The Friday 4-29-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 30, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Politics and killer tornadoes. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The devastation in Alabama and five other southern states is brutal, with billions in damage and more than 300 Americans dead. As The Factor reported last night, it looks like more deadly twisters could arrive in May because of cooling in the Pacific Ocean.

The feds must help Americans who have lost everything and Washington must keep an eye on the private insurance companies to make sure they live up to their commitments. The problem is, the government doesn't have any money. We are now borrowing $189-million every hour to keep the federal apparatus up and running. Astounding!

Perhaps partly because of that, a new poll shows that 57% of registered voters now disapprove of Mr. Obama's economic management. Almost everyone agrees that economics will decide the 2012 election, so this spells trouble for Mr. Obama. But his opposition remains undefined.

The Trump challenge has changed the landscape for the Republican Party - he is a force that is not controllable, as he demonstrated in Las Vegas Thursday when he used the 'm-f*****' word during a speech.

Democrats have to be worried because all the numbers say Mr. Obama is losing the confidence of the American people. So we expect Democrats to start using the Trump card, trying to create chaos within Republican ranks.
Notice that O'Reilly did not say a word about the Republican budget that calls for cutting the funding for disaster aid, like tornadoes. That's to cover for his right-wing friends, and to help them win re-elections. The rest of that is just wishful thinking from O'Reilly, and right-wing propaganda.

Because if the economy is still improving near the end of next year, and gas prices are lower, Obama will be re-elected no matter what spin O'Reilly puts out. Not to mention, O'Reilly ignores the fact that the polls also show Obama beating every possible Republican by 8 points or more.

Then O'Reilly had two pretend Democrats (as we call them DINO's) on to discuss it, who as usual agreed with O'Reilly, Lanny Davis and Maryanne Marsh. Davis said this: "It shows that his economic policies are not working, and the American people don't have confidence in him. It's disappointing, but it's a fact."

What a joke, Davis should just get it over with and switch to Republican, because he sure as hell is not a Democrat. The Obama economic policies are working, and that is a fact. The problem is that Bush had us so far in the tank it's gonna take 4 or 5 years to get things fixed. Marsh predicted that President Obama will blame his predecessor and the GOP. She said this: "The argument he's going to make is, how can you expect the Republicans who created these economic problems to fix these problems. That's why you should let me finish the job I started, because we are starting to turn the corner."

At least she almost sounded sort of like a Democrat, but not by much. O'Reilly finds these DINO's to go on and trash Obama, making it look like he is right. Hey O'Reilly, get some real Democrats on the show, you fraud.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to spin out his right-wing opinions. Massachusetts has taken steps to reduce the collective bargaining power of public sector unions, and Lou said this about it: "The vote in the State Assembly wasn't even close, but the president of the State Senate is adamantly opposed to this. Interestingly, the very liberal Governor Deval Patrick has taken a neutral position. This is a very important development."

Dobbs turned to the Obama administration's attempt to prevent Boeing from opening a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina. He said this: "The National Labor Relations Board is bringing a complaint against Boeing, saying they're retaliating against the machinist's union. This is silly on its face and it is outside any precedent for the NLRB."

O'Reilly called the action nonsensical, Billy said this: "This is the federal government telling a private company you can't move to a state where you could probably make more money. That's insane!"

And as usual O'Reilly takes the corporate side of an issue, so much for being a union guy and looking out for the little guy. What a shocker, not. O'Reilly failed to report the facts, and here they are:
Acting general counsel Lafe Solomon says the NLRB "found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."

So the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) says it will seek an order to require Boeing to place the second 787 production line in Washington state.
And btw folks, I can tell you for a fact that the NLRB is mostly a pro-business agency, they hardly ever side with the unions, so you know they found some serious violations to make such a ruling. But O'Reilly don't care about laws, unless it's a law he likes.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about students in Arizona who are protesting a new law that bars schools from teaching courses depicting America as a subjugator of Mexicans and Indians. Geraldo defended the students actions, he said this: "History is very subjective, and textbooks reflect that. The Alamo was a huge victory for the United States, but to Mexicans the Alamo was a grievous defeat. The students are fighting for the preservation of what they see as a necessary history from a point of view that is not always represented. There is a culture clash in Arizona and this is just part of it."

And of course O'Reilly made some crazy argument about how he is siding with Arizona taxpayers who object to the race-based courses, as if the people in Arizona that are against the law are not Arizona taxpayers, crazy O'Dummy said this: "I looked at the lesson plans, and they're teaching these kids that the United States should give California and Arizona back to Mexico, that kind of stuff. It's an advocacy course without any academic discipline."

Which is a lie, they are not teaching that, O'Reilly just made it up to make his argument sound better. The new law bans ethnic studies classes, and they do not say the US should give California and Arizona back to Mexico.

Then O'Reilly had another royal wedding segment, which I will not report on at all.

In the next segment Glenn Beck was on, and for once I agree with Beck on something, the royal wedding. Beck said this: "I don't care at all, it's a ridiculous waste of time. Someone called her the most perfect princess ever, and I say what are you talking about? Why is anybody watching this, how does it affect your life? The world is on fire!"

Beck also talked about the inordinate amount of attention paid to the Obama birth certificate issue. Beck said this: "I can't figure that one out. The Fed is printing money like toilet paper and we're talking about the birth certificate. Like that's going to make any difference at all!"

Which is funny because Fox made a living reporting on it with birther after birther, now they claim it was ridiculous, if that's true why did they spend so much air time reporting on it. What Beck said is ridiculous, it's like Coulter saying Fox barely reported the birther stuff at all, when they reported the hell out of it.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy and Arthel Neville for their picks as the week's dumbest people. Huddy went with the Florida woman who allegedly hired a hit man to off her husband. "Her lawyer is trying to convince the jury," Huddy reported, "that she set up this elaborate hoax and the husband was in on it. It was all supposed to be fodder for a reality show."

Neville chose the Man of Steel and his comic book creators. "Superman is saying he does not want to be associated with the U.S. anymore, " Neville said, "and he is renouncing his American citizenship. He wants to be a citizen of the universe."

O'Reilly went with NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who implied that this week's tornadoes may have been partly caused by global warming. Which is just more proof that O'Reilly is a liar when he says he believes in global warming. Because Brian Williams is most likely right, severe weather can be a sign of global warming. Only right-wing global warming loons flatly deny it, especially when the climate experts say it is true.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly In Denial About Obama Racism
By: Steve - April 30, 2011 - 10:00am

Okay, first let me say this will be my last posting about President Obama and racism against him. So I will let it all out on this one.

1) Fact: There has been a lot of racism against President Obama, and all of it is from the Republicans and the Tea Party.

I have the documented proof, from the racist protest signs, the racist t-shirts, the racist bumper stickers, to the watermelon photoshopped white house photos, to the Obama bucks with fried chicken and watermelon on them, to the Obama waffles, to the monkey cartoons, Rush Limbaugh calling him boy and man child, and on and on.

2) Fact: On 4-28-11 O'Reilly said there was no "Racial Overtone At All to claims that Obama's birth certificate was Phony."

Are you kidding me, do you think the right would question if a white man was born in America, of course not. Just the fact that they do not believe Obama is an American is racist, and they think that because he is black. No right-winger would ever question it if he was white. That alone proves racism.

Now do I think every single person who is a birther is a racist, of course not, but a hell of a lot of them are. Let's remember that most of the KKK were white Republicans. And a lot of those former KKK members are still around.

Mostly in the south, and they are almost all Republicans. This is a fact, and yet O'Reilly absurdly claims there was no racial overtone at all among the birthers. After he said if you call someone a racist you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is also ridiculous.

My Father is a racist, because he is 87 years old and he grew up with racism when it was ok to be a racist. But I could never prove it, unless you were in a room with him when he used the N-Word. So the O'Reilly standard of proof is just laughable.

Not to mention, how can he say there was no racism when he has no proof to back up his claims. Now let's remember this folks, and for the record I am a white man, and so were both my parents.

It does not matter what a white man thinks is racism, it only matters what a person of color thinks is racism. The fact that O'Reilly does not think anyone on the right has been racist against Obama is meaningless, it does not matter.

It only matter how black people, and other people of color see it. If they think it's racism, that is what matters. Because they see it as a person who has been the victim of racism, a white person has never been the victim of racism so they see things differently.

So the fact that O'Reilly does not see any racism means nothing, mostly because he says racist things himself, and will not even admit it. While denying there is any racism at Fox, which is also laughable, because it is documented, and some of it is even from O'Reilly himself.

In closing, opinions about racism only matter to people who are black, and people of color, because they are the victims of racism. What O'Reilly does or does not think is racism is meaningless, because he is white, and a white Republican.

I could care less what O'Reilly thinks is racism or not, I just know that it is out there, and that he ignores it, then denies it, because most of it is from the right, and they are his friends.

Dick Morris Predicts Trump Will Beat Obama
By: Steve - April 30, 2011 - 9:00am

But remember this, Morris is the same guy who said every far right Tea Party nut in the race for Senate would win, and the Republicans would get control of the Senate back, including Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, etc. And he was wrong about almost all of them, because they lost.

On the April 28 edition of Salem Radio's The Mike Gallagher Show, Morris said Trump is going to run, and that he could beat Obama.

So before you put much weight into the Morris predictions, think about this. Morris also predicted McCain would beat Obama in 2008, and that Hillary Clinton would lose to Rick Lazio in her Senate race.

Which goes to show that Morris is usually wrong, and yet, O'Reilly still has him on the Factor once a week to make his ridiculous and biased predictions. And I predict Trump will not even run, and if he does he will not win the Republican primary, let alone beat Obama.

Morris is ignoring the polls that have Obama beating every single Republican they match him up against, even with gas at $4.00 a gallon. Remember that polls only mean something to Morris when they agree with him, when they don't, he ignores them, just like his idol Billy O'Reilly.

The Thursday 4-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 29, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Donald Trump now leading the GOP pack. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A brand new Rasmussen Poll says that among likely voters in the upcoming Republican primaries, Donald Trump now leads the GOP pack with 19%. No question the 'birther' deal has helped Mr. Trump, at least in the short term, among committed Republicans.

However, among all Republican voters the situation changes drastically. A new Fox News poll says Mitt Romney leads with 19%, followed by Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and then Trump with just 8%. The Factor is hearing that the Democratic Party is overjoyed that Donald Trump is upsetting the GOP apparatus.

He has the money to mount a long campaign and obviously he's taking no prisoners, so the GOP establishment now has to deal with something it could not imagine just a few months ago. In the meantime, Democrats are trotting out a new strategy to exploit the situation, trying to brand Republicans as irresponsible and pointing to Trump.

President Obama is on the road raising huge money; he wants to have $1-billion at his disposal for 2012. Republicans, meanwhile, are trying to sort everything out. Advantage: Obama.
So what does it say about the GOP, that this birther clown Donald Trump is their top pick among likely voters, it says they are stupid. But notice that my pick for the GOP, Mitt Romney, is leading among all Republican voters. And btw folks, I am still predicting that Trump will not run, I believe the whole thing is to get publicity for Trump and his tv show.

Then the far-right loon Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it, she said that President Obama is very vulnerable because of the economy. Ingraham said this: "Wal-Mart said today that people are spending less because they don't have any money, the GDP is lower than forecast, the economy is cratering, and people have no faith in the economic policies of this country. Democrats don't want to talk about that, they want the debate to be about Trump."

And as usual she lied, because wal-mart people did not say they have no money because of the economy, that's a lie. They said people have less money to spend near the end of the month, not because of the economy, they said it was due to high gas prices. I read the story, and Ingraham lied her right-wing ass off about it.

Not to mention, the economy is not cratering, it's actually getting better, just not as fast as Obama or the people want it to be. My question is to the Republicans, where are the jobs you promised.

Ingraham also said this: "The establishment GOP, from 2004 to 2008, delivered us a loss of the House and Senate, the most left-wing person to ever become President, and a disastrous health care law. Whether it's Trump or someone else, the Republican candidate who wants to be taken seriously has to say, look, I'm going to deliver results."

What gets me is that after 8 years of Bush, how could anyone ever vote for a Republican President again. Open your eyes people, you should never vote Republican again, they will ruin the country, and make their rich friends richer while doing it.

Then O'Reilly had the meteorologist Joe Bastardi on to talk about the tornadoes that hit the south. While it is a real news story, it's about the weather, and this stuff should be on the weather channel, not a so-called hard news show.

In the next segment O'Reilly pulled the religion card again, he had Reverend Franklin Graham to assess President Obama as a man and as a president. Graham said this: "I like President Obama and I respect him, but I disagree with a lot of the policies and the direction he's taken our country. I'm not a fan of the policies that Democrats and Republicans alike got us into - we are in a mess, we are addicted to spending and it's infiltrated the entire government."

Graham also denounced the pastor who has garnered attention by saying there is no such thing as hell. "I believe the man is a heretic because the Bible is very clear that there is a hell. Not only is a person condemned to hell, they are thrown into hell. That's how serious this is, and no one will have an excuse when he stands before God."

Then Robin Leach was on for an entire segment to talk about the royal wedding. Which is a joke, and I sure as hell do not plan to report on this garbage. For a so-called hard news show there sure is a lot of soft news reported, as in tabloid garbage, good job O'Reilly, not.

then O'Reilly cried about some people in the media calling Donald Trump a racist because he doubted President Obama's citizenship. David Latterman even said it was racist on the Thursday Late Show.

The culture Warriors Alicia Menendez and Margaret Hoover were on to discuss it. Hoover said this: "This is a reflex of the left. Whenever anything goes wrong they play the race card and call people 'racist.' But the reality is that we are so far from the ugly and evil racism of the Bull Connor era. However, I do think that when Donald Trump questions how Barack Obama got into Harvard, it's not unrelated to race."

Earth to Hoover, a lot of it is racism, there are white Republican racists, that is a fact you and O'Reilly can not seem to understand, or admit to, you are both in denial. And the Trump thing about Obama and Harvard is for sure racism.

Menendez said this: "When you start calling people racist, it obscures the conversation we need to be having. But it's not coincidental that the first President to have this type of questioning just happens to be our first black President."

And of course O'Reilly denies any racism form the right, because he is an idiot, he even called out the pundits who cavalierly accused Donald Trump of bigotry, Billy said this: "Calling somebody a 'racist' without proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a vicious and hateful thing to do. So there was a cadre of people on national television doing a vicious and hateful thing."

Give me a break, how do you prove racism beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not a court case you moron. O'Reilly ruins any credibility he might have on the issue because he denies all racism, so he is a fool. And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Dagen McDowell and Steve Doocy on for the total waste of time news quiz.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

The O'Reilly Factor Ratings Are Crashing
By: Steve - April 29, 2011 - 10:00am

Have you noticed that O'Reilly has not said a word about his ratings recently, that's because his ratings are crashing. In just the last 2 weeks O'Reilly has lost an average of 600,000 total viewers a night.

The Factor total viewers went from 3.2 to 3.3 million a night, to 2.6 to 2.8 million a night. O'Reilly also had a 9% drop in the 25 to 54 demo for April.

And it's not just O'Reilly who is losing viewers at a rapid pace, it's almost every Fox News show. And what's really funny, is CNN had a 31% ratings increase in primetime for April, MSNBC was up 7%, while Fox was down 10% over the same time.

Now you know why O'Reilly has not mentioned his ratings lately, because they are crashing. He used to get 3.3 to 3.6 million viewers a night, with an average of 3.3 million, now he is around 2.5 to 2.8 million a night, and lucky to even break 3 million anymore.

Yes O'Reilly There Is Racism At Fox: From You
By: Steve - April 29, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is a good one, on the Tuesday Factor show O'Reilly attacked Rev. Wallace Charles Smith, whose church President Obama attended on Easter Sunday, as a "race activist" for claiming that Fox News provides a forum for racially charged statements.

O'Reilly also said this: "That's an outrageous charge, unless you can prove it. Pastor Smith cannot prove it. He's bloviating -- stirring up alleged bias for absolutely no reason."

And this: "I'm offended by the pastor's statement about Fox News. I've been here 15 years; I don't know anybody in this organization who's racist."

Try looking in the mirror sparky, because not only has almost everyone at Fox made racist statements, O'Reilly has done it himself three times that I can think of. Fox News has a history of hosts and guests who make race-baiting statements, in addition to its relentless promotion of the phony New Black Panthers controversy.

Here are a few examples of racism from O'Reilly:

1) September 2007: Discussing his dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."

O'Reilly added this: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'"

2) At a charity event a few years ago, for inner city kids, a black singing group was going to perform and they were late. O'Reilly asked where they were, and joked that he hoped they were not in the parking lot stealing his hubcaps.

3) February 2008: In a discussion of comments made by Michelle Obama, Bill O'Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according to "a friend who had knowledge of her, Michelle Obama is a very angry, and militant woman."

O'Reilly: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, all three of those comments by you were racist, as in r-a-c-i-s-t. So there is the evidence you wanted, and the proof that Pastor Wallace Smith was right.

And it's not just O'Reilly, Fox has a long history of racist comments. From Beck, Carlson, Ingraham, Kilmeade, Crowley, Varney, Breitbart, Asman, Stossel, Doocy, The Fox Nation, and on and on.

I could document racist statements from all those Fox employees, and it would fill the entire front page of this website. But according to O'Reilly there is no racism at Fox, and he can not find any.

Even though I just found three examples from O'Reilly alone, and 20 more from other Fox hosts and guests. O'Reilly is a joke, he denies reality, then attacks Pastor Smith for simply telling the truth.

Then the dishonest O'Reilly uses the truthful statement from the Pastor about racism at Fox, to smear Obama, which is about as dishonest as a so-called journalist can get.

The Wednesday 4-27-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 28, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Barack Obama and political madness. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we reported years ago, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. There was never a moment when we doubted that, and today the President finally released his long form birth certificate for political reasons.

The entire controversy actually helped the President because it marginalized folks who supported it - people who would never support Barack Obama under any circumstances.

When Donald Trump elevated the situation so that some people were actually starting to believe the President had something to hide, political mass was reached and out came the certificate.

The President could have stopped this madness years ago, but for political reasons he chose not to. As for Donald Trump, he's portraying himself as the man who forced President Obama to do the right thing. You can clearly see that both men are playing political games and Talking Points hopes they cease and desist for the good of the country.

Talking Points is still having trouble getting a handle on the real Barack Obama - he is an enigma to me. The dopey birth certificate and Muslim stuff distracts from the real issue - how exactly does President Obama see his country?

Hopefully, with the nutty stuff put to bed today, Americans can focus on what is really important: Does our President have what it takes to solve the country's vexing problems, and does he see America the way the majority of its citizens do, as a noble and fair country. That is what is vitally important.
Wow is O'Reilly ever a right-wing spin doctor. He says Obama is playing political games and that he could have stopped this years ago. Are you kidding me, he did, he tried to stop it years ago, but the right-wing loons would not let it go. Trump and the right are the only people playing political games. O'Reilly is a joke, what does it mean when he wonders how Obama sees the country. That sounds like he thinks Obama is not like the rest of us, which is just ridiculous, and total right-wing propaganda.

Then Dick Morris was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest to give an opinion, so it was one sided biased garbage. And my God did Morris go off the deep end, he pulled a Beck and went nuts, because nothing he said is true.

Morris said this: "The important point, is that this guy is running for re-election, not election. The time for questioning his background and character and values was 2008; now he has a record and I believe he will definitely be defeated because he's an incompetent and weak President who is in over his head. In 2010 he lost Congress because he was perceived as too liberal; in 2012 I think it will be because he doesn't have a clue."

Morris also insisted that Donald Trump should be taken seriously because "people have a special place in their heart for a guy who is a winner and gets things done and makes things work."

Then O'Reilly had another segment about the church Obama went to on Easter, really? Let it go fool, it's a non-story. O'Reilly says people keep bringing it up, yeah you and a few idiots on the right, but nobody else is, and nobody else cares.

O'Reilly had Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco NAACP on to talk about it, who endorsed the President's choice of churches. Brown said this: "Shiloh is a great and historic church, and it is ludicrous for anyone to make an issue over President Obama going to Shiloh. Prophetic preachers in the African American tradition are just telling the truth about what has been our past. We do not have racial parity in this nation, even though Mr. Obama is President."

So O'Reilly agreed and let it go, wrong, he again questioned President Obama's judgment, Billy said this: "If you go into a church where a pastor is preaching about the Constitution being a flawed document, and you're coming off the Reverend Wright controversy, why would President Obama put himself in that position?"

Let it go idiot, you are making a fool of yourself, and proving once again that you are a right-wing hack who hates Obama and will use anything to smear him. And this is the last time I will report on this nonsense.

Then Ann Coulter was on to talk about the royal wedding, which I sure as hell am not going to report on. She also talked about the birther issue, and I will report that, because what she said is so ridiculous it is laughable. Coulter contended that the birth certificate controversy was pushed mainly by liberals. She said this: "MSNBC covered this approximately 55 minutes out of every hour, but you didn't hear about this on Fox News. The liberals were promoting this because it made conservatives look crazy. The 'birther' story has been disproved for the eight-billionth time."

My God is she insane, Fox News had over 52 segments on the birther issue, just in the last couple weeks. To say liberals promoted it is madness, no liberal even talked about it unless a conservative mentioned it. Fox made a career out of the story, putting Trump on every show they have, and even making him a regular on Fox & Friends. Coulter is a lunatic, and a massive liar. And O'Reilly puts this hack on his show, making him as bad as she is.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly segment, which I do not report on because he is a comedian, and the segment is not news.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for the total waste of time did you see that segment. They watched a clip of Sarah Palin, barely concealing her glee, commenting on Katie Couric's departure from CBS News. Huddy said this: "She's sassy and sarcastic, and I like it. It's the way I would have answered a question about someone I had had issues with. Katie Couric made her feelings about Sarah Palin very clear. I also tend to be a little bit sassy, but the problem is that as an anchor or host you can alienate the audience."

What a shocker, not. A Republican likes Palin and hates Couric. Both O'Reilly and Huddy claim Couric had low ratings because she was somehow not nice to Palin, when all she did was ask her what newspapers she reads, and other simple questions, Palin just could not answer them. It's ridiculous to blame her low ratings on the Palin interview from 3 years ago. Couric is a woman in a mans game, and on CBS, who were already last in the ratings when she took over.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote.

Monica Crowley Calls Obama Un-American
By: Steve - April 28, 2011 - 10:00am

How does this lunatic stay on the air, oh yeah, she works for Fox News. On the Tuesday Factor show this right-wing idiot said President Obama does un-American things. Really now, name one.

She actually said this: Crowley On Why Birtherism Still Has Traction: Obama Does "Un-American Things That Give Impression He's "Not One Of Us"



To begin with, the birther story has no traction with anyone but the far-right loons. Then on top of that President Obama has not done anything un-American. In fact, if anyone is un-American it's Crowley for saying the President does un-American things, as if he is not one of us.

And the worst part is O'Reilly sat there and let her say it without saying a word, but if a liberal had called Bush un-American O'Reilly would rip them to pieces and never allow them back on his show.

O'Reilly Claims America Is A Race Neutral Society
By: Steve - April 28, 2011 - 9:00am

Talk about denial, O'Reilly is the king of denial. Because nobody in their right mind would ever claim we are a race neutral society. Hell, I would bet 40% of the country is racist, and half the Republicans are probably racist.

Crazy O'Reilly said this: "I Think Barack Obama is The Poster Guy For Being Able to Succeed in a Race-Neutral Society"



You have to be insane to claim America is a race neutral society. And that is exactly what O'Reilly did, proving he is either stupid, insane, a liar, or maybe all three.

The Tuesday 4-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 27, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Three negatives for President Obama this week. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: First of all, more Americans are depending on government assistance than at any time in the nation's history. So under President Obama the welfare state is growing fast, and that is very bad news for him. On the poll front, a survey shows that 60% of independents who have been hit hard by rising gas prices say they will not vote for President Obama next time around.

Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Obama attended Easter services at the Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington. The pastor is Wallace Smith, a race activist who apparently believes the American establishment, including some media outlets like FNC, is racist and designed to keep black Americans down.

So the question becomes, why would the President of the United States sit in a church run by a guy named Wallace Smith? I can't answer the question, but I'm offended by the pastor's statement about Fox News. If Pastor Smith wants to debate it, he's welcome here anytime, but I predict he will not show up because he can't back up his racially charged statements.

Again, does the pastor deserve being legitimized by the President of the United States?
And the Obama smear job #201 was put out by O'Reilly. Has anyone but me noticed that O'Reilly uses his TPM to smear Obama every night, while never saying a word about how good the economy is doing. O'Reilly digs up all these bogus smears against Obama, like who the pastor was at a church he went to, and never reports any of the good news, like lower unemployment, more jobs, etc.

And btw, last year Obama did not go to church on Easter, and O'Reilly slammed him for that, so this year he goes, and O'Reilly slams him for the pastor that was there, what a joke, Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he dont. And btw, the pastor is right, there is a lot of racism against Obama at Fox, that is a fact, O'Reilly just denies it.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "You're trying to make this into Jeremiah Wright II, but you're wrong to do that. The President goes to a church - is he supposed to 'google' the Pastor first and know everything that guy has ever said? People who don't like the President are so desperate to find anything they can."

Bingo, for once Colmes is exactly right, people like O'Reilly and Crowley don't like Obama so they use any lame excuse they can to smear him, just like this pastor issue.

Crowley said this: "If the President is wondering why the birth certificate issue still has traction, it's because he continues to do things like this that are not anti-American, but are un-American. This all feeds into this idea, fair or not, that Obama is not one of us."

Now that is unreal, and Monica Crowley is a right-wing idiot. He does un-American things, and he is not one of us? What the hell does that mean, name one thing he has done that is un-American. Crowley is a jackass, and she is the un-American one for saying the President is un-American.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right loon Michele Bachmann on to discuss it. Bachmann said this: "It seems to me that the President wasn't very well served, and he should have people looking out for him. It seems like nobody thought this through."

Except nobody cares who the pastor at a church is, except for a few loons on the right, and nobody would have even known about it if a few loons on the right had not made a story out of it. It's a non-story, and ridiculous to even report on.

Then Professor Juan Hernandez and the right-wing Fred Burton were on to discuss Mexico. Burton said this: "If you look at security in Mexico over the past 18 months, it is certainly deteriorating. In essence, there is no state inside Mexico that is not touched by drug violence."

Hernandez argued that the situation in Mexico is not as dire as many reports indicate. He said this: "We have a friend to the south of us, and President Felipe Calderon is fighting the drug war. Yes, this is an extremely serious situation, but I think we are on the right track and we have to continue supporting our neighbor."

Then crazy O'Reilly said military intervention may be inevitable, Billy said this: "We believe the situation is quickly deteriorating and eventually U.S. troops may have to become involved. The Mexican government can't control it."

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about the proper role of government in various areas of life. Really, are you kidding me, O'Reilly has a far right loon who hates the government on to talk about the government. What a joke, it is so ridiculous I will not even report all of it. Stossel basically said the federal government should not do anything, except pay for the military. Proving he is a total idiot.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to discuss the ruling by New York City libraries that viewing pornography on library computers is perfectly legal. Really, this is the most important legal case you idiots could find to talk about.

Guilfoyle and Wiehl both agreed that this is stretching the First Amendment beyond reasonable limits. And of course O'Reilly agreed with them. Hey morons, it's called the 1st amendment, read it. What's funny is how the right claims to support the Constitution, except when they disagree with a court ruling. Get over it, you either have a 1st amendment, or you don't, there is no in-between. You may not like it, but that does not give you the right to change it.

After conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called Donald Trump a "clown" and compared him to Al Sharpton, the billionaire placed a call to him, Krauthammer said this: "He was gracious and calm on the phone, which indicated to me that he is serious about running for the presidency."

But Krauthammer also said this: "He's like Al Sharpton in the sense that he is slick, smooth, and spouts provocative nonsense that will distract any presidential debate. One example is the 'birther' nonsense, and his idea of seizing Libyan and Iraqi oil is nutty. That kind of talk is what you expect from a guy at a bar at closing time with slurred speech. I'm not questioning him as a businessman or as an honorable American, this is not a serious candidacy."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Still Denying Racism Against Obama
By: Steve - April 27, 2011 - 10:00am

Now this is funny, President Obama is a black man, and it is a fact that there are millions os racists in America, especially in the Republican party, and yet, O'Reilly still claims there is no racism at all against Obama with the birther nonsense.

O'Reilly dismissed the possibility that race is a motivation for some Obama critics, Billy said this: "This Racism Deal, Isn't This Boring?"



Talk about being in denial, O'reilly always tries to downplay the nuts on the right while making the left seem like the unhinged party in the world of politics. He has an obsession with describing the left as loons, but he never calls anyone on the right loons, this guy is the biggest hypocrite in the history of America.

