The Friday 4-30-10 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - May 1, 2010 - 8:30am

Juan Williams was in for O'Reilly again. The top story was the Arizona immigration law again. Juan said the Arizona immigration law has inspired legal challenges, boycotts, and opposition from celebrities like Shakira and Linda Ronstadt. So he had crazy Ann Coulter on to talk about it. Coulter said this: "I like listening to air-headed celebrities, which is almost identical to listening to news broadcasters. Everyone is blatantly lying about what this law does - racial profiling is specifically prohibited and cops can not initiate contact with anyone based or race or national origin."

Coulter is nuts, and almost everything she said is wrong. She even denied that Republicans got more money from Wall Street than the Democrats did. Not to mention, Juan never said a word about the Republicans meeting with the Wall Street guys to get money from them to block financial reform. Both Juan and Coulter ignored all that. I will say also this, Juan Williams gave Coulter a full 20 minutes to spew out non-stop right-wing propaganda and lies, with nobody to counter anything she said. She had two segments at the start of the show, which gave her 20 minutes to lie her ass off.

Juan even kissed her ass and told her she does not truck in rhetoric, after she trucked in rhetoric for 20 fricking minutes. The whole thing was a joke, it was like an RNC campaign ad, all lies. Coulter just made everything political and blamed the Democrats for everything, when it was the Bush administration that did it all. Juan even lied almost as much as she did, he said Bill Clinton thinks Goldman Sachs is innocent. Then he played a clip of Clinton saying it, the problem is, Juan was lying. Clinton did not say they were innocent, he said he is not sure if they did anything wrong or not. That's a big difference, and Juan was caught pulling an O'Reilly. Misrepresenting what a Democrat said, which is what O'Reilly does almost every night.

Then as if that was not enough right-wing propaganda, Juan had Eric Bolling from Fox on, he is the guy who fills in for Glenn Beck when he is on vacation. So crazy Bolling spent his entire segment saying drill baby drill. But he did say one thing that was true, he disputed the notion that President Obama has been unresponsive on the oil spill. Bolling said this: "He's out in front of it, he's got the Coast Guard there and he's doing everything he can do. This is BP's fault - they are going to be absolutely responsible for the cleanup and we are going to hold them responsible."

Which is about the only thing he said that was true. Because he spent the rest of the segment saying Obama should stick with his plan to drill for oil in the ocean or we will see $5.00 a gallon gas. He also complained that Obama might regulate the oil drilling too much. But he never said a word about BP not having a remote valve to close off the well, which would have cost them $500,000, he ignored that. And btw, $500,000 is about what they make in one second, but some Republicans have said it's too expensive for them to do. I say bull, and it should be a law to have that remote shut off valve.

Now think about this, Juan Williams, the so-called Democrat, gave Ann Coulter and Eric Bolling the entire first half of the show, all 30 minutes, to spew out nothing but right-wing propaganda, with nobody from the left to give the counterpoint. And during the other 3 nights he hosted it was just like O'Reilly was there. Juan took the Republican side on almost every issue, and once or twice he had a weak counter to some right-wing spin by Dick Morris or some other right-winger.

Which is exactly what O'Reilly does, they are like twins. If that's a democrat, I'm Donald Trump. Because a real Democrat would have disagreed with them 90% of the time, not agree with them 90% of the time. And a real Democrat would not give Coulter and Bolling 30 minutes to spew out right-wing propaganda. And this is a perfect example for why I count Juan Williams as a Republican in the guest list count. Because he agrees with Republicans 90% of the time, which makes him a Republican.

The rest of the show was not really worth reporting on very much. He did a segment on the UN selecting Iran to serve on its Commission on the Status of Women, a panel whose stated goal is gender equality. Juan had Lebanese-born Brigitte Gabrielon to discuss it, and she ridiculed the selection. It's news, but it's not news that the average American cares about, because it has nothing to do with what happens in America. So in my book, it was a waste of tv time.

Then he had another segment on the Arizona immigration law, with conservative author Heather MacDonald and pro-immigration Professor Raul Hinojosa. And of course the conservative defended the law, and put out the right-wing talking points on it.

Then Juan had a segment about an anti-bullying law in Massachusetts, the law imposes criminal penalties on students who are found guilty of bullying. Juan asked State Senator Robert O'Leary, a sponsor of the bill, how it will be enforced. O'Leary said this: "If a teacher becomes aware of a bullying incident, they are required to report it to the principal. If it's a criminal act, the principal is required to report it to law enforcement; if it's not, he's required to deal with it."

Juan worried that the definition and the law may be too imprecise: "We have to stop the bullying, but I just wonder if we're going to get into situations where the teachers say they didn't see it. This may turn out to be a case of everybody trying to do the right thing, but nothing gets done."

Then O'Leary pointed out that Massachusetts was one of only 8 states that did not have an anti-bullying law. So they are just now catching up to the rest of the country. I would say that if nobody has a problem with the law, and it's constitutional, I see no problem with it. But somehow Juan had a problem with it, when almost every state has a similar law.

Then Juan had the pinheads and patriots, Oprah was the patriot for telling people not to text or talk on your cell phone while driving. And Lindsey Lohan was the pinhead for doing a sexy photo shoot while holding a gun and having fake blood in the photos.

Glenn Beck Left Out Of Fox Newspaper Ad
By: Steve - April 30, 2010 - 9:30am

On Thursday Fox News placed a full-page ad in the print version of the Washington Post calling the network "The Most Powerful Name In News." The ad features Fox personalities Bret Baier, Shep Smith, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren. But guess who is not in the ad, Glenn Beck.



So why did they leave Beck out of the ad. It's not like the shot was too crowded, there's an open spot for him to be put in between Smith and O'Reilly. Not to mention, three of the people in the ad, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Van Susteren, are not even considered part of the Fox news operation, which runs from 6:00-8:00 p.m. each night.

Beck has claimed that network executives stand behind his controversial, insane propaganda, with one vice president even telling him that he is the key to surviving a global economic holocaust.

But if that's true, why would they leave Beck out of the ad. Most likely because they are ashamed to have him on the network. They know he is loved by the right-wing nuts who watch him, and that he gets great ratings. But they also know they do not want to be seen linked to Beck in their ads.

It's kind of like the crazy uncle everyone has, the family loves him, but you are ashamed to be seen with him in public. That's Glenn Beck, he is the crazy uncle at Fox News.

The Thursday 4-29-10 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - April 30, 2010 - 9:00am

Juan Williams was in for O'Reilly. The top story was about the Arizona immigration law. And btw, Williams did not say one word about the Labor march on Wall Street Thursday, he ignored the entire story, just as almost all of Fox News did. Williams also said Caution you're about to enter the no spin zone, which is a joke.

This time Williams asked if Arizona's new immigration law unfairly targets Hispanics, what a stupid question, of course it does, that's why they wrote and passed it. It's a law to target hispanics, by racially profiling them, and discriminating against them. They are just too chicken shit to admit it. And for Juan Williams to ask that question is just laughable, because he knows it targets hispanics, but he pretends to question if it does or not. Just like O'Reilly does, he plays dumb.

He played a clip of Sarah Palin saying the Arizona immigration law has nothing to do with race, when that is what the law is all about. Williams had Chris Metzler on to discuss it, and he agreed with Sarah Palin 100 percent. Palin said Obama is playing the race card to fire up his base, which is nonsense. Because the law is about race, making Palin an idiot. Then Cathy Areu was on to discuss it. She called it crazy, and said Palin and Metzler are wrong.

Areu said the Governor of Arizona is the one who is playing the race card. This Metzler guy is a Palin loving right-wing nut. Williams said the Democrats are just playing politics with the issue, which is just ridiculous, because the Republicans are the people who passed it. So if anyone is playing politics with the issue it's the Republicans. They even admit the passed the law to force the feds to do something about immigration, that's playing politics using a state law. Which is exactly what Areu said, and she is right, Williams the stooge is wrong.

So then Williams had Karl Rove on to talk about Obama saying he will not deal with immigration reform until next year. Because the Republicans are refusing to even debate it. And there are more important things to deal with first. Rove even said he has some problems with the Arizona law. So if Rove thinks there are problems with a Republican passed law, you know it's really screwed up.

Then Rove said he has a problem with the law being passed, because Obama will use it for political reasons. Which is crazy, because if the Republicans in Arizona had not passed it, Obama would not have anything to use, so blaming it on Obama is pure insanity. Rove is against the law for other reasons, and he thinks the law will not do any good, if it's ever put in place. What makes me laugh is how they cry about Obama using it for political reasons, when the Republicans passed it, so if they had not passed it Obama would have nothing to use. And the truth is, the Republicans passed it for political reasons. To fire up their base, so what does Juan Williams do, he says Obama is using it for political reasons, when that is a lie.

Rove was held over for a 2nd segment, where BOTH Juan Williams and Karl Rove slammed Obama for making a jok about the people on Wall Street made anough money. Obama was joking, but all the conservatives are making a big deal about it, including Juan Williams. The whole thing was a joke, and they took it out of context. Rove claims he is worried that Obama wants to decide how much money people make, which is just a lie. Then Rove sided with the banks and Wall Street and trashed the Obama financial reform bill. Both of these segments were nothing but right-wing spin and propaganda, with no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint. At the end Juan said Rove is on target, and thanked him for his great analysis.

In the next segment Williams taked about the Republican candidate for governor in Alabama (Tim James) who said if he is elected he will only have drivers license exams in english. Williams called it a bizarre campaign strategy. Then played a video of the campaign ad. Williams had Tim James on the show, and he said he agrees that people should be able to speak english in America. Williams asked him if he was playing politics to get elected, and of course James said no, then he claimed he would do it for safety, which is just laughable.

Even Juan Williams was not buying it, Juan said he is 4th or 5th in the polls so he is doing it to try and get votes. James denied it, and said he is in the top 3 in the polls. For once I think Williams is right, it looks like the guy is just doing it as a political stunt to get publicity, and to try and get more votes. But of course James denied it.

Williams had the culture warriors Cheryl Casone and Gretchen Carlson on. They talked more about the Rielle Hunter interview with Oprah. Rielle wants more privacy, except she is doing half naked photo shoots and Oprah, so if you want privacy don't do that, moron. And Williams is a fool for even reporting this garbage. This is tabloid trash, it's not news. They also cried about the SWAT team being called out at a small Tea Party protest in Quincy Illinois, ok, so what does that have to do with culture. It's the culture warrior segment, right.

Then Williams got really crazy, he reported on a magazine photo of Nancy Pelosi that was airbrushed. For one thing, this is not news, it's tabloid garbage. But what's really crazy is that a while back a magazine published a photo of Palin with no makeup, that was not airbrushed or anything, which made Palin look bad, and the Republicans complained about the magazine doing it. Now they are complaining about a magazine airbrushing Pelosi to make her look better. Juan asked if it was ok for Pelosi to be airbrushed, when everyone is airbrushed in magazines. Not to mention, neither culture warrior had a problem with it. This is exactly what O'Reilly does, report an issue as if it's a controversy, then it turns out nobody has a problem with it, so why cover the topic in the first place, morons.

The last segment was about violence in Mexico. Williams had the crazy Obama hating Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it. Peters slammed the Obama administration for not doing anything about the violence in Mexico. When he is lying, Obama has done what he can, but it's happening in a foreign country so there are limits to what we can do. Juan Williams pointed out that Obama has given more money to Mexico to help than Bush did.

Crazy Col. Peters admitted Obama has given money to help, but then he slammed Obama for it anyway. Earth to Col. Peters, Mexico has the job to control what happens in Mexico, not the USA. And you are an idiot pal. Peters said the Obama administration is doing virtually nothing on the southern border to fight the Mexican drug war. Which is more lies. Obama has sent hundreds of federal agents along with high-tech surveillance equipment and drug-sniffer dogs to help Mexico fight the drug war. But crazy Peters claims that is doing nothing.

Here is the best part, Peters slammed Obama for not doing anything to stop the assault weapons going from America to Mexico. Which is pure right-wing propaganda, because Obama tried to stop it by putting a ban on assault weapons, and the Republicans blocked it. But crazy Col. Peters blamed it on Obama, give me a break. Not to mention, back in April of 2009 this was reported.

During a visit to Mexico City in March, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said America's "insatiable demand" for illegal drugs fueled the trade and that the US had an "inability" to stop weapons from being smuggled south.

Mr Obama has sent hundreds of federal agents along with high-tech surveillance equipment and drug-sniffer dogs to help Mexico fight the cartels.

The US placed three Mexican groups on its list of suspected drug syndicates and Obama also charged a senior official with stopping drug-related violence crossing from Mexico into the US. But in the world of crazy Col. Peters that's doing nothing.

Fox Ignores Obama Speaking At Height Funeral
By: Steve - April 30, 2010 - 8:30am

Yesterday President Obama eulogized civil rights leader Dorothy Height at her funeral service at the National Cathedral in Washington. Both CNN and MSNBC carried the President's remarks in full, while Fox News stayed in regular "America's Newsroom" programming.

Media critic Howard Kurtz tweeted this about it:
Fox passed on taking Dorothy Height funeral, even when Obama was speaking. Is that not news? Other cablers covered.
And they wonder why Obama and the Democrats call them a right-wing news network. Maybe because they prove it every day by ignoring real news. Especially the Labor march on Wall Street, and the details about the owner of the Mine that killed 29 people being a major donor to the Republican party.

Which is just the tip of the iceberg, just watch it for one day and you will see it's 99% Republican bias. Just today as I was watching to see if they would report on the Labor march on wall Street they were guilty of extreme right-wing bias.

Jon Scott and Jane Skinner had an interview with a Republican Senator, then they promised to be fair and balanced and have a Democratic Senator Jack Reed on to give the other side. Jon Scott actually used the words "fair and balanced" when he said they would have Jack Reed on as he went to commercial.

Then they never had Jack Reed on, ever. Later in the day they said they were sorry for not having him on, and they said it was because they had breaking news about the oil spill. This is bull, and a perfect example of how they are not fair and balanced, and how they lie about it.

The oil spill has been breaking news for 3 days now, and the news they broke in with was nothing new, not to mention it could have waited until after the Jack Reed interview. It's pretty clear they cut him on purpose. And it's the same thing they do all the time. Proving they are unfair and unbalanced.

Republican Wants To Deport American Children
By: Steve - April 30, 2010 - 8:00am

Now this is insane, and of course the nut who said it is a Republican. And not just any Republican, he is Duncan Hunter Jr. The son of Duncan Hunter Sr.

Not to mention he said it at a Tea Party rally. At a tea party rally in San Diego County, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) stated that U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants should get deported along with their parents to save the state of California money:
QUESTION: Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?

HUNTER: I would have to, yes. We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now. California is going under. How much in debt are we? Twenty billion dollars? And we're not being mean, we're just saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls.
The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, regardless of their parents nationality. But that hasn't stopped Hunter from cosponsoring The Birthright Citizenship Act, legislation that would attempt to overturn the 14th amendment by ending the practice of granting anyone born in the U.S. citizenship status.

In fact, Hunter feels so adamantly about the issue that he has co-sponsored five other similar bills over the past thirteen years.

According to Hunter, Arizona's law is "a fantastic starting point." But think about this, if Arizona succeeded in fulfilling its goal of deporting all of its undocumented immigrants, estimates show that the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs.

Meanwhile, a study by the University of Southern California found that putting California's 1.8 million undocumented Latino immigrants on a path to legalization would generate $16 billion dollars a year.

Talk about un-American, this is it. This Republican Congressman wants to deport American citizens, and they are children, in direct violation of the constitution. The very same constitution all the Republicans claim to support. Where is O'Reilly on this story, silent as a mouse. And that includes his right-wing stooge fill ins, he could easily call them and tell them to report the story.

Republicans Lying About Crime Rates In Border States
By: Steve - April 30, 2010 - 7:30am

Now the dishonest Republicans are lying about the crime rates in Border states, to try and justify the unconstitutional immigration law passed in Arizona. Think about this, if the law is so great, why do they have to lie about it.

In his 4-29-10 New York Post column, Ralph Peters defended the controversial Arizona immigration law in part by citing "soaring crime rates in our border states." However, crime rates in Arizona -- as well as crime rates for each state bordering Mexico -- have dropped during the past decade.

And it's not just Ralph Peters putting the lie out, it's been repeated numerous times on Fox News by other Republicans. And I should note that only Republicans are putting this lie out.

Peters said this:
Our ruling class simply doesn't feel the pain. So the DC elite demonizes Arizona's desperate effort to shove the narco-revolution's disorder back across the border. Murdered ranchers, overwhelmed emergency rooms and soaring crime rates in our border states mean less to the White House than a terrorist detainee's claims of abuse.
And btw, not only are crime rates in border states NOT SOARING, they have went down. Making Col. Peters a massive liar. This is the go to guy for O'Reilly on military issues. It's the same Col. Ralph Peters that O'Reilly has on every other week as the Factor military analyst. He is a proven Obama hater, and a proven right-wing liar, but O'Reilly puts him on anyway, with no Democratic military analyst to counter what he says. Now he's lying about crime rates in border states, when he is a military analyst.

And now for the facts, something Col. Peters knows nothing about, crime rates in border states have dropped during past decade. Crime rates in Arizona are at there lowest point in decades. The violent crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 -- than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968.

In addition, in Arizona, the violent crime rate dropped from 577.9 per 100,000 population in 1998 to 447 per 100,000 population in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,997 to 4,291 during the same period. During the same decade, Arizona's undocumented immigrant population grew rapidly. The Arizona Republic reported: "Between January 2000 and January 2008, Arizona's undocumented population grew 70 percent, according to the DHS report. Nationally, it grew 37 percent."

So while illegal immigration increased 70 percent, crime rates were actually dropping by 23 percent. Which disproves another Republican lie, that a lot of the crime is from illegal immigrants. When the actual crime rates are going down.

In an April 27 article, Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, wrote that "Arizona's harsh new law against illegal immigration is being justified in part as a measure to combat crime" and that "drug-related violence along the border is a real problem." But, Griswold continued, "it is a smear to blame low-skilled immigrant workers from Latin America for creating a crime problem in Arizona."
The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades. In the past decade, as the number of illegal immigrants in the state grew rapidly, the violent crime rate dropped by 23 percent, the property crime rate by 28 percent.
Now you have the facts, not the right-wing lies put out by the biased Obama hater Col. Ralph Peters. And remember this, Col. Peters is put on the Factor by Bill O'Reilly as an objective military analyst. When he knows Col. Peters is a partisan Obama hater, that's dishonest, and a failure to disclose his partisan bias.

Not to mention, the other Factor military analyst is also a Republicans Obama hater, Col. David Hunt. But there is no Democratic Factor military analyst, none. Even though Fox has Democratic General Wes Clark on the payroll, O'Reilly never has him on, except maybe once or twice a year.

Fox Reporting On Wall Street Protest Laughable
By: Steve - April 29, 2010 - 4:30pm

I watched Fox News all day long to see how they would report on the Labor Union march on Wall Street protest. To put it mildly they were terrible, they had no coverage at all, none. And I mean none, zero, nothing.

Then at 3:00pm the Neil Cavuto show comes on, he is the business anchor at Fox, so you would think he had a lot of coverage with live reports etc. Wrong, Cavuto came on and reported it, with one Reporter at the march. That was Charles Payne, an anti-union business reporter from Fox. Payne had a 2 minute report with some lame camera that had a blurry picture, I believe it was a satellite camera because there was a delay, and it was blurry.

During the Payne report he said the crowd was 2 blocks long, with 1,500 to 2,000 people, and that was his guess. Early reports say it was 10,000 people, or more. And over at MSNBC they are saying the protest was more than 3 blocks long. Directly disputing what Charles Payne from Fox said.

So then Cavuto ended the ridiculous Payne report from the march, and had an anti-Union Republican on to discuss the march. And the anti-Union guy (Brett McMahon) spent the whole segment talking about how much money the Unions have in their pension fund. Which had nothing to do with the march, it was just insane right-wing bias.

The march was about getting Wall Street to stop trying to block financial reform, and to get them to pay a 1 cent fee on risky mortgage backed security trades. It had absolutely nothing to do with how much money the Unions have in their pension funds.

So then Cavuto ended the one sided biased segment, and started talking about the Arizona immigration law. No Labor Union guest, no Democratic guest, nothing. He had one 4 minute segment, with one anti-Union guy, to talk about a pro-Union march on Wall Street.

It was one of the most ridiculous and biased segments I have ever seen anyone in the news business do. And it was done by the so-called nonpartisan Neil Cavuto on a business show. Compare that to what MSNBC did, they had their business anchor (Dylan Ratigan) do his show live from the Wall Street march, for the full hour from 3:00pm to 4:00pm CST.

The totally biased (right-wing idiot) Neil Cavuto did 5 minutes on it, and 4 minutes of that was with two anti-Union guests. Now that's bias, massive bias. Then later in the show, Cavuto even reported on "40" people who protested the new Arizona immigration law at the Cubs game in Chicago, where the Arizona Diamondbacks are playing.

And this is after O'Reilly and everyone at Fox said they cover all protests equally. Which is a flat out lie. Because Fox reports on Tea Party protests weeks before they have a protest, and then they do all day live reports and even host shows from the protest.

But when a Union does a protest, Fox News does not report it at all, not weeks before the event, or on the day of the event. Then at the time it started in the late afternoon, they do a lousy 5 minutes on it with two anti-Union guys.

All I can say is what a joke, and that calling Fox News fair and balanced is just laughable.

How Stupid Is Sarah Palin: Very Stupid
By: Steve - April 29, 2010 - 9:30am

Okay let me set this up, Sarah Palin was on the Hannity show Tuesday night on Fox. So the dumb ass Palin was crying about the lame-stream media and how they do stupid things. They started talking about the new immigration law in Arizona, and Palin said an example of how lame the lame-stream media is. She said one show she was watching actually put a caption across the screen that said the law will make it illegal to be illegal.

Palin and Hannity both used that as an example of how bad the lame-stream media is. Now here is the good part, Fox News did the exact same thing. Here is the screen capture:



This not only shows how stupid Palin is, it also shows how stupid Hannity is. Because they both slammed the so-called lame-stream media for doing the exact same thing Fox News was doing.

And not only does it prove how stupid they are, it proves that some of their examples of how bad the media are is bogus. It's the same as the media research center, most of their examples are bogus. I saw one study they did about liberal bias in the media, and they cited a Republican Senator who criticized Bush as an example of liberal bias.

When a Republican had said it, but they counted it as liberal bias anyway, just because he said it on MSNBC. That's how dishonest they are, just like Palin and Hannity.

The Wednesday 4-28-10 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - April 29, 2010 - 9:00am

Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, so at least we did not have to listen to that annoying nasal nose voice of Laura Ingraham. The top story was about a Rasmussen poll in Arizona that shows a majority of people (64%) in Arizona support the new immigration law. And I say so what, when a law is unconstitutional, and based on racial profiling, it does not matter what percent of the people support it, or not. Now if the law was not unconstitutional then the poll would matter.

Republicans do not seem to understand that. Then again maybe they do, and they are trying to make it look good by saying the majority support it. But when a law is passed that is unconstitutional, polls do not matter. The constitution has priority over majority support in a poll. But that does not seem to matter to Republicans, because most of them support it anyway. Williams reported that the Pima County Police Chief said he will not enforce the law, and he also reported that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said it is unconstitutional. Williams also reported on Republicans who support it.

Williams had Linda Chavez on to discuss it, she is a Republican, and she said people on Fox are misrepresenting the law. Chavez also said they can ask anyone for their papers. Juan Williams disagreed with her, and defended the law, the Governor, and the Republicans who passed it. Kris Kobach was also on to discuss it, and he said the left is misrepresenting the law. When quite a few Republicans also say it's unconstitutional. The left is not misrepresenting it, the right is, and she even read from the actual law to prove her point. Williams basically criticized her for speaking out against it because it's dividing the Republican party.

What's funny is these idiots like Kris Kobach claim only the left is saying it's unconstitutional, when a lot of Republicans are also saying it. Today on Cavuto some right-wing nut Police chief in Arizona said only Democrats are saying it's unconstitutional, ignoring all the Republicans that are saying it too, and Cavuto let him lie about it. Juan Williams is a right-wing idiot, who took the Republican side on the issue, but I give him credit for at least having a Republican on who is opposed to the law, which O'Reilly and Ingraham have never done.

Then Williams had another segment on the same issue. He mentioned that Cardinal Mahoney is opposed to the law. So he had Father Jonathan Morris on to discuss it. Father Morris is opposed to the law. So once again Juan took the Republican side of the issue and defended the law. It's pretty clear Juan supports the law, as do most Republicans.

The Williams had a segment about Obama being hostile to the media, except for one cable news network. Juan said guess who it is, then he went to commercial. And of course he was talking about the NY Times. So then Williams attacked Obama and the NY Times, just as O'Reilly would have done if he was there. Having Juan Williams host the show is no different than having O'Reilly do it, they both take the Republican side of every issue. The only difference is O'Reilly is white, and Williams is black. Little Dick Morris was on to discuss it.

And for those counting, that's 4 Republican guests, with Juan, that's 5 Republicans that have been on the show, with no Democrats. Morris and Williams said the media is corrupt, and they all have a bias except for Fox, blah, blah, blah. The same old crap they always spin out. Here is the funny part, two Fox News employees complaining about bias in the media, now that's funny. And btw, Morris said the Republicans are going to win back the House and the Senate. Even though the polls have the Democrats doing pretty well, and it's only fricking April, so it's too early to read the polls on the November election.

Then Juan talked about the Goldman Sachs hearing, Williams had Jonathan Hoenig and Mike Papantonio on to discuss it. Hoenig defended Goldman Sachs, of course, because he is a Fox stooge. Papantonio disagreed and said they are crooks, and he is a former federal prosecutor. Then Williams jumped in and said the Democrats are just using Goldman Sachs for political reasons. Hoenig is a far right idiot who always defends the Corporations and the wealthy, no matter what they do. Papantonio said they are crooks who wear a suit and tie.

Then Williams had Jane Skinner on to discuss the John Edwards scandal in the did you see that segment. Which I refuse to report on because it's tabloid garbage. All I will say is that they talked about what Rielle Hunter said on Oprah. Juan did pull an O'Reilly though, he talked about a sex tape, but then admitted he does not know if there even is a sex tape. Which is speculating about a sex tape, when they do not even know if it's out there or not.

I will also say this, the show is kind of boring without O'Reilly or Ingraham, and I will bet the ratings show it. I am going to predict this show will be the lowest rated show of the week. Williams is a wannabe O'Reilly, but he is not very good at it. If he hosted the show all the time, Beck and Hannity would both probably beat him in the ratings.

The last segment was about California trying to ban toys in happy meals. Juan had Meme Roth and Mike Gallagher on to discuss it. Meme Roth is a moron that hates all fat people, and of course you know Gallagher is a right-wing idiot. Meme supports the ban, and Gallagher is opposed to it. During the segment she called Gallagher an ass, haha, and Gallagher said when you are out of facts do some more name calling. Then Gallagher said she is nuts and she just wants a nanny state. I think California is crazy for trying to ban toys in happy meals, so I pretty much agree with Gallagher, for once.

Then Williams did the pinheads and patriots. He named a baseball mascot who did a dance on the top of a dugout the patriot, and Jessica Simpson was named the pinhead for saying she chews nicorette gum, and that it's a party in her mouth, even though she does not smoke. Which is even dumber selections than O'Reilly usually has.

Proof O'Reilly & Ingraham Are Right-Wing Spin Doctors
By: Steve - April 29, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and Ingraham, not to mention pretty much everyone at Fox, have been saying the Obama job approval numbers are dropping and dropping, that if Obama campaigns for Democrats it will hurt them, that Obama is to blame for the financial crisis, that Obama is a far left spending partisan, that most independents do not approve of Obama, and on and on.

But the polls show the exact opposite, the polls show that it's all lies from O'Reilly and Ingrahasm just to try and make Obama look bad. The main problem is that O'Reilly and Ingraham ignore these polls, as they spin out their right-wing propaganda. They cherry pick polls at specific times then misrepresent the overall truth. It's called right-wing spin, and right-wing propaganda.

And before you say the Washington Post is liberal so their poll is biased to the left. Look at who took the poll. Question 908a asked this:

Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or conservative?

Moderate - 40%
Conservative - 35%
Liberal - 22%

So as you can see, the majority of the people who took the poll are moderates at 40 percent, then conservatives at 35 percent, and the liberals were last at only 22 percent. Which means it's a real fair and balanced poll, in fact, it actually leans a little right, so nobody can say it's a liberal biased poll.

Here are some examples:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

Approve - 54%
Disapprove - 44%

On Tuesday night Monica Crowley said Obama has a 44% approval rating, which is a lie, because Gallup has him at 51%, and this poll has him at 54%, not to mention she never mentions that Clinton and Reagan had similar numbers at this time in their first term.

They (O'Reilly & Ingraham) also claim the people hate the way Obama has handled the health care bill, which is also a lie. It's 49 to 49, 49% approve, and 49% disapprove, that's a tie in my book.

They (O'Reilly & Ingraham) also claim the polls show the Republicans are about even with Democrats on who can best handle the issues facing the country, which is also a lie.

3. Overall, which party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?

Democrats - 46%
Republicans - 32%

And btw, it was 43% to 37% Democrat to Republican back on February 8th, so the Democrats have actually improved their trust to 46% since then, which is the exact opposite of what Ingraham said Tuesday night.

They (O'Reilly & Ingraham) also claim the Obama economic policies are not making things better, that's a lie too.

Do you think Obama's economic program is making the economy (better), making it (worse) or having no real effect?

Better - 39%
Worse - 26%
No Effect - 32%

They (O'Reilly & Ingraham) also claim Obama is mostly to blame for the current state of the economy, and the deficit, that's a lie too.

7. Who do you think is more responsible for the current state of the economy - (Barack Obama) or (George W. Bush)?

Obama - 25%
Bush - 59%

8. Who do you think is more responsible for the current federal budget deficit - (Barack Obama) or (George W. Bush)?

Obama - 22%
Bush - 60%

Here is something they do not report:

9a. Do you support or oppose stricter federal regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business?

Support - 65%
Oppose - 31%

Here is another one they never report:

12. Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?

Favorable - 57%
Unfavorable - 41%

Here is another one they never report, ever, they ignore this one all the time.

13. Do you think Obama's views on most issues are too (liberal) for you, too (conservative) for you, or just about right?

Just About Right - 53%
Too Conservative - 5%
Too Liberal - 39%

And one last thing they never report is that the majority of Independents approve of the job Obama is doing. O'Reilly and Ingraham say everyone is opposed to what Obama is doing, when it's just not true. The only people that oppose what Obama is doing are Republicans, the majority of Democrats approve, and the majority of Independents approve.

Fox News Is So Biased It's Ridiculous
By: Steve - April 29, 2010 - 8:00am

Now this is stunning, on the Tuesday 4-27-10 Fox & Friends show they had Dick Morris on to talk about the financial crisis, that happened under George W. Bush btw. But Fox is so biased, and so dishonest, they had text on the screen asking when the Obama administration will take responsiblity for the financial crisis.

Here is a screen capture:



Why don't we look at the facts, something Fox knows nothing about.

The financial crisis happened when George W. Bush was the president, Barack Obama had nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing. The crisis happened from 2006 to 2008, almost a year before Obama even took office.

Time magazine even had an article with this title:

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis

Guess who is on the list, and who is not on the list. George W. Bush is on the list, and Barack Obama is not on the list. That's because the financial crisis happened before Obama even took office. It all happened under George W. Bush.

Here is the list:

1. Angelo Mozilo
2. Phil Gramm
3. Alan Greenspan
4. Chris Cox
5. American Consumers
6. Hank Paulson
7. Joe Cassano
8. Ian McCarthy
9. Frank Raines
10. Kathleen Corbet
11. Dick Fuld
12. Marion and Herb Sandler
13. Bill Clinton
14. George W. Bush
15. Stan O'Neal
16. Wen Jiabao
17. David Lereah
18. John Devaney
19. Bernie Madoff
20. Lew Ranieri
21. Burton Jablin
22. Fred Goodwin
23. Sandy Weill
24. David Oddsson
25. Jimmy Cayne

The financial crisis was actually caused by the fat cats on Wall Street and the bankers. They are the people who ran their ponzi scheme on the stock market. George W. Bush and the Republicans allowed it to happen with a lack of regulations. Bush put Chris Cox in charge of the SEC, even though he was only a former Republican Congressman with no oversight experience on the financial markets.

Chris Cox was put in the SEC by Bush to do nothing, to let the banks and the crooks on Wall Street do whatever they wanted, with no oversight. And what happened is they went nuts, like kids who are left at home for a week with no parents to watch over them. That is what caused the financial crisis, and it all happened before Barack Obama was even the president.

Bill Clinton is even on the list, so you can blame him a little, but to blame Barack Obama is just insane, because it all happened before he even became the president. To blame Obama is about as dishonest as a news network could be, it's a flat out lie, and they know it. This is what Fox does, lie to the people. And you never see O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg say a word about these lies, or about this media bias.

Scarborough Calls Immigration Law Un-American
By: Steve - April 28, 2010 - 9:00am

It looks like there are at least four honest Republicans in America. Tuesday morning Joe Scarborough, who is a former Republican congressman, slammed Arizona's immigration law, calling it un-American:
SCARBOROUGH: It does offend me that when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one of three citizens who, if they're walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they're walking their child to school, and they're an American citizen or a legal, legal immigrant, can now put a target on their back and make them think every time they walk out of their door, they may have to prove something.

I will tell you that is un-American. It is unacceptable, and it's un-American.
More critics of the law also emerged yesterday: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham joined Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, as the only other GOP federal lawmaker to outright condemn what Arizona is doing. Jeb Bush also spoke out against the law.

The Tuesday 4-27-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor review
By: Steve - April 28, 2010 - 8:30am

Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly once again. The TPM was called To Boycott or Not. Ingraham slammed a Democratic Arizona Congressman for saying people should boycott his state over the new immigration law. Ingraham called it the most bonheaded move she has ever seen. Then she slammed him again for refusing to be a guest on the Factor. Then crazy Ingraham called the boycott a cheap publicity stunt, as she admitted she supports the new law in Arizona.

Ingraham had Republican Congressman Steve King and Alfonso Aguilar on to discuss it. And of course King slammed the Democratic Congressman who called for the boycott, and Alfonso said the new law is terrible. Ingraham agreed with everything King said, and disagreed with everything Alfonso said. The crazy Steve King said the law is a good law, and it is not unconstitutional. Ingraham agreed with that, then she told Alfonso he is wrong, so it was basically a 2 on 1 with two Republicans against the one Democrat. Ingraham said she was sorry for cutting Alfonso off, as she was cutting him off.

Then Ingraham had Charles Gasparino from Fox on to discuss the economic side of the possible Arizona boycotts. Gasparino said it could hurt Arizona, that businesses may join the boycott and it could really hurt Arizona. Which made Ingraham look like a fool, because in her talking points memo she said the boycott was a cheap publicity stunt. Then Ingraham slammed the Democratic Congressman from Arizona who called for the boycott of his own state again. She said it was the dumbest thing she has ever heard of. Then Ingraham made a joke about the Obama tax cut only being $12.00 a week, except she has said in the past that Obama did not give out a tax cut, so she was caught in her own lies.

Then Ingraham had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on. Crazy Ingraham asked them if Obama will hurt the Democrats chances in the midterm election. Which is just ridiculous, and more right-wing propaganda from Ingraham. It's wishful thinking, and projection. Ingraham hopes he will hurt the Democrats, and she is trying to make people thing he will by implying it will. She is basically projecting what she wants to happen, instead of doing an honest analysis of the situation.

Ingraham claimed the Obama unpopularity is soaring, which is a flat out lie. Colmes pointed out his ratings have not gone down, making Ingraham look like a fool again. Colmes asked Ingraham to name one Democrat who said they do not want Obama to campaign for them. Ingraham had nothing, so she went to Crowley for her right-wing spin. Then Crowley lied that the Obama job approval rating is 44 percent, when it's 51 percent. Colmes also said if he were a Congressman he would love to have Obama campaign for him. But Ingraham and Crowley still kept saying no Democrats want Obama to campaign for them. Colmes said name one, for the second time, and they could not name anyone.

The big story of the day was the Goldman Sachs hearings, where the Congress slammed them for being dishonest. But Ingraham never said a word about it. Just as O'Reilly does, she ignores big news stories to report on right-wing propaganda. And my God, that nasal nose voice Ingraham has is fricking torture. It's hard to even listen to her, in fact, I'd rather have a fork stuck in my eye than have to listen to Ingraham talk. I never thought I would say I wish O'Reilly would come back soon, but that is what I wish for. It's painful to even do a review of a show with Ingraham hosting.

Then Ingraham slammed Obama for his debt commission. She called it a so-called debt commission. The same debt commission all the Republicans voted against, so Obama had to use an executive order to put in into place. Ingraham had the Republican Congressman from Texas Jeb Hensarling on to discuss it. Ingraham speculated that Obama was going to raise taxes on people who make less than $200,000 a year, and break his campaign promise. Hensarling said he is not so sure. But that did not stop Ingraham from speculating about a VAT tax.

O'Reilly said his show is a no speculation zone, as Ingraham spent the whole show speculating on everything. Basically the two Republicans spent the whole segment slamming Obama and the Democrats, based on speculation that Obama might raise taxes in the future. Hey Ingraham, why don't you wait until it actually happens before you slam him for something that has not even happened yet, and may never happen. And if Obama ever does have to raise taxes with a VAT, it will be because Bush bankrupted the country so bad he had to. Not to mention, a 1 or 2 cent VAT on everything people buy is not going to kill anyone, in fact, it will hardly even be noticed, you fricking right-wing jerk.

The last segment was is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about the lawsuits that will happen over Arizona's new immigration law. Wiehl said the ACLU is going to sue the state of Arizona in state and federal court. Wiehl said she thinks the ACLU will have a hard time winning. Guilfoyle pretty much agreed, and said the ACLU will also have a hard time winning the lawsuit. Except what they do not report is that the Fox senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has said it is unconstitutional. But neither O'Reilly or Ingraham will have him on to discuss it. They only use Fox legal analysts that agree with them. They also cried about the hacker getting into Palins e-mail address, which I could care less about.

Ingraham held the is it legal team over for a 2nd segment to talk about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clearing the way for a class action lawsuit against Walmart. Women at 6 different walmarts filed a class action lawsuit for all the women that worked at walmart. Wiehl said they might have a tough time winning because it's only 6 women representing 1.5 million women. Ingraham said she does not think it's a valid case, speculating once again that something is wrong with it. They both predicted walmart will settle the case. They even wasted our time with the tabloid garbage about Lindsey Lohan.

Basically the whole show was the far right nut job Laura Ingraham spewing out right-wing propaganda, smearing Obama with speculation that he hurts Democrats in the mid-term elections, and that he might raise taxes at some point in the future. Even when Democratic guests said she is wrong, she just keeps saying it like a broken record. And then they added some tabloid garbage near the end of the show. While ignoring most of the real news that was in the media on Tuesday.

Seth Myers On The New Arizona Immigration Law
By: Steve - April 28, 2010 - 8:00am

Seth Myers does the weekend update fake news segment on Saturday Night Live, here is what he said about the new Arizona immigration law last Saturday.
MYERS: This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. I know there's some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there's nothing more Nazi than saying "Show me your papers?"

There's never been a World War II movie that didn't include the line "show me your papers." It's their catchphrase. Every time someone says "show me your papers," Hitler's family gets a residual check. So heads up, Arizona; that's fascism. I know, I know, it's a dry fascism, but it's still fascism.
And that's the very same immigration law that O'Reilly and virtually every Republican in America support. Yes there are a few Republicans who are speaking out against it, but not many, maybe 1%, if that. Even though the law is probably unconstitutional, O'Reilly and most Republicans still support it, after saying they want Obama and the Democrats to follow the constitution.

What they refuse to talk about is the civil rights violations, on the innocent. Let's say you are a Mexican, and you are legally in the country. And a policeman says show me your papers, but you do not have them on you, so you are taken to jail until you can prove you are legal. Then you prove you are legal and they let you go.

Your civil rights have just been violated, not to mention you were just racially profiled, because the only reason the policeman asked you for your papers is because you look Mexican. Then on top of that you were arrested for no reason, which is also a violation of your rights.

This is what O'Reilly and most Republicans support, when it's clearly a violation of the 4th and the 14th amendment of the constitution. They support violating the rights of innocent people, to find some illegal immigrants. And yet, they claim to support the constitution, as they support violating the constitution.

Which shows what lying two faced hypocrites they are. What is shows is that they put their partisan right-wing ideology ahead of supporting the constitution. But they are telling you they support the constitution, when they are doing the exact opposite. And this is after O'Reilly has said we must follow the law or we have chaos and anarchy.

Basically they do not practice what they preach, they just support what the Republicans like, then claim they follow the law, when they don't. It's called lying to the American people, and then supporting the violation of the constitution.

Republicans Block DEBATE On Financial Reform
By: Steve - April 28, 2010 - 7:30am

Now this is insane, Republicans are not blocking a vote on the Obama financial reform bill, they are blocking a vote to DEBATE the bill. They will not even vote to DEBATE the bill, where they could offer amendments, and just talk about the bill.

Then they claim they are not the party of no, if that's not being the party of no, what the hell is it. Almost everyone in America hates Wall Street for causing the financial crisis, and yet the corrupt Republicans are sticking up for them by blocking a vote to simply DEBATE the bill.

On tuesday Senate Republicans united for the second straight day to block action on White House-backed legislation designed to prevent any recurrence of the ills that led to the economic calamity of 2008. The 57-41 vote left the measure three shy of the 60 needed to advance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would hold additional votes later in the week, and, he, President Barack Obama and other Democrats have spent days accusing Republicans of doing the bidding of the big financial firms on Wall Street. President Obama said this:
OBAMA: "It's one thing to oppose reform but to oppose just even talking about reform in front of the American people and having a legitimate debate, that's not right," the president said in Ottumwa, Iowa. "The American people deserve an honest debate on this bill."
Reid said, "More than two years after the financial collapse that sparked a worldwide recession, Senate Republicans are claiming we're moving too fast. "Two-thirds of Americans support us cracking down on big bankers' reckless risk-taking. And a majority supports us asking banks to pay for their own funerals - that's the fund financed by the big financial firms to cover the cost of their liquidation."

The events unfolded in the Capitol as Republicans and Democrats alike spent hours at a committee hearing criticizing current and former officials at Goldman Sachs for seeking profits from the collapse of the housing market two years ago.

But the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats were going too far, coming up with a bill that "reaches into every nook and cranny of American business."

Moments before the vote, his second-in-command, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, predicted that unlike the recent health care battle, this time bipartisan legislation eventually would pass.

So let me get this straight, the Republicans agree financial reform is needed, but they refuse to even let a vote happen to simply debate the issue, and then they claim the bill is going to pass with bi-partisan support. Which makes even less sense than a Glenn Beck chalkboard session.

Here is the deal, not only should the people not vote for any Republican this November, they should vote all these corrupt bastards in there now out of office. And that includes the corrupt Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, who voted with the Republicans, not one, but two times.

Media Spin On The Obama 50% Job Approval Number
By: Steve - April 27, 2010 - 9:30am

Here is a good one that shows how dishonest and biased O'Reilly is, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends claim the Obama job approval rating of 50% is a disaster, and say it's the end of his presidency. They have even predicted that he will be a one term president. And O'Reilly also predicted the Republicans will win the majority in the House back this November.

