile push after another for the issues their base cared more about, GOP leaders have never leveraged their bully pulpit in any way on behalf of American victims of immigrant crime—or against supporters of sanctuary cities.

YouTube, for instance, is filled with passionate addresses from Democrat leaders on issues ranging from gun control to equal pay legislation; no such catalogue exists for Republican leaders on the harms open borders impose.

Julia is the type of person who joins a breast cancer charity run, but when she arrives, she breaks everyone's legs.​

As Breitbart News reported prior to Ryan’s ascension to House Speaker, a Ryan Speakership would “mean that conservative lawmakers will be blocked from any attempt to advance legislative campaigns to curb immigration or to coordinate any public messaging designed to give voice to the concerns of working class Americans whose schoolhouses, jobsites and emergency rooms have been transformed by massive immigration.”

My Response:

1st Impression: Disagreeing with Bill- The grammar is good. Okay, this didn’t have much of Bill and I tried to not let Julia sway my decision of agreeing or disagreeing with him. He pushes emotional buttons on that situation too much. He’s using Kate as a political gain and it’s just kinda sick.

Julia’s article is so fucking deceitful. It’s the worst compared to any article or video even from the left I’ve read or watched. At this point, the tactics these people use are the problem. The true ideals are too complicated and people don’t give a fuck about listening to that. We want goddamn fucking chaos everywhere except our own lives. And that’s my summary on Kate’s…………..on Kate’s Law.

Comment and share your thoughts. Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.

 

60th Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the written article and the pictures within the article, and lastly, I added my commentary throughout. The original article is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original article,
The Summer of Killer Immigrants, Courtesy of Bill O'Reilly
​

Description under title reads,
O'Reilly's idiot campaign against Mexicans brings to mind the 2001 'Summer of the Shark' media freakout


Bill O'Reilly's has been warning Americans about the barely existent threat of killer Hispanic immigrants.

It’s probably on the same level of lies as white cops killing black people, just different politics.​

Desiree Navarro/WireImage/Getty

By Matt Taibbi
July 17, 2015

Solidifying his status as one of the great jackasses of our time, Bill O'Reilly has taken up a new cause. He's trying to make an undocumented Mexican murder suspect into this century's Willie Horton, casting the "ultra-left" city of San Francisco in the role of Mike Dukakis.

Perfect analogy. (no sarcasm)​

O'Reilly's effort to publicize the killing of a 31 year-old white woman named Kate Steinle, allegedly at the hands of an oft-deported immigrant named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, is turning into the surprise second act of Donald Trump's ill-fated "Mexicans are murdering, raping monsters" campaign.

Maybe Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez got deported so many times, because too many other people have his name??​

He's even borrowing Trump's flair for rhetoric. In the past week, he's denounced a San Francisco councilman as a "pinhead" and compared Salon.com to the white supremacist site Stormfront. Both had downplayed O'Reilly's crusade.

Haha! So I looked this up to see exactly what Bill said. I didn’t find it, but the first 8 articles on Google had Bill’s name in the title. Hahe​

"Obviously, that responsibility [for protecting our borders] is not being met," O'Reilly fumed. "And if you point that out, as Trump did, you are a racist, a piñata for the open-border crowd to bash!"

Oh no, not the piñata line. I remember him saying this.​

"The ultra-left is controlling [San Francisco]," he went on. "There comes a point where people get the government they deserve."

Even by O'Reilly standards, it's a circus. He's got his audience worked up into a genuine terror of murderous immigrants.

It’s true. He’s pretty ridiculous.​

This is despite the fact that our domestic murder rate has plummeted during the Hispanic immigration wave, and every available statistic shows that immigrants commit serious crimes at a much lower rate than American-born citizens.

Nice touch omit the word “illegal.”​

Factually speaking, in other words, the border-crossing menace story is a total nothingburger.

Urban dictionary: “Nothingburger is something lame, dead-end, a dud, insignificant; especially something with high expectations that turns out to be average, pathetic, or overhyped.” My new favorite word. Niggercuck had to go.​

It's the 2015 version of the Summer of the Shark.

If you remember that story, media dingbats in 2001 turned a few gruesome shark attack stories into a larger furor about a supposed "epidemic" of deadly episodes. They kept it up even as scientists told them that it was actually a down year for killer sharks.

“Mr. Nye, have you seen our ratings?”​

This is the same thing, but with racism. Are these good times or what?

Isn’t “xenophobic” the word you’re looking for? I still wouldn’t agree, but it would be more accurate.​

O'Reilly, of course, doesn't care about the numbers. His schtick is about politics and ratings, and there's no easier way to score frightened suburban viewers than to tell them that a) Mexicans are trying to kill their granddaughters, and b) Barack Obama and his liberal cronies in limp-wristed San Francisco are their accomplices.

