You Know You Screwed Up When They DO Cartoons About You
By: Steve - February 28, 2015 - 11:30am



Fox News & Murdoch Owned Papers Silent On O'Reilly Lies
By: Steve - February 28, 2015 - 11:30am

Fox News and owner Rupert Murdoch's newspapers The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal have all been silent as more questions emerge about Bill O'Reilly's lies about his reporting career.

The New York Post has never reported on any of the recent revelations that O'Reilly has inflated tales of his journalism career, while the Wall Street Journal provided just one article right as the controversy began, and Fox News little coverage has disappeared as they now ignore all new developments.

O'Reilly has come under heavy criticism for multiple lies and exaggerations, after a Mother Jones report first noted the Fox host has a history of misleadingly claiming to have been "in the Falklands" and in "combat" during the Falklands War.

Media Matters has also identified serious discrepancies in O'Reilly's stories about witnessing nuns being shot in El Salvador, and overhearing the suicide of a figure linked to President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

When the original Mother Jones piece broke, Murdoch's Fox News went to war with the magazine. O'Reilly immediately gave a series of interviews to other news outlets, denying the allegations by saying he had never said he was on the Falkland Islands themselves, and launching personal attacks.

On Fox News O'Reilly first attacked critics during his February 20th show and dismissed the Mother Jones report as "garbage," and later used his February 24th show to try to shift the focus away from the scrutiny.

Fox's MediaBuzz also covered the story, giving O'Reilly another platform to attack his critics. No other Fox News program covered the story, according to a search of the Nexis and Snaptream databases.

When Media Matters further reported on February 25th that O'Reilly had fabricated the claim that he personally "saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" in El Salvador, O'Reilly also offered a statement to Mediaite claiming that when he said "I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" he was referring to seeing "horrendous images" of nuns murdered, not personally witnessing their deaths.

Even though he never once said he was talking about photos when talking about it, he always said he saw nuns get shot in the back of the head, and only after getting caught in that lie did he come up with the he was talking about seeing photos of it, not actually being there to see it in person.

He also did not mention the El Salvador controversy that night on his show, and Fox's PR department released a statement the same day suggesting they would not continue to respond to the "accusation du jour."

And neither Fox or O'Reilly have directly addressed Media Matters report on the substantial evidence undermining O'Reilly's claim that he "heard" a shotgun blast when a figure linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy committed suicide.

Outside of O'Reilly's show, no Fox News show has even hinted at these developments, according to a search of the Nexis and Snaptream databases.

Which means that all the other Fox shows were ordered to ignore the story and not report on it.

Similarly, other Rupert Murdoch-owned media properties have fallen silent or failed to mention the controversies entirely.

Though the Wall Street Journal reported on February 20th on O'Reilly's initial denials of the Falklands story, the paper hasn't mentioned O'Reilly since.

According to a search of the newspaper's website and Factiva, the paper has not reported any of the new developments.

The New York Post hasn't published any stories about O'Reilly this month, except for a brief mention in an Inside Edition anniversary special piece.

The evidence of O'Reilly fabricating and exaggerating past experiences has sparked national news coverage in other non-Murdoch outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, and more.

It's a great example of media bias from right-wing news outlets, by not reporting a story, which is the very same thing O'Reilly and the right complain about with the rest of the media and Obama. They are doing the very same thing they cry about all the time, they claim the mainstream media ignore negative news about Obama, then they ignore negative news about O'Reilly.

It is the classic pot calling the kettle black, it's total bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard from Fox and other right-wing news outlets. They claim the rest of the media is corrupt for ignoring negative stories about Obama and Democrats, then they do the very same thing to Republicans and conservatives.

And the rest of the media does report negative stories about Obama and Democrats, just not as much as Fox does, so in their mind that is bias. Even though it is really fair and balanced journalism, something O'Reilly and Fox know nothing about.

It's actually laughable and pathetic to see the most biased people in the media (O'Reilly & Fox News) complain about media bias from other people, when they are more biased than anyone. And they ignore all their own bias, while complaining about what little bias other media outlets have, it's ridiculous.

Former O'Reilly Producer Says O'Reilly Makes Things Up
By: Steve - February 28, 2015 - 11:00am

Speaking to the Associated Press, a former O'Reilly Factor producer highlighted Bill O'Reilly's tendency to twist the truth, saying that hyperbole and exaggeration are "baked into" O'Reilly's persona and job description.

Bill O'Reilly has been embroiled in controversy after Mother Jones and Media Matters exposed numerous fabrications in O'Reilly's accounts of reporting on the Falklands War, the El Salvadoran Civil War, and the death of a figure in the investigation into JFK's assassination.

From the Associated Press on February 27:

The only way O'Reilly can be seriously damaged is if more allegations about his statements come forward from sources other than partisan organizations, said Joe Muto, a former O'Reilly producer fired by Fox after he began writing an anonymous blog as the "Fox mole."

"Ultimately, he'll survive this because he's not held -- by his bosses, or the public, or himself -- to the same standards of truth-telling as Brian Williams is," Muto said.

"People expect a certain degree of hyperbole and exaggeration from O'Reilly. It's baked into the job description. It's part of his persona."

Poll: If O'Reilly Lied, He Or His Network Must Respond
By: Steve - February 28, 2015 - 10:00am

The vast majority of Americans believe Fox News host Bill O'Reilly should resign, be suspended without pay, or apologize if he lied about his experiences as a reporter who supposedly reported from combat zones, a new poll finds.

Over the last week, O'Reilly has been at the center of a media firestorm over the revelation that he lied about his career in journalism. That criticism began with Mother Jones report that O'Reilly had falsely suggested that he had reported from an active combat zone "in Argentina, in the Falklands" during the 1982 conflict there.

O'Reilly responded by insulting Mother Jones and claiming that he never meant to suggest that he was in the Falkland Islands during the war, only that he was in Argentina when a violent protest broke out. Numerous journalists who reported from that protest say that O'Reilly exaggerated how dangerous it was. And Fox News has stood behind O'Reilly.

But the ongoing scandal is damaging O'Reilly's credibility and requires a response, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this week.

If O'Reilly "lied about his experience as a war reporter," 31 percent of respondent say he should apologize and explain himself, 21 percent say he should resign, and 18 percent believe he should be suspended for at least a month.

The poll also found that 37 percent have an unfavorable opinion of O'Reilly compared to 33 percent with a favorable one, and that respondents are split on whether the Fox host is trustworthy or not, 35 to 37.

O'Reilly Caught In More Lies About L.A. Riots
By: Steve - February 27, 2015 - 11:00am

At this point, it looks like O'Reilly pretty much lied about everything he reported on, the more they fact check him the more lies they find.

The Guardian reports that six of Bill O'Reilly's former colleagues dispute the embattled Fox News host's claim that he and his crew were "attacked by protesters" during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

O'Reilly covered the riots, which took place after several LAPD officers were acquitted on charges they used excessive force against Rodney King, while serving as the host of Inside Edition. In a February 20 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, O'Reilly claimed that during the riots, "We were attacked, we were attacked by protesters, where bricks were thrown at us." In a 2006 interview, O'Reilly said, "They were throwing bricks and stones at us. Concrete was raining down on us. The cops saved our butts that time."

Several of O'Reilly's former Inside Edition colleagues -- "reporters Bonnie Strauss, Tony Cox and Rick Kirkham, and crew members Theresa McKeown, Bob McCall and Neil Antin" -- disputed O'Reilly's characterization of the event and suggested he was exaggerating an incident where the crew was confronted by a single man.

According to The Guardian, "Two of the team said the man was angered specifically by O'Reilly behaving disrespectfully after arriving at the smoking remains of his neighbourhood in a limousine, whose driver at one point began polishing the vehicle. O'Reilly is said to have shouted at the man and asked him: 'Don't you know who I am?'"

Colleagues who were with O'Reilly during the riots coverage suggested to The Guardian that O'Reilly had overplayed the incident, which did not result in any injuries to members of the Inside Edition crew:
Kirkham, the show's lead reporter on the riots, was adamant that it did not take place. "It didn't happen," he said. "If it did, how come none of the rest of us remember it?"

Tonya Freeman, the head of the show's library at the time, said: "I honestly don't recall watching or hearing about that. I believe I probably would have remembered something like that." Another librarian from the time also said she did not recall the incident. A spokeswoman for Inside Edition declined to comment. Several other senior Inside Edition staffers from the time declined to comment when asked if they recalled O'Reilly's version of events.

Several members of the team, however, recalled that one afternoon in the days following the peak of the riots, which began on 29 April, the angry resident attacked a camera while O'Reilly was being filmed near the intersection of Fairfax Avenue and Pico Boulevard. "It was one person with one rock," said McCall, the sound man. "Nobody was hit".

"A man came out of his home," said Antin, who was operating the camera that was struck. "He picked up a chunk of concrete, and threw it at the camera." Told of O'Reilly's description of a bombardment, Antin said: "I don't think that's really... No, I mean no, not where we were."

"There was no concrete," said McKeown. "There was a single brick". Kirkham's response was: "Oh my god. That is a completely fictitious story. Nothing ever rained down on us". Kirkham, whose van was shown on an episode of the show being shot at during late-night rioting, later made a film for HBO about his struggle with drug addiction.

McKeown, the director of west coast operations, and Kirkham, said O'Reilly had in the moments beforehand irritated residents who were trying to put out fires and clear wreckage. A seventh member of the team, who declined to be quoted for this article, agreed with this characterisation of the incident.

"There were people putting out fires nearby," said McKeown. "And Bill showed up in his fancy car." McKeown said at one point, the driver of O'Reilly's personal car risked causing further offence by exiting the vehicle with a bottle of Windex and polishing the roof.

"The guy was watching us and getting more and more angry," said McKeown. "Bill was being Bill - complaining 'people are in my eye line' - and kind of being very insensitive to the situation." Kirkham said: "It was just so out of line. He starts barking commands about 'this isn't good enough for me', 'this isn't gonna work', 'who's in charge here?'"

The man shouted abuse at O'Reilly and the team, crew members said, and O'Reilly ordered him to shut up. He asked "don't you know who I am?'," according to two members of the team,

"The guy lost it," said McKeown. Enraged, he is said to have leapt on to the team's flatbed trailer and kicked over a light, before throwing the piece of rubble, which smashed the camera and an autocue screen. Antin said he restrained the man. But O'Reilly then continued taunting him while a producer stood between them. "Come on, you wanna take me? I'll take you on," O'Reilly is said to have shouted at him.
O'Reilly is under scrutiny for several of his past claims, including that he was in a "combat situation" while reporting on the 1982 Falklands War; that he "heard" the gunshot that signaled the suicide of a man set to testify about the assassination of John F. Kennedy; and that he had witnessed the execution of nuns in El Salvador during a civil war in that country.

Jon Stewart Slams Fox For Their Dishonesty, Hypocrisy, And Lies
By: Steve - February 27, 2015 - 10:00am

Stewart really nailed it with this one, he gives Fox a reality check.

During Wednesday night's broadcast of The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart lit into longtime nemesis Fox News for waging a "chronically angry war for ideological purity."

He also took Fox to task for claiming that he hasn't been truthful or fair with his takedowns of the network over the years, instead utilizing deceptive and selective editing to completely hide the context of their quotes. Besides Fox News, Stewart took shots at conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh for claiming Stewart has damaged the Republican brand.

Stewart began by reiterating that he will be leaving the program in the near future. He then noted that after he had announced his departure, many in the media discussed the news. This led to a clip of Fox News host Megyn Kelly saying Stewart has not "been a force for good" and complaining about his using video clips out of context.

Stewart reacted to this by declaring a "lie-off" and played a six-second Vine showing 50 of the biggest lies Fox has told. The Vine was later tweeted by the show's official Twitter account.

And here is one very big and important point nobody on the right will talk about, including the ridiculous and biased fool Megyn Kelly. Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN who does a COMEDY show on the COMEDY NETWORK. He is not a JOURNALIST, and is not held to journalistic ethics, rules, or standards, like the people at Fox are held to.

Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist. Kelly and the right slam him for bias when he does not have a duty to be impartial, he is a comedian, and there are no rules. Unlike the idiots at Fox who are supposed to go by the rules and ethics of journalism, and yet they lie their ass off. The comparison is insane, because you can not compare a comedian on a comedy show to what so-called real journalists are doing, it's ridiculous and just stupid.

The comedian also went hard after Limbaugh, but you could make the same argument against O'Reilly, Hannity, or pretty much everyone else at Fox. He played a clip of the right-wing gasbag claiming Stewart has damaged the Republican Party's brand with his show.

Even though it is the Republicans who have damaged their own brand, with all the racist and stupid things they say, not Stewart. All he does is repeat what they say and make fun of it, if they are damaged it is their own fault, and if they stopped saying racist and stupid things Jon Stewart would not have any ammo to destroy them. They destroy theirself, with their own words, and they do not seem to understand that.

This was followed by a montage of Limbaugh saying extremely offensive things over the past few years, topped by Limbaugh making fun of actor Michael J. Fox having Parkinson’s disease. After the Fox comment was played, Stewart sarcastically stated, "We poisoned THAT brand…how do you poison a cyanide factory?"

Stewart then completely tore apart the claims that right-wing media figures have made claiming Stewart lies and completely misrepresents what they say. He pointed out that they pretend to be concerned about truthfulness but really only care about "discrediting anything that they believe harms their side."

It is all about ideological purity to them. Any time they see something that isn't conservative enough for their tastes, they attack it and label it as awful or evil. Which might have been a direct shot at O'Reilly, because O'Reilly does that pretty much every night.

And this was really good:
STEWART: "They purport to want to fix things. But conservatives are not looking to make education more rigorous and informative, or science more empirical or verifiable, or voting more representative, or the government more efficient or effective.

They just want all those things to reinforce their partisan ideological conservative viewpoint. Because in their mind, the opposite of bad isn't good. The opposite of bad is conservative. The opposite of wrong isn't right -- well, OK, you get my point -- but it's right-wing."
Stewart said their issues even go to trivial stuff, showing the network talking heads complaining about American Sniper not getting the Oscar for Best Picture. After playing clips of pundits whining about the film being snubbed, Stewart noted that the director Clint Eastwood has already been honored by the Academy in the past, the film itself was made by the so-called liberal elite, and they went and nominated it for Best Picture, among other awards.

This led to Stewart pointing out that if "liberal street cred" were all that was needed to be honored, then his film Rosewater would have been named best film.

Stewart concluded the segment by stating that the conservative media is like a four-year-old who constantly complains and whines until the parent finally caves in.

He pointed out that many government institutions in this country are doing just that and are caving to right-wing pressure due to the non-stop crying by the right-wing over ideological purity. Stewart then begged people to stop giving in to them, claiming that nothing is ever going to be good enough for them as the anger is constant.

The Wednesday 2-25-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 26, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Hating President Obama. The biased and dishonest right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: At the height of the Iraq War, the vilification of President Bush was off the chart. The left accused him and Vice President Cheney of lying to get us into the war, of sacrificing American military people so Halliburton could make money, and a variety of other vile allegations.

Enter President Obama, who is also loathed by some Americans. There is no question that his policies are controversial. He is a big tax and spend guy, has increased the power of the federal government, has ordered a quasi-amnesty for some illegal aliens, has withdrawn completely from Iraq, and has imposed a healthcare system that many people despise.

In the upcoming presidential campaign, the Republican candidates will point out where they differ with President Obama and by proxy Hillary Clinton. One of Mrs. Clinton's challenges is deciding whether to repudiate some of Mr. Obama's policies. If she doesn't, the Republicans have an opportunity to put her on the defensive.

But any Republican who says personal things about either the president or Mrs. Clinton will be making a tremendous mistake. Right now America is in a bad place. We are weak overseas and the economy is still mainly rewarding the wealthy. President Obama has had six years to improve that situation and he has failed to do so. That's an objective analysis based upon facts, not a personal attack.

And here's a final fact. I've had discussions with both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. They see the world differently but they both have absorbed tremendous punishment in order to serve their country. I respect that and hope the upcoming presidential campaign will not be a smear-fest. There's too much at stake for that to happen.
Comment from Steve: Wow! What a load of right-wing garbage. Comparing hate of Bush and Obama is ridiculous, because Bush deserved the hate for things he did, Obama is hated by the right simply because he is black and a liberal. There is no comparison, to compare the two is just stupid. And O'Reilly denies Obama has improved the situation, which is laughable.

America is not in a bad place, we are doing great, only idiotic right-wing fools think otherwise. The economy has recovered, wall street is at record highs, jobs are back, and on and on, proving O'Reilly is a dishonest hack. How is it Obama's fault that the economy rewards the wealthy, the Republicans block everything to fix it, and O'Reilly supports all of it. To be honest, I think O'Reilly is getting senile because half of what he says is nonsense and the rest is right-wing spin.

Then Alan Colmes and Mike Gallagher were on to talk about the haters.

Gallagher said this: "They have the right to feel the way they feel, based on President Obama's words and actions. He often appears to be more sympathetic to Muslims than to Christians. He ignored Coptic Christians when their heads were chopped off."

Colmes said this: "When people call me and say Bush is a Nazi, that's totally wrong but I give them a chance to speak. There are also people who say Bush and Cheney knew about 9/11 and it was an inside job."

O'Reilly said this: "There is a perception that Obama goes out of his way to give cover to Muslims, while he brings up things Christians did hundreds of years ago."

Comment from Steve: And that is nonsense, because that perception is only from right-wing idiots who hate Obama and just say that to make him look bad, it's right-wing garbage and O'Reilly adds to it because he also hates Obama. The truth is Obama loves America and he wants to make it better, Republicans hate him so they attack him unfairly with garbage about being un-patriotic and crap like that, and it makes me sick. They are low-life idiots, and O'Reilly is their leader.

Then Andrea Tantaros & Jessica Ehrlich were on to talk about a crazy conservative judge who suggested that our rights come from God, CNN host Chris Cuomo ridiculed that notion and insisted that our rights are actually conferred by politicians and courts.

Tantaros said this: "Chris Cuomo used the rights afforded to him to bully and intimidate that judge, and I don't think the judge should have gone on that show. The judge is right, our rights do come from God."

Comment from Steve: Tantaros and the judge are dead wrong and both idiots. Our rights come from the constitution and laws, not God.

Ehrlich said this: "There's a difference between our inalienable rights that are based on our Judeo-Christian values and the rights that come from our legal and justice systems. Our system is set up so we don't have clerics handing out biblical justice."

O'Reilly said this: "The secular progressive belief system discounts God totally, they say God should have no place at all in the public forum."

Comment from Steve: And for once O'Reilly is right. God and religion should be done in church and in private, it has no place in the public forum, none. That is why the founding fathers banned religion from our system, because it has no place in the public, schools, or government. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends just do not get that, and never will. Worship in private, and shut up, and do not force it on other people.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about a ruling on a suit brought by 26 states, a federal judge in Texas blocked President Obama's executive action on immigration. Rove was on, with no Democratic guest for balance, making it a joke of a one sided right-wing biased debate.

Rove said this: "This is very much up in the air, and remember that the president himself said 22 times that he didn't have the authority to do that. This judge took on the core argument of the administration and called this a blanket amnesty to five-million people."

O'Reilly reported that the judge's ruling hasn't had much of an impact, saying this: "President Obama doesn't care what the judge says, he's going ahead with this amnesty."

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk about the movie American Sniper, that is shooting down the competition at the box office, raking in close to $400-million. But to many entertainment types on the coasts, the movie is derided as red meat for patriotic yahoos. With no Democratic guest for balance, as usual.

MacCallum said this: "There definitely is a divide, and American Sniper was the only best picture nominee to be seen by more than 12-million people. I spoke with some Hollywood producers who say all the money is now in superhero movies. So Hollywood wants to make these smaller and more artistic movies that make them feel good about themselves. Those movies end up being nominated."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Slime Stops Here! Billy said this: "Because every person running for president will be attacked, often unfairly, by nefarious websites, we will do everything possible report the truth and repel the lies."

Comment from Steve: What a joke, this is the worst tip of the day ever. Because O'Reilly is the king of slime and not fair to any Democrats. He spends the entire year sliming Democrats, and having 95% Republican guests on to do the same thing. Saying he will report the truth and repel the lies is just laughable. O'Reilly is the king of slime and lies, and that is the truth.

Democratic Governor Taxed the Rich and Increased the Minimum Wage
By: Steve - February 26, 2015 - 10:50am

And now His State's Economy Is One of the Best in the Country. Proving the Republican propaganda that raising taxes on the rich and raising the minimum wage is all right-wing garbage, because it does work, and Bill Clinton also proved it works in the 90's when he was the President.

When he took office in January of 2011, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit and a 7 percent unemployment rate from his predecessor, Tim Pawlenty, the soon-forgotten Republican candidate for the presidency who called himself Minnesota's first true fiscally-conservative governor in modern history.

Pawlenty prided himself on never raising state taxes -- the most he ever did to generate new revenue was increase the tax on cigarettes by 75 cents a pack. Between 2003 and late 2010, when Pawlenty was at the head of Minnesota's state government, he managed to add only 6,200 more jobs.

During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion. He's also agreed to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women.

Republicans flipped out and warned against Gov. Dayton's tax increases, saying, "The job creators, the big corporations, the small corporations, they will leave. It's all dollars and sense to them." And they would be proven wrong.

Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota's economy -- that's 165,800 more jobs in Dayton's first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined. Even though Minnesota's top income tax rate is the 4th-highest in the country, it has the 5th-lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent.

According to 2012-2013 U.S. census figures, Minnesotans had a median income that was $10,000 larger than the U.S. average, and their median income is still $8,000 more than the U.S. average today.

By late 2013, Minnesota's private sector job growth exceeded pre-recession levels, and the state's economy was the 5th fastest-growing in the United States. Forbes even ranked Minnesota the 9th-best state for business (Scott Walker's "Open For Business" Wisconsin came in at a distant #32 on the same list). Despite the fearmongering over businesses fleeing from Dayton's tax cuts, 6,230 more Minnesotans filed in the top income tax bracket in 2013, just one year after Dayton's tax increases went through.

As of January 2015, Minnesota has a $1 billion budget surplus, and Gov. Dayton has pledged to reinvest more than one third of that money into public schools. And according to Gallup, Minnesota's economic confidence is higher than any other state.

And of course the dishonest Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, because he is one of the Republicans who puts out the propaganda that higher taxes on the rich will hurt the economy and jobs, even though we know it's a lie.

O'Reilly Caught Telling More Lies About Witnessing Nun Killings
By: Steve - February 26, 2015 - 10:30am

Another day, another apparent lie from Bill O'Reilly. Following Mother Jones reports about his war zone stories in Buenos Aires and a former Washington Post editor's claims that he lied about his experience covering the JFK assassination comes a new discovery from liberal watchdog group Media Matters that dates back to O'Reilly's time spent in El Salvador in the early 1980s.

On multiple occasions, including a 2005 radio segment and a 2012 episode of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly told a story about seeing nuns "get shot in the back of the head" in El Salvador while he was there covering the civil war there for CBS News.

But as Media Matters points out, the incident he described, in which Salvadorans raped and shot four U.S. nuns happened in December 1980. O'Reilly did not go to El Salvador until after he was promoted to CBS News correspondent in 1981, according to his own book, The No Spin Zone.

Curiously, Media Matters pointed to another interview O'Reilly gave to WVVH-TV's American Dreams Show in 2009 - between the other two instances - in which he appears to admit he arrived in El Salvador "right after" the killings occurred.

When asked about the challenges to O'Reilly’s Falkland Islands war stories, a representative for Fox said: "Chairman & CEO Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly." And when asked about these allegations, a Fox spokesperson responded to Mediaite with the following statement:
"Bill O'Reilly has already addressed several claims leveled against him. This is nothing more than an orchestrated campaign by far left advocates Mother Jones and Media Matters. Responding to the unproven accusation du jour has become an exercise in futility. FOX News maintains its staunch support of O'Reilly, who is no stranger to calculated onslaughts."
In response to the allegations put forward by Media Matters, Bill O'Reilly submitted the following statement. He claims that when he referred to seeing nuns "get shot in the back of the head," he was referring to images and not the actual events in person.

O'Reilly has claimed he has "seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador" and "was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" during his time as a CBS correspondent. The incident that O'Reilly appears to be referring to is the well-documented execution of four churchwomen by the Salvadoran national guard in December 1980. After this event, experts say that there were no priests or nuns killed in the country for more than eight years.

Media Matters for America President Bradley Beychok blasted O'Reilly and called the network "a joke" in a statement issued to The Huffington Post:

"Fox News claims to be a real news organization," Beychok said in an email. "Bill O'Reilly promotes himself as the host of the 'No Spin Zone,' Fox News sits in the White House briefing room daily, Mr. O'Reilly even interviewed the President during halftime of the Super Bowl. Now that he's been exposed as a serial fabricator, Fox News should hold him to the same journalistic standards that any news organization would or else admit that their network is a joke not journalism."

Not once while telling the stories did O'Reilly say he was talking about seeing photos of the Nuns being killed, he only says that now, after being caught in the lies. Proving he is dishonest, and that he can not even admit he lied when he was caught red handed doing it.

Tuesday evening, a former colleague of O’Reilly’s, Tracy Rowlett, told Media Matters that O'Reilly also lied in his 2012 book Killing Kennedy about being present for the death of Lee Harvey Oswald's friend George de Mohrenschildt. Rowlett asserted that O'Reilly was actually in Dallas, calling him "a phony."

It looks like the lies are endless, the more the media looks into things O'Reilly has said in the past the more lies they find. And of course O'Reilly will not admit to any of it, while Fox ignores it all because he is their golden boy. But when Brian Williams at NBC does the same thing, Fox rips him to pieces and calls for NBC to take action. As they defend O'Reilly and do nothing about his lies, they are not even doing an internal investigation.

Stewart Slams O'Reilly: 'No One's Watching Him for the Actual Truth'
By: Steve - February 26, 2015 - 10:00am

Jon Stewart, who spent all of last week on vacation, finally dug into the Bill O'Reilly "war zone" story Tuesday night.

"Really? We're going after O'Reilly for exaggerating being in a war zone?"

Stewart asked in disbelief of Mother Jones, which has led the charge against O'Reilly's alleged mischaracterizations about his time spent in Buenos Aires during the Falkland Islands war.

"Misrepresenting the zone he is in is kind of his hook."

"No one's watching him for the actual truth," Stewart said of O'Reilly.

Stewart added that we should just accept that a certain percentage of the anecdotes told by news figures like O'Reilly and Brian Williams are "bullshit" and "move on."

Then, the host moved on to lies he found more consequential, namely those apparently made by Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald about his own military record.

As he did when he covered the Williams situation, Stewart suggested that the media's priorities on these stories might be a little off. "It seems to me, you know, we might all be just a little better off if the exaggerations about covering a war get less attention than the exaggerations that got us into so many of them!" he concluded.

O'Reilly Accused Of Lies About Suicide Of JFK Assassination Figure
By: Steve - February 25, 2015 - 2:00pm

Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly claimed he personally "heard" a shotgun blast that killed a figure in the investigation into President John F. Kennedy's assassination while reporting for a Dallas television station in 1977. O'Reilly's claim is implausible and contradicted by his former newsroom colleagues who denied the tale in interviews with Media Matters. A police report, contemporaneous reporting, and a congressional investigator who was probing Kennedy's death further undermine O'Reilly's story.

George de Mohrenschildt was a Russian emigre who befriended Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and testified before the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy assassination. On March 29, 1977, the same day he was contacted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he committed suicide at his daughter's home in Florida. At the time, O'Reilly was a reporter for Dallas' WFAA-TV who regularly reported on stories related to the Kennedy assassination.

O'Reilly has bizarrely inserted himself into de Mohrenschildt's story, claiming in books and on Fox News that he was outside the house seeking to interview de Mohrenschiltd at the time of his death. O'Reilly is under heavy criticism and scrutiny for his false claims about his 1982 Falklands War reporting.

O'Reilly's implausible tale was first flagged by Jefferson Morley in a 2013 post for his website JFKFacts.org. Morley has worked as an editor for The Washington Post, Salon.com, and Arms Control Today, and is a visiting professor at the University of California, Washington Center.

New interviews with former O'Reilly colleagues who say he wasn't in Florida on the day of de Mohrenschildt's suicide and documents obtained by Media Matters bolster Morley's reporting.

In his 2012 best-selling non-fiction book Killing Kennedy, O'Reilly writes on page 300 that as a "reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt's daughter's home, he heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the Russian ... that reporter's name is Bill O'Reilly."

The Fox News host repeated the tale while promoting his book and movie special on Fox News. During an October 2, 2012, appearance on Fox & Friends, O'Reilly claimed he "was about to knock on the door where [de Mohrenschildt] was, his daughter's house, and he blew his brains out with a shotgun." O'Reilly replayed the clip of his 2012 appearance during a November 30, 2014, O'Reilly Factor special before Fox News' airing of the Killing Kennedy film.

Numerous pieces of evidence contradict O'Reilly's claim that he "heard the shotgun blast" that killed de Mohrenschildt.

In comments to Media Matters, two of O'Reilly's former colleagues at WFAA say that his version of events is a lie.

"Bill O'Reilly's a phony, there's no other way to put it," said Tracy Rowlett, a former WFAA reporter and anchor who worked at the station with O'Reilly. "He was not up on the porch when he heard the gunshots, he was in Dallas. He wasn't traveling at that time."

Byron Harris, a reporter at WFAA for the past 40 years, agreed that O'Reilly had not traveled to Florida for the story and accused him of stealing his reporting on de Mohrenschildt's suicide from a newspaper.

According to Harris, O'Reilly "was in Dallas. He stole that article out of the newspaper. I guarantee Channel 8 didn't send him to Florida to do that story because it was a newspaper story, it was broken by the Dallas Morning News."

Both Harris and Rowlett said O'Reilly never mentioned having been present for the gunshot during his time at WFAA.

"I don't remember O'Reilly claiming that he was there. That came later, that must have been a brain surge when he was writing the book," Rowlett said.

Harris further pointed out that WFAA "would have reported it as some kind of exclusive -- and there was no exclusive -- if O'Reilly had been standing outside the door."

O'Reilly's claim of having been present when de Mohrenschildt shot himself was also missing from his 1992 Inside Edition report on documents relating to the Kennedy assassination. During that report, O'Reilly told viewers, "moments before he was to be interviewed by House investigators, de Mohrenschildt blew his brains out with a 20-gauge shotgun."

Jefferson Morley said O'Reilly's claim of being present for the gunshot is "just not true" and speculated that it was "just part of the pattern, to embellish the story and make it a sexier story."

He added, "It is what these guys all do, they inject themselves into a dramatic situation. O'Reilly was chasing this story, but he wasn't there, he made it sound like he was more on the scene than he was, it was show business."

O'Reilly has written about his time at WFAA as being extremely contentious. In his book The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life, he writes that he was "twenty-six going on ten in the worldliness department" when he joined WFAA and describes his colleagues as "ambitious, aggressive journalists battling each other under the strong thumb of an unsympathetic management."

O'Reilly concedes that he made "every possible political mistake" when he got to the station, including "mouthing off to the producers" and making "stupid comments in the newsroom."

His admitted abrasiveness clearly made an impression on his former colleagues.

According to Rowlett, "It was my experience with O'Reilly that he was less than an honest reporter, generally. He was the most disliked person in our newsroom. He wasn't to be trusted, he was all about Bill O'Reilly, he wasn't about the news."

Harris painted a similar picture of O'Reilly, saying he was "often not a truthful person" and claiming the Fox News host "was just a jerk, nobody liked him. He was always tooting his own horn."

And let me add this, former staffers have sent me e-mails telling me that O'Reilly is a jerk and the worst boss they have ever worked for. More than one of them have told me that almost everyone working for O'Reilly hates him, but they do not say anything because they are afraid he will fire them and block them from working at any Fox News job.

The Tuesday 2-24-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 25, 2015 - 11:50am

The TPM was called: ISIS Atrocities Continue. The biased and dishonest right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As many as 90 Christians in Syria have been taken hostage by the ISIS jihadists. We should all pray for those people who may very well end up beheaded or burned alive.

Also, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights has issued a report that says the following: 'ISIS atrocities include rapes, slavery, the trafficking of women and children, forced recruitment of children, killings of civilians and kidnappings.' Young boys are being brainwashed, trained to kill; they are powerless to stop ISIS from abusing them.

Meanwhile, the world dithers. There is no organized campaign on the ground to stop the atrocities or to defeat the ISIS savages. What a disgrace. In an excellent bit of reporting from northern Iraq, NBC correspondent Richard Engel interviewed two women who escaped from the ISIS abusers. The news media does not like to use the word evil, but that's what the world is witnessing.

Once again, Talking Points will remind you that these ISIS thugs are the same as the Nazis who slaughtered millions of people before and during World War II. There is no difference in the mentality. And once again the world is standing by doing little while the ISIS menace grows, spreading all over the Middle East and North Africa.

President Obama is not taking the lead. His stated 60-nation coalition is invisible, and the other nations of the world are even worse. How long are these atrocities going to continue before the world unites against the savages? How long?
Comment from Steve: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the American people do not want us to be the police to the world, and we should only fight ISIS if they come to the USA, or we find out they are planning to come to the USA and do some terrorism. The constitution says defend the borders, it does not say travel a thousand miles to a foreign country and attack someone who has not attacked us, get a clue, you and your draft-dodging right-wing chickenhawk friends are wrong, just as you were wrong on Iraq.

Then O'Reilly discussed ISIS with two Republican terrorism experts (who of course agree with O'Reilly) Michael Weiss and Thomas Sanderson.

Weiss said this: "ISIS is a terror army, and a totalitarian political organization, so your comparison with National Socialism is apt. This is also a political project that doesn't get talked about much, one I would describe as a Sunni restoration."

Sanderson said this: "People are intimidated by the group, they're intimidated by the landscape they would have to go into. It would be tremendously difficult to go in there and fight ISIS, but it could be done. We would like the locals to do that, but at some point NATO could be forced to engage on the ground."

Comment from Steve: And btw, O'Reilly never reports this, but we created ISIS by going to all these foreign countries and overthrowing their leaders, Lybia and Iraq are two of them, they had ISIS in check, and when we removed those leaders ISIS bloomed into what it is today. But O'Reilly never ever mentions that, if we had left them alone ISIS would not be what it is today, and that is a fact.

Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers discussed the Talking Points Memo and the administration's overall anti-terror strategy.

Powers said this: "I don't think there's an easy answer. The idea of just sending troops in is not enough and I fear you are over-simplifying this. You think sending troops in is a plan and will solve the problem, but I don't just scream 'War!' the way you do."

Crowley said this: "Military leaders and analysts are putting out plans and laying out the options, but the commander-in-chief refuses to listen. We have to take on ISIS militarily and economically and ideologically."

O'Reilly said this: "Every single day we are seeing the abuse of human beings and these guys are not afraid of us. We don't have leadership against ISIS right now."

Comment from Steve: Remember this folks, O'Reilly said the same thing about Iraq, he was gung ho to attack them and said it would be a good strategy, and he was dead wrong, there were no WMD's, and the Iraq war has been an expensive disaster that cost us a fortune in blood and treasure and made things worse. Do not listen to these draft dodging right-wing neo-con chickenhawks, like O'Reilly.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle examined a story out of Illinois, where a college student is accused of acting out sexual violence he witnessed in the movie "Fifty Shades of Grey."

Wiehl said this: "Allegedly he brought a woman back into his dorm room, and he bound her hands her feet and started beating on her. He is charged with aggravated assault."

Guilfoyle said this: "The defense is asking why there is $50,000 bail when he was just acting out 'Fifty Shades' and claims it was consensual domination. He thinks he should be let go, but I don't think so."

The legal duo both predicted that Eddie Ray Routh would surely be convicted of murdering "American Sniper" Chris Kyle. "The defense has not met its burden," Wiehl declared, "which was to show that Eddie Ray Routh did not know right from wrong."

Comment from Steve: Earth to right-wing legal idiots, if it was consensual domination there is no crime and the guy did nothing wrong. How in the hell do you not understand that?

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Keep the Faith. Billy said this: "If you are a religious person, be proud of your faith. And if someone mocks you about your beliefs, turn the other cheek."

CBS Ordered O'Reilly To Leave Argentina For Risking Life Of Cameraman
By: Steve - February 25, 2015 - 11:30am

From Eric John Engberg, a fellow CBS correspondent stationed in Argentina at the same time Billo was there.

The CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires, Larry Doyle, an ex-Marine LRRP, was something of a legend among CBSers because of his personal courage and his knowledge about how to do your job without exposing yourself to undue danger. Early that night in Buenos Aires he assembled the camera crews in our hotel newsroom and instructed them to refrain from using the lights on their cameras while around crowds.

Television lights attracted potentially violent people and also made the camera-person an easier target for demonstrators throwing rocks. We all knew that the Argentine public was angry at the U.S. for supporting Britain in the war, so American journalists might become a target for mob violence.

The riot around the presidential palace was actually short-lived. It consisted mostly of chanting, fist-shaking and throwing coins at the uniformed soldiers who were assembled outside the palace. I did not see any police attacks against demonstrators. According to Doyle, O'Reilly returned to the hotel in a rage over the fact that his cameraman wouldn't turn on the lights to photograph angry crowds.

Doyle defended the cameraman and chewed out O'Reilly for violating his instructions on lights. When Doyle looked at the tape shot by O'Reilly's cameraman he saw that the video included stand-ups -- on camera description by the reporter -- which O'Reilly had ordered the cameraman to shoot -- with his light on. Doyle was further upset by this tape, which clearly showed that his orders on lights had been unilaterally violated by O'Reilly. The issue here was safety.

CBS was doing a late night re-cap of the Falkland's story. As always the Buenos Aires bureau had no combat video footage to offer, so our part of the special would be the demonstrations, which had been well covered by three or four camera crews, including the one working with O'Reilly. All that footage was blended into the main story, narrated by Schieffer, who had been in Buenos Aires for weeks as the anchor on the scene.

When Doyle informed O'Reilly that Schieffer would be doing the report, which would not include any segment from O'Reilly, the reporter exploded. "I didn't come down here to have my footage used by that old man," he shouted.

Doyle was stunned.

First O'Reilly had defiantly ordered a cameraman to disregard his orders on using lights, and now he was claiming the right to do a story the producers had decided should be done by the senior correspondent on the scene, Schieffer.

This confrontation led the next day to O'Reilly being ordered out of Argentina by the CBS bosses. Doyle had told them O'Reilly was a "disruptive force" who threatened his bureau's morale and cohesion.

DOW Breaks 18,000 And The Biased O'Reilly Totally Ignored It
By: Steve - February 25, 2015 - 11:00am

During the 8 years of the Republican George W. Bush, every time the stock market hit a new record high Bill O'Reilly reported it and did at least one full segment about it. And not only did he report it every time, he praised Bush for it and said it was a measure of the job he was doing, saying it shows that Bush is doing a good job as President.

In fact, when liberals would slam Bush for something bad he did O'Reilly would pull the stock market is at record highs card to defend Bush. He would say if Bush is doing so bad why is the stock market setting record highs.

But now that the exact same things are happening under Obama, O'Reilly is silent, no praise of Obama, no defending him, and he never even reports it. This is a perfect example of right-wing bias from O'Reilly.

Recently the DOW broke 18,000 and O'Reilly totally ignored it. He also ignored it when it broke 17,000, so he has a pattern.

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The Dow Jones Industrial Average regained the 18,000 level on Friday, boosted by its oil- and industry-related components including Caterpillar (CAT) , Chevron (CVX) , and Exxon Mobil (XOM) . The S&P 500 added 0.21%, close to an all-time high set earlier in the session. The Nasdaq climbed 0.22%.

Crude oil was gaining for a second day on Friday as investors bet on a bottom after six months of plummeting prices. West Texas Intermediate crude added 3.9% to $53.20 a barrel, though remained at more than half a mid-summer peak.

---------------------------

Just once I would like to see someone ask O'Reilly about this bias, but they never will, because if they did he would edit it out of the show and ban them from the Factor.

This is what O'Reilly does, and it is 100% right-wing bias.

Obama Finally Vetoes Ridiculous Republican Keystone XL Bill
By: Steve - February 25, 2015 - 10:00am

President Barack Obama vetoed legislation authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday, the latest development in what has become an ongoing standoff between him and congressional Republicans over approval of the Canadian oil pipeline.

This is only the third veto of Obama's presidency, but it's likely not the last.

Congressional Republicans are poised to send a number of other measures to Obama's desk that he is expected to reject, including changes to his signature health care reform law.

Obama vetoed the bill on Tuesday afternoon, hours after it was sent over from the Hill. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in the day's press briefing that the president planned to veto it "without any drama or fanfare or delay."

"The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously," Obama wrote in a veto message he sent back to the Senate. "But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto."

The House passed the measure authorizing construction of the pipeline on Feb. 11, two weeks after the Senate approved the same legislation. Congressional Republicans held a signing ceremony and waited until after the weeklong Presidents Day recess to send it to Obama's desk.

The White House had repeatedly threatened to veto the legislation, arguing that it preempted an ongoing process at the Department of State to evaluate whether the pipeline should be constructed. Because the proposed pipeline crosses an international border, the department can decide whether to grant a permit for the project.

Comments from other federal agencies were due in early February, and the State Department is expected to issue its decision sometime in the coming weeks.

If the secretary of state and president decide the pipeline is in the national interest, they will issue a permit to TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, allowing it to move forward with construction. The bill from Congress, however, would buck the "longstanding process for evaluating whether projects like this are in the best interests of the country," Earnest said Tuesday.

But Republicans have accused the president of taking too long to make a decision on the proposed pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada's oil sands to refineries in Texas.

"After 2,349 days, time is about to be up for President Obama's dodge on the Keystone XL pipeline," the Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said in a press release Tuesday, shortly after sending the bill to the president's desk.

Even with the bill vetoed, Keystone is expected to be a recurring theme for Republican leadership. There are not enough votes to override the veto at this point, however.

Environmental groups, which have been urging the president to veto the bill and reject the pipeline permit altogether, celebrated the veto. "This misguided Keystone XL bill, pushed by the fossil fuel industry, has met its just and expected doom," Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

And I would say the president got it exactly right by vetoing it. The bill does nothing to help the American people, all it does is make some wealthy people in Canada more wealthy. The whole thing is ridiculous and the Republicans that supported it are corrupt.

O'Reilly's Story Falls Apart: No CBS Colleagues Will Confirm His Lies
By: Steve - February 24, 2015 - 11:50am

When he's not name calling or threatening other reporters, behind the scenes Bill O'Reilly tried desperately to find somebody who worked with him at CBS to confirm his war correspondent tales, but no one would go on his show.

O'Reilly tried to unilaterally call a stop to the scandal surrounding his tall tales of fabricated war coverage, but he couldn't find any former CBS colleagues who supervised or worked with him in Buenos Aires to go on his show.

According to TVNewser, O'Reilly tried to get none other than Dan Rather to back him up, "On his show Monday, O'Reilly had hoped to talk with either Dan Rather, then the anchor of the CBS Evening News or with Van Gordon Sauter, then the president of CBS News, or both, about his contributions from Argentina. Both declined. Instead, he interviewed Don Browne, a former NBC News executive, who ran the Miami Bureau at the time of the Falklands War."

CBS released the footage that O'Reilly asked for, and it doesn't confirm his story. A protest is not a war zone. No matter how many times O'Reilly puts this distortion of fact through the so-called "No Spin Zone," he can't make it come true.

O'Reilly said last night on his show that he wants to stop this now. There is any easy way to make this stop. O'Reilly only has to admit that he exaggerated and lied about his past as a "war correspondent." Instead of following the path that could end the scandal, O'Reilly threatened a reporter from The New York Times.

It is a matter of common sense. If there were deaths, and people being shot as O'Reilly claimed, where's the proof? There would have to be video or public records. If Bill O'Reilly is telling the truth, his former colleagues at CBS who worked with him should be willing to confirm his claims.

O'Reilly's own guest, Don Browne, didn't confirm Bill-O's claims of a war zone. Browne said, "As the war went badly, there were demonstrations every day. There were tanks in the street. It was a country at war. At first, it was casual. And it became more and more serious. And, as the military were losing badly, the populace began to turn on the military leadership." That's great, but it still doesn't confirm the existence of a war zone and dead civilians.

All of O'Reilly's former CBS colleagues that the media has spoken to so far have rejected the Fox News host's telling of events. It is clear that Bill O'Reilly is lying, and the easiest way to tell that he is sinking under the weight of this scandal is to see how hard he is trying to make this story go away, he is even making threats to other reporters on how to report the story, which he would cry foul if someone did to him.

O'Reilly Goes Insane & Threatens New York Times Reporter
By: Steve - February 24, 2015 - 11:30am

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a journalist working for CNN or MSNBC, etc. made a threat against him telling him to stop reporting a story, or to watch how you report it. O'Reilly would lose his mind, do a whole show on it, call for the guy to be fired, and on and on. But he does it, proving what an idiot he is.

Here is the story:

In an interview with the New York Times Monday evening, Bill O'Reilly personally threatened a reporter over the paper's coverage of the controversy surrounding O'Reilly's claims that he was in a war zone when he covered protests in Buenos Aires in 1982. O'Reilly has found himself mired in a scandal after Mother Jones released a report Thursday accusing the host of embellishing stories of his work as a correspondent for CBS in the 1980s.

Over the past few days, O'Reilly has resorted to personal attacks and insults to defend himself as former colleagues have come forward and confirmed that the former Inside Edition exaggerated or outright lied about his experiences. While not once disproving he did not lie about the many deaths or that it was a war zone, nothing he has said or done proves he was not lying.

During the broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor Monday night, O'Reilly aired footage that he obtained for CBS regarding a protest in Buenos Aires that he covered for the network in 1982. O'Reilly has long contended the protest, which occurred in the aftermath of the end of the Falklands War, constituted a combat or war zone and that he witnessed extreme violence, including multiple people killed.

He's also claimed over the years that a soldier pointed a machine gun right in his face -- at times, he's said it was multiple soldiers -- and he also saved the life of an injured photographer.

On his Monday night show, he aired the clips and stated he was totally vindicated by the video evidence. He also brought on a former (Republican) NBC bureau chief to defend him and agree that the Argentinian protest constituted a combat zone during a time of war. O'Reilly also said that he hoped this can all stop now and that everyone can move on.

Of course, airing the video really did nothing to refute any of the allegations made against O'Reilly, and while he found one (Republican) reporter who backed up his claims of being in a dangerous war zone, there is a growing number of former CBS colleagues and other reporters who dispute his accounts.

Both The Guardian and Mother Jones pointed out Monday evening that the video clips from CBS at the time DO NOT back up O'Reilly’s claims that multiple people were shot and killed during the protests, that he saved the life of a seriously injured photographer or that he was personally threatened by a soldier. Nor does the video evidence suggest that O'Reilly was in what can be considered a combat zone in a war-torn country.

As stated before, the Fox commentator has used insulting rhetoric over the past few days as a way to discredit and attack those who are disputing his record as a CBS correspondent. And he did it while claiming he never does personal attacks.

Generally, he's called anyone who questions his so-called war coverage a "far-left zealot" (a term he used again Monday night) and has personally attacked Mother Jones David Corn and former CBS colleague Eric Engberg. O'Reilly even suggested that Corn needs to be placed in the "kill zone." He used that bullying tactic again Monday night with a Times reporter who interviewed him over the scandal.

Below is from the Times article:
Mr. O'Reilly's efforts to refute the claims by Mother Jones and some former CBS News colleagues occurred both on the air and off on Monday. During a phone conversation, he told a reporter for The New York Times that there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter's coverage was inappropriate. "I am coming after you with everything I have," Mr. O'Reilly said. "You can take it as a threat."
Wow! This is what O'Reilly calls respected and honest journalism, if you do not like what someone reports about you make threats against them, he should be thrown off the air and never be allowed to report on anything ever again.

And btw, Times reporter Emily Steel confirmed on Twitter late Monday evening that she was the one that O'Reilly threatened. Even though Fox has noted that it has O'Reilly's back during this controversy -- a far cry from how NBC reacted to the Brian Williams fiasco -- it appears that the Fox idiot is like a cornered rat and is lashing out in irrational and despicable ways. Seriously, threatening a reporter Billy?

The Monday 2-13-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 24, 2015 - 11:00am

And btw folks, the entire show was almost all Republican guests putting out right-wing spin and propaganda, except for the so-called Democrat Juan Williams, who works for Fox and has admitted he is more conservative than he is liberal, and who agrees with O'Reilly more than he disagrees with him. Not ONE Real liberal or Democrat was on the show to comment on anything, none, zero. So there was no fairness and no balance, and this is from the guy who claims to be fair and balanced and have a no spin zone.

The TPM was called: Giuliani vs Obama. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has questioned whether President Obama loves America. In the mayor's opinion, he does not. That has ignited a firestorm, but the mayor is not backing down. No one can know what is in the heart of any individual, but let's look at the two men. Rudy Giuliani was deeply affected by the attack on 9/11. Day after day he had to console the families of those who were killed. You might say the mayor was a casualty of the terror attack because he experienced so much pain.

Thus, Mr. Giuliani despises the terror killers who murdered all those innocent people. So if you are not aggressively fighting those savages, Rudy Giuliani does not approve of you. Therefore, his opinion of President Obama is negative. On the president's side, he is not deeply emotional about fighting terrorism. Soon after condemning the beheading of journalist James Foley, the president took to the golf course.

That was a mistake and Rudy Giuliani certainly noticed it. Barack Obama is a man who lives in his head, he is largely unemotional. Rudy Giuliani is the opposite, he takes wrong-doing very personally. These two men have a drastically different view of life. Talking Points believes President Obama does love his country. I've had conversations with him about helping wounded vets and American history, and I don't doubt his patriotism.

But if he were here today on this set, I would tell him that he needs to stop equivocating about terrorism. On his watch ISIS has grown from a nothing organization to a powerful terror threat. That's not a good thing to have on your resume. The president needs to begin taking ISIS and the other jihadists somewhat personally, the way Giuliani does. If he would take a leadership role in defeating the jihadists, Mayor Giuliani and other critics would begin to support him.

One more thing: Those haters who call Rudy Giuliani a racist are despicable. As mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani saved thousands of black lives by devoting much of his time to making poor neighborhoods safer. He took crime and murder in the black precincts personally, and he succeeded in making those neighborhoods safer.
Comment from Steve: This is classic right-wing bias and hypocrisy from O'Reilly. Giuliani basically called the PRESIDENT an un-American traitor who hates America. And O'Reilly defended him, he said he did not like what Giuliani said, but then he excused it by saying Giuliani said it based on how Obama handles the terrorism problem.

Which is just laughable, because when liberals called Bush a fool and slammed him, O'Reilly ripped them to pieces with the you do not disrespect the PRESIDENT speech. But when a Republican calls the PRESIDENT an un-American traitor, O'Reilly spins it for him and gives him a pass, disgusting.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it.

Williams said this: "What Giuliani did was divisive. He basically said the man is not a patriot and does not love his country, which is a personal attack. I think Giuliani hurt Republicans."

Ham said this: "The media has so comically overblown this - they go overboard when any Republican says anything, but they don't say anything when Democrats call Republicans 'hostage takers' or things like that."

State Department spokespersons Jen Psaki and Marie Harf have been widely ridiculed by Republican idiots on the internet, so Fox News correspondent James Rosen was on to compliment them and say the sexist attacks are wrong.

Rosen said this: "There have been photo-shopped images of these women, and they've been called 'dumb bitches' and 'Lucy and Ethel.' I've given each of those women a tough time with very pointed questions, and one can disagree with the policies these women are paid to promote. But both of them are smart and competent professionals and they don't deserve to be skewered along sexual or gender lines."

Then the Republicans Don Browne and Joe Concha were on to help O'Reilly spin his war zone many dead lies about the Falklands war. With nobody from the left to make it a fair and balanced segment.

Browne said this: "There were tanks in the streets, and it was a country at war. Buenos Aires got progressively more intense, it was a situation where people got hurt."

Comment from Steve: NOBODY is saying people were not hurt, it was a big war time protest so of course a few people got hurt. The problem is O'Reilly said MANY PEOPLE DIED, he said they were dropping like bing, bing, bing, bing. But not one person can find any evidence that MANY PEOPLE DIED. In fact, there is no evidence anyone died, which is the lie that O'Reilly told, and nothing he produced in this segment shows he did not lie. And it was not a war zone, those lies have never been proven to be true, O'Reilly just says they have been.

Concha portrayed the Mother Jones story as a political hit job, saying this: "David Corn was employed by Fox News as a contributor from 2001 to 2008, but his contract wasn't renewed, which is a nice way of saying, 'you're fired.' And former CBS reporter Eric Engberg went on CNN and called it a relatively tame riot. But the video that CBS News released today contradicts that."

O'Reilly concluded with this testament: "It was an extremely violent and volatile situation, and every single fact I reported about this Falklands experience is true."

Comment from Steve: Concha and O'Reilly totally ignored the other 7 CBS and 1 CNN journalists who have come forward to dispute the war zone claims and the many people died claims from O'Reilly. They will not address it or discuss it, they just ignore it all and refuse to talk about it. Engberg called it a tame riot, and it was, for a riot over a war it was tame, he and others said they have been to more violent protests in Washington D.C.

Nothing O'Reilly put forward in this segment proves he did not lie, he said many people died and it was a war zone so that means he was in combat. All that is a lie, it's lies, lies, lies and more lies, and O'Reilly knows it, he just will not admit it, as I predicted.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on, with no Democratic guest for balance.

They talked about the Republican Scott Walker, who has been under fire in the media, and what kind of coverage Hillary Clinton can expect?

Goldberg said this: "The press is probably going to go easy on her. They're going to treat her like they treated Barack Obama, who was a historical figure. The elite media has always been liberal, but the media in general has become even nastier. Some of the radicals of the 60s who marching on campus and setting fires are now teaching journalism."

Comment from Steve: Which is just laughable, because the media has slammed the Clintons for 20 years, and during the primary the media also slammed Hillary. Proving that Goldberg can not even remember recent history, and he is a biased right-wing idiot.

Then Jesse Watters was on, that I do not report on because it is a total waste of time worthless non-news segment.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: When You're Right, Don't Back Down. Billy said this: "If you know you're being slandered or otherwise treated unfairly, always stand your ground!"

Comment from Steve: And if you know you got caught lying just attack the people who reported the lies, call them names, which is a personal attack you say you never do, and deny you ever lied, even though the evidence shows you did, then move on and wait until they just stop reporting on it.

O'Reilly's Claim That Many Were Killed Rejected By Argentine Historian
By: Steve - February 24, 2015 - 10:00am

Argentine Historian Tells Washington Post's Wemple: "As Far As I Know, There Were No People Killed At The Protests"

An Argentine historian has discredited Bill O'Reilly's claim that the riot he covered in 1982 as a CBS News correspondent was a combat situation, where "many were killed." In fact, according to the historian -- an expert on the Falklands war -- "there were no people killed at the protests."

As Mother Jones and many of his CBS News colleagues have casted doubt on his claims, O'Reilly has continued to defend his accounts of covering the Falklands War as a reporter for CBS News, which repeatedly created the impression he was in a combat zone.

In his book The No Spin Zone, O'Reilly claimed the 1982 Buenos Aires protest he covered was "a major riot" where "many were killed." In a September 27, 2008, interview on CNN's The Kalb Report, O'Reilly described the protest, saying, "the Argentine troops shoot the people down in the street. They shoot them down. It's not like rubber bullets or gas, people are dying ... it's unbelievable, I mean, people just falling, like bing, bing, bing, bing, bing."

O'REILLY: When I got shot at I was covering the Falklands war and I was based in Argentina in Buenos Aires. And when the Argentines surrendered to the British there was a huge riot in Buenos Aires. I was in the middle of that riot when Argentine soldiers came out of the barracks and got into the streets and actually shot people dead in the street, because people were rioting. And it wasn't like warning shots or rubber bullets or teargas. They were shooting people dead.

But an Argentine historian told The Washington Post's Erik Wemple that "there were no people killed at the protests":

Seeking to explain the discrepancy, O'Reilly yesterday told the Erik Wemple Blog through a spokeswoman, "Fatalities were reported locally, the military government refused to provide any information on injuries, arrests etc. I saw folks hit the ground and stay there but no one could get info from the [Leopoldo] Galtieri crew."

As the Erik Wemple Blog pokes around in the archives of Argentine newspapers, we reached out to a historian for perspective. Federico G. Lorenz, an author who has written extensively on the Falklands/Malvinas war, tells the Erik Wemple Blog via correo electronico:

"As far as I know, there were no people killed at the protests after the news of the Argentine surrendering arrived to [Buenos Aires]. There were incidents at May Square...and people slightly injured due to gasses and anti riot munition, but not dead people. Press from June 15, 1982, reports about 5 buses burnt 'many detainees and injured people'. One of the photographs shows a wounded man lying on the ground surrounded by people."

O'Reilly Deceptively Cites NY Times Report In Defense Of War Zone Claims
By: Steve - February 23, 2015 - 11:55am

A former New York Times editor is accusing Bill O'Reilly of misrepresenting his reporting to defend himself.

Under fire for exaggerating his experiences covering the 1982 Falklands War, Bill O'Reilly cited a New York Times article to supposedly corroborate his version of events. But the author of that article points out that O'Reilly "cut out an important phrase" in his retelling.

In his book The No Spin Zone, O'Reilly characterized a protest in Argentina as "a major riot" where "many were killed." He went on to describe it as "major violence up close and personal, and it was an important international story."

Following a Mother Jones report that called into question O'Reilly's claims about his Falklands War reporting, several of O'Reilly's former CBS News colleagues have also cast doubt on his version of events.

O'Reilly attempted to defend himself by reading from a New York Times report of the protest during an interview on the February 22 edition of Fox News' MediaBuzz. At one point O'Reilly quoted from the story, saying, "One policeman pulled a pistol, firing five shots."

But as the author of the story, Rich Meislin, pointed out on Facebook, O'Reilly omitted the end of the sentence from the original Times report during his retelling on Fox News, which reads, "One policeman pulled a pistol, firing five shots over the heads of fleeing demonstrators."

As Meislin notes, "As far as I know, no demonstrators were shot or killed by police in Buenos Aires that night. What I saw on the streets that night was a demonstration -- passionate, chaotic and memorable -- but it would be hard to confuse it with being in a war zone."

So O'Reilly also lied that the NY Times article backed up what he was saying, when it does not, and the reporter that wrote the story for the Times is saying O'Reilly is wrong.

On several occasions O'Reilly has characterized his stint in Argentina as reporting from a combat zone.

Another CBS Journalist Says The O'Reilly War Zone Story Is Absurd
By: Steve - February 23, 2015 - 11:50am

Another one of Bill O'Reilly's former colleagues at CBS News is casting doubt on his claims that he reported from a "combat situation" in Buenos Aires during the Falklands War.

Charles Krause, a CBS News correspondent from 1980 to 1983 who reported from Buenos Aires during the same period as O'Reilly, is the latest to contradict the Fox News host. In an interview, Krause called O'Reilly's descriptions of his reporting "absurd."

He also recalls O'Reilly being there for a short period of time and not having "any significant role in our coverage of the war."

"I don't recall him doing any major story that anybody remembers and he was there a very short time, then he was recalled, I don't know why," Krause said. "He wasn't a team player and people thought he was grandstanding, basically."

Krause, a former Washington Post reporter who had lived in Buenos Aires for three years prior to the war, said O'Reilly's claims are wrong.

"That's absurd because Buenos Aires was Buenos Aires," Krause said about the war zone claim in an interview Sunday. "It was just like it always was, there was very little evidence of the war in Buenos Aires. The war was being fought thousands of miles away."

Krause joined several of the journalists quoted by Stelter in casting doubt on O'Reilly's claim that he had witnessed a violent protest in which several demonstrators had been killed. "There's a difference between demonstrations and rioting," Krause said. "I don't recall there being rioting."

Krause said he was one of the first reporters there covering the conflict and stayed through the end of hostilities.

"The only danger that we were in was we were staying at the Sheraton Hotel, which was this massive, modern tower overlooking the city. We were in no danger whatsoever," he said. "Except for people who had never been there before and didn't speak Spanish and might have felt a little bit odd. I had lived in Buenos Aires, there wasn't any particular danger. After the U.S. supported Britain there were some anti-American demonstrations a little bit and if you went out it was better not to advertise the fact you were American."

Krause also said he does not recall any CBS cameraman being injured and bleeding, as O'Reilly contends. According to Stelter, "CNN has interviewed seven people who were there for CBS, and none of them recall anyone from the network being injured."

Where Is Fox Internal Review Of O'Reilly's Disputed "Combat" Story
By: Steve - February 23, 2015 - 11:30am

A real news Network would be doing an internal review of the situation.

As controversy surrounding Bill O'Reilly and his previous claims of harrowing "combat" journalism escalates, and as more than half-a-dozen former CBS News colleagues raise doubts about his storytelling, this would be the moment when most news organizations would step in and announce that an internal review was underway to ascertain the truth. Nervous about having its credibility diminished and committed to being accurate and fair, most major news organizations would take steps to stop the bleeding via a thorough review of the facts.

But not Fox News.

Ignoring the blueprint recently set down by under-siege news outlets such as NBC News, CBS News and Rolling Stone, Fox instead has hunkered down and allowed O'Reilly to mount his own public, and increasingly erratic, defense that's built around obfuscation and name-calling. The result is that rather than containing the controversy, first sparked by David Corn's and Daniel Schulman's report in Mother Jones, Fox and its most famous host have allowed questions to multiply on a daily bases.

Now, the unanswered questions not only center around allegations that O'Reilly misled people for years by claiming he reported from the "war zone" during the Falklands War. (He did not.) New questions persist about the street protest O'Reilly covered soon after the end of the war; a street protest in Argentina's capital, 1,200 miles away from the fighting on the Falkland Islands. O'Reilly's former CBS colleague Eric Engberg, who was in Buenos Aires at the time with O'Reilly, claims virtually everything the Fox host has said about his Argentina work is erroneous.

"O'Reilly's account of a 1982 riot in Argentina is being sharply contradicted by seven other journalists who were his colleagues and were also there at the time," reported CNN's Brian Stelter. One former CBS cameraman called O'Reilly's description of the events as "outrageous."

It's seven vs. one. And in four days O'Reilly has not been able to produce one person who can corroborate his version of the Argentina story. Given those damning circumstances, most news organization in America would be anxious to get to the truth via an internal or even independent review.

But not Fox News.

"In fact, Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly," a spokeswoman said in a statement to The New York Times, giving no indication Fox News has undertaken a full review of O'Reilly's previous statements, or that executives have taken into account unfolding testimonies from journalists who clearly undercut O'Reilly's storytelling.

And one of the reasons the O'Reilly story continues to grow day after day is that it arrived in the wake of the Brian Williams controversy, and the fact that O'Reilly and his colleagues at Fox News relentlessly hammered the NBC anchor for his deceptive ways regarding Iraq War stories Williams appeared to embellish.

How did NBC respond to the controversy? With an internal review:

NBC News launched an internal review of Nightly News anchor Brian Williams' 2003 reporting mission to Iraq, details of which he acknowledged this week he had recalled incorrectly.

Last November when Rolling Stone became embroiled in controversy after it published a discredited account of a rape case at the University of Virginia. How did Rolling Stone respond? With an external review.

From the magazine's Editor and Publisher, Jann Wenner:

We have asked the Columbia Journalism School to conduct an independent review - headed by Dean Steve Coll and Dean of Academic Affairs Sheila Coronel - of the editorial process that led to the publication of this story. As soon as they are finished, we will publish their report.

And in 2013, CBS faced a widening controversy surrounding the heavily-hyped 60 Minutes report about the terrorist attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. That report was plagued by problems, including obvious conflicts of interest and revelations that its star "witness" to the attack told contradictory tales about his actions the night it unfolded.

How did CBS respond? With an internal review:

CBS asked 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan to take a leave of absence, along with her producer, after her recent story on the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was found to have multiple flaws. An internal report also found broader failings in how the news division handled the story. A summary of the report's findings was obtained by NPR on Tuesday.

But Fox doesn't follow most newsroom protocols. They prefers to traffic in its own reality.

"In a way, it's impossible to win a debate with O'Reilly because he is not bound by reality," noted Corn after O'Reilly responded to the Mother Jones article. Indeed, the showdown represents a classic dual between reality and the bubble, which means there can be no fact-based debate like the one that unfolded surrounding Brian Williams and his wartime recollections.

For instance, Corn notes that O'Reilly told Fox News' Howard Kurtz, "Nobody was on the Falklands and I never said I was on the island, ever." I repeat: O'Reilly last week made a firm denial that he never said "I was on the island, ever." Yet Mother Jones plainly pointed to a 2013 example in which O'Reilly announced, "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands."

Because O'Reilly is willing to pretend up is down and that black is white (and because Kurtz is apparently willing to play along), there's no chance O'Reilly's going to lead anyone to the truth. But Fox News, a national news organization, could do that with a review that's conducted outside of O'Reilly spin zone. That's what a real news outlet would do.

But not Fox News.

Seven CBS Employees Dispute Bill O'Reilly's 'War Zone' Story
By: Steve - February 23, 2015 - 11:00am

O'Reilly claims that David Corn and Mother Jones are simply liberals who are lying about him for partisan political reasons, that they are lying to make him look bad because they have a bias against him. But what he is not talking about (or explaining) is that 7 CBS employees are also disputing what O'Reilly is saying. He also says nothing about David Corn asking for an interview with him, that he is refusing to do, if he has nothing to hide why is he refusing to do the interview and set the record straight? What say you O'Reilly?

Bill O'Reilly's account of a 1982 riot in Argentina is being sharply contradicted by seven other journalists who were his colleagues and were also there at the time.

The seven people all challenge O'Reilly's depiction of Buenos Aires as a "war zone" and a "combat situation." They also doubt his description of a CBS cameraman being injured in the chaos.

"Nobody remembers this happening," said Manny Alvarez, who was a cameraman for CBS News in Buenos Aires.

Jim Forrest, who was a sound engineer for CBS there, said that when he heard O'Reilly retell the Argentina riot story to interviewer Marvin Kalb several years ago, he contacted Kalb and said "I was on that crew, and I don't recall his version of events."

The contradictions come several days after Mother Jones first reported about the discrepancies in O'Reilly's claims about his coverage of the Falklands War. O'Reilly was a young correspondent for CBS News at the time, assigned to cover the war from Buenos Aires, which was more than 1,000 miles from the offshore conflict zone.

In the years since, O'Reilly -- now the biggest star on Fox News -- has repeatedly referred to his experience in the "war zone."

In his 2001 book, "The No Spin Zone," O'Reilly wrote, "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands."

On his show "The O'Reilly Factor" in 2013, O'Reilly told a guest, "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."

Mother Jones challenged some of these claims. O'Reilly responded by accusing the magazine of trying to smear him to hurt Fox News, and said the report's co-author, David Corn, is a liar and an "irresponsible guttersnipe."

Eric Engberg, a CBS correspondent who was also in Buenos Aires at the time, defended Corn in a Facebook post on Friday and said, "It was not a war zone or even close. It was an 'expense account zone.'"

Longtime NBC News correspondent George Lewis, who was also there at the time, agreed with Engberg, writing on Facebook, "Cushiest war I ever covered."

Did O'Reilly's photographer get "run down" and bloodied?

CNN has interviewed seven people who were there for CBS, and none of them recall anyone from the network being injured.

"If somebody got hurt, we all would have known," Alvarez said.

In a Friday interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, O'Reilly said the photographer's last name was Moreno. Roberto Moreno was there for CBS. He now lives in Venezuela, and he declined to comment to CNN.

But Mia Fabius, who was the office manager for the CBS Miami bureau at the time, has stayed in touch with Moreno for decades, and she said Moreno has never spoken about any injury in Argentina.

Further, Fabius said no injury report was ever filed.

Engberg, Alvarez and Forrest spoke on the record about their recollections of the Argentina coverage. Four other people who were there for CBS spoke on condition of anonymity, some because they still work in the television industry and others because they don't want to be publicly criticized by O'Reilly.

All of the people said they're unaware of any civilians being killed in the riot. In O'Reilly's 2001 book, he said "many were killed."

"There were certainly no dead people," Forrest said. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews."

Alvarez called the claims of deaths "outrageous, outrageous."

"People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story," he said.

CNN's report from Buenos Aires at the time described "a squad of tear-gas-armed troops" and a crowd "hurling coins, rocks, and even bricks at both police and journalists," but no deaths.

O'Reilly has repeatedly defended his claims, including on Fox News on Sunday morning. "I don't know if he was there," O'Reilly said, implying that Engberg may not have witnessed the riot. He called Engberg "Room Service Eric," alleging he often stayed in his hotel during unfolding news events.

Speaking on CNN, Engberg called that "the most absurd thing I've ever heard" and said "I never ordered room service during a riot." Engberg also said he, as well as an entire team from CBS, was out in Buenos Aires and in a position to see the protest.

Veterans Group Wants O'Reilly Taken Off The Air
By: Steve - February 23, 2015 - 10:00am

VoteVets, a veterans advocacy group, is calling on Fox News to take Bill O'Reilly off the air following revelations from Mother Jones (and 7 other CBS News employees) that the Fox News host has repeatedly misrepresented his experiences reporting on the 1982 Falklands War.

"NBC acted completely appropriately in taking Brian Williams off the air and looking into claims he's made over the years. Fox News has to do the same thing," Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org, a 400,000-member organization that advocates for vets and military families, said in a statement.

"The issue, for me, isn't that Fox has been caught off guard, and didn't realize O'Reilly was telling possibly false tales. That I can accept. It's what do they do about it now? That will tell us a lot about how seriously they take their news organization."

Comment from Steve: I agree, but I do not think O'Reilly should be fired, because what he did was not as bad as what Brian Williams did. I think O'Reilly should be forced to admit he lied, and be suspended for a month, because it has now been proven he lied about reporting in a war zone, and that he lied about the other CBS reporters hiding in the hotel.

So far, the response from O'Reilly and Fox does not suggest that they take the apparent infraction seriously. Fox News media reporter Howard Kurtz published a piece featuring O'Reilly saying Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn is "a liar, a smear merchant, and will do anything he can to injure me and the network. Everybody knows that. Everything I've reported about my journalistic career is true."

On Thursday, Mother Jones reported that O'Reilly "repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between England and Argentina.

He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could. As he once put it, 'I've been there. That's really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I've seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven't.'"

The magazine went on to note that American journalists were not allowed near combat in that conflict, even citing a CBS News producer who worked on the coverage. The findings follow O'Reilly's criticism of NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who was recently suspended for misleading viewers about his own combat experience.

"Men and women have fought, died, been wounded, and scarred by war. There are many journalists who actually were in the crossfire, who died, trying to bring the story to the American people," Soltz added. "What Bill O'Reilly has done is steal their valor, and it is wrong."

Soltz, a combat veteran of the Iraq War, said O'Reilly's misleading efforts are also an insult to veteran war correspondents.

"It makes it seem like anyone can head on over to a war zone," he said via email. "But honestly it is more insulting to the war reporters who never bragged about their war experience, but just kept their head down and did their job. Some of them died doing that job. In my mind, those reporters were heroes."

And here is what will happen, O'Reilly will continue to dig the hole deeper and call anyone who dares to tell the truth about him dishonest guttersnipes who are lying about him. He will never admit he lied, and never say he is sorry, and Fox will never do anything to him because he is their golden boy and they are not a real news outlet, like NBC and CBS are. He will soon drop it and wait for the story to die out, without ever admitting the truth.

More Proof Bill O'Reilly Lied About His Falklands War Reporting
By: Steve - February 22, 2015 - 11:50am

This video is awesome, and it tells the real story about O'Reilly and his so-called war zone/combat zone reporting, from another CBS reporter who was there with O'Reilly reporting on the very same thing.

He basically says that almost nothing O'Reilly said was true, that O'Reilly said the other CBS reporters were hiding in the hotel, which was also a lie, and that O'Reilly violated the rules and was sent home for it.

Watch this video, it is an eye opener.

Former CBS News Colleague Contradicts O'Reilly's Story About Argentina Protest After Falkland Islands War

Eric Engberg: "It Wasn't A Combat Situation By Any Sense Of The Word"



GOP Run Utah House Votes To Bring Back Executions By Firing Squad
By: Steve - February 22, 2015 - 11:30am

And of course Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, because he does not like to report on crazy things Republicans do, it makes him look bad for promoting them and it makes the party he represents also look bad, so he just ignores it.

A controversial bill to bring back executions by firing squad, passed the Republican-dominated Utah House on Friday, by a 39-34 vote. Utah requires a minimum of 38 votes to pass legislation through the House, so the measure had just one vote to spare. The proposal would allow the state to execute inmates by firing squad if the drug cocktail needed to perform a lethal injection were unavailable at the time of a scheduled execution.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bill Ray (R-Clearfield), tried to steer the debate away from discussion of whether the death penalty itself should be called into question. Ray argued that because the state has the death penalty, the legislature needs to be responsible for choosing how the death penalty is carried out. He maintained that death by firing squad was more humane than other alternatives like electrocution, gassing, and hanging.

Many House Democrats strongly argued against the measure. African-American lawmaker Sandra Hollins (D-Salt Lake City), voiced her objection, questioning not only the method of killing, but also the rationale for the death penalty itself. She stated:
HOLLINS: The death penalty disproportionately affects my community. The death penalty also is not fairly given across socioeconomic status, racial or gender lines. I refuse to vote yes on a bill that gives a tool to carry out the death penalty.
House Minority Leader Brian King (D-Salt Lake City), was equally critical. Calling death by firing squad, “cold-blooded execution”, he said this:
KING: This is not just a conversation about different ways of the state putting people to death. It’s a question about moral and fiscal responsibility and whether the state of Utah chooses, or not, to be a moral and fiscal leader on such a controversial topic.
Several Republican lawmakers even had misgivings about reinstating firing squads as well. Rep. Stephen Handy (R-Layton) expressed concern that bringing back deaths by firing squad would harm the state’s image with tourists. He said this:
HANDY: If we do this, if you think that we have problems with air quality and other things with the image of the state of Utah, to bring back the firing squad would be going down that path.
Funny how they do not think it is just wrong for a Government to kill people, even after it has been proven that the death penalty is not a detterent, and murder rates in states with the death penalty are higher than some states that do not have the death penalty. Not to mention the cost is higher than life in prison (because of all the appeals) and I actually think it would be worse to do life in prison than to be given the death penalty.

Utah ended the practice of allowing inmates to be slated for death by firing squad in 2004. The last execution by firing squad in Utah took place six years after that decision. Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed on June 18, 2010, by a team of five marksmen armed with .30 caliber Winchester rifles. Prior to Gardner’s execution, the last Utah execution carried out by a firing squad was in 1996.

Executions by firing squads seem to be growing in popularity with Republican lawmakers in the West. On Thursday, Wyoming’s House approved death by firing squad. Wyoming, which borders Utah, is similarly dominated by Republicans. However, unlike Utah, Wyoming currently has no prisoners on death row.

Both states will need the measures to pass through the State Senate and be signed by their respective Governors in order to become law. However, because Republicans control each legislative chamber and the State House in both Utah and Wyoming, the laws stand a reasonable chance of passing.

To most of the developed world, the Death Penalty seems inhumane and antiquated. The United States, however, has never abandoned the practice, although it is outlawed in several states. However, in the American West, lawmakers seem eager not to move forward to a nation interested in restorative justice.

Instead, they seem much more inclined to return to 19th-century style methods of execution. The Utah House has taken a step backward. The only question now is whether the Utah Senate and Governor will follow suit.

The War Zone Questions Bill O'Reilly Will Not Answer
By: Steve - February 22, 2015 - 10:30am

And you know that when people run and hide and name call while refusing to answer the questions, they are almost always refusing to answer the questions because they know they were caught lying. Honest people who have nothing to hide would do an interview and answer all the questions.

On Thursday, Mother Jones published an article by Daniel Schulman and David Corn that documented how Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has mischaracterized his wartime reporting experience. Most notably, he has more than once said that during his short stint as a CBS correspondent in the 1980s, he was in the "war zone" during the Falklands war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982.

He even once told the story of heroically rescuing his cameraman in this "war zone" while being chased by army soldiers. Yet according to O'Reilly's former CBS colleagues in Argentina and other journalists there during the war, no American journalist reached the war zone in the Falkland Islands and other territories iin the southern Atlantic Ocean during this conflict. O'Reilly and his colleagues covered the war from Buenos Aires, which was 1200 miles from the fighting.

Mother Jones sent O'Reilly and Fox News a detailed list of questions at 8:30 am on Thursday. They asked for a response by 3:00 pm. Then they called Dana Klinghoffer, a spokeswoman for the network, several times to make sure the questions were received and to determine if O'Reilly and Fox would respond. She never took the call or returned the message. Shortly before 3:00 pm, they sent an email containing the questions to Bill Shine, a top exec at Fox News, saying that if O'Reilly and Fox needed more time, they would try to accommodate them. He, too, never responded. At 5:26 p.m., they posted the article.

Immediately afterward, O'Reilly granted interviews to multiple reporters, but not Mother Jones(who wrote the article). He resorted to name-calling, saying Corn was a "liar," a "left-wing assassin,"and a "despicable guttersnipe." He said that Corn deserved "to be in the kill zone." It was clear that O'Reilly had no interest in answering the actual questions about his wartime reporting claims. For the record, here are the questions they sent to Fox. (They included links to his past assertions to make it easy for O'Reilly to review what he said.)

In numerous instances on his television and radio shows and in his book, The No Spin Zone Bill O'Reilly has said that he was in the "war zone" during the Falklands war when he was a correspondent at CBS News. But it appears no American correspondents were allowed in the Falkland Islands war zone during the conflict. How does Mr. O'Reilly explain his comments?

In a 2004 column, Mr. O'Reilly noted, "Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, I know that life and death decisions are made in a flash." What combat situation was that?

In a 2003 book, journalist Tucker Carlson reported on how Mr. O'Reilly answered a question during a Washington panel discussion about media coverage of the Afghanistan war: "Rather than simply answer the question, O'Reilly began by trying to establish his own bona fides as a war correspondent. I've covered wars, okay? I've been there. The Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Middle East. I've almost been killed three times, okay.'" Does Mr. O'Reilly have any comment on this? Can he describe his experiences in each of these locations?

On his television show on April 17, 2013, Mr. O'Reilly said, "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important." When and where did this happen?

In his book, The No Spin Zone, O'Reilly describes covering a protest in Buenos Aires when the military junta surrendered in the Falklands war. He wrote, "A major riot ensued and many were killed." News reports of the protest did not report any fatalities, only several injuries. And the CBS News report on the protest for which O'Reilly gathered video footage also did not refer to any deaths. Did Mr. O'Reilly report this accurately in his book. Does he have any comment on why other reports of this protest do not appear to be consistent with his?

On his radio show on January 13, 2005, Mr. O'Reilly said, "I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America." In which countries and when did these firefights occur? Can Mr. O'Reilly describe them?

In The so-called No Spin Zone, O'Reilly writes about an assignment he had for CBS News in El Salvador in 1982. He says that he reported from a village called Meanguera that was "leveled to the ground and fires were still smoldering. But even though the carnage was obviously recent, we saw no one live or dead. There was absolutely nobody around who could tell us what happened. I quickly did a stand-up amid the rubble and we got the hell out of there."

The CBS News report that he filed and narrated and that was broadcast on the CBS Nightly News showed him in Meanguera, but there were people walking about and only two or so structures burned. Did Mr. O'Reilly report his trip to this village accurately in his book? Does he have any comment on why the CBS report does not appear to be consistent with the description in his book?

Did Mr. O'Reilly ever conduct any other reporting trips to El Salvador or Argentina or elsewhere in Central and South America other than the two described in The so-called No Spin Zone (the trip to Argentina at the end of the Falklands war and the trip to El Salvador that included the visit to Meanguera)?

In 2008, Mr. O'Reilly said on his television show that he had been in "in the war zones of [the] Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland." Which war zones was he referring to regarding the Middle East and Northern Ireland? When was he in these war zones? Can he describe his experiences in those locations?

Did Mr. O'Reilly ever report from Montevideo, Uruguay. If so, when and what did he cover? Can he describe his experiences there?

In his book Keep It Pithy, Mr. O'Reilly writes, "I've seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America." Where did this occur?

Now remember this, O'Reilly claims to be a truth teller and Mr. Honesty, so if that is true how come he will not answer the questions, and how come he has told so many different stories about it, while saying all the reporters who are talking about it are the liars. It's insane, and O'Reilly is just digging his lying hole deeper, because he does not know how to admit he was lying and give an apology.

The Friday 2-20-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 21, 2015 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: An Attack on the Factor. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: David Corn, who works for the far left magazine Mother Jones, smeared me yesterday, saying I had fabricated some war reporting. Mother Jones, which has low circulation, is considered by many the bottom rung of journalism in America. However, in this Internet age, the defamation they put forth gets exposure, so I have to deal with this garbage.

David Corn, a liar, says that I exaggerated situations in the Falklands War and Salvadoran War. Here's the truth: everything I've said about my reportorial career is true. 33 years ago in June, Argentina surrendered to Great Britain, ending the Falklands War. I was covering the conflict from Argentina and Uruguay for CBS News. After learning of the surrender, angry mobs in Buenos Aires stormed the presidential palace, trying to overthrow the government.

I was there on the street with my camera crews. The violence was horrific, as Argentine soldiers fired into the crowd, which was responding with violent acts of its own. My video of the combat led the CBS Evening News, and later I filed a report that ran nationwide. I never said I was on the Falkland Islands, as Corn purports. I said I covered the Falklands War, which I did.

In what I consider to be a miracle, I found this CBS internal memo from 33 years ago, praising my coverage that day. The cable was sent to the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires by the news desk here in New York City: 'O'Reilly didn't have the time last night but would like to say many thanks for the riot piece last night.'

Want more? Here it is: Shortly after my crew and I escaped grave danger on the streets of Buenos Aires, I wrote to CBS News boss Ed Joyce, praising the crew's bravery: 'We were gassed, shot at, and I had the best vantage point in which to report the story.' So we have rock solid proof that David Corn smeared me, and some websites that picked up his defamation did as well.

I had to spend hours on the phone with various reporters and crawling around my basement to find documents from 33 years ago. All because an irresponsible guttersnipe, a far left zealot who has attacked Fox News many times before, spit this stuff out on the net. And you know what? Nothing is going to happen to David Corn. Mother Jones and the far left websites couldn't care less about the truth. They are in business to injure and this is a political hit job.

At this point, TV coverage has been scant, but CNN tried to exploit the situation because a guy over there named Brian Stelter is another far left zealot masquerading as a journalist. Real journalists knew this story was B.S. from the jump. They knew Corn was trying to take the Brian Williams situation and wrap it around my neck for ideological reasons.

In addition, Corn actually wrote that I hammered Brian Williams when everyone knows I went out of my way on Kimmel and The Factor to be compassionate to the man! Corn must think the folks are as dumb as he is. The whole scandal reminds me of another guy who got completely away with it.

That man is Al Franken, who accused me of faking my working class upbringing. He actually said in public many times I was not raised in Levittown. He ran around telling that to the media, who gleefully printed his words. The despicable Franken, perhaps the biggest liar I have ever known, wouldn't even retract it when I produced the deed to my parent's house, which says Levittown.

But you, Al, a dishonest smear merchant, wouldn't retract your false story. And I'm sure Corn won't either. And what happened to Al Franken? He was elected a senator from Minnesota.
Comment from Steve: And nothing O'Reilly said disproves what Corn and others reported, it's not about if O'Reilly was there, which nobody denies, it's about him saying he was in the war zone, then saying he never said it, when there are tapes of him saying it and transcripts. O'Reilly is spinning the story to make Corn look bad, when he is the one who lied about being in the war zone. Look at the evidence and judge for yourself, O'Reilly is lying, he will just never admit it.

Then the two Fox stooges Bernie Goldberg and Geraldo Rivera were on to back O'Reilly up to make it look like he is the honest one and Corn is the lying hack, when it is just the opposite.

Goldberg said this: "The question for me, is whether Mother Jones is using journalism as a weapon to go after an enemy. They could have run these allegations years ago, but they chose to run them after the Brian Williams episode. For a far left journalist, going after O'Reilly is like opening presents under the tree on Christmas morning."

Geraldo said this: "The purge of Brian Williams led directly to this, it was an absolute counterpoint to the Williams scandal. He was destroyed and now they're coming after you to try exactly the same thing."

Comment from Steve: And Geraldo is exactly right, because O'Reilly also lied about being in a war zone and did it many times over the last 30 years, the difference is NBC suspended Williams and he admitted to it, O'Reilly will not and Fox will also never suspend him. O'Reilly is a liar, and that is a proven fact, he has said over and over that he was in a war zone and in combat, and now we know it was all lies.

Earlier this week O'Reilly called on religious leaders of all faiths to do whatever they can to confront the jihad. So the Islamic imam Aslam Abdullah of Las Vegas was on to denounce ISIS.

Abdullah said this: "The jihadists are evil and they should be treated as evil. They are a disgrace to Islam and these are the people who we all should join to fight against. I have been saying this to my congregation for the last several years."

Then Geraldo was on again to discuss a controversy he stirred up when he claimed that rap music has damaged black children far more than racism.

Geraldo said this: "I don't take back any of what I said. There is a lot of good hip-hop and rap music, but a lot of it is self-segregating. I'm an old integrationist, I want kids in the South Bronx to have a shot to make it, but they will never make it if their pants are around their ass or if they're wearing hoodies that hide their faces. It is limiting and self-segregating."

Comment from Steve: Remember this folks, this is the same guy who said if blacks were a hoodie they deserve to get in trouble with the law, so he is basically an idiot who thinks he can tell blacks how to live their lives.

Then Gutfeld and McGuirk were on to talk about a private Dutch company that says it will send people to Mars in about ten years; it will be a one-way trip and they will die on the Red Planet.

Gutfeld said this: "I've been thinking about this, and they should send me, Beyonce, and Scarlett Johansson. We'll be in charge of creating the civilization, so there should be beautiful and hot people on Mars. We don't need ugly Martians, we need beautiful people like myself."

McGuirk said this: "I want Krauthammer to go because he's so intelligent and so witty and so charming that he makes me feel inferior. He makes me feel like I should be interviewed by Jesse Watters."

Comment from Steve: I would say this, can we send O'Reilly, haha.

Then the total waste of time Jesse Watters segment was on, that I do not report on.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: In Praise of Religion. Billy said this: "Spirituality is a beneficial thing for all of us if it's used for self-reflection and the advancement of others."

Comment from Steve: And that is an opinion from Bill O'Reilly, because it has never been proven that prayer does any good, only religious people believe it helps.

Mother Jones Sends Fox Letter of Concern After O'Reilly Kill Zone Comment
By: Steve - February 21, 2015 - 11:00am

Mother Jones put out a report last night about inconsistencies in Bill O'Reilly's war stories that O'Reilly adamantly denounced as total BS. But it's another quote O'Reilly gave last night regarding Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn that spurred the magazine to send a concerned letter to Fox News.

In talking with TVNewser last night, O'Reilly said this: "When they verify what I'm saying, because it's easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone. Where he deserves to be."

Well, Mother Jones was a little alarmed by that and, in a letter sent to Fox and published by Deadline, they said they're concerned about Corn's safety:
We welcome criticism, but calling for our reporter to be in the kill zone crosses a line. Like everyone in media today, we are concerned about the safety of our staff. We'd have hoped that statements with this kind of violent tone would not come from a fellow media professional.
Which is funny, because O'Reilly is not a media professional, he is a partisan right-wing hack of a pretend journalist who is not fair and not balanced and does not have a no spin zone. He is a professional, a professional spin doctor and a professional liar.

They want O'Reilly to renounce and apologize for the remark.

UPDATE -- 4:30 p.m. ET: "It's simply a slang expression," O'Reilly said of the "kill zone" phrase.

David Corn hits back at Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - February 21, 2015 - 10:00am

David Corn, the lead author of a new report alleging that Bill O'Reilly lied about his Falklands War experience, says the Fox News anchor is hiding behind name calling and refusing to account for legitimate discrepancies in his statements.

"To me, the issue here is whether a media figure and journalist like Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a truth teller, can get away without answering questions about specific statements he's made, and hide behind name calling," Corn told the On Media blog on Thursday. "I would encourage anyone else who covers this story to get Bill O'Reilly to answer those quesitons -- if not to me, than to anyone else."

Corn's remarks came immediately after O'Reilly called Corn "a liar" and a "despicable guttersnipe" during an interview with On Media. O'Reilly said that he "never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands" and that Corn's report, for Mother Jones, was "a piece of garbage."

In the report, Corn alleges that O'Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O'Reilly has claimed to have been "in an active war zone" in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.

O'Reilly was present at a public protest in Buenos Aires against the military junta, following the Argentine surrender to England. In Thursday's interview, Corn called this a protest situation that no reasonable person would categorize as a "war zone" experience.

"He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said. "He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."

Corn also told On Media that he gave O'Reilly and Fox News more than nine hours to respond to the issues raised in his report, and that they never responded to him.

"Yesterday I checked in with [Fox News spokesperson] Dana Klinghoffer, and said, 'if I have questions about a personality is it best to direct them to you?' She said yes. So this morning at 8:30 I sent them a detailed list of questions -- a dozen or more questions -- with all the individual quotes and citations that the piece reports. I asked them to explain O'Reilly's comments and to explain contradictions between what he said and the public record. And, to make things easier for Fox News, I added links wherever possible," Corn said.

"I presented all these quotes and assertions that he made at 8:30 a.m. Then I started calling at 9 a.m. to make sure my email had been received," Corn continued. "I called Dana about four times today, left voicemails, and sent her two follow-up emails, asking that she get back to me by 3 p.m. That would give them most of the day to respond, which seemed fair and balanced to me."

"When I had nothing from Dana, I sent [Fox News Executive Vice President] Bill Shine an email alerting him that I'd sent this email to Dana and even said that if they needed more time, I would try to accomodate them. I never heard back from Bill and I never heard back from Dana --- so at about 5:30, I published the piece."

Corn said that O'Reilly's refusal to comment ahead of publication demonstrated that he would rather hide behind name calling than address the allegations in his report.

"Rather than calling anyone a liar or a guttersnipe, he had ample opportunity to deal with the facts of this case. He elected not to, and instead engaged in name calling," Corn said. "He chose not to address the issue, he chose to throw mud.

And I would say that his right to impugn others ought to be diminished until he answers the basic questions about his statements."

O'Reilly Now Wants David Corn Put In A Kill Zone
By: Steve - February 20, 2015 - 11:40am

And why you might ask, for simply telling the truth about O'Reilly's Falklands lie, stay classy Bill.

Bill O'Reilly is now explaining a remark he made to TVNewser Thursday night, in which he says Mother Jones's David Corn belongs "in the kill zone" for his critical piece on the Fox News host. O'Reilly says the phrase "is simply a slang expression."

Yeah, a slang expression that means you want him killed because he dared to report on lies you told, what a guy.

Corn's editors at Mother Jones said the comments crossed the line and emailed Fox News executives seeking an apology. One won't be coming, we hear. Instead, O'Reilly will use his Talking Points Memo on his Friday show to deliver his own commentary on the matter. We hear Bernard Goldberg will also be a guest to discuss the coverage of the coverage.

And what a shocker, no liberals will be on for balance.

FNC released an early copy of O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo, in which he also goes after CNN's Brian Stelter for his coverage of the story:
O'REILLY: At this point. TV coverage has been scant, but CNN tried to exploit the situation because a guy over there named Brian Stelter, is another far left zealot, masquerading as a journalist. CNN can do a lot better than this guy.

Real journalists, knew this story was B-S from the jump.

They knew Corn was trying to take the Brian Williams situation, and wrap it around my neck, for ideological reasons, because he has a history of attacking Fox News.

In addition, Corn actually wrote that I hammered Brian Williams, when everyone knows, I went out of my way on Kimmel and the Factor, to be compassionate to the man.

Corn must think the folks, are as dumb, as he is.
I hear Stelter reached out to Fox News seeking an interview, but that O'Reilly won't grant one. O'Reilly also dug up -- and Fox News released -- an old Telex sent from CBS News in New York to CBS News in Buenos Aires. O'Reilly, then a correspondent for CBS, had been sent to cover the war in the Falkland Islands. He never got to the islands, which was the crux of the Mother Jones piece: that O'Reilly has been trumping up his coverage of the 1982 war.

The problem is O'Reilly knows he is wrong, but he will never admit it, so what he is doing is attacking everyone who says anything about it. That is his strategy, he does this all the time, it's a diversion trick, attack the attack and try to dismiss them as partisan liars.

Except there is one big problem, they have tape and transcripts of O'Reilly saying he was in the war zone, and they also have tape of him then saying he never said it, when he did. So he lies about the lie, then denies he said it, when he did. Then he says people who are reporting it should be put in a war zone to die.

This is what happens when you tell so many lies, you get caught one day, and the honest people admit it and say they are sorry. O'Reilly is not honest, so he spends two days attacking everyone who reports the facts, and in his world, they are all liars and he is the truth teller, even though it has now been proven he lied.

Veteran War Reporters: O'Reilly's Falklands Lies Violate "Journalism 101"
By: Steve - February 20, 2015 - 11:30am

Reports that Bill O'Reilly misled viewers about his reporting from the Falklands War back in 1982 are drawing fire from veteran war correspondents who contend apparent embellishments like O'Reilly's hurt the credibility of all combat journalists.

On Thursday, Mother Jones reported that O'Reilly "repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between England and Argentina. He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could. As he once put it, 'I've been there. That's really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I've seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven't.'"

The magazine went on to note that American journalists were not allowed near the Falkland Islands in that conflict, even citing a CBS News producer who worked on the coverage. The findings follow O'Reilly's criticism of NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who was recently suspended for misleading viewers about his own combat experience.

In comments to Media Matters, war correspondents criticized media figures like O'Reilly for "exaggerating" their experiences.

"I have no patience with journalists exaggerating their role as derring-do types when they're trying to report the news, it's not about us, it's about the news," Don North, a former ABC News and NBC News war correspondent who has covered conflicts from Vietnam to El Salvador, said of O'Reilly.

"I think many journalists, all of us probably, have had some attitude toward perhaps embellishing or writing a more dramatic story, but it's a discipline you've got to watch. It's Journalism 101. You don't exaggerate, you don't lie about it."

"I'm concerned about the damage this is doing to journalists everywhere," Sig Christenson, a founding member of Military Reporters and Editors who has covered Iraq and Afghanistan warfare for the San Antonio Express-News, said about O'Reilly. "When people see these stories and then they are called into question it makes the rest of us look bad. We are at a really critical point in our business and our credibility matters. If I am introduced as someone who was in combat will people even believe it?"

He also slammed O'Reilly for having recently been critical of Brian Williams.

"If (O'Reilly's) misrepresenting himself and criticizing someone else for misrepresenting himself then he's got problems," Christenson said. "If Bill O'Reilly's gone out and done something like that, God help him. I know one thing, it's bad for all of us. We don't need it."

Matt Schofield, a McClatchy national security reporter who has reported from combat in Iraq, said such misleading tales hurt readers and reporters.

"In these sorts of cases, lying about our personal experiences never advances the truth. In fact, anytime we take our focus away from the story and put it upon ourselves, our own adventures, is a disservice to readers and the truth," he said, later adding, "We don't lie. We search for the truth, and our searching may come up short at points, but we try to tell the truth all the time. If we don't have that credibility, we can't expect the trust of those who come to our sites for information. Without that, we've got nothing."

Amy McCullough, president of Military Reporters and Editors, agreed such misrepresentations do "severe damage" to journalistic credibility.

"Anytime a journalist embellishes or exaggerates his or her experience in a war zone, it not only does severe damage to his or her own credibility, but to the credibility of all journalists who actually are risking their lives to tell the story," she said.

She later added, "After more than a decade of war, many reporters, myself included, have found themselves in Iraq or Afghanistan, or some other 'combat zone,' and never really came close to the hot zone. There is nothing wrong with that, but you have to be honest about your experiences.

That's what we do. We tell the truth and this is no different. To do anything else is disrespectful to the service members who spent months and even years away from their families on one deployment after another. It's also disrespectful to journalists who have put themselves in harm's way and witnessed first-hand the atrocities of war."

O'Reilly Busted For Lying About Reporting In A War Zone
By: Steve - February 20, 2015 - 10:30am

So, it turns out the big bad super patriot war reporter has been lying about reporting in war zones, or as he calls it, being in combat. And this is on top of the fact that he went to school in England and took a teaching job to dodge the draft 2 times. Mr. war zone is just a draft dodging liar, who wants to send your kids to die in wars, while not serving himself than lying about being in combat.

Brian Stelter called O'Reilly "the Brian Williams of cable news" in that he has the biggest audience than anybody on cable news, so he is the biggest target, and the most important, in some ways, deserving of scrutiny."

On CNN Lemon, Stelter and commentator Frank Sesno dissected exactly what O'Reilly has said about his wartime experience in the past as well as what he told several online news outlets -- including Mediaite -- Thursday night in response to Mother Jones.

O'Reilly said this about it today, he lied about the lie:

O'Reilly: "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was. I was in Buenos Aires. In Buenos Aires we were in a combat situation after the Argentines surrendered."

Take note that O'Reilly said he NEVER said he was on the Falkland Islands. Now look at exactly what he said about it in the past:

O'REILLY: "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important." He clearly says he was in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, those are his words, from a direct quote.

So in response to getting caught in a lie, he lies about making the claim in the first place. And if Fox were a legitimate news organization, he would get the Brian Williams penalty and be suspended immediately.

Stelter said this: "I do think that among people who are predisposed of being skeptical of Bill O'reilly, it is going to stick."

Sesno, who said he was also covering the Falkland Islands war from Argentina at the time, made it clear, "That wasn't a war zone," and suggested that to describe it as such is misleading.

"When you listen to this piece of tape and what he's saying, listen to the number of times that he is talking about himself, 'I, I, I,'" Sesno continued. "And Brian Williams was doing the same thing -- 'I, I, I' -- this is the admonition to take seriously. We are not the story. The journalists should not be the story. And when we become the story and start talking about 'I' all the time, it's not a very big leap until 'I,' 'we' get in trouble."

As Stelter explained, O'Reilly has handled the accusations against him very differently from Williams, doing a full court press Thursday night to combat the narrative and discredit Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief David Corn as "a despicable human being." Even though it is clear that they are right and O'Reilly was lying.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has "recounted dramatic stories about his own war reporting that don't withstand scrutiny," including claiming that he covered the Falklands Islands warzone from which American reporters were banned, according to a Mother Jones report.

According to the February 19 article:
O'Reilly has repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between England and Argentina.

He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could.

As he once put it, "I've been there. That's really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I've seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven't."
The story goes on to note several instances of O'Reilly claiming -- on television, in his syndicated column, and in his books -- that he reported on the ground from active war zones, including the Falklands.

And now the facts: O'Reilly was a reporter for CBS News at the time and did report from Argentina during the conflict, but several figures at the network told the magazine that no reporter for the network reported from the warzone itself:
American reporters were not on the ground in that war zone. "Nobody got to the war zone during the Falklands war," Susan Zirinsky, a longtime CBS News producer who helped manage the network's coverage of the war from Buenos Aires, tells Mother Jones. She also notes that the military junta kept US reporters from reaching the islands: "You weren't allowed on by the Argentinians. No CBS person got there."

That's how Bob Schieffer, who was CBS News lead correspondent covering the Falklands war, recalls it: "Nobody from CBS got to the Falklands. I came close. We'd been trying to get somebody down there. It was impossible."
The report goes on to note inconsistencies in O'Reilly's claims that he reported from a violent protest in Buenos Aires and a battle zone in El Salvador. And btw, neither Fox or O'Reilly reportedly responded to Mother Jones "multiple" requests for comment on the story.

Washington bureau chief David Corn also pointed out in another recent article that O'Reilly has said he reported from active war zones like the Falklands during his time with CBS News, when in fact no CBS News correspondents reported from the Falkland Islands at the time.

And of course O'Reilly slammed report, calling it "garbage" and Corn a "guttersnipe."

Which is what he does when people report the truth about him, he slams them and attacks them as biased and lying about him. When numerous sources at CBS verify the report and say no reporter was allowed in the war zone.

David Corn responded in an interview with Politico's Dylan Byers, saying this:
"He said he was in the war zone during the Falkland Island conflicts -- the conflict was in the Falkland Islands, it was not in Buenos Aires," Corn said.

"He covered a protest after the war was over in Buenos Aires. I don't think that's a reasonable definiton of a combat situation. If you look up 'combat situation' in the dictionary, it's not 'an ugly protest'."
And btw folks, even if O'Reilly was telling the truth, and it's pretty clear he was not, a journalist covering a war is not serving in combat, as O'Reilly claims. He said he was in combat, when you can only serve in combat if you are in the military and you have a gun shooting at someone.

Same People Who Lied About Iraq In Charge Of Jeb Bush's Foreign Policy
By: Steve - February 20, 2015 - 10:00am

Jeb Bush said he is his own man and wants to distance himself from his brother George, Dick Cheney, and the Iraq War. Then he hires the exact same people his brother had who lied to us about Iraq, so as usual we have a Bush saying one thing and doing the opposite. And btw, this is the same George W. Bush who crashed the economy, the housing market, the banks, wall street, and on and on, do not forget that.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) gave a speech on Wednesday that seeks to distance his foreign policy views from the previous two Bush presidents, saying, according to early excerpts, that while he admires his presidential family members, "I am my own man."

"My views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences," Bush said as he lays out a vision that calls for increased military spending in order to project strength and encourage peace worldwide.

"Having a military that is equal to any threat is not only essential for the commander in chief, it also makes it less likely that we will need to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way," he said. "Because I believe, fundamentally, that weakness invites war, and strength encourages peace."

Translation: If I am elected President I will do just like my brother and start more un-needed and un-justified wars all around the world that will actually make terrorism worse. Just so I can look like a tough guy, even though it causes more problems than it solves.

The remarks come just days after Bush brushed aside questions about his view of President George W. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and as the Florida governor and presumptive GOP frontrunner works to define himself in the early days of the 2016 campaign.

According to Reuters Steve Holland, Bush has tapped a diverse roster of former George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush officials to advise his burgeoning campaign on foreign policy, including key architects of the 2002 invasion of Iraq.

The list of advisers provided to Reuters by a campaign aide includes Paul Wolfowitz and Stephen Hadley, as well as former George W. Bush Homeland Security Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and Bush adviser Meghan O'Sullivan.

Wolfowitz, who served as Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, began advocating an attack on Iraq shortly after the Sep. 11 attacks, established "what amounted to a separate government" to push for war and invited journalists to secret meetings in order to lay out the foundation for his plans.

Wolfowitz established the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon that ignored the conclusions of the intelligence community and fed policy makers and the media discredited claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley famously disregarded warnings from the CIA and then-FBI director George Tenet and included references to Iraq's pursuit of uranium in Bush's speeches, a claim that proved to be false. Hadley later apologized for leaving the now-infamous phrase in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and was promoted to become the president's National Security Adviser.

Meghan O'Sullivan was as a top adviser to L. Paul Bremer -- the U.S. viceroy in charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority that is blamed for mismanaging the occupation of Iraq immediately following the American invasion -- and is credited with developing the security agreements and early transfer of sovereignty negotiations between the United States and Iraq. She also served as special assistant to George W. Bush from 2004 to 2007.

Jeb Bush's reliance on former Iraq war architects is not surprising, as it reflect his previous support for his brother's Iraqi policy -- endorsements the former governor is now downplaying as he prepares to officially enter the race.

In 2003, for instance, Jeb Bush explained to Florida reporters that "in his heart, I know George W. Bush is doing what he thinks is right, and I concur with him."

Ten years later, he told an NBC reporter that "history will be kind to my brother [on Iraq] the further out you get from this and the more people compare his tenure to what's going on now."

And in a joint CNN interview with George in 2010, Jeb said, "I have never disagreed with [George W. Bush]...til death do us part."

In fact, Jeb Bush's critique of Obama as "inconsistent and indecisive" -- a president who rejects and devalues America's military might -- even echoes his brother's 2000 campaign rhetoric against the Clinton administration.

"Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down," the former president Bush said as he accepted the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. "But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence."

George W. Bush promised to restore America's military might, a campaign platform his brother Jeb -- and his foreign policy advisers -- are embracing some 15 years later.

The Wednesday 2-18-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 19, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Judeo-Christian philosophy vs. the Jihad. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We received thousands of letters from clerics all over the USA after our discussion last night about the Holy War. And on this Ash Wednesday, it's appropriate to define the worldwide conflict between Muslim fanatics and nearly everybody else. President Obama is a reluctant warrior, not willing to define the jihadist atrocities as anything other than criminal actions.

The president does not even use the words Islamic terrorism for fear of offending good Muslims around the world. It is important to understand that ISIS and al Qaeda want a worldwide war against the USA and infidels in general. They want us to attack them on the ground, they believe such a military campaign would mobilize millions of Muslims into the final worldwide confrontation - the long-predicted ultimate holy war.

That must be understood when developing a plan to defeat these Muslim killers. Any honest person has to know that millions of Muslims accept Sharia law and the human rights violations that come along with it. Those Muslims have to be dealt with when they start murdering men, women, and children as they are doing now. In our Judeo-Christian nation, murder is the worst crime.

But in some parts of the Muslim world, murder is justified if you are a non-believer. The fanatics who believe that are on the march and President Obama's reaction is confused to say the least. Today President Obama spoke at a summit on countering violent extremism. Once again, the summit was long on rhetoric, short on proposed action.

President Obama said, 'We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.' That's true, the Holy War has been launched by those who misuse the Islamic faith. But again, there are millions of them and they are acting in the name of a deity, they are motivated to impose a barbaric religion. President Obama is flat out wrong in not describing the terrorist threat accurately.

Talking Points believes that Americans of faith and good will must demand that our government begin to take the Holy War seriously. That means developing an aggressive strategy to stop groups from slaughtering people. Stop them, not contain them. President Obama and Congress have been timid, unwilling to define what everybody knows is true.

A violent strain of Islam is on the march, occupying vast amounts of land, executing and terrorizing pretty much at will. The civilized world needs to band together to eliminate this threat. And if the politicians won't do it, the clergy must lead the way. Once again, I ask all religious leaders, including Muslim imams, to address the issue with their congregations this week. Once the American people rise up, President Obama will be forced to take the Holy War seriously.
Comment from Steve: Wow, O'Reilly is a nut. To begin with, it is not a holy war. It's just some muslims who are terrorists, and the day the American people rise up to do something a biased and lame cable tv news host calls for is the day hell freezes over. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you have 2 to 3 million viewers, and they are all 75 year old retired Republicans, they are not going to rise up to do anything, except maybe go to the bathroom or get something to eat.

Then O'Reilly called for American clerics of all faiths to get involved in confronting the jihadists. Two religious scholars, Rabbi Marvin Hier and Sally Vance Trembath, were on with their reaction.

Trembath said this: "I certainly think religious leaders should exercise their voice, but I do want to caution that these terrorists are not involved in a religion. It's a cult of death that has more to do with politics than any kind of faith claims."

Hier said this: "These are not random acts. It's true that a majority of the world's Muslims are opposed to jihad, but a whopping minority are in favor of jihad. This is a war against Islamic fundamentalism, and not mentioning the name does a disservice to the battle. We have to fight evil, that is what is required at this moment in history."

Then Republican Andrea Tantaros and Democrat Jessica Ehrlich analyzed the current state of the race to succeed President Obama.

Tantaros said this: "Hillary Clinton has a big advantage, but she hasn't really opened her mouth yet. The minute she starts to campaign, her numbers will start to tank. She knows that and that's why she's in hiding."

Ehrlich said this: "She's polling really well with women and independents, and people see her as looking to the future. She's a person of substance."

Comment from Steve: Earth to right-wing idiots, unless the economy tanks, the stock market crashes, and gas goes back to $4.00 a gallon, Hillary is going to crush whoever the Republicans run against her because their candidates are all far-right loons.

Then two right-wing stooges from Fox were on once again to argue for a flat-tax, that will never ever happen. Eric Shawn & Shannon Bream are Advocates of a flat tax, and claim that it will generate greater economic activity and more revenue.

Bream said this: "People who support this, want everybody to pay the same percentage of their income. One study says a flat tax of 20% would mean more money for the government, but the people against this say the money will come from the poor and middle class."

Shawn turned to New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio wants schools to issue fewer suspensions. "There are 1.1 million kids in the city schools and last year there were 53,000 suspensions, so about 5% of kids are getting suspended. The mayor thinks that being suspended is a bad thing because it can lead you to drop out."

Comment from Steve: It will never happen, and a flat tax greatly benefits the wealthy, because they will game the system, so a flat tax is a dream and it is a waste of time to even talk about it. Only the rich want it, or nobody would ever even discuss it.

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk more about ISIS, who burned 45 civilians to death this past weekend in Iraq.

MacCallum said this: "This is a horrific report, and the latest out of the Pentagon is that they have the video and they're attempting to verify it. With the beheadings of Americans and the burning of the Jordanian pilot, the videos were released two weeks to a month after the event happened."

Comment from Steve: This is ridiculous, remember when Bush was in office and the so-called liberal media reported on every single terrorist attack all around the world to make Bush look bad. O'Reilly said reporting it was hurting America and called them un-American traitors. Now Fox is doing the very same thing to Obama, including O'Reilly, who does it every night, but now somehow it is ok for O'Reilly and Fox to do it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again a total waste of time and not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a movie based on one of his stupid books.

Obama Poll Information The Biased Bill O'Reilly Is Not Telling You About
By: Steve - February 19, 2015 - 10:00am

As I already knew and reported here in my blog, Intense Republican Hate Is Skewing The Obama Job Approval Polls. And O'Reilly also knows this information, but he never reports it, because he hates Obama and he does not want you to know the unbiased truth.

A Pew examination of presidential poll numbers revealed that intense Republican hatred of President Obama weighs down his job approval numbers.

From Pew Research:
PEW: Views of the president among members of the opposing party have become steadily more negative over time. Our 2014 report on political polarization documented this dramatic growth in partisan divisions over views of presidential job performance.

Over the course of Obama's presidency, his average approval rating among Democrats has been 81%, compared with just 14% among Republicans.

During Eisenhower's two terms, from 1953-1960, an average of 49% of Democrats said they approved of the job the Republican president was doing in office.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, an average of 31% of Democrats approved of his job performance.

And just over a quarter (27%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of Clinton between 1993 and 2000.

But the two most recent presidents (George W. Bush and Barack Obama) have not received even this minimal level of support.
These numbers confirm that Republican Obama hate is throwing off the polls.

President Obama is not as unpopular with the country at large as he is with Republicans. Obama's job approval ratings are being weighed down by the fact that he gets nearly half the support from Republicans that Bill Clinton did.

The idea that Republicans impeached Clinton and tried to throw him out of office, but still got more of their support than President Obama is a real shocker. And I personally believe the abnormally low level of support by Republicans is simply because Obama is a black man, and it is a fact that there are a lot of racists in the Republican party, so that would explain it.

Even if one tries to account for the increased level of polarization in politics by assigning the president 20% approval rating from Republicans, the difference in Obama's approval rating would be dramatic. The president would go from a 48%-50% approval rating to something more in the neighborhood of 54%-56%.

The Republican hatred of Obama is so intense that it is difficult for pollsters to get an accurate reading on the president's true level of popularity. The extreme intensity of the opposition prohibits a good read on where the president stands in the court of public opinion, but it does illustrate the degree to which our national politics has become polarized.

Insane Republican hatred of Obama is making it impossible to accurately compare polls. This means that the Obama polling is more accurately measuring polarization than the president's job performance.

In other words, if Republicans did not hate Obama so much, and just 20% of them approved of the job he is doing his approval rating would be well over 50% and close to 60%, and O'Reilly will not tell you this information, because he is a biased partisan right-wing hack.

The Tuesday 2-17-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 18, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Holy War Begins. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The on-camera beheadings of 21 Christian workers from Egypt by ISIS jihadists in Libya has shocked an apathetic world, which has largely accepted barbaric behavior by militant Muslims. The White House issued a press release condemning the atrocities but would not call the victims Christian, even though the killers openly said they were murdered because of their faith.

President Obama's unwillingness to engage the ISIS savages on the ground is becoming a serious story that may define his entire presidency if the terror group continues its expansion and the daily horrors that follow. This week there will be some meetings at the White House about the growing terror threat, and we can expect a lot of speeches.

Talking Points understands that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt America's ability to confront evil around the world. President Obama and many citizens do not have the heart for another global conflict after the intense loss of blood and treasure since the attack on 9-11. But the utter brutality that faces the world today has to be confronted and somebody has to lead that effort. There is only one leader with the cachet to lead the fight, that reluctant warrior Barack Obama.

This is now a so-called Holy War between radical jihadists and all others, including peaceful Muslims. The terror savages will kill anyone at any time. What is especially frightening is the continuing nonsense we see from Washington: State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said we must 'go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups.' Ms. Harf is telling the ISIS killers and the world that organized opposition cannot defeat the terror group militarily.

Nonsense. If the world unites against the jihad, it will be defeated. But again, there is no effort to do that and so the atrocities continue. History will show that President Obama made an enormous mistake by failing to leave a residual force behind in Iraq that could have quickly mobilized against the ISIS savages when they began infiltrating that country.

As we know, the president was slow in recognizing the threat, initially labeling ISIS the JV, junior varsity. On the president's watch the following countries have become terrorist safe-havens: Syria, Iraq, northern Pakistan, eastern Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, Iran, parts of Algeria and parts of Afghanistan. That's quite a resume. We in America have been fortunate that our intelligence agencies and the FBI, as well as local police, have prevented a big terror attack like 9-11.

Instead, we and other countries continue to absorb small blows from fanatical individuals. But with ISIS expanding and recruiting thousands of fanatical killers from all over the world, no one is safe. Therefore it is imperative that President Obama stop living in a theoretical, even fictional world. America is not able to fix economies in Third World nations, we are not able to force Islamic despots to respect human rights, we are not able to convince the Iranian mullahs to stop supporting terrorists and to cease with the nukes.

We simply cannot do those things, and to waste time throwing them out as possible solutions to dismantling the jihad is dangerous to the American people. The Holy War is here and it seems the president of the United States will be the last one to acknowledge it.
Comment from Steve: Now think about this, those are all opinions from the biased Bill O'Reilly who hates Obama and the Democrats, maybe half of what he said is true and the other half is right-wing spin, so almost none of it is actually true.

Then the evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress and Catholic priest Gerald Murray were on to discuss it. And of course they are both Obama haters, so it was not a fair and balanced debate.

Jeffress said this: "This president sees radical Islam as a tiny minority, but these Islamists won't rest until they have exterminated every Christian and Jew from the face of the earth. They are coming after every one of us if we don't react now! I am calling on Christians everywhere to demand that this president do everything necessary, including boots on the ground."

Murray said this: "He will continue to say that we have a duty to protect the innocent. The Pope is saying that God does not want this kind of murderous behavior, but it's up to political leaders like our president to get out and fight this. The United States is the moral leader of the world, but where is the moral leadership?"

Then Monica Crowley & Kirsten Powers were on to talk about the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder who took a parting shot at Fox News, denouncing FNC for focusing on Islamic terrorism.

Powers said this: "The disagreement I have with you and Monica, is that I don't think President Obama doesn't understand the threat, nor do I think he doesn't take the threat seriously. But I agree that President Obama won't talk about the persecution of Christians."

Crowley said this: "We are facing a violent global religious movement. This is World War III and we are in it whether we like it or not. The question is whether we fight it now or do we wait until it winds up being a much bigger cataclysm?"

Comment from Steve: What Holder said is that since Obamacare is working, the economy is doing good, the stock market is setting record highs, and jobs are back, etc. Fox only talks about terrorism, and if they did not talk about terrorism they would have nothing to talk about. Which is 100% true, but O'Reilly has a problem with it because Holder called them out for their bias.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to discuss the ruling on a lawsuit brought by 26 states, a federal judge has decreed that President Obama's executive order on immigration exceeds his constitutional authority; the administration will appeal the decision. And what they did not report is that the judge is a Republican appointed by Bush.

Guilfoyle said this: "The judge has granted a preliminary injunction, that is stopping President Obama in his tracks from issuing this order. The standard is whether the lawsuit by the states would be likely to succeed."

Wiehl turned to the trial of Eddie Ray Routh, who is accused of killing of "American Sniper" Chris Kyle, saying this: "He will be convicted. "There are lots of people with PTSD who don't go around killing people, and the only legal issue is whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the killing."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about a student columnist at Brown University who is urging the school to ban ROTC from the Ivy League campus.

Stossel said this: "He wrote that ROTC is guilty of 'state-sanctioned violence,' and he called the cadets 'criminals.' He's a silly lefty, but there's a lot of that at Brown. Colleges now talk about 'micro-aggressions.' Any white man who says anything that hurts somebody is committing a 'micro-aggression' because we are the 'overclass.'"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting some website he claims is honest, so you know it has a right-wing bias and I will not mention it.

Boehner Admits He Invited Netanyahu To Stab Obama In The Back
By: Steve - February 18, 2015 - 10:00am

And we should remember O'Reilly supported it and said it was no big deal, even though it had never been done before and was a slap in the face to the President. But when Bush was in office and the Democrats did anything to make Bush look bad, O'Reilly reported it and slammed them for being disrespectful to the President and even said it was un-American.

House Speaker John Boehner actually committed a crime when he invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress, and now he is freely admitting that he not only did so behind President Obama's back, he did so to sabotage delicate peace talks with Iran.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Boehner confessed that he knew the White House would not appreciate a foreign leader being brought in to wreck diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, so he did so in secret to prevent President Obama from nixing the GOP plan to undermine him.

Of course, Boehner denied that he did anything wrong despite the fact that there is a 1799 law still on books known as the Logan Act which forbids unauthorized US citizens from negotiating with foreign leaders. Only the executive branch has that authority.

The Monday 2-16-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 17, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The JV Doing Some Serious Damage. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Over the weekend, ISIS savages in Libya beheaded 21 Christian migrant workers on camera. The barbarity of that is hard to believe. These men were simply workers who traveled from Egypt to Libya to make some money for their families. But they were Coptic Christians and so the jihadists executed them for their religious beliefs.

Everybody in Washington knows that President Obama is not confronting the jihad in an aggressive way, preferring to play word games. Because of that the jihadists are emboldened - they know they can expand their operations with little opposition.

Muslim fanatics are running wild, yet the world stands by and allows it to happen. It's not just President Obama that is failing to confront evil; it's just about every nation in the world. This fable about a 60-country coalition united against ISIS is insulting. What are these nations doing? Nothing!
Comment from Steve: All that is right-wing propaganda, Obama and the world are doing something, just not what O'Reilly wants them to do, so he lies that they are doing nothing.

Then the biased Obama hating Republican Charles Krauthammer was on, with no Democratic guest for balance, Krauthammer commented that Obama has openly said the terrorism threat is overhyped and a media phenomenon, and this is evidence his heart isn't in the fight. According to Krauthammer, Obama thinks ISIS is something to be "managed," and he won't be dissuaded.

O'Reilly said he sees the ISIS threat growing, and put forth that there will be a crescendo where the President's forced to do something. Then O'Reilly and Krauthammer both agreed the coalition isn't getting the job done against ISIS.

By going to Congress to authorize action against ISIS, Krauthammer accused the President of merely trying to give the impression of action. "It's just a way to distract attention from the fact that he's not willing to make this a serious campaign."

Comment from Steve: And that is the biased opinion from the Republican Krauthammer, only other Republicans like O'Reilly agree with him, and of course we did not get to see a counterpoint because O'Reilly did a biased one sided segment on it with only a Republican guest.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk Presidential politics, and as usual there was no Democratic guest on for balance, so it was just another one sided biased segment with no balance and all right-wing spin.

Hillary Clinton has started putting together her presidential campaign staff. John Podesta, is one of her first hires. Rove said Podesta is tough, committed, hard-nosed, energetic, and determined to move things in a certain direction.

O'Reilyl wondered why Hillary Clinton would want him because she can't run left of Obama, but Rove relayed that Podesta was hired primarily in an effort to get control of the Clinton machine.

O'Reilly asked if Hillary was as liberal as Obama, and Rove ascertained that she was not, but predicted what a major problem of her campaign will be: she's going to look like she's running for Obama's third term because she was a member of his administration.

Comment from Steve: Rove is an idiot, and I do not believe a word he says, remember in the 2012 election he was wrong on everything and had a meltdown on-air when all the predictions he made were wrong. He is a partisan political hack who says what he wants to happen, not what will happen, and 99% of his commentary is right-wing propaganda. And yet, O'Reilly puts him on alone as a political analyst, even though he is nothing but a far-right stooge.

Then Juan Williams & Mary K. Ham were on to talk more about Jon Stewart, who O'Reilly seems to be obsessed with. Daily Show host Jon Stewart is stepping down after 16 years at the show. O'Reilly said the media seems sad to see him go, and asked why? He wanted to know why do they adore Stewart so much?

Then O'Reilly joked that if he gets run over by a bus, the media will surely give him the same treatment honoring his 19 years on the job as it's currently giving Stewart.

Williams told O'Reilly that Stewart's ratings dwarf his own, but claimed Stewart's impact goes beyond the number of people who watch his show every night.

O'Reilly admitted Jon Stewart is talented, but Ham sees the praise as overblown, considering he's just a liberal comedian who did a great show. To her, it's bizarre to see such serious praise coming from journalists. O'Reilly then claimed that it proves the national press is overwhelmingly liberal.

Comment from Steve: To begin with, the reason the people and the media like Jon Stewart and are sad to see him go is because he was funny and he did a good show. If O'Reilly got hit by a bus people would throw a party, because he is a jerk and a biased hack who pretends to be a journalist.

Jon Stewart is a comedian who does a fake news show where he tells the truth about the media is a funny way. And he nailed Fox and O'Reilly for their bias and hypocrisy, that is why they do not like him. Everyone else like Stewart, only O'Reilly and Republicans hate him.

Williams brought up ratings, which is insane, because nobody cares and there is no comparison, it's like comparing apples to oranges. And btw, O'Reilly only gets about double the ratings Stewart does, and sometimes less. But a lot of people watch Jon Stewart on the internet and on youtube, and that is not counted in the ratings. And nobody cares. Ratings are a worthless comparison, because one guy is on a news network and a so-called journalist, and the other is on a comedy channel and a comedian, there is no comparison.

And for O'Reilly to say it proves the media has a liberal bias is just insane and laughable. O'Reilly even praised him, so is he part of the liberal media, of course not. Even the Republican idiot Don Imus loved Jon Stewart, because he is funny and does a good show, so does that prove Imus is a liberal, of course not. Because people in the media liked Jon Stewart in no way proves the media has a liberal bias, it's just ridiculous.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio who announced an overhaul of the city's school disciplinary code. This could have a major effect on how kids behave in school and what the punishments may be.

Kelly explained that the New York Civil Liberties Union pressured Mayor de Blasio to make it more difficult for teachers to suspend children. Under the new policy, the NYPD can no longer handcuff kids K-5 unless absolutely necessary, which according to Kelly, is a policy that makes sense. However, now if you try to suspend a kid for insubordination or profanity, you'll have to go before a board and persuade them that suspension is the right course of action.

Then O'Reilly pointed out only 15% of kids in NYC public schools are white, and he believes the primary reason parents send them to private school instead is because there's no discipline in the public school system.

Comment from Steve: That is just idiotic, they send them to private schools because they are wealthy and they want their spolied kids to have a private school education on their resume.

Kelly gave her opinion on the rationale behind the new policy, which is that school administrators don't want to promote the school-to-prison pipeline by over-punishing kids. But O'Reilly countered this is going to lead to a Lord of the Flies environment because you can't control your class if a kid is saying "f you" all day long.

Then the moron Jesse Watters was on, he went to a beach in Malibu to quiz people (mostly half naked girls) on American presidents, which I will not report on because it was stupid and a total waste of time for a so-called hard news show.

And finally, there was no tip of the day, which is great because they are worthless anyway.

New Presidential Ranking Prove O'Reilly Wrong About Obama
By: Steve - February 17, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends try to say Obama is the worst President ever, which is 100% propaganda and their personal opinions. Because the actual ranking show a whole different story, and Obama is ranked 18th, far ahead of George W. Bush.

New presidential rankings by the American Political Science Association have shattered the Republican claim that President Obama is the worst president in history.

From the APSA:
The most highly ranked presidents contained many of the usual suspects. Abraham Lincoln was rated the greatest president, with an average score of 95 out of 100, followed by George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The rest in the top 10 were Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson.

How does Barack Obama rate?

Obama ranks 18th overall and, among the modern presidents (those since FDR), he is in the middle of the pack.

He ranks behind not only Clinton and Eisenhower but also Reagan, Johnson, Kennedy, and George H.W. Bush. Obama ranks ahead of Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush (who was ranked 35 overall).
Historians and experts caution that is nearly impossible to rate a president while they are still in office. It is difficult to evaluate Obama. The president's legacy will be tied to the Affordable Care Act. If the law stays in place and continues to grow, the president's legacy will be helped.

Obama's actions on gay marriage, immigration, and climate change will also shape his legacy in a positive way.

The economy is also going to shape President Obama's legacy. If the economy continues to grow rapidly over the next two years, Obama could become a top ten president. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the economy robustly expands, and history rewards this president for bringing the nation out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

What is clear is that the garbage from Republicans that Obama is the worst president ever is not true. Obama is not even close to being the worst president. The numbers, the facts, and experts all agree that Bill O'Reilly and his Republican friends are wrong about Obama.

Fox's Erickson Rallies Supporters Behind Anti-Gay Discrimination Laws
By: Steve - February 16, 2015 - 10:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, as he denies Republicans or anyone at Fox are anti-gay.

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson asked his supporters to lobby for discriminatory, anti-gay "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" that a Fox colleague denounced as "homosexual Jim Crow Laws."

In a February 12th email to "Erick's Conservative Activist List" titled "The Facts" and a February 13th blog post on RedState.com, Erickson asked his supporters to petition for the expansion of so-called state "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" (RFRAs) - laws that would give individuals and businesses a broad license to discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds:
An absolute majority of Americans support religious exceptions relating to providing goods and services to gay marriage. But gay rights advocates oppose that. The Supreme Court will undoubtedly impose gay marriage on the nation by June.

Our state legislature needs to pass RFRA now to protect people of faith.

Call your state legislators and demand religious freedom protections for conscientious objectors to the culture wars.
Erickson supported his call for RFRAs by citing a number of anti-gay horror stories popularized by Fox News - all cases where a business violated state non-discrimination laws by refusing to serve gay customers.

Religious liberty scholars, southern faith leaders, and some conservative lawmakers and business owners have all publicly denounced RFRAs over concerns that they would create a blank check for anti-gay discrimination.

Even Erickson's colleagues at Fox have noted how extreme and discriminatory these kinds of RFRAs would be. Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers strongly condemned a RFRA bill in Kansas last year, taking issue with those who support the "homosexual Jim Crow Laws" that justify anti-LGBT bigotry in the name of Christianity.

Even Megyn Kelly, a consistent enabler of homophobia at Fox, labeled Arizona's controversial license-to-discriminate bill as "potentially dangerous."

Erickson has a history of cozying up with the anti-LGBT organizations pushing for these discriminatory RFRA bills, including the extremist Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a group CNN found to be behind the "genetic code" of the RFRA bills popping up across the country.

ADF's previous work on license-to-discriminate legislation so inspired Erickson that he begged readers of his RedState.com blog to donate money to the group.

The facts show he is anti-gay, and yet Fox News still has him on the payroll and they allow his homophobia. And this is coming from the very same people who scream about freedom every day. America is supposed to be a free country with equal rights for all, but if you discriminate against gays it is not a free country for them.

These very same people also cite the Constitution, while violating it every day.

Fox Special Will Explain Why Global Warming Not Stopping The Snow
By: Steve - February 15, 2015 - 11:30am

Which is just idiotic, because the amount of snow we get has no link to if there is global warming or not. In fact, the more snow we get is known as a measure that shows global warming is getting worse. People who think because we get a lot of snow (in winter) are as dumb as the people that used to think the earth was flat.

And for Fox to do a special like this proves beyond a doubt that they are nothing but a biased right-wing joke of a pretend news network. The only people who believe a lot of snow proves global warming is not real are clueless and uninformed Republicans.

A promo for a Fox News Saturday show called "The Cost of Freedom" that ran during The Kelly File Thursday night actually included this line in its voiceover: "Why global warming isn't stopping the snow falling."

While those who deny the existence of man-made climate change have often cited winter weather as their irrefutable proof, there is no scientific evidence that a warming climate equals less snow in the winter. In fact, warmer ocean temperatures means more evaporation, which in turn can produce heavier snowfalls.

Fox News does not report scientific facts, instead they report political propaganda to keep their misinformed viewers uninformed about the facts. In any other country in the world if you said to someone that a lot of snow in winter means global warming is not real, they would laugh in your face and think you are an idiot.

But on Fox they report it as if it is true, when they know it is not true, they report a known lie because most of their viewers believe it. This is not honest news reporting, it's biased GOP propaganda, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, even though he claims to believe in climate change.

If O'Reilly were an honest journalist he would kill this right-wing myth, but he don't, because he is also a biased Republican who does not want you to know the truth. And he does it while claiming to be an honest journalist that you should watch for the truth.

Senator Sanders Wants To Know Why Big Corporations Pay No Taxes
By: Steve - February 15, 2015 - 10:30am

Notice that Bill O'Reilly never asks this question, and that is because he is a corporate right-wing stooge that does not care these corporations are not paying any taxes.

If Senate Republicans are serious about reducing the deficit and the national debt, "I hope they will join us in making sure that some of the largest, most profitable corporations pay their fair share in taxes," Sen. Bernie Sanders said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Tuesday.

"Each and every year, we lose $100 billion in revenue because large corporations and the wealthy are stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other offshore tax havens. That has got to stop," Sanders said.

He cited examples of some of the most profitable corporations in America which in some years paid no federal income taxes. General Electric made nearly $34 billion in profits in the United States from 2008 through 2013 but paid no federal income taxes.

Instead, GE received a tax rebate of nearly $3 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Verizon made more than $42.5 billion in U.S. profits during the same period, paid no federal income taxes and got $732 million from the IRS. And in 2013, Citigroup made $6.4 billion in profits, paid no federal income taxes and claimed a $260 million rebate from the IRS.

"Instead of cutting programs for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, we have got to make sure that the largest, most profitable corporations pay their fair share in taxes."

The panel heard testimony from Shaun Donovan, President Barack Obama's budget director. In an exchange with Sen. Sanders, Donovan outlined the White House plan to close corporate tax loopholes.

"Many of my Republican colleagues believe that what is best for the country in the future is basically to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut," Sanders said.

"Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition etc. etc. others of us don't think that is what is best for working families in this country."

O'Reilly & Fox Stooge Caught Lying About Obama And Staples
By: Steve - February 14, 2015 - 11:30am

Here is a perfect example of right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. Instead of doing a fair and balanced report on the Obama/Staples/Obamacare story, O'Reilly did a one sided biased and dishonest report on it Friday night. He misreported the facts and had only one guest on to discuss it, and that one guest was a biased right-wing hack who works for Fox News.

Now remember this, O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan fair and balanced Independent with a no spin zone, those are his own words, he says it all the time and cries foul when someone says he has a right-wing bias. He even slams them and says they do not watch his show and have no idea what they are talking about. But I watch his show pretty much every night, and have for about 15 years now, and I am telling you it is a fact that O'Reilly is a liar, and that he is nothing but a biased and partisan right-wing hack.

Segments like this on his very own show prove it, there is no doubt. Here is how O'Reilly reported it. Here is the transcript from his website:

Impact Segment

Attacking Staples

President Obama has singled out Staples for allegedly not hiring full-time workers in order to avoid providing them with health insurance under ObamaCare rules.

The Factor examined that claim with Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis, she said this: "He's absolutely wrong on the facts of this story. First of all, Staples has the same number of part-time workers that they had back in 2008. Most importantly, they do provide insurance for their part-time workers. They provide health insurance for same-sex spouses, domestic partners, and part-time employees. The president was wrong and intellectually lazy and he picked on the wrong company."

------------------------------

Notice the bias, no guest to give an opposing view, nobody from Buzzfeed (who did the reporting) no guest from the White House to defend Obama, and no guest from the Democratic party to give the other side. This violates every rule of journalism, and it is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.

Now here are all the facts of the story O'Reilly and Francis never reported, and it's a lot:

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama singled out office supply company Staples Inc as undercutting his healthcare reform law and said large corporations should not use the health insurance issue as an excuse for cutting wages, the news website BuzzFeed reported.

"It's one thing when you've got a mom-and-pop store who can't afford to provide paid sick leave or health insurance or minimum wage to workers, but when I hear large corporations that make billions of dollars in profits trying to blame our interest in providing health insurance as an excuse for cutting back workers’ wages, shame on them,” Obama said in an interview with BuzzFeed.

The Affordable Care Act requires companies with more than 50 employees to pay for health insurance for people who work 30 hours a week or more.

Reuters has reported that some businesses are keeping staffing numbers below 50 or cutting the work week to less than 30 hours to avoid providing employee health insurance.

Staples, the No. 1 U.S. office supplies retailer, has told its employees not to work more than 25 hours per week, according to a Buzzfeed report on Monday.

Staples Chief Executive Officer Ronald Sargent brought home $10.8 million in total compensation in 2013. The company reported net profit of $620.1 million through Feb. 1, 2014. "There is no reason for an employer who is not currently providing health care to their workers to discourage them from either getting health insurance on the job or being able to avail themselves of the Affordable Care Act,” Obama said in the interview Tuesday.

Now get this, we all know the deal here, some of these big corporations are doing this, and that is a fact. O'Reilly and the right deny it because they are all corporate stooges who are in the back pocket of the big corporations and defend everything they do.

Buzzfeed -- Staples Threatens To Fire Staff For Working More Than 25 Hours A Week

In 2015, an Affordable Care Act provision requiring large employers to offer health insurance to staff working more than 30 hours a week kicked into effect. Now, some part-time staff at Staples say management has become extra vigilant about limiting their hours.

They even sent out a memo telling them not to work more than 25 hours or they will be punished, a copy of the memo is even posted on the Buzzfeed website, and neither O'Reilly or Francis ever said a word about it. Francis even said nothing has changed at Staples since 2008, which is a flat out lie. And btw, Buzzfeed actually interviewed people who work at Staples and named them in their story, O'Reilly and Francis never interviewed anyone from Staples, they just lied about it all to slam Obama because they are partisan hacks who hate him.

Buzzfeed -- Last year Alice, 19, typically clocked anywhere from 25 hours to 40 hours a week at the Staples store where she works as a part-time staffer. The hours were great, she says, because she loves her co-workers and uses the job to help support her family.

She started working at Staples around the same time the office-supply chain was making headlines by forbidding its part-time employees from working more than 25 hours a week. The rules, rolled out in the lead-up to the Affordable Care Act, were seen by many staff members as an effort by the company to avoid paying benefits to "full-time" employees -- classified under the law as anyone working more than 30 hours a week.

But for most of 2014, the rules didn't really affect Alice or her colleagues, who regularly exceeded the threshold and were still considered part-time. That all changed this year, though, as the employer mandate kicked in; if Staples doesn't pay benefits for people working more than 30 hours a week, it could face up to $3,000 in penalties per person.

Now, Alice is working far fewer hours -- and if she clocks above 25, she may be fired. The Staples memo says that and backs up the reporting from Buzzfeed. Proving O'Reilly and Francis were both lying in their reporting Friday night.

Buzzfeed -- 1-9-15 -- Staples managers are now forbidden to schedule part-time associates for more than 25 hours a week, according to a Dec. 6 memo. A petition against the move is circulating saying the decision is based on the Affordable Care Act.

A copy of this memo is also posted on the Buzzfeed website for everyone to see, and yet, neither O'Reilly or Francis mentioned it or showed it in their segment, in their world there was no memo's. It tells the managers that nobody is to work more than 25 hours a week.

Staples is limiting the number of hours part-time associates can work to 25 hours a week, a move that has drawn the ire of disgruntled workers who claim it is a way to skirt impending rules requiring companies to provide health insurance for full-time employees or face a steep penalty.

According to an early December internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed that Staples sent to its store managers, the company described the decision to curb hours for part-time associates starting with the week ended Jan. 4 as "an effort to maximize scheduling flexibility."

Then they put out "talking points" for discussing the change with part-time employees who regularly worked above the new limit -- a brief script that that spells out three moments for the manager to "pause and check for understanding."

Staples also noted in the memo that managers might need to hire more part-time workers to compensate for the reduction in hours.

Angry associates have taken to social media to point out that a major provision of the law, which takes effect next year, will count people working at least 30 hours a week as full-time employees. Companies of 50 people or more that don't provide affordable healthcare to full-time workers will be forced to pay a penalty of up to $3,000 per person.

One anonymous Staples employee, who says she worked 30 to 35 hour weeks for nine years, started a Change.org petition last month that's garnered more than 160,000 signatures, asking the retailer to refrain from limiting part-time shifts because she and others need the money from the extra hours.

The author of the Change.org petition, who didn't identify herself for fear of losing her job, believes Staples could be pressured to eliminate its new policy and give hours back to part-time workers.

Staples Facebook page has been slammed with complaints around the 25-hour rule, which comes at an inopportune time given the chain just launched a rebranding campaign on Jan. 2. Protestors are using the hashtags associated with Staples new tagline and logo -- #MakeMoreHappen and #WhatTheL -- to call the retailer out for the cuts.

And now you have ALL the facts in the story, not the biased one sided garbage O'Reilly and Francis put out. President Obama was exactly right, and yet, Bill O'Reilly and Melissa Francis did a biased one sided dishonest segment on the story that was full of lies to make Obama look bad. Which is a total violation of the rules and ethics of journalism, while at the same time saying the founding fathers would be ashmed of the media.

When O'Reilly and Fox are the worst and most dishonest people in the media, and if the founding fathers were alive today they would most likely not even allow O'Reilly or Fox to have a news show on the air because of the total right-wing bias.

The Friday 2-13-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 14, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Hate Crime Against Muslims in North Carolina? The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Tuesday in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, three Muslim students were murdered, shot dead. Police have arrested 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks. He is charged with three counts of first-degree murder. Investigators say Hicks shot the victims over a parking dispute. The FBI is now looking into possible hate crime violations, but that investigation has just begun.

Hicks is a malcontent, a trouble-maker by all accounts. He is an atheist who has attacked all religions on the net, and has also advocated for gay marriage. Almost immediately after the shooting, the verbal accusations began. MSNBC's Chris Hayes blamed the murders on a 'subtle, persistent anti-Muslim bias,' while a friend of the victims accused Fox News and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal of 'dehumanizing' Muslims.'

That's just vile, but it's standard issue these days. Talking Points grieves for the three murdered young people. They are innocents destroyed by a disturbed individual. Just as all the human beings being destroyed by the jihadists around the world are innocents murdered for absolutely no reason. It is simply revolting that any person would throw around accusations against people who had nothing to do with the murder.

It is long past time for all decent Americans to condemn those who use murder to advance a political agenda or seek vengeance against those with whom they disagree. The FBI will find out if these murders can be classified as hate crimes, just as the agency did in Ferguson, Missouri. But for the haters among us in America, the facts really don't matter. Do they?
Comment from Steve: Listen, I do not know if this was a hate crime or not, and I am sure the FBI will find out, so I will wait until all the facts are in before I make a judgement on it. But I do know this, O'Reilly left out one important fact in the story.

The Father of the victims said the killer had no problems with them until the guy married a muslim woman and she moved in. He was white looking and had white features, and it only became a problem after the muslim looking woman moved in wearing the head gear, etc.

One of the sisters also said it was ridiculous to say it was a parking dispute. The guy also wrote a bunch of racist muslim insults on the internet. This is a big part of the story, and not once did O'Reilly mention it, while saying it was vile to call it a hate crime. It's called leaving out some main facts to back up your spin on it.

Then conservative columnist Guy Benson and Washington Post reporter Kevin Sullivan were on to discuss it.

Sullivan said this: "There is absolutely no proof yet that this is a hate crime, but the family suspects that something is going on. The victim's dad said his daughter told him she had had several run-ins with Mr. Hicks and it seemed clear to her that her religion was a problem for him."

Benson said this: "We don't know what happened, but this man is clearly an unstable and angry person who had particular contempt for people of faith, especially Christians. This could well have been him snapping over a long-simmering parking dispute, but people are jumping to conclusions."

Then the Fox Business Network anchor Melissa Francis was on to do a biased one sided unfair and unbalanced segment about Staples and President Obama. President Obama singled out Staples for not hiring full-time workers in order to avoid providing them with health insurance under ObamaCare rules.

Francis said this: "He's absolutely wrong on the facts of this story. First of all, Staples has the same number of part-time workers that they had back in 2008. Most importantly, they do provide insurance for their part-time workers. They provide health insurance for same-sex spouses, domestic partners, and part-time employees. The president was wrong and intellectually lazy and he picked on the wrong company."

Comment from Steve: Remember that is biased one sided reporting from two Fox employees who hate Obama, with no Democratic guest for balance.

And now the facts: Obama's comments were prompted by a story Buzzfeed published on Monday quoting anonymous employees who said that the company had started rigorously enforcing a policy limiting part-time workers to no more than 25 hours a week.

Staples explained that the move was due to Obamacare's employee mandate, which went into effect at the beginning of the year. The mandate requires large companies like Staples to provide health insurance for employees working 30 or more hours a week or face heavy fines. According to Buzzfeed, Staples threatened to fire anyone who worked more than 25 hours a week, and one worker was allegedly told that Mr Obama was responsible for the crackdown.

Staples even admits they have the policy, but in a statement on Wednesday, Staples said the policy limiting part-time hours wasn't the result of Obamacare.

Despite Staples claims that the policy is in no way tied to Obamacare, Buzzfeed's report seems to draw a clear enough connection. "Before January, it was a smack on the wrist if anyone went over 25 hours - they got an email scolding them, saying, 'You went over 25, try not to do that'," says Alice, an anonymous employee quoted in their story.

"But now it's become really serious… They've threatened to write up managers and every person that goes up over 25 hours."

So it looks like the story is true and Obama had it exactly right, but O'Reilly and his biased guest deny it all and gave you a one sided view of the situation.

Then former NBA star Metta World Peace was on to talk about race relations in modern America and his new book aimed at black children.

Peace said this: "I want to make sure that kids understand people, and that if someone is racist, it came from somewhere, they weren't born that way. If someone is a gang member, they weren't born a gang member. You don't want children to grow up hating police or hating another race, that's why my book is very diverse."

World Peace, formerly known as Ron Artest, explained his name change. "I feel that I continue to evolve, that I continue to connect to people and the earth. So I wanted my name to evolve."

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to discuss the new video in which President Obama mugs for the camera in an effort to promote ObamaCare.

Gutfeld joked about it with this: "I absolutely loved it and thought it was so adorable. In a serious time when we have war and beheadings and burnings, we need a little levity. We need more than a president, we need a cool clown. I think he should start making balloon animals in the shape of Yemen."

McGuirk said this: "He's trying to reach the nitwits who don't even know who Joe Biden is. The timing was horrible because it was the day the girl was killed by ISIS, but in his defense I think he was out that day for lunch with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and he got all liquored up. What I learned from this video is that 'selfie stick' has nothing to do with Anthony Weiner."

Comment from Steve: This is ridiculous, and the Republicans only hate it because it works and Obamacare is now working great. They are just Obama haters who hate it that Obama is hip and cool and he is able to get young people to sign up for Obamacare. Nobody gives a damn about this video except for a few idiotic Republicans. It should not even be a news story, a few partisan right-wing idiots have made it a story, no-bo-dy else cares.

And finally, the lame and worthless Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, it was just O'Reilly slamming the media.

O'Reilly Has Hate Group Spokesman On To Defend Conservative Ben Carson
By: Steve - February 14, 2015 - 10:00am

Here is another great example of right-wing bias by Bill O'Reilly, because he would never do this to defend a liberal of hate speech, not in a million years. A conservative puts out hate speech and gets on a hate speech list, so O'Reilly puts a conservative from another hate group on to defend him.

Instead of addressing what Carson said that got him on the hate list, O'Reilly ignores all that to slam the people who added Carson to the hate list. It's an old O'Reilly diversion trick, ignore the context of the story and attack the people who reported on the hate.

Not once did O'Reilly mention the hate speech Carson put out, he ignored it all, and instead did a biased one sided attack segment slamming the SPLC for rightfully adding the homophobe Carson to their hate speech list. Which he would never do for a liberal accused of hate speech, if a liberal did it O'Reilly would attack the liberal for what he said and quote him.

Bill O'Reilly criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for adding former Fox contributor Ben Carson to the group's "extremist files" for his anti-LGBT comments.

To defend Carson, O'Reilly invited a senior fellow from the Family Research Council (FRC), a group also listed on the SPLC's "extremist files" for their anti-LGBT rhetoric, to denounce the SPLC.

The SPLC recently added Washington Times columnist Ben Carson to its "extremist files," citing his extreme anti-LGBT rhetoric. Here are some Carson quotes, something O'Reilly failed to do.

Carson said this:
CARSON: "Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Association, a group advocating pedophilia], be they people who believe in bestiality--it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."

--Interview on "Hannity," March 26, 2013

"If we can redefine marriage as between two men or two women or any other way based on social pressures as opposed to between a man and a woman, we will continue to redefine it in any way that we wish, which is a slippery slope with a disastrous ending, as witnessed in the dramatic fall of the Roman Empire."

--America the Beautiful: Resdiscovering What Made This Nation Great, 2012 book written with Candy Carlson

"Obamacare is really the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And ... in a way, it is slavery."

--Values Voter Summit, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2013

"I mean [our government and institutions] are very much like Nazi Germany. You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they really believe."

--Quoted by Breitbart News, March 12, 2014

O'Reilly criticized the designation of Carson and invited FRC's Ken Blackwell on to discuss whether the SPLC was "straying from their mission." During the interview, Blackwell denounced the group as an "auxiliary operation of the political left," and admitted that FRC was designated a "hate organization" by the SPLC.

Blackwell said that the designation of Carson as an anti-LGBT extremist is "ridiculous on its face."

The FRC was designated by the SPLC as an anti-gay hate group, owing to the malicious anti-LGBT rhetoric of FRC figures like FRC president Tony Perkins, who has endorsed a Ugandan bill that would have imposed the death penalty for homosexuality, asserted that gay people face "eternal damnation," and compared gays with terrorists.

Along with other FRC personalities, Perkins has accused gay men of preying on children and condemned efforts to curb anti-LGBT bullying as part of an effort to "recruit" children "into that lifestyle."

Ben Carson responded to the SPLC in a statement to the conservative website Breitbart.com, saying, "When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong. It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance," adding that "It is nothing but projectionist when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters."

Carson's statement continues a pattern of conservative media conflating homophobic views and statements with Christian religious beliefs.

The Thursday 2-12-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 13, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are You Safe? The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If you've been watching us over the past few weeks, you know that we have established beyond a reasonable doubt that most intelligence and military experts believe that the threat from Muslim fanatics is growing, and that the Obama administration does not have an effective strategy to deal with the situation.

The ISIS terror killers control thousands of square miles in Syria and Iraq, have now expanded to Libya and Egypt, and their assassins freely travel all over the world. It's just a matter of time until they show up here. To be fair, no president can protect this country with a 100% certainty. But for nearly a year President Obama has dithered and evaded the growing threat from ISIS.

Now, after executing four Americans and setting a Jordanian pilot on fire, critical mass has been reached. That kind of personal violence puts pressure on Mr. Obama to do something. A new Fox Poll demonstrates that pressure: When asked, 'Does the Obama administration have a clear strategy for defeating ISIS?', just 19% of registered voters say yes, while an astounding 73% say no.

However, when asked, 'Do you approve or disapprove of president Obama's policy on terrorism?' 42% actually approve. That makes no sense, but there are a number of Americans who will not say anything negative about President Obama himself. So when his name appears in a poll question, the results are skewed. Most folks understand that Islamic terrorism is not being dealt with aggressively.

They know the president is hesitant to even define the threat. Yet they retain an emotional bond with Barack Obama. So that's what you're seeing there. Finally, Talking Points believes that President Obama is gambling with his entire legacy. If the USA sustains another terror attack by Muslims, his entire presidential profile will be ruined. Does Barack Obama know that? I'm not sure.
Comment from Steve: This is such nonsense it's laughable. Under Bush we had 9-11, the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in the history of the country, Bush did not protect us, he had intelligence about it saying Bin Laden to use planes to attack us, and he did noting, zip, zilch. Fox polls are worthless, they are biased garbage.

Obama has protected us, and O'Reilly keeps saying we are not safe, it's insane and nothing but right-wing propaganda. And remember this is a lame cable tv news host who is biased and who hates Obama saying this, he in not in congress or the senate, so he has no access to the intelligence or what Obama is doing in secret, so it is a biased opinion. Get back to me when we are actually attacked on American soil by Al-Qaeda or ISIS, until then, shut the hell up jerk.

Then Simon Rosenberg, head of a left-leaning think tank, said this: "I don't think the president dithered, and now he's going to do even more. We are in Iraq with troops and air strikes every day, and now we are going to show the world that we are unified. The president is asking Congress and the Republican party to join him."

Conservative Jonathan Schanzer said this: "The president determined that he was going to get us out of all the old wars and prevent us from getting into new ones. He's ambivalent about the whole thing and he has an overall approach that is reticent. 210,000 people have been killed in Syria and we've seen the rise in ISIS through the under-reaction of President Obama."

Comment from Steve: Earth to right-wing idiots, Obama is doing what the people want, the people want us out of Iraq and they do not want us going to foreign countries starting more wars. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends seem to ignore that. The people do not want us being the police to the world, they only want us to act if the threat comes to American soil, or we find out about a future terrorist attack that is going to happen here.

Then the biased Republican Ed Henry was on to spin President Obama's approach to Islamic terrorism and its possible effect on his legacy, saying this: "He still doesn't get it. He does not see this as a crisis, he sees it as a problem to be managed. He just said the murder at the kosher market in Paris was a 'random' shooting, but it wasn't a random shooting. This is terror, it's an international crisis."

Henry also pointed out a foreign policy success, saying this: "The president should get some credit that the U.S. sanctions against Russia, coupled with the drop in the price of oil, have crippled the Russian economy. Putin has blinked and agreed to a cease-fire."

Comment from Steve: That is just laughable, O'Reilly called that fair and balanced because Henry said something good about Obama. That is not being fair and balanced, it's a joke. Fair and balanced is having a Democrat and a Republican and giving them each equal time, you moron.

Then the right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg was on to evaluate Monday night's interview with longtime Obama loyalist David Axelrod.

Goldberg said this: "Axelrod came across as an apologist for the president, and as if he's under Barack Obama's spell. I got the impression that if Barack Obama did a 180 on some big social issue, David Axelrod would hurt his back doing a pirouette so he could also do a 180 and stay on the same side."

Goldberg also praised longtime CBS News reporter Bob Simon, who was killed in a car crash this week, saying this: "In a week in which we are focusing a lot of attention on a journalist who made things up and yearned for celebrity, Bob Simon was the opposite of that. He was simply a reporter."

Here is a great e-mail that was sent to O'Reilly about his biased and one sided military analyst segments: Dennis Brennan, Clearwater, FL: "Mr. O'Reilly, please explain how the Shaffer/Hunt segment was in any way fair and balanced, as you claim The Factor is."

Comment from Steve: It's not, and the Peters/Hunt segments are not fair and balanced either, all his military analyst segments have all Republicans who hate Obama, so it is biased one sided spin. O'Reilly claims he is fair and balanced, and he is a liar, he is biased and 95% of his guests are Republicans. He is a lying right-wing hack who is not fair and balanced, and never has been.

And finally, the lame and worthless Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly telling Obama that Putin is not a rational person. Which is not a tip, it's a statement and an opinion.

O'Reilly Lied When He Said Nobody Knew Iraq Did Not Have WMD's
By: Steve - February 13, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly said this to Kirsten Powers Tuesday night: "That's a cheap shot. I went to Iraq and I was there to support the troops who were doing their duty. There was no way anyone could know that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was faulty."

This is a lie put out by O'Reilly and his right-wing friends who supported Bush and his un-needed and un-justified war in Iraq. Here are the facts, the facts O'Reilly ignores, and the facts he could find with a simple google search.

William Scott Ritter, Jr. was a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later a critic of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter stated that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Note to Bill O'Reilly: Ritter said that before Bush invaded Iraq, learn your history and get it right jerk.

Ritter "ran intelligence operations for the United Nations"[ from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated.

Ritter was amongst a group of UNSCOM weapons inspectors that regularly took Lockheed U-2 imagery to Israel for analysis, as UNSCOM was not getting sufficient analysis assistance from the U.S. and UK.

Despite identifying himself as a Republican and having voted for George W. Bush in 2000, by 2002 Ritter had become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq possessed significant WMD stocks or manufacturing capabilities, the primary rationale given for the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt. In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:
Since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated. We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited.

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.
And it was not just Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and Seymour Hersh also said Iraq did not have any WMD's.

Hersh is the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist for the New Yorker who first exposed the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and is author of the book "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib."

SEYMOUR HERSH: One of the things thats overwhelming to me as a journalist was the notion that everybody believed before March of '03 that Saddam had weapons. This is just an urban myth.

The fact of the matter is that (and my personal experience) and this, I ran into Scott when? In about 1998, 1999? And in talking to people who worked on the UNSCOM and also on the International Atomic Energy Agency, which did a lot of very first-rate reporting. And you know some of the people who wrote some of the reports, former intelligence agents from Britain, among others, they were pretty much clear by 1997 that there was very little likelihood that Saddam had weapons, and there were many people in our State Department, our Department of Energy, in the C.I.A., who didn't believe there were weapons.

SCOTT RITTER: And we knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this.

The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.

These are the facts, so when O'Reilly says "There was no way anyone could know that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was faulty." He is lying and he knows it, because hundreds of people in America, England, Germany, and Israel were saying they did not think Iraq had any WMD's. O'Reilly and his right-wing Bush supporting friends just choose to ignore it.

The Wednesday 2-11-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 12, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why the Brian Williams Story is Important for America. The biased and dishonest Republican Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As educated viewers, you guys know the Founding Fathers gave the press special privileges. They did that so reporters could keep an eye on powerful politicians and other people who might cause harm to the folks. I just wish the press was half as responsible as the men who forged this nation. A poll by Gallup says only 40% of Americans trust the mass media, down from 54% in 2003.

The reason many Americans hold the press in contempt is two-fold. First, ideology. It is perfectly fine for commentators like me to give my opinion about events. That's what I'm paid to do and The Factor is clearly an opinion program. But when hard news people deceive their viewers and readers to advance a political agenda, that's when the nation gets hurt.

Enter Brian Williams, the anchorman for the NBC Nightly News. Mr. Williams was successful, beating out ABC and CBS. But now we know that he exaggerated certain stories, and NBC had to suspend him for six months. It wasn't just the Iraq helicopter story. Mr. Williams apparently misreported other situations as well. For example, NBC News won a Peabody Award for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina and Mr. Williams was a big part of that.

Yesterday I talked with Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy, who said this: 'The manager of the hotel said there were no gangs in her hotel.' So combining that with the Iraq deal, Williams had to go. But NBC News has other problems as well. One of their foreign correspondents, Ayman Mohyeldin, described 'American Sniper' Chris Kyle as someone who had 'racist tendencies' and went on 'killing sprees in Iraq.'

A group of military people is demanding that Mr. Mohyeldin apologize, and he should. Every news organization makes mistakes, but those mistakes are eroding the confidence of Americans in the press. I get the New York Times every morning. That paper has tremendous resources, but over the years it has become a left-wing enterprise and that has crept into its news coverage.

It is now my belief that Brian Williams will not return as the main anchor on NBC. If you can't trust a news anchor or commentator, you're not going to watch that person. NBC News made $200 million dollars in 2013 on the Nightly News. That was $30 million more than ABC, $50 million more than CBS. So obviously NBC did not want Williams off the air, but they had to. Reporting the news comes with a big responsibility.

Here on The Factor we are in our 19th season, an amazing run, and we have made some mistakes, but very few. We put together an honest broadcast and we take great pains to present you with information that can be verified. All Americans who love their country should think about what happened to Brian Williams and about other news agencies that are distorting the facts. We all should open that proverbial 'Network' window and say, 'We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!
Comment from Steve: O'Reilly and the right loves this Brian Williams story because they hate him, even though his lie was about being on a plane that took an rpg, not an actual journalism lie. O'Reilly tells journalism lies every night, which is far worse than what Brian Williams did, and if every journalist who ever lied was fired we would not have any journalists left, they all lie, some just lie more than others, especially O'Reilly.

I caught him in 2 actual journalism lies in the last 2 shows alone. And the biggest problem O'Reilly has is that he claims to be non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, when we all know that is a lie, and we all know he is a partisan Republican who is biased and he does not have a no spin zone, it is almost all spin to the right. And the founding Fathers would be ashamed that O'Reilly is allowed to even call himself a journalist.

Then media critics David Zurawik and Lee Kamlet were on to discuss it.

Zurawik said this: "The press does get special privileges, but with that comes responsibilities, and we've really fallen down. I thought Brian Williams should have been stripped of his managing editor title. How can he hold that position and be a self-acknowledged liar?"

Kamlet also questioned the common practice of having network anchors serve as managing editors, saying this: "Whenever you vest that much power in one person it's problematic. It makes it harder for people who work around them to challenge them on some of their reporting."

Then two Republican Military analysts Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer and Col. David Hunt reported the latest on the investigation into suspected deserter Bowe Bergdahl, who was traded for five Taliban commanders.

Shaffer said this: "We're looking at a mid-March decision and announcement. The president and the administration knew exactly about Bowe Bergdahl's status before the deal with the Taliban. The Army is trying to be honest, but all the pressure is coming from the White House."

Hunt expressed confidence in General Mark Milley, who is in charge of the investigation, saying this: "This is a 4-star general and a combat veteran who has to decide whether there will be a court martial or not. But it is inexplicable that it's taking this long."

Then Ben Carson was on to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center, who has labeled Republican presidential prospect an extremist because of his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Comment from Steve: That is a lie and O'Reilly is wrong about that. The SPLC did not label him an extremist because of his opposition to same-sex marriage. They labeled him an extremeist because of what he said about the gay people who want to be married, he compared it to having sex with animals, etc.

Carson said this: "Any two adults can have any kind of relationship they want, but I do believe that a family where there is a mother and a father and a loving environment is the best way to raise children. We need to get back to a place where people feel free to express themselves without being intimidated by political correctness."

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk about Jon Stewart's impending departure from The Daily Show. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance.

MacCallum said this: "There has been a lot of breast-beating over his announcement, but his numbers are not really that strong. There are about 1.2-million viewers a night, which is down 16% from a year ago. And when you look into his foray into the movies with his film 'Rosewater,' it didn't make much money at the box office. But obviously he will be missed - there is a whole generation of college students who grew up seeing him as the arbiter of good taste in news."

Comment from Steve: It's a show on the Comedy channel, so the ratings will never be any good. And 1.2 million viewers a night is as much or more than all the cable news shows, except for the Factor. Jon Stewart is a comedian who does a fake news show, and I do not know anyone who cares that he is leaving.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly praising a hollywood conservative that I will not name, and point out that he never praises any hollywood liberals, because he hates them all.

O'Reilly Caught Lying That Obama Has No Plan To Defeat ISIS
By: Steve - February 12, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly has been lying when he says President Obama has no plan to defeat ISIS/ISIL, and that he has no will to fight terrorism. This is a lie and O'Reilly knows it. Because Obama does have a plan, and he is waiting for Congress to approve it. But O'Reilly does not report any of this, instead he goes on tv every night an lies that Obama has no plan and he is not protecting the American people.

Here are the facts:

As promised in his State of the Union address last month, President Barack Obama is set to ask Congress for permission to use military force against ISIL.

The administration has characterized the original 2002 AUMF as covering its actions against the Sunni militant organization in Iraq and Syria. But in his address three weeks ago Obama said a new resolution will demonstrate that the U.S. is "united in this mission."

Obama is expected to address the public on the AUMF at 3:30 Wednesday afternoon.

Read the full letter here:
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security. It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller.

If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.

I have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL. As part of this strategy, U.S. military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Although existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions, I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to working with the Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL.

Consistent with this commitment, I am submitting a draft AUMF that would authorize the continued use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL. My Administration’s draft AUMF would not authorize long‑term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.

It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our Nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.
Obama said this: "I have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL."

Which is exactly what O'Reilly said Obama did not have and was not doing. So it turns out that O'Reilly is wrong and a liar, because Obama does have a strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL. O'Reilly is such a partisan hack and he hates Obama so much he does not report it, proving once again that he is a dishonest right-wing tool of the Republican party.

The Tuesday 2-10-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 11, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Another American Killed by the ISIS Savages. The biased and dishonest Republican Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 26-year-old Kayla Mueller from Arizona is dead. Apparently ISIS contacted her family, providing proof that she had been killed by them. This makes four Americans executed by the jihadists. Kayla was captured by ISIS on August 4, 2013 in Syria while leaving a hospital staffed by the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders.

She was in Syria to help suffering refugees. President Obama said this: 'ISIL is a hateful and abhorrent terrorist group whose actions stand in stark contrast to the spirit of people like Kayla.'

The fact that these jihadists have been able to continue to murder civilians with impunity should trouble the entire world. As Talking Points has mentioned, President Obama has received advice about terrorism from two former defense secretaries, advice he has rejected.

With all due respect to the president, this country is capable of attending to many issues at the same time and the war in Iraq should not impede effective strategy against Muslim killers. To allow the jihad to continue its reign of terror without a solid plan strikes me as irresponsible and dangerous.

Last night I talked with David Axelrod, one of Mr. Obama's closest advisors. He, like Secretary of State Kerry, believes that air power and a paper coalition will eventually 'degrade' the ISIS fanatics. I think Kayla Mueller might disagree.
Comment from Steve: Bill O'Reilly is a biased lying right-wing idiot, because Obama does have a plan and a strategy to degrade and defeat ISIS/ISIL. O'Reilly just will not report it, but I will, in a blog post on Thursday. I will prove O'Reilly is a lying hack.

Then Monica Crowley and Kirsten Powers reacted to the latest ISIS atrocity and the Talking Points Memo.

Crowley said this: "He came into office with two firm beliefs. One, he was the anti-Bush, meaning he would not preside over any major intervention. Two, he is a committed leftist who essentially believes that American power has been a nefarious tool for global injustice. He thinks the U.S. should atone by retrenching and apologizing and retreating."

Comment from Steve: That is a lie, Obama came into office making the promise that we would not do what Bush did in Iraq, attack a country that did not attack us, which is actually what the Constitution says, the Constitution does not say we should be the police to the world, it says to use the military to protect the borders and fight against someone who attacks us here in America, not in some foreign country half way around the world.

Powers said this: "I don't think the president buys into the idea that putting troops on the ground is going to solve this problem, and I can't listen to this stuff about how Barack Obama doesn't understand the threat of terrorism. He expanded the drone war, he escalated the war in Afghanistan, and we've been bombing in Iraq every day. I wish that you had spent as much time on the 4,000 soldiers who died in Iraq as you have spent on these beheadings."

O'Reilly flipped out and said this: "That's a cheap shot. I went to Iraq and I was there to support the troops who were doing their duty. There was no way anyone could know that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was faulty."

Comment from Steve: That is also a lie, because a lot of people were saying there were no WMD's in Iraq, like the weapons inspector who got rid of them, Scott Ritter. O'Reilly fails to mention that, Ritter said from day one that Iraq did not have any WMD's. O'Reilly somehow forgets that, and other media outlets were also reporting it. Hans Blix also said the UN knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, and said they told the Bush administration but they would not listen to them.

Then Ken Blackwell, who is a Republican that is in a hate group himself, was on to talk about the non-profit Southern Poverty Law Center, that has added Republican presidential prospect Dr. Ben Carson to its list of dangerous extremists. This was a biased and one sided fact-free segment with no Democratic guest for balance.

Blackwell said this: "When I was mayor of Cincinnati, we worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center and they were doing fairly decent work. But now they have morphed into an auxiliary operation of the political left. This claim about Ben Carson is ridiculous on its face. He came from a single-parent household, worked himself out of poverty, got a great education, had a tremendous career as a neurosurgeon, and he gives back. He is the prime example of how you break the cycle of dependency, and now you have The Southern Poverty Law Center attacking him as being a 'hater' because he defends traditional marriage."

Comment from Steve: Blackwell is a right-wing liar, Carson is a hater who uses hate-speech against gay people, and that is a fact. The SPLC is non-partisan, they have left and right wing hate groups listed on their website, they are not a left-wing group, they work with the police and the government to track hate groups and help them to know who they are, what they are doing, and where they are at.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about a mushrooming controversy in Alabama, where the Republican Judge Roy Moore is defying the federal government on same-sex marriage.

Wiehl said this: "This judge is saying that the federal government has overstepped its boundaries. But when you have a clash between a state and federal law, federal law wins. I think Judge Moore will be removed by Alabama ethics boards."

Guilfoyle turned to Missouri, where a mother and her family staged the kidnapping of her 6-year-old son to teach him not to be so friendly with strangers, saying this: "They lured the little boy into a truck, showed him a gun, bound his hands and feet, put a jacket over his head, and took him into a basement. All of this was to teach him a lesson about avoiding strangers, and they have been charged with felony kidnapping. Thank God the boy has been removed from the home, this was not a safe environment for any child."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Curb Your Vindictiveness. Billy said this: "No one should take joy in the misfortunes of Brian Williams or anyone else."

Comment from Steve: Thank you Mr. obvious, now tell us something we do not already know and drop this stupid waste of time segment.

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger Calls For Climate Change Action
By: Steve - February 11, 2015 - 10:00am

At least one Republican is half way honest, by admitting climate change is not only real, that we need to do something about it.

MUNICH (AP) -- Former California governor and Hollywood star Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling for more to be done to combat climate change, saying it is "the issue of our time."

Speaking Sunday to a small group at the Munich security conference, where he introduced a new policy paper "The Future of Energy," Schwarzenegger said his experience in California was that the adoption of green energy creates jobs and leads to energy independence.

He applauded formal efforts to come to new agreements to reduce carbon emissions and fight global warming, but says there is no need for governments to wait for summits.

He says "we should be fighting climate change right now."

Schwarzenegger says the issue shouldn't be politicized and people should work together for solutions.

He says "we all breathe the same air."

The Monday 2-9-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 10, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is President Obama the Most Polarizing Chief Executive in American History? The biased and dishonest Republican Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to a new survey by the Gallup organization, President Obama has seriously divided the country. 79% of Democrats approve of the job Barack Obama is doing; just 9% of Republicans approve. According to Gallup, Mr. Obama is on pace to be the most polarizing president in history, surpassing George W. Bush.

There are two main reasons for that. First, the economy, with take-home pay down 4% on the president's watch. And secondly, the jihad, a situation that is rapidly getting out of control. Over the weekend, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who retired last year as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said our strategy is 'clearly not working.'

General Flynn was a top advisor to President Obama and joins former Secretaries of Defense Panetta and Gates in lamenting America's poor strategy to counter Muslim extremism.

To be fair, some Americans do not believe General Flynn - they do not see a threat to our way of life from the jihadists. But most Americans do understand the threat. So Barack Obama, who once promised to unite the country, finds himself as a divider. Not good for America.
Comment from Steve: Wow, that is a total load of right-wing garbage. O'Reilly is using an approval poll to claim it shows Obama is dividing the nation, which is just ridiculous. The reason the Obama approval is so low with Republicans is because they are biased, uninformed racist idiots, Obama did not divide the country, they hate him because he is black. He is doing a great job now and they still hate him with a 9% approval rating, which is just laughable.

Then President Obama's longtime political adviser David Axelrod was on to discuss it.

Axelrod said this: "I certainly dismiss the notion that the president doesn't have a sense of urgency, because any person who sits in that chair and is responsible for the lives of Americans has to feel a sense of urgency. Intelligence around the world was taken aback by the quick movements of ISIS, and President Obama said from the beginning that it will take a long time to defeat ISIS."

Axelrod also defended the decision to bring up the Christian Crusades when warning about religious extremism, saying this: "I think he knew what he was saying, and his point is that a quarter of the world's population is Islamic and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with extremism. He wants to isolate the extremists."

Then the dishonest and biased O'Reilly had the right-wing hack Karl Rove on to discuss the Axelrod interview.

Rove said this: "Axelrod made a big point about not questioning people's motivations, but it's President Obama who routinely questions the motives of people who disagree with him politically. He suggested that Republicans want to hurt poor people, and some of his allies have suggested that any political opposition is rooted in racism."

Rove also took issue with President Obama's anti-terror strategy, saying this: "The president's policies aren't working. The number of deaths, the number of refugees, and all of these metrics are going in the wrong direction. President Obama says this is not an 'existential threat,' but what if there were a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East? How much danger would that be to the United States?"

Comment from Steve: So in one of the rare times O'Reilly actually did a fair and balanced interview with one Republican (O'Reilly) and one Democrat (Axelrod) he ruined it by having the right-wing stooge Karl Rove on to dispute everything Axelrod said after he left, with no Democratic guest to defend Axelrod. This is what O'Reilly does, he could not let Axelrod have his say unopposed, so he has Rove on after he is gone to slam him, which is against the ethics and rules of journalism.

Then Juan Williams & Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about Sunday night's Grammy Awards, singer Pharrell used the "hands up, don't shoot" pose.

Williams said this: "This has become a symbol for people who are legitimately critical of police behavior. Although we do not know that Michael Brown had his hands up, it has become the way that people talk about this. But I wish artists were just as critical about black-on-black violence and black family breakdown. I don't see them ever saying a thing about that!"

Ham essentially gave Pharrell a pass on his political statement, saying this: "It is a false narrative, but I do understand what the artists are doing. As a conservative, I'm not surprised to find that the Grammys are filled with liberal political statements. I'm a grownup and I can deal with that."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who is taking some time off after revelations that he embellished stories about his experiences in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere.

Kelly said this: "In the wake of his comments about Iraq, people are looking at his other reporting. He claimed that his hotel in New Orleans during Katrina was overrun by gangs and he claimed there was a body floating face down outside the hotel. This is what it's come down to - everything is being analyzed. I defended him for a few nights, but then I took a hard look at all the statements he has made. There is no question that he was exaggerating from day one."

Then the stupid and worthless Jesse Watters was on, he paid a visit to the Gasparilla Pirate Festival in Tampa, where Americans come from across the country to dress up in buccaneer garb. Which is not news, and I refuse to report on this nonsense anymore, just as I do not report on the lame and worthless Dennis Miller segments.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Thou Shalt Not Lie. Billy said this: "An honorable man or woman always tries to tell the truth."

Comment from Steve: What a joke, O'Reilly is full of it. He lies all the time and he knows it, he knowingly puts out lies and right-wing propaganda every single night. So he is not honorable, and his tip of the day is a waste of time.

Another Example Of An Insane Republican Political Position
By: Steve - February 10, 2015 - 10:00am

Bobby Jindal is just another typical lying idiot Republican, he says public education is one of the most important things in America. While behind the scenes he is trying to cut $300 million dollars from the state college fund. It's insane, and why you can not believe a word these corrupt Republicans say, they say one thing in public and do the opposite in private.

Louisiana Governor and likely presidential candidate Bobby Jindal told a conservative audience in DC on Wednesday that public education is a fundamental pillar of American democracy.

"Why is it important to fund and support public education?" he asked the attendees of the American Principles Project's conference. "Because if we want to keep the republic we have, our republic can only be as good as our citizens. So we need an educated population with critical thinking skills. We need to train citizens to be responsible, functioning adults. I always hear from parents, from the Chamber of Commerce, from business groups that we've got to fund education."

But Jindal, is currently trying to cut the budget of the state colleges by as much as $300 million -- nearly a third of the system's current budget.

Officials in Louisiana on both sides of the aisle are blasting Jindal's proposed budget cuts, saying they would cripple the state's public higher education.

Republican House Speaker Chuck Kleckley, who has vowed to fight the Governor's budget, wrote on Facebook: "Continuously cutting Higher Ed is the easy way out and it doesn't make sense for economic development -- which ultimately drives growth. We need to protect our schools!" He added in an interview with the Times Picayune: "Cutting higher education to that magnitude would not set us back years -- it would set us back generations."

Other lawmakers pointed out that Louisiana has already slashed its higher education budget more than any state in the nation over the past several years. While most states are currently spending 23 percent less per student than before the recession, Louisiana is now spending more than 43 percent less.

At the same time, tuition in the state has shot up more than 50 percent. Now, school officials are predicting the new cuts will force entire campuses to close.

"This is a tipping point or 'point of no return' event," Stephanie Grey, a communications professor at Louisiana State University said. "It's a dividing line between a higher education that Louisiana can benefit from and take pride in and a sinking ship for which accreditation will be an issue. We need leadership from the governor, but he is missing in action as he has been for several years."

The state currently faces a more than $1.6 billion shortfall, due in part to a dependence on oil revenues at a time of plummeting prices and Governor Jindal's refusal to close any of the massive tax breaks that officials on both sides of the aisle have criticized as unnecessary.

And btw, O'Reilly slams states like California and Illinois because they are run by Democrats and in debt, while ignoring the Republican run states that are also in debt, he says nothing about the fact that most of the Republican run states are also in debt.

Reality Check: Bill O'Reilly Is A Draft Dodger Who Was Never In Combat
By: Steve - February 9, 2015 - 11:30am

For the people that do not know, Bill O'Reilly dodged the draft 2 times by doing teaching work and going to school in England. He acts like he did this great service to America by teaching for a while, but in reality he only did it to avoid the draft.

The other night O'Reilly said once again that he was in combat, but what he is talking about is covering a war as a journalist. In the warped mind of Bill O'Reilly he thinks that is being in combat, when it is not, and he was never in the military. If you were not in the military shooting at people on the ground, or in the military in a tank or in a plane, you were not in combat. A journalist covering a war is not in combat.

Here are the facts:

O'Reilly did not serve in the military. He dodged the draft 2 times to avoid Vietnam and the draft extension bill. The 1st time he went to school in London to avoid the draft, the 2nd time he took a teaching job in Florida to avoid the draft extension bill known as the Mansfield Amendment.

Vietnam, the overwhelming event of O'Reilly's high school and college years is never mentioned in his books nor on his television show. Even in his attacks on Clinton there no mention of "Slick Willie Clinton the Draft Dodger." And the why of it is pretty simple. Bill O'Reilly at least matched Bill Clinton's Vietnam War record.

O'Reilly graduated from Chaminade High School in Long Island in 1967, a year in which 10,000 Americans, some younger then O'Reilly, died in Vietnam. And in these years, 1967-1968, O'Reilly would have to register for the draft and then make a decision. While America's lower economic classes were being drafted or enlisting there was a way out for many of the despised liberal elite. It was called the college deferment followed by graduate school.

And Vietnam was not something that you just overlooked or forgot about. In 1967-68, American airwaves and newspapers were filled with stories of battles called Operation Cedar Falls and Junction City, of places named KheSan, Locninh, DakTo, as well as the Tet Offensive and the MyLai massacre. And there were massive demonstrations and marches in cities and on campuses including the famous Kent State photograph.

Yet O'Reilly, at his age and single, was high priority draftee material yet never enlisted or was drafted and his record of the Vietnam era remains blank. Today's self-proclaimed super patriot, entered Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York in the fall of 1967. He was active as a columnist for the student newspaper The Circle as well as a member of the football team which meant he suffered no great physical handicap which would exempt him from military service.

In the bloodiest days of the Vietnam war we find Bill O'Reilly as a college student in England.

O'Reilly spent his junior year, 1969-1970 at the University of London. So in the heat of the Vietnam war and its greatest battles, we find Bill O'Reilly as a college student in England. In these years, U.S. troops in Vietnam topped the half million mark and American combat deaths now totaled thirty-three thousand, a sum greater than the Korean War. And in 1969, Life magazine shocked America with portrait photos of all 242 Americans killed in Vietnam in just one single week.

Then, in the fall of 1970, he returned to Marist College from England, rejoined the football team and graduated in 1971 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. In that year, 1971, American deaths in Vietnam passed the forty-five thousand mark.

Additionally, at the time of O'Reilly's graduation, a draft extension bill was passed along with what was then known as the Mansfield Amendment which set a national policy of withdrawing troops from Vietnam 9 months after the bill's enactment (wording was later softened to the "earliest practical date"). It was the first time in modern US history that Congress had urged an end to a war in which the country was actively involved.

Yet after graduation, and with the conscription law and the draft lottery in full force, O'Reilly would never be inducted. Instead, he was off to Florida where he took a job teaching at a high school. Two years later, in 1973, he was back in college at Boston University for a master's degree in broadcast journalism. By that time he finished at Boston U., the draft and the war were history. And neither would ever play any part in the life of one of America's most vocal defenders of patriotic ways and values.

Despite O'Reilly's historical amnesia, Vietnam and the draft really did happen. Two million Americans served in Vietnam with 500,000 seeing actual combat. The latest number of killed in action totaled 47,244. In addition there were 10,446 non-combat deaths while 153,329 Americans were seriously wounded, including 10,000 amputees and over 2400 American POWs/MIAs.

So the super-patriot Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a 2 time draft dodger who never served in the military when it was his time, he found a way to get out of it. But now he wants to send your kids to fight in every war there is all around the world, and laughingly claims he was in combat, even though he avoided the real combat, and the combat he refers to was covering wars as a journalist.

Study Finds 60% Of Fox News Statements Mostly False Or A Lie
By: Steve - February 9, 2015 - 10:30am

PunditFact found that 60% of all the statements they examined from Fox News were mostly false or worse.

According to PunditFact, here is how the Fox cable network did on statements that they examined:

At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims PunditFact has rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.

At MSNBC and NBC, 44 percent of claims have received a rating of Mostly False or worse. And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims rated are Half True or better.

PuditFact doesn't check every statement made on the cable networks, so they strongly caution against drawing broad conclusions from their tallies, but this one of those situations where if there’s smoke there's fire.

Fox News has never made factual reporting a basis for what they do, and I can hear people saying to themselves, "Only 60% was false, that seems kind of low to me," but the PunditFact findings match up with other studies that have concluded that Fox News viewers are the least informed of all media consumers.

It is virtually impossible to watch Fox News for an hour and not be subjected to a false or inaccurate statement. Fox News is one of the main reasons why the American people are so poorly informed.

When the top cable news network is dedicated to pushing an ideological agenda over reporting the news, the public will be less informed. Even people who don’t watch Fox News are subjected to their misinformation techniques via interactions with poor informed Fox News watching friends and family.

And of course, you will never hear a word about this study from O'Reilly, as he usuallly does, he ignored it because it makes him and Fox look bad.

O'Reilly Ignoring Sharyl Attkisson After Her Hacking Story Fell Apart
By: Steve - February 8, 2015 - 11:30am

When the conservative Sharyl Attkisson said the Obama administration had hacked into her computer while she worked at CBS, O'Reilly and the right were all over it. O'Reilly had her on his show as a guest to tell her story, and he went into great detail with her. Basically he gave her a national platform to put her story out.

And now we know she was lying, O'Reilly is silent and has not said one word about the federal investigation or their findings. He made no correction, or reported that she was found to be lying. So if you watched her on the Factor that night, and that is the only news show you watch, you still think she was telling the truth, even though she was proven to be lying and most likely told the lie to sell her book.

Here are the facts, that Bill O'Reilly is not telling you:

An investigation by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General found no evidence that Sharyl Attkisson's personal computer was hacked. The former CBS reporter has claimed that her computers had been breached as part of a federal effort to monitor her because she did reporting critical of the Obama administration.

Attkisson, who left CBS News last year and now writes for the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal, previously claimed that her personal Apple laptop, personal Apple desktop, and a CBS News-issued Toshiba laptop were hacked while she was reporting on the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

According to her 2014 book, unnamed sources confirmed for Attkisson that an unnamed government agency was behind the attack. Attkisson reiterated her claims in January 29 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The investigation, based in part on the OIG's examination of her personal Apple computer, found that the OIG "was not able to substantiate the allegations that Attkisson's computers were subject to remote intrusion by the FBI, other government personnel, or otherwise."

As Post opinion writer Erik Wemple first reported, the review found that "Attkisson is not and has not been under investigation by the FBI."

Attkisson had provided to the investigators a cellphone video she took of one apparent hack, which showed words typed into a Microsoft Word document on her personal laptop rapidly disappearing. Computer security experts who looked at the video said that when the video was first made public that it most likely showed her computer malfunctioning due to a stuck backspace key.

The OIG report confirms that suspicion. "The video of text being deleted from a document appeared to be caused by the backspace key being stuck, rather than remote intrusion," the report states. The OIG found that a second video Attkisson provided of her CBS laptop showed "a standard error prompt."

Furthermore, the OIG report found that a "suspicious" cable Attkisson had described in the book and to the OIG as potential evidence of a "tap" was "a common cable" used by her internet provider that "could not be used to monitor or otherwise affect the phone or internet service at her residence."

An individual who examined Attkisson's computer prior to the OIG investigation, according to the report, used a "method of forensic examination" which "is not forensically sound nor is it in accordance with best practices."

This individual's actions "could have obscured potential evidence of unauthorized access."

Attkisson claims that this individual was hired by CBS News and sent to her house to examine her personal computer, but CBS News told the OIG that they did not conduct any analysis on her personal computer.

Various media outlets have previously noted that Attkisson reversed herself on whether various technological problems she experienced were tied to the intrusion on her system. In the book, she suggested her phone, television, personal laptop, and cable systems had all malfunctioned due to the hacking.

But during a radio interview she said the "disruptions happening in my electrical systems at home may in the end have nothing to do with the intrusion."

In other words, it was a stuck backspace key, or another computer malfunction or system error that almost all computers have happen at one time. And most likley she just made it up to get publicity for her book and to make the Obama administration look bad. The investigation found no evidence her computer was ever hacked by anyone from the Government.

And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, leaving his viewers with the false impression that her computer was hacked and that she was telling the truth. Even though the facts show she was wrong and or lying to promote her lame book. This is what O'Reilly does, report lies, or let other people report lies, and never do corrections or follow ups when they are proven to be wrong and or a liar.

And O'Reilly only does this with conservatives, if a liberal is later caught being wrong or lying, O'Reilly reports that, he only ignores it when a conservative is caught being dishonest or just flat out wrong.

Former CIA Agent Says O'Reilly Wrong About Defeating Terrorism
By: Steve - February 8, 2015 - 10:30am

He basically is saying what almost every military and terrorism expert (who is not a biased and partisan right-wing hack) is saying, that military force alone can not defeat terrorism. O'Reilly claims that if we just kill more of them we can defeat terrorism, which is ridiculous, and no actual military experts believe that.

Here is a partial article about it from a former CIA agent:

Hard Target: We Can't Defeat Terrorism With Bombs And Bombast

by Raymond Close

Most of us accept the premise that terrorism is a phenomenon that can be defeated only by better ideas, by persuasion and, most importantly, by amelioration of the conditions that inspire it. Terrorism's best asset, in the final analysis, is the fire in the bellies of its young men, and that fire cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles.

If intelligent Americans can accept that premise as a reasonable basis for dealing with this nemesis, why is it so difficult for our leaders to speak and act accordingly?

After the military strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, U.S. officials justified their action by citing Osama bin Laden's "declaration of war" on everything American. But to launch missiles into countries with which we are technically at peace -- and to kill their citizens -- is to declare that the United States is free to make its own rules for dealing with this international problem.

What standing will we have in the future to complain about any other country that attacks the terrority of its neighbor, citing as justification the need to protect itself from terrorism? Did those who authorized these attacks think through the long-term implications of this short-sighted and dangerous precedent?

Let's get down to practical realities. The new threat we face is often stateless, without sovereign terrority or official sponsorship. Friendly governments around the world -- especially those with large Muslim populations such as India, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Gulf states and the new republics of Central Asia -- share a common need for internal and regional stability.

Terrorism is a weapon that threatens all civil authority. This set of circumstances provides an unprecedented incentive for intergovernmental cooperation, even among states that may differ on other basic issues. But the fight against a silent and hidden common enemy requires infinite patience and tact on the part of law enforcement agencies and intelligence services.

It demands absolute secrecy, mutual trust and professional respect. If the United States loses its cool without warning, if it is seen by others as a loose cannon that resorts to sudden violent action on a massive scale, the critically needed cooperation will not be there. Even those who approve in theory of using military retaliation as a weapon against terrorism would agree, I think, that launching unmanned missiles at distant targets as ill-defined as "the infrastructure of terrorism" is neither an effective military strategy nor a credible deterrent against future criminal acts.

This will be even more true when the adversary is armed some day with cheap, do-it-yourself weapons of mass destruction. In our understandable frustration, are we resorting to a modern form of the same "gunboat diplomacy" that proved so counterproductive for the dying European empires at the end of the 19th century? Read the full story here:

www.pbs.org/frontline/bombings/close.html

What O'Reilly refuses to accept is that for every terrorist we kill, 5 more replace them, that is a fact. You can never kill all the terrorists, and when O'Reilly says the way to defeat them is to just kill more of them, he is clueless and flat out wrong.

Coffee Shop Is Now Paying Their Workers $12.50 An Hour
By: Steve - February 7, 2015 - 11:30am

Andrew Kopplin and his wife Amanda have operated their coffee shop Kopplin's Coffee in St. Paul, Minnesota for eight years. But they made a big change in January: they swapped the tip jar for a living wage.

A big part of the inspiration for the change came from realizing how unstable Kopplin’s employees were. "They weren't really disgruntled or anything like that, I was just watching them and realizing...this is a stress we should figure out."

Those who worked Monday mornings were nearly guaranteed to make more tips; those working late on a Friday would probably make less, just because business was slower.

And it didn't make sense for him to have workers making less during the slower periods anyway. "There's plenty of work that should be done in the afternoon when not as many people are there. Things need to be cleaned; items need to be stocked. If that doesn't happen, we're in trouble.That’s not tipped work normally, but it's necessary work."

The shop also prides itself in retaining staff and wants to make it even more attractive to stick around. "We've been lucky with loyalty. We keep people on average for two years, which is pretty high for coffee shops," he said proudly. A more stable wage and one that's easier to live off of can keep people around. That brings the coffee shop benefits, as customers get to know the baristas who work there, because the baristas stick around for a while."

He and his wife spent six months running the numbers to make sure that the company could afford to increase pay but that employees would still all make more under the new regime than they had making tips. Then they sat down with employees to see what they thought. "They were like, 'This is great, we'd love to do this,'" he said. "That was the go point for me, when I had 100 percent employee support."

The starting wage at the coffee shop is now $12.50 an hour. But he says that most employees are actually making more than that because they've been working with him for a year or more and they get reviews with the potential for raises every six months.

The change has been nothing but positive. "Before, employees were always trying to scrape up enough money to get by. Now if I'm working, I don't have to worry. If you're working you don't have to count tips."

He knows this from first-hand experience, as he works behind the counter alongside his employees five days a week. "Tips were big for me too," he said. "So it was a big shift for me to get paid without them."

To cover the increased cost of labor, the store raised its prices by about 20 percent. He and his wife took higher prices into account when deciding whether to get rid of tips. But he doesn't think it's been a huge disruption for customers.

"We're already a high-end speciality shop, so our prices were already higher," he said. Plus "for a lot of customers they're not paying that much different, because they were tossing a dollar in the tip jar anyway."

Now he says his prices are "honest." If tipping is optional, he reasons, then why not bake that extra money into the price of the coffee? "If you're going to be mad at people for not tipping a dollar, just charge them a dollar more," he said.

"This price reflects what coffee costs to make fairly."

Tipping is such an expected part of the restaurant industry that there's even a lower minimum wage for those who make gratuity: the federal floor is $2.13 an hour for tipped workers, although some states require them to be paid the same minimum wage as other workers.

But Kopplin's Coffee isn't the first eatery to think about getting rid of them and paying a higher wage. Restaurants from Pittsburgh to Kentucky to New York to the West Coast have done the same thing, as has a brewpub in Washington, D.C.

Owners have realized that not only does tipping introduce unpredictability into workers lives, it doesn't actually improve the quality of service, which only accounts for a percentage point or so in the difference in tip sizes. Instead, tips have more to do with whether a server is white, female, attractive, or touches a customer on the arm.

A server's need to work for tips can also create an atmosphere that leads to sexual harassment: nearly 80 percent of women in the restaurant industry say they've been harassed by a customer.

Maher to Republicans Finally Slamming Palin: What Took You So Long?
By: Steve - February 7, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill Maher ended his show Friday night finally talking about Sarah Palin's rambling Iowa speech (that O'Reilly never once reported on) that was the final straw for many Republicans and conservatives.

But Maher had just one question for them: "What took you so long?!"

Maher mocked the revelation as an "emperor has no clues" situation and asked Republicans why they took so long, saying, "The rest of us have been watching this dog eat grass for seven years!"

However, while Maher was glad that many conservatives are finally admitting Palin "is a crazy person," he said they should maybe consider what else they've been wrong about, like climate change or trickle-down economics.

What happened is Palin is making the Republicans and the Tea Party look so bad now they finally had to slam her, but they let her get away with it for 7 years. I have been saying since day one that she is a dumb far-right loon, and now even the Republicans are admitting it.

Republicans Lying About Jobs And The Economy
By: Steve - February 7, 2015 - 10:00am

First let me say this, in January of 2009 when President Obama took office the country lost 580,000 jobs in one month, and had lost over 3 million jobs in the last 6 months of the Bush presidency. The whole country was falling apart, we had a stock market crash, it had went down to 8,000, a banking crisis, a housing crisis, high unemployment, and on and on.

Obama takes office and passed the stimulus bill, among other things (that Republicans opposed btw) and over the last 59 months we had had record economic growth and job creation. The stock market is setting records and over 17,000, gas is $2.00 a gallon, and unemployment is below 6 percent. This is all good news and all because of President Obama, with no help from the Republicans.

In fact, it is a historic recovery from the Bush recession, and yet John Boehner says it is not enough and says Obama is not doing anything to add jobs or help the economy. It's laughable, and if you believe Boehner you are either crazy or stupid or both.

House Speaker John Boehner said this: "Millions are still struggling and searching for a good job." He said the economy needs a further boost, which could happen if Obama signs into law Republican-backed priorities like approving the Keystone XL pipeline and rolling back regulations. If the president is serious about helping the middle class, he’ll reconsider his threat to veto these bills and work with us to get these things done," the Ohio Republican said.

And now the facts: The private sector has added 11.8 million jobs over 59 straight months of job growth, extending the longest streak on record.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 257,000 in January due to a 267,000 increase in private-sector employment. Private-sector job growth was revised up for November and December by a combined 149,000 jobs, so that over the past twelve months, private employment has risen by 3.1 million, the largest twelve-month gain since 1998.

The labor force participation rate rose to 62.9 percent in January, and has been relatively stable, on balance, since October 2013 -- during which time the unemployment rate has fallen by 1.5 percentage points.

Nominal average hourly earnings for private production and non-supervisory workers have risen 2.0 percent over the last twelve months -- implying real wage growth of around one percent, but still below rates needed to overcome the long-standing challenge in this area.

Consistent with a general pattern of upward revisions during the recovery, job growth in November and December was revised up substantially, and the benchmark revision to March 2014 added 91,000 jobs (on a seasonally adjusted basis).

Looking over the 59-month streak of private-sector job growth, January was one of the top ten strongest months for construction (+39,000), retail trade (+46,000), financial activities (+26,000), and health care and social assistance (+50,000).

The fact is Boehner can not admit the economy is doing great under Obama, because he is a partisan right-wing political hack who does not want give Obama credit for anything, and that includes O'Reilly who does the very same thing. They are both Republicans who would be screaming at the moon every night if these numbers had come out under a Republican President.

When it happens under a Democratic President they ignore it and downplay it, even though it is a historic recovery. And btw, the jobs report came out Friday morning and Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it on his Friday night show. Which is 100% right-wing bias, by ignoring the story.

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Ignored
By: Steve - February 6, 2015 - 11:00am

And btw folks, when news like this came out under Bush O'Reilly reported it every time, and even praised Bush for it saying it shows he is doing a good job. O'Reilly also did the same thing when good stock market news came out, O'Reilly praised Bush and said it was a measure of how good a job he was doing. But now when the very same things happen under Obama O'reilly does not even report it, and of course he never praises Obama for it, let alone say it shows he is doing a good job.

It's a perfect example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, and yet he claims to not have any bias. If this news came out under a Republican President O'Reilly would be all over it, and that is a fact, because he did it under Bush and I wrote numerous blogs about it.

------------------------

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. employers hired at a stellar pace last month, wages rose by the most in six years, and Americans responded by streaming into the job market to find work.

The Labor Department said Friday that the economy gained 257,000 jobs in January, and added far more in previous months than originally estimated. Businesses added a whopping 414,000 jobs in November, the most in 17 years. Total job gains in December were also revised higher, to 329,000, up from 252,000.

Average hourly wages, meanwhile, jumped 12 cents to $24.75, the biggest gain since September 2008. In the past year, hourly pay has increased 2.2 percent.

The unemployment rate rose to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. More Americans began looking for jobs, though not all found work. Their job hunting suggests they are more confident about their prospects.

That is ahead of inflation, which rose just 0.7 percent in 2014. The sharp drop in gas prices in the past year has held down inflation and boosted Americans spending power.

Strong hiring pushes up wages as employers compete for fewer workers. Job gains have now averaged 336,000 a month for the past three months, the best three-month pace in 17 years.

Steady economic growth has encouraged companies to keep hiring. The economy expanded at a 4.8 percent annual rate during spring and summer, the fastest six-month pace in a decade, before slowing to a still-decent 2.6 percent pace in the final three months of 2014.

There are now 3.2 million more Americans earning paychecks than there were 12 months ago. That lifts consumer spending, which drives about 70 percent of economic growth.

More hiring, along with sharply lower gasoline prices, has boosted Americans confidence and spending power. Consumer confidence jumped in January to its highest level in a decade, according to a survey by the University of Michigan. And Americans increased their spending during the final three months of last year at the fastest pace in nearly nine years.

Your Republican Congress Wasting Taxpayer Money Again
By: Steve - February 6, 2015 - 10:00am



"It is unfair to say Republicans have achieved nothing in their dozens and dozens of attempts since 2010 to repeal Obamacare," Dana Millbank wrote.

"In Tuesday's repeal effort by House Republicans (their first of this Congress and their 56th overall) it became clear that they had succeeded at one thing: They had bored even themselves into a slumber.

For much of the debate Tuesday afternoon, no more than a dozen seats were occupied on the pro-repeal side of the House. More than once, the GOP had nobody available to speak."

And O'Reilly never says a word about it every time they do it, even though it's a total waste of time and money, because even if they pass it Obama will veto it. And if Democrats were doing this same cheap political stunt to make their base happy O'Reilly would report it every time and rip them to pieces. When Republicans do it he is silent and says nothing.

Kurtz: Fox News Wrong to Host ISIS Video, We're 'Helping Spread' Fear
By: Steve - February 5, 2015 - 10:00am

Fox News Howard Kurtz strongly disagreed tonight with Fox's decision to make the entire ISIS video showing the death of a Jordanian pilot available on its website, in its online player. One Fox executive argued it's up there to show the brutality of the ISIS terrorists, but Kurtz said it does something entirely different.

He told Megyn Kelly he doesn't like how "we are helping spread the fear that ISIS wants us so badly to spread." He said Fox is essentially helping ISIS get its propaganda out to more people this way.

Kelly defended her show's decision to show viewers a still image of the pilot's death as analogous to getting an inside look into Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

Kurtz admitted it's a good thing that at least Fox isn't showing the video on-air, but asked, "Why are we making it easier for people to see this monstrous footage?"

Fox News flagship news program aired graphic footage of the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group executing a hostage, despite previously criticizing other media outlets for airing such footage they called "terrorist propaganda."

This week the Islamic State (ISIS) released a video showing the horrific murder of a Jordanian pilot being held hostage by the terrorist group. Jordan officials confirmed the pilot's death, and are currently working to authenticate the video produced and distributed by ISIS.

Fox News Special Report aired images of the execution from the terrorists video on February 3rd. Host Bret Baier explained the network's reasoning for showing the graphic images, warning viewers, "The images are brutal. They are graphic. They are upsetting," but, "The reason we are showing you this is to bring you the reality of Islamic terrorism and to label it as such. We feel you need to see it."

After displaying the images, Baier added, "Having seen the whole video, it is something you cannot unsee. Horrific and barbaric, as well as calculating and skilled at high-tech propaganda." FoxNews.com later uploaded the full-length, 22-minute video on its site.

Fox's justification for airing the terrorists' "high-tech propaganda" is strikingly similar to one of the network's favorite attacks on President Obama, that he refuses to acknowledge the reality of the terrorism threat.

But before Obama was in office, Fox News repeatedly criticized other media outlets for airing footage they called "terrorist propaganda," claiming doing so threatens national security and U.S. troops.

In 2004, Bill O'Reilly said this: "The TV network Al Jazeera helps al Qaeda and other killers by broadcasting their executions propaganda."

In 2005, Fox News Watch questioned whether American journalists should continue working relationships with Al Jazeera, because "American journalists are helping Iraqi terrorists by showing pictures of terrorist acts provided by Al Jazeera, a TV network that seems to have strong links to terrorists."

And in 2006, Fox criticized CNN for airing footage of American soldiers being killed in Iraq, declaring they would not air the same footage and noting that "some people say the airing of what they call a terrorist propaganda video has actually put American soldiers in danger."

Fox's decision to air images distributed by ISIS of the brutal murder was met with widespread criticism. Other media outlets like CNN announced they would not be showing any of the images.

And of course, O'Reilly was silent about the showing of it by Fox. Even though he has said in te past that showing video like this is helping the terrorists, but when Fox does it he says nothing.

The Tuesday 2-3-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 4, 2015 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The presidential race off and running. The biased and dishonest Republican hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'Reilly: The presidential vote is 21 months away, but the campaign is on. With the Republican nomination wide open and a polarizing Hillary Clinton likely to represent the Democrats, this will be a very high-profile election. The media will play a huge role and the press has been corrupted by money, the Internet and ideology.

CNN commentator Ruben Navarrette was very blunt about Univision, saying the network 'is a partisan network in favor of Democrats' and that 'CNN is probably the bigger problem.' Full disclosure: Mr. Navarette also said that Fox News is biased in favor of Republicans. So the political landscape is already tainted and here's why that matters. Informed voters will not be swayed by media coverage, but millions of Americans are uninformed.

They don't watch the news or read newspapers, they pick up things from their friends and in cyberspace. When you hear about 'ground games' and getting out the vote, those are the people being targeted. It is likely that most of the media will line up in favor of Hillary Clinton. She received generous coverage as secretary of state, and there is nostalgia on the left for the good times under Bill Clinton.

That will be a huge advantage, as we saw with Barack Obama. As far as The Factor is concerned, we are going to cover the race in a surgical way. We are not going to allow the candidates to bloviate, we will develop story lines about those who seek the presidency. The two core issues are how to increase take-home pay for working Americans, and how to defeat the jihad.

Today ISIS put another disgusting homicide on the net, burning to death a Jordanian pilot. Once again the White House had no answer, no plan to stop the gross terrorism. There is a huge amount at stake, so let the political games begin.
Comment from Steve: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a fool and the presidential race is not on, Hillary has not even said if she is running yet, and nobody pays attention to this stuff until about 6 months before the election. You are out of touch with the American people. And O'Reilly will now spend the next 21 months lying to you about Obama and the Democrats as he tries to help the Republican win.

Then the Democrat Kirsten Powers and the Republican Monica Crowley were on to discuss it.

Powers (The pretend Fox News Democrat) said this: "The mainstream media are overwhelmingly liberal, and the issue is whether they are able to correct for the bias. I would say they generally are not because they don't think they are biased. They have a worldview that assumes liberals are right."

Comment from Steve: They also know that the facts show the economy and the country in general does better with Democrats in power, something the idiots O'Reilly and Powers never mention.

Crowley said this: "The Founding Fathers didn't think you could have a healthy republic without an independent press. President's Nixon's theory was that smart conservatives go into business to make money and smart liberals go into journalism to change the world."

Comment from Steve: The founding fathers would roll over in their graves at what the media has become, especially Fox, they would outlaw Fox because they are nothing but an arm of the RNC, and they would get all the corporate money out of the media and our elections. They would be outraged that Fox is even called a news network, let alone allowed to claim they are a fair and balanced news outlet.

Then Larry Sabato was on to talk about Republican presidential prospect Rand Paul, who has been making the media rounds, but refused an invitation to appear on the Factor.

Comment from Steve: Yeah because you slam him and call him a nut, what do you expect, when you insult people they are most likely not going to do your lame and biased cable news show, idiot!

Sabato said this: "Even though Paul is doing well in the polls, I don't think he has much chance of being the nominee. He's okay while there is a fractured field with many candidates, but it's hard to imagine the hawkish side of the party going with a candidate who is isolationist."

Then the crazy right-wing loon John Stossel, a Rand Paul supporter, was on to defend his candidate.

Stossel said this: "I think Senator Paul should come on your show, but on the other hand you're an obnoxious guy who barely lets libertarians get a word in. You sneer and call me a 'loon' when I'm on your show, but I think Senator Paul will eventually come on. I like the fact that he says the state does not have the answer to everything."

O'Reilly said this: "He has never defined anything about defeating the jihad. If you're going to run for president and you have no plan, that's irresponsible."

Comment from Steve: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, nobody has a plan to defeat the jihad, because it can not be defeated you moron. All you can do is try to control it, you can not defeat it.

Then Medea Benjamin from the anti-war group Code Pink was on, she interrupted a Senate hearing last week, confronting 91-year-old Henry Kissinger. Medea Benjamin, the group's founder, defended the in-your-face tactics, saying this: "We didn't physically assault anybody, and we were careful not to touch Henry Kissinger or anyone else. We were using our First Amendment rights to free speech and I think you should applaud that people care enough to do this."

O'Reilly challenged Benjamin to define how she would stop ISIS atrocities. Benjamin said this: "The U.S. invasion of Iraq led to the creation of ISIS, and U.S. intervention only creates more extremism. We should get our allies like the Turks and the Saudis to stop the recruiting and funding."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Bobbi Kristina Brown, daughter of Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston, who remains in a coma after being found unconscious in a bathtub. Given the fact that Bobbi's late mother had a history of drug problems, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle examined the legalities of parental drug usage.

Wiehl said this: "In 33 states it is illegal to expose your child to illegal drugs, and there are only three states do not have any laws protecting children. In Georgia you can get up to 15 years for having meth in your house in front of your children."

Guilfoyle laid out the sheer scope of the problem, saying this: "According to one survey, more than 8-million children were living with at least one parent who was a serious substance abuser. Studies show that if you are exposed to that, you will be more likely to grow up with a drug problem."

Comment from Steve: Drug laws are stupid and un-American, especially in a so-called free country, and when you can not hire enough people to enforce them, because it would cost too much. So the smart thing to do would be to make drugs legal and regulate them the same way they do with beer, etc.

And finally, the worthless and lame Factor tip of the day called: Float Into Dreamland. Billy said this: "If you're one of the many Americans who have trouble sleeping, try listening to an old school R&B song called "Float On" by a group called, appropriately, The Floaters."

Comment from Steve: These tips of the day are pretty much worthless and usually just common sense, but this one is the worst I have ever seen. O'Reilly has just given up on this tip of the day stuff, they are garbage and of no use to anyone. Use the time to report some real news.

One last thing, here is a great e-mail that was sent to O'Reilly: J. Pansare, Bloomington, IN: "Mr. O, the Factor loses credibility when you put the idiotic segment Watters' World on. Viewers do not take you seriously."

Republicans Pass Bill That Takes Health Care Away From 19 Million
By: Steve - February 4, 2015 - 10:00am

The Republican House has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 239-186, but House Republicans didn't just vote to repeal Obamacare. By voting for repeal, they also voted to take away access to health care from 19 million Americans.

No Democrats voted for the bill, and three Republicans voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act.

The Republican argument was the same one that has ignored the reality of the law's success for years. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the ACA a disaster while claiming that The People don't want Obamacare.

Despite the fact that the ACA has lowered costs, McCarthy claimed that costs have gone up. He brought out the tired old argument that taking away access to health care promoted freedom. He also claimed that Obamacare was government run health care.

Except, nothing in the Majority Leader's remarks is true.

Before the vote, House Ways and Means Committee Democrats released a statement that revealed the truth, "We've had more than four years of the Republicans telling us they have a better solution. To date, the ACA has succeeded in helping millions of working families and retirees: 19 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured are now covered; 9 billion in premium dollars saved; $15 billion in savings on drugs for seniors. Four years and counting of empty Republican promises."

Rep. Sander Levin called out the lie that health care costs are rising because of the ACA. He said, "It's a lie. It's a fib." He said the problem that Republicans have with the law is that it is working.

There was nothing new in the Republican argument. It was an endless stream of half-truths and falsehoods.

Beyond taking away access to health care for 19 million Americans, House Republicans also voted to throw 3 million children off of their parents health insurance.

They also voted to deny 129 million Americans with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health care. House Republicans even voted to raise prescription drug costs on 8.2 million seniors. Republicans then voted to raise Medicare premiums on seniors.

The media and some on the left often get caught up in talking about the volume of House Republican attempts to kill the ACA. What often gets overlooked is what repealing the ACA will do. The Republican efforts do not contain a plan to replace the ACA. The Republican efforts are centered around taking away access to and the benefits of affordable health care.

So they voted to end a plan that is working, with no plan to replace it, so much for looking out for the people. And btw, it was the 67th time the Republican House has voted to repeal Obamacare, even though if it ever does pass the Senate Obama is going to veto it. It is a total waste of time and taxpayer money, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it.

CBO: Deficit To Shrink To Lowest Level Of Obama Presidency
By: Steve - February 3, 2015 - 10:00am

Remember when Bill O'Reilly used to scream every night about the deficit, and say that the Obama policies were going to bankrupt America and lead to a debt so high it could never be paid off. Well guess what, he was wrong!

Yes I know it's a shocker, not. But it's true, it was all right-wing nonsense and propaganda from O'Reilly, and as I said at the time O'Reilly would be proven wrong, and he was. And btw, most of it was the deficit that Bush added while he was the President, something O'Reilly never mentions.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Solid economic growth will help the federal budget deficit shrink this year to its lowest level since President Barack Obama took office, according to congressional estimates released Monday.

The Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will be $468 billion for the budget year that ends in September. That's slightly less than last year's $483 billion deficit.

As a share of the economy, CBO says this year's deficit will be slightly below the historical average of the past 50 years.

In a report released Monday, CBO projects solid economic growth for the next few years. The official scorekeeper of Congress also expects unemployment to drop even more.

In other words, O'Reilly was wrong about everything. It turns out he was just lying to you and spinning out right-wing talking points to make Obama look bad. As I said it was at the time, I said the economy would turn around and the deficits would go down, as they always do after a recession. O'Reilly claimed the sky was falling, it was all the fault of Obama, and it could never be fixed, and it was all lies.

"In CBO's estimation, increases in consumer spending, business investment and residential investment will drive the economic expansion this year and over the next few years," the report said.

CBO also cited wage increases, rising wealth and the recent decline in oil prices.

Obama inherited an economy in recession when he took office. The deficit topped $1 trillion for each of his first four years in office, including a record $1.4 trillion in 2009.

CBO projects that the economy will grow at an annual rate of 3 percent in both 2015 and 2016.

CBO also projects the unemployment rate will gradually decrease to 5.3 percent in 2017. It is now 5.6 percent.

Notice one other thing, none of this news has ever been reported by O'Reilly, he ignored this entire story. And has not said one word about deficits in months.

Obama Approval Up 22 Points Since The GOP Won Congress
By: Steve - February 2, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly is still ignoring it, he has not said one word about the Obama job approval ratings now that they are in positive terrority.

President Obama's approval rating has improved by 22 points in the Gallup poll since Republicans won control of Congress. Obama's opposition to the Republican agenda is making the president more popular while destroying the myth of a GOP mandate.

Danny Vinik pointed out the dramatic shift in the president's job approval rating, "On Monday, President Barack Obama's favorability rating hit 50 in the Gallup tracking poll for the first time since June 2013, with his unfavorable rating at 45 percent. That's a 22-point improvement since the midterm elections, when Obama's approval rating was 39 percent and his disapproval rating was 56 percent."

President Obama's approval rating at the height of the 2014 campaign was an underwater net (-10 to -17 points). These bad numbers can be attributed to the fact that Republicans ran an relentlessly negative campaign against the president, while Democrats made the doubly deadly decision to run away from Obama while keeping the president off of the campaign trail.

The myth that there was some kind of mandate to be gained out of the 2014 election has been widely pushed by Bill O'Reilly and his Republican friends, when the reality is that 2014 was an election where the contested races took part on Republican turf, and the latest midterm was more evidence that future elections may be decided more on geographic polarization than those mysterious favorites of the political chattering class, waves and momentum.

President Obama has turned the post-election landscape into a contest between two competing visions for the direction of the country. By acting alone on climate change, immigration, and Cuba, the president showed the American people what his agenda looks like. Meanwhile, Republicans have opposed tax cuts for the middle class, free community college, and tried to take away health care from millions.

The president has appealed to economic middle of the country while Senate Republicans have spent the past month trying to pass a bill that is a gift for Big Oil (Keystone XL).

The president has become more popular by understanding that the American people want action. The president rejected the idea that Republicans gained a mandate. The worst thing that Obama could have done after the election would have been to yield to the Republican agenda.

President Obama is riding the wave of a growing economy and increased optimism to shatter the myth that the American people want the Republican agenda. Obama is soaring to a presidential resurgence because he rejected the conventional wisdom of a Republican mandate.

Sean Hannity Voted Worst TV Host By His Own Colleagues
By: Steve - February 1, 2015 - 11:00am

In a poll conducted by Mediaite, reporters from Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN were asked to secretly vote on who they felt were the best and worst of the networks. While choosing the worst of their colleagues at CNN and MSNBC proved to be tough, one thing everyone was clear on was that Sean Hannity was definitely Fox's most awful employee. And it wasn't even close for second.

From Mediaite:
We sent a survey to several dozen cable news hosts from Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, hoping to gain insight into how insiders view their own colleagues and competitors.

While guaranteeing complete anonymity, we asked them to name one colleague for each of the following 10 categories: Best and Worst Hosts, Fox; Best and Worst Hosts, CNN; Best and Worst Hosts, MSNBC; Best and Worst Guests, Overall; and Best and Worst TV Reporters, Overall.
Almost all of the contests ended in a tie. For example, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier got equal votes for Best Host on Fox. But when it came to Fox News worst host, people seemed less unsure. Hannity blew everyone out of the water. An argument could be made for many of Fox's hosts, but Hannity trumped them all. Badly.

Now remember this, the poll was taken by the other people who worked at Fox, and yet after Hannity heard about it he blamed the liberal media, when his own colleagues voted in the poll, nobody from the so-called liberal media had a vote. So not only do liberals hate Hannity, his own colleagues do too.

Falling way behind Hannity was Eric Bolling (who received two votes) and a bunch of hosts with single votes to their name, including Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly.

As Mediaite writer Andrew Kirell points out, Hannity initially excused the ranking as just more liberal bias, but that's the thing… his own colleagues voted him the worst. It's not a liberal conspiracy, it's a professional middle finger to a man who does a disservice to the very idea of news.

Congrats on the win Hannity. You've certainly earned the honor.

Facebook Group Hates Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, & Beck
By: Steve - February 1, 2015 - 10:00am

O'Reilly goes on and on how he is not a Republican (even though anyone with a brain who watches his show for 2 minutes knows he is) somehow failed to mention there is a Facebook group with 727 members called "I hate Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity & Glen Beck"

Their cover photo is the 4 of them with red clown noses, under the photo it says "send in the clowns"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/84012384356/ Now here is a good question, if O'Reilly is not a Republican why is he lumped in with the 3 biggest right-wing idiots in America in that Facebook group?

What say you O'Reilly?

It's laughable for O'Reilly to say he is not a Republican, he takes the same positions they do, he has 90% right-wing regulars and guests, all his topics could be picked from the RNC, he hates Obama, he hates Hillary, and on and on. It's a joke, and if O'Reilly can not even be honest about his political bias, how can you believe anything he says about anything.





To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com