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. 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

Check out for information on playing poker in the USA.

Visit for US online poker related information and news.

Play online poker at the most trusted online poker room in Canada

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



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

Progressive Eruptions
Rude Pundit
Prison Planet
Apocalypse Cafe
Fox News Boycott
Inebriated Discourse
Hannity Sucks
Glenn Beck Is An Idiot

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, 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

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 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., 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.

Ferguson Missouri Makes It's Money By Harassing Blacks
By: Steve - August 28, 2014 - 9:00am

In the chamber where Officer Darren Wilson received a commendation six months before killing Michael Brown, a small court generates major money from the city’s poor and working people.

But there is another, unnoticed irony in the venue itself. Three times a month (one day and two nights) the City Council chamber also serves as home to the incredibly busy and extremely profitable Ferguson municipal court.

A report issued just last week by the nonprofit lawyer's group ArchCity Defenders notes that in the court's 36 three-hour sessions in 2013, it handled 12,108 cases and 24,532 warrants. That is an average of 1.5 cases and three warrants per Ferguson household. Fines and court fees for the year in this city of just 21,000 people totaled $2,635,400.

The sum made the municipal court the city's second-biggest source of revenue. It is also almost certainly was a major factor in the antagonism between the police and the citizenry preceding the tragedy that resulted when Wilson had another encounter with a subject six months after he got his commendation.

And any complete investigation into how Michael Brown came to be dead in the street with a half-dozen bullet wounds must consider not just the cop but the system he served, a system whose primary components include a small court that generates major money, much of it from poor and working people.

Five of the six City Council members who meet in this chamber are white, even though the city itself is more than 70 percent black. The City Council appoints the municipal judge, currently Ron Brockmeyer, who is also white, and the Mayor is also white.

But when this same chamber serves as Ferguson Municipal Court, a disproportionate number of the defendants are black. The immediate explanation is that the bulk of the cases arise from car stops.

The ArchCity Defenders report notes: “Whites comprise 29% of the population of Ferguson but just 12.7% of vehicle stops.

For anyone who will say that blacks merit greater police attention than whites, the report offers another statistic.

"Searches of black individuals result in discovery of contraband only 21.7% of the time, while similar searches of whites produce contraband 34.0% of the time."

That would suggest that whites were more likely to be stopped when there was actual probable cause and that blacks were more likely to be stopped when there was not. And the antagonism sure to be generated by such racial disparities was magnified by the sheer number of cases.

In other words, it shows that the mostly white cops just stop blacks sometimes for no reason because they are black, while not stopping whites unless they have probable cause. Something O'Reilly never talks about, because he has ignored the report.

The report also cites a court employee as saying the docket for a typical three-hour court session has up to 1,500 cases. The report goes on to say that "in addition to such heavy legal prosecution," the Ferguson court and others like it in nearby towns "engage in a number of operational procedures that make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts."

For example, a Ferguson court employee reported that the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defendant arriving even slightly late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.

The lawyers of ArchCity Defenders specialize in representing the indigent and the homeless. They noticed that many of their clients had multiple warrants on minor charges issued by municipal courts in Ferguson and the other 80 municipalities in St. Louis County that have their own courts and police.

"They didn't just have one case, they had 10 cases," says Thomas Harvey, the organization's 44-year-old executive director.

"It kept being about the money," Harvey recalls. "We were telling the court, 'They don't have any money because they're homeless.'"

With the help of college students, ArchCity Defenders started a court watch program eight months ago. They concluded that much of what their clients had been saying was true. Impoverished defendants were frequently ordered to pay fines that were triple their monthly income. Some ended up with no income at all as they sat in jail for weeks, awaiting a hearing.

"It's not just about Michael Brown and this officer," Harvey says.

The statistics assembled for the report concerning race and car stops in Ferguson were no great surprise, especially considering that its police department is proportionately even whiter than its City Council, with just three blacks among its 53 cops. The number that jumped out was the huge revenue, big bucks for a little burg.

"Anybody who makes a revenue source a line of a budget becomes dependent on it," Harvey suggests.

And of course you will never see any of this reported by Bill O'Reilly, because he is a biased right-wing hack who is not a fair and balanced journalist. The Brown shooting was just a small part of why they had the protests, a lot of it was the years of abuse the black people of Ferguson have had to deal with by the mostly white police, something O'Reilly has never reported, and never will.