What they fail to report is that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had almost the exact same job approval numbers at this time in their fist term. In fact, Reagan had an even lower job approval rating at this time of his first term than Obama has. And both of them went on to win a 2nd term, not to mention they both went down in history as great presidents.

These were the job approval ratings for Clinton and Reagan at the same juncture of their first term as Obama is now:

-- Clinton: 52%
-- Reagan: 46%

O'Reilly and the right-wing media has spent the last eight months falsely claiming that Obama was suffering from falling poll numbers, except that's a lie. Because at Gallup, Obama's rating has not moved from the 50% mark since late last August. As of 4-26-10 Gallup has the Obama job approval at 51%, which is 5 points higher than Reagan, and only one point lower than Clinton.

The Monday 4-26-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 27, 2010 - 8:30am

Laura Ingraham was the fill-in host. The TPM was called Boiling Point. Crazy Ingraham rambled on about illegal immigration, etc. The usual right-wing propaganda that is not even worth reporting on. The worst part is when Ingraham points at the camera and says "Caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone." Then she spends the next 60 minutes spinning everything to the right. It's ridiculous, and just having the far right Laura Ingraham host is the most ridiculous part.

Then Ingraham had the Mayor of Phoenix Phil Gordon on to discuss the Arizona immigration law. She asked him where she was going wrong, so Gordon said Ingraham was wrong about everything, and that they only had two people arrested in all the protests. But Ingraham keeps running a video on a loop, of police spraying someone with tear gas. Gordon told her it was a bad law, she said it was popular so it's ok. He pointed out that Hitler was also popular with the Germans in Nazi Germany.

And Ingraham hated that, because it killed her popular argument. Then Gordon said the law violates a persons civil rights. And it was all like talking to a wall, because Ingraham ignored all of it, as she spewed out her right-wing talking points. Gordon also told her the state attorney said it was an unconstitutional law, and Ingraham said thank you, then she went to commercial. I would say just because something is popular does not mean it's right, public hangings were popular too, but we stopped that. The sad part is the right using the popular argument, when they disagree with something that is popular they say you have to do what's right, not what's popular.

Then Ingraham had Brit Hume on, they talked about a poll that shows the 60% of the people are ok with allowing local police to verify the immigration status of suspected illegals. Which is ridiculous, because the law is probably going to be ruled unconstitutional, so it does not matter if a majority support it or not. All that poll shows is that a lot of people hate illegals more than they care about enforcing the constitution. Ingraham and Hume act like the majority support means it's ok, when it's not.

The majority of people used to support slavery too, but we made that illegal because it was wrong. It shows how biased Ingraham and Hume are, because they use a poll to claim they are in the right, just because Republicans passed the law, and they say to hell with the constitution. Then two days later they will say we must follow the constitution, after they supported violating it. Ingraham was mad that president Obama spoke out against the law, when he is the president, and he if anyone, has a right to speak out about it. And take note that Ingraham did not have Judge Napolitano on to discuss it either, even though is the senior judicial analyst at Fox, and he says the law is unconstitutional. And I would bet O'Reilly told her not to have him on while he is gone.

And btw, the Obama job approval is up 1 point at Gallup, it's now 51% approval, as of Monday night. It's 51% approve and 42% disapprove.

Then Ingraham had a segment on the mid-term elections, that was totally political, and total right-wing spin. Ingraham claims Obama is using race to fire up the liberal base. Ingraham said it was very strange. Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it. And of course Ham agreed with Ingraham 100%, just as she does with O'Reilly. All Obama did was tell women and minorities to make sure you vote, which Ingraham claims is racist.

The so-called Democrat Juan Williams agreed with Ingraham and Ham 100%, so once again he agreed with the two far right nuts. And he was put on to give the Democratic viewpoint, except he is not a Democrat, and 90% of the time he agrees with the Republicans. Which is why I count Juan as a Republican in the guest list count. The whole segment was just a right-wing smear job on president Obama, saying Obama has nothing to help the Democrats so he played the race card. Which is just ridiculous, and total right-wing propaganda. What's funny is they never talk about all the good stuff, the improving economy, increased jobs, the Dow is up, home sales are up, etc. and they ignore it all to claim Obama is a terrible president.

Then Ingraham had a segment on crime in Chicago. A Democratic state Rep is calling for the National Guard to help. Lashawn K. Ford was on to discuss it, he said he wants the National Guard called in to help the police. So then Ingraham changed the topic and asked him if he supports the National Guard on the border, hoping he would say no, so she could hammer him, but he said yes. So that killed her on the change the topic trick question, so she went back to the topic of crime in Chicago. And btw, if the elected reps in Chicago think the National Guard needs to be called in to help the police I support it, but only if the Governor approves it.

Then crazy Ingraham had the almost as crazy as her Bernie Goldberg on to cry about the lack of media coverage of the immigration protests in Arizona. Which is ridiculous, because it was all over the media. And the bill was signed on Friday so the media did not report it as much as if the bill had been signed on a Monday or Tuesday, but it was reported pretty well. Except in the mind of Ingraham and Goldberg. And if the media had covered it more they would have cried that they covered it too much.

Not to mention it is a state issue, not a national issue. And of course they failed to point that out. Ingraham and Goldberg said the lame-stream media ignored it because they agree with the immigration protesters, so they covered it less. While they claim the media covered the Tea Party protests too much, except in the past they also cried that the media did not cover the Tea Party protests enough. So you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

This segment is a flat out joke, because there is no liberal media analyst. It's Ingraham or O'Reilly with Bernie Goldberg, putting out all right-wing spin on what the media is doing. And I would not have a problem with this segment if they had a liberal media analyst, but a real liberal, not one of these fake liberals like Juan Williams who works for Fox. It's a one sided biased media analysis segment, with nobody from the left to talk about right-wing bias in the media, or to give the counterpoint to their right-wing spin. And the worst part is that the show claims to be fair and balanced with a no spin zone.

The last segment was about the homeless man who helped a woman that was being attacked, he got stabbed and died. People walked by him laying on the ground and did not help him or call 911. Ingraham was outraged, when she probably would have walked right past him too, because he was a homeless man. She pretended like she would have done something, and that it's an outrage nobody helped him. What a lying fraud, she would not have done anything either.

O'Reilly Dishonest About Obama Job Approval
By: Steve - April 27, 2010 - 8:00am

About once a month O'Reilly does a talking points memo, or a segment, or both, asking why the Obama job approval ratings keep dropping. He is implying that they just keep dropping and dropping and dropping. That they go down more and more as every month goes by, on April 5th, just three weeks ago, O'Reilly had a talking points memo saying the Obama job approval rating had dropped to an all time low.

O'Reilly said the Obama job approval was down to 44 percent.
O'REILLY: That is Mr. Obama's lowest approval rating ever. So what's driving this?

There's no question many Americans are now skeptical of Mr. Obama. One of the big reasons is health care.

Now, the president sincerely believes that conservatives are hurting his image, but his outrage is selective. The left attacks the president's critics with even more vitriol than the right uses. But Mr. Obama never mentions that. He must not watch NBC News.

"Talking Points" believes it is unemployment, the bitterness surrounding health care, the massive debt and the huge expansion of federal government that is driving Mr. Obama's poll numbers down.
Notice that O'Reilly said many Americans are now skeptical of Obama, yeah they are called Republicans. Then crazy O'Reilly says the left attacks the Obama critics with more vitriol than the right uses, that he never mentions that, and that he must not watch NBC news.

What the hell does that have to do with the Obama job approval ratings, nothing as far as I can tell. And it's a few people on MSNBC that attacks the right, not NBC. Not to mention, they only attack the right when they lie about what Obama is doing, if they tell the truth they are not attacked.

Then O'Reilly says unemployment, health care, massive debt and the expansion of federal government is driving the Obama poll numbers down. Which implies his approval numbers are going down, in a downward trend. When nothing could further from the truth, and his approval numbers are not going down.

They have dropped from his high of 68 percent, but once they dropped to about 50 percent, it has stayed around that. Once or twice it dipped below 50 percent, for a day or two, but then it went right back to 50 percent, which is where it's at now. O'Reilly acts like the numbers drop every month, and just keep going lower and lower.

That's a lie, because they are not dropping and dropping. O'Reilly has been telling us about his falling poll numbers since late last summer. When it's a lie, and here are the facts.

-- Obama's Gallup poll rating on Aug. 28, 2009 was 50 percent.

-- Obama's Gallup poll rating on April 26, 2010 was 50 percent.

There is no drop, none, it's the same now as it was back in August of 2009. The only drop is in the mind of Bill O'Reilly, not in the real world. What O'Reilly does is wait until there is a one or two day temporary drop in the Obama job approval numbers then report it at that time.

O'Reilly cherry picks the polls, and he always finds the poll that has Obama the lowest at the time. But he never reports the polls that have Obama the highest, which is usually Gallup. It's dishonest biased journalism, by the so-called Independent with a no spin zone.

What he also does not say is that the polls are run on a three day rolling average, so you have to check them every three days to be accurate. O'Reilly watches the polls and waits until a one day ratings drops a little, then he cherry picks the poll that has the biggest drop that day, and he only reports that. But he does not report what other polls have.

An honest journalist would report the Obama job approval numbers from at least two polls, the one with the highest approval, and the one with the lowest approval. Then do it on the day the three day rolling average is out. But O'Reilly does not do that, he waits until some poll has Obama down a little, then he cites that one poll, while ignoring other polls that have Obama way higher on the very same day.

Then he does that every month to make people think the Obama job approval numbers just keep going down and down. When they have not went down at all since last August, they go up and down, but O'Reilly only reports on the when they are down, he never reports on them when they are up. And he never reported that since August of 2009 the Obama job approval has held steady at 50 percent.

This is what O'Reilly does, it's bias, and it's dishonest. And it's only something a right-wing spin doctor that hates Obama would do. Not to mention, it's the exact opposite of what O'Reilly did to Bush when he was the president. When Bush was the president he would cherry pick the polls that had Bush the highest, and never reported the polls that had Bush the lowest.

O'Reilly Claims Liberals Fear Sarah Palin
By: Steve - April 27, 2010 - 7:30am

Back in November of 2009 O'Reilly had an interview with Alan Colmes, and the topic was why does the left fear Sarah Palin. At the start of the interview O'Reilly asked Colmes why the left fears Palin, Colmes said they do not fear her. But that did not stop O'Reilly from going on and on about how the left fears her. Here is a partial transcript of what was said:
O'REILLY: Now for the top story tonight, reaction [to left fearing Sarah Palin].

Now Colmes, you're not buying the fear thing?

COLMES: No.

O'REILLY: Very simple question. I'm a very simple man and I believe you are as well.

COLMES: Yes, we have that in common, Bill.

O'REILLY: If it isn't fear, why the continuing vehement attacks on a woman who does not hold public office, who lives far, far away in Alaska, who has five children? Why the attacks?

COLMES: The fact that she lives far away or has five children has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Since that interview in November of 2009 O'Reilly has repeated his false claim over and over, he says it almost every week. Somehow in his warped mind he actually thinks the left fears Sarah Palin. And btw, what does her living far away or having five kids have to do with anything, to even ask that in the question is ridiculous.

The fear claims from O'Reilly are just flat out ridiculous. It's so ridiculous I barely know where to start. Let me say this for Bill O'Reilly, the left DOES NOT fear Sarah Palin, at all, not one bit, we do not fear her, we love her. Because every time she opens her stupid mouth she proves even more what a right-wing idiot she is.

Let me put it this way, if the left fears Palin why are we begging her to run for President in 2012. If we fear her, why are we all asking her to run. I want Palin to run for President in 2012, because she will get crushed by Obama.

It's a strange thing, somehow Republicans (including O'Reilly) think liberals fear Sarah Palin. Then again, they might just be saying that just to try to make people think we fear her. That is what I think they are doing. I believe they say the left fears her to make her seem credible, and to make it seem like the left fears her. I also believe they know the left does not fear her, they just say it to try and fool people into thinking that, it's called propaganda.

Why would we fear Palin when she has a 24% favorable rating, which is 21% among women. It is crazy talk, and nobody is saying it except for the right-wing spin doctors at Fox and on a few right-wing blogs.

Liberals do not fear Palin, they just do not like her position on the issues, how far right she is, and how stupid she is. Liberals do not even look at her as a serious political person. Liberals do not fear her, they just do not like her. It's nothing personal, and it has nothing to do with fear.

Palin is just stupid, then on top of that she is a far right conservative. It's bad enough being a far right conservative, but when you are a stupid far right conservative it's 10 times worse. Liberals do not like her because she is an empty head in a skirt. John McCain only picked her to be his VP because she is a far right conservative, and that helped him to get the conservative vote. Not to mention she is a fairly good looking woman, and he also thought she would get him the womens vote.

Let's face the facts: Sarah Palin is a dummy, a dope, a dunce. She simply gets by looking cute and talking folksy, you betcha, and how is that hopey changey thing working out. I would not even vote her to be the city dog catcher, not because of fear, because she is stupid.

I may not like Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, etc. But at least they are smart, they use their intelligence to lie and spin people, but they are smart. I can respect them for that, but I can not respect Sarah Palin because she is stupid. And let me say this, if Sarah Palin was smart, and she had a 70% favorable rating, the left would fear her.

No-Body on the left fears Sarah Palin. And it's ridiculous to even claim it. How can we fear her if we are praying she is the Republican candidate for president in 2012. That makes no sense at all, and it shows just how much of a right-wing idiot O'Reilly is for even saying it. I want Palin to run, I hope she does, and I pray she wins, because then Obama will crush her like a bug.

In fact, I think Palin would lose to Obama by more than any Republican in America. So if I think that, how in the hell could I fear her. If I feared her I would not want her to run against Obama in 2012, but I do not fear her, at all, not one bit, so I do want her to run in 2012.

A new Public Policy Polling survey (taken in February) has president Obama topping Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin. Romney comes the closest, trailing Obama 45%-43%. Huckabee would lose by an almost identicial 46%-43%. Sarah Palin is seven points back at 50%-43%.

Palin loses to Obama with Independents by 10%, which is more than anyone. And that survey was taken before her favorable rating dropped to 24%, so if they ran the same poll today she would probably lose to Obama by 10 points, which is a crushing defeat in a presidential election. Romney is the closest, so if the Republicans are smart they will make him their candidate in 2012. And if we fear anyone it's Romney, not Palin.

I would bet she is never the Republican candidate for President in 2012, even though it makes me sad to say it, I am almost positive the Republicans will never make her their candidate in 2012. I am predicting right now that Mitt Romney will be the Republican party candidate against Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

The only way Palin can run in 2012 is on the Tea Party ticket. Which would be even better for Democrats, because then she would split the conservative vote with the Republican party candidate, and guarantee 4 more years of Barack Obama.

Republicans are mostly liars and spin doctors who constantly put out right-wing propaganda, but most of them are not stupid. And they know it would be the dumbest thing they ever did to make Palin their candidate for president. But I sure hope they do, and if not, I hope she runs as the Tea Party candidate. Now think about this, if I want her to run against Obama, how could I possibly fear her.

Republican Senator Cornyn Proves He Is Corrupt
By: Steve - April 26, 2010 - 9:30am

What do you call a Senator who says we should break up the big banks so they are no longer too big to fail. Then after the Democrats put up an amendment to make the banks too big to fail, that Senator votes no on the amendment.

You call him dishonest and corrupt, and that Senator is the Republican John Cornyn from Texas. The Democrats proposed an amendment on what he called for, and he voted against it.

Last week, the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Sam Stein interviewed several Republican senators about their views on making megabanks that threaten the economy smaller. They concluded that some Republican senators are beginning to embrace breaking big banks up, with a number of the legislators endorsing the idea reducing the maximum size of banks.

One senator they talked to was Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). Cornyn said he views the Democratic plan as a perpetual bailout and prefers making banks smaller in order to avoid the problems we saw during the financial crisis:
CORNYN: "I think we need to look at the concentration of banking in just a handful of entities that threaten our economy if they go under, They need to be smaller in order to avoid that problem and I would support efforts to move in that direction."
Last Thursday, Cornyn got a chance to put his money where his mouth is. The Senate Budget Committee held a vote on an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill that would have broken up some of the largest financial instutitions that are considered too big too fail. Cornyn voted against the amendment, joining all of his Republican colleagues on the committee except for Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

This happened after Cornyn and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met with 25 top Wall Street executives in New York City to hear their concerns regarding reform. Cornyn demonstrated his public rhetoric against Wall Street is less than genuine.

Two weeks ago, the senator traveled alongside Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-TX) to New York City to attend a private fundraiser with two dozen hedge fund managers and other corporate elites to enlist Wall Street's help in funding Republican campaigns in the fall and defeating any tough financial regulatory reform legislation.

This is what Republicans are doing folks, they claim to support breaking up the big banks to protect the people and their money. While they are secretly meeting with Wall Street fat cats to secure campaign funding if they vote no on the financial reform bill. It's dishonest, and basically legal bribery.

This is 100% proof that the Republicans do not want financial reform to protect the people, they just want to protect their friends on Wall Street who they get all that money from. And then they want us to vote them back into power, give me a break.

And of course O'Reilly is not reporting any of this. When it shows that Republicans are saying the politically correct thing in public, while behind closed doors they are meeting with Wall Street fat cats, making deals to get money from them if they vote no on the Democrats financial reform bill.

Sarah Palin Proves Again What A Joke She Is
By: Steve - April 26, 2010 - 9:00am

Last Friday, Sarah Palin was in Oregon for a speech at the Lane County Republicans Dinner. She called on the crowd to help elect more Republicans, joked about speaking in such a liberal state, and slammed what she calls the lame-stream media, a term she got from Bernie Goldberg.

During a question and answer session, Eugene City Councilwoman Jennifer Solomon read a pre-screened question from the audience about her role at Fox News. Palin said she was proud to be a part of Fox News for being fair and balanced.

Then she praised Glenn Beck and said with his chalkboard technique he's changing our country.

Journalists who covered Friday's speech were subject to strict restrictions from the Palin camp. No cameras or recording devices of any kind were allowed and reporters were only allowed to watch the speech on a video feed in an adjacent room. Speech organizers provided one photo of the event taken by a hired photographer.

Palin is a flat out joke, she does not allow cameras or recording devices at her speeches. She only speaks to Republican groups. All the questions are pre-screened, which means she gets to see them and prepare answers to the questions ahead of time. She does not do interviews with anyone but right-wing media outlets. And then on top of that she claims Beck is changing the country with his worthless and insane chalkboard nonsense.

The man writes right-wing propaganda on a chalkboard, it's not rocket science, it's the same thing 10 year old kids do in school. But somehow Palin has declared that Beck is a miracle worker for simply writing insane nonsense on a chalkboard.

Here is what I want, I want Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to run for president and vice president in 2012. I am begging them to run. They claim to be so great, ok, so put your money where your mouth is and run for president and vice president.

It would be the insane lunatic chalkboard guy and the dumb bimbo from Alaska. Beck could carry his chalkboard everywhere, and Palin could run around calling everyone who disagrees with her un-American. You betcha.

Most Dishonest Claim In The History Of Politics
By: Steve - April 26, 2010 - 8:30am

On the ABC this week Sunday news show, Pulitzer prize winning Professor of Economics Paul Krugman said the Republican party bailout claim in the Obama financial reform bill, is the most dishonest claim in the history of politics.

Here is the video:



Although I respect Professor Krugman, I would say it's only the most dishonest claim the Republicans have made in the last month or two. Almost every month I am shocked at the dishonest claims they make, so Professor Krugman is sort of right. But you could also make a case for the Death Panel lie in health reform, as the most dishonest Republican lie in the history of politics.

Fox Senior Judicial Analyst On New Immigration Law
By: Steve - April 25, 2010 - 11:30am

The Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said this on the Friday Neil Cavuto show:
Napolitano: She's gonna bankrupt the Republican Party and the state of Arizona. Look at what happened to the Republicans in California with the proposition --

Cavuto: What happens?

Napolitano: Ah, Hispanics -- who have a natural home in the Republican Party because they are socially conservative -- will flee in droves. She's also gonna bankrupt her state, because no insurance company will provide coverage for this. And for all the lawsuits that will happen -- for all the people that are wrongfully stopped -- her budget will be paying for it. Her budget will be paying the legal bills of the lawyers who sue on behalf of those that were stopped.

This will be a disaster for Arizona -- to say nothing of the fact that it's so unconstitutional that I predict a federal judge will prevent Arizona from enforcing it as soon as they attempt to do so.
Now think about this, the Judge knows the law, and he says it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, you have Bill O'Reilly, who is not even an attorney, and he knows nothing about the law. But O'Reilly loves the new law, and supports it 100 percent. Which btw, only Republicans support. And if you want to know what a partisan is, right here is a perfect example. O'Reilly is basically saying to hell with the constitution, he is supporting the bill based on ideology, instead of the law.

Notice that Bill O'Reilly has not had Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Factor one time to discuss the new Arizona immigration law, even though Judge Napolitano is the senior judicial analyst for the Fox News Netowrk. That's because the Judge disagrees with O'Reilly on the new law.

Look what Arturo Venegas, Jr., former chief of the Sacramento Police Department and project director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, had to say about it:
VENEGAS: The actions of the Republican state legislature and Gov. Brewer are an unfunded mandate to Arizona police and are clearly rooted in concerns over politics, not public safety. No police officer should have to put arresting an undocumented immigrant over catching a violent criminal to avoid a lawsuit, and no victim or witness of a crime should be afraid to report it because he or she will be deported if he or she speaks to police.

Latinos and immigrants across America have been watching Arizona with fear, and will retreat deeper into the shadows now that this bill has become law.
Only a partisan right-wing spin doctor, would not have the senior judicial analyst of his own network on to discuss such an important legal case. Which is exactly what O'Reilly has done, he does not want to put the Judge on the Factor because it will make O'Reilly look bad when the Judge tells him what the law will do, and how it is unconstitutional.

And even if O'Reilly did have the Judge on, he would say he does not care about the law, he cares about doing what is right. Then two days later in a legal segment, O'Reilly will say me must follow the rule of law or we have chaos and anarchy. That's O'Reilly logic, don't ya just love him.

Republican Minority Leader Caught Lying
By: Steve - April 25, 2010 - 11:00am

To follow up on my other blog about how dishonest and corrupt the Republican Senator John Cornyn is, read this, it is even more evidence that shows most Republicans are opposed to the Democratic financial reform bill because Wall Street fat cats are paying them to be against it.

On April 13th, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) declared his opposition to the financial reform bill before the Senate. McConnell claimed to have principled objections to the bill, saying that it institutionalizes bailouts of Wall Street and that it would give the Federal Reserve enhanced emergency lending authority that is far too open to abuse.

Despite the fact that McConnell was lying, and the bill does the exact opposite of what he said, he only said that after he had a meeting with 25 Wall Street fat cats. What McConnell did not mention was that a week before he said that, he went to New York City for a private meeting with a group of elite hedge fund managers and other Wall Street executives. The purpose of the meeting was to enlist Wall Street's help in funding Republican campaigns in the fall and killing any tough financial reform proposed by the Democrats.

And this is not some partisan story put out by only liberals, Fox News even reported it, here is what Fox said:
About 25 Wall Street executives, many of them hedge fund managers, sat down for a private meeting with two of the most powerful Republican lawmakers in Congress: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and John Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas who runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, one of the primary fundraising arms of the Republican Party.

In order to assure Republican electoral gains, McConnell and Cornyn made it clear they need Wall Street's help.
This is proof that Republicans are being dishonest, in public they claim to be for protecting the people, while in private they are making back room deals to get campaign funding to vote no against any reforms. And this has not just happened one or two times, it is happening all the time, on everything.

Republicans are making a habit out of meeting with lobbyists to kill important reforms.

-- In June 2009, Senate Republicans worked closely with health care lobbyists to kill the public option.

-- In the same month they also organized a hearing with energy industry representatives designed around defeating cap-and-trade.

-- In December, the House Republican leadership huddled with more than 100 financial lobbyists to debate the strategy for killing financial reform.

-- In February of this year, House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) met with JP Morgan chief Jamie Dimon to convince him to funnel funds to the Republican Party after the Democrats started getting tougher on Wall Street.

-- Then last month Boehner told financial lobbyists to not let punk Democratic staffers take advantage of them.

-- Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked bankers to donate $10,000 to Rep. Roy Blunt's (R-MO) Senate campaign.

And believe me, the Wall street fat cats are not donating all that money for nothing, they are doing it to get the Republicans to vote no on any financial reform bill.

They are selling the American people out for campaign donations. They care more about gaining Congressional seats, then they care about protecting the American people. And then they have the nerve to say vote us back into power and we will fix the problems facing the country. When they are almost all corrupt, and taking money from the very people they are supposed to be regulating.

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of this, he ignores it all because it shows how corrupt the Republicans are. Which also proves what a dishonest partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly is, and how he ignores real news to help cover for Republican corruption.

O'Reilly & Ingraham Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - April 24, 2010 - 10:30am

As usual on the Thursday night O'Reilly Factor both Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham were caught lying about the financial reform president Obama plans to put in place.

Here is what they said:
INGRAHAM: "We all want reforms, but we have to remember that what started this downward spiral was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushing bad loans out to the marketplace, and none of that is addressed in this so-called reform bill. We can't allow populist sentiment to override what we know about what the government is doing."

O'Reilly agreed that Fannie and Freddie must be included in any reform effort, saying this: O'REILLY: "If the final bill has no protections against the federal mortgage agencies, I will not support it."
The problem is they are both lying, and who cares if O'Reilly supports it or not, he is just a two-bit right-wing cable news host. I guess he thinks his support means something, haha, not. He was opposed to the Obama health reform bill and it passed, so clearly O'Reilly has no power, even though he thinks he does.

To begin with, Fannie and Freddie had almost nothing to do with the financial crisis, or the housing crisis, that is a right-wing myth.

Most economists reject the claim that Fannie and Freddie were root cause of financial crisis, funny how neither Ingraham or O'Reilly ever report that. Economist Dean Baker reported in September 2008 that the accusation that "the financial crisis is attributable to the close government relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" is "obviously not true." He wrote this:
BAKER: Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded. In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face -- kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.
Paul Krugman also disagrees with O'Reilly and Ingraham. Krugman wrote this:
KRUGMAN: Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman wrote on July 14, 2009, that "Fannie and Freddie are not responsible for the mess we're in." Krugman further wrote that "Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble."
But the biggest lie from Ingraham and O'Reilly is that Obama does not plan to reform Fannie and Freddie, because he does plan to reform them. But first he is going to pass the Wall Street reform bill. The Fannie and Freddie reforms are not in that bill, they will be in a different bill. But O'Reilly and Ingraham failed to report that, and they implied president Obama is never going to reform Fannie and Freddie, which is a lie.

And btw, it's not just O'Reilly and Ingraham lying about it, almost everyone on Fox is doing it too. On both opinion and the so-called straight news programs, Fox News has channeled the GOP talking points that Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis and are "getting a free pass" because they are not overhauled by the Democrats financial regulatory reform legislation.

But Fox repeatedly ignored that the Obama administration has initiated a separate effort to reform the housing finance system, including Fannie and Freddie, and have warned against moving too quickly on this front given the fragility of the housing market.

Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, Jim Angle, and Megyn Kelly, have all joined Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly in the lie. Politico even reported it on March 24th, which is almost a month ago, yet Ingraham, O'Reilly, and everyone at Fox is ignoring it. Here are the details.

Politico reported on March 24 that "the Obama administration has turned its attention to the next massive and controversial financial fight in Congress: overhauling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The article noted that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stated in congressional testimony, "The administration intends to develop a comprehensive reform proposal for the GSEs' role in the broader housing finance system" and that "after reform, the GSEs will not exist in the same form as they did in the past. Private gains will no longer be subsidized by public losses, capital and underwriting standards will be appropriate, consumer protection will be strengthened, and excessive risk taking will be restrained."

There is is, right there in black and white. The Obama administration is going to reform Fannie and Freddie, which is the exact opposite of what Ingraham, O'Reilly, and all the Fox News liars claim.

In his March 23rd testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Geithner outlined Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's flaws and stated that "action is needed" to address "the specific flaws of the housing finance system." Geithner addressed the administration's "objectives for reform of the mortgage finance system" and said that after gathering public comment "from a wide variety of constituents, market participants, academic experts, and consumer and community organizations," the administration will "develop a comprehensive reform proposal for delivery to Congress." He noted that reform should be enacted "at a time of greater market stability."

The Washington Post reported on April 15 that the Treasury Department released seven questions for public comment on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The article noted that "the administration has said it would like to make its legislative proposal early next year."

The Associated Press reported that HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said acting too quickly to change Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "could threaten another breakdown in the market." The Los Angeles Times further reported that Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst, said there are economic reasons for moving slowly on reform.

So the Obama administration is going to reform Fannie and Freddie, some time next year, and the reason they are waiting until then is to make sure the housing market is stable enough to do it. Not to mention, it's more important to get the reforms for Wall Street passed first, because they are the main reason we had the financial crisis in the first place.

So there you have it, O'Reilly does not report any of that news. Then he puts the proven liar Laura Ingraham on to lie about it. And if that is not bad enough, O'Reilly agrees with her lies, and claims Obama is not going to reform Fannie and Freddie.

And think about this, O'Reilly ignored all that information, then claimed Obama is not going to reform Fannie and Freddie, as he calls himself an honest journalist that tells you the truth. Give me a break, he can not even spell honest, let alone tell the truth. And O'Reilly calling himself a journalist, is an insult to all real journalists.

The Friday 4-23-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 24, 2010 - 10:00am

Laura (far right) Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly. And before I start my show review I have to say that if you claim to be a nonpartisan Independent as O'Reilly does, it makes you look like a fool to have the far right spin doctor Laura Ingraham as your fill in host. She is an Ann Coulter wannabe, and a female version of Sean Hannity. If O'Reilly was really a nonpartisan Independent, he would never let Laura Ingraham host his show. He would have an actual nonpartisan moderate do it, instead of a partisan right-wing spin doctor, who does nothing but spew out right-wing propaganda.

In the first segment Ingraham had two guests on to discuss the new Arizona immigration law. Democratic strategist Alicia Menendez said this: "My problem is that it violates basic rules of fairness. It's a very slippery slope towards racial profiling when you say that police officers are going to enforce immigration laws."

Immigration attorney Susan Church added that Arizona is violating the Constitution, she said this: "It's not possible for states to control or regulate immigration, our forefathers had the foresight to know that this is a federal issue and you can't have individual states with different rules."

And of course Ingraham disagreed with both of them, because she is a Republican, and it's an all Republican passed bill. Every Republican in the country supports the bill, including O'Reilly who really loves it. Even though it may be unconstitutional, and they will have to discriminate and racially profile people to enforce the law. There is no way you can enforce this law without racially profiling and discriminating against people with dark skin.

I believe a federal court will block the law, then at some point the US Supreme Court will strike it down. I also think we should have tough immigration laws, but they must be enforced by the feds, not the local and state police. It is not their job, and the police groups are mostly opposed to the new law. Which O'Reilly and Ingraham never point out, not once has either one of them reported that most of the police are opposed to it.

Then Ingraham had Ben Stein on to spin a Fox News poll, that says 58% of Americans believe the government is broken. Stein said this: "I'm not sure there wasn't a time when the government wasn't broken. Barack Obama is in a terrible spot, he's in two wars, the economy refuses to recover, and the health care bill was rammed through. He just does not seem to be inspiring people. They thought he would be a magical figure, but he's just another Chicago politician."

Wow is that some big time right-wing spin. Because no matter what year or who the president is, I would bet every poll would say the Government is broken, because people hate the Government. Because they do not listen to the people, they do what the wealthy, the corporations, and the lobbyists want them to do, so everyone hates the Government, including me. Then Stein claims the economy refuses to recover, which is a flat out lie, it is recovering, Republicans just refuse to admit it.

Look at the stock market, the improved job loss numbers, the improved home sales, etc. it all shows improvement, proving that Ben Stein is a liar. Then he slams Obama for not having things fixed yet, when he has only been in office for 16 months, and it took Bush 8 years to screw it up. Not to mention he never admits it was Bush who screwed everything up, he acts like Obama did it, when it was all done by Bush. How about we give him at least 2 years before we declare him a failure. What this shows is that no matter how well Obama does, the Republicans are never going to give him credit for anything. He could cure Cancer tomorrow and they would find a way to slam him for it.

And btw, if the Republicans had not voted no on everything, the economy would have recovered even faster. So to blame it on Obama is ridiculous, when the Republicans have done nothing but vote no, filabuster everything, and delay what has been done. They are doing this on purpose as a stall tactic, so they can use it in the November elections. Which also shows that Republicans care more about gaining Congressional seats, than they care about fixing the country. Which to me is borderline treason.

Then Ingraham had a segment on the Rod Blagojevich trial with two legal guests. Which I will not report on because she only did it to try and link Obama to him and Tony Rezko. Ingraham spent the whole segment trying to smear Obama, when it's a trial about Blagojevich trying to sell a Senate seat.

Then Ingraham had another segment crying about someone who criticized Sarah Palin. Ingraham and O'Reilly both act like Palin is a 5 year old who can not defend herself. They cry about every single person who says anything about Palin that they do not like, it's ridiculous. If Palin is so great, as they claim, why do they have to defend her.

Palin said America is at heart a Christian nation. Barry Lynn said he denounced Palin's remarks. "We've already established that Sarah Palin doesn't read the newspapers, and now we're finding out that she doesn't know history either. Jefferson, Madison, and Andrew Jackson didn't want the government involved with prayer. It drives me crazy to see conservatives who are hypocritical, who want the government out of everybody's life except for one of the most important things individuals choose, whether or not to be religious. I don't want the government in my church or my bedroom."

Then crazy Ingraham said Lynn and his ideological soul mates are the ones who are hypocritical. Which is just ridiculous, they are not the people who say keep the Government out of our lives, then try to have the Government put religion in our lives. It's total hypocrisy from the Republicans, not the Democrats. The founding fathers did not want the Government involved in religion, that is a fact. Yet Republicans still try to do it, even though they claim to support the constitution.

Then Ingraham had a segment about Joe Biden saying good things about Sarah Palin on the View. Ingraham asked Tammy Bruce and Cathy Areu why Palin remains on center stage. "She needs to be out there," Areu said, "and she needs to sell books, so maybe the left is doing her a favor. Bruce said Palin inspires fear and loathing on the left. "Sarah Palin is a representation of what's going on in the country right now. The left continues to mock and laugh at her and tea party patriots because they don't know what else to do. I want them to continue to do it, because Americans don't like the snobbery and the arrogance."

Which proves Tammy Bruce is nuts, because Palin has a 24% approval rating, 21% among women, so she is hardly a representation of what's going on in the country. And the left mocks and laughs at her and the Tea Party, because they are all right-wing nuts who hate Obama because he is black, and they love the dummy from Alaska who can not even tell you what newspapers she reads, and who claims she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house.

Ingraham said the Democrats are using Sarah Palin to their advantage: "They're keeping her out there because they can raise money off of her. Sarah Palin drives the left batty." And for once I agree with Ingraham, the Democrats want Palin in the public eye. Because she is a dummy, and the more people see of her the lower her approval rating goes. Which is hurting the Republicans, and the Tea Party idiots that worship her. Palin makes the Tea party look like a joke, and they will never have any credibility with her as their leader. So I say keep Palin out there, and make sure she runs for president in 2012 too.

Then Ingraham had a segment on the South Park issue with Muslims, and she had Greg Gutfeld on to do the dumbest things of the week segment. Which I am not reporting on, because frankly it was old news and Gutfled making unfunny jokes about the SEC guys who looked at porn.

Obama Calls Arizona Immigration Bill Irresponsible
By: Steve - April 24, 2010 - 9:30am

If you want to see the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, just look at this. O'Reilly and virtually every Republican in America, support the possibly unconstitutional new immigration bill that was passed in Arizona, which would make racial profiling legal, by a majority Republican State Senate, House, and could be signed by the Republican Governor.

So here is what the Democratic President Obama said about it:
OBAMA: Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes for example the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.

But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts to open up across the country.
The Washington Post reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has told Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that if they don't strike a deal on their immigration reform bill within the next three weeks, Democrats will bring forward their own legislation. Graham, however believes immigration reform is far from ready. "What am I supposed to do, write an immigration bill between now and Monday with Chuck?" Graham told The Hill.

Ummmmm, yes, you are supposed to write an immigration bill with Chuck. If you don't, the Democrats are going to do what they should do, kick your partisan ass to the curb and write the bill without you.

Notice that O'Reilly supports the new immigration bill in Arizona, when only Republicans are supporting it. And yet he claims he is not a Republican, which is just laughable, especially when he supports every bill they write, and he is opposed to every bill the Democrats write.

Here is the deal, O'Reilly is a stone cold liar. If you support 99% of what the Republicans do, you are a Republican. And the fact that you lie about it gives you less credibility then if you just admitted the truth. If O'Reilly will lie about his political ideology, how can you believe anything he says.

More Good News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - April 24, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is some more good news for president Obama that O'Reilly has totally ignored. Here is the headline from the Friday USA Today Newspaper:
New-home sales jump 27%, biggest gain in 47 years
And here is some of what they wrote:

WASHINGTON — Sales of new homes surged 27% last month, bouncing off the previous month's record low and blowing past expectations as better weather and government incentives boosted sales.

The Commerce Department said Friday that new-home sales rose in March to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 411,000. It was the strongest month since last July and the biggest monthly increase in 47 years.

But you never heard a word about it from O'Reilly, because it makes Obama look good, and it shows his economic policies are working. The same policies O'Reilly opposed, and predicted would be a massive failure. The article went on to say this:

The rise in new-home sales was seen nationwide. Sales grew a whopping 44% in the South and 36% in the Northeast. They also rose about 6% in the West and 3% in the Midwest.

And O'Reilly ignored it all, because it makes president Obama look good. Then he has the nerve to say he is not a partisan Republican, that he has been fair to Obama, and that he is an Independent. Yeah, and I'm Donald Trump too.

GM Pays Off Bailout Loan: O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - April 23, 2010 - 10:00am

This is more good news for president Obama and the Democratic party, so of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story. But he sure had time to cry about the big bad Jon Stewart making fun of Fox, and he had plenty of time to have Dennis Miller on to make jokes about liberals. So much for the Factor being a hard news show, it's more like a cross between Hannity and Inside Edition.

Remember when O'Reilly cried like a baby about the GM bailout, he said we should not be giving them taxpayer money. Well yesterday we find out that GM has paid the loan off, 5 years early, with interest, so we actually made money on the deal.

And even though the American taxpayers still have billions invested in the auto maker, analysts say there's reason to believe that investment could now pay off. If the government can sell its stake in GM for more than $45 billion, the taxpayers could make a profit on that too.

"It would look awfully good if the Democrats could say, 'We saved a bunch of jobs, we got a successful company, and they taxpayers got paid back,'" said John Wolkonowicz, a senior analyst at HIS Global Insight. "That would be huge."

But O'Reilly ignores the entire story because it makes Obama look good, just as he has ignored the Dow breaking 11,000, the March jobs report, the improving economy, etc.

Another Right-Wing Idiot Sends Me Mail
By: Steve - April 23, 2010 - 9:30am

On Wednesday I got this e-mail:
Subject: Comment
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010
From: David Sheehan - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern:

I ran across your website today and looked over much of your commentary and stories. The only thing I agree with is the sex scandal that Mr. O'Reilly was involved with. We don't know the entire story. But, I agree with you... he came out looking very shady and I think he probably did sexually harass that woman.

The rest of your website is laced with your own half-truth spin of events. I don't shun you for being a watchdog. I just think you should have a more balanced approach by being a watchdog for all major media personalities out there. Have you ever looked into the lies that Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow have told? You're are looking like a blind ideologue. You need to change.

Respectfully,
David E. Sheehan
Littleton, Colorado
Notice that he does not specify one thing that is not true on the website, and he says the only thing he agrees with is the phone sex scandal. Then the O'Reilly lover insults me by saying the website is laced with half-truths and spin. And on top of that the Gomer tells me I need to be more balanced and change the way I do things.

So I wrote him back and asked him to show me one thing I say about O'Reilly on the website that is not true. I also told him I only report on O'Reilly and Fox news, and I said if you do not like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow start a website about them yourself. Then I had a P.S. where I said how dare you insult me and tell me what to do, especially when you have no evidence my website is full of half-truths. Basically I told the guy to show me, quote me, tell me what is not true on the website, just one thing, anything.

And here is what he said to my reply:
Subject: Re: Comment
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010
From: David Sheehan - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Wow... you are one pissed off dude. Do you need a nap?
Notice he did not provide me one example of something I have on the website that is not true, nothing, zero. The best he has is more insults, asking me why I am so pissed off, and if I need a nap. This is the kind of person that loves Bill O'Reilly, a biased kool-aid drinking fool. The guy has nothing, except insulting e-mails. And when he is asked to back up his bogus claims, the best he can do is send me more insults.

Note to Bill O'Reilly: these are what your fans are like, mindless, right-wing, braindead, O'Reilly loving kool-aid drinkers, are you proud of that?

The Thursday 4-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 23, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Wall Street Crackdown. O'Reilly finally stopped trying to go after Jon Stewart, I guess he figured out Stewart was kicking his ass, so he stopped digging the hole deeper.

O'Reilly asked if it's a power grab by Obama. Which of course it's not, but O'Reilly implied it is anyway. This is where O'Reilly goes off the rails, he supports financial reform, but then he slams Obama for doing it. It looks like O'Reilly just does not want a Democrat passing the reform, because I can guarantee you he would support it 100% if a Republican president was doing it. Then O'Reilly hammered Merril Lynch and cried about the money he lost when he invested with them. Then at the end O'Reilly said he supports the financial reform, but he does not like it, he said he reluctlently supports it because he has to.

So then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, and he said he is not a Republican that he is an independent. Which is so funny it's laughable. Ingraham slammed Obama and said the lawsuit against Goldman Sachs is a political stunt to drum up support for his financial reform bill. O'Reilly said we need new regulations, Ingraham disagreed. Ingrahm said it's a bad bill, but that it will pass because everyone is afraid to vote against it.

Then O'Reilly played a tape of Ingraham doing her radio show talking about racism at the Tea Party protests. The guest with Ingraham did not have any specific examples of racism that he saw, so O'Reilly and Ingraham decided there was no racism in the Tea Party. Ingraham called him pathetic, when the only thing that's pathetic is O'Reilly and Ingraham defending the Tea Party and claiming there is no racism, when it's all over the place. What's pathetic is how they can deny the racism, when there is evidence of it, they just do not have anyone on who actually saw it, then they claim it never happened. Most of the protest signs are racist, I guess they missed that too.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about ACORN, which is strange, because they went out of business. But O'Reilly decided to do a segment on it anyway. I guess he did it just to get his ratings up, because right-wingers love to see him trash ACORN, even after it went out of business. Here is a good one, O'Reilly played a tape of the former head of ACORN, who admitted she is a socialist. Then O'Reilly said that proves that the Tea Party is right when they say Obama is a socialist.

Huh? That makes no sense at all, how does it prove Obama is a socialist, when the former head of ACORN admits she is a socialist. O'Reilly is in crazy land with that garbage. Then O'Reilly spent the rest of the segment trashing people who speak out against the Tea Party, The Geico man who got fired, Bill Maher, etc. Then crazy O'Reilly said they insult the Tea Party because they fear them. Which is just laughable, they do not fear them, they laugh at them. I have no fear at all of the Tea Party, or Sarah Palin. Because they are a small group of far right nuts that are just mad because a black man is in the white house. The Tea Party is a passing fad, and a year or two from now nobody will even be talking about them anymore. And btw, there was no guest in that segment, just O'Reilly spinning his right-wing ass off all alone.

Then crazy O'Reilly had Geraldo on to talk about the Navy seals who were charged with mistreatment of some Gitmo detainees. One of them was found innocent, which everyone already knew he would be. Nobody in the military is ever found guilty of anything, unless there is a tape of it, or a witness. O'Reilly called the General who filed the charges a pinhead, the man is a two time special forces medal winner, and O'Reilly called him a pinhead. Geraldo sort of disagreed with O'Reilly, and they argued about it, with O'Reilly screaming and yelling at Geraldo. O'Reilly wants all the charges dropped against all of them, and Geraldo called for Obama to pardon them.

Then O'Reilly had the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to talk about ABC rejecting a womans underwear ad by plus size models. O'Reilly gave a viewer warning, when it was simply models in their underwear. They have the victoria secret show, which is an entire hour of mostly naked models. this is a Republican thing, because most people have no problem with it. And then O'Reilly said he does not care what they do, but he did the segment anyway. They decided it was ok, but only after 9pm, haha.

Then they talked about Franklin Graham, who insulted muslims, and he was pulled from a day of prayer at the Pentagon. Carlson and Hoover both said it was an outrage, that Graham was pulled, now what he said. The Army disinvited Christian evangelist Franklin Graham from speaking at the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer service on May 6 because of his past controversial comments about Islam. And I agree with the Army, if they do not want him speaking at the Prayer day, I support their decision. Hoover and Carlson were just freaked out about it because they are right-wing religious freaks. And of course, no Democratic guests were on to discuss it.

Then O'Reilly had the very crazy Glenn Beck on to cry about Joe Klein saying Beck was close to being guilty of sedition. O'Reilly claims Beck is very upset, and that Beck loves his country. I will say this, if Beck was a liberal and we had a Republican president, O'Reilly would be right in line behind Joe Klein saying he is guilty of sedition. O'Reilly only denies it because Beck is a Republican who works at Fox News. Then O'Reilly asked Beck why Klein did it, and called it a dopey charge. Beck said they did it to make him look like the radical, when they are the radicals.

The usual crazy spin from Beck, it was all right-wing nonsense from O'Reilly and Beck. O'Reilly claims they fear Glenn Beck, which is just laughable. Somehow in O'Reillyworld any time you speak out against a crazy Republican you fear them. Then they spent 2 minutes making jokes about Beck wearing an FBI pin on his suit jacket. At the end of the segment O'Reilly told Beck to ignore them because they are just left-wing loons. As usual O'Reilly misrepresented the claims, and called Klein a pinhead.

Billy claims Joe Klein said Beck is trying to overthrow the Government, which is not what he said. He simply said Glenn Beck is CLOSE to being guilty of sedition. Look it up, read the law yourself. And Klein did not say he was guilty of sedition, he said he was close to being guilty, which is a big difference. O'Reilly and Beck implied that Klein said Beck IS guilty of sedition, which is not what he said.

And finally the last segment was the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz, with the two Fox morons, Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. This segment is so stupid it's not even worth reporting on, it's not news, and has no news value at all. I will say this, last week O'Reilly had two other Fox stooges take the news quiz, and one of them missed every question, but one. Which is pretty bad when you work for a fricking news network, but the winner only got two right. Proving they are not very bright, they work for a news network and can not even get 3 of 5 news questions right.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. For the record, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show.

Gretchen Carlson Questions Military Protesters
By: Steve - April 23, 2010 - 8:30am

I guess they never told her to research the facts before you report something you have no idea about. And I would guess she does not really care about the facts, but if they were Republicans in uniform at a right-wing protest, I bet she would never doubt they are for real.

Earlier this week, Lt. Dan Choi and five other gay and lesbian veterans who were discharged under the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy (DADT) "handcuffed themselves to the White House fence" to demand that the President follow through on his promise to repeal the policy before the end of the year.

While interviewing right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin Thursday morning, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson casually claimed that the protesters were merely dressed up as members of the military:
CARLSON: I want to get your take on something that happened at the White House earlier this week, because, of course the message from the Obama administration is of course they will be the most transparent White House ever and there was this incident where some members of the military, at least dressed up like that, were handcuffing themselves in an area where typically protests happen and the police chased reporters away and basically said they could not cover the event that was happening.
Here are the FACTS, something Gretchen Carlson knows nothing about. All of the protesters were, or still are, members of the military. Lt. Dan Choi serves in the New York National Guard and previously served in the Army, James Pietrangelo served in the Army, Autumn Sandeen and Larry Whitt served in the Navy, and, Evelyn Thomas served in the Marine Corps. And one protester - Mara Boyd - was an Air Force ROTC cadet.

I guess they train the people at Fox to lie, because they sure are good at it, and they only lie to make Democrats look bad, they never lie to make Republicans look bad. And of course O'Reilly and his media watchdog Bernie Goldberg never say a word about any of this, because it happens at Fox, where they work.

RNC Chairman Tells The Truth (For Once)
By: Steve - April 23, 2010 - 8:00am

For once in his life the Chairman of the RNC (Michael Steele) actually told the truth on Tuesday night. Steele was asked if blacks have a reason to vote for any Republicans, then shockingly he told the truth and said no. Now all the spin doctors on the right have flipped out again, and they are calling for Steele to be fired, when all he did was tell the truth.

Steele, the first African-American chairman for the RNC, said the GOP has lost its historical link to African Americans.

He said the GOP's strategy of appealing to white, male voters in the South alienated minorities and ultimately proved ineffective when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992.

Steele added, that Republicans should embrace the Tea Party movement, which recent polls have found is overwhelmingly white and represents the South more than any other region. Steele said the Tea Party represents "a third or more of the voting age population," but the CBS News/NY Times poll found that, 18 percent of Americans identify with the Tea Party. Most of the Tea Partiers, however, do also identify as Republican.

"I have advised our state chairs: Don't turn your nose up, or turn away those who are active in the Tea Party movement. Embrace them. Welcome them. Talk to them," Steele said. "Those activists have now become a very large part of our voting bloc."

I predict that Steele will be fired if he keeps telling the truth, and of course O'Reilly will ignore all of it. Notice that Steele admits the Tea Party is a big part of their voting bloc, which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly claims.

Maybe someone should wake Billy up from his afternoon nap, and tell him that the head of the RNC just admitted the Tea Party is mostly a conservative movement.

Gingrich Said Tea Party Could Turn Militant
By: Steve - April 23, 2010 - 7:30am

The question is, will O'Reilly hammer Gingrich for saying the Tea Party is "more likely to end up as the militant wing of the Republican Party" than as an independent or third party. Ha ha, don't bet on it.

O'Reilly hammers anyone who dares to say the Tea Party has links to the militia groups, or that they could turn violent. O'Reilly even denys they have links to the militia groups, or that they would ever turn violent.

Speaking in Pennsylvania Wednesday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described the Tea Party as potentially militant.

Reading a selection of questions to the former Speaker, the Manufacturers Association of South Central Pennsylvania executive director Mike Smeltzer asked Newt Gingrich about the future of the Tea Party.

Gingrich said the movement is a "natural expression of frustration with Republicans and anger at Democrats," which is "more likely to end up as the militant wing of the Republican Party" than as an independent or third party.

In the same speech at the Manufacturers Association 104th Annual Event, Gingrich also attacked unemployment benefits, saying that "last year's extension of unemployment benefits was like a bribe to people to tolerate legislators incompetence."

Now who wants to bet me that O'Reilly does not attack Newt Gingrich for what he said. I am guessing that O'Reilly will never say a word about any of it. But if a Democrat said the Tea Party could turn militant, O'Reilly would flip out and do at least one full segment on it, if not two.

O'Reilly Lied About DADT Repeal Hurting Morale
By: Steve - April 22, 2010 - 9:30am

Just when you think O'Reilly is done saying stupid things, he strikes again, and says that gays openly serving in the military will hurt morale. On The Wednesday O'Reilly Factor, crazy O'Reilly said that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell would cause a lot of morale problems in the military. Talking about Obama being against DADT O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As he said, he is against Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They are going to revoke it. They are just trying to figure it out with the military. And the military basically is saying we know. Hey, look, if you do this, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's going to cause a lot of morale problems. Whether you like it or not, people don't want openly gay soldiers or Marines in the barracks and it's going to cause problems.
Fact: Studies show that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly does not affect morale.

-- A 2006 Zogby poll said that 73% of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays.

-- The same poll said that One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay.

-- As far back as 1993 the RAND Corporation concluded that openly gay people in the U.S. military do not negatively impact unit cohesion, morale, good order, or military readiness.

-- In 1993 the GAO studied four countries that allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military -- Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden -- and found that "the presence of homosexuals has not created problems in the military." It also found that "military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale."

-- In a February 2010 report, the Palm Center reviewed the experience of the 25 nations whose militaries allow gay men and lesbians to serve and found: "Research has uniformly shown that transitions to policies of equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness."

So I guess everyone is wrong but O'Reilly, who btw, never served in the Military. He dodged the draft two times by using an education deferment to go to school in England. Then he dodged the Mansfield draft a second time by taking a teaching job in Florida.

What O'Reilly (the homophobe) did was spew out the old tired right-wing talking points that gays in the military will hurt morale. When 73% of the military say they have no problem with it, and all the studies show that openly serving gays does not hurt morale. Proving once again that O'Reilly just pulls this stuff out of his ass, in the hope that someone will believe it.

And what is really ridiculous about what O'Reilly said is that there are already gays in the military, with most people in the military saying they know it, and know who they are. The only thing the repeal of DADT will do, is allow gay and lesbian men and women to serve their country openly and honestly, without having to live a lie.

The Wednesday 4-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 22, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Jon Stewart vs. Fox News. Once again O'Reilly cried about Jon Stewart mocking Fox News. When all he did was respond to what the idiot Bernie Goldberg said to him on Monday night. And btw, Stewart has been right on everything he said about Fox, Goldberg even admitted he was guilty and Stewart was right. But then they attacked Stewart anyway, so Stewart attacked them back. What did you think was going to happen, that Stewart would just let it go, haha, not. And btw folks, O'Reilly is just keeping this thing alive for ratings, because he knows Stewart is right, he just refuses to admit it.

then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on again. Here is some advice for O'Reilly and Goldberg, let it go, you are just digging the hole deeper. Stewart is killing you with the facts, and doing it in a funny way as he does it. You just look like a cry baby loser when you try to hammer him back. Not to mention, it gives the war of words more publicity, so then more people will see how good Stewart is at exposing your dishonesty, your bias, your hypocrisy, and your double standards. Basically you are helping Jon Stewart get his message out about you to more people, which means more people will see what liars you are.

And here is a did you know, did you know Bernie Goldberg complained that Jon Stewart did a softball interview of Frank Rich. An interview that happened in 2006, which is 4 fricking years ago. And Jon stewart is a COMEDIAN, who does a COMEDY show, his job is to get ratings for being funny. He is not a JOURNALIST, and his job is not to be fair and balanced. So the complaint from Goldberg is ridiculous, and it just makes him look even dumber than Stewart made him look.

O'Reilly even said no conservative comic has his own show, maybe because they are not funny. Jay Leno does jokes about Democrats and Republicans, in fact, I am pretty sure Jay Leno is a Republican. I guess O'Reilly also forgot that Dennis Miller used to have his own show and it bombed, the ratings were so low they had to pay people to be in the audience. Most comics are liberals, because they are funny, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are liberals, it's about ratings.

O'Reilly had two Democrats on to discuss it, Nancy Skinner and Leslie Marshall. Basically they pretty much disagreed with O'Reilly. Crazy O'Reilly called Stewart a liberal commentator, and a point man for the liberal media, when that is a total lie, he is not a commentator or a point man for anything, he is a COMEDIAN. O'Reilly even said he has no beef with Jon Stewart, and that he likes him. if that's true why did you spend two fricking nights attacking him for simply stating the facts about Fox News, it was just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Obama job approval numbers with Dick Morris of all people. Boy O'Reilly sure loves to report on the presidents job approval numbers, when it's a Democrat, but when Bush was in office O'Reilly rarely mentioned his approval numbers. And in fact, O'Reilly defended them saying sometimes you have to do what's right, not what's popular. Not with Obama though, every other night O'Reilly reports the Obama job approval numbers to try and make him look bad, when he did the opposite with Bush.

The whole segment was just garbage, Morris the Obama hater was on once again to spin out right-wing propaganda about Obama. With nobody from the left to balance the segment of course. O'Reilly asked Morris if Obama could turn his falling job approval numbers around. then O'Reilly asked Morris what Obama should do to raise him approval numbers up. He said move to the center and work with the republican party. Which is just insane, because the Republicans are refusing to work with Obama, they just vote no on everything, so he can not do what Morris said he he should do. Morris also said that if Obama does not move to the center he will not be re-elected in 2012, and I will bet Morris is wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to discuss the new immigration law in Arizona. O'Reilly loves the new law, even though it violates the 4th amendment of the constitution, it's racial profiling, discrimination, and all the police chief groups oppose it. O'Reilly said Obama might have a federal judge try to block the law. Kelly said they are also going to try and claim it violates the constitution, which it does. O'Reilly even said Obama should stay out of it because he will get hammered for blocking the law, when it's unconstitutional.

Basically O'Reilly loves the new immigration law, even though it will most likely never be put in place. And then of course Billy had to talk about a sex scandal with a woman and a minor, the old perv sure loves these sex stories. And finally they talked about a lawsuit with one of the Dixie Chicks, and I could care less, haha. What a joke, the only real legal story they discussed was the Arizona immigration law, the rest were tabloid trash.

Then Dennis Miller was on to do his usual unfunny jokes about liberals and president Obama. Which I refuse to report on because it is not news. Miller is only on to get ratings for O'Reilly by making bad jokes about liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. And I have no problem with Miller making jokes about liberals, the only problem I have is that he does it on a so-called news show, so it's not news, and the hypocrisy from O'Reilly who complains when COMEDIANS make jokes about conservatives like Palin etc.

The hypocrisy from O'Reilly is stunning. In fact, earlier in the show O'Reilly complained about Jon Stewart (THE COMEDIAN) making jokes about Fox, when he did it on a COMEDY network on his COMEDY show, then he has Dennis Miller on the Factor every week to make jokes about liberals, but he has him do it on a news show. O'Reilly can not understand the difference between the rules for journalists on a news show, and the rules for a COMEDIAN on a COMEDY show. Earth to O'Reilly, Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN who gets paid to make JOKES, on a COMEDY show, on the COMEDY network. You have a NEWS show, on a NEWS network that claims to be fair and balanced, and you claim to be a JOURNALIST, what part of that do you not understand.

The last segment was the did you see that with Jane Skinner. They watch them comment on videos that O'Reilly claims are a must see. O'Reilly cried about Glee mocking conservatives, they mocked Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. Who cares, it's a free country, and it's a tv show. O'Reilly said you never see any tv shows mocking liberals, except for the tv show 24, and Jane Skinner told O'Reilly he was wrong. She said the Simpsons mocks liberals, proving that O'Reilly was lying once again. O'Reilly spent most of the segment crying about tv shows mocking Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, Jane Skinner said it does not bother her at all, because she is not a total right-wing idiot like O'Reilly is.

Earth to O'Reilly, a tv show is not journalism, it's entertainment, so they do not have to be fair and balanced, you fricking idiot. Then Billy cried about a video of the airline commercial that charges $45.00 for a carry on bag. I will not name the airline because frankly I do not care. And that was the videos O'Reilly bills as a must see. More like a joke to see that nobody cares about.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, in the Miller Time segment Dennis Miller said "Nancy Pelosi is stop an electric fan with your tounge stupid." But if Letterman or Jon Stewart said that about Sarah Palin, O'Reilly would be outraged and call for them to stop it. But he has no problem with Dennis Miller saying that about Pelosi, and he even laughed when Miller said it.

O'Reilly Ignoring Ethics Problems At Fox
By: Steve - April 22, 2010 - 8:30am

Think about this, a couple years ago a study came out that said a high percentage of people in journalism were registered Democrats. So then O'Reilly flipped out about it, he claimed it was an outrage, that most journalists were simply registered to vote as a Democrat.

O'Reilly claimed it proves they are biased to the left in their reporting, just because they are registered as Democrats. Even though he never provided any evidence of their bias, which he calls for when someone claims he is biased, or when someone claims Fox is biased.

Think about that, O'Reilly flipped out just because they are registered as Democrats.

Now let's look at what is happening at Fox. Sean Hannity tried to do a live show at a Tea Party event, where he planned to sell tickets to see it, then give that money to the Tea Party. And O'Reilly said nothing, not a word, he was silent as a mouse. When what Hannity tried to do is far worse than a journalist just being registered as a Democrat.

And what is even worse, is all the Fox employees who use their TV exposure on Fox to actually raise money for the Republican party to get Democrats voted out of office, and to get Republicans voted into office. They are being paid to work for a news network, so they should be following the journalism rules of ethics.

Can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, or Rachel Maddow used their TV news shows on MSNBC to raise money for the Democratic party. O'Reilly would lose his mind, and call for them to be fired, and call for them to stop raising money for the Democratic party at once.

But you have a lot of Fox employees doing just that, they use their TV time and fame from being on Fox to raise money for the Republican party. Which is a hundred times worse than just being registered as a Democrat. In fact, I would say it is very wrong, if not illegal to do it, and I think the FEC should do an investigation of the people at Fox.

The list is endless, Sarah Palin's SarahPAC has raised $2,532,598 in the 2010 election cycle. SarahPAC has contributed $44,500 to federal candidates (89% to Republicans, 0% to Democrats).

SarahPAC has contributed to the Republican campaigns of Reps. Michele Bachmann (MN) and Roy Blunt (MO), and to Sens. John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC), among others. She is a paid employee of the Fox News Network, and yet she is raising all this money for the Republican party. That is just wrong, it's unethical, and a direct violation of the rules of journalism.

And she is just the tip of the iceberg. Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich is chairman of the 527 organization called American Solutions for Winning the Future. OpenSecrets.org found that the American Solutions 527 has raised $14,494,782 in the 2010 election cycle.

Fox News host Mike Huckabee's Huck PAC has raised $1,096,845 in the 2010 election cycle. Huck PAC has contributed at least $19,000 to congressional candidates, all of them Republican. His own Fox News bio states that "Huckabee recently formed HuckPac to assist Republicans running for office nationwide."

He is the actual host of a show on Fox, and he is raising money for the Republican party. Which is an outrage, and a severe violation of journalism ethics.

Karl Rove is promoting a new 527 group called American Crossroads. The group "has been assembled quietly but is expected to play a big role in helping the GOP improve their fortunes in congressional contests this fall." The group has "received commitments of almost $30 million and is seeking to raise a total of some $60 million to help dozens of Senate and House incumbents and challengers this fall."

Dick Morris uses his website and his Fox News appearances for raising money to defeat Democrats.

Sean Hannity is also the host of his own show on Fox that has a long history of raising money for Republican candidates.

Fox News political analyst Rick Santorum is chairman of America's Foundation PAC, "the political action committee that's "committed to helping candidates and causes who share Senator Santorum's commitment to conservative principles." America's Foundation PAC has raised $1,249,091 in the 2010 election cycle.

And one of the worst things about this is that O'Reilly ignores all of it, he has not said one word about any of it. But if you are a journalist who is simply registered to vote as a Democrat, which is not a violation of the journalism rules of ethics, you make O'Reilly's hit list, and he does a week of shows about it.

More On Fox Employees Violating Journalistic Ethics
By: Steve - April 22, 2010 - 8:00am

In the last couple years, at least 19 Fox News employees (that we know of) have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances in every state but one. Republican party officials have routinely touted these employees affiliations with Fox News to sell and promote their events. Here is the list

1) Fred Barnes
2) Glenn Beck
3) Eric Bolling
4) John Bolton
5) Tammy Bruce
6) Neil Cavuto
7) Monica Crowley
8) Newt Gingrich
9) Sean Hannity
10) Mike Huckabee
11) Col David Hunt
12) Michelle Malkin
13) KT McFarland
14) Dick Morris
15) Andrew Napolitano
16) Oliver North
17) Sarah Palin
18) Dana Perino
19) Karl Rove

This is an outrage, and yet O'Reilly says nothing. But if someone at NBC is just registered as a Democrat O'Reilly cries foul. As all the Fox employees not only promote Republicans running for office, they go out and raise money for them.

Let me say this, no journalist anywhere in America should be raising money for any political party, Democrat or Republican. Journalists should not even endorse a candidate, let alone raise money for them. Especially if they use their TV news show to do it, or they use the news network they work for to do it. It's ok to be registered as a Republican or a Democrat, and vote for who you want to, but if you are in the journalism business you should not be raising money for any political party, ever.

The Tuesday 4-20-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 21, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Wall Street Regulation. Billy talked about the new financial reform bill Obama wants to pass, O'Reilly said we need reform, but he is not sure the kind of reform Obama wants to pass is the way to go. Billy claims many Americans are worried that the President may use a legitimate issue to further expand the nanny state. And he is worried about Fannie and Freddie.

He said this: "The Obama administration uses Fannie and Freddie to redistribute income, to provide mortgages to under-financed Americans. That we need reform on Wall Street, but that means more big government and more power for people like Congressman Barney Frank, who totally blew it with Fannie and Freddie. What a mess."

Which is half right, but it's also a lot of right-wing spin. Barney Frank was only in charge of Fannie and Freddie for 2 years from 2006 to 2008, and all their problems happened while a Republican was running them. Not to mention, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the financial crisis. That's a Republican talking point lie. And most low income Americans who get those home loans pay them off, the problem was the crooked mortgage brokers who gave loans to people that were not qualified. It's a complicated issue, and O'Reilly lied about it.

And btw, O'Reilly never said a word about the dishonest Frank Luntz talking points some Republicans are using about the Obama finance reform bill, that were put out before they even wrote the bill. He totally ignored that angle on the story. It's called covering for your right-wing friends. Not to mention, the financial crisis was caused by Bush and the Republicans who had total power for 6 of the 8 years he was in office, yet O'Reilly blames it on Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddie when they had almost nothing to do with it.

Then the far right John Stossel was on to discuss it, and of course no Democratic guest. Stossel said it's all bull, and the Government should just stay out of it. Which is what they did under Bush, and it almost destroyed the country, so that shows what an idiot Stossel is, he is just stupid. Even O'Reilly said the new regulations are necessary because parts of Wall Street are a shadow world where people can manipulate the market. So even crazy O'Reilly understands that they need to be regulated, something Stossel can not seem to understand.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman saying the administration is dragging its feet in the investigation into the Fort Hood massacre. And of course O'Reilly and Crowley agreed with them, and slammed the Obama administration for taking so long. Crowley said it is ridiculous. And that she thinks the Obama administration is filled with political correctness and nobody wants to deal with the obvious point that Hasan is an Islamic jihadist. Colmes said Lieberman is putting politics before justice. Colmes said this: "This McCain supporter who calls himself a Democrat is once again going after the Obama administration. I think it's a grandstanding play by Lieberman, and an attempt to interfere with a military investigation."

Then O'Reilly had some right-wing nut on from the Wall Street Journal, columnist James Taranto. He claims some Democrats are intentionally painting tea partiers as racists for political reasons. Taranto also said this: "They have to keep alive the idea that America is a racist country and Republicans are a racist party. This has been going on for 45 years and it's become more urgent now because we have a black president."

Which is ridiculous, they are calling some of them racists because they are, and they have used racism in their protests, their signs, photoshopped images, t-shirts, bumper stickers, cereal boxes, and on and on. There is all kinds of racism against Obama, and it's all coming from Republicans, mostly from the Tea Party Republicans, they just refuse to admit it even when you show them the evidence. Proving that O'Reilly and Taranto are both liars who deny reality. O'Reilly said this: "One very prominent Democrat has stayed above the fray: "President Obama himself has rejected all of this racism stuff, saying it's bogus."

Which is not what Obama said, he said there is racism, but he does not think all the racism is because he is the first black president. That's a whole lot different than saying it's all bogus, which he never said. So O'Reilly was caught lying again. Obama did not say there was no racism, he just said he will not use it for political reasons. I could show you a hundred examples of racism against Obama, but according to O'Reilly and Taranto it's all bogus and the Democrats are just using it for political reasons.

Then O'Reilly had a former judge on to talk about threats from terrorit groups to the guys who make the South Park cartoon. Billy said they should not have done the cartoon that made tham mad, and the judge disagreed. She said they have free speech and they were not afraid, O'Reilly said maybe he is a coward, but that if it was him he would not have done it. And then they both agreed they should get some security because the death threats are serious.

Next up was the is it legal segment with Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl, and of course they are both Republicans. They talked about police officer that used a department-owned pager to send messages to both his wife and his mistress, and superiors later read his correspondence. He's saying the police department violated his privacy rights," Wiehl said, "police officers generally know that their pagers and emails can be looked at. That's what I think the Supreme Court is going to say." Guilfoyle agreed that the cop's bosses were "well within their rights."

Then they talked about a case where a man was charged with disorderly conduct for giving a cop the finger after the officer gave him a ticket. The court dismissed the charge, and said the man has a First Amendment right to verbally abuse the police. O'reilly complained that the ruling erodes civility, he said this: "When the police don't have the authority to stop someone from berating them in an obscene way, that's verging on anarchy."

Ha ha, too bad a-hole. That's how the first amendment works, you can not just go by it when it's something you agree with, or disagree with. O'Reilly is a joke on the law, when it's a law he agrees with he says we must obey the rule of law and follow it to the letter, or we have anarchy. But when it's a law or a court ruling he disagrees with, he slams the judge or the court and says they should be guided by morals and do what is right. Earth to O'Reilly there will not be anarchy if people give the police the finger, you moron. And I say follow the rule of law all the time, not just when you agree with it.

The last segment was more one sided biased right-wing propaganda, that I refuse to report on because it is not even a proven story, it's a rumor. But O'Reilly went ahead and had the far right neo-con nut job Charles Krauthammer on to smear Obama over the Gates leaked Iran memo story. O'Reilly said he is fair to Obama and that he only deals in the facts, but this is the 2nd segment he has done on the leaked memo story with all Republicans on to discuss it. Which proves that he is not fair to Obama, and that he does not just deal in the facts, he also deals in unproven claims. And he never reports that Secretary gates has disputed the story, not to mention never having a Democrat on to discuss it. If that's being fair, I'm Elvis.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. The 49-year-old actress Valerie Bertinelli was named the patriot for simply running the Boston Marathon, why, and how is that being a patriot, hundreds of other people also ran it, so how come they are not patriots too. This is why I call the pinheads and patriots segment nonsense and lame.

New Arizona Immigration Law Unconstitutional
By: Steve - April 21, 2010 - 9:30am

That great new immigration law in Arizona that O'Reilly loves so much is unconstitutional. Funny how he never mentioned that, in fact, when he discussed the law with the Republican John McCain O'Reilly left a lot of information out of the debate. Like all this:

1) The Arizona senate recently passed bill 1070, sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa).

2) The Arizona House also passed the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista).

3) The Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is also a Republican. So the bill was written, sponsored, and passed by all Republicans, which O'Reilly never reported.

4) O'Reilly also failed to mention that the Arizona State Police Chief's Association is opposed to the bill on the grounds that it could damage the relationship between police and immigrants who are potential witnesses. And of course O'Reilly never reported that either.

5) The ACLU has also said it plans to sue to block the bill should Governor Brewer sign it. O'Reilly predicted the ACLU would probably file a lawsuit, but he implied only the left is against the law. But as you can see, the State Police Chief's Association is also opposed to it, and they are hardly part of the far left.

6) The Arizona Republic reported this: "Although lawmakers face a slew of illegal-immigration-related bills, this measure has raised an outcry. Opponents say it will waste law-enforcement resources, drive away taxpaying immigrants needed to fill jobs and force everyone to carry proof of citizenship to avoid arrest."

7) The ACLU said this: "The trespassing portion of the bill unconstitutionally usurps the powers of the federal government by allowing the state to regulate immigration. The group says no other state or municipality in the nation makes unlawful presence a crime."

8) The New York Times said this: "Several police chiefs and sheriffs have criticized the bill, calling it burdensome and impractical and a tactic that will scare immigrants out of cooperating with investigations and reporting crime." With an estimated 460,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona, one can understand why this would stretch law enforcement budgets.

9) The bill calls for the State and City Police to enforce it, but they do not provide any extra money to pay for it, or any extra policeman, which is an unfunded mandate. O'Reilly and the right love the bill, but they do not pay for it. Which is one of their complaints about Obama, yet they are doing the same thing.

10) There was a similar case to this in New Hampshire in 2005. Police chiefs in 2 towns began to investigate the legal status of Latinos staying in or passing through the towns where they worked, and charging those without proper documentation of trespassing.

Justice L. Phillips Runyon III of the Jaffrey District Court, ruled the measures violated the constitutional protections of the immigrants. He said in his ruling "The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient."

And what a shocker, O'Reilly never reported any of that, not!

Despite being crafted with language specifically meant to avoid this precedent, the Trespassing Bill of Arizona will likely have the same fate. America does not have two sets of laws, one for citizens and one for non-citizens. People from around the world, whether or not they have illegally overstayed their visas, are protected by our laws when they are in our land. This includes the Fourth Amendment, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What would give law enforcement officials the probably cause they would need to suspect someone of being an illegal immigrant. They would either need to racially profile, because Latinos make up the vast majority of immigrants, or they would need to check everyone. Either way, the bill appears to be in direct conflict with our protection against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

But O'Reilly and the right are not only ok with it, they love it. Even though it's unconstitutional, discrimination, and racial profiling. Then they claim to support the constitution, which is just laughable. And the fact that O'Reilly did not report any of the above information shows what a biased right-wing hack he is.

Because a real journalist would have done a full segment on the issue, and reported all the facts on the bill, not just the facts that made his argument in support of the bill look better. Not to mention it turns the Police into immigration officers, when that is a federal job, so they will be tied up with immigration cases instead of doing real police work, like catching gas station robbers and people who steal cars etc.

And btw, the above information is what we call actual journalism. It's called doing research and reporting all the facts about an issue. Something O'Reilly knows nothing about, because whatever he does is not journalism.

Fox Business Expert Lied About Finance Reform Bill
By: Steve - April 21, 2010 - 9:00am

Remember this, because 3 to 6 months from now O'Reilly will claim nobody at Fox ever said the $50 billion dollar Liquidation fund (in the financial reform bill) is a $50 billion dollar slush fund to bailout companies and keep them from failing.

Which is not what it would do, and Bolling knows it, but he went on Fox as a business expert and lied about it anyway. Here is what Fox News and Bolling did.

Pushing a false Republican talking point, Fox Business Network's Eric Bolling claimed the financial reform bill includes "a $50 billion slush fund so that if a company is too big to fail, they can tap into that and maybe not allow it to fail."

In fact, the "orderly liquidation fund," which would be paid for by financial institutions, would be used to dismantle a failing firm and "is anything but a bailout." Even the Republican Senator Bob Corker has admitted it is not a bailout fund. Bolling is just lying to you, using the Frank Luntz talking points, that he put out before the Bill was even written.

From the April 20th Fox News Happening Now show:
BOLLING: No Jon, the Republicans don't not want to reform just like they didn't not want health care reform. They just don't want a sweeping over-encompassing and just massive reform that the Democrats are proposing. Look what they want to do. They want to create a 50 billion - right now they have in the bill a $50 billion slush fund so that if a firm, company is too big to fail, maybe they can tap into that and maybe not allow it to fail.

Republicans say, you know what, there's nothing too big to fail anymore, we tried that, we tried the bailouts. It didn't create jobs. Let's not go up that road again. Let's get rid of that $50 billion fund.
FACT: Bolling is just flat out lying, he is a liar. This is not spin, it's a lie. the Bill actually says the exact opposite, it says this: The liquidation fund "cannot be used to keep faltering institutions alive."

The bill makes it clear that the money must be used to liquidate -- not keep alive -- failing firms." In an analysis of Republican claims that the legislation establishes a $50 billion fund for future bailouts, PolitiFact called the claim "false" and stated, "The legislative language is pretty clear that the money must be used to dissolve -- meaning completely shut down -- failing firms."

The $50 billion fund would not be financed with taxpayer dollars. As the New York Times reported, "the bill would stop taxpayer-financed bailouts. If a company was on the verge of collapse, leading firms in the financial services industry would have to pay to clean up the mess." The "largest financial companies" would be charged to supply the $50 billion liquidation fund.

Corker: Republican Senator Bob Corker, who does not support the bill, rebutted the claim that the liquidation fund is a "bailout," stating, "this fund that's been set up is anything but a bailout. It's been set up to, in essence, provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there's money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off."

Klein: Ezra Klein of the Washington Post wrote on April 20 that the $50 billion fund "isn't there to save banks. It's there to liquidate them."

What's happening is most of the Republicans and everyone at Fox are using the dishonest Frank Luntz talking points to try and get the people to oppose the financial reform bill. Because they are getting millions of dollars from Wall street, and their lobbyists. They are lying to you, because they are being paid to lie to you.

And all the corrupt idiots at Fox are doing it too, because they do whatever the Republicans tell them to do. And if you fall for it you are stupid.

Memo To O'Reilly & All Right-Wing Idiots
By: Steve - April 21, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and all his idiotic right-wing friends are claiming that Bill Clinton compared the tea party movement to the domestic terrorists who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing. This is a lie, because Clinton did no such thing. What he did was stress the importance of our ability to criticize the government, and in drawing parallels to the rhetoric leading to the bombing and the rhetoric today, he specifically limited his criticism to those currently advocating or encouraging violence.

O'Reilly did a segment on it Monday night, and dishonestly represented what Clinton said, then he slammed Clinton for saying what O'Reilly claimed he said, when he never said it. O'Reilly even called the segment "Bill Clinton on the Tea Parties and domestic terror."

Except Bill Clinton never mentioned the Tea Party, not one time. Clinton criticized those advocating violence, but he did not compare the tea party movement to domestic terrorists in his remarks. Clinton was commenting on the events and rhetoric leading Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and discussed the bombing in the context of political rhetoric today.

Clinton said in each of his remarks that "criticizing" the government is the lifeblood of democracy and of liberty, but warned that people should temper their rhetoric so as not to inflame secessionist and extremists groups who may be inclined to use violence.

O'Reilly just assumed he was talking about the Tea Party, which he said he never does. O'Reilly claims to only deal in the facts, but then he said Bill Clinton was talking about the Tea Party, except Clinton never used the words Tea Party one time.

Clinton used general terms, and never once mentioned the Tea Party. All he did was say that he saw this same level of hate before the Oklahoma City bombing, and that it could lead to violence or some kind of domestic terrorism. And that the leaders of the hate groups, militias, etc. should tone down the rhetoric.

Then O'Reilly and all the right-wing spin doctors twisted that into Clinton is telling the Tea Party crowd to shut up, which is just ridiculous. In fact, O'Reilly did not even discuss the issue of hate, he just used his time to attack Bill Clinton for what he said in his speech. And so did his little right-wing stooge Mary K. Ham, who is on to agree with everything he says.

O'Reilly said this:
After former President Clinton cautioned protesters not to "demonize the government," The Factor put forth this critique: "I didn't hear President Clinton say anything when President Bush was being hammered as a demon. So President Clinton is being very selective."
Juan Williams found fault with that. "There is nothing like the Oklahoma City bombing in terms of left-wing criticism, nothing like the militia movements. All of that involved vehement rhetoric coming from the right." Mary K. Ham accused Clinton of trying to stifle dissent. "It's appropriate to look back at Oklahoma City and reflect on that terrible terrorist act. But this is part of a year-long attempt by the left to demonize the people who were out on tax day simply making it clear that they are skeptical of the government, which I think is profoundly healthy. He's part of a process where they are trying to chill free speech."

And for once Juan Williams was right. All Clinton did was say they should tone down the hate and violence rhetoric. Then he was attacked for it by O'Reilly and his crazy right-wing friends, and some of them even claim he is trying to supress their free speech, which is just ridiculous, and the usual nonsense you get from O'Reilly and his friends.

USA Kills Top Two Al Qaida Leaders In Iraq
By: Steve - April 21, 2010 - 8:00am

And what a shocker, O'Reilly ignored the entire story. As everyone knows O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends have called Obama weak and soft on terrorism many many times. O'Reilly has even said Obama is making us less safe by not killing enough terrorists.

Which is just ridiculous, because there has not been a terrorist attack since Obama took office, and he is killing as many terrorists as possible. In fact, Obama has even expanded the missile drone attack program, so he is killing more terrorists than Bush did.

Then on Monday it was reported that the USA killed the top two Al Qaida leaders. And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored the entire story. While having plenty of time to cry about Jon Stewart nailing Fox and Bernie Goldberg for their hypocrisy and double standards.

Proving that O'Reilly ignores real news, especially when it makes Obama look good, or makes him look strong on terrorism. Hell O'Reilly has still not reported on the March job numbers, the Dow breaking 11,000, or anything about the stimulus bill that shows the economy is improving.

O'Reilly ignores all the news that makes Obama look good, while reporting anything that could possibly make him look bad. In fact, he even reports rumors that are not proven, just to make Obama look bad, while saying he only deals in the facts.

The killing of the two Al Qaida leaders was a big story, it was even in the top 20 on the Google most popular news stories page, yet O'Reilly ignored the whole thing.

Vice President Joe Biden said the killing of the top two leaders of al-Qa'ida's branch in Iraq during a joint military operation has dealt "devastating blows" to the terrorist group.

Biden appeared in the White House briefing room Monday morning to highlight the US-Iraqi operation near Tikrit, that led to the killing of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Biden said this:
BIDEN: I want to mark this important milestone as the Iraqi people stand up to those who would deny them peace, freedom, as well as security.

This operation is evidence, in my view, that the future of Iraq will not be shaped by those who seek to destroy that country.
Biden said the military operation on a safe house 10km south of Tikrit on Sunday, was led by Iraqis and based on their intelligence following the capture of a senior al-Qa'ida official last month.

The two leaders were considered prize targets in the attempt to stamp out the Sunni Muslim-based terrorist group that sprang up in Iraq after Saddam was toppled from power. The two were responsible for many bombing attacks on US troops and Iraqis.

For at least four years Masri, an Egyptian, had been on the most-wanted list of Iraqi terrorists, with a $5 million dollar reward on his head. He is believed to have been a terrorist since 1982 when he joined Abu Musab Zarqawi's Egyptian Islamic jihad and possibly arrived in Baghdad before Zarqawi.

When Zarqawi was killed in July 2006, Masri is understood to have succeeded him. Among those to declare the significance of yesterday's killings and give them credibility, were the head of US Central Command General David Petraeus, and the top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Qa'ida in Iraq had become "too weak to represent a danger" but needed to be eliminated completely. He added: "During the operation computers were seized with emails and messages to the two biggest terrorists, Osama bin Laden and (his deputy) Ayman al-Zawahiri."

This is a big deal, it's a big story, and O'Reilly ignored it all. Because it makes Obama look good, and it makes him look strong on terrorism. Now imagine if this had happened with a Republican President. O'Reilly and Fox News would be reporting it all day and all night. O'Reilly would probably spend half the show talking about it, but when it happens with a Democratic President, O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse.

O'Reilly Lied About Secretary Gates Iran Memo
By: Steve - April 20, 2010 - 10:00am

Last night O'Reilly had two right-wing nuts from Fox on to smear President Obama based on reports of a leaked memo, even after Gates denied what was reported about the memo. O'Reilly had the far right Obama hater Col. Ralph Peters and KT McFarland on to do an entire segment on the reported story of the leaked memo.

O'Reilly and the two right-wing nuts claimed Obama has no plan to deal with Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. Which ignores what Secretary Gates actually said about it. And of course they did not have anyone from the left on to discuss it, only the two right-wing nuts. Not to mention, it was a classified memo, so O'Reilly is reporting on it based on something he never saw, which he said he never does, he has said he only deals in the facts.

Here is what Secretary Gates said:
GATES: "The New York Times sources who revealed my January memo to the National Security Advisor mischaracterized its purpose and content," Gates said in a statement Sunday.

"With the Administration's pivot to a pressure track on Iran earlier this year, the memo identified next steps in our defense planning process where further interagency discussion and policy decisions would be needed in the months and weeks ahead." "The memo was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the President's national security team," he continued. "Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process."
The defense secretary's statement responded to a report in Sunday's New York Times that said he had written a three-page classified memo in January to National Security Advisor Jim Jones saying that the U.S. did not have a good long-term strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program.

The ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), told Fox News Sunday that he did not need a secret Pentagon memo to tell him the Obama administration did not have a "coherent policy on Iran," McCain said. "That's pretty obvious."

Gates disputed such criticism.
GATES: "There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries that the United States is properly and energetically focused on this question and prepared to act across a broad range of contingencies in support of our interests."
Now you know what Secretary Gates actually said, none of which O'Reilly reported. So much for only dealing with the facts, O'Reilly only reported one side of the story, the right-wing side. And then he ignored everything Secretary Gates said about it, which is not honest journalism, it's being a partisan right-wing hack.

The Monday 4-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 20, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Hope & Change Deficit. O'Reilly cited a pew poll that said 76% of the people do not trust the Government. Then he went on to claim it was all because of Obama, his far left views, and his massive spending. O'Reilly actually said it was all because of Obama, even though Bush and the Republicans caused it all. Obama is just trying to fix it, and he not only has to deal with the mess Bush let him, he has to counter all the lies about what he is doig by O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News.

Then O'Reilly had John McCain on to discuss it, and the first thing McCain said is that he agrees with O'Reilly. Except that he claims Obama has never tried to be bi-partisan, which is a total lie. Obama has tried to be bi-partisan, but the Republicans decided to be the party of no, they even admit it, but McCain denies the truth. Because we all know the Republicans decided to vote no on everything as a political strategy, and that is what they did. Then these liars like McCain claim Obama has never tried to be bi-partisan, which is a flat out lie, and O'Reilly let him get away with it.

Then McCain flip flopped again, and now says he supports troops on the border, when he has been opposed to it for years. O'Reilly sure loved that because now he can claim he was right, and told McCain it's about time he finally saw the light. So now McCain supports troops on the border. They also talked about the primary race between McCain and Hayworth, Billy asked him if he has suddenly become a conservative to win the Republican primary, of course McCain denied it, and O'Reilly let it go at that with no follow up. When it's true, McCain has flip flopped on almost every issue to move farther right to win the primary.

And btw, not one Democratic guest was put on to discuss any of it, it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to talk about Bill Clinton saying the Tea Party and the Militia crowd are stirring up hate and it could lead to some violence or domestic terrorism. All Clinto said was tone it down, that words matter, and that the leaders on the right should speak out against the violent speech. The first thing O'Reilly did was slam Bill Clinton, he called him a hypocrite for not saying that when liberals were hammering Bush. Even Juan Williams said that is ridiculous, and that it's no comparison.

O'Reilly then told Juan he is wrong and he had to scold him, then he talked about the weather underground, which was 50 years ago. So O'Reilly then goes to Mary K. Ham because he knows she will agree with him, which she did. Ham agreed with O'Reilly and defended the Tea Party hate speech, she even said it was just being good Americans. Basically O'Reilly and Ham attacked Bill Clinton for telling the truth, and warning that the hate speech should be toned down.

As usual O'Reilly and Ham misrepresented what Clinton said, then hammered him. And for once Juan Williams was right, he disagreed with O'Reilly and Ham. Juan said Clinton was just saying words matter, and we need to take the violent threats down a notch, or it could lead some nut to do a terrorist act. And at the end O'Reilly even admitted that Juan made some good points, and said it was a good comeback. O'Reilly is a joke, instead of talking about the actual issue, he spent the entire segment hammering Bill Clinton for simply saying they should tone down the hate speech in the Tea Party and the Militias. For once Juan actually sounded like a Democrat, he spent the entire segment telling O'Reilly he was wrong.

Then Brit Hume was on to attack Bill Clinton some more. Both Hume and O'Reilly said Clinton is not being honest, that he is just saying it to try and supress free speech on the right. O'Reilly asked if Clinton was being sincere, Hume the mind reader said no way. Which is total speculation, the speculation O'Reilly said he does not allow. Basically O'Reilly and Hume both sat there and trashed Bill Clinton, when the issue is the hate speech from the right, but they barely talked about that, all they did was attack Clinton for what he said.

They also talked about McCain a little, and the new immigration law in Arizona. And of course Hume and O'Reilly support it, even though it may be ruled unconstitutional, and the federal law has authority over the state law. Hume also said McCain is very conservative on some issues, which is just laughable. McCain used to be a moderate maverick, now he is suddenly a far right Republican to win his primary against the conservative J.D. Hayworth.

Then O'Reilly had crazy Col. Ralph Peters and KT McFarland on to discuss the Gates memo that was leaked, which O'Reilly claims it says the Obama administration has no plans to deal with Iran. And btw, Gates has denied the memo said that, but O'Reilly did a whole segment on it anyway. And of course crazy Col. Peters trashed Obama and agreed with O'Reilly. Then McFarland also agreed with Peters and O'Reilly. Because they are all Republicans, not one Democratic guest was on for this segment. All three of them trashed Obama, with nobody to give the other side, and they did it based on a leaked memo that Secretay Gates denies.

Secretary Gates said Sunday that the media is misrepresenting what he said, Responding to a report in the New York Times, Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday said the sources who described his January classified memo on U.S. Iran strategy had "mischaracterized its purpose and content." But O'Reilly did an entire segment on it anyway, based on a classified leaked memo that he has never seen. And even after Gates denied what they were saying.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about Jon Stewart hammering Fox News for their bias, hypocrisy, and double standards, when Stewart is right, and everything he said is 100% true. So even though Stewart is right, O'Reilly and Goldberg did a segment hammering him, when nothing Stewart said was not true. O'Reilly played the clips of Stewart saying it, including the part where Stewart told Fox to "go f__k yourself."

And what's funny is when O'Reilly went to Goldberg he admitted Stewart was right, that he was wrong to make general claims about liberals. Goldberg said he was wrong, and Stewart was right. then Goldberg went on to criticize Stewart for what he does, and said he should have some guts. Goldberg actually hammered Jon Stewart for taking it easy on liberal guests, when Stewart is a fricking COMEDIAN YOU DUMB ASS. Earth to Goldberg, Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN, he does not have a news show. That is a big difference, because he is not in the news business.

O'Reilly said he was mad at Stewart for implying everyone in the Tea Party is racist, except Stewart never said that, and even if he did, so what, he is a COMEDIAN. O'Reilly and Goldberg can not seem to understand that they are so-called journalists, and they work for a so-called news network, so they are supposed to report the news in an honest way. Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN on the COMEDY Network, he does JOKES for a living, and he gets PAID to be FUNNY. So he is not bound by the rules or ethics of journalism, because he is not a journalist, you fricking morons. And what's really funny is that they never disputed one thing Stewart said, but they attacked him for saying all of it anyway.

The last segment was the totally biased Factor Reality Check, where the right-wing biased Bill O'Reilly puts his spin on what a Democrat said. Then he calls it a Reality Check, when it's nothing more than right-wing spin. O'Reilly attacked Robert Gibbs for saying Megyn Kelly was biased in her reporting on the Obama nuclear policy. When Gibbs was right, and O'Reilly did not dispute what Gibbs claimed. O'Reilly also attacked Bill Maher for making a Tea Party/KKK joke, once again, BILL MAHER IS A COMEDIAN, remember that idiot.

O'Reilly also cried about Joe Klein saying Palin and Beck are bordering on sedition. But he never said a word about him calling liberals traitors when Bush was in office, or that he wanted to put Ward Churchill on trial for sedition. O'Reilly ignored all that to act like Klein was a nut for saying they are close to being guilty of sedition, when O'Reilly made the very same charges against liberals when Bush was the President. Pot meet Kettle.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. The whole show was basically all right-wing spin, except for Juan Williams telling O'Reilly he was wrong about Bill Clinton.

Rove Trying To Start $50 Million GOP Slush Fund
By: Steve - April 20, 2010 - 9:00am

More bad news for Fox, as if it was not bad enough with Hannity trying to raise money for the CincinnatiTea Party, now Karl Rove has been caught trying to form a group to raise as much as $50 million dollars that would go to help Republicans running for office. This is against the ethics rules of journalism, which nobody at Fox ever talks about, including O'Reilly.

It was recently been reported that Rove is promoting American Crossroads, a political committee that is planning to spend more than $50 million helping GOP incumbents and challengers during the 2010 cycle, which should alarm a network that is already desperately fending off accusations that its excessively favorable treatment of the conservative movement crosses the ethical line.

Rove has been "pitching" the group to "wealthy conservative benefactors around the country over the past few months," that he helped provide it with "start-up capital," and that he will serve as an "informal adviser."

What about the donors. If Rove is trying to get longtime GOP rainmaker Fred Malek to make a big donation, it seems unlikely that Rove would criticize Sarah Palin, whom Malek has strongly supported.

Given the possibility that Rove may now be helping to direct a $50 million GOP slush fund, Fox News needs to answer the questions swirling around him and take action to avoid being involved in another ethical scandal.

More Proof The Tea Party Is Conservative
By: Steve - April 20, 2010 - 8:30am

As if we needed more proof, here it is. If you go to the teapartyexpress.org website you will find a list of speakers for the Tea Party protests. And what do you know, every single one of them are conservatives, not one speaker listed is a Democrat. Here is that list:
1) Sarah Palin
2) Joe The Plumber
3) Andrew Breitbart
4) Ann Coulter
5) Wayne Allyn Root
6) Roger Hedgecock
7) Jerry Doyle
8) Victoria Jackson
9) Hannah Giles
10) Heidi Harris
11) Howard Kaloogian
12) Jon David
13) Melanie Morgan
14) Angela McGlowan
15) Kevin Jackson
16) Lew Uhler
17) Joan Fabiano
18) Judson Phillips
19) Debbie Landis
20) Jim Martin
21) Michael Graham
Name one Democrat or Independent on that list, you can't, because every single speaker they list is a conservative, and then on top of that the teapartyexpress.org website is owned by a conservative PAC called Our Country Deserves Better, and they are also the National Sponsor for the Tea Party Express.

Guess who their Chairman is, the far right Republican Howard Kaloogian. And then you look on their welcome page and it says this:
When Barack Obama won the presidential campaign of 2008 along with sizable Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, we knew things were going to get worse for America. We just didn't know how bad it would be – but it's becoming clearer and clearer with each day.

We're under assault from liberals in Congress who have gone on a spending spree to the tune of over $10 trillion. Taxpayer-funded bailouts have been passed against our consent. Taxes are being raised. Our government is trying to run the affairs of private businesses. And now Obama-Pelosi-Reid want to have the government take over our health care choices.

Our Country Deserves Better and we ask you to join our fight for conservative beliefs as we strive to make this a better and brighter America.

Conservatively yours,

Hon. Howard Kaloogian, Chairman
And that's not all, look at what it says on their about us page:
Our Country Deserves Better PAC is leading the fight to champion the Reaganesque conservatism of lower taxes, smaller government, strong national defense, and respect for the strength of the family as the core of a strong America.

Our nation's future is at stake, and we must stand up to Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress.
It's all conservatism all the time. All their speakers are conservatives, all their targets are Democrats, and the group that owns the Tea Party Express is a Republican PAC run by the far right Howard Kaloogian.

And yet somehow O'Reilly and his right-wing friends still claim it's not a right-wing movement. If that's not a right-wing movement nothing is, because that is about as right-wing as you can get. There are no Democratic speakers, there are no Liberals, there are no Democratic PAC's that own any Tea Party websites, or sponsor any Tea Party protests.

The entire thing is nothing but Republicans and conservatives. And I forgot one thing, Fox News is their main promoter, and they do it all for free. In fact, I don't see how you could get any more conservative if you tried. That is a conservative movement, and if you doubt it you are a liar.

Rush Limbaugh Proves He Is Crazy (Again)
By: Steve - April 20, 2010 - 8:00am

Now this is a good one, maybe the best ever from Rush. Now he claims the volcanic eruption in Iceland is God's punishment for the Obama health reform bill passing. Yes he actually said that, here is the quote:
LIMBAUGH: You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, "Hey, you know, I'm looking around. The earth hadn't opened up. There's no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping." I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied.

It's got everybody in a shutdown. Earth has opened up. I don't know whether it's a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it's a rebirth, God speaking.
Earth to Limbaugh, why would God punish Iceland for a health reform bill that passed in America. To even say that you have to be totally stupid, as in Palin stupid. Don't you think if God was going to punish Obama for passing a health reform bill he would have caused the punishment in America, you idiot.

And btw, if anything, God would be happy that President Obama passed a health reform bill that gave 35 million more people health care. Which makes your insane statement that God punished Obama for passing the health reform bill, even more crazy than usual.

For a crazy statement like that Limbaugh should be named the pinhead by O'Reilly, but he never was, because O'Reilly does not name Republicans pinheads, and because O'Reilly agrees with Rush 99% of the time.

Where Are The Sedition Charges Now O'Reilly
By: Steve - April 19, 2010 - 8:30am

Over the weekend I saw that Joe Klein made a statement that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are close to being guilty of Sedition. Here is the video:



Which got me thinking back to the days when George W. Bush was the president, and O'Reilly claimed everyone on the left was guilty of Treason, or Sedition. Back then O'Reilly would say that if you speak out against the Government, and call for revolution, you are guilty of Treason, and or Sedition. I remembered that he even once did a segment with a legal expert asking if Ward Churchill was guilty of Treason, when the legal expert said no, O'Reilly asked if they could get him for Sedition.

At the time, it was the opinion of Bill O'Reilly that anyone who speaks out against the government during a time of war, is guilty of Treason, or at least Sedition. So I went back and looked in my blog archives to see what O'Reilly said, here is what I wrote:
2-8-05 -- Bill O'Reilly showed his true right-wing colors. Mr.great neo-con American Bill O'Reilly interviewed Grege Noone, Former. Judge Advocate General about Professor Ward Churchill and the controversial statements he made about the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Big bad Bill not only wants Mr. Churchill fired, he wants him charged with treason and sedition. Why, for killing someone, child molesting, rape, no, no, no, because Mr. Churchill dared to exercise his free speech rights, he dared to say something Mr. all American Bill O'Reilly don't like.

So much for the 1st amendment, the constitution, and the bill of rights, they are meaningless to O'Reilly when you say something he don't like. Talk about ridiculous, only a nut would call for the man to be fired and tried for treason for exercising his free speech rights. Thank God Judge Noone understands the constitution and the law, and he informed O'Reilly there is no case for treason or sedition. Ann Coulter would be proud of you Bill, I never thought it could happen, but you have topped the insane Ann Coulter, be proud Bill you have crossed the line into the twilight zone. Nobody should be fired or charged with treason for speech, period. Here is the partial transcript:

O'REILLY: OK, would you -- the last treason case was brought in 1949 in the USA. Do you think that Churchill runs the risk of being tried for treason here?

NOONE: In my opinion, Bill, no. There have been only been 30 prosecutions in the history of the United States. The last eight or so related to World War II, what you're talking about.

O'REILLY: All right, he's not there yet. All right, let's go to sedition, a federal crime supporting revolution against the government. Certainly he's doing that, or supporting an enemy of the nation in time of war through speeches, publications, and organizations. Certainly he's doing that.

The problem is we're not in a time of war because Congress hasn't declared war.

NOONE: Right.

O'REILLY: Can you get him on sedition anyway?

NOONE: No, I don't think we can. I mean, you know, this guy -- I think the only thing we can charge him with at this point is exceeding his 15 minutes of fame and give him a one-way ticket back to obscurity. This is guy is not someone who's going to rise to the level of treason or sedition.
Notice that O'Reilly wants to put Professor Ward Churchill on trial for treason, for saying George W. Bush let 9-11 happen. So the legal expert says that is not treason, mostly because Congress has not declared war. So then O'Reilly says can we get him for Sedition anyway, showing just how bad O'Reilly hated Ward Churchill.

Now fast forward to 2009, president Obama gets elected and every right-wing nut in America is speaking out against President Obama, including Bill O'Reilly. You even have people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin on the edge of calling for an armed revolution against the government.

And btw, in June of 2005 Responding to comments by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) regarding the treatment of detainees at Gitmo, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it.

And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.
So in 2005 O'Reilly wanted all the liberals at Air America, and the Democratic Senator Dick Durbin arrested for Treason. Simply because they disagreed with Bush, and because Dick Durbin spoke out against the Gitmo detention policy.

But this time O'Reilly does not call for Beck, or Palin, or Limbaugh, or even himself to be arrested for treason or sedition. Because now the Republicans are doing it, so now it's ok with O'Reilly.

This is a great example of the right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly. When liberals speak out against a REPUBLICAN President while we are at war, O'Reilly wants them all put on trial for treason or sedition, even though Congress has never declared war.

But when conservatives speak out against a DEMOCRATIC President while we are at war, O'Reilly says nothing about treason or sedition. Because it's all his friends doing it, and he is doing it too. If we followed the O'Reilly rules of treason and sedition, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Gingrich, Rove, everyone at Fox News, and O'Reilly himself would all be guilty.

It just goes to show you what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is. Which is why I went back and looked up what O'Reilly said about dissent in 2005 when we had a Republican President. Just to show everyone what a dishonest fraud O'Reilly is when it comes to dissent.

Rove Caught Lying About Obama Raising Taxes
By: Steve - April 19, 2010 - 8:00am

Watch for this right-wing talking points lie, because you are going to see it reported everywhere, but only by Republicans, and it's already started. Last Friday on the Hannity show Karl Rove said President Obama is going to raise your taxes, so you would think that means he is going to write a tax increase bill and have Congress vote on it, then sign it.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Rove is saying that if Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, it means he is raising your taxes. Which is a flat out lie, and not even close to the truth. It's nothing but right-wing spin to make people think Obama is going to raise their taxes, which he is not going to do.

Rove dishonestly said this: "It's a tax increase if you allow tax cuts to expire."

That is crazy, especially when the Bush administration and the Republican Congress are the people who put the tax cut expiration in place. So Obama is not doing anything, he is just letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which is what THEY put in the bill. If they do expire, it's because Bush and the Republicans put the expiration date in the bill THEY passed.

The 2001 Bush tax cut bill states this: "All provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to taxable, plan, or limitation years beginning after December 31, 2010." The 2001 tax bill passed the House and Senate with almost unanimous Republican support. The 2003 tax bill -- which also passed both houses with almost unanimous Republican support -- incorporated the sunset provisions from the 2001 tax bill.

In fact, in a May 2001 article the Washington Post reported this: Sunsets allowed the GOP to "boost the size of the tax cut while hiding its true cost."

So Bush got an even higher tax cut passed by putting the expiration date in the bill, or else it would have been lower, and almost no Democrats would have voted for it. And when it does expire, the only person to blame is George W. Bush and the Republicans who put the expiration date in the bill.

Not to mention, Rove also lied that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would amount to a tax increase for everyone. That is also a lie, because Obama has said he will only let the Bush tax cuts expire for people that make over $250,000 a year, so Rove also lied about that.

From Obama's FY 2011 budget:
In the last Administration, those at the very top enjoyed large tax breaks and income gains while almost everyone else struggled and real income for the middle class declined. Our Nation cannot afford to continue these tax cuts, which is why the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent of all households who make less than $250,000.
Read that carefully, and remember that this proves Karl Rove is a dishonest right-wing partisan hack, and he works for Fox News. Think about this too, they let him constantly lie on every show they have, even the O'Reilly Factor, which claims to be a no spin zone. A real news network would tell him to stop lying or you will be fired, Fox does no such thing, in fact, they support him 100 percent. That is why they hired him, to lie about what Obama is doing, and lie about what Bush did.

And all during the time they support his lies, they claim to be a fair and balanced news network that tells you the truth. Which is just laughable, because Rove and almost everyone on Fox is caught lying every day. That's not the truth, it's right-wing propaganda.

Proof Sarah Palin Is Stupid & O'Reilly Is Biased
By: Steve - April 19, 2010 - 7:30am

As if you need more proof that Sarah Palin is about as dumb as a rock, here it is. Last week Sarah Palin criticized President Barack Obama for saying America is a military superpower "whether we like it or not," saying she was taken aback by his comment.
PALIN: "I would hope that our leaders in Washington, understand we like to be a dominant superpower. I don't understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful."
Reading comprehension is not one of Palin's strengths, so it's not surprising that she is badly misquoting, and taking what the president said out of context. Here is the actual Obama quote, all of it, and in context:
OBAMA: "What we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it's also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
At no time (in any of that) did President Obama say he does not like it that we are a superpower. But stupid Palin does not understand what he actually said, so then she hammers him for saying it. Then all the other right-wing Obama haters pick up on her stupidity, and claim Obama hates that we are a superpower.

Palin, who is very stupid, was not smart enough to understand the Obama statement. Maybe he should have said it as if he was talking to a five year old, then maybe, just maybe, Palin might have understood what he was saying.

He did not say there is a problem with America being a superpower, he said it's important for Americans to appreciate the global responsibilities that come with that power, when conflicts arise and the effect these conflicts have on the country and the world.

As Greg Sargent wrote, "Palin and her team of ghostwriters cherry picked Obama's remark out of context to quote him saying 'whether we like it or not,' we are a superpower. In reality, he was saying that 'whether we like it or not,' we get pulled into international conflicts that cost us American lives -- so it's in our national security interest to resolve them."

And btw, Bill O'Reilly even ran with the Palin spin, he did an entire segment on what Obama said. O'Reilly also implied that Obama said he does not like America being a superpower. Except with O'Reilly you know he did it just to make Obama look bad, with Palin, it was done because she is too stupid to understand what Obama was saying.

But then the next night an e-mailer wrote to tell O'Reilly he was wrong about the Obama superpower statement, and O'Reilly admitted the e-mailer could be right. And yet, he did the Obama smear segment using the dishonest out of context Palin talking points anyway. Proving that even if O'Reilly is not sure she was right, he used what she said anyway, just to try and make Obama look bad.

Which he would never do when Bush was the President, and it's only spin that Republicans were using.

Despite the fact that O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent. But if that's true, why is he using right-wing talking points that he is not even sure of, to do an entire segment smearing Obama over something he is not even sure he meant. When he said he only deals in the facts, and does not allow speculation. Then he speculated that Obama does not like America being a superpower, based on the cherry picked, out of context quote Palin used, to hammer Obama. Explain that one Billy!

Gibbs Slams Fox For Their Biased Reporting
By: Steve - April 19, 2010 - 7:00am

Sunday Robert Gibbs, the spokesman for President Obama slammed Fox News for their biased and ridiculous reporting on the Obama Nuclear policies. Which he should have, because pretty much everything Obama has done, or plans to do, is the same thing Ronald Reagan would have done, or tried to do.

It shows the massive hypocrisy and double standards at Fox, and Robert Gibbs was right to slam them for what they are doing. Because it's biased and dishonest journalism, espcially when Obama is simply doing exactly what the hero to the right, Ronald Reagan would have done.

Here is the video:



Gibbs also slammed Fox for the way they cover what he calls the food fight, without fact checking what people on the Fox Network say. And Gibbs is 100% right. Fox will put a Republican and a Democrat on to debate an issue, the Democrat states the facts, and debates the facts. The Republican spins his ass off using right-wing talking points, and the people at Fox never fact check what they said.

So what you have is a Republican spinning the facts, but the powers at Fox never tell you when he is lying. They just let them say whatever they want, and nobody ever fact checks what they claim. Which is dishonest and biased journalism. And Gibbs was right to point it out.

Here is the video:



And now here is what will happen, Fox will talk about what he said, then call him a liar. Because that is how they operate, attack the attacker is their game plan. They attack anyone who dares to tell the truth about Fox, then they claim he is the liar. Just like O'Reilly did with his jail time lie. You tell a lie, then if someone calls you out on it, instead of admitting the lie, you attack them and call them the liar.

That is what Fox will do to Robert Gibbs, instead of admitting he is right, and then do something to correct it, they will attack him as a biased liberal who simply hates Fox, and who wants to make them look bad because he does not like them. They will claim Gibbs does not like that Fox tells the truth about Obama, so he is trying to discredit them with the claims of bias. Which is just ridiculous, because Gibbs is right, and they are biased.

I bet O'Reilly is already writing his TPM about it for the Monday night show. He will say Gibbs is a far left loon, who just hates Fox because they report the fair and balanced truth about what Obama is doing. Then he will have a guest on, and he will ask the guest why Gibbs hates Fox so much, as if he does not already know. Basically O'Reilly will play dumb, and act like he has no idea why Gibbs would say such things.

When the whole thing is an act, and a bad one, because O'Reilly knows that Fox is biased, and that Gibbs is right. He just can not ever admit it, because they claim to be fair and balanced. The funny thing is that everyone already knows Fox is a biased joke, and that when you deny it you look even worse than if you just admitted it, and say you are a conservative news network.

Fox would get more respect if they just admit it, then keep lying about it, when everyone knows they are lying. It makes no sense, because everyone knows that Fox is a biased right-wing news network.

This Is What REAL Journalism Looks Like
By: Steve - April 18, 2010 - 11:00am

Yesterday I was reading some articles at the Huffington Post website, and I saw something that Arianna Huffington wrote herself. After I read the article I thought, wow, that is what REAL journalism looks like. It kind of surprised me, because I'm so used to watching the O'Reilly Factor, it's sort of shocking when you see what actual journalism looks like.

I am going to post the full article here, even though it is pretty long. And I want people to compare this to what you get on the O'Reilly Factor, it's night and day. O'Reilly does not report any of this information, ever, he has not even mentioned the coal mine disaster that killed 29 miners, let alone report the details. Read this, it's what REAL journalism looks like.

The West Virginia Mining Disaster and the Financial Crisis Have the Same Root Cause

Officials say it's too soon to pinpoint the exact cause of the tragic explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia that took the lives of 29 miners, but we certainly know enough to identify the root cause. It's the same cause that led to the 2007 Crandall Canyon mine disaster in Utah that killed six miners and three rescue workers. It's the same cause that led to the 2006 Sago mine disaster in West Virginia that killed 12 miners. And it's also the same cause that led to the Lehman Brothers disaster, the Citigroup disaster, the bursting of the housing bubble, and the implosion of our financial system: a badly broken regulatory system.

The loss of life at Upper Big Branch happened in one horrific instant. The economic collapse has not killed people, but it has gradually destroyed millions of lives. Both calamities occurred because elected officials who should have been creating a regulatory system that protects working families instead created a system that protects the corporations it was meant to watch over.

Just look at the ways in which the New York Times describes the regulatory agency that so atrociously failed the Upper Big Branch miners:
-- The agency "remains fundamentally weak in several areas, and it does not always use the powers it has."

-- "The fines it levies are relatively small, and many go uncollected for years."

-- "It lacks subpoena power, a basic investigatory tool."

-- "Its investigators are not technically law enforcement officers."

-- "Its criminal sanctions are weak."

-- "Fines remain so low that they are mere rounding errors on the bottom lines" of the companies being regulated.

-- It shows a "reluctance to flex all of its powers."
Sound familiar? Most of these conditions were the same ones that led to the housing bubble, credit default swaps, toxic derivatives -- and, by extension, the bank bailout, long-term unemployment with no end in sight, and the rapid acceleration of the decline of America's middle class.

The "fundamentally weak" state of America's watchdogs is the deliberate end product of massive amounts of corporate lobbying. In the case of the mining industry, the amount spent by mine owners on lobbyists intent on weakening regulations and widening loopholes has skyrocketed from under $2.5 million in 2003 to $14 million today, with predictable results: profits up; dead miners up.

The problem isn't a shortage of regulators. It's the way we've allowed the regulated to game the system. The federal government has an entire agency, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), dedicated to overseeing the mining industry. Indeed, a federal inspector was at the Upper Big Branch mine hours before it blew up.

Similarly, there are myriad financial regulatory agencies. In fact, before the economic meltdown there were dozens of federal regulators dedicated to keeping an eye on the big banks -- in many cases, with offices inside the premises of the banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and the Federal Housing Finance Agency dedicated solely to them. And, after Bear Stearns crashed, Tim Geithner's New York Fed had a team of examiners at Lehman Brothers every day. And yet they still missed the economic collapse.

Regulations are "very difficult to comply with," and "so many of the laws" are "nonsensical." Those are the words of Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy, the company that owns the Upper Big Branch mine and has a grotesque history of safety violations.

In the case of the financial industry, the reason it can't be regulated adequately is because, as Alan Greenspan put it last week in testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, "the complexity is awesome," and regulators "are reaching far beyond [their] capacities."

That is, of course, exactly the way Wall Street designed it. To the financial world "awesome complexity" is a feature, not a bug.

Something else the mining and financial industries share: the revolving door between regulators and those they're supposed to be regulating.

Former Massey COO Stanley Suboleski was appointed to be a commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 2003 and four years later he was nominated to run the Office of Fossil Energy in the Energy Department. Today, he's back on Massey's board. And Massey exec Richard Stickler was made the head of the MSHA by President Bush in 2006. Talk about hiring the foxes to guard the hen house.

Massey has also mastered the D.C. art of buying friends in high places. Back in 2000, Massey was responsible for a coal slurry spill in Kentucky that was three times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill. The company very successfully limited the damage -- not to the environment, but to its bottom line. Once Elaine Chao, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's wife, became Secretary of Labor, which oversees the MSHA, she, according to Jack Spadaro, an MSHA engineer investigating the spill, put on the brakes. Two years later, Massey was assessed a slap-on-the-wrist $5,600 fine. The same year, Massey's PAC donated $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which was chaired by McConnell. And Massey's CEO Don Blankenship has personally donated millions to the campaigns of judges and politicians.

The essence of the story is remarkably similar to what happened in the financial industry over the last decade. A disaster occurs. Politicians are "outraged" and demand reform. Laws are passed. And then, when the next disaster occurs, that the new laws were supposed to protect against, we find out about the loopholes.

Massey offers a textbook example -- in this case deadly -- of how this works. After the Sago disaster in 2006, mining regulations were enacted that called for a company found to have a "pattern of violations" to be subject to a much greater level of scrutiny.

And if you're looking for the poster child for the phrase "pattern of violations," it's Massey Energy. In 2009, the Upper Big Branch mine was ordered to be temporarily closed over 60 times. That same year, the mine was cited for 515 violations. It has already received another 124 this year. And 48 of the '09 violations were considered serious, as were 10 of this year's. According to Ellen Smith, editor of Mine Safety and Health News, this is far more than any other mining company. What's more, in the ten years before the Upper Big Branch explosion, 20 people had been killed at mines run by Massey.

So how did Massey escape greater oversight for having a pattern of violations? It turns out that a loophole written into the law says that if a company contests a violation, while that violation is being contested it can't count toward the establishment of a pattern. Massey is currently contesting 352 violations at the Upper Big Branch mine alone.

Another loophole in the law says that a company can delay paying a fine if it contests the violation. The result? Only $8 million of $113 million worth of major penalties levied against mining companies since April of 2007 have been paid -- around 7 percent. To people like Don Blankenship, or any big bank CEO, that kind of money is seen as the cost of doing business -- it's factored into the bottom line, like bribes would be in the Third World.

I'm sure there will be new regulations written in response to this latest mining disaster. Just as we're about to get yet another grab-bag of financial regulations. But by the time these regulations make their way through the Congressional sausage grinder, the lobbyists will have added in the loopholes that ensure that the fix is in -- and that the American people get the short end of the stick. Again.

There is no sense of urgency in Washington about making sure these corporations play by the rules. In 2007, after the Utah mining disaster, we got angry, we held hearings, we supposedly fixed things, then we moved on. Three years later, 29 miners die. And the cycle starts again.

In the same way, in 2003, after the Enron and WorldCom disasters, we got angry, we held hearings, we supposedly fixed things, then we moved on. Five years later, we got AIG, Lehman Brothers, Citi, and an economic crisis that devastated -- and continues to devastate -- the lives of millions. Will we just sit back and let the cycle start again?

Disasters -- both mining and financial -- are going to keep happening until we reevaluate our priorities, and force our elected officials -- and the regulators they pick -- to put the public interest above the special interests and their lobbyists in Washington.

The lives of hardworking Americans have to take precedence over the bottom line at Massey Energy and on Wall Street.

This isn't a matter of right vs. left. It's a matter of right vs. wrong.

Note To O'Reilly: You Are A Terrible Liar
By: Steve - April 18, 2010 - 10:30am

Last week O'Reilly claimed he had researched to find out if anybody had ever said you are going to jail if you don't BUY health insurance. Then he said nobody on Fox has ever said it.

So I pointed out that almost every Fox News host had said it. Even Neil Cavuto admitted the next day that "a number of Fox employees" had made the false claim. But O'Reilly was still unwilling to admit he was wrong, O'Reilly went on the air two nights later with even more lies. This time he said that "Nobody at Fox News reported inaccurately about the Obamacare prison situation after the final bill came out."

According to O'Reilly, "Last fall, when jail time was on the table, Fox News reported on it," but they stopped doing so once "the prison option was taken off the bill when the final Obamacare bill was being debated."

What O'Reilly lied about this time is that those fall Fox reports were also a lie, because the bill they were discussing at the time would not have penalized failure to BUY insurance with jail time.

Let me be very clear, the Obama health reform bill never had jail time in it, for failing to BUY health insurance, ever, not one time, not last fall, not ever. Which means O'Reilly lied his ass off, not once, not twice, but three times. The part of the bill that mentioned criminal charges, would have been for not paying the TAX, not for refusing to BUY the health care.

Those who refused to pay the TAX could have been subject to "criminal penalties for noncompliance," just like they would be if they failed to pay other types of TAXES. And btw, here is another thing neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News ever reported, fewer than 100 people were convicted for "failure to pay TAXES" in the fiscal year 2008. So most people pay their TAXES, and almost nobody is put in jail for failing to pay their TAXES.

Not to mention, O'Reilly then lied that people at Fox News only reported on possible jail time last fall, and that they stopped doing so once the prison option was taken off the bill when the final Obamacare bill was being debated.

That is also a lie, it's a lie on top of a lie. Because on March 19th, Bill Hemmer was still saying you could go to jail if you did not buy the health care. And as early as April 10th, Eric Bolling was still saying it too. So O'Reilly even lied about that, proving that he is a TOTAL right-wing lie machine.

In closing, there was never a provision in the bill that would put you in jail for not BUYING the health care, ever, it was not there. At one time they had a criminal penalty for not paying the TAX, but at no time was there a criminal penalty for not buying the health care. Which makes O'Reilly a liar, because nothing he said was true.

Then he lied about his lie, and tried to claim everyone else is lying, except him. And when the final bill passed they had even removed the provision that made it a crime to not pay the TAX, so the actual bill does not even have it. And that was the problem, because most Fox News viewers still believe you can go to jail if you do not BUY the health care, when that was never in the bill in the first place.

O'Reilly just can not admit he lied, and that he was wrong. So what he did was use the old diversion trick, when you get caught in a lie, spin your ass off and claim everyone else is lying. This is about as dishonest as you can get, and classic Bill O'Reilly, it's the same trick I have seen him use a hundred times over the last 10 years.

And btw, the first time O'Reilly lied he said NOBODY at Fox EVER said it, then 2 days later he changed the lie to NOBODY EVER said it after the final bill was debated. That is also dishonest, because that is not what he said the first time, and people at Fox did say it after the final bill was debated. So even when he lies about the lie he told, he was still being dishonest about it.

Here is what O'Reilly should have done after he was caught lying the first time. Admit the lie, say he is sorry, and move on. Then everyone would have forgot it. Instead he makes it worse by lying about the lie, which makes him look even worse than if he had just admitted he got caught lying.

Republicans Mad Obama Pointed Out He Cut Taxes
By: Steve - April 17, 2010 - 10:30am

Fox & Friends and all the nuts on the right are now mad at President Obama once again, for simply stating the truth. At a Democratic fundraiser Thursday night President Obama said the Tea Party folks should be thanking him for cutting their taxes, and he is right.

President Obama touted his administration's tax cuts and said that the recent tea party rallies across the nation have "amused" him.

"You would think they should be saying thank you," the president said to applause. Members of the audience then shouted, "Thank you."

This caused all the nuts at Fox, and on the right-wing blogs to flip out. The right-wing media is furious over the Obama remarks that tea partiers should say "thank you" for lower taxes.

Michelle Malkin wrote that "President Obama derided the Tea Party activists at a Miami fund-raiser." She wrote: "You keep laughing, chump" and added in response to reports of Obama's remarks, "Yeah? Thanks a lot." Malkin then posted images of tea party signs saying "November 2010 We Will Remember" and "We Can See November From Our House."

The Washington Times blog Water Cooler posted an excerpt from an Associated Press article about the remarks and wrote "In yet another act of arrogance, President Barack Obama ridiculed the tea party protesters today at a Miami fundraiser."

On Fox & Friends, after playing a clip of Obama's remarks, guest host Eric Bolling said "He's amused. That is just unbelievable. You know, at first, tea partiers, they were angry, they were, you know, kind of fringe, they've become main street -- mainstream and main street -- for smaller taxes. He'd better take them a little bit more seriously than being mildly amused by the tea parties."

Their outrage ignores the fact that President Obama did cut taxes for most Americans. CBS News reported on April 15 that "taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution."
GALE: "The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous. The rise of the Tea Party at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand."
Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, wrote on March 19 that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

Close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.

A New York Times/CBS News poll found that only 12 percent of respondents "think the Obama Administration has decreased taxes for most Americans." CBS found that "of people who support the grassroots, 'Tea Party' movement, only 2 percent think taxes have been decreased, 46 percent say taxes are the same, and a whopping 44 percent say they believe taxes have gone up."

Not to mention, conservative media figures including Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, Fox News contributor S.E. Cupp and Fox Forum columnist Peter Roff have denied that Obama cut taxes.

The Tea Party is protesting Obama for higher taxes, when he lowered their taxes, which proves they are stupid, and that they just hate him because he is a liberal, and because he is black. Because it makes no sense to protest against higher taxes, when Obama lowered their taxes.

The Friday 4-16-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 17, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Liberals vs. The Tea Parties. O'Reilly defended the Tea Party protests, and basically said they are mainstream Americans that Obama should listen to. O'Reilly said the liberals and the mainstream media fear the Tea Parties. Then O'Reilly showed a video of one black guy at a Tea Party protest and implied it was not just white guys. What a joke, out of 3,500 people they found one black guy, which is just laughable. At the end of the propaganda TPM by O'Reilly he said liberals are scared to death of the Tea Party.

Then O'Reilly had Chris Wallace from Fox News on to discuss it. Wallace agreed with O'Reilly and said it was an outrage that Obama would insult the Tea Party crowd. When all he did was tell the truth, that he passed tax cuts, and the Tea Party is crazy to protest him for raising taxes when he cut taxes. It was basically Wallace and O'Reilly sitting around agreeing with each other. With nobody there to give the other side. Wallace even said they are real Americans, and tried to pass them off as mainstream America. O'Reilly called them regular folks.

What a joke, they are 99% far right white people, that hate Obama because he is a liberal, and because he is black. That is the truth, but Wallace and O'Reilly will not admit it, because they want you to think they are not just a bunch of right-wing racist idiots, which they are. The whole TPM and the following segment was nothing but 100% right-wing propaganda, with no Democratic guests to counter anything they said. It was like watching Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove talking about it, except it was O'Reilly and Wallace. It's actually kind of sad to see these guys try such a lame defense, because everyone knows the Tea Party is a right-wing movement, to even deny it is insanity. And btw, only Republicans deny it.

Then O'Reilly cried about a Latino magazine attack on Palin, O'Reilly had Cathy Areu from the magazine on that hammered Sarah Palin. And to be honest, this is getting old real fast, O'Reilly defends Sarah Palin from everyone, like he is her husband or her big brother. Earth to O'Reilly, shut the hell up, Palin is a big girl who can defend herself. Stop crying about every little attack on her, it makes you look like a 12 year old fool.

This is not news, it's an old right-wing fool, defending a young right-wing fool. O'Reilly said Palin is a liberal target, wow, what a genius. For once he is right about something. Areu defended her attacks, and O'Reilly defended Palin. Areu called her a female version of Larry the Cable Guy, which is a good comparison. O'Reilly hated it, and denied it. O'Reilly mentioned that Palin had a 62% approval rating in Alaska, as if that shows people like her, but he failed to mention her approval rating now is fricking 24 percent. What a total waste of tv news show time. There is real news out there to report on, and cry baby O'Reilly sat there and wasted 4 minutes of our lives with this nonsense, 4 minutes we can never get back.

Then O'Reilly talked about his speech to the Al Sharpton NAN, Billy said racism ended after 9-11, and he was booed big time. Al Sharpton was on to discuss it. O'Reilly even said he can not understand why they booed him, then he asked Sharpton to tell him where he went wrong, and why they booed him. After Sharpton said why they booed him, O'Reilly tried to misrepresent what he actually said. Sharpton corrected him, and told him exactly what he said.

O'Reilly said after 9-11 racism ended, that is what he said, and that is what he was booed for. Then he tried to say he never said that, that he only meant racism ended for a while, but that is not what he said. So as usual O'Reilly made a stupid statement, then he tried to spin his way out of what he said. Sharpton was just wasting his time trying to explain it to O'Reilly. And to be honest, this segment was also a big waste of time. It's not news, and nobody cares if O'Reilly was booed at the Al Sharpton National Action Network conference.

Then it was the fridays with Geraldo segment. They talked about the bullying case. Geraldo said the school needs to monitor the situation closer. But how do you do that if they do the bullying off school property or on the internet. O'Reilly blames the administration in a way for the girl killing herself. But if he compares Dr. Tiller to Hitler, and calls him a baby killer, then someone goes and kills him, he says he has no blame at all, go figure. Geraldo and O'Reilly both want a law against bullying, so how would it work, and how do you enforce it. It seems to me the law would be hard to enforce, let alone write. And finally Geraldo complained about the poppy fields in Afghanistan. He said it's a mess, and out of control.

And then O'Reilly has his weekly segment with the crazy far right nut Glenn Beck. I usually do not report what they say, because it's mostly just right-wing nonsense. But I will say it's mostly Beck smearing and lying about the things Obama and the Democrats are doing. And that it's probably the most biased insane right-wing segment O'Reilly does. Basically Beck hates everything Obama is doing, and he is mad that liberals attack him. Beck is also mad that Obama is reducing our nuclear weapons inventory, when Ronald Reagan did the same thing, and wanted to get rid of all the nukes, except he never complained when Reagan did it.

Here is the real deal on this weekly Beck segment, O'Reilly just puts him on to get ratings, because the far right loves him, and he is trying to get some of the Beck viewers to watch him too. The whole segment is a waste of time, it's not news, and they are both right-wing spin doctors. Which is 90% of what O'Reilly does, put Republicans on to spin out their right-wing propaganda for ratings.

The last segment was Dumbest Things of The Week, with the moron Greg Gutfeld and Courtney Friel. The three of them talk about what they think are the dumbest things of the week. And they are all Republicans, so they only find dumb things by Democrats. There are no Democratic guests to find the dumb things by Republicans, just O'Reilly, Gutfeld, and Huddy. I like to say the dumbest thing of the week is this segment, but that award goes to the weekly Glenn Beck segment.

Her dumb thing was the British couple in Saudia Arabia who went to jail for kissing in public. Who fricking cares, it did not happen to Americans, and it did not happen in America. So I could care less. Gutfeld said his dumb thing was a campaign ad against J.D. Hayworth by John McCain. O'Reilly also thought it was dumb, Friel liked it. O'Reilly said his dumb thing was a liberal federal judge who banned the national day of prayer.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

More Proof The Tea Party Is A Conservative Movement
By: Steve - April 17, 2010 - 9:00am

Everyone is reporting how almost the entire Fox News Network is going to the Tea Party protests on April 15th. Except for Hannity, who was pulled at the last minute. But nobody is asking this question.

If the Tea Party is not a right-wing movement, why did they ask Hannity to do a live show from the Tea Party rally, and why are another 13 Fox News Employees going to, and promoting the Tea Party protests.

Answer that one Billy, I'll be waiting.

The question is, how can they not be a right-wing movement when they ask the most far right nut job on tv (Sean Hannity) to do a live show from their protest. Not to mention, have 13 other Fox News employees ging to and promoting their protest.

Name one Democrat the Tea Party asked to do a live show from their protest. Did they ask Keith Olbermann, Did they ask Rachel Maddow, Did they ask Ed Schultz, Did they ask Chris Matthews, Did they ask anyone other than Hannity and people at Fox.

Of course not, they only asked conservatives to be at their protests. And all the speakers are conservatives too, name one Democrat who has spoke at a Tea Party protest. You can't, because it's never happened.

The facts show that they are trying to make people think they are not mostly a bunch of right-wing nuts, when they are. And who is defending them against the charges that they are mostly a bunch of right-wing nuts. O'Reilly and Fox News, that's who. Which is even more proof they are, based on who defends them. Only Republicans are defending them, think about that.

O'Reilly Ignoring CIA Tape Destruction Story
By: Steve - April 17, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is another story O'Reilly is ignoring, because it was done under the Republican president George W. Bush. Documents released on Thursday from a freedom of information act by the ACLU, show that the head of the CIA under Bush (Porter Goss) not only knew they were going to destroy 92 videotapes, he approved of it. Even though it was illegal, and a federal judge had ordered all evidence to be saved.

These tapes showed the torture they used, and it's clear they were destroyed so they could not be used as evidence in possible future court cases. If they were not doing anything illegal, they would not have destroyed the tapes.

Not to mention they violated a direct court order by a federal judge to not destroy anything. The destruction of the tapes is the subject of a Justice Department criminal investigation that has stretched on for more than two years. The investigation is led by John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

These latest documents suggest that senior CIA officials were responsible both for making the decision to destroy the tapes and afterwards, for covering it up. This is a big story, about evidence that torture was used, and O'Reilly has ignored the entire story.

Barney Frank Slams Ingraham For Lying (Again)
By: Steve - April 16, 2010 - 4:30pm

In a statement obtained by Media Matters, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) blasted Laura Ingraham for once again advancing a "rumor" that he might not run for reelection. Frank called the rumor "completely false."

Last week -- after Ingraham repeatedly claimed on Twitter that "sources" had told her that Frank would not run for re-election -- Frank called the story "entirely false" and added that Ingraham "made no attempt to verify whether or not this is true - which it is not."

Ingraham repeated her "rumor" last night on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show.

Congressman Frank released the following statement:
Laura Ingraham takes lying to a new level. Thursday night, on the Fox program "The O'Reilly Factor," she demonstrated a technique that I had never seen before: She cited a "rumor" without mentioning the fact that it was she herself who had launched that rumor. The rumor -- that I am not planning to run for reelection -- is completely false, and I had said so publicly a week ago after the first time she attempted to spread it.

Ms. Ingraham's latest fabrication is part of an effort by right-wing propagandists to block financial reform. She knows that there are no valid arguments against reform. So her strategy is to lie about me in an effort to fight against the legislation.
And btw, O'Reilly claims to not allow speculation on the Factor. But then he keeps letting crazy Laura Ingraham speculate that Barney Frank is retiring, based on a rumor she started. Then on top of that, she is the fill-in host for O'Reilly when he takes a night off.

When she is hosting she speculates her ass off, and O'Reilly allows it. So what does that say about him, it says he is a Republican for allowing a right-wing spin doctor to fill in for him, and it also says the no speculation rule is a joke.

This Is Simple: They Are ALL Lying
By: Steve - April 16, 2010 - 3:30pm

To begin with, let me say that this whole thing is one big ridiculous fraud, because they are all lying. Fox News is lying, the Cincinnati Tea Party is lying, Hannity is lying, they are all lying.

Does anyone believe Hannity and his entire Fox News staff could plan to send Producers, Directors, Cameramen, etc. to the Cincinnati Tea Party event and nobody in management would know. Give me a break, if you believe that contact me because I have some land to sell you.

The Cincinnati Tea Party is lying too, they say this on their website:
The Cincinnati Tea Party is a grassroots, nonpartisan organization promoting its core values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets, while strongly opposing wasteful government spending at all levels.
You have got to be kidding, how can you be a nonpartisan grassroots organization when you just invited Sean Hannity to do a paid event at your protest. That would be like me asking Rachel Maddow to write for my website, then claim I am a nonpartisan. It's all lies, from all of them, they are all dishonest liars.

And it looks like Fox News lied when they said they pulled Hannity from the event at the last minute, and that the Fox News management did not know what Hannity was doing. Because the Cincinnati Tea Party now claims Fox News is lying.

Think about this, as recently as yesterday afternoon, Fox News was still promoting Hannity's appearance. During his show - which was airing live from a Tea Party in San Antonio, TX - Glenn Beck was still promoting Hannity's Cincinnati show later that night. So how in the hell could management at Fox News not know what Hannity was doing, it's ridiculous to believe them. The Cincinnati Tea Party wrote this Friday on their website:
Shortly after the scheduled book signing (which was canceled) Fox News producers onsite informed the Cincinnati Tea Party senior leadership that Mr. Hannity had to rush home for a personal emergency. The Cincinnati Tea Party expressed a statement of support and concern to Hannity and family.
So it looks like Fox News made up the story about pulling Hannity from the event for ethical reasons, becayse they told the Cincinnati Tea Party senior leadership that Hannity had to rush home for a personal emergency. Making them all a bunch of liars.

And btw, how come O'Reilly did not hammer Sean Hannity for doing a live show at a Tea Party event, where they sold tickets to the show that would benefit the Tea Party.

Imagine what O'Reilly would say if Keith Olbermann did a live show and book signing from a Union event, where they sold tickets and gave the money from it to the Union. O'Reilly would flip out and scream bloody murder, call for MSNBC to fire Olbermann, and call for the feds to investigate.

Kevin Smith, president of the Society of Professional Journalists said this about it:
"Unequivocally, from our standpoint, this is wrong. For a news organization to charge people for access, then take that money and roll it over to a political action group."

"It has gotten to the point where you can not delineate between Fox News and the Tea Party movement - it is incestuous. There is a clear conflict of interest here."
Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik even criticized Hannity and Fox News, writing that "as a down-the-middle media critic, who has defended Fox News more than perhaps anyone else in the mainstream media when it came under fire, I need to go out of my way to say that what Hannity and Fox News are doing is wrong"

But Hannity does it, or tried to do it, and O'Reilly said nothing. O'Reilly even does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg and they never said a word about it. What they tried to do violates every rule and ethical guideline of journalism. And yet, O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

2009 Memo Shows Tea Party A Scam To Make Money
By: Steve - April 16, 2010 - 8:30am

From the Wednesday Keith Olbermann show, and notice that neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News is reporting this story. Politico finds a 2009 memo, Republican consultants dreamed up and planned it as a way to raise money for their PAC and planned how to promote it on FOX News.

OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York.

We begin tonight in unprecedented fashion. Liberals, progressives, Democrats, our top story tonight is not really for you, though you are encouraged to rubber neck at the train wreck.

Tonight, our fifth story is a genuine and sincerely genuine attempt to help tea party members around the country. Politico, a mainstream political news Web site, today publishing a secret document it obtained establishing definitively that some of the nation‘s top tea party leaders are using you-using you to line their own pockets and propagate the precise establishment politics that you hate so much.

It was written just days after last year's Tax Day tea parties proposing the creation of the Tea Party Express, the group that launched 1,000 bus tours. The express charter was not written by a tea party leader, nor even by a grassroots independent, but by a Republican operative telling Politico the Tea Party Express could, quote, "give a boost to his consulting firm's PAC, political action committee, and position us as a growing force."

The charter is worth quoting at length, bringing established tea party leaders unto the express, quote, "will be a very, sensitive matter. We have to be very careful about discussing amongst ourselves anyone we include outside of the family, because quite frankly, we are not only not part of the political establishment of conservative establishment, but we are also sadly not currently part of the tea party establishment, i.e., Michelle Malkin, Eric Odom, Smart Girl Politics, TCOP, FreedomWorks, Newt Gingrich, et cetera. We could probably pull off a phenomenally successful tour without these big-ego establishment types."

The document also talks about how to appear authentic. "We've already discussed doing a casting call among our Nevada supporters and donors to appear in at least one of our TV ads targeting Harry Reid-to buttress our authenticity, in running ads in the state.'

One goal, electing Republicans, quote, "It is also worth considering making a return run to Michigan. Former Republican Michigan governor, John Engler, has recently stated that he believes the Republican Party will do quite well in Michigan."

But the big goal of founding firm Russo Marsh? Money for them. Politico is reporting that after its scheme, the PAC quadrupled its fundraising, paying almost half that money to the Russo Marsh consulting firm itself and to Russo Marsh's sister company King Media Group.

The PAC's former political director telling Politico, quote, "We stole the brand name to make money."

And if tea partiers still doubt they are being played, consider what Palin said at the Tea Party Express rally about Tax Freedom Day, the day signifying what portion of the year you work to pay your taxes. The later it is, the higher your taxes are. This year it fell on April 9th meaning you worked 99 days just to pay your taxes. This year and last, as the Tax Foundation itself shows, the earliest, therefore the lowest tax days in decades.

Under Bush it was never earlier than April 14th. Meaning, you worked at least 104 days for the government under Bush.

---------------

What this shows is that most of the Tea Party is a scam to make money, by high level conservatives in the Republican party. It also shows that the Tea Party tax day protests are just stupid, because their taxes are lower now then they were under Bush. They are protesting about higher taxes from Obama, when he lowered their taxes, proving they are just stupid.

The Thursday 4-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 16, 2010 - 8:00am

The TPM was called Dishonest Attacks On FNC. O'Reilly used the classic diversion trick, when you get caught lying, accuse them of lying, what a joke. O'Reilly is just a sad pathetic dishonest right-wing loser. O'Reilly now claims that people on Fox did say people could go to jail, but he says they only said it last year when it was in the bill. This is a flat out lie, because it was never in the bill, and O'Reilly was caught flat out lying, but he will never admit it, as I predicted. What's really funny is that O'Reilly claimed everyone else is lying, and that he is the one who is being honest. And that's that, case closed, according to Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention, the attacks were not on FNC, they were on Bill O'Reilly for lying.

Going to jail was never in the bill, ever. Some Republican Congressman said it was but that was a lie, so everyone on Fox reported it as if it were true. So O'Reilly lied about his lie, and only two days later when he took a lot of heat over it. Even Neil Cavuto admitted O'Reilly was wrong. Instead of doing what an honest journalist would have done and say he was wrong and sorry, O'Reilly lies about his lie, then claims he was right and everyone else was lying. Making O'Reilly a right-wing liar, who can not even admit he was wrong, which is just pathetic.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to talk about the Tea Party tax day protests. But all they did was trash and smear Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who have nothing to do with the Tea Party. O'Reilly and Ingraham devoted 2 minutes to smearing Pelosi and Reid, then they also got a shot in on Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter. And then of course they also attacked Barney Frank, Ingraham said Frank may not run for re-election, and O'Reilly said of course he will. Which is more speculation that O'Reilly said he never does. And finally they talked about the mother who sent the adopted boy back to Russia. Ingraham wants her charged with a crime, O'Reilly does too. They never did talk about the tea Party.

Then O'Reilly had Alfredo Gutierrez on to talk about a new immigration law in Arizona. O'Reilly predicted the new law will pass. Gutierrez said it would be appealed to the Supreme Court, because it would over-rule federal immigration laws. Of course O'Reilly supports the law because he is a Republican. Gutierrez also said it violates civil rights laws. O'Reilly got mad at what Gutierrez was saying, yelled at him, and asked for specifics. Gutierrez gave him specifics and O'Reilly just kept yelling at him and said he was not giving him specifics.

The main point Gutierrez was making is that there is federal immigration laws that each state has to go by, and this new state immigration law in Arizona would over-ride the federal laws. O'Reilly basically said he does not care about the federal laws, and that he supports the new state law. So once again O'Reilly is saying to hell with the rule of law, it's ok because he likes it. Which is ridiculous, if you do not like the immigration laws you have to get Congress to change them. You can not have states trying to over-ride federal laws, except in O'Reillyworld. But if he opposed the new law, he would say we must go by the rule of law, go figure.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn kelly on to talk about some nut in the military who says he will not deploy until he sees the Obama birth certificate. Both O'Reilly and Kelly think he will have a court martial and be found guilty. O'Reilly said he should just resign, and basically said these birthers are going nowhere with this stuff. O'Reilly said he is just making a political point. Then O'Reilly showed Kelly how he has proven Obama was born in the United States. They also talked about a Marine on Facebook who is in the Tea Party, he started a Facebook Tea Party page and then criticized President Obama. They have a rule against political statements by members of the military, and they made him take the page down. What they do not know, is that he put the page back up, but they did not report that.

Megyn kelly was held over for a 2nd segment to talk about a woman teacher who was charged with rape on a 13 year old boy a few years ago, and now the charges have been dropped. She claims it has bankrupted her and ruined her life. They claim the boy had mental problems, but Kelly thinks the woman may have done it, they just do not have enough evidence. The prosecutor said he is sure she did it, but the victim no longer wants to press charges. In my opinion, both these segments were a massive waste of time on stuff that is not news.

Then O'Reilly got even more ridiculous, he had the two Republican culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to discuss some lame study about what kind of men women want. My God, who fricking cares, and how is this news. This segment is a joke, dump it and report some real news. Either dump it, or change the name of the show to the tabloid factor. And the stupid study was from Scotland, it was not even done in America, which makes me care about it even less.

They actually sat there and talked about this tabloid study for 2 minutes, which I refuse to report on. Here is my question, the segment is about American Culture, so how the hell does it matter to Americans when it was done in Scotland. Then they talked about a mother who used a facebook page to harass someone. And finally they talked about gay marriage, a gay group in California decided to delay putting gay marriage on the ballot until 2012. Hoover is a rare Republican who supports gay marriage, and of course O'Reilly and Carlson oppose it.

The last segment was the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz, with two right-wing loons that work for Fox, Martha MacCallum and Cheryl Casone.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

Fox Employees Participating In Tea Party Events
By: Steve - April 16, 2010 - 7:30am

In the world of Journalism everyone knows you are supposed to report the news, not be part of the news. That does not seem to matter at the Fox News Network, because this week Fox News employees are participating in more than a dozen Tea Party events.

And they are doing this after the News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch recently said he did not think Fox News "should be supporting the Tea Party."

This is a clear violation of the rules of Journalism, can you imagine what O'Reilly would say if everyone at MSNBC were suddenly going to Union protests, or doing their shows from Union meetings. O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for all of them to be fired. But when 14 people who work for Fox plan to attend a Tea Party event, or host a show there, O'Reilly says nothing.

And the worst part is that not only does Fox News management allow it, they support it. Here is a list of Fox employees who are going to be part of the Tea Party events.

-- Sean Hannity: Cincinnati, OH event on April 15. Those wishing to be a "part of the [Fox News] studio audience" have to pay $5 -- $100 to the Cincinnati Tea Party. Hannity has repeatedly promoted the event on his show.

-- Jonah Goldberg: Cincinnati, OH event (with Hannity) on April 15.

-- Dick Morris: Three tea party events in Arkansas on April 15.

-- Fox Business contributor Charles Payne: Richmond event on April 15. Fox Business has promoted Payne's appearance at the event.

-- Newt Gingrich: Austin, TX event on April 15.

-- Rick Santorum: Southwest PA Tea Party event on April 17.

-- Sarah Palin: Boston, MA event on April 14. Fox News promoted Palin's appearance at the event.

-- Sandy Rios: Naperville, IL event on April 15.

-- Tucker Carlson: Washington, D.C. event on April 15.

-- Mike Gallagher. Grand Prairie, TX event on April 15.

-- Fox Forum columnist Mallory Factor. Charleston, SC event on April 15.

Fox host Mike Huckabee is even a "Team Leader" for the Americans for Fair Taxation's Online Tax Revolt march. Huckabee also promoted the march on the April 3rd edition of his program.

Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin is a partner with Tea Party Patriots, which describes itself as the "Official Headquarters for Tax Day Tea Party 2010."

Host and Fox Business Vice President Neil Cavuto will broadcast his Fox News and Fox Business shows from the Atlanta Tea Party. The Tea Party Patriots even used Cavuto's broadcasts to promote and bring attendees to its events.

Fox Pulls Hannity From Cincinnati Tea Party Rally
By: Steve - April 16, 2010 - 7:00am

WOW, it's a miracle, Fox News actually did something right for once. The LA Times reported this Thursday:
Angry Fox News executives ordered host Sean Hannity to abandon plans to broadcast his nightly show as part of a Tea Party rally in Cincinnati on Thursday after top executives learned that he was set to headline the event, proceeds from which would benefit the local Tea Party organization.

Rally organizers had listed Hannity as the headliner of the four-hour Tax Day event at the University of Cincinnati. The rally was set to feature speakers such as "Liberal Facism" author Jonah Goldberg and local Tea Party leaders. Participants were being charged a minimum of $5, with seats near Hannity's set going for $20, and any profits would go to future Tea Party events. Media Matters for America noted that Hannity's personal website directed supporters to a link to buy tickets for the Cincinnati rally.

Senior Fox News executives said they were not aware Hannity was being billed as the centerpiece of the event or that Tea Party organizers were charging for admission to Hannity's show as part of the rally. They first learned of it Thursday morning from John Finley, Hannity's executive producer, who was in Cincinnati to produce Hannity's show.

Top officials called Hannity back to New York to do his show in his regular studio.

"Fox News never agreed to allow the Cincinnati Tea Party organizers to use Sean Hannity's television program to profit from broadcasting his show from the event," said Bill Shine, the network's executive vice president of programming. "When senior executives in New York were made aware of this, we changed our plans for tonight's show."
Make a note of this, because you will probably never see it again. Fox News actually did something right for once. And btw, I do not give them much credit for pulling Hannity, because a real News Network would not have had to pull him from doing a show at the Tea Party event. Because the people at a real news network would not have even tried it.

Not to mention, 13 other Fox News employees are still going to Tea Party events, so big deal, they stopped one guy (Hannity) while doing nothing about the other 13 Fox News employees who are still going to the Tea Party events.

O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - April 15, 2010 - 1:00pm

Last night Keith Olbermann awarded O'Reilly the gold in worst person in the world, for his lie that nobody on Fox has ever said you could go to jail for not buying the health insurance.

OLBERMANN: Our winner, Bill-O the clown. After Senator Coburn spanked him and Fox News for leading an Oklahoma woman to believe she could go to jail if she didn't buy health insurance, O'Reilly condescended to tell the senator, "you don't really know anybody on Fox News because there hasn't been anyone that said people would go to jail if they don't buy mandatory insurance.

We researched to find out if anybody has ever said you were going to go to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it. But it seems to me you used Fox News as a whipping boy when we didn't qualify there. You were wrong to do that, senator, with all due respect."

O'Reilly's crack research team as usual.

-- Glenn Beck, Fox News, November 12th: "if you don't get into their government health care, there will be jail time."

-- Dick Morris, Fox News, November 9th, "one of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you can actually go to jail for not having health insurance, 250,000 or five years in prison."

-- Andrew Napolitano, Fox News, November 10th - "the government may fine you, prosecute you and even put you in jail."

-- Greta Van Susteren, Fox News, to Congressman Shadegg, October 7th, "can you imagine the sheriff going out and running you in, throwing you in jail? I mean, it is theoretically possible under what you tell me."

-- Beck again, November 13th. Beck, "I don't have universal health care." Host, "well, you will soon." Beck, "or I'll go to jail."

The host in that conversation was Bill O'Reilly. It was on his own show. In other words, Bill couldn't find a quote from his own show with both hands. Bill-O the clown, back from retirement and proving he can still bring the stupid, today's worst person in the world.

Cavuto Nails O'Reilly For Jail Time Lie
By: Steve - April 15, 2010 - 9:00am

Neil Cavuto of all people has nailed O'Reilly for his lie that nobody on Fox has ever said you will go to jail if you do not buy health insurance. Yesterday Neil Cavuto admitted that Fox News has pushed the false claim that under the health care reform legislation individuals can be sent to jail for not having health insurance.

Cavuto said this: "I've researched this and a number of Fox personalities had made that comment." Cavuto's admission contradicts Bill O'Reilly's claim that nobody on Fox ever said it.

On the April 14 edition of Your World, Neil Cavuto responded to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) prior statement during a town hall meeting that contrary to a constituent's claim, the idea that individuals could be put in jail for not having health insurance under the recently-passed health care legislation "makes for good TV news on Fox but that isn't the intention."

Cavuto admitted to Coburn regarding the jail-time falsehood: "You're quite right, I've researched this and a number of Fox personalities had made that comment."

In fact, Fox has relentlessly pushed the jail-time falsehood. As Cavuto noted, several Fox News personalities made the claim. These personalities include Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, and Greta Van Susteren, as well as Fox News website Fox Nation and a Fox & Friends on-screen caption.

What say you Billy?

The Wednesday 4-14-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 15, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called The Battle Over Your Money. O'Reilly talked about the Dodd financial reform bill. The one the Republicans are opposed to, it's a good bill that will provide oversight on the crooks on wall street. O'Reilly said he wants financial reform, but he does not want a $50 billion dollar slush fund. Then O'Reilly called it the new health care bill.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about it, O'Reilly asked Rove if Bush could have stopped all of it when he was in power, and of course Rove blamed the Democrats. O'Reilly mentioned Chris Cox, who Bush appointed, and Rove still denied it all and blamed it all on the Democrats, even though Bush and the Republicans had total power for 6 of the 8 years he was in office. Rove denied Republicans had anything to do with it, even though it all happened on their watch, It was just ridiculous, and Rove is the king of liars.

Rove said the Democrats financial reform bill goes way too far, yeah because Republicans get a ton of money from wall street, and they are getting that money to oppose the reform bill. Rove also said Obama is rushing it, just as they did with the health reform bill. Rove basically spun his head off with no Democratic guest to counter him. At the end of the partisan segment Rove pulled his little white board up and it had some words on it, like a small version of the Beck big chalkboard, it was just lame.

Then O'Reilly had Sally Quinn and Nancy Skinner on to talk about the Obama superpower statement. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends claim Obama said he does not like America being a superpower, but that's a lie, just read my other blog posting for the details. Here is a hint, they cherry picked a partial out of context quote, then they misrepresented what Obama said. O'Reilly also did it, he played a 5 second clip and misrepresented what Obama meant.

They both said O'Reilly was misrepresenting what Obama said, and of course O'Reilly disagreed with both of them. O'Reilly flat out stated that Obama was saying he does not like America being a superpower, but then he admitted he could be wrong, and that it is speculation, which he usually does not do. Once again O'Reilly speculates, then he says he does not speculate, as he is speculating. And he admits he could be wrong, as he has two guests telling him he is wrong, but he still claims they are wrong, and calls what they are saying pro-Obama spin.

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the Obama Attorney General Eric Holder being questioned at a Senate hearing. Then mentioned Dick Morris in the hearing, so of course O'Reilly had to have him on to discuss it. They asked him if any attorney who defends a terrorist should be banned from working for the Government where he might see top secret information. O'Reilly played a clip of Dick durbin, who actually agreed with O'Reilly, and yet O'Reilly smeared Durbin anyway. Then O'Reilly got mad that the Republicans did not grill Holder, he was upset that they gave him a pass and took it easy on him.

Morris thinks any attorney who defends a terrorist should not be able to work for the Government as an attorney, because they could see top secret information. Even O'Reilly disagreed with Morris. Then O'Reilly asked Morris why the Republicans took it so easy on Holder, Morris said I don't know. O'Reilly asked Morris if he is a conservative, and Morris said yes, wow what a shocker, not. He said he used to be a conservative Democrat, but now he is a total Republican. Morris also cried that the Democratic party has no moderates anymore, when they do, that is why they could not get the 60 votes for health care, so Morris was lying again.

Then Kitty Kelly was on to talk about her Oprah book, zzzzzzzzzzz, who cares. This is tabloid garbage, it's ridiculous garbage that Geraldo should be reporting on, or TMZ, not a so-called hard news show. She said the media is afraid of Oprah, and I say, who gives a damn, it's not news. Even if they are afraid of Oprah, nobody cares, except O'Reilly I guess.

Then Dennis Miller was on to make more unfunny jokes about liberals, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's just right-wing garbage for the mostly right-wing Factor viewers to laugh at.

And the last segment was the "Did You See That" nonsense, where O'Reilly and Jane Skinner show videos they claim are a must see, then talk about them. They showed a video by Megan Fox complaining about education cuts in California, and then talked about the lame war of words between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Megan Fox, as if anyone cares, how is that a must see video. How about showing the video of the apache chopper pilot killing the innocent people in Iraq with the 50 caliber machine gun, oh yeah, O'Reilly has never talked about that because it happened under Bush and it makes him look bad.

And btw, Skinner liked the Megan Fox video, O'Reilly said it was ok, but he wanted her to do the Factor, yeah I bet he does, so he can get a hard on for her. O'Reilly said whatever she wants to do his show, he will do it, I bet you will, pervert. Then they showed another undercover video on a planned parenthood clinic. Funny how Billy never shows any undercover video of any pro-life groups planning to kill an abortion doctor, or do some vandalism. And Skinner pointed out the video they showed was edited, which O'Reilly did not do.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly did not make a correction about his lie that nobody on Fox News ever said you go to jail if you do not buy the health insurance. But O'Reilly did say he would address it in his Thursday night talking points memo. And I will sure write about what he says on Friday morning.

O'Reilly Spins Obama Superpower Statement
By: Steve - April 15, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly joined the other dishonest conservatives on tv, blogs, and websites in attacking President Obama for saying 'Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.'

They did what O'Reilly says honest journalists should not do. They took a partial quote from a thousand word statement and quoted him out of context. Then they implied President Obama does not like America being a superpower, which is not what he meant with what he said.

Obama said that as a "military superpower," the U.S. has an interest in reducing tensions between foreign nations because violent conflict abroad inevitably "ends up costing" the United States "significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

Here is what President Obama said, in context:
OBAMA: And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can't impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can't want it more than they do.

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it's also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

So I'm going to keep on at it. But I think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. It's going to take time. And progress will be halting. And sometimes we'll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. And so it's not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. But if we're persistent, and we've got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress.
What he was saying is that because we are a supperpower, we get pulled into conflicts and are expected to do something about them, whether we like it or not. Not that he does not like us being a superpower, as O'Reilly and his right-wing friends claim. So once again O'Reilly goes with right-wing lies about Obama to smear him, which real nonpartisan journalists would not do.

Dodd Slams Republicans For Using Luntz Propaganda
By: Steve - April 15, 2010 - 7:30am

Tuesday Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to declare his opposition to the financial reform bill before the Senate, claiming that it institutionalizes bailouts of Wall Street. In a press conference, he said the financial reform bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) means a permanent taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks, an endless taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks, and a perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks. McConnell's line of argument was echoed by many of his fellow Republicans.

Too bad it's all a lie, because none of that is actually in the bill. McConnell's false charge against financial reform is the exact argument pollster Frank Luntz urged Republicans to make earlier this year in a widely publicized memo that argued "the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout."

And btw, Frank Luntz wrote that talking points memo for the Republicans back in February before the bill had even been written. Proving that Republicans were going to lie about the bill using his keywords, before they even knew what was in it. Which is about as dishonest as you can get. Luntz gave them a bunch of keywords to use to get the bill defeated, and McConnell used every one of them.

Not to mention, Frank Luntz is a Factor regular, O'Reilly has him on all the time to do his biased focus group garbage. Luntz is writing dishonest talking points memos for the Republican party, and O'Reilly puts him on as an independent pollster. So what does that say about O'Reilly, it says O'Reilly is as dishonest as Luntz for using him, and for passing him off as an independent pollster.

Here is what Senator Dodd (D-CT) said on the Senate floor about McConnell's dishonest use of Luntz talking points:
DODD: To hear members of this body repeat the utter falsehoods concocted by special interests whose jobs and pensions are plenty secure, that this bill would lead to more bailouts. Frank Luntz suggested that allies of the big banks say, and I quote him, "if there's one thing we can all agree on."

This is Frank Luntz talking. "If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that the bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats that in many ways led to the economic crash must never be repeated."

The minority leader, speaking yesterday, let me quote him. "If there's one thing Americans agree on when it comes to the financial reform, it's this. Never again should taxpayers be expected to bailout Wall Street from its own mistakes. We cannot allow endless taxpayer bailouts for big Wall Street banks. And that's why we must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor."

Remember what Frank Luntz said. Quote, "the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout." Mr. President, it's straight from Wall Street special interest talking points!
The Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo explains that neither the financial reform bill passed by the House last year or the one moving through the Senate makes bailouts permanent. In fact, both bills include a resolution authority, aimed at unwinding systemically risky financial firms, and funded by assessments on the biggest firms themselves. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) told Ezra Klein that McConnell "either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand" what is actually in the bill.

The bill actually sets up a bailout fund that wall street and banks will put money into, so if they need a bailout again it would be paid for with their own money, instead of taxpayer money. And it makes it harder for the Government to bail out banks, which is the opposite of what McConnell said.

The Republicans are lying about what is in the bill using the Frank Luntz keywords talking points. Because McConnell was given over 1 million dollars by wall street to defeat the bill. This is politics at it's worst, and about as dishonest as it gets. And yet, Bill O'Reilly never says a word about it, because he is as dishonest as they are. A real journalist would report the truth about this, O'Reilly just ignores it.

O'Reilly Blamed Obama For Lower Personal Income
By: Steve - April 14, 2010 - 10:30am

Since President Obama took office in January 2009, personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent. So last night during the talking points memo O'Reilly blamed it all on President Obama, which is just ridiculous.



The reason personal income is down has nothing to do with President Obama. And btw, back in 2008 when Obama pointed out that personal income was down under Bush an average of $2,000 a year, it was after Bush had been in office for 8 years, so you could measure it on what he did during that time.

Obama has been in office for 15 months, that's less than 2 years of a 4 year term. He was handed the worst economic recession in 50 years, so the cause of personal income dropping is from what George W. Bush did. It's like saying the economy is down because of Obama, it's ridiculous.

Obama is still trying to fix the mess Bush left him, and you have to give him at least 2 years before you can judge anything he has done. After 15 months O'Reilly is already blaming everything on Obama, when most of it was caused by what Bush did in his 8 years.

Only partisan right-wing hacks are saying that, and their source is an article in the biased Washington Times. It's the old one lies and the rest swear to it garbage, one right-wing media source says it, then the rest of the right-wing idiots repeat it.

Personal income is down because the economy was down, companies did less hiring, and the jobs that were being created were lower paying jobs. During the Bush years the economy lost millions of jobs. And all those people that lost jobs were paid less when they got a new job, which is why personal income is down.

It had nothing to do with anything Obama did, it was all because of what George W. Bush did. Yet O'Reilly blamed the 3.2% drop in personal income on Obama, proving that he is a total right-wing idiot.

The Tuesday 4-13-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 14, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called The Government Wants Your Money. O'Reilly said this: "As we have been reporting, America's broke! Not only do the feds owe $13 trillion, but cities and towns all over the USA are going bankrupt. Some murder investigations in Los Angeles have stopped as detectives are being sent home; in Ohio, Ashtabula County authorities have cut so many cops from the payroll that they're telling citizens to arm themselves; in Colorado Springs, one-third of the street lights have been turned off; and in Chicago Heights, Illinois, emergency services may charge you if you need help."

And it's all because of what George W. Bush and the Republicans did in the 8 years there were in power. So what does O'Reilly do, blame it all of Obama and the liberals of course. He even said Obama is to blame because personal income is down 3.2% since Bush left office. Which is just insane right-wing garbage.

O'Reilly also said this: "You can expect a national sales tax; states will start issuing more tickets and will raise fees on everything; you'll be taxed on anything that moves, including out-of-state purchases. This is a war, ladies and gentlemen, on your wallet. This is what the entitlement culture brings. This is what high union pensions and unsupervised disability payments bring. Even the uber-left now understands that you can't spend money you don't have without creating a disaster."

What an idiot, Bush bankrupted the country with Republican policies, and crazy O'Reilly blames it on union pensions, disability payments, and Obama. I guess he forgot that it all worked pretty well under the Democratic president Bill Clinton. O'Reilly is just a lie machine, because Democratic policies work well, it's only when the Republican took over everything fell apart, then O'Reilly blames it on liberals. It's crazy, and O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing propagandist. And btw, things are getting better, jobs are coming back, the stock market is up, and O'Reilly claims things are getting worse. Proving he is a liar, who ignores all the good things that are happeneing, to spin a few bad things.

Then O'Reilly had Senator Tom Coburn on to talk about the bias and misinformation Fox has. O'Reilly denied it all, and told Coburn he is wrong. Coburn said this: "The constituents that come to my town hall meetings routinely and uniformly listen to your network, and every network has some bias. If we're going to win for limited government and liberty and individual rights, then we have to win on the real facts of the issues. When we change those facts or inflame them, we lose our credibility."

Then O'Reilly told Coburn he is simply not accurate, O'Reilly said this: "We researched to find out if anyone on Fox News had ever said that you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance, and nobody has said it. You used Fox News as a whipping boy when we didn't qualify. The far-left cranks that dominate the media took what you said and ran with it all day long."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! O'Reilly was lying, because almost everyone on the Fox News Network has said you will go to jail if you do not buy the health insurance. See my other blog posting about it for all the details.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss Senator Coburn's criticism of Fox News. "You were right in making your point," Crowley told The Factor. "He didn't need to single out Fox to make the larger point that you should get news and analysis from different sources. To single out Fox was unfair." Colmes argued that Coburn was perfectly justified in singling out Fox. "A lot of people on Fox in prime time have not been in favor of the Obama health care plan and the perception is that hosts on this channel are not in favor of what Obama is doing."

Which shows what a lying right-wing idiot O'Reilly and Crowley are, because they were both wrong, and it also shows what a stooge Colmes is, because he never said a word about O'Reilly lying that nobody on Fox ever said you go to jail if you do not buy the health care.

Then O'Reilly had crazy John Stossel on, O'Reilly asked him about states that are raising revenue by issuing more tickets. Stossel said this: "I'm much more bothered that they take so much in taxes and that they run the school system and force us to pay union wages to a monopoly, than I am by these speeding cameras. Speeding cameras slow people down and save lives. We have to pick and choose what we fight about."

Then O'Reilly cried about the proliferation of high tech monitoring devices, O'Reilly said this: "We have the rise of a 'big brother' culture. If you roll through a stop sign or go two miles an hour over the speed limit, bang, here's a ticket. This is setting up the government against the folks."

Except O'Reilly is lying again, because nobody gets a ticket for going 2 miles an hour over the limit. And btw, if you do not stop at a stop sign you are breaking the law, and you get a ticket. What happened to the rule of law, suddenly O'Reilly says to hell with the rule of law, he wants to roll through stop signs and speed. What a jerk, and tomorrow he will probably argue for the rule of law to be strictly enforced. O'Reilly is the king of hypocrisy, one day he says we must follow the rule of law or you have anarchy, then the next day he says we should not follow the rule of law and claims it's setting up the Government against the folks. I believe O'Reilly is going crazy, and he should start looking for someone to replace him.

Then O'Reilly did another girls gone wild spring break segment. This segment is a joke, O'Reilly does this every spring, to get ratings from showing video of half naked young girls in bikinis on the beach. All through the show he teased the segment before he went to commercial, and each time he showed video of girls in bikinis. O'Reilly asked the ph.d if the parents know what their kids are doing, and he also asked about the drug use. This was done to make it look like he had a reason to do the segment.

Then all during the segment O'Reilly had them run video of girls in bikinis as they were talking about it. O'Reilly pretends it's a serious segment, and has a ph.d on to talk about it. What a farse, it's only done to get ratings. And btw, the proof is that O'Reilly could talk about it without showing the video, but he shows the video anyway. It was ridiculous, and only done for ratings.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for the is it legal segment. They talked about the Mother in Tennessee who adopted a Russian boy, then sent him back. Wiehl predicted she will face criminal charges. She stuck a note on this child and put him on a plane to Russia. Guilfoyle agreed that Hansen deserves jail time. Then they talked about a 12-year-old boy who is demanding to use the girls bathroom. "He really believes he's a girl," Wiehl said, "even though anatomically he's a boy. He's uncomfortable going to the boys room." O'Reilly said make the kid use the boys bathroom, case closed.

The last segment was O'Reilly and the far right neo-con Obama hater Charles Krauthammer, he was on to discuss the nuclear summit. Ali Akbar Salehi, who runs Iran's nuclear program, vowed that his country will "put the entire region on fire" if attacked. With that threat looming in the background, O'Reilly asked crazy Krauthammer about the just finished nuclear summit in Washington. Krauthammer said this: "The whole purpose of this fatuous summit, was to distract attention from the fact that President Obama hasn't done a damn thing on the two major issues in the world regarding nuclear proliferation - North Korea and Iran. What was the great achievement he announced? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada are going to dispose of their highly enriched uranium. This summit was completely beside the point!"

Okay, what is he supposed to do, start a war with every country that does not do what we want them to do. Just read what Krauthammer wrote, it proves he is a biased right-wing idiot, who is not happy with anything Obama does. He wants Obama to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, by attacking them. But Bush did not attack them, and Krauthammer never said a word about that. Suddenly Obama is wrong for not attacking them, when nobody supports starting another war, except total right-wing idiots like Krauthammer. And notice that O'Reilly never has a Democrat on to balance out what Krauthammer says, it's total one sided right-wing bias.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And for the record, O'Reilly only had one Democrat on the entire show, and he was on with a Republican guest, so he was not even on alone. It was 7 to 1, and 8 to 1 if you count O'Reilly.

O'Reilly Caught In A Massive Lie About Jail Time
By: Steve - April 14, 2010 - 8:30am

Last night O'Reilly was caught in a massive lie, and this may be the biggest lie he has ever told. As soon as I heard him say it I was like, you have got to be kidding me, did he just say that. Yes he did, and my God is it a massive lie.

Senator Tom Coburn was on the Factor to talk about bias at Fox, and what he said to a lady who had her facts wrong. She asked Coburn if it was right that she could go to jail for not buying health insurance, and he told her she was misinformed from watching Fox News, and that you will not go to jail. So O'Reilly had Coburn on the Factor to set him straight, instead he lied his ass off right to Senator Coburns face.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "We researched" and "nobody" on Fox "ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance."

"You don't know anybody on Fox News -- because there hasn't been anyone -- that said people will go to jail if they don't buy mandatory insurance."

"We researched to find out if anybody had ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it. What it seems to me is you used Fox News as a whipping boy when we didn't qualify there ... you were wrong to do that, Senator, with all due respect."
WOW IS THAT A MASSIVE LIE. Not only has it been said about 50 times on Fox, guest on the Factor have said it right to O'Reilly. In my 10 years of monitoring O'Reilly, I believe this is the biggest lie he has ever told, and that's saying a lot. Just look at all the people on Fox who have said you would go to jail if you do not buy health insurance. The list is endless.

Fox & Friends aired the following graphic on November 10, 2009:



Glenn Beck told O'Reilly himself that you "go to jail" for not having health insurance. From the November 13, 2009, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
BECK: No, they wouldn't. No. I don't have universal health care.

O'REILLY: No, let's get -- well, you will soon.

BECK: Or I'll go to jail.

O'REILLY: Are you going to be a conscientious objector to health care?

BECK: You know, this is the first time in history in our country where, just to be a citizen, just to be -- just to not go to jail, you have to buy something.
On the November 12, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck claimed that "if you don't get into their government health care, there will be jail time."

On the November 9, 2009, edition of Hannity, Dick Morris said this: "One of the provisions in the bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance. It says if you don't have health insurance, you have to pay a fine of 2.5 percent of your income to the government. And if you don't, you face $250,000 or five years in prison. Can you imagine your prison yard? 'What are you in for?' 'Murder.' 'I'm in for rape.' 'I didn't have health insurance.'"

Sean Hannity then replied: "Well I don't mean to laugh, but, I mean, this is the reality." Then again, on the November 23, 2009, edition of Hannity, Morris asserted that among young people the question "has gone from 'Oh, yeah, we really need insurance' to 'What, am I going to go to jail if I don't have it?'"

During the November 10, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity stated, "Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance, uh, jail time, a possibility?"

During the November 10, 2009, edition of the Glenn Beck show Judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed that under the House health care bill, the government could "even put you in jail" if you fail to purchase insurance.
NAPOLITANO: For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail.
Bill Hemmer perpetuated the debunked myth on the March 19 edition of America's Newsroom when he asked a guest: "Could people be going to jail for not owning health insurance?"

During the October 7, 2009, edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, she said this:
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm not suggesting that anyone should get into trouble with the law, but can you imagine anything so bizarre as to put, like -- let's say you can't afford insurance for whatever reason -- that, I mean, can you imagine the sheriff going out and running you in, throwing you in jail? I mean, it is theoretically possible under what you tell me.
So it's pretty clear O'Reilly was lying his ass off, the question is, will he do a correction and admit to the lie on the Wednesday night show, haha, yeah he will, when hell freezes over.

And btw, O'Reilly said his crack research team could not find anyone on Fox saying you will go to jail if you do not buy health care. Which means he was either lying about that too, or they are the worst research team in the history of journalism. Either way, you can not believe anything O'Reilly ever says again, because that is not just a regular lie, it's the biggest lie in the history of journalism.

Republicans & Tea Party Starting New Militia Group
By: Steve - April 14, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly has flat out denied the Tea Party is linked to any militia groups, which was proven to be wrong when the Michigan Militia joined with the Tea Party to have an event called "Open Carry Family Picnic & Tea Party." Their slogan was: "Show, Shoot, Shout, Then Sip Some Tea With Us."

And now we have even more proof the Republicans are not only linked with the Tea Party, they are actually working with Republicans to form a new citizen militia. The Associated Press is reporting that Oklahoma tea party leaders, frustrated by recent political setbacks, are working with Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on states rights.

State Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-OK) and State Rep. Charles Key (R-OK) have met with tea party leaders, like J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea group, to plan legislation for a state-authorized militia. Brogdon, who is running for Governor and sponsored the right-wing anti-health reform state sovereignty resolution in his state, explained that he believes his anti-federal government militia has constitutional backing:
The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."
Critics say the tea party militia idea could throw fuel in the fire of radicals. Even a few Republicans are opposed to Brogdon's initiative. "If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, (R-OK), a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."

Berry, the tea party leader who first solicited support for the militia, has posted rants against President Obama, calling him "the Muslim President" and a "reincarnation of Pol Pot" who is trying to imprison Americans for resisting health reform. One ominous posting from Berry says that his militia should "launch a thousand guerrilla attacks on the plans that these people have to ruin us and our country."

Both Berry and Brogdon lean heavily on far right propaganda and media outlets to fuel their conspiracy theories. Berry frequently cites conservative news outlets like CNS and notes that he draws inspiration from the white supremacist thriller The Turner Diaries. Despite his extremism, Berry has met with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other members of the Oklahoma Republican delegation, and counts them as rock solid.

Brogdon, whose states rights resolution was drafted by corporate lobbyists opposed to health reform, has been endorsed by the lobbyist-run Tea Party Express and has appeared on on Fox News, Alex Jones radio show, and at a Glenn Beck rally.

And for the record, O'Reilly has not reported any of this information, not a word, even though he has denied there is any link to the Tea Party and the militias. Which is about as dishonest as it gets, because this information is all over the internet, and yet, O'Reilly still ignores it as he claims there is no link. I guess O'Reilly is too busy chasing Al Gore around to report on this story, yeah that's it.

More Coal Mine Disaster News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - April 14, 2010 - 7:30am

The recent coal mine disaster where 29 miners were killed is still a big story, and yet O'Reilly has not said one word about it. Because the CEO is a big money Republican who is opposed to unions, and who donates million to the Republican cause. His name is Don Blankenship, in 2009 he even spent a million dollars of his own money to host a right-wing freedom concert, where Sean Hannity did a live show for Fox.

So Blankenship is not only linked to the Republican party, he is linked to Fox News and Sean Hannity. Which is why O'Reilly is ignoring the story. Yesterday there was even more news out, investors are calling for Blankenship to resign.

The calls to oust Massey Energy Company Chairman and CEO Don Blankenship began Monday, with members of both the private and public sectors getting involved.

The CTW Investment Group sent a letter to Massey's board of directors Monday afternoon demanding Blankenship's resignation in the wake of the disastrous explosion at the company's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia.

CtW had previously warned the board that its minimal oversight over Blankenship's regime exposed Massey and its shareholders to "unnecessary legal, regulatory, and reputational risks" -- apparently vindicated in that judgment, the investment group deems the Upper Big Branch disaster a "tragic consequence" of Blankenship's "confrontational approach to regulatory compliance."

Monday, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli also called for Blankenship's resignation. And DiNapoli is no idle politico: As the sole trustee of New York's Common Retirement Fund, he has direct control over some 303,550 shares of Massey stock, valued at $14.1 million.
"Massey's cavalier attitude toward risk and callous disregard for the safety of its employees has exacted a horrible cost on dozens of hard-working miners and their loved ones," DiNapoli said in a statement. "This tragedy was a failure both of risk management and effective board oversight. Blankenship must step down and make room for more responsible leadership at Massey."
And all of this breaking news has been totally ignored by O'Reilly, he has not even devoted one segment to anything about the coal mine disaster. Even though it's the worst mine disaster in the last 25 years, he is ignoring the entire story. If that's honest and objective journalism, I'm Elvis.

More Hutaree Militia News
By: Steve - April 14, 2010 - 7:00am

And of course O'Reilly is ignoring all of it, when it shows what these groups are doing, and it's real news. Last week, at a bail hearing for members of the Hutaree militia, prosecutors played tape recordings of the kinds of things the Hutaree leaders were telling their followers.

The evidence makes clear that these so-called Patriots were telling the public one thing to present a good face, while they were telling their followers to get radical.

CNN has the audio, and it presents a portrait of an apocalyptic religious cult that believes it's up against the forces of Satan, embodied in government workers, law enforcement officers, and United Nations soldiers, here are some quotes from the recordings:
"In this nation, we think we are free, but you need a certificate to be born, a license to drive, a permit to build, a number to get a job and even a paper after you die," says David Bryan Stone Sr., 45, the head of the Hutaree militia.

"These are permission slips from the terrorists organization called the new world order," Stone says in the tape, which was recorded clandestinely by an FBI agent who infiltrated the militia.

"People in this nation as well as some around this world are waiting for those individuals like you see sitting in this room to actually make the decision to go to war against this evil, greedy new world order."

"They need leaders who are not afraid to stand up and actually mean, 'No more.' We are free and we should not be afraid or ashamed to admit that we are the American militia. We outnumber them. As long as we let them terrorize any American through fear and intimidation, then they are winning this battle and we should step up to the fight that they have started and finish it."

"Every day, we watch ever so close for those evil blue helmets to appear on our streets -- but as long as through Interpol, law enforcement mercenaries called the brotherhood working for the new world order are doing such a great job, then we don't need to watch for these foreign armies to come to our shores. They are already here."
This is breaking news, real news, and the great journalist Bill O'Reilly has ignored it all. He's too busy reporting on one person at MSNBC asking if Newt Gingrich is a racist, and crying about comedians at SNL doing Sarah Palin jokes to report real news, especially when it makes Republicans and the Tea Party look bad.

Dow Breaks 11,000 O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - April 13, 2010 - 9:30am

Yesterday the Dow closed above 11,000 for the first time since September of 2008, which is of course great news for Obama, especially since the fools at Fox said the stock market would crash if the Obama health reform bill passes, which it did. And O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because it makes Obama look good, and it shows his economic policies are working.

Biz Break: Dow closes above 11,000, first time since September 2008

Stock barrier broken: The Dow Jones industrial average closed today above 11,000 for the first time in a year and a half.

The Dow rose 9 to close at 11,006. It was the Dow's first close above 11,000 since Sept. 26, 2008. It briefly topped 11,000 during trading Friday but faded by the close.

The Standard & Poor's 500 index was up 2 at 1,196. The Nasdaq composite index gained 4 to 2,458.

Three stocks rose for every two that fell on the New York Stock Exchange. Volume came to 966 million shares compared with 1 billion Friday.

The Monday 4-12-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 13, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly was back from his 5 day vacation, where he had the far right Laura Ingraham fill in for him. The TPM was called Seeing Things In Black & White. Billy cried about NBC saying Newt Gingrich made a racist statement about Obama. When it was one woman on NBC, Norah O'Donnell. Yet O'Reilly claims it was all of NBC, when it was one stupid statement by one moron. I do not think what Gingrich said was racist, so O'Donnell was just being stupid. But O'Reilly was wrong to claim NBC did it, when it was one stupid woman who works there. And the other people in the segment told her she was wrong. It was not a racism claim by NBC, it was a question about racism asked by one stupid woman at MSNBC.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to beat the story to death, when it does not even deserve one minute of air time. O'Reilly spent an entire TPM on it, then had two guests on to discuss it. What Gingrich said was not racist, and what O'Donnell claimed was just stupid. But she did not say it was racist, she asked if it was, and everyone on the panel told her no. All she did was ask if Gingrich made a racist statement by making a basketball reference to Obama, then the rest of the NBC guests said no. But O'Reilly never reported any of that, and btw she said it on MSNBC not NBC. So O'Reilly even lied about that, then wasted 10 minutes smearing NBC over it.

Then O'Reilly had Mitt Romney on to talk about health care and how he would beat Obama if he runs for President in 2012. Billy started out by lying about what the Massachusetts health care plan cost, Romney said that number is wrong, and that it only cost 1.8% of the budget. So Romney busted O'Reilly for lying about the cost of the Massachusetts state health care plan. Romney even said without it the cost would even be higher because people would go to the emergency rooms that cost way more. So even the Republican Mitt Romney debunked all the far right spin from O'Reilly.

But then they both starting trashing the Obama health reform bill. Romney said Obama-Care is a disaster, and it will cost 2 or 3 times more than they say it will. Which is a lie, and nothing but right-wing talking points. O'Reilly even held Romney over for a 2nd segment, which he never does with any Democrats. What's funny is O'Reilly called the interview a no-spin segment on the screen. When he was caught spinning at the start of the segment by Romney.

In the 2nd segment both O'Reilly and Romney trashed Obama over everything, including the stimulus, when it's working. Romney said not one private sector job has been created with the $787 billion dollar Obama stimulus bill, which is a flat out lie. And O'Reilly let him get way with that lie without saying a word. Then he asked Romney if he would attack Iran to keep them from getting a nuke, and Romney said no, which is in disagreement with O'Reilly who wants a President that will attack Iran. Basically this whole segment was a free political ad for Romney, O'Reilly gave him free time to help him get his message out, and to promote his stupid book.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the big Nuclear Summit with 47 countries. But first they talked about Mitt Romney, O'Reilly called Romney the front runner for the GOP nomination in 2012, and said he is a good guy with a best selling book out. Hume said Romney was spinning the state health care bill he passed, because it is similar to the Obama health care plan. O'Reilly and Hume trashed both plans, and put out the old right-wing talking points about the two plans. But then Hume said Romney is a strong businessman, which is the same thing they said about George W. Bush, and look what he did. Basically Hume likes everything about Romney except the state health care bill he passed. Then they both trashed the Nuclear Summit as a waste of time, O'Reilly said it's all talk and nothing will get done.

And btw, O'Reilly reported the results of the Factor poll that asked if you would favor military action to stop Iran from getting a nuke, and 91% said yes, only 9% said no. Wow, that is some serious crazy neo-con right-wing results, 91% say yes. That means 91% of the people that took that poll are stupid. Because I would bet 91% of the real experts would say no, including Mitt Romney and a lot of Republicans. We already had two wars going, we can not afford any more.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk more about the ridiculous claim that NBC made racist claims about Newt Gingrich. Of course Goldberg called O'Donnell a liberal idiot. Goldberg called her an empty head, haha, as if he is a genius, when he's a fricking idiot himself. And btw, O'Reilly called it a racial controversy at NBC. When it's not, she was on MSNBC, and she simply asked if what Gingrich said was racist. It was a stupid question, but it was only one person at MSNBC.

Now think about this, when the so-called liberal media says the Tea Party is racist because of what a few of them did, O'Reilly and Goldberg say that is wrong. Then they do the very same thing to NBC, by implying all of NBC are race baiters based on what one person said. Then Goldberg pulled the right-wing talking points out about the claim that 47% of the people pay no taxes at all. Which is a lie, because they pay all kinds of taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. etc. etc. They just do not pay any federal taxes, and they turn that into they pay no taxes at all. So Goldberg is spreading that lie, and O'Reilly never said a word.

The last segment was the dishonest Factor Reality Check. Where O'Reilly puts his spin on something a Democrat said, there is no reality, and usually no checks. It's like a video version of the talking points memo. Basically O'Reilly is on alone to put his right-wing spin on a comment made by a Democrat. The whole segment is worthless, and it just gives O'Reilly more time to lie about something a Democrat said, with nobody there to counter what he says.

O'Reilly attacked Al Gore, because he will not do the Factor. O'Reilly cried about trying to get Al Gore on the Factor for 11 years, haha. He even sent Jesse Watters to ambush Gore at a speech he was giving, gore said he does not like ambush interviews, and told him he would not do an interview. And that was somehow called a reality check, how I have no idea. The only reality is that Al Gore is smart to not do the biased Factor. Which is what all Democrats should do, they should all boycott the biased shows on Fox, all of them. Then O'Reilly said he means no disrespect to Al gore, yeah right.

O'Reilly even cried about SNL and Tina Fey doing a spoof of Sarah Palin, how is that a reality check on anything. Earth to O'Dummy, SNL is a comedy show, get over it loser. In another so-called reality check, O'Reilly cried about Barney Frank making jokes about Republicans on the Jay Leno show. How the hell is that a reality check, it's just O'Reilly crying about a Democrat making jokes about Republicans.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, where Democrats are almost always named the pinhead, and usually Republicans are named the patriot. Then the highly edited, hand picked, Factor e-mails. And btw, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show.

More Tea Party Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - April 13, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly has said a hundred times that there is no racism in the Tea Party, which is just insane, because every day you see or read about it. And now we have two more examples, and of course O'Reilly ignored it all.

One of the newest heroes of the Tea Party movement is outspoken Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino, a multimillionaire who has railed against liberal elites. Earlier this month, he officially declared his Republican candidacy for New York's gubernatorial race. However, WNYMedia.net reveals that Paladino has regularly forwarded racially degrading material to friends on the Internet.

The Buffalo News reported this:
WNYMedia.net managing director Marc Odien released e-mail pictures that show a dancing African tribesmen entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal." It's a photo of President Obama and the first lady photoshopped to simulate a 1970s pimp and prostitute, and an e-mail showing chimpanzees doing an Irish dance entitled "proof the Irish discovered Africa."
As WNYMedia.net notes, the Obama Inauguration Rehearsal was very popular in the white supremacist community and has been posted at the Neo-Nazi Stormfront website.

The organizer of the Buffalo Tea Party is standing behind Paladino, stating, "He's not a racist. He was just passing on some nonsense in an e-mail. Everybody does things that are not 100 percent pure."

Ahhhhh, no, if someone sends me a racist e-mail I delete it, so everyone does not forward racist e-mails to other people for laughs.

A spokesman for state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, condemned Paladino: "The racially and sexually inappropriate nature of Mr. Paladino's emails is disturbing to say the least, and stands in stark contrast to what the Republican Party stands for and the values it promotes."

And we have one more example of racism by a founding Tea Party member. The founder of the Ohio Tea Party group, Sonny Thomas, wrote on his twitter page that he was mad to see so many spics he was going to get his gun. And what makes it even worse is that he has a son who is part Latino.

His twitter name is SpringboroTea, and here is exactly what he wrote:
Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Where's my gun!?
The racist tweet by Thomas has triggered cancellations by several local and statewide candidates and elected officials who were scheduled to speak at an upcoming Ohio Tea Party rally. Linda Oda, a candidate for Warren County auditor who canceled her appearance at the group's rally as a result of the Thomas tweet said this: "Certainly, the tweet from Mr. Thomas in which he used a racial slur was enough for me to remove myself from any connection with him."

And btw, he is not the only tea party member to advocate shooting immigrants. Back in August, a Tea Party protester suggested that undocumented immigrants should be sent back to their home countries with a bullet in their head. Tea party activists have often been heard referencing the 1787 quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

If you go to the Sonny Thomas twitter page the racism tweet has been deleted, so he clearly knows it was wrong or he would not have deleted it. But O'Reilly ignores it all, as he claims there is no racism in the Tea Party.

O'Reilly Wrong On Conan TV Show Prediction
By: Steve - April 13, 2010 - 8:00am

When Conan left NBC, the great journalist Bill O'Reilly said Conan would end up on Fox, not the news network, the broadcast network.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The New York Times, TVGuide, Variety and just about everyone, are reporting that Conan O'Brien will join the late-night lineup on TBS this fall. The show will air at 11pm, pushing George Lopez to Midnight. Notice that O'Reilly never said a word about being wrong, but if he was right we sure would have heard about that.

So once again the great Bill O'Reilly was wrong with his speculation. Which btw, he never claims to do. O'Reilly said he never speculates, and that the Factor is a no speculation zone, then he speculates on something almost every night.

He speculated that Conan would end up with a late night show on Fox, and now we know that speculation was wrong. Oh and btw, Republicans are allowed to speculate all the time, it's only Democrats that are not allowed to speculate on the Factor.

That's two proven lies, the first is that it's a no spin zone, the second is that it's a no speculation zone. Because O'Reilly and his 95% right-wing guests spin and speculate pretty much every night, while the rare Democratic guest that gets on is never allowed to spin or speculate.

Gingrich Called Sarah Palin A Feminist Icon
By: Steve - April 12, 2010 - 10:30am

Which is the lie of the year, because a recent April 2010 CBS poll shows that not only is Sarah Palin not a feminist icon, women dislike her more than any other demographic. So Newt is not just wrong, he is dead wrong.

Among women, Sarah Palin has a 21 percent approval rating. Hey Newt, how can you be a feminist icon when only 21 percent of women approve of you?

The overall approval for Sarah Palin is 24 percent, while her disapproval is 38 percent. Only 7 percent of Democrats say they have a favorable view of Palin and 59 percent have a negative view. By contrast, 43 percent of Republicans have a positive view of Palin and 16 percent have a negative view.

College graduates were also among the demographic groups likely to have a negative view of Palin, the poll found: 52 percent of Americans with a college degree said they had an unfavorable opinion, while 33 percent of those without a degree had an unfavorable opinion. Among both groups, 24 percent had a favorable view.

So as you can see, only Republicans and stupid people like Palin at all, and even among those groups she can not get more than 24 percent approval. Even with her people, the Republicans. She only has a 43 percent approval rating, which is terrible.

But somehow in the world of Newt Gingrich that makes her a feminist icon. What it shows is that Republicans put out these lies and hope someone will believe them, well guess what Newt, nobody believes it.

Remember This: President Obama Gave You A Tax Cut
By: Steve - April 12, 2010 - 10:00am

And not only did he give 98% of the people a tax cut, your tax refund will be higher this year because of the Obama stimulus bill. President Obama used his weekly address to remind the public about a little detail that has been overlooked: he cut your taxes. President Obama said this:
OBAMA: All across America are good, decent folks who meet their obligations each and every day. They work hard. They support their families. They try to make an honest living the best they can. And this weekend, many are sitting down to pay the taxes they owe -- not because it's fun, but because it's a fundamental responsibility of our citizenship.

But in tough times, when many families are having trouble just making it all work, Tax Day can seem even more daunting. This year, however, many Americans are seeing some welcome relief.

So far, Americans who have filed their taxes have discovered that the average refund is up nearly ten percent this year -- to an all-time high of about $3,000. This is due in large part to the Recovery Act. In fact, one-third of the Recovery Act was made up of tax cuts -- tax cuts that have already provided more than $160 billion in relief for families and businesses, and nearly $100 billion of that directly into the pockets of working Americans.

No one I've met is looking for a handout. And that's not what these tax cuts are. Instead, they're targeted relief to help middle class families weather the storm, to jumpstart our economy, and to bring the fundamentals of the American Dream -- making an honest living, earning an education, owning a home, and raising a family -- back within reach for millions of Americans.
Obama went on to talk about all the tax cuts he approved, including the Making Work Pay tax credit that started last year, the American Opportunity Credit to help defray the costs of college tuition, new tax breaks for first-time home buyers, new tax breaks for those who invest in making their homes more energy efficient, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, allowing more families to qualify for the Child Tax Credit, and new tax credits for the unemployed.

Now think about this, O'Reilly and Fox News never mention it, because they want you to forget that Obama gave you a tax cut, and that your refund will be higher because of his stimulus bill. They just ignore it hoping you will forget about it.

Fox News Bias By Ignoring News
By: Steve - April 12, 2010 - 9:30am

Normally you talk about bias in the media by what they report, but a lot of people ignore the bias at Fox by looking at what they do not report.

In the business of journalism it is sometimes pointed out that bias in reporting is as evident in content as it is in the editorial decisions about what gets on the air. If you watch Bill O'Reilly interview the far-right Bernie Goldberg, you can clearly recognize the bias in that. But you will never see the bias of left-wing media critic Jeff Cohen, because O'Reilly never puts him on the air. Proving that part of the bias from O'Reilly is his decision to never put people like Cohen on his show.

Of course, it is much easier to see bias watching a story than it is by having to figure out what has been kept from you. Especially because you often don't know what you don't know.

Fox News is really good with an editorial approach to bias. That's why they regularly feature people like Goldberg , Karl Rove, or Ann Coulter, but rarely if ever do they give time to Michael Moore or Paul Krugman. And it's not restricted to personalities. Fox News is pretty much a media publicity machine for the Tea Party movement. A recent immigration reform rally in Washington that far exceeded the attendance of many Tea Parties was virtually ignored by Fox. Even in stories they decide are worthy of coverage, they have a selective process for what their viewers see.

. Just look at what happened last February, we had record low temperatures and snow storms in much of the east coast, including the Fox studios in New York. Everyone on the network took that as evidence that Global Warming was a hoax that couldn't possibly be defended by anyone who had gone out of doors. How could global warming science be accurate if it was snowing outside during winter. Of course, climate and temperature are two different things, but that played no part in their biased analysis.

So why have their been no reports on Fox in the past week about climate change science, considering that the temperature in New York has just hit record highs? Obviously, if it is hot outside, and it isn't even summer yet, the planet must be dangerously heating up. The reason you won't see that story is because Fox News only jumps to conclusions that conform to their bias that global warming is not real.

In another example, Fox went to great lengths to criticize President Obama's economic record when he had only been in office less than two months. They dubbed the market decline from inauguration day on January 20, through February "Obama's Bear Market."

In the following month the stock market gained over 1,300 points in a record setting advance, yet Fox News used a derogatory label. They called it" "Obama's Bear Market Rally," when it should have been called "Obama's Bull Market Rally." Since then we have seen a 36% rise in the market, but now Fox News is not reporting on the market at all.

That is selective editing at its worst. If the facts of a story do not agree with your partisan bias, just do not report the story. Then, nobody can accuse you of having bias in a report you never made. This is what O'Reilly and Fox News do every day, and it's how they have a lot of bias in what they do not report.

Military Veteran Slams Conservative Nuke Critics
By: Steve - April 11, 2010 - 11:40am

I wrote about this before, but I wanted to show what a military veteran is saying about it. Jon Soltz from votevets.org wrote an article about the right wrongly speaking out against the Obama Nuclear weapons policy. And btw, he was a Captain in Operation Iraqi freedom, not some right-wing, Washington, chickenhawk, neo-con pundit, who never once served in the military.

Here are some quotes from his article:
Charles Krauthammer, in the Washington Post this morning, would have you believe that President Obama's nuclear reduction initiative is wildly off-base and naïve. Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and other conservatives have echoed this sentiment. The only thing naïve and wildly off-base is their opinion.

Writing for the conservative point of view, Krauthammer said this: "Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory."
That's all well and good. And, yes, the nuclear deterrent worked in the Cold War era. But, I just checked my calendar, and it's now 2010, not 1985, and the threat the United States faces, and likely will face for some time, is from terrorist organizations, not nation-states. Further, to effectively combat terrorists, we need the cooperation and good-will from as many nations as possible.

To the first point, nuclear deterrence is quite ineffective when fighting a war against terrorists, and even some rogue nations. The war in Afghanistan is a perfect example. Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, plotted the worst attack on American soil, and executed it. What happened when we invaded Afghanistan? Al Qaeda packed up and moved to Pakistan. Or Iraq. Or Yemen. Or wherever it wanted to. That's what terrorist groups can do, that the Soviet Union could not. Nuclear deterrence worked against the USSR, because if it launched an attack on America, it couldn't just pick up, move and hide. Terrorists can.

Krauthammer imagines this scenario:
"Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)"
Such an attack, isn't likely to come from a state, but from a terror group. Let's say it's al Qaeda. Who, under such a scenario, would he have us nuke as a response? Saudi Arabia, we know, allows funds to help al Qaeda. So let's nuke them. Afghanistan still has elements supportive of the terror group. Let's nuke them too. We know that they're largely based in Pakistan, though. Nuke them, as well. And, add to the list all the other states that give the group room to operate, allow al Qaeda to get material or financial support. Pretty soon, we're nuking a lot of the world in response.

Even if one state, like Iran, was largely behind the attacks, the way they would avoid an immediate response would be to have an attack go through a proxy terror group, and deny any direct responsibility. Again, a nuclear response would prove quite difficult, as we would have to take time to "prove" the attack came from Iran. And, what if we did eventually prove it? Would we nuke Tehran and millions of civilians a year later, despite their denials of responsibility, finally realizing Osama bin Laden's dream of a US war against Islam?

In the modern world, a cache of hundreds and hundreds of nuclear warheads serves no purpose. Once upon a time, it represented the ability to level the entire Soviet Union. Now, it merely represents excess. And, ineffective excess, at that.

To fight the enemies we face today, we have to focus on smaller operations, that strategically strike terrorists where they are, and take them out. But, the second part of dealing with our enemies is having the good will and cooperation of the world to cut off streams of funding, and to gather and share intelligence. It becomes much harder to do that when the world wants to reduce nuclear weapons, and we say 'no.'

If at a future point, having a large nuclear deterrent makes any sense whatsoever, the United States could build new weapons in very quick turnaround, and reintroduce the deterrent. Until or if that time ever comes, however, American security is ill-served by a relic of a Cold War passed, no matter how tough Krauthammer and his cohorts want to sound.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Coal Mine Explosion Story
By: Steve - April 11, 2010 - 11:00am

The coal mine explosion story is still a hot issue, and all over the news, except on the O'Reilly Factor. Where the story has not even been reported. O'Reilly has not said one word about it, and Laura Ingraham has hosted the last two nights on Wednesday and Thursday, but she has not said one word about it either.

Fox News has reported on it a little, but not much, and they never go into details about the mine CEO being a big donor to the Republicans, or the fact that Bush put guys who were in management at the mine on the federal mine safety board. Nothing about the fines being too low, or anything like that.

And now we hear this today from the NY Times:
The operator of the West Virginia mine that exploded on Monday, killing at least 25 people, was warned by federal officials just over two years ago that it could be cited for having a "pattern of violations," which would have allowed far stricter federal oversight of the mine. But the mine escaped the stepped-up enforcement even though it continued to amass violations.

The mine, operated by the Massey Energy Company, was warned that it had a "potential pattern of violations" in a Dec. 6, 2007, letter from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The letter noted that the mine had received 204 violations that were deemed serious and significant over the previous two years, well above average.

But six months later, the safety agency announced that the Upper Big Branch mine, located in Montcoal, W.Va., and 19 others that were warned that December, had all instituted plans to fix their problems, and had received fewer violations. They all escaped the added oversight, which would have allowed the federal government to close down the mines every time they found a significant violation.

After the violations went down, they more than doubled the following year. Newly released federal inspection records show that the mine had recently been given warnings for accumulation of flammable coal dust and ventilation problems.

Since the start of 2009, the records show, the mine had at least 50 notices of problems that Massey knew existed but failed to correct. At least four of those concerned violations of a rule that requires the mine operator to follow an approved ventilation plan. Massey officials declined comment on the records.
Neither O'Reilly, Ingraham, or Fox News report any of this. They just ignore it because the mine CEO is a Republican who donates big money to Republicans, so he can get away with violating the safety rules.

Ingraham Caught Lying About Frank Retirement
By: Steve - April 10, 2010 - 11:30am

In repeated Twitter posts yesterday, Laura Ingraham claimed that "sources" have told her that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) -- who she referred to as "Bawney Fwank" -- will not run for re-election and that he instead "wants to work on the board of a bank and make $ before retirement."

But in a statement yesterday, Frank called the story "entirely false" and added that Ingraham "made no attempt to verify whether or not this is true - which it is not."

Frank's statement:
In the latest of example of how the right wing disseminates lies, Laura Ingraham today spread an entirely false story suggesting that I plan not to run for re-election this year. She made no attempt to verify whether or not this is true - which it is not. In fact, my supporters in Massachusetts have already been doing me the favor of circulating my nomination papers, a process which I and other members of Congress must do every two years when we run for re-election.

This is the same right-wing technique of spreading a lie that was used last fall by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, who falsely claimed that I planned to introduce "universal voter legislation" which, according to him, would undermine free elections. This also has no basis in reality whatsoever. Like Ingraham, he made no effort to verify his claim. And even when presented with evidence that it was false, he refused to publicly retract it. The story was picked up by right-wing radio and television and was heard by millions.

There is one good thing about this new incident - people can see clearly that the right wing has again spread a complete lie without making the slightest effort to verify it, and in the future many people will pay no attention whatsoever to her "reporting."
A real journalist (who cares about journalistic standards) would have at least tried to contact Barney Frank to see if it's true. Proving that Ingraham is no journalist, and that nobody should ever believe anything she says. She is basically the female version of Sean Hannity, all spin and lies, and right-wing propaganda.

Republican Hypocrisy Over Obama Nuke Treaty
By: Steve - April 10, 2010 - 11:00am

This is just classic Republican garbage, they attack Obama for doing the very same thing their hero Ronald Reagan did. And while they are attacking Obama they claim the left wants to leave the country un-protected. When the Republican Ronald Reagan did and said the exact same thing. Which proves the Republicans are just massive hypocrites.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new START treaty on Thursday. It will reduce Nuclear weapons from 2,200 down to 1,550. Which will still leave us with enough Nukes to blow up the entire planet 50 times over.

The new treaty replaces the 1991 START-I treaty, which expired in December. Ronald Reagan began negotiations on the START-I treaty in 1982, which stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. Then in 1991 the Republican George H.W. Bush signed the START-I treaty.

So two Republican Presidents not only supported the Nuclear reductions, one of them signed the treaty. But dishonest Republicans still attack Obama for it. Just look at what they are saying.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called Obama's vision "inept," and a liberal fantasia.

"A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left," he said, "just like socialized health-care. This new policy, like Obama's government-run health program, is a big step in that direction."

Frank Gaffney said this, "I see the president's nuclear policy shift as a unilateral disarmament. No other nuclear nation in the world is going to allow its inventory of nuclear capabilities to atrophy. And there are other nations in the world who do not have nuclear weapons who are going to get them."

Sean Hannity said this, "We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons and must persist in perfecting our strategic missile defenses." And this, "Conservatives, recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and that the world will always be dangerous. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle; the world has changed; much as we would like, we can never return to a world without nuclear weapons."

And now look what Ronald Reagan said, Sean Hannity's hero btw. In December 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, which "requires destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force."

In his remarks on signing the treaty, Reagan stated, "For the first time in history, the language of 'arms control' was replaced by 'arms reduction' -- in this case, the complete elimination of an entire class of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles. With patience, determination, and commitment, we've made this impossible vision a reality."

He added, "I will venture to say that what we are going to do, the signing of the first-ever agreement eliminating nuclear weapons, has a universal significance for mankind, both from the standpoint of world politics and from the standpoint of humanism."

Reagan proposed reductions to ICBMs in a 1982 speech that eventually became the START-I treaty.

Negotiations on the treaty that eventually became START-I began in 1982 following Reagan's speech and continued intermittently through his presidency. President George H.W. Bush signed the START-I treaty with the Soviet Union in July 1991.

Reagan also said his "ultimate goal" was "eliminating all nuclear weapons." In several speeches, Reagan stated that his "ultimate goal" was the "total elimination of nuclear weapons."

And yet Giuliani, Hannity, Gaffney, Ingraham, and a lot of right-wingers are attacking Obama for doing the same thing Bush Sr. and Reagan did. Proving they are massive hypocrites who are simply attacking Obama for partisan reasons. It also shows how dishonest they are, because if a Republican president was doing it, they would support it.

Giuliani is the most dishonest of them all, because he said a nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left. When it's a dream the Republican Ronald Reagan had. In more than one speech Reagan said his ultimate goal was the "total elimination of nuclear weapons."

The Friday 4-9-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 10, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Justice John Paul Stevens Announces Retirement. Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: When Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement today, conservatives in some circles sounded demoralized. But here are a few things to consider. First, the balance of the court is not going to change, since Stevens will be replaced by another judicial activist. Second, the confirmation process could be a major boon to Republicans. The public believes the government is out of control and we need to get back to first principles, including a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Okay, first off Ingraham speculates that Obama will replace Stevens with another judicial activist, as if Stevens was one, and he will be replaced by one. She acts like the 4 right-wing Justices are not activists, when they are. Stevens has been the swing vote, sometimes he votes with the right, and sometimes he votes with the left. So he is probably the only Justice that is not an activist. And the nonsense about strict adherence to the Constitution is laughable.

The 4 right-wing Justices vote with a right-wing bias, the 4 left-wing Justices vote with a left-wing bias, and Stevens is the deciding vote. That is a fact, because almost every ruling comes down 5 to 4, so they usually vote based on political ideology, not the Constitution. Ingraham acts like the 4 right-wing Justices are not activists, which is just ridiculous. Proving that Ingraham is a far right spin doctor, because everyone know the truth, except her I guess.

What she failed to mention is the Republican hypocrisy, because when Bush was in office and he appointed judges, Republicans said you have to give them an up or down vote, and they should not be disqualified because of their personal political ideology. But now the Republicans are talking about doing what they said Democrats should not do, they are already talking about a filabuster, based on the judges political ideology. Proving they are massive hypocrites who have two sets of rules, one set for Republicans, and one set for Democrats, just like O'Reilly and Ingraham have.

Then Ingraham had Sally Quinn on to discuss the new Obama nuclear policy. Ingraham cried about Obama putting the smackdown on Palin, after she criticized him for his new policy, Obama put her in her place and said she is not a nuclear expert so he will not listen to her. Ingraham said he was wrong to insult her like that, which is ridiculous. Palin shot her mouth off and criticized the President, then he was asked about what Palin said in an interview, so he just answered the question, and told the truth, that Palin is not a nuclear expert.

What's funny is Palin does not even say nuclear correctly, she says nuc-u-lear, just like Bush did, when it's nuc-lear. Ingraham was just mad that Obama made her great friend Sarah Palin look like a fool. And btw, Ingraham said Obama has thin-skin, and that he should not have put the hammer down on her, but if Obama was not asked about what Palin said, he would have never even talked about her, he was only responding to the question. Earth to Ingraham, stop crying about attacks on Palin, she is a big girl and she can defend herself. And if she attacks the President for a policy he has, why are you shocked and insulted when the President puts the smackdown on her dumb ass.

Then Ingraham pulled an O'Reilly, she cherry picked the one poll that has the Obama job approval the lowest, just like her mentor O'Reilly does. Proving they are both biased right-wing hacks. They always cite the one poll that has Obama the lowest, but they never cite the one poll that has Obama the highest. Usually they cite the Rasmussen poll, because normally he has Obama with the lowest approval, but Rasmussen has Obama at 48% approval, and Gallup has him at 49% approval.

So Ingraham had to drag out the biased Fox News poll, which has Obama at 43% approval, because it had Obama with the lowest approval. Then she doubled down and had the right-wing Dana Perino on to discuss it. So the two Republicans trashed Obama based on one poll, while they ignored the other polls that had him 5 to 6 points higher. The main point here is that O'Reilly and Ingraham both do this, they always cherry pick the ONE poll that has Obama the lowest, but they never cherry pick the ONE poll that has him the highest. I could understand Ingraham doing it, because she is an admitted right-wing spin doctor, but O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, then he does the same thing as Ingraham.

Then crazy Ingraham had a segment on Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak retiring. And of course she trashed him for his vote on the health reform bill, and speculated he is retiring because of it. When she has no proof of that, it was pure speculation. Maybe he is retiring because he has been in Congress for 18 years, and he is tired of the death threats. Maybe he is just tired of Congress, and he wants to retire so he can get a different job and make more money. Ingraham sure does not know, yet she claims she does. And btw, O'Reilly said the Factor is a no speculation zone, then there is speculation all over the place, but only Republicans are allowed to speculate. If Democrats do it, they are cut off and told they can not do it.

Then Ingraham had segments on the Westboro Baptist Church and Al Gore objecting to offshore drilling. Tyson Slocum was on to talk about it. Slocum said this, "There isn't enough offshore oil, to make a significant dent in oil imports or gas prices. We also have to take into account environmental issues like oil spills, and remember that oil companies have not been paying their fair share of royalties." Laura suggested that Slocum and his ideological soul mates really want to crush the oil industry: "You basically want to shut down the oil and gas industry - if you had your druthers, it would all go away tomorrow."

Wow is Ingraham an idiot, liberals do not want to shut down the oil and gas industry, that is just insane. What we want are lower gas prices, because we know the oil companies are gouging us. Even O'Reilly admits that. And we also want some kind of alternative fuel to replace gas, because at some point in the future the oil is going to run out. Not to mention burning gas adds to global warming. So liberals want to do what's right for the county, idiots like Ingraham don't care what happens in the future. Because the oil companies give big money to her Republican friends.

In the last segment Ingraham showed just how stupid she is. She complained about a new law passed in Massachusetts that has criminal penalties for bullying. She is opposed to it, when even O'Reilly supports it. In fact, I bet you would have a hard time finding 10 people who oppose the new law. Only the far far right morons oppose it. I think it's a good law, because it protects people from being bullied. I am not so sure it should have jail time with it, but I like the actual law.

Death Threats Against Congress Increase Threefold
By: Steve - April 10, 2010 - 10:00am

Anger over the health-care overhaul has led to a nearly threefold increase in recent months in the number of serious threats against members of Congress.

Federal lawmakers reported 42 threats in the first three months of this year, compared with 15 in last three months of 2009. According to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, "nearly all of the recent threats have come from opponents of the health-care overhaul.

O'Reilly and Fox News have ignored most of it, but if ONE Republican gets a death threat it's the lead story on every show they have, including the Factor. O'Reilly has failed to report on 99% of it, he even ignored the white powder sent to Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, one day after he was a guest on the Factor.

But when Republican Eric Cantor got a death threat O'Reilly reported it that night.

Republicans Lie That 47% Pay No Taxes At All
By: Steve - April 10, 2010 - 9:30am

Fox News, Hannity, Fox & Friends, and Stuart Varney falsely all claimed that "47 percent of Americans don't pay any taxes at all."

That is just a flat out lie, because the truth is they might not pay federal taxes, but they do pay a lot of other taxes. Here is exactly what they said:
CARLSON: Interestingly enough, I think yesterday we were reporting on a story that 47 percent of all Americans don't pay any taxes.

VARNEY: Yes. Forty-seven percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes. And some of those households actually make a profit from the Treasury.
And now the truth, The Associated Press reported this on April 7th, "About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability."

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

In an April 4 Washington Post op-ed, Roberton Williams and Rosanne Altshuler of the Tax Policy Center wrote that even citizens who pay no income tax still pay other kinds of taxes:
About 45 percent of households will owe no federal income tax in 2010. Half of them earn too little, while the other half -- mostly middle and lower income households -- will take advantage of tax credits such as the earned income credit, the child and child-care credits, the American Opportunity and Lifetime Learning credits, which help pay for college, and the saver's credit, which subsidizes retirement saving.

But even citizens who pay no income tax still pay other kinds of taxes. They pay Social Security and Medicare taxes when they work, sales taxes when they buy things and property taxes on their homes. Drivers pay gasoline taxes, and smokers and drinkers pay excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol. According to our research, more than 75 percent of us will pay at least some form of federal tax in 2010.

Those who pay no federal taxes are mostly the low-income elderly or very poor families with children. Even about half of those with annual incomes under $10,000 pay some federal tax, most often payroll taxes on wages.
Okay, so here we have Fox News, and two of the stooges that work for them caught in a direct lie. And yet, they claim to report the truth, and nothing but the truth. They also claim to be fair and balanced, and to not use Republican party talking points. Then they directly lie to you, and use Republican party talking points to lie about who pays what percent of taxes.

And that's the truth network, give me a break, it's all lies and right-wing spin.

Another Poll You Will Never See O'Reilly Report
By: Steve - April 9, 2010 - 9:30am

A new Harris poll shows that most people blame George W. Bush for the bad economy. Which destroys the spin from O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. That it hurts Obama and the Democrats. Because only 14% of the people blame Obama, which you never hear from O'Reilly.

The poll shows that 31 percent said Bush bears the responsibility, followed by Wall Street at 25 percent. While only 14 percent blamed President Obama.

Pollster Louis Harris wrote that Bush and "the state of the economy he left as part of his legacy still sticks in the craw of Americans."

This poll has never been reported on the Factor, and never will be. Because it proves that most people still blame Bush for the bad economy. And it also proves O'Reilly is biased to the right, because a real journalist would report this poll, and tell the American people what it says.

O'Reilly does not report it because he wants you to blame Obama for the bad economy, he wants people to think Obama is to blame, so it will hurt his approval ratings, and hurt the Democrats in the mid-term elections this fall.

Which is dishonest partisan journalism, but nothing new for O'Reilly, it's business as usual on the Factor.

The Thursday 4-8-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 9, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Obama's Income Redistribution. Crazy Ingraham cried about the wealthy paying too much in taxes, when 30 years ago the wealthy paid 70% in taxes, so just shut up already. If the wealthy paid 1% in taxes these cry babies like Ingraham would still cry about paying too much. And why don't you ever complain about the working man paying too much in taxes, which shows who you care about. I care about the working man, not some millionaire who can afford to pay a little higher tax rate.

Ingraham had Mark Levine and Stuart Varney on to discuss it. Levine told Ingraham she is full of it, and that her entire tpm was all right-wing spin. He also pointed out that taxes on the wealthy were higher under Bill Clinton than they are now, and the economy did great then. Then of course the far right spin doctor Stuart Varney was on to agree with everything Ingraham said. Varney even called higher taxes un-American, what a joke.

What's really funny is watching millionaires cry about paying too much in taxes. Hey guess what millionaires, I'll gladly trade places with you and pay the higher taxes, deal? And btw, Ingraham said higher taxes would destroy the country, which is the same nonsense she put out when Clinton did it in 1992, and the economy boomed. Levine also pointed out that taxes were lower under Clinton than Reagan, but they never complained then, which drove Ingraham nuts, then she denied it when it's a fact.

Then Ingraham joined the can not let it go club, talking about the Obama health care reform bill. Earth to Laura Ingraham, it's over, you lost. It's time to put away the talking points lies, and move on to the next issue. And let me say this, when Republicans say you MUST buy health insurance under the Obama health reform bill, they are lying to you. Because if you do not want to buy it you do not have to, you will pay a penalty for not having it, but you do not have to buy it. So that means if you do not want to buy it, you do not have to. Ingraham claims Democrats are confused about it, when she is the only one that's confused.

Ingraham had Penny Lee and Andrea Tantaros on to discuss it. Lee told Ingraham she was wrong, and of course Tantoros agreed with the crazy Ingraham. Ingraham kept saying the Democrats do not understand what is in the bill, which is just ridiculous. The whole segment was ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin from Ingraham and Tantaros. The crazy TantAros even said if you do not buy it they will send IRS agents to your house to collect the penalty. Which is a flat out lie, and nothing but right-wing scare tactics. It's totally ridiculous because the bill has been signed, it's over, so no matter what they say it will have no effect on anything.

Then Nasal Nose Voice had some insane segment saying teachers could face criminal charges for teaching sex ed. Now that's a new one, I have never heard that before. And frankly I could care less, it's not national news. It's a local state issue, that nobody really cares about when watching a so-called national news show. Ingraham had Kelda Roys and Scott Southworth on to discuss it. Which I refuse to report on because it's not a national news story.

Then Ingraham had a segment talking about Bristol Palin doing a new PSA targeted at teen pregnancy. And nobody cares, I mean n-o-b-o-d-y. This is not news. Ingraham only does it to give Palin publicity, because nobody cares except Ingraham and a few of her stupid right-wing friends. Ingraham had the ad expert Peter Shankman on to discuss it. Both of them liked the ad, and thought it was great. But I would say it will not stop one girl from getting pregnant, so I think the ad is worthless. It's just like the anti-drug ads, they are worthless, and nothing but a waste of money. I would bet most people will never even see it, so how can it possibly do any good. Not to mention, who is going to listen to what Bristol Palin says, no-body.

Then Tamara Holder and Jennifer Smetters were on to discuss the diplomat from Qatar who said he was trying to light his shoes on fire on an airplane. All the right-wingers want the guy put in jail, except he is a diplomat, so that is not possible. It's basically a waste of time to even talk about it, but that's just what crazy Ingraham did. While ignoring a ton of real news. Like the coal mine explosion story, not only has O'Reilly ignored it, Ingraham has too.

Then the crazy far right Ingraham had another segment on a Palin, this time Sarah Palin. Ingraham talked about Sarah Palin being invited to speak at a pro-marijuana event. And once again, who cares, Palin has a 37% approval rating, so nobody likes her and nobody cares what she does. But morons like Ingraham report on everything Palin does like she is a rock star, when she is as dumb as a rock, and that's the only thing she is like a rock on anything. Ingraham had Steve Fox from a pro-pot group on to discuss it. And of course Palin turned them down. I'm guessing it was just a publicity stunt to get the word out about their group, and it worked, because Ingraham had him on the Factor. Fox wants to make pot legal and tax it, which is a good idea and I support that.

The last segment was a total waste of time, Ingraham showed a re-run from an old show where O'Reilly talked to Hollywood producer Jerry Weintraub about his new book.

Mother Blames Fox For Death Threats To Pelosi
By: Steve - April 9, 2010 - 8:30am

Guess who has not said a word about this story, Bill O'Reilly. Not only has he ignored the story about the man being arrested for sending death threats to Nancy Pelosi. O'Reilly is ignoring the story about his mother saying he did it because of Fox News. Here is the story from KGO out of San Francisco.

Accused Man's Mom Blames Fox News For Behavior

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Gregory Giusti's 83-year-old mother had not heard that her son had been arrested, but she told ABC7 he has a history of mental problems. She does not think he would be capable of carrying out the threat; he has never owned a gun, and she blames Fox News for getting her son worked up.

Giusti was arrested Wednesday afternoon for threatening Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi over recent healthcare legislation.

"Greg frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of the family, which gets him into problems," Eleanor Giusti said. "I say Fox News, or all of those that are really radical, and he, that's where he comes from."

According to ABC7 legal analyst Dean Johnson, there is a point at which free speech ends and a threat begins.

"Communicating a threat with the intent that it be taken seriously is one of those types of speech that is simply not protected," Johnson said. "Even under state law, as well as the federal law that applies here, there are crimes that are based on threatening another individual, you simply cannot do that."

The FBI told ABC7 Giusti will be booked into San Francisco County Jail to spend the night, before appearing in federal court Thursday morning.

Remember that O'Reilly claims nothing Fox does leads anyone to do anything against any Democrats. He even said if you have evidence of that send it to him and he will report it. Well here it is, you have the mans mother saying he gets all his news from Fox, and that is what lead him to send the death threats to Pelosi. What say you Billy?

Republicans Block Unemployment Benefits (Again)
By: Steve - April 9, 2010 - 8:00am

Remember this folks when you vote this November, the Republicans in the Senate are blocking your unemployment benefits again. And they are doing it for partisan political reasons, because if it could get a vote it would pass, with most Republicans even voting yes.

They do not care if you can feed your family or pay your bills, in an economy with almost 10% unemployment. All they care about is playing partisan political games with your life.

A few weeks ago, for the second time in two months, Senate Republicans objected to an extension of unemployment benefits. As of Monday, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers are seeing their benefits come to an end.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) led the GOP obstruction last time (telling the Democrats tough sh*t when they asked for unanimous consent to move the extension forward), but this time Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has stepped up to the plate. And he evidently has no remorse about his actions, as he feels they affect a relatively small amount of people:
COBURN: The easiest thing in the world is to pass this bill unpaid for, but consider the millions of Americans whose financial futures would be damaged, versus the relatively small amount of people who will be affected by this delay. Now you tell me which vote takes the most courage.
First, Coburn is wrong on the economics. Providing unemployment benefits is one of the most effective steps that a government can take in terms of economic stimulus, and unless the economy starts moving again, long-term deficits will never be brought under control.

As the National Employment Law Project explained, "every economist from every side of the political spectrum will tell you that unemployment benefits are most stimulative when they are not offset. In the history of the unemployment program, we have never offset these programs."

Because of Coburn's obstruction, more than 200,000 people per week will lose their benefits. About one million are slated to lose their benefits this month. And this is taking place while 44 percent of unemployed Americans (about 6.5 million people) have been unemployed for six months or more.

And if you thought this whole partisan trick would prompt some soul-searching among the GOP, you would be sadly mistaken. The GOP is circling the wagons around Coburn and trying to blame House Democrats for preventing the extension.

In fact, Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) takeaway is that the GOP should have lent more support to Bunning when he blocked the extension. "We didn't give Bunning as much help as we probably should have," Kyl said. "It took an act of courage like Sen. Bunning's to perhaps jolt people into the awareness of how bad it had really gotten."

Which is just ridiculous, because at no time in the history of America has the Congress voted to offset the cost of unemployment benefits. Even when we had a Republican President, they did not have an offset to pay for the unemployment benefits.

And as usual O'Reilly and Fox News do not report a word of this story. At the end of a recession, and with unemployment at 9.7% the last thing you want to do is cut off unemployment benefits. Because every dime of that money is like passing an economic stimulus bill, it all goes into the economy.

Which is exactly what the Republicans are doing, while O'Reilly and his right-wing friends ignore the entire story, because it makes them look bad. They want to hurt the economy, because an improving economy makes Obama look good. Let me say this, I will not call these Republicans un-American, I will call them bad Americans, just as O'Reilly did to liberals.

Jesse Ventura Calls Out Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - April 8, 2010 - 9:30am

Jesse Ventura challenged Bill O'Reilly to an interview and reaffirmed his charges about the events of September 11. This is according to an interview done by Russia Today that appeared late last month.

The former governor of Minnesota and pro wrestler talked for 12 minutes-plus, proclaiming his irritation over Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck of FOX News Channel because they haven't interviewed him on his book American Conspiracies.

He now deems the trio as "The Three Stooges." If such an interview took place between Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Ventura, would this be compelling television or what, especially if they debated September 11.

In the Russia Today interview, Ventura also went after the mainstream media's presenting of the news, which he deemed as "sound byte news" that doesn't have any depth, and which he charged that the media "is into creating the news rather than reporting it."

Ventura denies scandalizing September 11, rebutting that it's not unpatriotic to ask questions, and that the government doesn't want anyone asking questions about September 11, for those who do are labeled as unpatriotic.

The question is, will O'Reilly have Jesse on the Factor. Don't bet on it, I believe it will never happen. I also believe O'Reilly is afraid to have Jesse on his show, because he knows Jesse would make him look like a fool. Not to mention, Jesse is a big man and a former Navy Seal, so O'Reilly can not intimidate him.

I would say the odds of O'Reilly having Jesse on the Factor are a million to one.

The 4-7-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 8, 2010 - 9:00am

Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, her crazy TPM was called Islamic Semantics. Ingraham was mad that Obama is going to stop offending all Islamics by changing the language to stop saying all Islamics are bad. This is a smart move, but of course Ingraham hated it. Because she is a partisan right-wing nut, who has to criticize Obama for everything. All he is gonna do is stop using the word Islamic Radicalism. No big deal, except with Ingraham and the right.

The funniest part is when Ingraham opens the show and says Caution you are about to enter a no spin zone. When she is a total right-wing spin doctor.

Democrat Nancy Soderberg was on to tell Ingrahm how she was wrong about the whole thing. That she agrees with what Obama is doing, and that her and the right are wrong to attack Obama for it. This is a non-news story, except with the crazy far right idiots like Ingrham and her right-wing friends. All Obama did was decide to change the words we use when talking about the Islamic people, so they do not think we are saying they are all terrorists. But somehow Ingraham has a problem with that.

What's really funny is that Ingraham and her crazy friends keep saying all the stuff Obama is doinghas made us less safe. Yet there have not been any terrorist attacks since Obama took office, they seem to forget that. Ingraham keeps asking why Obama is worried about offending Islamic terrorists, which is ridiculous, and Soderberg told her so, she said it was a red herring. He is not worried about offending terrorists, he is worried about offending innocent Islamic people, who might be terrorists in the future if we piss them off by calling all Islamic people radical terrorists. And I think Obama is smart to make the word change.

Then crazy Ingraham had George Birnbaum on to smear Obama over his new Nuclear policy. Which was not even worth reporting on, it was just a biased and one sided smear job by Ingraham and one of her right-wing friends. She even quoted the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and talked about what he said about Obama. Who fricking cares what he said, and when Ahmadinejad talked about Bush, Ingraham said why should we care what he says. But now that Ahmadinejad talks about Obama, she quotes him and plays the video of him talking, what a joke.

Then Nasal Nose Voice Laura Ingraham did some insane segment where she tried to imply that if Obama campaigns for Democrats this fall it will hurt their chances of winning. Which is just ridiculous, because it will only hurt them in the minds of Republican idiots like Laura Ingraham. Other than Republicans Obama has a majority of people that approve of him. Ingraham called him the campaigner-in-chief and said he might sink some Democrats chances to win in November. She had the Democrat Joe Trippi on to discuss it, and he pretty much disagreed with Ingraham. But she spent the entire segment trying to convince him otherwise anyway. And btw, not once did Trippi point out that only most of the Republicans hate Obama.

Then Ingraham had the far right nut Liz Cheney on to cry about the ACLU and some case with the CIA. Ingraham claims the ACLU was charged with putting CIA agents in danger. It may not have been the right thing to do, and I even agree you should not be taking photos of CIA agents, but having the far right Liz Cheney on to discuss it is just partisan garbage. And what's funny is that when Bush and his crew outed the CIA agent Valerie Plame, they had no problem with that, and they even defended it. I think Liz Cheney was on to discuss it just so she could promote her crazy right-wing group, and because Ingraham loves her partisan garbage.

Then the right-wing Bernie Goldberg was on to complain about the lack of media coverage of an anti-war protest. Which is a joke, because he never once complains about Fox News ignoring every protest there is, unless it's a Tea Party protest. Ingraham called it a vile anti-war demonstration, because some nut burned an American flag. But when the nuts on the right do something offensive at a protest, they dismiss it as just a couple loons that do not represent the majority of the protesters.

Which is total hypocrisy from Ingraham and Goldberg. And btw, flag burning is not even close to being as offensive as spitting on someone, or calling a black person the n-word. I would even say if you are an American and you want to burn a flag, you should have the right to do it. I would never do it, but it's not illegal. And btw, Goldberg denied a white man spit on a black Congressman, when there is a video that shows he did. Goldberg admits the spit hit the black Congressman, but that he did not spit on him. Ummmmmm, ok, how is that possible Bernie. Goldberg claims his saliva accidently flew onto the black Congressmans face, yeah and I have a bridge to sell you too.

Then Ingraham had a segment on a girl that was almost kicked to death by some idiot over a text message. She had the girls attorney Rick Freedman on to discuss it. And there is not much to say, except I hope the girl has a full recovery, and I hope the jerk that did it is found guilty and gets a life sentence in prison for attempted murder.

And the last segment was just totally ridiculous, Nasal Nose Voice Ingraham cried about San Francisco having a no meat day on Monday, called meat-free Monday. Ingraham had some no-meat ever nut on to discuss it, Hope Bohanec. How in the hell is this news. Ingraham ignored a lot of real news to talk about this nonsense. Even I think this no-meat stuff is a little strange, for a news show. I have no problem with people that do not want to eat meat, I just do not think it's news worthy for a national news show.

O'Reilly Called Roger Cohen A Traitor
By: Steve - April 8, 2010 - 8:30am

But instead of using the word traitor, he called him a quisling, which is a term synonymous with "traitors" named after Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian politician who conspired with the Nazis to overthrow Norway's government.

O'Reilly said this last week:
O'REILLY: All Americans should know there are major quislings in this country, people who believe the U.S. is the evil force and the terrorists are just responding to that. There's no better example of far left nuttiness than this campaign against the drone attacks.
O'Reilly specifically mentioned Roger Cohen from the NY Times. So what did Roger Cohen do that caused O'Reilly to call him a quisling, aka traitor. He wrote an op-ed about the drone missile attacks, the key word here is op-ed, which means it is his personal opinion, not the opinion of the NY Times.

And btw, O'Reilly claims that you can not attack Fox New bias for what is said on their opinion shows. Then he attacks the NY Times for what Roger Cohen said on their opinion page, hypocrisy, you betcha.

So here is what Mr. Cohen actually wrote, something O'Reilly never reported. Roger Cohen said this:
COHEN: We don't want to live in a world where nations blow up enemies, or smother them with pillows, in other countries with which they’re not at war.

But nor, of course, can we do less than everything possible to avert another 9/11, and that's where things get murky.

So let's make a few things clear. Since 9/11, with greater intensity under the Obama administration, the United States has wordlessly lifted the ban in effect since the Ford administration on targeted killings by U.S. intelligence officers. Such killings are now taking place almost daily under a C.I.A.-directed covert program. Drones firing Hellfire missiles have eliminated several Al Qaeda leaders. The drone strikes are concentrated on Pakistan, with which America is not at war.

That success is significant, even if "on the run" is hyperbole. But the "collateral damage" is also substantial and has a cascade terrorist-recruitment effect. On balance, President Obama, who campaigned against the "dark side" of the war on terror and has insisted that America must lead by example as a nation of laws, owes Americans an accounting of his targeted killing program.

Revenge killings don't pass the test for me. They're unacceptable under international law. I want to know that any target is selected because there is verifiable intelligence that he's actively planning a terrorist attack on the United States or its allies; that the danger is pressing; that arrest is impossible; and that civilian lives are not wantonly risked.

The bar of pre-emptive self-defense is then passed. A pinpoint strike is better than the Afghan or Iraqi scenarios. But that bar must be high. America departs at its peril from its principles.

I know, terrorists have no rule book, no borders and no compunction. The global war on terror (GWOT) is untidy. Still, the current accountability void for U.S. targeted killing is unacceptable.
That sounds like a good argument, since we are not at war with Pakistan it is illegal under International law to kill people with hellfire missiles. To O'Reilly that's being a traitor, even though the guy simply called for the USA to go by International law. Not to mention he said it in an op-ed column, which O'Reilly claims is ok, except when they write something he does not like.

And if you notice, the coward was afraid to use the actual word traitor, because he got in trouble a few years ago for calling liberal anti-war protesters un-American. So now he uses the word quisling instead of traitor, because he is a coward.

O'Reilly Ignoring The Coal Mine Explosion Story
By: Steve - April 8, 2010 - 8:00am

This is the worst coal mine disaster in the last 25 years, and the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly is ignoring the entire story, he has not said one word about it, not a fricking word.

And here is why. Because the Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship is a Republican. Blankenship is a right-wing activist millionaire who sits on the boards of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association. He used his company's ties to the industry-dominated Bush administration to paper over Massey's egregious environmental and health violations.

Massey rewarded Republicans with massive donations after the company avoided paying billions in fines for a 2000 coal slurry disaster in Martin County, three times bigger than the Exxon Valdez. After both mine inspectors and Massey employees got the same message that it was more important to run coal than to follow safety rules, a deadly fire broke out in the Aracoma Alma mine in 2006, burning two men alive.

His mine workers are not in a union, and he is even proud that he screws the workers by keeping the unions out. But if they were in a union those 25 men would most likely be alive today. And btw, George W. Bush is to blame here too. Because during the Bush years he put all these mine company stooges in charge of the federal mine safety board.

Blankenship was helped by former employees placed at the highest levels of the federal mine safety system by George W. Bush. Massey COO Stanley Suboleski was named a commissioner of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission in 2003 and was nominated in December 2007 to run the Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy.

Suboleski is now back on the Massey board. After being rejected twice by the Senate, one-time Massey executive Dick Stickler was put in charge of the MSHA in a recess appointment in October 2006 by George W. Bush. In the 1990s, Stickler oversaw Massey Coal, the operator of the deadly Upper Big Branch Mine, after managing Beth Energy mines, which incurred injury rates double the national average, Bush named Stickler acting secretary when the recess appointment expired in January 2008.

Blankenship also spent over $1 million dollars along with other US Chamber buddies like Verizon to sponsor last year's right-wing Friends of America rally in West Virginia. Since 1995, Massey's Upper Big Branch-South Mine has been cited for 3,007 safety violations.

Massey is contesting over a third (34.7%) of the 516 safety citations the Upper Big Branch-South Mine received in 2009, its greatest count in the last 15 years.

In March 2010, 53 new safety citations were issued for Massey's Upper Big Branch-South Mine, including violations of its mine ventilation plan.

What's clear is that they run these mines with non-union workers so they can make record profits and to hell with safety rules, because it cost money to make the mine safe to work in. Then they have Republican Presidents stack the deck of the federal mine safety agency so they can get around the safety rules and avoid paying the fines.

It is also clear the fines are not high enough, and that they do a cost-benefit analysis. They figure they will pay the fines because it is cheaper than following the safety rules. Which gets hard working men killed, but it saves them money so they do not care.

And what is really really clear is that O'Reilly is ignoring this massive news story, because if he did report it he would have to report all the information I just told you about. The info that makes his hero George W. Bush look corrupt, and it makes Republicans look bad, because this guy Don Blankenship is a big time Republican who dumped tons of money of the Republicans in the House and the Senate so he could get around mine safety laws.

Notice that O'Reilly has not even said one word about the story, because reporting the story makes Bush and the Republicans look bad. If this guy Don Blankenship was a Democrat who dumped tons of money on Democrats in Congress, and a Democratic President had put his guys on the federal mine safety agency, O'Reilly would be all over it. When a Republican does it, O'Reilly says nothing.

The Tuesday 4-6-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 7, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Is President Obama A War Criminal. Which is just ridiculous, but that is what O'Reilly asked. O'Reilly called the far left hypocrites because they do not call Obama a war criminal like they did Bush. When that is insane, because Bush started the war, and Obama is just letting the military do what they say they need to do to defeat the enemy. O'Reilly is talking about the drone missile attacks that are happening under Obama.

The crazy idiot even claims the left does not want to defeat terrorism, yeah Billy I want the terrorists to win so they can kill me and my family, what a joke. Are you insane, of course the left wants to defeat terrorism, we just want them defeated without killing innocent people, which makes the terrorists even more mad, and leads to more terrorism, you dumb ass. I am part of the far left, and I do not oppose the drone attacks, I just want them to make sure they are killing the bad guys before they fire the missile. Is that too much to ask, I don't think so.

So the whole talking points memo was just stupid, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss it. O'Reilly complained about the hypocrisy from the left, and Colmes said how come you never discuss the hypocrisy from the right, which is 10 times worse. O'Reilly said because the right barely has any hypocrisy, which is just laughable. Colmes said this, "I wish the right were as loud in saying 'hypocrisy' when John Boehner calls for civility and then yells 'Armageddon' about the health care bill. I just want parity."

The discussion turned heated when they talked about the campaign to stop the drone attacks. "This is not just the left objecting," Colmes said, "there are also people on the right saying we have to follow international law. This is not about the left" But Crowley indicted it is only "progressives" and anti-war activists. She said this, "Doesn't this speak volumes about the left? They're attacking the one thing President Obama is actually doing right in this war." O'Reilly concluded that "far left people don't want the USA to win, they think we're the problem." Which is pure right-wing insanity, because the left does want us to win.

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about putting the military on the border, and to my surprise Krauthammer agreed with President Obama. He said this, "The reason to use the military," Krauthammer opined, "is if we had satellite information that the Mexican Army is massing at the Texas frontier and planning to re-take the Alamo. In our tradition, we don't use the military for internal policing. If you want to stop illegal immigration you build a fence."

Krauthammer also said we should use the border patrol, because they are trained for it, the military is not. O'Reilly disagreed and said he was unconvinced by Krauthammer's argument. O'Reilly said this, "I think there is an invasion of the United States, which is why we have 12 million illegal aliens, so I'd use the military to stem the invasion." And almost nobody agrees with him, even the crazy far right neo-con Charles Krauthammer disagrees with him. Making O'Reilly an even crazier far right nut than Krauthammer. And for once, I actually agree with Krauthammer, which is a miracle.

Then the crazy John Stossel was on to talk about an Idaho law that set a curfew for minors. Stossel said this, "Hundreds of cities have curfews, and I think it infringes on the kids freedom to assemble." Stossel also talked about the Oregon school that banned all hugging. He said it's ridiculous, but don't schools have a right to make their own rules. Otherwise the kids could take guns to school, in Stosselworld that would be restricting your freedoms too. So should they be allowed to take guns to school, Stossel is just an idiot. I support freedom, but you still need to have some rules. O'Reilly sort of disagreed with some of what Stossel said, but not much, he mostly made jokes about what Stossel was saying. In my opinion these Stossel segments are just a waste of time. The far right loves him so O'Reilly puts him on to get ratings.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on once again to talk about the Synder funeral protest case by the Westboro church idiots. And once again O'Reilly told her she was wrong, and that the federal judges were wrong to rule against the Snyder family on appeal. Kelly pointed out that they ruled on the 1st amendment right to feee speech, and that you may not like it, but under our free speech laws they can do it. Once again O'Reilly told her she is wrong, when she is exactly right. And I predict if it gets to the US Supreme Court they will uphold the federal court ruling, then O'Reilly will be proven wrong.

O'Reilly does not seem to understand that you can not skip over the 1st amendment right to free speech, even if someone does something you do not like. The idiots at the Westboro church have free speech rights, so they can protest a funeral, even though everyone thinks it is wrong, it's not illegal. I hate it, and almost everyone else does too, but unless you change the law they can do it. Not to mention, because of their free speech rights you may not be able to change the law to ban protesting a funeral, because it may violate the constitution. Somehow O'Reilly does not understand that.

Then O'Reilly had the stupid Dennis Miller on to do his usual jokes about liberals, which is not even worth reporting. And then the culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. O'Reilly had them on to cry about Harry Reid doing a joke about Sarah Palin, he joked about having notes in the palm of his hand, and Billy did not like that. Even though he has no problem with Dennis Miller doing jokes about liberals, including Harry Reid, somehow it's wrong for Reid to make fun of Palin. Carlson had no problem with it, she just said Reid should keep his day job, and Margaret Hoover even said that Reid's attempt at humor was perfectly appropriate, yet O'Reilly did the segment anyway.

So they did not care, but O'Reilly spent 3 minutes crying about it anyway. Proving he was the only one that had a proble with it. then they talked about a stupid study that said blondes make 7% more than other women. Who fricking cares, and how is this news. All it did was give them a chance to make blonde jokes, and laugh at the study. Which they both said is probably true, not to mention they are both blondes.

And finally he had the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. No mention of the mine explosion, or the Michigan Militia Tea Party, nothing.

O'Reilly Running Ads For Emergency Food Supply
By: Steve - April 7, 2010 - 10:30am

O'Reilly claims that he is not part of the right-wing/Glenn Beck/Conspiracy/Scare Tactics crowd. If that is true why is he running ads on his website for Shelf Reliance Emergency Food Supply packages, and the storage systems to store the emergency food. They also sell emergency first aid kits, etc.

Here is a copy of the ad, right from www.billoreilly.com:



You even save 5% for shopping through the O'Reilly website, it says use coupon code Bill. This is end of the world Glenn Beck conspiracy nonsense, right on the O'Reilly website. And yet, he claims to not be part of any scare tactics, so what the hell do you call it when you run ads for emergency food and the storage systems to store it on your very own website.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tea Party Militia Links
By: Steve - April 7, 2010 - 9:30am

Last week Juan Williams told O'Reilly the Tea Party has links to militia groups. O'Reilly denied it, and said it is not true. Which is a flat out lie, and O'Reilly knows it. Because a lot of militia members are also Tea Party members. They do not even try to hide it, yet O'Reilly still denies it.

Just go look at one of their websites, this Saturday the Michigan Militia (www.michiganmilitia.com) is having a party, a Tea Party.

The event is called "Open Carry Family Picnic & Tea Party."

Their slogan is: "Show, Shoot, Shout, Then Sip Some Tea With Us"

Billy, what say you. Do you still deny the Tea Party is linked to militia groups. And if you want to see it for yourself just go to www.michiganmilitia.com and look.

They even have a youth shoot where children shoot free, and a handgun competition, where 1st prize is a homeland defense rifle. Oh boy what fun, grab the kids and go shoot your guns at the Militia Tea Party Picnic. And it's cheap too, $6.00 per vehicle, or $24.00 for a yearly pass, and a $7.00 all day range fee. And how cute, they list the times in military time. The handgun competition is from 13:00 to 14:30, and the range closes at 17:00, ain't that special.

It says this event is open carry (pistols only please) but then later in the ad it says bring your "cased" rifles for the shooting range, so it's not pistols only. It also says Cookout - fun Music - Picnic Area - Plenty of Games - Tea Party - Lake - First Aid Station.

Wait, what was that, First Aid Station. I guess that's in case someone accidently gets shot. And notice it says Tea Party, Billy, what say you?

More Proof Tea Party Members Are Stupid
By: Steve - April 7, 2010 - 9:00am

The Tea Party crowd claims to be mad over the Government bailing out the banks, they claim we can not afford it, and that we should not have done it. Even though every economic expert in America said it had to be done or the economy would have crashed, which would have caused a depression and led to 20 or 30 percent unemployment, soup lines, etc.

Okay, so they are mad over the bank bailouts. Proving they are stupid, because the American taxpayers are making an 8.5 percent profit off those bank bailouts. The profits come from the 49 companies that have already repaid their portion of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund bailout, and the Treasury Department predicted last Friday that the bailout would be a net profit to taxpayers once all of it is returned.

So we bailed the banks out, and we are going to make a profit on it. Not only did it not cost us anything, we will make money on the deal. So there is nothing for the Tea Party to protest about over the bank bailouts, yet they do it anyway, because they are stupid, and because they hate Obama.

Republicans Lie About Corporate Taxes
By: Steve - April 7, 2010 - 8:30am

Almost every day you see a Republican on tv saying Corporate taxes in America are too high, and that because they pay so much in taxes they are not hiring as many people as they would if Obama gave them a tax cut.

This is all lies, not spin, lies. Because most American Corporations pay little to no taxes. That's right, most of them pay little to no taxes.

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top American corporations paid in taxes last year. General Electric, which had $10.3 billion in pretax income, ended up paying nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, they actually got a tax cut of $1.1 billion. So they not only paid zero in taxes, on $10.3 billion in earnings, they got a $1.1 billion dollar tax cut.

And btw, In 2008 the actual tax rate for GE was 5.3%, in 2007 it was 15%. The Corporate tax rate is 35%, but almost none of them actually pay that rate.

If you made $10.3 billion dollars in one year, do you think you would get away with paying no taxes, haha, of course not. But these big Corporations do it all the time, and not just GE, almost all of them do it. From 1998 to 2005 two out of three Corporations pain no taxes, none, zero.

Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.
Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo notes that big corporations tax shelter practices similar to Exxon's shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers.

The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly taxed in the world. Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries in the world was 3.4%.

According to the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCooper, the United States total corporate tax burden ranks 76th of over 100 countries.

How do they do it, big U.S. companies have become experts at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personalreturns. Corporations treat the 35% tax rate as just a guideline, they use offshore tax havens and accounting loopholes to pay much lower actual rates. The tax rate American corporations actually pay is lower than the rates of economic competitors such as China (15th), India (19th), and Mexico (51st).

So when you hear these Republicans saying American Corporations pay too much in taxes, remember this, they are lying to you. They quote the Corporate tax rate of 35% and say that is way too high. But what they do not tell you is that almost no Corporations actually pay that 35% rate.

And guess who pays more in taxes to make up for all the taxes the Corporations do not pay, the average working man. Your taxes are higher to make up for what they do not get from the Corporations. Guess why these Corporations are allowed to basically cheat on their taxes legally, because they donate big money to members of Congress to keep the loopholes in the tax code.

It's called legal bribery to keep Corporate tax loopholes in place, and you never hear O'Reilly or any of his right-wing friends report any of this. In fact, they do the exact opposite and defend it, and call for even lower Corporate tax rates. Which would mean they would pay even less in taxes than they do now.

And one last thing, you never see the Tea Party protesting these tax loopholes that allow two out of three Corporations to pay no taxes. When their fricking name is the Tea Party, so if they are mad at anything is should be this, yet they never say a word about it. Just like O'Reilly and his right-wing frends, because then you would know the truth about Corporate taxes.

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Gallup Tea Party Poll
By: Steve - April 6, 2010 - 12:30pm

This is classic Bill O'Reilly, ignore all the facts that prove the Tea Party is a right-wing movement, then take one flawed poll and use it to claim most people in the Tea Party are not Republicans.

Monday night O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Ever since the Tea Party protests began last summer, the left-wing media in America has been attacking the movement.

At first, Tea Party folks were labeled stupid, too dumb to understand complicated issues. Then, as the protests grew, some in the media actually began calling Tea Party people dirty names, trying to diminish the movement with vile innuendo. Finally, the media turned to ideology, saying that many Tea Party people are racist and far-right cranks.

Now comes a new Gallup poll that says 43 percent of Tea Party supporters in the USA are independents, eight percent are Democrats and 49 percent are Republicans. When you add 43 and eight, you get 51 percent. That means the majority of Tea Party supporters in America are not Republicans.
Wrong! What it means is that O'Reilly is a biased, lying, spinning, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. Just look at what O'Reilly ignored from the very same poll he quoted, it says this in the Gallup poll:
Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.
The poll also asked the Tea Party members if they are conservative, moderate, or liberal, and a whopping 70% said they are conservative, 22% said they were moderates, and only 7% said they are liberals. Yet O'Reilly claims the poll shows that most of them are not Republicans, when it shows the exact opposite. If 70% of them admit to being conservative, they are Republicans.

O'Reilly adds the 43 percent of Tea Party supporters that say they are independents, to the eight percent who say they are Democrats, then compares it to the 49 percent that say they are Republicans. Then he claims that means the majority of Tea Party supporters are not Republican. It's just ridiculous, especially when the very same poll shows that 70% of them are conservatives.

O'Reilly claimed all independents are independent, which is insane, because they are either right-leaning independents, or left-leaning independents. In all the other polls they claim to be independents, but when they were asked who they would vote for 87% said the Republican candidate. Studies have shown that only 8 to 10 percent of the population are real independents, the rest lean left or lean right. So lumping all independents in with the Democrats is dishonest and just flat out wrong.

In the same Gallup poll it says that Tea Party members are 87% against the Obama-Pelosi health care bill, 37% above the national average, with 65% also being pro-life, which is 20% higher than the national average. O'Reilly failed to report any of that either.

The poll also shows that the Tea Party IS moslty Republican, if you look at the full PDF file with all the poll results you see this:
-- Republican: 57

-- Democrat: 13

-- Independent: 28
Gallup calls this overwhelmingly rightward tilt "fairly mainstream." That conclusion comes with very powerful spin, which certainly isn't neutral by anyone's objective standard. O'Reilly ignores all that data to dishonestly put all independents in with the Democrats, when he knows that is not true. Because some of the independents lean left, some lean right.

The Gallup poll was terrible, they did not even ask if they voted for Obama, or if there was an election with a Democrat and a Republican who would they vote for. If you ask those two questions you actually find out if they are a conservative or not.

There are almost no real independents, they are either liberal independents or conservative independents. so you have to ask them if they lean liberal or lean conservative. If you just ask if you are independent, Democrat, or Republican you do not get the truth.

Here is an example, I am a liberal. But i am registered as an independent, so if I take a poll and they ask me what party I am in, I say independent. When i am clearly not a real independent, I am a liberal. but I would be counted as an independent, when it's clear that I am a liberal. To be honest in these polls, they are going to have to start asking the independents if they lean left or lean right, otherwise you have a flawed poll.

And if the tea party is not a mostly right-wing group how come Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, and all of Fox news support and defend them, but nobody else does. Plus their leaders are all Republicans, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Michele Bachmann are their leaders, and all their protests are against Democrats.

And btw, the only people defending the Tea Party are Republicans, that means you O'Reilly. He is a Republican who also claims to be an independent, just like all these liars that took the Gallup poll.

This is dishonest journalism by O'Reilly, and he knows it, yet he spins the Gallup poll anyway. This was not journalism, it was total right-wing spin, by the man who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone.

O'Reilly Ignores Military Cover-Up Under Bush
By: Steve - April 6, 2010 - 9:30am

Before I get into this story, think about this, it was big news on Monday, all day long it was all over the cable news networks, and the internet. And yet, Bill O'Reilly ignored the entire story. But he had time to go back 4 or 5 years to cry about an ad that compared Bush to Hitler, that he claimed was posted on the moveon.org website. Which was a lie, it was an ad that was submitted to a contest moveon.org was running, they did not make it, and as soon as they saw it they removed it from the contest.

And remember this, O'Reilly says we can not go back in the past and waste our time with a review of history. But that only counts if you want to go back in the past and review the history of the Bush administration. If you want to go back in the past and review something a Democrat was involved in, then that's fine with O'Reilly, as he did with the 5 year old moveon.org ad that they did not make, and got rid of as soon as they saw it.

Now on to the story O'Reilly ignored, because it happened under Bush.

In 2007, two Reuters employees -- photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh -- were killed by a U.S. helicopter strike in Baghdad. The U.S. military's official response to the killings argued that the attack occurred after security forces came under fire from men accompanying the reporters, and that the rules of engagement were followed in returning fire. Skeptical of the military's claim, Reuters filed a Freedom of Information Act request for video of the killings, but was unable to get the videos from the military, despite warnings from the Pentagon's inspector general that future shootings were likely to reoccur if the event was not closely examined.

The whistleblower website Wikileaks unveiled that it has a video, obtained from unnamed military sources, from one of the Apache helicopters involved in the attack. The video, which has now been uploaded to YouTube and placed on a Wikileaks website dedicated to the incident, shows that the military helicopters attacked the Reuters employees unprovoked, apparently mistaking their cameras and tripods for weapons. The video does not show the victims firing on U.S. military personnel, nor does it show that they were any apparent threat.

I have seen the entire video, at least 3 times. And it is clear they were unarmed, and not involved with the insurgents, the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. They were innocent, and they were murdered just because the guys in the helicopter were hell bent on shooting anything that moved. The fact that they refused to provide the video, is also evidence they knew what they did was wrong.

It is also clear that the military's official response to the events is inaccurate and that it has not been telling the truth when it claims that the Apache attack "occurred after security forces came under fire." Additionally, it would appear that the Apache pilots in question violated the 2007 U.S. Rules of Engagement for Iraq, which permit the use of deadly force only against individuals who "pose a threat to Coalition Forces by committing a hostile act or demonstrating hostile intent."

The Wikileaks video strengthens the case for a thorough and transparent investigation into the events that led to the killing of the Reuters employees and Iraqi civilians.

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored the entire story. Even though he has said that nobody in our military has even killed innocent civilians in cold blood, and you better not make that claim unless you can prove it. O'Reilly has even said if you have proof send it to him and he will report it. So here we have the proof, and O'Reilly ignores it.

The Monday 4-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 6, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Tea Party Coverage. Billy talked about a new Gallup poll and how it proves the media was corrupt in the way they reported on the Tea Party. Which is dead wrong, because the spin O'Reilly put on the poll is a biased joke, so the media was accurate in their reporting on the Tea Party. It's a right-wing movement, with leaders like Palin, Beck, and Bachmann, who only support conservative candidates.

So O'Reilly puts his spin on the poll to make people think the Tea Party is not a right-wing movement, and guess what the great Bill O'Reilly does. He cites the poll and claims it proves most members of the Tea Party are not Republicans. When the facts show the exact opposite, like this: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are their leaders, everyone who speaks at their protests are Republicans, and they put out a statement saying they would only endorse Republican candidates that support the GOP platform.

It's ridiculous to even claim the Tea Party is not mostly Republican, the facts show otherwise, and the fact that O'Reilly keeps denying it shows that he is a Republican who spins for them. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to agree with O'Reilly, as usual. They attacked a Democratic Congressman who said the Tea Party is a right-wing movement, when he is exactly right. They basically attacked the media for reporting the truth, O'Reilly called it corruption, Juan would not agree, but he said it was bias. Ham agreed with Billy that it is corruption, of course.

What they ignore is that all the Tea Party leaders are Republicans, all the Tea Party speakers are Republicans, and they are only endorsing conservatives. Which means that is a right-wing movement, and O'Reilly denies it all to claim the media is corrupt. When the only person who is corrupt here is O'Reilly, and Bernie Goldberg. The whole thing is just ridiculous, O'Reilly cherry picks a few selected poll results, but he ignores the other 99% of the evidence that shows the Tea Party is a mostly right-wing group. He says that because 43% said they were independents in the poll, that means they are not Republicans.

Which is ridiculous, because they could be right-leaning independents. It said 43% independents, 8% Democrats, and 49% Republicans, so if you add 43 + 8 you get 52%, so that means they are not mostly Republicans. Even Bernie Goldberg disagreed with O'Reilly, and admitted that 70% of them identify as conservatives. But then they went ahead and called the media corrupt anyway. The only corruption is from O'Reilly and Goldberg, for the way they dishonestly reported those poll results.

In the very same Gallup poll, they show that 70% of the people in the Tea Party admit to being conservatives. That is what Bernie Goldberg was talking about, but O'Reilly never mentioned that very important point. Not once did he report that number, it was only when Bernie Goldberg talked about it that it was even mentioned. Then O'Reilly just ignored it to call the media corrupt for saying most of the Tea Party are conservatives, when that is exactly what the Gallup poll O'Reilly cited says. Now that's corruption by the media, from O'Reilly.

Then Ann Coulter was on to talk about the Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests. Here is my question, why would anyone care what Ann Coulter thinks about it, and why should we care. Only O'Reilly and Republicans care what she thinks about anything, and I refuse to report what she says. I will say this, Coulter agreed with O'Reilly that judges should sometimes not go by the rule of law, that sometimes they should just do what's right.

Which is ridiculous, because when O'Reilly and Coulter talk about Obama nominating liberal judges to the federal court, they claim they should be blocked from being a federal judge because they did not follow the rule of law by making a partisan ruling. Making the argument from O'Reilly and Coulter just insane. Not to mention the 4 right-wing Supreme Court judges make partisan ruling all the time, that is why all the rulings come down 5 to 4, yet O'Reilly and Coulter have no problem with that.

Then Brit Hume was on to give another biased right-wing analysis of how President Obama is doing on Iran. Hume said Iran is going to get nuclear weapons and Obama is not doing enough to stop them. When Bush did not stop them either, but O'Reilly and Hume never said anything about it then. Hume claims Obama is not doing anything to stop them, which is all speculation. O'Reilly even said that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be Obama's fault, and seen as a failure for him. Then Hume speculated that the sanctions will fail, Iran will get nuclear weapons, and Obama will be hurt by it. O'Reilly said if Iran gets nukes it will be seen as a big loss for Obama, and of course Hume agreed.

Here is my question, who made us God, and who decided we can tell which foreign country can have nukes or not. Neither O'Reilly or Hume ever answer that question, and explain why we think we can tell other countries what to do. Imagine if they told us we can not have nukes, O'Reilly and Hume would laugh at them.

Then the is it legal team, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoye were on to discuss the Florida doctor who refuses to treat people that voted for Obama. In my opinion this doctor should be forced to treat everyone, or he should have his medical license revoked. Florida Congressman Alan Grayson filed a lawsuit against the doctor, but Wiehl and Guilfoyle said it will be thrown out of court.

The doctor is a Republican, so of course the three of them defended him and smeared Congressman Grayson. They they talked about a case where a hospital said they are not going to hire anyone who smokes. They claim it's ok to do it, but O'Reilly has a problem with it. Then of course they cried about a case where the ACLU is involved, where kids are not going to school and the police went to get them. And as expected O'Reilly opposed the ACLU case, Guilfoyle and Wiehl disagreed with O'Reilly. Then they promoted the new book by Lis Wiehl.

The last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check. Where Billy sits there all alone putting his right-wing spin on what a Democrat said. In other words, what he calls a reality check. One reality check was a youtube video of some kids who paid $500.00 for an IPad, then destroyed it with a baseball bat. O'Reilly said here is my question, how does a 19 year old kid have $500.00 to burn, and why am I showing this video on national tv. So he admits his own reality check is ridiculous, and it was not a reality check on anything. Then on top of that, he does not know how a 19 year old has $500.00 to burn. I know, he has a job.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. The pinhead was a small group of women who protested topless, of course Billy had video, and ran it.

Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Hits New Low
By: Steve - April 6, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is another poll you will never see O'Reilly report on. This poll was published over a week ago on March 27th, yet O'Reilly has never said one word about it. While O'Reilly and Fox have been saying how great Palin is, and how much everyone loves her, the approval ratings for her have been crashing.

The Washington Post poll reveals that her political popularity among the nation as a whole has never been lower. Conservative Republicans give her a 71% approval rating and tea partiers put her at 60%, but the nation as a whole gives her a 37% approval rating, and a 55% disapproval rating.

The most striking number from the Washington Post poll was that only 17% of all Americans surveyed said that they held a strongly favorable view of the former Alaska governor. In contrast, 41% of respondents strongly disapproved of her.

Palin's rating with Independents mirrors her overall 37%-55% approval/disapproval rating. Palin's approval ratings have remained in steady decline since October of 2008. Her book didn't help, and her hiring by Fox News has not helped either. It's clear that America has made up its mind about Sarah Palin, what's clear is that only Republicans like her.

The half term governor of Alaska is a niche brand whose appeal is limited to Republicans. It would be a disaster for the Republican Party if Sarah Palin was their presidential nominee in 2012. A Palin nomination would virtually ensure not only an Obama reelection, but also an expansion of the Democratic majorities in Congress.

Never in modern American history has there been a less popular politician as seriously discussed as a presidential candidate. Palin may have no chance of winning but that might not stop the GOP from nominating her. And I sure hope they do, because it will guarantee another 4 years for Barack Obama.

The worst part of this whole thing is that O'Reilly keeps saying Palin is popular, and qualified to be the President. When the facts show that both of those statements are not true. The people do not like her, and they do not think she is qualified to be the President. So what does O'Reilly do, he ignores these polls to claim the exact opposite.

It shows that not only is O'Reilly 100% in the tank for Palin, it shows that he will even lie for her, which also shows that he is clearly a Republican, because only Republicans like her. And not only does O'Reilly like Palin, he pretty much loves her, and praises everything she does. As her approval ratings keep going down and down.

Karl Rove Caught Lying About Obama Again
By: Steve - April 6, 2010 - 8:00am

Does this guy ever tell the truth, from what I have seen the answer is no, Karl Rove is a paid liar, almost nothing he says is true. And yet, Fox News and O'Reilly put this liar on the air almost every day to spin out right-wing propaganda. In fact, he is the senior political analyst for O'Reilly.

In his 4-1-10 Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove claimed that President Obama "dismisses" tea party participants "as an extremist 'strain that has existed in politics for a long time.'" In fact, in the interview Rove quoted, Obama explicitly said that tea party participants are not "on the fringe," and the movement includes people with legitimate concerns.

Here is what Obama said, word for word, not what Rove claims he said:
LAUER: Let me ask you about the tea party. This is a -- this is a movement, this is an organization that didn't exist before you were president, and now they're in the headlines almost every day. Some say they are a legitimate movement, others think they're a fringe group. Where do you fall?

OBAMA: You know, I think that it is a still loose amalgam of forces. There's a part of the tea party movement that actually did exist before I was elected. We saw some of it leading up to my election. There are some folks who just weren't sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist, right? So there's that segment of it which I think is just dug in ideologically, and that strain has existed in American politics for a long time. Then I think that there's a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much.

And last year a bunch of the emergency measures we had to take in terms of dealing with the bank crisis, you know, bailing out the auto industry, fed that sense that things are out of control. And I think those are folks who have legitimate concerns.

And so I wouldn't paint in broad brush and say that, you know, everybody who's involved or have gone to a tea party rally or a meeting are somehow on the fringe. Some of them, I think, have some mainstream, legitimate concerns. And, you know, my hope is, is that as we move forward and we're tackling things like the deficit and imposing a freeze on domestic spending and taking steps that show we're sincere about dealing with our long-term problems, that some of that group will dissipate.
Rove dishonestly turned that statement from President Obama into this, "Obama dismisses tea party participants as an extremist strain that has existed in politics for a long time."

Proving that Rove is a dishonest right-wing idiot. Because Obama said the opposite of what Rove claimed, he said he would not say they are ALL on the fringe, but he did admit some of them are, which is 100% true. So the only liar here is Karl Rove.

Brit Hume Proves He Is A Partisan Hack
By: Steve - April 5, 2010 - 10:00am

Once a week O'Reilly has Brit Hume on the Factor do do a political analysis of an issue or two, and he is always billed as a nonpartisan who has no bias. Which is crazy, and everyone knows it. Because Hume always spins everything to the right, just as Rove or Ingraham or Morris etc.

Yesterday Hume was on Fox News Sunday, and he pretty much spewed out the GOP talking points, word for word, on the Obama stimulus bill, and the recent Labor Department job numbers for March. The numbers make Obama look good, and prove his economic policies are working. So these right-wing spin doctors like Hume and Rove, have to lie about it to try and fool people into thinking his policies are not working.

Hume relied on dubious claims to accuse the White House of economic illiteracy, pushing the myth that March employment gains were primarily driven by government jobs and the discredited claim that the stimulus has failed. But March job growth at private employers was the largest in nearly three years, and all the economic experts have concluded that unemployment would be higher and GDP would be lower without the stimulus.

During the April 4 edition of Fox News Sunday, Hume said this:
HUME: This is an administration that seems beset by kind of an economic illiteracy. I don't think the president nor those immediately around him really have a grasp -- surprisingly -- have very little grasp of what the private -- how the private sector works, how incentives work, and how disincentives work.

Just as in the past, so many of the jobs were these government jobs which have either been saved, as they like to say, or created. This is, in jobs terms, an exceedingly feeble recovery.
That is 100% right-wing spin, right from GOP headquarters. The facts show that when Obama took over the economy was LOSING 800,000 jobs a month under Bush. Then 14 months later the economy GAINED 162,000 jobs in one month. In the most recent monthly employment survey, the labor department reported that total nonfarm payrolls increased by 162,000 employees in March; and PRIVATE employers added 123,000 employees in March, the largest one-month gain since May 2007.

Crazy Hume even claimed the stimulus was ineffective:
HUME: They talk about the effect of the stimulus. I think the stimulus has been remarkably ineffective.
The facts show the opposite. In a quarterly report issued January 13, the CEA estimated: "As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the CEA estimates that the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] has raised employment relative to the baseline by between 1½ and 2 million. The CEA estimates for both the effects on GDP and employment are similar to those of respected private forecasters and government agencies."

The GOP wants you to think the stimulus has not worked, they even claim no new jobs have been created, none. When the facts show that 1.5 to 2 million jobs have been created or saved. Yet they still deny it, which denies reality. And that fact that the so-called nonpartisan Brit Hume is spinning out these lies, proves that he is also a right-wing spin doctor, just as Rove, Ingraham, or Limbaugh.

There are even articles where GOP lawmakers privately admit the stimulus is working and that it did create jobs, while at the same time they publicly deny it. Proving they are dishonest liars, who admit the truth in private then deny it in public.

Here are some quotes uncovered by the Washington Times in private letters written by Republican lawmakers seeking stimulus funds from the Agriculture Department:
Sen. Mike Johanns, Nebraska Republican: "The proposed project would create 38 new jobs and bring broadband to eight hospitals, five colleges, 16 libraries and 161 K-12 schools."

Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican: "It is anticipated that the project will create over 200 jobs in the first year and at least another 40 new jobs in the following years."

Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican: "The employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized."
Rachel Maddow documented 100 Republicans who have publicly said the stimulus is not creating jobs, who privately said it is creating jobs, and even sent letters to people saying it is creating jobs. The NY Times even had an article with this headline:

Judging a Stimulus by the Job Data Reveals Success

And yet you still have these dishonest partisan hacks like Brit Hume going on tv and lying their right-wing ass off to dismiss what Obama has done. Do not believe them, they are partisan spin doctors, do a google search and look for yourself.

Then rember what Brit Hume has done, and remember it proves what a dishonest right-wing hack he is, and remember that it also proves O'Reilly helps him spin out his propaganda, because O'Reilly bills Hume as a nonpartisan, and tells people he is not biased, when he clearly is.

Frum Details How Limbaugh & Fox Drive The GOP
By: Steve - April 5, 2010 - 9:30am

In this video David Frum shows why he got fired, because he is telling the truth about what Fox, Limbaugh, and the GOP are doing.



Frum is the current expert on what goes on inside the Republican party. The people at AEI and the Heritage Institute are paid to invent propaganda because it attracts attention and distracts attention away from important subjects. Frum hits it on the head when he says it's good for Limbaugh, because he sells more commercials to emotionally charged right-wing idiots. But that it's a terrible way to win elections and a lousy way to govern.

Obama Hammers Right-Wing Pundits For Poll Spin
By: Steve - April 4, 2010 - 8:30am

Last Thursday during a speech in Portland, President Obama made fun of the naysayers who have been spreading misinformation and fearmongering about the historic health care reform legislation that he signed last week.

Referring to House Minority Leader John Boehner's claim that reform is Armageddon, Obama said that after he signed the bill, "I looked up at the sky to see if asteroids were coming. You know what? It turned out, it was a pretty nice day!"

He then took a jab at pundits and reporters who have been touting polls that show Americans are still divided on reform:
OBAMA: You have to love some of the pundits in Washington. Every single day since I signed the reform law, there's been another poll or headline that said, "Nation still divided on health care reform. Polls haven’t changed yet. Well, yeah. It just happened last week! It's only been a week."

Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm? You'd planted some seeds and they came out the next day and they looked. "Nothing's happened! There's no crop! We're gonna starve! Oh no! It's a disaster!"

It's been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place! Just a thought.
President Obama makes a very good point, how can you take a poll asking people if they like the new health reform bill, when it has not even been put in place yet. The point Obama makes is that these polls are worthless, you have to wait to see what people think after they have had it for a while.

Not to mention, when Bush was the President and he had low approval ratings for something he did, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends said the President sometimes has to do what's right for the country, no matter what the polls say. Now they run a poll for everything, and if it does not have 51% (or more) support they claim the President can not do it.

But when Bush was in office, those very same people never reported the polls, and when someone mentioned one they would say the President can not always go by polls. So once again, O'Reilly and his conservative friends have two sets of rules, one set of rules for a Republican President, and a different set of rules for a Democratic President.

And btw, when the Democrats passed Medicare and Social Security it was also unpopular with a lot of people, but now look at it today, almost everyone loves both programs now. Not to mention, it would be political suicide to try and cancel either program.

Kansas AG Will Not Sue Over Health Reform Bill
By: Steve - April 4, 2010 - 8:30am

Last Friday, Kansas Attorney General Steve Six announced that his office would not be joining other states attorneys general in suing the federal government on the allegation that the new health care law is unconstitutional.
The attorney general's office has completed its legal review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Based on that extensive analysis, I do not believe that Kansas can successfully challenge the law. Our review did not reveal any constitutional defects, and thus it would not be legally or fiscally responsible to pursue this litigation.

Legal precedent demonstrates that throughout our nation's history, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to overturn legislative acts unless a clear and direct constitutional violation is shown.

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to legislate on matters affecting interstate commerce. The Supremacy Clause makes these laws supreme, regardless of any state laws or state constitutional provisions to the contrary.

No serious argument may be advanced that the healthcare industry and all those who participate in it - including doctors, nurses, patients and insurers - are not part of interstate commerce.

I do not believe it is in the best interest of Kansas to divert resources from these vital legal matters to pursue a lawsuit driven by political differences and policy debates, a lawsuit that I believe has little to no chance of success and will squander scarce resources in a time of severe budget shortfalls.
Six joins an increasingly vocal block of state-level public officials who are calling out the political stunts conducted by the attorneys general suing the federal government.

Attorneys general from Kentucky, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, and Arizona have all refused to join the suit, saying it would be a frivolous waste of scarce taxpayer dollars.

In Oregon, both Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Attorney General John Kroger have even promised to take legal action to defend the constitutionality of the law.

Republicans Deny Reality Of Jobs Numbers
By: Steve - April 3, 2010 - 10:30am

Think back to 14 months ago, Barack Obama took over as President of the United States on 1-20-09. At the time the economy was losing more than 700,000 jobs a month, yes I said more than 700,000 jobs a month. And that was happening because the Republican George W. Bush put the country into the worst recession we have seen in the last 50 years.

We had a housing crisis, a banking crisis, a credit crisis, a wall street crisis, etc. and the economy was on the brink of a depression. All caused by 8 years of bad economic policies from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican party. They caused it, and everyone agrees they did, there is no doubt. In fact, the Republicans had total control of the Government for 6 of those 8 years.

From Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009 this happened under Republican leadership:
-- Unemployment doubled from 4.2% to 8.2%

-- National debt doubled from 5.7 trillion to 10.6 trillion

-- The yearly budget went from a 236 billion surplus to a 1.2 TRILLION deficit (a 1.4 trillion drop)

-- The Dow dropped 25% from to 10,587 to 7949

-- Gasoline tripled from 1.44 in 2001 to 4.11 per gallon in 2008

-- The economy was Losing 700,000+ jobs monthly
That is what republicans do to the country when they have all the power. And now they want you to elect them back into power this November, claiming they will fix the country, when it's already being fixed, by President Obama, they just refuse to admit it, even though the numbers prove it.

Obama said his economic policies will get the country back on the right track and create jobs, so what did the Republicans say, they called him a liar, and then voted no on everything he tried to do. They even admit they are the party of no, and that they plan to vote no on every bill he tries to pass, even though the facts show that his policies are working.

The Dow is back to 10,800, the Housing crisis is over and getting better, the banking crisis is over and getting better, the credit crisis is over and getting better, the recession is over and getting better, and the jobs crisis is over and getting better. But the Republicans deny it, because then they would have to admit the Obama economic policies are working.

Last night O'Reilly totally ignored the March jobs report, he never said a word about it. Because it makes Obama look good, and it proves his economic policies are working. I also saw a couple other Republicans on the news shows trying to put a negative spin on the jobs numbers, even when it's all positive.

Former Bush labor secretary Elaine Chao was on Fox to claim it's not really good news, she was asked if these numbers show that the economy is back to positive job creation, and here is what she dishonestly said:
CHAO: Unfortunately, I think this is still a very mixed report and this is only one month. So, we need to see a trend, not just, you know, an uptick perhaps in one month. The unemployment rate stayed steady even though there were jobs created primarily because the labor participation rate is still very low.
Even the Fox stooge Stuart Varney said wait a minute, that is not accurate. Here is what he said:
VARNEY: But look, we did create jobs in November of last year. And we've just had a revision in the January and February numbers for this year, showing a net job gain in those months and we've also gained jobs in March. This is not a blip up on a one month basis, there is a trend. Four of the last five months we have seen job creation. Now, I know it's very slow and it's not enough.

CHAO: Yes.

VARNEY: But it is an uptrend. It is a job creation trend.
The RNC also tried to spin it by putting out a press release that said it was a one month blip on the radar and that the job creation was mostly because the Government hired Census workers.

And now, here are the facts. The facts the Republicans continue to deny. Not only did the economy add 14,000 jobs in January, the 36,000 job loss in February was revised to only a 14,000 job loss. Then the economy added 162,000 jobs in March, and only 48,000 of them were Census jobs.

But that's not all, starting in January of 2008 the economy lost more and more jobs every month for 12 straight months. it went from losing 50,000 jobs a month in February of 2008 to almost 800,000 a month in January of 2009 when Obama took over. It got worse and worse every month for a full year under Bush, the bar graph chart on jobs just went down and down.

Then President Obama took over in January of 2009. He passed a stimulus bill and put his economic policies into place. Within 2 months the job losses started dropping, by April of 2009 the monthly job losses were down from almost 800,000 a month to 600,000 a month. By August of 2009 the monthly job losses were down to 200,000 a month. So in 7 short months President Obama had lowered the monthly job losses from 800,000 to 200,000.

Just look at this monthly jobs bar graph from December of 2007 to March of 2010, the numbers do not lie.



Those numbers prove the Obama economic policies are working. Yet all during that time O'Reilly and the Republicans were saying his economic policies were not working. While the facts showed they were, proving what dishonest spin doctors they are. Not to mention the Dow was going up every week, and went from 7,900 to over 10,000 in less than a year after Obama too over.

O'Reilly and all the Republicans said the Obama policies will destroy the country, when his policies were actually improving the country. They just refused to report it, or admit it. O'Reilly and Fox mostly ignore all these facts because it makes Obama look good. Including the March jobs report, O'Reilly refused to report it, even though it shows the economy is getting better, and that jobs are coming back.

The economy was so bad I thought it would take at least two years to get a positive monthly job growth. But Obama did it in less than 15 months. For which he should be praised, instead O'Reilly and his right-wing friends do nothing but attack everything he does and ignore the positive jobs trend since he took over.

Now we get to March of 2010, just 14 months after Obama took over. We have 162,000 new jobs created, yes 48,000 were from the Census workers, but even if you discount them we still created 114,000 new jobs in one month. Which is a hell of a lot better than losing 800,000 jobs a month.

Instead of admitting we are on the right track O'Reilly totally ignores it, and the rest of his right-wing friends lie about it. This is what republicans do, they destroy the country in 8 years, then Obama comes in and gets it fixed, then they do nothing but attack him when his policies are working. They did the same thing to Bill Clinton, when Clinton took over in 1992 the Republicans said he would crash the economy and destroy America.

Then 8 years later the Clinton economic policies had created 22 million new jobs and we had 8 years of economic boom. Then Bush takes over and runs the country into the ground, and left Obama with the worst recession we have seen in the last 50 years. Now Obama is in for a little more than a year and the economy is on the right track again.

Does anyone see a pattern here, I do, Democratic Presidents do a good job managing the country, and Republican Presidents do a terrible job managing the country. And now they want you to believe their spin and lies and vote them back into power, when I have just proven to you that Democrats help the economy while Republicans hurt the economy.

Don't fall for their spin and propaganda, look at the facts and then vote for the Democrats in November, or else we will go right back to the failed economic policies of the Republican party.

The Friday 4-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 3, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Obama Approval Rating. O'Reilly did an entire talking points memo on the Obama job approval ratings, but he only cited a CBS poll that says 44% of Americans believe the President is doing a good job. Which he has never done before, O'Reilly almost always uses the right-wing biased Rasmussen poll, but this time he ignored it because even it has Obama at 46% approval.

Okay now, let me tell you what O'Reilly does. Bill O'Reilly is a biased and dishonest poll cherry picker. Whenever he reports on the Obama job approval numbers he usually goes with the Rasmussen poll, because normally they have Obama the lowest. But this time he looked around and found an even lower poll, so he used the CBS poll. While ignoring the fact that Gallup has Obama at 50% approval, and Rasmussen has him at 46% approval.

That is dishonest right-wing bias, because O'Reilly never finds the poll that has the highest approval rating for Obama, he always finds the one poll that has Obama the lowest. While not reporting the other polls that have him higher, and he almost never uses the Gallup poll. It's about as biased and dishonest as a so-called journalist can get. A real journalist would not do this, he would report at least two polls, and give us the highest number and the lowest, not just the lowest. What O'Reilly did is what a biased partisan right-wing hack does, not what a self proclaimed nonpartisan independent does.

So then what does O'Reilly do, have a fair and balanced segment with 1 Democrat and 1 Republican on to discuss it, are you kidding me, of course not. Billy had Karl Rove on to kiss his ass and agree with him. The far right spin doctor Rove said this:
ROVE: The Democrats are going to lose very badly this fall, and the President has basically squandered the good will of the American people. He's lost not only a lot of right-leaning independents, but also a lot of centrist independents by the spending and deficits and the health care bill.

In 2008 Congress repealed its ban on drilling off the east and west coasts and Alaska. The President makes it look like he is expanding drilling, but he is actually putting big swatches of the west coast and Alaska off limits. This is a 'nothing-burger' that he tried to present as a big and dramatic gesture.
Okay first, Rove is just a partisan idiot, he is speculating the Democrats will lose big this fall, speculation that O'Reilly claims to not allow on the Factor. Yet O'Reilly says nothing when Republicans do it. Then he claims Obama is a fraud with the offshore oil drilling, because some places are still off limits. But everyone agrees that most of those places should be off limits, even a lot of Republicans. He is going to allow offshore drilling, so it's a fraud because he will not allow it where Rove wants him to, give me a break, that's just ridiculous. And O'Reilly sat there like a lump on a log, saying nothing about the ridiculous statements by Rove.

Then O'Reilly had two students on that object to Sarah Palin speaking at a June fundraiser for the California State University Stanislaus. Alicia lewis said this: "I object to her coming to our campus for this event, because the event should embrace the community at large and should reflect the 50th anniversary of our campus."

Ashli Briggs said that Sarah Palin is simply too divisive, so she is opposed to her speaking, she said this: "With budget cuts and the type of feeling there is on campus, this is a great time to bring students and faculty together. Political ideology is irrelevant."

So what did O'Reilly do, all throughout the segment he kept trying to get them to admit they do not like Palin because they are liberals and she is a conservative. At least 3 times he asked them that question, and each time they denied it. But he kept asking it over and over, and each time they denied it. So then at the end of the segment O'Reilly called them liars and said they are not being honest with him. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "I don't think you're being quite honest with us. Mrs. Palin has already passed on her speaking fee and is bringing in money to the university. So it seems that even if you don't like her philosophy, she is doing good for the college. C'mon! This is ideology!"
So now O'Reilly is a mind reader, and even when people say they are not liberals that hate Palin, he just ignores it and calls them liars anyway, stay classy Billy.

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to do a rare report on Afghanistan. Geraldo was live from Afghanistan, and most likely they did this segment because of the recent criticism of Fox, that they ignore a lot of real news and mostly do garbage to get ratings. Geraldo said this: "The bitter irony here is that we fought over this exact same ground back in 2004. We had beaten the enemy, but we then had to draw these Marines away to help in Iraq. So it was clear to me that we robbed Peter to pay Paul. Afghanistan is now a 'narco-state,' a country in which the most lucrative crop is opium."

O'Reilly praised the U.S. military, but questioned whether Afghanistan is sharing the burden, he said this: "The problem we're having with Afghanistan is corruption. The Karzai government has not been able to secure the area because the people don't trust them." Which ignored everything Geraldo said, he just acted like Geraldo never said what he did. And btw, when Democrats argued that we should just get our troops out of Afghanistan because of the Government corruption, O'Reilly called that crazy and said there is very little corruption, that we can win it, and now he is complaining about the corruption. Pot meet kettle!

Then O'Reilly had Raquel Welch on, why, to promote her book because she is a Republican. This is not news, and has nothing to do with any news anywhere in the world. It was simply a segment to promote her book because she is a Republican. And I am guessing O'Reilly also had a hard on for her his whole life so he probably got off just being near her. And btw, for her age (69) she still looks pretty good.

Then O'Reilly had a best of Glenn Beck segment with clips of old shows. In one clip O'Reilly told Beck he is lucky Fox has not fired him yet, and that there have been a couple close calls, but that he put in a good word for Beck and stopped Fox from firing him. This is the most ridiculous thing O'Reilly said in the whole show. Beck has never even been close to being fired, he has the 2nd highest rated show on the entire network, and Roger Ailes not only loves Beck, he defends everything he does.

O'Reilly just made it all up. Now should Beck have been fired once or twice, of course he should have, but he never will be, because the top brass at Fox love him. They love him so much they have put up with 100 advertisers pulling their ads from the Glenn Beck show. They even love him so much they run his show in the UK with no advertisers at all, none, zero. So they lose money with no advertisers in the UK, yet they run it anyway. That's not even close to firing him, it's the opposite, it's doing anything they can to keep him on the air. And if they were a real news network, he would have been fired, but since Fox is not a real news network he was not fired, and never will be.

The last segment was the ridiculous, dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy, two more Republicans that work for Fox. Which I am not going to report on because it's nonsense, it's 3 Republicans calling Democrats dumb. With no democrats to call Republicans dumb, so it's a non-news, one sided, biased, right-wing segment where they attack Democrats. At the end of the segment O'Reilly did say one smart thing, he said to Gutfeld that now he knows why he is on at 3am.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited factor e-mails. And btw, it was 7 republican guests to 0 Democrats, I did not count the two students as Democrats because they denied it. They said they are not Democrats or liberals, and they are unknown, so I could not count them as Democratic guests.

O'Reilly Ignored Scott Roeder Life Sentence Thursday
By: Steve - April 3, 2010 - 9:00am

Scott Roeder was sentenced yesterday to life in prison -- with no possibility of parole for 50 years -- for the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller.

During the hearing, Roeder interrupted lawyers and the judge and compared his plight to that of Jesus Christ. It was the maximum sentence allowed under Kansas law.

And the great journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored the entire story, even though he had two legal segments on his Thursday night show. This pro-life right-wing nut job (Scott Roeder) walked into a fricking CHURCH and shot Dr. Tiller in the head, in front of women and children. Simply because he performed LEGAL abortions.

And O'Reilly did not even mention it, nothing, not a word. Because he is also pro-life, and he hated Dr. tiller. Hell he called him "Tiller The Baby Killer" at least 10 times on his own show, so you know O'Reilly hated the man. I would even bet that in private O'Reilly considers Roeder a hero.

Just as they do at the pro-life right-wing Army of God website. Right now at the armyofgod.com website they have a photo of Roeder and above it they say he is an American Hero. They claim the shooting of Dr. George Tiller is Justifiable Homicide, and they even have this message.

"Thank you Scott Roeder for stopping Babykilling abortionist George Tiller from murdering any more unborn children."

Notice that not only did O'Reilly ignore the entire Scott Roeder sentencing story, he says nothing about these pro-life right-wing groups that call Roeder an American Hero.

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say and do, if a liberal walked into a church and shot a pro-life supporter in the head and killed him. O'Reilly would do a talking points memo on it, have two or three segments on it that night, trash and smear the guy, and anyone who supports him, and then do at least three or four follow up segments until the sentencing, then do half the show talking about the sentencing the day of the sentencing.

But when it's a pro-life Republican, not only does O'Reilly not do any of that, he ignored the entire story, he never even said one word about it, nothing, zero, zip. Despite the fact that he had two legal segments on the Thursday show.

Republicans Spin The March Job Numbers
By: Steve - April 3, 2010 - 8:30am

The March job numbers just came out and the Republicans are already putting a spin on it. Because it's good news for President Obama, and it shows the stimulus he passed, and his economic policies are working.

According to the Labor Department, the economy added 162,000 jobs in March. Those figures include the government's hiring of 48,000 temporary workers for the Census. Private employers "added 123,000 jobs, the most since May 2007."

But Republicans are going on tv and saying the only reason the economy added the 162,000 jobs in March is because the Government hired people for the Census. When it's just not true, they only hired 48,000 people for the Census, the other 123,000 jobs were created by private employers.

It's partisan politics, the Republicans do not want to give President Obama credit for anything, and they slam him for everything he does. Obama could cure Cancer, and solve world hunger, and these idiot Republicans would find something to hammer him for it.

What it shows is how dishonest they are, and that they care more about spreading lies to make Obama look bad, then they do about telling the truth, or doing what's right to get the country back on the right track. They are the party of no, and the party of spreading lies to make Obama look bad.

Their plan is to lie about everything Obama does, and vote no on every bill he tries to pass. Then they hope people will believe the lies, and vote Republican in November. They also hope the economy fails, and jobs do not come back. Because then they can say, see we told you his plans would not work, that is why we voted no on everything, so vote Republican in November.

Except there are two problems with their dishonest plan, first, the economy is recovering, and jobs are coming back. And second, the people will not forget how Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party destroyed the country in the 8 years Bush was the President.

And btw, the Republicans are putting partisan politics ahead of the good of the country. They could care less about doing things to help the economy recover, or to create new jobs, they just don't care. In my book that borders on Treason, because they are trying to cause the country to fail, that is their plan, they even admit it.

When is the media going to call them traitors and un-American, O'Reilly?

If the Democratic party did this to a Republican President, O'Reilly and most of the media would call them un-American obstructionists. But when Republicans do it O'Reilly and everyone else is silent as a mouse. They are actively trying to hurt the economy, by voting no on everything, in the hopes that if it passes anyway they can use it for political reasons to win elections.

In my book this is un-American, but O'Reilly ignores the entire story, because he agrees with them, and he is helping them. O'Reilly also wants the economy to fail, because he wants to see Obama get voted out in 2012, and he wants to see Republicans get the majority back in the House and Senate this November.

O'Reilly has not only predicted the Republicans will win the House and Senate back this November, he has said he hopes they do, because he does not like Obama's far left policies. And he knows that if the Republicans can get the majority in the House and Senate back, they can block everything Obama wants to do.

So basically O'Reilly is hoping Obama fails, because he is a Republican and he wants the Republicans back in power. He just don't have the balls to admit it, like Rush Limbaugh has.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama Court Nominee
By: Steve - April 2, 2010 - 9:30am

Last night O'Reilly falsely claimed the Obama appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu, who O'Reilly called a loon btw, believes in reparations for slavery. In fact, in the 2008 discussion that O'Reilly cited, Liu actually suggested that people should deal with the legacy of slavery by working at the community level to address "problems that people face, in their schools, in their workplaces, access to health care, and in their housing."

In the discussion with Megyn Kelly, O'Reilly said this: "Miss Megyn defended the nomination a couple weeks ago, but now we learn that Judge Liu apparently believes in reparations for slavery."

O'Reilly also said this: "Then you have Liu, all right, who says, "Yeah, even the white families who didn't have anything to do with it, they have to owe and pony up something."

O'Reilly aired comments Liu made in 2008 that "there are white families who were not involved as directly or even indirectly with the slave trade, but who still benefited from it," and his statement: "Is it gonna require us to give up our money? It's gonna require giving up something." But nowhere in the passage does Liu endorse reparations.

In the same clip O'Reilly showed, Liu actually argued for dealing with the legacy of slavery through working at the community level, not through reparations. Rather than advocating for "reparations," Liu said that "instead of looking for the single national strategy" on racial equality, people should "think about what you can do on a much smaller scale in much smaller communities."

But O'Reilly never played that part of the interview, he cut it off before Liu said those things. And btw, earlier in the show O'Reilly argued that the federal judges in the Syndey funeral protest case should have ruled for the family based on moral reasons, and that it would be the right thing to do. He told Megyn Kelly to hell with the law, they should do the right thing morally, and rule against the Westboro Baptist church.

Then later during the 2nd Megyn Kelly segment about Goodwin Liu, O'Reilly made the exact opposite argument. O'Reilly complained that Liu is an activist judge that does not follow the law to the letter. During this segment O'Reilly said we must have judges that go by the law, and follow the law to the letter.

Does anyone but me see how ridiculous that is, in the very same show O'Reilly argued that judges should sometimes not exactly go by the law, then 20 minutes later argued that judges should go by the law, and not let anything get in the way of them following the letter of the law.

I think O'Reilly is off his meds again, because he made two different arguments over what judges should do, in the same fricking show. And let's just say Goodwin Liu supports reparations, how does that disqualify him from being a federal judge. During the Bush years when Democrats tried to block some of the Bush nominated judges, for their ideology or personal opinions, O'Reilly said that was wrong, and said they should get an up or down vote.

Now O'Reilly wants to change the rules again for a Democratic president. Back then O'Reilly said a judge should only be measured on his legal rulings, and that his personal opinions should not be considered. He said if his legal rulings are good, he should be allowed to get a promotion to a federal court. But that was when Bush was the president, now that Obama is the president O'Reilly has a different set of rules for his federal court nominees.

The Thursday 4-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 2, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Protecting Military Families. O'Reilly talked about the Snyder family and their issues with the Westboro Baptist Church protesting their sons funeral. In my book this is an outrage, nobody should protest at any funeral, especially the funeral of a military man. Because anyone who joins the military is a hero in my book, and they deserve all the respect we can give them. For once I agree with O'Reilly 100% about the Westboro Church group, they are scum if you ask me.

Go to www.matthewsynder.org and donate money to their legal fund. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in and fix that federal court ruling. Megyn Kelly was on to discuss it. And she was outraged, just as I am. Kelly said they have the right to protest a funeral, I say ok, change the laws, then have the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the crazy federal court rulings. If the law says you can protest a funeral, then that law needs to be changed. O'Reilly was wrong about the court costs, but he is right to be outraged over it.

Then Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it. O'Reilly said if you say the n-word to someone they can be arrested, when I am not so sure about that. Dr. Hill disagreed, and said it is protected by the 1st amendment. I am pretty sure that is covered under free speech. O'Reilly attacked the judges that made the Synder ruling, but Kelly and Dr. hill said they were both just following the law. O'Reilly can not seem to understand that. I say if that is the law, change it, make it illegal to protest a funeral. Dr. Hill said the judges just followed the laws, and O'Reilly said he was waffling, which is ridiculous, that's answering the question, not waffling.

Then O'Reilly talked about the hate from the Tea Party against the Democratic Congressman, and O'Reilly admitted some bad things were said. Dr. Hill said they did not break the law, but that they could be taken to court in civil court, for a possible hate speech. But he did say that he is not an attorney, so he is not sure. I do not think so, it's wrong to say a racist word, but it's not illegal. Now the spitting thing may be different, that may be a crime, in fact, I believe it is. Spitting on someone is not protected by the 1st amendment as free speech, as far as I know. And I am not an attorney either, but the guy was arrested then let go, so I am pretty sure he could have been charged with a low level crime.

Then O'Reilly attacked president Obama for saying his family may skip Easter church services. Obama said he may not go to church on Easter Sunday because it causes so many problems for the other church goers, with secret service searches and all that. O'Reilly said SOME people are hammering Obama for not going, yeah those SOME people are Republicans, nobody else cares. O'Reilly also criticized Obama for not going, as a good little Republican would.

Sally Quinn and Dinesh D'Souza were on to discuss it. Quinn pretty much defended Obama, and D'Souza pretty much agreed with O'Reilly. Crazy O'Reilly said we need the president to go to church to send a message that everyone else should go to church. As if he skips one day of church it is not sending a message, Quinn said she does not need him to go to church to send a message to anyone. As usual it was a ridiculous segment, that only right-wing stooges care about. O'Reilly simply reported it for ratings, because a few right-wing bloggers made a big deal about it on the internet.

Then the two Republican culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. They talked about a school that banned hugging, Hoover said it was going a little too far, that she would not ban it. Carlson agrees with the hugging ban, she said it was inappropriate touching. They they talked about Ronald McDonald, and some group wants to fire him. Carlson said it was ridiculous, and that Ronald should not be fired. Hoover agreed with Carlson. In my opinion this topic was ridiculous, and not news. They also talked about the burger king guy, and O'Reilly said he was scary. And we also found out that O'Reilly is afraid of Clowns. Guess what, I don't care. This segment was scary, scary ridiculous.

Then Megyn kelly was on again to talk about a law professor (Goodwin Liu) that Obama has nominated to be a federal judge. O'Reilly called him a loon, because the guy spoke out about giving black people Reparations. Megyn Kelly even defended the guy, and said Obama has a right to nominate liberal judges. O'Reilly just hates him because he is a liberal. He even called him a loon, which is a personal attack, a personal attack that O'Reilly said he never does. Billy said professor Liu is so far left he should be living in Cuba.

Then they talked about the naked singer video again, who cares, nobody but O'Reilly and a few right-wing idiots. Kelly said do not buy her album. They they talked about an Iowa town that wanted to change the holiday name for good Friday. It was one guy, and they never changed it. So it never even happened, it was a story about one man who wanted to change the name of the holiday. How is this news, it's not. it's basically time filler, so O'Reilly can pimp for ratings and ignore the current news that mostly makes Republicans look bad.

The last segment was the total waste of tv news time great American news quiz, with Cheryl Casone and Jamie Colby, two Republicans of course. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited hand picked Factor e-mails. The pinhead was John Cusack. He dared to say something bad about Ronald Reagan, Billy's Hero.

Here is what Cusack actually said as he was showing a video and guest-blogging at BoingBoing.net:
CUSACK: As you can see in this video now, watching the performance was like diving into an ocean of bad fashion and forced smiles. Dr. Pepper dancing and Mom Jeans from shore to shore... pre-Prozac in motion.... military ballet... Mandatory cheers and quasi-religious cult patriotics... the glory of the empire. A choreographed tribute to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. A celebration of diversity, unity, and fluorescent leggings.

Meanwhile, Reagan was dumping all the mentally ill and vets out on the streets to die, as a direct result of his policies.
And btw, in the news quiz O'Reilly lied about what Joe Biden said, he said Biden is fine with income redistribution. Then he played a tape of Biden, and he said if some people have to pay higher taxes to fund health care for all, he is fine with that. Then Biden said some people call it income redistribution, but he does not. So O'Reilly mis-quoted him, and lied about what he actually said.

Hey O'Reilly: What Happened To The America Haters
By: Steve - April 2, 2010 - 8:30am

Think back to the George W. Bush years (2001 to 2009). Back then anyone who spoke out against anything Bush did. O'Reilly called you an un-American Bush hater, who hates your country. He twisted the criticism or Bush, into you hate your country. Then he called you an un-American, America hater. For simply criticizing George W. Bush.

This was done on purpose, to make anyone who said anything negative about Bush look like they hate America. When they simply hated the policy Bush was putting in place, or trying to put in place. An in a lot of cases they were criticizing him for a war, or for not finding WMD's in Iraq, or for the illegal wiretapping, etc. Which all turned out to be a mistake by Bush.

So it turns out the Bush critics were right, yet O'Reilly called them un-American anyway, for simply speaking out against Bush. And if you did speak out against Bush you were labeled an America Hater. When it was Bush they hated, for the bad policies he was using, they did not hate America, they hated Bush.

O'Reilly twisted the criticism of Bush into you hate America, so those were the rules, if you criticize the president you hate America.

Here are a couple examples, in April of 2007 O'Reilly attacked Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Mark Cuban, in regards to their outspoken views. And it was a week long attack, not just one night, he spent the whole week attacking them every night. Which is a prime example of why the First Amendment should never be presided over by those in power.

O'Reilly suggested that Rosie O'Donnell had "crossed a line" and should reprimanded for being a "hater." He even called for ABC to fire her from the View tv show. In two separate broadcasts O'Reilly mentioned the word "hate" close to one hundred times when talking about O'Donnell.

On the screen O'Reilly had a graphic that said this: Helping the enemy - "Americans Always turn away from haters, that's exactly what Ms. O'Donnell has become."

Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Rosie O'Donnell has now crossed into anti American territory, she hates this government, the Bush administration, and she is using that hatred, she is venting her venom, for whatever reason, I am not a psychiatrist, and she is damaging the country. Surely you can't allow someone to come on the air everyday and vent hateful dishonest propaganda, you just can't do that.

I will never go on the View while she is there because I will not go up against a hater like her.
O'Reilly's standpoint is that O'Donnell, Sheen, and Cuban, are not merely exercising their right to free speech, they are preaching hate. O'Reilly believes that O'Donnell and "her radical pals" are telling the world the USA is a criminal nation and are somehow "aiding the enemy" whomever that may be this week.

O'Donnell, Sheen, and the others are doing no such thing, they are in fact doing the exact opposite in taking on a corrupt and criminal Bush administration, by encouraging the American people to question their government in an effort to protect American values and further prevent the spread of anti American hatred elsewhere.

In September of 2006 O'Reilly wrote this:
O'REILLY: Now all of those far left people were wrong and smeared Rove and others. Shouldn't they be forced to apologize? This is dangerous.

All over the world, millions of people believe America is evil, worse than the terrorists. And the unrelenting hate-Bush media in this country fuels that ridiculous concept.

Quite simply, the Bush haters are out of control and are hurting the country. It is patriotic to responsibly disagree with the president or with any administration. But it is wrong to smear public servants in any party.

So "Talking Points" is respectfully asking all of those who erroneously analyze the Plame affair to admit your mistakes, and be more responsible in the future. OK? We'll be waiting.
In March of 2003 O'Reilly even admitted he was wrong to call people demonstrating against the war un-American, he said this:
O'REILLY: I made a mistake yesterday. Can you believe it? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

I was wrong when I said that Americans who continue demonstrating against the war once the shooting begins are being un-American. I'm taking that back.

The word un-American implies some kind of lasting stigma and is a word of intimidation. Thus it is the wrong word to use in this scenario.

People who lawfully dissent should never be labeled un-American. Instead, I will call those who publicly criticize our country in a time of military crisis, which this is, bad Americans and it is my constitutional right to make that judgment and you are free to agree or disagree. You can call me a bad American for making the judgment.

If a baseball player consistently makes errors, I will call that person a bad baseball player and be accurate for doing so.
He actually compared calling a baseball player who makes a lot of errors a bad baseball player, to him calling people that spoke out against the Iraq war un-America. Which is just ridiculous, and not an equal comparison at all.

O'Reilly also said this in the same talking points memo:
O'REILLY: And it is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins, unless -- unless facts prove the operation wrong, as was the case in Vietnam.

Right now we have only opinions about the war. The facts will be known after Saddam is deposed and we find out exactly what he's been hiding, if anything.

So I said that a loyal American should hold on to sincere opinions but should exercise responsibility in expressing them if it hurts the morale of our troops or gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

And the same holds true for anti-war demonstrators. They should not be punished for any legal display, even in a time of war. But I have a right to consider them bad Americans. And I will.
In the 14 months since Obama has been the president O'Reilly has not called one person on the right who spoke out against Obama un-American, or an America hater, not once, ever.

It's a whole different story now, none of those rules apply anymore, because now we have a Democratic president, and he is a black man. So guess how many times O'Reilly has called someone on the right un-American, or an America hater, for speaking out against president Obama.

Answer: Zero, Zip, Nada, Never.

Now when someone on the right criticizes president Obama O'Reilly says nothing, they are not called un-American, they are not called America haters, and they are not called bad Americans, ever, not one time. In fact, he is one of the people on the right who is speaking out against Obama every night.

So if we use the O'Reilly rules (from the years when Bush was the president) everyone on the right is un-American for speaking out against Obama. Everyone on the right is an America hater, and everyone on the right is a bad American. Including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and especially Glenn Beck.

But none of that applies now, because we have a Democratic president, so the rules have changed. Now it's ok for O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, and everyone else on the right to say anything about president Obama. None of them are told to shut up by O'Reilly, none of them are called un-American by O'Reilly, none of them are called America haters by O'Reilly, and none of them are called bad Americans by O'Reilly.

Because in O'Reillyland those rules only apply when there is a Republican president.

Megyn Kelly Proves What A Partisan She Is (Again)
By: Steve - April 2, 2010 - 8:15am

Before you read this, remember that Megyn Kelly is supposed to be the part of Fox with no bias, her and Fox both claim she is a nonpartisan independent journalist. Now read what she said to Alan Colmes, then ask yourself if that is what a nonpartisan journalist does.

Yesterday on America Live, host Megyn Kelly offered a GOP talking points defense of the tea party movement's lies and hate to Alan Colmes. Here is the transcript.
COLMES: When you have people like John Boehner saying this is Armageddon, when you have people like Michele Bachmann saying he's a post-American president or he's anti-American, you're inflaming these people to be more angry and hopefully not violent but certainly tending towards--

KELLY: Are you inflaming them or are you validating feelings that are already there, Alan?

COLMES: When you mischaracterize what Obama is doing as "socialism," when there's no government takeover--

KELLY: Why is that a mischaracterization as opposed to their opinion?
Notice she does not even let him finish a sentence, just like her mentor O'Reilly. Moving on.
COLMES: It's not socialism. Socialism is a takeover of production -- of the means of production by the state. That's not going on--

KELLY: Alan, you know that is a short-form way of saying government is butting its way into many aspects of our lives.
then she just got to it, and quoted right from the GOP talking points.
COLMES: When you use words like socialism, or you put up a sign that compares Obama to Hitler or to Lenin or to Stalin, that is inaccurate. That's not an opinion, that is political inaccuracy.

KELLY: It started with President Obama saying he believes we should spread the wealth around to Joe the Plumber, and then he began to govern in a way that did exactly that. That is why people accuse him of socialism.
Wow, she actually let him finish one answer without being cut off. Kelly defends everything the Tea Party does, then moves on to directly quoting the GOP talking points as if she were working for the GOP. When if you think about it, she is, as are all the hosts at Fox.

The only anchor they have on the entire network who even tries to be impartial and objective is Shepard Smith. And btw, Megyn Kelly is sold to us as a nonpartisan independent anchor, when the facts show she is almost as bad as O'Reilly. That's not objective journalism, it's partisan spin, coming from an anchor who is billed as being nonpartisan.

Fox Proves Again What Low Lifes they Are
By: Steve - April 2, 2010 - 8:00am

They give the airhead Sarah Palin a show on Fox, called Real American Stories. So then they dishonestly use two interviews with LL Cool J, and Toby Keith on the Palin show. They imply they were interviewed for her show, when that is not the truth. And in fact, neither LL Cool J or Toby Keith did an interview with Palin ,or gave them permission to use the interviews.

LL Cool J is accusing the network of "misrepresenting" an old clip in its ads to make it appear that he was interviewed for Palin's show.

He said this: "Fox lifted an old interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & are misrepresenting to the public in order to promote Sarah Palins Show. WOW," LL Cool J wrote on his Twitter feed Tuesday night.

In response, Fox News cut LL Cool J from the ad and the show. "Real American Stories features uplifting tales about overcoming adversity and we believe Mr. Smith's interview fit that criteria," a Fox spokesperson said. "However, as it appears that Mr. Smith does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others, we are cutting his interview from the special and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career."

So they dishonestly try to make it look like he did an interview with Palin, then he calls them out for the dishonesty, then they insult him by wishing him the best with his fledgling acting career. When all he did was show how dishonest they are, and tell them not to use his interview without his permission, which is perfectly reasonable.

Then on top of that they get caught using another interview with Toby Keith that they did not have permission to use either. And this is the so-called fair and balanced News Network that claims to tell the truth. In their ads they tell people to watch Fox for the truth.

Country singer Toby Keith, another person featured in the "In Their Own Words" segments, is also upset at being caught off guard:
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Elaine Schock, a publicist for Mr. Keith said: "I have no idea what interview they are using. Toby's talked to Fox a number of times, and I had no idea that this was going to be on Sarah Palin's special. Fox has never contacted me - not now, not when they were putting this together, not at all. I have no idea what they're using."

In a subsequent email message, Ms. Schock said that the interview with Mr. Keith likely happened in early 2009. Asked if Mr. Keith was ever interviewed by Ms. Palin, Schock said, "Absolutely not."
A Fox News executive is claiming that the network e-mailed Schock on Monday to report the show is finally going to air, but Schock says she never received the message. "The last email I have from them is from January, 2009," she said, adding, "I'm not saying Fox did not email me. Maybe they spelled my name wrong. I'm just saying I never got an email or a phone call from them."

So if you nail them for being dishonest, you get insulted, then they do it a second time, and lie about sending e-mails to inform them they were using the interview, stay classy Fox.

Crazy Monica Crowley Defends Right-Wing Terrorists
By: Steve - April 1, 2010 - 9:30am

This is a woman, who from day one since Obama got elected has called him weak on terrorism. Bill O'Reilly has said the same thing, they have both called Obama weak and soft on terrorism a hundred times.

So now after Obama and the FBI arrest the christian militia group for domestic terrorism, crazy Crowley claims they were arrested because people on the right opposed the Obama health care reform bill. This is crazy talk, it's the kind of insanity we usually hear from Glenn Beck. Here is a sample of what she said in her March 31 Washington Times op-ed:
CROWLEY: Not surprisingly, then, once they had passed their widely unpopular health care bill, the Democrats moved quickly to delegitimize opposition to it. Their defiant move in the face of overwhelming popular resistance gave them another excuse to equate big-government progressives with good patriots and small government advocates with potentially violent nutcases who must be watched.

As if on cue, this week, Homeland Security, the FBI and the Department of Justice's Joint Terrorism Task Force carried out raids against a purported "Christian militia group" in the Midwest. According to reports, nine people have been charged with plotting to kill police officers with "weapons of mass destruction." The indictment describes the group as an "anti-government extremist organization" and the FBI special agent in charge, Andrew Arena, cast it as "radical and fringe." That may be, but the description has a conveniently familiar ring to it.
Notice that crazy Crowley calls it a a purported Christian militia group, like there is a doubt. When they do not even deny it, nobody does, and they had Bible Passages on their fricking website. Then she admits they may be a radical fringe group, may be, listen Crowley, if you plan to kill a cop then blow up more cops at the funeral you are a radical fringe group, there is no may be, they are, you fricking nut.

Then She wrote this:
CROWLEY: It's mind-blowingly coincidental that these raids on a supposedly "Christian" militia group would come at the exact moment that Democrats were trying to change public opinion on Obamacare by claiming persecution by their opponents. They have cast Tea Partiers, conservatives, independents, Christians and militia members as all cut from the same unstable, volatile cloth. How can anyone take their opposition to the Democrats' agenda seriously when they're toting guns and being raided by Homeland Security and the FBI? They're all nuts, don't you know?

The Democrats handle dissent by isolating it, smearing it and delegitimizing it in order to crush it. The warning should be clear: If you have small-government, traditional values, you may be considered by your own leadership to be an enemy of the state.
Once again she calls it a a supposedly Christian militia group, which denies reality. They are a Christian militia group, if you put Bible passages on your website and you claim God wants you to kill the police, you are a radical Christian militia group. Somehow Crowley does not seem to understand that.

Let's be clear, these people are terrorists. And they are terrorists of the worst kind, because not only did they target regular citizens, they targeted the police. They planned to kill a policeman, then blow up a bomb at his funeral to kill a lot of police. That is terrorism, and they are enemies of the State. What part of that does Crowley not understand.

This has nothing to do with the Obama health reform bill passing. That is just crazy, and it shows that Crowley is off in Glenn Beck land. These people were going to kill police, so I praise Obama and the FBI for stopping it. Instead of writing what a good job Obama and the FBI did, O'Reilly attacks him, and defends the militia group. Talk about crazy, that's it.

And now if you think Crowley is the only right-wing nut making those claims, you would be wrong. Other right-wing bloggers are saying the same things she is. They imply the timing of the arrest is suspect, except the FBI had a spy in the group and he says they planned to kill the police in April so they had to make the arrest now.

And btw, if Obama and the FBI had not arrested the militia group, and they had killed all the police they wanted to, Crowley would have attacked Obama for not stopping it. So he is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. No matter what Obama does these dishonest partisan political hacks like Crowley will attack him, even when it stopped a group of America haters from killing the Police.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com