Advertise Contact About This Web Site Webmaster Information



Play Super 6 each week for free with Sky Sports for the chance to win $250,000



Visit www.uspokersite.net for US online poker related information and news.



Get started with the top online bitcoin casino and win real cash playing casino games.



As you already know by now that Oreilly sucks and is the biggest loser. Oreilly facts apart, many people spend their time on computers playing online poker real money games as a hobby playing online poker real money games as a hobby including slots



Review the best Canadian online casinos for real money slots online at SlotsOnlineCanada.com



If you are looking to buy prescription medications from Canada, then buy from a licensed Canadian pharmacy.



RealMoneyAction.com is quickly becoming the #1 source for playing online casino games for real money. Check them out



Get all the news and information you will ever need about sing mobile bingo at this top mobile bingo comparison site, there is no spin here, just great reviews.



The number one place for mobile slots is this site, they offer lots of info and exclusive free spins.



O'Reilly Sucks
Blog Archives

January - 2015
February - 2015
March - 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

January - 2013
February - 2013
March - 2013
April - 2013
May - 2013
June - 2013
July - 2013
August - 2013
September - 2013
October - 2013
November - 2013
December - 2013

January - 2012
February - 2012
March - 2012
April - 2012
May - 2012
June - 2012
July - 2012
August - 2012
September - 2012
October - 2012
November - 2012
December - 2012




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

Mail-to-Bill

Hate-Mail

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

Blogroll

ultimatetop10s.com/
AmericaBlog
Progressive Eruptions
Rude Pundit
Moveon.org
Prison Planet
Apocalypse Cafe
Fox News Boycott
Inebriated Discourse
Hannity Sucks
NewsCorpse.com
Glenn Beck Is An Idiot
Ranker.com
GlennBeckReport.com
lauraingrahamsucks.com

The Factor Guest List Count

March 2015 (3 Shows) Republicans - 23 | Democrats - 5

The Factor Guest List Count Archives

Ratings: The O'Reilly Factor - Total Viewers

Monday - 3-2-15 -- O'Reilly - 3.243
Tuesday - 3-3-15 -- O'Reilly - 3.381
Wednesday - 3-4-15 -- O'Reilly -
Thursday - 3-5-15 -- O'Reilly -
Friday - 3-6-15 -- O'Reilly -

Weekly Factor Average -

The Cable News Ratings Archives

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 Oreilly-sucks.com, who runs a Begado Fan Blog. The conservative approach is to stick to legitimate gaming certifications and brands like Begado, says Zachary Gleason.


The O'Reilly Sucks Blog

Where Is O'Reilly On The Ferguson DOJ Racism Report
By: Steve - March 5, 2015 - 4:50pm

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.

Hot Links

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

4 Fox Hosts Slam O'Reilly Over His Ebola Reporting

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

Jon Stewart Slams Fox For Criticizing President While At War

Facts On The Economy Bill O'Reily Is Totally Ignoring

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

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

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About ISIS Threat & Juan Williams

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

Homeland Security Shows Gutfeld & Baker Are Liars

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Cost Of Obamacare





Bill O'Reilly Is Lying To You About Obamacare

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Electic Car Company Success

The Most Annoying Celebs Who Should Go Away

Bias Alert: O'Reilly Spins Presidential Election Media Study

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

Biased O'Reilly Tells Romney To Call Obama A Socialist

O'Reilly Slams Obama With Dishonest Tip Of The Day

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

Fox Promotes Ridiculous Study Of Doctors & Obamacare

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media & Obama

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

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

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About The Media

O'Reilly Ignores MRC Calling For Sharpton Firing

Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Wrong On The Deficit

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

Scientist Group Slams Celebs Like Snooki & O'Reilly

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About America

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

Fox Unemployment Chart Shows Their Right-Wing Bias

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

Kelly & O'Reilly Make Up Another Green Energy Scandal

O'Reilly Ignoring All The Stock Market Increases

O'Reilly Flat Out LIED About The Debt Obama Added

O'Reilly Caught Doctoring Florida Mans E-Mail

O'Reilly Ignored Michele Bachmann Church Scandal

O'Reilly & Morris Lied About The Debt Polls

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On The West/Schultz Story

The Truth About Those Bush Tax Cuts

Number Of Tea Party Events Down 50 Percent

NWLC Says O'Reilly Statement Made Up & Offensive

Video Proof O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Hack

O'Reilly Gets It Totally Wrong On Norway Terrorist

Norway Terrorist Info O'Reilly Ignored

O'Reilly Ignoring Ensign/Coburn Hush Money Scandal

O'Reilly Calls Obama Health Care Waivers A Scam

O'Reilly Complains About Losing In His Own Poll

O'Reilly Ignores Republican Hypocrisy On Judicial Filibusters

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Unpopularity

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

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

O'Reilly Spins The 2008 Presidential Media Study

Important Tax Information Bill O'Reilly Has Ignored

O'Reilly Ignored McCain Op-Ed On Bin Laden

O'Reilly Scrubs Website & Podcast Of False Obama Claims

O'Reilly Ignored DOJ Black Panther Report

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Wisconsin Judge's Order Story

O'Reilly Ignored Jobs & Unemployment Report

Fox News Town Hall Protester Hypocrisy & Double Standards

O'Reilly & Varney Speculate About Oil Prices

O'Reilly Spins The Quinnipiac Temperature Poll

O'Reilly Proves How Stupid He Is Again

How O'Reilly Puts Out Right-Wing Propaganda

Fox News Insider Admits They Make Things Up

Luntz Admits Fox Has Anti-Obama Focus Groups

Reagan SG Says Health Care Bill Constitutional

O'Reilly Ignores Gore Answer To His Question

O'Reilly Wonders How The Moon Got There

More Republican Hate & Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored

Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored

O'Reilly Thinks We Are Still In A Recession

O'Reilly's Nazi Comment Defense Was Laughable

Fox News The Least Trusted Cable News Network

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media (Again)

O'Reilly Claims Estate Tax A Seizure Of Property

O'Reilly Called Bernie Sanders A Loon

Bloomberg Tax Cut Poll Proves O'Reilly Was Lying

O'Reilly Ignored Positive DADT Study & Story

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

More Real News O'Reilly Has Ignored

More Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Ratings

O'Reilly Got The Ireland Economic Crisis Wrong

O'Reilly Ignored The Tom Delay Conviction Story

Women Of America: You Need To Read This

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly Is Dishonest & Crazy

O'Reilly Nazi Comparison Hypocrisy

O'Reilly Ignores New Poll While Promoting Paladino

Andrew Sullivan Called O'Reilly A Dishonest Propagandist

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Nevada RCP Senate Poll

O'Reilly Ignored Right-Wing Abortion Bomber Terrorism Story

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

O'Reilly Busted For Health Insurance Premium Lies

Most Factor Gear Made in Vietnam And China

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again

O'Reilly Busted For 1st Time Retraction Lie

The Bill O'Reilly Non-Apology Shirley Sherrod Apology

O'Reilly & The Right Are Racist Idiots

O'Reilly Ignored Tea Party Express Racism Story

O'Reilly Compares Gay People To Al-Qaeda

Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Rating Polls

O'Reilly Ignored Mark Kirk Military Award Lie Story

Where Are The Sedition Charges Now O'Reilly

O'Reilly Caught In A Massive Lie About Jail Time

O'Reilly Running Ads For Emergency Food Supply

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tea Party Militia Links

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Gallup Tea Party Poll

O'Reilly Ignored Harris Poll Showing Republicans Are Stupid

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Health Reform Bill Tax

O'Reilly Caught Lying About NEJM Health Care Survey

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again

The Truth About Ratings For News Shows

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

O'Reilly Spinning Fox News Most Trusted Poll

Fox News Did Not Air Hope For Haiti Telethon

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Obama Terrorism Polls

O'Reilly Caught Lying About House Ethics Committee

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Increase

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Limbaugh Racism

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Religious Festival

O'Reilly Caught Red Handed Lying About CNN

O'Reilly Caught Violating Journalistic Standards Again

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The ACLU & Racial Profiling

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

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

The Bill O'Reilly Senate Torture Report Countdown Clock

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Obama Approval Numbers

FOX News Caught Lying About Obama Budget

O'Reilly Busted For Helping GOP Smear Pelosi

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Earmark Promise

Military.com Report Proves O'Reilly Wrong About Homeless Vets

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

O'Reilly Denys Reality About Abstinence Only Programs




Proof The O'Reilly Factor is Biased Against Barack Obama
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:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/3mbiasnumbers.htm

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:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillybalanced.htm

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:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreilly-investigation.htm

(( 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 oreilly-sucks.com, mediamatters.org, 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:

www.oreilly-sucks.com/right-wing-hate.htm


www.oreilly-sucks.com Privacy Policy

Copyright 2001 - 2014


eXTReMe Tracker