Advertise Contact About This Web Site Donate To
Get started with the top online bitcoin casino and win real cash playing casino games.

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 including slots

If you are looking to buy prescription medications from Canada, then buy from a licensed Canadian pharmacy. is quickly becoming the #1 source for playing online casino games for real money. Check them out

Some of the most comprehensive mobile bingo reviews can be found here. Definitely no spin just honest reliable site reviews.

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 - 2016
February - 2016
March - 2016
April - 2016

January - 2015
February - 2015
March - 2015
April - 2015
May - 2015
June - 2015
July - 2015
August - 2015
September - 2015
October - 2015
November - 2015
December - 2015

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

May 2016 (2 Shows) Republicans - 13 | Democrats - 1

The Factor Guest List Count Archives

Ratings: The O'Reilly Factor - Total Viewers

Monday - 4-25-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.733
Tuesday - 4-26-16 -- O'Reilly - Election Coverage
Wednesday - 4-27-16 -- O'Reilly - 3.179
Thursday - 4-28-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.989
Friday - 4-29-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.231

Weekly Factor Average - 2.783 - 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 says Zachary Gleason.

The O'Reilly Sucks Blog

Insane O'Reilly Slams Media For Using Trump To Get Ratings
By: Steve - May 4, 2016 - 10:00am

Which is laughable, because Fox does it more than anyone. Fox News Has Given Trump More Than Double The Amount Of Airtime Compared To Other GOP Presidential Candidates. And O'Reilly has Trump on his show damn near every night, so he is as guilty as any of them, if not more guilty.

O'Reilly even does it himself, and says it is all about the ratings. When he is attacked for bias his answer is "I am #1 in the ratings so that means I am doing a good job" even though nobody else thinks that. Ratings do not equal truth or quality, it just means O'Reilly has a lot of right-wing stooges that are brainwashed by him and watch him, it does not mean he is a truth teller or a good journalist.

Here is a partial transcript:

BERNIE GOLDBERG: I think that we should also be concerned about when the media is unfair not just to the candidates but to the American people. When cable news runs Donald Trump's rallies and speeches live and virtually unaltered, they come off --

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): That's a campaign commercial.

GOLDBERG: As infomercials for Donald Trump.

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

GOLDBERG: That he doesn't even have to pay for. Now, we all know why that happens. Leslie Moonves, who you know, who runs CBS said and this is a quote, "All this coverage of Donald Trump may not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS."

O'REILLY: Right.

GOLDBERG: Look, I get it. I'm a capitalist. I want news organizations to make lots and lots of money. I'm all for ratings. But when you are in the news business you have other obligations too. Donald Trump is no longer the host of The Apprentice. He is running for President of the United States of America. Infomercials and soft interviews by some people on television don't do the American people any good.

O'REILLY: I agree 100 percent. But that's a different issue. For the record I want to say this. We don't do that here on the Factor. On this hour eight to nine eastern time. You are not going to see any infomercials. We won't even allow candidates to call in. We're one of the few programs that don't. Chris Wallace doesn't do it on the CBS -- on the Fox News Sunday show. All the rest let them call.

We're not going to do that. Because there's a big difference when you call in when you're in your jammies and you have five people in the room telling what you to say and when you are on like you are right now. We are not going to do that.


O'REILLY: And I agree with you that there's been far too much of let's put Donald Trump on to get ratings.

Fox Lies And Spins The GDP Report And The Obama Economic Record
By: Steve - May 4, 2016 - 9:00am

On the April 29 edition of Fox News Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney joined co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy for a segment dishonestly slamming President Obama's record on the economy.

The segment was a response to Obama's recent interview with The New York Times, during which the president discussed how markedly the economy has improved since 2008 and what he hopes will be his economic legacy.

The segment seemed to unwittingly mirror the right-wing playbook for downplaying positive economic gains during Democratic administrations by relying on false conservative talking points to dismiss economic growth and tout failed tax policies.

The segment opened with Kilmeade and Varney making the false claim that Obama is "the only U.S. president who could not deliver a single year of three percent growth." Despite the fact that Kilmeade's claim that Obama is "the only" president not to clear that bar is false.

Republican president Herbert Hoover didn't just fail to hit three percent growth, he failed to hit zero percent growth. The economy contracted at a rate of -8.5 percent in 1930, -6.4 percent in 1931, a staggering -12.9 percent in 1932, and -1.3 percent in 1933.

And that is not all, we had four consecutive Republican presidents overseeing economic growth of less than 2 percent from 1871 to 1885. Over the course of the next 45 years the economy swung wildly between boom and bust cycles, including several deep depressions, before the Great Depression and FDR's subsequent creation of oversight mechanisms that work to maintain relative economic stability.

Fox Business host Stuart Varney is supposed to be a serious voice for analysis and expertise at the network, but Varney is a serial liar, who creates confusion on economic issues.

In November 2014, Varney predicted that a Republican takeover of the Senate would usher in an era of "3 to 4 percent" growth, which he now complains hasn't happened. The economy grew at a 2.4 percent pace in 2014, and continued to grow at a rate of 2.4 percent after the GOP took over complete control of Congress in 2015.

When the Commerce Department figures were first released, Varney wondered if the economy growing at a slightly slower rate than experts had predicted was proof that we are "sliding toward recession" -- his comments came just moments after an actual economist was on CNBC debunking the idea.

In the past week, Varney has attacked impoverished children for soaking up too many government benefits and watched idly as an economist easily debunked conservative demands for more tax cuts and deregulation to spur the economy.

Since the start of the year Varney has been an unceasing source of misinformation on the minimum wage, has misled on the funding structures of public-sector unions, has lamented a proposal to pay people for the hours they work, and has attacked anti-poverty programs that help struggling families and save taxpayers money.

In an April 28 blog post, Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman explained how Republicans mislead the American public about the health of the economy by ignoring positive economic trends.

The focus of Waldman's comparison was the objective reality of progress and areas for improvement specified by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the "laughable fantasy" of "an absolute (economic) nightmare" outlined by Republican front-runner Donald Trump, but it could have just as easily been any of the personalities at Fox News.

This April 29 Fox & Friends segment that mislead on GDP is one very good example.

In Waldman's piece, he hit Trump for pretending tax cuts are the solution to economic growth -- they are actually a proven failure. Varney often repeats this same tax cut talking point at Fox.

When Earhardt asked on Fox & Friends "what is the reason for these bad numbers" on the economy, Varney slammed "massive regulation, constant government borrowing" and "overspending to raise the debt" -- exactly the talking points for which Waldman hit Trump the day before.

Fake Tough Guy O'Reilly Says He Would Have Punched HuffPost Reporter
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 11:30am

Which is funny, because O'Reilly and his crew are the kings of ambush journalism, they are always sticking cameras in people faces, and even follow them home and try to get on their property and talk to them. But if one of them punched one of the O'Reilly crew he would flip out and most likely sue them.

When it happens to his guy and he gets a taste of his own medicine he does not like it and gets mad, too bad jerk, you do it to others so expect it to be done to you.

And O'Reilly is just a blowhard fake tough guy, he is not even man enough to have me on his show, so all this tough guy talk is a fraud. The guys you worry about are the ones that say nothing, the talkers are usually just that, all talk.

Partial transcript:

Bill O'Reilly: I Would Have Punched Huffington Post Reporter That Filmed Watters

O'Reilly: "I Would Have Been In Jail, That's Why I Don't Go To These Things"

Reality check: O'Reilly does not go to those things because he is a lazy coward who does not want to leave his studio in New York. That's why he has his boy Jesse Watters do his dirty work, because he is afraid he would get punched.

O'Reilly is just an old fool, a coward who is all talk.

Here is the rest of the transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): OK, so at 1:30 in the morning, you and a far left guy -- and we talked about this in the Talking Points Memo, had a little dust-up, right?

JESSE WATTERS: It was really small ball. I was just at this party trying to enjoy myself, this guy comes up to me with a cameraphone, I don't even know who this guy is.

O'REILLY: Right.

WATTERS: He starts putting it in my face, I was friendly at first, and then he started getting a little obnoxious, and then, you know, things happened, and I regret that it happened, and that's all it is.

O'REILLY: But you didn't hit him, did you?

WATTERS: Never punched him.

O'REILLY: Alright, see, I would have.

WATTERS: Of course you would have.

O'REILLY: I would have been in jail. That's why I don't go to these things.

O'Reilly Admits It's About Trump & Ratings Not Journalism
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly finally admitted he is a ratings hack who thinks what his friend Donald Trump says is more important than reporting actual news and being a real journalist. He even got mad at a woman who told him his job is to inform the American people, not just report the crazy stuff Trump says.

Then he said he was going to school her about how journalism works, when all he did was make a fool of himself and prove he is not a journalist.

Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, was forced to defend his network's coverage of Donald Trump last night at a time when they have lost many viewers to their rival cable news network, CNN.

O'Reilly's main guest was Kelly Riddell, an editor at The Washington Times, who is critical of both the time Fox News gives to Trump, as well as the nature of questions they ask the real estate tycoon.

O'Reilly asked Riddell, "Are we driving Trump's success?"

"Absolutely," she answered. "You can't turn on the TV at night without hearing something about Donald Trump. I mean, Ted Cruz had it right: he has almost two billion dollars in free earned media."

She told O'Reilly how Jeb Bush spent $100 million in advertising, compared to the $2 billion in earned media Trump has received from media coverage.

O'Reilly cut her off and said that he "could not get Jeb Bush" to come on The O'Reilly Factor, at which Riddell stifled a laugh. She responded, "that's fine. But Fox News covers his rallies live all the time. I mean, how many other candidates rallies have you seen get covered live?"

The O'Reilly Factor host replied that his show does not do that, and that it has been difficult to get other candidates like Cruz and John Kasich to come on.

"So a lot of this whining was their own fault, because Trump was available," O'Reilly said.

"O'Reilly continued, his voice rising, he makes news. He makes news every time he opens his mouth. We're in the news business!"

Which is laughable, because Fox is not in the news business, they are in the ratings business, and they get those ratings by promoting Trump, slamming Democrats, and telling Republicans what they want to hear, that is not news and it's not even close. O'Reilly himself has admitted it's all about ratings, and when he is slammed for his reporting he says but we are #1 in the ratings so we must be doing something right.

"Yes, Riddell responded, but you're also in the editorial business, and you need to decide what is newsworthy, and I would say that Donald Trump's hands is not newsworthy, and that shouldn't be covered at all."

"That's your opinion, O'Reilly replied. "This operation decides what's newsworthy, and it's been on top for fifteen years, so I think that we know."

"Exactly, Riddell said. "It's a ratings game. You're right, Bill. You're on top."

After some inter-change with his other guest, Caitlyn Huey-Burns of Real Clear Politics, O'Reilly then challenged Riddell, saying that since she's in the news business, she should know that her company needs circulation for business.

"Yes, she replied. "But I also have a public service to the rest of the candidates in the race. This past summer, there was not a single vote cast. There were seventeen candidates in the Republican race. This summer Donald Trump dominated three-fourths of the coverage."

"That's because he was making news," O'Reilly cut in.

Dear Bill O'Reilly, that was not news, it was Trump insulting people, making crazy statements, and saying stupid things, that is not news, it's a train wreck you and the rest of the media covered non-stop to get ratings and promote Trump with billions in free advertising.

And btw, the media should give equal time to each candidate, and you can do that without having them on as a guest. O'Reilly acts like you can not give them equal time unless they are a guest on his show, which is just laughable. The media should be giving each candidate equal time, not giving them time based on what they say, or what Bill O'Reilly decides is newsworthy, that was her point, she is right and O'Reilly got mad at her for being right.

Riddell tried to reply, but O'Reilly cut her off again, yelling, "Most of the other candidates come on with prepared statements and talking points that they repeat over and over and over again! They're not calling people names," he said, citing Trump's claim that John McCain was not a war hero because he was a prisoner of war.

"I don't know if that is news," Riddell said. "I think there's a public service for running for the highest public office in the land, and we need to serve the public with tax plans, policy plans."

O'Reilly shouted over her, "My job is not to serve the public. My job is to inform the public about the news."

Bill O'Reilly then motioned for Huey-Burns to have the last word.

The on-air meltdown -- and tacit admissions from O'Reilly about Fox News methods for covering the news -- comes at a time when CNN just announced that they have been winning the key 29-54 age demographic for five of the last eight months.

And the Factor ratings have dropped a little in the last 6 months, unlike any other election year when the Factor ratings go up during presidential elections. So his Trump coverage has hurt his ratings, not helped them, but O'Reilly covers Trump all the time anyway because he is his friend and he is biased towards him, which he will also not admit.

As Inquisitr reported yesterday, this is the first time CNN has beaten Fox News in this demographic since November 2001, and it comes during the period in which some have criticized Fox News for its perceived pro-Trump coverage.

Amanda Terkel Statement About O'Reilly And Watters
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 10:00am

Jesse Watters, Fox News ambush man, appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night to discuss his recent altercation with Huffington Post Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim.

On Saturday night, following the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, Grim and Watters got into a fight at an afterparty hosted by MSNBC. It was one of those glitzy Washington events where everyone tries to put aside their differences and get along for one night.

The video (which contains some explicit language) shows the minutes leading up to the confrontation. Grim tried to get Watters to bury the hatchet with me regarding a 2009 incident in which he ambushed and harassed me while I was on vacation because I'd dared to write a critical post about Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.

Grim walked up to Watters -- while filming with his phone -- and asked him to come over and apologize to me. Watters refused. I also said I wasn't interested in talking.

Grim continued to film, which Watters -- who has made a living from ambushing people and filming them unexpectedly -- couldn't handle. He grabbed Grim's phone out of his hand and tossed it away. When Grim returned, still filming, Watters again snatched the phone, pocketed it and refused for several minutes to give it back.

He also tried to delete the video. When Grim went to retrieve the phone, fisticuffs ensued.

"Most of it seemed like the beginning of a WWE match when wrestlers are arms locked," witness Adam Green later told The Huffington Post in an email. "Some shoving. Some drink glasses falling to the ground."

On Monday, O'Reilly and Watters addressed the incident on "The O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly claimed that "this Grim character had no business bothering Jesse Watters about anything, but that is what the far left does. They seek to harm people with whom they disagree."

Watters said he regretted the situation.

"I was at this party trying to enjoy myself. This guy came up to me. He starts putting it in my face," Watters said. "I was friendly at first, and then he started getting a little obnoxious. Things happened, and I regret it happened, and that's all it is."

What hasn't been reported is what Watters said during that conversation and how he characterized his 2009 ambush of me.

Seven years ago, I was a blogger for ThinkProgress. On March 1, 2009, I wrote a post reporting that O'Reilly was scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for a group committed to supporting rape survivors. I also noted that in the past, O'Reilly had made controversial comments about an 18-year-old woman who'd been raped and murdered, implying that it was her fault because she had been drinking and because of what she had been wearing.

In response to that post, O'Reilly sent Watters out to ambush me while I was on vacation in Virginia. On March 22, Watters accosted me on the street and asked why I was causing "pain and suffering" to rape victims and their families. He never introduced himself and didn't give any context for what he was saying -- he simply shouted questions as I tried to switch out of vacation mode and remember the short post I had written weeks earlier.

Fox News has never given an explanation for how Watters found me. I didn't tell anyone exactly where I would be that weekend, and in retrospect, I remember a car following me for much of the way. My best guess remains that Watters found my home address, followed me for two hours to Virginia and then harassed me after I walked out of my hotel.

Watters was unrepentant Saturday night at the MSNBC party. He said I "denigrated some rape victims" and "said some nasty shit."

"I ambushed her because O'Reilly told me to get her, because she said some really bad shit... She denigrated some rape victims, so we had to call her out. It's what we do," Watters said.

O'Reilly never reached out to me before sending Watters and his cameraman out on the ambush mission, belying the idea that he was a journalist simply trying to get comment. O'Reilly ran segments describing me as a "far-left blogger" who attacks rape victims, and cast himself as an ally of victimized women. Sending men to intimidate, follow and ambush a young woman is an odd way to make that point.

Watters way of confronting his subjects is to thrust cameras in their faces unexpectedly and pepper them with aggressive questions. It's surprising, then, that he wasn't more prepared to have the same thing done to him.

Instead, he asked Grim if they could find a better time to talk.

"Not tonight," he told Grim. "Not tonight."

Presumably, in the future, he'll offer his targets the same courtesy -- and won't mind if they grab his camera and keep it.

O'Reilly And Watters Lie About Fight With HuffPost Reporter
By: Steve - May 3, 2016 - 9:00am

O'Reilly said this:

BILL O'REILLY: "And we have a very personal example for you tonight. Jesse Watters was confronted in Washington over the weekend by a far left zealot who hectored him and provoked a physical confrontation."

"And that was the end of that. Until Saturday night in Washington. Citing that interview with Terkel, this man, Ryan Grim who works for The Huffington Post confronted Jesse Watters at a party after the Correspondents Dinner. A scuffle ensued and Watters will brief us on that a bit later on. The whole thing is insane."

"This Grim character had no business bothering Jesse Watters about anything. But that is what the far left does. They seek to harm people with whom they disagree. Talking Points has had enough. All far left kooks who cause trouble and break the law will be held to account here."

That Grim character did nothing more than the exact same thing Jesse Watters does to other people, he is an ambush reporter, he even followed one lady on her vacation and ambushed her. But when he is ambushed he gets mad and does not like it, then O'Reilly gets mad, when he tells his own guy to do the very same thing. They do it, then get mad when it is done to them.

Partial transcript:

JESSE WATTERS: It was really small ball. I was just at this party trying to enjoy myself, this guy comes up to me with a cameraphone, I don't even know who this guy is.

O'REILLY: Right.

WATTERS: He starts putting it in my face, I was friendly at first, and then he started getting a little obnoxious, and then, you know, things happened, and I regret that it happened, and that's all it is.

O'REILLY: But you didn't hit him, did you?

WATTERS: Never punched him.

And now the truth:

Notice that neither Watters or O'Reilly mentioned the fact that Watters took the phone from Grim and put it in his pocket, and they denied punches were thrown, when everyone who saw it says there was. Not to mention the fact that Watters was just asking for trouble by going to an MSNBC after party. But O'Reilly ignored all that to defend his jerk producer.

The Huffington Post even published a video showing the minutes leading up to the confrontation between Grim and Watters. The White House Correspondents' Dinner is known as a lavish, incestuous mixer where the political press, pundits and celebrities lay down arms for one night of communing.

But one Saturday night after party, hosted by MSNBC, wasn't so peaceful, with Huffington Post Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim and Fox News correspondent Jesse Watters reportedly getting into a physical fight.

The Washington Post's Dave Weigel first tweeted a photo of the early-morning scuffle and identified Grim and Watters as the men involved.

Grim said on Twitter he approached Watters while recording video on his phone, asking him about Watters confronting his Huffington Post colleague Amanda Terkel while she was on vacation in 2009.

Terkel earlier recounted her run-in with "hit man" Watters, headlined "I Was Followed, Harassed, And Ambushed By Bill O'Reilly's Producer."

Ryan Grim Twitter:

Ambush guy snatched my phone, didn't like being filmed, he tried to keep it. That didn't happen.

According to witnesses at the Foggy Bottom party, Watters didn't take kindly to be filmed and pocketed Grim's phone. When Grim tried to get the phone back, the two flailed around, upended a table and collided with several partygoers.

Another witness told the Washington Post, "punches were definitely thrown."

Several bystanders, among them Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee spokesman and frequent cable news guest, intervened to break up the fight.

Asked for comment, a Fox News spokesperson told TPM Watters would address the issue Monday night on "The O'Reilly Factor."

Right-Wing Media Benghazi Expert Pleads Guilty To Fraud
By: Steve - May 2, 2016 - 10:00am

Wayne Simmons, who presented himself as a national security expert and was a part of the conservative media push for a congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack, has pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.

And of course you never heard a word about this from the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, he has totally ignored the entire story.

In an April 29 press release the Department of Justice noted that Simmons "falsely claimed he spent 27 years working for the Central Intelligence Agency" and had pleaded guilty "to major fraud against the government, wire fraud, and a firearms offense."

The release further noted, "Simmons admitted he defrauded the government in 2008 when he obtained work as a team leader in the U.S. Army's Human Terrain Systems program, and again in 2010 when he was deployed to Afghanistan as a senior intelligence advisor on the International Security Assistance Force's Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team."

Dana J. Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said, "Simmons admitted he attempted to con his way into a position where he would have been called on to give real intelligence advice in a war zone. His fraud cost the government money, could have put American lives at risk, and was an insult to the real men and women of the intelligence community who provide tireless service to this country."

Simmons was a frequent guest on Fox News, appearing on the network dozens of times purporting to be a former CIA operative. In those appearances, Simmons regularly criticized Democrats on foreign policy and national security issues.

In one instance, he said, "If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated."

Simmons was a member of the biased far-right Accuracy in Media's (AIM) Citizens Commission on Benghazi -- part of the conservative media's ultimately successful push to get House Republicans to set up a panel to investigate the Benghazi attack.

AIM is a biased right-wing media watchdog group that claims to be Independent and fair and balanced, just like Fox News. When we all know that is a lie.

In that capacity, Simmons appeared on Fox and falsely claimed that the Obama administration had decided "to not rescue our former CIA operatives and our military" in Libya. Which is another lie that has been proven to be a lie over and over.

When Simmons was first arrested for the fraud charges, AIM scrubbed references to his role from its website. Fox News acknowledged that he had appeared on the network as a "national security and terrorism expert," but said he "was never employed by the channel and was never paid by Fox."

As if that makes it ok, he was a fraud and they should have checked him out before they used him. They did not do that, because he was willing to go on the air and lie about Democrats, so that was good enough for them.

Limbaugh Says It's An Outrage CNN Let Women Talk About Trump Sexism
By: Steve - May 2, 2016 - 9:00am

He said he can not imagine anywhere you might find three men complaining about women saying something about a man. Even though they do it almost every day on Fox News, they have all male panels talking about female issues all the time.

Limbaugh is just a liar and a sexist, he thinks men should be able to control everything women do, and that they should just keep quiet while cooking for them and waiting for them in the bedroom.

Rush Limbaugh, who thinks women who assert themselves are sluts, is unhappy that CNN is actually letting women talk about how Trump talks about them. You know, instead of having a bunch of men talk about how women feel about Trump talking about them, which makes so much more sense in the conservative universe.

Limbaugh said this:
During the break I was watching on CNN. They have three women there discussing how offended they are that Trump said that Hillary always plays the women card. Can you see three men on TV discussing how offended they are that some female candidate had said something about men? It just doesn't happen.

They have three women up there going on and on and on about how offended they were that Trump accused Hillary of playing the woman card which she does. She plays the woman, she plays whatever card she's got. She plays victim card, you name it.
Of course we can imagine three men discussing how offended they are by a female candidate. We see it every day on Fox News. Who is he kidding?

What's funnier is him saying Clinton plays the woman. She doesn't play a woman - she IS a woman. You would think people so obsessed with who can use which bathroom would get that distinction at least.

And Hillary Clinton playing the victim card? He can say this after years of a Republican smear campaign over one invented charge after another? Clinton doesn't play the victim card and never would, but if there ever was somebody entitled to play that card, it is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is a woman and she is a victim, she is a woman who has a right to speak out on women's issues and call out right-wing scum who make sexist attacks on her. She is also a victim, a victim of the right-wing smear machine who try to make her look bad to stop her from being the next President.

And it is not working, in fact, it is doing the opposite, it is getting her more votes, because the people see it as unfair sexist attacks, and it just drives more people to vote for her, not less. Trump's sexist attacks are going to backfire on him, so I hope he does keep doing it. And attacking Hillary for a sex scandal Bill had 20 years ago is ridiculous, because she had nothing to do with it.

I understand Limbaugh comes from a different world, a place where Fox News regularly appoints panels of white men to talk about not only what women can and cannot do, but how women feel about things, because who better to explain things to women than men?

And I won't even get into the panels of all white Republicans who share the black experience with their fellow white viewers. Which happens all the time on Fox News.

And it's not only Fox News. MSNBC does it too: Remember when they had an all-male panel explain that Hillary Clinton needs to speak more softly? Or the GOP explaining to women that they shouldn't care about equal pay?

And then there was Ted Cruz trying to mansplain the Constitution (which is funny because Cruz has obviously never actually read the Constitution).

And surely you will never forget the time Fox News appointed a panel of men to determine whether or not women should be allowed to wear leggings. Don't ask a woman. Not on Fox News. Because if it can't be mansplained, it shouldn't be mentioned. And gods forbid it should not be creepy as hell by having women model for them while they joked about pre-treating themselves with nitroglycerin.

Republicans have convinced themselves that women should just back off and let the men handle it and tell them what they think and how they feel about everything, just like they have all through history.

Rush Limbaugh is just the loudest of a sad, pathetic bunch of would-be men confronted by women who reject being their entertainment.

Real men aren't afraid of women, which tells you just about all you need to know about Rush Limbaugh.

Trump's Wall Propaganda Is Backfiring On Him
By: Steve - May 1, 2016 - 10:00am

Donald Trump's threat to build a wall is backfiring on the Republican Party as Hispanics are registering to vote in bigger than ever numbers for the purpose of voting against Trump in November.

The Hill reported this:
Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Elected and Appointed Officials, projects 13.1 million Hispanics will vote nationwide in 2016, compared to 11.2 million in 2012 and 9.7 million in 2008.

Many of those new Hispanic voters are also expected to vote against Trump if he is the Republican nominee, something that appears much more likely after the front-runner's sweeping primary victories Tuesday in five East Coast states.

A whopping 80 percent of respondents in a poll of registered Hispanic voters in Colorado and Nevada said Trump's views on immigration made them less likely to vote for Republicans in November. In Florida, that number was 68 percent.
Many of these new voters are in California and Texas, but there are also registration spikes being reported in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada. There is also speculation that increased Hispanic voter registration could put Arizona into play in the fall.

Donald Trump's threat to build a wall between the US and Mexico has had the opposite effect of what Trump intended. The plan to build the wall has motivated millions of Hispanic Americans to register to vote so that they can cast their ballots against Trump this fall.

Trump's wall is wildly popular with his supporters in the Republican Party, but it is a losing position with voters in the general election. Trump is turning off the voters that his party needs if they are going to win back the White House.

In other words, the only wall that Trump is successfully constructing is a wall between him and votes from Latino's.

Rep. Peter King: Ted Cruz Gives Lucifer A Bad Name
By: Steve - May 1, 2016 - 9:00am

Republican Congressman Peter King really hates Ted Cruz, so much so that he suggested John Boehner gave the devil a bad name by comparing him to the Texas senator.

In an interview with CNN, the New York congressman told Wolf Blitzer he agreed with the former House speaker, who called Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh" on Wednesday night.

"Maybe he gives Lucifer a bad name by comparing him to Ted Cruz," King said.

"Listen, what John Boehner was most concerned about was Ted Cruz perpetrated a fraud and a hoax when he brought about the shutdown of the government on some kind of a vague promise that he was gonna be able to take Obamacare out of the budget or to end Obamacare."

King argued that Cruz knew his strategy would never work, but he did it anyway. He "shut down the government, cost the government money" and "served no purpose whatsoever other than to boost his name identification."

Ahead of New York's primary earlier this month, King, who voted for John Kasich to send a message to Donald Trump, said he hates Cruz and would take cyanide if he ever won the GOP nomination.

Trump often ridicules Cruz on the trail for his lack of support among his congressional colleagues, proudly boasting that Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions endorsed his campaign over Cruz, who often cited him in his stump speeches.

While a handful of former Republican presidential candidates have supported his candidacy in an effort to stop Trump from being the party's standard-bearer, members of Congress have been slow to voice their support for the senator, even if they've voted for him in the Republican primary.

Senators Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, for example, have voted for Cruz, but they haven't formally endorsed him, like Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike Lee of Utah and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

O'Reilly Lied About Liberals And Illegal Immigration
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 11:30am

Last week O'Reilly said all the liberals want open borders and think everyone should be able to come here any time they want. And that is a massive lie.

I am a liberal, and I do not support that. What I am opposed to is a massive waste of time and money wall on the border, because it will not work. I want the border enforced, and I want people to only come here legally.

I support more border patrol officers, more drones, and more security cameras, because that is what the border patrol wants, they have even said that is what they need. But O'Reilly and Trump ignore all that to spew out this nonsense about a wall.

O'Reilly and Trump treat a border wall like the most visible symbol of effective border security. But the individuals who live and work along the border don't see eye to eye with them. According to Reuters, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency support more reinforcements to ensure border security, but not in the form of a wall.

The agency wants 23 more miles of fencing along the U.S. southern border, but would prefer to focus on better radios and aerial drones. Much of CBP's budget has been allocated for a "virtual wall" of drones, blimps, and tower-mounted cameras, the report found.

So the actual Border Protection Agency does not want a wall, they want a few miles of fencing, some better radios, and more drones. Funny how O'Reilly and Trump never mention that, while lying that liberals want open borders, when most liberals do not want open borders, including me. I support a few more miles of fencing, more radios, and more drones, but you never hear that from O'Reilly.

Because he is a dishonest right-wing hack. And he tries to misinform his viewers with what liberals want to make them hate liberals, even though he is lying.

What's more, nearly six in ten Americans oppose building a wall along the southern U.S. border, according to a March 2016 Pew Research Center poll. And apprehensions along the border have been steadily dropping over the past five years.

So illegal immigration is down, but if you listen to O'Reilly and Trump you would think it is up and a massive number of illegals are crossing the border. The facts show that illegal immigration is down and deportations are up, and Obama had deported more illegals than Bush did. But you never hear any of this from O'Reilly or Trump.

They are using the wall talk and scary illegals doing crimes talk to scare the clueless into voting for them. And O'Reilly is helping Trump by promoting his stupid wall idea, it's a bad and expensive idea that will not even work. People will just tunnel under it, or go over it, it's like drugs, you can not stop it.

Paul Ryan And The Republicans Failed To Pass A Budget
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 11:00am

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who inherited his Speakership and made grand promises of his leadership returning the House to "regular order", has fallen flat on his face as the House was unable to pass a budget by the April 15th deadline, as mandated by law.

The budget Republican leadership was trying to pass made cuts to mandatory spending, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP. But it did not pass, because the far-right loons in the Republican party said it did not go far enough.

While Democrats have done all they could to assist former Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and now Speaker Ryan when their own party refused to work, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) won't be rushing to assist Ryan pass his 'Road to Ruin' budget.

So he is left with his own party, with the same folks who caused the government shutdown in 2013 now trolling Ryan's 2017 budget.

Nancy Pelosi was not impressed, but not just because Republicans missed the deadline, but because of why they missed the deadline. Pelosi said in a statement, "The Republican Leadership proposed the most devastating Ryan 'Road to Ruin' budget in history, and even that wasn't brutal enough for the radical forces that have taken control of the House GOP."

Why is Pelosi being so harsh. "Because this budget would have ended the Medicare guarantee and demanded $6.5 trillion in cuts was too mild for House Republicans. This is the cruel reality of the Republican Congress today: a Ryan Budget that severe, that destructive to working families doesn't go far enough to pass in the Republican majority."

This is the same budget drama the Republican-led House of Representatives has been struggling with in recent years. They can't get anything done because even when they are super cruel to the vulnerable with their budgets, the radical right objects because it's not brutal enough.

Paul Ryan brought the lofty promises of the naive, but when it came time to deliver, all he had on his plate was empty promises and inexcusable dysfunction.

All is not lost for the nation because John Boehner did a solid on his way out of dodge by negotiating a two-year fiscal deal, however Republicans won't be able to do anything about the dozen annual appropriations bills -- aka, "regular order."

Paul Ryan said he could do what John Boehner could not, and yet he is relying on an accomplishment of Boehner to save his political hide. Republicans mocked Democrats when they couldn't pass a budget, and ran a No Budget, No Pay campaign against them.

Any takers on that now, after years of Republican-led failure?

Speaker Ryan is the guy Republicans want to run as their 2016 presidential candidate. The Republican attraction to failure boggles the mind.

And btw, O'Reilly has not said one word about this Republican failure. But when Democrats failed to pass a budget under Bush, O'Reilly flipped out and reported on it a hundred times, slamming the Democrats for not doing their job. But when Republicans do the exact same thing, O'Reilly not only does not slam them, he ignores the story to cover for them.

Waldman Explains How Trump & The GOP Are Lying About The Economy
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 10:00am

The Washington Post's Paul Waldman described how GOP front-runner Donald Trump and conservatives are spreading misinformation about the economy to downplay economic success made during the Obama administration.

Trump's misinformation has been fueled and perpetuated by right-wing media outlets like Fox News.

In an April 28 op-ed, the Washington Post's Paul Waldman explained how Republicans are misleading about the health of the economy while dishonestly ignoring positive economic trends. Waldman specifically highlighted Donald Trump's misinformation and how it drastically contrasted with reality:
Here's Donald Trump's economic story:

The economy is an absolute nightmare. Americans are living in such misery that they're practically eating their own shoes in order to survive. If we cut taxes on the wealthy, reduce regulations on corporations, renegotiate trade agreements, and deport all illegal immigrants, then our economy will be spectacular and working people will experience American greatness again.

Trump's story is the same one other Republicans tell, with the addition of the idea that "bad deals" on trade have had a crippling effect on the country. For the moment we"ll put aside the merits of Trump's claim that imposing enormous tariffs on Chinese goods will cause all those jobs sewing clothing and assembling electronics to come pouring into the United States, but the political question around Trump’s story is whether people will believe his over-the-top description of both what's happening now and the transformation he will be able to produce.

Today, the objective reality is a lot closer to the way Democrats describe it, in large part because they aren't offering an extreme version of their truth. If Obama and Clinton were more rhetorically similar to Donald Trump, they'd be saying that this is the greatest economy in the history of human civilization, everybody has a terrific job, and there's so much prosperity that the only question any American has is whether to spend their money on everything they could ever want or just roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck.

But they aren't saying that. Instead, they're attempting the tricky balancing act of emphasizing the progress Obama has made while acknowledging the long-term weaknesses in the economy. Both of those things are real. Since the bottom of the Great Recession early in Obama's first term, the economy has added 14 million jobs, and unemployment is now at 5 percent.

On the other hand, income growth has been concentrated at the top and Americans still feel uncertain about their economic futures.

Donald Trump has chosen to pretend that the good things about the American economy don't exist, and weave a laughable fantasy about what his policies will produce.
Trump's lies mirror what O'Reilly and the right-wing media are saying, who often stoke fears and downplay positive changes in the U.S. economy.

Poll Shows 19% Of Republicans Will Support Hillary If Trump Wins Primary
By: Steve - April 30, 2016 - 9:00am

A new Suffolk University poll has found that 19% of Republicans say they will support Hillary Clinton if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination.

The poll contained some numbers that should scare Republicans. 40% of Republicans polled said that they would not support the party's nominee if Donald Trump wins. 25% of the anti-Trump Republican vote would consider voting for a third party candidate. 19% of the never Trump Republicans would vote for Hillary Clinton, and 18% would stay home and not vote at all.

By gender, 10% of men, and 9% of Republican women would vote for Clinton over Trump. 18% of very likely Republican general election voters would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

These numbers provide a look at the potential devastation that nominating Donald Trump could bring to the Republican Party. If Trump's disapproval ratings continue to climb, it is possible that he could lose half of the Republican electorate. Trump was known by 99% of the voters that were polled, so it is not likely that any kind of image makeover will be effective when he is already universally known.

The Republican Party is deeply fractured, and Donald Trump is not the candidate that will bring them together. Trump's unpopularity will cause many Republicans to stay home, which will result in the GOP losing seats in both the House and the Senate. Trump could cost Republicans state legislatures and governor's races.

Donald Trump is a disaster for the Republican party. And the door is open for Hillary Clinton to build a general election coalition by attracting nearly 20% of Republicans to her campaign.

Klein: Boehner Just Confirmed Everything Liberals Suspected About The GOP
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 11:00am

In an April 28 piece for Vox, editor-in-chief Ezra Klein noted that former Republican House Speaker John Boehner recently validated the critique that the Republican Party is no longer a healthy political party devoted to governing.

During a speech at Stanford University, Boehner harshly criticized Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh," called the conservative House Freedom Caucus "knuckleheads" and "goofballs," and said Ronald Reagan "would be the most moderate Republican elected today."

Klein wrote that "Boehner is validating one of the most persistent and controversial critiques of the modern Republican Party" -- that they are the central problem in politics today.

He concluded:

Zoom out, and here is the condition of the modern Republican Party. Despite significant down-ballot strength, it has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and it looks likely to lose this one, too.

The party has completely lost control of its own nominating process, and its choice now is to either elect Donald Trump, a candidate who isn't really a Republican and might be a historic disaster for the party, or risk a schism by trying to rip the nomination away from Trump amidst a contested convention.

Meanwhile, John Boehner, the most powerful Republican elected official from 2008 to 2015, resigned in frustration last year and is now saying his party has been captured by idiots and zealots.

Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have repeatedly warned the media and political observers that the core of Washington's dysfunction "lies with the Republican Party."

Mann and Ornstein issued their warning years ago, but many have been slow to adopt their conclusions.

Bill O'Reilly Defends Trump's Sexist Attacks On Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 10:00am

Once again O'Reilly defends Trump, as he says he is not biased for Trump, when is just laughable. Trump is a racist and a sexist, but O'Reilly says the attacks on him for being a racist and a sexist are out of control.

When it is Trump who is out of control, but O'Reilly defends it and attacks the people who call Trump out for being a racist and a sexist, it's insanity, and 100% proof O'Reilly is in the tank for Trump.

Here is a partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): The other thing is the women's issue. The sexism thing, don't you think this is out of control a little bit, along with the racism thing?

DANA PERINO: Well, the racism thing yes, I agree. The feminism thing, yes I agree. However, the other night, when Donald Trump said that about her only getting 5 percent of the vote --

O'REILLY: If she were a guy.

PERINO: if she were a man, I -- that struck me. I don't say I was offended, but I thought that's going to be a headline.

O'REILLY: Well, it was an extreme statement but that's what Mr. Trump does.

PERINO: It's because some women will hear that and say, you know, they've probably heard that, like "She only became the White House Press Secretary because she was a woman." And there are -- people say those kind of things, I know that's not true. But that's what people hear.

O'REILLY: OK, so you feel that putting her in a classification that she doesn't have any other accomplishments, which she does --

PERINO: She does.

O'REILLY: -- Was a bit sexist? But I think he --

PERINO: It is, however --

O'REILLY: He would have said that about anybody, any competitor.

Millennials Are Flocking To Democrats Because They Hate Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 9:00am

The Harvard IOP Spring Poll found that millennial support for Democrats keeping the White House has doubled as Donald Trump is despised by younger voters.

Young Americans prefer that a Democrat win the White House over a Republican in the 2016 presidential race. More than three in five (61%) prefer that a Democrat win the White House, while 33% prefer a Republican. The divide of 28 points is nearly double what it was in Spring 2015, when the divide was 15 percentage points (55% Democrat; 40% Republican).

Among young white voters, Democrats now have a 2-percentage point advantage (-12: Spring 2015), among African American voters, that advantage grows to 78 percentage points (79: Spring 2015) and among Hispanics, the advantage is 55 points (41: Spring 2015).

Among Likely Voters, Clinton Leads Trump by 36 Points; Trump Underperforming Among Young Republicans. Among likely voters, Clinton maintains the same 61% that a "generic Democrat" receives, while Donald Trump receives 25%, 8 percentage points lower than the current "generic Republican" White House preference.

Among young Democrats, Clinton leads Trump by 78 points (83%: Clinton; 5%: Trump), but among Republicans, Trump leads by only 44 points (57%: Trump; 13%: Clinton). Among Independents, Clinton has a 23-point lead (43%: Clinton; 20%: Trump), with 36% undecided. Clinton leads significantly with both men and women.

Among men, it’s 47% for Clinton, 29% supporting Trump; and the lead expands among women, with 57% for Clinton and 15% for Trump. Clinton has a narrow 6-point lead among 18- to 29-year-old whites (38%: Clinton; 32%: Trump), but polls into the 70s with both the black and Hispanic communities.

Among African Americans, Clinton leads Trump 76% to 5%, and among Hispanics, she has a similar-sized lead at 71% to Trump’s 9%.

Bernie Sanders is the only one of the five presidential candidates with a positive net approval rating among millennials (+23), but Donald Trump is putting up some negative numbers with younger voters that are astounding. Overall, Trump has a net negative approval rating of (-57), and a net negative rating among millennial Republicans of (-20).

The numbers suggest that millennials can't stand Trump. Donald Trump is the presidential candidate embodiment of Fox News. It is striking, but not a coincidence that Trump pushes millennials away to the same degree that younger people tend to avoid the top-rated cable news network.

The Donald Trump campaign is all of the talking points and tactics that Fox uses to scares to the grandparents of millennials implemented in a presidential campaign. Donald Trump's views represent the kind of intolerance and bigotry that millennials across the political spectrum oppose.

There has been a great deal of media chatter about Hillary Clinton's struggles with younger voters in the Democratic primary, but if Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz, it won't matter.

Millennials aren't stupid. They are going to vote for the candidate who best represents their positions, and that candidate is not Donald Trump.

Tom Nichols: Trump Foreign Policy Speech Is Gobbledygook
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 11:00am

Notice that Bill O'Reilly did not have Professor Nichols on to talk about the Trump foreign policy speech, because he would tell the truth and destroy Trump. O'Reilly does not want that to happen because he does not want you to know the truth about his friend Donald Trump. So he had two Trump supporters on to discuss it Wednesday night, with nobody to provide any balance.

Tom Nichols is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. So he is an actual expert on foreign policy, which is why O'Reilly did not have him on the show, here is what he wrote about the Trump speech.

So, we now know what Donald Trump thinks about foreign policy.

Actually, we don't. Once again, a Trump speech about policy turned out to be just another word salad of rehashed campaign slogans. And once again, all we learned is that Trump has no idea what he's talking about, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Trump's speech, highly anticipated and no doubt crafted by his advisers in an attempt to make him look sensible, was probably as uncomfortable for him to give as it was for us to watch. Like a child who's been told he has to give a book report on a subject way over his head, Trump dutifully read a script, slogging through concepts he does not grasp and stumbling over words he cannot pronounce.

He touched on many subjects, all of them wrapped in the ignorance and magical thinking that characterizes every Trump speech. America's nuclear forces? He'll modernize them. Why? Who knows. This is the man who couldn't explain the nuclear triad, but that didn't stop him from throwing a trillion-dollar program into a speech.

Foreign competition? He'll punish companies that leave. How? There will be unspecified consequences - of some sort.

Our allies? We'll repair our relationships with them by telling them they must pony up more for their safety, like shopkeepers paying protection money.

Our rivals in the world? They'll respect us again. We know this because Trump very clearly offered this detailed solution: "This will change when I am President."

What about Russia, our chief rival? Trump's on it:

"If we can't make a deal under my administration, a deal that's great - not good, great - for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It's as simple as that."

Well, what a relief. (A deal? Over what? Don't ask. Only elitist intellectuals ask questions like that.) But whatever it is, if it's not great, we'll walk. Our allies in Europe, of course, can't walk away, but losing NATO to show we're tough, the toughest, about deals is part of the price to be paid when we're Making American Great Again.

How about the Middle East? Trump swore that peace is the first priority, Israel is our friend, and he won't do whatever Obama did. He even said that the sign of a superpower is restraint, which is exactly the kind of thing Obama says on a regular basis.

Of course, Trump has already promised to "bomb the s--t" out of ISIS, and to kill the wives and children of terrorists. But fear not, because as Trump assured everyone yesterday, he is staunchly opposed to unnecessary foreign entanglements, and was completely against the Iraq War.

Except he is on record, repeatedly, supporting the Iraq War, as well as the Obama intervention in Libya.

North Korea? Trump will make China take care of it, or he'll start a trade war, assuming he hasn't already started one over everything else.

And our military? It'll be stronger than ever, but it'll cost less. And Trump will use it less, except when he's using it at will to commit war crimes.

Trump also promised to bring in new people whose resumes might not be perfect but who are not stained by the foreign policy failures of the past. This part of Trump's speech, of course, explains much of his support among a certain class of pundits and third-string, would-be policy analysts: They think they're going to Washington with Trump.

Perhaps Trump intends to bring in fresh faces like advisor Paul Manafort, a guy who's been around Washington for 40 years and was previously an adviser to Ukraine's deposed president, Viktor Yanukovich. What a breath of fresh air that would be in the fetid swamps of the District.

There were many more inconsistencies in Trump's speech, but there's no point in highlighting them. This wasn't really a speech about foreign policy. It was a campaign event, meant to reassure Trump's emotionally-driven, low-information voters that he gave a foreign policy speech.

And so he did. Some Republicans, facing Trump's mounting primary victories, have even embarrassed themselves by praising it already. And of course, it was more than enough for Trump's loyalists, as anything Trump does or says, no matter how stupid or incoherent, always is.

But it is not enough to reassure any thinking American. We deserve better. In this election, unfortunately, we are unlikely to get it.

O'Reilly Admits His Plan To Help Poor Students Is Racist
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 10:00am

And btw, the economy is rigged for the corporations and the wealthy, and everyone knows it, no matter how many times O'Reilly and Krauthammer deny it. The main thing is a college education, if you can not afford it you do not get one, so it is not a level playing field.

The wealthy can afford to send their kids to college, most of the middle class and the poor can not, that is a rigged economy. And the most rigged part is the money in politics, that corporations, the wealthy, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups use to legally bribe Congressman and Senators to pass laws that benefit them.

The whole system is rigged for the wealthy, the corporations, and the people at the top. And that is a fact, no matter what O'Reilly and Krauthammer say about it. And it's getting worse, because the Congress will not stop the corporations and the wealthy from moving all the money and jobs to offshore tax havens, Ford is even doing it, they are moving 2,500 jobs to Mexico, which is why I will never buy another Ford product for the rest of my life.

And btw, O'Reilly had two old rich Republican white guys (that work for Fox) on to debate it, with no Democrats, no liberals, no actual economists, and no Independent experts, just O'Reilly and Krauthammer. That alone tells you how biased they are about it, and how they spin it, because they did not have anyone on to provide the balance in the debate.

One last thing, BILL O'REILLY WAS NOT POOR AS A CHILD. His Father was upper middle class making $80,000 a year in the 80's as an oil company accountant, that is not poor, it was in the top 5% of income earners at the time. His Father even paid for Bill and his sister to go to private schools, they were not poor, they were just not as wealthy as the super-rich kids they went to school with.

O'Reilly lies about this all the time, he was not poor. The other kids mostly had parents who were multi-millionaires so O'Reilly thinks he was poor, when he was not, his Father just had far less money than most of the other parents. That is not being poor, and an oil company account was not a working class citizen, like a dock worker, a factory worker, or a garbage man, it's a cushy high paying job pushing papers around in a building with central air.

Here is what the corporate stooges O'Reilly and Krauthammer said about it, O'Reilly is totally lying, and Krauthammer is partially admitting the truth.

Partial transcript:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So let's deal with the economy first, do you think it's rigged?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: No, because I think the word rigged implies some kind of conscious will on the part of those who control the economy to put down the poor. I do think, however, that a large percentage of what determines if you're poor or not, is a matter of the lottery, the human lottery. Who your parents are, where you're born to, at a simple level if you are born in the United States, that is six out of a hundred humans, you won the lottery.

You have a better chance than if you were born in the Congo. If you were born to people, to a single mother out of wedlock, without a man in the family, with poor educational system around you, you are -- that's the lottery, and you have lost it. It's very hard. So to some extent, it's true that your life chances are not entirely in your hand. I think they are largely out of your hands. Nonetheless, there are things that you can do, politically, by changing society, Changing the culture is extremely hard, -- nobody has a good answer for that.

O'REILLY: But here's my -- I do, I have a good answer for it.

KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, you do? Let's hear it.

O'REILLY: OK, here's the answer. I think you're right about the lottery of life and determining economic success in most cases, but not all. I'm an example, I mean, I was born to responsible parents. We didn't have any money, and you know, there was a pathway that I was shown. That is the key. So, my theory is that public schooling has to lay out a pathway to little children.

I mean, 5, 6, 7 years old. And say look, here is where you are in life, alright? This is what you have to overcome, and this is how you do it. And that has to be drummed, inculcated, boom, boom, boom, that's got to be a course, along with math and spelling. and English. That's got to be a course, you see what I'm talking about? That --

KRAUTHAMMER: No, I don't. And I'll tell you why.

O'REILLY: If you did it, you'd be called a racist, but I think it's got to be a course.

KRAUTHAMMER: It's not a course, it's not something you teach. It's something that you get by the lottery of life. I didn't say that the lottery means you have to be -- you have to have rich folks if you want to do well in life. What I said is you have to have the human capital. Two parents, married, who inculcate the values you're talking about --

O'REILLY: But you can overcome that, the society can help the kids who don't, to overcome it --

KRAUTHAMMER: With a course?


KRAUTHAMMER: Come on, are you kidding me?

O'REILLY: I did it, I did it when I was teaching high school. I taught high school, in a -- you know, they weren't poor, but they were working class. And I basically would come in, I would say okay, here is two houses, alright? Here is the nice house, and here is the shack, where do you want to live? OK?

And of course, they would say haha, and I said well here is what you need to do to get it. And you have to do a, and b, and c, and D, and this is what you have to do, alright? And this is not taught in school, it's not taught anywhere. It's -- they come in, and the society is already making them victims. Oh, you can't succeed. Oh, look at your circumstance, oh, you have to be treated differently. What is it, The soft expectation of bigotry? That is what is in play. We can't change that.

KRAUTHAMMER: Why aren't you still teaching it?

O'REILLY: Because I have a greater mission to teach people like you about how society can come back, and help these people who don't -- you know, who fall into the poverty precincts. You can help them, but you have to be honest with them.

Experts Slam Trump's Fact-Free Foreign Policy Speech
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly loved it and defended it. He also did an unfair and biased segment about it Wednesday night, with two people who liked the speech, while having nobody on who did not like it to provide the balance. It was basically three Trump supporters all saying they liked the speech. That is not fair or balanced, which is what O'Reilly claims to do.

Foreign policy experts and media fact-checkers highlighted the numerous false claims and contradictions in Donald Trump's April 27 foreign policy speech, noting that his speech was "fact free" and "incoherent."

Trump Claims His Foreign Policy Will Put "America First." On April 27, Trump gave a speech on his vision for foreign policy, criticizing President Obama and Hillary Clinton for what he described as "missteps that have disillusioned the nation's allies and emboldened its rivals."

Politifact Gives Trump Two "False" Ratings For Statements He Made During Speech. On April 27, Politifact discredited Trump's claims that he warned war in Iraq would "destabilize the Middle East" and that ISIS is "making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil."

Foreign Policy's David Rothkopf: On the April 27 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, Foreign Policy CEO and editor David Rothkopf derided Trump's foreign policy speech as incoherent and fact-free, and pointed out Trump's factual errors in his foreign policy proposals.

NY Times Reporter On China: Trump Falsely Claimed Obama Has "Allowed China To Continue Its Economic Assault" On The United States. The New York Times Michael Forsythe noted that Trump's criticism of the Obama administration's foreign policy toward China ignored the fact that the "administration has launched a volley of punitive trade actions against imports from China since 2009, including on tires, and, last month, on certain types of steel."

NY Times Moscow Bureau Chief: Trump's Plans To Cooperate With Russia Are "Easier Said Than Done." Neil MacFarquhar explained that Trump's call to have Russia and the United States "cooperate in fighting terrorism globally" ignored that "the Obama administration has been trying to figure out for months whether the Kremlin sincerely wants to fix the problem in Syria, or is merely trying to shore up its main Middle Eastern ally" and that question of whether to cooperate with the country remains ambiguous.

Politico's Michael Crowley reported that "even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn" from the very audience it aimed to persuade.

The Guardian reporter Dan Roberts pointed out 10 contradictions in Trump's foreign policy speech, including criticisms of Obama's humiliations on the world stage and Trump's tension between its isolationism and its interventionism.

O'Reilly Promoted Racist Myths About Incarceration Rates For Drugs
By: Steve - April 27, 2016 - 10:00am

During a segment on drug incarceration, Fox News Eric Bolling suggested the higher incarceration rates for African Americans are not about race, but instead because "blacks committed more of the same crimes."

Partial transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I feel very strongly that if my children were addicted to heroin and I knew who was selling them the heroin, I would not consider it a nonviolent action. How about you?

ERIC BOLLING: No, I think you have to go hard on the drug dealers, distributors.

O'REILLY: Even the punks on the street?

BOLLING: Even the punks on the street. I don't think it has anything to do with race, it has to do with what they are doing. They are providing access for kids, people to hurt themselves.

O'REILLY: Why does the left see it differently and is trying to diminish the harmfulness of their actions?

BOLLING: Well Russell Simmons tried to make it about race. He said more blacks are incarcerated than whites therefore --

O'REILLY: Well it's a big issue.

BOLLING: Because maybe more blacks are committing more of the same crimes. It's still illegal to sell heroin. It's still illegal to sell opiates.

O'REILLY: May not be much longer, the way the trends are going in this country.
Notice that both O'Reilly and Bolling agree that drug dealing is a violent crime, even though that is just their opinion and almost everyone else says it is not a violent crime, and they are not put in jail under the violent crime laws. They both just basically say it is, as if it is a fact, when it is just the opinion of two right-wingers that work for Fox News.

Notice that they both also want everyone locked up for non-violent drug crimes, but they do not want pay higher taxes to cover the cost of housing them in prison. We already lead the world in the percentage of people in prison for every 100,000 citizens, and spend billions housing them in prisons.

And they want more of them locked up, when it does no good at all, and the drug war has been a total failure. No matter how many drug dealers you lock up it will never ever stop drug use, it just will not happen.

As long as there is a demand for drugs, someone will sell it to them. You lock up a drug dealer, and two more replace him. In fact, friends my age that still do drugs today, tell me drugs are easier to get now than they were 20 years ago, and they are better, they even laugh at you when you ask them about the drug war, they literally laugh in your face at the words drug war.

This Is How Bill O'Reilly Covers For Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 27, 2016 - 9:00am

I publish examples of O'Reilly covering for his friend Donald Trump all the time here, but there are other people who see it the same way, Erik Wemple from the Washington Post also wrote about O'Reilly covering for Trump, here is what he wrote:

Once again defying the warnings of this blog that he has no credibility to critique the media, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly addressed the over-addressed topic of Donald Trump's treatment by the media.

"Scorn" is the animating response from many folks in the national press, argued O'Reilly.

Next came a very O'Reilly-esque attempt to account for just why the media may have accorded the real-estate mogul some skeptical coverage. One of the reasons, he said, was that Trump has "mobilized support by mentioning ethnic groups like Mexicans and Muslims in negative ways."

At this point, O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" should be renamed the "Euphemism Prism": "Negative ways," really? Checking the record, Trump last June said that Mexico was "sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

On the Muslims front, he advocates a temporary halt to their entry into the United States. Would that Trump's comments about these groups were merely negative. Instead, they're bigoted spasms of stereotyping that commentators like O'Reilly shouldn't even attempt to abridge in their commentary; they should just repeat them.

Somehow "negative" doesn't capture Trump's bigotry as effectively as the "rapists" line. Of course, the media propagates a lot of euphemistic short-handing of Trump's comments. How many times have we seen media outlets characterize them as "controversial," for starters?

As if O'Reilly's "negative" characterization weren't enough to prop up a vanilla-milkshake-sipping buddy who's vying for the Republican nomination, O'Reilly did more.

Namely, he essentially co-opted a strain of Trump's own defense: "The root cause of the media's disdain for Donald Trump," said O'Reilly, "is not his policy or behavior on the campaign trial. It's him, who he is: A wealthy man who's not politically correct who has made an enormous amount of money by selling himself in high-profile ways."

From where did O'Reilly get this insight about Trump not being politically correct? Oh, from Trump, Trump and Trump.

"In the end, Donald Trump will not -- will not -- get a fair shake from the press," said O'Reilly, adding as a coda that the candidate needs to "prepare himself for the onslaught."

No need to worry too much about that, Mr. Trump: The King of Cable News has you covered.

Hot Links

O'Reilly Loses Custody Of His Kids After Choking Wife

Conclusive Proof Bill O'Reilly Is Biased In Favor Of Republicans

O'Reilly Dishonest About Publishers Weekly Not Reviewing Killing Reagan

Bill O'Reilly Proves He Is A Lying Right-Wing Idiot Once Again

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 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