O'Reilly Misleading As He Pledges to Defend Beck
By: Steve - August 31, 2010 - 9:30am

Monday night Bill O'Reilly pledged to defend Glenn Beck, against the people generating the attacks against him, which they both agreed, "are gonna get worse" saying, "I have your back."

So then later on in the show, O'Reilly did defend him, by spinning Beck's own statement that his rally would "reclaim the civil rights movement," which he said has been corrupted by progressives.

During the interview with Al Sharpton, O'Reilly repeatedly deflected Sharpton's comments about how Beck promoted his rally as an effort to take back the civil rights movement from those he claims have perverted it. O'Reilly wanted to only discuss what happened at the rally, rather than how Beck had previously tied it to the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy.

When Sharpton did not fall for that trick, O'Reilly claimed that Beck said he wants the civil rights movement for everybody, and that he says it every day on his radio show, that Dr. Martin Luther King is not the sole property of African-Americans.

While Beck has repeatedly said that "Whites don't own Abraham Lincoln" and "Blacks don't own Martin Luther King," it is not the whole theme, as O'Reilly implied. Beck has not just said he wants to share or join the civil rights movement, he has said he wants to reclaim it, and that him and his followers are "the inheritors and the protectors of the civil rights movement," while people like Sharpton are perverting it.

O'Reilly did not want to talk about any of that, he only wanted to talk about what happened at the rally, this was done to mislead the people about what Beck actually said before the rally.

So not only did O'Reilly defend Beck, he lied to do it, and when Sharpton tried to discuss what Beck really wants to do, O'Reilly tried to make Sharpton only talk about what happened at the rally, but Sharpton did not fall for it, and disagreed 100% with O'Dummy.

The Monday 8-30-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 31, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Restoring Honor Rally. In the open, O'Reilly said Beck stunned the nation by attracting hundreds of thousands of people to Washington, which is a flat out lie, because it was somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000, which is not hundreds of thousands of people. O'Reilly said hundreds of thousands of people were at the rally a 2nd time during the TPM as he played clips of the rally, which is ridiculous. O'Reilly also called it a huge victory for Glenn Beck, and smeared everyone who spoke out against Beck, including Howard Dean, who said Beck has a screw loose. Then O'Reilly said all fair-minded Americans should respect Beck and people they disagree with.

O'Reilly even said not one liberal in America could have attracted hundreds of thousands of people to Washington, which is just ridiculous, and 100% pure speculation. Not to mention, Obama is a liberal and he attracted millions of people to his inauguration.

Then the actual Glenn Beck was on the show to discuss the rally, and of course it was all great news with 2 Republicans on to review it, including the guy who ran the fricking rally, Glenn Beck. What a joke, where is the balance, where is the opposing viewpoints. O'Reilly even said that he was going to defend Beck from the evil liberals who attack him for no reason.

O'Reilly talked religion with Beck, which is when I stopped the review. It was basically Beck and O'Reilly sitting around telling each other how great they are. At the end O'Reilly once again said that nobody in the country could have attracted that many people to Washington, which is 100% speculation.

Then Al Sharpton was on to discuss the rally, but of course after Beck was gone, so there was no debate on it. Sharpton said Beck has the mall, but he has the message. During the segment O'Reilly once again said hundreds of thousands of people were at the Beck rally, and btw, Sharpton did not dispute that, he just sat there like a stump on a log. I would have said wait a minute king of spin, the official number was 87,000, but Sharpton said nothing. Sharpton also said Beck was a disgrace to MLK, and O'Reilly got mad. Then he said Beck had 300 or 400 thousand people, lol, what a joke.

Sharpton said he stands by what he said, and that Beck was a disgrace to MLK, and O'Reilly said he is not buying it. Sharpton got into the Beck claims of reclaiming the civil rights movement, he said that's ridiculous, but O'Reilly disagreed. Sharpton said O'Reilly should read Dr. Kings speech, and you will see he is the opposite of what Beck is.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to talk about the political impact of the Beck rally. And of course Krauthammer said it was big, and of course O'Reilly agreed. What a joke, these 2 right-wing freaks make me laugh. The Beck rally was only important to REPUBLICANS, nobody else cared, and a week from now nobody will even remember it, or be talking about it.

It was a blip on the radar, a nothing event. O'Reilly admitted it was speculating by Krauthammer, but he said it was an educated speculation. Wow, that's still speculation, which O'Reilly said he does not allow. Earth to O'Reilly, educated speculation is still speculation, dumb ass. Krauthammer said it had a big political impact, as expected, and that is about all I will say about it, because it's just ridiculous. Mark my words, a week from now the Beck rally will not be talked about any more.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss it. They talked about what President Obama had to say about Glenn Beck in an NBC interview. Obama basically said he could care less about Beck stirring up a few people, that he has to run the country. Williams agreed with O'Reilly that the Beck rally would hurt Obama politically, which I disagree with 100 percent. But Williams did say the Beck rally was political, which I agree with. O'Reilly disagreed with Williams that the Beck rally was political.

Williams also said Beck was a fraud, and that it was a political rally, and O'Reilly flat out denied that, he said he knows Beck, and that he is not a fraud. Mary K. Ham chimed in and basically just agreed with O'Reilly, which she always does, she does not have a mind of her own, she just agrees with O'Reilly, and repeats what he says. Ham also agreed with O'Reilly that the Beck rally would hurt Obama politically.

And btw folks, not once did Juan Williams dispute the O'Reilly hundreds of thousands at the Beck rally claims, not once. Which says a lot about Juan Williams, and not once did anyone on the show mention the 87,000 crowd estimate by CBS News. In fact, it could have been mentioned by Al Sharpton, but if it was O'Reilly edited it out of the show. Not to mention, Al Sharpton was the only liberal on the entire show.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss the Glenn Beck rally, and how the media reported on it. What a joke, with no Democratic guest it was a one sided biased segment, as it always is with Goldberg and O'Reilly. And of course they put a right-wing spin on it, with nothing but praise for Beck, and nothing but hate for the media.

Goldberg said he had a lot of problems with the way the media covered the rally. Crazy Goldberg said he had a problem with CNN saying it was a conservative rally, then he admitted it was a conservative rally, what a freaking idiot. O'Reilly also attacked CNN for saying it was a conservative rally, he said CNN was misleading, which is just laughable. Because it was a conservative rally, and even crazy Goldberg admitted it.

But O'Reilly would not let it go, and continued the attack on CNN, when they simply reported on it truthfully. O'Reilly once again said there were hundreds of thousands of people at the rally, which is a lie. Goldberg also complained that they reported it was mostly white people at the rally, then he admitted it was true. WTF, are you kidding me, both his media bias complaints were about something he admitted was true. The man is insane, and should be in a padded room next to Beck.

In the last segment O'Reilly did his ridiculous, one sided, biased, Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on, simply because it's O'Reilly all by himself putting his right-wing spin on something a liberal said. So there is no reality, and usually no checks. In one so-called "reality check" O'Reilly played some video from the Beck rally, and said everyone who went to the rally should be proud they went. How the hell is that a reality check, where is the check. It was just an endorsment of the right-wingers who went to the Beck rally.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And the Glenn Beck lovefest was over, finally. Basically the entire show was a right-wing spin job put out by 99% right-wing guests.

And btw, Sarah Palin was asked how many people were at the Saturday rally, and she said 100,000, which is not far off from the CBS News number of 87,000, + or - 9,000. So even Stupid Sarah did not claim it was 500,000 as Glenn Beck did, or 300,000 to 400,000 as O'Reilly did, or 1 million like Michele Bachmann did.

O'Reilly Ignored Muslim Taxi Driver Stabbing
By: Steve - August 31, 2010 - 8:30am

As I predicted O'Reilly totally ignored the Muslim taxi driver stabbing story, even though it happened in New York, where O'Reilly lives and where he tapes his tv show. 8-30-10 -- A film student arrested in the slashing of a Muslim taxi driver in Manhattan last week was indicted on Monday on charges of second-degree attempted murder and first-degree assault as hate crimes.

The taxi driver, Ahmed H. Sharif, 44, said Mr. Enright had first made small talk with him. After he told Mr. Enright that he was Muslim, Mr. Sharif said, Mr. Enright responded with an Arabic greeting, silence and then told him, "This is the checkpoint" and "I have to bring you down."

Mr. Enright then slashed Mr. Sharif in the throat, face and arms, prosecutors said. Mr. Enright, who is being held without bail, would face up to 25 years in prison if convicted of the attempted murder charge.

And btw, O'Reilly also ignored the hate crime against an Islamic Center in Tennesee, part of it was set on fire and Detectives have said it was clearly arson. Not to mention not saying a word about the 9-11 families for a peaceful tomorrow group, who have spoken out if favor of the NY mosque. They even had a press conference in New York, and O'Reilly still ignored it. No guest from their group, no nothing, he has totally ignored them.

More Bad Palin Poll News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 31, 2010 - 8:00am

As we all know O'Reilly loves him some Sarah Palin, even though she is flat out stupid, and a far right radical Republican. O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent, yet he supports Sarah Palin 100 percent, and defends everything she says and does. O'Reilly has even said she is smart enough and qualified enough to be the President.

Even though they have been coaching her up for 2 years it's pretty clear she is still stupid, they just sugar coat it a little better now.

Now we have another poll that shows the American people do not want Palin to be the President, and do not think she is qualified. And of course O'Reilly has ignored it, and will never say one word about it.

8-30-10 -- A new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released Monday found that despite her star status, 59% of Americans don't think Palin would be a hit in the White House.

Even among Republicans, just 40% said the former vice presidential candidate would make an effective President.

Since she broke onto the national stage in 2008, Palin has leveraged her political past into multi-million dollar book deals, and high-profile speeches.

The poll results also showed that 75% of Democrats and 63% of independents did not feel she would be effective in office.

Only 26% of those surveyed said they felt confident she would be a successful President, including 47% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats, and 21% of independents.

And btw, The NY Daily News also reported that 80,000 people were at the Saturday Glenn Beck Rally. They wrote this:
At least 80,000 people came to see her speak on Saturday at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" event in Washington, D.C.
So that is a 2nd source that reports the crowd size for the event at 80,000, CBS News said it was 87,000, with a +/- margin of error of 9,000, so that could be 78,000, or 96,000.

Here is my question, if 75% of Democrats and 63% of Independent do not like Stupid Sarah, how the hell is she gonna win, answer, she can't, and she won't. But I hope she does run, and wins, so then Obama can crush her like a bug in 2010. Run Sarah Run, please!

Crazy Michele Bachmann Said 1 Million At Beck Rally
By: Steve - August 30, 2010 - 5:30pm

If you want proof the far right nut job Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is insane, just read this quote from the Washington Post:
Rep. Michele Bachmann hosted her own rally Saturday at the Washington Monument. The event coincided with high-profile gatherings organized by Fox News host Glenn Beck and civil rights leader Al Sharpton.

On a day when crowd estimates could provide their respective groups with political clout, Bachmann asked her audience how many thought more than 1 million people were in attendance. The question was met by big cheers from the gathering of about 1,000.

"We're not going let anyone get away with saying there were less than a million here today because we were witnesses," Bachmann said.
Okay, so now it's a million people. But Glenn Beck said it was 500,000, and the right-wing freepers said it was 330,000, but the only official crowd estimate is 87,000 from CBS News, so who are you going to believe.

I think I'll go with CBS, because they are the only place that actually had an aerial photo company take aerial photos to do a crowd estimate. Everyone else is just guessing, and you sure can not believe Beck or any Republican, especially Bachmann. Not to mention the NY Daily News is reporting 80,000 people were there, which is close to the CBS News estimate.

This Is What A Million People Looks Like!
By: Steve - August 30, 2010 - 5:00pm

There are so many people there you can not even get them all in the photo, they are out of the picture. This photo is from the Obama Inauguration btw.

Earth to Michele Bachmann, that is what a million people looks like, now compare that to photos from the Beck rally where half the area was taken up by the reflecting pool, and they were sitting in lawn chairs, not to mention some grass areas did not even have any people.

Without Fox News The Tea Party Is Nothing
By: Steve - August 30, 2010 - 10:00am

Ask yourself this, if there were no Fox News Network would there even be a Tea Party, would anyone know who Glenn Beck is, and the answer is no. Without Fox News promoting all these right-wing events, and without them giving Beck a tv show, nobody would know who they are, and they would not have a tv network to promote all their propaganda.

Make no mistake, Saturday's Beck/Palin rally was Tea Party all the way. That means that the Tea Party is able to draw big crowds and that it remains a growing force in politics, right?


What the Beck/Palin rally proved, is that when Fox News gets behind a Tea Party event, it's a success. And when Fox News, decides to sit out Tea Party events, the attendance is always very low.

For example, earlier this month Andrew Breitbart headlined a national Tea Party rally in Philadelphia, a rally Fox News did not hype on the air. Organizers expected 3,000 to 4,000 people. But only 300 showed up.

Back in April, Palin headlined an anti-tax Tea Party event on April 15, in Boston, but only 5,000 showed up.

And next week there is an event called "An Evening of Hope with Sarah Palin," featuring the former Alaska Governor. It was supposed to be a minor blockbuster in Jacksonville, Florida, but things are not going so well.

Slow ticket sales have forced event organizers to move the event from the 2,936-seat Moran Theatre to the much smaller 609-seat Terry Theatre.

The point is Beck used Fox News air time for months promoting and marketing his rally. Beck used his Fox News platform incessantly to pitch the rally and at times to practically beg people to attend. All the right-wing groups, websites, and media outlets also promoted the rally, with ads in their magazines, writing about it, etc.

So the Beck 8/28 rally was basically co-sponsored by Fox News, thanks to the air time Beck set aside on his cable show to hype the event.

That was good news for the Tea Party. But what the Tea Party has yet to demonstrate is that its rallies can succeed on their own. What the Tea party has not shown is that it can draw big crowds without the help of Fox News artificially boosting the numbers.

When Fox News ignores it, nobody shows up, which is just more proof that they are nothing but a propaganda network, instead of a real news network. Because they do nothing but help the right and smear the left. It's like the Republican party created a news network, except someone else did it for them.

Al Sharpton Called The Beck Rally Offensive
By: Steve - August 30, 2010 - 9:00am

And I agree, the Beck rally was offensive because they had it on the same day as the anniversary of the MLK I have a dream speech, and because they used MLK video and audio at the rally.

The reason that it is so offensive is because a hell of a lot of the beck followers are racists, they hated Dr. King, and most black people. Plus, Beck and the majority of the right oppose civil rights, they want to take freedoms away from people, not add more freedoms.

Sharpton talked about on it the Monday 8-30-10 NBC Today show:

Beck is the opposite of a civil rights leader, so that also made it offensive. Beck said he is going to reclaim the civil rights movement, ok, for who, white Republicans?

Which one of their civil rights have been violated, what civil rights do they not have, name one, I sure can't. So the whole thing is ridiculous, because they have all their civil rights, making Beck a fraud and a con man.

Republicans Claim 300 to 500 Thousand At Beck Rally
By: Steve - August 29, 2010 - 11:00am

Some right-wing stooge at www.freerepublic.com is saying the Beck rally had 330,000 people, based on an un-scientific method of calculation. Basically he just guessed, by taking the size of the area times the amount of space a person would take up.

Which is flawed in many ways, for one thing a lot of people were spread out in lawn chairs, and they were not standing packed together. And 2nd, the crowd did not fill the entire area, you can see areas of open grass, and it was not shoulder to shoulder in the entire area with everyone standing.

Here is exactly what he wrote:
We find the enclosing area is about 223,000 square meters and the reflecting pool about 26,000 square meters. By applying only the least bit of advanced math, we get a total area for the crowd of about 197,000 square meters. The Park Service considers a dense crowd to be around 10 square feet per person, or about 0.93 square meters per person - call it 1.1 people per square meter. If the whole area were packed that densely, we'd have about 215,000 people.

Of course, it's clear from these pictures that the whole area isn't that tightly packed; on the other hand, we don't know when the photos were taken.
So he admits the area was not tightly packed, then he uses the flawed calculations anyway. Then on top of that he estimated that it was 330,000 people. Which is just laughable. Then he writes this:
So these should be considered very conservative estimates, especially as we think about the lower percentages. The total could easily be, say, twice the 75 percent estimate, or about 330,000 people.

Now, as I was completing this piece, CBS News released its own estimate, based, it said, on an estimate they commissioned by AirPhotosLive.com. That estimate: 87,000 ± 9,000.

It appears to me that 87,000 is a real lower bound estimate: that would mean that only about 40 percent of the area had a dense crowd. And there weren't any people in the other areas I didn't include.
That is what you call right-wing math, just guess and make up a number, based on square footage. Which is not how actual crowd estimates are done. And btw, after he posted that some other members said it was more like 500,000, just as Beck claimed.

And now let's get back to reality, Estimating the size of a crowd requires aerial photographs, dimensions of the gathering space, and an estimate of the crowd's density. Average density is one person per 5 square feet. A tightly packed crowd has a density of one person per 2.5 square feet.

And the guy at freerepublic.com did none of that, in fact, CBS News is the only place that did it with an aerial photo, so their crowd estimate is the only one that can be trusted. In other words, you can only estimate a crowd size using aerial photos.

From cbsnews.com:
August 28, 2010 6:32 PM

An estimated 87,000 people attended a rally organized by talk-radio host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News.

The company AirPhotosLive.com based the attendance on aerial pictures it took over the rally, which stretched from in front of the Lincoln Memorial along the Reflecting Pool to the Washington Monument.

Beck, who predicted that at least 100,000 people would show up, opened his comments with a joke: "I have just gotten word from the media that there is over 1,000 people here today."

AirPhotosLive.com gave its estimate a margin of error of 9,000, meaning between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally. The photos used to make the estimate were taken at noon Saturday, which is when the company estimated was the rally's high point.
And that my friends is the only official crowd size estimate we have, because they are the only people who used aerial photos. And I believe it, I would say it was between 78,000 and 96,000, so if anyone says it was 300, 400, or even 500,000, they are lying, and just making it up, as Beck did, and as a lot of Republicans are doing.

And btw, if it had been a liberal rally, and the CBS News said it was 87,000, the right-wing would all use that number, and most likely say CBS was lying and that it was even less than that.

My Top 5 Crazy Glenn Beck Rally Statements
By: Steve - August 29, 2010 - 9:00am

There is no way I could comment on all the crazy things Beck said at the right-wing church picnic he had Saturday, so I have picked my top 5 most crazy Beck statements.

5) Beck: "America today begins to turn back to God." Beck said, "Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God."

4) Beck: "I have been looking for the next George Washington. I know he is in this crowd." Beck said, "Somewhere in this crowd -- I know it. I have been looking for the next George Washington. I know he is in this crowd. He may be 8 years old, but this is the moment. This is the moment that he dedicates his life, that he sees giants around him. And 25 years from now, he will come not to this stair, but to those stairs. And he can proclaim, 'I have a new dream.'

3) Beck compares himself to "the man who saw the iceberg" on the Titanic. Beck said, "I know that many in this country think that I'm a fearmonger. It is not a label that I think applies. I do talk about frightening things. But I don't think the man who saw the iceberg as the Titanic was about to hit it and said, 'It's an iceberg,' was a fearmonger. He was warning people on the ship."

2) Beck: "I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most." After reciting the names of Moses, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington, Beck said that "out of all these giants, I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most because we haven't carved him in marble yet."

And the winner is......

1) Beck said the 8-28 rally would be an "American Miracle" and that the "spirit of God" would be unleashed.

Beck called it everything from "an American miracle" to a "defibrillator to the heart of America." Beck also claimed that with the rally, he and his audience would be able to "reclaim the distorted" civil rights movement.

In the days and weeks leading up to 8-28 rally, Beck promoted the idea that God was directly involved in the day's events. He said that attendees would "see the spirit of God unleashed," and claimed the rally will produce an "awakening." He even said that God gave him good weather for the rally, even though it's August and almost every day has good weather.

But here is the best one. In a video posted at his website, Beck placed the "Restoring Honor" rally in the context of the moon landing, the Montgomery bus boycott, Iwo Jima, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The video also implied that Beck is following in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, the Founding Fathers, Martha Washington, and the Wright Brothers.

And the insane video was also shown at the "Restoring Honor" rally. Now that's fricking crazy.

The Beck Comparisons To MLK Were Ridiculous
By: Steve - August 29, 2010 - 8:30am

Saturday at the Glenn Beck church picnic, oops I mean Restoring Honor Rally. And btw, exactly how did Beck restore honor to America by having a religious rally with 90,000 conservatives.

So anyway, at the religious rally Beck said some crazy things, but one thing stood out to me as really crazy. After reciting the names of Moses, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington, Beck said this:
BECK: I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most. Out of all these giants, I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most because we haven't carved him in marble yet.
Now that's f-ing crazy, because Martin Luther King and Glenn Beck are like fire and water, they are exact opposites. In no way can Glenn Beck relate to MLK, and if MLK were alive today he would not relate to Glenn Beck at all. Let me show you a few ways that they are exactly opposite.

-- MLK believed that it was America's collective responsibility to provide economic justice for all.
In 1961, MLK addressed the AFL-CIO on his vision of the American Dream. King said that his vision of America's promise was a country where equality of opportunity, of privilege and property are widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few.

King helped launch a Poor People's Campaign based around demanding that President Johnson and Congress help the poor get jobs, health care and decent homes. He explained that poverty was a problem that couldn't be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars - and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power. Then he spent the last days of his life campaigning on behalf of a living wage for striking sanitation workers in Tennessee.
Glenn Beck has repeatedly insulted and opposed any government attempt to help the poor.
Beck has claimed that Big government never lifts anybody out of poverty. It creates slaves, people who are dependent on the scraps from the government, the handouts. He has said that President Obama is really is a Marxist because he believes in the redistribution of wealth.

He argued in his book that the reason the poor are poor and can't be helped by the government is simply because they are lazy.

Discussing the topic of rebuilding New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, Beck said we shouldn't spend a single dime, and that the residents should just move out.

Discussing the topic of jobless Americans unable to find work receiving unemployment benefits, Beck said he would be ashamed to call some of them Americans.
MLK championed using his faith to achieve social justice.
King called himself an advocator of the social gospel, and saw Jesus's teachings as commanding him to take part in progressive activism to achieve social justice. In a 1963 speech Western Michigan University, he said that he saw an age of social justice as the goal of his movement.
Beck is 100% opposed to social justice, and attacked Christians who want to use their faith to achieve it.
Beck told his viewers that when they hear the words social justice they should run, and don't listen to anyone who is telling you differently. He also accused progressives of trying to hijack churches with a message of social justice. He even wrongly claimed that civil rights demonstrators weren't crying out for social justice.
MLK believed in loving those who disagreed with him and engaging in thoughtful dialogue.
One of the hallmarks of King's philosophy and what separated him from many other leaders was his advocacy for maintaining thoughtful and respectful dialogue with those who disagreed with his goals. In 1957, the civil rights leader gave a sermon titled, Loving Your Enemies.

King said that a man must discover the element of good in his enemy, and everytime you begin to hate that person and think of hating that person, realize that there is some good there and look at those good points which will over-balance the bad points.

He practiced nonviolence and even asked civil rights demonstrators to not fight back when attacked by white racists. He demanded of his fellow demonstrators a refusal to hate.
Beck has repeatedly attacked his political opponents with vicious and hateful language.
Beck has compared president Obama to the Antichrist and said that it was approaching treason to elect a more progressive Congress.

He has said he hates the 9/11 victims families and derided supporters of cap-and-trade as greedy, wicked, and treasonous.

When interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the nation's first elected Muslim congressman, Beck said this to him, "What I feel like saying is, Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

He also speculated that Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) wife must have been under the influence of a date rape drug to marry him.
In fact, it would be hard to find two people with philosophies so different than Glenn Beck and Dr. Martin Luther King. While MLK fought for all people to be able to live a decent life, championed a compassionate version of Christianity that sought to create a better world, and established dialogue with those who disagreed with him.

Beck shows little compassion for those he disagrees with, has slammed the social gospel, and has viciously smeared and attacked his political opponents. So for Glenn Beck to claim he relates to Dr. King more than anyone is laughable, and just another lie from Beck.

Dr. King and Glenn Beck are nothing alike, in fact, they are exact opposites. And for Glenn Beck to compare himself to Martin Luther King, just shows how insane he really is.

The Beck 8-28 Rally Crowd Size Estimate & Photo
By: Steve - August 28, 2010 - 3:30pm

Update: 6:30pm -- The CBS Evening News reported 87,000 people were at the Beck rally, which if true, is not even close to the 500,000 Beck reported. Approximately 87,000 people attended the rally, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News. The estimate was made using aerial photos taken at noon, which was judged to be the height of the event. The estimate has a margin of error of 9,000 people.

And btw, Beck even mentioned the plane invading their air space during the rally, I heard him say it myself, which must have been the plane that took the aerial photo to do the crowd rally estimate for CBS.

Here is a photo of the Beck 8-28 rally:

And so far I have seen estimates from tens of thousands to 100,000, to 200,000, but clearly it was not 500,000 or more as Beck claimed. I am guessing it was somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000, but that is a 100% guess, based on numbers I have seen at different websites and media sources.

The NY Times wrote this, here is a partial quote from their article:
WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of people rallied at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, summoned by Glenn Beck, a conservative broadcaster who called for a religious rebirth in America at the site where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech 47 years ago to the day.

"Something that is beyond man is happening," Mr. Beck said in opening the event as the crowd thronged near the memorial grounds. "America today begins to turn back to God."

It was part religious revival, part history lecture, as Mr. Beck invoked the founding fathers and the "black-robed regiment" of pastors of the Revolutionary War and spoke of American exceptionalism.

The event had the feeling of a large church picnic, with people sitting on lawn chairs and blankets with coolers and strollers. The crowd stretched from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument. No official crowd estimate was made; organizers put it as high as 500,000.
And those are the Beck people who are saying it was 500,000, but if you look at the photo you can see it is not 500,000. So they were lying, because it was more like 100,000 to 200,000. Which is big for a right-wing rally, but don't forget they bused people in from all over the country for free, and promoted it for months on all the right-wing tv/radio/internet outlets.

As soon as I get some kind of valid crowd size number from a trusted source, I will publish it, but as of now it's just all guesswork. You can see for yourself that it was not 300,000, or 500,000 as Beck claimed, it was more like 100,000 to 200,000. In fact, Beck implied it was way more than 500,000, which is just ridiculous.

The Glenn Beck 8-28 Rally Review
By: Steve - August 28, 2010 - 1:30pm

Before C-SPAN stsrting airing the event I read a posting from a blogger who was at the rally, and they said Beck was playing a tape of the MLK I have a dream speech, which must have MLK rolling over in his grave. The liberal blogger said it made her sick to hear the MLK speech at the Beck rally. Especially after Beck had said the rally date had nothing to do with MLK,yeah right, now we know that was a load of garbage.

Some preacher opened the event with a prayer, but I did not catch his name. Then Beck spoke for a few minutes about something his child said to him, and Beck spoke about God, the military, and the SOWF charity. Then the President of the SOWF John Carney spoke for a few minutes.

All during this the C-SPAN cameras showed crowd shots and I noticed something, I did not see one black person in the crowd, not one, it was all white people. The SOWF President spoke for a while about military veterans, and then the mother of a dead soldier spoke.

Then Beck was back and he asked people to text SOWF and a number to make a $10.00 donation, and I saw a few people on the screen doing it. Beck went on and on about God and Liberty, restoring Honor, etc. It was more like being in church than a rally to honor the troops. I lost count of the God mentions by Beck at about 100, lol.

At 9:36am CST Sarah Palin started speaking, the crowd gave her a standing ovation and loved her of course. Palin talked about God, the military, Liberty, etc. It was basically the same stuff Beck was saying, just Palin saying it instead of Beck. Stupid Sarah read a speech someone else probably wrote for her, she talked about MLK, God, patriot stuff, the usual crap. She also said she was there as a mother of a soldier, not a politician, yeah right, give me a break.

Palin told 3 stories of military men who served proudly and were wounded etc. Palin asked if this day could be a change point, she said may we make this day a change point, whatever the hell that means. Then she thanked God, said God bless America, and she was done around 9:53am CST.

Then I thanked God she was finally done, because just looking at her and listening to her is painful, haha.

9:53 - Beck was back on with more God, Liberty, and military honor talk. And all during this music was playing with a photo slideshow on the big screen at the rally, while Beck talked over it from off the screen. Just like he does on his tv show. It's kind of creepy, by that I mean hearing Beck talk without seeing him, and with the music playing.

Beck then told the people he would give out 3 medals for, faith, hope, and charity. The first one went to a black preacher from Texas who was appointed to something by the Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The Hope award was given to Albert Pujols by Tony LaRussa, the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. And the Charity award was given to some billionaire, but I did not catch his name because someone accepted the award from him. Emma Houston accepted the award for him.

Then Beck came back on to introduce the niece of MLK, she spoke and had a few other people speak, all blacks btw. A black preacher spoke, and a couple black women sang a couple songs. This was the 10 minute part of the rally where Beck had a few blacks on so he could claim he is not a racist. Basically he had a few token blacks on for maybe 10 minutes, of the 3 hour rally. The rest of it was all white people, and I have still not seen one black person in the crowd.

I noted that the crowd of white Republicans barely applauded the black speakers, you could barely hear anything from them. But when Palin spoke they went nuts like they were at the super bowl, it was so loud it was crazy. When the blacks spoke it was almost silent. I was thinking I bet the white Republicans at the rally loves that, and I would also bet some of them wish they could have been somewhere else when the black people were on the stage.

11:08am CST. Beck was back again with more music, photo slideshows, and talk over the photos. The same God, Liberty, military honor stuff. Beck talked crowd size, he said the media is reporting anywhere from 2,000, to 10's of thousands, to 300,000, to 500,000.

Then Beck said if the media is saying 500,000, only God knows how many people are actually there. Which implied that it was more than 500,000, and that the media was lying when they said it was 500,000. But not once did Beck say what media outlet was saying they had 500,000 people. He never mentioned any names, not once, he just said someone said it was 500,000, with no named source.

And then Beck gave another short speech talking God, etc. and cried while doing it, of course. Beck started a big speech at 11:10am, that lasted an hour. during the speech it was God this, God that, God, God, God, all God talk, all the time. God is the answer, and always will be. Beck said he relates to MLK more than anyone, which is just ridiculous.

Beck said look to the heavens, and God. Beck even used the lame don't give them fish, teach them to fish garbage. He also said the people should praise America, and that even the poorest people in the country have it great. Beck slammed the media numerous times, and said God is sending us a wake up call, whatever that means.

And btw, at 1:07pm CST. I saw a report from CNN on the Beck rally and they did not even give a crowd size number. They just said it was a lot of people. During the Beck speech he even denied being a fearmonger, but then he said he is just warning the people and waking them up using fear, ummmmm, Glenn, that's called being a fearmonger you idiot.

Beck also called for people to tell the truth, and to give 10% of their monry to charity. Which is a joke, because Beck and Fox News are the biggest liars in America. Beck went on and on with that truth will set you free crap, like a preacher at a church.

The whole thing was ridiculous, and more like a church meeting for white Republicans. It was all God, Guns, Liberty, and Honor talk. Mostly God talk, Beck sounded like a preacher. And then I thanked God I don't have to watch this right-wing nonsense ever again.

The Friday 8-27-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 28, 2010 - 1:00pm

Ingraham opened the show with more garbage on the mosque story, as usual. And of course she had 2 Republicans to 1 Democrat on to talk about it. Then she did a segment on the Tea Party and the Novemeber elections.

Then Ingraham played a re-run of an old interview with O'Reilly and Ann Coulter of all people. In the last segment she slammed Obama for the economy, ignoring the fact that Bush ruined it, and Obama is just trying to fix it.