It's a backlash against a backlash, a backdoor way of saying that Trump was right about those rape-happy Hispanic immigrants. Sean Hannity is already expressing this sentiment out loud, as is Megyn Kelly.

The background is complicated. Earlier this month, the undocumented Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Steinle, who was on San Francisco's Pier 14 with her father.

Lopez-Sanchez had already been deported five times. He had also previously been picked up by ICE, which turned him over to the local sheriff's department to be processed on an ancient drug charge.

The sheriff then dropped the charge and released Lopez-Sanchez, despite the fact that ICE wanted him turned back over to the federal government.


The U.S.-Mexico border. John Moore/Getty

This seems at first like a cock-up by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, which might at least have contacted ICE to let them know they were releasing Lopez-Sanchez.

But the last part of Bill’s story.​

But this incident takes place in the context of an ongoing post-9/11 security overreach by federal authorities that has caused lots of localities – not just traditional liberal enclaves like San Francisco –to rebel.

So not just BLM.​

At issue here are several controversial federal immigration initiatives, including a program called Secure Communities.

This program essentially forces local law enforcement officials into the role of deputized federal immigration agents. Under Secure Communities, anyone arrested anywhere is supposed to have their fingerprint information sent to the federal government, which in turn checks it against both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases.

Holy shit! So that explains when Fox News hosts say, “We only want to deport convicted criminals, illegals with possible criminal affiliation…..” I should’ve connected those dots before. I still agree they should be deported since they are illegals though.​

If the Feds find that the suspect is undocumented, they ask the locals to hold the suspect until he or she can be collected for deportation.

But there are catches. One is cost. The feds "demand" that local cops detain suspects wanted by ICE, but – surprise, surprise – they don't foot the bill for those detentions.

The numbers are nothing to sneeze at, either.

Nothingburger and now the phrase “nothing to sneeze at?” The English language is evolving and I love it.​

Los Angeles County alone claimed a few years ago that Secure Communities cost its taxpayers $26 million a year.

Oooo, so now all we gotta do is add up the cost of Secure Communities and similar agencies compared to the cost of illegal immigrants to see what is the better taxpayer argument is, because I’ve heard both sides now, just not together.​

Introduced by the Obama Administration at the outset of his first term (a fact often left unmentioned by O'Reilly and his ilk), Secure Communities was originally pitched as an optional program that targeted individuals with serious criminal histories.

But states quickly learned that the pitch was a fraud. Instead of targeting serious criminals only, cities and states were finding instead that they'd been forced into a program to mass deport traffic violators, students overstaying their visas and other minor violators.

I feel like a curtain has been lifted to an extent.​

To give an example of how over the top things became, the Obama government more than quadrupled the number of deportations of people whose most serious offense was a traffic violation, from 43,000 over five years under Bush to 193,000 in Obama's first five years.

Note: he’s honest about deportations under Obama. Helps his argument, just not the liberal love for Obama. Note: Good sign regardless.​

Furthermore, when New York, Illinois and Massachusetts talked about exercising their right to opt out, the Obama administration in 2010 quietly issued a memo clarifying the whole "optional" thing. States that wanted to opt out, the feds wrote, would henceforth find that their choices for non-participation had been "streamlined." In other words, the program was optional right up until you opted out, at which point it became mandatory.

Okay, so that last line is confusing as hell. Let’s say your dad tells you to take out the trash if you decide to stay home instead of going with him to see your grandmother. Oh your dad and grandmother are dead? Well let’s say Obama is your dad and asks you to go with him to see your dead grandmother.​

He says, “If you stay home, can you please take out the 3 trash bags that have been sitting in the kitchen for 2 years? It’s up to you, but it would be really helpful.”​

You decide to stay home and do the stipulation.​

Daddy Barrack calls back and asks you, “Hey Matt, so since you stayed home, can you to wash the dishes, clean the carpet, tell that sleazy hobo to get the fuck out of out basement, and feed my cat your food? It’s up to you, but it would be nice.”​

Your response is a blunt “no. I already took those smelly trash bags out for you.”​

Obama rolls his eyes and demands, “Goddammit Matt, just take out the fucking trash. Do it now or else you will end up in the trash bag.”​

That’s how I read it. The only two unrelated parts are the local authority in San Francisco didn’t get asked by the feds to go see the dead graves of the founding fathers and my version of Obama.​

Because of all this, and because the program imposed such a serious financial burden, a number of major cities (including Rahm Emmanuel's Chicago) passed measures opposing Secure Communities. In practice, they opted out of the "mandatory" program, setting up a classic states' rights conflict.

This, largely, is what we're talking about when we talk about "sanctuary cities."

Jesus fuck thank you!​

For cities and states, Secure Communities is a triple whammy. Apart from asking the states to do ICE's investigative work and pay for the detention of suspects, there's a serious legal issue.

