O'Reilly Blames Bad Reviews Of Killing Jesus On The Culture War In America
By: Steve - March 31, 2015 - 11:00am

O'Reilly Claims Reviews Show Its "Open Season On Christians" In America



The Guardian newspaper in England even had some bad reviews of it, because they said it had a lot of things wrong, not for any political reasons as O'Reilly claims. They just said it was not an accurate movie, and as usual O'Reilly flips out when someone dares to tell him he got it wrong.

I am a liberal and I could care less if the movie was good or bad, accurate or not, because it's a fricking movie and movies are not like the media. The people who make movies do not have a duty to inform the people with the truth and they are not protected by the 1st amendment, so they can do anything they want and nobody should care.

When O'Reilly says the left hated it because blah, blah, blah, he is a fool. Because most of my left-leaning friends did not watch it, do not care it was on, do not care if it was accurate or not, and do not care what the ratings were.

O'Reilly's Cameraman Hammers Fox News Host's Falklands Tale
By: Steve - March 31, 2015 - 10:00am

More than a month after Fox News host Bill O'Reilly was called out for lying about his record covering the Falklands War in the 1980s, his cameraman at the time has disputed key facts in the story.

Mother Jones, which published one of the first reports that sparked the recent investigations into O'Reilly's work, published a statement on Monday from the CBS cameraman Ignacio Medrano-Carbo.

Over the years, O'Reilly had repeatedly said he'd seen people gunned down by live bullets in the streets of Buenos Aires in the 1980s when he covered "riots" there for CBS.

He also said he personally rescued his cameraman, who he said had been knocked down and was bleeding from the head during the melee.

Medrano-Carbo told Mother Jones that O'Reilly's story was news to him.

"Ninety-nine percent of the footage in that report was shot by me," he told Mother Jones. "Does that make me his cameraman?"

"I never fell nor was I bleeding out my ear at any time during my Buenos Aires assignment. I do not even recall Mr. O'Reilly being near me when I shot all that footage nor after I left the unrest at Plaza de Mayo that evening," Medrano-Carbo told the magazine.

Fox News provided a statement from O'Reilly to TPM on Monday.

O'Reilly claims he does not know Carbo, and has never worked with him, saying this: "I never worked with Ignacio Medrano-Carbo. This is nothing more than yet another coordinated attack which predictably comes on the heels of my appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman," O'Reilly said.

And O'Reilly said that even though Medrano-Carbo has been confirmed as O'Reilly's cameraman by the sound man Jim Forrest, who btw, also weighed in on the dead bodies O'Reilly claims to have seen.

"I can confirm that no one I know of who worked with me in Buenos Aires during the Falkland War ever heard of any CBS crew member getting beat or hurt," he added.

"Nor did any demonstrators get killed that night at Plaza de Mayo," he said, "to quote a colleague, 'or we would've been following up at the morgue and interviewing family members.'"

Once again O'Reilly has been proven to be a liar, and instead of admitting the lie he digs the hole deeper and denies he even knows the cameraman, which is just laughable, because the sound man who was there confirms that Carbo was the cameraman for O'Reilly at the time. Bill O'Reilly is a serial liar, and that is a fact.

Sanders Gives Republicans Fact Check On Raising Minimum Wage
By: Steve - March 30, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly never reported it, because it shows the Republicans are liars when they say raising the minimum wage decreases jobs. Even though O'Reilly claims to support raising the minimum wage he almost never reports on the lies the Republicans put out about it, and he pretty much ignores the issue unless a Democratic guest on the show brings it up.

In the midst of a Senate budget battle, that Republicans are filling with anti-Obamacare and economy killing votes, Senator Bernie Sanders took the Senate floor and dropped a truth bomb that raising the minimum wage is in fact a job creator.

Sanders said this: "The simple truth is that in America people working full time should not be living in poverty. Since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has fallen by close to thirty percent, and people all over this country and in state after state on their own have voted to raise the minimum wage. And, by the way, in state after state where the minimum wage has gone up, more jobs have been created. Let us stand today with the tens of millions of workers who are struggling to put food on the table to take care of their families."

The Sanders amendment to raise the federal minimum wage failed to pass 48-52. The good news is that Sen. Sanders fell just three votes short of passage as just a simple majority of fifty-one votes are required to pass budget amendments. The bad news is that once again the Republican party put their wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists, ahead of the will of the people who support raising the minimum wage.

Here are the facts: Labor Department data for the first six months of 2014 revealed that the 13 states that raised their minimum wage created more jobs than the 37 that didn't, "In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85% from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61%."

Those are hard numbers folks, not political spin from the Democratic party or some left-leaning think tank, they are actual stats from the Labor Department. And it proves the Republicans are lying when they say raising the minimum wage will cost jobs, when in fact the stats show it increased jobs.

Not to mention, it is just the right thing to do, because nobody can live on $7.25 an hour and the federal minimum wage should have been raised to $10.00 an hour 7 or 8 years ago.

There are decades worth of data and studies that confirm what Sen. Sanders is saying. The Republican opposition to raising the minimum wage is ideological. The anti-minimum wage position lacks credible non-partisan statistics and data to support its claims.

Republicans hang their opposition on a myth that raising the minimum wage kills jobs, but 64 studies have proven that the Republican talking point to be a lie.

Sen. Sanders dropped a dose of reality on Senate Republicans. And if the 52 Republican Senators who voted no really wanted to boost the economy and help working Americans, the first thing they would do is reverse course and support raising the minimum wage.

Obama Says He Will Veto Ridiculous Republican Budget
By: Steve - March 29, 2015 - 11:00am

House Republicans saw their budget dreams go up in smoke as President Obama is signaling that he will veto the unpopular, but freshly passed House budget.

In a statement the White House said this:
Budgets are about priorities. This evening the House Republicans made clear that once again their priority is to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and return our economy to the same top-down economics that has failed the American people before.

House Republicans voted in favor of locking in draconian sequestration cuts to investments in the middle class like education, job training, and manufacturing. House Republicans also failed to responsibly fund our national security, opting instead for budget gimmicks.

The Republican priorities stand in stark contrast to the President's plan to reverse sequestration and bring middle-class economics into the 21st Century.

Through critical investments needed to accelerate and sustain economic growth in the long run, including in research, education, training, and infrastructure, the President's Budget shows what we can do if we invest in America's future and commit to an economy that rewards hard work, generates rising incomes, and allows everyone to share in the prosperity of a growing America.

The President has been clear that he will not accept a budget that locks in sequestration or one that increases funding for our national security without providing matching increases in funding for our economic security. The Administration will continue to abide by these principles moving forward.
The budget showdown between President Obama and Congressional Republicans could be the most significant budget battle since then President Bill Clinton vetoed the Republican budget in 1995.

At the time of his veto, Clinton said this: "With this veto, the extreme Republican effort to balance the budget through wrongheaded cuts and misplaced priorities is over. Now it's up to all of us to go back to work together to show we can balance the budget and be true to our values and our economic interests."

Both President Clinton and President Obama mentioned priorities for a reason. The budget is never about dollars. Budgets are about ideology and priorities.

The 2015 Republicans are repeating the behavior of the 1995 Republicans. They are trying to use the budgetary process to force their ideology on a Democratic president.

The stage is being set for an epic budget throwdown the likes of which the country has seen in almost two decades.

President Obama's message to Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell is clear. If the Republicans want a budget fight, they've got it.

The Republican budget robs from the poor to give to the rich and the corporations, it looks like Millionaires, Billionaires, and Corporate Lobbyists wrote it. And anyone who voted for a Republican in the last election how study their budget carefully, because it screws everyone who is not wealthy.

At a time when middle class incomes are dropping, with record corporate profits, and a record high stock market the Republicans have it all wrong. They should be giving more to the poor and the middle class, not taking it away.

Republican Run States Take More From The Federal Government
By: Steve - March 28, 2015 - 11:00am

This blows the Republican propaganda (that Democratic run states take more money from the Federal Government than Republican run states) out of the water. What this report shows is that when Republicans say they are for smaller Government and they do not want the Federal Government to help them with anything, it is all a lie.

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. Because he says the very same thing, he says the liberals are sucking all the money out of the Government, when in fact O'Reilly is wrong, and it is the conservative states who get more of the Government money.

Fact: States that consistently vote Republican and against their own best interest suck more money from the federal government than Democratic states.

Residents in red states across the nation are already suffering from Republican policies that are raping the economic life out of the people, and in most cases the only thing keeping the people, particularly the poor people, from starvation and ill-health is the federal government; the entity they hate with religious fervor and elect Republicans to eviscerate.

Now, another report reveals that those same red state Republican voters who want the federal government cut to shreds are taking substantially more assets from the federal government they want destroyed at the expense of blue states that are supporting them.

This time the report is not from a liberal-leaning think tank, or any government agency; it is from a commercial organization with no political or economic stake in the study's results. Study after study has also consistently exposed anti-federal government Republican states as being incredibly dependent on the federal government they hate with religious passion and just voted for Republicans to fulfill their wishes and decimate it.

Never, never ever, underestimate the power of stupid Republican voters in red states who are a Presidential veto away from seeing their evil dream reach fruition.

The new report is courtesy of WalletHub; a commercial personal financial web site that rated all 50 states on the basis of their dependence on the federal government to support their economies and keep poor people alive. The report was compiled from data and condensed into "four metrics" not unlike other studies, but without a political motivation for conducting the research.

The categories were; the return in federal dollars on taxpayer investment, or how many federal dollars a state receives as opposed to what the residents pay in. The percentage of state revenue from federal funding that keeps the state from declaring bankruptcy and its residents from starving or dying from lack of medical care.

The number of non-defense (civilian) federal employees in a state, as opposed to states supported by large military installations. And last, the per capita federal employee rate in the state such as federal marshals, park rangers, federal highway workers, and federal regulators keeping air, water, and food safe.

Republican states have benefitted greatly from federal healthcare such as Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act, and it is relatively common knowledge that the largest percentage of SNAP (food stamp) recipients are poor white Republicans in red states; likely because red state legislators enacted Draconian 'right to work' laws keeping wages at or below poverty levels.

The stupidity of red state Republican voters is that they are the morons who consistently send Republicans to Washington to rein in the federal budget and cut the federal government down to size.

There is no accounting for stupid people who, as equally stupid Sarah Palin claims, are the real Americans sitting on their porches holding their guns, their god, and their Constitution while supporting Republicans who promised to ravage the federal government they are convinced is stealing their liberty.

It has always been a mystery where those dummies who receive federal assistance in food and healthcare think their government assistance originates. Maybe if they would lose that assistance for a while they would get a clue that the federal government they sent Republicans to Washington to demolish is all that prevents them from starving, working for a dollar an hour seven days a week, or going without lifesaving medical care, but even that eventuality is debatable.

What is noteworthy is that the blue states that receive 20, 30, or 40 cents in return for every dollar they invest in the federal government are not revolting and threatening to secede.

Which is the difference between blue state residents and hateful red state Republicans; they accept that Americans assist their fellow citizens no matter how stupid they are for voting against their own best interests and the federal government that is likely all that stands between their demise and survival.

Unfortunately their stupidity is a threat to the rest of the population and it is beginning to appear that they comprehend exactly what they are doing; if that is the case they are not just stupid, they are crazy.

David Letterman Calls O'Reilly Out For His Lies
By: Steve - March 27, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly sticks to his dishonest guns and refuses to admit he has ever lied about anything, which is just laughable, because not only was he caught in all those lies, I catch him lying here in my blog almost every night.

Here is the video:



Bill O'Reilly stopped by the Late Show with David Letterman Tuesday night to engage in a little self-promotion. But as you can see from the preview clip below, David Letterman did not hesitate to ask him about his recent controversies.

Comparing O'Reilly's lies of past reporting to Brian Williams exaggerations about his time spent in Iraq, Letterman asked, "Is there a difference?"

"Only if I did something that wasn't true," O’Reilly replied, maintaining his innocence.

"What I said was accurate," he insisted, despite evidence to the contrary put forward by organizations like Mother Jones and Media Matters, among others.

"It worked out OK for me," he said, noting that he got "even more viewers out of the whole thing, a 20% increase."

"20% up when people thought you were making stuff up?" Letterman asked, incredulously.

Note: What O'Reilly did not mention is that those 20% are gone now, and his ratings are back to where they were before his lie scandal. They were just temporary viewers tuning in to see what he was saying, like people stopping to look at a train wreck, they are gone now.

O'Reilly also told Letterman that while he may "bloviate" and "give analysis," he has never "fibbed" on air because it's "not worth it for him to do that."

When Letterman suggested that both O'Reilly and Williams should be held to the same standard of trust, O'Reilly said that his 15 years at number one of Fox News proves that viewers do trust him.

Note: Which is just laughable, and high ratings from right-wingers who agree with you proves nothing. Ratings do not equal trust, it just shows that if you have a biased right-wing show on a biased right-wing news network you can get good ratings. Letterman actually laughed when O'Reilly said that, because he knew it was a ridiculous statement.

As for Brian Williams, O'Reilly offered up this sort-of defense of the suspended anchor: "I think that NBC should bring him back, I think they will bring him back."

Bill O'Reilly Lied To David Letterman About His Past Lies
By: Steve - March 27, 2015 - 10:00am

This is classic O'Reilly, he goes on Letterman and lies about his lies. O'Reilly's attempt at damage control on Letterman's show for his repeated lies about his reporting career was premised on more lies.

During an appearance on The Late Show, O'Reilly sought to defend himself from criticism by falsely suggesting that people have had to go back "38 years" to find anything to dispute.

Which is a lie!

O'Reilly also suggested that his ratings received a "20 percent" boost due to the controversy.

Which is true and not true!

These claims are very dishonest: because many of his lies were made in the past few years and as recently as last month, and his ratings were largely flat over the month before and after the beginning of the scandal.

So he did get a short term ratings increase, but not for good reasons, and it did not last. Today his ratings are right back to where they were before the lie scandal.

During the interview, Letterman said that people have been arguing, "O'Reilly himself may have said things that were exaggerated or untrue and they had to go back, like, 30 years." O'Reilly replied: "38 years."

More lies!

Many of O'Reilly's fairy tales about his reporting career were made in the past few years, not 38 years ago.

-- O'Reilly's claim about reporting from a combat zone in the Falklands in 1982 was made numerous times in the past decade, including in April 2013.

-- His claim that he personally heard the 1977 suicide of a figure related to the JFK assassination was made in his 2012 book, a 2013 book adaption, and repeated on Fox News in 2012 and 2014. He has still left numerous unanswered questions about the tale.

-- O'Reilly repeatedly claimed to have witnessed nuns being "shot in the back of the head," including as recently as December 2012. He later claimed he meant that he was merely shown pictures of the shootings.

-- His claim that he's "seen" "Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs" was made in his 2013 book. A Fox News spokesperson later admitted he was only shown pictures of the bombings.

-- His inconsistent story about being caught in a firefight at an army base in El Salvador was repeated just a month ago, during a February radio interview.

-- And his claim about the danger he faced while covering the 1992 Los Angeles riots was recently made in February 2015.

During the same interview, O'Reilly said that his show "got even more viewers" because of the controversy, saying that his ratings had risen "20 percent."

But O'Reilly did not specify the duration of the ratings increase. And the actual data shows that while O'Reilly saw a brief ratings increase immediately following the controversy as viewers tuned in to see his response, he gave back that bump almost immediately, with no long-term change.

Media Matters looked into the show's nightly ratings -- pulled from TV Newser's Scoreboard posts of cable news -- over a nine-week period between January 19 (one month before the Mother Jones article that kicked off the O'Reilly scandal) and March 20 (one month after).

The daily ratings show a slight decline over the course of the study, and weekly averages of overall viewership and the coveted 25-to-54 demographic during the time period studied appear to be flat.

There was a one-day 23-percent overall increase from his show on Friday, February 20 -- the first show on which he addressed the controversy, and a night of the week that typically figures significantly lower ratings -- and Monday, February 23, when he addressed the subject for the second time.

But that February 20 show saw an 11-point ratings drop from the night before, further undermining O'Reilly's argument.

And btw, my website page views were also up during the lie scandal, and have now gone back down to pre-lie scandal levels.

Republican Run State Worst In The Country On Income Loss
By: Steve - March 26, 2015 - 11:00am

Here is a story you will never see O'Reilly report, because it destroys the right-wing propaganda he spins out that Obama and the liberals are to blame for the median household income drop in America.

Which is crazy anyway, because incomes have dropped due to corporations giving all their profits to the top 1% and not giving any of it to the actual workers, and Obama has nothing to do with that. Then on top of that Republicans block raising the federal minimum wage, and O'Reilly never says a word about it, as he insanely blames Obama for it.

Walker's Wisconsin Is Worst In Nation On Shrinking Middle Class

It was less than two weeks ago that Scott Walker said "President Obama should be looking to states, like Wisconsin, as an example for how to grow our economy."

Then, a few days ago, the Pew Charitable Trust came out with a report showing Wisconsin has lost more of its middle class than any other state in the country. Walker almost had it right, what he should have said is this: "The President should be looking to Wisconsin under Scott Walker for an example of what not to do."

Wisconsin ranks worst among the 50 states in terms of a shrinking middle class, with real median household incomes here falling 14.7% since 2000, according to a new report. The Pew Charitable Trust report showed Wisconsin with the largest decline in the percentage of families considered "middle class," or those earning between 67 and 200 percent of their state's median income.

Kevin Kane of the group Citizen Action of Wisconsin said the Pew report shows the damage to the state's progressive tradition which had once created the largest middle class in the Midwest.

"Our recent experiment in Wisconsin to undermine this legacy has brought us the greatest contraction of the middle class in the country," he said.

Also, the median household income in Wisconsin was $60,344 in 2000 but now stands at just $51,467 after adjusting for inflation. That's a dip of 14.7 percent.

This is a state run by a Republican, and they are the worst. But O'Reilly never says a word about it. While almost every night blaming Obama for the drop in median household incomes. Proving that O'Reilly is a right-wing propagandist, because he tells lies about it, and ignores the truth.

Republican Congressman Calls Ted Cruz A Carnival Barker
By: Steve - March 26, 2015 - 10:00am

It didn't take long after Ted Cruz's presidential announcement for the Texas Republican to get some heat from his own party, with Peter King releasing a statement saying in no uncertain terms he is unfit to be the next president.

And this is what a man in his own political party is saying, just imagine what the Democrats will say about him.

In the statement, King says the GOP should "be able to find a more qualified candidate than Ted Cruz."

He goes on to say, "Shutting down the federal government, reading Dr. Seuss on the Senate floor are the marks of a carnival barker, not the leader of the free world."

King, of course, is considering a 2016 run as well, and he has said he would run just to stop Cruz or Rand Paul from taking the GOP in the wrong direction.

O'Reilly aid the liberal media is on a jihad against Cruz, while ignoring all the Republicans who are also slamming Cruz. So once again O'Reilly is being dishonest.

It's Official: Bill O'Reilly Is A Clueless Right-Wing Fool
By: Steve - March 25, 2015 - 11:00am

Now he says Fox only has one conservative on the entire network and it is the only show where they have a conservative bias, and that is Sean Hannity. Which is not only insane it's just laughable. Because every single show on Fox is conservative and has a conservative bias, except for maybe Shep Smith, who is a moderate conservative and rarely gives an opinion.

O'Reilly is conservative, Fox & Friends are conservative, Lou Dobbs is conservative, Neil Cavuto is conservative, all the hosts of the Five are conservative but one, and on and on.

In fact, O'Reilly has it totally wrong, Fox is conservative every hour but one, the hour Shep Smith is on.

Last week, Bill O'Reilly objected to Bernie Goldberg's claim that Fox News tends to downplay "conservative screw-ups."

Well on Monday's O'Reilly Factor, Goldberg joined O'Reilly to re-hash that debate.

Goldberg said Fox serves as a "counterbalance to the liberal media." He also said Fox is the only network willing to engage in an honest debate about media bias.

Overall, he said, conservatives and liberals tend to protect their own and be more tough to the other side. In addition, according to Goldberg, liberals and conservatives have their favorites in the media.

Point in case, he said, was when Fox acted as "cheerleaders" for the Tea Party, just as other networks did so for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Goldberg also hit Fox for some of its personalities efforts to "turn this yahoo rancher from Nevada into an American folk hero, simply because he was against the federal government, and so are they," referring to Cliven Bundy.

O'Reilly said the only conservative on Fox "in terms of his presentation" is Sean Hannity, and that conservatives deserve a conservative news hour each day.

O'Reilly insisted there's only one hour of conservative programming on Fox per day, but Goldberg immediately pushed back, saying there's "a lot more to Fox" than the shows they mentioned.

On the Cliven Bundy story, O'Reilly said it seemed at first that the rancher was being oppressed, but said he didn't do the story immediately because he wanted to know more, and Goldberg said that's because "you're a journalist."

Which is also laughable, because O'Reilly can not even spell journalist. He is a biased partisan hack and nothing even close to a journalist.

Those who dove into it, O'Reilly said, "eventually saw the truth of it."

Goldberg ultimately concluded that Fox "pandered" to their audience with the Bundy story because it was good for ratings.

For once Goldberg is sort of telling the truth, but O'Reilly is still in denial, and he is delusional. Because Fox is 99.9% conservative, and that is a fact. O'Reilly is pretty much the only person on the planet who denies it. Which means if he can not even admit Fox is conservative, how can you ever trust anything he says.

Fox Hosts Appalled At The Idea Every American Might Vote
By: Steve - March 25, 2015 - 10:00am

They implied that every liberal is so uninformed all of them should never vote. Even though every poll ever taken shows that Republicans are more uninformed than anyone. And all the media surveys show that Fox viewers are more uninformed than people who watch the news, in fact, the surveys show that Fox viewers are even more uninformed than people who watch no news at all.

And that is because they are fed lies and propaganda from Fox and other conservative media outlets, so in surveys about politics they are uninformed because they are always being lied to. The reality is this, Republicans are scared to death of mandatory voting, because they know they would lose big time.

I actually support mandatory voting, because everyone should have to vote. And I would add that if you do not vote you should be fined. Republicans want to suppress the vote, because every time there is high turnout they lose.

When I heard that President Obama mentioned a way we might increase voter turnout and counter big money in politics might be to make voting mandatory, I knew instantly the stooges over at Fixed News were going to lose their minds.

Take for instance the hosts on Outnumbered, who admitted that they don't want every American to vote. In fact, they seemed almost disgusted at the idea of trying to find ways to make sure that we get as many people to vote as possible.

"Do we really want everybody voting?" co-host Andrea Tantaros asked. "I don't think so!"

"If you're not engaged enough to vote, please don't," co-host Melissa Francis also said. "Stay Home."

Being that millions of Americans simply straight-ticket vote, I wonder how Ms. Francis feels about those particular voters. After all, wouldn't someone simply voting for a party instead of each individual politician based upon where they stand on various issues be the ultimate sign that they're not engaged?

"I don't understand where the president falls on this: Is he against freedom?" co-host Harris Faulkner asked.

This kind of nonsense is exactly what I expected from the loons at Fox News and the conservative media in general. Instead of taking his comments for what they were -- simply a suggestion to combat low voter turnout during elections -- the hosts were quick to try to paint Obama as some kind of tyrant who hates freedom.

The Republican party has really become the anti-idea party. They take traditional to a whole other level. To even suggest something new, or even potentially groundbreaking, is tantamount to hating the Constitution and the United States.

But the bottom line is, Republicans don't want more Americans voting. They're well aware of the fact that when more Americans vote, the better it is for Democrats. The biggest advantage Republicans have is that their constituents are far more consistent voters, especially during midterms.

I can guarantee you that just about every single time this nation experiences lower than normal voter turnout, that's good news for the GOP. And they know it, which is why they try to suppress the vote all across the country with these bogus voter ID laws that are meant to solve a problem we do not have.

I would say that no American should ever support any politician, or political party, that's either trying to make voting more difficult or discourage voters from trying to vote at all. Which is exactly what the Republican party is trying to do. We should be trying to get more people to vote not less, but that is what Republicans want to do, because the more people vote the more elections they lose.

And btw, O'Reilly also discussed it, and he of course was opposed to mandatory voting, because he knows the Republicans would suffer. He even slammed Obama for even suggesting it, like the good little Republican he is, towing the party line and spewing out their talking points once again.

Fox News Downplays Bloody Arrest Of Black UVA Student
By: Steve - March 24, 2015 - 11:00am

Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz downplayed the bloody arrest and subsequent national media coverage of a black University of Virginia (UVA) student, arrested during an alleged dispute over his ID, claiming "such arrests are common in this college town."

And how did the great so-called journalist Howard Kurtz form that opinion, he said bartenders told him it happens all the time, so now bartenders are valid news sources?

The Washington Post reported that Virginia's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is under scrutiny after the violent arrest of UVA student Martese Johnson, who "sustained head injuries that left him with bloody streaks down his face" following St. Patrick's Day celebrations near the UVA campus in Charlottesville.

During the arrest Johnson suffered a gash to his head that required 10 stitches. He was charged with public intoxication and obstruction of justice.

Photos of Johnson's bloody face sparked widespread outrage and protests over the use of excessive police force.

Watkins said Johnson was standing on the sidewalk outside of a bar when a bouncer asked him for identification. According to Watkins, Johnson gave the bouncer a valid Illinois ID. The bouncer then asked Johnson what his zip code was. Johnson gave his mother’s current zip code, which was different than the zip code on the ID that was printed in 2011, Watkins said.

Virginia ABC officers then questioned Johnson about a false ID. At some point, officers took Johnson down to the ground and they slammed his head on the sidewalk.

“Martese Johnson is an upstanding young man with a bright future,” his attorney said. "Martese is a member of the UVA honor committee and has no criminal record whatsoever. He's worked hard for his bright future and we intend to fight the criminal charges against him with the utmost vigor."

During a segment on March 20th Special Report on Fox News, Kurtz criticized the national media attention claiming that this was a local story with "no evidence that race was a factor" in the arrest. Kurtz later downplayed the arrest as typical, asserting that "bartenders tell us such arrests are common in this college town."

But according to a statement released by UVA officials, the arrest and injuries sustained by Johnson are described as "excessive force" and "highly unusual."

This African American male student was injured on the Corner, after being stopped by Virginia Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) officers. His head was slammed into the hard pavement with excessive force. The student required medical evaluation and treatment at the UVa Hospital Emergency Department.

This was wrong and should not have occurred. In the many years of our medical, professional and leadership roles at the University, we view the nature of this assault as highly unusual and appalling based on the information we have received.


The arrest has prompted the Governor of Virginia and local prosecutors to request a "comprehensive investigation" by State Police, and the agents involved in his arrest have been put on administrative duty.

Kurtz never once mentioned that Johnson is a member of the UVA honor committee and has no criminal record. It was a biased one sided story by Fox and Kurtz, defending the cops and making the victim look bad, which is what they do every time a cop beats someone up, or kills them.

German Journalist Blames Bush For The Rise Of ISIS
By: Steve - March 24, 2015 - 10:00am

WASHINGTON -- The first known Western journalist to have embedded with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terror group blames former President George W. Bush for its existence.

German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer, spent ten days with the terror group in Mosul. Speaking with the German website TZ, Todenhofer said that the U.S. air campaign against ISIS will have little effect on the group.

"With every bomb that is dropped and hits a civilian, the number of terrorists increases," he said.

Todenhofer pointed the finger at Bush for the rise of ISIS. "Without George W. Bush's Iraq war, there would be no ISIS," he said.

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

So as you can see, it's not just liberals who blame Bush for ISIS, German journalists who have nothing to do with being political in America are also doing it, because it's true. O'Reilly acts like only liberals blame Bush, when many Republicans do too, including Colin Powell and the Republican Senator Rand Paul, but O'Reilly never tells you that.

Friday night O'Reilly said this: "A few loons, actor Sean Penn among them, are actually blaming the rise of ISIS on George Bush and Dick Cheney."

Then he had Geraldo on to agree with him, the two of them called Penn a far-left loon and basically said it's left-wing propaganda. Even though many Republicans also believe it, they just ignore all that and claim it's only left-wing loons who think that.

Don Imus and his producer Bernard McGuirk also both said they believe Bush is to blame for ISIS, and they are not liberals, they are both Republicans who have a show called Imus In The Morning on the Fox Business Network. And they both agree with Sean Penn, but O'Reilly never points that out, he makes it seem as though only loon liberals think that.

And btw, McGuirk is on the Factor with Greg Gutfeld every Friday night for a regular segment, and not once has O'Reilly asked him about his position that Bush is to blame for ISIS.

Notice that neither O'Reilly or Geraldo even mention the SOFA Bush signed. Bush is the guy who signed the troop removal agreement, not Obama. But O'Reilly never reports that, he never tells you that Obama had no choice to remove the troops because of the SOFA Bush signed. And they never tell you that ISIS would not be ISIS in Iraq if Bush had not invaded a country we never attacked.

O'Reilly cherry picks what he wants to use to blame Obama, while ignoring all the other facts that prove him wrong and prove Bush is to blame. And he does it for partisan political reasons. Notice that nobody but Republicans blame Obama for ISIS, and O'Reilly claims he is not a Republican, while using their talking points on it, word for word.

Which he also said he never does, O'Reilly said he never uses Republican talking points, as he is using them, every night on pretty much every issue he reports on.

Here are the facts: Before Bush invaded and Iraq, it was a relatively stable region where Iran was not the dominant force in the area, radical Muslims were not attempting to overthrow Syria, Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims lived in peace in the same neighborhoods, and the idea of an Iraqi civil war was remote.

But O'Reilly and his Republican friends can hardly remember what they lied about yesterday much less what Bush did thirteen years ago, so it is typical that they find no issue blaming the current situation in Iraq on President Obama.

What any of the Republicans blaming Obama for pulling American troops out of Iraq in 2011 should remember, is that in October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008.

The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."

Still, O'Reilly and the Republicans are blaming the President for abandoning Iraq they were fully prepared to continue occupying in perpetuity, and forget that besides Bush, an ill-advised strategy by former General David Patraeus mishandling of the surge that created the militant insurgency threatening to completely tear Iraq apart and finish completely destabilizing the region Bush's invasion started eleven years ago.

The sectarian war raging in Iraq today is the result of Bush's effort to contain sectarian violence in Iraq through the surge that is the reason for what is becoming a devastating and uncontrollable civil war in Iraq. It is important to remember that part and parcel of General David Patraeus strategy with the surge was arming and paying Iraqi Sunnis to assist Americans on the one hand, and the other allowing Iraqi Shias to cleanse entire neighborhoods of Sunnis who are now waging an insurgent war against government forces.

Some of the arms the insurgency is using are holdover gifts Patraeus showered on them that were used in Syria and now Iraq. There is a reason Iran supports Iraq's government forces and called on Shias to fight with Iraq's national army and put down former Iraqi Sunnis who were attacked viciously by the majority Iraqi Shias during the American occupation.

It is true that some of the blame clearly falls on Iraqi leader Maliki for religious sectarianism targeting Sunnis since before the insurgency began in earnest, and now the entire nation is paying a heavy price.

What is happening in Iraq is a continuation of the sectarian religious war, or civil war, that began after Bush invaded and upset the balance that Saddam Hussein presided over. It is true Saddam was a tyrant, but there was relative calm and cooperation between minority Sunnis and Bathists in control of the government and the majority Shia population.

After Bush overthrew Saddam's government and installed a Shia majority, not only did predominately Shia Iran rise to power, Iraqi Shias embarked on a crusade to eradicate Sunnis and exact retribution against ordinary Sunnis.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and seeing the gravity of the situation, Iraq's Shiite religious authorities issued statements in support of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army. The top Shiite spiritual leader in the world, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani gave his support to "the sons within the Iraqi security forces," and a representative for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, urged Shiites to join the security forces to combat Sunni militants.

Whatever is happening in Iraq is a direct and irrefutable result of Bush’s invasion and poorly administered war of occupation. None of the blame rests with the troops sent to fight and die in a completely unnecessary war of American aggression, any more than it is Barack Obama's fault for honoring the agreement George W. Bush made in 2008 to withdraw American forces by December 2011.

Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but while he was in power Sunnis and Shias were not involved in a sectarian religious war, Iran was not a regional power, and Syria was not threatened by Islamic extremists and civil war.

Republicans learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq War disaster except that it was not the white guy George W. Bush's fault and like everything else they screwed up during their eight year reign of terror, they blame the black man in the White House.

O'Reilly: I Never Bought That Fox Is The Conservative Network
By: Steve - March 23, 2015 - 10:00am

Here is what the right-wing fool said:



So let me get this straight, Bill O'Reilly is saying he does not think Fox is conservative, which is just laughable, because everyone else on the planet does.

Now think about this: Just last week O'Reilly said that Fox was a counter to the liberal media, if it isn't conservative what does O'Reilly think the opposite of liberal is?

For O'Reilly to sit there on national television honestly trying to claim that most of the hosts on Fox News are not partisan is an absolute joke. I have watched thousands of hours of Fox News and I honestly can not think of more than once or twice when someone (who wasn't one of their token liberals) said something positive about President Obama.

Hell, most of the on-air personalities at Fox have based their careers over the last few years on slamming anything and everything Obama has done.

Just look at Steve Doocy, Elizabeth Hassleback, and Brain Kilmeade, they aren't republican?

Hannity isn't republican?

Bolling isn't republican?

Carlson ins't republican?

Tantaros isn't republican? Cavuto isn't republican?

Hemmer and Carlson aren't republican?

Bill O'Reilly isn't republican?

99% of his regulars and guests are not republican?

Four of the panel on The Five aren't republicans?

The Five is their big afternoon show, and 4 of the five are republicans, so it's a 4 against 1 every day, if that is not proof Fox is conservative what is?

There is not one liberal who has their own show on Fox, and I call for O'Reilly to show me one non republican show/program on the Fox News Channel. Just one. They are all republicans, some are just more moderate than others.

O'Reilly's attitude isn't anything I haven't seen numerous times. Conservatives have been so brainwashed by the conservative media into believing that they're the only beacon for truth and fairness that many Republican voters really believe Fox News is truly fair and balanced.

While, for those of us who aren't delusional, we all see Fox News for exactly what it is -- nothing but a network that's dedicated to pushing whatever right-wing propaganda the Republican party wants pushed that day.

And if you are going to say Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren are liberals, I am going to tell you to actually watch their shows, Greta is a republican, just not a far-right insane republican like Hannity or Bolling. Smith is more of a moderate and he is not very biased because he does not usually give his opinion, he mostly just reads the news, but I would bet the farm he votes republican.

What Billy is saying is this: "Yes, Fox is a conservative network. I just refuse to admit it."

And once again O'Reilly is a proven liar, he is delusional too.

Glenn Beck Finally Tells The Truth About Rove & The GOP
By: Steve - March 22, 2015 - 11:30am

For once, I agree with every word Glenn Beck is saying, here is the story:

After Beck said he was leaving the Republican party Karl Rove went on the O'Reilly Factor and basically said Beck is a nobody who quits the Republican party all the time and he does not care. So Beck had this to say about that.

Beck went on a lengthy Facebook tirade a few hours after Rove made those remarks. And by the looks of it, Rove's comments only confirmed for Beck every single problem he has with the Republican Party. Beck started out by saying, "You want to rumble Rove? Come on to my show and let's have it out. Bring it on."

Which is funny, it's the far-right loon slamming the less far-right loon, for not being far-right enough.

Beck then proceeded to explain to Rove how "progressive light" the GOP has become, ripping into him and the rest of the establishment Republicans for accomplishing practically none of the campaign promises many candidates ran on.

Yes, you got that right. Beck is slamming Rove and the GOP for being too liberal, even though they have moved as far-right as they have ever been, and block almost everything Obama wants to do. Which shows that Beck is insane, and Rove is just a little less insane.

Beck also mocked Rove for putting "strategy" ahead of principle and for wasting opportunities to implement true conservative policies under George W. Bush. He said this:

BECK: You guys have the spine of a worm, the ethics of whores, and the integrity of pirates. (My apologies to worms, whores and pirates)

He also said this:

BECK: It is sad that you can no longer hear the American People because they could save you. Instead you listen to your political consultants and the amazing thing is you still believe all of it.

Can you not smell what you are shoveling anymore?

The world has changed. The whole world is being redesigned. Not by government but by dreamers and doers.

You just continue to shine up the progressive agenda of people like Jeb, pressure, corrupt or threaten freshmen and smear the good people of this country who believe in the actual principles enshrined in the constitution.

And some conservatives agree with Beck.

"Glenn Beck's rant in response to Rove's criticism of him leaving the GOP was spot on," conservative activist and entertainer Lloyd Marcus, "the musical Paul Revere of the Tea Party movement," and chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee tells Breitbart.

"Beck brilliantly and passionately chronicled the Republicans years of betraying conservative principles and values they promised voters they would champion. I found myself cheering Beck on. Like anyone who is really POed and on a roll in a rant, I kept wanting to add to Beck's list of the GOP stabbing us in the back," Marcus tells Breitbart.

"And another thing!" Marcus says he would have added to Beck's Saturday morning tirade.

"How about that dirty trick you scumbags pulled to defeat Tea Party Conservative Chris McDaniel in Mississippi; playing the race card!"

Note from Steve: Someone should tell O'Reilly that we have a Republican admitting Karl Rove plays the race card in elections, something O'Reilly said Rove never does, and when liberals complain he did it O'Reilly denied it and defended Rove.

"Despicable," Marcus said of the GOP establishment's conduct in that June 2014 Mississippi Senate primary runoff election that saw the well past his prime 77-year-old incumbent, Senator Thad Chochran (R-MS), defeat McDaniel.

"I'm with Glenn -- this is great entertainment, vintage stuff. As a longtime listener, I would love to hear less talk on the show about Armageddon and more about Karl Rove getting filthy rich on the backs of the Republican base who would be screwed if they voted for yet another Bush," New England talk radio king Howie Carr tells Breitbart.

"One point that Karl and his Rovians seem to miss this that Beck is vicariously speaking the thoughts of a very large number of people," Virginia Tea Party activist Mark Llloyd tells Breitbart.

"Conservative have a distinct understanding that in America the people do not elect leaders to tell us how to think and feel. We are perfectly capable of thinking and feeling on our own. Our founders gave us a Republic where we elect people to represent us in every office. When they cease to represent us we toss them out and find someone who will," Lloyd says.

"Karl Rove and his K Street cronies have ruined the Republican party," Drew Ryun of the Madison Project tells Breitbart.

"Rather than supporting candidates that run on principle and conservative policies, Rove has pushed for liberal Republicans that only care about power and appeasing the D.C. special interests," Ryun says.

Republican Rand Paul: Blame Bush For ISIS - Not Obama
By: Steve - March 22, 2015 - 11:00am

O'Reilly claims that only liberals blame Bush for ISIS, wrong!

From June of 2014 -- It's not something you hear from many (if any) of the top-tier potential GOP presidential candidates, but Rand Paul on Sunday said he doesn't think President Obama has made the U.S. less safe.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is the root of the current chaos in the country, he said, so, as ISIS seizes cities and establishes strongholds across the country, he blames the Bush administration and its Republican supporters.

PAUL: "What's going on now I don't blame on President Obama," the Kentucky senator told NBC's David Gregory. "Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq war on the chaos that is in the Middle East."

Notice that Bill O'Reilly never has Rand Paul on the Factor to discuss his position that Bush is to blame, not Obama. Instead O'Reilly dishonestly reports that Obama is to blame, not Bush. While only having conservative guests on who agree with him, ignoring the conservatives like Rand Paul.

Paul also said that the invasion of Iraq emboldened Iran and again pointed the finger at his fellow Republicans. "These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become," he said, arguing that the policies of the Bush administration made Iran the regional hegemon.

Republican Larry Wilkerson also said ISIS was created after Bush invaded Iraq, got rid of Saddam and disbanded the Iraqi army. O'Reilly also ignores all that and has not had Larry Wilkerson on his show to discuss it.

Because it disgrees with his right-wing propaganda that it was Obama's fault, even though it was Bush who wrongly invaded Iraq, and it was Bush who signed the SOFA agreement with Iraq that said we must have our troops out by a set date. O'Reilly ignores all that to blame Obama, which is ridiculous and is also more proof O'Reilly is a biased hack who lies all the time.

Jon Stewart Compares Netanyahu To GOP For Racist Election Tactics
By: Steve - March 22, 2015 - 10:00am

During Wednesday night's broadcast of The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart mocked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for ginning up "racist fears of minority turnout for short-term political gain" in order to push his Likud Party to electoral victory on Tuesday.

Stewart pointed out that very same thing is a tactic used by the Republicans in America, and that Bibi should be subject to copyright infringement. The Daily Show host also took Fox News to task for making the election out to be between President Obama and Netanyahu, ridiculing the network for questioning why Obama had not called Netanyahu to congratulate him on his victory.

The comedian began the segment by showing video clips from the election. Then segued to Fox News discussing the election results within the context of Obama and how the White House is not happy with the results. Stewart noted that Fox was apparently thrilled that they finally found a conservative who could defeat Obama, considering that they believed that the President was Netanyahu's opponent.

More clips of Fox were then played showing pundits lamenting that Obama hadn't conceded to the Israeli Prime Minister yet, leading to Stewart exclaiming that Obama wasn't going to call someone who came to the United States Congress against his wishes just to "shit on a nuclear deal" the President had been working on for years.

Stewart then moved on to discussing how Netanyahu won the close election despite polls showing him in trouble days before ballots were cast. After showing video of Netanyahu appealing to the extreme right using racist fear-stoking and promising that Palestinians will never have their own state, Stewart made the comparison between American conservatives and Netanyahu.

He also highlighted how after Netanyahu had declared victory, the Prime Minister pretended like he never said any of those things and tried to appeal to all the people of Israel in his post-election remarks.

The lesson to be learned from all of this for the GOP is to just own your brand and embrace racially divisive remarks that are made in private that somehow make it into the public. Stewart pointed out that if Mitt Romney just owned his infamous 47% comments in 2012 and used it during his Presidential campaign, he would possibly be sitting in the White House now.

The Daily Show going after Netanyahu for playing on his base's inherent racism comes on the heels of the New York Times attacking Netanyahu for that exact same thing.

While conservatives in America continue to make the Israeli election a referendum on Obama and are openly supporting a foreign leader over the President of the United States. Which they call treason if a Democrat does it to a Republican, then they do it and somehow it's okay.

The celebration of Netanyahu's victory has yet to slow down from the American right. This is how pervasive Obama Derangement Syndrome is among Republicans and conservatives.

DOJ & FBI Investigating Schock: O'Reilly Still Silent
By: Steve - March 21, 2015 - 11:50am

On February 2nd of 2015 the Washington Post reported that Republican Congressman Aaron Schock had spent $40,000 in taxpayer money making his office look like the est of the TV Show Downton Abbey. Since then hundreds of articles have been written about him and more scandals, and just about every journalist in America has reported on it at least once, if not multiple times as the scandal list grows.

But not Bill O'Reilly, since the story broke on February 2nd, O'Reilly has not said one word about it. And this is the kind of story the founding fathers gave freedom of the press for, government corruption. Every single journalist in America should be reporting this story, with follow ups, because it involves government corruption, but the so-called fair and balanced Independent Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about it.

Why? Because Schock is a Republican. When the Democratic Senator John Edwards was accused of using taxpayer money to buy his mistress a home O'Reilly was all over it, he reported it at least 15 times that I remember, maybe more. But when a Republican is accused of using taxpayer money for personal gain, etc. and it is a crime, O'Reilly says nothing.

Now we find out the Associated Press has reported that the United States Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation against Republican Illinois Representative Aaron Shock. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has begun issuing subpoenas to potential witnesses, who could be compelled to testify against the GOP Congressman. And O'Reilly has still ignored the story.

On Tuesday, the embattled Republican announced he was resigning from Congress, effective March 31st. His announcement came after it became readily apparent that he might face a prolonged inquiry into House ethics violations.

However, the federal inquiry may subject him to serious criminal charges as well. The Associated Press reported Friday, that according to a source close to the case, government officials were planning to convene a federal grand jury in Springfield, Illinois to bring federal charges against Shock.

The federal probe will have plenty of avenues to pursue as Shock's prolific spending habits and ethical lapses have spawned a torrent of allegations surrounding the disgraced lawmaker.

Shock was once viewed as a rising star within the ranks of the GOP. He was touted as a dapper fellow, with great abs, who could lure young voters into the Republican fold with his youthful enthusiasm and good looks. He even spearheaded a major recruiting effort, to try to encourage Republicans under 40 to run for office.

Despite his youthful exuberance, Shock still pursued the same outdated policies of his older House Republican colleagues. Furthermore, rather than changing the culture of corruption in Washington, he embraced it. He not only embraced it, but injected steroids into it, turning political graft into a source of personal enrichment so that he could live lavishly. Although he ran as a fiscal conservative, he bilked the taxpayers to subsidize his expensive tastes.

And for the record, Shock is my Congressman, I live in his district, the 18th district in Illinois. And his Father was even my Fathers doctor. I do not know Aaron Schock, but I knew his Father, because I took my Father to him and I met him during those doctor appointments.

Bill O'Reilly claims to be an objective and impartial fair and balanced journalist who has a no spin zone. He also said he does not downplay bad news for Republicans, then he ignores the entire Aaron Schock corruption story. So basically, he is a liar, and he does downplay it, in fact, he does not report it at all, which is worse than downplaying it.

It's just more proof Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and a biased liar. Not to mention this, O'Reilly saidhe would confront everyone who dares to accuse him of lying or bias, and yet he will not confront me, he will not have me on the Factor as a guest, and he will not answer my emails.

Bill O'Reilly is a coward, a biased right-wing coward, and that is a fact. I have done this website for 15 years and documentd thousands of examples of right-wing bias from O'Reilly, my website was even mentioned in his A&E Biography show, and he still will not have me on as a guest. I have emailed him and his producers many many times, asking to be a guest, and they refused.

They are all cowards, especially O'Reilly, who is the biggest coward of them all.

Republicans Trying To Blame Obama For The Poverty They Created
By: Steve - March 21, 2015 - 11:30am

And Bill O'Reilly does the very same thing, he blames Obama for the low wages that Bush and the Republicans are partly to blame for. Let's have some no spin zone stuff here, lower wages are the fault of the greedy corporations, not President Obama. Corporate profits are at record highs, as is the stock market. The reason worker wages are down is because the greedy corporations give all their profits to upper management, the CEO, the shareholders, and not the workers, and that is a fact.

One of the most ridiculous things I see about Republicans (and conservatives in general) is the blatant way in which they ignore reality if it doesn't suit their ideology. These are the people who accuse President Obama of putting this country in danger, while praising George W. Bush, who was the man who presided over the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history and whose Iraq War is the reason why ISIS has risen to power.

They excuse Bush, when he caused it, then blame Obama when it was not his war or his fault ISIS was created.

It never ceases to amaze me how many problems they cause and then try to blame on everyone else. Look no further than the recent close call with the Department of Homeland Security almost being shut down. If funding hadn't been approved, it would have been entirely the fault of House Republicans - just like it was when we saw our nation’s first government shutdown in nearly two decades in 2013.

In both instances Republicans tried to blame President Obama, when it was House Republicans who were holding everything up by refusing to vote on a clean funding bill. Even when we look at our economy, as much as it's improved, we still have a ways to go - especially as it relates to income growth.

And while Republicans will have you believe that stagnant wages are a byproduct of President Obama's economy, this is an issue that started way back when Ronald Reagan was elected. Hell, even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) proved how damaging trickle-down economics has been for the middle class when he pointed out that we haven't seen such an unequal distribution of wages in this country since just before the Great Depression.

While he pointed to 2012 as an example in trying to bash President Obama, what he failed to mention was that the four consecutive years prior to the 2008 crash almost exactly mirrored the unequal distribution of wealth we saw in this country just before the Great Depression.

Do you see that wide, fairly flat area in the middle? That's the 50's, 60's and 70's -- before Reaganomics took over our economic landscape. Then once Americans started being fed the lie that "tax cuts create jobs," suddenly income inequality skyrocketed. The rich are doing better than they ever have before; meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans aren't seeing anything close to that same level of success.

And even though many Republicans will say that wage inequality is an issue, they continue to claim that the mistake which caused this inequality is the same path to fixing it. It's insane.

The truth is, every time a Republican says that wages aren't increasing and income distribution is an issue, they're admitting that trickle-down economics doesn't work. It's an indisputable fact that the richest amongst us are doing fantastic in this country. Taxes remain low, stocks are at record levels and the wealth at the top has hit historic proportions -- yet, wages for the rest of us remain flat.

Trickle-down economics has been an abject failure for everybody but the rich. The basic premise is that the more the wealthiest in this country have, the better off the rest of us will be. But that never happens! What does happen is that the rich simply want more. Suddenly, $5 billion in profits isn't enough -- they want $8 billion.

The more you feed into greed, the more it wants. Greed never gets full. In the 50's, 60's and 70's, when the middle class was stronger, it wasn't tax breaks and deregulation that led to that result -- it was higher taxes and stronger unions. The moment taxes began to get cut, and the GOP aggressively started attacking the unions, that was the beginning of the rich getting richer and the rest of us getting the finger.

But despite the fact that income distribution has been a growing problem in this nation since the dawn of Reaganomics in the 80's (and after 8 years of Bush's economics and GOP leadership delivering us straight into the worst economic recession in almost a century), Republicans now have the gall to try to blame President Obama for the poverty they created and the income inequality that their policies have made worse.

It would almost be funny if they weren't actually being serious and millions of hard working Americans weren't suffering because of it. And O'Reilly, who claims to be looking out for the little guy, spins out the Republican propaganda on it almost nightly. He supports the Republican tax cuts for the rich, because he is one of them, and his I am looking out for the little guy is just another lie he spins out.

Bill O'Reilly Once Praised Obama For Killing Osama Bin Laden
By: Steve - March 21, 2015 - 11:00am

And now he says Obama had nothing to do with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, except for ordering it. Proving that he is a partisan hack who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Now that we are getting close to the 2016 elections O'Reilly and the GOP are singing a different tune, and trying to make Obama look bad, even for things they have praised him over in the past.

Bill O'Reilly said on the March 18th O'Reilly Factor that President Obama "had nothing to do" with the killing of Osama bin Laden, but in the days following the raid, O'Reilly repeatedly gave Obama credit for ordering the attack.

During a discussion about a Playboy magazine interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney, O'Reilly said there was "not one" foreign policy accomplishment that President Obama could cite. Guest Jessica Ehrlich, a Democratic strategist, said "Osama bin Laden," to which O'Reilly replied, "He had nothing to do with that. That was U.S. intel and the Navy SEALs taking him out. He just said 'do it.'"

Those comments stand in contrast to the praise O'Reilly gave Obama in the days following the SEAL raid that killed Bin Laden.

On the May 2, 2011 edition of the O'Reilly Factor -- the day after the raid -- O'Reilly said in the course of a discussion with guest Michael Scheuer that "we do give credit to President Obama's national security team" for the raid.

Later in that same episode O'Reilly characterized the operation as "a big victory" for Obama and told guest Brit Hume that "this certainly bolsters Obama's resume" on national security, adding, "If you're going to call him soft on national security or soft on terrorism, he can look at you and go, 'Hey.'"

Fox News analyst Col. David Hunt on that same episode described the operation as "from start to finish, from the CIA standpoint, political standpoint, and obviously from a military standpoint, a perfect operation." O'Reilly agreed, noting, "It was. It was amazing, especially when you compare it to that debacle that happened under Carter in Iran."

The following night on May 3rd, O'Reilly continued to praise President Obama's role. During a discussion with Bernie Goldberg about media coverage of the raid, O'Reilly said, "I do believe the president did a gutsy, good job on this."

He later said Obama "deserves credit" for the raid and it was a "gutsy move," concluding that the Obama administration "did it the way they should have done it."

O'Reilly also noted that "if the right starts attacking" Obama over the raid, "that's just nuts."

Which is what O'Reilly is doing now, something that he said would be nuts to attack Obama for, and yet he is doing it himself.

He added that to do so would be "crazy" and "unreasonable."

On the same episode, a viewer wrote in to O'Reilly and said, "Osama's dead not because of the president, but despite him." In response, O'Reilly said, "I believe that's an unfair assessment."

So back then O'Reilly thought that was an unfair assessment, the very same unfair assessment he is putting out today.

On May 9th of the same year, O'Reilly said "There is no question Mr. Obama did the right thing, the gutsy thing in the bin Laden raid."

And now today O'Reilly thinks Obama had nothing to do with it, which is what the viewer wrote to him, and he told him that was an unfair assessment. Proving that O'Reilly is now trying to take credit away from Obama because he does not want him to get any credit for any foreign policy moves he made.

It shows that O'Reilly is a dishonest partisan right-wing hack. One day when the elections are years away O'Reilly praises Obama and gives him credit for killing Bin Laden. Then as the election is near, O'Reilly does a u-turn and says Obama had nothing to do with it and does not give him credit for anything. And that is what dishonest biased hacks do, speak out of both sides of their mouth.

GOP Congressman Aaron Schock Resigns: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - March 21, 2015 - 10:00am

Note: This is right after O'Reilly denied Fox has a right-wing bias and told Bernie Goldberg they do not downplay Republican scandals. Not only do they downplay Republican scandals, they usually totally ignore them, here is the evidence right here. Fox has barely mentioned the Schock scandal, and O'Reilly has not reported it at all.

Every time a Democratic Congressman or Senator resigns over corruption scandals O'Reilly is all over it, he covers it with multiple segments and follow up segments. So now we have a Republican Congressman who is resigning over a corruption scandal, and O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

And not only has O'Reilly not reported on the Congressman resigning, he has not reported on the scandal at all. This has been a major news story and a scandal for about 2 or 3 weeks, and O'Reilly has not said one word about it, not a word.

Which is more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because if he were a Democrat O'Reilly would have reported it at least 5 times, if not more, as he did with the former Democratic Senator John Edwards.

Here is the story:

Aaron Schock resigns after new questions about mileage expenses

Illinois Republican Aaron Schock resigned Tuesday, less than 12 hours after POLITICO raised questions about tens of thousands of dollars in mileage reimbursements he received for his personal vehicle.

Schock billed the federal government and his campaign for logging roughly 170,000 miles on his personal car from January 2010 through July 2014. But when he sold that Chevrolet Tahoe in July 2014, it had roughly 80,000 miles on the odometer, according to public records obtained by POLITICO under Illinois open records laws.

The documents, in other words, indicate he was reimbursed for 90,000 miles more than his car was driven.

The discrepancy added to a growing wave of ethical and legal problems for the 33-year-old politician.

"The constant questions over the last six weeks have proven a great distraction that has made it too difficult for me to serve the people of the 18th District with the high standards that they deserve and which I have set for myself," Schock said in a surprise statement on Tuesday.

"I have always sought to do what’s best for my constituents, and I thank them for the opportunity to serve."

Later Tuesday, a spokesman for Schock added, "In an effort to remove any questions and out of an abundance of caution, Congressman Schock has reimbursed all monies received for official mileage since his election to Congress."

Schock's resignation marks a swift downfall of one of the GOP's most promising young stars and prolific fundraisers. The former state legislator was elected to Congress in 2008 and shot through the ranks of the House GOP, at one point gracing the cover of Men's Health magazine. He was a fresh face in a party eager to update its image.

But as his prominence grew, Schock adopted an expensive lifestyle -- staying in luxury hotels, dining at pricey restaurants, flying on private jets. Mounting questions about how he paid for it eventually caught up with him.

The congressman's vehicle history was pieced together from dozens of pages of Illinois vehicle records.

When Schock transferred the SUV to an Illinois dealership in 2014, it had 81,860 miles on the odometer, documents show. However, from January 2010 to the end of July 2014, he billed the federal government for 123,131 miles on his personal vehicle. During the same period, the Republican billed his "Schock for Congress" campaign account and GOP Generation Y Fund, his leadership political action committee, for an additional 49,388 miles.

Altogether, Schock sought reimbursement for 172,520 miles on his car, despite the fact that he signed documents that certified the vehicle traveled less than half that distance.

Schock had no other vehicles registered in his name at the time, according to state public records. Multiple sources familiar with his office operations say he only drove the Tahoe during this period.

In November 2009, less than a year after Schock took his seat in Congress, the lawmaker bought the 2010 Tahoe from Green Chevrolet in Peoria. The dealership is owned by Jeff Green, a contributor to Schock who has flown the congressman around his district in his airplane and helicopter.

When Schock purchased the new car, it had four miles on it, according to publicly available automobile transaction documents.

News reports by POLITICO and the Chicago Sun-Times raised a series of questions about Schock's spending and record-keeping. The Office of Congressional Ethics opened an investigation of the lawmaker on Feb. 28 and has begun contacting his associates about appearing before the independent panel behind closed doors.

The OCE probe -- and any potential Ethics Committee investigation -- will disappear with Schock's resignation. However, federal law enforcement could still look into Schock's actions. He has two attorneys, former Federal Election Commission Commissioner Don McGahn and criminal defense attorney William McGinley, both of Jones Day.

Schock will remain in Congress until March 31.

Conclusive Proof Bill O'Reilly Is A Lying Biased Republican
By: Steve - March 20, 2015 - 11:30am

Thursday night O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Benjamin Netanyahu won re-election in Israel because people there are frightened. Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, terrorism is rampant, so voters turned to the tough guy. We are not at that level, but there is an intense struggle for the hearts and minds of American voters.

President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are well aware that liberal policies are under fire. The president recently said this: 'Before I came into office we slashed taxes for folks at the top, stripped out regulations, didn't make investments in the things we know we need to grow. At the end of those eight years, we had soaring deficits, record job losses, an economy in crippling recession.'

Let's analyze that statement with facts: In 2007 under President Bush, the median household income was $56,436. Today it's $53,332. The unemployment rate today is 5.5%. Under President Bush the lowest level was 4.4%. The recession didn't happen because of trickle down economics, it happened because the banking system gave out housing loans to people who couldn't pay back the money and the federal agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac piled up huge amounts of derelict loans.

So President Obama's facts about the recession are debatable, to say the least. But you will not hear that analysis on the nightly news broadcasts or the other cable news operations.

You will only hear it on Fox News. Not because we dislike President Obama, although some FNC commentators clearly do. It's because people like Charles Krauthammer, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly, Dana Perino and others are fact-based analysts. That is a threat to any political party that is trying to deceive people or promote policies that are failures. So to blunt the impact of Fox News, we are attacked by the left and derided by other media.

You see that consistently on MSNBC and CNN, which are collapsing in the ratings. The liberal press is in decline, Fox News is surging. That dominance is a severe threat to the far left, which needs to marginalize independent voices in order to put Hillary Clinton into the White House.
And now the facts, the only thing O'Reilly said that was true is the median household income was $56,436. Today it's $53,332. And ratings for liberal news networks are down, it's called MSNBC. But not for the reason O'Reilly claims, their ratings are down because liberals do not watch news as much as Republicans do, and liberals get most of their news from the internet now.

A lot of the Republicans watch Fox, so their ratings are high, which proves nothing, except all the Republicans who watch the news watch Fox, while the liberals that do watch the news are spread out to CNN and MSNBC.

And the median household income is down a little under Obama because of the Republicans, who refuse to pass the $10 an hour minimum wage and support corporations paying their employees slave wages. It has nothing to do with Obama, something O'Reilly gets totally wrong.

O'Reilly spins everything to the right, unemployment was 8% when Obama took office, under him it has dropped to 5.5%, when Bush took over unemployment was already 4.4% because of Clinton. It went up to 8% under Bush, O'Reilly put a spin on that big time. And Bush ruined everything, his policies of no regulation caused the housing crisis, not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their share of it was maybe 10%, the other 90% was crooked bank loan officers who bankrupted the housing market.

And no liberal policies are under fire, except with O'Reilly and his Republican friends. The rest of the economy is doing great, the stock market is at record highs, jobs are up, unemployment is down, it's all good. Notice O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, or the fact that Obama has fixed it all, while at the very same time O'Reilly was saying the Obama policies would destroy the country.

O'Reilly has been wrong about everything, except the the median household income, which is down slightly, but not because of Obama. If the Republicans would pass his other economic policies that would also go up. O'Reilly has been so wrong it's laughable, and anyone who believes his spin on this is a fool.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on, who looked ahead to the media's possible impact on the 2016 election.

Goldberg said this: "40% of people have already decided they'll vote for Hillary, while another 40% have decided they will vote against her. That leaves 20% and, while the networks don't have the clout that they used to, the three old networks still have about 25-million people watching every night. Liberal news organizations will play down liberal screw-ups, and Fox News will play down conservative screw-ups."

And for once, Goldberg is right, what he said there is 100% accurate. But of course the old fool O'Reilly disagreed and said Fox is not a conservative news network, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly took issue with that claim that FNC is loath to criticize Republicans, saying this: "Krauthammer will hammer Republicans, and so will Hume and you. Most of our people will hammer anyone. I have never bought the idea that Fox is the conservative network, there's no right-wing jihad here."

And pigs can fly too, it's just laughable. Fox is 99% right-wing bias, and that is a fact. To deny it makes you look insane, and O'Reilly just makes himself look stupid to deny it. Anyone with a working brain can see Fox has a right-wing bias, and that is a fact. To even deny that ruins your credibility, even Bernie Goldberg admits it. Notice one more thing, no liberals were on to discuss it, which is more proof O'Reilly and fox have a right-wing bias.

O'Reilly denies conservative bias at fox, while having a one sided conservative biased segment discussing it, wow!

Obama Schools O'Reilly & The GOP About His Economic Success
By: Steve - March 20, 2015 - 11:00am

Wednesday President Obama gave O'Reilly and his Republican friends a reality check by contrasting his record of economic success with the reality of their lies and trickle down failures. Remember that O'Reilly and the GOP have said for years that the Obama economic policies are a failure and would destroy the economy.

To this day O'Reilly still says the Obama economic policies are a disaster and that the economy is in chaos, even though he is dead wrong and he knows it.

The president said this:
Now, I want to return to the issue of the debate that we were having then because it bears on the debate we're having now. It's important to note that at every step that we've taken over the past six years we were told our goals were misguided; they were too ambitious; that my administration's policies would crush jobs and explode deficits, and destroy the economy forever.

Remember that? Because sometimes we don't do the instant replay, we don't run the tape back, and then we end up having the same argument going forward.

One Republican in Congress warned our policies would diminish employment and diminish stock prices. Diminish stock prices. The stock market has doubled since I came into office. Corporate profits are -- corporate balance sheets are stronger than they have ever been -- because of my terrible business policies.

One Republican senator claimed we faced trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Another predicted my reelection would spike gas prices to $6.60 a gallon. I don't know how he came up with that figure -- $6.60. My opponent in that last election pledged that he could bring down the unemployment rate to 6 percent by 2016 -- next year -- at the end of next year. It's 5.5 now.

And right here in Cleveland, the leader of the House Republicans -- a good friend of mine -- he captured his party's economic theories by critiquing mine with a very simple question: Where are the jobs, he said. Where are the jobs?

I'm sure there was a headline in The Plain Dealer or one of the papers --

Where Are the Jobs?

Well, after 12 million new jobs, a stock market that has more than doubled, deficits that have been cut by two-thirds, health care inflation at the lowest rate in nearly 50 years, manufacturing coming back, auto industry coming back, clean energy doubled -- I've come not only to answer that question, but I want to return to the debate that is central to this country, and the alternative economic theory that's presented by the other side.

Because their theory does not change. It really doesn't. It's a theory that says, if we do little more than just cut taxes for those at the very top, if we strip out regulations and let special interests write their own rules, prosperity trickles down to the rest of us. And I take the opposite view. And I take it not for ideological reasons, but for historic reasons, because of the evidence.

We know from the facts that are there for all to see that America does better, our economy does better, everybody does better when the middle class does better and we've got more ladders for people to get into the middle class if they're willing to work hard. We do better when everyone grows together -- top, middle, bottom. We do better when everyone has a chance not only to benefit from America’s success, but also to contribute to America's success.

And we know from more recent history that when we stray from that ideal it doesn't turn out well. We've now got evidence there is a better way, there is a better approach. And I'm calling it middle-class economics.

For the first eight years of this century, before I came into office, we tried trickle-down economics. We slashed taxes for folks at the top, stripped out regulations, didn't make investments in the things we know we need to grow.

At the end of those eight years, we had soaring deficits, record job losses, an economy in crippling recession.

In the years since then we've tried middle-class economics. Today we've got dramatically lower deficits, a record streak of job creation, an economy that's steadily growing.
President Obama demonstrated why Republicans are going to have a difficult time selling their ideas as good for the economy. None of the Republican ideas have changed. The same ideology that killed the Clinton economy and led to an economic collapse is still being touted by the GOP today.

Obama's rebuttal to the Republicans can be summed up as we've been there, done that, and all we got was a lousy recession.

It was nice to see this president taking a small measure of credit for the growing economy. A consistent criticism of the Obama White House has been that they have not taken enough credit for their accomplishments. President Obama went beyond reminding people of what he has achieved.

The president also contrasted his economic record with what came before him under George W. Bush. The Bush economic record is still relevant because Republicans are putting out budgets that are based on the same ideology that Bush failed with during his time in office.

Obama delivered a spoonful of bitter reality to the Republicans Wednesday. Every single one of their predictions were wrong, not a couple, every single one. The Republican economic ideology is a failure, and Obama's successes demonstrated once again that middle-class economics will always triumph over the great O'Reilly/Republican Party trickle down fraud.

Dick Cheney Said Obama Is The Worst President Ever
By: Steve - March 20, 2015 - 10:00am

Which proves that he is a clueless right-wing nut, because new rankings of the top 24 Presidents has Obama at 18th, and George W. Bush (who was President to Vice President Cheney) at 35th. So not only is Obama not even close to the worst President ever, he is in the top 20, and George W. Bush does not even make the top 30.

From the WP Survey:

How does Barack Obama fare? 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).

Lincoln was #1, Washington was #2. Bill Clinton was 8th. Ronald Reagan was 11th. Bush Sr. was 17th. Gerald Ford was even higher than George W. Bush, who came in at 24th.

What this shows is that O'Reilly, Cheney and other Republicans who say Obama has been a terrible President, or even the worst, are clueless partisan hacks who would not know the truth if they saw it.

GOP Set To Waste Of Millions Investigating Clinton Emails
By: Steve - March 19, 2015 - 11:30am

Speaker of the House John Boehner will announce this week that he is going to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a House investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.

ABC's Jon Karl reported, "Top House Republicans tell ABC News they expect Speaker John Boehner to announce a new House investigation next week into Hillary Clinton's e-mail practices as Secretary of State, including her admitted destruction of some 30,000 e-mails that she determined to be purely personal."

Here is what House Republicans never tell the taxpayers. These investigations aren't cheap. From January 2013-January 2014, the House spent $5.6 million dollars. The House budgeted the cost of the Benghazi Select Committee at $3.3 million in 2014. House Republicans were proud of themselves for only spending $1.5 million by December 2014 on a committee that didn't do much of anything, except waste money on a non-scandal.

The IRS estimated that they had to spend $14 million to cover costs associated with document requests from House Republicans. House Republicans have wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars investigating the IRS, Obamacare, and Benghazi. And they found nothing, not a thing.

Republicans will not tell the taxpayers exactly how much they are spending on each of these investigations, but if the Benghazi and IRS investigations are a measuring stick, the Clinton email investigation will cost millions of dollars.

House Republicans are set to throw this money down the drain in a completely partisan attempt to get some dirt that they can use on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Speaker Boehner is also looking for anything that will serve as a distraction from his record of failure.

When the estimated costs of the Benghazi, Clinton, and the lawsuit against President Obama are put together, it is clear that Republicans are wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on partisan witch hunts. Which is the very same thing they complained about Democrats doing when Bush was the President.

Speaker Boehner refuses to tell the American people how much of their money that he plans to waste, so it is up to voters to demand to know what Boehner is doing with their money.

John Boehner and the Republicans are doing nothing more than wasting your hard earned money. Simply to make their far-right base happy, even though it is not hurting Hillary at all. It's a total partisan waste of time and taxpayer money, and Bill O'Reilly supports it all, because he is a partisan hack just like John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress.

ISIS Is A Problem Caused By Bush That Republicans Blame On Obama
By: Steve - March 19, 2015 - 11:00am

And O'Reilly is doing it too, even though he claims he is not a Republican, as he uses every single Obama hating talking point the Republican party spins out.

Here is the truth:

All this chaos in the Middle East began when George W. Bush invaded Iraq, triggering a massive destabilization of the entire region.

But it wasn't just Bush invading Iraq that caused all of this. It was the complete incompetence shown by his administration following Saddam's removal from power that was real catalyst.

He took us to war based on a lie, with no plan on what to do after Saddam was out of power, and absolutely no exit strategy. And after he signed the SOFA agreement requiring all of our troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, it was only a matter of time before some radical Islamic group tried to take over Iraq.

And let me go ahead and state another little fact for O'Reilly and the Republicans. Had the Bush administration told the American people that going into Iraq would have required a decade (or realistically longer) commitment, almost nobody signs off on that. You don’t sell the Iraq War to the American people by saying, "This mission will require an indefinite American presence in Iraq."

In fact, Cheney and Rumsfeld even said we would be greeted as liberators and that the war could be over in a short time, he said this in 2003:

RUMSFELD: "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. It won't be a World War III."

Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that either.

Fact: It's going to take decades to keep Iraq stable and out of the hands of some radical Islamic group, if it is even possible, which some experts say it is not possible. Because even if we defeat ISIS, driving them out of Iraq, it's only a matter of time before another group takes their place. Unless, of course, thousands of American troops stay behind, something the Iraq Government will not allow and does not want.

Don't think for a minute that it was just a coincidence that Bush signed the SOFA so that American combat operations would end right after he left office and the complete removal of all U.S. forces would happen a couple of years later.

Bush and his corrupt cronies knew that once American troops were gone, Iraq would slip back into chaos. And whoever the next president turned out to be would be the one blamed for it. And that's exactly what happened.

There is one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If not for the absolute incompetence shown by the Bush administration with their handling of Iraq, the world would have never heard of ISIS. But, like clockwork, O'Reilly and his Republican friends have been right there this whole time blaming all of this chaos on President Obama.

Just like they have with every other mess the Bush administration left him to clean up.

More Bad News For Bill O'Reilly Republicans And Fox News
By: Steve - March 19, 2015 - 10:00am

No matter how much they report on this bogus Hillary Clinton email scandal she is getting more popular with non-Republicans. In fact, her popularity numbers have went up since O'Reilly and Fox started reporting non-stop about her made up email scandal.

A new CNN/ORC poll found that the number of Americans who say that they would be proud to have Hillary Clinton as president has increased in the wake of the Republican media created email scandal.

The CNN poll found some bad news for Bill O'Reilly and his Republican friends. The number of respondents who agreed with the statement that Hillary Clinton is a president that they could be proud of has increased since the email scandal was first reported.

The number of Americans who said that Clinton is someone that they would be proud to have as president has increased from 50% in March 2014 to 57% in March 2015.

And the number of respondents who agreed that Clinton says what she believes not what voters want to hear has increased from 54% in 2007 to 58% today. Which is all bad news for O'Reilly and Fox, because it shows that even when they lie about her in a made up scandal 24/7, nobody but Republicans care or believe them.

It also shows that O'Reilly and Fox News have no power to influence anyone who does not watch Fox News. Which is 95% of America, Fox is only watched by roughly 5% of the Republicans in the country. The other 95% do not watch Fox, so they do not even know what made up scandal Fox is reporting on any given day.

The belief that the Clinton emails are a serious problem was largely driven by Republicans (55%) and conservatives (53%). Sixty-percent of liberals and 70% of Democrats thought that the emails were either "not too serious," or "no problem at all."

And even with these poll results, the House Republicans are about to launch a massive time and money wasting full-scale investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails when it is clear that this a story that is not resonating across partisan lines.

The popularity of a potential Hillary Clinton presidency has grown since the email scandal broke. The poll offered the first bit of statistical evidence that the email scandal most likely won't make a bit of difference to voters in 2016.

The poll numbers are more impressive for Hillary Clinton when one considers that her defense of her emails has been limited to one tweet and a twenty minute press conference.

Republicans and the conservaive media have been obsessing over the Clinton emails, but no matter how hard they try, they can't get non-Republicans to pay attention and care.

In other words, Hillary Clinton is a more popular potential president than she was before the scandal. And the more O'Reilly and Fox report on their made up partisan Hillary email scandal the more popular she gets, so they are actually helping her, but they are too stupid to see that so they just keep digging the hole deeper.

Bill O'Reilly Proves He Is A Lying Right-Wing Idiot Once Again
By: Steve - March 18, 2015 - 11:30am

This is one of the most lie filled biased right-wing propaganda reports Bill O'Reilly has ever put out. It is full of nothing but right-wing spin and lies, and it ignores all the actual facts. O'Reilly even said The Iraq War "Was A Victory Until President Obama Mucked It Up" Which is just laughable.

Here is what the dishonest right-wing hack said:



And now here are the facts, point by point.

1) The Iraq war was a disaster and based on lies about WMD's from Cheney and the bogus intelligence service he set up to feed lies about WMD's to the media. O'Reilly claims everyone thought Iraq had WMD's, which is a total lie, because at the time Scott Ritter (the actual weapons inspector in Iraq) was saying they did not have any. Among many others who said the very same thing.

You can read much more if you just google the facts about the Iraq war. And it all proves everything O'Reilly said is a lie in his attempt to slam Obama and defend Bush.

2) The creation of ISIS was a direct cause of getting rid of Saddam, that is a fact. Saddam had control of the country and he did not allow ISIS to operate in Iraq. Saddam also hated Al Qaeda and he did not allow them to operate in Iraq either.

This can be proven with many sources who are experts on Iraq, and some of them are even Republicans, including Colin Powell and Lawrence Wilkerson, who is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. They are both Republicans and they have said that ISIS would not be what it is today if Saddam was still in power in Iraq, and O'Reilly ignores it all.

3) And the biggest lie O'Reilly told, about Obama not leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq. That is garbage and total lies. Because Obama "pulled us out" under the terms of an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration. He was going to leave troops there and the Maliki government refused the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement that made U. S. forces immune to prosecution for crimes committed while occupying Iraq.

George W. Bush approved the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in November of 2008, not Obama. In fact, Obama did not even take office until January of 2009.

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

George W. Bush agreed to it and signed it, President Obama had nothing to do with it, zero, because he was not even the President yet. And Bill O'Reilly never mentioned this fact one time, not once.

In November 2008, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreements; on 27 November, the Iraqi Parliament ratified them; on December 4, Iraq's presidential council approved the security pacts. And under Obama they refused to change it and allow troops to stay, so Obama was forced to remove them from Iraq, he had no choice, because of the agreement Bush made and signed.

Under that agreement it was impossible for Obama to leave the 10,000 troops O'Reilly claims would have prevented ISIS. O'Reilly says Obama mucked it up by not leaving the troops, when he could not do it, and Iraq would not allow it. Because Bush put the SOFA in place and agreed to it, so how in the hell is that Obama's fault?

Only a biased partisan right-wing hack could come to that conclusion, to do that you have to leave out all the facts, which is exactly what O'Reilly did. Then on top of that O'Reilly says we won the Iraq war until Obama mucked it up, so what did we win?

Iraq is and was a disaster, and nobody in their right mind thinks we won, even before ISIS was created. Only clueless Bush defending right-wing fools believe we won in Iraq. We attacked a country that did not attack us, based on lies about WMD's, and it cost us billions and hundreds of thousands of deaths, not to mention creating the terrorist group ISIS, and it was all Bush's fault.

So when Obama tells the truth about Iraq O'Reilly attacks him, ignores all the facts, and spins out some right-wing fairy tale about how it is all Obama's fault for not leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq. When it was Bush who signed the SOFA, and even if we had left 10,000 troops the the experts say that would not have stopped ISIS anyway.

The problem was getting rid of Saddam, and that is a fact O'Reilly will never admit to, because he is a Bush defending fool. Bush did it, and Obama had no choice to pull the troops out because of the agreement Bush signed, and those are facts.

Lawerence Wilkerson said this: Before we invaded Iraq and sort of cemented the two sides and caused it to start. I think that was a disaster, invading Iraq in 2003, and we're seeing the results of that disaster right now.

But I don't think--that said, I don't think that adding more American troops to it is the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is a political answer, but it's a political answer that's very complex and would take a long time to work its way out.

It involves Ankara, it involves the Turks, of course, it involves Tehran and the Iranians, it involves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, it involves Lebanon, it involves all the region--and I don't preclude Israel from being in there too--and taking on all the problems that are causing this Islamic State force to be supported by increasing numbers of Muslims, continue to be able to recruit, and recruit even better than before, and continuing to be able to prosecute its agenda in the region.

You don't stop that with bombs. You don't stop that with aircraft. You don't stop that with troops on the ground, for that matter, unless you're willing, as I said, to mobilize the nation and really go to war. The way you stop that is with political solutions to problems that are causing these people to do what they're doing, and more importantly, causing Muslims all around the world to support them.

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

And I could fill this website for weeks with more stuff just like that, it all proves O'Reilly wrong, and proves he is a liar, and that he did it to make the Democrat Obama look bad while defending his Republican hero George W. Bush. O'Reilly is wrong about all of it, and left out all the facts that show he is wrong. Nothing he said was true, not a word, it was all right-wing propaganda.

Republican Ted Cruz Proves Once Again He Is A Clueless Idiot
By: Steve - March 18, 2015 - 11:00am

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is known for waging political battles even if the odds of success are slim to none. He famously launched a 21-hour filibuster in a failed, last-ditch effort to repeal Obamacare.

But his latest crusade may be his biggest challenge yet: repealing a federal law that does not exist.

On Twitter, Cruz blasted the federal government role in education and called for the repeal of Common Core.

Ted Cruz - @tedcruz:

"Federal govt has no business sticking its nose in education. We need to repeal every word of Common Core!" #MakeDCListen

Can Cruz "make DC listen"? I do not think so, because Common Core is not, in fact, a federal law.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative, known as Common Core, was developed by the states -- with input from teachers, education experts and business leaders -- and has been voluntarily adopted by 43 states and the District Of Columbia.

Notably, "the federal government played no role in creating the standards, nor did it require that states adopt them."

Common Core is not a curriculum but a set of standards regarding what students "should know and be able to do at each grade level in math and English language arts."

How kids get there is left to the schools and teachers.

Adopting Common Core was helpful to states seeking federal funding in 2009 under a program called "Race To The Top." But many states that did not receive funding continue to implement Common Core.

In 2013, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution opposing Common Core, calling it "an inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children." The RNC attacked Obama, who was not involved in the creation of the standards, but ignored the role of many Republicans in creating Common Core.

Many of the states that adopted Common Core are controlled, in whole or in part, by Republicans.

The historical role of Republicans in creating and adopting the standards, however, is not lost on Ted Cruz. One of Common Core's biggest supporters is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who just might be competing against Cruz to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.

Cruz certainly has a better chance of defeating Jeb Bush than repealing the federal Common Core law, since it doesn't exist.

Iran Letter Author Gets Constitution & Geography Wrong In Same Interview
By: Steve - March 18, 2015 - 10:00am

Sen. Tom Cotton wasn't satisfied with mangling the Constitution on Face The Nation Sunday. Cotton revealed how little he knows by also not being aware that Tehran is the capital of Iran.

Sen. Cotton (R-AR) first claimed that Constitution states that the Senate has to vote on any agreement with Iran in order for it to last, saying this: "It's well, as a simple fact that our Constitution that, if Congress doesn't approve that deal, then it may not last."

Wrong!

The Constitution says nothing of the sort. Article II Sec. 2, says this: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

The Constitution does not cover executive agreements like the one that is being negotiated with Iran. The president has the power to suspend the sanctions unilaterally, but that suspension would expire once he left office.

It is true that the Senate may get to vote on the sanctions, but it is possible that if Democrats keep the White House, the next Democratic president will keep the sanctions suspended as long as Iran continues to comply with the agreement. Unless the president wants to go to Congress to ask for permanent removal of the sanctions, there is no guarantee that Congress will ever get a vote on the matter.

Cotton's biggest mistake was that he appeared not to know that Tehran is the capital of Iran. Cotton said this: "The Iranians frequently bluff to walk away from the table. If they bluff this week, call their bluff. But Congress stands ready to impose much more severe sanctions. Moreover, we have to stand up to Iran's attempts to drive for regional dominance. They already control Tehran. Increasingly, they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad, and now Sanaa as well."

Thank you dummy, the Iranians control their own capital.

Cotton revealed himself to be just another reckless right-wing neocon who is an embarrassment to the body that he is serving in. Sen. Cotton's lack of basic knowledge should disqualify him from ever being taken seriously in any national discussion about Iran.

However, the lack of pushback from CBS's Bob Schieffer revealed that the mainstream press is likely to keep giving Republicans airtime as they turn a blind eye to obvious lies.

Tom Cotton is making up his own Constitution while failing at basic geography, which is why he should not be trusted to evaluate any deal with Iran.

Obama Makes Joke About O'Reilly Reporting From A War Zone
By: Steve - March 17, 2015 - 11:00am

President Obama was the latest to weigh in on the scandal surrounding host Bill O'Reilly over the weekend, cracking a joke at the Fox host's expense.

At the Gridiron Club and Foundation's annual dinner, Obama joked that House Republicans may be plotting a coup.

"Or as Bill O'Reilly calls it, 'reporting from the war zone.'"

In recent months reporters have hounded the Fox host over his past reporting and statements.

Questions have surfaced over O'Reilly's claims to have been in "war zone," in Argentina after the Falklands War had ended, and having seen nuns murdered in El Salvador.

Obama took other shots at other insane conservatives, such as Wisoncsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) for sidestepping questions about the President's Christian faith.

"Gov. Walker, salaam alaikum," Obama said.

The AP reported that the president also joked about his age, and the possible effects his GOP rivals are inflicting on his health.

"Coffee really disagrees with me these days, which is why John Boehner just invited coffee to address the joint House," he said.

Republican Trying To Pass Law To Go Against Will Of The People
By: Steve - March 17, 2015 - 10:00am

After President Obama called for states to raise their minimum wages in his 2013 State of the Union, 10 of them took him up on the challenge by raising their wages last year, so many that the majority of states now have a higher wage than the federal level of $7.25 an hour.

But in Nevada, Republican state Sen. Joe Hardy (R) wants to move in the other direction. He has introduced legislation that would repeal the state's minimum wage, currently set at $8.25 for those who don't get health benefits.

In 2006, the state's voters approved a constitutional amendment that sets a standard minimum wage, but Hardy's resolution would repeal it and give the legislature the ability to control the wage.

So there you have it, one Republican wants to pass a law to go against the will of the American people. Which is the opposite of how it should work, if the voters pass something it should be law. And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about this story, because he does not want to make that Republican idiot look bad, and even though he says all the time that we should go by the will of the people.

Even if they don’t have a higher wage than the federal floor, the vast majority of states at least have set one. Five have no minimum wage law -- Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee -- while two, Georgia and Wyoming, have set theirs lower than $7.25.

Even so, the federal minimum takes precedence, so employers in these states still have to pay employees at least that much.

Some other states have also considered reducing, rather than raising, their wages. In February, a South Dakota state committee approved a proposal that would allow its minimum wage to decrease, erasing a provision of a wage hike approved by voters that bars it from falling. Other states are considering lower wages for certain groups, like tipped workers or young people.

Hardy's Democratic colleagues, however, have a very different idea. State Sen. Tick Segerblom (D) has sponsored legislation that would raise the constitutional minimum wage to $15 an hour for those without health insurance. A $15 wage is still rare but starting to gain traction after striking fast food workers have called to be paid at least that much.

Seattle and San Francisco have increased their wages to that level, while Portland increased the wage for city workers to that much, and it’s under consideration in Oregon, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The federal minimum wage, meanwhile, hasn't been raised in six years, despite Congressional Democrats introducing increases multiple times. Republicans keep blocking it. And if it had kept up with inflation, it would be more than $10 an hour, and if it had kept up with rising worker productivity, it would be more than $20 an hour.

Lying Is Nothing New For Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - March 16, 2015 - 11:00am

If you think Bill O'Reilly suddenly got caught lying about a few things, and that he has not been caught lying before, you would be sadly mistaken. I have run this website for 15 years and the lies I have documented from O'Reilly are endless.

There are far too many to list, so I will show you about 100 of them.

1) O'Reilly bragged repeatedly he won two Peabody Awards hosting Inside Edition in the 90s. He won zero.

2) O'Reilly bragged that, woops, he actually had won a Polk Award hosting Inside Edition. He won zero of those, too. To be specific, the show did win that award--a year after O'Reilly left the show.

3) O'Reilly then said he never claimed to have won a Peabody Award. He actually did make that claim, repeatedly, using the award as proof that Inside Edition was not a tabloid show but very good journalism. He later admitted to making the original Peabody claim, but now he just says the Peabody guys are unfair liberals.

4) Repeatedly claiming he's "an average guy," O'Reilly has claimed that he came from nothing and "you don't come from any lower than I came from on the economic scale." Actually, O'Reilly's mother has repeatedly talked to the press about regular vacations the family took to Florida, that O'Reilly and his sister went to private school and college with no financial aid, and that they lived in an affluent New York suburb. His Father was an oil company accountant who made $30,000 a year in 1980, which is equal to $100,000 a year today, which is upper middle class, not poor, or even close.

5) In 2006, O'Reilly boasted that he gets 6 million viewers every night. He got 2 million then. Today, he's posting "slightly higher numbers" because he's addressing the Argentina controversy--so he's getting about 3 million viewers a night.

6) Responding to critics who say Fox News is too conservative, O'Reilly has long claimed to be a "normal guy" and a registered independent. It turned out, contradicting that claim, that he was a registered Republican.

7) He insisted that he is really an Independent and that when he registered to vote in 1994, there was no independent option and that he was "somehow assigned Republican status." In 2004, comedian (now a senator) Al Franken went back and looked at O'Reilly's voter registration form. Actually, there was an Independent option right next to the Republican box. O'Reilly had chosen Republican and then lied about it for the next decade on television.

8) NPR's Mike Pesca reported O'Reilly's political registration in 2001 on the radio. O'Reilly called it a hatchet job and said, "I've never heard of Mike Pesca." Pesca had interviewed O'Reilly on tape for an hour for the report.

9) In 2004, O'Reilly said Iraq was producing chemical weapons in the run up to the 2003 Iraq war. They were not.

10) O'Reilly said Al Qaeda was working with Saddam Hussein's Iraq even after the claims were widely disproven. They were not.

11) Early in the Iraq war, O'Reilly started a boycott of French goods in protest of the lack of French support for the war. In April 2004, O'Reilly said "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to the Paris Business Review." Such a publication doesn't exist and never did, first of all, and trade between the U.S. and France actually increased in the time between the war's beginning and that statement. O'Reilly continued to brag about that successful boycott for years afterwards.

12) In an attempt to explain European opposition to the Iraq war, he said European media--the U.K., in particular--consists of state-controlled organizations led by liberal governments that deliver anti-American propaganda. In the U.K., meanwhile, the BBC was struck hard by controversy because they published reports embellishing the threat Iraq posed that misleadingly promoted the war--the same errant tale championed by the Bush administration. The chairman resigned.

13) O'Reilly claimed that former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean wanted to pull out of Iraq "immediately" in 2004. Actually, Dean said, "I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the [Bush] administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq."

14) O'Reilly claimed President Bush never said "mission accomplished" regarding the Iraq war. Bush said that in 2003, never mind standing in front of an enormous "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier for a world-class photo op.

15) O'Reilly claimed the Iraq war was France's fault because the country never pushed for weapons inspections. In fact, they did.

16) O'Reilly said the Dixie Chicks never recovered from the protests that followed their famous criticism of George Bush over the Iraq War. Meanwhile, they had the top-selling album in the country, the top-selling tour in the country, and won a Grammy.

17) In 2005, O'Reilly said "The secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, that's what this gay marriage thing is all about." While it was clear even back then that this was a lie about the marriage equality movement, with broader legalization we can now look to 252,000 same-sex married couples as even clearer proof that marriage equality has always been about equality and not abolishment.

18) O'Reilly claimed that gay marriage killed straight marriage, particularly pointing to heterosexual marriage rates falling in Sweden after same-sex marriage was allowed in 1995. Actually, Swedish marriage rates rose following the passing of the law. Marriage rates are falling in the U.S., but it's been dropping since well before any gay marriage law was passed in America.

19) O'Reilly said that, legally, gay marriage makes polygamy legal. After over 252,000 same sex marriages in the U.S., I'm still waiting on the man with 27 wives O'Reilly talked about.

20) When O'Reilly was accused of stoking hatred that led to Dr. George Tiller's murder by an anti-abortion activist, O'Reilly said he never called Tiller a baby killer. He did, repeatedly. He said that when he used the words "tiller the baby killer" a million times over the years before his murder, he was just quoting what someone else said, and that since he quoted someone else he never said it.

21) He said the reason many, many, many of the Hurricane Katrina victims didn't leave New Orleans before the storm was because they're drug addicted and thugs who wouldn't leave without a fix. Actually, many victims were poor and owned no vehicles. Reasons for staying vary, but drug addiction was never a significant contributor.

22) He said no one on Fox News ever claimed Obamacare would send people to jail for not paying health coverage bills. They did, pretty much every day

23) O'Reilly claimed Obama never ordered the military to assist during attacks on Benghazi. Obama did.

24) In a 2014 interview, Obama said that people believe verifiably false conspiracy theories about Benghazi because folks like you [O'Reilly] are telling them that. O'Reilly denied it--but, of course, he pushed the conspiratorial narrative every night.

25) He claimed poverty has gone up in the last half century despite the federal government spending trillions on social engineering. Wrong--poverty is down.

26) He said "the only reason to use marijuana is to get high." Actually, it's used for medical purposes in much of the United States. Marijuana helps to subdue pain for arthritis sufferers, for instance, or stop seizures in other individuals, including children.

27) Annoyed with legalization in Colorado, O'Reilly claimed the Denver Post actually hired an editor to promote pot. They hired an editor to report, not promote.

28) O'Reilly claimed no one but Fox News covered White House Communications Director Anita Dunn saying Mao Zedong was one of her favorite political philosophers. Lots of other media covered it, though perhaps not as much as he would have liked.

29) He claimed Obama failed to prosecute an easy voter-intimidation criminal case against the the New Black Panther Party because they didn't want to charge minorities with violating civil rights. Actually, the Bush administration did that, the ruling to not prosecute came under Bush, before Obama even took office.

30) O'Reilly lies about taxes a lot. In an argument about taxes on the rich being too high, he said tax rates in New York City, Boston, and Los Angeles were much higher than what they actually were.

31) He said France and Germany taxed citizens at 80 percent. Actually, that's double their tax rate.

32) In the lead up to the 2004 election, O'Reilly claimed the U.S. exported more goods than it imported because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails. That's another snipe at France. In fact, we had a trade deficit, including with France.

33) O'Reilly made up a quote saying that liberal financier George Soros wanted his elderly father dead. Actually, Soros didn't say that.

34) He claimed Democrats lost voters in the 2004 presidential election over its gains in 2000. Actually, Democrats gained 5 million voters.

35) O'Reilly claimed Bush won the 2004 election because Independents chose the Republican. Actually, Independents voted Democrat. And in the 2000 election Gore got more votes than Bush, but Florida voting corruption put Bush in the White House, and his brother just happened to be the Governor of Florida.

36) He claimed the Bush tax cuts didn't create a budget deficit, and that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the real reason behind the budget issues. Actually, Bush had a deficit before 9/11 or any war began.

37) O'Reilly claimed that Hillary Clinton didn't go to a single funeral or memorial service of a 9/11 victim. Not true. Further, as senator of New York at the time, Clinton took on the causes of first responders and won the endorsement of two NYC firefighters unions for her support.

38) O'Reilly said that illegal immigrants were biological weapons that killed more people than 9/11. Shortly thereafter, he claimed he never said that.

39) Talking about Fox's biases, O'Reilly said, "There is no talking points. There is no marching order. It doesn't exist." Go watch the movie Outfoxed and you will see that he was lying.

40) He said Fox News has more liberals than conservatives on air. Well, that flies in the face of common sense, because conservatives outnumber liberals by 10 to 1, if not more.

41) One of O'Reilly's signature moments was screaming at the son of a 9/11 victim on air and then repeatedly claiming the son, Jeremy Glick, was a 9/11 truther who blamed America for the attacks. In fact, Glick said he believed that American support for the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s laid the groundwork for Al Qaeda. There's a difference, and Glick was right.

42) O'Reilly said Bush didn't oppose the creation of the 9/11 commission. He did.

43) O'Reilly likes to say there is a War on Christmas. To support that, he claimed red and green clothes--Christmas colors--had been banned by a public school in Texas run by fascism. That was not true.

44) Talking about the War on Christmas, O'Reilly claimed Circuit City was owned by Indians. It was never owned by Indians.

45) Did someone say War on Christmas? O'Reilly claimed that a public school changed the lyrics to "Silent Night" in order to secularize it. Actually, it was an entirely new song written on the old tune, changed by the former president of Ronald Reagan's church and performed in churches around the country.

46) O'Reilly said Best Buy banned the phrase Merry Christmas. They didn't.

47) O'Reilly claimed the income tax originated with Karl Marx. Actually, it existed before Marx was born.

48) During the Bush years, O'Reilly said the Clinton tax rates were higher than at any point since World War II. That's a lie, taxes have been higher numerous times throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Especially during the Reagan years, top tax rates used to be 70%, they are now 36% and were 39% under Clinton.

49) O'Reilly claimed Jane Fonda turned notes smuggled by U.S. prisoners of war over to the Vietnamese. False.

50) In 2005, O'Reilly said the Bush administration was not engaging in torture. He pointed to a State Department report on human rights that criticized torture--except in the U.S. In any event, we can be sure now that torture took place.

51) In 2006, O’Reilly said there was no evidence the U.S. used electric shock torture. There was evidence then, and there is evidence now.

52) O'Reilly also claimed that Geneva Convention protections apply only to uniformed soldiers fighting for a recognized country, as opposed to stateless terrorists. That's a lie. The Geneva Convention applies to everyone.

53) When O'Reilly gets things wrong, he's exceptional at talking about how right he is. When he claimed federal housing assistance rose 1,400 percent from Clinton to Bush, he was off by 1,378 percent. When he was called out on it, he said these are hard numbers.

54) In 1986, Dick Cheney voted against a resolution calling to free Nelson Mandela from prison. Cheney has repeatedly said it's because Mandela ran a terrorist operation, but O'Reilly has contradicted Cheney, saying that vote was cast in order to protect poor South Africans from sanctions.

55) One of O'Reilly's favorite targets is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He's famously stated that the ACLU supports pedophiles and a child's "constitutional right to have sex with adults." This is not at all what the ACLU does.

56) O'Reilly claimed that the liberal Boston Globe didn't cover the rape of a 9-year-old girl. They did.

57) O'Reilly claimed that Hillary Clinton can write anything off against the Bill Clinton presidential library, thus giving her access to vast funds. Actually, the library's finances are handled by the government.

58) Making the case that the Democrats went over the line in their questioning of the Bush administration, O'Reilly claimed that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) questioned Condoleeza Rice's "respect for the troops." Actually, Boxer questioned Rice's "respect for the truth."

59) O'Reilly claimed that Bush's tax cuts meant that federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration. Actually, the year 2000 had the highest inflation-adjusted revenue until 2013.

60) Following the recent massacre at Charlie Hebdo headquarters, O'Reilly said France brought terrorism on itself because they allowed no-go zones where Muslims don't let outsiders in. That's not true.

61) O'Reilly then claimed he never said there were no-go zones in France. He said exactly that.

62) While opining about black America's problems, O'Reilly claimed the Irish and African-American experiences were equivalent because both had to leave their homelands and came to America with nothing. Actually, in case you don't have a history book on hand, Africans were forced to leave in bondage, kept in slavery for hundreds of years, and then, after the abolition of slavery, were thoroughly and systematically oppressed by legal, economic, and social forces that often persist in some form to this day.

63) O'Reilly said the black dropout rate was worse at the end of the Clinton presidency than at the beginning. It was better.

64) Criticizing public broadcasting, O'Reilly said PBS is going bankrupt. Actually, PBS's funding--both public and private--has doubled to about $500 million since O'Reilly first went on Fox in the 1990s.

65) While in a rant against public spending, O'Reilly claimed liberal Californians wanted the federal government to pay for plastic surgery for prisoners, particularly pointing to an inmate who had breast reduction surgery as a liberal cause that targeted our money. Actually, that inmate was having a tumor removed.

66) One of the great political attacks of our time was the 2004 Swift Boating of John Kerry, wherein a political group claimed that Kerry lied extensively about his service during the Vietnam War. Actually, Kerry didn't lie. In any event, O'Reilly claimed the Swift Boaters had little impact in 2004 and that he hadn't even seen them on cable news. In fact, Fox News (as well as CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC) covered Swift Boaters extensively. They were everywhere on cable news, especially Fox.

67) O'Reilly claimed that Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain Iraq war veteran and a prominent anti-war activist, lied and changed her story about a meeting with President Bush. She never changed her story.

68) O'Reilly said CNN does not have a single conservative commentator. That's obviously not true; but even being charitable and looking specifically at the time when O'Reilly first said it--March 2005--commentators Jerry Falwell and Robert Novak said otherwise.

69) O'Reilly claimed that courtroom perjury is on the rise because they've done away with swearing on the bible before testimony. Actually, the bible is still used before courtroom testimony, and there has been no rise in perjury.

70) While criticizing the 9th circuit appeals court, O'Reilly said they had their cases overturned at a record rate. That's a lie.

72) O'Reilly claimed that Thomas Jefferson would have mocked secular fools over separation of church and state. Actually, Jefferson famously wrote about his support for that separation.

73) During a heatwave in the southwest, O'Reilly said the dozens of dead homeless people could have found some place to cool off, but they were mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Actually, the number of homeless outpaced the number of beds available by thousands.

74) Arguing about abortion, O'Reilly said a woman's life could never be in danger during pregnancy. That's obviously not true. He also claims to believe in freedom, but when you tell a woman that is not your wife or a relative she can not have an abortion, that is the opposite of freedom.

75) O'Reilly claimed most Republicans didn't want NAFTA. Actually, most voted for it.

76) O'Reilly said he wouldn't call Sean Penn anti-American. About 8 minutes after he had just called Sean Penn anti-American.

77) O'Reilly claimed he didn't compare the Koran to Mein Kampf. He did and he continues to do so.

78) In 2001, O'Reilly claimed 58 percent of single mothers are on welfare. The number was 14 percent, less than a quarter of what O'Reilly claimed.

79) In defense of Florida governor Jeb Bush's education policies, O'Reilly claimed 37 percent of state universities were black. The number was 18 percent, less than half of what O'Reilly claimed.

80) In 2001, O'Reilly said the U.S. gave more tax money to foreign countries than any other country. No, Japan gave more then. The U.S. gives more now, somewhat due to the fact that a country we invaded (Afghanistan) receives billions more in aid than any other nation.

81) When an army recruiter was murdered in 2009, O'Reilly said CNN didn't cover the crime except for Anderson Cooper. They covered it, a lot.

82) O'Reilly said the cause of global warming is guesswork. Scientists disagree.

83) O'Reilly said that, unlike Viagra, birth control is a choice, not a medical condition. Aside from the fact that doctors say pregnancy is a medical condition, birth control is used to treat a range of other medical conditions as well.

84) O'Reilly once said no lies have ever been told about anyone on his show. (See above and below.)

85) G. Gordon Liddy organized the famous Watergate burglaries. He's also fundraised for John McCain, and McCain accepted his money. During the 2008 presidential race, O'Reilly claimed McCain and Liddy have nothing to do with each other. That's false, not only because of the fundraising but because Liddy interviewed McCain multiple times, even during that very campaign.

86) O'Reilly claimed that then-Sen. Barack Obama did not cast a vote condemning MoveOn.org ads that targeted Gen. David Petraeus and defended John Kerry. Obama did.

87) O'Reilly said "no law is going to prevent a woman from giving birth when she's raped or has incest. No law. Ever." He meant abortion, as clarified by this next sentence: "If there's incest, if there's violence in your home, you can go to the courts and they'll decide whether you can have the abortion, not your parents, OK? Every law says it."

88) O'Reilly claimed no prisoners died because of abuse at Abu Grahib. One did, his name was Manadel al-Jamadi.

89) During a 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, O'Reilly said the New York Times editorial board wouldn't criticize Israel because "American Jews are liberal." They had already written three such editorials.

90) In 2008, O'Reilly claimed the NY Times cut 25 percent of its workforce because of criticism received for publishing an article about terrorism financing. They cut 2 percent, and the supposedly direct connection between the article and the cut was total speculation from O'Reilly, the very same speculation he claims to not allow in the no spin zone.

91) O'Reilly claimed Bush didn't prohibit White House attorneys from appearing before Congress if transcripts were recorded. Bush did just that.

92) When O'Reilly saw a 2006 poll saying 53 percent of Americans viewed Hillary Clinton favorably, he said the poll wasn't scientific. O'Reilly isn't a statistician and that poll was scientific. To this day Hillary still has a majority that see her in a favorable way. O'Reilly even claims his website polls represent the views of the average American, even though they are unscientific and biased, and it says so right on the poll as you vote.

93) In 2006, O'Reilly said the National Security Agency (NSA) never tapped domestic phone calls. We already knew--and the White House admitted--that they tapped domestic phone calls without a warrant at that point but the rest of pandora's box was yet to be opened.

94) O'Reilly said Mary McCarthy, a former CIA agent who leaked information to reporters, was accused of leaking information about the agency's secret Eastern European prisons. She was never formally accused of that by the CIA, and the Washington Post maintains that while she did leak information to them, it had nothing to do with secret prisons. Instead, she reportedly leaked information about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by the CIA.

95) O'Reilly said former Mexican president Vincente Fox used his nation's army to traffic drugs across the border to the U.S. That never happened. Under Fox, Mexico used its army to fight a violent war with cartels.

96) O'Reilly said New York City teachers are told to ignore students who curse them out. As a former New York City student, I know that's not true. But if that's not enough, New York's public discipline code explicitly points out punishment for obscene language.

97) O'Reilly claimed Democrats also took money from Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist famously convicted in in a vast corruption scheme in 2005. That's a lie, because only Republicans received contributions from Abramoff.

98) O'Reilly claimed renewable energy was a waste of time because God controls the climate. He’s also said nobody can control the climate except God, so give a little extra at mass. That goes against what modern science has concluded: Human beings contribute to climate change.

99) Criticizing attempts to bring diversity to Christmas, O'Reilly said Santa Claus is white based on the myth's roots in medieval Greece. Now think about this, Santa is not real.

100) One of the most vast and mind-bending lies O'Reilly has ever told came just this week. Nose pointed squarely up, O'Reilly said that he doesn't believe in personal smears and that he doesn't condone hate and guttersniping that implies politicians like Bush and Obama don’t want to serve their country.

While O'Reilly didn't invent the TV smear, he raised it to a lucrative art. During the Bush administration, he targeted anti-war politicians with exactly this kind of personal smear. In one glaring example from the height of the Iraq war, he said, Nancy Pelosi and her acolytes, people who like her, they want us to lose in Iraq. They want there to be chaos in Afghanistan. They want this. They're rooting against their own country. He also compares political opponents to Nazis pretty damn often.

And the biggest lie he has ever told is that he is a fair and balanced Independent, and his show is a no spin zone.

He is a biased partisan Republican who puts out right-wing propaganda 99% of the time with 97% Republican guests. It is all right-wing spin, all the time, with a liberal guest once a show, just so he has someone to yell at, and so he can claim to be balanced, even though he sometimes has zero liberals on a show, while having an average of 6 to 7 Republican guests per show.

Republicans Calling Sabotage Of Obama With Iran Letter A Disaster
By: Steve - March 15, 2015 - 11:00am

Some Republicans are admitting anonymously that the Senate GOP attempt to sabotage President Obama with a letter to Iran has turned into a disaster.

Politico talked to insiders within both parties about the letter, and some Republicans are realizing that they are in trouble:
One-third of Republican insiders believe that Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his GOP colleagues -- including several potential presidential candidates -- crossed the line when they published an open letter to Iranian leaders warning about a possible nuclear deal.

"The GOP letter -- while sound in substance -- caused the debate to shift from the administration's wrongheadedness to the GOP's tactics," said a New Hampshire Republican, who -- like all 92 respondents this week -- completed the survey anonymously in order to speak candidly.

"That's not helpful."

"Policy wise, the deal Obama is trying to cut is a bad one," said another.

"Politically speaking, however, the letter has been a disaster. The Democrats have totally framed and owned the debate, and our GOP senators are getting pummeled."
The letter has turned into a disaster of a story that is following Republicans wherever they go. Republican presidential candidates are being asked about it on the campaign trail. And Republicans who didn't even have anything to do with the letter are being questioned about it.

Sen. Tom Cotton's letter created an issue where one didn't exist. It is a self-inflicted wound that is not healing. There is nothing that Republicans can say that will explain or excuse the letter. The excuse making has been so feeble that John McCain even tried to blame the weather for his decision to sign the letter.

The Republican opposition to any deal with Iran will now look partisan and petty. Republicans also shot themselves in the foot with Democrats by sending this letter. Senate Republicans were building a bipartisan consensus for passage of legislation that would have required any agreement to be reviewed and approved by the Senate, but that is now gone.

The level of disrespect in the letter has even shocked people who don't follow politics, but who vote in a presidential election. The behavior of the Senate Republicans can't be undone. There is no way to repair the damage, and Republicans might have cost themselves their Senate majority with this blatant act of sabotage.

But if you watch the Factor for your news you would hardly know any of this, because O'Reilly supported the letter and only did one short segment on it with one conservative guest only, who of course also supported the letter.

Now if Democrats had sent a letter like this to Iran under Bush, O'Reilly would have screamed bloody murder and lost his mind, and most likely called them traitors who should be voted out of office. Fox would have slammed them 24/7 as un-American and reported it for a week. And is a perfect example of the bias from O'Reilly and Fox, the very same bias they complain the rest of the media has.

House Republicans Have Exempted Themselves From Saving Their Emails
By: Steve - March 15, 2015 - 10:00am

Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy and double standards, the very same House Republicans who want Hillary Clinton to turn over all her emails have exempted themselves from saving their own emails.

The same House Republicans who want to subpoena Hillary Clinton's emails have made sure that they aren't required to save their own emails. AP reported this:
Congress makes its own rules, and has never subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked.

There's also no requirement for members of Congress to use official email accounts, or to retain, archive or store their emails, while in office or after.

That's in contrast to the White House and the rest of the executive branch.

But if the rules at federal agencies are unclear, at least there are rules. On Capitol Hill, there are almost none. That means that the same House Republicans who are subpoenaing Clinton's emails as part of their inquiry into the Benghazi, Libya, attacks are not required to retain emails of their own for future inspection by anyone.
House Republicans are contemplating no less than three investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails. Some in the House have gone as far as to suggest that the full House could subpoena the Clinton email server.

The news that House Republicans have exempted themselves from the same standard that they are trying to hold Hillary Clinton has pushed this story from being ridiculous to absurdity.

How can anyone take the Republican anger over Clinton's emails seriously when they took steps to exempt themselves from having to save any of their own emails?

If there is one thing that Americans have learned since Republicans took control of the House, it is that they should never be trusted. The Republican hypocrisy is par for the course for the party of do as I say, not as I do.

In the coming days and months, House Republicans are going to try to make a mountain out of the Clinton email molehill, but every time they mention emails, Boehner and company should be asked why they keep their emails hidden from the public.

And btw, none of this information has ever been reported by Bill O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know the Republicans are massive hypocrites with double standards.

Andy Levy Blows Up At Fill-In Red Eye Host Over Ferguson Comment
By: Steve - March 14, 2015 - 1:00pm

On Fox News Red Eye early Saturday morning, temporary Greg Gutfeld replacement Tom Shillue said this: "The Ferguson story just got real."

He was referring to the shooting of two police officers in that city this week, which he deemed a more important story than the killing of Michael Brown, which sparked outage there that has lasted for months.

And btw, after officer Wilson was not charged by the corrupt Prosecutor and Grand Jury, O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly both predicted the Ferguson story would be over in a week or two, and they were both dead wrong. Proving just how clueless they are, because the DOJ report had not even been released yet, and the protests were not ending.

Levy said this: "I don't understand how you think Ferguson just got real when those assholes shot the cops," co-host Andy Levy challenged Shillue after he'd completed his monologue. "If you didn't think it was real before then, you should have thought it was real after the DOJ report came out."

In Levy's words, that report proved what the protesters had been saying all along, that the "whole damn city structure was racist."

"Why, because they gave out a bunch of traffic tickets?" The far-right stooge Tom Shill responded.

"Are you kidding me?" Levy replied. "Everything in that report was utterly reprehensible," he added, saying conservatives can't tout the Constitution and then ignore First and Fourth Amendment violations committed disproportionately against African-Americans.

"That stuff was disgusting."

Notice that O'Reilly also pretty much ignored the DOJ report, he did one short segment on it with a conservative guest only. He never admitted he was wrong, and he never said he was sorry for saying the protesters were wrong to be doing the protests. O'Reilly even slammed tham as un-American and anti-police, and pretty much said they were protesting for no reason.

When the DOJ report proves they were right and O'Reilly was wrong, but he never admits it and never said he was sorry. Which is what O'Reilly does, every time liberals protest O'Reilly slams them and calls them un-American, even though they are usually proven right at a later time. But when conservatives protest he supports them every time and calls them great Americans, even though they are usually proven wrong at a later time.

Mistrust Is Growing: European Leaders Slam GOP Senators for Letter to Iran
By: Steve - March 14, 2015 - 11:00am

'This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva,' said German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

An open letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators has provoked sharp rebuke from European countries that are party to the nuclear talks.

Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier blasted the U.S. GOP senators on Thursday, telling journalists, "This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva."

"Obviously mistrust is growing," he added.

In addition, the Associated Press reported Thursday that unnamed diplomatic officials in France and London made similar criticisms of the open letter. "In Paris, a senior French diplomat said the letter made it hard on the American negotiators, who have been leading the talks with Iran on behalf of the rest of the group," wrote journalist Matthew Lee.

The letter, organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and co-signed by 46 other Republican senators, directly threatened Iranian leaders that, if a nuclear deal were reached, it would not last after President Barack Obama leaves the presidency.

It immediately sparked broad censure--from from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to U.S. President Barack Obama to grassroots movements-with many charging it amounted to a call for military escalation and potentially war.

The missive was released less than a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a controversial congressional address aimed at derailing ongoing talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States, and Germany.

And of course O'Reilly ignores all this negative reporting about the letter, because he is a Republican and he does not want to make them look bad. In the one lousy segment he did on the letter O'Reilly had one Republican guest and no Democratic guest for balance. And of course that partisan right-wing stooge supported the 47 traitors in the Senate who sent it.

Mr. Fair and balanced, did a one sided biased segment on this BIG news story, with nobody as a guest to provide the counter point. And that was the only segment he did on the entire story, while the rest of the real media has been reporting it for a week almost every day.

Rolling Stone: Bill O'Reilly Is A Pathological Liar
By: Steve - March 14, 2015 - 10:00am

Here are some quotes from the rollingstone.com article about Bill O'Reilly where they call him what he is, a Pathological Liar.

A good rule of callout culture is to never target someone for the same things you do. No adulterer is more insufferable, after all, than the fire-and-brimstone minister. But when NBC anchor Brian Williams was exposed for fabricating stories of journalistic heroism, poor Bill O'Reilly just couldn't help himself. There was Williams, garnering widespread acclaim for the kind of stories Bill had already been making up for years.

A real American doesn't tolerate that kind of crap, and Bill O'Reilly is a real American. He has evolved into a post-fact reality, nightly defending a singular nation of fear and confabulation against all enemies foreign and domestic. He is a fiction more palpable than himself, and he can't stop, because it's all he has.

Some of the story is probably familiar to you. O'Reilly has lied high and low during his nearly 19 years at Fox News, but the latest round of scrutiny about his stories began with an article in The Nation questioning whether O'Reilly's reporting aided in covering up a massacre in El Salvador in 1982.

Instead of primarily focusing on whether O'Reilly acted as a stooge for murderous conservative policy 14 years before his Fox gig, the media instead latched onto O'Reilly's claims that he'd reported from a leveled town where no one was left alive or dead, when in fact The Nation's article included O'Reilly's CBS footage of a very much not-leveled town with at least eight people walking around in the background of his shots.

That article and O'Reilly's pummeling Brian Williams inspired Mother Jones David Corn and Daniel Schulman to look closely at O'Reilly's other tales of hazardous, daring reportage, including his claims to have been in a "war zone" during the Falklands War. Despite O'Reilly's calling Corn a "despicable guttersnipe" and attempting to handwave away the accusations as a liberal hit job, Corn and Shulman's charges have stuck.

The nearest O'Reilly (or any other American reporter) got to the war zone was 1,200 miles, and his fallback assertion that protests he "alone" covered in Buenos Aires constituted one have been debunked multiple times over by O'Reilly's former colleagues. Worse, O'Reilly's own footage contradicts his story that he had a gun pulled on him.

The hits keep coming. Former colleagues flatly deny O'Reilly's story that he was attacked by rioters in the 1992 L.A. riots. His story that he witnessed bombings in Northern Ireland was denied by Fox News own spokesman.

Further, his claim that he was on the doorstep when a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald's committed suicide was impeached by the fact that O'Reilly was in Dallas at the time, (another) 1,200 miles away from the shooting.

This constant churning of preposterous BS runs through O'Reilly's career like discarded picnic food through geese, a steaming heap of compensatory fantasy meeting defensive wish fulfillment.

He turned a comfortable childhood in the post-war suburban planned community of Levittown (with regular Florida vacations) into an Oliver Twist-tinged struggle, to complete the Horatio Alger arc corporealizing him as the American dream: "You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale."

Those who would dare wake him from it are met with violence. "I am coming after you with everything I have," he told the New York Times' Emily Steel. "You can take it as a threat."

Once laid atop the patterns of O'Reilly's real life, one is surprised to realize that Bill O'Reilly hasn't actually murdered anyone yet. The second is this: that the stories Bill tells as fiction are nearly identical to the fictions he tells himself and his viewers. The Nation and Mother Jones might have caught him out on the details, but he was telling us he is a vengeful, unhinged fabulist this entire time.

What consequence is there for real journalistic organizations anymore when it comes to going after O'Reilly? They get called attackers? O'Reilly calls them attackers merely for reporting facts inconsistent with his epistemic bubble.

His fans aren't going to watch or read those other sites or channels? They don't already. By this point, O'Reilly has trained his audience to consider digesting independent news an act of race treason on par with slaveowners letting negroes learn to read.

The response will be the same no matter the offense, so go ahead and call Bill O'Reilly what he is. A pathological liar and a paper tiger elevated to a glass desk in front of millions of people he wants to be as scared as he is of the intruding world. Let him revel in being attacked, then keep calling him the same things, and repeating them until they're the only Google search result anymore. What's he going to do? Sue historicity?

O'Reilly isn't a newsman, he's a blue-eyed cirrhotic cyst erupting acid onto the brass rail at the Now I'll Tell You What the REAL Problem Is Pub. He's the guy who sits next to you and brags about how he'd kick the hell out of any thugs daring to bring violence into his neighborhood, stumbles off his barstool, goes outside, reflexively crosses the street to avoid two black kids on the sidewalk two blocks up, then drives home drunk.

He's the guy who picks a fight with you if you correct him, then refuses to throw down because he "was Gold Gloves in college and doesn't want to end you, man," then backs away toward his driveway while trying to make eye contact with anyone he thinks is a friend and saying, "I feel sorry for him! I have a pool in my backyard."

The Real Story About That Fox Most Trusted Poll
By: Steve - March 13, 2015 - 10:00am

From aattp.org:

Not since the days of Keith Olbermann's reign at MSNBC has Bill O'Reilly resorted to such relentless attacks on the network. His perceived victimization by a media cabal that he says is simultaneously impotent and omnipotent is reaching psychotic levels. And all of this is due to the fountain of lies that he has been spewing for decades and for which he is now being called upon to answer.

O'Reilly's latest retaliatory harangue came at the opening of Monday's Factor where he set out to claim once again that everything he does is sanctified by God because he has high ratings (First Church of Nielsen the Redeemer). His Talking Points Memo, titled "Hating Fox News," heralded a new Quinnipiac poll that O'Reilly bragged "shows that Americans trust Fox News more than any other TV news agency by a substantial margin."

As anyone familiar with O'Reilly's aversion to the truth would know, he did not tell the whole story. The same poll shows that Fox News is also the network that is least trusted by Americans. Now why do you suppose he left that out?

The fact that Fox received a vote of confidence from 29% of the poll's respondents means that 71% trusted another network more. That is not exactly something of which to be proud. What's more if you add up the two categories of positive responses for trusted networks (a great deal + somewhat), Fox News is second to the last. It beats only MSNBC by a mere 3%.

If anyone is "Hating Fox News" it is the majority of the American people who reject its frothing hostility, fear mongering, and perversion of the facts. But no one should mistake O'Reilly's tirade for a reasoned commentary on the popularity of the media. This rant is a thinly veiled assault on those who are demanding that he come clean about the frequent lies he has told to portray himself as an intrepid reporter risking life and limb to bring truth to the people.

But rather than taking on his critics forthrightly, he takes a more cowardly approach by pretending to be a victim of powerful enemies seeking the destruction of his employer. He's attacking a broader, ambiguous foe because he's afraid to face his critics head on. And of course that foe is, in his mind, a humongous titan of evil, even though he also insists that it is a weakling that has no support and can't compare to the superhuman powers of Fox News.

Somehow all of this makes sense in O'Reilly's cartoon brain. However, his campaign against his critics consists entirely of bluster, distractions, and outright threats. That's why in Monday's program he never once addressed the growing number of documented falsehoods he has been caught telling.

He just continued boasting about his ample audience and the prominent role that Fox News plays in shaping the American media.

On that note, O'Reilly pulled back the curtain on the journalistic fraud that is Fox News. The facade of fairness and balance is just another one of the lies that are baked into the Fox mission. In this one episode O'Reilly repeatedly confessed to the unethical biases of Fox.

For instance, he said this:

"Our primetime programs set the political agenda."

"The fact is that Fox News is now a deep threat to the progressive movement and the far left despises us so they are in full attack mode desperately trying to marginalize FNC."

"There are just two national news agencies that challenge the progressive agenda with authority: the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Fox News Channel."

"If FNC did not exist, America would be a far different place and the far left ideology would have a far easier time. But we do exist and now dominate the primetime news cycle. Not good news for progressive politicians, the liberal media, and crazed zealots on both sides."

How are any of those overtly partisan statements consistent with the practice of professional journalism?

O'Reilly is admitting that Fox is a political advocate of the right. This is why most media observers regard Fox as nothing more than the PR division of the Republican Party. Additionally, O'Reilly's analysis that Fox's very existence is bad news for progressives flies in the face of reality.

Someone should inform him that President Obama was elected twice despite the existence of Fox which fought so hard against him.

There is one thing, however, that O'Reilly got right. America would be a far different place without Fox. There would be far less wingnut propaganda and conspiracy theories masquerading as news.

We wouldn't have to deal with wild goose chases for presidential birth certificates or claims that snowballs disprove the scientific evidence of Climate Change. Mentions of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump would produce confused looks and replies of "Who?" And the Tea Party would still be a gathering of folks who appreciate brewed herbs and pastries.

White House Rips Senate Republicans For Their Treasonous Letter To Iran
By: Steve - March 12, 2015 - 11:00am

And newspapers all across the country are also slamming the 47 Senate Republicans who attempted to sabotage President Obama by writing a letter to Iran. So far 22 newspaper editorial boards have spoke about against the letter. Even some conservatives have said it was wrong, and at Fox Greta Van Sustern said she was against the letter.

The White House ripped Senate Republicans for their attempt to undermine negotiations with Iran, and stopped just short of accusing the 47 Republicans who signed a letter to Iranian government of treason.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program.

Earnest said this:

I would describe this letter as a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.

The fact is that we have heard Republicans for quite some time, including the principal author of this letter, make clear that their goal is to undermine these negotiations. Again, that is not a position that I am ascribing to Sen. Cotton, that is a position that he has strongly advocated. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug.

I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter. It's surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.

The Press Secretary stopped short of calling out the Senate Republicans for treasonous behavior, but his description of the Republican behavior of trying to undermine the goals and national security of the United States left little doubt about how the White House feels about this issue.

Senate Republicans are attempting to undermine the United States government by establishing communications with hardliners in Iran who promote and fund terrorism. Republicans have taken their campaign to undermine and delegitimize the President Of The United States global.

Senate Republicans have once shown their true colors, and those colors are not red, white and blue.

GOP Senators Who Signed Iran Letter Called Traitors By New York Daily News
By: Steve - March 12, 2015 - 10:00am

And yet, O'Reilly did a segment on it Wednesday night with a Republican guest from the American Enterprise Institute, and no Democratic guest for balance. It was a biased one sided segment where of course the Republican guest supported the Senate GOP letter. Which is what O'Reilly does, because he is also a Republican.

On the cover of its Tuesday edition, the New York Daily News featured a picture of four Republican Senators with the caption "Traitors" in huge bold letters underneath in response to the letter 47 GOP Senators sent to Iran undermining President Obama’s negotiations with the country.

The four Senators represented in the picture were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

Paul and Cruz are 2016 Presidential candidates while Cotton is the freshman Senator who came up with the bright idea to write a letter to Iranian leadership informing them that any agreement reached with Obama could easily be revoked by either another President or Congress.

Accompanying the Daily News provocative headline was a scathing editorial calling all 47 Republicans who signed the letter "un-patriotic" and an "embarrassment to our nation."

The paper's editorial board stated that while they aren't in total agreement with the White House regarding the potential nuclear pact with Iran, they condemn the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution.

They are an embarrassment to the Senate and to the nation.

How the executive and legislative branches come to terms in the event that Obama presents his version of a done deal to America will be of grave national and international concern. There will be no place for juvenilia, and there should not have been at this expectant juncture.

Rather than offer objections domestically in robust debate, as is their obligation, ringleader Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and his band trespassed on presidential turf by patronizing Iran's leaders with the suggestion "that you may not fully understand our constitutional system."

The plain intent was to sabotage Obama by pushing the Iranians into balking at a deal out of fear that a turn of the U.S. political wheel could doom the pact in the not-so-distant future.

Late Monday evening, Vice President Joe Biden released a blistering statement through the White House attacking the Republicans who took part in this treasonous stunt. He was really mad at Cotton for authoring the letter, pointing out that if this sabotages talks with Iran, then the very real possibility of war is on the horizon.

Biden: The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama's diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds.

Iran's nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely, at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL.

The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table.

The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.

Cotton appeared on Morning Joe Tuesday morning to address Biden's statement and defend the letter he wrote to Iran. Of course, he personally attacked Biden, claiming he's been wrong on "nearly every foreign policy and security decision in the last 40 years" and telling the Veep to "respect the dignity of the Senate" by telling POTUS to submit any deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

Cotton also told the hosts that he would only agree to total nuclear disarmament of Iran -- ummmm, they don't have nuclear weapons yet -- while stating Iran could not be negotiated with.

With those statements, Cotton was pressed by the panel that no diplomatic solutions or options would only leave military intervention. He finally copped to the fact that he would be completely fine with that, stating that Israel has done a good job with air strikes on facilities in Iran and America could join in with that.

To Scarborough's credit, he pointed out during Tuesday's broadcast that if he were still in Congress, he would not have signed on to this letter. Regardless of your personal feeling about the President or the philosophical disagreements you may have over foreign policy or tactics, you do not undercut the nation's leader in their dealings with other countries.

That is potentially in violation of federal law. Many people have already pointed out that the 47 GOP Senators may have violated the Logan Act with their actions.

While I am not positive that is the case, one thing I do know is they violated the trust of the American people. They decided it was more important for them to act like little children in an attempt to embarrass the President of the United States than to allow him to find peaceful solutions to real-world issues.

The Real Reason O'Reilly & His Right-Wing Friends Hate Jon Stewart
By: Steve - March 11, 2015 - 11:00am

Jon Stewart is a brilliant comedian, but like all entertainers, he needs material in order to create satire and comedy. The Daily Show isn't a standup routine, it's a natural consequence of America's political culture. After all, when Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly represent patriotism and American exceptionalism, the fodder for laughs is endless.

Stewart's brand of humor has always been based on an amusing look at the conservative media's attempt to shape a national narrative. Insane quotes and odd viewpoints on everything from health care to where Obama was born can be found from conservatives today, and the GOP seems to know exactly what God is thinking and even why the good Lord thinks rape is a "gift."

While many conservatives are happy to see him leave the show he created, the truth is that all Stewart's done is dare to look at Michele Bachmann from the vantage point of a sane person. In doing so, we laugh because changing "French fries" to "freedom Fries" is funny.

So let's take a look at some of the "material" Stewart and his Daily Show has turned into comedy, at the expense of Republicans who have assured voters they weren't witches and that God wanted John Boehner to remain Speaker of the House.

According to Pew Research, 30 percent of Republicans in 2012 believed President Obama was Muslim. In 2011, POLITICO stated that 51 percent of Republican primary voters thought Obama was born in a different country.

Then Newt Gingrich said that, "Shariah law is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it."

Many conservatives still believe the president is a socialist and the crazy Herman Cain once stated that Obama was "determined to destroy our capitalistic system."

The notion of a Muslim president born in Africa, advocating Shariah law and the destruction of our capitalist system, isn't just a perfect storyline for a comedian like Stewart. People around the country take this mentality seriously, which makes it even funnier.

The Daily Show pounces upon this irrationality in our political system.

Mike Huckabee compared being gay to drinking, swearing and classical music, while Rick Santorum believes gay marriage will hurt the economy. Indiana State Republican candidate Richard Mourdock once said that pregnancies from rape are "something that God intends to happen" and Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin explained that women's bodies can "shut down" pregnancies from "legitimate rapes."

Rush Limbaugh once called a female college student a "slut," less than four years after he stated, "I hope Obama fails." According to Bill O'Reilly, Robert Bergdhal "looks like a Muslim" because of his long beard, but Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson (who also has a long beard that makes him look muslim) is the darling of Fox News.

Phil Robertson, by the way, is always good for some laughs, especially since he's on record as stating, "It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus."

Conservatives hate Jon Stewart because he uses their insane comments and total hypocrisy to do a comedy show, and primarily because they utilized conservative rhetoric from the vantage point of a sane person. For many, it is simply not sane or rational to believe that women's bodies can "shut down" a pregnancy after rape, or that "looking Muslim" is a bad thing, or that America should hear one's thoughts on why a vagina is better than a man's anus.

Ben Carson recently said that Obamacare was "the worst thing that has happened to this nation since slavery." Speaking of Obamacare, Michele Bachmann advocated repealing the ACA before "it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens." Bachman also believed that "God is going to answer our prayers" and repeal Obamacare, and even said that fellow Republicans needed "to slit our wrists" and "be blood brothers" in order to defeat the ACA.

On immigration, Texas GOP Representative Louie Gohmert stated that Texas had the right to use "troops" and "ships of war" in order to defend against illegal immigrant children he likened to the "D-Day invasion."

So, a health care law is not only worse than slavery, but will kill people with what Sarah Palin coined as "death panels." Illegal immigrant children are invading the country and one Congressman believes Texas has the right to possibly wage war to protect its border. Do you find this bizarre, or does this make perfect sense to you?

If it does, then you've watched a lot of Fox News.

This is the kind of material Stewart has used for years in jokes, satire, and political commentary. What conservatives take seriously and what Fox News viewers feel is legitimate commentary is the same thing Stewart has used for years to make us all laugh.

Then of course, there's Christine O'Donnell's legendary television ad claiming that she isn't a witch. If you can get through the first sentence of this commercial without laughing, or at least smiling, then you might not have a sense of humor.

If you find Jon Stewart offensive, try to take things into perspective. When debating how the SNAP program goes against Biblical scripture, GOP Congressman Stephen Fincher made the following theological claim:

FINCHER: "The role of citizens, of Christianity, of humanity, is to take care of each other, not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country. The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Currently, the New York Post, The National Review, and other conservative publications have published articles demeaning Jon Stewart, but they've yet to chastise Stephen Fincher for claiming Jesus would not feed anyone who can not work.

Does anyone on the planet aside from Stephen Fincher (and other insane conservatives) think Jesus Christ would deny poor people food?

The Daily Show rightfully points out hypocrisy in obsessing over Brian Williams when even George W. Bush has a "sickening feeling" whenever he thinks about Iraq not having WMD. When one lie leads to untold suffering and chaos, and another lie simply furthers one man's television career.

Comedy has a way of shining a light upon political hyperbole and lies. Suddenly, there's no longer a Muslim conspiracy over Butterball turkeys (the Sharia turkey), it's just the conservative fear machine trying to ruin your Thanksgiving.

There's no longer a "War on Christmas," it's just Fox News working overtime to ramp up its ratings. Without Jon Stewart during the past sixteen years, we'd be forced to hear Sean Hannity defend waterboarding without laughing at his cowardice in refusing to acknowledge he once promised to get waterboarded.

We'd all have to endure hearing Anne Coulter say, "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks" without at least pondering the irrational aspects of such a statement from a comedic perspective. Most importantly, we'd have to hear Coulter talk about the possibility of "anal" and "foreskin" bombs, without at least getting a real comedian's take on these pressing matters.

Jon Stewart has been a highly relevant and groundbreaking comedian in America not only because of his talent. He's had the luxury of relying on the comedic talent of GOP lawmakers, pundits, and an Orwellian right-wing propaganda machine in Fox News.

Stewart will be greatly missed by a generation of Americans who loved his comedy, while enduring the loud and paranoid rhetoric of illegal immigrant hating Islamophobes, homophobes, racists, and war mongering chicken hawks in the right-wing of our political system.

For the record, Stewart and The Daily Show have also mocked Obama, Pelosi, and other liberals, which speaks volumes about not only his comedy, but also his integrity.

But of course O'Reilly and his right-wing friends never mention the jokes Stewart has done on Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. Because they want you to believe he only does jokes about conservatives, which is not true, he does more jokes about conservatives, but he also does a lot of jokes about liberals.

And the reason he does more jokes about conservatives is because far more of them say far more stupid things, so it gives Stewart most of the material he needs to do a comedy show. O'Reilly never points any of this out, instead he wants you to think Stewart is just a liberal who hates conservatives and he attacks them for no reason, when they deserve every bit of it.

O'Reilly is also jealous of Jon Stewart, because he is liked and everyone hates him.

Joe Biden Goes Ballistic On Senate Republicans
By: Steve - March 11, 2015 - 10:00am

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden is furious.

Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate, Monday night blasted Senate Republicans in a long, angry statement for their letter to Iran's leaders, which he described as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

Forty-seven Republicans on Sunday sent a letter directly to Tehran to suggest that any nuclear deal with the Obama administration would not be constitutionally binding because a future president or Congress could take steps to revoke it.

The letter was the brainchild of freshman Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) also signed the letter. The letter basically argues that Iran should not trust any agreement with the United States because that deal could be undone at any time.

Biden called the move an unprecedented affront "designed to undercut a sitting president."

"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.

This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.

Only seven Republican Senators put country ahead of party by not signing the letter. Senators Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Dan Coats (IN), Jeff Flake (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Rob Portman (OH) did not sign the letter.

The other 47 Republican Senators did.

Those 47 Senators are so intent on undermining the current President that they would rather see him fail than allow the White House to secure an agreement with Iran.

Presidential contenders Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio may win the allegiance of anti-Obama voters with this maneuver, but they have also shown by meddling in the diplomatic process, that they are more interested in political posturing, than they are in working for the future safety and security of the American people.

And O'Reilly has been silent, but if Democrats did this to a Republican President he would declare world war three and call for them to be tried and convicted of treason. This could actually be treason, or at least sedition, but O'Reilly says nothing, because Republicans did it.

O'Reilly Claims Fox Is The Most Trusted News Source In America
By: Steve - March 10, 2015 - 11:00am

Which is just laughable, and the only reason they came out in 1st in this poll is because all the braindead and brainwashed Republicans voted for Fox, while the Democrats and Independents split their votes between CNN and MSNBC. Here is the real truth, Fox is only the most trusted with Republicans, nobody else has any trust in them, and that is a fact.

From the actual poll:

When asked, "Do you trust the journalistic coverage provided by FOX News," 20 percent of U.S. voters say "a great deal" and 35 percent say "somewhat."

Scores for other networks are:

NBC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 46 percent "somewhat;"
ABC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
CBS News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
MSNBC - 11 percent "a great deal" and 41 percent "somewhat;"
CNN - 18 percent "a great deal" and 43 percent "somewhat."

So Fox is only trusted by 20% of the people, that means 80% do not trust them, a fact that O'Reilly never mentions.

The big winner is local television news, trusted by 19 percent of voters "a great deal" and by 52 percent "somewhat."

"FOX News may be the most trusted in the network and cable news race, but they all take a back seat to your local news," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Another fact that O'Reilly never said a word about.

In the comparison chart, FOX News is definitely the Republican choice as 58 percent of GOP voters say they trust FOX the most, while 13 percent turn to CNN, with 7 percent each for NBC and CBS, 5 percent for ABC and 2 percent for MSNBC.

Only 3 percent of Democrats trust FOX the most, with 32 percent for CNN, 15 percent for NBC, 14 percent each for CBS and MSNBC and 8 percent for ABC.

FOX tops CNN 34 - 18 percent among men, with women divided 25 - 25 percent. Voters 18 to 34 years old trust CNN more than FOX 33 - 21 percent, while voters 35 to 54 years old go to FOX 29 - 21 percent and voters over 55 years old trust FOX more 34 - 17 percent.

American voters say 48 - 7 percent that network TV news is less trustworthy than in the days of Walter Cronkite, while 35 percent say it is about as trustworthy.

The poll also said that FOX News Bill O'Reilly should be fired over allegations of inaccuracies in past reporting, 12 percent of voters say, as 11 percent say he should be suspended, 23 percent say he should stay and 51 percent haven't heard enough about this to form an opinion.

Another fact that O'Reilly never mentioned.

More Proof Republicans Lied To You About Obamacare & The Economy
By: Steve - March 10, 2015 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly has done nothing but slam Obamacare from the very beginning, he said it would be a disaster, it is chaos, it would cost jobs, and ruin the economy. And now we know it was all lies and right-wing propaganda. Which is the exact same thing all the Republicans said too, so O'Reilly claims he never uses right-wing talking points, then he did.

In April of 2013 O'Reilly said this:

O’Reilly suggested that the main culprit for the dismal jobs numbers out today could be ObamaCare, citing how businesses are now required to pay more in employee health care costs, and are therefore not hiring as many people.

He said there has been chaos as a result of two-thirds of all states being unable to meet ObamaCare requirements.

David Callahan from DEMOS (A Democratic think tank was the guest):

O'Reilly told Callahan that he is not an ObamaCare hater, but found it hard to see anything positive amidst all these negative consequences. Callahan immediately rebutted the claim that ObamaCare has hurt job growth, and when O'Reilly brought up statistics from the Chamber of Commerce, Callahan said they never really liked the law anyway.

And we all know the Chamber of Commerce is a biased Republican group, who put out spin and right-wing propaganda, basically, they used doctored numbers from a biased right-wing group. And O'Reilly is an ObamaCare hater, he has been from day one, he does not like it and was against it being passed. So that is just another lie he told, among many.

Here are some other Republicans who were dead wrong on ObamaCare, and they are all Republicans, what a shocker, not!

In February 2015, the economy added 295,000 jobs. It was the 12th straight month the private sector added more than 200,000 jobs, the longest such streak since 1977.

And O'Reilly never reports one word about that, ever, he just ignores it, because it makes Obama look good, and proves he was wrong.

The robust job growth coincided almost exactly with the official start of health coverage through the Obamacare exchanges, which began in January 2014.

Over that time, the economy has added 3.2 million jobs.

Prior to the law’s implementation, numerous politicians and pundits predicted an economic apocalypse once Obamacare took effect, including O'Reilly and virtually everyone at Fox.

Here are a few of the worst predictions:

1. Rep. Paul Broun (R-OH): 'It's going to destroy our economy...It's going to push us into a total economic collapse' (October 8, 2013)

And that was actually Broun's attempt to moderate his claims about Obamacare. He previously said that Obamacare would destroy America. He later told CNN that he meant it would destroy the American economy.

2. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH): Obamacare 'will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy.' (January 6, 2011)

During his press conference, which lasted 14 minutes, Boehner used the phrase "job-killing" once every 2 minutes. He called the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."

In addition to robust job growth, the deficit in 2014 plunged to its lowest level in 6 years. Deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was 2.8 percent, which is below the 40-year average.

And btw, that is something O'Reilly also never reports on anymore. O'Reilly used to cry about the deficit almost every night, saying Obama was making the deficit so high we would never recover from it. But now that the deficit is at it's lowest level in 40 years and O'Reilly was proven wrong, he never says a word about it anymore.

3. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): 'There will be no health insurance industry left in three years.' (October 12, 2010)

According to Coburn, the destruction of the insurance industry was part of a larger plot. Tulsa World reported his remarks to the Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County:

That is by design. You're going to make insurance unaffordable for everyone -- which is what they want. Because if there's no private insurance left, what's left? Government-centered, government-run, single-payer health care.

Five years later, there is still an insurance industry. Large insurance companies have embraced Obamacare and continue to increase their participation in the law's state-level marketplaces.

4. Rush Limbaugh said Obamacare would cost the economy '2.5 million jobs minimum' and would be a 'literal tragedy' (February 6, 2014)

Limbaugh's comments were based, in part, by a Congressional Budget Office report which he misinterpreted. Since Rush Limbaugh made this statement, the U.S. economy has added 3.2 million jobs.

5. Glenn Beck: 'This is the end of prosperity in America forever, if this passes. This is the end of America as you know it.' (November 19, 2009)

Along with historically strong job growth, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stands at 17,856, which is up over 72 percent since Beck's remarks. At the time Beck made his prediction, the unemployment rate was at 10 percent. Today, the unemployment rate is 5.5 percent.

And these right-wing stooges were all wrong, but nobody ever calls them on it or holds them accountable for lying to the American people, they were lying and they were wrong, and they knew it. They just spewed out the right-wing talking points on Obamacare, even though they knew they were wrong.

It's called being dishonest and lying to the American people, the very same thing O'Reilly complains about, saying the rest of the media lies to you but he is honest and a truth teller. When the facts show he is the dishonest liar who is not telling you the truth, and the rest of the real media was right.

And what's even worse is people that told O'Reilly he was wrong were slammed by him and others at Fox as being far-left kool-aid drinkers who were drinking the kool-aid. When they were exactly right, and it was O'Reilly and the Republicans who were the far-right kool-aid drinkers who were lying.

O'Reilly either spins or lies about everything, that is what he does, that is what he gets paid to do, which is why he is at Fox, because no other news network would hire him. If Fox did not have a so-called news network, O'Reilly would not even have a job in journalism. Unless it was at a tabloid news outlet, because no real news network would hire him.

Former Fox Host Says Everyone Knows O'Reilly Is A Liar
By: Steve - March 9, 2015 - 11:00am

In an 8 minute and 42 second segment on CNN, the former Fox host Eric Burns says O'Reilly is a liar, has been for a long time, and everyone knows it. He also said the viewers of Fox are like a cult, and O'Reilly is their leader, so they do not care he is a liar.

Burns hosted the so-called Fox News media watchdog show for 10 years, so he knows O'Reilly very well, and he knows exactly how Fox works. He basically said O'Reilly was an arrogant jerk, and Fox programs all their shows to get ratings from the far-right.

Here is the video:



SNL Weekend Update Slams "Idiot" Ben Carson
By: Steve - March 9, 2015 - 10:00am

SNL's Weekend Update piled on Dr. Ben Carson tonight for his comments about how prisons show being gay is a choice, because some people go in straight and come out gay.

As Michael Che put it, how "in that last sentence, Dr. Ben Carson went in as a neurosurgeon and came out as a complete idiot."

And they didn't stop there. Che and Colin Jost continued ripping into Carson, remarking that 1) voting against Carson is also a choice, and 2) Carson's presidential ambitions are now pretty much dead in the water.

Now think about this, O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republicans love Carson. Even though, as SNL said, he is a complete idiot who just ruined any chance he had to run against Hillary. Now he will not even win the Republican primary, and he is a fool.

TransCanada Is Seizing Americans Land: O'Reilly & The Republicans Silent
By: Steve - March 8, 2015 - 11:00am

This is not right and should never be allowed to happen in America, and yet, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are silent about it. There should be a law against a foreign company using eminent domain to take private property from an American citizen.

For Julia Trigg Crawford, watching TransCanada construct the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline on a corner of her 600-acre farm was gut-wrenching.

Crawford, who lives in Direct, Texas, had been trying since 2011 to keep the pipeline company off her property. But she ultimately lost, the portion of her land needed for the pipeline condemned through eminent domain -- a process by which government can force citizens to sell their property for public use, such as the building of roads, railroads, and power lines.

Crawford can not understand why TransCanada, a foreign company, was granted the right of eminent domain to build a pipeline that wouldn't be carrying Texas oil through the state of Texas.

That question -- how eminent domain can be used in a case like Keystone -- has some anti-Keystone groups stumped too. But the groups that usually are vocal proponents of property rights, including the Institute for Justice, have been silent when it comes to the controversial pipeline.

"I have not seen a single group that would normally rail against eminent domain speak up on behalf of farmers or ranchers on the Keystone XL route," said Jane Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.

That's surprising to Kleeb, whose organization is supporting the efforts of a group of Nebraska landowners along the pipeline's proposed route who have held out against giving TransCanada access to their land. She had thought that at least a few conservative or pro-lands rights groups would have voiced their general support for Keystone XL, but still denounced the use of eminent domain to get it built.

That hasn't happened, Kleeb said -- not among property rights groups nor among most pro-Keystone lawmakers.

"If this were a wind mill project or a solar project, Republicans would have been hair-on-fire crazy supporting the property rights of farmers and ranchers," she observed. "But because it's an oil pipeline, it's fine with them."

Here is my question, how can they be taking private property away from American citizens and building the pipeline when President Obama used his veto power to block it?

The Institute for Justice, a tax-exempt, libertarian-leaning law firm founded in 1991 with more than $2.5 million in financial help from oil billionaires Charles and David Koch, holds private property as one of its "four pillars of litigation" -- along with economic liberty, free speech and school choice.

But Steven Anderson, the Institute for Justice's managing vice president, told ThinkProgress that the group's focus is on making sure eminent domain is reserved for "traditional public uses," and that it does not currently take a position on pipelines in general or Keystone XL in particular. Instead, he said, the group focuses on "obvious private to private transfers."

Which is spin that means because Republicans support the pipeline we will not oppose the use of eminent domain by a fricking foreign company.

The Institute for Justice isn't the only group that's remained silent on -- or come out in favor of -- Keystone XL. The American Conservative Union backs the pipeline. Americans for Limited Government backs the pipeline. The Heritage Foundation backs the pipeline.

The Heartland Institute even issued a press release cheering the Nebraska Supreme Court's rejection of the previous Keystone XL eminent domain challenge, asking rhetorically about the pipeline, "What's not to like?"

This support is not entirely shocking, as many of these groups have received significant funding from Keystone XL stakeholders. Over the years, the Heritage Foundation has received more than $500,000 from ExxonMobil's foundation and more than $5 million from the Koch Brothers foundations.

Americans for Limited Government has received more than $7 million from the Koch-linked American Encore (formerly the Center to Protect Patient Rights).

The Heartland Institute has received more than $500,000 in ExxonMobil money, more than $100,000 from the Kochs, and at least $25,000 from the American Petroleum Institute (the trade association for the fossil fuel industry).

The American Conservative Union received more than $50,000 from the American Petroleum Institute and its foundation received $90,000 from ExxonMobil.

But as these groups stay silent, Americans like Crawford have already fought to keep TransCanada off their land -- and lost. Crawford, whose farm is traversed by Keystone XL's southern leg (which runs from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast of Texas and came into commission in 2014), began fighting TransCanada in 2011, trying to keep the pipeline company off her property.

TransCanada ended up legally condemning her land, however, and now the pipeline runs through a corner of her 30-acre cattle pasture.

Crawford said that Keystone, as a pipeline carrying foreign goods, shouldn't have been classified as a common carrier, a status given to highways, electrical wires, and other projects that move people, things, and data for the general public.

Right now, a company is able to achieve common carrier status in Texas -- and thus gain the right to eminent domain -- simply by checking off a box on its application for a proposed project, though recently introduced rules in Texas would clarify the difference between projects that qualify and those that don't.

Oil pipelines like Keystone XL are often classified as common carriers -- both in Texas and in other states. But groups like Bold Nebraska argue that Keystone XL would principally benefit the tar sands oil companies working in Alberta, Canada (including Charles and David Koch's Koch Industries), rather than the American public.

The pipeline, they say, is an example of Anderson's "private to private" transfer -- it's a privately-owned pipeline that will use private land to transport oil, and that oil will end up benefiting private interests.

Dave Domina, a lawyer representing a group of Nebraska landowners who are holding out against granting TransCanada the right to build the pipeline across their land, said that he doesn't think TransCanada fits into any of the traditional molds for an entity with rights to eminent domain. Keystone XL isn't something like a bridge or highway or even a smaller pipeline that would transport oil to Arkansas or Texas or another nearby state -- those are all things that are built for the public’s use, he said.

That's what eminent domain has traditionally been used for: projects that have some degree of common benefit. Instead, Keystone is being built to transport foreign oil out of the country. The project has "strayed a long way from a public purpose," Domina said.

"There is no logical argument or construct to support it," he said. "The only argument to support it is profit, and profit is not a justification for economic or political existence."

Carson: Religion Is Needed To Interpret Science Because It's Propaganda
By: Steve - March 8, 2015 - 10:00am

Once again the far-right Ben Carson is proving he is not qualified to be the president with extreme statements that claim science is just propaganda. And he wonders why he is seen as a far-right loon, well here it is, and he has said many more even crazier things. Like equating gay marriage to having sex with animals.

Possible Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson suggested over the weekend that religion was necessary for testing scientific theories because the science could be "propaganda."

On Sunday, Chuck Todd asked Carson how science could coexist with his conservative Christian principles.

"A person's religious beliefs are the things that make them who they are, gives them a direction in their life," Carson said. "But I do not believe that religious beliefs should dictate one's public policies and stances."

"I find, a very good measure of correlation between my religious beliefs and my scientific beliefs -- people say, how can you be a scientist, how can you be a surgeon if you don't believe in certain things?"

Then he said this: "Maybe those things aren't scientific. Maybe it's just propaganda."

Carson also recently said Obama may be guilty of treason, in the fight over Department of Homeland Security funding, even though it is the Republican House who are holding up the funding, the Senate already passed it and the Republican Congressman from New York Peter King said there are some far-right members of his party that are delusional. Carson of course blamed it all on Obama anyway.

Carson appeared on Newsmax TV last week, where he criticized President Obama's handling of the fight over Department of Homeland Security funding. While Democrats and some Republicans want to pass a clean funding bill for the department, many conservatives, including Carson, want to use the DHS legislation to block the president's executive actions on immigration.

Carson told host J.D. Hayworth, a former Republican congressman, that if Obama decides to "stand in the way, particularly to things that are vital to the security of this country, then I think we can start talking about treason."

"If things are done that are contrary to the security of this country, whoever does them is guilty of treason," Carson said.

So now the House Republicans are doing things that are contrary to the security of this country by playing politics with the DHS funding bill, but no mention of treason for them by Carson.

In January of 2015 Carson, a likely Republican presidential candidate, said he believes that the gay rights movement is part of a communist conspiracy to bring about the New World Order, and he wants Congress to intervene in court cases involving marriage equality, including the upcoming cases before the Supreme Court.

Carson said that Congress should "reprimand or remove" federal judges who issue "unconstitutional" rulings striking down state bans on same-sex marriage.

And this guy wants to be President, haha, good luck with that, it will never happen. For one thing he has it backwards, making gay marriage illegal is the violation of the constitution, not striking down bans on gay marriage. He is so out of touch with reality and the mainstream he does not know which way is up.

Not to mention this, O'Reilly and Fox News love this lunatic, so do all the far-right loons in America, and he was a big hit at CPAC, the yearly meet up of all the right-wing nuts.

Fox Ignores Jobs Report Showing Lowest Unemployment Rate In 7 Years
By: Steve - March 7, 2015 - 11:50am

And of course Bill O'Reilly and his Friday fill-in host Eric Bolling also ignored the entire story on Thursday and Friday. The story came out Thursday morning and O'Reilly never said a word about it on his Thursday night show.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released February’s jobs numbers showing that the unemployment rate ticked down to 5.5%, the lowest rate the country has seen since May 2008, months before the Bush financial crisis that rocked the American economy and led to huge job losses.

Overall, the economy added 295,000 new jobs in the month, far more than expectations from experts who estimated that the bitter cold weather in the Northeast would cause a slowdown in job creation.

February's report marks the 12th straight month that we've seen 200,000 or more jobs added, the first time that has occurred since 1984. This is also the 53rd consecutive month of positive job growth and 58th straight month of private sector growth.

We haven't seen sustained total job growth like this since 1939 and the private sector has never seen growth go on this long. Since the unemployment rate hit a high of 10.0% in October 2009, less than eight months into President Obama's tenure in the White House, it has nearly been cut in half down to its current level of 5.5%. Under any normal analysis, that would be considered a small miracle.

Especially when O'Reilly and the Republicans have been saying for years that the liberal Obama economic policies would be a disaster for the country and destroy the economy. When the exact opposite has happened, the economy is booming and jobs are being added in great numbers every month.

Of course, not everyone is ecstatic over the robust job growth and plummeting unemployment rate. Fox News, whose entire business model these days is based on Obama being an abject failure, cannot possibly let their bubble-dwelling audience know about good news that occurs under the President's watch.

On Friday morning, you would have no idea that this was a major news story if you were on Fox News website. While CNN and MSNBC both listed it as a top story on their sites and talked about at length on their morning shows, Fox News pushed the story to a small sidebar on its main page and barely mentioned anything about the report in the morning.

Fox and O'Reilly do not want you to know the truth, because they are trying to make Democrats look bad so it will be possible for a Republican to win the White House in 2016. But the people are not that stupid, and there is no way a Republican is going to be the next President.

Obama Reality vs Republican Campaign Propaganda
By: Steve - March 7, 2015 - 11:30am



House Republican Leaders Political Trick Fails On DHS Funding Bill
By: Steve - March 7, 2015 - 11:00am

Here it is folks, this is the garbage you get when you gave the corrupt Republicans control of the House, insanity.

WASHINGTON -- The House will finally vote on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security without the poison pill political immigration measures, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference at a meeting on Tuesday.

The vote will come after the House narrowly averted a shutdown last Friday when the House GOP rejected a "clean" DHS funding bill passed in the Senate, and then 52 conservative Republican members joined Democrats to block even a three-week continuing resolution.

The House passed a one-week funding bill in hopes that Senate Democrats would allow a conference between the two chambers to go forward, but that was rejected on Monday.

Senate Democrats have already shown that they will not vote for a funding bill that passed the House in January. That bill would tie funding to ending President Barack Obama's immigration actions, which could allow as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to temporarily stay in the country and work.

The House is conceding defeat on getting immigration measures into the DHS bill, that have nothing to do with funding the Department of Homeland Security, and should have never been in the bill to begin with.

Boehner told GOP members, according to a source in the room. "The good news is that the president's executive action has been stopped, for now. This matter will continue to be litigated in the courts, where we have our best chance of winning this fight."

Boehner was referring to a lawsuit brought by 26 states contending that Obama's 2014 executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional. A federal judge temporarily halted those actions from moving forward last month.

The speaker told members there were only three ways forward for the DHS fight at this point. They could vote on the clean bill, which would be likely to pass given the near-unanimous support of Democrats. They could do another short-term bill, but Boehner said that might be unlikely to pass, given the failure of a three-week funding bill last week. The final option, allowing DHS to shut down, was untenable, he said.

“With more active threats coming into the homeland, I don’t believe that’s an option," he said. "Imagine if, God forbid, another terrorist attack hits the United States."

He also slammed the Senate Republicans for giving up on putting immigration measures in the DHS bill.

"Unfortunately, the fight was never won in the other chamber," Boehner said, according to the source in the room. "Democrats stayed united and blocked our bill, and our Republican colleagues in the Senate never found a way to win this fight."

Which shows that Boehner is delusional, because 52 Republicans joined with the Democrats to stop the crazy plan by Boehner and his far-right Tea Party friends. The plan was stupid to begin with, because he knew the Senate had already passed a clean bill and they would not allow him to make them look bad by cutting off funding to DHS.

In fact, they should pass a law to make it illegal to add these poison pill amendments to funding bills, it's wrong and a waste of time and taxpayer money. Off topic amendments should never be added to funding bills for anything, they should be voted on as their own bill, not an amendment on a bill that has nothing to do with immigration. It was a cheap trick by Boehner that blew up in his face and all it did was make him look like a fool.

Maher: Why Isn't Media Going After Liar O'Reilly Like They Did Williams
By: Steve - March 7, 2015 - 10:00am

The controversy over Bill O'Reilly's war stories has slowly faded out of the news cycle, and that really annoys Bill Maher. He asked tonight why the media isn't going after O'Reilly with the same ferocity they did to Brian Williams.

Maher went, point-by-point, through each of O'Reilly's now-questioned claims--from his coverage of the Falklands war to his claims about witnessing certain events that his colleagues have disputed--and called him a "blatant, bald-assed liar."

He also said Fox has been pretty much silent on the controversy, while Fox has issued a number of statements in O'Reilly's defense over the past few weeks.

David Axelrod said it doesn't have legs because "Bill O'Reilly isn't a real journalist," while Matt Taibbi said, "Bill O'Reilly being full of it about something isn't a news story."

Maher wondered how Fox would react if a liberal journalist said the same kind of things and came under the kind of scrutiny O'Reilly did. And of course we know the hypocritical answer to that, because O'Reilly slams so-called liberal journalists who get caught in bad reporting, saying it is ruining the media and they should be fired, then he does the very same thing.

Economy Adds 295,000 jobs Unemployment falls to 5.5%
By: Steve - March 6, 2015 - 11:50am

More good news for the country and the economy, and of course O'Reilly ignored it all, proving once again that he is not the fair and balanced Independent journalist he claims to be. But under Bush O'Reilly reported all good economic and stock market news, under Obama he ignores all good economic and stock market news.

The Labor Department reported on Friday that employers added 295,000 workers to their payrolls in February and that unemployment fell to 5.5 percent.

The report was a big improvement from January's, when employment rose to a newly revised 239,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent.

Economists were generally positive about the state of the nation's recovery from the Bush recession in 2009.

"While there are a lot of risks out there, it feels less risky than in the past 25 to 30 years," Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, said before Friday's release. "It feels really, really good out there."

The Thursday 3-5-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 6, 2015 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Hillary Clinton's Latest Drama. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: From January 2009 to February 2013 Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. During that time, she apparently did not use secure government email, instead choosing to use her own private account, which was not a violation at the time. It is now, as the law has changed. But even before the change, all private email was mandated to be preserved. You couldn't erase anything.

And then there is a question of security. It is much easier to tap into an email account that is not secure. So once again, Hillary Clinton is in the middle of a controversy. This one comes just days after it was revealed that Algeria and Qatar donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Some of the money was sent before Hillary Clinton left the State Department, a conflict of interest. So you can see that, as Gilda Radner once said, 'It's always something.'

And that is beginning to worry some Democrats. Talking Points believes the Hillary Clinton situation is pretty well defined. Americans know her and they know her husband. They know, as the Wall Street Journal points out, that the Clintons often walk a thin ethical line. It will be very hard for federal investigators to uncover any emails that Secretary Clinton may not have provided to the government.

But if Mrs. Clinton did indeed hold back emails, that will hurt her presidential run dramatically. And if she held emails back on Benghazi, she might even be prosecuted. But those are big ifs. If history is any guideline, it will take years to get to the bottom of this. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton will run, millions of Americans will support her, and the sun will come up tomorrow.

That's just the way of the world. But it should be noted that in a very dangerous time for America, it is imperative that we elect a president who is going to look out for us and not become bogged down in one controversy after another.
Comment from Steve: Take note of this, O'Reilly said the media would take it easy on Hillary because of their liberal bias, and yet, they are already hammering her for some fake right-wing email scandal, even though what she did was legal at the time. It's a non-story dreamed up by Republicans and that so-called liberal media is all over it. Proving that O'Reilly is clueless, because the media attacks Hillary all the time and if anything they are unfair to her.

Then the former Obama aide Austan Goolsbee was on, he did not like the recent attacks on Hillary Clinton's character, saying this: "It's a little unfair to say we can't have a president who's going to be mired in controversy, when the way the system works now is that both parties are trying to mire the nominees of the other side in controversy."

Goolsbee also insisted that Clinton is highly qualified to be president, saying this: "She can be a unifying figure, and the Republican candidates will be equally or more controversial."

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to slam Hillary, she said this: "The intent behind the law is obvious. We want integrity in the record-keeping process, and the gatekeeper should be the State Department, not the individual who is working for the U.S. taxpayers. For transparency, for historical purposes, and for congressional oversight, the individual is not determining which emails are preserved and which are not."

Comment from Steve: Earth to Ingraham and O'Reilly, what Hillary did at the time was legal, and she saved her personal emails, so she did nothing wrong. This is a bogus scandal started by Republicans to smear her, and it's a non-story that only Republicans care about.

Then Jeff Roorda & McGraw Milhaven were on to talk about the Department of Justice, who has issued a report saying that the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, where Michael Brown was shot and killed last year, issued tickets to blacks at a grossly disproportionate rate, and sent racist emails.

Milhaven said this: "There are little communities all around Ferguson, that are predominantly African American. I want to know how many of the people who got the tickets actually live in Ferguson. Show me a good statistician and I'll show you a good liar!"

Roorda said this: "The most damning information about the Ferguson police department was leaked in advance of the announcement that the Justice Department determined that Darren Wilson used reasonable force."

O'Reilly concluded that Ferguson's cops have some work to do, saying, "They're targeting blacks, and they're doing it for money."

Then Ed Henry was on, he said that according to some reports, President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu despise one another. And as usual no Democratic guest was on for balance.

Henry said this: "There is absolutely no love lost between them, and, yes, it's tense. But people behind the scenes tell me they get a lot more business done in phone calls than you ever hear about publicly. There have been a lot of secret conversations and I'm told they're on the phone all the time. But the president and his top aides were furious about Netanyahu speaking in front of Congress this week."

Then Greg Gutfeld & Bernard McGuirk were on. They talked about former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who was extremely upset by Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, admitting she was "near tears."

Gutfeld said this: "When I hear her I'm also 'near tears,' She makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like Mozart. This is a clash of ideologies - we have a world leader, Netanyahu, who believes in defending his country, and you have a leader of a liberal party that is all about denigrating their country."

Comment from Steve: Which is just ridiculous, and it proves that Greg Gutfeld is nothing but a right-wing idiot. To say Obama is all about denigrating his country shows how stupid Gutfeld is, and what a right-wing loon he is.

The Republican McGuirk even said that many Republicans were a bit too admiring and deferential to the Israeli leader, saying this: "This was a slap in Obama's face. Obama and his team don't inspire confidence, but Bibi is not infallible. He spoke before Congress prior to the Iraq war and said everything would be great if we would invade Iraq."

Comment from Steve: Bingo, for once McGuirk made a good point, before the Iraq war Netanyahu spoke to Congress and said if we invade Iraq everything would go great and they would love us, boy was he wrong, so why should we listen to him now?

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Healthy Snacking. Billy said this: "Are you looking for snack food that is not detrimental to your waistline or your health? You may want to check out a website SahaleSnacks.com, which specializes in healthy snacks."

Reporters & Lawyers Who Worked On Killed Nuns Case Slam O'Reilly
By: Steve - March 6, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly's false claim that he witnessed the brutal 1980 murders of four American women in El Salvador -- and his excuse, after his lie was exposed, that he meant he saw photos of their bodies -- is drawing harsh criticism from journalists who covered the story and lawyers who worked with the nuns families to bring justice in the case.

O'Reilly has recently faced scrutiny for a series of lies he has told over the years about his reporting career. Last week, Media Matters reported that O'Reilly had repeatedly suggested he saw nuns murdered in El Salvador while reporting for CBS News, despite the fact that the incident in question occurred before he arrived in the country.

O'Reilly also told his radio audience in 2005 that he'd "seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador." More recently, he said on his Fox News program, "I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head."

After Media Matters challenged O'Reilly's story, he said that he meant he'd seen "horrendous images" of the murdered nuns while reporting from El Salvador.

His effort to use the brutal murders to bolster his own history as a journalist is drawing harsh rebukes from those who represented the families of the victims in legal cases related to the murders.

"It's disgusting, it's reprehensible," said Patti Blum, an attorney who worked with the families on a civil case for the Center for Justice and Accountability. "To use the death of four women who were in El Salvador just to do good for your own self-aggrandizement is unsavory."

Scott Greathead, a founder of Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, which is now Human Rights First, spent time in El Salvador representing relatives of the nuns during the prosecution of the killers.

He said of O'Reilly's claims and his weak excuse, "I don't know why he said that and why he came to say it. I know he didn't see it and nobody saw it and anyone who knew about that incident would have known they were killed in secret. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen pictures of it and I don't know anyone else being confused about what they saw."

He later added, "I don't think anyone should be making up stories about this, to invent a story. I know from representing the families from all this time they remain very, very sensitive about what happened to their sisters and daughters. Distorting the truth is appalling."

Journalists who covered the nuns, both at the time of their murders and in the years after, also criticized O'Reilly.

Charles Krause, a former CBS News reporter who said he flew in to El Salvador with the nuns and covered their murders for the network, called out Fox News for defending O'Reilly by claiming he has been the victim of dishonest critics.

"I am outraged by the McCarthy-like smear campaign Fox News is using to try to save its bloviator from oblivion by suggesting that anyone, anyone who corrects the record regarding O'Reilly is part of some leftwing conspiracy that's out to get him," he said via email. "There is no conspiracy, leftwing or otherwise, that I am part of or aware of."

Photographer Susan Meiselas, who was at the site when the nuns bodies were exhumed and photographed them, told Media Matters, "for someone to pretend to have participated in that or witnessed it, it's outrageous."

And Pat Marrin, a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter who has reported on the murders in the past, said such a claim "destroys credibility."

"That he would latch on to this to show that he's a real news person. I don't know what the logic of grabbing this story for him is," she said, adding it shows "a big ego."

Bill O'Reilly Is Pulling The Ebola Scare Tactics With ISIS
By: Steve - March 6, 2015 - 10:00am

Remember when O'Reilly said Ebola was a disaster and we should block America off from the rest of the world, well as I predicted he was wrong anf Ebola turned out to be almost nothing. Now he is doing the very same thing with ISIS, for partisan political reasons, to make Obama look weak on terrorism.

ISIS is no threat to the USA, this is a fact. And O'Reilly won't be happy until he's got the whole country hiding in the basement, warning of theoretical, if not downright imaginary, threats to America's shopping malls and vital fast-food industry, while biased pundits on Fox debate it 24/7.

Clearly, ISIS is real. But it's definitely more of a TV show than an actual threat to national security. However, when I see polls suggesting that a growing majority of Americans now supports sending ground troops back into Iraq (and Syria) to fight yet another ultimately unwinnable war against "evildoers," I wonder if we're capable of learning anything as a nation.

ISIS stonings, beheadings and live burnings elicit the fear and revulsion they're meant to. The immediate impulse is to exterminate all them. Until I gave it 10 seconds of thought, I could even sympathize with an Arkansas politician's call to nuke the SOBs.

But look at it this way: The videos are also symptomatic of madness and increasing desperation. As President Obama has suggested, ISIS is clearly more of a criminal death cult than a military organization. For a Western analogy, think Jim Jones or David Koresh in the wilderness.

What's more, for all the messianic delusions in ISIS's primitive theology, as explained in Graeme Wood's epic exegesis in The Atlantic, the organization has already checkmated itself.

"Much of what the group does looks crazy" Wood explains, "except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse. They refer derisively to moderns."

ISIS believes that it can force God's hand and bring about the apocalypse by re-establishing a Muslim caliphate, and then luring the crusaders into battle. A glance at the map, however, reveals that ISIS has basically conquered all the thinly populated desert territory it can reasonably hold. It can maintain a semblance of control only through stark brutality and terror.

It's basically a rag-tag, pickup-based militia lacking any means of attacking the United States unless we make it easy for them by re-invading Iraq.

ISIS has no air force, no navy, no real artillery or armored brigades apart from captured Iraqi gear it can't effectively service or repair. The Turks could crush ISIS whenever they choose, but choose not to act for fear of empowering the hated Assad regime in Syria and/or its Iranian Shiite allies (themselves protecting Baghdad).

Meanwhile, President Obama's tactics for confronting ISIS may not be very exciting in the action/adventure film sense, but they're nevertheless surrounded on all sides.

Writing in Vox, Zack Beauchamp cites a consensus of informed observers: "If you want to understand what's happening in the Middle East today, you need to appreciate one fundamental fact: ISIS is losing its war for the Middle East."

U.S. air strikes have blunted their ability to launch effective attacks. Many are foreign fighters drawn by the lure of charismatic ideology and seemingly dramatic victories who now find themselves far from home, "outgunned, outnumbered and friendless."

The very theological certitude that attracts young jihadists has also made the movement strategically dumb. Attacking the Kurds was criminally stupid.

Drawing Jordan into the fight could also prove a fatal error. "ISIS has staked its entire political project on one theory," Beauchamp explains. "They are the true revival of the early Islamic caliphate, destined not only to maintain and expand their theocratic state but to bring on the apocalypse. Once you understand that, ISIS's blunders look less like miscalculations and more like inevitable results of its animating ideology."

ISIS is an ideology that will fail, if the United States and the rest of the world just has the political maturity to remain calm until that happens.

Where Is O'Reilly On The Ferguson DOJ Racism Report
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 4:50pm

UPDATE -- 10:00pm - O'Reilly actually reported on the DOJ Ferguson report, and he admitted they were racist and unfair to blacks, which is shocking. He must be trying to make up for all the lie reports about him. But he only did one short segment on it, if the report had said the police department was not racist and did nothing wrong, he most likely would have done a TPM on it and spent have the show slamming the left and discussing it.

And he never said he was sorry to the protesters he slammed, even though it now looks like they were right and he was wrong.

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

The DOJ report on the racist Ferguson police department has been out for 2 days now, and not a word from O'Reilly. He has totally ignored it while other real news shows have been reporting it for 2 days now. Remember when O'Reilly said the protesters were wrong, well it turns out he was wrong.

From the Huffingtonpost:

DOJ Report Vindicates Ferguson Protesters As Police Department Faces Uncertain Future

FERGUSON, Mo. -- The federal government on Wednesday called for a massive overhaul of the law enforcement practices of this St. Louis suburb in a scathing report that found the city regularly engaged in unconstitutional practices that had the heaviest impact on Ferguson's black residents. It even said they violated the 4th amendment of the constitution almost daily.

The long-anticipated report detailed systemic issues with the Ferguson Police Department and its municipal court, and provided accounts of individual incidents, many based on police reports authored by Ferguson officers. The report lends force to the complaints of protesters and some Ferguson residents, who have long said the city treated them as sources of revenue rather than citizens to be protected.

The report raises the question of whether the Ferguson will continue to operate its own police department or instead contract with another law enforcement agency. Ferguson is one of the smallest cities subjected to such a Justice Department probe, and the high cost of implementing reforms, along with an anticipated decrease in municipal court revenue from fines and fees, may force the city to consider disbanding its police force of just over 50 officers.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that it was "time for Ferguson's leaders to take immediate, wholesale and structural corrective action" to address problems detailed in the report.

Holder said police policies "severely damaged relationships between law enforcement and members of the community" and "made professional policing vastly more difficult -– and unnecessarily placed officers at increased risk." He said the Justice Department would reserve the right to force the city to comply.

"Nothing is off the table," Holder said, adding that federal officials would also work with surrounding municipalities that are likely engaged in the same types of unconstitutional practices found in Ferguson.

Federal investigators said their review found disparities between the treatment of blacks and whites that couldn't be explained. For example, black drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched during vehicle stops than white drivers, even after investigators considered non-race variables. Of those searched, white drivers were much more likely to actually be in possession of contraband, indicating that officers impermissibly considered drivers race when deciding whether to search a vehicle.

While black residents made up roughly 67 percent of Ferguson's population, police seemed to only enforce certain petty municipal laws against African-Americans. Over the past few years, blacks faced 95 percent of all jaywalking charges, 94 percent of all failure to comply charges, 92 percent of all resisting arrest charges, 92 percent of all peace disturbance charges and 89 percent of failure to obey charges. Black residents also were 68 percent less likely than whites to have the charges against them dismissed by a municipal judge.

The report found a wide range of problems with the discipline of Ferguson police officers, and said officers could lie without consequences. In one incident in November 2010, several officers, including a sergeant, were thrown out of a bar for bullying a customer, but only one of the officers was disciplined -- after he was arrested for DUI after abandoning his car in a ditch. The lack of discipline sends a message to Ferguson officers that they can "behave as they like, regardless of law or policy, and even if caught, that punishment will be light," according to the report.

Protesters and activists said they saw the Justice Department report largely as vindication, and many took to social media to call for the Ferguson Police Department to shut down. They noted that the constitutional problems found in Ferguson are hardly unique, common to many towns within St. Louis County's network of municipalities. Even law enforcement officials in the St. Louis region have spoken of the need to reform municipal courts, especially with some cities deriving massive portions of their revenue from tickets and fees.

Christopher Phillips, a 34-year-old cinematographer who was arrested by Ferguson police during a protest last month, said he was "not surprised" by the statistics and said the federal investigation confirms what he's been telling people for years.

Now remember this folks, O'Reilly was against the protesters and said they were protesting for no reason. And now he has been proven to be wrong, but of course he will never talk about that, if he ever reports on it at all.

Maddow Slams Fox For Hyping O'Reilly's Ratings To Avoid Commenting On Lies
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 11:50am

Basically, when the Rachel Maddow show asked Fox to give them a statement on the lies O'Reilly has been recently busted on, they told them he has high ratings, much higher than her ratings, that was their answer.

From the March 4 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:



The Wednesday 3-4-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: The Trust Factor. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Why won't the world unite behind America to fight against Iran, ISIS and Russian President Vladimir Putin? The answer: there is no trust in President Obama.

The world is a dangerous, nasty place. Villains are running wild. Putin is a menace. ISIS, al Qaeda, other jihadis are simply savages with no agenda other than destruction. North Korea is run by a loon. The Chinese are quietly plotting to dominate South Asia.

If America ever needed a true leader, it is now. But trust in President Obama is almost rock bottom. The reason -- Mr. Obama's not a terror warrior. Not a person comfortable with confrontation. Also, he's a man of the left who sees gray, not black and white.

Generally speaking, liberal America does not want to right wrongs overseas preferring to concentrate on social justice and income redistribution here in the U.S.A. Mr. Obama relishes that but does not want to police the world therefore the danger overseas grows even if some on the left will not admit it choosing to it attack the latest messenger Benjamin Netanyahu."
Then Simon Rosenberg, president of the progressive think tank NDN, and Democratic Strategist Jessica Ehrlich were on to respond to the biased O'Reilly Talking Points Memo.

Rosenberg disagreed and felt America's allies were taking on the villains of the world, saying this: "I think it's important to recognize our European allies are standing steadfastly with us on ISIS, on Iran, on combating Putin."

O'Dummy then asked Ehrlich if she still believes Obama has the right policies to defeat America's enemies, she said this: "I do because I know that that is the policy that we have been putting forth in this country," Ehrlich said.

Comment from Steve: Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the President is doing his job, keeping us safe in America and working on a great economy, we should not (and are not) going to be the police to the world, this is what the people want. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we should attack everyone in the world who could possibly be a threat to us, it says protect the borders you right-wing jerk. And the only people that do not trust the President are Republicans who hate him.

Then the far-right loon Andrea Tantaros was on. Earlier this week, she asked the provocative question: is this White House anti-Semitic? So O'Reilly asked her if she went too far with her implications.

Tantaros said this: "A lot of people were upset about it. But nobody has been able, Bill, to come back and say why they are not."

Tantaros also said this: "I don't look at what Susan Rice said in a vacuum when she said that Netanyahu coming here is destructive. I look at all of the things that this White House has done. Now traditionally, look, the Democratic Party has been perceived as being sympathetic to Palestinians, but this administration, in particular."

O'Reilly said that Obama is not anti-Semitic, he is anti-Netanyahu, saying this: "I believe he is not anti-Semitic, which is I hate you because you are Jewish. I believe he is anti-Netanyahu, who is a hawk. That's -- he believes in my opinion that the Israelis under Netanyahu and other right-wingers, are oppressors. That's what Obama believes. They oppress the Palestinians."

Comment from Steve: And that is the opinion of Bill O'Reilly, he does not know that is true for sure, he is speculating, the same speculation he says he never does.

Then Eric Shawn & Shannon Bream were on to talk about Franklin Graham, he said that the White House was being infiltrated by Muslims. Fox News Anchor Eric Shawn looked into the claim and found that while a few Muslims who worked for the executive branch during Obama's tenure have said some provocative things, it's clear that the vast majority of Muslims working for the government are honorable people who want to defeat the jihad.

Then Shannon Bream talked about the judicial chaos in Alabama over gay marriage. Federal courts have ordered same-sex marriage to proceed in the Yellowhammer State, but the Alabama Supreme Court has ordered its probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Bream said all the confusion will likely be moot by June when the Supreme Court is expected to decide on whether same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide.

Then Martha MacCallum was on to talk about a report from right-wing sources that the IRS is going to give tax refunds to illegal aliens.

MacCallum said this: "So, the earned income tax credit is something that you get if you have a Social Security card. If it goes through as many as 4 million illegal immigrants could be eligible for back taxes for three years once they get that Social Security number because there is a 15-year standing law that was created by the IRS chief counsel that says that if you need a Social Security number to get the income tax credit, but if you don't have it that year and you get it in the coming year, then you can provide documentation from the past couple of years to get a tax refund.

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

O'Reilly Lies Mean Conservative Media Can Not Criticize Anyone
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 11:00am

Always viewing conflicts through the prism of partisan warfare, the conservative media have been faced with a stark choice as Bill O'Reilly's long list of confirmed fabrications pile up in public view. They can defend the Fox News host no matter what, while lashing out his "far-left" critics for daring to fact-check him, while he fact-checks other reporters.

Or the conservative media outlets can let him fend for himself. (The third, obvious option of openly criticizing O'Reilly for his dishonest ways doesn't seem to be on the table.)

As the controversy continues and neither O'Reilly nor Fox are able to provide simple answers to the questions about his truth-telling as a reporter, some conservative media allies continue to rally by his side.

On Sunday, Howard Kurtz's MediaBuzz program on Fox came to O'Reilly's aid by doing everything it could to whitewash the allegations against the host.

Over the weekend at Newsbusters--a far-right clearinghouse for endless, and often empty, attacks on the media--Jeffrey Lord denounced the O'Reilly fact-checking campaign as "wrong" and "dangerous."

And Fox News contributor Allen West actually told the Washington Post that all the allegations against O'Reilly had been "debunked."

What's the punishment for blindly protecting O'Reilly this way? Simple: It completely undercuts the conservative cottage industry of media criticism. Because why would anyone care about media critiques leveled by conservatives who are currently tying to explain away O'Reilly's obvious laundry list of lies.

"O'Reilly's story, intended to portray him as an enterprising journalist unfazed by potential danger, is a fiction," noted Gawker. "It is precisely the sort of claim that would otherwise earn Fox's condemnation, and draw sophisticated counter-attacks to undermine the accusers' reputation."

And how do we know that to be true? Because the entire conservative media apparatus spent last month unleashing sophisticated counter-attacks to undermine NBC News anchor Brian Williams after doubts were raised about his wartime reporting.

Today, the same conservative media are either playing dumb about Bill O'Reilly, or actually defending him.

Obviously, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand Brian Williams be fired and that Bill O'Reilly be left alone. Not if you want anyone to pause for more than three seconds when considering your press critiques.

Conservative media critics simply cannot abide major news figures wallowing in "obfuscation" and turning a blind eye to "honesty." Unless his name is Bill O'Reilly and he works for Fox News.

Given that blind support, can you imagine how utterly toothless and irrelevant the next conservative campaign is going to be if, and when, it zeroes in on a dishonest news anchor regarding fabrications?

To be honest, it's hard to imagine any working news host could match O'Reilly'scurrent rap sheet, via the Washington Post:

-- O'Reilly said that "many were killed" in a June 1982 Buenos Aires protest following the Falkland Islands war that he covered as a CBS News correspondent; news accounts from the time cite injuries, but no deaths.

-- O'Reilly said that he'd been nearby for the March 1977 Florida suicide of a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald; former colleagues from that time say no way.

-- O'Reilly once claimed, "I've seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador" -- a statement contradicted by ... O'Reilly himself.

-- O'Reilly said he had endured a bombardment of "bricks and stones" while covering the 1992 Los Angeles riots for Inside Edition; former colleagues say that's not true.

When the troubles first came up, lots of conservative sites and commentators rushed in to defend O'Reilly from the original Mother Jones allegation and to announce the whole story was "falling apart," according to USA Today columnist Glenn Reynolds.

At Mediaite, columnist Joe Concha belittled the Mother Jones "non-story," dismissed the controversy as a "nothing burger" and posted this prediction: "Come Tuesday, this story will be dead."

That was nine days ago.

At Commentary, Jonathan Tobin insisted that attempts to hold O'Reilly accountable had little to do with him and everything to do with "the antagonism that the left feels toward his network."

In other words, "O'Reilly would be better off just ignoring the attacks as pinpricks from a jealous rival."

Over the last week as additional revelations poured in, Concha and Tobin wisely stayed clear of the O'Reilly car wreck. But if conservatives and Fox News friends want to be taken seriously in the future about media criticism, they have to admit they were wrong about O'Reilly and publicly call him out.

Because there is no longer a debate about O'Reilly's honesty. He is now a proven liar and that is a fact.

Ben Carson Proves Once Again He Is A Far-Right Loon
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 10:00am

Wow, that was quick. One day after saying he is running for President, the far-right nut Ben Carson is done. Now he claims being gay is a choice, why? Because some guys who go to prison come out gay, uhhh, huh? Yes he really said that, and I wonder if he even thought that if a guy came out of prison gay maybe he was gay when he went in.

It's just ridiculous, and something you would expect to hear from a 5 year old with brain damage, no a guy who claims to be smart. And O'Reilly loves this far-right nut, as do everyone else at Fox. Because they are biased hacks who love all conservatives, even the crazy ones.

Ben Carson, a potential candidate in the 2016 GOP presidential primary, said Wednesday he "absolutely" believes being gay is a choice.

In an interview with CNN, Carson argued prisons prove people choose to be gay.

"Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay," Carson said. "So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."

Ask yourself this, were you dropped on your head as a child?

The American Psychological Association says says "there is no consensus among scientists" on how a person's sexual orientation is developed. "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors," the APA says.

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

The crazy Ben Carson also suggested in a 2013 Fox News interview that legalizing gay marriage would pave the way for legal bestiality and pedophilia.

He later apologized for the remark, but argued it "was taken completely out of context and completely misunderstood."

“As a Christian, I have a duty to love all people and that includes people who have other sexual orientations, and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone… If anyone was offended, I apologize to you," Carson said.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, other potential GOP candidates have weighed in on LGBT issues, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said he thinks being gay is a personal choice, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who said engaging in "homosexual conduct is a choice."

Fred Sainz, HRC Vice President of Communications, questioned Carson's comments in a statement Wednesday.

"The only thing that's really been proven here is that when Ben Carson says what he really thinks, he reveals himself as utterly unfit for office," Sainz said.

"Ben Carson is putting his own personal ambition ahead of medical science by suggesting that a person can change their sexual orientation. As a doctor, Carson surely knows that countless mental health and medical organizations have condemned the idea that you can change a person's sexual orientation."

Here is the deal, Ben Carson is a right-wing stooge. He is a far-right extreme crackpot and he will never be the President, in fact, he will never even win the Republican primary, Jeb Bush will.

Ben Carson Now Blames The Media For His Insane Gay Prison Comments
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 9:00am

Fresh off his interview with CNN's New Day, in which he declared homosexuality a choice, likely 2016 GOP primary candidate Dr. Ben Carson is now blaming the media.

Carson told CNN host Chris Cuomo that being gay is absolutely a choice. His reasoning: "Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there?"

That scientifically and statistically claim went viral and has even some of the staunchest conservatives wondering what he was thinking.

But during a radio discussion this afternoon with Sean Hannity, Carson blamed the ordeal on CNN. "It was a 25 minute interview they chopped, and you see what part they emphasized," he said. "I did learn something very important: For certain networks, never do a pre-taped interview. Always do it live."

In the interview, cut down into a shorter clip by conservative site The Right Scoop, Hannity agreed with Carson that pre-taped interviews allow for quotes to be taken out context or reshuffled in order to cast them in a certain light.

Even though no matter how you cut and chop it or what order he said it, he still said it, and he does not deny saying it.

Carson continued: "I simply have decided I'm not really going to talk about that issue anymore because every time I'm gaining momentum the liberal press says, 'Let's talk about gay rights.' And I'm just not going to fall for that anymore."

But the problem with Carson's attempt to play victim here is that, during that sequence of the CNN interview, there were clearly no jump-cuts and no edits - just a straight back-and-forth about whether homosexuality is a choice. Playing this off with a "gotcha media vs. poor ol Ben Carson" spin isn't going to cut it. Sometimes your words are just your words.

Then on Wednesday, Carson issued a statement apologizing for his choice of words:

In a statement, Carson said he "realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues."

"I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended," he added.

Which is so dishonest it's laughable, what happened is someone in the Republican party got to him and said if you want to raise any more money and run for President you have to say you are sorry. When we all know he does not mean it, because he slams gay people all the time and even compared gay sex to having sex with animals.

Former Fox Contributor: O'Reilly Should Be Held Accountable For Lies
By: Steve - March 4, 2015 - 11:40am

Journalism Professor Jane Hall: Media Should Hold O'Reilly To Same Standard As Brian Williams, "Given His Influence And His Ratings"

Former Fox News contributor and journalism professor Jane Hall explained that the media should hold Fox News host Bill O'Reilly to the same standard Brian Williams faced after news broke of his multiple reporting fabrications.

Recently, O'Reilly has faced increased criticism and scrutiny following the news of various discrepancies and fabrications in stories he told about his journalistic credentials which may have wrongly benefited his career.

The controversy has spurred calls from a veterans group and other organizations for O'Reilly to be held accountable for his fabrications by Fox. O'Reilly has even faced criticism from former colleagues at CBS, Inside Edition, and now Fox News.

During an interview with The Wrap, O'Reilly's former colleague at Fox, American University journalism professor Jane Hall said that media outlets should hold O'Reilly to the same standard as Brian Williams, who was suspended for six months after he acknowledged "exaggerating his role in a helicopter episode in Iraq."

According to Hall:
HALL:"I think the media reporting should hold [O'Reilly] to the same standard [as Brian Williams]," former Fox News contributor and American University Journalism Professor Jane Hall told TheWrap. "He reaches how many millions of people a night? If people in the media are dismissing him as, 'he's an entertainer,' I think they're vastly underestimating his influence."

Hall thinks NBC News' swift response to the Williams scandal was appropriate in the context of the sober "Nightly News" brand, but emphasized O'Reilly shouldn't be let off the hook.

"He is an opinion host, but I don't think that means reporters shouldn't be writing about it given his influence and his ratings," adding that the question reporters need to ask is, "what is your audience, what is your reach, what is your political influence?"
Good luck with that, as I predicted here 10 days ago, Fox will never do a thing to O'Reilly because he is their golden boy. And the fact that they have not done anything to him shows they are not a real news network. Because a real news network would at least suspend someone who was caught lying, let alone caught lying four or five times.

The Tuesday 3-3-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 4, 2015 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: President Obama Under Tremendous Pressure Over Iran. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today in front of Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a very strong speech, telling the world that Iran is engaged in a reign of terror. If he is re-elected on March 17th, he says Israel will take on Iran alone if it has to. All of this is especially vexing because the nuke negotiations are so complicated.

The Israelis believe what John Kerry is suggesting is dangerous because it allows Iran to continue to hold nuclear capacity. Others dissent from that point of view. But give Benjamin Netanyahu credit. He says what he believes in a vivid way, while the Obama administration does not, staying far away from publicly debating the merits of what the USA is offering Iran.

58 Democrats boycotted the speech today and then hammered it after it was delivered; almost all of those who did not show up are far-left folks. Talking Points believes that Iran is a dangerous country that will likely violate any treaty the administration signs. But world order can be bolstered by talking with the mullahs rationally.

Simply walking away from the table would be bad policy. President Obama should address the nation and the world and lay out what he believes is a fair deal. Let's see it so we can evaluate what's in play. Then Congress should vote yes or no. And if the Iranians don't agree to a fair deal that Congress endorses, then draconian sanctions should be immediately re-applied and villains like Putin who do not go along should be exposed.

The world needs clarity. Netanyahu spelled out the danger very well. Now we need the most powerful man in the world, Barack Obama, to step up and persuade us his offer to Iran would stop the nuclear madness. We are waiting Mr. President.
Then the Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens and former Congressman Dennis Kucinich were on to talk about the Netanyahu speech.

Stephens said this: "It was not only an eloquent speech, but it was also a clever speech because it highlighted the deep weakness of the deal. This is a deal Iran can easily cheat on and, even if it doesn't cheat, it can get everything it wants after ten years."

Kucinich said this: "The national intelligence estimate says that Iran stopped pursuing a nuclear bomb in 2003. We should keep the negotiations going and we should stop them from reprocessing plutonium. The Obama administration is taking the right direction."

O'Reilly said this: "Netanyahu doesn't want a deal on Iran's nukes, he wants us to re-impose sanctions and strangle Iran's government. I believe that if Netanyahu is reelected he'll bomb Iran if President Obama continues to dawdle."

Comment from Steve: Of course O'Reilly supports Netanyahu and his speech, because he is a partisan Republican. He did not care that Netanyahu was brought in by the Republicans to make Obama look bad, and that it violated the rules of Congress, but if a Democrat did it to a Republican President he would be outraged. O'Reilly once again proves he is a Republican, because nobody supported the Netanyahu speech but Republicans. And nobody thinks his speech will do any good, in fact, they say it will make things worse.

Then Monica Crowley & Kirsten Powers were on to discuss it.

Powers said this: "I would have boycotted the speech, because this was inappropriate. There's no need to sit and listen to Bibi Netanyahu try to blow up the Iran negotiations, which is essentially what he's doing. The talks are not completed and President Obama is trying to reach a deal."

But of course the far-right loon Monica Crowley insisted that Netanyahu's visit was entirely appropriate, saying this: "The very survival of his country is at stake, and we don't have time for the niceties Kirsten is talking about. There is limited time to stop a bad deal, and nothing is going to stop Iran, which is an apocalyptic regime. I would have done an air strike on the nuclear facilities years ago."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about new reports regarding the IRS scandal and missing emails.

Wiehl said this: "The headline for me, is that the IRS inspector general found 33,000 more emails that the IRS said had been deleted or lost. The inspector general found these in West Virginia!"

Guilfoyle turned to General David Petraeus, who has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor crime, saying this: "He worked out a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. This was information about covert operations, and it is very likely that he will get two years probation and a $40,000 fine."

Then O'Reilly let Ben Carson use his show to say this: "We are officially launching our exploratory committee. That means we have put in motion the staffing and the mechanism to explore whether my running for president in 2016 is a viable thing. I've been running into thousands of people everywhere asking me to do this. We have tremendous popular support and we've raised a lot of money with $10, $15, and $20 donations."

Carson insisted that his lack of political experience will not be a barrier to his presidential ambitions, saying this: "I think it's eminently possible. The American people are looking for someone who understands that the government should respond to the people, not the other way around, and someone who understands the Constitution. I believe that America is an exceptional nation."

Comment from Steve: If you wanted conclusive proof O'Reilly is a Republican and his show is a right-wing propaganda zone, here it is. One of the most far-right conservatives in America picked the Factor to announce he is running for President, which he would never do unless it was a conservative show. And btw, he will never ever be the President, because he is a far-right stooge that is out of the mainstream.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was once again not a tip, just O'Reilly promoting a far-right news website that I will not name. Proving once again that he is a Republican, because nobody but Republicans get their news from that partisan website. O'Reilly said it has some great political analysis, without once reporting that it is a right-wing biased website with writers like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Fox Should Suspend O'Reilly For Lying About Being In A War Zone
By: Steve - March 4, 2015 - 11:00am

Before his recent lie controversy, Bill O'Reilly cited a phony statistic in a publication that does not exist, he made it up. Threatening Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick with a boycott against Canada, O'Reilly claimed that "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to The Paris Business Review."

Mallick was absolutely correct to respond, "I think that's nonsense."

Because there is no Paris Business Review. It doesn't exist. O'Reilly cited made up information from an imaginary source.

There's a reason Pundit Fact states that only 12% of Bill O'Reilly's recent outlandish statements are "True." On the other hand, 18% of these claims are "Mostly False" and 29% are "False." For example, O'Reilly made the following statement that turned out to have no basis in reality:

"We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it."

Which is another lie, and his research is lacking integrity. Glenn Beck talked about a "fun little stint in jail" and others on Fox made similar statements, including the paid Fox employee, Sarah Palin.

Then, in an assault on history, O'Reilly reversed roles in the massacre at Malmedy in WWII during a debate with General Wesley Clark. Ironically, this atrocity is one of the best known examples of war crimes committed against American soldiers, yet O'Reilly claimed Americans had slaughtered Germans. And btw folks, Bill O'Reilly got a masters degree in History, and taught History while dodging the draft.

The truth is that Nazi SS soldiers massacred 84 American GI's at Malmedy in Belgium.

Keith Olbermann publicized the mistake and it speaks volumes that Fox News management or their viewers didn't make more of the incident. For a network that sells patriotism and apple pie, one would think that the slaughter of American GI's would be off limits as a means to legitimize O'Reilly's conservative talking points.

Fox News even doctored the original transcript of the debate and then corrected the transcript to reflect O'Reilly's incorrect statements.

Now that we've established his record for lying (there are far more instances than the ones mentioned here), let's discuss the revelations of his war record.

All of America jumped on Brian Williams for lying, so it's only fair that Bill O'Reilly pay the consequences for his actions. After all, the Fox patriot used his credibility to push for a hawkish stance on everything from the Iraq War to America's war on terrorism. While Brian Williams was an anchorman, O'Reilly used his platform to advocate a course of action that almost always defended war, torture, and being tough on the "bad guys."

He should also be held accountable for any issues with his credibility since that's what his persona is based upon; a tough guy who has been through life-altering events in war zones.

According to POLITICO, Bill O'Reilly might not be Brian Williams, but he did lie about being in a "war zone" and a "combat situation":

He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War"

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't.

He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity.

Another way to describe a "major embellishment" is a lie by omission or just simply, a lie. A protest is not a "war zone." A protest is not a "combat situation." A protest is a protest.

America has hammered Brian Williams for lying and NBC suspended him for six months. Bill O'Reilly was not in a war zone and wasn't in a combat situation. Can anyone explain how O'Reilly is better, or more deserving of leniency than Brian Williams?

As a result, like the Williams scandal, veterans have been angered by O'Reilly's lies. A group of 400,000 veterans named VotVets.org has recently called for Fox to address their television personality in an appropriate manner:

"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."

Veterans have noticed O'Reilly's lies. Like the Brian Williams story, people who actually fought in war zones and combat situations are affected by the false lies of Bill O'Reilly.

Fox has been doubling down in defending O'Reilly, but that's because Fox News sells more than just patriotism and an extremely conservative view of the world. They sell confidence, and enough confidence in American can circumvent the repercussions of lying. There's a reason some people still view Dick Cheney to be a credible presence in American politics.

Fellow CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg who was with O'Reilly in Argentina said their environment "was not a war zone or even close." In fact, Engberg claimed, "It was an 'expense account zone.'"

Six other CBS journalists also challenge O'Reilly's claims, CNN reported, adding further pressure on the 65-year-old host of the O'Reilly Factor.

So, if you belive the proven liar Bill O'Reilly, all those people are wrong, and an unruly protest is a war zone. You would also have to believe Bill O'Reilly experienced a "combat situation" where people died, but cameraman Manny Alvarez who was also in Argentina with him states that, "If somebody got hurt, we all would have known."

Echoing Engberg, Alvarez, and others, NBC correspondent George Lewis wrote that it was the "Cushiest war I ever covered."

The truth, of course, is that Fox will not suspend anyone unless public pressure demands they act in a responsible manner. Therefore, like the boycott O'Reilly advocated against France and Canada after the Iraq War, it's time viewers pressure a "fair and balanced" network to act fair and balanced.

If Brian Williams was suspended for six months because of a lie, how long should Bill O'Reilly be suspended?

I would say a month, 30 days with no pay should teach him a lesson. He should also be made to give a public apology and admit to the lies.

At some point, he'll no longer be able to hide behind the fact he's an entertainer and not an actual journalist. He's used his lies in war to further his career and it's time he gets the Brian Williams treatment.

Say what you want about Williams, but at least he hasn't pushed for wars, advocated torture, bullied people, pandered to prejudice, and divided the country into pinheads and patriots. Williams made a mistake, but Bill O'Reilly has made a career out of similar mistakes. It's only fair that O'Reilly get suspended for his lies pertaining to war and combat experience.

DOJ Report Finds Racial Bias In Ferguson Police Department
By: Steve - March 4, 2015 - 10:00am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Justice Department investigation will allege sweeping patterns of discrimination within the Ferguson, Missouri, police department and at the municipal jail and court, law enforcement officials familiar with the report said Tuesday.

The report, which could be released as soon as Wednesday, will charge that police disproportionately use excessive force against blacks and that black drivers are stopped and searched far more often than white motorists, even though they're less likely to be carrying contraband.

The Justice Department also found that blacks were 68 percent less likely than others to have their cases dismissed by a municipal court judge, and that from April to September of last year, 95 percent of people kept at the city jail for more than two days were black, according to the officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record before the report is made public.

The Justice Department began the civil rights investigation following the August shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, by a white police officer. That killing set off weeks of protests.

It chronicles discriminatory practices across the city's criminal justice system, detailing problems from initial encounters with patrol officers to treatment in the municipal court and jail. Federal law enforcement officials described its contents on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly before the report is released.

The full report could serve as a roadmap for significant changes by the department, if city officials accept its findings. Past federal investigations of local police departments have encouraged overhauls of fundamental police procedures such as traffic stops and the use of service weapons.

The investigation, which began weeks after Brown's killing last August, is being released as Attorney General Eric Holder prepares to leave his job following a six-year tenure that focused largely on civil rights. The findings are based on interviews with police leaders and residents, a review of more than 35,000 pages of police records and analysis of data on stops, searches and arrests.

Federal officials found that black motorists from 2012 to 2014 were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched in traffic stops, even though they were 26 percent less likely to be found carrying contraband, according to a summary of the findings.

Unprecedented: Former Israeli Commanders Blast Netanyahu Speech To Congress
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 11:55am



O'Reilly Caught Lying Again: This Time About The Media
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 11:55am

Monday night O'Reilly had a segment on the 2016 election, in the segment he said the media will take it easy on Hillary Clinton because they are rooting for her, just as they did with Obama in 2012.

Which is not just a lie, it's ridiculous. Because when Hillary ran against Obama the media ripped her to pieces for her Iraq war vote, etc. Bill Clinton even complained that the media was being unfair to her and taking it easy on Obama. The truth is the Clintons and Obama were slammed by the media, for all kinds of stuff, from Whitewater to Rev. Wright.

What happens is the media does not attack Democrats as much as O'Reilly or Fox News want them to, they actually do some fair and balanced reporting on them. O'Reilly sees that as bias because they do not slam the Democrats as much as he does, and Fox does. Which is not bias, it is only bias in the eyes of Bill O'Reilly.

And the media studies by PEW prove O'Reilly is wrong, they show that in 2012 Obama had more negative reporting on him than Romney, but O'Reilly ignores these facts to spin out a tall tale that the media is much tougher on Republicans than Democrats. Even though the facts show the opposite, here is a fact check for the lying Bill O'Reilly.

From the Pew Research Center study: Winning The Media Campaign 2012

Overall from August 27 through October 21, 19% of stories about Obama studied in a cross section of mainstream media were clearly favorable in tone while 30% were unfavorable and 51% mixed. This is a differential of 11 percentage points between unfavorable and favorable stories.

For Romney, 15% of the stories studied were favorable, 38% were unfavorable and 47% were mixed-a differential toward negative stories of 23 points.

Most of the advantage in coverage for Obama, however, came in September in the form of highly negative coverage for Romney. This was a period when the GOP nominee was losing ground in the polls, he was criticized for his comments about Libya, and a video surfaced in which he effectively dismissed 47% of the American public.

All that changed almost overnight after the first debate on October 3. From that day through October 21, the coverage in effect reversed. In all, 20% of stories about Romney were favorable, 30% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed-a differential of 10 points to the negative.

For Obama, 13% of stories were favorable, 36% were unfavorable, and 50% were mixed-a differential of 23 points.

Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish.

With horse-race stories removed, 15% of campaign stories about Obama were positive, 32% were negative and 53% were mixed. For Romney it was 14% positive, 32% negative and 55% mixed.

Overall Obama had more negative reporting than Romney, and when you remove the horse-race stories it was a virtual tie in negative to positive reporting for Obama and Romney. This is 100% proof the mainstream media reported on both candidates fairly, something O'Reilly ignores.

As usual, O'Reilly was lying, because the actual media studies show the truth. Romney lost because he was a bad candidate who said a lot of stupid things, other Republicans even admitted he ran a terrible campaign and did not connect with the average voter. The only negative coverage Romney got was when he said something stupid, which was a lot.

After the 1st debate Obama got more negative reporting than Romney, and he still lost by a mile. Which had nothing to do with the media, Romney was just an idiot who said a lot of stupid things and it cost him any chance he had at winning. All the media did was report on his mistakes, as they did with Obama. O'Reilly saw that as bias against Romney, because he is a biased Republican and he can not see the truth.

The facts show that overall Obama had more negative reporting against him than Romney did, this shows the media did their job and they were fair and balanced. O'Reilly saw that as bias, because he is a partisan fool that lies a lot.

The Monday 3-2-15 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 11:50am

The TPM was called: Danger Overseas Getting Closer. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Tomorrow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address Congress, talking about the Iranian nuke situation. This will be the third time Mr. Netanyahu has spoken to Congress. The only other man to do that - Winston Churchill.

The Iranian deal is very complicated. The Obama administration wants a settlement that would stop Iran from immediately developing a nuclear weapon. But critics say the deal is too soft, that Iran would continue its weaponization and could convert it to nuclear very quickly if it decides to break the agreement.

Right now it's impossible to know just how close the Iranians are to having a nuke. The Israelis believe they are very close that's unacceptable because the Iranian mullahs want to wipe Israel off the planet. But President Obama has to negotiate on behalf of Americans, not Israelis.

And if the president walks away from the Iranian nuke deal, war might follow. Nobody wants World War III and nobody wants Iran to get a nuke, but definitive statements about the treaty negotiations are hard to back up.

On the other matter - ISIS expansion - it's easier. Simply put, President Obama is not leading the fight - King Abdullah of Jordan is. But with all due respect to the king, who is a courageous man, it will take America to galvanize the world against ISIS and obviously that is not happening. All in all, the danger overseas is growing, no question.
Comment from Steve: Notice that O'Reilly never said a word about the Republicans violating Congressional rules by having a foreign leader speak to Congress without notice or the approval of the President. And the fact that so far 53 Democrats are going to boycott the speech. Now if a Democrat did this to a Republican President O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and call for him to be impeached, but when Republicans do it he says nothing.

Then the biased right-wing stooge O'Reilly had the far-right Charles Krauthammer and Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it, with no Democratic guests for balance. Where is the fairness? Where is the balance? What say you O'Reilly?

Krauthammer said this: "You seem to present the alternative as either we go through with these negotiations or we have war. But there is an alternative, which is what brought the Iranians to their knees in the first place. Sanctions were working and Iran's GDP was cut by about a quarter. The only thing the mullahs care more about than nuclear weapons is holding on to power, and the primary threat is economic."

Krauthammer also said this: "It's not easy to re-impose sanctions, and the original sin here was when President Obama began these negotiations 18 months ago and unbelievably relaxed the sanctions. He has resisted Congress wanting to impose sanctions that would increase the pressure on Iran. If the mullahs say no to inspections, we should tell them in advance that we will hit them with the hardest sanctions ever devised."

Peters said this: "The administration has always been chasing this unicorn, this idea that we can get other people to do the hard work for us. But ultimately, in warfare it's not about the steel in a man's hand, it's about the steel in his heart. ISIS is willing and even eager to die for its cause, but the people we are arming don't want to die. We're kidding ourselves to think some local yokels can defeat hardened fighters. People of the Middle East will not fight and die for us, they will fight for their religion and their clan."

Comment from Steve: Take note of what you just read, because it is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased Republican who is not fair and not balanced. He talked about a speech to Congress about Iran by a foreign leader that was not invited by the President, and he had two of the most biased far-right Obama haters on America on to discuss it.

And not one Democratic guest, none, which is a total violation of the rules and ethics of journalism. The very same rules O'Reilly complains the rest of the media violate, as he violates the very same rules. It is the ultimate bias and hypocrisy.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the situation in the Middle East.

Williams said this: "Most Americans don't follow this stuff intensely, but people do respond to anything that could lead to further military conflicts in the Middle East and potentially an all-out war. That would catch their attention."

Ham said this: "There's a growing concern about these dangers getting closer to home and people are genuinely scared about a genocidal army on the move, combined with the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Netanyahu will speak with moral clarity about a very serious concern."

Then O'Reilly reminded everyone that Prime Minister Netanyahu's primary loyalty is understandably to his own nation, saying this: "Americans should be a little skeptical because Netanyahu is bringing in the Israeli point of view. The important thing is that he deliver hard facts, not just theory."

Then Howard Kurtz & Lauren Ashburn were on to talk about how the internet will affect the 2016 election. And as usual, no Democratic guest for balance.

Kurtz said this: "It's going to be a cesspool, because you have more media that is more ideological and quicker on the trigger. Here's a classic case - The Daily Beast just had to retract a completely bogus story about Scott Walker that they picked up from a gossip website called Jezebel."

Ashburn said this: "The mainstream media will encourage a demolition derby among the Republican primary candidates. We'll see things like we just saw with The Washington Post reporting on Jeb Bush's wife's jewelry spending."

O'Reilly said this: "Hillary Clinton has an advantage because most of the mainstream media will root for her, as they did for Barack Obama."

Comment from Steve: Which is ridiculous, because the mainstream media hammers Clinton all the time, they will slam her for everything from Benghazi to Whitewater and drag up 20 year old garbage, and she will most likely be attacked more than Republicans. O'Reilly forgets that a media study showed that Obama got more negative reporting than Romney did, so he is wrong when he says the media gave Obama a pass. They slammed him for all kinds of stuff, O'Reilly just will not admit it.

Then Jesse Watters was on, that I do not report on because it is not news, it's nonsense.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Food Tips for the Urchins. Billy said this: "In an effort to make children healthier, the website SpoonsAcrossAmerica.org has some tips about healthy foods that young kids might actually enjoy eating."

Crown Publishing Will Not Correct O'Reilly's Book
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 11:30am

David Drake at Crown Publishing/Random House said they will not correct O'Reilly's book, and fix the lies he has in it, so it is time to boycott Crown Publishing. If they are going to knowingly publish lies then they do not deserve to sell any more books.

The publisher of a Bill O'Reilly book in which he falsely claims to have seen terrorists kill civilians with bombs in Northern Ireland are standing behind the Fox News host despite an admission by Fox News that he only saw photos of those events.

David Drake, senior vice president and deputy publisher at Crown Publishing Group, wrote in an email to Media Matters that "Crown will continue to publish our author's book just as he wrote it."

That book is Keep it Pithy: Useful Observations In A Tough World, O'Reilly's 2013 work published under Crown Archetype, a division of Random House.

In the book, O'Reilly writes, "I've seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs."

But last Friday, The Washington Post's Paul Farhi reported that Fox News admitted that O'Reilly was not an eyewitness to terrorist bombings in Northern Ireland, writing: "Asked about O'Reilly's statements Friday, a Fox News spokesman said that O'Reilly was not an eyewitness to any bombings or injuries in Northern Ireland. Instead, he was shown photos of bombings by Protestant police officers."

Drake declined to offer further comment on why the publisher would not seek to correct an obvious misleading statement.

The Keep It Pithy issue is the latest in a string of revelations in which O'Reilly has been found to have inflated or lied about his reporting.

Chris Christie's Approval Ratings Drop To Record Low
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 11:00am

And of course Bill O'Reilly has totally ignored it. Which is more proof O'Reilly has a right-wing bias. Because when Christie had approval ratings as high as 72% O'Reilly reported it all the time and praised him as a top Republican who could beat Hillary and be the next President.

Now that Christie is down to record low approval ratings O'Reilly never even mentions him, let alone report on his record low approval ratings. And one more thing, O'Reilly does the exact opposite with President Obama, when his approval numbers were at record lows O'Reilly reported it all the time (almost every night) but when the Obama approval numbers are high O'Reilly totally ignores it.

Approval ratings for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) are the lowest they have been since he took office in 2010, a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll finds.

The survey finds that just 37 percent of New Jersey voters have a favorable view of Christie. This number has fallen seven points since Rutgers-Eagleton issued a similar poll two months ago. A 52 percent majority of voters say they disapprove of his job as governor.

This is far from the support Christie experienced in 2012 after Hurricane Sandy. A November 2012 Quinnipiac poll found that Christie's approval ratings were at 72 percent, which was the highest rating ever recorded for a New Jersey governor.

Things started to turn a corner in January 2014 when it was reported that members of Christie's administration had shut down lanes of the George Washington Bridge in September 2013 as an act of alleged political retribution against the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey. Christie was implicated in the scandal, known as "Bridgegate."

His approval dropped to 53 percent that January. In December 2014, Christie was cleared of involvement with "Bridgegate" after a state investigation.

Even though we pretty much knew he knew about it, they could not prove it, so he was not really cleared, they just did not have the hard evidence to prove he knew.

During 2014, New Jersey voters grew more unsatisfied with how the governor was handling taxes and the economy, according to a series of Rutgers-Eagleton polls. Unemployment rates above the national average and a state budget deficit of over $800 million added to the tension.

This is one more thing O'Reilly ignored, state deficits. When a liberal state like California has a deficit O'Reilly does multiple segments on it slamming the liberals who run the state as left-wing fools. But when the conservative Christie has a state budgt deficit O'Reilly is silent, so O'Reilly only slams state deficits when a liberal is running the state, he gives states with a deficit who are run by conservatives a pass.

Last week, Christie took a trip to London that many pundits have said seemed to be more about campaigning than state business. A Feb. 2nd New York Times article raised questions about previous trips the governor had taken that were paid for by other people.

Once again, this shows the bias by O'Reilly and Fox. When liberals take trips on taxpayer money that they think are a waste of money they report it and slam them. When conservatives do it, O'Reilly and Fox say nothing.

On Feb. 5th, Bennett Barlyn, a former county prosecutor in New Jersey and a whistleblower against the administration, said he had spoken to federal agents regarding an investigation into Christie abusing power. The following day, United Airlines confirmed that it was cooperating with a federal investigation on Christie's former Port Authority chairman, David Samson.

The latest Rutgers-Eagleton poll was conducted between Feb. 3rd and Feb. 10th, as these news stories about Christie were unfolding.

When asked to explain why they thought Christie's poll numbers had fallen, 20 percent of voters cited the governor's "overall attitude, behavior, and personality"; 15 percent attributed it to the "Bridgegate" scandal; and 10 percent are turned off by his presidential ambitions and lack of attention to his current job as governor.

This is quite different from polls in 2012, when voters were favorable toward Christie because of his "honesty, integrity, and frankness" and New Jersey voters saw his personality in a positive light, labeling him a "fighter" and "a strong leader."

A Rutgers-Eagleton blog post quoted David Redlawsk, the director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling and a professor of political science at Rutgers University, as saying, "[Respondents] used words like 'arrogance,' 'rudeness' and 'abrasive' to explain the turnaround from his high flying post-Sandy days. And of course, all manner of mentions of Bridgegate and other scandals were offered."

And btw, one of the big reasons Republicans like Christie is because he is arrogant, rude, and abrasive. But it turns out everyone else does not like him for those things. But if a Democrat was arrogant, rude, and abrasive, of course O'Reilly and his Republican friends would not like him.

Even before last week's unfavorable news coverage for Christie, a Monmouth University survey found his job ratings declining, with 66 percent of New Jersey residents (including more than half of Republican respondents) saying they thought the governor was more concerned with his own political future than he was with governing the state.

Republican Senator Insane Snowball Stunt Was Celebrated On Fox News
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 10:30am

Wash. Post: GOP "Should Be Mortified By The Face Of Their Environmental Leadership." Inhofe's Insane Climate Denial Speech Tells You Everything You Need to Know About the Republican Party Right Now.

A few days ago, Republican Senator James Inhofe tried to make the case that global warming is fake because it is currently very cold. This is not even true. (It is unusually cold in the Eastern United States, but the planet on the whole is having an unusually warm year.)

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant, because the theory of global warming predicts a jagged, long-term rise in temperature, rather than a continuous one. (This year in Washington, D.C., February is colder than January, but it does not refute the general trend for the city to face warmer temperatures in February than January.)

In other words, Inhofe's argument was breathtakingly devoid of a factual or logical grasp of its subject matter.

That would be alarming enough if Inhofe were simply one of 54 elected Republican U.S. Senators. In fact, he chairs the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works. Yes, you heard me right, the Republicans made him the chairman of their Committee that deals with the environment and global warming. He is the chairman of a committee on global warming that he does not believe in, which is the Republican party in a nutshell, insane.

The implications of this go well beyond the simple reality that an Inhofe-chaired committee is unlikely to pass well-designed environmental legislation. We live in an era of party government, where presidents ratify decisions within narrow parameters set by their fellow partisans. Any Republican environmental policy will be shaped in a context where the views of James Inhofe are, at minimum, treated with respect.

Inhofe's views lie perfectly within the mainstream of Republican thought. At a House committee this week, Steve Scalise, a member of the leadership, asserted, "I know the president loves talking about global warming -- and they're canceling flights all around the country due to snow blizzards." That'll show him! Obviously climate scientists never predicted the possibility of snow storms in Boston.

Actually they did, snow in winter does not prove there is no global warming, and any who thinks it does is either dumb or blind, or both. In fact, high snowfall amounts are more proof global warming is real, just as extreme high heat days are also proof. Extreme weather patters are more proof global warming is real, except in the far-right dreamland where snow in winter means global warming is a hoax.

Jeb Bush, who has positioned himself as the most moderate Republican candidate, has also questioned the validity of climate science.

Of course, the design of environmental regulation, or the appropriate balance between economic cost and clean air, is a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. But the modern Republican party (as opposed to the one of a generation ago) is structurally incapable of reasonable disagreement or calculus.

And btw, not a word of this story was reported by O'Reilly, even though he claims to believe global warming is real, he said nothing because he did not want to make Senator Inhofe look like a nut, and because he is a Republican who ignores all the news like this that make Republicans look like far-right loons.

O'Reilly's Very Own Argentina Protest Video Exposes His Lies
By: Steve - March 3, 2015 - 9:30am

Footage newly uncovered by Mother Jones shows that Bill O'Reilly's claim that he covered a protest in Argentina in which "many were killed with real bullets" is a lie.

In the footage, which is O'Reilly's very own report for CBS News from the incident in question, the Fox News host makes no mention of anyone dying and describes police using "tear gas," not live ammunition.

On February 19th, Mother Jones wrote that O'Reilly had never reported from "a war zone, in Argentina, in the Falklands" as he's said in the past. O'Reilly responded by claiming that when he had said he reported from a "war zone," he was specifically describing a 1982 Buenos Aires protest which broke out after Argentina surrendered in the War.

O'Reilly has frequently lied about the violence at that protest to emphasize his own reporting bona fides, going so far as to call it a "combat situation."

For example, O'Reilly claimed in a 2009 interview that during the riot the army shot at protesters with "real bullets, not tear gas":
O'REILLY: "When the riots broke out in the Casa Rosada, the army was standing between the people and the presidential palace. Here in the United States, we would do tear gas and rubber bullets. They were doing real bullets. They were just gunning these people down, shooting them down in the streets."
Even though every other reporter who was there said that never happened, nobody was killed, and there is no evidence anyone was gunned down in the streets. In fact, O'Reilly is the only reporter who was there to ever say many people were killed, no other journalist reported that or saw it. None of the cameramen, producers, or sound guys saw it either.

In his book The No Spin Zone, O'Reilly also described the protest, writing "A major riot ensued and many were killed." And on his now-defunct radio show, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "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."
O'Reilly's former colleagues who reported from the same protest, as well as reporters from other outlets and an Argentine historian, have all contradicted his claim that there were fatalities.

Mother Jones has since unearthed O'Reilly's own report from the scene, which makes no mention of live ammunition or deaths.

Filed with his then-employer CBS News, O'Reilly's voice can be heard over footage of the protest specifically reporting that "police struck back, firing tear gas and rushing the crowd."

He does say that "some journalists" got hurt, but describes the incident as a "disturbance" and does not mention anyone dying.



O'Reilly's report aired on local CBS affiliates at the time.

O'Reilly initially responded to criticism about his lies and exaggerations about his journalistic exploits by attacking his critics as partisan, but he and Fox News have largely fallen silent as evidence mounts against several of his tall tales.

Fox: O'Reilly Didn't See Bombings In Ireland: He Saw Photos Of Them
By: Steve - March 2, 2015 - 11:30am

This is such a load of garbage it's laughable. Because if we use that argument I could say I say JFK get shot because I saw photos of it. Then claim I am a journalist. O'Reilly is a liar and he needs to give a public apology adn admit it, then say he is sorry. And that still does not address all the other lies he has been caught in, the man is a liar, plain and simple.

Fox News issued a clarification on Friday on behalf of its star host Bill O'Reilly, saying that he said he'd "seen" bombings in Northern Ireland because police showed him photos of them.

The Washington Post spotted a passage in O'Reilly's 2013 book, "Keep It Pithy," in which he described seeing lethal bombings in Northern Ireland.

"I've seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs," O'Reilly wrote.

A Fox spokesperson told the Washington Post that O'Reilly did not witness any bombings or injuries in Northern Ireland but was simply shown photos by police officers.

So then he lied, because when you write a book and say you saw something happen, and you did not see it happen, you lied. What he should have said is that he saw photos of soldiers gun down unarmed civilians. And think about this, if O'Reilly lied about all this stuff how can we believe anything he ever says?

And he will not even admit to the lies, or say he is sorry, so his credibility is gone, done. Nothing he ever says can be believed again. The man is a proven liar and he can never be trusted to be telling the truth.

More Details About The O'Reilly L.A. Riots Lie Story
By: Steve - March 2, 2015 - 11:00am

Ok, let's jump into our time machine and travel to Los Angeles, 1992, where six days of civil unrest occurred after four LAPD officers were acquitted of charges that they had used excessive force while arresting Rodney King.

Who should appear on the scene, super reporter/so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, who covered the situation as the host of Inside Edition. By this point, Billy had already shown his bravery by witnessing combat in the Falklands in 1982, the murder of nuns in El Salvador in 1980, and the suicide of JFK assassination figure George de Mohrenschildt in 1977, so he was clearly the right man for this very dangerous job!

In a 2006 interview, O'Reilly said this: "At one point during the unrest, my crew was on the corner of Normandy and Vermont, right in the middle of it. They were throwing bricks and stones at us. Concrete was raining down on us. The cops saved our butts that time."

That all sounds very scary, because concrete rain would really hurt! But wait, what do the other reporters who were on the scene have to say about that, and did the concrete rain hurt them? The Guardian found some and asked them:

Six people who covered the riots with O'Reilly in California for Inside Edition told the Guardian they did not recall an incident in which, as O'Reilly has claimed, "concrete was raining down on us" and "we were attacked by protesters."

Rick Kirkham, who was the lead Inside Edition reporter on the scene at the time, told the Guardian this week, "Oh my God. That is a completely fictitious story. Nothing ever rained down on us."

Maybe the raining concrete scrambled their little reporter-brains, and they are unable to remember the situation as well as Bill O'Reilly. So what actually went down, according to everyone else on the scene who was not Bill O'Reilly?

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

Obviously these reporters are lying liars who lie, because can you imagine Bill O'Reilly rolling up to a low-income neighborhood during a period of civil unrest and behaving like a total jerk?

Can imagine that? Yes I can. So after O'Reilly went into a burned out neighborhood and started doing a little routine limo-maintenance, a local guy, who for some reason didn't want O'Reilly shouting at him and his neighbors while they cleared up the smoking rubble of their homes, got into it with O'Reilly and ended up smashing one of their cameras with a brick.

The crew's sound man told the Guardian, "It was ONE person with ONE rock. Nobody was hit."

In response to questions about O'Reilly's fantasy of concrete rain and angry mobs, a Fox News spokesperson emailed the Guardian the exact same statement that Fox released yesterday in response to the murdered nuns story.

Clearly if Fox just keeps emailing the same statement about how this "unproven accusation" is a "calculated onslaught," it will all go away.

Wrong! It is not going away, and every day a new lie from O'Reilly is exposed. It sure looks like O'Reilly lied about every story he reported on, and yet, he claims to be a truth teller and even says he is the only honest person in the media.

Which is just laughable, because it looks like nothing he has ever reported on is true, he just made it all up. Instead of being the most honest man in the media, it looks like he is the most dishonest man in the media.

David Corn On Media Matters Radio: O'Reilly's Excuses Don't Make Sense
By: Steve - March 2, 2015 - 10:00am

David Corn On Media Matters Radio: O'Reilly's Excuses "Don't Make Sense" But Fox News Defends Him Anyhow

Corn: "If NBC News Had Tried To Do Anything Like This, People Would Have Laughed At Them"



CNN Airs New Audio Disproving O'Reilly's JFK Story
By: Steve - March 1, 2015 - 6:30pm

CNN's Reliable Sources aired a new, clearer version of audio that further disproves Bill O'Reilly's claim that he personally "heard" the shotgun blast that killed a figure in the investigation into President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

O'Reilly has repeatedly claimed in his books and on Fox News that while he was reporting for a Dallas television station in 1977, he was directly outside at the exact moment that George de Mohrenschildt -- an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald -- shot himself in a Florida home.

O'Reilly has offered no evidence to confirm this claim, and the police report filed at the time makes no mention of him.

Media Matters further reported that multiple former colleagues and journalists in Florida at the time have disputed O'Reilly's story that he "heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide."

Adding to the mounting evidence against O'Reilly's tale are tape recordings of a phone conversation between O'Reilly and a congressional investigator who was interviewing de Mohrenschildt before his death.

On the tapes, O'Reilly can be heard asking the congressional reporter about the details of the suicide, and adding that he is not yet in Florida -- a claim that is at odds with O'Reilly's statements that he was near the home where de Mohrenschildt killed himself. Lower-quality copies of these tapes were first posted online by former Washington Post editor Jefferson Morley in a 2013 piece for his website JFKFacts.org, as Media Matters noted in our initial report.

Now, CNN has obtained the original tapes from the congressional investigator's widow, and the audio is significantly cleaner and easier to hear. O'Reilly can clearly be heard asking the congressional investigator where the suicide took place, if a gun was used, and saying "I'm coming down there tomorrow. I'm coming to Florida ... I'm going to get in there tomorrow."

As Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter reported, "clearly this tape shows he was not there."



Stelter also interviewed Morley, who said that he previously attempted to bring this audio to Fox News' attention, but received no response.

O'Reilly has come under fire for multiple fabrications in the past few weeks, and has responded dubiously. However, O'Reilly and Fox News have so far not responded to the mounting evidence against his JFK story, instead directing inquires to the publisher of O'Reilly's book on the Kennedy assassination.

Now think about this, we hear O'Reilly on the tape, it is him talking, he says he is not in Florida and that he will get a car and get down there, in his own words. So let's see him spin this into some liberal attack on his credibility, when they used his own words to prove he was not there to hear the gunshot. What he will do is ignore it, because he knows they got him.

USA Today: Fox News Should "Distance Itself" From O'Reilly But It Won't
By: Steve - March 1, 2015 - 11:30am

"Fox News Was Not Created To Be Neutral But Rather To Feed A Hunger Among Conservatives"

And btw folks, The USA Today is a Republican biased newspaper, so O'Reilly can not claim they are part of this liberal conspiracy he has dreamed up. They just oppose a so-called journalist telling all these lies.

Here is a copy of that editorial:

For Bill O'Reilly, the facts are a factor: Our view

Perceived vast liberal conspiracy that helped create 'Fox News' means not having to say you're sorry.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly pitches himself to viewers as a brave truth-teller, outraged by the partisan spin that has taken over the national debate. Judging by his ratings, that message sells. On Monday, OReilly's show had more viewers between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. than all of CNN's shows between 6 p.m. and midnight -- combined.

But now O'Reilly stands exposed of the same kind of puffed-up truth-bending he so regularly derides on his show. O'Reilly said he was in "active war zones" in the Falklands in 1982. He wasn't. He said he survived a "combat situation in Argentina." He didn't. He said he "saw nuns get shot in the back of the head." Nope. Not even in the same country.

True, O'Reilly is more opinionator than journalist. And the Falklands War happened a long time ago. But the facts still matter, and they are just as good a yardstick for O'Reilly as they are for recently suspended NBC News anchor Brian Williams.

By journalism ethics, Fox should distance itself from its truth-challenged employee. But that's not likely to happen because for Fox and its fans, credibility is established by different means. Having common enemies matters more than factual detail. That's why Fox has left a canyon-wide gap between its standards and those of NBC.

NBC took its tarnished anchor off the air; Fox let O'Reilly use his show to go on the attack. NBC executives began an investigation of Williams; Fox News CEO Roger Ailes publicly backed his marquee talent. Williams apologized; O'Reilly threatened journalists writing about him.

NBC tried to make itself better. Fox went to war.

That shouldn't be a surprise. Fox News was not created to be neutral but rather to feed a hunger among conservatives for a network they could relate to. For decades, the so-called mainstream news media left them with the impression that the press, liberals and the Democratic Party shared the same enemies: them. According to a Gallup Poll last fall, even one in five Democrats think the news media are too liberal.

That was never the networks' goal. Their news divisions are built on a commitment to impartiality. But good intentions don't guarantee success, and Fox has turned perception of liberal bias into a profitable reality. As a business matter, Fox doesn't need to compete on credibility. Many of its viewers long ago decided the rest of the news media have none.

That's why, absent any earth-shattering revelations, O'Reilly isn't going anywhere. Every time media critics hit Fox and O'Reilly, it just feeds the feeling that the left is out to get them, which in turn feeds Fox's success.

It's unfortunate that neither the network nor its star sees a need for allegiance to the truth. But for O'Reilly and Fox, the perceived vast liberal conspiracy that helped create the network two decades ago means not having to say you're sorry today.

Fox News declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial.

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

So let me get this straight, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News were asked if they wanted to do an opposing editorial, and they refused. Which means they can never complain about anyone not being fair and balanced, because when they were offered a chance to provide a balance to their view, they punted.

And one last thing, O'Reilly never did prove he was not lying, not once, he did not answer any of the questions about the facts, or admit to lying, all he did was call people names that reported the truth about him and his lies. An honest journalist would admit he told some tall tales and say he was sorry, then move on.

O'Reilly did not do that, because he is not an honest journalist, he is a biased fraud and a partisan hack. If he had just admitted he lied on day one it might have been a 2 or 3 day story, instead, he dug the hole deeper and went on the attack, so he actually hurt his own cause and turned a 2 day story into a 7 day story, and it is still going.

O'Reilly Caught In More Lies: This Time Northern Ireland
By: Steve - March 1, 2015 - 10:30am

At this point it looks like O'Reilly has lied about every story he reported on, because everything someone looks into shows that he lied about the reporting he did on it.

And this is the guy who claims to be the only truth teller in America with a fair and balanced no spin zone? Give me a break, O'Reilly is a serial liar and a biased right-wing hack who is not fair and balanced and he does not have a no spin zone.

And btw, when you say you saw someone being killed, that is nowhere near the same as looking at photos of someone who was killed. To say you saw it, when you did not, and you only saw photos of it is lying, it's being dishonest, and O'Reilly knows it, he just will never admit it. Instead he attacks people who truthfully report on it, and call them names, as he claims to be honest and to never engage in personal attacks.

In his long and stormy career as a so-called journalist, Bill O’Reilly has occasionally mentioned his exploits in conflict zones around the world. "I've been there," he once said. "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."

When he really has not seen it, except in photos. Not to mention he is speculating that other people have not seen the things they report on, he does not know if they have or not, which is total speculation, the very same speculation he says he never does or allow on his show. He claims to have a no speculation zone and only reports the facts, then he speculates all the time and lets his right-wing guests speculate, the only people not allowed to speculate are the liberal guests, the very few that ever get on.

O'Reilly said he has reported from Northern Ireland, where the sectarian "Troubles" resulted in nearly 4,000 deaths and thousands of injuries over 30 years -- before a peace settlement was reached in 1998. In his 2013 book, O'Reilly said this: "I've seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs."

On another occasion, he said, "I've covered four wars," and ticked off El Salvador's civil war in the 1980s, the 1982 Falklands conflict, Northern Ireland and an unspecified conflict in Israel. "I've seen the best and the worst."

Yes, and he has lied about all four of the wars he covered.

O'Reilly traveled to Northern Ireland in 1984 to research a book about the Troubles, according to Fox News. The book was never finished, and it’s not clear whether he covered the conflict for any news organization. At the time, he was working for a Boston TV station, WCVB, but his then-boss, Philip S. Balboni, said that O’Reilly covered only local news and did commentary for the station.

O'Reilly didn't mention seeing any terrorist bombings in Northern Ireland during a radio interview with syndicated host Hugh Hewitt last week. Instead, he told a milder story: "We went on a raid in Divis Flats with the police. And it was a pretty intense situation. There was stuff being thrown, arrests being made, all of that."

"Were you in fear of physical harm?" Hewitt asked.

No, O'Reilly replied.

Asked about O'Reilly's statements Friday, a Fox News spokesman said that O'Reilly was not an eyewitness to any bombings or injuries in Northern Ireland. Instead, he was shown photos of bombings by Protestant police officers.

The clarification is similar to one O'Reilly made in the wake of questions raised this week about his characterization of his experiences during the Salvadoran civil war.

Media Matters for America found two occasions on which O'Reilly claimed to have seen the murder of four American nuns in El Salvador. "I've seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador," he said on his radio program in 2005. On his Fox News program, "The O'Reilly Factor," he said in 2012, "I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head."

Reality Check: O'Reilly arrived in El Salvador months after the brutal killings and could not have witnessed them, the group said.

After getting caught in that lie, O'Reilly then said in a statement last week that he was describing photos of the murdered nuns, not the crimes themselves.

"While in El Salvador, reporters were shown horrendous images of violence that were never broadcast, including depictions of nuns who were murdered," he said in the statement.

But no other reporters lied and said they saw the nuns being killed, only O'Reilly did that, then lied that he never said it, and attacked the people who reported it.

O'Reilly said he brought up the El Salvador episode on his TV program in 2012 on the day of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in a discussion on evil. "I used the murdered nuns as an example of that evil," his statement said. "That's what I am referring to when I say 'I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head.'"

O'Reilly has spent the past eight days vigorously defending himself on a variety of statements that don't square with other eyewitness accounts. He has blasted and even threatened those who have called his comments into question, particularly Mother Jones magazine, which touched off the examination of his record with a story about his statements regarding his role in the aftermath of the Falklands conflict.

They compared him with Brian Williams, the NBC News anchor who has been suspended for six months because of his exaggerated statements. O'Reilly, on the other hand has not been suspended. In fact, they support his lies and have not done a thing to him. No investigation, nothing, because he is not a real journalist and Fox is not a real news network.





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