O'Reilly ignores Koch Brothers & Prank Call Story
By: Steve - February 28, 2011 - 10:00am

If you have been watching the Factor over the last week and a half or so you would notice two things missing, news about the Republican billionaire Koch brothers, who funded the Republican Wisconsin Governor, and the story about the prank call to the Republican Governor Walker.

O'Reilly has totally ignored both stories, while almost every night he reports on groups and people on the left funding protests in Wisconsin. In O'Reillyworld it's wrong for the left to fund causes they agree with, and O'Reilly slams them for it.

But when they right does it, not only does O'Reilly not slam them for it, he ignores it and helps to cover for them, because they are Republicans just like him.

It's total bias, not to mention un-professional. But that is exactly what O'Reilly does every night, as he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who has reported the Wisconsin story fairly. Which is just laughable, and not even the funniest part of the story, O'Reilly saying he is a union guy was the funniest thing he has ever said.

Here is what O'Reilly has totally ignored, one headline said this on one story: Wisconsin governor talks crushing unions in prank call. if you do a google search on it you get 31 million results. It was the biggest story of the day in America 2 days ago, every media outlet in the country reported on it, except one, The O'Reilly Factor.

In a prank call that quickly spread across the Internet, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was duped into discussing his strategy to cripple public employee unions, promising never to give in and joking that he would use a baseball bat in his office to go after political opponents.

Walker, a Republican, believed the caller was conservative billionaire David Koch, but it was actually the editor of a liberal online newspaper. The two talked for at least 20 minutes.

The call also showed Walker's cozy relationship with the Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- who have poured millions of dollars into conservative political causes, including Walker's campaign last year.

Ian Murphy told the Associated Press he carried out the prank to show how candidly Walker would speak with Koch even though, according to Democrats, he refuses to return their calls.

Murphy said he arranged the call Tuesday after speaking with two Walker aides. He placed the call using Skype and recorded it.

Okay, so where was O'Reilly, how come he did not do half a show playing clips of the tape, where were the Democratic guests to slam Walker as the fraud he is. Where was the outrage from O'Reilly when he found out Walker was lying about the debt, and that he just wants to crush the unions.

Where was Mr. I am a union guy Bill O'Reilly on this story, I'll tell you where, hiding under his desk hoping the story would go away so he is not forced to report it. If O'Reilly is a union guy as he claims, dont you think he would jump at the chance to report this story.

A union guy would be all over this story, as Ed Schultz has been, because he is a real union guy. And O'Reilly also claims he has reported the Wisconsin story fairly, ok, so how come he did not report this story, that would be the fair thing to do.

Instead he ignores it, because it makes a Republican Governor look bad, and because it exposes the truth about what Walker is trying to do. Answer this union guy, when are you going to report the prank call story, haha, yeah I already know the answer, never.

Now here is another big news story O'Reilly has ignored, because it is about the Republican billionaire Koch brothers. One of the Koch Koch from groups Americans For Prosperity said this earlier this month: 'Take The Unions Out At The Knees'

Funny how O'Reilly just happened to forget to report that. And if you believe that, contact me because I have some land to sell you.

In a speech earlier this month at the Conservative Political Action Committee's annual conference, Americans For Prosperity-Michigan Executive Director Scott Hagerstrom revealed the true goal of his group and its allies like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's efforts.

Speaking at CPAC's Panel for Labor Policy, Hagerstrom said that what AFP really wants to do is to take the unions out at the knees:
HAGERSTROM: It's easy to go out there and fight taxes and increased regulation, you know we send out an action alert on taxes to AFP and we get thousands of people to respond. You send out one on a more complicated issue and it just doesn't quite resonate.

We fight these battles on taxes and regulation but really what we would like to see is to take the unions out at the knees so they don't have the resources to fight these battles.
Taking the unions out at the knees has long been a goal of the Koch brothers and their many front groups. In the run-up to the 2010 elections, the Kochs worked with other anti-labor billionaires, corporations and activists to fund conservative candidates and groups across the country.

Now after viciously opposing pro-middle class policies for years, Koch Industries is trying to eliminate the only organizations which serve as a counterweight to the well-oiled corporate machine.

Earlier this week, ThinkProgress reported on the Koch brothers integral role in provoking Walker's showdown with Wisconsin's public sector unions. Koch Industries donated $43,000 to Walker's gubernatorial campaign, and Koch political operatives encouraged the newly elected governor to take on the unions.

Since the showdown began twelve days ago, Koch-funded front groups like Americans for Prosperity - which is chaired by David Koch - and the American Legislative Exchange Council have organized counter-protests, prepped GOP lawmakers with anti-labor legislative talking points and even announced an anti-union advertising campaign.

Even while local business leaders have called for Walker to end his assault on Wisconsin unions, Koch executives have said that they "will not step back at all" and pointed to the importance of their so-called grassroots group, saying, "it is good to have them on the ground, in the battle, trying to help out."

And that great union guy (haha) journalist Bill O'Reilly, has not said one word about any of this, not a word. Does that seem like the kind of reporting a union guy would do, of course not, which makes the O'Reilly claim that he is a union guy off the chart ridiculous.

Every night Billy trashes the unions, while supporting the Republican Governor. If that's a union guy, I'm a conservative guy. It's ridiculous. If O'Reilly was a union guy he would be reporting on the Koch brothers, and the prank call story.

Ronald Reagan Supported Union Bargaining Rights
By: Steve - February 28, 2011 - 9:30am

Yes you heard me right, Ronald Reagan supported the right for Unions to have collective bargaining. This is news you never hear any Republicans talk about, because it makes their hero look bad, so they just pretend he was opposed to Unions, when he was a big support of their right to bargain.

As the Main Street Movement of students, workers, and other middle class Americans erupts across America, many conservatives have invoked the legacy of former president Ronald Reagan to demand that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker not back down from his push to end collective bargaining for his state's public employees.

In a prank call with the Buffalo Beast's Ian Murphy, where Murphy pretended to be right-wing billionare David Koch, Walker himself even fantasized about being just like Reagan.

But conservatives may be shocked to learn that their idol was once a union boss himself. Reagan was the only president in American history to have belonged to a union, the AFL-CIO affiliated Screen Actors Guild. And he even served six terms as president of the organized labor group.

Additionally, Reagan was a staunch advocate for the collective bargaining rights of one of the world's most famous and most influential trade unions, Poland's Solidarity movement.

During his Christmas address to the nation on December 23, 1981, President Reagan condemned the Soviet-backed Polish crackdowns on labor unions, promoting the basic right of free trade unions and to strike:
REAGAN: The Polish government has trampled underfoot to the UN Charter and Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdansk Agreement of 1980 by which the Polish government recognized the basic right of free trade unions and to strike.
Name one Republican who has mentioned that Ronald Reagan supported the rights for unions to bargain, you cant.

Republican Scarborough Says Beck Out Of Control
By: Steve - February 27, 2011 - 9:30am

Beck is so far gone now that even Republicans are slamming him, on 2-25-11 Joe Scarborough said Beck can not last because he is out of control with the crazy communist/marxist nonsense.



And it's not just one Republican slamming Beck. Writing for Conservative Commentary magazine, Peter Wehner issued a warning about Glenn Beck:
WEHNER: It's hard to tell how much of what Beck says is sincere and how much is for show. Whatever the case, and even taking into account the entire MSNBC lineup, Glenn Beck has become the most disturbing personality on cable television.

One cannot watch him for any length of time without being struck by his affinity for conspiracies and for portraying himself as the great decoder of events.

All this is quite troublesome in its own right. But what ought to worry conservatives in particular is that Beck not only has the unusual capacity to discredit virtually every cause he takes up; he also confirms the worst caricatures of the right.
Wehner also said that it's "only a matter of time before Beck blows apart professionally."

Basically Scarborough and Wehner confirmed what I have been saying for at least a year. That Glenn Beck is nothing but a clown, and a right-wing con-man, who is suckering his viewers into buying his propaganda.

Glenn Beck is a total fraud, he is in it for 2 things, fame and money, in fact, I bet he does not believe 90% of what he says. It's all a con game folks, and if you watch Beck, or believe anything he says, you are a fool that is being played like a fiddle. He is also a little crazy, but most of what he does is just lies to make money and get famous. Unlike O'Reilly who believes most of the propaganda he puts out, Beck is a total fraud.

Ann Coulter Talks About Sarah Palin Dishonesty
By: Steve - February 27, 2011 - 9:00am

I normally do not report anything Ann Coulter says, but in this case I will make an exception. Because it shows that Palin is possibly running a con on the American people, especially the Tea Party losers.

Most people think Stupid Sarah will run for President, because she acts like it, and she does not say she will not run. But Ann Coulter was on the Hannity show Friday night and she said this:
COULTER: Sarah Palin Said Newt Gingrich Told Her You Get Higher Speaking Fees If You Pretend You're Running For President.
So Stupid Sarah may be pretending to run for President, to make more money in speaking fees. We will see if Coulter is right pretty soon, because Palin will have to decide within the next year or so.

I personally think Palin will run, and that she will lose the Republican primary. But it will not stop her from getting rich in the process. So even if she loses, she still gets rich, and more famous.

But if she does not run, what will the Tea Party idiots say then, after paying her all that money. If it was me, I would be very mad at her. But by then it will be too late, Palin will already be rich, and she can just say to hell with you Tea Party stooges and keep working for Fox.

Fox News Double Standard On Protests
By: Steve - February 27, 2011 - 8:30am

Fox News claims to be a fair and balanced news network, and that they are fair to everyone. But if that is true, why were the Tea Party protests by Republicans great, they were true Americans, and Fox not only reported on them, they promoted them.

Hannity even tried to do his show at a Tea Party rally, and sell tickets to give the money to the Tea Party. But when the word got out the Fox suits put a stop to it, only after it was reported by MSNBC and CNN though.

Fox also had Fox News Tea Party protests, they put their name on them, and sent their reportes to cover it live, almost non-stop for months on end. So on Fox you are great Americans if you protest.

Except when liberals and unions protest, then you are scum at Fox. One Fox host, Peter Johnson even called the Wisconsin protesters vile. Not to mention pretty much every other host at Fox, except for maybe Shep Smith is against the Wisconsin protests.

This is not fair and balanced news reporting, it's biased one sided partisan yellow journalism. Yes they have a pro-union guest on to discuss it once in a while, maybe once or twice a day. But that is just to make it look good, so they can claim they reported both sides of the issue.

In reality it's all a fraud, because 99% of the rest of the time they are speaking out against the Wisconsin protesters, or they put Republican guests on to do it for them. Including O'Reilly, almost all his guests are Republican and anti-union.

Every night O'Reilly does a TPM against the Wisconsin unions, and the protestors, then he fills the show with one anti-union Republican after another. While once or twice a week he has a pro-union guest. That's not balance, or fair coverage, and it's not even close.

The Friday 2-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 26, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Obama and the Wisconsin union situation. Biased O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On November 3, 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said this on the campaign trail: 'If Americans are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll walk on that picket line with you.'

But so far President Obama is staying out of the Wisconsin brawl, and there's a good reason for that. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel writes that 'President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million ... those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits.'

So the only thing the federal union can do is negotiate personnel matters. That's why President Obama can't go to Wisconsin - his guys don't have any union rights and Mr. Obama has not advocated for any changes.

According to a new poll, 71% of Wisconsinites believe Governor Scott Walker's union cutbacks are fair, and 69% believe state workers have better benefits than private sector employees. The bottom line on the story is that cutbacks are going to happen and the power of the public unions will be diminished.
Wow, where do I start. When Obama said he would put on a comfortable pair of shoes and walk on that picket line, he was not serious, it was a statement of support, he did not mean he would physically walk a picket line. Then O'Reilly says Obama has stayed out of it, but that is a lie, because he did say he supports the unions in Wisconsin.

Then O'Reilly said "According to a new poll, 71% of Wisconsinites believe Governor Scott Walker's union cutbacks are fair, and 69% believe state workers have better benefits than private sector employees." And who did that poll, Rasmussen? Morris? Give me a break, why not report the Gallup poll and the USA Today/Gallup poll that says the opposite, that 61% oppose what the Governor is doing.

Then O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on, he said this: "It would be kind of difficult for President Obama to go to Wisconsin and advocate that they have these collective bargaining rights, when his own federal workers don't have those same collective bargaining rights and he's done nothing to give them those rights.

Also, the administration is trying to move to the center and get the independents back, and they know one of the keys is to cut government spending. It's pretty hard to defend these sweetheart deals that the public unions have that private workers would die for."

Wow are you two idiots. There is a big difference between federal workers, and state union workers. And if you do not understand that I sure as hell will not waste my time explaining it to you. Ever hear of states rights, morons. And btw, if Obama did try to give federal workers collective bargaining rights, O'Reilly, everyone at Fox, and every Republican in Congress would riot. So he is damned if he does, and damned if he dont.

In the next segment O'Reilly did what he does, have Republican after Republican on to agree with him to give the viewers the impression he is right. He had Lou Dobbs on to talk about public unions. Which I will not go into very much, because he basically just trashed the unions and said he agrees with what Governor Walker is doing. How is this news, it's just a Republican on to say he agrees with another Republican, what a shocker. Dobbs said no federal or state workers should have a union, proving that he is just an anti-union right-wing loser.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican comedian Paul Rodriguez on to talk about illegal immigration. He said this: "Immigration is something that we ourselves have to be blamed for. It is unfair to lure people with cheap labor jobs and then punish them for coming here. A lot of us who are here are not advocating open borders; we are advocating enforcing the laws that are in place now. The only solution that is even plausible is a guest worker program - giving amnesty to people will only encourage other people to come here."

So then O'Reilly put out his spin on the cost of illegal immigrants. Billy said this: "A member of the city council said Los Angeles spends $600 million on benefits for illegal aliens, and the city's broke." While ignoring the fact that they pay federal and state taxes, and they will never get any of that money back. Not to mention, without illegals doing that work, prices on everything would go up, and if we keep them out the economy would crash. Funny how O'Reilly just happens to ignore all that.

Then Geraldo was on to trash Charlie Sheen, which I will not be a part of, so I will not report what Geraldo said. What good does it do, and how is this hard news. It's tabloid garbage that should not even be discussed on the Factor. Geraldo basically trashed him and said they should take him off his tv show. And here is a message for Geraldo, who the hell do you think you are, who made you God.

Then O'Reilly had the ridiculous Glenn Beck on, which is stunning to me, how can you claim to be a valid news show and have this clown on once a week. It's like when O'Reilly says I am not an Obama hater, then he has 6 to 8 Obama haters on the show every night to trash Obama. O'Reilly makes all these claims that are flat out lies, then he says he wants respect as an honest journalist. On top of that he has Beck on once a week, who is the biggest liar on tv right now. So how does that get you any credibility, answer, it dont.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had the Republican Ernest Borgnine on to talk about Hollywood and his career. Okay, why? How is this news. O'Reilly claims to have a hard news show, then he does all these puff pieces with conservative comedians and actors. It's not news, and it shows what a hypocrite O'Reilly is, because he tells people to ignore Hollywood actors, he says they know nothing so do not listen to them.

Unless they are a conservative in Hollywood, then O'Reilly praises them, has them on his show, and tells you to listen to them. Not to mention, if we are supposed to ignore them and not listen to what they say, why the hell do you keep reporting what they say every damn night?

The most insane part was at the end of the interview, O'Reilly lauded Borgnine as a great actor and a good man, and said this: "We don't do a lot of celebrity stuff, but you are a living legend. If Hollywood ever needs an ambassador, you are the guy."

Are you kidding me, you do celebrity stuff almost every night. O'Reilly is so senile now he can not even remember what he does on his own show.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the really lame pinheads and patriots vote that is almost always totally stupid, and nothing but a waste of tv time.

Bill O'Reilly Was Disrespectful To Martin Sheen
By: Steve - February 26, 2011 - 10:30am

I normally do not report on the stupid pinheads and patriots garbage O'Reilly does, but when he questioned if Martin Sheen is suffering because his son Charlie is addicted to drugs and drinking, and he cares about him, I decided to write something about it.

On the Wednesday Factor show O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: Martin Sheen, who described his son Charlie's substance abuse problem as "a form of cancer" that requires "an equal measure of concern and love." Is the elder Sheen patriotic or pinheaded?
To begin with, O'Reilly is a pinhead jerk for even asking that question. What Mr. Sheen was saying is that Charlie has a real problem, and a Father should have as much concern and love for him as if he had cancer.

How the hell is that being a pinhead, and I'm not sure it's being a patriot either, but a Father having concern and love for his son is sure not being a pinhead.

I bet if O'Reilly had a son (scary thought) that had an addiction problem, O'Reilly would probably agree with Mr. Sheen, and not make stupid jokes about it in his pinheads and patriots segment.

So then, to make matters worse, on the Thursday Factor show O'Reilly read the results of the vote, O'Jerkoff said this:
O'REILLY: Wednesday's P or P asked about Martin Sheen, who described his son Charlie's substance abuse problem as "a form of cancer" that requires "an equal measure of concern and love." 58% of you described Sheen the Elder as pinheaded.
Are you kidding me, how can 58% think he was a pinhead, that's ridiculous. And it just shows what right-wing morons O'Reilly has for viewers. They are as bad as O'Reilly, for asking the question, and for their answers.

What Mr. Sheen said about his son was not patriotic or pinheaded, so the question should not have been asked in the first place. It just shows how much O'Reilly hates celebrities, simply because they are liberal. But if a celebrity is a conservative, O'Reilly loves them and praises their work.

As if it's needed, this is just one more example of O'Reilly's right-wing bias, but mostly it's more evidence that he is a jerk, and a bad person. I bet they have a room in hell reserved for him already.

O'Reilly Ignoring Violent Rhetoric From The Right
By: Steve - February 26, 2011 - 10:00am

The great (so-called journalist) Bill O'Reilly has ignored three recent news stories about hate from the right, regarding the Wisconsin Governor and unions.

The first story is a big one, Jeffrey Cox is the deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana, and he has some strong views about the protests in Wisconsin. In response to a Mother Jones tweet this weekend reporting that riot police might be used to clear protestors from the capitol building in Madison, Cox tweeted back: "Use live ammunition."

Cox remained steadfast in his position that the protestors should be killed when confronted on Twitter by Mother Jones Adam Weinstein, writing that "against thugs physically threatening legally-elected state legislators & governor? You're damn right I advocate deadly force."

And btw, there have been no reports that the protestors have physically threatened any elected officials.

Mother Jones contacted the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, and a spokesman told the magazine that Cox's statements were inflammatory and that there would be an immediate review of Cox's online statements. "We do not condone any comments that would threaten or imply violence or intimidation toward anyone," he added.

And Cox has a long record of inflammatory rhetoric. He has compared former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and members of SEIU to brownshirts, and wrote that his Afghanistan policy is "KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!"

Update: After tweeting his support for the use of live ammunition on Wisconsin protesters, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox is no longer employed by the Attorney General's Office, which stated that "we are held by the public to a high standard, and we should strive for civility."

Not a word of this story has been reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on the Factor.

In story #2, O'Reilly has claimed that the left is losing in the battle over unions right to collective bargaining rights. But he is wrong, because the left won in Indiana, not only was Cox fired, the Indiana House Republicans are dropping the right-to-work legislation they wanted to pass, so the left won in both cases.

On Thursday the Wall Street Journal reported that Indiana House Republicans are dropping the right-to-work legislation that compelled Democrats to flee to Illinois so Republicans couldn’t achieve a quorum to vote on it.

While GOP lawmakers supported the bill that would allow workers at unionized companies not to pay dues or be members, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) said it "was a distraction" and suggested the GOP "not pursue the bill."

O'Reilly has not reported a word of it, because it shows the left won, and it shows that O'Reilly was wrong when he said the left would lose big time.

The 3rd story O'Reilly has ignored is from the #1 Republican forum on the internet. The Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman reports that right-wingers posting on the Free Republic website have been calling for armed counterprotests in Atlanta. In response to a pro-labor SEIU rally, one Free Republic user anounced that counterprotesters carrying arms will attend "with the usual accoutrements."

None of this has been reported by O'Reilly, because it all makes the right look bad, those are his friends, and he helps to cover for them by not reporting this news. Not to mention, it would prove his prediction that the left will lose on the issue of collective bargaining rights for unions was wrong.

More Proof The Media Does Not Have A Liberal Bias
By: Steve - February 26, 2011 - 9:30am

O'Reilly and his stooge right-wing media analyst Bernie Goldberg go on and on about how the media has a liberal bias. But what they do is selective reporting, they find a few examples of liberal bias, then claim it proves all the media has a liberal bias.

What they also do is ignore all the evidence that shows they do not have a liberal bias, like this.

For the last two weeks, working people have joined with students and sympathetic lawmakers as part of a Main Street Movement to protest efforts in multiple states to strip union workers of their collective bargaining rights.

While the protests against Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) have garnered the most attention, protests have also taken place in Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Washington, Montana, and Idaho. The protests have caused Republican governors in multiple states to back down from their anti-worker stances.

Despite the obvious newsworthiness of these protests, the Sunday morning news shows last week (NBC's Meet the Press, CBS's Face the Nation, CNN's State of the Union, and ABC's This Week) featured no labor leaders or members, as in none, not one.

Instead, they turned to the likes of conservative commentator George Will, CNBC's Rick Santelli, Liz Cheney, and even a Thomas Jefferson impersonator, while Walker himself made an appearance on Fox News Sunday.

So if the media has this big liberal bias, as O'Reilly and Goldberg claim, how come they are not stacking their Sunday News shows with union leaders and pro-union guests. Answer that one O'Reilly.

And the AFL-CIO Political Communications Director Eddie Vale reports that the situation has not yet changed for this coming Sunday, he tweeted this:
@evale72: As these fights rage nationwide, 2nd weekend in a row NO labor members or leaders invited on Sun shows.
And that's not just the Fox News Sunday show that had no union leaders on, which you would expect. it's also NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, none of them have any union leaders booked to discuss it either. That's the so-called liberal biased media O'Reilly is talking about.

Where is the liberal bias O'Reilly, what say you?

Update - 2-26-11: I just read that after pressure from liberals who e-mailed the Sunday News Shows, one network has a union leader booked for Sunday, NBC's Meet The Press. Which is pretty sad that only one network did it, and that they only did it after pressure from liberals.

O'Reilly & Kelly Spin The Kline Ethics Charges
By: Steve - February 25, 2011 - 11:30am

Check this out folks, here is a perfect example of not only the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, from Megyn Kelly too. They both did a spin job for the former Republican Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who faces ethics charges related to his tenacious prosecution of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Here is what they reported, Kelly said this: "Kline says he found 166 instances, where girls 14-years-old or younger got abortions, and Planned Parenthood only reported one case of child rape. The question is whether not reporting those instances was a crime. Phill Kline argues that Planned Parenthood had an obligation to report that an underage girl had been abused, his opponents and Planned Parenthood says it only had to report to the state if 'harm' had occurred to the young girl."

Then O'Reilly turned a segment about Kline, into another attack on Dr. Tiller, after the man was murdered by one of O'Reilly's pro-life friends.

O'Reilly said the abortion doctor George Tiller was prosecuted by Phill Kline and later murdered by an anti-abortion fanatic. But he never mentioned that Tiller was found not guilty on all counts. O'Reilly said this: "We reported the Tiller story fairly here. The assassination was disgraceful, but there are media organizations that are glorifying George Tiller, making him to be a martyr. It is disgusting!"

Yeah if you call fairly, calling the man Tiller The Baby Killer a hundred times over a 2 year period, saying he has blood on his hands, calling him worse than Hitler, etc. In O'Reillyworld that's being fair to a man who simply did legal abortions.

Okay not get this, O'Reilly and Kelly did a segment on former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline about ethics charges. But they never reported what he did, how can you report a story without saying what he did, what kind of journalist does that. I'll tell you, a fake partisan hack of a biased journalist, that's what kind.

Here is all the stuff O'Reilly and Kelly left out, which is about 90% of the story. They left all this out because he is a Republican and they are covering for him.

-- Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline testified Monday in an ethics hearing that he and his subordinates had the right to deceive other state agencies and didn’t have a duty to immediately correct flawed information provided to a trial judge as they started investigating abortion providers.

-- The three-member panel of the state Board opened the hearing Monday will make a recommendation to the Kansas Supreme Court on what sanctions, if any, Kline should face. The complaint alleges Kline and subordinates misled other officials and mishandled patients medical records in investigating the late Dr. George Tiller, of Wichita, and a Planned Parenthood clinic in suburban Kansas City.

-- Kline said courts regularly allow law enforcement officials to withhold information from witnesses - and even actively deceive them and suspects - to protect an investigation. Misleading SRS, he said, "would not have been a problem."

-- Kline filed misdemeanor charges against Tiller in December 2006, accusing the doctor of performing illegal late-term abortions and failing to adequately report the details to the state, as required by law. The case was dismissed, and Kline's successor filed different misdemeanor charges the following year.

-- Tiller was acquitted, shortly before being murdered while attending church.

-- Kline lost his bid for re-election as attorney general in 2006; Republicans selected him to fill a vacancy in the Johnson County job, but he lost the 2008 GOP primary for the post. He's now an assisting visiting professor of law at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., founded by evangelist Jerry Falwell.

-- The complaint notes under Kline, the attorney general's office successfully sought in October 2003 to open a court-supervised inquisition into the clinics, based partly on data from SRS. The inquisition allowed Kline to seek subpoenas for documents or testimony.

-- Nine days later, an internal memo showed Kline's staff knew the SRS data was flawed, but his office didn't inform the judge until May 2004, nearly seven months later.

"Shouldn't you immediately inform the judge?" Hazlett asked.

Kline replied: "I don't know if that duty exists."

-- The ethics complaint against Kline, filed by Hazlett last year, cites more than 20 instances in which it says Kline or subordinates misled others, including a grand jury in Johnson County and, once in Kline's case, the disciplinary administrator's office.

-- Another key issue is the handling of edited copies of medical records for 89 patients from the clinics, obtained in 2006 through subpoenas. The Supreme Court has previously criticized Kline, suggesting he and his subordinates didn't show enough regard for patients' privacy.

-- Kline gave his interpretation of what the lawsuit involves by saying, "Right now in Wichita, in Federal Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights is suing myself and Kansas prosecutors, arguing that it is unconstitutional to require abortion providers and others to report child rape. So they are actually saying that our Constitution does not allow the state legislature and the government to pass a law saying that they must report child rape, and I think that's a dangerous and far-fetched argument."

That is absolutely NOT what the Center for Reproductive Rights is saying. Under current law abortion clinics and health professionals are required, and do, report cases of rape, abuse and incest to the proper authorities.

What Kline is intentionally neglecting to tell the audience, is that his view of "child-rape" is any sort of sexual activity that is participated in by anyone under the age of 16, even if their partner is of the same age. According to the actual lawsuit, Kline is claiming that these sort of activities are criminal and need to be reported to law enforcement authorities.

During cross examination by attorneys from his own office he claimed that abortion providers must report ALL underage pregnancies and that the pregnancy of a female under the age of 16 is evidence of a crime in itself.

He then continued to muddy the waters by claiming that a 15 year old girl performing oral sex on a 15 year old boy is probably fine, but a 15 year old boy performing oral sex on a 15 year old girl would be considered a crime.

The testimony he gave in open court is absolutely the opposite of what he stated on Fox. Jerrick and Huddy fed him very leading questions to make him appear more moderate than he actually was, and that he is merely trying to "protect the children."

And none of that was reported by O'Reilly or Kelly. Kline basically did whatever he had to in his biased partisan attempt to prosecute Dr. Tiller and Planned Parenthood, even break the law himself, forge documents, hide evidence, lie to judges and grand juries, or whatever.

Because he is a pro-life loon, O'Reilly and Kelly ignored it all, to spin out what a great guy he is, who is wrongly being smeared. Because they are also pro-life loons.

The Thursday 2-24-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 25, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Obama's leadership takes a hit. O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: A new Rasmussen poll says President Obama's leadership status is at its lowest level since he took office. Just 37% of likely voters say Mr. Obama is doing a good or excellent job as a leader.

There are two things in play - the union brawl in Wisconsin and the turbulence in the Arab world. As far as Wisconsin is concerned, the Democratic Party in general has taken a big hit because the situation remains chaotic and Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate have fled the state so there can't be a vote.

President Obama has not said anything about the flight and that could be hurting him. Then there is the Middle East, where the President has kept a very low profile. He was slow to condemn Mubarak in Egypt and he's not really speaking out forcefully against Qaddafi.

Americans want strong leadership and they don't see it here. Talking Points believes Mr. Obama is missing the big picture on Qaddafi. The guy is a terrorist, so President Obama should be demanding that Qaddafi be turned over to us.

Then he needs to go to Guantanamo Bay with the other terrorists. That would be leadership. There comes a point when the most powerful man in the world - the President - must make a statement.
Notice how the O'Reilly TPM never says anything good about Obama, no matter what he does, the TPM always slams Obama. And the poll O'Reilly cited was likely voters, not registered voters. Not to mention, the Obama approval is at 48%, so it has not gone down at all.

O'Reilly also said the Democratic Party in general has taken a big hit because of Wisconsin, which is just ridiculous. The issue is about a crazy Republican Governor trying to strip the unions of their collective bargaining rights, which 61% of the people disagree with. And that has no effect of the Democratic party. The guy who is taking a hit is the Governor, his approval ratings are crashing, and his disapproval is going up, but O'Reilly ignores that.

As far as Obama and leadership, only Republicans say he is a weak leader, it's a partisan issue. Most Americans think Obama is a strong leader who is doing the right thing over Libya, and almost everything else.

Then O'Reilly had Brian Flynn on, whose brother was killed in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The two of them trashed Obama and Qaddafi, which was typical O'Reilly. Find a partisan who had a loved one killed and then use him to slam Obama, with nobody on to give the counterpoint. Notice that O'Reilly never does this with a Democratic loved one, who is on to slam a Republican. It's total right-wing bias by O'Reilly, and just pathetic.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to spin a poll about the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin. O'Reilly said two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the Democratic state senators in Wisconsin who fled the state in order to prevent a vote that would strip some collective bargaining power from public unions. But he never said who did the poll, then he asked the crazy Ingraham what Governor Walker should do.

Ingraham said this: "I think the Governor has no choice but to move forward on the policies he campaigned on, and that's going to mean laying off state workers. This can be a temporary measure, but something has to happen. He's talking about long-term solvency and he campaigned on this very point - to restore fiscal sanity to the state."

Except as usual Ingraham was lying, because Walker did not campaign on taking the collective bargaining rights away from unions. And btw, the state debt has nothing to do with it, because right-to-work states like Texas are in debt too, and their unions do not have collective bargaining rights. This is something O'Reilly and Ingraham never mention. Texas is a right-to-work state and they are $27 billion in debt.

Then O'Reilly reported that a new poll taken by Dick Morris, ok hold it right there. Now O'Reilly is citing a poll taken by Dick Morris, are you kidding me. A Morris poll has less credibility than a Rasmussen poll, they are both worthless. If O'Reilly is this big Independent non-partisan, what the hell is he doing citing Rasmussen and Morris polls, what a joke. And one last thing, O'Reilly said it was an outrage that no media in Wisconsin is polling the issue. Really, how dumb is he, the media does not do polls, they report the news. That's why we have Gallup, etc.

And finally O'Reilly had a Democrat on to discuss it, Professor Caroline Heldman, who defended the state employees in Wisconsin. Heldman said this: "This is about collective bargaining, and 62% of people within the state support it. Governor Walker's numbers are plummeting, his negatives are going up."

Heldman also told the stupid O'Reilly that public employee unions have little to do with budget deficits. She said this: "The middle class did not get us into this problem, and it doesn't make sense to go after them to solve a problem they didn't cause. Walker has actually added to the deficit with $130 million in corporate tax breaks."

And as usual O'Reilly ignored everything she said, because she is a Democrat. Then he continued his right-wing spin as if she did not just school him with all the facts.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about DOMA. President Obama and Attorney General Holder have announced they will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Kelly said this: "The law basically protects the rights of states that do not have gay marriage to not recognize a gay marriage out of another state. Gays and lesbians have objected to this as blatantly discriminatory under the equal protection clause. There are a lot of people who feel this act should be repealed, but it was duly enacted. As a lawyer, I can tell you that this is extraordinary - you can't have the laws shifting based on political winds."

O'Reilly suggested that President Obama is trying to score political points, O'Dummy said this: "It looks like the President is losing popularity and he decided to galvanize his left-wing base and here's a way to do it."

WTF? What planet is O'Reilly living on, Obama is not losing popularity, his job approval is stable at about 48 to 50 percent. O'Reilly just pulls this garbage out of his rear end, none of it is true.

Then Kelly was back for a second segment, about the former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who faces ethics charges related to his tenacious prosecution of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. I will have a special blog on this segment later today or tomorrow, and show you how O'Reilly and Kelly spun it to make Kline look good.

And in the last segment the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover were on to tak about President Obama's announcement that he will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course the insane Carlson hated it, and trashed Obama.

But Hoover denounced the original law as federal overreach. Hoover said this: "If you're a real constitutional conservative and you believe the federal government should have limited power over the states, the reality is that marriage has always been the province of the states. So the Defense of Marriage Act was a massive power grab by the federal government. But I agree that you can't just not enforce a law."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, that is so fake it's funny, and the lame pinheads and patriots that is just a total joke and a massive waste of time.

Republicans Bash Obama For Libya Statement
By: Steve - February 25, 2011 - 8:30am

In the wake of President Obama's remarks about Libya during a February 23 address, right-wing media have collectively expressed the same reaction: that his speech was "pathetic," "wimpy," and "toothless." However, Obama's careful remarks were made in an attempt to keep Americans in Libya out of harm's way.

That includes Bill O'Reilly, who said this on the Wednesday Factor show:
O'REILLY: With all due respect to President Obama, I agree that this is beyond wimpy. Qaddafi is a terrorist and a killer - if I were President I would have said we want this guy out and we want to try him in Guantanamo Bay.
Now think about this, only Republicans are attacking Obama for his statement on Libya. So look at what O'Reilly said, it's the exact same thing all the other Republicans are saying, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who has been fair to President Obama. So he is no different then they are, no matter what he claims.

Just look at what other Republicans said about the Obama statement, then compare that to what O'Reilly said.

Fox Contributor Monica Crowley Calls Obama's Libya Remarks "An Incredibly Tepid, Weak Response."

Hannity: President's Response To Libya Is "Too Little, Too Late."

Steven Hayes: Obama's Statement "Projects Weakness."

Krauthammer: Obama's Speech Is "As Weak A Step As One Could Take."

Beck: Obama "Sat Libya Out Until Today."

Col. Ralph Peters Attacks Obama's Remarks, Dismisses Danger To U.S. Citizens Living In Libya. "He really doesn't understand foreign policy. ... His statement was just so mega-wimpy."

Pat Buchanan: Obama "Looks Like A Weak Leader."

Okay, now look at why Obama said what he did, to protect Americans still in Libya.

Obama's Speech Directly Stated That His Intentions Are To "Protect American Citizens." During the president's February 23 comments regarding the unrest in Libya, he stated: "We are doing everything we can to protect American citizens. It is my highest priority."

In an article posted on February 24, CNN reported that "while President Obama has taken heat from a few Republicans for a muted response in the early days of the crisis in Libya, U.S. officials privately believe it was the best strategy because if Obama had bashed Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, it could have put the thousands of Americans in Libya in harm's way," and could have presented the United States with a possible hostage situation.

U.S. officials say Obama tempered his response to ensure thousands of Americans in Libya can be safely evacuated.

So look at what the right said, and what O'Reilly said, it's the very same thing, it's like they were all reading from the same script. Proving that O'Reilly is as much a part of the right-wing as anyone, even though he denies it, the words he uses prove it.

O'Reilly Spins & Lies About Unions & Polls
By: Steve - February 25, 2011 - 8:00am

My God O'Reilly told a massive lie this week, and he said it two times. He said he is a UNION Guy. Which may be the biggest lie he has ever put out in his life.

O'Reilly is as anti-union as it gets, I have been doing this website for over 10 years and O'Reilly is a non-stop union basher. He does nothing but slam the unions, he hates unions.

So for him to say he is a union guy is just insane, maybe he is losing his mind. Because the stuff he is saying is ridiculous, and flat out lies. O'Reilly said this on the Wednesday night Factor, talking about the Wisconsin Republican Governor against the unions:
O'REILLY: In the middle of all this is me, a union guy, and I'm trying very hard to cover the story in a fair and balanced way. Up to this point on The Factor, we've had six pro-union guests and seven anti-union, but the far left is branding Fox News as an enemy of working Americans.
To begin with, I have no idea where he got those numbers, because in the last 3 nights (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday) O'Reilly has had 20 Republican guests, to 3 Democratic guests. And every single Republican guest has opposed the union, while supporting the Republican Governor. How he comes up with 6 pro-union to 7 anti-union guests is beyond me.

O'Reilly has even said he supports what the Republican Governor is doing, so how that is being a union guy is off the charts laughable. Union guys support the unions, not the opposite, so O'Reilly's claim that he is a union guy is beyond insane, it's a flat out lie. Maybe the biggest lie he has ever told.

On top of all that O'Reilly has had a non-stop parade of right-wing guests over the last few day to put out propaganda for the Republican Governor, and report misinformation about the unions and the state debt. O'Reilly himself even blamed the unions for the state debt, when that is a flat out lie.

Fox News even put out a graphic that reversed the Gallup poll numbers, which O'Reilly never said a word about, and even ignored that 61% number in the poll, while reporting on the 53% number in the poll to make it look better for the Republican Governor.

The main issue is the Republican Governor trying to eliminate the collective bargaining rights for state unions, that is where the Gallup poll says 61% support the unions, but O'Reilly ignored that part of the poll.

He only reported the part of the Gallup poll that said 53% oppose reducing pay and benefits for state workers. And think about this folks, O'Reilly claims to support the will of the people, he says that all the time.

So the people oppose the Republican Governor 61% to 33%, and yet, O'Reilly still supports the Republican Governor in Wisconsin. Which goes directly against the will of the people, and against O'Reilly's own statement about following the will of the people.

Not to mention the other poll data O'Reilly has ignored, the fact that only Republicans have a majority that oppose the unions and support the Governor.

When asked if you favor or oppose eliminating the collective bargaining rights for state unions (in the Gallup poll) you get these numbers:

Everyone - Favor - 33% - Oppose 61%

Democrats - Favor - 18% - Oppose 78%

Independents - Favor - 31% - Oppose - 62%

Republicans - Favor - 54% Oppose - 41%

The Republicans are the only party that has a majority who favor it, and that's just barely, 54% to 41%. So even 41% of the Republicans oppose it, and O'Reilly never reports any of that polling data.

So Mr. Union guy spins non-stop for the Republicans, for the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, and against the unions. How the hell is that being a union guy, I was a union guy for 17 years, and I can tell you for a fact that O'Reilly is not a union guy.

In fact, if O'Reilly ever showed up at a bar with a bunch of union guys there, he would probably get his ass kicked, unless his bodyguards prevented it, and got him out of there. O'Reilly saying he is a union guy, is like me saying I am a Republican, it's just ridiculous.

The Wednesday 2-23-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 24, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Union unrest spreads to other states. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Working Americans are taking sides in the union controversy that's sweeping the nation. The Democratic Party and many liberals want strict worker protections and entitlements; Republicans and many conservatives say the nation can not afford to pay lavish entitlements.

In the middle of all this is me, a union guy, and I'm trying very hard to cover the story in a fair and balanced way. Up to this point on The Factor, we've had six pro-union guests and seven anti-union, but the far left is branding Fox News as an enemy of working Americans.

Yesterday a small crowd gathered in front of FNC's New York City headquarters, calling Fox News 'fascist' and generally demonstrating unhappiness with us. From what we understand, organizations like MoveOn and other far left concerns have told people to give Fox News a hard time.

On the reporting front, the New York Times continues to spin the Wisconsin situation in favor of the unions, and other media are doing the same thing. This is a very confusing issue, but it is vital to the nation.
Wow, O'Reilly said this: "In the middle of all this is me, a union guy, and I'm trying very hard to cover the story in a fair and balanced way. Up to this point on The Factor, we've had six pro-union guests and seven anti-union, but the far left is branding Fox News as an enemy of working Americans."

O'Reilly is delusional, he is as anti-union as anyone I have ever seen. In the 10 years of doing this website I have never once seen O'Reilly defend a union, let alone support one. For him to say he is a union guy, is the biggest lie he has ever told. And to say because he had 6 pro-union guests to 7 anti-union guests on his show, proves Fox News has been fair in their reporting is just laughable.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich on. Kasich said this: "My father was in a union and I grew up in a union town, but what I want to do is get Ohio out of this deep hole. We have an $8 billion budget deficit and we have a massive reform plan that includes the ability to control our costs as they relate to public employees. This is not about being against unions - what I'm doing is empowering taxpayers and I am going to do everything I can to make this a job-creating state rather than a job-losing state."

What a load of bull, it has nothing to do with state debt, it's about busting the union. The Wisconsin Governor was even caught on tape saying he does not care about the debt, he just wants to crush the union, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that. The most funny part of this, is these two anti-union Republicans (O'Reilly & Kasich) trying to say they are not anti-union, haha, what a joke.

Then O'Reilly finally reported a Gallup poll on the issue, but he still put a spin on it. Because he only reported part of the poll, the part that said 53%, oppose reducing pay and benefits for state workers. But if you scroll down and read the rest of the poll it says 61% oppose elimination collective bargaining rights for state unions.

So what does O'Reilly do, he has the far-right loon Dick Morris on to discuss it of course. As he claims to be a union guy, and while he spins a poll without reporting all of the poll.

Morris said this: "Americans like labor unions, and they believe in collective bargaining. They support teacher unions and public sector unions, but on the other hand they are in favor of increasing the amount that union members have to pay for health insurance and pensions."

And the unions have agreed to pay more, but the Republican Governor in Wisconsin is still saying no deal. Because he wants to bust the union, and take their rights to bargain away. Which the majority of American people oppose, and O'Reilly the so-called union guy supports the Republican Governor, even though he claims to support the will of the people, who oppose the Governor, what a lying right-wing hack.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about the Obama statement on Libya, and the guest was the Obama hating right-wing stooge Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, with no other guest for balance. President Obama strongly condemned the Libyan government's deadly crackdown on protesters. But of course Peters had nothing good to say about Obama, and said he was not impressed. O'Reilly agreed with Peters overall analysis, and said this: "With all due respect to President Obama, I agree that this is beyond wimpy."

Really, so what is Obama supposed to do, invade Libya and take over the country like Bush did in Iraq. It's ridiculous, what else can Obama do, nothing, and if a Republican President said what Obama did about Libya O'Reilly and Peters would praise it, what a biased joke these two clowns are.

Then O'Reilly had a segment with producer Jesse Watters, he had him talk to young people about Facebook. Really, why? I mean, who cares, and how is this news. It was so much of a waste of tv time I refuse to even report on it.

Then in part 2 of the ridiculous waste of time segments, O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on to comment on how he would handle Muammar Qaddafi if the Libyan dictator is captured. Are you kidding me, Dennis Miller? Why would anyone care what Dennis Miller has to say about anything, except bad jokes.

In the last segment O'Reilly talked more about the polls on Wisconsin. Instead of having someone from Gallup on to explain the poll, O'Reilly had a right-wing Republican and a moderate Republican on. He had Doug Schoen and Whit Ayres on to analyze the polling data on American attitudes about public sector unions.

Schoen said this: "Americans don't want to take away fundamental union rights, but they do want to control spending and they do want to hold the line on taxes. If it's a question of cutting key programs or restricting union rights, they're going to want to restrict union rights."

Ayres said this: "If you ask whether our problems are fundamentally driven by too much spending or too little revenue, by 3 - 1 Americans think our problems are driven by too much spending. So the challenge, if we're not going to go the way of Greece, is to get a handle on spending, and one way you do that is by controlling the pay and benefit packages of public employees."

And not one of them mentioned the 61% number in the Gallup poll. But the worst part was when O'Reilly asked them if Gallup rigged their poll. WTF? Are you kidding me. They of course both said no. But not once did O'Reilly ask them if Rasmussen rigged his poll, when everyone knows he does. It was ridiculous, especially when in the past O'Reilly has said Gallup is the gold standard in polling in America.

Then the crazy biased fool (O'Reilly) implies they rigged their poll, while not saying anything about Rasmussen rigging his poll. The reason O'Reilly did not ask if Rasmussen rigged his poll, is because he was afraid they might say yes. And Rasmussen is his friend, so he did not want to disrespect him, because they are both Republicans.

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

Fox News Caught Reversing Gallup Poll Results
By: Steve - February 24, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly claims Fox is not biased, that they are balanced, that they do not try to hurt Democrats in their reporting, and that if you have evidence to show him and he will report it. Well, her is that evidence, so report away Billy, yeah right, this evidence of bias will never be reported by O'Reilly.

On the 2-23-11 Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade claimed, along with an on-screen graphic, that a recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that "61 percent" of Americans are in favor of taking away collective bargaining rights from public unions.

In fact, Fox aired the results of the poll completely backward: the Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to taking away collective bargaining rights from public unions.

Here is what Kilmeade said:
KILMEADE: I think Gallup, a relatively mainstream poll, has a differing view. And here is the question that was posed, should you take away--will you favor or are you in disfavor of taking away collective bargaining when it comes to salaries for government workers? 61% In favor of taking it away. 33% oppose. 6% up in the air.
Now think about that for a minute, not only did Kilmeade reverse the numbers, they also had an on screen graphic that had the numbers wrong. Here is a screen capture of the graphic they put on the air.



Folks, the Gallup poll said the exact opposite. USA Today/Gallup: "61% Would Oppose A Law In Their State Similar To The Proposal In Wisconsin." In a poll conducted on February 21, USA Today and Gallup found that 61 percent of those polled would oppose a law similar to the one Gov. Walker is proposing in Wisconsin.

Now to do that dishonest graphic and lie about the numbers, it would involve not just Kilmeade, but a graphics person and most likely a Producer at Fox. So are you telling me that all of them accidently got the numbers reversed, if you are, I would call you a liar.

And btw, later in the show, Kilmeade issued a correction during the final minute of Fox & Friends saying this: "I want to correct a poll that we did about 22 minutes ago from Gallup. Sixty-one percent oppose taking collective bargaining away from those people in Wisconsin; 33 percent in favor. I had it reversed. I apologize."

And he even lied about that, because his apology and correction was 44 minutes later, not 22 as he claimed. And he did it in the very last minute of the show, when almost everyone had probably stopped watching, so hardly anyone might have seen the correction.

Did a Fox producer misread the poll? Did anybody bother to check whether the graphic was accurate? Did they decide to just willfully misrepresent the poll in the hopes their viewers wouldn't ever check to see if they were lying?

Or are we somehow supposed to believe the incredibly unlikely scenario that both Kilmeade and whoever creates the F+F graphics just happened to make the same mistake?

In this case, Kilmeade's correction is not good enough. And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it on the Wednesday Factor show, as usual he ignores all the bias at Fox, while saying there is no bias.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Paul Krugman
By: Steve - February 24, 2011 - 9:30am

Paul Krugman wrote this in a 2-10-11 NY Times article:
KRUGMAN: What's happening in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker's pretense that he's just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin -- and eventually, America -- less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy.

And that's why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators side.

Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.

In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.

But Mr. Walker isn't interested in making a deal. Partly that's because he doesn't want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers' ability to bargain.

The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state's workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers -- namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning -- are exempted from the ban; it's as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state's budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there's not much room for further pay squeezes.

So it's not about the budget; it's about the power.
So out of all that from Paul Krugman, O'Reilly cherry picked one little part of what he said. O'Reilly said this about Paul Krugman on the Monday Factor show:
NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, a far-left zealot, says Wisconsin state workers make less than those doing corresponding jobs in the private sector; again, that seems to be false. For example, a state worker in Wisconsin making $48,000 a year gets a monthly pension of $1,700. A worker in the private sector making $70,000 a year gets $400 less than the state worker.
Notice what O'Reilly did, he dishonestly made a bad comparison. Krugman was talking about actual wages, he compared that to other wages from non-public union workers. O'Reilly changed the comparison to what they make in pension retirement money, which is about as dishonest as you can get.

Then he claims Krugman is lying, as O'Reilly is lying about what Krugman said. Krugman was not talking about pension money, he was talking about actual wages. That makes O'Reilly about as dishonest as a journalist can get.

Especially when Krugman is right, most people in private unions make more than people in state unions for doing the same type of job. So the only liar here is Bill O'Reilly, and he did it to make Krugman look bad because he told the truth, and because he is a liberal that O'Reilly does not like. O'Reilly hates Krugman because he reports the truth about O'Reilly.

More Evidence Rasmussen Rigs His Polls
By: Steve - February 24, 2011 - 8:30am

By Eric Boehlert from Media Matters:

If you were surprised Rasmussen issued a poll yesterday finding that a plurality of "likely voters" side with Wisconsin's Republican governor in that state's battle over union rights, then you haven't been paying attention. Because of course Rasmussen has a GOP-friendly poll to frame whatever topic is being debated this week.

That's what Rasmussen does.

Specifically, what's wrong with the automated phone poll that found 48% of respondents "agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers"? Nate Silver points out a key problem with one of the questions included as part of the union survey:
3: Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?
Silver writes that the loaded question, which introduces firemen and policemen into the conflict despite the fact they are specifically not part of the Wisconsin showdown, essentially taints respondents. Worse, Rasmussen taints them right before they're asked whether they back Walker in his "dispute with union workers." Silver explains it like this:
By invoking the prospect of such strikes, which are illegal in many places (especially for the uniformed services) and which many people quite naturally object to, the poll could potentially engender a less sympathetic reaction toward the protesters in Wisconsin.

It is widely recognized in the scholarship on the subject, and I have noted before, that earlier questions in a survey can bias the response to later ones by framing an issue in a particular way and by casting one side of the argument in a less favorable light.

The Rasmussen example is more blatant than most. While many teachers have been among the protesters at the State Capitol in Madison, obliging the city to close its schools for days, there have been no reports of reductions in police or fire services, and in fact, uniformed services are specifically exempted from the proposals that the teachers and other public-sector employees are protesting.

So bringing in the uniformed services essentially makes No. 3 a talking point posed as a question.

As an analogy, imagine a survey that asked respondents whether they believed the Democrats' health care overhaul included "death panels" before asking them whether they approved or disapproved of the bill over all.
The Huffington Post's Mark Blumenthal also highlights the flaws in Rasmussen's latest, noting the poll "appears to lead respondents to a desired result."

As we've noted many times, Rasmussen's work often appears to be a weird hybrid of polling and partisan propaganda. The problem is polling is supposed to be a science. Rasmussen treats it more like a sport.

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

And let me add this, only partisan Republican spin doctors use the Rasmussen polls. Nobody but the people at Fox and other right-wingers use Rasmussen polls. Because they have been proven to be biased, and O'Reilly continues to use them, proving that he is also a right-wing spin doctor.

The Tuesday 2-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 23, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Pro-union forces step it up in Wisconsin. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With almost everything on the line for unions and the Democratic Party, the situation in Wisconsin is not calming down. Governor Scott Walker now says he could fire 1,500 state workers next week if the Democratic senators who have left the state do not return to vote on the union controversy.

Big money is pouring into Wisconsin on both sides because if the state workers union loses power there will be a domino effect in other states and the Democratic Party will be hurt big time. So the battle continues and emotions are running very high.

One of the strategies for the pro-union people is to attack Fox News because FNC is one of the few media outlets not sympathizing with the protesters. Rather, we are trying to play it straight, and that is not sitting well with some on the union side.

Talking Points believes pro-union demonstrators are making a big mistake by attacking Fox News and portraying themselves as unreasonable.

The Democratic senators in Wisconsin are also making a big error by leaving the state. There's a huge amount on the line - if the Democrats lose, the country changes dramatically; if the pro-union forces win, the Democrats have a far better chance to hold the presidency in 2012.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the protesters are attacking Fox News because they have seen your reporting, and they see how biased against the unions it is, including you O'Reilly. If Fox was reporting it straight, they would not be attacking you, moron. To even claim Fox is playing it straight, shows what a lying dishonest fool you are.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to assess the Wisconsin situation. Crazy Crowley said this: "It doesn't do the union protesters much good, but I'm not surprised that they're attacking Fox News. This network has had many outspoken critics of government unions, so they're targeting networks like this and they're targeting critics of government unions. This is a battle for the future of this country!"

Colmes said this: "Michelle Malkin referred to them as 'thugs,' and Glenn Beck called this an 'insurrection.' There was a very different attitude projected by the opinion shows here when the tea parties were demonstrating, so there is a perception that there is one attitude about a demonstration that veers left versus one that veers right."

Dear Alan Colmes, it's not just a perception, it's a fact. On Fox it was great when the Tea Party protests happened, but when unions protest it's bad. That is what Fox is doing, it is not a perception, it's a fact.

Then O'Reilly had Lesile Marshall and Tammy Bruce on to talk about the union money going into Wisconsin to fight Governor Walker. Notice they do not say a word about Tea Party protestors being bused in, and the money they are spending, O'Reilly just ignores that.

Crazy Tammy Bruce said this: "The people of Wisconsin made a decision in November. They voted for Republicans and tea party candidates and threw out the entire Democratic legislature. Is public policy going to be made by unions and manipulative 30-second ads, or is it going to be in the hands of the people?"

Marshall urged Governor Walker to search for a compromise. She said this: "The best negotiation is when we both walk away with something that we wanted but we both leave something on the table. These teachers and nurses have said they'll take less money and they'll contribute more to their pensions and health care. The Governor is stripping them of their dignity."

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about Richard Trumka. Krauthammer said this: "It's not a new story that the AFL-CIO is close to the Democrats. We know that unions contribute a huge amount of money to Democrats and they're essentially a wing of the Democratic Party. What's new is the rebellion on the part of Republican governors against the stranglehold that government worker unions have had over their states. Finally they are standing up and saying, 'No more!'"

Then O'Reilly had a segment about Rumsfeld going on the David Letterman show. Military analyst Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer assessed the wisdom of that decision. Shaffer said this: "I don't think it is the right forum. First, it's tough for a conservative to do this sort of thing where there is clearly a bias; second, Secretary Rumsfeld has some huge issues relating to his own stay in the Pentagon. He's trying to rehabilitate his image after sending people, because of his bad judgment, to their death. He's trying to come out in a cavalier manner and I don't think it's helping him."

In the is it legal segment O'Reilly talked about the Snyder against the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members disrupted his son's military funeral with their anti-gay rants. Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle disagreed on the eventual outcome. Wiehl said this: "I think the Supreme Court, is going to find in favor of the Snyder family. There was no reason for these protesters to be there other than to inflict emotional distress and invade the privacy of the family."

Guilfoyle said this: "I find the acts to be despicable, but you have to look at a strict interpretation of constitutional law and protected freedom. These demonstrations were 1,000 yards away from the service, and a lower court found that this was not a violation of the Snyder family's privacy rights."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about the Academy Awards. Really, why? What does Stossel know about it, nothing, so it was a total waste of time to report what he said. All he did was use his time to bash the Teachers unions, which has nothing to do with the Academy awards.

Not to mention, O'Reilly is in LA for the Academy Awards, he is doing his show all week from LA. And yet, he said nobody cares and predicted it will be the lowest rated show ever. If O'Reilly does not care, and nobody cares, why the hell did he go all the way to LA to do his show, it's crazy.

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

Another Wisconsin Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - February 23, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly sure loves to report on polls, but only when they agree with his position, or agree with the Republican position. When a poll comes out that disagrees with him, it never sees the light of day on the Factor.

O'Reilly has already ignored one poll of Wisconsin voters that said 65% think the Republican Governor has gone too far, plus the USA Today/Gallup poll that says 61% of the people oppose what the Republican Governor is doing. And now he is ignoring another Wisconsin poll, a new poll shows that public support for Walker is plummeting.

A poll of Wisconsin voters, conducted by Democratic pollster GQR Research for the AFL-CIO between Feb. 16 and 20, shows support for organized labor in Wisconsin as high while support for Governor Walker is plummeting.

The poll showed that only 39% of respondents had a favorable view of Walker, while 49% had an unfavorable view of him. This is a tremendous drop of a support for a Governor who was elected with just 52% of support just a few months ago.

When asked if they agree or disagree with the position different groups are taking in the current situation, voters side with the public employees, 67% agree with the public employees, 62% agree with the protesters, and 59% agree with the unions.

While support for Governor Walker is dramatically dropping, the poll showed that 62% of Wisconsin voters agree with the protestors at the Wisconsin State Capitol.

Notice that O'Reilly never said a word about those two Wisconsin state polls, but he sure did have plenty of time to report the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll on the issue.

O'Reilly Ignored Gallup Poll On Union Rights
By: Steve - February 23, 2011 - 9:30am

Now think about this, O'Reilly reported a biased right-wing Rasmussen poll that said 48% of likely voters support the Republican Governor in Wisconsin. While 38% support the unions. But when a real poll, the USA Today/Gallup poll comes out in favor of the unions, O'Reilly ignored it.

That's because O'Reilly is a biased right-winger, and he also supports the Republican Governor in Wisconsin, so he spins the polls to make him look better. Here is what the USA Today/Gallup poll said:

The USA Today and Gallup poll conducted on February 21, found that 61 percent of those polled would oppose a law similar to the one Gov. Walker is proposing in Wisconsin.

Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

What say you Billy, when are you going to be an honest journalist and report this poll. And btw folks, on Tuesday night O'Reilly said Fox has been balanced in their reporting on the Wisconsin union protests, etc. Are you kidding me, if that's balanced, I'm Newt Gingrich.

Proof O'Reilly Lied About State Workers Wages
By: Steve - February 23, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly said this on the Monday Factor show:
O'REILLY: NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, a far-left zealot, says Wisconsin state workers make less than those doing corresponding jobs in the private sector; again, that seems to be false. For example, a state worker in Wisconsin making $48,000 a year gets a monthly pension of $1,700.

A worker in the private sector making $70,000 a year gets $400 less than the state worker. It is becoming apparent that the left-wing media will not report the Wisconsin situation accurately.
Not only is O'Reilly comparing apples to oranges, he is flat out lying about the wages for State union workers compared to the wages for private union workers.

ANd it's not just O'Reilly putting this lie out, everyone at Fox is too. As protests against Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget continue in Madison, WI, the right-wing media has continued to push the misleading statistic that public employees in the state of Wisconsin make more money than their private sector counterparts.

In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, when education and experience are factored in, public sector employees in Wisconsin earn less than workers performing comparable jobs in the private sector.

And now the facts:

"Wisconsin Public Employees Earn 4.8% Less In Total Compensation Per Hour Than Comparable Full-Time Employees In Wisconsin's Private Sector."

A study published February 10 by the think tank Economic Policy Institute found that when "comparisons controlling for education, experience," and other factors are taken into account, "Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin's private sector."

More Facts:

"Workers With A Bachelor's Degree Or More... Are Compensated Between $20,000 ... To Over $82,000 A Year Less" Than Private Sector Counterparts.

In Wisconsin, which has become a focal point in this debate, public servants already take a pretty hefty pay cut just for the opportunity to serve their communities.

When comparing the total compensation (which includes non-wage benefits such as health care and pensions) of workers with similar education, public-sector workers consistently make less than their private-sector peers.

Workers with a bachelor's degree or more--which constitute nearly 60% of the state and local workforce in Wisconsin--are compensated between $20,000 less (if they just have a bachelor's degree) to over $82,000 a year less (if they have a professional degree, such as in law or medicine).

The right-wing media routinely claim that public employees earn far more than their private counterparts, often using a misleading USA Today analysis that claimed to show public employees earn twice as much as those in the private sector.

PolitiFact rebutted the claim that "federal employees are making twice as much as their private counterparts," and USA Today acknowledged that its "analysis did not consider differences in experience and education."

So basically, all that shows that Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing liar, plain and simple.

O'Reilly Spins Biased Rasmussen Poll
By: Steve - February 23, 2011 - 8:30am

Once again O'Reilly proves he is a biased Republican, who will do whatever it takes to make a Republican look good. On the Monday night Factor O'Reilly cited a Rasmussen poll (and only the Rasmussen poll) that said 48% of the American people support the Republican Governor, while 38% support the unions.

But there are a few problems with that, to begin with, Rasmussen is a biased Republican who does biased polls. This is a known fact, and O'Reilly only used the Rasmussen poll, without reporting what any other polls said about it.

Second, the poll was taken by likely voters, which is not as accurate as a poll of registered voters. And third, the poll was taken by the entire country, while a poll of only people in Wisconsin shows that 65% of the people in that state think the Governor is going too far.

But O'Reilly did not report that poll, or any other poll on the issue, he cherry picked one poll on it, and that ONE poll he used just happens to be a biased Rasmussen poll.

Later in the show Juan Williams even called O'Reilly out (for once) about using the Rasmussen poll. Juan said using likely voters is not a good way to measure the mood of the people, and crazy O'Reilly said who cares.

O'Reilly said who cares, it's a 10 point spread Juan, so who cares. Then O'Reilly tried to claim a poll of likely voters means those people are going to vote, which is just ridiculous. Because here is what happens, someone calls you and they ask if you are likely to vote, and if you say yes, they have you take the poll.

That is ridiculous, because they are not even registered voters, so they will probably not vote. For once Juan called O'Reilly on his spin, but as usual O'Reilly ignored it and claimed he was right anyway.

All of this shows how biased O'Reilly is, because he supports the Republican Governor, even though he has said he is a union man, and that he would use a biased Rasmussen poll of likely voters to show that most people support the Governor. While ignoring the other poll that says 65% of the people in Wisconsin think the Governor went too far.

The Monday 2-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 22, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called The far left losing in Wisconsin. Notice how somehow in O'Reillyworld the far left always loses, but if that is true how come we have a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Senate, explain that O'Reilly. Crazy O'Reilly said this in the TPM:
O'REILLY: A front page story in the New York Times says there could be a backlash against conservatives and Republicans in the budget battle controversy, and says most Americans oppose what Governor Scott Walker is doing in Wisconsin.

But it looks like the New York Times' reporting is not true. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 48% of likely U.S. voters agree more with Walker than the unions, while 38% oppose the Governor.

In addition, Times columnist Paul Krugman, a far-left zealot, says Wisconsin state workers make less than those doing corresponding jobs in the private sector; again, that seems to be false. For example, a state worker in Wisconsin making $48,000 a year gets a monthly pension of $1,700.

A worker in the private sector making $70,000 a year gets $400 less than the state worker. It is becoming apparent that the left-wing media will not report the Wisconsin situation accurately.

Governor Walker says he's not going to back down and, according to the Rasmussen poll, likely voters are with him. So the far-left media can distort all it wants, but big changes are coming all across the USA.
And pretty much all of that is right-wing spin, I will have two blog postings that prove it on Wednesday.

So then the biased O'Reilly had a Wisconsin State Representative Robin Vos, a Republican who endorses Governor Walker's proposed cuts on to discuss it. Vos said this: "Even though the news media hasn't been doing the best of jobs in reporting the real story, the people of the state get it. They realize that this is a very modest proposal - asking workers to pay half their pension and only half of the national average for their health insurance is not out of step with reality."

So he basically joined O'Reilly in lying that the media is not covering the story with the truth, when in fact, they are, and the only media that is lying about it is Fox News. Notice that O'Reilly only had a Republican rep from Wisconsin on, with no Democratic rep to provide the balance.

Then the biased O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to lie with him, and cry about the media coverage, when it's Fox who is doing the dishonest reporting on the story, by leaving out most of the important facts. Hume said this: "I'm disappointed in what I've been seeing, but I'm not surprised. Most of the mainstream media say the Governor is trying to 'strip' all the collective bargaining rights of these unionized workers, but that is not correct. He is trying to remove their right to bargain on fringe benefits and pensions, but they would retain their right to bargain for salary. Obviously, pensions and fringe benefits have come at an extraordinary cost and Wisconsin is one of many states suffering the budgetary consequences."

What Hume fails to mention is that the budget shortfall is not because of union pensions, as he complains that the media is not reporting the truth, when he is the one lying.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss the thousands of Wisconsin teachers who called in "sick" last week so they could protest Governor Walker's proposed cuts; many got bogus notes from physicians who were willing to lie. Fox News anchors described it as "fraud," while a CNN reporter said doctors were "helping out the teachers."

And of course O'Reilly Ham and Williams were all outraged, because they are right-wing stooges who hate unions. Williams said this: "The fact is that this is outright fraud, and doctors are not supposed to make up an excuse for someone who is not sick. CNN may be pandering to the unions, but it hurts me to see a news organization get involved in politics to that level."

Ham said this: "For two years we have seen that coverage of protests depends on your ideology. If you are on the left you will get portrayed as sweetness and light, and your nasty signs and violent rhetoric will be carefully excised. If you're on the right, you will be a racist mob bent on fomenting violence and revolt."

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing George Friedman on to discuss how the four-decade reign of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi may be near an end. Really, with all the news out there this is what O'Reilly decides to report on. To be honest, I could care less about Libya or Qaddafi right now, so I will not report on it. And Friedman is a right-wing stooge anyway, so what he says is all spin anyway.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about CNN and what George Soros said about Fox News. Goldberg said this: "Soros did that interview with a supposed 'journalist' named Fareed Zakaria. When he said those things, Zakaria didn't ask him one challenging question. And when Soros made the insane statement that Fox's supposed dishonesty might open the way for an American fascist dictatorship, Zakaria never said, 'really?' Zakaria is supposedly a journalist, and a journalist doesn't sit there like a bump on a log when someone is making crazy statements."

Now that is the classic pot meet kettle, Goldberg complaining about a journalist not asking tough questions is just laughable. When he himself, and everyone at Fox do the very same thing with every Republican they interview.

Goldberg also pointed out a little-noticed aspect of the Wisconsin protest coverage. "During the tea party demonstrations there were lots of references to the crowds being 'overwhelmingly white,' but these crowds are almost 100% white and there's no reference to race. The mainstream media only brings race into things when conservatives are involved and they want to smear them."

Now that is just crazy, there is no mention of all the white people because there are a lot of blacks in the crowd, and nobody in these protests are being accused of having racist signs, like the Tea Party had. Why would they mention white people if there was no racism, and there are a lot of blacks. Goldberg made no sense with that argument.

And finally the stupid Factor Reality Check, that basically has no reality, and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on a story he hand picked to talk about. That's not reality, or a reality check, it's spin by one man.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheands and patriots vote.

Fox News Spins For Republican Ohio Governor
By: Steve - February 22, 2011 - 8:30am

Here is another great example of how Fox news lies and spins for Republicans. Fox News Special Report portrayed legislation that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of public workers in Ohio as "the only way" to balance the state's budget.

But even the State Senator who introduced the bill acknowledges that it will not "solve Ohio's immediate budget problems." What Fox does is take the word of the Republican Governor, and then claim it is a fact. When none of it is true.

The Ohio Governor said the only way to balance the budget is to cut collective bargaining for public workers. The man behind the bill, of course, is Republican Governor John Kasich, who rejects all criticism that this is a union-busting bill. He says this is the only way that he can get this state out of an $8 billion hole.
KASICH: If we get that done we balance our budget, $8 billion in the hole, without a tax increase, and we've cut taxes on income taxes, that's going to send the message to the rest of the country that if they can do it there, they can do it in their state.

And then maybe - guess what - they might actually be able to do something like this in Washington. We at least hope so.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

In fact, the Bill has nothing to do with Ohio's current budget deficit, and the Ohio Senator who wrote the bill admits it will not solve Ohio's immediate budget problems.
State Sen. Shannon Jones, R- Springboro, who is sponsoring the bill to eliminate collective bargaining for Ohio's state employees, acknowledged in testimony before a Senate committee that her bill would not solve Ohio's immediate budget problems.

Jones said that she's not pitching the idea as the solution to Ohio's budget woes.

Nobody disagrees with the fact that we are in a time of declining revenues, Jones said. This is about giving management the ability to manage the largest cost in state and local government, and that is its work force.
And btw folks, collective-bargaining rights are not why states are in debt, and anybody who says they are is lying to you. Policy Matters put out a study on state debt, and they found this:
-- The 9 states with no collective bargaining rights for any public employees face an average budget shortfall of 16.5 percent in the current fiscal year, while the 15 states with collective bargaining for all public employees face an average budget shortfall of 16.2 percent.

-- For the 42 states with some (or all) collective bargaining rights for some (or all) public workers, the 2011 budget gap averages 16.6 percent.

-- The 31 states with collective rights for state workers face an average budget gap of 17.6 percent while those without rights for state workers face an average budget shortfall of 15.1 percent.
What their study shows is that the right of public workers to unionize is not driving the fiscal crisis of the states.

And guess who has failed to report any of this, you got it, Bill O'Reilly. Not a word of this has been reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News.

George Soros Calls Out Fox For Orwell Tactics
By: Steve - February 22, 2011 - 8:00am

On Sunday George Soros told the truth about Fox, he said "they have imported the methods of George Orwell" and the people need to be aware "they are being deceived."



Now of course Soros is right, but the people at Fox can not allow what he said to stand, so the attacks have started. On the Monday Factor O'Reilly spent part of the show attacking Soros, trying to discredit him as a liar, when in fact, he is exactly right.

It's an old O'Reilly tactic, called attack the truth teller. When someone tells the truth about you, as in O'Reilly or Fox, you then attack them and claim they are the liar.

O'Reilly: No Muslim Countries Are Democratic
By: Steve - February 21, 2011 - 9:00am

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! One word: Turkey. Not to mention, there are a few other Muslim countries that have a form of a Democracy, it's just not the same Democracy America has. So Turkey is not the only Muslim country with a Democracy.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Turkey is a Muslim country with a Democracy, you lying fool. I wish I had a dime for every time O'Reilly got caught lying, or just making things up, I would be a millionaire.

On the Friday Factor show, O'Reilly said this: "There Are No Democratic Countries At All In The Muslim World."



Now O'Reilly did not say there are very few Muslim countries with a Democracy, he said there are no Democratic countries at ALL in the Muslim world, as in none, zero.

And that is a flat out lie, but the funny part is when Geraldo said Turkey is a Muslim Democracy. Then O'Reilly said, but they are Turks. Okay, how does that not make them a Muslim Democracy, O'Reilly's statement that they are Turks made no sense.

America has Mexican citizens, who are part of a Democracy, so if I said yeah but they are Mexicans so it does not count. How would that not make them part of a Democracy. It's a ridiculous statement, and it sounded like something a 5 year old would say, not a so-called Harvard graduate.

I have said this before, but I think O'Reilly is the dumbest Harvard graduate I have ever seen. And I still want an investigation to see if he cheated his way through school. In fact, I bet O'Reilly has the record for saying the most dumbest things by a Harvard graduate.

O'Reilly Has Partisan Planned Parenthood Segment
By: Steve - February 21, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is classic Bill O'Reilly, put a partisan pro-life loon on the Factor (alone) to spin out lies and mislead people about what happens at Planned Parenthood, with no guest to report all the facts they left out.

On the Friday night Factor show, Bill O'Reilly interviewed Abby Johnson about the recent "controversy over Planned Parenthood."

Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, expressed support for Republicans' attempt to defund the health care provider, claiming that Planned Parenthood "does not provide quality health care" and therefore does not "have the right to use our tax dollars."

O'Reilly and Johnson also discussed the recently released undercover videos purporting to show that Planned Parenthood abets the sex trafficking of minors.

When asked by O'Reilly to comment on the videos -- specifically on the Planned Parenthood workers "advising people they thought were pimps and prostitutes underage how to get around the system" and "how to not report statutory rape" -- Johnson said that "it happens all the time." She added: "It happened at my clinic. Absolutely, I let it happen."

Contrary to the claim that Planned Parenthood aided sex traffickers, the organization alerted the FBI to the incidents before the videos were even released -- a fact their neither O'Reilly nor Johnson mentioned during the interview.

And why would they have? After all, Johnson now serves as the Chief Research Strategist for Live Action, the anti-abortion organization that produced the videos.

Johnson claimed during the interview that she left Planned Parenthood "after seeing an ultrasound guided abortion and watching a 13 week old baby fight for its life."

But what they failed to mention, is that Johnson was put on a "performance improvement plan" just three days before leaving the organization and appearing at the pro-life Coalition for Life.

While this does not disprove the reason she gave for leaving the organization, it does raise the possibility that Johnson had a grievance with Planned Parenthood that extends beyond their abortion services.

And neither one of them mentioned that the woman at Planned Parenthood who gave the bad advice was fired for violating their policies, or that it only happened at one clinic, out of hundreds of clinics.

So both O'Reilly and Johnson want to punish the entire company for what one person did, simply because they are pro-life and they hate any place that does abortions.

The Government also give money to faith based groups, if ONE of them does something wrong would O'Reilly support cutting the funding for every faith based group in America, haha, of course not, because he agrees with what they do.

Fox Spins The Obama Stimulus & It's Impact
By: Steve - February 21, 2011 - 8:30am

For the last 2 years every right-wing stooge in America has been saying the Obama stimulus did not work, including O'Reilly who has called it a failure. Now that the two-year anniversary of the stimulus is here, the economic experts say it worked, and everyone at Fox is proven wrong, but they just ignore the data.

Fox marked the two-year anniversary of the enactment of President Obama's economic recovery package by attacking the bill and ignoring independent estimates, which have found that the stimulus significantly boosted gross domestic product and employment.

Here are some findings:

Nonpartisan Economists Say The Stimulus Raised GDP And Employment

A November 2010 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that as of the third quarter of 2010, the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate "by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points," compared to what would have happened in the absence of the stimulus.

It raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.4 and 4.1 percent.

It increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million.

It increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise.

Private Analysts Estimate The Obama Stimulus Increased GDP By 2.1 To 3.5 Percent.

Private Analysts Estimate The Obama Stimulus Increased Employment By 2.1 To 2.5 Million.

The right-wing Wall Street Journal even admits the stimulus worked:
1-14-11: Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal are increasingly optimistic about the pace of the recovery, predicting the U.S. will grow at better than a 3.2% annual rate in each quarter this year.

"The U.S. economy appears to have successfully navigated the adjustment from a recovery driven primarily from economic stimulus and inventory rebuilding to one driven by private domestic demand and rising exports," said economists at Wells Fargo & Co.

"Three percent growth looks pretty good, particularly with housing stuck in low gear."
Now compare that with what almost every single Republican and every single person at Fox is saying, that the Obama stimulus did not work, and that it was a failure. The fact show that the Republican, Fox, and even O'Reilly, were wrong, they are lying when they say it did not work.

And what makes it worse, is they know they are lying, they are simply putting out the Republican talking points that it did not work, because they do not want to give Obama credit for it. It's the worst kind of biased partisan politics, and O'Reilly did it too, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who has been fair to President Obama.

O'Reilly Lied About Why Wisconsin Is In Debt
By: Steve - February 20, 2011 - 8:30am

On his Friday show O'Reilly said Wisconsin is in debt because it can not afford to pay good wages and benefits to state union workers. He specifically said this: "They can't afford to operate because of union wages and benefits."

And that is a 100% flat out lie. In fact, Gov. Scott Walker's assault on unions comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- Wisconsin's equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- stated that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of the tax cut policies Walker put in place during his first days in office.

There it is folks, the current budget shortfall in Wisconsin is the direct result of the tax cuts the Republican Scott Walker passed in his first days in office. It is not the result of union wages and benefits, as O'Reilly claimed.

In fact, Wisconsin could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus without Walker's tax cut bill. Conveniently, the unions that supported Walker's campaign -- the State Patrol, local police, and fire departments -- would stay completely unchanged under the new bill.

Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of this.

Wisconsin state employee unions already made $100 million in concessions last December. Now, Walker's new proposal would effectively take away the right of state employees to collectively bargain for everything from vacation, sick hours, and even the hours they work.

Not to mention, Wisconsin has a $137 million dollar shortfall, even if the 8% union wages and benefits cut happens, it will only save them $30 million dollars, and still leave them $107 million dollars short.

And somehow O'Reilly just forgot to report any of that, yeah right.

The state Senate was expected to pass Walker's proposal Friday, but in support of the workers, the Democratic members of the Senate left the state, leaving the Republicans unable to achieve a quorum for the vote.

The key to winning the battle in Wisconsin is how much endurance the protestors will have in remaining vigilant and how much pressure they can force the business community to bring to bear on Governor Walker.

It remains unclear whether people are willing to skip work and other important things for the weeks that it might take to win this fight. Every day, the Wisconsin GOP has dismissed the protests saying they won't last another day, but each day the protests get bigger by estimates of about ten thousand people each day.

These protests have been successful in gaining a great deal of public support. A new statewide poll shows that 65 percent of Wisconsin residents think that Walker has gone too far in his attack on public employees.

And of course O'Reilly ignored that poll, because it shows that the majority of people in Wisconsin are opposed to the cuts, and because it disagrees with the position O'Reilly has taken, in support of the Republican Scott Walker.

Even some people in the business community are putting pressure on Governor Walker to settle. Business leaders fear that the protests will embolden union members to fight back harder against concession and lockout threats.

Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce President Tim Sheehy would not commit to giving support to strip collective bargaining from public employees in an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio. Sheehy said this: "so I think it's fair to discuss the narrowing of collective bargaining. Whether we throw it out or not is not something we've taken a position on."

So not only did O'Reilly lie about the reason Wisconsin is so far in debt, he ignored about 90% of the facts in the story. And the 90% he ignored all makes the union position look better. Not to mention O'Reilly wants the people to vote on it, and if they voted it looks like the unions would win, because 65% of the people in Wisconsin think Gov. Walker is going to far.

And all of this information I posted here, shows just how much of a dishonest, biased, right-wing partisan O'Reilly is, because a real non-partisan journalist would have reported this stuff.

Ingraham Caught Lying About Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - February 20, 2011 - 8:00am

Once again Laura Ingraham was caught lying, what a socker, NOT!

On the 2-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Laura Ingraham claimed that "Planned Parenthood makes most of its money from the abortion procedure" and "without the abortion services, Planned Parenthood is basically out of business."

In fact, abortion services make up less than 15 percent of Planned Parenthood's annual revenue.

From the February 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
INGRAHAM: Here's what we know, Bill. We know that Planned Parenthood gets about a third of its budget from the U.S. taxpayers, number one. Number two, we know that Planned Parenthood makes most of its money from the abortion procedure. About 324,000 abortions a year.

I mean, to be brutally honest here Planned Parenthood is overwhelmingly in the business to do one thing, to perform abortions. .09 percent of the clients who walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic get prenatal services. And in the last year that was tallied, only about 2400 or so cases were referred to adoptions.

OK, so you do the math. 324,000 abortions, cost on average about $500 a piece. And then the 2400 referred to adoption. It doesn't take a math whiz to understand that without the abortion services, Planned Parenthood is basically out of business.
In Fact, Less Than 15% Of Total Revenue Comes From Abortion Services.

Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 annual report states this: "For the three million patients our doctors and nurses saw, we provided contraception (36 percent of our total services), testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (31 percent), cancer screening and prevention (17 percent), and abortion services (three percent)."

So as you can see, Laura Ingraham was lying her dishonest right-wing ass off. And the great so-called journalist, Bill O'Reilly, never said a word, he just sat there and let her lie without correcting the record.

Why would O'Reilly do that, because he is a right-wing stooge who put her on to lie about Planned Parenthood to make them look bad. That way he kills two birds with one stone, he gets the lie out, and his hands do not get dirty. Then if someone says he lied about them, he can say he did not lie, because he had Ingraham on to lie for him.

The Friday 2-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 19, 2011 - 10:00am

The TPM was called High noon for Dems in Wisconsin. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The stakes are huge for Democrats in Wisconsin. Thousands of state workers are furious that Governor Scott Walker is asking for givebacks in their benefits; the Governor also wants to cripple labor unions from negotiating in that state.

Workers have walked off the job and many schools are shut down. What is going on in Wisconsin could make or break the Democratic Party in America. With a $3.6 billion shortfall, Wisconsin is in trouble economically, so public workers will have to concede some benefits.

Even with Governor Walker's giveback proposal, Wisconsin state workers are far better off than they would be doing the same jobs in the private sector. But the crucial matter for America is the labor union business - liberal Democrats need the unions to support them and President Obama can not be reelected without union money and votes.

The Republican Party says the country is bankrupt because labor unions have secured so much for their workers and the economy is being strangled because of that. The fair thing to do in Wisconsin would be to have a referendum and let the folks vote on union power.

Worker entitlements in Greece, Ireland and Spain have just about ruined those economies. The Democratic Party doesn't seem to understand that, but now most Americans do.
What a joke, O'Reilly wants the people to vote on union cuts, are you kidding me. That means Republicans and other non-union people would be voting to cut union benefits, and of course they would vote to do it. So if we are going to have the people vote on that, why dont we have another vote, on raising taxes on the wealthy and the corporations. But you notice O'Reilly never calls for a vote on that by the people, what a biased hypocrite.

And while we are doing all these votes, to go by the will of the people, why dont we have a vote of the people, and ask if Fox News should be taken off the air. I wonder if O'Reilly would support that vote, haha, never. And btw, Worker entitlements in Greece, Ireland and Spain did not ruin those economies, the greedy rich people running the banks did by investing in bad securities etc. So O'reilly was lying about that.

Then O'Reilly had the liberal Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangel and Luis Gutierrez on to discuss it. Gutierrez said this: "We all need to share in the restructuring of the budget, but it is a tax on workers when they have to give back health care benefits and wages. Who else is sharing the burden, which should belong to everyone? I say we should all share in the sacrifice."

Rangel accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of union-busting. "I truly believe that in Wisconsin there is a move to try to destroy the unions. To think that you are going to destroy the labor movement and use the budget deficit as an excuse is not going to happen."

And they are both right, now get this, you will not believe what O'Reilly says next.

Craaaaaaaazy O'Dummy said this: "The world is watching Wisconsin and, even though I am a union guy, I think most of the folks in America believe the union intrusion is harming the country's economy."

You are a union guy, really, since when, what a joke. O'Reilly is about as anti-union as it gets, he always goes against the unions, not once have I ever seen him defend a union, ever. And even now he is on the Republican side, against the unions. If O'Reilly was a union guy he would be supporting the union, which he is not. O'Reilly saying he is a union guy, is like me saying I am a conservative guy, it's ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had another one of his insane segment, this time he had the right-wing Dana Perino on to talk about Jeb Bush running for President in 2012. Even though Bush has said he will not run, and has no plans to run. Okay, so why even do this segment, it's crazy. Why talk about Jeb Bush running for President, when he said he is not running. Explain that one O'Reilly.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the assault of CBS News correspondent Lara Logan by scores of Egyptian men. And once again O'Reilly had no new news on the story, he just repeated the news we already know. Then both Geraldo and O'Reilly used the segment to bash all Muslims. Geraldo said this: "They have few rights and this is holding back the Muslim world. So in that regard there is definitely a 'Muslim problem.'"

O'Reilly concluded that "there is a Muslim problem with women and a Muslim problem with freedom."

Then O'Reilly had another Planned Parenthood bashing segment, which I will not report on. But I will say this, O'Reilly had a pro-life guest on to discuss it, and no pro-choice guest.

In the next ridiculous segment O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on, who trashed Google. Why, because the Google CEO knows George Soros. So now Beck has turned Google into the next boogeyman, what a joke, why does anyone listen to what this lunatic says. In Beckworld Google is now evil because their CEO knows George Soros, and he is on a board that has a couple liberals on it, wow, someone get him into a padded room fast.

And finally, in the last segment Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville were on for dumbest things of the week. But the only dumb thing is this segment. Their dumb things are dumb, Gutfeld even picked a group in Finland who is protesting McDonalds. Are you kidding me, who cares what a group in Finland does. Neville picked the Pepsi skinny can, really, that is dumb, who cares what kind of can they use, it's their company. And O'Reilly picked Arianna Huffington, who made a joke that a certain former dictator could join Fox News and host "The Mubarak Factor."

Earth to O'Reilly, it was a joke, she was kidding. Now get this, when O'Reilly makes jokes about beheading someone, or waterboarding them, or whatever, he gets mad when people criticize him for it, and he tells them it was a joke, and to get a clue. But when someone makes a joke about him, he breaks his own rule, to ignore it because it was a joke.

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

Documented Proof That Dick Morris Is A Liar
By: Steve - February 19, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Wednesday night O'Reilly Factor Dick Morris was caught (by me) in two big lies, and btw, not once did O'Reilly correct him, he just let Morris lie away.

Here is the first lie, Morris said this:
MORRIS: There's been about a ten-point shift in the last five to ten years in favor of pro-life and away from pro-choice.
Now that my friends is a 100% flat out lie. I looked at the last 10 years of Gallup polls on pro-life vs pro-choice and here is what I found.

In the year 2000; 47% of the American people said they were pro-choice. In the year 2010; 45% of the American people said they were pro-choice. That is a 2 point difference, not the 10 point difference Morris claimed.

In the year 2000; 42% of the American people said they were pro-life. In the year 2010; 47% of the American people said they were pro-life. That is a 5 point difference, not the 10 point difference Morris claimed.

In 2010 45% of the people are pro-choice, and 47% are pro-life, so it's about an even split. Most Democrats are pro-choice, and most Republicans are pro-life, that's a fact. But Morris implied there was some big change in the last 10 years, and that most people are pro-life now, when that is a total lie, and it's roughly an even split.

Not to mention, the poll has a + or - margin or error of 3 points, so it could be even closer than 2 or 5 points. On thing for sure, is that it has not been a 10 point swing as Morris claimed, and not even close.

Now here is lie #2, Morris said this:
MORRIS: The Republicans are on solid political ground in what they're trying to do, and any spending cut is broadly popular at this point with the American people.
Morris claims that ANY spending cut is popular with the American people, but that is simply not true. On almost every major issue the majority of Americans oppose spending cuts, which is the opposite of what Morris claims.

Source: Gallup - Date - 1-26-11:

Prior to the State of the Union address, a majority of Americans said they only favor cutting U.S. foreign aid, while more than 6 in 10 opposed cuts to education, Social Security, and Medicare.

Smaller majorities objected to cutting programs for the poor, national defense, homeland security, aid to farmers, and funding for the arts and sciences.

Just to show you that Morris is a dishonest liar, here are the actual numbers. This is what the people favor and oppose, as far as spending cuts on specific major programs.

Foreign Aid - Favor 59% - Oppose - 37%

That is the only major issue the majority of the American people favor cutting.

The Arts: Favor - 46% Oppose - 52%
Farm Aid: Favor 44% - Oppose - 53%
Homeland Security: Favor - 42% Oppose - 56%
Military: Favor - 42% Oppose - 57%
Anti-Poverty Programs: Favor - 39% Oppose - 55%
Medicare: Favor - 38% Oppose - 61%
Social Security: Favor - 34% Oppose - 64%
Education: Favor - 32% Oppose - 67%

As you can see, Dick Morris was lying when he said that Republicans are on solid political ground, because ANY spending cut is popular with the American people. It's all lies, and O'Reilly just sat there and let him spew out those lies, when he can see the polls just like you and I can, and he knows it was a lie.

Proving that not only is Dick Morris a dishonest, lying, partisan hack, it also proves that O'Reilly is just as bad as Morris, for letting him lie like that on his show.

O'Donnell Says Bill O'Reilly Is A Joke
By: Steve - February 19, 2011 - 8:30am

Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC recently took aim at Bill O'Reilly, calling him a "joke" after the Fox News host attacked MSNBC's patriotism. O'Reilly said there is some anti-Americanism over at MSNBC, which is ridiculous.

Nobody at MSNBC is anti-American, in fact, they are probably more American than O'Reilly, because at least they report on some of the bad things the wealthy, the corporations, and the Republicans do. Unlike O'Reilly, who sticks his head in the sand and ignores it all.

O'Donnell said this: "When I look at O'Reilly, I see dozens of guys I grew up with just like him: overbearing, argumentative Irish guys who think they know everything and can back up nothing," O'Donnell said, adding that O'Reilly can lie "without blinking because he's discovered that there's a lot of money to be made in those lies."

This isn't the first attack O'Donnell has launched on "The Last Word" -- last week the host sparred with Iowa Congressman Steve King for republicans questioning President Obama's faith by suggesting he is a Muslim.

Questioning King's faith, O'Donnell asked, "Do you have a Christian ID you can show me?"

While O'Donnell claims O'Reilly "almost never has the capacity to outrage me," it is still undetermined as to whether O'Reilly will become outraged and launch a counterattack during an upcoming broadcast.

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

Here is what O'Reilly will do, most likely just ignore it. But if he does talk about it, he will not name O'Donnell, he will just say some nobody at MSNBC called him a liar. Then O'Reilly (and most likely Bernie Goldberg) will say his opinion does not matter because he has low ratings.

In O'Reillyworld, your opinion only matters if you get good ratings.

The Thursday 2-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 18, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Insurrection mounts in Wisconsin. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Thousands of state workers are objecting to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's call for an immediate 8% cut in their benefits. Wisconsin has a $3.6 billion shortfall through 2013 and just can't afford to pay its bills.

This is happening to many states and public workers are the first ones to take the hit. That's not going over well in Wisconsin - in the capital city of Madison 40% of the teachers called in sick today, and all over the state workers are demonstrating against benefit cuts.

If state workers will not give back some of their benefits, there's no solution to the fiscal crisis anywhere - you can't raise taxes anymore because the folks are tapped out.

The solution in bankrupt states is for workers to agree to some kind of giveback, perhaps over a few years; that way they can look for other jobs in the private sector if they don't believe they're being compensated fairly in the pubic arena.

Talking Points believes that class warfare is about to break out in America. Union benefits are strangling not only state budgets, but also the private economy.

Yes, workers need protection, but the cold truth is that federal and state workers have reached the top of their earning pyramid. Bankruptcy looms in California and other states, and givebacks are coming. The blowback to that will be nasty.
To begin with, I do not really know enough about the Wisconsin situation to comment on it very much. But I will say this, 8% seems like too much of a cut to take at one time, but of course O'Reilly supports it because he is an anti-union Republican. And O'Reilly acts like the only solution to state debt is to take money away from the unions, which is just ridiculous. It just shows once again what a biased right-wing spin doctor he is, because there are many ways to cut state debt without making the unions the only ones to suffer.

Then O'Reilly had Stuart Varney and Sly Sylvester on to discuss it. Varney said this: "This is a modest pushback against the union's power to negotiate benefits and pensions. It asks union members to put a little more on the table for their own health and pension plans."

Wisconsin talk radio host Sly Sylvester accused Governor Walker of union busting. Sylvester said this: "This is the latest step in Republicans trying to de-unionize Wisconsin. Public employees have been sacrificing, giving up wage increases year after year to keep their pensions and health benefits in place, and the people who are pushing this radical proposal are the same people who supported the trade policies that shipped 100,000 manufacturing jobs out of this state."

Notice that of course the right-wing O'Reilly and Varney support the unions taking the 8% cuts. And notice how O'Reilly could not have Sylvester on alone to discuss it, he had to have him on with the Republican Varney. This makes it a 2 on 1, so it implies Sylvester is wrong. Not only is it biased, it's unfair, and a standard tactic used by O'Reilly. Democrats almost never get on alone, because O'Reilly almost always has a Republican on with him to back up his argument.

Then O'Reilly had Jennifer Griffin from fox, and foreign correspondent Asra Nomani on to discuss the CBS News correspondent Lara Logan, who was assaulted in Cairo last week. Which I do not have much to say about, because everyone knows what happened, so there is not much to report, except news everyone already knows.

In the next segment O'Reilly went right back to his biased agenda, he had Laura Ingraham on to talk about how a lot of Republicans want to end federal taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood. Crazy Ingraham said this: "Planned Parenthood gets about a third of its budget from U.S. taxpayers, and we know that Planned Parenthood makes most of its money from the abortion procedure - about 324,000 abortions a year. So American taxpayers see this country sliding into a fiscal abyss, and the idea that taxpayers should underwrite this is ludicrous.

To be brutally honest, Planned Parenthood is overwhelmingly in business to do one thing, to perform abortions. I have one suggestion - if Planned Parenthood wants federal funding, just stop doing abortions."

Then O'Reilly did some crazy attack on the liberal Janeane Garofalo, why, because she plays an FBI agent on tv, yes I'm serious. The two Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Cathy Areu were on to discuss it. Crazy O'Reilly said Garofalo was being hypocritical, which is just insane, acting is her job, dumbass.

Hoover even disagreed with O'Reilly, she said this: "It's not hypocritical, she's acting, which is pretending you're someone else. Some people would say this shows the extent of her professional abilities to credibly portray an FBI agent."

Then they talked about a Minnesota high school that is discouraging its students from dancing in a sexually suggestive way. And once again Hoover disagreed with O'Reilly and said it was nothing. Hoover said this: "This is much ado about nothing. Just because they're grinding doesn't mean they're having sex."

But Areu applauded the school officials for clamping down on dirty dancing. "It's up to the school to keep things reasonable and appropriate, and it's completely inappropriate for them to endorse that kind of behavior. If it's happening on school property it's completely inappropriate."

Hey bible thumpers, it's fricking dancing, they have their clothes on. Get a clue, and put the bible down. What a total waste of tv time, on this nonsense.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about another issue nobody cares about, and it's tabloid garbage not news. In Touch magazine paid a prostitute $50,000 and published her claims that soccer star David Beckham was a customer. Beckham sued, but his case was dismissed by a judge who claimed the magazine had not shown "malice."

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly concurred with the ruling. "It is absolutely correct," Kelly pronounced. Then O'Reilly complained that the judge's decision invites more slander of public figures: "That's really frightening, because if you're paying somebody $50,000 to say something, they're going to say it."

Remember that O'Reilly is not an attorney or a judge, so his legal opinions are worth nothing. Usually he lets his bias get in the way of his opinion, so if he were a judge he would be the worst judge in the history of America.

Then the Factor News Quiz, with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy, which I do not report on. Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. For anyone who is counting, O'Reilly had 8 Republican guests, to 2 Democratic guests, with O'Reilly it was 9 to 2, fair and balanced?

O'Reilly Lied About The Flores Murder Story
By: Steve - February 18, 2011 - 9:30am

Here is a great example of how O'Reilly and his so-called crack legal team (Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle) got it all wrong, and just lied like fools. During a segment about a killing in a so-called illegal immigrant house, O'Reilly said that a woman member of the Minutemen breaks into an illegal alien house, right.

Guilfoyle says right, and she agrees with O'Reilly. But that is all wrong: Both Raul Junior Flores and his 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia (as well as Gina Gonzalez, the girl's mother) were American citizens.
O'REILLY: Now -- exact opposite on the political spectrum, in Arizona. A woman member of the Minutemen breaks into an illegal alien house?

GUILFOYLE: Right.
Then they lied some more. Both Guilfoyle and Wiehl begin trading in even more factually wrong characterizations of Forde and her relationship to the Minuteman movement:

GUILFOYLE: This woman has some, um, problems otherwise. This wasn't really about immigration -- this was a woman who is a criminal, was working with this group to do drug ripoffs.

O'REILLY: She's a criminal herself.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. The organization she belonged to was Minuteman American Defense, otherwise known as MAD. But I did a lot of research on this case, and essentially she was using this organization to say, 'I'm gonna do rip-offs of drug cartels to fund my group.

O'REILLY: Ohhh, so she joined the group to find out where illegal aliens who might be dealing narcotics.
Wiehl at least points out that Forde didn't join MAD -- she founded it. Then they lied some more:
WIEHL: She was kicked out of two other organizations.
O'REILLY: Oh, she got kicked out of the Minutemen?
WIEHL: Well, that was the point. She was such a nut that she was kicked out of Minutemen. She started her own organization.
O'REILLY: All right, so her scam was, she would enter suspected drug dealers' homes and steal their drugs.
WIEHL: She thought he had $4,000 bucks in drug money, she wanted to go in there and get that money with her two accomplices.
O'REILLY: She killed how many people?
WIEHL: She killed the man, she killed the 9-year-old child --
O'REILLY: She killed a 9-year-old.
WIEHL: Yes. The mother of the 9-year-old was on the phone --
GUILFOYLE: She was present, she wasn't the shooter.
O'REILLY: Now, does she get the death penalty? Has she been sentenced?
GUILFOYLE: She is now eligible for the death penalty. The jury is considering it. Her defense at the time was, 'It wasn't me. It was the girlfriend of one of my codefendants.'
O'REILLY: But it doesn't matter, because she was convicted of the murders.
WIEHL: Right.
O'REILLY: So she's gonna go. All right, so then, uh --
GUILFOYLE: And she should -- and the Minutemen organizations don't want any association with her.
O'REILLY: And we want to emphasize that she was kicked out
WIEHL: She was not part of the Minutemen.
GUILFOYLE: One of them, she was kicked out within 40 minutes of attending her first meeting!
WIEHL: She lied, she said she was leader, she wasn't any of those things.
O'REILLY: So she covered her own stupid organization as a cover for her own criminal activities.
GUILFOYLE: That's correct.
O'REILLY: Then she got what she deserved.
Both Wiehl and Guilfoyle are simply lying here: Shawna Forde was a significant figure in the Minuteman movement in Washington state for the better part of two years before she headed to Arizona.

She appeared onstage in Everett with Minuteman Project cofounder Jim Gilchrist at a big Minuteman rally in 2007, and appeared on a public-TV town hall as a spokesman for both the Minutemen and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

And btw, Forde was kicked out of the Washington state chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps not because they found her too extreme, but because she was caught stealing from the back bedroom of one of the local Minutemen's home.

Now some actual facts:
Interviews with Minutemen and their critics, as well as reviews of recently scrubbed Web sites, suggest Forde was well-placed in the border-security movement and represented a persistent radical wing.

"Shawna Forde was very much a known entity in this movement and, to some degree and to different folks, tolerated for quite some time," said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino.
Jim Gilchrist, the cofounder of the Minuteman Project, was running updates on Shawna's border patrols on his Minuteman Project web site even after the Flores murders -- in a report that tried to blame the murders on illegal immigrants. He then corresponded with her by e-mails to query about the story that the authorities were after her.

Here is the deal, O'Reilly supports the minutemen, even though they are a right-wing group. So he spins the story to deny that Forde was a member of the minutemen, because it makes them look bad, and then he claims she killed some illegal immigrants. When she was a long time member, and they were not illegal, they were American citizens.

Then he used Wiehl and Guilfoyle to lie about the whole story. And their so-called heavy "research" was nothing but a pack of lies. But that's about the best we can ever expect to get from O'Reilly.

O'Reilly Only Believes Polls He Agrees With
By: Steve - February 18, 2011 - 9:00am

This is classic O'Reilly spin, in the so-called no spin zone. A poll by Public Policy Polling comes out taken by Republican primary voters only, that said 51% of them do not think President Obama was born in the United States.

This shows that 51% of the Republican voters are loons, nuts, off their rocker, because President Obama was born in the United States, and that is a proven fact, O'Reilly has even admitted that anyone who thinks Obama is not a citizen is wrong.

So what does O'Reilly do after reporting the Public Policy Polling poll, he of course spins like a top and claims the poll is wrong. Then he cites a CBS poll, that only sampled adults over 18 years old. The CBS poll said that 58 percent of Americans believe the president was born in America. Just 20 percent say he was born in another country.

This is what O'Reilly does, when he does not like a poll, a poll that always makes Republicans look bad, he discredits it and says it is not a valid poll. Then he finds another poll, that agrees with him, and says that is a good poll.

So let me get this straight, a poll is only valid if Bill O'Reilly agrees with it, even when it is a scientific poll that was taken by a valid polling company. Got it, good job O'Reilly. You have proven once again to be a giant biased partisan idiot.

O'Reilly has criticized media and polling outlets for covering birthers, suggesting that it's part of an effort to "marginalize Republican opposition in 2012 by painting them as nuts." Appearing on O'Reilly's show Karl Rove claimed, "This is the White House strategy. They love this."

There's a couple things wrong with this. First, "I don't care" wasn't an option on the CBS poll. Rather, 22 percent responded "I don't know" - which means they think it's possible that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

But even if you set aside the "Don't know" crowd, you still have 20 percent who say Obama was born in another country, or in O'Reilly's words, "Just 20 percent." Are you kidding me, 20% of the country is a hell of a lot of people to believe a lie.

The 2009 Census estimate says there are 232.4 million adults in America, so if you use the O'Reilly argument, that's more than 46 million adult Americans who believe Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

Now remember this folks, polls are only valid when O'Reilly agrees with it. And he claims he has a no spin zone, when it's all spin, right-wing spin.

Another Health Care Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - February 18, 2011 - 8:30am

A new CBS poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of the GOP's plan to cut off funding for health care reform.

Fifty-five percent (55%) do not want the funding eliminated, while just 35 percent (35%) said they approve of the Republican idea. Ten percent had no opinion.

And this is a poll from a real news network, not the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll that everyone knows is rigged. O'Reilly ignores real polls, while using Rasmussen, which only Republicans use.

The Wednesday 2-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 17, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called The budget brawl gets personal. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: For the first time in my life the federal government is being held accountable for how it spends tax money. Because of the debt crisis, federal spending is under siege and over the next few years we can expect many government programs to be abolished.

Stuff like subsidies for PBS and NPR and funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood. Of course, that is angering some on the left. Enter the uber-liberal George Soros and his MoveOn organization.

They know Planned Parenthood may lose federal funding, so they created an ad warning that 'the Republican Party launched an all-out assault on women's health ... trying to send women back to the back alley.' That ad, of course, is insane.

Nobody is trying to send women to the back alleys - if Planned Parenthood believes it is doing good for America, let it raise money privately. But you can see how emotional the debate is becoming.

The MoveOn ad is a perfect illustration of the hysteria that is bubbling over the debt crisis. The question is, will Americans respond to that sort of propaganda and will politics once again stop fiscal reform?

The bottom line is that the United States is broke and all non-essential government spending has to stop. Period.
So then Dick Morris was on to talk about the MoveOn ad. Morris said this: "I don't think that ad will have any effect at all. There's been about a ten-point shift in the last five to ten years in favor of pro-life and away from pro-choice, and about 75% of Americans oppose using tax money to pay for abortions. So the Republicans are on solid political ground in what they're trying to do, and any spending cut is broadly popular at this point with the American people."

Notice that Morris is lying, he said this: "Any spending cut is broadly popular at this point with the American people."

And that is a 100% lie, because the majority of the American people oppose most spending cuts, especially to Social Security, so Morris is just lying. According to an Opinion Research Corporation survey, for most of the government programs tested, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, college loans, aid to farmers and unemployed workers, Americans say that avoiding significant spending cuts is more important than reducing the deficit.

Then O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall and Erica Payne on to talk about Planned Parenthood. Marshall said this: "This will affect lower income women. Two-thirds of the federal money Planned Parenthood uses is for preventative care, whether it's screening for cancer or infertility help, and the funds are utilized for people who are lower income."

Payne cast the issue in terms of gender. "We have a Senate that's dominated by men and a House that's dominated by men, so we have a bunch of men trying to decide a women's issue. Women are really the backbone of the American family, so we should do whatever we can to support them."

Of course O'Reilly disagreed because he is a pro-life far-right stooge, then Bilyl reminded Marshall and Payne that the federal government is $14 trillion in debt, O'Reilly said this: "Both of you liberal ladies, as well-intentioned as you are, are not getting this fiscal crisis."

Hey O'Reilly, how come you do not demand we stop the $10 billion in tax breaks the oil companies get every year. Do oil companies who make billions in profit every year need tax breaks, answer that Jerk!

Now this was funny, O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about the Obama birthers. The crazy Karl Rove said the Obama administration benefits from the controversy.

Rove said this: "The President could come out and say here are the documents, but the White House is happy to have this controversy continue because every moment that conservatives talk about this, they marginalize themselves in the minds of independent voters. And every moment we spend talking about this is a moment we can't spend talking about the failed stimulus bill, the reckless spending, Obama-care, his failures in foreign policy, and his failure to live up to the promises he made in 2008. He was born in Hawaii and we need to stop falling into the trap of the White House and focus on the real issues."

Wow, where do I start. To begin with, Rove is full of it, because Obama already came out with the documents that prove he was born in America. The stimulus bill was not a failure, and every honest economist will agree to that. There was no reckless spending, Obama had to spend us out of a depression, because of what Bush did, and it worked. Not to mention Obama has not had any foreign policy failures, name them, what did he fail at. Rove is just a lie machine, nothing he said was true.

Then O'Reilly talked about Miley Cyrus again, which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage. But I will say this, why is the Bill O'Reilly always talking about Miley Cyrus, it's creepy. It's not news, so the only answer is that he is a creepy old pervert.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly waste of tv time segment, where he makes jokes about Obama and the Democrats, that are not funny to anyone, except the right-wing idiots who watch the Factor. Miller did say that Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels will win the Republican Presidential primary. Really, who cares, you are a comedian, not a political analyst.

And finally, in the last segment called did you see that, O'Reilly had the Entertainment reporter Shira Lazar on to talk about the IBM supercomputer that has been beating two former champions on Jeopardy. Really, who cares, and how is this a must see video, when we have already seen it a hundred times on every tv show in America. Earth to O'Reilly, this is not hard news, in fact, it's not news at all, it's tabloid garbage.

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

Big Iraq War News O'Reilly Is Not Reporting
By: Steve - February 17, 2011 - 9:30am

The NY Times is reporting that the Bush administration's main Iraqi source that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had biological weapons in the run-up to the 2003 invasion admitted that he fabricated his story.

"I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime," said Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, code-named "Curveball."

"I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

Then on Hardball Tuesday night Chris Matthews played a clip of Bush saying this on 10-7-1002:
GEORGE W. BUSH: America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Absolutely embarrassing to our history.

That, of course, is President Bush in October of 2002 making the case for war with Iraq. Now we know that a report from one month prior to that says-quote-"Our knowledge of the Iraqi weapons-nuclear weapons program is based largely, perhaps 90 percent, on analysis of imprecise intelligence."

It was written, by the way, by Secretary Rumsfeld's-at his request by Major General Glen Shaffer, who was then the director of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs and the secretary of defense.

You know, I argued against the war because I was skeptical from day one about the case they made for nuclear weapons. And now it turns out they don‘t even make the case anymore.

Here's Rumsfeld with his big tomb, admitting in it that they didn't have-they had no-we're going to get to all the facts but we did it last night-no evidence of any purchases of nuclear weapons, no evidence of any attempt to purchase, and no evidence of any construction of nuclear weapons.

Zero nuclear weapons, simply the possibility that he intended at some point to do that and then to find out that the director of intelligence is basically saying all the evidence they had is imprecise.

And then, today, we get the report, the curve ball, talk about the aluminum tubes or whatever, that he was lying just to get whatever he wanted because he hated Saddam. No evidence. It's almost the most purist form of dishonesty. And I have to wonder-did they know they were doing this?

Bush, Condi, Powell, Cheney, the rest of them-why didn't they get this fact there was no intel?

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

Now this is a big story, and yet, O'Reilly the so-called greatest journalist in the world, has not said a word about it.

It basically shows that Bush and Cheney just made it all up as an excuse to go to war with Iraq. And O'Reilly is silent as a mouse, after he said anyone who made that claim has no proof and they are lying. O'Reilly said that if someone has the proof Bush and Cheney made it up to take us to war with Iraq, show him and he will report it. So now we have the proof, and O'Reilly still ignores it all.

O'Reilly Edited The ThinkProgress Video Clip
By: Steve - February 17, 2011 - 9:00am

First, think about this, O'Reilly said nothing on the Factor is ever edited. Then he gets caught editing a video. Here is what they reported on the issue. This is from the guy at Think Progress who asked Factor Producer Jesse Watters the question.

From ThinkProgress:

Last week, I caught up with Fox News ambusher Jesse Watters at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC and asked him about a recent Media Matters report that a former Fox News insider said that "stuff is just made up" at the network.

However, instead of commenting on the story, Watters tried to belittle me. Thinking I was trying to ambush him, Watters said I was "a little JV" because I didn't have a big camera crew, claimed I looked "nervous," and even feigned victimhood at a slight brush up against his sport coat, saying, "Watch my blazer, bro."

In appreciation for their star ambush reporter's efforts to avoid commenting on how Fox makes stuff up, the network is now trying to spin my encounter with Watters. Bill O'Reilly last night aired a heavily edited clip of my interview with Watters and then attacked me personally (remember, O'Reilly once said he doesn't do personal attacks):
O'REILLY: As you may know, Factor producer Jesse Waters occasionally does man on the street interviews with people who dodge the Factor. That has angered some on the far left and groups like ThinkProgress do not like Jesse. They are, of course, misguided. Anyway, some nebbish from that group caught up with Watters in Washington.

This dopey Media Matters outfit, which is a Web site, ran some kind of blind report, right? This moron comes out there and who's -- "are you making stuff up?" Most people say no, we don't make stuff up. You were brilliant in the sense that you don't even answer the question. This is stupid.
Fox and Friends also aired select portions of my interview with Watters. Doocy said Watters was "ambushed by a far left blogger" and simply accepted Watters' claim that I looked "a little nervous."

Of course, O'Reilly, Watters, and the Fox & Friends crew got some things wrong. As Watters knows well, an ambush interview is when one confronts someone outside their home, office or any other private space, forces interviewees to call the police, confronts someone while he or she is eating breakfast or dinner with family or won't allow someone to get in their car and drive away.

Ambushing is also stalking a woman and following her and her boyfriend for two hours to a vacation spot to accost them. All of this is what Jesse Watters has done, and continues to do.

As I told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Monday night, I did not ambush Watters. I saw Watters walking around at CPAC, a public event that hundreds of political reporters attended, and I decided to ask him if he wished to defend his employer.

I did not stalk Watters, nor did I have a pre-meditated plan to interview and embarrass him. I used a flip cam (not a cell phone camera) to record Watters' comments, just as any reporter would use a pen and notepad or a voice recorder. If Watters had said he did not want to speak with me, that would have been the end of the interview.

Watters's response to my question perfectly illustrates what Fox News does to its perceived opponents and how it confronts criticism: divert attention from the substantive issue, then shout down and denigrate those with whom it disagrees.

O'Reilly Applauds Producer For Avoiding Question
By: Steve - February 17, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is funny, when O'Reilly has his producer ambush someone they demand answers to their questions. If they do not answer, they call them dishonest, corrupt, cowards. But when a Factor producer does not answer a question to him, somehow in O'Reillyworld that is a good thing.

It just goes to show what a hypocrite with double standards O'Reilly really is. Here is what O'Reilly said about it:



O'Reilly should get some kind of hypocrisy award, because he is the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen.

The Tuesday 2-15-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 16, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called The Factor solves the deficit crisis. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama held a press conference today saying that his budget for 2012 is responsible and will help the country. The deficit is $1.1 trillion, which many economists say is far too high.

It's also rather embarrassing that the President's own debt commission says he's not doing nearly enough to solve the financial crisis. So Talking Points has a very simple strategy: The U.S. government must go back to 2008, it must spend the same amount it did before the recession.

The budget in 2008 was $2.9 trillion, almost a trillion dollars less than the 2012 proposal. That would mean the Defense Department would get $612 billion instead of $884 billion; the Department of Energy would get $21 billion instead of $30 billion; and the Department of Education would get $66 billion instead of $77 billion.

As for entitlements, in 2008 spending on Medicare was $386 billion; President Obama wants $485 billion, $100 billion more just four years later! Social Security payments in '08 were $612 billion; in '12 that will be $761 billion. This can't go on, the age requirement has to be raised.

The President says he's taking a scalpel rather than a machete to the budget, but I'm not getting that. The country is in dire financial trouble, so let's go back to 2008. It's a simple formula, it's doable, and it must be done.
Yeah let's go back to 2008 spending levels, what a ridiculous idea. What gets me is how these millionaires who will not be affected by all these spending cuts call for it. Here is my idea, raise taxes on the wealthy, the corporations, raise the capital gains tax, and raise the limit on the pay in for Social Security, raise it from $75,000 to $200,000 so these wealthy people have to pay in more. Notice you do not hear O'Reilly even mention any of that. He just wants to make a guy who is 65 years old work until he is 69, that's just wrong.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "I think you're on the right track, and there are places we could make even more cuts. We could have closed some of the military bases around the world that cost us $145 billion and are related to World War II. It's ridiculous!"

Crowley said this: "That's what most Republicans have been talking about - roll back federal spending back to the '08 levels. That is their budgetary target because it's the pre-stimulus level and pre-bailout level. President Obama told the American people he was going to cut the deficit in half, but he has quadrupled it."

How can we do all that when the economy is just now coming out of a recession, and things are getting better. Not to mention, where were all these ideas in the 8 years when Bush and the Republicans had all the power. Somehow they only want to do it when there is a Democratic President, but when we had a Republican President they said deficits do not matter, and they spent money like a drunken sailor.

Then Lou Dobbs was on, who of course agreed that rolling back spending to 2008 levels is a reasonable solution to America's budget woes. Dobbs said this: "It's not only realistic, but it is absolutely, critically necessary."

Dobbs also complained about the tax increases in President Obama's budget. "There will be taxes on oil and gas and insurance companies. There is a long list of taxes in this thing, and this is the guy who is going to be a friend of business! The reality is that those taxes flow through to the consumer, which adds to our tax burden, which is already suffocating. We have to bring under control the federal government that is intruding into every quarter of American society and American lives."

Earth to Lou Dobbs, the gas and oil companies made record profits during possibly the 2nd worst recession we have ever had, so they deserve to pay more, a lot more, you moron. And Obama should add big fines to them if they pass the cost on to the consumer.

Then John Stossel was on. Speaking to a group of conservative activists last weekend, Donald Trump said that libertarian Congressman Ron Paul has no chance of being elected president. So John Stossel said this: "I don't think it's the truth, and the reason we have elections is because we don't know who might win. You're now talking about cutting the budget and Ron Paul has been talking about that for years. His time may have come, and I'll bet Ron Paul gets more votes than Donald Trump."

Proving that Stossel is a massive fool, because Paul has two chances of winning, none and none. Ron Paul is a far-right loon, and that is a fact. Not only will he never be the President, he will never even win the Republican primary. Even O'Reilly knows that Paul can not win.

O'Reilly said that Paul's views are far out of the mainstream: "I want Ron Paul to run - he's an interesting guy and he can challenge the front-runners. But he can't win! He wants to abolish most of the federal government and he's basically an isolationist."

Then O'Reilly had Factor producer Jesse Watters on to talk about being ambushed, and not answering the question. O'Reilly claims Watters got the best of the guy and made him look bad. Which is just ridiculous, because Watters looked like a fool, by not answering the question, and a hypocrite. Somehow in O'Reillyworld that means Watters made the ambusher look bad.

Then O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to talk about another illegal immigrant case about an illegal who killed 3 people. It's just right-wing bias to make all illegals look bad, when this was one case out of millions of illegals who mostly come here to work.

O'Reilly does these stories to make it look like all illegals are murders and criminals, when that is just not true. In fact, illegals commit less crime per 1000 people than legal citizens do, but you never hear that from O'Reilly. Most of them come here to work, and never kill anyone, or commit any crimes.

And finally O'Reilly had a segment about CPAC. But of course it was with a Republican guest only, and not once did O'Reilly say there are all right-wing loons, which he does when liberals hold a similar event. Because a lot of them are his people, and he agrees with a lot of what they want to do.

Charles Krauthammer was on, and he dismissed the vote's significance. Krauthammer said this: "We're talking about a weird group here. These are Ron Paul libertarians, and he is the guy who wants to repeal the Patriot Act, demolish the Fed, and get out of all our involvements overseas. I'm not sure where Ron Paul stands on the Louisiana Purchase. This CPAC conference has a lot of college students who all want to be Ayn Rand, so I wouldn't put a lot into this poll. Mainline conservatives are not going to elect Ron Paul."

O'Reilly pointed out that mainstream reporters flock to the CPAC gathering every year: "The liberal media loves this because they can go in and cover it and say this is what Republicans are like."

Wow O'Reilly got something right for once. Not only did he basically just admit they are a bunch of right-wing loons, even though he would not say it, he also admitted that is what a lot of Republicans are like, even though he would not say that either. Earth to O'Reilly, the media covers it to show the people what a lot of Republicans are really like. These nuts are 20% of the Republican party, you just refuse to admit it.

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

Tea Party Patriots: Same Old Republican Tactics
By: Steve - February 16, 2011 - 9:30am

Here is another news story you will never see reported on the O'Reilly Factor, because it tells the truth about the Tea Party Patriots. As you will see, they are nothing more than the same Republicans you will find in the Republican party.

Here are some highlights from a Mother Jones article on the group:

Tea Party Patriots Investigated: "They Use You and Abuse You"

Pricey consultants, constant fundraising, fame-seeking leaders: A grassroots group cozies up the DC establishment and angers the activists who put it on the map. Part 1 of 3.

Two years ago, Tea Party Patriots got its start as a scrappy, ground-up conservative organization. Its rowdy activists demanded more transparency and less business-as-usual in the nation's capital, and they worked hard to elect candidates who they believed wouldn't succumb to the ways of Washington. But it didn't take long for the grassroots tea party organization to embrace the DC establishment—and some of its more questionable practices.

Lately, Tea Party Patriots (TPP) has started to resemble the Beltway lobbying operations its members have denounced. The group's leaders have cozied up to political insiders implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and have paid themselves significant salaries. TPP accepted the use of a private jet and a large donation of anonymous cash right before a key election, and its top officials have refused to discuss how the money was spent.

And recently, the group has hired several big-time fundraising and public relations firms that work for the who's who of the Republican political class, including some of the GOP's most secretive campaign operations.

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

In August, TPP inked a contract with MDS Communications, an Arizona-based phone fundraising firm that counts as clients the Republican National Committee and most of the GOP's congressional campaign organizations. MDS even handled the telephone fundraising for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. The firm specializes in working with the GOP's evangelical foot soldiers, including the National Right to Life Committee, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council.

TPP's leaders negotiated a similar deal with Capitol Resources, the most formidable GOP phone fundraising operation in the presidential bellwether state of Iowa. Corporate filings show the company will keep 75 percent of the money it raises hitting up tea partiers for donations.

The firm's owner, Nicole Schlinger, is a longtime GOP operative. She was the finance director of the Iowa Republican Party in the late 1990s, and she directed Mitt Romney's victorious 2007 Iowa presidential straw poll campaign. Schlinger also served as the original president and sole board member of the American Future Fund, an outside expenditure group that spent millions from anonymous donors during the 2010 midterms attacking Democratic candidates.

Rounding out TPP's new stable of political consultants is the Richard Norman Company, a Virginia-based direct-mail fundraising and PR firm. Norman, like the other firms on TPP's payroll, represents some of the country's most prominent GOP players, including the political action committee of former uber-lobbyist and current Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

Cindy Chafian, the co-coordinator of California's Chino Hills Tea Party in California, used to donate monthly to TPP. She has since grown disillusioned with the group and its leaders. Far from helping local activists like her, Chafian says, TPP's fundraising efforts are actually diverting resources from the local groups that need them. "They make it seem like they help local groups," she says. "None of that money ever goes back to local groups."

They also keep 75% (or all) of the money they raise, as they fly around on private jets and stay in $500.00 a night hotel rooms. Which is no different then what the Republicans do.

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

And btw folks, O'Reilly claims the Tea Party is not a right-wing group, haha, this article proves they are, and everyone already knew it anyway, so it also proves that O'Reilly is a proven liar.

Fox Idiot Wants To Close Social Security
By: Steve - February 16, 2011 - 9:00am

If you are over 65 and you get a Social Security check you need to read this. A woman at Fox, Tracy Byrnes is pushing to shut down Social Security, she even said "We Don't Need It"

On the 2-14-11 Fox show (Varney & Co.) she said this:



Now think about this, she is not the only Republican who thinks we should just get rid of Social Security, she is simply one Republican who is brave enough to say it on the air. But I would bet 90% of the Republican party want to get rid of Social Security.

Which would be the worst thing this country could ever do. Because more than 45 million people get Social Security. Not only would it destroy the economy, imagine how many lives would be destroyed.

My father would be homeless without that monthly Social Security check, because it is 80% of his monthly income. His employee pension from International Paper pays less than $400.00 a month, yes I said less than $400.00 a month. And her worked there for 30 years, but it's still less than $400.00 a month.

Now imagine if he had 80% of his monthly income taken away, he would not be able to pay his house payment, his car payment, the gas and light bill, the phone bill, the cable bill, etc. In fact, his monthly pension would not even make his house payment.

That would leave him with no money to buy food, put gas in the car, or anything. He would be in a homeless shelter, or just homeless. Now think about that, he is a world war II veteran, who fought the Nazis as a 3rd division infantryman.

He worked 30 years to get that money, and he deserves it. Now the Republicans want to get rid of the entire program and just let people like my Father starve to death as a homeless man.

This is why nobody should vote Republican, because if they ever get the power to do some of this stuff they could actually do it. Social Security should be off limits, they should either raise the limits, or make people pay in more to pay for it.

We can never take it away, because millions and millions of people need it. And they deserve it, because they pay into it, so it is not welfare, they earned it.

The Monday 2-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 15, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama and government spending. O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: The President released his budget for 2012 today - it takes the federal deficit down from $1.6 trillion to $1.1 trillion and there are just $90-billion in spending cuts. Republicans, of course, say the cuts are far too small and Talking Points agrees.

Here's how the enormous spending affects you: In order to pay off the interest on the $14-trillion debt - money that could be used to defend America, educate its children, build highways and other infrastructure - that money is instead sent to people who have lent to us.

If the U.S. government were a business, it would have gone under a long time ago, and the solution is really a question: How much pain will we tolerate? Talking Points believes Social Security payments will have to be cut in the form of a higher retirement age. Will you support that?

On the health care front, no longer can Medicare and Medicaid be doled out the way they are now. Chances are your co-payments will go up a lot. The cold truth is that America needs a drastic overhaul on what it spends money on and how many entitlements there should be.

If we're all in this together, we will absorb the pain. But if we only care about ourselves, America will continue on the road towards insolvency.
What a shocker, O'Reilly agrees with the Republicans, NOT. O'Reilly used the right-wing spin that talks about the $90 billion in spending cuts, while ignoring the fact that the Obama budget lowers the deficit by $500 billion dollars. Instead O'Reilly only focused on the $90 billion in spending cuts.

O'Reilly said Social Security payments will have to be cut, but that will never happen, and the majority of people are opposed to cutting Social Security. Dont you just love how millionaires who do not need Social Security, and will never need it, want to cut it. Hey O'Reilly, why dont we raise the Social Security pay in amount on the wealthy, raise it from $75,000 to $200,000 just like the top tax rate, instead of making the poor suffer with cuts.

Then O'Reilly says "If we're all in this together, we will absorb the pain. But if we only care about ourselves, America will continue on the road towards insolvency."

Except if we make all these cuts that only hurt the middle class and the poor, we are not all in it together. How are the wealthy suffering, answer that one smart guy.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with O'Reilly, Hume said this: "When you look at the enormity of the task, and the magnitude of the debt we are already in, this is a pretty tame budget. Spending has been growing very rapidly, and this budget does not propose to do anything at all about the really big items in the budget. The Republicans have yet to write their budget, and when they do we'll see if they are willing to step into these waters."

In the next segment O'Reilly had George Stephanopoulos, a former aide to President Clinton, on to discuss it. Stephanopoulos said this: "This is a first move, and even White House officials and Democrats know this doesn't solve the big problems. They're basically putting in a place holder and saying, 'let's figure out if we can have some conversations about how to move forward.'

The showdown is going to come pretty early - the government runs out of money for this year on March 4th, and Republicans will force the White House to accept some percentage of cuts for every week that goes by."

Then O'Reilly went off the deep end. He attacked the host of Meet The Press David Gregory for being disrespectful to the Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. Are you kidding me, all he did was ask Boehner if he would say the right-wing birthers are wrong, and say the President is an American. O'Reilly called it a grilling, which is just laughable.

So then O'Reilly has Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to discuss it. And of course they both agreed with him. The whole thing was ridiculous, and Gregory did nothing wrong. It was not disrespectful at all. All he did was ask Boehner a straight up question, and Boehner refused to answer, so Gregory did a follow up, but Boehner still refused to answer.

The funny part is O'Reilly complaining about a disrespectful interview, when he is the most disrespectful interviewer in America. It looks like O'Reilly is just trying to get revenge on the media for saying his interview with Obama was disrespectful. When they were right about O'Reilly, even though the Gregory interview was not disrespectful at all. It's like an NFL linebacker complaining that other players hit running backs too hard, it was just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly talked about Al Jazeera, and how he has accused them of anti-Jewish and anti-American bias. Former Al Jazeera anchor Dave Marash was on to discuss it. Marash said this: "They certainly aren't anti-Semitic, but they are anti-Netanyahu and anti-Lieberman and anti-Israeli right. Even in Israel, the opinion is that Al Jazeera gives them a fairly decent journalistic shake."

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk more about his Obama interview, which I will not report on because it's a week old story and O'Reilly will not let it go, move on man, nobody cares anymore.

And the last segment was the Factor Reality Check, which was even worse than usual. Billy only had 2 so-called reality checks. In check #1 O'Reilly asked people to buy something from his website, and said it would go to a military charity. In check #2, O'Reilly played clips of the SNL spoof of his Obama interview. And btw, O'Reilly edited out almost all the parts that made him look bad.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, stop reporting on your Obama interview, it happened over a week ago, let it go loser.

Canada's Favorite Online Casino Website
By: Steve - February 15, 2011 - 10:00am

Hey folks, I recently found a great website to play some online casino games. It's the best site I know of for online casino games.

They have over 100 of the finest games, in a tested and regulated environment to ensure fair play. Games like Blackjack, Slots, Roulette, Video Poker, and much more.

They offer a fantastic range of casino games which can be played for both high and low stakes. It's a licensed and secure online casino website, with great promotions, and 24/7 tech support.

So give them a visit and play some great online casino games.

O'Reilly Ignored Shirtless Republican Scandal
By: Steve - February 15, 2011 - 9:30am

It's been almost a week now, and O'Reilly has still not said one word about the married Republican Congressman resigning, after getting caught sending shirtless photos to women on Craigslist.

This is a perfect example of the bias from O'Reilly, bias in not reporting a story about a Republican. Which is the exact same thing he complains about from the rest of the media. O'Reilly complains that what he calls the liberal media ignored the Planned Parenthood scandal.

Then he does the very same thing, by ignoring news that makes Republicans look bad. To this day O'Reilly has totally ignored the shirtless Republican resigning story, making him the biggest double standard hypocrite in America.

Just three hours after the Gawker web site uncovered the attempts of Representative Christopher Lee to pick up women on Craig's List, he resigned. Bloggers were calling it the quickest political resignation ever. Some are even claiming Representative Christopher Lee now holds the world's record for the fastest resignation.

When the story broke on February 10th, it was the lead story on every news show in the country (except for the the O'Reilly Factor) all the late night comedians made jokes about it, it was one of the top 5 stories on Google News and the #1 story on Yahoo News.

But O'Reilly ignored the entire story, now a week later and he has still not reported it.

Then on top of that, O'Reilly has also ignored all the good economic news that has come out lately, because it makes Obama look good. Here are some things O'Reilly has not said one word about.

1) The DOW breaks 12,000, O'Reilly never said a word.

2) New unemployment claims dropped by 36,000 last week, O'Reilly never said a word.

3) The unemployment rate dropped to 9.0 percent, O'Reilly never said a word.

4) A new poll said Fox is the least trusted cable news network, O'Reilly never said a word.

5) A former Fox News employee spoke about their bias, and admitted they just make stuff up to make Democrats look bad, O'Reilly never said a word.

6) CPAC had their yearly conference and the far right loon Ron Paul won their straw poll for President. Palin was dead last with 3% of the vote, so even the far-right loons do not want her to run. And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because it makes the Republicans look bad, and he loves Palin.

7) Palin called fellow Republican Rick Santorum, a Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal. O'Reilly never said a word.

8) After 2 years of complaints by O'Reilly and the Republicans that Obama was not doing enough to secure the border, Republicans now want to cut $600 million dollars from the border patrol budget, and O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

And those are just some of the big news stories O'Reilly has ignored in the last week alone. While every night he complains about the media ignoring news for partisan reasons. When he does it himself, and far more than they do.

Republicans Now Want To Cut Border Funding
By: Steve - February 15, 2011 - 9:00am

Talk about ridiculous, this is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a long time. After crying about border security for 2 years, the Republicans are now trying to cut funding for border security. O'Reilly talks about this almost every night, and most Republicans have made it a big issue.

Now we find out they want to cut $600 million from border security and immigration enforcement funds. How crazy is that, about as crazy as it gets. How can you complain about border security, then take some of their funding away, it makes no sense.

For the past two years, Republicans have repeatedly argued that they will not support comprehensive immigration reform until the border is secured.

In 2006, current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) stated that putting millions of undocumented immigrants on a path to legalization without meeting certain border security benchmarks would place "the cart before the horse. We spent a lot of time, effort and money getting more security on the border. But we're nowhere close to having the kind of secure borders that Americans want," said Boehner.

So, it comes as a big surprise that Republicans are rallying behind spending cuts that include slashing $600 million from border security and immigration enforcement funds.

Sunday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told Fox News Chris Wallace that he's willing to defend each and every one of the spending cuts Republicans are proposing:
WALLACE: Let's get specific, because the Democrats say, "look, it's very easy to talk about a big number, it's very easy to talk about a specific percentage." But let's get into some specific programs of what what Republicans are going to be offering this week.

Let's look at the cuts: $3 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency; $2 billion for job training, $600 million for border security and immigration enforcement; and $1.6 billion for the National Institutes of Health; $500 million for the COPS program which puts more police on the streets.

Congressmen, when it gets down to those specifics, are you willing to defend all those cuts?

RYAN: Yes, because last year, these agencies got double and triple digit spending increases. We cannot continue down this path of having double and triple digit spending increases on government agencies. No matter how popular sounding these programs are, they mortgage our children's future and they compromise our economic growth today.
Look at what they want to cut, the EPA, that gives us clean air and water, job training programs, that give us skilled workers, border security, that keeps illegals out, and the COPS program, that puts more police on the streets.

Are you kidding me, if it was up to me those are programs that should not be cut. Where are the cuts that go to the wealthy and the corporations, nowhere to be found. Everything they want to cut is money that goes to protect us, or money that goes to help the middle and lower class of Americans.

Just look at what they want to cut, and you can see that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy and the corporations. Because they do not want to cut anything that would involve the wealthy or the corporations.

And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about any of it, because he does not care about the folks, like he says he does, he is your typical Republican who only cares about getting his tax cuts.

Border security is one of O'Reilly's top issues, but he is so far in bed with the Republicans that when they try to cut $600 million from border security he says nothing. Now if Obama proposed cutting $600 million from border security, O'Reilly would go nuts, report it for a week, and call it an outrage.

SNL Spoofs Obama/O'Reilly Interview
By: Steve - February 15, 2011 - 8:30am

I saw it and it was ok, but not as funny as it could have been, I give it a C+ grade. To be honest, the guy who did the O'Reilly impersonation was not very good, he was not arrogant enough, and not insulting enough.

Here is what Jon Terbush from talkingpointsmemo.com wrote about it:

Saturday Night Live released the "extended footage" from Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama, a clip rife with factual inaccuracies, interruptions, and a lightning round of pop culture trivia.

SNL's O'Reilly impersonator introduced the segment by claiming that the Super Bowl's 200 million viewers were really tuning in to see his interview -- which aired before the big game -- making his chat with the President the most watched show in human history.

Moving on to the interview, a flippant O'Reilly hardly let Obama get a word in edgewise. O'Reilly insisted that Muammar Gaddafi was the president of Afghanistan and, when Obama corrected him, pressed on, insisting that the President must be mistaken. Later, O'Reilly cut off Obama with a drawn out, dismissive groan.

Yet O'Reilly did let Obama answer a few questions uninterrupted -- in the all important "Culture Quiz," a multiple choice trivia round about classic television shows.

Republicans Block Expiring Unemployment Aid Vote
By: Steve - February 14, 2011 - 9:30am

Once again the Republican party shows that they could care less about the middle and lower class workers in America that drive the economy. All they care about are the corporations, the lobbyists, and the wealthy donors who give them money to get elected and re-elected.

Because now they are against the Trade Assistance Adjustment (TAA) Program and the Health Care Tax Credit (HCTC). TAA helps retrain and re-employ workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade. HCTC provides compensation to help unemployed workers afford private health insurance.

While 72 percent of Americans oppose cutting such critical unemployment assistance, the GOP is insistent that it expire.

On Tuesday, the House GOP's plan to extend TAA was pulled from the floor due to conservative backlash against the government getting too involved in the economy. That left the Senate as the last hope to extend the much-needed aid.

Together on the Senate floor Friday, Sens. Robert Casey (D-PA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) offered three different proposals to extend both benefits, 4.5 months, and just the HCTC for 18 months by unanimous consent. However, each time, Republican Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) was there to block it.

Increasingly incensed over each of Barrasso's obstructions, Brown expressed anger uncommon on the Senate floor at Barrasso's final objection to the HCTC extension.

Offended by the apparent GOP hypocrisy in enjoying taxpayer-funded benefits while refusing to aid those "who don't dress like this everyday" and "don't make $170,000 a year," he blasted the Senate for turning our backs on the American worker:
BROWN: For Senators who want to repeal health care, for Senators who want to strip any assistance...it's basically turning our backs and saying to these workers.

Sorry about NAFTA, I know you lost your jobs because of those, sorry about losing your health insurance, sorry about not having any job training money, and oh by the way, if your house is foreclosed on, that's just too damn bad too.

Madam president, I just don't get this. I don't understand why people in this body can't at least help those citizens who don't dress like this everyday, who don't make $170,000 a year, who don't have really good health insurance provided by taxpayers. Why, madam president, are we turning our backs on them?
Now remember this, when the Democrats had the power, Republicans complained that they could not get a vote on a bill. Now they are doing the very same thing, they would not even let it come up for a vote in the House or the Senate. Which was called un-American by O'Reilly and others at Fox when the Democrats did it, but when the Republicans do it, O'Reilly and Fox are silent.

O'Reilly has not reported a word about any of it, as he claims to look out for the folks. If O'Reilly actually does look out for the folks, how come he never reports any news like this.

And Senator Brown's anger is certainly justified. His state alone has 208 groups with 26,427 workers certified for TAA. About 280,000 workers across the country stand to lose these benefits.

The GOP is holding these benefits hostage in an effort to pressure the administration on free trade agreements that helped generate this unemployment issue in the first place.

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) confirmed it, he said "he will block TAA until the White House vows to move the free trade agreement with Colombia."

Remember this folks when you vote in the next election, the Republicans do not give a damn about the average working man. All they care about is serving their corporate masters (and the wealthy) who own them. And if O'Reilly really was looking out for the folks, he would report this, which he never has, and never will.

More Evidence The Media Is Not Liberal
By: Steve - February 14, 2011 - 9:00am

As you may or may not know, almost every night O'Reilly claims the mainstream media (NBC, ABC, CBS) are nothing but far-left liberal biased news networks, that do nothing but promote liberals and Democrats, while insulting the conservatives and Republicans non-stop.

But there is one problem with that, most of it is not true. Because I have documented example after example of right-wing bias, at NBC, ABC, and CBS.

Yes they have some liberal bias, but they also have some conservative bias. The problem is that O'Reilly ignores all their conservative bias, and only reports their liberal bias, then he claims they have a liberal bias only. When it is just not true, here is another example of conservative bias at CBS.

CBS Anchor Bob Schieffer Dropped Harry Reid In Favor Of John McCain To Discuss Egypt. Schieffer could have had the Democratic majority leader in the Senate Harry Reid on to discuss Egypt, instead he went with the Republican John McCain.

Explain that one O'Reilly, if CBS has this big liberal bias why are they having John McCain on instead of the Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

And that is not all, John McCain has been on the Sunday shows 27 times on since Obama was inaugurated. And this would be his sixth appearance on Face the Nation over that period of time.

Schieffer, a veteran Sunday morning host, frequently turns to a Republican Senator to discuss a foreign policy issue, rather than hosting any number of qualified Democratic voices to opine on Egypt.

And that is not all, O'Reilly has also called Schieffer a far-left liberal, when the facts show that he is at the worst a balanced journalist, and he could even have a small right-wing bias.

He is far from being a liberal, and he has John McCain on his show more than he does Democrats. And yet, in O'Reillyworld he is a left-wing loon. Which just goes to show that O'Reilly is nothing but a liar, who ignores the facts, to spin out his right-wing propaganda.

Factor Producer Refuses Comment On Fox Insider
By: Steve - February 13, 2011 - 10:00am

At the annual CPAC convention, Ben Armbruster from ThinkProgress confronted The O'Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters, who is famous for ambushing progressives and others with whom Bill O'Reilly has taken issue.

Armbruster questioned Watters about a recent Media Matters exclusive from a Fox News insider, who said that Fox is a "propaganda outfit" and "their M.O. is to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats."

The former Fox News employee said this to Media Matters: "I don't think people would believe it's as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up."

Despite repeated attempts, Watters refused to answer Armbruster's question. Instead, he tried to divert the issue by attempting to belittle the ThinkProgress ambush skills, at one point seeming to take offense at a slight brush on his sport jacket, saying, "Watch my blazer, bro."

So this is the story, when O'Reilly has his Producers ambush people they demand answers from them, and when they do not answer, they imply they are dishonest for not answering their questions. But when people who work for O'Reilly are ambushed, they do the very same thing, and refuse to answer the questions.

Showing they are dishonest hypocrites with double standards. Not to mention, O'Reilly has not said one word about the Fox Insider story, he just ignores it and hopes it will go away. As he claims Fox is an honest news network, he sticks his head in the sand when evidence comes out that he is a liar.

Bill Maher & Matthew Perry Slam O'Reilly
By: Steve - February 13, 2011 - 9:30am

From the businessinsider.com website:

Bill Maher is not backing down.

Maher made no secret last week about his feelings on the interview Bill O'Reilly did with President Obama before the Super Bowl, even going so far as to question O'Reilly's patriotism.

He addressed it again on his show Friday night calling it "very disrespectful."

Author Hooman Majd, who was a guest on the show, even called some of the questions "bigoted":

"When he asked him if he knows football. I mean if I was the President I would have said, 'F*ck you, get out of my house.'"

Maher even went so far as to label O'Reilly as a "dick."

"I cannot imagine George W. Bush giving a pre-Super Bowl interview to Keith Olbermann. And then if Keith Olbermann treated him like that? Interrupted him over and over? Leaned over like it was a bar? I thought he was going to ask him to get some mother f*cking iced tea."

Matthew Perry, who was also a guest on the show said: "O'Reilly is so egomaniacal... he's more interested in his opinion than anybody else's, obviously. But he even showed it that he's even willing to show the President that in his presence. It was really off-putting and bad."

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

Now the question is, will Bill Maher ever be a guest on the Factor again, somehow I doubt it. O'Reilly does not have people back on who stand up to his garbage and call him out. So I am guessing Maher is now banned from the Factor.

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Presidential Straw Poll
By: Steve - February 13, 2011 - 9:00am

CPAC is the yearly Conservative Political Action Conference, where every far right nut in the country who is involved in politics meet up to discuss the issues they care about. So of course Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are usually the featured speakers.

Now who do they want to be the next President, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, of course not, they want Ron Paul. After you say, who is Ron Paul, remember that he is a far right loon, and that is who they want to run the country.

Here are the details:

Ron Paul again triumphed in the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, overwhelming the support for most other potential Republican candidates at the annual gathering of conservatives in the nation's capital.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for president in 2008, edged former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 30% to 23%.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie each had 6% of the vote, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 5%.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had 3% of the vote.

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

Yes you read that right, Stupid Sarah only got 3% of the vote. Which means that even the far-right loons at CPAC do not want her to run, and it also shows that they know she is not qualified to be the President.

And this is a woman who O'Reilly thinks is qualified to be the President. Showing that O'Reilly is also a loon. Not to mention, O'Reilly did not say a word about all the far-right loons meeting at CPAC, because they are his people, and he agrees with them on 90% of the issues. But when the far-left had a similar meeting last year O'Reilly reported that and called them all left-wing loons.

More from the article:

The ballroom at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel erupted with a mix of boos and cheers when the results were announced, again an echo of last year's event.

Organizers seemed to acknowledge the tension among conservatives about Paul and the results as they stressed it was not a scientific study.

"It's not a Gallup poll," CPAC organizer David Keane said before he read the results. He emphasized that participation was voluntary -- 3,742 people voted, twice as many as four years ago but fewer than half of the total registered to attend this year.

The Friday 2-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 12, 2011 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Good news for Egypt today. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: After an agonizing week, the situation in Egypt has turned out well for the United States. The dictator Mubarak is out and the army will take control of the country until elections can be held.

Reports are that Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi will be first among military equals; he has a close relationship with the U.S. We don't know where Mubarak will end up, and already Switzerland has said it will freeze his bank accounts.

For President Obama the events in Egypt are very good news - the Arab world can't condemn the USA because we basically supported the pro-freedom forces in Cairo. Mr. Obama played it smart by not inserting himself into the controversy.

Two other countries, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have criticized the USA for not backing Mubarak, but that would have been insane. The man is despised throughout the world, and if we threw in with that tyrant the jihadists would have had a field day.

The situation in Egypt is still fragile - we can expect the jihadists to move in and create as much turmoil as they can. But on the whole, Americans could not have asked for a better outcome today.
Now get this, remember what Beck said after the protests started in Egypt, he said it would be the end of the world, but it turns out to be nothing, let alone the end of the world. O'Reilly even said the Muslim Brotherhood would take over and we would have world war III. And none of that happened either, in fact the crazy Col. Peters and the former Sec. of State William Cohen both said the military, and the people in Egypt, would never let the Muslim Brotherhood take over.

Peters even said the media was nuts to even talk about them taking power, and O'Reilly was one of them saying it. And all this goes to show you that you should never believe anything O'Reilly or Beck say, especially Beck.

Then former Secretary of State William Cohen and Col. Ralph Peters were on. Peters said this: "This was a great day for human freedom. The events in Egypt are going to resound not only in the Arab world, but also in Iran and Beijing and North Korea and Burma and Venezuela. People now see what's possible - in less than three weeks millions of brave, unarmed, peaceful civilians brought down a 30-year-old dictatorship. This is a strategic earthquake and the Muslim Brotherhood will not take over."

Human freedom? what other kind of freedom is there. What's really funny is how all these right-wing nuts are now saying what happened in Egypt was great. When they were all predicting doom and gloom, and the end of the world crap, now they act like they had it right all along, when they were saying the worst would happen. The Muslim Brotherhood would take over, world war III, and a war with Israel, but none of it happened, and they were wrong.

Cohen described his past meetings with Field Marshal Tantawi, who will presumably be the most powerful man in Egypt. Cohen said this: "He has been a good friend to the United States and he was primarily interested in seeing that the United States could help modernize the Egyptian military, which we have done. Both he and Mubarak were always focused on Iran and the spread of Islamic revolution."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about Egypt, really, who cares. O'Reilly just had a TPM and a segment with 2 people about Egypt, why should anyone care what Geraldo has to say about it. He is a tabloid news reporter, not a real news guy.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the right-wing loon Lou Dobbs, and he was a total idiot. Now get this, while speaking to the Chamber of Commerce this week, President Obama asked business leaders to share their profits with American workers. Sounds like a good idea right, because the middle class is the engine that drives the economy. And if they have more money the economy does better. Nobody would disagree with Obama on that, would they?

Are you kidding me, of course they would, because Dobbs hammered Obama and said he is trying to redistribute the wealth again. Which is just ridiculous, because Obama is not doing it, he has no power to do it, and the Corporations would decide if they want to do it or not. So how in the hell is that Obama redistributing the wealth, you morons.

Obama did not pass a law saying they have to do it, he just asked them to give some of the profits to the workers who earned it, instead of giving it all to the people at the top who are already millionaires.

Dobbs said this: "He's again talking like a statist, I don't know what he's trying to do, because in his interview with you he denied that he's a redistributionist. Now you hear him hectoring and lecturing business leaders, suggesting that they divide the national income in a certain way. The President really conveys his lack of understanding about the economy."

O'Reilly actually agreed with me, he said this: "I'm worried about the folks who are working hard and not making much money while some CEOs are taking out $20-million or $30-million a year. And some of these boards of directors are corrupt, they make Mubarak look honest."

Some House Republicans are trying to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood, some of whose employees were caught on tape giving advice to men posing as pimps of underage girls. O'Reilly talked about the story with professors Caroline Heldman and Mark Sawyer, both supporters of Planned Parenthood.

Heldman said this: "What we have here is a lot of smoke but not much fire. What I see in most of the tapes are Planned Parenthood employees explaining the law to these supposed 'sex traffickers,' then turning them over to the FBI."

Sawyer said this: "The people who got caught are clearly and knowingly breaking Planned Parenthood policy. Planned Parenthood provides a lot of services and gives good information about birth control."

But all that was meaningless to O'Reilly, and he slammed tham anyway, as all the other right-wing journalists are. Billy criticized the news organizations that didn't even mention the Planned Parenthood video stings, he said this: "NBC News and ABC News both ignored the story, which is a pretty big omission. Their critics say this is a pattern because those news organizations are liberal and they don't want to bring any attention to this kind of stuff. 80% or 85% of those in the media support abortion rights."

Now that is funny, O'Reilly ignores every news story that makes a Republican look bad, then he complains about NBC and ABC ignoring a story about a liberal group. When O'Reilly is 10 times worse than they are, and the Planned Parenthood sting is a right-wing non-story. O'Reilly did not even report on the shirtless married Republican Congressman who resigned, he ignored the entire story, what say you Billy?

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to talk about Egypt. Beck said this: "You are seeing the beginning of the coming insurrection. This is going to happen in one country after another, and the goal is the end of the Western way of life. In the Middle East there will be a domino effect and there will be a caliphate. Islamic extremists have gotten together with socialists and communists and they have sown the seeds of revolt - this is community organizing on a global scale." But even O'Reilly disagreed with Beck and his propaganda on Egypt, that's how crazy Beck is, even his good buddy is not buying his insanity.

And in the last segment George Friedman of the right-wing intelligence firm Stratfor was on (again) to talk about Egypt, as if anyone cares.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote. And here is a great example of why I call the pinheads and patriots lame. Thursday's P and P asked about Jay Leno, who created a parody video showing O'Dummy and President Obama in a long, intense and belligerent handshake.

And 57% said it was patriotic. Really? How? What is patriotic about a joke on a late night comedy show. It was stupid, the joke and the patriotic vote.

Fox News Insider Admits They Make Things Up
By: Steve - February 12, 2011 - 9:00am

Now the question is this: will O'Reilly report this story, and the answer is....of course not, because he is a dishonest, biased, corrupt, fraud of a pretend journalist.

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider was quick with a response: "I don't think people would believe it's as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up."

But it's true, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about the Fox News cable network.

That Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

And I quote:
"It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats," says the source. "They're a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news."
And that is coming from a person who works at the Fox News Network. But the big story here is not that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows they push a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who's been paying attention has known that since the channel's inception more than a decade ago.

The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.

And I quote:
"They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they're balanced or that they're not right-wing extreme propagandist," says the source.

But it's all a well-orchestrated lie, according this insider. It's a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.

"You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks," says the source. "And God help you if you don't because sooner or later you're going to get burned."

Like any news channel there's lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn't 'news,' they didn't care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs.

But anything-anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn't explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it.

There's a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.
The source recalls how Fox News changed over time:
When you first get in they tell you we're a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don't even start arguing that or you won't even last your first day.

For the first few years it was let's take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it's not just the conservative take on things, we're going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.

And then two, three, five years into that it was, we're taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece. It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous.

Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.
So it's clear to everyone with a working brain that Fox News has become a misleading, partisan outlet. But here's what the source stresses: Fox News is designed to mislead its viewers and designed to engage in a purely political enterprise.

In 2010, all sorts of evidence tumbled out to confirm that fact, like the recently leaked emails from inside Fox News, in which a top editor instructed his newsroom staffers (not just the opinion show hosts) to slant the news when reporting on key stories such as climate change and health care reform.

Meanwhile, Media Matters revealed that during the 2009-2010 election cycle, dozens of Fox News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances.

And in terms of free TV airtime that Fox News handed over to GOP hopefuls, Media Matters calculated the channel essentially donated $55 million worth of airtime to Republican presidential hopefuls last year who also collect Fox News paychecks.

So, is Fox News a legitimate news outlet? The source laughs at the suggestion, and thinks much of the public, along with the Beltway press corps, has been duped by Murdoch's marketing campaign over the years.
"People assume you need a license to call yourself a news channel. You don't. So because they call themselves Fox News, a lot of the people give them a pass."
The source continued with this:

"I don't think people understand that it's goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that's on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You'd think that people would wise up, but they don't."

The Fox insider admits to being perplexed in late 2009 when the Obama White House called out Murdoch's operation as not being a legitimate new source, only to have major Beltway media players rush to the aid of Fox News and admonish the White House for daring to criticize the cable channel.

"That blew me away," says the source, who stressed that the White House's critique of Fox News "happens to be true."

Palin: Santorum A Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal
By: Steve - February 12, 2011 - 8:30am

Sarah Palin called Santorum a name, but she is such a coward that she did not have the guts to actually say it, she said his wife could call him that.

Appearing on the Hannity show, Sarah Palin responded to the controversy surrounding her recent decision to skip this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The dust-up started when the former Senator Rick Santorum, citied financial benefits as well as her status as mother to all those kids as reasons for Palin's opting out. Then Stupid Sarah responded, refusing to call Santorum a "knuckle-draggin neanderthal," letting his wife call him that instead.

Here is the actual quote:
PALIN: I think the reports were much worse than what he really said. I think some things were really taken out of context. So I will not call him the knuckle dragging neanderthal that perhaps others would want to call him. I'll let his wife call him that instead.
Notice the hypocrisy, Palin complains when she is called names, but then she has no problem calling other people names. She is pretty much just like her idol Bill O'Reilly, they both call people names, then complain when they are called names. It's called being a hypocrite.

And it goes without saying, that you will never hear a word about this story on the O'Reilly Factor, because it makes his favorite girl look bad.

The Thursday 2-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 11, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Say goodbye to Hosni Mubarak. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Hosni Mubarak now says he will stay in Egypt until the elections in September. I doubt it! The best outcome for the United States would be to have the military take power, and that still may happen, but for now confusion continues to reign in Egypt because this tyrant will not leave.

There is no natural democratic leader in the country, and if the army does not run things, chaos will ensue in the short term. Unfortunately, the most powerful single entity aside from the army is the Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous anti-Semitic and anti-American organization.

On the American left there is some sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is insane. These people would provoke a conflict with Israel that could cause World War III. As for Mubarak, he's a thug and a criminal - reports say he has $70 billion hidden away.

The cold truth is that America dealt with Mubarak because it needed peace between Israel and the other Arab states, and after 9/11 we needed a friend who would fight the terrorists. Mubarak did those things, but also committed terrible crimes along the way.

As for his speech today, it was the same old song - he's staying around, trying to use smoke and mirrors to fool the folks.
Now think about this folks, everything O'Reilly said about Egypt is speculation and nothing more than his right-wing opinion. He is not a foreign policy expert, and he does not know what is going on with the U.S. Government and Egypt, so he is just guessing. Take what he says for what it's worth, nothing.

Then Karl Rove was on to put out more speculation about Egypt. Rove said this: "Tomorrow is Friday, when everyone goes to the mosques. This is when the Muslim Brotherhood and the protesters have their greatest strength, and on the eve of that he goes out and says what he said tonight, which will give energy to the protesters. The military is going to face a very dangerous decision as to whether they should tilt one way or the other."

Then Billy said this: "Anger is going to build all night, then on Friday the mullahs are going to whip up the protesters. The army can not go against its own people and they won't." Rove pointedly refused to describe Mubarak as a criminal. "He is a megalomaniac and an authoritarian, and all authoritarians do brutal things to their people. But I want to be careful about using the word 'criminal.'"

And that is what I call comments on Egypt by Dumb and Dumber. And btw folks, in this segment Rove denied that we use rendition to have foreign countries torture people for us, proving that he is a liar, because everyone knows we do.

Then O'Reilly talked about Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who described the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization that has "eschewed violence." Imam Muhammad Musri, who concurred with that view of the Brotherhood, said this: "They have chosen to participate in the political process, and to go through the parliament. The majority of Egyptians are not buying their message and they do not speak for the people."

Newspaper publisher Osama Siblani said this: "We should focus on the 3-million people gathering in Cairo from a cross-section of Egyptian society. I hope this revolution will spread democracy and freedom across the Middle East."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed with the 2 Egypt experts. Then Billy warned that the Brotherhood is a sinister force, O'Reilly said this: "I see the Muslim Brotherhood as sympathetic to the jihad. Their code states that jihad is our way and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

Then O'Reilly wasted our time with a segment about a Super Bowl commercial, that a few people think was racist. Which I will not report on, because nobody really thinks it was racist but a few people. The ad was a little insulting, but it was not racist. It's a commercial, lighten up people, this is not real news, it's tabloid news for Geraldo to report on.

The next segment asked if parents should be responsible if their children are caught sending sexually explicit text messages. The 2 Republican culture warriors were on to discuss it. Hoover and Carlson both endorsed the idea. Proving that they are both right-wing idiots.

Hoover said this: "One in five girls is sending nude or semi-nude pictures. Laws need to keep up with teenagers and technology and our culture, and this is a way of involving parents." Carlson offered a simple solution, saying, this: "I would propose taking the camera off the phone if you give it to your teenager."

And I say you are both idiots, because once a kid turns 18 they are adults, so if they are over 18 they can do whatever they want, as long as it's legal. If they are under 18, then it's the parents job to deal with it, but it should not be a crime that punishes the parents.

Then O'Reilly wasted our time again by reporting on a bogus lawsuit against the Huffington Post. Arianna Huffington sold her website to AOL for more than $300 million. So Megyn Kelly reported that Huffington stands accused by two former colleagues of stealing their idea for the site.

Kelly said this: "I think these two guys are just looking to cash in. They allege that back in 2004 they sat down at a meeting at Arianna Huffington's house and had an idea for a website that would be the 'liberal Drudge Report.' They claim they had a follow-up breakfast meeting with Huffington and her key investor, but that was it, and then they sat there for six years without complaining. You can't copyright an idea."

Okay, so if their lawsuit is bogus, and they will never win, why even report on it. Why waste an entire segment talking about it.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had 2 more Fox News non-experts on Egypt, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and correspondent James Rosen were on. Rosen said this: "It's unclear, whether President Mubarak ever intended to step down. One key to understanding his motivations was when he made reference to not being dictated to by foreign powers. The Egyptian inner circle has felt stung by the Obama administration's handling of this."

Peters ridiculed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who dismissed any danger posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Peters said this: "Poor old Jim Clapper needs to go to Orlando and play miniature golf. It's over. I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over tomorrow, but I do think we had better pay attention to them. It's not the Rotary Club." Peters also predicted Friday will be an "ugly day" in Egypt.

Well thank God, now I can sleep better at night knowing that Col. Peters has spoken on Egypt. NOT!

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

Karl Rove Caught In Big Lie About Rendition
By: Steve - February 11, 2011 - 9:30am

Rove Claims That "We Do Not Turn People Over For Rendition With The Knowledge That They Are Going To Be Tortured"



Are you kidding me, does he think anyone will believe that garbage. The reason we use rendition is so we can have people tortured in a foreign country, so we can say we did not torture them. That is what the rendition program is for, does Rove actually think nobody knows that.

And if Rove does not know it, he can read this:

The New York Times reported on May 1, 2005, that "there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department."

During the March 7, 2005, edition of ABC's World News Tonight, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said that the CIA knew the Uzbeks were torturing prisoners, including one case in which he received photos of a prisoner who was boiled alive.

I guess Rove just forgot about all that, even though it happened while Bush was the President, and Rove was working for him in the White House.

Bill Maher Slams Bill O'Reilly And Glenn Beck
By: Steve - February 11, 2011 - 8:30am

And I have to say that I agree with Bill Maher 100 percent. Bill Maher recently appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell and took on Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. He seemed most disturbed with O'Reilly's President Obama interview and labeled it "unpatriotic" to conduct an interview in such a way.

Amazed that Obama could sit there and take that much guff from O'Reilly, Maher said this:
MAHER: I just feel like the most difficult part of his job must be to quelch the rage that somewhere must be inside him to say 'I'm the President of the United States, you don't talk to me like this. I'm not some left - I'm not Al Sharpton you know, I won this job.'

And Bill O'Reilly who claims he's such a patriot - how unpatriotic it to treat a President that way. How does that look to other countries when you're interrupting and belittling?
Moments later Maher redirected his focus to Beck who received the worst insults. Maher dismissed him as a "bad joke" with a "messiah complex" and as someone who doesn't care how he stays on top, but will just find a way to make sure he does.

The Wednesday 2-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 10, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Power and the Fox News Channel. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Extremists on both the right and the left did not like my interview with President Obama, but for far different reasons. On the far right, many people simply despise the President and want him disparaged at all times.

But on the far left, this is about power, and they are losing it. The uber-liberal coverage of my interview is nothing short of hysterical. I really got a kick out of Bill Maher telling the world he was offended by the tone of the interview, that I was far too aggressive with the President.

Bill Maher was offended! Putting that aside, there is a serious issue here, and that is that the interview made Fox News look credible and responsible. We covered a lot of ground in a fair and balanced way; thus the world saw the real Fox News - an aggressive operation but a fair one.

That damages the far left tremendously, so they have to spin the situation. As Fox News gets stronger, the far left gets weaker. The bottom line is that power is shifting in America away from the left wing zealots and toward a more moderate, traditional approach to problem-solving. I believe last Sunday proved that.
Okay, let's get real here. Earth to O'Reilly Bill Maher was right, your interview was offensive, you interrupted the President 22 times, that i not just wrong, it's insulting and offensive. Not only that, half your questions were stupid. And your lame interview did nothing for the Fox News reputation, if you think it did you are delusional.

The left is not losing power, and the left was not damaged at all by your lame interview, how you come up with that garbage is beyond me. The left has the White House and the Senate, so how are they losing power, you moron. Let me get this through to you, Fox has no power with anyone, except the right, nobody else believes a word you say. The only power you have is to make Sarah Palin look good to your stupid viewers, and that is it.

And one last thing, your interview with Obama was last Sunday, stop talking about it you ego-maniac. Nobody cares but you, move on loser.

Then the crazy Laura Ingraham was on. She said this: "We went through a couple of the craziest left wing websites, and one of them mentioned Fox News 17 times in the last 17 hours. The left doesn't know what to do with liberalism because it's not working on a whole host of issues, so they've defined themselves by demonizing Fox. It doesn't surprise me that they're criticizing you for the interview because if they don't criticize you, they actually have to stand for something." Huh? if they don't criticize you, they actually have to stand for something, how does that even make sense. That is insanity, O'Reilly was criticized because he interrupted the President 22 times in a 15 minute interview. Ingrahm is so partisan she can not even see reality.

Then Billy went into delusionland, O'Reilly said this: "This is such a nightmare for the uber-left because the world was watching and this was a huge success for Fox News. It takes away all the lies and propaganda that these people trade on."

It does, how in the hell does it do that, it was a biased insulting interview by a right-wing idiot, how was that a huge success. And what lies and propaganda are you talking about, the only lies and propaganda in America come from Fox.

Then the king of lies and propaganda Dick Morris was on to talk about the Obama job approval. According to a new poll, a plurality of Americans approve of how President Obama is dealing with Egypt and Afghanistan, but large majorities disapprove of his handling of the budget deficit and taxes.

Are you kidding me, where is this poll, name it, how can a so-called honest journalist report a poll without naming it. Maybe it's a Rasmussen poll, so that is why you do not name it, who knows. Earth to O'Dummy, honest journalists name polls when they use them on the air.

Dick Morris said this: "The President's overall job approval is between 47% and 50%, but on every single issue his approval is below that. Obama is moving into a new political dimension where he's coming across as a nice guy and a good person, but not an effective president. Most people watching your interview would say they like the guy but they don't agree with him, and, ultimately, voters vote on issues."

Okay, based on what poll, name it. How can we decide if the poll is valid if you do not name it. Who did the poll, and why are you hiding that fact.

Morris even advised the President to temper his optimistic pronouncements. Morris said this: "He's making a great big mistake when he tells people the recession is over, that we've turned the corner. It gives people the feeling that he's just totally out of touch."

Are you serious, give me a break Morris, Obama is saying the recession is over because it is, the recession ended in June of 2009, and the economy is improving more and more every quarter, what part of that do you not understand you idiot. How can Obama be seen as out of touch for saying the recession is over, when it's over. And btw folks, O'Reilly has still not reported that the DOW broke 12,000, in O'Reillyworld it never happened.

Then O'Reilly had 3 segments in a row that I refuse to report on. He had Tim Pawlenty on, who is a Republican, and he was only put on by O'Reilly to get him publicity in his run for President. Then he had the lame body language bimbo on to spew out her mumbo jumbo that nobody cares about. And finally Dennis Miller was on to do his unfunny partisan jokes about Obama and the Democrats. And none of it was worth reporting.

In the last segment Dagen McDowell from Fox was on to talk about the Super Bowl commercials, are you kidding me, who fricking cares what she thinks about the Super Bowl commercials. How is this news?

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the oh so lame pinheads and patriots vote. And btw folks, O'Reilly had 6 Republican guests on this show, and 0 Democrats, yes I said 0 Democratic guests.

That's what O'Reilly calls a non-ideological/non-partisan fair and balanced show, which is just laughable.

Not to mention, on the Tuesday show O'Reilly had 6 Republican guests to 1 Democratic guest. That guest was Alan Colmes, who had to share his time with the Republican Monica Crowley, so he barely got a word in, and both O'Reilly and Crowley tell him that everything he says is left-wing spin.

So in 2 nights of shows O'Reilly had 12 Republican guests, who were all on alone, except for Crowley, and 1 Democratic guest, who was not on alone, so he barely had any time to speak. If that's being a non-ideological/non-partisan journalist, I'm Elvis.

O'Reilly In Denial About Fox News & Obama
By: Steve - February 10, 2011 - 10:30am

Following his February 6 interview with President Obama, Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly insisted that Fox News is "not in business to demean the President," not "invested in hurting him" and "not on a crusade to harm the administration."

But Fox News has repeatedly attacked Obama's religious faith and family, promoted questions about his birthplace, called him anti-American, accused him of racism, and used the tiniest of pretenses to vilify him.

On the February 7th O'Reilly Factor Billy said this:
O'REILLY: I think Fox News showed the world that we are not in business to demean the president. We want answers, but are not on a crusade to harm the administration. Since the liberal media lies about FNC all the time, that demonstration was important. Folks who don't ordinarily watch us now have some eyewitness data to go on.
From the February 7th Fox News' America's Newsroom:
MacCALLUM (co-host): At the very beginning of the interview, I appreciated that you took the moment to thank him and to thank the administration for some help that they gave us at Fox News in helping two of our colleagues, Greg Palkot and Olaf Wiig.

You know, and the whole thing kind of reminded me too of that moment way back, you know, when they talked about the fact that Fox News wasn't a news organization. You know, and clearly we were, you know, treated in a very respectful way in this whole thing. I just want to get your thoughts on all that.

O'REILLY: Well, look. You have to understand that interview that we did yesterday is the most widely viewed interview, I think, of all time because of the Internet. You know, the moment it was done it was all over the world, everybody's looking at it and I wanted people who don't know Fox News and all they hear about is the liberal media defining us to know that we don't have any personal animus against the president of the United States. And he did, and Robert Gibbs and the State Department did really, really good work in helping Palkot and Wiig. That's the truth, so why not say that? And why not say that to him?

And I wanted him to get the message that, look, we're not out to hurt you, we, the network. There might be guys like Hannity and Beck who really feel like you're not a good president and your policies are destructive, but we have other people on this staff who feel the opposite. So yes, Fox News is skeptical of President Obama more so than the liberal networks, of course. But we're not personally invested in hurting him.
And all that is a load of garbage, it's all lies. Because Fox has almost non-stop attacks on President Obama, here are just a few examples:
Fox News Chief: Fighting Obama Is Like "The Alamo"

Fox Has Portrayed Obama As Un-American And Anti-American

Fox Has Questioned Obama's Religious Faith

Fox Has Dabbled In Birtherism

Fox Has Claimed Obama Is Biased By Racial Animosity, African Heritage

Fox Has Attacked Obama's Family

Fox Turns Any Story Into An Attack On Obama
Fox News Chief Roger Ailes said this in March of 2009: "I See This As The Alamo."

On November of 2010 Roger Ailes even said this: "Obama Has A Different Belief System Than Most Americans."

In an October 27, 2008, email to his colleagues, Bill Sammon, now the Fox News Washington managing editor, used his position to engage in a campaign to link then-Sen. Barack Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism," internal Fox documents and a review of his televised appearances show.

Fox (And O'Reilly) Have Portrayed Obama As Un-American And Anti-American

During the November 8, 2010, edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly stated: "I'm starting to get even more worried - that's the word, worried -- for the country because I don't know who Barack Obama is."

After Juan Williams said, "I don't think there's any question that he loves America," O'Reilly said this: "But I don't know what America he loves, whether it's his vision of America he loves or the tradition that we have. I just don't know."

Not to mention, you could fill a phone book with quotes from Beck, Hannity, Morris, Rove, etc, saying Obama is un-American and anti-American, plus many more bad things.

On the April 2nd 2009 O'Reilly Factor Billy even asked if Obama was selling out America:
O'REILLY: Is President Obama selling out America? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

O'REILLY: Some conservative pundits actually believe President Obama is a star chamber guy, a man who secretly wants to turn America into a progressive country modeled on western Europe. Also, they think he wants to lessen the power of America and sign up for a one world combine of governance. In the past, that kind of thinking was labeled loony, but that's changing.

O'REILLY: Key question -- where does Barack Obama stand? Is he down with the global justice jihad? There's no hard evidence to suggest that he is, but he has not repudiated the false vision either. Until President Obama does, speculation will rage. And that is the Memo.
Bolton, Col. Peters, Hume, Krauthammer, Scheuer, Crowley, Ingraham, etc. have also all accused President Obama of hurting America, and being un-American. Beck has even said Obama is trying to destroy the country.

And yet, O'Reilly claims Fox is not out to hurt Obama, when that is all they do, it's a 24/7 Obama smearfest.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Good Economic News
By: Steve - February 10, 2011 - 9:30am

In the last week or so a lot of good economic and financial news came out, and Bill O'Reilly has ignored it all. The DOW broke 12,000 and is now at 12,159, but O'Reilly never said a word about it, and to this day has not even reported that the DOW broke 12,000.

While under Bush when the DOW broke 10,000, O'Reilly reported it, and even used it as an example that the Bush economic policies were working. Then over the next week or so O'Reilly also used the DOW breaking 10,000 as an example of the good job Bush was doing while defending him.

The unemployment rate dropped to 9.0%, and O'Reilly never said a word about it. Laura Ingraham mentioned it ONE time as the fill-in host, but then she slammed Obama and said it was not good enough. But to this day, O'Reilly has not said a word about the unemployment rate dropping to 9%, not a word.

The 4th quarter 2010 GDP numbers came out showing that the economy grew at a 3.2% rate, and O'Reilly never said a word about it. Not only that, the 3rd quarter 2010 GDP was 2.6%, so the 4th quarter number was an increase, proving that the economy is getting better every quarter. But O'Reilly ignored it all.

The Consumer Confidence Index climbed to 60.6 in January, its highest reading since last May. More consumers reported being optimistic about their income and jobs, exceeding economist expectations. And O'Reilly never said a word about it, he ignored the entire story.

O'Reilly does this because it makes Obama look good, and it shows that the economic policies he has put in place in the last 2 years are working. O'Reilly has to ignore all the good news, because for the last 2 years he has been saying Obama is not doing anything right, and that his liberal policies will fail.

While the economic data shows it is working, O'Reilly has to ignore it to spin out his right-wing propaganda that Obama does not know what he is doing, and that his liberal agenda will never work. But the facts are the facts, and what Obama has done worked. The stimulus worked, and that is now a proven fact.

O'Reilly loves to attack other journalists as dishonest and corrupt, as he lies about Obama, and ignores all the good news that makes Obama look good. The truth is that O'Reilly is dishonest and corrupt, as he claims that Fox does not want to hurt Obama, he lies about Obama, ignores any good news about the economy, and then lies that he has been fair to Obama.

It's all lies, from O'Reilly. And he may be the most dishonest and corrupt person in the media, except for Beck and Hannity.

The Tuesday 2-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 9, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Americans turning against Obama-care? The dishonest/biased O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: One of the most interesting parts of my interview with President Obama was his continued defense of the new health care law, which I said is deeply unpopular in some quarters.

The President contended that public opinion is 'evenly divided,' but a new poll shows that 58% of likely voters now favor the repeal of Obama-care, while just 37% want it to stay.

The recent trend is definitely against the health care law, and a federal judge ruling it unconstitutional may be pushing public opinion away from Obama-care.

There's no question there are some good things in the law, but its enormous complexity and fears that the cost will spiral out of control have swayed Americans.

Then there is the freedom issue - the federal government can't make you do something simply because the feds think it's a good idea. The Supreme Court will eventually decide and the health care issue may well decide the next presidential race.
What a dishonest load of garbage, O'Reilly cherry picked the ONE poll that has it with a 21 point difference, and that was the right-wing biased Rasmussen poll. All the other polls have it almost even, as Obama said, and yet O'Reilly ignored all those polls to use the one poll that has a right-wing bias, what a joke. And this is from the guy who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. Then he spins the one cherry picked biased poll, it was just pathetic.

Then O'Reilly claims the Supreme Court ruling might decide the 2012 election, which is pure speculation, that O'Reilly said he never does. And on top of that, if the economy is doing good, jobs get better, and the unemployment rate goes down, Obama will be re-elected no matter what the Supreme Court rules on health care.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the Obama health care bill. Crowley said this: "You pointedly asked him what he will do if his signature legislative achievement falls apart, and he didn't answer the question. Not answering the question was incredibly revealing. This bill's unpopularity has only grown because it's an unprecedented expansion of government control."

Colmes brought some reality to the debate, and said that health care reform is actually becoming more popular. Colmes said this: "Most people are moving toward Obama-care. You're citing one poll, I can show other polls. AP shows that just 41% are opposed to the bill. And by the way, calling it 'Obama-care' is usually done derisively by people who don't like it; it's called the Affordable Care Act."

Colmes did call O'Reilly out on his poll cherry picking, but he did not point out that the poll O'Reilly used was the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll, which has no credibility with anyone, except Republicans.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Congressman Mike Pence on to talk about the Planned Parenthood video sting. Which I will not report on, because it's a biased one sided smear job by the right, and they are not reporting all the facts in the case. They did not even report that it only happened at one office, the woman was fired, that the video was edited and they will not release the full video, and that they reported it to the police and the FBI right after it happened.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy far-right neo-con Obama hating Michael Scheuer on, with his thoughts on the war in Afghanistan. Scheuer said this: "We're going to leave Afghanistan, and the Taliban will return. Our politicians will dress it up as a half-success, but in the Muslim world, it will be seen as the defeat of a superpower."

Scheuer speculated that Bin Laden is not hiding in northern Waziristan. Scheuer said this: "I think he's in the northern part of Afghanistan in a place called Kunar. He's living a very sedentary life - if he was moving around we would have killed him. We'll be lucky if he dies of old age soon."

Turning to Egypt, Scheuer warned that the radical Muslim Brotherhood will exert great influence. Scheuer said this: "It is a very powerful organization and it is the only alternative to Mubarak in terms of talent to govern. They have a tremendous following among grass roots Muslims in Egypt."

Notice that what Scheuer said is all speculation, he is guessing, he has no facts to back him up, and he is not even a foreign policy expert. O'Reilly said the Factor is a no speculation zone, then he let this right-wing loon speculate his ass off.

In the next segment John Stossel was on who is urging the First Lady to serve smaller portions of advice. Really, who does he think he is, he's just a right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. O'Reilly even defended Michelle Obama and said what she was doing is a good thing. Stossel is just an idiot, he is a little better than Beck, but not much. And btw, Michelle Obama is not saying you have to do what she says, she is just her giving advice, that people should eat better, especially kids.

Then O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to talk about a court that ordered Colorado rancher Roger Barnett to pay $87,000 to 16 illegal immigrants he held at gunpoint on his own property. Wiehl said this: "He had a legal gun on his ranch, but he did more than just hold them at gunpoint. He was swinging the gun around, threatening them, and apparently he kicked one of them and yelled obscenities. He scared them, and a psychologist testified that four of them suffered from emotional distress."

But Guilfoyle argued that Barnett's punishment is unwarranted. "He detained them, he ascertained the situation, and he had his wife contact Border Patrol. They were in the country illegally, it was his land, and he has to pay them money!" And of course O'Reilly agreed with Guilfoyle, even though the court ruled the opposite.

And in the last segment Charles Krauthammer was on to critique Sunday's interview of President Obama. Krauthammer said this: "Interviewing a president is the hardest job in our kind of journalism. There's a sense that you shouldn't interrupt him and if you do it's somehow rude, but the fact is that every president has a taped message for every question that could run three minutes. So I think you did it right - he would start on the pre-taped response and you would say, 'Okay, we know that, let's move on to the next subject.' This was a tough interviewer asking questions of a nimble and smart politician."

Krauthammer focused on the portion of the interview dealing with Fox News. "I was surprised by his tone - it was not just conciliatory, but he actually talked about his 'respect' for Fox News. This is evidence that Obama is able to disarm his opponents and be charming, knowing that's what he needs to win reelection. I think he's repositioning himself, but it's all a matter of appearances and tactics - he knows how to maneuver and he's very good at it."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And what a shocker, Not! O'Reilly only had one Democratic guest on the entire show, and that Democratic guest had to share his time with a Republican guest.

O'Reilly Used Biased Poll To Say Obama Lied
By: Steve - February 9, 2011 - 9:30am

Now this is great, the so-called non-partisan Independent Bill O'Reilly, who is not ideological and never has been, haha, used a biased Rasmussen poll on the Obama health care bill to claim Obama was lying, when he said the polls are even on his health care bill.

During the Obama/O'Reilly interview Obama said the polls are even on his health care bill. So then O'Reilly tries to prove Obama is a liar, on the Tuesday Factor he cited a Rasmussen poll that says 58 percent to 37 percent are opposed to it.

Which is about as dishonest as you can get, because everyone knows the Rasmussen polls have a right-wing bias. So instead of proving that Obama was lying, all O'Reilly did was prove that he is a dishonest partisan right-wing hack.

All the other polls have it a tie, and some polls have a slight majority in favor of the Obama health care bill. The only poll in America that has it 58 opposed to 37 in favor of it, is the Rasmussen poll. And that just happens to be the ONLY poll O'Reilly cited, while ignoring all the other polls that agree with Obama.

And btw folks, O'Reilly not only used the Rasmussen poll, he did not even report everything it said. He only reported that 58% favor repeal, and that 37% oppose it. But he left out the part that said 44% strongly support it. From the Poll:

"The study found 58 percent of likely voters favor repeal to some degree, with 44 percent strongly supporting it. Thirty-seven percent oppose repeal, with 26 percent strongly opposing it.

Now the Gallup poll O'Reilly ignored, 46% favor repeal, 40% do not. But if you look at it by party, it's real close. Independents favor repeal 43% to 39% who oppose it, which is a small 4 point difference. And the margin of error in the poll is + or - 4 percent, so it could be a tie among Independents.

Now the full poll is 46 to 40, but with a 4 point margin of error, it could be a 2 point difference. O'Reilly does not report any of that, he just ignores it all. So Obama was right, and O'Reilly used a biased Rasmussen poll to make it look like Obama was wrong.

This is 100% proof that O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor, he used the Rasmussen poll only, when all the other polls say different, which is only what right-wing hacks do. Good job O'Reilly, you just gave me more proof that you are a dishonest lying hack.

It's Official: Laura Ingraham Is Insane
By: Steve - February 9, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is a good one, and it might just be the biggest lie Laura Ingraham has ever put out, and that's saying a lot, because she has put out some big lies.

On the Tuesday Fox & Friends show Laura Ingraham said this: "Fox Is More Mainstream Than The Other Networks."



Earth to Ingraham, Fox is the opposite of mainstream, and to even claim it is more mainstream than the other networks, only proves beyond a doubt that you are a massive liar.

Fox Nation Bias Over Obama/O'Reilly Interview
By: Steve - February 9, 2011 - 8:00am

So what did the Fox Nation have to say about the Obama/O'Reilly interview, what hard hitting policy complaint did they have, what was their intelligent comment on the interview.

They complained that Obama was not wearing a tie, they even made it the pic of the day, and they had a photo from the interview that showed Obama with no tie.

But guess what, in 2004 when George W. Bush did the pre-Super Bowl interview, he did not wear a tie either. In fact, Bush did not even wear a suit jacket, as Obama did, Bush had some outdoors jacket that looked like something a farmer would wear.

But nobody at Fox Nation complained when Bush did the interview without a tie. Proving once again that they are biased idiots, and if they best they can come up with is Obama did not wear a tie, they are pathetic.

The Monday 2-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 8, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Obama interview: Pinheaded or patriotic? Easy: Pinheaded. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As predicted, reaction to my interview with President Obama on Super Bowl Sunday was all over the place. Some people loved it, others hated it, and the assessment wasn't always along ideological lines. One of the more interesting aspects of the talk was when I asked the President how he reacts to people who hate him.

Apparently that exchange offended some on the left like Nancy Pelosi, who said 'we shouldn't ever use the word hate.' So now there's another word banned from conversation? Somehow I don't remember Nancy Pelosi objecting when I asked President Bush the same question.

The uber-left British newspaper The Guardian said I was 'rude and blustery,' the Los Angeles Times called the chat a 'freewheeling exchange,' and the New York Times called me 'conservative' twice in four sentences.

Here's my take: Many Americans bring preconceived ideas to any political exposition and rate interviews according to their ideology. But among less intense Americans, I think the consensus is that I got my questions in, the President answered some and dodged some, but the back-and-forth was spirited and worthwhile.

Also, I think Fox News showed the world that we are not in business to demean the President. In the end, the live interview worked for us, and we hope it worked for you.
It's official, O'Reilly is a delusional liar. The interview was terrible, and insulting, with stupid questions, and constant interruptions. The most insane part is that O'Reilly thinks his interview showed the world that Fox is not in the business to demean the President, when it did no such thing. The entire network is in business to demean the President, and one lame O'Reilly interview did not change that. If O'Reilly truly believes that, he needs mental help.

After the TPM O'Reilly played a clip of the interview then he had nothing but right-wing guests on to stroke his ego and tell him what a great job he did, with no Democratic guests to tell him the truth, none. The entire show was a joke, as in ridiculous.

Mary Katharine Ham, Juan Williams, Brit Hume, and Bernie Goldberg were all on to comment on the Obama/O'Reilly interview. They all kissed O'Reilly's ass and told him he did great, with Goldberg attacking the rest of the media for what they said about the interview.

And that was the entire show, all right-wing guests on to stroke O'Reilly's ego, with no opposing view from anyone. It was so pathetic I could barely stand to watch it, and I can even barely stand to write about it. So that is all I will say about it.

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

O'Reilly Puts Out The Lie Of The Year
By: Steve - February 8, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Monday Factor show, Bill O'Reilly said this: "The Factor Is Not, And Never Has Been, An Ideological Program."



Yes he actually said that, and pigs can fly too. It's just ridiculous, because the Factor is about as ideological as you can get. O'Reilly is a biased Republican, who spins out his right-wing positions on all the issues, with 95% right-wing guests.

To say the Factor is not ideological is like saying dirt is not brown, it's just laughable. There are 2 options here, O'Reilly is either a liar, or he is insane. Then again, a 3rd option would be both.

O'Reilly Claims Fox Does Not Want To Hurt Obama
By: Steve - February 8, 2011 - 8:30am

Are you for real, are you kidding me, that is ridiculous. O'Reilly is either a liar, or delusional, and maybe both. Does he even watch his own network, Fox runs anti-Obama programming 24 hours day 7 days a week. It's non-stop Obama bashing, in fact, it's almost impossible to find anyone on Fox who says anything good about Obama.

Crazy O'Reilly said this on Fox Monday 2-7-11:



To claim Fox is not out to hurt Obama, is like saying the Republican party does not try to make the Democratic party look bad, it's just crazy. I even read a comment posting from a liberal who offered his right-wing friends $10.00 for every positive story Fox does on Obama, if they will pay him $5.00 for every negative story Fox does on Obama.

Not one of them would take him up on his offer, proving that even Republicans know Fox runs story after story smearing and hating on Obama. And it also proves that O'Reilly is a liar, because he has to know Fox does nothing but hate on Obama. In fact, O'Reilly himself is an Obama hater, he just refuses to admit it. And if he does not know it, then he should not have a tv show, he should be in a mental institution.

Top 10 Things Republicans Hide About Reagan
By: Steve - February 8, 2011 - 8:00am

Almost every Republican in America talk about Ronald Reagan as if he was a God, and the best President ever. When that is clearly not true, and there is a lot of bad things Reagan did that they try to cover up. Here are the top 10:
1) Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state. Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including four times in just two years.

2) Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut.

3) Unemployment soared after Reagans 1981 tax cuts. jumped to 10.8 percent enacted his much-touted cutand it took years for the rate get back down its previous level. Meanwhileincome inequality exploded.

4) Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending, but federal spending ballooned under Reagan.

5) Reagan did little to fight a woman's right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that resulted in more than a million abortions.

6) Reagan was a bellicose peacenik. He wrote in his memoirs that "my dream...became a world free of nuclear weapons." This vision stemmed from the president's belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war -- and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons.

7) Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage.

8) Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua -- something Congress had prohibited the administration from doing.

9) Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan's veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate.

10) Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan.

Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service.

The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden -- a prominent mujahidin commander -- emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services close relations to these fighters.

In fact, Reagan's decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden's ascendancy.
I would even add a #11, when Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, who were on a legal strike, he ruined every union in America. Because it took all the power away from the unions, if you do not have a right to strike, you have no power. And if you ask me, that was the worst thing Reagan ever did.

Now you know the truth, and Conservatives are in such denial they will not even admit Reagan raised taxes. Saturday when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and said this: "Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?"

The O'Reilly/President Obama Interview
By: Steve - February 7, 2011 - 10:00am

I watched the O'Reilly/Obama interview on Sunday and I have a few comments on it. For one, O'Reilly spent way too much time on Egypt, I care more about issues in America, like jobs and the economy.

As part of the pre-interview publicity, O'Reilly told Laura Ingraham about his 2008 interview with Obama, in which he had to interrupt Obama often. Billy said this: "Now it's easy to do that to a senator, but it's not that easy to do it to the president. I'm hoping Mr. Obama will understand it's more of a conversation than an interview."

Apparently, O'Reilly had no problem with that. He interrupted the president more than 20 times in the 15-minute interview. What's funny is O'Reilly saying it was not an interview, to excuse the 22 times he interrupted the President, what a joke.

O'Reilly also constantly talked over the president. It shows that O'Reilly is a man with no class, and an over inflated sense of self worth. He's an embarrassment to the journalism profession.

The look on O'Reilly's face when Obama laughed at the hate question was priceless.

On the issue of health care, O'Reilly asked the president if he was concerned about a ruling by a federal judge in Florida that the health care overhaul is unconstitutional.

Obama said this: "Well, I think the judge in Florida was wrong. Keep in mind that we've had 12 judges that just threw this case out -- the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional." The president said the health care law was not an effort to bolster "big government," as some have contended. "In this country there is no reason why if you get sick you should go bankrupt."

O'Reilly pressed the president on whether he has moved toward the center, especially since the midterm elections in which Republicans made big gains. Obama denied that he had changed ideologically at all. "Over the first two years of my presidency, we had a complete disaster, Right? We had a complete crisis.

The financial markets were breaking down. We were slipping into a great depression. And we had to take a bunch of extraordinary steps in order to make sure that the economy was growing again -- which it is now growing -- making sure that the private sector was creating jobs again -- it's now doing that -- and now our focus is not on refighting the battles of the last two years."

In one part of the interview O'Reilly asked Obama about the Super Bowl, and he tried to force him to pick a winner, then he even implied that Obama does not know football, what an idiot.

O'Reilly tried to get Obama to say which team would win. "Once my Bears lost," Obama said, "I don't pick sides."

"So you don't care," O'Reilly said.

"Well, no," Obama said. "I do care. I want a great game. I want a great game."

"You don't care who wins," O'Reilly interrupted.

Obama continued: "But these are pretty evenly matched teams. I think that Green Bay is probably a little faster. Steelers got a little more experience. I think the Steelers not having their starting center is something that they've got to be worried about."

O'Reilly asked repeatedly if Obama would actually watch the Super Bowl, and the president insisted he would, noting that he was having a party.

O'Reilly asked, "You know football? You know like blitzes and coverage and all that?"

"Oh, I know football, man," Obama said, adding that once the game starts "I don't want people coming up and chitting and chatting."

In another part of the interview O'Reilly tried to make Obama admit he wants to redistribute wealth, but Obama denied it.

O'REILLY: Do you deny the assessment? Do you deny that you are a man who wants to redistribute wealth.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: You deny that?

OBAMA: Absolutely. I didn't raise taxes once, I lowered taxes over the last two years.

Then O'Reilly got punked on the health care polls, Obama called him out on his lies about the polls.

O'REILLY: But the entitlements that you championed do redistribute wealth in the sense that they provide insurance coverage for 40 million people that don't have it.

OBAMA: What is absolutely true is I think in this country, there's no reason why, if you get sick you should go bankrupt. The notion that that's a radical principle, I don't think the majority of people would agree with you.

O'REILLY: Then why do the majority people in the polls not support Obamacare?

OBAMA: Actually, I think it's pretty evenly divided.

O'REILLY: It's close.

OBAMA: It's evenly divided, Bill.

O'REILLY: Yeah, some people see it that way, but other people see it's a huge government intrusion and you guy just want to take over, basically, decision making for Americans. It's an ideological argument.

OBAMA: But, Bill, I just want to be clear about this, because if you look what we have done, what we said was, if you have health care that you like, you keep it.

O'REILLY: I know all that. I listen to it every day.

OBAMA: I know. And I listen to you. And what I hear you saying, Bill, for example, is that the notion that us saying to people that don't have health insurance, don't make me pay for your health insurance, if you get sick, you have a responsibility to make sure that you have got coverage.

There's nothing socialist about that, that's saying to Americans, we're going each of us be responsible for our own health care. And that's something that I think that the majority of Americans...

O'REILLY: OK, but you understand that a lot of Americans feel you're a big government liberal who wants to intrude on their personal freedom. Now, they also say that you have been moving -- now, that's -- come on, you know that...

OBAMA: I think that a lot of folks who watch you don't believe that.

O'REILLY: They think way worse than me. But the pundits now say you're moving to the center to raise your approval, is that true, are you moving to the center?

OBAMA: No.

O'REILLY: No? Because we were set up over there, and then they moved you a little to the center.

Here is the hate question.

O'REILLY: I asked this to President Bush when I talked to him a few weeks ago. Does it disturb you that so many people hate you?

Then Obama laughed, and O'Reilly said this.

O'REILLY: No. I mean, it's a serious question.

OBAMA: You know, the truth is, that the people -- and I'm sure previous presidents would say the same thing, whether it was Bush or Clinton or Reagan or anybody. The people who dislike you don't know you.

O'REILLY: They hate you.

OBAMA: Even -- the folks who hate you, they don't know you.

O'REILLY: That's true.

Yeah O'Reilly they hate him, but you fail to mention that a lot of them are racists, and all of them are Republicans or in the Tea Party. The only people who hate Obama are on the right, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that.

Kristol Says Beck Is Going Overboard Over Egypt
By: Steve - February 7, 2011 - 9:00am

You know you have gone too far with the right-wing crazy talk, when Bill Kristol hammers you, and that is what happened with Glenn Beck. Kristol said Beck Is "Marginalizing Himself With His Hysteria Over Egypt."

In a column for The Weekly Standard, editor and Fox News contributor William Kristol criticizes Beck for his "hysteria" and attacks other conservatives for being "so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats."
KRISTOL: Now, people are more than entitled to their own opinions of how best to accomplish that democratic end. And it's a sign of health that a political and intellectual movement does not respond to a complicated set of developments with one voice.

But hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He's marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Nor is it a sign of health when other American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it's a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition.
And it's not just Bill Kristol saying Beck has gone off the deep end about Egypt. National Review editor and Fox News contributor Rich Lowry agrees with Kristol, writing that he "takes a well-deserved shot at Glenn Beck's latest wild theorizing."

Noting that conservative pundit Bill Kristol has called out Glenn Beck for his Egypt "hysteria," Time's Joe Klein posted this on the magazine's blog Saturday.
KLEIN: This is not unimportant. Kristol lies very close to the throbbing heart of the Fox News sensibility.

And I've heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand.

The speculation is that Beck is on thin ice. His ratings are dropping, too--which, in the end, is a good part of what this is all about. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a mirror-Olbermann situation soon.
And as usual, neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox report any of this, or call Beck out on his insanity. O'Reilly did disagree with Beck on Egypt, but not once did he call him a loon for the stuff he is saying, which is what he would do if Beck was a liberal.

Bush Cancels Swiss Trip Over Prosecution Fears
By: Steve - February 7, 2011 - 8:30am

Here is another story you will never see reported on the Factor by O'Reilly, or anyone, because it involves his hero George W. Bush, and it proves he is a war criminal who approved illegal torture.

Reuters is reporting that former President George W. Bush canceled a February 12 visit to a Jewish charity gala in Switzerland, out of fears that legal action would be taken against him for his role in authorizing torture.

Human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, and Center for Constitutional Rights, said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in Geneva "on behalf of two of men, Majid Khan, who remains at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Sami al-Hajj, a former Al Jazeera cameraman who was released in May 2008."

The Jewish Charity, United Israel Appeal, said it was canceling the trip due to security reasons, But the human rights groups have a different interpretation. "Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case," the Center for Constitutional Rights and others said in a statement. "He's avoiding the handcuffs," Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

Bush has acknowledged giving authorization to waterboard 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (waterboarding is a torture tactic that violates both U.S. statute and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory):
Bush Said He Approved Torture. Bush: "Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." Bush Has No Regrets. "Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'd do it again to save lives."
Widney Brown, Amnesty's senior director of international law and policy, said the group "would continue to press for President Bush's prosecution next time the former president travels to a country that has committed to prosecuting war crimes and where he could expect a fair trial."

O'Reilly Does His Glenn Beck Impersonation
By: Steve - February 6, 2011 - 9:30am

On the Friday O'Reilly Factor, hosted by the far right loon Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly (the giant ego-maniac) called into his own show to talk about Egypt.

And before I report what crazy O'Reilly said, remember that this is the man who thinks God controls the ocean tides, not the moon, and also does not know that Mars has 2 moons, in fact, he said Mars does not have any moons. Mars has 2 moons, and they even have names, Phobos and Deimos.

So during the phone call, O'Reilly said this: "If The Islamic Brotherhood Takes Power In Egypt, Then It's World War III"



Which puts him right up there with Glenn Beck, as one of the crazy right-wingers who shoot their mouth off about stuff they know nothing about.

Ingraham Lied That The Obama Stimulus Failed
By: Steve - February 6, 2011 - 8:30am

As the fill-in host for Bill O'Reilly on the 2-4-11 O'Reilly Factor, the crazy far-right propagandist Laura (nasal nose voice) Ingraham said the Obama stimulus failed.



Now to begin with, Laura Ingraham is a liar. For one thing, the stimulus was meant to give the economy a short-term bump, to keep us from going into a depression, and that is exactly what it did, so it worked.

Ingraham claims it was supposed to fix the economy, and get us back to 200,000 jobs a month. Which is not what it was meant to do, it was simply a short-term fix, not a long term solution to what Bush broke in his 8 years.

lets look at the facts:

-- When Bush left office in January of 2009, the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month.

-- Obama passed the stimulus, and within a year we were seeing positive monthly job growth. Which is a small miracle, to go from losing 700,000 jobs a month, to a net monthly job gain in less than 2 years.

If a Republican President did that Ingraham would call him a miracle worker, when a Democratic President does it, she calls him a failure.

-- In the 2 years Obama has been the President, the stock market has went up almost 3,000 points, from 9,000 to 12,000.

In fact, the DOW is up 3 percent in the last month, 6 percent in the last 3 months, 13 percent in the last 6 months, and 21 percent in the last year.

So what did Ingrahm say, Obama is a failure. And she did not even report when the DOW broke 12,000 for the first time in 2.5 years. Not to mention, O'Reilly did not report it either.

-- In the 3rd quarter of 2010 the GDP was up 2.6 percent.

-- In the 4th quarter of 2010 the GDP was up 3.2 percent, and it is projected to go up even more in the 1st quarter of 2011.

All that is good news, every bit of it is good for Obama, and the economy. And it all happened after Obama passed the stimulus, the stimulus that every single Republican voted against. That is where we get the truth, Ingraham and all the Republicans have to say the stimulus failed because they all voted against it.

They can not admit it worked because then they would be admitting they voted against a bill that helped America stay out of a depression, and a bill that got the economy back on track. Basically Ingraham is just a lying partisan hack, and you can not believ eone word she says, because she has been proven to be wrong a million times.

Under George W. Bush, Ingraham and the Republicans (including O'Reilly) measured the health of the economy by how good the stock market was doing. Now that we have a Democratic President they change the rules, now they ignore the stock market, and they do not give Obama any credit for anything.

Not to mention she never once pointed out that Bush caused all the economic problems, she acts like Obama has been the President for 6 years and he caused the current mess we have. When it was Bush who caused the problem, she somehow never mentions that.

As she lies about not only the stimulus being a failure, she claims Obama is a failure. While all the economic data shows the exact opposite. She lies because she is a partisan spin doctor, who can not give Obama credit for any of it, because then she would have to admit what he did worked, and that will never happen.

The Friday 2-4-11 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - February 5, 2011 - 9:30am

The TPM was called New unemployment figures reported. Okay, so the unemployment is down to 9 percent, the DOW is over 12,000, the economy is adding jobs every month, and the GDP is up every quarter. Which is all good news, so what did Ingraham do, trash Obama and everything he has done, and blame him for job losses all the way back to 11 years ago. When Bush was the President for 8 of those years, so somehow in Ingrahamworld, Obama is to blame for 8 years of job losses under Bush.

Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: We've heard a lot of happy talk from the Obama administration about how the economy is picking up, but today's anemic job numbers paint a far gloomier picture.

While the unemployment rate fell to 9%, payrolls only added 36,000 employees nationwide. To give you a sense of how bad this is, economists say we need to add 214,000 jobs a month for the next three years. And according to Forbes magazine, the U.S. labor market started 2011 with half-a-million fewer jobs than it had eleven years ago!

In other words, the President's economic plan - the stimulus, bailouts, more big government - failed. Today's pitiful job numbers are a stark reminder that we need a leader who is serious about cutting spending and lowering taxes so businesses can start creating the jobs America so desperately needs.
My God is she an idiot, her TPM just shows how much of a partisan hack she is, because nobody who reports the truth would say that garbage. The stimulus worked, and now every economic measure is on the way up, and yet, all Ingraham sees is doom and gloom.

People should remember this and see that Laura Ingraham is a partisan liar. Because the Obama stimulus worked, it was meant to be a short term fix to the economy to keep us out of a depression, and that is what it did, it worked perfect. It was not meant to be a long term fix to get 200,000 jobs a month back. Somehow Ingrahm does not understand that, well I bet she does, she just lies about it.

Now just imagine if Obama was a Republican who did what he did in 2 short years, after Bush ruined the economy. Ingraham would praise him as the greatest President ever, but since Obama is a Democrat, she can not even say one good word about what he has done to fix the economy. And the worst part is that Ingraham does not even mention that Bush was in control for 8 years and he is the one who ruined the economy.

The rest of the show was the usual right-wing propaganda from Ingraham, with 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat, that is not even worth reporting on. But she did do a ridiculous pinheads and patriots, she said this: "Jonathan Super Squibb, who devoured 255 chicken wings in a half-hour to win the "Wing Bowl" for the third consecutive year. You can decide whether the wing nut Squibb is patriotic or pinheaded by voting."

O'Reilly Wonders How The Moon Got There
By: Steve - February 5, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly recently posted a video on his website asking how the Moon got there, and someone posted it on youtube.



O'Reilly knows all about those liberal conspiracies to use science to slander intelligent design. But he's not buying it.

O'Reilly once used the Earth's tides as an example of how nature's complexities could only be explained by divine intervention. Then, a viewer dusted off his old earth science textbook and informed the Fox News host that the moon causes the tides.

O'Reilly asked this: How'd the moon get there? And why doesn't Mars have a moon, hmm... (Mars has two moons dumbass) O'Reilly also wanted to know why science doesn't have an explanation for the existence of the moon?

Actually, science does you idiot. There is even a Wikipedia page about it called Moon Formation.

Republican CEO Calls For End Of Oil Use
By: Steve - February 5, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is a miracle, the Republican CEO of FedEx is calling for the United States to get off of oil and go electric whenever possible.

n his State of the Union address, President Obama called for the nation to rapidly deploy electric cars and trucks to get the United States off of oil dependence. The president has now been joined by one of America's top Republican businessmen, FedEx CEO Frederick W. Smith.

In a Fortune column, Smith described how the "670 aircraft and 70,000 motorized vehicles" of his company deliver 7 million packages a day -- "nearly every single one of which is fueled by oil."

This dependence "comes at a significant cost," Smith said, putting the U.S. military at risk and "requiring us to accommodate governments that share neither our values nor our goals."

Oil spikes bring about recessions, and "petroleum was responsible for 43% of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2009," Smith, a huge financial supporter of George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, explained. However, Smith agreed with president Obama that America can power away from petroleum:
SMITH: We cannot continue down this path. There is, however, a solution that may become economically attractive sooner than most think: cars and trucks powered by electricity. Electricity is generated by a diverse, domestic, stable, fundamentally scalable portfolio of fuels that is almost entirely free of oil.
Smith is also calling on Congress to enact the bipartisan Electric Vehicle Deployment Act which stalled last year in the Senate. "I am not someone who tends to advocate increased government involvement in the private sector," Smith concluded.

"But there is no free market for oil. This is not a market issue -- it is a national security issue."

Now the question is this, will the rest of the Republican party support Smith, and will O'Reilly report this story, haha, not a chance.

The Thursday 2-3-11 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - February 4, 2011 - 10:30am

The far right propagandist Laura Ingraham hosted for O'Reilly again. The TPM was called Obama hunting for votes from the faithful. Crazy Laura said this:
INGRAHAM: Today President Obama addressed the National Prayer Breakfast, a non-denominational gathering of Christians from across the country. It's good for the public and the world to hear the President freely discuss the importance of his faith in public, and he recounted how he came to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.

What set my antenna up, though, was the President's invocation of his faith to defend big government programs, including his health care reform law. Clearly the President was doing a little religious jiu-jitsu here, using his faith to justify his health care overhaul, which has been overwhelmingly opposed by religious voters who abhor its back-door funding of abortion.

The New York Times is now reporting that Obamacare will likely require insurers to provide female policy holders with free contraceptives and other 'family planning' services. Wouldn't that open the door to free abortions? When the President spoke at the 2009 Prayer Breakfast, he said 'there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being, this much we know.'

So do we still know that, Mr. President? I guess we'll see.
About all I can say about that TPM is remember that Laura Ingraham is a paid right-wing spin doctor, her job is to spin everything to the right, so take what she says with a grain of salt. Judge for yourself what Obama said, and do not go by what Ingraham says, because most of it is probably a lie.

Then Ingraham had the Democratic Nancy Soderberg and the Republican Peter Brooks on to discuss Egypt. Soderberg said this: "There's no playbook when things are happening this quickly. Nobody predicted what was going to happen and the administration has been trying to walk a line of not abandoning a 30-year close ally and also recognizing that the people are demanding change. I think they've been very consistent, they've made it clear that Mubarak has to go and we want free elections."

And of course the Republican Brooks slammed Obama, he said this: "Mubarak is going to continue to take his time and it will make America look weak throughout the region and the world. The Obama administration was caught flat-footed - we're in a crisis and they're in a reactive mode, while I think they should have been out in front of this. We don't have a lot of good options and our influence has been marginalized as each day goes by."

So what was Obama supposed to do, send the military in and force Mubarak to resign, Brooks is just ridiculous. And if the President was a Republican doing what Obama is doing, he would praise it. Proving that he is a partisan idiot, just like Ingraham.

Then Ingraham had another segment on Egypt, she had Omar Zake of the Council on American-Islamic Relations on to discuss it. Zake said this: "I have been on the phone all week talking to friends and relatives in Egypt, and from their perspective the Muslim Brotherhood is not playing any leadership role. So I don't really sense that the Muslim Brotherhood is an issue we should be concerned about at this point. This is about freedom and democracy and liberating people, it is not about the Muslim Brotherhood or what they want. This is a secular and populist movement."

Then Ingraham did 2 more segment on the so-called Planned Parenthood scandal, which I will not report on, because it's only a story with the right-wing media, and it only happened at one place. I will say this, Wendy Murphy was on in the first segment, and in the second segment it was Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Cathy Areu.

In the next segment Ingraham had the right-wing Arizona sheriff, Paul Babeu of Pinal County on to trash sheriff Dupnik some more. Which I will not report on, because it's just more ridiculous one sided right-wing propaganda from sheriff Babeu and Ingraham.

Then for some strange reason Ingraham had the NASCAR driver Michael Waltrip on, who talked for the first time about the death of Dale Earnhart in the 2001 Daytona 500, a race that Waltrip won.

And finally crazy Ingraham ended the show with a recap of the day's sights and sounds in Cairo. The situation was perhaps best summed up by an anti-government protester who said this: "We have been oppressed for so long, I have been born into oppression in this country, and I think I speak for all of the youth here - we are willing to give our lives for this cause."

O'Reilly Ignores Gore Answer To His Question
By: Steve - February 4, 2011 - 9:30am

As usual O'Reilly shoots his stupid mouth off, and when the person he talks about replies to him he ignores it, because the answer from Gore proves that he is an idiot. Here is what Gore said to O'Reilly, in reply to his question about all the snow in winter.

From politicsdaily.com:

Al Gore to Fox's Bill O'Reilly: Heavy Snow 'Consistent' With Global Warming

Yes, it is snowing a ton this winter: That just proves his point. Former Vice President Al Gore says the record snowfalls across much of the country are "completely consistent" with his argument that the planet is warming.

Gore, an outspoken champion of efforts to combat climate change, offered his comment in response to Bill O'Reilly, who wants to know why southern New York has "turned into a tundra." On his blog, Algore.com, he said he "appreciated" the question from the conservative talk show host.

It's simple, Gore explained: Scientists have warned for the last 20 years or so that global warming could bring more snow. To help make his point he quoted liberally from a column last year by the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page. "Snow has two ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow."

Get it? Higher temperatures all over the planet can cause "all sorts of havoc," Gore said, continuing from the Page column. It can range from dry spells, to more frigid winters, to increasingly violent storms, flooding, and loss of endangered species.

The scientific community believes "heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming," Gore told O'Reilly.

Legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for climate change failed in Congress last year. But Gore's dispute with Fox News is on-going.

In December, he accused the network of a "bias" against evidence that the planet is gradually warming to unacceptable levels. He said Fox News has "consistently delivered false and misleading information" about what Gore regards as a crisis.

Fox & Friends Prove Their Bias Once Again
By: Steve - February 4, 2011 - 8:30am

Following federal Judge Roger Vinson's ruling that the individual mandate makes the Obama health care reform unconstitutional, Fox & Friends hosted a series of health care opponents to cheer the ruling and attack the overall health care reform bill.

Without having one single person on who disagrees with the ruling, even though many legal experts found Judge Vinson's ruling to be flawed.

During the February 1st broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum reacted to Vinson's ruling by saying, "I'm not surprised [by the outcome]. I'm very pleased."

Later in the same show they invited Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott on the show to discuss the ruling. Scott praised the judge's decision.

They also hosted Laura Ingraham, who claimed the ruling "was a devastating opinion." Ingraham agreed with Doocy's claim that it is "against the law" for the "federal government to tell somebody to go buy something," adding that Vinson took a "fascinating walk down history lane" in his decision by comparing the individual mandate to the original Boston tea party.

Later in the show Brian Kilmeade interviewed Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) about her thoughts on the health care ruling in Florida. Haley stated, "I think people need to understand that constitutionally, the federal government can't dictate to the states what to do any more than the states can dictate to individuals what they can do."

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. was also on, he claimed that an effort by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to hold a hearing on the constitutionality of health care reform is an effort to "A, intimidate, B, marginalize, and C, undermine the federal judiciary." Johnson failed to note that in two cases, federal judges have upheld the constitutionality of the health care bill.

What nobody reported on Fox & Friends is that many legal experts, including a few Republicans, say Judge Vinsons ruling is flawed.

Former advisor to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr reacted to Vinson's ruling by noting that "Judge Vinson's argument on the Necessary and Proper Clause is not persuasive."

On his blog, Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin compared Vinson's ruling on the health care reform bill to his Per Curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore: "It is hard to see Judge Vinson's opinion on the question of severability as unaffected by partisan considerations. When a judge informs you that a particular decision is unique, and unlikely ever to be repeated again--a ticket good for this day only--one begins to suspect that something other than the dispassionate application of the rule of law is going on.

Columbia Law School professor Gillian Metzger said this: "Judge Vinson's decision declaring the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional represents a remarkable assertion of judicial power fundamentally at odds with Supreme Court precedent. The Court has made clear that Congress has broad power to regulate economic activity comprehensively under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses."

Simon Lazarus, Public Policy Counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center said this: "The decision in Florida striking down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety would effectively shred the Constitution as it has been interpreted, applied, and endorsed across a broad ideological spectrum for the last three-quarters of a century."

So not only did Fox & Friends fail to report any of this information, they did not have one guest on who is opposed to the Vinson ruling.

The Wednesday 2-2-11 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - February 3, 2011 - 9:30am

The far-right Laura Ingraham was hosting for O'Reilly. Crazy Laura said this:
INGRAHAM: Last November President Bush remarked that the tea party is good for the country. But if he really believes that, why did he recently attack a key priority for many tea partiers - getting our borders under control and preventing a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants. When asked about the future prospects for immigration reform, President Bush complained about the 'isms' of 'isolationism and protectionism and nativism.'

Let's be clear: Opposition to so-called immigration reform is rooted in the rule of law and outrage over politicians who don't seem to be all that serious about border enforcement. To say it's about hostility to foreigners is ludicrous. An internal poll done by the Dallas tea party last year showed that 98% of its members supported Arizona's tough immigration law. So are these fellow Texans also 'nativists,' Mr. President?

President Bush's brother Jeb, in a fit of compassionate conservatism, called Republican opposition to immigration reform 'wrong and stupid.' That's an interesting way to court future GOP voters, given their overwhelming opposition to amnesty. Maybe President Bush was right and we are suffering from an outbreak of 'isms.' Elitism comes to mind.
Now think about what Ingraham said in her TPM, George W. Bush was one of the most far-right Presidents we have ever had, he did everything the far-right wanted when he was in office. And yet, Ingraham is even farther right than George W. Bush. And O'Reilly lets her host his show, so what does that also say about O'Reilly.

Then Ingraham had the ridiculous Dick Morris on to talk about Egypt. And what a shocker, he blamed it all on Obama, which is just laughable. Morris said this: "Clearly President Obama broke Egypt, because of his failure to condemn radical Islam, his failure to call terrorism 'Islamic terrorism,' and his appeasement. If the Mubarak government falls and if it is replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood organization, the question that will haunt American politics is, 'Who lost Egypt?'"

Now I know that what Morris said is just ridiculous right-wing propaganda, that he is a paid spin doctor for the right, and he would not report the truth even if he knew it. And the proof Morris is a lying right-wing idiot, even Charles Krauthammer said that Obama is doing the right thing with Egypt.

So then Ingraham had 2 liberals on to discuss it, Maria Cardona and Erica Payne. Cardona said this: "He's done a terrific job, in one of the most difficult positions a president can be in. He's been very calibrated, using Hillary Clinton to be front and center, and he's focused on the key message that whatever happens in Egypt has to happen peacefully."

Payne said this: "I don't think supporting a leader who tortures his people is part of our core values, and that's what we've done for thirty years. When Dick Morris says we should go in and aggressively confront the protesters, I think he's coming from an old school of thought about national security that has been proven to be incorrect. It's time we learned that everyone wants to have political and economic freedom."

The crazy Ingraham said this: "President Obama should give a speech affirming that Islamism presents a threat to true freedom, liberty and freedom of expression."

Then Ingraham had 2 segments on the Planned Parenthood scandal, one with the anti-abortion crusader Lila Rose and the other with Jehmu Green from Fox News. Planned Parenthood refused to be on the Factor, so Ingraham had Jehmu Green speak for them.

And she actually did a pretty good job, Green said this: "Planned Parenthood has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to these types of actions, but that's not the biggest issue here. They are a valuable health care provider for millions of American women and I don't think it is fair to point to the actions of one employee who was swiftly fired. They have tens of thousands of employees who provide mammograms and birth control advice. The average person who walks into a Planned Parenthood health care center is a young woman without health insurance who needs birth control."

And btw folks, neither O'Reilly or Ingraham reported that after the sting video was filmed, Planned Parenthood reported them to the local police and the FBI, that is pretty important information to the story, and yet O'Reilly and Ingraham never said a word about it.

Then Ingraham had a segment on the border with Mexico, Ingrahm was mad because in a speech Janet Napolitano said the border with Mexico has been strengthened and there is no rash of violence on the U.S. side. Which is 100% true, but Ingraham called Napolitano a liar anyway. She had Sara Carter and Ali Noorani on to discuss it.

Noorani said this: "This administration has deported more people than the Bush administration. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on border security. There is a real problem with violence in Mexico, but not on our side of the border."

Carter said this: "This administration and past administrations know that if they keep perpetuating the lie that the border is safe, they hope the American people will eventually buy it. But people aren't buying it. Within the hour that this show is on the air, 500 people will enter the United States illegally."

And that is ridiculous, because Napolitano did not say anything about illegal immigration, all she said is that the border is stronger, and there is almost no violence on the U.S. side. So the border is safe, if you are on the American side. And the Obama administration has deported more illegals, on top of making the border stronger with more border patrol agents. So here is my question for crazy Ingraham, how was Napolitano lying?

And finally in the last stupid segment Ingraham aired some clips from Bill's December appearance on David Letterman's Show. Why, who knows. I am guessing that O'Reilly has such a big ego he made Ingraham show a re-run segment with him in it.

Reagan SG Says Health Care Bill Constitutional
By: Steve - February 3, 2011 - 9:30am

Here is a great question for O'Reilly, how come you never has anyone on the Factor like the former Reagan Solicitor General and current Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, to talk about the Obama health care bill. Because he is an expert on law, and he says it is constitutional.

Instead of having experts in law like Professor Fried, who is a Republican btw, on the Factor to discuss the bill, O'Reilly has Rove, Ingraham, Morris, Miller, Beck, etc. on to discuss it.

Professor Fried spoke to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on The Constitutionality of the Obama health care bill, and btw he was Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General. Fried, tore into the reasoning of Judge Vinson's decision striking down the Affordable Care Act, saying the issue should be a no brainer:
FRIED: I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, "what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is-to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed."

To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

The mandate is a rule-more accurately, "part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed," to quote Chief Justice Marshall.

And if that weren't enough for you-though it is enough for me-you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said "the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act"-surely, to regulate health insurance-"and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means."

And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I think that one thing about Judge Vinson's opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.
If the right-wing argument against the mandate is accepted, Fried argued "not only is ObamaCare unconstitutional, but then so is RomneyCare in Massachusetts."

Notice that O'Reilly does not claim the RomneyCare health insurance bill is unconstitutional, because Romney is a Republican.

Fried also explained that he is not a partisan for the Affordable Care Act, and that he has some doubts about whether it is good policy. Fried's position on the law's requirement that all people carry insurance reflects exactly how the Constitution is supposed to operate.

Elected officials are supposed to make policy decisions, not judges who have to ignore entire constitutional provisions in order to impose their policy preferences on the law.

Nothing like this is ever reported by O'Reilly, he just ignores it all, while he spins out his opinion on the issue, with all his right-wing guests/friends who agree with him. That's not journalism, it's spin.

Crazy Dick Morris Claims Obama Broke Egypt
By: Steve - February 3, 2011 - 9:00am

Let me get this straight, Mubarak has been in power for 30 years, while Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were President, and somehow after 2 short years Obama broke Egypt, how?

It's crazy talk, and Morris should be taken off the air for being a partisan liar. Here is what the lunatic said.



Nothing Morris says is worth listening to. Yeah Obama broke Egypt, exactly how, who knows. Hell, even Charles Krauthammer said Obama is doing the right thing with Egypt. Morris is so partisan it's laughable, he just blames Obama for everything, because that is what the right wants to hear.

Here are the facts, Obama had nothing to do with what is happening in Egypt, and if anyone broke Egypt, it's Mubarak. Those are the facts, Obama runs America, not Egypt, and he has nothing to do with how Mubarak runs Egypt, or what the people of Egypt think of Mubarak.

The worst part is that O'Reilly puts this fool on the air every week to do his insane political analysis, when it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. Morris just blames Obama and the Democrats for everything, that is the extent of his political analysis.

O'Reilly Ignored Judge Vinson's Partisan Ideology
By: Steve - February 3, 2011 - 8:30am

While crowing about the Vinson ruling not once did O'Reilly report that Judge Roger Vinson was appointed by Ronald Reagan, or the fact that even the other Republican judge who ruled the Obama health care plan to be unconstitutional, did not strike down the entire bill.

Judge Vinson is way out on a limb all by himself, in attempting to throw out the whole law, which is a primary goal of the Republican Party.

Because two federal district judges nominated by Democratic presidents have concluded that the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional. Two judges nominated by Republican presidents, including Judge Vinson, have found the mandate unconstitutional.

The other Republican-nominated judge, Henry Hudson, acted with restraint in the Virginia case. Even though Virginia's attorney general asked him to invalidate the entire law, he invalidated only the mandate because of a tradition that courts eliminate only problematic parts of a law, not the entire law.

Judge Vinson went against all that, which is judicial activism, that O'Reilly usually is against, but this time he supports it because he likes the ruling. Judge Vinson even admitted that he was deviating from this practice, but he argued that this is an atypical case in which the individual mandate is so inextricably bound to the remaining provisions that it cannot be severed.

O'Reilly did not report any of this information, except that it was 2 to 2 on judges rulings on the law. But then he declared himself the winner by saying he won, and he was right, even though it's a tie and there is no winner yet.

As usual O'Reilly left out all the details, and it seems that he cares more about being right on his prediction, than getting health care to the 50 million Americans who need it.

And btw, the O'Reilly position on the Obama health care bill is the exact same position the Republican party has, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, when you look at his record, you will see he takes the Republican position on every issue we face in America today. Independent non-partisan? haha, yeah right, and I'm Joe Montana too.

The Tuesday 2-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 2, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called The far left and Egypt. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The committed left is in a very dicey spot when it comes to analyzing how America is handling the Egyptian chaos. President Mubarak and Secretary Clinton have both dealt with the dictator Mubarak for the past two years, as every American president has for the past thirty years.

So even though Mubarak is a villain and the far left despises him, they have to be careful about how they frame the issue. On Sunday, former ABC newsman Sam Donaldson praised the anti-American Al Jazeera network for its Egyptian coverage.

Al Jazeera makes a living blaming most problems in the Middle East on the USA and Israel, and any Arab leader who supports America is barbequed on that network. Talking Points could provide hundreds of examples of anti-Semitism and hate-America rhetoric displayed on Al Jazeera, the network Sam Donaldson admires.

And he's not alone. Writing in the New York Times, Brian Stelter praised Donaldson for his comments. Any fair-minded person who follows Al Jazeera knows it's anti-American and anti-Semitic; only on the far left can it find acceptance.
Dont you love how O'Reilly says any fair-minded American knows it's anti-American. Translation, fair-minded = Republican in O'Reillyworld. What gets me is Donaldson was just giving his opinion, the same thing O'Reilly does, and yet, O'Reilly used what he said to slam the entire far-left. I also love how O'Reilly says the far-left despises Mubarak, really, I did not know that and I am part of the far-left. It's all opinion and speculation, even after O'Reilly said he only deals in the facts.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "I didn't know Sam Donaldson was a spokesman for the far left, that's news to me. Al Jazeera is there to speak out and give information that people are not getting from Arabic governments. I would think a populist like you would support Al Jazeera and freedom of the press."

Crowley said this: "Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, it is a propaganda outfit for the autocrats who sit on the sands of the Middle East. It is funded by petrodollars, it is a mouthpiece for governments, and it also props up fundamentalists in the Middle East."

Crowley also said that progressives admire Al Jazeera because "the far left in this country is anti-American."

Now think about this, O'Reilly had no problem with Crowley saying the far-left is anti-American, but he got mad and took issue with Colmes characterization of Al Jazeera, O'Reilly said this: "There's no counter on that network! Its 'free speech' shouldn't be praised by a pinhead like Sam Donaldson. I challenge Sam Donaldson to come on this network and defend it."

So O'Reilly claims to support free speech, and he does not want anyone telling him or anyone at Fox what they can say or do, but when it comes to Al Jazeera he does not want them to have free speech. And when Colmes told him they have free speech, O'Reilly got mad at Colmes and started yelling at him.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the federal judge who ruled the Obama health care bill was unconstitutional. Ingraham said this: "He went back to the original Boston Tea Party, with people saying you can't force us to engage in commerce, we're a free people. So he went back to the history of the country's founding." Ingraham also predicted the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Obama, and of course O'Reilly disagreed.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about a Planned Parenthood nurse who was caught on tape advising a couple how to get easy abortions for 14-year-old girls. Stossel said this: "Half the country thinks abortion is murder, and by giving Planned Parenthood money, we're forcing those people who think it's murder to pay for murder. Government shouldn't be doing these things."

Stossel is an idiot, because half the country does not think abortion is murder, only about 10% of the far right loons do. Then O'Reilly said this at the end: "I wouldn't ban Planned Parenthood if I had the power to do so, but I wouldn't give them money. Let them raise it from the liberal pro-choice community."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about a few legal cases that were not even worth reporting. And O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on to talk about Egypt, are you kidding me. I could find out more about Egypt from my cousin then I could from Miller, what a joke.

And finally Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the crisis in Egypt. Krauthammer said this: "The policy that Obama has devised is a very good one, but the one caveat I have is that I would put Robert Gibbs under house arrest until the crisis is over. He knows that any word can be dangerous, and then he says any new government has to include 'non-secular actors.' That means the religious parties, and the main religious element is the Muslim Brotherhood, which we know is a radical Islamist movement.

Why would the United States be suggesting this when it's unnecessary? But I think what the President has done in supporting the reforms at the beginning has been a good, clean, smart policy. The only issue is whether Mubarak holds on until elections in September, which is not going to happen."

And btw folks, on Tuesday the DOW broke 12,000, and what a shocker O'Reilly never said a word about it, not.

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

Irony Alert: O'Reilly Complains About Balance
By: Steve - February 2, 2011 - 9:30am

In this segment the hypocrisy/irony meter went off the charts. O'Reilly complaining about balance at a media network is like Charlie Sheen complaining about guys using hookers.

It was just laughable, O'Reilly even screamed at Colmes about the lack of balance on Al-Jazeera.



And as if that was not bad enough, in the same segment Crowley said liberals are anti-American, to which Colmes finally grew a pair and told her that was ridiculous, and that he was insulted by that comment.

So then Colmes asked O'Reilly if he thinks the left are anti-American, and O'Reilly said not all of the left. Colmes then asked for names, and told them to name someone on the left who is anti-American. And what a shocker, they could not name one name.

I was shocked Colmes said it, because I have been saying for years that when one of these right-wing idiots make one of these insane claims, to call for them to name one. And finally after 11 years Colmes grew a pair and did it, I was stunned.

Not to mention, O'Reilly says he does not allow people to make claims without evidence to back it up. And yet, he let Crowley make that ridiculous claim with no evidence to back it up.

O'Reilly Said He's Right About Health Care Bill
By: Steve - February 2, 2011 - 9:00am

Now get this, recently a Federal judge ruled the Obama health care bill was unconstitutional because of the mandate to buy health insurance. That makes it 2 to 2 now, 2 judges have ruled it is constitutional, and 2 have ruled it is not constitutional.

The ridiculous part is that now O'Reilly claims it proves he was right, he said the recent ruling by the Federal judge agrees with him so he is right.

Think about that for a minute folks, because what O'Reilly is saying is crazy. When the 2 Federal judges said it was constitutional, O'Reilly did not say he was wrong, but when 2 of them say it is not constitutional, he suddenly claims he was right, when it's 2 to 2, which is a tie.

Nobody knows who will be right until the Supreme Court rules on it, and it will most likely come down 5 to 4 against Obama. Because the Supreme Court has a 5 to 4 right-wing bias. But O'Reilly has not been proven right, at least not yet, and yet, he still claims he is right.

Frankly it was laughable, and the argument O'Reilly made was something you would expect from a 5 year old kid, not a man with a Masters degree from Harvard. And I still think he either cheated to get that degree, or he bought it. Because O'Reilly is the dumbest Harvard graduate I have ever seen.

Who claims that when 2 judges rule one way, and 2 other judges rule the other way, that you are right, when it's a tie and nobody has been proven right or wrong. Bill O'Reilly that's who, proving that he is just an idiot.

The Monday 1-31-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 1, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Federal judge says 'no' to Obama-care. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that the federal government cannot force Americans to buy health insurance and declared the Obama-care law unconstitutional. Responding to a lawsuit from 26 states, the judge said 'the individual mandate is unconstitutional ... the entire act must be declared void.'

It's obviously a major blow to President Obama because health care is his signature issue, and the law will now go to the Supreme Court for the ultimate decision. Talking Points is not surprised - a year-and-a-half ago I said 'the federal government does not have the power to force an American to buy anything.'

If the feds can force you to insure your health, they can also compel other purchases in pursuit of social justice. That's what this is all about, and the Constitution limits the government from interfering with individual decision-making. It will be fascinating to see how the left, which worships at the altar of government-run health care, reacts to Judge Vinson's ruling.

I predict it will not be pretty. Talking Points also predicts that the Supreme Court will uphold today's ruling 5 - 4. Say goodbye to Obama-care.
Now get this, I agree with O'Reilly, and I am part of the far-left that he says will flip out over this ruling by the Federal judge. But when I say I agree, I mean I agree the right-wing biased Supreme Court will uphold the ruling 5 to 4. I do not agree it is unconstitutional, and there are 2 other federal judges who have ruled it is constitutional.

And even if the biased Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 against Obama, I will not flip out, because I go by what the Supreme Court rules, just as they have ruled abortion is legal. Unlike O'Reilly and the right who only go by rulings they like, I support all the Supreme Court rulings, even their abortion ruling.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to discuss it. Kelly said this: "The commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to do a lot, but this judge is saying it's one thing to use the commerce clause to regulate activity, but it's another thing to use it to regulate inactivity. That's basically what this opinion came down to."

Kelly also said this: "It's going to be a close case in the Supreme Court, and if I had to bet I'd say it will be 5 - 4 to strike down the individual mandate because it is an unprecedented exercise of Congressional power."

But the funny part is when O'Reilly said he won and he was right, he played a clip of himself saying the courts would rule it unconstitutional. Then he told Kelly he was right and she was wrong. To begin with, she never said it would not be ruled unconstitutional, so O'Reilly even got that wrong. Then he admitted that 2 federal judges have ruled it is constitutional, so it's a tie, and the Supreme Court will have to rule on it.

How is that a win, when it's a 2 to 2 tie, and the Supreme Court will have to decide it, explain that one O'Reilly you moron. O'Reilly is claiming victory before he has even won. It was just laughable, and the sort of argument you would expect from a mental patient, not a Harvard graduate.

Then Mary K. Ham and Marc Lamont Hill were on to discuss it. Ham said this: "The fight will go on, but this is my day to do a victory dance because the entire law was struck down, not just the mandate. This judge said the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the law and overcoming that is going to be tough." But Dr. Hill said that Monday's ruling is not a major setback. Hill said this: "This is exactly what the administration expected and it does not mean health care reform is dead in the water, even if the Supreme Court agrees with what you're saying."

Then O'Reilly had 2 segments about Egypt, one with George Friedman of the private intelligence firm Stratfor, and the other with the insane Glenn Beck. Friedman said this: "President Obama spoke to Mubarak, and he apparently told him that he has to hold elections in September. But the demonstrators have been saying they don't want to wait that long, so President Obama managed to undermine Mubarak without satisfying the demonstrators. The U.S. has intruded in not the most comfortable way."

Friedman also questioned the magnitude of the past week's protests, saying this: "I'm not clear at this point that the demonstrations are that powerful, and there's a tendency in the media to inflate them beyond what they are. It's possible that they'll become much more powerful in the next few days, but at this point it doesn't appear to me that the Army has lost power. Mubarak will go, but the regime could go on."

And I will not report what Beck said about Egypt, because that is like asking your cousin what he thinks about it. Beck knows nothing about Egypt, and even if he did, it would all be insane right-wing spin so it's not even worth reporting. I will say this, the garbage Beck put out was so ridiculous that even O'Reilly disagreed with what Beck was saying about Egypt. Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about some Washington reporters who attended a weekend party to honor departing Obama aide David Axelrod. Goldberg said this: "If a journalist is invited to a party where the President and his chief political guru are two of the guests, you must attend because they are major news makers. But can a journalist can go to a private party one day and then the next day be a skeptical journalist?

Theoretically, yes, but let's get real - a lot of Washington journalists have been too close to this President. They rooted for him in 2008 and they continue to root for him, so in a way it's a charade."

O'Reilly differentiated between large gatherings and smaller private events, Billy said this: "I've gone to White House Christmas parties and it's good business, but private parties are a different thing. It makes me queasy."

What a couple hypocrites, they cry about journalists going to a party for Axelrod, but they never said a word about all the right-wing journalists going to parties for Bush people when they left. What a joke, and O'Reilly even goes to those parties himself. Making these 2 idiots massive hypocrites.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly did his ridiculous Reality Check. Which I do not report on, because it's just O'Reilly on all alone putting his spin on what other people are saying. That is not reality, or a check, it's a spin opinion about something someone else said.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the oh so lame pinheads and patriots vote.

Luntz Admits Fox Has Anti-Obama Focus Groups
By: Steve - February 1, 2011 - 9:00am

As if we needed it, here is more evidence that Fox pressures their top pollster Frank Luntz to have mostly anti-Obama Americans in his focus groups. Now remember this, Luntz is the Factor pollster, O'Reilly even calls him Dr. Luntz.

And I have been saying for years that these focu groups Luntz has are rigged to make Obama and the Democrats look bad. Now I have even more proof, because Luntz has admitted that Fox pressures him to rig the focus groups.

In a report by Media Matters Shauna Theel said this: Frank Luntz is blaming Fox News for pressuring him to create focus groups that The Los Angeles Times called "laughably tilted against" President Obama:
You saw it after the State of the Union address, when Fox offered up a famously partisan political operative as an unbiased pollster, just wanting to help us understand the American people. Surprise, surprise -- GOP consultant Frank Luntz spoon-fed Fox viewers a focus group chock-full of Obama haters.

Luntz and his focus group -- starring on Fox's "The Sean Hannity Show" following the speech. That meant a typically biting commentary from Hannity, leading questions by Luntz and plenty of airtime for a panel laughably tilted against the president.

The kangaroo court convened with Chief Justice Hannity declaring Obama "flat," redundant and out of touch. Luntz didn't even bother to stifle a smile when he told the 29 members of the focus group, "I don't want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said."
Luntz also said he has to rig the focus groups against Obama, because if he does not do it, they cut his air time. Luntz admitted that his airtime has been cut on Fox because his findings didn't agree with their right-wing opinions.

As a frequent contributor to Fox News, Luntz promotes the best messages for Republican politicians and Tea Party protesters. In fact, Luntz coined Politifact's 2010 lie of the year -- "government takeover of health care" -- a lie that was fully embraced and repeatedly promoted by Fox News.

Luntz isn't just any political operative; he's Fox News chief political operative, helping Fox News campaign for Republican candidates and develop talking points to aid the GOP.

And an effective one at that: The Luntz focus groups frequently parrot the Fox News talking points. It's no wonder why Fox keeps inviting him back, and O'Reilly has him as his official pollster.

The Air Force Times Slams Michelle Bachmann
By: Steve - February 1, 2011 - 8:30am

And of course Mr. I support the troops Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about this story. From the airforcetimes.com website:

Bachmann Plan Would Cut Veterans Benefits

Tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has unveiled a plan for cutting $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing Veterans Affairs Department health care spending and cutting veterans disability benefits.

Her proposed VA budget cuts would account for $4.5 billion of the savings included in the plan, posted on her official House of Representatives website.

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said cutting veterans health care spending is an ill-advised move at a time when the number of veterans continues to grow as troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sullivan said he finds it difficult to see how the VA could freeze health care costs without hurting veterans.

"It is really astonishing to see this," he said.

Her list of cuts does not explain the impact of freezing veterans health care funding, but the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued in October that health care costs have been quickly increasing.

The VA's health care budget was $44 billion in 2009, $48 billion in 2010 and is $52 billion this year. The report forecasts a health care budget of $69 billion or higher by 2020 if trends continue, the report estimates.

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

This is just another example of Republicans who claim to support the troops in public, while behind closed doors they are secretly trying to cut the funding for wounded troops. And they are trying to do it at a time when there is an increase in wounded troops because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that a Republican President started.

Talk about an outrage, this is a massive outrage. Republicans start two wars, which gets more and more troops wounded every year, then they try to cut the funding to pay for the wounded troops, when they actually need a funding increase to keep up with the wounded, as they talk publicly about how much they support the troops.

And not one person at Fox News has reported any of this, not O'Reilly, not anyone.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com