How can you deny racism against Obama when we have seen it a hundred times, it's everywhere, and it all comes from people in the Republican party, or the Tea Party. To deny it you have to stick your head in the sand, because it is all over the internet.

More Evidence Fox Has A Right-Wing Bias
By: Steve - April 27, 2011 - 9:00am

What a shocker, Fox and the right blame Obama for high gas prices, even though he has nothing to do with it. And in fact, when Bush was the President and liberals said Bush was to blame for high gas prices, the very same people at Fox said the President has nothing to do with gas prices.

Now those same dishonest so-called journalists are blaming Obama for high gas prices, when recent polls say the opposite.

Fox News and the rest of the far-right press have been relentlessly attacking Obama in recent days over rising gas prices, claiming the president is to blame for the latest, seasonal increase. (Surprise! The accusation is baseless.) The robotic condemnation isnít exactly a surprise, since the conservative media blame Obama for everything. Whatís telling is how few Americans buy the partisan, ODS cries about gas pump prices. From a recent McClatchy-Marist poll:
36% of U.S. residents think the volatility in the Middle East is at fault while 34% say U.S. oil companies are the culprits. Only 11% hold President Obama and the Democrats responsible, while 7% find fault with Congressional Republicans.

Three percent of Americans blame state and local taxes, and one in ten -- 10% -- are unsure.

"There's plenty of blame to go around for high fuel prices in the minds of Americans," says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

"Although this is an issue that hits close to home, right now it isn't being laid at President Obama's doorstep."
The smart people know what the problem is, and it has nothing to do with President Obama. The oil speculators have dishonestly bid up the price of oil, and the dishonest oil companies use that as an excuse to rob the American people. They do it to get richer, and that is a fact.

There is no reason for oil prices and gas prices to be so high, there is no shortage of oil, and in fact, there is plenty of oil. Gas should be about $2.50 cents a gallon, the rest is dishonest and greedy oil companies and speculators who want to get richer off the backs of the American people.

It is a joke to blame Obama, and anyone who does is a fraud of a journalist. In fact, if you even believe Obama is to blame in any way, you are just stupid.

The Monday 4-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 26, 2011 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Why Trump is catching on. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Like him or not, you have to accept that Donald Trump is now setting the political agenda in the USA. Trump's message is very simple: America is decline, we are not the country we used to be, and it's all the fault of President Obama and the Democratic Party.

It's a simple but powerful message. However, some in the Republican Party see danger ahead because Trump is so bombastic. GOP intellectual Charles Krauthammer calls Trump a 'provocateur and clown' who will harm the Republican Party.

Talking Points believes that Donald Trump can have an impact on the primary vote - his populist message will appeal to Americans fed up with phony politicians, and there is no Republican candidate who will go after President Obama as hard as Trump will.

So there's no question that Donald Trump has emerged as a political force in the country. He's injecting unbridled passion, and perhaps chaos, into the upcoming campaign.
And all that is 100% right-wing propaganda, from O'Reilly, the so-called non-partisan Independent. Trump is not catching on with anyone but the right, he is a clown, and he is not a political force with anyone but a few idiots on the right. Even most Republicans reject him, like Rove and Krauthammer, so how the hell is Trump going to win anything. Trump is a birther, and a total joke, and he will never win the Republican primary, let alone be the next President.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Trump. Hume said this: "He is the most interesting political figure out there at the moment. He's colorful, he's controversial, he's extremely rich and successful, and people see him as a guy who will kick butt and take names. But if he's going to be a serious candidate, he has a lot of work ahead of him - he will have to make revelations about the details of his businesses and he will have a level of scrutiny he's never had before."

Hume also said that Democratic leaders are thrilled with Trump's ascendency, he said this: "They think the 'birther' issue is a big loser for Republicans, and they feel that the President may be vulnerable unless the Republicans nominate a freakish candidate, and I think Democrats look at Trump and say he's a freakish candidate."

Then O'Dummy added that Democrats are gleeful because "Trump can eviscerate the other Republican candidates." Not only that, they are gleeful because Trump is a birther that nobody but a few right-wing loons take serious, and I still say he will not even run. I believe it's all a publicity stunt, and O'Reilly has fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to talk about Obama and racism. Crazy O'Reilly denies there is any racism, Williams said this: "Barack Obama could not be President if it was not for white voters, but race is going to be a factor. His strongest opposition comes from older white voters; his strongest support comes from younger voters and minorities."

So even the right-wing stooge Juan Williams admits there is some racism, but of course Ham and O'Reilly ignored him and denied it anyway.

Ham accused liberals of being far too eager to hurl accusations. She said this: "The left is always using racism as a card to play on whoever happens to disagree with the President. They cry 'wolf' on this frequently, but many of the disagreements with President Obama are based on policy."

O'Reilly disagreed with media figures who say anyone who believes the President is a Muslim is guilty of racism, Billy said this: "If you call somebody a 'Muslim' that is a religious description, but it has nothing to do with race."

In the next segment O'Reilly had Stuart Varney on to talk about the subsidies oil companies get. Varney said this: "There are three main ones. They get a deduction for the cost of exploring for oil, they get a deduction because they are a domestic manufacturer, and there is a tax break for smaller and older wells. The government wanted to encourage us to go out there and get our own oil out of the ground, so they give a subsidy or a credit. But I don't want any subsidies for any business."

The Factor agreed that oil subsidies should be ended, Billy said this: "These are obsolete - the oil companies don't need them any more because they make so much dough."

And for once I agree with O'Dummy, why should the taxpayers give subsidies to oil companies, that make billions in profit robbing the American people at the pump, it's crazy.

Then O'Reilly had pastor Jack McKinney on who says there is no hell, and he also cast doubt on eternal damnation. McKinney said this: "Evangelicals and other segments of the church teach that there is a literal hell for anyone who doesn't accept Jesus, and I think that's a theological and historical mistake. By teaching a literal and eternal hell, we turn God into a monster. You are talking about eternal damnation for people, which is a psychologically debilitating thing. I see good and committed gay Christians who have been told they are abominations and they are going to hell forever, and it does tremendous damage." O'Reilly argued that the notion of eternal punishment serves an earthly good, Billy said this: "The problem with this 'no hell' business is that you have to deal with the Hitlers and the Pol Pots and these tyrants, and if you say there is no hell, then there isn't any regulation of behavior at all."

Wow is that insane nonsense from O'Reilly, he is saying that bad people will not be so bad if they think there is a hell. My God is that ridiculous, it's laughable, O'Reilly is nuts. Bad people will do bad things, no matter if they think there is a hell or not. And the fact that they might think there is a hell does not regulate their behavior at all. O'Reilly needs to up his medication, because he is losing his mind.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about more leaked documents from WikiLeaks. Goldberg actually defended them, he said this: "I think you have to distinguish, between the person who stole the documents and WikiLeaks. If WikiLeaks was not in collusion with that person, I don't think they should be prosecuted."

And for once I agree with Goldberg, if they get leaked info they should report it, just like a real journalist would. So for once, Goldberg is right. But of course O'Reilly disagreed, because he is not a real journalist.

O'Dummy argued the opposite position, Billy said this: "If I got leaked WikiLeaks documents, I wouldn't put them on the air. This is an anti-American organization that is encouraging people to come to them with stolen top secret documents, and I think you can make a strong case that they are guilty of espionage."

And that just shows that O'Reilly is not a real journalist, because a real journalist would air the leaked documents, especially when they are all over the internet anyway for everyone to see. O'Reilly would ignore them because he claims they would hurt America, which is not what a journalist should be doing. Hurt us or not, a real journalist would report it.

And the last segment was the Factor Reality Check, which I do not report on because it's a joke.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Ignored The Ensign Resignation Story
By: Steve - April 24, 2011 - 10:00am

What a shocker, not. The Republican Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), the subject of an ongoing ethics investigation, announced his resignation Thursday, effective May 3. And Billy never said a word about it.

Leaders of the Senate Ethics Committee released a statement hinting that their probe had found evidence of wrongdoing, and Ensign acknowledged that his resignation came in part to avoid formal charges.

Now think about this, when the Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel was accused of wrongdoing, and before he was proven guilty, O'Reilly reported the hell out of that story, and even called for Rangel to resign his chairmanship.

But when a Republican Senator is involved in something like that, O'Reilly not only does not call for him to resign, he ignores the entire story and never even reports it.

I guess that is some of that so-called fair and balanced non-partisan journalism O'Reilly claims to do, that is really partisan bias. If Ensign were a Democrat, O'Reilly would be all over the story, but since he is a Republican he totally ignores it.

Top 5 Facts You Should Know About Taxes
By: Steve - April 24, 2011 - 9:00am

And it goes without saying, you will never see any of this information reported by O'Reilly, or any of the right-wing stooges he has on every night.

For three decades we have conducted a massive economic experiment, known as supply-side economics. The theory goes like this: Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity, so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates.

The late Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist who wanted to shut down public parks because he considered them socialism, promoted this strategy. Ronald Reagan embraced Friedman's ideas and made them into policy when he was elected president in 1980.

For the past decade, we have doubled down on this theory of supply-side economics with the tax cuts sponsored by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003.

You would think that whether this grand experiment worked would be settled after three decades. But economics is not like that. It is not like physics with its laws and arithmetic with its absolute values. Tax policy is something the framers left to politics. And in politics, the facts often matter less than who has the biggest bullhorn.

The lunatics who once ran campaigns featuring doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking are now busy marketing the dogma that tax cuts mean broad prosperity, no matter what the facts show.

As millions of Americans prepare to file their annual taxes, they do so in an environment of media-perpetuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know.

1) Poor Americans Do Pay Taxes

They pay lots of taxes, just not any federal income taxes. This year the first $9,350 of income is exempt from taxes for singles and $18,700 for married couples, just slightly more than in 2008. That means millions of the poor do not make enough to owe income taxes.

But they still pay plenty of other taxes, including federal payroll taxes. Between gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, phone taxes, and other taxes, no one lives tax-free in America.

When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent.

The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 a year pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more a year.

2) The Wealthiest Americans Don't Carry The Burden

This is one of those often used canards. Sen. Rand Paul, the tea party favorite from Kentucky, told David Letterman recently that the wealthy do pay most of the taxes in this country.

The Republicans fill the media with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.

And while it's true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes, people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That's because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages.

Think about this folks: The billionaire Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800 a year.

3) The Wealthy Are Paying Less Taxes

The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.

And btw, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)

4) A Lot Of The Very Rich Pay No Income Taxes

John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet in the gold market the next year. Paulson then made $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.

Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.

In 2007, Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income, not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.

The Republicans fought to keep the tax rate on hedge-fund managers at 15 percent, arguing that the profits from hedge funds should be considered capital gains, not ordinary income.

What most people do not know is that hedge-fund managers don't even pay 15 percent. So long as they leave their money, known as carried interest, in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay taxes when they cash out, which could be decades from now for younger managers.

How do these hedge-fund managers get money in the meantime? By borrowing against the carried interest, often at absurdly low rates-currently about 2 percent.

Lots of other people live tax-free too. Donald Trump's tax records show that for four years early in his career. He paid no taxes for two of those years.

5) Since Reagan, Only The Wealthy Have Gained Significant Income

The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Bill O'Reilly, everyone at Fox News, and all the conservative marketing groups tell us relentlessly that lower tax rates will make us all better off.

"When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase," according to Daniel J. Mitchell, an economist at Heritage Foundation. He says that supply-side economics is "the simple notion that lower tax rates will boost work, saving, investment and entrepreneurship."

And that my friends is a total load of right-wing bull. Because when Reagan was elected president, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. He cut it to 50 percent and then 28 percent starting in 1987. It was raised by George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and then cut by George W. Bush. The top rate is now 35 percent.

Since 1980, when Reagan won the presidency promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the vast majority - the bottom 90 percent of Americans - has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent.

Those at the top did a whole hell of a lot better. The top 1 percent's average income more than doubled to $1.1 million. While the top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million.

The Truth About The Federal Deficit
By: Steve - April 23, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends at Fox News and in the Republican party go on and on about how the problem with the deficit is spending. O'Reilly has said a hundred times that the big problem is too much federal spending. And virtually every right-winger in America says the same thing.

But guess what, it's not true, it's a lie. The problem is not spending, the problem is loss of revenue from the recession Bush caused. The main problem is loss of revenue, and the rest of the deficit is from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that he did not pay for, and the Bush tax cuts.

Fox News figures have adopted the GOP talking point that the nation's deficit is a "spending problem, not a revenue problem." But numerous economic experts have said that decreased revenue is a major cause of the deficit.

Republicans even deny that it's a loss of revenue problem, on April 13th House Speaker John Boehner said "Washington Has A Spending Problem, Not A Revenue Problem." And virtually every person at Fox agreed with him, Rove, Varney, O'Reilly, Hannity, Doocy, and on and on.

And now the facts: Pulitzer prize winner for Economics Professor Paul Krugman pointed this out, he showed that Government spending has continued to rise on its Pre-Crisis trend while revenue has Plunged."

So we are not spending any more now than we were before the recession, as a percent of GDP. That means the problem is not too much spending, it's a loss of revenue.

From the article:
What happened after the crisis? Spending continued to grow at roughly the same rate -- a bulge in safety net programs, offset by budget-slashing at the state and local level. GDP stalled -- which is why the ratio of spending to GDP rose. And revenue plunged, leading to big deficits.

But I'm sure that the usual suspects will find ways to keep believing that it's all about runaway spending.
And btw folks, Professor Krugman is a liberal, but it's not only liberals who are saying the problem is a loss of revenue not runaway spending, some Republicans are saying it too.

In an interview with David Stockman, a former Office of Management and Budget director under President Reagan, he responded to Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget plan and said this:
STOCKMAN: I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. It's a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes.
In a March 4TH column, Pulitzer Prize winner and economics author David Cay Johnston wrote this: "There is a simple, factual way to describe what is happening to our government: We have a revenue problem."

In an October 2010 post on his blog, Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review Group, analyzed the deficit and concluded that it was "mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession."

In a February 3rd Fiscal Times column headlined, "Sorry, the Federal Deficit Isn't a Spending Problem," Fiscal Times contributor Lawrence Haas wrote this:

What's driving our future budget deficits is not spending, per se, but two societal realities.

First, like most of Europe as well as China and Japan, the United States is growing older as a society. Second, health care costs continue to grow far faster than inflation and even faster than the economy.

While Haas noted that the "deficit problem" is not a "revenue problem," he also wrote this: "If you want to blame our looming deficits on policy changes, you would look not to spending but, rather, taxes -- specifically, to President Bush's huge tax cuts of 2001 and 2003."

Simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire would reduce annual deficits to about 3 percent of GDP (which is considered economically sustainable) over the next decade, though they would start rising again later on due to soaring health care costs.

Does that mean "the deficit problem is a revenue problem?" No, it means the deficit is what it always is - a mismatch between revenues and spending.

And all of that proves O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are lying. Because just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would reduce the deficit to about 3% of GDP a year, directly disputing the spin O'Reilly is putting out.

For people that do not know, O'Reilly said that if they cancel the Bush tax cuts it would not reduce the deficit at all, and now we know that is a total lie. In fact, he argued for the Bush tax cuts, saying they would help the economy and create jobs, which is also a lie, because it never happened.

The Friday 4-22-11 Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - April 23, 2011 - 9:00am

There was no TPM because Juan (The Republican) Williams hosted the show for O'Reilly. And as usual he sounded just like his idol O'Reilly. He started by slamming Obama and having the far right idiot Andrew Breitbart on to help him.

Breitbart accused the President of fanning the flames of discontent. He said this: "This is a very dangerous strategy, because I'm worried about class warfare. There's a bad economy, high gas prices, and now Americans are being pitted against one another. I'm very nervous about the tone President Obama is setting for this country. We are in the middle of a philosophical battle."

What a joke, there is no bad economy, the economy is doing great. The only bad thing now is high gas prices, so Breitbart is a liar.

Then the liberal radio talk show host Leslie Marshall endorsed the President's call for higher taxes on the wealthy. She said this: "He is going back to his original promise to those of us on the left who voted for him. He has always said he didn't want an extension of the Bush tax cuts. And we already have class warfare - the 'haves' are not taking care of the 'have-nots' and the middle class is being annihilated in America."

Then Williams had 2 guests on to discuss the high gas prices, one right-wing idiot, and a consumer guy who told the truth. Tyler Slocum said this: "Speculators are driving oil prices far beyond the supply and demand fundamentals. We have had cases of energy companies and hedge funds committing fraud and manipulation. BP paid a fine for manipulating the entire U.S. propane market, and a hedge fund was found guilty of manipulating natural gas."

Investment manager Jim Lacamp accused the Obama administration of playing politics. He said this: "Oil prices are going higher for a number of reasons and this is nothing more than a political power play by Obama. Chinese demand for oil is accelerating and problems in the Middle East are not going away. When you cut down the nuclear industry and you shutter all the upcoming projects, you're going to have to use more oil and gas. We aren't drilling in the United States and we have no coherent energy policy."

Old Jim should get an award for right-wing spin, because almost nothing he said is true. Gas is $4.00 a gallon for no reason, except to make the oil companies and the speculators richer, and that is a fact, Jim just refuses to admit it.

Then Williams had the dishonest hack of a military analyst Col. Peters on, who of course supported John McCain and slammed the President. This Col. Peters is a joke folks, he is a partisan hack, and no matter what Obama does he slams it.

Crazy Peters said this: "John McCain is a hero who has stood up for freedom all his life, and he is trying to do the job that our fraidy-cat president refuses to do. The rebels are willing to stand up against Qaddafi's mercenary thugs and tanks and artillery because they want better lives and a little freedom, so I'm 100% on Senator McCain's side. Libya matters strategically, and if we had allowed Qaddafi to triumph and slaughter his own people, it would have turned back the whole 'Arab awakening.'"

Then Geraldo was on to talk about Libya and Ralph Peters' assessment. Geraldo said this: "I have deep respect for Col. Peters, and I agree that sending the drones is a step that is absolutely necessary. The rebels in the eastern part of Libya are disorganized, ill-equipped, undisciplined bunch of semi-cowards. But people in Misrata in the western part of Libya have kept their city free of Qaddafi by fighting block-by-block and they are having some success."

Rivera then turned to California, where former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is under fire for commuting the sentence of convicted murderer Esteban Nunez, son of a powerful politician. "No pardon or commutation is popular," Rivera conceded, "and you can hate Governor Schwarzenegger for this, but he has the absolute right to do it."

Juan talked about the obvious favoritism that is allowing a convicted killer to walk free, he said this: "This is only possible because his daddy is the former Speaker of the Assembly and a friend of Governor Schwarzenegger. Where is the justice?"

Then Williams had a waste of time segment on bullying, with some quack Fox News medical analyst Marc Siegel. Which I will not report on because it's not actual news.

And the last segment was an even bigger waste of time, Williams played a re-run interview O'Reilly did with the Republican actor James Caan.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots vote.

The Thursday 4-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 22, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called What do affluent Americans owe the country? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On this Holy Thursday, it is fitting that President Obama continues his campaign to urge Americans to give to the poor. The problem is that the President is not asking for voluntary charity; he wants to mandate it through higher taxes on the wealthy.

Talking Points does not believe that cutting federal spending is breaking the backs of the poor. Quite the contrary, if the President continues racking up debt, all of our backs will be broken because the American economy will collapse.

There is merit in Mr. Obama's theme that a just society should help the downtrodden, but many 'social justice' programs don't work. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and studies show that conservative Americans give more to charity than liberals.

So it's unfair for the President to label Republicans and conservatives as uncaring, and the President should get off that. What needs to be done now is massive budget cutting while instituting smart programs. Smart policy, not lavish spending, is the key to America's future success.
Here we go again O'Reilly crying about taxes for the millionaires, get over it already. Then he says Conservatives donate more money than liberals, yeah that's because Conservatives have more money to donate. But what's really ridiculous is the comparison he made.

To compare donations by Conservatives, to Republicans in Congress wanting to cut spending from mostly the poor is insane. The comparison makes no sense, and just shows how much of a right-wing stooge O'Reilly is, always defending the rich and the Republicans, while claiming to look out for the little guy.

Now get this, who does he have on to discuss it, fricking Laura Ingraham. O'Reilly asked her what she and other wealthy Americans owe to the less fortunate. She said this: "My Christian views, compel me to contribute. But that's very different than the government telling us that we must give a portion of our income for programs that don't work and haven't worked."

Ingraham argued that a vibrant economy is the best way to help the poor. She said this: "An America in decline is going to be really bad, especially for poor people. America becoming more prosperous is an America that gives people across the board a shot at wealth and a better life for their children. Your staff puts in more time putting out The O'Reilly Factor than this President spends focusing on how to grow this country, how to make sure we're out of debt, and how to get this country going again. I don't see a sense of urgency to fix a country that is going down the tubes if we don't stop it."

What a load of right-wing garbage, and not one Democratic guest to provide the balance and give the counterpoint. O'Reilly does that on purpose to make it look like he is right, by having another person on to agree with him. It's totally one sided, right-wing spin, in the so-called no spin zone. One lies, and the other swears to it.

Then O'Reilly had the con-man Glenn Beck on to talk about Andrew Breitbart, who was in an interview on MSNBC. Beck complimented Breitbart's vigorous self-defense. Beck said this: "Breitbart is absolutely fearless. He's a little like you, he walks right into the lion's den. How long can MSNBC stay in business doing what they're doing?"

Then the insane O'Reilly asked the ridiculous Beck about the economy, Beck issued a stinging indictment of policy makers, particularly the Federal Reserve. Beck said this: "Ben Bernanke is a brilliant guy, but all of this is not working. In the last eight years your dollar has lost 20% in value, and as they devalue our dollar, the price of oil goes up. This isn't working for the American people and everyone around the world says we're insane for what we're doing."

What's funny is they never said a word about the softball interview Breitbart got on MSNBC with Dylan Ratigan, they only reported on the tough interview.

The next segment was about the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that police officers can not search a car simply because they smell marijuana. O'Reilly talked to attorneys Geoffrey Nathan and Wendy Murphy. Murphy said this: "Massachusetts voters chose to decriminalize the possession of a small amount of marijuana, and the argument is that if it's not a crime, you have to leave people alone, even if they are in their car. But cops should be able to take action."

Nathan defended the court's ruling as perfectly reasonable. Nathan said this: "This case pertained to the rights of a passenger who was ordered out of a stopped motor vehicle. It's an individual's right to decide what they want to do. I'm worried about the police intrusion on my civil liberties."

And of course O'Reilly agreed with the Republican Murphy and disagreed with the Democrat Nathan. O'Reilly said this: "I can't believe that you're comfortable having people driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike stoned! You think that's great? What's your right when you get whacked by that guy and you're dead?"

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, right now millions and millions of people are driving stoned. Get a clue man, in fact, the guy driving next to you right now is probably stoned, laws or not, you dumbass.

ThenO'Reilly had a new feature called "From the Gut" with another Republican of course, Greg Gutfeld. Here is what Gutfeld said about Nancy Pelosi's assertion that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do: "She's saying that two parties are one too many. She wants an ideology as rigid as her face."

Gutfeld on Charles Manson, who expressed his concern about global warming: "This is how smart Manson is - he knows that to get to the heart of an editor, talk about 'climate change.' Yeah, he may be a mass murderer, but he cares about the trees."

And here was Gutfeld's take on the British retailer that is marketing environmentally-friendly bras: "For every bra that is made, a tree is planted. Carbon-neutral underwear! I actually own some!"

Wow, this segment is worse than the body language garbage. It's like a Dennis Miller copycat, and yet, somehow even less funnier.

Then the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover were on to talk about the New York State proposal to regulate kickball, tag, waffle ball and other kids' games. Carlson said this: "This says that any activity with a 'significant risk of injury,' would have to have medical staff on hand and a $200 registration fee. Do you wonder why American children have an obesity problem?"

Hoover denounced bureaucrats whose first instinct is to regulate anything that moves. She said this: "This is an overreach by the left. They want to regulate what you're eating and deal with the obesity problem, but then at the same time you're not allowed to exercise."

O'Reilly pointed out that the rules may never go into effect, Billy said this: "The state has backed away from this because there was a public outcry. If you can't play kickball and tag, that's insane!"

So the rules never even went into effect, but O'Reilly does a whole segment on it anyway. Hey losers, how about waiting until the rules go into effect before you complain about them. And Carlson showed how dumb she is, kids are not overweight because of playing kickball or not, it's because of video games, depression, etc.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the lame news quiz with Steve Doocy and Dagen McDowell. And as usual no Democrats in the quiz, just right-wing losers. In fact, the whole show was almost all Republicans, with only one Democratic guest.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots waste of time nonsense.

O'Reilly Ignoring Wisconsin Petition Recall Story
By: Steve - April 22, 2011 - 9:00am

Think back a few years to when the Democratic Governor of California Gray Davis was recalled. O'Reilly supported it, and reported the hell out of it, even calling for Gray Davis to be recalled.

O'Reilly spent weeks having one right-wing guest after another calling for Davis to be recalled. And now there have been recall petitions filed against 4 Republican state Senators in Wisconsin, and O'Reilly is silent as a mouse.

Because he supported what they did, with their anti-union votes for the Walker bill, and that is from a so-called union guy, which is just laughable.

The people in Wisconsin have filed recall petitions against two more Wisconsin state Republican senators who supported Gov. Scott Walker's (R) bill to strip public employee unions of collective bargaining rights.

They had already collected more than enough signatures to recall two GOP senators, and filed petitions yesterday against state Sen. Luther Olsen (R) and state Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R). In all four cases, organizers collected far more signatures than the roughly 15,000 needed, and did so weeks ahead of the deadline.

Republicans currently control the state senate with 19-14 majority, so if the signatures are certified against all four Republicans, Democrats will have a chance to regain control of the upper house in an upcoming recall election against the incumbents. Democrats have already found high-profile challengers for the two previous senators facing recall.

And they still plan to file recall petitions against four other GOP state senators, and have until May 2nd to do so. They plan to do the same against Walker once he is eligible for recall in January.

This is so rare, it is a big news story, and the Washington Post's Greg Sargent notes that "In the entire history of the state of Wisconsin, organizers have only managed to trigger recall elections four times" -- something progressives have now done in a matter of weeks.

But O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it, he just ignores the entire story for partisan political reasons. While at the same time complaining every week with Bernie Goldberg that the rest of the media ignore stories for partisan political reasons. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

And one last thing, when O'Reilly supported the Gray Davis recall, he said we must go by the will of the people. But now when the people want to recall Republicans in Wisconsin, O'Reilly does and says nothing. Because Republicans were doing the recall against Gray Davis, and Democrats are doing the recalls in Wisconsin.

So it looks like O'Reilly only wants to go by the will of the people, when it's Republicans doing it. When Democrats do it, O'Reilly says to hell with the will of the people, and he not only ignores the story, he does not support the recall, or have any guests on that do.

The Tea Party Is Dying Out Already
By: Steve - April 22, 2011 - 8:30am

Remember when O'Reilly and virtually everyone on the right and at Fox said the Tea Party was a major political party, and would be for years to come. Well, they were wrong, as usual.

Because just 2 years in, the Tea Party is already dying out, barely anyone even shows up at their rallies anymore, just look at this photo from the 2011 tax day Tea Party rally in Sacramento California. It looks like about 40 people to me, while they had 2 to 3 thousand at the same rally in 2010.



And it's just not a low turnout at the California rally, it's low everywhere. There were also fewer rallies this year than last. A listing of events on the umbrella group Tea Party Patriots website for Monday and Friday showed a total of 145 events - the same listing shows 638 events on tax day 2010.

There was also no tax day tea party rally at all in Washington, D.C. this year, unlike in years past. And ThinkProgress could also find no media reports of Tea Party rallies this year in several cities which hosted large rallies last year, such as Houston, TX and Atlanta, GA, which saw rallies of 6,000 and 3,000, respectively, in 2010.

Not to mention, neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox has reported the low rally turnout. They just ignore it as if it's not happening, while they tell you what a powerful political group the Tea Party is, when it's actually dying out in less than 2 years. So much for honest journalism from O'Reilly, it's all spin and right-wing propaganda.

The Wednesday 4-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 21, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Trump closer to a presidential run? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: An article in the Wall Street Journal says Donald Trump is investigating setting up organizations in some primary states, signaling that he may very well run for president.

That would shake up the Republican Party and change the dynamics of the 2012 election big time. The problem with the Trump candidacy is his frame of reference - he told me he'd slap a 25% tariff on Chinese goods if the Chinese didn't stop manipulating their currency, and he would seize the Iraqi oil fields.

If the USA actually did seize the Iraqi oil fields, no one in the world would support us - an action like that could very well start World War III. I submit that Donald Trump knows that and is being provocative because he understands that many Americans believe we got a bad deal in Iraq.

Having known Donald Trump for years, I can tell you he's a smart guy, an impatient man, and he thinks most politicians are buffoons and incompetent in the extreme. In the end, a Trump candidacy would help Barack Obama because it would divide the Republican Party.

That is, unless Mr. Trump wins the primary battle; then Mr. Obama might have a huge problem.
It was 4-20 Wednesday and clearly O'Reilly must have been smoking some wacky weed, where does he come up with this stuff, if Trump wins the Republican primary Obama will beat him by 10 points or more, it will not even be close. He's a birther, and that will only get Trump the right-wing vote, so he will lose in the general election, because the Independents and Democrats will run away from him as fast as they can.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Andrea Tantaros and Steven Hayes on. Billy asked them if they would support Trump, one said yes, the other was not so sure. Tantaros said this: "Yes, absolutely. He said he's not going to go around the world bowing to foreign leaders, he'd focus on the economy, and he understands that we look like a joke to other countries. Some of the stuff he says is a little off the charts, but let the man speak!"

Hayes accused Trump of being a conservative-come-lately. He said this: "Republicans are so eager for a 'confrontational conservative' that they're willing to drop the second part of that. They don't really care that he's not a conservative and hasn't been for years - he supported universal health care, he's pro-tariff, and he's advocated a number of anti-conservative positions. He sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about."

O'Reilly tried to rationalize Trump's appeal to many Americans: "We're not a country that is respected the way we used to be, so people are looking for a way to restore that." And btw, both Tantaros and Hayes predicted that Trump will run for the GOP nomination. And I predict he will not run.

Now look at what O'Reilly said, that the country is not respected the way we used to be. Which is just ridiculous, because a recent world view poll has the USA ranked number one in respect. It's up from about 4th or 5th when Bush was in office. I guess O'Reilly accidently forgot about that poll, yeah right.

Then Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano was on to defend the administration's border security measures. She said this: "There are more resources on the border to protect it than ever before, and more is on its way. A thousand more Border Patrol agents are on their way, along with more technology and more forward operating camps. We are very committed to a safe and secure border."

Which is funny, because the right-wingers say Obama is not doing anything to protect the border, when he is actually doing far more than Bush did. Proving once again that the right just makes it up to make Obama look bad, no matter what he does.

Napolitano also reported that the color-coded terror alert system has been terminated. She said this: "We're not going to have colors at all; what we're going to be putting out, when necessary, are national terrorism advisory alerts. They will tell people what they need to provide for and where they can obtain additional information."

It's about fricking time, that color coded alert system was a joke, and a total waste of time. People laughed at it, and it's just another stupid thing Bush did when he was the President.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Lou Dobbs on to talk oil prices. With the price of gasoline soaring, President Obama is criticizing oil speculators for gambling on the direction of oil prices. So Dobbs offered some advice to the President, he said this: "Instead of bemoaning those 'awful speculators,' he could actually order an increase in margin requirements. But the real answer is to have a president who says forthrightly to OPEC that we want an orderly market, so let's cut the nonsense. They should be maintaining orderly production of oil. The President should also be working with the heads of the major oil companies."

And even O'Reilly was not buying what Lou was selling, because he blames the speculators too, and he also laid some of the blame on big oil, Billy said this: "The oil companies seize upon anything to raise prices, thereby harming the American worker and the economy in general."

And for once O'Reilly is right, the oil speculators and the oil companies are partners in crime. They use any excuse to bid the price of oil up, and then the oil companies raise prices at the pump. Their is no shortage of oil, and no reason for the prices we have, it's all speculation.

Then O'Reilly had the Factor producer Jesse Watters on, who paid a visit to the "Power Shift 2011" environmental conference in Washington. O'Reilly and Fox make fun of them, even though what they are doing is a good thing. O'Reilly said this: "They are well-intentioned people who want a cleaner country. But the idealism doesn't match up with realism."

In the next segment O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on, which I do not report on because it's not news, and he is a comedian who is only on to do jokes about Obama and the Democrats. And btw, I do not have a problem with the jokes, I just have a problem with O'Reilly only having a Republican comedian on, with no Democratic comedian. To be fair and balanced he should have a Democratic comedian on too, with Miller, and give them equal time. But it's still not news, and I would not report on it.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on to talk about the British royal family. Which I sure as hell will not report on, because it's not American news, and nobody I know gives a damn about what the British royal family does, ever.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots garbage.

Polls Show O'Reilly & The Republicans Are Wrong
By: Steve - April 21, 2011 - 10:30am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends have been saying for months that the people support government spending cuts, but they are lying, because a new poll and an older poll both say they are wrong. They also claim the people support the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and that is also a lie.

In the older poll the majority of Americans only supported cuts to one major program, foreign policy spending. On all the other major programs like social security, medicare, education, etc. the majority of the people opposed cuts.

This is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and the right are claiming, and now a new poll conforms what the people want.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds overwhelming opposition to cutting government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The poll found that only 21 percent of Americans support cutting Medicare, while a whopping 75 percent wanted to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners.

All of that proves O'Reilly is a right-wing liar. Not to mention this, O'Reilly has said in the past that we must go by the will of the people, and that they should be able to decide what the government does with their money.

Okay, I agree. But the people do not want cuts to social security or medicare, etc. And the people want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy ended. So what does O'Reilly do, support the will of the people, of course not. He spins out the right-wing talking points like a good little Republican.

And btw folks, O'Reilly also claims to be looking out for the little guy. If that's true, why is he only looking out for the Republican party and the wealthy. Because O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing joke.

He talks a good game, but when it comes down to prove what you are made of by backing up what you say, O'Reilly just spews out right-wing propaganda and defends millionaires.

Kasich Hypocrisy On State Plane Spending
By: Steve - April 21, 2011 - 10:00am

It took Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) less than three months to use state-owned private planes more than former Gov. Ted Strickland (D) used them in 13 months, according to a new report from the Dayton Daily News.

Despite unveiling a budget full of painful cuts to vital programs, including education and health care, Kasich has cost taxpayers $31,400 for 20 total trips in his first 81 days in office.

In contrast, Strickland spent $31,849 in his first 13 months in office. And during his 2010 campaign against Strickland, Kasich even criticized the use of the plane by Strickland, and questioned whether funding the plane was justifiable at all:
But because Strickland likes hitting the snooze button, he makes a small army of people fire up his plane, get it ready and then fly it from one airport to another so he wonít have to drive an extra 15 minutes to the airport.

Putting aside the wasted money and extra wear and tear, could the guy do something more arrogant?

Frankly, there needs to be a closer review of whether the plane's cost can even still be justified at all.
And get this, now Kasich has totally changed his tune, he now says the plane is vital to keeping jobs in Ohio. But according to the Daily News, several of Kasich's trips have not involved jobs at all. He's flown across the state to Canton and Cincinnati to announce staff appointments; to Youngstown, Akron, and Toledo to speak to chambers of commerce and Rotary Clubs; and to Washington D.C. to meet with other governors.

Kasich tells Ohio voters that a little shared sacrifice now will ensure that "kids have a future in this state. That they can have jobs in this state and that your family can be prosperous."

But judging by his actions, everyone has to share in the sacrifice except the John Kasich.

And remember this, for weeks on end O'Reilly did segment after segment crying about Nancy Pelosi spending too much taxpayer money flying around on government planes. Even though the House security service ordered her to use the plane. But when the Republican Kasich does it all on his own, after slamming the Democrat for doing it, O'Reilly is silent as a mouse.

Crazy Alert: O'Reilly Makes Child Sex Ring Claims
By: Steve - April 21, 2011 - 9:30am

Now O'Reilly is promoting the myth that Planned Parenthood is "Aiding And Abetting Child Sex Rings." What's next, a UFO landed on his lawn and kidnapped him. This is crazy, and yet O'Reilly claims to be a real journalist.

I would say O'Reilly jumped the shark with this one, but he jumped that shark years ago. Here is O'Reilly in action:



I think O'Reilly is trying to get the crazy Beck viewers with all this recent nonsense, so he can raise his ratings, which have not went up in years.

The Tuesday 4-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 20, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Bad news for Obama... and the GOP. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Washington Post/ABC News poll says that 57% of Americans now disapprove of the way the President is handling the economy. You would think that would be a catastrophe for a sitting president, but in order to vote Mr. Obama out you need an alternative.

In the same poll, just 43% of Republican-leaning Americans said they are satisfied with the choice of candidates for the Republican nomination next year. Even worse for the GOP, President Obama defeats every one of the Republican contenders.

However, there is no question that the Democratic Party is in deep trouble. For the first time since the Great Depression, American households are receiving more money from the feds than they're receiving in taxes. That is a nanny state situation, something Democrats champion.

How much more evidence do we need for Americans to understand that the country is in dire trouble? President Obama is still banging the 'social justice' drum, but some people will not work for a living, will not go to school, will not obey the law.

That's reality. Responsible safety nets are needed, but the nanny state mentality is going to bring this country down unless we get rid of it.
And once again O'Reilly spins the spending vs loss of revenue issue, like a good little Republican. As I reported in this blog, the main problem is loss of revenue, not too much spending. And as O'Reilly never mentions, if we just get rid of the Bush tax cuts the spending would only be 3% of GDP, which is clearly acceptable. And O'Reilly never mentions any of that, he just blames it on too much spending.

Notice that O'Reilly never does anything that says good news for Obama, because he is a partisan hack. Not to mention, all the economic and job news is good, the polls show the people agree with Obama on spending cuts, and yet all O'Reilly does is spin everything as bad news for Obama and the Democrats. And btw, how is it bad news for Obama when the polls show him beating every Republican by 10 or more points.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on who was spinning like a top, he claimed Obama is beatable, even though all the polls have Obama crushing every Republican. me thinks Rove needs to up his meds with O'Reilly. Rove said this: "The Republicans have shown great unanimity in opposing the initiatives of the Obama administration, and the candidates have plenty of time in the age of the Internet and cable TV to get their messages out."

Then O'Reilly had some right-wing stooge on to talk about the FEC investigation of the Obama 2008 election, over legal fees. Paul Singer was on to spin the story, which is just laughable, and I predict nothing will ever be found. It was just another partisan hack job segment by O'Reilly to smear Obama. And btw, when liberals wanted to go back in time and investigate Bush, O'Reilly said we should not do it. Then he goes back in time to investigate Obama, once again proving he is a biased hypocrite with double standards.

Then O'Reilly said President Obama lost his cool when Texas TV reporter Brad Watson asked him whether a decision on the space shuttle was politically motivated. After the interview, President Obama told Watson to "let me finish my answers next time." Which is the usual O'Reilly spin, because a journalist should show respect to the President and let him finish his answers.

Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "President Obama was asked the same question three times. How many times do you ask the same question and keep getting the same answer? All of this is a huge overreaction - all he did was say next time let me finish my answers."

But of course the far right loon Monica Crowley agreed with O'Dummy. She said this: "This reporter was not out of line - he was very thorough and he asked the President probing questions. Every once in a while, President Obama shows just bubbling under the surface a real volatility and anger that he doesn't display in public. He is very thin-skinned."

Then John Stossel was on to discuss undercover video stings, which I will not report on a whole lot because I could care less what Stossel thinks about it. But I will say this, Stossel is mostly opposed to it, while admitting he has done it himself, and O'Reilly supports it at times, yeah when Republicans do it, but when Democrats do it he is opposed to it and calls it wrong.

Next it was is it legal. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have required presidential candidates to show a birth certificate in order to get on the state's ballot. Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl discussed the issue.

Wiehl said this: "The state has much more important things to do, and this would be a distraction for the state to be focusing on something as silly as this. Arizona would have been a laughing stock." But Guilfoyle predicted the birth certificate provision will become law, saying "the legislature can override her veto and they have the votes."

Then they talked about California, where a gay legislator introduced a law that would mandate the inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals in classroom materials. Guilfoyle said this: "He is saying, that you have to teach about gay rights and gay leaders. This is going to pass." Wiehl complained that the proposed bill is pure indoctrination. She said this: "This is more than teaching about homosexuality. In this bill, it has to be pro-homosexuality and pro-gay marriage. To me, that steps over a line."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly asked the far right Charles Krauthammer why the far left is so angry. And of course nobody from the far left was on to say why they are angry, if they are, it was just O'Reilly and Krauthammer spinning it.

Crazy krauthammer said this: "They've lost the American people, and this is a response that comes out of envy and panic. The tea party movement has become the dominant force in American politics, so this is sheer envy. And the panic is that they don't see a way to recover. They are on the losing end and that is why they are so vitriolic - all they can do is hurl insults and shout."

Wow is he clueless, the left has not lost the American people, in fact, the polls show that the majority of people agree with the left, and the Tea Party is dying out, so they are not even close to being a dominant force in American politics. Hell they can not even get 200 people to show up at a political rally.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Ryan Tax Cut Rate
By: Steve - April 20, 2011 - 9:30am

And not only was O'Reilly caught lying about the tax rate Ryan wants, he lied about it during a reality check segment, so not only was it not reality, it was a lie too.

O'Reilly lied about Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposal to lower income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, claiming that Ryan "stated he simply wants to keep the tax rate where it is."

In fact, Ryan has proposed cutting the tax rate on upper income levels from 35 percent to 25 percent.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Check three. On the CBS program Face The Nation, anchor Bob Schieffer interviewed Congressman Paul Ryan:

SCHIEFFER [Video Clip]: I guess the question I would have, Congressman, why do these rich people need another tax cut? I mean they're already rich. They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now. Why cut their taxes some more?

SCHIEFFER: If the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would seem to be that's where you get revenue.

O'REILLY: Well, Mr. Ryan stated he simply wants to keep the tax rate where it is because if it rises the economy may be hurt. Standard conservative vs. liberal argument with Mr. Schieffer taking the liberal position.
Wrong, O'Reilly was lying. Here is the quote right from the Republican majority House Budget Committee's summary of Rep. Paul Ryan's FY 2012 budget resolution:
Calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses. Lowers tax rates for individuals, businesses and families.

Sets top rates for individuals and businesses at 25 percent. Improves incentives for growth, savings, and investment. [House Budget Committee, 4/5/11]
Bam, O'Reilly is busted lying once again, and of course he was lying for the Republican. And then on top of that he was trying to make Bob Schieffer look bad, while doing it during a so-called reality check segment.

That's what O'Reilly calls reality, lying about what a Republican wants to do. And notice he never lies for Democrats, he only lies for Republicans.

O'Reilly Now Claims Obama A Danger To The Country
By: Steve - April 20, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Monday Factor show the crazy Bill O'Reilly said this: "I Think The Danger To The Country Now Lies In The Executive Branch With President Obama."



Which is ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Coming from a so-called non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

And what gets me is that during the 8 years of Bush when he was ruining the country and bankrupting it, not once did O'Reilly say Bush was a danger to the country. In fact, O'Reilly supported and defended Bush on everything, no matter how much it hurt the country.

Karl Rove Calls Donald Trump A Joke Candidate
By: Steve - April 20, 2011 - 8:30am

So how crazy is Donald Trump with this birther nonsense, so crazy a fellow Republican would call him a joke candidate. Now think about that, Republicans almost never attack each other, no matter how insane they are. And yet Rove is slamming Trump, so you know it's bad when a guy like Karl Rove attacks another Republican.

Last Friday Karl Rove let Greta Van Susteren know last that he falls into the camp that thinks Trump is a joke who is making a mistake with the birther garbage. Rove was aghast at his full-time peddling of the birther conspiracy, and he even labeled Trump the "joke candidate of the nutty right" who will never be elected by Republicans or the American people:
VAN SUSTEREN: I don't agree with Donald Trump on this. I'll say it right from the get-go. But does this hurt the Republican Party?

ROVE: Well, it hurts Donald Trump and it removes him from the debate, he was an interesting candidate who had a business background and could have contributed to the dialogue.

But his full embrace of the birther issue means that he's off there in the nutty right and is now an inconsequential candidate.

I'm shocked. The guy's smarter than this. And you know, the idea that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, being - you know, making that the centerpiece of his campaign, means that he's just a joke candidate.

Let him go ahead and announce for election. The American people aren't going to be hiring him, and certainly, the Republicans are not going to be hiring him in the Republican primary.
For once I agree 100% with Karl Rove, which is a first, and will probably never happen again. Trump is a joke, and anyone who believes this birther insanity is a fool, that means 51% of the Republicans in America are fools, because they believe this nonsense.

And that was not all, Rove then took down Trump's weird conspiracy theories point-by-point, noting that not only does his family indeed know he was born in Hawaii, but that even one of Rove's advisers was familiar with President Obama at Harvard and helped get him elected to the Law Review editor.

He called the Trump claims that Obama's parents would arrange birth notices to ensure his presidential eligibility full-throated nuttiness.

And btw folks, not only is Trump a birther idiot, so is the Tea Party, yeah I know what a shocker, not. The Tea Party Nation slammed Rove for attacking Trump, they even called Rove a "RINO."

Which is just ridiculous, because Rove is about as far right as a person can get, the only far right position he disagrees with is the birther issue. It's like calling Sean Hannity a RINO, or calling Rush Limbaugh a RINO. Hell Rove has even filled in for Limbaugh on his radio show, do you think Limbaugh would have a RINO as a fill in, of course not.

Calling Rove a RINO just shows how insane and far right the Tea Party is, not to mention, it pretty much proves they are a right-wing group, which O'Reilly has denied a hundred times.

The Tea Party said this: "The GOP establishment cringes every time Trump mentions Obama's birth certificate. Good, let them," it said in a release. While country club Karl holds his nose up at Trump, what Trump is saying is resonating with a large section of the American people."

Their statement is even nonsense, and a lie. Because all the polls show that only 11% of the American people believe in the birther propaganda from the right. Which 51% of Republicans believe it, proving they are loons.

So what Trump is saying is not resonating with the vast majority of the American people. Because 89% of the people disagree with the birthers, making the Tea Party crazy far right fools, and liars.

The Monday 4-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 19, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called President Obama and the social compact. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This week President Obama will hold town hall meetings around the country trying to sell his vision of a strong America based on responsible spending and the 'social compact.'

The social compact was made popular by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century; basically he said the central government has an obligation to help its citizens in pretty much every way.

America largely avoided the social compact until the Great Depression, when so many people were suffering that President Roosevelt began the entitlement society. America now faces economic ruin because it owes more than $14-trillion.

Still, many Americans, including President Obama, do not want to cut entitlement programs very much. This is the war raging throughout America - between conservatives who emphasize personal responsibility and achievement against liberals who say the government must take from the wealthy and give to the poor.

So it will be interesting to see if President Obama can rally the country to support his vision of a strong social compact. He has compassion on his side; few Americans want to see their fellow citizens suffer.

But the President does have that fiscal responsibility issue haunting him because the country remains in dire trouble.
Wow is that a load of right-wing spin. To begin with, if we did not have a social compact America would be like all the other countries in the world, with 2 classes, the rich and the poor, and the poor would suffer badly. So the social compact is a good thing, and it's part of what makes America so great.

And 2nd, O'Reilly makes it sound like social programs bankrupted America, which is just laughable. Defense spending, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and on and on bankrupted the country, not social programs. If you want to see what right-wing propaganda is, just read the O'Reilly talking points memo from Monday.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest at all. That way they can continue their right-wing spin with nobody there to call them on it and give out the truth.

Hume said this: "We're talking about the social safety net or the welfare state that has grown up since the New Deal. If the President is saying that Paul Ryan and the Republicans in the House are trying to change that social compact, he's certainly not wrong, but that social compact is about to collapse of its own weight if we look at the budget projections. Even the President would acknowledge that we have unsustainable levels of debt and spending, but he has proposed absolutely nothing specific."

Then O'Reilly predicted President Obama will fight entitlement cuts with all his power, Billy said this: "I think he firmly believes it is his job to expand the federal government to take from the wealthy and give to the poor and to set up a quasi-socialist society."

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to talk about union protests at Tea Party rallies. O'Reilly said there were vulgar and profane displays by union members and their supporters. Except what he did was cherry pick a couple people saying nasty things and then implied everyone was doing it.

And when the Democrats reported the same thing about people at the Tea Party, O'Reilly said you can not cherry pick what a couple Tea Party people said and blame them ALL for it. Then O'Reilly breaks his own rule and does it himself, making him a massive hypocrite.

Williams said this: "There's a lot of pent-up frustration about the success of the tea party, and now they're going crazy. This is evidence that people don't want to see big Medicare and Medicaid cuts and they think the rich should be taxed."

Now that is ridiculous, Williams sounds just like O'Reilly. The Tea Party had not had any success, they are a joke with everyone but the right. Yes they won a couple elections, but they lost a lot of them too. Nobody is worried about the Tea Party, and to say the left is going crazy because of the Tea Party is just dishonest.

Ham said this: "To the left this means the existence of the unions and the entire political reality they've built. To the right, this means the existence of our country. So there are high tempers on both sides, but the rules for both sides are entirely different."

Now that is even more ridiculous than what Williams said. Ham is nothing but a right-wing stooge who spins out propaganda in the hopes that someone will believe it. She implied the left wants to ruin the country, and the right want to save it, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly said that most of the rage is emanating from one direction, the left. I guess he forgot all the death threats and the stuff the right has done, army of God, all the right-wing hate groups, killing abortion doctors, etc. Billy said this: "It's important for liberals of good faith to understand that this stuff is generated primarily from the far left. What I'm seeing is anarchy and vitriolic hatred coming out of the woodwork. If the tea party had behaved like this it would be the lead story on all the network newscasts."

Earth to O'Reilly, the Tea Party did behave like that, and worse, you just denied it and ignored it. And it's not anarchy you jerk, it's a legal and peaceful protest, with nobody taking guns to the protests, and nobody doing anything violent.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Fox News religious analyst Father Jonathan Morris on, Billy asked the Catholic priest about ongoing Muslim attacks on Christians. Which I will not report on because it's not news. Not to mention, who cares what Father Morris thinks about political issues. It was not only a biased one sided segment, it was religion based, which I do not care about.

And then O'Reilly had a total waste of time segment on the royal wedding in England ,he had Martha MacCallum on to discuss it. And I sure as hell am not going to report on this nonsense.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to ask him if Obama is a tough guy. Goldberg said this: "Because of Barack Obama's great smile and easygoing personality, it's easy for a lot of people not to notice who Barack Obama really is. He's an old-fashioned and at times downright nasty Chicago politician who gives hypocrisy and cynicism a bad name."

Goldberg also said this: "Here's a man who invited Paul Ryan to sit in the front row when he delivered his budget speech last week and practically called Ryan un-American. He implied that Ryan and Republicans care more about billionaires than they do about old people or children with cancer. This is the same Barack Obama who said that partisanship and pettiness has to stop because it's poisoning politics. "

Goldberg said Obama implied Ryan and Republicans care more about billionaires than they do about old people or children with cancer. Yeah, because it's true. Goldberg just does not like that Obama told the truth because it makes him and his Republican friends look bad.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had his totally ridiculous reality check. That has almost no reality, and very few actual reality checks. It's just O'Reilly, by himself with no guest, putting his right-wing spin one what someone else said. That's not reality, it's O'Reilly's opinion, with nobody there to counter what he said.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote. And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, and no, Juan Williams is not a Democrat, he even admitted he is more conservative than he is liberal. Not to mention he agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time.

Fox & Friends Still Lying About Tax Cuts For The Rich
By: Steve - April 19, 2011 - 9:30am

Following President Obama's speech on deficit reduction, Fox & Friends revived the myth that lowering the tax rate for the wealthy creates jobs. When in fact, reducing taxes for the wealthy is consistently rated as one of, if not the least effective policy for creating jobs or stimulating the economy.

On the April 14th Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade reacted to Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans by claiming it would give more money "to the government as opposed to investing it in different areas, starting a different company, or hiring more people."

Later on Fox & Friends, after Juan Williams pointed out that under Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget plan "all the sacrifice goes to the seniors and the poor," Fox contributor Andrea Tantaros said this: "You can't argue that you're going to hurt Joe Six-Pack's boss without implying it's going to hit Joe Six-Pack."

And now the facts: In an August 31, 2010, posting, Tax Policy Center economist Howard Gleckman pointed out that tax cuts for the wealthy generally do not go back into the economy. Gleckman said this: "We know that higher income households are more likely to bank the cash than spend it. As a result, tax cuts for these high-earners will do relatively little to boost the economy."

More facts: In a January 2010 report titled, "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said this:
Increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products.

Policies that increase the after-tax income of people with relatively high income, such as an across-the-board reduction in income taxes or an increase in the exemption amount for the AMT, would have smaller effects [than other options] because such tax cuts would not affect the recipients spending significantly.
The report further stated that "a permanent extension [of the Bush tax cuts] would entail large revenue losses after the recovery is over."

According to a table in the report, the CBO estimated that reducing income taxes in 2011 would have the least stimulative effect of all the policy options considered.

Proving once again the the partisan right-wing idiots at Fox & Friends are liars, because these facts can easily be found with a 5 second google search.

Reality Check: Dick Morris caught Lying Again
By: Steve - April 19, 2011 - 9:00am

What a shocker, not, Dick Morris was caught lying again. And btw folks, the reason I point out so many lies from Morris is because O'Reilly has him on the Factor as a regular, and sells him as a trusted political analyst who tells the truth.

When in fact, almost every word out of his mouth is a partisan lie, to make Obama look bad, or to make the Democrats look bad. Dick Morris is just a cheap version of Glenn Beck without a show. He is a con man, who just spins out lies the Republicans want to hear, so he can get rich and famous.

And now he was caught lying again, on the 4-13-11 Fox & Friends show Dick Morris falsely claimed that President Obama "created a gigantic deficit through government spending in order to justify tax increases."

Morris said this:
MORRIS: I wrote in my book, and it's a very crucial point about Barack Obama. It's the most important point about his presidency. He is committed to expanding the size of government. Now, when he took office, he couldn't raise taxes because there was a recession, and even in his own party wouldn't have supported it.

So he raised spending to a point where he created a gigantic deficit, the purpose of which was to justify tax increases which would lock in a larger government.
In fact, the main cause of the deficit are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic downturn, and the Bush tax cuts.

More facts: In a January 7, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected, based on spending authorized under the Bush administration, that the federal deficit in FY2009 would total $1.2 trillion. According to the CBO, the actual federal deficit for FY2009, which began during Bush's last year in office, was $1.4 trillion.

More facts: In an August 2009 analysis, the Center for American Progress (CAP) concluded that about two-thirds of the then-projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 could be attributed to either Bush's policies or the economic downturn.

From the report:
As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the Bush legislative agenda. Changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem.

For example, the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

The weak economy also played a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies--fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping--contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation.

When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact).

All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.

While President Obama's policies have contributed to the federal deficit, only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration.
And that stimulus spending by Obama had to be done to prevent the country from going into a depression. Bush just did it to make the rich more wealthy, at least Obama had a good reason to spend the money he did.

More facts: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, which was most recently updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers."

From the report:
Some critics continue to assert that President Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- and that the new policies of President Barack Obama are to blame. Recently, a biased Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies.

But the facts are the facts. Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
So as you can see, Dick Morris is wrong again. And yet, O'Reilly continues to put him on the Factor at least once a week to lie to the American people. Making O'Reilly just as bad as Morris, for putting a proven right-wing liar on his show every week.

O'Reilly Scrubs Website & Podcast Of False Obama Claims
By: Steve - April 17, 2011 - 11:00am

How dishonest is Bill O'Reilly, very dishonest. And btw folks, before you read this, remember that O'Reilly said nothing is ever edited out of his show.

Here is the headline from an April 16th article on what O'Reilly did.

Social Security claim vanishes from O'Reilly podcast

Fox host said Obama's Connecticut social security number resulted from father living there

Since Bill O'Reilly erroneously claimed President Obama's Connecticut-issued Social Security number was likely the result of his father having "lived in Connecticut for several years," the cable news giant has scrubbed the audio of the statement from its website.

In his viewer email segment last Wednesday night, O'Reilly was asked this by viewer John Knox of Arlington: "What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security number? He never lived there."

"His father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly answered, adding that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents."

Another letter from Fox viewer Ken McFadden of LaGrange, Ga., asked this: "O'Reilly, will you stake your professional reputation that Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president?"

"I will, Ken," answered O'Reilly.

A screenshot from the O'Reilly website where the viewer mail questions are listed, shows no mention of the viewer's letter asking O'Reilly why Obama is using a Connecticut-based Social Security number when he never lived there.

And those mail questions and answers did not appear on a Fox News website podcast of the episode purchased and downloaded either. In addition, a printed version of the question-and-answer exchange, above, on the other O'Reilly website, a separate site, also left out the key question about Connecticut.

The Fox audio podcast had O'Reilly doing the "Factor Mail" segment, starting with a question from Marion Rauch, Ocala., Fla.: "O'Reilly, well I am so glad you cleared up the myths surrounding President Obama. Come on, Bill, give us the facts, not opinion."

He responded, "Gave you the facts, Marion. Stand by all of 'em. If you have evidence to the contrary, please pass it along. You got the facts."

Following a "bump" in the audio, he then moves immediately into "Pinheads and Patriots."

The BirtherReport.com website, responding to complaints by Fox podcast customers that O'Reilly's Social Security claim, broadcast Wednesday on Fox, had gone missing from the audio archive, trumpeted the headline: "Busted: Fox News scrubbed Bill O'Reilly's 4/13 mailbag segment on Obama's Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants."

The site added, "Not only did Fox News scrub the podcast, they also left out the viewer email about Obama's Social Security number at O'Reilly's own website."

And another media source reported just a day earlier, in response to O'Reilly's claim that Obama had a Connecticut Social Security number because his father had lived there, that there is no evidence Barack Obama Sr., who left Hawaii in 1962 to study at Harvard in Massachusetts and then returned to his home country of Kenya, ever lived in Connecticut.

So O'Reilly reported it with no evidence to back up the claims, while telling e-mailers he reported the facts and he stands by them. Then he scrubbed it all from both his websites and his podcast, so there is no evidence of his screw up. After claiming he never edits anything, and never gets anything wrong.

He got it all wrong, then scrubbed it, and there was no correction, no apology to his viewers or Obama, nothing. Then he pretends it just never happened. And that's what he calls honest journalism, in O'Reillyworld when you screw up you just get rid of all the evidence, then pretend you never said it.

And remember this, O'Reilly said he has never had to do a correction in the 13 years his show has been on the air. But he makes mistakes all the time, he just never admits it, then he also scrubs the mistake off the website and the podcast to hide it.

Republicans Blocking Dodd-Frank Oil Speculation Law
By: Steve - April 17, 2011 - 10:30am

I bet you did not know this. While a lot of Republicans are trying to blame President Obama for the high gas prices, Republican commissioners are blocking the law that would regulate the oil speculators.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law passed last year actually calls for regulators in the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to crack down on speculation, but Republican commissioners have blocked the implementation of the law. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are also trying to defund the CFTC, which would leave the oil markets at the mercy of the speculators.

The very same speculators who are driving the price of oil up for no reason, except to get richer on the backs of the people who have to buy gas. Experts have even been a bit befuddled by the steep rise in gas prices this early in the year, as global oil supplies have remained steady despite unrest in the Middle East.

Among other factors, experts are increasingly concerned about the prevalence of speculators in the global oil market who are artificially inflating prices. Speculation on energy futures, including oil, is at an all-time high, jumping 64 percent since 2008.

Energies futures markets used to be the domain of companies like airlines and shippers, which appropriately use trades to hedge against price volatility, but the oil markets are now increasingly dominated by speculators who are only interested in making profits.

So what are the Democrats doing, trying to get the insane speculation stopped. House Democrats warned about the increasing prevalence of oil speculation and called for doing more to address it. While Republicans block the regulation law that would regulate these speculators, and at the same time they are also trying to defund the CFTC, so they do not have the money to regulate them.

Remember this folks, you voted these right-wing crooks back into power in the House, and now they are helping the dishonest oil speculators jack up the price of oil for no valid reason, except to make insane profits.

And if the Republicans can not block the Dodd-Frank speculation/regulation law from being put in place, they will try a back door trick to defund the Agency (CFTC) in charge of regulating the speculators.

This is what Republicans are doing folks, so they are part of the reason gas prices are so high, and yet they try to blame Obama, when they are the actual cause of part of the problem. It's legal bribery, the Republicans are taking campaign money from the speculators, then blocking a law that would regulate them.

It's the worst form of corruption, but it's legal, and of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly or Fox News. In fact, Eric Bolling is covering for the Republicans, by saying the oil speculators have nothing to do with the price of oil, which is such a big lie it's laughable.

O'Reilly Ignored New House Republican Poll
By: Steve - April 17, 2011 - 9:30am

Remember when the Democrats had control of the House, almost every other day O'Reilly reported on the polls that showed how bad of a job they were doing. So the Republicans have had control of the House for a little over 3 months, and guess how many times O'Reilly has reported on their job approval, you guessed it, zero.

And now guess why O'Dummy has not reported on it, you guessed it, because the Republicans are doing even worse than the Democrats did.

PPP's newest national poll finds that after a little more than 3 months in charge House Republicans have fallen so far out of favor with the American public that it's entirely possible Democrats could take control of the House back next year.

The poll reports that 43% of voters think the House Republicans are doing a worse job now than the Democrats did, compared to only 36% who think the GOP has brought an improvement. Just 19% think things are about the same. And 62% of voters think that the Republicans have either made things worse or brought no improvement.

The poll also says that 46% of voters say if there was an election for Congress today they would vote Democratic, compared to only 41% who would vote Republican.

That five point advantage for Democrats is only slightly below the margin Republicans won by in the vote last year. A victory of that magnitude for the Democrats next year would possibly result in the party taking back a large number of the seats it lost in the last election, and it might even be enough to take back the majority.

And of course O'Reilly does not say a word abut any of this, because it makes his right-wing friends look bad, the very same people he agrees with politically, and the same people he supported for office.

The Friday 4-15-11 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 16, 2011 - 11:30am

The insane right-wing propagandist Laura Ingraham filled in once again for O'Reilly, and she did her usual dishonest talking points slamming Obama for things he has nothing to do with, and no control over.

Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Under the leadership of President Obama. China, India, Russia and Brazil have just wrapped up a meeting in Boao, China, where they called for a new international reserve currency that provides for more global stability.

This was a frontal assault on the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, and it's an indictment of the White House's failure to stem the sickening slide of the greenback. Meanwhile, President Obama headed to Chicago to begin the serious work of campaigning for reelection, joking about Justin Bieber and the Chicago Bulls.

It's irresponsible and a little embarrassing for our President to be conducting himself as if it were the last weeks of a presidential campaign. The country is in serious trouble and what we've heard from this President over the past three days is juvenile.

The public is fed up! Consider the two new polls out today - one showing t 69% of the country believe America is on the wrong track, the other that only 38% say Obama deserves to be reelected.
To begin with Obama can not tell China, India, Russia, and Brazil what to do with their monetary policy, so Obama has nothing to do with it. Second, when Bush ran for re-election the far right never had any problem with it, but now that Obama does it they claim it's irresponsible and embarrassing for our President to campaign for his re-election. Which is just ridiculous, because not only did Bush so the very same thing, and the Republicans said nothing, all Presidents do it, it's called running for re-election.

And last, Ingraham said a new poll says 69% of the country believe America is on the wrong track. But what she fails to mention is that in the last year of Bush 81% of the country thought we were on the wrong track, so it's actually got better under Obama. What it also shows is that no matter what the majority of the people think we are on the wrong track. But Ingraham spins it like it's only when Obama is in office. Not to mention, when you are in a slow economy with high gas prices, people are not going to be happy.

Then Ingraham had Mary Anne Marsh and veteran Washington columnist Sally Quinn on to discuss it. I will not go into details, but I will say this, they both strongly disagreed with Ingraham, about everything.

Then Ingraham had Lou Dobbs on, who talked about Donald Trump's candidacy. Dobbs said this: "I think Trump is great for the Republican Party. He's bringing life and vitality to a lineup of folks who ultimately want to run for the nomination. I see that as nothing but good and healthy."

And of course that is ridiculous, Trump is making a fool of himself with all the crazy birther talk. But of course Dobbs loves him because he is a birther too, and the far right Ingraham praised Trump also. They both love him because he is a Republican and they are too.

In the next segment Ingraham actually reported some truth for once. According to a recent poll, President Obama would handily defeat Republicans Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. She had Doug Schoen and former Bush aide Dana Perino on to discuss it. And of course the far right Perino put her spin on it to make Obama lok bad, when the polls say he would beat all the Republicans.

Schoen on the other hand, went with the facts, he said this: "The counter-argument is that all the Republicans have negative ratings and the President is on his way to raising a billion dollars. He will run a tough negative campaign and the Republican field is weak. It doesn't appear that there are any serious candidates to challenge the President."

Talk about spin, Perino spun her head off. How do you take a poll that says Obama will beat everyone, and then claim he will lose, it was just laughable. At least Schoen was on with some reality.

In the next segment Ingraham played a re-run of an interview O'Reilly did about violence against women in the Islamic culture. Which I will not report on because it was a re-run.

Then Ingraham had Fox News analysts Tamra Holder and Arthur Aidala debated the wisdom of legislation intended to discourage illegal immigrants from living and working in the state of Georgia. Tamra Holder and Arthur Aidala debated the wisdom of the law. Ingraham and Aidala support the law, but Holder is opposed to it, Holder said this: "Arthur has mentioned serious issues and we have a problem with immigration in America. That's agreed, but the question is whether the law is legal. This is a federal issue and is not to be dealt with by the states."

And in the last segment Ingraham played another re-run interview with O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, which I will not report on, because it's a re-run.

Then the lame total waste of time pinheads and patriots vote.

Ingraham Still Claiming Obama Stimulus A Failure
By: Steve - April 16, 2011 - 10:30am

The crazy far right loon Laura Ingraham is still saying the Obama stimulus did not work, and that it did not create one job, not one. Which is just total nonsense, and remember that this is the far right idiot O'Reilly has hosting his show, so he supports her.



Now I could go into a detailed thousand word posting with stats on the GDP, unemployment, job growth, etc. etc. proving her wrong, but I won't. Because it's a waste of time, when we all know she is lying, the facts show it.

Since the Obama stimulus was put in place everything has improved, except gas prices, which Obama has nothing to do with, and have nothing to do with the stimulus. The Obama stimulus was a temporary plan to boost the economy when it was at it's worst, right after Bush left office.

It was meant to keep us from going into a depression, and it worked, because we did not go into a depression. If it had not worked, we would have gone into a depression. But Ingraham can not admit that, because it was done by a Democratic President.

She is nothing but a partisan hack, who can not give a Democratic President any credit for anything. Which proves she is a joke, and you should not listen to anything she says. Her credibility is zero, and she is a fool, but O'Reilly still has her fill in for him when he is gone.

So what does that also say about O'Reilly, that he has a dishonest right-wing hack like her host his show, it says a lot, and none of it is good.

How Dumb Is Brian Kilmeade: This Dumb
By: Steve - April 16, 2011 - 9:30am

Before you read this blog, think about this, Kilmeade was serious, I kid you not, he was not joking, he was serious.

During a Friday Fox & Friends segment where they talked about the air traffic controllers falling asleep on the job, Brian Kilmeade said we should use robots to control air traffic. And his argument was that we have a robot called a roomba that cleans the floor automatically, so why not have robots to control our airline industry.

And yes, he really said that:



All I can say to that is wow, and how the hell does this man have a job in journalism. I would not hire him to watch my dog, let alone be one of three hosts on a so-called news show.

The Thursday 4-14-11 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - April 15, 2011 - 10:30am

The far right 100% spin doctor Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly so I did not do a full review, but I will make a few comments. First, how can O'Reilly claim to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to President Obama, when his fill in is a far right loon that hates Obama, and constantly lies about everything he does to make him look bad.

Answer that one Billy!

Ingraham did a talking points memo, but it was pretty much all right-wing propaganda, so I will not report all of it. She just cried about Obama saying he wants to raise taxes on the rich, and called the Obama speech "graceless, arrogant and unserious." The usual right-wing garbage nobody cares about except other right-wing idiots.

Then Ingraham had the Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter on, who actually disagreed with some of her propaganda about the budget deal. He said it was not a great deal, but it was the best they could get.

Then Ingraham actually had a Democratic guest on, Leslie Marshall, she said this about the Obama speech: "I wouldn't say he hit it out of the park, but he had a very good day at bat. He was very clear, saying he won't sign on to GOP cuts on the backs of the middle class and seniors. He was showing leadership that some people on the left were asking him to show, but he should have come up with more than just an outline."

And of course the far right Ingraham criticized President Obama for his treatment of Congressman Paul Ryan, who put forth a Republican plan last week, she said this: "I've never seen anything like this, where a President invites someone to a speech and then essentially calls his ideas un-American and lacking in courage. His plan was to vilify Ryan but not offer a serious plan to get spending under control."

I guess the truth hurts, because Obama was exactly right. The Ryan plan is un-American, and just bad. It cuts everything from the middle and lower class, while not cutting anything for the wealthy or the corporations.

Then Ingraham had the real estate tycoon Jeffrey Gural on, who says he and his fellow millionaires should pay more. Gural gave her a smackdown on the rich paying more in taxes. He said this: "We've got a mess on our hands, and all Americans have to help. If it means I have to pay more taxes, I'm prepared to do that. It's unfair to put the burden just on middle-income and poor people. But we also have to cut spending dramatically and cut taxes on small businesses." Erica Payne, founder of the Agenda Project, endorsed Gural's prescription. She said this: "Millionaires are paying the lowest taxes they've ever paid, so Jeff and his patriotic millionaire friends have come forward and said we all need to dig in and help our country."

But of course the insane far right Laura Ingraham disagreed with both of them, Ingraham said this: "This is a wild fiction that has been perpetrated by the left. Even if people above $100,000 a year were taxed at the highest level contemplated, that doesn't even cover this year's deficit spending."

Earth to Ingraham, it's not only about the deficit, it's also about millionaires who have had their tax rates lowered 50% in the last 40 years, paying their fair share of taxes in a progressive tax code system. Try to keep up dumbass, millionaires are not paying their fair share, and it's wrong to try and cut the deficit by only taking it from the lower income and poor Americans, what part of that do you not understand, idiot.

Then Ingraham had Col. Ralph Peters on to talk Libya, etc. which I refuse to report on because Peters is a joke, he is a partisan biased hack who hates President Obama and never says one good word about him. Not to mention, there is never a liberal military analyst on with him to give the counter point. In other words, nothing Peters says is worth reporting, because it's all right-wing spin and propaganda.

Then Ingraham had a segment on gas prices with a Democratic guest and a Republican guest, and of course the Republican guest blamed it on Obama, when he had nothing to do with it. But at least Ingraham had someone on to tell the truth, and she put out the facts.

Crazy Cheryl Casone said this: "Gas prices have gone up 67% since President Obama took office, and we are most likely going to be looking at $5 a gallon gas across the country. Why? Because the President did not take the opportunity to explore offshore drilling leases, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico."

Which is just insane, and Evans told the right-wing loon Casone that domestic politics have little to do with the price at the pump: "Oil and gas prices are rising because the global economy is in recovery. And if you look at U.S. oil production, it's up 11% since 2008. The reality is that all countries are carbon-based economies, and if you want to point the finger, you can look at some of the stronger growing economies. This isn't a situation where there is a political reason for higher gas and oil prices."

And finally in the last segment Ingraham had the Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin on to talk national security. Which I will not report on because it was nothing but one sided right-wing propaganda. What's funny is that when Bush was in office it was wrong to criticize the President while we were at war, in fact, you were called un-American, or traitors, by the right if you did. And now that a Democratic President is in the White House, it's not un-American at all, and it's what they do all day long.

It's a massive double standard, and total hypocrisy. People like Ingraham slam the President 24/7, they make a living doing it. They are dishonest scum, and they make all Americans look bad. Especially when President Obama is actually doing a pretty good job, considering all the problems he had to deal with because of what Bush and the Republican did in the 8 years they had power.

More Proof Dick Morris Is A LIAR!
By: Steve - April 15, 2011 - 8:30am

As if we needed it, here it is, more proof that Dick (hooker toe sucker) Morris is a total right-wing liar. On the Wednesday Factor Morris said this:
MORRIS: "Americans have to come to grips with the fact, that a tax increase on anybody is a tax increase on everybody because it hurts the economy."
And as usual, he is totally wrong. Because they only people that have come to grips with that are a few right-wing stooges. The majortiy of American actually support a tax increase on the wealthy. Notice they ignore the fact that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and not only did it not hurt the economy, it helped it, and led to 6 years of economic boom, where 22 million new jobs were created.

Reagan also raised taxes 11 times, and the economy did not crash, it improved. So Morris is just a flat out 100% liar. Here is a quote from an article on the poll:

Have you noticed that Republicans always seem to claim a monopoly on what Americans want? They say this: "The American people want us to cut spending," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) repeats ad nauseam. But it's not true. The American people care little about the deficit. They want jobs, and they want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security left alone.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll clearly shows what the American people really want. Almost 60 percent of those polled favor increasing taxes on the rich. But Morris and his fellow Republicans are not about to let reality interfere with their Ayn Randian zealotry.

The poll found that 59 percent of Americans favor a tax hike on those making more than $250,000 a year. And btw folks, the polls also show that the only major program the majority of Americans want cut is Foreign spending. So Dick Morris is about as wrong as you can get.

More Facts On The $38 Billion Budget Cut Deal
By: Steve - April 15, 2011 - 8:00am

Not only is it not a $38 billion dollar deficit reduction, it only removes less than 1 percent of the debt. In fact, the CBO reports it will only cut $352 million from the deficit.

Now think about this, O'Reilly said it was really a $78 billion dollar cut because Obama did not want to cut anything, and he wanted to add $50 billion to the deficit on top of that. Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin.

Brit Hume even claimed it was a win for the Republicans. Who wanted $60 billion in cuts, but only got $352 million. Proving just how much of a right-wing hack Brit Hume is too. And btw, I wonder what the Tea Party will say when they find out the great Republicans who promised them $60 billion in cuts, only got $352 million.

When will we see the protests at Republican offices, haha, probably never, because they are white, and they do not protest their white Republican friends. They only protest blacks and Democrats.

Here are the details:

As details about the package emerged, analysts realized that deal's supporters were greatly overselling the purported $38.5 billion in cuts. And Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office found that the deal would shave just $352 million from the deficit in the next six months - "less than 1 percent of the $38 billion in claimed savings," the AP reported this:
The Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that compared with current spending rates the spending bill due for a House vote Thursday would pare just $352 million from the deficit through Sept. 30, 2011. About $8 billion in cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.

The CBO study confirms that the measure trims $38 billion in new spending authority, but many of the cuts come in slow-spending accounts like water-and-sewer grants that don't have an immediate deficit impact.
While the CBO study lends credence to the theory that President Obama slyly deflected the worst of the cuts, the fact remains that the cuts will be harmful to the economy and to the people who depend on valuable social safety net programs that will have their budgets cut.

Not to mention, the deal also leaves defense spending largely untouched. So while it cuts domestic social spending, much of these savings are wiped out by inflated defense spending.

And btw, how smart is Obama to make the Republicans think they actually got a $38 billion dollar spending cut, when it was really only $352 million. Will Brit Hume and O'Reilly report this and admit the Republicans lost, and Obama schooled them, haha, yeah they will, when hell freezes over.

The Wednesday 4-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 14, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The last stand for the nanny state. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama's speech this afternoon is a complicated deal. He says he wants the nation to reduce the federal debt by $4-trillion over 12 years, but that's not nearly enough.

Mr. Obama also stated that the debt reduction will be accomplished by spending cuts and 'tax reform,' which I believe is code for 'tax the rich.' Ten years ago the USA spent about $1.8-trillion a year; last year the feds spent $3.4-trillion. You can see the intrusion of the 'nanny state' - the feds doling out money to help citizens who can not or will not help themselves.

There is no question that government spending is out of control and the committed left wing approves of that. But taxing the rich isn't going to get the country out of the fiscal mess.

Here's what will: First, go back to the spending level of 2008 and cut from there over a period of ten years; second, reform the chaotic tax system; third, a small national sales tax should be implemented on everything except food, medicine and medical care; and fourth, reform Medicare by allowing private insurance companies access if people choose that.

If those items were passed by the pinheads in Washington, our debt would come down fast, world confidence in the American economy and dollar would soar, and the nanny state would be doomed.
And once again O'Reilly is off in right-wing dreamland. Earth to O'Dummy, nobody is ever going to use your insane budget plan, they are never going back to 2000 spending levels, so shut up already. Obama has a good plan and he knows what is best for the country, so get over it, your opinion does not matter because you are a nobody. Try to remember that you are a cable tv news show host, and one with a right-wing bias. So nobody listens to you but your clueless right-wing viewers.

Then Dick Morris was on, and of course he criticized President Obama for recommending tax increases on the wealthy. Crazy Morris said this: "Americans have to come to grips with the fact, that a tax increase on anybody is a tax increase on everybody because it hurts the economy."

Really? Are you insane? Americans think a tax increase on anybody is a tax increase on everybody? WRONG dumbass, and the polls prove you are wrong. In fact, a recent poll from 4-13-11 says the majority support a tax increase on the wealthy. So Morris is just dead wrong, and he has no clue what the people want.

Here is a quote from the article about the poll: The American people care little about the deficit. They want jobs, and they want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security left alone. A new USA Today/Gallup poll couldn't be clearer about what the American people really want. Nearly 60 percent of those polled favor increasing taxes on the rich.

The poll found that 59 percent of Americans favor a tax hike on those making more than $250,000 a year. Notice that Morris does not cite any poll to back up his claims, he just made it up and hoped someone would believe him.

So then O'Reilly actually had a Democrat on to discuss it. Dennis Kucinich said this: "The wealth in America is accelerating upwards, and our tax code has helped facilitate that. I'm glad the President is reversing his stand on tax cuts for the rich, because he recognizes that those tax cuts didn't create jobs. I want to see more wealth created and one way to do that is to make sure that everyone is working - all these people out of work is a drain on our economy. And we have spent trillions of dollars pursuing wars that have not made us safer."

Then O'Reilly had David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute on to talk about the budget deal. Boaz said this: "People are being misled with all the hype about 'the biggest budget cut in history.' The fact is that it's 1% of this year's federal budget. It is a small cut and it's just not true that it's the biggest one in history."

And for once, a Republican is right, the budget deal was a dog and pony show, there were no real cuts, but Obama got credit for it with the people, proving how smart he is, and how he got over on the Republicans.

Then the blonde bimbo body language woman was on, which I do not report on, because it's not news, it garbage.

Then the lame Dennis Miller was on to make more unfunny jokes about Obama and the Democrats, which I do not report on because it is not news, and it's not even close to news.

And finally in the last segment Dagen McDowell was on for did you see that, They screened footage of union members staging raucous protests across America, and of course slammed them for it. McDowell said this: "This does seem to be a growing trend, and it's the same thing over and over - they do not want spending cuts by governments. It seems to be a desperate cry by a failing movement because they're worried about their purse strings being cut."

McDowell also watched a clip of Comedy Central Jon Stewart, who argued that eliminating the Bush 'tax cuts for the rich' would greatly decrease the deficit. "On the other side of that," McDowell pointed out, "you could argue that revenue would collapse because the economy would collapse."

Which is ridiculous, and they know it, because Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy boomed for 6 years. In fact, the economy added 22 million new jobs after Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and he even left Bush with a surplus. Funny how O'Reilly and his gang of right-wing liars never mention that.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell waste of time pinheads and patriots. And O'Reilly is back to normal with only one Democratic guest on the entire show.

O'Reilly Proves That He Is A Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - April 14, 2011 - 10:00am

Now think about this, O'Reilly claims to be a union guy, as if that is not ridiculous enough, he also claims to look out for the folks. But he never supports anything unions do, and even thinks it is unfair for unions to be able to donate money to political campaigns.

That sure as hell does not sound line a union guy to me, it is anti-union. Funny how he has no problem with corporations and these fraud PAC's, giving money to Republican political campaigns. And yet, somehow there is something wrong with unions giving money to the people they want elected.

And as far as looking out for the folks, the only folks O'Reilly looks out for are Republicans, the Tea Party, and the wealthy. I guess in his world the average working man who voted Democratic is not one of the folks, because he does not look out for them at all.

On Wednesday night O'Reilly once again showed his true colors. He showed us that you should not judge someone by what they say, you should judge them by what they do. And what O'Reilly did was say he has a problem with union protests.



Now remember this, O'Reilly loved all the racist and biased ridiculous Tea Party protests against President Obama, and supported them 100 percent, for what they said was too much government spending. Despite the fact that during 8 years of Bush when he was spending money like a drunken sailor, and almost crashing the economy, not one Tea Party protest happened.

And btw, Obama had to spend that money to prevent a 2nd big depression, and to get our economy back on track. It worked, and yet O'Reilly, the Republicans, and the Tea Party, all deny it, even when the evidence is staring them right in the face.

But mostly the fact that O'Reilly is opposed to union protests, while supporting the Tea Party protests, shows what a biased partisan hack of a hypocrite he is, because an objective and impartial journalists would support all protests, because they are legal.

O'Reilly only supports what Republicans do, while opposing everything Democrats do, that is bias, hypocrisy, and frankly un-American. And don't forget that O'Reilly also said Obama and the Democrats are a danger to the country with all the spending they do. Except Bush caused about 90% of the debt we now have, and not once did O'Reilly say Bush and the Republicans are a danger with all their spending.

So Bush put the country $12 trillion in debt, almost crashed the economy, the financial markets, the housing markets, the banks, the car companies, etc. in 8 short years. Then Obama comes along and spends another $2 trillion to save the country from disaster, and what does O'Reilly do, blame Obama of course. Even though Bush caused it all, somehow in O'Reillyworld it's all Obama's fault, and he is a danger to the country.

Not only is that all ridiculous, it shows exactly how much of a biased right-wing fraud of a journalist O'Reilly is, because a real journalist would not be spewing that kind of right-wing propaganda out. Especially when they claim to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

Great Example Of Fox News Right-Wing Bias
By: Steve - April 14, 2011 - 9:00am

Before you read this, think about this, Megyn Kelly is sold to the people as a straight shooter, with no bias, and no agenda. And yet, she shows a bias and an agenda pretty much every day, and it's always a right-wing bias, you never see any left-wing bias from her.

In the fifteen days following Megyn Kelly's June 30, 2010, interview hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams, six Fox News shows devoted 95 segments and more than eight hours of airtime to the phony New Black Panthers scandal.

By contrast, those same 6 shows devoted two segments for less than 2 minutes (total) to the Justice Department's release of the results of an internal investigation clearing DOJ officials of any wrongdoing or misconduct in that case.

And one of those 6 shows was the O'Reilly Factor, who reported the hell out of the phony black panthers scandal. But when the report came out clearing the DOJ of any wrongdoing, O'Reilly totally ignored it. He never even mentioned it, nothing, zip, zilch.

From the OPR report:
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has concluded an investigation finding that politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, which sparked a racially charged political fight.

After reviewing thousands of pages of internal e-mails and notes and conducting 44 interviews with department staff members, the OPR reported that "department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment" and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on "a good faith assessment of the law" and "not influenced by the race of the defendants."
A search of all the Fox News transcripts since the OPR report's release on March 29 found no mention of the investigation on The O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck, Hannity, or On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.
The O'Reilly Factor discussed the phony scandal during 18 segments totaling more than 1 hour.

America Live discussed the phony scandal during 45 segments totaling more than 3.5 hours.

Glenn Beck discussed the phony scandal during 15 segments totaling more than 2 hours.
Now remember this, O'Reilly accused the Obama administration of racism, he said they did not prosecute the black panthers because they are black, and so is Obama. He did segment after segment, over a 2 week period, slamming Obama for the failure to prosecute. It was basically a 2 week long smearfest with every right-wing stooge O'Reilly could find.

But when the report comes out clearing them of any wrongdoing, O'Reilly was silent as a mouse, and never had one segment on it, not one, nothing. Now you tell me, is that fair and balanced impartial journalism, of course not, it's biased right-wing garbage.

The Tuesday 4-12-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 13, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Fact vs. fiction on President Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We get a ton of Internet propaganda here - nearly every day some hysterical dispatch lands on my desk. And no one is more popular on the net propaganda circuit than President Obama, so tonight it is my pleasure to set the record straight because Mr. Obama deserves to be treated honestly.

Allegation: The President has not released his academic transcripts. That's true, his records have not been made public.

Allegation: His thesis from Columbia University has not been made pubic. That's false, he didn't do a thesis.

Allegation: Mr. Obama has not released his medical records. True, but his doctors say he's in good health.

Allegation: President Obama has not released his law practice client list. True, but I don't know many lawyers who would.

Allegation: No birth certificate has been made public. True, but the state of Hawaii has once again said Mr. Obama's birth certificate is on file. A Factor investigation also showed that Mr. Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital.

Allegation: Barack Obama received foreign student aid while in college. False, somebody just made that up. So there you have it - just the facts.
And while most of that is true, here is the ridiculous part. O'Reilly said this: "it is my pleasure to set the record straight because Mr. Obama deserves to be treated honestly."

Are you for real O'Dummy, what a joke. O'Reilly lies about Obama almost every night, 24/7 for over 2 years now, and on top of that he loads his show with 6 to 9 right-wing guests every night, and they do nothing but lie about Obama. So then you claim he deserves to be treated honestly, that is just laughable.

So then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it. Crowley said this: "There are some things out there that are myths, and you just debunked a lot of them. But there are other legitimate questions about this man's background - for example, college records, grad school records, who paid for his college education, who paid for his graduate school? Nobody knows. The press was so protective of him that they did not do their due diligence in digging into this man's background."

And what's even more ridiculous than O'Reilly, is asking Monica Crowley about it, because when it comes to Obama she is one of the biggest liars in the country. So nothing she says can be trusted to be true. And yet, O'Reilly has her on to discuss it, which is even more laughable than O'Reilly saying Obama deserves to be treated fairly.

Colmes even criticized Crowley for focusing on the past, he said this: "You want to refight the last election when all these things came up. What we need to know about him is how well he's done as President, I don't care about some grade he got. This is all about delegitimizing the President."

O'Reilly agreed that "people who hate Barack Obama want to use this stuff to say he shouldn't be there." And btw, what is with O'Reilly going all the way back to when Obama was in college, that is ridiculous, because when liberals wanted to go back in time and look at things Bush did, O'Reilly said that was wrong, we should not do it, and we should focus on the present not the past. It's total hypocrisy, and a waste of time.

Then O'Reilly had Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray on, who was arrested during a protest against the recent budget agreement. Mayor Gray said this: "The principal issue for us, is that the District of Columbia deserves the right to be able to make decisions about how we spend our money. But Congress is imposing on us a ban on spending our local dollars on abortions. These are decisions that ought to be reserved for the people who are the citizens of the District of Columbia. We raise our own tax money, so why should we be subjected to that kind of federal intervention?"

Then of course O'Reilly challenged Gray on both legal and moral grounds, Billy said this: "Congress does have authority over the District, they have power over you. And I think you're wrong on the abortion issue - I don't think any tax dollars should be going to abortion."

In the next segment O'Reilly had Tyson Slocum from Public Citizen on who blamed financiers. Slocum said this: "There's no question that speculators and Wall Street banks and other financial firms are driving this. Prices are far beyond the supply/demand fundamentals, and that's because we don't have regulatory oversight over the banks that are driving the price."

Bingo, he hit the nail on the head, the government needs to regulate these crooks. But the Republicans keep voting against it, making them crooks, just like the big oil companies.

Jerry Taylor of the libertarian Cato Institute immediately dismissed that claim, because he is a right-eing stooge. Taylor said this: "Futures markets are simply places where people make bets about future prices for crude oil. If you're right, you make money; if you're wrong, you lose money. Prices are going up because we have lost 2% of global oil production in Libya."

Even O'Reilly agreed with Slocum, he pointed the finger at traders and major oil companies, Billy said this: "I have been very critical of the speculators who are bidding up the price of oil. It doesn't seem that prices are rising based on supply and demand."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about an elementary school in Chicago considered forbidding students from bringing their own lunch to school; the school wants to feed the kids healthier food. Stossel said this: "Schools can barely teach reading and writing, and they have no business telling people they can't bring their lunches to school. It shows one more bad effect of handouts - lunches are free to the school, so why not give away some more tax money?"

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, and O'Reilly finally reported on the Arizona law intended to curb illegal immigration that seems to be headed for the United States Supreme Court. Wiehl said this: "A judge has said that Arizona police can't just pull people over, and ask for immigration identification. They say that's a federal responsibility. This will go to the Supreme Court." Both Guilfoyle and O'Reilly agreed, but they never told us anything we did not already know, and they barely mentioned that most of the law was ruled unconstitutional.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far right nut job Charles Krauthammer on to discuss Obama and Pakistan. The U.S. sends Pakistan about $3-billion in aid every year, but the Pakistan government is now demanding that the CIA curtail its efforts in the country and that President Obama stop the drone attacks on suspected Taliban outposts.

Krauthammer urged the administration to play hardball, he said this: "This is a very weak and double-dealing duplicitous ally. One of the reasons we haven't been giving the Pakistanis information about our drone attacks in advance is because we worry that they give so much covert support to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I think it's time to give Pakistan an ultimatum that we will cut off the support unless they join us in a serious war on the bad guys. They will respond to an ultimatum."

And of course O'Reilly agreed with Krauthammer that "we have to get tough with these people." Because he is a Republican, and a far right nut just like Krauthammer is, they both think the answer to everything is to get tough with people, or start a war with them. Notice that no Democratic guest was on for this segment, so it was a biased one sided joke, with only two right-wingers.

Then the highly edited hand picked Factor mail, and the totally lame pinheads and patriots vote. On a side not, O'Reilly actually had 3 Democrats on one show, and it was a small miracle.

O'Reilly Stealing Beck's Crazy Talk Already
By: Steve - April 13, 2011 - 10:00am

Beck is not even gone yet and O'Reilly is already stealing some of his crazy talk, most likely to try and get Beck's insane far right viewers to watch the Factor now, and especially when Beck is gone.

On the Monday Factor show, O'Reilly copied Beck's conspiracy theory that the far left is intentionally trying to collapse "the entire American economic system," an idea that Beck has pushed on Fox News for over a year.

But what's funny is that Bush really did almost collapse the entire system when he was the President, and not once during the 8 years of Bush did Beck or O'Reilly ever claim the far right was trying to collapse the system.

Not to mention it's totally ridiculous, because the Obama policies are what saved the sytem from crashing, and now the economy is getting better, thanks to Obama and the Democrats, Obama saved the system, he is not trying to collapse it.

Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The far left wants the government to control the economy, not private industry. That's what behind The New York Times, Soros, and other big left operations.

Very simply, they want a re-cast of the entire American economic system, and the only way that can possibly happen is if the system crashes like it did in 1929. In theory, an economic collapse could allow a new system to rise: a quasi-socialistic system whereby Washington would dole out the jobs and money.

So this budget issue, while boring on paper, becomes the primary issue of our time -- eclipsing even terrorism.
And every word of that is a 100% lie, a flat out lie. I am part of the far-left, and I have never heard of such a thing. I am 51 years old, and a die-hard far left liberal, and I have never heard one liberal in my life say they want to collapse the system and have the Government run everything.

O'Reilly just made it up, it's all a fairy tale. And O'Reilly did not just stop there, as if that was not crazy enough, he also said this:
O'REILLY: Now, it took me a long time to get here, but I am here. And I believe people like the New York Times and Soros want the system to crash.

Because there is no other way on Earth that they could continue to bang the spending drum, as Soros and the New York Times are doing -- keep spending, keep spending, keep spending -- when every economist says the same thing: if you do that going over a cliff economically, all Americans are going to be harmed.

So I think they want the system to crash so they can build it back up in the quasi-European image. Your thoughts?

BRIT HUME: My thought would be this, Bill. I don't think that's true. I don't think these people want the system to crash. I think what they think is, because they believe that the government is such a prime mover in the economy, they want to see a continuation of increased spending in the near term because in their view that's how you stimulate the economy.

O'REILLY: Okay, but it hasn't worked, Brit. It hasn't worked in two years.
Even Brit Hume was not buying it, and O'Reilly must have lost his mind. Because nobody wants the system to crash, it would cause massive poverty, loss of jobs, etc. And nobody I know wants that to happen, it's just insanity.

It is 100% lies, why would Obama do all that he has to save the economy, the stock market, agreed to the Bush tax cut extension, and created more jobs, if he wanted the system to crash, it makes no sense. And if O'Reilly actually believes what he is saying, he should be put in a padded room next to Beck, because they are both insane.

Simpson Admits That Republicans Are Homophobes
By: Steve - April 13, 2011 - 9:30am

On MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews Monday, former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), railed against the social conservatives in the Republican party. He admonished male legislators for voting on abortion issues and homophobes like Rick Santorum who say cruel, cruel things about gays and lesbians:
SIMPSON: Who the hell is for abortion? I don't know anybody running around with a sign that says, "Have an abortion! They're wonderful!"

They're hideous, but they're a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don't think men legislators should even vote on the issue.

Then you've got homosexuality, you've got Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have homophobes on our party. That's disgusting to me.

We're all human beings. We're all Godís children. Now if they're going to get off on that stuff-Santorum has said some cruel things-cruel, cruel things-about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul.

Now if that's the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, "Stick with your folks."

But, I'm not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values-while you're diddling your secretary while you're giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it.
And btw, Simpson could be referring to any number of leading Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, who defended his support of the anti-gay American Family Association, Mike Huckabee, who would love the world to be led by people who have a Biblical worldview, or Tim Pawlenty, who is against equal rights for gay people.

Republican CEO Made Illegal Campaign Donations
By: Steve - April 13, 2011 - 9:00am

A top donor to Gov. Scott Walker's (R-WI) gubernatorial campaign has been charged with two felony counts Of Illegal Campaign Contributions. And of course O'Reilly has totally ignored the story, even though he does a weekly legal segment, and always reports on any Democrats who get caught doing anything illegal.

On Monday Prosecutors charged William Gardner, the CEO of Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Company, with one count of excessive political donations and a 2nd count related to unlawful political contributions. Prosecutors claim Gardner used his employees and family members to funnel $44,000 to Walker during the GOP primary. He is accused of then illegally reimbursing the donors with company money.

Prosecutors charged Gardner because the law prohibits direct donations from corporations to candidate committees. However, the Citizens United decision allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts in support of a candidate for office.

If Gardner had funneled the company donations through a group like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or another front group, or if his company had taken out ads in support of Walker, his actions would not have attracted legal scrutiny.

So basically, he was so stupid he could not figure out the right way to make his illegal campaign donations legally.

The Monday 4-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 12, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Winning the budget battle in Washington. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Nearly $80 billion of proposed federal spending will not happen this year, so we the people come out on top. Truth is, President Obama did not want to cut spending, but he compromised because he knew the American people are beginning to understand the danger of owing $14 trillion.

A brand new poll says 58% of Americans support the budget deal, while 38% oppose it. But the President has angered the far left, which wants to continue massive spending. The real story behind the opposition to cutting spending is that the far left wants government to control the economy, not private industry. They want a recast of the entire American economic system, and the only way that can possibly happen is if the system crashes.

In theory, an economic collapse could allow a new system to rise - a quasi-socialistic system by which Washington would dole out the jobs and money. So this budget issue, while boring on paper, becomes the primary issue of our time. Is President Obama among those who want to recast the economic system? Talking Points does not know, but I do know one thing - he doesn't see it like I see it.
Folks, O'Reilly is a lying idiot, because the far left does not want to crash the system. O'Reilly just made it up, it's all lies. He takes what a few crazy people on the left want, and he claims ALL the far left want that, it's a lie, and it's crazy talk.

Then Brit Hume was on, who declared the Republicans victorious in the budget battle. Hume said this: "Look at where everybody started and where they ended up. President Obama is praising this package as containing the largest spending cut in history, but he and the Democrats started by wanting no cuts." And that statement proves that Hume is just a total right-wing spin doctor. Because the Republicans lost in this deal, O'Reilly and Rove even admitted it. They wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and PBS, and they wanted $80 billion in cuts, but they lost on the Planned Parenthood/PBS defunding, and they only got $38 billion in cuts, so they lost.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham were on to discuss the future of federal funding for Planned Parenthood and PBS. Williams said this: "That's such a losing ticket for the Republicans, when they introduce social issues like Planned Parenthood it's highly polarizing and they cede the high ground. The American people want fiscal responsibility and abortion is not part of this discussion."

Ham predicted the eventual demise of federal subsidies for NPR and Planned Parenthood. She said this: "These are rather small, fiscally speaking, but I think this debate will come back. These are frivolous and controversial things that in this climate have to come back."

Then Karl Rove was on, who admitted Obama will get credit for the budget deal, and get a bump in the polls for it. Rove evaluated a new poll showing that most Americans give President Obama high marks for the budget deal. Rove said this: "I would not be surprised if he gains a little oomph from this, because in our system we tend to give credit to a president."

O'Reilly even slammed Speaker Boehner a little and gave him mixed reviews for his handling of the agreement, O'Reilly said this: "He was very interested in showing that he worked in a bipartisan way with President Obama, but he didn't really make the case about how dangerous the spending has become. It is the defining issue of our time."

Then O'Reilly had Factor producer Jesse Watters on, who went out on the town last weekend, interviewing folks who shelled out big bucks to see Charlie Sheen perform in New York City. Which I will not report on because it's not real news.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about mainstream media coverage of the budget deal, Goldberg said this: "The New York Times ran a scathing editorial against the Republicans, accusing them of practically everything short of child molestation and treason. This amounts to marching orders for network journalists - the Times has set the agenda and TV reporters will follow it. Expect to see stories about how Paul Ryan's budget will be devastating to poor people and minorities."

Notice that the NY Times article was an op-ed, on the editorial page, so the NY Times did not say it, an opinion writer did. Not to mention, what he wrote is true, the Republicans want to cut everything, unless it involves the wealthy, or a corporation. And the Ryan budget is devastating to the middle class, the poor, and minorities, you and O'Reilly just refuse to report it, or admit it.

And finally the last segment was the biased, partisan, joke of a segment called the Factor Reality Check. There is no reality, and almost no checks. It's O'Reilly by himself, putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said. It's his opinion, which is not reality, it's bias, and a total waste of tv time. It's so lame I do not even report what he says.

Then the highly edited waste of time Factor mail, and the totally ridiculous pinhead and patriots vote. And what a shocker, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, haha, not, it's just standard tactics for O'Reilly.

Appeals Court Rules Against Arizona Immigration Law
By: Steve - April 12, 2011 - 9:00am

Back in July, federal district court judge Susan Bolton imposed a preliminary injunction on parts of the controversial immigration law passed by Arizona last year, SB-1070.

She enjoined provisions relating to warrantless arrests of suspected undocumented immigrants and document requirements, and also struck down the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if they reasonably suspect the person is in the country illegally.

Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Bolton's preliminary injunction on several major provisions of SB-1070.

In their stinging legal critiques, 9th Circuit Judges Richard Paez and John Noonan wrote that each of the provisions blocked by Bolton are outright "unconstitutional" and that SB-1070 is preempted by federal law and foreign policy:
By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government's authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents.

The record unmistakably demonstrates that S.B. 1070 has had a deleterious effect on the United States foreign relations, which weighs in favor of preemption.

Finally, the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules on top of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] also weighs in favor of preemption.
But the 9th Circuit Court will most likely not have the final say on the issue. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has pledged to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

SB-1070's sponsor, state Senate President Russell Pearce (R), has entered the legal challenge now following a recent decision by the U.S. District Court to allow the Arizona State Legislature to intervene as a defendant in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Brewer and her state.

In his opinion, Noonan recognized that SB-1070 has "become a symbol." Noonan noted that, "For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt."

The 9th Circuit's decision comes as several states around the country are in the final stages of approving similar copycat pieces of legislation.

And what a shocker, not, O'Reilly ignored the entire story. because he supports the Republican Governor, and the law, as he always does. And for a guy who claims to be a non-partisan Independent he sure supports a lot of Republicans and their issues. Think about this, O'Reilly ignored this real news story, but he sure had time to do an entire segment on Charlie Sheen bringing his road show to New York.

Now let's play a game, can you name one Democrat or one Democratic issue O'Reilly supports, ummmmm, there are none, so much for being a non-partisan Independent.

O'Reilly & Rove Proven Wrong About Birther Theory
By: Steve - April 12, 2011 - 8:30am

Once again O'Reilly and Karl Rove have been proven wrong again about Obama and their theory that Obama and the birther shenanigans represented a clever ruse, a strategy, by the White House to throw Republicans off-message.

Instead, President Bush's former adviser, Karl Rove, is getting steamrolled at Fox News, which continues its full-on birther embrace.

The trend is especially embarrassing for Rove since it wasn't that long ago that Rove and Fox News Bill O'Reilly commiserated on-air (pre-Donald Trump embrace), that the birther shenanigans represented a clever ruse--a "strategy"--by the White House to throw Republicans off-message and that the conservative movement had to resist the birther siren call.

(It turns off independent voters, Rove warned.) So what's happened in the wake of Rove's stern warning?

Pretty much everyone at Fox News has gone birther. And who's the latest? Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, who over the weekend said that she thinks Obama "was born in Hawaii" but that "obviously if there is something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate that, you know, he sees going to great lengths to make sure that it isn't shown, and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people."

Palin also claimed Obama has spent $2 million to not show his birth certificate. With no evidence of course, except her opinion.

Palin essentially adopted the Lou Dobbs birther position: Obama was born in America but he's still trying to conceal his birth certificate. And just like Palin, Dobbs works for Fox.

Reality Check: Fox & Friends Get It Wrong Again
By: Steve - April 12, 2011 - 8:00am

It's not very shocking that they were caught lying, because Fox & Friends get it wrong every day, SNL even did a spoof of them Saturday night that made them all look like fools that get everything wrong. But what's really funny is that they were not far off from reality.

The best part of the SNL spoof was at the end when they said we have a couple corrections to make, then they ran a list of about a hundred corrections. It was so realistic you could barely tell it was a comedy spoof.

They get it wrong all the time, and the lastest mistake is that Walgreens does Pap Smears. On Saturday's Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade attempted to dismiss the importance of Planned Parenthood funding by claiming that services like pap smears are available "at Walgreens."

In response to an email about the segment, a Walgreens spokesperson said that they do not offer such services.

The Fox News hosts remarks came during a discussion of the debate over federal funding to Planned Parenthood. During the budget showdown, Republicans attempted to remove federal funding for the women's health group.

Planned Parenthood defenders, such as Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, have argued that the funding is necessary because it goes to "clinics that provide services like cancers tests that save women's lives and save money down the road by catching diseases that are expensive to treat."

On April 9th, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade responded to Reid by dismissing Planned Parenthood services:
DOOCY: And the thing about it that was audacious was the fact that he [Sen. Harry Reid] was talking about Planned Parenthood being this great provider where women can get blood pressure checks, and pap smears, and breast --

BRIAN KILMEADE: Which you can get at Walgreens.

DOOCY: --examinations. Exactly right.
And now the facts: Neither Walgreens, or its in-store healthcare clinics, Take Care Clinics, offer pap smears or breast exams," Take Care Clinic spokeswoman Lauren Nestler told Media Matters after being emailed the segment.

The clinics, which are a subsidiary of Walgreens, offer health services like flu vaccines and blood pressure screening at 350 Walgreens stores.

Fox & Friends false claim about pap smears is the latest in a series of attempts by conservatives to dismiss the importance of Planned Parenthood for women's health services.

As Steve Benen noted, "Republicans, like their cable news network, would like the public to believe the preventative health services provided by Planned Parenthood aren't especially necessary or worthy of funding, since they're readily available everywhere.

As if every block in America has a Starbucks, an ATM, and screenings for cervical cancer. Except, that's ridiculous, Fox News lying about it, ironically, only helps underscore the value of Planned Parenthood clinics."

Trump Proves He Is A Massive Idiot (Again)
By: Steve - April 11, 2011 - 9:30am

It's official, Donald Trump is a massive right-wing idiot. Trump is once again trying to claim that President Obama was not born in the United States, but this time the moron is saying Obama's grandparents planted his birth announcement in the newspaper to obtain welfare benefits.

Which is ridiculous, because the state health department sent the birth announcement to the hospital and they sent it to the newspaper, not his grandparents. Trump also said they did it so Obama could get all the benefits of being a U.S. citizen, welfare, etc.

And that is also ridiculous, because his mother was already a U.S. citizen so he was automatically eligible for all those benefits. So Trump got it all wrong, he just ignores the facts and makes up these lies to try and get the right-wing vote, because 51% of the crazy Republicans believe this nonsense.

On CNN's State of the Union Sunday, Donald Trump claimed that Obama's grandparents planted the newspaper announcement to obtain welfare benefits:
TRUMP: The grandparents put that birth announcement in the newspaper because obviously they want him to be a United States citizen because in those days, people were much more proud than they are today unfortunately for being a United States citizen.

So they wanted him to be a citizen of the United States, for that purpose, and also for hospitalization, for welfare, for this, for that, for all the other assets you get from being a United States citizen. So there are a lot of very smart people who say that is routinely done and that was done by his grandparents.

CROWLEY: I will tell you we've checked with both these papers early on - not to the latest when you brought it back in the headlines - but the fact is that the hospitals reported this information to the papers, and the papers printed it.

TRUMP: Who knows? You're talking fifty years ago.
Folks, that is all right-wing garbage, as Crowley pointed out, the birth information printed in the Honolulu Advertiser came directly from the state health department (via the local hospital), not Obama's grandparents or relatives.

It's also worth noting that since Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, he was automatically conferred citizenship and all of its assets no matter where he was born, thus making him eligible anyway for the benefits Trump claims his family committed fraud to obtain.

White House senior adviser David Plouffe dismissed Donald Trump's birther beliefs Sunday, noting that "there may be a small part of the country that believes these things, but mainstream Americans think it's a side show."

In fact, more than half (51%)of GOP primary voters believe that president Obama was not born in the U.S., compared to only 11 percent of the general public.

Main Street Movement On Taxes & The Rich
By: Steve - April 11, 2011 - 9:00am

Hey Factor viewers, have you heard of the Main Street Movement, no? That's because the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has never reported on it, or even mentioned it.

Which is funny, because it's a movement by the folks, the folks O'Reilly claims to look out for, and yet, he has ignored the entire movement and not said a word about any of it.

As Republicans and Democrats continue to battle over the deficit within a political framing, there is one group of Americans that seems to be getting away without having any sacrifices demanded of them: the filthy rich.

As this chart from from Wealth for the Common Good shows, the top 400 taxpayers - who have more wealth than half of all Americans combined - are paying lower taxes than they have in a generation, as their tax responsibilities have slowly collapsed since the New Deal era as working families have been asked to pay more and more:



There have been a handful of proposals by congressional progressives to once again put requiring more sacrifice from the luckiest among us back on the table.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus recently unveiled a "Peopleís Budget" that would boost taxes on the wealthiest Americans, returning them to levels closer to where they were under Ronald Reaganís first term - hardly socialism.

Yet these proposals have yet to gain steam, and the budget debate in Washington appears to revolve completely around cutting spending for Main Street Americans who've already been asked to pay too much during the recession.

That's why there's a Main Street Movement demanding fair sacrifice and standing up for the great American middle class. Whether it succeeds may determine the fate of most hard-working Americans for a generation to come.

Now think about this, as the share of the tax burden on the 400 richest Americans has dropped from 51.2% in 1955 to 16.6% in 2007, O'Reilly and the right are still arguing for lowering taxes on the wealthy. Almost every night O'Reilly complains that the rich are paying too much in taxes, including himself, when their rate has actually dropped 34% since 1955.

And during that same time the tax burden on the average working family has went up from 7.4% to 13.6%, which is very very wrong. Seriously, think about that for a minute. In the last 52 years the rich have basically bribed Congress to lower their tax rates, while at the same time they raised the tax rates on the middle class.

It should not work that way folks, especially when the rich are getting richer, and the middle class is losing money. It should be the other way around, the rich should be paying more, because they are making more, and the middle class should be paying less, because they are making less, that is how a progressive tax system should work.

Instead, we have a corrupt system and a corrupt Congress (mostly Republicans) who get tax cut rates passed for the wealthy, and the middle class and poor suffer, because they have to pay a bigger share of the tax burden.

The wealthy bribe Republicans to vote tax cut rates lower, and that is a fact. Just look at the chart, they have got their tax burden lowered 34% in the last 55 years from 1955 to 2007, while the little guys have had their tax burden raised 6% over the same time.

And what's really sad is that you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox for that matter. Because they are Republicans, and most of them are wealthy, so they also benefit from the lowered tax rates. This is not fair, and it is hurting the country, but O'Reilly still ignores it.

Republicans Protect Big Oil Welfare (Again)
By: Steve - April 11, 2011 - 8:30am

Once again the Republican party has shown that they are not only in the back pocket of the corporations and the wealthy, they have shown that they are in bed with big oil. And it goes without saying, but I will say it, O'Reilly does not say a word about any of this.

Last month, the entire House Republican caucus voted to defend corporate welfare for Big Oil, stopping any attempt to remove billions of dollars of subsidies for the industry. Many of these companies exploit the tax code to pay very little in taxes, with companies like Exxon Mobil paying absolutely nothing in federal corporate income taxes in 2009.

On Thursday, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) even went to the floor of the House of Representatives to mock those who are outraged about the protection of subsidies for Big Oil, while services for Main Street Americans are slashed.

He jokingly called them the "evil oil companies" and said that "corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations collect taxes."

He instructed critics of Big Oil to "quit trying to play pin the tail on the donkey," suggesting that they were unfairly targeting the oil industry:
POSEY: Those evil oil companies, the answer to all our problems is to tax them more. As if the members of this body and the public is stupid enough to think that at the end of the year those big oil companies are just going to write a check for another zillion dollars.

Let's say we tax those evil oil companies another dollar a gallon. They're not going to write the check, we know what's going to happen, they're going to raise the price a dollar a gallon.

Or given the corporate greed we sometimes see round it off to two dollars. Corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations collect taxes. They collect taxes from consumers who ultimately pay the tax. You add a tax to a product and a consumer's going to pay more. It doesn't pass the straight face test.

I wish we would quit, as the gentleman from the Texas said, quit trying to play pin the tail on the donkey. We know corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes, corporations just collect it.
This guy just does not get it, maybe because he received $2,000 from the Exxon Mobil federal PAC during the 2009-2010 election cycle.

And his economic argument doesn't pan out. A Joint Economic Committee report found that "the removal or modification of [one of these subsidies] is unlikely to have any effect on consumer prices for oil and gas."

Not to mention, Congress could easily pass a law saying they can not pass the cost of paying tases on to the consumers, and regulate them as they should anyway.

And for the record, 74 percent of the American people favor ending Big Oil subsidies, the very same people that Posey calls stupid.

So what happened to doing what the American people want, if 74% want the subsidies to end, why is Posey opposed to it, haha, real simple. Because money talks, and the oil companies have bribed all these Republicans to vote against any bill that cuts into their massive profits. It's called legal bribery.

Paul Krugman Details The Ryan Budget Proposal
By: Steve - April 10, 2011 - 9:30am

As you should know from reading my blog, O'Reilly the so-called non-partisan Independent loves the Republican Congressman and his insane budget proposal. But O'Reilly failed to report the details, well Paul Krugman did in his NY Times column. And what a shocker, O'Reilly never talked about any of this.

Paul Krugman wrote a column called Ludicrous and Cruel. Here are a few highlights:

Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, itís simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.

How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways.

First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics - the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the plan's tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent - a number we haven't achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundation's Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition - the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue - is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.

It turns out that Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are assuming drastic cuts in nonhealth spending without explaining how that is supposed to happen.

How drastic? According to the budget office, which analyzed the plan using assumptions dictated by House Republicans, the proposal calls for spending on items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - but including defense - to fall from 12 percent of G.D.P. last year to 6 percent of G.D.P. in 2022, and just 3.5 percent of G.D.P. in the long run.

That last number is less than we currently spend on defense alone; it's not much bigger than federal spending when Calvin Coolidge was president, and the United States, among other things, had only a tiny military establishment. How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions? The plan doesn't say.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030 the value of a voucher would cover only a third of the cost of a private insurance policy equivalent to Medicare as we know it. So the plan would deprive many and probably most seniors of adequate health care.

And that neither should nor will happen. Mr. Ryan and his colleagues can write down whatever numbers they like, but seniors vote. And when they find that their health-care vouchers are grossly inadequate, theyíll demand and get bigger vouchers - wiping out the plan's supposed savings.

In short, this plan isn't remotely serious; on the contrary, it's ludicrous.

And it's also cruel.

In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans. And by repealing last year's health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isn't a good-faith effort to put America's fiscal house in order; it's voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.

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

Basically it's just a bunch of right-wing spin and lies, based on flawed projections by the right-wing biased Heritage Foundation. And O'Reilly supports it, without going into the details with anyone who is objective, or any Democrats.

Then O'Reilly tries to sell the Ryan plan as a good plan, when it's a right-wing joke. And he does all that while claiming to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, as he spins out nothing but right-wing talking points, with nobody on to counter it with the actual facts.

Why The New Budget Deal Is A Joke
By: Steve - April 10, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is something you will never see reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on his show. Because it shows the facts, it makes the Republicans look bad, and it shows how the new budget deal is just a dog and pony show.

So they cut $38 billion from the budget this fiscal year, big deal, not. Because extending the Bush tax cuts alone will cost $150 billion just over the next 6 months.

Here are some facts: Extending the Bush tax cuts has resulted in a $150 billion cost to the US Treasury in six months. So while they very nearly shut down the government to extract the painful spending cuts on the middle class and the poor, Republicans had already wiped out those spending cuts many times over with the revenue lost from extending the Bush tax cuts.

Now think about this, we could be restoring tax rates to Reagan era levels so that the very wealthiest could actually contribute to the well being of the nation. But we wouldn't want to piss off the richest 400 Americans out of over 310 million, now would we, because that would be wrong.

Instead, the Republicans want to cut the hell out of important programs and services that actually help middle class and poor people stay alive and healthy.

Yeah that makes sense, not. Give the wealthy a $150 billion tax cut for 6 months, then cut $38 billion, and claim you cut the budget, are you kidding me, what a joke.

There is no cut, because $138 billion minus $38 billion is $112 billion, so we are still $112 billion in the hole, making the $38 billion dollar cut laughable.

And not once did O'Reilly attack the Republicans for the fraud, instead he was silent as a mouse, and covering for his Republican friends. Hey Billy, how is it a valid spending cut when the Bush tax cuts leave us $112 billion behind.

And since you love Ronald Reagan so much, why don't we go back to the federal tax rates when Reagan was the President, so the wealthy can pay their fair share, when will you call for that, oh yeah, never.

And btw, how can you call the current federal tax rates too high, when they are far lower than when your hero Reagan was the President. Explain that buddy, oh yeah, you cant, that's why you never report it.

More Facts On The Ryan Budget Proposal
By: Steve - April 10, 2011 - 8:30am

What a shocker O'Reilly has never reported any of this, not. Did you know the great budget proposal the Republican Paul Ryan wants to pass (that O'Reilly fully supports) will increase the debt, and end Medicare, because his private voucher plan would only cover 25% of the cost of private health insurance.

I bet you did not know that, because O'Reilly and the other right-wing spin doctors on Fox are not reporting it. Here are some details, right from the CBO, which is a non-partisan government agency.

The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the House GOP budget released by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is filled with a lot of bad news.

In addition to acknowledging that seniors, disabled, and elderly people would be hit with much higher out-of-pocket health care costs, the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called "extended baseline scenario" -- a.k.a. projections based on current law -- debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window.

In other words, the spending cuts Republicans want to put in place in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes in his plan.

After that, debt projections under the plan improve decade-by-decade relative to current law. That's because 2022 would mark the beginning of the Medicare privatization plan. That's when the CBO analysis said this will happen: "most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system."

If the current Medicare system were allowed to continue, CBO found that an average 65-year-old beneficiary's costs would be only 25 percent of what it would be in the individual private insurance market. Under the GOP plan, those costs would jump to 68 percent.

In plain English, "the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program [the GOP's Medicare privatization plan] would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program."

In summary, the Ryan plan adds to the debt, ends Medicare, and forces the elderly to pay more for health insurance, when they can barely afford to pay what they do now.

My 87 year old Father can not afford any health care plan, no matter what it cost. He has Medicare, or he would be screwed. Without Medicare he would have nothing, and he would most likely be dead now.

Republicans only care about tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy, and the hell with everyone else. And as soon as you people wake up and see that, the better off we will be. What it mostly shows is how we need to vote all the Republicans out. The Democrats are not perfect, but at least they are not trying to screw the majority as bad as the Republicans are.

The Friday 4-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 9, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Latest on the government shutdown. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Well, we have some chaos tonight; nobody quite knows what our elected officials in Washington are doing. Some people say money remains the issue blocking a budget deal - how much federal spending to cut.

Others say ideology is in play, that conservatives want to cut things like Planned Parenthood. Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter actually claimed Republicans 'are here to kill women.' So according to Ms. Slaughter, Republicans want American women to die.

That's how insane this debate has become. As Talking Points stated yesterday, the feds must stop the crazy spending - things like Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting should be funded privately. Only vital programs should receive tax dollars because if that's not the standard, this country will go bankrupt.
And once again O'Reilly spins the truth, it's not so much about spending cuts, it's about what to cut, and who will suffer for the cuts. The left want to cut things for the corporations, and the wealthy, and the right want to cut things for the middle class and the poor. The liberals want to cut spending, but the Republicans block it, because they are protecting the corporations and the wealthy.

O'Reilly and the right keep talking about cuts to Planned Parenthood and NPR, which amount to nothing, and will not affect the budget at all, proving that they are partisan fools, who do not want to get serious about real cuts in spending. And btw, a deal was reached, the Republicans agreed to $38 billion in cuts, which is less than they wanted, but also $8 billion more than the Democrats wanted. So they compromised, which is what smart people do. So there is no chaos as O'Reilyl claimed, because they made a deal.

So then the biased O'Reilly had Republican Congressman Peter Roskam on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance. Roskam said this: "What's blocking this deal is money, and Speaker Boehner is trying to put together a deal that can get the support of House Republicans and the support of thoughtful Democrats. Most Americans say they're disgusted with what they're seeing, but House Republicans have a plan and we're coming forward with a good faith effort. Democrats have their hooks into the American taxpayer and they're not letting go."

Then O'Reilly had a segment with no guest, where he put out the right-wing spin on the budget, and he basically admitted he is a Republican, by saying he agrees with the Republicans. O'Reilly said this: "I tend to side with the Republicans because I understand the danger ahead; the world will not continue to prop up America's massive debt indefinitely. It's hard to believe that liberals want to continue funding things like Planned Parenthood, public broadcasting, and various art projects. That's optional stuff and all of those things should be in the private marketplace."

What's really crazy is how O'Reilly and the right keep crying about Planned Parenthood and PBS, when it is nothing, their funding is just a few million dollars a year, and with a trillion dollar budget it's like a penny. The real money goes to the Bush tax cuts and wars, and yet all O'Reilly complains about is Planned Parenthood and PBS, who get almost nothing, and it's nothing but a partisan smear job.

Then Geraldo was on, he just got back from being shot at in Libya, so he described the chaotic scene. But I will not report that, because we already know it is a bad situation, and Geraldo did not tell us anything we did not already know. Basically Geraldo just went there for publicity, and to get ratings for his show.

Then O'Reilly had the actor James Caan on, why, because he is a conservative. Caan said this: "I've become a conservative because of the position we're in right now. If we are going to wear that badge that we've earned of 'sheriff of the world,' then we'd better act like Wyatt Earp. But I'm being kind of a hypocrite here because I don't like when actors talk politics."

So Caan admits he is a hypocrite, and get this. O'Reilly tells us we should ignore what the hollywood pinheads say because they are idiots, when it's a liberal. But when it's a hollywood conservative, then O'Reilly not only wants you to listen to what they say, he puts them on his damn show for you to hear it. Talk about hypocrisy, O'Reilly is the king of hypocrisy.

After announcing earlier in the week that he'll be leaving Fox News, Glenn Beck was on, he said this: "It's a new era and things are changing in the world. We have to reach different audiences and younger audiences, so I'll do more Internet stuff. One of the motivating factors is that I believe in the things I say - it's not enough for me to tell others to go out and help people, it's up to me to do that as well."

Beck was asked by O'Reilly if he plans to run for office and he ruled out any possibility of that. "There have been people throughout history who have changed the course of America without being in the political system." He also exulted because "I don't think I'll be wearing a tie again."

Are you kidding me, to even ask that is crazy, Beck is a moron who would never win any election, except maybe dog catcher. And not once did O'Reilly point out that Beck was basically fired for being a far right loon, O'Reilly just ignored it and pretended that is not what happened. They acted like Beck just decided to quit to go on to other things, which is a lie, he was fired for his big ratings drop, and his inability to get major advertisers on the show. But mostly he was fired for all the crazy lies he put out about Obama and the Democrats.

And finally Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld were on for dumbest things of the week. I will not report what they all said, because it's the usual right-wing garbage from Neville and O'Reilly, but for once Gutfeld actually picked a Republican, Donald Trump for his birther claims. Gutfeld said this: "If Trump has some evidence, he should show it. He's like a stripper at Cheetahs - in order to make money, he has to tease you."

Wow, I am shocked, that is the first time I can remember when one of them actually picked a Republican. Normally the three of them always pick a Democrat for dumbest things of the week.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. And btw, Thursday's pinheads and patriots asked about actress Eva Longoria, who was bursting out of her mini-tuxedo during her spot on Letterman. O'Reilly said this: "76% of you decided the she was underdressed and downright pinheaded."

Which just goes to show you what kind of old right-wing morons watch O'Reilly. Because I thought what she was wearing was awesome, and if I had voted I would have voted patriot, even though it was not really being patriotic. There was nothing wrong with her little outfit, in fact, it was great.

O'Reilly Jumps On The Birther Bandwagon
By: Steve - April 9, 2011 - 9:30am

Now this is so ridiculous I barely know where to start. On the Friday Factor show O'Reilly said he was bored with the birther stuff, so he called for Obama to put this whole thing to bed.



And now here is why it's so ridiculous. If O'Reilly is bored with it, why the hell does he keep reporting on it every damn night. If he is bored with it why did he have Trump on for three nights in a row to talk birther garbage.

And Obama did put it to bed when he released his birth certificate and there are a long string of tossed out of court cases of Birther lawsuits that say so.

The only people left following this nonsense are the stupid right-wing idiots in America. It's not an issue with anyone but the stooges on the right, nobody else cares about it because they know it's nonsense.

O'Reilly also put it to bed with his own investigation that found the newspaper clipping of his birth. I guess O'Reilly does not even watch his own show.

Virtually every real news outlet in country also put it to bed, and they did so years ago.

And finally, factcheck.org put it to bed in November of 2008, almost 3 fricking years ago. In fact, they even call it the most goofiest claim they have ever looked into. So for O'Reilly to call on Obama to put it to bed is laughable, and it just goes to show everyone what a right-wing hack O'Reilly is, here is what factcheck.org said, in November of 2008.

It's Official: Obama "Born in the U.S.A."

Of all the nutty rumors, baseless conspiracy theories and sheer disinformation that we've dealt with at FactCheck.org during campaign 2008, perhaps the goofiest is the claim that Barack Obama is not a "natural-born citizen" and therefore not eligible to be president under the constitution.

There has never been anything but rumor and speculation to support such a claim, and zero hard evidence. When Obama produced a "certificate of live birth" from the state of Hawaii, doubters simply claimed it was forged and continued to huff and puff.

Lawsuits were filed (and dismissed). Blogs blogged on. Our own "Born in the U.S.A" article, showing close-up photos of the document complete with official signature and raised seal.

It is a document that would satisfy the State Department's requirements for proof of citizenship for purposes of getting a passport. But not, of course, those who wish to believe otherwise, whatever the evidence.

The director of Hawaii's Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

And what's really funny is O'Reilly used to call the birthers loons, now he is helping them by keeping the story alive, and giving them credibility by asking for Obama to put it to bed. Talk about ridiculous, this is it, one day O'Reilly calls them loons, then the next day he is working with them.

Earth to O'Reilly, it has already been put to bed, a hundred times over a 3 year period, get your right-wing head out of your ass and stop reporting on it, because it makes you look like a fool.

O'Reilly Totally Ignores The Deschane Resignation
By: Steve - April 9, 2011 - 8:30am

And not only did he ignore the resignation, he ignored the entire story about the Republican Govenror of Wisconsin Scott Walker hiring him for an $81.500 a year job in the first place. Even though he was an unqualified dropout, while two other (well educated) qualified candidates were skipped over.

Here are the details of that story:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that Walker is using state funds to pay more than $81,500 a year to the 26-year-old son of a major campaign donor with no college degree and two drunken-driving convictions.

Despite having almost no management experience, college dropout Brian Deschane now oversees state environmental and regulatory issues and manages dozens of Commerce Department employees. After only two months on the job, Deschane has already received a 26 percent pay raise and a promotion.

And btw, Deschane's father, Jerry Deschane was a major financial backer of the Governor's campaign. And what a shocker, O'Reilly never reported any of that, and now he is also ignoring the story about the Deschane resignation.

Brian Deschane, the 27-year-old son of a lobbyist and campaign donor in Gov. Scott Walker's (R-WI) administration, resigned Wednesday after drawing "accusations of cronyism."

When asked for comment on it, Walker said he did not ask for the resignation and does not know why Deschane quit. Proving that he is a total right-wing idiot.

Because he knows the guy was not qualified for the job, and he knows exactly why he quit. This is a big scandal about political corruption, and O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it, because Republicans are involved.

But if Democrats were doing this, O'Reilly would have reported it 3 or 4 times with follow ups.

The Thursday 4-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 8, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Shutting down the government.
O'REILLY: We continue to believe that some kind of deal will be struck to keep the federal government running, but it might shut down Friday because Republicans and Democrats can't agree on a budget.

Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress last fall and could have passed a budget then, but they did not want to run in November as a big-spending party, which they are.

Every elected official should understand that huge spending cuts must take place or the USA's days as an economic power are numbered. Once both parties get on board the 'Good Ship Spending Cuts,' then reasonable people can compromise on what must go.

But they can't even get to that point, as the Democrats are rejecting deep cuts. Americans deserve better from Washington, do we not? These people in both parties have to begin looking out for the vast majority and keep their ideology in the closet.

To hear Nancy Pelosi wail that senior citizens will starve, to hear Chuck Schumer lamenting that NPR will no longer ride the gravy train, is demoralizing.

All optional programs have to be trimmed and nobody is going to starve. Both parties got us into this debt debacle and both parties should be trying to get us out. But at this point only the Republicans have received the memo.
And once again the O'Reilly TPM shows what a right-wing idiot he is, because the only thing holding up a budget deal are the Republican riders about Planned Parenthood and NPR, which have 0 effect on the budget, it's a partisan political move by the Republicans. They are holding the budget hostage for partisan reasons, and O'Reilly never said a word about it.

Charles Rangel was on and O'Reilly asked him why his party didn't pass a budget when it controlled both houses of Congress last year. Rangel said this: "We didn't do it because it was a political hot potato, but that has nothing to do about where we are today. Now we have to see whether the whole Congress is going to embarrass the nation by not being able to clean up the mess and move forward."

Rangel also accused Republicans of overreaching. He said this: "Having a tremendous majority in the House of Representatives and saying you're going to cut everything you want doesn't mean it's going to become the law. The Constitution has two other groups here - the Senate and the White House - so you can't say it's my way or the highway. You just can't come in and slash."

And of course the insane O'Reilly challenged Rangel's statement, Billy said this: "Why can't you slash Planned Parenthood and NPR and these non-vital programs?"

Wow, O'Reilly is a total right-wing joke. To begin with, nobody but Republicans care about the little money Planned Parenthood and NPR get from the government, proving that O'Reilly is a die-hard Republican, because he cares. On top of that they are vital programs, it's only O'Reilly's opinion that they are non-vital programs. And finally, the money they get from the government will have no effect on the budget at all, it's like a penny, they get less than 1/1000th of 1 percent of the budget, it's nothing, a few million a year.

Then the far right Lou Dobbs was on to talk about illegal immigration. O'Reilly said that according to a new survey conducted by a conservative organization, 57% of immigrant families in America take advantage of at least one welfare program. But it was dne by a biased and partisan group, so the study has credibility problems, and yet, O'Reilly used it anyway. But when a liberal group puts out an immigration study, O'Reilly dismisses it as worthless because a partisan group put it out.

And of course no Democratic guest was on to discuss it, just Dobbs. Dobbs said this: "There has been a calculated decision not to enforce immigration law, and therefore what you are watching are employers exploiting illegal labor and the taxpayer paying for the support services. In Florida alone illegal immigration costs the state and the welfare system $5.5 billion a year. You and I and our fellow citizens are paying taxes for the benefits that illegal employers won't pay."

The whole segment was biased, and worthless, because there was no Democratic guest to provide the balance, and the study was done by a partisan group.

The President traveled to NY Wednesday to address Al Sharpton's organization. And Sharpton quickly dismissed the notion (by O'Reilly) that President Obama is simply trying to shore up his support among black Americans. "When President Obama went to Harlem two weeks ago, people were standing blocks deep to see him. He has overwhelming support in the African American community and in many communities. Every politician shores up his base, but last night was about him keeping a commitment on our 20th anniversary."

Then the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to talk about Donald Trump and his birther nonsense. Hoover said this: "He's crazy like a fox. This is a very calculated move - a new poll says that 51% of likely Republican voters believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States. The problem I have is that it's a ploy that divides people and plays on their worst fears."

My problem is that 51% of likely Republican voters believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States. That is just insane, and it shows how stupid those Republicans are, because if you believe Obama is not a US citizen, you are a fricking idiot.

Carlson theorized that Trump could be setting himself for a precipitous fall, she said this: "This is a huge risk. If he's wrong, he's going to be torn apart by every other Republican candidate. He's high in the polls because everyone knows his name and he has a very successful television show, he's the master marketer."

WTF? If he's wrong? Are you kidding me Carlson, you are clueless. It's not if he is wrong, he is wrong, moron. And btw, O'Reilly said that Trump's risky move could pay big dividends. Really, with who? Nobody but the right-wing idiots who believe that garbage, and if Trump was a Democrat saying that about a Republican, O'Reilly would slam him and call him an un-American traitor.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about a judge who is going to release an accused child rapist because he had been deemed incompetent to stand trial. Remember, he has not been found guilty, so he has not had a conviction.

And finally the Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy, which I do not report on because it's not news. In fact, it's a total waste of time with two Fox idiots, who get most of the questions wrong, even though they work for a so-called news network. It's like a news quiz with dumb and dumber, MacCallum is dumb, and Doocy is dumber.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw, here is another great example of why I call the pinheads and patriots stuff lame. Thursday's Patriot or Pinhead was about Eva Longoria, who was bursting out of her mini-tuxedo during her guest spot on Letterman. O'Reilly asked this: "Was the comely actress patriotic or pinheaded?"

Okay, let me get this straight. She is either a pinhead or a patriot for wearing a sexy outfit on Letterman. Are you kidding me, she is neither. She is not a pinhead for wearing the sexy outfit, and she is not a patriot either. This is the best O'Reilly could come up with for the pinheads and patriots vote, it was ridiculous.

O'Reilly Doubles Down On Stupidity
By: Steve - April 8, 2011 - 9:30am

The God controls the climate nonsense was not enough for O'Reilly, so now he is saying Renewable Energy is a Phantom, and even said "God Controls The Climate" again.



Remember this folks, O'Reilly went to Harvard, and he still thinks God controls the climate. And that's not all, he also thinks God controls the ocean tides, when it's the Moon that controls the ocean tides.

O'Reilly Gets Strike Three On Stupidity
By: Steve - April 8, 2011 - 9:00am

As usual O'Reilly inserts foot into mouth, and I am still amazed that a man this stupid actually graduated from Harvard. I would bet he cheated, and I am calling for the Feds to investigate O'Reilly's school records.

This time he said Planned Parenthood is "Non-Vital," and that "Nobody's Life is Affected by it." So then he must be too stupid to understand what they do, because millions of lives are affected by Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood provides vital services to those who don't have insurance, you clueless right-wing moron.

They provide pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, prenatal care for those that choose to carry their pregnancy to term, STD and HIV testing and counseling, cancer screenings, prescriptions to treat STDs, and HIV, and they also provide birth control options as well as abortion services.

And if you do not think that is affecting millions of people you are a braindead idiot. Hey O'Reilly, what happened to looking out for the folks, the people you say are not affected by Planned Parenthood are the folks.

On top of being a stupid right-wing idiot, you are also a heartless jerk. Basically O'Reilly is saying the people who get help at Planned Parenthood are worthless, and that is just garbage. If anyone is worthless, it's O'Reilly.

Ryan Budget Plan Hurts Lower-Income Americans The Most
By: Steve - April 8, 2011 - 8:30am

This is how the Republicans want to balance the budget folks, take most of it away from lower-income Americans, while at the same time give massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and not calling for tax reforms to make corporations (who make billons and pay no taxes) to be part of the cuts.

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, because he is a Republican who covers for his right-wing friends, and he does not want you to know what they are doing.

A Center for Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget finds that he gets "roughly two-thirds of his budget cuts from programs for lower-income Americans."

These cuts include reductions in spending to Pell Grants and low-income housing, among other programs.

It's an outrage, and what I call the opposite of Robin Hood. Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the Republicans want to take from the poor and give it to the the rich.

What happened to that shared sacrifice O'Reilly talked about, where is it, when you try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, while the rich get richer, there is no shared sacrifice.

Where is the outrage from O'Reilly, he claims to stand up for the folks, as he lies to them and helps the Republicans steal from the folks to make the rich more wealthy. How is that looking out for the folks, when you are only looking out for the Republicans, the wealthy, and the corporations.

O'Reilly Does Insane Talking Points Memo
By: Steve - April 7, 2011 - 11:30am

If you want to see just how much of a right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly is, read his Wednesday night talking points memo. It sounds like it came right from the RNC headquarters, it's nothing but spin and right-wing propaganda.

And btw folks, think about this, O'Reilly says he never puts out Republican party talking points. Then he does a TPM at the start of the show that sounds like the head of the RNC wrote it, if that's not putting out right-wing talking points, what the hell is it?

Here is the O'Reilly TPM from Wednesday, right from his own transcript:
O'REILLY: Honesty demands that I, your humble correspondent, take a side in the angry debate over government spending, so here it is.

The Democratic Party is putting every American in danger. President Obama is not protecting us, and this has to stop.

The United States cannot continue spending money it does not have. It cannot tax its citizens enough to pay down a $14 trillion debt, and big tax increases would hurt the fragile economy. So the feds must cut spending big time.

The Republican Party, led by Congressman Paul Ryan, wants deep cuts. There is a proposal to slice $6.2 trillion in spending over 10 years, but that includes rolling back Obamacare, something the Democrats will never go for. Mr. Ryan knows that, so he is being provocative.

Right now, the feds will run out of money on Friday, and the entire federal system may be shut down with only a few services like the mail unaffected.

"Talking Points" believes a compromise may come about, but the larger issue remains contentious. Liberal Americans simply do not want to cut spending very much. They want to take from affluent Americans in order to expand income redistribution, and they want an entitlement society like Holland and other European countries have.

Listen to this exchange on the "Today" show:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, "TODAY" SHOW: And when you look at some of the things the Tea Party and others on the far right are asking for -- no funding for Planned Parenthood, no funding for climate control, public broadcasting -- does it seem to you, Senator, that this is less about a fiscal debate or an economic policy debate...

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: Yes.

LAUER: ...and they are making an ideological stand here?

SCHUMER: That's exactly right, Matt. You hit the nail on the head. Even in the cuts they want to make, we can find other cuts that don't cut into the muscle, that don't prevent students who deserve to go to college from going to college. And they are saying no. Not because they care about the deficit, but they have an ideology just to get rid of all government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

They don't want to get rid of all government, Senator Schumer; just unnecessary government. And are you kidding me, Lauer? Funding for climate control? Nobody can control the climate but God, so give a little extra at mass or services.

Funding for Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting when the debt stands at $14 trillion? Have a telethon on the "Today" show for those concerns. Raise the money privately.

This is nuts. The country is nearly bankrupt. China holds more than a trillion dollars of our debt, and you guys want climate control funding? I feel a cold front coming on.

President Obama has an obligation to lead, to cut as much spending as he can. If he would embrace that attitude, he could work something out with the Republicans.

There are more than 300 million Americans, and all of us will be hurt if the feds continue the spending madness. So stop it.

And that's "The Memo."
Wow, there are so many lies and right-wing spin in that O'Reilly TPM, I barely know where to start in deunking all of it. Here goes.............

O'Reilly said this: "Honesty demands that I, your humble correspondent, take a side in the angry debate over government spending, so here it is."

Now that's funny, honesty? O'Reilly is one of the most dishonest and partisan so-called journalists on tv, so for him to use the honesty word, is laughable. And nobody is demanding that he take a side on the debate over government spending, he just made that up as an excuse to spin out his biased right-wing talking points memo.

O'Reilly said this: "The Democratic Party is putting every American in danger. President Obama is not protecting us, and this has to stop."

Are you kidding me, that is ridiculous. To begin with, Bush and the Republican party put us in this mess, funny how O'Reilly forgot that. And to say the Democratic party is putting us in danger, is insane. Because they are the people who got us out of the mess Bush created. And how the hell is President Obama not protecting us, he is doing what he had to do to save the economy, from what Bush caused.

Notice how O'Reilly blames it all on Obama and the Democratic party, when 90% of the problem was caused by Bush and the Republicans, That is classic Republican dirty tricks, and O'Reilly is using them, despite the fact that he claims to be a non-partisan Independent.

On top of supporting the ridiculous Ryan spending cut plan that will never work, and never happen, O'Reilly said this: "Liberal Americans simply do not want to cut spending very much. They want to take from affluent Americans in order to expand income redistribution, and they want an entitlement society like Holland and other European countries have."

And that is more right-wing spin, because liberal Americans do support spending cuts, we just disagree on what to cut from who, we want the cuts to mostly be from big oil, corporations, and the wealthy. O'Reilly and the right want to cut everything that goes to the middle class and the poor, and that is ridiculous, especially when O'Reilly claims to be looking out for the folks.

And liberals do not want to take all the money from the wealthy, we just want them to pay their fair share in taxes. How can Warren Buffet the billionaire pay less in taxes than his secretary, now that is insane, and O'Reilly does not say a word about any of that. Billy also said we should have shared sacrifice, but the Ryan spending cut plan takes almost all of it from the lower income Americans, so they are the only people with a sacrifice.

Then O'Reilly said the Republicans don't want to get rid of all government, when that is exactly what they want to do, they even admit it, they want to cut all government spending to zero, they admit it moron, so O'Reilly is lying about that.

O'Reilly said this: "Senator Schumer; just unnecessary government. And are you kidding me, Lauer? Funding for climate control? Nobody can control the climate but God, so give a little extra at mass or services."

Dear Bill O'Reilly, God does not control the climate you right-wing idiot, and only far right religious fools think that.

O'Reilly said this: "Funding for Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting when the debt stands at $14 trillion? Have a telethon on the "Today" show for those concerns. Raise the money privately."

Wow are you a joke, that money for Planned Parenthood and PBS is less than 1/1000th of 1% of our debt, so if we cut that it will do nothing to the debt, you right-wing jerk.

O'Reilly said this: "This is nuts. The country is nearly bankrupt. China holds more than a trillion dollars of our debt, and you guys want climate control funding? I feel a cold front coming on."

Yes we are bankrupt, and yet you and your right-wing friends demanded the Bush tax cuts be extended, even though it adds billions to the debt, so the rich can get richer, when they do not even need the money. And you and your right-wing friends support more wars and oppose pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The debt is from the Bush tax cuts, the wars, and the economic downturn, and it all happened because of Bush and the Republican party. But you write a ridiculous and biased hack job of a talking points memo blaming it all on Obama and the Democratic party.

Making you a total 100% right-wing propagandist. Your entire TPM is lies, right-wing spin, and more lies. You are an idiot, and a dishonest partisan hack. And that TPM should get your removed from the journalism profession. You are a joke, a fraud, and nothing but a pretend journalist.

The Wednesday 4-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 7, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Why Obama doesn't want spending cuts. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Honesty demands that I take a side in the angry debate over government spending, so here it is: The Democratic Party is putting every American in danger, President Obama is not protecting us, and this has to stop.

The United States cannot continue spending money it does not have; it can not tax its citizens enough to pay down a $14-trillion debt, and big tax increases would hurt the fragile economy. The Republican Party wants deep cuts. Liberal Americans simply do not want to cut spending very much - they want an entitlement society like Holland and other European countries.

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer accused Republicans of wanting 'to get rid of all government.' They don't want to get rid of all government, Senator Schumer, just unnecessary government. Funding for Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting when the debt stands at $14-trillion? This is nuts!

President Obama has an obligation to lead, to cut as much spending as he possibly can. There are more than 300-million Americans and all of us will be hurt if the feds continue this spending madness. So stop it!
There was so much garbage in that TPM I will have a special blog about it, so check it out.

Then O'Reilly asked if the GOP will be blamed for the government shutdown, if it even happens, we do not know yet, and O'Reilly asked anyway. And then he had Dick Morris on to discuss it, really, are you kidding me. What a joke, and of course no Democrats were on.

O'Reilly said this: "There remains the threat of a federal government shutdown Friday, but which party will be blamed if that happens? Political strategist Dick Morris predicted that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Democrats will pay the political price. Morris said this: "The vast majority of Americans want spending cuts, and when one side wants deeper cuts and another side wants more shallow cuts, the deeper is going to win. By making this issue public and making the debate about spending, there is no way the Republican Party loses that fight."

What a load of garbage, the Republicans will be blamed, why do you think O'Reilly asked the question, because he knows the people will blame it on the Republicans, proving that Morris is just a right-wing idiot.

O'Reilly reminded Morris that Democrats have one considerable advantage, he said this: "There isn't really one Republican who can galvanize attention and who has the bully pulpit that President Obama does. I just don't understand why President Obama doesn't see the urgency of the $14 trillion debt."

Then O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall on to talk more about NPR. Former NPR boss Vivian Schiller, who resigned after a hidden camera sting exposed some NPR execs as left-wingers, has denounced the tactic as "an abomination." Marshall, who also criticized hidden-camera stings said this: "This is not journalism. When I was going for my Masters in Broadcast Journalism, I was never taught about putting a wire down my blouse and wearing a hidden camera. You don't lie about who you are."

Lila Rose, who has choreographed hidden-camera stings against Planned Parenthood, defended the technique. Rose said this: "In our undercover tactics we pose real-life scenarios to Planned Parenthood workers at all levels of the organization. We document things the public would not otherwise know about."

Then O'Dummy concluded that hidden camera investigations can have value, Billy said this: "60 Minutes and a lot of other people do hidden camera stuff. The guy who did this is an activist who is getting the truth out to the American public."

That is ridiculous, because most of it is done by partisan hacks who have an agenda, and they edit the tapes to make them look worse, without releasing the full un-edited versions, and of course O'Reilly supports it because he likes them and he is a Republican just like they are.

Then New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof was on. Kristof tried to delineate when and where American military force is appropriate. He said this: "We were right to go into Libya, we averted a massacre. But I wish we had also been a little more active in Rwanda and Darfur. There is zero political capital for going into Africa, which is why we didn't intervene in Rwanda and Sudan. If nobody else is willing to do it, and if we can do it in a way that doesn't require a lot of time and cost, we should."

O'Reilly said American involvement has limits, Billy said this: "In Rwanda and Darfur the logistics are so difficult that it's almost impossible to intervene. Most Americans believe in our exceptionalism, but look at Libya now - that could go on forever."

Then O'Reilly had a total waste of time segment with the Factor producer Jesse Watters, who paid a visit to Harvard, where he spoke with some folks about the school's decision to reinstate ROTC, and the don't ask don't tell policy. Which I will not even report on because it was stupid, biased, and not real news.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly segment to do jokes about Obama and the Democrats, that I do not report on because he is a COMEDIAN, and it is not news.

And finally in the last segment it was did you see that. Dagen McDowell was on to talk about Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, who mocked President Obama's new campaign video. She said this: "This reflects how the liberal supporters of President Obama are feeling, with all the flip-flopping that's gone on. They're disappointed, and I think he's playing to the liberals who are upset with the President."

McDowell then turned to Bristol Palin, who raked in big bucks for appearing in ads urging teens to be sexually abstinent. She said this: "In 2009, she was paid $262,500 by the Candie's Foundation, which was almost half of all the expenses this foundation paid out. The foundation's sole goal is to raise awareness about teen pregnancy and they decided to pay Bristol Palin a huge chunk of change."

While ignoring the fact that they only paid out $8.000 dollars for other things, making them a joke, and Palin a con-woman who scammed them out of all their money.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots.

O'Reilly Ignored Republican Gov. Political Scandal
By: Steve - April 7, 2011 - 10:00am

The right-wing Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who O'Reilly supports btw, pulled a political corruption hiring and O'Reilly ignored the entire story. Here are the details.

On Monday, ThinkProgress reported that Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) was using state funds to pay more than $81,500 a year to Brian Deschane, a 26-year-old son of a major campaign donor with no college degree and two drunken-driving convictions. The job involved overseeing state environmental and regulatory issues and managing dozens of Commerce Department employees.

So Tuesday, after the media reported on the hiring, Walker abruptly reversed course and removed Deschane from his position. Despite calling Deschane a natural fit just last week, Walker spokesman Cullen Werwise said Tuesday that the Governor decided "to move in another direction" after learning of the details of the appointment.

But, Deschane will still serve in the Administration, returning to his previous job where he made $64,000 a year. Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D) says he continues to be "concerned about whether [Deschane] was hired properly under the civil service system."

And those concerns appear to be well-founded. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Walker Commerce Secretary Paul Jadin choose Deschane as head of environmental and regulatory affairs at the Commerce Department over two highly qualified former state officials with extensive experience in state government:
The first potential candidate Oscar Herrera, is a former state cabinet secretary under Republican Gov. Scott McCallum with a doctoral degree and eight years experience overseeing the cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites.

The second, Bernice Mattsson, is a professional engineer who served since 2003 in the post to which Deschane was appointed.

Herrera and Mattsson didn't get far in the process. "Neither candidate was even interviewed," said agency spokesman Tony Hozeny.
This is a big scandal, and the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, nothing, zip, nada.

O'Reilly Goes God Crazy About Climate Change
By: Steve - April 7, 2011 - 9:30am

It's official, Bill O'Reilly is a God nut, now he is saying God controls the Climate, so go to church and give them some more money.

And yes he really said that, I know it's hard to believe, but he really said it. Here is the quote from OReilly: "Nobody Can Control The Climate But God, So Give A Little Extra At Mass Or Services"



Earth to O'Reilly, nature controls the climate, the moon controls the tide, etc. God is an just imaginary person that someone made up for suckers to believe in, and to give them all their money. As Jesse Ventura said, Religion is for the weak minded, or as I call them, suckers.

And btw, most of the so-called men of God are con men who get rich off the suckers that donate all their money to a church.

I say if you want to give your money away, give it to a real charity, like the Red Cross, or a military charity. And Billy better watch it, if he says many more crazy things like this, they might dump him, just like they did with Beck.

Fox News Bias & Dishonesty Strikes Again
By: Steve - April 7, 2011 - 8:30am

When Fox News puts out lies like this, how can they expect anyone to take them serious as a real news network. O'Reilly calls for people to respect him and Fox, but when they constantly lie that is not possible.

Then he gets mad when people slam Fox for their bias and lies, when they could fix it if they stopped it. They are to blame, and nobody else, if they want respect they need to stop the bias and the lies, so their fate is in their own hands.

Here is another example of their bias and lies, on the Wednesday Fox & Friends show Stuart Varney Falsely Claimed The "Democrats Created" The Deficit And "They Do Not Have A Plan To Get Us Out"



And for the record, here are the facts: Virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years is due to policies implemented under President Bush or to the recession.

The tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

Yes Obama added a little to the deficit, maybe 10% of it, but the other 90% was caused by Bush and the Republicans when they had control of the country for 8 years from 2000 to 2008. And most of what Obama added to the deficit, had to be done to save the country from going into a depression. He had to spend that money to save us from what Bush did, so to blame the deficit on Obama is totally dishonest.

The Tuesday 4-5-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 6, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called President Obama's flip-flops. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Politicians have to make compromises and therefore most of them can be accused of flip-flopping from time to time. But President Obama has capitulated on some major points, some of which are core value situations.

In 2007, Mr. Obama said 'I will close Guantanamo,' but yesterday the President folded and terrorists at Gitmo will now be tried in front of military tribunals. Also in 2007, President Obama said he would 'roll back the Bush tax cuts,' but that did not happen.

That same year, Barack Obama said a president 'does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack' unless there is an imminent threat, but in Libya the President took action without Congressional approval.

So you can see that President Obama has changed his mind on some very important issues. You have to wonder how Mr. Obama's left-wing supporters are evaluating his walk-backs.

The 'why' behind all this is that President Obama badly underestimated the American public. We are a center-right nation - most of us want a tough policy against terrorists, lower taxes for everybody, and we want a president who will stand up for 'American exceptionalism.'

If Mr. Obama wants to be reelected, he has to get on the right side of the folks, which is why he has reversed course.
For once O'Reilly almost got it right, Obama has changed his mind on a few things, but it was not a flip-flop, he just changed his mind and in some cases he had no choice because Congress changed some laws. A flip-flop is like one day you are pro-choice, then the next day you are pro-life. Obama did not do that, he just decided to do a few things differently than what he said he would, because he had to in most cases.

Now this garbage about the country being a center-right nation is ridiculous. Because on almost every major issue the majority of the people lean left, the Republicans only win on taxes and the military, the rest goes to the Democrats. So on that one, O'Reilly is totally lying.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to assess the President's policy reversals. Colmes said this: "This is not flip-flopping, it's compromising. The tax deal was a compromise, and in the Gitmo situation Congress said he couldn't bring terror suspects onto the mainland. The question is whether Obama will stand up for the principles he believes in and be a promoter of the government helping the poor and the vulnerable, or will he continue to capitulate to Congress?"

Crowley even depicted President Obama as a Bush copycat. She said this: "After spending years bashing President Bush, Obama is now Xeroxing much of the Bush presidency. This is another example that, yes, Bush was right. President Obama needs to win reelection, and all of this embracing of Bush policies is meant to appeal to independents."

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who may run for president, on to discuss it. Bachmann said this: "I've been on the front lines, fighting against the gargantuan growth of government for the past five years, and we definitely need a change. So I've been in the early primary states talking to prospective voters about how we can not afford a second term of Barack Obama and I've been urged by a number of people to actually consider running."

Wow, are you kidding me, Michele Bachmann for President? To even take that serious shows what a fraud O'Reilly is, because she has no chance to even win the Republican primary, let alone the General Election. The Republicans are stupid, but they are not stupid enough to make Bachmann their candidate. And O'Reilly should have his journalism membership taken away for even taking her serious.

Then Karl Rove evaluated Michele Bachmann's interview and her presidential prospects. Rove said this: "She's a personal friend of mine, and what you saw tonight is who she is. She's smart, she's tough, she's funny, and she has a lot of personality. Those things will all work to her advantage if she decides to throw her hat in the ring. But there are challenges - she has been in the House for just five years and it's very hard for anyone to jump from the House to the Presidency. The last time it happened was in 1880 with James Garfield."

O'Reilly theorized that historical trends will be irrelevant in 2012, Billy said this: "Next year will be different than any other. If the candidate is strong, that won't matter." Turning to the budget battle and the threat of a government shutdown, Rove accused President Obama of "being irresponsible and playing games."

Notice what they did, they turned a segment about Bachmann running for President into an Obama bashing segment. And btw, Rove talked like Obama is some kind of terrible President who has no chance to get re-elected. Which is insanity, because Obama has been a pretty good President, considering what he was handed by Bush. The economy is getting better, 200,000+ jobs are being added each month, the market is up, unemployment is down, and on and on.

In Rove and O'Reillyworld Obama has been a bad President, but most of the rest of the people disagree, which just shows what right-wing spin doctors they are. And btw, a year ago O'Reilly said if the economy turns around and the unemployment rate goes down Obama will be re-elected. And that is what is happening, but now O'Reilly is pretty much calling Obama a bad President, and predictng he will not be re-elected, it's ridiculous. In fact, O'Reilly did not even report the March jobs gain, or the unemployment rate going down, he ignored the entire story.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Nancy Pelosi and some other Democrats who are warning of hungry senior citizens and children. Stossel said this: "Three-million senior citizens will not starve if we got rid of all the government. We called Pelosi's office and even they can't figure out where she's getting these numbers. Government makes things worse, not better. People will get help from local governments and state governments and families and churches. When we are independent and taking care of ourselves, we do better."

Wow, Stossel is a total idiot, if we got rid of all the Government, more than 3 million senior citizens would starve, because they depend on social security. If my Father did not have social security his total income a month would be $385.00, and he would starve, he would also be homeless. I guess Stossel does not understand that millions of seniors live on that money.

Then crazy O'Reilly denounced those Democrats who are predicting doom and gloom, Billy said this: "The mantra from the left is you can't cut anything because no one will learn in school, crime will run wild, and families will starve."

Are you kidding me, O'Reilly and everyone on the right have been talking doom and gloom ever since Obama took office. Even though everything is getting better, and will get even better in the next year or two.

Then O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on for is it legal, where O'Reilly asked a totally stupid question, even for him, O'Reilly asked them if Holder should quit. Wiehl said this: "No, why should he resign, just because Congress defunded the civilian trials. The Attorney General position is not a popularity contest; it should not be driven by what people think of him."

But of course the far right Kimberly Guilfoyle said it's time for Holder to leave, she said this: "This man thumbs his nose at Congress and he was arrogant and came up with this self-righteous indignation. He says he knows better than Congress, he's making this about him!"

Then crazy O'Reilly said that Holder is not serving the people, Billy said this: "He is at odds with 66% of the American public, and the public has to have confidence in the chief law enforcement officer. They don't, they think Holder is a loon."

Really, since when, name them. Who thinks Holder is a loon, other than the right-wing loons who hate him. O'Reilly is an idiot, who makes it up, and so what if someone on the right thinks Holder is a loon, is that enough for him to resign, of course not.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on for another attack GE segment. Krauthammer said this: "The principle is very simple, eliminate loopholes and lower the rates across the board. There are all kinds of 'carve-outs' for large corporations and they end up with lower rates than they should. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but we end up with revenue that is rather low. Why? It's because of these loopholes."

And once again they only attack GE, while 200 other corporations are doing the very same thing, including the parent company that owns the Fox News Network, News Corp. They never say a word about News Corp making billions and not paying any taxes, they only attack GE because they used to own NBC and MSNBC, and O'Reilly hates them. It's total one sided bias, and unfair hack journalism.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote that nobody cares about.

Fox & O'Reilly Hypocrisy Over Corporate Taxes
By: Steve - April 6, 2011 - 9:30am

Now this is great, O'Reilly and Fox cry like babies over GE not paying any taxes, while failing to say a word about News Corp, who also does not pay any taxes. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

Fox News has repeatedly attacked General Electric (GE) for paying "no taxes" in 2010, using G.E.'s actions to attack Obama. However, records show that News Corporation, Fox News parent company, also paid no federal taxes for at least several years in the past two decades.

During the March 25th O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on to discuss the GE tax story. Dobbs said that "finding tax loopholes" allowed GE to avoid paying taxes and said corporate lobbyists have created "a tax system that permits GE to book its profits and leave them offshore."

At one point, O'Reilly said, "I want GE to pay their fair share and every other company that's doing this." While not saying a word about News Corp, who is doing the very same thing.

On Fox & Friends Stuart Varney complained that GE "employed an army of lawyers" to avoid paying taxes on "$14 billion worth of profit."

And Yet News Corp, Fox's Parent Company, Regularly Uses Loopholes To Evade Taxes.

From the NYT: By Taking Advantage Of Tax Code Provision, "News Corporation Paid No Federal Taxes" In Two Of The Years From 2003-07. In a June 25, 2007, article, The New York Times wrote this:
Mr. Murdoch has an army of outside lobbyists, who have reported being paid more than $11 million since 1998 to address issues as diverse as trade relations, programming decency and Internet regulation.

One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation.

By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch's to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years, and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed.

During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation's domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
And that my friends shows just how biased Fox and O'Reilly are, because they do not say a word about News Corp, while attacking GE, when they are doing the very same thing News Corp is doing.

Hannity Calls Obama A Gutless Coward With No Spine
By: Steve - April 6, 2011 - 8:30am

I normally do not report anything Sean Hannity says because we all know he is a total right-wing hack, who does not deny he is a Republican. But I am reporting this to make a point.

Think back to when George W. Bush was the President, if a Democrat/Liberal said anything negative about Bush, they were attacked by O'Reilly for being disrespectful to the President. You could not even say Bush was a bad President, and O'Reilly would report it and slam the Democrat/Liberal for saying it.

But now when Hannity calls the President a Gutless Coward with no spine, O'Reilly says nothing, not a word. Becuae Hannity is his buddy and he works for Fox, and you know that behind closed doors O'Reilly love all the insults Republicans do against Obama.

This is a prime example of the bias from O'Reilly in what he does not do, during the Bush years you could not even criticize Bush without O'Reilly calling you an un-American traitor. Now when a-holes like Hannity disrespect President Obama, O'Reilly never says a word.

The Monday 4-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 5, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Violence continues unabated in Afghanistan. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: About two weeks ago so-called 'pastor' Terry Jones burned a Koran in Florida. Fox News and most other media ignored it, but the incredibly inept Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, gave a speech saying Jones should be arrested.

That was all the nutty mullahs needed to whip up fringe elements in Afghanistan. They took to the streets, murdering as many as 38 innocent people. Everyone involved in this story is disgusting. Terry Jones has blood on his hands; Karzai is simply a villain; and once again the 'Muslim problem' is illustrated for all to see.

One observer said the Koran is 'the word of God' and burning a Koran is 'much more inflammatory than if you were to burn a Bible.' That's ridiculous! The Bible is considered the word of God by Christians and Jews, but they don't slaughter innocent people when the Bible is burned.

But it is Karzai I hold most responsible; he had to know he was whipping up dangerous feelings when he addressed the issue. Finally, Talking Points remains very dubious about the Afghan culture. For ten years the USA has tried to improve things in that country, yet it is still barbaric in many ways. How much longer can we continue to try to save the Afghan people from themselves?
Now I have two things to point out here, O'Dummy said Terry Jones has blood on his hands, when he did not kill anyone, all he did was burn a book. And yet, when O'Reilly was partly blamed for the murder of Dr. Tiller after he spent years calling Tiller the devil, Tiller The Baby Killer, saying he has blood on his hands, etc. O'Reilly said he had nothing to do with it. So when someone else does it, O'Reilly partly blames them, but when he does it he is not to blame at all. That's how it works in O'Reillyworld.

Second, now O'Reilly is basically saying the Afghan war is a waste of time, money, and lives. But a few years ago when liberals said the same thing under Bush, he called them un-American traitors who should support the war and the President. Billy's own friend Michael Scheuer is even saying we lost the war, and O'Reilly said nothing, but when liberals say it they are called un-American traitors by O'Reilly and the right. Now it's a whole different story, proving once again that O'Reilly is not only a biased partisan hack, he is a massive hypocrite and an idiot.

Then O'Reilly discussed the Afghanistan turmoil with foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon and former CIA agent Michael Scheuer, he said this: "We've lost the war, and the Afghan people don't want us there. Most problematic of all, young Marines and soldiers are dying so 'Mrs. Mohammed' can vote in a rigged parliament. It is an absurd and obscene waste of young Americans. If the Afghans want to treat their women the way they do, let them!"

O'Hanlon said this: "This is not a week when it's easy to defend this war, but I'll point out that Afghans are still generally optimistic about their future. For the most part, they don't want us to go home yet because they realize they don't have a strong enough Army to do this on their own."

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about Attorney General Eric Holder, who now says major terror suspects will be tried by military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Juan Williams claimed the reversal is not an embarrassment to the Obama administration, he said this: "Congress put in rules saying the military could not transport these folks onto American soil, so there was no way to have the trials here. The administration stood on its principles - this is about law."

Wow, it's a miracle, Williams actually defended the President and the Attorney General. But of course what he said was lost on deaf ears, because Ham and O'Reilly could care less about the new law, they just want to use anything they can to smear Obama and Holder, even after Congress passed the law, they dont care, they just want to do their partisan hit job on Obama and Holder.

And of course the biased right-wing idiot Mary K. Ham portrayed the episode as a black eye for the White House, she said this: "As Barack Obama often does, he made giant pronouncements but had no plan for actually making it happen. They didn't think this through - the public revolted and Congress revolted."

My God she is an idiot, Obama was going to try them in civilian courts until Congress put in rules saying the military could not transport these folks onto American soil, so he had no choice. She is such a partisan hack she ignores the facts just to smear Obama with her dishonest garbage.

Then Brit Hume was on to evaluate some GOP candidates. Hume said this: "If Sarah Palin does not run, Michele Bachmann probably will, and she may anyway. She'd be kind of a risky candidate, but the Republicans have to be careful how they treat her because she has an enthusiastic following. The issue for both Palin and Bachmann is how independent voters react to them. Independents may be turned off, thinking they're too radical."

Are you kidding me, Palin and Bachmann are both far right radical idiots who will never win anything, and if they did, they would get crushed in the general election.

Hume also said that Mitt Romney may have trouble within his party because of "the similarities between the health care program that was enacted under him in Massachusetts and Obamacare." He described Newt Gingrich as a "volatile figure" and said many voters will view Tim Pawlenty as "an acceptable and plausible alternative to President Obama."

And I predict whoever they run will lose to Obama in 2012, and I still think Romney will be the Republican party candidate.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about a child rapist set to be released in Utah, which I will not report on. Because it's a local story about one man in Utah, and not a national news story.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk some more about Trump. O'Reilly asked if Donald Trump decides to run for president, will he be treated fairly by the mainstream media? The short answer, according to Bernie Goldberg, is no, he said this:

"They don't take him seriously, because so many Washington journalists see things through the prism of politics. What they don't understand is that millions of Americans think that Donald Trump's greatest asset is that he is not a politician, that he doesn't talk or think like a politician. He is a businessman and most politicians couldn't run a lemonade stand. If his candidacy catches on, they'll get really nasty."

No idiot, they don't take him seriously because he has no chance to win, and it's most likely just a publicity stunt. If he decides to run, then they will slam him because he is a far right idiot who is saying crazy things.

And finally the Factor Reality Check, that I do not report on because it's ridiculous. It's just O'Reilly by himself putting his spin on something a liberal said, it has no reality, and almost no checks.

How Stupid Is Donald Trump: This Stupid
By: Steve - April 5, 2011 - 10:30am

Revealing his thoughts on the Iraq war to Bill OíReilly last week, Donald Trump boiled his policy down to an argument of to the victor belonged the spoils. Fearing that 15 minutes after we leave, Iran would move into Iraq and take the oil, Trump argued the U.S. should "stay and keep the oil, take what's necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more."

O'Reilly later pointed out how ridiculous Trump's policy is on Fox and Friends, Billy said this: "You'd basically be re-invading the country you already invaded to try and get their oil. Come on, can you imagine the world reaction to that?"

Then Trump repeated his plan, he doubled-down in a Fox and Friends segment Monday morning. Still convinced Iran will pounce on the oil fields once the U.S. withdraws, Trump insisted that if we don't take the oil, the 5,885 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq "would have died in vain."

Now the facts: We can not take their oil, even if we wanted to. Because the United States of America singed the Hague Conventions that says no country can invade another country and take their private property, their oil, their money, etc.

Trump is so stupid he either does not know we are a signatory to the Hague Conventions, or he does not care. Either way, it shows what an idiot he is, because his plan would be illegal under International law.

And btw, not once did O'Reilly or anyone at Fox point out to Trump and their viewers that it would be illegal for us to take all their oil, because the U.S. government is a signatory to the Hague Conventions so we can not confiscate private property as an occupying power.

Not to mention, can you imagine what O'Reilly and the Fox stooges would say if another country (other than America) invaded Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc. or another Arab country and took their oil. They would be outraged, and call for them to get out and leave their oil alone.

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - April 5, 2011 - 9:30am

Before you read this blog, think about this. Imagine what O'Reilly would say if a Democratic member of Congress did this, especially after saying their party would eliminate all earmarks to get elected. O'Reilly would go nuts, report it in multiple nightly segments for a week, and do numerous follow ups.

But when a Republican does it, O'Reilly is silent, he does not say a word, and now here are the details.

As Roll Call reported earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has a history of blending his personal business interests with his work as a member of Congress. Companies owned by the Issa family, including a firm called DEI, set up websites to channel users to Issa's official congressional campaign website. After Roll Call made an ethical inquiry to Issa, he changed the website.

And that is not even the worst of it, after founding a successful car alarm company, Issa invested his fortune in a sprawling network of real estate companies with holdings throughout his district. One of Issa's most valuable properties, a medical office building at 2067 West Vista Way in Vista, California, is called the Vista Medical Center, and was purchased in 2008 for $16.6 million.

Described as a long-term investment, the property was bought by a company called Viper LLC, a business entity operated by Issa's family that Issa has up to a $25 million dollar stake in.

Around the same time Issa made the Vista Medical Center purchase, the congressman began requesting millions of dollars worth of earmarks to widen and improve the highway adjacent to the building. In 2008, he requested $2 million to expand West Vista Way, the road in front of his long-term investment, but only received $245,000.

The next year, Issa made another earmark request for improving the West Vista Way highway next to his building. He earmarked another $570,000, bringing his total to $815,000, to add parking lots, widen the road, add bus stops, improve the sewer system, and other utility work.

Now think about this, Issa has said in the past that an "earmark is tantamount to a bribe." Even while Issa handed out earmarks to his campaign donors in the past, in this case, he is doing it to help himself.

And this is from te party who said they would cut the deficit and get rid of all the earmarks, are you reading this Tea Party, where are the protests at his office. O'Reilly, where is the outrage.

Although the highway project has not begun yet, the federal money is allocated through Issa's efforts. And a firm representing Issa's real estate company is already advertising the Vista Medical Building and its Excellent Access with Freeway Visibility. As ethics experts have explained, lawmakers should avoid earmarks in the immediate area of their own business interests.

Issa's highway earmarks not only benefit his multi-million dollar medical office building, they provide better access to his other properties in the area. About 2 miles down West Vista Way from the Vista Medical Center, Issa owns a commercial office building worth over $9 million, as well as an adjacent retail office building.

The commercial office building leases to a number of different clients, and Issa's retail building leases to a Hooter's. All three properties are on the same highway, which Issa plans to retrofit with taxpayer money.

So let me get this straight, not only is he using taxpayer money to make a road wider, he is doing it with earmarks, and doing it to benefit his own investments. Folks this is not only wrong, it should be illegal. It's the ultimate corruption, and the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly ignores it all.

Donald Trump Being Called A Fool & A Joke
By: Steve - April 4, 2011 - 10:30am

Most people who have seen Donald Trump in his bogus run for President are saying he is a joke, and that he is making a fool of himself. And it's not just liberals saying it, a few Republicans are also saying it.

On Morning Joe, the Republican Ari Fleischer Said Trump Is "Making A Fool Of Himself"



At CNN Dana Milbank said this: "Donald Trump Is An Absolute Joke"



So what are they saying about Trump at Fox, of course they are mostly supportive, because he is a Republican. O'Reilly even said that he agrees with 90% of what Trump is saying, and he speculated that 90% of his viewers agree with Trump too.

Ingraham and most the stooges at Fox are hyping Trump, the only two people I saw who said anything bad at all about him was Karl Rove and Beck a little. The other 99% of the Fox stooges are kissing Trumps ass, and saying good things about him.

Which shows just how biased they are, because Trump is a right-wing birther idiot, who has crazy ideas and talks all this tough talk when he knows it's just talk. I predicted Trump will not run, and I believe it's all a big publicity stunt.

But O'Reilly and the most of these fools at Fox believe Trump is really running, and O'Reilly even claims Trump has a chance, now that's funny. As I have said before, Trump has 2 chances, none and none.

Fox Hypocrisy On Using Political Talking Points
By: Steve - April 4, 2011 - 9:30am

Now this is something, Fox is hammering a Democratic Senator for using political talking points, what a joke, especially when they are the king of using GOP talking points. It's the classic pot calling the kettle black situation.

And there is a big difference, the Democratic Senator was coaching other senators on language to use when discussing budgetary issues and a potential government shutdown, they are not part of a news network, they are politicians. Fox is a so-called objective news network, who constantly uses GOP talking points, which makes what they do a hundred times worse.

Following audio of Sen. Chuck Schumer coaching other senators on language to use when discussing budgetary issues and a potential government shutdown, Fox News figures have attacked Democrats for coordinating talking points.

Their criticism comes despite the fact that, among other things, Fox News itself consistently adopts GOP talking points as its own, has been caught broadcasting GOP press releases -- typos and all -- and its Washington managing editor, Bill Sammon, has been caught instructing Fox anchors and reporters to use GOP-friendly language in their reporting.

Doocy Claims Schumer Coaching Dems On Talking Points Is "Quite Embarrassing."

Kilmeade: "You Wonder Why" Democrats "Say The Same Thing In Every Interview."

Van Susteren: Schumer Has "Egg On His Face Tonight."

Hannity: "That's Just A Sort Of Class That We've Come To Expect From The Democrats."

Cameron Hypes Schumer's Remarks, Airs GOP Reaction.

But Fox News Repeatedly Presents GOP Talking Points As News. And the great Fox reorters never say a word about any of it.

During the debate over the health care reform bill, numerous Fox figures, including Hannity and Van Susteren, as well as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum -- both of whom were employed by the network at the time -- mimicked Republican politicians' language by claiming Democrats were attempting to "ram it through" Congress.

Fox Adopts Opposition's Choice Of Phrase "Obamacare" For Health Care Reform.

Jon Scott Passed Off a GOP Press Release As Original Reporting on Fox, Typo Included.

Fox & Friends Hosts Recited a Misleading House GOP Press Release word for word.

Fox Adopts GOP Talking Points On "Uncertainty" Of Economy.

On both "opinion" and "straight news" programs, Fox News channeled the GOP talking points that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis and are "getting a free pass" because they are not overhauled by Democrats' financial regulatory reform legislation.

Fox News president Roger Ailes made his debut as a panelist on ABC's This Week on January 31, 2010. But, he brought little to the table beyond conservative talking points repeatedly advanced by Republican leaders and his own network's stable of right-wing pundits. Ailes advanced GOP talking points related to the length of the health care bill, the claim that Obama wants "radical change," and that profiling is necessary to protect Americans.

Echoing GOP, Fox Figures Falsely Claim Reid Included $8 Billion In Bill For High-Speed Rail.

During the October 7, 2010, edition of Fox & Friends, then-Democratic Senate candidate Kendrick Meek appeared on the program to discuss his campaign and his opponent, Republican Marco Rubio. After parroting GOP talking points, Meek told Doocy he "sounds like" Rubio. Doocy responded by airing a clip of Rubio.

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option." Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

In the midst of global climate change talks in December 2009, Sammon sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

Without saying that all the critics that have called it into question are Republicans, who get paid by oil and gas companies, or they have a right-wing bias in their climate change reporting.

And btw folks, Republicans do the very same thing with their talking points, and they do it better than the Democrats do, but you never hear a word about that from anyone at Fox.

Fox Media Watchdog Show Ignores Sammon Scandal
By: Steve - April 4, 2011 - 8:30am

On Tuesday Media Matters released audio of Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon admitting that he had linked Obama to socialism on-air during the 2008 campaign while "privately" believing at the time that the allegation was "far-fetched."

The story was covered by numerous media outlets and drew criticism from veteran newsroom leaders as well as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. And Sammon himself was interviewed about the story by NPR and Howard Kurtz. And yet, Fox News Watch, the one show on Fox News dedicated solely to discussing stories about the media, ignored the Sammon scandal entirely.

Not only that, Bill O'Reilly who has the #1 rated show on Fox, who claims to be the news show of record, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent, who claims to have a no spin zone, and who also does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg, ignored the entire story. Not a word of the story was ever mentioned by O'Reilly, or anyone on his show.

Now imagine this, what if an MSNBC executive had recently admitted he lied about George W. Bush when he was running for President. My God, O'Reilly would lose his mind, write a TPM about it, report it every night for a week in multiple segments, and have 20 Republican guests on to say how corrupt MSNBC is, and of course call for the executive to be fired.

But when it happens at Fox, nobody there says a word, not O'Reilly, not Hannity, not Beck, and not even their own media watchdog show reports on it.

Instead of covering the story, which is centrally concerned with objectivity, fairness, and bias, Fox News Watch spent their time pondering what a Facebook employment offer to Robert Gibbs might mean, and vaguely accusing Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Diane Sawyer of "media bias." While ignoring actual bias from their own executive.

And this is not the first time they have ignored bias at Fox News, Fox News Watch ignored news of Sammon's emails directing Fox's journalists to skew climate change coverage, kept silent about Fox host Andrew Napolitano's remarks that he believed the government lied about the attacks on 9-11, and declined to disclose its parent company's $1 million donation to the Republican Governor's Association.

When Fox executives ordered Sean Hannity to cancel his planned appearance at a Tea Party fundraising event, Fox News Watch said nothing.

So basically, the Fox News media watchdog show is a joke that has no credibility, as well as O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. because they ignore all the bias at Fox.

More Republican Dishonesty O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - April 3, 2011 - 10:30am

The House Republican spending plan for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 - H.R. 1 - includes many economically counterproductive cuts that will lead to job loss and stunted growth.

One of these is a provision rescinding unobligated money from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II, or TIGER II, grant program. The program is designed to deliver competitive grants to states for high-need infrastructure projects.

All but three Republican senators voted for H.R.1 when it was before the Senate, and those three only voted no because they wanted even deeper cuts than those included in the bill.

But three GOP senators - Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) - are now taking credit for a grant to rebuild the Memorial Bridge that was provided under the TIGER II program they voted to cut:
COLLINS: "I am delighted by today's announcement that this critical $20 million will be preserved that will help to rehabilitate a vital link for our states businesses and people. I particularly appreciate Secretary LaHood's working so closely with me to expedite the process to guarantee this funding."

Snowe said she is grateful the "US DOT fulfilled its commitment to the Memorial Bridge project in a timely fashion, and that completion of the bridge overhaul was not jeopardized by ongoing budget debates in Washington, D.C."

AYOTTE: "Having been called one of the worst bridges in America, I am pleased that paperwork issues have been resolved allowing this project to move forward. New Hampshire and Maine have already made a serious commitment to replacing Memorial Bridge, and I am glad that DOT followed through on its commitment."
When H.R. 1 was before the Senate, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood warned people before the vote that approving those could put projects in peril. "We just want to make sure everybody understands that," LaHood said.

Overall, H.R 1 cuts funding for transportation infrastructure by 9 percent, slashing $2.7 billion from rail, $675 million from federal transit investments, and nearly $1 billion from highway investments."

Unfortunately for those trying to use America's old and disintegrating infrastructure, not every project will be rushed through to avoid the budget cuts that the GOP wants to implement.

Massive Fox Presidential Attack Hypocrisy
By: Steve - April 3, 2011 - 10:00am

Think back to when George W. Bush was the President, every time someone dared to criticize Bush O'Reilly and Fox News jumped all over tham, they pretty much called them traitors for attacking the President during a time of war.

Many times during the Iraq war, Fox News came to the defense of President Bush, arguing that those critical of the war were aiding the terrorists and undermining the president.

But in the past several weeks, Fox has gone all out in attacking Obama for the U.S. military presence in Libya, often painting the operations there as "not going well" and criticizing Obama's leadership.

On the May 22, 2006, edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto said: "Are Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists? Why Nevada Senator John Ensign [R] says, 'You bet they are.'"

On the November 18, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity asked if "Democratic Lawmakers are going too far in their attacks against the war and the President and the Commander In Chief while troops are in harm's way?"

On the November 16, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity told guest Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) that "you guys [in Congress] ought to be ashamed ... for criticizing a war when our troops are on the line."

On the November 17, 2005, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said "You got to know that a lot of Democrats, particularly on the far left, far left, OK, are undermining the president's position in the world, in the world, by calling him a liar, saying that he juiced up the intelligence, that he knew it was false, and invaded anyway. This hurts not only the United States everywhere in the world, but it hurts our military people as well."

But now that we have a Democratic President suddenly it's ok to attack him during a time of war.

Republican Stupidity Strikes Once Again
By: Steve - April 3, 2011 - 9:30am

This Republican Congressman (Tom Marino) is so stupid Jay Leno made a joke about him Friday night. And before you read the joke, think about this, Congressman Marino is a member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa.

During a subcomittee meeting last week Congressman Marino (R-PA), wondered whether the U.S. intervention in Libya means we might "go into Africa next."

And Libya is of course, in Africa. Jay Leno joked about it Friday night, Leno said this: "You see why he's not on the intelligence committee. Even Sarah Palin's going 'get a map!'"

Then his office tried to explain his stupidity, and they made it even worse, they basically kept digging the hole deeper. Marinoís office scrambled to respond, telling reporters that the congressman was making a distinction between our aerial bombing of Libya and the potential deployment of ground troops.

They said this: "We are not in Africa by any means," a Marino spokesman said. "We do not have ground troops there and, as far as we know, there are no plans to go into Africa."

They even got that wrong, because the U.S. has military bases in Africa, and we already have troops on the ground.

The Congressman was still not done, because on Friday about 12 tea party protesters showed up outside Marino's district office in Tunkhannock, PA. At the time, Marino, who also sits on the House Homeland Security, was participating in a hearing on the "U.S. Homeland Security Role in the Mexican War Against Drug Cartels."

So what does Marino do, he decided to ditch the hearing and go talk to the 12 tea party protesters instead. This guy is a joke, and whoever lives in his district should vote his stupid ass out of office as soon as possible. Since when is talking to 12 Tea Party loons more important than a homeland security meeting.

Final Report On The O'Reilly/Trump Interview
By: Steve - April 2, 2011 - 11:50am

The Trump ass kisser Bill O'Reilly introduced the final excerpt of his interview with Donald Trump on Friday night. Trump talked about his thoughts on Afghanistan, he said this: "I don't know that Afghanistan is as much of a problem as Pakistan. If Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, why are we paying them billions of dollars a year? I would say to them if you don't give us Osama Bin Laden, we're not giving you the money."

Trump left viewers with the unmistakable impression that he may well throw his hat into the ring, he said this: "I love this country and when I see the gross incompetents that we have running it I can not believe it. I have a big heart, I'm going to take care of people, and I'm going to make sure that this country comes first."

Wow, are you for real. Trump just said President Obama is a gross incompetent, and O'Reilly never said a word. But if he called Bush that when he was President O'Reilly would lose his mind and attack him for it.

Trump is just another right-wing idiot, and O'Reilly pretty much kissed his ass because they are friends and Trump has a lot of money and power in New York, where O'Reilly works and lives. The whole thing was a joke, and O'Reilly treated Trump with kid gloves.

In the past O'Reilly called birthers loons, but when Trump said the birthers are good people who have a valid point, the tough guy O'Reilly never said a word. It shows just how much of a right-wing stooge O'Reilly is, and it also shows what a total right-wing fool Trump is, and that is not just my opinion.

Ari Fleischer the Republican also said Trump is making a fool of himself, Rove slammed him, and so did Beck. I stand by my prediction, I say Trump will not run. And if he does he will get killed in the Primary, and not even make it to the general election.

He is almost as bad as Sarah Palin, he is not as stupid as she is, but he has a lot of the same insane far right positions she has, and that makes them both unelectable idiots.

The Friday 4-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 2, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called War, America and money. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is now becoming clear that the Libyan rebels do not have enough firepower or organization to overthrow the dictator Qaddafi. With NATO air power protecting the rebels, Qaddafi can't defeat them either, so a stalemate looms.

That is not the outcome President Obama and other world leaders want because the longer this drags on, the more expensive and complicated it gets. The Libyan action is estimated to have cost the U.S. more than $500-million, and of course the figure will rise.

The sad truth is that from now on every action America takes will have to be evaluated from a cost standpoint; that's what happens when you're $14-trillion in debt. It is important for all Americans to understand that the nation's power is eroding because we spend far more money than we take in, which will impact everything we do.

The more debt a person or a country has, the weaker that person or country is. Are you getting this, President Obama and the Democratic Party? Libya and the American debt are intertwined, it is sad to say.
What a joke, O'Reilly supports all these wars, then he says we are broke and we can not afford it, while also saying we need to do it to save people. The fool is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He calls for reducing the deficit, then supports spending more than $500 million dollars to attack Libya, when they did not attack us. And he keeps going after GE for not paying any taxes, while ignoring all the other corporations that do not pay any taxes. Not to mention ignoring the main street movement story, that if he reported on it would help them. What a massive hypocrite.

Then O'Reilly had another segment attacking GE with Gary B. Smith and Stuart Varney. O'Reilly talked about the CEO Jeffrey Immelt who chairs President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Varney said this: "Immelt should resign from the council immediately. You can not chair an organization like this when your company pays no tax on $14-billion in profit and when you are keeping $9-billion in profit overseas. Bring this money back and create jobs here in America!"

But Smith argued that Immelt is serving his shareholders, he said this: "His number one job is to create shareholder value, and as a GE shareholder, I want him to find every loophole. The point is whether he is a successful CEO and whether he can use his CEO thinking to create jobs here. I think he can."

Then O'Dummy pointed out that GE, which formerly owned NBC, helped President Obama win in 2008, Billy said this: "If you use your corporation that runs a national network to get a politician elected in return for favors, that's corruption."

Are you kidding me, Fox uses it's news network to help every Republican in America get elected. But O'Reilly never says a word about that. And btw, there is no proof GE got anything in return for mostly favorable reporting on Obama. Not to mention, the reason Obama got mostly favorable coverage is because he had an 80% approval rating at the time, so there was no bias by NBC or MSNBC, they just reported what the situation was at the time.

O'Reilly just thinks it was bias because they did not attack Obama as much as Fox did, when the real bias was at Fox. Proving that O'Reilly is a fricking idiot. It's laughable, especially when Fox is in the business to smear Democrats and help Republicans. They have an entire news network just to help Republicans, all of them, and yet O'Reilly says nothing.

Then O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on to cry about unions in Wisconsin saying they will boycott anyone who supports the Republicans and the Governor. Dobbs and O'Reilly called it an outrage, even though it's legal, and they support boycotts when Republicans do it. And of course not one Democratic guest was on to discuss it, making it a totally biased and unfair discussion.

Dobbs said this: "This is absolute thuggery. Going in to coerce businesses is actually 'protection.' It's legal, but it's as disgusting as a union can behave without turning violent."

So then O'Dummy described the Wisconsin union tactics as bordering on criminal, Billy said this: "It is tacit extortion - you had better be on our side or we're going to boycott your business."

Earth to O'Dummy, how can it be bordering on criminal when it's legal, what a fricking jerk. The right-wing bias from O'Reilly and Dobbs is off the chart, because when Republicans call for boycotts they not only do not call it criminal, they support it. But when Democrats call for boycotts they call them thugs and claim it's a crime, what a joke.

Then O'Reilly had the final segment with Donald Trump, which I will report on in another blog posting. But get this, then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to talk about the Trump interview. Notice a pattern here, not once last week did O'Reilly have a Democratic guest on to comment about the Trump interview. It was all Republicans, and it was done on purpose to protect Trump from real criticism.

Beck said this: "I don't know what his strategy is. Here's a guy who I really respect, a guy who gets things done, and he's a guy who could economically fix our country. But he's made me a little uncomfortable recently when he says 'we'll pound China.' You're not going to go pound China when they hold all of our debt."

Beck also criticized Trump for focusing on President Obama's birth certificate, but The Factor argued that Trump, for all his flaws, will make the 2012 race interesting, Billy said this: "Trump is portraying himself as an outsider and as a guy who has the courage to correct wrongs, and he's getting a massive amount of attention. I think he's going to shake it up and he may very well run."

What a joke, we do not even know if Trump is running, and on top of that he is a right-wing birther idiot. And O'Reilly already had him shaking things up, when he has not even decided if he is running or not. I even predicted he will not run, and soon we will see if I was right.

And finally in the last segment O'Dummy had Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld on for dumbest things of the week. Neville picked the Breast Milk Baby, a doll that allows little girls to pretend they're breastfeeding. Gutfeld went with Richard Simmons, who stars in a safety video that is shown on Air New Zealand. O'Reilly picked Senator Dick Durbin, who held hearings to investigate allegations of anti-Muslim bias.

And I say the dumbest things of the week are the three things Neville, Gutfeld, and O'Reilly picked, the three of them are the dumbest things of the week.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Ignored Jobs & Unemployment Report
By: Steve - April 2, 2011 - 9:30am

On Friday more good news about the job market and the unemployment numbers came out, and the so-called non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored it all. Which is 100% right-wing bias, proving once again that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack.

Because a real journalist would have had at least 1 segment on it, if not two, and reported the improving economic numbers. The report said that 216,000 new jobs were added in March, and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.8%, which shows that things are improving.

From Reuters:
U.S. employment grew firmly for a second straight month in March and the jobless rate hit a two-year low of 8.8 percent, underscoring a decisive shift in the labor market that should help to underpin the recovery.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 216,000 last month, the largest increase since last May, the Labor Department said on Friday. The gain built on the 194,000 new positions added in February.

The quickening pace of job growth has pulled the unemployment rate down a full percentage point since November, the largest four-month decline since February 1984.

The jobs data confirmed the labor market was strengthening despite signs economic activity had been held back early in the year by bad weather and rising energy prices.
Now think about this, O'Reilly, Beck, and pretty much everyone at Fox have been saying Obama is not doing a good job on the jobs and the economy. Which is a lie, and when the jobs and unemployment reports come out that prove they are lying, they ignore it and refuse to tell you the truth.

That's not journalism folks, it's partisan right-wing lies. They do it on purpose because they do not want to report anything that makes Obama look good. And because it would destroy their spin that the jobs are not coming back, and that the economy is not improving.

And btw, on Thursday Beck even said the economy was going to collapse. When everything is getting better every new quarter. The stock market even went up Friday another 57 points to 12,376. Every economic report shows good news, and improving numbers, but O'Reilly and Beck ignore it all, while saying things are not improving.

More Proof Megyn Kelly Is Not A Real Journalist
By: Steve - April 2, 2011 - 8:30am

If Megyn Kelly wants people to think she is a real journalist, she could at least try to play one on TV. Kelly is what O'Reilly and Fox call a journalist, who is objective, she is part of the so-called news division that puts the news in Fox News.

In reality she is a biased partisan, and it was in that role last year that Kelly promoted the so-calle explosive new allegations that the Obama Justice Department was racist, as evidenced by their supposed refusal to protect white voters from intimidation at the hands of minorities.

Kelly even bragged how she helped Fox News drag the rest of the media kicking and screaming to cover the preposterous claims being pushed by right-wing activists with an axe to grind. Kelly alone hyped the story during 45 segments in 2 weeks, covering 3 hours and 39 minutes of airtime.

But earlier this week, an internal investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support the phony New Black Panthers scandal. As Salon's Alex Pareene correctly notes:
I imagine Megyn Kelly, for one, will not return to this particular scandal -- a scandal that she has been hyping with obvious relish for some time now -- very often in the future.
In four hours of on-air coverage since the new developments broke, Kelly has reported on kids who got stuck in the mud, a YouTube video of two girls in a fistfight, a missing cobra, AARP's support two years ago for health care reform, and the ridiculous new charges that the Obama administration is insufficiently transparent.

Kelly seems content to cover everything except an investigation that essentially discredited the non-scandal she covered over, and over, and over, last summer.

In fact, there has never been one single reason to take any of this seriously. Claims that Justice Department officials tried to protect their allies in the New Black Panther Party from voter intimidation charges under a policy of racially charged law enforcement came solely from right-wing activists, mostly at Fox.

It was, in fact, during the Bush administration that attorneys first acted to narrow the charges sought against a few New Black Panthers filmed outside a Philadelphia polling booth on Election Day 2008, one of them holding a nightstick.

And in securing judgment against New Black Panther King Samir Shabazz for carrying a weapon outside a polling station, the DOJ acted far more aggressively than their predecessors in the Bush administration.

Given these very simple facts, it's laughably stupid to treat as credible the accusations from Bush-era DOJ officials that Obama administration are acting out of hostility toward "bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities."

Abigail Thernstrom, a voting rights expert and REPUBLICAN vice-chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that the commission's investigation stemmed from a "wild notion" that conservatives had to bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president.

It was a cheap Republican trick to get Eric Holder fired to make Obama look bad, and it failed big time. Even though Kelly, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and everyone at Fox were part of it, they knowingly engaged in a partisan right-wing smear job, while some of them even claimed to be objective journalists.

So I guess we can now stop the claims from O'Reilly and Fox that Megyn Kelly is part of a straight news division. Because she is as big of a partisan right-wing spin doctor as any of them.

O'Reilly/Trump Interview Part Three
By: Steve - April 1, 2011 - 11:50am

On Thursday O'Reilly continued with what he called his in-depth interview with Donald Trump, who says he may run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Trump began with his explanation for high unemployment, he said this: "China has taken our jobs, they're making our products, and we have to do something about it quickly. They are decimating our country just as OPEC is decimating our country with their oil prices. We have to get China to stop manipulating their currency - there should be a 25% tax on China unless they behave."

Trump argued that a president must command worldwide respect, he said this: "If I ever decide to run, and I may, we're not going to have the kind of problems that we have now because I won't be taken advantage of by the rest of the world. We are a whipping post and we are being ripped off."

Trump then proceeded to lay out his audacious plan for Iraq. "We have spent $1.4 trillion so far, and thousands of lives have been lost. What we should do is stay and take all the oil. In a nutshell, we take over the oil fields - I'm not going to hand it to Iran."

Trump also criticized the administration's approach to Libya, he said this: "The amazing thing is that France led the way and the Arab League said they wanted us to go into Libya. Why aren't they paying for this? I also hear that the so-called rebels are very inspired by Iran and Al Qaeda. So what if we make it possible to take over and they turn out to be worse than Qaddafi? That could happen."

Trump got in a parting shot at the man he wants to replace, he said this: "Our weak president, who kisses everybody's ass, is in more wars than I've ever seen. Nobody respects us and nobody respects our leadership. This guy got the Nobel Peace Prize and every time I look he's going into another country."

What a joke, Trump is the classic right-wing idiot, he says nobody respects our leadership, except a new world Gallup poll has Obama as the #1 leader in the world. And O'Reilly is just as bad, because he let Trump get away with those lies.

Not to mention O'Reilly said 90% of his viewers agree with Trump, yeah because they are right-wing idiots just like him. O'Reilly even said he agrees with Trump on most things. But when he asked Trump what the tax rate should be he could not give an answer.

Trump is a little smarter than Palin, which is not saying much, I predict he will not run, that this whole thing is a publicity stunt to make him more famous, and to get him more publicity for his reality show. The funniest part was when he said the world would do what he says, why, because he's Trump, what a fool.

And btw, I used to watch Celebrity Apprentice every Sunday, but not any more. Now that Trump has proven to be a right-wing birther idiot who insults the President I will never watch his show again. In fact, I will never watch anything he is on, ever again.

Trump Admits he Knows Dishonest Wall Street People
By: Steve - April 1, 2011 - 9:30am

Donald Trump has made questioning Obama's birthplace a big part of his so-called almost presidential run, even though Trump's concerns about Obama's birth certificate have been asked and answered years ago, he has been forced to resort to increasingly bizzare justifications for his doubts.

Trump told Bill O'Reilly that he questions the veracity of Obama's birth certificate because he knows plenty of people on Wall Street who can easily forge documents to commit fraud:
TRUMP: Bill, I grew up with Wall Street geniuses. What they do in terms of fraud, and how they change documents.
Of course, securities fraud is a federal criminal offense, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. This type of fraud is also a serious and pervasive problem. From Enron to WorldCom to the Bernie Maddoff scandal, these so-called Wall Street geniuses have defrauded Americans out of trillions of dollars.

And more recently, banks have been implicated in the so-called "robo-singing" scandal, where bank employees didn't even review mortgage documents they were signing, such as foreclosure orders.

So if Trump is aware that his friends were committing fraud or forgery, why didn't he do anything about it? Did he witness fraud? Did he ever posses a forged document? (If so, that too could be a felony).

So here is a good question the great journalist O'Reilly never asked, did he let his friends defraud people out of billions of dollars without reporting them to the SEC?

And btw folks, on the Wednesday Factor O'Reilly said he would talk about something crazy Trump wants to do in Iraq, and show it on the Thursday Factor. O'Reilly told Rove it was so crazy it would snap your head back in shock.

So what was this crazy thing Trump wants to do in Iraq, he wants to keep a lot of U.S. troops in Iraq to protect their oil from Iran. That's the shocking crazy thing Trump wants to do, really, how, because it's the same thing we are doing now. It was not crazy at all, O'Reilly just said it to get people to watch the 2nd part of the Trump interview Thursday night.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Wisconsin Judge's Order Story
By: Steve - April 1, 2011 - 9:00am

This is the 2nd ruling from the judge in 2 weeks, and O'Reilly has totally ignored both rulings. Almost two weeks ago, Wisconsin state Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Wisconsin's Secretary of State from publishing Gov. Scott Walker's (R) anti-union law.

Because Wisconsin law requires the Secretary of State's office to publish a law before the law may take effect, this TRO should have suspended the law for as long as Sumi's order remains in effect.

Despite all that, the state's Republican leadership asked a different government office to publish the law on its website, and the Walker Administration has already begun to implement the law in defiance of Sumi's original order.

Then on Thursday morning, Judge Sumi issued a new order clarifying that any attempt to implement Walker's assault on working families is lawless:
It is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published, and is therefore not in effect.
And btw, in a third order, issued three days ago, Judge Sumi threatened sanctions against officials who act in defiance of her court orders. Under Wisconsin law, someone who intentionally defies a court order is in contempt of court, and can be fined up to $2,000 for each day that they disobey the court or imprisoned for up to six months.

One interesting note in this entire debacle is that the sole basis of Sumi's orders is a claim that Wisconsin Republicans violated the state's open meetings law by passing the order without proper notice.

Accordingly, Gov. Walker's anti-union allies could eliminate this legal barrier simply by voting on the law again after providing the legally required notice. The fact that they have not yet done so suggests that they may no longer have the votes to pass Walker's bill now.

And the AP reports that "Two Walker administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the governor had not publicly announced his plans, said he would announce later Thursday that he would comply with Sumi's ruling."

Now think about this, O'Reilly is Mr. law and order, he does a weekly is it legal segment on his show, and he has even said if we do not follow the laws we have chaos. So here we have a sitting Governor violating a court order, and O'Reilly does not even report on it. That's chaos, and yet O'Reilly has not said a word.

Now just imagine what O'Reilly would say if a Democratic Governor was violating a court order against a Republican, O'Reilly would have two or three segments a night on it for a week. But when a Republican Governor does it he ignores it all. As he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

O'Reilly Ignored DOJ Black Panther Report
By: Steve - April 1, 2011 - 8:30am

For months and months on end, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox have been saying the Obama DOJ was partisan in it's non-prosecution in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. They said Obama had the DOJ avoid the case because they are black, and so is Obama.

Even though the DOJ under Bush made the decision to not prosecute, because they could not find one person who said they were prevented or intimidated into not voting. So there was no case, and the Bush DOJ decided to not prosecute. And yet O'Reilly and all of Fox put a spin on it that was dishonest.

So the DOJ had an investigation, and guess what, they found no evidence of any partisan politics, or any misconduct. Now here is the kicker, the report came out 2 days ago on March 29th, and to this day O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

Because it proves he was wrong, and it also proves that all the partisan hacks at Fox were wrong. So not only does O'Reilly not spin the report, he did not mention it at all.

Here are the details of the report. In a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) on Tuesday, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robin Ashton of the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility, wrote that her investigation found that in their handling of the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, senior career attorneys at DOJ "did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately."

The investigation also found "no evidence" that their decisions were improperly affected by political considerations or by the race of the defendants.

For nearly two years, the right wing has been obsessed with the decision by those senior career attorneys to drop civil charges against three defendants affiliated with the New Black Panther Party who allegedly intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

This fixation became stronger last year, when two DOJ attorneys on the trial team who are linked the Bush administration's politicization of the DOJ claimed in media appearances and in testimony that the DOJ's actions were part of a pattern of racially-charged corruption at the department, in which lawyers there refused to protect white voters from intimidation by minorities.

These allegations received a steady airing on Fox News, but they simply never added up: There was no evidence that this was anything more than a disagreement between career attorneys on how to apply a rarely-used provision of the Voting Rights Act; the Obama DOJ did obtain an injunction against one of the defendants in the case; it also took action in another case to protect white voters from intimidation by black political leaders.

As the story dissolved, a broad and bipartisan group of media and political figures dismissed the supposed scandal, with the Republican vice-chair of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission condemning that partisan group's investigationas an attempt "to topple the administration."

From the OPR letter to Rep. Smith:
Based on the results of our investigation, we concluded that Department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment, but rather acted appropriately, in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case.

We found no evidence that the decision to dismiss the case against three of the four defendants was predicated on political considerations. We found that the decision by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, a career Department employee, was made following appropriate consultations with, or notification to, career attorneys and supervisors, and Department leadership.

We found no evidence of improper political interference or influence from within or outside the Department in connection with the decision in the case.

In sum, we concluded that the decision to dismiss three of the four defendants and to seek more narrowly-tailored injunctive relief against King Samir Shabazz was predicated on a good faith assessment of the law and the facts of the case and had a reasonable basis.

We found no evidence that political considerations were a motivating factor in reaching the decision.

Finally, we found no evidence to support allegations (which were raised during the course of our investigation) that the decision makers, either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were influence by the race of the defendants, or any considerations other than an assessment of the evidence and the applicable law.
And the fact that O'Reilly ignored the entire report shows just how much of a partisan right-wing hack he is, because a real journalist would do a segment, or two, or three, on the report, then admit they were wrong. In fact, a real journalist would not have made the claims to begin with, especially when they had no evidence to back it up, because the investigation was not even done yet.

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