When ICE asks local jails to hold these suspects, all they do is issue what they call a "detainer." But a detainer is not a court order. It's not a warrant. It's simply a request that local cops keep a suspect in jail willy-nilly until ICE decides to pick him or her up.

Cold as ICE, but seriously very informative. Had to really analyze to understand so far, so that’s my guess to why news outlets don’t go into depth like this. From what I understand, they don’t give the person being arrested anything to authorize the arrest. Something equivalent to a warrant for illegal immigrants. Hmmm.​

There was a time when a local police officer needed at least some legal excuse for holding a person behind bars, but in the post-9/11 world nobody blinks at this sort of thing, apparently regardless of party affiliation. Numerous Democratic politicians, including Hillary Clinton, have joined the Trumps of the world in the wake of the Steinle killing in saying San Francisco should have honored the "detainer," despite the fact that "detainers" are legal absurdities.

I still have the same stance on the issue, but now I realize the phuckedness of it all. It reminds me of when I sold Directv, sometimes salesmen would sell it to someone as a 2 year contract, but not tell them the price went up $40 after the first year. It’s easier to just push the “DREAMer” emotion on people, instead of making the Obama administration look bad for manipulating the deal and themselves look stupid for agreeing to the…….agreement.​

Courts in some regions last year ruled that these "detainers" are unconstitutional detentions, and that local jails that keep people imprisoned without a warrant can be held liable. Cities like San Francisco, in other words, can now be sued for obeying these "detainers." The federal government has conceded these rulings have hurt the program.

Conflicted ideologies we can live with, but conflicting laws need to be dealt with.​

So to sum up, all the federal government is asking in Secure Communities is that already stretched-thin local cops 1) do their work for them,

“Would you like to help me with my job to help secure your city more? You do? Good. Now do you mind doing most of my job now? You don’t? Well fuck you, you have to. You agreed to it.”​

2) pay for their jailing costs and 3) serially commit kidnapping.

That point is strong language used right.​

And these are just the factors localities consider before their attitude toward immigration enforcement comes into play.

A few years ago I interviewed a Mexican-born woman in Los Angeles named Natividad Felix whose husband caught a charge after getting in a fight with local drug dealers. Thanks to policies like Secure Communities, he was deported. She and her kids haven't seen him since. The family ended up living in a van. This is, what, smart policy? Good for communities?

If they were illegal immigrants, they shouldn’t have came in.​

Certainly it's not a slam dunk that every law enforcement officer wants a piece of this kind of work. As one cop in Southern California put it to me, "If I wanted to take immigrants out of their homes, I'd have gone to work for ICE. But I didn't. I have a real job."

I wonder if in Microsoft Word, I can have the word “illegal” be inserted in the space before the word “immigrant.”​

This is not to excuse what happened in the tragic Steinle case. Clearly, someone who's been deported five times shouldn't be here.

But cities like San Francisco would likely be more willing to work with the federal government in cases like the Lopez-Sanchez affair if they hadn't spent the last six years being bullied into the nonsensical, costly and probably unconstitutional Secure Communities fiasco.

All the federal government would have to do to make it easier for cities and states to cooperate is get a warrant the next time they want a suspect like Lopez-Sanchez held over for deportation. In other words, they just have to do their jobs.

The irony here is that O'Reilly and his viewers are almost certainly the same people who flipped out when Janet Reno sent her thug squad through a door to fetch Elian Gonzalez. Back then the armchair conservative had nothing but disdain for the fed in jackboots.


Now, though, when the Obama federal government is trying to outsource their door-kicking work to Andy Griffith, Fox audiences can't get enough of it. They hate big government, but they hate immigrants more.

Coming to this country illegally.​

It's not easy to follow the testudine plodding of Bill O'Reilly's mind, but his basic idea seems to be that local police now should be stripped of their independence, and all cases involving immigrants with criminal records should trigger mandatory federal prison sentences.

His audiences are eating this up now, but clearly they're not thinking this one through.

Or only listening to him.​

How will they like it if the IRS under President Hillary Clinton decides to force local cops to become tax collectors? Won't be so funny then, will it?

Got ‘em.​

Man, are we a crazy people sometimes. O'Reilly is right about one thing: We do get the government we deserve.

Damn.​

My Response:

1st Impression: Disagreeing with O’Reilly- The main difference between Fox News and CNN? Opposing viewpoints on everything. The main similarity in Fox News and CNN? Using manipulative persuasive tactics to keep the audience’s viewpoints to be strictly one viewpoint and only one viewpoint on every issue.

So it sounds like the cities that agreed to Secure Communities didn’t fully read the contract. It’s messed up really. It sounds like ICE needs to develop a better legal system to round up the illegals. I’m sure it’s so undeveloped because Trump has to do this quickly before time runs out.

I always knew there was something very shady about sanctuary cities. This is my favorite liberal article because of the facts, not trying to snuggle up to me with emotion.

Comment and share your thoughts. Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on December 20, 2017.

 

61st Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the written article and the picture within the article, and lastly, I added my commentary throughout. The original article is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original article,
O'Reilly: Rubio plan 'good,' 'fair'


Bill O’Reilly has given Rubio’s immigration plan his seal of approval.​

By BREANNA EDWARDS 01/16/2013 08:17 PM EST

Bill O’Reilly has given Marco Rubio’s immigration plan his seal of approval, giving public support to the Florida senator’s ideas on his show Wednesday.

“That seems to be pretty fair,” O’Reilly said of Rubio’s plan. “I like your program. I think it’s fair.”

O’Reilly encouraged Rubio to take his plan to the president — and have a public discussion.

“Avenging Kate is the only thing that matters Marco. She was hot.”​

“If the president of the United States is not going to cooperate with the opposing party, we need to report that,” O’Reilly said. “That’s going to be very, very, very important going forward, because we all want fairness and I think your program is a good one.”

Rubio’s “compassionate and responsible” plan includes two phases. The first phase includes deporting all illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. In the event that no crime is committed, he calls for the immigrants to come forward peacefully, be fingerprinted for national security, and pay back taxes and certain fines.

Haha serious crimes or no crimes. Ohhh man.​

The second phase comes into play after the individual has remained in the U.S. for a significant period of time without committing any crimes and the border and workplace is secure. Then the now legal immigrant will be granted the opportunity to apply for the existing legal immigration system.

“I wish we didn’t have eight or 12 million people here that are undocumented, but we do and we have to deal with it,” Rubio said in the interview. “But we have to deal with it in a way that’s compassionate and responsible.”

Well the first quote he said pretty much read in my mind, “Yeah, they shouldn’t have committed the crime and we’re going to do some fucked up shit to fix it.”​

O’Reilly is just one of the big names that have recently sided with Rubio on the immigration debate. Another is Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who has been talking about teaming up with Rubio on the issue.

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with O’Reilly- It’s ironic how short and simple this article makes this issue seem. From my experience so far, the manipulation of language is one of the worser forms of media deception. So he said they’re going to deport illegals who commit serious crimes, but not report people who haven’t committed any crimes. So shitty.

It is what it is when it comes to the breaking up of families and shit like that, but that’s not even what I disagree with. I disagree with the blatant dishonesty of the fact that they’re making the public think the plan is only deporting offenses, such as rape, murder, and assault, but if you’ve been arrested period, you’ll be deported and that’s good, but they’re lying about it.

“Compassionate and responsible.” Shut the fuck up. What does that even mean?

Thank you for reading. Comment and share your thoughts!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.

 

62nd Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the written article and the picture within the article. I also typed out the transcript for the original video the article was doing its story on, and lastly, I added my commentary throughout. The original article and transcript is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original article,
O’Reilly Explodes in Response to Woman Allegedly Killed by Illegal Immigrant Deported Multiple Times
​

Jul 6, 2015 11:32 pm

Oliver Darcy

Bill O’Reilly blasted local and federal lawmakers Monday evening over the death of a San Fransisco

Totally unacceptable. You’re quoting what Bill said 80% of the article, but you can’t proofread your 5 sentences?​

woman shot dead by a suspected illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

“The mayor and city supervisors of San Francisco are directly responsible for the murder of Kate Steinle, and the Obama administration is complicit,”

I thought Obama deported the most illegal immigrants since 1892? I heard that from Bill himself. Am I missing something? I have to be missing something.​

O’Reilly said in a talking points memo which also asserted Republican presidential contender Donald Trump’s immigration analysis was correct.


Image source: Screen grab

The Fox News host was reacting to news that 45-year-old Francisco Sanches,

Wait, so they identified another shooter? Oh no, the writer just spelled his fucking name wrong.​

arrested for the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle, told authorities he chose San Fransisco

I hope this person isn't getting paid.​

to live in because of its status as a sanctuary city.

”The fact that a felon could be deported five times & still be walking around…should shame Congress!”

“Shame it!”​

“The feds asked the city of San Fransisco

First time, shame on you...​

to keep Sanchez in custody! The city refused! Miss Steinle paid for that irresponsible and unconstitutional decision with her life,” O’Reilly said.

The cable-news pundit placed some blame on the Obama administration for not not punishing cities that refuse to obey a 1996 immigration act which requires local authorities to cooperate with federal authorities when dealing with illegal aliens.

So the Secure Communities was only suggested at first, but in the end, people who governed the city already knew the Federal Government had control over immigration. Hmmm. People are just people everywhere.​

“Attorney General Loretta Lynch could order FBI agents today to arrest Mayor Lee and the supervisors for violating federal law. She is within her authority to do that,” O’Reilly said. “I know that is not going to happen because racial politics drives the law these days.”

