The Wednesday 8-31-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 1, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: The GOP challenge to Obama strengthens. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Quinnipiac poll surveyed likely Republican voters on who they favor against President Obama. Governor Perry led with 26% of the vote; Mitt Romney garnered 20%, Michele Bachman 12% and Ron Paul 10%.

The matchups between individual candidates and President Obama are very interesting - Mitt Romney ties the President, but Mr. Obama defeats Governor Perry and Congresswoman Bachmann.

The takeaway is that most voters still have an open mind about who the nominee should be. As far as President Obama is concerned, 51% of respondents say he does not deserve re-election, so obviously the GOP has a very good chance to defeat the President.

The ultimate showdown will most likely be between Perry and Romney, with both running as economic reformers. But they will have to attack each other to convince you that they are the better man.

Already, the Tea Party is planning a demonstration against Governor Romney and it is clear that some hard-core conservatives are not going to support him. Romney does well in the general poll of registered voters because independents like him. The presidential race kicks into high gear this coming weekend and pretty much anything could happen.
Then O'Reilly had the right-wing loon Dick Morris on to analyze the Republican race. Morris said this: "You can't take the Rick Perry numbers too literally at this point, because people haven't really seen him. The debates can be his opportunity or they could be his problem. When a candidate gets a share of the vote to which he's not entitled, like Perry because he just got in, he runs the risk of falling back and losing momentum."

Morris also dismissed Sarah Palin's chances, should she decide to enter the race, saying this: "She'll get clobbered! She's the only Republican right now that Obama is above 50% against. She can't win, but in an odd way if she runs it will be good for the Republican Party because she will attract all of the flak. The media won't have time to go after Perry or Romney or Bachmann, they'll spend their whole lives going after Palin."

Morris is a little right and really wrong, he is right that Palin can not win, but he is crazy when he says if Palin runs the media will only report on her, that's just flat out wrong.

Actress Daryl Hannah was arrested this week in front of the White House, where she was protesting a proposed pipeline that would bring oil from Canadian tar sands to the U.S. So Hannah was on to state her objections, saying this: "This pipeline is proposed to go through family farms, through ranches, and over our most precious freshwater aquifer. It's just not a wise thing, aside from the fact that the tar sands are recognized as one of the world's largest ecological atrocities. The people protesting are not activists - they're grandmas and nurses and people who have never been arrested before. We're saying we want what President Obama promised, which is a clean energy future."

Then O'Reilly predicted President Obama will approve the pipeline for economic reasons, saying this: "We get about 12% of our oil from Canada, this is a big job creator and President Obama can not reject creating jobs."

Then O'Dummy talked about Oprah and Rosie, Billy said Oprah Winfrey's cable network is floundering, so she hired Rosie O'Donnell to host a new show. Marketing expert Laura Ries said this: "This shows that Oprah is desperate, and it is a 'Hail Mary' move to get some ratings. Oprah launched the network with a 'live your best life' attitude, but Rosie is the opposite of that - Rosie is flippant and raw and polarizing. Rosie doesn't really mix with Oprah."

TV writer Sean Daly said he thinks that Oprah will keep Rosie on a very short leash, saying this: "They're going to really have to keep a tight rein on her or they're going to have a big problem on their hands. They even took away her blog where she would go on political rants. They're hoping to go back to 1996 when Rosie captured lightning in a bottle, but I have to wonder if too much time has passed."

The Factor added that Rosie O'Donnell has identified herself as a "truther," meaning Oprah is "building a network around a person who accuses the U.S. government of launching 9/11."

Then O'Dummy had his producer Jesse Watters go to the real Jersey Shore to get some opinions about the highly-rated TV version. Which I will not report on because it's garbage and not news.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly make jokes about liberals segment, which I do not report on because it is not news, and not even close to news.

And finally in the did you see that segment Juliet Huddy was on, she watched footage of Congresswoman Maxine Waters denouncing Fox News. Huddy said this: "She does this because it's brilliant. Fox annihilates the competition - we give both sides, not just the left-leaning side, so she gets on Fox News every single day without paying a thing."

Now that's funny, Fox gives both sides? Yeah and I'm Donald Trump too.

O'Reilly said he saw a more blatantly political motive, saying this: "The African American vote went 93% for Barack Obama last time around; this time there is some disenchantment and they're worried that African Americans are not going to turn out. Fox News and the Tea Party are straw man enemies, so they're saying to people they should vote against the enemy." Really? So where is she wrong Billy, the Tea party and Fox News are the enemy. All she did was state a fact, she told the truth about Fox, you just refuse to admit it.

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

The Tuesday 8-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 31, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Things heat up in the GOP White House race. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In a couple of weeks the Republican campaign to unseat President Obama will be ramped up. According to the latest polls, Texas Governor Rick Perry is now the frontrunner, Mitt Romney second and Michele Bachmann third.

But at this point the polls say that Ms. Bachmann is a long shot. Therefore the race between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney becomes a headline. And there are reports the two men don't like each other very much. What separates the two governors is ideology. Mr. Perry is more conservative than Mr. Romney and he often uses spirituality in his presentations.

The truth is that both Romney and Perry have many things in common -- including good hair -- and both of them would offer a tough challenge to Barack Obama. At this point it's impossible to say which man has the most going for him. Even though Governor Perry leads in the polls he is untested in debates and Americans don't know him very much.

Governor Romney does have big name recognition but many conservatives are suspicious of him not a good thing in Republican primaries. Right now talking points believes the Perry-Romney battle is a toss-up and could go either way depending on how the candidates perform in the upcoming debates.

So as they like to say in Texas. There will be a high noon between these two men, a verbal shootout that will leave just one standing.
For more on the Perry vs. Romney faceoff, The Factor brought in Carl Cameron, the Fox News chief political correspondent. Cameron explained that the two men have had several minor spats going back several years over various issues.

Cameron admitted that it had the potential to get ugly, but pointed out that many previous presidential contests also became contentious: "No matter who it is, when you get to a race in either party for the nomination and it's close with two major candidates, they are going to throw some bare knuckles. It isn't bean bag -- this is serious stuff."

Then O'Reilly said this: "I think both of them could beat the incumbent at this point. President Obama is in so much trouble economically that both men could beat him."

And I will disagree, I think Obama will beat either one of them. And btw, to this day O'Reilly has still not said one word about all the crazy stuff Perry says, he just ignores it because he wants to help Perry win if he gets the GOP nomination. Not to mention, of course O'Reilly loves Romney and Perry, because he is a Republican, he just refuses to admit it.

Then O'Dummy discussed some recent comments from Democratic congressman Andre Carson, who said that the Tea Party would love to see black people "hanging on a tree." Alan Colmes was on, and he said that sort of language was too harsh, but empathized with the sentiment, saying this: "You have a number of racist comments that have come out of the Tea Party."

So then O'Dummy took issue with Colmes attacking the entire Tea Party for the remarks and actions of a few, saying this: "You've had racist rhetoric in the United States ever since Columbus discovered America. Ok? You can't demonize any group for the actions of a very few."

Tammy Bruce was on and she said this: "It's indicative, I think, of the chaos and the panic in Congress. The Obama administration and other Democrats clearly have internal polls that show they are in deep trouble."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about charities set up to raise money for the victims of 9/11. Really, why? Who cares what Stossel thinks about it, why not get a real charity expert on the show to discuss it. Stossel basically found a few bad charities, ok so what, and he even admitted that most of the charities are doing good work. The whole segment was a waste of time, and really not worth reporting on any more.

Then O'Reilly had his legal team on to cry about a federal judge blocking the new Alabama immigration law. The law was challenged by a variety of groups, including religious groups that objected to the law potentially punishing clergy who help illegal immigrants. Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to discuss it.

Wiehl explained that depending on how the law was interpreted, a variety of things could be construed as "helping" an illegal alien, and be declared illegal: "Stopping and helping someone come to the church, giving them medical aid, giving them counseling, giving them the sacrament in the Catholic Church -- doing anything for an illegal alien" are all things that could be outlawed under the new law, according to Wiehl.

Guilfoyle disagreed, saying that she didn't think the law could be interpreted as outlawing communion or baptism for illegals. But she said she did think that it outlawed performing a marriage. Wiehl argued that the way the law was written left too much in doubt: "The law is very vague and very broad. That's the problem with this law. Too broad." Guilfoyle disagreed that the law was too broad, but she agreed with the judge's decision to put the law aside for further study.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far-right Charles Krauthammer on to talk about market regulations, and of course Krauthammer had a problem with Pres. Obama's approach to policymaking, saying this: "When he doesn't succeed in Congress, he goes under the radar. And there are a couple of pretty egregious examples."

Krauthammer listed some -- for one, the president told the Department of Homeland Security to stop deporting nonviolent illegal aliens who met certain criteria - military service or school attendance. Krauthammer explained that this was basically what the DREAM Act, which failed in congress, was trying to accomplish. "That's a pretty radical 'in your face' at the constitutional system," Krauthammer said.

He later cited "cap and trade," a method of regulating carbon emissions, which also failed in congress. The administration is now using the EPA to enforce some of the same standards that the unpassed bill would have imposed. Krauthammer did not like the methods the administration was using, saying this: "Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected." "So they're finding a loophole," O'Reilly said. "They're finding a way around it."

And it should also be noted that when Bush did the same thing a hundred times in 8 years neither one of these two right-wing stooges ever said a word about it. But now that Obama is using the same powers suddenly O'Reilly and Krauthammer have a big problem with it. And I say, shut up you hypocrite partisan hacks.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots. Boy was it a good one, O'Reilly named the late night comedians who all took shots at Dick Cheney pinheads. When he has the comedian Dennis Miller on his very own show to take shots at all the Liberals, talk about hypocrisy, this is off the charts hypocrisy. If they are pinheads, so is O'Reilly and Miller for doing the very same thing, and doing it once a week 52 weeks a year.

More Proof Glenn Beck Is A Racist
By: Steve - August 31, 2011 - 10:00am

As if we needed it, here it is. More proof Beck is a flat out racist. On his Tuesday radio show Beck asked why people like him are made to feel bad for using the word "colored" when talking about a black person.

Are you kidding me? You are made to feel bad for using the word "colored" because not only is it racist, it's offensive to black people you right-wing jerk of a racist.

To even ask that question shows what a racist idiot you are, because it is stupid to even ask the question. And if you doubt me, just ask any black person if they are offended when someone calls them "colored" and if it is a racist term.

I guarantee you every single black person in America will tell you it's racist, and offensive. For Beck to even wonder why he should feel bad for saying it is 100% proof he is a racist, because anyone who is not a racist would never ask that question.

Republican Slams Bachmann For Everglades Drilling Idea
By: Steve - August 31, 2011 - 9:00am

Crazy Michele Bachmann has another insane idea, drill for oil in the Florida Everglades. It's so crazy that fellow Tea Party Republican Congressman Allen West even said it was a bad idea.

Oh and btw, Bachmann does not live and work in Florida, she is in Minnesota. So she has no problem destroying an historic wetland in another state, because she does not have to be re-elected there.

Congressman Allen West (R-FL) criticized his fellow Tea Party Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Tuesday over her call for oil drilling in the Florida Everglades. In an interview with the AP this weekend, Bachmann said we should look for new sources of domestic oil, offering the Florida Everglades as a possible location.

West shot down that suggestion at a town hall in Palm Beach Gardens, calling it "an incredible faux pas," the Palm Beach Post reports. "When I see her next week, I'll straighten her out about that," he added. And West is even a member of Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus.

Congressman West supports off shore drilling, but said after the meeting that Bachmann's recent comment on possible drilling in the Everglades was "a horrible thing to say. The Everglades is one of the natural wonders of the world. . . . That's an incredible ecosystem and it's a wetland that is natural and pristine and that's something we have to preserve for our future generations."

The Monday 8-29-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 30, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The aftermath of Hurricane Irene. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Hurricane Irene has killed at least 37 Americans and caused billions of dollars of damage. The good news - the authorities seemed to be pretty well organized and chaos was kept to a minimum.

On Long Island where I live, the center of the hurricane was about eight miles to the west of my home. I did not even lose electricity, but then a strange thing happened - about four hours after the storm the electricity went out, and eight hours after that the cable went out. Why did the infrastructure collapse after the fact?

The Long Island Power Authority charges the highest public utility rates in the country and right now about a half-million of their customers are without power. There is a big problem with infrastructure in general, and if the USA is ever hit by a major natural disaster or a nuclear incident, this country will be in big trouble.

Our electrical services are antiquated and easily knocked out. So my advice to you is this: Buy a generator if you can afford to and stock up on non-perishables you will need if you do not have electricity. All in all, Irene was a bad storm, but it did bring out good in many Americans.
What a joke, yes our electrical services are antiquated and easily knocked out, that's because the Republicans keep voting against making them better and up to date with technology. Just like they do with bridges and roads, sewer pipes and water pipes etc.

And they avoid it to pay for the Bush tax cuts and corporate tax breaks/loopholes for the wealthy. Funny how O'Reilly never mentions that. Not to mention, this stock up on non-perishable garbage is Glenn Beck insanity. Beck is gone so O'Reilly is now the end of the world loon at Fox.

Then O'Dummy had four Fox News correspondents on for their first-hand impressions of Hurricane Irene. Which I will not report on because it's about the weather, and this kind of reporting should only be done by the weather channel, or local news to alert people the Hurricane is coming. Earth to O'Reilly, this is not a national news story. O'Reilly even complained that the media was hyping the Hurricane for ratings, as he was doing the very same thing every night.

Then O'Reilly had the dishonest and biased partisan hack Job Bastardi on to talk about Hurricane Irene and global warming. Some environmentalists blame Hurricane Irene on global warming. So Bastardi said this: "There were great hurricanes in 1954, 1955, 1938, and 1933, so either they are not telling you what happened before or they do not know what happened before. In 1954 there were three major hurricanes up the Eastern seaboard and a major heat wave in Texas. When the Pacific cools and the Atlantic is warm, this is what happens."

Which proves how stupid Bastardi is, because of course other Hurricanes have happened, but the problem is that with global warming it is making them stronger and making them happen more often, and that is a fact Bastardi will not address or admit. And O'Reilly keeps putting this right-wing loon on to discuss it, proving he is also a right-wing global warming denier.

Then O'Reilly had two guests on to talk about Texas Governor Rick Perry who has surged to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and his other GOP rivals. Kinky Friedman said this: "There is a lot of good in Rick Perry. He is a nuts-and-bolts guy with the economy, and you have to give him credit for doing pretty well with the Texas economy. And Obama has done for the economy what panty hose did for foreplay!"

It should be noted that Kinky is a little nuts, a Republican who lives in Texas, and a friend of Rick Perry. So of course he is going to like him and hate Obama. Funny how O'Reilly failed to mention any of that. And notice how O'Reilly never talks about all the crazy things Perry has said, he just ignores it all.

Then the Democratic strategist Bob Mann expressed some serious doubts about the Texas governor, saying this: "It is hard to tell what Rick Perry really is - is he a conservative or not? There is a $27 billion budget deficit that was accumulated on his watch and unemployment has doubled."

And of course O'Reilly defended Perry, because they are both Republicans. And btw folks, Bob Mann was the only Democratic guest on the entire show, Billy had 9 Republicans and 1 Democrat, and he had to share his time with the crazy Kinky Friedman and the right-wing Bill O'Reilly. So even when a Democrat does get on, He's the only one on the entire show, and it's a 2 on 1 biased and unfair segment.

Then O'Reilly cried about New York Times editor Bill Keller, who wrote a column ridiculing certain Christian tenets and demanding that candidates be interrogated about their faith. Juan Williams said this: "Keller has every right, to ask questions about how much politicians believe the Bible should govern our country. But why did he have to equate aliens with the body of Christ? I guess that is his idea of being hip."

Ham said this: "If you read this column to me and told me it was a parody of a New York Times editor talking about Christianity, I would have believed you. He sounds like he would wear a hazmat suit to a church picnic, and the irony is that he feels the same way about mainstream Christianity as he accuses the right of feeling about Islam."

O'Reilly said that most liberal journalists are dismissive of Christian believers: "Mr. Keller has a point when he says politicians need to be questioned about their theology. But it seems to me, and I know this is shocking, that the editor of the New York Times was a bit condescending."

And that's total speculation, not to mention ridiculous, how does O'Reilly know what most liberal journalists think of Christian believers. Answer, he dont, he just made it up. Not to mention when politicians try to put religion in Government they should be questioned about it.

Then Bernie Goldberg to discuss the Bill Keller column and the coverage of Hurricane Irene. Goldberg said this: "On his point that journalists need to ask candidates questions about their religious beliefs, I totally agree. But I wish Bill Keller and the New York Times had been as concerned about religion during the last campaign when it came to Barack Obama, who sat in a church with a hateful minister for twenty years."

So they agree that Keller was right, and yet they spend half the show slamming him for what he wrote, what a joke. O'Reilly and his crew of right-wing stooges are just laughable. They slam someone for asking questions they agree are the right questions, Then do half a show hammering him on it, it's like the twilight zone.

Goldberg turned to accusations that media outlets overstated the potential danger of Hurricane Irene, saying this: "I can not help but thinking that this hurricane got so much attention was because it was heading for where elite journalists live. I guarantee you that if a bigger hurricane were heading for Biloxi, Mississippi, it would not get the same attention. There is a kind of journalist narcissism that New York-based journalists are guilty of."

Which is just ridiculous, because Fox News covered it as much as anyone, if not more, and they are clearly not liberal journalists.

And finally the Factor reality check, that I do not report on because it has no reality and almost no checks. It's just the biased old right-wing hack O'Reilly giving his opinion of what someone said.

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

Reality Check: Eric Bolling Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - August 30, 2011 - 10:00am

Do you want to see what a total dishonest right-wing stooge looks like, just watch Eric Bolling at Fox News. This guy tells so many lies I am thinking he forgot how to tell the truth.

A few months ago he said there were no terror attacks under George W. Bush, and now he is saying it again.

Hey Bolling, not only were there more than one terror attack under Bush from 2000 until 2009, 6 at last count, the massive 9-11 Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda attacks that killed almost 3000 people in New York and Washington happened under Bush you a-hole.

Bolling said this: "I Don't Remember Any Terrorist Attacks On American Soil Between 2000 And 2008." Making him the biggest lying right-wing hack in America, and Fox News does not fire him or make him do a correction, which says a lot about how Fox News lies to people.

Kelly Proves She Is A Right-Wing Idiot (Again)
By: Steve - August 30, 2011 - 9:00am

Some people are saying the Republican Rick Perry is not smart enough to be the President, so what does Megyn Kelly do, she says you do not need to be smart.

Fox's Megyn Kelly On Presidential Elections: "Does It Matter -- Should It Matter -- If Somebody Is Dumb?"

To begin with, of course it should matter if the President is dumb you blonde bimbo. We saw how it worked out with a dumb President (George W. Bush) he almost ruined the country. And second, she would never say that about a Democratic candidate, she would say they must be smart.

Proving what a right-wing stooge she is for defending Perry. And the fact that she evean asked if a President needs to be smart, is admitting that she thinks the reports that Perry is not very smart are true.

So Kelly did two things, she proved she defends right-wingers, even if it a claim that they are dumb, and she basically admitted it was true by suggesting that a President can be dumb.

O'Reilly's Attack On Welfare Recipients Was Pathetic
By: Steve - August 29, 2011 - 10:00am

Last week Bill O'Reilly, insisted that the poor should have to "pay a portion of the welfare assistance back when they get back on their feet."

He went on to say that there are 57 million people on the dole, many illegitimately. He talked about tax payer dollars going to those that are irresponsible parents who can't cut it because they are uneducated, substance abusers and screwed up mentally.

He blamed President Obama and the Democratic Party calling them enablers of welfare while the whole country is paying for it. What made this particularly insulting was that this anti-poor diatribe was coming from a multi-millionaire talk show host who ironically keeps complaining about class warfare.

As for the idea of paying back welfare? On what minimum wage? Has he considered for a moment that if we stopped subsidizing the largest corporation and the wealthy in this country with tax cuts, which accounts for 60% of the federal budget, we could afford assistance programs that are the lifeblood of the poor and make sure that all the kids in America could go to bed with full stomachs.

He also ignores the fact that most of this money gets spent immediately and goes right back into the economy.

O’Reilly's verbal attack was part of the Republican talking points, but nothing compared to Republican congressional candidate from Texas Roger Williams web ad comparing welfare recipients to stupid donkeys.

In the ad, called "The Donkey Whisperer" Williams compares the donkeys on his farm to those receiving government aid.

Williams says of the donkeys in front of him "You know all these guys want, they want more shelter, they want more feed, and yet the government is making it harder on me. They're taxing me to death. When I don't build it they get mad at me."

Many conservatives have called the poor moochers, takers, parasites, raccoons, and utterly irresponsible animals. Simply because they are poor.

Those on the right believe that becoming poor is primarily driven by a lack of motivation to help oneself which is made worse by government aid/entitlements. They argue that government aid will disincentivize the individual from going out to find work.

What they ignore is that it is often very difficult for many of the poor to find work because of their environmental circumstances that doesn't always provide for healthy social networking or good schools and/or occupation opportunities.

In contrast, those on the left attribute the growing levels of poverty to factors such as a poor economy, lack of affordable housing, and lack of good schools and resources necessary for teaching and developing basic skills required to at a minimum apply for employment.

They also point to the corporate corruption and ethical misconduct that often takes advantage of the poor, uninformed, and unsuspecting. They argue the poor deserve public aid to assist them as they move forward to break free of the social and educational boundaries of poverty.

If we consider this issue from both a moral and pragmatic view, isn't the right thing to do to help as many individuals as we can who are trying to survive with hopes of one day living the American dream?

As in provide for the general welfare of the people, from the Preamble to the United States Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Is helping the poor promoting the general welfare of the people, I would say so. And would it not make more sense for a healthier and more productive society to help the poor and not leave them behind?

I even read about one situation where the Government helped a poor woman get out of trouble, and it led to her getting a good job. She was abandoned by her husband, and then received government assistance. The money she received went to feed her 2 young children and pay for the babysitter while she took classes at the a local community college in hopes of becoming a nurse.

The woman did not have a car and walked for miles every day between food shopping and school. Now today she is a licensed practicing nurse. But what would she have done without the Government assistance, she would probably be homeless and not working anywhere.

Now think about this folks, O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is looking out for the folks. Then he does a partisan right-wing attack on the very folks he claims to look out for.

Which shows two things, that O'Reilly does not look out for the folks, and that he is a liar when he says he is a non-partisan Independent. Because the attack sounded as if it could have come from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, or Ann Coulter, who are all as far to the right as you can get. If that's a non-partisan Independent, I'm Santa Claus.

GOP Congressmen Put Constituents On Watch List
By: Steve - August 29, 2011 - 9:00am

As one man put it (who is a veteran btw) this is the kind of stuff you expect to see in Russia. He was talking about some GOP Congressman who are putting out a watch list on people who ask them tough questions at Town Hall meetings.

Yes it's true, if you dare to ask a Republican Congressman a tough question, they put you on a watch list and have you investigated. And if they do not like what they find, they ban you from the Town Hall meeting for your very own Congressman.

Two Republican Congressmen, Daniel Webster (R-FL) and Tim Griffin (R-AZ), are using disturbing intimidation tactics and watch lists to discourage constituents from asking them tough questions:
Rep. Webster's Florida district office gave out a Watch List of six Floridians who had asked tough questions at Webster's previous town halls. The list included names and photographs.

The Watch List also does not contain any information on who wrote it or where it comes from. The memos suddenly surfaced in Arkansas in connection to the office of Rep. Tim Griffin, and were traced back to Rep. Webster's office.

With black and white photos that resemble police surveillance, some of them pulled from the individuals Facebook profiles, the memo is clearly meant to intimidate these six people and anyone else who might stand up and ask a question of their elected representative.

At a Griffin town hall, staffers were handing out the Watch List to attendees, calling it their homework. Griffin staffers were also spotted taking photos and shooting video of attendees, creating an extra layer of intimidation.
Webster and Griffin claim they are making these lists to screen out paid activists, but the people they are targeting are regular constituents who have simply spoken up and expressed their disagreement about important policy decisions.

Webster staffers even went out of their way to investigate the backgrounds of these individuals and insinuate people like them are not welcome at future town halls.

In April, ThinkProgress reported from Webster's home district about a town hall where he faced a barrage of criticism for defending his support for tax breaks for the rich and the Medicare-ending Paul Ryan budget.

ThinkProgress talked to one of the constituents who spoke out about it, Tamecka Pierce, and then she ended up as #5 on the Watch List.

Pierce, who had to undergo chemotherapy, asked Webster a tough question about what would happen to people like her with major preexisting conditions under the Republican budget. Then she expressed her disappointment in Webster for dodging her question, which apparently was enough to land her on a McCarthy-esque list that pictures her like a criminal.

In another instance, the memo talks about the military service of a 66-year-old Vietnam veteran named Ron Parsell. Parsell told the Orlando Sentinel, "I think it's pretty weird.

Someone asks a legitimate question, and all of the sudden somebody's got a dossier on you."

Parsell added this: "It's the type of thing they'd do in old Russia."

And finally, you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if some Democratic Congressman were doing this. O'Reilly would call it un-American, and spend an entire show on it, then do monthly if not weekly follow up segments on it. But when Republicans do it, he is as silent as a mouse.

Fox & O'Reilly Caught Lying About Arizona Wildfires
By: Steve - August 28, 2011 - 10:00am

In June, O'reilly and pretty much everyone at Fox News repeatedly promoted the accusation that illegal immigrants had set the Monument wildfire that was raging in Arizona at the time. However, the Justice Department recently announced that it has charged two U.S. citizens in connection with the state's worst-ever wildfire.

So O'Reilly reported it last night and admitted he was wrong, haha, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too. As usual, when O'Reilly is wrong about something, he ignored the story and never admitted he got anything wrong.

And btw folks, From the very beginning, the U.S. Forest Service said the claims that Illegal Immigrants set the fire was baseless. But O'Reilly and Fox reported it anyway, based on what John McCain and some right-wing Sheriff in Arizona said.

From a 6-19-11 ABC News report:
A U.S. Forest Service official said today there is no evidence that illegal immigrants started some of the wildfires in Arizona, as Sen. John McCain had claimed.

Tom Berglund, spokesman for the federal group managing the Wallow fire that McCain toured Saturday, said the cause of the fire has been determined as "human," specifically an "escaped campfire," meaning the campfire sparked beyond the confines of the rocks containing it.

Two "subjects of interest" have been spoken to, but as of now, no suspect has been named, Berglund said. When asked if there is any evidence that the fires were caused by illegal immigrants, as McCain said at a news conference Saturday, Berglund said: "Absolutely not."
O'Reilly did that after saying he only reports the facts, and if he can not prove it to be true he will not report it. Then he reported it based on speculation, with no evidence to back up the claims. And not only that, he ignored the fact that the U.S. Forest Service official was saying they had no evidence an illegal set the fires.

Here is what O'Reilly said on the June 24th O'Reilly Factor. And btw, Juan Williams was part of it too. After playing an audio and video tapes of both McCain and Dever suggesting that undocumented immigrants started the Arizona fire, guest host Juan Williams aired an interview between Bill O'Reilly and Randy Parraz.

Parraz, a civil rights activist who ran against McCain for U.S. Senate in 2010, advocated that McCain and others wait for the results of an investigation before blaming undocumented immigrants for the fire. O'Reilly ultimately decided to give Sheriff Dever the "benefit of the doubt."

From the June 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: You may have a point on Senator McCain, he is a politician, and he is obviously looking for more help to keep people from crossing into Arizona from Mexico.

So he's got a political agenda, there's no doubt about it. But the sheriff, the sheriff says flat-out, "There's nobody down there, you can't get in there, it's too remote, we have people that monitor this, there was nobody there, so it had to be caused by somebody who was there illegally, and that's what we're working on."

So it seems to me, as a responsible citizen, that you would say "Ok, I'm going to give the sheriff the benefit of the doubt."
Which violates O'Reilly's own rule about reporting on something with no evidence to back it up. And now we know O'Reilly was wrong, McCain was wrong, Sheriff Dever was wrong, and Fox News was wrong.

Because two U.S. citizens have been charged with starting the wildfire. From an August 24 Reuters article:
Two cousins who allegedly left a campfire unattended have been charged with starting Arizona's largest ever wildfire that torched more than 800 square miles of wilderness before it was contained prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Caleb Joshua Malboeuf, 26, and David Wayne Malboeuf, 24, were charged with starting the so-called Wallow Fire on May 29, in the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona, the U.S. Attorney's office said in a news release.

The Malboeuf cousins, both from southern Arizona, were charged on five counts including causing timber to burn, leaving a fire unattended and unextinguished and building a campfire without removing all surrounding flammable material.
The Phoenix New Times reported in an article titled Sorry, John McCain, Wallow Fire Suspects U.S. Citizens. Confirmed: "Illegal immigrants didn't start the fire -- a couple of white guys named Caleb and David Malboeuf are suspected of starting the blaze. The Department of Justice confirms to New Times that both Malboeufs are U.S. citizens who live in the Flagstaff area." [Phoenix New Times, 8/25/11]

So not only was O'Reilly, McCain, Dever, and all of Fox News wrong, none of them have done a correction, or said they were sorry, or reported that two white U.S. Citizens were charged with setting the fires. O'Reilly just ignores the story and hopes nobody will remember it, or call him out on it. As he still claims he has never had to do a correction in 12 years.

Beckel Calls Out Bolling For Hurricane Irene Nonsense
By: Steve - August 28, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Friday Fox News show called the five, Bob Beckel called out co-host Eric Bolling for turning Hurricane Irene into an Obama shot.

But Bolling is not the only right-wing idiot using the Hurricane for political cheap shots. Fox's Stuart Varney said he was worried Obama will use Hurricane Irene as an "Excuse" to spend more money.

Glenn Beck said we should blame the Hurricane on Obama, because it was God punishing Obama for what he is doing. Then on a later show Beck said the Hurricane is a blessing. So even he can not keep his lies straight.

Beck said this: "This Hurricane Is A Blessing ... It Is God Reminding You ... You Are Not In Control"

Wow are these people nuts. And remember when a few people on the far-left said Hurricane Katrina was God punishing Bush, at the time these same right-wing stooges said that was laughable and impossible. Now they claim the same thing about a Hurricane and Obama. Proving they are nothing but dishonest partisan hacks.

The Friday 8-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 27, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because Juan Williams was in for O'Reilly, so he went right to the top story, Hurricane Irene. Juan had Meteorologist Bernie Rayno, John Roberts, and FEMA boss Craig Fugate on to discuss it. Which I will not report on because it is about weather, and this story should only be reported by the weather channel. It's all about ratings, not real news.

In the next segment Juan also had Geraldo on to talk about the Hurricane. Geraldo said this: "Hurricanes are kind of exciting."

Really? What an idiot. Then Juan did a segment on new polls that show Texas Governor Rick Perry has surged to a significant lead over Mitt Romney among Republican voters, by 11 points.

Juan asked political analysts Doug Schoen and Larry Sabato to discuss the new numbers. Sabato said this: "Mitt Romney is on the ropes, and he is no longer the front-runner. He's always been a weak front-runner and I've never seen him above 30% in a national poll. I don't think there's a lot Romney can do - he has to hope that Perry makes mistakes."

Schoen agreed that Perry is now on top of the heap, saying this: "I looked at a lot of new polls today and Perry is surging while Romney is sinking. When a front-runner is as weak as Romney was, he's no longer the front-runner. Rick Perry fills a void, but he hasn't yet answered the question as to whether he's a credible challenger to President Obama."

Then Juan had a segment on the story O'Reilly just reported a couple days ago. About the 34-year-old illegal alien Nicolas Guaman who has been charged with vehicular homicide after killing a 23-year-old pedestrian in Massachusetts. Yeah yeah, we get it, we should deport all the illegals because they are killing Americans.

First, that is impossible. And second, it was what one out of a thousand illegals, maybe one out of ten thousand. It's ridiculous, and the classic making a mountain out of a molehill story. And of course Juan had some right-wing Sheriff on to slam the Democratic Governor when he had nothing to do with it. What happened to personal responsibility you Republicans always talk about. How is it the Governors fault, he was not driving the car, the illegal was.

Then Juan cried about the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who won't allow any religious leaders to participate in the ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11. After O'Reilly already reported it. What a joke, the entire show was about weather, and a repeat of two stories Billy had already reported on.

Hey jerks, why not report on some real news, instead of this illegal immigrant car crash garbage, the religious garbage, and the weather. I could find some real news for you to report if you need it, so let me know if you are interested.

Beck Caught Lying About Attendance At Israel Rally
By: Steve - August 27, 2011 - 10:00am

On Thursday the former Fox News host Glenn Beck held his much-hyped and highly controversial "Restoring Courage" rally at the foot of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Then on Friday, he whined about the lack of coverage of the event by the media.

And btw, Fox News did not even cover this joke of a political rally.

Since no prophecies appear to have been fulfilled, Beck began inflating the numbers of attendees at his rally. According to a blog post from by Yahoo's Joe Pompeo, Beck's spokesman said that 4,700 people attended the rally. (1,700 attendees at the spot where Beck was speaking and an additional 3,000 at a remote location where Beck's event was broadcast live.)

But by the time Beck went on the air Friday, Beck was suggesting that "five to seven" thousand people showed up at the remote location. He was immediately corrected by one of his own aides who said there were only "5,000 seats set up, and at last count, we had about 8,000 people that showed up, standing room only."

Beck then said there were "10,000 people just in these two locations alone."

And what a shocker, not, in one day event attendees grew from 4,700 by Beck's own spokesman's reported count, to five to seven thousand, to somehow 10,000.

Of course, this is not the first time Beck has grossly exaggerated attendance figures for his rallies. In the wake of his 8-28 "Restoring Honor" rally, Beck said he heard that the crowd had been "between 300,000 and 500,000."

But according to an outside firm hired by CBS News, the only independent and semi-official estimate of the crowd was 87,000. Beck has also made the absurd claim that the 9-12 protests that he created and hyped were the "largest march on Washington D.C. ever," and said that a conservative crowd estimate for that march was 500,000.

Later, his estimated number for the 9-12 crowd grew to 750,000 or even a million. In fact, the D.C. fire department estimate placed the number between 60,000 and 75,000.

Now think about this, maybe miracles do happen at Beck's events. The crowd size doubles or sometimes grows by a factor of ten, now that is a miracle.

More Tea Party Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 27, 2011 - 9:00am

The Tea Party continues to claim that racism, and xenophobia are not driving forces in its movement, but the actions of its members continues to disprove those claims.

Many of the movement's causes have targeted Latinos, advocating for harsh immigration laws, referring to them as anchor babies and welfare queens, urging followers to attack Latinos, and fighting to rewrite the 14th amendment to remove its guarantee of birthright citizenship.

Then on Tuesday in New Mexico, the evidence of racism and that is in the Tea Party movement came out again. As Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) prepared to tour a nonprofit organization in Farmington, he was met by a dozen Tea Party protesters, who said that Lujan is not an American. The Farmington Daily Times reported this:
One Tea Party member Darrel Clark of Farmington said he came for a chance to see Congressman Lujan.

Clark said this: "He needs to get out of politics and make room for an American."
Except there is one small problem with that, Lujan is a lifelong American, born and raised in America.

Lujan was born in Santa Fe, and he has lived in the USA all his life. He is also the son of a public school administrator and the speaker of New Mexico's state House of Representatives.

According to the Daily Times, Lujan took the protests and their insults in stride, saying this: "It's important that we get out to visit our constituency," Lujan said. "We think that's important, and we'll continue to do that."

So in the mind of the Tea Party just because you have dark skin you are not an American, which shows how racist and stupid they are.

The Thursday 8-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 26, 2011 - 11:00am

The top story was about Hurricane Irene. O'Reilly had Joe Bastardi and John Roberts on to discuss it, and they did not tell us anything we already know. That it will be a big hurricane and a lot of people were told to evacuate. O'Reilly then urged all the folks in Irene's path to get ready, saying this: "Everybody on the East Coast has to batten down the hatches, get the supplies and flashlights ready because the power is going to go out."

Wow, what great reporting, not. Who does not know all that already, and what good does it do for O'Reilly to report that. People go to the weather channel for hurricane info, or local news stations, or just look on the internet. Nobody is watching the Factor for weather info, so it was a total waste of time.

The TPM was called: Can Warren Buffett save President Obama? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Warren Buffett is really trying to get President Obama re-elected. Next month Buffett will headline a fundraiser for the President in New York City, and if you have a spare $35,000 you can get a VIP ticket. But why is Mr. Buffett so emotionally invested in Mr. Obama?

Warren Buffett was once a Republican, but switched parties, saying he believes Democrats do a better job of leveling the field for those who 'draw an unlucky ticket in life.' It's obvious that the billionaire is emerging as a stalwart for the Democratic Party and supports the income redistribution policies that President Obama and the left champion.

There's no question that Buffett is a brilliant businessman, and this is what makes the situation so confusing. Simply put, President Obama's economic policies have failed, and Buffett has to know that the majority of Americans are losing faith. Yet even before knowing who Barack Obama's challenger will be, Buffett is putting his prestige and money behind the President.

So it must be an ideological play because it makes no business sense at all. Warren Buffett is telling me the feds should spend even more money and raise taxes to boot? You're wrong, Warren, you're simply wrong.
So the brilliant BILLIONAIRE businessman is behind Obama and wants to pay more in taxes, and he says all the rich should pay more in taxes. Then O'Reilly says the brilliant BILLIONAIRE businessman is wrong. Who are you going to believe, the brilliant BILLIONAIRE businessman or the lame partisan cable news show host Bill O'Reilly. I think I will go with the brilliant BILLIONAIRE businessman.

Does O'Reilly have a Democratic guest on to discuss it, of course not, he has the partisan right-wing hack Laura Ingraham (his fill-in host) on. And of course she agreed with Billy, what a shocker......not.

Ingraham said this: "I can't psychoanalyze him, but we have to look at the fact that he just put a huge amount of money into Bank of America, which could be laying off tens of thousand of people. I'd like to know what Buffett said to President Obama in that phone call a couple of days ago - did he share information that he was thinking of investing in Bank of America? If Bank of America starts to go south fast, it would be another disaster for the Obama administration."

O'Reilly agreed that Buffett's decision to invest $5 billion in BofA will indirectly help the President, saying this: "The deal is good for Buffett, who is buying in at a very low price, but it's also helping President Obama because if Bank of America goes down, the stock market will drop and that'll be it for Barack Obama."

What a joke, Warren Buffett buys Bank of America and these two right-wing hacks say he is only doing it to help Obama politically. Now I would bet that if Warren Buffett is putting $5 billion into their bank it is not going to go down.

Then for some unknown reason O'Reilly had the far-right loon Christine O'Donnell on to discuss her failed political campaign. And of course she said it was not her fault she lost, it was because everyone else lied about her. But she did admit the I am not a witch ad was a big mistake. She even said Rove lied about her, and that her own party turned against her.

Earth to O'Donnell, you lost because you are a far-right loon with far-right positions on the issues. You even admitted that you once got involved in witchcraft. That is why you lost, and why your own party turned on you. Because you are so far right even the people in your own party knew you could not win. So why should they invest their time and money on someone they know will lose.

Then O'Dummy slammed New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for saying no religious leaders will be involved in the upcoming ceremonies marking the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Dagen McDowell both took issue with that decision.

Of course they did, because they are all right-wing religious fanatics. Just like O'Reilly is, they want to put religion into everything. And btw, Bloomberg is a Republican and I think what he is doing is the right thing to do.

McDowell said this: "It was faith that got this country and the families through horrible times, and Mayor Bloomberg lives in a secular bubble." Hoover agreed that prayer and religion should be included, saying this: "The first gathering of Americans in New York after 9/11 was at Yankee Stadium and it was a massive interfaith prayer ceremony. Mayor Bloomberg is a secularist and I think this reflects his personal sensibilities. We should encourage the families to put out a statement that they want religious clergy to be involved."

O'Reilly suggested including leaders from all the major religions, saying this: "They should have a Catholic priest, a rabbi, and an imam."

Now get this, O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about the mother of six who was convicted of child abuse after going on TV and demonstrating how she forces her unruly son to drink hot sauce and take cold showers.

Kelly said this: "The police got so many complaints from viewers, that they went and arrested her for misdemeanor child abuse. She was tried by a jury and found guilty. This has sparked a nationwide debate on where you draw the line between discipline and abuse."

Then O'Reilly said there is absolutely nothing to debate, saying this: "Pouring hot Tabasco sauce down a kid's throat and putting him in a cold shower? That's crazy! You don't discipline kids by torturing them."

Really? Wow! So let me get this straight, making a kid drink hot sauce and take cold showers is torture, but waterboaring some is not?

For anyone that does not know it, O'Reilly claims waterboarding is not torture. He says it is ok with him, even though it is listed as torture in the Geneva Conventions, and virtually every Government in the world has it listed as torture, including America. So waterboarding is not torture, but somehow in O'Reillyworld drinking hot sauce and talking cold showers is, what a fricking joke.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy on for the Factor news quiz.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote. And let me add this, on this show O'Reilly had 9 Republican guests, to 0 Democratic guests, 10 to 0 when you count O'Reilly. Way to go Billy, is that the guest list you talked about you said you personally make sure is fair and balanced.

Another Poll Shows The People Disagree With O'Reilly
By: Steve - August 26, 2011 - 10:00am

Crazy O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends are still saying the economy is all on Obama, except that is all right-wing spin. Because the polls show that most people still blame Bush, and the Republicans in Congress.

A new poll finds that 51 percent of Americans say George W. Bush is most to blame for the down economy.

Forty-four percent say a lot or most of the blame should fall on congressional Republicans, while 36 percent say the same of Democrats.

Though more Americans see the economy in bad shape than did at the beginning of the summer, their views of whether to reelect President Barack Obama have barely changed - and a majority blame George Bush for the problems, the new Associated Press-GfK poll says.

The poll was conducted Aug. 18-22 and wasa telephone survey of 1,000 adults. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

This is a poll of the people, not the right-wing spin you get from O'Reilly. It says the opposite of what O'Reilly claims, proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing spin doctor.

Romney Hypocrisy On Terror Trials In The USA
By: Steve - August 26, 2011 - 9:00am

First Romney was against them, now he is for them, so not only is he a massive Hypocrite, he is also a giant flip-flopper.

Mondy on the Neil Cavuto show on Fox GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called on the United States to apprehend the Lockerbie Bomber in Libya and bring him back to the United States for trial.

Talking to Neil Cavuto to explain his position, Romney said that the United States would be my first choice for the location of a trial for the bomber:
CAVUTO: If Muammar Qaddafi goes down do you think the new government should hand him over to who?

ROMNEY: The United States of America would be my first choice. We would try him here and see that justice is done. This is a person responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people.

This is an individual who was convicted in Scotland but set free on a humanitarian basis and two years later still alive and receives a hero's welcome.
But during the last Republican presidential primary, Romney slammed Obama for saying he wanted to put terror suspects in American courts, saying that we should actually double the size of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and keep suspects there instead.

Romney also praised the Obama adminstration's decision to not try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian trial in New York City. Now he wants to do what he was opposed to, making him a massive hypocrite who just makes statements based on politics.

The Wednesday 8-24-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 25, 2011 - 11:00am

O'Reilly started with the top story about Hurricane Irene, and he had the biased Global Warming denier Joe Bastardi on to comment on it. Bastardi said this: "It's not a threat to Florida. It's going to stay well to the east. But as it starts making the classic bend up along the Eastern Seaboard it will start threatening the Carolinas."

So O'Dummy looked at the map of the hurricane's projected path, and took it personally, saying this: "It's heading straight for New York City and Long Island. And that's where you expect it to really whack the island where I live, Joe? Is it zeroing down on my house here? Is there a grudge here against me?"

Yeah that's really funny jerk, not. So the idiot Bastardi denied that the storm had a grudge against The Factor personally. He floated another theory about Irene's path, saying this: "I never get invited to parties out in the Hamptons, so maybe that's why this is going out there."

What a couple of idiots, joking about a hurricane is not funny at all.

Then the TPM was called: Are too many Americans on welfare? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As just about everybody knows America is broke. The government owes more than $14 trillion. So spending has to be cut, possibly including some welfare payments to the poor. In 2002, the poverty rate in America was about 12 percent. In 2009, it's about 14 percent, up two points, despite more than $4 trillion in welfare spending over that period.

Welfare spending is 15 percent of the entire federal budget -- but that is deceiving because Medicare and Social Security account for 33 percent of all the spending. If you take those mandated expenses out of the equation, then welfare payments account for 22 percent of the total budget, and that's a big number.

A recent Rasmussen poll says 71 percent of Americans believe too many people are receiving welfare who should not be getting it; just 18 percent of us say more people should receive welfare. The Democratic Party in general does not want to cut government assistance programs to the poor or even to illegal aliens.

A fair system would hold those receiving government assistance accountable. That is, if they turn things around in their lives, they would have to pay back a portion of what they receive. And they would actively have to look for work. If they don't, the benefits cease.

President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996 and that slowed the entitlement industry down a bit, but over the past few years it has picked up steam again. The Feds must impose discipline here and in every other federal spending situation.
And that my friends is a total one sided load of right-wing garbage. Notice O'Reilly does not say what percent of the debt (or the budget) goes to the Bush tax cuts, or corporate tax loopholes, or wars, or welfare to the wealthy, and on and on. He just slams the poor, when it was fine under Clinton, it only became a problem after Bush bankrupted the country. Which O'Reilly also fails to mention.

So what does O'Reilly do then, have two Independent economic experts on to debate it fairly, of course not, he had the partisan right-wing hack Lou Dobbs on. O'Reilly pointed out that it was necessary to help children who had nothing. "Absolutely," Dobbs agreed, saying this: "If you live in this country, this country is going to provide... There will be provision for children."

This made it harder, O'Dummy argued, to cut off certain benefits, saying this: "It is very hard for the federal government then to stop these entitlement benefits like food stamps, even though they are abused in many, many cases... If you are going to cut, kids are going to get hurt."

Dobbs had a pretty simple solution, saying this: "Means testing. Those who have sufficient money should not be receiving assistance."

What a joke, two right-wing multi-millionaires talking about taking money away from the poor, while never once saying we should take anything away from the rich.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to cry about the media ignoring Ron Paul, and the Perry lead over Romney. Billy asked Dick Morris if he was impressed by Perry's commanding lead. Morris said this: "It's not commanding. It's a lead." He went on to argue that Perry still has to contend with Romney, Bachmann, and one other person, saying this: "You cannot entirely count out Cain. I know you hate that."

So O'Reilly flipped out, saying this: "Come on. Stop with this stuff." Then he offered to make a bet with Morris over Cain's prospects, saying this: "I will give you 10 to 1 odds on Cain. 10 to 1."

The next topic was Ron Paul, who says he's being ignored by the media. O'Reilly pointed out that Paul had a pretty substantial fan base, saying this: "There is a strain of people who love him. And that's what shows up in the 13 percent and 14 percent that he gets."

Morris said this: "Those people that love him better love Obama. Because if he ever gets the nomination they will have him for four more years."

Lets get real, Ron Paul is a far-right loon, and he will never win the GOP nomination. Now that is some truth you will never hear from O'Reilly or Morris. And the reason the media ignores him is because he is a nobody who is too far right, even the right-wing media ignores him. O'Reilly failed to mention that Fox News also pretty much ignores him.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right Wendy Murphy on to discuss An illegal immigrant from Ecuador living in Worchester, Massachusetts, who is accused of killing a young man in a car accident. The immigrant, Nicolas Guaman, was allegedly drunk at the time of the incident. Guaman had a number of run-ins with police, but was never deported, because the state of Massachusetts is lenient on illegals. Which I will not report on, because it is not a big national news story, and only right-wing stooges care about what oe man did.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly segment, that I do not report on because it is not news.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. First up was an interview with a Libyan rebel who managed to break into Muammar Gaddafi's bedroom and steal his colonel's hat, along with some opulent gold jewelry. Huddy was impressed with the hat, saying this: "That thing could sell at Christie's for -- good lord -- a lot of money."

O'Dummy disagreed, saying this: "No, it's not going to sell. The guy is going to wear it to the beach." Then O'Dummy played an ad put together by the DNC featuring clips of Jon Huntsman trashing the other GOP candidates. Billy thought that Huntsman was a long shot for the GOP nomination, saying this: "He knows he's not going to win. He just wants to become more famous. Right away, he's going to get the hair care for men ad." Huddy joked that he was: "Competing with Perry for that one."

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

O'Reilly Ignores Recession To Slam Poor & Illegals
By: Steve - August 25, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Wednesday Factor show, Bill O'Reilly used Poverty to bash Welfare And Illegals, but No Mention of the Recession:

Billy the right-wing propagandist strikes again, he started by bashing the poor, and added that they are the reason we are in bad shape, never mentioning the squandered surplus when his hero Bush came into office, or the invasion and war with Iraq that has cost trillions. The other war in Afghanistan, as well as the Bush tax cuts, that have not helped the economy at all.

O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing jerk who is lying to you. He claims all the debt problems are because of social programs for the poor etc. Which is just insane, because none of it was a problem during the Clinton years. And back then O'Reilly was not even saying it as. What O'Reilly and the right are doing now is spinning the idea that social programs for the poor are the problem, to try and get those programs cut or killed.

When the real problem is the Bush tax cuts, spending on wars, tax loopholes for the wealthy and the corporations, too low tax rates for the wealthy, outsourcing of jobs, and money going to Congressman and Senators from the wealthy and the corporations to legally bribe them to keep these unfair laws in place. O'Reilly does not mention any of that, which makes him a joke, a hack, and a partisan right-wing liar.

Newt Gingrich Sticks Foot In Mouth Again
By: Steve - August 25, 2011 - 9:00am

How do such so-called smart people say such stupid things and get away with it. Gingrich does this kind of stuff over and over, and he is still in the race. Even though he has to know he can not win, the only explanation is he is doing it to get more famous and more wealthy.

Because I am sure there are a lot of far-right fools that believe the garbage he puts out, just as they believe the garbage Bachmann puts out. The latest mistake from Gingrich is calling for Dodd-Frank to be repealed, because he claims it is killing the baking industry, as they are making record profits.

Gingrich has taken up the fight against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, telling anybody who will listen that it must be repealed. Last night on Sean Hannity's show, he even went so far as to say that Dodd-Frank is "killing the banking industry" and offered it's repeal as one of his top ideas for job creation:
GINGRICH: They oughta come back in and repeal the Dodd-Frank bill that's killing the banking industry now. I met today with people in Thai community in Los Angeles, people in the Korean community, people in the Chinese community.

In two of the three communities, they thought that the Dodd-Frank bill was killing local banks, killing small business, crippling the housing industry.
It's unclear how Gingrich thinks a law that hasn't even been fully implemented could already be killing one of the most powerful industries in the country, but he is hardly alone among his partisans in claiming that regulations are too tough on poor Wall Street.

Just a few years short years after the nation's biggest banks helped bring down the global economy, due in large part to lax and dysfunctional regulation, most Republicans now oppose any efforts to further reign in large financial institutions.

Some, like Gingrich, want to roll back regulations that existed even before the financial colllape - Sarbanes–Oxley was implemented in response to the Enron and other major corporate accounting scandals - while Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), goes much further, suggesting in his 2010 book that all banking regulations are unconstitutional.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has also called for a full repeal of Dodd-Frank, while Mitt Romney, a former financial services executive, decried "the level of over-regulation and burden which has been placed on the financial services and likened bank regulators to gargoyles."

The facts show that the Dodd-Frank law is not killing the banking industry. In fact, bank profits rose substantially in the first quarter of the year, with banks showing the biggest profits since before the recession.

The only top-tier bank to have a rough second quarter was the nation's largest, Bank of America, which has been dragged down in part by its acquisition of investment house Merril Lynch - a move that, ironically, would not have been allowed under the Glass–Steagall Act, the repeal of which Gingrich spearheaded as House Speaker in the 90s.

The Tuesday 8-23-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 24, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is Obama really responsible for the bad economy? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night we had a very lively debate with Wayne Rogers and Ben Stein about President Obama's role in a dismal economy. Mr. Stein believes the President is a 'positive,' while Mr. Rogers says the President is 'neutral,' that Congress is most responsible for the out-of-control spending.

I disagree - President Obama clearly sets the tone and the stats are grim. Since he took office, the national debt has increased by $4 trillion in just two-and-a-half years. If Mr. Obama's spending jag continues, he would run up almost $13 trillion in debt if he serves two terms, nearly three times what President Bush did.

The President tried to get out of the recession by spending tax dollars the nation didn't have. Not only did unemployment get worse, but the massive debt is now a crisis.

So how on Earth can you not hold him accountable? One big problem Mr. Obama has is selecting bad advisors, and here's an example: The CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, was selected by Mr. Obama to chair his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Now we find out that GE is launching a joint venture with China worth $2 billion to build airliners that will compete against Boeing. GE is helping China compete against America while its boss heads the President's council on competitiveness. Insane? I believe so.
So O'Reilly had Rogers and Stein on (both Republicans) and they say Congress is to blame for all the spending, and what does O'Reilly do, the next night (after they are gone) he decides they are wrong and says Obama is to blame. Really? Why even have guests on to give their opinion, just do the show by yourself jerk.

And what O'Dummy fails to mention is most of that $4 trillion in debt is from programs funded under Bush, the Bush wars, and the Bush tax cuts. Obama has only added about $1 trillion to the debt, not $4 trillion. So O'Reilly is a liar, who adds Bush debt to the Obama debt count, it's biased, and it dishonest.

Then Karl Rove was on to address reports that he is not a fan of Rick Perry, Rove said this: "I helped convince him to become a Republican in 1989, and I handled his first two campaigns. But Fox pays me to be an analyst and I thought it did not help Governor Perry's cause to accuse Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke of being 'almost treasonous.' But I'm going to be working zealously for whomever the Republican candidate is."

Returning for a second segment, Karl Rove discussed President Obama's handling of the Libya situation, saying this: "I think he handled it adequately. He did a courageous thing by actually engaging in this - after all, this was a guy who condemned his predecessor's emphasis on democracy in the Middle East. But I think he moved too slowly and we should have used slightly more American force. We've had these planes flying for six months; if we could have gotten it done in two months it would have cost us a lot less."

Then O'Reilly had the far-right Obama hating jerk and Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on with his evaluation of the operation to remove Muammar Qaddafi. Peters said this: "I think President Obama is the worst president since James Buchanan, but fair is fair, and by dumb luck or by planning he got Libya just about right. Six months was pretty quick for this sort of thing, we had no casualties, and this was about as good as war gets. It's a very good thing that the rebels feel they did this themselves. Libya will be tumultuous and messy for years, but it's better than Qaddafi."

Some of the Obama critics are comparing President Obama to Jimmy Carter, including O'Reilly, so Billy asked Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley to assess the fairness of that comparison. Crowley said this: "President Obama would be lucky to be Jimmy Carter, because his presidency has been so much worse. Carter was a misguided guy whose policies led to high unemployment, high inflation, and high gas prices, but they were temporary. This guy's policies are much more permanent and that's what makes him much more dangerous."

Colmes downplayed the significance of President Obama's 42% approval rating, saying this: "Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan, at his lowest ebb, was at 35%, and George H.W. Bush was at 74% at this point in his presidency and he lost the election. I'm hopeful that the economy is going to get better."

Trial lawyers are raising money to attack Republican Rick Perry, who has championed tort reform in Texas. Legal analysts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle spoke about it. Wiehl said this: "Texas has a great law, which says that if you file a frivolous lawsuit you're going to pay the lawyers fees on both sides. This keeps people from filing those lawsuits that should never be filed in the first place. The lawyers opposing this are wrong and they're feeding into the litigiousness of our society."

Guilfoyle worried that Texas may be discouraging legitimate grievances from being heard, saying this: "In spirit this might be a good idea, but in reality it can cause problems because you have the right to a jury trial. Texas law can limit damages for people who suffer serious injuries, people who have lost body parts and have real pain and suffering."

So O'Reilly (the non-legal expert) concluded that the benefits of tort reform outweigh any potential downside, saying this: "The system is out of control and doctors are leaving the medical profession because they can't afford to pay the insurance premiums. I want this tort reform."

And finally in the last segment while touring China this week, Vice President Biden said he has no problem with that country's one-child policy. But Charles Krauthammer has a problem with Biden, saying this: "The Vice President should never say I understand about a policy that immoral. This administration simply refuses to speak out on the basic moral issues on which all Americans are united. The number of forced abortions in China and the misery and the torture people have felt is simply outrageous. For the Vice President to say he understands is to betray our values."

Earth to Krauthammer, it's China fool, it is not our values, it is their values, and they have a right to do whatever they want in their country, jerk.

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

Fellow Republican Slams Bachmann Over $2 Gas Claims
By: Steve - August 24, 2011 - 10:00am

Even some Republicans are slamming the crazy Michele Bachmann over her insane claim that if she is President she can get gas down to $2 a gallon. Especially her stooge friends at Fox, like O'Reilly, who never said a word about her ridiculous claim.

Last week, Michele Bachmann said she could get gas prices below $2 a gallon. Experts said the only way that would happen is if we went back into a deep recession, which of course might well happen if the Tea Party extremist became president and enforced her slash and burn policies.

So on Sunday, Jon Huntsman, who continues to play the role of truth teller in the race, mocked Bachmann for her voodoo economics on ABC's This Week, saying this:
"I just don't know what world that comment would come from, you know? We live in the real world. It's grounded in reality. And gas prices just aren't going to rebound like that."

"But just as we are in a static world, that is completely unrealistic. And, again, it's talking about things that, you know, may pander to a particular group or sound good at the time, but it just simply is not founded in reality."
And I will predict that Huntsman just killed any chance he had to win the nomination, because if another Republican dares to tell the truth about one of their own. They usually kick him to the curb instead of praising him, they dump him, so he is most likely done.

Spider-Man Writer Calls Glenn Beck An Idiot!
By: Steve - August 24, 2011 - 9:00am

This year, Marvel Comics announced that multi-racial Miles Morales would be the new man behind Spider-man's red and blue mask in Ultimate Spider-Man.

So right on cue, all the right-wing racists went into a rage against the idea of a biracial hero. Especially Glenn Beck, who slammed Marvel comics, calling Spiderman "a stupid comic book" and attributed the change as an intentional nod to Michelle Obama's apparent agenda to change our traditions.

So not only is he a far-right racist, he is an idiot who pulls Michele Obama into the story, when she had nothing to do with it.

So in response to the jerk Beck, Ultimate Spider-Man writer Brian Michael Bendis found reason to celebrate, saying this:
"We pissed off Glenn Beck, and that was amazing. I don't think Glenn Beck is an idiot because he's a conservative.

I literally think he's just an idiot. Regardless of his belief system, he's just a lunatic. So that was hilarious.

I told my wife that she doesn't have to get me anything for my birthday because nothing will make me happier than this made me."
And once again Glenn Beck proves that he is a jerk of a racist right-wing idiot. He even says he is not a racist, so if that's true, why in the hell does he have a problem with the multi-racial Miles Morales.

If Beck was not a racist, he would have no problem with it. I am not a racist, and I see no problem with Miles Morales being multi-racial.

The Monday 8-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 23, 2011 - 11:00am

Take note of this folks, in his first show back after his week long vacation O'Reilly had 7 Republican guests, to 0 Democratic guests. But while he was gone Ingraham and Crowley had a far more balanced guest list then he does. And he is the guy who says he personally makes sure the guest list is balanced, haha, what a frigging joke.

The TPM was called: Obama, the economy and vacation. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: You may remember that left-wing partisans hammered President Bush every August because he vacationed at his ranch in Texas. Now we have criticism from the right directed at President Obama, who is relaxing with his family on Martha's Vineyard.

Fair-minded Americans understand that presidents deserve down time with their families and these guys do work on vacation. And here's the no spin upside - it's absolutely better for all of us if President Obama stays out of economic matters for a while. Mr. Obama and his economic advisers are on the wrong side of the issues, so if he's golfing I'm happy.

Most Americans understand the problem - a recent Gallup poll says 71% of us believe the President is doing a poor job managing the economy, while just 26% say he's doing a good job. But still we have guys like billionaire Warren Buffett, who wants more taxes on wealthy Americans and investors. Perhaps like his namesake Jimmy, ol' Warren is spending some time in Margaritaville.
Boy O'Reilly sure has a funny memory, because I do not remember the far-left hammering Bush every August for going on vacation. What the far-left did was hammer Bush for taking a vacation a few times when the country was in bad shape. They did not do it every year as O'Reilly claims.

O'Dummy said this: "Mr. Obama and his economic advisers are on the wrong side of the issues." Yeah well that is his opinion, and if Bush had not left the country in such bad shape Obama would look much better, because his policies did not cause the problems, and in fact, have made things better. O'Reilly is just blaming it all on Obama because he is a partisan right-wing hack, when most of it was caused by Bush.

Then O'Reilly had Wayne Rogers and economist/author Ben Stein to critique the Talking Points Memo. Stein said this: "Almost every part of it is wrong. I don't think President Obama caused the recession, he did not cause the prolongation of the recession, and he is not causing the enormously problematic debt."

Wow, for once I agree with the Republican Ben Stein, it's a miracle. And what's even a bigger miracle is that he disagrees with O'Dummy.

Rogers said this: "I don't think he has much control. He makes innumerable speeches and some of those are just wasted because he doesn't influence anyone. The budget and laws and regulations come out of the Congress, not from the President."

Then Stein talked about tax rates, saying that the rich should pay far more than they do now: "We had the highest economic growth in the 40's, 50's, and 60's when we had much higher taxes than now. Why are you against raising taxes on the rich? It would raise tens of billions of dollars and we need the revenue desperately."

So O'Reilly (the non-economist partisan spin doctor) told Stein that raising taxes would hurt the economy because "businesses would hire fewer people to make up for the higher tax rates."

Then Ben Stein said all that is bull, and if he can prove it he will eat O'Reilly's shoe. As of Tuesday O'Reilly has not proven anything, and I can almost guarantee Stein will never be eating that shoe. Because O'Reilly is wrong, and he can not prove anything. In fact, Bill Clinton has proven that liberal policies can work, and that raising taxes on the wealthy works too. A fact that O'Reilly ignores.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham entered were on to grade the President's economic performance. Williams said this: "President Obama's influence is neutral to positive. When he took office we were in a recession and we are now in a recovery that is fragile. He's been creating jobs since he's been in office."

And all of that is dead right, but the partisan hack O'Reilly will never admit it, or give Obama credit for what he has done, as in save us from a depression, and create jobs every month after Bush almost destroyed the country.

Then of course the partisan right-wing loon Mary K. Ham expressed a far, far different opinion, saying this: "It's pretty clear that unemployment is higher and we paid a trillion dollars for it to go up. The idea of the Obama campaign is that 'it could have been worse,' but that's a hard thing to sell."

After O'Dummy tried to slam Williams logic and math, Juan offered this advice: "I want you and Mary Katharine to get out of Margaritaville and come back to reality. We are no longer in a recession, we are in a recovery! We need to spend more money and we need to increase taxes on the very rich."

Wow, for once Juan actually made sense and sounded like a real Democrat. And btw, Obama did not spend a trillion dollars, it was $787 billion, an amount which the Republicans never get right. They also never admit it saved the country from a depression, and got the 750,000 job losses a month under Bush, to a positive job gain every month. O'Reilly and all his dishonest right-wing friends always seem to ignore that, and never give Obama credit for what he did.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing analyst Reva Bhalla on to talk about the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi's four-decade reign of terror coming to an end. And of course neither one of them gave Obama any credit for it, all they did was slam him. O'Dummy even praised NATO and the Libyan rebels for ousting a villain, saying this: "Lots of people in both parties were against the action, but having Qaddafi gone is an overall plus for the entire world."

But never gave Obama any credit at all, and you know if it happened under Bush O'Reilly would have given him all the credit. Not to mention, nobody from the left was on to discuss it, so it was a biased one sided garbage segment.

Then O'Reilly (who said we should not hammer Obama for taking a vacation in the TPM) had the Factor producer Jesse Watters on to hammer Obama for taking a vacation. What an idiot, just 30 minutes ago he said do not slam Obama for a vacation, then he has a producer on to slam him. Me thinks O'Reilly should up his meds, because he is losing it. He disagrees with himself in the very same show.

Then O'Reilly cried about Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel, for when he appeared on The Factor and called guest host Laura Ingraham "just a pretty girl."

What's funny is Bernie Goldberg actually took Ingraham to task for badgering Rangel. saying this: "When did we become such sissies, that something like this becomes a big deal? Laura is lucky that's all he said about her. There ought to be a rule on these shows - the host asks a question and then shuts the hell up and lets the guest answer it. But a lot of times the host has an agenda and wants to make a speech."

Wow, it's really a miracle, I agreed with a Republican two times in one show.

But of course O'Dummy defended Ingraham's questioning, saying "you have to interrupt when you ask a question if the person deflects or lies."

Goldberg turned to a study that examined bias on the network news programs. "The study found, that journalists at NBC, CBS and ABC identified 'conservatives' in their stories twenty times more often than they identified 'liberals.' They identify conservatives because to liberal journalists conservatives are out of the mainstream and their views are dangerous. This proves beyond any doubt that there's a liberal bias in the media."

Wrong, it just means they reported more stories about conservatives, so they were mentioned more times. What an idiot, it does not prove anything beyond a doubt. NBC, ABC, and CBS, are barely biased at all, in fact, when I watch them I see no bias, none. What it does prove is that Goldberg and O'Reilly are right-wing loons that will say anything to try and make the media look liberal.

And finally the Factor Reality Check, which is so laughable I do not even report on it. The whole segment is a joke, it's O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on what some liberal said, that's not a reality check, and it's not even close, it's just his biased opinion of what they said.

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

Will Ben Stein Have To Eat O'Reilly's Shoe?
By: Steve - August 23, 2011 - 10:00am

And the answer to that is no. Because O'Reilly can not prove his economic theory. So Ben Stein is right, and he will never eat that shoe.

On the Monday 8-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Ben Stein said he would eat O'Reilly's shoe if he could prove his economic theroy, that you can not tax the rich and create jobs, etc. Even though that is exactly what Bill Clinton did, here is what O'Dummy said:

This sums up O'reilly and everything he stands for perfectly. He knows the propaganda and right-wing talking points that he promotes on a nightly basis is wrong, but this is how his pockets are lined, so he is on board 100 percent.

In his mind it is wrong to tax people that make over a million dollars a year, because he is one of them. And he is a Republican who had the no new taxes spin drilled into his head for 60 years, and he probably believes it.

The problem is, none of it is true but he will never admit it. And Ben Stein just punked him, with no proof from O'Reilly that his theory works.

Bill Burton Gives Karl Rove A Much Needed Reality Check
By: Steve - August 23, 2011 - 9:00am

Now it's about damn time someone said this to Rove on tv, because I have been saying it for 2.5 years in my blog.

Former Obama White House spokesman Bill Burton had some sharp words for Karl Rove during their debate on Fox News Sunday. After a long rant from Rove attacking Obama on the economy, Burton shot back, saying this:
"As someone who was a leader in the White House that turned a record surplus into a deficit, that got us in a war that we never should have been in, and turned the floor of the New York Stock Exchange into a casino - I don't think the American people are quite ready to hear a lecture from you on good governance."
{Golf clap, Golf clap) Good job Bill, it's about time someone told Rove to shut the hell up, especially when his crew cause the whole mess we have now. I just wonder why more people do not give Rove a reality check, oh yeah, because Rove almost never goes on any show with a guest, so there is no way anyone can give him what he deserves. It's called being a gutless coward.

Fox Viewers Most Worried About Weapon For Alien Invasion
By: Steve - August 22, 2011 - 10:00am

Now this may be the funniest thing I have ever heard of, and it clearly shows that Fox viewers are just stupid. Because a poll on the Megyn Kelly website said the Fox viewers who took the poll want to develop a weapon to kill aliens more then they care about an increase of efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

Which is just insane, because how do you develop a weapon to kill an alien when you do not know what would kill them. Maybe a simple shotgun blast would kill them, who knows. Not to mention, it's crazy to even think such a thing because we do not even have any proof that aliens are real, or that any of them will ever come to planet earth.

Here is what happened. A new so-called NASA-funded study speculating that aliens may attack humans over climate change had all the ingredients for a perfect Fox News controversy - it bolstered their anti-science narrative, painted their opponents as clownish radicals, and highlighted wasteful government spending on a supposedly liberal casue.

Fox reported the so-called news from NASA several times on Friday, presenting it as official taxpayer funded research. A chyron on Fox and Friends read: "NASA: Global warming may provoke an [alien] attack."

But as Business Insider pointed out, they're wrong - That report was not funded by NASA. It was written by an independent group of scientists and bloggers. One of those happens to work at NASA.

NASA distanced itself from the report as well, calling reports linking the agency to it not true. Host Megyn Kelly finally corrected the record Friday afternoon, saying, "I was making that up."

But before she did, she was so amused by the study that she directed her viewers to complete a poll on her website which asked how we should respond to the study:
"Immediately increase efforts to curb greenhouse gases, Develop weapons to kill the Aliens FIRST, or Gently suggest scientists research how to create jobs."
Not surprisingly, more than six times as many respondents (19 percent to 3 percent) said we should focus on building weapons to kill aliens before curbing greenhouse gases.

The poll is of course not scientific, but you can hardly blame the viewers who did respond, considering Fox's constant misinformation about climate change. For instance, as she presented the poll, Kelly said of curbing climate change, just in case, right? - as in, just in case the science is right. But she did not make a similar qualifier for an alien invasion.

Numerous studies consistently show that Fox viewers are among the most misinformed of news viewers, while at least one study has shown that perversely watching Fox actually makes people less informed than they were to begin with.

What is even more scary than the Fox viewers falling for this alien invasion nonsense, is that most of them can probably vote, and most of them probably do.

Crazy Bachmann Gets It Wrong On The Soviet Union
By: Steve - August 22, 2011 - 9:00am

Remember this folks, the insane Michele Bachmann wants to be the President, and the Republicans have her in the top 3 for the GOP nomination, which may be even scarier then her running for President.

And now she is wrong again on basic history and the Soviet Union. Just this week, she wished Elvis Presley a happy birthday, on the day he died. But last Thursday, on the right-wing Christian attorney Jay Sekulow's radio show, she showed a far more disturbing lack of basic knowledge about world history. Specifically, Bachmann said the American people are worried about the rise of the Soviet Union. I kid you not, she actually said that.

I guess nobody has told her that America's one-time Cold War nemesis has not existed for 20 years:
BACHMANN: What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward.

And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he’ll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we’re fighting three wars. People recognize that.
Earth to Michele Bachmann, there is no Soviet Union, it's gone, done, ended. In December of 1991, the Soviet Union changed into 15 separate countries. And it's really hard to believe that the American people live in fear of an evil empire that no longer exists.

Monica Crowley Ignores The Bush Economic Disaster
By: Steve - August 21, 2011 - 10:00am

During a discussion about the economy when it was mentioned that Bush caused most of the problems we have now, Monica Crowley, who was filling in for O'Reilly, basically said yadda yadda. And then blamed it all on Obama.

Bush drove the economy off a cliff because he had no idea how the stock market worked, or what a sub-prime mortgage was, and she thinks Obama can waive a magic wand and correct it overnight, Unreal.

I guess she never heard that the credit markets were frozen, or that AIG declared bankruptcy, or that Lehman Brothers went belly up. And that it all happened under Bush, or that economic disasters this bad are not fixed in 2 years.

In fact, some people say Bush and the Republicans let a lot of this happen on purpose, to force the next president to make drastic cuts to big social programs, like social security and medicare.

And that is possible, but I do not believe that. I think it happened because Bush was stupid, and mostly he just did what Cheney told him, and the rest of it is because the Republicans only care about the wealthy.

More Facts On Those Texas Jobs Perry Talks About
By: Steve - August 21, 2011 - 9:00am

And as I like to point out, even though I am repeating myself, O'Reilly and the other right-wing stooges at Fixed News never report any of this information. And btw folks, notice that O'Reilly and the other Fox stooges never talk about all the crazy things Rick Perry has said, as they praise him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Rick Perry (R-TX), has paraded around the stat that since June of 2009, Texas is responsible for more than 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in America.

Saying this: "Now think about that. We're home to less than 10 percent of the population in America, but 40 percent of all the new jobs were created in that state."

Without saying how the stat leaves out a lot of the story. The number comes out different depending on whether one compares Texas to all states or just to states that are adding jobs. Between 2008 and 2010, jobs actually grew at a faster pace in Massachusetts than in Texas.

In fact, Texas has done worse than the rest of the country since the peak of national unemployment in October 2009.

The unemployment rate in Texas has been steadily increasing since the recession, and went from 7.7 to 8.2 percent while the state was supposedly creating 40 percent of all the new jobs in the U.S.

How is this possible you ask. The fact of the matter is that looking purely at job creation misses a key point, namely that Texas has also experienced some very rapid population and labor force growth. When this is taken into account, the Texas job creation looks decidedly far less impressive.

While over 126,000 net jobs were created in Texas over the last two and a half years, the labor force expanded by over 437,000, meaning that overall Texas has added unemployed workers at a rate much faster than it has created jobs.

And although states like Michigan have lost jobs (29,200 since February 2009), the state's labor force has shrunk by over 185,000 since then. As a result, while there are fewer jobs, there are far less workers looking for them.

As Paul Krugman put it, "several factors underlie Texas rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular. But they have little to do with Perry's policies.

Now that certainly does not make the situation in Michigan a good one, as contraction of the labor force is one side effect of the prolonged recession and unemployment there is still 10.6 percent.

But if there is a real miracle here somewhere, it's in North Dakota, which has seen over 27,000 new jobs and a labor force expansion of only 3,700, resulting in about 24,000 new jobs for workers who previously had none. But no one is proclaiming the North Dakota miracle and saying that Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R-ND) should be running for President.

Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is taking issue with the Texas miracle story that Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is selling. Rangel told reporters that Perry's record of job creation is nothing to be proud of because the jobs pay such low wages that "it's one stage away from slavery."

And a review of Perry's track record shows this: "Texas has one of the highest percentages of workers who are paid the minimum wage and receive no medical benefits."

Perry has also presided over a steady, decade-long decline in his state's employment to population ratio. He inherited a ratio of more than 47 percent from George W. Bush, but now only 43.5 percent of Texans have a job, compared to 44.7 percent of the total U.S. population.

The Friday 8-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 20, 2011 - 11:00am

Their was no TPM because the far-right/Obama hating Monica Crowley filled in for O'Reilly. Crowley started the show talking about the economy with the far-right Charles Krauthammer. And my God did the two of them spin like a top.

Krauthammer said this: "It's rather pathetic for a President to go around whining and complaining about events, because dealing with events is what a leader does. Obama had a very specific design for the American economy - a trillion-dollar stimulus which left not a trace, the heavy hand of Obamacare, and a blanket of regulation that has basically shut down our energy industry."

Now that is some big time right-wing spin, and lies. To begin with, the stimulus was not a trillion dollars, it was $787 million, so Krauthammer lied about that. And it sure did leave a trace, it saved the country from going into a depression, it changed the job losses of 750,000 a month into job gains every month, and it also saved the financial markets, not to mention the DOW went up to over 12,000.

So almost every word Krauthammer said was a lie. And he also never mentions that Bush cause almost all of it, at least 85 percent, to blame it all on Obama. When Obama was handed most of these problems, he did not create them, Bush did. Then the crazy Crowley said "this administration has spent us into a Keynesian coma."

Which is just ridiculous, because the money Obama has spent in 2.5 years is only about 12 percent of our debt, the other 88 percent was spent by Bush on the Bush tax cuts and wars. But Crowley never says a word about that, or the fact that Bush cause 90% of the mess we have now.

Then Crowley had Karl Rove on to talk about Rick Perry, which I will not report on, he said Perry is great etc.

Then Crowley had two Democrats on, Michael Meehan and Democratic pollster Margie Omero. Meehan said this: "The job numbers are in rough shape, and the trouble is that corporate America is sitting on a bunch of cash and they're not willing to hire. The President's opponents say he shouldn't be tinkering with the private sector to create jobs, but then they want to blame him when there aren't enough jobs. We spent the summer having a false fight when the Tea Party decided to have an argument about the debt ceiling."

Omero said this: "The American people see a real difference between blame and responsibility - more people blame President Bush and Wall Street than President Obama. They feel President Obama was genuinely trying to put politics aside in the debt debate."

Then Crowley talked about the Obama administration saying it will end deportation proceedings against some illegal immigrants. And of course Crowley was outraged, and put her right-wing spin on it. But immigration attorney Susan Church told the truth about the President's action, saying this: "This only applies to a small number of immigrants, and no one with any criminal history whatsoever will be included. There's a very small category of people who are eligible for this relief."

Then Crowley had Geraldo on to talk about an Islamic extremist who has called for the murder of David Letterman because the late-night comic joked about an Al Qaeda leader killed in Afghanistan. Geraldo said this: "This is way serious. When this anonymous web poster calls for people to be martyrs, you can never tell what kind of lone wolf might think it's a great idea to do something. So they are right to take this very seriously because you never can tell how this can be ignited, and I hear Letterman's security is being beefed up as a result."

And finally in the last segment Crowley asked about Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who has denounced black teens who are organizing flash mobs to rob and assault victims. Philadelphia columnist Annette John-Hall, who criticized Mayor Nutter's speech was on to discuss it.

John-Hall said this: "I don't have an issue with what he said, but I had an issue with the timing. We've been having this 'flash mob' problem since last summer, but it was only when the violence infiltrated into center city where people dine and, frankly, where white tourists come, that the Mayor felt compelled to go into a church and admonish a whole group of black teens. Why wasn't he doing this last summer, and why doesn't he do this when young black men are shot every single day in neighborhoods in this city?"

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots, that is a total waste of tv time and should be stopped.

O'Reilly & Fox Use Weatherman For Global Warming Reporting
By: Steve - August 20, 2011 - 10:00am

Not only does O'Reilly and most of Fixed News use the (Weatherman) Joe Bastardi to claim Global Warming is a fraud, they try to pass him off as an Independent expert. When he is partisan on the issue, and he is not a climate expert, he is just a weatherman.

O'Reilly, Fixed News, and the Fox Business Network frequently have Joe Bastardi on to comment on climate change. But Bastardi, who is a weather forecaster, not a climate researcher, has made inaccurate claims about climate science on multiple occasions and is not seen by experts as a credible source of climate information.

Bastardi Believes Global Warming Is "An Obvious Fraud" Bastardi has discussed Climate Change on Fox at least 18 times over the past 2 years. Bastardi often appears on Fox to report on weather events but he has also commented on the issue of global climate change at least 7 times on Fox News and at least 11 times on the Fox Business Network since September 2009.

Including 3 times on the O'Reilly Factor:
The O'Reilly Factor, 9/09/09
The O'Reilly Factor, 2/22/10
The O'Reilly Factor, 4/28/11
On August 8, 2011 Bastardi wrote this in a blog posting:
BASTARDI: How do these people have any credibility? How do they get away with this? It's mind boggling that its gotten to a point where the EPA is dictating policy based on what is an obvious fraud, or if you want to be gentle about it, creates enough doubt to back off.
And this was after Bastardi admitted he is not a spokesman on the global warming issue. Bastardi wrote in a September 2009 letter that "I am not, nor do I seek, to be a spokesman on the AGW [anthropogenic global warming] issue. I will however take a stand when called upon, on what I believe to be true."

Bastardi claimed "We can't know till after the period that is coming up through 2030 whether co2 is really a player or not."

O'Reilly even cited Bastardi as a reason why he is "skeptical about all this stuff." Even though Bastardi is not a climate expert on global warming.

From a December 7, 2009 O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Look, I want a cleaner planet. I've always said that I think you do. I think most people watching us do. But I'm skeptical about all this stuff.

I got Joe Bastardi, who I think is the best weather forecaster in the country and State College, Pennsylvania telling me, hey, there has -- just as you said, there hasn't been any warming for 12 or 13 years.

I'm looking at the scientists argue back and forth. I'm looking at the scandal. Don't have any dissenting views on this out of England. And I'm going you know, this doesn't feel right.
From a December 1, 2009 discussion between Bill O'Reilly and John Stossel on the so-called "Climategate" controversy:
O'REILLY: So they didn't want to give the actual hard data on warming? You know, our pal Joe Bastardi of AccuWeather down in Pennsylvania thinks it's all bogus. He thinks there hasn't been a warming trend since 1998 in the world. Does this prove that Bastardi is on to something?

STOSSEL: This doesn't, but clearly he's on to something. There hasn't been warming for the past 11 years.
On both the July 4, 2011 edition of Fox & Friends and the August 6, 2011 edition of Fox & Friends, Bastardi claimed manmade global warming is undermined by the fact that the human contribution of CO2 is small compared to the amount of natural CO2.

Bastardi was wrong, because as the Congressional Research Service explains, the release of CO2 from fossil fuel use causes the otherwise balanced carbon cycle to overflow into the atmosphere:
"Humans tap the huge pool of fossil carbon for energy, and affect the global carbon cycle by transferring fossil carbon--which took millions of years to accumulate underground--into the atmosphere over a relatively short time span.

As a result, the atmosphere contains approximately 35% more CO2 today than prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution."
Scientists say Bastardi's claims are completely wrong, scientifically incorrect, and nonsense.

Kerry Emanuel: "Bastardi's Background Is In Weather Forecasting, Not Climate Science."

Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote this about it:
I might point out that Bastardi's background is in weather forecasting, not climate science. Asking him to comment on the science of climate change is like asking a country doctor to comment on the latest developments in biomedical research.
Presented with statements by Bastardi from multiple Fox appearances, Keith Seitter, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society stated this: "I have not seen Mr. Bastardi on these programs, but I have read some of his quotes, and several components of his claims are scientifically incorrect."

Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology said this: "Fox News Needs To Find A More Credible Spokesperson On Climate Science."

On 8-16-11 She wrote this:
He is a private sector meteorologist. His clients can judge whether or not he is good at forecasting the weather (he probably does a credible job).

However, when it comes to science and climate change, his public statements on the subject imply to me that he does not understand the very basics of the science. His statement regarding carbon dioxide and the first law of thermodynamics is a particular whopper.

His only academic credential is a B.S. in Meteorology from Penn State in 1978. Fox News needs to find a more credible spokesperson.
Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography stated of Bastardi: "I do not see where he has any credentials to make the statements he makes. No evidence of scientific papers, etc. His arguments are vague and not possible to pin down, e.g. mumbling about sun spots causing warming/cooling, etc."

Richard Muller, professor of physics and a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory said that Bastardi's August 6 claims on Fox News are "completely wrong," adding that "even skeptics of global warming, if they know physics, would disagree with him."

Explicitly, humans contribute essentially 100% of the excess CO2. He is confusing the total upward CO2 flux with the yearly increase. Muller added that other statements made on different occasions by Bastardi are "equally bad."

In a point-by-point rebuttal to multiple statements made in the past by Bastardi, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt used the words "nonsense, simply ignorant, completely wrong, very odd, and based on nothing."

Schmidt concluded that presenting Bastardi as an expert on climate change is "about as credible as someone claiming to be an expert on the Greenland ice sheet because they eat ice cream."

And yet, this is the man O'Reilly and most of Fixed News picked to de-bunk Global Warming. That alone shows that they have a right-wing bias on the issue, by having Bastardi on.

Including O'Reilly who has said in the past he believes in Global Warming. Then he has a discredited partisan hack of a local weatherman on to disprove it. Which not only destroys the credibility Bastardi has, it also destroys any credibility O'Reilly might have had on the issue. Because an honest journalist would never use Bastardi for Global Warming information.

Don Imus Calls Eric Bolling An Empty Suit
By: Steve - August 20, 2011 - 9:00am

Imus, who is a Republican that works for the Fox Business Network had Bob Beckel on his morning radio show on Thursday, and he told Beckel that Bolling is an empty suit.

Imus said this: "I See Eric Bolling On The Five -- Man, That's An Empty Suit, Isn't It?"

So even a fellow Republican who works at Fox knows that Eric Bolling is an idiot. But of course if a Democrat said that about Bolling, O'Reilly would slam them and say he is just a partisan who hates him because he is a Republican.

The Thursday 8-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 19, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right spin doctor Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly. Ingraham had a top story segment on wall street. She asked Wall Street Journal columnist Kelly Evans to comment on Morgan Stanley's warning that the U.S. economy is on the verge of a recession.

Evans said this: "Morgan Stanley has been one of the more optimistic firms on the street," Evans reported, "so to a lot of investors this wasn't just someone who is perennially bearish issuing another yellow flag. They're saying the economy looks at or near a recession, and they're not just talking about the U.S., they're talking worldwide."

Fox News business analyst Tobin Smith said this: "We have not fallen off a cliff, but we are at stall speed right now. This August meltdown in the stock market takes the top 20% of income earners, who do all the discretionary purchasing, and puts them back on their heels. So you're going to see a slow August and September."

Then Laura had Frank Newport of Gallup on to talk about the Obama poll numbers, Newport said this: "The key number for President Obama, is his overall approval rating of 40%. A president wants to have about 50% to be reelected, so he would like to be about ten points higher than where he is now. Right now consumer confidence is terrible and the American public is saying we're in bad shape."

Then Laura had Democratic pollster Bernard Whitman on, who said this: "The President needs to get out of Washington, and talk about his job creation plan, which is extending the payroll tax holiday and cutting regulation. He should talk about streamlining the patent approval process and getting his free trade agreements passed."

Whitman also blamed our current economic situation on the Tea Party. "Republicans in Congress are held hostage by the Tea Party, and they would refuse to pass any legislation that has an ounce of revenue increases."

Then Laura had Ed Henry and Carl Cameron on to talk politics. Henry talked about the Obama vacation, and of course Ingraham said he should not be taking a vacation.

Then Cameron said this: "Perry has had a rough couple of days in New Hampshire - he got mixed reviews from a business group and then he ran into a group of Democratic activists who were demonstrating against him. Bachmann is in South Carolina trying to capitalize on the momentum of her big win in the Iowa straw poll. She has promised that gas prices will be under $2 a gallon if she wins the presidency, which will be hard to keep, and there are accusations that her security force has been too rough on reporters."

Then Laura had Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel on to respond to the statement by Republican Allen West that the Democratic party is a 21st century plantation where the Democrat Party has forever taken the black vote for granted.

Rangel said this: "I'm really surprised at Congressman West, who went back to Harriet Tubman, an historic figure during slavery. He doesn't come from a political party that can ridicule plantations." Laura reminded Rangel that West's sentiments are echoed by other black intellectuals. "Black conservatives say the 'war on poverty' might have been started with good intentions, but it's been an utter failure. We've seen increasing problems in families and schools and unemployment."

And finally in the last segment Ingraham talked about the richest members of Congress. At the very top of the heap is Texas Republican Congressman Michael McCaul, whose net worth is at least $294 million, while Democrat John Kerry leads the Senate with nearly $200 million.

Why this is news I am not sure, but she did the segment for some reason.

Political reporter Paul Singer reported that Kerry and McCaul have something in common. "McCaul's money is all from his wife," Singer reported, "who is the daughter of the founder of Clear Channel Communications. And John Kerry's money is all his wife's. Most of the wealthy members of Congress made their money the old-fashioned way - they inherited it or they married it."

Then the pinheads and patriots vote.

Another Big Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - August 19, 2011 - 10:00am

On August 12, 2011 Gallup released a new poll on the Congressional elections for 2012, and to what I bet is a shocking result for O'Reilly and the other right-wing stooges at Fox, it shows Democrats leading Republicans, 51% to 44%, in registered voters preferences for which party's candidate they would support in their district if the elections for Congress were being held today.

But if you ask O'Reilly and all his Republican friends, Obama is done and the Democrats are going to get killed in 2012. While also ignoring the fact that in the polls Obama is still beating any Republican who they run against him.

So if Obama is still beating any Republican now, with gas at $3.60 a gallon and a slow economy, how the hell are they going to beat him in 2012 when the economy is expected to be better.

The poll was even conducted Aug. 4-7, after Standard & Poor's downgrading of the U.S. government's credit rating last week. The seven-percentage-point edge for Democratic congressional candidates, contrasts with ties or Republican leads in most Gallup polls leading up to the 2010 midterm elections.

And that's not all, there is some more bad news for the Tea Party. Gallup also asked registered voters how a Tea Party endorsement would affect their likelihood of voting for a congressional candidate.

The effect is nearly 2-to-1 negative, with 42% saying they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate versus 23% saying they would be more likely.

Among registered voters, most Republicans say a Tea Party endorsement would either make them more likely to vote for a candidate (44%) or make no difference (42%), while most Democrats say it would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (66%).

Independents reactions are similar to the national average, with 25% more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party and 38% less likely.

What this means is that the Republican Party will have to deal carefully with the Tea Party. While most Republicans say Tea Party endorsements either make no difference to their vote or increase their likelihood of supporting a candidate, at this point the effect on the (all-important) Independent vote is more negative than positive.

And of course you will never see any of this poll reported by O'Reilly, or Ingraham for that matter, because it destroys their right-wing spin that the people hate Democrats and love the Tea Party.

Both Democratic Wisconsin Senators Win Recall Elections
By: Steve - August 19, 2011 - 9:00am

Both of the Democratic Wisconsin state senators up for recall elections have survived.

The Democrats targeted in Tuesday's election were among the 14 senators who fled the state in February in opposition to Republican Gov. Scott Walker's proposal curbing public employee collective bargaining rights.

Both won in recalls against Republican challengers. Democratic Sen. Bob Wirch of Pleasant Prairie defeated Kenosha attorney Jonathan Steitz. Sen. Jim Holperin of Conover beat tea party Republican Kim Simac of Eagle River.

Republicans still hold majority control of the Senate even with the wins. Democrats knocked off two Republicans in recall elections last month, but not enough to take control.

And of course neither O'Reilly (or Laura Ingraham) said a word about it, even though he said what they did in leaving the state would cost them all their seats in the next election. Not to mention, if they had lost it would have been the top story on the Factor.

But since they both won, it does not even get a mention, let alone a segment to discuss it.

The Wednesday 8-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 18, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right loon Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again. Laura had Dick Morris on to scrutinize Rick Perry's strategy and substance.

Morris said this: "His goal is to get a rise out of Obama, and Obama certainly helped Perry's candidacy by attacking him. On the substance I agree with Governor Perry, who called Fed boss Ben Bernanke 'treasonous' if he floods the system with money. Printing another trillion dollars won't do a thing except debase the currency, and it's about time someone raised the roof over the Fed tripling the money supply."

But even Ingraham advised Perry to choose his words with at least a modicum of caution, saying this: "Even some Republicans have said the Governor is showing that he's a newbie to the campaign trail, and this plays into the stereotype of Texas swagger that Governor Perry wants to get away from."

Then Laura talked about reports that Texans Rick Perry and George W. Bush do not like each other. Laura had James Rosen on who said this: "Governor Perry roiled the old guard Bush loyalists, when he was asked about the surface similarities between himself and President Bush. Governor Perry said, in essence, that we are not all carbon copies in Texas and you can distinguish them because 'he want to Yale and I went to Texas A&M.'

The fact is that there is a somewhat tangled relationship between the two men that is equal parts cooperation and tension. Perry feels like he is the real deal who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and was not given a silver spoon. He is real Texas."

The next segment was about President Obama and his jobs plan for September. Laura was joined by Democratic strategist Chris Hahn, who endorsed the President's tactics, Hahn said this: "You never roll out a new product in the summer, so I think we can wait until September for this Congress to reject what the President is going to propose. Because, let's face it, they are going to reject it. The Republicans don't have ideology anymore, they have theology, and their theology says you can not raise taxes ever! It doesn't matter when he rolls it out or what it is, Republicans will say no."

Hahn even said that President Obama did not make the stimulus big enough: "The stimulus was too small, it should have been $3 trillion, and we should have spent it all on infrastructure."

Then Ingraham had two guests on to talk about sex-ed in New York public schools. Child psychologist Miriam Grossman explained her objection to the program, saying this: "I reviewed the curricula, I read every page, and I concluded that there are serious flaws. Parents who think their children are going to receive a firm, no-nonsense, 'delay sex until you are older' message are in for a surprise. These curricula have loads of green lights for teen sex."

But physician Steven Lamm endorsed the program, saying this: "We've spent $1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs in the United States over the last ten years and we have 750,000 unwanted pregnancies and STDs are going through the roof in women. Many groups that have looked at the abstinence-only program have found that it's not effective."

Then Ingraham had another segment on how the Obama approval has dropped among blacks. And of course she had a Republican black man on to discuss it, with no Democratic black person.

Allen West, the lone Republican member of the Congressional Black Caucus said this: "Unemployment in the black community is 16%, and we have this 21st century plantation where the Democrat Party has forever taken the black vote for granted. There are certain black leaders who are nothing more than overseers of that plantation, and I'm here as kind of a modern-day Harriet Tubman to lead people on the underground railroad away from that plantation and to sensibility."

And finally in the last segment Ingraham claims more violent crimes are being linked to "Operation Fast and Furious," the botched sting under which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Republican Senator John Cornyn was on with his findings. "This operation was started out of the field office in Phoenix, and then spread to Houston, where guns were sold and wound up in the hands of the cartel. This was a boneheaded idea from the very beginning and we have to know who was responsible."

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots.

How Dumb Is Michele Bachmann: Really Dumb
By: Steve - August 18, 2011 - 10:00am

Michele Bachmann gave Elvis Presley, whose songs she uses at her events, happy birthday wishes Tuesday while she was in Spartanburg, S.C.

Unfortunately, Tuesday is the 34th anniversary of the day he died, not the anniversary of his birthday.

Bachmann said this: "Before we get started, let's all say 'Happy Birthday' to Elvis Presley today. You can't do better than Elvis Presley."

I know I am saying a lot here, but this Michele Bachmann might be even dumber than Sarah Palin. And that is saying a lot, because Palin is as dumb as a rock.

The Tea Party Is More Unpopular Than Ever Before
By: Steve - August 18, 2011 - 9:00am

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics. Especially is you listen to O'Reilly and the stooges at Fox.

But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion. Among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic.

The debt ceiling deal has left the Tea Party more disliked than ever, as a recent New York Times poll shows. In April, 2010, 21 percent of Americans approved of the Tea Party while 18 percent disapproved of it. Now, 20 percent approve while a stunning 40 percent disapprove of it.

Ironically, the conservative movement is now more unpopular than two often-marginalized groups it sometimes rails against (Muslims and atheists) and is the least popular of the 23 groups the poll asked about:
The Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about.

It is even less popular than groups like atheists and Muslims. But one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they have a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 (opposing abortion, for example) and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.

And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views:
They seek deeply religious elected officials, approve of religious leaders engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party's generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Bachmann's lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Perry's prayer rally in Houston.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics.

So it makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity. On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. But you will never hear that from O'Reilly, because he is one of them, and he supports them.

The Best E-Mail I Have Ever Seen
By: Steve - August 17, 2011 - 11:30am

Hey Folks, I got this e-mail Tuesday and it is so good I had to share it with everyone. If you want to see a perfect example of a brainwashed and braindead right-wing O'Reilly lover (and how they see things) here it is. This is a direct look into the mind of not only a Republican, but a great example of the kind of people who love O'Reilly.

Subject: your bias-ness
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:35 PM
From: Nora D - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Hi there,

My concern for this website is that you are unfair. You take issues out of context (for ex: Michelle Backman when she said women should be submissive to their husbands. Michelle was quoting the bible. Is there something wrong with that? She is expressing her views which reflect the Bible) and take sarcasm to a whole different level (for ex: Megan Kelly calling O'Reilly a pinhead. It was a joke!! And plus you don't need to attack O'Reilly personally saying that if he had children, he would leave the entire job on his wife. You don't know that- so just don't say it!!)

Second, why don't you star a Count List for how many Democrats Vs. Republicans go on news channels like MSNBC or radio station NPR? These are supposed to be non-bias channels, but are clearly liberal.
During Bush's presidency, MSNBC and CNN constantly attacked and criticized Bush. However now that Obama is president, criticism the right makes turns into a racism. I would like to add Obama is as white as he is black!! Liberal organizations go after Michelle Backman and Sarah Palin. They criticism them personally- Backman with the headaches and Palin with her family.
My point here is you call O'Reilly bias?? FOX News has both Republicans and Democrats on. You hear both sides on every show you watch. Both sides of the story are analyzed.

O'Reilly talks with facts. He backs his information with videos or polls. WHERE IS THE SPIN?? Why don't you look at the facts??

As for your criticism for Laura Ingraham for Obama bus tour... As the economy worsens, Obama should be in his office trying to think of a plan to fix it. He's the president right?? Instead he's out n a bus tour.
In January 2009, Obama said, "If I don't have this (economy) done in 3 years, then there's gonna be a one term proposition." A few weeks ago he said, "When I said 'Change We Can Believe in', I didn't say 'Change We Can Believe in Tomorrow."
So now 3 years turned into tomorrow.

Now you had an article about Michelle Backman wanting to get rid of Unemployment benefits... She right.
1. American doesn't have money to spend. There is a 14 trillion dollar debt. How are we going to pay that back? by raising it??
2. Why should the government be giving money to people who aren't working? First of all, we don't have that money to spend. And second, that SURE ENCOURAGES people to go get a job!! (not!) If you are getting paid not to work, why go work??

As for the rich paying more... If rich people really want to pay more taxes, why don't they grab their paychecks and send a check to government? Why should EVERY rich person who have worked so hard, get taxed more? They have worked hard and got to where they are and instead of being rewarded they are being punished by higher taxes! If they want higher taxes let them donate!

As for Romney and the people issue... Are corporations not made up of people?

Now for the Tea Partier who had a joke about killing Obama... What is it?? And when Bush was president did he not have any of these attacks. Tea Partiers were called "terrorists" EVEN by Joe Biden!!
"We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies' misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: "They have acted like terrorists."
Read more:
The tea party represents a minority of the American people. So now these people are called terrorists for making it impossible to spend money America DOESN'T have!!

Well if you read this far, thanks for your time and patience:) Next time try writing about both sides of the story!!

All I can say to that is wow, this Nora is not only stupid, she is about as mis-informed as a person can get.

Here is just one example, she wants to know why I do not have a Count List for how many Democrats Vs. Republicans go on news channels like MSNBC or radio station NPR?

And the answer is real simple, because the website is about Bill O'Reilly, it's called, and it's about the bias from O'Reilly and others at Fox. The website has nothing to do with MSNBC or NPR. If you want to document the bias at MSNBC or NPR, get a website and do it yourself. My website is about O'Reilly and Fox, so why in the hell would I report on what anyone at MSNBC or NPR is doing?

And O'Reilly has even said he has an equal number of Democrats to Republican guests, he said he personally makes sure the guest list is equal, which is a 100% total flat out lie. Because he has about 7 to 1 Republican guests to Democratic guests, and that is a fact.

As far as I know of, nobody at MSNBC or NPR has EVER said they have an equal number of Democrats to Republican guests.

The Tuesday 8-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 17, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right spin doctor Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again. Ingraham went right to the top story, which is Obama on the road in a bus. Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "He's meeting the people, and he's doing what he should be doing. If he were doing the opposite you'd be asking why he's hiding in the White House. He doesn't have a problem mixing it up with people and talking to people with whom he disagrees."

The far-right loon Monica Crowley said this: "The 'one nation under the bus' tour is not going so well for the President. The bus is all black, it's like going to a funeral, and if you've seen his poll numbers lately it's no wonder that the bus is black. In this exchange with the Tea Party guy he showed that he doesn't have an answer for the vast majority of Americans who have real issues with the vast amount of spending he's done."

Then Ingraham talked about the crazy Rick Perry, that Republicans love btw, with Democratic strategist Dick Harpootlian, who said this: "As this country gets to know Rick Perry, they'll start to know a couple of things about him. The first is that he is a career political opportunist. In the South we see guys like this all the time - usually they're trying to sell you vinyl siding or they want to pave your driveway. He is leading the Republican primary, but this is like watching a midget wrestling match - none of these guys is going to beat Barack Obama in 2012."

The Republican Chris Begala replied with this: "Underestimate this man at your own peril - he is a phenomenal candidate and a fierce competitor. He's driving the left crazy, he knows what he's doing, and he's crazy like a fox. He has created jobs in Texas and he is the classic candidate that many people in this country are looking for."

Wow, Begala is spinning like a top. Perry is a far-right nut who said he would let God fix everything, and he also thinks Medicare and Social Security is unconstitutional. I will predict right now that Perry will not win the GOP nomination, but if somehow he does, he will lose big time to Obama no matter how bad the economy is at the time.

Then Laura had Democratic strategist Jane Fleming Kleeb on, who advised the President to fight for ordinary Americans, saying this: "We need to focus on the middle class. Both parties have stopped valuing the middle class, and it's the middle class and small business that generate jobs and keep the economy going. We have to get serious about tax reform and we have to raise taxes on the top one percent, but the Republican plan is to cut taxes for the wealthy and give more subsidies to big oil."

So then crazy Laura accused liberals of waging class warfare, saying this: "Raising taxes on the rich is the oldest trick in the liberal bag of tricks. That's the only thing you guys have - raise taxes on the rich."

What a joke, it's not the only thing liberals have, they have all kinds of economic plans, the problem is the Republicans in the House keep blocking it. And talk about taxes, the only thing the Republicans have is cutting taxes, which is one of the main reasons we are in the mess we have now.

Then Ingraham had two right-wingers on to slam Obama some more, saying he is losing black voters. Which I will not report on, but I will say this. I bet 95% of the blacks vote for Obama when the election comes up, because they sure as hell are not going to vote for any corporate Republican stooge, no matter who it is or what he lies to them about.

Then Laura had Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl on to talk about the Obama health care rulings. Wiehl said this: "One circuit court says the mandate is constitutional, but another circuit court overruled that part of the law, saying you can not mandate this individual health insurance with private companies. There is a huge split in the circuit courts over this huge issue."

Wow, for once they actually mentioned that one appeals court said it is constitutional, usually they just ignore that fact and only report on the court that said it was not constitutional.

Guilfoyle said this: "President Obama is trying to compel millions of Americans to buy an expensive product from the minute they are born to the day they die. This is unconstitutional and it will go to the Supreme Court."

Hey Guilfoyle, millions of Americans are forced to buy expensive car insurance, but I never heard any of you right-wing jerks cry about that, and it was not ruled unconstitutional. So I predict you will be wrong, just like you were wrong on the Casey Anthony verdict.

And finally in the last segment Laura had some right-wing stooge on to spin the Warren Buffett op-ed on how the rich should pay more in taxes. With no Democratic guest to counter what the right-wing stooge said. She had Curtis Dubay of the conservative Heritage Foundation on to say that Buffett pays 50% in taxes.

Dubay said this: "Buffett's income flows to him after it is taxed at the corporate level, meaning his actual tax rate is closer to 50%."

And that my friends is what you call a LIE, a flat out 100% lie. In his op-ed Buffett himself said he only pays 17% in taxes, so this right-wing stooge Curtis Dubay is lying his ass off.

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots.

Top 10 Reasons You Should Not Vote For Rick Perry
By: Steve - August 17, 2011 - 10:00am

These are right from his own book, and any one of the 10 should cause you to never vote for a far-right nut like Rick Perry, in fact, a lot of this is to the right of most people in the Republican party.

1) The Civil War Was Caused By Slaveowners Trampling On Northern States Rights:

Perry argues that slaveholder activism was an example of big government federal overreach. So he thinks the Government should have never made slavery illegal.

2) Perry called the majority of the duly enacted welfare state and federal regulatory apparatus unconstitutional, Perry complains that the Supreme court too often chooses to take it upon itself to govern and to develop policy. So in his world, every Government social program is unconstitutional, including social security and medicare.

3) Perry Said Al Gore Is Part Of A Conspiracy To Deny The Existence Of Global Cooling:

He argues that moderates oppose curbing greenhouse gas emissions because they know that we have been experiencing a cooling trend.

4) Perry Claims The Federal Education Policy Is Unconstitutional.

5) Perry pretty much thinks everything the Government does is unconstitutional. He said he regrets the existence of jurisprudence construing the Commerce Clause to permit federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, and establishing national labor laws.

6) Perry Also Claims The Consumer Financial Protection Laws Are Unconstitutional. So in his world the financial markets should have nobody watching over them, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

7) Perry also thinks all banking regulations are unconstitutional. Criticizing the Security and Exchange Commission's rulemaking process under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, Perry said that "if the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn't have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn't have control over them in the first place."

8) Perry Said Medicare Is Too Expensive But Must Never Be Cut. Which makes no sense at all, if you think it is too expensive how can you also oppose any cuts to the program.

9) Perry Claims The New Deal Failed To End The Great Depression. Not only does he argue that the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression, he claims the recovery did not come until World War II, when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.

10) Perry Said Social Security Is Evil. According to Perry Social Security is by far the best example of a program violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.

Which may be the most insane thing he has ever said, because without social security millions of Seniors would be homeless and broke. Including my 87 year old Father, who is a WWII veteran, and would have no money to live on without social security.

Beck On Why His Predictions Are Always Wrong
By: Steve - August 17, 2011 - 9:00am

Now get this, on his lame radio show Glenn Beck said the reason his predictions are always wrong is because he sees the future as a flat wall, whatever the hell that means.

And now a reality check, the real reason the Beck predictions are always wrong is simple. Because he is a dishonest, fear-mongering, right-wing scam artist. When you make stuff up and lie to the American people, your predictions will never come true.

Beck is a con-man folks, who lies to you with fear tactics to get you scared, and to make you think what he says will happen. When in reality he is only doing it for 2 reasons, to get rich, and to make Obama and the Democrats look bad. And if you believen anything Beck says, you are a sucker, a dummy, a loon, and a fool.

The Monday 8-15-11 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 16, 2011 - 11:00am

Their was no TPM because the far-right spin doctor Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly. Since O'Reilly was not hosting I will not do a full review, but I will give a summary of what the crazy Ingraham did.

In the top story segment Ingraham talked about Bachmann winning the Iowa straw poll, and she also had Newt Gingrich on to cry about him coming in last, and to let him spin the results. Ingraham and Gingrich also complained that Obama is trying to paint Gingrich and the other GOP hopefuls as extremists. Really Laura? Maybe because they are.

Then Ingraham had Kirsten Powers and Mary Anne Marsh on. Powers said this: "Rick Perry is digging into the retail politicking side of things, while Michele Bachmann is pulling back a little. She spends a little time with the people and takes limited questions from the media, while he is just jumping right in and hanging out until the last person leaves."

Marsh said this: "The most dangerous candidate in politics is always the one who is fearless and runs like they have nothing to lose, and right now that is Rick Perry. He has Bachmann and Mitt Romney in his sights, and he is guy everybody needs to fear because he's got everything it takes to win this nomination. There are only three people who can stay in this race for the duration because they have the resources and rationale - Bachmann, Perry and Romney."

Then crazy Laura had Leslie Marshall and Mary Katherine Ham on to talk about the Obama 3 day bus tour. Which is not even worth reporting on, it's not real news, and Ingraham just used the segment to slam Obama.

Then Ingraham talked about the op-ed by the Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who wants higher taxes levied on himself and other ultra-wealthy Americans.

Ben Stein said this: "We have a situation, where a lot of very rich people are paying a lot less taxes than they were under Ronald Reagan. We need money desperately in the federal government, the rich people have it, so why can't we go back to the Reagan rates? In the 1950's the marginal rate was close to 90% and we were a very prosperous country with high rates of economic growth. People who are billionaires can absolutely afford to pay more taxes!"

Wow, a Republican who actually made sense, but of course the crazy Ingraham disagreed, as does O'Reilly btw. Ingraham said this: "There actually is a provision in the tax code to pay more money to the federal government if you wish, so why doesn't Warren Buffett just cut a check to the government? And any additional money is not going to go to deficit reduction, it's just going to go to more liberal spending."

Then Ingraham had the far-right Bernie Goldberg on to what she thought was go after the media for asking tough questions of Michele Bachmann. But to my surprise Goldberg said he thought the questions were fair.

Goldberg said this: "She got questions that were not only tough, but they were fair. She once said a wife should be 'submissive' to her husband, but now she says 'submissive' means 'respect.' No it doesn't! The two words aren't synonymous at all. And she once said that gay people live lives of 'despair, bondage and enslavement.'

When she's asked about it now, she says 'I don't judge people.' What bothers me about her is that she says things when she thinks she can get away with it, and I think those are the things she honestly believes. I come on this program every week and blame the mainstream media for this or that, but I'm not blaming the mainstream media for this. This is on Michele Bachmann!"

Wow, it's a miracle, that is two times in one show I have agreed with a far-right Republican. But of course Ingraham disagreed, and still cried about the big bad so-called liberal media asking tough questions. Ingraham said this: "The liberal media types are "always going to try to put the conservative in the box by asking these questions."

Now that is just laughable, a conservative says something and then they are asked about it, and somehow Ingraham has a problem with it. But when liberals are asked tough questions about things they have said, she not only does not have a problem with it, she loves it then.

And finally in the last segment Laura had Carl Cameron on to talk about Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann in Iowa. Cameron said this: "In Iowa voters and caucus-goers demand a lot of attention, and at last night's event Rick Perry worked the crowds very aggressively.

But Ms. Bachmann arrived, blasted her music and made her speech. Unlike Perry, she didn't take questions from the crowd. Some Iowans were frustrated because Michele Bachmann didn't do the type of retail politicking that Iowans demand. She rarely ventures very far from her bus at campaign events and some folks in Iowa take offense to that."

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

Bachmann Wants To Get Rid Of Unemployment Benefits
By: Steve - August 16, 2011 - 10:00am

before you vote for the insane Michele Bachmann you should think about this, the woman wants to get rid of unemployment benefits, while calling for more corporate tax cuts. Which is just ridiculous, and if anything, why not have both.

She is a corporate right-wing stooge who hates the American workers, so why should anyone even vote for her. I know you could not pay me to vote for someone like that.

Right now, 14 million unemployed Americans are struggling to make ends meet. 44.4 percent of these Americans have been struggling without a job for six months or more. While Republican lawmakers continually put off their so-called jobs agenda, many of these Americans receive much needed financial support from the federal unemployment benefits program. These benefits, unfortunately, will expire at the end of 2011.

Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been touting a jobs candidacy and insists that she could spur some economic recovery within the first three months of her presidency, if not the whole turnaround.

So what is her great plan? Fire Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, repeal Obamacare, and cut taxes for the wealthy.

Sunday on Meet The Press, Bachmann said that, to ensure job creation, Congress needs to cut the coporate tax rate from 34 percent to something that is far more competitive.

But when asked whether extending the much-needed jobless benefits is part of her jobs agenda, Bachmann flatly rejected the idea, saying this:
BACHMANN: I think we need to focus on more than anything is, what will lead to job creation. And what will lead to job creation is taking the United States down from about the top corporate tax rate in the world at 34 percent down to something that is far more competitive.

GREGORY: What about extending jobless benefits for people who are out of work. Do you think that's a necessary step?

BACHMANN: I think it would be very difficult for us to do because we frankly don't have the money. That's the bottom line in the United States.

GREGORY: So no on extending jobless benefits.

BACHMANN: Right now I don't think we can afford it.
So we can afford to give more tax cuts to the wealthy, that do not need it, and give more tax cuts to corporations, who have more cash on hand than any time in the history of America.

Bachmann's focus on the corporate tax rate to create jobs and spur the economy is, at best, laughable. Because right now, corporations are sitting on trillions in cash reserves. Corporate profits are at record highs. And Bachmann is still calling for cutting the corporate tax rate down to nine percent, a policy that would cost the U.S. more than $2 trillion dollars over ten years.

By contrast, an extension of jobless benefits for six months would only cost $34 billion and will actually generate two dollars of economic growth for every dollar spent.

Wow, Bachmann is an idiot, and if you vote for her you are stupid. Even Warren Buffett said the wealthy should pay more in taxes, and yet Bachmann wants to cut their taxes even more. Not to mention, corporations do not need a tax cut, the reason they are not hiring is demand, not tax rates.

Warren Buffett Says The Rich Should Pay More
By: Steve - August 16, 2011 - 9:00am

On Sunday Warren Buffett the billionaire wrote an op-ed for the NY Times, saying how the rich are not paying enough in taxes, how they have not made any sacrifice, and how they should pay more. Here are some quotes:


Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.

Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.

Last year my federal tax bill - the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf - was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine - most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes.

It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.

People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion - a staggering $227.4 million on average - but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million - there were 236,883 such households in 2009 - I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains.

And for those who make $10 million or more - there were 8,274 in 2009 - I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

More Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Fan
By: Steve - August 16, 2011 - 8:00am

Get a good look at this folks, this is what the average O'Reilly fan does with their time, send out fake donation mail to people that expose the truth about his hero O'Reilly.

Subject: Donation
Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 6:00 PM
From: Mike Cannizaro - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

All I can say is wow! I would love to send you a donation, that was the funniest thing I ever read. My eyes geared up and I almost shot myself. At first I thought this was for real. I believe you have to be a genius to make yourself look like such a retard. I think you are just great, and like I said I would like to send a donation however Obama and his crew have cleaned me out. Thankks to Obama care I lost my healthcare benifits at work. It was just to expensive this year. Bit its all good as long as I have great shit like this to laugh at. Thanks and good luck Mike

Hey Mike, my eyes geared up too when I read your e-mail.

One Republican Lies - The Rest Swear It's True
By: Steve - August 15, 2011 - 10:00am

Now this is a good one, while he was in Iowa last week Mitt Romney said corporations are people. Which may be the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time, and that statement should disqualify Romney from being the President.

Yes people work at corporations, but a corporation is not a person, it's a business. Here is my question for Romney, can a corporation vote?

Can a corporation walk into a voting booth and cast a vote, of course not, that means it is not a person. Because if a corporation can not vote, then it is not a person.

During his stop in Iowa audience members responded angrily to his plans, and Romney frequently responded belligerently to their anger. In one of the most contentious exchanges, Romney defended his belief that we should consider a higher retirement age for Social Security and Medicare to preserve tax breaks for corporations. Romney said this:
ROMNEY: There's various ways of preserving Social Security and Medicare’s solvency. One is we could raise taxes on people.

AUDIENCE: Corporations! Corporations!

ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend.

AUDIENCE: No they're not.

ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?

AUDIENCE: It goes into your pocket!

ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend.
They are right that corporate money flows right into Romney's pockets. Because Romney has taken more money from corporate and other lobbyists than all the other GOP candidates put together, and this will likely only be the beginning for Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee.

So Romney has good reason to favor tax breaks for corporations over maintaining the current Medicare and Social Security retirement age, because corporate America is doing a lot more to line his pockets than America's seniors ever will.

Now after Romney said corporations are people, Sarah Palin said he is right, and that she agrees with him.

ThinkProgress asked Stupid Sarah if she agreed with Romney's belief that corporations are people. Palin sided with corporations, saying Mitt Romney was right.
KEYES: Governor, are corporations people?

PALIN: The people pay the taxes. It's not an entity (the corporation itself) that pays the taxes. It's the people who pay the taxes. So Mitt Romney was right.
And Palin is not the only right-wing idiot to defend Romney's claim that corporations are people. Friday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) backed up Romney, saying this: "All of us are corporations."

Then you have the crazy Republican Rick Perry, who when asked how he would fix the economy he said he would let "God" fix it, also recently said Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.

Perry's reading of the Constitution raises very serious questions about whether he even understands the English language. The Constitution gives Congress the power to to lay and collect taxes and to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

No possible interpretation of the words general welfare does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness.

Wow, these people are nuts, and they are seen as the leaders of the Republican party. All of them are insane, Romney, Palin, Paul, and Perry. And if any of these corporate stooges do get elected to be the President, we are in big trouble.

More Evidence The Media Is Not Liberal
By: Steve - August 15, 2011 - 9:00am

Now first let me start by saying this: Yes MSNBC has a liberal bias in their opinion shows, but they are just one cable news channel that gets pretty low ratings. And a lot of the time they do straight news with no partisan host, so as O'Reilly would even admit, hardly anyone is watching them.

But the rest of the media is either neutral or leans to the right a little. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, are all mainstream and play it right down the middle pretty much.

So O'Reilly claims ALL the media is liberal except Fox, who he claims are fair to both sides, which is just ridiculous, but that is what he says.

If that is true how does O'Reilly explain this: A July 30th Rasmussen poll says that 69% think it's Somewhat Likely That Some Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Data.

If the media is this big liberal machine O'Reilly claims it is, how is it possible that 69% of the people think some scientists have falsified Global Warming data. Especially when it is not true, and there is no report anywhere that says any scientists have falsified any data on Global Warming.

And of course everyone at Fox is reporting the Rasmussen poll, and saying it proves they are right about Global Warming. But they ignore the fact that Multiple Investigations Into "Climategate" Found No Falsification Of Data.

An Independent review found this:
-- Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

-- In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

-- On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis. also reported on it in December of 2009, saying this: "Quotes That Skeptics" Point To Do Not Show "Falsifying" Data.
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations.

These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

Other quotes that skeptics say are evidence of "data manipulation" actually refer to how numbers are presented, not to falsifying those numbers. [, 12/10/09]
A U.K. Investigation also Found "No Evidence" That CRU Scientists Had Tampered With Data:
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said that they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity." [AP, House of Commons, 3/31/10]
So now you have the facts, so if the media is so liberal how come 69% of the people are misinformed. If the media was some giant liberal propaganda machine, as O'Reilly claims, that 69% would believe in Global Warming, instead of thinking the data could have been falsified.

Tea Party Chairwoman Jokes About Killing Obama
By: Steve - August 14, 2011 - 10:00am

The chairwoman of the Sumter Tea Party in South Carolina is taking some heat after posting a joke on Facebook about killing the president and first lady Michelle Obama.

Shery Lanford Smith posted the joke on her public profile Thursday afternoon, according to a screen-capture taken by the Sumter Item's Nick McCormac.

And btw, Smith removed the posting, but only after she was asked about it.

In the joke, the Obamas' helicopter pilot says to his co-pilot, "I could throw both of them out of the window and make 256 million people very happy!"

Smith even said this: "If you're one of the 256 million, pass it on," implying she would be happy to see the Obamas killed.

It's clear that Smith does not get it, because she said this: "It's just a joke," she told the Item when contacted about her post. "I had no idea it would be an issue."

Wow, if you had no idea posting a joke on your facebook page about killing the President and the first lady would be an issue, then you are too stupid to be a chairwoman of a Tea Party group, or any other group for that matter.

Smith was just elected chairwoman of the Sumter Tea Party in February 2011, according to the organization's now closed down website.

And this is not the first time a South Carolina political figure has come under fire for inflammatory Facebook posts. In 2009, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass drew national attention after posting that an escaped gorilla was probably "just one of Michelle Obama's ancestors."

Which is about as racist as it gets, and saying it about the first lady makes it 10 times worse. But of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, while claiming he can not find any racism from the Tea Party against Obama or any Democrats.

Let's also not forget the Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams was fired for posting racist statements on his blog. Which O'Reilly also never said a word about.

And in July of this year, the co-chairman of the Kershaw County Republican Party was asked to resign after 'liking' a post which outlines when one should "shoot a cop."

That article was posted by the Kershaw County Patriots, another tea party-affiliated group. But none of this news ever gets reported by O'Reilly, he just ignores it, while he claims they are a great group of people that have no racism towards Obama or any other blacks.

The Real Story On Those Jobs Rick Perry Discussed
By: Steve - August 14, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is the real story on those so-called great jobs in Texas, the jobs that Rick Perry talked about. This is the real truth, the stuff you will not hear about from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News.

Perry, who is formally launching his presidential candidacy on Saturday, is making his state's economic prowess a centerpiece of his campaign. Already he's been bragging about his state being the "epicenter of job growth."

"Over the last two years, 40% of the net new jobs created in the United States were created in Texas," he told a conference of state legislators from around the nation this week.

But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.

But most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.

Factoring in that population growth means Texas would need to create another 629,000 jobs, just to reach its pre-recession employment level.

And Texas still faces many challenges on the jobs front because many of the jobs that have been created are on the lower end of the pay scale. Some 550,000 workers last year were paid at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, more than double the number making those wages in 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That's 9.5% of the Texas workforce, which gives it the highest percentage of minimum-wage workers in the nation -- a dubious title it shares with Mississippi.

Of course, Texas enjoys advantages that have nothing to do with having Rick Perry at the helm. Rich in natural resources, the state has been benefiting from the high price of oil and the expanded interest in natural gas exploration. Energy employment has soared by 16.8% over the past year alone.

"We have created jobs, but they are not jobs with good wages and benefits," said F. Scott McCown, executive director, Center for Public Policy Priorities.

Basically Texas is creating a lot of jobs, but they are low-paying jobs with no benefits, the pace of job growth is not keeping up with the population increases, and most of the new jobs added have nothing to do with anything Governor Perry has done.

The high price of gas and oil has created the jobs, not any policies Perry has put in place. But you will never hear any of that from O'Reilly or Fox, because they want to hide these facts from you to make you think Perry is some kind of great Governor. When the facts show that what he has done has very little to do with the job increases.

The Friday 8-12-11 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 13, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the fake Democrat (who is actually a moderate Republican) Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly. And I will not do a full review, but I will report on a few things.

Juan went right to the top story about the GOP debate, and he had the right-wing stooge Dick Morris on to discuss it, with of course no Democrats, making Juan just as biased as O'Reilly. In fact, having Juan there is pretty much the same as having O'Reilly there.

Morris said this: "The three candidates that helped themselves, were Romney, Bachmann and Santorum. It is really hard for a woman candidate to throw negatives and answer negatives without seeming either shrill or defensive. Michele Bachmann managed to do it very successfully. Mitt Romney showed a Reagan-esque ability to rise above and laugh at himself, and Rick Santorum's statements on Iran and his aggressiveness on this issue really put him on the map."

Morris then talked about the night's losers, saying this: "Tim Pawlenty smashed against the rocks on Bachmann and knocked himself out of the race, Jon Huntsman was a big loser because he qualifies as a Democrat and belongs in the Democratic primary, and I thought Ron Paul was the third big loser because he clearly qualified as a flake."

Now that's funny, the flake Dick Morris calling someone else a flake when he is a flake himself. Let's not forget he was the hooker toe sucking idiot who switched from Democrat to Republican. And now he makes a living lying to the Republicans, and the suckers on the right believe him.

Then Juan had the Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen on to tell us that Romney is way ahead of everyone else, really? Wow! Now tell us something we dont know. Rasmussen also predicted Michele Bachmann will win Iowa, we will see if he is right. And of course there was no Democratic pollster on for balance, just as O'Reilly would have done.

Then Juan had Chris Metzler and liberal think tank founder Sally Kohn on to slam Obama over the economy. And the so-called Democratic guest even slammed Obama, so much for having both sides of the debate. Juan does just as O'Reilly would, find a so-called Democrat to come on and slam Obama, instead of a real Democrat who could at least try to defend him.

Then Juan cried about the big mean liberals who are mocking Mitt Romney for his ridiculous claim that corporations are people. The right-wing stooge Jonathan Hoenig agreed with Romney's description, saying this: "The left loves to paint corporations as nefarious shysters running roughshod over everyone, but what is a corporation? It's not a vegetable or a mineral or an animal - Governor Romney is right, it's a voluntary association of people. They aren't on the government dole or taking handouts, they're actually producing something of value."

But political science Professor Mark Sawyer ridiculed Romney's remarks, saying this: "Governor Romney was trying to say corporations are regular people, but if corporations were regular people we wouldn't see corporate profits higher while unemployment is rising. Corporations and fat cats are doing great but regular people are hurting and Romney doesn't care about it."

And I say that if corporations were people, and like regular working Americans, they would not give all the money to the people at the top, while taking money away from the workers, especially when they are making massive profits. They would also not dodge paying their taxes so the working Americans have to make up the difference.

Then Juan ran a re-run of Billy's June interview with rapper Lupe Fiasco, which was a total waste of tv time.

And finally in the last segment Juan had Carl Cameron on, who reported the big important breaking news story that all the Republican candidates are going to the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines. Really? Who Fricking cares?

Cameron said this: "The big story here, is that just about all the candidates are coming through the State Fair in advance of the straw poll."

Wow, if that's a big story to Carl Cameron I'm Donald Trump. Not only is it not a big story, it's not even news. Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots, that nobody cares about, and is a total waste of tv time. Juan asked if O'Reilly is a patriot or a pinhead for playing himself on a tv show. And I say he is not a patriot or a pinhead for doing it, but Juan is a pinhead/brown-nosing/ass-kisser for even asking the question.

Stupid Bachmann Gets S&P Downgrade All Wrong
By: Steve - August 13, 2011 - 10:00am

This woman is so stupid it's ridiculous, and think about this, O'Reilly listed her as one of the Republicans who could win the GOP nomination, along with Romney and Perry. So what does that say about O'Reilly, it says he is a right-wing loon, because the rest of the people look at Michele Bachmann as a far right joke.

Friday night, during both the GOP presidential primary debate and a post-debate interview with Sean Hannity, Michele Bachmann (R-MN) claimed that S&P's downgrade of the United States creditworthiness vindicated her position that the debt ceiling should not have been raised.

Bachmann told the debate audience that the S&P downgrade came about because the agency said we don't have an ability to repay our debt:
BACHMANN: We just heard from Standard & Poor's, when they dropped our credit rating and what they said is we don't have an ability to repay our debt. That's what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling.

That is not what the S&P said, and she is 100% wrong. Just about every word out of her mouth regarding the agency's decision was wrong.

To begin with, S&P never said "we don't have an ability to pay our debt."

The agency still rates the U.S. as AA+, meaning it has a "very strong capacity to meet financial commitments."

One S&P analyst even said the difference between AA+ and AAA is just degrees of excellence.

The reasons that S&P issued the downgrade (as it clearly laid out in its press release) were the use of the debt ceiling as a political football and GOP intransigence on taxes.

As the National Journal said: "It's hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a shot at Republicans."

And this lunatic wants to be the President, I would not vote for her to be the local dog catcher. But O'Reilly and the Republicans love her, while ignoring all her far-right positions, all the crazy things she says, and all the things she gets wrong, like the reason why the S&P downgrade happened.

Corporate Cash Holdings Are Up 59% Since 2008
By: Steve - August 13, 2011 - 9:00am

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that "non-financial companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index were holding $1.12 trillion in cash and short-term investments in their most recent reports, up 59% from $703 billion in the third quarter of 2008."

Which flies in the face of conservatives who claim that corporations need more money (in the form of new tax breaks) in order to start hiring.

Earlier this month, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) inadvertently made the progressive argument about corporate taxes, when he pointed out that pocketing money from tax savings is simply "what business does."

But maybe the corporations really need cash on hand to purchase necessities since, as Mitt Romney explained today, "corporations are people."

This report proves that corporations are doing just fine, even in a slow economy, and that they have plenty of money so they should be hiring. It's all political, they are not hiring because the added jobs would make Obama look good. They are waiting until after the 2012 election, in the hopes that it will get a Republican elected.

And as I have said before, I think this is un-American and nothing but political garbage.

The Thursday 8-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 12, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Predicting the presidential election outcome. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's always dicey to prognosticate about an election that's 15 months away, but some trends are solid. Last night I said that just three Republicans have a realistic chance of getting the nomination - Romney, Perry and Bachmann.

As far as President Obama is concerned, the recent economic chaos and debt debacle have hurt his leadership profile and that's showing up in the polls. Of course, polls are just a snapshot in time, but few expect the economy to dramatically improve over the next 15 months.

The Republicans, though, have one major problem - the Tea Party. They want a hard-right approach to fiscal matters and if a moderate like Mitt Romney gets the nomination, they might not support him.

Talking Points analyzes political trends based on facts and science, not emotion or wishful thinking. Right now President Obama's presidency is in deep trouble, but his opposition is also having trouble defining itself and the primary will be grueling.

The election will largely be a referendum on the President and the Democratic Party's economic philosophy. It will likely be the most important election in our lifetimes.
For once O'Reilly is actually right in most of what he said, except for what he said about Michelle Bachmann, she has two chances, slim and none. And the statement that he analyzes political trends based on facts and science is ridiculous, because O'Reilly looks at everything through right-wing blinders.

Then O'Reilly had Larry Sabato and David Drucker on to discuss it. Sabato said this: "If the election were this coming November, I would give Florida and Ohio to the Republicans, assuming they nominate a mainstream candidate. But my math is a projection of what I think it will be in November of 2012 and I think economic growth will improve by then. This is going to come down to the 'fickle five' - Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada and Colorado."

Drucker said this: "What jumped out at me this week is that for the first time his personal approval rating dropped below 50%. When people start to sour on you personally it can be a problem, and if I were the Obama campaign that would be the most worrisome number I've seen this week."

So then the insane/biased O'Reilly said this: "Obama is starting to look like Jimmy Carter, like he just can't handle the job."

Which is something that only partisan hack Republicans think, the rest of us understand what a bad economy Obama was handed by Bush, and what a mess it has been trying to get the country back on track after Bush screwed it all up.

Then O'Reilly had a preview of Thursday night's GOP debate on Fox, with Bret Baier and Susan Ferrechio. Baier said this: "Romney is obviously the front-runner. He has to not make a mistake and he needs to outline his solutions on the economy and the markets."

Ferrechio said this: "Everybody in Iowa is worried about a whole litany of things - people are out of work, they're worried about their mortgages, the economy and the debt. They are wondering what these candidates are going to do about it and how they are going to solve these big problems in America."

Ferrechio also said that Tim Pawlenty is the candidate under the most pressure, saying this: "He's really struggling right now and he's got to validate his campaign and do something to show that he's still a real contender."

And of course O'Reilly did not have one Democratic guest on to discuss it, so as usual it was all right-wing opinion, all the time.

Then O'Dummy had the two right-wing Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to find out what they would ask the Republican candidates. And the loon Carlson said she would ask about the war on Christmas, wow, what an idiot.

Carlson said this: "My question, would be: As President, how important would it be for you to address political correctness in our society, from the war on Christmas to leaving the word 'God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance to not calling the alleged Fort Hood shooter a home-grown Muslim terrorist?"

Hoover would ask this: "All of you have likened yourself to Ronald Reagan, who won the youth vote in 1984. The young vote made all the difference in Barack Obama's election and they are deeply disappointed by him. What are you going to do to reach out to this group?"

O'Reilly praised both Warriors for coming up with great questions, saying this: "The Republican Party cedes the young vote and the black vote, they don't even try for it."

Earth to O'Reilly, that's because the young and the blacks hate the Republicans so it would be a waste of time and money to try and get their votes. The only people who vote Republican are the old right-wing fools that dont know any better.

Then O'Reilly had the far right lunatic Ann Coulter on to get her take on the London riots. Crazy Coulter said this: "These riots around the globe, are evidence of how liberal mobs are endangering the world. Liberal policies promote mobs because liberals use the destruction wrought by the mobs to attain power. Liberal polices lead to these savage, feral beasts and the one way to react to a mob is to smash the mob, not to mollycoddle the mob."

And that may be the biggest load of right-wing garbage I have ever heard in my life. If you believe any of that you need to see a doctor, and get on some medication fast. But what's really sad is that O'Reilly agrees with her, making him as big of a right-wing loon as Coulter.

Coulter also talked about the diverse racial makeup of the thugs, saying this: "So many of these looting kids are white and have ancestors in England going back hundreds of years. This isn't a racial thing - it's what happens when you pay people not to work. This makes it blindingly clear that Britain's liberal social welfare policies have turned a good chunk of their population into animals. They eat, they screw, they drink!"

Now that is so crazy I am not even going to comment on it, all I will say is that Ann Coulter is insane. And O'Reilly is just as bad as she is for putting that nut on the air.

Then Megyn Kelly was on, she analyzed a brewing battle between federal and state authorities over illegal immigration, saying this: "When you get arrested, the state runs your fingerprints through a federal database. The feds had an agreement with some states to also run the prints through an immigration database to see if you were an illegal. The federal government argues that they have control over immigration and they'll force the states to comply."

Kelly also reported that some Latin American countries, Mexico among them, are battling Alabama in the courts, saying this: "These countries are opposed to an Alabama law, saying it cracks down unfairly on immigration. Apparently Mexico doesn't have enough trouble on its hands, it's now more concerned about this dispute in Alabama than it is about the drug war in Mexico!"

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the two right-wing loons Steve Doocy and Dagen McDowell on for the Factor news quiz. Which I do not report on because it is not news, it's nonsense.

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

Megyn Kelly Calls O'Reilly A Pinhead
By: Steve - August 12, 2011 - 10:00am

During the Thursday 8-11-11 O'Reilly Factor, O'Dummy got called out by Megyn Kelly, she said he was a pinhead for saying her maternity leave was a vacation.

Which just goes to show how stupid O'Reilly is, and how that Republican family values stuff is all talk. Having a baby and taking care of it for the first 3 months of it's life is no vacation. O'Reilly probably has no clue about that because when his child was born he probably made his wife do all the work and care for the baby.

GOP Unfavorable Ratings Hit All Time High
By: Steve - August 12, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never heard a word about this on the Factor, because O'Reilly is a Republican and he does not want to report or talk about how unpopular the GOP is. But he sure loves to report and talk about how unpopular Obama and the Democrats are, even though the Republicans are more unpopular than Obama or the Democrats in Congress.

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday finds Republican popularity badly bruised by the bitter debt ceiling debate, with the GOP's unfavorable ratings climbing to an all-time high of 59 percent.

The Republican party's favorable ratings, meanwhile, dropped eight points over the past month to just 33 percent.

Now think about that folks, O'Reilly said Obama was hurt by the debt debate more than the Republican Party or the Tea Party. But here we have a poll that says the exact opposite, so who are you going to believe, the biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist Bill O'Reilly, or an actual scientific poll of the people.

And btw, "The Democratic party, which had a favorable rating just a couple of points higher than the GOP in July, now has a 14-point advantage over the Republican party," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

So after the debt debate the approval rating for the Democratic Party actually went up. Which directly disputes the claims from O'Reilly, and it also shows that what O'Reilly said about it was nothing but right-wing lies and propaganda.

And CNN's poll is not the first to show that Republican congressional leaders positions on the debt ceiling hurt them politically. Americans overwhelmingly disapproved of the GOP's handling of the debt negotiations, and even 74 percent of Republicans thought revenue increases should have been part of the final deal.

Now you have the facts, not the right-wing spin O'Reilly puts out. And if this is not proof that O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor, I'm Elvis.

The Wednesday 8-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 11, 2011 - 11:00am

O'Reilly started the show with the top story, he had Lou Dobbs on to talk about the stock market drop. Dobbs said this: "What's happening right now, is a loss of $3 trillion over the past two-and-a-half weeks and a lack of confidence in the leadership of this country and its institutions. We have seen historically low tax rates and we have seen historically high stimulus spending and debt, but neither has resulted in the creation of jobs."

Then Billy advised the President to reverse course, saying this: "He needs to come out and say 'I was wrong and we're going to cut back on the spending and get the deficit under control.' That would calm things down a little bit."

Now that is funny, Dobbs and O'Reilly telling the President how to run the country. Are you kidding me, why would the President listen to two lame right-wing cable tv stooges. Get real, you idiots need a reality check, the President is not going to listen to you, and most likely does not even know what you said.

The TPM was called: Will class warfare break out in the USA? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The riots in Britain are a reminder that there are people who will destroy society if they think they can get away with it. The same thing happened in America in 1992 when 58 people were killed in Los Angeles.

I was in the middle of those riots and I can tell you that when violence gets out of control some people turn into animals, and that's what's happening in England, where 'rich people' are the villains. Class warfare is also in play in Washington, and with the U.S. economy in dire trouble, it may be just a matter of time before violence breaks out here.

Instead of calming things down, President Obama seems confused and he doesn't really have an economic message. Raising taxes on the wealthy and business may harm the economy further, yet the President seems willing to take that chance. The big culprits are rampant spending and out-of-control medical costs, and a tax rise will not address those problems.

As Talking Points has stated, the entire tax code should be revamped so the government could get more revenue without harming the economy, and programs like Medicare and Social Security have to be at least somewhat revised. Finally, Great Britain is a quasi-nanny state with free health care, generous pensions and safety nets, yet their society is on fire. That is a warning to us.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the English society is not on fire, a small group of people are rioting because the police shot a black man who was a father of four kids. And it will be over soon, moron.

Then the insane O'Reilly had Amilya Antonetti and liberal author Erica Payne on to discuss the Talking Points Memo and the prospect of class warfare in America. Antonetti said this: "We are mis-defining the word 'rich.' Don't confuse a $250,000 business with millionaires and billionaires. You're talking about the businesses that will no longer be there if we continue this class warfare. We will be communities of just big brands and big corporations and you'll lose the innovation. This class warfare is going to tear our communities apart."

What a load of garbage, because if Obama ended the Bush tax cuts and raised taxes on the wealthy it would only cover 1% of small businesses, and that is a fact.

Payne said this: "What's happening is horrifying, but you have to look at what happens to human beings when they are pushed to the edge of their sanity. All people will turn into animals if they are pushed far enough."

And of course O'Dummy said he was not buying what Payne was trying to sell, saying this: "They have free health care, generous unemployment and pension benefits and they're being pushed to the edge of their sanity? The liberal mindset has brought us to economic disaster because you fail to understand that we are a capitalistic nation. This country is at a breaking point and we can't spend any more money, yet President Obama doesn't seem to believe that."

What a joke, O'Reilly is a right-wing talking points spin machine, he should just end his show and go to work for the RNC. And btw folks, as you read my review of the show, notice that only one liberal was on the entire show, and she had to split her time with two other conservatives, Antonetti and O'Reilly. So it was all right-wing spin, all the time, and when the one liberal got on, she was tag-teamed by two other right-wingers and told she is wrong.

then Dick Morris was on to talk about Thursday's GOP debate. Morris said this: "Mitt Romney has to be more conservative, and appeal to the base, while Michele Bachmann has to focus on the anger over the debt deal. Herman Cain has to demonstrate why he's different, and Ron Paul has to demonstrate that his ideas have been proven correct."

Morris also said that pretty much any GOP candidate can defeat President Obama. Which is crazy talk, because all the polls still have Obama beating every Republican, even Mitt Romney.

Morris said this: "Obama was not going to get reelected before a week ago and he's certainly not going to be reelected now. He'll have to run for reelection with an unemployment rate well over 10% and with an economy in recession. There is a 'reign of terror' in this economy - businesses won't hire new people because of Obamacare and regulation."

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who nobody cares about, and nobody would even know what she was saying if O'Reilly did not report it. She has been visiting Middle East countries to what O'Reilly claims is slamming the U.S. A.

The right-wing idiot Jesse Watters was on to speculate about her funding. Which O'Reilly claims to not allow, he has even said the Factor is a no speculation zone. Then he had this stooge on to speculate on her funding.

Watters said this: "We think it's coming from the Iranian regime. In May she went to Iran for a 'peace conference' where Ahmadinejad was the keynote speaker. McKinney claims she was not paid to speak there, but she wouldn't answer my question about who paid her travel expenses and we discovered that the University of Teheran, a state-run university, was one of the sponsors."

What a joke, and a total waste of time segment. Not only was it all speculation, O'Reilly also said he does not report anything unless he has the facts to prove it. So he broke two of his own rules, just to slam a former Democratic Congresswoman who almost nobody has ever heard of, and nobody cares about. That's Journalism?

Then O'Reilly had the unfunny right-wing stooge Dennis Miller on for his regular weekly segment. Which I do not report on, and never will. Because Miller is only on to make jokes about liberals, it is not news, and there is no liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives for balance.

And finally in the laste waste of time segment Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that. She watched a video of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter denouncing young black males who are engaging in rampant violence. Huddy said this: "He's fed up. The Mayor came from a middle class Philadelphia neighborhood and worked his way up, and he basically wants to tell these kids that it may seem hopeless, but they have to pull themselves out of it. These kids have a lot of time on their hands and a lot of resentment."

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

O'Reilly & His Legal Analysts Lied To You
By: Steve - August 11, 2011 - 10:00am

On The Tuesday O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News legal analysts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle all agreed that the Supreme Court would strike down the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act.

But none of them mentioned the fact that the one appellate court to rule on the issue so far has upheld the constitutionality of the mandate.

Here is a partial transcript:
O'REILLY: So when do we expect them to take up this case?

WIEHL: I think they'll take it up next winter in the winter term after an appellate court has ruled finally I think that the rule is unconstitutional. The law is unconstitutional.

O'REILLY: Do you agree with me --


O'REILLY: That I think, 5-4 they are going to overturn the mandate to buy insurance?

GUILFOYLE: Yes based on the commerce clause. I do think that. And the vehicle by which they'll do it is by reviewing the Virginia case as soon as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issues that opinion or the Eleventh Circuit with the 12 -- with the 26 states that also have filed against it.

O'REILLY: OK. So, you're telling me that if I was a Supreme Court justice, I would have to do all that?

GUILFOYLE: Yes. You would have to do all of that.

O'REILLY: OK. I don't want the job.

WIEHL: You'd have to work.

O'REILLY: Do you agree with Guilfoyle that --

WIEHL: I agree. I'm not sure it's going to be 5-4 because I think Kagan may have to recuse herself.

O'REILLY: I don't care. Let's not dwell on minutia.


O'REILLY: Do you agree with Guilfoyle?

WIEHL: Yes. I do think that part of the law will be overruled.

O'REILLY: We all agree that Obamacare is going to be overturned.
Now here is what the so-called non-partisan legal experts failed to mention, which would be important in a legal discussion. In Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, by a 2-to-1 vote, that the provision of the Affordable Care Act mandating that individuals purchase health insurance does not violate the Constitution.

Wiehl And Guilfoyle Both Mentioned Other Pending Cases But Avoided Mentioning the Sixth Circuit Case. Neither one of them mentioned that the Sixth Circuit had already decided that the individual mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act was constitutional.

And that's not all, Jeffrey Sutton was one of the 2 appeals court yes votes that said it was constitutional. So who is he, a Democrat? Wrong, Jeffrey Sutton was appointed by George W. Bush in 2003 after a Senate vote in which 41 of the 48 Democrats in the Senate opposed his nomination.

Even the former Reagan Solicitor General said this: "The Legal Arguments Against The Provision Are Utterly Without Merit."

But neither O'Reilly or any of his right-wing legal stooges reported any of this to you. They ignored it all, and put out nothing but right-wing spin.

Only 15 People Show Up For Tea Party Rally
By: Steve - August 11, 2011 - 9:00am

Before I report on this story, guess who never said a word about it, while claiming the Tea Party is a big powerful political machine. That would be Bill O'Reilly, as he claims the Tea Party is so great, he fails to report that nobody is showing up to their waste of time and money events anymore.

Americans For Prosperity, the Tea Party astroturf group "founded and funded by Republican billionaires Charles and David Koch," rolled into Jacksonville Tuesday, but they had a big surprise waiting for them, only about 15 people showed up to their so-called "Running on Empty" tour.

The Jacksonville event was held at Hemming Plaza, and it is the first of a six city "Running on Empty Tour." Tour organizers are pushing for increased domestic energy production, and highlight why they say President Barack Obama's policies have upped energy costs.

Florida director Slade O'Brien said they had more than 200 registered to come, and the turnout was "shocking."

AFP's tour is trying to convince Floridians to support increased offshore drilling in the wake of the BP disaster.

The Tuesday 8-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 10, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Collateral damage from the economic chaos. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Life is hard and then you die! That's the pessimist's view of the human condition, and right now pessimism is running wild because we are living in a complicated and dangerous age and our federal government is not protecting us.

Simply put, the federal government's primary duty is to protect you and me. But the feds were not able to protect us from the illegal alien intrusion, the drug plague, or Wall Street gangsters who invented bogus mortgage investments. Now we are being let down again.

It is clear President Obama's big-government economic agenda has failed; it is also apparent that America needs responsible spending and a reinvigoration of the private marketplace. But leadership in both parties is letting us down, primarily because of ideology.

President Obama can not seem to break away from his liberal philosophy and admit that the free marketplace is the only vehicle that can drive us back to prosperity. Talking Points believes that if the election were held today Mr. Obama would lose.

Americans are suffering and the buck will not stop at a Tea Party rally or at the home of President Bush. No, the buck will stop where Harry Truman once lived - in the White House.
So says the right-wing spin doctor Bill O'Reilly. This is so funny, Bush and the Republicans ruin the country, bankrupt it, put us into a recession, a housing crisis, an unemployment crisis, add a massive amount of money to the debt with the Bush tax cuts to millionaires, and almost put the country into a depression.

So what does O'Reilly say, the liberal policies from President Obama have failed. When all he did was get the jobs back to positive numbers each month, save the country from a depression, and do about as best as possible with what he was handed by Bush. That my friends is classic right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly. And now he wants the people to put the Republicans back into the White House, when they are the idiots who got us into this mess in the first place.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to talk about the Republican Rick Perry possibly running for President. And of course they never said a word about all the crazy right-wing positions he has, or all the crazy religious garbage he has said, like saying he would let God fix everything. They just ignore all that nonsense, to claim Perry is great, talk about bias, this is bias to the 10th power.

Ingraham said this: "His big upside is the Texas economy. It's one of the few bright spots across the country and he will tout that by saying he knows how to run things and how business runs. The downside is that he doesn't have much of an organization yet."

Ingraham also talked about the GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, saying this: "Romney's positive is that he has an enormous organization in place, but what he doesn't have yet is an ability to electrify a crowd with his own personal narrative. And he has the Massachusetts Romney-care experience, which a lot of people are angry about. If I had to bet today, Romney will be the nominee, but anything can change."

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to comment on a Planned Parenthood video celebrating the fact that, under the new health care law, insurance companies will be forced to cover birth control.

Crazy Crowley said this: "This is the beginning of the horrors. Obamacare is one huge 'freebie,' so we're talking about free birth control with no co-pays or no deductible. The law is a massive 'freebie' that will cost us trillions more than anyone even anticipated."

Which is total right-wing propaganda, because as Colmes points out, it will actually save us money.

Colmes insisted that "free" birth control will save money, saying this: "This will save $11 billion a year by stopping unintended pregnancies. If you want to save money, this is a great way to do it."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed with Colmes, and he warned about the unintended consequences, saying this: "Because insurance companies have to pay the full tab, they're going to raise premiums on small business owners, who won't hire as many people. This is going to hurt employment!"

Then John Stossel was on to spew out his right-wing spin, he hit the streets to find out who is getting blamed for America's economic woes and the tumultuous stock market.

Which we already know who is getting blamed because the polls show it's the Republicans and the Tea Party. Stossel was on with his unscientific findings btw. Stossel said this: "Most people are busy living their own lives, and they don't pay attention to this stuff. And most people are not watching news shows or reading newspapers. That's why when we say some things have to be cut they scream so loudly - they don't see the seriousness of the problem."

Stossel also said this about who is to blame for the debt and the economy: "Every Congress and president since FDR, and especially Bush and Obama, who doubled spending. We need leadership that appreciates limited government and leaves us free. Thank goodness for the Tea Party."

Then the crazy O'Reilly asked if economics are to blame in the London riots? Which is just nuts, because they are having the riots over a black man getting shot by the police. Billy asked Amy Kellogg if government cutbacks are playing a role.

Kellogg said this: "You have to differentiate between grievance and criminality. This started out of anger, but what does taking flat screen TVs out of department stores have to do with a black man getting shot by police? Yes, there have been cuts, but we're not sure to what extent this is just opportunism and to what extent it is reflective of desperation in neighborhoods where there aren't a lot of jobs."

Now read what O'Reilly said, talk about crazy talk, here it is, good job Billy, this statement proves you are out if your mind.

O'Reilly suggested that looters are emboldened by England's strict gun control laws, saying this: "The difference between America and Britain is that here many of us are armed because of the Second Amendment. In Great Britain if you're a store owner and you don't have a gun, you're in big trouble."

Really? So if the store owners in England all had guns everything would be fine? Wow!

Then the Factor legal analysts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the legal challenges facing health care reform. Wiehl said this: "I think the Supreme Court will take it up in the winter term, after an appellate court has ruled that the law is unconstitutional. The ultimate ruling will come down in the summer right before the presidential election."

Wiehl and Guilfoyle concurred that the Supreme Court will rule against Obamacare because it forces individuals to purchase insurance. Guilfoyle also scrutinized a Missouri law that prohibits teachers from interacting with students on social media. Guilfoyle said this: "If I'm a teacher and you are my student. I am not allowed to contact you or email you or tweet you. This is meant to prevent some of the sexual abuse and misconduct that has been happening."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly said liberals like Barney Frank are arguing that entitlement programs can be spared by drastically cutting defense spending. And he is right btw. So O'Reilly had the biased far-right Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, and what a shocker Krauthammer disagreed with Barney Frank, not.

Krauthammer said this: "This is absurd, He's talking about saving all this money in Iraq, but I don't know if he's been told that we'll be out of Iraq in less than five months. As for Afghanistan, it's his party that said Afghanistan is the 'good war' and the central front in the war on terror. Liberals and Democrats have been saying this for a century - whenever you need money, you take it away from the one essential function of government, which is national defense."

What a joke, and yes some liberals supported going into Afghanistan, ABOUT 8 YEARS AGO. But not now, or even 5 years ago, we should get out, and we should have got out 5 years ago. Krauthammer was spinning so much I thought his head would spin off.

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

O'Reilly Defends Tea Party Over US Rating Downgrade
By: Steve - August 10, 2011 - 10:00am

Folks, if you had any doubt that Bill O'Reilly is a total right-wing spin doctor for the Republican Party and the Tea Party, read this. O'Reilly not only defends the Tea Party, he says anyone who thinks the Tea Party is at all to blame for the rating downgrade, they are no-think-ums.

Billy said this on the Monday Factor show:

And now here are the facts that directly dispute what O'Reilly said, and prove that he is a right-wing spin doctor. The Tea Party put pressure on the Republicans in Congress (who have the majority in the House btw) to refuse any kind of tax increase that would have raised revenue for the Government.

That led to the S&P credit downgrade, and they even say so right in their credit rating report, to deny it is to deny reality, which is just what O'Reilly did. Billy denied reality to defend and spin for the Tea Party and the Republican Party, because he is one of them, and he supports them both.

Now those are the facts, they are documented, and I call for O'Reilly to prove me wrong, but he will never do that because he knows I am right.

Verizon Profits SOAR Demand Worker Benefit Cuts Anyway
By: Steve - August 10, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is the kind of story O'Reilly should be reporting on, but he totally ignores these kind of news stories, because it would kill his right-wing propaganda that corporations need more tax cuts.

Now if Verizon was making less in profits, and they were suffering in this slow economy, I would support workers taking a small cut in benefits, but only if the CEO and all the bigshots in the company also take cuts to their salary and benefits.

Sunday, 45,000 Verizon employees, represented by the Communications Workers of America, went on strike following the breakdown of negotiations between union representatives and management on Saturday. The workers are battling a long list of concessions that the company is demanding of them, ranging from asking employees to contribute more to their health care plans to halting pension accruals this year.

Cutting workers benefits as a cost-saving measure is a natural part of a market economy when times are bad, but what is particularly outrageous about Verizon's demands is that the company's fiscal health is actually rapidly improving and its profits soaring.

The company's quarterly report released in January found that their profits nearly doubled from the same point last year. Then in April, Bloomberg reported that the company's profits more than tripled after the company began offering services on Apple's popular iPhone, with net income approaching $1.44 billion:
Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), the second-largest U.S. phone company, reported earnings that more than tripled as taxes decreased and the carrier attracted new customers after introducing Apple Inc. (AAPL)'s iPhone.

Net income rose to $1.44 billion, or 51 cents a share, New York-based Verizon said today in a statement.
Now get this, one person at Verizon who is not being asked to take any cuts is Ivan Seidenberg, the company's CEO. His compensation actually rose four percent in 2010 to $18.1 million. The Communications Workers of America note that the top five executives at the company received compensation of $258 million over the past four years.

So it looks like the Verizon's stockholders and executives are being treated well by the company while it demands sacrifice from its workers.

"We are regular folk like most other folk out here trying to pay our mortgages, pay our bills and survive and we don't think that is a lot to ask when the company is making billions of dollars in profits," said one striking worker.

And that's not all, think about this, Verizon is not just trying to skimp on worker benefits, it is also a massive tax dodger, paying almost no taxes in years past and actually netting benefits from the U.S. taxpayer.

Now this just burns me up, and yet O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, while claiming to support unions, yeah right, if O'Reilly is a union supporter I am Donald Trump.

This is an outrage, to increase profits by triple then ask workers to take benefit cuts, while the CEO and the big shots get pay increases and face no cuts. This kind of anti-worker garbage is one reason the economy is so bad, because the workers are not making the money they should, which would then be spent back into the economy.

And on top of that they use tax shelters and get out of paying taxes, while making record profits. It makes me so mad I can barely stand it. In my opinion companies that do this are un-American, and borderline traitors. They are not only hurting the American working man, they are hurting the economy too, and doing it while dodging all their taxes.

The Monday 8-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 9, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Saving the folks from economic hardship. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most Americans understand there's a crisis in Washington; the S&P downgrade basically says there's no confidence in the federal government's management of the economy. The chaos in the financial markets will set back the American economy at least six months - consumers will spend less as they watch their individual portfolios, pension and education funds rapidly diminish.

Economic pessimism is everywhere and unless there is a dramatic turn of events, Barack Obama's presidential career is in peril. President Obama's first mistake was not putting forth a budget vision - he simply sat it out, allowing Congress to muck things up.

The President also fails to understand that his massive spending policies aren't working and. Raising income taxes is not the way out of this - in 2001 and 2003 President Bush cut individual tax rates and tax revenue increased, which blows away the liberal argument that tax cuts starve the government of revenue.

The entire world is watching how the United States handles this economic crisis because if we go down, the world goes down. Americans themselves are largely furious because we have no control over our own economic futures; we are dependent on the government in Washington and it is failing us.

Every fair-minded person knows the country is in a mess financially, and at times like these the President must take charge. We need to immediately return to the spending rate of 2008, which would save as much as $920 billion right now. We do need revenue, which can be achieved by a flat tax and by plugging loopholes.

And we need to institute a small national sales tax to tap into the $1 trillion underground economy. Also, we need Medicare and other programs to be somewhat revised and we need medical tort reform. We need to repeal Obamacare, which is far too expensive for business. These are all solutions to the economic mess, but Mr. Obama has not embraced any of them.
And that my friends is what you call total right-wing spin and propaganda. Billy said after the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts revenue increased, but that's a lie. Not to mention it led to most of the debt we have now, and did not help the economy at all. On top of that, O'Reilly ignores the fact that Republican policies under Bush almost destroyed the country. If you believe O'Reilly you would think the country did great in the 8 years of Bush, when in fact, it was almost the worst 8 years we have ever had.

O'Reilly also said this: "We need to immediately return to the spending rate of 2008, which would save as much as $920 billion right now. We do need revenue, which can be achieved by a flat tax and by plugging loopholes. And we need to institute a small national sales tax to tap into the $1 trillion underground economy."

Which is insane, and will never happen, it's a right-wing pipe dream. There will never be a flat tax, ever, and there will never be a national sales tax. But O'Reilly keeps calling for it anyway, even though it will never happen. What we need to do is drop the Bush tax cuts, raise taxes on the wealthy, and close all the loopholes that make the wealthy more wealthy, and let them avoid taxes.

So then O'Reilly had a fair and balanced segment with two Independent economic experts. Hahaha, got ya, that never happened, and it never will. What O'Reilly did was have the far-right partisan idiot Karl Rove on to discuss it, with nobody from the Obama administration, or from the left to provide the balance and the counterpoint.

Billy asked Rove if Monday was the worst day of Obama's presidency. Rove said this: "It would have to be right up there in the top two or three. The most important thing a president has is the image of being a strong leader who offers up ideas and provides vision and takes chances. We've seen none of this from this president - he is not turning into Jimmy Carter, he's turning into James Buchanan, who was incapable of doing anything about the problems facing the United States."

Then Rove disagreed with one proposal in the Factor Talking Points Memo. Rove said this: "The idea of returning spending levels to 2008 is good, but that only really works for discretionary spending. Two-thirds of the budget is on auto-pilot and you can't reduce Medicare or Social Security spending to where it was in 2008."

Which is really funny, because Rove made O'Reilly look like an idiot, by pointing out one big flaw in O'Reilly's insane budget idea.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on for a really stupid segment, he asked them if the election were held today if Obama would be re-elected.

Williams said this: "This was a bad day for the President, and it was a bad day for America. If you're pointing to President Obama, I would point to leadership failure overall on Wall Street and in Congress. There is dysfunctional American leadership and the Tea Party specifically has been going down in the polls."

Ham said this: "The guy in charge gets the blame and the credit. He gave himself three years to turn this thing around but he abdicated on the debt discussions and his bag of tricks is empty. We have a spending problem and he has nothing left."

Earth to Mary K. Ham, the 3 years is not up yet. The 3 years is up on January 20, 2012, which is 5 months from now, moron.

Then O'Reilly asked investor Wayne Rogers about the market's overall health. Rogers said this: "I lost a little today, but I'm not as worried as everybody else. I think the economy is in much better shape than the market is telling us and I think this is a buying opportunity. Six months from now you'll see the market much higher than it is now - there are major corporations that are solid and generating income. This particular crash is about fear - people have no confidence in the government and in the country doing what it should be doing."

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to discuss the media coverage of the market drop. Goldberg said this: "My liberal friends rarely make me angry these days, but they do amuse me with their crazy liberal ideas. Paul Krugman in the New York Times said there is too much balance in hard news stories about the economy and politics and he wants hard news journalists to come out and say that Tea Party people brought the country to the brink of disaster. Then a few days later Senator John Kerry said pretty much the same thing. If Krugman and Kerry ran a newsroom, they would keep out conservatives who say we are spending too much. These are two liberal authoritarians who believe they know better than anyone else and who want only their side to have a voice."

And that is a total lie, Krugman never said that, and neither did Kerry. What Krugman said is that the media is not reporting all the facts in the S&P credit downgrade story, and he is right, and John Kerry said the credit downgrade was a Tea Party caused downgrade, and he is also right about that. So what O'Reilly did was have the far-right Bernie Goldberg on to attack Krugman and Kerry, with right-wing spin and talking points. With nobody from the left to debate it, let alone have Krugman or Kerry on to defend what they wrote and said.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly went overboard, he had the crazy far-right loon Michelle Bachmann on to tell us how to fix the economy. Bachmann said this: "The number one thing that needs to be done, is that Treasury Secretary Geithner has to go. If your economic team isn't working you have to get someone in who knows what to do. Secondly, if I were president today, I would call all the members of Congress back to Washington and tell them that the time for entitlement reform is now."

Bachmann specifically endorsed means-testing for Medicare benefits, saying this: "People who do not have sufficient income could have their health insurance subsidized, but people who do have sufficient income would purchase their own health insurance. But it has to be crystal clear that no one who is a current recipient of benefits would be impacted. And more important than anything is repealing Obamacare."

Then O'Reilly predicted that Obamacare repeal is moot because "the Supreme Court is going to throw it out."

And I predict O'Reilly will be wrong, not to mention, what part of what Bachmann said is going to fix the economy, did she even answer the question, I did not hear it if she did. Having Bachmann on to say how to fix the economy, is like having R. Kelly on to tell us how to not have sex with underage girls, it's ridiculous.

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

Big Voter ID Law Story O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - August 9, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is a big story about Republicans passing voter ID laws across the country, that will make it harder for mostly Democrats to vote, and O'Reilly has ignored the entire story.

Why you ask, because he is a Republican and he agrees with what the Republicans are doing, O'Reilly supports the new voter ID laws. Even though it is a fact that it will suppress the vote among Democrats, mostly the poor and elderly who do not have cars.

O'Reilly likes it because it will lead to less votes for Democrats, who he hates. And not only are some Republicans passing these voter ID laws, one of them tried to close some DMV offices in the poor and minority areas to make it even harder for them to get to a DMV office for a photo ID. And of course O'Reilly has ignored that story too, but if a Democratic Gov. was doing this garbage, it would be the top story on the Factor for a week, with follow up segments.

In a sharp reversal, the state of Wisconsin announced it will expand Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) services to accommodate the increased demand for photo identification in the wake of a controversial new Voter ID law.

As reported last week, after signing a Voter ID law earlier this year that disenfranchises tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, Gov. Scott Walker (R) then called for closing as many as 16 DMV offices across the state, making it even more difficult for residents to obtain the ID they needed to regain their electoral voice.

Walker's undemocratic plan prompted widespread criticism and has apparently compelled the administration to completely change its position:
Department of Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb said the expansion leaves all current offices open, increases the total number of offices across the state from 88 to 92 and drastically expands the hours of operation for some 40 counties.

The change, was called for by Gov. Scott Walker's 2011-13 budget and was meant to address an increase in demand for photo IDs in the wake of the state's new law requiring voters to show ID at the polls.

The plan announced Thursday differed markedly from the one first unveiled last month, which called for closing as many as 16 offices while expanding office hours elsewhere. That proposal was immediately panned by some as unfairly targeting Democratic areas.
But State Rep. Andy Jorgensen (D) is still angry that Walker even considered closing down DMV offices, including one in his district, and accused the governor's administration of playing politics with necessary services.

Although the new plan infringes less on voters' rights, it also confirms that these new, completely unnecessary Voter ID laws being signed by conservative governors across the country are costing states millions of dollars at a time they can least afford it.

O'Reilly: Only Far-Left Blame Tea Party For Downgrade
By: Steve - August 9, 2011 - 9:00am

And once again O'Reilly is wrong, he is spinning for the Tea Party, that he supports btw. Now he claims that only the far-left zealots believe the Tea Party is to blame for the S&P credit rating downgrade.

As usual O'Reilly is being dishonest with the people to defend a fringe party on the right that he supports.

Billy said this on the Monday Factor show:

And you know he has the facts, because they issued a report on why they downgraded the US from AAA TO AA. So to deny it O'Reilly had to have a partisan motive, and to say nobody but the far-left is blaming them is even more crazy, because all the polls show the Tea Party and the Republican Party are more to blame then Obama and the Democrats.

In fact, here are a few quotes right from the S&P report:

-- The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

-- The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

-- Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place.

-- We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, what part of that do you not understand, they even spell it out for you so that even a 5 year old could understand it. They say the downgrade happened because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure to raise revenue.

To deny this, only proves you are nothing but a dishonest right-wing hack, who is spinning and defending the people in the Tea Party and the Republican Party, that you have admitted you support.

Judge Rules American Can Sue Rumsfeld For Torture
By: Steve - August 8, 2011 - 10:00am

An American contractor who said he was tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq can sue former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a judge has ruled.

The man, whose name is withheld from court records, is a U.S. Army veteran who worked as a translator in Anbar province. The U.S. suspected him of helping Iraqi enemies acquire classified information and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq, though he was never charged with a crime and says he never broke the law.

The man's federal lawsuit claims that Rumsfeld personally approved torture on a case-by-case basis and did not allow access to U.S. courts. His attorney, Mike Kanovitz of Chicago, says the U.S. military did not want his client to reveal information he had acquired in Iraq.

"The U.S. government wasn't ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice," Kanovitz told the AP. "If you've got unchecked power over the citizens, why not use it?"

U.S. District Judge James Gwin, said U.S. citizens retain their constitutional protections during wartime.

"The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad," Gwin wrote in a Tuesday ruling.

The Justice Department had argued Rumsfeld cannot be sued because judges can't review wartime decisions. But the court found no convincing reason why American citizens should give up their constitutional rights during a war.

And of course the great (haha) journalist (haha) Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about the ruling, even though he does an is it legal segment once a week on his show.

Gingrich Says Buy American Then Buys From El Salvador
By: Steve - August 8, 2011 - 9:00am

Can you find any more of a lying, phony, right-wing hypocrite than Newt Gingrich, I doubt it. Gingrich went on Hannity's radio show Thursday where he attacked President Obama's economic policies and called for "putting Americans back to work by rebuilding American manufacturing."

Gingrich said this: "We can't have a national security system if we don't make anything, so our very survival as a country requires us to rebuild our manufacturing base."

So then what does Gingrich do, he buys his campaign t-shirts from El Salvador of course.

While Gingrich is right to call for more American manufacturing, he apparently is not interested in contributing to this vital industry himself, as his campaign's t-shirts are made in El Salvador. Then his campaign blamed the embarrassing fact on the campaign's volunteers.

"That's a pretty inexcusable freshman campaign mistake," Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing said of Gingrich and the other GOP presidential candidates whose swag is not Made in the U.S.A.

And btw folks, it's not just Newt Gingrich, the other Republicans, and O'Reilly does it too. If you go look on his Factor gear website you will see that 90% of what he sells is not made in the USA, some of it is made in China, Vietnam, etc.

So while these right-wing blowhards talk a good game about helping the American workers and improving our economy, the facts show that they are total jerks who buy their products from foreign countries to get it as cheap as possible. And where is the jobs plan the Republicans promised, nowhere to be found, they are not doing a damn thing about jobs, which is the #1 issue facing America today.

New Poll Shows Negative View Of Tea Party Increasing
By: Steve - August 7, 2011 - 10:00am

While O'Reilly and his right-wing friends tell you how great the Tea Party is, and how powerful they are, the polls show a totally different story.

Here are some quotes from an article about the new poll:

The percentage of people with an unfavorable view of the Tea Party in a New York Times/CBS News Poll this week was higher than it has been since the first time the question was asked, in April 2010. Forty percent of those polled this week characterized their view as "not favorable," compared with 18 percent in the first poll.

Only 20% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party.

While 18 percent of people in the April 2010 poll identified themselves as Tea Party supporters, just 4 percent of those polled had actually attended a meeting or given money to the movement.

The debate over the debt ceiling gave people a more concrete picture: Tea Party groups and members of the Tea Party caucus in the House and Senate - many of them elected in the Republican sweep of 2010 - insisted that they would not raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. While members of the American public, meanwhile, were telling pollsters that they wanted compromise, not inflexibility.

Tea Party groups and lawmakers made debt reduction their priority, but many Americans said creating jobs was more important. And while many Republicans, influenced by the Tea Party, insisted that they would not allow any increases in tax revenue, a majority of Americans said debt reduction had to include higher taxes as well as lower spending.

In the most recent poll, most Americans took a negative view of the debt-ceiling negotiations, seeing them as "mostly about gaining political advantage."

With Republicans in charge of the House, more of the blame fell on them. And many people - a 43 percent plurality - saw the Tea Party as having too much influence on Republicans.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Democrats were most likely to have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party. But a plurality of independents, too - 40 percent - viewed the Tea Party negatively, and said it had too much influence on the Republican Party.

What this poll shows is that not only are the Tea Party members out of touch with the average American, the view of their party is getting worse over time, not better. Proving that O'Reilly is a liar when he talks about how great and powerful they are. Because they are going downhill fast, most likely because they are too far to the right, something O'Reilly will not admit to.

And it's actually pretty sad, the Tea Party could have been a good thing, except it was ruined by all the right-wing Obama hating idiots who joined them. I would have supported a non-partisan Independent Tea Party, but not the Tea Party they have, because it's pretty much all Republicans.

S&P Downgrades USA Credit Because Of Republicans
By: Steve - August 7, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is some news you will never see reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox. For the first time in history S&P downgraded the US credit, because of the Republican position on tax increases, and because of the Bush tax cuts, and they even say that in their report.

Reuters reported this: "The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy." The new rating is AA+.

In explaining their decision Standard & Poors cites both the decision by Republicans in Congress to turn the debt ceiling into a political football and the Republicans intransigence on tax increases. Some excerpts from the release:
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.

The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place.

We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.
Standard & Poors also said that they could improve their rating for the U.S. if "the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Obama Administration is advocating."

And btw folks, the Wall Street Journal reported this: "A spokesman for Rep. Eric Cantor, the House GOP majority leader, declined to comment Friday night."

The Friday 8-5-11 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 6, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because Juan Williams was the fill-in host for O'Reilly. And I will not do a full review, but I will comment on a few things Juan reported about.

To begin with, having Juan Williams host is just like having O'Reilly there, he has about the same guests, and makes almost the same arguments as O'Reilly. Even though Juan is billed as a Democrat, it's a lie, and Juan has even admitted he is more conservative than he is liberal.

So the way they bill him as a Democrat is even dishonest, and the usual garbage from O'Reilly. I will say this though, at least he is better than Laura Ingraham, but not much.

Juan started the show with a Republican from Fox slamming Obama of course, and they even claim Obama is hurting corporations, but if that is true, how come they are sitting on more cash than in the history of America. If they are doing so bad, how did they get all that cash? Answer that Juan.

Then Juan talked about the liberal argument that the federal government should extend unemployment benefits to increase demand and boost the economy. He had liberal author Erica Payne and conservative columnist Steve Moore on to discuss it.

The crazy Moore said this: "You don't create jobs and employment by paying people to stay unemployed, and that's essentially what the unemployment insurance program does. We're now paying people almost two years of benefits and the evidence is very clear - the longer you provide people unemployment benefits, the longer they stay unemployed."

Which is one of the dumbest right-wing arguments I have ever heard, hey Moore, those people had jobs and they earned that money, jerk.

Payne argued that unemployment payments are economically and morally necessary, saying this: "When you're looking at a structural unemployment problem, as a society we need to have compassion. Our unemployment rate is closer to 18% and I have a hard time saying all those people should join the job market. There aren't jobs right now for them to get. And unemployment insurance isn't living high on the hog; you're just giving them a small amount of money to get them from today until tomorrow."

Then Juan talked about a new poll that shows only 20% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party, while 40% view the party unfavorably. Juan analyzed the numbers with Tea Party supporter Mark Meckler and radio talk show host Leslie Marshall.

Marshall said this: "The polls have been clear that Americans are supporting the Tea Party less and less. The Tea Party is viewed as risking the sovereignty of America to make a political point, and viewed as holding Americans hostage to make a political point. The American people are tired of the fragmentation."

And then of course Meckler defended the Tea Party, saying this: "We have been vilified by the left - we've been called Nazis and racists and terrorists. I don't think there has been another group in the history of the country that has been vilified the way we have. But the Tea Party is a dominant player in the debate, and you're going to see a lot more seats turn in 2012 as a result of Tea Party influence. This is about shifting the balance of power in America and we are clearly winning that debate."

Haha, good luck with that fool. The only seats Tea Party losers will get are Republican seats, from people they think are not far right enough. And I predict within 2 years nobody will even talk about the Tea Party anymore, because it will be pretty much gone.

Then Juan ran a re-run of a biased garbage interview with O'Reilly and some right-wing fool, that wrote a book about liberal media bias, and of course nobody was on to counter what he said, or to talk about all the right-wing media bias.

Then Juan had the Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry on to spin out a fairy tale that now Obama is getting all the blame for the economy, etc. Which is a lie, because the polls show that the majority of the people still blame Bush and the Republicans more than Obama. So Juan was being just like O'Reilly, spinning out right-wing propaganda, with a Fox News guest, and nobody to counter their spin.

And finally in the last segment Juan ran another re-run of an interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner.

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots, that is just a total waste of tv time.

O'Reilly Attacks Led Frank Rich To Get Security
By: Steve - August 6, 2011 - 9:00am

In a recent New York magazine article Frank Rich talked about how O'Reilly went after him 6 different times on his show, and that led to him getting the worst hate mail of his career, in fact, it was so bad he talked to a security company.

Here is what Rich wrote in the article:
After I came to the less-than-novel judgment that Mel Gibson and his 2004 movie The Passion of the Christ were anti-Semitic, O'Reilly, whose one novel had been optioned by Gibson for a film, attacked me on six different installments of his prime-time Fox News show, The O'Reilly Factor, sometimes displaying my photograph.

I would have laughed off his blowhard provocations -- "Hollywood and a lot of the secular press are controlled by the Jewish people" was a ­typical hypothesis -- had they not incited the most explicitly violent and virulently anti-Semitic threats of my career.

It was only one of two times in seventeen years as a Times columnist that I sought security advice. (The other was when I wrote critically about Scientology some years earlier.)
That is what the Factor fans do folks, after O'Reilly goes after someone (always a liberal) his fans send them the worst hate mail they have ever had. And now get this, O'Reilly says he can not find any hate from the right, when his very own fans put out some of the worst hate you would ever find.

And I should know, for over 10 years the Factor fans have been sending me the most vile and offensive hate mail I have ever seen. And yet, O'Reilly can not find any hate on the right, hey Billy, just look at your fans, jerk.

And btw, O'Reilly complains that partisan attacks on him have forced him to get security, when he does the very same thing he complains about.

Millionaire Tax Rates Have Dropped 25 Percent
By: Steve - August 6, 2011 - 8:00am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends go on and on about how we need to lower taxes for the wealthy and the corporations to create jobs and provide a healthy economy. Their argument is also to not raise taxes on the wealthy, ever. And they also claim that the wealthy pay too much in taxes now.

Except the facts show different, because when Bill Clinton was the President he raised taxes on the wealthy, and his liberal economic policies led to 8 years of economic boom, with 22 million new jobs being created. A fact that O'Reilly never reports, and a fact that no Republican will ever admit to, let alone talk about.

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends say liberal policies do not work, and raising taxes on the wealthy will lead to less jobs and a weak economy. While ignoring what happened under Clinton, and what happened under Bush, who did just what they called for, and it dod not create jobs, or give us a strong economy.

In fact, it was a disaster during the Bush years, and all it did was make the rich richer, while adding trillions to the debt, the trillions of debt they blame on Obama, when it was added by the Bush tax cuts. So they just deny reality, and blame it all on Obama, while saying taxes are too high, and liberal policies got us into the mess we are in today.

They also ignore the facts on taxes. The Center for American Progress took a look at new IRS data and found that "as a percentage of their incomes, millionaires are now paying about one-quarter less of their income to federal taxes than they did in the mid-1990s."

In fact, the report also said this: "Millionaires paid an average tax rate of 22.4 percent in 2009, down by a quarter since 1995, when they paid an average of 30.4 percent."

Notice you do not ever see O'Reilly report information like this, that's because it would crush his right-wing spin on taxes being too high on the wealthy, and it would actually inform his viewers with the truth, so he would never do that.

The Thursday 8-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 5, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Obama, power and the falling stock market. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we predicted weeks ago, the debt debacle has weakened President Obama. All the polls show that Americans are furious that the government couldn't settle an obvious problem without a chaotic exposition. Also, people are getting hurt as the stock market plummets - the Dow was down more than 500 points today, 1,300 points in the past two weeks.

How can any American be optimistic when the national debt is growing by more than $4 billion every single day? Mr. Obama knows he's in trouble and he knows that Republicans will not cooperate with him any longer because they want to see him defeated in 2012. So for the next sixteen months little will get done in Washington as the House will pretty much block everything the President wants to do.

So instead of fighting a losing battle on Capitol Hill, the President has already turned his attention to the upcoming campaign. Mr. Obama knows he can't win reelection without independent voters, so he is talking about 'making investments in our people.'

The problem with making investments in the folks is that there isn't any money, America is broke! Simply put, the President's economic policies and liberal tenets of big government have failed. Will the voters realize that? We will not find out until November 6th, 2012.
Are you kidding me? What polls is O'Reilly looking at. Because all the polls I have seen say the people dislike what the Republicans did more than Obama, so O'Reilly was not just spinning, he was lying. And notice how O'Reilly reports on the market drop, but where was he when the market was going up every day under Obama. Nowhere to be found, he ignored that.

Not to mention, the market is still up since Obama took over as President, which O'Reilly predicted would not happen. O'Reilly is a partisan joke on this, he lies about the polls, and only reports on the market when it goes down, then claims it is all because of Obama.

Then O'Reilly has the far-right hack Stuart Varney on to discuss it, Varney said this: "All the indicators point to another recession, and the President does not have a plan to deal with it. In fact, he has virtually no policy options, so you're looking at a slowdown in America, an administration that doesn't know what to do about it, and an exploding crisis in Europe. Down goes the market!"

And that my friends is a load of right-wing garbage, because Obama does have a plan, he just can not put it in place because the Republicans control the House and they block everything he wants to do. Making Varney a total fool, and a liar.

Varney then speculated that President Obama is boxed in by ideology, saying this: "If he were to change course and get rid of Obamacare, get rid of these crippling regulations and instill confidence in private enterprise, he would be repudiating his entire presidency. He is ideologically driven and he is taking us down a road that Americans don't want to go on."

Which is laughable, because on virtually every poll on the major issues facing America today, the majority of people support Obama and the Democrats over the Republicans. I guess Varney can not read the polls either.

So then O'Reilly actually had a liberal on the show, it's a miracle. Professor Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it. Hill said this: "People have a lack of confidence in the American political system, not just in President Obama. Today's crash has much more to do with European markets than it does with Obama's leadership. He has a very clear plan to help the economy but he has never had the opportunity to execute his plan because he's always caving to the right. And now he has fully shifted himself into campaign mode, which means he is playing from the center and maybe even the right."

So Billy complained that President Obama is pursuing an ideological vision that has failed everywhere, saying this: "He wants to model the economy and the 'social justice system' on what Western Europe has done, yet now we see country after country collapsing. You would think Barack Obama would notice that and say maybe it's not the right thing to do."

Then O'Reilly had the far far right nut Ann Coulter on to discuss it. Crazy Coulter said this: "He's made a hash of things, and there is no hope in sight. The reason he is losing power is because he has made a hash of the economy because he has crazy ideas about increasing the size of government while the Republicans want to increase the size of the private sector. But gridlock is better than letting Democrats do what they want. If the choice is between gridlock and socialism, I'll take gridlock!"

Okay folks, notice what O'Reilly did there, did you see what it was? He put out a right-wing spin talking pints memo, then he has 2 far right loons and one liberal on to discuss it. So it's a 3 to 1 argument, and he makes it look like all the right-wingers are in the right, because you had 3 people who agree with only 1 who disagreed. it's called stacking the deck to make your argument look better.

If I had a tv show and I had 3 to 1 liberals against conservatives all my arguments would look better too. It's ridiculous, and it is a perfect example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, just by what he did, with the 3 on 1 guests.

Then O'Reilly had Mike Huckabee on, who has produced an animated educational video depicting Al Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. Billy invited Huckabee to respond to those on the left who object to the cartoons.

Huckabee said this: "These are videos that are written by a panel of experts, then checked out by historians and teachers. The idea is to take kids through American history in a positive way, and 91% of liberals who have actually watched them say they like them and would get them for their kids. So it's very frustrating that MSNBC, which has fewer viewers than you have people going to the bathroom during a break, goes after us like this."

Huckabee also denied thethat accusations he is cashing in on 9/11, saying this: "The irony is that Michael Moore made $222 million off of 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' and I don't remember anyone on MSNBC screaming about 'blood money' or 'profiteering.' This is like saying Steven Spielberg was cashing in on the Holocaust because he made 'Schindler's List.'"

Then O'Reilly talked about a polling firm that asked Americans about God, only 52% "approved" of God's performance, while 9% disapproved and 40% were not quite sure. O'Reilly asked about those numbers with Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover. And this segment was so stupid I am not going to report much on it, except to say that even the religious gretchen Carlson said the poll was stupid.

Carlson said this: "This is a stupid poll, with a stupid question. Approve of God's performance on what, the economy? Half the people in the United States are blaming God for their problems?" But get this, O'Reilly defended the poll as original and provocative, what an idiot.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Steve Doocy and Dagen McDowell on for the lame Factor news quiz, that I do not repor on, and will never report on.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots. And btw folks, the pinheads and patriots is ridiculous, the other day O'Reilly named the Captain America movie a patriot, because he said it shows how great and powerful America is. Really? Earth to O'Reilly, it's a movie, it's not real, and it does not show anything, except that people in America can make a movie about a comic book super hero.

O'Reilly Claims Women's Health Care Raises Unemployment
By: Steve - August 5, 2011 - 10:00am

I am shocked at all the dumb things O'Reilly says, and I still want an investigation to see if O'Reilly cheated his way through Harvard.

Why do I ask that, because on the Tuesday Factor show O’Reilly worked himself into a lather over the Obama administration’s recent decision to require new health insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays.

And last week he wrongly claimed that women don't deserve government subsidized birth control because they're too "blasted out of their minds during sex to use it." Which is a lie, and O'Reilly has no stats or any study to prove what he claimed.

So then on Tuesday during an interview with Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), O'Reilly went a step further in his tirade against women's health care and said it was the reason businesses aren't hiring:

O'REILLY: Now the federal government is ordering the health insurance companies to pay for all breast feeding stuff, all female birth control stuff, all preventative measures for doctors for ladies that go in. What do you think that's gonna do? That's going to inhibit hiring even more!

KUCINICH: Frankly, we ought to be very concerned about women's health care.

O'REILLY: I am concerned, but they're not going to expand and hire if they have to pay higher health care premiums for workers! Businesses aren't going to do it. You can't have both. You can't have a welfare state and a robust capitalist system.
Which is just ridiculous, and once again O'Reilly has no evidence to back up his claims. By breast feeding stuff, O'Reilly was talking about the fact that under the Obama administration's ruling, health insurers will be required to pay for a range of preventative care services, including HPV, DNA, HIV screening, and the costs for renting breastfeeding equipment.

Women's premiums will actually pay for the services. But apparently conservatives like O'Reilly only support family values as long as the government never has to spend a dime to help poor women care for their children.

It's also surprising that a professed fiscal conservative would be opposed to preventative health care for women, which not only improves the health of women and their families, but saves the government money.

O'Reilly is also wrong to suggest that women's health care is the reason businesses aren't hiring. Corporations are reaping enormous profits and sitting on a record pile of cash, but are still sending jobs overseas or hiring less than they were before the recession.

Not to mention, according to a recent Wall Street Journal survey, "the main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies."

In other words, O'Reilly was talking out his ass, putting out right-wing spin and propaganda, with no evidence to back up his ridiculous claims. And he has the nerve to call Media Matters a propaganda outlet, when all they did was quote him word for word. If anyone is a propaganda outlet, it's him and Fox News.

O'Reilly Calls Out Viewer For Quoting Him Word For Word
By: Steve - August 5, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is classic O'Reilly, a viewer writes in to slam him by quoting exactly what he said, so what does O'Reilly do, hammer the viewer and claim he got the quotes about him from the Media Matters website.

Here is what O'Dummy said:

O'Reilly even called it a propaganda site, and said if you want to visit it that is your right. So what propaganda was he talking about, they quoted O'Reilly word for word, and the viewer who wrote to O'Reilly dared to quote him using what Media Matters published.

Now think about this, the guy quoted O'Reilly, word for word, and O'Reilly never denied he said it. Then he attacks the guy for his source, when the source had it right, and not once did O'Reilly say they got it wrong. He just said they are a propaganda site, without talking about the claims the viewer made.

O'Reilly does not say that the criticism is valid (or not) he only complained that the writer got the information from Media Matters.

Great New Blog Everyone Should Read!
By: Steve - August 5, 2011 - 8:00am

Hey folks, I found a great new blog. It's called Uthers Say, and it's run by a man named Mario Patane. Here is the link:

His blog is in response to the corporate media. And his outrage began when the Fox News Channel came to Australia with a purchased cable package.

He writes that News Corp. may be more subtle in Australia but it exerts a powerful political influence controlling 70% of the print media, with its journalists appearing on much of the broadcast media.

He plans to offer a perspective from afar on the debt crisis debate and how it is a window into how FNC and News Corp. play the media game in the interests of the bottom line of the corporation and its beneficiaries.

So check it out and bookmark it, then make it a regular site you read often.

The Wednesday 8-3-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 4, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why America is losing power. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The debt deal this week accomplished one big thing - it kept U.S. bonds from being downgraded. But there is little else good about the debt deal and the stock market knows it. Wall Street has little confidence that the Obama administration and Congress will do what's necessary to improve the economy.

And here are some of the reasons: Last December the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued its report, calling for deep spending cuts and entitlement reform. President Obama thanked the commission and then ignored most of their recommendations.

A few months later, President Obama proposed his budget for 2012, which was defeated 97 - 0 in the Senate. Would you have confidence in a guy like that? And then there's Congress, where extremists on both sides are scaring investors.

The far left loons want even more government spending; on the far right, there are people who say we should blow up the entire economic system and start all over. Extreme points of view are heard loudly on cable and talk radio and they are spooking the investment community.

The President is hurting the private sector because he wants to provide medical services 'free.' How on Earth does President Obama think jobs are going to be created if he continues to take profits away from the private sector?

Then there are federal regulations on business. Under Mr. Obama, the annual cost of regulating the private sector has risen to almost $2 trillion a year, twice as much as the government collects in income taxes! You can't grow an economy by strangling it with government-mandated expenses and regulations that choke off expansion.

I'm not giving the Bush administration a pass because they contributed to the chaos big-time, but you can't blame our current problems on a former president. Mr. Obama has had plenty of time to move the economy forward, but it has not happened. The motto of this program is 'the spin stops here' and the motto of the Obama administration should be 'the madness stops now.'

Get back to helping business expand, Mr. President, and knock off the nanny state lunacy. Grave damage is being done and the worldwide marketplace knows it.
And as usual most of that is right-wing spin, and nothing but O'Reilly's opinion, while I can not cover it all, I will mention a few things. Funny how O'Reilly fails to mention that the stock market is up quite a bit since Obama took office, and until just recently it was over 12,000 for a long time. Notice how O'Reilly calls the far-left loons, while only saying the "far-right" when talking about them.

Then O'Reilly spins the health care for women again as hurting job creation, which is ridiculous, demand is why jobs are not being created, and corporations are sitting on more cash then they have ever had in the history of America. O'Reilly never reports any of that, and the reason they are sitting on the cash is to hurt Obama politically, because if they hire people it makes Obama look good. They are waiting until after the 2012 election, in the hopes of getting a Republican President elected, who will lower their taxes. And I say it is borderline treason.

So then O'Reilly does what he always does after one of his right-wing spin talking points memo, he has a Republican on to agree with him to make it look like he is right in what he said. With no Democratic guest to provide the balance, or to give the counter point, as in de-spin his right-wing propaganda.

The far-right Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the TPM and President Obama's economic policies. Dobbs said this: "You're exactly right about regulation, which is the secret tax that is overwhelming America. We need a strong leader in the White House who says we should start thinking honestly about what drives a free enterprise capitalist economy that has worked for more than 200 years to create millions of jobs and wealth around the world. I think President Obama understands this, but there is an ideological divide."

Hey Lou, we had what you are asking for, from 2000 until 2009, his name was George W. Bush, and he did everything you and O'Reilly want Obama to do. How did that work out? It was a disaster, and all it did was make the wealthy more wealthy, while almost putting the country into a depression. And these right-wing losers keep saying liberal policies do not work, while refusing to admit they did for 8 years under Bill Clinton. And if Bush had not destroyed the economy so much, they would work again now too under Obama. Funny how Dobbs and O'Reilly ignore that.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about Sarah Palin slamming the GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney for sitting out the debt debate without taking a position. So he had the Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani on to discuss it.

Giuliani said this: "The reality is that back in 2007 when I ran, by this point we had all devastated each other and it was much more bitter than it has been so far this year. A debate about how much to compromise is okay, but if it becomes a real battle we will hand the presidency to Obama. And if we nominate somebody who is too far out and can't win the independents, we are going to lose."

Giuliani also praised Tea Party fiscal hawks, saying this: "if it weren't for the Tea Party we would have had no reduction in spending."

Then O'Dummy had the body language bimbo Tonya Reiman on, which I do not report on, but I will say this. O'Reilly had her do a reading on Professor Paul Krugman, and Billy said this about him. O'Reilly called Krugman a shifty-eyed Princeton professor. O'Reilly also described Krugman as a "spooky guy" who is "not of this Earth."

Which is just laughable, the man is a Professor of economics at Princeton, a Nobel Prize winner, and an author of 20 books. Talk about bias, that is it, O'Reilly hates the man so much and he is so biased to the right he hates Professor Krugman, simply because he has some liberal ideas. But you never see him say anything like that about any conservatives, because O'Reilly agrees with them.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly non-funny jokes on liberals garbage. And as usual I do not report on it, because it is not news, and there is not a liberal comedian on to balance out Miller.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on to discuss a Mitt Romney campaign video that assails President Obama's economic policies. Huddy said this: "It's a beautiful ad, that takes Obama's words and uses them against him. This is Romney's foray out into the public - he's been kind of behind the scenes and has been criticized for it. He was silent and now he's speaking out - he'll have seven town hall meetings in New Hampshire in August."

Now I have a few problems with this, first, the Romney ad was only shown to give him free time on tv, which O'Reilly never does for any Democrats, ever. Second, O'Reilly used the did you see that segment to air the ad for free, to help Romney, it was all a scam to get the Romney ad on tv without making him pay for it, and O'Reilly did that on purpose.

Third, back when Bush was in office O'Reilly called out any Democrat for slamming Bush, he said you can not just slam him for what he is doing unless you say what your plan is to fix things. Now O'Reilly does not call for any Republicans to give their plan, as they slam Obama, so it shows once again his bias for the right, his double standards, and his hypocrisy.

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

Fox News Idiots Claim USA Could Become Like Greece
By: Steve - August 4, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and some of the other idiots at Fox have been saying that the United States could soon experience the economic struggles seen in Greece if we do not cut our spending.

Which is ridiculous, because economists have pointed out that the two countries economies are not comparable at all, and said that it is "impossible" for the United States to experience the same economic problems as seen in Greece.

On the August 2nd edition of Hannity, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said this: "We're getting to debt at 200 percent of GDP, and we could look like Greece within three years."

On the August 2nd edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said this: "If the Democrats win the next election, then it will be what we have now, you know, with littler increments of spending." Stossel responded with this: "We'll become Greece a little more slowly."

On the August 1st edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity claimed that "America is now on a trajectory to Greece."

On the August 3rd edition of Fox & Friends, Gretchen Carlson asked GOP strategist Dee Dee Benkie, "What does it say about where we are down the road 10 years from now with our debt -- 20 years, 30 years?" Benkie replied with this: "This is very simple. If we re-elect Barack Obama, we're in Greece. We are Greece. We're in big trouble. This guy is taking us to financial ruin. We are doomed."

And now the facts, the USA becoming Greece is impossible. In a June 14th, 2010, blog post, former Bush Treasury official and conservative economist Bruce Bartlett noted that "the sort of problem Greece is experiencing is impossible here."
BARTLETT: The main reason the U.S. cannot suffer the sort of debt problems of Greece and other eurozone countries is that all our debt is denominated in dollars, of which we essentially have an unlimited supply.

Because its monetary policy is controlled by the European Central Bank, Greece can't just print euros the way we can print dollars. And the Federal Reserve will always ensure the success of a Treasury bond auction.

De facto monetization of the debt could be inflationary, but default resulting from a lack of demand for Treasury bonds is not really possible.
And he is not the only economic expert who says the USA can never end up like Greece, Dean Baker also said it is impossible because we can print money, and we could buy back our debt if we had to.
BAKER: Actually this is not right for the simple reason that the United States has its own currency. Even in the worst case scenario, where the deficit in United States spirals out of control, the crisis would not take the form of the crisis in Greece.

Greece is like the state of Ohio. If Ohio has to borrow, it has no choice but to persuade investors to buy its debt. Greece must pay the rate of interest demanded by private investors or meet the conditions imposed by the European Union/IMF as part of a bailout.

However, because the United States has its own currency it would always have the option to buy its own debt. The Federal Reserve Board could in principle buy an unlimited amount of debt simply by printing more money.
Now the worst part of this is that O'Reilly, Stossel, Hannity, Carlson, etc. all know that it is impossible for the USA to end up like Greece. But they spin out this garbage that we could, to scare people into thinking if they vote to re-elect President Obama we will end up like Greece.

It's all ridiculous, it's nothing but right-wing propaganda, it's flat out fear tactics, and frankly it's all lies. From O'Reilly (the so-called non-partisan Independent) and almost everyone else at Fox News.

O'Reilly Called Paul Krugman A Spooky Guy
By: Steve - August 4, 2011 - 9:00am

Why you ask, simply because he is a liberal who writes for the NY Times and O'Reilly does not like him because he has called O'Reilly out on his spin and lies in the past. Here is what the biased fool O'Reilly said:

Notice that O'Reilly never calls any of the far-right conservative writers at the numerous right-wing media outlets, spooky, he only says it about liberals.

And btw, here is what Paul Krugman has done in his life:
-- Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

-- Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

-- Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes.

-- His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge."

-- Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

-- On October 14, 2008 Mr. Krugman Won the Nobel Prize for Economics.
What has O'Reilly done, he got a job at Fox News on their lame cable tv network, doing a right-wing biased fraud of a News show.

So who are you going to trust more, Mr. Krugman or Bill O'Reilly, I think I'll go with Professor Krugman.

The Tuesday 8-2-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 3, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Terrorism and the Tea Party. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The far left is once again trying to marginalize the Tea Party in the eyes of non-ideological Americans. You may remember that the radical left tried to brand the Tea Party 'racist,' but that attempt failed. Now the uber-left legions are at it again, equating the Tea Party's staunch opposition to a debt compromise with terrorism.

In the New York Times, Joe Nocera writes that Tea Party Republicans 'have waged jihad on the American people.' Jihad? As you may know, I disagree with the Tea Party on occasion, but branding them 'terrorists' is disgraceful. Are far-left politicians like Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkin terrorists as well? They voted against the debt deal.

Hey, far-left fanatics, is there a difference when your side refuses to compromise? The bitter political divide in the USA is disturbing and using words like 'terrorist' and 'racist' to brand opponents is simply unacceptable.

Maybe President Obama needs to give another speech like his Arizona appeal; some of his most ardent supporters obviously did not get the message.
Wow is O'Reilly a misguided lying spin doctor. The left did brand the Tea Party racist, because they were, at least some of them were, and it did not fail. Then O'Reilly labels everyone on the left bad guys for what two people said, which is also wrong. Instead of smearing the entire left-wing community, attack the two guys who said it. And notice how O'Reilly never does this to anyone on the right, if they say something wrong, he goes after them only, while not saying all of the people on the right are bad.

In fact, when people on the left label everyone on the right bad for the actions of a few, O'Reilly says that is wrong, then he does the very same thing to the left. Proving once again that he is a biased right-wing hack of a fake journalist.

So then what does O'Reilly do, he has the far-right Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, with no guest from the left to give the counter point, or provide the balance.

Billy asked Krauthammer about the vitriolic demonization of the Tea Party. Krauthammer said this: "This is the spitting and sputtering of people who have been deeply defeated. They were up against a small minority and they got routed. Liberals hold the Senate, they hold the White House and they hold the media, and they still got defeated. This is a pathetic response - if you have no arguments, what do you do? You attack and you call people names. But I don't think it's a conspiracy - the reason for the repetition is lack of intelligence and lack of originality. These people are slothful and I don't credit them with the intelligence to put together a conspiracy."

Then O'Reilly claimed that the attacks were coordinated, saying this: "We're hearing that there are media people who are on the mailing lists of radical left websites, so they get talking points and they spit it back."

And btw, Obama got a debt deal done, so how did he get routed, when the Republicans (and O'Reilly) had said if Obama did not get a deal it would cost him the 2012 election, explain that Billy. Not to mention, if the economy improves over the next year Obama will be seen as doing a good job and he will get re-elected.

By then, everyone will have forgot all about this debt deal. In fact, it hurt the Republicans and the Tea Party, and all the polls show it, O'Reilly even said it was wrong for the Tea Party to oppose raising the debt ceiling. Now O'Dummy is slamming the left for attacking the Tea Party, when he also attacked them, what an idiot.

O'Reilly asked if the the center left call out the far left? And I can answer that for him, uh no, jerk. So he had Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich on, who voted against the debt compromise.

Kucinich said this: "No member of Congress should be referred to as a 'terrorist.' We shouldn't be trying to undercut our basic humanity with smears, we have to get America back to work and we have some serious challenges ahead of us. We can't do that if we just attack each other with ad hominem attacks."

O'Reilly then reminded Kucinich that he voted the same way as his ideological opposites, saying this: "We respect your vote because we know you made it on principle, as we respect the Tea Party votes. Your vote mirrored that of Michele Bachmann, and you couldn't get more opposite. But you haven't been called a 'terrorist' by the New York Times or the liberal pundits on MSNBC."

Earth to O'Dummy, Kucinich voted no for different reasons that the loons on the right, so stop spinning his vote.

With polls showing that the vast majority of Americans were disgusted by the recent debt negotiations, O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Tammy Bruce on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "Led by the Tea Party, the Republicans created a crisis they didn't have to create, and then took credit for solving the crisis. I believe this was created by the right-wingers who acted differently with this President than with any previous one."

Then the crazy right-wing Tammy Bruce said this: "After the left had their 'massacre rally theater' in January after the horrific situation in Tucson, we thought they had some new tone they wanted to promote, but we're all getting branded as 'terrorists.' The reason it doesn't happen to the left is because the media is controlled by the left and this is meant to demonize the Tea Party."

Then O'Reilly had a total waste of time segment on the Obama health care bill, with two doctors, one who supports it, and one who is opposed to it. Really? Why? Earth to O'Reilly, move on, it's over, you lost and Obama won.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi were on to attack the Attorney General Eric Holder, for his claim that Alabama's crackdown on illegal immigrants violates federal law. Guilfoyle said this: "He's making the same argument as in Arizona. The Justice Department says there are specific provisions of the Alabama law that are pre-empted by federal law. For example, Alabama has a provision that when police officers pull someone over with reasonable cause, they have to ascertain whether the person is legally in the state. There's also a provision that you have to make sure that a person who is seeking employment with you is there lawfully."

Nicolazzi argued that Holder's Justice Department is meddling in Alabama's business, saying this: "This is really the state saying that if the federal government isn't going to enforce immigration laws, we're going to have to do it ourselves. My opinion is that Eric Holder is not correct to come into this the way he has."

And O'Reilly made it unanimous, saying this: "All three of us think the Obama administration is overreaching and that states have the right to protect their citizens."

And nobody cares what you three right-wing loons say, except maybe you. Get a clue, the Obama administration sure does not car, and nothing you say on cable tv is going to stop them from doing the right thing.

And finally in the last segment Billy had the loon John Stossel on to assess the debt compromise. Stossel said this: "At least they're finally talking about slowing the growth of government, but what's bad is that this doesn't slow the growth of government by much and we are still on an unsustainable course. All politicians made promises that they can take care of all these things, but they can't. There's just not enough money there."

Stossel also slammed the people who claim that some government programs save money in the long run, saying this: "They say that if government could get people to have preventative care we'd save money, but that's nonsense. If you're healthy through preventative care you'll live longer and incur just as many costs. There's no magic bullet from government, but people think there is."

And that my friends proves that John Stossel is a right-wing idiot. Because it has been proven that preventative care saves a ton of money, because serious medical problems like cancer, etc. are caught and treated early, instead of later on when it cost millions to treat the cancer, making Stossel one of the dumbest people on earth for what he said about it. And it also makes O'Reilly a fool for putting this clown on his so-called news show every week.

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

More Right-Wing Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 3, 2011 - 10:30am

Here is yet another example of right-wing racism against President Obama (the racism O'Reilly claims never happens from the right) from a Republican.

And of course, O'Reilly never reported one word about it, he just ignored the entire story. Then 3 months from now when someone says there is racism on the right against Obama, O'Reilly will deny it, and say he has not seen any of it.

GOP Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) is suffering serious blowback after he equated working with President Obama with "touching a tar baby."

Yes he actually used the racial words "TAR BABY" while talking about working with President Obama.

Lamborn's office issued an apology for any misunderstanding taken from his racially-charged word choice, adding that he simply meant to refer to a sticky situation or quagmire.

In a news release Monday, Lamborn's office also announced that Lamborn sent a personal letter to President Obama apologizing for using a term some find insensitive and that Lamborn is confident that the President will accept his heartfelt apology.

This is what O'Reilly does folks, when a Republicans make a racist statement against Obama (or another black liberal) O'Reilly ignores it, then later down the road he will deny any racism from the right, and even claim he looked but could not find any.

Republican Economist Says Abolish The Debt Ceiling
By: Steve - August 3, 2011 - 10:00am

The Former Reagan and Bush economist Bruce Bartlett called for the abolition of the debt ceiling in a blog post at the New York Times Monday, saying its use as a political tool only increases the potential for economic disaster:
BARTLETT: It is nothing but grandstanding for members of both parties to vote routinely for legislation they know create deficits and then profess shock and horror that the debt limit must be increased as a consequence.
Bartlett also wrote that there is not one iota of evidence to show the limit acts as a constraint on government debt, concluding that abolition of the limit, while unlikely, is necessary.

"The only way to avoid disaster in this sort of game, is not to play."

And for once I agree with a Republican, he is right, and we should just get rid of the worthless debt ceiling.

Credit Rating Agency Affirms AAA Rating After Debt Deal
By: Steve - August 3, 2011 - 9:00am

After threatening that even a short-term default would endanger the United States creditworthiness, the credit rating agency Fitch affirmed Tuesday that the debt ceiling deal approved by Congress makes the risk of default extremely low and commensurate with the nation's prized AAA rating.

If the United States had been downgraded, it would have resulted in higher interest rates and billions of dollars every year in higher interest payments.

Which the Tea Party and a lot of Republicans did not seem to understand, that in their attempt to save the country money, by opposing a raise of the debt ceiling, it would have actually cost us more to default then to go forward with their budget cutting plans.

Basically to default on the debt would have been a disaster, and made us worse off, then if we had done what the Tea Party and some on the right wanted us to do.

The Monday 8-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 2, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What the debt deal means to you. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The House has voted to approve the debt deal, and here's basically what it is: The government will define at least $2.1 trillion in spending cuts and the feds will also raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. This is not nearly enough to bring expenditures under control, but since government is divided between big-spending liberals and small government conservatives, the deal at least lessens the chaos for now.

The most important thing is that it challenges you, the American voter. If you want less spending in the future you'll vote for Republicans; if you want to continue with the big government philosophy you'll vote Democrat. The truth is, we need more revenue and the far right should understand that.

We desperately need a flat tax that would maximize revenue and simplify the tax code so people would pay a fair amount and unfair loopholes would be closed. We also need a small national sales tax to tap into the underground economy.

A sales tax would raise an enormous amount of cash, which could then be used to fund Medicare and other social programs, most of which need to be reformed. In the face of all the madness, it is important to understand the mindset of President Obama and the political left.

Even though the country is in dire economic trouble, largely because of liberal policies, they simply will not acknowledge that. The far-left is accusing the Tea Party and others of extortion, which was articulated by CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who accused it of threatening to 'blow up the country.'

The bottom line is this: Massive pressure had to be put on the Obama administration and the Democrats in order to get anything done on spending cuts. You can call it extortion, but the truth is that we need far more discipline in federal spending and total reform of the tax code.
Now after reading that remember this, almost all of that is right-wing spin. O'Reilly basically put his bias into the analysis of the debt deal. O'Reilly said this: "f you want less spending in the future you'll vote for Republicans; if you want to continue with the big government philosophy you'll vote Democrat." And that is a load of bull, because during the 8 years Bush and the Republicans had control of the Government they spent more than the Democrats ever did.

And what's really funny is O'Reilly has been saying for months that we can not raise taxes, so what does he call for, a raising taxes. He wants a flat tax and a national sales tax, which will never happen, because it favors the wealthy too much, and a national sales tax would be a tax increase of the people who can not afford it, so both ideas are horrible, and a pipe dream.

O'Reilly also said this: "the country is in dire economic trouble, largely because of liberal policies" which is a lie. Liberal policies dd not cause the problem, the Bush administration and 8 years of Republican rule did. I guess he forgot that it was Bush who bankrupted the country, and almost put us into a depression, all Obama did was spend money to keep us out of a depression. What O'Reilly and the right are doing is blaming all the debt Bush and the Republicans created, on Obama, just because he is the President, and it's dishonest as hell.

Then what does O'Reilly do, put the far-right Newt Gingrich on to agree with him, to make it look like he is right. With of course no Democratic guest on for balance, or to give the position on it from the left. That way nobody is on to de-spin O'Reilly's right-wing biased TPM.

Gingrich said this: "The Tea Party members should feel really good. They were effective and we just had an extraordinary moment when a very left-wing President blinked. That would not have happened without the Tea Party. Second, Washington has to shift and focus on the economy. We are in very grave danger of sliding into an even deeper depression and they had better put a lot of attention into repealing Dodd-Frank and fixing the bureaucracies."

Which is ridiculous, because the majority of the people supported Obama in the debt deal, and opposed the lame Tea Party and the right. Not to mention, only 19% of the country say they support the Tea Party, Newt was spinning for them, big time.

Gingrich also said President Obama is a misguided ideologue, saying this: "He actually believes in left-wing economic ideas, but the problem is that they don't work. I think he cares, but all the ideas he has and all the advisors he has are wrong."

Are you kidding me? Gingrich is the misguided ideolouge, Obama is the President, and Newt will never be, in fact, he will probably fade away soon, because he is so far right almost nobody supports him anymore, except the extreme far right. And btw, ask Newt how those left-wing economic ideas worked under Bill Clinton. They worked great, added 22 million new jobs, and led to an economic boom for 8 years, after Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Funny how Newt forgot all that, and how O'Reilly lets him get away with those lies.

Then O'Reilly had Larry Sabato and the right-wing biased pollster Scott Rasmussen on to talk about the Obama job approval ratings, which have dropped a little recently. O'Reilly had Sabato and Rasmussen on to slam Obama, with nobody there to defend him, or give the Democratic side. Not to mention, when Bush was in office O'Reilly did not really care about the job ratings, but now he suddenly cares, because it's a Democrat.

In the next segment O'Reilly was even more biased than usual, he had two Fox stooges James Rosen and Carl Cameron on to talk about the debt deal. And of course it was nothing but right-wing spin from two Fox losers, with nobody from the left to provide the balance. If this is a fair and balanced news show, I'm Babe Ruth. It's ridiculous bias, and not even worth reporting on, where are the Democratic analysts O'Reilly, you biased hack.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right Bernie Goldberg on to comment on the left-wing pundits who are comparing Tea Party Congressmen to terrorists. Goldberg said this: "I see two story lines. One is liberal commentators are saying Barack Obama is a weak president who is letting Tea Party Republicans push him around. The second story line is that a journalist could portray the Tea Party people as principled patriots who care about their country or as dangerous, scary, stupid whackos. A lot of the liberals have portrayed them as the latter, and to compare them with suicide bombers is just wrong."

I did not compare them to terrorists, and I do not know who did, I said refusing to raise the debt ceiling will hurt the country, and the Tea Party (and some Republicans) are borderline guilty of treason for taking that position, and I would say the same for anyone else who was opposed to raising the debt ceiling, Independents and Democrats too.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to weigh in on the debt deal. Williams said this: "I just saw a poll, showing that most Americans say what's been going on in Washington is disgusting. When you talk about President Obama's poll numbers, you should also mention that Republican numbers are even lower. We're going to have an election in 2012 where people will argue about who's protecting Medicare, and I think Democrats are well positioned."

Wow, Juan actually made a good point for once, he rightly pointed out that Republicans numbers are lower than Obama, but O'Reilly never mentions that. In fact, that may be a first, Juan Williams actually called O'Dummy out on his bias, his hypocrisy, and his double standards.

And of course the right-wing loon Mary K. Ham portrayed the Democrats as spending addicts in constant need of a fix. Ham said this: "This has illuminated the remarkable ability of Democrats to deny that there's an actual issue with the amount of money that we're borrowing. I think President Obama genuinely believes liberal policies are going to fix the country even though the evidence says no. He's a liberal college professor and he believes this."

And as usual, she fails to mention that most of the debt we have was caused by Bush, funny how the Republicans just can not admit that.

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

The Sarah Palin Documentary Film Was A Total Flop
By: Steve - August 2, 2011 - 10:00am

Sarah Palin's documentary "The Undefeated" was a massive failure, bringing in just $5,200 last week. Yes you heard me right, her so-called film, made a whopping $5.200 in a week.

Not only are overall sales down, but in its third week, per-theater sales crashed 62 percent, from $6,500 a theater to only $1,762 a theater.

And you notice that O'Reilly has not said a word about it, that's because if he did he would have to mention that the per theater sales were terrible, and that pretty much nobody was going to see it.

But if a political liberal does a film that flops, O'Reilly is all over it, saying it shows that America is a center right country, and they will not go to liberal movies. Proving once again that O'Reilly is not just a biased right-wing hack, it also proves that he is a massive hypocrite with double standards.

And btw, I had not heard about the Palin documentary at all here in Peoria Illinois, it was not on in any theater here, and if I had not read about it bombing on the internet, I would not have even known she had a film out.

Tea Party Republican Owes $117,000 In Child Support
By: Steve - August 2, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, but if a Democratic Congressman owed $117,000 in child support O'Reilly would be all over it, and call for the man to pay up or go to jail.

Wednesday the Chicago Sun-Times broke a story about the Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL), who has spent months lecturing President Obama and the Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes $117,437 in child support to his ex-wife and three children.

Laura Walsh has even asked a judge to suspend his driver's license until he pays his child support. Despite loaning his own campaign $35,000 - and paying himself back at least $14,200 for the loans - Walsh claims he failed to make the payments because he has no money.

The tax-bashing congressman campaigned on a pledge to reject the Washington status quo and has bragged about his own frugality, claiming he even sleeps in his congressional office to save money.

Walsh, who's been described as "the biggest media hound in the freshman class," has been a prominent voice in the debt ceiling showdown in recent weeks, making television appearances almost every day to denounce President Obama's reckless spending, which he says has bankrupted this country.

But Thursday, when confronted in a CNN interview about his failure to support his own children, Walsh not only refused to acknowledge his hypocrisy but insisted that being a deadbeat dad meant he understood the plight of average Americans:
I know that story just broke, and it's interesting that it just broke right now as I'm out there trying my best to fight this President and fight the Democrats and solve this debt crisis.

But look, I'm the most openly vetted candidate in the world. I have had financial troubles and I talked about them throughout the campaign. This is where real America is.
And btw folks, this is not the first time Walsh has faced scrutiny for the disconnect between his rhetoric and the way he conducts his personal life. In 2009, Walsh lost a condo to foreclosure because he owed more than $300,000 on the property.

In April 2010, an investigation revealed that Walsh failed to file his personal financial disclosure form as required by federal election law. When questions about his personal finances dogged his congressional campaign, Walsh once again claimed he wasn't a rich man, despite managing to pay $3,300 per month for a house in upscale Winnetka.

Walsh also rejected the congressional health insurance plan for his family on principle, much to the chagrin of his current wife, Helene, who had a preexisting condition and needed surgery while the couple was uninsured.

But Walsh apparently thinks he can have it both ways, claiming his own financial screw ups and failure to care for his family's needs allows him to understand average Americans, while railing against Washington for irresponsibly racking up deficits. As he put it in a recent interview, "Thank God congressmen like me are here!"

Hey Congressman, here is an idea, move out of the $3,300 a month house and get a cheaper house, then pay your child support, deadbeat.

O'Reilly Can Not Find Any Shadowy Tea Party Figures
By: Steve - August 1, 2011 - 11:00am

O'Reilly said he can not find any shadowy figures behind the Tea Party, just like he can not find any hate on the right, yeah because he does not look for it, and even if he did find it, he ignores it.

Last week O'Reilly told Laura Ingraham that there are no "shadowy figures behind the tea party," unlike with progressive movements, which have "guys like Soros and these MoveOn people" with "so much power behind the scenes."

And I quote:
O'REILLY: There aren't any shadowy figures, that we know about anyway, behind the tea party pulling those chains. You know, it disturbs me that a guy like Soros and these MoveOn people, and all of that, have so much power behind the scenes. It's disturbing. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/27/11]
Hey Billy, if George Soros is this shadowy figure you claim he is, how come we know who he is, and everything he does, and why it is wrong for him to give money to political groups he agrees with, or how that is being shadowy, explain that Mr. Harvard education, I'll be waiting.

What disturbs me is that O'Reilly is disturbed that George Soros would give money to political groups, when it is 100% legal, and in fact it is the American way. If you have money, some people give it to political groups, and I find nothing wrong with that, from the left or the right.

Notice that O'Reilly only has a problem with wealthy liberals who give money to liberal political groups, he never has a problem with wealthy Republicans giving money to political groups on the right.

And btw, the tea party movement has been heavily funded by rich Republicans like the Koch brothers and many other wealthy Republicans and front groups.

Now read this, here is what I found with a simply google search from a home computer, surely O'Reilly and his crack staff could have fond this if he looked:

-- In an August 30, 2010, New Yorker article, Jane Mayer wrote that Americans for Prosperity, a foundation established by David Koch, "has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement's inception" and "helped turn the Koch brothers private agenda into a mass movement."

-- An August 2010 a New York magazine article reported that "David Koch denies being directly involved with the tea party." So if he has nothing to hide, why would he deny it, that's kind of shadowy.

-- A June 2011 Miami Herald article reported that Tea Party supported Florida Governor Rick Scott "acknowledged Tuesday what his staff had refused to disclose: He flew to Colorado over the weekend to attend a secretive policy retreat hosted by powerful conservative donors Charles and David Koch."

-- In February of 2011, Tea Party supported Governor Scott Walker took a call from someone posing as David Koch and discussed potential strategies regarding the best way to pass union-busting legislation.

And it's clear why O'Reilly defends, supports, and covers for the Tea Party. A May 22 2011 New York magazine profile on Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, headlined, "The Elephant in the Green Room," featured a quote from Tea Party Express founder Sal Russo. Russo stated: "There would not have been a tea party without Fox."

That does not even touch the numerous Republican front groups who held Tea Party events, while saying they are not part of the Tea Party. That's pretty shadowy to me.

Fox Anchor Promotes GOP Debt Limit Plan
By: Steve - August 1, 2011 - 10:00am

The so-called straight news Fox anchor Bill Hemmer just happened to push the GOP debt limit plan, so much for straight news anchors at Fox not having any bias. And you never see any of them promote any DNC plans, they always support the GOP.

Can we now just drop the garbage that the (so-called straight news) Fox anchors are not biased, because it is clear they are.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: