Charles Krauthammer: Claim of Seven Million Obamacare Enrollees Is ‘Phony Number’

Mediaite.com:

Charles Krauthammer doesn’t believe seven million people have actually enrolled in Obamacare, telling Bill O’Reilly Tuesday night that the White House is throwing out “phony numbers” by broadening their standards in order to attain a personal victory.

Both men agreed that the goal of Obamacare was to eventually convince the country to shift to full government control of the health care system, with Krauthammer saying it at least would have been clearer than “this insane mishmash” in the middle. He then charged that President Obama and the White House is not being honest when it says that a little over seven million people have signed up.

“These numbers that they are touting are phony numbers… That’s like saying anybody who goes on Amazon, orders a nifty stereo set, puts it in the shopping cart, has purchased the stereo set. I assure you it’s not going to show up at your house until you pay for it.”

Krauthammer charged that the goal from the beginning was to make health care, “the great liberal objective,” a reality by any means necessary. And he found it laughable for Democrats to keep asserting it’s the law of the land, because “nothing that’s written in the law matters, they decide what the law is every Wednesday morning.”

RELATED:  Limbaugh: ‘How Many People Are Signing Up’ for Obamacare Out of Fear?

Bill O'Reilly (Rightfully) Calls Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Lee A 'Race Hustler'

Anyone who really thinks there's a single, black, Democrat politician out there who truly cares about the needs of Black people in this country is either lying to themselves or a fool:

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly brought Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday to discuss charges of racism made by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) against the former vice presidential candidate.

In recent remarks on poverty, Ryan referred to the "tailspin of culture in our inner cities." Lee in turn called Ryan's comments a "thinly veiled racial attack."

“Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says, 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black,'" Lee said in a statement.

On O'Reilly's show, Ryan said he has no bad feelings toward Lee, noting he's "a big boy" and understands that "if you challenge the status quo, sometimes you'll be misinterpreted." 

O'Reilly fervently disagreed, saying "race hustlers" such as Lee don't want to have a conversation and that they "get voted into office by portraying their constituents as victims."

"And it's all your fault and it's my fault and it's rich people's fault and the Republicans' fault," O'Reilly said. "It's everybody's fault except what's going on ... The race hustlers don't want to solve the problem."

Watch the full exchange above.

UPDATE: 12:58 p.m. -- Lee released the following statement in response to O'Reilly's remarks: 

Unfortunately we’ve come to expect language like “welfare queens,” “food stamp president,” and now “race hustlers” from the right wing and Mr. O’Reilly. It is disgusting and divisive and should never be accepted in our national discourse. 

For us to achieve the American dream for all, we must engage in this conversation that has been sparked about race and poverty, even if it is difficult for some. Racial discrimination, poverty, and income inequality remain issues that must be debated and addressed, and these kinds of ‘code words’ only get in the way of solving the real problems.

As members of Congress, we must come together to present a budget and funding priorities that create opportunity for all. We must make critical investments in job creation, education, and job training. Among many issues, we must address extending unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage, enacting criminal justice reform, and securing voting rights for communities of color, so that we can truly find solutions to these critical issues.

RELATED: The Left’s Laughable Effort to Label Paul Ryan ‘Racist’ Crumbles

Pastor Robert Jeffress Tells Bill O’Reilly How Obama Is Laying the Groundwork for the Anti-Christ

Mediaite.com:

Pastor Robert Jeffress sat down with Bill O’Reilly Monday night to argue that President Obama is laying the groundwork for the rise of the Anti-Christ because he is “conditioning” people to rely on government support. He said there will be a “future world dictator before Christ returns who’s going to usurp people’s personal rights, and “change God’s laws… without any opposition” so “people will have been conditioned long before the Antichrist comes to accept government overreach, and that’s what you’re seeing with President Obama.”

He said, “I’m not saying President Obama is the Anti-Christ. In fact, I’m sure he’s not, because the Anti-Christ is going to have higher poll numbers.”

He argued that in addition to Obamacare creating a culture of dependency, Obama is sowing the seeds for the Anti-Christ with the contraception mandate and “abortion-inducing drugs,” as well as the “redefinition of marriage.” He argued that gay marriage is simply a “counterfeit” of real marriage, and “whenever you say marriage is whatever you want it to be… people say why bother getting married at all.”

RELATED:  Exemptions from the ‘contraception mandate’ threaten religious liberty

Bill O’Reilly: Chris Christie’s the Biggest Threat the Democrats Face, So They’re Going to Town on Him

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly has no doubts about why Chris Christie is being targeted so strongly in the media and especially by Democrats: he is the “biggest threat” to the left, and so “the politics of destruction” are being thrown into overdrive in order to delegitimize him with “BridgeGate” and thereby ensuring he is not a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton in 2016. O’Reilly didn’t say the scandal is irrelevant, but he did say it’s very much overblown. 

O’Reilly argued that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 because he was too much of a “gentleman” and wasn’t tough enough on issues like Benghazi, and so the tough Christie is “a threat to the power of the Democratic party” because of his reputation for blunt honesty. Ans so, he is being “marginalized” by Democrats “using his bluster against him.” 

O’Reilly said, “If you are passionate and state your position firmly and flamboyantly… you become a big target.” He also noted that Democrats are more nervous about Christie than they are about more conservative potential candidates.

RELATED: Poll: Conservatives Warming to Christie Following Media Barrage over Bridgegate?

Bill O'Reilly Catches Al Sharpton In Another Deceptive Video Edit: 'They Don't Come Lower'

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly kicked off his show Monday night clarifying his statements from last week about Nelson Mandela being a great man, but also a communist. In particular, O’Reilly took on MSNBC hosts Al Sharpton and Karen Finney for what he called a gross distortion of his words.

O’Reilly said it should be honestly acknowledged Mandela has “Marxist leanings,” but wasn’t exactly that surprised that Sharpton, a “dishonest purveyor of information,” would distort what he said. He hit Sharpton for taking his comments out of context, and took on Finney for accusing O’Reilly of not actually going to the neighborhood of Soweto. O’Reilly showed a picture of him in Soweto and demanded Finney apologize.

But he didn’t hold his breath for the “flat-out deceivers” of MSNBC, charging that the network is too “afraid” of Sharpton to discipline him when he does stuff like this. O’Reilly argued he only brought up Mandela’s ideology to make the point that you need to honor good people “even when you disagree with their philosophy” and you shouldn’t allow people like Sharpton to “exploit situations for their own gain.”

RELATED:  SNL Knocks Incoherent Al Sharpton

Sarah Palin: ‘Angry Atheists Armed with an Attorney’ Want to ‘Abort Christ from Christmas’

Mediaite.com:

Sarah Palin spoke at Liberty University on Thursday, and one of the issues she addressed was the War on Christmas™ and the “angry atheists” hell-bent on ruining the holiday for everyone else. Palin invoked the words of Founders like Thomas Jefferson, who she said despite his writings on the separation of church and state, would be up in arms against people attempting to “abort Christ from Christmas.”

Palin agreed that Jefferson’s message has been grossly distorted by atheists attempting to use him for their own agenda, and argued that the nation’s third president would, in fact, be on the side of Christians fighting to celebrate the holiday.

“Thomas Jefferson today, he would recognize those who would want to try to ignore that Jesus is the reason for the season, those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christmas. He would recognize, for the most part, these are angry atheists armed with an attorney. They are not the majority of Americans.”

She also found it to be a ridiculous double standard that somehow it’s okay for atheists to take offense at public displays of religion on government grounds, but religious people can’t get offended when they believe their holiday is being undermined. Palin concluded that people should follow Jefferson’s example and refuse to “sit down and shut up.”

RELATED:  O’Reilly Psychoanalyzes Atheists: So Much ‘Anger,’ ‘Are They That Bitter Against Religion?”

Smug MSNBC Host Lawrence Distorts Bill O'Reilly, Touts 'Proof' Out-of-Wedlock Birth Not So Bad

Newsbusters.org:

On Monday's The Last Word on MSNBC, host Lawrence O'Donnell claimed to present "proof" that FNC's Bill O'Reilly was wrong in his July 22 commentary on race to warn about the negative effects of out-of-wedlock births on the black population.

The MSNBC host also managed to take O'Reilly out of context as O'Donnell suggested that the O'Reilly's were not relevant to Trayvon Martin because he was the product of a two-parent family, the FNC host, in reality, was arguing that out-of-wedlock birth leads to high crime rates among the black population, which leads to people having elevated fear of young black men.

And, while O'Donnell claimed that O'Reilly "defended" the shooting of Trayvon Martin, O'Reilly actually asserted that "it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance," which hardly amounts to a total defense of Zimmerman's actions.

O'Donnell teased the segment by predicting that O'Reilly would be "embarrassed." O'Donnell:

Yes, right here on a cable news program, a story that we can all feel good about. Democrats, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, everyone except possibly Bill O'Reilly, who might be a little embarrassed about how he's manipulated some of the talk around this kind of story.

In another plug, the MSNBC host promised that he would present "proof that Bill O'Reilly is not the sociologist he thinks he is."
The segment began with a clip of President Obama responding to Zimmerman's acquittal, with O'Donnell then charging:

Bill O'Reilly hated that speech, hated it. He angrily took to his microphone to defend the killing of Trayvon Martin because, quote, "he was a stranger to Zimmerman and was dressed in clothing sometimes used by street criminals," O'Reilly's words.

The MSNBC host's quote of O'Reilly omitted his next line:

It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime the statistics overwhelming.

After playing a clip of O'Reilly linking crime to out-of-wedlock birth, O'Donnell ignored his point about the role that the fear of crime played in Zimmerman and Martin's confontation and instead lectured:

Never mind that Trayvon Martin was the son of a very involved and loving father. And never mind that Barack Obama grew up without a father and went on to do rather well for himself and be a credit to his single mother.

O'Donnell then recounted the story of two young black men -- Justin Porter and Travis Reginal -- who are successful college students and were both raised by single mothers, as if their success proves that single parenthood is not generally detrimental to children. O'Donnell:

And in our next segment, I will have the honor of introducing you to two young black men Bill O'Reilly has never met. They went to high school together in Jackson, Mississippi. Now, one is at Harvard and the other is at Yale. They will both tell you why they owe their success to their heroic single mothers.

RELATED: Lawrence O’Donnell Shreds O’Reilly’s ‘Very Narrow And Uneducated Mind’ On American Racism

CNN’s Don Lemon Backs Up Bill O’Reilly: ‘He Doesn’t Go Far Enough’ In Criticizing Black Culture

Shocker:

Bill O’Reilly’s remarks on race last week drew heavy criticism from Chris Hayes, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, Larry Wilmore, and more, but one unlikely person is agreeing with him: CNN host Don Lemon.

Lemon addressed the wounds inflicted by black males onto their community on his “No Talking Points” segment Saturday afternoon, saying he was able to bring this up now that the George Zimmerman trial had concluded. Before the verdict, right wing media had consistently asked why the “liberal media” was fixating on Trayvon Martin while ignoring rampant black-on-black violence, a “deflection,” in Lemon’s words, from the injustices of the Martin shooting. But now that Zimmerman had been acquitted, it was time “for some tough love on the subject.”

Lemon played a clip of O’Reilly stating, “The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African American family…Raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that. Again, it is a personal decision.” 

“Bill’s got a point,” Lemon said. “In fact, he’s got more than a point…In my estimation, he doesn’t go far enough.”

Lemon then listed five essential reforms black men need to make in their lives in order to improve themselves and their communities: hike up their pants, remove the n-word from their vocabulary, take care of their communities, finish high school, and lower the rate of children born out of wedlock.

“More than 72% of children in the African Americans are born out of wedlock,” Lemon said. “Studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues.”

“Please, pay attention to and think about what has been presented in recent history as aceptable behavior,” Lemon finished. “Pay close attention to the hip hop and rap culture that many of you embrace, a culture that glorifies everything I just mentioned, thug and reprehensible behavior, a culture that is making a lot of people rich—just not you. And it’s not going to.”

“That said, though, the political right is not off the hook.” Lemon played a clip of Kirsten Powers remarking on how convenient it was the conservative media only cares about black violence when they can use it to “stick it to the black community.”

RELATED: O’Reilly To Geraldo: ‘I Don’t Care’ If Black People Feel Like I’m ‘Stereotyping’ Them

Barack Obama Only Claims To Be Black When It's Convenient

Townhall.com:

Last Friday, President Obama made his first attempt to claim his position as the first black president. In fact, for the first time in my recollection, the President referred to himself as an African-American in one of his speeches -- a dramatic turnaround from his “post-racial” stance and his advocacy of other special interest groups.

On May 21, 2012, Newsweek proclaimed Barack Obama as America’s first gay president. They could have also dubbed him America’s first green president. Some entrepreneurs would name him America’s first socialist president. Nonetheless, when blacks voted last year, their faithfulness to their candidate arguably won the election for him. Black voter loyalty had not been strongly acknowledged or rewarded publicly. Therefore last week’s address on Trayvon Martin’s death was a milestone for black democratic activists. The speech was designed to explain to the rest of the nation what being a black man in our culture is all about. Further, the President wanted to explain why many blacks are so disturbed with George Zimmerman’s acquittal.

As the President took up the role of teacher, explainer, and advocate for black America, he fell into the trap of appearing to play the politics of grievance. Yes, it was less incendiary than the tired rhetoric of Al Sharpton, Rev. Jessie Jackson and others. He did not speak to the outrage of some whites who perennially feel accused of “keeping the black man down.” The President’s address also failed to offer substantive policies, approaches or solutions. This type of speech would not have satisfied gay or green advocates, but blacks were excited that the president had spoken up for them.

What happened to Trayvon is every black mother’s nightmare. All mothers worry, but black mothers particularly worry that their sons will become mixed up with the wrong crowd or will struggle to find an identity in a culture that loves to portray them as dangerous aggressors. But there were non-black tragedies in this case as well. The famed Allan Dershowitz impudently declared that Zimmerman should sue Angela Corry (from the Jacksonville, Florida, District Attorney’s office). He felt that the hubris of her overreach with the second-degree murder charge was only exceeded by her desire to charge Zimmerman with child abuse and felony murder. “..That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible,” Dershowitz reported to Mike Huckabee.

The most egregious travesty of justice was NBC’s admitted editing of Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound far more incriminating than it was. This type of “reporting” led to a complete loss of perspective, where some have actually compared Martin’s death to the slaying of Emmett Till. “Trayvon Martin certainly is the Emmett Till of the hoodie generation,” says Michael Skolnik, president of GlobalGrind.

No matter how deeply moved you are by the Trayvon Martin tragedy, it is not in the same category as Emmett Till’s murder. Till was just 14 years old in 1955 when he travelled from his native Chicago -- where he attended an integrated school -- to visit his extended family in Mississippi. He was apparently dared by some friends to speak to (or possibly flirt with) a young white woman who ran a local grocery store.

The young woman’s husband and brother kidnapped Till, beat and tortured him, gouged out one eye, shot him through the head, tied a weight around his neck with barbed wire and threw his body into a river. Till’s murderers were acquitted of any wrongdoing, and later -- when it was clear they could not be prosecuted -- sold their story to a magazine in 1956. They admitted brutalizing and murdering Till but maintained they had done nothing wrong.

We are certainly not living in Emmett Till’s Mississippi anymore. However, most blacks believe that Zimmerman pursued and gunned down Martin without any provocation, because they want to give Martin the benefit of the doubt that they feel is too often unfairly withheld from black men. Those who are naturally more sympathetic to Zimmerman should extend understanding to those who are experiencing this case personally. It is that kind of understanding that can help bring the healing the entire nation needs.

Where do we go from here? I believe that it’s time for the Church to lead a moral and ethical revolution to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. This is not the exclusive work of the black community or the white community. Whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians must labor together. Our unifying belief in Jesus Christ, the Bible and the same worldview will help us turn this corner. This is not the domain of government; it’s the business of the Church. In recent days Bill O’Reilly has listed a series of challenges to the black community to take responsibility to turn its fortunes around. His analysis is right, but if this transformation is going to be accomplished in the next 40 years, it will take the multi-ethnic, unified Church to make it happen.

RELATED: O’Reilly Tears Into Obama’s Race Speech: President Has ‘No Clue’ How To Combat ‘Gangsta Culture’

Mother of Information Officer Killed in Benghazi Blames Hillary Clinton

 Townhall.com:

While politicians on Capitol Hill ready their questions for Benghazi whistleblowers ahead of a hearing on the 9/11 attack Wednesday, Pat Smith, the mother of State Department Information Officer Sean Smith who was killed in the attack, is blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the lack of security for the consulate.

"I'm just told lies," she said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. "She is in charge. Why couldn't she do something about it? I blame her [Clinton]."

Smith also expressed frustration with charges from State Department officials, the Obama administration and Democrats of the Benghazi investigation turning "political."

"They didn't do their job and now they're hiding behind the word political," Smith said. 

RELATED:  O’Reilly And Kirsten Powers Bash Dems For Defending Obama, Clinton In Benghazi Hearings

Rush Limbaugh Goes After Bill O’Reilly For ‘Marginalizing’ Audience By Calling Gay Marriage Opponents ‘Bible Thumpers’

Can't believe O'Reilly would do such a thing, nice of Rush to call him out on it. After all there's plenty of reasons besides the Bible that one can be against "gay marriage": 1) The gay lobby are mostly made up of anti-Christian, atheists (i.e., all this "gay marriage" crap is nothing but an attack on religion) and they know full damn well that civil unions would provide gays with the same "rights" as marriage does; 2) real "marriage equality" would include polygamists and polyamorous couples, 3) every man and every woman already has a "right" to legally marry a person of the opposite sex and 4) homosexuality is a behavioral choice and thus, shouldn't be compared to race or laws that that were passed to prevent discrimination based on race or gender, natural states of being that cannot be changed.

On his radio show this afternoon, Rush Limbaugh took a swipe at Bill O’Reilly after the Fox News host and his guest said the opponents to same-sex marriage have no “compelling” argument besides “thumping the Bible.”

On The O’Reilly Factor last night, guest Megyn Kelly explained that she finds the social conservative argument against same-sex marriage to be weak, seeing no argument articulated aside from biblical beliefs.

articulated aside from biblical beliefs.
O’Reilly agreed:

“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to anything but thump the Bible.

Limbaugh took issue with this, seeing it as part of the “mainstream” media’s attempt to diminish opposition to gay marriage. Calling O’Reilly “Ted Baxter” — a nickame often given to TV personalities who are seen as vain and self-delusional — Limbaugh said the Fox host “marginalized” a great portion of the network’s viewers:

“How many of you who watch Fox are ‘Bible thumpers’? Do you think there are any Bible thumpers, quote-unquote, that watch Fox? Because last night you were sort of marginalized on The Factor as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible-thumpers.”

Limbaugh then went on to connect the O’Reilly incident to Brian Williams and David Letterman similarly dismissing gay marriage opponents on NBC.

RELATED: O’Reilly And Megyn Kelly Agree: Gays Have ‘More Compelling’ Argument, Opponents Just ‘Thump The Bible’

MSNBC Panel Praises Bill O’Reilly For Slamming Michelle Bachmann, Highlight Network’s Own Timidity

Love, love, love this article by Mediaite's Noah Rothman on MSNBC's utter hypocrisy, huge ego and cowardness in ever attacking Barry and the Democrat party for doing some the same exact things they give the GOP so much grief about:

On Thursday, the host and panel guests on MSNBC’s Now praised Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly for directing a series of unqualified criticisms at Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) after the conservative House member made a series of inaccurate statements in a misguided effort to attack Democratic politicians. Well, the MSNBC hosts almost praised O’Reilly before the panel guests pulled back, lest they allow themselves a moment of impartiality. In fact, their praise was couched in a criticism: why do Fox News Channel’s hosts not criticize Republican politicians more often? In fact, with a bit of introspection, MSNBC’s hosts could ask themselves why they don’t chastise Democratic politicians with any regularity? Particularly given the wealth of material available to support those criticisms. 

On Wednesday, O’Reilly went after Bachmann’s factually inaccurate attacks on President Barack Obama in clear terms lacking any prevarication:

“It’s long past time for partisans, on both the right and the left, to cut the nonsense and look at things clearly. We’ve got huge problems in America and the president’s directly responsible for some of those problems… Michele Bachmann is playing small ball with the president, can’t back up her criticism, and actually trivializes a huge problem: irresponsible spending by the federal government.”

The following day, the hosts and panel guests of Now praised O’Reilly for his unorthodox divergence from the expected, reflexive defense of a Republican lawmaker under fire in the press.

MSNBC host Alex Wagner cited the Washington Post’s fact checker blog which admonished Bachmann for inflating the amount of funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) applies to administrative costs versus the funding it directs to needy beneficiaries. 

“As comedic as Michelle Bachmann’s lies and distortions are, I actually feel like this is really dangerous,” Wagner said. “This gets into the water stream and then it becomes a repeated talking point, and people are completely misled about the realities of our budget and government spending.”

“This is what happens when you read the comments section of too many right-wing blogs,” noted The New Yorker columnist Rick Hertzberg.

“She’s probably getting more air time on MSNBC, at this point, than on Fox,” Hertzberg guessed. 

Wagner corrected him and noted that O’Reilly did take Bachmann to task over this and other assertions she has made in recent days which are inaccurate and, as O’Reilly noted, damaging to the conservative movement in the long run. Wagner called O’Reilly’s rogue commentary “a welcome change.”

MSNBC contributor and former Democratic operative Karen Finney almost agreed, but stressed that this kind of truthful commentary on Fox is lamentably rare.

“Okay, Bill O’Reilly, one time, called her out,” Finney remarked dismissively. “The Republican Party has got to break their addiction to the Bill O’Reilly…”

“To crazy,” Wagner interjected. 

“To, you know, Rush Limbaugh, and, I don’t know, check a few facts. Do a little math here and there,” Finney continued. 

Oh, how saucily droll. Judging from this panel’s reaction, one may be led to believe that MSNBC’s hosts regularly critique ideologically simpatico lawmakers on the Hill. Or, perhaps, that there is simply a dearth of factual inaccuracies promoted by Democrats to critique. 

For the sake of a narrowly defined argument, let’s focus entirely on what Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler has deemed Pinocchio-worthy in recent weeks. Maybe MSNBC’s hosts missed this choice nugget from a speech delivered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in the Senate on March 4:

“I think we ought to go back to the people and the party that was the only party and the only people to balance the budget in 40 years. I hate to break it to my Republican friends, but that is the Democratic Party. We are the ones who did it. We did it when Bill Clinton came into office. We did it after hard work. We did it after painful cuts. We did it with smart investments.”

It has become part of the modern Democratic Party’s provenance myth that Bill Clinton’s presidency was characterized by minimal deficits, balanced budgets, peace, prosperity, and a general cultural renaissance. All of these glorious accomplishments – achieved single-handedly — were ignominiously undone by his predecessor. 

Unfortunately, the facts do not comport with the attractive fable. 

“Clinton’s plan was never intended to achieve a balanced budget. After the bill’s passage, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deficit would decline modestly — from $290 billion in 1992 to $200 billion in 1998,” Kessler writes. “Between 1994 and 1999, realized capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded, with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30 percent of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP.”

“Clinton was lucky to have become president just as a revolution in computer and information technologies was unleashed,” he continued. The 42nd President of the United States was also lucky to preside over a Republican Congress after 1994 which, Kessler notes, “substantially shifted” the policy debate in Washington and “immediately set the goal of achieving a balanced budget within seven years.”
Kessler’s verdict: three Pinocchios.

Then there’s this comment from the beginning of the month:

”Starting tomorrow everybody here, all the folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol. Now that Congress has left, somebody’s going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. They’re going to have less pay. The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”

This irresponsible comment, delivered by the President of the United States and leader of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, prompted a spokesperson from the Architect of the Capitol to issue a statement noting that the comments were flatly “not true.” 

“White House officials assumed there was an impact but they were not exactly sure themselves. We will also note that the president said the pay cut was happening “tomorrow,” Kessler writes. “Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad–and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.”

This comment earned the president four opprobrious Pinocchios.

This is just two examples from the Washington Post’s fact checker blog from March alone.

The president’s inaccurate and hyperbolic statements relating to the sequester have largely contributed to the failure of the Democratic Party to realize their goal of cornering Republicans and forcing them to acquiesce to another round of tax hikes. At the moment, the sequester fight appears today to be a stinging defeat for Democrats, largely due to the president’s rhetorical overreach. 

A number of MSNBC anchors and hosts did, in fact, mention Kessler’s findings in this instance, including S.E. Cupp, Willie Geist, Andrea Mitchell and Chris Jansing. But if the criticism of Fox is that it does not regularly engage in Sista Souljah moments — castigating their own in order to maintain credibility — then this moment passed by MSNBC’s hosts unexploited. The network’s marquee hosts and opinion leaders neglected to use this event in the way O’Reilly did Bachmann’s. 

Kessler’s post on Obama or Boxer’s gaffes, and they were gaffes, would have made for a perfect opportunity for the nation’s premier cable news personalities on the left to pull an O’Reilly and criticize Obama for endangering the cause of liberalism with his careless comments. They neglected to do this. 

This not to say that MSNBC’s personalities never go off the reservation — it has been known to occur. But this particular episode, criticizing Bill O’Reilly for not attacking lawmakers on his side of the political aisle while praising him for doing just that, is simply too rich.

Instead of attacking Fox for not making a point of regularly skewering the Republican Party’s most perplexing figures, some of MSNBC’s host should try it out for themselves.

RELATED: O’Reilly Goes After Bachmann For ‘Lavish White House’ Critique: ‘Playing Small Ball,’ ‘Can’t Back Up Her Criticism’

Bill O’Reilly vs. Alan Colmes Family Spat Shows Why There’s Fox News…And There’s Everyone Else

Mediaite.com:

George W. Bush wins the 2000 Presidential Election by (in essence) 537 votes; Fox News goes to #1 in the cable news race a few months later. 

Bush narrowly beats John Kerry in 2004. Not surprisingly, Fox is still #1, and by a wider margin. 

Barack Obama soundly defeats John McCain in 2008; Fox is still #1 by a Secretariat-esque margin. 

Mr. Obama decisively beats Mitt Romney four months ago; Regardless of which party holds executive power, Fox is still decimating the competition, albeit by a slightly smaller-than-usual margin. Sure, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell are periodically beating Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren in the demo, but for 22 other hours out of the day, it’s not even a fair fight. 

So why does this keep happening? 

Why, for the better part of 12 years, can’t anyone seriously challenge Fox News? 

The country IS becoming more socially progressive, whether it be gay rights, legal pot or its attitude toward illegal immigrants. 

So why isn’t the country—of which 51.1 percent of its registered voters went for Mr. Obama last fall—moving away from a network that many of its critics call an extension of the Republican Party? 

The answer played itself out again this week starting on Tuesday’s night O’Reilly Factor: Bill O’Reilly is speaking with his usual Tuesday night guests in the form of Monica Crowley (conservative) and Alan Colmes (liberal). This is a segment that has existed for years. Colmes is married to Crowley’s sister, bringing a Carville-Matalin element (sort of) to the show. The topic is sequester, who’s to blame, and particularly if the President has any inclination to ever cut anything given his record over his first 50 months in office. 

Part I: O’Reilly claims that Mr. Obama has no inclination to reduce spending, wants Colmes to specifically list what the President is willing to eliminate. 

Part II: Colmes claims that Mr. Obama has been receptive to Medicare and other entitlement cuts, but is speaking in general terms and therefore isn’t as specific as O’Reilly wants…

Part III: O’Reilly (clearly frustrated), calls Colmes a liar, and comes close to dropping an s-bomb on the air, characterizing Colmes’ argument is “bull-blank” and “jack”. The 63-year-old host proceeds to point his finger at his longtime co-worker no less than a half-dozen times, but later apologizes for calling Colmes a liar (while still maintaining he wasn’t being specific in terms of exact cuts). 

But it doesn’t end there on Tuesday’s show: John Stossel, longtime ABC News reporter now Fox News libertarian, doesn’t stick with the original segment topic he was invited on The Factor to talk about. Instead, he tells O’Reilly to his face that he was “obnoxious” and “out of line.” 

The next day, there is no memorandum from Roger Ailes or Bill Shine (Senior VP of Programming) stating that no one else at the network should talk about the incidents. Instead, the other opinion shows—knowing that they’ve got a hot story—use that freedom to run with it, give it legs. 

The hosts of The Five predictably support O’Reilly in his argument that the President doesn’t have the ability or courage to cut spending. Juan Williams, filling in for the show’s lone liberal, Bob Beckel, gamely defends Colmes. 

Three hours later, Kirsten Powers—the “female Colmes” who progressives loathe for actually having the audacity to occasionally go against the usual talking points of her party—confronts O’Reilly directly on his show, says he’s “100 percent wrong” in his argument against the President. She goes on to detail $400 billion in cuts toward federal healthcare spending Mr. Obama proposed, even tweeting out the PDF she used after the segment to drive home her point. 

Remember, O’Reilly is the LeBron James at Fox News: He’s the network’s highest-paid, most influential, most revered player on the team. He’s authored multiple best-sellers, he’s host of a program that destroys everything in the ratings and has since 2001, and is such an influential personality that he receives regular guest invites on CBS, NBC, ABC, The View, Letterman and Leno. 

Yet here’s Kirsten Powers, a liberal contributor, a fellow employee at Fox News who gets infinite crap on a daily basis from fellow liberals for sleeping with the enemy, telling him he’s full of it on his own program. 

You want to know why Fox is #1? 

Let me answer a question with a question: Could you ever picture this scenario happening at MSNBC or CNN? 

Let’s use MSNBC as an example since it’s more opinion-based (hell, it’s ALL opinion-based now): 

Rachel Maddow invites Michael Steele (former head of the RNC and current MSNBC contributor) on her program. They get into an argument over whatever, things get heated. Maddow calls Steele a liar, saying his perspective is complete BS. 

Could you ever, EVER, see O’Donnell calling out Maddow for her treatment of Steele? How about The Cycle? Would S.E. Cupp rush to Steele’s defense while Touré mocked him while defending Maddow? 

Would, say, Steve Schmidt (MSNBC contributor, former McCain campaign manager) come on Maddow’s show the next night and say to her face that she was totally out of line?

The answer, from what we’ve seen, is no. Sure, there is disagreement between guests, small-time players on the network…but not to this degree, not to this level of candor.

Hardball has its share of yelling (mainly from the host) but does that disagreement carry into other shows?

Not on your life. 

Note: This isn’t a moral argument based on good behavior or a better code of ethics. Rather, it is simply one that focuses on which network is more compelling in terms of its personalities and the manner by which they interact with each other. 

And that’s why there’s Fox, and there’s everyone else. It is much like the dynamic of the Howard Stern Show: A mix of characters all willing to take on Howard and each other, and in the most honest of ways.

There simply is no filter on Howard’s show, and the audience revels in being able to witness a family fight on an almost-daily basis. Most importantly, none of the fights are planned or scripted. 

It just happens, just like it does in homes every day across the country. People can relate and therefore can appreciate what they’re hearing. 

Lawrence O’Donnell sat in judgment of the O’Reilly-Colmes brawl just hours after it happened, mocking the former for losing his cool. 

What O’Donnell doesn’t get, what his network will never understand, is that this is the kind of stuff that makes O’Reilly and Fox untouchable: They’re willing to attack each other based on their opinions and principles, all while his brethren at MSNBC wouldn’t dare call out its own in a similar situation. 

Debate and strong opinions are what cable news is all about, even when those opinions are directed at those you may run into at the company cafeteria. 

Fox News gets that. 

Everyone else…well…just look at the numbers.

RELATED:  Unintended Consequences: Cable News Taunting Good For Ego, Not Good For Business

Bill O’Reilly Tears Into ‘Hypocrite’ Al Gore For Trying To Settle Current TV Sale Before Taxes Went Up

 Mediaite.com:

Bill O'Reilly had some harsh words for Al Gore tonight over his sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. O’Reilly took issue with Gore’s hypocrisy in trying to finalize the sale before the fiscal cliff deadline this past Monday night to avoid paying higher taxes, as well as doing a deal with “anti-Americans” at Al Jazeera. O’Reilly declared that Gore has “shamed himself” with the deal.

O’Reilly highlighted Gore’s hypocrisy on taxes by bringing up video of Gore saying two months ago that he believes rich people such as himself need to “do our fair share.”

O’Reilly then set his sights on Al Jazeera, a network he declared to be run by “anti-Americans” and even sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. By making a deal with Al Jazeera, O’Reilly said, Gore has “shamed himself.” O’Reilly made it clear he would not want Al Jazeera to be censored, but said the whole deal is “sleazy” and “disgraceful.”

O’Reilly did allow for the possibility that the reports of Gore trying to avoid higher taxes were incorrect, inviting Gore onto his show to explain. But O’Reilly doubted Gore would accept the invitation, saying unequivocally that “we have problems with hypocrites in the No Spin Zone.”

RELATED:  Glenn Beck Tried To Buy Current TV, Claims He Was Rejected For Ideological Reasons

Bill O'Reilly Says He's Going To Call Out Race Hustlers

Mediaite.com:

Bill O'Reilly opened his show tonight by attacking liberal hate speech on the divisive issues of race and gay marriage. O’Reilly, in particular, highlighted rhetoric used by sports writer Jason Whitlock, whose words on gun control following the murder-suicide committed by NFL linebacker Jovan Belcher were now-famously quoted last Sunday by Bob Costas. O’Reilly described his language as “pure racism” and responded to personal attacks leveled at him by Whitlock.

O’Reilly explained that he reached out to Whitlock to get him on the program, but instead of accepting the invitation, Whitlock publicly wrote a piece attacking O’Reilly for acting like a “master” in the “big house” thinking that he could simply “summon” him. O’Reilly said Whitlock is engaging in “pure racism” for implying that O’Reilly is akin for some kind of slave overlord.

O’Reilly said Whitlock deserves some pity, but mostly he deserves to be called out for trying to deliberately stir up emotional reactions. Juan Williams said Whitlock should have considered the O’Reilly invitation as an “honor,” saying that Whitlock are trying to “muzzle” people like him and O’Reilly.

Mary Katharine Ham agreed that Whitlock’s attacks on O’Reilly were just “an attempt to marginalize people who disagree.” O’Reilly broadened the discussion to say it bothers him when people try to label people who oppose gay marriage as bigots and homophobes.

Williams said these people don’t want an honest debate, while Ham pointed out there are different standards for different sides.” O’Reilly declared that he has “had enough” and will continue to call out the “Christmas haters” and the “race hustlers.”

RELATED: Gregory Kane: Is Jason Whitlock a 'blame whitey firster'?

Bill O’Reilly Tears Into Romney Critics: ‘Gifts’ Remark ‘Is A Stone-Cold Fact’

Mediaite.com:

On his show Monday night, Bill O’Reilly took on those criticizing Mitt Romney‘s remark about President Barack Obama winning the election based on the “gifts” he gave to key demographic groups. O’Reilly pointed to his own similar election night comments, and noted that there’s no reason for outrage because it’s simply the truth. 

Referring to Romney’s remark, made during a conference call with donors, O’Reilly said that’s basically what he himself said on election night. “It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing,” O’Reilly said that night. “It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.” 

And he, too, was criticized. But “that’s the truth,” he said, mentioning that 63 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year voted for Obama. “It is a stone-cold fact.” Those on the left “don’t want to consider the fact that entitlements buy votes,” O’Reilly said. 

But they’re not alone. Romney’s been getting heat from those on the right side of the spectrum as well. O’Reilly particularly pointed to George Will and Newt Gingrich. Romney’s failure is clear, he added: He couldn’t convince majority of Americans that he would look out for them. And what did lower-income Americans vote for? It’s not more debt, Middle East chaos, eight percent unemployment or government regulations. No, O’Reilly said, they “voted for the candidate who they thought was going to directly helm them financially.” Not every Obama voter, he noted, but many. 

RELATED: Jindal: Republicans need to stop saying ‘stupid things’

Bill O’Reilly Decries ‘Secular Progressives’ Who Are ‘Bent On Destroying Traditional America’

Mediaite.com:

Is traditional America gone for good? That’s the question Bill O’Reilly tackled during his Talking Points Memo on Monday night. Criticizing “secular progressives,” O’Reilly called for the right kind of politician who will help us confront the “reality of our situation.”

Traditional America can come back, O’Reilly said, with the right person to make it happen.

Specifically, he pointed to Mitt Romney‘s electoral loss among blacks, women and Latinos. “It was an entitlement election,” he said.

The media would have you believing the election confirmed election ideology. While that’s not true, he said, secularism is “eroding traditional power.”

“On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans,” O’Reilly said. “But they can be reversed. However, it will take a very special politician to do that. By the way, Mitt Romney didn’t even try to marginalize secularism. He basically ignored it.”

Secular progressives don’t have the right approach, he argued, because they don’t want judgment on personal behavior. For examples, O’Reilly pointed to the issues of out-of-wedlock births, abortion and entitlements. Secular progressives “don’t want limitations on so-called private behavior,” he said.

The majority of Americans can be persuaded, O’Reilly said, “that the far-left is dangerous outfit, bent of destroying traditional America and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency and poverty.” We need to confront that, he added. But too many of our politicians are too cowardly to do so.

RELATED: Kyrsten Sinema Becomes First Bisexual Member of Congress

Democrat Strategists Agree With Bill O’Reilly: ‘Insane’ To Connect Race To Obama’s Debate Performance

Mediaite.com:

Bill O'Reilly opened his show Friday with by touting new polls showing Mitt Romney catching up to President Obama in polls in crucial swing states like Florida, and said the Democrats’ strategy coming out of the debate has been to “call Romney a liar” in order to take the spotlight off of Obama’s poor performance. O’Reilly found it hard to believe that the rhetoric will help the president’s election chances.

He argued that it is “foolish and destructive” for the Obama campaign to attack Romney over lying when the president has also been guilty of making “false and misleading statements.”

O’Reilly then brought up what he thought was one of the most ridiculous takes on Obama’s debate performance, from MSNBC contributor Michael Eric Dyson, whom O’Reilly referred to as a “race hustler.” Dyson argued that Obama could not afford to be seen as an “angry black man” stereotype. O’Reilly said that Dyson cannot “analyze anything… without injecting race.”

O’Reilly then brought in Democratic strategists Mary Anne Marsh and Kirsten Powers to react to the Democratic machine working overtime to attack Romney. Powers was surprised to find herself in agreement with Romney, saying that the campaign should not be outright calling the other candidate a liar. O’Reilly compared the Democrats to sore losers calling Romney names, like children.

O’Reilly asked Marsh and Powers about Dyson’s “kooky fringe” idea that race had to do with how Obama did during the debate. Marsh agreed that Obama should have been more aggressive, but when O’Reilly pushed her to answer the race issue, she agreed with him that Dyson’s take was not true. Powers said it was “insane.”

RELATED: Michael Eric Dyson: Obama Played It Safe Because Fox Called Him ‘Angry Black Man’ Night Before

Bill O’Reilly And Bernie Goldberg Blast CNN For Playing ‘Stupid Girls’ During Palin Segment

Mediaite.com:

During Monday evening’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly and frequent guest Bernard Goldberg took on CNN for its use of and subsequent apology for the Pink song “Stupid Girls” playing during the introduction to a segment about former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.


In the wake of the outrage over the song’s seemingly purposeful placement, CNN apologized and said “the music selection was a poor choice and not intended to be linked to any news story.” O’Reilly joked, to off-set laughter, “Then why was it used before a news story?”


“The most offensive part of all of this is this statement by a news organization whose only mission is to tell the truth and they say this was unintentional,” Goldberg said. “They have literally millions of songs in their database to choose from. They could have picked ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ from Frank Sinatra, they could have picked anything. They picked ‘Stupid Girls’ and they have the nerve to tell us it was unintentional.


O’Reilly then asked Goldberg what CNN meant by the song not being meant to be connected to a story. “What was ‘Stupid Girls’ connected to if not the news story about Sarah Palin?”


“CNN and other news organizations expect politicians to tell the truth; they expect business people to tell the truth; they expect church people, they expect athletes to tell the truth,” Goldberg responded. “And they issue a statement like this…. I’m guessing the people who watch them don’t like Sarah Palin all that much anyway, which is why they did it, and thought that, like in the old days, they could get away with it.


“Well, it’s not the old days anymore, CNN,” Goldberg concluded, “you can’t get away with this stuff.”

RELATED: CNN: Playing 'Stupid Girls' Ahead of Sarah Palin Story a 'Poor Choice'

George W. Bush Will Not Be Attending Republican National Convention

Really no surprise here. The great 43rd President has said repeatedly that he's done with politics and has so far kept his word. Which is too bad for those like Bill O'Reilly who just can't accept that:

In news that should be surprising to no one, former president George W. Bush, who has been mostly keeping out of the public sphere since leaving office in 2009, will be staying out of the public sphere and not attending the Republican National Convention in Tampa next month. A spokesman for Bush confirmed the former president received an invitation to the event, but ended up declining.

Bush said in an interview earlier this week that he has no interest in getting back into politics or speaking out on current policy like other former presidents have. His absence from the convention is keeping in line with his principles.

“President Bush was grateful for the invitation,” his spokesman, Freddy Ford, said Friday in an email. He added that the 43rd president “is confident that Mitt Romney will be a great president. But he’s still enjoying his time off the political stage and respectfully declined the invitation to go to Tampa.”

George H.W. Bush is also staying away from the Tampa convention, but for personal health reasons.

RELATED:  Guess who else won’t be going to Tampa