The Thursday 12-31-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 31, 2009 - 9:20am
The show was a best of, with clips of past shows from 2009. Billy had the best of Glenn Beck, the best movies he liked, etc. Basically it was just a bunch of old clips from different shows from 2009.
The 2009 O'Reilly Factor Year In Review By: Steve - December 31, 2009 - 9:00am
It's December 31st and another year of the O'Reilly Factor is over. As I think back on the year I noticed a few things that I will comment on.
1) The Factor is billed as a fair and balanced no spin zone, with Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a nonpartisan independent who is fair to both sides, and who (he claims) has been fair to President Obama. All of that is a flat out 100% lie, and it's clear that Bill O'Reilly is a biased, spinning, lying, unfair, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.
O'Reilly and all his fill in hosts even open the show saying "caution you are about to enter the no spin zone." Which is just ridiculous, because it is about 95% right-wing spin, from 95% right-wing guests. And it is clear that O'Reilly is a Republican, even though he claims to be a nonpartisan independent. Which means he is a liar, who can not even be honest about his political ideology.
Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, an Independent or a Libertarian, if you watch the Factor and you are honest with yourself, you will see (and admit) that Bill O'Reilly is a die-hard Republican who supports 95% of the Republican issues, and agrees with the Republicans at least 95% of the time.
That is not just my opinion, it's a fact. I watch the Factor every single night, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month, 12 months a year, and I have done so for almost 9 years now. If you look at the topics discussed, the guest list, what side they take, and the non-stop attacks on President Obama and every Democrat is America, it's clear O'Reilly is a biased Republican, who puts his right-wing spin on every issue he reports on with the 95% Republican guests he has on.
2) In May of 2009 I started counting the Republican and Democratic guests each night, then I published the total for each month. For that 8 months the Factor averaged 5.6 to 7.8 Republican guests per show, while only averaging 1.2 to 1.7 Democratic guests per show. Even though O'Reilly said he personally makes sure the Factor had a balanced guest list each week. Here is the actual quote from O'Reilly, these are his words, and it is a 100% lie.
O'REILLY: I make sure, personally make sure, that throughout the week we have equal representation of conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican. OK, I mean, if you have been watching the show I've been doing this now into our thirteenth year, and we have voices, and they're equal.
3) Let's look at the Factor fill in hosts, and the guests who are weekly regulars. Laura (far right) Ingraham is the regular Factor fill in, and she is a known far right conservative spin doctor. But Monica Crowley and Eric Bolling have also filled in for O'Reilly, all far-right Republicans.
Let's take a look at the regulars who appear on the Factor. Notice that almost every one of them is a Republican, including O'Reilly.
1) Dick Morris - (Republican)
2) Karl Rove - (Republican)
3) Laura Ingraham - (Republican)
4) Newt Gingrich - (Republican)
5) Bernie Goldberg - (Republican)
6) Monica Crowley - (Republican)
7) Gretchen Carlson - (Republican)
8) Margaret Hoover - (Republican)
9) Lis Wiehl - (Republican)
10) Megyn Kelly - (Republican)
11) Kimberly Guilfoyle - (Republican)
12) Jane Skinner - (Republican)
13) Dennis Miller - (Republican)
14) Juliet Huddy - (Republican)
15) Amanda Carpenter - (Republican)
16) Greg Gutfeld - (Republican)
17) Steve Doocy - (Republican)
18) Martha MacCallum - (Republican)
19) Juan Williams - (Republican)
20) Mary K. Ham - (Republican)
21) Brit Hume - (Republican)
22) Ann Coulter - (Republican)
23) Glenn Beck - (Republican)
24) Neil Cavuto - (Republican)
25) Geraldo Rivera - (Republican)
26) Col. Ralph Peters - (Republican)
27) Col. David Hunt - (Republican)
28) Bill O'Reilly - (Republican)
Is 28 to 3 fair and balanced, I don't think so. And btw, Fox News has 2 or 3 other Democrats that work for them, like General Wesley Clark and Bob Beckel, but they never get on the Factor. Wesley Clark is a Fox News Military analyst, but O'Reilly never has him on, except maybe once a year. While the far-right Military analysts Ralph Peters and David Hunt are on at least once or twice a month, if not more.
4) The regular Factor political analysts are all Republicans, and not moderate Republicans, they are far-right Republicans. Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Laura Ingraham, Dick Morris, Brit Hume, Monica Crowley, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc. The only regular Democratic Factor political analyst who gets on once a week is Alan Colmes. And he is always put on with Monica Crowley, so he does not even get his own segment, he has to share it with the far-right Monica Crowley in the Barack & A Hard Place segment.
All the other regulars are Republicans:
The Factor media analyst is the far-right Bernie Goldberg, no Democratic media analyst.
The two Factor culture warriors are the Republicans Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson, no Democratic culture warrior.
The two Factor legal experts that do the is it legal segment are Republicans Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, no Democratic legal experts.
The two Factor Dumbest Thing Of The Week regulars are Republicans Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy, no Democrats.
The two Factor Culture/News Quiz takers are Republicans Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, no Democratic quiz takers.
The Factor body language expert is the Republican Tonya Reiman, no Democratic body language expert.
The Factor comedian is the Republican Dennis Miller, no Democratic comedian.
Megyn Kelly and Jane Skinner are also two Republicans that have their own weekly segments, while no Democrats get their own weekly segment.
5) The right-wing all spin zone. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. The Factor is basically a biased, one sided, right-wing spin zone. With Bill O'Reilly leading the charge, he puts his right-wing spin on every issue he reports on. Then he has 95% right-wing guests on to agree with him. This is done to reinforce what O'Reilly says as being the truth. Because if most of the guests agree with him you get the impression he is always right.
This is done on purpose, it's called brainwashing and propaganda. The old line if you lie often enough, pretty soon people will believe it fits here. It's the one lies and the other one swears to it routine. O'Reilly has 6 to 8 Republicans per show, while only having 1.2 to 1.7 Democrats per show.
Then O'Reilly claims that is a balanced guest list, which is just laughable. Not to mention a lot of shows have 7 or 8 Republican guests and 0 Democrats, none. But you never see any Factor show that has 7 or 8 Democrats and 0 Republicans, ever, not one time in the history of the show. It's all Republican spin all the time, with almost all right-wing guests.
It's basically a non-stop attack on President Obama and every Democrat in America. O'Reilly uses all the Republican guests to do most of his dirty work for him. That is why so many Republicans are put on the show. So he can have them attack and smear Obama and the Democrats, while mostly not getting his hands dirty. But O'Reilly also does some of the dirty work, with his own right-wing bias. Then Billy claims he is fair to Obama because maybe 1% of the time he says something good about him, while attacking everything Obama does the other 99% of the time.
To claim that is a fair and balanced no spin zone tv news show, hosted by a nonpartisan independent, is beyond laughable. It's a 100%, flat out, total lie. If you are an honest person, and you have any integrity at all, you have to see that the O'Reilly Factor is nothing but a right-wing propaganda show.
If you deny that, you deny reality. Read what I just wrote and show me one thing that is not 100% accurate. If you have a Republican host, who sides with Republicans 98% of the time, then 95% of your guests, and all your regulars are Republicans, it's pretty clear you have a Republican bias. The bias, the double standards, the right-wing spin, the lies, and the hypocrisy from O'Reilly and his mostly Republican guests is stunning. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
In closing, think about this. If O'Reilly tells all these lies about being a nonpartisan independent, having a no spin zone, and being fair to President Obama, how can you believe anything he says. The entire Factor show is a lie, it's almost all right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly should be getting his paycheck from the RNC, because the show is pretty much the same as a paid Republican party campaign ad. It's all right-wing spin, all the time, and that is a fact.
The Top 10 Right-Wing Conspiracies Of 2009 By: Steve - December 31, 2009 - 9:00am
1) The Census will be used to create internment camps. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) came up with a theory that President Obama wants to use the Census to round up the opposition.
2) Health care reform will create death panels. Sarah Palin and Betsy McCaughey gave birth to the widely-debunked rumor that end-of-life counseling somehow means the old and disabled will be killed off by the government. And even though it has been debunked over 40 times by the media, they still claim it's true.
3) President Obama was born in Kenya. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and smackdowns from the legal system, the "birthers" still believe the president was born outside the U.S. Including Lou Dobbs, and a hell of a lot of Republicans in Congress. O'Reilly himself even debunked it, yet they still claim it's true.
4) President Obama ceding U.S. sovereignty with Bows to foreign leaders. Conservatives were up in arms over Obama's insistence on greeting foreign leaders politely with a bow. Even though Reagan did the same thing and they said nothing. Not to mention George W. Bush kissed an Arab leader on the lips, and held his hand as they walked, yet the Republicans said nothing about that.
5) President Obama's school speech was called indoctrination. The Conservatives in America were horrified that their children might be brainwashed by President Obama's message to work hard and stay in school. They actually said Obama was trying to brainwash their kids, which was just ridiculous.
6) Bill Ayers wrote the Obama book "Dreams Of My Father." For some reason, a bunch of conservative bloggers think that Barack Obama couldn't have possibly written his own book. Therefore, former Weatherman Bill Ayers must have.
7) Democrats are turning the country socialist. Conservatives, including Republican officials, have painted health care reform and the economic stimulus as a covert socialist power grab. Especially Glenn Beck and a lot of people at Fox News, it's one of their main talking points.
8) President Obama is a Muslim. The same right-wing idiots who believe the "birther" conspiracy also believe that President Obama is a secret Muslim.
9) KSM will be aquitted and released into the United States. Some Republicans are convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could be acquitted on all charges and set free in New York. In fact, the government has the authority to hold KSM no matter what happens in his trial.
10) The In God we trust coin conspiracy. Sarah Palin expressed unease this fall over a redesign of U.S. currency, implying that it was an anti-Christian conspiracy by the Obama administration. The change actually happened under President Bush.
And they wonder why most people think they are crazy, because of nonsense like this.
The Wednesday 12-30-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 31, 2009 - 8:30am
The Wednesday night Factor was a re-run of an old show, it was basically a few clips of the O'Reilly part 1 interview with Sarah Palin. O'Reilly wanted to make her look good one more time before the year was over, haha, nice try. As I have said before, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
By that I mean, Sarah Palin is as dumb as a rock, and not qualified to be dog catcher, let alone the President. And no matter how much you right-wing fools try to re-make Palin as a smart woman, it's not gonna work.
Then O'Reilly had 3 Republicans on to discuss his interview with Palin, and 1 liberal, so it was the usla one sided biased right-wing garbage.
The Karl Rove Stupidity Machine Rolls On By: Steve - December 31, 2009 - 8:00am
Karl Rove should get an award for stupidity, lies and hypocrisy, because nothing but garbage comes out of his right-wing mouth. Now he is hammering Obama for not saying anything about the attempted airplane terrorist attack for 72 hours, when it happened on CHRISTMAS Day, while everyone was off for the Holidays. And President Obama was in Hawaii with his family.
And the worst part is that when Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb (when Bush was the President) he did not speak out about it for 6 fricking days. Yet Rove and the Republicans never said a word about that, and the shoe bomber did not try to blow up a plane on CHRISTMAS Day. Making Rove a total idiot, and a massive hypocrite.
Monday on Hannity, with Tucker Carlson as the fill in, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove sharply criticized President Obama's response to the failed terrorist attack on Christmas Day. In particular, Rove went after the fact that Obama issued his first public statement on the matter 72 hours after the event:
CARLSON: This President was not notified until three hours after this incident became known. Is that a long time? It seems like a long time.
ROVE: Look, they woke him up immediately to tell him he won the Nobel Prize but couldn't bother to interrupt his vacation for three hours to tell him a terrorist tried to bring down a plane on Christmas Day. And the President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it's over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke.
Then Rove made similar comments Tuesday morning again on Fox News, pointing out that it took Obama "72 hours after the event" to issue a statement from Hawaii, where the President is vacationing. This criticism rings hollow coming from Rove, a former top official in the Bush administration -- which waited even longer to comment on a failed airline plot in 2001. As the Sam Stein notes:
STEIN: On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid - known more infamously as the shoe bomber - failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Nevertheless, President Bush did not directly address the foiled plot for six days. And when he did, it was only in passing.
Two days after the incident on Dec. 24, 2001, the Boston Globe noted Bush's silence: "White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that President Bush continued to monitor the situation and receive updates at Camp David. Bush has not issued any statements about the incident."
Then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also brushed aside questions about the shoe bomber by saying the matter was "in the hands of the law enforcement people," and then Attorney General John Ashcroft made comments.
Since the Christmas Day events, Obama has been consulting with his top advisers and administration officials have been actively speaking with press, including appearing on the Sunday public affairs shows.
Then yesterday Obama again made public comments on the incident while in Hawaii, stating, "But what already is apparent is that there was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security. We need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix the flaws in our system, because our security is at stake and lives are at stake."
So Obama spoke out 72 hours after it happened, while on Christmas vacation in Hawaii with his wife and two kids. And the moron Rove hammers him for it, while Bush waited 6 days after the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane in 2001, but Rove said nothing then. And btw, not one Democrat hammered Bush for waiting 6 days to speak about the attempted attack.
And one last thing, the Republicans are saying the attempted airplane terrorist attack on Christmas Day was an actual terrorist attack, not an attempted terrorist attack, even though it failed. But when the shoe bomber failed in his attack, not one Republican called that a terrorist attack, they said it was an attempted terrorist attack.
Proving they are massive hypocrites who just want to score cheap political points by attacking Obama for waiting 72 hours, when Bush did the very same thing, and waited even longer to speak, but they said nothing then.
Factor Regular Karl Rove Caught Lying Again By: Steve - December 30, 2009 - 9:00am
Karl Rove is pretty much the king of right-wing liars, he was in the Bush administration, and he is now a regular on Fox News, and the O'Reilly Factor. You know the old saying, if his lips are moving, he is lying. That fits Karl Rove as good as anyone. He is basically a paid right-wing propagandist, and O'Reilly puts him on the Factor alone to spew out his right-wing lies almost every week.
There is another saying that comes to mind here, once a liar, always a liar. In a court of law the Judge tells the jury that if you catch a witness in a lie, you can throw out their entire testimony. That is what you should do with everything Karl Rove says, because everything he says is either spin or a flat out lie. Yesterday Karl Rove went on Fox News and lied his ass off.
Rove accused the Obama White House of being soft on terrorism because they did not declare the attempted bomber of the Northwest flight into Detroit, an enemy combatant, he said this:
ROVE: This shows the big difference in this administration's approach to it. This guy was treated not as an enemy combatant, and turned over to the FBI and the CIA for interrogation, he was charged criminally, which means he immediately lawyered up and the amount of information we're going to get from him is going to be this much, compared to what we could get if he was just simply sweat by the FBI and the CIA -- not even using enhanced interrogation techniques, just using what police would be able to use if you weren't lawyered up. This is a very troubling way in which the administration has handled this.
On the Hannity show Monday night, Rove claimed that by filing criminal charges, "we treat him as a guy who tried to knock over a 7-11 or got caught shoplifting." Which is just ridiculous, because 7-11 robbers and shoplifters do not get charged with terrorism in federal court.
The big problem with Rove's claim (that this shows the difference between the Bush and Obama administration) is a lie. The Bush administration had the exact same thing happen with the attempted airplane shoe bomber Richard Reid, and the Bush administration did the exact same thing in 2001, they filed criminal charges and had Reid tried in a federal court.
They did the exact same thing Obama has done, yet Rove claims Obama is soft on terrorists, when he did exactly what Bush did in 2001 with Richard Reid, it's a flat out lie from Rove, and just insane right-wing nonsense.
The Bush administration also did the same thing with Zacarias Moussaoui, who was eventually convicted of plotting with Al Qaeda to participate in the 9/11 attacks. He was also treated as a federal criminal by the Bush administration. So we have two examples of the Bush administration doing exactly what Obama did, and yet Rove calls it being soft on terrorism.
It's a lie, and massive hypocrisy. And remember this, Rove is the top political analyst for the O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly puts him on all the time, even though he is a known partisan, and a proven liar. And btw, Rove is always put on alone, so nobody can dispute his lies and spin.
One last thing, legal experts say that declaring suspects "enemy combatants" - especially when they are captured away from the field of battle - is actually a legal minefield fraught with far greater uncertainty than the use of federal criminal statutes.
The best example of this was the case of Jose Padilla, who was declared an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration, his case wound up taking years to be settled by the Supreme Court -- which eventually insisted that he be tried in federal court.
Padilla's case was slightly different, since he was a U.S. citizen, but the issue of habeas corpus would have been a big problem if Obama had followed Rove's advice. Proving that he should never listen to Karl Rove, and neither should anyone else. Once a liar, always a liar.
Newt Gingrich #1 Guest On Meet The Press By: Steve - December 30, 2009 - 8:30am
Think about this, O'Reilly complains all the time about the so-called liberal media, especially NBC. When Newt (fricking) Gingrich was their #1 most frequent guest. Despite not having held any position in government for over a decade, Newt Gingrich was the single most frequent guest on NBC's Meet the Press in 2009.
From March to December, Gingrich appeared on MTP, on average, every other month. No one else in American politics was on the show this often. And think about this, MTP did not even have the actual Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) on at all this year, not once. They also had zero appearances from all of the other living former House Speakers Hastert, Wright, and Foley.
There is really no explanation for this. Gingrich was forced from office in disgrace (by his own party) 11 years ago. Not to mention, he's a little crazy, he is a former office holder who just last week, was talking about hidden messages from God in snowstorms.
Newt wrote this on his twitter account after the recent D.C. snowstorm.
newtgingrich: As callista and i watched what dc weather says will be 12 to 22 inches of snow i wondered if God was sending a message about copenhagen
Newt is also a regular on the Factor. O'Reilly has him on all the time, and even said that Newt is a smart man who knows what he is talking about. When in reality, Newt is kind of a nut, and a paid shill for the GOP, who spins and lies for the right and Corporate special interest groups. Not to mention, individual storms have nothing to do with human-caused climate change.
And btw, O'Reilly claims that the ratings for Fox #1 because the people do not want liberal biased news from places like NBC, he says that Fox is #1 in the ratings because they tell the truth, and their #1 ratings prove they tell the truth. So using that very same argument I can prove your statement is a lie. Because NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams in the #1 rated News Show in America, and has been for years, they get 9 to 10 million viewers a night, which is triple what O'Reilly gets.
So that proves the people go to NBC for the truth, because they are #1 in the ratings in all of America. Haha, you were just punked by your own stupid argument, dumbass.
And here is a good question for O'Reilly, if NBC is this big liberal media outlet as you claim, why is Newt (fricking) Gingrich their #1 most frequent guest, and why does NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams get the highest ratings every night, every week, every month, and every year, what say you Billy?
The Tuesday 12-29-09 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review By: Steve - December 30, 2009 - 8:00am
Once again the far right partisan hack Eric Bolling was in for O'Reilly. Bolling is also the fill in for Glenn Beck when he is on vacation, or screwing a goat, or whatever he does in his off time. Here is my question, if O'Reilly is this nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone (as he claims he is) why are all his fill in hosts far right (all spin) partisan right-wing hacks. So far the holiday fill ins have been Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, and Eric Bolling. Where are the independent nonpartisan no spin fill in hosts, just asking.
The top story was about the attempted airplane terrorist attack. Bolling showed a photo of his underwear, the same one we have already seen a hundred times. Then he played a clip of Obama saying it was a security failure. He also reported that Obama has ordered an investigation. And then of course Bolling attacked Obama as a liar, and said he was wrong about the attempted bomber.
Bolling had General Wesley Clark on to discuss it. Clark said he is glad that Obama admitted it was a security failure, and he is glad Obama is calling for an investigation. Bolling asked Clark what he would do if he were the President. Clark said find out why the system failed, why he was not stopped from getting on the plane, etc. Then Bolling asked General Clark about Gitmo, and Clark said it should be closed. Bolling also asked General Clark what he would do with these terrorists, and Clark said put them on trial in federal courts. Bolling said the attempted airplane bomber was only facing 20 years in prison, that it was not enough, Clark said he was wrong, and that he will be facing way more than 20 years after all the charges are filed.
The next segment was more on the attempted terrorist airplane bombing. Bolling had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it. And of course Krauthammer just spent the entire segment hammering and smearing President Obama as being soft on terrorism, and said he was wrong to put them on trial in federal courts. Bolling cried about Obama calling it an attempted terrorist attack, which is what it was, because it failed, an actual terrorist attack is not a failure, so Bolling is a right-wing idiot. Krauthammer agreed, and actually called the plane a battlefield, which is just insane.
Krauthammer even hammered Obama for not calling him an islamic terrorist, he said if you can not use the proper term for them how can you defeat them. Which also makes no sense, no matter what you call them, you can still try to kill them and defeat them. The entire segment was total right-wing nonsense, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Then both Bolling and Krauthammer did a smear job on Janet Napolitano, Krauthammer even used the sexist comment that the muslim terrorists do not fear her because she is a woman. What a worthless segment, from two right-wing idiots who just used the Factor to attack the President and his administration. Krauthammer is a neo-con nut who should be locked in a padded room, and if we listen to him the whole world would be at war with us, he is scary stupid.
The next segment was more political garbage about the Republicans attacking President Obama as being soft on terrorism. Alan Colmes and Andrea Tantaros were on to discuss it. Colmes said they should be ashamed of these partisan attacks. Colmes also said it was crazy to blame Obama, and that it was all political nonsense. Colmes also said DeMint has a hold on the Obama TSA security head, so he is partly at fault for holding up the nomination. And of course Tantaros agreed with all the right-wing spin and political garbage. It was basically a 2 on 1 with Bolling and Tantaros against Colmes, he made sense, and they tried to use the attempted terrorist attack to score political points. Colmes said what the Republicans are doing is an outrage. And neither Bolling or Tantaros agreed, Colmes also said let's follow the Constitution. Tantaros is basically a brunette Ann Coulter.
The next segment was more on the attempted airplane terrorist attack story. Tamara Holder and Gary Berntsen were on to discuss it. To be honest here, it's just biased political garbage to smear and attack President Obama. They do not care about reporting the story, all they care about is smearing Obama with it somehow. They just want to score cheap political points by using the attempted terrorist attack to make Obama look soft on terrorism.
And btw, Berntsen is a good friend of Bolling who agreed with everything he said, so it was a 2 on 1 with Bolling and Berntsen against Holder. She made a great point, that we did the same thing with the shoe bomber Reid when Bush was President, and the Republicans never said a word then, proving it's a partisan political attack on Obama. At the end, Bolling discredited everything she said by saying he is with a former CIA officer in New York so he is going to believe him over her. When she was right, and the former CIA officer is a right-wing neo-con who is doing the same thing the Republicans are, using the attempted attack to score cheap political points.
Then the is it legal team were on, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about Charlie Sheen and his wife, which I could care less about because it's tabloid garbage. The next story was about Sarah Palins daughter Bristol and his child custody case, I do not care because it is more tabloid trash. This crap is for Geraldo and Nancy Grace to report on.
The final story was more tabloid trash, it was about Pete Townsend and his past child porn photos story, guess what, I do not care, because it's tabloid garbage, and it did not even happen in America. Not to mention, he was never convicted. He was caught in London with a photo of child porn on his laptop. Some people do not want to let him into America to perform at an NFL game, and Guilfoyle actually called him a child molester, which is just ridiculous. Wiehl said he was never convicted so you can not keep him out of the country.
Then Cheryl Casone from the Fox Business Network was on to discuss the Tiger Woods story, and how it has possibly lowered stock market prices for everyone. They can not prove it, they just speculated it has lowered the market for everyone based on some flawed study. Casone even said she does not believe the Tiger Woods story has lowered stock prices, she said the people who did the study were probably wrong because it was a flawed study that did not look at enough data for a long enough time period. Yet they did the segment anyway, and one stock was down 70% before the Tiger Woods story broke, what a bunch of idiots.
Then the last segment was more on the attempted airplane terrorist attack. My God, enough is enough, is there not any other news to report on. They talked about profiling, Bolling had Ibrahim hooper on to discuss it, he said profiling is wrong and ineffective. Hooper even pointed out that the Bush administration also said profiling is wrong and ineffective, and Bolling cut him off, then told him he does not want to hear what the Bush administration said.
Hooper also called it un-American and un-Constitutional. And then Hooper pointed out that the guy was not a muslim, he was Nigerian, and said how do you tell if they are muslim. Not to mention, a lot of the terrorists are not muslims, so profiling just muslims would not work. Bolling dismissed everything he said, even though Hooper made a lot of sense. And the Bolling Factor was over, thank God, he is worse than O'Reilly.
Republican Hypocrisy On The Obama Stimulus Money By: Steve - December 29, 2009 - 1:00pm
Here is a great example of political lies and spin from the Republicans. They all go on talk shows, radio shows, etc. and claim the Obama stimulus has failed. Even though it's a 2 year plan that has only been in place for 9 months or so. And it has been working, O'Reilly even admits it. Job losses every month are down more, the GDP is improving, the stock market is up, and overall the economy is improving.
But all the Republicans voted against the stimulus bill, so they have to lie that it is not working. While at the same time they take credit for stimulus money that is helping in their State or district. It's 100% proof that Republicans are lying fools that are not being honest with the people.
Every Republican in the House and all but 3 Republican Senators voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the Obama stimulus bill). Although the Congressional Budget Office has credited the stimulus with creating up to 1.6 million jobs, the same GOP politicians who opposed the stimulus have attempted to justify their opposition to the policy by smearing it as a failure.
But as ThinkProgress has documented, the same politicians are returning to their districts to take credit for the economic success of the stimulus.
In the past month, a few more GOP lawmakers went home to their district to praise and claim credit for successful stimulus programs:
-- Earlier this month, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) called the stimulus a "large-scale failure," but last week hailed a stimulus program in Frankford, Missouri as critical. Referring to a $313,900 grant authorized by the stimulus, Luetkemeyer said, "Clearly, the 328 residents of Frankford will benefit from this grant and I appreciate the USDA's willingness to help this community." In September, Luetkemeyer also requested $100 million from the stimulus for a road project in Missouri.
-- On his campaign website, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) features his opposition to the "pork-filled" stimulus. However, on his congressional website, McCaul features a story from earlier this month about a largely stimulus-funded project to expand Highway 36 in Texas. In the story, he is thanked for "taking this project to the next phase of reality." Noting its importance, McCaul says the highway expansion will cut down on fatal crashes and ensure commerce can continue to move efficiently through Austin County and the rest of this important region.
-- On December 16th, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) sent out a press release hailing $1,044,140 in stimulus money Carroll County school system, while crediting himself for securing the money. "I am pleased that our office was able to assist them in obtaining these funds," noted Davis in the release. On the same day, Davis sent out a separate release claiming that the stimulus had "failed."
All three of them voted against the stimulus, yet they take credit for it helping them. Congressional Republican leadership, who helped corral partisan opposition to the Recovery Act, are also shamelessly attacking the stimulus while at the same time requesting stimulus money.
As ThinkProgress has reported, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently hosted a job fair filled with jobs fueled by the stimulus, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been taking credit for stimulus projects in his home state.
Notice that neither O'Reilly or any of his right-wing fill in hosts, ever say a word about this hypocrisy and lies. They just ignore it, and on top of that they put Republican spin doctors like Laura Ingraham, Rove, Morris, Gingrich, Coulter, etc. on the Factor to spin out the lies.
Not once has anyone on the Factor reported this story, or the truth about the stimulus, or reported that Republicans who say the stimulus has failed are wrong. O'Reilly does this on purpose, so people that listen to the right-wing liars are left with the impression they are telling the truth. Which makes Obama look bad, and O'Reilly likes that, so he does not report their lies.
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Russian TV Reporter By: Steve - December 29, 2009 - 9:30am
Here is a great example of just how much of a liar Bill O'Reilly is. About a week ago O'Reilly was talking about an interview Bill Ayers did with a reporter from RT, an English-language Russian TV broadcaster. Billy had named Ayers a pinhead. During the interview Ayers said this:
AYERS: We have to get the United States to participate in the world. The idea that we have been a force for good for the last six decades is nonsense.
That statement caused O'Reilly's head to spin like a top, then he said he would like to slap some sense into Ayers. But then O'Reilly attacked the RT reporter, Anastasia Churkina, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: You saw the Russian interviewer nodding off like this. She had no idea. She didn't even speak English. I mean that's what she was doing. They assigned a Russian interviewer to interview that pinhead who didn't even speak English. Because they knew what he was saying was so stupid they didn't want to hear it. So if you don't speak English, you donít know how stupid it is.
This criticism from O'Reilly, was not only childish, it's a flat out lie. The RT interviewer Anastasia Churkina conducted the entire interview in English. And she also speaks French, Italian and Spanish, in addition to her native Russian.
O'Reilly said that Churkina could not speak English twice. If O'Reilly can lie about something that is so easily proven to be a lie, how can anyone take anything he says seriously. The fact that this is all there on the videotape illustrates just how crazy O'Reilly's no spin slogan is. He clearly has no problem misinforming his viewers with known lies.
It is also clear that both Ayers and Churkina offer commentary on the media that far exceeds OíReilly's dishonest reporting:
AYERS: I think the best place to get the news is The Daily Show, Comedy Central, The Onion. Those places, they're trustworthy, they're honest, they strip the mask off the hypocrisy. They do what the media is supposed to do.
CHURKINA: The mainstream American media: Crusaders of truth, pathological liars, or just scary clowns? As Americans begin to wake up to the thought that what their mainstream media says is often detached from reality, the question rises as to whether the US media's ever-increasing attention-grabbing tactics could cause its credibility to fly out the window.
Both Ayers and Churkina are right, the media ignores very important news stories to report on what gets the highest ratings. And the Daily Show is rated as one of the best news sources in America, despite being a Comedy show.
But the most stunning thing here is that O'Reilly lied about the woman not being able to speak english, when there is a video of the interview, and a transcript that clearly shows the woman speaking english. O'Reilly knows all that, and yet he lied about her anyway. Every person reading this should remember what he did, because if O'Reilly will lie about this, when it can easily be proven to be a lie, then he will lie about anything.
The Monday 12-28-09 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review By: Steve - December 29, 2009 - 9:00am
Eric Bolling, another far right biased idiot was filling in for O'Reilly. This is the same guy that fills in for Glenn Beck when he is not there. Basically he is no different than having Laura Ingraham or Monica Crowley fill in, except he is a man. So far for the holiday shows, all three Factor fill in hosts have been far right partisan Republicans.
As expected Bolling attacked Obama over the attempted airplane terrorist attack on Christmas day. he even said caution you are entering the no spin zone, when he is a known far right spin doctor, aka liar. The TPM was called Christmas Jihad. Bolling said Obama finally spoke out on it Monday. As if Obama did something wrong for not speaking out on it sooner.
Then the right-wing terrorist expert Steve Emerson was on to discuss it. They spent the entire segment talking about the details we all know already. So it was basically a segment to report news we already know. They said it was ridiculous that this guy got on the plane, especially when he was on the watch list, his father had warned them about him, he paid with cash, and had no luggage. And I agree, it was ridiculous, and heads should roll. I think Obama should fire someone over this, and find out why this guy was allowed on the plane.
The next segment was with the totally crazy far right nut Col. Ralph Peters, who is a flat out Obama hater, and of course he made it political and attacked Obama for it. When Obama does not run the airplane security in Amsterdam, so Obama had nothing to do with it. Peters attacked Obama because he did not use the words radical islamic when he talked about the guy. Peters is an Obama hating right-wing nut, and anyone who listens to him is a fool.
Not to mention, anyone who has him on their show is also a fool. The problem is with the security in Amsterdam, not with Obama, yet crazy Peters blamed Obama for it. They have known for years about this problem, and they did nothing to correct it.
Then Bolling attacked Janet Napolitano saying the system worked, then the next day she said it failed. Bolling had Leslie Marshall on to discuss it. She pointed out it was not an American security problem, it was a security problem in Amsterdam and Nigeria. I agree that it was a stupid thing to say from Napolitano, but Bolling used the entire segment to attack her and Obama, instead of talking about the actual problem. He did just what O'Reilly, Ingraham, and Crowley do, they make it a political attack instead of reporting the news about the story. Bolling once again attacked Obama for waiting 3 days to talk about it, and Marshall said she does not have any problem with Obama waiting 3 days to talk about it. Basically it's just like having O'Reilly there, with a different face.
The next segment was with Ann (far right lunatic) Coulter. And you can imagine what she had to say about it, so I will not bother you with the details. She basically attacked Obama for it just as Bolling and a lot of other right-wing idiots are doing. Coulter is just a right-wing nut who says all this crazy garbage to sell books. Anyone who cares what Ann Coulter thinks about anything is a fool, and a moron. Basically Coulter said we should profile all muslims, except this guy was a Nigerian, not a muslim, proving she is an idiot. Mathew Littman was also on to discuss it, he basically said he was shocked that this guy got on the plane, and wants to know how it happened.
Then a Factor flashback segment with O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs, it was a re-run interview from a couple months ago. O'Reilly has such a big ego he can not let them do one show without him in it, so in every show when he is not there a re-run with O'Reilly is shown.
The next segment was more about the attempted Christmas day airline terrorist attack. Bolling had the right-wing nut Michael Scheuer on to discuss it. They talked about the plan possibly coming from Yemen. Scheuer said the terrorists are growing their numbers, and of course he attacked Obama for it and said Obama is not doing enough to fight terrorism. But this Scheuer is a partisan right-wing fool that makes everything political and blames Obama for everything. Scheuer is basically a right-wing hack, just as Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are. All he does is blame Obama and the Democrats for everything, he is just a political partisan spin doctor.
The last segment was about how the airport security will be a lot tougher and make people mad because of the delays etc. Bolling called it a travel nightmare. Peter Greenberg the travel guy was on to discuss it. He said the new rules are crazy and confusing, and said they will not work. Greenberg said the issue is how did he get on the plane with the explosive, not so much what he did after he got on. Greenberg said they need to have explosive detecting machines at all airports to stop them before they get on the plane, and I agree.
More Republican Lies About History & George W. Bush By: Steve - December 28, 2009 - 2:30pm
I posted this blog to show people how Republicans are lying their ass off about history under Bush, and how they can not be trusted to tell you the truth. It's not just one of them, it's all of them, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Coulter, Morris, Gingrich, Rove. etc. They do nothing but lie, or put their spin on an issue, or some event from the past. Virtually nothing they say is 100% true, it's either a lie, or spin, and that is a fact.
Republicans are lying once again about what happened while George W. Bush was the President. Before I get into the lie, think back to January of 2001, George W. Bush was put in office by the Supreme Court. For the first time in history the Supreme Court told a State (Florida) to not have a re-count in the Bush v Gore election. Handing the election to Bush, meaning the people did not elect him, the U.S. Supreme Court did.
In March of 2001, the economy went into a recession. Then on September 11, 2001 the terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the WTC happened, killing almost 3,000 people. Everyone agrees both of those things happened while Bush was the President. Except the Republicans like Mary Matalin who are trying to re-write history. Yesterday on CNN Mary Matalin falsely claimed that President George W. Bush "inherited a recession from President Clinton," and she also said "we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history."
In fact the 9-11 attacks occurred eight months into Bush's presidency and more than a month after he had received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S., and the recession began in March 2001.
MATALIN: I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history.
FACT: The 9-11 Commission stated that on August 6, 2001, President Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and that Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had done so."
So EIGHT months after Bush took office he is warned that Bin Laden may strike in the US, and Bush did not discuss it with his Attroney General, or Condi Rice, or send out an alert to the airports or anything. Then they blame it on Bill Clinton, who was out of office for EIGHT months, and had even told them to watch out for terrorist attacks.
The Commission also "found no indication" that Bush's aides further discussed with him "the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" prior to 9-11 -- this despite the fact that "most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."
So basically the Bush administration totally ignored the warnings, so they did nothing to stop the 9-11 terrrorist attacks. Then they blame it all on Bill Clinton. Who had been gone for EIGHT months, and had nothing to do with any of it.
Now think about this, Obama has only been the President for 11 months. He took over right after Bush ruined the economy, crashed the stock market, crashed the housing market, handed him 2 wars, etc. And yet, the Republicans blame it all on Obama, simply because he is the President now. Even though Bush caused it all, or it happened on his watch. They even blame Obama for every cent of the current $3.5 Trillion dollar deficit, even though Obama only added $500 Billion to it.
But they now say the recession of 2001 was caused by Bill Clinton, and they also blame the 9-11 terrorist attack on Clinton too. Even though it happened while Bush was the President, the hypocrisy is stunning. It's right-wing double talk, think about it. They say it was not Bush's fault, even though it happened on his watch. Then they say it is Obama's fault, because it happened on his watch. As Spock from Star Trek would say, that does not compute.
When both wars were started by Bush, not Obama. And Obama actually did inherit a recession from Bush, not only was it a recession, it was the worst recession in 50 years, and some economic experts said it was almost a depression. It's right-wing propaganda, hypocrisy, and lies. Not to mention O'Reilly is a big part of it, he does it too, and he gives all of them a forum to voice their right-wing lies and spin.
Eric Massa Op-Ed On The Afghanistan War By: Steve - December 27, 2009 - 1:30pm
Last Thursday on Christmas Eve Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) -- a 24-year Navy veteran and former Special Assistant to Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Wesley Clark, wrote an op-ed in The Hill noting that today, Christmas Eve, marks the 3,000th day of our war in Afghanistan and also carries another historic significance for the nation of Afghanistan: It's the 30th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of that country:
MASSA: As we begin our deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, this Christmas Eve will also mark the 3,000th day of the war in Afghanistan and the 30th anniversary of the initial Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Thus far, this war has already cost the American taxpayer a minimum of $300,000,000,000 according to the Congressional Research Service (and that's just the funding that's on the budget).
Sadly, the fact that we're spending about $101 million per day in this war is the good news. The financial cost of this war is nothing compared to the fact that 937 American troops have been killed, and 4,434 have been wounded (and that's not counting the thousands more that will carry the memories of this war for their entire lives).
Massa went on to call for an up-or-down vote on the funding for the upcoming escalation of troops, and insisted that we begin to drawdown our forces from the country -- something President Obama has indicated he supports and which most Americans do as well. During an interview two months ago, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev shared his feelings on the Afghan war, given his country's experience there.
When asked what lessons he learned "that President Obama should heed in making his decisions about Afghanistan," Gorbachev, who ended the Soviet Union's 10 year war there in 1989, replied, "One was that problems there could not be solved with the use of force. Such attempts inside someone else's country end badly."
And yet O'Reilly and all his right-wing neo-con friends think more troops are the answer. In fact, their answer to everything is more troops, O'Reilly has even said the way to win is to kill more of them. While all the experts say that simply killing more of them will not solve the problem, and it will not stop terrorism.
Terrorists are spread out all over the world, so even if you kill every terrorist in Afghanistan, it will not stop terrorism, as the recent Christmas day airplane attack shows, that attempted terrorist act was by a man from Nigeria. He was not in Afghanistan, proving that terrorists are everywhere. In fact, some experts argue that having troops in these foreign countries makes terrorism worse.
O'Reilly Factor Patriot A Lying GOP Hypocrite By: Steve - December 27, 2009 - 9:30am
Republican Congressman Henry Brown was recently named a "patriot" by Bill O'Reilly in his pinheads and patriots segment, for his defense of Christmas resolution. But he is a hypocrite, and O'Reilly failed to mention that. Not to mention, there is no war on Christmas, some people just say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
In a so-called free country should you not be allowed to say whatever you want. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends want to force you to say Merry Christmas, and if you refuse you are demonized as a liberal Christmas hater. What they do not seem to understand is that when people say Happy Holidays that is not an insult on Christmas, it's just a way to say have a happy holiday to people of all religions. They call that a war on Christmas, which is just ridiculous.
Here is what the O'Reilly "patriot" Henry Brown did. Leading the fight to defend Christianity in the so-called War on Christmas, Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) introduced congressional resolution 951, which urges protection of the symbols and traditions of Christmas. Despite criticism from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) against frivolous legislation, Brown collected 74 GOP cosponsors.
The religious meaning of Christmas is serious to Brown. In an explanation of his resolution to the Christian Broadcast Network, Brown noted that, "we're in a troubled world, so we can't lose sight of our deep faith by some how or another diminishing the value of Christmas."
The main threat to Christmas, Brown contents, is the use of the term "happy holidays" rather than an emphasis on Christ and Christmas. In an interview with Fox Business last week, Brown lashed out at the use of happy holidays:
BROWN: We forget the real meaning of Christmas by using happy holidays or joy to the seasons or some other word rather than Merry Christmas.
Every year, more and more people are shying away from Merry Christmas and using happy holidays or some other means of expressing this special time for us.
And remember this, O'Reilly named him a patriot for that right-wing garbage. Brown even used his resolution as a jab against President Obama. Declaring that the Obamas holiday card doesn't mention Christmas, Brown said, "I believe that sending a Christmas card without referencing a holiday and its purpose limits the Christmas celebration in favor of a more politically correct holiday."
While his very own 2008 December Christmas newsletter wished a happy holiday for the holiday season. It said this:
BROWN: "Wishing our troops a Blessed Holiday, and Happy Holidays to our troops home and abroad. May you know that we are supporting you not just during this season, but year round, and wish you the happiest of holidays. God Bless."
But he made no mention of Christ or Christmas. And btw, Congressman Brown did not introduce his anti-happy holidays resolution last year, even though President Bush's 2008 holiday card did not mention Christmas either.
Proving that he is not only a right-wing hypocrite, he is a biased right-wing hypocrite, who used Christmas to attack President Obama. And O'Reilly named this idiot a patriot for that biased right-wing garbage.
The Friday 12-25-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 26, 2009 - 9:00am
There was no show Thursday night (Christmas Eve) because Fox News ran holiday programming all night.
The 8pm Christmas show was a Factor re-run with O'Reilly, then at 9pm they had another O'Reilly Factor show, it was a special with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum hosting. They basically showed re-runs of old culture quiz segments that they were part of. And of course it was called the best of culture quiz show.
I did not review it because it was not news, and there was nothing to review. But I do have one comment about it, I am surprised at how dumb Doocy and MacCallum are. They missed a lot of questions, and they work for a news network. They even missed questions about news stories that were reported a lot by Fox News.
One question was about who Al Franken wrote a fake letter to from Harvard, the answer was John Ashcroft, I knew it, but neither one of them got it right. And I do not even work for a news network. About all this show did was show just how stupid both Doocy and MacCallum are.
Then at 10pm they had another O'Reilly Factor special, it was a re-run of old clips from past shows. Basically it was an O'Reilly Factor marathon, on Christmas night. I guess Fox News thought that would be a good Christmas present for their viewers. I watched 3 shows, off and on from 8pm to 12am, then I turned it off because it was all re-runs, and I could not take it anymore, haha.
Dick Morris Caught Lying About Health care Bill By: Steve - December 26, 2009 - 8:30am
Dick Morris is a regular on the Factor, and the Fox News Network. O'Reilly puts him on for a regular weekly segment, and he does many other Fox shows. And the man is a serial liar, who almost never has the facts right, and yet O'Reilly never calls him on his lies. He allows Morris to spin out all his lies with no dispute, or anyone there to disagree with him. Morris is always put on alone, with no other guest who can dispute what he says.
This is done on purpose by O'Reilly, so Morris can spew out his right-wing propaganda with nobody there to counter what he says. Which gives viewers the impression he is telling the truth, because nobody is there to say, wait a minute, that is not accurate. Then O'Reilly sits there and agrees with everything he says, and that reinforces what Morris is saying, as if it were true. When the truth is most of the time Morris is lying. Here is a perfect example.
On Fox & Friends, Dick Morris falsely claimed that the "Medicare Advisory Board" in the Senate health care bill will "be saying no, you can't give this person a hip replacement, they are too old, and no, you can't treat this person with colon cancer with the best drug available."
MORRIS: The Medicare Advisory Board is a particularly dangerous thing, because it's going to be set up for Medicare only, for the elderly only, protocols and standards of care where they are going to be saying no, you can't give this person a hip replacement, they are too old, and no, you can't treat this person with colon cancer with the best drug available. I know it increases the chance of his dying, but it's beyond the cost parameters that we are prepared to allow. And this will be done by this federal board, which is really the death panel that Sarah Palin was talking about.
That is pure nonsense, and a flat out 100% LIE. The Senate version of the health care bill specifically states that the Advisory Board's recommendations "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, or otherwise restrict benefits."
Notice it says shall not ration health care, or restrict benefits. Which is the exact opposite of what Morris said on Fox. Here is the exact quote, right from the bill. From Section 3403 of the Senate health care bill, Independent Medicare Advisory Board:
(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
Morris just made it up, just like Sarah Palin did about the death panels. None of it is true, it's nothing but right-wing lies to try and get the people to oppose the bill. And this is from a regular on the O'Reilly Factor, Dick Morris, a proven liar.
Now if he is caught lying about this, how can you ever believe anything he says again. And the fact that he lied about this, proves he is a biased partisan who will lie to make you believe what he wants you to believe. These are the kind of people O'Reilly has on as regulars, proven liars, who always use their lies to fool you. And they never lie to make Democrats look good, they always lie to make Republicans look good.
Merry Christmas From World Net Daily By: Steve - December 25, 2009 - 10:00am
Check out the World Net Daily Obama Christmas Poll, this is what they do for Christmas.
The right-wing website World Net Daily has been the source of a variety of smears, particularly a campaign to question the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship. While WND exists at the fringes of the conservative movement, top Republican legislators frequent the WND radio program and the Republican National Committee, among other GOP organizations, fund WND through e-mail list rentals.
The website, which files regular articles about the role of Christianity during the holiday season, has a new Christmas-themed poll which asks, "What would you like to give Obama for Christmas?" Readers have responded by voting for: a court ruling booting his ineligible self from office, a one-way ticket back to Kenya, and an arrest warrant:
And btw, O'Reilly has not reported one word about this website, or what they do, in fact, O'Reilly even used to write for the World Net Daily as a conservative columnist. Which is one big reason he never reports on all the dirty tricks they do. They constantly insult and disrespect the President and O'Reilly says nothing.
But when a fat-left website like DailyKos called Bush an idiot, or ran a poll like WND ran, O'Reilly called then vile America haters. And now when all these far-right websites do it to Obama, O'Reilly ignores it all and says nothing.
When Bush was the President O'Reilly said you must respect the office and support the President, and he attacked anyone who said anything about Bush. They were called out as America haters, and even called un-American. Now guess how many times O'Reilly has called out a right-wing website (or person) for disrespecting President Obama, none, zero, never. How many right-wingers has he called America haters for attacking Obama, none, zero, zilch.
Right-Wing Nonsense From O'Reilly & Crowley By: Steve - December 25, 2009 - 9:30am
On the Wednesday night O'Reilly Factor guest host Monica Crowley had the 2009 highlights, they included endorsing waterboarding and attacks on "old lady" Helen Thomas
Remember this, O'Reilly claims to support the rule of law, and has even said if we do not obey the laws you have chaos, then he endorses breaking the law by using torture. He said waterboarding worked, so it was ok to do it as long as the President (Bush) orders it. O'Reilly denied it was torture, even though it is listed as torture in the Geneva Conventions.
He even refuses to call it torture, he calls it enhanced interrogations. Which is code word for torture, without saying the word torture. And O'Reilly and Dennis Miller also make jokes about waterboarding, they think it's funny. O'Reilly himself tells Alan Colmes that he should be waterboarded.
But when Keith Olbermann called for Hannity and O'Reilly to let someone waterboard them, they refused, after making fun of it, and Hannity even said he would, then he chickened out. They make fun of waterboarding, and say it is not torture, then they are too scared to let someone do it to them. Proving they are all talk right-wing cowards.
O'Reilly also complains about COMEDIANS making jokes about Sarah Palin, then he has Dennis Miller on his show every week to make jokes about Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, etc. And O'Reilly himself makes jokes about Helen Thomas, and other women, he called her a witch and an old lady. It's hypocrisy to the tenth power, but standard practice on the Factor.
Crowley calls health care reform Democrats "suicide mission"
Millions of people are losing their homes and dying due to a lack of basic health care coverage. and all these right-wing Fox News commentators do is criticize and undermine the efforts of our leaders trying to address the problem.
Crowley is in the same boat as Ingraham, and Coulter. They are basically lying, spinning, right-wing blonde bimbos. They are put on the air to get ratings, because Republicans love the blondes. And they are also put on the air to spin out right-wing lies and propaganda, not one word that comes out of their mouths is true, none of it.
These are the people O'Reilly has decided to host his show and be regulars on the Factor. Proving that he is also a right-wing spin doctor, because nobody but a right-wing stooge would have them on his show. The Factor is nothing but right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly is lying when he says he is a nonpartisan independent. Just watch the show, and the evidence is clear, O'Reilly is a right-wing hack.
Proof The Republicans Oppose Bi-Partisan Politics By: Steve - December 24, 2009 - 9:20am
Republicans are now crying that the Democrats are not working with them to write up new bills in Congress. They claim the Democrats are not bi-partisan, when that is a total lie. The Democrats have tried to work with the Republicans, but they refuse, and just vote no on everything as a political strategy.
They are hoping that everything Obama does is a failure, then they can say they voted no on everything so they were right, now put us back in power. It's a political stunt, to be used for political reasons. I can even show you the Democrats have been bi-partisan, and the Republicans have not.
-- In 1993 when Bill Clinton called for a $496 Billion dollar economic plan, it got 51 votes in the Senate, all from the Democrats, he got 0 votes from Republican Senators. In the House 218 Democrats voted yes, he got 0 votes from Republican House members. And btw, it was a massive success, and led to 8 years of economic boom that created 22 million new jobs, the most for any President in an 8 year term. And every single Republican voted against it.
-- In 2009 when Obama passed the $787 Billion economic stimulus plan, it got 57 votes in the Senate from the Democrats, he got 3 votes from Republican Senators. In the House 246 Democrats voted yes, he got 0 votes from Republican House members. And that stimulus is working, as it will continue to work over the next year or two as the rest of the stimulus money is spent. Every Republican but 3 voted against it.
Now let's look at how democrats voted on big bills under Reagan and Bush.
-- In 1981 Ronald Reagan passed a $749 Billion dollar tax cut plan, it got 37 votes in the Senate from Democrats, he got 52 votes from Republican Senators. In the House 133 Democrats voted yes, he got 190 votes from Republican House members.
-- In 2001 George W. Bush passed a $1.350 Billion dollar tax cut plan, it got 12 votes in the Senate from Democrats, he got 46 votes from Republican Senators. In the House 28 Democrats voted yes, he got 212 votes from Republican House members.
So as you can see, if anyone is refusing to be bi-partisan it's the Republicans. The Democrats try to work with Republicans, when they can, but sometimes the Republicans refuse to work with them, then they claim the Democrats are not being bi-partisan.
Which is just ridiculous, because Republicans have decided on a strategy of just say no. If they refuse to bargain in good faith, it's impossible to get a bi-partisan deal done. To claim the Democrats are not being bi-partisan you have to deny reality. Obama even reached out to the Republicans and they kicked him in the face, then voted no on everything. And btw, when George W. Bush was the President and the Republicans had all the power, O'Reilly criticized the Democrats for opposing everything Bush wanted to do. Now that Obama is the President and the Republicans oppose everything he wants to do, O'Reilly says nothing about the Republicans being so partisan.
Senate Holds Christmas Eve Health Care Vote By: Steve - December 24, 2009 - 9:00am
This morning, at 7am the Senate held its final vote on the health care reform bill, and it passed 60-39. Just as everyone knew it would, and the only reason they had to vote on Christmas Eve morning is because the Republicans used stalling tactics for a week.
That final vote could have been taken days ago, but the Republicans decided to stall it as long as possible, even though once they got the first 60 to 40 vote they knew it would pass. And not one person at Fox News said a word about it, especially O'Reilly and Ingraham. They both ignored the entire story, and never once criticized the Republicans for stalling the vote to Christmas Eve.
But they both sure had time to do multiple segments on the bogus war on Christmas, and O'Reilly even took the whole week off for the holiday. And when Republicans stall the vote until Christmas Eve morning, they ignore it and pretend it never happened. When you can bet the farm if the Democrats did something like this it would be the lead story for a week, with O'Reilly and Ingraham both hammering them for doing it.
And btw, The last time the Senate held a roll call vote on Christmas Eve was 1895. Yes that's 1895, a whopping 114 years ago, yet O'Reilly, Ingraham, and Fox News never once criticized the Republicans for causing it.
The Wednesday 12-23-09 O'Reilly/Crowley Factor Review By: Steve - December 24, 2009 - 8:30am
The far right (Obama hating) Monica Crowley was the fill in for Billy last night, and notice that he only has conservative fill-in hosts. Which is a funny thing to do for someone who claims to be a nonpartisan independent. Where are the independent fill-ins, or the Democratic fill-ins, there are none, conservatives only. She even said caution you are about to enter the no spin zone, what a joke.
Crowley called passing the health care bill a suicide mission, her far right TPM was called Self-Destructive Democrats. She said the health care bill was like an old fruit cake you get for Christmas. Then she claimed Democrats are bailing on the party because of the health care bill, when it was just one pretend Democrat Congressman from Alabama who switched to the Republican party.
Then Crowley cried (just like Ingraham did) about Nelson and Landrieu getting a deal for their vote. When it's simply politics as usual, and the right-wing idiot Dick Morris was on to discuss it. He said it's probably worse than we know, he speculated there were a lot of other deals we do not know about. So it was all speculation, even though O'Reilly claims there is no speculation on the Factor. And if it was so bad, why did Obama make it public, he did not even try to hide it. Morris even admitted it was all done in daylight, that Obama did not even try to keep it secret.
Notice there were no Democratic guests, just Crowley and Morris spinning out right-wing propaganda. Morris even called it corruption, when there was nothing corrupt about it, these deals are done all the time in Washington, by Democrats and Republicans. But somehow, now that Democrats are doing it, now it's corruption, give me a break. Morris and Crowley are just partisan liars, they act like only Democrats do it, when Bush did it many times during his 8 years, they just ignored it then, because they supported it. Giving a Congressman or a Senator a deal to get their vote is legal, and there is nothing corrupt about it. You may not like it, but it's legal, and both parties do it all the time.
Then the crazy far-right (paid liar) Karl Rove was on to discuss the same issue, and he basically said almost the same thing as Morris. But he added that the bill is not budget neutral, when the nonpartisan CBO said it is, and in fact, they say that over 10 years it will cut the deficit. Rove cried about the deals for their votes, when he was in the Bush administration doing the very same type of deals. Rove said the bill would blow a hole in the deficit, which is just more right-wing lies.
Remember these same people on the right said the Clinton economic plan (in 1993) would bankrupt the country, when it did the opposite and led to 8 years of economic boom. Crowley called it legalized bribery, and compared it to being in the mafia, and of course Rove agreed. And then the Democrat guest said, oops, no Democrat was on to provide any balance.
In the next segment, Crowley talked about a woman who threatened to kill Michelle Obama. Crowley asked if it was a serious threat. Kelly Saindon and Jennifer Smetters were on to discuss it. They are both lawyers, and they both agree the threat should be and will be, taken seriously. The woman does have a history of mental illness, so it may not be as serious as they make it out to be. They also talked about the balloon boy story, the Father got 30 days in jail, and all three of them think that was not enough. I really do not care, it's basically tabloid trash. The last story was about 2 EMT's not helping a dying woman, and they all think the EMT's should be prosecuted, I agree.
The next segment was a re-run interview Billy had in May about some ACRON garbage, with O'Reilly and Bertha lewis from ACORN. And Crowley mentioned that the CRS report said ACORN did not violate any laws. Not to mention a federal judge has ruled that when Congress cut the funding to ACORN it was a violation of the Constitution. This segment was garbage, and it was only done to smear ACORN some more even when they have been cleared of all charges, and the courts even found they were wronged.
Then the crazy (far right nut) Monica Crowley, did an entire segment talking about how Katie Couric thinks the American people are too angry, she was talking about the far right tea party people. The whole segment was ridiculous, and not even worth talking about. If a Republican had said the people are angry, like Glenn Beck does every day, it would not even be a story with Crowley or the Factor. And of course Crowley had the far right Tim Graham on from the Media Research Center to discuss it. He even said it's ok to say the people are angry, then the two of them spent 4 minutes attacking Couric anyway. Graham said that when Couric says the people are angry she is trying to shut them up, which is just pure insanity, it was just an observation, and an accurate one. It was garbage from Crowley and Graham, and nothing but total one sided biased right-wing propaganda.
Then Crowley reported on the so-called Christmas controversy at the Illinois Capital Building. So Crowley showed a re-run of the interview O'Reilly had with Ann Coulter about the issue. Once again, it was garbage, and nothing but one sided biased opinion from all Republican spin doctors, Crowley, O'Reilly, and Coulter. What the right-wingers want is only a Christmas display, they do not want any other religions to have a display, even though the courts have already ruled against them. As usual Coulter made no sense at all, and O'Reilly pretty much agreed with her. And btw, so far the show has had 7 Republican guests, and 0 Democratic guests.
The last segment was the best of the Factor for 2009, what they call the best, was all clips of O'Reilly hammering some liberal over something. If that's the best of anything I'm Elvis. I would call it the worst of the Factor 2009, because it was all garbage. And then the show was finally over. Crowley is basically the same as Laura Ingraham, a lying, spinning, right-wing propagandist. And this is the kind of person O'Reilly picks to be his fill-in host, a total right-wing partisan idiot. His two fill-ins are Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley, both far right partisan spin doctors, so what does that say about O'Reilly.
Republicans Finally Agree To Early Morning Senate Vote By: Steve - December 23, 2009 - 9:00am
Last night AP reported that the Senate Republicans have finally agreed to end the political games and the stalling tactics, and let a final vote happen before 7pm Christmas Eve night.
AP -- 12-22-09 - Majority Leader Harry Reid, announced an agreement to vote on final passage at 8 a.m. Thursday, Christmas Eve. It would mark the 25th consecutive day of Senate debate on health care.
"The finish line is in sight," Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said at a news conference with other Senate leaders and cheering supporters. "We're not the first to attempt such reforms but we will be the first to succeed."
Obama said the Senate legislation accomplishes 95 percent of what he wanted on health care. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill." The final 60-vote hurdle, limiting debate on the bill itself, is expected to be cleared Wednesday afternoon, setting up the Thursday morning before Christmas vote.
The Senate has been voting at odd hours since Monday around 1 a.m. because Republicans have insisted on using all the time allowed under Senate rules to delay the bill.
And as I predicted Laura Ingraham (filling in for O'Reilly Tuesday night) did not say a word about it, because it makes the Republicans look bad. She ignored the entire story, as she cried about the bill passing. With not one mention of the stalling tactics, or making Senators wait until Christmas Eve to vote on a bill they know is going to pass.
The Tuesday 12-22-09 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review By: Steve - December 23, 2009 - 8:30am
As expected Laura Ingraham was in for O'Reilly, so I will not do a full review, I will just do a partial review to show you what a biased right-winger Ingraham is, even worse than O'Reilly. Her TPM was called Shady Politics, talking about the so-called bribes that were given out to get their vote on health care. She also called the health care debate a fraud and a sham.
Ingraham acts like giving political favors to people in your own party to get their vote is a bribe, except the very same thing was done by George W. Bush and the Republicans for 8 years, and not once did Ingraham call it a bribe. Ingraham not only called it a bribe, she said it was funny business. But here are the facts, in politics you sometimes have to give things to people to get their vote on a bill, what a shocker, not. It's not a bribe, it's called politics, and both political parties do it. You may not like it, myself included, but that's how things work sometimes, and it's sure as hell not a bribe.
Then Ingraham had the Republican Senator John Thune from South Dakota on to discuss it. With no Democrat guest, just Ingraham and Thune spinning out right-wing lies. As you could imagine they sat there for 4 minutes spewing out right-wing propaganda about the health care bill. I am even opposed to it, without a public option, a medicare buy in, and the mandatory buying amendment. But these right-wing fools are just lying about what's in the bill, even though it's going to pass. So they can spin out all the lies they want, it's not going to do any good. Basically Ingraham spent the whole segment trying to dream up a way to kill the bill. Even though they have the 60 votes, and nothing she says will do anything.
The next segment was with Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley. They were on to give Obama a grade on the issues, Colmes said Obama gets a B- on the economy, Crowley gave him an F. Proving that she is a total right-wing idiot who does not know what reality is. Colmes gave Obama a C on Foreign Policy, Crowley gave him a D. Even though he sent the 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan and also got NATO to send 7,000 more troops. Colmes gave Obama a B on health care, and Crowley gave him and F. Colmes also said if the health care bill gets passed he would give Obama an A on health care. Colmes gave Obama a B on leadership, and Crowley gave Obama an D on leadership.
Then the crazy right-wing nut Laura Ingraham had a segment about black support for Obama, she claims support for Obama is dropping among blacks. Her evidence, one black actor in Hollywood spoke out saying he does not like some of what Obama is doing, that actor was Danny Glover. When the polls show 98% of blacks support President Obama. Ingraham had the Democrat Michael Brown on to discuss the ridiculous issue. In fact, Ingraham said Obama should not have even responded to what Danny Glover said, then she did a whole fricking segment on it. Ingraham just tried to use the crazy segment to make it look like Obama is losing support among blacks, which is just ridiculous, as is Nasal Nose Voice Laura Ingraham.
The next segment was a Factor flashback re-run, where O'Reilly trashed Planned Parenthood over something he did not like. Billy interviewed some right-wing stooge who made some unproven claims about Planned Parenthood, and she even had her attorney on with her, who is pro-life. None of it was proven, and to this day it has still not been proven. And btw, the woman making the charges against Planned Parenthood is pro-life, as is O'Reilly. So it was clearly a biased one sided interview with no Democrats or any pro-choice guests to counter what she said. It was the usual one sided right-wing bias from O'Reilly.
Then the is it legal segment with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They also talked about the Ft. Hood shooter saying he is not allowed to pray in his jail cell. Wiehl and Guilfoyle called it crazy, and Ingraham agreed. The guy was talking in arabic to his brother, and they wanted him to talk in english, and his attorney called that a violation of his religious rights. Then they talked about Congressman Alan Grayson calling for the AG Holder to prosecute some woman for making a website about him. Wiehl and Guilfoyle called it crazy, and I agree, because she has free speech.
Then they talked about the off-duty cop pulling a gun at a snowball fight. Ingraham defended the cop, and said he showed a gun, but did not pull a gun, haha, what's the difference. The cop now says someone else had a gun so he pulled his gun, which is what they say every time they wrongly pull a gun. The police district has suspended the cop, and yet Ingraham, Wiehl, and Guilfoyle all defned the cop and say he did nothing wrong. Ingraham actually said he just showed his gun, but he did not pull his gun, which is the same damn thing, and a ridiculous thing to say. The off-duty cop clearly got mad and pulled his gun after a snowball hit his car, yet these 3 right-wing nuts defend him and even make up crazy excuses for him.
Then Ingraham had more on the White House party crashers, which I refuse to report on. She had Ronald Kessler on to discuss it, who writes for the right-wing website newsmax.com. No Democratic guest was on to discuss it. And btw, he was also on to promote his book.
The last segment was totally ridiculous tabloid garbage. It was about a commercial where older women tell their younger man they will not have sex with them unless they support the Obama health care plan. It was just ridiculous right-wing nonsense from Ingraham. This is not news, it's garbage. Ingraham gave a viewer warning, then showed part of the commercial. It was a rock the vote video. Ingraham even had a guest on to discuss it, the former head of rock the vote Jehmu Greene. She did not like the commercial, but supports what they do. And the Ingraham Factor was over, thank God.
Americans Say The Bush Decade Was Terrible By: Steve - December 23, 2009 - 8:00am
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Americans are entering 2010 with a negative view of the events of the past decade, which was largely marked by President Bush's tenure from January of 2001 to January of 2009.
According to the poll, a combined 58% said the decade was either awful or not so good, 29% said it was fair, and 12% said it was either good or great.
Asked what they thought had the greatest negative impact on America this past decade, 38% cited the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 23% picked the mortgage and housing crisis, 20% said the Iraq war, 11% chose the stock market crash, and 6% said Hurricane Katrina.
But 37% said the country lost ground on the environment, 46% said it lost ground on health and well being, 50% said it lost ground on peace and national security, 54% said lost ground on the nation's sense of unity, 55% said it lost ground in treating others with respect, 66% said it lost ground on moral values, and a whopping 74% said it lost ground on economic prosperity.
Census Bureau figures released in September support the public's pessimistic take on the last decade:
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.
The poll comes as loyal Bushies are attempting to rewrite the former president's legacy (including O'Reilly by never talking about what happened during the Bush years) and delude the public into believing that the country's current problems are all the fault of President Obama.
The Republicans blame all the problems Bush caused on Obama, simply because he is the President now. Even O'Reilly, he promised to give Obama a year before blaming him and attacking him. That lasted about one day, then O'Reilly attacked Obama for everything. The year is up on 1-20-10 next month, yet O'Reilly has already been attacking Obama for everything he does over the last 11 months.
Former White House adviser Karl Rove, for example, has been all over the media, issuing statements like the Bush administration has no responsibility for current budget deficits. Bush officials have even tried to claim that they made Afghanistan a top priority and that Obama is the one who has been screwing up their work.
Fox News host Sean Hannity has gone so far as to say that Bush deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is claiming that the cure to the country's problems is to just give political control back to Republicans (which they already had for 8 years of the last decade).
Historians have ranked Bush as one of the top 10 worst presidents in U.S. history and believe his legacy will most resemble that of former presidents Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover. Time magazine recently did a feature calling the past 10 years the "decade from Hell." O'Reilly and the Republicans ignore those facts, then blame it all on Obama, when he has only been in office for 11 months, and the Bush administration caused all the current problems we have.
Republicans Still Stalling Senate Vote By: Steve - December 22, 2009 - 12:00pm
The Senate voted 60 to 40 Sunday night at 1am to pass the health care bill, it was called a cloture vote. The reason they voted at 1am is because of Republican stalling tactics. The next vote is today, and as I type this the final vote could happen Thursday night (Christmas Eve) at 7pm.
This is ridiculous, the Republicans know they are going to lose 60 to 40 yet they keep stalling. The Democrats have even offered to waive the 30 hours of debate between each cloture vote and the Republicans have refused. This is politics gone bad, even if you hate the bill, it does nobody any good to stall a vote you know you are going to lose.
The whole thing is a joke, this morning, the Senate cleared a series of procedural votes on the health care bill, paving the way to passing reform on Christmas Eve. All 60 members of the Democratic caucus voted in favor of the three motions, suggesting that Republicans are waging a losing battle to delay the passage of reform.
Since reaching the 60 votes, Democrats have argued that the Senate waive the 30 hours of debate between each cloture vote, offering unanimous consent agreements to expedite the Senate schedule. But at least some Republicans are intent on running out the clock and staying until Christmas.
"The flight I have is Christmas morning," Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN) told reporters, "I don't plan on changing that." This morning on Washington Journal, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) also said, "I'm committed to stay here all the way through the final vote."
But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suggested that he is ready to leave. McConnell announced that he is "working on an agreement that would give certainty to the way to end this session."
Republicans will attend a 1pm caucus lunch today where they'll decide whether or not to delay the vote until Christmas eve night. And while all this nonsense is going on you have not heard a word about it from O'Reilly or Ingraham. Now imagine what they would say if the Democrats were doing the stalling, they would be called un-American Christmas-Hating traitors, and they would want to try them for treason.
But when Republicans do it they are silent as a mouse. Last night Ingraham was the fill-in for O'Reilly, and she had time to do a ridiculous segment about a muslim mosque near ground zero in NY, but she did not have time to discuss the Republican stall tactics on the Senate vote. They are stalling a vote they know they will lose, so it does no good, except to make everyone stay in Washington until 7pm on Christmas Eve.
Glenn Beck Named 2009 Misinformer Of The Year By: Steve - December 22, 2009 - 9:00am
Media Matters has named Glenn Beck the 2009 misinformer of the year. And what a shocker, he has a show on Fox News, plus Bill O'Reilly loves him and even has him on the Factor once a week as a regular guest. O'Reilly is even going on tour with Beck to do some kind of right-wing spin shows, and yet he claims to be a nonpartisan independent. What kind of nonpartisan indepedent has Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and Newt Gingrich as their political analysts, and Laura Ingraham as their fill-in host. Answer, Bill (the Republican) O'Reilly.
Glenn Beck's well of ridiculous was deep and poisonous before he launched his Fox News show, but the inauguration of the 44th president of the United States -- and the permissive cheerleading of his Fox News honchos -- uncorked the former Morning Zoo shock jock's unique brand of vitriol, stage theatrics, and hyperbolic fright, making him an easy choice for Media Matters' 2009 Misinformer of the Year.
When he wasn't calling the president a racist, portraying progressive leaders as vampires who can only be stopped by "driving a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers," or pushing the legitimacy of seceding from the country, Beck obsessively compared Democrats in Washington to Nazis and fascists and "the early days of Adolf Hitler."
He wondered, "Is this where we're headed," while showing images of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin; decoded the secret language of Marxists; and compared the government to "heroin pushers" who were "using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state."
Like his predecessor, Beck spat on scruples, frequently announcing his goal to get administration officials fired. He increasingly acted not as a media figure, but as the head of a political movement, while helping to bring fringe conspiracies of a one-world government into the national discourse.
In the controversy that followed Beck's inflammatory charge that the president is racist, his Fox News show began to hemorrhage advertisers, and Beck began to beg his viewers to "call a friend and tell them to watch the show this week." By September, Beck, who had become "tired of the race thing" and who claimed he doesn't "think the race thing works anymore," apparently decided it was time to move on.
He later would blame politicians for charges of racism and call "false cries of racism" "dangerous." Beck then sat down for an interview with CBS' Katie Couric where he would express regret for the way he phrased the claim that Obama is a racist, but then emphasized that the issue of Obama's racism is a "serious question."
In the months since Beck called Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people," at least 80 advertisers have dropped their ads from his Fox News show, yet he has faced no apparent repercussions from Fox News. Then again, Rupert Murdoch agrees with Beck that Obama is a racist.
Republicans Cry About 1am Vote They Caused By: Steve - December 22, 2009 - 8:30am
I have heard it all now, Republicans are crying that the Senate Democrats had the cloture vote on health care at 1am in the dead of the night. Like it was the Democrats fault the vote was taken at 1am.
When the only reason the vote was taken at 1am is because the REPUBLICANS delayed the vote (over and over) with stalling tactics by having 350 page amendments read out loud by the clerk, that took over 4 hours. The REPUBLICANS caused the vote at 1am, then they cry about having the vote at 1am.
And btw, Last night, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) offered a unanimous consent agreement to move the 1am vote to 9am Monday morning if Republicans agreed to forgo the optional 30 hours of debate between each cloture vote and. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), objected to the measure.
So the Democrats tried to move the vote to Monday morning at 9am and the Republicans refused, then they complain about having the vote at 1am. Remember this a month, 3 months, and a year from now, when the Republicans claim the Democrats had the vote at 1am in the dead of the night.
Not to mention, it was not even the vote on the actual bill, it was just a cloture vote. And remember this too, O'Reilly will most likely never report a word of this, except to maybe spin it and lie for the Republicans that it was the Democrats fault the vote was taken at 1am. I will report it here if he does.
The Monday 12-21-09 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review By: Steve - December 22, 2009 - 8:00am
So even after O'Reilly called Ingraham a blinded partisan last week he still had her host his show Monday night. Proving that he does not really care she is a blinded right-wing partisan. Since Ingraham is the fill-in I will not do a full review, just a partial review to give people an idea of how biased she is. And the fact that he has her host his show is proof O'Reilly supports the right-wing point of view on the issues, even though he claims to be a nonpartisan independent.
What's funny is Ingraham using the caution you are about to enter the no spin zone line, when she is all right-wing spin. She opened the show saying the Blug Dog Democrat is a myth. And then of course she trashed all the Democrats who voted for the health care bill. That's called no spin in the Ingraham Factor. She basically said there are no moderate Democrats because they did not vote against the health care bill. Then she claimed all the moderate Democrats who voted for the bill will get voted out of office in the next elections.
Ingraham had the lying right-wing partisan hack Senator Lindsey Graham on to talk about the health care bill. Graham called it a sleazy deal because the Democrats wrote the bill behind closed doors with no Republicans, when the Republicans had already said they will not vote for any bill, and that they will just vote no. Not to mention Bush did the very same thing when the Republicans had power.
They did not deal with Democrats, they just said here is our bill deal with it. Graham is just a spinning lying right-wing fool, and Ingraham put him on to agree with her and spin out all their partisan lies. And of course there was no Democratic guest anywhere in sight to provide any balance. Graham called it a ponzi scheme, a falsehood, and said it was based on false promises. Crazy Ingraham said the Democrats killed bi-partisanship, which is just insane. The Republicans refused to work on a bill, they said we are voting no, period. They even said we will vote no, to defeat the bill and make it the Obama waterloo. Earth to Ingraham, the REPUBLICANS killed bi-partisanship you idiot.
Then Ingraham had a segment about how the far left Howard Dean crowd hate the bill, and that they are at odds with Obama and the White House. Ingraham had two Democrats on to discuss it. Tamara Holder and Mary Anne Marsh. Holder was mad that there was no public option in the bill, as are most liberals, including me. Marsh said that even without the public option it is still a good bill. Basically Ingraham put them on because she loves it when Democrats disagree over an issue. Ingraham does not really care, she just wants to see Democrats arguing with each other, it's good for ratings. Ingraham keeps saying the majority of the country does not want the health care bill, but that is only now, because the public option was dropped, she never points that out. When it had the public option a slight majority supported it, depending on what poll you looked at.
Then Ingraham talked about the anti-God ads being put out by an atheist group called the freedom from religion. Which are not really anti-God, they just say you do not have to believe in a God to lead a healthy and happy life. Which is anti-God to Ingraham. I disagree, I am not a religious person, but I am not anti-God. In the world of Laura Ingraham if you are an atheist you are anti-God, which is just ridiculous. Annie Laurie Gaylor from the atheist group was on to discuss it. Ingraham tried to trick her into saying Merry Christmas but it did not work. Here is my question, it's a free country so why does Ingraham want to stop them from buying ads. And why is she even doing a segment on it, one reason, to get ratings with the right-wing Factor viewers. Ingraham acted like Gaylor was crazy because she does not believe in religion.
Then Ingraham cried about a muslim mosque near ground zero in New York. She had Daisy Khan from the muslim group on to discuss it. Ingraham said she can not find anyone who is really opposed to the muslim mosque, yet she did a whole segment on it anyway. Which is very strange, if nobody is opposed to it why do a segment about the issue. Clearly Ingraham does not like the muslim mosque being so close to ground zero, she just will not admit it.
The next segment was a re-run of O'Reilly and one of the 9-11 terrorist lawyers, Scott Fenstermaker. It was the interview where O'Reilly basically called the lawyer scum, and a weasel. O'Reilly said he thinks the man is a weasel. For simply being a lawyer in the case.
Then Ingraham had a stupid segment about Sarah Palin wearing a McCain visor/hat with the McCain name blacked out. Nobody cares, no-bo-dy. And the last segment was totally ridiculous, Ingraham said because a blizzard ripped through the mid-Atlantic states over the weekend it means there is no Global Warming. Which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard anyone say.
And then I thanked God the Ingraham Factor was over, haha.
Fox News Caught Lying About Obama Again By: Steve - December 21, 2009 - 9:00am
And they wonder why Obama does not like them, and why they are seen as a biased right-wing news network, it's exactly because of things like this, which O'Reilly and his right-wing biased media analyst Bernie Goldberg totally ignore.
The Fox news Network has a show called On The Record, with Greta Van Susteren. Now you would think a show called ON THE RECORD, would get the record right, and you would be wrong. Last night Greta put the right-wing spin doctor Stephen Moore on to knowingly lie about what President Obama saida couple weeks ago. And btw, Stephen Moore is the senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal, so you would think he knows what he is talking about, and you would be wrong.
Stephen Moore falsely claimed that, "a lot of people, including the president, said, you know, we passed the hump, now we're going to see strong job growth over the next few months, and that just really hasn't happened."
MOORE: So on this jobs numbers, it is really disappointing. We had some positive job numbers just a couple of weeks ago when the monthly unemployment numbers came out and we saw a reduction in the unemployment rate to 10 percent. And a lot of people, including the president, said, you know, we passed the hump, now we're going to see strong job growth over the next few months, and that just really hasn't happened. Now this is just one week's worth of data, but 7,000 lost jobs means we're losing jobs, we're not gaining them.
This is a 100 percent flat out lie. That is not what the President said, and Greta did not say a word about his misquote, it was all lies, and I can prove it. During a December 4th speech, Obama said the Labor Department's report that morning that showed unemployment had dropped from 10.2 percent in October to 10 percent in November was "good news," but added that "we've still got a long way to go." Here is exactly what President Obama said.
OBAMA: Today, the Labor Department released its monthly employment survey and reported that the nation lost 11,000 jobs in November -- which was about 115,000 fewer than was forecast -- and is about close to zero, from the perspective of our overall economy. (Applause.) The unemployment rate ticked down, instead of up. (Applause.) The report also found that we lost about 160,000 fewer jobs over the last two months than we had previously thought. So overall this is the best jobs report that we've seen since 2007. (Applause.)
And this is good news, just in time for the season of hope. I've got to admit, my chief economist, Christy Romer, she got about four hugs when she handed us the report. But I do want to keep this in perspective. We've still got a long way to go. I consider one job lost one job too many. (Applause.) And as I said yesterday at a jobs conference in Washington, good trends don't pay the rent. We've got to actually grow jobs and get America back to work as quickly as we can.
Now, the journey from here will not be without setbacks or struggles. There may be gyrations in the months ahead, there are going to be some months where the reports are a little better, some months where the reports are worse, but the trendline right now is good. The direction is clear. When you think about how this year began, even before I was sworn in, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month -- a month -- today's report is a welcome sign that there are better days ahead. In fact, we were losing more than 700,000 jobs a month, and that's roughly -- that's roughly half the size of Philadelphia -- each month. Our financial system was on the verge of collapse. Economists were warning of a second Great Depression.
Now compare that to what Stephen Moore said, it's not even close. And instead of giving the President praise for getting the monthly job losses down from 700,000 a month in January, to 11,000 in November, this right-wing a-hole Stephen Moore goes on Fox and lies about what the President said.
And Greta (on the record) Van Susteren never once corrected him, or disputed what he said. Then you have O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg who have a weekly media bias segment on the Factor, and neither one of them ever said a word about this bias and lies either. In fact, O'Reilly and Goldberg never discuss any bias at Fox News, ever.
Then they are shocked when Obama calls them a right-wing news network that is working for the GOP, when it's true. Right here is just one example of bias at Fox, of the hundreds I could report on, but O'Reilly and Goldberg ignore it and pretend it never happened. Even though he has a weekly media bias segment, it's ignored, and never mentioned.
Is It A Tea Party Rally If Nobody Shows Up By: Steve - December 21, 2009 - 8:40am
Question: When is a tea party rally not a tea party rally? Answer: When nobody shows up.
Rachel Maddow reported this last night:
MADDOW: About an hour prior to that taping you just saw, Dick Armey had scheduled a 12:30 p.m. luncheon at the National Press Club, an event, a big press event, starring him, talking about his favorite issues and reportedly for him to launch his new political action committee.
As it turned out, there was no turnout. The Dick Armey luncheon was canceled. Canceled by whom? By Dick Armey? Not exactly. After Adele Stan at "AlterNet.org" reported that she tried to attend the Dick Armey national press club event only to find it called off.
We reached out to communications and event manager at the National Press Club, Melinda Cooke, to find out why. She told us that the luncheon was canceled because, quote, "They didn't have enough reservations."
Ooh, not enough people wanted to luncheon with Mr. Armey. We then asked the minimum number of interested reporters required to hold on to a reservation for such a luncheon. And Ms. Cooke quite diplomatically responded, quote, "Let's just say there's a minimum required and they didn't meet it."
Mr. Armey's noontime fizzle wasn't the only torch-and-pitchfork grassroot-sy, tea baggish event that failed to launch yesterday. The Tea Party Patriot's anti-health reform group planned a die-in in Senate offices yesterday. They were going to show up in droves at Senate offices and pretend to die because the health reform is a secret plot to - whatever.
Except the thousands of people who were supposed to meet and pretend to die didn't show up in the thousands and the die-in sort of died. It didn't really happen. Given some of the falling flat yesterday, there was a really notable entry in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that came out.
With just about everything and everyone in politics really taking it on the chin, public opinion-wise, the tea party movement is being relatively well-received. Forty-one percent of those polled said they viewed the tea party movement as very positive or somewhat positive, which is not the sort of polling that all the fizzle would have suggested.
The NBC News political team broke the numbers down a bit, gave us the cross tabs, and that's sort of where the revelation happens. It turns out that 76 percent of people who get their political and current event information from FOX News see the tea party movement positively.
Seventy-six percent. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans say they viewed the tea party movement positively. And they are popular with 44 percent of white people as well. For people who get their news and information from news channels that don't stage political events around the tea parties and therefore become participants in the process, just 24 percent of people viewed the tea-partiers positively. Fourteen percent of Democrats view the movement positively.
So the Dick Armey movement has seen an uptick in terms of how they are viewed. It's based just about entirely in FOX News viewers and Republicans. The fringe has purged. The Republican Party is now officially steeped in tea baggers.
So as you can see O'Reilly clearly misrepresented the results of the poll when he reported 41% approve of the tea party. If you take Republicans out of the poll the tea party would be lucky to get 30% approval. O'Reilly dishonestly implied that 41% of the people approve of them. When most of that 41% approval is from Republicans, only 14% of it is from Democrats. Funny how O'Reilly failed to mention any of that, I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it.
Maine Legislator Leaves GOP Over Obstructionism By: Steve - December 21, 2009 - 8:30am
Here is another story you will never see reported on the Factor. Rep. Jim Campbell, a veteran Republican state legislator in Maine, has announced he's leaving the Republican party over its inability to solve his state's and the nation's broken health care system. In a statement, Campbell expressed frustration with the party, saying he wants to "send a message" to Republicans in Washington to stop blocking health care reform for partisan gain:
CAMPBELL: This move has been a long time coming for me. I have been very frustrated with the Republican Party in Maine, and nationally, for their failure to address the health care crisis in a meaningful way. Nobody has all the answers, but the Republican Party has none when it comes to health care reform.
This move is about the working people and our seniors who need action. I became a Republican because I believed the party stood for something. I hope to send a message to the Republican Party that enough is enough; it is time to stop blocking progress in the hope of partisan gain.
Republicans have been brazenly using parliamentary tricks to slow down the health care bill in attempt to kill it before the Democrats self-imposed Christmas deadline. In October, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who himself left the GOP, ripped his former party as a party of obstructionism. And in case you have not noticed it, O'Reilly does not report any of this.
Newt Gingrich CO2 Emissions Hypocrisy By: Steve - December 21, 2009 - 8:00am
Another Factor regular Newt Gingrich is showing what a totally corrupt political hypocrite he is. In a 2007 climate change debate with Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich said there is an urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions:
KERRY: What would you say to Senator Inhofe and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science. What's your message to them here today?
GINGRICH: My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere.
KERRY: And do it urgently - now?
GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.
And then he decided to run for President in 2012, and he knows that to win the Republican primary you have to be a far right conservative who is a Global Warming denier, otherwise you can not win the primary. So now Newt is already changing his story, as is Sarah Palin. They both had some support for Global Warming a few years ago, when they were not going to run for President.
About 10 days ago Gingrich wrote a column in the Washington Examiner addressing climate policy. In the op-ed, the former House Speaker attacks the Environmental Protection Agency's move to classify CO2 emissions as a dangerous pollutant.
Gingrich, who is currently heading a coal-industry front group (ASWF) that has been working fervently to oppose climate change reform, has demonstrated an inconsistent stance on carbon emissions. And btw, AWSF is funed by a bunch of right-wing Billionaires, the same group of Billionaires that put George W. Bush in office in 2000.
In 2008, Gingrich even called for action on climate change in an ad campaign for the Alliance for Climate Protection. Now that he plans to run for President in 2012 and he has to win the Republican primary first, his front group American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF) is airing television ads opposing climate reforms that the former Speaker once supported.
This is the same Newt Gingrich who is on the Factor all the time as a regular, and Bill O'Reilly never reports any of this information about good ol Newt. It's proof he is a hypocrite, proof he just says things to score political points, and proof that he is actually opposed to doing anything to fight Global Warming. Even after he supported it when he was not planning to run for President.
Notice that O'Reilly has Newt on his show as an honest political expert, while he never reports any of the front groups Newt runs, or any of his flip flops. Making O'Reilly as much of a lying hypocrite as Newt. An honest journalist would disclose these facts about Newt, and report on the front group he runs for the coal industry, and the right-wing Billionaires that fund it.
O'Reilly & Williams Wrong On Copenhagen Climate Summit By: Steve - December 20, 2009 - 9:00am
On Friday night O'Reilly had Juan Williams on the Factor to assess the just-completed climate conference in Denmark.
Williams said this:
WILLIAMS: This was a big hit for President Obama's standing in the world. He raced off the plane to meet with eighteen other leaders and he made a wonderful speech, but he left with zilch!
President Obama got nothing and the magic is gone on the international stage. It's a big hit for the man who was supposed to be the international rock star who could make magic happen. He came home with a lump of coal.
O'Reilly pretty much agreed with Juan, he said China and India will never agree to work with Obama on any climate deal. But O'Reilly did say he does not blame Obama, because nobody could get a deal done with China or India. And they were both wrong, because Obama did get a deal called the Copenhagen Accord. O'Reilly and Williams were just so excited to trash Obama they did not report that Obama worked out a deal.
Shortly before leaving Copenhagen, President Obama announced that he had succeeded in finalizing the text of an interim political agreement, the Copenhagen Accord, with the cooperation of a surprising array of parties from the developing world, including leaders from Brazil, South Africa, India, and China.
United Nations Executive Secretary Ban Ki-Moon Moon and other parties have committed themselves to taking the next step and turning this document into a binding legal agreement by the next UN climate summit in Mexico City in 2010.
Most significantly, the accord will launch a new Copenhagen Green Climate Fund next year, providing international financing to reduce deforestation and global warming impacts in vulnerable nations. The accord also marks the first time that the major polluters in the developing world, like India and China, have formally recognized they must commit to reducing global warming emissions.
President Obama was clear that the science of global warming will guide the ambitions of the Copenhagen Accord as it moves toward its next step. This is good news. For the first time, an international agreement on climate change includes provisions to consider holding temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, lower than the present standard of 2 degrees Celsius.
And yet, none of that was reported on the Factor by O'Reilly or Juan Williams. So if you watched the Factor to see what happened in Copenhagen you would not know any of it. Not to mention you would be totally misinformed, and you would think Obama got nothing but a lump of coal, zilch.
Which proves that you should not watch the Factor if you want real news, journalism, or facts. O'Reilly and Williams put out a biased and fact-free report that got it all wrong. And that is a no spin zone fact.
And btw, it is true that President Obama did not get everything he wanted in Copenhagen, he still got something, but O'Reilly and Williams said he got nothing. And that is dishonest biased journalism.
Politifact Names Death Panels Lie Of The Year By: Steve - December 20, 2009 - 8:45am
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.
The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn't made in an interview or a television ad.
Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page.
Her assertion - that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care - spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings. Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, "Death panels? Really?"
The editors of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, have chosen it as our inaugural "Lie of the Year."
PolitiFact readers overwhelmingly supported the decision. Nearly 5,000 voted in a national poll to name the biggest lie, and 61 percent chose "death panels" from a field of eight finalists.
And you can bet the farm you will never see this reported on the Factor. Because O'Reilly loves Sarah Palin and he never reports any negative news about her. In fact, he actually lies for her and tries to help her in any way possible.
Like trying to fool the American people by saying she is now smart enough to be the President. When the truth is Sarah Palin is a dope, a dummy, a moron, you betcha, and no amount of time will change that. I like the old wall street line because it fits so well here.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. And I'm not calling Sarah Palin a pig, because she is kinda cute, in a backwoods/hillbilly/trailer park sorta way. I'm saying she is stupid, and anyone with a working brain can see that. When you claim to have foreign policy experience simply because you can see Russia from Alaska, you are stupid, case closed.
Update: Pentagon War Funding Bill By: Steve - December 20, 2009 - 8:30am
In order to obstruct health reform, Republican senators moved to politicize the nation's national security by holding the Defense appropriations bill hostage. Senate Republicans failed early Friday in their bid to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move designed to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.
On a 63 to 33 vote, Democrats cleared a key hurdle that should allow them to approve the must-pass military spending bill Saturday and return to the health-care debate. After years of criticizing Democrats for not supporting the troops, just three Republicans supported the military funding.
Explaining his opposition to military appropriations, Sen. Sam Brownback said bluntly, "I don't want healthcare."
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson said she voted for the Pentagon bill, but only because she found out the Democrats had the 60 votes they needed to avoid a filibuster. So she would have voted against it if they did not have the 60 votes. Which would have delayed funding to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, something Republicans have called treason when Democrats threatened to do it.
Back in 2007, when Congress was debating how to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close, many of these same folks launched blistering accusations about Democrats commitment to our troops." Here are just a few of the things Republicans said in 2007:
"We have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to have political debates...but it's just unconscionable to me to tie the hands of the very troops that we all say we support." - Sen. John Cornyn, [Senate News Briefing, 4/10/07]
"Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." - Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Press Release, 3/31/07]
"No way to treat the troops, and it is entirely inconsistent with Senators expressions of support for the troops." - Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Congressional Record, 10/4/07]
"I don't understand this attitude of, We can play with, we can risk the lives of these troops by waiting until the last possible minute to get the funding to them." - Sen. Jon Kyl, [FOX News Transcript, 4/10/07]
And btw, the three Republicans who voted for the bill are all up for re-election in 2010. In their desperate bid to kill health reform, Republicans are using the military as a political football. Not only are they making up a story about a nonexistent base-closure threat, but they tried to hold up the funding of the military as part of a cynical plot to slow the health reform debate.
Remember this, Bill O'Reilly never repoted a word of this story. But when Democrats did something similar a few years ago O'Reilly was talking about it every night for a week, and calling them un-American for playing politics with the troops funding bill.
O'Reilly Lies About Al Franken (Part 2) By: Steve - December 19, 2009 - 11:00am
I found this information at Media Matters today, it adds some more details to the story, and shows that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased lying right-wing idiot.
Bill O'Reilly attacked Sen. Al Franken as a "punk" for denying Sen. Joe Lieberman's request for additional speaking time on the Senate floor, and allowed Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to claim that Franken was "absolutely not" telling the truth when Franken explained that he was instructed by Democratic leadership to strictly adhere to Senate rules that establish a 10-minute speaking limit.
Franken says the Majority leader Harry Reid ordered all senators who presided to keep speeches to their ten minute limits and not grant any extensions. But in addition to Franken, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Lieberman himself agree that Franken was following instructions; another Democratic senator denied a similar request earlier the same day while presiding over the Senate; and McCain himself has even objected to a request for additional speaking time in the past.
O'Reilly let DeMint claim Franken was "absolutely not" telling the truth that leadership instructed him to strictly enforce the rules.
O'REILLY: Now, Franken defended himself on the radio today. I want you to react to this. Roll the tape.
FRANKEN [audio clip]: When you're presiding, you really have no choice on what to do. And, you know, the leader -- the majority leader is the leader of the Senate, and he gave me -- gave all of us today who were presiding instructions that no one was to speak over 10 minutes, and because there's been some attempt to string out the debate. So, I really just had no choice.
O'REILLY: Is Franken telling the truth?
DeMINT: Absolutely not. I can't believe he's throwing Harry Reid under the bus.
O'Reilly called Franken a "punk" and Goldberg called him a "petty" "mean-spirited doofus" for enforcing the rules. Discussing the floor debate, Bernard Goldberg stated, "Look, is Al Franken a mean-spirited doofus? Of course he is. Should he have been more generous with Lieberman? Of course he should. Was he petty, as you said in your talk? Yes."
After O'Reilly rejected the suggestion that Democratic leadership instructed Franken to strictly enforce the rules, he stated, "Look, there's no shortage of villainy going on right now on Capitol Hill, but I think everybody ought to know who the people of Minnesota put in the Senate." After lauding Lieberman as a good man, O'Reilly said, "That punk Franken, he -- you know, he just demeans the whole body."
Reid's office said Franken was adhering to his request. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported this on December 17: "A spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Franken was merely adhering to a request from Reid to strictly enforce the rules because the Senate is already in session practically round the clock."
The Politico reported on December 18 that Reid spokesman Jim Manley stated of Reid's request, "We did that to maintain order and that no senator had an unfair advantage over another in terms of speaking. It was a simple request of the leader and Sen. Franken was adhering to the request of his leadership."
The Washington Post's Joel Achenbach reported this:
ACHENBACH: Lieberman laughed off the incident as much ado about nothing when he returned to the chamber a couple of hours later. He said that Franken was following procedures for sticking to time limits that had been handed down by Senate leaders.
The Politico reported that "earlier on the floor, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), presiding over the Senate, objected to Sen. John Cornyn's (R-Texas) request for additional time to speak -- clearly annoying Cornyn." McClatchy reported that Begich "had been asked to limit everyone to 10-minute speeches to speed up proceedings" and that "Cornyn's spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said they quickly figured out it was obviously procedural."
But the facts didn't get in the way of O'Reilly -- and the right-wing's -- efforts to paint Franken as a vindictive partisan.
Right-wing blogger Ann Althouse called it a "dick move" and suggested a boycott of Minnesota. Michelle Malkin accused "nutroots hero Al Franken" of "a little snit fit against Lieberman." Red State's James Richardson accused Franken of "breaking from the Senate's long-held standards of collegiality."
Gretchen Carlson suggested Franken was part of a "trend" of "newbie politicians that don't know exactly the protocol," adding, "You have the senior senator John McCain saying I've never seen this happen before, and the freshman senator Al Franken maybe not knowing how the rules are played."
Remember: The "senior senator John McCain" was wrong; it had happened just a few hours earlier that day. And Al Franken was doing exactly what leadership had told all presiding officers to do.
Not only was McCain wrong about what happened yesterday, his comments were entirely hypocritical. As Think Progress Faiz Shakir notes, McCain himself objected to Sen. Mark Dayton's request for an additional 30 seconds to finish remarks during the 2002 Iraq war debate.
And yet on Friday, McCain was still making the same false and hypocritical claim and the media were airing his comments without checking them out. (While Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity were still pushing the storyline on their afternoon radio shows.)
The "story" of yesterday's exchange should have been that McCain was wrong, and a hypocrite, in his angry denunciation of Franken's objection. And how the right-wing media put out lies to smear Democrats, even when the facts show they are wrong. It's called the right-wing echo chamber, one lies and the rest of them swear to it.
More Hypocrisy From Fox & The Republicans By: Steve - December 19, 2009 - 9:30am
Yesterday, Sen. Al Franken, acting on the orders of the Senate leadership, refused to grant Sen. Joe Lieberman an additional moment to continue speaking on the Senate floor after his 10 minutes expired. Franken's objection caused Sen. John McCain to complain how Franken's move was unprofessional, unprecedented, and disrespectful:
McCAIN: I've been around here 20-some years. First time I've ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. I just haven't seen it before. And I don't like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute. I'm sure that time is urgent here, but I doubt that it would be that urgent.
It turns out that McCain's memory is bad, or he just don't care about being a lying hypocrite. Because the great John McCain has engaged in the very same behavior that he was criticizing Franken for. On October 10, 2002, just ahead of the looming mid-term elections, the Senate rushed a debate on a war authorization giving President Bush the power to use force against Iraq. The resolution ultimately passed the Senate after midnight on an early Friday morning by a vote of 77-23.
During the course of the frenzied floor debate, then-Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) spoke in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that would have restricted Bush's constitutional powers to wage war against Iraq. After a minute and a half, Dayton ran out of time, prompting this exchange:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
Senator Byrd stepped in to grant Dayton some of his time to finish his remarks. But just moments later, Byrd asked for more time to speak for himself. Again, McCain objected, prompting Byrd to chide him for doing so. "This shows the patience of a Senator," Byrd said. "This clearly demonstrates that the train is coming down on us like a Mack truck, and we are not even going to consider a few extra minutes for this Senator."
And remember that Robert Byrd was the most Senior Senator in all of the Senate. After being publicly shamed by Senator Byrd, McCain allowed the request. But moments later, McCain added this disclaimer:
McCain: I wish to say very briefly that I understand people have a desire to speak. We have a number of Senators who have not spoken on this issue. It is already looking as if we may be here well into this evening. From now on, I will be adhering strictly to the rules.
In other words, he acted just like Franken did yesterday. On a side note: The Fox & Friends crew attacked Al Franken yesterday morning, calling him "uncivil, a newbie, and an angry clown." O'Reilly called Franken a punk and spent the whole show trashing him with nothing but right-wing guests. Then he totally ignored the fact that John McCain did the exact same thing to a Democratic Senator in 2002 when he was running the Senate that day. Proving that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing fool, who uses the exact same spin all the Republicans do, and that is the real no spin truth.
The Friday 12-18-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 19, 2009 - 9:00am
The TPM was called Franken Insults Lieberman. Billy cried about Franken objecting to giving Lieberman more time, when the rules said 10 minutes, and his 10 minutes were up. Here is what O'Reilly said about it:
O'REILLY: Yesterday on the Senate floor, Joe Lieberman was talking about the health care bill and politely asked for an extension to wrap up his remarks. He didn't even wait for verbal approval because it is almost always given. But not yesterday. That's because Senator Al Franken, who was in a rotation presiding over the Senate, objected to Lieberman continuing his remarks in a stunning display of disrespect.
This shouldn't surprise anyone - Franken is a hater and always has been. But it illuminated why the far-left is despised by most Americans. Franken's actions were mean, petty, and disrespectful. That's what we often get from the far-left - just look at their web sites and the savages spewing venom on cable television. It's true that the right does some of that stuff as well, but not nearly as much.
In the end, Franken's behavior is self-defeating. It's incredible that the man is even in the Senate, and now he's alienated most of the country. Does the far-left really think it's going to get the support of most Americans using tactics like that?
Wow, there is so much right-wing spin there I barely know where to start. O'Reilly said what Franken did was a stunning display of disrespect. Which is ridiculous, because they get a set time to talk, in this case 10 minutes. His time was up, and Harry Reid had told them to not let anyone have over 10 minutes. Not to mention, McCain has done the very same thing in the past to Democratic Senators. Something O'Reilly failed to mention, and I will have another blog about that later.
Then O'Reilly says the far-left is despised by most Americans, really, according to who, you? Show me a poll that says the far-left is despised by most Americans, where is it, name it. Then O'Reilly says look at the savages spewing venom on cable television. So liberal tv anchors are savages now, for simply telling the truth about O'Reilly and all the right-wing liers on tv and radio. Mr. nonpartisan independent thinks liberals on tv are savages, yeah that's some fair and balanced reporting, not!
And lastly, O'Reilly says now Franken has alienated most of the country. WTF? How, when most of the country does not even know what Franken did, at best 30 to 40 million people watch the news, which is maybe 10% of the country, and only about 1% of the country watches the Factor and Fox News. That means most of the country have no idea what Franken did, and probably don't care. Not to mention everyone hates Joe Lieberman except right-wing idiots like O'Reilly.
And btw, O'Reilly did not say a word about all the Insurance money Lieberman got to oppose a public option, or the fact that he flip flopped on the medicare buy-in. A couple months ago he said he likes it and supports it, now he says he don't, so he is a massive corrupt flip flopper. O'Reilly also failed to mention that the majority of the people in Liebermans State support a public option, over 60%, yet Lieberman is opposed to it when he was elected to represent those people and what they want. Instead he is doing what the Insurance companies want, O'Reilly never mentions any of that.
The O'Reilly had the Republican Senator Jim DeMint on to discuss it, and of course no Democrat guest to give Al Frankens side of the story. DeMint said Franken's disrespect was unprecedented. And said he was outraged, that Democrats have changed the rules and the far-left is so angry that a very junior Senator insulted Joe Lieberman from the chair. He called it a dysfunction in the Congress that he has never seen. Then he said Al Franken was way out of line on a number of counts.
Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it, with no Democrat guest to give the other side of course. Goldberg said if Franken was honest when he said he was told to strictly limit speakers time then the real villain isn't Al Franken. The real villain is Harry Reid. Because Reid and Barack Obama have set this crazy deadline for passing the 2,000 page document that nobody has seen, so they are also villains. O'Reilly ignored all that and speculated that Franken was the sole culprit, then Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Joe Lieberman's a good man and you afford people respect at that level. That punk Franken demeans the whole Senate."
Yeah that's real classy, call a sitting Senator a punk. It's biased right-wing garbage, and you are the punk O'Reilly, a biased lying punk. For one thing everyone has seen the bill, it's been out for months, they have not seen the final bill because it's not done yet, but when it is everyone will have a few days to read it before they vote on it, at least 72 hours. Then if they do not read it that is their fault. O'Reilly ignores the fact that Franken was ordered to limit everyones time, then he speculates Franken did it on his own, when he claims to never speculate.
And I have to say that all of this garbage I just wrote about, is some of the most biased right-wing nonsense I have ever seen from O'Reilly, because he hates Al Franken. Notice that not one Democrat was put on to discuss it, none, zip, zero. It was all Republicans, O'Reilly, DeMint, and Goldberg. O'Reilly did that on purpose, so he could spin the story and only give one side of it, which is a massive violation of the rules of journalism. And the worst part is that John McCain did the very same thing to a Democratic Senator a few years ago, yet O'Reilly never mentioned that, and pretended it had never happened before. O'Reilly is a biased punk idiot, and he should be ashamed to call himself a journalist.
Then O'Reilly reported on the Global Warming talks in Copenhagen again. Juan Williams was on to discuss it. Juan trashed Obama for going to the talks, and said he got nothing. Basically it was O'Reilly and Juan Williams smearing Obama, O'Reilly said it was all jibberish. Billy said he went to Harvard and he can not understand a word of it. Juan agreed with O'Reilly and said they do not want you to understand it.
O'Reilly called it a dog and pony show and said he does not even know why he is talking about it. Juan just repeated the line that Obama got nothing, and called him an international rock star and blamed Obama for not getting anything. O'Reilly even said he does not blame Obama, but then he made fun of Obama for taking it serious. The whole segment was a biased one sided joke, with two Republicans and no Democrats. At the end of the segment Juan said Obama came home with a lump of coal. And remember this, Juan Williams is supposed to be the Democrat, but he trashed Obama more than O'Reilly did. Proving that he is a Republican, and even more conservative than O'Reilly is. Which is why I count him as a Republican.
The next segment was about some guy stalking Jennifer Garner. Geraldo was on to discuss it, O'Reilly said it was dangerous and that one day someone is going to get killed. Which is pure 100% speculation, even though O'Reilly said he never speculates, he speculated that one day some stalker is going to kill someone. Geraldo basically agreed with O'Reilly and cried about these stalkers getting away with it because the laws are not tough enough. Billy called for each State to get tougher stalker laws, and Geraldo agreed. What's funny is O'Reilly calls for tougher stalker laws, when he sends his producer out to stalk people and do ambush interviews on them.
The next segment was at your Beck and call with Glenn Beck. O'Reilly and Beck talked about Copenhagen, politics, etc. Beck spewed out his right-wing propaganda and lies and of course nobody from the left was on to give the counterpoint. These Beck segments are a joke, and all it does is prove that O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge for having Beck on his show every week. They both praised Lieberman and called him a hero, when he is a fraud of a Senator who should be recalled for not representing the people in his State.
The last segment was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy. The moron Juliet Huddy picked a dumb video from England about Santa Claus, some crap about eating too much, what a joke. Once again, who cares what happens in ENGLAND, nobody. Gutfeld picked some Jay Leno video where Leno did a fake jeopardy segment with the jersey shore morons. They could not identify Dick Cheney or Joe Biden. O'Reilly picked a video of Bill Ayers doing an interview with a Russian tv show. Once again, who cares what Bill Ayers says to a Russian tv show, nobody. This whole segment is garbage.
Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And not one Democrat was on the entire show. It was all right-wing spin, all the time, with all Republican guests, 7 to 0, and it was 8 to 0 if you include O'Reilly.
Senate Republicans Try To Block War Funding Bill By: Steve - December 18, 2009 - 1:30pm
Read this story then imagine what O'Reilly would say if Democrats in the Senate pulled a trick like this. He would scream bloody murder and call them traitors who are getting the troops killed by using a delay tactic. But when Republicans do it he is as silent as a mouse.
Senate Republicans said Thursday that they would try to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move that several acknowledged was an effort to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.
Late into the night, Democrats emerged from a huddle confident that they would muster the 60 votes needed to thwart the GOP effort at blocking the military spending bill. The maneuvering came as Democrats were still trying to round up a 60th vote on the health-care legislation. Republicans have said their goal is to block the health care bill and force Senate Democrats to go home and face their constituents, hoping for some supporters of the measure to return after New Year's too fearful to back the legislation.
If the filibuster on the $626 billion defense bill works, Democrats would have to scramble to find a way to fund the military operations, because a stopgap funding measure will expire at midnight Friday the 18th.
Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan, so the plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position. Sen. John McCain cited the thousands of earmarks in the bill in explaining his opposition, and others cited factors not related to health care.
But Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) was blunt in explaining his support of a filibuster. "I don't want health care," said Brownback, a member of the Appropriations Committee, which crafted the Pentagon funding bill.
Democrats were furious. They believed they had a deal with Sen. Thad Cochran, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, but by Thursday night Cochran was saying he was unsure how he would vote.
Dan Pfeiffer at the White House blog wrote this about it. "The depth of the hypocrisy involved is stunning. Back in 2007, when Congress was debating how to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close, many of these same folks launched blistering accusations about Democrats commitment to our troops." Here are just a few of the things Republicans said in 2007:
"Playing politics with the critical funding that our troops need now is political theater of the worst kind." - Sen. John Cornyn, [Press Release, 4/26/07]
"We have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to have political debates...but it's just unconscionable to me to tie the hands of the very troops that we all say we support." - Sen. John Cornyn, [Senate News Briefing, 4/10/07]
"Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." - Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Press Release, 3/31/07]
"No way to treat the troops, and it is entirely inconsistent with Senators expressions of support for the troops." - Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Congressional Record, 10/4/07]
"I don't understand this attitude of, We can play with, we can risk the lives of these troops by waiting until the last possible minute to get the funding to them." - Sen. Jon Kyl, [FOX News Transcript, 4/10/07]
"Our obligation to those troops must transcend politics." - Sen. Jon Kyl, [Press Release, 11/8/07]
If the Senate Democrats did this O'Reilly would call it treason, but when the Senate Republicans do it O'Reilly says nothing, he does not even report it.
O'Reilly Calls Ingraham A Blind Ideologue By: Steve - December 18, 2009 - 8:50am
Last night on the Factor Billy got upset with Laura Ingraham, he called her "a blind ideologue" and "a Kool-Aid drinker" after she criticized his praise of Michelle Obama. But remember this, the other 99% of the time he agrees with everything she says, and even has her as the fill-in for his very own show. Here is the video of what he said.
Now think about this, Billy said she is a blind ideologue Kool-Aid drinker, but he has her host his show when he is not there. So he is admitting he has a kool-aid drinking blind ideolouge as his fill-in host. Which also proves that he is an ideolouge because he is the one who picked her to be his fill-in.
The Thursday 12-17-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 18, 2009 - 8:20am
The TPM was called Barack Obama vs Howard Dean. O'Reilly talked about the war between Obama and Dean over the health care bill. Then he cited a Rasmussen poll that says 56% of the people oppose the Obama health care bill. O'Reilly played a clip of John McCain saying he agrees with Dean that the bill should be started over. Of course Republicans oppose it for different reasons, liberals oppose it because there is no public option, Republicans oppose it for political reasons, and because they get a ton of money from the Insurance companies.
Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it. Billy and Ingraham got into an argument over how O'Reilly gushed over Michelle Obama, Ingraham hated it and said he did not do that to Laura Bush, and nobody cares. Then Ingraham said the conservatives have won the health care debate, which is just ridiculous. The left hates it because it does not go far enough, the right hates it because it goes too far. So nobody won, and the people lost. Ingraham just makes it into a political matter, and claims victory. Proving she is a partisan right-wing idiot. The people want a health care bill with a public option, but that was killed because of the money and the Insurance lobby, not because conservatives won the debate. Nobody won, and the people lost. And of course, no Democrat guest was on to discuss any of it.
The next segment was with Sally Quinn and Chris Metzler who were on to talk about the left being mad at Obama. Quinn said it was just a temporary deal and that the left will go back to liking Obama at some point. Quinn also predicted Obama will move to the center and the left will just have to deal with it. Metzler said he sees it differently, he thinks the far left will get mad at Obama and they will never go back to supporting him. Billy said the far left will never be happy, because Obama is never going to be far left enough for them. I do not agree with that, I think in the long run the left will support Obama on most things. Just maybe not as much as he wants them to, and if he signs the flawed Senate health care bill it's going to hurt him and the Democratic party.
Then O'Reilly had a segment on the tea party movement, he asked if the tea party can replace the Republican party. So he is admitting it's a right-wing movement, when a few months ago he was saying it was not a right-wing movement, that it was people from all walks of life who just oppose more Government spending. Proving that O'Reilly can not keep all his lies straight, or that he just lied then and is now admitting the truth. When liberals said the tea party protests were just a bunch of right-wing idiots O'Reilly denied it and said they were wrong. Now he is admitting we were right, and he was lying.
Billy had a poll that says 41% support the tea party, which is more than the Democratic party or the Republicans party. O'Reilly had Mike Gallagher and Ned Ryun (both conservatives) on to discuss it. Gallagher said he would vote for Sarah Palin in a heartbeat, and that he would leave the Republican party because they do not act like the Republican party anymore. Basically Gallagher loves the tea party movement. Ryun helps train tea party candidates, so he is clearly a conservative. The tea party is just another version of the Libertarian party, which is just more right-wingers that do not like the Republicn party. Gallagher said the tea party should marry the Republican party and they could work together. Which will never happen, so that's a fantasy. The tea party crowd basically wants to get rid of the moderate Republicans and have all far right members in their party.
Then the two right-wing culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to talk about an MTV ad about sexting. Hoover said it's a big problem, and that 1 in 3 teens between 13 and 16 are sexting. Earth to old gimmers, get a life, you can not stop it, and nothing you say can change it. Especially when the average Factor viewer is 71 years old, so none of the teens are going to see what you old fools said anyway. It was a total waste of time, and I think O'Reilly talked about it just as an excuse to show the sexy ad for ratings. Then they talked about Tiger Woods, which I refuse to report on because it's tabloid garbage. Notice it's all a right-wing culture point of view, with no Democratic culture warriors.
The next segment was the Kelly File. Billy had the Republican Megyn Kelly on to talk about some legal cases, and of course no Democratic guest. The first story was about a mother who gave birth, then killed the child, and the prosecutor is not going to file any charges. Billy said it was ridiculous, Kelly said they have an old law that allows it in specific cases. Then they talked about cyber bullying, it's tabloid garbage about some high school girl who made a video (about another girl) and put it on the internet. Then they talked about an 8 year old who made a drawing about someone hanging on a cross. The kid was given a psychological exam for it, and O'Reilly was outraged.
The last segment was the totally worthless and ridiculous O'Reilly Factor Reality Check. That has no reality, and no checks. It's just O'Reilly giving you his opinion of what someone else said, the segment should be called no reality, instead of reality check.
Then of course the pinheads and patriots, and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails.
Solar Power Company CEO Schools O'Reilly By: Steve - December 18, 2009 - 8:00am
O'Reilly claims to be a no spin guy, a truth teller, and to do reality checks on everyone. While he spins out right-wing talking points and spin. Tom Rooney the President & CEO of SPG Solar schooled O'Reilly for all his spin and lies about solar power. Here is what Mr. Rooney wrote:
Bill O'Reilly on Solar: The Factor Goes Haywire
by Tom Rooney, SPG Solar
12-16-09 -- Bill O'Reilly was talking climate change and his guest had just admitted that her plans to change the world would require a tax hike.
Bill was stoked: His guests on the O'Reilly Factor never say that.
But then she asked him what he was willing to do to save the planet. That is when it got a bit odd.
"Here's what I'm willing to," OíReilly said. "I'd like to put solar panels on my house. And heat my house through the sun. I would like to do that for a reasonable amount of money. I don't want to buy the oil every month. They can't do it for a reasonable amount of money, number one.
"And its so complicated ... I can't do it. ... So don't tell me about my grandchildren. If they can figure out the solar panels, they can have them. But it's all bunk. It's all bull at this point for a guy like me. ...I want a clean planet. But I'd like the stuff to work."
So there you have it: In the world according to cable news superstar Bill O, solar is too complicated and too expensive.
O'Reilly's remarks came hours after the Irvine Unified School District selected my company, SPG Solar of Novato, California, to install one of the most ambitious solar school projects in the country. With solar panels on 21 of its schools, the district will save at least $17 million over the life of the 20 year project; and will produce about half of its energy.
This will be an immediate 10 percent reduction in the district's energy bills.
And ready for the best part, Bill O?
All this comes at no cost to the district.
That is how inexpensive buying and installing panels has become. That is how powerful the tax incentives are.
If you want to talk carbon, fine: Rest assured, these panels will prevent lots and lots of carbon from entering the atmosphere. Everyone loves that. But make no mistake: This deal could not have been done unless it made financial sense. So solar is not expensive.
But in Bill O's world, this new solar energy system must be incredibly complicated and require lots of people to turn it on and off and other strange things.
Well, that is not true either. Because for all intents and purposes, the user, whether its Bill O on Long Island, or Irvine School Board member Mike Parhan in Irvine, will never have to do a thing. Other than pay a fixed - and lower - energy bill every month.
You want complicated, Bill O? Go to one of our solar installations at the Far Niente winery in Napa Valley where we built a solar energy array on top of a pond of water. The panels actually float - the first system of its kind in the world. That was a little tricky to build, but just like the school, all they do to get energy is sit back and watch the sun shine.
You want complicated? How about building five acres of solar panels in one of the most desolate (and strangely beautiful) places on earth: The Furnace Creek Resort and Hotel in the middle of Death Valley.
Or how about Livermore, California, where we built the world's largest solar energy system for a movie theater, while never letting the movie goer's even know we were there. The owners do not operate these systems any more than they operate their oil or gas or electric lines. They just sit back and watch their energy bills go down.
It is even simpler than it sounds, so I'll stop before I start bloviating. Because when it comes to solar, that is Bill O's job.
O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Attacking Women In Politics By: Steve - December 17, 2009 - 10:00am
In April of 2009 O'Reilly went after the rapper Eminem for saying he would have sex with Sarah Palin in one of his songs. He did an entire segment about it with Tammy Bruce, who also attacked Eminem for making fun of Sarah Palin.
Eminem has also made fun of Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, etc. He always makes fun of people in pop culture in his videos. But O'Reilly did not say a word about Eminem when he made fun on Jackson, Clinton, or Lewinsky.
Since April O'Reilly has done multiple segments complaining about late night comedians doing jokes about Sarah Palin. O'Reilly has complained about Letterman, Conan, Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon for doing Sarah Palin jokes. He said it was wrong, that enough is enough, and said it must stop. So basically O'Reilly is saying it is wrong to attack women in politics, and make fun of them, especially for their looks.
And then just last night O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on the Factor to make fun of Nancy Pelosi, and attack her for her looks. O'Reilly even played the clip of Miller insulting Pelosi for her looks when he hosted a WWE wrestling show Monday night. Then Miller made more jokes about Pelosi and O'Reilly loved it, he laughed and thought it was great. Miller compared Pelosi to the WWE: "Both have loud obnoxious women with increasing power whose faces scare little children." Here is the video:
That is hypocrisy to the tenth power. O'Reilly complains about people doing jokes about Sarah Palin, then he puts Dennis Miller on his show to do jokes about Nancy Pelosi. It's not only massive hypocrisy, it's a double standard. In O'Reillyworld it's ok to do jokes about liberal women, but if you do a joke about a conservative woman, look out. He will attack you and call it wrong.
One Republican even said it was stupid to go after comedians for making jokes about Palin. "If the right goes after Letterman, they make him look big and themselves small," says Mark McKinnon, a former campaign adviser to George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain. "It's win-win for Letterman."
The hypocrisy and double standards from O'Reilly are off the chart. Dennis Miller is on the Factor every single week, he does a regular segment called Miller Time. And every week Miller does jokes about Nancy Pelosi and her looks. Not only does O'Reilly not stop it, he laughs at the jokes, and continues to have him on every week to do more Pelosi jokes. Then he complains when Letterman or Conan do Palin jokes. And what makes it even worse for O'Reilly is that he does it on a news show, Letterman and Conan do comedy shows, they are not in the news business. It's the biggest example of hypocrisy I have ever seen.
The Wednesday 12-16-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 17, 2009 - 9:30am
The TPM was called Washington: Work & Play. Billy talked about going to the White House Christmas party. He said it was a good party, but not as good as the one Bush had. Then he gloated about the health care bill passing without a public option. Which means there is no reform, because if there is not a public option to compete with the insurance companies there is no reform. Then O'Reilly called for Obama to cut every program run by the Government by 10% or Obama will bankrupt the country. Which is just ridiculous and will never happen.
Then Dick (hooker toe sucker) Morris was on to discuss it. O'Reilly said the Senate version of the health care bill will pass and Pelosi will not change it. Morris said he is not so sure it will pass without changes by Pelosi. Then Morris called the bill a disaster, he pulled the old fear card by saying it will cut funding to medicare and lead to long waiting lines for the elderly. Morris also said if it passes it will cause the cost to go up for everyone. So basically O'Reilly and Morris are both against it. But they are still telling lies about what is in the bill.
I am also opposed to the Senate version, for different reasons. Because there is no public option, or a medicare buy in. So it's a bad bill, the left hates it and the right hates it. So why even pass it now, it's all politics. Obama wants to pass it now for political reasons, even though it's a bad bill. I call on the Democrats in the House and Senate to either get it changed, or vote it down. If the current version is passed it will do nothing, and cost more. So basically the Senate version of the health care bill is garbage. And I am now opposed to it.
Then Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss the Global Warming talks in Copenhagen. Billy called it chaos in Copenhagen. And remember this folks, he claims to believe in Global Warming, which is a total lie btw. Dr. Hill called it a disaster, but for different reasons than O'Reilly had. He is calling it a disaster because the big countries like the USA and China are not being serious and not giving anywhere near enough money. O'Reilly said we should not give them any money, because a few countries that are corrupt will get some of the money.
Billy said most of them are corrupt, and that he has been there, as if that is proof of their corruption. Dr. Hill said it's a few countries, and O'Reilly said most of them are corrupt, Hill disagreed. Then O'Reilly joked that he would send them a few windmills and some spare change. O'Reilly misrepresented the whole thing, as all Republicans do when talking about Global Warming. O'Reilly called the whole thing a scam, which is 100% proof he does not believe in Global Warming, as he claims. Neither man is 100% right, but O'Reilly is about 90% wrong, and he spewed out every right-wing talking point on the issue they have. And this is from a guy who says he believes there is Global Warming.
The next segment was about the Time magazine man of the year. It was Ben Bernanke from the Federal Reserve. Richard Stengel from Time was on to discuss it. Stengel claims Bernanke saved the country from financial ruin and kept us from going into a depression. O'Reilly even admitted if he had not done what he did the country could have went into a depression. Then O'Reilly disclosed the finances for Time magazine, and how they did not make as much profits this year as last year, as if they did something wrong.
Which is ridiculous, we have been in a recession for over a year, so of course their profits are down this year, as is almost every business in America. It was biased and ridiculous, and you notice O'Reilly never reports profits being down for any Republican companies. He has still not reported on the Washington Times cutting 40% of it's employees, and how they are going broke. He has ignored that story 100 percent. Proving his right-wing bias once again.
Then the total waste of tv time body language nonsense, that I refuse to report on because it's nothing but hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. And because the body language bimbo is a Republican, that does biased body language readings. O'Reilly just puts her on to make Democrats look bad, and of course to get ratings by having the blonde bimbo on.
And then it was time for the weekly Dennis Miller garbage, he does jokes about liberals, mostly Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, with no Democratic comedian on to do jokes about conservatives. It's another right-wing biased one sided segment to make liberals look bad. As I point out all the time, it's not only bias, it's massive hypocrisy from O'Reilly. Billy complains when liberal comedians make jokes about Sarah Palin, he says it is wrong and unfair, and called for an end to it. While he has Dennis Miller on every fricking week to make jokes about liberals, it's hypocrisy on a monumental level. Miller attacked the Global Warming talks, when he knows nothing about the issue, so who cares what he thinks about it.
The last segment is the stupid did you see that garbage with Jane Skinner from Fox News. Billy and Jane talk about videos they claim are a must see, when they are stupid, and not news. It's just more tabloid type journalism from O'Reilly to get ratings from his braindead right-wing viewers. This segment is a joke and not even worth talking about. O'Reilly just has her on because she is another good looking Republican blonde who works for Fox.
Then the worthless pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.
Dick Armey Calls Teabaggers Attractive Terrorists By: Steve - December 16, 2009 - 3:00pm
Earlier this year, a Department of Homeland Security assessment was released, warning that right-wing extremist groups who are primarily hate-oriented and antigovernment were "likely to grow in strength" following President Obama's election. Conservatives claimed it was a sweeping indictment aimed at labeling them as terrorists.
Despite the fact that the report did no such thing, some on the right embraced the claim and began to refer to themselves facetiously as "proud right-wing terrorists." At the Code Red Rally (run by Laura Ingraham - the Factor fill in host) on Capitol Hill yesterday, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey greeted the crowd by saying this:
ARMEY: I've never seen so many attractive domestic terrorists in all my life.
When Armey and his conservative friends mock the DHS report on far right-wing extremism, they are mocking the real threat that aims "to make changes in America through the use of political violence."
In July, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report listing 75 plots, conspiracies and racist rampages that have emerged from the American radical right in the years since Oklahoma City.
Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a liberal called a bunch of liberal protesters attractive terrorists. O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and call for the Feds to investigate every one of them. But when a Republican says it to a bunch of right-wing nuts O'Reilly says nothing.
The Tuesday 12-15-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 16, 2009 - 9:00am
The TPM was called Democratic Civil War. Billy said the far left is mad over the Obama health care bill, and for once he is right. O'Reilly cited Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, quoting them over the health care bill. Then O'Reilly cried about attacks on Lieberman and his wife for not supporting the Obama health care bill with a public option or a medicare buy in. One thing is clear, O'Reilly sure loves it when the Democrats fight each other. Then O'Reilly called the health care bill chaotic, the most chaotic thing he has ever seen.
Then John Harris and Jim Vandehei were on to discuss it, they talked about Howard Dean saying the Democrats should just kill the bill because it's bad. They said it might get killed, or they might just pass something to have it. So they really do not know what will happen, they were just guessing. Billy tried to make it about Obama and hoped it would fail to make him look bad. When it's not about Obama, it's about getting people health care.
Then O'Reilly cried about the attacks on Lieberman and his wife. But none of them said a word about the flip flops and the hypocrisy from Lieberman. Joe Lieberman is a joke who should be thrown out of office, the people of his State support the public option and he said he would vote against it. Proving he does not represent them, he just plays politics to get rewarded. Lieberman should be voted out of office for being a corrupt fraud.
The next segment was Barack & A Hard Place with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes. They were also on to discuss the Democratic civil war over the health care bill. Crowley said it hurts Obama, as expected, all she cares about it trashing Obama. She called him weakened, and then put out her usual right-wing spin about how everyone is opposed to the Obama health care plan, when that is just a lie.
Colmes said it's not a perfect bill, but he would vote for it. He said then you can add on to it later. Colmes pointed out that Lieberman flip flopped on the mediacare buy in, that 2 months ago he supported it, now he is against it. O'Reilly ignored all that information and went back to what Howard Dean said. Then O'Reilly said he was shocked that Colmes had such a level headed position, then Billy called him Fidel, as in Fidel Castro. At the end of the segment O'Reilly got another shot in on Obama by hammering him because Pakistan said they will not help in the war on terrorism. When how is that Obamas fault, he can not force them to do what we want, which is exactly what Colmes said as the last word. Then O'Reilly made a stupid unfunny joke about who is we, Colmes and Dean.
Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about a race gender class at a Minnesota college to be started in 2011. It's not even in place yet, but O'Reilly and Stossel said it was ridiculous and a bad idea. I am sure they are spinning this story to the right, but I have not really looked into it to know all the details. It's basically a cultural sensitivity course, but of course O'Reilly and Stossel misrepresented what they plan to do and they hate it.
O'Reilly said it's a hate America course, and called it a bunch of garbage, when they have not even had one class yet. And btw, he also called it left-wing indoctrination. But remember, they have not had one class yet. So they have no idea what will be taught, because it has not happened yet. Hey Billy, what happened to that no speculation pledge. It was all speculation based on what they might teach in 2011, in a class that has not even started yet. Earth to O'Reilly, that's called speculation you idiot. After you claim to never speculate, what a tool.
The next amazing segment (haha) was with the total right-wing moron Ann Coulter. She seems to be a regular now on the Factor, because O'Reilly has been putting her on quite a bit lately. Which is something a nonpartisan independent would not do. Billy talked about a Christmas tree (in the capital building) in Springfield Illinois. And now the ACLU has a display next to the Christmas tree. So Coulter was on to discuss it, and of course he promoted her book and said it would make a great Christmas gift. And btw, O'Reilly never promotes anything for liberals who are on his show, not their books or their websites.
Coulter called the ACLU a bunch of America hating commies, as expected. But she said it's America so they can use their freedoms to do what they want. Coulter said only Christmas displays should be allowed, even O'Reilly disagreed with that. And the courts have ruled against her views, they said if you allow a Christmas tree you have to allow other religions to have a display too. Coulter said the court rulings are dumb, and that only Christmas displays should be allowed. Then they trashed the atheists too, O'Reilly called them idiots, and Coulter said they are stupid. Billy said jokingly that the ACLU did it just to annoy him and Coulter, and Coulter agreed as she made a joke about it. And at the end of the segment O'Reilly promoted the Coulter book again.
Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Billy cried about some law in San Francisco. It's about cops who do not report illegals to ICE. A family who had someone killed by an illegal is suing the city. Guilfoyle said it was so crazy she moved to New York over it. Wiehl said she thinks the family will win because the city is in violation of federal law. Basically yhr city council voted to ignore the federal law, and now they are getting sued over it.
The next case was about the 100 year old sex offender who might be let out of jail. O'Reilly, Wiehl, and Guilfoyle all said he should not be let out. The last case was about a father and mother who are fighting over a child getting baptized, the parents are of different religions. Guilfoyle told them to grow up and that the parents should let the child be involved in both religions.
The last segment was the total waste of tv time Great American news Quiz, with Steve (dumb) Doocy and Martha (dumber) MacCallum. O'Reilly has these two Fox News morons on to ask them 5 news questions, and sometimes they get the majority of them wrong. Even though they work at a News Network, proving they are as dumb as I claim they are. Bascially it's just more nonsense for O'Reilly to get ratings. It was not live, it was the best of the news quiz garbage.
Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails.
O'Reilly/Rove Proof Of Insanity Videos By: Steve - December 15, 2009 - 9:30am
If you want proof Karl Rove is an insane right-wing nut just watch these two videos from last night. Rove agrees Wall St. execs are fat cats, then criticizes Obama for saying so. And O'Reilly puts this nut on his show to do a so-called objective analysis of President Obama, when he worked for Bush and everyone knows he hates Obama.
Video #2: Rove claims the Obama stimulus package impeded the recovery. When all the experts say the exact opposite. Proving that Rove is a nothing but a lying partisan hack who should not be doing news analysis anywhere, for anyone. And yet, O'Reilly puts this biased right-wing a-hole on his so-called nonpartisan news show. It's a joke, and O'Reilly should be ashamed to even call this news analysis.
It's basically partisan one sided nonsense from Rove, pretending to be objective analysis. The fact that O'Reilly puts this joke of a biased fraud on his show, is just more proof that he is also a right-wing partisan for allowing it, with no Democratic guest to counter what Rove said. It is literally as biased as you can get in the world of journalism.
A real journalist would never use Karl rove to do an analysis of Obama, without having a Democrat on for balance. It's ridiculous, and a violation of the rules of journalism. O'Reilly puts a former member of the Bush administration on to do an analysis of President Obama, yeah that's fair and balanced, NOT!
The Monday 12-14-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 15, 2009 - 9:00am
The TPM was called B+ President. Billy talked about Obama giving himself a B+ grade on Oprah. And of course Billy said he was not surprised Obama thinks he is doing that well, Then he cited a biased Rasmussen poll that shows 42% of the people approve of the job Obama is doing, and Billy also said the people have lost confidence in Obama. Even though all the other polls have Obama way higher than that, O'Reilly ignores them all, or lies about them. And notice that O'Reilly has still not corrected and retracted his lie that the 47% approval for Obama at Gallup was the lowest ever, so he lies then does not correct it. As he is telling you he has been fair to Obama, which is just laughable. Not to mention, O'Reilly even lied about the Rasmussen numbers, I looked and it was 44% approval for Obama yesterday, not the 42% he claimed.
Then the biased far right idiot Karl Rove was on to discuss it. O'Reilly told Rove that Obama should not grade himself, and that George W. Bush would not have even answered the question. Rove of course trashed Obama and said he has been a bad President, and that the only thing he has done is pass the stimulus bill. O'Reilly agreed with Rove and had almost nothing good to say about Obama. Except that he said he gives Obama a little credit for the economy getting slightly better. Rove even said the Obama stimulus hurt the economy, not helped it. Which is pure insanity, because in a November analysis, the CBO estimated that through the third quarter of 2009, the Obama American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created or saved between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs and added between 1.2 percent and 3.2 percent to GDP.
They even cried about Obama raising the debt limit, when Bush did the very same thing and they said nothing when he did it. Rove gave a C- to Obama on the economy, a B- on Afghanistan, a C- on Foreign Policy, a D- on running the country, and a C- on changing the tone in Washington. And who cares, Rove is a partisan idiot who hates Obama and almost never says anything good about him. And btw, neither one of these partisan fools has said a word about NATO sending 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan because Obama asked them to, they have totally ignored it. And the Democrat guest has this to say, oh wait, there were no Democrat guests, just two far right Obama haters trashing him.
Then Brit (right-wing) Hume was on to discuss Obama. Hume gave Obama an A+ for temperament. O'Reilly gives Obama a C+ on temperament. Billy called Obama cocky. Hume said Obama has not run the country as he promised in the campaign, and claims he is running it from the left. Then Hume gave Obama an incomplete on Foreign Policy, but he did say Obama gave a great speech in Oslo. Hume gave Obama a D- on Domestic Policy. He hated the stimulus bill and said it did not help at all, Hume even called it reckless, which is just ridiculous and nothing but right-wing spin. Hume then called for Obama to reverse the stimulus.
Proving what a partisan right-wing tool he is, because the stimulus is working and morons like him just refuse to admit it. At the end he said something about the Obama economic policy destroying the country, which is laughable. But O'Reilly said nothing to dispute it, and even agreed with him. Just remember this, all these right-wing idiots said the same thing about Bill Clinton in 1992, then he gave us 8 years of a great economy. Proving that these right-wing fools had no idea what they were talking about, because they were wrong. Notice that not one time did O'Reilly cite the CBO economic numbers that prove Rove and Hume wrong, he just left his viewers with the impression that they were right.
Then Billy praised Sarah Palin some more and talked about how great she is, and how great her book sales are. He compared her book sales to the Al Gore book sales, which is just insane. Billy played a clip of Palin and William Shatner both reading from each other books on Conan. It was a comedy skit, with Palin and Shatner. Then O'Reilly went on some 3 minute tirade about how Palin is really a smart and qualified woman who could be the President.
Ignoring the polls that show 71% think she is not qualified, O'Reilly ignores all that, and even called her a star. Then he gave her some advice on how to work towards being the next President. He said the left is lying about her, that she is actually a smart woman. And that her book sales prove how great she is, wow is O'Reilly nuts. Her books are being bought by right-wing groups then they give them away or sell them for $4.95. And the only people buying her lame book are other right-wing nuts who love her. All it proves is that right-wing freaks are buying her stupid book, the book she did not even wrote btw, which O'Reilly never mentions, or the bulk sales. O'Reilly loves Palin so much he should get a room with her.
The next segment was with Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams. The three of them talked some more about how great Sarah Palin is. With no Democrat guest to give the counterpoint. Billy said Palin has stunned the world, and could not give her enough praise, citing her book sales as evidence of how great she is. And of course Juan Williams pretty much agreed with O'Reilly, except Juan said she is a celebrity and Gore is not. Billy keeps comparing the Gore book sales to Palins book sales, which is just ridiculous. Billy loves Palin so much it's just pathetic. O'Reilly said the folks like Palin, but they do not like Gore. What does Gore have to do with anything, the comparison is insane.
Juan made one good point, he said we will see how great she is in 2012 when she runs for President, and for once he was right. Palin will lose by a landslide, and O'Reilly will be proven wrong. Remember this, O'Reilly tried to get McCain elected and how did that go. Palin is an idiot, and these fools like O'Reilly are trying to con the American people into thinking she is actually smart, and that the liberal media is just lying about her. Goog luck with that, when and if she runs, they will just replay the clips of her saying all those stupid things and she will lose by a mile, like the right-wing idiot she is.
Then O'Reilly had a totally ridiculous segment talking about the COMEDIANS doing jokes about Obama. It's comedy, they do not have to be fair to Obama or Bush or anyone, they are not in the news business. O'Reilly is crying about COMEDIANS doing jokes about politicians, which is just ridiculous. He claims they are doing some Obama jokes but that they are not nearly as tough on him as they were with Bush. Yeah because Bush run the country into the ground, and had a 28% approval rating, and Cheney had an 18% approval.
So why should they hammer Obama when he has only been in office 11 months and has not screwed up like Bush did. Not to mention, O'Reilly was wrong, they are being tough on Obama. But once again, who cares, THEY ARE COMEDIANS, THEY DO JOKES. O'Reilly had Buddy Winston on to discuss it, a few months ago he predicted the COMEDIANS would get tough on Obama, and O'Reilly disagreed. So Winston was on to talk about how he was right, and O'Reilly was wrong. The whole segment was ridiculous, because it's comedy, it's not news. I have no problem with COMEDIANS doing jokes about Palin, Bush, Obama, or anyone. Because that is what they do, they make jokes for a living. And they go after everyone, as long as it gets a laugh.
The last segment was the totally ridiculous and one sided O'Reilly reality check. Billy plays video clips of something a liberal said, then he gives you what he calls a reality check on what they said. It's really just O'Reilly giving you his right-wing opinion of what they said. There usually is no reality check, and I rarely report on the actual checks because 90% of them are just stupid, and have no check. One check was about Tiger Woods. One crazy (non-check) was just a report on the 100 year old woman who was charged with murder. Another so-called check was just a report that the guy who took the Erin Andrews video had a guilty plea, how is that a check on anything. One check was a video of people running a marathon in their underwear. It's not reality, and there are no checks.
Then the pinheads and patriots and the Factor e-mails. O'Reilly names a liberal a pinhead and a conservative a patriot, then he reads a few highly edited e-mails from his mostly right-wing viewers. Roseanne Barr was named the pinhead for talking bad about Sarah Palin.
Federal Court Says ACORN Funding Ban Unconstitutional By: Steve - December 13, 2009 - 10:00am
A few months ago we had the big ACORN scandal where a few people who work at ACORN got caught giving possibly illegal advice on avoiding taxes etc. O'Reilly and the entire Fox News Network went nuts and pretty much covered the story non-stop.
Then Congress passed a bill to ban all federal funding for ACORN, O'Reilly praised the ruling and pretty much jumped for joy that no more federal money would go to ACORN. Ignoring the fact that it might be unconstitutional, O'Reilly said he does not care, and said he was glad the Congress pulled their funding.
Once again showing that O'Reilly does not care about the Constitution, because that is twice he has said he does not care about the Constitution in the last few months.
Then last Friday things changed, a federal judge ruled that the ACORN funding ban is unconstitutional:
A federal judge Friday issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a congressional ban on funding for ACORN. Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a bill of attainder that unfairly singled out ACORN.
"The plaintiffs have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process of adjudicating guilt," Gershon wrote in her decision.
Gershon said ACORN had demonstrated "irreperable harm" from the ban, while the potential harm to the government, in granting the injunction, is less.
The decision noted that the ban had already prevented ACORN from receiving payment from contracts awarded before the ban took effect.
Glenn Greenwald, the constitutional law attorney wrote this about the ruling: "There is an endless list of radical flaws in our political system, including our judicial branch. But in those rare cases when things actually work the way they're designed to, it's worth reminding ourselves of why the Constitution is such a vital document and why it's so crucial that it be adhered to and defended."
What everyone should remember about this is that O'Reilly does not care about the constitution, unless it's over an issue he agrees with. He will tell someone we must follow the laws and the constitution, but then if it's a political issue he does not agree with, he says to hell with the constitution, just do what I want.
Proving O'Reilly is a biased fraud of a pretend journalist. Real journalists and people with integrity, support the constitution even when they disagree with something. And real Americans support the constitution all the time, not just when they feel like it.
O'Reilly Slams Law & Order TV Show By: Steve - December 13, 2009 - 9:30am
More details on the O'Reilly meltdown over what was said on the Law & Order tv show. Thursday night, O'Reilly characterized the producer of NBC's Law & Order crime drama, Dick Wolf, as a far left guy for approving a piece of dialogue that described O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh as a cancer spreading ignorance and hate that has convinced people that immigrants are the problem. O'Reilly called Wolf a coward and a liar, claiming that he has consistently supported poor people who want a better life. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Dick Wolf, the Executive Producer of Law & Order, is a despicable human being -- despicable for distorting and exploiting this very complicated issue. Enough is enough with these network pinheads who shove propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment. No one on the Factor has been allowed to demonize any human being, and it's partially because of this program that the border fence has finally been put up.
I guess Billy has a short memory, or most likely he has selective memory, because he does demonize people on his show, and he does it all the time. O'Reilly recently said that immigration needs to be capped because the far left wants to bring in millions of foreign nationals to break down the white, Christian, male power structure.
O'Reilly also got into a screaming match with Geraldo Rivera, who suggested he was purposely reporting a drunk driving story as an illegal alien story and obscuring a tragedy to make a cheap political point that flares anti-immigrant animosity.
And Geraldo is not the only person who thinks so. Former head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Joe Baca, stated that O'Reilly's language is divisive and inflammatory, and often misleading and only creates fear, hatred and negative stereotyping of immigrants.
Media Matters reported that O'Reilly, along with Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck, serve a steady diet of fear, anger, and resentment on the topic of illegal immigration. O'Reilly is specifically described as frequently isolating crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and reporting them as if they were representative of the undocumented population as a whole and a matter of national urgency. Even though a very small percentage of crimes are committed by illegal immigrants.
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund recently warned that shrill anti-immigration reform commentaries and the villification of immigrants in the public media has led to a rise in violent hate crimes against immigrants and those perceived as immigrants. But O'Reilly never reports any of that.
I guess he also forgot he demonized Dr. Tiller the abortion doctor who was murdered. referring to him repeatedly as "Tiller the Baby Killer" and saying that he executes babies. Tiller's name appeared in 29 episodes of The Factor between 2005 and Tiller's death.
As Salon's Gabriel Winant wrote in May, "there's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose," as O'Reilly. Legal and psychological experts even suggested that Scott Roeder -- Tiller's accused killer -- might be able to use "the O'Reilly defense" in court.
The deluge of Tiller is a Nazi, mass murderer, baby killer verbiage by O'Reilly surely can drive one into a state of what we in the legal profession call righteous assassination, legal expert Jonathan Turley told Huffington Post's Scott Young. So as you can see, O'Reilly does demonize people.
Read This Before You Vote For A Tea Party Candidate By: Steve - December 12, 2009 - 10:50am
The founding Fathers of our great Constitution made sure there was a separation of church and state. This was done to keep religion out of Government and the schools. And the tea party members claim they want the Government to stay out of our business.
So now one of these crazy tea party candidates in California wants to pass a law that would have the state force public school children to sing Christmas carols. Which would be a violation of the separation of church and state clause in the VERY Constitution they claim to support.
It's called the Freedom to Present Christmas Music in Public School Classrooms or Assemblies initiative. Merry Hyatt, a substitute teacher and member of the Redding Tea Party Patriots, is behind the push.
The initiative would require schools to provide children the opportunity to listen to or perform Christmas carols, and would subject the schools to litigation if the rule isn't followed.
"Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas," said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. "That's why we have it. It's not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It's called Christmas for a reason."
This would be forced religion by the Government, which goes against the Tea Party movement's anti-government platform. Proving they have a hidden agenda, that they are liars, dangerous, and massive hypocrites. And most of all, remember this, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are their party leaders. So think very hard before you vote for any tea party candidate.
O'Reilly Ignoring New Public Option Poll By: Steve - December 12, 2009 - 10:30am
O'Reilly claims to look out for the little guy, and says he supports what the majority of the people want. Except when the people disagree with him, then he ignores what they want and basically tells them to go to hell. Here is a great example of that.
The NY Times and CBS News ran a health care poll from 12-04-09 to 12-08-09, in the poll they asked this question:
Would you favor or oppose the government offering some people who are uninsured the choice of a government-administered health insurance plan -- also known as a 'public option' -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
A whopping 59% said they support it, only 29% oppose it, and 12% are not sure. Did O'Reilly report the results of this poll, of course not. Because then it would kill his lies that the people do not want the public option. O'Reilly claims the majority of the people do not want it, when the polls show different.
And btw, only 55% of Republicans oppose it. That means even 45% of Republicans support a public option. You never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, he totally ignores it. The poll also found that 80% of Democrats, and 59% of Independents support a public option. That means the vast majority of the people support it, with only the Republicans who mostly oppose it.
None of this is ever reported on the Factor. What O'Reilly does is ignore all the polls, except the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll. The Rasmussen poll is biased, it asked if you support the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats. The answer is 41% yes, 51% no. So then O'Reilly will quote that poll, while ignoring all the other polls.
What O'Reilly does not tell you is that Rasmussen samples a pre-selected group of people who passed a test to take their polls. What he also does not tell you is that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican who always has poll results less favorable to Obama and the Democrats. Because his pre-selected group of people are more conservative, so his polls are slanted to the right. One more thing about Rasmussen, when McCain ran against Obama for President, I checked the Rasmussen website, and he had ads for McCain, but no ads for Obama.
There is also one big important thing O'Reilly does not tell you. In these OTHER health care polls up to 25% of Democrats are opposed to it. O'Reilly does not tell you that 25% are opposed to it because it does not go far enough. They oppose it because it's not doing enough to give health care to everyone.
O'Reilly never mentions that, he implies they are opposed to it for the same reason the Republicans are, which is just a flat out lie. Most Democrats and Independents who say they oppose it only do so because the bill does not go far enough to cover everyone. The Republicans oppose it simply for political reasons, because they do not want the Democrats to get credit for passing a bill that gave everyone health care.
O'Reilly the (so-called truth telling nonpartisan independent) journalist, never reports any of this information. All he does is cite a number, like 41% who support it, to 51% who oppose it, from a Rasmussen poll. But he never mentions the other polls that show a different story, or the details in those polls. It's total right-wing bias, dishonesty, and spin, from O'Reilly.
The Friday 12-11-09 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review By: Steve - December 12, 2009 - 9:30am
Laura (far right) Ingraham was in for O'Reilly. Proving once again that O'Reilly is actually a Republican, because nobody except another Republican would let the full blown far right spin doctor Laura Ingrahm host their news show. She is basically all right-wing propaganda, all the time. And the entire show was nothing but an hour of right-wing spin, pretending to be news. She started her propaganda hour spinning out the hacked Global Warming scientist e-mails story. Just like all the other Republican who report this story she lied.
She talked about ONE e-mail where ONE scientist said he was going to ignore the tree ring temperature data, and instead use the actual temperature data. The reason he said he was going to ignore the tree ring data is because it was wrong, but they do not know why. The actual temperature data shows an increase in temperatures starting around 1960, and that is a fact. Nobody disagrees with that, all the world temperature readings show it. Morons like Ingraham claim that ONE scientist was trying to hide a temperature decrease, which is just stupid.
All he was doing was not using the faulty tree ring data, because the actual temperature readings show an increase. In science, if you have actual temperature readings that prove an increase, then you get tree ring data that shows a decrease, you throw out the tree ring data because you know it's wrong, when you can see the actual temperature readings show an increase. It's as simple as that, even a 5 year old can understand it. Yet Ingraham and all he right-wing friends keep lying about what he said in the e-mail.
There is no smoking gun, and yet the right-wing Global Warming deniers keep trying to spin out that garbage, when it's not accurate. Ingraham had Tyson Slocum on to discuss it, and he disputed everything in her Talking Points Memo.
SLOCUM: This is not about Al Gore or Sarah Palin, Slocum said, this is about peer-reviewed science, and a handful of stolen emails does not undermine science. It is clearly established that burning fossil fuels like coal and oil has released historic levels of greenhouse gases that are leading to climate change.
Which was like talking to the wall, because Ingraham continued to spin out her dishonest right-wing talking points and ignore everything Mr. Slocum said. She keeps saying the scientist tried to hide a temperature decrease, when all the reports show an increase. When the only thing that showed a decrease was the tree ring data. The million other actual temperature readings that were taken over the last 50 years (all over the world) all show a temperature increase. And yet Ingraham can not seem to understand that. Ignoring faulty data does not prove they were trying to hide a decrease. Especially when the ACTUAL temperature readings show an increase.
Let me explain this real simple for her right-wing pea brain. If I go back and check the average temperature for 2008, and it says the average was 80 degrees. Then I check the tree ring data for 2008 and it says the average was 65 degrees. Then for some reason the tree ring data is wrong, because the actual temperature shows 80 degrees. So I would not use that tree ring data because I know it's faulty. Yet morons like Ingraham claim they are trying to hide a decrease because they did not use the tree ring data. It's insane, and nothing but right-wing spin, because the scientist is not going to use faulty data.
Then Ingraham had the Canadian journalist Diane Francis on, who talked about China's one-child-per-family policy. Why, who the hell knows. This is America, why do we care what some Canadian journalist thinks about the China one child policy. This was a really stupid segment, and not even worth reporting. I could care less what some Canadian says about anything, let alone what happens in China with their child policy. Why even do this segment, what's the point.
Then crazy Ingraham went back to politics and used the really crazy John Bolton to trash Obama and his speech in Oslo. Even most conservatives said it was a good speech, Obama used the word evil (which they love) and said that war is sometimes necessary. The insane Bolton hated the Obama speech, he even called it shallow and sophomoric. Proving that he is a total far right idiot. Because almost everyone liked it, even most conservatives. The media in oslo even said it sounded like a speech George W. Bush would make. And yet, Bolton still hated it, and Ingraham still put this nut on to trash Obama, even when he gives a good speech that most conservatives liked. Proving that she is a right-wing propagandist, who will do anything to smear Obama for political reasons. She knew what Bolton was going to say, that's why she had him on.
The next segment was about violence on the Mexican border. Ingraham had Lisa Ling on to discuss it. Basically she just said there is a lot of violence on the border because of the drug war, which we already know, so it was not news to anyone, we already know that information. To me it was another waste of time segment on something that is not even happening in America, so I could care less. Yes it's important, but it's mostly a Mexican problem. We can not cross the border and solve their drug war problems, so it does no good for us to even discuss it. I only care about what happens here in America.
Then the crazy Ingraham had Rev. Eugene Rivers and Tara Dowdell on to discuss the Congressional Black Caucus demanding that President Obama do something to reduce unemployment among black Americans. Rivers is a conservative who was on to slam Obama, he said Obama has to do something or he's going to lose his base. Which is crazy, the President can not just create jobs for African Americans, he would be accused by Beck and everyone on the right of being racist if he did.
Dowdell took issue with those black lawmakers who are criticizing the president. She said she rejects the notion that President Obama isn't doing anything for the black community or society in general. This is a very difficult environment that we're in and African Americans understand that change takes time. The stimulus package has stopped the pain, stopped the bleeding, and right now our economy is stabilizing. And of course Ingraham did not understand any of that, because it makes sense, and it does not smear Obama.
Then Ingraham had the crazy far right Michael Scheuer on to talk about a drone strike in Pakistan that might have killed a top Al Qaeda leader. He basically said it's not enough, and that we need to kill more of them. Scheuer is a right-wing nut that hates Obama, so no matter what he does it is not enough. But if the drone strike happened under Bush he would have praised it and said what a great job Bush is doing. Ingraham just put this nut on to smear Obama, even though he did a good thing by killing a known terrorist. It shows their political bias and hypocrisy. And that no matter what Obama does they will find a way to criticize it. Frankly it's ridiculous, if Obama cured Cancer tomorrow O'Reilly and Ingraham would find a way to criticize it, and find some right-wing nut to come on the Factor to smear Obama.
And the last worthless segment was with TMZ.com's Mike Walters. Ingraham put him on to talk abot what else, Tiger Woods. Walters said that a former Hollywood madam Michelle Braun, claims she furnished Tiger with high-priced escorts. And I could care less, this is a tabloid story for TMZ, or Geraldo, or Nancy Grace. It's not real news, it's tabloid garbage. O'Reilly and Ingraham just do this crap for ratings, plain and simple.
Republican Senator Admits Tea Party Is Conservative By: Steve - December 11, 2009 - 9:30am
Remember back to the big tea party protest, the massive (haha) crowd of what, 75,000 who marched on Washington. Fox News promoted the hell out of it, and all the right-wing special interest groups ran it. O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News said it was a grassroots movement with people from all parties, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.
People like me said that was ridiculous, and pointed out that the tea party movement was 99% Republicans, run by right-wing groups run by Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich. At the time O'Reilly, Rove, Morris, Coulter, Ingraham, Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc. said I was a liar, they claimed it was not just Republicans.
As the tea party movement got off the ground, organizers put considerable effort into arguing that the movement is not tied to the Republican Party. Even Republican members of Congress who embraced the movement early on insisted that it was not about Republicans or Democrats.
Well now the truth is starting to come out. Recently it was reported that all the tea party candidates are Republicans, and we know that Beck and Palin support everything they do. Beck even started the whole thing with his 9-12 website and protest. Now there is even more evidence, a Republican Senator is admitting the tea party is part of the Republican party, or should be.
In an interview with the National Review yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), said that the tea parties should no longer be thought of as separate from the Republican Party:
DeMint: "The GOP leadership needs to stand up for mainstream American principles. The best way to do that is to look to the great candidates we can support like Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Chuck DeVore, and now Michael Williams. They're exciting, principled candidates who have all stood up to the Republican party."
"We need to stop looking at the tea parties as separate from the Republican party," adds DeMint. "If we do that, we can stand up and create the biggest tent of all."
It's not surprising that DeMint is trying to formally weld the tea parties with the GOP. A Rasmussen poll released Monday found that on a three-way generic ballot, a tea party candidate would attract more votes than a Republican.
Remember that a couple months ago, O'Reilly, everyone at Fox News, and all these same Republicans denied the tea party protests were mostly conservatives. They said the protests were people from all parties, and they criticized anyone who disagreed with them. They even said they were average every day Americans who are just tired of all the Government spending, and that it was not about hating Obama.
Now we know that was all lies, and that the tea party members and candidates are mostly Republicans who hate Obama. Will O'Reilly report this, and admit he was wrong, haha, yeah when hell freezes over he will.
The Top 10 (2009) Fox News Mistakes By: Steve - December 11, 2009 - 9:00am
Here is a list of 10 short video clips of the most ridiculous Fox News mistakes that were made in 2009.
While you are there you might want to check out the rest of ranker.com, they have some pretty good videos and rankings.
The Thursday 12-10-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 11, 2009 - 8:40am
The TPM was called Law & Order Propaganda. O'Reilly said Law & Order SVU is out of control. The Law & Order show had a line that said O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck are a cancer on society, talking about spreading lies about illegal immigration. Billy called it outrageous and defamatory. Then O'Reilly ran clips of himself saying how great he is on illegal immigration. Billy said he was very mad, and said enough is enough. Then he called out Dick Wolf, whatever that means.
My God man let it go, it's a tv show. O'Reilly is a giant cry baby. It's a fricking tv show, shut up cry baby. Laura Ingraham was on to trash Law & Order and NBC. They just made fun of their ratings and said nobody is watching them. O'Reilly called Dick Wolf a guttersnipe, and said he does not want his name used by people like him. Ingraham said the reason they said it, is to shut down the conservative view of illegal immigration. Which is just ridiculous, but of course O'Reilly agreed with her. And of course nobody from the tv show or anyone to give the counterpoint. Just O'Reilly and Ingraham crying like the little right-wing bitches they are. What they failed to mention is that Law & Order is the 2nd longest running dramatic show in television history.
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the White House party crashers, and some old Black Panther polling place story. Eric Holder and the DOJ decided to not prosecute them, according to the right-wing Washington Times newspaper. It's a low level beef so they decided to not waste the taxpayer money, but O'Reilly and Kelly want the prosecution to go forward, after the case has already been dropped. Billy said he is going to make a call and pressure them to go forward with the prosecution. They also reported the party crashers will be forced to testify to Congress, and they said they will take the 5th. Billy wants them put in jail, of course. Then they talked about some lesbian child custody case, that nobody cares about, it's not news, it's tabloid trash to get ratings.
The next segment was with Ann (the crazy far right nut) Coulter. Billy had her on to talk more about the Amanda Knox murder case in Italy. Coulter claims she is guilty, and how the hell does she know. This is getting ridiculous, the only people who know if she is guilty or not are the jury. The CBS news reporter and Coulter were not on the jury, so neither one of them have a clue what they are talking about.
This is just another tabloid story for O'Reilly to get ratings. It did not even happen in America, it happened in Italy. And btw, what kind of so-called journalist has Ann Coulter on to discuss a legal case, that is crazy, yet O'Reilly did it anyway. And of course Billy promoted the Coulter book, which he never does with liberals. Coulter said she is guilty, case closed. This segment was a total waste of tv time, and having to listen to Coulter is like torture.
Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on. And of course there are no left-wing Culture Warriors. Billy cried about the White House Christmas card saying Seasons Greetings. But O'Reilly did point out that Bush also sent out cards that did not say Christmas either. They spent the entire segment crying about the war on Christmas, which I refuse to report on because it's a bogus made up war by O'Reilly. I will say that O'Reilly was mad that they do not say Merry Christmas on the White House holiday card.
And then Glenn Beck was on for his regular weekly segment. Here is my question, why. Glenn Beck is a total right-wing idiot, he is as big of a right-wing idiot as you can get. The fact that O'Reilly puts this right-wing fool on his show every week is 100% proof he is a Republican. Because nobody except other Republicans would give Beck the time of day, let alone have him on their show every week as a regular. Beck is a lying, spinning, right-wing propaganda spewing clown. And anyone who gives him a forum to spew his right-wing lies and hate is just as bad as he is. Beck was on to trash Obama, and I refuse to report on any of this biased garbage from Beck. They basically spent the entire segment talking about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
The last segment was the ridiculous, biased, one sided Factor reality check. Billy plays clips of something a liberal said, then he gives you what he calls a reality check on what they said. In reality, it's just more right-wing spin from O'Reilly, he puts his spin on what they said. That's not a reality check, it's just the opinion of Bill O'Reilly, and most of them have no check at all. One check was about a holy cow, and another was about a tiger woods poll. Billy also cried some more about COMEDIANS doing Sarah Palin jokes. How in the hell is that a reality check on anything. And one check was info on how many books O'Reilly has sold. So basically the entire segment was garbage.
Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.
The Facts On Presidential Job Approval Ratings By: Steve - December 10, 2009 - 10:00am
UPDATE - 12-11-09 -- As I predicted yesterday, O'Reilly did not do a retraction Wednesday or Thursday night about the Obama job approval ratings. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a liar who does not correct his mistakes.
This is a follow up on my last posting. On the Tuesday 12-8-09 O'Reilly Factor Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The Gallup company has been polling presidential approval ratings since 1938, and this week its poll says just 47% of Americans approve of President Obama's job performance. That is the lowest number ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
WRONG! Once again O'Reilly is caught lying about Obama to make him look bad, what a shocker, not!
FACT: Gerald Ford had a job approval of 42% just 3 months after he was elected. Ford's quick descent to below-majority approval was hastened by his unpopular decision to pardon Nixon in September 1974.
FACT: Bill Clinton had a job approval of 37% just 6 months after he was elected. Clinton suffered from a series of early missteps in attempting to change policy, fill positions within his administration, and controversy over a haircut he received aboard Air Force One.
FACT: Four presidents -- Harry Truman, as well as Ford, Reagan, and Clinton -- dropped below majority approval in their first year in office.
FACT: Ronald Reagan dropped below 50% approval just 10 months into his first term.
FACT: Harry Truman dropped below 50% approval just 11 months into his first term.
George W. Bush was in office for 3 years before his approval rating dropped below 50%. But it would have been much faster if not for the September 11 terrorist attack rally. His approval rating just before the terrorist attack was 51%, but it shot up to 86% a couple days later. So Bush had dropped to 51% approval just 9 months into his first term.
And btw, falling below 50% would hardly mark a point of no return for Obama. All presidents went back above the 50% mark after their initial loss of majority public support. Clinton and Reagan, who dropped below majority approval faster than most other presidents, easily won second terms in the subsequent election.
O'Reilly never reported any of the above information. I watched every minute of the Factor Wednesday night and O'Reilly never said a word about his mistake on Tuesday, no retraction, no correction, nothing, nada, zip. This is right after he said on Monday that his crack staff triple checks everything. And that he has never had to do a retraction in 13 years.
What say you Billy, Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both had a lower job approval after 3 and 6 months than Obama had on Monday, so when will you issue that retraction/correction. Here is my guess, never.
O'Reilly Caught Lying About Presidential Approval By: Steve - December 10, 2009 - 9:30am
Now get this, to begin with O'Reilly claims that his Fox News (brain room) staff triple check everything that goes on his show. In an interview with TV Guide published on Monday, O'Reilly said he was proud that he has "not had to retract a story in 13 years" on Fox News.
Admitting that he has made mistakes on the air, O'Reilly said they were always corrected quickly. He attributed his lack of a retraction to the "brain room here at Fox" where they triple-check everything.
Despite his claim of rigorous fact-checking, O'Reilly opened his show Tuesday night with the false claim that President Obama's 47 percent approval by Gallup on Monday was "the lowest number ever recorded for any president at this point in his term."
It's a total lie, so much for that triple fact check garbage. If O'Reilly and his crack staff had simply checked Gallup's historical data, he would have seen that President Gerald Ford reached a 42 percent approval rating in a shorter period of time, and President Bill Clinton reached a low of 37 percent six months into his first term.
And O'Reilly also failed to mention that day (Tuesday) Gallup had the Obama approval at 50%, which was the day he reported it was 47%. So what he reported was wrong at the time, and dishonest. O'Reilly reported on Tuesday that the Obama job approval at Gallup was 47%, when it was actually 50%, he just never mentioned that. It was 47% on Monday, but it went up to 50% on Tuesday, which O'Reilly never reported. Then on top of that he lied about the 47% being the lowest ever for a president at this time into his first term.
Not to mention I document thousands of lies made by O'Reilly every day in this blog, the list is endless. I could fill a website with his lies, and I have. O'Reilly is a lie machine, he either spins or lies about 90% of the time, basically if his lips are moving he is probably lying. And yet he claims he has never had to retract anything, and that his staff triple checks everything. Which may be the biggest lie he has ever told.
The Wednesday 12-9-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 10, 2009 - 8:30am
The TPM was called Health Care Agreement. Billy claims that he was right about the public option and Rove was wrong. He might be, we will have to see what the final bill is before we will know for sure. It's too soon to say, but O'Reilly might be right. O'Reilly claims it was removed because the people do not want the Government running it, which is a lie. If it is removed it's because of the special interest money, the lobbyists, and their influence with too many Congressman and Senators.
Billy had Dick Morris on to discuss it. Morris said there could be a back door public option, and that they may let people get medicare at 55 instead of 65. It would cover 50 million new people. And btw, O'Reilly even admitted there could be a public option in the final bill. And yet he was gloating that he was right and Rove was wrong, before the final bill is out. So then Morris went on some 3 minute right-wing propaganda rant with a bunch of right-wing spin about the health care bill that was all lies.
Billy keeps saying it's 2000 pages so nobody can understand it. But he never mentions that they used a big font, tripe the normal size, and if they used book size font it would only be 400 pages. O'Reilly also said Obama is going to bankrupt the nation, which is another lie, things are improving yet he ignores it. Basically it was another one sided right-wing smear job on Obama by two Republicans. And btw, O'Reilly promoted the Morris book and website, two times, but notice he never does that for Democratic guests.
The Washington Post published an op-ed by Sarah Palin in which she claims that the apparently stolen Climatic Research Unit emails "reveal that leading climate experts manipulated data to hide a decline in global temperatures." This is simply false. The emails do not discuss hiding a "decline" in global temperatures.
Palin claims that by "hide the decline," Jones is referring to some sort nefarious conspiracy to conceal an actual decrease in global temperatures. But this is a lie, because there was no "decline" in global temperatures for Jones to hide.
And four days ago two Washington Post science reporters explained that Jones was saying he simply replaced problematic tree ring data with "more accurate" data from actual temperature measurements. So Palin claims Jones was somehow concealing a decline in temperatures that never existed. And O'Reilly bought the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker. Not once did he point out the lies in her op-ed.
O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall on to discuss it. She pointed out that different scientists have different opinions, but the vast majority agree it is real, and it has been proven. O'Reilly implied Palin is right, and that the whole Global Warming thing is kind of shady. O'Reilly said at this point it's all bunk and bull for a simple man like him. She disagreed and stated facts about Global Warming, then O'Reilly cut her off, and disagreed with her, and said it was all bull once again. So now it's a fact that O'Reilly was lying for all these years when he said he believes in Global Warming. Because now he says it is all bunk.
Then O'Reilly had some lame segment about conservatives who are upset over Obama getting the Nobel peace Prize. This happened months ago, O'Reilly even discussed it a few times, and I have no idea why O'Reilly would talk about it again. The only reason I can think of is he wants to give a forum to a conservative to slam Obama once again for getting the prize. There is no other resson to discuss it again, except to smear Obama for it once again. John (crazy far right) Gibson was on to discuss it. And of course Gibson and O'Reilly both smeared Obama for it. They made jokes about Obama, and smeared him.
This is all biased political garbage, they are right-wing partisans who hate Obama. So they attack everything he does, no matter what it is. And of course O'Reilly also promoted the crazy Gibson book, which is about how the left has ruined America, and probably the real reason Gibson was put on the show, to promote his crazy right-wing book.
The next segment was with Barbara Walters, O'Reilly had her on to talk about her ten most fascinating people of the year show. I have no idea why he did this segment, except maybe it was a favor to Barbara Walters for having him on her shows and not saying bad things about him. I would bet they have a deal to do each others shows so they can promote their books and their tv specials. It was pretty much a waste of time, and had no news value. Glenn Beck is on the list, and O'Reilly hated it, Walters said Billy is just jealous.
Then the unfunny (has been that never was) Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals, with no Democratic comedian on to make jokes about conservatives. So O'Reilly even shows his right-wing bias when he does his so-called comedy segment. Miller gave his list of most fascinating people, and his list of worst people, and what a shocker Nancy pelosi was on his worst list. Here is my question, who cares, why should I care what Dennis Miller thinks about anything. Millers #1 was Ayn Rand, his #2 was the tea party protesters, and his #3 was the military. Proving that Miller is an idiot, it's most fascinating people, not persons.
And then the totally ridiculous waste of time "did you see that" segment with Jane Skinner. Billy and Jane talk about videos they claim are a must see, when they are stupid, and not news. It's just more garbage from O'Reilly to get ratings from his braindead right-wing viewers. This segment is a joke and not even worth talking about.
Then the pinheads and patriots and the bogus highly edited Factor e-mails.
Gingrich Tells O'Reilly Tea Party Bad News By: Steve - December 10, 2009 - 8:00am
Newt was on the Factor Monday night, during his segment he warned O'Reilly that most of the tea party members are conservatives, so they take votes away from the Republicans. He was basically saying to O'Reilly that if you support the tea party you will hurt the Republican party, and most likely cause them to lose some elections because it will split the vote. It was a warning, and a message to O'Reilly from Newt to not support the tea party candidates.
GINGRICH: I think Going Rouge could in fact take Palin to a third party, the challenge is historically third parties are protests. They're not a path to power. And as you pointed out the first effect of a third party in 2012 would be the re-election of Obama and would be the survival of Pelosi as Speaker of the House, you now, maybe in perpetuity.
O'REILLY: I don't think so, I think Pelosi may be booted out of there next November, that's how bad things are.
GINGRICH: But she might, she wouldn't be if you had enough third party candidates splitting the opposition.
And a new poll shows it is true. In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds the Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans got 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
What Newt is saying is that all these right-wing tea party nuts are going to ruin the Republican party. Because they will split the right-wing vote and actually help Democrats win more elections. His message to O'Reilly was, be careful supporting Sarah Palin and the tea party, because it could help the Democrats, and that is the last thing O'Reilly wants to do. So you can bet in the future O'Reilly will not be promoting the tea party as much.
O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Person By: Steve - December 9, 2009 - 9:00am
Remember this, O'Reilly said the Factor is never edited, that what you see is what you get. But here we have O'Reilly admitting the show is taped and edited sometimes, proving that he lied, and that the show is edited. The dummy did not even know he was live, he thought it was being taped. From the Countdown with Keith Olbermann show on MSNBC:
OLBERMANN: But our winner, Bill-O. Made a boo-boo on his comedy hour the other day. It was the Osama Obama-a lot of us has done this. I've done it. Sometimes it's deliberate, but not in this case, I don't think. That's not what this is about. It's that Billy apparently thought he was taping his show when they were actually on the network as he spoke.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Patriots on deck, tonight, starring a congressman who says-you're not going to believe it-President Bush allowed Obama-Osama-now I'm going to have to cut that again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Oh, Bill, seriously? You can't remember whether you're doing it on tape or-
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: We'll do it live! We'll do it live. (F--k) it. We'll do it live! I'll write it and we'll do it live!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Bill-O the clown, today's worst person-oh, let's cut this again, sorry. Oh, we're live? Oh, crap.
Fox News Busted Again For Fuzzy Math (Lies) By: Steve - December 9, 2009 - 8:45am
On what so-called News Network does 59+35+26 add up to 120 percent, Fox News of course. Last month Fox News was caught using some big time fuzzy math by showing a pie chart that said 193 percent of the public supports Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination in 2012.
Now they have been busted again, last week Fox and Friends showed a Rasmussen poll graphic showing 120 percent of the American public believes scientists may be falsifying research to support their own theories on global warming:
The Rasmussen poll Fox & Friends cited, asked respondents this: "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?"
According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren't sure).
So the Fox News graphics department added together the very likely and somewhat likely numbers to reach 59 percent, and called that new group somewhat likely. Then, for some reason, they threw in the 35 percent very likely as their own group, even though they already added that number to the somewhat likely percentage.
Then they put together the not very likely and not likely at all groups, and then put the 15 percent who were unsure into the trash bin. And that's how they got the 120 percent. And they call that an honest news network.
And now here is the worst part. After the bogus chart Fox ran that added up to 193 percent, they sent out a memo saying they now have a zero tolerence policy for on screen screw ups. So after the new screw up with the chart that added up to 120 percent, Media Matters sent an open letter to Fox asking about the problem.
Fox News responded by saying there was no screw up, and they do not plan to do anything to anyone. So the zero tolerence policy is a fraud, they lied about it, and there is no zero tolerence policy.
Lauren Petterson, executive producer of Fox & Friends, told POLITICO that she sees no error in the graphic. And for that reason, there will be no reprimand of staff under the "zero tolerance" policy.
"We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."
Fox's position is absurd. In purporting to explain the poll results, Doocy claimed that 60 percent of respondents answered, "Somewhat likely." This is false. Only 24 percent of respondents said that; the "about 60 percent" figure actually combines the "somewhat likely" and "very likely" respondents. Doocy then suggested that a separate group of respondents -- 35 percent -- said, "Very likely." Doocy then attempted to add those two figures together, saying, "So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely."
But the falsehoods didn't stop there. As soon as Doocy finished misrepresenting the poll, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Eric Bolling explained that since the poll had been conducted before the apparent theft and disclosure of climate scientists' private emails, the percentage of people who think scientists are falsifying data might now be "substantially higher" -- perhaps "close to 100 percent."
This is completely false. The right-wing media started lying about the Climatic Research Unit emails on November 20th. The Rasmussen poll was conducted December 1st and 2nd. It included a question about the CRU emails. So, no, the current figure is probably not "substantially higher," and it is certainly not "close to 100 percent."
As Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt put it, "On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, 'zero tolerance' means unless we get caught."
The Tuesday 12-8-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 9, 2009 - 8:30am
The TPM was called President Obama's Ups & Downs. O'Reilly finally cited a Gallup job approval for President Obama, he said it was down to 47% and that it's the lowest ever for a President at this time. But I just checked and it's back to 50% today, yet O'Reilly never reported that, so as usual he was wrong. It was 47%, but now it's back to 50%, and those are daily tracking polls that change all the time.
Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss it. And btw, the economy is still bad, and the jobs are not back, so of course the Obama job approval numbers are down, but most likely they will come back up. O'Reilly is only reporting it to make Obama look bad, when it's not a big deal, get back to me in a year or two. And of course Colmes defended Obama, while Crowley slammed him. Billy did point out that the job losses are slowing, from 700,000 a month, to 11,000 a month, but Crowley did not care. Colmes pointed out it's a 3 day tracking poll and that it changes all the time, Billy asked if Obama is in trouble, Colmes said no, Crowley said yes, what a shocker, not. Colmes said you need to give Obama more time, and for once he is right. As usual Crowley had nothing good to say about Obama, or anything he does.
Then O'Reilly read from an op-ed by Cardinal Mahony that said he thinks illegal immigrants should get health care under the Obama health care plan. When this issue has already been discussed over and over, it's not in the bill, and it's not going to happen. So it's a total waste of time for O'Reilly to talk about it, yet he does anyway. And btw, I am as liberal as it gets and even I do not think illegal immigrants should get health care under the Obama plan, except for emergency care as needed in an emergency room. O'Reilly called it a controversy amd said illegals could still get it, when it's a total lie, and just right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly.
Billy had Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it. Dr. Hill told O'Reilly he is crazy, and that it will never happen. Then later in the segment O'Reilly even admitted he does not think it will ever get in the bill. So the whole segment was a fraud, it was only done by O'Reilly to make people think illegal immigrants will get the health care, when he knows that is a lie. The whole thing was a propaganda segment to imply that illegals will get the health care. And yet O'Reilly claims to be fair to Obama, yeah right, and I'm Babe Ruth too.
The next segment was with the far right king of right-wing propaganda Karl Rove, to talk about the Global Warming Summit. With no Democrat or Global Warming believer on to make it a fair and balanced debate. It was Karl (king of spin) Rove on all alone to give one side, the Republican side that says Global Warming is a fraud. O'Reilly played a video and then made fun of the Summit, he thinks the whole thing is a big joke, and so does Karl Rove. Rove said Global Warming might be real, but he is not sure.
Then he said Bush reduced Global Warming (when he was the President) more than anyone in the world, which is just ridiculous. And there is no need to even report any more of what Rove said because it's all lies. And btw, O'Reilly promoted the Rove website, which he never does for any Democrats. And once again O'Reilly said Gallup has the Obama job approval at 47%, when that is a lie, I am looking at it right now and it's 50%, as of 7:28pm Tuesday night, it's 50% approve, 45% disapprove. And even if O'Reilly taped his show earlier today he is still lying, because it's been 50% approve all day long.
Then John (far right nut) Stossel was on to talk about the bogus war on Christmas O'Reilly has every year in December. They cried about a few Companies that say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. There is no war on Christmas, it was all made up by O'Reilly to get ratings. Their complaint is that they say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, when some of them say both, or one or the other, who fricking cares. Stossel said even he does not care what they say, or don't say. Here is my opinion, I do not care what they say or don't say, as do most people. If someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas I do not give a damn.
Then the is it legal nonsense with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. And once again they talked about Tiger Woods, which is a tabloid news story that I refuse to report on. They also talked about the Amanda Knox murder conviction in Italy. Guilfoyle is not outraged at the conviction, but she said there are some red flags that need to be looked at. Wiehl said Knox would have been found not guilty in any court room in America. Guilfoyle sort of disagreed, and thinks the jury might have got it right. Wiehl thinks it will be reversed on appeal.
The last segment is what O'Reilly calls the great American news quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. This is a total waste of time worthless news quiz, taken by two Fox News employees, who are in the business of the news, and they still get half the questions wrong. It's not news, and has no news value at all. It is just another ridiculous O'Reilly Factor segment to get ratings, by having two Republicans take a stupid news quiz.
Then the pinheads and patriots and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails. Billy reads some bogus e-mails that are edited, and then he uses the rest of the time to promote his books and Factor gear.
O'Reilly Ignoring Gitmo Suicide Cover-Up By: Steve - December 8, 2009 - 1:30pm
On the night of June 9-10 in 2006, three prisoners held at the Guantanamo prison's Camp Delta died under mysterious circumstances. Military authorities responded by quickly ordering media representatives off the island and blocking lawyers from meeting with their clients. The first official military statements declared the deaths not just suicides -- but actually went so far as to describe them as acts of "asymmetrical warfare" against the United States.
Now a 58-page study prepared by law faculty and students at Seton Hall University in New Jersey starkly challenges the Pentagon's claims. It notes serious and unresolved contradictions within a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) report -- which was publicly released only in fragmentary form, two years after the fact -- and declares the military's internal investigation an obvious cover-up.
The new study exposes how the NCIS report purports that all three prisoners on the prison's Alpha Block did the following to commit suicide:
-- Braided a noose by tearing up their sheets and/or clothing.
-- Made mannequins of themselves so it would appear to the guards they were asleep in their cells.
-- Hung sheets to block the view into the cells.
-- Stuffed rags down their own throats well past a point which would have induced involuntary gagging.
-- Tied their own feet together.
-- Tied their own hands together.
-- Hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall and/or ceiling.
-- Climbed up on to the sink, put the noose around their necks and release their weight, resulting in death by strangulation.
The study also notes that there has never been any explanation of how the three bodies could have hung in the cells, undiscovered, for at least two hours, when the cells were supposed to be under constant supervision by roving guards and video cameras.
O'Reilly does a weekly legal segment with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, it's called is it legal. And yet not one time has O'Reilly discussed this study, or the clearly bogus suicides. From this study you can pretty much conclude they were hanged to death by someone, or they were killed in another way, then they faked the suicides to cover it up.
This is a real news story, about the very possible murder of three Gitmo prisoners, the kind of news story real journalists should be reporting. And yet O'Reilly has ignored the entire story. But he sure has plenty of time to report on Tiger Woods and party crashers at the White House every night.
The Monday 12-7-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 8, 2009 - 9:00am
The TPM was called Third Party Movement. Billy said a new Fox News poll shows that people hate the Democrats and the Republicans. Then he promoted Sarah Palin and said she would be a great leader for the new tea party. He also said if the tea party gets going it will mostly take votes away from Republicans, proving that it is mostly a right-wing political movement. When he has said in the past that it's not just Republicans.
Then Newt Gingrich was on to promote his book, and to talk politics. Billy said 41% of the people support a new political party, of course they do, I even support a new party, but not the tea party. So Gingrich agreed and said Palin would be a great choice for them. Proving they are both idiots, because only morons will vote for Palin. Then O'Reilly predicted Nancy Pelosi will be kicked out of the House Speaker job next year. O'Reilly said Palin was great in his interview, and said she held her own. Yeah in that fake set up of a softball interview, that she most likely rehearsed for. And btw, Newt predicted Obama will be a one term President, which is the same thing he said about Bill Clinton.
Gingrich said there is a massive amount of people who are enraged over what Obama and the Democrats are doing, and said the Republicans are going to take back over in 2010. Newt predicted Pelosi will also be gone next year. O'Reilly once again said Sarah Palin is the only person who can be the tea party leader, Newt disagreed. Then O'Reilly said 45% of the people hate Obama, with no proof, he just made it up. Newt said it's not just Obama, they hate Pelosi and Reid, etc. It was all right-wing bias, all the time, with no Democratic guest. And at the end of the segment O'Reilly once again promoted the Gingrich book.
Then O'Reilly had a segment on Hillary Clinton and the Afghanistan war policy. She said there is not a hard timeline, so now O'Reilly is mad about that. He said we can win in Afghanistan, but not with Obama unless he is more aggressive. So Billy thinks we can win it, just not with Obama as the President. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. The three of them all trashed Obama as they always do, Juan called it mush, and said they want to have it both ways. Talking about setting a timeline then saying it is not hard timeline.
And of course O'Reilly and Ham trashed Obama and said he was weak, O'Reilly gave him a D grade, yeah because he hates him. What a shocker, Republicans hate Obama, and that clearly includes O'Reilly. And since O'Reilly hates Obama that means he can not be objective when talking about him. Basically the three of them just trashed Obama for 4 minutes straight, with no Democrats to give the counterpoint. At the end of the segment O'Reilly made a joke about the West Point Cadets falling asleep during the Obama speech. And remember, this is called being fair to Obama. Putting two Republicans on to smear everything he does, and with O'Reilly it's three, and not a Democrat in sight to give the opposing view.
Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Global Warming. With nobody from the other side of the issue to make it a balanced segment. They talked about the Global Climate Summit. Billy asked Hume if he believes in Global Warming, he said not really. He believes the earth heats and cools, and he is not so sure it is caused by man. Even though the scientific evidence proves it. O'Reilly asked him if we should try to keep the planet as clean as possible, and Hume said not if it cost too much money when we are not sure if it's real.
What's funny is only Republicans deny Global Warming is real, and the right-wing scientists who get paid by Corporations to deny it. O'Reilly said he is skeptical about Global Warming, even though he has said for 10 years that he believes in Global Warming, now he says he is skeptical. He mentioned one weatherman who said the planet has not warmed in 10 years and said that is evidence to be skeptical. The guy (Joe Bastardi) is not even a Climatologist, he is just a local weatherman, yet O'Reilly believes him over the 4,000 Global Warming scientists in the world. And btw, you do not measure Global Warming 10 years at a time, and anyone who thinks you can is a total idiot.
The next segment was about Amanda Knox being found guilty of murder in Italy. Billy had a CBS reporter on to say she is innocent. Peter Van Sant was on to say she was innocent. He called it a farse, and claimed they basically forced a confession out of her with a 20 hour interrogation. Van Sant said they had no direst evidence, yet they convicted her anyway. I did not report on this a lot, because it's more of a story for Geraldo. O'Reilly and Van Sant want Hillary Clinton to go to Italy and get her released.
Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on, all alone with no Democratic guest of course. Bernie talked about Global Warming, and how the media is covering it. And for some strange reason they also talked about some cartoon about frosty the snowman. Billy also promoted the Goldberg book, which he never does with liberal guests. Billy called the frosty the snowman thing his favorite story of the night. Goldberg trashed the media for doing Global Warming stories, he said they confuse what they want with the facts.
Then they got to frosty, Billy loves this story for some perverted reason. On 12-1-09 CBS put a frosty the snowman satire cartoon on it's website. It was satire, stuff about frosty having a porn collection, etc. And it was comedy, yet O'Reilly and Goldberg flipped out. Goldberg called it pathetic, and said he was offended. It was like a south park version of frosty the snowman, and it seems to me like O'Reilly and Goldberg are the only two people who were offended by it. I did not even know about it until 5 minutes ago, and all they did was give it national media attention.
This whole Media bias segment with only Bernie Goldberg is basically ridiculous one sided right-wing garbage, it's two Republicans sitting around crying about the big bad liberal media, with nobody to provide the counterpoint or any evidence of conservative bias in the media, like at Fox. For the people that do not know, O'Reilly used to have somewhat of a liberal on with Bernie, Jane Hall. She was not a real liberal, but she was ok, O'Reilly fired her and never put anyone in her spot. Now it's just Bernie, with nobody from the left.
The last segment was the totally ridiculous and biased Reality Check. Billy plays clips of things a liberal said, then he tells you what he claims is a reality check on what they said. It's nonsense, biased, and one sided. Not to mention hardly a reality check, most of it is not reality, and there are very few checks. Then the whole segment was a clip of O'Reilly on GMA. The so-called reality check was just video of O'Reilly going on GMA as a guest, how the hell is that a reality check on anything. And what's really funny is O'Reilly hates all these people, he calls them part of the liberal media, but then he jumps at the chance to do their show so he can promote his stupid book.
O'Reilly even admitted he would only do GMA if they agreed to plug his book. So they agreed, and he was on this morning. O'Reilly gave Obama a D on health care, a B on jobs, and a C on Afghanistan. O'Reilly said Obama took too long to make the decision. Then he once again trashed Obama for his speech on Afghanistan. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited mostly fake Factor e-mails.
Iraq Operating Room Medic Book By: Steve - December 8, 2009 - 8:30am
Hey folks, when you have time go check out the Michael Anthony Iraq War book Mass Casualties. He is the youngest Iraq War Veteran to write a book, basically he is a poor college kid who needs to sell some books about his story.
Last October he returned home from a tour of duty in Iraq as an Operating Room Medic with the Army reserves. Upon returning home he began writing a memoir of his time in Iraq.
"Anthony's memoir is not about the politics of Iraq. Instead it takes us deep inside the war, inside and outside the operating room, the barracks, the talk of the soldiers, the feeling of the situation. It joins the body of war literature in a unique and powerful way."
-Howard Zinn, Civil Rights Leader, Historian
Conservative Blog Attacks O'Reilly For Using Jesus By: Steve - December 7, 2009 - 3:30pm
Paul Cooper at the conservative David Horowitz blog wrote about O'Reilly using the baby Jesus when he attacked the American Humanist Association atheist ad campaign on buses.
O'REILLY: "Why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He's just a baby. How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It's just a baby."
And Paul did not like it. Here are some quotes from his article:
What is your favorite annual Christmas tradition? I think Bill O'Reilly's is battling it out with supposed Christmas haters in the secular battle ground of the holiday season. It's that time of year again: War on Christmas time.
"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake." That is the message of the American Humanist Association's (AHA) ad campaign on buses in some cities in America. And those two questions really bother O'Reilly.
O'Reilly has always billed himself as a "culture warrior." He believes he must stand up against secularists who fight against the Judeo-Christian roots of American culture. I have no problem with O'Reilly fighting that battle, but sometimes I have a problem with how he does it. His most recent skirmish with the AHA doesn't do Christians any favor, in fact, I believe he demeans us.
Do I think the AHA is attacking Jesus, because they are jealous of Christians during Christmas time? Of course not. The AHA wants everyone to believe you can be good without God.
We celebrate the Almighty God when we celebrate the birth of Jesus. It deserves real discussion and not watered down antagonistic ads by AHA or silly statements by O'Reilly.
And btw folks, this whole "war on Christmas" thing by O'Reilly is a fraud, because there is no war on Christmas. O'Reilly cherry picks a few isloated examples of what he calls a war on Christmas, and then implies it's everywhere. Basically O'Reilly does it to drum up ratings during the month of December when there is a ratings drop because of Christmas and New Years.
Earth to O'Reilly, one school deciding to not sell Christmas items is not a war on Christmas. One atheist group buying ads on buses is not a war on Christmas, they are saying you do not need to worship a God to be happy, so even if you do not believe in God have fun during the holidays. It's not an attack on Religion, God, Jesus, or Christmas. Except in the warped mind of Bill O'Reilly, who simply wants to start a fake war on Christmas for ratings.
The Tea Party Movement Is Conservative By: Steve - December 7, 2009 - 9:30am
Do not be fooled by these tea party groups, they are actually Republicans who moved away from the Republican party because Bush and Cheney made the Republican party look bad, and they do not think they are far enough to the right. They are basically Republicans who now claim to be in the tea party.
For proof of that just look at the way Fox News promotes their protests, look at all the right-wing special interest groups that plan the protests, look at how you see nothing but hate signs against Obama at the protests, look at how they only disrupted town hall meetings run by Democrats, and look at how they plan to sponsor a Republican debate.
Tea Parties To Sponsor Republican Debates In Virginia Congressional Election
As ThinkProgress reported, Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project and the nationwide Tea Parties are inspiring far-right candidates to run for office and challenge Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently pure. Now, Tea Parties are even officially sponsoring electoral debates:
The TEA Party grassroots organizations in the 5th District announced Friday they will sponsor three debates for candidates seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Rep. Tom Perriello. (D-VA)
The debates will be scheduled from January to March in the Danville, Charlottesville and Lynchburg [Virginia] areas. The debates will precede the GOP's nomination process, whether that is a primary or a convention. TEA Party leaders are calling for a convention.
Danville area Tea Party leader Nigel Coleman said that "people will see the growth of the TEA Party movement and its effect on the political landscape" in the 2010 election. The 5th district in Virginia has been the site of particularly controversial Tea Party activity, such as when Coleman's group had to cancel plans to burn Periello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in effigy after getting a lot of flack for it.
Basically they are trying to get far right Conservatives who support Beck and the tea party agenda elected to Congress. Who will most likely be worse than the Republicans they replace.
You should notice that none of the tea party candidates are Democrats or liberals, they are all far right Conservatives that are fed up with how moderate some of the Republican party has been. They believe people like John McCain are what's wrong with the Republican party, so they want to replace all the Republicans with far right Conservatives.
Glenn Beck-Inspired Tea Party Candidates Step Up To Oust Veteran GOP Lawmakers
Glenn Beck, who has waged a conspiratorial, hateful campaign against liberals and his other political enemies all year, has been galvanizing his supporters to run for office. Last week, conservative activist Eric Forcade announced that he is running in the Republican primary to unseat longtime Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL). In explaing his reason for running, Forcade said he was inspired by the "values that have been popularized by Glenn Beck."
Beck's 9/12 project and its closely related tea parties have inspired a number of other challengers to Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently pure:
-- Phil Troyer, an attorney and former staffer to Republican Dan Coats and Richard Lugar, is challenging incumbent Rep. Mark Souder. An avid tea party supporter, Troyer has attacked Souder as a big spending liberal. Rachel Grubb, who is involved with Beck's 9/12 project, is also challenging Souder.
-- Matt Sakalosky, a businessman who is a member of Beck's 9/12 project, is challenging Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE).
-- Earlier this year, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) had the audacity to criticize Beck. Beck has marshaled his supporters into a crowded primary to take out Inglis. One of the challengers, college professor Christina Jeffrey, directly cites Inglis criticism of Beck as part of the reason she is running.
-- Liz Lauber, a former aide to tea party leader and corporate lobbyist Dick Armey, is challenging Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO).
-- Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) is being challenged by Jason Sager, who said he is running because of Brown-Waite's support for moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava, the opponent of the Beck endorsed Doug Hoffman.
-- Even NRCC Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), charged with recruiting Republicans to challenge House Democrats in 2010, is facing a contested primary. Conservative activist David Smith says he will rely on the tea party movement to bring down Sessions.
In addition, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who Beck counts as an enemy because of his former climate change and immigration views, is potentially facing a serious challenge from current radio show host and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). Hayworth has found a following within the tea party movement.
If you vote for these far right tea party candidates, you will see America move even farther to the right of Bush and Cheney, which is pretty scary. Do not forget what Bush, Cheney, and the far right did to America in 8 short years. And remember that Beck supported tea party candidates would be even worse than that.
And Bill O'Reilly supported the tea party protests as much as anyone. O'Reilly defended the tea party protests, and even claimed it was a grassroots movement with liberals and conservatives, when he knows that is a lie, and that it's 99% conservatives, with all right-wing special interest groups involved. You can not name one liberal group or liberal candidate involved with any tea party group or protest, none, zero.
Did You Know Bill O'Reilly Is A Townhall.com Columnist By: Steve - December 6, 2009 - 9:50am
O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone. As he writes a December 5, 2009 article called "Have Yourself a Godless Little Christmas." For one of the most Conservative websites on the internet, his article even got 4 stars out of 5, from their Conservative readers.
And not only that, he is listed as a Conservative Columnist on their website. He even has his own page.
How many nonpartisan independents do you know that write for townhall.com, none that I know of, they are all Conservatives. Here is a partial list of some other townhall.com columnists.
Ann Coulter, Mike Gallagher, Mary K. Ham, Amanda Carpenter, Hugh Hewitt, Tony Blankley, just to name a few. All Conservatives, not one independent. The O'Reilly page there is even listed under Conservative Political News. It says this:
Bill O'Reilly, Conservative, Political News.
Which is just more proof that O'Reilly is lying about being a nonpartisan independent. Nonpartisan independents do not have a show on Fox, write for townhall.com, sell their books at the conservativebookclub.com website, support 99% Republican issues, love Sarah Palin, hate Obama, and have 99% Republican guests on their show. Then lie about it, and tell you to watch him because he is a truth teller, while he is lying about being a nonpartisan independent.
O'Reilly Ignoring Right-Wing Newspaper Failure By: Steve - December 6, 2009 - 9:30am
Remember back a few months ago, O'Reilly said all the newspapers in America are failing because they have a left-wing bias, and the people are tired of it. Other than the fact that is nonsense, they are failing because of the economy, and because most people get their news from the internet, or tv news shows. Not to mention the majority of newspapers endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000, and it was about 50/50 for Obama and McCain in the 2008 election.
Generally, older people read newspapers, younger people do not, they mainly get their news from the internet and cable tv. Those older people are dying off, so newspapers are in decline for many reasons, not because they have a left-wing bias as O'Reilly claimed.
And now we have even more proof O'Reilly was spinning like a top. The Washington Times, the right wing newspaper arm of the Republican Party, announced Wednesday that it is laying off at least 40 percent of its staff and shifting mainly to free distribution.
How did O'Reilly report it, did he report they are going under because they have a right-wing bias, ummmmm, not exactly. Billy never said a word, never mentioned it, nothing, zip, nada. Never wrote a TPM about it, never wrote a column about it, never had a segment about it, nothing, ever.
O'Reilly Goon Squad To Visit Tacoma Judges By: Steve - December 6, 2009 - 9:00am
The Daily Weekly blog in Seattle is reporting that O'Reilly plans to send his goon squad, to harass the Washington judges that set bail for the cop killer Maurice Clemmons.
Four police officers get gunned down in cold blood on Sunday and, being humans, we want to know where to point fingers. The answer, of course, is right at Maurice Clemmons, the disturbed former convict from Tacoma who started going crazy last May. But he's not the only one responsible.
Then Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee commuted Clemmons sentence in 2000, essentially letting him walk. Arkansas made a lackluster attempt at getting him sent back this year when he violated his parole, something Pierce County is guilty of too. Family members knew he had a gun and heard him make a Thanksgiving promise to murder police.
The point is: Life's complicated. Which is why it must be so nice to be Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly, a man for whom a simple answer always exists.
As Blatherwatch reports, O'Reilly has now promised to send his henchman to Tacoma to demand answers of the two judges who set Clemmons bail. Apparently they won't speak to him directly. Which isn't a surprise, since judges don't make it a habit to explain decisions like this.
So nevermind that, as Rick Anderson wrote yesterday, anyone who knows the criminal justice system "will tell you that the necessary records are almost always incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable, and decisions such as the release of Clemmons are typically made without full knowledge of the potential threat."
Because this isn't about getting a response from the judges. Or finding that simple answer to a question that really doesn't provide one. It's about, well, let's let Blatherwatch tell it.
So he'll send someone to yell gotcha questions at these guys in a parking lot or in their driveways. They won't answer-but no matter, it's more of a punishment for ignoring O'Reilly than a truth-seeking mission.
Ding, ding, ding, give Blatherwatch a cupie doll. It's all about O'Reilly punishing them for not answering his questions, and refusing to go on his show. The fact is, those judges are not to blame, Maurice Clemmons is to blame. And Huckabee is not to blame either. Because judges go by what they know at the time when they make a ruling, they can not see into the future and know what someone will do years later.
There are two problems here, both with Bill O'Reilly. One, he blames the judges when the blame is on Clemmons, he pulled the trigger and killed the cops. Two, the hypocrisy and the double standard from O'Reilly for saying Huckabee is not to blame, but the Washington judges are. If you use that argument, Huckabee is at fault too. And both arguments are ridiculous, because neither Huckabee of the Washington judges are to blame.
Maurice Clemmons killed four cops, he is to blame and nobody else. I believe O'Reilly is only doing this garbage for ratings, he knows it he stirs it up he will get national publicity and ratings. Then his ego is so big if you refuse to talk to him he sends the goon squad to ambush you in a parking lot.
While at the same time complaining about paparazzi that do the very same thing to celebrities. Billy claims it is a violation of their privacy, when the paparazzi shove a camera in the face of a celebrity with an ambush interview. It's total hypocrisy, and a massive double standard, from O'Reilly. Billy has even called for privacy laws to keep the paparazzi from doing those ambush interviews, which shows he is not too smart because it would also put his ambush goon squad out of business.
In fact, O'Reilly is such a massive hypocrite, his name should be listed under hypocrite in the dictionary.
Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Ignored By: Steve - December 5, 2009 - 10:40am
Notice that Bill O'Reilly (who claims to be fair to Obama) never mentions all the good news about the economy, wall street, jobs, unemployment, the 3rd quarter GDP increase, etc. Because it all makes Obama look good, and it shows that his stimulus bill and his economic policy is working.
Here are some good news for Obama and America headlines that O'Reilly has not once reported.
-- Nation's jobless rate falls slightly - Washington Post
The U.S. unemployment rate edged down to 10 percent in November from 10.2 percent the month before, offering fresh evidence that the economy is stabilizing and that employers may soon stop shedding workers.
-- Jobless rate lifts hope of a rebound - Dallas Morning News
A surprising drop in the nation's unemployment rate and far fewer job losses last month raised hopes Friday for a sustained economic recovery.
-- Unemployment report leaves experts optimistic - Chicago Sun-Times
Nonfarm payrolls fell by just 11,000 last month, a sign that companies are beginning to hang on to workers. In October, 111,000 jobs vanished; analysts had expected a much higher number of jobs lost in November -- as many as 130,000 or more.
-- Unexpected drop in jobless rate sparks optimism - AP
Two years of steep job cuts all but ended last month, unexpectedly pulling down the unemployment rate and raising hopes for a lasting economic recovery.
-- Stocks climb as employers cut fewer jobs - AP
The Dow Jones US Stock Market Index - which measures nearly all US-based companies - ended at 11231.20, up 183.08, or 1.7 percent.
-- Stocks rally on jobs report - CNNMoney.com
On the New York Stock Exchange, winners beat losers three to two.
Now think about this, when Obama took office in February, the DOW was around 8,000, it then dropped to about 7,000, O'Reilly, Cavuto, and all the Republicans in America blamed Obama, even though he had just took over and had not done anything yet. They blamed him anyway, and yet since then the DOW has went up 3,500 points to about 10,500, and O'Reilly has not said a word, or given Obama any credit for the big increase.
And I could show you 10 more headlines just like those. O'Reilly has ignored it all, and not reported one word of it. Instead he does a gloom and doom show saying the country is on the edge of a cliff, as things are improving. It's like watching the twilight zone, and O'Reilly is in a different world from the rest of us. And if all this good news was happening under a Republican President, O'Reilly would report it every night and say what a great job the President is doing.
But when it happens with a Democratic President O'Reilly just ignores it and reports the country is going to hell. All while he claims he is a nonpartisan independent who has been fair to Obama. If that's being fair to Obama, I'm Jesus.
The Friday 12-4-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 5, 2009 - 9:40am
The TPM was called America In Decline. Billy said the massive spending by President Bush and Obama has severely weakened America. Then he gave some examples of what happened, and he admitted the Iraq war badly damaged the country. He said President Obama has accelerated government spending to a record degree. Which is not true, it's right-wing spin. Obama has done two things, he passed a $787 Billion dollar stimulus bill, and he decided to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
But only about $300 Billion of the $787 has been spent so far, and maybe another $200 Billion has been spent on other things. So Obama has actually spent about $500 Billion, the rest of the deficit was due to Bush. So O'Reilly is spinning when he says Obama has spent our money to a record degree, because 80% of the deficit was caused by Bush. Then Billy said the incredible government spending has got to stop, even though it is needed to bring us out of the recession. O'Reilly even supported the stimulus plan, now he wants to stop it before it is even spent. And if we do stop it and freeze all Government spending we will dip right back into a recission, and unemployment will go back up right when it is starting to go down.
O'Reilly is a right-wing idiot that has no clue how to recover from a recession, or get the unemployment numbers down. Things are improving, but he never reports any of it. The Obama stimulus is working, even though only about 40% of it has been put in place. Unemployment claims are down, employers only cut 11,000 jobs last month, the actual unemployment number went down from 10.2 to 10.0, the stock market is up over 10,000, and the 3rd quarter GDP was up 2.8 percent. And O'Reilly IGNORES IT ALL, becaue it makes Obama look good, and it shows that his economic plan is working.
Then he does half the show on how, in his mind America is doomed and will fall apart. It's nothing but insane crazy talk from O'Reilly the right-wing idiot. It's all garbage, when the economy recovers the deficit will drop, jobs will come back, Obama will lower spending, and the country will be fine. O'Reilly is just doing this doom and gloom act to make Obama look bad, while ignoring all the good news about the economic recovery.
Then O'Reilly had the nut job Lou Dobbs on to agree with him, and that is exactly what old Lou did. Crazy Lou said the spending simply has to stop because the price has risen to too high a level and the resources are not unlimited. He said we are in big trouble, and that the dollar is down 19% since March and we still have more than 30 million Americans who are unemployed or under employed. Then the right-wing nut said we have to find leadership to define our challenges and to lay out solutions. Implying Obama is not a good leader, so we have to find someone who is. The usual right-wing garbage, which is not true, just a biased opinion. And neither one of these right-wing idiots say one word about the economy improving.
O'Dummy said we have a corrupt media that is basically pounding the drum for more spending and more entitlements. And the American people themselves don't pay attention or don't want to sacrifice. He even said 80% of the media is corrupt, and of course you know he does not put Fox News in that 80%, when they are more corrupt and biased than anyone. Then O'Reilly had two liberals on, Ellis Henican and Nancy Skinner. They both told O'Reilly he was nuts with his doom and gloom end of America nonsense.
Skinner said things are going in the right direction, and that it will turn out ok in a year or two. Henican said he was actually feeling kind of hopeful. He admitted we have challenges, and said we are finally turning this big battleship in a positive direction. We are dealing with the global war on terror and we are heading in the right direction. Then O'Jerkoff accused Henican and Skinner of being Pollyannas. Billy said they are operating on hope, like Obama's campaign. And that they are ignoring the dire circumstance of the dollar and the dire circumstance of Iran. What a shocker, O'Reilly disagreed with both liberals, not.
And btw folks, remember back to when Bush was in office and O'Reilly defended everything he did. When democrats talked doom and gloom under Bush, O'Reilly hammered them for putting America down, and called them un-American. He said we are a strong nation and we will recover, as we always do. Now that Obama (the Democrat) is in office, suddenly he is the doom and gloom guy, which is exactly what he hammered Democrats for when Bush was in power. Proving once again what a right-wing spin doctor he is.
Then O'Reilly had a crazy war on Christmas segment with the right-wing nut Jesse Watters, and a segment with Geraldo about some mugger getting 75 years for mugging old ladies. And I will not report on it because it's not news, especially the war on Christmas garbage. Earth to O'Reilly, if ONE Mayor, or ONE city does not have Christmas lights, or say Christmas, or sell candy canes, or whatever, THAT'S NOT A WAR YOU FRICKING MORON. It's 1/10th of 1% of the country, and it's not even close to a war. Now if half the country does it, get back to me, idiot.
The next segment was at your Beck and call, with the totally crazy far right nut job Glenn Beck. O'Reilly puts this far right nut on his show every week to discuss politics, etc. Here is my question, WHY? Beck basically agreed with O'Reilly, but he said we should have a 2% value added tax. Beck said if we do not have it We are going to be over as a nation. Which is just total doom and gloom right-wing insanity. If one person believes that nonsense write to me, I bet nobody does. It's crazy talk, the country will be fine in a year or two, and things are already improving. Billy and Beck just refuse to admit it. Because it would make Obama look good, and destroy their doom and gloom talking points.
And btw, O'Reilly predicted there will be a big change in the country next November. He thinks the people are going to vote all the Democrats out of Congress. When they just voted them in after 8 years of Republican rule that ruined the country, I guess he forgot all that already. He thinks that if we just vote a bunch of Republicans back in they will fix the country. Earth to O'Idiot, WE JUST TRIED THAT, WE HAD 8 YEARS OF BUSH AND CHENEY, YOU MORON. And look what happened, Bush started two wars we can not get out of, and bankrupted the country with his (hands off) let the corporations and wall street do whatever they want economic policy. Did you forget all that, the people did not forget.
And the last segment was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Courtney Friel. The dumbest thing of the week is this segment, lol. It's garbage, O'Reilly, Gutfeld, and Friel sit around and mock what someone said on a video, and 99% of the time they go after what a liberal said. It's biased one sided garbage, and not news. What they talked about is not even worth reporting.
Then the pinheads and patriots and the lame Factor e-mails. Now get this, this is for real, O'Reilly named Cody, the pooch who greets customers at a gas station in Clearwater Florida the patriot. He named a dog who sits around a gas station a patriot. My God is that ridiculous or what, why not name a wounded soldier who was in Iraq or Afghanistan a patriot, or a fireman, or a cop, naming a gas station dog the patriot is nonsense.
And one last thing, O'Reilly has still not said one word about all the good economic news that makes Obama look good. Because it shows the stimulus is working, and it shows that Obama has a plan that is turning the country around. It may not be happening as fast as people want, including me, but it is working. And O'Reilly will not say a word about it, or say anything good about Obama.
O'Reilly Ignoring NATO Troop Increase Story By: Steve - December 4, 2009 - 8:40am
Since Obama got elected President O'Reilly has hammered him for being too weak, he said it will not do any good, and that he should be tough like Bush, Reagan, Churchill, etc. Many times liberal guests have said Obama is using diplomacy, something Bush did not do, and that it would get us help from other Countries in fighting the war on terrorism.
O'Reilly said that is bull, and the other Countries would not help Obama. Then O'Reilly even criticized Obama for not getting other Countries to help us, and he said Obama is not as powerful as he tought, after Bush is the one who pissed them all off. So yesterday NATO said Obama has convinced 20 more Countries to send troops to Afghanistan, as many as 5,000, or more.
20 NATO Countries to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
NATO says more than 20 countries plan to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, following US President Obama's increased commitment to the war.
12-3-09 -- NATO says at least 20 countries plan to increase their troop levels in Afghanistan, following U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of a 30,000-troop boost to the war-torn nation.
NATO spokesman James Appathurai told reporters NATO members had shown a clear determination to support President Barack Obama's strategy in Afghanistan - not just through rhetoric, but by dispatching more troops.
"I can confirm we have now well over 20 countries that are indicating or have already indicated they intend to increase the amounts of forces they have in the country - in Afghanistan. This is on top of the 38,000 (troops from other NATO members and allies) that are already there, taking into account a doubling over the past two years," he said.
O'Reilly never said a word about it, he ignored the entire story and acted like it never happened. They even specifically said they did it to support President Obama, something they refused to do when Bush was the President.
Not only did O'Reilly ignore the story, he did not mention he was wrong, when he said Obama would not be able to get the rest of the world to send more troops. And you can bet your ass that if they had not decided to send more troops, O'Reilly sure as hell would have reported that. And btw, I wrote this blog yesterday (Thursday - 12-3-09) knowing that O'Reilly would not report it, that is how well I know him.
Update: Today (Friday) it was reported NATO would send 7,000 troops to Afghanistan, and I will bet O'Reilly does not report that either. Not to mention, he has also ignored the new economic numbers that make Obama look good. The new unemployment claims dropped to 400,000, the unemployment rate dropped from 10.2 to 10.0, the economy added 1.6 million new jobs since Obama took office, and O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it. Because he ignores all news that makes it look like Obama is doing a good job, it's called partisan bias from a right-wing spin doctor.
Former Fox Host Admits Right-Wing Bias By: Steve - December 4, 2009 - 8:20am
In February 2008, Eric Burns, who had worked at Fox News since the network launched in 1996 and served as the closest person Fox had to an ombudsman as the host of Fox News Watch, was told he would be terminated within the next two months.
Since his firing, for which he said he was not given a reason, Burns has largely avoided discussing his former employer. In a September 2008 blog post about MSNBC's opinion shows, Burns wrote that Fox is a topic for another article, and another writer.
Burns has ended his Fox News silence, writing on the Huffington Post that he used to work for a "right-wing partial news, but mostly opinion network." In particular, Burns takes aim at Glenn Beck, who he calls a problem of taste as well as ethics:
I speak out now because it is the time of year when one is supposed to count blessings. I have several. Among them is that I do not have to face the ethical problem of sharing an employer with Glenn Beck.
Actually, Beck is a problem of taste as well as ethics. He laughs and cries; he pouts and giggles; he makes funny faces and grins like a cartoon character; he makes earnest faces yet insists he is a clown; he cavorts like a victim of St. Vitus's Dance. His means of communicating are, in other words, so wide-ranging as to suggest derangement as much as versatility.
Comparing Beck to Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and John Birch, Burns asks himself what I would have done if I worked at Fox now. Noting that Jane Hall - who had regularly appeared on his Fox Show - recently left the network partially because of Beck, Burns admits that he might not have acted as admirable as she did:
I ask myself what I would have done if I worked at Fox now. Would I have quit, as the estimable Jane Hall did? Once a panelist on my program, Hall departed for other reasons as well, but Beck was a particular source of embarrassment to her, even though they never shared a studio, perhaps never even met.
I think...I think the answer to my question does not do me proud. I think, more concerned about income than principle, I would have continued to work at Fox, but spent my spare time searching avidly for other employment. I think I would not have been as admirable as Jane Hall.
Basically Eric Burns admits Fox has a right-wig bias, he just did not have enough integrity to quit because he needed the paycheck. I wonder how many more people at Fox admit it, and just sty there for the money. And notice that O'Reilly has not said a word about any of this, yet he sure has plenty of time to report on Tiger Woods, and do those stupid body language segments.
The Thursday 12-3-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 4, 2009 - 8:00am
The TPM was called Your Money At Risk. O'Reilly called the Obama jobs forum a dog and pony show. Then he gave Obama some advice on how to fix the economy. He called for a Government spending freeze for 2 years, wow, never gonna happen. Billy also called for a 2% federal sales tax, never gonna happen. And of course he said Obama should not raise taxes, or Capitol Gains taxes, which only go to the wealthy. Yeah I am sure Obama will listen to that, not.
The far right Neil Cavuto was on to discuss it, he told O'Reilly the 2% federal sales tax is a bad idea. Cavuto is opposed to any tax of any kind, no matter what the reason. And of course no Democrat was on to give the other side, none, just Cavuto. They basically spent 3 minutes arguing about the 2% federal sales tax. Then O'Reilly called the Obama jobs forum a complete waste of time, and said Cavuto has a stupid pink tie, Cavuto said he charged it to the Factor. Billy said no problem, because his show is big enough to afford it. Cavuto also said the jobs forum was not a complete waste of time. Then they argued over who has been more fair to Obama, O'Reilly or Cavuto. Billy claims he has been more fair, and he asked Cavuto why Obama has not called O'Reilly to be his advisor, Cavuto said because he hates you, haha.
And btw, on his website yesterday (before the show aired) O'Reilly had this teaser for the top story, "President Obama is hosting the so-called jobs forum." Proving that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because he would never call it a so-called jobs forum if George W. Bush were the President.
Then the far right nut job Laura Ingraham was on for her weekly segment. And of course she just hammered Obama and everything he is doing, no matter what he does she hates it, because she is a biased right-wing Republican, duh. They spent half the segment on the lame White House party crasher story. O'Reilly and Ingraham are mad that Obama will not let his social secretary testify to Congress about it. Ingraham said it was sort of ok that Obama sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but she hates the timeline. When Obama has even said it's not a hard timeline, and that it will be evaluated in June of 2011. No mention of the 5,000 (or more) NATO troops Obama got the rest of the world to send in, not a word.
And take note of this, if you want more evidence of the bias from O'Reilly, watch when Republicans who have websites are on. O'Reilly puts the text of their website address on the screen as they talk, but he never does that when Democrats are on.
Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors were on, Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover. And of course there are no left-wing Culture Warriors. They cried about atheists taking out anti-God ads on buses, I kid you not. Hey Billy, it's America right, land of the free and home of the brave. So why do you have a problem with them buying ads. The three right-wing bible thumpers sat around and cried about the bus ads.
Somehow O'Reilly made it about Christmas, and he talked about the baby Jesus. Some crap about them hating Jesus, which is ridiculous, they don't hate Jesus, they just do not believe in religion. Billy said they are just jealous. Hoover called O'Reilly crazy for saying they are just jealous that they do not have a God. O'Reilly also cried about models in a store window changing clothes for people to see. Billy said Sachs was doing it, and he was wrong, the Culture Warriors had to correct him, and Billy said he was sorry for getting it wrong. O'Reilly and Carlson were offended, Hoover was not. It's just models stripping down to their underwear in a store window, which is no worse than the victoria's secret fashion show that was on tv for Gods sake, lol.
Then the right-wing Megyn Kelly was back for her weekly segment, her first one since having a baby. Kelly talked about the Navy Seal detainee abuse case, she said it's ridiculous. But she admitted there is a 3rd party witness, but that it should be handled behind closed doors. They are facing court-martial for abuse of a prisoner, but O'Reilly thinks it should just go away with no charges. Billy said if there is not a 3rd party witness and they go forward, he will get involved in the case, whatever that means. Then they talked about the Washington judges who let the cop killer go. O'Reilly blamed the judges, Kelly said it was the killers fault, and did not blame the judges. She basically disagreed with O'Reilly, and agreed with what the judges did. They also talked about Tiger Woods, don't care.
The last segment was the totally one sided and ridiculous "no reality" Reality Check. O'Reilly calls it a reality check, but it's not. It's Billy giving his opinion of what some liberal said in a 10 second video clip that he cherry picked, which is just his opinion, and not a reality check. Basically it's just more one sided right-wing biased opinion from O'Reilly, passed off as a reality check. It's called putting your spin on what someone else said, which is what O'Reilly is very good at.
Then the pinheads and patriots, and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw folks, when you see some of the e-mails O'Reilly puts on the air you should know a lot of them are highly edited. I have seen 80 word e-mails sent to him that were edited down to 10 words, and after he was done with the editing, they looked nothing like what was sent to him.
They removed everything negative about O'Reilly, and made it look like it was a positive e-mail, when it was the exact opposite. They hacked it up so bad you could not even tell it was a negative e-mail. take note that not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, as in none.
The Wednesday 12-2-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 3, 2009 - 9:20am
The TPM was called Obama's Speech One Day Later. Billy said that even some people on the left did not like Obama setting a timeline for withdrawing from Afghanistan. O'Reilly also said the 30,000 more troops will not win it, and Billy said the timeline is not a big deal to him. The biggest complaint from O'Reilly is the lack of passion from Obama, then he played a short movie clip of George C. Scott as Patton, and Billy said Obama should be more like Patton. As usual it was just another TPM where O'Reilly attacked Obama. And btw, most people on the left opposed the troop increase, but have no problem with the 2011 withdrawal timeline, as most people on the right supported the troop increase, and opposed the timeline.
Then Dick (the crazy far right idiot) Morris was on to discuss Obama and his speech. Morris said the Obama approval on Afghanistan will go up, but he does not think his overall approval numbers will go up. Morris also said the left-wing base did not like Obama sending more troops, and for once he is probably right about that. Billy said he does not like the ideolouges, when he is one, he just refuses to admit it, so basically he hates himself.
O'Reilly said the far-left cares more about health care and social issues, and for once he is probably right about that. Then both O'Reilly and Morris hammered Obama for his lack of passion in the Afghanistan speech. As I wrote before, O'Reilly wanted to see a speech from Obama like George C. Scott gave as Patton in a damn movie. Earth to O'Reilly, that's a movie, this is real life. The whole segment was just more one sided biased garbage with two right-wing idiots, and not one liberal anywhere to give the counterpoint.
Then O'Reilly did an entire segment hammering Nancy Pelosi and Congress for spending too much. Which is ridiculous, because we are in a recession, and you have to spend to get out of it. Then once you get the economy back on track, you cut the spending, which is what they will do. Yet O'Reilly cries like a baby about the spending, hey pal, where were you when Bush was spending our money like a drunken sailor, nowhere that's where, so shut the hell up you partisan fool.
O'Reilly said it was shocking how much money they are spending. He had Amanda Carpenter on to discuss it, and of course no Democrat on to give the counterpoint. The whole thing was ridiculous, because O'Reilly attacked members of Congress for simply spending money they get for the budget to run their office. And notice that O'Reilly never said a word about any of this stuff when Bush and the Republicans were in charge, and doing the exact same things. They mostly attacked Pelosi for spending the money she is given to run her office, it was just a worthless partisan attack by O'Reilly and one of his crazy right-wing friends.
The next segment was more Tiger Woods nonsense, it's only done to get ratings, which is pretty much all O'Reilly cares about. I refuse to report it anymore, except to say that it's a tabloid news story. And O'Reilly only reports on it because it will get him higher ratings with his moron viewers. It's a total waste of tv time on a so-called news show, and it should only be reported by the tabloid/Gossip reporters like Geraldo and Nancy Grace. O'Reilly had two advertising consultants on to discuss it. Which I will not report on.
Then the ridiculous body language segment, that I refuse to report on because it is not news, and has no news value at all. It's just another garbage segment for O'Reilly to put a blonde bimbo on so he can get higher ratings, and so he can have her smear Democrats with her biased body language readings.
Then the unfunny has been that never was, Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals like Obama, Pelosi, Frank, etc. What's important to note here is that O'Reilly does not have a liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives, he only has Dennis Miller on to make jokes about liberals. You should also note the hypocrisy, because O'Reilly complains when Letterman or other comedians make jokes about Sarah Palin, while he has Dennis Miller do the very same thing he complains about on the Factor. It's the ultimate hypocrisy. I will also say that Miller hammered Obama for his Afghanistan speech, as expected, he said Obama is a good speaker but he does not say anything. Miller also killed the O'Reilly spin for crying about the money Pelosi spends, he said he has no problem with it, haha.
The last segment was another ridiculous waste of tv time, it's called did you see that. O'Reilly has two more Republicans that work for Fox comment on videos they have seen in the past week or so. It's just more tabloid garbage to get ratings with Jane Skinner. They cried about a PETA ad that NBC banned on Thanksgiving, and a video showing Marylin Monroe smoking pot. And btw, just about every network turned the PETA ad down, including the Fox Network.
And of course O'Reilly reported on the naked model on a magazine cover holding a cross, he was freaked out that she would dare to use a religious cross like that. Earth to Billy, it's 2009, not 1959, come back to the real world, moron. Notice that no Democrats are allowed in this segment. And take note that the segment has no news value at all. It's called get ratings by having another blonde bimbo from Fox News on.
Then the even more ridiculous pinheads and patriots, and the cherry picked highly edited Factor e-mails. Billy just uses this last segment to spin out his hand picked very edited e-mails, and mostly it's done to promote his books and the totally lame Factor Gear. Notice that not one Democrat was on the show to discuss the Obama speech, it was all Republicans.
O'Reilly Used Republican Talking Points On Obama Speech By: Steve - December 3, 2009 - 9:10am
O'Reilly claims he is a nonpartisan independent, with a no spin zone, who never uses Republican talking points. Then he used the Republican talking points after the Obama speech on Afghanistan. And here is the proof.
In their post-speech analysis of President Obama's December 1st speech outlining his Afghanistan strategy at the U.S. Military Academy, conservative pundits complained that the speech didn't sound like speeches previously delivered by political figures including George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, and Henry V.
Charles Krauthammer: "It's not exactly the kind of speech that you would have heard from Henry V or Churchill."
Sean Hannity: "I didn't hear Winston Churchill, I didn't hear Ronald Reagan, I didn't hear George Bush."
Victor Hanson: "Not Winston Churchill. Somewhere in this cerebral but flat speech there is the good news that we won't quit Afghanistan - at least for 18 months - but otherwise it was the sort of talk a college provost gives to the faculty at the September back-to-school assembly."
Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner: Obama "needed to display some Churchillian grit, but there was none on offer."
Bill O'Reilly: "I did not see a Winston Churchill-type performance," adding that the speech was "OK, but not exactly the Gettysburg Address."
And there you have it, O'Reilly said he never uses Republican talking points, except he does, so he is not only a liar, he is a biased Republican liar who uses the exact same talking points all the other Republicans used.
O'Reilly Insanity On The Obama Afghanistan Speech By: Steve - December 3, 2009 - 9:00am
Following President Obama's speech addressing the war in Afghanistan, O'Reilly criticized Obama for supposedly not "saying, 'Look, these are bad guys. We're fighting evil" and for not warning Americans that "if we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed all over the world."
FACT: Obama referred to Al Qaeda as "extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam to justify the slaughter of innocents," he called the Taliban "a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement," and he warned that withdrawing from Afghanistan now "would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."
OBAMA: We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith, or race, or station.
Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of these flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to Al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.
Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
O'Reilly also claimed that Obama didn't put any urgency behind his words, like, 'If we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed all over the world. Let's wise up everybody and get in there and win it.' "I didn't see any of that."
FACT: Obama said "new attacks are being plotted" from region, and withdrawal now would "create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks."
OBAMA: I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda.
It is from here that we were attacked on 9-11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders, who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.
And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9-11, Al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan: We must deny Al Qaeda a safe haven; we must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government; and we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
Basically O'Reilly only saw what he wanted to see, and he was dishonest about that. As he claims to be fair to Obama, while him and Rove sit there and lie about everything he said in the speech.
Obama Kills Dithering Charges From O'Reilly & Cheney By: Steve - December 3, 2009 - 8:50am
For 3 months O'Reilly, Cheney, and pretty much every Republican in America has been hammering President Obama for dithering on his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. They did this without knowing the facts, and basically it was done for political reasons to make Obama look bad, like he could not make a decision.
The charge has been led by Vice President Cheney, who accused Obama of dithering and endangering U.S. troops:
CHENEY: It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger.
Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.
Last night President Obama confirmed that it was all a lie, from O'Reilly, Cheney, and their right-wing friends. O'Reilly has also hammered Obama for dithering, and used those exact words right after Cheney did. It turns out that the time frame for the Obama troop decision did not matter. Because no matter when he made the decision in 2009 no troops would be sent until 2010.
Last night in his address to the nation, President Obama ordered the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and said that the U.S. would begin withdrawing in 18 months. He also pointed out that none of the options put before him were set to occur before 2010, so his review process did not result in any endangerment of U.S. troops. A statement that seemed to be a direct response to criticisms such as Cheney's:
OBAMA: As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.
Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.
And btw, let me point out that when Bush was in office if anyone criticized him over a war decision, O'Reilly called them un-American, and even asked if they could be put on trial for sedition. O'Reilly said they should just shut up and support the President, or you are un-American and basically a traitor.
But that was when Bush was the President, now that Obama is the President not only does he not call people who criticize him over a war decision un-American, he is one of them who speaks out against President Obama over a war decision. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a two faced piece of garbage, who has a double standard for Democrats and Republicans.
Then on top of that he puts Karl Rove on to trash the President over his war decision. But when Keith Olbermann had a Democrat on his show to speak out against Bush, O'Reilly called them un-American traitors, for not supporting the President at a time of war. He said it undermines the troops, and hurts them. Then he does the very same thing when Obama is the President, with Rove and all his other right-wing friends joining in.
Basically in O'Reillyworld, it's un-American, and you are a traitor if you speak out against a Republican President during a time of war. But if there is a Democratic President, then it's ok to speak out against the President during a time of war. Which makes O'Reilly a giant piece of right-wing garbage, and a fool that does not even follow his own rules.
Here is my personal message to Bill O'Reilly. You are an un-American traitor, and you should be put on trial for sedition. Which is EXACTLY what you said about Democrats who spoke out against George W. Bush when he was the President.
O'Reilly & Rove Bash Obama Over Afghanistan By: Steve - December 2, 2009 - 12:00pm
I wrote a little about this in my blog, but here is more from ThinkProgress. And Rove is the worst because yesterday morning he said, if Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan he would be the first to applaud it, then he goes on the Factor and hammers him for being weak.
Yesterday morning, former Bush adviser Karl Rove went on NBC's Today Show and said that if President Obama decides to send 30,000-35,000 troops to Afghanistan, he would be "among the first to stand up and applaud."
Immediately after President Obama's address last night, Rove went on The O'Reilly Factor and responded. However, he definitely didn't stand up and applaud. Instead, he and O'Reilly bashed the President for underperforming.
-- O'REILLY: I did not see a Winston Churchill-type performance. Summing up, the president's speech tonight was OK but not exactly the Gettysburg Address.
-- ROVE: I mean, I think he might need a new teleprompter with some Energizer bunny batteries in it. You know, look, at the core of tonight was good news, but it was badly delivered in a - you know, in a weak frame.
-- ROVE: And the enemy knows that we're going to send one quarter less troops than was requested by the military commander. And then for him to say, In 18 months I'm going to start withdrawing those people. That says to me - that sends a very - very bad signal to the enemy that you can wait us out.
-- O'REILLY: But, look, the problem with Barack Obama, I think, is becoming increasingly clear. Not even - not just on Afghanistan but on a whole - a whole other bunch of issues. He's an academic. Where is the table pounding?
You know, there wasnít the sense of urgency that you would expect from a wartime commander saying, Look, these are bad guys. We're fighting evil.
He didn't define the evil. He didn't get emotional. He didn't put any urgency behind his words, like if we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed around the world. Let's wise up, everybody and get in there and win it.
I didn't see any of that. It was more like an academic speech.
ROVE: But, you know, reading the background briefing of the president's aides today to the press corps at West Point, I got more information about what they intended to do and how they intended to do it than I got from the president in his speech.
He did not rally the country. He did not explain the stakes. He did not explain how he intends to do this. And then for him to say, In 18 months I'm going to start withdrawing those people. That says to me - that sends a very - very bad signal to the enemy that you can wait us out.
And when he ended on that note, that boy, we've got to worry about our economy and about America and coming back and taking care of things here. Look, we're not the only people watching and paying attention to that speech. That strikes a very isolationist note.
O'REILLY: That was a softy to the left.
ROVE: Undermine America's credibility.
O'REILLY: But, look, the problem with Barack Obama, I think, is becoming increasingly clear. Not even - not just on Afghanistan but on a whole - a whole other bunch of issues. He's an academic.
You know, we saw a very charismatic, energized guy on the campaign trail. He's vanished. You know, the guy in New Hampshire that was storming the beaches of Clintondom and kicking those walls down, he's gone.
He's back to being an academic. That was like a classroom dissertation, where half - I thought half the cadets were going to fall asleep. I mean, where is - where is the table pounding: Hey, these people cut your head off. Hey, these people won't let women out of the house; they can't go to school. These are savages. Look what they did, and they'll do it again? Where was that? Where was that?
ROVE: There was - there was no passion there. And there was also this sort of - these bland statements of things that are simply not true. When he said, for example, that we have established a new relationship in the Muslim world this year because of his presence in the White House, I thought to myself, what kind of new relationship do we have in the Muslim world?
O'Reilly and Rove want President Obama to be George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney. They want Obama to talk tough, and threaten the world, which is what Bush did for 8 years and look where that got us. Now that Obama does not talk tough, they call him weak, and an academic. Because Obama does not say what they want him to say, which if he did would just piss off the world even more. And not do us any good, except to make more people mad at us, when we are trying to do the opposite.
O'Reilly and Rove are right-wing war loving nuts, who can not seem to understand how diplomacy works. You use diplomacy to make the world like us more, not hate us more. And if Obama talked tough in his speech like they wanted him to, it would have done more harm than good. But they do not care, they just want a President to talk tough, even if it's hurts us. Because they are far right idiots who think tough talk is the only way to go. And don't forget this, O'Reilly says that he has been fair to Obama, yeah and I'm Elvis too.
The Tuesday 12-1-09 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - December 2, 2009 - 9:20am
The TPM was called President Obama's Afghanistan Speech. Billy rambled on about the speech and how Obama was not very tough, he said it was an ok speech, but not that good. O'Reilly basically said Obama is not a good wartime President because he is a liberal.
Then he put the far right Karl Rove on to discuss it, and of course Rove trashed the speech, and hated everything about it. Basically Rove and O'Reilly hated all of it. They hammered Obama for taking so long and that's what he come up with. O'Reilly said he did not define the Taliban as evil, and say how bad they were etc. Neither one of these two right-wing idiots had anything good to say about any of it. Rove even hammered him for only sending 30,000 troops, when the General wanted 40,000, even though it's 58,000 more than what Bush had there. It was total one sided right-wing biased analysis, by two right-wing idiots.
The next segment was with an actual Democrat, O'Reilly had Congressman Dennis Kucinich on to discuss the Obama speech. Billy called him a lefty, and said he does not understand why they want to get out in 2011. Kucinich pointed out that the Taliban gained more power over the last 8 years while Bush was the President. Billy said he does not like the war, but we must stay there. Kucinich said that's ridiculous, we have been there 8 years and we got nothing. He says we should just get out, O'Reilly laughed at him and said he was not living in the real world.
Kucinich said we are going to have to negotiate with the Taliban at some point, O'Reilly said bull, we should just kill them and we can break their back. Which is what Bush tried for 8 years and things got worse. Proving that O'Reilly is just a right-wing idiot who thinks war solves everything. Kucinich is basically against the 30,000 troop increase. O'Reilly asked Kucinich why Obama disagrees with him, and sent the 30,000 troops. I'll tell you why, because it's political. O'Reilly said Obama agrees with him, which is ridiculous. Obama simply sent those 30,000 troops in for political reasons.
Then John Stossel was on to talk about the hacked Global Warming lab e-mails. Stossel admitted there is no smoking gun in the e-mails. The usual right-wing garbage, but the hacked e-mails do not prove anything. Which has not stopped everyone on the right from using the hacked e-mails to claim Global Warming is not real. When these e-mails prove nothing. Stossel said Global Warming is a scam, he admitted that some of it is real but most of it is a lie. O'Reilly, who claims to believe in Global Warming, did not say anything. Except that he will leave it in the hands of God. But for years he said he believes in Global Warming, so when Stossel said it was mostly a scam, Billy says nothing. O'Reilly even said this Global Warming stuff is crazy, and blamed it on Al Gore. Stossel said most of the Global Warming stuff is a con.
Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Both Republicans of course, with no Democratic legal analyst. They talked about three Navy Seals who were charged with assaulting a detainee in Iraq. Wiehl and the three of them of course defended the Seals, with nobody there to give the other side, or dispute their spin. Wiehl says they did nothing wrong, based on what she was told by their attorney. Guilfoyle called it a travesty of justice. Billy said it is a weak case, and they should just drop it.
Then they talked about the Cop killer getting killed, Billy said he is glad they killed him, even though he claims to be against the death penalty. He even said he is opposed to the death penalty, but he is glad they shot him in the head. That does not sound like someone who is opposed to the death penalty to me.
Then they trashed the judges who gave him $15,000 bail, while giving Huckabee a pass for commuting his 95 year sentence in 2000. Billy blamed the Washington State judges for the four cops getting killed, but did not blame Huckabee at all. O'Reilly even warned the judges to make a statement as to why they made the bail so low, or else, and said he was not going to drop it. Then they talked about Tiger Woods, which I refuse to report on, because it's tabloid news. O'Reilly once again speculated that his wife might have roughed him up, even when he says he does not speculate.
Then the Barack & A Hard Place segment with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes. They talked about the Obama speech, and of course Crowley hated it, while Colmes said it was ok. Billy said he is going to force Colmes to say something bad about the Obama speech. Crowley said Obama tried to split the difference and put a time limit on the war, and she hated it. Colmes said Obama did not address the corrupt Karzai Government, and he did not like that.
Colmes is against the 30,000 troop increase, because the Government is corrupt, O'Reilly even admits he made a good point. Crowley is just like Rove, she hates everything Obama does, no matter what he does. She said Obama flunked war 101, like she would know anything about war to give him a grade on it. O'Reilly and Crowley hammered Obama once again for taking 3 months to make a decision on the troop increase.
Then the totally ridiculous pinheads and patriots, and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails. And another 99% right-wing biased O'Reilly Factor was over. Billy said the Bold/Fresh O'Reilly/Beck tour is sold out, but you can still buy some Bold/Fresh tour gear, yeah I'll get right over there and do that, haha, not.
O'Reilly Calls Huckabee A Stand-Up Guy By: Steve - December 1, 2009 - 9:00am
If you want to see a perfect example of right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly keep reading this blog posting.
When a Democratic Governor (or Judge) commutes a sentence or lets a career criminal out of jail, then that criminal goes on to kill someone, with a gun, or in a car crash, O'Reilly rips them to pieces and blames them for not keeping the dangerous criminal in jail. I have seen this happen a hundred times, a Democratic Judge lets a man out of jail, and then he kills someone, or rapes a young girl.
Every time this happens, O'Reilly blames the Judge, puts his photo and full name on the screen, with contact info, and calls for people to demand the Judge be removed from the bench, or impeached. That's what O'Reilly does when it's a Democrat.
Now we have Mike Huckabee, the former Republican Governor, who commuted a 95 year sentence on the man who later went on to kill four cops. Huckabee is not only a Republican, he also has his own show on the Fox News Network.
O'Reilly's reputation as a tough interviewer took a serious hit Monday night, as he helped Mike Huckabee shift the blame off himself for the Washington State cop killings. Huckabee granted clemency to Maurice Clemmons in 2000, turning a 95-year sentence into 10, and making him immediately eligible for parole.
O'REILLY: It's not your fault, governor. I mean, look, you've got 1,200 of these cases a year. You gotta look at them. I don't think anyone watching thinks it's your fault.
Huckabee said the commutation of Clemmons was his doing. But, he quickly pointed the finger at the parole board, the judge, and the prosecutor. He said no one spoke out against granting clemency, which does not square with the prosecutors recollection. The prosecutor says people did speak out against it.
And O'Reilly never even asked Huckabee about his long history of pardons and commutations. The infamous Wayne Dumond case never came up. Huckabee lobbied the Arkansas parole board to free Dumond, a convicted rapist. After Huckabee's help, Dumond went to Missouri and raped and murdered at least one woman.
O'Reilly and Huckabee spent the second half of the segment hammering the Washington State judges who let Clemmons go free after a variety of charges, including a recent arrest for rape of a child. Now let me be clear, the judicial system failed on many levels with Clemmons. But, if Huckabee had never granted clemency in 2000 he would still be behind bars, and those four police officers would still be alive.
At the end of the totally softball interview, O'Reilly thanked Huckabee for being a "stand-up guy" and even said "I don't think anybody watching thinks its your fault."
WTF, I bet a lot of people do. Basically O'Reilly let Huckabee use a platform on the #1 rated Factor show, on the channel he works for, to explain away any blame on his part. He still refuses to accept any blame in the Clemmons or Dumond cases. Blood is on Huckabee's hands. And O'Reilly is completely wrong, a lot of people think it's Huckabee's fault.
And btw, here are the examples of Huckabee's leniency on criminals during his 10 years as Arkansas Governor:
-- 1,103 pardons or commutations
-- 1 out of every 10 convicts who asked for a pardon or clemency received it
-- More than double the pardons or commutations than his three predecessors combined
-- More pardons or commutations then Arkansas six neighboring states combined
-- 12 murderers released early
O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, then called Huckabee a stand up guy, and said nobody blames him for the four cop killings. But if a Democratic Judge lowers a sentence, or lets someone out on bail, then they kill someone, O'Reilly blames the Judge. Proving that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, with different standards for Republicans. Imagine what O'Reilly would say if Huckabee was a former Democratic Governor who commuted Clemmons sentence, and he had a show at MSNBC. O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and call for him to be put to death.