The Tuesday 8-26-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 27, 2014 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Truth about White Privilege. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night 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 believe in white privilege.

There is no question that African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding, but the primary reason is not skin color, it's education. And not only book learning.

Here are the facts: The unemployment rate for black Americans is 11.4%. It is just over 5% for whites; 4.5% for Asians. So do we have Asian privilege in America? The median income for Asians is close to $69,000 a year, while it's $57,000 for whites and $33,000 for blacks. The question is, why? The answer is found in stable homes and the emphasis on education.

Also, just 13% of Asian children live in single parent homes compared to a whopping 55% for blacks and 21% for whites. Children must learn not only academics, but also civil behavior, as well as how to speak and how to act respectfully. If African-American children do not know those things, they will likely be poor, they will be angry, and often they will be looking for someone to blame.

One caveat: the Asian-American experience has historically 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, every American has to overcome the obstacles they face. And here is where the African-American leadership is failing.

The racial hustlers blame white privilege and an unfair society. So the message is it's not the individual's fault if they abandon their children, if they become substance abusers, if they are criminals. No it's not their 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 blacks will struggle and their anger, some of it justified, will seethe. The government cannot fix this. Only a powerful message of personal responsibility can turn things around.
Wow! All of that is Bill O'Reilly spin, and has nothing to do with white privilege. O'Reilly is a clueless fool and it is a 100% fact that there is white privilege and it is real. Every white person in America has white privilege, including me. If I walk into a store and a black person walks into a store I am not watched or followed, but the blacks are.

That alone is an example of white privilege, and I could give you a thousand other examples of white privilege. O'Reilly even had white privilege as a kid when his Father got a home in the whites only Levittown, funny how he never mentions that, answer that O'Reilly, was that white privilege in action? Then Dr. Ben Carson, who is a Tea Party favorite was on to discuss it. With no blacks who disagree with him and O'Reilly, and no Democratic guest for balance. In fact, over the last 2 days O'Reilly has debated white privilege with 2 Republicans, Megyn Kelly and Ben Carson. No black liberals, no Black Democrats, no Democrats at all, which is just laughable for a so-called no spin zone.

Carson said this: "We have a social problem, and not so much a racial problem. If you put any group in an environment where there are no father figures, where people resolve issues with violence, and where drugs and alcohol are easily accessible, they're going to meet up with law enforcement or with other people who are raised the same way. In either case you're going to have a disaster. It's not a racial thing, it's a social thing."

Which has nothing to do with white privilege, so Carson is a fool. White privilege is real, and white people get it every day.

Then O'Reilly had Carson on for a 2nd segment to address the question of whether he will run for the presidency.

Carson said this: "We've started a political action committee to raise money. There's no question that I haven't spent a lot of time in government, but that doesn't mean you can't make sure you have the right people around you. What's more important is wisdom and understanding and knowing how to use facts. You have to listen to your generals."

Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly, Carson, and almost everyone at Fox has slammed Obama for not having a lot of time in Government. They said he can not just have the right people around him, but now Carson says he can. What a massive hypocrite.

O'Reilly even warned Carson that he will face lots of criticism for his lack of political background, saying this: "The thing you will have to overcome is your inexperience in government. President Obama went in fairly inexperienced and we have a management problem that is crushing the country."

Here are the chances Carson has to become the President, slim and none. At least Obama was in Government and a Senator, Carson has no experience in Government, none, and he works for Fox so half the country will not vote for him just because of that, he has no chance, none, it's a total waste of time and money.

Then the biased stooge from Fox Ed Henry was on, he was asked whether President Obama, after being widely criticized for his seeming detachment, is likely to change. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Henry said this: "Everyone likes to get some time off, but playing a round of golf minutes after making a statement condemning the beheading of an American journalist showed a president who is pretty insulated. He doesn't give a fig about his critics, so I don' t see any changes coming."

Which is also ridiculous, because nobody cares about his vacation time, except a few biased right-wing idiots. Bush went golfing right after making a big statement on the Iraq war, but nobody said anything. It's biased garbage, the majority of Americans do not care.