The whole show was the usual right-wing propaganda from Ingraham, that I do not review very much because she is a known and proven right-wing partisan hack. And it's a joke that O'Reilly would have her as a fill-in, especially when he claims to be a fair and balanced non-partisan Independent.

No actual fair and balanced non-partisan Independent would ever let Laura Ingraham host their show. And the fact that O'Reilly has her as his fill-in proves that he is also a biased right-wing hack. Because a real Independent would never let the far right Laura Ingraham be their fill-in host.

The Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally
By: Steve - August 28, 2010 - 8:30am

Hey folks, if you want to hear what happened at the lame Beck rally check back here later today, I will take some notes on the rally, and blog about it later today.

Even though it will be like torture watching this ridiculous rally, I plan to watch it and see what it's all about.

Beck Civil Rights Claims Are Just Insane
By: Steve - August 28, 2010 - 8:00am

Glenn Beck says he is a new civil rights leader, and that he is doing this 8-28 rally to restore honor. Except the rally is on the anniversary of the MLK I have a dream speech, which he did on purpose, even though he denies it. Not to mention the fact that he is giving his speech on the same steps where MLK gave his speech. Beck claims it is different because he will be a few steps down from where MLK stood, which is just ridiculous.

And the whole thing is a giant fraud of a right-wing con game. Because Beck is about as far from being a civil rights leader as any one person could be. In fact, Beck is a racist right-wing idiot that wants to take rights away from people, which makes him the exact opposite of Martin Luther King. And btw, Beck is white, so what civil rights for whites is he fighting for, when they already have all their civil rights.

Here are some examples of what Beck has said in the past.

Beck: Obama is a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Then 100 advertisers pulled their ads from his show, including Republican owned corporations like Wal-Mart, etc.

Beck suggested Obama's name is un-American. On the February 4th Glenn Beck show, Beck said this: "He chose to use his name, Barack, for a reason. To identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical?"

Does that sound like something a real civil rights leader would say, no, it's what a far right racist partisan hack would say.

Beck: Obama elected because of race, not policies. On the June 8, 2009, Glenn Beck radio show, Beck said this about the 2008 election: "You were voting for - not change, but change, I think, in race. You were like 'Hey, let's put this behind us.' I think a lot of people were there. They weren't necessarily for his policies because his policies and everything else are - what are they?"

Which is just ridiculous, Obama was elected because he is a very smart man, because he ran a good campaign, because he was a Democrat, and mostly because Bush and the Republicans had ruined the country in the 8 years they had, so any Democratic candidate would have won. If Hillary had won the Democratic primary she would have crushed McCain too, and she is white. So that kills the Beck argument that he only won because he is black.

Beck also sees "slavery" everywhere. Beck frequently invokes "slaves" and "slavery" in attacking Democrats and progressives. While talking about the debt per taxpayer Beck said this: "Do you see all of these zeros? You know what those are? Those are links in a chain. It is slavery. It is slavery for you and slavery for our children. Your kids are being enslaved."

While talking about a book written in 1940 Beck said this: "If you don't know history, you can't make the decisions that we need to make. Starting in early 1940, Hayek began writing a little book called "The Road to Serfdom." The book clearly and logically explained how any form of central government planning usually leads to serfdom, or servitude, slavery. It extinguishes freedom."

While talking about Recipients of federal aid, Beck said this: "These are the people who've been abused by the system. They've been taught they needed the government. They've been taught to be slaves, and their master is Washington. Well the truth shall set you free and it is coming with a vengeance."

Beck has even called President Obama a slavemaster. On the January 11th Fox News show, Beck said this: "The most effective way to become the slavemaster and make them come to you is to make them come to you for employment. How could you ever, if you're the president, lose your job if the voter understands that 'if I vote for the competitor who wants to reduce the size of government, that means my job goes away. I'll lose my job.' The real power grab is getting them into your employ."

Then Beck even praised a constitutional provision protecting slave trade. In his 2009 book, Beck reprinted and praised the now-obsolete Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which prohibited Congress from ending the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. Beck interpreted the provision to mean that "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here."

In 1995, Beck and his co-hosts at KC101 in Hartford, Connecticut were made to apologize for mocking an Asian man who called into the program. The Hartford Courant reported in October 20, 1995: "When Zhihan Tong telephoned WKCI - FM to protest the broadcast as a racial slur, disc jockeys Glenn Beck and Pat Grey made fun of him. The two played a gong in the background several times, and Papineau, the executive producer, mocked a Chinese accent."

Beck's 2009 book is full of stereotypes. Beck's book is rife with cartoons depicting serape- and sombrero-clad Mexicans with thick mustaches. The book also uses a cartoon Chinese takeout container to represent Chinese immigrants.

Beck also promoted the racist anti-Semite Elizabeth Dilling. On his June 4th radio program, Beck promoted The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling. The Red Network is rife with racism and anti-Semitism.

Dilling's book contains numerous passages that espouse anti-Semitism and racism. At various points throughout the book, Dilling attacked "racial inter-mixture" as a communist plot, referred to "un-Christianized" "colored people" as "savages," called Hinduism and Islam "debasing and degrading," and blamed Nazi Germany's anti-Semitism on "revolutionary Russian Jews."

Dilling was also a Nazi sympathizer. She visited Germany in the late 1930s, and attended Nazi party meetings and praised Adolf Hitler's leadership. She also spoke at rallies hosted by U.S. Nazi organizations after the outbreak of World War II. Following the war, she leveled anti-Semitic attacks against several U.S. presidents, calling Dwight Eisenhower "Ike the Kike," attacking Richard Nixon for his "service to the synagogue," and calling John F. Kennedy's New Frontier program the "Jew frontier."

Beck even refused to apologize for promoting her and her book. On June 7th, Beck briefly reacted to the controversy surrounding his approving citation of Dilling's work, but refused to apologize for promoting her hateful work on the air. Instead, Beck attacked "the left" for calling him "a Jew-loving Nazi sympathizer."

Okay, after reading that, does that sound like a new civil rights leader to you. It sure looks like a lying racist right-wing idiot to me, which is the exact opposite of what a civil rights leader should be.

The Thursday 8-26-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 27, 2010 - 11:00am

Ingraham opened the show with a TPM and then 2 full segments on the mosque story, which I mostly will no report on any more. But I will say this, Ingraham had Muhammad Ali Hasan on as a guest to challenge her right-wing Talking Points, and I will report what he said because it is 100% true, and it explains what Ingraham and her friends are doing.
HASAN: When you tell a group of people they're not allowed to build something just because they're Muslim, that's bigotry and there's no other way to slice it. We can't go by poll numbers to decide what the future of America should be. We should look to our Constitution to guide us in matters of conflict, and this mosque should be built.
Then Ingrahsm did a ridiculous segment where she claims President Obama has lost the left, her evidence, David Letterman made a few jokes about Obama and his vacations. In Ingrahamland that's evidence that the President has lost the left, give me a break, it's ridiculous.

Leslie Marshall was on to discuss it, she said this: "The Presidents poll numbers are down, and politicians like to keep their jobs, so they basically say what their constituents want to hear. This is just politics as usual."

Marshall also defended the President and his handling of the economy. "We haven't given it enough time. It took us a long time to get here, it's going to take us some time to get out, and I don't think he's going to be a one-term president."

Then Ingraham said this: "There's an overall perception that President Obama is just out of step with what people want."

What a joke, that perception is only a Republican talking point to make people think Obama is out of step with what people want. The majority of Americans support almost everything Obama has done, they do disagree with a couple things he's done, but on most issues the majority support him.

Then Ingraham had the far right Republican Congressman Eric Cantor on to spin out some right-wing propaganda about Obamacare, and how if they get control of Congress back in November they will try to pass a bill to repeal it. Which will never happen, because even if they pass the bill (which they won't) Obama would veto it, and he has said he would. Crazy Cantor even promised Ingraham he would do it, even though it's not possible with a Democratic President in office.

And then Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and Scott Fenstermaker, and then the right-wing idiot Greg Gutfeld was on to make jokes about the Obama vacation. Gutfeld made a joke about Obama wearing sneakers, he said this: "But you know the real crime here? Sneakers on the Vineyard! You don't wear sneakers on Martha's Vineyard, Mr. President."

Then she did a stupid pinheads and patriots, and the show was over, finally, Thank God.

Beck Claims God Gave Him Good Rally Weather
By: Steve - August 27, 2010 - 9:00am

Now this is getting ridiculous, Beck is going God crazy. Now he claims the good weather for Saturday is a gift from God, and that God is smiling down on him and his rally.

Are you kidding me, God would probably hate Beck and 90% of the far right stooges who are going to his stupid rally. I wonder if God would support Beck calling our President a racist, the same racist statement that got 100 advertisers to drop his show.

And btw, it's fricking August, it is sunny and nice weather almost every day, including yesterday and the day before. It's not like it rained every day for a week, then suddenly cleared up Saturday and the sun came out, it's been nice weather all week moron. Yeah we have sunshine in August, it's a miracle from God, NOT!

Ingraham Projecting What She Does On Others
By: Steve - August 27, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is a good one, Ingraham and all the muslim haters on the right have demonized the NY Imam Rauf, and made it look like all muslims are terrorists. They have linked the NY Imam to Al-Qaeda, and claimed he is a radical muslim who hates America and supports terrorism.

Even though 99.9% of what he has said is against terrorism, they take one statement he made in 2005 and claim it proves he is a radical muslim who hates America. Which is just ridiculous, and all he said was that American was partly to blame for 9-11 because of all the Arab blood we have spilled in the Iraq war etc.

And guess what folks, he is pretty much right. America has gone to many foreign countries and killed thousands of Arabs, with the Iraq war being a prime example. And we were not asked to invade Iraq, Bush did it based on lies about WMD's. We stick our nose in these foreign countries business to protect the oil they have, and then we kill innocent civilians doing it.

Estimates from 60,000 to 150,000 innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq since the war started. So how many people die each year from terrorism, maybe 1,000, 2,000, I am not sure. Let's say terrorists kill 2,000 people a year, it would take them 50 years to kill 100,000 people, which is what we probably have done in 8 years in Iraq. So technically the Imam is right, when he says we have spilled more blood than Al-Qaeda.

Somehow Ingraham does not understand that, and will not admit it. And I know that makes us look bad, but it's a fact. So Ingraham pulls an O'Reilly and attacks her attackers, she projects what she is doing on the people who are going after her. It's an old trick and frankly nobody falls for it, except the right-wing stooges who love her.

Ingraham claims supporters of Islamic center "demonize" rather than debate their opponents:

And btw, nobody is demonizing her, they are simply pointing out her flip-flop, her hypocrisy, and her double standards. And if anyone demonizes people in America for political reasons it's the right. Just look at abortion, the right claims that if you are pro-choice you support baby killing, which is just ridiculous.

I am pro-choice and I actually oppose abortion, I do not want any potential baby killed. But I am called a baby killer simply because I believe in real freedom, like the freedom for a woman to choose to have an abortion. And it's legal, not to mention the Supreme Court has ruled a potential baby in the womb is not a person until it can live on it's own outside the womb, so it's not killing a baby when you have a legal abortion.

But I am demonized as a baby killing supporter, simply because I believe in freedom of choice, a choice that's LEGAL. So who are the people that demonize, the right. Making Ingraham a joke, and a total fraud. Not to mention a flat out liar, and a biased right-wing idiot. And this is the moron that O'Reilly picks to host his show when he is gone. Which says a lot about O'Reilly.

Beck Calls 8-28 Rally An American Miracle
By: Steve - August 27, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is my question, how can it be a miracle when it has not even happened yet. And it's not a miracle when a group of right-wing people show up to hear other right-wing people speak. It's called a political rally, and he does not even have the balls to call it a political rally, which it is.

Here are some other things Beck has called it:

Beck: 8-28 will be "a defibrillator to the heart of America."

Beck says his 8-28 rally will be "the Woodstock of the next generation."

Beck: 8-28 is "the anti-Woodstock."

Ummmm, Glenn, How can it be the new woodstock and also be the anti-woodstock, answer that smart guy.

Beck: "Maybe in a 100 years from now or 200 years from now ... this will be remembered as the moment America turned the corner."

Beck claims his rally will "grow the next George Washington and Abraham Lincoln."

Beck: "I really, truly believe" that 8-28 "will be remembered in American history as the turning point."

Beck claims "the Capitol will fix itself if we just stand between Washington and Lincoln and try to be those people."

Beck: Restoring Honor rally "is a shockwave."

Beck: It was "divine providence" that 8-28 rally is on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech.

Beck: At 8-28 rally, we will "pick up Martin Luther King's dream that has been distorted."

Beck says his 8-28 rally will "reclaim the civil rights movement."

Beck: "What is going to happen on 8-28 will be a miracle."

Beck: 8-28 rally "will be indelibly marked" on your children.

Beck: 8-28 "will be life-changing."

Beck: An 8-year-old who attends rally will 20 years later say, "That's when my feet were put on a path."

Wow, earth to Glenn Beck, even if you get 50,000 or even 100,000 right-wing idiots to show up to this fraud of a rally, nobody will remember it a month from now, let alone 20, 50, 100, or 200 years from now. Because you are an insane right-wing fool, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

The Wednesday 8-25-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 26, 2010 - 10:00am

Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again so there is not much to review, except that she is a far right idiot who spews out nothing but right-wing spin and propaganda.

The segment with Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and General Wes Clark was pretty good, but the rest of it was the usual right-wing garbage.

As usual Ingraham spent the first half of the show on the mosque story, with Dick Morris etc. And as I have said I will no longer report on it. Morris said the majority of muslims go by Sharia law, which is a flat out lie, so he either does not have a clue what he's talking about, or he is just a liar. I vote for both.

In one segment Ingraham had the far right nut Stuart Varney on to say the people should vote Republicans into power this November so they can fix the economy. Ummmm, we already did that, and it failed. I guess he forgot that Republicans had the power for 8 years, and they ruined the economy. Now he wants us to vote them back in, which is just insane.

The rest of the segments were just smear Obama segments with a few Democrats and a few Republicans, plus one repeat of an interview O'Reilly had with the Republican Trace Adkins.

Manhattan Borough President Nails Ingraham Good
By: Steve - August 26, 2010 - 9:00am

Ingraham's December 2009 comments in which she speaks approvingly of the Park51 project are becoming quite a thorn in her side. During Tuesday's O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham tried again to explain her evolving position on the proposed Islamic community center to be built in Lower Manhattan.

Ingraham has previously said that her reversal was due to legitimate questions that had come up, which were nothing but the same smears and falsehoods that conservative pundits have been pushing for weeks. So on Tuesday Ingraham pulled out those same falsehoods and suggested that back in 2009, she had merely "supported assimilation," not the actual project itself.

But Ingraham's guest, Manhattan Borough president Scott Stringer, pointed out what Ingraham had said last year. Stringer stated that Ingraham supported it, saying, "You told Daisy Khan -- you told them, on this show, in December 2009, you said, 'You're doing the right thing. You're doing great work.' You actually started this, Laura." Stringer went on to say this:
STRINGER: You supported this -- and then you know what you did? You left the studio. You then left the studio and said, what did I -- what did I do? I didn't stick to the talking points. I have to now go back and reverse myself. You agreed -- you agreed with them.
On August 4th, 2010, Ingraham changed her tune, claiming that "the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down." Ingraham continued: "Six hundred feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we're supposed to be -- we're supposed to be considered intolerant if we're not cheering this?"

Tuesday, following Stringer's comments, a visibly frustrated Ingraham said this: "Hey, pipe down. You know what I heard? I heard 'blood on our hands' -- I heard 'blood on our hands'; I heard 'Americans are mean and they're Islamophobic and they hate Muslims if they disagree.'"

She added, "I absolutely support assimilation. I don't support founders of an organization who actually believe America is the equivalent of Al Qaeda when destroying Muslim lives." Ingraham also called Stringer's interpretation of her earlier approval "weak."

First of all, Rauf's statement that the United States has "more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida" due to U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq is not out of the mainstream. Secondly, Ingraham completely distorted Khan's statement regarding Islamophobia and Muslim hatred: What Khan actually said was that hatred of Muslims in America is a cause for concern.

And as for her last point -- neither Khan nor Imam Rauf have made statements that remotely come close to equating the United States with Al Qaeda.

Rather than discussing Rauf's point, Ingraham and other conservative pundits would rather distort the issue and propagate smears and falsehoods about Muslims. And in Ingraham's case, she has to run away from her previous comments in order to do so.

He would point out her hypocrisy and she would just keep talking over him. And not once did Ingraham report on the white man who stabbed a muslim taxi driver in NY, or mention the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows who held a rally in NY supporting the mosque. Let alone have someone from their group on the Factor.

Ingraham spent the entire segment trying to change the subject while getting called on her flip-flop. It was great, for once someone stood up to her and told it like it is. And btw, Neither O'Reilly or Ingraham have mentioned the September 11 families group that supports the mosque, not one time, ever.

Beck Non-Political 8-28 Rally Very Political
By: Steve - August 26, 2010 - 8:30am

Glenn Beck is selling this 8-28 rally in Washington as a non-political honor the troops rally, but if you look at the facts the event is very political. In fact, the entire thing is run by political people, with Beck and Palin as the main speakers. Who are 2 of the most political people in America.

Most of the rally, including its promotion by Beck and other conservative groups, have been very political. The webpage for Beck's 8-28 Restoring Honor rally in Washington, describes the event as a "non-political, non-partisan event" that "will recognize our First Amendment rights and honor the service members who fight to protect those freedoms."

While many conservative groups are deeply involved:

-- The Tea Party Patriots are providing staff, and promotion. At the request of Beck's team, The Tea Party Patriots agreed to help promote the march among its 500,000 email subscribers and to provide 400 volunteers to staff it, a requirement before the National Park Service would issue a permit.

-- The National Rifle Association is sponsoring and promoting the event. The NRA shipped copies of its news magazine with advertisements for Beck's 8-28 rally.

-- FreedomWorks to cater to attendees political interests. Politico reported that Beck will encourage attendees interested in politics to join the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which is chaired by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

-- Americans for Prosperity providing buses to the rally. Politico reported that Americans for Prosperity, a major conservative political organization backed by right-wing billionaire David A. Koch, "moved its annual Washington training session to correspond with Beck's rally and are offering to bus attendees to it."

-- FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots are taking advantage of the expected crowds at Beck's rally to hold their own events. FreedomWorks political action committee is holding a fundraiser and training session the night before Beck's rally. -- The Tea Party Patriots are urging the 500,000 activists on their e-mail list to attend both Beck's rally and a tea party rally the following day to seek the repeal of the Democratic health care overhaul.

-- Sarah Palin (who is as political as it gets) will be a featured speaker at the 8-28 rally. And even Bill O'Reilly told Beck that you can not be non-political with Palin speaking at the event.

-- Republican members of Congress raised money for the rally. Sen. Hatch and Rep. Chaffetz attended Beck fundraisers. The Utah Republicans attended one of Beck's "American Revival" event in Salt Lake City, the proceeds went to Beck's production company, Mercury Radio Arts, which is also putting on the Restoring Honor rally. Michele Bachmann sold a Capitol tour to raise funds for the rally. The tour sold for $27,500.

And finally, Glenn Beck has even promoted the event in political terms.

-- Beck: Rally will "fix the capital."

-- Beck: Rally will "reclaim the civil rights movement."

-- Beck: Rally will counter the alleged "progressive" distortion of the "badge of merit."

That's a political event, when you have all those right-wing groups running it, donating money and people, and Sarah Palin is a featured speaker you have a political event.

Shep Smith Admits Stimulus Saved Us From Depression
By: Steve - August 26, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends do nothing but trash Obama for the economy and jobs, even though he is trying to fix an economy Bush broke, what they fail to mention is that the Obama stimulus bill saved us from a depression. And at least one person at Fox News is honest about it, Shepard Smith.

And btw folks, the Obama stimulus bill was never meant to fix the economy, it was a temporary boost to the economy to stop the massive loss of jobs that were happening under Bush. But if you listen to O'Reilly and most everyone else at Fox, you would think the Obama stimulus was a failure.

Proving that they are partisan hacks who do nothing but put out right-wing propaganda. Just imagine how much worse the economy and the jobs situation would be if he had not passed the stimulus. And don't forget that Obama wanted to have an even bigger stimulus, but the moderate Democrats and the Republicans blocked it.

The stimulus did exactly what is was meant to do, provide a temporary boost to the economy. But the Republicans will never admit it worked, because it was passed by a Democratic President. And if it had been passed by a Republican President they would be praising it, instead they lie that it failed for political reasons.

The Tuesday 8-24-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 25, 2010 - 10:30am

The crazy far right nut Laura Ingraham was the fill in again so I did not do a full review. But I will say a few things. Ingraham did the usual right-wing propaganda with mostly conservative guests, Liz Cheney, Col. Ralph Peters, John Stossel, Kimberly Guilfoyle, etc. With 2 liberal guests for her to tell how wrong they are.

The Alan Colmes segment was pretty good because Colmes laid it to her and told her how she was dishonestly smearing the Imam by taking one quote of his from years ago and using it out of context, while ignoring the hundred other things he has said that were the exact opposite. At the end of the segment Ingraham said woah, that was rough. Yeah because she is not used to being told the truth about her propaganda, so she thought that was rough.

CBS News anchor Katie Couric and other media figures have implied that opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are small-minded and bigoted. So Ingraham had Alan Colmes on to discuss it, Colmes said this: "I think this is a great debate, because we're seeing who the intolerant people are. The real intolerance we're seeing is from those people who don't seem to believe in religious freedom.

There's a smear campaign against this imam and his wife - people are taking something he said in 2005 out of context. He has talked about how wrong it is to kill anybody in the name of religion, and he's been a harbinger of peace."

The rest was not really worth talking about, but what's funny is how Ingraham slips a plug in for her book. On both shows at some point out of the blue she says, and now to do some house cleaning, then a graphic of her book is put on the screen and she promotes her book. How is that house cleaning, and what does that even mean.

Why not just be honest and say this, ok now I am going to do a cheap promotion for my lame book, and drop the house cleaning nonsense. Ingraham even does the stupid pinheads and patriots, and somehow her pinheads and patriots are even more lame than the ones O'Reilly does. The Patriot: The racetrack announcer who found himself calling a neck-and-neck stretch run between two horses named "My Wife Knows Everything" and "The Wife Doesn't Know."

Ummmmm ok, how the hell is it being a patriot for calling a horse race, my God that is ridiculous. A patriot is someone who joins the military, a fireman, a nurse, a policeman, etc. Name a real patriot, or just cancel the segment, dumb ass, and that goes for you too O'Reilly. And if you can not even take the time to find a real patriot, just name someone in the military.

Top 5 Politifact Lies From Beck & The Tea Party
By: Steve - August 25, 2010 - 9:30am

As part of its 3 year anniversary, PolitiFact posted a look back at its beginnings, which noted its popular Truth-O-Meter fact-checking of pundit and politician comments.

They revealed the top five most popular Truth-O-Meter reviews of the past year, with two of them involving Glenn Beck statements deemed "false."

The most popular, as the list shows below, was when bloggers declared millions had attended a Tea Party event last September. That earned a "Pants-On-Fire" rating.

Most popular Truth-O-Meter items of the past year:

1. Bloggers claim photo shows millions at "tea party" protest

2. Glenn Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector

3. Joe Wilson of South Carolina said Obama lied, but he didn't

4. Glenn Beck and others repeat claim that White House political director Patrick Gaspard was once the political director for Bertha Lewis, chief organizer of ACORN

5. 2011 W-2 tax forms and HR 3590: No, you won't have to pay taxes for health insurance

And btw, those were just the top 5 most popular as far as hits. There are hundreds more on Beck and other Republicans that got a pants on fire rating, or a false rating.

Jon Stewart Nails Fox Over Saudi Shareholder
By: Steve - August 25, 2010 - 8:30am

Monday morning on Fox & Friends, Dan Senor observed that The Kingdom Foundation, whose chairman Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (News Corp's second-largest shareholder), is a funder for the Cordoba House Initiative. "The Kingdom Foundation, is this Saudi organization, headed up by the guy that tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back, funds radical madrassas all over the world," Senor said. "And he funds this imam," Fox host Brian Kilmeade said.

Then on the Monday night Daily Show, Stewart, who last week labeled Fox News a terrorist command center, mocked the Fox network for its association with Prince Alwaleed:
STEWART: This is the proposed terror mosque. We know that it's a terror mosque because the money may be coming from a bad guy, who definitely owns part of Fox News. Now, we know that he's a bad guy because we just heard it on Fox News.

And by hearing it on Fox News, watching Fox News, I'm increasing their viewership. And their advertising rates go up. Now, part of that money goes to the bad guy we learned about on Fox because he's their part owner - Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, allowing him then to make it rain, so to speak, on the terror mosque.

My point is this: If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must - together as a nation - stop watching Fox. It's the only way!
And after Stewart said that the crowd went wild with a massive yell and applause. Prince Alwaleed has grown close with Murdoch, recently endorsing James Murdoch to succeed his father and creating a content-sharing agreement with Fox News for his own media conglomerate, Rotana.

As irony would have it, the Arab News just published a picture on Tuesday of Prince Alwaleed meeting with News Corp executives to discuss how to further strengthen the strategic corporate alliance between Rotana and News Corp.

Basically Fox reported that the guy who is helping to fund the mosque, is a bad guy, but they failed to mention his name, or the fact that he is a saudi Prince, and the 2nd largest shareholder in News Corp, the parent company that owns the Fox News Network.

It just goes to show what corrupt and dishonest so-called journalists they are. Because if he was not the 2nd largest shareholder in News Corp, they would have mentioned his name a hundred times, and put his photo out all day long.

Not to mention the great journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about Prince Alwaleed partially funding the NY mosque, or that he is a part owner of News Corp. hey Billy, what happened to that full disclosure rule you have, oh yeah I forgot, it does not apply to you or anyone at Fox News.

Most People Do Not Care About The Mosque Story
By: Steve - August 25, 2010 - 8:00am

I know I said I would not report on this NY mosque story any more, but I have one more thing to report, and I am pretty sure this will be my last report on it.

And it's not really about the mosque, it's about what the people think about the media coverage of the story. While the media continues to flood the zone with an onslaught of often dubious Islamic center coverage and commentary, a curious disconnect has emerged: Almost nobody cares about the story.

There is growing evidence that voters, news consumers, and even New Yorkers aren't nearly as interested in the story as the press -- or conservative partisans claim we are. And, we have conclusive polling evidence that for a vast majority of Americans, the mosque story won't have any effect on how they vote in November.

It is true that polling shows a slight majority of Americans oppose the construction of the Islamic center near Ground Zero. But there's no indication that voters or news consumers care about the story. And why should they? Why would a local development issue located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away weigh on the minds of voters for the November elections?

Is the Islamic center debate interesting. And should it be covered? Absolutely. But a three-week running, front-page story. No way Jose. But don't tell reporters, producers, and pundits. They're too busy co-sponsoring a right-wing production, burying us in an avalanche of mosque coverage and announcing that it's the the issue that is trumping all right now.

When the right-wing freaks out over a story, the press instinctively asks how high they should jump. (Why else did the press play up the Michelle Obama vacation nonstory) The dirty little secret is that the Beltway press loves to cover stories where very little journalism is required, and the GOP Noise Machine specializes in manufacturing them.

During the period between August 15th to the 22nd, here are the number of times mosque was mentioned on the following cable outlets:
Fox - 550
MSNBC - 340
CNN - 290
HLN - 170
What a shocker Fox is #1 with 550 mentions, haha, not. Add in the week prior to Aug. 15-22, that cable TV total balloons to more than 1,800 mentions. And when network television reporting from that period is included, the number climbs to almost 1,900.

The local New York newspapers -- loaded their pages with mosque stories. During the recent two-week span, The New York Times, New York Post, and Daily News published more than 160 columns and articles that referenced mosque. Even outside of the New York City metropolitan area, newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, and The Boston Globe went overboard, publishing dozens and dozens of items about the distant mosque story.

But did news consumers actually care about the story or even follow it? Not so much.

During the period of August 12-15, substantially more news consumers said they heard about the JetBlue attendant who made his two-beer exit down the rescue chute than heard about the Islamic center controversy unfolding in lower Manhattan, according to a weekly Pew Research Center survey.

And the same survey showed that among news stories consumers were following "most closely," the mosque debate did not even register. The mosque story was not even in the top 5 of closely followed news stories by the people, but it was by far #1 in coverage by the media.

Which shows they do not care what news you want to see, they just give you what they want you to see.

A recent Gallup poll asked about Obama's recent remarks regarding the Islamic center construction plans, which were widely covered in the press. But a stunning 41 percent of respondents said they didn't know enough about what Obama said to comment. Among independent voters, the nonresponse rate was even higher: 47 percent.

According to a Time poll, 74 percent of Americans say the mosque issue won't have any impact on how they vote in November. Yes I said 74 percent.

And New Yorkers do not appear to be any more entranced by the mosque story than the rest of America. Rick Lazio, who is running for governor in New York, went before the New York Landmarks Commission in July as it weighed the request for the Islamic center. And btw, Lazio is an outspoken opponent of the Islamic center.

Then after all the media coverage the commission's July meeting was rescheduled and moved to a 2,000-person auditorium at Hunter College in order to accommodate the anticipated large crowd that would be on hand to debate the mosque. But the turnout for the meeting was light, less than 200 people showed up.

Turnout was also light on the day the Landmarks Commission gave its final OK to the Islamic center project. In fact, members of the media covering the vote outnumbered mosque opponents.

Thanks to the GOP/Fox News, the downtown Islamic center became a runaway news event this month. There's just very little evidence that news consumers or voters cared about the story, let alone required nonstop coverage.

This Glenn Beck 8-28 Rally Looks Dishonest
By: Steve - August 24, 2010 - 10:00am

I thought I would look into some details of the Saturday 8-28 rally Glenn Beck is having in Washington, and I found some things that are in a word, shady looking.

If you go to the website (www.glennbeck.com/828/) and scroll down you see that Beck claims to be doing the rally to raise money for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. It says this:
Every day service personnel risk their lives to protect our country. It is through the support of non-profit organizations like the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) that the families of these service members are taken care of in the event of an accident or loss of life. Learn more about the SOWF today by visiting www.specialops.org
But then below that Beck tells people to send donation to this address:
C/O Mercury Radio Arts
1270 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
NY, NY 10020
So here is the shady part, that address is for Glenn Beck, he is in New york, and he works for Mercury Radio Arts. While the Special Operations Warrior Foundation is in Tampa Florida, and on their donation page it says send your donations to them in Florida.

But that's not all, on the glennbeck.com/828 website is also has a link to buy t-shirts that takes you to the Glenn Beck store, and it also has this notice at the very bottom of the main page.
The purchase of Restoring Honor Rally merchandise is not a donation to SOWF, but all net proceeds from the sale of Restoring Honor Rally merchandise is being donated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on August 28, 2010. All contributions in excess of these costs will then be retained by the SOWF.
Notice it does not say ALL proceeds from the sale of merchandise will be donated to the SOWF. It says the NET PROCEEDS will be donated. Notice that it also says All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally.

This is a scam folks, because Beck is using their name (SOWF) to raise money to pay for his political rally. And then if, and that's a big if, any money is left over they will donate it to the SOWF. So if they raise a million dollars, and the rally cost a million dollars the SOWF gets nothing. But Beck gets his rally either way, which is a scam, if not borderline illegal, or at least unethical.

Now as far as I can tell the SOWF is a valid military charity, but you should check them out yourself before you decide to give them money. And I sure as hell would not donate any money to them through Glenn Beck, or Mercury Radio Arts.

What you should do if you plan to donate money to them is do it directly, and forget the dishonest and misleading Beck 8-28 rally. Because then you will know they actually get the money. If you donate through the Beck website they might not get a dime of it.

Beck is basically using their name to fund his rally, then he claims it is not a political rally, and only after they raise the money to pay for the rally will the SOWF get a donation, and they might not get a dime.

Which is just flat out misleading, because if you do not read the fine print you would think all the money is going to the SOWF, and you would be wrong. Because they only get the money left over after the rally is paid for, if there is anything left over at all.

I am pretty sure what he is doing is technically legal, but it sure is shady, misleading, and just wrong. And notice that Beck does not mention any of this, or O'Reilly, or Fox News. Nobody reports these details, which is another red flag. And btw, O'Reilly said Beck has banned signs at the rally so there is no trouble, which is a flat out lie. Beck banned signs because he is worried that his people will make racist signs, and photos of them will get on the news or the internet.

O'Reilly Slams Kardashian & Bieber For Photoshoot
By: Steve - August 24, 2010 - 9:30am

Jennifer Aniston isn't the only one facing the wrath of Bill O'Reilly. Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber were slammed by the Fox News host for sexy photos recently taken of the two, Us Magazine reported.

O'Reilly questioned if "The Graduate-Mrs. Robinson" themed photos were too risque. He said Kardashian is "42" (she's really 29) and 16-year-old singing heartthrob Bieber "looks like Ringo Starr."

The two friends recently posed together for Elle magazine. They were seen frolicking soaking wet, hand-in-hand on a beach in the Bahamas.

"I think it's gross," Republican strategist Margaret Hoover said during O'Reilly's show. "It's a 16-year-old having an affair with a celebutante."

O'Reilly added "If a 16-year-old girl was pictured with a 29-year-old man in any of that, he'd be in big trouble."

After the photo shoot, Kardashian wrote on her website "I just received the pics from the shoot and I absolutely LOVE how they turned out! Justin and I had a fun time together at the shoot," according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Just a week ago, O'Reilly slammed Jennifer Aniston, claiming the former Friends star's statements about single parenthood set a bad example for children.

And let's get real here, O'Reilly is just doing all this celeb bashing for ratings, because he knows that when he slams a big celebrity it's gets reported on all the tabloid shows and news websites. But what really gets me is O'Reilly tells us to ignore all these hollywood pinheads, and to not listen to what they have to say about anything. Then he reports on what they say almost every night, and even calls for them to do his show, it's crazy.

I guess he thinks he is back at Inside Edition. Not to mention, nobody has confirmed they are having an affair, so that was pure speculation by Hoover, the very speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow. In fact, O'Reilly has so much speculation he should change the name of the show to The Speculation Factor.

The Monday 8-23-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 24, 2010 - 9:00am

Laura (the far right spin doctor) Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly. The TPM was called Is America Islamophobic?. And of course the answer is yes, ever since the 9-11 attacks a lot of Americans now hate all muslims, but not all, mostly it's the Republicans. I myself do not hate all muslims, I only hate the muslims who become terrorists and kill innocent people for political reasons. But a lot of people on the right hate all muslims, and that is pretty sad. And as expected Ingraham said no, and that no Republicans hate the muslims, haha, yeah and I'm Donald Trump too.

Then Ingraham devoted the next 2 segments to more on the NY mosque story, which I will not report on any more. I will simply count the guests in the segments and what party they are in. Ahmed Rehab was on to discuss the mosque story, and that is about all I will say about it, except this. He called Ingraham disingenuous and dishonest in the way she put a right-wing spin on the story and the Imam, and he was exactly right.

Karl Rove was on for the next segment to discuss it, so you can guess what he said, the usual right-wing propaganda he always puts out. Rove trashed the Imam, and the mosque, what a shocker, not. This is the same stuff we have heard 50 times already, yet they just keep reporting on it over and over, every fricking night. They just keep beating that dead horse. Rove also said Obama has been incompetent on the issue, which is just ridiculous, because all Obama did was say we have religious freedom so they should be able to build it. Then Juan Williams, who did nothing but trash Obama and the Democrats.

Ingraham also had the crazy far right Dick Armey on to discuss the mid-term elections. He was asked to predict what will happen, and of course he said the Republicans will take over the majority in Congress again. Which they just might, because some voters are stupid, Republicans had 8 years from 2000 to 2008 and they ruined the country, so if the people vote them back into power I say you get what you deserve. It was a taped interview with O'Reilly and Armey. In the interview O'Reilly said 2 ridiculous things, that the Obama stimulus did not work, and that he is an Ideologue, both of which are flat out lies. Armey said Obama does not know what he is doing, which is also ridiculous.

Ingraham had a segment on Blagojevich with 2 right-wing legal analysts, and she asked if Rod Blagojevich should be retried, or would it just be a waste of time and money. I say he should not be retried, and that it is a waste of time and money. He had his trial, and they only found him guilty on one count, so I say move on to more important court cases. The 2 legal analysts also said he should not be retried.

In the last segment Ingraham asked one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, why do 20% of Americans still think President Obama is a muslim. Easy, because of Fox News and right-wing idiots like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. They constantly put people on their shows who claim Obama is a muslim, and even the foxnews.com website is doing it. It's called the powere of propaganda and suggestion, if you say it enough pretty soon people will believe it.

Stupid Ingraham acts like she has no idea why 20% of the people think Obama is a muslim. Give me a break, she knows exactly why, because Fox and the right keep saying he is. It's the same as when 40% of the people thought Iraq attacked us on 9-11, because Fox and the right kept reporting it, duh.

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

Paul Krugman Details Cost Of Bush Tax Cuts
By: Steve - August 24, 2010 - 8:30am

The Republicans are spinning out so much propaganda on the Bush tax cuts it would make your head hurt. So here are the facts, from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, he notes in his New York Times column Monday that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be the equivalent of writing checks "averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country."

Krugman also notes that making all the tax cuts permanent would "cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years."

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision -- namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation -- yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform -- while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent.

Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few -- the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year -- would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

So, for example, we're told that it's all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Or we're told that it's about helping the economy recover. But it's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren't likely to spend a windfall.

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it's about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won't take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let's hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America's future.

And btw, to add to what Mr. Krugman said, those tax cuts are proof that the Republicans are in the back pocket of the wealthy. Because they were supposed to lead to an economic boom when they used that money to hire more people. Instead, all it did was make the wealthy, more wealthy, and that economic boom never happened. And one more thing the Republicans never tell you, in the budget rules those tax cuts would have to be paid for, or they would violate the rules.

Now here is a reality check, those Bush tax cuts to the wealthy were a pay back for donating all that big money to Bush so he could beat Gore in 2000. Once Bush got all that money in donations, then won the White House, he used reconciliation to ram the tax cuts through Congress as a pay back to the wealthy for all their political donations. And that is a fact, a fact that nobody but me wants to mention.

Dick Cheney "Deficits Don't Matter" Statement
By: Steve - August 23, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly and every right-wing stooge in America are now crying every night about the deficit, and how the Obama policies are increasing the deficit. They go on and on about how we must lower the deficit, and basically say the world will end if we do not lower the deficit.

But when George W. Bush was the President for 8 years they never said a word about the deficit, and in fact, O'Reilly and other Republicans used to make fun of, and mock, Democrats who talked about the deficit under Bush. When Democrats talked about the Bush tax cuts increasing the deficit, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends would laugh at them, and say the deficit does not matter.

But back in 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Bush economic team met to discuss a second round of tax cuts, which would follow Bush's 2001 cuts. At the meeting, then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill pleaded that "the government - already running a $158 billion deficit - was careening toward a fiscal crisis." Cheney replied by saying that "deficits don’t matter."

Six years later, the Bush administration's consistent belief that deficits don't matter has increased the national debt to over $10 trillion. This is the highest dollar amount ever, and pushes the debt to 69% of the gross domestic product.

Bush presided over the largest increase in the debt of any president in history. When he took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. In eight years, there was an increase of over 70%. The conservative practice of cutting taxes while spending millions on wars has led to the largest debt in half a century.

Not to mention, Bush created 42% of the $10 trillion debt we have now, more than any other President in history. And yet O'Reilly hammers Obama for the debt, when most of it was caused by George W. Bush.

In closing, this shows what massive hypocrites O'Reilly and the right are. Because when a Republican was in the White House deficits do not matter, but when a Democrat is in the White House suddenly deficits do matter. I remember O'Reilly telling a liberal guest (when Bush was the President) that deficits do not matter because the USA is so powerful they will never go broke, and that they can raise taxes or do what is needed to fix any financial problems.

But when Obama took over O'Reilly was singing a totally different tune. Now he says deficits do matter, and if Obama does not get spending under control the USA will go broke. It's all right-wing spin, and O'Reilly knows it.

What happened is O'Reilly did not care about deficits under Bush because he was a Republican, and O'Reilly liked how Bush was spending the money. Now that Obama (the liberal) is in office, O'Reilly does not like how he is spending the money so now he claims deficits do matter.

When it's nothing more than a partisan political smear job, by O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends. Deficits do matter, for all Presidents, but it's not an end of the world situation as O'Reilly claims. Because in the short term deficits are ok, especially during a recession, then later on when jobs come back and the economy improves, you will automatically reduce the deficit when revenue increases, and then you can work on cutting the deficit.

O'reilly knows that, as do I, but he still spins out this right-wing end of the world deficit nonsense. Simply to smear Obama for political reasons, as he claims to be a nonpartisan Independent.

Republican Calls For Prison Camps For The Unemploymed
By: Steve - August 23, 2010 - 9:00am

A consistent theme that has developed among conservative politicians this year is to degrade and demean the unemployed who are getting unemployment benefits. From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich attacking a man who paid into the unemployment insurance system for 35 years for seeking benefits, to Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) suggesting that the availability of meager unemployment insurance was causing the unemployed of his state to sit back and wait instead of seek work, the conservative assault on the unemployed appears to have no end.

Now, New York GOP gubernatorial primary candidate Carl Paladino, a wealthy Buffalo real estate developer popular with many tea party activists, is openly advocating for the creation of special prison dorms for recipients of unemployment insurance where they can receive special training and lessons in personal hygiene.

Note: This is not a joke, he is actually calling for prison camps for people who are getting unemployment benefits. And he refers to them as people that are getting welfare, when unemployment is not welfare, it's what people get who had a job, it's unemployment insurance that they paid into, it's people that would not be getting it if they still had their job, and it's clearly not welfare.

Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in personal hygiene.

Paladino first described the idea in June at a meeting of The Journal News of White Plains and spoke about it again last week with The Associated Press.

Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients.
PALADINO: There, they would do work for the state -- military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service, while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.

Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene, the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes.
And yes, this is the same Paladino who was caught forwarding the racist Obama photo e-mails, so he is a real winner, and a prime example of the kind of people the Republican party is running for office. Not to mention, they do not need to be taught how to earn a check, because they already know how, they had jobs until Bush ruined the economy and lost the country 8 million jobs.

Then he assumes that everyone on unemployment is a dirty unwashed hippie who came from a dysfunctional home, which is just ridiculous. This idiot Paladino should not even be a dog catcher, let alone the Governor of new York.

Paladino did explain to the AP that any such prison camp would be voluntary. But what he failed to explain is why, as a tea party conservative, taking people away from their families to taxpayer-funded facilities to try to re-educate them is in any way conservative. And would it not be cheaper to just pay them their unemployment benefits, the benefits they paid into and earned.

And not once has O'Reilly reported anything about what he says, or the racist Obama e-mails he forwarded, even though he is running for Governor of New York, where O'Reilly lives and does his tv show. What say you Billy, explain why you have not reported on this right-wing moron. I'll be waiting.

Fox News Shocked Their People Are Corrupt
By: Steve - August 23, 2010 - 8:30am

Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris, and almost everyone at Fox are promoting Republicans, raising money for them, donating money to them, or helping them to sell things to other Republicans. This is a routine every day thing for Fox, and yet when they are caught they deny knowing anything about it.

And if you believe that I have some land to sell you. How can you not know it when Dick Morris goes on the air every day, and tells people to donate money to Republicans so they can defeat the Democrats, do they not watch what's on their own network.

Did they miss the Republican Sharron Angle saying she only goes on Fox because they let her raise money, which none of the other networks will let her do. I mean you have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not know Fox is using their network to promote and raise money for Republicans.

Even O'Reilly is doing it, and he claims to be a nonpartisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is not political. Then he does a speech for Newsmax with Dick Morris where they help them sell a financial management program that cost over $1.000 dollars. They are all doing it, and they are all corrupt biased hacks.

Fox News and Bill O'Reilly have both denied knowing until last week that the right-wing website Newsmax was using an interview with O'Reilly to sell its financial plans. Even though Newsmax has used O'Reilly to sell financial products for months, and Dick Morris has worked with Newsmax for years.

On August 17th, CBS reported that Newsmax used O'Reilly interview to sell financial products.

An O'Reilly webcast was used to promote the Newsmax IRS payouts financial plan. As CBS Moneywatch reported, a webcast featuring Bill O'Reilly was a promotion for a $99 newsletter, "The Dividend Machine," produced by Newsmax's Bill Spetrino, as well as Spetrino's report about a 'forgotten, seven-state Constitutional Clause' that guarantees generous tax-free IRS payouts of $1,196 or more. And, he's agreed to provide this report 'free' to viewers of the show."

Now here is the kicker, Newsmax removed O'Reilly from the promotion after the CBS Moneywatch report. Moneywatch added in a update to its post. "Shortly after this was posted, Newsmax pulled the video and took all references to O'Reilly out of the newsletter.

Media Matters writes that neither O'Reilly or Fox News have responded to their requests for comment.

O'Reilly's agent: "we did not know Mr. O'Reilly's interview would be purportedly used to promote anything." From the blog post:
The interview was set up by Mr. O'Reilly's speaking agent, Mr. Shine added. That agent, Don Walker, said in an e-mail message that "we did not know Mr. O'Reilly's interview would be used to promote anything."

It is unclear how much Mr. O'Reilly was paid for the appearance, but Fox said he has no financial stake in the newsletter sign-up scheme.
This brings up a few questions, if O'Reilly is a nonpartisan non-political Independent, why is he getting paid by a right-wing website to do an interview for them. And it might be true that he did not know they would use the interview to sell a product, this time. But a couple months ago he knowingly promoted a financial investment plan for Newsmax with Dick Morris, so he sure as hell knew they were using him then to sell it. I even wrote about it, and how corrupt it was.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. And I would bet O'Reilly knew exactly what they were going to do, he most likely said they could us it for whatever they want, but if they get caught he would deny knowing about it. Because even a 5 year old would now that if a right-wing biased website pays you to do an interview, they are most likely going to use it for something.

On June 3, Newsmax sent out an email to its mailing list, signed by CEO Christopher Ruddy, touting an "Economic Crisis Summit," featuring "Premier Guest" Bill O'Reilly as well as Dick Morris. The email said this:
On June 17, an esteemed panel led by Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris, along with global investor Jim Rogers and Newsmax CEO and Editor in Chief Christopher Ruddy, will convene to discuss inflation, higher taxes, our fragile economy, and real solutions that average Americans can take to ensure their wealth is safeguarded and positioned to prosper in an uncertain future.
The email, as well as other promotions, was illustrated with a banner featuring pictures of O'Reilly and Morris. The June 17 webcast introduced O'Reilly (who in the past has downplayed his economic credentials) with host John Daly saying that O'Reilly was not "here to endorse anyone's point of view or to endorse product or financial service," adding that O'Reilly was "joining us just to give us" his take.

O'Reilly then gave financial advice, and advised viewers that gold "is a good hedge," although they should "be very careful about what they buy."

And what a shocker, O'Reilly, Beck, and almost every show on Fox have companies that sell gold buying commercials on their shows.

O'Reilly also said that "The most important thing for your elderly viewers who are dependent on a monthly check from their investments is to be smart about what to do in the next two years." The webcast was a promotion for a "hot commodities insider membership" with a price of $1,995 -- or $1,495 for the first 1,000 subscribers.

Then on July 21st Newsmax even promoted a second webcast featuring O'Reilly. A July 21 Newsmax email promoted the "Economic Crisis Summit Follow-Up Briefing," which "reveals never-before-seen footage of Bill O'Reilly explaining what he is doing right now to prepare" for "the upcoming tax hikes."

That will only be on the top 2 percent btw, which they never report.

The email claimed that O'Reilly and "Newsmax Financial Brain Trust member and acclaimed accountant" Spetrino "will give you a clear picture of what to expect from these tax hike ... ultra-safe, yet profitable, investing tips and how you can actually make a great deal of tax-free income each and every week.

This reminds me of the old Hogan's Heroes show with Sgt. Shultz where he knew everything that was going on, but he would say I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.

And it's just more proof that O'Reilly is a biased, lying, right-wing partisan shill, along with being a columnist for townhall.com, having all his books sold at the conservativebookclub.com for $1 dollar, having 95% right-wing guests, and having 99% right-wing positions on the issues. If that's not a Republican, there is no such thing.

O'Reilly Ignored More Tea Party Racism
By: Steve - August 23, 2010 - 8:00am

Okay, let me get this straight. O'Reilly said he can not find any racism in the Tea Party, even though evidence of it was everywhere. He also denies that there is racism in the Tea Party, as he would say, all day long. While just a week ago a Republican Tea Party member running for Governor of New York was caught forwarding racist e-mails about President Obama.

So he is not only involved in racism, he was involved in racism against the President of the United States. And O'Reilly said nothing, he never reported it, and totally ignored the entire story. Even though it happened a little over a week ago.

Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino, a multimillionaire who has railed against liberal elites. Officially declared his Republican candidacy for New York's gubernatorial race. But WNYMedia.net revealed that Paladino has "regularly forwarded pornography and racially degrading material to friends on the Internet."

The Buffalo News reported this:
WNYMedia.net managing director Marc Odien released e-mail pictures that show a dancing African tribesmen entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," that's a photo of President Obama and the first lady doctored to simulate a 1970s pimp and prostitute, and an e-mail showing chimpanzees doing an Irish dance entitled “proof the Irish discovered Africa."
And that did not happen a year ago, or 2 years ago, it happened a little over a week ago around August 12th. But O'Reilly never said a word, nothing, zero, as he claims there is no racism in the Tea Party.

As WNYMedia.net notes, the "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal" was very popular in the white supremacist community and has been posted at the Neo-Nazi Stormfront website.

At a Tea Party rally in Buffalo on August 12th, Paladino said he had no idea what was in the e-mails, but when pressed further he did admit to forwarding them. So how can you get an e-mail and then forward it, but not know what was in it, when there was a photo of Obama as a pimp. It may be the worst denial I have ever heard.

Paladino later said that Democrats were trying to mischaracterize the e-mail messages and that he didn't know if they were true because he was just forwarding what was sent to him by other people.

And btw, The organizer of the Buffalo Tea Party is standing behind Paladino, saying this: "He's not a racist. He was just passing on some nonsense in an e-mail. Everybody does things that are not 100 percent pure."

Yeah, everyone gets racist e-mails with doctored photos of the President, then forwards them to other people. NOT! I sure as hell do not get them, and I do not forward them.

A spokesman for state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, however, condemned Paladino, saying this: "The racially and sexually inappropriate nature of Mr. Paladino's emails is disturbing to say the least, and stands in stark contrast to what the Republican Party stands for and the values it promotes."

Okay Billy, here is actual proof that a Tea Party member is a racist, and he was being racist to our President, so when are you going to report it. And the Buffalo Tea Party even stands behind the racist Paladino, so you can not claim it's just one guy. So when are you going to report this Tea Party racism, my guess would be never.

Reality Check: Islam Already Part Of Ground Zero Area
By: Steve - August 22, 2010 - 9:00am

A New York imam and his proposed mosque near ground zero are being demonized by political candidates -- mostly Republicans -- despite the fact that Islam is already very much a part of the World Trade Center neighborhood. And that Muslims pray inside the Pentagon, too, less than 80 feet from where terrorists attacked.

And the imam who's being branded an extremist has been valued by both Republican and Democratic administrations as a moderate face of the faith. A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the known facts:
The folks who want to build this mosque -- who are really radical Islamists who want to triumphally prove that they can build a mosque right next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists -- those folks don't have any interest in reaching out to the community. They're trying to make a case about supremacy. -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate.

Some of the Muslim leaders associated with the mosque are clearly terrorist sympathizers. -- Kevin Calvey, a Republican running for Congress in Oklahoma.

This radical is a terrible choice to be one of the faces of our country overseas. -- Statement by GOP Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Peter King of New York.
And now a few Facts:

No one has established a link between the cleric and radicals. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said: "We've identified no law enforcement issues related to the proposed mosque."

Ros-Lehtinen and King were referring to the State Department's plan, predating the mosque debate, to send Rauf on another religious outreach trip to the Middle East as part of his "long-term relationship" with U.S. officials in the Bush and Obama administrations.

Rauf counts former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the Clinton administration as a friend and appeared at events overseas or meetings in Washington with former President George W. Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush adviser Karen Hughes.

He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.

But notice that O'Reilly did not report that the Imam denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombings, he only reported his statement that America was an accessory to the attack. Making O'Reilly a biased cherry picking right-wing SOB.

More Facts, that O'Reilly never reports:

No mosque is going up at ground zero. The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal Lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearest of the two destroyed in the attacks.

The center's location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam's former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.

Another, the Manhattan Mosque, stands five blocks from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site.

To be sure, the center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence. The building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attacks and the center's planners say they want the center to stand as a statement against terrorism.

Funny how O'Reilly never reports any of this, I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it, in his old age he forgets a lot.

And George W. Bush himself, traveled to a Washington mosque less than a week after the attacks to declare that terrorism is "not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

The U.S. armed forces also field Muslim troops and make accommodations for them. The Pentagon opened an interfaith chapel in November 2002 close to the area where hijacked American Airlines flight 77 slammed into the building, killing 184 people.

Muslims gather there for a daily prayer service Monday through Thursday and hold weekly worship on Fridaysdrawing no complaints.

The Friday 8-20-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 21, 2010 - 10:00am

The show was a re-run called the Best of the Factor, if there is such a thing, haha, not in my world. And it was all right-wing guests, like Beck, Rove, Morris, Coulter, Miller, etc. Not one Democratic best of re-run, because O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge, duh.

Basically he just played clips of right-wing guests from old shows, and called it a best of the Factor show. Which I did not watch, and I am sure as hell not going to review.

The O'Reilly Factor Must See Videos
By: Steve - August 21, 2010 - 9:00am

In video #1 Margaret Hoover disagrees with O'Reilly on Dr. Laura and the smear job of Media Matters. Hoover said she "resents O'Reilly's attack on Media Matters: "This is a problem with Dr. Laura. She was out of line."

In video #2 Chris Wallace proves what a right-wing idiot he is. Wallace said this: There is a sense that Democrats like Obama, Pelosi "are out of touch with the mainstream."

The Thursday 8-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 20, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Turmoil In the Democratic Party. O'Reilly called it turmoil, because one or two Democrats disagree with Obama on the NY mosque. That is not turmoil, except in the crazy right-wing mind of O'Reilly and his conservative friends. Billy also talked about the last combat troops leaving Iraq, but never said a word about the 50,000 troops that will stay there. And he also did not even do a segment on the story, he just barely mentioned it in the talking points memo. And btw, I have just about had it with this mosque story, and I am only going to mention it one or two more times, if that.

Then Chris Wallace was on to discuss the mosque story, and about all I will say about it is that Wallace said the story was going to really hurt Obama and the Democratic party. So basically O'Reilly had the right-wing Chris Wallace on to use it as a smear segment on Obama, Pelosi, etc. With no Democratic guest, of course. O'Reilly said Obama just does not get it, and that he does not know how to be a good President. Basically he said Obama is just a fool, when he may be the smartest President we have ever had. And most of the stuff they are hammering Obama for on jobs etc. was caused by Bush, but they never mention that.

The Factor is nothing but an hour long Obama smearfest, with 95% right-wing guests. Even more than usual, because we have a mid-term election coming up, so O'Reilly has all guns blazing on the Obama smear attacks. O'Reilly also said that Nancy Pelosi is out of touch with Americans, and claimed she is a liberal loon that has no business being speaker of the House. As he claims he is a non-political, non-partisan Independent. Yeah right, and I'm not a liberal either, give me a freaking break. And one last thing, O'Reilly has still not had any 9-11 family members on who support the mosque, in O'Reilyworld they are not out there to talk to.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the mosque story, and I am just not going to talk about this story any more in this review. It's ridiculous, O'Reilly talks about it in every fricking segment. While ignoring all the other real news stories, like Fox News donating $1 million freaking dollars to the Republican Party, and on and on. They talked about Blagojevich for 1 minute, but never mentioned that they all predicted he would be found guilty on most or all counts, that it was slam dunk. And as usual, they were wrong.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Rebecca Diamond were on to talk about the Dr. Laura n-word rant. Wow, finally, about a week late. And they only talked about it after she said she would end her radio show at the end of this year. Diamond said she did nothing wrong, and that the evil liberals attacked her so bad it forced her out of business. And for once, they are sort of right, the left probably did get her to quit, an that is a good thing, because she is a far right idiot. O'Reilly admitted she got herself into trouble for using the n-word.

Billy blamed it all on the far left smear website Media Matters. Hoover said Dr. Laura was wrong to use the n-word, and I agree, but Diamond thought the way she did it was ok, and O'Reilly pretty much agreed with that. Basically O'Reilly and Diamond defended Dr. Laura, overall. And then O'Reilly slammed Media Matters for reporting what Dr. Laura said, Hoover disagreed. What gets me is O'Reilly said you should never use the n-word, ever, but then he smeared Media Matters for reporting on Dr. Laura saying it, what an idiot. Billy, up the meds buddy, you are making less sense than normal lately.

Then Sylvester Stallone was on to address an accusation that he is somehow exploiting patriotism. O'Reilly claims that a couple liberal movie review persons are saying Stallone is exploiting patriotism. Which I had not heard about, and I would probably disagree with them myself, and I am a liberal. O'Reilly just used Stallone to smear some liberal movie reviewers, because he can not pass up any chance to smear a liberal for anything. And how this is news I'll never know, because as far as I know, no other journalist is reporting on it. And btw, as soon as the movie hits the $1 bin at the movie rental store I will rent it.

Then the insane Glenn Beck was on to talk about his ridiculous 8-28 political rally, even though he says it is not a political rally, and that he is not a Republican. While all his viewers are right-wing nuts, and he is a right-wing nut. It's just laughable, Beck is as far right as it gets, but he denies it, just like O'Reilly. Basically O'Reilly had Beck on to promote his rally, and to spin out his usual right-wing nonsense.

And whats funny is how Beck wears those stupid glasses, that he does not even need, he just wears them as a look, a stupid look. O'Reilly is worried that there might be trouble at the rally, because Sharpton is holding a counter rally. Billy is worried that the blacks with Sharpton may start trouble, not the Beck crowd, but Beck said oh no there will not be any trouble. Which is ridiculous, because they imply the blacks will start the trouble, and they do not know if the Beck crowd will or not. Nobody knows, until it happens. The whole segment was a joke, and pretty much a promotion for Beck and his stupid rally. Billy even said they would make it racial, hey idiot, what happened to that no speculation policy.

The last segment was the ridiculous waste of tv time Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Which I do not report on because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any real news stories.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. So in closing the Democratic guests said this, oops, there were no Democratic guests. Good job Billy, instead of doing a 95% right-wing propaganda show, you did a 100% right-wing propaganda show.

O'Reilly Got Man Fired For Telling The Truth
By: Steve - August 20, 2010 - 8:00am

On August 16th The columbia Journalism Review wrote and article about Bill O'Reilly, in the article they show how Billy used his corporate power to crush a critic and get him fired. What did the man do, he simply told the truth about O'Reilly and protested a group that gave O'Reilly an award.

Now remember that when a liberal calls for a conservative to be fired for something they did or said, O'Reilly screams bloody murder and claims the liberals are trying to silence them by getting them fired. He claims it is an attack on their free speech, and hammers the person who called for them to be fired. Then he does the very same thing, and gets a man fired for speaking out about him.

I can not possibly copy the entire article because it is very long and detailed, but I will show you a few quotes, and provide a link to the entire story.

The occasion was a dinner ceremony on May 10, 2008, to announce the local Emmy-award winners. Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray was on hand, as were bigwigs from the Boston/New England chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

The evening's highlight was to be the presentation of the prestigious Governors Award to Bill O'Reilly. The award, voted on each year by a local board of NATAS governors, recognizes achievements in the television industry and is typically given to individuals with roots in the New England area. According to Timothy Egan, then the president of the academy's local chapter, Bill O'Reilly was selected because he hosted the top-rated talk show on cable.

To some participants, though, O'Reilly was an odd choice. Barry Nolan was one. Then the host of the CN8 cable program Backstage with Barry Nolan, produced at the time by Comcast out of Brookline, Massachusetts and carried on its cable outlets from Maine to Virginia, Nolan was particularly taken aback.

A month before the event, he fired off a couple of e-mails to the academy's governing board, urging the members to reconsider their decision. Next, he went public. "I am appalled, just appalled," he told the Boston Herald's gossip column, Inside Track, calling O'Reilly "a mental case" who "inflates and constantly mangles the truth."

Interestingly, Nolan had some support within Comcast and within the twenty-plus-member local Emmy board. At least two board members, Roger Lyons, national trustee and former president of the local NATAS chapter, and Ken Botelho, an engineering executive with Comcast as well as a board member, had second thoughts after considering Nolan's e-mails. O'Reilly is "a well-known TV personality and has a large following," Lyons wrote in an e-mail to his fellow board members.

"But his indiscretions, inaccuracies, and prejudices disqualify him for such a lofty honor." Minutes later, Ken Botelho, a board member and, equally important, Comcast's vice president of engineering and network operations, e-mailed Lyons back. "Very well said, and I agree," he wrote. "If we do not reverse course there will be a backlash from others in the industry seriously questioning the integrity of this award, it will be a ticking time bomb if we set this in motion. The groundswell is already beginning." But the vote stood.

In the lobby area he was approached by Timothy Egan, who recalls telling Nolan that it was impolite to be distributing his handout at the ceremony. (Egan concedes that Nolan was not creating a disturbance, and that the conversation was held in a quiet place.) Nolan remembers telling Egan that he thought a gathering of journalists was precisely the forum in which to air his views.

During dinner, he complied with a request from a security person to stop passing out his literature. When it was announced that O'Reilly was about to receive his award, the guest of honor drew some boos from the audience. Nolan remained silent. At that point, he says he turned to his son Alex, his guest at the event, and said "Let's get out of here." The two left, and that was about it. There was nothing about the incident on the local newscasts that night, or in the next day's papers.

Two days later, on May 12, Nolan got a call at work from his boss, instructing him to go home. The next day, he received a formal letter notifying him that he had been suspended for ten days without pay. A week later, on May 20, he was fired. The call came about 11 in the morning while I was in my basement surfing on my computer. It was Eileen Dolente, calling to inform me my contract and employment at Comcast had been terminated.

Still, some in Boston's media community remained suspicious about Nolan's termination. "There was something unseemly about a small player like Nolan being forced out by a giant like Comcast," says Dan Kennedy, a former Boston Phoenix media critic and an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University. "It made me wonder if they were afraid O'Reilly would go running to Rupert Murdoch. But what was Murdoch going to do? Take American Idol off Comcast?"

It turns out, however, that such suspicions were well grounded. Documents filed in federal court as part of his suit show that beyond Nolan's mouthing off publicly against O'Reilly, there was another factor at work-the mutual business interests of two media giants, Comcast and the Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns the Fox News Channel.

On May 12, 2008—two days after the Emmys-O'Reilly went on the offensive against what he called Nolan's outrageous behavior with a carefully worded, lawyerly letter to Brian Roberts, the chairman and CEO of Comcast, which distributes Fox News and entertainment programming, to its subscribers. The letter was written on Fox News stationery and was copied to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes.

Pointedly, O'Reilly began by noting their mutual business interests. "We at The O'Reilly Factor have always considered Comcast to be an excellent business partner and I believe the same holds true for the entire Fox News Channel. Therefore, it was puzzling to see a Comcast employee, Barry Nolan, use Comcast corporate assets to attack me and FNC." Telling the Comcast CEO that Nolan had attended the Emmy Awards "in conjunction with Comcast," O'Reilly apologized for bothering him but let him know he considered this "a disturbing situation."

Full Story:


O'Reilly Ignores 9-11 Families Who Support Mosque
By: Steve - August 19, 2010 - 9:30am

What a shocker, O'Reilly has ignored all the 9-11 families who have spoken out in support of the NY mosque. He reports it as if ALL the 9-11 families are opposed to it, which is just not true. But what else would you expect from a biased right-wing idiot like O'Reilly.

The real media is reporting both sides of the story, unlike O'Reilly who only reports one side, the right-wing side. Like this:



NY Post -- 8-4-10 -- Stereotyping is a way we all have of focusing our fears on a particular person or group. We project our anger on them and then push the fears away to give a false feeling of safety.

It seems that is exactly what some people are doing now in their opposition to the so-called Ground Zero mosque -- equating all Muslims with the terrorists.

We are painting all Muslims with the same brush when we use the 9/11 attacks to justify our opposition to the community center and house of worship.

I represent Peaceful Tomorrows, an organization founded by family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, who have united to turn our grief into action for peace.

We are unequivocal in our support of Park 51.


Funny how O'Reilly missed that, even though it was run in the fricking NY Post, a paper in the city O'Reilly does his show from, and the paper he reads every day. And it was published on August 4th, two fricking weeks ago. But O'Reilly has still not said one word about the 9-11 families group, or that they support the mosque.

So if you only watch the O'Reilly Factor and Fox News you have probably never heard of them, because O'Reilly does not mention their name, or have anyone from their group on his show. O'Reilly and Fox News are the only media outlets that have not reported on their support of the mosque.

I guess that's some more of that fair and balanced journalism O'Reilly claims to do, call me crazy, but it seems to me that's not fair and balanced at all. Journalism 101 says report both sides of the story, and give equal time to each side.

Wait a minute, what the hell was I thinking, O'Reilly is not a journalist, so it was wrong of me to demand he do some real journalism, my bad.

The Wednesday 8-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 19, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy. O'Reilly billed this TPM as the truth behind the mosque story on his website, yeah right, if truth means right-wing spin then he is correct. What he did was put his right-wing spin on the entire story, but in O'Reillyworld that means the truth to him. All he did was attack the left for saying muslims should have the right to build that mosque. Because they have freedom of religion in the Constitution, which O'Reilly never seems to mention.

Billy smeared the mosque Imam, because he had the nerve to say the 9-11 attacks were caused partly because of American foreign policy, like having U.S. troops on Arab soil and killing Arabs. When it's the truth, and a lot of Republicans have even admitted our foreign policy has caused some of the terrorism against us. Billy called the Imam an America hater, when the same could be said for a lot of Americans. the whole thing was ridiculous right-wing spin, the usual O'Reilly garbage. Then Dick (Hooker Toe Sucker) Morris was on to discuss it. And to be honest, I am not going to report what Morris said, because I am pretty much fed up with this mosque story, because it's a right-wing driven non-news story. You can guess what Morris said, he slammed Obama, and spewed out the usual right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly is just beating this story to death, and he does it to make Obama and the Democrats look bad.

But O'Reilly said something really stupid in this segment, he admitted there are a hundred mosques in New York, then a minute later he said why do they want to build a new mosque, because there are no muslims to go to it. Huh? If there are a hundred mosques, then there are clearly a lot of muslims to go to them. It made no sense, and I am starting to wonder if he is off his meds, or he needs to up the dosage.

Then O'Reilly had some right-wing stooge (Rachel Alexander) on from Arizona to claim Sheriff Joe Arpaio was being investigated for racial profiling by the DOJ for political reasons. With no proof, except her word, and the date the investigation started. O'Reilly said how do you know it's political, but she still had no proof. In other words, she has no proof, and it was all speculation. But O'Reilly let her spin it out anyway.

And btw, he knew what she was going to say because of her pre-interview, and yet he put her on to speculate anyway, the same speculation in which he has said he does not allow. She said it was not a valid investigation, even though I know for a fact people have complained about the Sheriff, so that is why they are investigating him. She even called it a partisan political witch hunt. When we all know Sheriff Arpaio has had a lot of complaints against him, and there is not just one investigation on him by the DOJ, there is a Grand Jury investigating him too. Notice that O'Reilly did not have anyone on to give the other side of the story, just the right-wing stooge.

Then John Kasich was on to talk about his campaign for Governor in Ohio. Which was just another free campaign ad for him by O'Reilly. Number of free campaign ads for Democrats by O'Reilly, you guessed it, a big fat zero. Billy has all these right-wing stooges on to promote their campaigns, ask for money, and give out their website name. In the name of reporting on the campaign, when we all know it's a scam to give him free air time to pimp his campaign.

What got me is how they talked about how the unemployment rate in Ohio is 10.4 percent, and how it hurts Obama and the Democratic candidate for Governor. But they failed to mention that unemployment rate was caused by Bush. O'Reilly was shocked that the Democratic candidate would want Obama to campaign for him, as if it was his fault the unemployment rate is 10.4 percent. Then O'reilly said the Democratic candidate is a wimp, and that Kasich should be able to kick his butt around the block in their debate.

Wow, is that some more of that fair and balanced no spin zone journalism O'Reilly claims to do. the whole thing was a free campaign ad for Kasich, and it was just pathetic. When Kasich asked for donations, O'Reilly laughed, but if a Democrat did that he would edit it out of the show. And when Kasich asked O'Reilly if he would come to Ohio to campaign for him, Billy said he can not do it because he is not political. And then I picked myself up off the floor from laughing. If O'Reilly is not political, I am Bill gates. It was just laughable, because O'Reilly is as political as you can get.

Then O'Reilly had the body language bimbo on, which I do not report on because it is not news, and it has nothing to do with the news. It's just a waste of time, so O'Reilly and the right-wing body language bimbo can use it to bash liberals.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the insane far right idiot Ann Coulter on to discuss anchor babies. Which is just ridiculous, because nobody cares what Coulter thinks about anything, except other right-wing idiots. O'Reilly dug up a video clip of harry Reid from 1993, where he spoke out against letting foreign children born here be citizens. O'Reilly and Coulter both slammed Reid for his statement, even though Reid later said he was sorry for saying that in 1993, and that he changed his mind after thinking about what he said.

Ok now let me get this straight, O'Reilly does not want to go back in time to talk about anything any Republican has done. But he goes back 7 years to slam Reid for saying something about anchor babies, that he later said he was sorry for, and someting he does not support today. And he used fricking Ann Coulter to do it. And as you may have noticed I did not really report what Coulter said, because it's nonsense, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. All I will say is that Coulter rambled on non-stop talking about how evil liberals are, and abortion, etc.

And finally the last segment was the total waste of time Did You See That, with Juliet Huddy. The segment is billed as a review of must see videos, but it's usually 2 or 3 year old garbage that has nothing to do with real news, or just tabloid crap. And I personally think O'Reilly only does the segment to get ratings by having one of the blonde Fox News bimbos on his show.

They showed some right-wing political ad attacking Obama for speaking out on the mosque. Which was simply put on to give the right-winger free air time, as in a free campaign ad on the #1 rated cable news show. Notice that O'Reilly did not run a counter ad from the Democratic candidate, fair and balanced, haha. they O'Reilly showed an ad from Emily's List, attacking Sarah Palin. And oh boy did O'Reilly hate that, because Palin is his girl, and anyone who goes after Palin will feel the wrath of Billy O'Reilly. Huddy called the ad disturbing, when I actually thought it was kind of funny, and that it made a good point.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly keeps saying that liberals support the mosque in New york City. And that is just wrong, because I am a liberal, as liberal as it gets, and I do not actually support the mosque, I only support their right to build it, because there is freedom of religion in the Constitution.

Fox News Is Now Officially In The GOP
By: Steve - August 19, 2010 - 8:30am

Okay, we can now stop saying Fox MIGHT be part of the Republican party. Because it's official, they are, and we know that after they donated $1 million dollars to the (RGA), which is the Republican Governors Association.

Imagine what O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. would say if MSNBC gave $1 million dollars to the Democratic Governors Association. But we don't know what they think about it because there has been a news blackout at Fox, and it looks like nobody is allowed to discuss the donation, let alone try to defend it.

Then again, maybe O'Reilly don't want to discuss the million dollar donation because it makes a mockery of their crusade against the so-called liberal media and how journalists are in bed with Democrats and are a corrupting influence, because news of the $1 million donation confirms the suspicion that the Fox news talking heads all work for a propaganda outlet, not a real news network.

Maybe they don't want to talk about the story because it will show their hypocrisy. Think about this, O'Reilly has railed against NBC and cried about how the corporate giant used its "power and money" to play politics.

So we don't know what any of the Fox News talking heads think of the donation because they're not allowed to speak for themselves. Wow, Billy has been told to shut up, and he did.

If MSNBC had contributed $1 million dollars to a Democratic Party re-election fund, O'Reilly would probably still be in a non-stop 24/7 MSNBC bashing, on-air marathon.

Meaning, Fox News would declare WW III, and by nightfall I'm sure there would be a right-wing mob assembling in Times Square, marching on their headquarters. If MSNBC gave $1 million dollars to the Democratic Party, there would be a right-wing revolution, led by O'Reilly and Beck. But when Fox News gives $1 million dollars to the Republicans, O'Reilly is silent as a mouse. Making him the biggest hypocrite in America.

Dr. Laura Will End Her Radio Show This Year
By: Steve - August 19, 2010 - 8:00am

Before I go into the details of Dr. Laura ending her radio show I would like to point out that O'Reilly has still not said one word about her n-word rant. In fact, all of Fox News has ignored it. Proving once again that they have a right-wing bias, and with their $1 million dollar donation to the Republicans, there is no doubt any more.

In an interview on Larry King, Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced that when her radio contract expires at the end of the year, she will not seek to renew it. Schlessinger said that she was ending her show in order to regain her First Amendment rights.

Which may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, even more ridiculous then the garbage Beck puts out, and that's saying a lot. Nobody attacked her first amendment rights, not one person. She can say whatever the hell she wants to, and she does. All they did was attack her for using the n-word 11 fricking times in 5 minutes, while talking to a black woman who called her for advice.

That is not an attack on her first amendment rights, it's an attack on her for being a racist. She can still say whatever she wants, so her complaints are just laughable. She could go on the air today and use the n-word if she wants to, so there is no first amendment issue. What people said is that it's wrong to actually use the word n____r especially when you are talking to a black woman who called you for advice.

What she should should have done is say the n-word, instead of actually using the word. But she did not do that, so she took some heat over it. Nobody is saying she can not say it again, they are just saying she should not do it, but she can if she wants to.

Asked how her freedom of speech was being denied by criticism of her comments, Schlessinger explained that "I don't have the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate, they want to eliminate. So, that's why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset."

Now that is just insane, she claims hate groups have denied her first amendment rights. When she is the one who used the racist speech, and the groups that went after her are not hate groups. The woman is nuts.

Schlessinger went on to criticize Media Matters. After King referenced "this group that was after you, Media Matters," Schlessinger said, "well, that's their job in life." She also said that a list of advertisers contacted by Media Matters who distanced themselves from Schlessinger due to her comments "proves my point."

She also called Media Matters a "special interest group" that "decided I should be silenced because they disagree with my point of view."


Nobody decided she should be silenced, not Media Matters, not anyone. All they did was point out that she used a racist word, and used it 11 times, to a black woman. They did not try to silence her because they disagree with her point of view. Nobody tried to silence her, they just showed how she used a racist word.

And it is an American tradition to ask for a boycott of someone, or a company, for who they have on their payroll. If you do not like what they do or say you can call for a boycott, O'Reilly even did it to Pepsi when they hired Ludacris to do commercials for them.

The Tuesday 8-17-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 18, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Bigotry and the Ground Zero mosque. And once again O'Reilly used the TPM and the top story segment to talk more about the mosque. O'Reilly attacked the left, and said this:
O'REILLY: How does the far left survive in this country? That crew is so hateful, so harmful to this nation, it's amazing they have any platform at all. If you oppose gay marriage, you're a homophobe! If you want to secure the southern border, you are anti-Hispanic! And now, if you think building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero is inappropriate, you are an anti-Muslim bigot! The far left will never debate the merits of the issue; they simply attack and brand their opponents as racists, bigots and un-American.
What a fricking idiot, the right has the hate and the racism, not the left. The right hates gay people, the right hates Mexicans, and the right hates muslims, even though most of them are not terrorists. So what does O'Reilly do, attack the left for hate of course, it's just ridiculous. And who called the right un-American, nobody I know of, so I have no idea where O'Reilly got that garbage.

Then O'Reilly had Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush on to discuss it. Gerson said this: "Commentators like you have valid questions, and it's not just bigotry that motivates some of the opposition to the mosque. But I've spent time on the other side of the divide and the President faces a different set of duties than a commentator. He serves millions of Muslim citizens, he leads Muslims in the military, and he has Muslim allies in Afghanistan and Iraq. He can't tell those people that their place of worship is somehow a desecration of American holy space."

So O'Reilly said this: "President Obama should negotiate a simple compromise. All he has to do is appeal to the Muslim community to take into account the feelings of the 9/11 families who would prefer that the mosque be built farther away from Ground Zero. The required leadership from Barack Obama and he did not show it."

Then O'Reilly had 2 more segment on the mosque story with Karl Rove, and then Monica Crowley and Democratic strategist Alicia Menendez. Which I refuse to report on, becauase this is like beating a dead horse. Enough already, we know how everyone feels about it now move on and report some different news.

In the next segment O'Reilly cried some more about the Obama health care plan. He had the right-wing Tom Miller from the American Enterprise Institute on to spin out why he thinks health insurance premiums are rising. Miller said this: "This seems like a complex situation, but let's simplify it. We already had an expensive health care system because we have public policies that encourage spending more money on health care, and now we have some anticipatory price changes. But the economy is a larger factor - with a lot of people losing jobs and health insurance, there are fewer customers for the health insurers."

Then O'Reilly criticized the complexities and consequences of health care reform, he said this: "Americans don't understand the system; it takes years and a Ph.D. to figure it out. Obama-care was supposed to address the high cost of health insurance, but I don't think it will ever address it."

And that is almost all lies, from 2 right-wing spin doctors. And what a shocker, not one Democratic guest on to discuss it, just the right-wing nut from AEI. Health care was going up no matter if Obamacare passed or not, and he never said it would not go up. He said we need to change the system, and he did that. But the Republicans blocked all the things that would have lowered costs, yet O'Reilly blames it on Obama.

Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about the mosque etc. Which I do not report on because he is a comedian, and nobody cares what he has to say about anything.

The last segment was is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, they were on to elaborate on Sharia law, which is enforced in some Islamic nations. Wiehl said this: "Sharia law has five tenets, where you can be stoned, flogged, or decapitated for breaking laws." Guilfoyle pointed out that Sharia law is not a universal aspect of Islam. "If you're caught stealing or having an adulterous affair, those are grounds for them to carry this out. But the question is whether Sharia law is actually supported by the Koran."

O'Reilly added that Islam is not the first religion to sanction cruel and unusual punishment, saying "Catholics did this during the Inquisition and there were witch burnings in the United States in the 17th century."

Okay, but why were they on to talk about Sharia law. It was just more muslim bashing, and then O'Reilly wonders why people on the right are called bigots. Because of stuff like this, yes they have different laws, but that is their right because it's their country, and frankly it's none of our business if they stone people do death or not. I only care about laws in the United States, not laws in Arab countries. And there was no reason to do this segment, except to try and make muslims look bad for the laws they have.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly had 3 Democratic guests on the Monday show, but he was right back to his usual one sided tricks Tuesday night, with 8 Republicans to the 1 Democratic.

Proof Laura Ingraham Is A Partisan Political Hack
By: Steve - August 18, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is a good one, back in December of 2009 Laura Ingraham told Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Abdul Rauf, that she likes what she is trying to do with the Islamic community center, and that she can not find anyone who has a problem with it. But that was before the right-wing GOP smear machine decided to make a political issue out of it.

Recently Ingraham appeared on Good Morning America and told host George Stephanopolous that there's a "disconnect between how elites" think about the proposed mosque and how the rest of the country thinks about the project. Ingraham complained, "600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we're supposed to be cheering this?!"

She even went as far as to say that the "terrorists have won" because Park 51 is going to be built. But look what she said back in December of 2009, it's the exact opposite of what she is saying today.

On December 21, 2009, Ingraham hosted Daisy Khan, a co-founder of Park 51 and the wife of its Imam, Abdul Rauf. Despite using the sensational and inaccurate misnomer Ground Zero Mosque, Ingraham is courteous to Khan, does not oppose the existence of a mosque near Ground Zero, and tells her that she "can't find many people who really have a problem with the building of the mosque." Ingraham even went as far as to tell Khan, I like what you're trying to do:
INGRAHAM: I can't find many people who really have a problem with it. Mayor Bloomberg is for it. Rabbis are saying they don't have a problem with it. I like what you're trying to do and Ms. Khan we appreciate it and come on my radio show some time.

KHAN: Yeah, we need the support of people like you seriously.

INGRAHAM: Alright, you take care.
Proving that Ingraham is part of a campaign of hatred aimed at the mosque, helped by Fox News, that changed her mind. But there are a few conservatives who have not joined the right-wing hate campaign to try and stop the construction. Monday morning, former Bush advisor Mark McKinnon said that trying to prevent peaceful Muslims from worshiping near the site of Ground Zero will only serve to enforce "al Qaeda's message" that the West is at war with Islam.

Fox News Giant Conflict Of Interest
By: Steve - August 18, 2010 - 8:00am

Imagine what O'Reilly would say if Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz all went out on the campaign trail to promote Democratic candidates running for the House and Senate. O'Reilly would lose his mind, call it wrong, unethical, and a conflict of interest. Then he would most likely call for them to stop it, or quit working for MSNBC.

While that very thing is happening with people that work for Fox News, and O'Reilly says nothing. Dick Morris, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Sean Hannity are all out helping and promoting Republican candidates.

As the 2010 midterm elections approach, the Fox News partisan machine is ramping up its support for the GOP. Just last week, Dick Morris was paid $10,000 by the Pennsylvania GOP to speak at its 2010 Lincoln Day Dinner, posing a massive ethical challenge for the so-called fair and balanced news network.

Morris, who said he plans to appear with at least 40 GOP candidates, showed up at a Republican rally in Delaware organized by Americans for Prosperity. At the rally Morris told the crowd to vote Republican.

The Dick Morris electioneering has been backed by Americans for Prosperity. Here's how the relationship works between Fox News, Morris, AFP, and Republican candidates. After appearing in Virginia last month at an AFP-sponsored rally on behalf of Republican candidates, the AFP website reported that Morris used his Fox News platform to promote the event:
After the event, Morris appeared at 9PM on Fox News Hannity show, where he mentioned the day's events and the amount of energy the crowds across VA-5 showed. Morris commented on the show that AFP turned out nearly 2 percent of the city for this event, that he had "never seen crowds like this, and that you can't believe the enthusiasm out there in stopping the outrageous spending policies in Washington."
So what Morris does is use Fox News to promote Republican events, then he gets paid by those very same groups, which is about as unethical as a person working for a news network can get. But the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, ever, even though he is a regular weekly guest on the Factor.

And that's not even the worst of it, Huckabee, Palin, and Gingrich are using Fox News to get free air time when they might run for President in 2012. That is an outrage, they should either have to say they are running, or not, and if they are they should not be working for a News Network.

Imagine if James Carville said he might run for President in 2012, and then took a job at MSNBC or CNN, and spent the next year talking politics. O'Reilly and everyone on the right would flip out and say how wrong it is, but when Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich do it they say nothing.

Politico's Ken Vogel writes that the Glenn Beck 8-28 event "blurs the line between Beck's entertainment empire and a burgeoning political role."

These people work for a News Network, so they are not supposed to be involved in political rallies, or giving speeches at partisan events. It's against the rules of journalism, and just wrong, but the great O'Reilly and Fox News allow it, without stopping them, and without reporting that it is wrong.

Experts Say Muslim Rhetoric Hurts Terrorism Fight
By: Steve - August 17, 2010 - 9:30am

Foreign policy experts have warned that anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding the planned Islamic cultural center and mosque in New York City threatens to undermine anti-terrorism efforts. And even people in the Bush administration said that it is "very important that we show the world that America is a very tolerant and diverse society where people are welcome to practice their faith."

the world is watching to see whether Muslims in America have rights, have opportunities that Muslims in lots of other countries don't. During the August 16th edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former adviser to Colin Powell, stated that "this has now become an international issue" and part of "the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world."

On July 30th, James Lamond, a policy expert for the progressive National Security Network, condemned Newt Gingrich's statements about Islam and against the Islamic cultural center as "counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts."

In an August 16th Washington Post column, former Bush official Michael Gerson wrote that "pundits have every right to raise questions about the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero," but added that "inclusive rhetoric toward Islam" is "a matter of national interest."

Gerson questioned how "our cause is served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave."

George W. Bush even spoke about muslims, and religion. In 2003, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin was criticized for saying that Muslims worship "an idol." Responding to questions about those remarks, Bush said that "we welcome Muslims in our country. In America, we love the fact that -- that we're a society in which people can pray openly, or not pray at all, for that matter." He added: "We've got to fight off the imagery of a society which condemns entire swaths of people because of the acts of a few. It's just not the way we are."

Retired general and former Bush Administration official harshly criticized efforts to block the building of a mosque in lower Manhattan, contending such a position is unconstitutional and could harm U.S. relations overseas.

Major General Paul Eaton, a retired Army commander who oversaw the training of Iraqi troops following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, both slammed right-wing opposition to the Mosque.

"What we are seeing out of the Republican Party here is just appalling," Eaton told me Monday. "From a constitutional perspective, from a common sense perspective and from a military perspective."

Eaton added, "This is an extreme right-wing backlash to what we stand for: freedom to practice religion of your choice."

Eaton also pointed out that it is a local decision in which federal officials should not be involved: "It is a very local issue."

Wilkerson agreed, stating: "If they want to build something on private land, it is unconstitutional to say otherwise. It is all about religious freedom, they can build wherever they want to build."

Both men also pointed to a detrimental impact such opposition can have on U.S. relations overseas with Islamic countries, and even put U.S. military men and women at risk.

"It is like offering your opponent two or three whips with which to beat you," said Wilkerson. "The impact on our military people would be injurious if we say 'no.' It would put another instrument in the hands of those who want to exploit the fear that Americans are at war with Islam and not the radical elements within it."

Eaton echoed that view, noting: "It is a slap in the face to a great many people we wish to have as allies. We are trying to make allies of our colleagues in Iraq and Afghanistan and this is not helpful."

He also added, "This is unhelpful to the American fighting men and women and counter to the image we wish to portray in Afghanistan and Iraq."

The Monday 8-16-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 17, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called White House Mosque Mistake. O'Reilly slammed Obama for getting into the mosque debate, and cited a poll that said 64% oppose the mosque. Billy said Obama made a big mistake getting involved in the debate. Which is just crazy, because he is the President, and he should have spoken out about it. All he did was say that it is a right to have freedom of religion, and he did not say if he supports the mosque or not. As usual O'Reilly used the issue to politically attack the President. When Obama is on the right side of the issue, and O'Reilly is on the wrong side using it for partisan political reasons.

Then O'Reilly had 2 Democratic guests on to discuss it, Penny Lee and Mike Papantonio. They both said it was pretty much a non-story, and of course O'Reilly disagreed, and said the people will remember it, and that it will hurt him in the future. Which is just more right-wing propaganda, because a month from now nobody will even remember what he said about the mosque.

And for the record, O'Reilly said that next week Obama will have a job approval in the 30's, which is pure speculation, after O'Reilly has said he never speculates. Crazy O'Reilly was even mad that Obama would not take a position on the mosque issue, but if he did take a position O'Reilly would hammer him for that too. All Obama said is that they have a right to build a mosque, because we have freedom of religion. This made O'Reilly mad and led him to waste 20 minutes of tv time on it. O'Reilly even said that Obama unleashed a firestorm with his comments on the mosque, which is also ridiculous, because only the right-wing idiots care what Obama said about it.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it. And of course he agreed with O'Reilly, because they are both right-wing idiots that simply want to use what Obama said to smear him politically. When all Obama did was say we have freedom of religion. O'Reilly, Fox, and the right are just using the Obama statement to smear Obama as some kind of America hater/muslim lover, and it's just insane. And that is about all I am going to report on this right-wing garbage. And remember this, Krauthammer is a far right neo-con who hates Obama, Bush even called him one of the bomber boys, who want to bomb the whole world. So why should we listen to Krauthammer on anything.

And then O'Reilly had another segment on the Obama mosque comments, with Leslie Marshall and Mary K. Ham. O'Reilly said he was deeply confused as to why President Obama would get into the mosque controversy. But I'm not confused, he got into it because he is the President and he needed to speak out for religious freedom. Billy also said Obama was stabbing himself in the hands every 2 weeks, and it all makes his job approval ratings go down. So of course the right-wing stooge Mary K. Ham agreed with O'Reilly, as she always does.

Marshall disagreed with both of them, and talked about freedom of religion. O'Reilly said Obama was dodging the emotion, whatever that means. Basically O'Reilly thinks it is wrong for them to build the mosque near ground zero, and he thinks Obama is wrong to speak out about it, without taking a position. Then O'Reilly even said that Obama is out of touch with the folks, which is just laughable, and 100% right-wing propaganda. Marshall said Obama just made a statement supporting freedom of religion, and that he simply clarified his statement.

O'Reilly also made the crazy claim that Obama does not care about the people who lost loved ones on 9-11, because he does not speak out against the mosque, which is so insane it's hard to even write about it. All I can say is O'Reilly is a total idiot, and a giant fool. I guess he does not understand what freedom of religion means.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on a fine from the SEC against General Electric. Nile Gardiner and Tom Borelli were on to discuss it. I read the story on the internet, and basically GE paid some bribes to get military contracts in Iraq, when even as O'Reilly said, almost every American company does this sort of thing, especially Halliburton, which O'Reilly never reported on. He only reports on it when GE gets caught and fined, because they own MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann works, who O'Reilly hates, so he is biased about GE. Basically it's a non-story with everyone but O'Reilly.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to do his regular weekly media bias segment. Which is pretty much a one sided biased joke, because they never discuss any media bias at Fox, or any other right-wing media outlets. And the worst part is that O'Reilly has a weekly media bias segment, with no liberal media bias guest. It's just O'Reilly and Goldberg, and they never talk about any right-wing media bias. They talked about the Obama mosque story, and I will not report what they said because it's just more right-wing spin. But I will say this, almost the whole fricking show was about Obama and the stupid mosque comments, wow, what a waste of tv time. O'Reilly wasted an entire show on this non-story.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on because it usually has no reality, and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly sitting there alone, putting his right-wing spin on something a Democrat said. Last week O'Reilly used a reality check to claim he gets 5 million viewers a night, and we know that's a lie, and clearly not reality. So this segment is a joke, and not even worth reporting on.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly has still not said a word about the right-wing blogger being found guilty for death threats to federal judges, and you can bet the farm he never will. Because he is a biased right-wing hypocrite with double standards.

Fox News Links 9-11 Attack To NY Mosque
By: Steve - August 17, 2010 - 8:30am

Okay, now this is about as low as you can go, even for Fox News. During a debate on the proposed Islamic center mosque in New York, the Fox News show America's News HQ, ran video footage of a smoking world trade center building from the 9-11 terrorist attack.

Which is just ridiculous, because these Islamic people that want to build the mosque are not terrorists, they are not part of Al-Qaeda, and they had nothing to do with the 9-11 terrorist attacks. And btw, it's not really just a mosque, it's a 113 floor community center, and one floor will have a mosque. Not to mention, it's actually more than 2 blocks from Ground Zero, more like almost 3 blocks. And you will not even be able to see the building from Ground Zero.

This is exactly what Fox News did back before the Iraq war was started by George W. Bush. They showed video of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and linked him to the 9-11 attacks. Then 60% of the country thought Iraq and Saddam attacked us on 9-11. This is what Fox News does, make false claims that link people to terrorism, when they had nothing to do with it.

Notice that neither Bill O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg said a word about this insanity. As usual they just ignore all the ridiculous garbage Fox News puts out. What better way to turn people against the mosque, then to show images of the world trade center on fire after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Even though it has nothing to do with the muslims that want to build the mosque.

Goldberg Proves What A Far Right Idiot He Is
By: Steve - August 17, 2010 - 8:00am

Bernie Goldberg went so far off the right-wing propaganda rails that even Bill O'Reilly had to tell him he was being stupid. But that did not stop him, he just went on and on with his far right garbage.

In the Factor segment on the mosque story, Goldberg repeated the crazy conservative argument that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's comments about 9/11 are somehow extreme and symptomatic of something sinister.

As even O'Reilly said to Goldberg, Rauf's comments that "I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened. But the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," are similar to the views of many (including the chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission) on the role U.S. foreign policy had with regard to the attacks.

So basically the Imam said the same thing a lot of Americans have said, but Goldberg called that radical islamic hate speech, when it's actually true. If we did not stick our nose in all these foreign countries business, we would not be hated so much by the terrorists. We are the police to the world, and I would like to know where it says we should do that in the Constitution. Answer that Goldberg.

And not to mention, Glenn Beck even said this: "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

So Beck said almost the exact same thing the Imam said, but Goldberg does not call what beck said radical hate speech by an America hater.

O'Reilly went on to explain to Goldberg that the imam's comments weren't the extremist statement Goldberg made them out to be. But Goldberg wanted no part of it. He told O'Reilly he was tired of hearing such arguments about U.S. foreign policy, and that if a Christian minister made similar comments "the media wouldn't call him a moderate."

Goldberg claims the Imam is not a moderate because he said that, which is just ridiculous, because what the Imam said is not even radical, because it's fricking true, and it mirrors what a hell of a lot of Americans have said, including me.

Basically Goldberg is just a far right idiot who is trying to smear the Imam to drum up opposition to the mosque. He is just being a good little right-wing propaganda soldier for the Republican party. And even O'Reilly, who is also opposed to the mosque, disagreed with Goldberg, which is rare, but it does happen.

Republican Book Sales Are Misleading & Dishonest
By: Steve - August 16, 2010 - 9:30am

How often do you hear about some Republican (who has a book out) getting in the top 10 of the NY Times bestseller list, or amazon.com, etc. for book sales. Almost every day right, but did you know how they do it, how dishonest and misleading they are about it.

For example, Palin, Ingraham, and O'Reilly all (had or have) books on the bestseller lists. They claim it shows that real people walked into a book store and bough one of their books, when that is not really what happens. Yes, a percentage of their sales are from actual people going to book stores, but they never say what percentage, is it 10%, 20%, 50%, what say you O'Reilly.

The truth is that a hell of a lot of their sales numbers are from BULK sales to right-wing groups or websites, like townhall.com, newsmax.com, the conservativebookclub.com, etc. In fact, I did a little research on it today, and here is what I found out.

And remember this, O'Reilly is a big full disclosure guy, but he never reports any of this when he talks about his book sales, or sales for other right-wing book authors. Here are the facts.

What Conservatives do is pre-order a whole ton of books by one of their minions like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Sarah Palin, and then either change their mind, leaving the book store with a whole bunch of books that NOBODY wants, or they have their money laundering book outlets, the Conservative Book Club, etc. sell the books later at a loss.

This way they reinforce the lie that conservative authors sell way more books than their liberal counterparts, and they get to funnel a buttload of money to one of their Conservative mouthpieces without alerting the IRS to the scam.

In fact, Sarah Palins own SarahPAC bought thousands of copies of her own book, and it counted in her total book sales. But that is not even half of it, because all the right-wing foundations, groups, and book clubs do bulk book buys. They buy thousands and thousands of books to either give away, sell real cheap, or sell for a dollar.

None of which is ever reported by the great journalist Bill O'Reilly. And by great, I mean terrible. The Conservative Book Club was founded in 1964, and it has proven to be very effective in marshaling the prestige and resources of established Republican institutions around the works of prominent and even lesser-known writers. Organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation often buy books in bulk while conservative media outlets host authors on their shows to discuss and promote their work, pushing their books up the bestseller lists.

Let me give you a few examples of this dishonesty. Right now you can go to the conservative book club website and sign up for a one year membership, you get your choice of 3 conservative books for $1.00 each, yes I said $1.00 each. Including books by O'Reilly, Ingraham, and Beck, even the new Ingraham book is on the list.

Funny how they never mention that when they are telling you how great their book sales are. Hell if I sold a book for $1.00, on every liberal website in the country, I would have great book sales too. Right now you can get all 3 O'Reilly books, Who's Looking Out for You?, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity, and Culture Warrior for $1.00, all you have to do is sign up for a one year membership with the conservative book club.

And btw, O'Reilly said he is not a conservative, so why is the CONSERVATIVE BOOK CLUB selling his books for a dollar?

Now think about this, at townhall.com you can even get the new Laura Ingraham book free, yes I said free. If you sign up for 12 issues of the townhall magazine for the low low price of #34.95 for one year you get the Ingraham book free. I quote from townhall.com:
Subscribe to 12 issues of Townhall Magazine for $34.95 and receive Laura Ingraham's The Obama Diaries FREE
And think about this, O'Reilly is also a columnist for townhall.com, one of the most conservative websites on the internet. So how does he do that while claiming to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, just asking.

In closing, none of this information is ever disclosed by O'Reilly, Ingraham, Fox News, or anyone on the right. Every right-wing foundation, group, book club etc. is doing these bulk buys. Then either giving the books away, or selling them for $1.00 on their websites. And then they imply to you that real people are walking into a book store and buying their books.

And that is how they get on all the bestseller listings, but they never disclose it. Talk about dishonest, that is about as dishonest as you can get. Even mister I am the king of honesty Bill O'Reilly does it, making him as dishonest as any of them. O'Reilly even tried to claim his book out sold the Hillary Clinton book, which it did not, and he never once disclosed the fact that a big part of his sales are from bulk buys by right-wing groups and book clubs.

And, if O'Reilly is not a conservative why do these right-wing groups buy his book in bulk to inflate his sales, what say you Billy?

More News You Will Never See Reported By O'Reilly
By: Steve - August 16, 2010 - 9:00am

Okay ask yourself this, how much do you think O'Reilly would report on a story about a left-wing radio host, and blogger, who was found guilty of making death threats against federal appeals court judges. Once a week, twice a week, or more, with at least two or three follow up segments with updates on the trial.

Now think about this, not only did O'Reilly not report on the guilty verdict, he did not report on the trial at all, ever, not one time. Even though he does a weekly legal segment with two legal analysts.

And here is the most important part, the man found guilty was a right-wing radio host and blogger. And O'Reilly ignored the entire story, not a word about the trial, or the guilty verdict. And before you say the story is new so O'Reilly did not have time to report it, you would be wrong.

With a simple google search I found a story about it from June of 2009, by CNN, and Novemeber of 2009 by the Huffington Post, nothing by O'Reilly or Fox News. Here are the details.

In June of 2004 the right-wing internet radio host and blogger Hal Turner was arrested for threatening to kill three federal appeals court judges in Chicago, Illinois.

A federal complaint said that Hal Turner, 47, had posted "outrage" on his Web site over the handgun decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to the complaint, Turner described the court decision in a June 2 posting and said, "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed."

The postings included photos, contact information and room numbers of the judges along with a picture and map of the building in which they work.

FBI agents, carrying a search warrant, arrested Turner at his home in North Bergen, New Jersey. He was charged with threatening to assault and kill the three judges with intent to retaliate against them for performing official duties.

Now we fast forward to August of 2010, Conservative shock jock and blogger Hal Turner was convicted Friday for making death threats against federal appeals court judges in Illinois.

A New York City jury deliberated less than two hours before finding Hal Turner guilty of threatening the judges. Turner, who was previously free on bond, was taken into custody pending sentencing, according to the FBI. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

So a right-wing radio host and blogger gets arrested for making death threats on federal judges, and O'Reilly says nothing, not a word about the arrest in 2009, the trial, or the guilty verdict. But he sure has plenty of time to report on Rod Blagojevich and his trial.

This is a prime example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, by ignoring news stories about hate on the right. And you know if a liberal did what turner did O'Reilly would be all over that story. To make it worse, O'Reilly complains about what he calls the liberal media ignoring news because of political ideology. When he does the very same thing, and does it 10 times more than anyone else in the media.

Fox & Republicans Lying About Imam's Government Trip
By: Steve - August 16, 2010 - 8:30am

The right-wing media is attacking Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance," by falsely claiming he will use the trip as a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance construction of his Islamic cultural center in New York City.

In fact, the State Department has made clear that fundraising of any kind is prohibited during the trip, and Rauf has already participated in the program under President George W. Bush. But of course they never had a problem with it when we had a Republican President. They only have a problem with it when we have a Democratic President.

Forbes, The Washington Times, Fox & Friends, David Asman, The National Review, etc. all claim it's a fundraising trip paid for by the taxpayers. And as usual, it's all lies.

And now the facts:

Rauf began participating in the program under Bush, and all fundraising activities are prohibited.

Assistant Sec. of State Crowley said this: Rauf is aware of the "prohibition against fundraising while on a speaking tour." In an August 10 press briefing, Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley addressed allegations that Rauf will use the trip to raise funds for Park 51, specifically noting that there is a "prohibition against fundraising while on a speaking tour," a policy of which they have informed Rauf.
CROWLEY: We have about 1,200 of these kinds of programs every year, sending experts on all fields overseas. Last year, we had 52 trips that were specifically focused on religious - promoting religious tolerance. We will expect to have roughly the same number of programs this year.

For Imam Feisal, this will be his third trip under this program. In 2007, he visited Bahrain, Morocco, the UAE and Qatar. And earlier this year in January, he also visited Egypt. So we have a long-term relationship with him.

His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States. And our discussions with him about taking this trip preceded the current debate in New York over the center.
Notice that it's his 3rd trip under the program, the first one was during the Bush years, but these right-wing idiots never said a word about it then.

And btw, contrary to conservative claims, Rauf will only be traveling to three countries, not five, and will not be visiting Saudi Arabia. Several right-wing media figures have claimed that Rauf will be traveling to five Arab countries during his State Department trip, including travel to Saudi Arabia. In fact, Rauf's trip is limited to Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE.

So not only are these right-wing idiots hypocrites with double standards, they are also liars. And of course neither O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox, points out these lies and reports the actual facts.

Another Poll O'Reilly Will Never Report
By: Steve - August 16, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is another poll you will never see reported on the Factor, because it shows what REPUBLICANS actually think about Sarah Palin. Remember, this pollwas taken by REPUBLICANS only, no Democrats, and no Independents.

August 12, 2010 - A new nationwide survey of REPUBLICAN voters finds that support for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to win the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination has fallen by one-third since March, sliding from 18 points to 12 points. Palin is now running in fourth place for the nomination behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

In all three Clarus polls testing the 2012 nomination strength of a changing roster of potential candidates, Romney and Huckabee have topped the GOP field.

The poll was conducted by Clarus Research Group, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C. based polling and research firm. The survey was not sponsored or paid for by any client, candidate or political party.

Here are the results for the top 5:

Mitt Romney - 26%
Mike Huckabee - 21%
Newt Gingrich - 14%
Sarah Palin - 12%
Tim Pawlenty - 3%
Undecided - 15%

What's funny is Gingrich and Palin are both losing to undecided, if you can't beat undecided should you even be running, just asking.

And remember this, O'Reilly has said a million times that he thinks Sarah Palin is smart enough and qualified to be the President. Which means he is one of the small majority of REPUBLICANS that believe that. And if only 12% of Republicans support her, just imagine how low it is for the rest of the people, I'm thinking maybe 5%, if that.

Religious Leaders Denounce Palin & Fox Hate Speech
By: Steve - August 15, 2010 - 9:30am

Here is another good story you will never see reported by O'Reilly, unless it's to smear them for what they are saying.

August 13, 2010 - Forty different Catholic, evangelical, mainline Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders and scholars came together to release a statement condemning the hate language of Fox News, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich as it relates to the so called Ground Zero mosque, "Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation's highest ideals."

The statement released by Faith In The Public Life condemned the religious bigotry of Gingrich, Palin, and Fox News, "As Catholic, evangelical, mainline Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders and scholars committed to religious freedom and inter-religious cooperation, we are deeply troubled by the xenophobia and religious bigotry that has characterized some of the opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque near where the World Trade Center towers once stood."

Newt Gingrich, is the most recent prominent opponent to cast this debate in a way that demonizes all Muslims and exploits fear to divide Americans. Sarah Palin called plans for the center a "provocation." And Fox News has aired a steady stream of irresponsible commentary and biased coverage that reduces what should be a civil debate into starkly combative terms.

Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President of the National Council of Churches said, "We are deeply saddened by those who denigrate a religion which in so many ways is a religion of compassion and peace by associating all Muslims with violent extremism. That's like equating all Christians to Timothy McVeigh's actions. This center will reflect not only the best of Islam, but the enduring hope that Christians, Jews and Muslims can together find common ground in addressing the most urgent challenges of our time."

Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK said, "It's simply wrong for Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin to malign all Muslims by comparing this cultural center and mosque with a radical ideology that led to the horrific attacks of 9-11. We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries."

The statement concluded by calling for an end to the fear mongering and hate filled rhetoric, Gingrich, Palin and other prominent voices privileged to have the ear of the media would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements and instead helped inspire a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace. Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation’s highest ideals."

Fox News has found that peddling paranoia and hate is very, very profitable. Playing upon religious tensions is bad enough, but to intentionally create disunity for political gain, with no regard for the consequences to our nation is almost criminal.

Fox & Some Republicans Are Promoting 14th Amendment Lies
By: Steve - August 15, 2010 - 9:00am

Okay, here is my question. O'Reilly has Bernie Goldberg on the Factor every week to do a media bias segment. So how come they never say anything about Fox News. Like this, Fox has repeatedly aired a Republican Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce's false claim that the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to the children of "aliens, legal, or illegal."

That is a lie, which is not just bias, it's a flat out 100% lie. Put out on Fox News, and neither O'Reilly or Goldberg ever say a word about it. And in fact, legal scholars, the Congressional Research Service, and the Supreme Court have concluded that the 14th amendment applies to children born in the United States, regardless of their parents immigration status.

On the August 12th On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Pearce made several false and misleading claims about the 14th amendment, arguing that it was intended for African-Americans alone, and not "aliens, legal, or illegal." Pearce even said there are two Supreme Court decisions that make that clear.

Then the morons on Fox & Friends repeated the lie, on the August 13th Fox & Friends they aired Pearce's remarks from On the Record during a segment on calls to change the 14th Amendment so that it did not apply to children whose parents are in the country illegally.

And now the facts. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And in fact the Supreme Court says the exact opposite of what Pearce is claiming. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that childern born in the U.S. to foreigners are not citizens. The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that "where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law."

Colombia University historian Eric Foner stated during the August 2nd edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, that it's "not true" that the 14th Amendment was not intended to apply to the children of aliens, adding, "The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so."
FONER: It was passed to create a national standard of citizenship for everybody, not just black people, children of immigrants, Irish immigrants, anybody. As you said before, it was debated about the Chinese on the West Coast. Everybody understood that this meant all persons born in the United States, with a couple of exceptions.

It didn't apply to Native Americans, because they were like members of their own little nations, their tribes, and it didn't apply to children of diplomats born in an embassy or something like that.

COOPER: So, when those argue -- when -- the people who argue that this only was based on African-Americans, that's simply not true?

FONER: That's completely false. That's completely false.
In fact, Senate debate at the time shows Congress explicitly recognized impact of 14th amendment on "aliens." Sen. Jacob Howard, a Republican from Michigan, proposed the Citizenship Clause.
HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
Notice that it was a Republican who said that, yes a Republican. But that was back when most Republicans were honest people, now they are almost all dishonest partisan hacks, who only do what the party leaders tell them to do. And now you have the facts, not the right-wing lies you hear on Fox. Hey O'Reilly, when are you and Goldberg going to discuss that bias, let me guess, never.

Fox News Ignored N-Word Rant By Laura Schlessinger
By: Steve - August 15, 2010 - 8:30am

What a shocker, Fox News is the only cable news media outlet that did not report on the n-word rant by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. NOT!

On Thursday Media Matters posted audio and transcript of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's racially-charged rant in which she, in her own words, articulated the n-word all the way out - more than one time. (11 times in five minutes) Schlessinger's tirade occurred earlier this week during a segment with an African-American caller, whom she said had a chip on her shoulder. And btw, She has since sort of almost apologized for her remarks.

CNN's Rick Sanchez was the first cable news host to pick up on the story, and the network has run five segments on it since. MSNBC reported on Schlessinger's remarks two times. But how many segments has Fox News run? Zero.

CNN - 5
FOX - 0

Why has Fox News ignored the story. Probably because Schlessinger is a regular guest on Fox, and the right love her. I see her as an older version of Ann Coulter. Just last year, Sean Hannity hosted the right wing radio host to promote her new book.

Obama Defends The Constitution & Freedom Of Religion
By: Steve - August 15, 2010 - 8:00am

Now think about this, Republicans CLAIM to support the CONSTITUTION. As they argue that we should not follow the 14th amendment that makes children born in America citizens, and that the muslim mosque should not be built near ground zero in New York.

It's insane, how can you claim to support the Constitution as you argue against two things in the Constitution. Religious freedom, and the rights of children born here to be citizens.

On Friday President Obama spoke about the mosque, and laid out the facts, that we have religious freedom so the muslims should be able to build that mosque.

Friday night President Obama hosted a dinner at the White House, a feast marking the culmination of a day of fasting for practicing Muslims during the current Islamic calendar month of Ramadan. At remarks delivered at the dinner, Obama spoke out on the controversy surrounding the construction of a new Islamic center near the Ground Zero site, firmly siding in favor of the project:
OBAMA: Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
And remember this, President Obama used to teach Constitutional law, so he knows a little about the Constitution. Obama's defense of the mosque is important, not just in showing the credibility of his message to the Muslim world, but it also puts him directly in the political fight against far right extremists, who wish to destroy American values in the fight over the mosque.

Obama also said that "our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us is an important marker of the distinction between us and the nihilism of terrorists."

So remember this when you hear O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Rove, Gingrich, Palin, etc. claim they support the Constitution. Remember that they are liars, who only claim to support the Constitution. People who really support it, support all parts of it, even the parts they disagree with.

The Friday 8-13-10 Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 14, 2010 - 10:00am

Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, and as usual the whole show was right-wing spin, as if O'Reilly was there himself. Juan had the Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel ethics case as his Top Story, with one right-wing guest, Dana Perino. I know this is a valid news story, but it sure as hell should not be the Top Story of the night, especially when there is no new News to report in the story, and O'Reilly had already reported on it 2 times last week. It's just beating a dead horse to make Democrats look bad.

And it pretty much shows that Juan is no different than O'Reilly, he does mostly right-wing smear segments with mostly right-wing guests on to spin it, just like O'Reilly does. Where is the balance, and the counter point, nowhere to be found on the Williams Factor.

Then Williams had a segment on a favorite topic O'Reilly likes, crying about attacks on Sarah Palin. Juan spent the entire segment crying about some Democratic politician who said he hopes Palin is on a plane that crashes. Williams cried like a baby over the attack on Palin, just like O'Reilly does. It's like O'Reilly was still there hosting, same cry baby garbage, over the lame and stupid Sarah Palin.

In the next ridiculous segment Williams reported that Congress has authorized $600 million to put more Border Patrol agents and equipment on the Mexican border, then he said the critics say it is not enough. Even though it's far more than Bush did, and those same critics never said a word about how little Bush did on illegal immigration. Juan played a re-run of a recent conversation with O'Reilly and Arizona sheriff Paul Babeu.

The same dishonest right-wing sheriff who did the campaign ad for John McCain, and the same sheriff that is not even on the border, he is 80 miles from the border. But O'Reilly and Williams both put this sheriff on to cry about border problems with illegals. And neither one of them disclose the fact that he is a partisan Republican who did the dishonest McCain ad. With no Democratic guest on to discuss it btw, which is exactly what O'Reilly does.

Then Williams did another segment on the mosque near ground zero with K.T. McFarland and Mark Levine. Wow, an actual Democratic guest, it's a miracle. But of course he is on with a Republican, so even when a Democratic guest does get on they have to share their time with a Republican. Just like O'Reilly does, almost no Democrats get on alone, they are almost always paired with a republican to counter everything they say. But numerous Republicans are put on alone, with nobody from the left to counter what they say, fair and balanced, haha, yeah right.

In the next segment Williams had a best of the culture warriors, with Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. And I will not report the lame garbage they reported on, it's not news and the whole segment was a re-run of old clips.

Then Williams had a segment on what he called Pessimisim in the economy. And he is right, there is pessimism in the economy, but as usual Juan pulled an O'Reilly and only had a right-wing guest from Fox on to discuss it. Jonathan Hoenig was on to talk about it, and of course they just slammed Obama with no Democratic guest to provide the balance. Hoenig said Obama has failed, even though the stimulus worked, and it was not a plan to fix the economy, it was a temporary stimulus, and it worked.

What gets me is Bush ruined the economy, Obama is just trying to fix it. And he has only been in office for 18 months, so he has not even been the President for 2 years and these right-wing idiots are already saying he failed to fix an economy Bush ruined. O'Reilly even sad he would give him 2 years, even though he broke that promise a long time ago. And not once did either one of these idiots mention that Bush ruined the economy, not Obama. I guess they forgot, yeah that's it, they just forgot, yeah right.

In the last segment Williams had another right-wing idiot on with no Democratic guest. Greg Gutfeld was on to talk about the JetBlue flight attendant story, and Levi Johnston. Gutfeld called the flight attendent a jerk, and he called Johnston a tool. And I would say Gutfeld is the jerk and the tool, and this whole segment was just stupid.

And that was the end of the Williams Factor, if you count Juan as a Republican, which I do, 10 Republicans were on the show, yes I said 10, with ONE Democratic guest. Hey Juan, good job, you are even more biased to the right than O'Reilly is, because he usually only has 7 or 8 Republicans on the show.

In fact, Juan Williams (the so-called moderate) set a new record for having the most Republicans on one show. The record for O'Reilly was 9, and Juan broke that by 1 with 10.

Unemployed Man Slams Newt Gingrich
By: Steve - August 14, 2010 - 9:00am

Many conservatives like Newt Gingrich have claimed that extending unemployment benefits for the unemployed is breeding laziness and lack of productivity. Which is pretty stunning to me, because you have to be employed before you can qualify to get unemployment benefits, so how are they lazy when they had a job.

Newt Gingrich was the latest to adopt this right-wing garbage. Writing in an e-mail to supporters, Gingrich cited a Wall Street Journal story where unemployed 52-year-old mechanic Michael Hatchell explained that he couldn't afford to take jobs that wouldn't pay enough to take care of his family. Gingrich said welfare was keeping Hatchell from working.

Earth to Newt, unemployment benefits are not welfare, you fricking idiot. And if you make more on unemployment then the jobs you are offered pay, then you are crazy to take one of those jobs. Especially if it will not even pay the bills, not to mention the rules of unemployment say you do not have to take a job that pays less than the benefits you are getting. So Mr. Hatchell was just following the rules, and getting money back from a fund that he paid into, moron. It's unemployment insurance, not welfare, you jerk.

Thursday night, Hatchell and his wife Sarah appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann to explain his family's circumstances in his own words. The mechanic said "it's really hard for someone like Mr. Gingrich" to understand the challenges his family faces. He explained that the jobs he was offered would not have paid enough to cover his home's mortgage or support of his family, so he chose to stay on unemployment insurance.

He also took offense at Gingrich's use of the word welfare to slur his taking of unemployment insurance, pointing out that he worked for 35 years, paying into unemployment insurance, and that he was simply taking money out of a fund that he worked hard to pay into:
HATCHELL: Keith, it's really hard for someone like Mr. Gingrich to understand the fact that when you have a mortgage, you have a family to support, car payments, insurance everything else, if you’re going out to look for a job, jobs that were going to pay half of what I was making, when they were offering me these jobs and, this is going to be a situation where we're going to start you out at the entry level wage, I've got 32 years of experience, in the automotive business, it's kinda hard for me to do that.

Even at 40 hours at 7.75 an hour. With a mortgage and everything else, yes I was drawing unemployment 475 dollars a week, I paid into since I was a young man, 35 years I actually paid into it. It's unemployment insurance, not welfare that Mr. Gingrich has spoken about. Until such time I can get a gainful job that will let me keep my house, keep my family fed, not necessarily anything expensive, I wasn't going to take any other job.

OLBERMANN: He seemed to leave out the idea that it is insurance and you did pay into it. Pay now and don't get it later!

HATCHELL: With the mortgage payments, if you don't pay your mortgage, you'll be out on the street. When I did find a situation where I did have it better off, I took it.

OLBERMANN: Sarah, let me ask you something. Can you weigh in on how you reacted when we brought Gingrich's remarks to your attention today?

SARAH HATCHELL: I was appalled, frankly that he would consider unemployment insurance welfare.
And Gingrich is not the only right-wing idiot slamming Hatchell for doing what's best for his family. Glenn Beck said Hatchell's choice to take the unemployment insurance he has paid into for 35 years is taking a Government handout, Beck said this: "He chose to take the government handout. People are choosing to be dependent on the government -- over picking themselves up and taking less and resetting and starting all over again."

That's sure easy to say when you make $20 million dollars a year for being a professional right-wing liar on radio and tv. Hey Beck, let me see you lose your job of 35 years and then take a new job that pays less than unemployment, even if you will lose your house by doing it.

I would bet everything I have you would do the same thing Mr. Hatchell did. Especially when you have a family, and what happened to those family values you right-wing idiots are always talking about. Should he not do what's best for his family, that is what you idiots say to do, and then you slam him for doing it.

Beck Lying & Begging For 8-28 Rally Crowds
By: Steve - August 14, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is just sad, but also pretty funny. Beck is so desperate to get people to come to his ridiculous 8-28 rally in Washington he has to lie about hotel rooms, and beg people to come, he says sleep in your car if you have to.

Beck: "Sleep in your car. I'm not kidding you, sleep in your car"

Then he claims there is a lack of hotel rooms, so when hardly anyone shows up he can say there were no hotel rooms for them to stay in, or the crowd would have been much bigger. He also went on some crazy rant about they are the baby Jesus, which was really strange.

And btw, I just did a quick search on Orbitz and found plenty of hotel rooms for that day. I also went to Hotels.com to see what's available for that weekend, and it said 506 hotels rooms were available. So when Beck says the crowd was so small due to a lack of hotel rooms, remember that he was lying.

Fox Business Anchor Wants Bushonomics Back
By: Steve - August 14, 2010 - 8:00am

On the Thursday night O'Reilly Factor, host Juan Williams had Cheryl Casone from the Fox Business Network on to talk about jobs and the economy. During the segment Casone said Obama should "take a lesson" from Bush and become a little more pro-business.

Which is just laughable, because we tried that, and it crashed the entire economy. Now she wants Obama to be more like George W. Bush and just let the corporations do whatever they want. I guess she forgot we did that for 8 years, and it almost destroyed the country.

This idiot Cheryl Casone has what I call right-wing denial, no matter how bad a Republican in Congress, or the White House screws up, right-wing fools like her just call for more of it. Bush was one of the worst Presidents we ever had, he gave all the money to the wealthy, and let the corporations do whatever they want. That almost put us into a new depression, and yet, Casone says Obama should be more like Bush.

It's pure insanity, and it shows just how brainwashed idiots like her at Fox are, they all think that way. Somehow they seem to forget what a terrible President Bush was, and how bad his policies screwed this country up. Now they want you to vote the Republicans back into power, which is just crazy, and if the voters in this country do that then they deserve everything they get.

Obama and the Democrats should be allowed to at least have 4 years to try and get things back on track, and then if he is not doing it, I say vote him and the Democrats out. But at least give the man 4 years, it took Bush 8 years to screw it up, so it's probably gonna take at least 4 years to fix it, if not more.

The Thursday 8-12-10 Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 13, 2010 - 11:00am

Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, so I did not do a full review, but I will say this. It's not much different than having O'Reilly there, he sounds the same, reports on the same issues, slams Obama and the Democrats, has the same guests on, and puts out mostly right-wing spin. The only difference is that he screams less than O'Reilly, and he is black.

Basically Juan Williams is a black version of Bill O'Reilly, without the yelling. Juan spent the entire first segment saying Harry Reid is a racist, because Reid said he does not understand why any Latinos are Republican. Which is not racist, at all, and it's the very same thing O'Reilly would say. In fact, I would bet O'Reilly tells him what topics to cover. Reid was just saying the Republicans only care about the wealthy and the corporations, and to hell with the poor, blacks, and latinos, and he is exactly right. Williams turned that into racism, which was just ridiculous.

And when you count the guests it was 8 Republicans to 2 Democrats, which is exactly what O'Reilly usually has, so it was no different than if O'Reilly had been hosting. Williams also had a segment about Robert gibbs, the Obama spokesman, talking about a couple liberals who did not like what he said about the professional left. Williams did exactly what O'Reilly does, put a right-wing spin on it, and claim the far left all want Gibbs to resign. His evidence, one Democratic Congressman called for him to resign. Earth to Juan, that's not the entire far left, it's one man, idiot.

He also did a segment with Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, and segments on the mosque at Ground Zero, slammed Obama over jobs and the economy, had a best of the Factor News Quiz re-run, and talked more about the JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater.

It was like O'Reilly was still there hosting the show, all right-wing spin, all the time from the so-called moderate. It looked to me like O'Reilly had all the topics set up for him. And Juan just did what O'Reilly does, spin everything to the right, with 90% right-wing guests.

Jennifer Aniston Fires Back At Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - August 13, 2010 - 9:00am

Jennifer Aniston has a few choice words for Bill O'Reilly, who criticized her recent comments about single motherhood. She said this in a People magazine article:
ANISTON: Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth. And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with fatherly instincts), but for those who've not yet found their Bill O'Reilly, I'm just glad science has provided a few other options.
Aniston, who is currently starring in The Switch, a film about a woman who gets pregnant using a sperm donor, told reporters recently that women no longer have to wait for the perfect guy to start a family.
ANISTON: Women are realizing it more and more, knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child. Love is love and family is what is around you and who is in your immediate sphere.
Last week, on his Fox News show, O'Reilly called the actress's comments "destructive to our society," and accused her of diminishing the role of the dad. "Dads bring a psychology to children that is in this society, I believe, under-emphasized. I think men get hosed all day long in the parental arena."

And as usual O'Reilly gets his crazy comments shoved back in his face. He implied that Jennifer Aniston did not think a man was needed to have a child, which is not what she thinks.

Not to mention, her comments were made in the context of promoting her new movie The Switch, a film about a woman who gets pregnant using a sperm donor. Where she said that women no longer have to wait for the perfect guy to start a family. It looks to me like O'Reilly tried to bait Jennifer Aniston into doing his show for ratings, and she did not take the bait, good for you Jen.

O'Reilly Wins Silver In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - August 13, 2010 - 8:30am

From the Wednesday Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

The runner up, Bill-O, unhappy that out promoting Jason Bateman's new film about a woman turning to artificial insemination and raising a child on her own called "The Switch," Jennifer Aniston said-oh, it's Jennifer Aniston's new film? I'm sorry.

Anyway, she said "women are realizing it more and more, knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child. Times have changed, and that is also so amazing, is that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents' days when you can't have a child because you waited too long."

Blow-Hole 0'Reilly replied, "she's throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that hey, you don't need a guy; you don't need a dad. That is destructive to our society. The fathers who try hard are under-appreciated and diminished by people like Jennifer Aniston."

He then ordered her to appear on his show. Even a line of amateur psychoanalysis of what O'Reilly is doing this time. If you read Marvin Kitman's autobiography or biography of O'Reilly, it's pretty simple. Virtually every reference O'Reilly makes to his own father describes how the man hit, slapped, punched him. As Kitman put it, simply, "O'Reilly has a history of physical abuse from his father."

It is actually very sad.


In other words, what Olbermann is saying is that O'Reilly's Father hit him, and slapped him around so much, it made him into the fricking lunatic he is today, and I have to say I pretty much agree with Keith.

The Wednesday 8-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 12, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Getting Hosed by The Government. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It could be the biggest financial con in American history. As we reported last night, health insurance premiums all over America are rising fast. However, the health insurance companies themselves are doing pretty well - the heads of the five biggest ones were paid almost $200-million last year. While premiums go up for working people and businesses, so do health company profits. For example, Aetna's net income jumped 40% year-to-year. So why are we being gouged? Insurance companies are building in the anticipated costs of Obamacare.
While that may be partly true, O'Reilly is lying when he says it is all because of Obamacare. Because 2 years ago some health insurance companies raised rates 26% in one year, one even tried to raise their rates by 40%, that was WellPoint, they proposed a 40% premium increase, which actually helped Obamcare pass. And that was well before Obamacare even passed, so when O'Reilly says rates are up only because of Obamacare, he is lying his right-wing ass off.

Then O'Reilly had Stuart Varney and consumer watchdog Robert Weissman on to discuss it. Weissman said this: "You're exactly right, that these executive pay packages are totally obscene and they are coming directly out of the hides of consumers. But the insurance industry doesn't need the health care plan from Obama as an excuse to raise rates and pay too much to executives. I believe for-profit health insurance should be replaced."

And of course Varney agreed with pretty much everything O'Reilly said, and he also accused Weissman of demonizing the health insurers and this is a tactic of the Obama administration - demonize bankers, Wall Street and health insurers. O'Reilly and Varney put out the usual right-wing spin, with Weissman barely getting a word in.

Then Dick Morris was on to discuss it, so including O'Reilly it was 3 to 1 so far, with 3 conservatives to 1 liberal. Morris theorized that President Obama has a grand scheme for nationalized health insurance. "He realized that by making the health insurance companies raise rates and then using the opportunity to demonize them, he would lay the basis for a single-payer system."

And as usual it was all speculation by Morris, with no evidence to back up his claims. O'Reilly even claims to have a no speculation zone, but he let Morris speculate his ass off anyway. Then O'Reilly suggested that Obamacare is already damaging the anemic economy, he said this: "Unemployment isn't getting better because small business owners and major corporations say why would I add people when I'm going to have to pay these higher health insurance costs? It cuts across the whole working class and middle class existence in America."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the Jet Blue flight attendant Steven Slater, who cursed out an unruly passenger, grabbed a couple of beers, then slid down the emergency chute. And is now charged with criminal mischief and reckless endangerment, which is not real news so I will not report on it. But I will say this, O'Reilly wasted an entire segment on this crap.

Then O'Reilly had a taped segment with Megyn Kelly, they talked about a woman on a plane who reported that she thought the pilot had been drinking, and they kicked her off the plane. They also discussed the Pittsburgh girl who was raped twice at her high school. Kelly said this: "The boy has allegedly pleaded guilty, and it's not just this one girl, there are five girls who are special education students. So there was a student in special ed who was repeatedly raping freshmen special ed students and the school wasn't doing anything about it. If these allegations are true, school officials are in a lot of trouble."

Then O'Reilly had the insane Glenn Beck on, Billy asked Beck why he does not cover cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Beck said this: "We have bigger fish to fry, you can argue about abortion or gay marriage all you want, but the country is burning down. One part of culture that I am doing a lot of is faith, genuine faith. Instead of arguing about these divisive things, we have to get back to our churches and synagogues and mosques, get back to God and the founding principles. We both agree that the country is in trouble, but I think faith is going to be the antidote that we need."

Beck even said he does not care if gay people get married or not, which will piss off a lot of his right-wing viewers who are mostly anti-gay marriage. O'Reilly was even shocked that Beck is ok with gay marriage, proving that he is also an anti-gay marriage idiot. O'Reilly even praised Beck for what he called fighting the good fight, saying this: "it's a noble thing you're trying to do."

Which is just laughable, because nothing Beck does is noble, and anyone who says it is needs a mental evaluation. Beck is a borderline traitor, and the crazy O'Reilly says what he is doing is noble, give me a fricking break.

In the last segment Juliet Huddy was on for the totally lame did you see that segment, they had a video from the Huffington Post, that slams President Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan. huddy said this: "What's going on with that tape, is they're trying to juxtapose what President Obama once said about Iraq with what he's doing in Afghanistan. The bigger picture is that this is the left-leaning Huffington Post trying to make him look foolish."

Not exactly, what they are doing is showing that Obama said one thing before the election, and then did not do it after the election. But what they did not show is that Obama said he will make decisions based on the military Generals advice at the time, which is what he did this year. O'Reilly and Huddy ignored all that to try and smear Obama with a video from the huffington post. When the video was dishonest, and O'Reilly even admitted the video was misleading, he pointed it out like 3 or 4 times, so much that Huddy finally said I got it, and I don't care, haha.

They also played a video showing Justin Bieber getting hit in the head by a water bottle while on stage. And I would say, who fricking cares, and how is that news.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Notice that including O'Reilly it was 7 Republicans to 1 Democrat, which is not fair and balanced, and not even close. Not to mention, the 1 Democrat who was on had to share his time with Varney, so he was not even put on alone. That way you get the impression he was wrong, because you had a 2 on 1 with O'Reilly and Varney both telling him how wrong he was.

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Obama Health Reform Bill
By: Steve - August 12, 2010 - 8:30am

This is so funny, O'Reilly is crying about health care premiums going up and blaming it on Obama. When the health care premiums were going to go up whether Obamacare passed on not.

And what really gets me is that O'Reilly and everyone on the right opposed the Public Option, which would have provided competition to the private for-profit health insurance companies, and led to lower premiums. Then he complains about the increased cost, when he opposed the option that would have lowered premiums.

And btw, we are the only country in the developed world where private insurance companies are allowed to operate on a for-profit basis. We should be paying 3% overhead costs, rather than the 20 to 30 percent overhead we currently pay for with our premiums.

What we really need is for the Congress to pass a law with a limit on what the health insurance companies can charge, and a limit of the percent of profit they can make. And if they refuse, the Government should go into the health care insurance business, and charge just enough to cover the cost, with no profit.

O'Reilly tried to blame the increase in health care premiums on Obamcare, which is ridiculous, because they were going up anyway, and Obama even said the cost for the wealthy would go up to cover everyone, and to pay for people who can not afford it. Earth to O'Reilly, as long as the health care insurance companies are a private for-profit company, they are going to raise rates, what part of that do you not understand.

The Public Option could have helped, and you opposed that you fricking moron.

O'Reilly Spins The Firefighter Test Racism Ruling
By: Steve - August 12, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is another great example of exactly what Bill O'Reilly is, and what he does. He is a right-wing partisan who spins everything to the right. Here is the story, and btw, none of this information was reported by O'Reilly, or his 2 right-wing legal analysts.

On Wednesday a federal judge ruled that New York City intentionally discriminated against black applicants to the Fire Department by continuing to use an exam that it had been told put them at a disadvantage. The judge also said it was NOT a one-time mistake or the product of benign neglect, he said it was a part of a pattern, practice and policy of intentional discrimination against black applicants that has deep historical antecedents.

In his decision, the judge highlighted how black and other minority firefighters have been severely underrepresented, characterizing that as a "persistent stain on the Fire Department's record."

In July, Judge Garaufis -- acting on a claim being pushed by the United States Justice Department -- ruled that the Fire Department used a test in 1999 and 2002 that had a discriminatory effect on black applicants. In his ruling, the judge found that the city intentionally discriminated against blacks in using those tests and in ignoring calls over the years to change the testing procedure.

In 2007, there were 303 black firefighters, accounting for 3.4 percent of the department's ranks; even though black residents make up 25.6 percent of the city's population. The judge noted that while the city's other uniformed services "have made rapid progress integrating black members into their ranks, the Fire Department has stagnated and at times retrogressed."

A report that was sent to the Mayor of New york more than six years ago warned him about sharp differences in the pass/fail rates between white and minority candidates for firefighter jobs, but neither the Mayor or the fire commissioner, Nicholas Scoppetta, did anything to fix the problem. The judge wrote that he found strong evidence to suggest that they were made aware numerous times that the Fire Department's entrance exams were discriminatory, yet failed to take sufficient remedial action.

Paul Washington, 48, a firefighter in Brooklyn and a former Vulcan Society president, said that the ruling validated "what we've been saying for the longest time, and which I've been saying since 1999 -- that the Fire Department discriminates, intentionally, and they just continue to do it."

He said he believed that over the department's 145-year history, there were probably "thousands of thousands of black men and women who should have had this job and didn't get it."

So they use a test that is unfair to blacks, then hire mostly white people to be fireman. And yet, O'Reilly and his 2 right-wing legal stooges deny the whole thing, ignore the details, and claim there is no racism in the test.

Lis Wiehl said this: "I tried to take this test, and it's about hoses and what you would do in a certain situation. A black firefighter admitted to me that there is not one question in this test that has any racial bias and even the judge says there is absolutely nothing racially biased in the test. But it has a disparate impact and therefore needs to be thrown out."

Guilfoyle condemned the judge and his ruling, she said this: "This is nonsensical because there is no actual discrimination in the test, which is not difficult. And since when shouldn't public safety and merit matter? There are 300 people who passed the test and are being held back while there's a shortage of firefighters."

It's just laughable what O'Reilly and these right-wing idiots spin out, the judge found evidence in a court of law that the test does discriminate, and there was a report 6 years ago that found the same thing. The fact that only 3.4 percent of NY Fireman are black pretty much proves the judge was right, especially when black residents make up 25.6 percent of the city's population.

Not to mention, the evidence of the different pass rates for whites and blacks. Where blacks pass at a far lower percentage than whites, but O'Reilly and his dishonest legal team never report any of this evidence. They just say the judge is wrong, and there is no racism, without providing any evidence to back up their claims. As they ignore all the actual details in the judges ruling.

Maddow Puts The Smackdown On O'Reilly (Part 2)
By: Steve - August 11, 2010 - 10:00am

Rachel Maddow took on Bill O'Reilly again Friday night, responding to his syndicated column in which he called her a "far-left loon" and an "uber-leftist" and wrote that her claims about Fox News are presented "without a shred of evidence."

"This time the case against me is in his nationally-syndicated column, which I'm sure is read by millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of people," Maddow said, mocking O'Reilly's over-reliance on TV ratings to dismiss arguments against him.

O'Reilly's column was specifically in response to Maddow's appearance with David Letterman earlier in the week, during which she called Fox News "slimeballs" and repeated her case that the network stokes white viewers' fears about black people.

O'Reilly called that claim a "preposterous...paranoid, dishonest rant" and wrote that Maddow presented it "without a shred of evidence."

Maddow called that assertion "stupid" and told O'Reilly, "you may not like that diagnosis of what Fox has been up to, but to say there's no evidence...that's bullpucky."

She then presented examples -- ranging from Shirley Sherrod to ACORN to Van Jones to O'Reilly literally saying that white people prefer smaller government while black people want the government to expand to redistribute wealth -- to back up her claim.

"Remember, Mr. O'Reilly says there is not a shred of evidence that Fox News hypes stories about scary black people taking white people's stuff," she said.

"I am not interested in playing cable news insult ping-pong with Mr. O'Reilly, but as much as he keeps insisting that I'm no one worth arguing with, that I'm an 'uber-leftist' -- he called me that in his column -- and a loon twice now, and a slightly larger percentage of 1% of the population watches his show than the proportion of 1% of the population that watches my show, for all he complains about how unimportant I am, my criticism that Fox News scares white people on purpose to politically benefit conservatives -- damn the consequences for the country -- that criticism appears to have struck a nerve over at Fox.

It appears to have gotten under Mr. O'Reilly's skin," she concluded. "Good."

The Tuesday 8-10-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 11, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Obamacare Begins to Affect Your Wallet. O'Reilly said this: "A couple of days ago I received my new health care premium and Oxford Health is charging me $2,100 more than it did last year. Almost every health insurer is raising premiums."

Then he blamed it on Obamacare, which is a dishonest right-wing smear job. Because Obama never said premiums would not go up, he said his health care plan will get more people health care, and overall it would help to keep premiums from going up at a higher rate. So it was total spin from O'Reilly, to compare his health care premium to the average American is ridiculous. Most people will get cheaper health insurance, and the important thing is that far more people will even have health insurance. Now some wealthy people will pay more, as O'Reilly is, but that is so a lot of other people can get health insurance for less.

O'Reilly knows that, and yet, he made the ridiculous claims that everyone is paying more, just because he is, when it's a total lie. The wealthy are going to pay more, just like they do in taxes, which does not mean everyone will pay more. Proving that O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing spin doctor.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about President Obama and health care costs. Colmes said this: "He's governing as a pragmatist and you have to take the long view. Insurance costs are not going up because of Obama, it's because of what happens on the state level. You're blaming Obamacare, but that's not the problem."

But Crowley insisted that health care reform is already proving disastrous. Which is also a lie, because the polls show that the majority of the people now favor Obamacare, but you never hear that reported from O'Reilly or Crowley. They just smear Obama with right-wing talking points, and hope someone believes it.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about dirty tricks against Rand Paul. O'Reilly reported on a Democrat who went to a rally for Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, and posed as an anti-immigrant and racist Rand supporter. Yes it was wrong, and it is a dirty trick, but that's politics, and you know it's being done by both sides.

Ingraham actually said Democratic leadership led the way. When it was one local guy in Kentucky, the Democratic leadership had nothing to do with it, and even spoke out against what the man did. Then Crazy O'Reilly said this: "Dirty tricks have been going on for a long time, but never has there been a vehicle to carry the dirty tricks like the Internet. Our whole political process could be subverted here and we are in a danger zone because this could lead to anarchy."

But notice that neither O'Reilly or Ingraham ever report on any of the dirty tricks Republicans do, so it's one sided, and biased. Hey O'Reilly, prove you are fair and balanced, and report on a dirty trick by a Republican, haha, yeah when hell freezes over you will.

Then O'Reilly had Charles Gasparino from Fox News on to discuss a Variety magazine TV critic who has picked up and run with the notion that Fox News is trying to "scare" white Americans. Gasparino said this: "Producers and anchors at other networks, do have an agenda. It's not just that they're left-wing, but they don't even present the other side of the story. They think it's 'racist' for us to raise the legitimate issue of whether Barack Obama is a leftist."

Yeah that's fair, have a Fox News employee on to discuss racism charges against Fox, it's like having Dick Cheney on to discuss George W. Bush being guilty of torture. Of course Gasparino is going to deny it, because he works for Fricking Fox News, duh. Where is the balance O'Reilly, where is the opposing view, how is that objective reporting. A real journalist would have at least had someone on who agreed with the Variety magazine TV critic. The whole segment was a biased one sided joke, with 2 Fox News Employees. And that's called journalism, give me a break, especially when the TV critic is right.

Then O'Reilly had the far right nut Nancy Grace on to promote her new book, and that is the only reason she was on. Which I refuse to report on, or name her stupid book.

In the is it legal segment Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about a federal judge who ruled that New York City's written test for firefighters discriminates against blacks. And of course all 3 of them were outraged at the ruling, including O'Reilly. Wiehl and Guilfoyle both said it was not a racist test, and slammed the judge for his ruling. But get this, they never quoted the judge, or his ruling.

The judge ruled that New York City intentionally discriminated against black applicants to the Fire Department by continuing to use an exam that it had been told put them at a disadvantage. He also said this: "It was not a one-time mistake or the product of benign neglect. It was a part of a pattern, practice and policy of intentional discrimination against black applicants that has deep historical antecedents and uniquely disabling effects."

In his ruling, the judge found that the city intentionally discriminated against blacks in using those tests and in ignoring calls over the years to change the testing procedure. The suit was brought by three people who took the test and by the Vulcan Society, a fraternal organization of black city firefighters.

At the heart of the case is the Fire Department's persistent underrepresentation of minorities and the continued use, between 1999 and 2007, of the entrance exams. In 2007, there were 303 black firefighters, accounting for 3.4 percent of the department's ranks; while black residents make up 25.6 percent of the city's population. And what a shocker, O'Reilly never reported any of that information, NOT!

And finally O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to talk about Jennifer Aniston saying men are not really needed when it comes to raising children. Then they spent the entire segment on this garbage. Here is what I say, who fricking cares. Earth to O'Reilly, Jennifer Aniston is an actress, and that is the opinion of one person.

So why should we care, especially when you say all the liberal hollywood actors are pinheads that we should never listen to. And btw, I am a liberal and I disagree with Aniston, as I am sure a lot of other liberals do. I believe it is better for children to have 2 parents. But then you waste an entire segment talking about what one hollywood actress said. If we are not supposed to listen to them, because they are liberal pinheads, why do you keep reporting what they say. Answer that one smart guy.

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

People Of Nevada: Sharron Angle Is A Fool
By: Steve - August 11, 2010 - 8:30am

This is for anyone who can vote in Nevada this November, the Tea Party Candidate for Senate is Sharron Angle, and she is a certified far right radical nut. Before you vote for her, here are a few things you should know about her, the stuff she does not want to talk about.

Angle will be headlined a Tea Party event last Saturday in San Diego, promoted by a far-right doctors group -- a group that has promoted all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. Not to mention, most of them are not even doctors.

The event, the National Doctors Tea Party, is promoted by a group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. They have stated that the establishment of Medicare in 1965 was "evil" and "immoral." They have denied the link between HIV and AIDS. They have joined in on the birtherism nonsense. They have argued that President Obama may have used "covert hypnosis" to rally his crowds, and have suggested that the Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional.

Sharron Angle has taken some very extreme positions, but this one is something else. She once said on a candidate questionnaire that she would refuse political contributions from a private company that backs equal rights for gays, and extends benefits to partners of gay employees.

She believes that teachers should be able to talk about religion and "publicly acknowledge the Creator" in classrooms.

She is also opposed to ALL abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. Which is a very far right radical position, because even most Republicans approve of abortion when rape or incest in involved.

She is even threatening to sue Harry Reid for rehosting her old campaign website, which is not illegal btw, from before she had GOP consultants edit the crazy out of her positions.

She opposes any laws that would enable gay people to adopt. Which even O'Reilly has no problem with, O'Reilly said he has no problem with gay people adopting. So Angle thinks children are better off in orphanages than with loving parents who are gay.

The federal government bans churches from participating in political campaigns on behalf of candidates, but Angle said churches should be able to express views on candidates. She thinks it's ok for tax-exempt churches to promote and be part of political campaigns, despite the fact that it would be a violation of federal law.

She also said her campaign was a mission from God, and that God told her to run for the Senate. But I talked to God today and he told me that he does not even know who Sharron Angle is, and that he never told her to run for the Senate. So who are you going to believe, me or Sharron Angle.

I believe she is the most radical major-party candidate to seek office since David Duke was the Republican nominee for governor in Louisiana in 1991. And if anyone in Nevada votes for her you are nuts.

Some Facts On The Michelle Obama Spain Trip
By: Steve - August 11, 2010 - 8:00am

Here are the facts about the Michelle Obama Spain trip, and btw, O'Reilly never reported any of this information. He implied Michelle just went off to Spain for no reason, except to party and take a vacation. Which is not even close to the truth. Not once did he de-bunk any of the right-wing lies, or report the details of why she went, and who went with her.

The Conservative media is pushing the lies that taxpayers picked up the tab for Michelle Obama's private vacation expenses in Spain and that 40 friends accompanied her and her daughter Sasha on the trip. In fact, the Obamas were accompanied by two of the first lady's friends and three of their daughters, and all of them, including the Obamas, paid for their own personal and travel expenses.

The NY Times reported that Michelle Obama and her friends paid their own vacation costs. And the Tribune reported Michelle Obama's friends arrived in Spain on their own, and that because Michelle Obama and her daughter flew on an Air Force jet, "the Obama family will reimburse the government an amount equal to two first-class tickets." The government will pick up the tab for the Obamas security, but it is the Secret Service -- not Michelle Obama -- that decides the amount of security needed.

Officials note that the first lady is paying for her own room, food and transportation, and the friends she brought will pay for theirs as well. Mrs. Obama is not traveling with 40 friends, but with two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members. The staff is with her because she will pay a courtesy call on King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía on the island of Majorca on Sunday before flying home to Washington.

Ruth Marcus from the Washington Post wrote this:
MARCUS: If Michelle and Sasha had hung out at home, not one more American would have a job, not one-hundredth of a decimal point would be added to the gross domestic product. Yes, her travel required a government plane and Secret Service resources, but that would be true wherever she went.
In her August 9th Chicago Sun-Times column, Lynn Sweet wrote this: "Michelle Obama made the trip because she promised one of her closest friends, a longtime Chicago pal who just lost her father, she would spend time with her."

Mrs. Obama does travel with significant security -- and in a trip like this, three shifts of uniformed and plain-clothes agents and military personnel flew with her on a big Air Force 757. No matter where she goes -- domestic or international -- any first lady gets protection and she does not decide how many agents are needed.

So why did Mrs. Obama go to Spain at this time? She's not tone-deaf politically. What was behind the "mother-daughter" vacation?

A White House source told me that Blanchard's father passed away and Mrs. Obama was not able to make the funeral at the beginning of July. Blanchard had promised her daughter she would take her to Spain for her birthday. She asked Mrs. Obama and Sasha to come with her.

The New York Times reported on August 6 that "every first lady in modern times has flown on government planes with a sizable security detail." The same article reported that "Laura Bush took vacations without her husband each year of George W. Bush's presidency, traveling with her Secret Service detail on a government plane to meet friends for camping in national parks."

And not one Republican ever complained about Laura Bush taking a vacation, or the cost of it, not once, ever. Not to mention, about 99% of what I just reported was never mentioned by O'Reilly, the guy who claims to try and be fair to President Obama. Yeah, if that's being fair, I'm Babe Ruth.

Some O'Reilly Factor Video Nonsense
By: Steve - August 10, 2010 - 9:00am

Here are a couple great videos that show just how stupid O'Reilly and Karl Rove are.

In video #1, O'Reilly and Karl Rove sit around and laugh at how Rove only got paid $1.650.00 dollars to host the 3 hour Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. Which is $550.00 fricking dollars and hour. The 2 of them acted like it was nothing, and O'Reilly even said Rove was under-paid. O'Reilly said Limbaugh makes $100 million a year, so Rove should get what Limbaugh makes for one day, and that is way more than $1.650.00.

And they did all that while talking about how out of touch Obama is with Average Americans. Give me a break, you 2 are a joke, and about as out of touch with Average Americans as anyone can get.

In video #2, O'Reilly told Juan Williams that the reason he is doing the story about Michelle Obama going to Spain is because it's August and there is nothing else to report. Except he also said it was an interesting story, because it makes the Obamas look bad. So he can't even keep his story straight.

And btw, I could come up with at least 10 more important news stories to report on. But of course it would be real news, and it would not get the ratings O'Reilly wants from his right-wing viewers. I also checked the top 20 most popular stories on Google News, etc. And the Michelle Obama Spain trip story is nowhere to be found.

Because it's only a story to right-wing idiots like O'Reilly, who want to use it to smear Michelle Obama. Nobody else even cares about it, because it's not a real news story. It's a fake story put out by the right-wing media, and O'Reilly was at the head of the list to report on it.

The Monday 8-9-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 10, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called You And President Obama. O'Reilly talked about his new book, and the economy, and basically smeared Obama for what he has been doing, the usual right-wing spin that he does almost every night.

And then, as I expected O'Reilly joined the dishonest right-wing idiots in smearing Michelle Obama for her trip to Spain. The whole thing is just ridiculous, they claim she took 40 friends and the taxpayers paid for it. When it was her and 2 friends, with their daughters, which was a total of 6 people, who all paid their own way, and Michelle Obama paid her own way, including the price of 2 commercial plane tickets.

The entire story is a joke, and a non-story, it's just another lame attempt by Republicans to make the Obama's look bad. This same crew never said a word when Laura Bush went on trips every year. And that is all I am going to say about this nonsense. This is partisan hypocrisy at it's worst, from O'Reilly and all his insane right-wing friends, except for Dana Perino, who for once was honest, and said they should leave Michelle Obama alone.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, and Krauthammer said the optics are bad, and that it looks bad going to a foreign country. But that on substance he does not care so much. O'Reilly said it was a little bit of nit-picking, then he slammed Michelle Obama for doing it. O'Reilly did not like that she went to Spain, and said she should have stayed in America. What they failed to report is that Michelle went to Spain with a friend who had a Father die recently, they never once mentioned that. So basically they both said it's pretty much nothing and they don't care, then they spent the whole segment slamming her for going.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss the Michelle Obama trip, and other issues. O'Reilly said the Obama trip is an interesting discussion, but Juan disagreed, and called it like it is, and said it was just part of the bash Obama crowd doing what they do. O'Reilly said there was a little of that, but that she should not have gone to Spain. O'Reilly even called it a big story, and said it's the biggest story in the country, haha. It's only a story with right-wing idiots, nobody else cares. Mary K. Ham even downplayed the story a little, and said it's not that big of a deal.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about how he did as a fill-in for Rush Limbaugh on his radio show. Which nobody cares about, except O'reilly and his right-wing viewers. And btw, I heard Rove did terrible, that he screwed up a lot, and basically made a fool of himself. But you would not know that from listening to what O'Reilly and Rove said, according to them it was great. O'Reilly loved it so much, he played multiple clips of Rove doing the show.

And the rest of the time Rove did his usual right-wing spin routine, Obama is the devil, Republicans are great, etc. etc. etc. They slammed Michelle Obama and praised Laura Bush, Rove even said the Michelle Obama trip would do long term damage to the Obama administration, which is just laughable. In 3 days nobody will even remember it, and nobody cares now but Republican idiots.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the mosque in New York near ground zero. Which I refuse to report on anymore, because O'Reilly and the right are just using this story for political reasons. Raheel Raza was on to say she is a muslim, and that she is opposed to the mosque, and btw, she is a Republican, she called the Mayor of NY a bleeding heart liberal, which O'Reilly loved, and called what she said a great answer, and that is about all I will say about it.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about Oprah giving Rosie a cable show. O'Reilly went on some tirade where he claims because Obama is doing bad in the polls no liberal can do a tv show, which is just ridiculous. O'reilly slammed liberals like Joy Behar, and said her ratings are low because Obama is not popular. And I was thinking, wtf? That is just crazy, and the usual right-wing garbage from O'Reilly. her ratings are low because she is on HLN, and it's a cable. Goldberg pretty much agreed, and called Rosie a fool. These 2 guys should get on some good medication, then retire to the old folks home and get off tv, because they are just idiots. Then they slammed a writer at the NY Times for writing what O'Reilly called a sympathetic piece on the military guy who leaked information to wikileaks.

And finally the ridiculous and biased Factor Reality Check, the same so-called reality check that O'Reilly said he gets 5 million viewers a night in, that was not reality, and clearly not a check. And btw folks, in this segment O'Reilly used an old video from 2005 about Barney Frank, to claim he nailed him. But get this, when anyone says we should investigate Bush for approving torture, O'Reilly says we should not waste our time dealing with things from the past.

Then he goes back 5 fricking years to nail an almost unknown Congressman over some small time political statement, go figure. The video was just Barney Frank saying the housing bubble would not collapse, which is what everyone thought at the time, because nobody knew about all the shady deals the banks and wall street were doing. So he did not nail him for anything, but O'Reilly said it was stunning anyway.

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

Republican Ted Olson Schools Chris Wallace
By: Steve - August 10, 2010 - 8:00am

I saw this and it was great, the Republican Ted Olson, who defended George W. Bush in Bush v Gore, and who later served as Bush's solicitor general, put the smackdown on the right-wing idiot Chris Wallace Sunday.

Wllace pulled out all the old right-wing talking points on why gay people should not be allowed to get married, and Olson shot them all down like he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Olson appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss last week's U.S. District ruling that overturned California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why seven million Californians don't get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Which is the same ridiculous argument O'Reilly made last week on the Factor.

Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can't deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, "Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down."

In other words, just because people vote something into law on a ballot, does not mean it's right, or constitutional.

When Wallace pressed the point further, comparing same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working, since states had been deciding the issue on a state-by-state basis.

Olson then asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News right to free speech was decided by a vote:
OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let's wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundamental constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It's in the constitution.

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it's encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I'm very, very pleased about that. But we can't wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, and it must be eliminated.
Oh snap, Olson just nailed Wallace, haha. He also nailed O'Reilly, and every other right-wing nut who has made that lame argument. If your constitutional rights are being violated by a vote that passed in one State, then it is wrong, and the courts should strike it down. Which I predict they will, I agree with Ted Olson, and I think the Supreme Court will uphold Judge Walkers ruling. And they should, because it's the right thing to do.

Notice that O'Reilly never has anyone like Ted Olson on the Factor to discuss it, because he is a smart guy, and he would make O'Reilly look like a fool with his lame right-wing spin on the ruling, just like he did to Chris Wallace.

O'Reilly Caught Lying Again About Obama Job Approval
By: Steve - August 9, 2010 - 9:30am

Once again Mr. (I Have Been Fair To Obama) Bill O'Reilly has been caught lying about the Obama job approval ratings, by me, and as far as I can tell nobody else. So how is it being fair to the President if you keep lying about his job approval ratings every other week.

Let me show you people something, and this will prove beyond a doubt that Bill O'Reilly is a lying right-wing partisan spin doctor. Last Tuesday on August 3rd, 2010 O'Reilly had a Talking Points Memo with this title. "More Bad News For Obama From The Polls." That headline is right from his very own website, word for word.

Then O'Reilly said this, and remember, these are his own words from his TPM.
O'REILLY: A new Gallup poll says just 41% of Americans now approve of the job President Obama is doing. Talking Points believes the primary reason Barack Obama is falling in the polls is that independent voters have lost confidence in him.

Apparently even some Democrats are wavering, and that is because the President has no big wins on his resume. The economy remains awful, Afghanistan is in trouble, the oil spill was chaos, and the President is spending a record amount of money. So rather than running on his record, the President is saying the other guys are worse. W
Okay, then on August 6, 2010 O'Reilly said this while talking about the July jobs report, from his very own transcript on his website:
O'REILLY: The Factor wants to be fair to President Obama, and every White House in history has spun events to make the folks think things are better than they are. The polls say most Americans are not buying the spin right now, but the President is not about to take the blame and is putting it all on the Republicans.
Now think about this, I am at the Gallup website right now on Sunday August 8th, 2010, I have looked everywhere, and they do not have a poll that has the Obama job approval at 41 percent, not anywhere on the entire website, not now, not ever.

The current Obama job approval is 47 percent, as of Sunday 8-8-10. That is a 1 point increase from Saturday, and the lowest they have ever had Obama at is 44 percent on August 3rd, 2010.

The 52 week high is 56 percent, and the 52 week low is 44 percent. That means Bill O'Reilly was lying, because the Gallup polls have never had Obama lower than 44 percent, not just in the last year either, since he took office in January of 2009.

Let me repeat that, Bill O'Reilly was lying. This is 100 percent proof that O'Reilly lied about the Obama job approval ratings to make him look bad. And think about this, he would never do that to a Republican President. In fact, Obama has never dropped below 44 percent at Gallup, ever, which was a temporary drop that only lasted 4 days, and now it's back up to 47 percent, but O'Reilly did not report the increase.

So what O'Reilly did was smear Obama because he is a Democrat, and that is a fact, here is the evidence staring you right in the face. Okay all you O'Reilly lovers who claim he never lies, e-mail me now and explain to me how this is not lying, I dare you, I beg you.

Republicans Economic Plan Is A Scam
By: Steve - August 9, 2010 - 9:00am

To begin with, 99% of the Republicans will not even tell you what their plan for the country is, because they don't have a plan. But one Republican in Wisconsin has a plan, it's not a good plan, but at least he has one. Here are the details, from a Paul Krugman article in the NY Times. Krugman calls him the FlimFlam Man.

You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he's hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.

Which brings me to the innovative thinker du jour: Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party's poster child for new ideas thanks to his "Roadmap for America's Future," a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes. The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.'s fiscal conscience. He's often described with phrases like "intellectually audacious."

But it's the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn't offering fresh food for thought; he's serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

The Post also tells us that his plan would, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan's plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan's request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts -- period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

And that's about the same as the budget office's estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration's plans. That is, Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible -- which you shouldn't -- the Roadmap wouldn't reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

And I do mean slash. The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan's total tax cuts. That's not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.


So basically the Ryan plan is to give more tax cuts to the rich, and raise taxes on the other 95 percent. Which would not reduce the deficit, in fact, it would make it worse,so all it does is shift the debt from the wealthy to the middle class. It's a plan that looks like Donald Trump wrote it, just make the middle class pay the debt down, and call it a deficit reduction plan.

And remember this, the Republicans got us into this mess in the first place in 8 years under Bush. Now they want you to vote them back into power, the very same people that caused the problem. And if you do, you are not only hurting yourself, you will be hurting the country.

Conservatives Are Attacking The Prop8 Judge
By: Steve - August 9, 2010 - 8:30am

Last week Vaughn Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, issued a landmark ruling declaring the state's ban on marriage unconstitutional and without any rational basis.

His opinion was widely praised by legal scholars, with Dahlia Lithwick writing that "nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion."

Bu the right-wing smear doctors are going after him anyway, as they have in other states where judges ruled that denying same-sex couples marriage rights is unconstitutional. They have called for impeaching the judges, launched political campaigns to impeach them, and most disturbingly, they spread nasty rumors about their personal lives:
-- The right-wing nuts are already calling for the impeachment of Walker, whose main crime seems to be issuing a decision they disagree with. The AFA sent out one of its action alerts, saying that Walker "frustrated the will of seven million Californians." Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, said that after her decision legalizing marriage equality, opponents hired a small plane to fly for weeks over Boston, including over her apartment building, trailing a banner reading, Impeach Margaret Marshall.

-- Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that marriage equality is legal. Legal Scholars said that while the decision was politically divisive, it was legally sound. Critics, however, have launched the Common Sense PAC, an effort to vote three of the justices who are up for a retention vote in November out of office. Common Sense PAC is erecting black plywood signs that are designed to look like a ballot, with red check marks in the No column for each justice.

-- The AFA is currently working on a vicious smear campaign to dismiss Walker's opinion by arguing that he is gay. The AFA wrote its supporters that Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest. The right wing similarly went after Marshall in 2004, saying that she allegedly colluded with homosexuals.
But these attacks are nothing more than sour grapes and grasping for straws. As NPR's Karen Bates pointed out, conservatives had no problems with Walker's sexuality when it was first announced that he would be the judge. Supporters of Prop8 did not ask that he be recused. They did not think that he would have a conflict in overseeing it.

And btw, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Walker, who is a Republican, and he was opposed by many Democrats for being perceived as anti-gay. Because in the past Judge Walker had ruled against a gay person who was in a legal fight with an anti-gay group. They had no problem with him then, but now they do, simply because he made a ruling they do not like.

Note: I need to make a small correction. Last week I said Walker was nominated by President Reagan, but I recently found out it was Bush Sr. not Ronald Reagan. So he was still nominated by a Republican President, I just had the wrong one. Unlike O'Reilly, I do corrections when I am wrong.

