Advertise Contact About This Web Site Webmaster Information



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 playing online poker real money games as a hobby including slots



Review the best Canadian online casinos for real money slots online at SlotsOnlineCanada.com



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



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



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.



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



The number one place for mobile slots is this site, they offer lots of info and exclusive free spins.



O'Reilly Sucks
Blog Archives

January - 2014
February - 2014
March - 2014
April - 2014
May - 2014
June - 2014
July - 2014
August - 2014
September - 2014
October - 2014
November - 2014

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




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

November 2014 (14 Shows) Republicans - 97 | Democrats - 18

The Factor Guest List Count Archives

Ratings: The O'Reilly Factor - Total Viewers

Monday - 11-17-14 -- O'Reilly - 2.990
Tuesday - 11-18-14 -- O'Reilly - 3.244
Wednesday - 11-19-14 -- O'Reilly - 3.431
Thursday - 11-20-14 -- O'Reilly - 4.153 - Obama Immigration Show
Friday - 11-21-14 -- O'Reilly -

Weekly Factor Average -

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

The Friday 11-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 22, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama Dividing the Nation. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Discussion about the immigration problem in America rarely changes opinion. Both sides are dug in and mostly un-persuadable. So Talking Points believes President Obama should be the focus of the debate. By unilaterally giving legal status to millions of undocumented people, the president is challenging the Constitution.

The Wall Street Journal, sympathetic to immigration, editorialized this way: 'The politics of immigration is already fraught, and Mr. Obama's order will make it worse.' Indeed, Texas and Oklahoma have announced they will sue President Obama on the grounds that he is violating the rights of those states. The administration disagrees, and millions of dollars will be spent defending the president's actions.

In the end, the president may very well lose in the Supreme Court. The tragedy here is, none of this had to happen. I believe the new Congress would have passed a fair immigration law if given the chance; there was immense pressure on the Republican leadership to do that.

But President Obama was in a rush, and the question is why. Speculation from the right says the president wants to trap the Republican Party into overreacting. Also, that he wants to reinforce his reputation as a liberal icon. What Barack Obama has done is setting off a constitutional brawl that will be harmful to a nation that needs united leadership and intense problem solving.
Comment: Which is ridiculous and nothing but one sided right-wing propaganda. Because over a year ago the Senate passed an immigration bill, that went to the Republican majority House and Boehner never even brought it up for a vote. And btw, we know that if he had it would have passed, they had the votes. But he did not bring it up for a vote because the Tea Party wing of the Republican party did not like it.

O'Reilly does not mention any of those facts, instead he dishonestly blames Obama for dividing the nation. When it is the Republican party that has divided the nation by declaring war on President Obama and the Democratic party the day after he took office. The Republican party has divided the nation by refusing to work with Obama on anything, mostly because he is a black man, and partly because he is a Democrat.

O'Reilly is a liar, and he does not tell you all the facts, all he does is put out lies and right-wing propaganda, which is about as dishonest as you can get. Obama is not dividing the nation, the Republican party and Fox News is, and O'Reilly also said that he believes the new Congress would have passed a fair immigration law if given the chance.

Are you kidding me, they have been sitting on a fair immigration bill for over 500 days, and they will not even bring it up for a vote. That statement alone shows that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing stooge. O'Reilly also said that The Wall Street Journal is sympathetic to immigration, which is just laughable, because that is a lie, they are a conservative newspaper and 99% of their articles are against immigration.

Then the Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was on to discuss it.

Ramos said this: "Barack Obama is paying back a debt to the Latino community. In 2008 he promised that he would do immigration reform during his first year. He didn't deliver, even though he had control of Congress, and now he has decided to act. This is something that we fought for."

Ramos also defended the constitutionality of the move, saying this: "He told me that he didn't have the legal authority to stop deportations, but then he listened to us and he changed his point of view. I think that he honestly believes he has the legal authority to do what he did."

Then Dr. Ben Carson, the Tea Party favorite, was on with his biased and far-right analysis of the immigration debate.

Carson said this: "I would first recognize that there are millions of Americans who are very poor and very desperate. Why don't we extend some help to those people and start looking at ways to get them in a better situation? As far as the immigrants are concerned, we need to reverse the polarity of the magnet that is attracting them. Get rid of all the benefits that are pulling them in here and secure the border."

Carson turned to the tense situation in Ferguson, Missouri, where a grand jury decision is expected any day in the Michael Brown shooting, saying this: "There are a lot of outside agitators coming in who are riling the people up. There are much better ways, if you feel that an injustice has been perpetrated, to get it taken care of."

Then the two biased Republicans Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on with their observations on America's divisions. With no Democratic guests for balance, none.

Gutfeld said this: "It's healthy to be divisive. Before there was Fox News you never heard the media rail against divisiveness because they were quite comfortable in lockstep. But now they have some competition and they're constantly talking about divisiveness. One reason there is more divisiveness now is that we've been putting identity before industry, we believe who you are is more important than what you do. It's created a lot of factions and has made people angry at one another."

McGuirk added that social media outlets enable more hate-spewing than ever before, saying this: "We've always been divided, we're a nation of disparate people with competing agendas. Then you throw in envy, stupidity, prejudice, and social media, which really amplifies the divisiveness and hate exponentially. It's very upsetting and disturbing."

Comment: We are a divided nation, mostly because the Republican party is so far right they refuse to work with the Democrats on anything, even issues the people support them on with a majority in the polls, the Republicans do not care. They go against the will of the people and put political ideology ahead of the will of the people.

O'Reilly never says a word about this. Instead he puts out the GOP talking points propaganda that it is all Obama's fault and he is dividing the nation. Which is just ridiculous, Obama has tried to work with Republicans, but they refuse to work with him. Instead they stand firm on their far-right positions, even though the majority of the people support it.

Here is one perfect example: The Minimum Wage Increase. The Democrats support it, Obama supports it, and the vast majority of the American people support it, somewhere around 70%. But the Republicans oppose it, and they vote it down every time, even though the majority of Americans want it raised. That is going against the will of the people and really dividing the country, but O'Reilly does not say that, he blames everything on Obama and says he is dividing the country.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Thanksgiving Tip. Billy said this: "With many Americans in need of food, and with Thanksgiving around the corner, consider making a donation to a local food bank."

O'Reilly & The GOP Wrong About NY Stop & Frisk Policy Change
By: Steve - November 22, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual O'Reilly was wrong about the NY stop and frisk policy change, it was his usual fearmongering and even though it was ruled unconstitutional he still was against changing it.

NYPD Report Finds That Violent Crime Down In NYC After Stop-And-Frisk Reforms

O'Reilly and pretty much all the Conservatives in the media long argued that stopping the NYPD's discriminatory stop-and-frisk tactics would result in higher violent crime rates. But even after the dramatic decrease in stop-and-frisk's application in the city, a NYPD report shows that the city's crime rate dropped to a 20 year low.

Bill O'Reilly: If You Take Stop-And-Frisk Away, "More Black Americans And Hispanic Americans Are Going To Die."

On the June 4, 2013 edition of his show, O'Reilly claimed that stop-and-frisk has decreased violence in minority communities and "Stats aside, it's a fact that if you take stop-and-frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/4/13]

NY Daily News: With Decline In 'Stop-And-Frisk' Policy, "The Body Count Will Start Rising."

In 2012, a New York Daily News editorial titled "How to kill New York," argued that, if the stop-and-frisk program is reformed, "the body count will start rising." [Media Matters, 5/16/12]

NY Post: If They Weaken Stop-And-Frisk, New York Will "Again Become The Crime Capital Of The World."

The New York Post has repeatedly claimed that stop-and-frisk policy was crucial to maintaining safety in New York and that weakening the program would lead to "mayhem," and a return to days when "criminals ruled the street."

One editorial claimed that if opponents of stop-and-frisk policy are successful, "the blood of new crime victims will be on their hands" and New York City will "once again become the Crime Capital of the World."

Post columnist Andrea Peyser claimed "a war is being waged on the effective policy of stop-and-frisk, and it will end in buckets of blood on city streets." [New York Post, 6/20/14; New York Post, 7/9/12; New York Post, 5/18/12; New York Post, 9/23/13]

And now the facts:

New York City's Stop-And-Frisk Approach Ruled Unconstitutional In 2013.

In 2013, a federal judge ruled that New York City's policy of stopping, questioning, and patting down "suspicious" people on city streets was applied in an unconstitutionally discriminatory way because "at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion," which "resulted in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

Huffington Post: Stop-And-Frisk Stops On Track To Decline 75 Percent In 2014.

On November 11, the Huffington Post reported that the New York Police Department (NYPD) is on track to conduct about 75 percent fewer stops in 2014 than it did the previous year. In 2013, the department stopped and questioned or frisked 190,000 people on the streets of New York City, but was ordered to implement reforms. So far in 2014, NYPD has conducted 45,000 stops.

NYPD Reports Violent Crime Drop After Stop-And Frisk Reforms

NY Daily News: "NYC Crime Rate Hits Lowest Mark Since 1994."

The New York Daily News highlighted new statistics that show overall crime rates in New York City have declined "7.9% in August, September, and October as compared to the same period last year" to the lowest level the city has seen since 1994.

According to the Daily News, "The city is also on a record-low pace for murders and burglaries," and the shooting rate has slowed. [New York Daily News, 11/17/14]

Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is not the non-partisan Independent who only reports hard facts (as he claims to be) because he gets caught reporting right-wing talking points based on lies and fear that are not true, and have no basis in facts.

O'Reilly reports his opinion, an opinion that is biased and represents the Republican position on an issue, in an attempt to get the public to support his position, even though we usually find out later that he was wrong. He never reports that he was wrong, and hopes that people just forget it, then he moves on to telling more right-wing lies and spin on some other issue.

The Thursday 11-20-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 21, 2014 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly went right to his top story about the Obama immigration order speech. Billy anchored a special live program immediately after President Obama's speech on immigration with one guest, the biased Republican Charles Krauthammer, who provided his perspective on the president's address. With no Democratic guest on for balance, even though O'Reilly promised he would have a fair and balanced debate on it.

Krauthammer said this: "He is making an announcement to all those people waiting to get into the U.S. legally that they are chumps, and if you want to get into this country and stay in this country, the way to do it is to come in illegally. I find the president's audacity rather remarkable."

Krauthammer also said this: "If he feels so strongly about this, and scripture dictates that this ought to be done, why did he do nothing in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the White House, the House and the Senate? He could have done it constitutionally by passing legislation. He's a very skilled politician who has used this issue for six years, and it becomes somewhat offensive when he pretends it's all for high principles."

COMMENT: Earth to Krauthammer, Obama did it for political reasons, duh! He is a politician, just as Republicans are, and they do things for political reasons too. You just do not like it when Democrats do it, because you are a far-right stooge, but when Republicans do it you are ok with it, you fricking hypocrite.

Then the Republican Ed Henry was on, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Henry said this: "The headline is that the president is going it alone. He's trying to spur action by Republicans when they take over Congress in January, but it may blow up in his face. Republicans are already calling him an 'emperor,' but I'm told by his advisers that he doesn't care. The president decided to go on offense and set the terms of this debate. Where I agree with Charles Krauthammer is that the president is trying to stay relevant. He took it on the chin in the midterm elections and he is a lame duck now."

O'Reilly commented on the fact that President Obama cited the Bible in his speech, saying this: "He is perhaps the most secular president we've ever had, yet he invoked 'scripture.' I think many Americans are going to be skeptical about the president's speech."

Then the journalist and illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas was on, he of course praised the president's action, saying this: "I haven't left the United States since I was 12, and now with the president's executive order I get a work permit and hopefully a driver's license. I will also get a chance to see my mother because I can go back to the Philippines and return. But when people hear the word 'amnesty,' they think permanent. This is temporary."

O'Reilly reminded Vargas that his experience is not exactly typical, saying this: "Surely you understand how millions of Americans are saying bad behavior is being rewarded. It wasn't your fault you were sent here at age 12, but there are a lot of people who came here in devious ways and didn't contribute to our society. This is a complicated issue with a lot of emotions."

Comment: And as usual O'Reilly is wrong, because most of the illegals that come here do it to find work and be good law abiding people.

Then Laura Ingraham was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. O'Reilly asked her how Republicans will challenge President Obama's unilateral action?

Ingraham said this: "The best course of action would be a lawsuit filed by a member of Congress. The basis of the suit would be a separation of powers claim, namely that the president usurped legislative authority. Clearly it was not the intent of Congress to institute these new policies, this goes way beyond the traditional prosecutorial discretion that presidents have used in the past. I have never seen a president take this much authority away from Congress, so Congress must use all of its tools."

Comment: Which is ridiculous, because they would lose the lawsuit, it would take years, Obama would be out of office by then, and the legal experts have already said Obama has the constitutional authority to do it, just as Bush Sr. and Reagan did. That Republicans had no problem with then, they only have a problem with it when a Democrat does it.

And btw folks, O'Reilly also never mentioned that Bush and Reagan did the very same thing, and nobody filed lawsuits over it, nobody said it was un-Constitutional, nothing.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a website that wrote a good review of his book.

Far-Right Nut Laura Ingraham Wants To Get Rid Of The 14th Amendment
By: Steve - November 21, 2014 - 10:00am

And this is the moron O'Reilly has for his full-time fill-in host when he is not there, but he never says a word about any of her radical far-right positions or ideas. Think about that, if Bill O'Reilly is a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides (as he personally claims he is) how in the hell can he have Laura Ingraham as his full time fill-in host? Here are the details on her latest far-right nonsense:

Fox News and ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham has repeatedly urged the Republican party to prioritize the elimination of birthright citizenship, a constitutionally-protected right that cannot be abridged without repealing parts of the 14th Amendment.

During the November 19th edition of The Laura Ingraham Radio Show, Ingraham asked GOP Chairman Reince Preibus why Republicans aren't "finally dealing" with "the anchor baby issue." [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/19/14]

Ingraham: Republicans' Number One Priority Should Be "Locking The Border Down And Ridding Us Of This Birthright Citizenship."

On the November 19th edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham charged Republicans with the task of "ridding us of this birthright citizenship" in her continued crusade against immigrants. [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/19/14]

Ingraham: "We Could Do A Lot To Enforce Our Immigration Laws...We Could Move to End Birthright Citizenship."

During the November 17th edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham recommended ending birthright citizenship, which she says leads to "fraud and gaming the system." [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/17/14]

And now the facts:

Former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger: Birthright Citizenship Is "Part Of Our Unique National Identity," "A Good Rule That Has Served Us Well For 200 Years."

Dellinger appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation and explained that "If you're born here, you're a citizen." Dellinger noted that birthright citizenship was the rule commonly applied by the courts prior to Dred Scott, and was returned to and preserved in the U.S. Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Dellinger also outlined the Supreme Court decision finding that birthright citizenship applies to undocumented aliens.

UPenn Law Professor: Birthright Citizenship "Enacted A Prophylactic Rule Against The Majority's Ability To Deny Persons Born In The United States The Legal Status Of Citizenship Based On Prejudice."

In a 2009 law review article, University of Pennsylvania law professor Cristina M. Rodríguez wrote that the Citizenship Clause acts as a "prophylactic rule" to safeguard immigrants from discriminatory denial of citizenship and that it "stands for the principle that citizenship is not earned; it is indefeasible."

Rodríguez also argued that birthright citizenship "is the broadest egalitarian construction we can give to the Clause." [Journal of Constitutional Law, 07/09]

Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra: Birthright Citizenship Is Based On "Objective Measure Of U.S. Birth Rather Than Subjective Political Or Public Opinion."

Constitutional Accountability Center's chief counsel Elizabeth Wydra debunked right-wing arguments about birthright citizenship, pointing out that "inalienable rights are not put to a vote," and that birthright citizenship is not based on "subjective political or public opinion."

NALEO: Birthright Citizenship Is "A Pillar Of American Civil Rights."

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) argues that birthright citizenship is a "pillar of American civil rights" and changing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment would "impose significant financial and administrative burdens" on families and the government.

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child's citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.

This process would impose significant costs on all levels of government at a time when we can least afford it. It's a far-right idea that will never happen, and it is being pushed by the fricking fill-in host for the O'Reilly Factor.

And yet, O'Reilly says nothing, and continues to use her as his fill-in host. While as the same time claiming to be an impartial, fair and balanced Independent, which is just laughable.

Major Networks Not Airing Obama's Immigration Speech
By: Steve - November 20, 2014 - 11:00am

Despite the great significance of Barack Obama's planned executive action on immigration reform, the four major television broadcast networks are not planning to cover the president's Thursday night address where he is expected to announce his plan.

ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have all indicated they won't break their planned programming to cover Obama's 8 p.m. ET speech. CNN's Brian Stelter first reported that ABC, NBC and CBS were opting out, and an official with FOX confirmed the same with The Hill.

CNN, MSNBC, FOX News and other cable news networks were expected to air the speech, as was PBS.

But the networks that cater to an audience who will be very interested in what the president has to say cleared the time for the address, CNN reported. The vice president of Univision, the nation's leading Spanish-language network, announced plans to interrupt its airing of the Latin Grammy Awards for the president's address.

Telemundo, the other big Spanish-language network in the U.S. will also show the speech live. And the White House is expected to stream the event online. Stelter reported that White House officials decided against formally requesting that the major networks carry the address after getting the impression that they would be hesitant to do so, reports echoed by Deadline and The Hill.

November is sweeps month, when primetime slots become all the more valuable. The four major networks have shows slotted for 8 p.m. that attract big audiences, including the fall finale of "Grey’s Anatomy" on ABC, Deadline noted.

Obama announced the address on Wednesday, saying "everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken," and, "I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system work better."

While the exact details of the president's plans to sidestep Congress are not known, the sweeping reforms could potentially shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The president's expected executive action on immigration has prompted protest among Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who said on Wednesday that Congress should take legal action in response.

Joy Behar From The View Said Bill O'Reilly Is Shameless
By: Steve - November 20, 2014 - 10:00am

It's been more than four years since Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg stood up and walked out of The View during an appearance by Bill O'Reilly. But the moment left such a lasting impression that Howard Stern wanted Behar to tell him what exactly happened when she was on his radio show Monday.

"I was shocked by that," Stern said of the walk-out, "because I feel if you have a show and you invite someone on that they're a guest."

He said you don't have to agree with them, but "why walk off your own show if he's a guest on the show? Just don't have them on."

Behar pointed out to Stern that she was not in charge of booking The View when she was a host and would not have invited O'Reilly to appear.

BEHAR: "I don't find him amusing in any way, I don't find him interesting in any way," she said, adding that she normally would not walk off the set of her own show but "there was something propelling my ass out of the seat."

She said she "absolutely" does not regret the move, especially given all the publicity it drummed up for her and The View.

As for how O'Reilly reacted backstage after the incident, she said, "He's shameless, he doesn't give a shit."

And, while her boss Barbara Walters was pissed about the move immediately after it happened, as soon as she saw the viewer numbers go up from it, she didn't mind so much.

"Everything is forgiven when you get ratings," Stern said.

Reagan And Bush Also Acted Alone On Immigration
By: Steve - November 20, 2014 - 10:00am

Barack Obama, or what Republicans call our Fascist-in-Chief, plans to forego chasing the wild goose of Republican approval and take executive action on immigration reform, potentially relieving nearly five million undocumented immigrants of the fear of being separated from their homes and families.

The Republicans, incensed that a government official would have the gall to get something done without their approval, have made it clear that Obama acting alone on immigration would be nothing short of a declaration of war.

And if it's one thing Republicans can get jazzed about, it's war. Any war. The war on Christianity, the war on Christmas, the war on marriage - if it can be packaged as a war, Fox News will have graphics for it and Bill O'Reilly will find the wind in his lungs to yell about it.

But while the Republicans gleefully grind their axe, they seem to have forgotten this important fact: Their heroes Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush also acted alone on immigration, extending amnesty to family members who weren't covered by the immigration overhaul of 1986.

Wow, it turns out, executive action is actually something a president can do. As in, it's within the powers our constitution gives the office of president. Weird. Party pooper and Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX) echoed this inconvenient fact, saying:

"It's clear that it's fully within his legal authority to issue these orders. Republicans didn't raise any objections in the past when Republican presidents issued similar orders. This is pure political theater."

Speaking of political theater, House Speaker John Boehner offered this dramatic, ominous statement on Obama’s pending executive action:

"Every administration needs this and needs that, needs all kinds of things. You know, if he wants to go off on his own, there are things that he's just not going to get."

Wake up the graphic design team at Fox and tell Bill O'Reilly to do some breathing exercises, because it looks like we're about to have a war on our hands.

The Monday 11-17-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 18, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: ISIS kills another American. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 26-year-old Peter Kassig from Indiana was executed by ISIS killers and the video released over the weekend. Mr. Kassig is the third American beheaded by this barbaric group. President Obama has condemned the murder as 'an act of pure evil,' but that's not enough. ISIS is a direct threat to all Americans, they would kill all of us.

Therefore Mr. Obama must change his tactics. First, Special Forces and the U.S. military should kill as many of these terrorists as we can. Borders do not matter. If we know where they are, we go after them from the air, the sea or on land. All the military assets the USA has should be used in eradicating the terror group; those who are captured must be taken to Guantanamo Bay.

On to Iran. America will again negotiate with the Iranians to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. Few are optimistic that Secretary of State John Kerry will succeed, but we hope a strong deal is reached that will protect the world from the Mullahs. If Iran does not agree to stop its nuke program, severe sanctions must be re-imposed.

And then there's Putin, whose forces are now invading eastern Ukraine. Over the weekend, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Putin to his face to get out of Ukraine. Putin replied, that's impossible because Russia is not there! President Obama knows Putin is lying, and must impose draconian sanctions on Russia.

So you can see that in three areas, the bad guys are winning and the president seems hesitant to do what is necessary to turn things around. He can talk all he wants. Meantime, Americans are being murdered.
Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to analyze the ISIS bloodshed and the proper response.

Williams said this: "I disagree when you say all of America's assets, because that would mean ground troops. The polls show that the American people do not want our military forces in another war, and you have to have the support of the American people for military action."

Ham said this: "It's true that the American people are concerned about going in with troops on the ground because they've been burned in the past, but you have to have a commander-in-chief who is willing to make that argument to the people and to take it to Congress for approval."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped design ObamaCare.

Hume said this: "This is pretty damaging, because it reinforces a lot of what the public already understood about ObamaCare and how it was sold. According to Gruber, they knew there were taxes but had to mask that in order to hoodwink the Congressional Budget Office."

Then Alan Colmes and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "This does political damage and it's not good for the president. It adds to the feeling that the government is deceptive and isn't on our side. And there probably was some deception going on."

Marshall said this: "We have to be realistic and look at the facts. This is a piece of legislation that Republicans have been very open about wanting to repeal or replace or tweak. This definitely hurts the president and Democrats are lying to themselves if they pretend it doesn't."

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about President Obama, who still seems poised to sign an executive order that will instantly legalize millions of immigrants.

Rove said this: "I was there in the Cabinet Room in 2006, when Senator Obama was a rising star in the Democratic Party. He promised President Bush that he would be a down-the-line supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. But the next year he showed up on the floor of the Senate and voted for a series of killer amendments that were favored by labor unions."

Rove also said this: "There has to be verifiable border security, you have to resolve the issue of guest workers, and we have to do something about the status of the people who are here illegally. If they want to become citizens, they should pay fines and go to the back of the line. If they don't want to become citizens, they can remain and work here, but they don't get ObamaCare and welfare. They broke the law!"

Then Sam Dotson was on to discuss the grand jury decision expected any day in the Michael Brown case, O'Reilly asked St. Louis Chief of Police Sam Dotson how his force is preparing for potential unrest.

Dotson said this: "We have to keep people safe, we have to protect their constitutional rights, and we have to keep property safe. Governor Jay Nixon has activated the National Guard to help us do those things. The frustrating part for law enforcement is that there are a lot of good people who just want to have their voices heard. We can engage with them, but this criminal element is here to do criminal acts. They're here because there's a stage and a platform - it bothers me and it worries me. When they break the law, we have a plan to go get them."

Comment: And of course O'Reilly had no Democratic guest on for balance, and he did not say one work about the KKK saying they were going to use violence at the protests, O'Reilly ignored it.

Then Jesse Watters visited Philadelphia's Bartram High School, where students have assaulted teachers in numerous incidents.

Here's what some students told Watters: "I wouldn't recommend this school to nobody" ... "Some of the teachers are not teaching us, they're not preparing us for college or none of that" ... "They pressure a lot of students and they expect them not to retaliate, but in this environment they got to expect something violent."

One neighborhood woman summarized the bleak situation like this: "If you don't get a handle on this right now, it's going to get worse because other kids feel as though they can get away with that. Years ago, you weren't even allowed to look at a teacher crooked."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: More Danger on the Internet. Billy said this: "Employers and college admissions officers check out your social media pages, so don't forget that what you put out on the Internet can seriously damage your life prospects."

What a joke, this is old news and a tip O'Reilly has reported before, thank you for nothing Mr. Obvious. We already know employers and other people look at your facebook page etc. in fact, you have given this same tip before, get some new tips that actually help people or end this worthless tip of the day garbage.

Fox's Juan Williams: Gruber Comments 'Much Ado About Nothing'
By: Steve - November 18, 2014 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly: Obamacare "Was A Fraud." On the November 12th edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly claimed that Gruber "is a patriot for finally telling the truth to the people" that the ACA "was a fraud" crafted in a "deceitful" way. (The O'Reilly Factor, 11/12/14)

But Fox News commentator Juan Williams thinks O'Reilly and other conservatives are making "much ado about nothing" over MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's controversial remarks that the Affordable Care Act passed only because of a "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter."

Although he understood how the comments could be "insulting," Williams insisted that all laws require some sort of clever packaging much like how corporations market products.

And he is exactly right. New Republic senior editor Brian Beutler explained that Gruber's comments about how the health care reform law was written are "ultimately unnewsworthy" because "everyone writing significant legislation does this."

In his article on Gruber's comments, Beutler also explained that Gruber was wrong in his claims that the cost sharing tradeoffs in the ACA weren't publicly discussed. In fact, Beutler asserted that the ACA "actually stands out for how much it was debated, and, for the most part, how transparent that debate was."

The Senate Held Years Of Bipartisan Hearings On Health Care Reform Before ACA Passed. Former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) posted a timeline of his committee's work on health care reform since 2008, which included more than a dozen hearings through 2008-09 and "31 bipartisan meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill" between June and September of 2009.

And btw, Bush and his crew did the exact same thing when they passed the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill, but then it was a Republican doing it so O'Reilly and the right said nothing.

When Fox News Sunday host asked Williams if he thought the Gruber comments presented "nothing new" for the Obamacare debate, the former NPR reporter said this: "I would say it's much ado about nothing with Gruber, except that the critics of Obamacare are having a field day."

Contrary to Republican talking points, he continued, "the act is working," and the GOP should be celebrating how the "uninsured rate in the country has dropped by 25 percent."

New York Times economics correspondent Neil Irwin explained that Gruber had simply highlighted something "completely commonplace about how Congress makes policy of all types."

As Irwin noted, lawmakers often craft legislation "to fit the sometimes arbitrary conventions by which the Congressional Budget Office evaluates laws and the public debates them" and that both parties engage in the practice.

Why President Obama Should Veto The Keystone XL Pipeline
By: Steve - November 17, 2014 - 10:00am

On Friday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted for the ninth time to approve a bill directing President Barack Obama to take action on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Next Tuesday, the Senate will hold a similar vote that is expected to pass. But it is looking increasingly likely that Obama will veto the bill when it reaches his desk. And he should.

"I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices," the president said at a press conference in Myanmar Friday morning. "Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else."

Republicans in Congress (along with some Democrats like Mary Landrieu, who is now leading the charge for the pipeline in the Senate in a last ditch effort to save her seat) point to a State Department report that says the project will not have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions because the Canadian oil is likely to be extracted at a similar rate with or without the pipeline.

Meanwhile, they argue that it will create a large number of American jobs. Of course, for conservatives who don't believe in man-made climate change, even one job is probably worth more any potential decrease in emissions.

But, as Obama said earlier today, Keystone is not some massive jobs bill that is going to solve America's (diminishing) unemployment problem. Republicans love to cite the State Department report on the pipeline's environmental impact, but you are not going to hear them talking as much about the section that covers job creation.

That's because while the report estimates the pipeline will create 42,100 jobs annually, only 16,100 of those are directly connected to the pipeline (the rest are predicted to be the result of a ripple effect of the project).

But as CBS News points out in a piece published today, those jobs will only exist for the two years during which the pipeline is being built. After that, the State Department estimates there would only be 35 permanent employees needed for the operational phase.

Something O'Reilly and the Republicans never seem to mention, the facts show that most of those jobs are temporary, and when they are gone after 2 years there will only be 35 full time employees, to maintain the pipeline. If O'Reilly were a real un-biased journalist, as he claims, he would report this, but he never does.

And when the president stated that Keystone will not lower gas prices, he should have also mentioned that it will raise them. In April, Bloomberg's Tom Randall reported that "in Keystone's weirdonomics, the pipeline would actually increase prices of gasoline for much of the country, according to at least three studies that have looked into it."

Basically, because the oil would be bypassing Midwest refineries in favor of the Gulf, where it can be shipped to more lucrative overseas markets, there will be less oil to be had here at home, therefore increasing prices for American consumers.

Which is another thing O'Reilly and the Republicans never tell you about, while they lie that it will lower gas prices for Americans. When the facts show we will not even get that oil, it will bypass us and go overseas. And that would be 2 to 3 years from now, if not longer, and not do anything for us here.

So, the Keystone XL pipeline will not create any long-term jobs and could actually make gas more expensive in the U.S.

But what about the environmental impact? While the State Department has said that the project will likely not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, it definitely will not decrease them, which is what America and the rest of the world needs to be doing in order to avert the worst case scenarios of climate change. On top of that, construction of the pipeline greatly increases the risk of a massive oil spill on U.S. soil.

Ultimately, the Keystone XL pipeline represents more than a simple construction project. It is about the decision to move forward on renewable energy or remain stuck in the past for generations to come, extracting every last bit of crude oil out of the ground until there's nothing left.

As long as Obama is still president, he has the ability to send a message to the world that despite the modest benefits Keystone might bring, it is not worth the risks and would send the United States down a long path in the wrong direction.

O'Reilly Wrong About The Constitution & Obama's Power
By: Steve - November 16, 2014 - 10:00am

As usual, Billy O'Reilly is wrong when he says Obama does not have the power to put in place immigration orders that build upon the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and provide temporary administrative relief for certain undocumented immigrants.

Because he does, as usual O'Reilly is spinning out right-wing talking points and biased opinions, instead of the facts.

President Obama is expected to announce immigration orders that build upon the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and provide temporary administrative relief for certain undocumented immigrants, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that O'Reilly and the right-wing media have attacked as "lawless."

But experts across the political spectrum acknowledge that this type of executive action has long been practiced and authorized under federal immigration law.

Here are some headlines, and O'Reilly ignored them all:

Right-Wing Media Has Been Misinforming About The Action For Months

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#attacking

The Executive Action Is A Type Of Long-Accepted Prosecutorial Discretion

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#discretion

Prosecutorial Discretion Is Widely Used By Law Enforcement, Not Just For Immigration

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#enforcement

Republicans Supported The Same Type Of Prosecutorial Discretion In The Past

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#republicans

The president will announce a plan to issue an executive order to "protect up to five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation," which may defer action on deportation proceedings for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens, beneficiaries of DACA, or children otherwise legally present. Obama's plan is also expected to provide opportunities for undocumented immigrants to obtain work permits, similar to DACA.

Officials said one of the primary considerations for the president has been to take actions that can withstand the legal challenges that they expect will come quickly from Republicans. A senior administration official said lawyers had been working for months to make sure the president's proposal would be "legally unassailable" when he presented it.

Most of the major elements of the president's plan are based on longstanding legal precedents that give the executive branch the right to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in how it enforces the laws. That was the basis of a 2012 decision to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, who came to the United States as young children. The new announcement will be based on a similar legal theory, officials said.

And more: In 2012, almost 100 law professors wrote a memo to the president explaining the decades-old legal precedent for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion and defer action on the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants. These arguments were used by the White House when it created DACA, a use of "clear executive authority" that is a "long-standing form of administrative relief."

UCLA Law Professor Hiroshi Motomura was the principal author of the 2012 memo that outlined the legal rationale for temporary administrative relief like DACA. Motomura explained that the president could build upon the program as is being reported, which is essentially "a list to prioritize who should be deported first."
MOTOMURA: The DACA program applies to any undocumented immigrant age 16 to 31 who came to the United States as a child, has either graduated from high school or is currently enrolled in school, and doesn't have a criminal record.

The government basically promises not to deport these youths and adults for two years and allows them to work legally in the United States. They don't get permanent residency or a path to U.S. citizenship, however -- as they would have if Congress had passed the Dream Act.

As of June 2013, the administration had received more than 550,000 applications for DACA and approved about 72 percent of them. There were another 350,000 or so youths and adults in the country who likely qualify but either don't know about the program or can't pay the $465 application fee.

There are 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has said it only has the resources to deport about 400,000 of them per year. Someone has to be at the bottom of the list. DACA was a way of formalizing those priorities. The "Dream Act kids" are officially at the bottom of the list.

The legal rationale for the DACA program was outlined in a letter drafted in 2012 by UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura and co-signed by nearly 100 top legal scholars around the country. In an interview last year, Motomura told me that Obama could conceivably expand that program, but there are limits to how far he can go.

Here's how I think about it. If the president can make a list to prioritize who should be deported first, then I think it's clear that he can give people at the bottom of that list a piece of paper saying you're at the bottom, Motomura says.

"That's how I think about DACA. It's clearly within his discretionary power. But if he did this for every single immigrant, he would no longer be exercising his discretion. That would be problematic."
Think about this folks, this is the legal opinion of a Law Professor, and 100 other legal experts agree with his opinion. O'Reilly disagrees, and says it is not only un-constitutional, he also says it will harm the country. Which is just laughable, all it does it make parents of kids who are already here legal for 2 years, it does not harm anyone, it helps them.

O'Reilly is not a lawyer, and he is not qualified to give legal opinions. The actual legal experts disagree with him, even most of the conservative legal experts disagree with him. O'Reilly is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack who has a cable tv news show, that less than 1% of the people even watch, and 90% of that 1% are also right-wing stooges who believe all the spin and propaganda O'Reilly puts out.

Here are the facts: Obama does have the power to do it, and it will not harm the country because they are already here, and we can only deport 400,000 (out of 11 million) of them a year anyway. The reality is it would take about 30 years to deport the illegals who are here now, let alone in the future, so it's impossible.

O'Reilly lies about it to try and get public support against Obama, it's called right-wing talking points and right-wing propaganda, and it's coming from a dishonest fraud who says he is an Independent and not a Republican, while saying the exact same things the far-right loons are saying about it, and those are the facts.

U.S. Expects $5 Billion PROFIT From Program That Funded Solyndra
By: Steve - November 15, 2014 - 11:00am

Remember when O'Reilly flipped out because the federal government gave loans to clean energy companies like Solyndra, O'Reilly said it was a disaster and that it would cost the taxpayers billions.

Well, as usual he was wrong. Because now we find out that the U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded companies including Solyndra, supporting President Barack Obama's decision to back low-carbon technologies.

The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as Friday, according to an official who helped put together the data.

The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. had wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama's credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.

A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.

What happened is one or two companies lost money, so O'Reilly only reported that, while ignoring all the other companies that got loans who were making money. It was right-wing spin and right-wing talking points propaganda, in other words, he ignored the companies that were doing good and only reported on the 1 or 2 companies that were having problems.

It's called right-wing bias, and cherry picking. And now that we find out the government will make billions in profits, O'Reilly is silent, and does not say a word about it. Proving once again he is nothing but a biased and dishonest right-wing hack.

Right-Wing Stooges Float Obama Impeachment Over Immigration Plan
By: Steve - November 15, 2014 - 10:00am

President Obama intends to announce plans before the end of 2014 to enforce changes to the country's immigration system. The New York Times reported that the plans would protect as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants "from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits."

Under the new plan, deportations will continue for convicted criminals as well as "foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers." Obama has made clear that he will reverse his executive orders if Congress passes a comprehensive immigration reform bill:
Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nation's laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the government's 12,000 immigration agents. One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.

Extending protections to more undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, and to their parents, could affect an additional one million or more if they are included in the final plan that the president announces.

White House officials are also still debating whether to include protections for farm workers who have entered the country illegally but have been employed for years in the agriculture industry, a move that could affect hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Obama's actions will also expand opportunities for legal immigrants who have high-tech skills, shift extra security resources to the nation's southern border, revamp a controversial immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities, and provide clearer guidance to the agencies that enforce immigration laws about who should be a low priority for deportation, especially those with strong family ties and no serious criminal history.
This bill makes sense, because it simply makes illegals who are already here with kids legal to be here, but all the Republicans are flipping out over it. Including O'Reilly, who says he is not a Republican who never uses right-wing talking points. While saying the exact same things about it Republicans are, and using their talking points.

Here are some prime examples:

Megyn Kelly Floats Impeachment Over Executive Action: "Some Say Republicans Have No Choice."

On the November 13 edition of Fox News The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly suggested that "some say Republicans have no choice" but to impeach President Obama if he issues executive action on immigration reform. Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer agreed, saying Obama's executive action is "an impeachable offense."

Kelly went on to advise Republicans on legal options to "thwart President Obama's executive action," suggesting impeachment again, and adding a lawsuit, cutting off the funds needed to carry out the executive order, and holding up Obama's judicial and other appointments. [Fox News, The Kelly File, 11/13/14].

Even though a week before Kelly admitted the executive order was not a violation of the constitution.

Leading Law Professors: Presidents Have Granted Deferred Action To Undocumented Immigrants "Historically and Recently." In 2012, almost 100 law professors wrote a memo to the president explaining the decades-old legal precedent for the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion and defer action on the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants. These arguments were used by the White House when it created DACA, a use of "clear executive authority" that is a "long-standing form of administrative relief."

Bill O'Reilly Highlights GOP Option To Punish Obama For Executive Action By "Paralyzing The Government."

On the November 13th edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that President Obama is "declaring war on the Republican Party" with his immigration executive action and highlighted Republicans option to block an upcoming spending bill, "paralyzing the government" along with "a number of other things the Republican Party may to do punish the president." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/13/14]

Lou Dobbs Hypes Republican Threat To Defund Government To Block Obama's Presidential "Fiat."

On the November 13 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Dobbs hyped Republican threats to "use the upcoming government funding bill debate to block the president's executive action," calling Obama's immigration overhaul "evidence of his unilateral, even occasionally authoritarian inclination." [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 11/13/14]

Krauthammer: GOP Should Block Executive Nominations Until Obama's Actions Are Repealed.

On the November 13 edition of Special Report, Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer advised Republicans against shutting down the government, suggesting instead that they block all executive nominations until President Obama repeals his executive order. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 11/13/14]

Megyn Kelly Floats Defunding Department Of Justice To Block Executive Action.

On the November 12 edition of The Kelly File, Kelly floated the option of defunding the Department of Justice to block Obama's immigration executive action, asking Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) if he would be willing to do so. [Fox News, The Kelly File, 11/12/14]

American Companies Now Have $2 Trillion Dollars Overseas
By: Steve - November 14, 2014 - 10:00am

And the insane right-wing fool Bill O'Reilly wants to give them even more of a tax break, while not punishing them for putting all that money overseas to avoid taxes.

U.S. companies are for the first time holding more than $2 trillion overseas, according to an analysis that paints a bleak picture of whether that money will make its way home and the limited economic impact it would have even if it does.

Corporate cash has hit $2.1 trillion, a sixfold increase over the past 12 years, Capital Economics said, citing its own database as well as that of Audit Analytics and other sources. There is no official total, but the firm also used regulatory filings that included "indefinitely reinvested foreign earnings" to glean the total sitting outside U.S. borders.

"The latest signs suggest that, as business confidence improves in light of the continued economic recovery, U.S. firms are starting to hold less cash domestically," Capital economists Paul Dales and Andrew Hunter said in a report for clients.

"However, the foreign cash piles of the largest firms have almost certainly continued to grow."

That total, while daunting in its own right, is now greater than the amount held on U.S. shores, which totals just under $1.9 trillion, according to the latest Federal Reserve flow of funds tally.

Such numbers are bound to get attention in Washington, which for years has been debating so-called repatriation measures that would allow companies to bring their cash back home at drastically reduced tax rates. The new Republican-controlled Congress is expected to take up the issue quickly when it convenes in January.

But the Capital analysis provides little optimism in that regard. Dales and Hunter pointed out that during the 2004 tax holiday "most of that cash was used to fund dividend payouts and share buybacks rather than to boost investment."

A Democratic congressional report indicated that the biggest companies receiving the benefits of $360 billion in repatriated funds actually cut a net 20,000 jobs, and that the holiday cost Treasury coffers $3.3 billion.

"This is supported by the results of a 2009 study by the (National Bureau of Economic Research), which found that every $1 that was repatriated during the tax holiday resulted in an increase of almost $1 in shareholder payouts," the Capital note said. "Around $0.80 went towards share buybacks and $0.15 to dividend payments."

Very little, then, went to hiring and reinvestment.

In other words, they used the tax holiday money for dividend payouts and share buybacks, which only made the rich richer and cost the Government in less revenue and we lost jobs instead of gaining jobs. And it also shows that the reason O'Reilly used to justify giving them a tax break are lies, and that it was done before and they cut more jobs then they created. So once again it shows that you can not trust Bill O'Reilly to tell you the truth.

And O'Reilly got one more thing wrong, he said it would boost the economy, but it would not. Because the money was used to make the rich richer and did nothing for the lower and middle class who actually fuel the GDP with spending. The rich simply used that money to invest it and get richer, while not creating jobs that would have boosted the economy.

It's basically Reaganomics, that did not work and will never work. But O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends are still trying to get people to believe it does, to justify getting all those tax breaks for himself, the corporations, and his wealthy friends.

Hot Links

O'Reilly Wrong About The Constitution & Obama's Power

4 Fox Hosts Slam O'Reilly Over His Ebola Reporting

Historians & The Patton Family Rip O'Reilly's New Patton Book

Jon Stewart Slams Fox For Criticizing President While At War

Facts On The Economy Bill O'Reily Is Totally Ignoring

Under Bush O'Reilly & Fox News Did Not Blame Him For Beheadings

Study Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18% of the Time

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored

Jon Stewart Destroys O'Reilly & Fox For Ferguson Shooting Bias

O'Reilly Caught Lying About ISIS Threat & Juan Williams

NY Times Charles Blow Says Bill O'Reilly Is The Race Hustler

Homeland Security Shows Gutfeld & Baker Are Liars

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored

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