I highly doubt that’s the only reason. In fact, the feds ordering the local authorities without a warrant to detain illegal immigrants who supposedly commit crimes is probably the reason. Key word: warrant.​

“The fact that a felon could be deported five times and still be walking around San Fransisco should shame Congress — shame it!” he added.

​

Bill O’Reilly: Hey, I’m Bill O’Reilly!

Such a luvy-dubby intro!​

Thanks for watching us tonight. The vilification of Donald Trump over illegal immigration. That is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo. Does the truth hurt or did Donald Trump unfairly malign Mexico and millions of Mexican illegal aliens? Talking points will answer those questions. The primary mistake Donald Trump made to kick off the speech was to speak too generally about the border problem.

Love Bill or hate him, I’ll admit he still has his humble, unbiased side to him.​

Most Mexicans who sneak into the USA or overstay their legal visitation status, do so because they are economically deprived. They are largely uneducated folks trying to feed their families. Also the vast majority of illegal aliens do not, do not commit crimes on American soil apart from their immigration offenses, but there are big problems stemming from Mexican illegal immigration and the stats tell the truth. As we know Mexico is the illegal supplier of illegal drugs

“Illegal supplier of illegal drugs.” Dumb or genius?​

into the USA. The drug cartels down there have corrupted the police and many politicians.

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a overgeneralization!​

They’re thugs who commit mass murder, torture, and generally shame their nation. ISIS has nothing on these drug cartels. They are both savage enterprises.

Your show is a savage enterprise.​

The government of Mexico is not capable of defeating the drug lords and the government rejects government intervention. US drug agents, for example, are not allowed to carry firearms in Mexico, thereby putting themselves at great risk assisting Mexican authorities.

Why would they go into Mexico. And do you think the US lets Mexican drug agents carry firearms into America? Get out of town!​

For decades, Mexico has allowed organized crimes to brutalize its own people. And Americans as well.

They literally eat popcorn at most of the crime scenes.​

Some of the drug organizations have branched out now into people smuggling, charging money to get desperate migrants across the border. In the process, many, perhaps most migrant women are sexually molested and that was the rape situation Donald Trump mentioned.

Okay, a liberal article mentioned this. It makes more sense now that it’s in context. Really though? Most women? Bullshit.​

It’s not ordinary Mexicans doing the raping, it’s the gangsters, and Trump should’ve made that clear.

Glad to see Bill doesn’t suck Trump’s red rocket.​

The truth is there is little supervision on the Mexican side of the border, cities like Juarez and Nuevo Laredo literally run by the drug cartels.

O’Reilly’s so vague most of the time. I know he’s on a time limit, but damn. It’s like saying, “A convicted rapist controls the local banks.” Like huh?​

Border security in Mexico? Non-existent. It has been for decades. That situation is not going to improve. So Trump is correct in saying that only a massive wall will stop the chaos, and even then, drugs and people will get through, though not to the extent they do now.

I don’t see CNN admitting to something like this for something they’re pushing.​

Washington knows all this, but has turned away from the border ever since President Reagan promised to do that after he signed an immigration amnesty in 1986. Mr. Reagan did not keep his promise and every single president since has failed to secure the southern border. Every one. Now, what about the immigrants themselves? 59% of Mexicans residents and illegal aliens have less than a high school education.

Why did he include the residents?​

Only 4% of a college degree. 68% are poor or near poor.

That’s not really a statistic. It’s a number, not a statistic.​

57% receive means-tested welfare of some kind paid for by the American taxpayer. 56% do not have health insurance. Many of those receiving Obamacare subsidies, so Trump’s analysis is correct. The majority of Mexicans in the USA are not achievers in the economic sense. To be fair, that was the case with the Irish, Italian and European immigration waves of the past.

LowReilly​

Hard working people coming here to try to improve themselves.

Illegal aliens/immigrants/Mexicans should not be interchangeable language with Mexicans.​

But, here is the dangerous part now: according to government statistics, 71% of non-American citizens in federal prisons are from Mexico.

No shit. I’m surprised it’s not higher.​

Colombian nationals is the second: just 4%. Mexican criminals a whopping 16% of all convicts.

He’s switching from illegal to legal Mexicans a lot. What are you doing Bill? Are you xenophobic? Oh god.​

Serving time in Federal penitentiaries. That’s a huge burden on the American taxpayer and a dangerous situation for we the people like 32 year old Kate Steinle. Last Wednesday Kate, walking with her father in San Francisco, enjoying the evening, when she was shot dead on the street for absolutely no reason at all. Police say 45 year old Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien from Mexico, murdered Kate. Apparently Sanchez has 7 felony convictions. Has been deported 5 times, yet he still walking around the streets of San Francisco this guy that’s because Mayor Ed Lee and the 11 members of the San Francisco city supervisors refused to cooperate with the federal government on criminal aliens.

