Advertise Contact About This Web Site Donate To

O'Reilly Sucks
Blog Archives

January - 2016
February - 2016

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

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

Website Links

O'Reilly Info

The O'Reilly Iraq Apology Countdown Clock

O'Reilly Spins

Cable News Ratings

Read The Letter O'Reilly Had His Attorney Send me

O'Reilly Wins 2004 Misinformer of The Year Award

O'Reilly Death Penalty Lies

O'Reilly on Top 10 Conservative Idiot List 49 Times Since 2001

O'Reilly Calls Mexicans Wetbacks



O'Reilly #5 On Top 25 Right-Wing Journalist List

O'Reilly Factor Year In Review 2009

Factor Pollster Caught Writing GOP Policy Memo

What a Fair & Balanced O'Reilly Factor Would Look Like

Transcript: Bill O'Reilly v Jeremy Glick

Peabody Award Facts

Bill Clinton Enron News

Buzzflash Names O'Reilly Media Putz of The Week

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly & The Republican Party Are Both Corrupt

The Right-Wing Liberal Killer Story O'Reilly Ignored

The Facts About O'Reilly And GE Doing Business With Iran

How to Deal With an O'Reilly Factor Ambush Interview

Why FOX News Loves Juan Williams: The Strings And The Puppet

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

The Factor Guest List Count

February 2016 (12 Shows) Republicans - 90 | Democrats - 13

The Factor Guest List Count Archives

Ratings: The O'Reilly Factor - Total Viewers

Monday - 2-15-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.446 - Eric Bolling Hosted
Tuesday - 2-16-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.490 - Eric Bolling Hosted
Wednesday - 2-17-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.321 - Eric Bolling Hosted
Thursday - 2-18-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.473 - Eric Bolling Hosted
Friday - 2-19-16 -- O'Reilly -

Weekly Factor Average -

The Cable News Ratings Archives

O'Reilly's UK Casino and Gambling Interests

Oreilly is a polarizing figure and so is online gaming, especially at Begado Casino. There are advocates in Congress proposing a federal law, but Republican detractors. This, according to a supporter of Steve and, who runs a Begado Fan Blog. The conservative approach is to stick to legitimate gaming certifications and says Zachary Gleason. sbs news

The O'Reilly Sucks Blog

Even Neil Cavuto Is Slamming The GOP Over Obama SC Nominee
By: Steve - February 20, 2016 - 11:00am

You know you screwed up when even Neil Cavuto is slamming a Republican for something.

Cavuto: "I Have A Hard Time Understanding Not Even Allowing A Vote On A Supreme Court Nominee."

Partial transcript:
NEIL CAVUTO (HOST): I do wonder, professor, about why Republicans would just punt on even holding hearings. They hold a significant majority in the Senate, so they can argue that if they don't like the president's choice, they could reject it, the president's choice. You need 60 votes. So why add the drama of not even holding hearings?

LARRY SABATO: Well, I think the message that Senator McConnell, the majority leader, was trying to send immediately was that there is very little chance that anyone nominated by President Obama would be approved by a majority of the U.S. Senate.

They don't -- it doesn't have to be a filibuster, it could potentially be a straight up or down vote. But there are 54 Republicans, even if you had a couple of defections, you might not in this case, there's virtually no chance that that would actually happen.

This is going to be a campaign issue on both sides. It probably will increase voter turnout on both sides. And it's elevated to the court to one of the two or three major issues along with terrorism and the economy.

CAVUTO: You know it's interesting. I guess the process normally takes on average about 67 days I read, from a nominee being submitted to the final vote in the Senate, yea or nay. And it's happened before, Ronald Reagan. The third time was the charm for him.

But I guess I have a hard time -- I know the frustration on the part of Republicans, but I have a hard time understanding not even allowing a vote or waiting until, you know, a new president. Because that's still almost a year off.
And Cavuto is not the only person at Fox who is slamming the GOP over this.

Peter Johnson Jr. said this: "Republicans Have To Recalibrate Immediately. We Need A Supreme Court With Nine Folks On It. It's That Simple"

Partial transcript:
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): I think there're very few Republicans who want to see President Obama in his eighth year in office fill the ninth seat of the Supreme Court. The question is, as a tactical matter was it wise for the Senate majority leader to say we're not even going to consider a nominee?

PETER JOHNSON JR.: No, I think the Republicans have to recalibrate immediately.

When you make a mistake, say you make a mistake. Part of the reason the outsiders are doing so well is that they're disgusted with the Congress of the United States. Democrats and Republicans. And if you were a Republican leader to say we're not going to count any nomination, any person that the president puts up, that's a problem. They're going to have a countdown and a clock as to the intransigence of the United States Senate going forward.

CARLSON: So you're saying it would be wiser just to take a look at the nominees and then evaluate them and then turn them down if you don't like them?

JOHNSON JR.: It is what I'm saying. In order to be true to conservative principles, in order to be true to the Constitution, in order to be true to the memory of Justice Scalia, then you say yes, Mr. President, send who you want to send over. We're going to take a look at that man or woman, whoever you send, and we're going to make a determination.

Because you obviously have decided in spite of precedent, most precedent, you say in an election year that you want to force the issue. Fine. If you want to force the issue, then you will force the issue, and we in due time, just as you in due time making a nomination, will decide whether to consent to that nomination of a United States Supreme Court justice.

CARLSON: So they wouldn't have to confirm the nominees.

JOHNSON JR.: The Republicans need to step it back at this point and say, listen, we're going to grieve for Justice Scalia at this point, then we're going to make a determination about where we are. There's no line in the sand. My concern is, A. conservative principles, B. the Constitution and also the future of a two-party system.

Where will the Republican party be two or three years from now when it is remembered that the Republican party said we would not -- we would not even look at a nominee for the United States Supreme Court? It's not smart. It's not good for our future. It's not good for our governance, and it's not good for the notion that this government is responsive to the needs of the people. We need a Supreme Court with nine folks on it. It's that simple. They need to step it back today.
As usual the Republican party got it wrong, as the majority oppose what they are doing, and they have proven once again they do not care about what's best for America, all they care about is partisan political tricks that make their far-right base happy.

Fox News Poll Shows That 62% Want Obama To Replace Scalia
By: Steve - February 20, 2016 - 10:00am

Now this is bad news for the stooges at Fox and all the Republicans.

In a new Fox News poll released Friday, 62% of Americans say the President and Senate should take action to fill the Supreme Court vacancy now, while just 34% say wait. Independents broke along similar lines 61% to 35%.

And they got these results even though the biased Fox poll asked "registered voters" a loaded question that suggested the fact that it's an election year is a relevant factor (when it is not). But even with the biased and leading question, the poll response shows what Republicans are up against.

The question and the response:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death has sparked a debate over how to fill the vacancy on the nation's highest court. Taking into consideration that it's an election year, which of the following is closer to your view?

The president should not get to nominate someone for a life-time appointment to the high court this late in his term. 34%

It's still the responsibility of current leaders, President Obama and the Senate, to take action to fill the vacancy now. 62%

(Don't know) 4%
When this is broken down to reveal the party affiliation of the voters, Independents are not leaning toward the Republican efforts to spin reality in an effort to obstruct President Obama from his right and duty, with 61% of Independents agreeing that the President and Senate should take immediate action to fill the vacancy, as Ronald Reagan urged when he was in the same situation.

Even with the biased and loaded question, Republicans can not pull this heist of power off in the eyes of the public. If they proceed, they will be taking quite a gamble on older white and misinformed voters out performing the rest of the country when it comes to turnout.

Trump Says He'll Win Independents & New York The Numbers Say No
By: Steve - February 19, 2016 - 11:00am

As usual, Trump just blows out some hot air and hopes someone will believe it, even though the actual numbers disagree with him. During Wednesday night's town hall on MSNBC, Trump said this:
"I will have more crossover votes -- if I get the nomination, I will have more crossover votes than anybody that's ever run for office. I will have Democrat votes. I will have independent votes. I will do tremendously with crossover. One other thing: I will have states that nobody ever thought of getting in terms of a Republican."
To begin with, I do not know one Democrat who would ever vote for Trump, or any other Republican who is currently running, except maybe Kasich, and 99% of them would not even vote for him.

So Trump is not going to get many votes from Democrats, I would bet less than 10 percent, and most of them are not real Democrats, they are more like moderate Republicans or Independents who have not switched to Republican or Independent yet.

Trump also said this:
"I think I will win New York, and I have a great chance of Michigan. States that are not in your six states that we always talk about. I'll definitely get Pennsylvania. I'll get Ohio. I think I'm going to win Florida. You see how I'm doing in Florida. I'll get states like a Michigan and New York."
First of all, it seems pretty unlikely that Trump will have more crossover votes than anybody that's ever run for office. Because more than one president has won a massive number of votes from political opponents, including Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. In 1984, Reagan got 25% of Democrats to vote for him.

That's a mark Trump would be hard-pressed to beat.

Second, it's not clear he would actually do much better than the other Republicans running this year. It would mean reversing a recent pattern of strong partisanship in presidential elections. And recent polling doesn't support the idea.

Shortly after the Iowa caucuses, Quinnipiac University ran head-to-head polls pitting top Republicans against the two Democratic candidates.

In that poll, Trump does much worse than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz against both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders -- and does worse with independents than he does with voters overall.

Which is not very good evidence that independents will swarm to his cause.

Against Clinton and Sanders, Trump pulls 7 to 8 percent of Democrats, which is about the same as the 8 to 9 percent Rubio gets. And let's remember this, that 8 to 9 percent are not real Democrats, they are moderates who could easily be a Republican or an Independent. A lot of them are just Republicans pretending to be Democrats, and they vote Republican most of them time.

Real Democrats would never vote for any Republicans for anything, not even dog catcher. Because they know they are mostly liars who say anything to get elected and use all their power to help the wealthy and the corporations.

Trump does worse overall than Rubio, and his margin of support with independents against Sanders is only slightly higher than what the Rubio has. The fairest way to read these results is that they're about the same across the board. There's no advantage seen by Trump at all.

There was another poll this month that gives the lie to Trump's reply to Scarborough. Siena College surveyed New York state, seeing how home-field favorites Trump, Clinton and Sanders would do. In New York, unsurprisingly, the Republicans all did much worse than the Democrats, including Trump.

Against each Democrat, Trump did worse than Cruz and Rubio. His margins with independents were about the same as Ted Cruz, the man Trump says is the biggest liar in America.

It is possible that Trump would solidify support from a few Democrats and independents if he got the nomination, but there is no evidence at all that he will -- or that he'd do so more effectively than would one of the other Republicans.

And btw folks, here is something Donald Trump will never tell you. Trump is viewed unfavorably by 65 percent of all New York voters, which is the highest of any candidate, and New York has went to the Democrat in every Presidential election since 1984.

Not to mention this, Ted Cruz is now ahead of Trump in national polls. So Trump is only winning the Republican primary in some States, overall Trump is behind Cruz.

Rubio's Morning Again In America Ad Is Actually Canada
By: Steve - February 19, 2016 - 10:00am

What an idiot, and this guy wants to be the President. The Rubio campaign ad claims to be morning in America, when it's actually morning in Canada.

"It's morning again in America," a calm narrator says as an idyllic scene of a boat crossing a harbor plays in Marco Rubio's latest ad -- which is a riff on the classic Ronald Reagan ad.

Based on a quick internet search, the boat scene in the Morning Again ad is Vancouver, Canada.

If you look closely, Vancouver's Harbour Centre Lookout Tower is visible in the footage. The footage was filmed from Vancouver Harbour. And the flag on the boat in the ad is also Canadian.

So it turns out that the Rubio people were not even smart enough to use footage of America in a campaign ad called morning in America. They used footage of morning in Canada.

Trump Is A Joke & If You Vote For Him You Are A Fool
By: Steve - February 18, 2016 - 11:30am

All he does is call people names, insult people, say he will sue them, and not answer any questions with specific answers. And in the rare case when he does get a little specific, it's nonsense that will never happen, or is impossible to do.

In the Town hall he did he was a joke, he had no answers, and he did not even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. His answer to protecting America and getting rid of ISIS and terrorism was trust me I will stop them. That is no answer, it's all hot air.

It's all talk, and 99% of it is that, just talk. Even if he is the President he can not just do whatever he wants, Congress has to approve most of it, and they also have to give the President the money to do anything.

Trump says he will build a wall, deport 11 million illegals, and get Mexico to pay for it, which is just ridiculous. To begin with it's impossible to find those 11 million illegals, and even if you could find them all it would cost billions and billions to deport them. Congress would never give him the money to do it.

The wall would also cost billions, if not a trillion, and Mexico has said they will not pay for it, for one, because they do not have the money, they are a poor country. And a wall is worthless, if you build a wall they will just go over it, under it, or around it, come in by car, bus, truck, plane, etc.

I would bet that 99% of what Trump says he is going to do as President is impossible. And that is only a couple things, because he never gets specific about anything. He has no policies, and he has no plans. He is just a giant windbag that is full of hot air.

He says he will get rid of Obamacare because it is not working, when that is a lie, it is working fine, it just needs a few slight adjustments to fine tune it. Trump even slams Cruz for lying, when he is as big of a liar as Cruz. He talks about doing this or that, but when asked for specifics and plans, he says he has a lot of plans and they are great.

But we never get details of those plans, because he does not have any, he is just winging it and saying he will be great. Trump is a con-man, and you are being scammed. He has no plans, no policies, no nothing, all he has is hot air, and almost everything he says he will do is nonsense and not possible.

Almost Everyone In America Supports Democratic Socialism
By: Steve - February 18, 2016 - 11:00am

So when you see O'Reilly and the GOP slam Bernie Sanders for being some kind of evil socialist, you should know that Democratic socialism is a good thing, and that most Americans are living under a lot of socialist policies right now, including Medicare. Most Americans support Democratic socialism, including a lot of Republicans, they just will not admit it.

If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, the only word that's going to be constantly repeated over and over next fall by Republicans is "socialist" as if that is a bad thing, and they will use it in every single attack ad against him.

As Trump does now, he calls Sanders a communist, when he is not a communist, he is a Democratic socialist and the majority of Americans support his policies, most of you just will not admit it because you do not want to support socialist policies, even though you already do, and when you hear what he wants to do, most Americans agree with it.

I find it laughable that O'Reilly and the Republicans hate the idea of socialism. The truth is, this country has been partially driven by socialism for decades. In fact, most Americans absolutely love socialism.

To all you conservatives reading this -- you're all fans of socialism whether you like it or not.

In fact, let me take a moment to address Republicans who will undoubtedly freak out at the sheer mention of the word socialism if Sanders were to become the Democratic nominee.

You don't agree with me that you're fans of socialism, right? You're not a socialist -- you're a "freedom-loving capitalist that wouldn't dare support evil socialism."

So answer this, have you ever:

Driven on public roads?
Attended public schools?
Eaten food that didn't make you sick thanks to safety standards?
Deposited money into a bank because you knew even in the event of a robbery your funds are insured?
Visited a public library?
Collected Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid?
Called 9/11 in the unfortunate need for police, fire or medical assistance?
Received mail from the United States Postal Service?
Bragged about and saluted our military?
Taken out a student loan or grant?
Had your garbage collected by city services?
Used any form of public transportation?

Because if you've done anything I just listed (as well as numerous other things in this country), and you're glad they existed when you needed them -- you're supporting socialism. Everything I just listed above is, in one way or another, paid for and/or subsidized by the government via taxes, and that is part of Democratic socialism.

Do you know how our military became the most powerful killing machine in Earth's 4 billion year history? Because we socialized the hell out of it.

Any conservative whose livelihood and medical care is largely based on Social Security and Medicare is quite literally living on socialism. In fact, without that socialism many of you might be homeless or dead.

The truth is, this nation is a based upon a form of Democratic socialist capitalism. In fact, our nation was stronger economically 50 years ago when we were more socialist than what we are today. Back when taxes were higher, unions were stronger, education was better and income inequality wasn't really an issue.

It wasn't until the ridiculous notion of trickle-down economics (which is just an elaborate con predicated on the redistribution of wealth from 98 percent of Americans to the top 2 percent) was put upon us that everything started spiraling out of control.

For those Republicans still doubting that you're all socialists, I have a simple way to prove it: Go find any conservative you know who's currently receiving Social Security and/or Medicare then mention you're in favor of eliminating or cutting their benefits -- see how that goes for you.

I'll guess that their reaction won't be good. Though that's a bit of a trick question, because any true hater of socialism wouldn't accept either government benefit. Notice that Republicans say they oppose socialism, but none of them ever turn down Social Security or Medicare, even the wealthy ones, so they are lying hypocrites who support socialism, they just refuse to admit it.

If Bernie Sanders happens to win the Democratic nomination, and leading up to the general election your party predictably starts the incessant fear-mongering about the evil socialist, just remember one thing: If you have accepted anything I listed above in this article, you are a big fan of socialism.

You just will not admit it, and that includes Bill O'Reilly.

Legal Experts Say Obama Must Nominate A New Justice
By: Steve - February 18, 2016 - 10:00am

So much for the constitution, Republicans could care less what it says, they just do not want Obama to Nominate a new Justice to the Supreme Court, even though he is the President and the constitution says he MUST do it.

Legal scholars and reporters who have covered the Supreme Court for years are criticizing conservatives planned obstruction of President Obama's future nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Within minutes of Scalia's death Saturday, right-wing media figures started pushing the idea that Republican senators should block any potential replacement nominated by Obama and leave the vacancy unfilled until the next president takes office in 2017.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement shortly after Scalia's death arguing that Scalia's seat "should not be filled until we have a new president." A number of Republican politicians -- including GOP candidates at Saturday night's debate -- have since suggested that Obama should not even put forward a nominee.

Several legal scholars and Supreme Court beat reporters contend the president has a duty to appoint a replacement for Scalia, adding that the U.S. Senate is abdicating its constitutional responsibility if it does not hold hearings to approve or reject such nominees.

"It would be highly unusual for any president NOT to appoint someone," Linda Greenhouse, a former New York Times Supreme Court reporter from 1978 to 2008 and a 1998 Pulitzer Prize winner, said via email. "It's up to the Republicans to explain why they would refuse even to consider a qualified nominee."

Stephen Wermiel, a professor of constitutional law at American University Washington College of Law is an expert in Supreme Court jurisprudence, agreed:

"Obama has a duty to make an appointment. It is not desirable by any measure to have the Supreme Court go an entire year with only eight justices instead of nine and have to resolve things by 4-4 ties and by other methods. The Constitution says the president shall appoint, it doesn't say only when it's politically convenient."

Tony Mauro, a National Law Journal reporter who has covered The Supreme Court for 36 years, called it "one of a president's most important duties."

"It's in the Constitution to nominate, it doesn't mean the Senate has to confirm," he said. "I've been surprised that people are suggesting that he shouldn't even nominate anyone, that seems a little over the top. Nominating is one of the most important things that a president does. There is a vacancy on the court, so it is his duty."

Garrett Epps, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and Supreme Court correspondent for The Atlantic, agreed.

"It would be a little bit of a dereliction of duty, and politically it would be silly," he said about a move not to nominate a replacement. "It's pure politics. One of the consequences for the court of a prolonged vacancy is that the court can't make a decision unless there is a majority vote. It's kind of a dangerous situation, there are things that need to be decided."

Nadine Strossen, a professor of law at New York Law School and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union said "this is not ambiguous" in the Constitution.

"The law is very straightforward," she said. "You may know that the relevant provisions in Article 2 say, 'shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' What's interesting is that it is the verb 'shall nominate,' not 'may nominate.' it is actually a duty of the president."

Lucas A. Powe, a University of Texas Law School professor and a one-time clerk for former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, called such an idea "absurd."

"Functionally, what that will mean is, assuming we do wait until January or February next year without a justice, we are going to go an entire year without a full court," he said. "That means a lot of important cases are going to be put off until 2018."

He is among several experts who said the Senate has a right to reject a nominee, but not ignore it and refuse to vote: "It's another example of how rotten our politics are."

This is where the Republicans screwed up, they said Obama should not even nominate anyone, and then they said if he did, they will not confirm them. And they did it for pure political reasons, because Obama is a Democrat and because they do not like him.

What they should have said was this, he can nominate someone but if we do not like them we can vote no. To say he can not nominate anyone, and lie about last year Presidents not doing it, is just wrong. And it shows that Republicans do not give a damn about the constitution they claim to support.

They are willing to throw the constitution out the window, simply because they do not want Obama to get a Justice on the Supreme Court. But if we had a Republican President and the Democrats were saying the same thing, my God, the Republicans and O'Reilly would be screaming bloody murder.

Media Critic Slams Scarborough For Relationship With Donald Trump
By: Steve - February 17, 2016 - 11:00am

Here is a partial transcript from the CNN's Reliable Sources:

BRIAN STELTER (HOST): "Morning Trump," because that's Joe Scarborough speaking there at 92Y, actually many months ago. But our colleague Dylan Byers wrote about it for CNN Money earlier this week. He's been all over this really important story, which is the Donald Trump-Joe Scarborough relationship.

What we see sometimes on-air is a very cozy relationship between the two men, and in fact I've seen the name "Morning Trump" being used to describe Morning Joe recently. I want to get your take on whether this is appropriate or inappropriate, because certainly Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, others at Fox News have close relationships with Trump. What do you think of this Scarborough-Trump relationship?

DAVID ZURAWIK: Inappropriate, Brian.


ZURAWIK: And if I had any hair, it would be on fire as I said it. Listen, even somebody like a morning show host plays a role, at least a quasi-journalistic role -- I'd argue it's journalistic -- plays a role in setting the parameters of the national conversation around these candidates.

You shouldn't be so involved with them that you're going down and giving them tips. I love the video you just showed. I'm so happy it got played, because it shows how unashamed Scarborough is, how proud he is of the fact that he's in the tank for him.

Back in August I wrote about this relationship and it was unbelievable, because it was just before the Alabama open-air rally that Trump was going to hold. And Scarborough was talking about Trump letting his brother, who I guess lives in Florida, on his plane when it landed in Mobile.

And then the next day, he was on Facebook saying how great it was that Trump let him on the plane, and then he started talking rapturously about what a great candidate this is and it's the future of American politics.

He doesn't even know how damning that is to the credibility of MSNBC that almost every morning this guy gets out and behaves that way. And hey, what about the executives at MSNBC that don't call him in and say stop it? What's going on with that? This is outrageous. Now certainly --

STELTER: I did ask for a new comment from MSNBC this morning, and I didn't hear back. Dylan Byers has a great story online, I do recommend reading it. What's interesting to me is that when Dylan's story came online, Scarborough attacked CNN, and he pointed out Morning Joe's ratings, which is a very Trump thing to do, kind of like pointing to poll numbers.

You know I do think there's others in media that are giving advice to Trump like Bill O'Reilly. But this Morning Joe relationship is intriguing. I think it's going to keep getting attention.

Sanders Slams GOP For Saying They Will Block Supreme Court Nominee
By: Steve - February 17, 2016 - 10:00am

And remember this is the party that screamed bloody murder when Democrats blocked judges under Bush, they even made a website called They said it was un-American and unfair to not let judges get an up or down vote, now they are doing the very same thing, and to hell with the up or down vote.

O'Reilly was on the Republicans side at the time, and he did segment after segment promoting the website and slamming Democrats, but now that Republicans are bloking votes for judges under Obama, and saying they will block any Supreme Court nominee, O'Reilly has been silent. Proving once again that he is nothing but a hypocritical right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

DENVER -- Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont criticized Republican officials for recommending that President Obama hold off on nominating a successor for Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, who died Saturday.

Speaking on Saturday at an annual fund-raising dinner hosted by the Colorado Democratic Party, Mr. Sanders said Republicans are overlooking the powers given to the president in the Constitution. He slammed Republicans for trying to block President Obama's ability to nominate a justice for partisan reasons.

"It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of our Constitution of the United States," Sanders said.

"Apparently, they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that." Several Republican candidates said President Obama should let the next president choose the justice or urged the Senate to block the nomination.

"I very much hope that President Obama will bring forth a strong nominee and that we can get that nominee confirmed as soon as possible," Sanders said. "The Supreme Court of the United States has nine members, not eight. We need that ninth member."

Trump Says Bush Lied About Iraq & About Keeping Us Safe
By: Steve - February 16, 2016 - 11:00am

Donald Trump finally told the truth about something, Iraq, which is one of the few things he has been fact-checked on and found to be true. Trump said George W. Bush lies us into Iraq, and when Jeb said he kept us safe when Trump was running a reality show, Trump shot back that was a lie too, and said the Twin Towers in New York came down under his watch, which was not keeping us safe.

For years the Republicans and Jeb have been spewing out this lie that George W. Bush kept us safe, when the truth is this, he did not keep us safe, the 9-11 attacks happened on his watch, a full 8 months after he took office. I just wish Trump would have mentioned the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) that Bush got saying Bin Laden was going to strike in the USA with airplanes, and that Bush ignored it and did nothing.

Bush should have put the airlines on alert and added extra security, but he did nothing, and that is how the terrorists got on the planes and used them as giant flying bombs.

At the latest Republican presidential debate Saturday, Donald Trump, in a heated exchange with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, bluntly accused George W. Bush of lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to fool Americans into supporting the war in Iraq.

"Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?" Trump said when asked about his call for then-President George W. Bush to be impeached. "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none."

Trump added, "George Bush made the mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty."

And for the record, at the time Scott Ritter (the senior weapons inspector in Iraq) was back in America telling everyone that Iraq did not have WMD's. So when O'Reilly and his right-wing friends were saying everyone thought they had WMD's they are lying about that too, because not everyone was saying that.

It is documented that Ritter was saying he had destroyed any WMD's they had, and that he has access to everywhere in the country. Then he was proven right when Bush invaded Iraq and found nothing, Ritter was exactly right, O'Reilly and the Republicans never mention any of this, while lying about it to protect the reputation of George W. Bush.

Trump's attack, at the Peace Center in Greenville, S.C., came two days before George W. Bush was to emerge from years of self-imposed exile from the campaign trail to try to help his brother's failed campaign for the White House.

In the days before the New Hampshire primary, Trump also made fun of former first lady Barbara Bush hitting the road for her son. "Wow, Jeb Bush, whose campaign is a total disaster, had to bring in mommy to take a slap at me. Not nice!" the real estate mogul tweeted.

Given a chance to respond, Jeb declared that he was "sick and tired of Barack Obama blaming my brother for all of the problems that he's had."

As for Trumps attacks, "I could care less about the insults that Donald Trump gives to me. It's bloodsport for him. He enjoys it, and I'm glad he's happy about it," the former governor said.

"But I am sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive, in my mind. While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe, and I'm proud of what he did," Jeb continued.

The former governor denounced Trump for having "the gall to go after my mother" and declared, "My mom is the strongest woman I know." ("She should be running," Trump interjected.)

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida rose to the former president's defense. "I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he kept us safe," Rubio said.

Trump came roaring back. "The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe."

CBS debate moderator John Dickerson enlisted Ohio Gov. John Kasich in the exchange.

"This is just nuts," Kasich said of the back-and-forth. He noted that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had publicly accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction programs -- but then the governor pivoted to say: "We should never have gone into Iraq."

As for Trump's opposition to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq: He came out against it in the summer of 2004.

CIA Tells Trump They Will Resign Before Using Torture Again
By: Steve - February 16, 2016 - 10:00am

So much for Trump bringing waterboarding back, the CIA said they would all resign before using torture again, especially when they say it did not work.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said he would order the CIA to return to waterboarding and "worse", but a top CIA lawyer said officials would rather resign than go back to using torture.

Newsweek reported this:
John Rizzo, who was a top CIA lawyer during the time the agency used "enhanced interrogation techniques," or EITs, on prisoners, said CIA officials would rather resign than obey orders to revert to hard measures like waterboarding and beatings.

"I think certainly many of those who were connected to the EIT program over its six year span (and hundreds are still there) would†resign or retire rather than have to go down that perilous road again," Rizzo tells Newsweek.

"I pity the poor SOB who is President Trump's CIA director and gets the order to do interrogation techniques worse than waterboarding, not to mention the CIA general counsel or Justice Department attorney general who has the legal issue dropped in his or her lap."
Newsweek also quoted other officials who agreed with Rizzo that no one at the CIA wants to go down this road again. The Bush Administration's enhanced interrogation program included "waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation and humiliation."

So when Donald Trump vows to return to "waterboarding or worse," it raises questions about just what kind of torture he is referring to.

Trump has said he would "approve more than that," as he criticized President Obama for ending the discredited tactics.

Trump said this: "Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would -- in a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

Trump does not even care if it works or not, it's about punishing prisoners for him. This makes his reasoning even worse than the Bush administration. At least, they claimed, incorrectly, that it was useful.

"Believe me, it works," Trump said. "And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing. It works."

Trump does not care that the use of torture was found by a Senate Intelligence Committee report to jeopardize national security. The report also found that the use of torture doesn't work in terms of getting reliable information. So it's good for nothing but as a way to recruit more members for ISIS.

Trump is campaigning on putting the people of the United States at higher risk of terrorism. His torture policies (if we can call them that) would actually cause more terrorism.

We all know facts don't matter with the Trump, or his supporters. They don't care that he can not deliver on his ridiculous promises, he doesn't understand how government works and makes promises he will not be able to keep.

It should matter to the rest of the country that the front-running Republican candidate for president is so ignorant of facts that he is vowing to return to a dangerous, destabilizing program of torture just to get his revenge jollies.

It's all Bush/Cheney like tought talk and revenge, except it's being said by someone who makes George W. Bush look like a genius compared to him. Most of what Trump says he will do is not possible, because it will take approval from Congress, and they are against almost all of his policies.

Warren Slams Republicans For Pledging To Block Supreme Court Process
By: Steve - February 15, 2016 - 11:30am

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death on Saturday, Senate Republicans have promised to block any of president Obama's nominations to the Supreme Court.

And that did not sit well with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As Republican leaders and some presidential candidates want President Obama to leave the nomination for Supreme Court justice for a future president, Warren dismissed those calls Sunday, arguing that Obama has the constitutional right to fill the Supreme Court with the help of the Senate.

Warren said this:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that -- empty talk.
Republican leaders like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rebuffed the president's plan, saying the Senate should wait until a new president is in office. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President," he said in a statement.

But eyeing the opportunity to replace conservative Scalia with a more progressive candidate, Democrats are calling for the exact opposite as major cases dealing with immigration, voting, and climate policies are slated to go before a now hung Supreme Court.

"The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) via Twitter. "The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible."

For her part, Warren on Sunday stressed that President Obama has every right to nominate someone. She mocked Republicans for saying they want to uphold the constitution, while refusing to let Obama carry out his Constitutional duties.

O'Reilly Slams Democrats For Uninformed Voters & Soros Money
By: Steve - February 15, 2016 - 11:00am

While ignoring the fact that the Koch brothers spend hundreds of millions giving to Republicans, and the fact that the Trump voters are the least educated voters in the country. About half of the Trump supporters have a high school education or less, which is the least educated people of any candidates supporters.

But O'Reilly never said a word about that, while saying the people who support Sanders are uninformed, when he has no clue how informed they are, and the surveys show that it is the Trump supporters who are the least informed.

O'Reilly has slammed George Soros a million times for simply giving money to liberals he supports. Which is 100% legal and done every day in America by Democrats and Republicans. O'Reilly never slams the Koch brothers, who give millions to conservatives he supports. And the Koch brothers spend way more than Soros, but O'Reilly does not say a word about them because he gives money to Republicans.

O'Reilly said this Friday night:

O'REILLY: "Hillary won that round, but she lost when asked about her Super PAC that is lavishly funded by financiers George Soros. Secretary Clinton completely dodged the issue. If she is going to condemn big PAC money going to Republicans, she can't take cash from Soros and rich Democrat PACs. But her supporters don't care. Devoted followers of a politician pretty much will accept anything from him or her.

It is obvious in this campaign that followers of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, to give two vivid examples, are not expecting precise political analysis. It is the tone those candidates strike that is driving their support. As I told Mr. Trump, the federal courts would block his attempt at mass deportations. On the Sanders front, there is no way his draconian taxation vision could even come close to covering his endless list of entitlements.

But to Bernie's followers, it doesn't really matter. Like a bad gift, it's the thought that counts. Sanders' democratic socialism' is basically what some countries in Western Europe have, a system that limits income through taxation in return for cradle-to-grave payouts from the governments. Even if you're a derelict, you will be supported by the government and in return you will do what the government tells you to do.

When it comes to housing, you can get it supplemented, but you are assigned to units. And you can get daycare, but your kids are assigned to centers. So you can see that democratic socialism where citizens still vote but are mostly told what to do by guys like Bernie Sanders is a system of subservience to a big central government. The majority of those supporting Senator Sanders have no clue what he actually wants, they are hypnotized by the prospect of free stuff because of course they deserve that.

Why? Because the system is rigged by billionaires, so why shouldn't Bernie provide for me and take from the greedy rich folks who made their money by exploiting the peasants? That is right out of the Fidel/Che handbook. Again, Talking Points submits that many of those voting for the Bern-meister have no idea who Che was or who Karl Marx was or even who Fidel is.

Getting ill-informed folks to follow you isn't all that hard. A dose of flamboyance mixed with some passion and more than a smidgen of resentment can rally some people who don't know very much. Sadly, many would forfeit their right to prosper in a major way for the false security of a government controlled economy. But those folks - the Bernie people - remain a distinct minority, as we will see going forward."

Trump Got Majority Of The Less Educated Vote In New Hampshire
By: Steve - February 15, 2016 - 10:00am

Trump Wins 45% of the High School or Less Vote In New Hampshire. According to exit polling data complied by NBC News, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump fared particularly well with the high school graduates or less crowd whereas Governor Kasich (R-OH) did well with the post grads.

In overall terms it broke down: High school graduate or less Trump 45% Cruz 14% Bush 12% Kasich 9%, more than high school graduate: Trump 29% Kasich 17% Rubio 13% Cruz 12% Bush 11%.

A statistic that will be troubling for the national Republican Party is that Trump won 30% of the self-described "moderate" vote, with Kasich, who actually passes for a moderate in today's Republican party (grading on a curve) so close at 27%.

The only people who didn't go for Trump were the self-described white evangelical or white born again Christians -- they love Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), which is setting up a mano e mano situation in the South Carolina primary as the Palmetto state is dominated by evangelicals.

In contrast, Democrat Bernie Sanders got the more than high school graduate vote: Sanders 58% Clinton 41% and the high school graduate or less Sanders 60% Clinton 39%.

Overall, Democrats had 88% with more than high school grad vote and Republicans had 85% with more than a high school grad vote. The takeaway is that Trump has locked up the less educated vote and Kasich does well when the higher educated turn out.

Hot Links

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

O'Reilly Dishonest About Publishers Weekly Not Reviewing Killing Reagan

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

O'Reilly Wrong About The Constitution & Obama's Power

4 Fox Hosts Slam O'Reilly Over His Ebola Reporting

Historians & The Patton Family Rip O'Reilly's New Patton Book

Jon Stewart Slams Fox For Criticizing President While At War

Facts On The Economy Bill O'Reily Is Totally Ignoring

Under Bush O'Reilly & Fox News Did Not Blame Him For Beheadings

Study Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18% of the Time

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored

Jon Stewart Destroys O'Reilly & Fox For Ferguson Shooting Bias

O'Reilly Caught Lying About ISIS Threat & Juan Williams

NY Times Charles Blow Says Bill O'Reilly Is The Race Hustler

Homeland Security Shows Gutfeld & Baker Are Liars

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Cost Of Obamacare

Bill O'Reilly Is Lying To You About Obamacare

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Electic Car Company Success

The Most Annoying Celebs Who Should Go Away

Bias Alert: O'Reilly Spins Presidential Election Media Study

O'Reilly & Fox Still Ignoring GOP Voter Registration Fraud Story

Biased O'Reilly Tells Romney To Call Obama A Socialist

O'Reilly Slams Obama With Dishonest Tip Of The Day

O'Reilly & Brit Hume Spin And Lie For Mitt Romney

Fox Promotes Ridiculous Study Of Doctors & Obamacare

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media & Obama

Low Gas Prices Shut O'Reilly & The Repiblicans Up Fast

I Am Waiting For The O'Reilly Health Care Bill Apology

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About The Media

O'Reilly Ignores MRC Calling For Sharpton Firing

Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Wrong On The Deficit

O'Reilly & Fox Lie That Obama To Blame For High Gas Prices

Scientist Group Slams Celebs Like Snooki & O'Reilly

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About America

O'Reilly & Ingraham Lied About Planned Parenthood (Again)

Fox Unemployment Chart Shows Their Right-Wing Bias

U.S. Troops Burn A Box Of O'Reilly's Books

Kelly & O'Reilly Make Up Another Green Energy Scandal

O'Reilly Ignoring All The Stock Market Increases

O'Reilly Flat Out LIED About The Debt Obama Added

O'Reilly Caught Doctoring Florida Mans E-Mail

O'Reilly Ignored Michele Bachmann Church Scandal

O'Reilly & Morris Lied About The Debt Polls

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On The West/Schultz Story

The Truth About Those Bush Tax Cuts

Number Of Tea Party Events Down 50 Percent

NWLC Says O'Reilly Statement Made Up & Offensive

Video Proof O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Hack

O'Reilly Gets It Totally Wrong On Norway Terrorist

Norway Terrorist Info O'Reilly Ignored

O'Reilly Ignoring Ensign/Coburn Hush Money Scandal

O'Reilly Calls Obama Health Care Waivers A Scam

O'Reilly Complains About Losing In His Own Poll

O'Reilly Ignores Republican Hypocrisy On Judicial Filibusters

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Unpopularity

O'Reilly Tells GOP How To Beat Obama With Scare Tactics

O'Reilly & Fox Are Lying To You About The Debt

O'Reilly Spins The 2008 Presidential Media Study

Important Tax Information Bill O'Reilly Has Ignored

O'Reilly Ignored McCain Op-Ed On Bin Laden

O'Reilly Scrubs Website & Podcast Of False Obama Claims

O'Reilly Ignored DOJ Black Panther Report

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Wisconsin Judge's Order Story

O'Reilly Ignored Jobs & Unemployment Report

Fox News Town Hall Protester Hypocrisy & Double Standards

O'Reilly & Varney Speculate About Oil Prices

O'Reilly Spins The Quinnipiac Temperature Poll

O'Reilly Proves How Stupid He Is Again

How O'Reilly Puts Out Right-Wing Propaganda

Fox News Insider Admits They Make Things Up

Luntz Admits Fox Has Anti-Obama Focus Groups

Reagan SG Says Health Care Bill Constitutional

O'Reilly Ignores Gore Answer To His Question

O'Reilly Wonders How The Moon Got There

More Republican Hate & Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored

Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored

O'Reilly Thinks We Are Still In A Recession

O'Reilly's Nazi Comment Defense Was Laughable

Fox News The Least Trusted Cable News Network

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media (Again)

O'Reilly Claims Estate Tax A Seizure Of Property

O'Reilly Called Bernie Sanders A Loon

Bloomberg Tax Cut Poll Proves O'Reilly Was Lying

O'Reilly Ignored Positive DADT Study & Story

O'Reilly & Fox Ignore Judge Being A 9-11 Truther

More Real News O'Reilly Has Ignored

More Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Ratings

O'Reilly Got The Ireland Economic Crisis Wrong

O'Reilly Ignored The Tom Delay Conviction Story

Women Of America: You Need To Read This

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly Is Dishonest & Crazy

O'Reilly Nazi Comparison Hypocrisy

O'Reilly Ignores New Poll While Promoting Paladino

Andrew Sullivan Called O'Reilly A Dishonest Propagandist

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Nevada RCP Senate Poll

O'Reilly Ignored Right-Wing Abortion Bomber Terrorism Story

Fox & O'Reilly Ignored Friday Pro-Mosque NY Rally

O'Reilly Busted For Health Insurance Premium Lies

Most Factor Gear Made in Vietnam And China

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again

O'Reilly Busted For 1st Time Retraction Lie

The Bill O'Reilly Non-Apology Shirley Sherrod Apology

O'Reilly & The Right Are Racist Idiots

O'Reilly Ignored Tea Party Express Racism Story

O'Reilly Compares Gay People To Al-Qaeda

Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Rating Polls

O'Reilly Ignored Mark Kirk Military Award Lie Story

Where Are The Sedition Charges Now O'Reilly

O'Reilly Caught In A Massive Lie About Jail Time

O'Reilly Running Ads For Emergency Food Supply

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tea Party Militia Links

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Gallup Tea Party Poll

O'Reilly Ignored Harris Poll Showing Republicans Are Stupid

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Health Reform Bill Tax

O'Reilly Caught Lying About NEJM Health Care Survey

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again

The Truth About Ratings For News Shows

Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Spin Doctor

O'Reilly Spinning Fox News Most Trusted Poll

Fox News Did Not Air Hope For Haiti Telethon

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Obama Terrorism Polls

O'Reilly Caught Lying About House Ethics Committee

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Increase

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Limbaugh Racism

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Religious Festival

O'Reilly Caught Red Handed Lying About CNN

O'Reilly Caught Violating Journalistic Standards Again

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The ACLU & Racial Profiling

More Proof O'Reilly & FOX News Do Not Tell The Truth

O'Reilly Called Bruce Springsteen Un-American & Un-Patriotic

The Bill O'Reilly Senate Torture Report Countdown Clock

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Obama Approval Numbers

FOX News Caught Lying About Obama Budget

O'Reilly Busted For Helping GOP Smear Pelosi

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Earmark Promise Report Proves O'Reilly Wrong About Homeless Vets

O'Reilly Places 7th in 2008 Wingnut of The Year Award

O'Reilly Denys Reality About Abstinence Only Programs

Proof The O'Reilly Factor is Biased Against Barack Obama
O'Reilly said he is a non-partisan Independent, who is fair to both sides, and that he has been fair to Barack Obama. To check that claim I did a 3 month study of the Factor, it started on August 1st, 2008, and ran until October 31st, 2008. I watched the Factor every night and counted the negative and positive comments for Obama and McCain.

Visit the web page I set up, and you will see the stunning bias from O'Reilly and his mostly Republican guests against Barack Obama. Then you will see there is no doubt Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased Conservative. This study is conclusive proof that O'Reilly is in the tank for John McCain.

Visit The Web Page Below to See The 3 Month Factor Bias Study:

Proof O'Reilly Lied About The Balance on His Show
O'Reilly claims the factor is balanced, and that he personally makes sure every week he has an equal number of Republican and Democrat guests. This is a bold faced lie, and I can prove it. I put together a web page that shows the guest list from the factor for the last 2 weeks. Read it and you will see with your own eyes that Bill O'Reilly is lying when he says the factor is balanced.

And remember that we are 3 weeks before a major Presidential election, or the Republican bias numbers would be worse than it is normally. O'Reilly is actually having more Democrats on than he usually does, and the balance is still not even close. If we were not so close to an election it would be a lot worse.

Visit The Web Page Below to See The Lies About The Factor Balance:

O'Reilly Sucks Investigation: Dishonesty, Deception, And Bias By Bill O'Reilly
O'Reilly claims there are no Republicans or Conservative groups that rival George Soros. O'Reilly said the top three conservative tax-exempt foundations are totally dwarfed by Soros and the radical Ford Foundation. And that they have 15 times more the assets. George Soros net worth is $8.5 billion, the Ford Foundation has a net worth of $13 billion. But the seven billionaires who donate to Newt Gingrich and other right-wing causes have a combined net worth of $34.8 billion dollars.

Somehow O'Reilly claims that Soros and the Ford Foundation have 15 times more the assets than anyone on the right. When the seven billionaires alone who give money to Newt, have roughly $14 billion more than Soros and the Ford Foundation combined.

Visit the web page below to see the massive money O'Reilly has ignored from the right:

(( Right-Wing Hate Speech Ignored by Bill O'Reilly ))
O'Reilly claims there is no hate on the right, that it's all on the left. But the way he defines hate is ridiculous, if a liberal blog or website writes an article that criticizes George W. Bush (or any Republican) O'Reilly calls it hate. When it's not hate, it's reporting the facts, there is no hate. A great example is when websites like,, etc. criticize O'Reilly he calls it hate, and says they are hate groups who lie about him.

That is a lie, it is not hate, and they are not hate websites. There is real hate on the internet, but O'Reilly does not report it, because most of it is from the right. I have documented this hate in my blog and on a web page, all of it was ignored by Bill O'Reilly, and it was never reported on the Factor.

Visit the web page below to see the massive right-wing hate O'Reilly has ignored: Privacy Policy

Copyright 2001 - 2014