O'Reilly Makes a Holiday Appearance
By: Steve - December 30, 2008 - 10:00am

Last night Billy was back, And what a biased joke it was, the TPM was called liberals are dangerous, or something like that. He speculated for 4 minutes about what the far left and the NY Times is doing to pressure Obama to be a left-wing president. It was all speculation, even though O'Reilly said he never speculates.

At one point he even said he knows he is speculating, and said he can read the tea leaves. I was waiting for him to pull out a crystal ball and see the future in it too. It was ridiculous biased garbage to attack liberals and smear Obama before he has even done anything.

The best part was later when he told Colmes and Mary K. Ham that he was going to be fair to Obama and not go after him until he has had some time to do something. After spending weeks attacking him before he even takes over as president. The totally biased right-wing nut Bernie Goldberg was on, he is off the charts far right crazy, yet he is put on all by himself, and O'Reilly agrees with everything he says. It's like watching an RNC campaign ad, yet O'Reilly calls it fair and balanced journalism.

I think O'Reilly needs to get some mental help, he attacks Obama for weeks with nothing but speculation, then claims he will be fair to him and not attack him until he has been in office a while. He even said give him a year, but he is attacking him before he is even sworn in as president.

O'Reilly did a year in review show. In one segment he had video of the top 10 ambush clips. Even though he denies he does any ambush interviews, on the screen it had a graphic that said top 2008 ambushes.

Then he played clips of the best ambushes, and what a shocker, every single ambush clip was on a liberal or a Democrat. Not one top 2008 ambush clip was on a conservative or a Republican, and that's fair and balanced?

That segment alone is 100% proof that O'Reilly is a biased unfair and unbalanced Republican, with all the bad things done by Republicans he did not have one ambush clip of a conservative, not one.

The whole show was nothing but a smear job on everything liberal, Colmes was the only guest even close to a Democrat, and he could barely get a word in. Mary K. Ham and O'Reilly did all the talking while Colmes sat there like a stump on a log.

O'Reilly said a liberal agenda by Obama and the Democrats would be a disaster and dangerous, Colmes said nothing. And I think the liberal agenda worked pretty well for 8 years from 1992 to 2000 when Bill Clinton was the President, somehow O'Reilly forgets all that.

The actual disaster was by George W. Bush and the Republicans from 2000 to 2008, yet O'Reilly does not say Bush was a disaster, and even defends most of what he did, and still loves the Republican agenda, even though we saw what it was in the last 8 years.

O'Reilly is a giant right-wing fraud, the evidence of that is his show. Just watch it, the whole show is nothing but right-wing propaganda, I would say at least 90% of it is. Once in a while he puts a liberal (or a pretend liberal) on to make it look good, but they are almost always paired with a conservative guest, so it's a 2 on 1 and the so-called liberal barely gets a word in.

And the word the liberal barely gets in is wrong, that is what O'Reilly and the conservative guest tell them. The liberal is just there for O'Reilly and the conservative guest to make fun of and tell how much they are wrong and stupid. Then the other 90% of the show is all Republicans spewing out right-wing propaganda.

O'Reilly Caught Lying For Bush on Iraq Intelligence
By: Steve - December 28, 2008 - 11:00am

Billy has been saying for years that Bush did not lie about pre-Iraq war Intelligence. He said Bush did not lie, he just had bad Intelligence from the CIA. But today we find out that not only did Bush lie, so did Alberto Gonzales, and Condi Rice. This new information shows that they knowingly lied, all of them, then O'Reilly helped to protect them.

In his January 2003 State of the Union address, as part of his effort to make the case for invading Iraq, President Bush infamously declared that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The White House was later forced to repudiate the statement after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson blew the whistle on the claim.

As part of an investigation into pre-war intelligence claims, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asked the White House to provide examples of times that the CIA had cleared such uranium references for use in speeches. On January 6, 2004, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a letter to Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) on behalf of Condoleezza Rice that claimed the CIA had “orally cleared” the uranium claim for two of Bush’s speeches.

But in a new memo, House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) says that he has found evidence contradicting Gonzales assertions:
The information the Oversight Committee has received casts serious doubt on the veracity of the representations that Mr. Gonzales made on behalf of Dr. Rice. Contrary to Mr. Gonzales's assertions, the Committee has received evidence that the CIA objected to the uranium claim in both speeches, resulting in its deletion from the President's remarks.
When White House speechwriters tried to put the uranium claim into Bush's Sept. 12, 2002 speech to UN, the CIA rejected it because it was "not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech":
During an interview with the Committee, John Gibson, who served as Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council, stated that he tried to insert the uranium claim into this speech at the request of Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC.

According to Mr. Gibson, the CIA rejected the uranium claim because it was "not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech." Mr. Gibson stated that the CIA "didn't give that blessing," the CIA was not willing to clear that language, and at the end of the day, they did not clear it.
When National Security Council staff refused to take the uranium claim out of Bush's Sept. 26, 2002 speech, Jami Miscik, the Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA, called Rice personally to request it be removed:
According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA's reasons for rejecting the uranium claim "had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts" before the call, and Dr. Rice was getting on the phone call with that information. Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was "recommending that it be taken out." She also said "it turned out to be a relatively short phone call" because "we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it."
According to Waxman, Rice refused to testify to the Committee about the pre-war claims, so he is unable to say "how she would explain the seeming contradictions between her statements and those of Mr. Gonzales on her behalf and the statements made to the Committee bv senior CIA and NSC officials."

This new information proves they were lying, all of them, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales,and Rice, they knowingly put the uranium claim in a Bush speech after the CIA had rejected it two times. They knew it was not true and they used it anyway. And you can bet the farm that none of this will ever be reported on the Factor.

Waterboarding Provided Next to Zero Useful Intelligence
By: Steve - December 19, 2008 - 4:50pm

Last night on "Hardball," Duncan Hunter defended the Bush administration's torture policy, echoing Vice President Cheney's claim that torture yielded life-saving results. He pointed to waterboarding Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was remarkably successful. After this procedure, Duncan said, "we got enormously valuable information that saved American lives."

Despite Hunter's claims, the torture of Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed provided next to zero useful intelligence, as a recent Vanity Fair article revealed:
According to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., "90 percent of it was total f-ing bull." A former Pentagon analyst adds: "K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were."
In fact, the article explained that the intelligence gleaned from Zubayda was false information about non-existent links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein -- information the Bush administration seized on as a major part of its argument for the Iraq war, as a former Pentagon analyst explained:
"The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be."

"The White House knew he'd been tortured. I didn't, though I was supposed to be evaluating that intelligence... It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective."
Rather than "saving American lives," torturing Zubayda provided false intelligence that led to a catastrophic war that killed more than 4,000 Americans. What's more, as former interrogators and military officials have said, torture has directly led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers through its use as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda and insurgents. They also say they wasted a lot of time and money chasing down false leads that got them nothing.

David Rose, the author of the Vanity Fair article, told Rachel Maddow last night that the counterrorism experts he interviewed "are unanimous in saying they got much better information from regular, legal, constitutional methods, rapport building, developing a relationship with the source. That way, they got really good information."

Franken Now Winning Minnesota Senate Recount
By: Steve - December 19, 2008 - 4:40pm

Don't look now Billy, Al Franken is leading in the recount for Senator in Minnesota. This is after O'Reilly twice declared Coleman the winner, and after he got caught lying that Minnesota had certified Coleman the winner. None of that was true, Coleman did not win, and the State of Minnesota never certified anyone the winner.

As of 3:00pm this afternoon, Al Franken was leading Sen. Norm Coleman by 257 votes in the senate race recount. And Nate Silver has projected Franken would ultimately win the recount with a margin of at least 70 votes. Hey Billy, can you say congratulations to the Senator Al Franken.

O'Reilly & Dick Morris Have Jumped The Shark
By: Steve - December 18, 2008 - 9:00am

Last night O'Reilly put the (giant loser) Dick Morris on the Factor to give us the top 5 Political Blunders of 2008. Why this moron is allowed on any news show is beyond me, almost all his predictions are wrong, and his analysis is just right-wing propaganda to sell his crazy books and get people to visit his stupid website to braindead right-wingers who fall for his spin and lies.

The top 5 Political Blunders was a total joke, two of them were about Hillary Clinton. The other two were also about Democrats, and the top Political Blunder was about John McCain. How can four out of five Blunders be about Democrats when they won everything, they won the Presidency, and they increased their majority in the Senate and the House. Yet Morris has four out of five for the Democrats, when I could think of a top 20 Political Blunders for Republicans.

One of the Morris top 5 was the Dems personally attacking Sarah Palin. Which is ridiculous, Palin was attacked because she did everything wrong, and she was shown to be dumb as a brick in the limited interviews she did. If you say living near Russia gives you foreign policy experience you are dumb as a rock, and you deserve to be attacked. The real Political Blunder was McCain picking Palin, yet Morris did not have that on his crazy list.

How can four of the top 5 Political Blunders be made by Democrats when the Republicans lost everything. What about Ted Stevens, he was the Senior Republican in the entire Senate, and he lost his re-election because he was convicted for having work done on his house without paying for it, now that's a giant Political Blunder, yet Morris says nothing.

What about George W. Bush, his entire Presidency was the biggest Political Blunder of 2008, and 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001. George W. Bush should have been #1, he lost everything for the Republicans by being such a bad President, but he was not even on the list.

What about Rudy Giuliani, most of the Republicans loved him and wanted him to beat Mcain in the Primary. He was #1 in the polls one month, and the next month he was crushed by McCain. The NY Daily News wrote that Giuliani ran one of the worst campaigns ever run by a Presidential candidate, yet he did not make the Morris list.

I could go on forever, not only the top 5 Political Blunders were made by Republicans, you could argue for the top 20, or more. Yet Dick Morris is put on the O'Reilly Factor to give his top 5 and they are all Democrats but one, and speaking of number one. It was John McCain. Morris named McCain #1 for suspending his campaign to go back to Washington and work on the $700 Billion dollar bailout Bill.

Which is very strange, because the day John McCain said he was suspending his campaign Dick Morris said he was a genius, and called it a brilliant move. Now it's his #1 Political Blunder of 2008?

Morris actually wrote a column after McCain suspended his campaign, titled "McCain's Brilliant Move" where he said, "This bold move by McCain is about to work. Big time."

Now he calls it the #1 Political Blunder of 2008, when at the time he said it was a brilliant move that was going to work big time. Morris is nuts, and his predictions are almost always wrong. He also said the bad economy would hurt Obama, he said Obama not making Hillary his VP was a disaster, and it would cost him the womens vote, Obama won women by 13 points.

He said the Palin selection was a great move, when it actually hurt McCain, only Republicans liked her, and it cost McCain more votes then he gained. He said Obama would get less than 50 percent of the vote, he said Obama and McCain would split the Independents 48 to 48, he said if the economy was not so bad McCain would have won, when Obama was ahead the entire campaign except for a few days after the RNC convention.

Virtually none of the Dick Morris political predictions came true. Yet he is still put on the Factor as a Political analyst, and to give his crazy and wrong predictions. O'Reilly even called him the most brilliant mind in the Political game today. When the man is nothing more than a right-wing propagandist who just says what Republicans want to hear, and who is almost always wrong.

McCain gave a speech and said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, after the economy had crashed, yet it never even made the Morris top 5 list. But Democrats personally attacking Sarah Palin made number two, and Hillary got two spots, and four out of five went to Democrats, now that's crazy. What about Dick Cheney, not on the list, only a crazy fool would have Democrats in four of the five spots when they won everything.

The only guy crazier than Morris is maybe O'Reilly, for putting this moron on the air and actually taking his top 5 list serious. It was a partisan joke, put out by a partisan fool, and O'Reilly allowed him to do it on his partisan show.

More Proof O'Reilly Lies About Media Matters
By: Steve - December 16, 2008 - 11:00am

O'Reilly claims that Media Matters is nothing but a far left media watchdog website that only goes after Conservatives. He claims they just make up lies about Conservatives and take them out of context.

When they do nothing more than quote a person word for word from the transcript, and most of the time they also publish an audio or video of them actually saying it. They always put it in context, with long detailed articles that explain what was said, and in what context it was said. Just go read their website and look for yourself.

The facts show that O'Reilly is a liar who tries to discredit them by saying they misquote him and take him out of context. Even though nobody buys that old excuse, especially when you can read the detailed article and watch the video. The "they took me out of context" excuse does not work when you publish the transcript, the audio, and the video. Yet O'Reilly still uses it, and only his braindead right-wing viewers buy it.

And the lie from O'Reilly that Media Matters in nothing but a far left smear machine is garbage. They go after everyone, most of the people they go after are conservatives, because they tell most of the lies. But they do go after many other people in the media, at CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, The NY Times, etc.

In fact, right now as I type this Media Matters has articles that go after Chris Matthews at MSNBC, Norah O'Donnell from MSNBC, Chuck Todd from MSNBC and NBC, Contessa Brewer from MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC and NBC, Drew Griffin from CNN, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, ABC News, The Politico, etc.

Right this very minute they only have three or four articles on conservatives, the rest are all about the people O'Reilly calls the liberal media. If they are this big conservative smear machine why are most of their attacks against the very people O'Reilly says are part of the liberal media. Go look for yourself, www.mediamatters.org. Then you will see just how dishonest O'Reilly is, they go after everyone, not just conservatives.

O'Reilly Proves His Obama Bias Once Again
By: Steve - December 16, 2008 - 10:35am

Barack Obama is not even the president yet, but O'Reilly is already making up scandals about him. Every night since the Blagojevich scandal broke O'Reilly has made it the top story and had multiple segments to discuss it. I would have no problem with that, if that was all he did.

But in every segment about the Blagojevich scandal O'Reilly spends 10 seconds talking about Blagojevich and the rest of the time he tries to link it to Obama. The talking points memos (and the segments discussing it) turn into speculation about how Obama is involved. Even though O'Reilly said he never speculates, it's all speculation. There is no evidence Obama was involved, yet O'Reilly implies there is anyway.

U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald even stated during a December 9th press conference that the criminal complaint against Blagojevich "makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever." On the tapes you can hear Blagojevich complaining about how Obama will not talk to him or do anything to help him. Yet O'Reilly still tries to link Obama to the scandal every single night.

Since the Blagojevich scandal started O'Reilly has reported it every single night. And most nights he spends half the show talking about it. He puts 90% right-wing guests on and they speculate about how Obama is involved. It's ridiculous, and total right-wing bias, from O'Reilly and the guests. The scandal is with Blagojevich, not with Obama. Yet O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends try to link Obama with it when he had nothing to do with it.

Some of them are even calling it the first Obama scandal. When Obama has nothing to do with it, and it's no more than a Blagojevich scandal. And what's really sad is when REPUBLICAN SENATOR Ted Stevens was indicted on 7 counts of Corruption O'Reilly never even reported it. When he was convicted on 7 counts of Corruption O'Reilly never reported it. When he lost his Senate re-election because he was convicted on 7 counts of Corruption O'Reilly never reported it.

But when the DEMOCRAT Blagojevich is caught trying to sell a Senate seat O'Reilly not only reports on it every SINGLE night, he does talking points memos on it, makes it the lead story, and does multiple segments on it. This is an example of total 100% right-wing bias from O'Reilly. None of this was done in the Ted Stevens story, and in fact, it was never even reported.

O'Reilly did not even mention the Ted Stevens story one time. Even when it was the lead story in every newspaper in America the day after he was found guilty. O'Reilly ignored the entire story, and never said one word about it. But when a DEMOCRAT scandal breaks he is on it like stink on crap, and does half the show on it every night. Then on top of that he falsely tries to like Obama to the scandal when he had nothing to do with it.

Last night O'Reilly had Alan Colmes on and he got O'Reilly to admit that Obama was not invloved in the scandal. But O'Reilly said because one or two media sources say Obama might be invloved he is going to continue to report it. And those two media outlets are biased right-wing sources who want to make up an Obama scandal.

The facts show that Obama was not invloved, yet O'Reilly is still going to speculate that he is, even though he says he only deals in facts and never speculates. Because a couple right-wing sources keep spreading the lie that Obama is involved. But if this was happening to a Republican O'Reilly would say he is not going to report it because there are no facts to prove the link.

This is a Blagojevich scandal, and Obama has nothing to do with it. Yet O'Reilly still spends half the show every night trying to dream up a link to Obama. If that's not speculation with no facts I dont know what is. Where is your evidence O'Reilly, where are the facts, show us, where is the proof that Obama is involved in the scandal. if you dont have the evidence, stop trying to link Obama, put up or shut up you right-wing fool.

Conservative Media Spins Auto Bailout Bill Failure
By: Steve - December 15, 2008 - 9:35am

O'Reilly, FOX News, and most of the so-called liberal media is putting out the right-wing spin on the auto bailout bill. They claim it failed because the Union refused to take a pay cut. Even though that is a lie, and if the media is so liberal as O'Reilly claims why are they all reporting this Republican party lie.

Here is the proof that it was not killed by the Union. The Bush administration worked with the Democrats in the House to get the deal done, and it was approved by the Bush administration. The last time I looked George W. Bush was a Republican, and he approved the deal. Then it passed the House by a vote of 237 to 140. Then a majority of the Senate voted yes, 52 Senators approved of the bill, while 35 did not.

Basically, 35 Republican Senators killed the bill, not the UAW Union. These 35 Republican Senators voted against the will of the President, the majority of the House, and the Senate, and voted against the will of the people. And it was done for political reasons.

The auto bailout bill failed because a few Republicans in the Senate killed it, this was done for three reasons, and the media never reported either one.

First, some far right Republicans want to bust the UAW Union. They hate Unions, and the UAW is the biggest one left, so they want to get rid of it, or hurt it as much as possible.

Second, some of these Republican Senators have foreign car plants in their states, and they want the American car companies to fail, which is very un-American.

Third, the Republicans who voted no do not want to pass anything that might give Democrats credit for anything, because it's a lame duck session. These are far right Republicans who put politics ahead of fixing the economy. They want the economy to get worse so Obama looks bad. And they know that once Obama becomes president they will not be able to block what he wants, so they plan to block everything possible while they can.

Everyone supports the auto bailout plan except a few Republicans in the Senate. They are putting partisan politics ahead of the will of the people. Yet O'Reilly, all his right-wing friends, and most of the so-called liberal media are blaming the UAW Union for the bills failure. This not only proves O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor, it also proves there is not really much of a liberal media.

And btw, for the people that do not know the car cost facts, because most of the media does not report this. Only 10% of the price of a car is labor costs, 90% is not. And UAW workers at American car companies only make $1 more an hour than American workers at foreign car companies in America. The $70 an hour crap is all right-wing spin. The average UAW worker makes $25 an hour, while the average worker at a foreign car company in America makes $24 an hour.

More Proof O'Reilly is a Far Right Kool-Aid Drinker
By: Steve - December 11, 2008 - 1:55pm

He actually believes FOX News is not a far right news network, that's what he said to Ted Turner, and Turner disagreed, as every other American with a working brain does.

In an interview with CNN founder Ted Turner this week, O'Reilly claimed that those who believe that Fox News is a conservative outlet are sorely mistaken:
O'REILLY: Right and I'm a nice guy. Well, maybe that's overstating. I'm an honest guy, who's just trying to do the best I can. But, you know, I think that you underestimate Fox News and its appeal to traditional Americans.

TURNER: That's true. And I also said in there that I knew that that was our most vulnerable spot before I even went on the air with CNN that a right wing network would pose a threat because not only was CNN pretty much in the middle but so were CBS, NBC, and ABC. And you're right. The far right did not have a voice.

O'REILLY: You can't possibly think that Fox News is a far right operation? I mean, because it's not.


O'REILLY: Oh, come on. I mean, maybe coming from a Jane Fonda point of view it is, but come on.

TURNER: Well, I was married to Jane Fonda.

O'REILLY: I know. I mean, but how can - I'm a far right guy? I mean, the far right hates me.
Yeah sure they do Billy, and the far left hates me too. You are as far right as it gets, so is Hannity, and almost every other employee at FOX News. There is one liberal with a show on the whole network, Alan Colmes, and he only gets half a show. It's called Hannity & Colmes for a reason. Not to mention Colmes is leaving, so no liberals will have a show on FOX when he leaves.

To claim FOX is not a right wing news network is to deny reality. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, he is a Republican. The CEO is Roger Ailes, he is a Republican. The entire network is a propaganda arm of the RNC, only clueless kool-aid drinking fools deny FOX is a right wing news network. O'Reilly has even admitted in the past that FOX leans right, now he suddenly denies it, so he cant even keep his lies straight.

From Cavuto to Hannity to Hume to O'Reilly to Gibson to Jarrett to all the show anchors, every one of them are conservatives. The only non conservative on the whole network is Colmes and Greta, and she is the crime reporter, she normally does not cover politics. She also claims she is not a liberal or a conservative, even though O'Reilly cites her as a liberal when he needs to find one at FOX, she denies it.

One last thing, Dick Cheney said the only news network he watches is FOX, and he is as far right as it gets. Case closed, if it's the Cheney news network, it's a right wing news network. To even deny it is insanity, ask anyone in America (that is not a Republican) if FOX News has a right wing bias and they will say yes, after they are done laughing at you.

O'Reilly Continues Fake War on Christmas
By: Steve - December 11, 2008 - 1:40pm

First, there is no war on Christmas. It's all a made up scam by O'Reilly to get ratings from Thanksgiving to Christmas. Every year Billy brings it back right after or right before Thanksgiving. For the rest of the year he never says a word about it. The whole thing is a trick to get ratings during the holiday season.

Last night O'Reilly had another segment about the atheist plaque on display next to a nativity scene inside Washington's state capitol building. He had the far right nut Gretchen Carlson on from Fox & Fools in the morning. She admitted she is a religious nut, and she agreed with the whole scam.

Fox & Fools host Gretchen Carlson said, "This is a complete insult to Christianity!" O’Reilly agreed and warned that if atheists are not stopped, their next move would be to "revoke" Christmas as a federal holiday.

Hey O'Reilly, I thought you never speculate, and that you only deal in the facts. You just speculated the next move from the atheists, that's not a fact, it's pure speculation. And they do not want to revoke Christmas, they just want equal rights and free speech. Name one person who wants to revoke Christmas, name them, just one.

Nobody wants to revoke Christmas. It's all in O'Reilly's head, the head he uses to say he never speculates, then he speculates. I do not know one person who wants to revoke Christmas, not one. Not to mention O'Reilly claims to support free speech, but he is against the atheists having their plaque next to the nativity scene.

He claims they can have it there, as long as it's not offensive. But who decides what is offensive, him? If they have a right to put a plaque there then dont they have the right to have it say what they want. I may not like it, and you may not like it, but as long as it does not have any profanity it is covered under free speech.

What we have here is O'Reilly trying to impose his will on another group of people, he has no right to do that, and they are protected by free speech. Yet he wants the plaque removed because he finds it offensive. That would be violating their rights to free speech. Just because you dont like it does not mean you can get rid of it.

So shut up about it and enjoy the Holidays like the rest of us. Drop the fake war on Christmas, and report some real news. And stop trying to take rights away from people, that's real fascism. When you get a chance, look up what free speech means.

O'Reilly Caught in Two Lies Defending Newt Gingrich
By: Steve - December 10, 2008 - 12:50pm

let me first start this blog posting by saying anyone who defends Newt Gingrich for saying there is a gay and secular fasicsm in America is clearly a far right nut, I'm talking about you O'Reilly. Only a far right nut would agree with Newt, then lie about it while defending him.

O'Reilly did a reality check segment on the issue, with no reality, it was all right-wing spin to misrepresent what Newt said, and what Hertzberg wrote. Billy told his audience about how he and Newt were talking about "militant gays assaulting people" and "invading churches" during the Prop 8 protests."

The gay militant assault was one person at an anti-prop 8 rally knocking a cross out of an old ladys hand, she was never touched, and no assault charges were ever filed. The old lady showed up at an anti-prop 8 rally and shoved a cross in some gay peoples face, and one person knocked the cross out of her hand. To Billy and Newt that's militant gays assaulting people.

The Church invasion, was one Church. A few gay people went into a Church in Michigan and passed out flyers. So one old lady had a cross knocked out of her hand, and one Church had a few gay people go in and pass out flyers. In the far right world of Billy and Newt that's militant gays assaulting people and invading Churches. Thousands and thousands of gays peacefully protested at hundreds of locations all across America, and that's all they could find to complain about.

Newt said there is a gay and secular fascism in the country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, and is prepared to use violence. O'Reilly agreed with him btw, then Rich Hertzberg wrote an article about it and quoted Newt word for word. And it's not the gays trying to impose their will on other people, they just want equal rights, they do not want to impose their will on anyone.

The far right is trying to impose their beliefs on gay people, if anyone is trying to impose their will on someone it's the far right religious nuts who oppose gay people getting married. So not only is O'Reilly a massive liar, he has it backwards and he is misrepresenting the issue. If a gay man or gay woman want to marry a gay man or gay woman, how in the hell is that imposing their will on anyone, what say you Billy?

The fascism is coming from the religious right, which includes O'Reilly, they oppose gay people having equal rights to marry. Because their religious beliefs say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

O'Reilly lied about Rich Hertzberg taking Newt Gingrich out of context, in his New Yorker article he quoted Gingrich word for word and provided the proper context. I saw Newt say it on the Factor, so I know what the context was because I watched the entire interview. O'Reilly is the one who took the quote out of context in an attempt to defend Newt Gingrich.

Then O'Reilly lied about Hertzberg refusing to do the Factor, Hertzberg said neither Bill O'Reilly or anyone from FOX asked him to do the Factor, and if they had he would have said yes, and if they asked today he would say yes. So O'Reilly was caught in two lies, and if anyone should give an apology it's Bill O'Reilly.

Keith Olbermann even made O'Reilly the worst person in the world for his lies on the issue, here is what he wrote:

OLBERMANN: But our winner, Billo the Clown, you can add to the many adjectives "liar."

Newt Gingrich went on his show and responded to some of the backlash against Prop 8 in California and said, quote, "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in the country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence."

The New Yorker's Rich Hertzberg bashed Gingrich appropriately. Billo, of course, sent two of his stalker producers to wait outside Hertzberg's home to ambush him to claim he took Gingrich out of context, demand a apology and most importantly, accused Hertzberg of never watching O'Reilly's show.

Standard stuff. But Billo also claims Hertzberg refused to go on O'Reilly's ego fest. It turns out O'Reilly was lying about that, Hertzberg, The New Yorker's editor and the magazine's publicist all say nobody at Fox had ever asked Hertzberg to go on. If he had been asked he would have said yes and still would.

You want to know what this one is really about? This continues to be about the journalistic icons of Billy's youth. "News Day", "The New York Times", "The New Yorker" and NBC all rejecting him. Billo the Liar, today's "Worst Person in the World"!
The fascism is from O'Reilly, Newt, and all the other far right religious nuts. They want to deny gay people the same equal rights that straight people have, that's fascism. A gay person getting married to another gay person is not imposing their will on anyone. The far right is imposing their will on the gay people, by refusing to let them have equal rights.

Yet O'Reilly claims the exact opposite, which is something only a dishonest far right nut would do. Rush Limbaugh is saying the same thing, yet O'Reilly claims he is not like Rush, when they are exactly alike. O'Reilly is Rush Limbaugh, except he is on tv, and Rush is on the radio, they are the same person. It's Bill Limbaugh, and Rush O'Reilly, they are right-wing brothers who make the same arguments, and have mostly the same beliefs. One does it on tv, and the other does it on the radio, they are one in the same.

It's Official: O'Reilly Has Lost His Right-Wing Mind
By: Steve - December 9, 2008 - 6:20pm

Last night O’Reilly went on a tirade against the media for hyping the struggling state of the economy. He claimed that it’s not as bad as reports are making it out to be, and the left-wing media is overstating the case in order to help President-elect Barack Obama. Then he put the far right Karl Rove on to agree with him.

Rove compared it to the 2000 recession right before Clinton left office, and asked why the media did not make such a big deal about it. Read it yourself.
O’REILLY: OK, now the economy. Do you agree with me that the media is not-the economy, but Afghanistan and Iraq and every other problem the United States has spinning as negative as possible now so that they can buy Barack Obama some time and set up a thing where if anything goes right after he becomes president, they can jump on it.

ROVE: Yes.

O’REILLY: And then they can blame everything on Bush for quite a long period of time?

ROVE: You know, it’s interesting to me, this question of proportionality and consistency. I wanted to take you and your viewers back to March of 2000 when the stock market peaked out. We had a 38 percent decline in the Dow Jones. We had a 50 percent decline in the S P 500. And we had a 78 percent decline in the Nasdaq before the markets bottomed out.

Now, I don’t remember The New York Times or the national or The Washington Post or some of these national news organizations treating the precipitous decline in the markets under Clinton with the scare words that they’re using today. If you don’t have a job, it’s 100% unemployment rate for you. But the unemployment rate today was at certain times during Clinton and in most of Carter time in office higher. And, yet, we don’t see the similar scare tactics and the similar phrases and words out of the n ational media about these Democrats as we hear about the current situation.

O’REILLY: All right, so you are agreeing with me then that there is a conscious effort on the part of The New York Times and other liberal media to basically paint as drastic a picture as possible, so that when Barack Obama takes office that anything is better than what we have now?

ROVE: Yes.
I can tell O'Reilly and his stooge Rove why the media did not make a big deal about it in 2000, because the 2000 recession was a normal recession that happened when the Tech bubble burst. It only invloved the Tech stock sector and a few people who invested in those stocks, the overall stock market went down a little then recovered fairly quickly.

The current financial problem is 100 times worse, created during the 8 years that George W. Bush was the President, and the Republicans had control of the Congress for 6 of those 8 years.

It involves the entire banking system, the housing crisis, the credit crisis, the auto industry crisis, the mortage crisis, the job crisis, the advertising crisis, and on and on, it involves almost every sector of the American economy. O'Reilly and Rove are fricking Idiots, and to make those claims is to deny reality.

This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the 533,000 jobs lost in November is the worst jobs reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever produced in its 124-year history, but O'Reilly claims the media is hyping it to help Obama, who is not even the President yet. This is the probably the most ridiculous thing O'Reilly has ever said, and that's saying a lot, because he has said some very ridiculous things over the last 10 years.

We are in a massive financial crisis, and the media is reporting it, because that is their job. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama, it's about reporting the truth. Yet O'Reilly and Rove have dreamed up some masive media conspiracy about it. To believe that you have to deny reality, and deny there is a massive financial crisis in America today. There is a term called jumping the shark, if O'Reilly has not already jumped the shark, he has now.

Update: Factor Ratings Reality Check
By: Steve - December 9, 2008 - 12:30pm

On the Monday 12-1-08 Factor O'Reilly claimed that the new Rosie show bombed because it only got 5 million viewers, then he said the factor beat the Rosie show because he regularly beats the 5 million mark when you count his double runs (the 8pm show and the 11pm show) that is his own words from the Monday night reality check segment.

Well guess what folks, I checked his ratings for all of last week, and the night of the Rosie show. Even if you add the numbers for the 8pm show and the 11pm show, he still had less than 5 million viewers. Not to mention, they do not count ratings for re-runs, it is just not done, the ratings are only counted for one show.

If they counted the re-runs, Keith Olbermann could re-run his show 5 times a day, get 5 million viewers and claim he beats O'Reilly. That is why they do not count re-runs. Nobody counts re-runs in their ratings, to claim you get over 5 million with your double run is insane, and O'Reilly is the only guy on tv who tries it.

Here are the total viewers numbers for last weeks O'Reilly Factor, and not one night did O'Reilly get more than 5 million total viewers, which proves that BILL O'REILLY is a liar.

Total Viewers:
Monday - 12-1-08 - 3.3 -- 11pm re-run - 1.3 -- Total - 4.6

Tuesday - 12-2-08 - 3.1 -- 11pm re-run - 1.2 -- Total - 4.3

Wednesday - 12-3-08 - 3.0 -- 11pm re-run - 1.2 -- Total - 4.2

Thursday - 12-4-08 - 3.1 -- 11pm re-run - 1.4 -- Total - 4.5

Friday - 12-5-08 - 3.0 -- 11pm re-run - 1.1 -- Total - 4.1
Note: Read this blog posting, then if you still think Bill O'Reilly is an honest journalist you are an official kool-aid drinking fool. It's right there in black and white, the man is a certified proven liar. And he lied about his ratings, when nobody cares but him, which proves what a lying nut job he is. If he will lie about something as meaningless as that, he will lie about anything.

And O'Reilly says that once you are caught lying, you can no longer be trusted again. This is what O'Reilly says about other people in the media, that's his own rule. And yet here he is caught in a lie, so if we use his own standards for Journalism he can no longer be trusted again. Bill O'Reilly is a liar, that is a fact, so he can no longer be trusted again.

More Proof O'Reilly is Lying About Barack Obama
By: Steve - December 4, 2008 - 11:30am

Barack Obama will not even be the President for two months, yet Bill O'Reilly is already lying about him and hammering him for his torture policy when he has not even put one in place yet. O'Reilly claims Obama is going to move to the far left and everyone should be scared. He claims Obama is going to force the Government to go by the Army field manual, and outlaw all forms of coerced interrogation methods.

1) Why don't we wait until Obama is the President (and he puts his policy in place) before we hammer him for a policy that is not even in place, and wont be for two months. O'Reilly is hammering Obama for a policy that he has not even had the chance to implement, and nobody knows what it will be yet, it's all speculation.

2) Obama has only said he will close Gitmo and ban torture, he is talking about waterboarding, but he has not said he will ban all coerced interrogation, as O'Reilly claims. Waterboarding is torture, and Obama has said he will ban it, as he should. O'Reilly speculates that Obama will ban everything not listed in the Army field manual, but he dont know that, because he is not even the President yet, so nobody will know until he does it in January of 2009.

3) O'Reilly has said a hundred times that he only deals in facts, and NEVER speculates. But here he is speculating every single night about what Obama MIGHT do when he is the President. He even says it is unfair to attack someone for what they might do, that you should at least wait until they do it before you attack them. But once again O'Reilly breaks his own rules when it involves a Democrat.

4) O'Reilly claims the left wing loons want the Army field manual used in all cases, which is just not true. In an interview on Tuesday, Dianne Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility." She said: "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures."

5) Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive." But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

So some Democrats agree with O'Reilly, yet he claims they all disagree with him. I personally think every option should be on the table, except torture methods that are defined as torture in the Geneva Conventions. Waterboarding is torture, no matter what O'Reilly and his right wing nut-job friends say. I support any method they want to use to get answers, except torture, it's that simple. Yet O'Reilly claims people like me oppose everything, which is just nonsense.

What's really funny is while O'Reilly is claiming Obama will move to the left, and he goes crazy every night with SPECULATION on what Obama MIGHT do, other right-wingers are saying the exact opposite. They are saying Obama is moving to the right, which disputes the claims from O'Reilly.
In a December 2nd USA Today column headlined "Left behind: Obama's centrist Cabinet picks must have Democratic ideologues wondering what happened to the change they can believe in," conservative Jonah Goldberg wrote that Obama's Cabinet picks have yielded "dismayed followers" among "the left."

Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes wrote in a column posted on the Weekly Standard's website as of December 3rd that Obama's Treasury Department and national security selections indicated "he's pragmatic (so far) in one direction -- rightward. Who knew?"

Barnes also wrote this: "If Obama wants to pursue economic and national security policies that would thrill MoveOn.org and the Democratic left, he has a funny way of showing it. The only reasonable conclusion is he's spurning the left."

During the November 26th edition of his radio show, conservative Bill Cunningham characterized Obama's Cabinet selections as "Reagan's economic team, and George Bush's national defense secretary."

In a December 3rd Politico article headlined "Obama enemies are cheering," senior political writer Jonathan Martin reported that Republicans are "heaping praise on Obama's national security and economic teams."
Right there you have many conservatives saying Obama is moving to the right, while O'Reilly claims he will move left and everyone should be scared that Obama will not protect the American people. Which just shows how dishonest O'Reilly is, and how he violates his own no speculation rules to smear and lie about Obama.

Hey Billy, why dont you report on some real news, and stop smearing and speculating about Obama for something he MIGHT do when he becomes President in two fricking months.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Again
By: Steve - December 3, 2008 - 11:20am

How can anyone believe anything this man says, once again he was caught lying about his ratings. Monday night he said the factor gets more than 5 million viewers a night, if you count the 11pm re-run with the 8pm ratings. The problem is, nobody counts re-runs in the ratings, except Bill O'Reilly. He is the only man in all of tv land who counts his 11pm re-run in his 8pm ratings.

Not to mention, even if you count the re-run he still got under 5 million viewers, so he was lying. The 12-1-08 Factor had 3,327,000 total viewers at 8pm, 1,349,000 total viewers for the 11pm re-run. Thats 4,676,000 million, not over 5 million as O'Reilly claimed. This is what they call a lie, as in lying.

O'Reilly also said the Rosie show bombed because it only had 5 million viewers. Then he claimed his show got over 5 million total viewers with the double runs. The Rosie Live show ran last wednesday, it did get 5 million viewers. But that same night the Factor only had 2.2 million total viewers at 8pm, and 900,000 total viewers at 11pm, that's 3.1 million, not over 5 million, and not even close. So O'Reilly was caught in two lies, he lied about beating the Rosie show, and he lied about having over 5 million viewers.

To show more proof Bill O'Reilly is a liar, the Factor has never averaged over 5 million viewers a night, ever. In fact, it has never averaged over 4 million viewers a night. Here are the monthly rating averages per night by the month, for the last 4 months.

August - 2,400,000
September - 4,000,000
October - 3,900,000
November - 3,200,000

Do you notice anything, the highest month he had was September, and he did not even break 4 million, let alone get over 5 million. And those ratings are up because of the historic election with Obama and McCain. Notice that after September the numbers start going down, in November it was 3.2 million. And Monday night he had 3.3 million. Now you have the facts, not the ego driven spin from O'Reilly.

O'Reilly Wins Silver & Gold in Worst Persons
By: Steve - December 2, 2008 - 1:00pm

From the Monday night Countdown with Keith Olbermann show:

OLBERMANN: Our runner up, Billo the Clown. Another leak from Michael Wolf's biography of Rupert Murdoch, the man who owns the news, arr, quoting Wolf, "It's not just Murdoch and everybody else at News Corps highest levels who absolutely despises Bill O'Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited and hugely successful evening commentator but Roger Ailes himself who loves him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other."

Another quote about Murdoch. "He barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O'Reilly. And while it is not that he would give Fox up because the money is the money, success trumps all. In the larger sense of who he is he seems to want to hedge his bets."

Why would Murdoch feel that way? Michael Wolf will join me tomorrow on COUNTDOWN and I'll ask him.

But here's today's newest answer, our winner, Billo. Out there in the liberal media trying to hawk his book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Hypocrisy." He tells the "New York Times" - "New York Newsday", rather, the lies about his hardscrabble upbringing, that Dickensian childhood he spent in the slums and private schools of Long Island. But in the all-time list of Billo double talk lulus, we have a new one.

O'REILLY: "I'm a secular guy," he tells "Newsday" today. "It's the separation of church and state. We don't make laws based on religion and I don't accept arguments based on that."

OLBERMANN: But five years and 11 days ago on November 20, 2003, the very first day that he first hallucinated there was a war on Christmas, he also said "These antichristian zealots talking Judeo-Christian philosophy today reject that honor. But in reality, they are cowards. They hide behind the bogus separation of church and state argument to batter any public displays they find offensive. Led by the ACLU and aided by secular judges the antichristian Americans are insulting and denigrating a key part of America."

Today, he says, "I'm a secular guy." Five years ago he said "secular judges" were insulting and denigrating a key part of America. Today he says "We don't make laws based on religion, it's the separation of church and state."

Five years ago, he called the separation of church and state "bogus." You know what they say about opinions. Everybody has an opinion, just like, you know whats, except Billo was born with two you know whats. Bill O'Reilly, defending that bogus separation of church and state. Today's worst person in the world.

More Proof Republicans Put Politics Ahead of The People
By: Steve - December 2, 2008 - 10:00am

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) announced that "the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy."

The group, which the White House has previously pointed to as the determinative body for declaring a recession, said in a statement that the "decline in economic activity" after Dec. 2007 "was large enough to qualify as a recession."

But Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Dana Perino, and other members of the Bush administration have denied it for almost a year. In fact, two people on the Bush economic team denied it as early as 5 and 6 months ago. They denied it to help John McCain in his run for President, and they told the NBER to delay their report until after the election.

This was all done for political reasons, they put partisan politics ahead of informing the people with the truth about the state of the economy. The Bush administration was basically lying to the American people, they knew the truth for almost a year, but they lied about it to help John McCain. Here are quotes from the liars:
"I think the experts will tell you we’re not in a recession." [President Bush, 2/10/08]

"First of all, we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 4/22/08]

"The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]

"I don't think we are in a recession." [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]

"I think we have avoided a recession." [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]

"I don’t think anybody could tell you right now if we’re in a recession or not." [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]
Where is the watchdog O'Reilly, oh yeah I know, he is only a watchdog on Democrats. The (so-called moderate Independent) Bill O'Reilly never reported any of this, because he was also lying for the Bush administration, and trying to help John McCain get elected. They denied the recession, and had the report delayed, and O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, ever. And to this day he has still not reported it, any of it.

When Will O'Reilly Report This Financial Crisis Story
By: Steve - December 1, 2008 - 10:30am

Answer: When hell freezes over.

There is a story on the financial crisis that blames the Bush administration, and none other than foxnews.com is reporting it. At least on the website they are, I am not sure if the tv network is reporting it or not. But I will bet the farm O'Reilly never says a word about it, because it would ruin his propaganda that it's all Frank and Dodds fault.

O'Reilly said nobody warned him, or the folks, when Paul Krugman wrote articles with warnings about the problem in 2005, and many other people were warning about the problem. O'Reilly and FOX just ignored it all, then he blames Frank and Dodd when they had almost nothing to do with it.

Here is an article on foxnews.com that details how Bush and his administration ignored the warnings, delayed the tougher regulations, and then made them weaker when they finally did pass. All of this happened before January of 2007, when the Democrats got control of Congress back. And remember this, Barney Frank did not become Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until January 20, 2007.

And yet O'Reilly never reports a word of it, even when his own website reports it. Most economic and financial experts do not even put Frank or Dodd in the top 100 list of people to blame. Only partisan Republicans who want to blame it all on the Democrats do that, Like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc.

Report: U.S. Officials Ignored Signs of Financial Crisis

According to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents, the Bush administration ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown.

Here are some highlights from the article:

The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed.
"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying -- along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK -- regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.
"These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages," David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:
--Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

--Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

--Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

--Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

--Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature. This was done by the Bush administration and the Republican run Congress, well before the Democrats got control in January of 2007.

One of the most contested rules said that before banks purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes. Some bankers now blame much of the housing crisis on brokers who wrote fraudulent, predatory loans. But in 2006, banks said they shouldn't have to double-check the brokers.

Last week, Downey Savings joined the growing list of failed banks. The problem: About 52 percent of its mortgage portfolio was tied up in risky option ARMs, which in 2006 Downey insisted were safe -- maybe even safer than traditional 30-year mortgages.

At least some regulators didn't buy it. The comptroller of the currency, John C. Dugan, was among the first to sound the alarm in mid-2005. Speaking to a consumer advocacy group, Dugan painted a troublesome picture of option-ARM lending. Many buyers, particularly those with bad credit, would soon be unable to afford their payments, he said. And if housing prices declined, homeowners wouldn't even be able to sell their way out of the mess.

Some saw problems coming. Community groups and even some in the mortgage business, like Welch, warned regulators not to ease their rules.
"We expect to see a huge increase in defaults, delinquencies and foreclosures as a result of the over selling of these products," Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, wrote to regulators in 2006. The group advocates on housing and banking issues for low-income and minority residents.
The Fed, for instance, was reluctant under Alan Greenspan to heavily regulate lending. Similarly, the Office of Thrift Supervision, an arm of the Treasury Department that regulated many in the subprime mortgage market, worried that restricting certain mortgages would hurt banks and consumers.

Full Story:


And remember this article is from FOX News, so O'Reilly can not claim it is left-wing lies, if it was, FOX News would not be reporting it. If O'Reilly is an honest journalist, as he claims, why does he not report on articles like this.