|Advertise||Contact||About This Web Site||Webmaster Information|
As you already know by now that Oreilly sucks and is the biggest loser. Oreilly facts apart, many people spend their time on computers playing online poker real money games as a hobby playing online poker real money games as a hobby including slots
Review the best Canadian online casinos for real money slots online at SlotsOnlineCanada.com
If you are looking to buy prescription medications from Canada, then buy from a licensed Canadian pharmacy.
RealMoneyAction.com is quickly becoming the #1 source for playing online casino games for real money. Check them out
Get all the news and information you will ever need about sing mobile bingo at this top mobile bingo comparison site, there is no spin here, just great reviews.
Play online poker at the most trusted online poker room in Canada 888pokercanada.com
The number one place for mobile slots is this site, they offer lots of info and exclusive free spins.
January - 2014
February - 2014
March - 2014
April - 2014
May - 2014
June - 2014
July - 2014
August - 2014
September - 2014
October - 2014
November - 2014
January - 2013
February - 2013
March - 2013
April - 2013
May - 2013
June - 2013
July - 2013
August - 2013
September - 2013
October - 2013
November - 2013
December - 2013
January - 2012
February - 2012
March - 2012
April - 2012
May - 2012
June - 2012
July - 2012
August - 2012
September - 2012
October - 2012
November - 2012
December - 2012
The O'Reilly Iraq Apology Countdown Clock
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
Fox News Boycott
Glenn Beck Is An Idiot
The Factor Guest List Count Archives
Monday - 11-24-14 -- O'Reilly - 3.694
Tuesday - 11-25-14 -- O'Reilly - 3.386
Wednesday - 11-26-14 -- O'Reilly -
Thursday - 11-27-14 -- O'Reilly - - No Show - Thanksgiving
Friday - 11-28-14 -- O'Reilly -
Weekly Factor Average - - 4 Show Average
By: Steve - November 28, 2014 - 10:00am
"More black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die," said Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
"The body count will start rising," wrote The New York Daily News editorial board. "Wait till you start hearing about mushrooms and learn that the word refers to children who have been struck by stray bullets."
Such would be the nightmare situation in New York City, many in the media so ominously warned, if the city dared to reform the police department's practice of aggressively stopping, questioning, and frisking hundreds of thousands New Yorkers, mostly black and Latino. People would die. New York would slip back into the scary, bad old days.
And as usual, They were wrong. This week -- as reported in the Daily News -- the city's crime rate hit a 20-year low.
And last week, NYPD Commissioner William Bratton said that there were 20 fewer murders so far this year than in the same period last year. In 2013, the city's homicide rate fell to a historic low.
It has all happened while the number of police stops in New York has also dropped dramatically.
Bill de Blasio was elected mayor in a landslide election last year, even after conservative media outlets raised alarm over his promise -- as well as the promises of other candidates -- to rein in the NYPD's use of stop and frisk.
The tactic involves stopping and questioning people on the street, and in some instances, searching them. In 2011, 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino, and about the same percentage were innocent of any crime, according to data from the New York Civil Liberties Union.
The city is on pace to have about 50,000 police stops this year, a 75 percent drop from the number of stops last year and a still more precipitous decline from the nearly 700,000 police stops in 2011.
"Under the liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio, it was supposed to go back to Sodom and Gomorrah -- a return to the days of mayors Ed Koch and David Dinkins," Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at media watchdog group Media Matters, told The Huffington Post of the media predictions.
So Media Matters took a look back this week at the hysteria surrounding the debate over stop and frisk in New York City. "If you look at the numbers, none of that true, in fact the opposite is true," he said.
Many employed the argument that de Blasio and his liberal counterparts wanted to end stop and frisk altogether. One Fox News host, for example, said this: "If a suspect someone is up to criminal activity, and is armed and dangerous, you bet I want them to go ahead and pat them down! It's not that intrusive!"
However, neither de Blasio nor critics of the program were calling for an end to cops stopping suspects. Instead, they wanted to end what they said were the thousands of unconstitutional stops of people who weren't suspects, most of whom were black or Latino.
Last year, a federal judge ruled that the NYPD's use of stop and frisk was unconstitutional because cops were stopping people without reasonable suspicion. She said the practice amounted to a "policy of indirect racial profiling."
"Stats aside, it's a fact that if you take stop and frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die," said Bill O'Reilly. It was the same argument made by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his NYPD commissioner, Ray Kelly.
However, there has not been a proven correlation between curbing police stops and a higher murder rate. Over the last two years, for example, the number of police stops in New York City has dropped off significantly, while homicide rates have fallen.
While the number of stops decreased from 2012 to 2011, the percentage of minorities murdered also dropped. Additionally, cities across the country without aggressive stop-and-frisk programs have also experienced big drops in their murder rates over the last 20 years.
Boehlert said that some conservative media outlets "don't care about trends and statistics." Concern over stop and frisk "plays into stereotypes that their viewers like,” he said.
Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, The New York Post, and The New York Daily News did not respond to requests for comment. Andrea Peyser, the New York Post columnist, said she had "no comment."
"When the fear-mongers try to drive public policy to rationalize the disregard and violation of fundamental rights, no one wins," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told HuffPost.
"The good news is that their dire predictions have not only proven to be irresponsible, but wrong, and the decline in stop-and-frisk policy that routinely subjected people of color to constitutional violations has been accompanied, as predicted, with a decline in crime rates to historic lows."
Priscilla Gonzalez of Communities United for Police Reform (CPR), an advocacy group that spearheaded the stop-and-frisk reform campaign, told HuffPost in a statement, "We knew all along that fear-mongering to justify stop-and-frisk abuses and other discriminatory policing was a tactic that would backfire, and it clearly did."
"Increased public safety and constitutional policing go together," she added. "When police officers and local residents communicate more effectively, and all New Yorkers are treated with dignity and respect, our city is safer and better off."
And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about this on his show, because he was wrong. He was simply spewing out right-wing talking points on the issue, talking points that were lies, and the very same GOP talking points he claims to never use.
Nancy Grace Goes Off on Darren Wilson: 'It Doesn't Add Up!'
By: Steve - November 27, 2014 - 10:00am
And Nancy Grace always supports cops, so you can not say she is some far-left cop hater, she is a die-hard conservative who never slams a cop for anything, until now. And she is a former prosecutor, so she knows how these grand jury deals work, the prosecutor basically rigs them to get whatever decision he wants.
What's worse is O'Reilly never tells you any of this, he acts like it's all on the up and up, when he knows the prosecutor only presents what he wants to the grand jury and he can get an indictment if he wants to, but they never seem to want to when cops are involved. I have said this before but just look at the Rodney King beating, no cops were prosecuted, even though we saw 10 cops beating an unarmed black man with billy clubs, who was on the ground, and it was on video.
Nancy Grace joined CNN's Brooke Baldwin to discuss the Ferguson grand jury decision Wednesday afternoon and she had a lot to say about Officer Darren Wilson's version of the story, which has finally come out through his testimony and interviews.
According to her, the whole thing "doesn't add up."
"When people say, it does not add up, I will tell you what doesn't add up, these photos," Grace said, holding up copies pictures of Wilson's face after the shooting. "I've looked at a them, I've studied them, and I was expecting to see his face mangled."
She added, "He doesn't even have a bruise. right? It's red. He's got a red mark!"
"Look, do you know how many times I have sided against a cop?" Grace asked. "Never. But to me, this is bigger than a badge. And I don't like speaking out against a cop, but this doesn't add up."
And notice something else, O'Reilly does not have Nancy Grace on his show to discuss it, he only has right-wing stooges who agree with him on, because he does not want people to see what she is saying, as a conservative.
Later, when Baldwin asked Grace if the grand jurors should have questioned Wilson's story more, she said it was the prosecutor who failed, not the jurors.
"The grand jurors are like sheep, they're babes in the woods. The prosecutor's duty is to seek the truth," she said. "I am telling you that the prosecutors, if they want an indictment, they will get an indictment."
Finally, Grace questioned Wilson's claim that all he wanted to do in the moment of the shooting was "live."
She said, "If you wanted to live, then put the pedal to the metal and drive when the guy is trying to jump in your car and grab your gun!"
And here is something else O'Reilly never reports, Wilson was from a police department that was disbanded by the authorities, because they were all racist and corrupt. They fired them all, and hired all new cops.
The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.
And yet, O'Reilly has never once reported these facts, never, not one time.
Experts Blast Ferguson Prosecutor's Press Conference & Legal Strategy
By: Steve - November 27, 2014 - 9:00am
Hours after revealing the grand jury had reached a decision and months after police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced late Monday night that Wilson would not be indicted. As communities around the country and across the world reacted to the decision, legal experts said how unusual -- and in some cases troubling -- the process was that brought about this outcome.
Both supporters of McColloch and those demanding his ouster stressed the uniqueness of the case and the national media attention it garnered. But law professors and legal experts questioned whether the presentation of the non-indictment and legal procedures were followed appropriately, adequately or fairly.
A long, late night announcement
McCulloch has been widely criticized for burying the long-awaited announcement in a lengthy press conference, revealing the outcome only after he criticized the role the media and social media played in the public perception of the case. "The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and the sensational appetite for something to talk about, following closely behind with the rumors on social media," he said.
Ben Trachtenberg, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law, said the entire announcement "read like a closing argument for the defense," while Susan McGraugh, an associate professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, said she was furious when she watched it.
"Bob McCulloch took a very defensive posture," McGraugh said. "It was a poor choice to be so confrontational in presenting a grand jury verdict that he had to know would upset a large number of people. He should have left out the editorializing."
Marjorie Cohn, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said the way McCulloch presented the facts to the public was unlike anything she had ever seen. "In 98 percent of cases, the prosecutor would just announce the grand jury decision and that's it," she said. "He would not characterize the evidence defensively, or attack the media."
A desired outcome
The astonishing rarity of a grand jury declining to indict a suspect has led many to believe that McCulloch did not make a sincere effort to prove probable cause.
"The prosecutor did not want an indictment, and he passed the buck to the grand jury to make that decision," said Cohn, who is also a former president of the National Lawyers' Guild. "It was clear the prosecutor was partisan in this case, and not partisan in the way prosecutors usually are, which is to get people indicted."
Which is a very good point, normally a prosecutor has a partisan bias to get an indictment, but in this case his bias was the other way, to avoid an indictment, that is the opposite of what they usually do.
McGraugh agreed and said that McCullouch's presentation of the evidence was in stark opposition to his assigned role. "His duty is not to be a defense attorney. His duty is to prosecute people who break Missouri law," she said. She then wondered whether the grand jury "consciously or unconsciously got a message about what he wanted."
Trachtenberg agreed that McCulloch had no choice but to treat the case differently than most prosecutors.
"Traditionally the saying is if a prosecutor doesn't get an indictment, it's because he doesn't want to get an indictment," he said.
Grand jury as a trial jury
One common critique of McCulloch's prosecution of Wilson was his use of the grand jury process. Typically, grand juries exist to determine if there is probable cause to charge a suspect with a crime, a fairly low legal threshold that allows for some uncertainty. But McCulloch, attorneys said, treated the grand jury proceedings as a criminal jury trial by presenting them with all available evidence both for and against charging Wilson.
But the presentation of all of the evidence to the grand jury struck legal experts as inappropriate.
"McCulloch put the grand jury in the role of being a trier of fact, which is not its role," Cohn said. "The grand jury was put in the position of basically being a jury, but in a one-sided, closed proceeding. The only people inside the grand jury room are the grand jury and prosecutors."
In contrast, she said, "In a trial, there are lawyers on both sides, witnesses, and the evidence is presented in an adversarial way."
Making the grand jury weigh evidence and question witnesses also shrouded that process in secrecy, a factor that led to the "rampant speculation" McCulloch criticized in Monday's night press conference, McGraugh said.
"People could do nothing but speculate because he was using a secret grand jury proceeding," she said. "He didn't acknowledge that people had to speculate as a result of his own actions."
She added that even within the realm of grand jury proceedings, the case spoke to a lack of "equal treatment under law."
"The law was not applied to Officer Wilson the same way it would be applied to someone who wasn't a police officer," said McGraugh, who previously worked as a trial attorney and spent eight years at the Missouri State Public Defender's Office.
"If my client killed someone tomorrow and claimed it was in self-defense, he would be arrested and required to post bond while awaiting a grand jury decision. Then, the prosecutor would not be allowed to bring both sides of the story into the building."
Ferguson Aftermath: McCulloch Got What He Wanted, "A Rigged Game"
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 11:50am
YOU CAN say one thing about President Obama's remarks after the Ferguson grand jury decision was announced. It matched the sheer mind-numbing words of St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch earlier in the evening. Neither man conjuring up any heart or emotion in a moment you would think would make a public leader rise to at least acknowledge the absolute farce we watched unfold that evening.
Obama got lost in his head, while McCulloch lost his soul trying to salvage his credibility by blaming everyone else and letting Darren Wilson walk free.
The only honest words with real emotion that fitted the fiasco in Ferguson were on Twitter, contrary to St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch's sniveling whines.
So, like him or not, Mark Geragos did what he always does. Delivers exactly what you don't want to hear, but when you do makes you want to scream because it's very likely true. On CNN he said this:
"This is a parody of the criminal justice system. This is a prosecutor who punted this case to the grand jury. I'll bet you his two assistants did not ask for an indictment. He showed exactly what his predisposition was. This was a foregone conclusion. This was a rigged game. This was exactly the result he wanted. That's how he did it."Of course a St. Louis, Missouri grand jury will not indict a policeman. That doesn't mean, especially given the statement by Bob McCulloch, there shouldn't have been a trial.
It's a reality TV world chronicled on social media in the aftermath of another shooting. This time because a prosecutor didn't want to indict or proceed to trial and didn't care to provide witness to the world on why a black teen lay dead, while the cop who killed him barely had a scratch on him.
A trial may have acquitted Darren Wilson, but at least we would have understood why.
Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes & Holes In Investigation
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 11:30am
Soon after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, law enforcement's handling of the case was already being criticized as callous and sloppy. Residents of Ferguson, Missouri, looked on in horror as police officials failed to cover and later to remove Brown's body from the street for hours.
Now that the grand jury evidence, including forensic records and testimony from Wilson and those investigating the fatal shooting, has been released, it's clear that other mistakes were made in attempting to figure out what happened on that August afternoon. The best physical evidence and testimony might not have been as ironclad in Wilson's favor as prosecutor Robert McCulloch characterized it on Monday night.
From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony).
1) In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson's testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. "I think it was his blood," Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.
2) The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, did not take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he had not been equipped with a recorder and had not tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn't write up any notes soon after the fact. "I didn't take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me," the officer stated.
The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson's first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.
3) An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared "self-explanatory."
"Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there," the examiner told the jury.
The examiner also noted that he or she hadn't been able to take pictures at the scene -- as is standard -- because the camera's batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown's body.
The batteries were dead? Yeah right, I have a hard time buying that one, and the grand jury just ignored it.
4) Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. "I was not in control of the gun," Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.
Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson's testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown's fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson "never lost control of his gun."
5) A detective with the St. Louis County Police Department, who conducted the first official interview of Wilson, testified to the grand jury that Wilson had packaged his own service weapon into an evidence envelope following his arrival at the police station in the wake of the shooting. The detective said the practice was not normal for his department, though he was unclear on the protocol of the Ferguson Police Department. He said he didn't explore that aspect further at the time.
According to the detective's testimony, standard practice for the St. Louis County Police Department would be for an officer involved in a shooting to keep his or her weapon holstered until it can be turned over to a supervisor and a crime scene unit detective. While that clearly didn't take place in Wilson's case, the detective also testified that he believed the firearm was handled in a way that preserved the chain of custody.
6) The same St. Louis County Police Department detective also testified that while he had intended to conduct his initial interview with Wilson at the Ferguson police station, a lieutenant colonel with the Ferguson Police Department decided that Wilson first needed to go to the hospital for medical treatment. The detective said that while it is common practice to defer to any medical decision of this nature, Wilson appeared to be in good health and didn't have any notable injuries that would have prevented an interview from being conducted at the station. Wilson would also testify that he didn't believe he needed to go to the hospital.
But that day, Wilson got into a vehicle with the lieutenant colonel and another Ferguson police official and went to the hospital, while the St. Louis County detective traveled in another vehicle.
And yet, O'Reilly and Fox went wild with un-proven rumors that Wilson had a broken eye socket, which turned out to not be true, and O'Reilly never once admitted he was wrong or said he was sorry for the bad and biased reporting. O'Reilly even mentioned at the time the story can not be proven, and yet he reported it anyway, even after telling us for 15 years that he only reports the facts and never speculates.
7) In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown's death, Wilson did not claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.
Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn't know what the item was, referring to it only as "something." In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown's hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.
So basically, the grand jury discounted all of what the actual witnesses said, ignored the video and sound recordings, and all the other evidence, what little the police recovered, and believed everything the police and the prosecutor said. This case should have gone to trial and we should have had it on tv so everyone could see the evidence, then there would not have been any riots.
More On Officer Wilson Shooting The Unarmed Teen
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 11:00am
Someone asked me if I was a cop and a big unarmed teen was attacking me or coming at me what I would do. And here is my answer, not shoot and kill him.
I would do what I was trained to do, either stay in my car and call for back up, or restrain him with non-lethal force, like a billy club or a stun gun, taser, etc. That is what they are trained to do, but some cops are trigger happy, most cops are good and do not shoot and kill unarmed teens.
But some cops are bad, some are racist, and some should not be cops. I am clearly not saying all cops are bad, because most of them are good and do a great job. But ask yourself this, and btw, I am a 54 year old white man who has had some contact with the police when I was in my teens, and not once did I get shot.
Now look at how many white cops shoot unarmed blacks, it's a lot. And you almost never hear of white cops shooting unarmed white teens. With the training the police get today, there is no reason to shoot and kill anyone who is unarmed, black or white.
So if I were a policeman I would only use deadly force if someone had a knife or a gun and I thought my life was in danger. If you see a big guy and you do not think you can handle him, call for back up.
I sure can not prove it but it is likely that Officer wilson was trigger happy and looking to shoot someone, instead of using his training to restrain Brown, he did not have to shoot and kill him. I support the police and I think they mostly do a great job, but there are bad apples in every walk of life, and I think Wilson was a bad apple.
Fox News Sunday Ignored Congressional Report Debunking Benghazi Myths
By: Steve - November 26, 2014 - 10:00am
Fox News Sunday ignored a new report from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee that debunked many of the myths that Fox News has spent the last two years promoting.
On November 21st, the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released its report on the September 2012 attacks on two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Similar to the many preceding investigations into the attacks -- including the Accountability Review Board and the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- the report found that no stand down order was issued during the attacks, there was no intelligence failure leading up to the attack, and that the talking points the administration used in the days following the attacks were based on the CIA's best assessment at the time.
The November 23rd edition of Fox News Sunday did not inform viewers of the report's findings. This stands in stark contrast to Fox's longstanding campaign to promote right-wing myths about the attacks.
Fox has been a tireless promoter of nearly every facet of the Benghazi story. In the 20 months following the attacks, Fox ran over 1,100 segments on Benghazi and hosted Republicans at a rate of 30:1 over Democrats to discuss the issue.
Meanwhile, the network has routinely ignored and downplayed evidence refuting its ridiculous conspiracy theories.
CNN media critic Brian Stelter noted that other Fox programs only provided cursory coverage of the report on the night of its release and that Fox never mentioned it the following day. According to Stelter:
STELTER: Boy, has Fox News spent a lot of time over the past two years focused on the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and I mean a lot of time.On the November 23 edition of Fox News own MediaBuzz, host Howard Kurtz noted that it only received "brief" coverage on Fox and that the results of the two-year long investigation "deserved more coverage."
And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly also pretty much ignored it, except to say the report was wrong, and then went on to say he was giving you the real truth. When this was a 2 year investigation by the Republicans, and they found nothing O'Reilly and the right were crying about was true.
So they just ignore it and claim they are still right, which is called insanity.
Schultz: Wilson Shouldn't Be A Cop If He's Afraid Of Unarmed Teen
By: Steve - November 25, 2014 - 11:00am
On his show Tuesday afternoon, MSNBC host Ed Schultz said Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson should not be in law enforcement if he is afraid of an unarmed teenager.
Daryl Parks, an attorney for Michael Brown's family, said he does not believe Wilson's testimony that he was scared of Brown.
"Officer Darren Wilson is 6'4", and Michael Brown is 6'4", so there's a little bit of a weight difference, it's not like the officer's a short man or stature, he's a tall man, so I don't really buy into this whole thing that he was scared," Parks said.
"If that's the case, I'm bigger than Michael Brown - should that be that every officer smaller than me should feel threatened and use deadly force if I don't come to warn him? No it doesn't mean that."
Schultz agreed, and said, referring to Wilson, that someone should not be in law enforcement if he or she is afraid of someone who is unarmed.
"I think the training of law enforcement is far more sophisticated than to resort to, 'I'm gonna fire on this guy multiple times,'" Schultz said. "I don't buy that, personally."
Not to mention Wilson had a gun and training in how to restrain people, he did not have to shoot and kill the kid. And the witness who was there also disagrees with Wilsons account of what happened, which means most likely Wilson lied to the grand jury and was coached by his attorney what to say. And the grand juries can be rigged by the prosecutor, which happens in most cases, because cops are almost never indicted.
Look at the Rodney King case, we had video of 10 cops beating an unarmed man who was laying on the ground and the grand jury did not indict any of the cops, so it was not shocking to find out Wilson was not indicted. And of course O'Reilly never reports any of that, as he claims he was right and the protesters are all wrong. When it was basically a he said he said, with the grand jury believing the cop, as they usually do.
No matter what, the fact is a cop shot and killed an unarmed teen, and the cop was not punished at all, he even got a paid vacation out of it.
Kelly Admits The Right Is Lying Over Obama Immigration Order
By: Steve - November 25, 2014 - 10:00am
And not only does her admission prove Fox and the Republicans are lying, it shows she lied about it too, because she was caught saying the same thing, then later admitting it was not true, but of course she never talked about her saying the lies too.
Kelly Called Executive Action "Amnesty" In July, But Now Admits It's A Loaded Term Exploited By Conservatives
Fox News host Megyn Kelly undermined months of claims from her own network peers when she admitted to guest Jennice Fuentes that President Obama's upcoming executive action does not constitute "amnesty."
Kelly, who has herself used the "amnesty" label to discuss the president's coming order, acknowledged that the term is a dog whistle conservative media have exploited to stoke opposition to immigration reform.
Obama announced a new set of executive actions that will allow as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to apply for protection from deportation based on the time they have been in the U.S. and their family ties.
Which is not amnesty.
On the November 19th edition of The Kelly File, Kelly admitted that the president is not actually pursuing "amnesty," because "amnesty is citizenship and that's not what Obama is doing."
Kelly also explained how conservatives purposely misuse the word "amnesty" for political gain: "That's a hot-button term that the right uses to get people upset."
So she admits it is nothing but right-wing propaganda, while doing it herself, and not admitting she herself did it.
Kelly has invoked amnesty to warn against the action, as recently as July. According to Nexis transcripts of the July 30th edition of The Kelly File, Kelly said that Obama may be preparing to "drop a bomb like amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants."
For months, Fox has labeled the president's plan amnesty. On November 13th, Fox host Bill O'Reilly said Obama's executive action "is essentially an amnesty for millions of people."
Earlier in the month, Fox host Sean Hannity said that "immigration law does not allow for the amnesty that the president wants to grant."
In early August, Fox co-host Jedediah Bila called Obama's plan "executive amnesty to millions of people."
Fox News Only Spent 30 Seconds On The New Benghazi Report
By: Steve - November 24, 2014 - 10:00am
Fox News had hundreds of segments and maybe a thousand hours of reporting on Benghazi, with all kinds of wild right-wing propaganda being put out. But when the Republican led House committee comes out with it's report that debunks all the lies from Fox, they ignored it, and spent less than 30 seconds reporting on it.
Last Friday, the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on the 2012 Benghazi, Libya attack against the U.S. consulate there that left four Americans dead.
As the Associated Press reported, the committee found that there was, "no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."
It debunked the most persistent myths put forward by Congressional Republicans, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Fox News.
So, how did Fox cover these findings? Chief White House correspondent Ed Henry, sitting in for Bret Baier on Special Report Friday evening, spent less than 30 seconds discussing the report and the aspects he chose to highlight speak volumes.
"The House Intelligence Committee says the initial assessment of the Benghazi terror attacks two years ago, that they were in fact terrorist in nature, was accurate," Henry reported. "It says CIA and Obama administration officials later supported the incorrect scenario that the attacks were motivated by an internet video and stuck with that for several days."
He then pivoted to a new United Nations report that says the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda, adding, "that contradicts the strenuous denials from the Obama administration."
And that was it.
Now think about this, Fox left out the fact that it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees like Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes or others, that made the wrong call about the origin of the attack in those first few days.
Fox also left out the fact that there was no "stand down" order given to a CIA response team once the attack was under way.
And what about the theory that the CIA was collecting and shipping arms from Libya to Syria? Not true, according to the report.
But if you are a regular Fox News viewer who has spent the last year hearing these claims over and over again by on-air personalities, including Bill O'Reilly, you would have absolutely no idea from Henry's report that any of them had been determined to be false -- by a Republican-led committee.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who serves on the intelligence panel even said this in a statement, "It's my hope that this report will put to rest many of the questions that have been asked and answered yet again."
Unless Fox decides to dedicate a fraction of the time they spent hyping up the Benghazi conspiracies to debunking them, there's very little chance of that happening any time soon.
And of course O'Reilly says nothing, even though he complains that the rest of the media ignores news that is negative for Obama. When Fox News ignores news that is positive for Obama, O'Reilly never says a word, because he also ignored it too.
All that taxpayer money spent on hearings, all that time wasted, all those hours and hours of reporting by O'Reilly and the rest of Fox, and it all turned out to be lies, the report found nothing. This was a Republican House that put the report together, and they still found nothing.
O'Reilly and Fox spent hours and hours lying to you and speculating on it, and when we find out they were wrong they do not report it, they do not say they are sorry, or they were wrong. They just ignore the facts and hope nobody remember how wrong they were. Which is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are nothing but dishonest partisan right-wing hacks.
Obama Hammers Boehner For Not Passing Immigration Bill
By: Steve - November 23, 2014 - 11:00am
In Las Vegas, President Obama cut through the angry rhetoric and BS on immigration and explained to the American people that it was John Boehner who forced Obama to act alone by refusing to allow a vote on the Senate passed immigration bill.
The president said this:
OBAMA: It has now been 512 days. A year in a half in which the only standing in the way of that bipartisan bill and my desk so that I can sign that bill. The only thing standing in the way is a simple yes or no vote in the House of Representatives. Just a yes or no vote.The president was correct. Boehner has an easy way out of the mess that he created by refusing to allow a vote on the Senate passed immigration bill. The point that the president raised is never discussed by Republicans who are calling the president a lawless emperor. Boehner refuses to acknowledge his own role in Obama's decision to use executive action.
If Boehner allowed a vote on the Senate passed immigration bill, none of this would be happening today. During his speech, the president reminded congressional Republicans that no one is stopping them from passing a bill. Obama mocked Republicans who claim that his actions are preventing them from passing a bill.
President Obama was pressing his advantage on this issue. Obama has turned into a one man wrecking crew. Republicans are trapped in an immigration quagmire that they created. Obama warned Republicans not to shut down the government over his executive action, but most importantly, he told the truth about why he had to act alone.
Republicans made their obstructionist bed, and now they have to lie in it.
Notice that O'Reilly never mentions any of this, he ignores it. A year and a half ago an immigration bill passed the Senate and would have also passed the Republican majority House, but Boehner would not let it come up for a vote. So it's the Republicans fault we did not get a bill passed, but O'Reilly and the right ignore all that and blame Obama, which is just ridiculous.
Then they scream bloody murder when he acts without them, when it was their fault a bill was never passed because they would not even let it come up for a vote. And what makes it worse is when Bush was President and the Democrats blocked bills from getting an up or down vote O'Reilly and the right were outraged and called it un-American.
The Republicans even created a website called www.upordownvote.com, that O'Reilly supported. But now when Republicans block bills from getting an up or down vote O'Reilly is silent, and not only is he silent, he tells people to support the Republicans and vote them into office. When they are doing the very same thing he said was un-American when Democrats did it under Bush.
The Friday 11-21-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 22, 2014 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: President Obama Dividing the Nation. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Discussion about the immigration problem in America rarely changes opinion. Both sides are dug in and mostly un-persuadable. So Talking Points believes President Obama should be the focus of the debate. By unilaterally giving legal status to millions of undocumented people, the president is challenging the Constitution.Comment: Which is ridiculous and nothing but one sided right-wing propaganda. Because over a year ago the Senate passed an immigration bill, that went to the Republican majority House and Boehner never even brought it up for a vote. And btw, we know that if he had it would have passed, they had the votes. But he did not bring it up for a vote because the Tea Party wing of the Republican party did not like it.
O'Reilly does not mention any of those facts, instead he dishonestly blames Obama for dividing the nation. When it is the Republican party that has divided the nation by declaring war on President Obama and the Democratic party the day after he took office. The Republican party has divided the nation by refusing to work with Obama on anything, mostly because he is a black man, and partly because he is a Democrat.
O'Reilly is a liar, and he does not tell you all the facts, all he does is put out lies and right-wing propaganda, which is about as dishonest as you can get. Obama is not dividing the nation, the Republican party and Fox News is, and O'Reilly also said that he believes the new Congress would have passed a fair immigration law if given the chance.
Are you kidding me, they have been sitting on a fair immigration bill for over 500 days, and they will not even bring it up for a vote. That statement alone shows that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing stooge. O'Reilly also said that The Wall Street Journal is sympathetic to immigration, which is just laughable, because that is a lie, they are a conservative newspaper and 99% of their articles are against immigration.
Then the Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was on to discuss it.
Ramos said this: "Barack Obama is paying back a debt to the Latino community. In 2008 he promised that he would do immigration reform during his first year. He didn't deliver, even though he had control of Congress, and now he has decided to act. This is something that we fought for."
Ramos also defended the constitutionality of the move, saying this: "He told me that he didn't have the legal authority to stop deportations, but then he listened to us and he changed his point of view. I think that he honestly believes he has the legal authority to do what he did."
Then Dr. Ben Carson, the Tea Party favorite, was on with his biased and far-right analysis of the immigration debate.
Carson said this: "I would first recognize that there are millions of Americans who are very poor and very desperate. Why don't we extend some help to those people and start looking at ways to get them in a better situation? As far as the immigrants are concerned, we need to reverse the polarity of the magnet that is attracting them. Get rid of all the benefits that are pulling them in here and secure the border."
Carson turned to the tense situation in Ferguson, Missouri, where a grand jury decision is expected any day in the Michael Brown shooting, saying this: "There are a lot of outside agitators coming in who are riling the people up. There are much better ways, if you feel that an injustice has been perpetrated, to get it taken care of."
Then the two biased Republicans Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on with their observations on America's divisions. With no Democratic guests for balance, none.
Gutfeld said this: "It's healthy to be divisive. Before there was Fox News you never heard the media rail against divisiveness because they were quite comfortable in lockstep. But now they have some competition and they're constantly talking about divisiveness. One reason there is more divisiveness now is that we've been putting identity before industry, we believe who you are is more important than what you do. It's created a lot of factions and has made people angry at one another."
McGuirk added that social media outlets enable more hate-spewing than ever before, saying this: "We've always been divided, we're a nation of disparate people with competing agendas. Then you throw in envy, stupidity, prejudice, and social media, which really amplifies the divisiveness and hate exponentially. It's very upsetting and disturbing."
Comment: We are a divided nation, mostly because the Republican party is so far right they refuse to work with the Democrats on anything, even issues the people support them on with a majority in the polls, the Republicans do not care. They go against the will of the people and put political ideology ahead of the will of the people.
O'Reilly never says a word about this. Instead he puts out the GOP talking points propaganda that it is all Obama's fault and he is dividing the nation. Which is just ridiculous, Obama has tried to work with Republicans, but they refuse to work with him. Instead they stand firm on their far-right positions, even though the majority of the people support it.
Here is one perfect example: The Minimum Wage Increase. The Democrats support it, Obama supports it, and the vast majority of the American people support it, somewhere around 70%. But the Republicans oppose it, and they vote it down every time, even though the majority of Americans want it raised. That is going against the will of the people and really dividing the country, but O'Reilly does not say that, he blames everything on Obama and says he is dividing the country.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Thanksgiving Tip. Billy said this: "With many Americans in need of food, and with Thanksgiving around the corner, consider making a donation to a local food bank."
O'Reilly & The GOP Wrong About NY Stop & Frisk Policy Change
By: Steve - November 22, 2014 - 10:00am
As usual O'Reilly was wrong about the NY stop and frisk policy change, it was his usual fearmongering and even though it was ruled unconstitutional he still was against changing it.
NYPD Report Finds That Violent Crime Down In NYC After Stop-And-Frisk Reforms
O'Reilly and pretty much all the Conservatives in the media long argued that stopping the NYPD's discriminatory stop-and-frisk tactics would result in higher violent crime rates. But even after the dramatic decrease in stop-and-frisk's application in the city, a NYPD report shows that the city's crime rate dropped to a 20 year low.
Bill O'Reilly: If You Take Stop-And-Frisk Away, "More Black Americans And Hispanic Americans Are Going To Die."
On the June 4, 2013 edition of his show, O'Reilly claimed that stop-and-frisk has decreased violence in minority communities and "Stats aside, it's a fact that if you take stop-and-frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 6/4/13]
NY Daily News: With Decline In 'Stop-And-Frisk' Policy, "The Body Count Will Start Rising."
In 2012, a New York Daily News editorial titled "How to kill New York," argued that, if the stop-and-frisk program is reformed, "the body count will start rising." [Media Matters, 5/16/12]
NY Post: If They Weaken Stop-And-Frisk, New York Will "Again Become The Crime Capital Of The World."
The New York Post has repeatedly claimed that stop-and-frisk policy was crucial to maintaining safety in New York and that weakening the program would lead to "mayhem," and a return to days when "criminals ruled the street."
One editorial claimed that if opponents of stop-and-frisk policy are successful, "the blood of new crime victims will be on their hands" and New York City will "once again become the Crime Capital of the World."
Post columnist Andrea Peyser claimed "a war is being waged on the effective policy of stop-and-frisk, and it will end in buckets of blood on city streets." [New York Post, 6/20/14; New York Post, 7/9/12; New York Post, 5/18/12; New York Post, 9/23/13]
And now the facts:
New York City's Stop-And-Frisk Approach Ruled Unconstitutional In 2013.
In 2013, a federal judge ruled that New York City's policy of stopping, questioning, and patting down "suspicious" people on city streets was applied in an unconstitutionally discriminatory way because "at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion," which "resulted in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause."
Huffington Post: Stop-And-Frisk Stops On Track To Decline 75 Percent In 2014.
On November 11, the Huffington Post reported that the New York Police Department (NYPD) is on track to conduct about 75 percent fewer stops in 2014 than it did the previous year. In 2013, the department stopped and questioned or frisked 190,000 people on the streets of New York City, but was ordered to implement reforms. So far in 2014, NYPD has conducted 45,000 stops.
NYPD Reports Violent Crime Drop After Stop-And Frisk Reforms
NY Daily News: "NYC Crime Rate Hits Lowest Mark Since 1994."
The New York Daily News highlighted new statistics that show overall crime rates in New York City have declined "7.9% in August, September, and October as compared to the same period last year" to the lowest level the city has seen since 1994.
According to the Daily News, "The city is also on a record-low pace for murders and burglaries," and the shooting rate has slowed. [New York Daily News, 11/17/14]
Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is not the non-partisan Independent who only reports hard facts (as he claims to be) because he gets caught reporting right-wing talking points based on lies and fear that are not true, and have no basis in facts.
O'Reilly reports his opinion, an opinion that is biased and represents the Republican position on an issue, in an attempt to get the public to support his position, even though we usually find out later that he was wrong. He never reports that he was wrong, and hopes that people just forget it, then he moves on to telling more right-wing lies and spin on some other issue.
The Thursday 11-20-14 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 21, 2014 - 11:00am
There was no TPM because O'Reilly went right to his top story about the Obama immigration order speech. Billy anchored a special live program immediately after President Obama's speech on immigration with one guest, the biased Republican Charles Krauthammer, who provided his perspective on the president's address. With no Democratic guest on for balance, even though O'Reilly promised he would have a fair and balanced debate on it.
Krauthammer said this: "He is making an announcement to all those people waiting to get into the U.S. legally that they are chumps, and if you want to get into this country and stay in this country, the way to do it is to come in illegally. I find the president's audacity rather remarkable."
Krauthammer also said this: "If he feels so strongly about this, and scripture dictates that this ought to be done, why did he do nothing in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the White House, the House and the Senate? He could have done it constitutionally by passing legislation. He's a very skilled politician who has used this issue for six years, and it becomes somewhat offensive when he pretends it's all for high principles."
COMMENT: Earth to Krauthammer, Obama did it for political reasons, duh! He is a politician, just as Republicans are, and they do things for political reasons too. You just do not like it when Democrats do it, because you are a far-right stooge, but when Republicans do it you are ok with it, you fricking hypocrite.
Then the Republican Ed Henry was on, with no Democratic guest for balance.
Henry said this: "The headline is that the president is going it alone. He's trying to spur action by Republicans when they take over Congress in January, but it may blow up in his face. Republicans are already calling him an 'emperor,' but I'm told by his advisers that he doesn't care. The president decided to go on offense and set the terms of this debate. Where I agree with Charles Krauthammer is that the president is trying to stay relevant. He took it on the chin in the midterm elections and he is a lame duck now."
O'Reilly commented on the fact that President Obama cited the Bible in his speech, saying this: "He is perhaps the most secular president we've ever had, yet he invoked 'scripture.' I think many Americans are going to be skeptical about the president's speech."
Then the journalist and illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas was on, he of course praised the president's action, saying this: "I haven't left the United States since I was 12, and now with the president's executive order I get a work permit and hopefully a driver's license. I will also get a chance to see my mother because I can go back to the Philippines and return. But when people hear the word 'amnesty,' they think permanent. This is temporary."
O'Reilly reminded Vargas that his experience is not exactly typical, saying this: "Surely you understand how millions of Americans are saying bad behavior is being rewarded. It wasn't your fault you were sent here at age 12, but there are a lot of people who came here in devious ways and didn't contribute to our society. This is a complicated issue with a lot of emotions."
Comment: And as usual O'Reilly is wrong, because most of the illegals that come here do it to find work and be good law abiding people.
Then Laura Ingraham was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. O'Reilly asked her how Republicans will challenge President Obama's unilateral action?
Ingraham said this: "The best course of action would be a lawsuit filed by a member of Congress. The basis of the suit would be a separation of powers claim, namely that the president usurped legislative authority. Clearly it was not the intent of Congress to institute these new policies, this goes way beyond the traditional prosecutorial discretion that presidents have used in the past. I have never seen a president take this much authority away from Congress, so Congress must use all of its tools."
Comment: Which is ridiculous, because they would lose the lawsuit, it would take years, Obama would be out of office by then, and the legal experts have already said Obama has the constitutional authority to do it, just as Bush Sr. and Reagan did. That Republicans had no problem with then, they only have a problem with it when a Democrat does it.
And btw folks, O'Reilly also never mentioned that Bush and Reagan did the very same thing, and nobody filed lawsuits over it, nobody said it was un-Constitutional, nothing.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a website that wrote a good review of his book.
Far-Right Nut Laura Ingraham Wants To Get Rid Of The 14th Amendment
By: Steve - November 21, 2014 - 10:00am
And this is the moron O'Reilly has for his full-time fill-in host when he is not there, but he never says a word about any of her radical far-right positions or ideas. Think about that, if Bill O'Reilly is a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides (as he personally claims he is) how in the hell can he have Laura Ingraham as his full time fill-in host? Here are the details on her latest far-right nonsense:
Fox News and ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham has repeatedly urged the Republican party to prioritize the elimination of birthright citizenship, a constitutionally-protected right that cannot be abridged without repealing parts of the 14th Amendment.
During the November 19th edition of The Laura Ingraham Radio Show, Ingraham asked GOP Chairman Reince Preibus why Republicans aren't "finally dealing" with "the anchor baby issue." [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/19/14]
Ingraham: Republicans' Number One Priority Should Be "Locking The Border Down And Ridding Us Of This Birthright Citizenship."
On the November 19th edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham charged Republicans with the task of "ridding us of this birthright citizenship" in her continued crusade against immigrants. [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/19/14]
Ingraham: "We Could Do A Lot To Enforce Our Immigration Laws...We Could Move to End Birthright Citizenship."
During the November 17th edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, Ingraham recommended ending birthright citizenship, which she says leads to "fraud and gaming the system." [Courtside Media Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 11/17/14]
And now the facts:
Former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger: Birthright Citizenship Is "Part Of Our Unique National Identity," "A Good Rule That Has Served Us Well For 200 Years."
Dellinger appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation and explained that "If you're born here, you're a citizen." Dellinger noted that birthright citizenship was the rule commonly applied by the courts prior to Dred Scott, and was returned to and preserved in the U.S. Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Dellinger also outlined the Supreme Court decision finding that birthright citizenship applies to undocumented aliens.
UPenn Law Professor: Birthright Citizenship "Enacted A Prophylactic Rule Against The Majority's Ability To Deny Persons Born In The United States The Legal Status Of Citizenship Based On Prejudice."
In a 2009 law review article, University of Pennsylvania law professor Cristina M. Rodríguez wrote that the Citizenship Clause acts as a "prophylactic rule" to safeguard immigrants from discriminatory denial of citizenship and that it "stands for the principle that citizenship is not earned; it is indefeasible."
Rodríguez also argued that birthright citizenship "is the broadest egalitarian construction we can give to the Clause." [Journal of Constitutional Law, 07/09]
Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra: Birthright Citizenship Is Based On "Objective Measure Of U.S. Birth Rather Than Subjective Political Or Public Opinion."
Constitutional Accountability Center's chief counsel Elizabeth Wydra debunked right-wing arguments about birthright citizenship, pointing out that "inalienable rights are not put to a vote," and that birthright citizenship is not based on "subjective political or public opinion."
NALEO: Birthright Citizenship Is "A Pillar Of American Civil Rights."
The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) argues that birthright citizenship is a "pillar of American civil rights" and changing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment would "impose significant financial and administrative burdens" on families and the government.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child's citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.
This process would impose significant costs on all levels of government at a time when we can least afford it. It's a far-right idea that will never happen, and it is being pushed by the fricking fill-in host for the O'Reilly Factor.
And yet, O'Reilly says nothing, and continues to use her as his fill-in host. While as the same time claiming to be an impartial, fair and balanced Independent, which is just laughable.
O'Reilly Wrong About The Constitution & Obama's Power
4 Fox Hosts Slam O'Reilly Over His Ebola Reporting
Historians & The Patton Family Rip O'Reilly's New Patton Book
Jon Stewart Slams Fox For Criticizing President While At War
Facts On The Economy Bill O'Reily Is Totally Ignoring
Under Bush O'Reilly & Fox News Did Not Blame Him For Beheadings
Study Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18% of the Time
More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored
Jon Stewart Destroys O'Reilly & Fox For Ferguson Shooting Bias
O'Reilly Caught Lying About ISIS Threat & Juan Williams
NY Times Charles Blow Says Bill O'Reilly Is The Race Hustler
Homeland Security Shows Gutfeld & Baker Are Liars
More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored
O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Cost Of Obamacare
Bill O'Reilly Is Lying To You About Obamacare
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Electic Car Company Success
The Most Annoying Celebs Who Should Go Away
Bias Alert: O'Reilly Spins Presidential Election Media Study
O'Reilly & Fox Still Ignoring GOP Voter Registration Fraud Story
Biased O'Reilly Tells Romney To Call Obama A Socialist
O'Reilly Slams Obama With Dishonest Tip Of The Day
O'Reilly & Brit Hume Spin And Lie For Mitt Romney
Fox Promotes Ridiculous Study Of Doctors & Obamacare
O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media & Obama
Low Gas Prices Shut O'Reilly & The Repiblicans Up Fast
I Am Waiting For The O'Reilly Health Care Bill Apology
More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About The Media
O'Reilly Ignores MRC Calling For Sharpton Firing
Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Wrong On The Deficit
O'Reilly & Fox Lie That Obama To Blame For High Gas Prices
Scientist Group Slams Celebs Like Snooki & O'Reilly
More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About America
O'Reilly & Ingraham Lied About Planned Parenthood (Again)
Fox Unemployment Chart Shows Their Right-Wing Bias
U.S. Troops Burn A Box Of O'Reilly's Books
Kelly & O'Reilly Make Up Another Green Energy Scandal
O'Reilly Ignoring All The Stock Market Increases
O'Reilly Flat Out LIED About The Debt Obama Added
O'Reilly Caught Doctoring Florida Mans E-Mail
O'Reilly Ignored Michele Bachmann Church Scandal
O'Reilly & Morris Lied About The Debt Polls
O'Reilly Hypocrisy On The West/Schultz Story
The Truth About Those Bush Tax Cuts
Number Of Tea Party Events Down 50 Percent
NWLC Says O'Reilly Statement Made Up & Offensive
Video Proof O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Hack
O'Reilly Gets It Totally Wrong On Norway Terrorist
Norway Terrorist Info O'Reilly Ignored
O'Reilly Ignoring Ensign/Coburn Hush Money Scandal
O'Reilly Calls Obama Health Care Waivers A Scam
O'Reilly Complains About Losing In His Own Poll
O'Reilly Ignores Republican Hypocrisy On Judicial Filibusters
O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Unpopularity
O'Reilly Tells GOP How To Beat Obama With Scare Tactics
O'Reilly & Fox Are Lying To You About The Debt
O'Reilly Spins The 2008 Presidential Media Study
Important Tax Information Bill O'Reilly Has Ignored
O'Reilly Ignored McCain Op-Ed On Bin Laden
O'Reilly Scrubs Website & Podcast Of False Obama Claims
O'Reilly Ignored DOJ Black Panther Report
O'Reilly Still Ignoring Wisconsin Judge's Order Story
O'Reilly Ignored Jobs & Unemployment Report
Fox News Town Hall Protester Hypocrisy & Double Standards
O'Reilly & Varney Speculate About Oil Prices
O'Reilly Spins The Quinnipiac Temperature Poll
O'Reilly Proves How Stupid He Is Again
How O'Reilly Puts Out Right-Wing Propaganda
Fox News Insider Admits They Make Things Up
Luntz Admits Fox Has Anti-Obama Focus Groups
Reagan SG Says Health Care Bill Constitutional
O'Reilly Ignores Gore Answer To His Question
O'Reilly Wonders How The Moon Got There
More Republican Hate & Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored
Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
O'Reilly Thinks We Are Still In A Recession
O'Reilly's Nazi Comment Defense Was Laughable
Fox News The Least Trusted Cable News Network
O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media (Again)
O'Reilly Claims Estate Tax A Seizure Of Property
O'Reilly Called Bernie Sanders A Loon
Bloomberg Tax Cut Poll Proves O'Reilly Was Lying
O'Reilly Ignored Positive DADT Study & Story
O'Reilly & Fox Ignore Judge Being A 9-11 Truther
More Real News O'Reilly Has Ignored
More Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Ratings
O'Reilly Got The Ireland Economic Crisis Wrong
O'Reilly Ignored The Tom Delay Conviction Story
Women Of America: You Need To Read This
Conclusive Proof O'Reilly Is Dishonest & Crazy
O'Reilly Nazi Comparison Hypocrisy
O'Reilly Ignores New Poll While Promoting Paladino
Andrew Sullivan Called O'Reilly A Dishonest Propagandist
O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Nevada RCP Senate Poll
O'Reilly Ignored Right-Wing Abortion Bomber Terrorism Story
Fox & O'Reilly Ignored Friday Pro-Mosque NY Rally
O'Reilly Busted For Health Insurance Premium Lies
Most Factor Gear Made in Vietnam And China
O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again
O'Reilly Busted For 1st Time Retraction Lie
The Bill O'Reilly Non-Apology Shirley Sherrod Apology
O'Reilly & The Right Are Racist Idiots
O'Reilly Ignored Tea Party Express Racism Story
O'Reilly Compares Gay People To Al-Qaeda
Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Rating Polls
O'Reilly Ignored Mark Kirk Military Award Lie Story
Where Are The Sedition Charges Now O'Reilly
O'Reilly Caught In A Massive Lie About Jail Time
O'Reilly Running Ads For Emergency Food Supply
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tea Party Militia Links
O'Reilly Caught Spinning Gallup Tea Party Poll
O'Reilly Ignored Harris Poll Showing Republicans Are Stupid
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Health Reform Bill Tax
O'Reilly Caught Lying About NEJM Health Care Survey
O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again
The Truth About Ratings For News Shows
Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Spin Doctor
O'Reilly Spinning Fox News Most Trusted Poll
Fox News Did Not Air Hope For Haiti Telethon
O'Reilly Caught Spinning Obama Terrorism Polls
O'Reilly Caught Lying About House Ethics Committee
O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Increase
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Limbaugh Racism
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Religious Festival
O'Reilly Caught Red Handed Lying About CNN
O'Reilly Caught Violating Journalistic Standards Again
O'Reilly Caught Lying About The ACLU & Racial Profiling
More Proof O'Reilly & FOX News Do Not Tell The Truth
O'Reilly Called Bruce Springsteen Un-American & Un-Patriotic
The Bill O'Reilly Senate Torture Report Countdown Clock
O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Obama Approval Numbers
FOX News Caught Lying About Obama Budget
O'Reilly Busted For Helping GOP Smear Pelosi
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Earmark Promise
Military.com Report Proves O'Reilly Wrong About Homeless Vets
O'Reilly Places 7th in 2008 Wingnut of The Year Award
O'Reilly Denys Reality About Abstinence Only Programs
|Proof The O'Reilly Factor is Biased Against Barack Obama|
|Proof O'Reilly Lied About The Balance on His Show|
|O'Reilly Sucks Investigation: Dishonesty, Deception, And Bias By Bill O'Reilly|
|(( Right-Wing Hate Speech Ignored by Bill O'Reilly ))|
Copyright 2001 - 2014