O'Reilly Slams Obama With Dishonest Tip Of The Day
By: Steve - August 30, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is a great example of how O'Reilly slams Obama by using his lame tip of the day, he is now using the tip of the day for partisan political cheap shots from biased Obama hating writers who spin out un-checked lies.

O'Reilly said this on Monday:
O'REILLY: Monday's Tip: If you want a surprising take on President Obama from a Harvard history professor, Niall Ferguson's article in Newsweek is well-documented and illuminating
And it's all partisan lies, notice how O'Reilly adds the part about him being a Harvard Professor, as if that shows he is a valid and non-partisan writer, when in fact Ferguson is a partisan Obama hater who has nothing good to say about Obama, ever. But O'Reilly does not disclose that, he let's you think he is an objective writer.

Here is what O'Reilly did not tell you. At the Huffington Post Paul Krugman Bashed Niall Ferguson's Newsweek Cover Story As 'Unethical'

Another noted economist, Brad DeLong, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, blasted Ferguson for his cover story, this time going further than Krugman by calling for Ferguson to get fired.

Dylan Byers, a media reporter at Politico said this: Newsweek did not fact-check Ferguson's cover story. Byers wrote on Twitter that a Newsweek spokesman said the magazine does not have a fact-checking department, and that "we, like other news organisations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material."

Matt O'Brien, associate business editor at The Atlantic, wrote a stinging blog post fact-checking Ferguson's cover story, writing that "we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history."

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He wrote this:

As a Harvard Alum, I Apologize

Yes, I know, you could imagine many sentences that would follow that headline. But here is what I have in mind right now: A tenured professor of history at my undergraduate alma mater has written a cover story for Newsweek that is so careless and unconvincing that I wonder how he will presume to sit in judgment of the next set of student papers he has to grade.

O'Reilly never mentioned any of this, not a word. What he did was imply Ferguson is an honest non-partisan Harvard Professor who wrote an un-biased truthful article about President Obama. When that is in fact a lie, and O'Reilly knows it. Here are some of the things Ferguson got wrong.

Matthew O'Brien is an associate editor at The Atlantic covering business and economics. He wrote this:

A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama

A counterfactual history of the past four years.

Celebrity historian Niall Ferguson doesn't like President Obama, and doesn't think you should either.

That's perfectly fine. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of the president.

But rather than make this straightforward case against the current administration, Ferguson delves into a fantasy world of incorrect and tendentious facts. He simply gets things wrong, again and again and again.

Here is a few of the more factually challenged sections of Ferguson's piece.

FERGUSON: "Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak." Did you catch that little switcheroo? Ferguson concedes that stocks have done very well since January 2009, but then says that private sector payrolls have not since January 2008. Notice now?

Ferguson blames Obama for job losses that happened a full year before he took office. The private sector has actually added jobs since Obama was sworn in -- 427,000 of them, to be exact. For context, remember that the private sector lost 170,000 jobs during George W. Bush's eight years.

Of course, it's not really fair to blame Obama -- or Bush -- for jobs lost in their first few months before their policies took effect. If we more sensibly look at private sector payrolls after their first six months in office, then Obama has created 3.1 million jobs and Bush created 967,000 jobs.

FERGUSON: "Welcome to Obama's America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return--almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50-50 nation--half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits."

It is true that 46 percent of households did not pay federal income tax in 2011. It is not true that they pay no taxes. Federal income taxes account barely account for half of federal taxes, and much less of total taxes, if you count the state and local level. Many of those other taxes can be regressive. If you take all taxes into account, our system is barely progressive at all.

But why do almost half of all households pay no federal income tax? Because they don't have much money to tax. Here's the breakdown. Half of these households are simply too poor -- they make under $20,000 -- to have any liability. Another quarter are retirees on tax-exempt Social Security benefits. The remaining households have no liability because of tax expenditures like the earned-income tax credit or the child credit.

In other words, the poor, the old, and children. Not exactly the "50-50 nation" of makers and takers -- or "lucky duckies" -- that Ferguson imagines.

FERGUSON: "The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012-22 period."

Maybe Ferguson doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deficit"? The only other explanation is that he is deliberately misleading his readers. The CBO is quite clear about Obamacare's budgetary implications. It reduces the deficit.

And btw, that's not all, there were about 7 more factual errors I did not list here, and then O'Brien closed with this.

"In the world as Ferguson describes it, Obama is a big-spending, weak-kneed liberal who can't get the economy turned around. Think Jimmy Carter on steroids. But the world is not as Ferguson describes it. A fact-checked version of the world Ferguson describes reveals a completely different narrative -- a muddy picture of the past four years, where Obama has sometimes cast himself as a stimulator, a deficit hawk, a health care liberal and conservative reformer all at once. And it's a world where the economy is getting better, albeit slowly.

It would have been worthwhile for Ferguson to explain why Obama doesn't deserve re-election in the real world we actually live in. Instead, we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history."

And O'Reilly, who hates Newsweek (calling them a biased liberal rag that you should not read) suddenly loves them when a far-right spin doctor writes a garbage attack piece about President Obama.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: