Beck & O'Reilly Joke About Torturing Democrats
By: Steve - February 28, 2009 - 2:25pm

O'Reilly talked with Glenn Beck last night about the Senate Intelligence Committee's decision to hold hearings on CIA detention and interrogation practices. They complained that Democrats want to prosecute them and put them in jail for using torture, when it's just a lie. There is no plan to prosecute the people who were ordered to do the torture.

And according to the L.A. Times, the purpose is a “fact-finding to learn lessons from the programs and see if there are recommendations to be made for detention and interrogations in the future," not to determine whether CIA officials broke the law.

To Beck and Billy it translated into, they just want to do damage to people who have protected us for the last seven years, and helping Al-Qaeda. Predictably, there was no guest to rebut such insane charges, just the crazy Glenn Beck. Before long, Beck and O'Reilly were joking that the Democrats should be tortured.

Beck disagreed that Feinstein's motive was to hurt people, just that “they have a screw loose." Beck said, "That's why I think that we should just -- if we're gonna torture, we should torture! If we're gonna do it, let's stop farming it out to somebody!"

O'Reilly didn't wanna go there. He said Let's stay focused. "There's got to be a reason why Feinstein and Pelosi and Leahy and all of these far-left loons want to do damage to the country. This hurts the United States. You know who the happiest in the world are on a CIA investigation? Al Qaeda. They're the happiest people."

Beck agreed. With that stupid grin, he asked, “Are you saying that these guys might be un-American?”

Oh, no, not at all, claimed O'Reilly. “I would never say that. I'm saying misguided severely." Then, he kidded, “And maybe should be tortured."

Except he has called liberals un-American before, he called Sean Penn un-American, and everyone who opposed the Iraq war in 2003, he just dont do it anymore.

Beck laughed. “Who gets to do that?"

“We'll play them your show," O'Reilly said. "For them, that would really be torture."

O'Reilly is right about one thing, watching a whole Glenn Beck show would be torture, I watched about 10 minutes of it one time and I wanted to shove a fork in my eye.

"They have to watch the whole thing?" Beck asked. "'Cause that – nah, that might be too much."

"We'll strap them to a chair," O'Reilly said.

Beck turned to the camera. "See what's happening here?"

O'Reilly complained that Beck was not telling him why they're doing it, meaning why the Democrats want to conduct the investigation.

Then Beck repeated his misguided comment and continued by saying that the Democrats believe that “if we just sit down and talk with everybody, we'll be OK."

Which is ridiculous, Democrats support most things, just not torture, because it's against U.S. law, and a violation of International law. Beck and Billy twist that into Democrats just want to sit down and talk, when that's just stupid, and a lie.

Beck added that the other option is “that they are leftist Marxists that would like to destroy the United States of America." Then he moved his fingers in circles on each side of his head and said, “But that would be crazy."

“Well, I don't know if I'm going to go that far," O'Reilly said.

Beck laughed again and said. “Of course not!"

O'Reilly said, I think they should explain themselves. He complained that they won't come on the show.

Beck said, They're not answering to us."

Billy said, "Oh, yeah, they will, They will.”

Earth to right-wing idiots, no they wont, haha. Now imagine what these two right-wing jerkoffs would say if liberals joked about torturing Republicans in Congress because they disagree with them politically. And how can O'Reilly possibly claim he is not a Republican when he openly jokes about torturing Democrats on national tv, what say you Billy?

The Friday 2-27-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 28, 2009 - 1:35pm

The TPM was called Far-Left President. Billy once again cried like a baby and said Obama is a big spending liberal, when that is what the economic experts say we need right now. He sounds just like the corrupt Republicans in Congress who all voted no for political reasons, and to hell with fixing the economy.

Earth to dumbass, the economic experts (which you are not one of) all say the Government has to spend big right now to pull the country out of this recession/depression. If they dont, it could lead to 4 or 5 years of deflation and depression, just like in Japan. What part of that does your bb size brain not understand?

O'Reilly also trashed Paul Krugman again, when he was one of the few people who warned us about the housing problem in 2005, and it won him the Nobel prize for Economics. How many Nobel Prizes do you have Billy, what's that, zero, I thought so.

Then he said the Government should not give any more money to schools, huh? Tell that to the teachers who sometimes pay for school supplies with their own money. Anyone who is opposed to giving schools more money is a fool and an idiot. Only partisan right-wingers oppose it, and that's you, even though you deny being a Republican. Actions speak louder than words, and all your actions are far right, and big time partisan.

He also trashed a political tv ad that tells the truth about Republicans voting no on the Obama stimulus bill. Then he said it was put out by corrupt far-left loons, when the ad is 100% true and accurate. What part of "every single Republican in Congress (but 3 Senators) voted no" dont you understand?

Then the far right Newt Gingrich was put on to agree with Billy and reinforce his right-wing spin and propaganda on the Obama administration and his plans to fix the economy. What's funny is Billy asked Newt if we can ever pay back $13 Trillion in debt, and Newt said yes, haha. After O'Reilly had already said we will never be able to pay it back.

The rest of the segment was just a one sided biased right-wing propaganda attack on everything Obama has done, and will do. With no Democrat to provide any balance, just Newt and Billy spinning right-wing propaganda out for 4 minutes. Newt is a paid partisan Republican, with biased opinions, but O'Reilly puts him on as if he is an objective political analyst, and never discloses that Newt is a paid right-wing spin doctor.

Next we saw the great Neal Cavuto, the segment was called spending spree. Billy and Neal cried about all the money Obama and the Democratic Congress are spending. When that is what the economic experts are telling them to do, then once the economy recovers they can cut back on spending and pay down some of the national debt.

But Cavuto and O'Reilly dont seem to understand that, or they probably do, they just have to say it to make Obama and the Democrats look bad. Billy said once again that we will never be able to pay off $13 Trillion in debt, even though Newt said we could. And it's funny how O'Reilly didn't give a damn about the national debt when Bush was running up $11 Trillion in debt, he only cares when a Democrat runs up the debt.

It was basically two old white rich Republicans crying about Government spending and how their taxes will go up a few percentage points, so instead of taking home $8 million this year, they will only take home $7 million, boo freaking hoo, I feel sorry for you, NOT! Shut up already, nothing you do can change it. And Bush caused the problem, while Cavuto supported everything he did, so your way did not work.

Then Geraldo was on to report on tabloid garbage, which is not real news and I refuse to report it. It's basically a segment to get Geraldo some publicity for his show on the #1 cable news show. Then O'Reilly talked about the Mel Gibson comeback with some blonde babe Kim Serafin, but who cares, and what happened to we should not care about these Hollywood Pinheads.

I'll tell you why, because O'Reilly likes Mel Gibson, and they are in business together, a fact that he never disclosed btw. Billy even said Gibson was a good guy, and the entire segment was only done to help Gibson with his comeback. It was a total waste of tv time to pimp for Gibson, because O'Reilly is his friend, and in business with him.

Then the circus started, Glenn Beck was put on to ramble on about some crazy revolution, or new civil war the Republicans who hate Obama have started. Beck is rubber room crazy, a far far right nut, yet FOX News gave this guy a show, and O'Reilly puts him on the Factor every friday night. Beck was crying about Feinstein investigating the CIA about torture.

O'Reilly then took it into the twilight zone and said she wants to hurt everyone who keeps us safe, which is just pure insanity, and about as ridiculous as you can get. She wants to do an investigation to get the truth, and then make sure if laws were broken, which we know they were, that it never happens again because we are supposed to be better than the Arab countries who torture people.

Beck said all the Democrats who want to investigate Bush and the CIA have a screw loose, now that's funny. Beck dont just have a screw loose, he dont even have a screw. Billy agreed with Beck and said they were all far-left loons. Beck asked if he would call them un-American, and Billy said he would not go that far, so he just said they were misguided.

Billy dont want to say they are un-American, but that's what he thinks, he just dont want to say it. And he wont because he did it once before a few years ago and he took a lot of heat for it, now he just calls them bad Americans or misguided. Beck was not so politically correct, he said they are leftist marxists who want to destroy America, okay, ummmmm, get that rubber room ready, and fast.

Beck and O'Reilly even joked about torturing Democrats in Congress, and what methods they would use to do it, now imagine what they would say if Olbermann and Maddow joked about torturing Republicans in Congress, think about that for a minute.

I would say on a crazy far right wacko scale from 1 to 10, Beck is a 10, and O'Reilly is a 9.2. Near the end of the train wreck of a segment for some reason they talked about making pot legal, I have no idea why, Beck is for it, Billy is not. O'Reilly said he is opposed to making pot legal because of the kids, which is just laughable.

Earth to crazy old right-wing fool, the kids can get pot any time they want, and they are getting pot now, the fact that it's illegal is meaningless. The drug war is a massive failure, just like abstinence only programs are, you dumbass right-wing idiots just wont admit it. The drug war started 20 or 30 years ago and there is more pot here now, and it's higher quality pot too. The kids can, and are getting it, any time they want, as much as they want, and a law against it has done nothing.

Then O'Reilly had his waste of tv time tv icon segment, with two 70 year old mickey mouse club mouseketeers from the 50's, when tv was still black and white and nobody had cable. Who gives a damn, and how in the hell is that news? Billy is still living in the 50's, let it go man, it's 2009 and you are losing it. Then pinheads and patriots and the stupid e-mails.

One e-mail said they teach and they are outraged O'Reilly is opposed to giving schools more money. Billy never backed down, he gave her some right-wing spin answer and said the schools dont need any more money. And if he was running things he would cut the money they have now, he said we already pay $12,000 a student and that's too much. It's called Republican propaganda, get used to it lady, because that's all Billy has.

What a Fair & Balanced O'Reilly Factor Would Look Like
By: Steve - February 28, 2009 - 8:55am

People ask me all the time how O'Reilly can claim to be a fair and balanced moderate Independent with a no spin zone, when he is clearly a biased Republican who has 95% Republican guests on the show to help him put out 99% right-wing propaganda. So this morning I was thinking, what would a real fair and balanced O'Reilly Factor look like.
1) Since O'Reilly is a Republican, to really be fair and balanced he would have to put 1 more Democrat than Republican on each show, to counter the right-wing spin from O'Reilly. So if he had 5 guests on a show, 3 would need to be Democrats, and 2 Republicans. With O'Reilly that would give him a balance of 3 to 3, Democrats to Republicans. Instead of the 4 or 5 Republicans per show he has now.

2) He would also have to get a Democrat media analyst to be on with Bernie Goldberg, at the same time, or right after him, and a real Democrat, not a fake FOX News Democrat who works for FOX. Right now it's just the far right Goldberg, with no liberal media analyst, and they never find conservative bias anywhere, only what they say is liberal bias.

3) He would have to cover news that is negative to Republicans, as much as he does for Democrats. Right now he ignores 99% of the news that is negative to a Republican, but if a Democrat jaywalks he reports it for a week, with follow ups.

4) He would have to get a regular (and real) Democrat political analyst, to be on with Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Laura Ingraham, and Newt Gingrich, who are always put on alone, because there is no regular on the factor that is a Democrat political analyst, if they are too scared to be on with a Democrat, they should be put on right after one of them are on.

5) He would have to put a Democrat pollster on with Frank Luntz, or have one on after him. Because Frank Luntz is the Factor pollster, and he is a biased partisan Republican, there is no Democrat Factor pollster, only Luntz. Even better, would be to find a real Independent, and make him your pollster.

6) He would have to get a liberal comedian, and make him a regular, to be on with Dennis Miller, or put him on right after Miller. His comedian regular is the Republican Dennis Miller, there is no Democrat comedian, just Miller. Bill Maher would be a great liberal comedian to counter Miller.

7) He would have to stop calling everyone on the left, pinheads, loons, etc. Unless he calls an equal number of people on the right, pinheads and loons. Which he never does, nobody on the right, or the far right, is ever called a pinhead or a loon. Even though there are millions of them, Billy just dont do it, because he is a Republican and he agrees with most of them.

8) He would have to get rid of one of his culture warriors and replace her with a liberal. Because both culture warriors are Republicans, Margaret Hoover and Monica Crowley. With O'Reilly, that's 3 Republican culture warriors to 0 liberal culture warriors.

9) He would have to get rid of one of his legal analysts and replace her with a liberal. Because both legal analysts are Republicans, Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl. There are no liberal legal analysts on the Factor, just Kelly and Wiehl.

10) He would actually have to name a Republican a pinhead, in the pinheads and patriots segment. Because only liberals are named pinheads, every show should have a Democrat pinhead, and a Republican pinhead. Every show should also have a Democrat patriot, and a Republican patriot, or just stop doing it altogether.

11) He would have to get a Democrat internet cop for his policing the net segments. And put her on with the Republican Amanda Carpenter, or after she is on. There is no Democrat internet cop, just Carpenter.

12) He would have to stop lying about who caused the financial crisis, it was not Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, they are not even in the top 100, and they did not make the Time magazine top 25 people to blame for it listing. In fact, a Republican (Phil Gramm) was #1 and O'Reilly never even mentions his name, ever, not once. When he is the guy that deregulated the financial markets, which caused the problem.

13) He would have to stop putting Ann Coulter on the show alone, or have an equally partisan liberal on right after her to balance her out. Like Joe Conason, David Brock, Paul Begala, Josh Marshall, or some other real liberal.

14) He would have to actually put a real economic expert on once in a while, like a professor of economics who is not a Republican, maybe Paul Krugman. O'Reilly has only had one liberal economic expert on the Factor for the entire year of 2009. And that was only after I pointed out he had none this year, then he had one on.

15) He would also have to follow the same rules he had when Bush was the president. Like respect the office, and support the president, and if you insult or lie about the president you are an un-American traitor, like he said to Democrats who opposed what Bush was doing. Republicans insult, lie, smear, make racist comments, etc. about Obama all the time (they even say they want him to fail) and O'Reilly says nothing.

16) He would have to use an equal number of Democrat and Republican fill in anchors to take his place when he is not there. Every single fill in host is a Republican, Ingraham, Malkin, Kasich, etc. No Democrat or Independent is ever allowed to fill in for O'Reilly when he is not there.
And if he did all that, the show would almost be fair and balanced. It would still not be truly fair and balanced because O'Reilly is a partisan Republican, and he is there for every segment, but it would at least be close, maybe 95% fair and balanced, instead of the 95% right-wing bias it has now. And that's what a fair and balanced O'Reilly Factor would look like, too bad it will never happen.

Dick Morris And His 60% Tax Increase Falsehood
Guest Blogged By: Tom - February 27, 2009 - 4:55pm

I looked at Obama's budget and word searched on deductions and taxes. Summary table S-6 is where I got the information below:

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/documents/S-6.pdf

1.Obama wants to reinstate the 36% and 39.6% rates for taxpayers earning over $250k married and $200k single.

2.Obama wants to reinstate the personal exemption limitation and the limitation on itemized deductions for those same wage earning groups.

3. Obama wants the capital gains and dividends rate at 20% versus the current 15% for those same wage earners.

Items one and two above are scheduled to expire on Jan. 1, 2011 and that is why Obama does not want them changed until then. Item 3 will probably be enacted for at least 2010 and beyond. That is all he has in his budget for upper income earners.

Last night Morris told Bill-O that he will pay 60% taxes to the feds. Morris's math was as follows:

35 to 40 per cent rate hike - TRUE - if we round up.

15 percent payroll tax (FICA) - FALSE - for individuals it is 7.5% and I think we all pay that now. It has nothing to do with income tax rates, Obama's budget, or O'Reilly's taxes going up. Whether you make $25k or $300K you pay 7.5% to FICA up to a little over $102k of income. This is Dick Morris math, not true math.

2 percent for Medicare - FALSE - Again, we all pay that now, no matter how much or little you make.

No deductions for home mortage and state taxes for the upper income people - FALSE - That is a Dick Morris out and out lie. Limited itemized deductions, which I never even knew existed, have been around for years. Every year the income goes up to adjust for inflation. These limitations are on home mortage, state taxes, charity, and a few other things on schedule A. If you are above the income limit, then you only get to take a partial and not a full deduction.

If this limitation is allowed to expire in 2011, almost every upper income person would pay even less in taxes than what they do now. Morris made it sound like they and O’Reilly will get to deduct nothing and that is a just plain pure and simple lie.

Below is an example of a limited itemized deduction copied from wikipedia:
If the taxpayer's adjusted gross income is above a threshold (or "applicable amount"), then the total allowable itemized deductions is reduced by the lesser of 3% of the excess of adjusted gross income over $156,400; or 80% of the total itemized deductions otherwise allowable.

In 2007, the applicable amount was $156,400 ($78,200 if married filing separately).

So, for example, if your adjusted gross income is $300,000 and you have $20,000 in limited itemized deductions, first figure out 3% of the excess above $156,400:

.03(300,000 - 156,400) = $4,308

Then figure out 80% of the total deductions

.80(20,000) = $16,000

Finally, determine which value is lesser. In this instance, the lesser value is $4,308 so the taxpayer's total itemized deductions shall be reduced by $4,308. This leaves a total amount of itemized deductions of $15,692 - $20,000 - $4,308 = $15,692
From this example you can see that in 2011 the taxpayer would be able to take the full $20k deduction thus paying less in taxes. I have no idea why or when Congress enacted this, nor am I saying it is fair, I am saying this is what the current rules are and Dick Morris lied about it. Then again, Morris is a known tax cheat in the state of Connecticut, so what do you expect.

Bottom line, what O'Reilly can expect for his income, after all deductions, to be taxed at the 39.6% rate or about 4.6% more than now, and he will pay about 35% in capital gains tax.

Wasn't it Morris who said Obama was going to raise capital gains to 40%?

The Thursday 2-26-09 O'Reilly Factor (Bash Obama) Review
By: Steve - February 27, 2009 - 10:55am

The TPM was called Economic Vision. Billy cried like a little schoolgirl about the Obama budget, said it was too big, and that it will bankrupt America. Then he called for Obama to cut spending, not raise it. Earth to right-wing moron (on a lame cable news show) that (maybe) 1% of Americans watch, Obama does not give a damn what you want.

O'Reilly said he is Paul Revere and put out an alert, the alert was on the so-called liberal media who Billy says loves Obama so much they will not report the truth about him. What truth they are ignoring after 5 weeks who knows. Billy went on some Glenn Beck type of crazy rant about how the media is not reporting the truth about what Obama is doing.

He said he is #1 in the ratings because people turn to him for the truth the liberal media will not report. and that you can only trust FOX News. Bang, thump, sorry I fell off my chair laughing. He said something about Obama turning America into a nanny state, then told everyone FOX News is the only fair and balanced news network in America so watch them for the truth.

Seriously, please get some professional help Billy. You, Hannity, and Beck, are the three biggest right-wing spin doctors in the media, nobody goes to you, or anyone at FOX for actual news. They go to you for entertainment. None of you are journalists, you are partisan right-wing spin doctors who do nothing but put out Republican party propaganda.

Then Dick (Hooker Toe Sucker) Morris was on to trash Obama and his plans for the country. Billy actually asked Morris is Obama could bankrupt the country and end the world as we know it. Bang, thump, sorry I fell off my chair laughing again. Even crazy Dick Morris said no, that it was not possible. It's ridiculous to even ask such a stupid question. Billy is chicken little and the sky is falling.

Morris and Billy cried about taxes, and Morris told O'Reilly his taxes will go up to 60 percent ,which is two things, a lie, and insane. The top federal rate is 35%, when the Bush tax cuts expire it will go up 2% to 37%, earth to Morris, 35+2=37, not 60. Billy said yeah I know, Obama is gonna take all my money. Hey Billy, try paying 25% in taxes on $40,000 a year with 2 kids then get back to me.

Then Billy had a Democrat on the show, and a real Democrat, not one of these fake FOX News Democrats who kisses O'Reilly's ass and pretends to be a Democrat. That makes 1 whole real Democrat this week, and she got a whole 4 minutes. Her name is Alicia Menendez, and nothing against her, but who is Alicia Menendez. When O'Reilly has Republicans on it's Rove, Gingrich, Ingraham, etc. people you have heard of, when he has a real Democrat on it's an unknown.

Billy asked her the bankruptcy question, and she said that is ridiculous. O'Reilly said Obama is taking a big risk and speculated if it dont work it could ruin the country. Earth to O'Reilly, Bush already did that, the country was ruined by your hero George W. Bush, did you forget already? Obama is just trying to fix the mess Bush created, and what happened to you never speculate. That's all speculation, Alicia pointed that out and O'Reilly even admitted it was speculation.

Then O'Reilly said if Obama dont fix the economy he will be seen as the worst president ever, huh? How? Bush ruined the country, so if the next guy cant fix what Bush ruined then he is the worst president ever, are you a retarded 5 year old?

That's like a pitcher in a baseball game going 8 innings, and losing 10 to 0, so they pull him and put a new pitcher in for 1 inning, then they go on to lose 10 to 0, and you blame the loss on the guy who only pitched the 1 inning. It's insanity, and only a nut job like O'Reilly could even say such a thing, ok maybe Beck could too.

Here is the funniest part, a week ago O'Reilly was crying about all the doom and gloom talk from Obama about the economy. He said it was dragging the economy down by causing a lack of confidence from the people, and he told Obama to stop it and talk more positive about the economy. Then O'Reilly spends the whole damn show talking doom and gloom (end of the world) insanity if the Obama budget passes. What an idiot, is he so old and senile he forgot what he said a week ago?

Then we had more chimp attack coverage, dont care, the muslim beheading story, dont care, he even had a muslim murder expert on, who fricking cares, and what good did it do. Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a few legal cases, a 4 yr. old boy custody case in Brazil, illegal alien kills two women in a car crash, the guy who gave a kidney to his wife then she divorced him, and video of Kelly chair dancing.

Then the great reality check segment, haha, when I say great I mean totally stupid waste of time with no reality, just Billy's spin on what he calls his reality. One check was crazy Alan Keyes calling Obama a communist, Billy said it was wrong, then he called Al Franken a communist for saying something about Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

The rest of the reality checks were just stupid, half of them had no check, it was just reported. He talked about the Northern Trust party, then mentioned Obama got a loan once from that bank, where was the check, there was none. He just said it to imply Obama did something wrong, when all he did was get a loan from them a couple years ago, so what?

Another check was a reporter asking James Cann about octo-mom, no check. A report on human tossing on tv in some foreign country, ummmmm, ok, huh? Another check was an Obama parade float in Germany, huh? How is that a reality check on anything. The last check was the Radio Factor is done, off the air, now that's a reality check I can believe in, even though there was no check, just Billy reporting the Radio Factor is done.

And guess who is taking Billy's spot on the radio, former Republican Senator Fred Thompson. One right-winger replacing another right-winger, so nothing changed much, except Thompson might actually let people with an opposing view say something without cutting them off and hanging up on them before they can tell him the truth.

Then pinheads and patriots and the e-mail, which is just more garbage that gives O'Reilly time to get some last right-wing spin on the show before it ends. Pinheads and Patriots has become a joke, and shold be ended. And the e-mail segment has always been a joke, Billy reads hand picked and highly edited e-mails, then he promotes his book and his craptor gear. It's just more time wasted in a spot where he could be reporting real news.

News Story O'Reilly Ignored For Partisan Reasons
By: Steve - February 26, 2009 - 2:50pm

Here is a real news story, the kind of news you want the journalists in America to report. But O'Reilly ignores every one of these stories, because they involve former president Bush, and they make him look bad. Guess who reported it, Keith Olbermann, I guess Billy was too busy reporting on Chimp attacks, snake attacks, and Danica Patricks tattoo.

This was reported last night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Number one, nursing home-gate. This is a brand new one, a last-minute Bush rule change that was not revealed until yesterday, when “Bloomberg News” ferreted it out. Without public notice, the president designated state nursing home inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors for nursing homes as federal employees. So?

Well, federal employees are not usually allowed to give evidence in private lawsuits. In other words, if your grandmother dies in a nursing home, where the federal inspector has warned of deplorable, life threatening conditions in her room, and you sue, the federal inspector can no longer testify and you have to jump through even more hoops now just to get his report.

In other words, on his way out the door, Mr. Bush just took a 144 billion dollar industry that can only grow as time goes by and he virtually immunized it from civil suits. And for 36 days after the Bush presidency ended, nobody knew about it. Attorneys specializing in nursing home legislation were flat-footed and dumbfounded about this news.

So if you want to know why we still do this segment every night, and why, to refer back to Senator Leahy's idea, a truth and reconciliation commission may not do the job, here's the perfect example: out of office for more than a month and George W. Bush is still damaging this nation. New ways, his is the unmarked land mine field of presidencies.


Notice that Bill O'Reilly never reports any stories like that, instead he spends half the show every night on tabloid trash like body language mumbo jumbo, animal videos on the net, edited tattoo segments to show a girls ass in a bikini, and total garbage. Olbermann is doing real journalism, while Billy is doing the O'Reilly/Tabloid Factor to get more ratings from his right-wing viewers.

In the same show Billy won the silver in worst person in the world:

OLBERMANN: The runner up, Bill-O the clown, who evidently just got the talking points telling him to lie about union salaries in Detroit.

O'REILLY: "You know, when you add up all of the perks, it comes to 70 dollars an hour for auto workers. The Democratic party is beholden to them. All right, so everybody getting the picture here?"

Yes, you're full of crap. Barclays capital, the investment bank, kind of pro management, studied UAW salaries and benefits and concluded, at most, they average 55 bucks an hour, not 70. It was in Murdoch's own paper, Billy, the "Wall Street Journal."


Conservative Media Benefiting from Obama Victory
By: Steve - February 26, 2009 - 12:50pm

Billy is harping on every night about his ratings increase, and how the pro-Obama shows dropped in the ratings since Obama won. Variety is reporting that conservatives are benefiting from the Obama win, hey Billy boy, I thought you were not a conservative. If you are not a conservative, why are you listed as a conservative who is benefiting from the Obama win, what say you?

Here are some comments from the Variety article.

Not to pat myself on the back (OK, maybe a little), but this was easily predictable the day after the election -- and even more so as President Obama's inauguration approached: Conservative talk hosts, or at least those who anchor Fox News Channel's lineup, are enjoying a solid post-election bump.

Bill O'Reilly was up 33% in February compared to the previous year. Sean Hannity -- an unapologetic pit bull for the right -- rose 38% now that he's shed former co-host Alan Colmes and, along with Rush Limbaugh, picked up the mantle for the GOP cause while proclaiming his radio show "conservatism in exile." And Fox has further burnished its openly conservative credentials with the addition of Glenn Beck -- one of the least sophisticated voices in the cable space, who started in January.

The one potential negative is that Fox risks narrowing its lens -- becoming a balm to those still angry over the election results, resentful about Obama's victory and ranting about socialism. Frankly, when I turned to FNC not long ago and heard Hannity still railing about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, it was hard not to think, "Geez, dude, let it go. We've got bigger fish to fry."

Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that from the Vartiety article. And Billy said the Pro-Obama shows ratings went down the drain. But he never gave any details, and here is why. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow posted gains of 32% and 134%, respectively, in total viewers since one year ago. "But both programs experienced ratings erosion versus last month." Olbermann was down 4% and Maddow was down 8%.

So, a 4% drop is down the drain? Olbermann still gets over a million viewers a night, is the #1 rated show on MSNBC, and that was up from 700,000 a year ago, so his ratings are actually still up 28% from a year ago. In O'Reilly world thats going down the drain, in the real world it's a slight decrease, and year to year it's a 28% increase in ratings. So as usual O'Reilly spins the numbers to make Olbermann look bad.

Yes his ratings dropped 4% after the election, but that is hardly what anyone would call going down the drain. And it was expected, I am shocked his ratings only dropped 4%, I thought it would be about 10%, so 4% is not bad. The right-wing shows ratings went up because they want to see conservative idiots like O'Reilly trash Obama.

O'Reilly thinks they went up for him because people want to get the truth, now that is just laughable. If he really believes that he needs to get some professional help, and fast. His ratings went up because the kool-aid drinking brainwashed right-wing fools who hate Obama just want to watch a show that will smear a guy they dont like. And that's the no spin truth, not that propaganda you get from O'Reilly about it.

One last thing, Rush Limbaugh called Jindal Brilliant, and the real deal, and calls him the next Ronald Reagan. Limbaugh said this:
"The people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style. Because if you think -- people on our side I'm talking to you -- those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think -- in fact, I don't ever want to hear from you ever again. … I've spoken to him numerous times, he's brilliant. He's the real deal.
Billy had conservative Amanda Carpenter on last night and she wrote this on her twitter account after the Jindal speech: "Hackwatch: Conservatives/GOP-ers who try to spin Jindal's performance as anything better than it was..are hacks. Ugh, I have to go to bed."

And yet O'Reilly never said one word to her about the Jindal speech, and never mentioned his speech one time in the whole show. Probably because he dont want to get Rush mad at him, or his mostly right-wing viewers mad at him. Jindal is a rock star in the Republican party, and you can bet the farm O'Reilly will never say anything bad about him, or let anyone say anything bad about him on his show.

Great NY Times Editorial Everyone Should Read
By: Steve - February 26, 2009 - 11:20am

On Monday a must read op-ed was published in the NY Times, it lays out why Republicans are clueless, and exactly what they are doing.

What Part of 'Stimulus' Don't They Get?

Published: February 23, 2009

Imagine yourself jobless and struggling to feed your family while the governor of your state threatens to reject tens of millions of dollars in federal aid earmarked for the unemployed. That is precisely what is happening in poverty-ridden states like Louisiana and Mississippi where Republican governors are threatening to turn away federal aid rather than expand access to unemployment insurance programs in ways that many other states did a long time ago.

What makes these bad decisions worse is that they are little more than political posturing by rising Republican stars, like Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. This behavior reinforces the disturbing conclusion that the Republican Party seems more interested in ideological warfare than in working on policies that get the country back on track.

Fortunately, as President Obama prepares for his first address to Congress on Tuesday evening, voters of both parties have noticed. About three-quarters of those polled in a recent New York Times/CBS News survey — including more than 60 percent of Republicans — said Mr. Obama has been trying to work with Republicans.

And 63 percent said Republicans in Congress opposed the stimulus package primarily for political reasons, not because they thought it would be bad for the economy. It should be sobering news for Republicans that about 8 in 10 said the party should be working in a bipartisan way.

The Republican Party's attacks on the unemployment insurance portion of the stimulus package are a perfect example. States that accept the stimulus money aimed at the unemployed are required to abide by new federal rules that extend unemployment protections to low-income workers and others who were often shorted or shut out of compensation. This law did not just materialize out of nowhere. It codified positive changes that have already taken place in at least half the states.

To qualify for the first one-third of federal aid, the states need to fix arcane eligibility requirements that exclude far too many low-income workers. To qualify for the rest of the aid, states have to choose from a menu of options that include extending benefits to part-time workers or those who leave their jobs for urgent family reasons, like domestic violence or gravely ill children.

Data from the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit group, show that 19 states qualify for some of the federal financing and that a dozen others would become eligible by making one or two policy changes. Unemployed workers are worst off in the Deep South, where relatively few people are eligible to receive payments. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas stand out.

These republican governors are blowing smoke when they suggest that the federal unemployment aid would lead directly to new state taxes. No one knows what the economic climate will be when the federal aid has been used up several years from now. But by dumping billions of dollars into shrinking state unemployment funds, which puts money into the hands of people who spend it immediately on food and shelter, the stimulus could help the states through the recession and into a time when unemployment trust funds can be replenished. In other words, the stimulus could make a tax increase less likely.

But even if new taxes are required at some point, the new federal standards would protect more unemployed workers than ever before and bring states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas into the 21st century.

Governors like Mr. Jindal should be worrying about how to end this recession while helping constituents feed and house their families -- not about finding ways to revive tired election-year arguments about big spending versus small government.

The Wednesday 2-25-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 26, 2009 - 10:20am

The TPM was called Big Government. Billy talked about the Obama speech and he said it was good and not boring. Then he went on to complain about everything Obama is doing. He does not want Obama running the banks, he does not like the Obama alternative energy plan, he does not like the Obama health care plan, and he does not like the Obama education plan.

O'Reilly basically hates every plan he wants to do, which is expected because he is a Republican who disagrees with everything any Democrat wants to do. Even though he claims he is not a Republician, it's pretty clear he is, and why he keeps denying it when everyone knows he is a Republican is beyond me. All it does is show him to be a liar, so he should just admit it.

Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on with 3 problems in the Obama speech. The polls show almost everyone loved the speech, even most Republicans, yet Ingraham found a lot wrong with it anyway. She cried about cap and trade, she said his Bush bashing was immature and childish, and she clamied there were earmarks in the bill, which is a lie, and the dishonest Hannity is saying the same thing.

The Bush bashing she talked about was Obama pointing out Bush handed him the problem he has, so remember he is trying to fix the problem Bush created. That is not Bush bashing, it's just reminding people he did not cause this problem. And there are no earmarks in the stimulus bill, none. A few Republicans are lying about that to make Obama look bad, and even O'Reilly disagreed with her and told her there are no earmarks.

Ingraham also pulled the ACORN lie, and Billy shut that down too. For once he actually shot down her right-wing talking points lies, I believe that's the first time he has ever done that. Billy told her there are no earmarks, and no money for ACORN, and he is right. O'Reilly actually said the story about money to ACORN is a myth, and he is right. Ingraham did not like him exposing her right-wing lies, but he did, for once.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the media coverage of the Obama speech etc. Goldberg said the Obama speech was good, and O'Reilly said most of the media did a good job covering the speech. Dont you just love it when two right wingers give their approval of the media, when they are both biased right-wing hacks who have no credibility, and nobody in the media gives a damn what they think.

What's funny is they never said a word about the actual Jindal speech, or the reaction to it, especially from Republicans who mostly hated it. Billy and Bernie totally ignored the Jindal speech, because it was terrible, and if they talked about it they would have to point out how bad it was, and how even most Republicans hated it. So they just ignored the entire story like good little Republican partisans.

And of course there was no Democrat on to give any analysis, just O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends. In fact, not one Democrat was on the whole show. Which is an outrage, we have a Democrat president who gives his first big speech to Congress and O'Reilly does not even have one Democrat on to give an analysis of it. If that's not bias, I dont know what is. In fact, you can not get any more biased, it was total 100% bias.

Then Frank Luntz was on, scroll down and read my other blog posting and you will get all the info you need about Luntz, he is basically a partisan right-wing scam of a pollster, who rigs polls and focus groups and has no credibility, none. Then Billy had his far right biased internet cop Amanda Carpenter on. They talked about ratings for cable news shows, which has nothing to do with the internet.

Billy was shocked that ratings are down for what he calls pro-Obama websites and tv news shows. When it's just normal, because Obama won. When Bush was in office the ratings went up for them, now that Obama is in their ratings are down, it's no surprise to me, only Billy. And they are not down much, they just lost the extra people they had because of the historic election.

Olbermann and Maddow still have great ratings, and they both continue to get over a million viewers a night. Which is about their normal ratings. The Factor ratings dropped too, but Billy dont tell you that. In the two months before the election he was getting 4 to 5 million viewers a night, now it's down to 3 to 4 million a night, yet he never reports that. All cable news shows had a ratings drop after the election, and that's a fact.

Then Dennis Miller was on, he even liked the Obama speech. But he said he does not like how liberals support big Government, when it has to be done to stimulate the economy and get things on the right track. I dont understand why Republicans are opposed to using the Government to help get the economy back on track, who else will do it, and when Bush did it they had no objections, now when Obama does it they do, it's hypocrisy.

Miller made fun of Pelosi standing to clap for Obama, he said she looked like a seal at seaword. Billy laughed and loved that, he even said that was a great comparison. Hey Billy what happened to respect for the office, do you clowns think it's right to call the leader of the House of Representatives a seal?

When was the last time you insulted a Republican in Congress, never. And after doing that, how can you complain about Bush bashing, when you two jerkoffs are Pelosi bashing. Remember the line, people in glass houses should not throw stones, think about that morons. Then they talked about Danica Patrick doing a swimsuit photo shoot and how they edited out her tattoo, how is that news, and who in the hell cares.

Miller did 2 minutes on how great her ass looks, but not as good as his wifes ass. All during that they showed photo after photo of her ass, and her in a bikini, which I liked, but it's not news, and why they were talking about it on a news show is beyond me. I guess Billy does it to get ratings from his perverted old white male Republican viewers, which is his base. I liked it, but it does not belong on a so-called news show.

Then pinheads and patriots, and the lame ass e-mails. the Jonas Brothers were patriots for being good guys who claim they respect girls and dont have sex with any of them, yeah right. Sharon Stone was a pinhead for wearing a see through dress to the Oscars, why ? Billy just ran 3 minutes of ass shots of Danica Patrick bending over a car, and somehow Sharon Stone is a pinhead for wearing a see through dress to the Oscars, I dont get it.

Then O'Reilly promoted his new bumpersticker, and my God is it biased and just stupid. If you buy some factor gear you get it, the bumper sticker says "The Factor says, tell the truth or get the Barney." How biased and how lame can you get, Billy thinks it is great, and so funny. When it's just stupid, and lame beyond belief. Anyone who would put that on their car should be horse whipped and deported.

Now think about this folks, the Obama speech to Congress Factor analysis show of a Democrat president, did not have one Democrat, none, zip, zilch, nada, as in zero, on the entire show. No Democrat guests, just Republicans, all Republicans all the time. How anyone can call this biased one sided garbage a fair and balanced news analysis show is beyond me. It was 100% one sided right-wig bias, and that is a fact.

Some Iraq News Bill O'Reilly Will Never Tell You
By: Steve - February 26, 2009 - 8:20am

Back in 2007 when the U.S. was taking a beating in Iraq, George W. Bush decided to order a surge in troops, so he sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq, it was called the surge. Then a year or so later violence was way down and almost no U.S. troops were getting killed anymore. O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends declared Bush a genius, and told everyone the surge worked.

They also said anyone who opposed the surge was wrong, and they should admit it, and admit Bush was right to order the surge. For months on end O'Reilly and the right-wing crowd told us how Bush was great for doing the surge. Well guess what, it was all lies.

I was watching a re-run of a cable show, and Thomas Ricks was a guest. He wrote two books on Iraq, and he went to Iraq to see it first hand. In his 2nd book called "The Gamble" he details why things got better in Iraq, and it had almost nothing to do with the Bush troop surge. He says it did help to add more troops, but only because they did not have enough troops in the first place, so they needed them.

But he says the main reason things got better in Iraq is from money, basically the U.S. handed out money to the insurgents, they paid the insurgents not to kill them. It was that simple, and that is what made things better in Iraq. Ricks also said that General Petraeus did this all on his own, he never asked for approval from Bush, and Bush did not even know he was doing it.

So unlike the O'Reilly claims, the Bush surge did not defeat the Iraq insurgency, in fact, Bush did not know about it, and Bush did not approve it. Ricks said General Petraeus personally told him that information while sitting in his office in Iraq giving him an interview for the book. Ricks also said he asked Petraeus how he could do that without Bush knowing, or approving it, and he said he already had the authority to do anything he wanted to defeat the insurgency.

He even writes about a story a U.S. soldier told him one day in Iraq, he said he saw a known insurgent, and he did not try to kill him. The soldier asked the insurgent if he still wants to kill him, and he said not as long as you pay me not to. So Bush was not this big genius who stopped the insurgency with his troop surge, as O'Reilly and his right-wing friends claim.

The truth is, the U.S. military paid the people in Iraq to stop killing them, and that put an end to most of the insurgency, not the Bush troop surge. This story once again proves what a biased and partisan right-wing liar O'Reilly is, he just makes this stuff up and hopes people believe it. And it also shows why Thomas Ricks has never been on the factor, because O'Reilly does not want the truth about the surge to get out.

The Truth About O'Reilly's Pollster Frank Luntz
By: Steve - February 25, 2009 - 9:20pm

People see this clown on tv and think he is an honest and objective pollster, when nothing could be further from the truth. Frank Luntz is a biased partisan hack, pretending to be a pollster. The real pollsters call him a Pundit pollster. And this is the guy O'Reilly uses as his pollster, when he is a known fraud, and a biased hack who rigs the polls he does, or just leaves out some of the data in his reports.

Read on and you will see the real Frank Luntz, the one most people probably dont know.

In 2004 Frank Luntz made four appearances during MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, touting flawed focus groups in three of his appearances. Not once during any of these appearances did any MSNBC anchor or commentator mention Luntz's partisan Republican ties or questionable ethical standards.

Three of his four focus groups showed a bias toward President Bush. One Luntz focus group held during the DNC compared Gore 2000 voters to Bush 2000 voters. But he conducted three other groups in which he compared Republicans reactions to speeches to the combined reactions of Democrats and Independents. Furthermore, during his September appearance on MSNBC, Luntz described those groups as "Republicans" and "Democrats"; but onscreen, they were identified as "GOP" and "Dem/Ind."

Salon.com reported that there is little reason to trust his polls. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research reprimanded Luntz for his polling work on the Republican Party's 1994 Contract with America campaign platform. The article described Luntz as "possibly the best example of what we could call the pollster pundit: someone who both purports to scientifically poll the opinions of the public, and then also interpret that data to support his own -- in Luntz's case, conservative -- point of view."

Luntz has explained his own methodology as follows: "Say you poll on an environmental issue, and on eight of the 10 questions the numbers are in your favor. Why release the other two? It's like being a lawyer."

Luntz conducted polls for Republicans and made his preference for the 2004 presidential election clear. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that "GOP pollster Frank Luntz advised Republicans to never talk about Iraq or homeland security without first mentioning how 9/11 changed everything."

Fellow pollsters have criticized Luntz, a longtime Republican strategist, for mischaracterizing the results of his research. A January, 2007, article on The New Republic's website reports that Luntz "not only helped write Republican House member Newt Gingrich's Contract with America; he was also responsible for its presentation to the public.

Four years later, he advised Republicans trying to impeach Bill Clinton. Luntz's 2002 memo "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America" coached Republicans on new ways to talk about global warming and warned the party that the environment "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable."

A June 2004 memo by Luntz, "Communicating the Principles of Prevention & Protection in the War on Terror" urged Republicans to use concepts such as "it is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington" and "9/11 changed everything," which have been staples of Republican rhetoric since.

The recent Luntz focus group on the Obama speech was also rigged. First he said it was 50/50 Democrats who voted for Obama, to Republicans who voted for McCain. Yet the group had 27 people, which is an odd number so it could not possibly be a 50/50 split. No mention of who the extra person voted for, but you can bet it was a McCain voter.

In real political polls and focus groups they sample the percent of people who voted for what party. Obama won 53% to 46%, so any poll or focus group should have 7% more Democrats than Republicans. This is how real polls and focus groups are done, and any poll or focus group that does not do that is not a valid poll. Even FOX News weights their polls using that formula.

In the most recent FOX News poll they weighted it like this:
Polling was conducted by telephone February 17-18, 2009. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points... Democrats n=375; Republicans n=319; Independents n=166.
And that is Bill O'Reilly's so-called objective pollster. He claims his focus groups have an equal number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Then he shows the moving lines on his graph, and it says DEMS & GOP, with no line for the Independents. This is fraud folks, where is the Independent line. There is none, it's not there. Luntz has no credibility, none, and anyone who uses him has no credibility either.

The Tuesday 2-24-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 25, 2009 - 4:20pm

The TPM was a preview of the Obama speech. Billy talked about the polls and what Obama needs to say in the speech. The usual right-wing spin, which is so funny when Republicans like O'Reilly who supported John McCain and lost, tell Democrats how to run the country, when they lost.

It's a total waste of time because Obama is not going to do a damn thing that O'Reilly and his crazy right-wing friends want him to do. Especially when they caused the problems we have now, so why would you listen to the people who caused the problem. You dont, but that dont stop O'Reilly from telling Obama what to do, even when he is not going to do any of it.

Then far right wacko Karl Rove was put on, all alone as usual with no Democrat to give an opposing view. Rove said Obama needs to say something new that people find credible. Implying that what Obama has said before is not credible, coming from him that's laughable. Rove also warned that Obama is in danger of getting overexposed.

When that is just fricking ridiculous, he has been the president for 5 weeks, how can he be overexposed already. Billy agreed with every word he said, so they are both far right loons. What's really funny is when Bush was the president O'Reilly complained that Bush did not talk to the people enough, now he says Obama is talking to them too much. Which is it Billy, you cant have it both ways.

And the people like it when Obama talks to them, his approval ratings went up after last nights speech. Yet O'Reilly and Rove are telling him to not talk as much and say something new. I think they just hate to see such a smart and well spoken president on tv that the people actually like. They are nothing but two cry baby right-wingers that cant stand to see a smart and popular president on tv.

Then Billy had Alan Colmes on to talk about the Obama speech. Billy said he has Obama fatigue, Colmes was like how, it's only been a month, and he told Billy to give him a chance. Billy said Obama is boring, and that his speeches bore him to tears. And all this in a month, hey Billy, he has 4 years to go you jackass.

Funny how O'Reilly never said any of that about Bush after a month, hell he never said any of that about Bush after 8 years. Billy said Obama is boring and Colmes said it's a political speech, it's supposed to be boring, and he said what do you want a vegas show. Earth to O'Dumbass It's a fricking political speech, they are all boring, but at least now we have a smart president to do them.

Then more octo-mom tabloid crap, and the body language bimbo, then the is it legal segment with Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl. Billy cried some more about the illegal alien who killed Chandra Levy. They say the D.C. Cops blew the case, and O'Reilly agreed. They say the Cops focused on Condit too much, when how can you blame them with all the media blaming Condit and basically convicting him on tv, including O'Reilly.

And to this day Billy has not given an apology to Gary Condit or his family, nothing. When every night he convicted him on his show.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss the speech and the first 30 days for Obama. Hume graded Obama, he gave him an A for presentation, and a C for substance. And remember Hume is a Republican, so that's not bad for him. The C grade is because he did not like the stimulus bill. Then Billy told us what his problem with Obama is, like we care, haha.

Billy said he dont think Obama has control of his own administration, how he knows that is beyond me, when he's not in it, and it's total speculation, which O'Reilly says he never does. Then he said he is not real confident about Obama, which is what all Republicans say, and they are wrong. They all said the same thing about Bill Clinton and he turned out to be one of the best presidents we ever had. Not to mention it's been 5 weeks for God's sake, give the man a chance.

Cheney ran the Bush administration and you never heard O'Reilly say a word about that, and in fact, he denied it, when everyone knew it was true. At least with Obama we know he is running things, because he is smart and he is the boss. O'Reilly is just an idiot who dont have a clue what he is talking about. He is trying to smear Obama because he is a Democrat, and after only 5 weeks in office, which is just ridiculous.

Then the show ended 5 minutes early for the Obama speech. The show was a preview of the Obama speech by a Democrat president. And Billy only has 1 Democrat on the whole show, and that Democrat was the FOX News employee Alan Colmes. Not 1 Democrat who did not work for FOX was on the show to preview a speech by a Democrat president. If that's fair and balanced I'm Karl Rove.

Murdoch Gives Personal Apology For Chimp Cartoon
By: Steve - February 25, 2009 - 3:00pm

Yesterday Rupert Murdoch personally apologised for the racist New York Post cartoon that compared the violent chimpanzee shot dead by police officers to Barack Obama.

The News Corp. chairman issued a statement in which he said the cartoon was intended only to mock Obama's economic stimulus bill, which the Post considered to be a badly written piece of legislation, but that it had turned out to be a mistake because it had offended so many.
"As the chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me," added Murdoch. "Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologise to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted."
Captioned "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill", the cartoon prompted accusations that the Post was peddling a longstanding racist slur by portraying the president, who signed the economic stimulus bill last Tuesday, as an ape.

The cartoon drew a wave of criticism across the US, particularly from civil rights activists. Sean Delonas, the Post cartoonist responsible for the monkey image, has frequently been accused of bigotry, earning himself the nickname "the Picasso of prejudice" on New York's Gawker blog.

The Post had itself apologised in an editorial last Thursday. However, Murdoch attempted to quell any lingering resentment by issuing today's statement. The personal apology by Murdoch is a highly unusual move brought on by a wave of anger over the weekend that peaked with the NAACP calling for the Post editor-in-chief, Col Allan, to step down and for a boycott of the paper.

And to this day Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about the entire story, not a word. Now Imagine if the cartoon was put out by The NY Times, and the president was a Republican, just think what O'Reilly would say then. He would trash the paper and the cartoonist for a week, and call for them to give an apology, and say the cartoonist should be fired.

But when the News Corp owned NY Post does it to a Democrat president, he is silent as a mouse. Which proves once again how biased O'Reilly is, because he would never ignore this story if the NY Times did it to a Republican. And btw, that bias removes his right to criticize other journalists for bias, when he is more biased than any of them.

Obama Speech Gets Great Reviews
By: Steve - February 25, 2009 - 10:30am

The Obama speech to Congress got good reviews, even most Republicans thought so. But of course you know O'Reilly and his right-wing guests will find a lot wrong with it tonight. I saw one poll that said 92 percent liked the speech, while only 8 percent did not like it, and who wants to bet O'Reilly, Rove, Morris, Miller, Ingraham, etc. are in that 8 percent.

I want to see what Billy and his right-wing crew think of the reply from Gov. Bobby Jindal, everyone is saying it sucked, including most Republicans. Even the FOX News stooges said it was terrible, and that's rare, they usually say anything a Republican says is great.

The conservative David Brooks ripped Jindal to pieces, he said it was bad, and he thought it did not address what Obama said. Here are some comments about the Jindal reply:
BRIT HUME: "The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal's greatest oratorical moment."

NINA EASTON: "The delivery was not exactly terrific."

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: "Jindal didn't have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches, is in a league of his own. He’s in a Reagan-esque league. Jindal tried the best he could."

JUAN WILLIAMS: "It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was sing-songy. He was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish."
Andrew Sullivan said this. "The rest was tired, exhausted, boilerplate. If the GOP believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem right now, they are officially out of steam and out of ideas. And remember: this guy is supposed to be the smart one."

Conservative bloggers are also upset with Jindal. Kathryn Jean Lopez from the Corner said, "E-mails I’m getting are from disappointed conservatives."

And the conservative David Brooks, who usually never says anything bad about a Republican said Jindal was terrible, and a disaster for the Republican party. Brooks was asked how well Jindal did, and here is what he said.
BROOKS: Uh, not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I oppose the stimulus because I thought it was poorly drafted. But to come up at this moment in history with a stale "government is the problem," "we can't trust the federal government" - it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic right now.

They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill, but that idea that we're just gonna - that government is going to have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that - In a moment when only the federal government is actually big enough to do stuff, to just ignore all that and just say "government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending," it's just a form of nihilism.

It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is.

Some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate. Some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and so he's making that case. I think it's insane, and I just think it's a disaster for the party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.
Wow, and that's what Republicans think of the Jindal reply. Imagine what the Democrats think. The question is, what will O'Reilly and his right-wing robot friends say tonight, will they kiss Jindals ass, or will they hammer him as most people are. I'll report back later tonight with the answer.

Big News O'Reilly is Ignoring
By: Steve - February 24, 2009 - 11:30am

Remember this, you can measure bias in a journalist by what news they ignore, almost as good as you can by the news they report. And Billy ignores a lot of News, all of it negative to Republicans, or FOX News, The NY Post, a Republican Senator, or him. Here are some big stories O'Reilly has totally ignored.

1) The Republican Senator from Alabama Richard Shelby, Questioned Obama's Citizenship, just 2 days ago he said he is not sure Obama is an American, he said he has not seen his birth certificate so he dont know if he is an American citizen. Billy said nothing, and never reported the story at all.

2) The New York Post Chimp Cartoon, it's been a week long story on all the cable news network, except for FOX, and it's never been mentioned on the Factor, not a word. Even though it's a racist cartoon that implies the president should be shot, and refers to him as a monkey. yet Billy says nothing, he is silent as a mouse.

The NAACP is even talking about a national boycott of News Corp, FOX News, and the NY Post. Al Sharpton has done protests in NY at the NY Post building, right there by the FOX News building where Billy does his show, and O'Reilly still says nothing.


3) The recent Gallup poll that shows 62% of Americans support an investigation of Bush for crimes. Billy says we must go by the will of the people and reports on polls that show what the majority supports. Except when the majority disagree with him, then he ignores it and suddenly he dont care what the people want when they disagree with him.

4) The Gallup poll taken just 6 days ago that show the American paeople do not support the Republican plan to just vote no on every Bill Obama tries to pass. Approval of Republicans in Congress dropped 4 points, from 23 percent, to 19 percent, after they all voted no on the stimulus bill. While approval for Democrats in Congress went up 25 points, from 18 percent to 43 percent. Billy never said a word, nothing, ever.

5) Last week a FOX News producer was arrested for child porn, and it was his 2nd offense, he was also caught with child porn in college, and FOX still hired him. That is the kind of story O'Reilly always reports on, except when they work for FOX. Imagine what he would say if an MSNBC producer was arrested for child porn, it would be a week long story with follow ups.

And that is just 5 big news stories he has ignored, I could think of 5 more, he also ignored the finding of the U.S. investigation into the 16 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Because he was wrong, and Karzai was right. And O'Reilly also ignored the military.com report that confirmed 200,000 veterans are homeless, because Edwards was right, and he was wrong.

These are examples of bias from O'Reilly, but none of it is ever reported by Bernie Goldberg, the so-called media bias analyst for the Factor.

They ignore all that, it's called right-wing bias with selective news reporting. Maybe O'Reilly is too busy reporting on snake attacks and chimp attack stories to report real news. Yeah that's it, he dont have time.

The Monday 2-23-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 24, 2009 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Illegal Alien Crime. Here we go again, Billy takes a crime, a murder to be exact, and turns it into an illegal immigration issue. O'Reilly talked about Chandra Levy and how it looks like an illegal alien killed her. Earth to O'Reilly, this is a crime issue, not an illegal immigration issue.

What he never mentioned is how back when this story was in the news every day, O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, Geraldo, etc. all convicted Gary Condit in the media for killing her. Every one of them had Condit guilty, when it turns out he was innocent. But you never heard a word about that, and no apology was given to Mr. Condit.

And btw, has anyone noticed that O'Reilly never apologizes for anything, ever. He has still not given an apology to Helen Thomas or Courtney Martin, and now Gary Condit, nothing, and he never will. It's a Republican thing, even when they are wrong, they never apologize because it's seen as a sign of weakness. Bush was the same way, he never apologized for anything either.

Then Billy had a crime professor on to discuss illegal alien crime. It was boring and a waste of tv time on a national news show. These two morons can talk about it until they are blue in the face, and nothing is gonna change. Especially when they are not in Congress, not to mention nobody cares what some right-winger says about the issue on a lame ass cable news show.

Before the next segment some text was put on the screen as Billy promoted the next segment, it said "will Obama do more Bush Bashing" as Billy asked if Obama will bash Bush again in his tuesday night speech. Hey Billy, why dont we try a reality check here. All Obama did was point out that he took over as President from the guy who ruined the economy and left him with the worst financial crisis America has faced in 50 years.

That's not Bush bashing, as you claim, it's just stating the truth, and being honest with the American people, something you dont understand. And when Bush took office in 2001 you had no problem with Bush blaming Clinton for the recession he had to deal with in his first days in office. O'Reilly also called it the blame game, then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were put on to discuss it.

Juan told some lame story about how a president gets a free ride until thanksgiving, and that he can only blame current problems on the past president until then. Which is just ridiculous, especially when almost all the economic experts say it will take 12 to 18 months to even start getting the economy on the right track. And this is a big problem, it's not a normal recession, so Williams is a fricking idiot.

Ham said he has even less time that that, 7 months at the most, so she is even dumber and more clueless than Williams. And btw, Williams is a Democrat, I mean so-called Democrat. I am no longer going to refer to Williams as a Democrat, because he is more of a Republican then he is a Democrat. He works for FOX, and he agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time, when real Democrats disagree with O'Reilly 90% of the time.

At the end of the segment O'Reilly said the ratings for February are out, and all the pro-Omama news networks ratings went down the drain. What that has to do with the Obama speech I have no idea. Not to mention it's a flat out lie, as of 6 days ago NBC News was ranked #1 in the ratings for the 18th straight week. So once again O'Reilly is lying to you, and dont just believe me, go look for yourself.

For the record, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams is the #1 rated news show in America, he gets 9 to 10 million viewers a night, and he is the only news show in America that gets that many viewers a night, ABC News gets 8 to 9 million, CBS News gets 6 to 7 million. The Factor gets 3 to 4 million viewers a night, so he is not even close to Katie Couric at CBS, let alone Brian Williams at NBC.

Then Billy put John Ziegler on to talk about his biased right-wing documentary about how the media reported on Obama, McCain, and Palin. This guy Ziegler is a total right-wing nut, he is a Brent Bozell wannabe. He claims to be a media watchdog, just like Bernie Goldberg and O'Reilly. But they only find media bias on what they call liberal networks, they never find any conservative bias in the media, only liberal bias.

O'Reilly billed this stooge as a documentary film maker. As if he is an objective journalist who made an honest documentary. When nothing could be further from the truth. He is a right-wing partisan, just like Karl rove or Newt Gingrich, and there is nothing objective about him, or his so-called documentary. It's a one sided and biased load of garbage, and the fact that Billy promoted it as honest journalism just shows how corrupt he is.

Not once in the entire segment did O'Reilly point out that Ziegler is a biased partisan Republican, not once. The whole thing is cherry picked and edited clips of so-called media bias against Palin and McCain. While ignoring all the right-wing bias against Obama by the media.

His documentary says nothing about any bias from O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, or anyone at FOX, nothing. That's how you know the guy is a right-wing fraud with no credibility. On a scale of 1 to 10, his documentary is a -5, it's biased crap, and only right-wing fools will go see it.

Then Billy put some right-wing idiot from the Netherlands on to talk about his anti-islamic film. Geert Wilders was on, and I dont give a damn. The guy was banned from England, and I dont care. He's just a foreign version of O'Reilly, except he makes films, and he is a racist against muslims, while Billy is racist against mexicans. This is not an American issue, and it has no business on an American news show. I think Billy put him on to promote the film, because he likes the guy, probably because he is just like him.

Then O'Reilly talked about Helen Thomas again, my God man, let it go. He is just doing it for ratings, because his crazy viewers like it when he trashes her. Hoover was asked if Billy was wrong to call her a witch, and she said yes, then Billy mentioned his biased and unscientific poll on his personal website that supported him. Hoover laughed at him and told him that poll is garbage, and it is, it's worthless, and he knows it.

Of course Crowley agreed with O'Reilly and even said he was too easy on her. Hoover said the witch comment was wrong, Crowley said it was fine. And Republicans wonder why they lost the womens vote, wow is she stupid. Then Billy trashed Sean Penn, he called him a clown and a pinhead. For doing nothing more than saying gay people should have equal rights, and for saying people who voted to take their rights away should be ashamed.

Then O'Reilly did 6 reality checks, and none of them had any checks. He just reported something that happened, with no check, I guess he forgot how a reality check works. You report a story that is not true, then you give your version of what you think is the reality.

Reporting the camera shot of Jolie and Pitt when Aniston was on the screen giving an award is not a reality check. Reporting that you predicted the top 5 oscar awards correctly is not a reality check. Reporting that Bill Maher used the words silly God, is not a reality check. Reporting the Colmes interview of Bill Ayers is not a reality check. Reporting Joy Behar interviewed Ann Coulter is not a reality check. And reporting that GE stock is now under $10.00 a share is not a reality check.

The entire reality check segment was a total joke, there was not one check, Billy just reported 6 different stories, with no checks. I think he is losing it, my guess would be that he is turning into a senile old man. His mind is going on him, and pretty soon they will be pinning a note on him and sending him to the dog track.

Then pinheads and patriots, somehow Ben Stiller was the patriot for doing an impersonation of Joaquin Phoenix, how that's being a patriot I have no idea. A car chase was the pinhead. The p&p segment is garbage, and it should be put out to pasture. Half the time O'Reilly dont even name a real patriot, it's crap, so why even do it if your not gonna find some real patriots.

Then he said this is the last week of the Radio Factor, now that's some great news. One less wingnut on the radio is great for America, now if they would just get rid of Savage and Limbaugh America would be a much better country. All of them are right-wing idiots who get paid to spin and lie to the American people. And nothing they do helps anyone, it just misleads the people and divides us even more.

Sean Penn Wins Best Actor For Milk
By: Steve - February 23, 2009 - 9:30am

You ask, what does Sean Penn winning best actor have to do with Bill O'Reilly. I'll tell you, back in 2005, 2006, 2007, etc. Sean Penn spoke out against the Bush administration and the Iraq war. Which is a big risk for a movie actor, because when you take a side in politics you can make half the people mad at you and they might stop going to your movies.

After he spoke out about the Bush administration and the Iraq war all the right-wing talking heads hammered him, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, and especially O'Reilly. They hammered him because he disagreed with them on the Iraq war, and he had a public forum to speak to the American people.

Right-wingers like O'Reilly and Malkin dont like that, because they can fight back against the talking heads and make them look bad for supporting an un-needed and wrong war. Basically they smeared Penn as un-American, only because he spoke the truth about Bush and the war, and he dared to disagree with O'Reilly and Malkin.

In January of 2007 Bill O'Reilly mentioned Sean Penn in a TPM. O'Reilly called Penn anti-American during his talking points memo, then 15 minutes later he said he would not call him anti-American in a segment with Michelle Malkin, after he had already called him anti-American.

This shows us three things, that Bill O'Reilly calls people he disagrees with politically anti-American, and so dishonest he says he will not call Penn anti-American just 15 minutes after he had already called him anti-American, and that O'Reilly is a hypocrite with double standards, because he never calls any Republicans anti-American who disagree with Democrats politically.

You will never see O'Reilly call a Republican anti-American, never, because he agrees with them, and he is a Republican himself. Remember when Rush Limbaugh recently said he hopes Obama fails, O'Reilly said nothing, not a word. But when a Democrat said he wanted Bush to fail, O'Reilly called them un-American traitors, an enemy of the state, and bad Americans.

Here is a copy of my blog posting about O'Reilly and Sean Penn from January of 2007, read this and you will see what a liar O'Reilly is.

O'Reilly Said he Will Not Call Sean Penn Anti-American

  • 1-31-07 -- On the 1-29-07 O'Reilly factor Michelle Malkin said both Jane Fonda and Sean Penn are Anti-American, then Bill O'Reilly said this:
    O'REILLY: All right, but you say it's anti-American. You know that the Fondas and Penns are going to say, "Listen, I'm as American as you are, Michelle Malkin. I just see things differently." And I'm willing to give them the benefit of that doubt. I don't want to say that they're anti-American.
    Yet at the top of the show during his talking points memo O'Reilly called Sean Penn Anti-American.

    And Here is the proof:



    This is a classic example of Billy O'Reilly talking out of both sides of his mouth, he said he would not call Sean Penn Anti-American, the problem is he said that about 15 minutes after he had already called him Anti-American.

    O'Reilly Caught Lying About Barney Frank Again
    By: Steve - February 22, 2009 - 8:30pm

    On the 2-20-09 O'Lielly Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that prior to the housing crisis, Barney Frank had been "pumping it that poor people ought to be given mortgages because everybody has a right to a house." In fact, Frank has consistently taken the position that the government should focus on the expansion of affordable rental housing, rather than enacting policies geared toward universal home ownership.

    In a 2006 speech on the House floor, Frank stated:
    "I always want to make it clear to people that while homeownership is very important, it should not be considered all of our goal in the housing area. A large number of people, for economic reasons and other reasons, will be renters."
    In a January profile of Frank for the The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin wrote:
    "According to Frank, at the root of the real-estate crisis was a misguided notion that homeownership should be available to all people -- what President Bush has called 'the ownership society.'"
    Toobin quoted Frank saying in a speech that home ownership "is not suitable for everybody." In his profile, Toobin also addressed Frank's efforts to preserve and expand housing for low-income renters.

    O'Reilly reported the lies during a segment with Glenn Beck:
    O'REILLY: Now, is it just the personal responsibility issue, that people, some of them poor, some of them wealthy -- you know, the wealthy people bought big McMansions they couldn't afford. So it's across all economic spectrum.

    Barney Frank pumping it that poor people ought to be given mortgages because everybody has a right to a house. It's every -- it's all across. Is it just the personal responsibility thing that has you torqued off, or is it Obama's solution to de-intensify the banking crisis by readjusting mortgages? Which is it?

    GLENN BECK: I don't even think I understand the second part of that, so I'm going to go with A.
    Notice that Beck does not even understand the question, and this guy has a radio and a tv show, how, I have no idea, not only is he dumb as a rock, he's crazy too. And O'Reilly spins the cause of the problem, it's not the people who got the loans that caused the problem. It's the people who gave the loans, and the wall street guys who bundled all those loans together and sold them like stocks in the shady credit default swaps and derivatives.

    So O'Reilly either dont understand what caused the problem, or he does, and he is lying about it on purpose. When a person goes to a bank for a loan, it's the duty of the bank to make sure the person can afford the loan. That's why they do background checks, and credit checks. The person asking for the loan is going to take it if they give it to them, so the bank has to make sure they can afford it, or deny it.

    Not to mention a lot of the loans were misrepresented to the people that got them, some bankers and loan brokers are under investigation for fraud, and everyone knows that nobody reads all that fine print in those loan agreements, and even if if you do, you need to be a Harvard attorney to understand them.

    The problem was not caused by a few poor people getting loans they could not afford, that's a red herring used by right-wing idiots like O'Reilly to blame it on the suckers who got the loans. The problem was caused by George W. Bush, Phil gramm, Chris Cox, the Republican party, Alan Greenspan, the Banks, the Loan brokers, and the guys on Wall street.

    These guys would do anything to give those loans out, even lie about the details of the loan, so they could get commissions on them, and feed the crooks on wall street with more shady loans to bundle together and trade in the market. The guys at the top caused the problem, not the people at the bottom getting the loans.

    Bush and the Republicans let it happen by deregulating all the credit markets, then the the wall street guys got in the home loan business, then they traded all those loans like stocks. It was all a giant con game run by the wealthy and wall street brokers, when the housing bubble burst it all came crashing down. And none of them wanted to report it because they were all getting rich.

    Then O'Reilly blames it all on Barney Frank when he had nothing to do with any of it. He did not work in a bank, or as a loan broker, or on wall street. He did not give out one loan, or trade one stock, he was one man in Congress (who was in the minority for 7 years) with no power to stop any of it. And when he did try to help stop it in a 2005 market regulation bill, the Republicans voted it down and let the con game continue.

    The no Reality Reality Check From O'Reilly
    By: Steve - February 22, 2009 - 12:10pm

    As I report here in this blog all the time, the Reality check segment O'Reilly does is garbage, half of them are wrong, right-wing spin, or they have no check. Mostly it's O'Reilly's opinion on what he calls reality. It is no different than anything else he does, he reports something and then puts his right-wing spin on it.

    About 2 weeks ago Billy had one of his no-reality Reality Check segments. One check was about Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai who complained that an air strike by the U.S. military (who they said) killed 15 Taliban fighters, but that Karzai claims killed 16 civilians.

    O’Reilly blasted Afghan President Hamid Karzai for appealing to U.S. forces to do more to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan. O’Reilly chastised Karzai, calling his appeal "insulting" and suggesting that Afghans are ungrateful for the support they receive from U.S. forces.
    OREILLY: U.S. forces in Afghanistan are risking their lives to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban and al Qaeda. But President Karzai does not seem to get that. Once again, he has condemned American forces after a raid killed some civilians.

    In that raid, a top Taliban commander and some of his cronies were also killed, but apparently, Karzai doesn’t understand that in war, collateral damage is constantly present. U.S. military is investigating the situation, but Check believes Karzai is making a political grandstand play, and it is insulting. Without us, his head is on a stick.
    Billy called it a political grandstand play, when it turns out Karzai was right, and Billy's reality check was garbage. O’Reilly's blanket condemnation of Karzai’s concern for civilian deaths misses the broader point: American success in Afghanistan depends on reducing civilian casualties there.

    The increase in civilian casualties has "dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces." As Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it to the congressional testimony last month, "civilian casualties are doing U.S. interests enormous harm in Afghanistan."

    So Karzai was right, and Billy was wrong, as usual. The civilian deaths actually make things worse, and Defense Secretary Gates even admits that. Before the investigation was even done O'Reilly trashed Karzai and told him to shut up. Then yesterday we found out that the US acknowledges 13 Afghan civilians died in the strike, which could lead to a new approach to civilian deaths.
    ABC News: 2-21-09 -- An operation the American military at first described as a "precision strike" instead killed 13 Afghan civilians and only three militants, the U.S. said Saturday, three days after sending a general to the site to investigate.

    Civilian casualties have been a huge source of friction between the U.S. and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has stepped up demands that U.S. and NATO operations kill no civilians and that Afghan soldiers take part in missions to help prevent unwanted deaths.

    A U.S. military statement said the decision to dispatch a general to the western province of Herat to investigate shows how seriously the U.S. takes civilian casualties. The U.S. rarely releases the findings of civilian casualty investigations, and the disclosure this time could show the effect of Karzai's criticisms.

    The U.S. military originally said 15 militants were killed Tuesday in a coalition operation in the Gozara district of Herat province, but Afghan officials said six women and two children were among the dead, casting doubt on the U.S. claim. AP photos confirm women and children were killed in the bombing.
    The findings of the investigation not only show Karzai was right, it shows what an Idiot Bill O'Reilly is, and it also shows how dishonest he is. He basically attacked Karzai for being right, and he did it before the investigation was even completed. In O'Reilly world, if the U.S. military kills your civilians too bad, shut up and take it.

    Then he does a dishonest and untrue reality check about it, when he was wrong. So there was no reality, or a check, just his dumbass right-wing opinion. When a liberal attacked a conservative for something before the investigation was over, Billy hammered them and said they should at least wait until the investigation is over.

    Then he attacks Karzai before the investigation is even done. And then we find out Karzai was right, and Billy says nothing, he just ignores it and hopes people will forget he got it wrong. That's what he calls a reality check, I call it neo-con right-wing garbage, with no reality, just the far right opinion of an old far right fool who has what he calls a real news show.

    The Friday 2-20-09 O'Reilly/Tabloid Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 21, 2009 - 9:40am

    The TPM was called What Would Jesus do? Billy talked about the corrupt mortgage lenders and the people who caused the financial crisis. O'Reilly trashed a black Democrat Congressman Jim Clyburn for what O'Reilly called racist statements about people who opposed the stimulus bill.

    All he did was state the truth, that some white people from the south who are in Congress voted against the stimulus bill because Obama is a black man. He knows because he is a Congressman from South Carolina, and people have told him they will never vote for anything a black president wants. Billy calls that racism, from a black man, and yet if the NY Post has a cartoon shooting a chimp and referring to him as Obama, O'Reilly is silent.

    Billy talked about a couple ads that are running about the stimulus bill, one for it, and one against it. The one against it is the Jesus ad put out by a far right Republican group. Basically it's a lie filled right-wing attack ad that claims the stimulus bill is socialism and all pork. O'Reilly had Ed Martin from the group on to discus it, of course no Democrat was on to discuss their ad, just the right-winger.

    Instead of hammering the winger for doing a misleading ad, like a real journalist would have, Billy told the guy he supports his right to run the ad but that the bill passed so why keep running it. Then he said you should put your money to better use and use it to monitor everything in the bill, then run ads about what Obama does with the money. Then they went to commercial and the ad was running on the Factor, so it's clear Billy supports it, he is running it on his show.

    Funny how Mr. Martin never ran any ads on Bush when he was wasting Trillions of dollars and bankrupting the country. They only run ads against Democrats, while ignoring everything Republicans do. And what a shocker, the Democrat ad was not running on the Factor, and no Democrat was on to give his opinions.

    Then more tabloid crap, child internet scandals. Billy reported about some kids doing fight videos and putting them on the net, and a couple 15 year olds who filmed each other having sex and put it on the net. Billy and some old right-wing woman cried about how these kids are ruining their lives doing that. I'm sorry but shut up already, it's their life so they can do whatever they want, it's a free country right?

    Ward Cleaver and, I mean O'Reilly and the old lady must think it's 1950, well it's not, it's 2009 and the internet is alive and here to stay. You two 1950's morality prudes are not going to change a damn thing crying about it, especially when the youngest viewer watching you is about 65 years old. Do you two dorks think 15 year olds are watching the factor? Nothing you say will change anything, so come back to 2009 and let it go, try reporting some real news for a change Ward.

    Billy was shocked, shocked I tell ya, that kids have sex, and oh my God even film it. Earth to Ward Cleaver, the beaver called and he said 1950 wants to talk to you. Shut the hell up, it's 2009 and you need a reality check. Kids are having sex, wow!

    Then octo-moms father was on Oprah, Billy put Geraldo on to discuss it. Geraldo said the octo-mom had all those kids for money, and that she was going to make a career out of those kids. I say good, then the taxpayers wont have to pay for them all. Now move on and report some actual news, lol. Then they taked about the missing 5 year old girl in Florida, Billy said because she had been missing 10 days she is dead.

    Wow, so now Billy Kreskin has a crystal ball and he knows she is dead. Let's not forget Billy the all seeing know it all said the exact same thing about Elizabeth Smart. Then a short time later she turned up alive, so Billy was dead wrong in that case. His crystal ball must have been fogged up that day. And here is a good question, what if the missing girls dad was watching the factor. And what if she turns up alive some day, will Billy apologize for declaring the girl dead, haha, dont bet on it.

    Then Billy talked about Bernie Madoff, he had Brian Ross from ABC News on to talk about a 20/20 special about Madoff that was on last night. Whats funny is Billy never mentions Phil Gramm, the Republican leader on deregulation, and the #1 guy that caused the financial crisis. But he sure has time to talk about the Democrat Barney Frank who had almost nothing to do with it.

    Then the totally crazy far right nut Glenn Beck was on, this guy is rubber room crazy, you can see it in his eyes. O'Reilly even calls him crazy, and for once he is right. Billy asked him a question and he said I dont understand that question, my question is, how did this crazy right-wing idiot get a radio and tv show. Oh yeah I remember now, FOX hires anyone as long as they are crazy, and a Republican.

    Beck cried about the Obama stimulus bill and the housing bill. He said the world is gonna end if Obama is not stopped, and he claims the revolution is coming, whatever that means. Beck was talking about a new civil war and revolutions, and bomb shelters, my God he is bonkers, he should be in a mental institution, not on tv doing a news show.

    O'Reilly even made fun of how crazy he is, then Beck said you wont be laughing when you knock on my bomb shelter door asking for food. Then Billy said he would starve before he knocked on his bomb shelter door. This is actually what he said, once again I ask, how in the hell did this nut get a radio and tv show. Beck cried about the Obama home plan, he said it would ruin the country.

    Earth to Beck, it's already ruined dumbass, and your hero Bush ruined it. Obama is just trying to clean up his mess, so get out of the way and let him do it, your ideas got us in this mess so why should we listen to you. And btw, if a bank gives a new deal to someone so they can afford their monthly home loan payments, they make out better then foreclosing on the place and getting nothing. Try coming back to reality once in a while.

    Republicans argue that if you re-do their home loan the banks will be hurt, which they will a little, as in losing a little profit. But which is worse, to foreclose on a $250,000 house and get almost nothing, or re-do the loan and lower the payments so they can afford it, then the bank gets something, and the country has lees foreclosed homes to deal with.

    If I was the bank, and I had the home loan I would take the second choice, something is better than nothing. But that makes sense, so Republicans like O'Reilly and Beck wont understand that. Why foreclose and get maybe 30% of what the house is worth, when you can re-do the loan and get 70% of what the house is worth. Call me crazy, but that seems like a better plan than foreclosing on everyone.

    And I say forget the bomb shelter, get the padded room ready and move Beck in to it as soon as possible, he is off the charts crazy.

    Then Billy did his best movies list, his top 5 movies of all time. Casablanca, Platoon, Midnight Cowboy, Schlindlers List, and the Godfather Part 2. How is this news, answer, it's not. No Caddyshack, no Clint Eastwood no Pulp Fiction or John Wayne movies. Then pinheads and patriots and the lame e-mails.

    Billy mentioned he is getting a lot of e-mails from people complaining about all the tabloid news segments. So I am not alone, the Factor has turned into half tabloid half news. One of his fans wrote in to say Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are his favorite shows. So Beck and Hannity are far right wackos, and this guy puts Billy in that group, but somehow we are supposed to believe O'Reilly is not a conservative.

    Still nothing on the racist NY Post dead chimp cartoon.
    Still nothing on the 62% Gallup Poll saying Bush should be investigated.
    Still nothing on the FOX Producer arrested for child porn.
    And still no apology for Helen Thomas or Courtney Martin.

    Time Magazine Top 25 people to Blame For The Financial Crisis
    By: Steve - February 21, 2009 - 12:10am

    1) Phil Gramm (Republican) - Passed many bills that deregulated the financial markets. And yet O'Reilly never even mentions his name when he reports on who caused the crisis.

    2) Chris Cox (Republican) - Bush appointed him to head the SEC, and he basically did nothing, he let the people on wall street do whatever they wanted with virtually no oversight, because that is what Bush told him to do.

    3) Angelo Mozilo - He was the chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Countrywide Financial until July 1, 2008, CNN also named Mozilo as one of the "Ten Most Wanted: Culprits" of the 2008 financial collapse in the United States. Yet O'Reilly hardly ever says a word about the guy.

    4) Joe Cassano - He was the CEO of AIG, and he was also #10 on the CNN list.

    5) Franklin Raines - He was the CEO of Fannie Mae when they gave out most of their bad loans.

    6) Kathleen Corbet - She was the President of Standard & Poor’s.

    7) Ian McCarthy - He is the President and CEO of Beazer Homes, they knowingly built more homes than were needed.

    8) Dick Fuld - He was the CEO of Lehman Brothers.

    9) Bernard Madoff - He founded Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its chairman until December 11, 2008, then he was charged with running a $50 Billion dollar ponzi con game.

    10) Herb & Marion Sandler - Herb Sandler together with his wife Marion Sandler purchased Golden West Savings and Loan in Oakland California and made Billions giving out shady loans.

    11) Stan O'Neal - He currently serves on the board of Alcoa, and is the former President, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Merrill Lynch.

    12) John Devany - He made and then lost a fortune trading risky mortgage investments, and has finally called it quits.

    13) Sandy Weill - He was the CEO of Citigroup.

    14) Jimmy Cayne - He was the CEO of Bear Stearns.

    15) George W. Bush - He was the worst President we ever had, and a big reason the whole thing happened.

    16) The American Consumer - We were the suckers who thought the stock market was an honest business, when it turned out to be nothing more than a rigged casino game where the rich get richer and the consumers lose all their money.

    17) Alan Greenspan - He was was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who helped Bush and all his wall street friends ruin the economy and bankrupt the country. They say he is smart, I say he is just another crook who let the country go down in flames.

    18) Hank Paulson - He was the Bush Treasury secretary who preached against “excessive regulation.” And he helped lead America to the biggest financial crisis we have ever faced in the last 50 years or so.

    19) David Lereah - He is the President of Reecon Advisors, Inc., a real estate advisory firm located in Washington, D.C. And the former Chief Economist and Senior VP of the National Association of Realtors.

    20) Lew Ranieri - He is the father of mortgage-backed bonds that caused all the problems. In the late 1970s, the college dropout and Salomon Brothers trader coined the term securitization.

    21) David Oddsson - He is the head of Iceland's central bank, he bankrupted the country by investing all their money in shady investments in mortgage backed securities.

    22) Fred Goodwin - He was the former boss of Royal Bank of Scotland.

    23) Bill Clinton - The President from 1992 to 2000. He admitted he should have done more to regulate derivatives. He also said "Alan Greenspan and others thought we shouldn't regulate, didn't need to regulate derivatives."

    24) Wen Jiabao - Think of Wen as a proxy for the Chinese government -- particularly those parts of it that have supplied the US with an unprecedented amount of credit.

    25) Burton Jablin - He is the programming czar at Scripps Networks, which owns HGTV and other lifestyle channels, he helped inflate the real estate bubble by teaching viewers how to extract value from their homes.

    Notice who is not on the list, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Neither person made the Time list, or any list. Yet O'Reilly contines to blame them for the financial crisis when they had virtually nothing to do with it. It proves he is just doing a partisan attack on Frank and Dodd because they are Democrats and he does not like them.

    They have both been guests on the Factor and they hammered O'Reilly for his bias, his spin, and his lies, and basically told the truth about him. That is why O'Reilly hates them both, and why he lies and smears them for revenge.

    Recent Report Confirms 1 in 4 Homeless Are Veterans
    By: Steve - February 20, 2009 - 12:50pm

    And where did this report come from, some far left liberal loon group, as O'Reilly would call them, or some left-wing blog, maybe a left-wing think tank. Wrong, it comes from www.military.com. So what say you Billy?

    Back in 2008 when John edwards said there are 200,000 homeless veterans on the street on any given day. Billy called him a liar, a far left loon, a nut, and a few other things. In a Factor interview O'Reilly said this to Ed Schultz:
    SCHULTZ: As far as John Edwards is concerned, I think his message is strong and he's got tremendous conviction. But I think he needs a little bit more material than just the "two America" talk. He's got to get --

    O'REILLY: Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. Because that's all the guy said for the last --

    SCHULTZ: Well, they're out there, Bill. Don't kid yourself.

    O'REILLY: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK? So if you know where one is, Ed--

    SCHULTZ: Well, actually -- now, wait a minute -- two hundred and five --

    O'REILLY: -- Ed -- Ed -- if you know one where -- if you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it, is not there.

    SCHULTZ: I will do that. I will do that. You have my word on that.
    Well now we have a report that confirms what Edwards said, and Billy says nothing, no correction, no retraction, no apology, nothing. In fact, we now have 3 sources that confirm it, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, military.com, and the Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education nonprofit.

    From the military.com article:

    WASHINGTON - Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report released Nov. 8, 2008.

    And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job.

    The Veterans Affairs Department has identified 1,500 homeless veterans from the current wars and says 400 of them have participated in its programs specifically targeting homelessness.

    The Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education nonprofit, based the findings of its report on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau. 2005 data estimated that 194,254 homeless people out of 744,313 on any given night were veterans.

    In comparison, the VA says that 20 years ago, the estimated number of veterans who were homeless on any given night was 250,000. In all of 2006, the Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that 495,400 veterans were homeless at some point during the year.

    The group recommends that 5,000 housing units be created per year for the next five years dedicated to the chronically homeless that would provide permanent housing linked to veterans' support systems. It also recommends funding an additional 20,000 housing vouchers exclusively for homeless veterans, and creating a program that helps bridge the gap between income and rent.

    O'Reilly & Rove Caught Lying About Barney Frank
    By: Steve - February 20, 2009 - 12:10pm

    During the February 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Karl Rove falsely asserted that Barney Frank (D-MA) "was one of the more prominent opponents of housing reform in 2004 and 2005." That is a lie. In fact, Frank supported efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on mortgage brokers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, and he has long championed policies that emphasize low-income home rentals as opposed to homeownership.

    Here is the video showing O'Reilly and Rove Lying:



    As Media Matters has documented, Frank has supported efforts to strengthen regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In 2005, Frank worked with then-committee chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to replace the OFHEO as overseer of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill did not pass.

    It was only after Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007 that it passed legislation strengthening oversight over Fannie and Freddie. In early 2007, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the FHFA, granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the companies business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk.

    The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which president Bush signed into law on July 30, 2008.

    As The New York Times reported in a December 2008 article, the mortgage crisis "is partly one of Mr. Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials." The Times reported that Bush "insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending."
    Mr. Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

    Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs. And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down.
    Funny how O'Reilly and Rove never mentioned any of that. I guess they just forgot, yeah right, and I'm Brad Pitt too. In 2004 Barney Frank even said this:
    "It was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey -- this is going to jeopardize their profitability, and it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them."
    Not to mention, In a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President Bush, wrote that Barney Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

    Barney Frank has long stressed the need for a government focus on affordable rental housing over home ownership. As Media Matters noted, during a February, 2002 hearing on the Housing and Urban Development budget for fiscal year 2003, Frank said this:
    I am in favor of trying to help lower income people get the advantages of home ownership, although as we should note, if you are taking the standard deduction, the tax advantages of home ownership are not nearly so great for you.

    But almost by definition, the large majority of poor people are in rental housing, and we will never alleviate the terrible housing crisis that affects so many people in this country if we do not do a much better job of building decent, affordable rental housing.

    Home ownership is a useful thing, but until we begin to take some of the resources of this country and dedicate them to adequate production of rental housing as part of an overall mix, we are going to continue to condemn hard-working people to homelessness in some cases, because there are working people who cannot afford anyplace at all, and to a situation where they have to pay too much of their income for the housing they have.
    So as you can see, O'Reilly and Karl Rove are lying partisan political hacks, who have no integrity. They spew out lies and right-wing talking points to make Democrats look bad, and to hell with the facts. Then on top of that, Billy does not have anyone on to give the other side of the issue during the Rove segment, or after. So it's nothing more than a biased and dishonest lie filled attack on Barney Frank.

    The O'Reilly Hypocrisy & Double Standards Are Stunning
    By: Steve - February 20, 2009 - 9:30am

    When someone in the media, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, etc. called Sarah Palin dumb, or a far right nut, or whatever, Bill O'Reilly went crazy with rage over it. He reported it a hundred times and said it was wrong for the media to call her names. During the campaign he did at least 3 segments a week crying about people in the media calling her names.

    Fast forward to O'Reilly calling Helen Thomas a witch last week. He is in the media, and he called her a witch, and said she is like the wicked witch of the east. When he hammered all the other people in the media far calling Sarah Palin names, then he does the exact same thing. This is massive hypocrisy, and a giant double standard.

    Then he justifies it by saying he was just joking, and he said where were these people who complain about him when Tina Fey was doing Palin on SNL. All of that is spin, and just ridiculous. He is a journalist who called an old lady a witch, then refused to apologize when he knew it was wrong, and a violation of his own rules for other journalists. That's called a double standard, and hypocrisy.

    O'Reilly's joke about Helen Thomas was wrong for 4 reasons:
    1) He complains when other journalists make jokes about Republicans, especially him. Then he does the very same thing he criticized other journalists for doing.

    2) He is not a comedian, and he does not get paid to make jokes about people.

    3) He claims to have a news show, he even calls it a hard news show. So if that's true, no journalist should be calling any woman a witch for the way she looks.

    4) How many times has O'Reilly called a Republican woman a witch, or some other name, zero, as in never. He only calls Democrats names, which shows his bias and his double standards.
    Billy dont understand any of that. Not to mention he never apologized to Courtney Martin either. After saying he would if she could prove she had defended Palin, which she has, two times. To this day he has not apologized to Courtney Martin, or Helen Thomas. And still continues to make jokes about Thomas, including last night.

    And btw, the comparison of SNL doing a spoof of Sarah Palin with Tina Fey, to O'Reilly calling Helen Thomas a witch, is just insane. Tina Fey is a comedian on a comedy show, she gets paid to make jokes and sometimes make fun of people. If she did a spoof of Helen Thomas and called her a witch I would have no problem with that, because that is her job.

    O'Reilly is a journalist, or so he says, he is not a comedian, and he does not get paid to make jokes about people on a comedy show. He even claims to be a journalist with a hard news show, in a no spin zone, where he is fair to both sides.

    So there is no comparison, none at all, and anyone who makes that comparison is a moron and a fool. One is a comedy show, the other is a so-called hard news show, that makes any comparisons ridiculous.

    Let's also not forget Shawn Hornbeck, abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, then found in Missouri -- Billy said that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "doesn't buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing."

    O'Reilly also said, "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." When fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out that "some kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did."

    The following day, during his "Talking Points Memo" segment, O'Reilly responded to viewer mail criticizing his comments about Hornbeck. O'Reilly concluded: "I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because" his kidnapper "made things easy for him. No school, play all day long."

    Ummmmm, Billy, what happened to the I never speculate and only deal in facts. Then he speculated all over the place, he speculated the kid liked being with his kidnapper, he speculated that the kid never tried to get away and call the cops, when he had no way of knowing if he did or not, and he speculated the kid did not like school.

    For a guy who never speculates, that's a hell of a lot of speculating. He also said he dont believe in brainwashing, when he recently accused liberal parents who used their kids to make an Obama campaign ad of being brainwashed. Not to mention O'Reilly never apologized to the kid, or his family. From what I can remember, O'Reilly never apologizes for anything, ever.

    And one last thing, O'Reilly has still not said a word about the Gallup Poll that says 62% of Americans support an investigation of Bush for crimes, or the NY Post chimp cartoon that has the cops killing the chimp and saying he wont be writing any more stimulus bills. It's racist, offensive, an insult to Obama and the Democrats, and O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

    Now imagine what he would say if that cartoon was about a black Republican President, he would go nuts and call for the paper to fire the cartoonist. But when it's about a black Democrat President he is silent as a mouse.

    The Thursday 2-19-09 O'Reilly/Tabloid Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 20, 2009 - 12:30am

    The TPM was called Road to Socialism. Billy claims America is moving to socialism because Obama is using Government money to help people. Earth to Billy, the banks are broke, and everyone is broke, if the Government does not do it who will. What's funny is Billy quoted the Hollywood Celeb Kelsey Grammer saying he dont like what Obama is doing.

    Then O'Reilly agreed with Kelsey, and said Obama should do what Reagan did, big tax cuts. Hey Billy, I thought all Hollywood Celebs were pinheads that we should not listen to, or care what they say. Oh that's right, in O'Reilly world if the Hollywood Celeb is a conservative then he is not a pinhead, and we should listen to him, got it.

    What's odd is O'Reilly forgot what his position was on the stimulus about 2 weeks ago, he supported it, and said it must be passed. Now all the sudden he hates what Obama is doing and he is opposed to it. I believe that's called a flip flop, and a massive one. And btw, last night O'Reilly said the Obama housing plan is a good bill, that means in 2 weeks O'Reilly will trash it and oppose it.

    Then Billy had 2 Democrats on, yes I said 2 Democrats, at the same time even. Caroline Heldman PH.D, and Alan Colmes. And of course Caroline was a hot blonde, me thinks Billy has a thing for blondes. I'm guessing he tried to get her phone number for some phone sex, but she probably said no, or gave him a fake number, lol.

    Billy got a cheap shot in on Paul Krugman and claimed he wants socialism, when he dont. He let the blonde talk, then he dismissed everything she said and told her she was wrong. Then Colmes got a turn, then Billy dismissed everything he said and told him he was wrong. Billy said the liberals just want all his money, the usual crap he spews out.

    Basically O'Reilly made smart ass comments in a sarcastic tone, that was done to make them look like far left nuts who are wrong about everything. While spewing out non-stop GOP talking points, and he made a joke about everything they said, then claimed they just want all his money. Which is what he does with every democrat that gets on the show. He talks down to them and makes smart ass sarcastic comments about everything they say.

    And btw, Billy must read my blog, because yesterday I reported that he has not had 1 progressive economist on the whole year, then bam, the very next day he has one on. And I bet it will be a long long time before he ever has one on again.

    Then Laura Ingraham was on to spew out her GOP talking points. The two of them trashed the media for not covering the muslim who cut his wifes head off story more. When FOX barely covered it, so it got hardly any coverage from anyone. Because it involves a muslim, and they dont want to be seen as racists, it's a sensitive story, because the crime was so revolting.

    Ingraham said it was a double standard, when FOX does the very same thing with negative stories they dont want to report about Republicans. Like the FOX News producer arrested for child porn, Billy and Ingraham never said a word about that. Then they hammered Pelosi again for the Pope abortion thing, get over it already, abortion is legal.

    Then more chimp attack coverage with a local FOX reporter, this is not news for a real news show, it should be covered by Geraldo and Greta, not O'Reilly. And btw, Olbermann and Maddow should not be covering it either. I dont think real news shows should be covering it, in my opinion it's tabloid news to get ratings.

    Then we find out the 13 yr. old baby daddy in ENGLAND story might be a hoax. I hope it is, because that crap should not have been reported here in the first place. It's tabloid crap, and it happened in ENGLAND, so who cares. I'm an American, why should I care what a 13 yr. old does in ENGLAND.

    And Billy, what happened to you only report the facts. The story came out of a tabloid paper in ENGLAND, The Sun. So why did you report the story without the facts, what say you?

    Then is it legal with Megyn Kelly, they talked about octo-mom. This is tabloid crap, and I am not going to report on it because I dont care about this story. Geraldo should be reporting it, not O'Reilly. Billy claims he is not sure if NBC paid her, when they put out a statement saying they never paid her a dime. NBC should sue his ass and make him do a retraction.

    The last story was Casey Anthony, at the end O'Reilly said I never do this, but she is guilty. When just last night he told a guest he never convicts people on tv, then tonight he did. Billy just said I think she is guilty, earth to Billy, that's called convicting someone on tv. Did you forget to take your meds today? Because that is wrong, and you know it, then you did it anyway. You ever hear of innocent until proven guilty?

    Then the bogus reality check segment where half the reports have no check, and the rest have no reality, just Billy's spin on reality. Billy said there was a fight at a b-ball game, and that was it, no check. Billy talked about the Oscars, no check, FOX ratings, no check, trashed the NY Times, no check, and Ellen called Obama, no check. Half of them were just news reports with no check.

    The last reality check was a stupid spliced together fake video, the video made it look like Helen Thomas was at the A-Rod press conference. When it was her at the Obama press conference. Where was the reality check on a fake video, there was none. It was just another unfunny joke to make Helen Thomas look like a fool again. Billy laughed and thought it was funny, then blamed his producer for it.

    Finally it was pinheads and patriots, then the highly edited lame e-mails. And once again I wasted an hour of my life watching this tabloid crap, an hour I can never get back. In the whole hour I would say there was maybe 10 minutes of actual news. Frankly it's like watching Inside Edition, I wonder if Billy is so far gone he thinks he is hosting Inside Edition again, like he did 20 years ago.

    The Wednesday 2-18-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 19, 2009 - 10:45am

    The TPM was called Irresponsible Behavior. Basically it was like a culture lecture from Billy, the usual crap. How secular progressives are evil, and the devil. So you should all be Republicans like him. Somehow the chimp attack was part of that, Billy even played part of the 911 call. Then the usual attacks on what he calls the far-left media, he said everyone in the far-left media is a pinhead.

    Billy put Lisa Lange on from PETA to talk about the chimp attack story. Why, I have no idea. That is not news, it's tabloid crap that should be on Nancy Grace, or Jane-Velez Mitchell, not a so-called news show. Billy jumped all over these tabloid stories for ratings, which he does a lot these days.

    Then Karl Rove was put on to talk about the housing crisis etc. Billy and Rove talked about the housing crisis and then both of them trashed Barney Frank again, even though he had no power and at best was 1% of the problem. They trash him because he is gay, and because he is a Democrat.

    What's funny is how they ignore the real people that caused the problem, as in Bush and all the policies he put in place, the Republicans in Congress, the Republican head of the SEC, all the financial regulations he got rid of, and all the corporate stooges he put in charge of all the Government agencies who were supposed to be a watchdog on these people.

    They ignore all that, and blame Barney Frank, who had nothing to do with any of it, and he had no power to do anything if he wanted to. And btw, O'Reilly says nobody warned the people about the problem. When that is just a lie, Paul Krugman wrote an article called "That Hissing Sound" in 2005, do a google search on it. He warned of the housing bubble about to burst, the problem is nobody listened to him, especially O'Reilly.

    At the time he wrote it, O'Reilly even called him a left-wing loon and told people not to listen to him. He said Krugman is just making it up because he hates Bush, and he wants to make him look bad. Basically he said Krugman was a far-left nut so do not listen to him. When he was exactly right, and he won the nobel prize for economics for it. Yet, to this day, O'Reilly still calls him a left-wing nut, and refuses to even put him on his show.

    Think about this, we are in the worst economic crisis the country has ever seen in 50 years or so. And yet, O'Reilly never has any economists on his show. This entire year Billy has had 1, and that's if you call the Republican Ben Stein an economist. The number of liberal or progressive economists who have been on the Factor, zero.

    If O'Reilly were actually fair and balanced (as he claims) he would have a progressive economist on about once a week, especially when you have a progressive President, but that never happens. It's a joke to claim you are fair and balanced, when you have no balance. Not one progressive economist has been on the Factor this year, not one.

    Then Billy put a preacher on to help him do a childish and worthless attack on Nancy Pelosi, with nobody there to defend her or give her side of the story, which is a violation of journalism 101. He did a whole segment on how the Pope told Pelosi a real catholic can not be pro-choice, and must oppose abortion.

    How is this news, ummmm, it's not. Billy hates Pelosi, so he used the preacher and his show to make her look bad for being pro-choice, it's that simple. That's what O'Reilly does with a national news show, smear people with personal attacks because he dont like their politics. Notice that O'Reilly never does anything like that to a Republican. And btw, abortion is legal, and most people are pro-choice.

    Then policing the net with the right-wing Amanda Carpenter from townhall.com, no Democrat internet cop, just Amanda. Billy showed a fake internet video showing a fake cop using a taser on a guy, it was made by a comedian, how that is news that anyone cares about is beyond me.

    Billy asked her about the Obama website, recovery.gov. of course she trashed it, that's what biased Republicans do, trash all the Democrats. She said it was misleading and did not pass the smell test. Who wants to bet if recovery.gov was put out by a Republican President she would praise it and say it was great. She is a partisan hack, just like O'Reilly, they put out right-wing propaganda with no Democrat to provide any balance. It's a joke, and anyone who believes that one sided biased crap needs a check up from the neck up.

    Next it was Miller time, and what a load it was. Billy put him on to talk about the chimp attack, and called him a chimp expert, lol. Billy claimed he was a chimp expert because he once did a tv show with a chimp, now that's funny. If that's true, and that is the standard for being an expert, I am an expert on dogs because I had a dog once. Miller is not an expert on anything, let alone chimps. He is just put on to make Billy laugh at his stupid jokes, and because he insults liberals.

    Then the Factor media analyst Bernie Goldberg was on, with no Democrat media analyst, just Bernie. They talked about the fairness doctrine and they were shocked Obama is opposed to it. They both trashed him for weeks claiming he would pass a new fairness doctrine, when it was all for nothing, and pretty much a waste of tv time.

    Then they had the usual crying game about how biased the liberal media is, while never finding any bias at FOX News. One example Goldberg used is when Obama went overseas during the campaign. He said all the big 3 network anchors went with him, but when McCain went overseas they did not go. That was his example of liberal bias in the media, except there is one problem with that, it's a lie.

    The big 3 network anchors wanted to go with McCain, but he said no, and he refused to let them go with him. They did not go because McCain would not let them, they wanted to go, and they all asked to go. It had nothing to do with any bias, which just shows what a biased liar Goldberg is. He just makes shit up and hopes people are stupid enough to believe it, just like his hero O'Reilly.

    Now lets look at what Billy did not report. Nothing about the New Gallup poll showing the Democrats in Congress approval rating going up 25% to 43%, while Republicans approval went down 4% to 19%, not a word. Nothing about the new Gallup poll that says 62% of Americans want Bush investigated for crimes. Nothing about historians ranking Bush the 6th worst President ever.

    And not a word about the racist NY Post cartoon showing cops shooting a chimp and saying they will have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill. It's a racist insult about Obama, and yet O'Reilly ignored the entire story. Even after it was a big story on every news show yesterday. Funny how the NY Post is owned by News Corp, who also own FOX News. Then O'Reilly says nothing.

    Not to mention if a liberal newspaper did a cartoon about Bush, which they did a few times, O'Reilly was all over that story like stink on shit. Can you spell double standard boys and girls.

    The NY Post has a monkey being shot dead, then they refer to the monkey as Obama, which is clearly racist, and O'Reilly says nothing. When it was one of the biggest stories on every tv news show yesterday, he still ignored it.

    Lie Alert: NBC Caught Billy Lying About Octo-Mom Interview
    By: Steve - February 18, 2009 - 12:45pm

    Keith Olbermann nailed O'Reilly last night during the worst person in the world segment, he gave the silver to Billy for lying about the Octo-Mom interview on NBC. And btw, FOX News edited the transcript, they removed the word paid, and changed it. That's when you know someone screwed up, when they change a transcript for legal reasons.

    And one more thing, O'Reilly said his transcripts are never edited, never, not once. So that's just one more lie he has been caught telling.

    OLBERMANN: Number two, Bill-O the clown. As you know, everything bad in the world he perceives is caused by NBC, us and al Qaeda. Commenting again on Nadya Suleman's octuplets, he says, “she was paid by NBC to do the interview with 'The Today Show.' I don't know how much. You know she was.”

    You are full of it. You barely know where your elbow is. And this one will probably require a retraction, sir. My guess is there will be lawyers involved.

    The statement from Allison Gollist of NBC News, quote, “NBC News does not pay for interviews. We did not pay Nadya Suleman or anyone who represents her for our interview. We didn't license a single photo or video from her or anyone who represents her, not a dime. There is no deal with anyone at NBC Universal.”

    Doesn't leave you a lot of room there, Billy. Hint, retraction.

    This does explain why Fox scrubbed it's transcript of O'Reilly's show to make it look like O'Reilly didn't say she was paid by NBC to do the interview, but as if he was actually said she was made by NBC to do the interview. Sleaze bags.

    O'Reilly Denys Reality About Abstinence Only Programs
    By: Steve - February 18, 2009 - 11:05am

    Last night O'Reilly talked about Bristol Palin saying abstinence is ok, but it dont work, and she should know, lol. Then he had 2 sex education experts on, Laura Berman and Lisa Boesky. They both said abstinence programs do not work, and they are the experts. Billy disagreed and even started to get mad because they would not agree with him.

    Billy said some people think abstinence does work, yeah but those people are crazy right-wing fools that deny reality. The 2 experts both had a ph.d in sex education, and they were put on to give their expert opinions. But when they told O'Reilly he was wrong, he told them they are wrong, haha.

    Why even have experts on if you are just gonna spin them with right-wing propaganda and deny what they say is true. I guess he just put them on so he could do just that. There is no other reason to do it, except for partisan reasons. I guess he just did it for his brainwashed kool-aid drinking viewers.

    Because it was fantasyland from Billy, the facts show abstinence does not work, and I can prove it. And here is that proof.

    In April of 2007, a 9 year study was released, it lasted 9 years so they looked at everything. It was a congressionally mandated evaluation of federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs.
    The study found that abstinence only programs have no beneficial impact on young people’s sexual behavior. It found that program recipients were no more likely than nonrecipients to delay sexual initiation, and when they did become sexually active, program recipients had the same number of sexual partners and were no more likely to use condoms or other forms of contraception.
    Participating youth--from a mix of urban and rural settings and from various socioeconomic backgrounds--were enrolled over three consecutive school years between 1999 and 2001 and randomly assigned to the program group or to a control group that received only the usual services available in the community. Follow-up data were collected from more than 2,000 students in 2005 and 2006--four to six years after they were first enrolled in the study.
    “This rigorous, well-designed study adds to and confirms previous research findings that abstinence-only education programs are ineffective and a waste of taxpayer dollars,” says Sharon L. Camp, president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute.

    “The twin messages to policymakers are clear: One, stop funding ideology-driven abstinence-only programs. Two, start supporting programs that provide our young people with comprehensive sex education that teaches the benefits of abstinence, but also prepares them to be safe if and when they do become sexually active.”
    Comprehensive sex education has been shown in numerous studies by well-respected researchers both to delay sex and to increase contraceptive use. However, while the federal government spends about $177 million each year on the ineffective abstinence-only programs highlighted in the study, there is currently no federal funding at all for comprehensive sex education.

    So the Government spends $177 million a year on a program that dont work, only because the right-wing ideology from people like O'Reilly has blinded them to the facts. And the sex education programs that do work, get nothing, zero, zip, zilch. Because the right-wing idiots like O'Reilly cry about giving kids condoms, they claim it will encourage them to have sex.

    Earth to Billy, 15, 16, and 17 year old kids dont need any encouragement, lol. They should be given sex education, and condoms, in case they do have sex. This would help protect them from STD's, and 99.9% of the time prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Instead of looking at reality, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends continue to live in a fantasyland where abstinence works. When all the experts, and all the studies say the opposite.

    It's a classic case of partisan denial from O'Reilly, and then he has the nerve to cry about wasteful Government spending when he supports throwing away $177 million dollars of taxpayer money every year on a program that does not work. And he even denies that it does not work, and gets mad at people who have the facts and claim it does not work.

    The Tuesday 2-17-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 18, 2009 - 10:35am

    The TPM was called The Audacirty of Hope. Billy talked about the Obama agenda and he said if the stimulus plan does not work Obama is a 1 term President. What a biased and unfair joke of a statement that was. It's right-wing garbage, and O'Reilly would never say anything like that about a Republican President. It's also untrue.

    Bush spent 8 years running the economy into the ground, and this is the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. All the economic experts say it will take a year to 18 months, maybe even 2 years to fix the problem, that's how bad it is. And the Obama stimulus plan is only step 1 of a 3 or 4 step plan.

    Paul Krugman said this stimulus bill is not going to fix the economy, and everyone knows it. He said it's going to take a lot more than 1 stimulus bill, and that all it will do is hopefully put the brakes on an economy going downhill fast. Krugman says the Obama stimulus is just meant to slow down the pace of job losses, not fix the economy.

    So it's ridiculous for O'Reilly to say if the stimulus dont work Obama is done and that he will be a 1 term President. Especially when he knows the stimulus bill is not going to fix the economy. It's dishonest, bias, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Billy sets a false standard that he knows can not be met, then he claims if it is not met, Obama is done, it's just ridiculous.

    Then O'Reilly had Cavuto on to talk about it. Cavuto said the stimulus bill will not fix the economy, and for once I agree with him. Everyone with half a brain knows the stimulus bill is not going to fix the economy, including me, and Obama, and almost everyone. Obama is not saying it will, he is saying this is part 1, not part 5, it's the beginning, not the end.

    Obama said this is just 1 part of his economic plan, and that plan is to be put in place over 2 years. And that destroys the false argument by O'Reilly, he claims that Obama has 1 year and if he dont fix the economy by then he's done. When that's garbage, especially when you know it's a 2 year plan, and you know the stimulus bill alone will not fix things. As expected O'Reilly is spinning like a top, and he would never do this to a Republican President.

    Then Larry Elder was on, and of course he agreed with O'Reilly and trashed the Obama stimulus plan. Because he is a right-wing partisan, he's like the black version of Bill O'Reilly. Billy called the stimulus plan welfare and said it's not gonna work, Elder agreed. His idea is tax cuts, when tax cuts are no stimulus at all, and wont do anything for 3 or 4 years.

    The economic experts all say the stimulus is needed now, and down the road a 2nd stimulus may even be needed. These 2 right-wing morons (who are not economists) just trash the thing and call for more tax cuts. We had $2 Trillion dollars in tax cuts under Bush, and that did not do anything, except make the corporations and the wealthy, more wealthy. So shut up about the tax cuts, we need stimulus, then maybe tax cuts in the future.

    Notice that not 1 Democrat has been on the show, it's been all right-wing spin from O'Reilly, Cavuto, and Elder, with nobody from the other side to provide any balance. It's a joke to call that a no spin zone, when it's all spin. Let alone call it fair and balanced, it's nothing but one sided right-wing propaganda.

    Then Billy went tabloid crazy for about 20 minutes, He talked about the 13 year old father in ENGLAND again, abstinence and sex education with 2 experts, more on that later, octo-mom, a monkey attack, Myley Cyrus lawsuit, and the missing girl in Florida. Nothing but tabloid crap for ratings.

    After all that nonsense it was part 2 of the Whoppi Goldberg interview. They talked about bias in the media, and the media coverage of Obama, and Helen Thomas. Billy trashed all the media, except FOX, when he is more biased than any of them. Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity are the 3 most biased people in the media.

    Yet the only bias O'Reilly can find is at CNN, NBC and MSNBC, when Beck and Hannity are never reported on for their bias. And if you add O'Reilly, it's the trifecta of bias. But somehow O'Reilly can not find any bias by him, or anyone at FOX News. Which is a joke, especially when the rest of America sees O'Reilly and FOX as more biased than anyone in the media.

    Whoppi told Billy he was wrong to call Helen Thomas a witch, and he said he was just making a joke. But when liberals made jokes about Bush he cried a river for 8 years and said it was wrong. When somehow it's ok for a Republican to make fun of a liberal, but it's not ok for a liberal to make fun of a Republican. It's hypocrisy, a double standard, and just wrong.

    If a comedian does it, then it's ok, when a journalist does it, then it's not ok. O'Reilly refused to apologize and made the comparison to SNL and Palin, when there is no comparison, because SNL is a comedy show with comedians who get paid to make jokes. O'Reilly is a journalist, at least he claims to be one, and that's a big difference.

    And btw, O'Reilly did not apologize to Thomas, or Courtney Martin. He promised Courtney that if she could show him she defended Palin he would apologize to her, so she did, and he still refuses to apologize to her. Because he is a liar, a fraud, a coward, and a dishonest partisan hack, pretending to be a journalist.

    The Monday 2-16-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 17, 2009 - 11:55am

    The TPM was called P.C. Backlash. Billy taked about the backlash from his Helen Thomas insult, then he admitted he made fun of her, when last week he denied it, I guess last night he forgot he had denied it, must have been one of those senior moments. He cited his worthless unscientific personal website poll where 93% of his friends voted that he should not apologize to Helen Thomas.

    He claimed that was a backlash against the liberal P.C. police. Which is just ridiculous, and bordering on insane. Billy, it was a poll taken by people who visit your personal website, so they are biased. Only a total uneducated fool would not understand that. Billy talked to Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham, and even Ham said the poll was worthless, then O'Reilly told her it was a valid poll.

    Billy told her that 50% of his viewers are Democrats or Independents, so that makes the poll valid, which is a total lie to begin with, and has nothing to do with a poll that was taken on his personal website. Viewers watch the tv show, that demographic has nothing to do with visitors to his website. People who visit his website choose to do so, and those people generally like him, so any poll taken there is worthless.

    When you visit his website and look at poll results it says this:
    This poll is a non-scientific representation of the opinions of visitors to BillOReilly.com.
    So his own website says the poll is unscientific and only the opinion of people who visit his personal website. But O'Reilly goes on tv and claims it's a valid poll that represents the views of the American people, which is just dishonest and wrong. Gallup and Rasmussen would laugh him out of the room if he pulled that crap on them.

    And btw, 93% of the Factor viewers are conservative, republican, or moderate republican, only 5% are Independents, and 2% are Democrats. Those are the facts from a media study taken by the Pew Research Center, so O'Reilly is lying when he says 50% of his viewers are Democrats and Independents, it's a flat out lie. The same study only listed one person in the media with more conservative viewers than O'Reilly, and that was Rush Limbaugh.

    And Juan Williams the so-called Democrat agreed with O'Reilly, defended him, and said he was attacked unfairly and he should not apologize to Helen Thomas. And that's a Democrat? Not in my world, Juan is a stooge, and not even close to a Democrat. He is put on to give an opposing view to Ham and Billy, the Democrat view, then he agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time, when real Democrats disagree with O'Reilly 90^% of the time.

    Then Ann (far right nut job) Coulter was put on all alone with no Democrat for balance to talk about octo-mom and other crap nobody cares about. It was a right-wing biased one sided waste of a tv news time segment that was only done to give Coulter free publicity to sell her insane book. O'Reilly does it because she is a Republican and all the far right loons love her, but notice he does not do the same for any Liberal book authors.

    And FOX News loves voter fraud cases, they report on ACORN non-stop, even when there was no voter fraud by ACORN, just a few isolated cases of registration fraud by the hired help who wrote in fake names to get paid for it. No actual voter fraud ever happened, yet the report it as voter fraud anyway.

    Coulter was never asked about the investigation of her voter fraud. Even though this is the 2nd time she has been accused of voter fraud. She barely avoided charges in Florida for registering to vote at an address where she did not live, and now she is under investigation in Connecticut where she voted while living in New York. Yet Billy did not ask Coulter a single question about either investigation during her appearance on the Factor last night.

    Next Billy put an attorney from the ADF on to cry about a teacher telling a student to stop preaching bible stuff in his classroom. And btw, the ADF is the conservative version of the ACLU, and Billy has a link to their website on his website, without disclosing that fact. His name is David French, and he got on with nobody from the other side to give the counterpoint. It was one sided bias, only giving one side of the story, which is a violation of journalism 101.

    Then Whoppi Goldberg, Billy defended Bush and claimed Obama got a soft ride from the media. Goldberg disagreed, and asked him if he forgot about Wright, Ayers, etc. The media hammered Obama for months on end about all that, I guess O'Reilly just forgot, yeah right. Goldberg told O'Reilly he was wrong, and he disagreed, part 2 of the interview is tonight.

    Next the two Republican culture warriors were on, Crowley and Hoover. They are both Republicans who work for FOX News, so it's just more one sided bias with no Democrat culture warrior to provide any balance. They talked about the missing girl in Florida and the 13 year old boy who had a baby with a 15 year old in ENGLAND.

    Earth to O'Dummy, how is that a culture problem in AMERICA. It's a fricking story about a kid in ENGLAND, not America, so why should we care?

    Billy also talked about the SI Swimsuit issue, and claimed it has lost it's appeal because of all the smut you can get on the internet. Crowley and Hoover disagreed, and pointed out that Billy just did the story so he could run video of babes in bikinis rolling around on a beach to get ratings. Which is exactly what he did.

    Then the reality check with no reality, and half the reality checks had no check. He reported an internet poll about Bill Clinton, with no reality check, and that Brad Pitt said something about octo-mom, but there was no reality check for what he said.

    He reported that California was $11 Billion in debt, and blamed it on the Democrats, even though the Governator is a Republican, who was elected after Davis was impeached, and he said he would fix the financial problem in Cali-for-ni-a. Now it's 10 times worse and O'Reilly blames it on the Democrats, when the Republican governor said he would fix it.

    Billy compared State budget problems to federal budget problems, then he said Obama should slow federal spending. When all the economists say Obama should increase federal spending, it's insane to compare State budgets that must be balanced to a federal budget that does not have to be balanced. And in an economic downturn like this you need the Government to increase federal spending, so O'Reilly is just wrong.

    Then pinheads and patriots and the phony e-mails, which is not even worth reporting. One thing I did not see by O'Reilly, anything about the Gallup poll that said 62% of the people support an Investigation of Bush, or anything about Bush getting ranked the 36th (out of 42) worst President we ever had, who was ranked 40th on economic management. O'Reilly just ignores those stories because he disagrees with them, and he dont want to report those facts.

    O'Reilly Lied to Courtney Martin & Did Not Apologize
    By: Steve - February 17, 2009 - 10:50am

    Once again O'Reilly proves how dishonest he is, and he also proved he is a coward and not a man of his word. After calling Helen Thomas a witch last week, then denying it, he had Courtney Martin from feministing.com on last thursday to discuss it. Instead of just admitting it was wrong to call her an old lady and a witch and saying he was sorry, he spent a week making excuses for it and denying he said it.

    O'Reilly asked her if she defended Sarah Palin, and she said yes. Billy did not believe it and called her a phony and a hypocrite, then he said if she can prove to him she defended Palin he will apologize. Then she did, and to this day O'Reilly has still not apologized.

    Jessica at feministing.com even wrote this on her blog:
    O'Reilly even told Courtney that if she could prove that she ever criticized the sexism levied against Sarah Palin, he would apologize. WELL, Courtney has not only taken issue with sexism against Palin in the past - she's actually called out O'Reilly himself on it! So, Bill - when will Courtney be getting that apology?
    I hate to tell you girls this, O'Reilly will never apologize. Becuase he is a coward who does not keep his word. He will just ignore it from now on and pretend like it never happened. He even ran a worthless and biased poll on his personal website. The poll asked f he should apologize to Helen Thomas, and a whopping 93% said no.

    Then Billy said it was a valid poll, even though it was taken on his personal website, it's an internet poll, and on the poll it even says it is not a scientific poll. If that's a valid poll, I'm Jesus. It would be like me taking a poll on www.oreilly-sucks.com asking if O'Reilly is a biased right-wing fraud, probably 93% would say yes.

    That poll would also be worthless, and not a valid poll. Because it was taken on a personal website, it's an internet poll, not taken by random people over the phone, and it's not scientific. The O'Reilly poll is worthless, and he is a coward who goes back on his word. Even after Courtney showed O'Reilly she did defend Palin, he still refused to apologize.

    This could have been real simple, and a normal person would have just said he was wrong to call Helen Thomas a witch. Then apologized. But things dont work that way in O'Reilly world. Instead he denied he said it, then he made fun of people who called him on it, then he said they were hypocrites and demanded they apologize to him, which never happened because they had nothing to apologize for.

    Billy should have just admitted he called her a witch, then apologized, and the whole thing would have been over in one day. Instead he fueled the fire with his denials, and made it a week long story, just to get ratings for it. And to try and make the people who called him on it look bad, except that backfired, and it made him look like a lying coward who goes back on his word.

    As of last night O'Reilly has not apologized to Courtney Martin, or Helen Thomas, and I predict he never will.

    Conclusive Proof Bill O'Reilly & The Republican Party Are Corrupt
    By: Steve - February 16, 2009 - 9:00am

    All but 3 Republicans in the entire Congress said the same thing about the Obama stimulus plan, that it was a bad bill so they had to vote no, and then every one of them voted no, except for 3 brave and patriotic Republicans in the Senate.

    Arlen Specter was one of them, but he said that in private most Republicans actually support the Obama stimulus bill. They told him they have to vote against it for political reasons.

    The GOP leaders told their members that if they vote yes on the Obama stimulus bill, they will not fund their re-elections, and even fund another Republican to run against them and make sure they lose their House or Senate seat. This is un-American, and the Republican party dont give a damn about fixing the economy. All they care about is political games, and to hell with the economy.

    GOP leaders have already said Specter is done, and that his yes vote sealed his fate. They plan to fund another Republican to run against him and he is expected to lose his Senate seat to a far right conservative who will vote the way the party leaders want him to, like a good little conservative robot.

    It shows that the Republican party is corrupt, that they are willing to let the economy crash, just so they can win their re-elections, and yet O'Reilly does not say a word about it, not a word. Instead he puts out the Republican party line that the Obama stimulus plan is a bad bill, and that is why all the Republicans voted no.

    When he knows that is a lie, and that in private most Republicans say they support the bill, and would vote for it, except it would be political suicide because the GOP party leaders have threatened them all, that if they vote yes they will make sure they lose their seat in Congress. This is un-American and it borders on being a traitor.

    Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
    "When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
    Specter, along with centrist Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, joined with Democrats last week to move the stimulus bill forward. Specter said he doubted there would be any more Republican votes than those three Friday night.
    "I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," he said.

    Specter was asked, How many of your colleagues?

    "I think a sizable number," he said. "I think a good part of the caucus agrees with the person I quoted, but I wouldn't want to begin to speculate on numbers."
    Specter is saying that most Republicans supported the Obama stimulus bill, they just didn't want their fingerprints on it for political reasons. And yet O'Reilly never reported a word of it, not one word. Instead he puts the far right conservatives like Rove, Ingraham, Gingrich, Morris, etc. on the Factor to spin and lie about why all the Republicans voted no.

    That is not journalism, it's dishonest and biased right-wing propaganda.

    And the Pennsylvania State Republican officials say their faith in Specter is irretrievably broken. They are vowing to defeat Specter in the Republican primary in 2010. "It's clear we need a conservative senator who can do the right thing for America," said Glen Meakem, a conservative talk show host in Pennsylvania.

    "It's over for Arlen. He would do best to retire gracefully," he said, adding that party leaders across the state have intensified talks about a primary challenge against Specter. Pennsylvania Republican officials are so eager to drum up a legitimate opponent to run against Specter, they've started a wish list that includes two prominent Republicans who've said they're exploring a run -- for governor.

    Jim Roddy, chairman of the Allegheny County Republican Committee, suggested two names: Pat Toomey and U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Chester Springs. Republican voters are saying things like this on far right websites.
    He’s a fraud and a coward! To hell with Specter!
    They are calling Specter a spinless coward, a RINO, Republican in name only, and calling for him to be voted out of office. For only doing what was right, and voting yes on the Obama stimulus bill. One far right Republican wrote this:
    What a spineless useless wuss. Just be a proud traitor Specter, at least hold up for what you do. Even the two traitorous *itches aren’t phoning around to make sure everybody will still love them after they betrayed their party and the American people.
    The two traitorous bitches he is talking about are the other Republican Senators who voted yes with Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Republicans are calling them traitors.

    Now imagine if Obama was a Republican, and the Democrats did what the Republicans are doing, O'Reilly would call them un-American traitors and demand they vote yes. But Republicans do it and he says nothing, and not only does he say nothing, he helps the Republican party lie and spin about the Obama stimulus bill, when they all know it is badly needed right now, and they may even have to do a 2nd stimulus bill in the future.

    Not only are all the Republicans who voted no corrupt and un-American, so is O'Reilly for not reporting the truth on the issue. In fact, O'Reilly is more corrupt and un-American than the Republicans who voted no, because he is a journalist, and it is his duty to tell the truth to the American people.

    Al Franken Stole The Election? Prove it or Shut up
    By: Steve - February 15, 2009 - 5:10pm

    O'Reilly and all his corrupt right-wing friends keep saying Al Franken stole the election in Minnesota. With no proof to back up their claims, they just say it and hope someone believes it. Joe Conason wrote a great article for salon.com calling them out, he reports on their false claims and exposes them as the lying right-wing trash they are.

    Here are some quotes from the article:

    If Al Franken were not a longtime public figure -- and thus severely handicapped by American jurisprudence -- he could file a powerful complaint for libel or slander against several of the most prominent wingnuts in the United States. From Rush Limbaugh to Bill O'Reilly to Richard Mellon Scaife, a chorus of familiar voices is loudly defaming the Democrat whose razor-thin win in the Minnesota Senate race will now be tested in that state's courts.

    Ever since Election Day, on radio and television, on the Internet and in print, they've screamed that Franken is stealing, rigging, pilfering, scamming, thieving and cheating his way to victory.

    These media figures, some of whom occasionally pretend to be journalists, have spewed such accusations repeatedly, without offering any proof whatsoever -- in plain contradiction of the available facts. Not only is there no evidence that Franken or his campaign "cheated" in any way during the election or the recount, but there is ample reason to believe that the entire process was fair, balanced and free from partisan taint.

    For Franken's most famous adversaries, spewing lies about him may be a form of cheap revenge. A prime example is Bill O'Reilly, who has hated Franken for years, dating back to when he berated him in a public debate, then exposed him in "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," and ultimately provoked him into filing an ill-advised lawsuit that only generated vast amounts of free publicity for Franken's book before the suit was thrown out of court.

    O'Reilly recently talked to Dick Morris, the former Clinton consultant who lost his job for consorting with a prostitute and has gone into business selling himself to the highest Republican bidder. Aside from Fox News, Morris seems to appear with the greatest frequency on Newsmax.com, the popular right-wing Web site owned by Scaife and operated by Christopher Ruddy.

    "Al Franken -- you think he's cheating?" intoned O'Reilly, as if he didn't know the answer.

    "Yeah, I think there's funny business -- funny business going on in Franken's thing," replied Morris, as if he knew exactly what he was talking about. "Sure, he's cheating, and sure that Minnesota's doing it for him. I mean, there's no question that there's cheating going on ... This is outright larceny. This is just a total theft."

    But he offered no evidence to support that incendiary accusation, on the O'Reilly broadcast or in the Newsmax column he published that same day, headlined "Stop Al Franken From Stealing the Election." That column included a link to the Republican National Lawyers Association, which is raising money to assist Coleman's election lawsuit, with a direct endorsement from Morris.

    Instead he complained about a few instances in which he disagrees with decisions by the Minnesota courts and election officials, and in particular with the special panel that oversaw the recount. How those disagreements amount to "cheating" or "stealing" by Franken he did not bother to explain.

    All the usual suspects have echoed these false charges across the airwaves and the Internet. What they invariably neglect to mention is that the Minnesota Canvassing Board, whose decisions have so displeased the Republican right, was impeccably nonpartisan.

    Nobody in their right mind believes that the board was biased -- and, in fact, Powerline blogger Scott Johnson, no friend of Democrats or Franken, has specifically spoken up to defend it. "There was no noticeable partisan division among the board," he wrote. "Minnesotans are justifiably proud of the transparency and fairness of their work."

    Two of its five members are Supreme Court judges appointed by Tim Pawlenty, the state's conservative Republican governor, each with a long record of loyal service to the GOP; a third is a nonpartisan elected judge; a fourth was appointed by former independent Gov. Jesse Ventura; and only one, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, is a Democrat.

    At the outset, Coleman's own lawyers accepted the panel's membership, as did everyone else, including Franken, who might have protested that his own party had only one member.

    Their decisions against Coleman, which led to Franken's provisional victory by 225 votes, were unanimous. It is this group, composed of distinguished judges with spotless reputations, whose hard work has been described in odious terms by the likes of O'Reilly, Morris, Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

    Here's a challenge to all those lying liars. In essence, they have accused Franken of a felony under Minnesota law. If they know of any evidence that would show he has stolen votes or violated any election statute, let them report it to the state law enforcement authorities. And if they don't, perhaps they will at last have the decency to shut up.

    Historians Rank Bush One of The Worst Presidents Ever
    By: Steve - February 15, 2009 - 4:10pm

    Timed for Presidents Day 2009, C-SPAN released the results of its second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership, in which a cross-section of 65 presidential historians ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House.

    George W. Bush ranked 36th. On economic management he was #40, and on International Relations he was #41.



    Only 6 Presidents in the history of America ranked worse than Bush. Fillmore, Harding, Harrison, Pierce, Johnson, and Buchanan.

    FDR was 3rd, JFK was 6th, Reagan was 10th, Clinton was 15th, Bush Sr. was 18th, Carter was 25th, and even Nixon was better than Bush at 27th.

    So when you hear O'Reilly, Rove, Gingrich, Ingraham, Coulter, Hannity, etc. say what a great President George W. Bush was, remember this, they are lying to you. Republicans even make fun of Jimmy Carter for being such a bad President, and yet he was ranked 25th, which is 11 spots higher than Bush.

    O'Reilly even said the economy did great under Bush for 6 years, but only if you were a millionaire, everyone else suffered. And Bush was ranked 40th out of 42 Presidents on the economic management. So dont buy the O'Reilly spin on his hero George W. Bush.

    And one last thing, Bill Clinton was ranked the 3rd best President ever on economic management. Only Lincoln and Washington ranked above him. But in 1993 when he passed his middle class tax cuts and raised taxes on the wealthy, every Republican in America said it would be a disaster, lead to a recession, and bankrupt the country.

    When the opposite happened, over the next 8 years the economy boomed, and 24 million new jobs were created. That's 250,000 new jobs created every month for 8 years straight. And every Republican who predicted doom and gloom when Clinton dared to raise taxes 2% on the wealthy, were WRONG!

    Buzzflash Names O'Reilly media Putz of The Week
    By: Steve - February 15, 2009 - 1:20pm

    For reporting that is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism, and for being beholden to corporate paymasters rather than the citizens of America.

    Privacy is cherished, even if we can't always agree on where the line should be drawn. We also generally agree that those in the position of power might have less privacy than regular folks.

    Then there is the Bill O'Reilly standard for privacy. For Bill O, privacy is valuable unless you disagree with him: then privacy gets thrown out the window.

    O'Reilly says:
    O'REILLY: The right to privacy is a basic Constitutional tenet, and that is not ridiculous at all.
    Apparently this only applies to celebrities, not people O'Reilly doesn't like.

    Jon Stewart's take this week on "The Daily Show" was a culmination of a long-standing quest on O'Reilly's part to invade the privacy of people with whom he disagrees. In typical O'Reilly cowardice, he does not do this work himself, but leaves the tacky, invasive behavior to lesser-paid producers.

    O'Reilly sent his producer to chase down and invade the privacy of Columbia Journalism Review Editor Michael Hoyt. Why? Because Hoyt wouldn't appear on O'Reilly's show.

    O'Reilly is clearly in favor (sometimes) of a Constitutional right to privacy, but may now know of the freedom of association: the individual right to meet with other individuals. By correlation, there is a freedom not to associate with people as well, as in Hoyt does not want to associate himself with Bill O'Reilly.

    This is not an isolated incident: O'Reilly and his minions have done this numerous times over the years.

    The bizarre nature of O'Reilly refusing to acknowledge the privacy of Americans with whom he disagrees is one thing, but his fascination with protecting celebrities from paparazzi -- in direct hypocrisy to his otherwise opinion on the subject -- is mind-boggling.

    Stewart ends the segment by noting that O'Reilly thinks Angelina Jolie has a right to privacy, except when there was speculation that Jolie had banned FOX News from a movie premiere. Then O'Reilly sends a producer to go after Jolie.

    Or as Jon Stewart put it, "For those of you at home who are studying law, America's right to privacy is less than O'Reilly's need to know."

    There are ways to find out information from people, even if they disagree with you. Respectable ways, decent ways. But O'Reilly has a different method: intimidation and invasion of privacy. And a lack of respect for constructive dialogue. For his continuing antics to degrade those with whom he disagrees and for the hypocrisy behind it all, Bill O'Reilly wins the Media PUTZ of the Week award.

    Buzzflash Media Putz of The Week

    The Friday 2-13-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 14, 2009 - 1:20pm

    The TPM was called overcoming Adversity. Billy talked about the NY plane crash and the economic crisis. O'Reilly rambled on for a minute about how the economy got in such bad shape, then he blamed both parties for the crisis. When it was Bush and the Republican party that caused the problem.

    Billy is still spewing out the right-wing talking points that both parties were to blame for the current economic crisis. This is pure right-wing propaganda, and 100% untrue. George W. Bush took over as the President on January 20, 2001. At the time the economy was doing great, and Clinton left him with a $200 Billion dollar budget surplus.

    Then 8 years later, after 8 years of Bush as President, with a Republican Congress for 6 of those 8 years, the economy is a disaster. It all happened with Republicans in control, total control. The Democrats were powerless for 6 years from 2001 to 2007, and even then they only got control of the House in January of 2007, so they still had no power to do anything.

    Even in 2007, Bush was still in the White House, and the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. So the Democrats could do nothing, basically you had a stalemate in Congress from January 2007 until January of 2009 when Obama was sworn in. All the economic problems we have today happened from 2001 until 2007, when the Republicans had control of everything.

    Billy wants you to believe both parties were at fault as protection for Bush and the Republicans who caused the problems when they had the power. And so that he can re-write history and make it a bi-partisan crisis. When the historians will tell you it was caused by George W. Bush and the Republican Congress.

    Then he had Geraldo on to talk about tabloid crap, Octomom, Drew Petersons girlfriend, etc. What was really funny is O'Reilly trashing the Today show for reporting the Drew Peterson girlfriend story. When FOX News reported the same damn story pretty much 24/7, especially on Greta's show, talk about hypocrisy, that's it. It's all tabloid crap, and FOX covers it more than anyone.

    Then Karl Rove was put on to spin and lie about the stimulus and to trash Leahy for thinking about doing a truth commission. Billy and Rove called it a witch hunt, which is ridiculous, especially when there is evidence Bush broke the law. And if you read my other blog post you will see that 62% of Americans support an investigation of Bush. Rove even called Leahy a lunatic, and O'Reilly agreed with him.

    During the stimulus discussion Rove lied once again that stimulus money was going to ACORN, when that's a lie, and it's been proven to be a lie. During the segment the Factor graphics said stimulus con? Then O'Reilly called it a con, which is total right-wing spin and bias from O'Reilly.

    Next he had Diane Saywer on to talk about poverty in Kentucky, she did a documentary about poverty and how it can be fixed. O'Reilly disagreed with her, and said it's a cycle of poverty and a culture of poverty, and there is no hope. He even called it a culture of poverty and ignorance, Saywer disagreed and told O'Reilly the problem can be fixed.

    Basically O'Reilly says they are just a bunch of dumb hicks who will be poor forever, that was his opinion. Even though he is not in Kentucky, is not a poverty expert, is not an economist, and has not studied the problem. His great analysis is they are poor dumb hicks who will be poor forever. Saywer actually went to Kentucky and studied the problem, and she says it can be fixed, so who are you gonna believe, her or Billy the right-wing spin doctor.

    Then Billy put the blonde hot for words babe Marina on so he could drool over her and get his rocks off looking at her sexy body close to him. This segment is just sexy BS for him and his perverted viewers. It's all about putting a sexy foreign blonde on the air to get ratings, and for Billy to get a cheap thrill. I would not be surprised if he tried to get her number so he could try to phone sex her.

    The next guest was crazy Glenn Beck. Before the segment O'Reilly said Beck is going nuts over the stimulus bill and said he might leave the country if it passed. I say great, I hope he does, then America would be a better country with one less lying right-wing spin doctor on the air. Beck is nothing more than a younger and maybe even crazier version of O'Reilly, I call him Glenn O'Reilly, or Billy Jr.

    They both cried about the Obama stimulus plan, even though it passed anyway. Earth to Billy and Beck, stop your crying, Obama won. That means he gets to put his plan in place, and you two morons crying about it every night will not change anything, it just makes you look like whining right-wing losers.

    Near the end of the segment Beck even admitted he is full fledged crazy, those were his own words, and O'Reilly agreed, then he said why do I even put you on the air. For once, they were both right, Beck is crazy.

    Then the TV Icon crap about Mike Conners, aka Mannix. Who cares, this is not news. Then the pinheads and patriots, a NY sports guy was named patriot for doing a joke, how that makes him a patriot I'll never know. The pinhead was Richard Branson from Virgin airlines. Then the phony ego stroking e-mails that Billy hand picks and highly edits.

    All that crap should be taken out of the show, it's tabloid garbage for ratings, and not news. O'Reilly claims to have a hard news show, then half the time he does segments about garbage like snake attacks, and the octomom. The Factor is basically half right-wing spin, pretending to be news, and half Inside Edition style tabloid crap. It's all about right-wing propaganda, and ratings, not reporting the news in an objective way.

    O'Reilly Lied About Courtney Martin & Sarah Palin
    By: Steve - February 14, 2009 - 12:10pm

    During the segment with Martin where they discussed Billy calling Helen Thomas a witch, O'Reilly began to lose his temper and accused her of being part of some left-wing conspiracy.
    O'REILLY: Where were YOU when Sarah Palin was getting the hell kicked out of her? You didn't say a word.
    O'Reilly started yelling and pointing his finger:
    O'REILLY: You guys are hypocrites. You guys are phonies. If you had defended Sarah Palin, then I would respect you and I would say, 'You know, you were right. Maybe I should apologize.' But you didn't! This is a left-wing play. That's what this is.
    Notice how O'Reilly uses his time tested diversion tactics, change the subject from he was wrong to call Helen Thomas a witch, to you are the phony and the hypocrite for not defending Sarah Palin. This is classic O'Reilly, when caught in a screw up, use diversion tricks and attack the person who caught you in the screw up.

    Not only is it a diversion tactic, it's a lie. Because Courtney Martin has defended Sarah Palin, not once, but twice. So O'Reilly is the phony, the hypocrite, and the liar.

    Courtney Martin said this about Sarah Palin, in a reply to what McCain said about her.
    McCain: "I'm proud of her...And I can't tell how proud I am of her and her family. Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too."

    Martin: "That's the Republican presidential candidate talking about his running mate, Sarah Palin, last night in the third and final debate. I was pretty horrified that, number one, he seems to feel that it is necessary to articulate how proud he is of Governor Palin, as if she were his niece not his equal.

    But what was even more shocking was that, in answer to Bob Schieffer's great question, "Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?", Senator McCain felt the need to end by invoking Palin's husband. Did you hear Obama say anything about Senator Biden's wife, as reassurance that Biden will have help in the White House from a big, strong lady? If I were Palin, I'd be pissed."
    That was her first defense of Palin, here is #2 Billy:
    Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: O'Reilly Edition

    Good ol' boy Bill O'Reilly was on The View and, in addition to being generally offensive and irritating, he also said the following in response to this seemingly innocuous question: "Why won't Sarah Palin come on your program?"

    O'REILLY: I don't know. I want her to come in. I have outfits she can wear.

    Outfits she can wear? Is Bill betraying his own bizarre role playing fantasy featuring Palin on national television? Letting such a patronizing and objectifying sentence slip out of his mouth is just more proof that O'Reilly lacks the credibility that should be required of any national news host.
    O'Reilly said if she had defended Palin he would apologize, then he said she didn't. But as you can see she did defend Palin, and she did it two times. Billy told her to send him evidence she did, and he would apologize to her and Helen Thomas, which she did. And yet, to this day, O'Reilly has not apologized to either one of them.

    And btw, Courtney Martin has defended Sarah Palin more than two times. The two examples I use above are the only ones where I could find a transcript. O'Reilly asked for just one, and I found two with a home computer. Dont you think a multi millionaire news show anchor (with a staff of people working for him) could have found them too?

    O'Reilly Had 1 Economist on The Factor in 2 Weeks
    By: Steve - February 14, 2009 - 11:20am

    You would think that if a news show was going to talk about the economy, and the economic stimulus plan they would have an economist on to discuss it. Because they are the experts, they study the economy, and they know what they are talking about.

    You would think that, and you would be wrong. A new study released by Media Matters on 2-11-09 of the 12 cable news programs (including the Factor) found that few economists have been given time on television to talk about the economic recovery plan.

    The study was taken for 2 weeks, January 26-30 and February 2-6.

    The Only Factor Economist: Republican Ben Stein on 2-6-09

    The O'Reilly Factor was monitored for both weeks, and Billy had a total of 1 economist on. And that 1 economist was the Republican, Ben Stein. No Democrat economist was put on in the entire 2 weeks of the study. And I can add that since Obama was sworn in as President on January 20th, O'Reilly has not had 1 economist on, except the Republican Ben Stein.



    On the cable news channels, economists made a total of 18 guest appearances out of a total of 399 guest appearances in broadcasts that included guest discussions of the stimulus.

    John Amato from crooksandliars.com wrote this in a February 4th article: "I'm sure you've heard about the hundreds of economists that are either for or against President Obama's stimulus plan. My question to the media is: Where are they?"

    I will tell you where they are John, not on cable news shows. They are not being used because these cable news anchors like O'Reilly do not want to use them. Because then you would get the truth about the economic stimulus plan, and they dont want the people to hear the truth. Instead they use partisan political hacks like Karl Rove and Dick Morris to go on their shows and spin the stimulus plan.

    This is just more proof of how biased O'Reilly is, instead of using an actual economist, he uses partisan political spin doctors who get paid to spin for the Republican party. While no Democrat economist was given the same chance. Not one Democrat economist has ever been on the factor this year.

    Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans Want Bush Investigated
    By: Steve - February 13, 2009 - 9:45pm

    Think back to the Gay Marriage bill on the ballot in California. It passed, the people voted it into law. Then O'Reilly said the people have spoken, he said we must go by the will of the people. So he supported the Gay Marriage law in California because the majority of the people wanted it, then passed it. And that is not the only time O'Reilly has said we must go by the will of the people, he says it all the time.

    Okay Billy, read this. The majority of the people (62%) want Bush investigated, that means the will of the people must be supported, right? Using your own argument, if the people support it then it must be done. Somehow I dont think O'Reilly will support the will of the people on this one, call me crazy, but I just have a feeling Billy will suddenly say what the people want does not count on this one.

    Read it and weep hypocrisy boy. Then support the people, or you are not following your own rules.

    A new USA Today/Gallup poll released today says 62% of Americans think there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. The poll says 38% favor criminal investigations and 24% want investigations without criminal charges.

    Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, and three in 10 an independent panel. That's 70% for the Republicans reading this.

    It's up to you now Billy, you can be a lying biased partisan right-wing hack, who goes back on his own word, or you can support the Investigations because the majority of Americans do, what say you?

    The 10 Page Hate Filled Manifesto I Got in 2003
    By: Steve - February 13, 2009 - 4:55pm

    Since I was talking about the crazy right-wing liberal killer that O'Reilly is ignoring, I thought it might be a good time to remind people about the crazy 10 page hate filled manifesto one of Billy's right-wing fans sent me back in September of 2003. It reads like a mental patient wrote it, which is the kind of people who watch the Factor.

    He talks about reaching into my soul and ripping it apart, Lucifer, liberal scum like me, and other great things like that. But of course there is no hate on the right, Billy, what say you?

    I dont understand all of it, because I dont know all the right-wing psycho-babble, but it is a good read, if you want a laugh. It is a little scary, but only to think this guy might vote, lol. I was hoping he would show up at my house, so I could pull a Clint Eastwood on him (make my day punk) and send him to meet his maker, but the coward never did.

    As I write on the web page I set up with all the pages (1 to 10) my favorite is still page 8 with the stick drawings. Now that's an artist, lol. I just wonder if O'Reilly would call this right-wing hate, nahhh, probably not. There is a rumor that Billy wrote it himself, but that's just a rumor, and I am not reporting that O'Reilly wrote it.

    On page 10 he says my creator Jesus is going to strike me dead with a heart attack, and that was in 2003, so I guess his God is not as great as he thought. Then he writes any moment, with the name of the city and state I live in, and the zip code. Like that is gonna scare me or something, haha. The guy is so crazy I'm surprised he didn't sign it with his real name.

    And I would suggest your kids not read this, it's full of profanity. Just click the link below to see how crazy some of Billy's fans really are.

    The 10 Page Hand Written Lucifer Letter

    The Right-Wing Liberal Killer Story O'Reilly is Ignoring
    By: Steve - February 13, 2009 - 1:50pm

    The Factor has totally ignored this story because it involves a conservative who was filled with hate, the hate O'Reilly clams is nowhere to be found on the right. It involves the hate from a conservative who got his hate from reading books by O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends.

    The Knoxville News reports that Adkisson targeted the church, 'because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals were ruining the country, and he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of liberal media outlets.

    Who does that sound like, it sounds exactly like a Bill O'Reilly talking points memo.

    They also reported that Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by Bill O'Reilly.

    The American people need to see this hate, and what caused it, yet O'Reilly ignores the entire story because it involves him and his right-wing friends who fueled this guys hate. Then he even has the nerve to say there is no hate on the right, if this is not hate, what is it?

    I made a copy of the 4 page manifesto Adkisson wrote, and put it on a web page, along with the original PDF file so you can see it if you want to. Just click the link below to read it.

    www.oreilly-sucks.com/liberalkiller.htm

    O'Reilly Still Ignoring Two Big News Stories
    By: Steve - February 13, 2009 - 11:30am

    UPDATE -- As of 4:10pm Friday, a search of www.foxnews.com on "Fox News Producer arrested for child porn" gets you this result.

    No news results found

    Not one story about it at foxnews.com, and neither O'Reilly or anyone on the FOX News Netowrk has reported it. It's a total news blackout on that story at FOX, so how are they fair and balanced again. Now just imagine the coverage they would give it if the Producer worked at NBC or MSNBC. It would be all over the website, and reported 24/7 on every FOX show, especially the Factor.

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

    O'Reilly has still not said one word about the FOX News Producer getting arrested for child porn, not a word. And the guy was caught with child porn in college too, yet FOX News still hired him. You can bet the farm if a Producer at NBC or MSNBC was arrested for child porn it would be a week long story on the Factor, with follow up stories for months until the trial was over and there was a verdict.

    But when it's a Producer at FOX O'Reilly ignores the entire story, even when he does a legal segment where he reports on porn and child porn all the time, except when the guy works for FOX News.

    And he has still not said one word about the right-wing nut who killed two people at the liberal church getting life in prison. The guy had books from O'Reilly, Goldberg, and Hannity etc. in his house, and he even cited those books as part of the reason he got so mad at liberals in his 4 page manifesto, mad enough to try and kill them all.

    He specifically cited Goldbergs book of the 100 worst people in America (which is a list of all liberals) as his target list, and this is O'Reilly's media analyst. Yet neither one of them have said a word about it. That shows how biased and how dishonest O'Reilly and Goldberg are.

    O'Reilly even said in the past that there is no evidence the guy got his hate from any conservatives, when there is, and it's right in the guys manifesto. Not to mention the books they found in his house, he said they showed him how bad the liberals are, and he used that information to fuel his hate.

    Over the years he read all those conservative books by O'Reilly, Coulter, Goldberg, etc. In those books they spin how bad liberals are and how they are ruining America, the guys 4 page manifesto reads like an O'Reilly talking points memo. So there is evidence O'Reilly and his right wing friends fueled this guys hate that led him to get a gun and go try to kill a bunch of liberals.

    This is a fact, the books he read, and what he said in his manifesto proves it. yet O'Reilly never says a word about it, in O'Reilly world it just never happened, even when it did. And Billy even has the guys hero Bernie Goldberg on his show as a media analyst, but they still refuse to report the story, and Billy still refuses to admit he was part of the reason this guy tried to kill all the liberals.

    The Thursday 2-12-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 13, 2009 - 11:20am

    The TPM was ‘should we start to panic’. O’Reilly said the stimulus bill will pass and the government does need to do something as 600,000 jobs were lost just last week. The Republicans have made their point that they are against the stimulus package except for three so it will pass. O’Reilly says nobody knows if this stimulus will work or not, but we should be concerned about the economy based on both Bush and Obama saying how bad it is out there.

    Then Dick Morris came on and said the stimulus bill will not work. There might be a boost in the economy, but it will not sustain and spending is not the way to fix the economy, and unemployment will hit 10%. He said Obama’s bigger problems is if he talks the economy down, he is doom and gloom and if in six months he starts talking it up he will suffer a credibility issue.

    After 8 years I sort of like a guy who tells it like it is. Morris says Obama will get hurt when he addresses social security and has to lower the cost of living increases and raise taxes to pay for it. He will also get hurt when people find out he is out for full government control of health care and that the democrats will get trounced in the 2010 elections.

    Since Morris is never right with his predictions, things are looking good for the democrats. O’Reilly asked him about Wall Street going down and Morris says all Wall Street is concerned about is the bailout of the financial institutions and Geithner did a lousy job with that the other day.

    Next up was Laura Ingraham to talk about her issues with Arlen Specter, they got into it on her radio show. She claims he was bought out by being wined and dined by Obama and he was the only Republican at Obama’s super bowl party. News flash to Laura that even O’Reilly brought up; a Pennsylvania team was in the super bowl. She called Specter a coward and all he wanted was to have his day in the press.

    He disagreed with her the whole way through and said he felt Specter voted for it because he is scared if nothing is done the economy will totally collapse and the Specter has always been a stand up guy. Then they both poked some more fun at Helen Thomas with Ingraham telling O’Reilly he got his witches mixed up and and she is the wicked with of the west, not the east.

    Then we had the octuplet study, O’Reilly declared the mother a nut and a loon and said the doctor who did these implants should be arrested and have his license taken away. He asked both doctor guests if they had known six embryos had been implanted in a patient, would they turn the doctor over to the authorities? They both said no that it is not their job to do that and they would just advise the woman it is not a smart thing to do and that got O’Reilly upset, I guess because they refused to agree with him.

    The Factor ambush was on Senator Leahy wanting to do a Truth Commission on possible crimes committed by the Bush administration. He started the segment by saying Leahy wants to prosecute people in the Bush admin. Civics 101 Bill, legislatures do not prosecute. The ambush was Griff Jenkins telling Leahy he was being a hypocrite in wanting to prosecute Bush but not even investigate Clinton on the Marc Rich pardon.

    Hmmm; war crimes, illegal spying, versus a questionable pardon. I guess in O’Reilly’s world it is all the same. Leahy made it clear he was not interested in prosecuting, just getting to the truth. Bill then had his guest on, Mark Thiessen a Bush speechwriter. They both took turns calling Leahy a hypocrite and that the guys who might have committed these crimes should be heroes for keeping us safe since 9/11.

    Thiessen even went so far as to say Truth Commissions are what they do in South Africa and Rwanda, but not in America. I guess we don't need to know the truth. It was all the normal Republican spin with no democrat to counter any of the crap they spewed out that we should not be letting our enemies know what and how we conduct our intelligence gatherings otherwise they will just go around it and hit us again, Bush is a hero and Leahy is a hypocrite and all the democrats want to do is take Bush down.

    How can anyone in their right mind compare a pardon of a private citizen who cheated on his taxes, to a sitting President possibly approving of war crimes and breaking federal wiretap laws while he was the President. It's insane, and there is no comparison.

    It shows just how biased O'Reilly is, if Bush had made the Rich pardon 9 years ago O'Reilly would be 100% opposed to an investigation. But since Clinton did it Billy wants it looked at by the feds. When we have a President who knew of, and approved of war crimes, and breaking the federal FISA law on wiretaps. Billy is opposed to that investigation, only because it's a Republican.

    The double standards, the bias, and the hypocrisy is stunning. Nobody cares about a 9 year old pardon of a tax cheat by Bill Clinton, except Bill O'Reilly. While a Republican President approved of war crimes, and other crimes, O'Reilly says who cares, dont look to the past and just let it go when it's a Republican. But if a Democrat gives a pardon to a tax cheat Billy has no problem looking back for that, when it would be a huge waste of taxpayer money for nothing.

    Then the legal segment with Megyn Kelly, they talked about the missing girl in Florida, the Caylee Anthony service, and a snake attack on a child. Which is pretty much a waste of tv time, and not news. And of course there is no Democrat on for any legal segments, just Kelly alone, or Kelly and Wiehl.

    On reality check, Billy put up a quote that Sean Penn said O’reilly is just a wannabe actor. That gave O’Reilly his opening to play a clip of him in the failed movie American Carol. Then it was oil prices are dropping and gas prices are rising because refineries have cut back production. Exxon Mobile continues with record profits and they need no bailout.

    Billy cried once again about how no womens group defended Sarah Palin when SNL spoofed her with Tina Fey, but they defended Helen Thomas, he says it's hypocrisy. Earth to O'Reilly, you are full of shit, do you even know what hypocrisy is?

    Tina Fey is a comedian who gets paid to do comedy skits on a comedy show. No womens group should ever have a problem with anything they do because they are comedians, it is their job to make fun of people, and that is what they get paid to do.

    You, on the other hand, are not a comedian. You do not work on a comedy show and you do not get paid to spoof people and make jokes. You are a journalist, as you claim, so it is wrong for you to call a woman a witch, or makes jokes about her being a witch, because you are not a comedian. If you cant see the difference, you need mental help.

    Pinheads and patriots was a waste of time and the phony and edited emails all make O’Reilly look like America ’s hero. And btw, O'Reilly named Dolly Parton a patriot for making a boob joke. He even played the video of her making the joke.

    How that makes her a patriot is beyond me, and with 300 million Americans I am sure there is a better example of a patriot than that. Billy just did it to play the video of her and her big boobs making a boob joke. Because he is a pervert, haha.

    Billy Wins Silver in Worlds Worst Persons
    By: Steve - February 12, 2009 - 1:30pm

    From the 2-11-09 Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

    OLBERMANN: The silver tonight, Bill-O the clown, back to his obsession with my boss, a way of taking a shot at me.
    O'REILLY: “In 2001, legendary GE boss Jack Welsh retired and Jeffrey Immelt took over. On his watch, GE stock has declined an astounding 75 percent, down more than 30 percent since the first of this year. I predicted GE would hit 10 dollars a share and last week it almost did. Immelt still has his job, even as millions of stock holders are getting hammered.”
    Oh, Bill, didn‘t Rupert call you again and tell you to skip the stock quotes for a while?

    News Corp, the parent company of Bill-O‘s Fixed News, announced it lost six billion 400 million dollars in the last quarter of last year, and it predicted a 30 percent drop in profits for the first half of this year, double Wall Street‘s estimate.

    News Corp‘s stock closed at 7.19 a share today, down about 66 percent from where it was last year. So Bill, you are saying the CEO of any company losing that much stock value that quickly should be fired? Rupert for you, line one.

    -----------

    And btw, the reason GE stock is down 75% is due to George W. Bush and the Republican party. They are the people who ruined the economy and ran the country into the ground over the last 8 years. And yet, O'Reilly blames it on Jeffery Immelt.

    When it's George W. Bush's fault, the Republicans in Congress that supported all his failed policies, and the Republicans in Congress who got rid of all the regulations on wall street and the corporations.

    Not to mention, all the other corporate CEO's that do the same thing Immelt did, their stock price is also down 60 to 80 percent, yet O'Reilly never says a word about them, he only goes after GE and Immelt.

    The Wednesday 2-11-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 12, 2009 - 12:40pm

    The TPM was called P.C. Madness. Billy talked about all the heat he got over calling Helen Thomas a witch, he called her the wicked witch of the east, and said if Obama poured water on her she would dissolve. Then he trashed mediamatters.org and claimed they sent out a press release to hammer him for it.

    When I did not even know they did that, I hammered O'Reilly for it after watching him say it myself. Billy said mediamatters.org is just a liberal watchdog group that only goes after conservatives, which is a total lie.

    They go after everyone who does wrong, they hammer Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, people at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, everyone. In fact, they just released a study hammering all three cable news channels, including CNN and MSNBC. And they have a current article on Chris Matthews right now.

    They do go after mostly conservatives, because they tell the most lies, but they also go after many liberals, and they do it all the time. Then Billy talked about a womans group called the Womens Media Center that hammered O'Reilly and called for him to say he is sorry, O'Reilly refused. And to this day he has not said he was sorry.

    Billy had Courtney Martin from WMC on to discuss it, she said O'Reilly was wrong to call her a witch and told him he needs to say he is sorry. She said it's wrong to judge a woman on her age and her looks, and O'Reilly said you will not get an apology from him. Then he denied he called her a witch, and he said the transcripts will show it.

    Wrong, the transcripts show that he called her a witch, he even said she looked like the wicked with from the west, but he actually said east, he even got that wrong. It's wicked with of the west, not east moron. So he even lied about what he said. Then he compared it to SNL doing comedy skits about Sarah Palin, now that's ridiculous.

    And btw Billy, what happened to your line about not using other bad behaviour to excuse more bad behaviour. You are using other bad behaviour to excuse your bad behaviour, when you claim that is not allowed. I guess it's only allowed when you do it, just not when anyone else does.

    It's the same as when you say you dont do personal attacks, then you do. Someone makes a joke about you, and you call it a personal attack. But when you make a joke about someone else it's suddenly not a personal attack. It's not only a double standard, it's a lie, and hypocrisy. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, hypocrite.

    Billy, listen carefully. SNL is a comedy show, they do comedy, it's called satire on a comedy show with comedians doing it. You are a journalist, or at least you claim to be one. You have a so-called news show, you are not a comedian. There is a world of difference between a comedy show spoofing Palin, to you insulting Helen Thomas by calling her a witch that would melt if you pour water on her.

    Especially when you say you do not do personal attacks, when you call a woman a witch, it's a personal attack, unless you are a comedian on a comedy show.

    If you do not understand the difference, you need to get some mental help, and fast. Billy said he will never say he is sorry, and told Ms. Martin how brave she was to do his show. I guess he thinks everyone is afraid of him, when in reality they just dont want to do his biased and fake news show, it has nothing to do with fear.

    And if anyone is afraid, it's O'Reilly. He is afraid to have me as a guest on the Factor. So the only coward in this picture is Bill O'Reilly. And btw, Billy did not say a word about the FOX producer getting caught with child porn, or the right-wing nut who got life in prison for shooting and killing the liberals at the church. As I predicted yesterday.

    Then Billy had a segment on the TARP Congressional hearing, he had Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and Larry Elder on to discuss it. Billy asked them about his Helen Thomas problem, and they both agreed O'Reilly did nothing wrong. Hill is a so-called Democrat, yet he thought what O'Reilly said about Helen Thomas was just fine. Which just shows that he is not a real Democrat.

    Let me tell you something about Dr. Hill. The so-called Democrat. I wrote him one time and asked if I could have him ask O'Reilly a question once in a while. He wrote me back and said sure, no problem. So I sent him a couple questions to ask O'Reilly, but he never asked them.

    So I wrote back to him a couple times to ask why, and he never returned my e-mails, none of them. I am guessing he was too afraid to ask Billy the questions I wanted answered. My guess would be that he is afraid if he asked Billy a tough question O'Reilly would kick him off the show, and he would lose his tv time on the #1 cable news show. So in my book Dr. Hill is a sell out coward of a fake Democrat, who just wants to kiss Billy's ass so he can stay on tv.

    During the segment O'Reilly blamed Barney Frank, and both Democrat and Republican guests told O'Reilly Frank was maybe 1% of the problem. And of course even when O'Reilly puts a fake Democrat on the air he is paired with a Republican to counter his views. But that never happens when Rove, Gingrich, Ingraham, Morris, Coulter, Goldberg, etc. are on. They are never paired with a Democrat, ever, not once.

    Then Billy talked about Michael Phelps, dont care and it's tabloid news, and the right-wing internet cop was on next. They talked about crap on the internet that nobody cares about. Ads for an airline and global warming, and a kid video that O'Reilly thought was wrong. Even the right-wing internet cop had no problem with two of the three ads, so why even report on them. And of course there is no Democrat internet cop, just the right-winger from townhall.com.

    If you ask me O'Reilly just does that policing the net segment because she is a hot Republican babe, and it gives her time on the air. It's pretty much a waste of tv time.

    Then the great Bernie Golberg was on to cry about all the bias in the media, and the Will Ferrell comedy show about Bush. Earth to Billy and Bernie, Ferrell is a comedian, it's a comedy show, get over it, and lighten up. Bush is gone, let it go, you can stop defending him, he is not the President anymore. He was the worst President we ever had, and people will be talking about his dumb ass for years, so get over it already. Nothing you two morons say will stop it.

    And of course Goldberg defended O'Reilly on the Helen Thomas insult, O'Reilly said it was just a good natured joke and no different than SNL doing it. When it's totally different, because SNL is a comedy show. If SNL calls her a witch in a comedy skit I have no problem with that. But when a so-called journalist does it on a so-called news show there is a big problem with it. Talk about clueless, Bernie and Billy just dont get it.

    They act like O'Reilly was in the right to call her a witch, and then they attack the people who reported what he said, it's like watching the twilight zone. Bernie told O'Reilly to let it go because it's like shooting spitballs at a battleship, now that's funny. He implies that Billy is such a big media star that the little spitballs do not hurt him. I was laughing my ass off.

    Bill O'Reilly is a nobody, he is an old punk coward of a right-wing loser with a fake cable news show. He gets 3 million viewers a night, which means 297 million people are not watching him. When I go out and ask people what they think of Bill O'Reilly 90% of them say who? The other 5% say I have heard of him, and ask what he does. I would say maybe 5% of the people even know who he is. To call him a battleship is insane, a battleship in the media would be Brian Williams.

    O'Reilly is a dingy, at best. Outside the right-wing world of FOX News Bill O'Reilly is the biggest laughing stock in the media. Except for maybe Limbaugh and Hannity. He is seen as a fool, a biased old right-wing fool. That is what most of America thinks of Bill O'Reilly. In fact, most of Americans do not even know who he is, let alone what he does. The reality is, 297 million Americans do not watch his show, think about that Goldberg.

    E-Mail From a Misinformed Republican O'Reilly Viewer
    By: Steve - February 12, 2009 - 10:40am

    I got an e-mail last night and I thought I would show everyone just how misinformed these morons who watch O'Reilly are. The guy is basically clueless, and has all the facts wrong. He blames Obama for everything when he has not passed one spending bill yet.

    He thinks Obama is giving it all to the banks and wall street, when it's going to the States to create jobs, businesses in tax cuts, and the working Americans get tax cuts too. He even thinks the stimulus bill is $3 Trillion dollars, when it's $780 Billion, that's how misinformed he is, and I bet he gets all his news from O'Reilly and FOX.

    Here is what he wrote to me:
    On Wed, 2/11/09, [email protected] wrote:

    > From: david hromadka
    > Subject: I think you suck
    > To: [email protected]
    > Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 8:54 PM

    > You people are unbelievable. You really make me sick.You
    > leftist jerks need to find another country to practice Your
    > gay rights and abortion and your gun control etc etc bla bla
    > bla. I quess you think spending, what is it now 3 trillion
    > on this stimulus package is a good idea. This dumbass
    > isn't in office a month and he wants to give that much
    > money to the jerks that got us to this point as it is. You
    > can't fix greed bye throwing money at it, You want to
    > fix the economy? Give the money to the people. Its a no brainer.
    Here is my reply:

    My God are you misinformed, where do you get your news, Limbaugh and O'Reilly?

    The Stimulus is $780 Billion, not $3 Trillion. It's 65% spending to create jobs, and 35% tax cuts. Your hero Bush gave out all the other money, Obama has not given out 1 cent, if the $780 Billion dollar Stimulus passes, it will be the first dime he has given out.

    Bush gave all the rest out, moron. You need to watch some other news than Limbaugh and FOX, you are so misinformed it's actually stunning. Obama is spending money in the Stimulus Bill to create jobs, it's going to the states, not wall street or the banks. And he is giving the people their money back in tax cuts, he is giving $1000 to families, and $500 to a single person.

    And btw, I dont really care about gay rights or abortion, they are non issues to me. I dont even talk about them unless O'Reilly puts out some spin about it.

    I am also a gun owner, and a former member of the NRA, and I target practice all the time with my guns. I support the 2nd amendment 1000%, and I mostly agree with Republicans on gun issues.

    You are misinformed David, because the Republicans have spent a month lying about what's in the Stimulus Bill. And btw, Bush and the Republicans caused this mess, why are you blaming Obama, he is just trying to fix the mess Bush created.

    He has only been the President for 3 weeks, and he has not passed one spending bill yet. And you blame him for the problem, when he has not done anything yet.

    And one last thing, how do you know his plan will not work until he does it. What if it works and in a year the economy is getting better, what will you say then. Dont you remember he won the election in a landslide 360 to 180, that means he gets to try his plan.

    Why dont you wait a year and see if his plan works, then if it dont, you can hammer him for it. But it's too soon to hammer Obama, he has not done anything yet. He has not even passed one spending bill yet, so your jumping the gun sparky.

    Steve

    P.S. Stop listening to all the right-wing idiots on tv and radio, they lie to you, and the Stimulus Bill is not as bad as you think. All the Republicans in the House and Senate voted no for political reasons. So they can get re-elected in their conservative districts, otherwise almost all of them would have voted yes, it was all political.

    Keith-O Nails O'Reilly Ari Fleischer And John Scott
    By: Steve - February 11, 2009 - 3:00pm

    From Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC:

    OLBERMANN: Number one, revisionism-gate. After Barack Obama‘s first presidential news conference, Bill-O the clown interviewed Bush‘s first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who mocked the president calling on Sam Stein of “Huffington Post” for questions. Fleischer said, “you get a lot of other dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there.

    They‘re screened.” O‘Reilly interrupted, “like the ‘Huffington Post.‘ Now it gets called on.” Fleischer continued to dig himself in deeper. “I used to seat them all in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, don‘t call on Siberia.”

    That‘s Ari Fleischer, whose White House press office first issued press credential to Jeff Gannon, real name James Guckert. Job, correspondent for conservative website Talon News. Real job, well, there are kids watching. By the time of his news conference in January 2005, Mr. Bush actually called on Gannon/Guckert of Talon News for a question that ended with a reference to Democrats.

    So, Bill-O, Ari, speaking of divorced from reality, who started giving news conference time and credibility to the dot coms and other oddballs? And do you really think that within six weeks of getting its reporter called on by the president, “Huffington Post” is going to go dark, the way Talon News did six weeks after Bush called on its ace reporter, Scoop Oddball Dot com?

    Then Scott and O'Reilly got bronze and silver in worlds worst persons:

    OLBERMANN: The bronze to John Scott of Fixed News. This is one of the real talking points readers, who may or may not recognize the individual words he‘s saying, never mind their meaning. But today, accompanied by a series of graphics, he read a story claiming to show how the stimulus package, quote, “was born and how it grew and grew and grew,” quoting seven different dates and seven different total amounts, ranging from 56 billion to 775 billion.

    It was taken word for word, figure for figure and date for date from a press release issued yesterday by the Senate Republicans Communications center, right down to a typo contained in the press release, referring to an article published December 2009, a month that hasn‘t happened yet. The actual definition right there of reading the talking points.

    The runner-up is Bill-O. New lighting and a new set imitating ours, but the same old clown. Rips the singer Cher and plays a tape of her saying, quote, I just don‘t understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can‘t figure out. I don‘t understand. If you‘re poor, if you‘re any kind of minority, gay, black, Latino, anything—if you‘re not a rich—I don‘t know. If you‘re not a rich, born-again Christian, I don‘t get it.”

    Bill-O said he would have to break it to her gently that, quote, “there are good people in both parties who love their country like you do. Don‘t be a pinhead. Be independent like me.” Yes, he‘s as independent as a pack mule. But more importantly, he edited something out of the tape of Cher‘s comments, the part in which she said, there are some really good Republicans.

    As Rupert Murdoch says of his own shop, “we have never been a company that tolerates facts,” aargh.


    Two News Stories You Will Never See O'Reilly Report
    By: Steve - February 11, 2009 - 1:50pm

    1) James Adkisson (the right-wing nut who shot up a liberal church) has been sentenced to life behind bars for the deaths of Greg McKendry and Linda Kraeger, who died during his assault on their church in Knoxville, TN. last July.

    When police searched Adkisson's apartment they found it filled with books and newsletters written by Bill O'Reilly, Bernie Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and other right-wingers.

    Shortly after he was sentenced Monday, he released a four-page handwritten "manifesto" -- which he'd intended to be his suicide note -- to the Knoxville News. In it, he unleashes the full measure of his hatred for liberals -- and encourages other would-be right-wing warriors to take up arms and follow him into battle.

    Here is part of what he wrote:
    "Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state.

    "This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book."

    I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same.

    Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals.
    Remember this, people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Goldberg, Coulter, etc. helped create this guy, he watched their hate filled shows on radio and tv and read their hate filled books. This built up an extreme hate for liberals, over years and years. Then he finally acted on his hate, the hate fed by O'Reilly and his right-wing friends.

    2) FOX News Producer Aaron Bruns Arrested for Child Porn

    Here is another story you will never see reported on the Factor, even though Billy loves to report on porn cases, especially child porn cases.

    Alex at www.newshounds.us reported this:

    TV Newser reports this morning that Fox "News" producer Aaron Bruns has been arrested on charges of possession of child pornography and will appear in court this afternoon. Bruns was embedded with the Hillary Clinton campaign and has been employed by Fox since 1999.

    According to Fishbowl, Fox News only began background checks on its staff in 2003. Must suck to be HR at Fox right now, as the same source provides a link to a 1999 article about Bruns arrest on charges of distributing child pornography whle he was in college. According to detectives, Bruns had thousands of pornographic images stored on his pc, including sexual photos of children, which he was trading via internet chat rooms.

    This latest charge concerns kiddie porn videos and images found on Bruns laptop in his Washington home after a Pennsylvania state police investigation turned up evidence that Bruns was distributing the porn via a peer-to-peer network and tipped off the FBI.

    What is interesting is who isn't reporting the story. When I did a search at 10:30AM EST, I found zip at FoxNews.com, and zero on the Drudge Report.

    The Facts About O'Reilly And GE Doing Business With Iran
    By: Steve - February 11, 2009 - 12:00pm

    O'Reilly is doing an assault on the CEO of GE, calling him a "pinhead" and a "despicable human being" who bears responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. Billy's charges revolve around GE's history of doing business with Iran.

    O'Reilly claims that GE's Jeffery Immelt should be fired because he has run the company into the ground. Billy says their stock has dropped 77% so he should be fired, and he talks about how they did business with Iran so you should not buy their stock and Immelt should be fired because of it.

    But as usual with O'Reilly he ignores the other 99% of the story that he does not want you to know. News Corp stock price has also dropped 72%, but you dont hear O'Reilly calling for Murdoch to be fired.

    In a May 2008 Washington Post article this was reported about GE:
    GE has long had a corporate presence in Iran, which U.S. officials say is providing weapons and training for Shiite militias in the Iraq conflict. Under growing criticism from the public and its own shareholders, GE announced in 2005 that it would accept no new business in Iran and would wind down existing contracts, which mostly involved sales of oil, gas and energy and health-care equipment.

    The remaining work, valued at less than $50 million, amounts to less than .01 percent of GE's income, and the company says the final four contracts will expire within weeks.
    That means all GE contracts with Iran expired in May or June of 2008. But O'Reilly is still saying GE is doing business with Iran that is getting US troops killed. When it's a bold faced lie, and O'Reilly knows it, so he is being dishonest. Just last night O'Reilly once again stated that GE is doing business with Iran, when those contracts expired 6 months ago.

    Not to mention in August of 2004, the CBS show 60 Minutes identified 400 companies that are in pension portfolios that are doing business in terrorist-sponsoring states. Well over 200, are actually doing business in Iran; of that, more than 60 are doing business in Libya.

    But O'Reilly never says a word about these other 200 American Corporations that are doing business with Iran, or their CEO, including Halliburton, the company Dick Cheney used to run. The 60 Minutes report identified specific companies that have invested in these rogue countries, including Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips and General Electric.

    And they point out that New York's pension funds own nearly $1 billion worth of stock in these three Fortune 500 companies, which have operations in Iran and Syria. So just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states.

    In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran. That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank.

    Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly. Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO from 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government.

    In other words, if GE and their CEO Jeffery Immelt has helped kill US troops because they did business with Iran, so did Halliburton and their CEO Dick Cheney, and the 200 other CEO's of companies who all do business with Iran. But O'Reilly only reports that GE is doing business with Iran, when 200 other companies are too.

    The reason he only mentions GE did business with Iran is real simple, revenge. He lies and smears GE to get revenge on Keith Olbermann. In May of 2008 Howard Kurtz reported this at the Washington Post:
    The attacks grow out of an increasingly bitter feud between O'Reilly and the company's high-profile subsidiary, NBC, one that has triggered back-channel discussions involving News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, Fox News Roger Ailes, NBC chief Jeff Zucker and GE's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt.

    Ailes called Zucker on his cellphone last summer, clearly agitated over a slam against him by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn't stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O'Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.

    Both Fox and the Post are owned by Murdoch, who complained about Olbermann's conduct in separate calls to Zucker and Immelt. The high-level appeals failed, and O'Reilly has escalated his criticism of GE, declaring, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt."
    And now you have all the facts, not just the selected cherry picked facts O'Reilly reported. He fails to mention Halliburton also does business with Iran, or that 200 other American companies do it too. He never says a word about the other 199 CEO's that do business with Iran, he only reports that GE and Jeffery Immelt are doing it.

    And he lies about GE still doing business with Iran, when they stopped 6 months ago. O'Reilly is using his show to spin and lie about GE to get revenge for Keith Olbermann exposing him as a biased spinning right-wing liar.

    That's not Journalism, it's bias, dishonesty, revenge, and just wrong!

    And that is what the great Bill O'Reilly does with his #1 rated cable news show, he uses it to get revenge on a guy at MSNBC who simply tells the truth about him. And he lies and smears an entire Corporation to do it. While ignoring the other 200 American Companies and CEO's who are doing the exact same thing as GE, including Halliburton.

    More Proof FOX News Has a Conservative Bias
    By: Steve - February 11, 2009 - 11:00am

    Last year O'Reilly and FOX News were accused of getting GOP talking points from the Republican party. O'Reilly said it was a bold faced lie, and that he has never got a Republican talking point in his life. Despite evidence to the contrary, like many FOX News anchors parrorting Republican talking points almost word for word.

    O'Reilly even said if anyone has evidence that anyone at FOX uses GOP talking points to send it to him and he will report it. Well here it is Billy, you and Bernie Goldberg better do a segment on this or you are both corrupt and biased frauds. I am sending this info to O'Reilly today, so we will see if he is a man of his word or not.

    Any bets this info never sees the light of day on the Factor?

    Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all

    During the February 10 edition of Fox News Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that "the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew."

    In tracking how and when the bill purportedly "grew," Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods. However, all of the sources and cost figures Scott cited, as well as the accompanying on-screen text, were also contained in a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center.

    One on-screen graphic during the segment even repeated a typo from the GOP document, further confirming that Scott was simply reading from a Republican press release.

    The Fox News graphic and the GOP press release both claimed that a Wall Street Journal report that the stimulus package could reach "$775 billion over two years" was published on December 19, 2009.

    All seven news sources and cost figures Scott and on-screen Fox News graphics referenced -- including the "12/19/09" Journal article -- were contained in the Senate Republican Communications Center's press release.

    This was a press release sent out by the Republican party telling them how to spin the Obama stimulus bill to make Obama and the Democrats look bad. And it was only read on FOX News by anchors who work at FOX. You never saw it on CNN or MSNBC, it was only reported on FOX. That is proof the Republican party uses FOX to put out their propaganda.

    While Scott spoke, Fox News aired the following graphics, citing news reports about the stimulus plan's cost.

    Click Here to See The Graphics

    The Tuesday 2-10-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 10, 2009 - 9:30pm

    The TPM was called Corruption Watch. Billy talked about how the stock market is a con game and people are now afraid to put their money in the market. Thanks Mr. obvious, I reported the same thing 5 years ago. I was telling people that the stock market is rigged for the wealthy and the insiders, and I said it years ago before everyone lost their money.

    Billy hammered GE again, he said their stock was down 77%, nothing about News Corp stock being down 72%, or that they lost 6.4 Billion in the last quarter of 2008. He even cried about the salary Immelt gets, while saying nothing about the salary Murdock gets. Total hypocrisy and selected news reporting to make GE look bad because they own MSNBC and NBC.

    Then Billy claimed Obama is using fear to get his stimulus bill passed, but it's not fear when you are telling the truth. The economy is a disaster, and Obama is just telling the truth, unlike Bush who lied about everything. O'Reilly had A.B. Stoddard and Ken Vogel on to discuss it. Billy cried about the hypocrisy from the media, when Bush used fear tactics they hammered him, but they dont with Obama.

    The two situations have no comparison, yet O'Reilly claimed they were exactly the same. Bush used fear about terrorism, but he was just making up threats and using bogus terror alerts to get re-elected. Obama may be scaring people with his talk about the economy, and sort of using fear, but he is doing it for the right reasons, and the fear he puts out is based on the truth, it just happens to scare people, but it is the truth.

    That's a big difference from Bush lying about terror threats to scare people into re-electing him. But in O'Reilly world it's the exact same thing, and he is outraged that the media does not hammer Obama for it. Even when he's only been the President for 3 fricking weeks. At the end of the segment O'Reilly called for the partisan politics to stop, now that's funny.

    If it stops his show is off the air, because it's all partisan politics. I guess he is just too delusional to understand that he is a partisan who uses more partisan politics than anyone on tv, except for maybe Hannity. O'Reilly is the king of partisan politics.

    Then Billy had the two Republican culture warriors on to discuss the octuplet mom story. Monica Crowley and Margaret Hoover were on to agree with Billy, and of course they did. O'Reilly said the State should take the kids away from her because she is a loon, and the two culture warrior ass kissers both agreed. No Democrat culture warriors, just Republicans.

    The next segment was about A-Rod and steroids. Billy had a sports reporter on from the NY Times to discuss it. I changed the channel and watched something else, this is a sports story for sports shows, not a news show. Then it was the body language segment, and I did not watch that crap either. It's a waste of tv news time and not worth talking about.

    Then it was the legal segment with two more Republicans, Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl. They talked about theGitmo trial Obama stopped because they waterboarded the guy and all the evidence they have on him was obtained by torture, so it cant be used in court. O'Reilly said if Obama lets him go he is gonna be very mad, when it's Bush's fault he cant go to trial because they used torture to get all the evidence. And nobody thinks he will ever be let go, trial or no trial, except O'Reilly.

    They also talked about a rancher in Arizona who held some illegal aliens against their will, and even kicked a mexican woman. Wiehl said he called the cops, when that's a lie. He was holding them when the border patrol showed up, the guy called his wife, not the cops, and they filed a lawsuit against him. So Wiehl had the facts wrong, she probably used that crack Factor research team. And of course there were no Democrats to give any legal analysis, only Republicans.

    Then it was the biggest waste of tv time on a news show, the culture quiz. O'Reilly puts two more right-wing morons from FOX on to take a stupid culture quiz that nobody cares about. Billy sits there and asks these two FOX News morons 5 questions and they answer them. Then he did the pinheads and patriots and the e-mail.

    One e-mail told him he should stop the ambush interviews that invade peoples privacy. O'Reilly said no, he said he must do them, why only he knows. They do no good at all, except to piss the people off and he gets no information. Another e-mail said he was wrong to call Helen Thomas a witch, Billy said he was just having a little fun with her. yeah, it's called a personal attack, which he says he never does.

    But somehow if someone calls him a biased fool, or a liar, etc. that is a personal attack, but when he does it to someone, it's not, in O'Reilly world that's how things work. I cant explain it, that's just how it works in Billy's head. One e-mail asked him about his coverage of Obama, Billy said he has been fair to Obama, and I'm Brad Pitt too.

    Near the end of the show Billy told his viewers that his personal website is changing to a hard news website. And I thought to myself, what was it before, a soft news website?

    Jon Stewart Rips O'Reilly Over Hypocrisy On Privacy
    By: Steve - February 10, 2009 - 5:30pm

    Jon Stewart ripped Bill O'Reilly on Monday night's "Daily Show" over his hypocritical stance on privacy. O'Reilly, whose producers proudly ambush anyone who disagrees with him, has taken up as one of his pet causes the privacy of celebrities stalked by paparazzi.
    "I think my favorite part about 'The Factor' is that they have no trouble reconciling their defense of celebrities' right to privacy with their intimidation of everyone else," Stewart said, showing unedited footage of O'Reilly segueing from an ambush of the Columbia Journalism Review editor on a city bus to outrage over "these vicious paparazzi."

    "Coming up on 'The Factor,' cognitive dissonance."
    Stewart then showed a clip of O'Reilly defending celebrities like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie against paparazzi followed by footage of one of his producers with a camera in Jolie's face after she reportedly banned Fox News from one of her movie premieres.

    "The next time you're caught going through your ex-girlfriend's garbage and the police come to take you away, just tell them Bill O'Reilly sent you," Stewart said.

    Watch Video Here

    FOX News Proves They Have a Conservative Bias
    By: Steve - February 10, 2009 - 1:00pm

    Today the headline in the media is Obama stimulus plan passes. Here are some examples:

    CBS - Senate Passes $838B Stimulus Bill

    ABC - Senate Passes Obama's $838 Billion Economic Recovery Plan

    MSNBC - Senate OKS Stimulus Plan

    AP - Senate passes Obama's economic recovery plan

    FOX - Below is a screen capture from the foxnews.com website taken about 5 minutes ago.



    Guess where FOX News got the term spendulus bill, Rush Limbaugh. If that's not bias from a so-called fair and balanced news network, what is. What say you Billy? When are you and Bernie Goldberg going to do an analysis of that bias in the media.

    Bill O'Reilly To Speak At The Reagan Library
    By: Steve - February 10, 2009 - 12:30pm

    Bill O'Reilly will be speaking at The Reagan Library in Simi Valley next Sunday on February 15th. So if you live near the Reagan Library and you can go, try to show up with some good signs. And maybe even get tickets and try to ask O'Reilly a question.

    Ask him why he does all the personal attacks after he tells other journalists not to do them. Ask him about Andrea Mackris, and why he did not let it go to court. Ask him why it was un-American to oppose and criticize President Bush, but now it's not un-American to oppose and criticize President Obama.

    O'Reilly Claims he Does Not do Personal Attacks
    By: Steve - February 10, 2009 - 10:50am

    During an interview segment with actor Mike Farrell, O'Reilly claimed that he doesn't "do personal attacks." O'Reilly made his remarks during a discussion with Farrell about gay marriage and the death penalty. As I have documented, O'Reilly has personally attacked people on numerous occasions, both on The O'Reilly Factor and on his radio show.

    O'Reilly called Neal Gabler a "rabid dog" and he said New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof was nuts. O'Reilly also called Christopher Murray a fascist for saying public institutions should not display religious symbols and called PBS host Bill Moyers a totalitarian. Students at the University of Connecticut who heckled right-wing pundit Ann Coulter during her campus appearance were called far-left Nazis by O'Reilly.

    On his radio program, O'Reilly called Hillary Clinton a "left-wing nut," Ralph Nader a "loon," and Bill Moyers a "secular, far-left fanatic." He called Jimmy Carter a "cluless fool" and he called John Kerry, "a sissy." O'Reilly also called Dallas Morning News columnist Macarena Hernandez "incompetent," and a "Latina ideologue."

    O'Reilly even called Barbara Boxer a "nut" for introducing legislation to equip commercial aircraft with anti-missile systems to repel attacks from surface-to-air missiles, he later denied he said it, then after someone quoted him saying it, he claimed he just forgot he said it.

    O'Reilly has also equated Media Matters with the Ku Klux Klan, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and the Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels. He also referred to them as "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country."

    And do you notice anything, all those personal attacks are against Democrats, not one is against a Republican. Not to mention that is just a small sample of the personal attacks from O'Reilly, maybe 10 percent, if those are not personal attacks, then what do you call them Billy, compliments?

    From the Farrell interview:
    O'REILLY: You don't attack people personally.

    FARRELL: I don't -- I don't get -- you know, I don't get any benefit out of attacking people.

    O'REILLY: Do you object when some of your peers do?

    FARRELL: I try to suggest that there are better ways to do it. But you know, people have the right to speak their minds, and some people are very exercised about the some of the things that the leadership in this country --

    O'REILLY: But you lose credibility when you use personal attacks.

    FARRELL: Some do. Some gain credibility, as you've discovered yourself.

    O'REILLY: No, I don't do personal attacks here, mister. And that was a little, sneaky remark there.

    FARRELL: Well, but --

    O'REILLY: We don't do personal attacks.
    When Chris Matthews said the only reason Hillary Clinton got to be a Senator, and the reason she's a candidate for president is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. O'Reilly reported on it and called it wrong, and a personal attack, which he said he dont do.

    O'Reilly even questioned whether a network should even allow that statement by Matthews to be put on the air. And yet just last night he called Nancy Pelosi and all the Democrats in the House far-left loons. Then he said Helen Thomas is like a wicked old witch who if they poured water on her she would melt. Then he brought Bernie Goldberg on and asked him if he was too mean to Helen.

    Not only did Bernie not think he was too mean, he insulted her and used personal attacks on her too. Instead of giving Helen the respect she has earned, the low life Goldberg added his own insult. He said her 15 minutes were up during the Lincoln administration. Then O'Reilly laughed, and Bernie said maybe before that.

    And this is after O'Reilly hammered Chris Matthews for simply saying Hillary got where she is because Bill Clinton got so famous over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. O'Reilly says he does not do personal attacks, so what the hell was that. Calling someone a witch is not a personal attack? In what world is that not a personal attack?

    Here is the quote from O'Reilly, where he says he does not do personal attacks, and he hammers Matthews for doing them.
    O'REILLY: Now, we should point out that Mr. Matthews has a perfect right to say whatever he wants to say because he is not a reporter. He is a commentator, as I am. But it's rough. I mean, it's rough business what these people over there are doing. We don't do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband messed around. I mean, that is -- that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not.
    Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are the most dishonest and biased hypocrite in the media. You do exactly what you tell other people not to do, and you even criticize them for doing it, and say the network should not even allow it. Then you do the very same thing they do, and the same thing you call them bad journalists for doing. When you do the very same thing, almost every single night.

    Calling people you disagree with politically, pinheads and loons is a personal attack, and calling an old lady a witch who would melt if you pour water on her is a very personal attack. You should be ashamed of yourself, tell her you are sorry, and stop doing the personal attacks you yourself say you never do.

    The Monday 2-9-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 10, 2009 - 9:40am

    The TPM was called Obama Press Conference. It was billed as an analysis of the Obama press conference, but in reality it was nothing more than O'Reilly speculating and attacking everything Obama said. Billy talked about Obama saying this is the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

    O'Reilly said he dont know if that's true or not, then he implied Obama is just saying that, so when the economy gets better he can claim to be a genius for getting us out of such a big crisis. Basically O'Reilly is spinning his right-wing ass off, if he dont think the economy is in serious trouble he is rubber room insane.

    Donald Trump even said we are already in a depression, and he is a Republican who supported John McCain. O'Reilly is speculating that Obama is a liar, which is something he said he never does, he said he only deals in the facts. Then he speculates Obama may be lying when he says it is the greatest crisis since the great depression.

    All through the show he said it over and over, and he even said what's next, that it's the biggest crisis since the Civil War. O'Reilly also said Obama was too detailed with his answers, and he called him boring and long winded. Hey Billy, what happened to we must support the President, and respect him.

    When Bush was the President O'Reilly never called him boring or long winded or anything negative, and if anyone did O'Reilly would call them America haters who are un-American, and he even called them traitors once. He wanted to put them on trial for sedition. Then he insults and attacks President Obama with this right-wing garbage he called an analysis.

    O'Reilly did not have one good thing to say about Obama, except that he is a good speaker. Then he had Dick Morris on, and even Morris said Obama did a good job in his first press conference. He said it was nice to actually have a President who is articulate who can speak well. Then he trashed everything in the stimulus bill, and went back to the old Dick Morris who just says what Republicans want to hear.

    Then O'Reilly put Alan Colmes on to give the Democrat view, except that Colmes works for FOX News, so a Democrat who does not work for FOX never got on. The entire segment was O'Reilly taking most of the time and talking over Colmes. What O'Reilly did was put Colmes on so if someone says hey you never even had a Democrat on to do analysis of Obama's first press conference. Billy can say yes I did, I had Colmes on.

    Billy talked the whole time, trashing everything in the Obama plan, said Obama was boring and long winded, said all the questions were softballs, and made fun of Helen Thomas. O'Reilly made a screeching sound (like an animal sound) and then asked if Helen Thomas is a witch, the wicked witch of the west. Then he said if they poured water on her she would melt. He told Colmes that she is an old fool that should not be asking questions anywhere.

    That is not objective or Independent analysis, it's insults and right-wing hate. O'Reilly trashed everyone and everything about the press conference, he trashed Obama, and the reporters asking the questions, and called it analysis. He even cried about the softball questions, which he never did when Bush was President. Later in the show he even said Obama has a high approval rating and he was not surprised the questions were softballs for his first press conference.

    The other News shows (on the other networks) that reported on the press conference pointed out that Bush also got softball questions in his first press conference, because he was a new President and he had a high approval rating. Yet O'Reilly cried all through the show about the softball questions, and complained that Obama was boring and long winded.

    Then Bernie Goldberg was on to give his biased opinion, on the Obama stimulus bill, and the reporters who asked the questions. Bernie said Obama did ok, he mostly attacked the reporters who asked the questions, and talked about his book. Billy puts this far right nut on to give an objective analysis of other journalists, when he is a biased right-winger who wrote a book about the media saying they have a slobbering love affair with Obama.

    Nobody in their right mind would do that, Billy I'm talking about you. It's insane to put a biased right-winger on to do an analysis of the media, especially when he just wrote a book trashing them as Obama ass kissers who have a slobbering love affair with him. Yet that is exactly what O'Reilly did, with no Democrat to give a balanced and opposing view. It was all Bernie, all alone.

    Then O'Reilly put Ari Fleischer on to grade the Obama press conference. And what he said probably shocked O'Reilly because after he said it O'Reilly did not say anything for a few seconds, like he was surprised at what he said. Fleischer said Obama did great, and gave him an A- for a grade. After O'Reilly recovered, he said yeah but Obama was boring and long winded.

    Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on, of course O'Reilly repeated his analysis, that Obama was too detailed, Boring, and long winded, then he said do you agree. Mary K. Ham agreed and trashed Obama even more than O'Reilly was doing. Juan sort of disagreed with some of what O'Reilly said, and almost defended Obama. During the segment O'Reilly trashed the Obama plan, and called Pelosi and all the Democrats far left loons.

    Which is funny, because in the 8 years of Republican rule under George W. Bush not once did O'Reilly ever trash the Republican majority leader or call the Republicans far right loons. And he even attacked anyone who did as America hating un-American traitors. Now suddenly it's ok somehow because the Democrats are in power.

    If someone did what O'Reilly did last night to Obama, but did it to Bush, he would attack them as America haters, but he does it to Obama and it's ok. When it's the exact same thing, the only difference is he is doing it now, and doing it to a Democrat President. It's massive hypocrisy, and a giant double standard. Look in the mirror Billy, you are a biased piece of shit who is a total hypocrite and a partisan right-wing hack.

    Finally the last guest was Mitt Romney, and even he said Obama did pretty well. Everyone thought Obama did well except O'Reilly, who saw nothing good, and just kept saying he was too detailed, boring, and long winded, and he said it in every segment. Hey Billy, what does that tell you. That you are a partisan hack who sees what you want to see, not what actually happened.

    Billy even told Mitt that if the Obama stimulus plan does not work he is done as a President, which is just ridiculous on so many levels. To begin with, the stimulus plan is like step 1 to fix the economy. It is just the beginning, then Obama has to try to fix the housing crisis, the foreclosures etc. Then he has to get the banks to give out credit again, and all this is going to take at least a year, if not 2 years.

    Not to mention this is the problem Bush created, if a stimulus does not fix the problem how is that Obama's fault. He is just doing what his economic experts tell him to do as step 1 in the plan. O'Reilly acts like the stimulus plan is step 5 and if it dont work he's done and should resign. Which is just insane, hey Billy, what happened to you will give Obama a year.

    Obama has been the President for 3 weeks, 21 days, and you are already saying he is done if the stimulus fails to get the economy back on track. When it took Bush 8 years to ruin the economy, how can you expect Obama to fix it after passing one stimulus bill. Especially when you said you will give him one year to get the economy back on track.

    Think about this, if the President was a Republican and Keith Olbermann did to him what O'Reilly did last night, O'Reilly would be outraged, call him an America hater, say you must respect the President, call him un-American, and a traitor, then ask if he could be put on trial for sedition.

    What O'Reilly did was insulting and disrespectful to the President, it was biased partisan garbage pretending to be an analysis, especially when it was his first press conference only 3 weeks after taking the job. It's not like he has had the job a year, or 2 years, it's been 3 fricking weeks. And yet O'Reilly is trashing and attacking everything Obama does, after supporting everything Bush did for 8 years.

    FOX News Hits The Worlds Worst Persons Trifecta
    By: Steve - February 9, 2009 - 3:50pm

    Last Friday Keith Olbermann named, Beck, O'Reilly, and Murdock worst persons in the world.

    The bronze to Glenn Beck of Fixed News. Responds to the president signing SCHIP, the kids insurance program, by using his mind if any, “we‘re on the road to socialism. I‘m just saying, wow. We got that SCHIP going for us. Hey, I got an idea, if we‘re going down the road to socialism, why not really go for it?

    Comrades, good news from the western front. Our glorious revolution is starting to take hold. Oh, the revolution of change. Our fearless leader has just signed in SCHIPs. And earlier today, he spoke out against capitalism.”

    Beck did this on a show whose debut was advertised in a series of commercials in which he insisted it was time for people to stop calling politicians they did not like communists. The betting line is not yet out from Vegas, but I am going to wager large cash that he is actually crazy.

    The runner-up, Bill-O the Clown, he sent his stalker producer, little Jesse, out to abuse Russell Tice, the NSA whistle blower, who joined us two weeks ago to reveal what he knows of the agency‘s panoramic illegal spying on American reporters and other citizens. Mr. Tice said I have no comment for you guys. I have already spoken. That is enough. And suggested if they wanted more details, they should go and stalk George Bush and ask him.

    I love Russ Tice. Bill-O, of course, followed the ambush video and said, the bottom line on this is that Tice made some very serious accusations. He went on NBC News—actually, he went on MSNBC. Pay attention. “He went on NBC News and he cannot back them up. Now, if we are wrong, he can join us at any time. But he cannot back them up. He is disgraceful and so is NBC News.”

    Sounds very morally upright. But in fact, Bill-O sent little Jesse out to try to sand bag Russ Tice because Tice insulted O‘Reilly. Apparently that‘s illegal. An O‘Reilly producer named Ron Mitchell had e-mailed Tice and asked him to come on the show and Tice replied that Mitchell‘s boss was slime and added, “as a true conservative Republican, I can say Bill O‘Reilly is a disgrace to all conservatives.”


    But our winner, in a fixed news trifecta, Rupert. His company, Newscorp, lost six billion 400 million dollars in the final quarter of 2008. It has now forecast a 30 percent drop in profits for the first half of 2009. Wall street thought the drop would only be at worse half that.

    If I were O‘Reilly, I‘d tell you that Newscorp hemorrhaged cash because of Fox and O‘Reilly‘s fascism and stuff like that. But I live in the real world. All media is being crushed, especially TV, although apparently only two newscasts in America exceeded financial projections in 2008. Golly, happened to be mine and Rachel‘s.

    Nevertheless, Rupert is hemorrhaging money and his response to this was bizarre even for him. He may have coined a new slogan for Fox Noise. In fact, he may have coined the most honest new slogan for Fox Noise ever. “While it‘s impossible to be completely prepared for a downturn of this magnitude, we began priming ourselves for a weakening economy last year.” Shiver me timbers.

    “We implemented strict cost cutting measures across all our operations. We reduced head count in individual businesses where appropriate.” You will be keeping a civil tongue in your head when you talking to the good captain. “And we scaled back on capital expenditures. Even on finance terms, we have never been a company that tolerates facts.”

    Oh, my god. The new slogan. Fox News, we have never been a company that tolerates facts! Rupert, beware Tim Hawkins, Sean Hannity be below decks, Murdock, today‘s worst person in the world!

    O’Reilly Does Not Tell it All
    Guest Blogged By: Tom - February 9, 2009 - 11:40am

    At least once a week Bill O likes to point out how GE and the New York Times are mismanaged and that their stock has fallen dramatically over the last year. We know he hates GE because they are the parent company of NBC that also manages MSNBC and MSNBC is slowly cutting into his ratings, and let’s face it, he hates Keith Olberman who keeps naming Bill O worst person.

    Remember, he wants a federal investigation of Nielsen because he lost a few nights to Olberman’s Countdown show on MSNBC. He hates the Times because they report on Bush failings and write editorials where they sometimes reference Bill O quotes that he says are wrong or taken out of context. What Bill likes to do in these instances is go straight to the stock reports.

    Here are the facts as of February 9, 2009. The source is Yahoo Finance.

    GE stock has dropped from $38.52 to $10.66 over the last year. This is a drop of 72.4%
    NY Times has dropped from $21.14 to $4.68 over the last year. This is a drop of 77.9%

    What Bill fails to mention when he gives ou this information is that one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, News Corp. (NWS) has also dropped significantly over the past year. News Corp. owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and numerous other media enterprises.

    NWS stock has dropped from $20.49 to $5.83 over the last year. This is a drop of 71.6%.

    What say you, Bill?

    The entire stock market has taken a huge hit this past year. So if you look at NWS and GE over the past 2 years, GE still sits at a 72.4% drop while NWS has dropped 76.7%. The New York Times over two years has dropped about 81%. You should also take into consideration that GE pays an annual dividend to its shareholders of $1.24 and the Times pays an annual dividend of 24 cents. It is unclear if NWS pays a dividend, but if they do it is a whopping 6 cents per year.

    Bill likes to say the Wall Street Journal is doing just fine financially while the Times continues to struggle. To a degree that is true as this was said by Rupert Murdoch last week. “In Newspapers, adjusted operating income was $179m, down from $196m. Among single brands, the Wall Street Journal is performing well." However, it is important to remember the WSJ is still primarily a financial newspaper, much different that the Times and other newspapers throughout the country.

    The following was announced by the Wall Street Journal just last week after News Corp. announced over a 6 billion dollar loss for the quarter.

    “Murdoch added that the media company will "reduce headcount where appropriate" as part of its effort to cut costs. Separately, The Wall Street Journal disclosed plans to cut about 25 newsroom positions, through layoffs, buyouts and the elimination of job openings."

    Newsflash to Bill; The entire media industry is in distress with the print media leading the way. The internet has taken over the print media. I personally have not bought a newspaper in over three years. Why should I when I can get my information right off the internet? News Corp., just like every media company is losing money and audience.

    And today on the Radio Factor Billy said this:

    Billo wants Immelt of GE fired for GE stock having lost so much over the years. Any CEO with a 70% drop in stock should be fired according to the spin master, O'Reilly.

    Bill, do you think Rupert Murdoch of NWS should be fired?

    If you compare GE with its competitors as listed by Yahoo finance you will find since March 2008 GE losses compared to Philips Electronics (PHG) and Siemens (SI) are about 20% further down than those two companies. Considering GE Finance is a large component of GE if you compare them to Citigroup (C) they are doing much better than Citigroup by 18%.

    Taking NWS and comparing it with Time Warner (TWX) and Disney (DIS) you can see that since March 8, 2008 that NWS is down 32% more than those two companies.

    Bill-O, what say you?

    How to Deal With an O'Reilly Factor Ambush Interview
    By: Steve - February 7, 2009 - 2:40pm

    O'Reilly loves to send his right-wing stooge Jesse Waters out to ambush people that do not want to be a guest on the Factor. Then he uses the video clip to make them look bad for simply refusing to be a guest on the biased right-wing fraud of a news show. So here is some advice for anyone who gets ambushed by Jesse Waters.

    After he says this: it's Jesse Waters from FOX News O'Reilly Factor, you say this:
    Is that the same Bill O'Reilly who was sued by Andrea Mackris for trying to force her to have phone sex with him while he was married.

    Is that is the same Bill O'Reilly who called Andrea Mackris numerous times to talk about Caribbean shower fantasies, Thailand sex shows, and what he would do to her if he got her in a shower, even after she told him to stop making those kind of calls to her.

    Is that the same Bill O'Reilly who subjected her to repeated instances of sexual harassment and spoke often, and explicitly, to her about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies.

    Is that the same Bill O'Reilly who claims to be Mr. Morality, then flips out over a sexy commercial that shows a woman in bra and panties, while he is known to watch porn and make unwanted dirty phone calls to his female employees while he was married with children.

    Is that the same Bill O'Reilly who after hearing of the lawsuit said it was all lies, called it a shakedown for money, said he would fight it to the bitter end with no settlement and let the courts decide the matter. Then after finding out she recorded his phone calls. Paid her $10 million dollars to settle the lawsuit, get the tapes, and shut her up.
    Just keep talking non-stop about Andrea Mackris and the massive 22 page sexual harassment lawsuit she filed against O'Reilly, and you can guarantee that ambush video will never see the light of day on the Factor, or any FOX News show.

    More Proof O'Reilly's Claim of a Liberal Media is Insane
    By: Steve - February 7, 2009 - 2:40pm

    Billy claims there is a giant liberal media bias in America, except for FOX News and his show of course. Yet the facts show the opposite.

    Last week, Think Progress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1.

    The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.

    The economic recovery package passed the House last week with zero Republican votes, shifting the focus to the Senate. Though the venue has changed, the debate on cable has not improved much.

    In a new analysis, Think Progress found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress this week.

    Some observations from their analysis:
    -- Last week, Fox News came the closest to balance with 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. But the so-called “fair and balanced” network was not able to maintain such a ratio this week, hosting 24 Republicans and only 11 Democrats.

    -- The business news networks were particularly egregious this week. CNBC had more than twice as many conservatives, with 14 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Fox Business was even worse, hosting 20 Republicans to just 4 Democrats.

    -- In the previous study, the supposedly liberal MSNBC favored Republicans 15 to 9. This week, however, MSNBC became the only network to host more Democratic members of Congress than Republicans, with 17 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
    Though the imbalance is already stark, the tilt of the coverage would have been even more lopsided if the analysis had been broken down into whether a lawmaker who appeared on TV was a supporter or a critic of the economic recovery plan. Some of the most frequent Democratic guests this week were outspoken critics of the proposed stimulus plans, such as Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Kent Conrad (D-ND).

    Fortunately, the imbalance on the networks is not going unnoticed. A House Democratic leadership aide told Politico’s Michael Calderone yesterday that “what happened with cable last week is that Republican House members were the only show in town.”

    A “senior” Democratic aide told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the leadership is “aware of the problem and are taking steps to fix it.” The aide noted that “there is also an onus on producers to remedy this issue.”

    And btw, the so-called liberal media did the same thing when Bush was the President. When asked why they put more Republicans on the air than Democrat, they said because we have a Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress.

    So now we have a Democratic President, with a big Democratic majority in Congress, and the so-called liberal media is still putting more Republicans on the air than Democrats. If it's a liberal media (as O'Reilly claims) why are they still putting more Republicans on the air than Democrats.

    If all of the so-called liberal media is putting double (or more) the number of Republicans to Democrats on the air to discuss the Obama stimulus bill, how in the hell can you claim they have a liberal bias. What say you Billy?

    Krugman Confirms DeMint Amendment Failure
    By: Steve - February 7, 2009 - 1:50pm

    Paul Krugman, the man who won the Nobel prize for economics, and who is also a Professor of economics at Princeton wrote this yesterday on his blog.

    What all but 5 Republicans support

    Thirty-six out of 41 Republican Senators voted for the proposed DeMint amendment to the stimulus bill -- a massive $3.1 Trillion dollar package of permanent tax cuts over a ten year period that would create a huge hole in the budget, while doing very little to help the economy.

    There isn’t much room for bipartisanship when 87.8% of the other party is totally irresponsible.

    Mr. Krugman also wrote this two days ago:

    A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old cliches about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

    It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated. Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake -- of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

    It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

    Our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

    Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

    As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

    And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

    So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

    It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

    Remember folks, Paul Krugman is the guy who warned us about the housing bubble in 2003, but nobody listened to him. He won the Nobel prize on economics for it. So I think it's time we listened to him, for the sake of the Country. We sure as hell should not listen to any Republicans, they are the fools that got us in this mess in the first place.

    Republican Hypocrisy on Obama Stimulus Plan Stunning
    By: Steve - February 7, 2009 - 11:20am

    As the senate version of the economic recovery package makes its way through Congress, the big criticism of the package from Senate Republicans is that it's "too big."

    For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(R) claimed, "from the very first moment of this debate, there’s been strong bipartisan agreement on one thing: the original version of this bill was too big."

    Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham(R) said, "This bill spends far too much," while Sen. Jon Kyl(R) said, "If you throw in the interest it’s about $1.3 trillion." Sen. Jeff Sessions(R) called passing such a large package "unthinkable."

    These objections are very ironic coming from some of the greatest advocates for President Bush’s $1.35 TRILLION stimulus plan in 2001. When Bush introduced his plan he said, "A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy, and we just can’t drive on and hope for the best."

    Then every Republican in Congress voted for it. The very same Republicans who all voted for the $1.35 TRILLION dollar Bush tax cut, now call the $800 billion Obama stimulus package too big.

    Phil Graham thought the Bush tax cuts in his stimulus plan were so effective he wanted to make them permanent. But the tax cuts they championed proved to be extremely ineffective, leading to the slowest period of economic growth in decades.

    If you compare the condition of the economy in 2001 to the current state of the economy, the numbers show that those who now call the recovery package too big, were willing to spend far more when the economic situation wasn’t nearly as precarious.

    And now we find out that yesterday, 36 out of 41 Senate Republicans voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that was an alternative "stimulus" plan consisting of nothing but permanent tax cuts.

    An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that DeMint’s plan would "cost over $3.1 trillion over ten years -- more than three times the amount of President Barack Obama’s plan -- and be largely ineffective at creating jobs."

    So not only are these Republicans massive hypocrites, they are liars too. They claim they can not vote for the Obama stimulus plan because it's too big, and because not all the money will be spent for stimulus in the first year.

    When we now know they all voted for the $1.3 TRILLION Bush stimulus bill in 2001 when that much was not even needed then. And we find out they wanted to pass an all tax cut plan that would be spread out over 10 years and cost a whopping $3.1 TRILLION.

    This is an outrage, and the American people should be mad as hell at these lying hypocrite Republicans. They oppose an $800 BILLION Obama plan, because they say it's too big. But if it's all tax cuts spread out over 10 years the Republicans will vote for a $3.1 TRILLION dollar plan. And they are the very same people who voted to pass the $1.3 TRILLION dolar Bush tax cut plan in 2001. Funny how it was not too big then, when the economy was nowhere near as bad as it is now.

    The American people need to remember this, and vote every Republican Senator out of office in the 2010 mid term elections. They are putting partisan politics ahead of fixing the economy and helping the people keep the jobs they have now.

    This Obama stimulus plan is needed now, and the Republicans are blocking it from passing. By using lies that it's too big, when they had a failed vote yesterday to give a $3.1 TRILLION dollar tax cut over 10 years. And they had no problem voting for a $1.3 TRILLION dollar stimulus plan when Bush asked them to in 2001. Now suddenly $800 BILLION is too much, when that's just partisan BS.

    The Obama stimulus plan is probably going to pass with 2 or 3 Republicans voting yes. When the vote is over every Republican who voted no must be voted out of office as soon as possible. Find out if your Senator voted no and vote his lying corrupt ass out of office as soon as possible.

    The Friday 2-6-09 O'Reilly Ingraham Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 6, 2009 - 10:00pm

    The Factor was hosted by Laura Ingraham tonight. Here is a good question, would a moderate Independent (who claims to be fair to both sides) in the no spin zone, have Laura (far right conservative) Ingraham as a fill in host. If you were a real moderate Independent, would you not have a moderate Independent fill in host instead of a far right conservative, just asking.

    Her TPM was called Economic Mess. She basically hammered Obama for the stimulus bill he put out, and she called him clueless for putting together an economic policy team. I have no idea why that is being clueless, I thought that is what a President does. He puts together a team of experts to give him advice on how to fix the economy, because he is not an economist. Can someone tell me how that is being clueless.

    Then she put two Republicans on to discuss the economy, a FOX News financial expert, and Ben Stein. Here is another good question for Billy and Laura. Dont you think it would be a good idea to have an actual economist on to talk about the economy, or is that asking too much. Why not a professor of economics, is that too much to ask for.

    O'Reilly never has an actual economist on to talk about the economy. It's always a paid right-wing stooge, who either works for FOX, or is just on to put out Republican talking points that they probably got from Rush Limbaugh. If O'Reilly is this great objective moderate Independent who is fair to both sides, why in the hell does he never have any economists on when he talks about the economy, what say you Billy?

    Explain that Harvard boy!

    Then Laura had the all powerful Glenn Beck on to discuss the Obama stimulus bill and the economy. And when I say all powerful Glenn Beck, i actually mean crazy right-winger who is rubber room insane. And the Democrat who was on to provide the balance was, ummm, nobody, just Ingraham and Beck. Beck was spewing out some crazy garbage about how Obama is leading America into socialism.

    Beck said Obama is shoving socialism down our throats, like what, name one thing. Beck also used the words communism and fascism, ok, how. He just throws the words out but he does not explain what the socialism, the communism or the fascism is, mostly it's just code words to make Obama look bad, with no proof he is doing any of it. And btw, how is that a balanced segment.

    What's funny is when we had the Republican President George W. Bush, every Republican in America (especially O'Reilly) said you must support the President, you must support his policies, and believe in what he does, or you hate America, you are a traitor, and you are un-American. Now that we have a Democrat President, all that goes out the window.

    Now it's ok to disagree with the President on the Factor, it's suddenly now ok to not support him, to oppose everything he wants to do, and to have an hour long show every night with all Republican guests who tell the people how bad everything he wants to do is wrong. Hey Billy, what happened to you must support the President or you are an America hating un-American traitor, just asking.

    And one last thing on Beck and Ingraham, at the end of the segment Ingraham said thank you comrade Beck and said something in Russian. The two of them think it's funny to make jokes about the suggestion that Obama is turing America into a communist country. To them that was really funny, but if a Democrat did that to Bush, O'Reilly would call for him to be sent to Gitmo as a enemy of the state.

    After that fraud of a news segment, an actual Democrat got on the show, how in the hell did that happen, must have been a mistake. Nancy Soderberg was on to discuss the statement from Crazy Dick Cheney about the Obama terror fighting policies. Nancy tried to talk some sense into Ingraham but it was a waste of time. It was the only balanced segment on the whole show, and the Democrat actually got a whole 2 minutes to talk.

    Then Ingraham played a repeat of the reality check segment from thursday night. In one so-called Reality check O'Reilly actually mentioned Russell Tice. But only to call him a liar who has no evidence that Bush broke any wiretap laws. Earth to Billy, he worked for the NSA as an analyst, and he saw the law being broken.

    He saw the data collected from the wiretaps, I know you are biased, but even you know that is evidence. You just cant admit it because it would make your hero George W. Bush look bad. The other reality checks were just fluff, and not even worth talking about. And I will have more on Mr. Tice and Billy this monday.

    Then a tabloid octuplet segment with two Doctors, this is not news, it's tabloid crap that should only be discussed on shows like Inside Edition etc. Then a financial stooge from FOX News Liz Clayman was put on to spew out some more right-wing spin on the economy and the Obama stimulus bill. As expected no Democrat on for balance.

    Then Ingraham did the lame waste of time Factor TV Icon segment that nobody cares about, and I mean no-body. It was about Fred Dryer, your thinking who, and I was thinking the same thing, who cares about Fred Dryer, and how is this news. Then the show was over, thank God, lol.

    At least with Ingraham we did not have to suffer through the pinheads and patriots segment, or the phony and highly edited ego trip e-mails Billy reads every fricking night to pimp his website, his lame books, and to stroke his giant ego. Ingraham was great, if you love hearing one sided right-wing bias from a nasal nose bimbo who does nothing but put out right-wing propaganda.

    And just as Billy usually does, she had one Democrat on the entire show. But of course the one Democrat had to shout over Ingraham who barely let her get a word in because then some of the braindead and brainwashed kool-aid drinking Factor viewers might actually hear some truth for once. Other than all that, Ingraham was great.

    Great E-Mail to O'Reilly
    By: Steve - February 6, 2009 - 6:00pm

    A man who works for NASA sent me a copy of an e-mail he sent to O'Reilly, funny how you never saw this e-mail read on the Factor.
    > From: Tom Huston [email protected]
    > Date: February 5, 2009 12:48:08 PM EST
    > To: [email protected]
    > Subject: HR 1 Global Warming

    Bill,

    Last night you said you had read the stimulus bill which I assume means you read HR 1. I challenge you to find the phrase global warming in that bill.

    You keep saying public opinion is turning against this bill and it is no wonder why when you say stuff is in it that is not there. What is in this bill is money for NASA and NOAA to do climate research which we have been doing for over 30 years with various satellites.

    Well I have news for you. As a person who works at NASA the current fleet is getting old and there are not a lot of new satellites in the works. This money changes that and will help put the aerospace workers back to work. Not all jobs are building bridges. Matter of fact, this funding might keep me and my co-workers employed.

    Until you and others traditionalists start correcting all of these conservative talking points that are incorrect you are doing "the folks" a disservice with what is in this legislation. I am sure there is some dumb crap in the bill as nothing is perfect, but you need to stop with the misspeak and be accurate with your reporting.

    Regards,

    Tom Huston
    Hanover, MD
    You have to admit, the man makes some good points. And of course this e-mail was not read on the Factor. No e-mail is ever read that details spin and lies from O'Reilly, even though he calls for people to send them to him so he can report it, when they do he just ignores them.

    Crazy O'Reilly Compares Daschle to Chavez
    By: Steve - February 6, 2009 - 1:00pm

    This is so ridiculous I barely know where to start. The bias and spin from O'Reilly is stunning. Here is the story, back in 2001 when Tom Daschle was in the Senate he spoke out against Linda Chavez getting the secretary of labor job, this happened when Bush was President.

    Last night on the Factor O'Reilly compared Chavez to Daschle not paying taxes on a car service and driver. There is no comparison, Daschle did not pay taxes for a car service, Chavez had an illegal alien working for her, and she knew the woman was illegal, while she was up for the labor secretary job. Daschle was only up for a health care job, and he was not breaking labor laws while being up for the labor secretary.

    There is no comparison, except in O'Reilly world. O'Reilly even tried to lie for her and claim she did not know the woman was illegal, but she crossed him up and admitted she knew:
    O'REILLY: Now you know what he said back then? He said if the proposed Labor Secretary can't obey the law, can't obey the law, then we've got problems here. This is an illegal alien that you took in. You said you didn't know she was in the country illegally, correct?

    CHAVEZ: Well, actually, I did think that she was in the country illegally.
    She was paying an illegal alien to work for her, and she knew the woman was illegal. Daschle said we can not have a labor secretary that is breaking labor laws herself. But he was not alone, almost everyone said the same thing, including the Bush political team.

    The Washington Post reported this in January of 2001:
    Chavez stepped aside under pressure from Bush's political team, according to three Republican officials involved in the case. They said Bush aides had begun to doubt her credibility regarding a key question in the case.
    So she did not get the job because she was breaking labor laws by having an illegal alien working for her. And the Bush political team pressured her to drop out, Tom Daschle had basically nothing to do with it. All he did was agree with a million other people who said she should not get the job because she is breaking labor laws herself, and doing it with a known illegal alien.

    And btw, when Daschle ran for re-election OReilly said he hopes he loses, because he hates him, so O'Reilly has a bias against him, and Billy never disclosed any of that in the Chavez segment about Daschle. What happened to full disclosure Billy?

    O'Reilly implied that what Chavez did is the same as what Daschle did. When it's not even close, Daschle cheated on some taxes, which a lot of people do btw. Chavez was up for labor secretary, she was breaking the law, labor laws. And she was doing it by using an illegal alien, which is really wrong. Not only was she violating labor laws, she was doing it with a known illegal alien.

    Comparing that to Daschle cheating on taxes for a car service is just insane, especailly when he was only up for a health care job. And Daschle had nothing to do with her not getting the job, the Bush team pressured her to drop out, not Daschle. In O'Reilly world this is what you get, total right-wing bias, just to make Daschle look bad because he is a Democrat.

    If Chavez had been a Democrat in 2001, with a Democrat President, and an illegal alien working for him, while trying to get the labor secretary job, O'Reilly would call for him to be horse whipped and deported.

    But the Republican Linda Chavez does it, he defends her, says it was nothing, then lies about it, and compares it to Daschle cheating on car service taxes. And that's called fair and balanced journalism on the Factor, how?

    O'Reilly Claims he is Fair And Balanced
    By: Steve - February 6, 2009 - 12:30pm

    About once or twice a week I get an e-mail from a Republican who loves Bill O'Reilly, it will say why do you attack O'Reilly for not being balanced, he does not even claim to be fair and balanced. They tell me that Billy clearly explains that he is an opinion journalist, just like an op-ed writer.

    But there is one problem with that, Bill O'Reilly himself says he is fair and balanced, he also says he is a non-partisan moderate Independent with a no spin zone, who personally makes sure he has an equal number of Republican and Democrat guests on each week, and he also claims to be fair to both sides.

    O'Reilly also claims to be fair to Obama too, yeah right, only if you consider fair attacking everything he does. O'Reilly said he is balanced, fair and balanced, just last night he said it again. During the Laura Ingraham segment about RFK Jr. talking about big hog companies that pollute, and the hudson river, he said this:
    O'REILLY: RFK Jr., he helped clean up the Hudson River and did he a great job there. Now the.

    INGRAHAM: Well, great, but this is insane. This is insane.

    O'REILLY: I know it's insane. I'm just - you know, we balance here. We're fair and balanced, Laura.
    Billy tells the far right Laura Ingraham (who is on all alone) with no Democrat to provide the balance, that he is fair and balanced. As he does a whole show with nothing but Republican guests who are put on to smear Pelosi, House Democrats, Daschle, Obama, RFK Jr. and the Obama stimulus bill. Yeah that's fair and balanced Billy, keep saying it, maybe one day someone will believe it.

    Then the entire show (or at least 98%) is all partisan right-wing spin and lies, from O'Reilly, and the 98% Republican guest list. Last week O'Reilly had roughly 25 Republican guests, and 3 Democrats, which is about the ratio he has every week, yeah that's fair and balanced Billy, not!

    The Factor political analysts are Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Miller, and Laura Ingraham. The Factor media analyst is Bernie Goldberg. The Factor internet cop is Amanda Carpenter. The Factor culture warriors are Monica Crowley and Margaret Hoover. The Factor legal analysts are Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl. The Factor culture quiz takers are Steve Doocy and Martha McCallum. And the Factor news analysts are Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams.

    Look at that list, and count the Democrats, the number is 1, and that's if you count Juan Williams as a Democrat. If you do it's still 14 to 1, that's 14 Republicans and 1 Democrat. If you add Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, it's 2 whole Democrat regulars, wow. But Dr. Hill is not a regular, and only gets on the show once or twice a month. All 14 Republicans are regulars who get on the show every week.

    Juan Williams is the only Democrat who gets on the show as a regular, and he agrees with O'Reilly 80% of the time, so he can barely be called a Democrat. Dr. Hill is the only real Democrat who gets on the Factor on a regular basis, but he is only put on once or twice a month, and when he does get on he has to split the time with a Republican guest who is on at the same time.

    If you watch the show you will see that 13 of the 14 Republican Factor regulars ALL get on alone, they are never paired with a Democrat guest, and they do not have to split the time with them. The only Republican who is paired with a Democrat is Mary K. Ham, and she is on with Juan Williams, who is barely a Democrat, he is more like a moderate Republican than he is a Democrat.

    If that's a fair and balanced guest list, and O'Reilly is fair and balanced, I'm a neo-con Republican.

    O'Reilly Busted For Lies About GE & The NY Times
    By: Steve - February 6, 2009 - 11:00am

    Billy claims that GE stock prices have dropped so far because they own MSNBC and NBC, and they have moved so far left they are getting hurt because of it. He said Jeff Zucker has run the network into the ground. And that Immelt protects him, citing their stock price drop of about 60 percent.

    But it's a recession, a big time almost depression type recession, so every company is hurting. And GE also owns NBC, which has the #1 morning news show, and the #1 evening news show. Not to mention, Keith Olbermann has the #1 rated show on MSNBC, and his ratings are up 220 percent over the last couple years.

    So if they have this big liberal bias that's turning everyone away from them, like O'Reilly claims, why are Olbermann's ratings going up, and why are they #1 in the morning and at night, explain that Billy.

    Here is some news you will never hear O'Reilly report:
    News Corp., the global media giant controlled by Rupert Murdoch, said Thursday it lost $6.4 billion in its most recent quarter because of a massive write-down in the value of its assets.

    The New York-based company, which owns The Wall Street Journal and the Fox broadcast network, also forecast a 30 percent drop in operating profits for the fiscal year to June from a year ago.

    The Wall Street Journal said Thursday it is cutting about two dozen newsroom positions.
    The News Corp stock price dropped 70% from January of 2007 to December of 2008, during the exact same time the GE stock price only dropped 60 percent. So News Corp dropped more than GE did, but O'Reilly never even mentioned that, or called for Murdoch to be fired for running them into the ground.



    And here is the fact that proves the O'Reilly argument is just total right-wing propaganda. Almost all stocks have dropped 50 to 70 percent in the last 6 months to a year. Except maybe Wal-Mart, Mcdonalds, and the oil companies.

    Almost every company in America is losing money, or their profits are down to almost zero. And it has nothing to do with them having a liberal bias, or a conservative bias. It's called a recession, one of the worst ever, and it was caused by 8 years of Bush policies.

    Murdoch blamed the bleak outlook on falling advertising revenue and the impact of weak consumer sentiment on DVD and book sales. He told analysts the results were "a direct reflection of the recession that is deeper than anyone predicted, and called it the worst global economic crisis News Corp. had seen since its founding more than 50 years ago.

    Maybe Billy should look at the unemployment claims. In the last 3 weeks more than 1.5 million new unemployment claims have been filed. In just 3 weeks, which is close to a record high. That means things are bad, for everyone, and it has nothing to do with having a liberal bias or not.

    O'Reilly wants people to believe that the GE stock price is down because they own MSNBC and NBC and because they moved left. He also wants people to believe the NY Times is hurting because they have a liberal bias and people are turning away from them because of it. Both of those statements are lies and just ridiculous, it's nothing but right-wing propaganda.

    And don't just believe me, go look at the stock prices for any company. They are almost all down 50 to 70 percent, and most of them have no bias, to the left or the right, because most of them are not even in the news business. Microsoft used to be at $100.00 a share, now it's $20.00 a share, and they do computer software that goes on almost every computer sold in the world, that's how bad it is.

    Newspapers are in trouble because of the recession, and because older people who read the newspapers are dying off, and every day more people get their news from the internet. Younger people do not read newspapers very much. It has nothing to do with bias, as O'Reilly claims.

    O'Reilly is just trying to smear (what he calls) liberal news networks and newspapers, for partisan political reasons, and because he dont like them. They report the truth about his spin, his bias, his lies, his hypocrisy, and his double standards. Especially Keith Olbermann, so O'Reilly makes all this shit up to smear them as revenge against Keith Olbermann.

    George Bush Dirty Work Leaking Out Already
    By: Steve - February 5, 2009 - 10:30am

    Earth to Bill O'Reilly, read this, it's called journalism, you should try it sometime. Instead of wasting tv time with culture quiz's, talking to Dennis Miller, and showing sexy ads to get ratings from your pervert viewers, report some real news for once.

    Yesterday we found more evidence that Bush was a crook who broke laws and had people tortured. And that he made threats against other Governments to keep quiet about it, or they would not share intelligence with them.

    The Washington Post reports that two British High Court judges ruled against releasing documents describing the treatment of a British detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison, but made clear their reluctance, saying that the Bush administration had threatened to withhold intelligence cooperation with Britain if the information were made public.
    "We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence . . . relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be," Justice John Thomas and Justice David Lloyd Jones wrote.
    The decision touched off a wave of anger at Washington from the floor of Parliament to the offices of human rights groups. "The government is going to have to do some pretty careful explaining about what's going on," said David Davis, a top Conservative Party leader, speaking in the House of Commons.
    "The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case, that British agencies may have been complicit, and further, that the Bush administration threatened our High Court that if it releases this information they will withdraw its intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom," Davis said.
    Officials in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said they are unaware of any threat from the Obama administration to withhold cooperation. "We have not engaged with the new administration on the detail of this case," a Brown spokesman told reporters.

    Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohamed case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.

    There you go Billy, here is evidence Bush broke laws and had people tortured, and he also used threats to keep them quiet about it. Will O'Reilly report this story, or will he waste his time with garbage tabloid crap for ratings. You can bet the farm this story will never be reported on the Factor.

    Billy dont have time, he has to give all the time to his right-wing spin doctor friends like Gingrich, Ingraham, Morris, Goldberg, and Miller, report on sexy commercials, and teacher/student sex stories, there is no time for real news.

    The Wednesday 2-4-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 4, 2009 - 9:30pm

    The TPM was called Chaos Zone. Which refers to the chaos happening around Obama. Billy talked about Obama doing interviews on FOX etc. He even said Obama was smart to cap CEO pay if they got taxpayer money. Somehow O'Reilly sees chaos around Obama when the guy has only been President for two weeks. When he went 8 years and never saw chaos around Bush, he just supported and defended everything he did.

    Then O'Reilly put Brit Hume on to as expected agree with him, what a shocker. Hume and O'Reilly trashed Obama in a biased one sided segment with 2 Republicans and 0 Democrats. They also trashed Pelosi and Daschle, along with all the Democrats and the stimulus bill.

    Going into the commercial O'Reilly said coming up Morris, Miller, and Goldberg, on the bottom of the screen it said Heavy Hitters. I was thinking, where, who, when. And then I realized he was talking about Morris, Miller, and Goldberg. More like the 3 stooges, or the lightweight and biased has beens who never were.

    They are 3 nobodys on a lame cable news channel, that less than 1 percent of America ever hear what they say. Calling them heavy hitters is like calling Blagojevich and honest politician. For O'Reilly to even say that shows how clueless he is.

    Then Billy put Steve Kroft on from 60 minutes to talk about the all access interview he had with Obama. I think Billy put him on to promote his video, because Kroft is an old friend of his, they worked together years ago at CBS. Back when O'Reilly was almost a real journalist. Other than that, I have no idea why he would put Kroft on the Factor, except to promote his video on Obama.

    Finally the Great Dick Morris was on, great as in loser moron who should not even be on tv, lol. As usual Morris trashed Obama and his stimulus bill, compared the first 3 weeks to Bill Clinton's first 3 weeks, and insulted Hillary, the standard stuff from Morris. At one point Morris said at least now Hillary has a job, earth to Morris, being a Senator is a job you fricking jackass. Morris should be working at a car wash or something like that, not on tv doing political analysis.

    Then Billy had the right-wing Amanda Carpenter on for policing the net, she is the Factor internet cop. No Democrat internet cop, just Amanda. They talked about the porn at Comcast during the Super Bowl, but that was not on the internet, it was on tv. Yet he had the internet cop on to talk about it, they could not find anything on the net to discuss, I guess. Porn on tv is not the internet Billy.

    And of course O'Reilly called for the feds to investigate. the feds sure would be busy if they investigated everything O'Reilly has a problem with. They would have to hire 1000 new people to do all the investigations he wants done. It's ridiculous, earth to moron, the feds are not going to investigate 30 seconds of porn that accidently got on tv, get a grip man.

    Then it was Miller time with Dennis (has been who is not funny) Miller. Why is this dork on tv and who cares what he says about anything. He is a former liberal comedian who turned conservative when his lame career went in the tank, what little of a career he had.

    He saw the con game Morris is running and he figured out he could con the right-wingers into believing that crap too, and that he can make some money telling Republican fools what they want to hear. Miller is like an almost funny version of Dick Morris. They both get paid to run a con on braindead right-wingers by saying what they like to hear. And they fall for it, hook, line, and sinker. It was 4 minutes of my life I wish I had back, lol.

    Finally we got to the genius Bernie Goldberg, the last heavy hitter. This guy is the Factor media analyst, and yes I'm serious. Calling Goldberg a media analyst is like calling me a rocket scientist. He's a CBS news reject who was fired for his far right bias. He is as biased as you can get, and yet O'Reilly puts him on the Factor as an objective media analyst.

    Golberg is put on alone with no Democrat media analyst, all he does is agree with O'Reilly and smear everyone in the media except O'Reilly or anyone at FOX news. When he is more biased than anyone he does an analysis on, and somehow he never finds any bias at FOX, or the Washington Times, or the wall Street Journal, or any right-wing blog or website. He only finds bias at NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

    Basically it's a one sided biased right-wing propaganda segment with two Republicans and 0 Democrats. Goldberg kisses Billy's ass and agrees with every spin and lie he puts out so he can get on the show and promote his biased and lame book. Every 30 seconds he mentions the book, and O'Reilly puts the name on the screen. It's biased garbage, pretending to be media bias analysis.

    Then pinheads and patriots, and the e-mails. And this hour of one sided right-wing propaganda and tabloid sexy crap is called a news show with a no spin zone. It's more like 80% RNC campaign ad, 20% Inside Edition style tabloid crap. O'Reilly spends 80% of the show putting out right-wing spin and propaganda, and the rest of the time showing sexy ads and talking sex, while complaining about too much sex on tv, oh the irony.

    Somewhere in there is some actual news, but not much. Where is the Paul Revere stuff, the watchdog on the Government stuff, where is it, I cant find it. All I see is the 3 stooges, Morris, Miller, and Goldberg, spewing out unfunny biased garbage and talking about sex in the culture. O'Reilly should be ashamed to even call it a news show.

    And think about this folks, when Bush was the President O'Reilly said as an American you must support the President. He said if you dont you hate America, and he called anyone who disagreed with Bush an un-American Bush hating traitor, but he took some heat for that, so he changed it to bad American. He said if you do not support the President you are a bad American who hates America.

    Now that we have a Democrat President it's a whole different story. Not only does O'Reilly not call anyone who disagrees with Obama an Obama hating un-American traitor who hates America, he agrees with them, and he does 5 shows a week putting guest after guest on to disagree with everything Obama does. It's the biggest case of hypocrisy and double standards in the world, ever.

    In O'Reilly world if you disagree with a Republican President you are an America hater and a bad American, but somehow now it's ok to hate on Obama and disagree with him, and nobody on the right is branded an America hater, a traitor, or a bad American for opposing Obama and speaking bad about him. O'Reilly has two different standards, one for a Republican, and one for a Democrat.

    The Facts on Racist Immigration Groups & O'Reilly
    By: Steve - February 4, 2009 - 9:50am

    O'Reilly is crying like a baby over the NY Times op-ed that linked him with the people in the racist white nationalist nativist movement. He even declared war on the NY Times for it, even though the Times newspaper did not write it, a man on the op-ed page did. And the reason the Times op-ed links O'Reilly to these racist white supremacists is for what he says about Immigration.

    Bill O'Reilly uses the same talking points, and the same arguments the racist white nationalist groups use. They say we have to keep the mexicans out because they will ruin the white power structure in America. Which is exactly what O'Reilly says, and he even admits he said it. You can quote O'Reilly and it's like quoting the racist hate groups, with a different name on the quote, they say the same things.

    These groups are racist, and O'Reilly, Dobbs, Buchanan, Malkin, etc. parrot everything they say. That is why O'Reilly was named in the NY Times op-ed. Not because he is opposed to immigration, because he uses the racist white nationalist hate groups as a source for his talking points. They point out a link, because there is a link.

    Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned these racist hate groups, who is in them, or what they say. Because he dont want you to know who they are, or what they say, or that he is linked to them because he basically says the same things they do. His argument is their argument, and when you read what they say about immigration it's the same thing O'Reilly says.

    And btw, if O'Reilly wants a serious debate on immigration reform ask yourself this, how come he dont have someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center on to debate it. Someone who is informed about the issue, and these racist hate groups. Ask yourself why O'Reilly does not do that, the answer is he dont have them on because then you would get all the facts about the issue and these hate groups, not just the partial cherry picked facts O'Reilly wants you to see.

    Here are the facts O'Reilly did not report, the information he does not want you to know, from a 2009 special report by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

    Three Washington, D.C.-based immigration-restriction organizations stand at the nexus of the American nativist movement: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA. Although on the surface they appear quite different -- the first, the country's best-known anti-immigrant lobbying group; the second, an "independent" think tank; and the third, a powerful grassroots organizer -- are fruits of the same poisonous tree.

    FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the "puppeteer" of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists, promoted anti-Semitic ideas, and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a "neo-Nazi organization."

    He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, "a European-American majority" is required.

    Where have you heard that before, from O'Reilly, Buchanan, Dobbs, Malkin, etc. O'Reilly says the same thing John Tanton says, almost word for word. Then he wonders why he is linked to racist hate groups. Because he is saying the same things they do.

    FAIR, which Tanton founded and where he remains on the board, has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among the reasons are its acceptance of $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a group founded to promote the genes of white colonials that funds studies of race, intelligence and genetics. FAIR has also hired as key officials men who also joined white supremacist groups. It has board members who regularly write for hate publications. It promotes racist conspiracy theories about Latinos. And it has produced television programming featuring white nationalists.

    Tanton has been linked to racist ideas in the past -- fretting about the "educability" of Latinos, warning of whites being out-bred by others, and publishing a number of white nationalist authors -- the papers in the Bentley Library show that Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene.
    -- He has corresponded with Holocaust deniers, former Klan lawyers and the leading white nationalist thinkers of the era.

    -- He introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist group set up to encourage "race betterment" at a 1997 meeting at a private club.

    -- He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor -- to "give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life" -- and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor's theories on the Jews.

    -- He practically worshipped a principal architect of the Immigration Act of 1924 (instituting a national origin quota system and barring Asian immigration), a rabid anti-Semite whose pro-Nazi American Coalition of Patriotic Societies was indicted for sedition in 1942.
    Tanton also corresponded for years with the late Sam Francis, a one-time Washington Times columnist who was fired after details of a racist speech he gave at an American Renaissance conference became public. From 1999 until his death in 2005, Francis edited the crudely racist and nativist Citizens Informer, the tabloid published by the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), an organization that says it "opposes all efforts to mix the races of mankind."

    What may have been most remarkable of all was Tanton's endorsement of a proposal from another friend — Peter Brimelow, who would later start the racist anti-immigration website vdare.com— that FAIR hire Sam Francis to edit its newsletter. That proposal, which Tanton sent to FAIR's Dan Stein on Nov. 3, 1995, was made two months after The Washingon Times fired Francis for racism.

    Tanton's contacts with other white nationalists also are instructive. Beginning in the late 1980s, Tanton corresponded regularly with Virginia Abernethy, now a professor emeritus at Vanderbilt University. Abernethy is a member of the CCC and recently described herself as a "white separatist."

    This is the information O'Reilly does not give you, because he wants to keep it secret. All these groups are run by racist white nationalist Republicans, who want to keep America all white, so they can keep their christian white male power structure in place. O'Reilly claims he wants a fair immigration policy, then he parrots the words of these racist hate groups that do not want any immigration.

    They want to stop all immigration, but only for people of color, like mexicans. They do not try to stop white people from coming to America, only mexicans and other people of color. And now you know the truth, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that.

    And then he wonders why he is called a racist. As he would say himself, if you lay down with dogs you get fleas. If you parrot racist talking points from hate groups, you are athe same as a racist in that group. Billy is using diversion tricks with his war on the NY Times. In the hopes that nobody will find out about the racist hate groups he agrees with.

    Think about this, O'Reilly linked President Obama to Pastor Wright for things Wright said, when Obama did not say those things, he was just a member at his church. Yet O'Reilly denies a link to these racist people and groups, when he says the exact same things they do. So there is more of a link with O'Reilly and the racist hate groups, then Obama and Pastor Wright. Because O'Reilly agrees with them and parrots what they say.

    Now O'Reilly claims it is unfair to link him with those groups. When he is linked to them, more than the link he made with Obama and Pastor Wright. Obama even denounced what wright said, and O'Reilly still linked them together. And he tried to keep secret what they said. That's why he never mentioned any of them, and twisted it into a debate about the NY Times calling him a racist. He avoided the real issue with distraction and diversion tactics.

    The Tuesday 2-3-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 3, 2009 - 11:30pm

    The TPM was called Far Left Agenda. Billy put out a Paul Revere alert, I call it a crying about liberals who have the power alert. The so-called alert is that liberals want open borders so all the Mexicans can come to the USA and vote Democrat. And that includes the NY Times. There is only one small problem with that, it's not true.

    The NY Times does not support open borders, and neither do I, and I am a liberal. So basically O'Reilly is lying, about me and my positions, and the NY Times. I am a former union man so I believe in a strong immigration policy, and I do not want open borders. The O'Reilly alert is in reality right-wing propaganda, he misrepresents the position the left has to make them look bad.

    Here is the real truth about O'Reilly and his immigration spin. He is a white Republican, and he wants to build a wall and put the military on the border, that is his position. He wants to do that so the number of mexicans who enter the country is limited to a small number. Because most of them vote Democrat, that will hurt the Republican party so he wants to stop it.

    Because O'Reilly wants the white Republicans to stay in power, and that is the real truth. Billy wants to keep anyone out who might vote Democrat, so his friends in the Republican party can keep their House and Senate seats. Which is the same thing Pat Buchanan and other white Republicans want, they are afraid they will lose their power.

    Then O'Reilly had a latino guest on to agree with him. The guy was a joke, and he was only put on to say O'Reilly is honest and not a racist. The guy basically kissed Billy's ass and agreed with all his spin. It was so phony, and so transparent. Billy found a latino who agreed with him and put him on the air, it was dishonest and lame. What he should have done was debate a latino who does not agree with him, that's what a real journalist would have done.

    In the next segment O'Reilly had Julie Menin and Jessica Colon on, a Democrat and a Republican. They talked about the Daschle tax problem and the Hillary joke about Bill Clinton. It was pretty much tabloid crap, and not the news you would expect to get on a so-called news show. The Democrat was a moderate from the DNC, so it was not a liberal Democrat, but at least a Democrat got on. And btw, this was the only segment in the whole show that had a Democrat guest, and it was tabloid crap, not a real news segment.

    Then it was Billy's octuplet investigation. O'Reilly is still calling it a crime and child abuse, which is just ridiculous. He had two lawyers on, both women, and one of them sort of agreed with O'Reilly. The other one disagreed and said it was not child abuse, then Billy went all pyscho on her, he started screaming and yelling and his head almost exploded. Which is nothing new for Billy, he goes nuts when anyone dares to disagree with him. That's why 99% of the guests are Republicans who agree with him.
    Pilchman: You know, I don't think it's abuse. And with all due respect, I think that there is nothing to indicate that this mother is substandard in any capacity. I've seen interviews in the local media where there's a nanny or housekeeper who says she's a wonderful mother. Now, adding the eight kids, that's gonna be a task. I wouldn't want 14 children -- most people wouldn't want 14 children. But unless those kids are not receiving the proper medical attention, they're not receiving food, there's no abuse.

    O'Reilly: OK, but Ms. Pilchman, I have to challenge. You're gonna sit there and you're gonna tell me that a woman with six young children at home -- allows herself to give birth to eight more, and she's a wonderful mother?

    Pilchman: She could be, there's nothing --

    O'Reilly: With a three-bedroom apartment, with no father, and no -- and can't afford anything -- you're gonna say she's a wonderful mother, madam? Don't you know how s----- outrageous that sounds?

    Pilchman: You know, Bill, what evidence do we have that she's not a good mother?

    O'Reilly: We have 14 human beings! One of which weighs a pound and a half! Isn't that enough evidence, counselor?!!

    Pilchman: No. No. Premature births happen all the time.

    O'Reilly: Oh. It's not. Then we're living in a twilight zone, we're not living in America anymore! If a pound and a half baby, and 14 babies in a three-bedroom apartment, or house, is not enough evidence, we're not living in America anymore! We're living in 'do whatever it is you wanna do, we don't care about the kids'! That's what we're living in!
    Billy said he tried to call the head of child services and the guy never returned his call. Then he called him a pinhead, put his name and photo on the screen, and said he plans to call the guy every day, which is harrassment, but nothing new for O'Reilly. How is that journalism, and why does the guy have to return a call from O'Reilly. If I was him, and O'Reilly called me, I would not return the call either.

    Then O'Reilly showed another sexy ad for an airline, and had the CEO on with a marketing expert to discuss it. The MILF airline ad, Billy was shocked. Earth to O'Reilly, it's 2009 not 1909, lighten up and get a clue. You see more skin at the mall and a beach then you see in this ad, they are only wrong for old bible thumping right-wing idiots who think it's still 1940, get over it.

    Next it was Lis Wiehl and Megyn Kelly in the legal segment. They talked about the make my day law, and for once I agree with O'Reilly. If someone is breaking into your house you have a right to shoot them, and I would if someone tried. I am a gun owner and a former member of the NRA. For once O'Reilly was right on an issue.

    Then they talked about teacher sex with students, and the lesbian couple divorce. The stories that Republicans cant get enough of, they love the sexy stories. But all they do is cry and bitch about it, when it's not going to change anything, and it is pretty much a waste of tv time on a news show. The Factor show is actually very little news, it's mostly tabloid crap, I call it the Tabloid Factor.

    Then pinheads and patriots, of course the patriot was a Republican and the pinhead was a Democrat. Then the lame hand picked and very edited e-mails. Billy reads edited e-mails and then tells them how they are wrong. Even when they are right, it's mostly an excuse for O'Reilly to pimp his website and his books.

    Beck & Duke Win Silver And Gold in Worst Persons
    By: Steve - February 3, 2009 - 3:30pm

    O'Reilly claims there is no racism by him, or anyone in the Republican party. If that is true, why is David Duke saying millions of Republicans are racists who will leave the party for making a black man head of the RNC, what say you Billy?

    From Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

    Runner-up, Glenn Beck. First he ripped something included in the stimulus that he didn‘t understand. Turns out it was the same clean coal technology he had ripped Democrats for not supporting last Summer. Now Beck has applied a name somebody made up to part of the stimulus, claiming it is an official name, ripped the Democrats for the name that they actually are not using.

    He says, “it is the Bad Asset Repository Fund, BARF. When you got a group of people that can‘t figure out the acronym bill would be BARF, I think maybe we should change the name. Don‘t you think that we really should stop listening to these people?”

    No, I think we should stop listening to you. The phrase Bad Asset Repository Fund and the acronym BARF were both made up by a reporter named Liz Moyer in an article she wrote for Forbes.com. They have nothing to do with stimulus. There isn‘t anything called the Bad Asset Repository Fund. Of course, this is way too much information for Mr. Beck, whom research studies indicate devotes exactly 0.007 seconds of thought to each of his ideas.

    -----------

    On a side note: Glenn Beck was on the Factor last friday night, he told O'Reilly about BARF, and that it was in the stimulus bill. O'Reilly let it slide as if it were true, so either O'Reilly knew it was bull and didn't care, or he did not know BARF was a lie, and he did not correct him. Either way is bad journalism, to let Beck say it, or to not know what he was saying was right-wing lies and propaganda. Beck also reported the BARF lie on his own FOX show. And to this day he has never done a correction, or a retraction.

    -----------

    But our winner, David Duke, the old grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He sees great opportunity in the election of Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Duke writes, quote, “GOP traitors appoint Obama Jr. as chairman of the Republican party.

    I‘m glad these traitorous leaders of the Republican party appointed this black racist, affirmative action advocate to the head of the Republican party, because this will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base. As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren‘t going to take it anymore.”

    He continues, “we will either take the Republican party back over the next four years or we will say to hell with the Republican party and we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a new party that will take its current place. Let‘s make this abomination in the Republican party, the last major part of white redoubt, as a rallying cry of resistance.”

    Wow, you‘re going to 90 percent of the Republicans with you? Can you fit all 18 of them in your car or are you getting cabs or what? David Duke, who can make even Republicans look good, today‘s worst person in the world!

    O'Reilly Declares War on The NY Times
    By: Steve - February 3, 2009 - 12:30pm

    For what you might ask, for telling the truth about him. Sunday there was a New York Times editorial that called out Republicans -- mostly far right conservatives who have embraced the far right racist wing of the party. For the racism they have spewed out in recent years, driving what should be a rational debate over immigration into hysterical fearmongering, bigotry, and scapegoating.
    O'Reilly: In the Impact Segment tonight, more lies from the New York Times over illegal immigration. As you may know, the Times and other far-left entities favor amnesty for illegal aliens, primarily as a way to gain political power. As you may also know, most Americans reject blanket amnesty, as was demonstrated when the immigration bill of 2007 crashed and burned in Congress.

    So yesterday, this man, editorial page director Andrew Rosenthal, printed a vicious piece of propaganda called "The Nativists Are Restless." In this smear, the Times implies that I and others racists because we oppose amnesty.

    Rosenthal: It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out. The country has, of course, made considerable progress since the days of Know-Nothings and the Klan. But racism has a nasty habit of never going away, no matter how much we may want it to, and thus the perpetual need for vigilance.

    It is all around us. ... Google the words “Bill O’Reilly” and “white, Christian male power structure” for another YouTube taste of the Fox News host assailing the immigration views of “the far left” (including The Times) as racially traitorous.

    O'Reilly: Of course, you can post anything on YouTube, any lie you want, any distortion, and Google can highlight the smear in the blink of an eye -- there are no rules. For example, I could post that Andrew Rosenthal completely distorted Bill O'Reilly's view on illegal immigration, because Rosenthal is a dishonest far-left zealot who uses hateful tactics, like implying people with whom he disagrees are racist.

    I could post that, and then you could Google "Rosenthal" and "illegal immigration" and it would be there -- uncensored. Now if Rosenthal doesn't know that, he's stupid. If he does know it, then he's dishonest and intentionally misleading Times readers.
    Besides O'Reilly's point being meaningless, it's worth remembering exactly what comes up when you Google those words: actual video showing Bill O'Reilly, in full context, saying the following to John McCain about a year ago:
    O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

    McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need more farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

    O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 million. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

    McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.
    So basically, the NY Times op-ed was right, and O'Reilly did say it. Then he declares war on a guy for reporting what he said, which was the truth.

    On the May 16, 2006 O'Reilly Factor, billy claimed that The New York Times and "many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." O'Reilly continued: "According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will."

    O'Reilly's comments came during a discussion of opposition by the Times and others to deploying the National Guard to help secure the border. That kind of crap is what the NYT editorial in question was addressing.

    What was perhaps more notable than the report itself was the team that delivered it. It included Bay Buchanan, former adviser to Representative Tom Tancredo and sister of Pat, who founded the American Cause and wrote “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.” She was joined by James Pinkerton, an essayist and Fox News contributor who, as an aide to the first President Bush, took credit for the racist Willie Horton ads run against Michael Dukakis.

    But even more telling was the presence of Peter Brimelow, a former Forbes editor and founder of Vdare.com, an extremist anti-immigration Web site. It is named for Virginia Dare, the first white baby born in the English colonies, which tells you most of what you need to know. In the segment Billy said this:
    O'Reilly: Look, I'm gonna take this New York Times on. I mean it's war. Absolutely war. I've had enough.
    Note that O'Reilly did not even bother to address the substance of the NYT's point: That these "mainstream" conservatives were lending their voices to an enterprise that is tainted by the significant involvement of extreme racists. It's not guilt by association when the association is entirely relevant.

    Brimelow, it turns out, is also taking part in a "racial awareness" event this coming weekend with the overtly racist British National Party (essentially the English skinheads party) at airport hotel in Baltimore.

    According to the “Preserving Western Civilization” website, one of the goals of the conference is to address white guilt for the “disappointing performance of blacks.” The event, being held at the Four Points Sheraton BWI Airport Hotel in Baltimore, MD, will also feature anti-immigrant leader Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is a regular contributor to white nationalist John Tanton’s quarterly journal Social Contact Press.

    The Times reply is both pointed and on the money:
    The reaction in some quarters to our editorial has been furious. Some accused us of erecting a straw man. Some said we were “frothing at the mouth,” defaming those who don’t share our supposed traitorous devotion to “open borders” and instant citizenship for illegal immigrants.

    Bill O’Reilly, who presents himself as a defender of the “white, Christian male power structure,” called it “one of the nastiest pieces of propaganda from the New York Times we’ve seen in recent memory.”

    For the record, The Times does not support open borders, and never has.

    We support comprehensive immigration reform, a combination of stricter enforcement at the border and the workplace, a chance for those already here to earn legalization, and an improved system of future legal immigration.
    What O'Reilly, Buchanan, Pinkerton, Dobbs, Malkin, and the whole crew of right-wing media who repackage old racist nonsense for mainstream consumption fail to understand is that merely talking about immigration isn't a sign of racism. It's talking about immigration like racists that is.

    What usually raises questions of racism is how readily the discussion turns to how Latinos are polluting or diluting white culture, how they're bringing crime and disease, turning America into "a third world cesspool," how they're "invading" the country. In other words, it isn't talking about immigration that makes people hear racism; it's talking racist crap that does.

    The favorite right-wing spin of O'Reilly, Dobbs, Malkin, and their nativist cohorts is that "it's not fair that you can't discuss illegal immigration without being accused of being racist." But the problem isn't discussing illegal immigration. I think everyone involved would love to have a discussion on immigration without racism rearing its ugly head.

    But racism is rearing its ugly head when O'Reilly, Dobbs, Malkin, and the whole pack of so-called "immigration reformers" treat white-supremacist propaganda as reliable information and parrot talking points from those white supremacists as well.

    Basically O'Reilly pals around with racists and white power skinheads, uses their talking points during immigration debates, claims they want to end their white power structure, and even puts them on his show. Then he cries foul when the NY Times did nothing more than report the truth. Pointing out they're doing it isn't the problem. Pretending that they're not is.

    The Monday 2-2-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
    By: Steve - February 2, 2009 - 11:30pm

    The TPM was called Stimulus Package. Basically O'Reilly trashed the House Democrats Obey and Pelosi, he said they loaded the bill with far left garbage. Which is nothng more than his opinion, and right-wing talking points. All the Republicans are putting spin on the bill, because they want to get some business tax cuts in there.

    And if you notice, everything O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are crying about is roughly $800 million (at the most) when it's an $825 BILLION dollar stimulus bill. That $800 million, is 1/70th of 1 percent of the total bill. So it's basically crying over nothing, which is what O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are doing.

    What they are actually doing is lying about the bill, to stir up public pressure on Obama to cut things and add more business tax cuts. It's a scam by Republicans to get more tax cuts in the bill for their corporate friends who fund their elections, and re-elections.

    Then Billy put the far right Newt Gingrich on to pretty much agree with everything he said, and to pimp his lame website, that O'Reilly had on the screen the whole time he was talking. And what he does not do when Democrat guests are on, no Democrat websites are even promoted by O'Reilly when they get on.

    Newt said the bill was all pork, and that it would not stimulate the economy. What a shocker, a Republican does not like a Democrat bill, I'm stunned, not. The stimulus bill debate quickly turned into a trash Pelosi and Obey segment, and the bill was barely talked about. O'Reilly even implied that Pelosi might be out of her mind, so it was 2 right-wing stooges trashing the Obama stimulus bill, with no Democrat to provide the balance.

    Then O'Reilly went on a rampage about an op-ed in the NY Times. The op-ed called him and a few other Republicans racists for their immigration positions. Earth to Billy, it's an op-ed opinion piece. That means they guy is giving his opinion. When you are attacked for what you say, you claim it is your right because you are a commentator. Yet you attack an op-ed opinion piece that he has a right to, and it's the same as being a commentator.

    Can you spell hypocrisy? Not to mention the 2 other people are Bay Buchanan and Jim Pinkerton, and they are all right-wing racists who are opposed to any mexican getting into the country. Okay folks picture this, Billy the racist has 2 other right-wing racists on to agree with him, with nobody who has an opposing view to provide any balance.

    Then the 3 of them debate immigration policy, O'Reilly said the left wants them in to get more votes for Democrats. And the right just want a fair immigration policy. Picture it, 3 white Republicans in the debate, no liberals, no Democrats, no Mexicans, and nobody of any color. The best part was at the end of the segment, O'Reilly said he covers the issue fairly. How? When? Where? It was 3 white Republicans in a debate on immigration policy, in O'Reilly world that's a fair debate.

    In the next segment O'Reilly put his 2 stooges on to agree with him. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham both agreed with him, what a shocker, ha ha. Juan agreed with O'Reilly and called the op-ed ridiculous. And he's the Democrat put on to give the opposing view. When he goes on and agrees with O'Reilly, that's what I call a FOX News Democrat, who in reality is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat.

    Then he had the 2 culture warriors, Monica Crowley and Margaret Hoover, both work for FOX, and both of them are Republicans. As usual no Democrat culture warrior, just the 2 Republicans. They were on to talk about the culture of the super bowl ads. Basically it's 3 white bible thumping right-wingers crying about sexy ads. They mentioned the godaddy.com ad and O'Reilly did not even know what they do, he was clueless.

    Billy mentioned the woman who had 8 kids, and called it a crime, he said it was child abuse. When the kids are not even out of the hospital yet, so how can their be child abuse, and what is the crime. Even the culture warriors tried to talk some sense into him, but it did no good. In O'Reilly world, it's a crime, and child abuse.

    Next in the reality unreality segment O'Reilly cried about dishonesty in journalism. Earth to O'Reilly, you are one of the most dishonest journalists in America, you trashing dishonesty in journalism is like Charles Manson trashing people who murder. You are dishonest, look in the mirror idiot.

    O'Reilly even hammered the paparazzi for ambushing hollywood celebs, he called it disgusting, when O'Reilly does the exact same thing, he sends his half retarded producer out to ambush Democrats. Earth to Billy, you do the exact same thing, do you even know what hypocrisy means.

    Then pinheads and patriots and the lame e-mails. During the e-mail segment a woman wrote in to hammer him for showing the sexy PETA ad 50 times, O'Reilly lied and said he only showed it 2 times and gave a viewer warning each time. Which is a total lie. O'Reilly reported the story 2 nights in a row, and in those 2 nights the video was shown at least 7 or 8 times, and a viewer warning was only given 1 time each night.

    Billy is so much of a liar he can not even tell the truth when answering an e-mail from one of his own viewers, when they know the truth, and they know he was lying. The video was run over and over and over, 4 or 5 times a night, 2 nights in a row, just look at my blog reviews, I report on it.

    Yet Billy claims he only ran it 2 times, which is a 100% documented lie. And that was the end of the all right-wing, all spin zone O'Reilly Factor. The 1 so-called Democrat guest, works for FOX and agreed with O'Reilly, so it was an hour long right-wing propaganda hour. Not one voice of dissent on the whole show, and that's called balance in a no spin zone in O'Reilly world.