More George W. Bush Tax Cut Facts
By: Steve - August 9, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly and all the other right-wing spin doctors are on a dishonest campaign to drum up public support for extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 2 percent of the most wealthy Americans. Obama wants to let them expire for the other 98 percent, who actually need the money, and will spend it to help the economy grow.

The Republicans argued that more than half of all small-business income would be hit by the increase, potentially imperiling businesses that employ as many as 30 million workers.

Wednesday afternoon Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner slammed the GOP talking points that allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire will hurt small businesses.

Geithner also said that letting the cuts expire would affect fewer than 3 percent of small businesses. And that is a fact, but you never hear any of this from O'Reilly or anyone on Fox News.

Geithner called the GOP effort "a political argument masquerading as substance." He said letting the top-level tax cuts expire would affect fewer than 3 percent of small businesses, leaving the vast majority untouched.

He also said that Republicans are using a misleading definition of "small business." According to the GOP's definition, Geithner said, a small business could include partners in a major law firm and directors of a large financial company.

"If you actually want to help small businesses get needed tax relief as opposed to using them as a cover for supporting tax cuts for the most well-off," he said, "those people should be supporting Senate passage of the Small Business Jobs Act this week." The bill is stalled, and aides said it may not pass until after the August break.

Geithner reiterated the administration's case for extending tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year while allowing the upper-class cuts to expire.

"There is no credible argument to be made that the purpose of government is to borrow from future generations of Americans to finance an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent," Geithner said., saying such a move would amount to "a $700 billion fiscal mistake."

They are basically lying to the people, to try and get them to write and call members of Congress to keep the top 2 percent tax cuts in place. It's dishonest, and wrong. But O'Reilly never says a word about it, because he wants them to fool the people, plus he would get those tax cuts himself.

Dana Perino Is A Massive Right-Wing Liar
By: Steve - August 7, 2010 - 10:30am

On the Friday night O'Reilly Factor Dana Perino was caught in 2 massive lies, and neither Bill O'Reilly or the so-called liberal guest, Leslie Marshall called Perino out on her lies.

In her 1st lie she said the Democrats had control of Congress for 4 years before Obama was elected. That is a massive lie, because the Democrats did not get control of Congress until the 2006 mid-term elections, 2 years before Obama took office, not 4 years as Perino claimed.

And btw, even though the Democrats got control of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms, they still had no power to do anything. Because they did not have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to end a filabuster. They did not get the 60 votes in the Senate until the November 2008 election when Obama was elected the President.

So Perino actually told 3 lies, the 3rd lie is that Democrats had control of Congress in 2006. When she damn well knows they had no power until they got the 60 Senate votes in the November 2008 election. Not to mention, it was way later than that, because they had to wait for Al franken to go through the re-counts, etc. And he was not made a Senator until some time late into 2009, and that is when they got the 60 votes.

In her 2nd lie she said that Republicans did vote for the unemployment extension. And that is also a massive lie, because only 2 moderate Republicans voted yes, the other 39 Republicans all voted no.

Okay now think about this, as soon as I heard Perino make those false claims, I knew she was lying. I even made a specific note about it. Before I even did any research on what she said, I knew she was lying 2 seconds after she said it. So you can bet the farm that O'reilly and Marshall also knew she was lying. And yet, neither one of them said a word about her lies, they both just let her spew out these known lies.

The Friday 8-6-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 7, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called President Obama's Economic Spin. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: New employment data shows that 131,000 jobs were lost in July, but President Obama continues to believe his policies will eventually turn the economy around. When you do the math, private sector job creation is miniscule - $500-billion in stimulus money was spent and about 600,000 jobs added. The Factor wants to be fair to President Obama, and every White House in history has spun events to make the folks think things are better than they are.
And most of that is right-wing spin, or lies, from O'Reilly. As he claims he wants to be fair to President Obama, give me a break. To begin with, the Obama policies have turned the economy around. The economy only started to recover after Obama passed the stimulus package in 2009. Since then, the GDP has grown, the financial sector has recovered, and, while the overall employment situation is still less than great, private sector job growth has increased for 7 straight months.

Then O'Reilly says the Obama stimulus has only created 600,000 jobs, but what he fails to mention is that it has also SAVED another 2.7 million jobs that would have been lost without the stimulus, and the GDP would be 2 percent lower. A new report showed that Without the stimulus package, GDP would have been 2 percent lower and an additional 2.7 million jobs would have been lost. O'Reilly ignored all that to slam Obama over one jobs report, that was mostly Census jobs that were lost, even though the private sector jobs were up again, for the 7th straight month.

Yes it's not as good as Obama wanted, but it's still positive job growth, which is a hell of a lot better than the 750,000 private sector jobs a month we were losing under Bush. And if this were happening under a Republican President O'Reilly would say how good it is. O'Reilly dishonestly slammed Obama over jobs, when he has only been the President for a year and a half. When he knows jobs are the last thing to come back after a recession, especially after the massive recession Bush caused. It was a total right-wing smear job by O'Reilly, then he says he is being fair to Obama, which is just laughable.

Then O'Reilly had Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall on to discuss it. And of course Perino added to what O'Reilly said, but she was also caught telling lies, and O'Reilly never said a word about it. I have a special blog posting on her lies. Leslie Marshall said this: "We want everything fixed right away, but we didn't get here in a day and we have to be more patient with job creation. I do believe this will turn around. July is always a slow month for employment, but I see growth."

And she is right, the GDP is growing, the stock market is up, private sector job growth is positive, and things are getting better. Which is all good news, but O'Reilly and Perino turned it into a slam on Obama, which is just partisan garbage. Especially when you compare the economy now to what it was in the last year of Bush, to what Obama has done, and it's is a small miracle. In 18 short months Obama has turned the economy around, jobs have come back, and the market is up 16 percent. But in O'Reillyworld that's a disaster, proving he is a biased right-wing idiot.

Then O'Reilly had 2 more partisan segments that are only done to fire Republicans up to get out and vote this November so I will not report much on it. In one segment O'Reilly talked about how some Border Patrol agents are mad at their boss, John Morton. And he had some right-wing guest named Sara Carter on to discuss it, with nobody to give the counterpoint. So it was the usual one sided bias, with no opposing views from anyone, so you only get one side of the story, the right-wing side.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Bill Hemmer on to discuss hos a few muslim men abuse or even kill muslim women for dating non-Muslim men or becoming too westernized. With nobody to give an opposing view, or point out that it's a very small percentage, and the killing does not happen very often. Hemmer insisted that he is not merely cherry-picking a few isolated incidents, but that is exactly what he was doing. O'Reilly even admitted that most Muslims are appalled by it, but he never had anyone on to talk about stats. Just the biased Bill Hemmer.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the case of Omar Thornton, the Connecticut man who shot and killed eight co-workers, then claimed he had been the victim of racism. And of course both O'Reilly and Geraldo denied it had anything to do with racism because he had not reported any racism to the company. But the man was black, and he only killed 8 white people, that he had said were racist to him. So once again they deny racism with no evidence to back up their claims, and no explanation as to why he only killed the 8 white people.

And then O'Reilly had a ridiculous segment that is not worth talking about, it was the best of Glenn Beck. O'Reilly showed old clips of Beck on the Factor, why, who knows, ratings I guess. He already has a regular weekly segment with Beck, and now he does another one with the best of that idiot. I guess Beck gets good ratings, so he only did it to boost his ratings.

The last segment was dumbest things of the week with Juliet Huddy and Arthel Neville. So Neville picked the Internet "sex tape" in which actress Eva Mendes is actually promoting the virtues of duct tape. "I love it," Neville said, "and she's not dumb. It costs $39.95 to buy her sex tape." Okay, but it's called dumbest things of the week, and yet Neville picked something that was not dumb, which makes no sense.

Gutfeld went with Congresswoman Maxine Waters and her ethics charges, except she has not been found guilty of anything, only charged, so he is jumping the gun. O'Reilly picked Barney Frank for advocating the legalization of marijuana. Which is also stupid, because Frank is smart, he is just saying it should be legal and taxed, like cigarettes. So O'Reilly is being dumb, because everyone who wants to smoke pot is smoking it, legal or not, so you might as well make it legal and tax it. Making O'Reilly the dumb one in this case.

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

Two Great O'Reilly Factor Videos
By: Steve - August 7, 2010 - 9:00am

In video #1 you see the reality from Professor Caroline Heldman. She tells O'Reilly that the right is using racial fear tactics to make Obama out to be the scary black guy, and she is exactly right. But O'Reilly denies it, and says race has nothing to do with it. For two reasons, because he is part of the right that is doing it, and he does not want to admit that some of them are racists.

In video #2 you see what right-wing propaganda is, directly from O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly plays the Beck (social justice) card. He dishonestly claims blacks support a bigger federal government so it can impose social justice. In other words, he thinks they just want to take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor black people. And if that is not a racist statement, what the hell is.

These videos show exactly how much of a right-wing partisan O'Reilly is, because his positions are pretty much the same as Hannity or any other Republican. He almost always takes the Republican side on every issue, I would say 99% of the time.

Crazy Republican Says It Was Not A Bush Recession
By: Steve - August 7, 2010 - 8:30am

Now I have heard it all, this right-wing nut Jim DeMint (who is a Senator btw) said the recession was a result of Democratic economic policies. Which may be the dumbest thing any Republican has said this year, and that's saying a lot.

During a lengthy speech on the Senate floor Wednesday about his opposition to the confirmation of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) went nuts, claiming the current economic downturn was not Bush's recession but was a result of Democratic economic polices:
DEMINT: The decisions that have been made about our economy over the last couple of years have brought our economy to its knees. This is no longer something we can blame on President Bush. In fact, the Democrats have been in control of policy making, economic policy spending, for four years now. This is not Bush's recession. This is the result of Democrat economic polices. This nomination will continue our move in the wrong direction.
But even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board said it was Bush's recession, writing in 2009 that Bush's comment that Wall Street got drunk and we got a hangover, reveals how little the President comprehends about the source of his Administration's economic undoing.

Bush had the worst record of job creation in 40 years. And that is a fact. Not to mention, the economy only started to recover after President Obama and the Democratic Congress passed the stimulus package in 2009. Since then, the GDP has grown, wall street has recovered, and while the overall employment situation is still poor, private sector job growth has rebounded.

In a recent report, two leading economists proved that the Obama stimulus package and other Democratic measures helped avoid a Depression. Without the stimulus package, GDP would have been 2 percent lower and an additional 2.7 million jobs would have been lost.

Bush's economic record is clear, it's the worst track record for job creation of any modern president, with terrible income growth, and increased poverty. But as Republicans attempt to repackage Bush's failed economic policies as something new, it's not surprising that DeMint is trying to resurrect Bush's legacy.

Basically he is lying about what Bush did, and how the Republicans crashed the economy, in the hopes that people will believe that garbage and vote Republican in November. Here is a fact, in the 8 years of George W. Bush they almost ruined the entire economy. So if you vote Republican in November you are insane.

Republican Minority Leader Insults Teachers & Police
By: Steve - August 6, 2010 - 9:30am

Here is my question, how does this moron John Boehner keep his House leadership position. He sticks his foot in his mouth almost every day, and gets caught lying every other day. And yet, they let him keep his job as House minority leader. I guess they approve of him making a fool of himself, and his lies.

The Senate finally got past a Republican filibuster to approve $26 billion in funding to shore up state budgets, including $10 billion to prevent massive teacher layoffs. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that she will interrupt the House's August recess in order to hold a special session to pass the bill. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) slammed Pelosi's decision to call the House back into session, calling the funding a payoff to union bosses and liberal special interests:
BOEHNER: The American people don't want more Washington stimulus spending - especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests. This stunning display of tone-deafness comes at the expense of American workers, who will be hit by another job-killing tax hike because Washington Democrats can't kick their addiction to more government stimulus spending.

Democrats should be listening to their constituents - who are asking where are the jobs? - instead of scampering back to Washington to push through more special interest bailouts and job-killing tax hikes.
To begin with, the this bill is deficit neutral, so there is no tax hike in it. And does this idiot Boehner really consider teachers, firefighters, and police officers jobs a payoff to special interests, that is just crazy.

Not to mention, the new funding will save the jobs of 300,000 people, including 140,000 school employees, and according to the Department of Education, 5,000 teaching jobs in Boehner's home state of Ohio will be also be saved.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) released the following statement about Boehner:
HOLLEN: Incredibly, the Republican Leader John Boehner disparagingly referred to those who teach our children, protect our homes, and keep our streets safe as 'special interests.'
What gets me is how these un-American Republicans are opposed to supporting our teachers, firefighters, and policemen, in order to protect corporate tax loopholes that promote the export of American jobs. As I like to say, if you vote for these Republican idiots this November you need a check up from the neck up.

The Thursday 8-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 6, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called The Obama Racial Divide. O'Reilly talked about a new poll that shows a 50-point gap between blacks and whites in Obama's job approval, and he called it a stunning disparity. Which is just ridiculous, because of course more blacks are going to approve of the job Obama is doing when he is the first black President, so I do not see what's so stunning about it. It looks to me like O'Reilly just used that poll to make black people look bad, by implying that they are being dishonest in their approval just because he is black.

And of course what he failed to mention is that a big reason a lot of white people do not approve of Obama, is because they are racists who just do not like him because he is black. O'Reilly once again used race to make Obama and the blacks look bad, as he claims he is not a racist. Okay, if he's not a racist why the hell is he reporting this garbage. All it does is divide the blacks and whites even more, and does nobody any good. What it shows to me is that a lot of white people are still racist, and some of them just do not approve of Obama because he is black.

O'Reilly had Chris Metzler and Caroline Heldman on to discuss it. Metzler pretty much agreed with O'Reilly, except for what he said about social justice. Which is the same garbage Beck is spewing out every day, so now O'Reilly is on the social justice nonsense too. Heldman 100% disagreed with O'Reilly, and said the Republicans are using racial fear tactics. O'Reilly called that insane, and loudly talked over her. When she is right, and not only are the Republicans are doing it, O'Reilly and Fox News are doing it too. Basically O'Reilly pulled his if I talk over you, louder than you, it makes me right trick.

Metzler agreed with O'Reilly, and said it has nothing to do with race. Which makes this Metzler fool as wrong as O'Reilly is, because it is partly about racial fear tactics by the right. O'Reilly dishonestly denied race has anything to do with it, and said it's just a political thing, that they just do not like Obama. Which is just ridiculous, because a lot of white Republicans are racist, and they hate Obama because he is black. O'Reilly denied that, and said it was crazy. O'Reilly screamed at Heldman, and told her she was crazy. When she is exactly right, O'Reilly will just not admit it.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Michelle Obama promoting a bill that will require schools to serve healthy food to children. For some crazy reason that made Ingraham mad. O'Reilly asked her about the race thing, and of course Ingraham agreed with O'Reilly, making them both wrong. O'Reilly then told Ingraham he supports the Michelle Obama healthy food school program. Ingraham said he was nuts, and went on some right-wing tirade against Michelle Obama for simply trying to get healthy food in the schools. O'Reilly was shocked that Ingraham is opposed to it, which is strange because she is a right-wing nut so what do you expect. At the end Ingraham said get out of our lives Mr. Nanny State.

Then O'Reilly had Jennifer Smetters and Tamara Holder on to talk about the Federal Judge who said the Prop8 gay marriage ban was unconstitutional. O'Reilly was mad that the judge went against the vote of 7 million people in California. But as I always say, at one time the majority of people supported slavery, which was also wrong, and unconstitutional. And they finally made slavery illegal, so just because the people support something does not make it right. Smetters is crazy, she said the law might be unconstitutional, but that ONE judge should not decide that. Which is nuts, because that is what judges do, decide on laws. Even O'Reilly could not quite understand her argument.

Holder said the judge was right, and that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. O'Reilly did not like the ruling, but he admitted that the ban might be wrong. Which is strange, because he also thinks the judge made a bad ruling. It looks to me like O'Reilly is trying to play both sides of the issue here, while trying not to show that he is a homophobe, which he is. I do know one thing for sure, the Smetters woman made an insane argument that made no sense. O'Reilly claimed marriage is a state issue, and the constitution does not address it. Which is insane, because it's an equal protection issue, and the constitution does address it in the equal protection clause.

Then O'Reilly had the two Republican culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on. They talked about overweight Americans, and a teacher who spanked a girl. She was squirting glue into the air, and bothering the teacher, and then teacher spanked her, so she reported him. Then the teacher was charged with battery, etc. He was suspended, and may never teach again. They all agree the teacher was wrong, and he got what was coming to him. Hoover said it was a beating, and O'Reilly disagreed, he said it was just a spanking.

And finally O'Reilly talked about how 28% of Americans are overweight. Hoover blamed it on cheap junk food, and Carlson said it was each persons decision to be fat or not. O'Reilly said people should be able to be fat if they want to, and Carlson sort of disagreed, so did Hoover.

Next up was the totally insane far right Glenn Beck for his regular weekly segment. Beck and O'Reilly talked about the writer Stephen King saying Beck was Satans younger brother. Which is pretty funny, except he was serious, and he really thinks Beck is as bad as Satan. O'Reilly and Beck made a joke of it and slammed King for being a liberal idiot. They also talked about Obama using the internet to promote his health care bill. He has a video on the internet about healthcare.gov, and somehow Beck has a problem with that. O'Reilly made a joke that it's a dating service too.

Beck made fun of Obama as if he was an infomercial guy, and O'Reilly said are you mocking the President, ummm, of course he is you idiot. Then O'Reilly said he thinks what Obama is doing with the internet video is ok, and even Beck said it was a good thing. And yet, they spent 3 minutes crying about it, and making fun of it. Beck said he thinks it's not something the President should be doing. Then O'Reilly quoted Stephen King saying Beck was crazy, and how Beck actually believes what he is saying.

Then O'Reilly cried (for the millionth time) about attacks on Sarah Palin. My God, let it go man. Palin is a big girl, she does not need Bill O'Reilly to defend everything anyone says about her. O'Reilly is like her big brother, who attacks anyone who dares to say anything about Palin, even when it's all true, he attacks them anyway. Here is my question, what is a so-called nonpartisan Independent doing defending the far right Sarah Palin.

It was talked about in the Factor news quiz segment with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, and it was done by Andy Borowitz, THE COMEDIAN. Earth to O'Reilly, shut the hell up. If a COMEDIAN makes a joke about Palin, that is not an attack, it's a fricking joke. So nobody cares, except you. It's the same thing Dennis Miller does every single week on your very own show, except he does jokes about liberals so you do not call that an attack, and you love it when Miller does it to liberals. Making you not only a massive hypocrite, it makes you a total idiot.

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

Republican Hypocrisy Is Off The Charts
By: Steve - August 6, 2010 - 8:30am

Okay get this, 2 Republican Senators, John McCain and Tom Coburn, now say they are worried about what they claim is $1.7 billion in wasted stimulus money. They say thy are worried about stealing money from our kids and grandkids.

The 2 of them released a report on Tuesday that highlights 100 supposedly questionable stimulus projects that are wasteful, mismanaged, and overall unsuccessful in creating jobs. The claim the only thing getting a boost is our national debt.

Coburn even went on Fox News to promote the report and criticized White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claim that the report is not credible:
COBURN: Mr. Gibbs knows I don't mess around when it comes to stealing money from our kids and grandkids. We're $13.4 trillion in debt and growing and this is the kind of waste that people are sick and tired of.
These guys are so ridiculous they should have "PAID LIAR" stamped on their foreheads. If they care so much about stealing money from the kids, then why are they sucH BIG advocates for extending President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. When the ten-year cost of extending those cuts adds up to $830 billion dollars.

While the so-called waste (that only they claim is happening) in the stimulus is only $1.7 billion dollars. It's ridiculous, they could care less about $830 billion dollars being wasted on the wealthy, but they are worried about $1.7 billion in stimulus money. Here is an idea for McCain and Coburn, resign. Because you are BOTH a joke, and you do not deserve to be Senators.

Rove Tells Massive Lie About Bush Tax Cuts
By: Steve - August 6, 2010 - 8:00am

Okay here is the deal on the Republicans putting out these lies on the Bush tax cuts. They are lying about them to justify the extension they want Obama to go through with, and to make Bush look better. Nothing they say is true, it's all lies. And Karl Rove is the biggest liar of them all.

Some Republicans are trying to make the ridiculous claim that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which will expire at the end of the year, actually increased government revenue. Mitch McConnell said this: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

And if you believe that I have some land to sell you. Earth to right-wing idiots, tax cuts lead to lower revenue, that is a fact. If the Government is taking in $3 trillion in revenue, and they give people a tax cut, you have less than $3 trillion in revenue, and that is something you learn in high school.

Republicans need to invent this fantasy world in order to justify complaining about the federal deficit while promoting an extension of tax cuts that would blow an $830 billion hole in the budget, all for the benefit of the richest two percent of Americans.

Then on Monday, Karl Rove appeared on Fox News, where he not only claimed that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue, but that the cuts resulted in the highest amount of government revenue ever collected:
ROVE: The Bush tax cuts led to a couple of things. They led to first of all, the largest amount of revenue being received by the government. They helped encourage economic growth and grew tax revenues.
LIES, LIES, LIES, and more LIES. Nothing Rove said is true, it's total 100 percent right-wing propaganda. Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden wrote this about what Rove said: "this graph took me literally five minutes to make." The graph tracks tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, complete with the big drop following the Bush tax cuts:

Tax receipts were lower in 2002 and 2003 than they were in 2001, after the Bush tax cuts passed. As Paul Krugman from the NY Times wrote, "everything you've heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong. What really happened was that revenue plunged, in the early Bush years, then staged a partial, but only partial, recovery."

And the slight uptick that occurs around the year 2005, still does not even come close to paying for the cost of the tax cuts, it's simply the housing bubble inflating.

Factcheck.org has called the assertion that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue highly misleading, while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has said the claim that tax cuts inevitably pay for themselves "is contradicted by the historical record."

In all, the Bush tax cuts will cause $3.4 trillion in deficits between 2009 and 2019. Just debt-service costs alone amount to "$1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period" and more than $330 billion in the 2019 fiscal year.

Prop8 Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
By: Steve - August 5, 2010 - 10:00am

Before I detail the ruling, take note that Bill O'Reilly supported Prop8, and he agrees that gay people should not have the right to get married. In November of 2008, while discussing the campaign for Prop8 to ban same-sex marriage in California, Bill O'Reilly said that if states allow same-sex couples to marry they would be required, "under equal protection," to allow polygamous marriages.

O'Reilly said this to Mike Huckabee, "A lot of evangelicals, a lot of Christian groups -- Focus on the Family -- they worked against gay marriage in California. And I'm -- you just -- I'm always interested in why they opposed it."

Huckabee said this, "If they change the definition of marriage, then where does it stop? Do we tell the people in West Texas, whose cult believes that a man can have 27 wives, that he can't do that? And the answer would be: Why can't he do that?"

O'Reilly replied, "Right. Well, that's true. Under equal protection, you'd have to extend that. All right, that's pretty much what I believe, too." Then Lis Wiehl said this, "No, you could just say, 'between two people,'" to which O'Reilly replied, "You can't. Not under equal protection."

In fact, the California Supreme Court explicitly stated that its May 15 decision that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution did not extend to polygamous marriages.

SAN FRANCISCO - 8-4-10 -- A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.

The ruling was made by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a REPUBLICAN who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Walker methodically rejected every argument posed by sponsors of the ban in response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban, violated their civil rights.

"Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," the judge wrote in his 136-page opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

California passed Prop8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008. Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Judge Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote.

He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays - beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.

"Proposition 8 played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual," Walker wrote.

The plaintiffs presented 18 witnesses. Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court had never specifically upheld the right to gay marriage. And btw, the prop8 supporters said they would have witness after witness who would testify for them, about 20 was the number they gave the court, but when the trial started they all changed their mind but two, so even most of their supporters knew they were in the wrong, and dropped out of the trial.

O'Reilly Said Gene Robinson Traffics In Racism
By: Steve - August 5, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Wednesday Factor during a discussion about whether Maxine Waters and other Democrats are crying racism in the ethics investigation O'Reilly attacked Eugene Robinson from the Washington Post. Billy said Robinson "traffics in racism every time you turn around."

Who is Eugene Robinson you might ask, he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper columnist and former assistant managing editor for The Washington Post. What is O'Reilly, a former tabloid reporter for Inside Edition, who now works for the bogus and biased right-wing Fox News Network.

Eugen Robinson does not traffic in racism at all, let alone every time you turn around. In fact, he rarely reports on racial issues, and when he does he only reports on some kind of racism he found out about. So he does not traffic is race at all, he simply reports about racism once in a while, which O'Reilly never does, because he mostly denies there is any racism on the right.

So who are you going to believe, a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper columnist, who is black and knows something about racism, or the white Republican O'Reilly, who does not have any journalism awards, let alone a Pulitzer. I'm gonna go with the Pulitzer Prize winner.

The Wednesday 8-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 5, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called ACLU Aiding Al-Qaeda. Billy complained about the ACLU campaigning to stop drone attacks in Afghanistan. When they are not part of the Government, and have no power to stop the drone attacks. It was just an excuse for O'Reilly to hammer the ACLU, as he does at least 3 or 4 times a month. It's like he has a quota, and he must get 4 attacks per month in on the ACLU.

With all the news in the country he could report on, this is what he picked, what a joke. O'Reilly even implied the ACLU is trying to help Al-Qaeda, and called it sleeping with the enemy, and said the ACLU is actively trying to help Al-Qaeda. Which is just ridiculous, they just want innocent people protected, because some civilians are being killed in the drone attacks.

O'Reilly had the attorney Scott Fenstermaker on to discuss it, he agrees with the ACLU, so O'Reilly spent the whole segment hammering him. This whole thing was just right-wing garbage meant to smear the ACLU, and O'Reilly just did it because his right-wing viewers love this kind of stuff. What was funny is during the segment, at one point Fenstermaker told O'Reilly that he does not have a clue what he is talking about.

Then O'Reilly had the very far right nut Pamela Geller on to discuss the the mosque being built a few blocks from Ground Zero. And of course O'Reilly loved her, because he agrees with her, and he has said he thinks the mosque should be built 5 or 10 blocks away. She called the mosque offensive and an insult. Geller even told O'Reilly that she loves muslims, but if you go to her website it's a muslim hatefest, with virtually every posting she has about hating muslims. If you want to know about Pamela Geller look at this, loonwatch.com has her listed as the looniest blogger ever. And this is the woman O'Reilly picked to represent the people who are opposed to the mosque.

In the Impact segment O'Reilly once again talked about the Rangel and Waters ethics charges. Which is exactly what I predicted, that O'Reilly will beat this story to death all the way until the November elections, because it helps Republicans and hurts Democrats. But if it were ethics charges against Republicans, O'Reilly would pretty much ignore the story, as he has done in the past. Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it.

O'Reilly attacked Gene Robinson for his reporting on the story, that it might be a racial issue, and he said Robinson was a race-baiter, then O'Reilly said it was basically all bull from Waters and Robinson. Dr. Hill mostly disagreed with O'Reilly, and said Gene Robinson speaks the truth about racial issues. As usual O'Reilly dismissed everything Dr. Hill said, and told him he was wrong. What I like is how every night O'Reilly tells black people what racism is and what it's not, when he is an old rich white Republican, who would not know what racism is if it hit him in the face.

And finally Dr. Hill said how about we wait until they are found guilty before we attack them, or what they are saying. And I say, good job Dr. Hill. As usual O'Reilly is jumping the gun and reporting on the story before they are found guilty.

Then O'Reilly had the total waste of time body language segment with the right-wing blonde bimbo, and the even bigger waste of time Dennis Miller segment. I do not report on either segment because it is not news, and has nothing to do with any news. But I will say this, O'Reilly spent half the body language segment asking the blonde bimbo if Obama was lying when he said he did not know who Snooki was. My God, are you kidding me, who fricking cares, n-o-b-o-d-y. O'Reilly said he thinks Obama was lying, and the body language bimbo disagreed. So he grilled her over and over trying to get her to agree with him and say Obama was lying, but she would not do it. It was just pathetic.

And finally the did you see that segment with Juliet Huddy. That's billed as a segment to discuss must see videos. They talked about a video of Jon Stewart (THE COMEDIAN ON THE COMEDY NETWORK) mocking the media for their ridiculous reporting on the Chelsea Clinton wedding. And that is a must see video, on what planet. They they played a video clip of Michael Moore on CNN, that was a couple years old, about the leaker of the Apache helicopter footage showing they killed innocent unarmed people, and tried to cover it up. O'Reilly said he hated Michael Moore for saying what he did, when all Moore did was tell the truth. And those were the 2 must see videos they reported on, give me a break, it was garbage.

Then the ever lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor mail. O'Reilly named David Letterman the pinhead for saying O'Reilly can not be trusted to report the truth. Even though Letterman is right, and he was not being a pinhead, he was just reporting the facts. And btw, Letterman is a COMEDIAN, who does a COMEDY show. And yet O'Reilly still cried about what Letterman said about him.

Another Crazy Tea Party Member running For Senate
By: Steve - August 5, 2010 - 8:30am

As if you need more proof tha Tea Party is pretty much a bunch of far right loons, just check this out. Ken Buck, who is running in the Colorado Republican Senate primary, has an extreme position on abortion that is likely to only appeal to his far-right base, saying that even in a case of rape or incest, abortion should not be allowed:
QUESTION: How do you feel about abortion? Are you for abortion, against abortion, are you for it? In what instances would you allow for abortion?

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I'll answer the next question. I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it's truly life of the mother.

To me, you can't say you're pro-life and say -- if there is, and it's a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.
To begin with Buck is a hypocrite, because he believes in the death penalty, so his claims of being 100% pro-life are pure lies. And to be 100% pro-life, is a radical far right position. I am pro-choice, but I do not want to see any woman have any abortion. Except in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.

I believe that if America is a free country, how can you tell a woman what to do with her body. And how in the hell does Buck think a woman would feel having a baby from a man who had raped her, or from a man who was in her family, like her Father, brother, cousin, etc.

It's insane to oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest. Which makes this Tea Party loon Ken Buck insane, and if you vote for this radical fool you are also insane. Nobody with that extreme position on abortion should be elected to any office, let alone the Senate.

Rush Limbaugh Has Lost His Fricking Mind
By: Steve - August 5, 2010 - 8:00am

I normally do not report anything Rush Limbaugh says, but this was so far out there, and so insane I had to mention it.

On his Wednesday right-wing propaganda radio show, Limbaugh said the White House was keeping the media away from the Gulf, because there was nothing to cover, there was no disaster.

Wow, where do you begin to explain that insanity.

1) The White House was not keeping the media away from the gulf, BP was, the White House had nothing to do with it.

2) There was something to cover, that is why every media outlet in the world covered it for 3 fricking months, every day.

3) If you think 80,000 barrels of oil being directly dumped into the ocean every day for 90 days is not a disaster, you are an insane mad man who should be locked in a padded room forever.

4) Limbaugh was one of the idiots who slammed Obama almost every day for not doing enough to solve the oil spill disaster. So how is it not a disaster when he himself complained that Obama did not do enough to get the disaster stopped.

And the last thing I have to say about this is if you want to see what full on right-wing propaganda is, just listen to Limbaugh for a few minutes, if you can stand it. He is the king of right-wing propaganda, and I would guess that 99.9% of what he says is spin, or a flat out lie.

He is the God of the right, even though he is a proven liar they still worship at his feet and repeat all the lies he puts out. If we had a law that anyone on radio or tv could not report lies, Limbaugh would be out of business in 2 seconds, because every word out of his mouth is a lie. And if you listen to this idiot I feel sorry for you.

The Tuesday 8-3-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 4, 2010 - 11:00am

The TPM was called More Bad Poll News For Obama. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Gallup poll says just 41% of Americans now approve of the job President Obama is doing. Talking Points believes the primary reason Barack Obama is falling in the polls is that independent voters have lost confidence in him. Apparently even some Democrats are wavering, and that is because the President has no big wins on his resume.

