I can't tell which is more crazy, his false religion or his false history.

I suggest reading the actual historical documents of the USA. A good source is the Avalon project at Yale Law School. Look at the Presidential papers, for example, Thomas Jefferson's "Autobiography" and "Notes on the State of Virginia".

In his autobiography discussing the Virginia Bill of Rights, Jefferson specifically includes Islam within the "mantle of it's protection".

"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

The "Notes on the State of Virginia" are organized as responses to Queries. In response to Query XVII "The different religions received into that state?" Jefferson discusses the history of religious freedom in England, the New World, and Virginia.

For example in discussing why Government should stay out of regulating certain affairs such as religion Jefferson used this analogy to science.

"Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith."

Jefferson criticized all religious laws that prevented the free use of reason to settle one's beliefs based on reason and inquiry rather than on revelation or authority.

"Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged."

Jefferson specifically said that another person's religious beliefs, including atheism, were not harmful, it is only acts and behavior that are harmful.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

No amount of religious coercion works, or should be tolerated, especially in the name of uniformity..

"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Jefferson says that liberty does NOT come from God nor does God take sides in politics.

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."

Like everything FOX they are even lying about what an "ombudsman's" role is when O'Reilly gives her orders who to respond to and what to respond to. It is clear O'Reilly is takeing control of his "ombudsman" thus violating the first rule: that an ombudsman must have total independence to decide what to respond to and how.