Not to mention, Obama has only taken 100 days of vacation so far, and Bush had taken 3 times that many vacation days at this time of his term. But O'Reilly and Fox said nothing when Bush did it, the whole thing is just sad, and 100% political nonsense.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl critiqued Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, who went on TV to assert that Michael Brown was murdered. Even though it was simply his opinion based on the facts we know so far. While not saying anything about any conservatives saying Brown was shot while fighting with the cop, when we do not know if that is true or not. They also said nothing about the Fox report Wilson has a broken eye socket, with no facts to back it up, and CNN even reported it was not confirmed.

Wiehl said this: "So many things are in dispute. He said that Michael Brown had his hands up, but that's in dispute. Some witnesses say he was running away, others say he was rushing the officer. These things are for the grand jury to decide."

Guilfoyle said this: "As a professor of law, this is very irresponsible and he should know better. The information is inconclusive and he should be reticent to make these statements and poison the well."

But they have no problem with conservatives trying to poison the well in favor of officer Wilson. Showing they are nothing but biased right-wing hacks, which is why they work for Fox. Nobody takes them serious except the right-wing lemmings that watch them.

Then John Stossel was on with his libertarian outlook on the increasing militarization of local police forces. And for once, Stossel is right.

Stossel said this: "They need some equipment for hostage situations and riots, but most of what they're doing is not that, most of what they're doing are drug raids. They're raiding poker games, they're raiding fraternity houses where there is supposedly underage drinking. We have almost a million police officers, and some are obnoxious bullies."

What he failed to mention is that some of them are also racists who hate blacks, so they abuse their power and violate the rights of many black people.

O'Reilly contended that police are in grave danger and need to be protected, saying this: "In the last ten years 535 American police officers were killed and 580,000 were injured during arrests. If I'm a police officer, I want every piece of gear I could have."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Political Correctness Run Amok. Billy said this: "Some foolish people got very upset because the beautiful actress Sofia Vergara stood on a pedestal to satirize Hollywood's obsession with beauty at Monday night's Emmy Awards. There are a few thousand other, and far better, reasons to be angry."

S&P 500 Breaks 2000 & O'Reilly Totally Ignored It
By: Steve - August 27, 2014 - 10:00am

And that's not all, O'Reilly also ignored the story when the DOW broke 17,000. These are financial records that show the economy and wall street are doing well. But O'Reilly ignores it, because it makes President Obama look good.

The worst part is that under Bush O'Reilly reported all of the stock market news, every time the DOW or the S&P hit new highs or broke records O'Reilly reported it. And not only did he report it, he gave Bush credit for it, and claimed it was evidence President Bush was doing a good job.

In fact, when liberals were guests on the show during the Bush years, and they said Bush is a bad President and he is not doing a good job, O'Reilly would mention the fact that the stock market was doing well and claim that proves them wrong and that it is a measure of how good Bush is doing.

Now that Obama is the President, suddenly O'Reilly does not think the health of the stock market is a measure of how well the President is doing his job. Not only does O'Reilly not use it as a measure of how the President is doing, he does not even report the record highs at all, he ignores it. While at the same time telling his viewers that the liberal Obama policies are ruining the country and that the economy is in chaos.

Even though that is all lies, he keeps saying it in the hopes that someone will believe it. O'Reilly denies reality, because jobs are back, unemployment is down, and the stock market is setting new record highs all the time. O'Reilly ignores all the good economic and financial news because it makes Obama look good, and it makes it look like his policies are working.

O'Reilly also said Obamacare was a disaster and in chaos, when now we know he was also lying about that because it is working great.

Notice that O'Reilly does not even mention Obamacare any more, because he was wrong, he was lying to you, and he can not lie about it now when people can see it is working fine.

Here is the story O'Reilly ignored:

S&P 500 Closes Above 2000 For The First Time

Wall Street's record-setting rally continued Tuesday as the S&P 500 notched its 30th record of the year and closed above 2000 for the first time ever. The Dow also rose but fell short of its record closing high after setting an all-time intraday high earlier in the session.

Investors were encouraged Tuesday by the latest big corporate merger and a jump in consumer confidence and durable goods orders.

The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 2.10 points, or 0.1%, to close at a record 2000.02 after rising as high as 2005.04. The benchmark index first broke the 2000 barrier on Monday.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 29.83, or 0.2% to 17,106.70 after earlier hitting an intraday record high of 17,153.80. The Dow's previous closing record high of 17,138.20 was set July 16.

The Nasdaq composite index rose 13.29, or 0.3%, to 4570.64.

The major indexes have rallied three straight weeks as investors bet on signs of an improving U.S. economy and react to better-than-expected second-quarter earnings. Companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index have posted profit growth of 8.4% in the second quarter.

Direct Example Of White Privilege Bill O'Reilly Was Part Of
By: Steve - August 27, 2014 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly grew up in Levittown, N.Y., the famed postwar tract suburb on Long Island. And that was a perfect example of white privilege, but O'Reilly never mentions it, here are the facts.

The building firm, Levitt and Sons, headed by Abraham Levitt and his two sons, William and Alfred, built four planned communities called "Levittown" (in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico), but Levittown, New York, was the first.

Levitt and Sons also controversially utilized non-union contractors in the project. On the other hand, they paid them very well and offered all kinds of incentives that allowed the workers to earn extra money, making them often earn twice as much a week as elsewhere.

As demand continued, exceeding availability, the Levitts expanded their project with 4,000 more homes, as well as community services, including schools and postal delivery. With the full implementation of federal government supports for housing, administered under the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Levitt firm switched from rental to sale of their houses, offering ownership on a 30-year mortgage with no down payment and monthly costs the same as rental.

But Levittown would also become a symbol of racial segregation. The discriminatory housing standards of Levittown were consistent with government policies of the time. Before the sale of Levittown homes began, the sales agents were aware that no applications from black families would be accepted. As a result American veterans who wished to purchase a home in Levittown were unable to do so if they were black.

William Levitt attempted to justify their decision to only sell homes to white families by saying that it was in the best interest for business. He claimed their actions were not discriminatory but intended to maintain the value of their properties. The company explained that it was not possible to reduce racial segregation while they were attempting to reduce the housing shortage.

In response to the discrimination of Levittown an opposition group was formed named the Committee to End Discrimination in Levittown. This group protested the sale of Levittown homes and pushed for an integrated community. In 1948 a legal proceeding by the United States Supreme Court declared that property deeds stipulating racial segregation were unenforceable by law.

The "restrictive covenant" in the original rental agreement, which migrated to the sales agreement, stipulated that houses could not be rented or sold to any but members of the " Caucasian" race. The Levitts did not undertake efforts to counteract the racial homogeneity of the suburb and thus the racial composition of Levittown did not change. By 1960 Levittown was still a completely white suburb.

Only well after the 1954 racial integration decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, was Levittown racially integrated, and even as late as the 1990 census only a tiny fraction of the community was non-white, a stigma that still exists until this day.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that was white privilege, your Father got a home in Levittown because he was white, if he had been black you would have never lived in Levittown. Now explain to your viewers how that was not an example of white privilege.

More Proof Bill O'Reilly Does Not Believe There Is White Privilege
By: Steve - August 26, 2014 - 11:30am

On the Tuesday night O'Reilly Factor the Talking Points Memo by Bill O'Reilly is called this: "The Truth about White Privilege"

As if he is going to give you the truth about the issue, and who is the guest, the conservative Dr. Ben Carson, who is a paid spokesman for Fox News. And of course you can bet Carson will agree with O'Reilly, with no other blacks who disagree, and no Democratic guest for balance.

On the Factor website today O'Reilly says this about the Tuesday night segment:

O'REILLY: "Last night on the Factor, your humble correspondent and Megyn Kelly debated the concept of white privilege whereby some believe that if you are Caucasian, you have inherent advantages in our American society. Talking Points does not believe in white privilege but many in the country do. Tonight we'll break down the facts and ask Dr. Ben Carson what he thinks of the concept."


To deny white privilege is real is just stunning, and I would bet even most white people (including me) know that white privilege is real. O'Reilly seems to be one of the last people on earth to still deny it, because hardly anyone else denies it is real. And it's more proof that Bill O'Reilly lives in his own little world where he believes only what he wants to believe, facts be damned.

It's like denying the sun is hot, or rain is wet, O'Reilly reminds me of the people who once thought the earth was flat, and no amount of facts could convince them it was round. He is just a fool, and I guess he does not see how dumb it makes him look to claim there is no white privilege, or he just does not care it makes him look like a crazy racist fool.

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 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:

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:

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:

(( 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,, 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: Privacy Policy

Copyright 2001 - 2014

eXTReMe Tracker