Because of the shitty program. People are being held without a warrant.
(Photo doesn’t appear in original article)​

The feds asked the city of San Francisco to keep Sanchez in custody.

Why did they ask? Why didn’t they just order them to?​

The city refused. Steinle payed for that irresponsible and unconstitutional decision with her life. San Francisco’s a sanctuary city and proud of it and violent crimes committed by criminal aliens have happened there before.

You cursing and raging at a news camera has happened also, but does that define you? The statistics are blurred.​

City authorities refuse to say how many because they know it’s a huge scandal. A black mark on the history of San Francisco; the most tolerant of cities. The family of Kate Steinle asking for calm, not vengeance, but talking points are not as charitable.

Yeah, fuck those pussies.​

In 1996, American President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, which stipulated that local and state authorities were to corporate with the feds in apprehending illegal aliens, especially criminals.

Down the rabbit hole a little more. I’m digging with a plastic spoon, but continuous progress.​

In 2007, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order stating that as a sanctuary city, San Francisco would not corporate with federal authorities with illegal immigration matter and would protect criminal aliens. The feds did nothing. In 2010, the Obama administration openly said it would not punish cities who refused to obey the 1996 immigration law.

Too many contradicting facts from a liberal article I read earlier. Ugh. Link- The Summer of Killer Immigrants, Courtesy of Bill O'Reilly The 1996 immigration law does Trump the liberal points though, but doesn’t invalidate them...or maybe the law was more of a Bill..HEHEHE​

So here’s the deal, the mayor and city supervisors of San Francisco are directly responsible for the murder of Kate Steinle and the Obama administration is complicit. Attorney General Loretta Lynch could order the FBI today to arrest Mayor Lee and the supervisors for violating federal law.

That’s retarded Bill. You know this.​

She is within her federal authority to do that. I know that’s not going to happen, because racial politics drives the law these days, which is why Trump caught so much hell.

I appreciate the article quoting 85% of the video with no ideas themselves and misspelling San Francisco 4 times.​

The constitution demands that the federal government protect Americans from foreign intruders. Demands it.

It would be so much better if he said, “Damn it!”​

Obviously, that responsibility is not being met and if you point that out as Trump did, you’re a racist. A pinata for the open border crowd to bash. The fact that a felon could be deported 5 times and still be walking around San Francisco that should shame Congress. Where is the law that if you get deported 1 time and you come back, you serve 5 years in prison? Congress should pass it, if President Obama doesn’t sign it, everything will then be on the table. It’ll be on him. That legislation should be called the Kate Law, much like Jessica’s Law, so who will sponsor the new law? Who will do so directly? We’re looking for some legislators in Washington who have courage. Are you out there?

“Hellooooowwwww...Anyone?” *Leans over table and knocks on camera glass*​

Talking points is disgusted with the cowardice of our elected officials from the crazy left of the San Francisco people to the president to the congress. Most of them are rich folks who could not care less about the violence and chaos out of control criminal activity south of the border it’s creating in this country.

Bill. You’re an asshole.​

If Mexico does not crack down hard on border contusions and drug trafficking, we should punish them economically. Punish them. Period. This entire disaster has been going on for far too long. The excuse that America is at fault because we use drugs and do not secure our side of the border is valid. We are at fault, but that does not excuse Mexico’s rampant corruption and abuse of its own people. Drug and people smuggling injure millions. It’s cost lives. It’s the dirtiest of crimes. Finally, the poor people sneaking in here to paint your house aren’t part of the problem. They’re not the problem. They are not the problem. The cowardly politicians who will not uphold the law and the Constitution are the problem. That’s what Donald Trump should’ve said. And that’s the memo.

End of video. Written article resumes,
O’Reilly called on lawmakers to pass a law that would require a five-year prison sentence for those who return to the U.S. illegally after being deported once.

“Congress should pass it and if President Obama doesn’t sign it everything will be on the table,” he said. “That legislation should be called the Kate law, much like Jessica’s law. So who will sponsor the new law?”

“Talking points is disgusted with the cowardice of our elected officials,” the Fox News host added. “Most of them are rich folks who could not care less about the violence and chaos out of control criminal activity south of the border is creating in this country! If Mexico does not crack down hard on border intrusions and drug trafficking, we should punish them economically. Punish them. Period.”

O’Reilly’s analysis came as billionaire Trump doubled down on his controversial immigration comments, pointing to Steinle’s death as an example current immigration policy is not working.

-

Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with O’Reilly - That was the laziest article I’ve ever read. Anyway, Bill’s obviously one-sided, but a lot of his points are valid. He acts like there’s no legal problems with just rounding up a bunch of illegals. Not enough time to talk about that. Viewers will be bored and ratings will go down. This is the laziest response I’ve ever written.

Thank you for reading! Share your thoughts!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.

 

63rd Critique

This one is clearly out of order. It's within the last 11, but it does illustrate quite well the savage change of tone in my perception of Bill O'Reilly and the conservative media as I soon as I uncover unfortunate truths.
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I copied and pasted the original transcript, and lastly, added my commentary throughout. The original transcript is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

Link to original transcript, (no video displayed)
Bill O'Reilly: The truth about the crackdown on illegal immigration
​

Published February 21, 2017 - Fox News

Twenty three-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina arrested by I.C.E. earlier this month in a Seattle suburb saying, he's being brutalized by the Trump administration. His story is fascinating. Mr. Ramirez Medina came here at age seven, the son of an illegal alien criminal named Antonio Ramirez-Polendo. There he is. Ramirez-Polendo spent a year in a Washington State prison for felony drug trafficking. He was a dealer.

In the I.C.E. raid, he was picked up along with his son, but get this. Ramirez-Polendo has been deported eight times. Yet, still was residing outside of Seattle. Would you want someone in your neighborhood deported eight times? We have not heard one, not one, liberal voice commenting on that. Instead, they are focusing on Daniel.

I believe it. The more I do this research, the less I trust the liberal media.​

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: In another assault on our values, in the past week, we have witnessed I.C.E. raids across our nation, targeting parents, students, and DACA protected dreamers.

Go on…...I wouldn’t think O’Reilly would take it out of context if she did. I looked it up and it doesn’t seem to be.​

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: The protection Congresswoman Pelosi is talking about was mandated by President Obama. It is called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. Essentially, the order says that children brought to America by illegal alien parents and to have no criminal history should be allowed to stay and work here. Daniel Ramirez Medina was part of that program. The problem is the Department of Homeland Security now says, he is admitted to having gang affiliations. His attorney denies that.

But he has a tattoo on his forearm which some people believe signifies gang membership. The Factor is trying to confirm that but so far, we have not been able to do so. It might just be a tattoo with no implications.

Didn’t you initially say DHS said he admitted to it?​

Now, that gang allegation was enough for I.C.E. to hold Daniel, who has a three- year-old son in this country. But the Left has now taken the case and made it a centerpiece of attacks on President Trump's crackdown on criminal illegal aliens. But the anti-Trump crew totally ignores the father! And the sun was in the father's home! Indicating the left doesn't care at all if a foreign national is deported eight times and is still here.

I believe it. It’s so fucked how biased they are. Fox News is also, but the liberal media is on a whole other level.​

Remember, the alleged murder of Kate Steinle was deported five times in San Francisco County, still protected him, right up until the time the man was arrested and accused of shooting Kate to death. So, step back for a moment. One part of the country, led by President Trump, wants to deport criminal illegal aliens and secure the borders, so, they can't get back in here. Another part of the country doesn't want strict border enforcement and doesn't seem to care that criminals can defy deportation as many as eight times!

I know it’s an individual case, but 8 fucking times?​

So, what side are you on? One final thing. Every time, and I mean every time, the subject of criminal illegal aliens arises, the Democratic Party will not engage. Instead, they fall back on the ruse that the illegal immigration crackdown is aimed at chambermaids and house painters. Do you hear that over and over and over. In the case of Daniel Ramirez-Medina, there is certainly enough in play to investigate him further. Is there not?

Especially if the DHS said he admitted to it.​

In the case of his father, who again was deported eight times, if Kate's Law were passed, he'd be serving decades in a federal penitentiary. And that is "The Memo."

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with Bill- Bill hasn’t done a complete 180 for me, but I keep liking him more and more the more I listen and read his stuff. From what I see, he’s completely right about the liberal media. I listened, and it’s hard to trust anything they’re saying. It’s a business model that is still working very well to this day.

With Daniel Ramirez-Medina, if he’s proven guilty, he’s guilty. Not trying to contradict myself about me agreeing with what Bill said about the liberal media, is that if Daniel Ramirez-Medina is proven gang affiliated, he should be deported. If he’s not he should stay. It’s simple as that. The father isn’t relevant to his situation from a justice pov, but it’s relevant to talk about.

Now that I think about it, why hasn’t Bill talked about the crackdown of chambermaids and house painters ever? All I hear him on about is the criminals. Seems a little biased.

Share your thoughts! Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.

 

64th Critique
​

In this critique, I focus on journalist, author, and television host Bill O’Reilly’s views on deporting criminal immigrants. These critiques are for you all and for myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive and satirical. I typed out the transcript for the video in its entirety and added my commentary throughout. The transcript is in black text and my commentary is in red text.

​

Announcer: The O’Reilly Factor. The #1 cable news show for 16 years and counting

Bill O’Reilly: Thanks for staying with us, I’m Bill O’Reilly (the problems we’re facing?) tonight: Insanity over illegal immigration. That is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo. As we reported extensively last night, a 14 year-old girl in Rockville, MD was raped in a high school bathroom by 2 men allegedly in this country illegally.

Note: allegedly.​

The incident is beyond shocking. An 18 year old from Guatemala, a 17 year old from El Salvador were freshmen. Were freshmen.

They need to just drop out and stack bricks.​

Authorities say they dragged the 14-year-old girl into a bathroom and brutally raped her. Fox News extensively covered the story, as I said, last night. But ABC, NBC, and CBS did not cover it on their nightly news broadcasts. Nor did they cover it this morning, and they have hours of air-time in the morning. CNN did not cover the story in primetime last night. Diddo MSNBC. That is beyond anything I’ve ever seen in 40 years plus in journalism.

That’s probably not beyond anything you’ve heard in a week. Shut up Bill lol. (I like using “lol” okay, it’s a chuckle and it reads well into the context. Get off my ass)​

A story by that magnitude ignored by the national media. We all know why. Illegal immigration is a political issue.

Bill isn’t this retarded. I know he’s not. He makes good points sometimes, but shit like this makes him look like an idiot.​

President Trump has made the apprehension of undocumented criminals a top priority. The democratic party is resisting that, saying that all illegal aliens are being demonized and that presents a danger to that community.

They say that with a hidden meaning. Truly expose that Fox News!​

Now, every fair minded American knows the immigration system is broken and congress has refused to fix it. As I said last night, we don’t know who’s here, we don’t know where they are, and we don’t know what they’re doing. They, being people who illegally enter this country. Even beyond the (pale?) even after this 14-year-old girl has had her life brutalized, even after that, the Maryland House of Delegates actually voted to make the state a sanctuary situation.

I’m glad he’s not using the rape victim for his only argument, but it’s still a tactic primarily used by the left. As Ben Shapiro said to Piers Morgan debating gun control, "What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, saying they don't seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids they would agree with you on policy. I think we can have a rational political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don't think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about -- about what happened in Sandy Hook.” Hmm, O’Reilly is kinda like the Republican Piers Morgan.​

Thankfully, the Mayor of Maryland Larry Hogan will veto that legislation, but how on Earth could members of that Maryland body, after this poor young girl gets attacked, do that? It’s incomprehensible. Many Americans have had enough. For decades, millions of people have poured into the USA without credentials. Most of these people are harmless and many contribute to our society, but the fact is that the federal government has lost control of the immigration process and many states and cities will not obey federal law creating anarchy.

But Pier Morgan would’ve still been talking about the dead kids. Bill’s right though. It is law that they have to cooperate. I read a liberal article that said the Obama administration was misleading about the Secure Communities program to detain only the worst of criminal immigrants, which ended up being a program detaining any immigrant who has been arrested without having a proper warrant to do so. It was basically a nightmare for the cops of the sanctuary cities to do a job homeland security was supposed to do. The only thing they left out in the article was the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996, approved by Bill Clinton, which stated that the federal government had power over cities dealing with immigration. The article still had valid points, but they were a little less relevant after that. Did help the story though little fucker. Here’s the link:
The Summer of Killer Immigrants, Courtesy of Bill O'Reilly​

Here’s the best example I can give you. Between January 28th and February 3rd of this year, over 3000 detainers were ordered by the Department of Homeland Security. That means that local jurisdictions were asked to hold illegal aliens in jail who ICE considered dangerous.

Yeah, that. I wonder why he doesn’t mention Secure Communities. Is it irrelevant? Is Fox News trying to cover something?​

206 of those aliens were released by the sanctuary places, despite the federal demand. 142 of those released came from one place: Travis County in Texas. That’s Austin. We trust Texas officials will stop that madness in Travis Country as they have promised, but you can see how anarchy is being openly practiced in some places. Comes a time when citizens of any country have to demand justice, demand protection, demand the law to be respected. We have not, have not come to that time in America. We have a president who vows to stop the illegal alien criminal madness, but we have a media who openly opposes that. It allows the sanctuary movement to pretty much run wild. And that’s the memo.

My Response:

1st Impression: Agreeing with O’Reilly - He gives good facts at times, but at there’s other times where his toupee flies off and he screams, “She was raped by 20 wetback niggers! Now her back is wetter! She now has Mexican/super aids! Get em’ out!” He doesn’t really say that, but he is pretty descriptive, pushing on emotions. I would say he’s standing on the graves of women, who are murder and rape victims, saying the people who are for pro illegal immigration don’t care for the dead and raped women. If they did care, they would agree with Kate’s Law and everything else Bill says about immigration. Every other thing he says usually is quite rational when he’s not using that tactic.

Share your thoughts! Thank you!
Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.