More Proof Fox News Is Part Of The GOP
By: Steve - February 28, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly claims that Fox News is fair and balanced, and that only a couple evening shows are partisan opinion shows, he said the rest of the network is objective and nonpartisan. Which denies the facts, because Cavuto does an opinion show, on in the afternoon, Beck has an opinion show, Hannity has an opinion show, O'Reilly has an opinion show, Greta has an opinion show, as does Fox & Friends, and Greg Gutfeld.

Not to mention if you watch them on a regular basis, almost every show on Fox does some opinion, and that opinion always agrees with the Republicans. Now we have even more proof that Fox is the voice of the opposition to Obama and the Democratic party. Eric Hananoki at Media Matters wrote an article that documents their bias.

2-26-10 -- Last March, Fox News VP Bill Shine was asked how his channel would adjust to life under a Democratic Congress and White House. Shine responded with a simple plan: Fox will be the "voice of opposition."

Nearly a year later, Shine's strategy proved correct as Fox News has opposed the White House on nearly every issue: economy, foreign policy, administration officials, environment, taxes, judicial nominations -- even Obama's supposedly elitist choice of mustard. Fox News has made defeating health care reform it's top priority, as the channel's hosts, reporters and pundits have pushed a steady stream of falsehoods and smears about death panels, euthanasia, deficit explosions, the public option, constitutionality, rationing, abortion, and socialized medicine. Fox News served as the chief promoters of anti-health care reform disruptions of town halls, the anti-health care "Code Red" rally and Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) anti-health care demonstrations.

With so much practice, and the bipartisan health care summit at the top of this week's political agenda, there was then little surprise that Fox News ran its full-court press against health care reform.

Even before the summit began, Fox News personalities agreed with Rush Limbaugh that Obama was setting a "trap" for Republicans -- never mind that just months ago, Fox Newsers were complaining that Republicans were "locked out" and "excluded" from health care discussions.

Discussing Democratic health care proposals, Bill O'Reilly and contributor Doug Schoen falsely suggested that GOP ideas like interstate competition -- not a great idea to begin with -- "aren't in the bill" (they're in the Senate version). Contributor Karl Rove distorted a CBO report to claim that "everybody's health care premiums are going to be higher than they would be otherwise" and falsely claimed that an excise tax on plans would be "paid by people who are not in unions." And Newt Gingrich falsely claimed that all the Democrats health care proposals "require...higher deficits" and would add "big deficits" -- actually, the CBO found that the House and Senate bills would reduce the deficit.

After the summit, Fox News figures reacted predictably by declaring the meeting "boring" and claiming that Obama "lowered himself" by participating. Fox Nation, meanwhile, decided that the "Dems lose summit on substance.

Republican health care falsehoods also got an on-air pass from White House senior correspondent Major Garrett, who presented Sen. Lamar Alexander's falsehood that the Senate bill would increase premiums and Rep. Paul Ryan's falsehood that the Senate bill "does not ... reduce the deficit" as a he-said, he-said with Obama. Garrett did not point out that the non-partisan CBO supports Obama.

As they have on numerous other issues, Fox News adopted the GOP's anti-Dem strategy as their own. Just how indistinguishable has the rhetoric from Fox News and GOP officials been? Try matching the following statements about the Democrats potential attempt to pass health care with a majority vote to either a Fox News employee (Fox's Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity or Charles Krauthammer) or GOP official (Sen. Jon Kyl or Rep. John Boehner).
1) Democrats are "going to ram it through, whether we like it or whether the American people like it."

2) Democrats are threatening "to ram this through with 51 votes."

3) Democrats are "going to ram it down America's throat."

4) Democrats are "preparing to employ a 'trick' to bypass rules in the Senate and ram legislation through on a one-party vote."

5) Democrats are preparing "to try to ram it through on a procedural trick in the Senate."
Fox News also (again) allowed disgraced political adviser turned disgraced Fox "political analyst" Dick Morris to use his employment to organize opposition -- and funds -- against health care reform. On The O'Reilly Factor, Fox & Friends, and Hannity, Morris urged viewers to visit his website to learn how to pressure "vulnerable" congressmembers to vote against health care reform.

Morris Fox-promoted website features numerous fund solicitations ("give us money to run the ad!") for the League of American Voters, a conservative group that employs him as a chief strategist. According to Morris, the group has "raised $200,000 in three days."

Has the conservative news organization's year-long drumbeat against health care reform had an effect? Separate Pew Research Center and NBC News polls found that Fox News viewers are more likely than any other viewer to believe health care "misinformation" such as the "death panels" lie. Meanwhile, the channel continues to misinform viewers on "death panels," and executives actually awarded the claim originator (Sarah Palin) a multi-year contract.

With activism like that -- from both the purported "news" and "opinion" sides -- it's no wonder Fox News has become the favorite of Republican officials.

Fox News employee or GOP official answer key: 1) Sen. Jon Kyl. 2) Fox's Megyn Kelly. 3) Fox's Sean Hannity. 4) Rep. John Boehner. 5) Fox's Charles Krauthammer.

Fox News is basically an arm of the Republican party, their mission is to spin and lie about everything Obama and the Democrats do. And yet O'Reilly claims they are fair and balanced and only have a couple opinion shows in the evening. When the facts show they are in bed with the GOP to smear and lie about Obama to make him look bad.

Fox News Has One Real Journalist
By: Steve - February 28, 2010 - 9:00am

And he is Shepard Smith, he is not perfect, as nobody is, but at least he tries to be fair and balanced and call out Republicans when they lie about something on his show. Something O'Reilly and 99% of the other Anchors at Fox do not do.

Last week Shep called out the Republican Senator John Thune, for lying about the health care bill raising premiums and for mindlessly repeating Republican talking points.
SMITH: Why do Republicans want to throw this out and start over Senator? Why do they want to do that? Nobody buys that. Everybody sees that as here's how we win. Our side wins if we get you to throw your thing out even though you're the majority. And the majority goes we win if we get you to come along with it. You're not going to come along with them any more than they're going to throw their thing out. It seems silly to talk about it.

THUNE: Well that's part of the problem. Its 2700 pages long. How do most people including members of congress get acquainted with something that's that complicated. And if you want bipartisan support for this that's what it's going to take because Republicans are not going to buy into a bill that cost two and a half trillion dollars, that raises taxes on small businesses and individuals, that cuts Medicare and at the end the day raises premiums for most Americans.
Then Smith nailed him, because the CBO said it would cost $950 Billion over 10 years, not the $2.5 Trillion Thune claimed. And btw, O'Reilly also used the Republican talking points to claim it would cost double the $950 Billion the CBO said it would. Smith said this to the Thune lies:
SMITH: That's not true Senator. That is not true. That's not what the CBO said. I know your talking points. And you people up there who are supposed to be representing us are making it perfectly clear you're going to sit in your corners with your own talking points and we're going to lose. We're going to get nothing and it's clear we're not. So when this is over the President will be able to say I tried but we couldn't get anything done it so here comes reconciliation. Fifty one votes and away we go.
And take note that Shepard Smith is the only person at Fox News who has called out the Republicans on their health care talking points lies. O'Reilly has not only not called them out on it, he agrees with them and says it will cost $2.5 Trillion, when he knows the CBO scored it at $950 Billion. Just as everyone else at Fox News has, and they get that number from the biased Grover Norquist run Americans For Tax Reform group.

That's how they work, they get a biased right-wing group to put out a bogus and biased study saying it will actually cost $2.5 Trillion, then they all cite that study as if it was a fact. And the big bad Billy O'Reilly is right at the head of the line to cite it, he even cited them in his talking points memo last week. When he knows it's a bogus study, because he tried to hide the fact that they are a biased group. Until Colmes busted him for it a little later in the show. Then O'Reilly said yes they are biased, so what.

So what, because it proves they are biased and that they want to make it look bad to gain support against the bill. So what, proves just how biased O'Reilly is, because even when he is busted for using their bogus study and trying to hide it he just says so what.

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a liberal group did a poll that said all Republicans are misinformed and stupid. Oh yeah, they did, DailyKos ran that poll, and O'Reilly called it a fraud of a poll. So if we use O'Reilly logic when liberals do it it's a fraud, but when Republicans do it it's valid. Which is even more proof that he is a right-wing stooge, who is totally in the tank for the Republican party.

Megyn Kelly Shows How Biased She Is
By: Steve - February 28, 2010 - 8:30am

Her argument for Tort Reform is so ridiculous I barely know where to start. And remember this woman is a regular on the Factor, she has her own show on Fox, and O'Reilly bills her as an expert journalist. Then you listen to her statement on Tort Reform and you wonder if she even graduated High School.

This is the garbage we get from the so-called media elite, who take to the airwaves and say the most insane things to defend their positions. Last week Megyn Kelly gave the most ridiculous argument for tort reform I have ever seen.

But before I get into what Megyn Kelly said, let me give you the real truth on Tort Reform, which O'Reilly also called for in the Obama health care bill. Here is the real truth about Tort Reform. Senator Dick Durbin said this at the health care summit, just 3 days ago on February 25th.
DURBIN: Mr. President, I've been biding my time throughout this entire meeting. I thank you for inviting us on the issue of medical malpractice. Before I was elected to Congress, I worked in a courtroom. For years, I defended doctors and hospitals, and for years I sued them on behalf of people who were victims of medical malpractice. So I've sat at both tables in a courtroom.

But I listen time and again as our friends on the other side when they're asked what are the most important things you can do when it comes to our health care system in America. The first thing they say is medical malpractice. It's the first thing they say. Today, it was the first thing that was said.

Senator Orrin Hatch asked the CBO how much will we save if we implement the Republican plan on medical malpractice from the House, they said $54 billion over 10 years; $5.4 billion a year is a lot of money, except in the context of the $2.5 trillion bill that we pay each year for health care. It represents one-fifth of 1 percent of the amount of money we spend each year on health care.

If you were asked a basic question: Over the last 20 years, has the number of paid malpractice claims in America doubled or been cut in half? If you listen to most people here, you'd say it must have doubled. No. According to the Kaiser Foundation, they've been cut in half.

Oh, but how much -- how about the money that's being paid for these malpractice claims? Clearly, that's gone through the roof. No. Between 2003 and 2008, the total amount paid for malpractice claims in America was cut in half from $8 billion to $4 billion.
Now that is proof O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are crazy when they say Tort Reform will lower health care costs. Tort Reform would only save 1/5th of 1 percent of the total heallth care cost for all of America. Notice you never hear O'Reilly or anyone actually say how much it will save, as in what percent. And notice that they never tell you the amount spent on medical lawsuits has dropped from $8 Billion a year, to $4 Billion a year. So it's going down, not up, and they never report that.

Okay, now that we have the facts on that, let's get to what the crazy Megyn Kelly said to defend her Tort Reform spin. Kelly was discussing tort reform with Debbie Wassermann-Schultz when she went into crazy land by arguing that if her arm was cut off, it really wasn't worth all that much as long as you can still function. And what the hell? It's only an arm. I mean how much of an impact does it have on your life.
KELLY: You just have to limit the economic damage, in other words you, if a doctor cuts my arm off. I can get the money back from what my life is to like without this arm so I can function. You can't get punitive damages.
That is just insane, and here is a big problem with her argument. She is saying there should be a limit of $250,000 on doctors lawsuit payouts. The problem with that is everyone has a different measure of how important your arm is. If you are a professional golfer who makes $5 million dollars a year and you lose an arm to a bad doctor, that is worth $5 million a year for however many good years he has left on the tour.

If he has 10 good years left he is out $50 million dollars, so his payout should be higher. Now if you are a 50 year old unemployed bum who lives in your parents basement playing video games all day, and then a doctor cuts your arm off by mistake, it would be worth far less, maybe a million dollars instead of $5 million for the professional golfer. That is why the courts and a judge should decide what they payout is, and why it should not be limited to $250,000.

Not to mention, if some bad doctor cuts your arm off by mistake he should be punished with punitive damages, which Kelly is also opposed to. Then you can say it might not even be worth a million dollars, or $50 million to lose an arm. If someone said they would give me a million dollars for my arm I would say no, because you need two arms to do almost anything.

I am sure Megyn Kelly is a smart person, but her argument about losing an arm and Tort Reform is just ridiculous. And the biggest problem with her argument for Tort Reform is that it will not even reduce health care costs by 1/2 of 1 percent. Which also kills the argument for it by O'Reilly and all the other Republicans.

All Tort Reform will do is give health insurance companies more profit, it will not lower health insurance costs. The only reason most Republicans cry out for Tort Reform is because they get a lot of money from health insurance companies who ask them to try and get it passed. So they can increase their profits, and that is the bottom line.

Yes O'Reilly Greta Is A Partisan Too
By: Steve - February 28, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly claims Greta Van Susteren is a not a partisan. When in fact she is, and if you watch her show you can see it with your own eyes. Greta just does not do as many political stories as the other Fox shows, she does more tabloid stuff, similar to Geraldo. But when she does a political story she always leans right, in her interviews of Limbaugh and Palin she kissed their ass and did softball interviews.

And then she recently had an interview with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah. During the interview Van Susteren did not challenge Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) description of the possible use of the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, who called it "an abuse of the Senate rules like I've never seen before." When in fact, Hatch has supported the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass major Bush administration initiatives by a majority vote.

So Hatch went on her show and knowingly lied about using reconciliation, and Greta never said a word.
HATCH: The third thing is that he basically is going to go to reconciliation, and I think this was a photo op in order to get them so that they can go to reconciliation, which would be an abuse of the Senate rules like I've never seen before.

VAN SUSTEREN: "Photo op" seems like a nice word for a joke.
Fact: Hatch repeatedly voted to use reconciliation to pass GOP initiatives

Hatch supported reconciliation to pass the Bush administration tax cuts. Hatch was among 51 senators who voted in favor of a 2001 amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that allowed for the consideration of President Bush's 2001 tax cuts -- through the reconciliation process. Hatch later voted for the tax cut bill itself.

In 2003, Hatch voted again for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation. He also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution.

Then in 2005, Hatch voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation.

Fact: Van Susteren has repeatedly misrepresented reconciliation

Van Susteren falsely portrayed reconciliation as the nuclear option. On August 20, 2009, Van Susteren said Democrats are "threatening to go nuclear" in discussing the reconciliation process. Van Susteren later added, "Democrats might use the nuclear option, which is slang for a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation, to get health care reform passed."

On January 20, Van Susteren falsely described the budget reconciliation process as the "nuclear option," and allowed Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to refer to it as "arcane," despite his own record of supporting bills that made use of the procedure.

And the "nuclear option" actually refers to a procedure that would be used to change Senate rules, while reconciliation is part of the congressional budget process. So Greta does not even have her facts right, she is spinning out the right-wing lies just as Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich do.

Van Susteren: "Years ago when it came to Republicans using reconciliation, Democrats were singing a different tune." On her February 24 show, Van Susteren noted that Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass health care and said, "But years ago when it came to Republicans using reconciliation, many Democrats were singing a different tune."

In fact she is wrong, the Democratic senators were expressing opposition to a 2005 proposal to change Senate rules to eliminate use of the filibuster for judicial nominations -- it was called the "nuclear option" -- not the use of reconciliation.

So as you can see Greta is as partisan as anyone on Fox, proving that she has a right-wing bias, and proving that O'Reilly lies about her being objective.

O'Reilly & Right-Wing Media Mocking The Uninsured
By: Steve - February 27, 2010 - 10:00am

O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent, but if that is true why does he continue to use all the Republican talking points to attack Obama and his health care plan. You can look up what every Republican is saying about Obama and his health care plan, and then look at what O'Reilly said, and it's the exact same thing. No matter what the issue, O'Reilly mirrors the Republican party line on everything he reports on.

And now we have another example, at the health care summit Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter told a story about a woman who had to wear dentures that belonged to her dead sister, because she did not have health care and could not afford to get dental work done. This is not funny, and it shows how sad our health care system is, yet O'Reilly and a bunch of Republicans mocked her, and made jokes about it.

Notice that only Republicans did it, including O'Reilly. Responding to Slaughter's account, which he called the "sob story of the day," Limbaugh said this:
LIMBAUGH: You know -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big. I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?
Limbaugh told another caller who could not afford the $6,000 it would cost to treat a broken wrist that he "shouldn't have broken his wrist." Proving that Limbaugh may be the dumbest man on earth. As if the guy had a choice in breaking his wrist.

Except that Glenn Beck made an even dumber statement, Beck said the constitution does not say you have a right to teeth, and then he said he is wearing George Washington's dentures right now. On his February 26 radio show, Glenn Beck played an audio clip of Slaughter's account then said, "I am wearing George Washington's dentures right now. I'm wearing his teeth right now."

He later added, "I just like wearing dead people's teeth. But in America -- I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I've read the Constitution before. I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." Echoing Limbaugh's remarks the previous day, Beck stated, "The environmentalists should be all over Slaughter. 'How dare you say that?' My gosh, they're just recycling."

On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"

On The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham said she "liked the dueling sob stories, OK? One Democrat was trying to outdo the next on the sob story about how rotten our health care system is. Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories by saying one of her constituents had to wear her sister's dentures. It got so bad with the health care system." She later added, "You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his -- I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous."

The website even got in on it, they called Congresswoman Slaughters story Summit Insanity. And then last night O'Reilly joined in, he named Congresswoman Slaughters comment his dumbest thing of the week. O'Reilly does a segment called dumbest thing of the week, with two Republicans, Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy.

So after every Republican in America attacked Congresswoman Slaughter for simply stating a fact, that she knows a woman who had to wear her dead sisters false teeth, O'Reilly jumps on the right-wing bandwagon and names her the dumbest person of the week. As he claims to be a nonpartisan Independent who is fair to both sides, and who never uses Republican talking points.

The Friday 2-26-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 27, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called President Obama's Shoes. O'Reilly said this about it:
O'REILLY: The President took a big gamble yesterday moderating the health care summit. Republicans and Democrats bloviated, but not very much was accomplished.

The President knows that if Obamacare does not pass, he loses big; if his reform does get through Congress, he loses smaller. When you think about it, President Obama has something in common with President Bush. Both have taken daring gambles - Mr. Bush on the Iraq surge, Mr. Obama on trying to ram through an unpopular health care bill. President Bush succeeded in the surge, but that didn't help him very much in the court of public opinion.
What a freaking idiot, O'Dummy says if it does not pass Obama loses big, and if it does pass he still loses. So he is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. In the mind of Bill O'Reilly giving health care to 35 million more people is a loss for Obama, which is just ridiculous. And if Bush did it he would call it great. Then he compares Bush and the Iraq surge to Obama wanting to give health care to 35 million more Americans.

Which is even more ridiculous than saying Obama loses if he gets the health care bill passed. Bush lied us into Iraq, that got almost 4,000 American soldiers killed for no reason, Obama just wants to give health care to 35 million more Americans, which will save lives, so the comparison to what Bush did in Iraq is just insane.

Then O'Reilly had two Republicans on to discuss it. Major Garrett and Jim Angle both put their right-wing spin on it, and said how hard it will be to get the bill passed. They said Obama is going to ask the House to pass the Senate bill, then fix it through the process of reconciliation. And of course no Democrats were on to discuss it, just O'Reilly and two other Republicans.

Then O'Reilly had the far right J.D. Hayworth on to talk about his Senate primary run against John McCain and his birther comments. O'Reilly asked Hayworth is he is a birther, Hayworth said no. Then Hayworth said Obama is the President of the United States and I believe he was born in Hawaii. And that he made certain statements on the air to provoke conversation, but Senator McCain is involved in the politics of distortion and distraction. And O'Reilly left it at that, no follow up, no quotes from what Hayworth actually said, no nothing.

As usual O'Reilly let's these right-wing nuts spin and lie on his show to cover for them. When Chris Matthews asked Hayworth if he is a birther the former Republican Congressman called on President Obama to produce his birth certificate for public inspection. Here is what Hayworth actually said just last week on MSNBC:
HAYWORTH: "Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is who they say they are? I'm just saying the president should come forward with the information, that's all."
Earth to O'Reilly, that's a birther. Just last week Hayworth said that, on Tuesday night to be exact. Notice that O'Reilly never reported any of that, and that he just let Hayworth get away with saying he is not a birther, when he is. O'Reilly did that on purpose to give Hayworth a chance to deny he is a birther on the #1 cable news show. And he ignored the fact that just last Tuesday Hayworth was calling for Obama to prove he is a U.S. citizen.

Then O'Reilly had two worthless segments, one with Geraldo about the Whale killing at seaworld, and the other with the far right corrupt pollster Frank Luntz who ran a focus group on the family guy CARTOON show talking about Sarah Palin and her disabled child. Geraldo and O'Reilly said seaworld should release the Whale back into the ocean, and that they will not pay to see a Whale that has killed three people. And the Frank Luntz segment was a joke, earth to O'Reilly every time you use the biased and corrupt pollster Frank Luntz for anything you lose more of what little credibility you have. And stop crying about what people say about Palin or her kids, nobody cares but you, it's a week old story anyway so move on cry baby.

Then Glenn Beck was on to spin out more right-wing insanity. O'Reilly asked Beck about his accusation that progressivism is a "cancer" spreading through American society. Beck said, "My point is that there is a disease, that is set up to eat our Constitution. That the whole progressive movement is evil and insidiousness, especially within the Democratic Party and the Obama administration."

O'Reilly agreed with him, and said he even wrote an entire book about it, then he asked Beck if he read it. Beck said no, and made a joke about how hard it is to read any of O'Reilly's books. So they both agree that progressivism is a disease. I wonder how they explain the years from 1992 to 2000 when the PROGRESSIVE Bill Clinton ran the country. It can be argued that those 8 years were the best 8 years in the history of America, as far as economic growth and job creation. Yet Beck and O'Reilly claim progressivism is an evil that will destroy the country, when the facts show the exact opposite.

And remember this, O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent. As he agrees with the crazy far right nut Glenn Beck that progressives will destroy the country. If that's an opinion of a nonpartisan Independent, I'm Miss America.

The last segment was dumbest things of the week with two more Republicans, Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy looked back at the past week and nominated the stupidest people and events. Huddy named the Pentagon employee who tried to sell Defense Department secrets to the Chinese. "This guy was selling American secrets for $2,000, but the stupidest thing was the judge's decision to only give him five years in prison."

Gutfeld chose the Friskies cat food ad that resembles a hallucinogenic LSD trip. "It makes me want to eat cat food again. They're trying to replicate the magical journey a cat takes when it eats Friskies, but how do they know? Frank Luntz should interview cats to find out what Friskies taste like and whether they are spiking it with acid."

O'reilly named Congresswoman Louise Slaughter his dumbest thing of the week, for complaining about a constituent who was forced to wear her dead sister's dentures. O'Reilly jumped on the right-wing bandwagon to attack her, as all the other Republicans are doing. Notice that only Republicans are attacking her, for simply telling a true story about the health care situation here in America.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly named Environmentalists who are hammering actor Harrison Ford for flying his private jet the pinhead. When O'Reilly and the Republicans did the exact same thing to Al Gore. O'Reilly also failed to mention one thing, Ford admitted to once flying his jet just to get a cheeseburger, and that is what the environmentalists were mad about.

O'Reilly said Al Gore should not be flying on private jets because of global warming. Then he names environmentalists pinheads for saying Harrison Ford should not be flying private jets because of global warming, making him a massive hypocrite, and the real pinhead.

O'Reilly Lies About Media Matters Racism Charges
By: Steve - February 27, 2010 - 9:00am

Last night during an interview with the Republican J.D. Hayworth O'Reilly told him that if he uses the word "black" Media Matters calls him a racist, and if he uses the word "gay" Media Matters calls him a homophobe.

O'Reilly implied that he is not a racist or a homophobe, and that Media Matters is dishonest for saying he is, that they attack him for no reason, and that he never makes any racist of anti-gay statements. Which is just ridiculous, because O'Reilly makes racist and anti-gay statements all the time.

You can go back years and find racist comments by O'Reilly, in 2003 O'Reilly hosted a fundraiser for Best Friends, a charity benefiting inner-city schoolchildren. O'Reilly said this before a black singing group was set to perform: "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps."

A reporter from the Washington Post who was there, said people in the audience were shocked and offended at the so-called joke by O'Reilly. It was a charity for inner-city black children, with mostly blacks in the audience. And somehow O'Reilly thought it was ok to make a joke about black kids stealing his hubcaps.

Then in the same year O'Reilly called mexicans wetbacks, not once, but twice. Searching for a word to describe someone who assists immigrants crossing the border, O'Reilly came up with wetback. After the comment Fox News officials said it was just a one time mistake by O'Reilly. But the Morning Call reported that O'Reilly used the same racist term in a speech earlier in the year: "O'Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out the wetbacks."

During a segment about black athletes suing over the minimum academic standards for college admission, O'Reilly commented: "Look, you know as well as I do most of these kids come out and they can't speak English."

Criticizing Democratic politicians who met with Rev. Al Sharpton, which O'Reilly compared to meeting with white supremacist David Duke: "Why would it be different? Both use race to promote themselves." O'Reilly also equated the Black Panthers with David Duke: "You were promoting your people, black people, and he's promoting white people. So what's the difference?"

Those comments were all made years ago, so you would think O'Reilly had stopped the racism by now, wrong. Just 3 years ago in 2007 O'Reilly was shocked that all the blacks in a black owned restaurant were not screaming where is my m-fing ice tea. Billy went to the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's with Al Sharpton for dinner, O'Reilly then reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's and any other restaurant in New York City. "I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, M-Fer, I want more iced tea."

This shows that O'Reilly thought black people were all out of control screaming where is my ice tea in all the black owned restaurants. In his mind that is what blacks did at black owned restaurants. If that's not racism, what is. It shows what he thought in his mind.

So then you think O'Reilly has learned his lesson and the racist comments stopped, wrong. During a February 2008 discussion of recent comments made by Michelle Obama, O'Reilly took a call from a listener who stated that, according to "a friend who had knowledge of Michelle Obama, she is a very angry, her word was 'militant woman.'

O'Reilly later stated: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

No matter what the context, nobody should use the word "lynching party" when talking about doing anything to or with a black person. And yet, that is exactly what O'Reilly did, and to make it worse he was talking about the First Lady Michelle Obama. And he implied that if there is evidence and hard facts that Michelle Obama thinks America is a bad country he would go on a "lynching party" for her, unless there is evidence of course.

And btw, that was part of an attack on Michelle Obama (by the right) before Barack won the Presidential election. They misrepresented what she said, and attacked her by claiming she said America was a bad country. Which is not what she said, she said she was finally proud of America, for electing a black president. Which is not saying America was bad, she was just saying she was proud we finally elected a black president.

Now think about this, if O'Reilly will say all that in public on a tv show, just think what he says in private. I am not proud of it but my 87 year old Father is a racist, and he says things about blacks in private that he would never say in public. That's the way he is, because he grew up during the time when blacks had to sit on the back of the bus, and they had whites only restaurants and drinking fountains. I'm not making excuses for him, I'm just saying that's how he is, and nothing can change how he thinks about blacks.

O'Reilly is the same way, and nothing can change how he thinks about blacks. Once a racist, always a racist. And the fact that O'Reilly would say all that in public shows that he is a racist.

And if you want to see how anti-gay O'Reilly is, just read this article, they go into detail on how O'Reilly is a homophobe. They have 8 pages of examples or anti-gay statements from O'Reilly.

The Closet's Last Champion: Why Bill O'Reilly wants you to shut up

Here is what they write at the end of the article:

While he and others on the right may deplore them, gay/straight alliances are springing up in schools across the country. There are hundreds of openly gay elected officials, newscasters, rock stars, movie directors, and daytime talk show hosts, not to mention imaginary dead gay wizards.

If Bill O'Reilly really wants homosexuality to fade into the background, he should consider another approach. He's written four New York Times best-selling books, has a popular nightly show on the top-rated news channel on cable, and a syndicated column running in over 300 newspapers.

What if, instead of telling gay teens to stay in the closet for their own protection, he told the hundreds of thousands of parents in his audience to stop raising their kids to believe homosexuality is wrong? Or did a segment on anti-gay violence that spent more time asking how to stop it from happening than on what gay people could do to avoid it? Wouldn't that make the world a fairer, safer place for queer kids and the adults they become?


In closing, Media Matters does not call people who simply use the word black a racist. And they do not call people who simply use the word gay homophobes. They call them racist homophobes for a reason, because they have made a series of racist and anti-gay statements, and they have consistently shown they are racist and anti-gay.

Proving that O'Reilly is being dishonest when he claims Media Matters only called him a racist for using the world black, or called him a homophobe for using the word gay. They called him a racist homophobe because he is one. And there is plenty of evidence to prove them right, the evidence that O'Reilly ignores and hopes everyone has forgot. When the facts show that he is a racist homophobe.

Republican Senator Blocking Unemployment Benefits
By: Steve - February 26, 2010 - 11:30am

One man is blocking 1.1 million people from getting an extension on their unemployment benefits in March, and 5 million more will lose their benefits by June. That man is Senator Sen. Jim Bunning the Republican from Kentucky.

Yesterday, the House passed an extension of unemployment benefits on a voice vote. The Senate, however, has yet to act on the same measure, as various senators are throwing up procedural roadblocks. On Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked for unanimous consent to approve an extension, only to see the motion blocked by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

Late last night, Democrats made repeated attempts to pass the extension by unanimous consent, and Bunning blocked them all. He then complained that the Democrats insistence on trying to ensure that unemployment benefits not expire had caused him to miss a college basketball game:
BUNNING: I want to assure the people that have watched this thing until quarter of twelve - and I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9 o'clock, and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina, since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year - all of these things that we have talked about and all the provisions that have been discussed, the unemployment benefits, all these things. If we'd have taken the longer version of the job bill, we wouldn't have spent three hours plus telling everybody in the United States of America that Senator Bunning doesn't give a damn about the people that are on unemployment.
At one point, while Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) were asking him to relent, Bunning was overhead blurting out "tough sh*t" as he sat in the back row.

Not only did Bunning's antics go on all night and ultimately prevent an extension from passing, but other Republicans went to bat for Bunning, arguing that the Democrats should simply respect Bunning's hold. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said, "I believe we're stooping to a low level. This is not the way the Senate functions. Everybody in the country now knows that the senator from Kentucky has a hold on this bill."

"I just don't think one senator ought to be able to heap this kind of suffering and misfortune on people who are already struggling in this economy," Durbin said.

"This is a wild pitch you are throwing tonight because it is pitch that is hitting somebody in the stands." Because 1.1 million workers are scheduled to have their unemployment benefits expire next month, and 5 million will lose their benefits by June.

And think about this, it's already passed the house, and will easily pass in the Senate too, because almost nobody is going to vote against it, even most Republicans will vote for it. But this ONE Republican Senator is blocking it from a vote, which the Republicans said was wrong when Bush was the President. So now you have ONE guy holding up the will of the people, and blocking the Congress from passing it. Yet O'Reilly and Fox News say nothing, but if a Democrat was doing it O'Reilly would call him a traitor.

Update: Sen. Durbin tried once more to pass the extension by unanimous consent this morning, and Bunning objected again. So if you are one of the 1.1 or 5 million people that lose your unemployment benefits you can thank Jim Bunning and the Republican party. Remember that when you vote this November. When they ask you to vote Republican just say tough shit.

O'Reilly: I Have More Power Than The President
By: Steve - February 26, 2010 - 9:30am

Do you want to see just how crazy O'Reilly is, read this. Yesterday morning Bill O'Crazy was on Good Morning America, during the interview host George Stephanopoulos asked O'Reilly if he was thinking of running for President. Then O'lunatic said he has no intention to run for president because he has more power as a host on Fox News.
O'REILLY: "You need $150 million to run for president," he said. "Unless the Chinese are going to back me, and I don't know if that's a good thing, what am I supposed to do?"
Earth to the big giant head, you are the host of a lame, biased, cable news show. You get about 3.2 million conservative viewers a night, that means less than 1% of the country even watches your little cable news show. In other words, 99% of the American people do not watch your show.

You have no power, none, because most people do not watch you, let alone even know who you are. Answer this smart guy, how can you have more power than the President when 99% of the people do not even watch your show.

To even make a crazy claim like that shows that you are insane, and I mean literally insane. Because nobody in the entire world thinks a lame cable news host is more powerful that the President, except Bill O'Reilly. Keith Olbermann has the worlds worst persons, and I am starting the worlds dumbest persons.

Bill O'Reilly, the dumbest person in the world. Good job, you earned it sparky!

The Thursday 2-25-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 26, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Health Care Bloviating. O'reilly talked about the health care summit. He said the bill could bankrupt the country, when that is a lie, it's $950 Billion over 10 years and the bill is deficit neutral. Basically O'Reilly put out the Republican talking points once again, just as he did last night. O'Reilly did not have one good thing to say about the bill, which is exactly what the Republicans are saying. He said the summit was ok, and that it made Obama look good, but he is still opposed to everything in the bill.

O'reilly had Congresswoman Michele Bachman and Congressman Dennis Kucinich on to discuss it. Bachman said it was a waste of time, and that they had more progress at the beer summit. Bachman also said she agrees with O'Reilly that it is confusing and too expensive. Kucinich said it was a civil discussion on an important issue, and that he missed the last three hours. O'Reilly called it boring as sand, which he never said about anything Bush did. O'Reilly asked them who won, Bachman said frustration won, because it was clear Obama was not listening to the Republicans. So basically she never answered the question. Kucinich said it will be tough to get it passed without the public option, and he never answered the question either. They both plan to vote against the bill, but for different reasons. Then they both predicted it will not pass.

Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it. And of course she said it was a dog and pony show, and she is opposed to the whole thing, just as O'Reilly is. Ingraham liked the dueling sob stories, one from each side. Then she said the whole thing was ridiculous, and she claimed she was speaking as an analyst, not a conservative, yeah right. Ingraham even called the Obama health care bill an intrusion on our liberty. When only a total right-wing idiot could make such a ridiculous claim. O'Reilly called it Obama's last stand to try and convince the people to support it.

Then Ingraham called the health care summit a net positive for Republicans, when everyone I saw talking about it said it was a net positive for Obama. Here is what Reuters said about it.

Obama Dominates The Room At Healthcare Summit Obama dominated the debate during Thursday's nearly seven hour cross-party summit on healthcare, always in command not only of the room but also of the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with.

Proving that Ingraham saw what she wanted to see, and that everyone else saw it as a win for President Obama. Republicans had nothing but the same old talking points they have been using for 9 months, which Obama destroyed btw. They do not want health care for all, and they oppose it because Insurance companies are paying them to oppose it.

O'Reilly predicted it will not pass, and it will make Obama look bad. O'Reilly asked if the Republicans moved to the Obama side at all, and Ingraham said no, because they don't have to. She claims the Republicans won the debate hands down, when nobody else agrees with her. Basically Ingraham saw what she wanted to see, she just rambled on and on about how the Republicans won the debate, while everyone else said Obama won the debate. At the end O'Reilly said the bill is so confusing nobody can possibly understand it. Earth to O'Reilly, I understand it, maybe you are just stupid.

But here is an important point, O'Reilly never mentions that a lot of people oppose it because they were lied to about what is in the bill. When you tell them what it does, and what is in it, the vast majority of the people support it. So basically the propaganda from the right has worked, yet O'Reilly never reports that.

Then Ellis Henican was on to discuss it, and he said the bill is going to pass. Henican said he does not like it very much, but that it will pass. Henican also admittted it will hurt Obama a little, but not that much. Henican also pointed out that when you tell people what is exactly in the bill most people support it. Then O'reilly said he thinks Obama will be hurt if it passes or not, so no matter what Obama does he is a loser, according to O'Reilly. More of that damned if you do, damned if you don't. Note to O'Jackass, it will only hurt Obama if it does not pass, moron. Then they talked about the poll Ellis ran in his Newsweek column about the KSM trial, 26% support the trial in a federal court, with 74% supporting the military court. O'Reilly called it a socialist magazine, when 74% agree with him, what an idiot.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on. O'Reilly cried about an ad ABC ran about a kids show, it had hearts on the screen, and the ad said something about get a heart on, as in hard on. Gretchen Carlson said it went a little too far. And btw, O'Reilly said "some people" were upset about the ad. Once again, the "some people" are conservatives, nobody else cared. Hoover is a Republican and even she disagreed and said she had no problem with the ad. Only O'Reilly and Carlson had a problem with it.

Then O'Reilly cried about the PETA ad about Tiger Woods, and O'Reilly had no clue what he was talking about. Billy said they pulled the ad, when it was never even run, Hoover had to correct him. So that great crack Factor research team got it wrong again. The ad never ran, O'Reilly said it did, then he did a segment on it, when the fricking ad never even ran. Good job O'Reilly, you had the facts wrong, then you lied about, then you had to be corrected on the air by one of your own people, dumbass. Why talk about an ad that never even ran, it made no sense, except to show us that the Factor research team is terrible.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the killer whale that killed a trainer. Billy called it a legal case, and asked if the family might file a lawsuit. O'Reilly got it wrong again, he said whales are dangerous to people, Kelly said he is wrong, that no whale has ever killed a person in the wild. So O'Reilly had it wrong again, which is strike two for the Factor research team, haha. Kelly said there will not be a lawsuit because the woman who took the job knew the risk, so they have no lawsuit.

So O'Reilly had the facts wrong again, yet he did a segment on it asking if they might file a lawsuit, when Kelly said there is no case. Good job, moron. Then they talked about another lawsuit that did not happen, the court tossed it. O'Reilly disagreed with the ruling, and said the should have been able to sue the city, and of course it was an illegal immigrant case. And of course O'Reilly was wrong, because he had said the court would allow the lawsuit. Wrong!

The last segment was nothing more than O'Reilly talking about his segment on Good Morning America, he basically played clips of him, and then talked about people who make money from you being sick. Like that is somehow wrong, when the fricking health care Insurance companies do it every damn day. But somehow O'Reilly has no problem with that. Stuart Varney was on to discuss it.

O'Reilly talked about the million of dollars these health insurance CEO's make, and the millions they spend on retreats. And of course Varney defended the CEO's from the health insurance companies. One guy makes $24 million a year, and Varney defended it. Varney is even a bigger right-wing joke than O'Reilly. Crazy Varney compared it to the salary of a NY Mets baseball player, and even O'Reilly said that was an insane comparison. Varney is a Cavuto wannabe, he never thinks big business ever does anything wrong, and defends everything they do.

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

O'Reilly Caught Using GOP Talking Points Again
By: Steve - February 26, 2010 - 8:30am

For a nonpartisan Independent, O'Reilly sure uses a lot of GOP talking points. And once again he was caught using them again, he called the Obama health care summit boring as sand.

Jonah Goldberg called it "Staggeringly boring."

Rush Limbaugh said the health care summit, "started off so boring, I'm not even sure people are watching it."

Glenn Beck called the Health care summit "Snorefest 2010."

Peter J. Pitts said, "The White House summit on healthcare was about as interesting to watch as Olympic curling."

O'Reilly said, "You got to admit, it was boring as sand, was it not?"

Hey O'Reilly, it's a fricking political meeting, what did you expect dancing girls and clowns. It's a political meeting you jackass, it's supposed to be boring. And what really gets me is that a few months ago O'Reilly was hammering Obama for not having the health care meetings on tv, so Obama puts them on tv, and what does O'Reilly do, calls it boring, and basically criticize everything about it.

Proving that O'reilly is a right-wing hack who will hammer Obama no matter what he does. It's bias, and dishonest journalism. These right-wing idiots like O'Reilly criticize Obama for everything, even when he does what they ask him to, they still hammer him for it. Then the a-hole has the nerve to say he has been fair to Obama, if that's being fair to him, I'm Donald Trump.

Not to mention over the last few days O'Reilly has loaded the show with 99% right-wing guests to smear and lie about the Obama health care plan. They claim it will cost double what they said, that it will bankrupt the country, that premiums will go up, and on and on. What those are all lies put out by the right to fool the American people into opposing it. None of what the right is saying is true.

And not only does O'Reilly load the show with right-wing guests to lie about the bill, he says the same thing they are, using the GOP talking points, and spews out the same lies as the Republicans. Then he claims he has been fair to Obama, when that is being about as unfair as you can get.

Republicans Still Claim Obama Not A U.S. Citizen
By: Steve - February 25, 2010 - 10:30am

At CPAC last week, blogger-activist Mike Stark caught up with Dr. Eric Wargotz, one of Maryland's Republican candidates for U.S. Senate. Stark asked Wargotz - who described himself as the presumptive GOP nominee - if he thinks President Obama should be impeached. "Not at this point, but I think the birth issue is still out there," Wargotz replied.

The GOP senate candidate later stated that he believes the President was not born in America:
WARGOTZ: What I understand about Obama's upbringing and his background is he grew up in a system very different than the American culture. And so I think his tendencies are to more socialist tendencies than capitalist society and free market society we have today.

STARK: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States or not?

WARGOTZ: No, I do not believe he was born in the United States.
The scary part is that this Republican nut job is running for the U.S Senate. Barack Obama was a Senator, then he was elected to be the President. That could not have happened unless he was an American citizen. And yet 30% of the Republican party thinks he is not a U.S. citizen. Which means 30% of them are stupid, and O'reilly denies they are stupid. How else do you explain it, Billy denies facts that show extreme stupidity.

The Wednesday 2-24-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 25, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Creating Political Fear In America. O'Reilly talked about people that use fear, and of course he only went after Democrats, Bernie Sanders for saying people that do not believe in global warming also did not believe Hitler was a danger, and Valerie Jarret for saying the Tea Party uses fear. When O'Reilly, Beck, Republicans, and Fox News use fear more than anyone. Then crazy O'Reilly even admitted Jarret is pretty much correct. The whole TPM was ridiculous, and made no sense.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about the Obama health care bill. Rove called it Kabuki Theatre, he said it was all a show to use as an excuse to pass the Democratic bill. Rove also said the Republicans are going to go to the health care meeting with a good bill. Which I have a hard time believing, I'll believe it when I see it. The Republicans have no plan, at least one that makes sense. Basically Rove and O'Reilly sat there and trashed Obama and his health care bill. With no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint. It's the same old same old, two Republicans telling you what to think, with no Democrats to give the other side of the story. It's called biased right-wing spin, with no facts, or as O'Reilly calls it, nonpartisan fair and balanced reporting.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on the Obama poll numbers, Doug Schoen was on to discuss it. O'Reilly said he is a Democratic pollster. Which he might be, but now he works for Fox News. So as usual he is a center right pollster, and a moderate DLC Democrat. Schoen basically agreed with everything O'Reilly said. O'Reilly talked about tort reform and interstate competition, again. And Schoen even agreed with O'Reilly on that. Which is crazy, proving that Schoen is no real Democrat.

And btw, tort reform would only lower insurance premiums for doctors medical insurance. It would not lower insurance premiums for the people, only for doctors. And the interstate competition garbage is nonsense, it will not lower costs either. The Insurance companies will just move to the state that has the fewest regulations and they will do price fixing, just like the gas and oil companies do. The tort reform crap is right-wing spin.

Then Dick Morris was on to discuss the Obama health care bill. Morris said it will pass the Senate, and he is not sure about the House. Morris thinks it should pass the House, but said if you go to his website he has a list of phone numbers you can call to get the bill defeated. So O'Reilly let Dick Morris use his show to try and get the health care bill defeated. This is an outrage, and no nonpartisan news show should be doing this. And btw, Morris was using fear to try and get people to vote against the Obama health care bill. Which is what O'Reilly said people should not do, then he let Morris do it on his show.

Then O'Reilly said he is being fair, to who, surely not Obama or the Democrats. Then Morris said the bill is actually going to cost $6 Trillion Dollars, not the $1 Trillion, which is more fear tactics, and Morris has no data to back up his claims, he just made it up. O'Reilly even said Morris is using fear, and Morris said it was the facts. O'Reilly also used fear, because he said he knows for a fact that it will cost more than $1 Trillion, but then a minute later O'Reilly said that nobody knows what it will cost. So he can't even keep his lies straight. One minute he says it will cost more than $1 Trillion, then the next minute he says nobody knows how much it will cost.

Notice that not one Democratic guest was put on the entire show to discuss the Obama health care bill. It was all Republicans, Rove and Morris. And somehow O'Reilly claims that is being fair to Obama. Not to mention, the bill is $950 Billion, over 10 years, and most of the taxes in it do not kick in until 2018, they will only be on people making over $250,000 a year, so the average working man will not pay any of those taxes. Yet O'Reilly sits there and says he knows it will be more than $1 Trillion, when it's only $950 Billion over 10 years.

Then the body language bimbo was on to do her hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo, body language readings that nobody cares about, and nobody takes serious. Which I refuse to report on because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any news stories. Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on to waste more time, on a so-called news show. Which I also refuse to report on because it's not news, and has nothing to do with the news. Miller just does jokes about liberals, and that's all he does. O'Reilly spent most of the segment crying about how much he pays in taxes on all his money and everything he buys, his property taxes, etc. shut up already jackass.

He even mentioned the death tax, when there is no death tax, only Republicans call it the death tax, it's called the inheritance tax, or estate tax. Which only applies to people who have over $3.5 million in assets, as of 2009, which is less than 3% of the people. So O'Reilly cried about a tax on less than 3% of the multi-millionaires in America. And btw, it's the same as hitting the lottery, if you win $3.5 million dollars in the lottery you pay a tax on that money, O'Reilly has no problem with that. But if you inherit a $3.5 million dollar estate, for doing nothing, somehow O'Reilly has a problem with that, when it only applies to less than 3% of the people.

The last segment was did you see that with Jane Skinner. They talked about some crazy video about the Pledge of Allegiance, some nut tried to get someone to say it in the middle of a town hall meeting. Who fricking cares. Then they talked about a video of Harry Reid doing what they called man bashing, for saying men out of work abuse their spouses more than women do, then Skinner admitted he was right. So there was no beef, as far as I'm concerned, and who cares, this is not news, and nobody cares. This segment totally sucks, it's a massive waste of time, and most likely just an excuse for O'Reilly to have another blonde bimbo on the air for ratings.

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

Polls Show 88% Of The Tea Party Are Conservatives
By: Steve - February 25, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly still claims the Tea Party movement is a diverse group of conservatives, liberals, and Independents. Just last week he told Dick Morris that it is not just a group of conservatives.

Now we know that O'Reilly is lying, polls prove it, and their own press release also proves it. And this has been known for at least a week, yet O'Reilly keeps denying reality. Here is the proof.

The CNN/Opinion Research poll identified 11 percent of Americans who said they have given money, attended rallies or taken other "active steps" to support the Tea Party movement. Of those who had, more identified themselves as independent (52 percent) than Republican (44 percent) or Democratic (4 percent).

But then we find this out. These results raise some fundamental questions about how pollsters identify political independents and analyze their attitudes. John Sides has been on something of a crusade of late to remind journalists, pundits and anyone else who follows politics of something that political scientists have long understood: Very few Americans are truly "independent."

In fact, most of those typically identified as independents in political surveys are, "largely closet Democrats and Republicans."

There is a 4th category, after Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, it is called pure Independents. Sides found out that only 10 percent, or less, of the country are pure Independents. A national sample of 1,000 interviews, for example, will yield less than 100 interviews among pure independents (and most polls do not report numbers for subgroups of less than 100). So the pure Independents are usually not even counted in the polls.

And that brings me back to the CNN poll. Remember the 52 percent Tea Party activists who identify as independents. It turns out that virtually all of them lean Republican. According to CNN, 88 percent of the activists identify or lean Republican, 6 percent identify or lean Democratic and only 5 percent fall into the pure independent category.

Remember the CNN pollster reported that 88 percent of the Tea Party activists would vote Republican if there were no Tea Party-endorsed third-party candidate running. That makes perfect sense for a group that is 88 percent Republican.

This shows that 88% of the Tea Party are Republicans, some of them claim to be Independents, but they are really closet Republicans. And the CNN poll proves it, because 88% of them said they would only vote Republican if there was no Tea Party candidate.

The numbers actually show that the number of pure independents is actually quite small - perhaps 10% or so of the population. And this number has been decreasing, not increasing, since the mid-1970s. The numbers also show that most independents are closet partisans. This has been well-known in political science since at least 1992, with the publication of The Myth of the Independent Voter. Approximately 75% of independent leaners are loyal partisans.

And one last thing: 90% of the public is partisan and about 80-90% of those voters vote for their party's candidate.

Most of that information came from John Sides, but he used some data by Jon Cohen of the Washington Post. They both wrote a lot about the issue, and have studied it for years. What it shows is that about 90% of the people are partisan, while only 10% are real Independents. If you lean Democratic you vote for Democrats, if you lean Republican you vote for Republicans, even if you are a registered Independent.

They also found that 88% of the Tea Party are Republicans, only 6% are Democrats, and 5% are real Independents. Which to anyone, this is conclusive proof that the Tea Party is almost 90% Republicans, making them a conservative movement. Proving that O'Reilly is lying when he says it is not a conservative movement.

Un-Spinning The O'Reilly Talking Points Memo
By: Steve - February 24, 2010 - 1:30pm

I have not done this in a long time, but the TPM O'Reilly put out last night was so dishonest I am going to un-spin it, point by point. I will quote O'Reilly from his Tuesday talking points memo, then show you the facts.
O'REILLY: Get Ready for Higher Taxes

President Obama says his health care initiative will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, but some analysts believe the cost will be double that. And because the USA is nearly bankrupt now, higher taxes are coming.
You should take note of two things in that statement. Notice how O'Reilly used the words "some analysts" believe the cost will be double that. That is code for Republican analysts, but O'Reilly does not say Republican analysts, he says "some analysts" to cover up the fact that the only analysts saying that are Republicans, who are biased and want to make Obama look bad.

The second thing you need to look at it how O'Reilly implies Obama is going to raise your taxes. Which is a lie, Obama is not going to raise your taxes. Higher taxes are most likely coming, but not from Obama and the federal Government.
O'REILLY: The group Americans for Tax Reform estimates that over the next 10 years, the feds will raise nearly $750 billion in new taxes. That, of course, will affect everybody, not just the rich. So get ready.
Americans For Tax Reform is a highly partisan very biased right-wing anti-tax group, run by Grover Norquist. They are as far right as you can get, they hate Obama, the Democrats, and everything they do. They are opposed to all taxes, and want the Government to only raise enough money to pay for the military. They are an extreme right-wing group, with insane ideas, like end social security, medicare, medicaid, the education department, etc.

On their about us page it says this: Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.

How do you run the Government with no tax increases, it's an insane policy, yet O'Reilly used them as a source. Notice that O'Reilly did not disclose the fact that they are an extreme right-wing anti-tax group. And notice that O'Reilly cited them, and only them, which means he supports their crazy ideas. Basically he used them to attack President Obama, when they are a crazy right-wing group. Which says a lot about O'Reilly, and his bias.
O'REILLY: Already some states are taxing car accidents. If you have one, you could pay for the cleanup.

Also, some places want 911 calls taxed. You make one, you pay. If police or firefighters respond to your emergency, you could be taxed. The government calls this a fee for services.

President Obama wants to tax tanning salons. And you can expect higher taxes on everything that might not be good for you like Frosted Flakes, Haagen-Dazs and gummy bears.

Here in New York state, they are now charging sales tax when you buy stuff out of state. So if I'm down in Florida and New York state people find out I buy a boat there, they'll come after me.

In addition, expect higher tolls on roadways, higher fees for licenses, registrations, inspections and just about anything else the government can think of.

So the big government expansion President Obama wants will affect every American. We will all pay a lot more money to the government.
O'Reilly says some states are taxing car accidents, that is a state tax, not a federal tax, and Obama has nothing to do with that. The same goes for the 9-11 tax, it's a city tax, not a federal tax, and it has nothing to do with Obama.

Then O'Reilly mentions a tax on tanning salons, and that is somewhat accurate. There might be a tax on tanning salons, but supporters of the tax say it will discourage the use of tanning beds, which have been linked to skin cancer. Indoor tanning has been associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, which will actually save the country money, because there will be less skin cancer to pay for. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that.

The rest of the things O'Reilly talked about are STATE AND CITY taxes, they have nothing to do with President Obama and federal taxes. At the end O'Reilly says: "So the big government expansion President Obama wants will affect every American. We will all pay a lot more money to the government."

Which is a flat out lie, every single thing on his list are STATE AND CITY taxes, except the tanning salon tax. So Obama has nothing to do with any of it, except the tanning salon taxes, yet O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, and claims he is why you will pay all those extra taxes. It's all a 100% lie, almost none of those taxes are because of Obama.
O'REILLY: "Talking Points" believes we are taxed to the max right now. Just look at every bill you get. There is a tax included, and those taxes are going up, and no one will tell you that.

Obamacare is perhaps the biggest entitlement expenditure in America's history. It will bring relief to Americans who do not have health insurance, but it will also punish working Americans who are barely getting by right now.

So Americans need to wise up and figure this out. It's not all about illness. A big part of this is government control, the ability to spread the wealth around.
All lies, once again O'Reilly is talking about STATE AND CITY taxes. And the Obama health care plan does not punish working Americans, it helps them. It only punishes the wealthy who will pay mosr in taxes to help pay for it. Working Americans will be helped, not punished. O'Reilly claims it is income redistribution, that is also a lie. It's about putting a small tax on the wealthy to help 35 million Americans get health care.
O'REILLY: We have put forth common sense solutions to getting health care premiums down, but they are not included in the president's latest bill, things like tort reform and interstate insurance company competition.

President Obama has never denied that he believes in income redistribution, and that's what's underway right now: taking more of your money to fund programs. Is that healthy? You make the call.
O'Reilly says "we have put forth common sense solutions to getting health care premiums down" as in we the American people. Which is total BS, that is what he said Obama should do, and it's what the Republicans want. But it does not address the main problems, studies have shown that tort reform and interstate competition will not bring premiums down. Not to mention pre-existing conditions.

O'Reilly says Obama is taking more of your money to fund programs, when it's only going to come from the wealthy, not you, if you make less than $250,000 a year. And that is what the Government does btw, they use your money to fund programs, as they have for over 200 years.

That TPM by O'Reilly is 99.9% dishonest, the only thing he said that's true is the tax on tanning salons. The rest of it is all right-wing lies and propaganda. Which would only be written by a total right-wing stooge, that stooge is Bill O'Reilly.

Reading that you get the impression Karl Rove wrote it, not a so-called nonpartisan Independent journalist. It's all right-wing spin and lies to fool the American people into thinking Obama is going to tax you to death. When 99.9% of the taxes O'Reilly talked about are STATE AND CITY taxes. And some of them may never happen, so a lot of it is speculation.

Videos That Show How Dishonest O'Reilly Is
By: Steve - February 24, 2010 - 9:30am

In this video O'reilly goes on and on about all the state and local taxes that are going to go up because of budget shortfalls that 46 out of 50 states have. The dishonest part is that he blames it all on Obama. When the President has nothing to do with state and local taxes, he only controls the federal tax rates.

Not to mention, if anyone is to blame for almost all these states having budget shortfalls it's George W. Bush. He caused the recession, that is the main reason all these states have budget shortfalls. And yet the dishonest O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, when Bush caused it, and the President has nothing to do with state and local tax rates.

In this video the dishonest O'Reilly claims he is paying as much in taxes as he can afford, and that the Obama health care bill is going to drive him to the poorhouse. When he is lucky to be living now when the top tax rate is 36%, unlike 30 years ago when it was 70%, so he is way better off now.

Not to mention he most likely gets free health care though Fox News, and even if he has to pay for it, he makes $10 Million dollars a year, so he can clearly afford it, 100,000 times over. O'Reilly is not only dishonest with all this right-wing propaganda, he is pathetic about it. Don't you just love multi-millionaires crying about how much taxes they pay. When the average working man who makes $40,000 a year pays 15% in taxes.

And btw, after O'Reilly uses all his tax loopholes and claims all his deductions, he is most likely only paying about 20% in taxes. So he should shut the hell up and pay the tax, and then thank his lucky stars he is not paying a 70% federal tax rate like they had 30 years ago.

The Tuesday 2-23-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 24, 2010 - 9:00am

Billy ran more stripper video about Iowa to tease the is it legal segment. Boy O'Reilly sure loves that story, because he can run all kinds of stripper video. And btw, a few days ago Rush Limbaugh used the word Negro, and said he can use it any time he wants to. But O'Reilly never said a word about it, proving just how scared he is of Limbaugh, because when the Democrat Harry Reid used the word Negro a year ago in a book, O'Reilly reported on it for 3 days. O'Reilly is so scared of Limbaugh it's funny, he is afraid to say anything about him.

The TPM was called Get Ready For Higher Taxes. Here is the new right-wing scare tactic about Obama, the last one was death panels, now it's tax increases. And the great Republican Bill O'Reilly is at the head of the line to spin out this right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly talked about all these taxes that are going up, which are state and city taxes to make up their budget deficit. Here is the truth, nobody making less than $200,000 a year is going to pay higher federal taxes.

And btw, O'Reilly blamed all the tax increases on Obama, when they are local and state taxes, that Obama has nothing to do with. O'Reilly implied that all these taxes going up are because of Obama, which is just wrong. O'Reilly called it income redistribution, when what he talked about are all state and city taxes, not federal Government taxes. Proving that O'Reilly has lied once again to make Obama look bad.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on for Barack & A Hard Place. Crowley said the new Obamacare bill gives more medicaid money to all 50 states, not just one state as before. O'Reilly implied that Obama is going to raise taxes to cover for the spending on Obamacare. And btw, the source O'Reilly used for his propaganda is Americans For Tax Reform, which is the right-wing group that Grover Norquist runs.

Colmes said the good thing is that 35 million more people will have health care. Then he pointed out the dishonesty from O'Reilly about taxes, he said all those taxes he talked about are state and city taxes that will go up to make up for the budget shortfall each state has. Which is not a federal tax, and has nothing to do with President Obama. Then O'Reilly said so what, a tax is a tax. Which is ridiculous, because in the TPM he blamed it all on Obama. When if anyone is to blame it's George W. Bush, he caused all these state budget shortfalls when he destroyed the economy. But Obama blames it all on Obama anyway.

O'Reilly spent 3 minutes crying about taxes that will go up, and blamed it on Obama, then Colmes busted him for it, and he says a tax is a tax. Which is total dishonesty from O'Reilly, because Obama can only be blamed for federal taxes, not state or city taxes. This is dishonest journalism, O'Reilly is using fear tactics to make people think Obama is going to raise your taxes, when that is not true, and it's the states and cities that will be raising them. And he even claimed he has been fair to Obama, which is just laughable. What gets me is all these millionaires crying about taxes, when the top rate is 36%, and they paid 70% back in 1980. Thses idiots have had their taxes drop 34% over the last 30 years and they are still crying about paying too much in taxes, shut up already.

O'Reilly talked about a few people on the left saying a lot of Americans are stupid. Bill Maher, Joe Klien, etc. Then Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it. Hill said we are a nation of uninformed, that a lot of people do not pay attention to politics, but he disagreed with Maher that everyone is stupid. Hill said the American people do not pay attention to the details, and O'Reilly even admitted that's about 50% of the people.

Dr. Hill cited a major poll from last week that said the people agree with what is in the health care bill, then they oppose the bill, and O'Reilly said you can get polls to say anything depending on how you word them. Which is true, but O'Reilly never says that when he uses polls, so they are only bogus when O'Reilly does not like the results. O'Reilly said it depends on how the question is worded. And he is dead right, but then O'Reilly uses polls every night to make his right-wing arguments. So he just admitted the polls can be rigged to say whatever you want them to say.

Hill said the reason the people oppose Obamacare is because of all the lies from the right put out about it, and O'Reilly said too bad, that's your fault that you can't out spin the right. What a joke, so O'Reilly just admitted the only reason most people oppose the Obamacare bill is because the right is better at spinning out their lies than Obama and the left.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the Zazi terrorism case, and his guilty plea. O'Reilly said it was a good thing he was captured, but he gave all the credit to the FBI, and none to Obama. If Bush was the President O'Reilly would praise him for it, but when it's Obama, O'Reilly gives all the credit to the FBI. And they did not even do a whole segment on it, only a partial segment. O'Reilly even complained that the media did not cover the story enough, when Fox News pretty much ignored the entire story, including O'Reilly. Then they talked about some guy named Rashad Hussain, who is in the Obama administration who was made an envoy to the muslim countries. Kelly and O'Reilly smeared him for some comments he made about Sami Al-Arian in 2004, a full 6 years ago. let me point out that only the right-wing media is reporting this story, which is a red flag.

More stripper video promoting the is it legal segment on Iowa stripping laws.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the Government and prescription drugs. He said all these drugs should be legal and open for anyone to take, with no Government regulation. And boy did O'Reilly disagree, he said someone has to regulate them, especially the high powered drugs. Stossel is a libertarian who thinks it should all be legal and unregulated. I do not even agree with that, can you imagine all the nuts out there running around on any drug they want, with no doctors prescription needed or anything, that's just crazy. And I have to say that for once I agree with O'Reilly, those drugs have to be regulated. But I do disagree with O'Reilly on making pot legal, because I do not consider it a dangerous drug. Stossel is just nuts, and right at home on Fox News. When O'Reilly disagrees with you, then you know you have gone too far to the right.

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about the justice department ruling that the Bush attorneys were not guilty over the torture legal memo. Yoo and Bybee, it said they committed professional misconduct. But it was not illegal, and O'Reilly jumped all over that. Then O'Reilly turned that into waterboarding is legal, which is not what the ruling said. What it said is that Yoo and Bybee did not break the law in writing their legal ruling, they did not say waterboarding is legal, as O'Reilly claimed. But they did say it was professional misconduct, which O'Reilly did not talk about or mention, until Wiehl pointed it out.

Then they talked about a school with webcams on laptops they recieved. A kid was eating candy, they turned the webcam on and saw it, and they thought it was drugs so they called the police. And now the kid is filing a lawsuit. The ACLU is also involved, which is a violation of the 4th amendment. Wiehl said the ACLU will most likely win the case, because the school did not inform the students the laptops had webcams on them.

And of course they talked about the Iowa stripper law, both of them say Iowa is working to change the law, and predicted it will be changed in a few weeks. It's an old law that allows nudity ina theater with no age restrictions. O'Reilly said they better change the law or he is going to put the photo of everyone who voted no on the air. Here are my questions, why does O'Reilly care what happens in strip clubs in Iowa, and why is he so obsessed with this story. Answer, because he is a right-wing idiot who thinks he can tell states what laws they should have, and to run stripper video to get ratings.

The last segment was Charles Krauthammer, another far right Republican that O'Reilly has on alone with nobody from the left to counter his right-wing spin. And of course Krauthammer put out nothing but right-wing propaganda, smearing and bashing Obama over his health care plan, his jobs bill, and anything else O'Reilly asked him about. Krauthammer claims there is all kinds of hidden stuff in the Obama jobs and health care bill. Which is all one mans opinion, and he is a Republican.

O'Reilly did the segment with only Krauthammer, and no Democratic guest to make the segment balanced. Krauthammer said Obama is using a budget trick on the health care bill, which even if they are right, it's what all Presidents do, and they never said a word about the same budget tricks Bush used when he was the president. They only complain when Democratic presidents do it. Then the far right Krauthammer attacked the $15 Billion dollar jobs bill. When it's a good bill, and it's only $15 Billion dollars, which is nothing to get 250,000 new jobs, Krauthammer even admitted it would create 250,000 new jobs, and yet he is still opposed to it. And btw, only Republicans are opposed to it, everyone else supports it, that's why only Krauthammer was on to talk about it.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And wow, O'Reilly actually had 2 Democrats on the same show, it's a miracle. But of course, one Democrat (Colmes) had to split his time with a Republican guest. All the big Republicans like Gingrich, Hume, Ingraham, Morris, Krauthammer, Coulter, etc. are all on alone every time, with no Democrat ever put on with them to counter their spin.

P.S. One e-mailer told O'Reilly he is the most objective person in the media. Which is just laughable, and O'Reilly replied that you can bet whatever he says is fact based, and not based on ideology. Then a lightning bolt hit him, haha. Because that is the biggest lie O'Reilly has ever told. It's the exact opposite, he has almost no fact based reporting, it's pretty much all based on right-wing ideology.

Letters Show Republicans Asked For Stimulus Money
By: Steve - February 24, 2010 - 8:30am

Before you read this story, ask yourself what O'Reilly has said about this story, answer: zero, nothing, nada, he has not said one word about it.

Last week, on the one year anniversary of the Obama stimulus bill, ThinkProgress released a report detailing 110 Republican lawmakers who hypocritically opposed the stimulus, but later asked for more money or claimed credit for successful stimulus programs. Republicans, who voted largely in lockstep against the legislation, have recently been trying to justify their opposition.

Last Wednesday, as House GOP members fired off press releases reaffirming their sentiment that the stimulus had been a failure, ThinkProgress caught a House GOP leader releasing a statement taking credit for millions in stimulus funds.

Adding to the depth of GOP hypocrisy, Bloomberg News has obtained 300 pages of letters from anti-stimulus Republican lawmakers requesting highway stimulus funds. Many of the lawmakers in the Bloomberg article have been exposed previously for requesting funds while calling the stimulus a complete mistake.

However, the personal letters reveal that the most staunch conservatives believed - behind closed doors - that the stimulus was vital:
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), the NRCC leader who called the stimulus an "abject failure," wrote three times to administration officials asking for projects in Dallas. Sessions wrote that the stimulus projects will "create jobs in the region and improve the quality of life for North Texans."

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), who called the stimulus a "sham," wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood requesting $80 million in stimulus funds that he believed were "vital to the economic health of North Central Indiana." At the end of the letter, Buyer wrote, "Ray, I appreciate your personal attention. Steve."

The ThinkProgress report found that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), along with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), fought for stimulus highway funds for I-73 in South Carolina. According to letters obtained by Bloomberg, Graham proclaimed that the stimulus project would "create 5,789 jobs." Graham sent a dozen similar pitches for stimulus funds. Even though the stimulus contained one of the largest middle class tax cuts in modern history, Graham had called the stimulus a failure for focusing on spending instead of tax cuts.
Many of the stimulus opponents called the entire stimulus a failure that didn't create a single job. But stimulus opponents have loudly, and privately, demanded tens of thousands of stimulus jobs and billions in stimulus projects. It's total hypocrisy from the Republicans, and O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it, because he wants to protect the Republican party, and because he hopes their lies about the stimulus hurt Obama politically.

CBO: Stimulus Added Up To 2.1 Million Jobs
By: Steve - February 24, 2010 - 8:00am

Notice that O'Reilly has not reported any of this information, in fact, he almost never mentions the Obama stimulus, because it is working, and it makes Obama look good.

For months, conservatives have been claiming that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Obama stimulus) is a boondoggle that failed and did not create one new job. But last week, the New York Times David Leonhardt noted that economic research firms estimate that ARRA created or saved 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs.

And yesterday, the non-partisan Congressional Research Office placed the estimate even higher, saying that ARRA is responsible for up to 2.1 million jobs in the 4th quarter of last year:
The CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of 2009, ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States, and it increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by between 1.4 million and 3.0 million. The CBO also estimates that real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent higher in the fourth quarter than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
The CBO also calculated that without the Obama stimulus package, the unemployment rate would be up to 1.1 percent higher. It also said that unemployment is higher than analysts predicted after passage of the ARRA due to "greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of ARRA."

O'Reilly, Beck, & Hannity Ignore Terrorism Story
By: Steve - February 23, 2010 - 9:30am

Yesterday the Afghan immigrant at the center of what the authorities described as one of the most serious threats to the United States since 9/11 pleaded guilty Monday to terrorism charges in what he said was an Al Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb in the New York subway. The same New York where O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News do their shows, and the same New York where O'Reilly lives.

Najibullah Zazi, admitted that he came to New York last year near the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to kill himself and others on the subway using a homemade bomb. He characterized the plot as a "martyrdom operation" that he was just days away from executing when he said he realized he was under government surveillance.

Mr. Zazi, 25, pleaded guilty in United States District Court in Brooklyn to charges that included conspiracies to use weapons of mass destruction and to commit murder in a foreign country, and to provide material support for a terrorist organization. He faces a possible life term when he is sentenced on June 25.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said at a news conference in Washington that the Zazi case represented one of the most serious threats to the United States since the 9/11 attacks.

But none of the big three shows on Fox News reported a word about it, O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity totally ignored the entire story. While the NY Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, and almost everyone reported it yesterday. And btw, The NY Times said that Zazi "has begun providing information to prosecutors as part of the initial stages of an agreement that led to his guilty plea."

The reason O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity ignored the story is because it makes Obama look good. The Washington Post article stated that Zazi's plea "gave the Obama administration a new argument in its battle with Republican critics and predecessors over its handling of national security threats," adding that Attorney General Eric Holder "said the deal demonstrated the ability of the U.S. court system to dispense justice to terrorists."

O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity have repeatedly attacked the Obama administration's handling of suspected terrorists by prosecuting them in the U.S. legal system instead of military tribunals. And these terrorism prosecutions destroy their arguments, so they just ignore the whole story. Because not only did they prosecute the terrorist in a civilian court, they are getting important intelligence from him.

It shows that you can do it without using torture, and without putting them on trial in a military court. In fact, it shows that using the civilian courts is actually the best way to do it. Which is the opposite of what O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity want to do. It also shows that O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity are biased right-wing hacks who all make the same right-wing talking points arguments.

O'Reilly even lies about the situation to make his argument look better. He claimed if you put them on trial in a military court it would only cost $39.95 a day because everyone is already on the payroll.

O'Reilly added that by contrast to the cost of a civilian trial, which he claimed would be "$800 million," if Mohammed is tried in a military tribunal, "it costs $39.95 a day. Because they're already on the payroll. You gotta buy bagels and coffee in the morning, that's all. And so you're worried about some guy in Bangladesh going, 'Oh, I'd like to see the American justice system work.'

Which is a lie, because all the U.S. Attorneys and Judges are already on the payroll too. Of course if you have the trial in NY, it will cost more than a military trial. But O'Reilly lied about the $39.95 number, to make his argument seem better. Not to mention O'Reilly said it could cost $800 million to a Billion, when he does not know if that is true or not.

The cost is estimated at $200 Million a year to have the KSM trial in NY City. But it might only last 2 or 3 years, that would put the cost at $400 to $600 Million, not the $800 Million to a Billion O'Reilly claims. It would only cost $800 Million to a Billion if the trial lasted 4 to 5 years. O'Reilly is speculating about how long the trial will take, which he claims to never do.

Nobody knows exactly how long it will take, they predict 2 to 4 years, but nobody knows for sure. So O'Reilly is just making it up when he says $800 Million to a Billion, it might only take 2 or 3 years so it would have been much lower. O'Reilly sure as hell does not know, yet he speculated about it anyway. After saying he never speculates about anything.

The Monday 2-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 23, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Thunder On The Right. O'Reilly mentioned the Rush Limbaugh attack where he mocked him on his radio show. Limbaugh said O'Reilly is too soft on Obama. O'Reilly said the personal attacks on Obama at CPAC would hurt the Republican party. then Limbaugh mocked O'Reilly and attacked him for saying that. O'Reilly said he has no problem with what Limbaugh said about him, and that he is entitled to his opinion. Proving that O'Reilly is scared to death of Limbaugh, and would never say one bad word about him. Because he knows if he went after Limbaugh it would piss off about 95% of his viewers. So the big bad Bill O'Reilly is scared to death of Limbaugh.

O'Reilly talked about Obama, socialism, and how some Republicans are calling Obama a socialist. Even though that is ridiculous, and O'Reilly himself has said he does not think Obama is a socialist. And yet it sure does not stop O'Reilly from doing segment after segment hosting Republicans who say Obama is a socialist. Which says a lot about O'Reilly, because even though he does not believe Obama is a socialist, he still has Republican after Republican on the show to say Obama is a socialist.

Newt Gingrich was on to discuss it. O'Reilly asked Gingrich if he thinks Obama is a socialist, and Newt said of course he is. Then Gingrich spent the entire segment bashing Obama and calling him a socialist. He sounded just like Glenn Beck, talking about socialism and Czars, etc. It was ridiculous one sided right-wing propaganda. And of course there was no Democratic guest to provide the balance. O'Reilly did disagree with Gingrich, but there was no real debate with a Democratic guest. And btw, half the evidence Gingrich used to say Obama is a socialist was done by George W. Bush.

Then O'Reilly did a segment on the new Obama health care plan, which O'Reilly said earlier today, "Is the president's health care proposal worthy of review" on his website. Which implies it is not, so he is coming at it from a biased point of view before he even does the segment about it. Basically O'Reilly is saying it is not even worth a review, which is exactly what the Republicans are saying.

Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about Limbaugh, and the claims from the right that Obama is a socialist. O'Reilly said Limbaugh was spoofing him, Williams said Limbaugh was mocking him. O'Reilly said it's the same thing, and laughed it off because he is scared to death of Limbaugh. Then Ham said Obama is basically a socialist, but she does not call him a socialist. So she agrees with Gingrich, she is just too much of a weasel to admit it. And of course O'Reilly hates the new Obama health care bill because it does not include tort reform and a few other things. Williams said the new bill is ok, but not perfect, and Ham agreed with O'Reilly that it was a bad bill. Mary K. Ham is a total joke, she agrees with O'Reilly no matter what, at least Williams disagrees with him about 5% of the time.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss the keynote speech by Glenn Beck at CPAC. And of course no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint. And btw, O'Reilly still claims Beck is not a conservative, even after he gave that keynote speech at CPAC. Making O'Reilly one of the most dishonest people in the media, because if you give the keynote speech at CPAC you are clearly a conservative, as if we did not know that already. To even deny Beck is a conservative is just laughable, and a perfect examle of how O'Reilly lies to protect conservatives like Beck. Billy also claims the Tea Party is not a conservative movement, even though they put out a statement saying any candidate they endorse must support the Republican Party Platform.

O'Reilly mentioned that Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC, and asked Hume if he is going to be the next President. As if whoever wins the Republican primary will be the President in 2012, showing more of that O'Reilly bias. Then they both made fun of Ron Paul and mocked him, then O'Reilly said we are not mocking Ron Paul, when that is exactly what they were doing. O'Reilly asked Hume if Obama is a socialist, and Hume basically said yes, but said he is not a total socialist. And O'Reilly even pointed out that whether you think Obama is a socialist depends on what you think socialism is, and that a lot of people do not really know what it is. That each person has their own idea of what socialism is.

Then O'Reilly actually had a rare balanced segment, he had Bill Nye the Science Guy on to debate Joe Bastardi on global warming. This was the only balanced segment on the entire show, and Bill Nye was the only Democratic guest on the show. Bastardi went first and he said Global Warming is not real, he showed some weather pattern charts and said that proves he is right. then Bill Nye was up, he said the evidence that Global Warming is real is overwhelming. Bill Nye had with charts and graphs to back up his claims.

It was a battle of the charts, each guy had a bunch of charts and graphs. So they did not change anyones mind, if you doubt it, you will still doubt it, and if you believe it, you will still believe it. Nye pointed out that the planet is warming at a steady increase, and Nye also pointed out how Bastardi used a rigged chart to prove his arguments a few months ago when he was on the Factor. And then of course O'Reilly let Bastardi have the last word. The at the end O'Reilly said he is going to have someone from the church come in and settle the debate. Which was ridiculous, and just more religious garbage from crazy O'Reilly. Billy thinks God will sort it all out, lol.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about a report that the anti-IRS suicide pilot in Texas might have some link to the Tea Party. And of course it was back to the one sided bias, with no Democratic guest to counter the right-wing spin from Goldberg. Basically Goldberg cried about the media linking him to the Tea Party. Goldberg is angry that someone in the media has linked the guy to the Tea Party. Here are my thoughts, who cares what the crazy far right Bernie Goldberg cares about anything. Goldberg called it a smear job, and cried about the mainstream media linking him to the Tea Party. His evidence was from Time magazine and the Washington Post, earth to Goldberg, that's not ALL of the mainstream media. It was two media sources, yet Goldberg implies everyone was doing it.

Here is the really funny stuff, O'Reilly said people are starting to think Obama is a socialist, and that it will hurt him. Goldberg even said he will not call Obama a socialist, and O'Reilly has admitted that Obama is not a socialist. But what O'Reilly fails to report is that the people who think Obama is a socialist are just stupid Republicans, nobody else does. And it's laugh out loud funny to see O'Reilly say there is an impression that Obama is a socialist, when a lot of that impression comes from all the crazy right-wing guests he has on his show that say it. If he would not put them all on his show to say it, nobody would have the impression that Obama is a socialist.

The last segment was the ridiculous O'Reilly Reality Check, that I usually do not report on, because it's pretty much just O'Reilly putting his spin on what some liberal said, with no reality, and almost no checks. For people that do not know what it is, O'Reilly calls it a reality check. But it's really just another segment for O'Reilly to smear liberals and Democrats with his right-wing spin on what they said, with no guest to disagree with what he says. Just like the Talking Points Memo at the top of the show. It's the same thing, with a different name, except the reality check uses video.

I will say something about one reality check, it was ridiculous, and nothing but a biased smear on President Obama by Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly dishonestly played a clip of Obama from 2007 where he says he supports ACORN. This was in 2007, Obama was a Senator, not the President, and it was before the ACORN scandal from 2009. So Obama said that before the scandal, and before he was even the President. O'Reilly only played the tape to dishonestly smear Obama, and make him look bad for supporting ACORN, when it was said 3 years ago before the scandal even happened. Proving that O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack who hates Obama.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, take a look at the Factor ratings for last week, from 2-15 to 2-19. O'Reilly lost about 800,000 viewers in a week. Because he did not have any big news, or big name guests, so his ratings are back down to his usual 3.2 million viewers a night. Proving that the few weeks where he got almost 4 million viewers a night was just a temporary situation.

In December of 2009 O'Reilly averaged 3.2 million viewers a night, and last week he had the same numbers. Proving that O'Reilly lied about his recent ratings increase being long term, it was a temporary situation because of some big news at the time, yet O'Reilly claimed it was a ratings increase that would keep going up, and stay there. When in fact, his ratings are right back to where they were in October of 2009.

Bill Maher: The Tea Party Is A Cult
By: Steve - February 23, 2010 - 8:30am

Leave it to Bill Maher to simply tell it like it is, last week Bill Maher said this:

MAHER: And three, cult members always attribute all of their problems to one simple explanation. Now here's an amazing statistic. In a recent poll almost ninety percent of Tea Baggers said that they thought taxes had either gone up or stayed the same under Obama. Only two percent thought they went down. But the reality is taxes have gone down for ninety five percent of working families.

Think about that. Only two percent of the people in a "movement" about taxes named after a tax revolt have the slightest idea what's going on...with taxes.

So, it would be easy to just mock them, except that those who fall under the control of cults aren't necessarily weirdoes, they're victims. And we shouldn't forget that these people are our relatives, our neighbors and the folks at the next table in the restaurant. Especially if that restaurant is Hooters and it's wing Wednesday.

Profit Queen Palin Rips CPAC For Profiteering
By: Steve - February 23, 2010 - 8:00am

One leading Republican who is conspicuously absent from this year's CPAC is Sarah Palin. A source told Politico that Palin declined the invitation because she "does not want to be affiliated" with David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which organizes the conference.

Saying CPAC will be about "pocketbook over policy," the source said Palin objected to Keene asking FedEx for between $2 million and $3 million to win ACU's support in a bitter legislative battle with rival UPS last September.

Palin ruffled some feathers last year when she dropped out of CPAC two weeks before the event. She had been the conference's first confirmed speaker and organizers said they were obviously disappointed. At the time, she cited the duties of governing. Palin also dropped out at the last minute from CPAC 2008.

While declining CPAC this year out of concerns over profiteering, she had no problem attending the National Tea Party Convention. Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who organized that convention and started the for-profit Tea Party Nation, said his intention was to make money from the event. Tickets for the convention cost $549, and many Tea Party leaders publicly condemned Philips profiteering. editor Erick Erickson said the event "smelled scammy" and called it a great con to make money off peoples passions. The convention lost sponsors, and even Tea Party stalwarts Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) dropped out. But not Palin, because she wanted that $100,000 dollars.

Palin was paid $100,000 for her appearance at the Tea Party convention, but CPAC doesn't pay its speakers and some people speculated that Palin's absence is due to money. Right-wing big shot Grover Norquist blamed Palin'even s own profiteering for her absence at CPAC:
NORQUIST: Palin was paid a lot to go to the other one says Norquist, referring to the recent Tea Party Convention in Nashville. Her absence this week, he says, is a political sign.

Is Palin running for president? The answer is no. She could have spoken to 10,000 people, but instead she chose to speak to 600 and get paid $100,000. That's being a spokesperson and making a living, not running for president.
Palin is still on the CPAC presidential straw poll - the only candidate who is not a white male btw. And according to a Hotline survey of GOP party leaders, strategists, activists and pundits representing backers of virtually every potential candidate in the field, Palin is the favorite, with former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) close behind.

I predict Sarah Palin will not win the Republican Primary in 2012, that Mitt Romney will win it. And I believe Palin is just in it for the money, but that she might run as the Tea Party candidate in 2012, which will just guarantee Obama wins re-election by slitting the Republican party vote like Nader did to Gore in 2000. So I have some words for Palin, run Palin run, as the Tea Party candidate. And if she does somehow win the Republican Primary, Obama will crush her, because nobody will vote for her except Republicans.

Fox News Anchors & Analysts Dominate CPAC
By: Steve - February 22, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly claims that Fox News is fair and balanced, and that they only have one conservative, Sean Hannity. Which is just a ridiculous claim, because Fox News has seven people in the top 25 right-wing journalist listing. Including Beck at #2, O'Reilly at #5, Malkin at #6, Hannity at #8, Breitbart at #11, Cavuto at #15, and Ingraham at #21.

And then you have CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference. Almost everyone who works for Fox News spoke at CPAC, Beck, Gingrich, Santorum, John Bolton, Huckabee, S.E. Cupp, Tucker Carlson, Dick Morris, Monica Crowley, Andrew Napolitano, Fred Barnes, and Tobin Smith.

How can you claim you are not a right-wing news network when everyone who works there speaks at CPAC attacking President Obama. Is it not unethical for people who works at a news network to speak at a partisan political conference. It sure is, and even Howard Kurtz, who usually defends Fox News, spoke out against it.

On the February 21st edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz said:
KURTZ: Glenn Beck has a very popular show on Fox. Some of the others who spoke at the conference -- Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tucker Carlson, John Bolton -- they're all Fox News contributors. Is this what Fox News contributors and hosts should be doing?
Imagine if everyone at MSNBC gave speeches at the Daily Kos yearly liberal conference, or the DNC conference. O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News would go nuts, and say it was wrong.

And they would be right, nobody who works for any news network should ever give a speech at any partisan political event, ever. Because it ruins their credibility, and proves they are biased. So then you know that every time they talk politics, they are giving you a biased opinion about whatever issue they are discussing.

The biggest joke of all is O'Reilly saying Glenn Beck is not a conservative, when he was the keynote speaker at CPAC. And last year Rush Limbaugh was the keynote speaker, the year before Ann Coulter was the keynote speaker. Two of the most conservative people in America. Then you have Beck, who said the Progressive movement is a disease, he said Limbaugh is his hero, and that liberals will destroy the country.

If that's not right-wing propaganda, nothing is, from the guy O'Reilly claimed is not a Republican.

And think about this, from 1992 to 2000 we had a Democratic President, his name was Bill Clinton. In that 8 years America was great, Clinton helped to create 22 million news jobs, the economy was great, the stock market was great, and overall it was possibly the best 8 years the country ever had.

Then Beck and all his right-wing friends claim the Democrats are going to destroy the country. When the country was destroyed, by George W. Bush. From 2000 to 2009 George W. Bush destroyed the economy, the jobs market, the stock market, the housing market, and the financial markets. And now they want you to vote the Republicans back into power, including O'Reilly, who said the people need to vote for Republicans in November.

It's ridiculous, why would you vote the same right-wing idiots back into power, that destroyed the country from 2000 to 2009, if you do you are insane. Remember this, Bush and the Republicans destroyed the country over the last 8 years with conservative policies, do not forget that.

Do not fall for this right-wing propaganda that if you vote Republicans back in, they will be fiscal conservatives and fix the country. During the 8 years of Bush he spent more money than Democrats usually do. Bush took a $237 Billion dollar surplus, and turned it into a $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit. And guess what, that just happens to be the exact amount of the Bush tax cut that mostly went to millionaires.

What Bush did was give a massive tax cut to the most wealthy people in America, as a payback for giving him the money to win the election. All it did was bankrupt the country, and make the wealthy more wealthy. Newt Gingrich even admitted that Republicans are going to run as moderates and fiscal conservatives, just to get elected, then they will spend money like drunken sailors to fund whatever they want, if not more than Obama, and most likely they will start another un-needed war too, probably against Iran.

It shows how biased they are at Fox News, after 8 years of failed conservative policies they want you to vote conservatives back into power. Don't fall for it, remember what Bush did, and vote for the Democrats, because at least when they spend money it goes to everyone, not just the wealthy.

News O'Reilly Ignored About Joe Stack
By: Steve - February 22, 2010 - 9:00am

Last week the anti-IRS Joe Stack flew a plane into an IRS building, O'Reilly talked about it with Laura Ingraham. Basically they said he was just a guy that hated the IRS and paying taxes. Near the end of the segment Ingraham predicted the mainstream media would paint him as a right-wing nut. Well it looks like she might have been right, because it's starting to look like he was a right-wing nut.

And btw, how come neither O'Reilly or Ingraham want to call it a terrorist attack, could it be because the media will find out that Stack was a right-wing extremist. I am not sure yet, but it sure looks that way. A lot of people want to call it a terrorist attack, but O'Reilly and Ingraham never even brought it up.

On Friday ABC News reported that an alarmingly growing number of Americans are calling Stack a hero. The Web was studded with praise for Stack almost immediately after his plane slammed into the Austin office complex Thursday morning. The admiring salutes appearing on sites ranging from Facebook to the pages of extremist groups reflect what experts say is an "explosive growth" in the anti-government patriot movement.

"Extremist groups are already aligning behind [Joe Stack], and beginning to talk about him as a hero," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center which studies American militia and hate groups. "The growth of those groups has been astounding."

Stack's suicide note, an angry rant against the IRS and the government which was posted online the morning of his death, got around 20 million hits before it was taken down at the request of the FBI, according to Alex Melen, president and founder of the network service provider for the Web site where the note was posted.

Melen said within minutes of taking the note down, the company was "bombarded" with e-mails demanding Stack's words be reposted.

"What's funny is most people were pretty much praising him," Melen told ABC News.

Bob Schulz, founder of the anti-government We the People Foundation, said that while he only advocates non-violent means of protest, he can understand Stack's motives and said it is a reflection of a movement unlike any he's ever seen.

"There's a huge patriot movement," Schulz said. "I've been doing this kind of work for 30 years. Never have I seen the likes of what's going on now. It's delightful."

Potok said a militia and extreme anti-government movement, fueled initially by anti-immigration sentiment, is back in a big way, especially since President Obama took office.

"Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propoganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the report said.

For many, Obama's election was a near perfect storm of disappointments, Potok said.

"The longer term thing goes back seven or eight years due to immigration," Potok said citing the surge of border patrol militias like the Minutemen. "But Obama's election, which is in a way related to the non-white immigration issue, was representative proof that this country is irreversibly changing demographically. Then the economy has played a role and things have gotten worse and worse."

The result is what Potok referred to as a "broad-based, right-wing populist rebellion."

So we know all that, but O'Reilly and Ingraham ignored all of it. Then they reported he was just a guy who was mad at the IRS. When all the right-wing extremist groups are calling him a hero, which adds to the evidence that the current right-wing anger is fueled by racism against a black President.

Here is the kicker, they all claim it's not about racism against Obama, including Obama. But if that's true, how come none of this stuff was happening when Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor for 8 years.

Bill Clinton handed the country to George W. Bush in 2000 with a $236 Billion dollar surplus. In his 8 years from 2000 to 2009 bush turned that into a $1.3 Trillion dollar deficit. And not once in those 8 years under Bush, did any of these people complain about what Bush was doing. They only started to complain after a black man was elected, proving there is racism involved.

And Mark Potok from the southern poverty law center confirms it. And yet, O'Reilly denies it all, claims there is no racism, that it's just hatred of big Government spending. Which ignores that fact that none of them complained when Bush (a white man) was spending like a drunken sailor for 8 years. It also explains why the Tea Party mevement did not start until Obama was elected.

Bush spent 10 times more money than Obama did, and he did it over an 8 year period. Yet no Tea Party was started then, no rise of right-wing militia groups then, it was only started after Obama was elected, and after he had barely spent any money at all. Which is even more proof that racism was a big part of it, yet O'Reilly denies it all.

Glenn Beck Gives Keynote Speech At CPAC
By: Steve - February 21, 2010 - 9:30am

For anyone that does not know what that is, it's the Conservative Political Action Conference. As the Washington Post stated, "CPAC is the preeminent yearly gathering of conservative activists."

Glenn Beck gave the keynote speech at CPAC:

Now wait a minute, O'reilly said Glenn Beck is not a conservative, that he is every man sitting on a bar stool. Glenn Beck himself has even said he is not a conservative. If that's true, why is he on the Fox News Network, why is he supporting Sarah Palin, and why in the hell is he giving the keynote speech at the most conservative conference in America.

And btw, the keynote speaker last year was Rush Limbaugh, who Beck has called one of his heros, the year before that Ann Coulter was the keynote speaker.

To anyone with half a brain it's pretty clear that Beck is a Republican, and if he is not honest about that, how can you believe anything he says. If he will lie about being a Republican, when you can clearly see he is one, then what's to stop him from lying about everything else.

And the same goes for O'Reilly, if he is willing to lie about being a Republican, and lie about Beck being a Republican, then he will also lie about anything. So neither one of them can be trusted to tell the truth. Everyone knows they are both Republicans, yet they still lie about it anyway. Which proves they are dishonest, and have no credibility, because they will lie about something everyone knows is a lie.

O'Reilly Does Biased Attack On California Debt Problems
By: Steve - February 21, 2010 - 9:00am

Last week O'Reilly had numerous segments attacking Arnold Schwarzenegger and California for their budget shortfall. O'Reilly claims it shows that liberal policies do not work. What O'Reilly fails to mention, is that Schwarzenegger is a Republican, a Republican who was elected in a special election after the Democrat Gray David was recalled.

For people that do not remember, the Democratic Governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003, they had a special election and Schwarzenegger won. He ran as a fiscal conservative, and promised to fix the budget shortfall in Cal-I-For-Nia. At the time O'Reilly endorsed the recall and supported Schwarzenegger. I wrote this about it in August of 2003:

8-29-03 -- O'Reilly supports this recall 100 percent, even though most of the California budget problem is not his fault. Even the republican Peter Ueberroth said it would be unfair to single out Davis for the state's fiscal crisis, which Ueberroth attributed more to the decline of the economy than any failure on the part of the state's political leadership.

O'Reilly supported Schwarzenegger, and even predicted he would win. So then last week he points out that Schwarzenegger's approval rating is 27 percent. Billy said this last week:
O'REILLY: Now seven years ago, Californians booted out Democratic Governor Gray Davis in an embarrassing recall vote, and Arnold walked into power. Today, 59 percent of Californians say the governor will leave the state worse off than it was when Davis was booted.
O'Reilly blamed it on liberals in California, when Schwarzenegger is a Republican who promised to fix the budget problem, and who O'Reilly supported. So in O'Reillyland if a Democratic Governor has a budget shortfall, it's because of his liberal policies, and he must be recalled and replaced with a Republican who will fix it. But if a Republican Governor has a budget shortfall in O'Reillyland, it's still the fault of liberals, figure that out, because I can't.

Now here is what O'Reilly does not tell you, many other states with REPUBLICAN Governors also have budget shortfalls. But O'Reilly never mentions that, because it kills his right-wing propaganda that only states with Democratic Governors are in financial trouble. Almost every state in the country has a budget shortfall, because of the economy Bush ruined, and because of the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and the jobs crisis, all caused by George W. Bush.

O'Reilly never reports any of that, he just says it's all the liberals fault, and singles out one state with what he calls a liberal Governor, when the guy is a Republican that O'reilly himself supported 7 years ago. Schwarzenegger even said he is a fiscal conservative, and yet he did not fix the budget shortfall. So what does O'Reilly do, blame liberals of course, and not say a word about all the other states run by Republican Governors who have budget shortfalls.

Virginia has a Republican Governor and they have a $2.2 billion budget shortfall. The Governor is Bob McDonnell (R-VA), and Virginia is about as far right a state as you can get.

Texas is one of the most Republican states in America, with the Republican Governor Rick Perry, and they have a $10.8 Billion dollar budget shortfall that could end up at $20 Billion by the end of this year, clearly it's a right-wing state run by right-wingers, and has been for years and years, yet O'Reilly never claims that conservative polices have caused their budget shortfall, or that conservative policies do not work.

O'Reilly cherry picked one liberal state, and claimed it shows that liberal policies do not work because of the huge budget shortfall they have. When they actually have a Republican Governor who claimed he would fix the problem, and O'reilly ignores the fact that there are a lot of states run by Republicans who also have budget shortfalls.

What O'Reilly also failed to mention is that 46 out of the 50 states have budget shortfalls. This is a perfect example of right-wing bias from O'Reilly. Because every state but 4 of them have a budget shortfall, and 24 of the 50 states have Republican Governors, so that means almost every Republican Governor also has a budget shortfall.

But O'Reilly has not attacked any of them, he only goes after Schwarzenegger, as he claims he is not a real Republican, then blames their budget shortfall on liberal policies. Laura Ingraham even backed him up last week when she was on the Factor, she agreed with O'Reilly and also blamed it on liberal policies. She said Schwarzenegger is not a real Republican, and that the policies he has is what you end up with when you sleep with a Kennedy. While they both ignore the fact that states with real Republican Governors who have conservative policies, also have huge budget shortfalls.

If this is not proof O'Reilly and Ingraham are both biased right-wing hacks, then there is no such thing. You have 26 Democratic Governors, and 24 Republican Governors. Every one of them but 4 have a budget shortfall, that means all their policies are failing, because of the recession and the financial crisis Bush caused over the last 8 years. If any policies are proven to fail it's the conservative polices, George W. Bush is proof. Especially when the liberal policies sure worked good under Clinton from 1992 to 2000.

So what does O'Reilly do, he goes after one state that is known to be liberal, and claims their budget shortfall proves that liberal policies do not work, even when they have a Republican Governor. Then he ignores the 24 states run by Republican Governors, when almost all of them have Billions in budget shortfalls too. And Texas, probably the most Republican state, that is totally run by Republicans, also has a $10 to $20 Billion dollar shortfall.

That is about as dishonest and biased reporting a so-called journalist can do. That so-called journalist is Bill O'Reilly, one of the most biased and dishonest people in the media. And if after reading this you still do not believe O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack, you are a brainwashed, clueless, partisan, Republican.

President Obama Explains Climate To Clueless Republicans
By: Steve - February 21, 2010 - 8:30am

President Obama finally got tired of all these moron Republicans like Hannity, Limbaugh, Inhofe, Beck, etc. etc. etc. saying big snowstorms and cold weather in winter mean global warming is not real.

At a Friday town hall meeting in Nevada, President Obama took on the global warming deniers, explaining in straightforward language how record snowstorms in the nation's capital are actually connected to manmade climate change:
OBAMA: First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, "See, look at that. There's all this snow on the ground, you know, this doesn't mean anything."

I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean that every place is getting warmer. It means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver which supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.

The idea is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer. Another place might end up being a little bit cooler.

There might end up being more precipitation in the air. More monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.
What Obama is saying is that if you claim short term weather disproves global warming, you are either stupid, or you are doing it for partisan political reasons, or both. And that there is a big difference between weather, and climate. Weather is short term for a week or two, Climate is long term for 1 year to 10 years. And what he is also saying is that these big snowstroms actually help to prove global warming is real, making the people that claim a big snowstorm in winter disproves global warming are really really really stupid.

Of course Obama did not use those words, that is my analysis of what he really wanted to say. He just used different words to say it. Basically if you claim a big snowstorm in winter disproves that global warming is real, you are stupid if you actually believe that. And that the Republicans who have said it, are mostly saying it for partisan political reasons. Because if you notice, only Republicans are saying it.

The Real Truth About Civilian Courts & Military Tribunals
By: Steve - February 20, 2010 - 10:30am

O'Reilly and many other conservatives rail on and on about how Obama is weak and soft on terrorists because he wants to put KSM on trial in a civilian court. Even though he would be put on trial in a Federal Court, by the best career Federal Prosecutors America has, who have convictions rates of over 95 percent.

In this blog posting I am going to show you that not only is O'Reilly a dishonest partisan right-wing hack who attacks Obama as weak and soft on terrorists for political reasons, I am going to show you that the Bush administration tried 99% of the terrorists they had in a civilian court, but O'Reilly never once complained about it then, or called Bush weak and soft on terrorists. Proving he is a hypocritical partisan Republican, with double standards depending on what political party the President is in.

The Numbers -

After 9-11, The Bush administration prosecuted 828 people on terrorism charges, all of them in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report (1-11-10) from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 cases. So far just three convictions have been won.

The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter, surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City citizens, but by a military jury -- to a lousy five and a half years.

The tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he only served six months after his conviction. Today he's back in -- guess where? -- Yemen.

So here's the true situation. Bush & Cheney found civilian prosecution a perfectly acceptable path to pursue in 828 terrorism cases. They've won convictions at an impressive rate in those civilian prosecutions.

And yet, according to O'Reilly and a few other conservatives, Obama is a somehow a weakling because the underwear bomber is being treated the way the Bush administration treated 828 suspected terrorists. And btw, O'Reilly does not report any of this information, he does that on purpose. So you do not know the facts, then you will believe his right-wing propaganda.

The facts show that it is better to put these terrorists on trial in a Federal Court, just like the Bush administration did. Because as the best-selling author Jane Mayer details in the Feb. 15 issue of The New Yorker, the federal court rulings are more likely to survive Supreme Court review than the Bush administration's hastily constructed military commissions and, in several comparable examples, the civilian courts actually produced tougher sentences.

Mayer, author of the "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," notes that of the three convicted detainees, one boycotted his own trial and received a life sentence. Another served only six months beyond the time he already served. And the third received nine months after a plea bargain. The last two were released to their home countries by the Bush administration.

Team Bush's uncertainty about how well its tribunals would hold up in court was revealed in the cases of Jose Padilla, an American, and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatar citizen. Both were arrested in the U.S. and detained without trial by the military as enemy combatants. After appeals courts ruled that Team Bush overstepped its power, the administration returned both suspects to the civilian system to avoid a possible Supreme Court defeat.

O'Reilly and other Republicans, have mocked the idea of providing lawyers and reading Miranda rights to terror suspects. But military courts provide taxpayer-provided lawyers too. And that is something O'Reilly has lied about. He claims that every suspected terrorist should be handed over to the military to be waterboarded, no lawyer, no anything, just waterboarding.

That is a lie, because even if they are handed over to the military he still gets a lawyer. So O'Reilly is lying about the facts to get you to believe his lies.

Existing law provides constitutional protections to all terror suspects arrested in the U.S.

That's why the Bush administration prosecuted Richard Reid, a British citizen detained after trying to ignite a shoe bomb aboard a U.S. bound jetliner, in a civilian court. Reid was convicted after having been read his Miranda rights four times.

Accused "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab also was Mirandized. Yet, contrary to some critics reports, intelligence officials say he has cooperated with his questioners, partly with help from his Nigerian parents, who appreciate America's civilian judicial system more than its military tribunals.

And finally you have the massive hypocrisy. O'Reilly and many other conservatives attack Obama as being weak and soft on terrorism for reading the underwear bomber his rights, and for wanting to put KSM on trial in a Federal Court. But these same people never said one word about the Bush administration doing the exact same thing. They never once called Bush weak and soft on terrrism, and in fact, they defended what Bush did, and supported him.

This is 100 percent proof that O'Reilly, and anyone else who claims Obama is weak and soft on terrorism is a biased partisan hack, who is only doing it to make Obama look bad for political reasons. Bush had hundreds of terrorists put on trial in the civilian courts, only three in a military court. And nobody said a word, but when Obama does the very same thing, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends go nuts.

Not only are they wrong about Obama, it might even help the terrorists, by giving them the impression Obama is weak on terrorism, which could lead to them trying more attacks. And if a Democrat said that garbage when Bush was in office, O'Reilly would call them un-American traitors, which he did a few years ago.

O'Reilly once told Democrats who spoke out against Bush about the Iraq war to shut up and support the President, especially during a time of war, and if you do not shut up you are un-American. Which he later changed to Bad Americans a couple days later, after he took a lot of heat for calling people who dissent un-American, just because they disagreed with the Bush.

When Bush was the President, O'Reilly also said if you do not support the president you hate America. Which is insane, some of the people hated George W. Bush, not America. And notice that O'Reilly does not say if you do not support Obama you hate America. He only said that about Democrats when Bush was the President.

So now you have the facts, all the facts, not just what O'Reilly wanted you to see through the filter of his bias, and his hatred of President Obama.

Rush Limbaugh Makes Another Racist Comment
By: Steve - February 20, 2010 - 9:30am

2-19-10 -- Limbaugh said, "Yes, I spoke a little Negro dialect there. I can do that when I want to"

Now I almost never say anything about Rush Limbaugh, mostly because he is on radio, and this is a website about Bill O'Reilly. But I mentioned this because in the past O'Reilly had defended Limbaugh, and said he is not a racist. When Limbaugh tried to buy into an NFL team his past racism was made public.

Not to mention O'Reilly spent three days attacking Harry Reid for using the word Negro a year ago in a book, will O'Reilly be fair and balanced and attack Limbaugh for it, haha, don't bet on it.

O'Reilly did two or three shows saying Limbaugh is not a racist, and that his crack research staff could only find one example of racism from Limbaugh, the Donovan McNabb statement. And O'Reilly even denied that was racism, he said Limbaugh just made a mistake in his analysis. O'Reilly also said Limbaugh should be allowed to buy into the NFL team, as he ignored all the racism by Limbaugh.

The facts show it was racist, Limbaugh said McNabb is not a good quarterback, and that the media just say he is because he is black, which is ridiculous, becausae McNabb has been an all-pro many times and went to the NFC title game at least three times. It was 100 percent racist, and ESPN even fired him for it. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that.

I even did an entire web page about it, O'Reilly said this in October on 2009:
O'REILLY: So what we have here are accusations without merit. But in our hypermedia age, that's enough to paint someone as a racist.

Fair-minded Americans know that playing the race card is easy and hateful. The only thing we can find about Rush Limbaugh is that he thinks quarterback Donovan McNabb is overrated by some people who want black quarterbacks to succeed. Mr. McNabb resented the remark, as he should have. He's a good player, and his color has nothing to do with his performance. I think Limbaugh made a mistake with that analysis.

But that doesn't make him a racist and should not disqualify him from owning part of a team. We've got to stop the racial witch-hunting in America.

O'Reilly also said this:

O'REILLY: We have the best research staff in the business, the best. There is nobody better at researching than The Factor.
Okay, now look at this web page, I show 28 documented examples of racism by Limbaugh, 29 now, yet O'Reilly said he could not find any racism by him.

And btw, after O'Reilly has defended Limbaugh for years, last Friday Limbaugh mocked O'Reilly for saying the conservatives at CPAC should not just make it an Obama bashing event, so we will see if O'Reilly goes back at him on Monday. I will report if he does or not.

And for people that may not know it, O'Reilly did not say that because he cares about someone Obama bashing, he only said it because he is worried it will make Republicans look bad by using personal attacks. He could care less about Obama bashing, hell 90% of his show is Obama bashing, including a lot of it from O'Reilly himself. He is just worried it will hurt Republicans politically with Independents, who they will need in November to win elections.

Beck Called The Progressive Movement A Disease
By: Steve - February 20, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly claims that Glenn Beck is not a Republican, that he is every man sitting on a bar stool. Which is just ridiculous on it's face, let alone after what Beck said about progressives. How many times has Beck called the conservative movement a disease, exactly zero times, as in never. In fact, pretty much all his viewers are conservatives. And if all your viewers are conservatives, you are a Republican.

O'Reilly even claims he is not a Republican, which is even more ridiculous than saying Beck is not a Republican. There is even proof with O'Reilly, the Pew media survey shows that Limbaugh is the #1 conservative, O'Reilly is #2, Hannity is #3, and Beck is probably #4 or higher, he was not in the last survey because his show was not on the air when they did it. But I would bet he is in the top 5, he was #2 in the top 25 right-wing journalist listing at the Daily Beast, O'Reilly was #5.

And btw, O'Reilly has totally ignored that top 25 right-wing journalist listing, he has never said one word about it, even though it came out about a week ago. While he claims he and Beck are not right-wing journalists, they are both listed at #2 and #5, Hannity was #8, who O'Reilly admits is a Republican. Beck and O'Reilly beat him out, and yet he still claims they are not Republicans, proving that he is a liar.

Clueless Right-Wing Coward Sends Me An E-Mail
By: Steve - February 19, 2010 - 11:00am

Some right-wing loser (Rich Deaver) who I have never heard of, sent me an e-mail on Wednesday. In this e-mail, that was sent to my beck sucks e-mail address, Deaver said I did not have the balls to answer his e-mail, that I am an idiot, that I do exactly what Beck does, and that a majority of my information comes from Keith Olbermann.

All of that is wrong, and a lie. I did reply to his e-mail, I am not an idiot, I do nothing like what Beck does, and almost none of my information comes from Keith Olbermann, in fact, I rarely ever use anything from Olbermann. I get most of my information about Beck from Media Matters and Thinkprogress, among a few other places. So this loser Rich Deaver is clueless and misinformed.

Here is the e-mail he sent me, and btw, I replied to him two days ago and as of today he has not answered my e-mail to him.
From: rich deaver - [email protected]
Subject: You dont have the balls to answer this email
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, February 8, 2010

Whoever you are,

Ok so I was looking at your sight and I noticed something. You are an idiot. Your arguments make no sense and to be quite frank, you are doing the exact same thing you accuse Beck of doing. What I find ironic is a majority of your info comes from Keith Olbelman. I will be frank, ot quote him is like asking me about quantam psyics. You make yourself look dumb. He has a whooping 600,000 viewers to becks 4,000,000. I mean your my friend are in the huge minority and need to stop the insanity. As a conservative talk show host I take offense to your propaganda. If you were remotly credible you would have written that sponsor article as you did. You would have then said Keith and MSNBC in total dont have 101 sponsors. Why do you think that is???...... oh yea its cause Glenns an racist pig who nobody wants to watch. My friend, Ill do you one better. I would love to talk with you. I want to bring you on my show and see if you will put your money where your mouth is....but like Keith, I feel this is a severe waste of time as you will hide behind your 12 website viewers.

Richard R Deaver Jr.
Broadcast Talent
Don't you just love the Broadcast Talent part, what talent, and who are you. I have never heard of this nut, and I can not find anything about him anywhere. Notice he called it a sight, when it's a site, as in website, then he spells Olbermann like this, Olbelman.

That is talent, I guess. And then it's pretty clear the guy is a lunatic because he said I do the same thing Beck does. Beck is a right-wing nut who has a so-called news show on a so-called news network. He spends an hour a day spewing out lies and non-stop right-wing propaganda.

I quote Glenn Beck, show you his words from his own transcript, and sometimes I even include the video of him saying what I quoted. That is called reporting the facts, and it is nothing like what Beck does. That alone shows that this nut job Deaver is clueless.

Then he talks about the ratings for Beck and Olbermann, as if that means anything as far as honesty and credibility. Ratings have nothing to do with honesty, it just shows that you can get a lot of people to watch your insanity. Which also proves what a moron this Deaver is.

Then he says I am in the huge minority, when the President is a Democrat, the House has a Democratic majority, and the Senate has a Democratic majority. Proving once again that Deaver is as about as clueless as a person can get.

He claims to be offended by my propaganda, when all I do is quote Beck word for word, and show video of what he said, that is not propaganda, it's called honest reporting. So Deaver does not even know what propaganda is.

And finally the best parts of his insane e-mail, he claims to have a talk show, that he wants me to be a guest on, and he says I do not have the balls to answer his e-mail. I not only replied to him, I said anywhere, any time, any place. I agreed to be a guest on his show, if he even has one. And that was two days ago, guess what he said.

NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, he has not replied to my e-mail, proving that not only is he a clueless misinformed right-wing idiot with no facts to back up his claims, he is a coward too. The little man called me out and claimed I am afraid to answer his e-mail, so I do, and he does not answer my e-mail.

And btw folks, this is what happens with 99% of the e-mail I reply to, 9.9 times out of 10, they never answer my reply to them. Proving that most of these right-wing tools have no facts, and that when they are confronted with the facts, their reaction is to just go away and I never hear from them again.

These are the real people who watch Glenn Beck, and O'Reilly, most of them are misinformed cowards. these are the crazy clueless viewers Beck and O'Reilly do not want anyone to know about. And they are why I publish these e-mails, to show people what their viewers are really like. And I could show you a hundred more just like it.

I only publish the e-mails I reply to, but I get 4 or 5 a month just like this one. And I would say 90% of them are full of misinformation and spelling errors. Not typos, actual spelling errors. These are the people that worship Beck and O'reilly, the people they do not want you to know about.

P.S. It's quantum physics SPARKY, not quantam psyics. Please do not write me hate mail using words you can not even spell, it just makes you look like an even bigger fool than you are, or at least use a spellcheck.

Facts About The Tea Party
By: Steve - February 19, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly claims the Tea Party movement is not just a bunch of conservatives, he says it is people from all walks of life who are mad at Government spending etc. When everyone knows that is not true, and that the vast majority of people in the Tea Party are conservatives.

Not to mention, all their leaders are Republicans, Beck, Palin, etc. All the speakers at their convention were Republicans, Tancredo, Farah, Palin, etc. They even put out a statement saying all the candidates they support and endorse must agree with the Republican Party Platform, and yet O'Reilly still denies it is a conservative movement.

Well now we have a poll to prove him wrong, the question is, will O'Reilly report it, and will he finally admit the truth, I am guessing no. This poll proves that O'Reilly is wrong, here are some results:

Washington -- Activists in the Tea Party movement tend to be male, rural, upscale, and overwhelmingly conservative, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research survey released Wednesday also indicates that Tea Party activists would vote overwhelmingly Republican in a two-party race for Congress. The party's GOP leanings, may pose a problem for the Tea Party movement if it tries to turn itself into a third party to compete with the two major parties in this year's general election.

"If the Tea Party runs its own candidates for the House, virtually every vote the Tea Party candidate gets would be siphoned away from the GOP candidate, potentially allowing the Democrats to win in districts that they might have otherwise lost," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

"While the concept of an independent third party is extremely popular, most Americans, including most Tea Party supporters, don't favor a third party that would result in a winner who disagrees with them on most major issues."

According to the survey, 11 percent say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. Of this core group of Tea Party activists, 6 of 10 are male, half live in rural areas, and more than 3 in 4 call themselves conservatives.

The poll indicates that about 24 percent of the public generally favors the Tea Party movement but has not taken any actions such as donating money or attending a rally. Adding in the 11 percent who say they are active in the Tea Party, a total of 35 percent could be described as Tea Party supporters. That larger group is also predominantly male, higher-income, and conservative.

According to the survey, most Tea Party activists describe themselves as Independents.

"But that's misleading, because 87 percent say they would vote for the GOP candidate in their congressional district if there were no third-party candidate endorsed by the Tea Party."

The poll indicates that in a two-way race on the "generic ballot" question, GOP candidates have a 47 percent to 45 percent edge on a Democratic candidate. Throw a Tea Party candidate into the mix, and that two-point GOP advantage becomes a 12-point deficit. That's because virtually everyone who would vote for a Tea Party candidate in a three-way contest would choose a Republican in a two-way race.

"Historically, that's the problem many political movements have faced if they try to become a full-fledged party. They often wind up ensuring the victory of the candidate they dislike the most," Holland added.


What the poll shows is that O'Reilly is wrong. And that the average Tea Party member is a white male conservative, proving that O'Reilly is misrepresenting who is in the Tea Party, and that they are in fact a conservative movement.

When 87% of your members say they would vote for the GOP candidate if no Tea Party candidate is running, you are a conservative group. And that is a fact, a fact that O'Reilly denies for partisan reasons. He even denied it again Wednesday night when he had Dick Morris on to discuss the NY Times article about the Tea Party.

The Thursday 2-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 19, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Bashing Obama. O'Reilly talked about all the Republicans at CPAC bashing Obama, Cheney said he would be a one term president. And the rest of them did nothing but smear Obama by calling him a fraud, a socialist, the dumbest president we have ever had, and even Mitt Romney got in on the action. O'Reilly called the personal attacks on Obama cheap, but he said it was unusual for Republicans to do that. Then O'Reilly said if CPAC makes a weekend out of bashing Obama it is a mistake.

More stripper video, to tease the Kelly segment.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to ask if the Obama health care summit is a trap. O'Reilly also said Dick Armey was stupid to personally attack Obama by calling him dumb. Then he asked Ingraham if it's ok to attack Obama, and if there is a difference. Ingraham said it was ok because it's satire, and that she does not see a difference in the attacks on Bush and Obama. Which is just ridiculous, because Obama has not done anything to be attacked for, at least not yet. Bush lied us into Iraq, wiretapgate, attorneygate, no WMD's, and on and on.

Then O'Reilly asked her about the health care summit, and Ingraham said she thinks it is a trap. O'Reilly said the Republicans better show up or it will hurt them politically. Ingraham even said the right won the health care debate, which is also ridiculous. The people wanted a public option, and all the polls showed it. Then they talked about the IRS hater who flew the plane into the IRS building. O'Reilly said he was just insane, and Ingraham predicted the media will link him to the anger on the right and the Tea Party. O'Reilly said he will monitor it, and if they do he will call them out as pinheads. But what if he is in the Tea Party, or some other extreme right-wing group, what then Billy.

Then O'Reilly did a segment on a new CNN poll that says only 44% of the people think Obama should be re-elected. Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it, and he said the reason it's so low is because of the economy, the lack of jobs, and the fact that his liberal base is somewhat mad at him for not doing what they wanted him to do. O'Reilly then declared that Obama has been a bad president, and he thinks it's because of his lack of experience, the health care failure, too much spending, etc.

Dr. Hill said it's too soon to tell what will happen, and that it all depends on the economy and jobs. O'Reilly said that even if the economy and jobs come back the massive debt will hurt him, Hill disagreed, and said some people will not like the debt, but that most of them will be ok with it. O'Reilly also said he has never seen any president with numbers this low this soon into his presidency, which is a total lie, because Ronald Reagan had a 45% job approval after one year. So O'Reilly was lying his ass off. Dr. Hill pointed out the low Regan numbers after one year, and O'Reilly said yeah but that was different because somehow it had something to do with Jimmy Carter. How, I have no idea, Billy's argument made no sense, it was just right-wing garbage.

More stripper video, to tease the Kelly segment.

Then the Oath Keepers segment. O'Reilly asked if they are patriots, or dangerous right-wingers. O'Reilly had Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the group on to discuss it. To be a member you have to be current or former military or police to be a full member, and they have 15,000 members. Billy asked about the 10 oath listings, that says they take those 10 oaths to uphold the constitution. O'Reilly asked about Katrina, and how they banned guns, and Rhodes said that was unconstitutional. O'Reilly said what if a state declares martial law, and Rhodes said it was unconstitutional, then O'Reilly told him that is a pretty extreme position.

O'Reilly ignored a lot, he never mentioned that they are not a nonpartisan group, even though they claim they are. He never mentioned they are involved with the Glenn Beck 9-12 project, or the National Liberty Unity Summit, or that they regard President Obama as an enemy of the state, and btw, that year ago when they were founded just happens to be 2 months after Obama took office, and O'Reilly also ignored the fact that they believe city sheriff's are the highest power in America, not Governors, or Congressman, or Senators, or the President. So O'Reilly ignored a hell of a lot. Then O'Reilly had the two right-wing culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to talk about a McDonalds commercial PETA is upset with. Larry bird was on it, and they are upset at how McDonalds kills chickens. So they attacked Larry Bird to get publicity about it. Then they talked about the Friday morning statement by Tiger Woods, which is not real news so I refuse to report on it. I will say this, Gretchen Carlson said it was a mistake, and tried to tell Tiger Woods how to run his life. When it's none of her fricking business. O'Reilly claims that someone is going to write what Tiger Woods says for him, when he does not know that, it's pure speculation, which he says he never does.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the 17 year old stripper in Iowa, O'Reilly said there is growing anger over the girl being allowed to strip. By who, name them, I do not know anyone who is mad about a 17 year old girl stripping in Iowa. Especially when the age of consent in Iowa is 17, so who fricking cares if she strips for a living. It seems to me that O'Reilly is the only one angry about it, and he just pretends to be angry, so he can run video of strippers every other night to get ratings.

If you are angry that a 17 year old girl in Iowa is stripping, write to me, I bet nobody does. O'Reilly said it was insane that Iowa lets the 17 year old girl strip. O'Reilly said there was a crime committed somehow, Kelly said he is wrong, then she cited the actual Iowa law. Kelly said the only crime was indecent exposure, except that there is an exception in the law that says it is ok if it is done in a theater. That is what the Iowa law says, O'Reilly called it stunning and shocking. So get the law changed or shut the hell up jackass, haha. And that is up to the people in Iowa, it's none of your business O'Reilly, you are in New York, so mind your own business. I'd like to know why O'Reilly thinks he can decide what laws Iowa should have, who made him God, and what happened to States Rights?

The last segment was the best of the Factor from Los Angeles. O'Reilly showed highlights of his favorite moments from the Factor's 13 years of appearances in Los Angeles. And my God was it boring, it was just re-runs from old shows he did in LA. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, oops I fell asleep.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And what a shocker, only one Democratic guest was on the entire show, as usual. If O'Reilly has two Democratic guests on a show anymore it's a fricking miracle.

Factor Military Analyst Distorts Gen. McChrystal Directive
By: Steve - February 18, 2010 - 10:00am

Last night O'Reilly had the far right neo-con Col. Ralph Peters on to talk about Afghanistan and the capture of Baradar. While he did say it was a good thing that we captured him, he also claimed that it was not as big a deal as most people are making it out to be. Because he claimed Pakistan was not going to let the CIA interrogate him.

I have read almost every news article I can find about the capture, and I have not seen anyone say that Pakistan will not let the CIA interrogate him. In fact, I have read that the CIA is already questioning him. The New York Times said Mullah Baradar has been in custody for several days and is being questioned by CIA and Pakistani intelligence.

So that alone puts doubt on the credibility of Col. Peters. For people that do not know it, Col. Peters is a partisan right-wing neo-con military expert. He hates President Obama, and disagrees with everything he does. That is why O'Reilly puts him on the Factor, because he is a right-wing neo-con partisan that pretty much agrees with O'Reilly on everything.

Notice that O'Reilly does not have any Democratic military experts on the Factor, it's always a right-wing neo-con like Col. Ralph Peters or Col. David Hunt, or sometimes both of them at the same time. Fox News even has a Democratic military expert on the payroll, General Wesley Clark, but O'Reilly never uses him. That is so O'Reilly can control the message, that Obama is weak and soft on terrorism, and that Obama is not liked by the military.

Which is ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Obama is doing a great job on terrorism, and the military likes him, he even sent the 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, which they saw as a good thing. In fact, I have heard that most of the military like Obama more than they did Bush, because Obama is not starting un-needed wars that get them killed. And Obama is bringing troops home from Iraq, so they love that.

No matter what Obama does as far as terrorism and the military, O'Reilly will downplay it and continue to put only right-wing military experts on to criticize Obama. Because he is a biased right-wing partisan, who only wants his viewers to see what right-wing military experts say. And last night showed how partisan Col. Peters really is, because he lied about the Tactical Directive General McChrystal put out.

During his Wednesday 2-17-10 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Col. Ralph Peters attacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal's tactical directive meant to reduce civilian deaths in Afghanistan by asking, "Can we win any kind of war without killing the enemy?"

Which denies reality, because we are killing the enemy, in fact, some conservatives, including O'Reilly, have said they are worried we are killing too many of the enemy, and that we should try to capture more of them to get intelligence. So we are killing a lot of them, with increased raids, and with increased drone attacks. And yet, here we have this nut job Peters going after General McChrystal for not killing enough of the enemy. It shows he is a liar who just attacked him for partisan reasons.

And btw, in the tactical directive, McChrystal stated, "We must fight the insurgents, and we will use the tools at our disposal to both defeat the enemy and protect our forces."

Discussing the American offensive in Marja, Afghanistan, Peters said, "General McChrystal's plan relies on protecting the population and not on killing Taliban. He's de-emphasizing that."

So Col. Peters is mad that we do not just kill em all, civilians, everyone. Which would make things even worse, and the people would not help us with intelligence or anything. If we listen to crazy Col. Peters and just kill em all, things in Afghanistan will get worse, not better. And his insane attack of General McChrystal proves what a right-wing nut he is.

In declassified portions of the revised "Tactical Directive" to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, McChrystal wrote that American troops should avoid "causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people" and that "excessive use of force resulting in an alienated population will produce far greater risks."

However, undermining Peters claim, McChrystal also wrote, "Our strategic goal is to defeat the insurgency threatening the stability of Afghanistan," adding, "We must fight the insurgents, and will use the tools at our disposal to both defeat the enemy and protect our forces."

So they are killing the enemy, and they are killing a lot of them. But while doing it, they are also trying to limit civilian casualties so it does not turn the people against us. And Col. Peters somehow has a problem with that, which proves he is a right-wing neo-con idiot. And this is the Factor military expert, which also says a lot about O'Reily, that he would use this fool to be one of his military analysts.

It shows that O'Reilly does not want an honest analysis of what is happening in Afghanistan, and it shows that he wants a biased opinion of what is going on there. Because all the military experts he uses are right-wing neo-cons that hate Obama.

The Wednesday 2-17-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 18, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Cautionary Tale. O'Reilly talked about California and Arnold some more, and of course blamed it on liberals, when Arnold the Republican has been running California for years, and he is worse in the polls than Gray Davis the Democrat was. Basically O'Reilly said liberals are ruining everything, and if Obama does not learn a message from California he will bankrupt the entire country. Which ignores the fact that Arnold is a REPUBLICAN, who made California worse than the liberal Gray Davis did.

Then Dick (Hooker Toe Sucker) Morris was on to discuss it. Both O'Reilly and Morris trashed Obama and his proposed deficit commission. they asked why Obama needs a commission to tell him how to cut the deficit, O'Reilly said just stop spending, simple, case closed. Morris was all doom and gloom to follow the lead by O'Reilly, and said that Obama should take the rest of the stimulus money and pay down the deficit with it. Which is ridiculous, they need to spend money to create jobs until the economy turns around, then they can work on cutting the deficit, so these two morons are clueless.

This segment was a joke, it's two right-wing Republicans sitting around telling Obama how to run the country, with no Democrats to give the counterpoint. When nobody cares what they say, especially Obama. O'Reilly knows nothing about running the country, and all he says is cut taxes and cut spending, which is the wrong thing to do in a recession. Then they talked about the NY Times Tea Party story, O'Reilly said they are trying to smear the Tea Party as loons. Morris said that is ridiculous, and that the Tea Party is a mainstream political movement. When that is what's ridiculous, because everyone knows the Tea Party is a bunch of old white right-wing nuts that hate Obama, mostly because he is liberal, and partly because he is black. Morris and O'Reilly just refuse to admit the truth, because they both like the Tea Party.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Tea Party, O'Reilly had Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center on to discuss hate in the Tea Party. He said there are a lot of hate groups involved with the Tea Party. Potok runs the Intelligence Project that monitors hate groups so he knows what he is talking about. O'Reilly again said the extremist groups in the Tea Party is about 10%, how does he know. Then he said it was about the same in the Democratic party, really, where is the proof of that. And how does the Democratic party compare to militia groups and hate groups, that's insane, and O'Reilly was crazy with that comparison.

Potok said there are dangerous groups linked with the Tea Party, but O'Reilly refused to believe it. O'Reilly spewed out the 10% number, which he has no proof of, and btw, he said he never speculates, but then he speculated it was only 10 percent. Potok talked about the Oath Keepers, so Billy said he would have one of them on tomorrow to get their point of view. No matter what people say O'Reilly just refuses to believe there are dangerous people and groups in the Tea Party movement, so he is denying reality because he likes them, especially sarah Palin, their so-called leader. All I can say is if Palin is your leader you are in big trouble, because she is a moron who is as dumb as a brick.

Then O'Reilly finally reported on Obama and Pakistan capturing Baradar, and he had the crazy far right Col. Peters on to discuss it. And for once Peters actually said the capture was a good thing. But neither one of them gave Obama any credit for it. When Bush tried to get them to work with us for 8 years and they would never do it. Billy said it was a good thing, but never once gave Obama any credit for any of it. If Baradar had been captured under Bush O'Reily would have praised him to death, but when it happens under Obama he says ho hum I guess it was a good thing.

And then Peters said it was not as good as you think, because he claims Pakistan will not let the CIA interrogate Baradar, how he knows that is beyond me, and I have not heard that anywhere else. In fact, I have read that the CIA is being allowed to interrogate Baradar. So I would not believe Peters as far as I could throw him. The problem here is that O'reilly does not have a Democratic military expert on with Peters to counter what he is saying. General Wes Clark works for Fox News, yet O'Reilly never has him on to say if he agrees with Peters or not. O'Reilly is a biased fraud, and he should have a Democrat on with the crazy Col. Peters, then you would have a balanced segment, and get more than the opinion from a right-winger that hates Obama.

Then O'Reilly did another biased segment on how the rumor is out that the Democratic party might lose 8 Senate seats in November. That would still give the Democrats 51 seats, and that's if it happens, which I doubt. I would bet they only pick up 3 or 4 of those seats, and that's if the economy does not improve a lot by then. And btw, O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of course. So it was once again all one sided right-wing bias.

Krauthammer said he thinks the Republicans will pick up 7 of those 8 Senate seats. When it's a long time until November. Not to mention, O'Reilly said he does not allow speculation on the Factor. So then he puts crazy Krauthammer on to speculate his ass off about the November elections. Billy said rumor says Boxer could lose, which is pure speculation once again, from O'Reilly this time, and then Krauthammer said he does not think so.

What's funny is, O'Reilly speculates about things all the time, and he lets Republican guests speculate too, but if a Democrat tries to speculate on something O'Reilly shuts them down and says there is no speculation allowed in the no spin zone. So it's just more proof of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, not to mention the double standards. Republicans can speculate til the cows come home, but it's not allowed for Democratic guests.

Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about the Olympics, like anyone cares what he thinks, except for maybe O'Reilly. Miller did his usual bit, lame unfunny jokes about Democrats, Joe Biden etc. But he did try a new one, he had a band-aid on his head, and he said the Factor staff roughed him up. O'Reilly laughed, and then Miller took the band-aid off. Which was not funny at all, and the rest of the segment was not even worth reporting. Billy is in California and he got a cold, haha, good. Nobody cares, suck it up wussy. For some strange reason they also talked about a movie from 1953 called attack of the crab monsters, and O'Reilly even played a clip of it, why, I sure as hell don't know.

The last segment was a real snoozefest, O'Reily had a special "did you see that" with Factor producer Jesse (The Stalker) Watters. They basically showed clips of what is happening in Los Angeles, Billy is in L.A. for some reason, so he wasted our time showing video of the city. And you know O'Reilly had to get some video of sexy stuff to get those ratings, he showed video of some babes belly dancing. Watters went to a belly dancing convention, and Billy showed plenty of video.

Then the lame, lame, lame, pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, I was just reading a story about a featured speaker at a Tea Party meeting in washington call for Democratic Senator Patty Murray to be hanged. The event, which about 500 people attended, was organized by the Lewis and Clark Tea Party Patriots. So you have a featured speaker at the event calling for a sitting Senator to be hung to death, while O'Reilly denies they are dangerous.

Report: 110 Republicans Have Praised The Stimulus
By: Steve - February 18, 2010 - 9:00am

Except every one of them voted no on the bill, making them giant hypocrites, almost as big a hypocrite as O'Reilly. has put out a report on the massive Republican hypocrisy.

Today marks the one year anniversary of President Obama signing into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus. As the economy continued to crater after President Bush left office, Obama's stimulus sought to provide tax cuts for 95% of working Americans, funds to buoy cash-strapped state governments, new construction and infrastructure projects, and other programs to create jobs, retrain workers, and promote economic activity throughout the country.

In December, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the stimulus had successfully created or saved up to 1.6 million jobs, and today, a report shows the Recovery Act will ultimately create 2.5 million jobs. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute found that the stimulus had boosted the U.S. economy by 4 percent.

House Republican leaders have fought to maintain partisan unity in their effort to kill the stimulus. And they were largely successful. Every single Republican in the House and every Republican in the Senate - with the exception of Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter - voted against the Recovery Act.

By drawing a sharp distinction between Obama and the GOP, Republican leaders gambled on casting the stimulus as a failure in order to win elections in 2010. In a coordinated effort, Republicans have used every opportunity to attack the stimulus for allegedly failing to create "a single job."

Last month, President Obama admonished Republicans for going to "ribbon cuttings for the projects that you voted against." It's true: Last year, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) appeared at a ribbon cutting event for GetAbout Columbia's MKT Plaza, a pedestrian walking and recreation area funded by the stimulus.

ThinkProgress has investigated opponents of the Recovery Act, reporting throughout the year that many of the lawmakers who tried to kill the legislation have been returning to their home states to claim credit for popular stimulus programs. In a new research report, ThinkProgress finds that over half of the GOP caucus, 110 lawmakers - from the House and Senate - are guilty of stimulus hypocrisy.

Although he regularly slams the stimulus as a waste while in DC, Mitch McConnell has returned to Kentucky to take credit for stimulus programs, even taking time to request more funds. ThinkProgress also attended two job fairs held by Eric Cantor, where we found dozens of employers able to hire directly because of the stimulus. Indeed, even Boehner's office released a statement boasting that the stimulus will create much needed jobs.

Many opponents of the stimulus have been quite brazen with their ability to try to claim credit for the program. For instance, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) spent the morning of July 28th railing against the stimulus, yelling "Where's the stimulus package? Where's the jobs? on the House floor. On the same day of his rant, Kingston's office sent out multiple press releases bragging that he had secured hundreds of thousands in stimulus funds to hire additional police officers in his district.

Other stimulus opponents, like Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) - who has called the stimulus a "trillion dollar debt bill" - has jumbo-sized ceremonial stimulus checks printed out to present to local communities to try to garner positive press.

the dishonesty and the hypocrisy is stunning, Individually, over half of the entire Republican caucus has hailed nearly every aspect of the stimulus as a success - from infrastructure funds, to food programs, to education grants. But politically, admitting its success might harm the GOP's chances in November. So with Republicans fixated on winning politically, they have focused on deceiving the public by calling the stimulus a failure, while pretending successful programs aren't stimulus funded.

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly does not say a word about any of it, ever, not once. Now imagine what he would say if Democrats were doing it, he would report on it at least once a week, if not more, but when Republicans do it he says nothing, not even one segment on it.

Reply To Recent Hate Mail (Facts Included)
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 11:30am

Yesterday I got an e-mail from a clueless O'Reilly lover, he (Father Time) said I am a biased fool with nothing but hate for O'Reilly, with no facts to back up my claims. Then he went on to make a series of claims, none of which are true, so here is my reply to Father Time.
Father Time: The thing I must have to say I thought was the must comical was your diss on global warming. I don't know if you have heard about the Climategate Scandal but Global Warming is a joke. When people are dying of starvation, disease, and war, Liberal America chooses to focus on a climate which is "changing".
Global Warming: The Facts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 2.0 to 11.5 F during the 21st century. Most studies focus on the period up to the year 2100. However, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100 even if emissions stop.

Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 C per decade against 0.13 C per decade).

Climate studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 C (0.9 F) would still occur. And if that is not enough for you, just do a google search on Global Warming and actually read some scientific studies on it, instead of getting your information from O'Reilly and Fox News.

And btw, I do not hate O'Reilly, never have, never will. I simply expose him as the biased lying right-wing fraud he is, I do it as a public service to the American people. In fact, I think O'Reilly is funny, so there is no hate, it's called reporting the facts.
Father Time: Also the recession is the fault of President Bush? Classical Liberal politics, when in doubt blame the nearest Republican Party member. Legislation was passed under the administration of the Great Bill Clinton to make loaning a much easier process for the general public.
Fact: On December 1st, 2008, The National Bureau of Economic Research said that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy. The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns.

Bush was the President in 2007, and all of 2008, so that means the recession started under Bush. The NBER also said that it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise.

The fall of housing prices from peak levels reached earlier this decade cut deeply into home building and home purchases. This also caused a sharp rise in mortgage foreclosures, which in turn resulted in losses of hundreds of billions of dollars among the nation's leading banks and a tightening of credit.

You have offically been schooled sparky, aka Father Time, and now let's move on.
Father Time: Legislation was passed under the administration of the Great Bill Clinton to make loaning a much easier process for the general public.
The legislation you talk about was passed by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, specifically the Republican Phil Gramm. Yes Bill Clinton did sign the bill, but it was passed by THE REPUBLICANS. And I do blame Clinton for it too, unlike you I blame all the right people. I have said in the past that Clinton should not have signed the bill, and I stand by that statement.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica and Travelers.

This changed the rules to let banks and insurance companies run their ponzi scams on wall street, and that is what caused the whole thing, your REPUBLICAN buddy Phil Gramm, and Bill Clinton. It had nothing to do with making it easier to give loans to the general public. Proving that you get dumber the more you watch the Factor. You have all the facts wrong, as in wrong, lol.
Father Time: Not to mention that under President Obama the national debt has gone from 7 to 14.1 Trillion. The wars, as well as the tax cuts barely make a dent in this staggering number
And my God are you wrong about the National Debt. You have everything wrong, as in wrong, as in no facts. The National Debt has increased about one trillion dollars since President Obama took office. It's 11.6 Trillion, not the 14 Trillion you claim.

On Inauguration Day, January 20th 2009, the National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows that as of July 31st, 2009, the National Debt hit $11.669 trillion.

Earth to father Time, that's an increase of ONE TRILLION, not the SEVEN TRILLION you claim. It was 10.6 Trillion when Bush left office, not the 7.0 Trillion you claim. Can you even spell facts, and you have the nerve to tell me I have the facts wrong, what a fricking joke you are.

Not to mention this, by the time former president George W. Bush left office, he had run up the deficit by a record amount: $4.9 Trillion over eight years. And a great deal of the current deficit spending was already in the pipeline from the Bush administration. And $757 Billion of the Trillion dollars Obama has spent was done to save the fricking economy from going into a depression, you dumbass. So you should be thanking him, moron. And I barely even said anything about Clinton leaving Bush a $265 Billion dollar surplus, that Bush turned into a $4.9 Trillion dollar deficit over 8 short years, or the fact that you do not know the difference between the National Debt and the Deficit.

To sum it up, you are a clueless right-wing idiot who has no facts, and then you send me an e-mail telling me I am wrong. When you can not even spell fact, let alone know what they are. I would suggest that you research your facts, before you write someone and make a fool of yourself. Consider yourself schooled by one of the best, now go back to your fantasy world where O'Reilly is right about everything.

More Proof Republicans Attack Obama For Everything
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 10:30am

Obama could cure cancer and these right-wing idiots would find some way to attack him for it. So get this, one Republican idiot attacks Obama for killing too many terrorists, while another one attacks him for not killing enough terrorists.

Last week the former Bush speechwriter, and torture advocate Marc Theissen says the problem is that the Obama administration is killing too many terrorists. Theissen said, "the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them, which is a dilemma because with every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him."

And then another Republican said the Obama administration is not killing enough of them. So Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. It's a no win situation with these right-wing idiots, because no matter what Obama does they attack him for it.

Wednesday morning on Fox & Friends, Michael Scheuer explained that the recent capture of Taliban military commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is no big deal, because "you win wars by killing people, not capturing them," and commented that currently, "we're not killing enough people" in Afghanistan, "we're simply apologizing."

Of course, as Adam Serwer notes, "The drone attacks are the actions taken as a result of acquiring actionable intelligence." And O'Reilly has even said he is worried that we are killing too many people with these drone attacks.

A year into the Obama administration these right-wing idiots are arguing over whether Obama is killing too many terrorists, or too few. It's enough to make you wonder if there's anything they won't use to attack Obama.

Remember that these are the same guys that defended and praised everything Bush did, no matter how big a screw up it was, and remember that the 9-11 attacks happened while Bush was the President, a full 8 months after he took office, and a month after he was warned that Bin Laden was planning an attack using airplanes in his August PDB, Presidential Daily Brief.

So Bush allowed the biggest terrorist attack in the history of America on 9-11-2001, but these right-wing freaks said nothing then, and in fact, they defended Bush and praised him as a strong leader. Now that Obama is killing and capturing a lot of terrorists, and getting valuable intelligence, they attack him for killing too many terrorists, and for not killing enough terrorists.

This proves that they will attack Obama to hurt him politically no matter what he does, even if what he is doing is good for the country, and it shows he is doing a good job fighting terrorism. In my book, and as O'Reilly would say, that makes them un-American traitors.

And beyond that, not only does O'Reilly ignore the story, and not criticize them, he has these right-wing freaks on his show to attack Obama for no reason, except to hurt him politically. Then O'Reilly claims he has been fair to Obama, which is one of the most ridiculous things he has ever said. O'Reily attacks Obama every night as being soft on terrorism, puts other people on to attack Obama, Rove, Gingrich, Ingraham, etc. then he ignores big terrorism stories that make Obama look good, if that is being fair to him, I'm Elvis.

O'Reilly Ignoring Baradar Capture Story
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 10:00am

This is a massive news story that has been reported everywhere for the past 3 or 4 days, except on the Factor, O'Reilly has not said one word about it, nothing, not a single word. Why you might ask, because it makes President Obama look good, and it shows he is doing a good job in fighting terrorism, and it also makes Bush and Cheney look bad.

The Taliban's top military commander (Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar) was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces. This is a big deal, because Baradar, is the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban's founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden.

And yet, O'Reilly has ignored the entire story. Here is why, because President Obama was able to convince Pakistan to work with us to capture Baradar, something they had refused to do with Bush and Cheney. So O'Reilly is ignoring the story because it makes Obama look good, it makes Bush look bad, and because he has said in the past that Obama has not been able to get Pakistan to work with us, which is now proven to be a lie from O'Reilly, because they have been working with us, it was just a secret.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials. The officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. They also hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group's spiritual leader.

Disclosure of Mullah Baradar's capture came as American and Afghan forces were in the midst of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan. His capture could cripple the Taliban's military operations, at least in the short term, said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer who last spring led the Obama administration's Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review.

O'Reilly has mainly ignored the story because it is really good news for Obama, and the war on terrorism. O'Reilly has said Obama is weak and soft on terrorism, and that he is not getting any foreign countries to work with him. But this operation was classified and top secret, so O'Reilly had no idea what he was talking about. Now just imagine how many other operations are also top secret, nobody knows, so it's crazy to say Obama was not getting any help, when it's all top secret.

This is just more proof how biased O'Reilly is against Obama. Because if this happened under Bush, O'Reilly would report it that night, if not the next night in multiple segments, say how great it makes Bush look, and praise him for doing such a good job fighting terrorism. but when Obama gets it done, not only does O'Reilly not praise him for it, he totally ignores the entire story, and never says a word about it.

Hey Billy, where is Col. Peters, where is Col. Hunt, where is Michael Scheuer, you put these right-wing idiots on every other week to trash Obama over terrorism, and now that he does something good they are nowhere to be found. Where are they you biased and corrupt fraud of a journalist.

When will you have your military experts on to praise Obama for getting Pakistan to work with us and capture Baradar. This story was so big the NY Times even delayed reporting on it to keep it secret until they knew for sure the operation was over. They will be able to interrogate this guy for years, and he could possibly lead us to hundreds of terrorists, and yet you say nothing, not a word.

Proving you are nothing but a biased, two faced, spinning, lying, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. What say you Billy?

O'Reilly Lied About Tancredo Racism At Tea Party
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 9:30am

Last night O'Reilly had Sarah Palin on and he mentioned the controversial remarks Tancredo made, but he said it was not racism, as if that's a fact. Like O'Reilly can decide what is racism and what is not, when he is a racist himself, and he has said many racist things on his own show.

Notice that O'Reilly did not play the video of what Tancredo said, or even quote him from a transcript. He ignored what he actually said, then he declared it was not racism, when it sure as hell was racism, and everyone knows it.

Let's look at what former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo actually said, what O'Reilly failed to show you, he said this a couple weeks ago at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville:
TANCREDO: President Obama was elected by "people who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English" because "we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country." This is our country. Let's take it back."
Tancredo's racist remarks represent the worst of today's Republican Party, calling President Obama a 'socialist ideologue,' and longing for the good old Jim Crow days when literacy tests and other obstacles to the ballot were used to keep the 'wrong' people from voting. He would be nothing more than a bad joke if he did not represent a big part of the Republican Party and the Tea Party. And btw, after he made his racist statements, he got some loud applause and a lot of tea baggers gave him a standing ovation.

Now let's talk about how and why that is a racist statement. Tancredo, said in effect that the nation's first black president could have been kept out of the White House if only "our country" had reinstituted a scheme from the Jim Crow era of racial oppression.

Back then they had Literacy tests that required blacks to correctly answer inane questions before they could vote, such as, "How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?" Civics had nothing to do with it.

As Courtland Malloy said, "I have heard this tea party brand of patriotism preached before, most recently at a KKK rally last year in Harpers Ferry, West Va. Taking back our country is also the rallying cry of the Klan's White Power movement."

Tea party supporters have argued that any white person who criticizes Obama gets labeled a racist. Not true. There are plenty of black people who agree with the tea party's call for lower taxes and smaller government. But the vitriol, racial caricatures, threats of violence -- and now Tancredo's remarks -- suggest the movement is also fueled by a lot of racism.

Waving monkey dolls with nooses around their necks at tea party rallies, having signs with Obama's face in the sights of a sniper rifle and chanting, Kill him, has nothing to do with reducing the size of government. And if you think only liberals believe it was racism, you would be wrong, many Republicans also agree it was, including Meghan McCain.

On February 8, McCain served as co-host on The View and said the level of "racist" discourse the Tea Partiers were bringing to the table had to be ended. McCain leveled her criticism at former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, who suggested that people who voted for President Obama could not pass a basic civics literacy test.

"It's innate racism, and I think it's why young people are turned off by this movement," McCain said.

And now you have the facts, you know what Tancredo said, and you can see how racist it was. Remember that O'Reilly denied it was racist, as he ignored what the man actually said, proving that he does whatever he can to cover for racists in the Tea Party, and the Republican Party.

The Tuesday 2-16-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 9:00am

Billy ran some stripper video at the open of the show. Then the TPM, it was called The Tea Party And Extremism. O'Reilly said some people in the Tea Party are nuts, he claims it's only 10 percent., The NY Times wrote an article saying it is mostly extremists. O'Reilly said they are wrong, and said it is wrong to link Fox News to them, when they are just being honest, because Fox News is linked to the Tea Party movement. Once again O'Reilly said the Tea Party people are just regular folks, when he knows that is a lie, because they are all right-wingers, and he still defended them and lied about who they are.

Then Sarah Palin was on to discuss accusations of extremism connected to the rise of the Tea Party. O'Reilly asked Palin if she saw any extremism when she gave her Tea Party speech, and of course Palin said no, that she did not see any extremism. O'Reilly mentioned Tancredo, but said what he said was not racist, when it sure as hell was. Then Palin admitted there was some extremism there, after she just said she did not see any, so she is a liar, just like O'Reilly. Palin admitted they are mostly Republicans, then she said they are all Independents. Which is ridiculous, and it shows she tells so many lies she can not keep them all straight.

They also admitted there was some Nazi stuff, some militia stuff, and some birther stuff. Then they sit there and deny there was any extremism, after they just talked about it. O'Reilly asked Palin if she thinks the birther people should have a place at the Tea Party table, and Palin said yes. Basically Palin and O'Reilly said yeah there are a few nuts, but it's a very small percentage, 10% or less. Which is a flat out lie, it's most of them, they are almost all right-wing nuts who hate Obama and want him impeached. The whole segment was garbage, with two Republicans who defended what they are, and tried to spin what they are. With no Democratic guest to counter what they said.

O'Reilly even held Palin over for a 2nd segment so she could spin out more propaganda. And notice that not once did they discuss the Tea Party memo that says all the candidates they support will have to follow the Republican Party Platform. While at the same time they claim they are all Independents. In this segment O'Reilly cried some more about the Family Guy cartoon going after Sarah Palin. These two segments show what a biased fraud O'Reilly is, because if her were an honest journalist he would have a Democrat on with Palin to counter her propaganda. And if not have a guest on with her, he should have a Democratic guest on after her to counter what she said. O'Reilly does neither, instead he puts her on alone to spin out her right-wing propaganda.

The next segment was Barack & a Hard Place with Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley. They talked about Senator Evan Bayh saying he will not run for Senate again. O'Reilly claims the Democratic party is coming apart because one Senator decides not to run again. Colmes disagreed, and said he is glad he is quitting because he is too conservative. Then Crowley basically agreed with O'Reilly that it shows the Democratic party is coming apart. Crowley said Bayh is quitting because the far left has hijacked the Democratic party, O'Reilly agreed, and Colmes said they are both wrong.

Let's get real here, Bayh is a moderate Republican who pretends to be a Democrat, just like Joe Lieberman, which is something nobody in this segment would admit. Then O'Reilly asked Crowley if Obama should have sent Biden out to counter what Cheney said, Crowley said it was stupid, and that Biden is a walking disaster. Then O'Reilly let Crowley go on a crazy minute long right-wing rant about Biden, and then Colmes jumped in and defended him. Then more stripper video before the commercial.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about lawyers who have filed lawsuits against New York related to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Stossel and O'Reilly claim it is an outrage. O'Reilly said more than 10,000 lawsuits have been filed for people that were injured from the 9-11 attacks. Stossel called the lawyers parasites, and said they should find a better way to pay them because in some cases the lawyers get 50% of the money. Stossel said some of the emergency workers did not want to wear protection, then they got lung cancer, so too bad.

Basically they both attacked the victims and their lawyers, mostly the lawyers for getting too much of the money. But they never said what percent were bad lawsuits, is it 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, what, they never said what it is. At the end O'Reilly told stossel he should be ashamed of himself for getting that free golf cart, and Stossel said he is, and that he is also ashamed to be on this show. Which was funny as hell, and finally something funny was said, but not by dennis Miller. And O'Reilly did not find it funny at all, he told Stossel he should be glad he is on the show because it's making him famous.

Then the is it legal segment with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about an Iowa state court ruling that says nude dancing is an "art form" so it is constitutionally protected. Which is not hard news, it's tabloid garbage. I will say that the judge ruled a 17 year old can strip, because it's art. O'Reilly sure played a lot of video showing strippers, all through this segment, and the rest of the show, gotta get them ratings baby, no matter how you do it. And of course O'Reilly and both right-wing legal experts disagreed it is art, and disagreed with the ruling. Wiehl said the judge just followed the Iowa law, so the law needs to be changed.

Then they talked about the 15 year old girl who was beaten, as the security people stood right there and did nothing while watching the beating. She had retained an attorney and has filed a lawsuit against the City. O'Reilly and Guilfoyle said she has a case, Wiehl said no. O'Reilly strongly disagreed and said there is a case, and that she will win. O'Reilly and Guilfoyle predicted the City will settle it out of court. And finally they talked about an old case where a guy took his child to a church against the orders of the court. Which nobody cares about except right-wing religious nuts.

The last segment was with the totally insane far right idiot Ann Coulter. Crazy Coulter claims the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt is different from the underwear bomber's attempt, which is just ridiculous. They both tried to blow up an airplane, one used a bomb in his shoe, and the other used a bomb in his underwear, so it's the same thing, except to crazy Coulter. And O'Reilly put this nut on his show to spin out that nonsense, which makes him as bad as she is.

Coulter went on a two minute long rant about how it's different. When she even admitted the Supreme Court struck down the order from Bush to have the shoe bomber tried in a Military Court. Coulter blamed it all on the left, she said they filed so many legal documents it stopped Bush from having him tried in a Military Court. Which is pure right-wing insanity, and yet O'Reilly agreed with her. She ignores the fact that at the time Bush screwed up by not setting the Military Courts up correctly, it was his fault. Then the Supreme Court struck down the Bush military Court program, because he did not do it right, he did not go through Congress, he used an executive order.

So Coulter blamed the whole thing on the left, when it was Bush who screwed it up, and the right leaning Supreme Court even ruled against Bush he screwed it up so bad. And I have to say that was some big time professional right-wing propaganda by Coulter, as her good friend Bill O'Reilly sat there and agreed with every dishonest word she said. What a joke, Coulter is nuts, and O'Reilly is even more crazy than O'Reilly.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, Alan Colmes was the only Democratic guest on the entire show, but he was on with Monica Crowley, so he had to split his time with her. So he barely got a word in, with Crowley and O'Reilly using up most of the time. Proving that even in the rare case when a Democrat does get on, O'Reilly almost always pairs them up with a Republican so they hardly have any time to talk. This is called fair and balanced by O'Reilly, haha, yeah right.

More Hate Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Lover
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is some more hate mail that shows how clueless and misinformed the Factor viewers are, read on and enjoy, I know I did.

Subject: Oreilly facts (demeaning)
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
From: brett fotheringham - [email protected]

Upon discovering your website I was struck by the incredible bias and hate you have towards Mr. O'reilly. The thing I must have to say I thought was the must comical was your diss on global warming. I don't know if you have heard about the Climategate Scandal but Global Warming is a joke. When people are dying of starvation, disease, and war, Liberal America chooses to focus on a climate which is "changing". Also the recession is the fault of President Bush? Classical Liberal politics, when in doubt blame the nearest Republican Party member. Legislation was passed under the administration of the Great Bill Clinton to make loaning a much easier process for the general public. Not to mention that under President Obama the national debt has gone from 7 to 14.1 Trillion. The wars, as well as the tax cuts barely make a dent in this staggering number. Sadly this is a well known fact that I find hilarious you are ignoring. I don't really care enough to go through all the things wrong with your website but I would employ you to research your facts more than simply writing biased hate. In closing sorry for the deceitful subject. I would love to hear back from you.

A Fellow American.

The Republican Trash & Cash Strategy
By: Steve - February 17, 2010 - 8:00am

Want more proof the Republicans are dishonest slimeballs who say the stimulus (would be and is) a failure, then take the money, say it is working and it is creating jobs, and take credit for the job creation, then read this.

It's often called the "trash-and-cash" strategy -- Republicans say that they hate the stimulus package and "trash" it at every available opportunity, but love the stimulus package and grab the "cash" when it comes to creating jobs in their own states/districts. It's been going on for about a year, and it keeps spreading.

Last week, the Washington Times reported that "more than a dozen Republican lawmakers insisted that the stimulus package was an awful idea that couldn't possibly help the economy, then they privately urged the Department of Agriculture to send stimulus money to their states and districts, praising the economic benefits.

Then yesterday the Wall Street Journal moved the ball forward with more GOP lawmakers who say they oppose the very idea of the stimulus package, but who believe the stimulus will help improve the economy in their areas.

In their story they report that more than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, in letters obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act.

Here are a couple examples: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the stimulus "misses the mark on all counts," but encouraged the Labor Department to invest stimulus money in his district, highlighting a project he said would create 1,000 jobs. Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) and Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), both right-wing opponents of the recovery efforts, did the exact same thing.

And it's not just House Republicans who have been caught lying their ass off. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) all recently admitted that the stimulus would improve the economy in their states by directing funds in their direction. After they said the stimulus would not work, and they all voted no on the bill.

The point here should be pretty obvious, and it goes beyond just the impressive levels of hypocrisy. When push comes to shove, Republicans know that the stimulus is working. For all their BS about how government spending is simply incapable of creating jobs and generating economic growth, we know they are just saying that for political reasons, and they have written requests for stimulus funds to prove it.

They all voted no, they all said the stimulus would not work, then they all take the money and say it does work, as they hold press conferences taking credit for the new job creation, with the money they said would not work, that they got from the Obama stimulus bill. And to this day they all say the stimulus has failed, and that it has not created any jobs.

And remember this, the WSJ report only covers Labor, EPA, and Forest Service. Many more Republican lawmakers who opposed the stimulus also reached out to other agencies, convinced that the money would do wonders in their state/district.

And btw, notice that O'Reilly does not report a single word of this story, because it makes Republicans look bad.

Proof Most Factor Viewers Are Clueless About Global Warming
By: Steve - February 16, 2010 - 12:30pm

Right now O'Reilly has a no spin poll on his website asking if extreme winter weather disproves Global Warming, and a whopping 73% of Factor viewers say yes, 22% say no, and 5% are not sure. Here is a screen capture of the poll from 2-16-10:

This is conclusive proof that 73% of the Factor viewers are morons that think a couple big snowstorms in the middle of winter proves that Global Warming is not real. It proves they ae so stupid they do not know the difference between weather and climate. And yet, O'Reilly claims his viewers are the smarter than anyone, haha, not!

O'Reilly Ignored Big Story In Cheney v Biden Debate
By: Steve - February 16, 2010 - 12:00pm

As usual the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored the big story in the Biden v Cheney debate, that Cheney admitted he not only knew about the waterboarding, he actively promoted for it. After both he and Bush denied they knew anything about the waterboarding, and never approved it.

Scott Horton at wrote this about it:
Does Dick Cheney Want to Be Prosecuted?

After he was indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton, vice president Aaron Burr fled to South Carolina, to hide out with his daughter. Another vice president, Spiro Agnew, kept completely silent before pleading nolo contendere on corruption charges. Former vice president Dick Cheney, on the other hand, seems proud of his criminal misadventures. On Sunday, he took to the airwaves to brag about them.

"I was a big supporter of waterboarding," Cheney said in an appearance on ABC's This Week on Sunday. He went on to explain that Justice Department lawyers had been instructed to write legal opinions to cover the use of this and other torture techniques after the White House had settled on them.

Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult.

But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture?

Cheney told Jonathan Karl that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou and others have confirmed that when waterboarding was administered, it was only after receiving NSC clearance. Hence, Cheney was not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard in at least three cases.

What prosecutor can look away when a perpetrator mocks the law itself and revels in his role in violating it? Such cases cry out for prosecution.
That means Dick Cheney lied, and that he not only knew about waterboarding, he approved of it, then after approving the torture, they told their stooge lawyers to write a legal memo to cover their ass.

There should not only be an investigation, Cheney should be put under oath, and he should be put on trial for torture. This is a big story, and neither O'Reilly or Fox News is saying a word about it. I guess they hope that people have forgot Bush and Cheney denied knowing about waterboarding, and denied they approved it.

Now we know they not only lied about it, we know they knew about it, and approved it. This was a crime by the Vice President of The United States, yet O'Reilly ignores the entire story.

Biden vs Cheney vs O'Reilly
By: Steve - February 15, 2010 - 9:00am

Last night O'Reilly reported on the Biden and Cheney story. He played a couple short clips of each guy, then discussed it with a few guests, including Bernie Goldberg. During the segment Goldberg said if you are a Republican you will think Cheney won, if you are a Democrat you will think Biden won, and then he said it was a draw. Then of course O'Reilly said he thinks Cheney won, because as we all know O'Reilly is a Republican.

Guess who else thinks Cheney won, Ann Coulter, so O'Reilly agrees with Coulter. Not only did Coulter say Cheney won, she called Joe Biden a drunk Irishman. Stay classy Ann, you right-wing piece of shit.

And now here is the real story, Cheney is a biased lying idiot. Nothing he said was true, and yet O'Reilly and Coulter think Cheney won, while the nut job Goldberg thinks it was a draw. Proving they are all right-wing idiots that only see what they want to see. What Cheney is doing would be called un-American and borderline treason by O'Reilly if a Democrat did it to a Republican President.

It violates the un-written rule that former administrations do not criticize current administrations. The rule O'Reilly cited many times when someone from the Clinton administration criticized Bush. Back then O'Reilly said it was wrong, and always sided with Bush on it then. But now that a Democrat is in the White House O'Reilly and Cheney change the rules.

This is a perfect example of the bias, the double standards, and the hypocrisy from O'Reilly. When Al Gore criticized Bush for something in the Bush years, O'Reilly reported on it and told Gore to shut up, then he criticized Gore for violating the rule about criticizing current administrations. So now Cheney does it, and O'Reilly has no problem with it, and in fact, he even supports what Cheney said, he defended him, and even said he thinks Cheney won.

While the facts show that Cheney is spinning and lying about terrorism and Obama for political reasons. The Republicans have decided to attack Obama as weak and soft on terrorism as a political strategy, not because he is actually soft and weak on terrorism. In fact, Obama has been tougher on terrorism than Bush was, except for the waterboarding of course. Biden basically kicked Cheney's ass, with the facts, but O'Reilly ignored all that to declare Cheney the winner.

Let me show you what O'Reilly ignored, when asked to respond to a range of attacks on the Obama administration leveled by Cheney, Biden said. "Let me choose my words carefully here," he told David Gregory in a pre-taped interview for Sunday's "Meet the Press."

Then Biden let loose with several minutes of his most pointed criticism of Cheney, Biden said that Cheney had "done more harm than any other single elected official in memory in terms of shredding the Constitution."

Speaking to Gregory, Biden charged at least four times that Cheney was "rewriting history" with his recent attacks, and declared that President Obama has amassed a success rate in countering terrorism that "exceeds anything that occurred in the last Administration."
GREGORY: Cheney has argued that this Administration has failed to treat the fight against terrorists as a war. He cites the decision related to KSM to offer him a civilian trail as one example. Giving the Christmas Day Bomber the privileges of the American criminal justice system is another example. The decision to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison. What do you say?

BIDEN: He's entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to rewrite history. He's not entitled to his own facts. The Christmas Day Bomber was treated the exact way he suggested that the Shoe Bomber was treated. Absolutely the same way. Under the Bush Administration there were three trials in military courts. Two of those people are now walking the streets. They are free.

There were 300 trials of so-called terrorists and those who engage in terror against the United States of America who are in federal prison and have not seen the light of day. Prosecuted under the last Administration. Dick Cheney's a fine fellow, but he is not entitled to rewrite history without it being challenged. I don't know where he has been. Where was he the last four years of the last Administration?

GREGORY: What about the proposition that the President according to Cheney doesn't consider America to be at war and is essentially soft on terrorism? What do you say about that?

BIDEN: I don't think the Former Vice President Dick Cheney listens. The President of the United States said in the State of the Union, "We're at war with Al Qaeda." He stated this-- and by the way, we're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. We are making, we've sent them underground. They are in fact not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing, again, to-- to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about?
And btw folks, O'Reilly has said the exact same thing Cheney is saying, and said it many times, that's one big reason why he thinks Cheney won, because he agrees with Cheney 100 percent. O'Reilly has called Obama soft and weak on terrorism, and said he does not consider it a war. Which is the GOP talking points on it, even though O'Reilly said he never uses GOP talking points, here he is doing it, not to mention how he agrees 100% with Cheney.
GREGORY: Why do you think Dick Cheney is speaking out and being so critical of the President and the Administration so publicly?

BIDEN: I don't know. I'm not gonna guess about his motive. All I know is he's factually, substantively wrong. On the major criticisms he is asserting. Why he's insisting on that. He either is misinformed or he is misinforming. But the facts are that his assertions are not accurate.

GREGORY: You would not be this outspoken or critical when you're out of office. Is that fair to say?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, I would hope -- look, it's one thing to be outspoken. It's another thing to be outspoken in a way that misrepresents the facts. And I guess-- again, it's almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history. I can understand where the-- why that would be-- you know, an impulse. And maybe he isn't-- literally, I'm not being facetious.

Maybe he's not fully informed of what's going on. I mean, the progress we have made. There has never been as much emphasis and resources brought against Al Qaeda. The success rate exceeds anything that occurred in the last Administration. And they did their best. I'm not-- I'm not impugning their effort. It's simply not true that the President of the United States is not prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda with a vigor that's never been seen before. It's real. It's deep. It's successful.
And let me add this to what Biden said, during the Bush administration the 9-11 terrorist attack happened that killed 3,000 people. During the Obama administration a grand total of 0 people have been killed from any terrorist attacks. None, zero, not one person has been killed from a terrorist attack since Obama took office.

O'Reilly even said the Ft. Hood shooting was a terrorist attack, so people have been killed while Obama was in office, which is another lie. Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone, commander of III Corps at Fort Hood, called the attack "a terrible tragedy, stunning", saying the base community was "absolutely devastated."

He said that terrorism was not being ruled out, but preliminary evidence did not suggest that the shooting was terrorism. General Cone said that the shootings were a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood. As Biden told Cheney, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. O'Reilly claims it was terrorism, when the military says it was not.

And this all shows that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack that only sees what he wants to see, and that he spins everything to the right, because he agrees with the right. Earth to Billy O'Reilly, when you agree with Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter, you are a Republican.

The Monday 2-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 15, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Battle Of The Vice Presidents. O'Reilly called it the battle of Vice Presidents over how to handle terrorism. Except Cheney is gone now, and Biden is the Vice President. O'Reilly played clips of both Cheney and Biden, then O'Reilly admitted both sides have a valid point. But he never mentioned the hypocricy from O'Reilly and the right, when Bush tried all the terrorists in civilian courts.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, and O'Reilly asked him who has the stornger argument. And of course the right-wing Brit Hume said Cheney has the stronger argument. While they ignore all the lies from Cheney, and the fact that Cheney has been wrong about everything. Not to mention the Obama administration handled the underwear bomber the exact same way Bush handled the shoe bomber. They ignored all that, and then they did nothing but attack the Obama administration. O'Reilly even predicted that Eric Holder will resign. The whole segment was one sided right-wing bias with two Republicans, and no Democrats, as it usually is.

O'Reilly asked Hume if it is fair for Republicans to say Obama is soft and weak on terrorism, and of course Hume said yes. But when Bush was the President O'Reilly and Fox News said it was basically treason to criticize the President during a time of war. And these right-wing fools ignore the fact that Obama has a 56% approval rating on terrorism. So the people disagree with O'Reilly and Hume. Brit Hume also said Obama is seen as doing ok on terrorism because there has not been a terrorist attack since he took office. O'Reilly said there has been, he said the Ft. Hood shooting by the crazy muslim guy who was in the military was a terrorist attack. Which is crazy, and nobody else has called it a terrorist attack except for O'Reilly and a few other right-wingers.

Then O'Reilly played more clips of Cheney and Biden on the Sunday morning shows. Cheney said KSM should be tried by the military, and Biden said the federal courts is the way to go. Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. O'Reilly asked Williams who has the stronger argument, and Williams said Biden does. O'Reilly sure hated that, and he cut Williams off and talked over him. Williams pointed out that Bush did the same thing with the show bomber, and O'Reilly dismissed it by saying there is a law in place now that says he must be tried in a military court.

Ham was asked the same question, and of course she said Cheney has the stronger argument. Ham also said that the American people want the President to be strong on terror, and that Cheney is winning the PR war because the American people side with him. Which is just ridiculous, because the polls show that the American people side with Obama, they give him a 56% approval on terrorism. So she was caught lying, and O'Reilly never once cut her off or talked over her. Ham even said Cheney has more credibility on terrorism than Biden or Obama. Which is just insane, and nobody is buying the garbage from Cheney except Republicans. So Ham is a flat out liar, yet O'Reilly said nothing and let her spin out these lies.

The next segment was about California being bankrupt, O'Reilly blamed it on the liberals, when the Governor is a Republican, Schwarzenegger was put in to fix things after the Democratic Governor Gray Davis was recalled. Schwarzenegger said he would fix the financial problems in Cal-i-for-nia, and O'Reilly even supported the recall of Gray Davis. Yet now O'Reilly blames it on the liberals. This segment is a joke, O'Reilly said nothing about Schwarzenegger, who is a Republican, then he blamed it all on the liberals.

O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall and Tammy Bruce on to discuss it. Marshall said it was the Governors fault, and in a shocking turn Bruce agreed with her. But then Bruce claimed he is actually a RINO, and what he did in California is what happens when you sleep with a Kennedy. And btw, most States are in financial trouble, because of the recession Bush caused, and the housing crisis, and the financial crisis, that Bush caused. They both blamed it on Schwarzenegger, and O'Reilly blamed it on liberals, he even asked if the people of California will finally reject the liberal policies that have bankrupted them, when Schwarzenegger has been there for years and he has not fixed anything, as he promised he would.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about some murder case. Some woman named Amy Bishop shot a few people with a shotgun. She is the University of Alabama professor who was accused of killing three colleagues. O'Reilly and Kelly trashed the Prosecutor for not prosecuting her in the past for another shooting, claiming she has political pull. Then they talked about a girl that worked at Hooters who was stalked by a 65 year old man, who then later killed her. She asked for a restraining order and the court denied it. So they trashed the judge for not approving the restraining order. O'Reilly and Kelly basically blamed the judge for her death, when he did not pull the trigger. Kelly said the shooter is at fault, but then she also blamed the judge, and O'Reilly agreed with her.

Then the far right nut job Bernie Golberg was on to talk about Cheney and Biden. And of course no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint, as there never is in this segment. Goldberg said it depends on what your bias is, if you like Cheney you will say Cheney, and if you like Biden you will say Biden. So he never answered the question, he said it depends on what your bias is. O'Reilly said Obama is scared of Cheney, so they sent Biden out to counter what he said. Goldberg agreed, and said it was basically a draw. Goldberg said the Obama administration is not very good at fixing the economy or getting people back to work, but they sure know how to work the media. Which is just stupid, because the economy is getting better, and Bush is the guy that screwed it up. O'Reilly said Cheney won by a little, of course he did, because he is a right-wing nut who loves Dick Cheney, and he agrees with Cheney on terrorism.

The last segment was the totally biased and one sided Factor Reality Check. In this segment O'Reilly does what he calls a reality check on things that people have said. But here is the real story, 99% of the so-called reality checks are done on Democrats. Very rarely does O'Reilly ever do a reality check on a Republican, maybe 1% of the time. And what he calls a reality check, is just his spin on what some Democrat said. Which is no different than what he does in the rest of the show, except he does it alone. It's basically a segment for O'Reilly to put his right-wing spin on what a Democrat said, with nobody there to counter his claims.

O'Reilly talked about an ad he called offensive in one reality check, but it was run on Australian tv, it was not even run in America. Another check was on a tv ad run in fricking Scotland, it was not shown in America either. So why in the hell should we care about it here in America, and how that is a reality check on anything. These were tv commercials run in foreign countries, how is that a reality check, and who in the hell cares what they do in their own country. I sure don't, and O'Reilly is an idiot for doing these ridiculous fake reality checks on commercials in fricking foreign countries.

O'Reilly got an e-mail last week saying it was wrong to complain about people making jokes about Palin, when you have Dennis Miller on to do the very same thing. So O'Reilly told the guy it's ok because Miller does satire. So tonight he did another segment crying about COMEDIANS doing jokes about Palin, when the also do satire. O'Reilly cried about Stephen Colbert doing Palin jokes, Colbert called Palin a f-ing retard. then O'Reilly called what he said unbelievable and disgusting, and said it must stop. While at the same time he has Dennis Miller on every week to do jokes about liberals, but he does not tell Miller to stop, and even defended him after the e-mail.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly even cried about the cartoon "Family Guy" who did a joke about Palin in their fricking cartoon, he named the guy who does the show a pinhead for it. Earth to O'Reilly, you are a pinhead.

One e-mail was really good, an e-mailer said O'Reilly accused Beck of being a populist, O'Reilly denied it, he said he did not accuse Beck of being a populist, he said he is a populist, which is different from accusing him of being a populist. Wow, it is? What planet does O'Reilly live on, crazyworld, because if you say someone is a populist, it's the same damn thing as accusing them of being a populist. I think Billy needs to up his meds because he is losing what little mind he has left.

O'Reilly Loves Polls: Except When They Disagree With Him
By: Steve - February 14, 2010 - 3:00pm

O'Reilly sure loves to report on the polls, when they agree with him, or when it's a biased Rasmussen poll, but when the polls disagree with him you never hear a word about any of them. Here are a few things reported in the polls that O'Reilly has never said a word about, ever.

For the last six months or so O'Reilly has been saying that America is a right leaning country, and that most of the American people are center right. I have said that is right-wing propaganda, that America is a left leaning country, and that most Americans are center left. Now I have proof that I was right, and O'Reilly was wrong, but you will never see this reported on the Factor, because O'Reilly ignores any poll that proves him wrong.

My proof comes from Gallup, the most trusted polling company in America. I may not like all the results from Gallup polls, but I do know they are not biased. Unlike Rasmussen, who basically rigs his polls to always favor the Republicans. On February 1, 2010 Gallup released the results of this poll:

Party ID: Despite GOP Gains, Most States Remain Blue

It said the bottom line is this, Despite the modest shift toward a decreased affiliation with the Democratic Party and an increased affiliation with the Republican Party in 2009, the United States remained a Democratically oriented nation last year.

In all, 33 states and the District of Columbia were either solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic in terms of the political party leanings of their residents. Twelve states were fairly evenly balanced between Democratic and Republican supporters, and 5 states were solidly or leaning Republican.

Notice that only 5 states solidly lean Republican, while 33 states solidly lean Democratic, and 12 states are even. That is conclusive proof that America is a left leaning country. And this was a poll that sampled 353,849 adults, 18 and older. It was taken in 2009 as part of the Gallup Daily tracking polls.

The margin of sampling error is + or - one percentage point. Which is the lowest margin or error you can get, proving it is a valid poll. But you never hear one word about this poll from O'Reilly.

And to back that up we have another poll O'Reilly has refused to report on. The new Washington Post/ABC News poll. It shows quite a few things that O'Reilly does not like, so he ignores it.

O'Reilly claims Obama is soft and weak on terrorism, and is not happy with how he deals with the terrorism issue, but the American people disagree with O'Reilly, look at question #2.

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling terrorism?

Approve - 56% -- Disapprove - 39%

O'Reilly never reports on that, instead he puts out the right-wing propaganda that Obama is doing badly on terrorism because he thinks so, it's his opinion, but he implies the American people agree with him, while the vast majority of the American people approve of the job Obama is doing on terrorism.

O'Reilly also said (just last week) that the American people do not like the liberal Obama policies, and that we need to vote Republicans back into office, because the people agree with the right on the issues. This is also a lie, because the MAJORITY of the American people support Obama over the Republicans on virtually every issue. Look at question #5.

5. Who do you trust to do a better job handling [ITEM] - (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?

The Economy:

Obama - 47%
Republicans - 42%

Health Care:

Obama - 46%
Republicans - 41%

Federal Budget:

Obama - 45%
Republicans - 43%


Obama - 48%
Republicans - 41%

As you can see, Obama is favored on every issue they asked about, which is the opposite of what O'Reilly claims.

And here is the big one, it's about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. O'Reilly claims Palin and the Tea Party are great, that she is smart and qualified to be the President, and that MOST people have a favorable view of the Tea Party. None of that is true, it's all made up by O'Reilly to try and get you to think it's true. Basically it's right-wing propaganda put out by O'Reilly, and here is the proof. Look at question #23.

23. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of [ITEM]?

Sarah Palin -

Favorable - 37% -- Unfavorable - 55%

And btw, of that 37% favorable, only 18% strongly favor her, but out of the 55% unfavorable, a whopping 38% have a strongly unfavorable view of her.

And it should also be noted that in September of 2008 Palin had a favorable rating of 58%, an unfavorable of 28%, so her numbers are going in the wrong direction, yet O'Reilly claims her image has got better, and that people like her more now than they did a couple years ago. O'Reilly said her recent book tour, and her signing with Fox has improved her image, when the facts show the exact opposite.

We even have more proof that O'Reilly is lying for her, look at question #24.

24. Regardless of whether or not you'd vote for her, do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?

Qualified - 26% -- Not Qualified - 71%

A whopping 71% of the American people say Palin is not qualified, yet O'Reilly claims she is smart and qualified, someone is lying here, and it's sure not the American people who took the poll.

O'Reilly also claims the MAJORITY of the American people have a favorable view of the Tea Party, and what a shocker he is lying about that too, just look at question #25 and #26.

25. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the political movement known as the Tea Party?

Favorable - 35% -- Unfavorable - 40%

26. How much do you feel you know about what the Tea Party stands for - a great deal, or very little?

Great Deal - 35% -- Very Little - 65%

As you can see only 35% of the American people have a favorable view of the tea Party. That poll proves that O'Reilly is a liar, because just last friday O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "I don't know whether this is just a hobby or whether this is developing into a serious political movement, but there's a new poll out that shows most Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party."
And btw, the poll O'Reilly cited said 33% of the people have a favorable view of the Tea Party, which is even lower than the 35% in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. So that is two polls that show less than 40% of the American people have a favorable view of the Tea Party. But O'Reilly claims the polls show they have a favorable view, when I can not find any that say that.

And I have one more issue that shows O'Reilly is wrong, he claims gay people should not be allowed to openly serve in the military, look at question #30.

30. Do you think homosexuals who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

Yes - 75% -- No - 24%

Remember these poll numbers the next time you hear O'Reilly say Palin is qualified, that people like the Tea Party, or that the people support Republicans over Obama on most of the issues. Remember that it is all lies from O'Reilly, and most of all, you should remember that it shows what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is, and how he is trying to fool you with his biased opinions.

Republican Radio Host Says Do Not Pick Palin
By: Steve - February 14, 2010 - 2:00pm

It's a miracle, there is one honest Republican in the media. Well not really, but he is at least being honest about Sarah Palin, unlike O'Reilly who spins and lies that Palin is smart and qualified to be the President. Savage is telling the truth, that Palin is a dummy who is not qualified, and it would be a terrible mistake to nominate her as the Republican nominee in 2012.

On Thursday, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll had some bad news for Palin and O'Reilly, it said that 71 percent of the American people, including 52 percent of Republicans, don't think the former Alaska governor is qualified to be the president. Then the right-wing radio host Michael Savage spoke out about some of the GOP complaints, saying that the Party would essentially be committing suicide if they make Palin their 2012 nominee:
SAVAGE: If you want Obama for a second term, just make sure that Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee. I am telling you, that if they make that idiotic mistake of pushing her as their lead candidate, it's over; Obama will get a second term, no matter how bad his presidency has been.

She's not electable as president. She doesn't have the gravitas. We need a businessman. We need someone with guts, preferably someone who's served in the military. That means we have nobody. And please don't tell me about Mr. Brown. God! Please! I warned you!
And btw folks, the so-called nonpartisan independent journalist Bill O'Reilly, who loves Sarah Palin, and pretty much endorsed her for President in 2012, did not say one word about that Washington Post-ABC News poll, he ignored it, because the favorable ratings for Palin went down from 52 percent, to 37 percent, while at the same time her unfavorable ratings went up from 37 percent, to 55 percent.

So you have one sort of honest Republican (Michael Savage) who admits Palin would be a disaster for the Republican party. And one totally dishonest Republican (Bill O'Reilly) who promotes Palin as smart and qualified to be the President, when polls show that 71% of the people say she is not qualified.

And btw, has anyone noticed that when a poll says a majority of the American people support something O'Reilly agrees with, he reports on it, and claims we must follow the will of the people. But when a poll shows the majority of the American people support something O'Reilly disagrees with, he does not report on it, and he does not say we must follow the will of the people then. Proving his bias, and his dishonesty.

There was another problem Savage had with Palin, and it also exposed a double standard from O'Reilly and Fox News. When the rumors started that Chris Matthews at MSNBC might run for the Senate, people at Fox News called for him to resign, because you are not allowed to run for office and work in the media at the same time. So Matthews spoke out and said he is not running for the Senate. But Palin has done the exact opposite, she is working for Fox, and she has said she might run for President in 2012. Here is what Savage said about it:
SAVAGE: You know what disturbs me? This is the part that worries me a little bit. She went to work for Fox News, and at the same time, she's fundamentally running for the presidency. At the same time. I mean, the last I checked, you can't do that. The last I checked is that you have to leave a media job in order to announce your candidacy. What is this? You can't have it both ways. Either you're running, or you're not. Don't play a game with the American people. We're not stupid.
Notice that neither O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News has voiced the same concerns, especially O'Reilly, who has pretty much endorsed her and said she should run for President in 2012, even if she has to run as the Tea Party candidate. It's bias and a double standard, and if O'Reilly and Fox had any integrity, they would make Palin leave Fox News if she plans to run for President.

The Friday 2-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 13, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Worrisome Situations In The USA. O'Reilly talked about Iran and the spending by Obama, which is funny because the TPM title said worrisome situations in the USA, and the last time I looked Iran was not in the USA. Here is what O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: There are two situations I'm worried about. Yesterday Iran celebrated the 31st anniversary of the fascist regime there and the Iranian secret police apparently neutralized dissenters, which is not good news for the world. Iran continues to cause all kinds of trouble and is close to developing a nuclear weapon.

The second troubling situation is President Obama's spending. According to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Obama will add more debt in his first two years than President Bush - himself a big spender - added in eight years. The USA is on the verge of bankruptcy, and if America cannot fulfill its financial obligations, every one of us will suffer.

Talking Points is not Chicken Little, we don't issue doomsday scenarios here, but the federal government is acting recklessly. In order for the craziness to stop, Americans will have to vote new people into office and we'll all have to suffer a bit. Social Security has to be revamped, Medicare has to be restructured, and millions of Americans will lose their entitlements.

Most Americans know Iran is dangerous and the Obama administration is spending far too much money. So I fully expect big changes in November, because if Americans continue to follow the liberal path, the entire country will go down.
Wow, there is so much right-wing propaganda in that I barely know where to start. I will not talk about Iran, because it's a foreign country and I mostly deal with issues here is the USA. O'Reilly said "According to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Obama will add more debt in his first two years than President Bush added in eight years.

That is a lie, and notice O'Reilly cited an un-named person who wrote an op-ed, in the right-wing wall street journal, not an actual journalist. Most likely an op-ed written by Karl Rove who made that exact claim, so it's biased, and a lie. Rove was caught lying in that op-ed, he said spending went up 24 percent in Obama's first year, when it was 14 percent, and even that number is misleading because emergency and war spending can inflate the number, not to mention Obama had to increase spending to save us from a depression, so his first year numbers are going to look bad, especially when some of it was caused by Bush.

But the biggest problem with O'Reilly and Rove's statement is that they credit all of the debt accumulated in 2009 and 2010 to Obama, and even conservative budget analysts agree that it's fair to assign at least some of the 2009 increase to Bush. Obama took office in January 2009. But the federal budget works on a fiscal year from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 of each year. So a third of the 2009 fiscal year had passed before Obama even took office.

So the spending for 2009 was largely determined by the Bush administration and Congress, before Obama even tok office. Obama did not pass his budget until September of 2009, before that the country was on the Bush budget. What Rove did was dishonest, he counted all the debt from Bush against Obama, the TARP money, funding the two wars, the $400 billion in reduced tax revenue due to the economic downturn, etc, Rove counted all of it against Obama, when 80% of it was done by Bush.

Jim Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said, "Increasing the debt is overwhelmingly the result of the recession and responding to it." The recession caused by George W. Bush btw. Yet O'Reilly blames it all on Obama and said he is acting recklessly. When all Obama did was pass a stimulus bill of $757 Billion, the rest of the debt is on Bush. Then at the very end O'Reilly says if Americans continue to follow the liberal path, the entire country will go down. When it was the conservative path that got us where we are today, 8 years of a conservative President got us in the mess we are in today, it was not a liberal path that caused the problem.

Making that O'Reilly TPM about as dishonest and biased as I have ever seen. O'Reilly even calls for the people to vote Republicans back into power to fix the problem, when it was 8 years of Republicans that caused the problem. He lies that it is all caused by the liberal Obama and his big spending, when 80% of it was caused by Bush and the Republicans, Obama is just trying to fix his mess, but Rove and O'Reilly dishonestly claim Obama did it all. As he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, which is just ridiculous. Because O'Reilly is saying exactly what Rove said, and that was proven to be a lie.

It's pure 100% right-wing lies and propaganda from O'Reilly and Rove. The big thing to notice is that O'Reilly cites an un-named op-ed article in the right-wing wall street journal newspaper, which is a violation of journalistic standards. You can write anything in an op-ed, not like a real journalist who has to mostly be accurate, so to cite an op-ed is as dishonest as it gets. Then O'Reilly lied about all the debt on Obama, when most of it should be counted against Bush. Which is the lie the Republicans are putting out to make Obama look bad, and O'Reilly put it out word for word, when he knows it's all lies.

And since I wrote so much about that dishonest TPM I will do a short version of the rest of the show. Karl Rove was then put on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with O'Reilly, and trashed Obama over the spending and Iran. With no Democratic guest to counter their lies of course. Then Geraldo was on and he said he is not happy with what Obama did in his first year. What they failed to mention is that the Republicans voted no on everything, and forced a 60 vote super majority in the Senate to get anything passed. Which held up most of the Obama agenda, because a few conservative Democratic Senators would not give Obama the 60 votes he needed to pass what he wanted. They never said a word about any of that, they just acted like Obama did almost nothing because he was lazy or something.

Then O'Reilly had General Wesley Clark on to discuss the KSM trial. General Clark said, "We have to get on, with serving the needs of justice, and we need to show the world that our system of justice is the best." Clark sided with Attorney General Eric Holder, who wants KSM tried in a civilian court. "If you want the most experienced and best prosecution, I'd put him in the federal court system. It's a surer path to justice." Of course O'Reilly disagreed and said, "KSM and the others should be taken care of by the military. Military commissions can provide justice."

Then O'Reilly did some crazy segment with an Oncologist named Jeffrey Long, who wrote a book in which he claims there is clear evidence of an afterlife. He talked about a benevolent God and a wonderful afterlife for all of us. I do not see how this is news, and it was pretty much nonsense if you ask me. By that I mean, it's nonsense to talk about an afterlife when you can not prove it's real, I have no problem with people believing in God, I just don't see what good it does to talk about an afterlife that can not be proven.

Then Glenn Beck was on to prove how stupid he is once again about global warming. He said he was just avoiding the snow and checking for global warming. Then he said he put out an amber alert for Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who haven't been seen since the snowstorms. Beck also said it doesn't look like that whole global warming thing is working out the way they predicted. Which is nonsense, and anyone who thinks a big snowstorm in the middle of fricking winter disproves global warming is an idiot. O'Reilly never said a word about the Beck lies, when he claims to believe in global warming. Proving that O'Reilly only says he believes in global warming, it's a lie he puts out to seem less like a far right nut.

Then dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy. Juliet Huddy picked the NOW reaction to the pro-life Tebow Super Bowl ad, and Gutfeld picked American Idol judge Ellen DeGeneres for being too nice to the singers. Gutfeld said, "Simon Cowell is a hero, because he crushes the irrational dreams of untalented people." He said Ellen is dumb because she was too nice to them. Then the biased right-wing idiot O'Reilly said the dumbest thing of the week for him is the 53% of Democrats who had a favorable view of socialism.

When the poll said 36% of ALL Americans have a favorable view of socialism, O'Reilly singled out the Democrats, and trashed them. After he even admitted that socialism was not defined in the poll, and some of the people who said they have a favorable view of socialism may not even know what it is. Not to mention, even 17% of Republicans said they have a favorable view of socialism, but O'Reilly never said they were dumb, he only named the Democrats, showing his obvious bias.

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

O'Reilly #5 On Top 25 Right-Wing Journalist List
By: Steve - February 12, 2010 - 9:20am

O'Reilly claims he is not a Republican, he actually says that he is a nonpartisan independent, and even once told Dr. Marc Lamont hill that he might sue him for saying he is a Republican. When it's pretty clear to anyone who watches the Factor that O'Reilly is about as Republican as it gets.

Well now we have even more proof, and you can bet you will never hear about this from O'Reilly, he will just ignore it and pretend it's not out there for everyone to see. The Daily Beast has come out with a top 25 list of right-wing journalists, and the great nonpartisan independent comes in at #5 on the list. Here is the top 10, notice that Beck is #2 on the list, which probably makes O'Reilly a little mad.
1) Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
2) Glenn Beck, Fox News
3) Rush Limbaugh, Radio Talk Show Host
4) Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
5) Bill O'Reilly, Fox News
6) Michelle Malkin, Fox News/Blogger
7) David Brooks, The New York Times
8) Sean Hannity, Fox News
9) James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
10) Matt Drudge, The Drudge Report
The question now is this, will O'Reilly finally admit that he is a right-wing journalist, or will he continue the lie and still claim to be a nonpartisan independent. I vote that he will continue the lie, and never mention this list in his lifetime. Look at #7 on the list, it's David Brooks, O'Reilly has said he is not really a Republican because he said some negative things about Palin, that he is more like a moderate Democrat, well if that's true how in the hell did he beat out Sean Hannity who came in at #8, answer that smart guy, not to mention he is only 2 spots behind O'Reilly.

And btw, O'Reilly also claims that Sean Hannity is the only Republican at Fox News, but if that's true, why are Beck and O'Reilly also on the list, and in the top 5 on the list. It shows that O'Reilly is a liar when he claims he and Beck and not Republicans. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, if you and Beck are in the top 5 of a right-wing journalist list, you are Republicans, dumbass. O'Reilly has also denied Cavuto is a Republican, but he is on the list too.

The Thursday 2-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 12, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Socialism On The Rise. O'Reilly cried about a Gallup poll that says a majority of Democrats have a positive view of socialism. When it was just more than Democrats, a lot of people do, overall it was 36%, with 53% of Democrats. O'Reilly basically trashed the Democrats and compared them to Castro, after he admitted that socialism was not defined in the poll. As usual he used the TPM to smear Democrats with some poll that was not even clear on what you consider socialism.

Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it, O'Reilly asked her if she thinks Obama is a socialist. She basically said yes, without saying it, and that no matter what you call it, she said it's pretty much socialism, but she refused to answer the question. She would not say if she thinks Obama is a socialist or not. O'Reilly said he does not think Obama is a socialist. After he did an entire talking points memo implying that he is, and then did another segment with Ingraham implying he is a second time.

If you think Obama is a socialist, you have no clue what socialism is. O'Reilly let her get away with not answering the question, which he does not do with Democratic guests. And btw, Ingraham said whatever you call it, the Obama policies are damaging the nation.

And for the record, socialism is the control of everything by the Government, everything. Which will never happen in America, and Obama does not want to do it anyway. So the talk about it was a total waste of time, with two Republicans who just used it to make Democrats and Obama look bad some more. Which is pretty much what O'Reilly does every night.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the possible lawsuit Elizabeth Edwards may file against John Edwards. And what's funny is that O'Reilly said he never reports on the John Edwards affair, but here he is reporting on it again, for about the 10th time that I can remember. They spent almost the entire segment on this tabloid garbage, which I refuse to report on because it's not news. I will say this, O'Reilly is a hypocrite, because he never reports on the Mark Sanford affair, because he is a Republican, but he sure reports on the Edwards garbage because he is a Democrat.

Then they talked about a Planned Parenthood sting, where they sent a girl in to say she was 14 and tried to get an abortion, she said her b/f was 31, which is statutory rape, and they did not report it. Kelly said the clinic has been put on probation, and O'Reily sure loves this stuff because he is pro-life. But you never see him say a word about the pro-life nut jobs that vandalize abortion clinics or even kill abortion doctors, he ignores all that, and only reports one side of the story.

The next segment was more pro-life garbage, O'Reilly cried about some pro-life girl who was going to get an award for some article she wrote about being pro-life. Some State rep who is pro-choice talked about not giving her the award, but he changed his mind, and now the girl will get the award. Her mother was on with her, with nobody to give the other side. So it was a one sided biased segment with 3 pro-life Republicans giving their side, and nobody to give the other side. The usual violation of journalistic standards by only reporting one side of the story.

And btw, O'Reilly did not say a word about Bill Clinton in the hospital for a heart problem, because the show was taped before the news broke.

Then O'Reilly had Rod Blagojevich on to discuss new federal charges against him. O'Reilly said he can not try him on tv, that he has said he is not guilty, so he asked him about Obama and his staff, and if they are involved in his case. Blago said there are secret tapes with hundreds of hours of tape, and he wants it all to be heard, and that will prove he is innocent. O'Reilly tried to get Blago to talk about what's in the tapes, when he knows he can not do that because it's an ongoing legal case.

All he would say is that he has talked to Obama and people on his staff, but he would not say if it is damaging to them. Basically O'Reilly just tried to get Blago to say the tapes will damage Obama and Rahm Emanuel. He would not do that because of the court order, and yet O'Reilly spent the whole segment trying to get him to say it anyway. He said Blago was dancing around the question and demanded he answer him, which is just ridiculous. Blago said the media has put a spin on what he has done, and O'Reilly said he has been fair to him, yeah right.

Then O'Reilly tried another trick question to try and get Blago to spill the beans, he said in your opinion is there anything on the tapes that will embarrass Obama or Rahm, but Blago refused to answer. It looks like O'Reilly only had him on to see if he would admit the tapes could be damaging to Obama or Rahm Emanuel, which would violate the court order. What a joke, it was not about Blago and his new federal charges at all, it was shakedown to try and get Blago to say the tapes will damage Obama, which he would not do. O'Reilly pulled a bait and switch, he told him he wanted to talk about his new charges, then spent the whole segment trying to get Blago to say there are things on the tapes that will make Obama look bad, and never talked about the new charges at all.

Then the two right-wing culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to discuss an Obama advisor saying the Pope is wrong to tell people to not use condoms. And of course the 3 of them trashed the Obama advisor, as they always do. O'Reilly misquoted him, saying the Obama advisor said the Pope is getting people killed, which he never said, and the two culture warriors had to correct O'Reilly for his misquote. The Obama advisor said the Pope is hurting people by telling them to not use condoms, which he is, and the Obama advisor is exactly right, but he did not say the Pope is killing people, as O'Reilly claimed.

Then they cried about the Carnival parade in Brazil using a 7 year old girl to promote it. Earth to culture warriors and O'Reilly, why are we supposed to care, it's in fricking BRAZIL. It is not happening in America, so how in the hell is it part of our culture. They they cried about some person who had a sex change who wants to deduct it from her taxes. It went through and she got the deduction, then the IRS did an audit and took the money back. Hoover thinks the person should get the deduction because it's considered a disorder, O'Reilly and Carlson do not think the person should get the deduction. O'Reilly even made a joke that his show is a disorder, that was not very funny btw.

The last segment was the ridiculous waste of time Factor news quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. It's a total waste of time, and pretty much just another regular segment with 2 Republicans and 0 Democrats.

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

Gingrich Busted For Terrorism Policy Hypocrisy
By: Steve - February 12, 2010 - 8:30am

And this is the guy O'Reilly has on the Factor almost every week to do political analysis. This blog posting will prove to you that Gingrich is nothing but a lying two faced political hack. That he smears Obama for doing the very same thing Bush did, when at the time he said it was ok when Bush did it.

Then he goes on the Factor and spews this right-wing nonsense out as if it's true, and O'Reilly never says a word about it because he is helping Gingrich to make Obama look bad. O'Reilly knows that Gingrich defended civilian trials under Bush, but he ignores that anyway because he wants Gingrich to hurt Obama politically.

Here is the story, the story you will never get from O'Reilly:

Newt Gingrich previously defended treating terrorists as criminals, when Bush was in office. Gingrich was publicly embarrassed this week when he claimed on Tuesday night's Daily Show that shoe bomber Richard Reid was Mirandized after he was arrested because he was an American citizen. The next day, after Stewart pointed out he was wrong, and that Reid was a British citizen, Gingrich corrected his mistake via Twitter, and then he attacked the Obama administration again.

Gingrich tweeted this Wednesday morning:
On daily show was wrong re: ShoeBomber citizenship, was thinking of Padilla. Treating terrorists like criminals wrong no matter who is Pres.
Then the Huffington Post's Sam Stein pointed out that Gingrich's claim that "treating terrorists like criminals" is wrong diverged from previous comments he made on Fox News in 2005 defending the Bush administration's decision to try Jose Padilla in criminal court.

Here's what Gingrich said on the November 22, 2005 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
JOHN KASICH, GUEST HOST: Newt, let's start with Padilla. You know, we were holding him as an enemy combatant. And then for some reason, they decide to transfer him over to some sort of a criminal court. I don't understand that. Is that a loss for the government here?

GINGRICH: Well, I think if they believe they have enough evidence to convict him, going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, maybe for the rest of his life without parole would not be -- would hardly be seen as a loss.

And I suspect that part of what happened was a decision that they were in a stronger position both around the world and in the United States in terms of public opinion if they brought Padilla forward, proved they had a real case, and convicted him in a criminal court.
During the Bush administration, Gingrich didn't think it was a loss to try Padilla in a civilian court. During the Obama administration, Gingrich claimed that no matter who the president is, "treating terrorists like criminals" is wrong. Despite his protests to the contrary, it seems it does matter to Gingrich who is president.

So basically Gingrich defended it when Bush was the President, and not once did he complain or say that Bush was soft on terrorists, as he is doing to Obama now. When Obama is doing the same thing Bush did. Which is proof that Gingrich is playing political football with terrorism to hurt Obama, just as John Brenna said in his op-ed piece.

It also proves O'Reilly is doing the same thing, because he is also saying Obama is weak and soft on terrorism for reading the underwear bomber his rights, and for putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts. Then O'Reilly has Gingrich on his show to back him up, and say Brennan is wrong, when he knows it's all a partisan political smear job by Republicans.

Bush did the exact same thing, but they said nothing then, and O'Reilly even told critics to shut up and support the President during a time of war, or you are un-American traitors. He even later changed it to saying they are bad Americans, after taking heat over it, and if you remember Ari Fleisher even said people need to be careful what they say. Now O'Reilly and the Republicans are doing the very same thing he said was borderline treason when it was done to Bush by his critics.

O'Reilly also said that it would help the terrorists and embolden them to do more attacks, but that was when Bush was in office. Now it's suddenly ok, but only when a Democrat is the President, when a Republican is President you are an un-American traitor. And O'Reilly himself does it, when he is the guy who said it was un-American to do it.

The Truth About Sarah Palin & The Tea Party
By: Steve - February 12, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly claims Sarah Palin is popular, and qualified to be the President. He also claims MOST Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party. All of that is a lie, and if you look at the facts you will see that O'Reilly is just lying. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll proves it. Here are the facts:

Two-thirds of Americans are "dissatisfied" or downright "angry" about the way the federal government is working, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. And btw, O'Reilly cited a Rasmussen poll that said 75 percent are angry, when this poll says it is only 33 percent.

Despite the disapproval of government, few Americans say they know much about the "tea party" movement, which emerged last year and attracted voters angry at a government they thought was spending recklessly and overstepping its constitutional powers. And the new poll shows that the political standing of former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who was the keynote speaker last week at the first National Tea Party Convention, has deteriorated significantly.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled say they know just some, very little or nothing about what the tea party movement stands for. About one in eight says they know "a great deal" about the positions of tea party groups.

Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37 percent, a new low in Post-ABC polling.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

NOTE: O'Reilly claims Palin is smart and qualified, and has even told her she should run for President as a member of the Tea Party. Which is the opposite of what the people think, who say she is not qualified and should not run.

Palin has even lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Among all Republicans polled, 37 percent now hold a "strongly favorable" opinion of Palin, about half the level recorded when she burst onto the national stage in 2008 as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

Among Democrats and independents, assessments of Palin also have eroded. Six percent of Democrats now consider her qualified for the presidency, a drop from 22 percent in November; the percentage of independents who think she is qualified fell to 29 percent from 37 percent.

NOTE: Now think about this, as O'Reilly makes the claim that Palin is smart and qualified to be the President, the people are moving in the other direction. They think she is less qualified today than they did 6 months ago, or a year ago. But O'Reilly thinks she has improved her image, and that most Americans support her.

While the polls show the exact opposite, and they have a less favorable view of her today than they did a year ago. O'Reilly even claimed her recent book tour, and her getting hired at Fox made her look better, when in fact, it's made her look worse. Proving that he is a spin doctor who loves Palin, and will say anything to make her look good.

The new poll shows Republicans divided about the tea party movement, which threatens to cause a rift in the lead-up to November's midterm elections. Two-thirds of those calling themselves "strong Republicans" view the movement favorably, compared with 33 percent among "not very strong Republicans."

Overall opinion is about evenly split, with 35 percent of all Americans holding favorable views of the movement and 40 percent unfavorable ones. Nearly six in 10 Democrats have unfavorable views, while independents are split, 39 percent positive and 40 percent negative.

Even after staging a national convention that garnered worldwide media attention, the burgeoning tea party effort remains something of an enigma. Through town hall protests and mass gatherings, it has given voice to those disillusioned with President Obama's economic policies and health-care agenda. But the movement has no national leadership, making it difficult to measure the size or makeup of its following.

The new poll offers a portrait of tea party supporters as overwhelmingly white, mostly conservative and generally disapproving of Obama.

NOTE: And yet O'Reilly denies all that to claim Palin is smart and qualified, and that the Tea Party is not just a bunch of Republicans who are mad at Obama because he is black, and a liberal. When the facts show O'Reilly is wrong, he just ignores it anyway to promote Palin for President.

It shows what a biased partisan hack O'Reilly is, that he ignores the actual evidence, to put out spin for Palin and the Tea Party, which is clearly a conservative movement. And he does that while he claims to be a nonpartisan independent. Which may be the most ridiculous claim he makes, and that is saying a lot.

O'Reilly Said John Brennan Is Wrong About Terrorism
By: Steve - February 11, 2010 - 10:30am

To begin with John Brennan is the Deputy National Security Adviser, and a 25-year veteran of the CIA, so who are you going to believe, O'Reilly the right-wing hack of a cable news host, or John Brennan. Especially when the evidence shows that Brennan is right, and O'Reilly is wrong. Last night O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama's top anti-terrorism guy John Brennan wrote an op-ed putting forth that the Obama administration has done a good job fighting terrorism and critics of the President in this area are hurting America.

Brennan wrote that "unwarranted criticism and fear-mongering only serve the goals of Al Qaeda."

Talking Points is a bit perplexed by Mr. Brennan's point of view. Wanting an aggressive posture to neutralize Al Qaeda is not 'fear-mongering,' it is good policy. Mr. Brennan is correct when he says some of the criticism directed toward the President is politically motivated, but those who oppose Mr. Obama do so in part because they don't think he's tough enough.
Basically O'Reilly said Brennan is wrong, because he is one of the Republicans who have criticized Obama over terrorism for political reasons, O'Reilly has called Obama soft and weak on terrorism many times. And as usual, O'Reilly only reports half the story. Here is what O'Reilly failed to mention, because it proves that Republicans only criticized Obama for political reasons.

Almost immediately after the underwear bomber failed to detonate a bomb on Christmas Day, conservatives rushed to politicize the attempted terrorist attack. Karl Rove and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) criticized Obama for issuing a statement on the failed bombing 72 hours after the event, even though President Bush waited 6 days to comment on shoe-bomber Richard Reid's failed attempt to bring down an airliner in Dec. 2001.

On Meet The Press this past Sunday, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, a 25-year veteran of the CIA, pointed out that he had kept key Congressional Republicans informed of Abdulmuttalab detainment by the FBI:
On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point.

They knew that "in FBI custody" means that there's a process you then follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point.
Notice that Brennan said he talked to all the Republicans leaders after the underwear bomber was taken into FBI custody, and that none of them raised any concerns at that time. The Republicans only complained later after a few far right conservatives spoke out, Dick Cheney and Tom Ridge, and made it a political issue. Then they were suddenly upset, to score cheap political points.

What happened is they decided to try and make Obama look bad by criticizing his handling of the underwear bomber, and the delay in that criticism is proof it was only to score cheap political points. Otherwise they would have complained at the time, which they did not. It was a while later before they suddenly had a problem with it.

And the most conclusive proof it was all political garbage, is that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their Attorney General, did the exact same thing in December of 2001 with the shoe bomber. In fact, they read the shoe bomber his miranda rights 5 minutes after they took him into custody, even faster than the FBI did under Obama.

But not one of these Republicans complained about it when Bush did the very same thing in December of 2001 with the shoe bomber. That is conclusive proof they are just attacking Obama to score cheap political points by saying he is soft on terrorism, when Obama did exactly what Bush did, when they said nothing then. And what a shocker, O'Reilly attacks Brennan and says he is wrong, which is the Republican position, while Brennan is exactly right.

And btw, when Bush had them read the shoe bomber his miranda rights in December of 2001, O'Reilly never said a word about it, never called Bush soft of terrorism, and never once complained about any of it. Proving he is a biased right-wing shill for the Republicans party, just like Rove or Gingrich, or any of them.

Republicans Prove They Are Biased & Stupid Once Again
By: Steve - February 11, 2010 - 9:30am

Okay get this, it snowed in winter recently. During the winter season it snows, sometimes it snows a lot, because it's fricking winter. And now you have some Republicans saying these recent big snowstorms prove Global Warming is not real.

Are you kidding me, how stupid do they think people are. This is ridiculous on a few different levels. First, they must think their viewers are really stupid to believe those lies. Second, Snow in winter does not disprove Global Warming, and anyone who thinks it does it a fricking idiot. Third, notice that O'Reilly has not said a word about these Republicans claiming big snowstorms prove Global Warming is not real.

And you notice that it's all coming from Republicans, and the people who work for Fox News. You do not hear this crap coming from NBC, or ABC, or CBS, or CNN, or MSNBC. They deny Global Warming because the Corporations that give them all their money tell them to, it's called being corrupt.

And O'Reilly does not say a word about it, because he does not want his Republican friends to get mad at him for exposing the truth about their lies, so he just ignores it so it leaves the impression they are being truthful.

Limbaugh, Fox & Friends, Hannity, The Washington Times, Erick Erickson, etc. Are all saying snow in winter means Global Warming is not real. And they all have one thing in common, they are all Republicans. No Independents are saying it, no Democrats are saying it, only Republicans are. Because they are biased idiots who think they can fool the American people if they lie enough about it.

Global Warming is real, and that is a fact. We have conclusive evidence it is, they are finding 2000 year old artifacts in parts of the country where ice was thousands of years old and it suddenly melted. That ice had been there for 2000 years or more, it never melted, and now it's melting, which allowed people to look at the area and find those 2000 year old artifacts just laying on the ground. I watched a tv show about it last week, that alone is proof that Global Warming is real. But we have much more.

FACT: Cold weather has no relevance to the Global Warming debate. Climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather bear any relevance to the climate debate. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA said: "It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change."

FACT: 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record. In January 2010, all the major meteorological organizations throughout the world -- including NASA -- released reports showing that the past decade, was the warmest on record. The report undermines the right-wing media's numerous claims that recent snow and cold weather show climate change does not exist or has slowed over the past 10 years.

Just as a few hot days in summer does not prove Global Warming is real, a few snowstorms in winter does not disprove Global Warming. And anyone who thinks it does is either biased, or stupid, or both. In fact, if you believe a big snowstorm in winter disproves Global Warming is real, you are a flat out idiot. If you can not see that only Republicans are saying it for political reasons, you are stupid beyond belief.

Notice that O'Reilly is not saying it, because even as biased as he is, he knows it is just a stupid thing to say. But you also need to notice that O'Reilly is not calling the Republicans out who are saying it. So by ignoring the story he is helping them to fool people. If he were an honest journalist with no bias, he would call them out on it. Instead, he lets them make the ridiculous claims, so people will believe it. Which makes him almost as bad as they are.

The Wednesday 2-10-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 11, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called War On Terror Scare Tactics. O'Reilly talked about John Brennan saying the Republicans are using terrorism as a political football. Which they are, including O'Reilly, but of course O'Reilly claims that Brennan is wrong, and that it's ok to criticize Obama for being soft on terrorism. But when Democrats did it to Bush, O'Reilly had a different tune, then he said it was un-American and called them traitors. Now it's suddenly ok, when it's a Republican criticizing a Democratic President.

O'Reilly then had the crazy Dick Morris on to discuss it, and the first thing O'Reilly said is that Brennan is wrong. Yeah because O'Reilly is one of the Republicans who has criticized Obama for being soft on terrorism. And btw, when Democrats did it to Bush, O'Reilly said it helps the terrorists. His hypocrisy and double standards are stunning, when Bush was the President O'Reilly said it's wrong to do it to Bush, but now it's ok to do it to Obama, and he even does it himself. Morris basically attacked Obama for being soft on terrorism, as O'Reilly said he wised Brennan was there instead of Morris.

O'Reilly and Morris both claim the Obama terrorism policy is hurting him, which is just ridiculous, and most polls have the majority of Americans supporting the Obama terrorism policy. And btw, only Republican think the Obama terrorism policy is hurting him, nobody else does, it's all right-wing propaganda, and to see I am right just look at the polls on terrorism for Obama. Morris and O'Reilly are lying, because the majority of the people support Obama on terrorism.

Then Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it. And I like Dr. hill, but he is only on a few times a month, and he is basically a token Democrat that O'Reilly puts on to make it look like he is fair and balanced, when Republican guests outnumber the Democratic guests almost 7 to 1. Dr. Hill said Morris is totally off the radar, and said it was right-wing propaganda. Then O'Reilly said he was going to surgically carve up Dr. Hills arguments, and Hill just laughed at him. Hill said it's just a difference of opinion on how to handle terrorism, and of course O'Reilly takes the Republican side, and even called Hill and his views you guys. O'Reilly said forget the rule of law, which is ridiculous, because that is what we go by, except when O'Reilly does not agree.

Dr. Hill tried to talk some sense into O'Reilly but it was a total waste of time. O'Reilly said forget the rule of law and just torture away, then put em in a military court. O'Reilly ignores the 300 terrorists tried under Bush in civilian courts, showing his hypocrisy and double standards once again. What gets me is Bush did the same thing Obama is doing now, and they never said a word when Bush did it. Now all the sudden it's wrong when Obama does it, it's ridiculous. O'Reilly and the Republicans are massive hypocrites who are just doing it for political reasons to try and make Obama look soft on terrorism. That is why Brennan wrote the op-ed, to tell these idiot Republicans to stop playing politics with terrorism. O'Reilly is just mad because Brenn was talking about him too, so he has to try and justify it, which he failed at big time.

O'Reilly and the Republicans are helping the terrorists by calling the President soft and weak on terrorism, especially when it's a lie, so I will say what O'Reilly said to Democrats when Bush was in office, support the President and shut up you un-American Traitor.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Marc Thiessen on to discuss the drone attacks Obama has allowed. O'Reilly actually disagreed with him, and said the drone attacks are doing a good job of killing terrorists. Thiessen claims when you kill the terrorists with drone attacks then you can not question them because they are dead. But once again, it's total hypocrisy, because when Bush was doing the very same thing these guys never said a word about it then.

The drone program is a Bush program, Obama just kept it in place. Now this right-wing idiot is opposed to it, and to prove he is an idiot, O'Reilly even disagreed with him, and even told the guy he was disturbed by his position. And btw, Thiessen was on alone to spin this garbage out, with nobody to give the counterpoint. It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. One day they say Obama should kill more terrorists, so he does, then they say he is killing too many terrorists, it's nothing but crazy right-wing garbage to make Obama look bad. No matter what he does they find a reason to complain about it. So I say just ignore these right-wing idiots. You know it's wrong, when even O'Reilly disagrees with something a Republican says.

The next segment was total garbage about Sarah Palin. O'Reilly cried like the little bitch he is about some liberal woman who criticized Sarah Palin for being a dummy, and clueless about Global Warming. O'Reilly has Leslie Marshall on to discuss it, and he asked her when liberal women will come out and defend Palin, answer, never dumb ass. O'Reilly claimed to be upset that women are not stepping up to defend Palin, hey O'Reilly, where were you with this argument when Hillary Clinton was being attacked personally by Republicans for the last 15 years.

O'Reilly said he was mad that Palin gets personally attacked, when he does it to liberal women himself. I guess he forgot he said Helen Thomas looked like a witch, and he attacks Pelosi personally for her looks, not to mention having Dennis Miller on to do personal attacks on liberal women ever week. It's cry baby bullshit, massive hypocrisy, and a double standard. O'Reilly complains about people attacking Sarah Palin, then him and Miller attack liberal women, shut the hell up already, moron.

Then Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals. I refuse to report of all that nonsense from Miller, because there is nothing worth reporting. I will say this, Miller implied Dr. Hill is gay because he had a pink tie on. That's a personal attack, the same thing O'Reilly just complained about, yet he says nothing when Miller does it. Miller also called Robert Gibbs a doofus, and said Obama would be lost without his teleprompter. All personal attacks, and O'Reilly said nothing. Not to mention, none of it was funny.

O'Reilly just did an entire segment crying about personal attacks on Sarah Palin with Leslie Marshall, he said it was wrong and a disgrace to use personal attacks on her, and that he is tired of it. Then he puts Dennis Miller on to do non-stop personal attacks on Dr. Hill, Robert Gibbs, and President Obama. Which is the same thing he just complained about. Then the hypocrisy meter exploded, it's off the charts hypocrisy and double standards from O'Reilly.

The last segment was the totally stupid Did You See That segment with Jane Skinner. They talked about Michelle Obama on Larry King, Skinner liked it, and so did O'Reilly. Then they talked about some women olympic girls posing for pics and videos in their bikinis, and of course O'Reilly had plenty of photos and video of it as he talked about it. It was clearly done for ratings, and has no business on a so-called hard news show. The girls were hot, and I loved it, but it's not news, and has no news value at all. Skinner and O'Reilly both said it was ok, so why even do the segment, except to get ratings by showing some skin. Then they showed a video of a girl stomping on another girls head as a security guard stood there and did nothing. O'Reilly said fire em all, but the security company said that was their policy, to do nothing.

Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, a Quinnipiac poll on the Obama terrorism approval (taken 2 days ago) has him at 49% approval, to 44% disapproval. Proving that O'Reilly is wrong when he says most people do not like the Obama terrorism policy. Not to mention the reason it's not higher is because Republicans have been all over tv unfairly criticizing Obama, so that raised the disapproval ratings with Republicans.

O'Reilly Breaks His No More Bikinis Promise
By: Steve - February 11, 2010 - 8:30am

Last night O'Reilly did a special report on "sexy snow angels, sultry skiers, and steamy snowboarders," aka female Olympic athletes, who posed in, you guessed it, bikinis for Sports Illustrated. Now look what he told Laura Ingraham back in 2007:
INGRAHAM: Bill, why did you do the story about the naked parties at Yale. Do you think that's really a cultural phenomenon that a T-warrior needs to fight against?

O'REILLY: Student activity fees were being used to fuel an orgy.

INGRAHAM: Why did you run the video? Why?

O'REILLY: To show people what happened at Brown.

INGRAHAM: You don't think people know what a nude party would look like? You had to see it?

O'REILLY: I don't think so. I had to. I didn't know. And nobody was naked, by the way.

INGRAHAM: Why did you run the video, during Cavuto, of, you know, the guy who came up with the Girls Gone Wild franchise?

O'REILLY: I just want to get this clear. You, Laura Ingraham, no video of cosmetic surgery or anything. None.

INGRAHAM: No. You can talk about an issue without training the camera on a particular --

O'REILLY: I didn't shoot those shots.

INGRAHAM: You know what also I find interesting? All the women also wanted to know this. Where did all the segments about the Playgirl, you know, issues out there? Where are all the men? Where are all the male enhancements?

O'REILLY: I don't know anything about those stories. I don't know. I'm confused.

INGRAHAM: Why are those photos all of women? You say is you are a T-warrior, right? You're a T-warrior.


INGRAHAM: Then act like one and stop playing this video.

O'REILLY: No more bikinis! They're over.

INGRAHAM: How about the hands over the boobs.

O'REILLY: No hands! No anything!

INGRAHAM: You don't want to hear me, Bill, but you should hear me, because people are tired of it.

O'REILLY: Never again.
So as you can see, not only is O'Reilly a biased right-wing liar, he also breaks his promises.

O'Reilly Compares Tea Party Anger To Vietnam War
By: Steve - February 10, 2010 - 9:30am

Last night O'Reilly made the ridiculous claim that the Tea Party anger is the same as the anger over the Vietnam war. Which is just an insane comparison, because the Tea Party fools are nothing but right-wingers who hate Obama, because he is a liberal, and because he is black. So the Tea Party anger is motivated by political ideology, and racism.

The problem is O'Reilly will not admit that, he keeps saying the Tea Party is NOT just a bunch of right-wing idiots that hate Obama, when the facts show that is EXACTLY what they are. The comparison is also ridiculous, because almost all the American people were angry over the Vietnam war, mostly because of all the American troops getting killed in a war that we were not winning, and could not win.

Hundreds of thousands of American troops are not getting killed because Obama is the President, so the comparison to the Vietnam war is just insane. Not to mention, most people have not even heard of the Tea Party, recent polls show that about 40% of the people do not even know about the tea Party. At their convention only 600 people showed up, and at their big protest only 75,000 people showed up.

Vietnam war protests were big, in April of 1969 war protests had 400,000 people or more. The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam demonstrations took place on October 15, 1969. Millions of Americans took the day off from work and school to participate in local demonstrations against the war.

On November 15, 1969 crowds estimated up to half a million people participated in an anti-war demonstration in Washington, D.C. and a similar demonstration was held in San Francisco.

In October of 1969, 58% of Gallup respondents said U.S. entry into the war was a mistake.

That is millions and millions of people who were angry about the Vietnam war, with 58% of the country opposed to it. The Tea Party is at best 100,000 to 200,000 people, which is maybe 1/500th of 1% of the American people. So the comparison is beyond ridiculous, especially when most of the Tea Bagggers are just right-wing racist idiots that hate Obama because he is a black liberal.

Here is the video:

The Tuesday 2-9-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 10, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Angry Americans. O'Reilly talked about how a new poll says 75% of Americans are angry at the federal Government, and of course it was a Rasmussen poll. And what a shocker, O'Reilly blamed it on Obama, and how liberal he is. When BUSH caused all the problems Obama is dealing with, but O'Reilly blames it on Obama anyway. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.

And then the far right Newt Gingrich was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest, so as usual it was one sided bias with nobody to give the counterpoint. O'Reilly said he has not seen this much anger since the Vietnam war, he asked Newt if he agrees, Newt said he was not so sure. Gingrich basically said his usual right-wing spin, that Obama is too liberal and he is not doing the right thing on spending, terrorism, etc.

It's the same old one sided right-wing BS, Obama bad, Republicans good, blah, blah, blah. Then O'Reilly put out some more spin on that worthless poll that said Fox was the most trusted, it's a garbage poll, that only shows Republicans trust Fox the most. And remember this, Republicans had all the power for 8 years, and they caused the mess we have now. Then crazy Newt said only 30% of the people support Obama, something about a new book that shows it, when his approval rating is 51%, and he got almost 53% of the vote when he won the election. And O'Reilly sat there and let Newt spin out these lies with no challenge to any of it.

Then Dr. Chris Metzler was on to discuss the anger from Americans. Metzler said Gingrich missed the point, and that people are mad at the Government and how politics works, not so much President Obama. Basically O'Reilly and Gingrich want to blame it all on Obama, and Dr. Metzler said it's more about hatred of big Government. In bad economic times people hate the Government, but O'Reilly and Gingrich just try to blame it on Obama because they are right-wing partisan hacks. O'Reilly even admitted Dr. Metzler was right, yet he let Gingrich spin out his nonsense with no challenge to what he said.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on for the Barack & A Hard Place segment. Colmes said the Tea Party was a joke, and that Palins speech was nothing but an attack speech. Colmes also mentioned the writing on her hand, and basically trashed Palin, and boy did O'Reilly hate that. Crowley said Colmes is a hypocrite and defended the Tea Party as a massive grassroots movement. Crowley also said the Tea Party Convention did not help Obama, as Colmes claims. Crowley also said the Tea Party is mainstream America, and that most Americans support them, which is just a ridiculous lie.

Crowley also said Obama does not really want to work with Obama, that it's just a trap. Colmes tried to talk about the hold by Sheldy on the 70 Obama nominees, and O'Reilly said he does not know who he is, and does not want to talk about him, of course he don't because it makes Republicans look bad. O'Reilly mentioned that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs made a joke about Palin having writing on her hand, which is the first time he ever mentioned it. Crowley hated it, and said it was wrong for him to do that. Colmes thought it was ok, and said it was funny.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Government spending. Stossel got a Golf Cart from the Government somehow and O'Reilly was all flipped out about it. Stossel claims he got a free golf cart from the Government, but it's a lie. He had to pay $6,490 for it, but then he got a tax credit. Basically it's a loophole in the green energy tax credit, it somehow applies to golf carts because they are electric.

You do get a tax credit, but you can not drive it on the highway like a real car. So not many people will ever do it, basically it was only done to make Obama look bad, when it's a loophole in the tax code that will most likely be closed, and Obama did not write the wording in the tax, Congress did. It was a Charles Rangel bill in the House, so Obama had nothing to do with it. And btw, that tax loophole ended at the end of 2009, so you can not do it anymore. Stossel did not even know how many golf carts were given out under the tax loophole, that's some good journalism, not!

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for the is it legal segment. And btw, O'Reilly does this is it legal segment every week, and he has still not said one word about the Scott Roeder trial for killing Dr. Tiller, or the conviction. But he sure has time to talk about another ridiculous hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. Which the two legal experts said was a valid case. Then they talked about a Gay legal case of some kind with a judge that is gay. Wiehl said it was no big deal, and Guilfoyle also said it was ok, so why in the hell are you doing a segment on it. They also talked about a lawsuit between the NFL and the Saints over the Who Dat slogan. O'Reilly called it the most important story of the night, which is just ridiculous, nobody even cares but the NFL and the New Orleans Saints, and btw, the NFL lost the case.

The last segment was some garbage about China trying to prevent President Obama from meeting with the Dalai Lama. The far right nut Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, and of course he was on alone with no Democratic guest to counter what he said. It looks like Krauthammer is a regular now, and of course he is a far right conservative. That means O'Reilly had about 25 conservative regulars, and maybe 3 liberal regulars.

Proving once again that he is a biased right-wing spin doctor, with about 95% right-wing regulars. O'Reilly was shocked that China would try to tell our President to do anything. And btw, O'Reilly called Krauthammer a political mastermind, whatever that means. When Krauthammer is nothing but a neo-con right-wing partisan idiot. He basically smears Obama non-stop, and never has anything good to say about him. Just like 95% of the guests O'Reilly has on the Factor. It's just another segment for O'Reilly to give a conservative a forum to spin out his point of view, and trash Obama. Which is exactly what he did, he trashed Obama over China, and Iran.

Finally it was the pinheads and patriots nonsense, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And let me add this, if you are so stupid you have to write the 4 simple things Palin had on her hand, you are not qualified to be the President. I would say if you do that, it disqualifies you from ever being the President. And btw, O'Reilly named 4 Olympic women skiers patriots for taking pics in their bikinis, and of course O'Reilly had video of it showing, as he talked about it.

Fox News Cites Poll O'Reilly & Rove Called A Fraud
By: Steve - February 10, 2010 - 8:30am

This is awesome, last week O'Reilly and Karl Rove trashed the Research 2000 poll that Daily Kos had taken. The poll was scientific, and taken by Republicans only, it shows just how out of touch with reality (and mainstream America) the Republicans really are. So O'Reilly called it a fraud, and had his right-wing buddy Karl Rove on to agree with him.

So then Chris Wallace from Fox News quoted the very same poll O'Reilly and Rove called a fraud. It said Research 2000 on the screen, which is the poll they did for Daily Kos.

Here is what Kos had to say about it:

Last Wednesday, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove spent five minutes of airtime claiming that the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll on the crazy beliefs of Republican voters was fraudulent.

"The poll is a fraud," O'Reilly said, "as is the website."

"Daily Kos is trying to make an argument," Rove said, "and the argument falls flat on its face when you begin to look inside the numbers and you look at the methodology."

Flash forward to February 7th, on Fox News Sunday -- the network's flagship broadcast -- Chris Wallace asked Sarah Palin whether she would run for president, pointing out that a recent poll showed her as the frontrunner among Republican voters.

Which poll was Wallace citing? You guessed it: none other than the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of Republicans derided just days earlier as a "fraud" by O'Reilly and Rove.

If Chris Wallace and Fox News Sunday recognize that this poll was a scientific survey, isn't it about time for O'Reilly and Rove to admit that they know the poll was accurate?

Truth is, they're just worried that people will find out what a bunch of loons the modern Republican Party has become.

O'Reilly Claims There Is No Hate On The Right
By: Steve - February 10, 2010 - 8:00am

He has even said he can not find it, if that is true, how does he explain this:

Right after Jack Murtha died, the Republican Steve Malzberg called him an "Anti-American crackpot, and a jerk" on his radio show Monday February 8th.

On February 9th an editor from one of the biggest right-wing blogs said this.

From contributing editor and American Spectator contributor Caleb Howe's Twitter feed:

Jack Murtha is a fucking traitor. An EX (not FORMER) Marine, a terrorist sympathizer, & a treasonous bag of fat. Good. Fucking, Riddance.

And of course the right-wing idiots at had to comment on his death, here are a few good ones:

Too bad. So sad. Now to go and do my happy dance. posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 1:43:48 PM by Petruchio


A great day for America! posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 1:44:12 PM by DanielRedfoot


Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 1:45:03 PM by darkangel82


IMHO, he finally did something to make America and the world a better place.

posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 1:47:30 PM by Lonesome in Massachussets


There is a place in hell for him I am sure. I am sorry he slipped away so gently, unlike the hurt of those to whom he brought so much suffering.

posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:33:36 AM by Candor7

That is just a small sample of the 926 comments they had about him at I could have posted a hundred more just like it, and yet O'Reilly said there is no hate on the right. Republicans claim to support and honor the troops, and then they do this to a veteran, it's offensive and disgusting. And the great Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, ever. But when a few Democrats said bad things about Tony Snow after his death O'Reilly reported what they said, for 2 or 3 days.

And btw, Jack Murtha was a war hero:

Murtha left Washington in 1952 to join the Marine Corps and was awarded the American Spirit Honor Medal for displaying outstanding leadership qualities during training. Murtha became a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. Murtha was then assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Murtha remained in the Marine Forces Reserve, and ran a small business, Johnstown Minute Car Wash. Murtha left the Marines in 1955. But he remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer, receiving the Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Then these right-wing assholes trash him right after his death, and O'Reilly says nothing, not a word. After he denied there was any hate on the right. And btw, O'Reilly also denied there was any hate on the right after Ted Kennedy died and right-wingers all over the internet trashed him.

O'Reilly Pulls A Fast One To Cover For Palin
By: Steve - February 9, 2010 - 9:30am

Think about this, just last week O'Reilly hammered Jon Stewart for what he said was an example of Stewart taking what he said out of context, even though Stewart disagreed and said he did not take him out of context. Not to mention, Stewart is a COMEDIAN who does a COMEDY show, on the COMEDY NETWORK.

Now get this, not only did O'Reilly use a clip of Sarah Palin out of context, he pulled a fast one and used an entirely different clip from a different show on a different day. Here is what the dishonest O'Reilly did, and it's a whopper.

Bob Shrum was on the Ed Schultz show SATURDAY NIGHT to comment on what Sarah Palin said after her Tea Party speech. So on MONDAY NIGHT O'Reilly hammered Shrum for his comments about Palin, O'Reilly said, "It took just moments after that before the left-wing media replied, hammering Governor Palin."

O'Reilly then showed a clip of Democratic consultant Bob Shrum telling MSNBC's Ed Schultz that Palin's Tea Party convention comments were "a masterful exercise -- masterful -- in paranoid politics."

And what O'Reilly did was take a partial quote from Shrum and play the cherry picked video, but he only played the part he wanted you to see, which is exactly what he hammered Jon Stewart for, so he just violated his own rules.

That is not all Shrum said, O'Reilly took one sentence and left out the rest, here is the rest of it:
SHRUM: What we heard tonight was more a masterful exercise -- masterful -- in paranoid politics. I mean, she came across to me as a merchant of hate with an "Oh gosh" smile. I mean, go down the things she said. Barack Obama has never talked about the war on terrorism. Yes, he has. The way the shoe bomber was handled on Christmas Day. Those were under the rules set up and applied to the shoe bomber by the Bush administration. Small business needs tax cuts. Ed, who's proposing the tax cuts for small business?

SCHULTZ: Barack Obama is.

SHRUM: Barack Obama. Who's opposing them? The Republicans.
Notice how O'Reilly took a partial quote from Shrum and only used one sentence of it, then he left out all the rest of his quote. That's called cherry picking a partial quote, which O'Reilly said is wrong to do.

And now after all that, the worst part is still to come. Before O'Reilly played the clip of Shrum on the Ed Schultz show, he played a clip of Sarah Palin from an interview she did with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The Palin comments O'Reilly aired were not made at the Tea Party convention. They were made during Palin's interview with Chris Wallace on the February 7th edition of Fox News Sunday, a day after Shrum criticized her remarks at the Tea Party convention.

O'Reilly pulled a video trick, which gave Palin a reprieve for the comments Shrum was actually criticizing -- specifically, numerous false and dubious claims Palin made during her February 6 speech.

O'Reilly played a clip from the Palin interview on SUNDAY with Chris Wallace, then he played a clip of Shrum on MSNBC, who was talking about what Palin said in her SATURDAY NIGHT Tea Party speech. This is about as dishonest as it gets folks, not only did O'Reilly take EVERYTHING out of context to defend his BFF Sarah Palin, he used video clips from different days, to make it look like Shrum was talking about what Palin said on SUNDAY MORNING, when he was talking about what she said on SATURDAY NIGHT.

That is 100% dishonest and biased journalism, from Bill O'Reilly. And he did it to defend his girl Sarah Palin, while at the same time hammering Bob Shrum for what he said, when the Shrum analysis of what Palin actually said in her Tea Party speech was right on the money. O'Reilly pulled a video clip bait and switch trick to make Shrum look bad, which is about as dishonest as it gets in the journalism business.

And not only did O'Reilly pull that dishonest video trick, he only used a partial quote of what Shrum said, which is what he himself said no journalist should do, and he said that just last week to the COMEDIAN Jon Stewart. Making O'Reilly the king of dishonest journalism, while at the same time he calls for other journalists/Comedians to be honest in their reporting.

The Monday 2-8-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 9, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Tea Party Battles. O'Reilly talked about the Palin speech at the Tea Party Convention, and played a few clips from her that made her look good. Then he cried about the media saying she was terrible, Billy hated that because he loves Palin. Then O'Reilly played clips of people from fox defending Palin. Instead of doing an analysis of the Tea Party and the Palin speech, O'Reilly spent the entire TPM crying about the coverage the media had of the convention.

Palin said how is that hopey-changey stuff working out for you in her speech, which is ridiculous 5th grade garbage, yet O'Reilly loved it. O'Reilly also claims the Tea Party is a coalition of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. When he knows that is a lie, because they are a bunch of right-wing nuts.

Jim Vandehei from was on to discuss the media coverage of the Tea Party. O'Reilly said he could only find 2 positive reports in the mainstream media, Vandehei denied that and told O'Reilly you can not prove that is true. O'Reilly just kept saying over and over that there was only 2 positive stories on the Tea Party, Vandehei said that is ridiculous. O'Reilly was yelling at him, and talking over him, as Vandehei denied what O'Reilly was saying. O'Reilly yelled even louder, and got even madder, and told Vandehei his argments are bull.

Bill Sammon from Fox News said there were only 2 positive stories, Vandehei said that's a lie, O'Reilly then said Sammon has the data to back it up, Vandehei said where is it, and O'Reilly had no answer to that. And btw, O'Reilly did not say a word about the racism from Tancredo, the birther crap from Farah, or the fricking cheat notes Palin had on her hand. Basically he spent the whole segment yelling at Vandehei to believe his lies about only 2 positive stories on the Tea Party. Vandehei pointed out that there is no way Sammon could have checked all the news outlets, which just made O'Reilly more mad.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, O'Reilly said the Sammon report was true, and said that he did a lot of research on it. So you know Sammon is lying, because O'Reilly is backing him. And here is some no spin for O'Reilly, the Tea Party is a joke, and we all know it's nothing but a bunch of Palin loving right-wing idiots. Hume basically agreed with O'Reilly, but he said that the media coverage lately has been better. O'Reilly even admitted that some of the Tea Party people are nuts, but then he said he is upset when the media reports on them. In reality, he is just mad that the right-wing Tea Party does not get positive coverage from the media.

Neither Hume or O'Reilly mentioned the story about Palin having cheat notes on her hand. Proving they are both right-wing stooges who are in the tank for Palin, because it was one of the biggest stories on the internet, and on cable news, but O'Reilly ignored the entire story, and did not have one Democrat on to discuss the Palin speech at the Tea Party. O'Reilly does this all the time, he talks about Palin or some other Republican event, and only has Republicans on to discuss it. Not one Democrat was on the show to discuss the Palin speech, none, as in zero. And I am sure there were more than 2 positive articles on the Tea Party, maybe not many, but of the thousands of media outlets I am sure it was more than two. Who cares anyway, whe did the Factor become the media police, just report on it and stop crying about what the rest of the media does.

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Ellis Henican on to discuss the Katie Couric interview with President Obama. O'Reilly asked Ham why Obama is dancing around the decision on where to have the trial for KSM. She said because he makes these bad decisions and then has a hard time letting go and changing his mind. When Obama did not make the decision, it was made by the AG Eric Holder. O'Reilly is mad that Obama will not zip it up and just move it out of New York already, Ellis said he is letting the process play out, and O'Reilly called him a pinhead.

Then he went to Ham and said Ellis would not give him an answer, when he did, O'Reilly just did not like it, then he called him a pinhead. As usual O'Reilly screamed at Ellis, the liberal, and called him a pinhead, while being polite and respectful to Mary K. Ham. Because Ham agrees with him, but when you disagree with him he screams and talks over you as he's calling you a pinhead simply because you disagree with O'Reilly. As you watch the Factor, notice how O'Reilly deals with liberals, and how he deals with conservatives. It's night and day, he screams and yells at liberals as he talks over them and disagrees with everything they say, but it's all nice guy crap with conservatives.

Then Gretchen Carlson was on to discuss her interview with Jenny sanford, the wife of the Republican Mark Sanford. O'Reilly said he hates the story, and that he would have never reported on it if Carlson had not done an interview with her. Which shows what a giant hypocrite with massive double standards O'Reilly is. Because he sure loved the John Edwards wife cheating scandal, and he even reported the hell out of it for months on end. But when a Republican cheats on his wife, O'Reilly hates the story and pretty much ignores it, as he even admitted last night. For people that do not know, O'Reilly has totally ignored the Sanford wife cheating story, because he is a Republican. He did one story on it, but that was only to attack the media for reporting on it so much. Other than that, O'Reilly has ignored the entire story.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss the Super Bowl ads. Billy and Bernie spent the entire segment telling us what their favorite ad was, ummmmmmm, who cares. Bernie liked the E-Trade baby ad. Then they cried about the Womens Media Center who did not like the ad. Goldberg called them pinheads and morons, taking after his hero O'Reilly. O'Reilly said the Letterman, Oprah, Leno commercial was strange, I agree, what was it a commercial for, why was it on the Super Bowl, and why the hell was Oprah in it. Bernie and Billy were confused by the Audi commercial, and they both said it was stupid. Goldberg's most hated commercial was the casual friday ad with people in their underwear, and I have to admit I did not like it either. They wasted a whole segment on this nonsense.

O'Reilly held Goldberg over for a 2nd segment to discuss the pro-life Tim Tebow ad, and you know they loved it because they are both pro-life Republicans. But the point is not the ad, the point is that CBS has denied pro-choice ads on the Super Bowl, so the focus should have been the double standards by CBS. But Goldberg and O'Reilly did not focus on that, all they did was complain about mostly pro-choice people who had a problem with CBS running the ad. And btw, O'Reilly claims CBS is a liberal network, if that is true why did they ok the pro-life ad and deny the pro-choice ad. In fact, I would have no problem with the pro-life Tebow ad, if they also let a pro-choice group run a counter ad. The problem is the double standard and the bias from CBS, not the actual ad.

O'Reilly said that ad is what America is all about, you see their ad and go to their website. but he ignores the issue, the issue is that CBS had a policy against running political ads on the Super Bowl, and then they changed that policy, but only for the pro-life group. That is the issue, and O'Reilly ignored that to twist it into they have a right to air their ad, which nobody would disagree with, if they also let a pro-choice group run their ad. As usual O'Reilly distorts the issue to focus on something that has nothing to do with the double standard by CBS, which was the real issue. I support the pro-life group running the ad, as long as they also let a pro-choice group run an ad, which they would not do.

Then the pinheads and patriots nonsense, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly has still not reported that the GDP for the 4th quarter of 2009 was 5.7 percent, because it makes Obama look good. He has also not reported that the Obama job approval numbers went up about 4 points after his SOTU speech, and his Q&A with the House Republicans.

O'Reilly Proving He Is A Classless Clown
By: Steve - February 9, 2010 - 8:00am

Just take a look at this video, this is how O'Reilly deals with people that disagree with his so-called facts. Notice how he just keeps repeating his unproven statement that Sammon and Fox only found two positive mentions by the mainstream media of the Tea Party convention.

Vandehei disagrees and tells O'Reilly he is wrong, and that there is no way to even prove only two positive mentions were made about the Tea Party, when you have thousands of news outlets in the mainstream. So O'Reilly flips out and screams louder and louder as he gets more mad every second.

Here is what Michael Calderone wrote about it at

On Monday night, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and POLITICO executive editor Jim VandeHei debated Bill Sammon's controversial comment Sunday that the mainstream media "hates" the tea party movement.

I disagreed with the claim from Sammon, who serves as Fox News' vice president of news and Washington managing editor, and wrote about the remarks on my blog. Others like NBC's Chuck Todd similarly took issue with the "absurd attack."

O'Reilly-who admits to not looking at POLITICO's extensive coverage of the tea party movement-claims that Fox News researchers found only "two positive comments amidst thousands of reports" on the subject.

"I know what POLITICO does," VandeHei said. "And I know that our coverage of it's been very comprehensive."

VandeHei said he didn't buy O'Reilly's research claiming there were just two positive reports in the entire mainstream press.

O'Reilly brought up his research repeatedly during The Factor's lead story, and said that Sammon "was absolutely right" in his critique. (O'Reilly also mentioned research during his Talking Points Memo before debate).

VandeHei disagreed, telling O'Reilly that "Bill Sammon should not have made that comment."

"He's running your news division," VandeHei told the Fox News host.

"So what?" countered O'Reilly. "That means he can't be an honest purveyor of information?"

"He thinks all reporters-he thinks Chuck Todd, he thinks other White House reporters, other political reporters hate the tea party movement, hate Sarah Palin?" Vandehei asked. "He has no clue. You wouldn't even be able to prove that charge to begin with."

VandeHei described Sammon's remarks Sunday as "ridiculous."

"This is bull, Jim," O'Reilly said toward the end of the debate. "You're just not telling the truth."

In the next segment, Brit Hume, who was Sammon's predecessor running the Washington bureau, didn't make any gross generalizations about the media hating the tea party movement.

Instead, Hume acknowledged that recent news coverage of the movement "has been more neutral and more extensive and better than it was."


And let me add this to what Vandehei said, O'Reilly did an entire talking points memo on the Tea Party Convention, and then he had a full segment on it with Brit Hume, and not once did they provide any analysis of what actually happened at the Convention. All they did was cry and bitch about how the mainstream media reported on it.

Not to mention, not one thing was said about the racist statement from Tancredo, all the far right speakers, the fact that they are only going to support conservative candidates who agree with the Republican Party Platform, or the notes that Palin the dummy had to write on her hand. They ignored all the actual news, and spent the first 15 minutes of the show crying about the mainstream media coverage of it. That's not journalism, it's cry baby bullshit that nobody cares about but O'Reilly.

Olbermann On The O'Reilly/Stewart Interview
By: Steve - February 8, 2010 - 1:00pm

Here is what Keith Olbermann had to say about the O'Reilly/Stewart interview Friday night. It's a little long, but worth the read.

OLBERMANN: Jon Stewart and Billo, why did FOX not televised the parts in which Stewart asked him why FOX insisted you couldn't criticize Bush in war time but all it does is now criticize Obama in wartime.


STEWART: The point is, any criticism of the president in wartime.

O'REILLY: About anything?

STEWART: That's what the network is about.

O'REILLY: I criticized Bush all day long.

STEWART: Please.



OLBERMANN: In his much hyped interview with Jon Stewart, it was emphasized again why O'Reilly goes the way he goes, because he's live. He's on tape. Any time one of the interviewees cleans his clock, he can edit it out. Like with Jon Stewart.

Fortunately for us, O'Reilly's personality is so fragile that a little faint praise from one of his betters often causes him to drop his guard and do something revealing, like putting the censored clips of Stewart on the Internet. Oops.

It's easy to see why The Factor didn't bother to include any of this on the actual show. The first bit of web-only content, O'Reilly taking exception to Stewart taking him out of context on "The Daily Show."


O'REILLY: You take a clip and you take it out of context. You did it with me.

STEWART: I disagree with that.

O'REILLY: You disagree with the context?

STEWART: I disagree that we took it out of context.

O'REILLY: You cut it. You cut-the quotes were you mocked me-

STEWART: Well, we do mock you.

O'REILLY: Yes. And I mock myself. So you're in good territory with that. You showed a clip of me criticizing anti-Bush protesters.

STEWART: That's right.

O'REILLY: But you didn't use the whole clip.

STEWART: Well, your problem was, if I recall correctly-let me see if I can get this straight. We-the idea was that Fox has become a liberal network, that you love protests against government. And we showed how during the Bush administration, you said thousands of protesters have been arrested and surveys show most protesters are loons. Is that right?

O'REILLY: Right. Here's what I said. There are anti-Bush protesters here in New York. While most of these people have been peaceful, more than a thousand have been arrested. But you cut out, while most of these people are peaceful. You picked it up after. But that's OK.

STEWART: The point was-let me tell you what the point was, just so I can explain, because I don't want to take things out of context. We work very hard not to. Here was the context. I don't believe we did take it out of context. What you said about the protesters in the Tea Party movement was, you know, we want-it was about the mainstream media, that they were treating the Tea Party protesters unfairly. You said we here at The Factor.

You refer to it like it's the Borg, some weird sort of third person. We hear at The Factor, we treat protesters with respect and we don't refer to them as loons.

O'REILLY: Unless they're arrested and hurt people.

STEWART: See, that, you didn't say.


OLBERMANN: On O'Reilly's show we hear Stewart saying, quote, "here is the brilliance of Fox News, what you have been able to do, you and Dr. Ailes. You've been able to mainstream conservative talk radio." But immediately after that, a lengthy exchange that was edited out, you know, just for its content.


STEWART: So what you've done is taken a cyclonic, narrative driven news organization-media arm of a political party, of a political wing, and you've sprinkled it. With a little bit --

O'REILLY: What do you mean a little bit? From 9:00 to 4:00, when Cavuto comes on, that's like seven hours.

STEWART: Not even close. Because they're also part of the journey.

O'REILLY: Who is part of the journey?

STEWART: The journey begins in the morning.

O'REILLY: Fox and Friends.

STEWART: With the wide-eyed innocence of Fox and Friends. You know, Obama has czars. I googled czar. Did you know that's a Russian word for a Russian leader?

Or they will go through these children in second grade are singing the praises of Obama. Do you know they sing the praises of their leader in North Korea.

Then, when the hard news comes on, they go, some people are concerned that they're indoctrinating children.


OLBERMANN: On the show, Bill-O included Stewart saying that he, O'Reilly, was now the sane one on Fox News, which Stewart added is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. And O'Reilly conceded that Sean Hannity is a Republican, but insisted that Glenn Beck is like an everyman, who never shills for the Republican party, no matter how strong his opinion of President Obama is.

What you would not have seen is this exchange, the part where Stewart performs a neat, quick dissection of Neil Cavuto.


STEWART: No, Cavuto is not sane.

O'REILLY: Cavuto is insane? Neil Cavuto?

STEWART: You know what's great about Cavuto? We did a piece on this, the Cavuto mark. His thing is all about questions. "Are Democrats tanking the stock market," question mark. It's all done with this kind of very subtle propaganda. It's all questions. I'm not saying Obama is a Stalinist, I'm just putting up Stalin's picture behind me.


OLBERMANN: Just this week, Cavuto claimed, in question form, that maybe nothing was wrong with Toyotas, that maybe it was just an Obama plot to sell union made American cars.

Finally, Stewart returned to one of his main points, that when President Bush was president, respect was not only offered by Fox News, but demanded of all the country's citizens. But when Obama was elected, Fox News reversed itself. This analysis was, again, web only, of course.


STEWART: Fox News has done a 180 on so many integral principles of what you would imagine a news organization to be. Fox News used to be all about you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable. It's treasonous. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

All of a sudden, for some reason, you can run out there and say Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country.

O'REILLY: But not in the Afghanistan situation.

STEWART: They've absolutely said he doesn't know what he's doing.

O'REILLY: Not here.

STEWART: You're talking about-

O'REILLY: Everybody here has been respectful in that theater, and not undermined anything in that theater.

STEWART: That's absolutely not true. You went through the whole dithering thing-

O'REILLY: -- too long to make up his mind to deploy.

STEWART: That's not the point. The point is any criticism of a president in wartime-

O'REILLY: About anything?

STEWART: That's what the network was about.

OREILLY: I talked about bush all day long.

STEWART: Please.


OLBERMANN: Just for contrast, when Stewart savaged me two weeks ago, I ran the whole thing on this show. And he didn't even do it on this show. When O'Reilly interviews Stewart live, and lets him say stuff like that on TV, not just on the net, I'll pay off part of his next harassment settlement.


And to add what Keith said, think about O'Reilly complaining that Stewart did not air the entire clip when he talked about O'Reilly saying protestors are loons, after he had said he respects all protesters. Then O'Reilly did not air the entire Stewart interview, he left 30 minutes of it on the cutting room floor. Talk about hypocrisy, that's hypocrisy to the tenth power.

What happened is when liberals protest O'Reilly calls them loons, but when conservatives protest O'Reilly said he respects all protesters. Which is a lie, because he called liberal protesters loons. Stewart busted O'Reilly for it, and O'Reilly pulled the lame you took me out of context garbage, when Stewart was right, and he did not take him out of context.

Not to mention, O'Reilly runs out of context cherry picked partial clips of liberals almost every night, so he has no right at all to complain about anyone using partial clips of what he said, especially when it was in context. In fact, O'Reilly is the king of using out of context partial clips, he does it as much as anyone, if not more than anyone. And they always make liberals look bad, he never does it to make conservatives look bad.

1st Quarter Fund Drive
By: Steve - February 8, 2010 - 11:00am

Hey folks, I want to thank the people who made donations during our 1st quarter fund drive. The total was $45.00, I got one donation for $30.00, one for $10.00, and one for $5.00, which is not very impressive, but I do appreciate it very much.

I get 1,500 to 2,000 page views a day, that's 28,000 page views to 3 donations. I appreciate what I got, but it's only enough to keep me going for one month. That means around the end of this month I'll have to ask for more donations.

And btw, I got 3 e-mails from people saying they would send me a donation by snail mail, but I never got them. I do not know if they were serious, or if they were Republicans saying it to make me think I will get a donation from them, which they do all the time.

I am writing this to thank the people who made donations, but I do have to say I am very disappointed in the amount I raised. My goal was $150.00, that would pay for 3 months of website/internet/ISP fees, and I did not even raise a third of that.

So if anyone wants to make a donation for next month now, you can:

Click Here To Donate!

Palin Caught With Notes Written On Her Palm
By: Steve - February 8, 2010 - 9:00am

Who writes notes in her hand, 13 year old kids who cheat on a test in school, and Sarah Palin. How can anyone take this woman serious, she is a dummy, a dope, a moron. Her speech was ridiculous generic nonsense, when she was not attacking President Obama with false claims, it basically sounded like she had just re-written her VP campaign speech from 2008, or had someone re-write it for her.

In the Q&A part of the speech she made a fool of herself, other than the notes in her hand that said: Energy, Budget Cuts, Taxes, and Lift Americans Spirit. She did not even answer the questions, one question was what is the Palin plan. And I am still waiting to hear what it is, because she never answered the question. Not to mention, what kind of moron has to write Life Americas Spirit on your hand, can't you remember that, and how is that a policy or a plan, it's not.

After watching that Palin speech any clear thinking person has to see that she is a fraud, and nothing but a coached talking points reading moron. It's all a PR promotion, none of her interviews are live with anyone who would ask her tough questions. Because we saw what happens when she does live interviews, she makes a fool of herself with her crazy rambling answers.

At one point Palin was asked a question and she said "I am not knowing" about something. Who says that, nobody I know of, most people say I do not know, or I don't know, but she said I am not knowing, which is something a 10 year old might say, not a woman who might run for President in 2012. In the post speech analysis even the conservative Neil Boortz said Palin did not look good, and that he would not vote for her in 2012, and that was before we found out she had notes written on her palm.

And you can bet that O'Reilly will report on the Palin speech tonight and spin it to make her look smart, and as good as possible. The question is, will he mention the notes on her hand, or will he ignore it. I would say there is a good chance he ignores it, but since Andrea Mitchell made fun of Palin this morning for the hand notes, O'Reilly might mention it because it has been reported in the media.

I have one last thing to say on Palin, I pray that she wins the 2012 Republican primary. Because if she does, Obama will crush her far right dumb ass. Polls right now have Obama beating her 55 to 31, with only 24% of independents voting for her. In fact, Obama beats Palin worse than any other Republican, so my message to the Republicans is to please make Sarah Palin your primary winner, because that will guarantee 4 more years of Obama.

And btw, the fact that 71% of Republicans love Sarah Palin, when only 24% of independents and 5% of Democrats do, says a lot about how biased and brainwashed most Republicans are. It shows that they are out of touch with most Americans, because in the 2012 Presidential poll only 31% of ALL Americans say they would vote for her. While at the same time, 70% say she is not qualified, as Republicans voted her their #1 candidate. It's what I call being blinded by ideology.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About CBS Tea Party Poll
By: Steve - February 8, 2010 - 8:00am

On the Friday 2-5-10 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly made the Tea Party convention his top story, and he had Chris Wallace on to discuss it. Here is what they said:

The first National Tea Party Convention is underway in Nashville, and The Factor welcomed Chris Wallace, who will interview keynote speaker Sarah Palin on Fox News Sunday.
WALLACE: "This is middle America, they're 'Joe' and 'Jan' from Indiana who own a small business. These are not radicals, but they feel radicalized and want to start this new movement. They are certainly not crackpots - I was just in a workshop and this is very practical nuts and bolts stuff about how you organize a political movement."
O'Reilly said that tea partiers seem to be winning over other Americans:
O'REILLY: "I don't know whether this is just a hobby or whether this is developing into a serious political movement, but there's a new poll out that shows most Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party."
Notice that O'Reilly does not name that poll, or cite any numbers. That's because he is lying, and the poll does not show that most Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party. O'Reilly failed to name the poll, or cite any numbers from it because it says the opposite of what he claims.

Billy did not name the poll or cite any numbers because they show he is wrong. Here is what the actual poll said:
Nashville, Tennessee -- One-third of Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement, but a plurality has no opinion at all, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that 26 percent of the public has an unfavorable view of the Tea Party movement and that 4 in 10 have not heard of the movement or don't know enough to form an opinion. The poll's Friday-morning release comes as what's billed as the first national Tea Party convention begins its first full day of meetings in Nashville.

"The Tea Party movement is a blank slate to many Americans."

According to the survey, Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party movement; Republicans like it by a 3-to-1 margin. Among independents, 35 percent of independents hold a positive view and 24 percent have a negative view.
Now remember what O'Reilly said, "There's a new poll out that shows most Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party."


The poll says one third of the people (33.3%) have a favorable view of the Tea Party. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, one third is not MOST people, it's not even 40% of the people. So you are a LIAR.

Not only does it say that only 33.3% of the people have a favorable view of the Tea Party, it says 40% have never even heard of them, which is more people than have a favorable view of them. Which also proves you are a biased partisan liar who was just caught lying about a Tea Party poll.

Then on top of that your girlfriend Sarah Palin does not do very well in the poll either. The poll also indicates that Americans are split on the former Alaska governor, with 43 percent seeing her in a positive light and 46 percent holding an unfavorable view.

Opinion on Sarah Palin also breaks down along party lines, with seven in 10 Democrats disliking her and seven in 10 Republicans with a positive view. She has a net-negative rating among independents: 42 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable.

And now you have the facts, the facts that show how O'Reilly spins and lies about polls to make the Tea Party look better, and my other blog posting shows how O'Reilly lies that they are not a conservative movement. It's conclusive proof that O'Reilly is nothing but a spin doctor for the Republican Party, The Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.

The Real Truth About The Tea Party
By: Steve - February 7, 2010 - 10:00am

For anyone that does not know it, the Tea Party is a group of fringe conservatives who got together to form a new political party, because they think the Republicans in office are not far right enough. They hate President Obama, all the Democrats, and they hate moderate Republicans.

And btw, you will never see any of this reported by O'Reilly, because he is pretending the Tea Party is just middle Americans who are mad over big government spending, so people will not think they are just a bunch of right-wing loons, which they are, and just like he pretends he is a nonpartisan independent so people will not think he is a right-wing loon, which they do.

So they started this Tea Party nonsense because they think the Republicans who are currently in office are not conservative enough. That means if you vote for anyone linked to the Tea Party, you are voting for people who are on the fringe, as in far right conservatives.

As if we did not need more evidence that the Tea Party is nothing but a group of conservatives who are mad about Republicans not being conservative enough, we have Mark Skoda, chairman of The Memphis Tea Party. He was a main part of the Tea Party convention on Saturday, including a Q&A segment that was shown on C-SPAN.

On Friday even reported this:
Tea Party Movement Produces New Political Organization

In a bid to advance the tea party movement from holding rallies to holding office, the leaders of the anti-establishment groups announced a new political organization Friday that they say will "endorse, support and elect" conservatives across the country.
Notice that is from, they admit the Tea Party is only going to support, endorse, and try to get CONSERVATIVES elected. That is not coming from NBC or MSNBC, it's coming from Fox. And yet O'Reilly denies that the Tea Party is nothing but a group of conservatives, when his own network is reporting that is exactly what they are.

Here is even more from the article:
Mark Skoda, Chairman of The Memphis TEA Party, made the announcement at a news conference in the middle of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

"Let us not be naive here. The notion of us holding up signs ... does not get people elected," said Skoda, who is poised to become president of the new group. Skoda said the organization would take in small donations as well as corporate donations.

According to a written statement, the group would work to build a "sustainable coalition of elected officials" on the national level and in state and local races that might not be getting the attention of the Republican Party establishment.

The announcement came with an official platform that could help define what the tea party movement stands for and expects from the candidates it supports. The group's leaders plan to support candidates who stand for a set of "First Principles."

Those principles are: fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less government, states' rights and national security.

Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform. If a particular candidate meets the proposed criteria he or she would be eligible for fundraising and grassroots support.

Once elected to office, members would be expected to join a congressional caucus of "like-minded representatives" who attend regular meetings and are held accountable for the votes they cast. Those who stray from the tea party path would risk losing the new organization's support and a possible re-election challenge.
Notice this part:

"Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform."

Now here is a question for Bill O'Reilly, if the Tea Party candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform, how are they not Republicans, as you claim. If they are expected to support the Republican National Committee platform, they are Republicans!

And remember folks, that information is coming from This one article destroys all the O'Reilly lies about the Tea Party. And it is from his own networks website. If they are just middle Americans who are opposed to big government spending, why are they expected to support the Republican National Committee platform.

This one little article does two things, it is conclusive proof that the Tea Party crowd are in fact conservatives who are trying to start a new Republican Party, that is even more conservative than the Republican Party we have now. And it also shows that O'Reilly is a dishonest journalist for denying the Tea Party is conservative, when even his own fricking network is reporting they are.

O'Reilly vs Stewart (The Whole Story)
By: Steve - February 7, 2010 - 9:00am

John Cook at took the full interview and put out some of the transcript, and some video showing what O'Reilly edited out, you should read (and watch) it. Here is some of it:

O'Reilly boasted that his edit of their 42-minute interview for broadcast was "a fair cut" and invited viewers to have a look at the unedited version online to judge for themselves: "Some of these idiots in the press who hate us, 'O'Reilly cut the interview to make Stewart look'-OK, all of that is bull. It's a fair cut. And then when you watch the cut and watch the whole interview you'll see it."

So we took him up on the offer, and guess what? If by "fair cut" O'Reilly means "cut in a manner that left some of Stewart's best lines, most effective arguments, and most convincing evidence out of the interview and hidden from the broadcast audience," then he's absolutely right.

To watch the Fox News cut of this exchange, you'd think O'Reilly scored a minor point by mocking Stewart's repeated use of the word "cyclonic":
O'REILLY: Cavuto sane?

STEWART: Being the thinnest kid at fat camp. So let's just get that straight. Here is what Fox has done through their cyclonic, perpetual...

O'REILLY: We're back to the cyclonic.

STEWART: Their cyclonic perpetual emotion machine that is a 24-hour a day, 7-day a week. They've taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into a full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao. Explain to me why that is the narrative of your network?
Here's what Stewart really said about Neil Cavuto's practice of raising "Is Obama a Stalinist?"-style questions:
I know what this is. I come from Jersey-it's the same thing: "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money. With people." Fox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."
Of course, Fox had to cut something. But they left in a lengthy and stupid bit about Jon Stewart being O'Reilly's vice president, and all sorts of lame O'Reilly banter. To his credit, O'Reilly did repeatedly point his viewers to the full interview online, so it's not like he's exactly trying to hide anything. More like he wants to look good on TV, which is basically the only thing he's ever cared about aside from smearing deep-fried chickpea balls on naked underlings in the shower.

You can read and watch it all here:

Here is the bottom line, O'Reilly did a 42 minute interview with Jon Stewart, so what he should have done is give Stewart the entire hour and show every minute of it, unedited. That's what an honest journalist would have done, but O'Reilly is not an honest journalist, so what he did was slice and dice the interview to make himself look as good as possible, while leaving some of the best stuff from Stewart on the cutting room floor.

More Republican Hypocrisy On The Stimulus
By: Steve - February 6, 2010 - 2:00pm

The hypocrisy is stunning, and notice that O'Reilly does not report any of this, ever. The Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford waged a high-profile war against the economic stimulus package last spring, claiming that accepting the $700 million for his state would lead to a thing called slavery. Even as his state's unemployment rate climbed above the national average, Sanford maintained his partisan and politically motivated refusal to take the funds.

But Thursday, Sanford flew to Washington to demand $300 million in stimulus money for education, the State newspaper reports:
Sanford, who spent much of last year fighting parts of the Obama administration's stimulus plan, now wants S.C. to have a piece of the $4 billion stimulus money..
Sanford's trip is especially hypocritical because the majority of stimulus money destined for South Carolina was to fund education and save thousands of teachers jobs. Yet, in March, Sanford told Fox News host Glenn Beck that taking the money would be akin to "fiscal child abuse." Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said of Sanford's trip: "I am pleased to see that the governor is finally taking an interest in South Carolina's public schools." After going to court last year to prevent stimulus funds, Clyburn added, "his meeting with Secretary Duncan appears to be the governor's admission that the stimulus was not only necessary but effective."

Sanford's objection to taking stimulus education funding became especially poignant after eight-year-old South Carolinian Ty'Sheoma Bethea famously asked President Obama to fix her crumbling school. In June, the state Supreme Court finally ordered Sanford to take the $700 million and now, Bethea's school is being rebuilt with $23.5 million of stimulus money.

Sanford's opposition to taking the federal aid -- which mirrored that of other high-profile GOP governors, like Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Rick Perry (R-TX) -- was viewed by many as an effort to lay the groundwork for a run for higher office. But after his affair dashed those hopes, Sanford seems to have gained a new interest doing what is right for his state.

ALL Of Fox News Ignoring The Senator Shelby Story
By: Steve - February 6, 2010 - 1:30pm

Not only is O'Reilly ignoring the Republican Senator Shelby story, ALL of Fox News is ignoring it too. As the Media turn their attention to the latest snowstorm to hit the nation's capital, no matter how much snow ultimately falls, one big story has been buried by Fox.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put a "blanket hold" on several of President Obama's nominations for the executive branch. The move has the effect of requiring 60 senators to vote for cloture to break it.

At least someone has reported it, TPMDC's Evan McMorris-Santoro has been on the story and reported this Friday:
SANTORO: Senator Shelby has placed holds on several pending nominees due to unaddressed national security concerns," Shelby spokesperson Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement. "Among his concerns" are the progress on multi-billion dollar defense contract that would see planes built in Mobile, AL and Obama's decision to scrap a $45 million FBI improvised explosive device lab Shelby secured an earmark for in 2008.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs fired back at Shelby Friday:
GIBBS: "I guess if you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold up 70 qualified individuals to make government work better because he didn't get his earmarks," Mr. Gibbs told reporters today.

"If that's not the poster child for how this town needs to change the way it works, I fear there won't be a greater example of silliness throughout the entire year of 2010."
Now just imagine the outrage you would see over at Fox News if a Democrat were holding up several Presidential nominations because he did not get two earmarks. One would have to imagine Fox's outrage over the Shelby story, because as of Friday night, according to Nexis Lexis, Fox's major shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, had not said one word about the story.

Big News O'Reilly Ignored Last Week
By: Steve - February 6, 2010 - 10:30am

O'Reilly has been complaining that all the rest of the media is liberal, except for Fox of course, and that they are biased by ignoring important news stories that make Obama or the Democrats look bad. Which is ridiculous, because they report on almost everything, it's Fox who ignores almost every story that makes a Republican look bad. And if they do ignore a story, it's probably not something they care about, and it will not get ratings.

And btw, let's say the rest of the media does lean left, as O'Reilly claims. They are in the business of getting ratings, just as the shows on Fox News are. So if most of their viewers lean left, then they are going to run stories they think their viewers will like, that will get them the most ratings. And Fox News does the very same thing, most of their viewers lean right, so they run stories they think their viewers will like the most to get then the highest ratings.

So Fox and the rest of the media are doing the exact same thing, they run the stories they think will get the highest ratings from the people who watch them. But here is the problem, somehow O'Reilly has a problem with the rest of the media doing it, while he has no problem with Fox doing it. The whole thing is massive hypocrisy, and a giant double standard, from O'Reilly. Fox News ignores a ton of real news stories because they make a Republican look bad, and O'Reilly ignores them too, if not worse than Fox.

Just last week O'Reilly ignored numerous news stories that made Republicans look bad, here is just a partial list:

1) O'Reilly ignored the Scott Roeder murder trial of Dr. Tiller, where the pro-life Roeder walked into a CHURCH and murdered Dr. Tiller during a CHURCH service. This is the same abortion doctor that O'Reilly himself has called "Tiller The Baby Killer" numerous times. And once O'Reilly (who is also pro-life) said if he could get his hands on Tiller he would choke him to death. It was a week long trial on tv all day every day, and then at the end Roeder was found guilty 12 to 0 after only 35 minutes. Not only did O'Reilly not mention the trial one time in a week, he did not say a word about the verdit either, and he even has two legal segment on his show every week with three different attorneys. And yet, he still never said one word about the trial, or the conviction.

2) The Sarah Palin e-mails. A thousand e-mails from Palin and her husband were made public, and they show how corrupt Palin was, yet O'Reilly never said a word about any of them. It was all over the media Friday, except on the Factor, O'Reilly ignored the entire story and never said a word about it. Maybe because he was too busy interviewing/flirting with the two Super Bowl cheerleaders. He did an entire segment with the two cheerleaders, but he had no time for the Palin e-mails. Even though it was the lead story on almost every news show in the country, except on Fox.

3) The Tancredo racist comment at the tea party convention. Even though he did a segment on the tea party, it was never mentioned. He said you should have to take a test before you can vote, which is what they used to do years ago in the south to keep blacks from voting. Tancredo was the featured speaker at the Tea Party convention. O'Reilly did a segment on it with Chris Wallace who was there live, and they never even mentioned the Tancredo racism. After they denied it was a bunch of conservatives, when all the people who run it are conservatives, and all the speakers are conservatives.

What's really funny is that what Tancredo said was real racism, yet O'Reilly ignored that. But he did report on the fake racism story about the NBC menu. O'Reilly and Goldberg did a segment on that, even though it was not racism, and they both even admitted it was not racism. It's like bizarro world, ignore real racism, and report on the fake racism.

4) O'Reilly has not said a word about the Republican Senator Shelby holding up 70 of Obama nominees because he did not get 2 earmarks. Even though the guy rails against government spending, he is holding them up because he did not get some big government spending for his state. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is attracting a great deal of attention for putting a blanket hold on all 70 of President Obama's pending executive nominations in order secure pork for his state. According to congressional experts, Shelby's hold is both a rare and aggressive abuse of his power.

Shelby had quite a very different attitude when a Republican sat in the White House. In early 2005 -- shortly after winning his fourth term to the Senate -- Shelby complained, Far too many of the President's nominees were never afforded an up or down vote, because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain. He added, Inaction on these nominees is a disservice to the American people.

5) The fact that many sponsors pulled out of the tea party, and it was all right-wing speakers. Even though O'Reilly and Wallace claimed it was middle America. Not once did they report that many sponsors pulled out because they think it's a big scam to make money, and the group that ran it even admits they are a for-profit company. O'Reilly has never reported any of this, and he continues to lie that it's middle America, when we all know it's a bunch of right-wing loons who hate Obama.

6) O'Reilly ignored the best parts of the Jon Stewart interview, especially the part where Stewart confronts O'Reilly about him saying you must support the president during a time of war, but only when Bush was the president. O'Reilly did not air that part of the interview. And btw, it was a 42 minute interview, O'Reilly edited it down to 12 minutes, that means 30 minutes of it was left on the cutting room floor. That 30 minutes O'Reilly did not air is when Stewart made some of his best arguments, O'Reilly did not show that, and edited the interview to make himself look as good as possible, just as I expected he would. Not to mention, in the past O'Reilly claimed the Factor is never edited. then he edited 30 minutes out of the Stewart interview.

7) During an interview with Don Imus on the Fox Business Network, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace was promoting his interview with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. When Imus randomly asked whether she will "be sitting on your lap" during the interview, Wallace replied, "One can only hope."

Friday morning, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy asked Wallace about his comment. Co-host Gretchen Carlson was flabbergasted by the exchange between Wallace and Imus, and asked, "Would you ask that of a man?" Wallace was silent for a few seconds before stumbling over a response and changing the subject to whether she would sit on Brad Pitt's lap during an interview. O'Reilly ignored it all, even though he had Chris Wallace on his show live to discuss the interview and to report on the Tea Party convention.

8) The Tea Party convention only had 600 people show up, yet O'Reilly claims they might take over and be a serious movement. If they can only get 600 people to show up for their convention, how in the hell is that possible. Not once did O'Reilly or Wallace report that only 600 people showed up, or that the Palin speech is not even sold out. They did report that Palin is the keynote speaker, but all that does is give up more evidence that the Tea Party is all Republicans, because nobody likes Palin except Republicans. A new poll even has her #1 to be President, with Republicn voters only. With everyone else, she is dead last, and they say she is not qualified.

9) The unemployment rate dropped to 9.7%, it was reported just about everywhere on Friday, except the O'Reilly Factor, and the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, as he claims he is fair to President Obama. I guess he was too busy flirting with the two cheerleaders, in a 4 minute segment on how they are big business, when they only make a lousy $6,000 a year.

10) O'Reilly also ignored the story about Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Saying the Democratically Elected Congress Is 'Exactly The Same' As Kazakhstan's Dictatorship. During a hearing Tuesday of the Helsinki Commission that featured Kazakh foreign minister Kanat Saudabayev, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that Kazakhstan's nature as a virtual dictatorship doesn't concern him because "Washington, D.C. is exactly the same" because it is controlled by Democrats. Of course, Democratic-controlled Washington, D.C., is not the same as Kazahkstan. The central Asian country is classified by the CIA as an "authoritarian" state with "little power outside the executive branch."

O'Reilly never said a word about it, and you know if a Democrat said something like that about a Republican majority Congress O'Reilly would be all over it. And that is just a few of the actual news stories he has ignored, in one week, because they all make Republicans look bad. Then he has the nerve to complain about the so-called liberal media ignoring important news stories, when that is what O'Reilly does every night.

And for the people that do not know it, the Factor is not live, it's taped. That way O'Reilly can edit out things he does not like, ever after he said the show is never edited.

The Friday 2-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 6, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Trial Errors. O'Reilly did another talking points memo on the KSM trial, he said all hell is breaking loose. Then he bragged about being right that the trial would not be held in New York. When he had nothing to do with it, Obama only changed his mind when Mayor Bloomberg wrote him a letter with the cost, and the logistics of it. O'Reilly said it was wrong to have the trial in federal court, but he says nothing about the 300 terrorists that were tried in federal court under Bush. So O'Reilly only has a problem with it when Obama does it, but when Bush did it he said nothing.

Then O'Reilly has Chris Wallace on to discuss the Tea Party convention, and his interview with Sarah Palin, who is the keynote speaker. And btw, there was a big story all over the news Friday about Wallace saying he hopes Palin does the interview sitting on his lap, it was started on Imus, and the Fox & Friends show also talked about it. But O'Reilly had Wallace on his show and never said a word about it. As usual, he ignores that stuff when it involves a Republican, but if it involved Keith Olberman he would have been all over it.

Wallace was live at the Tea Party convention and said it was middle America, and denied that they are right-wing crackpots. Proving he is a biased fraud of a journalist, because that is exactly what it is, and they are almost all right-wing conservatives. O'Reilly said he is not sure it is a valid movement, and then he also denied it is not just Republicans, when that is what they are. All the speakers there are Republicans, and that is a fact. But O'Reilly and Wallace dishonestly reported that the Tea Party is middle America, when they both know it's a bunch of conservatives who hate Obama. Notice that no Democratic guests were on to comment on it, that's so there is nobody to tell the truth about the Tea Party convention.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the NBC menu. Goldberg said it was not racist, and that the whole story is crazy. O'Reilly even admitted it was not racism, and yet he reported it anyway, just so the both of them could say it was not racist. And they ignored 90% of the details in the story. The only thing they mentioned is that the Chef was black. Here is the information they ignored, and never said a word about.

The menu was put out by a black woman, the guy who called it racist (Questlove) was joking when he tweeted it was racist, and no other blacks who saw it thought it was racist, because the menu sign was made by a black woman, not a white person.

Roots drummer Questlove went into the cafeteria at NBC and noticed a sign at the cafeteria about a meal "in honor of Black History Month" fried chicken, collard greens and black-eyed peas. The musician, decided to make a joke about it on Twitpic.

Questlove realized what happened, because an hour later he tweeted, that it was all a mistake, It was a joke taken too far. The whole thing was a joke, he was not being serious. And yet O'Reilly wasted an entire segment on his so-called news show to cover this nonsense, just because he hates NBC. And O'Reilly ignored it all except that the Chef was a black woman.

Then O'Reilly and Goldberg cried some more about liberal bias in the media, and how Obama should stop attacking Fox News. The whole segment was a total waste of time, it was all right-wing spin with no news. Basically it's a weekly segment for O'Reilly and Goldberg to cry that all the media is biased except for Fox News.

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on once again to discuss the money raised from The Hope For Haiti Telethon. And I refuse to report anything they said about it because Fox News did not air the telethon, so they have no right to ask about anything they do. I will say this, O'Reilly implied on the pre-show website that the money is not getting to where it should be, but Geraldo said he thinks it is, and he praised George Clooney for working to get the money to Haiti, and he said $35 million of it has already got there. So O'Reilly changed the topic as fast as possible, and talked about Michael Jacksons doctor. On the Factor preview page at it said this:

"NBC cafeteria posts racist menu"

Even though it was not racism, and both O'Reilly and Goldberg admitted it was not racism. The whole thing was a joke, and they never reported any of it.

It also said this about the Haiti Telethon segment:

"Where in the world is the Haiti relief money?"

"Has the money raised during the Haiti relief telethon been distributed yet?"

Which implies the money is not getting to Haiti, when the report Geraldo did said the exact opposite, and there was no question that the money is getting there.

Then O'Reilly had a segment with Daniel Lund, about a guy who was attacked by a shark. Why, who knows, how is this news. As far as I can tell it's just tabloid garbage to get ratings.

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on for his regular weekly segment. They talked about the Jon Stewart interview, and of course Beck claimed Stewart was wrong about him. O'Reilly claims Beck is not a shill for the Republican party, which is just ridiculous, because that is exactly what Beck does, and so does O'Reilly. Beck tried to make jokes about Stewart, but he was not funny. O'Reilly then made a joke about Beck's motive being purely profit. Beck said his motive is to save the country, haha, yeah right. By smearing and lying about the President and the Democrats, Beck is just insane, and O'Reilly is just as bad for letting him spew out this nonsense.

Then O'Reilly joked that Jon Stewart is destroying the country, when he does not even have a news show, it's a comedy show on the comedy network. The whole segment was just ridiculous, it's two right-wing spin doctors sitting around putting out right-wing spin, who agree with each other. They never really disputed anything Stewart said with facts or details, all they did was say Stewart is just a liberal who is wrong about them, and make a couple jokes about him. Then they claimed to not be shills for the Republican party, as they both do hour long shows every night with 95% Republican guests, and non-stop attacks on Obama and the Democrats on a right-wing news network. If that's not being a shill for the Republican party, what the hell is it?

Okay now get this, the last segment was an interview with two cheerleaders that will be working the Super Bowl. How this is news is beyond me, and I sure as hell am not going to report on this nonsense. I love cheerleaders as much as anyone, but this is not a segment that should be on a so-called hard news show. O'Reilly tried to justify the segment by saying it was big business, with calenders and films etc. Which is just laughable, the whole thing was just a segment for O'Reilly the pervert to get close to the two cheerleaders. He asked them how much they make, and they said up to $6,000 a year, yeah that's big business Billy, NOT!

Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And once again not one Democrat was on the entire show. It was all Republicans, all the time.

The Thursday 2-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 5, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Stewart vs. O'Reilly The Country Reacts. O'Reilly talked about the interview with Stewart last night, and mentioned that the entire unedited interview is on Basically O'Reilly put his spin on the interview, and once again denied that Beck is a conservative, which is just ridiculous. O'Reilly also cried about the rest of the media not having conservatives as anchors, when Fox has no liberals. Then O'Reilly said Fox is fair and balanced, and said if you disagree you are crazy.

Then part 2 of the O'Reilly/Stewart interview was on, a shorter version. O'Reilly started with some nonsense about pretending he was the President, and he was trying to vet Stewart to be his Vice President. They talked about global warming, and O'Reilly made some lame joke about grilling a burger, or something like that. Then they talked about wars around the world, the KSM trial, Sarah Palin, and terrorism. Stewart gave O'Reilly a smackdown about terrorism. And btw, just as Wednesday night, not one Democrat was put on the Factor to discuss the Jon Stewart interview.

Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on to discuss the Stewart interview. Ingraham said they looked pretty sweet together. Then she made a joke about O'Reilly and Stewart going on tour. Then Ingraham made some ridiculous comment about Stewart using the Factor to announce he is not happy with Obama. Which is just ridiculous, and total right-wing propaganda. Even O'Reilly disagreed with her, and said Stewart was on to point out the bias at Fox, as he sees it. And then of course Ingraham trashed Obama for his speech at the national prayer breakfast. She hated it, and claims Obama politicized it too much. Ingraham also attacked Hillary Clinton by misrepresenting what she said, and once again O'Reilly disagreed with what Ingraham was saying about Hillary.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to discuss the Planned Parenthood ad, to counter the pro-life Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad. The PP ad just said they want everyone to have a choice, not be forced to do anything, or not. And of course Carlson loves the Tebow ad, and hated the PP ad, she called it petty. Hoover said the PP ad was ok with her, and said they have a right to air it. Then they talked about a Mother Teresa stamp, O'Reilly said loons are objecting to it, who, name them. I do not know anyone who objects to it, and btw, O'Reilly was talking about some atheist group.

O'Reilly even held the culture warriors over for a 2nd segment. How many times does he hold a Democratic guest over for a 2nd segment, never. In the 2nd segment they discussed Senator Scott Brown talking about his daughters all the time. Like who cares, and how is this tabloid crap news. Billy said it has caused some controversy, ok, with who, a few old farts like O'Reilly maybe, not me. Brown was asked if his daughters wanted to pose nude what would he say, and he said it is their choice, how the hell is that a controversy. The last bit of nonsense was a study about sex scenes in movies, and of course O'Reilly gave a viewer warning and played some clips of it. How is this news?

Then Megyn Kelly was on for her regular weekly segment. They talked about an IGROW superstore for pot in California, and a bullying case. O'Reilly said the whole medical marijuana thing is just a big scam to get pot legalized. Kelly agreed with O'Reilly, and claims the whole thing is just a scam. They mostly made jokes about it, and once again this is not news, and nobody cares. If someone wants to smoke pot, who cares, leave them alone. Then they talked about a 17 year old high school girl who was bullied by some mean girls and she killed herself. The school suspended two girls so far, and they might have a lawsuit.

The last segment was the totally ridiculous Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. It's a total waste of time, and I do not report on it. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, where the pinhead is almost always a liberal, and the patriot is almost always a conservative, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

And btw, O'Reilly lied Wednesday night when he said John McCain was never on the Factor. He was on in 2008, let's see if O'Reilly does a correction, I bet he don't. Not to mention McCain and Palin were both going to be on the Factor in 2008 at the same time, but it had to be cancelled because of bad weather. And Cheney was all over Fox News, he just never did the Factor.

UPDATE: O'Reilly did not do a correction on the Thursday night show, that McCain did not do the Factor. As I predicted, there was no correction.

The Wednesday 2-3-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 4, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called New Poll Characterizes GOP As Evil. O'Reilly talked about the poll Daily Kos had the Research 2000 polling company run for them. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The radical loon website Daily Kos has a new poll out. The survey says 39% of self-identified Republicans think President Obama should be impeached, 63% believe he is a socialist, and only 42% think he was born in the United States. If you believe that poll, you also believe Nancy Pelosi once dated Dick Cheney.

The poll is a fraud, but what is serious is the hatred that ideological internet nuts continue to spew. And they have enablers on radio and TV, as we all know. President Obama himself is very annoyed by the continuing intrusion cable TV has on his administration, and today he advised Democratic Senators to 'turn off your CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.'
Wow, there is so many lies and so much right-wing spin in that I barely know where to start. To begin with, the poll does not characterize the GOP as evil, but it does show how stupid a lot of people in the GOP are. And it is a valid poll, it was not done by Daily Kos, they simply paid for it, and it was done by a valid polling company. O'Reilly just don't like the results of the poll, so he calls it a fraud, just because the Daily Kos paid for it. O'Reilly just does not like the poll because it makes his Republican friends look crazy and out of touch with reality, so he has to try and dismiss it as a fraud, even though it's a valid poll that mirrors the results of other polls on the same questions.

What's also funny is that Rasmussen is a Republican who puts out biased polls that make the Democrats look bad, and yet O'Reilly has never once called any of his polls a fraud. And the poll Kos had taken asked Republicans what they thought, they answered, and that is what you got. Somehow that is fraud to O'Reilly, when all they did were ask Republicans poll questions. There was no fraud, and if I were Kos or the polling company I would sue O'Reilly for slander. Remember that Kos did not take the poll, they had Research 2000 to take the poll. Just look how O'Reilly reported it, he called it a fraud poll put out by left-wing loons, that alone shows what a biased right-wing hack he is. Because he never says that about any polls put out by the right.

Then O'Reilly said Obama told Democratic Senators to turn off the cable news networks. When that is not what he said, he simply made a comment that "IF" you did not watch cable news you would see everything is not about politics. He also said that they should listen to the people, which is what they were elected to do. Obama did not advise Democratic Senators to turn off the cable news shows, he simply said they would be better off if they stopped the political games, like you see on cable news shows, and do what the people who are not on tv want.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Karl Rove on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with everything O'Reilly said, because they are both Republicans who hate the Daily Kos. Mostly because they tell the truth about O'Reilly and Rove, and they hate it because they do not want the truth about them being reported. O'Reilly even denounced the Kos site as hateful and divisive. He said, "The game is to demonize the tea party people and anybody who isn't a liberal as a kook. I think these Kos people are insane."

Then O'Reilly had the far right Dick Morris on to discuss the Obama statements. And of course he agreed with everything O'Reilly said. With no Democrat guest to counter any of their right-wing propaganda. Morris started out with a lie, he said the Obama job approval is down to 45, 46, or 47 percent. That's a lie, it's 51% at Gallup, and it's even up to 49% with the biased Rasmussen. Morris just made it up, and O'Reilly sat there and let him spin out that lie.

Morris basically said the Republicans have been doing nothing to score political points, and that they should keep doing it, instead of working with Obama to get the country on the right track. Proving they do not want to work with Obama, as they complain that Obama will not work with them. Making them traitors in my book, yet O'Reilly and Morris call it a good political strategy. O'Reilly did admit it was not good for the country, but that it's a good political tactic to win elections this November. Now imagine if the Democratic party did that when Bush was in power, O'Reilly would call them traitors. But Republicans do it and he says nothing, except to say it's a good political strategy.

Then Jon Stewart was on to school O'Reilly about his bias, and the bias at Fox News. See the videos I posted for the details. Stewart basically said Fox is an arm of the Republican party, and O'Reilly said he was insane. When it's all true, and Stewart is exactly right. Stewart said this:
STEWART: Fox News is the most passionate, and sells the clearest narrative of any news organization. The brilliance of Fox News is that you have been able to mainstream conservative talk radio. But do you truly believe Fox is non-partisan, fair and balanced and trustworthy?

You have become the most reasonable voice on Fox, which is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. Fox, through its cyclonic perpetual emotion machine, has taken reasonable concerns about this President and this economy and turned it into a full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao. Explain to me why that is the narrative of your network.
Then O'Reilly told Stewart that he was judging the entire network by a few personalities: "That's the narrative of a couple of guys - Sean Hannity, a Republican, and Glenn Beck, who is basically everyman. He doesn't shill for any party, he just spouts what he believes."

Talk about insanity, that is it. The whole network is right-wing, not just Beck and Hannity, O'Reilly is too, Cavuto is too, Kelly is too, they all are. The only guy on the entire netowrk who is even close to objective is Shepard Smith. O'Reilly even denied Beck is a Republican, and told Stewart that if you deny that you are out of your mind. Which is just ridiculous, and the only person out of their mind is O'Reilly for denying it. Beck is a total 100% right-wing shill for the Republican party.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on to talk about the Stewart interview, and to my surprise Miller actually said good things about Stewart. Most likely because they are friends. Miller said this, "I think the guy's a great comic, and I find his TV skills to be 'Garroway-esque,' which is the highest compliment I can pay somebody. I agree with him about much in life, but very little in politics. He's one of the most compelling TV presences of the last twenty years and I think he believes every word he says." Then he went on to do his usual unfunny right-wing jokes about Obama and other Democrats.

The last segment was the totally ridiculous body language segment with the blonde body language bimbo. I do not report this garbage because it's nonsense and not news. Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, not one Democrat was on the show to comment on the Stewart interview, only Republicans. And not only that, Jon Stewart was the only Democrat on the entire show.

Bill O'Reilly Talks To Jon Stewart
By: Steve - February 4, 2010 - 9:30am

Here are some videos from the O'Reilly/Stewart interview, it's all pretty good, but my favorite is when O'Reilly told Stewart that if you are trying to tell me Glenn Beck is a partisan Republican I will say you have lost your mind. And if I were Jon Stewart I would have said, my God man, you need to up the dosage on your medications. Because that is exactly what Beck is, a far right partisan Republican spin doctor, and if you deny it you are out of your mind.

Stewart: O'Reilly is "voice of sanity" on Fox, "which is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp"

Jon Stewart explains Fox/GOP "shadow government" to O'Reilly -- "Is Glenn here? Can I get a chalkboard?"

Stewart to O'Reilly: Fox News is able to "mainstream conservative talk radio" and is "in business to help Sarah Palin"

Stewart: Fox turns "reasonable concerns" about Obama, economy into "panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao"

Stewart did pretty well, but he did not do very good when O'Reilly talked about Fox News cutting away from Obama at the GOP meeting. I know the interview was edited, and Stewart may have said something about it that did not get on the air. But what I saw was not very good. Stewart let O'Reilly spin it, and lie about what happened.

O'Reilly said they showed it all but about 12 minutes, and then he used a diversion trick by talking about how MSNBC and CNN did not show all of the Brown speech. What happened is that 12 minutes was all Obama talking, that's the part they cut out. And during that 12 minutes they put Rove on to spin it, then they showed all of the GOP response. O'Reilly failed to mention any of that.

Not to mention, they claim to be the we report, you decide news network. So they cut away from the Obama speech, when CNN and MSNBC did not, to have Rove spin what Obama was saying, instead of doing the we report, you decide thing, it was we will not report, and tell you what to decide by Karl Rove. They had Rove spin it, as they were waiting for the GOP to respond, then they showed all of what the GOP said, with no cut away, and no spin on what they said with a Democrat guest.

Stewart should have corrected O'Reilly and hammered him for that, but he said nothing. And to be fair, he might have, it could have been edited out of the interview by O'Reilly. The interview was taped, and it was clearly edited, so we do not know what all Stewart said, we just see what O'Reilly let us see.

New Poll Shows How Clueless Republicans Are
By: Steve - February 4, 2010 - 9:00am

There is a new poll out by Research 2000, they only sampled Republicans, not one Independent or Democrat took the poll, it was a Republicans only poll. And the results are scary, it shows just how clueless most Republicans are. And it also shows how they feel about specific issues, like gay marriage, unions, and terrorism. Here are a few of the questions, and the shocking answers.
If the 2012 Primary for President were held today, which of the following would you vote for?

Sarah Palin was #1 with 16% of the vote, Mitt Romney was #2 with 11% of the vote, and Dick Cheney was #3 with 10% of the vote.
Now that is just scary, because in a general poll taken by everyone, 71% of the people think Palin is not even qualified to be the President. But in the Republican party they vote her their #1 candidate. I don't even know what else to say about that, except it is just sad.
Should Barack Obama be impeached?

A whopping 39% said yes, while only 32% said no. Here is my question, impeached for what?
Obama has been the President for one year, he saved the economy from disaster with the stimulus, the DOW is over 10,000, job losses per month are down from 700,000 a year ago, to 60,000 now, the 4th quarter GDP was up to 5.7%, compared to negative under Bush, and overall things are improving. So what has Obama done to be impeached, there are no scandals, no anything. For 39% of Republicans to say he should be impeached is insane.
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States?

A whopping 36% said no, while only 42% say yes.
Earth to Republican idiots, President Obama was born in America. To deny it is to deny reality. Don't you think if he was not born in America someone would have proven it before he was sworn in as the President. To claim he is not an American after being President for over a year is crazy. To anyone in the 36% who voted no, you are insane.
Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

A whopping 24% said yes, while only 43% said no.
Think about that for a minute, 24% of Republicans think President Obama wants the terrorists to win. That not only makes them clueless, it makes them flat out dumb as a rock. The correct answer should have been 0%, because President Obama does not want the terrorists to win. That answer proves that 24% of the Republican party is braindead.
Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Wow, 53% said yes while only 14% said no.
Sarah Palin is as dumb as a brick, maybe even dumber, if that's possible. The polls show that 71% of the American people do not think she is qualified, and do not want her to even run for President, let alone win. But 53% of Republicans think she is more qualified than Obama, who is the actual President, while she is just a former Governor of Alaska, who could not even handle that job. Palin is barely qualified to be a dog catcher, let alone the President.
Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Only 26% said yes, while 55% said no.
Wow, now that's what you call discrimination. What happened to you support the troops. I guess you only support the non-gay troops. I am not gay myself, but I support anyone who joins the military, gay or not. In fact, I personally think anyone who joins the military to fight for their country is a fricking hero, gay or not. To think otherwise is just sad.
Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Only 7% said yes, while a whopping 77% said no.
Have you right-wing morons ever read the Declaration of Independence, try it some time.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

A whopping 77% said yes, while only 15% said no.
Earth to right-wing morons, it will never happen. Because of a little thing called the Constitution, something you claim to believe in. Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.

Public schools are paid for with Government money, so they are not allowed to teach religion of any kind. So if you want to teach religion in schools, it has to be a private school, what part of that do you idiots not understand.
Do you consider abortion to be murder?

A whopping 76% said yes, while only 8% said no.
Which is beyond scary, because that would mean every woman in the country who has an abortion is guilty of murder. And yet, abortion is legal, not to mention not one Republican is calling for women who have abortions to be put on trial for murder. Figure that out, because I sure can't.

A possible child in a womb, is not a person until they are born, so you can not murder someone who is not born yet. Which makes you a moron if you think abortion is murder. The Supreme Court ruled that you are not a person until you can live on your own outside the womb, which is after 6 months, so any abortion before 6 months is not murder, because it's not a person yet. Got it, good, remember that.
Do you support the death penalty?

A whopping 91% said yes, while only 4% said no.
This one makes almost less sense than the abortion question. You claim to be pro-life, but you support death. Ummmmmm, huh? How can you say you are pro-life, when 91% of you support death. I have never figured that one out, because it makes no sense. Not to mention in the 10 commandments it says thou shall not kill. If you are pro-life, and you support the death penalty, you are a confused hypocrite.

More On The Frank Luntz GOP Strategy Memo
By: Steve - February 4, 2010 - 8:30am

Before you read this, remember that the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has totally ignored this story, and not said one word about it. Even though he puts Luntz on his show all the time, and pretends he is an objective independent pollster. Which is dishonest on two levels, to begin with Frank Luntz is a right-wing partisan who writes strategy memos for the Republican party, and it's also dishonest for O'Reilly to not disclose any of this information.

On Tuesday night Keith Olbermann talked about the Luntz memo with Steve Hildebrand. Here are some highlights from that interview.

OLBERMANN: The short version of the advice from pollster/strategist Frank Luntz to Republicans moving from trying to kill health care reform to trying to kill financial reform: lie about it. Paint it as a massive government takeover-again.

Only this time, the pollster behind the strategy is so enamored with his own influence that he has leaked his own memo. You may recall that even President Obama at the GOP retreat recognized that Republicans get their poll tested wordage from Frank Luntz, the GOP pollster and strategist.

Note: "O'Reilly never discloses that Luntz is a GOP pollster, not once, ever. He is just put on as Dr. Frank Luntz, pollster. O'Reilly never mentions that he is a partisan pollster, and he never puts it on the screen either. But he does mention that Karl Rove is a partisan Republican, proving that O'Reilly is dishonestly trying to cover up the fact that Luntz is a GOP pollster, otherwise he would disclose it as he does with Rove."

And in a new 17-page guide book, Luntz details how opponents of finance reform can kill it by portraying that reform as punishment for taxpayers and a reward for big banks and credit card companies, even though the opposite is true of financial reform. And while Luntz fancies himself the Yoda of Republican obstructionism, his real motivation is, in fact, slightly more crass.

The proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency would eliminate predatory mortgages. It would police the kinds of financial products that nearly brought down the entire economy and it would regulate the credit card industry, including its predatory interest rates and fees.

The thrust of the Luntz memo is to take economic anxiety and anger at the big banks and to paradoxically channel this into opposition to bank and finance regulation. Is that a fair characterization, what he and the right-wing are already doing on this?

HILDEBRAND: Sadly, Keith, it is. What Frank Luntz and the Republican Party are doing is playing reckless havoc with the American people. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should get their act together and take back a position in this country where they can provide some political leadership. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think every political leader in the country ought to be raising hell about this memo. And, you know, they should be calling on these corporations to fire Frank Luntz. They should be calling the Republicans to distance themselves from Frank Luntz.

But we also got to look at who funded that research and that memo, and call them on the carpet, too. You don't go out in a strategic way and try and kill financial reform that is desperately needed for the American people. The people that are hurting the most, we're going to hurt them even more with this strategy that Frank Luntz and the Republicans are trying to enact.

OLBERMANN: And a couple other lies from this memo, said the Consumer Protection Financial Agency would be headed by a czar, even though the position would have to be confirmed by the Senate and nobody uses the term "czar" except the Republicans. Is there any expectation that this sort of stuff won't be effective once again?

HILDEBRAND: Well, I just think they're crazy to even try this strategy. You know, these politicians and Republicans are more notorious about it than anybody, they need to stop worrying about their re-election and get to work for the American people who are hurting in this country.

Our country is on the brink of catastrophe if we don't get moving. And Washington should be held accountable for it, and these Republicans should be ashamed to have this strategy in place. And Frank Luntz clients, Ameristar and Bear Stearns and these others-they like those loopholes in this bill. I'm not sure why they're trying to kill it, but it seems a little bit on the odd side.


And now you know the truth about Frank Luntz, but you would never know it from watching the O'Reilly Factor. Because O'Reilly does not report any of this, as he covers for Frank Luntz to hide the fact that Luntz is a partisan who works for the GOP. It makes O'Reilly look bad in two ways.

For one, it shows that O'Reilly uses a Republican pollster, even though he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, and second, it shows that O'Reilly is being dishonest by not disclosing that Luntz is a biased Republican who writes strategy memos for the Republican party.

O'Reilly Says Beck Does Not Peddle Hateful Crap
By: Steve - February 3, 2010 - 9:30am

Monday night on the Factor O'Reilly asked Time Magazine's Joe Klein to comment on a recent poll showing that Americans trust Fox News more than all other television news networks. "I don't place all that much faith in many polls," Klein said.

After O'Reilly boasted about Fox's ratings, Klein noted that there are some Fox journalists "who actually bring you the news," but then went on to note that Fox also has more incendiary and hateful voices, like Glenn Beck, who O'Reilly defended as funny:
KLEIN: I think that your pal Glenn Beck is peddling a lot of hateful crap. I mean, you know --

O'REILLY: But he's funny. He's doing it in a funny way. What's hateful about it? Look, he is every man sitting on a bar stool. Why shouldn't every man have a show?

KLEIN: No, no, no. He's Father Coughlin trying to delude and entertain the American people.

O'REILLY: Oh, that's such bull.
"I don't think he's a threat to the union," Klein later added. "The union has always been too strong for nutters like Glenn Beck."

What's funny is O'Reilly himself has said that hate is wrong on the right or the left, but then he admits Beck peddles hate, and claims it's ok because he is funny while spewing his hate. Then he makes an even more ridiculous claim, that Beck is every man sitting on a bar stool. That is just insane, most of the every men I know that sit on bar stools hate Glenn Beck, and are nothing like him.

At the bar I go to, if you even mention Glenn Beck the words that I hear are nut job, lunatic, fool, right-wing idiot, etc. Nobody with a working brain thinks Glenn Beck is every man sitting on a bar stool. He is more like a few men sitting in a padded room at a mental ward.

Beck is nothing but a hate spewing right-wing idiot, who gets wealthy and famous putting out lies and hate speech about Democrats to the fools on the right who watch his show. And O'Reilly not only defended that hate, he endorses it by going on tour with the moron, and having him on the Factor once a week as a regular. But if a Democrat does one tenth of what Beck does, O'Reilly calls them un-American hate filled traitors who hate America.

Back when Democrats spoke about against Bush, when they had a good reason to, because Bush was screwing everything up, O'Reilly called them un-American, Bush hating, America haters. He said you should dismiss what they say because they just hate America, and Bush. But now today when Republicans do the exact same thing to Obama, O'Reilly says nothing. He does not call them un-American, or say they just hate America. In fact, he is doing it with them, and he agrees with them. It's hypocrisy, and a double standard, and it shows why I call O'Reilly the king of hypocrites.

The Tuesday 2-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 3, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called President Obama's Biggest Gamble. O'Reilly said we are $13 Trillion in debt, and we can not pay it back. Then O'Reilly said Obama is making a big gamble by doing all this spending, and claims that if it does not stop we will go broke. Which will never happen, it's made up bull by O'Reilly. The whole thing is a lie, and back when Bush was in power O'Reilly and the right said the debt does not matter. They even made fun of Democrats who complained about the debt, and now suddenly the debt matters. At the end of the TPM O'Reilly even admitted Obama is not going to do anything he says, so what is the point of crying about it every night.

Then O'Reilly played a clip of John McCain talking with Defense Secretary Gates about terrorism. O'Reilly loved it because McCain was saying the same things O'Reilly has said. That KSM and everyone else should be named enemy combatants and put on trial by the military. O'Reilly and McCain agree, and then O'Reilly said Obama has screwed it all up, and three strikes and your out. O'Reilly said it was just common sense, according to him, which is an oxy moron. Then O'Reilly said Obama will sink or swin on the economy and terrorism, and that Obama is failing on both.

When that is just ridiculous right-wing propaganda, because the economy is improving, and the polls show that the majority of the people approve of the job Obama is doing on both the economy and terrorism. O'Reilly is just a right-wing idiot, who is lying to you. Do a google search on the improving economy and Obama terrorism polls. And you will see that O'Reilly is wrong and just putting out right-wing lies. And btw, the big news about John McCain yesterday was his hypocrisy from a few years ago saying if military leaders support DADT he would too, then he said he still does not support it, even after military leaders said they do. O'Reilly never said a word about that, instead he reports on McCain dressing down Secretary Gates over terrorism.

Then O'Reilly talked about Obama using predator drones in Afghanistan, he had Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on to talk about a program called kill-capture. And of course they are both Republicans, and they love the program because they said it works well, and they kill a lot of terrorists doing it. In fact, they said we should do more of it and kill more of them. When that is what Obama is doing, he is doing more of it, and they even admitted Obama has expanded on the program more than what Bush was doing. And Col. Hunt even said that McCain was wrong to go after Secretary Gates. Hunt also said Gates has done a good job, but they both agree with O'Reilly that the terrorists should be tried by the military.

The next segment was Barack & A Hard Place with Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley. Colmes said Obama stuck it to the GOP at the Republican meeting by calling them out for their hypocrisy, voting no on everything, etc. Crowley even admitted it was a good move for Obama. Then O'Reilly said Colmes is never right. Crowley said Rahm Emanuel made a bad statement, when that is not Obama it's his staff, so she is clueless, because the segment is about Obama. All he did was call some Republicans f-ing retarded, in private.

Which has nothing to do with President Obama. Crowley wanted Rahm fired, then Colmes made a great point. He said Cheney did the same thing and she never called for him to be fired. O'Reilly even said Rahm should not be fired for it. This shows just how stupid Crowley is, she was on to say what the worst thing Obama did for the week was, and she complained about Rahm Emanuel using the f-word in a fricking private meeting. Earth to Crowley, Rahm Emanuel is not the President. And your hypocrisy is stunning, when confronted with the Cheney f-word incident she said but Cheney said he was sorry for it, so that makes it ok, and btw, I do not think Cheney did say he was sorry, and if he did, it would not make it ok anyway.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the Supreme Court ruling on Corporate campaign donations. And of course Stossel sides with the 5 Republican members of the Supreme Court. O'Reilly said he does not like the ruling, because it gives a Corporation the same power as a person. O'Reilly is opposed to the ruling, and he thinks it is now possible to buy an election. Earth to O'Reilly, they have already been doing that, it's just easier now. Stossel has no problem at all with the ruling. All this segment proves is that Stossel is just a little more to the right than O'Reilly is.

Then is it legal, with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Billy talked about four topics, about a man who could go to jail for taking his daughter to a church, after a judge ordered him not to. Wiehl called it ridiculous, and said that the judge is a moron. Guilfoyle said the judge is right, because both parties had an agreement with the judge and the mother. I say, who cares.

Then they talked about the magician David Copperfield being accused of rape, they note he was never charged. The woman who made the charges is a hooker, and has made false rape charges about another man, and she was charged for it. I say, who cares. Billy said Copperfield should sue her now, even though she does not have any money, and Copperfield was never charged. They talked about a Father who filmed his 17 and 19 year old kids smoking pot on tape, it was even on youtube. O'Reilly said it was horrible, and said the Father should do hard prison time. The law says under 16 it's child abuse, above 16 it's a low level beef. And yet O'Reilly wants the Father to do hard time anyway.

The last case was about a housing unit in Boston banning smoking inside their buildings. And the law is on their side, so they can do it, O'Reilly and Guilfoyle said they can do it, Wiehl thinks it's wrong. And take note of this, O'Reilly has still not said one word about the Scott Roeder trial for killing Dr. tiller, or mentioned that he was convicted last Friday. Even though he does a legal segment, and the trial was on tv all last week, O'Reilly has ignored the entire murder trial. While he complains about the media ignoring big news stories, as he does the very same thing. Then the really really far right Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about President Obama and his terrorism policies. And btw, this segment is called Charles in Charge, and O'Reilly calls him Dr. Krauthammer, just as he calls Frank Luntz, Dr. Luntz. When they are both partisan right-wing spin doctors, who never have anything good to say about Obama, or anything he does. Basically Krauthammer criticized Obama for not being tougher on terrorism, and for not having some special terrorism agency set up yet.

They were talking about a high value interrogation unit Obama said he would put together, according to Krauthammer it has not been set up yet, but I do not know if that is true or not. Then even Krauthammer said McCain was being unfair to ask Gates the same question three times. Krauthammer said once or twice would be ok, but to ask it three times was excessive. O'Reilly loved McCain grilling Gates and making him sweat, but everyone else said it was basically playing politics and being excessive. Because even most Republicans like Gates, and think he is doing a good job.

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

New Gallup Poll Proves O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Spin Doctor
By: Steve - February 2, 2010 - 12:20pm

For a couple weeks now O'Reilly has been telling anyone who will listen to him that America is a right-leaning country, and that it is moving even farther to the right. His evidence, the ratings for his show and for other Fox news shows. He also said the poll that shows Fox the most trusted also proves the country has moved to the right.

Even though that poll is flawed, because only Republicans trust Fox the most, the rest of America voted Fox the least trusted. But of course O'Reilly does not report that information, he just spins the poll to fit his agenda. Last week O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Things are changing quickly in the USA. The country is moving to the right, and President Obama may reflect that in his State of the Union address.

The Gallup people say 64 percent of Americans believe the press is doing a fair or poor job of watching the Obama administration. Again, that goes to liberal bias. It's not that FNC's hard news coverage is unfair to President Obama. It isn't. We report accurately what the president says and does.

On this opinion program, we try to give the president a fair shake and back up our criticisms with facts, but we are in the tank for no one. So it is all over. Fox News is the most trusted TV news brand in America by far.

There are big changes going on in the USA, and as the country moves to the right, the president should take notice.
And now a new Gallup Poll shows that everything O'Reilly said is wrong, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly is ignoring the facts, to spin out his right-wing talking points. Because the facts show that America has a Democratic majority, and it's not even close. But you will never see this poll reported on the Factor, because it shows that O'Reilly is a liar.

February 1, 2010 -- Party ID: Despite GOP Gains, Most States Remain Blue

And for the record, these results are based on data from Gallup Daily tracking in 2009, including interviews with more than 350,000 adults in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

And now the facts:

-- Overall, 49% of Americans in 2009 identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party, while 41% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents.

-- In total, 23 states plus the District of Columbia can be classified as solidly Democratic, with a 10 percentage-point or greater advantage in party affiliation in favor of the Democrats.

Another 10 states can be considered Democratic leaning, in which the state's Democratic supporters outnumber Republican supporters by at least 5 percentage points.

-- Four states are solidly Republican, with a better than 10-point advantage in Republican affiliation. Alabama is the lone Republican-leaning state, with a 6-point advantage in Republican affiliation.

That leaves 12 states that are competitive, with less than a 5-point advantage for either party. Among these 13 states, 6 tilt in a Republican direction. Six tilt toward the Democratic Party.

The Bottom Line

Despite the modest shift toward a decreased affiliation with the Democratic Party and an increased affiliation with the Republican Party in 2009 compared to 2008, the United States remained a Democratically oriented nation last year.

In all, 33 states and the District of Columbia were either solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic in terms of the political party leanings of their residents. Twelve states were fairly evenly balanced between Democratic and Republican supporters, and 5 states were solidly or leaning Republican.

And now you have the facts, not the biased right-wing spin you hear from O'Reilly. The facts show that even with a slight shift towards the Republican party in 2009, America still has a solid Democratic majority.

This proves that O'Reilly is a right-wing liar, because America is not a center right country, it's a left of center country. So now when you hear O'Reilly and his right-wing friends say America is a center right country, you can cite this poll and show them that they are wrong. And you can bet the farm you will never see this poll reported by O'Reilly, or any other Republican.

Megyn Kelly Caught Lying About Obama On Her 1st Show
By: Steve - February 2, 2010 - 10:00am

On the very first day of her new Fox News show, Factor regular Megyn Kelly was caught lying about what the American people think about the terrorism approval for President Obama. It sure did not take her long to spin out some dishonest right-wing talking points, I'm guessing she learned from the best, Bill O'Reilly.

On the February 1st, inaugural edition of America Live, host Megyn Kelly claimed that "polls don't really look good for Obama" on terrorism, specifically citing a mid-January Pew Research poll. However, the Pew poll she mentioned concluded that "terrorism stands out as a strong suit" for President Obama. Kelly also ignored numerous other polls -- including one from Fox News -- finding that a majority of the public approves of the Obama administration's handling of terrorism issues.

Which btw, is exactly what O'Reilly does. They cherry pick polls that agree with them, or spin what the poll says, or just lie about it. While ignoring all the other polls that show the exact opposite of what they claim. In claiming that "the polls don't really look good for Obama" on terrorism, Kelly cited a January Pew Research Center poll that actually found "there is little evidence that heightened security concerns are affecting Barack Obama's standing and image, it even said that terrorism stands out as a strong suit for President Obama."

The Pew poll also found that Obama continues to get markedly higher ratings for his handling of the threat of terrorism (51% approve) than for any other issue. And just 22% say his administration's policies have made the country less safe from terrorism when compared with the policies of the Bush administration; which is virtually unchanged from June of 2009 (21%).

Kelly also ignored these polls -- including a poll from Fox News -- finding majority approval for Obama on terrorism issues:

-- A Fox News poll conducted January 12-13 found 51 approval compared to 33 percent disapproval of "how the Obama administration handled the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day."

-- An AP-GfK poll conducted January 12-17 found 54 approval of the way Obama is handling terrorism, compared to 39 percent disapproval. The poll also found that 64 percent of respondents said they were very confident or somewhat confident "that President Barack Obama will be able to handle this issue effectively."

-- A CNN poll conducted January 8-10 found that 65 percent of those polled had a great deal of confidence in the Obama administration to protect America from terrorism.

-- An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted January 12-15 found that "Fifty-five percent approve of Obama's handling of the threat of terrorism."

-- A CBS poll conducted January 6-10 found that "52% approve of how Obama is handling the threat of terrorism."

But somehow Kelly ignored all that to claim the polls do not look good for Obama on terrorism. If that's not dishonest and biased reporting I don't know what is. And O'Reilly wonders why Fox News is seen as biased against Obama, because of stuff like this, totally one sided dishonest segments like this. Open your eyes O'Reilly, that is bias.

The Monday 2-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 2, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Finding Common Ground. O'Reilly talked about the Obama job approval numbers going up, and once again cited only the Rasmussen poll. While even Rasmussen has the Obama approval up to 49%, it's still wrong to only cite one poll, especially when it's a biased poll from a Republican. The rest of the TPM was the usual attacks on Obama, telling him he has to stop the liberal agenda or he is done. The same old right-wing spin from O'Reilly that Obama is never going to listen to. And he even told Obama that no more stimulus is needed.

Then Joe Klein was on to talk about Obama. Klein disagreed with O'Reilly about Eric Holder, O'Reilly said he does not like him so he should be fired, Klein said that is ridiculous because overall he is doing a good job. Klein agreed with O'Reilly on tort reform. O'Reilly told Klein to hurry up with his answers because he does not have a lot of time, then he cut him off a minute later, and said hold on you have plenty of time, then O'Reilly said probably too much time. Then O'Reilly asked Klein about the crazy Fox is the most trusted poll. Klein said he does not care so much about polls. O'Reilly showed a quote fron Klein from October of 2009, saying Fox puts out a lot of crap, and Klein responded to it. Klein stood his ground and said Beck puts out a lot of crap. O'Reilly said but he does it in a funny way, so it's ok. Klein called Beck dangerous and said he is the new Father Coughlin. Then O'Reilly said Beck is popular and he gets good ratings so that makes everything he says ok. Basically O'Reilly defended everything Beck does, and called Klein and his friends at Time pinheads. Klein was simply put on for O'Reilly to attack to get ratings from his right-wing viewers.

Then O'Reilly played a clip of Obama meeting with the House Republicans, and talked about it with Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham. O'Reilly said there is a gap between people like Joe Klein and the folks, and of course Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham agreed with O'Reilly. They also talked about the bogus Fox is the most trusted poll again, O'Reilly is still spinning it to claim Fox is the most trusted. When they are only the most trusted with REPUBLICANS, but he never mentions that. Williams and Ham claimed that Klein is wrong and Fox News never spins or lies about anything, Williams even said it was insulting, when it's all true.

They spent half the segment attacking Joe Klein, after he was gone. Then O'Reilly went nuts about the KSM trial in federal court, and how he should be put on trial for $39.95 a day by the military. Juan Williams actually disagreed with O'Reilly, and pointed out how almost all the terrorists over the last 20 years have been tried in civilian courts. The only thing O'Reilly could do then was cut away from Williams and go to Ham, who he knew would agree with him. And btw, O'Reilly keeps saying it would cost a Billion dollars to try KSM in New York. And that is a lie, they estimate it could cost $200 Million a year, so a 2 year trial would cost $400 Million, a 3 year trial would cost $600 Million, and even a 4 year trial would be $800 Million, that's not a Billion O'Reilly, even at 4 years.

Then O'Reilly had San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome on, O'Reilly told him his opinions are based on facts, haha yeah right. Then he asked him if he agrees that the country is moving to the right, Newsome said no. That people are just against the Government right now, not so much against Obama. Then O'Reilly told Newsome that liberal policies just do not work, and asked if he agrees, and of course Newsome disagreed. Basically Newsome disagreed with everything O'Reilly said.

O'Reilly claims that liberal policies do not work because liberal run states are in debt. But what O'Reilly failed to mention is that conservative run states are also in debt, and that a lot of it is because of the recession Bush caused, and the slow economy. What's really funny is O'Reilly never claims conservative policies do not work, when Bush ran the country for 8 years (using conservative policies) and it failed big time. Then O'Reilly trashed San Francisco because they are a liberal city.

Funny how O'Reilly never mentions how the conservative policies under Bush did not work, as he claims liberal policies do not work every night, when they sure worked good when Bill Clinton was the President. I guess he just forgot all that, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too. And btw, O'Reilly actually had two Democrats on the show, which is a lot for him. But they were only on so O'Reilly could hammer them to get ratings from his right-wing viewers.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss the improved Obama poll numbers. O'Reilly asked if it does any good for people like him and Bernie to talk about how people attack Obama no matter what he does. And of course Bernie said it does good for him and O'Reilly to discuss it. Of course they think it does, because they are ego maniacs. O'Reilly pointed out that it happened to Bush too from liberals. But there is a big difference, it only happened to Bush after 4 or 5 years in office, after he had screwed everything up. Obama has only been in office for a year, and he has not really screwed anything up to attack him for yet.

Basically O'Reilly and Goldberg said their opinion matters, when in the big picture it does not matter. Because less than 1 percent of Americans watch the Factor. What was really funny is when O'Reilly said he does not do the kool-aid thing on the Factor. When he clearly does, he was a kool-aid drinker for Bush, and he is a kool-aid drinker for the Republicans now. The man is in denial, and they are both kool-aid drinkers for the right. That is a fact.

Goldberg was even held over for a 2nd segment, how many Democrats get that treatment, none. In the 2nd segment they cried about the hypocrisy in the media reporting on James O'Keefe and Pastor Wright. Which is just ridiculous, because Pastor Wright was just a Pastor at a church the President went to sometimes, who said some crazy things. O'Keefe was ARRESTED, for a federal crime. O'Reilly called it a brilliant point. When it was nonsense, there is no hypocrisy. The media covered the ACORN story as much as it was needed, and Fox has pretty much ignored the O'Keefe arrest. The media covered both stories, but Fox barely mentioned the O'Keefe arrest.

Just do a google search on ACORN, you get 11,700,000 results. That proves the media reported it a lot, not to mention it was all over the cable news networks for almost a month. Now do a google search on the James O'Keefe arrest, you get 566,000 results. All the media reported on ACORN, it was everywhere for a week or more. But Fox News barely mentioned the O'Keefe arrest, and O'Reilly only did one short partial segment on it, with no details. So the hypocrites are O'Reilly and Goldberg, they just can not see it because they are blinded by their right-wing ideology.

The last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check. It's not really a reality check, and there are not many checks. It is basically just more right-wing spin from O'Reilly, with nobody there to question what he is saying. He plays video clips of something a liberal said, then he gives you what he calls a reality check on what they said. It's biased one sided garbage, and none of the so-called reality checks are ever on any Republicans.

One so-called Reality Check was nothing more than a short video of O'Reilly and Beck at a bold fresh tour show. That's not a reality check, it's shameless promotion of their right-wing garbage. And btw, these bold fresh shows are nothing but non-stop attacks on Obama and the Democrats, to all right-wing Republicans at the shows. Yet they both deny they are partisan Republicans. If that's true, why are they doing non-stop attacks on Obama to all Republican audiences. One check was about the Factor ratings, that's not a reality check, it's just bragging about your ratings.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. The pinhead is usually a liberal, and the patriot is usually a conservative. And the e-mails are just a joke, hand picked by O'Reilly, and edited so much they are nothing like the actual e-mail that was sent to him.

Factor Pollster Writes Another GOP Strategy Memo
By: Steve - February 2, 2010 - 9:00am

The O'Reilly Factor pollster (Frank Luntz) has been caught writing another strategy memo for the Republican party. Something you will never hear reported on the Factor by Bill O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly dishonestly tells his viewers that Luntz is an objective nonpartisan pollster. He also fails to disclose that Luntz is in the back pocket of the GOP and the financial industry. While he complains about the lack of disclosure from the rest of the media.

Frank Luntz recently wrote a strategy memo for the GOP on how to defeat the proposed Obama financial reform agency. This is the 2nd time he has written such a memo for the GOP in recent history, he also wrote a strategy memo for the GOP on how to defeat the Obama health care bill. And not only does he write these GOP strategy memos, he tells them to lie in the memo, and to use code words to make the people oppose the bill. This is the guy O'Reilly tries to pass off as an objective nonpartisan pollster, when in fact, he is a biased and dishonest Republican party operative.

In the new memo, Luntz lays out the arguments and language Republicans should use to kill financial reform. Luntz, who gained national recognition for his role in shaping the buzzword-heavy Contract for America with Newt Gingrich in 1994, has built a business selling his advice to Republicans.

The memo instructs opponents of financial reform to simply lie about reform legislation, and to twist economic anxiety resulting from the recession into fear of any government effort to fix the underlying cause of the financial crisis.

The most dishonest argument is that financial reform would "punish" taxpayers while rewarding big banks and credit card companies. In reality, top financial industry lobbyists are not only fighting proposed oversight regulations, but have said recently that they are opposed to any regulation at all.

The proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) would eliminate predatory mortgages. Under proposed financial reform, big banks would face a new structure designed to police financial products, prohibit predatory ones, require clear forms and disclosures, and help regulate hidden bank fees and other bank abuses. The CFPA would also regulate the credit card industry, preventing predatory interest rates and fees.

So the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be a good thing, that would help to protect the American people. But here we have Frank Luntz, who O'reilly claims is just an objective nonpartisan pollster, writing a GOP strategy memo telling them to lie to about a proposed Consumer Protection Agency.

Which hardly makes Frank Luntz an objective nonpartisan pollster, as O'Reilly claims. Not to mention it shows the right-wing bias from O'Reilly by even having this partisan fraud as his pollster. Nearly every attack recommended by Luntz is not grounded in reality. For instance, he calls for opponents of reform to label a CFPA head an unaccountable czar.

But the legislation clearly states that the CFPA's Director would be appointed by the President, and then confirmed by the Senate. Confusing the public is the point of Luntz's work. In an interview explaining his smears against health reform, Luntz told the New York Times last year that it did not matter what the actual policy offered, he would still call it a Washington takeover.

And here is the kicker, Luntz also has banks and mortgage companies as clients, who are all in the financial industry that the CFPA would regulate. American Express, Ameriquest Mortgages, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns all have Luntz on the payroll. None of which, is ever disclosed by O'Reilly, he fails to disclose any of it. Then he puts this biased fraud on his show, and bills him as an objective pollster. The Factor also has one other pollster, he is Scott Rasmussen, another Republican of course. He does not write strategy memos for the GOP, but he is a former Republican party employee who puts out biased polls for Republicans like O'Reilly to use in their talking points.

O'Reilly Ignores 4th Quarter 5.7% GDP Story
By: Steve - February 2, 2010 - 8:30am

What a shocker, the 4th quarter GDP for 2009 was up 5.7 percent, and the great journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it. That is so he can keep all the right-wing stooges who watch his show, out of the loop about any economic news that makes Obama look good.

And this was reported last week, so O'Reilly has had plenty of time to report it, but as of today he has failed to report any of it. The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a better-than---expected gain. The expansion was the fastest in six years.

White House economic adviser Christina Romer said the report is "the most positive news to date" on the economy. Speaking on Bloomberg television, Mark Zandi -- who was an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign -- heralded the positive numbers as a result of the stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama last February:
I think the stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus.
Funny how O'Reilly never mentions any of this news, which just happens to make Obama look good. The DOW is over 10,000 again, O'Reilly never says a word about it, the monthly job losses have dropped every month since Obama took office, from 700,000 a month to 60,000 a month, O'Reilly never says a word about it, the GDP was up 3.2 percent in the 3rd quarter, and 5.7 percent in the 4th quarter, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it.

Then he claims to be a nonpartisan independent journalist who has been fair to President Obama. Give me a break, O'Reilly is as unfair to President Obama as Beck or Hannity, or any partisan Republican. He spends the whole show every night, doing non-stop attacks on Obama for every little thing, while never reporting anything positive about him. Earth to O'Reilly, that is not being fair.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: