Three minor details.

Picky pinheads.

Historians tend to like facts. Small inaccuracies are precursors to big ones. Also how do you know there are only three? 

(A) Did you read the book?
(B) Are you a Lincoln historian?

And of course this will never be mentioned on his show or Fox News in general…

Are you bringing up facts to argue against Billo love? You are a pinhead! Just coz Billo was a history teacher does not mean he has to actually get history correct. I’m with my fellow retard Gloves – you are all pinheads.

Awww poor Bill.  He should’ve stuck to a topic on par with his own intelligence, like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. 

One of the most disturbing trends in conservatism in recent years is the exploitation of the dummy market — books that appeal to dim-witted readers who will buy whatever you’re selling. Hannity, Coulter, Levin, O’Reilly and their ilk have all gotten quite rich on peddling their high volume/low information screeds that are long on attacks and short on facts. Remember when actual thinking conservatives like William F. Buckley wrote books with ideas and vision and references to actual history? 

The decline of conservatism’s intellectual power is most apparent when one looks at the titles that get churned out like so much garbage. 

Even recent Obama biographers agree Dreams from My Father is a work of fiction(lies) , and some admit that it was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. And yet, this nonsense has not been pulled from bookstore shelves and is even bought in large numbers ( a 16 year old book ! ) by the State Department , to curry favor with King Obama.

“…here’s a guy who wrote two autobiographies that explored events real, imagined, and totally fictional that supposedly forged the modern-day Barack Obama from humble beginnings.  That’s according to the Obama NarrativeTM — which gets most of its facts from Dreams from My Father.

Not only did a poor, nearly destitute Obama manage to afford the trip to Pakistan, but once there he somehow financed two weeks in the Lahore Hilton International.  In addition, Obama was introduced to the future prime minister and president of Pakistan — and went bird-hunting with him.  Which the prime minister mentioned in the Pakistani press in 2008.  There’s so much more, including one question the CMM never asked Obama: who arranged all of this?  For a 20-year-old nobody.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/who_is_barack_obama.html#ixzz1db9ZaUHo

Do you have any sources, other than the Tea Party propaganda you linked to earlier? 

Autobiographies and biographies are completely different. Or did you miss that class in third grade? History is different from both of them too! Also both are classified under Non-Fiction just in case your confused…

It’s sad to say (as a former GOP voter myself) but you are 100% correct.  Keep ‘em coming though, the truth needs to be heard. 

Have you ever thought about the fact that, maybe, they are banning the book because liberals thrive on pointing  out minute inaccuracies about anything conservatives do or say when elephants are allowed to smash everything in sight in their own publications and reports and not noticed, you smug elitist.

If this was a liberal author, your pitch fork would already be ablaze. 

The Obama Conspiracy Industrial Complex at work. 

Significant details don’t matter to the conservative fundamentalist. They already have the answers so why allow facts that might clutter the way?

Find me a factual error in Liberty and Tyranny, please.

There are more than three factual errors in the book, but since you’re an O’Reilly supporter, you’re probably fine with thinking it’s only three. 

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/fords_theatre_flunks_oreillys_lincoln_book/singleton/

Your post doesn’t make sense–unless, of course, you’re trying to point out that Republican “elephants” don’t give a fig about the facts. They just want to sell books to further their political interests and make some $$$, but I guess those two goals are actually just the same thing. 

You’re simply making my case for me. Conservatism is in such a sorry state these days that accuracy is dismissed as “elitist.”

Thank you for stepping up to the stage with your proud display of ignorance. 

And actually, he can’t recall the third one. 

“You don’t want to hear it” does not equal “Tea Party”.

Where are the real scholars? Like Cornell West and Michael Moore and Markos Zuniga?

Heh.

GOP pundits (and to a lesser degree, Lib pundits) have carved out a nice niche in pretending to research serious, academic works which are, in fact, nothing more than glib talking points with cherry-picked sources meant to be sold in bulk to Wal-Mart and Target, etc. I know some people who read them and think they are getting a real education when in fact they are just getting swindled. It’s best to get your history from some well-regarded academics (usually lifelong professors who do original research and don’t wear their political views on their sleeves). 

Anyone who takes anything in a Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, etc book slightly seriously is being naive. Those books are largely ghostwritten by non-historians, for one, and they’re meant to sell you a political point-of-view. 

Oooh! Carville!

http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/B003D7JWB0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1321198722&sr=8-2

What else, Gloves ?

“…even friendly biographers like New Yorker editor David Remnick concede that Dreams is something of a crock. Remnick calls the book a “mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention, and artful shaping.” The same could be said for James Frey’s bestselling memoir, A Million Little Pieces, but for no clear reason, Frey’s many inventions, when revealed in 2006, appalled the same people who celebrate Obama’s.
For a third, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, Obama can’t write worth a Dickens or even a Danielle Steele. He had help with his books, lots of it, and if it wasn’t ”

http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/state_spreads.htm

Funny that such a fact deficient progressive would make such a sweeping claim.

Shhhhh! Ixnay on the onspiracycay.

Pablo, do you only think in hyper-partisan mode? If so, that’s sort of sad. No one is suggesting that Michael Moore or Kos is a serious academic (West is not a historian, either). They are partisan pundits too, like O’Reilly. If you want to get real history you have to pick up works by serious academics who aren’t trying to shove their political views down your throat. Some even write for mass audiences, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCollough and Joseph Ellis (for early American history). Reading what academics have to say about other things, like the labor movement and the 1950s conservative movement may open your eyes to the fact that the world isn’t black-and-white (or commie vs heroic GOP) in all things. 

Good luck, little buddy, and godspeed. 

“We’ve been involved in many military engagements; we’ve had very few declarations of war. And I’m including military engagements that were involved in by people you consider Founders of this nation. It’s because they’ve never, ever, required as a requisite—to defending this country, or even certain military actions—of getting Congress’ approval.”

Totally misleading.  Everybody knows we’ve had few declarations of war. But Congress has also authorized countless lesser military actions — including the ones Levin obviously has in mind when he refers to “people you consider Founders of this nation.”  Adams did not confront the French without congressional approval; same for Jefferson and the Barbary pirates.  I’ve explained this.

“The language was originally ‘Congress shall make war.’ The framers rejected that. And instead replaced ‘make’ with ‘declare.’”

I’ve covered this, too.  It doesn’t even come close to meaning what Levin wants it to.

The constitutional convention was “never going to give war-making power to Congress.”

Sure. Just ignore all the testimony to the contrary.  Of course, Levin could be referring to the power to defend the country in an emergency, but even FDR went to Congress after the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor!

“As for declaring war, if you actually understand the original intent of the framers, and the environment they were living in, the declaration of war was a declaration to the world that we are in a state of war with ‘X, Y, Z,’ country. More than anything else it was also a diplomatic statement of fact—Congress declaring war.”

This is the classic John Yoo argument, and also wrong.  In the 18th century a “declaration of war” could just as easily mean the initiation of hostilities itself.  This, too, is addressed in my overview.

“And as Hamilton pointed out, it’s the ultimate power—the power of the purse.”

Here Levin is trying to claim that the power of Congress over warmaking is confined to the power to de-fund presidential wars.  But as long as Levin wants to quote Hamilton, let’s quote Hamilton, from Federalist #69:

“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

Hamilton elsewhere says that the president’s war powers consist of “the direction of war when authorized or begun.”

Well, that’s pretty much the opposite of Levin’s view.

“You think my view is odd? Well that’s funny, because every single president of the United States has embraced this view—every damn one of em’, from Reagan to Obama.”

Yes, it is simply unthinkable that the two political parties could both defy the Constitution in the same way for 30 whole years.  I mean, we have no precedent for such a thing elsewhere in government, where both parties have scrupulously observed constitutional limits for decades and decades.

WE’LL DO IT LIVE!

And of course you lack any significant details that support your deeply felt conviction.

None of the alleged inaccuracies are significant.  Probably the most significant is that Grant and Lee met twice at Appomattox, but that second meeting followed soon after the first.  It was part of the over all surrender and the two military leaders never met in person again.

Most silly are some of the things about the theater– it’s name; who bore the peep hole; the distance from stage to box.  The sources to dispute those alleged inaccuracies are so weak that they aren’t to be considered important at all.  And I’ve heard a guide at Ford’s say the picture of Washington and the bunting were always placed at the box when Lincoln was there.

Moreover, the story of the assassination isn’t filled with rumor.  I once heard that Lincoln was in the lower box, which was accessible by spiral staircase, and that Booth broke his leg when he fell off his horse drunk.  President Lincoln liked to sit with his arm on the edge of the lower box so the audience could see him enjoying the play.

I’m not too keen on what they produce either, but I would bet that their book sales are pretty meager when compared to the liberal-bashing tomes of O’Reilly / Coulter / Beck / Levin / Hannity / Ingraham / et al. That’s because there appear to be many more willing dupes in conservative circles ready to part with their money for this easy-to-read crap.

You are correct Ralph, the inaccuracies do not matter.  The Right Wing sheep will go out and buy the book.  And for that Billo thanks you.

Good times. 

Any conclusions, Gloves ?

I’m glad you asked. Many reporters by now know that Obama is a crooked, lying, incompetent fraud. They don’t challenge him because the consequences are too great right now. When he is out of power, the truth will emerge.

However, if Barry is planning to return to his Rezko estates mansion to live, he had better cough uo Ayers’ cut of the royalties. You probably don’t want a guy with his and his wife’s background ( FBI Top Ten Most Wanted List) angry at you.

Oh crap the birthers and manchurian candidate ninnies are back.

Pinhead.

Bill O’Reilly is not a serious academic either, nor is he a conservative for that matter.

BTW, I would read Doris Kearns Goodwin, but I’ve already read Rose Kennedy and Lynne McTaggart, so I don’t see the point.

Say the error that makes you believe the book should not be bought or read.

…Factual inaccuracies?!?

What is the big deal? It is only history. What do Ford’s Theater know anyway, such sticklers for detail who have nothing better to do with their time than be excessive and pedantic Historians.

Rest assured Mr O’Reilly, they would never get a high profile job at Fox News with that kind of attitude or be in the NY Times Best Sellers lists either.

Goddamned Liberal hypocrite squares…

No pinhead, there are dozens… http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fords-theatre-historical-review-of-bill-oreillys-lincoln-book/2011/11/12/gIQAC604FN_story.html   This proves you are all ignorant, anti-science, mouth breathers.  You only believe what you want..O’really cant be wrong..but an actuall historian?  LIAR!!!  A scientist?  LIAR!!!

If William F. Buckley was alive today, it is a safe bat that weasels like you would condemn him exactly the same way you condemn all those conservatives, whose shoes you and your ilk would not be qualified to shine or kiss.

Nothing illustrate the morass – intellectual and moral – the Democratic Party has sunken into than the blind slobbering and slavish alliance to 0bama.

And, of course, the success of all things conservative, i.e. books, TV, radio, etc., compared to the abject failure of similar Democratic/liberal endeavors.
   

This O’really support proves the TeaBagRepugs are all ignorant, anti-science, mouth breathers.  They only believe what they want..O’really cant be wrong..but an actuall historian? LIAR!!! A scientist? LIAR!!!     

If you’re going to cut and paste an entire piece of someone else’s work, it’s appropriate to cite and link it. Tom Woods’ piece is here: http://tinyurl.com/7rzm24g

Now, was there something you wanted to tell us about Liberty and Tyranny? Woods doesn’t mention it.

And Newt claims to a historian too…those WW2 and civil war novels he writes are some of the biggest piles of drivel ever put on paper.  They’re worth reading only for how unintentionally funny they are.

So the National Park Service is paid by taxpayers to replace or duplicate all book reviewers in fact-checking all books available for sale in their hallowed book stores? I believe this can simply be called censorship…government censorship. I’ll tell you one thing, Obama’s speeches will never be sold in print form at national Park facilities because they are not only full of inaccuracies, they are full of downright untruths [some would say lies]. Can someone get us the names and credentials of the National Park Service employees empowered [by what, by whom] to perform this parky service?

Facts…who need facts?..Not Repugs thats for sure.

Who you calling a birther?

So you’ve read them?

Even recent Obama biographers agree Dreams from My Father is a work of fiction(lies) 

Could you name them please. Perhaps provide a little less partisan source.

Sitting in a boos store, wasting time, yes.  No, I would NEVER buy em.  Unlike Repugs..I do research before i would form opinions or site facts.

I’ve listened to his idiotic radio show, I wouldn’t waste my time with this simplistic trash.  But I agree with Tom Woods points.

And you’re not refuting them.

Point me!

Have you?

O’Reilly’s past the point of caring about factual inaccuracies or any of you. Me included. So whatever. Read MY blog cuz I still care about you guys.

http://www.purplefastballs.com/2011/11/is-purple-politics-just-blue-dog-in.html

O’Reilly was a History teacher? He needs to turn that term “pinhead” back on himself.

Or, more conservatives buy books and read them. Could be that.

“Sitting in a boos store,”  “ site facts. ” “..but an actuall historian”

book       cite     actual

“inaccuracies’ from a pinhead.

Right, because I’m not interested in heading off into the weeds with you or him. I asked a question. You attempted to plagiarize an answer to it, and you still failed.

To the contrary. If you read my earlier post, you’ll see that I called out WFB for having been intellectually credible and having vision that these current pinheads who claim his mantle never will.

You asked for factual errors, and I gave them. I never tried to pass them off as my own, and this isn’t a university class which requires attribution. Answer the charges or shut up.

Sure you do. I’d love to see the research you did on this: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-perrys-gaffe-was-not-forgetting-agencies-to-cut-its-that-he-wants-to-cut-agencies/#comment-361919611

Sorry typing on my phone..this proves how stoopid i is….i relly read oreally books..he so smart..i repubikin.

In the grand scheme of things, it sounds like these inaccuracies aren’t all that huge, so I’d agree with you there. But what it points to is a larger pattern of making stuff up as you go along in conservative publishing circles. Facts tend to get discarded when appealing to an audience that’s kind of lax about these things.  

Nope. Apparently, you’re far more interested in Gingrich’s novels than I am.

HAHA..Glad to see youre a fan of my work!  Lets call it faith….What is  your research that proves me wrong? Prove biblical authority.  A book written 2000+ years ago cant be wrong…

 I read an article a few months back about a some tricks used to elate the status of a book. You or someone you know, makes bulk buys, and your book moves up.

It will be entertaining to see what this news does to ORielly’s ego and how he responds.

But a scientist in 2011? LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!!!!

Watch it!  Do you know what he can do with a falfel?

“Richard Cizik, past vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, takes the Religious Right to task for advancing “a political agenda by suggesting that the priorities of corporations and the GOP fit snugly with the teachings of Jesus.”

In skimming the linked article it seems to be about status and money rather than education and accuracy.
You’re a TV celebrity so just your name will sell x amount of copies. everybody makes some dough and to hell with accurate details. You’re selling it to the masses so who cares. 

Try typing on your toaster instead.

Glad you read Bill, because he’s looking out for even you.

I only read the latest Lis Wiehl bestsellers.

Pablo, you’re right. O’Reilly is a total libtard. He doesn’t hold a candle to the real conservatives like the Koch brothers and John Birch. 

What other books are there?  Any Howard Zinn?

And if it was a liberal author you would be defending them like a crazed lunatic. Suck it demofag

When writing history every detail is significant.

or the tides?

it’s ok, we all know you conservatives hate facts.

i don’t think he would care actually.

why can’t you answer the charges?

You’ve hit the pinhead right on the head. There is indeed and always has been “dummy” market and thanks to “the internets” and Roger Ailes their views are being mainstreamed. We should bring back the scarlett letter –except this time it would be a “D” for Dummy instead of an “A” for adulterer/ess.

Yes. He’s a robot, a very boring and predictable robot. If you say up he says down. A partisan patsy and contrarian. He’s also got a martyr complex and more than a little paranoia about our vast left wing conspiracy. Their stupidity is astounding.

Actually O’Reilly and his ilk inflate their sales numbers with bulk buys that they then “give away” as premiums to their stupid minion. They are so, so tragic.

Pablum that was funny. Rare for you.

What’s your thoughts on George W. Bush, his presidency, his policies? Do you think he gets a bad rap?

Cosmo, “you ignorant slut!”  O’Reilly donates most, if not all the net profits from his books and merchandise, to charity.  In fact, O’reilly’s largesse has few equals.

Cosmo, again you resort to “demagoguery.”  Meaning, you actively seek out the bad, when the good will do just fine. You want so badly for Conservative’s to be evil that you create such.  You are actually tip-toeing, on the edge of pathology… 

Have you seen any “chupacabra”s lately?  ”The truth is out there,”

Purveyor of Rhetoric

MARY,

Don’t forget to wipe…  But, as you are obviously anal-retentive, I am sure you have an invariable routine?Jeez Lady!  What do you Lefties think this is, a conspiracy?  This is no more, no less than what happens when publishers and author’s hurry–editing suffers!  The world doesn’t end!The second edition will have the needed changes, and life goes on…Purveyor of Rhetoric

Michael Moore makes several mistakes in his documentaries.

Holy shit, did I just blow your mind?

You mean Bill-O lied? Guffaw! I never saw that coming. 

You guys are going off on a partisan hate fest, then you whine about someone responding partisanly? This just shows how logic is absent in partisans who prefer rallying against others rather than applying reason themselves. Partisans can only see(or only care) when the other ‘side’ does something that they do themselves. Its surprising that people like that can even walk straight.

Why should this be news or be a surprise to anyone???  Bill O Reilly, Fox Fake news and all their right wing extremist syccophants always rewrite history and distort the facts and truth to spin things in a way that is consistent with life in an alternative universe.  The truth is in none of these people.

Both O’Reilly and his co-writer would have flunked any college level history writing course with these inacurracies. He taught history? He didn’t have ‘ A Pocket Guide to Writing In History’ by Mary Lynn Rampolla? It’s basic to history writing. Inexcusable.

Already 42% off and it has only been about six weeks… Wait till Christmas and HE will pay YOU to read it. Also, check out the negative reviews.

Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever by Martin Dugard (Hardcover – September 27, 2011)
$28.00 $16.11

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Lincoln-Shocking-Assassination-Changed/product-reviews/0805093079/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

O’Reilly is great in his own mind, so he does not have to be factual when writing about history.

So why dont you write a book and tell us all the facts

And the libatards tell the truth all the time.I dont think so.They are always trying to hurt peoples lives.I dont mind the truth but the libatards dont even get close.

Here’s a whole article about how stupid is the “Liberty and Tyranny” booklet by rageaholic Levin.

URL: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/04/dumb_mark_levin_quote_of_the_d.html

Again:

“[i]f the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’”?

Your “culture” is phony to the core. Science? History? It’s all fake in Faux/GOP land.

Imagine a debate like this on “The Spin Zone.”

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VIvqyrxbL8

It reminds one of the long vanished intellectual tradition of conservative debate.

It’s worse now than recent history, but it’s always been there.

We are a devoutly anti-intellectual nation that values ignorance over knowledge.

We don’t know history and we hate science: welcome to greatest country in the world.

It’s your culture. Everytime you attack elites, it’s on display.

“Elites” know things–the common folk don’t.

Facts have a liberal bias, and O’Reilly has a loofah shoved up his ass.

You don’t believe in scholarship; that’s why you like the pizza prophet.

Business folks usually know nothing except how to make money. Trying to seduce teenagers to buy your fast food over the other guy’s fast food is not such a scholarly pursuit.

Vote for pizza 2012!

Facts don’t matter to Republicans.  That’s why compulsive liars are able to sell books.

Levin’s is a book of opinion.

Asking for factual errors in an opinion piece?

Oh, right? You’re GOP and you don’t know the difference.

O’reilly and Beck don’t actually write their books–their lackeys do. Folks in the Midwest will suck anything off the rack with these two clowns name on it. Just like the rest of the Fox kooks within the brand.

Beck and O’reilly are entertainers–not writers.

Guffaw..WFB would have nothing to do with today’s Republican party. That dude was actually an intelligent man.

Yeah…that little disturbing trait called “accuracy” with regards to history. Why bother with it eh? For example, does it really matter whether the country gained independence on the 4th of July or the 3rd or the 6th? Bah….accuracy, who cares for these trivial things!

(libatards)..”They are always trying to hurt people’s lives.” Silliest statement I’ve ever read. I can’t believe we’re both Harvick fans…

“O’Reilly donates most, if not all the net profits from his books and merchandise, to charity.”

“Future Victims of Bill O’Reilly’s Sexual Assaults” is not a charity.

“In fact, O’reilly’s largesse has few equals.”

There’s Greta Van Sustern’s largese. That thing is enormous.

Excellent points, well thought out, and expressed without insulting rhetoric. Very refreshing. Unfortunately, there will be no rebuttal similar to what you expressed…simply, insults and off-topic banalities.

Ever see Idiocracy?

O’Reilly was a history teacher in the way that Jerry Sandusky was a tenured professor.

I found the book full of fascinating anecdotes. I think my favorite is the scene on Air Force One when Lincoln, while looking at a five dollar bill, said to his vice president, Lyndon Johnson: “Do I really look like that?”

Anyone who looks to B O’R for scholarship or the truth is on a fool’s errand.

Well O’Reilly noted that the Moon has nothing to do with the tides. Like he said the, “the tides come in, and the tides go out”. Note, if you cannot understand irony you may not get the point.

Or racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35XI37SVVYI

 ”demofag?”
Once again proving all conservatives are 12-year-olds.

Down with fancy book learning!

The difference is that the Ol’ Culture War General purports himself to be a deep thinker and scholar and better than liberals especially entertainers. 

Conservatism has a built-in audience of rubes. That’s why you see so many washed up entertainers (Dennis Miller, Hank Junior, Victoria Jackson, Jackie Mason etc) go hard right when their careers fall apart. They know the morons will still buy anything with an ‘R” beside it.

“some admit that it was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers”
and some morons believe the moon is made of cheese.

Still can’t think of anything new to say I see. Go smoke some more Kim Bong Il.

awww….you’re just mad that no praises George W. Boosh’s ghostwritten bore of a book.

A black man is your president. Deal with it.

I hear O’Reilly’s book won 16 Peabody awards for its accuracy.

Your stupidity has few equals.

By Christmas Newsmax will be offering copies free with a subscription — and O’Reilly will be shipping boxes of his books to Afghanistan and Iraq – free to the troops who will burn them.

“everybody makes some dough and to hell with accurate details. You’re selling it to the masses so who cares.”  Goverment and entertainment in a nutshell.     

I’m not sure that was his first choice for product placement.

Good observation. 

Please allow me to explain. I am an almost 18 year National Park Service employee, and for almost 16 of them have managed Eastern National bookstores.

In short, if a book, DVD, CD, or anything else appears on the shelf in a National Park Service visitor center, in an Eastern National bookstore, the implication is that the NPS and Eastern National endorses the book. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the NPS endorses an author’s point of view or ideas, or that the disapproval of an item implies that the NPS does not agree with the author’s ideas or themes. We work hard to ensure that a bookstore contains books that are of the highest quality and scholarship. We simply can’t endorse a book or item that is the result of bad research and, in this case, history. There are many better books that deserve space on the shelf more than O’Reilly’s, even though the O’Reilly book would sell a lot of copies.

This book may  allow a visitor to learn a bit more about the Lincoln assassination, but it is, simply, a bad book. There are just too many historical errors…perhaps they will fix them for the paperback edition.

Most of the interpretive employees at Ford’s Theatre (and all Lincoln sites) are true subject matter experts. A friend of mine, who recently transferred to another site, did an M.A. and is working on a PhD on Lincoln’s presidency.

I have to make the same calls all the time on the Civil War, and a specific 1862 campaign. I cannot, and will not, accept and offer for visitors every book available on the campaign, because some of them are just  poorly done.

To be fair, a lie entails deliberate misleading. B O’R doesn’t know or care what the truth is, so it’s not a lie, it’s more of a pattern of disregard of any facts that don’t fit into the murdoch/Ayers/Fox narative. 

C’mon lighten up. That was funny

Weird. I just finished the book two days ago, and was just telling my parents at dinner today how much I enjoyed the reading, but was bothered by the historical inaacuracies. My mom, also a politics/history/documentary buff person argued that perhaps the versions I had read or heard before were inaccurate. But I countered that there wasn’t an Oval Office in Lincoln’s time, and pointed out several other obvious discrepancies.

I no sooner got home and logged on than I saw this headline article about the inaccuracies, and the banning of the book at Ford’s. Vindicated!!

The shame of it is that some people will take O’Reilly’s version to be gospel, and the distortion of the historical truth may be passed on to others, as well as future generations.

I don’t think he set out to be a revisionist with this book. I just think his research was very poor, if not non-existent, especially for a former high school history teacher. I also think he wanted to get this book out fast in order to make a buck. I also blame the publishers, and especially the editors, of this book. How could you let so many inaccuracies slide by you? I’ll tell you why.  $$$$$$$$$$

It’s just like O’Reilly’s show, it has a lot of inaccuracies. 

 How many does it take before they become significant? Multiple references to the Oval office when it didn’t exist at the time. I read another review that said ORielly mentions some assassination plot theory that has long been debunked.

It appears to be a money making proposition that that is a little to careless with historical fact. But hey, I hear his books burn rather well so they do have some value.

I’m wondering where you cut and pasted this from. Shouldn’t you use quotation marks? 

So you’re saying it’s more about status than money?

BTW: When I say money, it’s not just money from book sales.
 I do however bow to your superior knowledge and experience in pathology. {but not your ability to access it in others}

Smart people make shit up!

The topic is Liberty and Tyranny, nitwit. Address it, or stfu.

Because “I read it differently!” really doesn’t leave much to address.

So, you haven’t read it, then?

You forgot “off topic” and “plagiarized”.

A half black man. Maybe next time.

Bill Ayers is one of them. I wonder what he thinks the moon is made of.

Ah. Faith = research. A progressive!

Poorly (if at all) researched.

I see. “Nobody knows how to hate more than the Evangelicals.  No bigger group of ignorant people than the  Evangelicals.  No other group wants to take over the Government and force everyone to their way of thinking”

And to prove this, you cite as an authority Richard Cizik, past vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Brilliant.

People who tell the truth don’t have to change their story all the time. That’s why you’re confused.

Actually, the topic is Bill-O’s book, but lets talk Levin.

“The Statist has also opposed the interception of enemy communications, such as email and cell-phone contacts, without approval from a court. But his position is contrary to all legal precedent, historical practice and highly impractical, given the speed by which such communications occur. Yet again he claims the practice threatens Americans’ civil liberties. Where is the actual evidence of widespread civil liberties abuses against American citizens? It is nonexistent.”

Here he is talking about the PATRIOT Act, and he presupposes that all email communication in North America is enemy communication when Bush spied on ALL EMAILS, not just enemy emails.

“Ensure that all foreign policy decisions are made for the purpose of preserving and improving American society. Reject all treaties, entanglements, institutions, and enterprises that have as their purpose the supplantation of America’s best interest, including its physical, cultural, economic and military sovereignty, to an amorphous ‘global’ interest… Ensure that America remains the world’s superpower. Ensure that at all times America’s military forces are prepared for war to dissuade attacks, encourage peace, and, if necessary, win any war.”

Levin writes this after a long impassioned dissertation on why Bush was right to invade Iraq, but doesn’t use Bush’s own argument that Iraq, since they didn’t have WMD, was liberated for the national good of Iraq.

But my favorite:

“The Statist’s Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fascism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species – tyranny. The primary precept around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word – equality.”

Monarchy is based on equality? Fascism? This proves the man knows nothing of the history of the world.

I’m a Libertarian/Independent/Conservative. I usually vote GOP in presidential elections, but I never vote straight ticket. Vote for the best man for the job is my motto.

That being said, they are not banning this book due to “liberals”. I finished reading my Kindle version 2 days ago, and was just remarking to my parents at dinner today that, although it was an enjoyable read, I was fdisturbed by its historical inaccuracies. My mom, 76 years old but sharp as a tack (I’m 57), suggested that perhaps my previous readings, etc. about Lincoln’s assassination were inaccurate. I pointed out a number of glaring discrepancies (such as the “Oval Office” references in the book.)

After dinner, I returned home, logged on and, to my surprise, one of the lead articles on the AOL Homepage ws Ford’s rejection of O’Reilly’s account due to numerous historical accuracies.

This isn’t to be taken lightly. O’Reilly has a lot of influence, and some hang on his every word. Many people are going to take this book as gospel, which will also affect future generations.

I don’t think Bill was trying to be a revisionist. I think Bill was trying to make a buck, and didn’t bother researching his material. He’s supposedly a former high school history teacher. You want YOUR kid in his class?

I also blame his editors and publishers. How his editors could have let these many inaccuracies slip through is beyond me (wink; $$$$$$$). I blame them secondarily to O’Reilly. The publishers, well, they did their job. They apparently hired and/or encouraged editors to get this book to market. But for all involved, it still boils down to $$$$$.

Doris Kearns Goodwin is an excellent source. For a good view of Lincoln’s presidency, read “Team of Rivals”. She’s a wonderful presidential historian (as far as I can tell thus far. I always, always, keep one eye open).

Point you?  I believe you’re referring to Tiger Woods, rather than Tom Woods points.

>> “Facts don’t matter to Republicans…That’s why compulsive liars…People who tell the truth don’t have to change their story all the time.”

Ohhhhh…you mean like Bill Clinton putting his hand on a Bible..swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…and then stating, for the record, to a Federal Grand Jury: “I did not have sex with that girl.”

Oh, wait, wait, wait — or in current terms, maybe it’s like Eric Holder appearing before a Congressional committee…where he likewise gets sworn in and promises to tell the truth…at which point he states he was NEVER told about the “Fast and Furious” gun operation. The only problem being now memos show that wasn’t true either.

Yeah, you’re right, doofus.
Liberals NEVER have to change their stories.
(insert mocking eye roll here…)

>> Witold Piorun: “Already 42% off and it has only been about six weeks…”

You know, speaking as an Independent, I realize those on the Left don’t like O’Reilly. The same way those on the Right might not like an Olbermann or a Maddow. That’s a given as people choose sides. Still, it always cracks me up when someone shoots off their mouth BEFORE thinking or they stupidly throw up a post that only makes them look like a retarded ass.

First — as the article notes — the book is SECOND on the New York Times Bestseller list. And yes, that’s AFTER six weeks. Which means, in publishing terms, sales on the book are actually incredibly healthy and very, very, VERY good.

Second — apparently Witold THINKS he/she is making a mocking point, and is scoring some kind of silly Lib points, by saying the book is “already 42% off”…at which point he/she supplies a link to Amazon.

LOL really? THAT is the best you can do?  If so, please take note that the article also says (quote): “Bill O’Reilly’s latest tome…now only second on the list to the new Steve Jobs biography.”

So, if you think 42% off at Amazon is “bad” and that is sign of failure, please note that the Jobs book…you know, the one that is ahead of O’Reilly’s and is #1…..is FORTY NINE percent off.

MORON.

In reply to Pablum — How in the hell could you possibly know what smart people would say or do? You don’t know any, well none that would engage a moron like you in person.

Of course Ms. Emerson has banned Bill’s book.  What can you expect from an unabashed flaming Liberal?

After reflection maybe Emerson’s biased decision was justified…after all Lincoln’s office wasn’t oval…it was square…LOL

Bob, who friggin’ cares what color he is? I mean, really.

Our country, and the world, is in deep shit. And you think all we have to think about is what color our president’s skin is?

Get over it, dude. It’s all about who can lead this country out of the mess we’re in. Of course, we have to contribute as well. The government has absolutely nothing without the people. Problem is, people just haven’t realized that yet.

Color?  Shit. My favorite niece’s dad is black, and her mother is white. She’s absolutely gorgeous, gifted, and talented. We love each other to pieces. I get so angry when I hear shit like yours!!!!!

Get out of here with your “black” shit. It doesn’t fly anymore. Judge people on their capabilities and potential, not on what color their skin is.

As far as I’m concerned, your comment is as racist as a KKK statement.

Greg,

You’re probably right that “Significant details don’t matter to the conservative fundamentalist”. But the sword cuts both ways. Libs have thier own way of ignoring facts themselves.

Personally,as an Independent/Libertarian, and an amateur historian, I reject this book on its factual basis. It’s full of inaccuracies, which I had brought up with many relatives and friends before this article ever appeared.

I just want the truth. Dem, GOP, 3rd, 4th, or 5th party candidate, I wish this country had the balls to elect someone who displays honesty and integrity. I don’t care what party they belong to. This partisanship has to go.

I may read it, but gotta find a free copy.

Loan me yours?

Who thought that O’Reilly’s book was going to be a work of actual scholarship?  I’d love to see this sort of coverage when any book is turned down by the National Park Service.  Oh wait.

“Cliinton.”

DRINK!!!

So what’s new? Conservatives have never concerned themselves with facts. Facts and truth are nothing more than Socialist conspiricies.

“demofag”?

Lotta hatred for our friends in the gay community, eh?

You should see the new Hoover movie–you might find it “illuminating.”

Bill should totally fire that guy who wrote it for him. That guy is a pinhead.

You are a tool…purveyor of nonsense. 

Liar…he donates profits from merchandise sold FROM HIS SITE. Commendable, but it’s not close to “most or all of his net profits” since most of his sales are not from his website. The only ignorant sult here is you. Quit your nutswinging off of Billo’s balls buddy.

No – Bill O. considers himself a fair thinker. Michael Moore thinks he’s a deep thinker.

I heard the movie was horrible.

Hahahaha what would this site do without Pablo, Gloves, Turk and Tatboy?

However, isn’t it likely that the O’Reilly book is selling because of the author’s name, while the Jobs book is selling because of the subject’s name? Popularity does not equal accuracy in the book world does it?

Trivia question:  Do you recall where the phrase “ignorant slut” came from?

NO COMMENT

Quote:  ”Liar,” implies a degree of malice aforethought.  Even if you don’t like me, you should at least concede that I am NOT a “liar,” as if and when I err, I admit the mistake, apologize, attempt to correct it and move on…

AS FOR YOU, BLACK EAGLE… You acknowledged the overall veracity of my statement when you used the word “Commendable,” referring to Oreilly’s “largesse.”  Ergo, YOU gave credence to MY assertion.  

Mr. Oreilly is, indeed a very charitable man.  That fact causes you frustration to your “sincerely held belief system,” meaning, causes you “cognitive dissonance.”

Purveyor of Rhetoric

NO COMMENT

Touche’  LOL

Somewhat like a kid pretending to be engrossed in a book, with a comic book hidden behind it?

Purveyor

Somewhat, yes.
I want to be neutral about the book. I am no fan of O’Reilly, but no enemy either, and I’m not into Lincoln history right now. I have been curious about whether the book added something to the discussion among serious history buffs, but that is it.

Who cares what color he is? Oh, I dunno…maybe the guy who I was responding to who brought it up.
Sounds like it’s the old conservative mantra of “We can’t even make racial attacks without being called racist!!”

I should have added a LOL, as I was kidding around, BUT, point taken.  If the book adds to the discourse and education, and appropriate changes can be made in the 2nd edition…  Great!

Let’s see, mid terms are over, Thanksgiving break coming up, BUT, all you’ll be thinking about is finals? Ouch!

Good Luck, Purveyor

Yes. Strain has decreased my sense of humor. One term paper done last week. One done yesterday. And one more due tomorrow. Plus, I had internet problems for three days. Had to have AT&T come replace their wireless modem that I use. That meant time set aside for doing different papers on different days got squeezed together, AND each paper had one partner to coordinate with and satisfy.
Getting an “urgent” message about one while trying to concentrate on the other is as stressful as things get.
After this, two weeks of winding down with three exams at the end. Then, FREE AT LAST!

Years ago, in a Con-Law class, I volunteered to read and report on the 19th century Libertarian philosopher, John Stuart Mill. Specifically his essay, “On Liberty.” I became enthralled with the implications of Mill’s treatise as it fit nicely with my major thesis of neutral principle.

I don’t know how I did it, or how it happened, BUT, I scattered a 90% completed, 20 page document, to the wind! OUCH! (No back up, I don’t recall why) but I always have backup now! LOL)

All I had was draft pages that had made it to the garbage can. Also, I use foot notes, so the reader can immediately see my source.

Anyway, I got an A, but only 90 points! (I still have the paper) But, the Professor wondered why I had no criticism of Mill, just complimentary discussion? JEEZ!

I get sick thinking about it!

DOUGLAS,

Nice to make your acquaintance.  Respectfully, I question your 3rd paragraph as I suspect such offers me a hint of bias, on your part?  Overall, I appreciate your work and service to your Nation and I believe your summary is good.  However…

Simply put, a public employee, sometimes has conflicting responsibilities, and the public can only hope the proper decisions are made, on their behalf.  For instance: Should the Park Service, offer for sale a book that is so arcane that it may only be read by serious students and/or academics?  Or, should the book be of interest to broad range of visitors? (Recap., was only one example)  Moreover, historical accuracy is a/the paramount consideration, BUT!

I am not yet convinced that you, or the powers that be have substituted political considerations, for readability, etc.?  As I mentioned above, paragraph #3, makes me wonder?  Just how many, and how substantive the “historical errors” are, before YOU would eliminate a book from consideration?

The Purveyor of Rhetoric

A clever retort!

You get a cookie!  LOL   

(Note: I am not being mean, just giving credit where due, that was funny)

Howdy BRUCE, long time no see?

You do understand that in the last, oh, 170 years, there have been quite few “Socialist Conspiracies?”

BRUCE, this is your time, your era, YOUR “Conspiracy,” your opportunity to make history.  Now you can tell your Grand Children you were a part of a Socialist Conspiracy/Revolution, on VISITING DAY, of course!  LOL

Purveyor

It is a safe bet that the slimy nit-pickers will give a free pass to Chris Matthews’s book about the biggest philandering tomcat ever to occupy the White House.

If William F Buckley was alive today, you and your ilk would be just as relentlessly stupid and malicious to smear him as you are smearing living Republicans. Or even INDEPENDENTS, like Bill O’Reilley.

Typical liberal logic, steeped in hatred, in desire to hurt – unconditionally – everyone they disagree with, soaked in the juices of blind and unseeing malevolence, liberals claim on one breath that Republicans/conservatives are illiterate and on the other breath they condemn them for buying and reading books.

All the while admitting that their spokesmen/women are utterly incapable to write even ‘easy-to-read crap’
appealing their own sheep.   

To answer your question: Yes, I would prefer O’Reilly as the the teacher of my kids, if for no other reason but the fact that he does not belong to the Teachers Union.

The so-called inaccuracies in his book pale in comparison to the willfully evil lies and misrepresentations in so-called ‘history books’ peddled and taught today in schools.

As for the charges that he only tries to make a buck, or that his book is a best-seller only because of bulk buys, he donates thousands of dollars from the proceeds of his book sales to various charities and sends thousands of copies of his bulk-bought books to the troops, overseas.

Until a liberal author does anything even remotely similar, I will side with O’Reilly.

Biographies are written by people of people whose lives they held valuable enough to write about.

Autobiographies are written by people who are near the twilight of their years. Usually older folks, who rightly or wrongly think that they contributed to the human race.

When a young person writes an autobiography (or more correctly bribes and hires some lackey to put some incoherent nonsense into a readable form) you can bet that it is a result of an ego the height of which no self-achieved accomplishment could ever reach.    

You are lying by being duplicitous in your presentation. That was my point. You misrepresented facts. O’Reilly is charitable, but, you exaggerated the extent of his giving. That is distortion of reality.

This is pathetic when the inventory of some museum’s gift shop is considered a really important subject. I am sure they don’t sell say Anne Coulter’s or Al Franken’s books there either, SO WHAT??

I’m guessing the listed inaccuracies are the best they could come up with. I’d have thought it would take much, more for a liberal to ban a book but I guess the real reasons for the banning are obvious and I doubt we’ll hear any outrage from the left.

So, the inventory of a gift shop is your business now?

Good points and lets not forget the only ones allowed to report history inaccurately are the left. Anyone else should just shut up already :P

No one banned the book. Are you trying to dictate to some little business what they should or shouldn’t stock in the way of inventory? Well, one thing for sure, you certainly can’t be an elitist with such astounding density of thought.

Actually I can’t think of an instance where this show was on the other foot but since you mentioned it, would you even care if it were?

So you broke the thread’s topic again to dump some of your mindless anti Obama conspiracy rubbish on us?

They are so desperate for any sort of entertainment talent, since most of them are dull humorless bores, that they will latch on to any has-been who wants to reboot his career. Meanwhile, they will spend a 1/3rd of their time whining about how Hollyweird liberals need to shut up.

God, I hate Levin’s ugly grating voice, always full of such venom & outrage. He is the definition of an ugly little man is all senses of the term,

Have a reasonable, on topic discussion maybe?

So now you want to dictate to the gift shop what they should or shouldn’t sell

Even the title is dishonest. No one banned the book from the theater. The subject of this teabagger whine du jour is they simply WON’T SELL IT at the theater. SO SPARE US YOUR BS ABOUT CENSORSHIP!

It is fair to say some teabag idiot will  find some irrelevant point to make his earlier irrelevant point seem legit.

Nothing exhibits your bottomless pit of hatred and stupidity that not only that you missed the main point of the thread, but in your little mind you have to link everything to Obama.

Where is the law that requires the NPS to sell any book period? Don’t they have the right to decide what books they want to sell or not without some mental midget getting into a tizzy over it? I love the way you pseudo intellectual teabaggers link EVERYTHING to Obama!

Lie, no one banned the book! But maybe your mind is so jumbled that you can’t discern between “not selling a book” versus “banning a book”, but believe me, there is a big difference

How did your  little mind come to the conclusion she is a flaming liberal? Why don’t you get a better screen name, like Braindead4Ever3?

NO COMMENT

Do they sell that book there? If not, then shut up.

Because its a historian’s job to solely attack republicans and ban their books. Get real.

But you bought and read the Tim Tebow autobiography I bet because hes the messiah. 

Well, no book was banned. It seems that a conservative’s job is to post a bunch of dishonest, hysterical rubbish on threads then pout when he gets abused for posting rubbish.

American “Thinker” is a sewer blog full of op-eds by total crackpots, morons and liars. But aside from that, it is an unimpeachable source.

Always good to hear from you.

They do sell it there. The article is bogus. Even MSNBC did that much investigation before they ran with the story.

You don’t seem too concerned with facts either. The book is on sell there.

I have too many backups. It happens when you have to work with a partner or two, and that is the way they run most business classes these days. Drafts get traded back and forth, and pretty soon don’t know which is which, especially when there is disagreement to be worked out.

So now that this “liberals banning book” accusation has been exposed as utter garbage, will any of our 2 bit dittoheads apologize?

–

Bill O’Reilly Book ‘Killing Lincoln’ Banned From Ford’s Theater For Factual Inaccuracies
–
There are four inaccuracies in that sentence.

1) It’s Ford’s Theatre, not Theater.

2) It’s still being sold in Ford’s Theatre,

3) It wasn’t banned.

4) The reason it’s not being sold in the bookstore is because it’s lacking the necessary documentation, it has nothing to do with the trivial mistakes.

They couldn’t even write one sentence without making four bigger errors than the examples given trying to discredit the book.  Does it get more ironic than this… I think not.

I liked the ending of the book when zombie Lincoln comes back to life to tear out Bill’s organs with a bronze cutlass for being such a smug arrogant tool. Nobody so stubbornly biased should ever claim to be a historian.

Show me ANY book by biographers, historians or fiction writers that does NOT have any minor errors, and I’ll show you a fake!

That version was clearly written by a writer on the NYTimes or the Washington Post.  Cute joke, though.

When books were “banned in Boston” in the olden days, it was not banned in other places.  So if a book cannot be sold in the Ford’s Theatre venue, that means it is banned there.  Most of the world, however, does not buy there books at Ford’s Theatre, so no loss.

If a book cannot be sold at a certain venue, while other equally or more inaccurate books on the same subject are allowed to be sold, then please please please explain to us the meaning of the word “banned”.

Chapter 19

“After it (Ford’s Theatre) was burned to the ground in 1863 . . . . . . . “

Fact comment:

December 30, 1862, fire broke out and gutted the interior leaving only the blackened walls standing.

Reference:

Restoration of Ford’s Theatre (Historic Structures Report, George J. Olszewski, Ph.D, Historian, National Capital Region, National Park Service; 1963; p. 11)

OMG!!! BOR was wrong by 2 days!!! Horror of Horrors….1863 or 1862?

Um he didnt specify when in 1863 could be two days could be over 300. Clearly he didn’t know so he played it safe and said 1863. So dont get self righteous with me. He didn’t know and decided he couldn’t send an intern to find out. So next time you wanted to sound smart at a cocktail party you say hey “it burned down in 1863.” Your friends stare at you at awe and learn a new false fact that they share with others! But historians don’t like this because unlike you they like facts!  So go relearn all the stuff you learn from O’Reilly’s book and then get back to me. 

Touche this is the better argument. Not the below one that one was silly!

So Mediaite…Where is your big Headline with a Pic of O’reilly stating that the Washington Post Article was wrong and that Killing Lincoln is on sale according to the head of the Ford Theatre.  I guess these things don’t matter since the damage has already been done and perception altered at least in some small measure. Mission Accomplished.

Sorry Mardec,

but not selling a book is not the same as banning it. For instance, they probably don’t sell any of the “Lord of the Rings” series there either. Does that mean that you are prohibited from bringing your own copy into the theater? NOOO! If you want to disagree with that, then you are a moron, a crackpot and/or a congenital liar. So stop being a petty little person and creating a fake controversy out of nothing. All you seem to be doing with these paranoid fantasies is projecting your own wishes.

Besides,there are actually two gift shops there and one of them DOES SELL the book, so all the righties here complaining are a pathetic dishonest crackpots!

No, sorry but if you can’t distinguish “NOT SELLING A BOOK” from “BANNING A BOOK” then I can’t have a reasonable discussion with you. When a book was banned in Boston, that meant it was a CRIME to possess it IN BOSTON. Are you going to lie and tell us that Fords Theater searches then arrests patrons who bring their own copy into the theater? So to extend your perverted logic even further, I can claim that every
book, record, movie, etc  that is not in your house means you are trying to ban those works. Just because someone doesn’t promote or approve of your ideas, it doesn’t mean they are trying to censor or silence you. You confuse tolerance with approval.

Besides, it was shown later that one of the two gift shops there DOES SELL O’Reilly’s crappy book. So once again, what is your point?

Will the Park Service allow this to be sold in all 57 states?

O’rielly pulled a fast-one on his views to make money, if you want to know Lincoln History it seem to me you would go to the library and take out some books on Lincoln.
Why would purchase killing Lincoln written by O’rielly and co-written by Martin Dugard for sure thats not the whole stoy.
Several Months ago i watch on c-span2 booktv, The Flery Trial; Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.

Oh my god – where is the journalistic integrity?  BILL’O  WAS A HISTORY TEACHER ????    HE’S THE EFFING PINHEAD YOU MORON!!!!!!!!!!    Leave it to republicans to not give a $*&%^   about facts.   **************   BUT IF A DEMOCRAT MADE MISTAKES LIKE THIS, OOOOOOH, THE RIGHT WING WACKADOODLES WOULD BE ALL OVER IT.  

It’s a good thing Bill O’reilly is an entertainer and not a news reporter, because that would sure be an embarrassment.  NEWS IS FACTS.  PINHEAD?   WHO’S THE PINHEAD?  THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HISTORY TEACHERS AND POLITICAL JOURNALISTS AND CAN’T EVEN GET POLITICAL FACTS RIGHT?  

Oh my god – where is the journalistic integrity?  BILL’O  WAS A HISTORY TEACHER ????    HE’S THE EFFING PINHEAD YOU MORON!!!!!!!!!!    Leave it to republicans to not give a $*&%^   about facts.   **************   BUT IF A DEMOCRAT MADE MISTAKES LIKE THIS, OOOOOOH, THE RIGHT WING WACKADOODLES WOULD BE ALL OVER IT.  

It’s a good thing Bill O’reilly is an entertainer and not a news reporter, because that would sure be an embarrassment.  NEWS IS FACTS.  PINHEAD?   WHO’S THE PINHEAD?  THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HISTORY TEACHERS AND POLITICAL JOURNALISTS AND CAN’T EVEN GET POLITICAL FACTS RIGHT?

2 things.
1 – it’s a lie – the book IS sold there, has sold out and been reordered
2 – What? I don’t think I knew TV Guide is a liberal mouthpiece. And an inaccurate one at that. Do you ever even bother to check your facts? Apparently not – you’ve not updated your inaccurate info. Just like MOST liberal mouthpieces.

Beck uses real historians – you know, the ones who actually have the original documents in their possession. You’re comments show that instead of find out from the source, you’re getting inaccurate info from those who hope you just listen to them as they misinform you. And they’re winning.