Advertise Contact About This Web Site Webmaster Information
Website Info








If you are looking to buy prescription medications from Canada, then buy from a licensed Canadian pharmacy.



Check out Android Poker for the best poker links and apps.



RealMoneyAction.com is quickly becoming the #1 source for playing online casino games for real money. Check them out



As you already know by now that Oreilly sucks and is the biggest loser. Oreilly facts apart, many people spend their time on computers playing online poker real money games as a hobby.



Get all the news and information you will ever need about sing mobile bingo at this top mobile bingo comparison site, there is no spin here, just great reviews.



Have a look at these Bally Tech Games and vegasslotsonline.com



Check out usaonlinepokersites.com for information on playing poker in the USA.



Visit www.uspokersite.net for US online poker related information and news.



Play online poker at the most trusted online poker room in Canada 888pokercanada.com



O'Reilly Sucks
Blog Archives

January - 2012
February - 2012
March - 2012
April - 2012
May - 2012
June - 2012
July - 2012
August - 2012
September - 2012
October - 2012
November - 2012
December - 2012

January - 2013
February - 2013
March - 2013
April - 2013
May - 2013
June - 2013
July - 2013
August - 2013
September - 2013
October - 2013
November - 2013
December - 2013

January - 2014
February - 2014
March - 2014
April - 2014
May - 2014
June - 2014
July - 2014
August - 2014




Website Links

O'Reilly Info

The O'Reilly Iraq Apology Countdown Clock

O'Reilly Spins

Cable News Ratings

Read The Letter O'Reilly Had His Attorney Send me

O'Reilly Wins 2004 Misinformer of The Year Award

O'Reilly Death Penalty Lies

O'Reilly on Top 10 Conservative Idiot List 49 Times Since 2001

O'Reilly Calls Mexicans Wetbacks

Mail-to-Bill

Hate-Mail

O'Reilly #5 On Top 25 Right-Wing Journalist List

O'Reilly Factor Year In Review 2009

Factor Pollster Caught Writing GOP Policy Memo

What a Fair & Balanced O'Reilly Factor Would Look Like

Transcript: Bill O'Reilly v Jeremy Glick

Peabody Award Facts

Bill Clinton Enron News

Buzzflash Names O'Reilly Media Putz of The Week

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly & The Republican Party Are Both Corrupt

The Right-Wing Liberal Killer Story O'Reilly Ignored

The Facts About O'Reilly And GE Doing Business With Iran

How to Deal With an O'Reilly Factor Ambush Interview

Why FOX News Loves Juan Williams: The Strings And The Puppet

Blogroll

ultimatetop10s.com/
AmericaBlog
Progressive Eruptions
Rude Pundit
Moveon.org
Prison Planet
Apocalypse Cafe
Fox News Boycott
Inebriated Discourse
Hannity Sucks
NewsCorpse.com
Glenn Beck Is An Idiot
Ranker.com
GlennBeckReport.com
lauraingrahamsucks.com

The Factor Guest List Count

August 2014 (18 Shows) Republicans - 127 | Democrats - 28

The Factor Guest List Count Archives

Ratings: The O'Reilly Factor - Total Viewers

Monday - 8-25-14 -- O'Reilly - 2.966
Tuesday - 8-26-14 -- O'Reilly - 3.015
Wednesday - 8-27-14 -- O'Reilly - 2.659
Thursday - 8-28-14 -- O'Reilly - 2.162 - Greg Gutfeld Hosted
Friday - 8-29-14 -- O'Reilly - No Show

Weekly Factor Average - 2.700 - 4 Shows

The Cable News Ratings Archives

Oreilly is a polarizing figure and so is online gaming, especially at Begado Casino. There are advocates in Congress proposing a federal law, but Republican detractors. This, according to a supporter of Steve and Oreilly-sucks.com, who runs a Begado Fan Blog. The conservative approach is to stick to legitimate gaming certifications and brands like Begado, says Zachary Gleason.


The O'Reilly Sucks Blog

Darren Wilson Fundraisers End With No Explanation
By: Steve - September 1, 2014 - 11:00am

This is a little strange, all the fundraisers for the Ferguson Missouri cop Darren Wilson, who shot the unarmed 18 year old black kid were suddenly ended with no reasons given. They raised almost a half a million dollars, and then they just shut em down.

A fundraiser for a Ferguson, Missouri police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager has vanished, the LATimes pointed out.

There had been two major GoFundMe pages raising money for Darren Wilson, who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown earlier this month. Combined, the fundraisers had pulled in almost $500,000. This weekend, seemingly out of nowhere, the campaigns stopped.

Matt Pearce, who covered the unrest following the shooting on the ground for more than a week, first noticed the shutdown.

The online donation campaigns have generated some controversy for defending Wilson, especially after some visitors left racially offensive remarks in at least one of the comment sections, which have since been removed.

Both pages appear to have stopped taking donations around the same time on Saturday, and the pages organizers did not explain why. If a visitor attempts to donate, a message appears that says: "Donations are Complete! The organizer has stopped donations."

In a statement provided to the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, a spokeswoman for GoFundMe said the website had not halted the donations.

In a Facebook post, the Support Darren Wilson confirmed that their online fundraiser had ended but vowed to continue raising money for the St. Louis County cop.

According to the page's moderators, the decision to end the fundraiser was "made by those closest to Officer Darren Wilson looking out for his best interest." The group said that any donations that were already made would go directly to Wilson.

The Times was not able to reach the anonymous founder of the "Support Officer Darren Wilson" page, a user called "Stand Up," who has raised $235,750 and who has not been officially certified as a verified recipient on the donation page.

In contrast to the other Wilson page, little information has been given to donors about who is running the anonymous fundraising effort.

In a message to visitors two weeks ago, the anonymous Wilson fundraiser page wrote that it was working with Shield of Hope to become a verified recipient. That has not happened. The fundraiser also gave out a pseudonymous Gmail account to users seeking more information, but did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

In its statement to The Times, GoFundMe's spokeswoman said the anonymously run donation page had also been removed from its search results, adding that "this campaign no longer meets GoFundMe’s stated requirement of having a valid Facebook account connected."

Wilson shot and killed Brown on August 9th, 2014. In the weeks following the shooting, protests erupted in Ferguson and across the country, many in support of Brown. The movement in support of Wilson has grown, however, with protesters staging rallies against media coverage and selling 'Support Darren Wilson' T-shirts.

Here's the Facebook group's full statement:
First off, we want to say again how much we appreciate ALL of the support for Officer Darren Wilson. This page and everything we have done, up until this point, would not have been possible if it hadn't been for everyone here.

Secondly, we understand your questions, concerns and frustrations with both GoFundMe accounts. Please note, NOBODY shut down the GoFundMe account because of any petitions floating around trying to close it and GoFundMe did not close them either. That decision was made by those closest to Officer Darren Wilson looking out for his best interest.

We are doing our best daily to keep you updated (to the best of our ability) with all truths that come to us. That is our number one priority, to always be honest with our supporters.

Rest assured, if you donated to either GoFundMe it will go to Officer Darren Wilson. We are constantly trying to find the best ways to support Officer Darren Wilson as we know our supporters want to keep helping as best they can.

Bare with us as we are going through these changes. We will continue to be open and honest with our supporters. We will not do anything unless it is in the best interest of Officer Darren Wilson.

Thank you all, so much!

WE ARE DARREN WILSON!
In other words, something fishy is most likely going on with these fundraisers, and of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it. Because he is a biased hack who does not care about the truth. But of a liberal was doing this he would be all over it and demand some answers from the people who are running those fundraisers.

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - September 1, 2014 - 10:00am

Former Iowa state senator pleads guilty in Ron Paul endorsement-for-pay scheme

A former Republican Iowa state senator pleaded guilty Wednesday to concealing campaign expenditures and obstructing justice as part of an endorsement-for-pay scheme that roiled the Iowa Republican caucuses in 2012.

Kent Sorenson, of Milo, Iowa, admitted in federal district court that former Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign secretly paid him $73,000 after he dramatically dropped his backing of Rep. Michele Bachmann in late 2011 and endorsed Paul's White House bid, saying at the time that Bachmann was no longer a viable candidate.

An attorney for Sorenson, F. Montgomery Brown, said in a statement that his guilty plea was part of his process "of taking complete responsibility for the series of compounding errors and omissions he engaged in."

David A. Warrington, who served as general counsel to Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, did not return requests for comment.

In December 2011, after two months of secret negotiations with Paul's campaign, he met with a Paul political operative at a restaurant in Altoona, Iowa, and agreed to change his allegiance. The operative gave the state senator's wife a check for $25,000 to secure Sorenson's support.

Paul's campaign chairman at the time was Jesse Benton, who is now running the re-election bid of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Benton did not respond to requests for comment. Jesse R. Binnall, an attorney representing Kesari, also declined to comment.

After Sorenson publicly switched his endorsement, Paul's campaign routed the state senator a total of $73,000 in 2012, transferring the payments through a film production company and another company to conceal the intended recipient, according to court filings. Sorenson wanted the payments kept secret because of Iowa Senate ethics rules that prohibit sitting senators from accepting payments from a political campaign.

Last year, when a state independent counsel was investigating allegations that Sorenson switched his endorsement for money, the state senator lied under oath that he had been paid by either campaign, the court filings said.

On Wednesday, 42-year-old Sorenson pleaded guilty to one count of causing a federal campaign committee to falsely report its expenditures and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the first count and up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the second count, but prosecutors plan to recommend he receive a reduced sentence for accepting responsibility.

UPDATE - 8-30-14 -- McConnell's campaign manager resigns over Iowa bribery scandal

Jesse Benton, the campaign manager for U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, will resign his post as a bribery scandal from the 2012 presidential campaign threatens to envelop Benton and become a major distraction for McConnell's campaign.

Benton told the Herald-Leader that he met with McConnell Friday afternoon and offered his resignation, which McConnell "reluctantly accepted."

Benton said he offered his resignation, effective Saturday, with a "heavy heart."

And that's not all, there are two other Republican scandals O'Reilly has totally ignored, and one involves his Fox News friend Karl Rove.

8-30-14 -- TV station pulls anti-Shaheen ads off air

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A super PAC's negative ads against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen were pulled off the air Wednesday after the New Hampshire Democrat's attorneys flagged inaccuracies in the spot.

Ending Spending Action Fund, a conservative outside group, claimed in ads that "Shaheen's wealth has surged while in public office." Her financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate show the opposite, with her personal wealth dropping by at least $562,000 and perhaps as much as $1 million.

The anti-spending group's 30- and 60-second ads had aired on Boston's NBC affiliate, WHDH. Boston's media market covers the population-heavy southern tier of New Hampshire and campaigns often buy airtime on those stations.

"Scott Brown's Wall Street buddies put up an outrageous attack ad against Jeanne Shaheen that's being pulled off the air because it's dead wrong and completely false," Shaheen campaign manager Mike Vlacich said. A spokeswoman for Ending Spending did not immediately respond to a message seeking reaction.

8-30-14 -- News Outlet: Karl Rove Twisted Our Reporting For His Anti-Dem Attack Ad

The Colorado Independent criticized Fox News contributor Karl Rove and his political group for twisting its reporting into a misleading attack on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.

Rove is the co-founder of Crossroads GPS, an IRS 501(c)(4) group that funds attacks against Democratic candidates across the country. The Associated Press reported on August 19 that GPS plans to spend more than $6 million on television ads in Colorado.

The group's latest Colorado ad attacks incumbent Sen. Udall for supporting health care reform, with a narrator claiming that "on the Eastern Plains, patients now outnumber doctors 5,000 to one." The group cites the Independent for the statistic.

But the news outlet responded that GPS is misrepresenting its work. Reporter Tessa Cheek, whose reporting was quoted by GPS, wrote that the commercial added the word "now" to deceptively suggest the patient-to-doctor ratio is a result of the ACA when in fact it "has nothing to do with the new law":
The difference is the word "now," and it's the difference between true and, well, not true, because "now" makes the 5,000-to-one figure look like an outcome of the Affordable Care Act. The figure has nothing to do with the new law.

"All of that data is pre 2014 Affordable Care Act implementation, so pre-Medicaid expansion, pre-ACA rollout," confirmed Rebecca Alderfer, Colorado Health Institute senior analyst and an author of the report we cited in our article about the systemic challenges facing rural health care expansion.

In addition to being unrelated to the ACA time-wise, the figure is also not directly about insurance. Specifically, it reflects the number of primary care doctors in relation to the number of people living in their area. It's not a figure that speaks to the number of insured people or the number of providers who will accept their insurance.
In other words, Karl Rove is running dishonest political ads to lie about Democrats, and he uses his job at Fox News to keep a public profile so he can raise more money to be a lying corrupt partisan. O'Reilly not only does not say anything about any of it, he helps him by putting him on the Factor as a regular political analyst. Without ever disclosing the dishonesty by Rove, or the conflict of interest.

And that's not just one example, Rove and GPS have been airing false and hypocritical ads against Democratic candidates all over the country, when every ad they run is dishonest, because that is what Rove does. GPS previously aired an ad that, as FactCheck.org wrote, "leaves the false impression that a Colorado woman 'had to go back to work' to pay for health care insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Even though she told a local TV station that her decision to get a job had nothing to do with the health care law."

Those are all stories about political corruption by the Republican party, and one of them is about a current Fox News employee, Karl Rove, and a regular Factor guest, but O'Reilly has ignored it all. Not a word about any of it, even though this is the exact type of political corruption O'Reilly jumps all over when it involves a Democrat. But when Republicans do it, he says nothing, he is silent.

Now imagine if one of the senior political analysts at MSNBC was doing for Democrats what Rove was doing for Republicans, while at the same time working for the MSNBC News Network. O'Reilly would lose his mind, have segments about it every night, and call for MSNBC to fire him. But when Rove does it for Republicans at Fox, O'Reilly says nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

McConnell Admits Koch Brothers Are Running The Republican Party
By: Steve - August 31, 2014 - 11:00am

In a leaked audio tape of the Koch brothers top secret June 2014 retreat, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) not only admitted that the Republicans would be lost without the Kochs, he revealed who the real power is in the GOP.



McConnell opened his remarks by saying, "Is this working? I know it's been a long, but very inspiring day. And I want to start by thanking you, Charles and David for the important work you're doing. I don't know where we'd be without you, and um, and I want (inaudible) for rallying, uh, to the cause."

Mitch McConnell has voted against raising the minimum wage 17 times in his career. He has filibustered every recent attempt to raise the minimum wage in the current Congress, so anyone with half a brain should not be surprised that he promised that he wouldn't raise the mininum wage if he becomes Majority Leader.

The main topic of his speech was Citizens United, and how the wealthy and corporations should control our elections. In the process of praising Citizens United, McConnell described how the Koch infested Supreme Court has opened the door to conservative billionaires buying the government, saying this:

"And we've had a series of cases since then that I've filed amicus briefs in and had lawyers arguing in. We now have, I think, the most free and open system we've had in modern times. The Supreme Court allowed all of you to participate in the process in a variety of different ways. You can give to the candidate of your choice. You can give to Americans for Prosperity, or something else, a variety of different ways to push back against the party of government. It has nothing to do with overly political speech."

The little part at the end where McConnell states that the billionaire dollars have nothing to do with overt political speech was a total lie. The Koch money is about buying and electing the candidates who will carry out the conservative billionaire agenda.

Everything links together. Without the Koch infested Supreme Court, the Republican billionaire funding pipeline wouldn't exist. The Koch billionaire group is trying to cut the people out of the democratic process in order to create a government that revolves around their own interests.

The leaked tapes prove that the Republican Party revolves around the interests of billionaires and big corporations. This is obvious to anyone who watches their behavior on a daily basis, but McConnell's remarks are the first leaked to the public admission of the importance of the Koch brothers to the success of the Republican Party.

The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation. The Kochs set the agenda, and if Republicans take back the Senate, the American people will have given control of the Congress to the Koch brothers.

And btw, Bill O'Reilly has said that if anyone has any evidence the Koch brothers are running the Republican party, send it to him and he will report it. So I sent this to him, but as expected, he did not report it and never will.

Another Opinion Of Bill O'Reilly About White Privilege
By: Steve - August 31, 2014 - 10:00am

Here is a copy of an article Justin Baragona from politicsusa.com wrote about O'Reilly and his ridiculous claims of no white privilege. He pretty much mirrors what I have said about it.

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Doubles Down On His Claim That White Privilege Is A 'Big Lie'

By: Justin Baragona
Wednesday, August, 27th, 2014

Ever since protests took off in Ferguson in the aftermath of 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown's shooting death at the hands of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, has used his program to preach to and criticize African-Americans about their culture. Earlier this week, he finally got called out on it by, of all people, Megyn Kelly. The Kelly File host was on O'Reilly's program to discuss Ferguson and race relations in this country. To O'Reilly's surprise, Kelly stated that white privilege is real and something that blacks in this country deal with on a regular basis.

Of course, it being Kelly and all, it wasn't like she gave a full-throated defense of the notion that racism and the existence of white privilege are the overlying reasons behind the issues many blacks face in this country from birth. She made sure to blame President Obama's policies and other facts, while simultaneously relying solely on raw statistics. Still, it was interesting to see a colleague of O'Reilly's take him to task for being completely dismissive of the real-life problems that the African-American community deals with on a daily basis.

However, this is O'Reilly we are talking about, and he wasn't going to let this rest. Especially when he saw how much coverage Kelly's takedown of him got the following day. Therefore, Tuesday night, BillO decided he needed to whitesplain to everybody, but especially blacks, why white privilege does not exist and how too many African-Americans are using it as an excuse to not take any responsibility for their lives. He also decided to bring Asian-Americans into the discussion because in O'Reilly's mind, one minority group is directly comparable to another minority group.

Quote from O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Talking Points does not, does not believe in white privilege. However, there is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding in our society than whites do.

American children must learn not only academics but also civil behavior, right from wrong, as well as how to speak properly and how to act respectfully in public. If African-American children do not learn those things, they will likely fail as adults. They will be poor. They will be angry, and they often will be looking to blame someone else.

One caveat, the Asian-American experience historically has not been nearly as tough as the African-American experience. Slavery is unique and it has harmed black Americans to a degree that is still being felt today.

But, in order to succeed in our competitive society, every American has to overcome the obstacles they face. And here is where the African-American leadership in America is failing. Instead of preaching a cultural revolution, the leadership provide excuses for failure. The race hustlers blame white privilege, an unfair society, a terrible country.

So the message is, it's not your fault if you abandon your children, if you become a substance abuser, if you are a criminal. No, it's not your fault, it's society's fault. That is the big lie that is keeping some African-Americans from reaching their full potential. Until personal responsibility and a cultural change takes place, millions of African-Americans will struggle, and their anger, some of it justified, will seethe.
O'Reilly, culture warrior, has never figured out that he has no relevant life experiences or interactions with the black community to justify his constant sermonizing about what African-Americans need to do to improve their lot in American society. He sits in his perch from up high and preaches to blacks about their culture, their way of life, their community, while never even bothering to truly find out how the other half lives. He is an old, right, white guy who lives in an upscale neighborhood in Long Island. He also grew up on Long Island and attended private schools during his childhood.

However, if you ask O'Reilly, he will talk about how he's earned everything he has achieved and grew up living a hard-scrabble life. He pulled himself up by his bootstraps and is a perfect example of a self-made man. His complete lack of self-awareness regarding race issues in this country is astonishing. Worse, he is paid millions of dollars a year to commentate about topics such as this, which his audience of old, angry white people lap up like dogs at the water bowl. For O'Reilly's racist followers, they just want to be told that blacks are whiny, irresponsible and want to blame all of their problems on white people.

It is really easy for O'Reilly to pontificate about black culture from his television studio or gated community. I'd like to see him actually go to a predominantly black neighborhood, experience first-hand for himself the effects of white flight, and then talk down to the residents there about the need for a cultural shift. But we all know that is never going to happen. Instead, we'll just see more of what we saw Tuesday night.

GOP Poll Shows Most Women View The GOP In A Negative Way
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 11:30am

Two powerful, mostly male Republican SuperPACs commissioned a major poll on what women think of the party and its candidates, and were rewarded with dismal results.

Women view the Republican Party as "lacking in compassion, stuck in the past, and intolerant," according to the report, "Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities," which was obtained by the Politico website.

The project was undertaken by Crossroads GPS, a secretive and partisan nonprofit (that doesn't have to disclose it's donors) founded by Fox News pundit and Bush's brain Karl Rove. That everyone knows is partisan, and yet it is still allowed to be a non-profit, which is just insane.

Crossroads GPS spent $5.5 million in 2010 trying to defeat Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. It was joined by the American Action Network, which also ran deceptive ads attacking the Senate's top-ranking woman.

The poll found that women are "barely receptive" to Republican policies and that the GOP fares "especially poorly" with women in the Northeast and Midwest."

President Obama was re-elected in 2012 based on a double-digit lead among women voters. Despite the dip in Obama's popularity, the Democrats have maintained a substantial lead among women, especially large among working women.

The Republicans vowed to change all that after Mitt Romney's defeat. While not changing any of their policies, all they did was change their propaganda, and it looks like the women of America are not falling for it.

They have put forward Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., a member of the House Republican leadership, as part of a "War for Women." McMorris Rodgers gave the Republican response to President Obama's State-of-the-Union speech last winter.

The GOP has also fielded promising women Senate candidates in West Virginia, Iowa, and Oregon. At present, 16 of the Senate's 20 women are Democrats.

But the Republicans must deal with a grumpy male image, symbolized by the suits who surround McMorris Rodgers at news conferences.

In the news on Wednesday was a statement by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, made behind closed doors to wealthy donors: "That's all we do in the Senate is vote on things like raising the minimum wage."

The report on women voters involved 800 voter interviews across the country as well as eight focus groups. It was delivered to "a small number of senior aides this month on Capitol Hill," Politico reported.

The poll found that 49 percent of women view Republicans unfavorably, and it also showed that the only women with a positive view of the GOP are married women without a college degree.

And of course, O'Reilly has not said a word about the poll, as he denies the Republican party has a war on women, when their own poll shows it is true.

Homeland Security Shows Gutfeld & Baker Are Liars
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 11:00am

On the Thursday O'Reilly Factor fill-in host Greg Gutfeld and the conservative Former CIA official Mike Baker both slammed President Obama and claimed he was wrong to not say ISIS is a national security threat. When O'Reilly's own source for foreign intelligence Stratfor.com and our own Homeland Security Department says they are not a threat within the United States, which is exactly what Alan Colmes also told Gutfeld, and he was told he was wrong.

Baker said this:
BAKER: "ISIS is a national security threat, and there are two things you shouldn't do when confronting an enemy like ISIS. One is that you shouldn't give them advance warning about potential air strikes and the other is that you shouldn't say you don't have a strategy. Today's press conference indicates just how much the administration is struggling."
Gutfeld agreed that ISIS poses a genuine and imminent threat, saying this:
GUTFELD: "It's scary to see our president consumed by climate, not by terror, like a man worrying about dandruff in a plague. ISIS is the deadliest terror group going, controlling turf the size of Maryland with oil fields and weaponry. Until our 'commander-in-cleats' takes it seriously, we're screwed."
And now the facts:

Homeland Security: Islamic State poses no specific threat within the United States

The United States is not aware of any specific threat to the U.S. homeland from Islamic State militants, the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday after Britain raised its international terrorism threat level.

Islamic State militants and their supporters, however, "have demonstrated the intent and capability to target American citizens overseas," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. He noted DHS has taken steps over the summer to strengthen security at overseas airports with direct flights to the United States.

Johnson said he has spoken to UK Home Secretary Theresa May about Britain's decision to raise its terrorism alert to the second-highest level. It is the first time since mid-2011 that Britain has been placed on this high of an alert level.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there was no plan to raise the U.S. threat assessment level.

Alan Colmes said this to Gutfeld in the next segment:
COLMES: "We scare people all the time, and now there's a Republican Senator saying ISIS will come and take over an American city. These are the same arguments we heard about Iraq after 9/11, and we overreacted by going into two countries.

According to Stratfor, which analyzes geopolitical threats, ISIS couldn't even beat the Kurds in northern Iraq or the Shiites in southern Iraq. This is being ginned up for the purpose of getting American involvement. Wait until it's a true threat to the homeland of the United States."
Those are the facts from terrorism experts, not the opinions of partisan hacks who work at Fox News. They say that ISIS is no threat to anyone inside the United States, yes they are a threat to Americans overseas, but not here. So instead of getting the truth from Gutfeld and Baker, we get spin and lies, and then Democrats who report the truth are called communists and terrorist supporters, which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing propaganda to make Democrats look bad.

Open your eyes folks, Fox News is not a news network, they are a propaganda arm of the Republican party. They do noting but spin and lie to you to make Democrats look bad, that is their main goal, to make Democrats look bad so less people will vote for them. And this blog is example #1 million that what I say is true about Fox.

Republican Factor Guest Caught Lying About Obama
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 10:00am

On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor there was a segment on how history will judge President Obama, even though he will still be the President for 2.5 more years so you can not judge his history while it is still in progress. O'Reilly had two guests on to speculate at how history will judge Obama, one Democrat and one Republican.

Which is a violation of O'Reilly's own rules, he says he does not speculate and that he also does not allow speculation on his show. And yet, he had two guests on to speculate how history will judge Obama, with two and a half years left in his presidency.

Here is what the Republican (Jane Hampton Cook) said:
COOK: "I think he'll rank in the bottom 15 or 20, depending on the choices he makes with ISIS. Economic growth has never reached 3% under President Obama, and the disapproval of ObamaCare really started going bad after the rollout."
And those statements my friends are speculation and lies. Nobody knows where he will rank in history until he is out of office and he can be judged for what he did in his 8 years. And while the economy has had slow growth under Obama, it has been improving and almost always showing a positive growth.

Obamacare had a rocky start because of right-wing propaganda about it and because of website problems early on. But what Cook gets wrong is that the economy has had growth of over 3% under President Obama, and now Obamacare is looked at as a good program.

Forbes even had an article asking this:

Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?

In the article they cite the stock market, jobs numbers, the deficit reduction, and on and on, and they make the case that Obama had been the best economic President we have ever had. And that is from Forbes, a conservative financial outlet.

Not to mention, the Republicans blocking every bill Obama tried to pass to help the economy, none of that is mentioned by Cook. And now we have a new report on the 2nd quarter that shows a GDP of 4.2% for Q2 of 2014.

US economy grew at brisk 4.2 pct. rate in Q2

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy rebounded in the April-June quarter, growing at a brisk annual rate of 4.2 percent, slightly faster than first estimated.

The upward revision supported expectations that the second half of 2014 will prove far stronger than the first half.

The Commerce Department's second estimate of growth for last quarter compares with its initial estimate of 4 percent. The revision reflected stronger business investment in new equipment and structures than first thought.

Cook dishonestly used one measure of the economy, the GDP, to claim Obama will be judged badly by history. When all other measures of the economy show good news, jobs, unemployment, the stock market, etc. It was dishonest and biased, and total speculation. Not to mention, it was Bush who got us into this mess and crashed the economy, Obama and his policies got us out of it, something O'Reilly and the Republicans never want to give him credit for.

But O'Reilly allowed it anyway, even though he has a no speculation rule. Which shows his dishonesty and his bias. How about we wait until Obama is out of office before we judge him, that is my suggestion.

NY Times Charles Blow Says Bill O'Reilly Is The Race Hustler
By: Steve - August 30, 2014 - 9:00am

Charles Blow used his New York Times column Thursday to take aim at Fox News Bill O'Reilly and his claims that "white privilege" doesn't exist. Turning a favorite phrase of O'Reilly's back around at him, Blow writes, "Mr. O'Reilly, it is statements like this one that make you the race hustler."

Blow begins by quoting O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: "Last night on 'The Factor,' Megyn Kelly and I debated the concept of white privilege whereby some believe that if you are Caucasian you have inherent advantages in America. 'Talking Points' does not, does not believe in white privilege. However, there is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding in our society than whites do."
"It is difficult to believe that those three sentences came in that order from the same mouth," Blow writes. Once you admit that it's "harder for blacks to succeed," he argues, then the converse for whites must be "a form of privilege." He adds, "When one has the luxury of not being forced to compensate for societal oppression based on basic identity, one is in fact privileged in that society."

After quoting O'Reilly's most recent use of the term "race hustlers" to describe those who "blame white privilege" for any problems that African-Americans face, Blow concludes:
No, Mr. O'Reilly, it is statements like this one that make you the race hustler. The underlying logic is that blacks are possessed of some form of racial pathology or self-destructive racial impulses, that personal responsibility and systemic inequity are separate issues and not intersecting ones.

This is the false dichotomy that chokes to death any real accountability and honesty. Systemic anti-black bias doesn't dictate personal behavior, but it can certainly influence and inform it. And personal behavior can reinforce people's belief that their biases are justified. So goes the cycle.

But at the root of it, we can't expect equality of outcome while acknowledging inequality of environments.

Only a man bathing in privilege would be blind to that.
A comment on the article by Mara Gottlieb from Fairfield, CT. said this:
As a white person as well as an educator, I believe it's my duty to acknowledge the privilege light skin affords me, whether in choosing a neighborhood for my family to live, or never having to be seen as a representative of everyone with my skin color.

Mr. O'Reilly should read Peggy McIntosh's brief article (it won't take you long, Mr. O'Reilly) "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." As a human being with the privilege trifecta - gender, class, and skin color - it's no wonder he doesn't see it: it's a pretty comfy place to hide.
Here is a link to the article:
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

The Thursday 8-28-14 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - August 29, 2014 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right loon Greg Gutfeld was the fill-in host for O'Reilly. He started the show with two Republicans, and they all slammed Obama for his statement about ISIS.

Mike Baker and James Carafano were on to discuss it. Baker said this: "ISIS is a national security threat, and there are two things you shouldn't do when confronting an enemy like ISIS. One is that you shouldn't give them advance warning about potential air strikes and the other is that you shouldn't say you don't have a strategy. Today's press conference indicates just how much the administration is struggling."

Carafano said this: "It has been really clear that ISIS is becoming a big problem and to say that we don't have a strategy is unbelievable. This guy's been president for six years - he's predictable, he's reactive, and he's risk-averse. ISIS knows exactly what he is going to do."

Gutfeld said this: "It's scary to see our president consumed by climate, not by terror, like a man worrying about dandruff in a plague. ISIS is the deadliest terror group going, controlling turf the size of Maryland with oil fields and weaponry. Until our 'commander-in-cleats' takes it seriously, we're screwed."

ISIS is not a national security threat, they are in a foreign country and have not been a threat to the United States. Only Republicans think they are a national security threat. Stratfor.com, which is a source O'Reilly uses all the time, says ISIS is no threat at all to the United States. Funny how O'Reilly never mentions that, yeah funny.

Then Alan Colmes was on to discuss it, he said this: "We scare people all the time, and now there's a Senator saying ISIS will come and take over an American city. These are the same arguments we heard about Iraq after 9/11, and we overreacted by going into two countries. According to Stratfor, which analyzes geopolitical threats, ISIS couldn't even beat the Kurds in northern Iraq or the Shiites in southern Iraq. This is being ginned up for the purpose of getting American involvement. Wait until it's a true threat to the homeland of the United States."

Then James Carville & Kate Obenshain were on to talk about a new poll in Iowa that shows Mitt Romney retains substantial support among Republicans. Gutfeld asked Carville and Obenshain if Romney may run in 2016.

Carville said this: "I think there is a good chance that he's running. He's run for president twice and I once said that running for president is like having sex - no one did it once and forgot about it. The Republican field has had a bad year so it looks like it's more of a possibility."

Obenshain said this: "James Carville is the only person in the entire country who doesn't think the country would be better off had Mitt Romney won. There's a lot of buyer's remorse right now, which is why we're seeing those Iowa numbers. But I don't necessarily think he's going to hop into the race and the Republicans need to find somebody who can compellingly articulate the conservative vision."

Which is just ridiculous, because the only people who think Romney would have been a better President than Obama is Republicans, nobody else thinks that.

Then the biased far-right hack Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the polarization of politics and the media, which was most recently on display in the Ferguson case. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, so it was a one sided debate with two Republicans.

Goldberg said this: "We have become deeply divided, where if you just listen to the other guy it's tantamount to treason. In Ferguson, despite the fact that none of us knows what went on, both sides have reached a verdict. The liberal take is that the kid was black, the cop was white, the kid was unarmed, the cop is guilty, case closed. MSNBC had a contributor who said black boys are all under attack, which is insane. But conservatives aren't much better, they've decided that the kid was a thug, he robbed a store, the cop had no bad record, and the cop is innocent. I am not making an argument for wishy-washy even-handedness, but in Ferguson the facts have not come in yet."

And we do not know a lot of the facts in the case, because the police are covering it up and not giving the public the information about the police report or the autopsy, also the cop who shot him has lawyered up and is not talking. From what we know it looks like the cop shot an unarmed black teen, and until there is evidence to show otherwise that is what we know now.

Then the conservative Penny Young Nance was on to cry about Actress Scarlett Johansson, who has designed a t-shirt for Planned Parenthood that mocks Republicans as anti-woman. With no Democratic guest for balance. And btw, she is right, a news poll shows that women see Republicans in a negative light, and say they do not like what policies the Republicans support.

Nance said this: "Why is it that when you're a celebrity, your opinion counts on everything, including abortion? If Planned Parenthood wants to design an ugly t-shirt and sell it, that's great. I would trade that for them to get their hand out of the taxpayers' pocket to the tune of $500-million a year. Let them raise their own money, I'm tired of them pilfering the taxpayer. Raise your own money!"

Former CEO Calls Executive Pay Extreme & Ludicrous
By: Steve - August 29, 2014 - 10:00am

David Dillon, the former CEO of the supermarket chain Kroger, told the audience of an Aspen Ideas festival that his pay in his last year on the job, which clocked in at nearly $13 million, "even seems ludicrous to me."

He said that the package wasn't ludicrous when it was first put together, but rose so high because the company's stock has skyrocketed, and much of his compensation was tied to the stock price.

"I don't really defend that amount, that even seems ludicrous to me," he said. And while he said that even before the large package, compared to his peers, "I generally hit the 25th percentile on the bottom side" for compensation, even that "was pretty damn high."

In a follow up interview with Quartz, he added that the use of the word ludicrous was in comparison "to what I thought was a more logical level of pay for the year."

On the panel, he also defended the idea of designing executive compensation so that CEOs "have enough shareholder interest that they are mentally aligned with thinking about what should a long-term shareholder want out of an organization."

But he also admitted things have gone pretty far. "I also think it's gotten a little extreme, or maybe a lot extreme," he said.

Quartz added, "I personally believe that, generally speaking, executive pay has gotten too high, and it needs to be addressed in appropriate ways. Anybody who looks at CEO pay, even if it was reasonably based, they would say that person is paid way too much."

"I don’t dispute that they ought to be paid really well," he said. "It's just that I think it's gotten a little bit out of hand."

And the numbers back him up. Median CEO pay hit a record earlier this year, breaching the $10 million mark. It rose more than 50 percent over the last four years, while the average American saw her pay increase just 1.3 percent over the last year.

Chief executive pay has risen 127 times faster than worker pay over the last three decades. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay was 259.9-to-1 last year. That compares to a ratio of 20-to-1 in 1965 and even just 87.3-to-1 in the early 90s. Executive pay is even growing faster than pay for the top 1 percent.

And there is little evidence to suggest that these huge increases in CEO compensation are benefitting their companies. There is no evidence to suggest that paying CEOs top dollar means better performance in terms of profitability, revenue, or stock return.

In fact, a study found that the companies that pay their chief executives the most see the worst results for shareholders. Despite the attempt to tie pay to company performance, companies routinely game those systems to ensure that the top executive gets his bonuses and payouts, even if they fail to meet targets.

And btw, almost 40% of the highest-paid CEOs over the last two decades were fired, caught committing fraud, or oversaw a company bailout.

For Bill O'Reilly: 50 Examples Of White Privilege
By: Steve - August 29, 2014 - 9:00am

This is from an article by Peggy McIntosh called: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

It is a great read and should show anyone with a brain what white privilege is, and that is in fact real, including Bill O'Reilly, but I doubt it with him. It's hard to tell a racist they are a racist, they just deny it forever and then slam you for telling the truth about them.

Here are the 50:

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

Read the full article here:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

The Wednesday 8-27-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: How California Governor Jerry Brown is Undermining American Immigration Law. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Very quietly, Governor Brown has created a sanctuary state in California. That is, the state is not cooperating with the feds by enforcing immigration law. Today Governor Brown gave a speech and told non-citizens, 'you are all welcome in California.' Governor Brown is subverting federal law as well as undermining comprehensive immigration reform.

Talking Points wants a fair new federal immigration law that all the states obey, but that is not going to happen as long as people like Jerry Brown disregard federal policy. In order to get comprehensive immigration reform, there has to be compromise. But the open border people and the amnesty folks will not compromise if they think they can get what they want without securing the border.

That's the big thing, making the southern border impenetrable to illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and terrorists. First you secure the border in a visible way, then you deal with the millions of illegal people and their children who are already here. But Governor Brown and others have subverted the process.

They are saying to all, you're welcome in California, come on in. That is insane! We all know why Jerry Brown is doing what he's doing - votes. About a third of all people living in California were not born in the USA. In addition, illegal immigration is costing the Golden State an estimated $25 billion a year.

So what do you have to say about that, Governor Brown? American citizens in your state are paying $25 billion because you defy federal law. That's absolutely irresponsible, most likely illegal, and completely insane.
And I would say the bad guy here is Bill O'Reilly, he is being dishonest. Governor Brown is just living in reality, that immigrants are a net gain for the state. Not to mention this, it's the federal governments job to enforce the immigration laws. O'Reilly ignored all the facts, just read my blogs after this review to see what I am talking about.

Then immigration advocate Enrique Morones, who was at Governor Brown's speech Wednesday, said this: "It was a great speech and California is a welcoming state. We have a tremendous history of migration to California and these people are putting a lot into the state."

Like Morones, Ben Johnson of the American Immigration Council argued that immigrants are a net plus, saying this: "If you're just looking at the cost, the numbers are big, but the benefits of immigration to California are much larger. We need an immigration system that's designed to maximize the value of immigration."

O'Reilly questioned that math and Governor Brown's logic, saying this: "Mr. Brown never addressed the $25-billion flowing out of the state treasury to support illegal immigration and now he wants more people to come. It's crazy!"

Then the far-right/anti-immigration Laura Ingraham was on with her conservative view of the issue.

Ingraham said this: "Both of your previous guests believe that the whole border thing is overrated, and that Mexico and Mexican workers add so much to the U.S. economy. But American workers and legal immigrant workers are seeing flat-lining wages and a declining standard of living. They're increasingly pessimistic about their ability to reach the American dream."

Ingraham also analyzed a new poll showing that race relations in the USA have gotten worse over the past five years, saying this: "President Obama has been very divisive with the politics of racial division. Most people on the left believe American society is racist, they want a system of racial spoils to level the playing field. When you start with the idea that we're kind of an evil country with an evil history of slavery, you're going to have deteriorating race relations."

Which is just laughable, race relations have got worse, because the Republicans and the Tea Party have been showing their racism even more since Obama took office. They have spoken out with more racism because a black man is in the White House, this has made race relations worse, not anything Obama has done. All he does is speak out against the racism, in Ingrahamworld that is Obama being divisive. So Ingraham wants him to just be quiet about the massive increase in racism from the right, which is just ridiculous.

Then Karl Rove was on, who raised some eyebrows last week when he endorsed Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to visit Ferguson, Missouri.

Rove said this: "While I thought his visit was appropriate. I was concerned because he sounded like he had already come to the conclusion that it was time to get the cop. He's the chief law enforcement officer - it's one thing for him to say we will make certain that justice is served, but it's another thing for him to look like he's putting his thumb on the scale."

Then the Democrat Allan Lichtman and the Republican Jane Hampton Cook were on to talk about how Obama will be ranked in history.

Cook said this: "I think he'll rank in the bottom 15 or 20, depending on the choices he makes with ISIS. Economic growth has never reached 3% under President Obama, and the disapproval of ObamaCare really started going bad after the rollout."

Lichtman disagreed, saying this: "I think he will go down as the most consequential Democratic president of the last fifty years. His policies on bailing out the auto industry and the financial industry, along with the stimulus, stopped us from sliding into another depression. And with the Affordable Health Care Act he achieved something that presidents for fifty years have not been able to achieve."

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that. During Monday night's Emmy Awards, actress Sofia Vergara stepped onto a slowly rotating pedestal and displayed her ample assets. It was obviously a satire, but she was widely denounced on social media. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

MacCallum said this: "Everybody appreciates a sexy, smart, hilarious woman, but this segment was awkward and uncomfortable and unsuccessful. I just wanted her to get off the podium. Sofia Vergara seemed to be wondering why she was there, I don't think they pulled it off. I think that's why people got upset."

And I wonder how this is a topic on a so-called hard news show that only reports the facts in a no spin zone. My God, who cares what she did at the Emmys, nobody I know.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing With Disappointment. Billy said this: "While we all face disappointments, keep in mind that your life will be far smoother if you're able to buck up and accept the inevitable with as much grace as possible."

O'Reilly Cuts Mics Of Two Pro-Immigration Guests
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 11:00am

Now remember this, in the past when a guest slammed O'Reilly for cutting the mics of people O'Reilly said he never cuts any mics and called them a liar. Even though it is true, and here we have another example of O'Reilly cutting someones mic when he did not like what they were saying.

And btw, O'Reilly never cuts the mic of a conservative, never in the history of the show, but he does cut the mics of Democrats and liberals, and he has done it at least 3 times that I can remember.

Bill O'Reilly cut the microphones of two pro-immigration guests because he disagreed with their proposed border enforcement solutions.

On the August 27th edition of his show, O'Reilly invited immigration reform advocates Ben Johnson of the American Immigration Council and Enrique Morones, founder of Border Angels, to talk about solutions to undocumented immigration into the U.S.

During the segment, O'Reilly asked both guests what they would do "to stop people from coming in here illegally," only to cut their microphones off when they tried to explain their solutions, which included improvements in border enforcement.

He asked them the question, then he did not let them answer the question, then cut their mics, and said they were not answering the question.

Later in the show, O'Reilly explained it to the anti-immigration far-right Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham that he "cut them off" because they weren't answering his questions:
O'REILLY: I had to cut them off and be rude because they weren't answering the questions. It was obvious they weren't answering them and I can't waste the viewers' time.
In reality, they were not answering them with what O'Reilly wanted to hear, so he cut their mics. They tried to answer the specific question, but O'Reilly cut them off as they tried to answer and then claimed they were not answering the question. And they were also trying to tell him that immigrants are a net surplus for the state, but O'Reilly did not want to hear that because it's the truth.

O'Reilly's solutions for lessening immigration from Mexico have been criticized as "absurd" and "useless." And recently O'Reilly has advocated militarizing the southern border, flying surveillance flights in Mexican airspace "to pinpoint illegal immigration camps," and building a Berlin Wall-style border fence.

That even most Republicans disagree with, not to mention the cost to build it and to man it, he says the Government is broke and yet he wants to build a 2000 mile Berlin style wall and man it with hundreds of border patrol agents that would cost billions, without saying how we will pay for it, and ignoring the fact that they will just fly over it, or go around it.

Once again O'Reilly has proven to be a lying hypocrite who does not even follow his own rules. He claims to be an Independent with a no spin zone who is fair and balanced to everyone. Except it's all a lie, because he is not fair, he is not an Independent, and he does not have a no spin zone.

O'Reilly Lied About $25 Billion Cost To California For Immigrants
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 10:30am

As usual Bill O'Reilly distorted the facts using a debunked conservative study about the cost to California for their immigrant population. He claims the immigrants cost the state of California $25 Billion a year, which is true. But when he does not tell you is that those same immigrants actually give the state of California a surplus over time.

In other words, the state spends $25 Billion, but they make back more than $25 Billion, so there is a net surplus. Which is what immigration advocate Enrique Morones and Ben Johnson of the American Immigration Council were trying to tell O'Reilly when he cut their mics. He did not want his viewers to see that he was being dishonest with the $25 Billion claim.

Here are the facts O'Reilly did not report, and why he cut their mics:

Immigrants a Boon to State, Study Says

Finances: Legal and illegal, they contribute more in taxes than they cost in services over their lifetimes, researchers say.

A Latino think tank has reached the same conclusion that many immigrant-rights activists have stated in the past: That immigrants -- legal and illegal -- contribute more in California in taxes than they cost in government services.

Rather than using a one-year data snapshot to determine the effects of immigrants on the state's economy, a new study, "Why They Count: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State," uses the long-range premise that most of the state's immigrants will spend the rest of their lives in California and will pay their fair share of state taxes over that span.

"The appropriate question is not whether the 'net costs' of providing services to immigrants yield a 'surplus' or a 'deficit' on an annual basis, but whether over the duration of immigrants' residence in California, the state is able to benefit from a return on these investments," says the study by the Tomas Rivera Center.

The study concludes that immigrants are worth the costs and that California does benefit from them.

For example, the study concludes that an immigrant educated in California costs an average of $62,600, but pays out an average of $89,437 in state income and sales taxes to education alone over more than 40 years of employment.

Researchers reached the conclusion by combining data supplied by the state Department of Education, the California Post-Secondary Education Commission, the National Center of Education Statistics and the state Department of Finance, with estimated total tax revenues -- based on state income and sales taxes.

When tax revenues and costs for education and social service programs are combined, legal immigrants return a net surplus of $24,943 to the state over a lifetime, the study found. Illegal immigrants likewise employed over a lifetime return an average net of $7,890.

"Every [other] study has been a snapshot of one year's worth of expenditures and revenues and not surprisingly," said Harry Pachon, the president of the Rivera center, "they come up with a deficit. A more complete picture is obtained when overall, all contributions and costs are considered."

Pachon said he is willing to defend the worth of immigrants to society, especially to those who would dismiss the study as the product of a think tank sympathetic to immigrants.

"We stand by our figures and we're ready to debate them," Pachon said.

And btw, that is not the only study that says the same thing. In 1985, a Rand Corp. study concluded that Mexican immigrants, including those without legal documents, were "probably . . . an economic asset" to the state. Latino activists and others at the time lauded the findings that "immigrants' contributions in the form of taxes exceed the cost of providing public services that they use."

So Bill O'Reilly was dishonest in only reporting immigrant cost the state of California $25 Billion a year. Because the rest of the story is that they bring in more than what it cost the state over their lifetime. In other words, the state comes out ahead money in the long run, when you figure what they pay in taxes over time.

O'Reilly did not report any of this, and when the pro-immigration guests tried to point that out, O'Reilly asked them a specific question and when they did not answer it in the way he wanted them to he cut their mics, both of them. He did not want you to know the truth, so he cut their mics because they were trying to say the immigrants are a net surplus for the state of California.

That was dishonest journalism by O'Reilly, he tried to spin the truth and when the guests tried to show he was wrong they were shut down and had their mics cut. And this was done even after O'Reilly claimed to report the truth and the facts, when in reality he was lying and spinning and trying to keep the truth and the facts a secret to his viewers.

Insane Bill O'Reilly Says White Privilege Is A Myth
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on his Monday show to have a discussion about the concept of "white privilege." He asked Kelly if she believed it was real. "There's a lot of evidence behind it," Kelly said. O'Reilly said it was a myth.

Kelly was actually reeling off statistics about everything from poverty to police harassment. O'Reilly's response was to say that Asian-Americans did just fine and that "family culture" was a problem.

"It's not just family culture!" Kelly replied.

This was all such a typical phony Fox Fair and Balanced puppet show. Kelly reads a bunch of stats that, while they may be symptoms resulting from white privilege ( which is, somehow, just a "theory" in O'Reillyworld), are easily dismissed by the race-crazy Fox audience as simply evidence of the black people screwing up.

And how Asians or their family culture has anything to do with the debate of how blacks are treated by the public or the police, or white privilege is beyond me.

How do you have two white people, both wealthy Republicans who work for Fox and no blacks on to describe what blacks feel about being policed by a white police force?

Why does O'Reilly inevitably bring Asians into the conversation when their culture, heritage and academic prowess have absolutely nothing to do with black experience in the United States.

Now here are some comments to it from actual black people, which O'Reilly never had on to debate it, he just had two rich white Republicans on, himself and Megyn Kelly.

Allenels: O'Reilly doesn't have a clue nor does he care to understand what it means to be black and always a suspect in the United States. His so called logical arguments are not only ignorant, they are just wrong!

Fred Smith: O'Reilly doesn't understand that white privilege is waking up every day knowing that you can go about your day and your life without being stopped by police for no good reason, that women won't cross the street when they see you coming or grab their purses a little tighter.

It means never being concerned that you will get the dirty looks of the other whites in a cafe or not having to teach your children to not say anything back to police even when they are right and the police are wrong. White privilege means doing the same crime as your black roommate (like smoking grass) and getting a lighter sentence than the roommate, or none at all.

It means being able to knock on the door of a person after you've had a car accident to ask for help and not getting blasted with a shotgun.

Keith Romero: Plus you can flag a cab, shop without being harassed, drive without anxiety about needless stops, call the police without fear of being arrested yourself, be treated cordially in restaurants, rent any apartment you like, and on and on and on and on...

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a fool. Every white person in America wakes up every day with white privilege, and btw, I am white myself, both my parents were also white, and even I know there is white privilege.

And for most blacks there is a bias and racism against them every day. Which is something only blacks know how it feels, unless you are black you have not been a victim of bias or racism. For O'Reilly to even ask if it is true there is white privilege is just laughable, because it implies there might not be, when we all know there is.

O'Reilly even flat out said it's a myth, and his explanation as to why it's a myth, because Asians are doing ok. Are you kidding me, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How Asians are doing has nothing to do with racism and bias against blacks, or the debate about white privilege. It's an argument a 5 year old with brain damage would make, not a Harvard graduate with a cable news show on Fox.

Whites are not denied loans because of their skin color, whites are not followed in stores because of their skin color, whites are not pulled over by the police for no reason because they are white, but blacks are. Whites are not in jail in the same percentage as blacks for marijuana, even though the same percentage of whites and blacks deal in marijuana, and on and on.

The list is endless, blacks are not hired as much as whites because the white owners sometimes do not like blacks. This never happens to a white person, that alone is a prime example of white privilege, the very white privilege the idiot O'Reilly claims is a myth. Whites never have to do anything while worrying they could be denied a job, a loan, or get pulled over by the police because of the color of their skin.

It's called white privilege, and it is not only real, it's everywhere. To claim otherwise is just insanity, and Bill O'Reilly makes himself look like a fool for making such a ridiculous claim. Not to mention having a debate on "is white privilege real" with no black guests, which is a joke and laughable.

Hot Links

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Cost Of Obamacare

Bill O'Reilly Is Lying To You About Obamacare

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Electic Car Company Success

The Most Annoying Celebs Who Should Go Away

Bias Alert: O'Reilly Spins Presidential Election Media Study

O'Reilly & Fox Still Ignoring GOP Voter Registration Fraud Story

Biased O'Reilly Tells Romney To Call Obama A Socialist

O'Reilly Slams Obama With Dishonest Tip Of The Day

O'Reilly & Brit Hume Spin And Lie For Mitt Romney

Fox Promotes Ridiculous Study Of Doctors & Obamacare

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media & Obama

Low Gas Prices Shut O'Reilly & The Repiblicans Up Fast

I Am Waiting For The O'Reilly Health Care Bill Apology

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About The Media

O'Reilly Ignores MRC Calling For Sharpton Firing

Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Wrong On The Deficit

O'Reilly & Fox Lie That Obama To Blame For High Gas Prices

Scientist Group Slams Celebs Like Snooki & O'Reilly

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About America

O'Reilly & Ingraham Lied About Planned Parenthood (Again)

Fox Unemployment Chart Shows Their Right-Wing Bias

U.S. Troops Burn A Box Of O'Reilly's Books

Kelly & O'Reilly Make Up Another Green Energy Scandal

O'Reilly Ignoring All The Stock Market Increases

O'Reilly Flat Out LIED About The Debt Obama Added

O'Reilly Caught Doctoring Florida Mans E-Mail

O'Reilly Ignored Michele Bachmann Church Scandal

O'Reilly & Morris Lied About The Debt Polls

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On The West/Schultz Story

The Truth About Those Bush Tax Cuts

Number Of Tea Party Events Down 50 Percent

NWLC Says O'Reilly Statement Made Up & Offensive

Video Proof O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Hack

O'Reilly Gets It Totally Wrong On Norway Terrorist

Norway Terrorist Info O'Reilly Ignored

O'Reilly Ignoring Ensign/Coburn Hush Money Scandal

O'Reilly Calls Obama Health Care Waivers A Scam

O'Reilly Complains About Losing In His Own Poll

O'Reilly Ignores Republican Hypocrisy On Judicial Filibusters

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Unpopularity

O'Reilly Tells GOP How To Beat Obama With Scare Tactics

O'Reilly & Fox Are Lying To You About The Debt

O'Reilly Spins The 2008 Presidential Media Study

Important Tax Information Bill O'Reilly Has Ignored

O'Reilly Ignored McCain Op-Ed On Bin Laden

O'Reilly Scrubs Website & Podcast Of False Obama Claims

O'Reilly Ignored DOJ Black Panther Report

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Wisconsin Judge's Order Story

O'Reilly Ignored Jobs & Unemployment Report

Fox News Town Hall Protester Hypocrisy & Double Standards

O'Reilly & Varney Speculate About Oil Prices

O'Reilly Spins The Quinnipiac Temperature Poll

O'Reilly Proves How Stupid He Is Again

How O'Reilly Puts Out Right-Wing Propaganda

Fox News Insider Admits They Make Things Up

Luntz Admits Fox Has Anti-Obama Focus Groups

Reagan SG Says Health Care Bill Constitutional

O'Reilly Ignores Gore Answer To His Question

O'Reilly Wonders How The Moon Got There

More Republican Hate & Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored

Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored




O'Reilly Thinks We Are Still In A Recession

O'Reilly's Nazi Comment Defense Was Laughable

Fox News The Least Trusted Cable News Network

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media (Again)

O'Reilly Claims Estate Tax A Seizure Of Property

O'Reilly Called Bernie Sanders A Loon

Bloomberg Tax Cut Poll Proves O'Reilly Was Lying

O'Reilly Ignored Positive DADT Study & Story

O'Reilly & Fox Ignore Judge Being A 9-11 Truther

More Real News O'Reilly Has Ignored

More Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Ratings

O'Reilly Got The Ireland Economic Crisis Wrong

O'Reilly Ignored The Tom Delay Conviction Story

Women Of America: You Need To Read This

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly Is Dishonest & Crazy

O'Reilly Nazi Comparison Hypocrisy

O'Reilly Ignores New Poll While Promoting Paladino

Andrew Sullivan Called O'Reilly A Dishonest Propagandist

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Nevada RCP Senate Poll

O'Reilly Ignored Right-Wing Abortion Bomber Terrorism Story

Fox & O'Reilly Ignored Friday Pro-Mosque NY Rally

O'Reilly Busted For Health Insurance Premium Lies

Most Factor Gear Made in Vietnam And China

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again

O'Reilly Busted For 1st Time Retraction Lie

The Bill O'Reilly Non-Apology Shirley Sherrod Apology

O'Reilly & The Right Are Racist Idiots

O'Reilly Ignored Tea Party Express Racism Story

O'Reilly Compares Gay People To Al-Qaeda

Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Rating Polls

O'Reilly Ignored Mark Kirk Military Award Lie Story

Where Are The Sedition Charges Now O'Reilly

O'Reilly Caught In A Massive Lie About Jail Time

O'Reilly Running Ads For Emergency Food Supply

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tea Party Militia Links

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Gallup Tea Party Poll

O'Reilly Ignored Harris Poll Showing Republicans Are Stupid

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Health Reform Bill Tax

O'Reilly Caught Lying About NEJM Health Care Survey

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again

The Truth About Ratings For News Shows

Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Spin Doctor

O'Reilly Spinning Fox News Most Trusted Poll

Fox News Did Not Air Hope For Haiti Telethon

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Obama Terrorism Polls

O'Reilly Caught Lying About House Ethics Committee

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Increase

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Limbaugh Racism

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Religious Festival

O'Reilly Caught Red Handed Lying About CNN

O'Reilly Caught Violating Journalistic Standards Again

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The ACLU & Racial Profiling

More Proof O'Reilly & FOX News Do Not Tell The Truth

O'Reilly Called Bruce Springsteen Un-American & Un-Patriotic

The Bill O'Reilly Senate Torture Report Countdown Clock

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Obama Approval Numbers

FOX News Caught Lying About Obama Budget

O'Reilly Busted For Helping GOP Smear Pelosi

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Earmark Promise

Military.com Report Proves O'Reilly Wrong About Homeless Vets

O'Reilly Places 7th in 2008 Wingnut of The Year Award

O'Reilly Denys Reality About Abstinence Only Programs




Proof The O'Reilly Factor is Biased Against Barack Obama
O'Reilly said he is a non-partisan Independent, who is fair to both sides, and that he has been fair to Barack Obama. To check that claim I did a 3 month study of the Factor, it started on August 1st, 2008, and ran until October 31st, 2008. I watched the Factor every night and counted the negative and positive comments for Obama and McCain.

Visit the web page I set up, and you will see the stunning bias from O'Reilly and his mostly Republican guests against Barack Obama. Then you will see there is no doubt Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased Conservative. This study is conclusive proof that O'Reilly is in the tank for John McCain.

Visit The Web Page Below to See The 3 Month Factor Bias Study:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/3mbiasnumbers.htm

Proof O'Reilly Lied About The Balance on His Show
O'Reilly claims the factor is balanced, and that he personally makes sure every week he has an equal number of Republican and Democrat guests. This is a bold faced lie, and I can prove it. I put together a web page that shows the guest list from the factor for the last 2 weeks. Read it and you will see with your own eyes that Bill O'Reilly is lying when he says the factor is balanced.

And remember that we are 3 weeks before a major Presidential election, or the Republican bias numbers would be worse than it is normally. O'Reilly is actually having more Democrats on than he usually does, and the balance is still not even close. If we were not so close to an election it would be a lot worse.

Visit The Web Page Below to See The Lies About The Factor Balance:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillybalanced.htm

O'Reilly Sucks Investigation: Dishonesty, Deception, And Bias By Bill O'Reilly
O'Reilly claims there are no Republicans or Conservative groups that rival George Soros. O'Reilly said the top three conservative tax-exempt foundations are totally dwarfed by Soros and the radical Ford Foundation. And that they have 15 times more the assets. George Soros net worth is $8.5 billion, the Ford Foundation has a net worth of $13 billion. But the seven billionaires who donate to Newt Gingrich and other right-wing causes have a combined net worth of $34.8 billion dollars.

Somehow O'Reilly claims that Soros and the Ford Foundation have 15 times more the assets than anyone on the right. When the seven billionaires alone who give money to Newt, have roughly $14 billion more than Soros and the Ford Foundation combined.

Visit the web page below to see the massive money O'Reilly has ignored from the right:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreilly-investigation.htm

(( Right-Wing Hate Speech Ignored by Bill O'Reilly ))
O'Reilly claims there is no hate on the right, that it's all on the left. But the way he defines hate is ridiculous, if a liberal blog or website writes an article that criticizes George W. Bush (or any Republican) O'Reilly calls it hate. When it's not hate, it's reporting the facts, there is no hate. A great example is when websites like oreilly-sucks.com, mediamatters.org, etc. criticize O'Reilly he calls it hate, and says they are hate groups who lie about him.

That is a lie, it is not hate, and they are not hate websites. There is real hate on the internet, but O'Reilly does not report it, because most of it is from the right. I have documented this hate in my blog and on a web page, all of it was ignored by Bill O'Reilly, and it was never reported on the Factor.

Visit the web page below to see the massive right-wing hate O'Reilly has ignored:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/right-wing-hate.htm


www.oreilly-sucks.com Privacy Policy

Copyright 2001 - 2014


eXTReMe Tracker