|Advertise||Contact||About This Web Site||Donate To oreilly-sucks.com|
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 including slots
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
Some of the most comprehensive mobile bingo reviews can be found here. Definitely no spin just honest reliable site reviews.
The number one place for mobile slots is this site, they offer lots of info and exclusive free spins.
January - 2016
February - 2016
March - 2016
April - 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
The O'Reilly Iraq Apology Countdown Clock
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
Fox News Boycott
Glenn Beck Is An Idiot
The Factor Guest List Count Archives
Monday - 4-25-16 -- O'Reilly - 2.733
Tuesday - 4-26-16 -- O'Reilly - Election Coverage
Wednesday - 4-27-16 -- O'Reilly - 3.179
Thursday - 4-28-16 -- O'Reilly -
Friday - 4-29-16 -- O'Reilly -
Weekly Factor Average - - 4 Shows
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 11:00am
In an April 28 piece for Vox, editor-in-chief Ezra Klein noted that former Republican House Speaker John Boehner recently validated the critique that the Republican Party is no longer a healthy political party devoted to governing.
During a speech at Stanford University, Boehner harshly criticized Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz as "Lucifer in the flesh," called the conservative House Freedom Caucus "knuckleheads" and "goofballs," and said Ronald Reagan "would be the most moderate Republican elected today."
Klein wrote that "Boehner is validating one of the most persistent and controversial critiques of the modern Republican Party" -- that they are the central problem in politics today.
Zoom out, and here is the condition of the modern Republican Party. Despite significant down-ballot strength, it has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and it looks likely to lose this one, too.
The party has completely lost control of its own nominating process, and its choice now is to either elect Donald Trump, a candidate who isn't really a Republican and might be a historic disaster for the party, or risk a schism by trying to rip the nomination away from Trump amidst a contested convention.
Meanwhile, John Boehner, the most powerful Republican elected official from 2008 to 2015, resigned in frustration last year and is now saying his party has been captured by idiots and zealots.
Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have repeatedly warned the media and political observers that the core of Washington's dysfunction "lies with the Republican Party."
Mann and Ornstein issued their warning years ago, but many have been slow to adopt their conclusions.
Bill O'Reilly Defends Trump's Sexist Attacks On Hillary Clinton
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 10:00am
Once again O'Reilly defends Trump, as he says he is not biased for Trump, when is just laughable. Trump is a racist and a sexist, but O'Reilly says the attacks on him for being a racist and a sexist are out of control.
When it is Trump who is out of control, but O'Reilly defends it and attacks the people who call Trump out for being a racist and a sexist, it's insanity, and 100% proof O'Reilly is in the tank for Trump.
Here is a partial transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): The other thing is the women's issue. The sexism thing, don't you think this is out of control a little bit, along with the racism thing?
DANA PERINO: Well, the racism thing yes, I agree. The feminism thing, yes I agree. However, the other night, when Donald Trump said that about her only getting 5 percent of the vote --
O'REILLY: If she were a guy.
PERINO: if she were a man, I -- that struck me. I don't say I was offended, but I thought that's going to be a headline.
O'REILLY: Well, it was an extreme statement but that's what Mr. Trump does.
PERINO: It's because some women will hear that and say, you know, they've probably heard that, like "She only became the White House Press Secretary because she was a woman." And there are -- people say those kind of things, I know that's not true. But that's what people hear.
O'REILLY: OK, so you feel that putting her in a classification that she doesn't have any other accomplishments, which she does --
PERINO: She does.
O'REILLY: -- Was a bit sexist? But I think he --
PERINO: It is, however --
O'REILLY: He would have said that about anybody, any competitor.
Millennials Are Flocking To Democrats Because They Hate Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 29, 2016 - 9:00am
The Harvard IOP Spring Poll found that millennial support for Democrats keeping the White House has doubled as Donald Trump is despised by younger voters.
Young Americans prefer that a Democrat win the White House over a Republican in the 2016 presidential race. More than three in five (61%) prefer that a Democrat win the White House, while 33% prefer a Republican. The divide of 28 points is nearly double what it was in Spring 2015, when the divide was 15 percentage points (55% Democrat; 40% Republican).
Among young white voters, Democrats now have a 2-percentage point advantage (-12: Spring 2015), among African American voters, that advantage grows to 78 percentage points (79: Spring 2015) and among Hispanics, the advantage is 55 points (41: Spring 2015).
Among Likely Voters, Clinton Leads Trump by 36 Points; Trump Underperforming Among Young Republicans. Among likely voters, Clinton maintains the same 61% that a "generic Democrat" receives, while Donald Trump receives 25%, 8 percentage points lower than the current "generic Republican" White House preference.
Among young Democrats, Clinton leads Trump by 78 points (83%: Clinton; 5%: Trump), but among Republicans, Trump leads by only 44 points (57%: Trump; 13%: Clinton). Among Independents, Clinton has a 23-point lead (43%: Clinton; 20%: Trump), with 36% undecided. Clinton leads significantly with both men and women.
Among men, it’s 47% for Clinton, 29% supporting Trump; and the lead expands among women, with 57% for Clinton and 15% for Trump. Clinton has a narrow 6-point lead among 18- to 29-year-old whites (38%: Clinton; 32%: Trump), but polls into the 70s with both the black and Hispanic communities.
Among African Americans, Clinton leads Trump 76% to 5%, and among Hispanics, she has a similar-sized lead at 71% to Trump’s 9%.
Bernie Sanders is the only one of the five presidential candidates with a positive net approval rating among millennials (+23), but Donald Trump is putting up some negative numbers with younger voters that are astounding. Overall, Trump has a net negative approval rating of (-57), and a net negative rating among millennial Republicans of (-20).
The numbers suggest that millennials can't stand Trump. Donald Trump is the presidential candidate embodiment of Fox News. It is striking, but not a coincidence that Trump pushes millennials away to the same degree that younger people tend to avoid the top-rated cable news network.
The Donald Trump campaign is all of the talking points and tactics that Fox uses to scares to the grandparents of millennials implemented in a presidential campaign. Donald Trump's views represent the kind of intolerance and bigotry that millennials across the political spectrum oppose.
There has been a great deal of media chatter about Hillary Clinton's struggles with younger voters in the Democratic primary, but if Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz, it won't matter.
Millennials aren't stupid. They are going to vote for the candidate who best represents their positions, and that candidate is not Donald Trump.
Tom Nichols: Trump Foreign Policy Speech Is Gobbledygook
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 11:00am
Notice that Bill O'Reilly did not have Professor Nichols on to talk about the Trump foreign policy speech, because he would tell the truth and destroy Trump. O'Reilly does not want that to happen because he does not want you to know the truth about his friend Donald Trump. So he had two Trump supporters on to discuss it Wednesday night, with nobody to provide any balance.
Tom Nichols is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. So he is an actual expert on foreign policy, which is why O'Reilly did not have him on the show, here is what he wrote about the Trump speech.
So, we now know what Donald Trump thinks about foreign policy.
Actually, we don't. Once again, a Trump speech about policy turned out to be just another word salad of rehashed campaign slogans. And once again, all we learned is that Trump has no idea what he's talking about, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Trump's speech, highly anticipated and no doubt crafted by his advisers in an attempt to make him look sensible, was probably as uncomfortable for him to give as it was for us to watch. Like a child who's been told he has to give a book report on a subject way over his head, Trump dutifully read a script, slogging through concepts he does not grasp and stumbling over words he cannot pronounce.
He touched on many subjects, all of them wrapped in the ignorance and magical thinking that characterizes every Trump speech. America's nuclear forces? He'll modernize them. Why? Who knows. This is the man who couldn't explain the nuclear triad, but that didn't stop him from throwing a trillion-dollar program into a speech.
Foreign competition? He'll punish companies that leave. How? There will be unspecified consequences - of some sort.
Our allies? We'll repair our relationships with them by telling them they must pony up more for their safety, like shopkeepers paying protection money.
Our rivals in the world? They'll respect us again. We know this because Trump very clearly offered this detailed solution: "This will change when I am President."
What about Russia, our chief rival? Trump's on it:
"If we can't make a deal under my administration, a deal that's great - not good, great - for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It's as simple as that."
Well, what a relief. (A deal? Over what? Don't ask. Only elitist intellectuals ask questions like that.) But whatever it is, if it's not great, we'll walk. Our allies in Europe, of course, can't walk away, but losing NATO to show we're tough, the toughest, about deals is part of the price to be paid when we're Making American Great Again.
How about the Middle East? Trump swore that peace is the first priority, Israel is our friend, and he won't do whatever Obama did. He even said that the sign of a superpower is restraint, which is exactly the kind of thing Obama says on a regular basis.
Of course, Trump has already promised to "bomb the s--t" out of ISIS, and to kill the wives and children of terrorists. But fear not, because as Trump assured everyone yesterday, he is staunchly opposed to unnecessary foreign entanglements, and was completely against the Iraq War.
Except he is on record, repeatedly, supporting the Iraq War, as well as the Obama intervention in Libya.
North Korea? Trump will make China take care of it, or he'll start a trade war, assuming he hasn't already started one over everything else.
And our military? It'll be stronger than ever, but it'll cost less. And Trump will use it less, except when he's using it at will to commit war crimes.
Trump also promised to bring in new people whose resumes might not be perfect but who are not stained by the foreign policy failures of the past. This part of Trump's speech, of course, explains much of his support among a certain class of pundits and third-string, would-be policy analysts: They think they're going to Washington with Trump.
Perhaps Trump intends to bring in fresh faces like advisor Paul Manafort, a guy who's been around Washington for 40 years and was previously an adviser to Ukraine's deposed president, Viktor Yanukovich. What a breath of fresh air that would be in the fetid swamps of the District.
There were many more inconsistencies in Trump's speech, but there's no point in highlighting them. This wasn't really a speech about foreign policy. It was a campaign event, meant to reassure Trump's emotionally-driven, low-information voters that he gave a foreign policy speech.
And so he did. Some Republicans, facing Trump's mounting primary victories, have even embarrassed themselves by praising it already. And of course, it was more than enough for Trump's loyalists, as anything Trump does or says, no matter how stupid or incoherent, always is.
But it is not enough to reassure any thinking American. We deserve better. In this election, unfortunately, we are unlikely to get it.
O'Reilly Admits His Plan To Help Poor Students Is Racist
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 10:00am
And btw, the economy is rigged for the corporations and the wealthy, and everyone knows it, no matter how many times O'Reilly and Krauthammer deny it. The main thing is a college education, if you can not afford it you do not get one, so it is not a level playing field.
The wealthy can afford to send their kids to college, most of the middle class and the poor can not, that is a rigged economy. And the most rigged part is the money in politics, that corporations, the wealthy, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups use to legally bribe Congressman and Senators to pass laws that benefit them.
The whole system is rigged for the wealthy, the corporations, and the people at the top. And that is a fact, no matter what O'Reilly and Krauthammer say about it. And it's getting worse, because the Congress will not stop the corporations and the wealthy from moving all the money and jobs to offshore tax havens, Ford is even doing it, they are moving 2,500 jobs to Mexico, which is why I will never buy another Ford product for the rest of my life.
And btw, O'Reilly had two old rich Republican white guys (that work for Fox) on to debate it, with no Democrats, no liberals, no actual economists, and no Independent experts, just O'Reilly and Krauthammer. That alone tells you how biased they are about it, and how they spin it, because they did not have anyone on to provide the balance in the debate.
One last thing, BILL O'REILLY WAS NOT POOR AS A CHILD. His Father was upper middle class making $80,000 a year in the 80's as an oil company accountant, that is not poor, it was in the top 5% of income earners at the time. His Father even paid for Bill and his sister to go to private schools, they were not poor, they were just not as wealthy as the super-rich kids they went to school with.
O'Reilly lies about this all the time, he was not poor. The other kids mostly had parents who were multi-millionaires so O'Reilly thinks he was poor, when he was not, his Father just had far less money than most of the other parents. That is not being poor, and an oil company account was not a working class citizen, like a dock worker, a factory worker, or a garbage man, it's a cushy high paying job pushing papers around in a building with central air.
Here is what the corporate stooges O'Reilly and Krauthammer said about it, O'Reilly is totally lying, and Krauthammer is partially admitting the truth.
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So let's deal with the economy first, do you think it's rigged?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: No, because I think the word rigged implies some kind of conscious will on the part of those who control the economy to put down the poor. I do think, however, that a large percentage of what determines if you're poor or not, is a matter of the lottery, the human lottery. Who your parents are, where you're born to, at a simple level if you are born in the United States, that is six out of a hundred humans, you won the lottery.
You have a better chance than if you were born in the Congo. If you were born to people, to a single mother out of wedlock, without a man in the family, with poor educational system around you, you are -- that's the lottery, and you have lost it. It's very hard. So to some extent, it's true that your life chances are not entirely in your hand. I think they are largely out of your hands. Nonetheless, there are things that you can do, politically, by changing society, Changing the culture is extremely hard, -- nobody has a good answer for that.
O'REILLY: But here's my -- I do, I have a good answer for it.
KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, you do? Let's hear it.
O'REILLY: OK, here's the answer. I think you're right about the lottery of life and determining economic success in most cases, but not all. I'm an example, I mean, I was born to responsible parents. We didn't have any money, and you know, there was a pathway that I was shown. That is the key. So, my theory is that public schooling has to lay out a pathway to little children.
I mean, 5, 6, 7 years old. And say look, here is where you are in life, alright? This is what you have to overcome, and this is how you do it. And that has to be drummed, inculcated, boom, boom, boom, that's got to be a course, along with math and spelling. and English. That's got to be a course, you see what I'm talking about? That --
KRAUTHAMMER: No, I don't. And I'll tell you why.
O'REILLY: If you did it, you'd be called a racist, but I think it's got to be a course.
KRAUTHAMMER: It's not a course, it's not something you teach. It's something that you get by the lottery of life. I didn't say that the lottery means you have to be -- you have to have rich folks if you want to do well in life. What I said is you have to have the human capital. Two parents, married, who inculcate the values you're talking about --
O'REILLY: But you can overcome that, the society can help the kids who don't, to overcome it --
KRAUTHAMMER: With a course?
KRAUTHAMMER: Come on, are you kidding me?
O'REILLY: I did it, I did it when I was teaching high school. I taught high school, in a -- you know, they weren't poor, but they were working class. And I basically would come in, I would say okay, here is two houses, alright? Here is the nice house, and here is the shack, where do you want to live? OK?
And of course, they would say haha, and I said well here is what you need to do to get it. And you have to do a, and b, and c, and D, and this is what you have to do, alright? And this is not taught in school, it's not taught anywhere. It's -- they come in, and the society is already making them victims. Oh, you can't succeed. Oh, look at your circumstance, oh, you have to be treated differently. What is it, The soft expectation of bigotry? That is what is in play. We can't change that.
KRAUTHAMMER: Why aren't you still teaching it?
O'REILLY: Because I have a greater mission to teach people like you about how society can come back, and help these people who don't -- you know, who fall into the poverty precincts. You can help them, but you have to be honest with them.
Experts Slam Trump's Fact-Free Foreign Policy Speech
By: Steve - April 28, 2016 - 9:00am
And of course O'Reilly loved it and defended it. He also did an unfair and biased segment about it Wednesday night, with two people who liked the speech, while having nobody on who did not like it to provide the balance. It was basically three Trump supporters all saying they liked the speech. That is not fair or balanced, which is what O'Reilly claims to do.
Foreign policy experts and media fact-checkers highlighted the numerous false claims and contradictions in Donald Trump's April 27 foreign policy speech, noting that his speech was "fact free" and "incoherent."
Trump Claims His Foreign Policy Will Put "America First." On April 27, Trump gave a speech on his vision for foreign policy, criticizing President Obama and Hillary Clinton for what he described as "missteps that have disillusioned the nation's allies and emboldened its rivals."
Politifact Gives Trump Two "False" Ratings For Statements He Made During Speech. On April 27, Politifact discredited Trump's claims that he warned war in Iraq would "destabilize the Middle East" and that ISIS is "making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil."
Foreign Policy's David Rothkopf: On the April 27 edition of CNN's CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, Foreign Policy CEO and editor David Rothkopf derided Trump's foreign policy speech as incoherent and fact-free, and pointed out Trump's factual errors in his foreign policy proposals.
NY Times Reporter On China: Trump Falsely Claimed Obama Has "Allowed China To Continue Its Economic Assault" On The United States. The New York Times Michael Forsythe noted that Trump's criticism of the Obama administration's foreign policy toward China ignored the fact that the "administration has launched a volley of punitive trade actions against imports from China since 2009, including on tires, and, last month, on certain types of steel."
NY Times Moscow Bureau Chief: Trump's Plans To Cooperate With Russia Are "Easier Said Than Done." Neil MacFarquhar explained that Trump's call to have Russia and the United States "cooperate in fighting terrorism globally" ignored that "the Obama administration has been trying to figure out for months whether the Kremlin sincerely wants to fix the problem in Syria, or is merely trying to shore up its main Middle Eastern ally" and that question of whether to cooperate with the country remains ambiguous.
Politico's Michael Crowley reported that "even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn" from the very audience it aimed to persuade.
The Guardian reporter Dan Roberts pointed out 10 contradictions in Trump's foreign policy speech, including criticisms of Obama's humiliations on the world stage and Trump's tension between its isolationism and its interventionism.
O'Reilly Promoted Racist Myths About Incarceration Rates For Drugs
By: Steve - April 27, 2016 - 10:00am
During a segment on drug incarceration, Fox News Eric Bolling suggested the higher incarceration rates for African Americans are not about race, but instead because "blacks committed more of the same crimes."
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): I feel very strongly that if my children were addicted to heroin and I knew who was selling them the heroin, I would not consider it a nonviolent action. How about you?Notice that both O'Reilly and Bolling agree that drug dealing is a violent crime, even though that is just their opinion and almost everyone else says it is not a violent crime, and they are not put in jail under the violent crime laws. They both just basically say it is, as if it is a fact, when it is just the opinion of two right-wingers that work for Fox News.
Notice that they both also want everyone locked up for non-violent drug crimes, but they do not want pay higher taxes to cover the cost of housing them in prison. We already lead the world in the percentage of people in prison for every 100,000 citizens, and spend billions housing them in prisons.
And they want more of them locked up, when it does no good at all, and the drug war has been a total failure. No matter how many drug dealers you lock up it will never ever stop drug use, it just will not happen.
As long as there is a demand for drugs, someone will sell it to them. You lock up a drug dealer, and two more replace him. In fact, friends my age that still do drugs today, tell me drugs are easier to get now than they were 20 years ago, and they are better, they even laugh at you when you ask them about the drug war, they literally laugh in your face at the words drug war.
This Is How Bill O'Reilly Covers For Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 27, 2016 - 9:00am
I publish examples of O'Reilly covering for his friend Donald Trump all the time here, but there are other people who see it the same way, Erik Wemple from the Washington Post also wrote about O'Reilly covering for Trump, here is what he wrote:
Once again defying the warnings of this blog that he has no credibility to critique the media, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly addressed the over-addressed topic of Donald Trump's treatment by the media.
"Scorn" is the animating response from many folks in the national press, argued O'Reilly.
Next came a very O'Reilly-esque attempt to account for just why the media may have accorded the real-estate mogul some skeptical coverage. One of the reasons, he said, was that Trump has "mobilized support by mentioning ethnic groups like Mexicans and Muslims in negative ways."
At this point, O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" should be renamed the "Euphemism Prism": "Negative ways," really? Checking the record, Trump last June said that Mexico was "sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
On the Muslims front, he advocates a temporary halt to their entry into the United States. Would that Trump's comments about these groups were merely negative. Instead, they're bigoted spasms of stereotyping that commentators like O'Reilly shouldn't even attempt to abridge in their commentary; they should just repeat them.
Somehow "negative" doesn't capture Trump's bigotry as effectively as the "rapists" line. Of course, the media propagates a lot of euphemistic short-handing of Trump's comments. How many times have we seen media outlets characterize them as "controversial," for starters?
As if O'Reilly's "negative" characterization weren't enough to prop up a vanilla-milkshake-sipping buddy who's vying for the Republican nomination, O'Reilly did more.
Namely, he essentially co-opted a strain of Trump's own defense: "The root cause of the media's disdain for Donald Trump," said O'Reilly, "is not his policy or behavior on the campaign trial. It's him, who he is: A wealthy man who's not politically correct who has made an enormous amount of money by selling himself in high-profile ways."
From where did O'Reilly get this insight about Trump not being politically correct? Oh, from Trump, Trump and Trump.
"In the end, Donald Trump will not -- will not -- get a fair shake from the press," said O'Reilly, adding as a coda that the candidate needs to "prepare himself for the onslaught."
No need to worry too much about that, Mr. Trump: The King of Cable News has you covered.
Crazy Republicans Of The Week
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 11:30am
The Media Covers The Economy Without Economists
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 11:00am
Here is proof the cable news media is dishonest, they report on the economy, but they have almost no economists on to discuss it. They give you their spin on it, with political hacks and biased stooges, instead of giving you the facts from actual economic experts.
Economists Accounted For Just 1 Percent Of Cable News Guests.
Of the 245 guests who appeared during prime-time cable news discussions of economic news and policy, just 3 -- or roughly 1 percent -- were economists. The number is by far the lowest on record, and it represents a consequential drop from the second half of last year, when economists appeared 22 times and accounted for 6.4 percent of guests.
Former Obama Adviser Austan Goolsbee Was The Only Economist Featured During Discussions Of The Economy. Yes, he was the only one.
The only economist to appear during a qualifying economic news segment in the first quarter of 2016 was Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Goolsbee appeared twice on Fox News and once on MSNBC.
Political Guests Accounted For Nearly Six In 10 Weekday Guests.
The proportional representation of political guests reached an all-time high in the first quarter of the year, as outlets played host to elected and former politicians, political appointees, strategists, and the remaining Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and their surrogates.
Economists Were Completely Ignored On The Sunday Shows.
The five major Sunday political talk shows performed even worse than their weekday counterparts in terms of presenting economic expertise from actual economists. Of the 80 total guests who appeared during qualifying segments on the economy in the first quarter of 2016, zero were economists, none.
Political Guests Accounted For Nearly Eight In 10 Sunday Guests.
Of the 80 guests who appeared during Sunday show discussions of economic news and policy, nearly 80 percent were political guests. Policy debates between the Democratic and Republican parties, and among the candidates themselves, provided the bulk of the content of these segments. The five Democratic and Republican presidential candidates still in the race at the end of March accounted for 48 of those appearances, led by Sanders, who accumulated 20 Sunday appearances.
Crazy O'Reilly Tells Donald Trump Who His Vice President Should Be
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 10:00am
This shows how stupid O'Reilly is, and by stupid I do not mean he is stupid, I mean his ideas are stupid, he is what I call an educated idiot. Bill O'Reilly is a smart man, but he has a lot of stupid and idiotic ideas because his bias gets in the way of clear thinking.
O'Reilly told Trump who his Vice President should be, even though she does not want the job. And of course it was a woman, a hispanic woman, and a conservative woman. In O'Reilly's biased mind he thinks that if Trump picks a conservative latino woman it will fix everything, and Trump will suddenly get the latino vote and the womens vote.
It's insane, and O'Reilly is an idiot. Besides that, she does not want the job. And This also shows how stupid O'Reilly thinks voters are, he actually thinks that if Trump picks a latino woman he will get the latino and women vote, it's crazy.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, latinos and women are not going to forgive and forget for Trumps insults, racism, and hate against them just because he puts a latino woman on the ticket, you simpleton. It's a stupid idea that will never work, and even Dana Perino thinks it is a bad idea.
Even with an endorsement from Bill O'Reilly, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is not interested in a vice presidential bid.
Michael Lonergan, the governor's press secretary, said Martinez has no intention to enter the national campaign as a presidential running mate. Martinez, the nation's first Hispanic female governor, had endorsed Marco Rubio as the Republican nominee for president but has not endorsed another candidate after the Florida senator got out of the race.
"As the Governor has said repeatedly, she isn't interested in serving as Vice President. She appreciates that such attention puts New Mexico in the spotlight, but she is fully committed to serving the people of our state," Lonergan said.
On his Fox News Channel program, "The O'Reilly Factor," the conservative pundit called Martinez the "only choice for vice president" should Donald Trump win the Republican nomination for present, Politico.com reported.
"That is the only choice if Mr. Trump, with all due respect, wants to be president. He must give it to the governor of New Mexico," O'Reilly said. "Martinez cuts across all ethnic boundaries that he's weak in. She's very bright. She is a Republican conservative in a state that would go, you know, it's not a lot of electoral votes, but if he can persuade Governor Martinez to be on the second, that will help him immensely."
And that is where Republicans make a massive political mistake, they think you can insult people, be racist against them, and have policies that hurt them, and then add a latino woman to the ticket and hope it gets you votes from latinos and women, it's insane and it does not work.
The answer is do not insult them, do not be racist against them, and have some policies that help them. That is how you get votes from latinos and women, not by trying to pander to them by simply putting a latino woman on the ticket. In fact, it's an insult to latinos and women to do that, and only makes it worse. But the idiot O'Reilly actually thinks it is a good idea.
Dana Perino, a former White House press secretary under the Bush administration, said during the segment on O'Reilly's show that Martinez may not be the best VP candidate for Trump.
"It's not a bad one. I don't know if it's a good fit," Perino said.
The Truth About How Sean Hannity Covers Donald Trump
By: Steve - April 26, 2016 - 9:00am
A few days ago, a real journalist at Think Progress reviewed all of Hannity's interviews with Donald Trump since he announced his campaign last June. His conclusion: the dozens of interviews Hannity gave Trump amounted to "a serialized infomercial spanning nearly an entire year."
Hannity was not pleased about the article. In a 7-minute rant on his radio program, Hannity called the article a hit piece that cherry picked questions to make him look as bad as possible. He also said the piece was part of a high-level political conspiracy to marginalize him.
But he didn't dispute the charge that his questions were all softballs; instead, he justified his conduct by saying he's "not a journalist" and doesn't have "much disagreement" with Trump and other Republicans.
Neil Cavuto addressed the controversy on his show in an interview with Hannity. Cavuto claimed that Hannity asked Trump edgy question that "elicit a great deal of news."
This is a claim even Hannity doesn't make on behalf of himself.
Hannity is also particularly sensitive about a claim that the original piece never made: that Trump got more time on his show than other candidates. He insisted that all candidates were given equal time and he had no preferences.
This, however, is not true. From the time each campaign announced their candidacy to the end of March, Trump has appeared of Hannity's prime time show more often than any other candidate and, more importantly, has spent hours longer on air than any other candidate.
Over the duration of the primary season, Trump has appeared on Hannity's TV show for over three hours longer than Ted Cruz, according to data Media Matters compiled for Think Progress.
Hannity often airs his interviews multiple times. More than three hours of Hannity's show have been repeats of Trump interviews, far exceeding any other candidate.
Overall, Trump has enjoyed over 14 hours and 30 minutes of airtime on Hannity's TV show while Cruz received just over 9 hours.
The time Trump receives on Hannity's show is extremely valuable. Media Matters calculates that Trump received 23 hours of air time on Fox News in 2015. That time is worth an estimated $30 million, based on advertising rates and the viewership of each program. No other candidate received more than 10 hours of coverage on Fox in 2015.
Trump has been able to rocket to the top of the Republican field while spending very little money on the strength of free air time, sometimes referred to as earned media. Much of Trump's time on Fox was spent on Hannity's show.
Some of Trump's appearances on the show literally double as campaign events. Hannity travels to a state that is voting soon and interviews Trump for an hour in front of a local audience.
Hannity's interviews with Cruz can occasionally get more contentious. Early this week, Hannity blew up at Cruz, saying he was getting sick of Cruz avoiding a legitimate question. Hannity had been asking Cruz if his efforts to woo delegates were undermining the integrity of the election, a claim frequently made by Donald Trump.
On thing that hasn't changed is Hannity's approach to interviewing Donald Trump, who has appeared on his TV show three more times already in April. In an appearance Thursday night, Hannity noted that "Newt Gingrich said you are now the presumptive nominee. And he said to the establishment Republicans they better now get used to the idea."
Former Bush Official Slams Grassley For Not Doing His Job
By: Steve - April 25, 2016 - 11:00am
People can say I have a bias, which I do, but this is not what I said, it's what a Republican who was a former Bush official is saying, and we both agree. The Republicans are hypocrites with double standards on this issue.
One of the most important constitutional responsibilities of the president is to nominate qualified people for senior positions in the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. One of the most important constitutional responsibilities of the U.S. Senate is to provide advice and consent for these nominations in a process known as confirmation.
Unfortunately, some senators resort to extreme measures to politicize the confirmation process. I have first-hand experience dealing with this as the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. Senators sometimes filibustered, delayed hearings and made unfounded ethics accusations against the president's nominees. Most nominees persevered and were confirmed, but it was frustrating to see such an important constitutional power and responsibility of the Senate be abused.
But senators knew better and did better on nominations for the Supreme Court. Precedent was clearly on our side. The Senate has held hearings for Supreme Court nominees since the 1916 hearing for Justice Louis Brandeis, and not once in 100 years has the Senate refused to hold a hearing for a nominee. The Senate has turned down several Supreme Court nominees in a floor vote, but there has always been a vote.
President Bush's nominees included two justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. The Senate Judiciary Committee promptly held hearings for both of them (I helped each of them prepare for those hearings) Both were confirmed in votes in committee and on the Senate floor.
Some senators voted no on Roberts or Alito or both, but these senators also acted honorably. They had the decency to show up for the hearing, to vote according to their conscience, and to allow their colleagues to do the same.
At least with respect to the Supreme Court, senators realized that they must treat the president and his nominee fairly, and that they must hold hearings and vote. There also has never been an election year exception to this rule. The United States is not a banana republic; we do not take a time out from orderly government every four years simply because we are going to have an election.
Now, in 2016 a Democratic president has nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Garland is a moderate with strong support among conservatives as well as an extremely impressive record as an appeals court judge and as a prosecutor.
With respect to Judge Garland, we expect that Grassley will do what he has always done: insist that Garland be given a fair hearing and then a vote. Senator Grassley might vote for or against Garland's nomination, but as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he should hold a hearing for Garland. After that, in the words of Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Grassley and the other senators will man up and vote.
The vast majority of voters in the nation want Judge Garland to receive a hearing now, and even though the Supreme Court cannot effectively conduct its business with only eight justices, Grassley says that he will refuse to have a hearing for Garland until the November election.
He says that he will use his position as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to prevent his colleagues from voting on Garland's nomination. Perhaps for the first time ever in his Senate career, Grassley may refuse to do his job.
Senator Grassley will have to choose between what he has said in the last few weeks about this particular nomination and what he has said and done steadfastly for decades. The right choice is clear: Grassley should give Judge Garland a confirmation hearing and then allow a vote in the committee and on the Senate floor.
It is time for the people of Iowa to insist that Senator Grassley do his job. If he does, it will be important to support him in November against the narrow and selfish interests that seek to destroy any man who does what he knows is right.
If, however, Grassley can no longer stand up to special interests and extreme partisanship, and can no longer do his job the way he has always done it, voters will have to recognize this reality. It will be time for voters to do themselves and the nation -- and Senator Grassley himself -- a favor. It will be time for him to come home.
Richard W. Painter is former associate counsel to the president and chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.
Insane O'Reilly Claims Obama Leading The Way For Hard Narcotic Use
By: Steve - April 25, 2016 - 10:00am
O'Reilly is saying all this because Obama spoke out about all the people we have in prison in America for non-violent drug crimes. In most of the other countries they treat drug use as a medical problem, not a crime, America is one of the few countries that have all drug use as crimes.
Obama simply said we should not be putting so many people in jail for drugs, because it cost us a fortune every year and they are non-violent crimes. So O'Reilly flipped out, said drug dealing is a violent crime, when nobody else thinks that, and that Obama sent a message that drug dealing is ok, which is not what Obama said, and O'Reilly is wrong that it is a violent crime.
O'Reilly said this: Obama "Sends A Signal To The Country" That Drug Dealing Is "Not That Bad"
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): Over the years there have literally been millions of stories like that one, and it is simply stunning that our culture has evolved to a point where the sale and use of hard narcotics is now acceptable. President Obama's leading the way on this, classifying drug dealing, hard drug dealing, as a, quote, "nonviolent crime." That sends a signal to the country that, you know what, it may be illegal to sell drugs, but it's not all that bad. And the left is generally supporting the madness.
Trump Institute Illegally Fired Veteran After Military Deployment
By: Steve - April 25, 2016 - 9:00am
And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly. Senior Master Sgt. Richard Wright was fired a few days after he returned from a 2007 deployment.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has been vocal about the need to take care of U.S. veterans. He's said that if elected, he'll "put our service men and women on a path to success as they leave active duty."
But that's not what the Trump Institute, a get-rich-quick real estate seminar, did for Richard Wright, a senior master sergeant in the Air Force reserves who worked for the company in 2006 and 2007. Wright was deployed to Afghanistan in the spring of 2007.
When he came home to his job, the Trump Institute fired him. "All of your absences," Wright's boss at the Trump Institute told him, had forced the company to "reevaluate your position with the Trump Institute."
It is a violation of federal law to penalize an employee for absences caused by military service. When Wright accepted a job at the Trump Institute in December 2006, he thought he'd be working directly with Trump.
Dozens of former customers of the Trump Institute and Trump University, a real estate instruction program, have also described being told that Donald Trump was personally overseeing the programs that bore his name, and that instructors were "hand-picked by Mr. Trump." Judging from the information on the Trump Institute's (now defunct) website, it's easy to see why.
Br> It was only after Wright started the job that he realized Trump had little to do with the day-to-day operations of the Trump Institute.
Trump provided his name, along with his image, his reputation, his video endorsements and his promises to help the Trump Institute lure potential customers and employees.
But like many of the hundreds of businesses and real estate projects that have had Trump's name, the Trump Institute was actually a joint venture between Trump and an outside company -- in this case, a Florida-based business called National Grants Conferences. Trump was paid franchise fees, but the details of his profits from the schools are a well-guarded secret.
Michael and Irene Milin, NGC's founders, spent decades in the get-rich-quick business before linking up with Trump. NGC promised to teach its clients how to access millions of dollars in "free money" from the government. In reality, NGC seminars were little more than elaborate sales pitches for yet more NGC events, and the company, which has since been dissolved, had a long history of legal troubles and fraud investigations that spanned multiple states.
NGC's free-money seminars provided the framework for the Trump Institute's signature offering, the Donald Trump Way to Wealth Seminar. Trump Institute clients paid as much as $35,000 to learn the "Donald Trump Way To Wealth," and to receive coaching from mentors like Wright.
In an infomercial that appears to date to 2006, Trump tells potential customers how important it is that they enroll in the Trump Institute. He also hits on the woman interviewing him.
That same year, the Trump Institute hired Wright as a tele-consultant. His job was to speak on the phone with clients who had purchased memberships in the Trump Institute, and give them advice about investing in real estate.
Two months into the job, Wright was called up for active duty, and in early February 2007, he wrote to his boss, Jay Shavin, to say he would be deployed to Afghanistan starting around March 1st.
In Afghanistan, Wright was assigned to the 451st Air Expeditionary Group at Kandahar Airfield, near the country's southern border with Pakistan. Wright was awarded three different medals for outstanding service in the six weeks he was overseas.
Wright arrived home to Florida on Monday, April 16, 2007. He asked his boss to approve two personal days for him to get his bearings, do laundry and so on. Before Wright left for Afghanistan, he had approximately 40 different clients whom he was advising on how to buy real estate "the Trump Way."
Like the other Trump Institute mentors, Wright was promised commissions on his clients deals -- $250 each time a client bought property and rented it out using Trump methods, and $750 each time a client bought and then sold a property, a process known as flipping.
In his first week back home, Wright emailed some of his clients to let them know he was "back safe and sound," according to court documents.
On Monday, April 23rd, Wright got this note from Shavin:
I specifically told you NOT to contact your old clients. Jeff was in the office when we had the discussion. I also emphatically stated that you were not to contact your old clients. You are so concerned about your closings that do not exist, that your employment is in jeopardy. I told you that I put your former client into a deal that has not closed and would give it to you.Wright replied with this: "I don't think your previous comments were called for or appropriate. I am a good mentor & have always been a team player & do not appreciate being spoken to that way."
"You needn't be offended by my remarks," Shavin wrote back. "Your employment is hereby terminated."
In subsequent emails, Shavin denied that Wright was fired because of his time in Afghanistan. He also said that any further emails from Wright would be considered "harassment."
A year later, Wright sued the Trump Institute and its parent company, Xylophone, for wrongful termination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. That law, passed in 1972, requires that military service members called up to active duty from civilian jobs "be restored to the job and benefits you would have attained if you had not been absent due to military service."
Under the law, the burden falls on the employer to prove that it did not fire a service member for absences related to his or her military service.
The Trump Institute ultimately reached a settlement with Wright that forbids him from talking about the case. Shavin died in 2014. Lyn Miller, another former Trump Institute employee, said Shavin was "a knowledgeable and awesome guy."
And btw, Trump's attempts to distance himself from the companies that paid him money and bore his name haven't shielded him from lawsuits over their conduct.
In 2013, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Trump and Trump University for civil fraud. Included in his case filings were scores of complaints from Trump Institute clients. In California and New York, Trump University is facing allegations of fraud, and in the California case, the company faces a class action lawsuit with more than 5,000 plaintiffs.
NY Elections Official Suspended Over Loss Of 100,000 Democrats Votes
By: Steve - April 24, 2016 - 10:00am
And of course Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though New York is O'Reilly's home state and where he does his show from.
A longtime New York City elections official was suspended without pay Thursday, for removing the names of more than 100,000 Brooklyn Democrats from the voter rolls.
The massive purge -- which caused huge problems at polling sites this past Tuesday -- was the result of an epic screw-up by a long-time official expected to be forced out over the debacle.
Borough Office Chief Clerk Diane Haslett-Rudiano's immediate suspension will remain in place pending an internal investigation.
Sources told the New York Daily News that Haslett-Rudiano would be forced out of her position over the voter roll debacle, which saw a staggering 8 percent of Brooklyn's more than 1.2 million registered Democrats, or 102,717 people, purged from the city's election rolls between Oct. 31st and April 2nd.
Kings County (Brooklyn) was the only one in New York state that had voters purged in that period.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced Wednesday that his office was going to investigate. He issued a statement Thursday following the suspension.
"The administration of the voter rolls in Brooklyn is of major concern to our office and is a focus of our investigation," Schneiderman said.
New York City's Comptroller Scott Stringer kicked off the first investigation Tuesday night. Stringer said the biggest issue appeared to be that some eligible voters were removed from voter-registration rolls and some that had their party affiliation changed.
Other issues included polling sites not opening in time for voting, incorrect primary notifications being mailed out and training of the poll workers.
Here is Proof That Bill O'Reilly Is An Old Fool
By: Steve - April 24, 2016 - 9:00am
This is funny, but also sad. O'Reilly is so clueless he does not even know that most men think if you buy a woman a lobster dinner they expect her to sleep with them. He is so clueless he had to have the super moron Jesse Watters explain it to him. And this guy has the #1 show on cable news, wow!
And btw folks, how the hell is this a news topic on a so-called hard news show, it's a joke.
Here is the transcript:
BILL O'REILLY (HOST): That's my question. Here's Watters. What happens when you take a woman to -- give a woman a lobster? I don't know what happens.
JESSE WATTERS: It's the most expensive thing on the menu.
O'REILLY: Yeah? And they're impressed? Women are impressed?
WATTERS: Bill, I can't believe you of all people don't know this.
O'REILLY: No, I mean, I know that lobster is fairly expensive.
WATTERS: It's the most expensive thing on the menu. If she orders it and you're paying --
O'REILLY: Yes, yes. Then what?
WATTERS: I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
O'REILLY: Then what? She's a gold digger? What? What are you, I don't --
WATTERS: I'm going to let the audience figure it out.
O'REILLY: You don't even know!
WATTERS: Of course I do!
O'REILLY: Then tell me what it is!
WATTERS: I mean, then maybe she might be indebted or maybe interested later --
O'REILLY: Oh, I see. A payoff for the lobster.
WATTERS: You spent a lot of money at dinner!
O'REILLY: The lobster payoff.
Crazy O'Reilly Claims Selling Drugs Is A Violent Crime
By: Steve - April 23, 2016 - 11:30am
Which is just insane, because selling drugs is not a violent crime.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, shooting someone is a violent crime, stabbing someone is a violent crime, beating someone up with a baseball bat is a violent crime, and on and on.
Selling a bag of weed, or coke, or whatever, is not a violent crime. There is no violence, they give them something and they get money for it, and there is no violence. Only a crazy person would say selling drugs is a violent crime, it's crazy talk.
It's illegal, and it is a crime, but it is not violent. And when you disagree with O'Reilly and tell him he is wrong he refuses to admit it is not a violent crime. It's what insane people do, they refuse to admit reality, even when everyone else is telling them they are wrong.
Friday night kirsten Powers tried to tell O'Reilly he is wrong, but it did no good.
POWERS: "I agree with a lot of what you said, but I disagree about whether it is a violent crime to deal drugs. It is definitely a crime, but I don't think the person selling the drugs is responsible for what happens after that. Just as doctors who are over-prescribing medications are not engaging in a violent crime. If someone wants to take heroin, I think it's a bad idea, but they can do it."
O'Reilly then told Powers she is 'giving a pass' to evil people who cause destruction and death. And all during the segment he argued with her trying to come up with reasons why drug dealing is a violent crime, but none of them proved his point, they were just stupid arguments that sounded like a 10 year old came up with them.
O'Reilly Loses Custody Of His Kids After Choking Wife
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
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|
|Proof O'Reilly Lied About The Balance on His Show|
|O'Reilly Sucks Investigation: Dishonesty, Deception, And Bias By Bill O'Reilly|
|(( Right-Wing Hate Speech Ignored by Bill O'Reilly ))|
Copyright 2001 - 2014