The economy remains awful, Afghanistan is in trouble, the oil spill was chaos, and the President is spending a record amount of money.
And now the truth, some of that is a flat out lie, and the rest is right-wing propaganda. To begin with I am at the Gallup website right now and I can not find one poll by them that has the Obama approval rating at 41%, so O'Reilly is flat out lying about that. Gallup has Obama at 45% approval, which is a temporary number, and a few days from now it could be back to 49 or 50 percent where it usually is. Even at 45% it's only a 5 point drop in a year.

The Independent voters who have stopped approving of Obama are Republicans who claim to be Independents. And it's ridiculous to claim Obama has no big wins on his resume, especially when he passed health care reform, the reform O'Reilly said would never pass. He also passed a financial reform bill, and a lot of other things. The economy is not awful, it's just ok, and 50 times better than under Bush. The stock market is up to over 10,600 and O'Reilly ignores that. And the economy is in positive numbers, which is not awful as O'Reilly claims.

Then O'Reilly had the far right king of spin Karl Rove on to discuss it, and I will not report what he said, because it's the same old right-wing garbage he always puts out. I will only say this, Rove agreed with the TPM spin and lies from O'Reilly except for one thing, he does not agree that if Obama drops below 40% approval Hillary will run for President in 2012, other than that, they agree on everything.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "These day-to-day polls don't tell the whole story. He has health care reform, he's reformed Wall Street, and I disagree with your take on stimulus - look how well the stock market is doing, and we've seen a resurgence of the economy in many sectors."

But O'Reilly just ignored him and asked Crowley to comment, so she put out her usual right-wing lies. Crowley said this: "There is a trend that has been spiraling downward for months and, when you look historically, a 43% or lower job approval rating is a real danger zone. Republicans don't have to put a compelling agenda out now, they can win by default."

For one thing, that is just insane, because Obama is at 45% approval, and a few days from now it will probably go back up to 48 or 49 percent, which it has been doing for almost a year now. It goes down a few points, then back up a few, but O'Reilly only reports it on the down side, because he is a dishonest hack. And second, Crowley claims the Republicans can just win by default, which is admitting they have no plans to fix the country, their only plan is to attack Obama. And O'Reilly says nothing, because he is doing it too. But whn Bush was in office and the Democrats did that O'Reilly cried foul and said they must tell the people what they plan to do. Hypocrisy, meet Bill O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly had Nihad Awad on to talk about how New York City has approved plans for a $100-million Islamic mosque to be built near Ground Zero. And here is the deal, a few right-wing idiots have a problem with it, because they say it's to close to ground zero. Which is just ridiculous, because it's not that close, it's a couple blocks away, it's not like it would be right next to ground zero. And as Nihad Awad told O'Reilly, there is a false linkage between Islam and 9/11. The muslims who want to do the mosque had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9-11 attacks.

O'Reilly said they should put it 5 or 10 blocks away. So who made him God, and who is he to decide how far away it should be, why not 4 blocks, or 3 blocks, it's ridiculous if your only argument it is distance. O'Reilly claims to be an Independent, but only the far right has a problem with the mosque, so that puts him in bed with the far right, as usual.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the far right Newt Gingrich on to discuss it, and of course Newt agreed with O'Reilly and said it was way too close to ground zero. And that's about all I am going to say about Crazy Newt.

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. O'Reilly talked about how a few far right conservatives want to change the law that grants citizenship to any baby born in the United States. Wiehl said this: "The 14th Amendment says if you are born in this country, you are automatically a citizen, and the Supreme Court has upheld this. It's not just poor illegal aliens who are coming here - there are also rich people coming here for that purpose."

Guilfoyle added that overturning the law would require a constitutional amendment. "It's not going to happen - this a political move because there is frustration over people being here illegally. The 14th Amendment is sacrosanct and they're not going to mess with it." And wow, for the first time in the history of this segment I agree with both Wiehl and Guilfoyle. What gets me is if they both agree that the 14th amendment will never be changed, why the hell did O'Reilly even talk about it, because it was a total waste of time.

And the lase segment was just laughable, O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about don't ask, don't tell. Stossel said this: "Don't ask, don't tell" is immoral and nonsensical. It's a dumb policy. The Democrats want to let gays in the military and I agree. Most countries allow gays in the military, the ones that don't are Cuba, China, India, Egypt, Iran, and North Korea. We're not in good company."

But then O'Reilly countered with this: "Don't ask, don't tell" is a good compromise. The military says openly gay soldiers pose a morale problem."

WTF? That is stunning, now O'Reilly says DADT is a good compromise, when just last week on Jay Leno he claimed to be outraged that a gay West Point graduate (who spoke arabic) was kicked out of the military for simply being gay. O'Reilly is just a massive liar, and a hypocrite. And the gay soldier morale problem is made up nonsense by O'Reilly and the right. Earth to O'Reilly, everyone in the military know who is gay, and who is not, and their fellow soldiers do not care, so DADT is a joke, and so are you.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again
By: Steve - August 4, 2010 - 9:00am

Okay, here is what happened, Howard Kurtz dared to report the facts about the O'Reilly Factor Ratings. He reported that the O'Reilly Factor gets 3 million total viewers a night, and he is exactly right.

Then for some crazy reason O'Reilly said Kurtz was wrong. On the Monday night Factor O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Over the weekend CNN's Howard Kurtz claimed The O'Reilly Factor has 3-million viewers. The Factor's Check: "I hope this is the last time I have to do this, but The Factor gets about 5-million viewers a night. For some reason ol' Howard continues to downplay the audience here. On most days we're very close to Katie Couric in overall audience and, as far as influence is concerned, you can make the call."
Now think about this, that was a Factor Reality Check. And he got it wrong, very wrong. Howard Kurtz was exactly right, and here are the facts to prove it. Here are the Factor ratings for the week before O'Reilly took a vacation, from 7-19-10 to 7-23-10.
Monday - 7-19-10 - 3,090,000
Tuesday - 7-20-10 - 3,088,000
Wednesday - 7-21-10 - 3,082,000
Thursday - 7-22-10 - 3,014,000
Friday - 7-23-10 - 2,690,000

Weekly Average - 2,992,000
Call me crazy, but that sure looks like 3 million viewers a night to me. And btw, I checked the Factor ratings for the entire year of 2010 and not one time did O'Reilly average 5 million viewers a night. It has never happened, he has an average of 3 million viewers a night, and that is a cold hard fact.

O'Reilly even said that he gets the 5 million viewers a night by adding the ratings from the 8pm show, to the ratings from the 11pm show. Which is ridiculous, because ratings are only counted for one show, the 8pm show. The ratings for a re-run are not counted, ever, by anyone.

Except Bill O'Reilly, he is the only person in America with a tv show, who tries to count his re-run in his ratings. Even though it is never done in the ratings business, he still tries it anyway.


Now, let's move on to lie #2, O'Reilly also said he is close to Katie Couric. Wrong, once again he was lying. Katie Couric gets between 5 and 6 million viewers a night, which is over 2 million more viewers a night than O'Reilly gets.

And there is one more piece of evidence that proves O'Reilly is a dishonest idiot about his ratings, and ratings for other news shows. When he reports the ratings for a CNN or MSNBC news show, and claims he doubles or triples their ratings, he DOES NOT count the re-run in their ratings total. But he DOES count his re-run in his ratings total. Which is also dishonest, especially when Neilson does not count re-runs, ever, not once, for anyone.

In closing, Bill O'Reilly is a liar, a stone cold flat out liar. Because he does not get 5 million viewers a night, and even if you add his 1.4 million viewers (from the 11pm re-run) it still only adds up to 4.4 million, which is still NOT 5 million, and re-runs are not counted in the ratings business.

O'Reilly has such a big ego, he can not stand it when someone reports his actual ratings of 3 million viewers a night. Even though he is #1 on cable, he still has to lie about it, which is actually pretty sad, and just pathetic.

FACTS: Arizona Crime Rates From The FBI
By: Steve - August 4, 2010 - 8:30am

I should not have to do this because I am not part of the mainstream media, but I am, so people can have the facts O'Reilly, the Republicans, and Fox News refuse to put out. Here are the facts, read them O'Reilly.

As illegal immigration has increased, crime in Arizona has dropped in almost every category, including property crime. FBI statistics show that Arizona's overall crime rate dropped 12 percent last year and 23 percent between 2004 and 2008.

Do you see that O'Reilly, let me repeat it for your stupid, lying, right-wing ass. The crime rate in ARIZONA has DROPPED 12 percent in the last year, and 23 percent from 2004 to 2008. And that drop has happened while illegal immigration was going up, proving that crime is not getting worse in Arizona because of illegal immigrants, as O'Reilly has claimed.

And then on top of that, the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that the per capita property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl has even said that Arizona is the "kidnapping capital of the United States," adding in the past that "it's second only in the world to Mexico City."

But Politifact recently called that claim false. And neither the FBI or the U.S. National Bureau of Interpol could confirm the claim. Most experts even dismiss the claim that Arizona is second only to Mexico in kidnapping. In other words, Kyl has no proof of what he claims, and it's most likely just more lies and right-wing propaganda from the right. Most illegals are just here to work, but O'Reilly and the right want you to think they are all criminals, it's ridiculous, and nothing but dishonest right-wing spin.

More On The Pathetic Philly Tea Party Rally
By: Steve - August 4, 2010 - 8:00am

This sideshow was billed as a minority-based Tea Party event, even though they barely have any minority members, and polls have shown the Tea Party is 89% white.

Then on top of that they have Andrew (the racist fraud of a journalist) Breitbart as their main speaker. It's like having an NAACP rally, and having the Grand Wizard of the KKK as your main speaker.

The so-called minority-based Tea Party event in Philly promised to show the inclusiveness of the tea party movement. Since the NAACP condemned racist elements within the tea party movement last month, Breitbart and other Tea Party leaders have been desperately trying to show the diversity of the movement.

But the rally, held outside Independence Hall, failed big time. Because numerous media outlets reported that the event attracted only a handful of minorities. One guy even admitted it does not matter if hardly any minorities joined them.

David Webb, a top official with Tea Party Federation, emceed the event and told the crowd that it didn't matter if only a few minorities joined the cause.

Maybe the event failed to attract many people of color because it failed to attract many people. The event's website had been visited 2 million times, and it was clear from the large numbers of volunteers and the 1,500 bottles of water they put on ice that they expected a big crowd to turn out. But as reported, only about 300 people showed up. Then the organizers of the rally blamed the traffic. Yeah, and I'm Elvis too, traffic?

The highlight of the event was an insane rant from Breitbart, in which he warned of a media cabal, and accused liberals of being the true racists. Breitbart explained to reporters that their employers were in cahoots with black politicians and the Democratic Party.

And then again, maybe Breitbart is a dishonest and racist right-wing hack who refuses to admit there is racism in the Tea Party, when the evidence proves it. Yeah I'll go with that one.

Breitbart also refused to discuss the one thing on everyone's mind - the Sherrod video. It was Breitbart's first speech since the controversy, but he did not address Sherrod once during Saturday's three hour rally, dodging numerous questions from several reporters.

Dear Tea Party, having Andrew Breitbart at a rally to claim you are not racist, and that you have lots and lots of minority members. May be the dumbest thing you have ever done, it's even more dumb than all the racist signs you had at some of your Tea Party protests in the past year. It's like inviting Mel Gibson to a woman's abuse group meeting.

Market Watch: DOW Up 208 Points On Monday
By: Steve - August 3, 2010 - 9:30am

On Monday 8-2-10 the DOW went up 208.44 points to close at 10.674.38.

And of course Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, but if it had dropped 208 points in one day, he would do an entire segment on it and claim it shows the Obama economic policies are failing. Which is exactly what he did about a month ago, when there was a short term drop in the market.

O'Reilly only reports on the market when it's in a short term down period, but when it's up, he is as silent as a mouse. So he does not give any credit to President Obama when the market is up, but he blames him for what the market is doing when it goes down.

Which is about as dishonest and biased as you can get. And O'Reilly does this over and over, while at the same time telling everyone how fair he has been to President Obama. Not to mention, O'Reilly never reports that the DOW is up over 16 percent since Obama took office. Because that shows that the stock market likes what Obama is doing.

The Monday 8-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 3, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Liberal Politics. Now this is funny, O'Reilly telling people why liberals oppose the war. It's all his opinion, there are no facts, just right-wing spin from Bill O'Reilly. He seems to think that only liberals are opposed to the war, when in fact, the majority of Americans want Obama to start bringing the troops home. Nine years ago I supported the war in Afghanistan, now I think it's time to start bringing the troops home.

O'Reilly is in the minority of people that want to fight the war forever. Not to mention, not all liberals were opposed to it, even me, so O'Reilly was lying about that all along, and now I think it's time to start getting out. O'Reilly framed it as the liberals do not want to defeat the Taliban, which is just ridiculous. Notice he is not doing any TPM's on why conservatives support the war.

In the Top Story segment O'Reilly had James Rosen and Lynn Sweet on to talk about Fox News getting a front row seat at the White House press briefings. The seat O'Reilly and the right predicted Fox News would never get. And I am not going to report on this nonsense. But I will say this, O'Reilly had said in the past that Obama would block Fox News from getting the seat. And now we find out that would have been impossible, because Obama does not make that decision. They also talked about the Rangel and Waters ethics charges, and O'Reilly sure loves this story. You can bet he will report on this a lot, but if it were Republicans he would barely mention it.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss the issues. They talked about Rangel and Waters, Williams said some blacks think they will use race, and that it will get nasty. And of course Ham agreed with O'Reilly as she always does. O'Reilly slammed Obama for not defending Rangel, but if he did, then O'Reilly would slam Obama for defending him. Ham is a total right-wing joke, and Williams is just somewhat of a right-wing joke. The segment was the usual waste of time, with Williams and Ham mostly kissing O'Reilly's ass so they can stay on the show. There were no opposing views from any real liberals. It's basically having a far right guest, and a moderate right-wing guest.

In the Impact segment O'Reilly put out the right-wing spin that the 1,200 National Guard troops were not on the Mexico border in time, as President Obama promised. Which is all a lie put out by the right, the deployment STARTED on August 1st, as Obama said it would. O'Reilly had the far right Sheriff Joe Arpaio on to discuss it. And he said he was going to do whatever he wants, and to hell with what the Federal Judge ruled on the Arizona immigration law. Arpaio is a right-wing fool, and O'Reilly loves him. The story here is that O'Reilly is lying about Obama saying the 1,200 troops would be on the border by August 1st, that is a flat out lie, and only dishonest right-wing media idiots are saying it.

Then O'Reilly cited a Rasmussen poll saying 59% of the people support the Arizona immigration law, which does not make it right. A hundred years ago the majority of the people also supported slavery, but that was not right either, and now it's illegal. O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it. They attacked the Federal Judge for her ruling, when she is right. Krauthammer said all she did was issue a stay, which means the old law stays in place. Krauthammer and O'Reilly both predicted the Supreme Court will rule 5 to 4 in favor of Arizona. But they did admit it will take a year or more before that happens. But I am not so sure, and I would not bet on it.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about possible race being used in the Rangel and Waters ethics investigations. Now that is funny, 2 old rich white Republicans talking about race issues, and if it is being used or not by Congress. What a joke, and of course they said there is no racial issue, but that they will claim there is. As if they know, they are not black, or in Congress, and they have no idea if racism is involved or not.

O'Reilly and Goldberg both said Maxine waters was going to play the race card. Even though it was all speculation, the very same speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow. They kept saying if, if, if, before any of it has happened. O'Reilly and Goldberg also said "IF" Waters plays the race card the media will report the hell out of it. If, if, if, what is that crap, nothing but speculation. They also talked about American Idol, and I say who cares, how is this real news. Answer: it's not. And I refuse to report on this tabloid garbage.

And finally the last segment was the always ridiculous Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on, because it's not reality, and there are almost no checks. It's just Bill O'Reilly sitting there putting his right-wing spin on what some Democrat said, with no guest to give an opposing view, or counter what O'Reilly said about their statement. I will say this, O'Reilly cried about Lady Gaga slamming the Arizona immigration law and Fox News. O'Reilly said she was wrong, and claimed it was a reality check. Except she is right, and O'Reilly was just putting his right-wing spin on what she said.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly said the Factor gets 5 million viewers a night, when you add his 11pm re-run, and he said you have to do that.


Even on the average night even when you add the 8pm show and the 11pm show the Factor only gets about 4.5 million total viewers, 3 million at 7pm and 1.5 million at 11pm, so O'Reilly was even LYING about that, let me repeat that, he was lying. And then there is this, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY but O'Reilly counts his re-run in his ratings. It's not done in the ratings business, for any show, O'Reilly is the only person who does it.

The Factor averages about 3 million viewers a night when O'Reilly is the host, way less when he has a fill in, about 2.4 million a night. Just look at my ratings page and the archives, and you will see the truth. O'Reilly lied about his ratings, and that is a fact.

Only 300 Show Up For National Tea Party Rally
By: Steve - August 3, 2010 - 8:30am

Yes I said 300, and that is just an estimate, it could be less than that. And from the photos I saw, I would say 300 was a little high, more like 250 at the most. Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, say the Tea Party is a big deal with 19 million members.

Okay, so where are they. If you have 19 million members you should clearly be able to get more than 300 people to a National Rally. And btw, Coulter pulled that 19 million number out of her ass, she just made it up, and at the same time she also said there is no more racism in America, so you know she is a lunatic.

Now think about this, Andrew Breitbart was a speaker at the rally. In fact, he was the featured speaker. Asked directly several times by the media about the Sherrod video, Breitbart said he would not discuss the incident.
BREITBART: This is a preplanned event that predates anything that's in the news, of the rally, organized to show the diverse appeal of the political right.

I flew here at my own expense to show my solidarity with a group of people who have the right to gather in the United States of America and express their belief in what I believe is the most important concept in this country that has been lost in the last generation, and that is e pluribus unum.
The media, Breitbart told reporters, in cahoots with black politicians and the Democratic Party, are dividing the country with false allegations of racism aimed at the tea-party groups.
BREITBART: It's cynical politics. I'm more than happy to talk about this very noxious form of trying to stifle political speech in the United States. It's un-American.
Which is just laughable, because their are many people in the Tea Party who are racist, and he is the a-hole that got caught trying to make a black woman out to be a racist. The man is crazy, a racist, and a liar.

At the time many tea-party leaders appeared uncomfortable in the aftermath of Breitbart's dustup with the NAACP and Sherrod. Jeffrey Weingarten, organizer of the "Tea Party" event, said Breitbart had been invited to speak many months ago, "well before any of the recent radical pronouncements of either side" in the Sherrod and NAACP controversies.

But they still invited him to speak at their National Tea Party rally in Philly. So even after the Breitbart edited video garbage, they did not cancel his speech, in fact, they loved him, and wildly cheered everything he said. Proving they do not care about facts, honesty, or the truth.

If they Tea Party wanted some respect, they should have dumped Breitbart, instead they let him speak, so they will not get any respect from anyone but the right-wing stooges that join them.

Steve Doocy Gets It Wrong On National Guard Troops
By: Steve - August 3, 2010 - 8:00am

As usual Steve Doocy from the Fox & Friends morning show has the facts wrong again, which is normal for him. Other than Sarah Palin, he is probably the dumbest person they have.

On Monday Steve Doocy falsely said President Obama promised 1200 National Guard troops would be at the border by August 1st and suggested that Obama might wait until November just in time for those midterm elections.

Except he is wrong, the National Guard announced on July 19th that the troops would begin deploying by August 1st, and that "All 1,200 troops would be on the ground by September."
DOOCY: The administration has promised 1,200 National Guard troops would be at the border by August 1st, yesterday. But only a small number have shown up. The administration says they need more time, but will they wait until November, just in time for those midterm elections?


DOOCY: So we've been promised that there would be what, 1,200 National Guardsmen down on our southern border by yesterday. Now they say, maybe by the end of August or September. What is going on there?

SHERIFF PAUL BABEU: You don't have to be a detective to figure this one out. Right on the eve of the November elections and 1,200 falls far short even just for Arizona.
And btw, Sheriff Paul Babeu is the Republican Sheriff who did a campaign ad with John McCain, a dishonest ad that implied his police department was on the border. When his department is 80 miles away from the border. Funny how Doocy never disclosed that he is a partisan Sheriff who hates Obama and loves John McCain.

And now the facts for Steve Doocy. Notice that the DOD press release was put out just a week and a half ago in July. And yet, Doocy still ignored it to spin out his lies.

July 19 DOD press release:
Troops are expected to begin deploying to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California by Aug. 1st.

All 1,200 troops should be on the ground by September, Air Force Gen. Craig R. McKinley, National Guard Bureau chief, said at the news conference.
On July 19th, FoxNews.com even reported that the National Guard troops will deploy "starting on Aug. 1st."

And that's not all, a Homeland Security spokesman said, "This is the beginning deployment stage. There is a ramp-up time and troops will be trained. Nothing has changed in our world."

And btw, on Monday night O'Reilly also lied about the National Guard troop date too, So he is just as much of a lying right-wing idiot as Doocy.

Now think about this, O'Reilly and Doocy claim to be journalists, and they work for a News Network. But all the above information I posted can be found by anyone with a computer in 2 seconds, and they still got it wrong, and lied about it on purpose to smear President Obama. And O'Reilly wonders why people think Fox News has a right-wing bias, give me a break.

Palin Used Hand Notes & Still Got It Wrong
By: Steve - August 2, 2010 - 9:30am

On Fox News Sunday last week Sarah (Stupid) Palin went to her ridiculous hand notes, and still got it wrong. And btw, Palin may think that using the hand notes makes her look like an average American, but in reality it makes her look like an idiot. She is trying to pretend it's a big joke, and that it's funny, to distract people away from the fact that she is just a moron. Earth to Palin, it's not working, all it does is remind people you are an idiot who got caught using hand notes like a 10 year old kid in school. Fox's Chris Wallace pointed out that the Republicans keep talking about being deficit hawks. This is $678 billion you are not going to pay for. But Palin said "no, this is going to result in the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Again, it's idiotic."

And then the next thing Wallace should have said is wrong, the tax cuts are set to expire because Bush and the Republicans put the deadline date in the bill. Then he should have asked her to explain how the economy did so well under Bill Clinton, after he passed a tax cut on the wealthy. Then we could have watched her head explode trying to answer that one, haha.

Wallace spent the next minute or so letting Palin read from notes she had on paper. Then he asked if she had anything written down on her hand, and she said yes:
WALLACE: Can I ask you, what do you have written on your hand?

PALIN: $3.8 trillion in the next ten years, so I have didn't say $3.7 trillion and get dinged by the liberals saying I didn't know what I was talking about.
This woman is so stupid I almost feel sorry for her whenever I see her speak, notice I said almost. Okay, to begin with she had it wrote down on her fricking hand and still got it wrong.

1) An extension of ALL the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, not $3.8 trillion. But nobody has even said they want to allow them ALL to expire, not even President Obama. President Obama only wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2 percent, not the other 98 percent.

Not to mention, it's totally dishonest for Palin and the Republicans to claim otherwise, especially since it was a budget gimmick by former President George W. Bush to include the ten year deadline.

2) Extending the tax cuts for only the wealthiest two percent of Americans would cost $830 billion over the next ten years. Which is what President Obama wants to do, so the $3.8 trillion number Palin put out what just made up right-wing propaganda.

So Palin is wrong, wrong, wrong. If Obama extended ALL the Bush tax cuts, for everyone, including the top 2 percent, it would cost $3.1 trillion over ten years. Obama only wants to dump the tax cuts for the top 2 percent, which would only be a tax increase of $830 billion over the next ten years, and it would only be on the top 2 percent of the most wealthy people in America.

Which means Palin was not only wrong, she was lying too. And if anyone ever votes for this moron for anything, you are dumber than she is.

Shocking: Fox Host Does Some Actual Journalism
By: Steve - August 2, 2010 - 9:00am

Yes it really happened, a Fox News host was involved in some actual journalism. On the Fox News Sunday show, host Chris Wallace actually pointed out that Senate Republicans have been obstructing proposals to help the economy. Which is a small miracle, because 99% of the time Wallace just spews out the party line.

In another part of the interview Wallace told Boehner that economists say a weak economy calls for more stimulus. And the crazy Boehner basically said he does not have to look at the GDP numbers, or listen to economists. So he pretty much just ignored the question and put out more right-wing spin.

Republicans were on the show talking bull about how Obama is not doing a good job on the economy, and how they care so much about getting jobs created. When suddenly host Chris Wallace did an impersonation of a real journalist and called them out on their spin and lies. Of course, it will probably never happen again, and most likely he just did it to have something he can use to claim he slammed a Republican over something.

Then in the future when someone calls him a right-wing hack, he will say, hey I slammed 2 Senate Republicans the other day on my show. Ignoring the fact that 99% of the rest of the time he spewed out right-wing talking points, as if he were a Republican in Congress.

A Vote For Gingrich = 2 More Foreign Wars
By: Steve - August 2, 2010 - 8:30am

The far right neo-con Newt Gingrich gave a speech last Thursday to the conservative AEI, and in the speech he basically said if he is elected President in 2012 he will start 2 more wars, with Iran and North Korea.

At one point in the speech comprised of, attacks on Muslims, and false comparisons to wars past, Gingrich said America needs to finish what President Bush started when he identified the Axis of Evil in January 2002:
GINGRICH: I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said. That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that.

If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, too big a problem.
So if by some miracle Newt wins the Republican Primary for President in 2012, then gets elected President, he will start 2 more unjustified wars, that will just get thousands more of our young soldiers killed. And btw, you heard it here first, Newt Gingrich will never be the President of The United States.

P.S. Stupid Sarah will never be the President either, hell she will not even win the Republican Primary. I hope and pray she does, but sadly it will never happen, haha, too bad Palin you moron.

More Right-Wing Hate The Factor Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 2, 2010 - 8:00am

In a recent decision, federal district court judge Susan Bolton blocked several key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law. but since she issued the preliminary injunction, Bolton has been flooded with hundreds of threats at her court offices:
She has been inundated, said U.S. Marshal David Gonzales, indicating his agents are taking some of the threats very seriously.
And Bolton is not the only official facing right-wing hate following the ruling. Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva was forced to close his district office in Yuma, AZ, after finding a window shattered and a bullet inside.

In April, when SB-1070 was signed into law, Grijalva also closed two district offices after death threats to his staff.

And guess what, not one word of this hate from the right has ever been reported on the Factor, not by O'Reilly, Ingraham, Williams, or anyone on the show. They just ignore it because it makes Republicans look bad. And then you watch, a month from now some guest will talk about hate on the right, and O'Reilly will say there is none, and claim he has never seen any.

The www.oreilly-sucks.com 3rd Quarter Fund Drive
By: Steve - August 1, 2010 - 10:30am

Hello, my name is Steve, and I would appreciate it if you could make a donation to www.oreilly-sucks.com. So I can continue to expose the spin, the right-wing bias, the lies, the hypocrisy, the propaganda, and the double standards from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republican party.

I am a real person who is pretty much broke and living with my retired Father, and I actually use these donations to pay my website bills. I do this all on my own for no salary from anyone. I have been doing this for 10 years now, with only a few times that the website had to be taken offline for a day or two, due to financial issues.

With the economy down as it is, my donations have virtually dropped to zero, so I need your help to keep the website online. Just click the paypal donation link below, or e-mail me to get info on how to snail mail a donation.

Click Here To Donate!

Thank You,


Fox Judge Calls AZ Immigration Law Un-American
By: Steve - August 1, 2010 - 9:00am

On his July 31st Fox News Business show (Freedom Watch) Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed the new Arizona immigration law and called it un-American.

But of course, you will never hear him say that on the O'Reilly Factor. Because in all this time not once has Bill O'Reilly had Judge Napolitano on his show to discuss it, even though he is the Fox News Senior Legal Analyst.

What O'Reilly does is only have the Fox legal analysts on who oppose the law, and many many times. While never having Judge Napolitano on to discuss it, because he is opposed to the law. Fair and balanced, haha, not even close. No spin zone, give me a break. More like unfair and unbalanced, and an all spin zone.

Republicans Vote No On Bill They Helped Write
By: Steve - August 1, 2010 - 8:30am

Okay get this, how crazy is it to vote no on your own bill, very crazy. But that is what some Republicans did on Thursday. Senate Republicans rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks even though several GOP lawmakers helped write it and it had been backed by conservative business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This is a bill to give loans to small businesses, which is what Republicans have been calling for Obama to do to create jobs, so he does it, and the crazy right-wing bastards all vote no. Which just shows how bad the Republicans want to hurt Obama politically, which also hurts the economy. In my book this is almost treason, because they are simply blocking the bill from a vote to hurt Obama politically.

These Republican scum are saying to hell with the economy, the jobs it would create, and worst of all the American people who want jobs. While at the same time calling people on unemployment lazy and spoiled, as they block a vote on a bill that would create jobs.

The bill had the backing of some of the Republican Party's most reliable business allies, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it.

With 60 votes needed to advance the legislation, the tally was 58 to 42, with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. And here are the facts, Republicans want to stop anything that might create jobs, because that will make President Obama look good. Which I would call un-American, and of course neither Jaun Williams or anyone at Fox ever reports a word about this un-American garbage by the Republicans.

More Proof Juan Williams Is A Conservative
By: Steve - August 1, 2010 - 11:30am

While hosting the O'Reilly Factor Friday night, Juan Williams has proven once again that he is a true blue conservative. By dragging out the ridiculous right-wing talking points that President Obama has done NOTHING to solve the border problem.

Williams said Obama has done NOTHING, here is what he said:

Following Judge Susan Bolton's decision to block the controversial portions of the Arizona immigration law, conservatives in the media have claimed that Arizona passed the law because President Obama is refusing to enforce immigration law and secure the border, but this propaganda, which happens to be exactly what Republican politicians are saying, bears no relation to the facts. The actual Data shows that enforcement efforts are up and illegal immigration is down.

And now the facts:

-- In a July 22nd hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael Fisher, Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol said this: "Currently we have over 20,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, more than ever before in the history of the country."

-- A Customs and Border Protection document states that the 2010 budget included $19.4 million for 123 new Border Patrol agents and support staff. The Obama administration's 2011 budget states, "An increase of $44.8M is requested to fund 318 Custom and Border Protection Officers FTEs [Full-Time Equivalent] within the Office of Field Operations and 71 support FTEs for CBP."

-- Spending on immigration enforcement is higher under Obama than Bush. Budget data from the Department of Homeland Security compiled by America's Voice, shows that the budgets for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement increased under president Obama.

-- On May 6th, "under the Southwest Border Initiative, the Obama administration doubled the number of agents assigned to the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces."

-- James Dinkins, director of the Office of Investigations at ICE said this in a July 22nd Congressional hearing: "Just this last year we've sent 160 additional agents to the southwest border alone, so we have done great.

-- The Obama administration also "tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the southwest border" and sent in new canine teams.

-- The Washington Post reported on July 26th that "the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants" and "The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total."

-- The Department of Homeland Security reported that illegal immigrant population dropped to 10.8 million in 2009 under President Obama, compared to 11.6 million in 2008 when George W. Bush was the President.

But if you listen to Juan Williams you would think Obama has done NOTHING to deal with illegal immigration, and you would be badly misinformed. Because Williams simply put out the right-wing lie that Obama is not doing a damn thing about illegal immigration, even though he is doing more than Bush did.

Proving that Juan Williams is no different from O'Reilly, Hannity, Ingraham, or any other right-wing hack who spins out these lies, in the hope someone will believe them. He probably learned from his teacher O'Reilly, who does the same thing with the illegal immigration crime rates in Arizona, O'Reilly claims they are going up and out of control, when they have actually went down over the last few years.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: