Reality Check For O'Reilly And All His Republican Friends
By: Steve - January 31, 2009 - 9:30am

All the Republicans like O'Reilly, Ingraham, Morris, and Rove etc. claim that Obama should give more tax cuts to Corporations and the wealthy. Then it will create more jobs and that money will trickle down to the little guy. This is the old Reaganomics garbage. Which was tried before with Reagan and Bush, and proven to not work both times.

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends say if you cut the Corporate tax rate, the Capitol gains tax rate, and the federal tax rate it will create jobs and fix the economy. This is right-wing propaganda, and they will not be happy until the tax rate for the Corporations and the wealthy is zero. Ask Grover Norquist, his goal is to get those tax rates down to zero. But not for working men and women, just the Corporations and the wealthy.

They have been doing all that for 30 years, and it has not worked. In 1980 the top federal tax rate was 70 percent, now it's down to 36 percent, but they really only pay 17 percent. Over the last 30 years they have lowered and lowered tax rates for the Corporations and the wealthy, and it has not helped to make a strong economy.

Because all that does is make the wealthy more wealthy, most of the new jobs came during the Clinton years when he lowered taxes on the middle class and raised taxes on the wealthy. Not during years when taxes were lowered for the wealthy.

The Corporate tax is 35 percent, but because they have so many deductions in the tax code the real Corporate tax rate is 13 percent. And the average tax rate paid by the wealthy is 17 percent, down from 22 percent in 2001 when Bush took over. So they have tax rates that are very low, and they do not need to be lowered anymore.

In fact, Warren Buffet said his tax rate is too low. That he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the woman who takes out the garbage in his office, and he said that is ridiculous. But O'Reilly and his right-wing friends still want their taxes lowered even more, when they are almost down to nothing already, and it has not helped to make the economy strong.

A person making $30,000 a year is paying about 25 percent in taxes. While Warren Buffet who makes about $300 million dollars a year only pays 15 percent in taxes. How is that fair, it's not, but O'Reilly and all his friends want their taxes lowered even more, which is just insane.

A new report on the 400 most wealthy people in America just came out. The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17 percent, and their average income doubled to $263.3 million dollars a year. Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts:
The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006.
Let's review the facts, the richest 400 Americans pay an average of 17 percent in taxes, even though the top rate is 36 percent. The Corporations pay an average of 13 percent in taxes, even though the top tax rate is 35 percent. And during the Bush years those 400 richest American doubled their yearly income from roughly $131 million dollars a year, to $263 million dollars a year.

Yet O'Reilly and all his friends are saying we need to cut the Corporate tax rates even more, and cut taxes for the wealthy even more. This is madness, and total right-wing propaganda. Their tax rates are already low enough, and if anything, they should go up, not down. The conservative approach of putting big corporations and the wealthy ahead of the middle class has failed to create a prosperity that is shared by all Americans.

I think the people making $263 million dollars a year will be ok, that whopping 17 percent tax rate is not going to kill them. And what they should do is raise taxes on the wealthy, then lower taxes on the poor and the middle class.

Imagine what a stimulus it would be if they lowered the tax rate 10 percent for everyone making less than $100,000 a year, and raised the rate 5 percent for people making over $200,000 a year. It would be an economic boom, because instantly about 100 million working Americans would have 10 percent more money to spend.

Obama should stick to his guns and deliver on his campaign promise. He said he was going to lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the wealthy, and he should do that. it's about time the wealthy started paying more, the tax burden is too high on lower and middle income people in America.

If the wealthy love America they should be glad to pay a few dollars more in taxes when the country is hurting. Especially when they will not even miss the money, and probably not even know it's gone. Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more in taxes, and I agree with him. Not to mention Bushonomics has failed, so giving the Corporations and the wealthy all those tax cuts did nothing but make the rich more wealthy.

So when you hear O'Reilly, Beck, Rove, Ingraham, etc. crying about how the Corporations and the wealthy pay too much in taxes, remember this, they are lying, and they are just repeating the Grover Norquist/Republican party talking points propaganda.

They will never be happy until the tax rate is zero for Corporations and the wealthy. Then who do you think will be paying all the taxes, the middle class working Americans, who are already paying too much in taxes.

The Republican Party is Still Clueless
By: Steve - January 31, 2009 - 8:30am

Yesterday they elected an African American to head the RNC. This will not change one thing, and it will not get any Republicans one more vote from any African Americans. It's a symbolic gesture, and nothing more than a gimmick. The Republicans think if they put a black man in charge of the RNC they will get more votes from black people.

This is crazy, and will not work. For example, they did the same thing with Sarah Palin. John McCain thought that if he made a woman his vice president he would get all the women votes, and pick up votes from Democrat women who were mad that Hillary lost to Obama. That was a massive failure, a big mistake, and nothing more than a scam.

In fact, it backfired. Women got mad at McCain for insulting their intelligence. They were mad that he thought they were so stupid they would vote for him just because he put a woman on the ticket. So it actually hurt McCain more than it helped him, and he actually lost more women votes than he gained.

If McCain would have picked a moderate who supported some issues most women believe in, it might have helped him get the womens vote. Instead he picked a far right nut job who is pro life, and is basically a female version of Newt Gingrich. And now the Republicans are doing the same thing by electing an African American to run the RNC.

I guess they will never learn, because they keep making the same mistakes over and over. The Republicans only get 4 percent of the black vote, and that's a fact. And the reason they only get 4 percent is because they do not support anything most black people believe in. So putting a black man in there to run the RNC will not get them one more vote from any blacks.

If they want votes from black people they need to change their platform and their policies. And that is not happening, they are not changing anything. They still believe in the Rush Limbaugh version of the Republican party platform.

As long as they believe in what Rush Limbaugh does, they will never get more than 4 percent of the black vote. And they might even lose some of that 4 percent, unless they change their ways. Democrats and black people hate Rush Limbaugh, and anyone who agrees with him will not get their votes.

And btw, we do not hate Rush Limbaugh because he is a Republican. We hate him because he wants the President to fail, because he insults and lies about Democrats who disagree with him politically, and mostly because he implies if you do not agree with his political views something is wrong with you, and you are un-American.

The Friday 1-30-09 All Spin Zone Factor Review
By: Steve - January 30, 2009 - 9:30pm

The TPM was called Stimulus Showdown. Billy trashed for running commercials that show people Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. But O'Reilly never called Rush un-American for that, which is what he said about liberals who wanted Bush to fail. Not only that, Billy defended Rush, and put a spin on his comments.

O'Reilly called a dangerous and terrible group, when all they are is a group of liberals who support Democratic issues. In O'Reilly world they are the devil because they fund people they support, when that's how the system works, and O'Reilly has no problem with conservatives who fund Republicans.

Billy said he wants to be fair, ha ha, now that's funny. Calling a liberal political group dangerous because they give money to Democrats is fair? These are hard working Americans who just want what they think is best for the country. O'Reilly turns them into dangerous people just because he disagrees with them politically, and that's wrong.

Then he put the right-wing nut Glenn Beck on to trash the Obama stimulus plan, and Beck cried about the Obama plan and agreed with Billy on And btw, no Democrat was put on to provide any kind of balance, it was two right-wingers trashing everything liberal. Billy asked Beck how he would stimulate the economy, his answer: Tax Cuts. As in the Bush economic plan that failed over the last 8 years, and the people voted Obama in to do the opposite of Bushonomics.

O'Reilly and Beck and Ingraham and Rove and Morris all say more tax cuts for the Corporations and the wealthy, that is their answer to everything. Earth to right-wing freaks, we just did 8 years of that with your hero Bush, and look what it got us, a disaster. Open your eyes, Obama is not going to do what you losers want, you lost, Obama won, so shut up and report some real news.

Then Geraldo was put on to talk about Conyers possibly investigating Bush for crimes. Billy cried like a baby once again that the big bad Democrats might investigate Bush. Get ovet it sparky, stop your whining, it does no good, and makes you look like a fool. They might investigate, and if they do, nothing you say will change it. And of course no Democrat was on to provide any balance, it was O'Reilly and Geraldo unfairly attacking Conyers, when he has not even started the investigation yet.

And I have some insight for people who do not know O'Reilly as well as I do. He uses all these FOX News stooges for 3 reasons.
1) He knows they will pretty much agree with everything he says, because he is the big dog with the #1 show on FOX.

2) It gives them free publicity on the #1 show on cable news to sell their lame books and make them more famous.

3) They are all Republicans and it gives them air time on the #1 cable news show to get all their right-wing propaganda out, which O'Reilly agrees with.
Then O'Reilly did a tabloid segment about the woman who had 8 kids, it was a total waste of tv time on a news show, and it's not even worth talking about. Then he did a segment where he attacked Tom Hanks for being a Democrat and for giving money to Democrats. Billy has a problem with Hollywood celebs who give money to Democrats.

What's funny is he never reports on any Republican Hollywood celebs who give money to Republicans, that's ok with him, it's only wrong when the Hollywood celeb gives money to a Democrat. Not once has O'Reilly ever reported on a conservative celebrity who gave money to a Republican. He had the right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart on to trash Hanks and agree with O'Reilly. And what a shocker, no Democrat on to give the counterpoint, I'm shocked I tell ya, not.

When will Billy report on a conservative celeb who gave money to a Republican?

Answer: It's never happened yet, so I doubt if it ever will.

Then Billy had another tabloid segment with two shrinks, Billy talked about girls taking sexy pics and a girls high school dance team doing sexy dancing. Which is really just an excuse for Billy to run a sexy video for all his freaky and perverted viewers. It's the kind of crap you expect to see on Inside Edition, not a so-called serious news show on a so-called news network. Especially when they complain about too much sex on tv, when they put out half of it showing the sexy videos every night.

Next we had more tabloid crap, the great tv icon segment. Billy talked about Redd Foxx and the Sanford & Son show. Once again, this is not news, it's tabloid crap to get ratings, and nothing more. For a so-called news show there sure is not much news reported. It's mostly just Republicans crying and bitching about what the liberals are doing.

Finally it was pinheads and patriots, then the hand picked and highly edited e-mails that mostly stroke Billy's ego and give him one last chance to pimp his lame website and his terrible one sided biased books that only Republicans buy. That's why they are all listed at the website And usually you get one for a dollar if you become a member. Correction
By: Steve - January 30, 2009 - 1:30pm

A few days ago I reported that Bill O'Reilly said every Illinois Governor who went to jail was a Democrat, and he did say that, right near the end of the segment with Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams. Then he went to commercial, and I changed the channel to watch another show until the Factor was back on the air.

From the Lexis Nexis transcript:
O'REILLY: And the other three governors that went to jail in Illinois were all Democrats as well. That's what I pointed out. Mary Katharine, Juan, thank you.
When I switched back to the Factor the segment had already started and I missed the correction from O'Reilly. He made a very short correction at the start of the next segment, and I did not see it. In the next segment he said this:
O'REILLY: First, a correction. Governor Ryan in Illinois was a Republican. The three others were Democrats. Not all four. I'm sorry about that.
So I was wrong, O'Reilly did correct himself and say that one Governor was a Republican. I made a mistake, and I got it wrong. But I was not being dishonest, I just did not see him do the correction. Then I was told at a later time that he made a correction, so I finally got a transcript yesterday and I saw that he did. But I stand by the rest of what I report, here in my blog, and on the website.

Unlike O'Reilly who almost never does any corrections, when I make a mistake and I am proven wrong I admit it, and I make the proper correction, even though I am not a Journalist. I always report honestly, and if anyone can show me anything else I have reported that is not true, I will remove that from the website.

The Thursday 1-29-09 Factor Review
By: Steve - January 30, 2009 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Your Future. Billy put out the tired old right-wing crap about how you can not depend on Government to help you, the just pull yourself up by the bootstraps story, even if you dont have any bootstraps. It's the story only Republican millionaires tell. You never hear that story from anyone who is disabled, and living on food stamps, you only hear it from right-wing millionaires.

He said the Obama stimulus bill is bad, and that you should not depend on the Government to fix things. The usual right-wing crap, and if the Government can not fix things, who will?

The lead story was about Blagojevich getting impeached 59 to 0 by the Illinois State Senate. Billy had a Democrat and a Republican on to talk about it, Marge Halperin and Walter Jacobson. Marge was the Democrat and she barely got a word in, especially because she disagreed with Billy on a couple things. Walter was the Republican who agreed with everything O'Reilly said, so he got all the time to speak.

Funny how O'Reilly never puts a Democrat on alone, it's always a Republican on with the Democrat so Billy and the Republican can do a 2 on 1 attack on the Democrat, and that's in the rare case when a Democrat even gets on the show. I would say at best Marge got to speak for a minute, maybe less, the rest of the time was dominated by O'Reilly and Jacobson. So even when a Democrat gets on, they barely have time to speak

Then Laura Ingraham was put on ALONE. No Democrat with her, and no Democrat on after her. She was on to trash the Obama stimulus bill, and of course she opposed everything in it. Billy asked her what she would do if she were the President (scary thought) and she said lower the tax rate for corporations, freeze cap gains, and give more tax cuts to the millionaires, which will create jobs.

Earth to moron, we already did that for 8 years, it was called the Bush economic plan, and it failed. She basically called for Obama to do exactly what Bush did, and look where that go us, in the mess we have now. She even said the middle class should not get a rebate or a tax cut, and that the corporations and the millionaires should get it all.

Look at what Bill Clinton did in 1993, he raised taxes on the wealthy, and lowered taxes on the middle class. Then we had 8 years of economic boom that added 23 million new jobs and the stock market went up 15 percent. So why should we listen to you or O'Reilly, when those policies were tried under Bush and they failed. get a grip, you are out of your mind, and we are lucky you and O'Reilly are not running the country.

Then Billy did a waste of tv news time segment on the wall street villains, with two more Republicans and no Democrats. He had Cheryl Casone and Degan McDowell from FOX on to hammer some villains. Billy named a few, and said he is going to their house and beat them up. Yeah right, O'Reilly is all talk, and a coward who probably does not go anywhere without his bodyguards. He is not going anywhere to beat anyone up, and if he did he would probably get his ass kicked.

The next segment was on the sexy PETA ads again, I guess it got good ratings from his pervert viewers so he reported it for the 2nd night in a row. Billy had two women on to discuss it, one a meat lover, and one a vegan. While they talked Billy played the sexy ad over and over and over, about 5 times during the segment. Which is great if you like to see women half naked, and I liked it, but it has no place on a so-called news show.

The 2nd PETA segment was done to get ratings, and I bet it did. Billy could have just played the video one time to show it, but he ran it 4 or 5 times anyway. The segment was a scam to give Billy an excuse to run the video again, which he did, over and over and over and over and over.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to do the legal segment, and once again there was no Democrat legal analyst. It's just more one sided bias from O'Reilly who only has Republican legal analysts on to discuss legal stories. Then the reality check with no reality, just O'Reilly putting his spin on reality. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the hand picked highly edited fake e-mails.

Once again there was only one Democrat on the whole show, and she was paired with a Republican so she barely got a word in.

In the last 3 nights that's about 15 Republican guests to 2 Democrats, even though O'Reilly claims he personally makes sure he has an equal number of Republican and Democrats guests on each week. When it's not even close, and just more proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing liar. Basically the whole show is 99% right-wing guests who put out all right-wing propaganda, with almost nobody to counter anything they say, and provide any balance.

Four or five (or more) Republicans are put on alone every night, while no Democrats are ever put on alone. When a Democrat gets on he or she is paired with a Republican, then the Democrat is lucky to get to speak for 1 minute in the 4 minute segment. And when they do speak, O'Reilly and the Republican guest both disagree with them, so it looks like they are always wrong because two people are always disagreeing with them.

Then he has the nerve to criticize other Journalists for bias, when O'Reilly is the king of bias. The Factor is the most biased news show on tv, except for maybe Hannity or Beck, yet O'Reilly claims he has no bias, when the entire show is 99% right-wing bias, and I prove it right here every day with my blog reviews.

When you put 25 to 30 Republican guests on each week, to 4 or 5 Democrats, then agree with all the Republicans, and disagree with all the Democrats, you are a fricking Republican, yet O'Reilly denies it. It's bias, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and corruption, from Bill O'Reilly.

Billy TwoFace Busted For Rumor Hypocrisy & Double Standards
By: Steve - January 30, 2009 - 9:30am

On tuesday night Stephen Colbert had a segment on his show that nailed O'Reilly big time over his rumor reporting hypocrisy, and the double standards. O'Reilly says he does not report rumors, ever, and that any journalist who does is dishonest and corrupt. This is O'Reilly's own opinion of any Journalist who reports a rumor.

Billy said he does not reports rumors like the NY Times does to hurt people they disagree with. These are his own words, he said if you can not verify a story it should never be reported, and that he only deals in facts. When the NY Times reported the McCain lobbyist affair rumor O'Reilly said it was brutally wrong, and he even wrote an entire talking points memo hammering them for doing it.

So what happened when the rumor about Caroline Kennedy having an affair with a married man came out, O'Reilly refused to report it right, because it was a rumor that he could not verify, WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Not only did O'Reilly report the rumor about her, he made it the lead story, and put photos of her and the guy she was rumored to have an affair with on the screen. He even delayed the talking points memo to report the story at the opening of the show, that's how bad he wanted to report the rumor about her.

When the rumor is about a Republican, O'Reilly says it is brutally wrong to report it if you can not verify it's true. And if you do, you are a dishonest and corrupt Journalist. But when the rumor is about a Democrat, and especially when it's a Kennedy, Billy cant wait to report it, and made the rumor his lead story.

This is a perfect example of the massive right-wing bias, hypocrisy, and double standards O'Reilly is guilty of. If Caroline Kennedy was a Republican he would have never reported that rumor, never. It shows just how biased and dishonest he is, and we even have the video, Colbert does a great job showing what a biased hypocrite O'Reilly is for reporting that rumor.'reilly-doesn-t-report-rumors

The Wednesday 1-28-09 Factor Review
By: Steve - January 29, 2009 - 1:30pm

The TPM was called Economic S.O.S. Billy said he is skeptical that Obama will spend his money wisely, and then he said how his money should be sent. Then O'Reilly put out his list that sounded like it came from the Bush economic team. Note to Billy, Obama won, and we tried the Bush plan already, that failed, big time.

And it's not all your money Billy, some of it is my money, and I dont want my money spent on the stuff you do. The people agree with me, because they elected Obama and more Democrats to do what Obama wants, not you. Your guy McCain lost, so you and the Republicans have no say in the matter anymore.

Obama even tried to be bi-partisan and removed some of what the Republicans were opposed to, and what did that get him, a kick in the face, because all 188 house Republicans voted no. So Obama should just bypass them and do whatever the hell he wants to, forget the bi-partisan stuff, and just steamroll those dumb ass Republicans who refuse to work with him.

Then O'Reilly put Karl Rove on to put out right-wing propaganda on the Obama economic plan, it was Rove and O'Reilly with no Democrat to provide the counterpoint. What a shocker, Rove said the Obama plan will not work, which is what O'Reilly and all the Republicans are saying.

It's the same thing they said in 1993 about the Clinton economic plan, guess what, they were all wrong. Clinton passed his plan over the objections of all the Republicans, and that led to 8 years of economic boom, 23 million new jobs were created, and the stock market went up 15% under Clinton, the most for any President. Near the end of the segment O'Reilly finally mentioned the Rove subpeona, and of course he said it was a joke, and even offered to hide Rove from Conyers.

Then the always wrong Dick Morris was put on to parrot the Rove talking points. No Democrat on to provide the balance. Morris said the Obama plan will not work, and predicted 20% inflation in 2010, O'Reilly agreed and said if that happens Obama is done. Obama has been the President for week, and these two nimrods are already predicting he will be done in 2010.

And btw, this is the same Dick Morris who is never right on any of his predictions. This is the same guy who when McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington, said it was a brilliant move that would win him the election. How did that prediction work out Dick, McCain got crushed 360 to 180 in electoral votes.

And this is the same guy who a month later said it was the biggest political mistake of 2008, so Morris is insane. Yet O'Reilly still puts this lunatic on the air. Morris just says what Republicans want to hear so they will buy his crazy Ann Coulter type books, he is a con man, and you Republicans buy it hook, line, and sinker. He is the male version of Ann Coulter, he just says crazy and far right things to get publicity and sell books.

After that O'Reilly had the internet cop Amanda Carpenter on, and of course she is a Republican from, no Democrat internet cop. Then a sky news interview of Billy that was a total waste of tv time and only put on to stroke Billy's ego. O'Reilly was arrogant and smug, and talked down to the guy like he was dirt and Billy was the king of the world. What a waste of tv time.

Next it was Dennis Miller and then Bernie Goldberg, they were both put on alone with no Democrat to provide any balance. Miller and Billy talked about Blagojevich and made jokes about waterboarding people. They even said they were staring a business together, a waterboarding theme park, yeah that's real funny, making jokes about torture, not. Miller and O'Reilly were cracking up over the waterboarding park joke. Both of them are sick puppies.

Goldberg was on to trash the media, except for FOX News of course, he never does that, yet he claims to be an objective media bias analyst, yeah and I'm Dick Cheney too. And of course there is never a Democrat media bias analyst, only the far right Bernie Goldberg. The entire show was one big right-wing propaganda speech, with no opposing views in the entire hour.

And btw, not one Democrat was on the whole show, not one. It was 5 Republicans and 0 Democrats, and last night it was 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat. That's 12 Republicans to 1 Democrat in the last two shows. If that's a balanced guest list I'm a neo-con Republican.

Two Big Lies From O'Reilly & Morris
By: Steve - January 29, 2009 - 12:30pm

Last night on the all spin Factor, Billy claimed that "increased food stamps have nothing to do with stimulating the economy." And earlier in the day on his soon to be gone radio show, O'Reilly also claimed that "enhanced food stamps" in the bill are "not gonna help the economy at all."

He added: "In fact, in the entitlement realm, just giving people money who are poor is about $250 billion. Some of that money will be spent. Some of it, like food stamps, you know, it's not gonna help the economy."

In fact, Billy, all of it will be spent. And economists -- including CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf and Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's, who was a McCain campaign economic adviser -- have said that extending food stamps does, in fact, provide economic stimulus.

In a 2008 congressional testimony, Zandi stated that "extending food stamps are one of the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump" and cited extending food stamps and unemployment insurance payments as having a greater "Fiscal Economic Bang for the Buck" than any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, including temporary and permanent tax cuts.

Zandi further explained: "People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients."

I know real life is hard for O'Reilly to comprehend from his multi-million dollar mansion in New York, but in the real world food stamps actually help people and they also help stimulate the economy. If you give someone food stamps, that leaves them with more money to spend on other things, which will help stimulate the economy.

On the very same show, Dick Morris cited as a reason the Obama stimulus plan won't work is that "two hundred billion of it is just money to the states. That just stops taxes from going up, but it doesn't stimulate anything."

However, in his 2008 congressional testimony, Mark Zandi stated that "aid to financially-pressed state governments" is an "economically potent stimulus." Zandi included with his written testimony a table showing that General Aid to State Governments would boost real GDP by $1.36 for every dollar spent, a greater Fiscal Economic Bang for the Buck than permanent or temporary tax cuts, which Morris claimed are stimulus.

A table produced by the CBO similarly shows that "Transfers to State and Local Governments for Infrastructure" and "Transfers to State and Local Governments Not for Infrastructure" produce a greater "cumulative impact on GDP than tax cuts."

Once again it's hard to understand real life from your mansion, in the real world if you pay less in state taxes that leaves you more money to spend on other things, the things that will help stimulate the economy. What part of that does Dick (the hooker toe sucker) Morris not understand.

Billy says listen to the people and do what they want, he said that 70% of the people oppose an Investigation of Bush for war crimes, so there should not be an Investigation. But when 63% of the people support the Obama stimulus plan suddenly O'Reilly does not want to listen to the will of the people.

By a 63% to 33% vote a January 15th WSJ/NBC poll shows that the people favor the Obama plan over tax cuts to Corporations and the wealthy by a 2 to 1 margin. And 89% say they like the idea of creating jobs through increasing production of renewable energy and making public buildings more energy efficient. And every single Republican in the house voted no for the Obama plan, all 188 of them, even though 63% of the people support it.

And btw, if Obama does what O'Reilly and Morris want, it would be the same thing Bush did, and look where that got us. O'Reilly and Morris want Obama to use the Bush economic plan, give all the money to the wealthy and the Corporations in tax cuts, which is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Goldberg = Gold - O'Reilly = Silver - Limbaugh = Bronze
By: Steve - January 28, 2009 - 9:30pm

The tuesday night Countdown with Keith Olbermann was a trifecta of Republican idiots to win worst person in the world.

OLBERMANN: The bronze to comedian Rush Limbaugh, today saying the worst thing he could think of about the stimulus plan, “4.19 billion dollars is going to Acorn. Obama‘s community organizers. Now, will somebody explain to me what, in the name of Sam Hill, 4.19 billion to a voter fraud organization has to do with stimulus.”

Well, nothing because you have it completely wrong. The stimulus plan includes 4.19 billion for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes, as authorized under Division B, Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The funds aren‘t going to ACORN. They‘ll go out via competitive bids.

Rush Limbaugh can bid for the money, if he wants to. But he left that part out because either, A, the concept was too complicated for him to understand, or B, he wanted to scare people with that bugaboo name ACORN and he was crooked enough to leave out the part about the competitive bidding.

Runner up, Bill-O the clown. Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, pleading with the U.S. to curtail civilian casualties during air strikes there. A US raid that killed 15 Taliban fighters may have killed 16 Afghan fighters. Secretary of Defense Gates agrees with President Karzai. We just said, “I believe the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan. We have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties.”

Bill O thinks Karzai and Gates are both full of it:
O'REILLY: "U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan are risking their lives to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban and al Qaeda. But President Karzai does not seem to get that. Once again, he has condemned American forces after a raid killed some civilians.

In that raid, a top Taliban commander and some of his cronies were also killed, but apparently, Karzai doesn't understand that in war, collateral damage is constantly present. The U.S. military is investigating the situation, but I believe Karzai is making a political grandstand play, and it is insulting. Without us, his head is on a stick.”
Incredibly, O‘Reilly did not demand that the dead Afghan civilians all rise from the grave to thank us for killing them. Bill, you‘re a sick man.

But the winner, Bernard Goldberg, former journalist. He has written a book in which he claims the media, quote, jumped the shark, and betrayed all of us this past year. Also says, MSNBC, quote, “Cannot ever again be taken seriously as a news organization.” An odd conclusion for a man who doctored a transcript to falsely accuse Tom Brokaw of bias in that book.

Goldberg claims Charles Rose asked Brokaw, “what do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?” And Brokaw then answered, “there‘s a lot about him we don‘t know.” He presented the quotes that way as if those sentences had occurred consecutively. They did not.

Goldberg, in one of the worst thing anybody claiming to be a reporter can do, dismembered the actual interview to make the quotes fit his bias. In point of fact, Rose asked Brokaw a long question about Obama, including what do you see there. Brokaw‘s lengthy response included this sentence:

“sure, he has hit some speed bumps and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don‘t know.”

Much later in that interview, Rose asked Brokaw about heroes, the heroes of John McCain and, quote, “what do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?” Brokaw answered “Thurgood Marshall.” Goldberg fraudulently, dishonestly, corruptly took part of one question from Rose and part of Brokaw‘s answer to a different question and married them together.

It is journalistic malpractice and it is the kind of thing that explains why Bernard Goldberg was fired by CBS News. He is the equivalent of a doctor who has had his license revoked. I would return that phrase he jumped the shark to apply to Mr. Goldberg, but that would imply he made it to the other side in one piece.

Bernard Goldberg of Fixed News, today‘s worst person in the world.

The Tuesday 1-27-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 28, 2009 - 1:30pm

The TPM was called Unpopularity Contest. Billy cited a Rasmussen poll that shows the majority of Americans do not want Bush put on trail for war crimes. But that was a war crimes poll, a lot of Americans think Bush is guilty of a crime, but maybe not war crimes. And a lot of people think Bush should be investigated to see if he broke the law while he was the President.

What O'Reilly failed to mention is that Rasmussen is a Republican, all the ads on his website are Republican, and his polls tend to lean right. Billy also never reported that the poll was taken by likely voters, and that it does not say what percent of Republicans took the poll.

This is not an issue that polls should decide. There is evidence the President broke the law, so it should be investigated. The only people against the investigation are Republicans who love Bush. If Bush did nothing wrong, he should welcome an investigation, right Billy?

O'Reilly had the crazy right-wing nut Tammy Bruce and the liberal Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it. Of course O'Reilly and Bruce agreed, Billy even repeated the lie that there is no evidence Bush broke any laws. Bruce called it Bush derangement syndrome, Hill tried to disagree, but he could barely get a word in.

Earth to Billy, the Top Bush Official at Gitmo (Susan J. Crawford) says they used torture, that Bush knew of it, and approved it. I dont know what world you live in, but in my world that's evidence of laws being broken. Not to mention the NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, who says he witnessed laws being broken. Oh I forgot you ignore that story so it never happened.

Then O'Reilly had his two Republican legal experts on to talk about Blagojevich, Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl. No Democrat legal experts, just two Republicans. They sit around and agree with each other, and it's a great time, for them. It's mostly just another one sided biased segment that O'Reilly does every week with no Democrats to give their opinions on legal cases.

In the next segment O'Reilly put the far right nut Melanie Morgan on to cry and whine about William Ayers giving a speech. And as usual no Democrat was on to give the counterpoint. She wants to stop Ayers from giving a speech, then she said it's not a free speech issue. Ummmmm, yes it is. Even O'Reilly disagreed with her somewhat, he said it is a free speech issue.

She wants him shut up, and she called for anyone who might hire him to give a speech to not do it. But she claims she does not want to violate his free speech rights. Yeah, and I'm Elvis. You know you are on thin ice when even O'Reilly says he is worried it's a free speech issue. Billy gave her 4 minutes to spew that garbage, with no opposing viewpoint from any Democrats.

Then O'Reilly put another right-wing nut on from the NY Post. Her name is Andrea Peyser, she wrote a book called Celebtards. She was put on to trash what Hollywood celebs say about Politics. She said they all hate America, and thinks Sean Penn should be tried for treason, and she was serious.

Here is my question, O'Reilly calls them all pinheads, he says you should not listen to anything they say, that nobody listen to them, and he says he personally does not care what those pinheads say. Then he reports what they say every damn night, if he dont care what they say, and nobody listens to what they say, why does he report what they say every fricking night, answer that Billy.

Billy then had a second legal news segment with Kelly and Wiehl. They talked about the gay mayor sex scandal, and the John Travolta blackmail case. What's funny is he has two legal segments and not once was it mentioned that Karl Rove got a subpoena. The whole segment is a biased and one sided joke, with two Republican legal experts, who just both happen to be hot blonde women, who ignore every story about a Republican.

The last segment was the culture quiz, with two more Republicans. Steve Doocy and Martha McCallum. It's two Republicans who work for FOX taking a lame culture quiz. Which is pretty much a waste of tv time, and should not be on a so-called news show. Funny how none of the people who take the culture quiz are Democrats, where is Henican, Williams, or Powers?

Only Republicans get to take the culture quiz, no Democrat, or so-called Democrat has even taken it. Then Billy did pinheads and patriots and the fake e-mails. All of which is pretty much tabloid crap and a waste of time on a tv news show. It's mostly Inside Edition style crap to get ratings from his right-wing viewers.

Breaking News: O'Reilly Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - January 25, 2009 - 1:40pm

Last week Billy said this about the Gitmo detainees who have been released:
O'REILLY: So we can add this guy to a list of 61 former Gitmo detainees who have returned to being terrorists after they've been released, according to the Defense Department. That's 11 percent of those let go returning to the terror world.
Actually that's a lie Billy, the Pentagon says there are only 18 confirmed ex-detainees who've been identified as having returned to terrorism:
During a January 13 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated: "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight."
And the facts show that it's hard to believe even the 18 confirmed number, let alone the 43 suspected number. But O'Reilly never tells you those numbers are disputed, he reports the 61 number as if it's a fact. When the facts show that it's most likely a made up number put out by right-wingers like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.

From the Rachel Maddow Show:
MADDOW: Your research found that despite what the government says, few men who have been held at Guantanamo can be said to have gone back to the battlefield. Can you describe your hypothesis and what you found?

DENBEAUX: Sure. Our model is simply to look at what the government‘s reports show and analyze them. The government has given its 43rd attempt to describe the number of people who have left Guantanamo and returned to the battlefield.

And their numbers have changed from 20 to 12 to seven to more than five to two to a couple to a few - 25, 29, 12 to 24. Every time, the number has been different. In fact, every time they give a number, they don‘t identify a date, a place, a time, a name or an incident to support their claim.

MADDOW: What does “return to the battlefield" mean?

DENBEAUX: Well, the government wrote two documents. One was a press release published on their Web site that identified what they said were 30 people who had returned to the battlefield. That was in July of 2007. That list of 30 actually identified 15 people.

Eight of those people were divided up into two groups. Three were from England; they were called “Tipton Three." And they were there because they did a documentary called, “The Road to Guantanamo."

MADDOW: Wait, wait. “Returning to the battlefield" means you were in a documentary?

DENBEAUX: Yes. That is included. Five more of that group actually are identified as the Uighurs. The Uighurs are Chinese Muslims, and they were being held in an Albanian village after leaving Guantanamo. They were listed as returning to the battlefield because their lawyer wrote an editorial criticizing Guantanamo detention policies.

That‘s eight of the 15 they identified. They give seven more names, two of whom were never in Guantanamo. So they were down to five, and of those names, two were Russians who were arrested in Russia, but not prosecuted and two more Moroccans.

So in fact, the number of people who would meet anybody‘s definition of returning to a battle field is tiny and the numbers they have given are simply false.

MADDOW: When you look at these numbers, can you tell us why they are making the case that there are people, any number of people, who have returned to the battlefield? What is the context?

DENBEAUX: Well, the only context that we can find out is this one press release which the DOD put on its Web site and after we wrote our report, removed it. So it‘s no longer available.

The only other document that you can identify that gives the name or identification of anybody who returned to the battlefield is a list of 12 names provided by Congressman Rohrabacher to me during the hearing.

And DOD demanded that they give it back, but we didn‘t, because that listed 12 people they said returned to the battlefield. Of those 12, five of them returned to the battlefield in the sense that two of them went back to Morocco and were arrested. That made them returning to the battlefield.

One went back to Turkey and was arrested. And two went back to Russia and were arrested, tried and acquitted and then finally convicted. So to get to the 12 they have there, they have to account people who were, in fact, only arrested in their home country.

MADDOW: So in other words, we are forgiven from saying what do you mean the next time we hear them say "X" number of detainees have returned to the fight. Thank you for having done this research on it.
O'Reilly never reports on any of the people who dispute those numbers, he just spews out the DOD propaganda like a good little Republican puppet, even when the facts show their numbers are wrong, and that they do not even track the released Gitmo detainees.

O'Reilly & Cavuto Need to Read This
By: Steve - January 25, 2009 - 12:50pm

Cavuto and O'Reilly and pretty much every Republican in America spew out the right-wing talking point that Republican Presidents are better for America, even when the facts show otherwise. Yet they keep saying it, hoping uninformed people will believe it. Here is proof once again that Democrat Presidents are better for America.

Since 1929, seven Republicans and six Democrats have each controlled the presidency. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole?

Imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

A $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover's presidency during the Great Depression.

That same $10.000 invested under Democratic presidents only, would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over the same period. And btw, the best year was under Bill Clinton, the S&P rose 15.2 percent under Clinton.

The best year for a Republican was George H.W. Bush Senior (11.0%), the three worst were Nixon (-3.9%) George W. Bush Junior (-5.1%) and Hoover (-30.8%).

Three of the seven Republican Presidents had a negative S&P performance. While all six Democrats had a positive S&P performance, the lowest was JFK at (+6.5%) and the highest was Bill Clinton at (+15.2%).

The S&P index even went up 6.9% under Jimmy Carter, and the Republicans claim he was a terrible President. Yet he was better than Nixon, Bush Junior, and Hoover. The S&P has went up a minimum of 6.5% under Democrat Presidents since 1963, and that is a fact.

So the next time you hear some right-wing idiot like Cavuto, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Gingrich, Rove, Morris, Miller, Ingraham, etc. say Republicans are better at running the country, remember this fact, they are liars. It's a lie, and it is a fact that Democrats make better presidents.

The Friday Night 1-23-09 O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - January 24, 2009 - 10:30am

The TPM was called All Politics. Billy talked about a released Gitmo detainee going back to work for Al-Qaeda. He said it shows that you can not release anyone from Gitmo, even though Bush has already released about 400 Gitmo detainees and there has not been another terrorist attack in America.

Earth to Billy O'Dummy, you can not just lock people up forever and hold them unless you have some evidence they did something wrong. If you have the evidence, put them on trial and get a jury verdict. If you do not have any evidence that they did something wrong you have to let them go, even if they might be a terrorist. What part of that dont you understand.

You can not hold people in prison for something they might do in the future, so shut up about the Gitmo detainees, Obama will do the right thing, and there is nothing you can do about it. Your guy had his 8 years, now it's Obama's turn. You crying like a punk baby will not change anything, it just makes you look like a whining cry baby.

Then Billy had the Republican Chris Wallace on from FOX News. No Democrat to give the counter point. Wallace and O'Dummy speculated about what might happen if Obama closes Gitmo, even though O'Reilly said he never speculates, it was all speculation. Then Billy told a joke, he said his Caroline Kennedy coverage was fair, now that's funny. All he does is trash her and report rumors about her, if that's fair coverage I'm Jesus.

Next it was Geraldo, and of course O'Reilly spent most of the segment talking about Caroline Kennedy. He can not let it go, and he was mad that the rest of the media does not do 24/7 coverage of her. Billy, nobody cares but you, it's a non-story unless it is true that she is having an affair. O'Reilly hates the Kennedy family so much he is trying to make a story where there is no story.

It's not a story until you can prove she had an affair, if not, shut up until it is proven. The media is not going to cover it, and you crying about it will not change a thing. What happened to you do not report rumors, and you only deal in the facts. It's a rumor, and not a fact, so why do you keep reporting it, follow your own rules for once.

Then Billy did a truly worthless segment, before the commercial he said: "Do you know two beauty queens work for FOX News" and I was like WTF? No I did not know, and I do not care. How is that News? And why is a so-called News show doing a whole 4 minute segment in primt time telling me you have two beauty queens working for FOX News. This is not News, and nobody cares.

After that worthless waste of tv time beauty queen segment it was the very far right and very crazy Glenn Beck. The guy who said every President has been sworn in on a bible, when three Presidents have not been sworn in on a bible. Beck is uninformed, and crazy. Yet O'Reilly gives him a 4 minute segment every friday night.

Funny how no Democrats get the same opportunity, in fact, no Democrats were on the whole show, and only a couple Democrats were on all week. Beck was on to argue that the guy who named his kid after Hitler should be able to keep them. Even O'Reilly disagreed, which just shows how crazy Beck really is. He is even more crazy than O'Reilly, and that's hard to do.

Then Billy had the tv icon segment, which is just boring and a waste of tv time. Then pinheads and patriots and the phony edited e-mails O'Reilly hand picks. Notice what O'Reilly does not report, real news. Nothing on Russell Tice, now imagine if a Democrat President was illegally wiretapping right-wing Journalists like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

O'Dummy would scream bloody murder, he would call for hearings and Investigations, he would say it is un-American and a violation of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment. He would call for the Feds to arrest people and throw them in jail for violationg his Constitutional rights, and he would report it every night for a week, maybe more.

But when a Republican President does it, what do you hear from O'Reilly. Nothing, zip, zilch, nada, not a damn word. The story is not even reported, and O'Reilly even claims there is no evidence Bush broke any laws. When the evidence is right there, just ask Russell Tice. O'Reilly is covering and protecting Bush, he has not said one word about the entire Russell Tice NSA wiretap story of Journalists and other Americans, not a word. And he calls himself a Journalist, how?

Republican Hypocrisy And Lies About The Country
By: Steve - January 24, 2009 - 9:30am

In public, most Republicans say they will work with Obama to get the economy fixed, and get the country back on track. While behind his back in closed door meetings they are planning to do everything in their power to stop what Obama wants to do. And their hypocrisy is stunning.

When George W. Bush won the election over Al Gore in 2000 he had a $100 Billion dollar surplus, then during his 8 years as the President he spent money like a drunk sailor. The $1.2 trillion dollar tax cut, the $800 Billion dollar Iraq War, Billions for Afghanistan, the $500 Billion dollar stimulous, a $1 Trillion dollar deficit, and on and on.

Every Republican in Congress voted yes for everything Bush wanted, they gave him a blank check, and approved whatever he asked for. When Democrats complained that Bush is spening too much, borrowing from our kids future, and increasing the deficit too much. Republicans said shut up, we know what's best for America, and who cares about borrowing from our kids future, or the deficit.

They said nobody cares about the deficit, so shut up and vote yes for everything Bush wants or you are un-American. Now that Obama is the President, and the Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate it's a whole different story. Suddenly they care about spening, deficits, and borrowing from our kids future.

These very same Republicans are now crying that Obama is spending too much, when his plan is only $825 Billion, the Bush tax cut alone was $1.2 Trillion, every single Republican supported it, and voted for it. And now they cry about $825 Billion, when the country actually needs it, and some economists like Paul Krugman say we need more than $825 Billion.

But the Republicans still think it's too much, and they are also crying that it will raise the deficit. But when Bush was President they said the deficit does not matter, now suddenly it does, that's some big time hypocrisy. And they are crying that we will be borrowing from our kids future, but when Bush did it they said it was no problem, and even told Democrats to shut up and vote for the Bush plan or you are un-American.

Not to mention if we do not fix this economy soon there may not be a future for our kids. Republicans are now using the same arguments against the Democrats that they dismissed when they had the power, it's not just hypocrisy, it's dishonesty. They want Obama to fail, just ask Rush Limbaugh. And if Obama fails the country fails.

Here is the real reason a lot of Republicans do not want to vote for the Obama economic recovery plan. Republicans want Obama to fail because if he gets his economic policies put in place and things get better, Obama and the Democratic party will get credit for fixing the economy.

Obama will probably get re-elected in 2012, be the President for 8 years, and after his 8 years another Democrat will most likely win the white house again. Not to mention the Democrats will probably hold their majority in the House and the Senate. And it will also make Bush look terrible, even worse than he looks now.

So the Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and others are willing to put partisan politics ahead of fixing the economy. Which is just another reason why everyone should continue to vote more Republicans out of office in the 2010 mid-term elections, and the 2012 elections.

The Republicans do not care about the people, or fixing the economy, all they care about is trying to make Obama fail so he can not take credit for fixing the economy. And they have said they will do whatever they can to make Obama fail, even after the American people called for bi-partisan agreement to get the economy fixed.

Obama was elected in a landslide victory, by a 360 to 180 margin. The American people also gave the Democrats a bigger majority in the Senate, and the House. They did this so Obama would have the votes to pass his economic plan and get the country back on track. Yet the Republicans dont care about any of that, they want to go against the will of the people for political reasons.

Barack Obama is the President now, so here is a message for the Republicans in Congress. Shut the hell up and vote yes for whatever Obama wants to do, just like you cowards did when Bush was the President. If he fails, we all fail. He was elected by the people to see if his plan would work, so you have to give him a chance, just like you did for Bush. If you dont, you are un-American and you want America to fail.

Perfect Example of Right-Wing Bias From Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - January 23, 2009 - 10:00pm

Let's look at two rumors, the first one is the John McCain rumor reported by the NY Times that said McCain was having an affair with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The second rumor is about Caroline Kennedy having an affair with someone at the NY Times.

The first rumor is about a Republican, John McCain. The second rumor is about a Democrat, Caroline Kennedy. Now let's look at how O'Reilly covered each rumor. Here is what O'Reilly said about the McCain affair rumor in February of 2008.
O'REILLY: The New York Times article Thursday implies Senator McCain had an inappropriate relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, perhaps romantically. McCain quickly denied any wrongdoing and criticized The Times.

Now, I have no idea what John McCain did or did not do. And according to The Times article, the paper doesn't know either. No direct charges of impropriety are lodged, only innuendo. And that is very, very wrong.

As with all people I report on, I'm willing to give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt, because there is a doubt. If McCain and the lobbyist deny any wrongdoing, fair-minded people should believe them, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
O'Reilly cried about a report from David Gregory at NBC:
GREGORY: Is John McCain a hypocrite? This is not whether he had an illicit affair. It's whether he is a hypocrite. Did he have any kind of relationship — sexual, romantic, or otherwise — with a lobbyist that led him to do things that were improper?

O'REILLY: Well, what's improper, sir, is even raising those kinds of questions, based on two anonymous sources, who according to The Times don't even like McCain. That's brutally unfair.

What details? Acknowledged behaving inappropriately how? Those questions aren't answered by The New York Times. This is incredibly sloppy journalism, is it not? Come on.

Here's a guy running for president, and you're implying things that could ruin him? Based on what? If John McCain did indeed do something wrong, prove it. Have these anonymous people come out and lodge the accusation. Don't smear the man with innuendo.
O'Reilly calls the NY Times McCain affair rumor, very very wrong, says if McCain denies it you should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him, calls the rumor brutally unfair, and sloppy Journalism, says they are smearing him, and tells them to stop reporting the rumor unless they can prove it.

Now here is how O'Reilly covered the Kennedy Rumor, he reported it himself thursday night.
O'REILLY: I and other members of the press were given a remarkable statement today, that questions about Caroline Kennedy's marital status were among the reasons she got out. This is an unbelievable mess. The Factor stressed that any rumors of an extramarital affair are unsubstantiated. "I can not verify any relationship Ms. Kennedy has had."
Then all during the show O'Reilly talked about the affair rumor, and the next day on friday he was still talking about the Kennedy affair rumor. Notice that O'Reilly did not call the Kenneday affair rumor, very very wrong, or say if she denies it (which she has) you should give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her.

Notice what O'Reilly did not do, he did not call the rumor brutally unfair, and sloppy Journalism, he did not give her the benefit of the doubt, or say anyone is smearing her, and he did not tell them to stop reporting the rumor unless they can prove it.

In fact, he did the exact opposite. He actually reported the rumor himself, and then called the media corrupt for not reporting it. Billy it's a rumor, you even admit you can not confirm it. And when the rumor of an affair with McCain and a lobbyist came out you hammered the media for even reporting it. But when a rumor comes out about the Kennedy affair, you spread the rumor.

What happened to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her, the very very wrong to report rumors, how it's brutally unfair, and sloppy Journalism, how they are smearing her. What happened to all that Billy?

These two affair rumors prove exactly what a biased hypocrite with double standards O'Reilly is, just look at how he reported the two stories. When a Republican is accused of an affair you see what O'Reilly says, but when a Democrat is accused of an affair O'Reilly does exactly what he hammered the media for doing to McCain. And what he called brutally unfair, sloppy Journalism, then he does it himself.

The Thursday 1-23-09 O'Reilly Factor All Spin Zone
By: Steve - January 23, 2009 - 12:00pm

Billy started the show with news about Caroline Kennedy. He had Fred Dicker from The NY Post on to discuss it. Billy claims she removed her name from Senator because she is having an affair with a man at the NY Times, and they are both married. Then he said he can not confirm it, and he does not know if it's true, but he reported it anyway. And this is after O'Reilly has said a million times that he never speculates, and that he only deals in facts.

Billy, that's speculation, and not a fact. If you can not confirm it, you should not report it, and you call yourself a Journalist?

It's ridiculous, what if I say I heard O'Reilly kills puppies in his spare time, but I can not confirm it, and I do not know if it's true, but I'm going to report it anyway. How would you like that. Especially if I had said I never speculate a hundred times, and I only deal in the facts.

Then Billy put the far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss the closing of Gitmo and the Obama terror policies. As usual it was two Republicans using the fear card to smear Obama. No Democrat to give the counter point. Ingraham and O'Reilly argued that with the Obama terrorism policies we will be less safe. How do they know, if we are not attacked again then we will be just as safe. We will only know if a there is another attack on US soil, so you can not say we will be lass safe now, because you dont know yet. I guess logic in not their strong point.

After that right-wing propaganda segment with two Republicans, Billy did the TPM called Media Meltdown. He claims the far left media is in a meltdown, because some liberal newspapers are having financial problems. And he says it's only liberal newspapers. When every newspaper is in financial trouble, because MOST people get their news from the internet, cable news, and network news.

Billy had the right-wing nut Bernie Golberg on to discuss it, and even Bernie said all newspapers are in trouble because of the internet. So even his right-wing buddy would not agree with him. Yet O'Reilly still claims only liberal newspapers are in trouble, and that the liberal media is in meltdown. Funny how he never mentioned that NBC is #1 in the ratings, and has been for years, with 10 million viewers a night.

And btw, Goldberg was on all by himself, no Liberal media watchdog to give the counterpoint. Billy used to have a Democrat on with Goldberg, Jane Hall, but she is gone now, so he just uses Goldberg in the media bias segments, that's fair and balanced, not!

Then the great body language segment with, zzzzzzzz, what happened? Oh I fell asleep watching that tabloid crap, when I woke up Megyn Kelly was on talking about legal cases. Damn, I so wanted to watch that hocus pocus body language mumbo jumbo, haha. And btw, has anyone other than me noticed that Billy has all these tabloid crap Inside Edition type segments so he can avoid reporting real news, like the Russell Tice NSA whistleblower wiretap story. That has never been reported on the craptor, oops I mean factor.

Megyn Kelly was on to talk legal cases, casey anthony, blah, blah, etc. etc. And what a shocker, no democrat to talk about the legal cases, I'm shocked I tell ya. This is another segment that is a total waste of tv time, it's tabloid crap to give other Republicans who work for FIXED News some tv time on the #1 rated show.

Then Billy did his famous reality/no reality segment. He reports a news story then gives you his reality on it. Which turns out to be his spin on the story, and all the stories are about Democrats or Hollywood celebs. So there is no reality, it's all Billy's spin on the reality, so it's not reality, it's spinality. And just like 99% of the rest of the show it's all right-wing spin, no reality checks are ever done on any Republicans. And even if he did, he would put a positive spin on the Republican story.

Then it was the total waste of tv time pinheads and patriots segment, where the Democrat is always the pinhead, and the Republican is always the patriot. This segment is nothing more than a biased waste of time that gives Billy one last chance to insult and smear a liberal before the show is over.

After that Billy read the phony and edited e-mails to stroke his ego, which is just another waste of tv time where real news could be reported. Notice that half the show is not even news, it's crap, and the rest is one sided right-wing bias. O'Reilly has all these lame segments so he can get ratings and avoid reporting real news. Like the Russell Tice story, the Susan J. Crawford story, the Bush DOJ Discrimination/Racism story, etc. etc. etc.

Ask yourself this, when was the last time O'Reilly did an entire show with nothing but Democrat guests, answer, never. Not even when he was live at the DNC, or when he did his Obama Inauguration show. When almost every night the whole show is mostly (if not all) Republican guests. Democrats rarely get on, at best 5 or 6 times a week, which is an average of about 1 a night. While 20 to 30 Republicans are on every week.

And btw, I point this out because O'Reilly claims he is a moderate Independent who personally makes sure the guest list is an equal number of Republican and Democrat guests. When it's clear he is lying, just watch the show and you will see for yourself, 25 to 5 is not balance, except in O'Reilly world.

Glenn Beck is Bill O'Reilly v2.0
By: Steve - January 23, 2009 - 10:40am

Could Glenn Beck by an unknown love child of Bill O'Reilly? Just asking.

Beck just got his new show on FIXED News Monday, and he is already lying up a storm, it's like having a younger version of Bill O'Reilly, v2.0. He does the show exactly like the factor, with a talking points memo to open the show, the right-wing spin and lies, all right-wing guests, and everything else Billy does.

Last night on his new FIXED News show, Beck freaked out about the second oath of office Obama took, because Obama did not place his hand on a Bible. Beck said this:

BECK: "I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible."

Wow, Billy would be even proud of that whopper.

First, Obama did use a bible, the first time he was sworn in, he even used the actual Lincoln bible, I guess Beck just missed it. Second, the swearing in is just a dog and pony show, it's meaningless. Once elected, the new President is automatically the new President at noon on January 20th, whether he is sworn in with a bible, or not sworn in at all.

Third, official records kept by the Architect of the Capitol show that Teddy Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal after Kennedy's assassination, and John Quincy Adams placed his hand on a constitutional law book rather than a Bible.

Good job O'Reilly, oops I mean Beck, you have done your FIXED News show for 4 whole days, and you got it all wrong already, did you use the crack O'Reilly Factor staff to do your research, or do you just make this shit up and hope somebody believes it.

Billy Gets The Bronze in Worlds Worst Person
By: Steve - January 22, 2009 - 6:40pm

The bronze to Bill-O the clown:

O'REILLY: “The far left editor of ‘Newsday,‘ John Mancini, apparently has been fired by the paper‘s new owners. He printed an absurd column saying that the Factor promoted violence because one of my books was found in the home of an accused killer. Mancini deserved to be removed. He ruined a once fine newspaper. Enough is enough with this kind of kooky stuff.”

“Newsday” now reports that after a brief dispute with the new owners, Mr. Mancini has now returned to his job as editor of “Newsday.” It also hints that the dispute was about the paper‘s coverage of a scandal involving the basketball team also owned by the paper‘s new owners. As usual with Bill-O‘s delusions, it had nothing to do with him, even though he is the center of the universe.

The Gold went to Chris Wallace, also from FIXED News, the man is so dumb you wonder how he got on a News show, of yeah, it's FOX, and they do not have any News shows.

Our winner, Chris Wallace of Fixed News.

The fumbling over the oath of office yesterday, participated by Chief Justice Roberts, led to that do-over tonight. But Mr. Wallace said, quote, “I have to say, I‘m not sure that Barack Obama really is president of the United States, because the oath of office is said in the Constitution, and I wasn‘t at all convinced that even after he tried to amend it, that John Roberts ever got it out straight and that Barack Obama ever said the prescribed words.”

Even though by the Constitution the new president becomes the new president at noon on January 20th, whether he is swearing the oath at the hour or taking a bath. Honestly, Chris, what are you, 11 years old? Chris Wallace of Fox Noise, today‘s worst person in the world.

Evidence For Billy That Bush Lied & Broke The Law
By: Steve - January 22, 2009 - 6:30pm

O'Reilly has said for years that Bush never lied about anything, and that there is no evidence he broke any laws. Well here it is Billy, when will you put Mr. Tice on the factor?

From Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

Russell Tice has already stood up for truth before this evening as one source for the revelation in 2005 by the “New York Times” that President Bush was eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants. Tonight, the next chapter for Mr. Tice, a chapter he feared to reveal while George Bush occupied the Oval Office, that under the collar of fighting terrorism, the Bush administration was also targeting specific groups of Americans for surveillance, non-terrorist Americans if you will.

The NSA was already estimated to have collected millions of transmissions, e-mails and phone calls of average Americans simply by patching into the networks of cooperative telecommunications companies.

Mr. Tice, however, was also involved in another program and told us that he was first directed to focus on these specific groups in order to weed them out from legitimate surveillance targets, but ultimately concluded that the weeding out was actually an internal NSA cover story for a real goal, which was simply spying on those Americans.

Initially, Mr. Bush told the nation all his surveillance was legal.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires a—a wiretap requires a court order.


OLBERMANN: After the “New York Times” revealed that to be a lie, Mr. Bush claimed his surveillance circumvented the constitutionally required process of obtaining a court-ordered warrant only in cases of clear links to terrorism.


BUSH: In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.

Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.


OLBERMANN: Joining me now in his first public revelation of these charges is Russell Tice, former analyst with the National Security Agency. Thank you for your time, sir.

RUSSELL TICE, FORMER ANALYST, NSA: Thanks for having me.

OLBERMANN: I mention that you say specific groups were targeted.

TICE: An organization that was collected on were U.S. news organizations and reporters and journalists.

OLBERMANN: To what purpose? I mean, is there a file somewhere full of every e-mail sent by all the reporters at the “New York Times?” Is there a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York? Is it like that?

TICE: If it was involved in this specific avenue of collection, it would be everything. Yes. It would be everything.

OLBERMANN: Do you have a sense of why, as you discovered this? I mean, do you have a sense of what this was, if it was used, to what end?

TICE: I do not know. I do not know what was done with the collection. I‘m sure the information—the collection was digitized and put on databases somewhere. I don‘t know what was done with it from that point.

Mr. Tice went on to say that he witnessed laws being broken, he was there working for the NSA when they did it. He said Bush was wiretapping everyone, not just calls from foreign countries, without any warrants. That is a violation of federal law, that means the President approved of the NSA breaking federal wiretapping laws. It's called evidence, let me spell it real slow for Billy, E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

That's not a fishing expedition Billy, it's hard evidence, it's direct evidence. Now do your freaking job and put Mr. Tice on the factor and expose this violation of the Constitution. If you do not, you can never call yourself an Independent Journalist again. In fact, if you ignore this story you are un-American, and a pinhead.

The Wednesday 1-21-09 O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - January 22, 2009 - 10:30am

Billy started with a TPM called Obama's Challenges. He said he will be Paul Revere and warn everyone about the economy, national security, the corrupt media, etc. Billy claims the far left is dangerous, and that if Obama does what they want it will hurt America. He said he will warn the folks if Obama tries to put in place the dangerous policies the far left supports.

Yeah those dangerous policies the far left supports, like Jobs, fair pay and equal pay, human rights, health care for all, equal rights for all, tax cuts for the middle class, smart foreign policies, no un-needed wars, a smart terrorism policy, real regulations on wall street and banks, making gay marriage legal, giving women a choice on abortion (which is what they should have in a free country) actually upholding the laws, wanting our president to not break laws, dangerous stuff like that.

Then O'Reilly put the giant moron Dick Morris on to trash Obama, no Democrat to give the counter point. Morris said the Obama stimulus plan is a trojan horse, and that he wants to turn the USA into France. Which is all speculation by a right-wing nut who is almost never right about anything. This is the guy who said McCain was a genius for suspending his campaign, then 2 weeks later said it was one of the top 5 biggest political mistakes of the year.

And yet O'Reilly keeps putting this clueless jackass on the air because he agrees with what he says, and he will always come on and trash the Democrats. Even when 80% of his so-called political analysis is wrong, Billy keeps bringing him back every week. I guess that's what you get when you agree with the host and say what he likes. Morris is just a right-wing con man who says what Republicans want to hear, then gets rich for it, just like Coulter, it's all a con game, and the Republicans who buy their crap are the suckers.

After Morris, O'Reilly did a segment about the media love affair for Obama. He cried and whined about how the media covers Obama, he said it was too positive, and that they are not as tough on him as they were on Bush. Earth to clueless idiot Bill O'Reilly. Obama has been the President for ONE day. ONE whole day, and that ONE day was his Inauguration day. How can they be tough on him when he has only been the President for ONE fricking day, especially when he has an approval rating of 80 percent.

The media was not tough on Bush after 9-11 when he had an approval rating of 80 percent. They only got tough on him after he started screwing everything up, before that they fell all over him and kissed his ass. Obama has not done anything for the media to be tough on him yet, so get a clue man. It works like this, if you do a good job as the President rhe media will not hammer you, if you suck, like Bush did, they will. That's not bias, it's reality, and reporting what is happening.

Speaking of media bias, how come you never said a word about Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails. When will you call him an America hater, a traitor, an un-American traitor and an America hater. Like you did for 8 years any time a Democrat dared to criticize Bush. Not only did O'Reilly not call Limbaugh an America hater, he never even reported what Limbaugh said. Talk about bias, that's total bias, from O'Reilly.

Next he had the Politico gossip reporter on to spew out tabloid garbage about Hollywood celebs who went to the Obama Inauguration. Who cares, I sure dont. O'Reilly says they are pinheads and nobody should care what they say. Then he talks about them every fricking night and cries about everything they say. If they are pinheads that nobody should listen to, or care what they say, then why do you report on them every damn night. Let it go, it's tabloid garbage and a waste of tv time.

Then it was Amanda Carpenter the right-wing internet cop from, no Democrat internet cop, just Amanda. She cried about some internet video about Ann Coulter, said it was insulting and mean, or some crap like that. I say great, it's about time somebody gave the nut job Coulter some of her own medicine. If it was insulting and mean I'm all for it, and it could not have happened to a nicer man, er, I mean woman, I think. The internet cop segment is crap, it's biased, one sided, and a total waste of tv time.

No mention of the hate and racism on the net about Obama at one day after his Inauguration, so the whole segment is just right-wing propaganda. They cherry pick internet stuff to report on that only makes liberals look bad, while ignoring all the stuff that makes conservatives look bad.

Next he had the loser Dennis Miller on to talk about the Obama Inaguration. Billy cried about two rappers who said some negative things about Bush, he called it low class. Miller said to be honest he dont give a damn what two rappers said about anything. For once I agree with Miller, I dont care either, it seems that only O'Reilly cares.

But if they say something negative about a Democrat Billy dont care, he only cares when they say something negative about a Republican. Name one time O'Reilly reported when a hollywood celeb or a rapper said something negative about a Democrat, you cant, because it has never happened. Then O'Reilly said he dont really care what they say, and that he only reported it because some people care.

Who are these people, name them Billy. Nobody cares but a few right wing nuts that bitch and moan any time a Democrat says anything about their neo-con hero George W. Bush. And if O'Reilly dont care, as he claims, why in the hell did he report it, and why does he report every little thing any Democrats says about Bush. Funny how he only did not care after Miller said he dont care. Before that O'Reilly was teasing the segment all night, and playing clips of the rappers insulting Bush, he sure cared then.

Then O'Reilly put the American Idol loser Sanjaya on to talk about his new CD, or something. Who cares, and how is this news. Then pinheads and patriots and the fake e-mails. O'Reilly named Jessica Alba a pinhead again, because she said he was an a-hole, even though she is right. And once again claimed his critics do not even watch his show, so he can discredit what they say.

Earth to O'Reilly, we watch your show every night. I just did a review of every segment you did, if I do not watch the show, how did I do this review?

And btw, over on MSNBC Keith Olbermann was doing a real news show while O'Reilly was talking to Sanjaya and crying about what two rappers said about Bush. He talked to Russell Tice, the NSA whistleblower who saw Bush breaking laws and reported it, that's real news, and real evidence that Bush broke laws, and it's why you will never see Russell Tice on the factor.

Because he has evidence that Bush broke the law, and that is evidence, so O'Reilly will just ignore the guy and never report on him. Then continue to claim there is no evidence and that it's just a fishing expedition. When Mr. Tice is the evidence, he worked for the NSA, and he saw the laws being broken by Bush.

Will O'Reilly Report This Obama Hate From The Right
By: Steve - January 21, 2009 - 3:30pm

UPDATE -- 1-22-09: No mention of the hate and racism about Obama from O'Reilly at last night, and no mention of the Rush Limbaugh statement either. O'Reilly even did an internet segment with his internet cop, and still never said a word about the hate and racism about Obama on the internet.


On Wednesday, January 21, 2009, the right-wing freeper Sig Sauer P220 at posted a photo of President Obama sitting at his desk on the phone, the headline on the posting said Caption Obama in the Oval Office. Here are a few examples of the hateful and racist captions they wrote, and they are still there, the moderators have not removed any of them.

Where’s your suit jacket, Marxist jackass?

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 01:46:37 PM by twister881

Empty Suit, Empty Desk

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 01:48:00 PM by geo40xyz

Calling his pusher for some drugs, I bet!

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 01:49:30 PM by timestax

Empty desk, empty mind?

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 01:52:42 PM by Darth Dan

Hello Popeyes?!! I'd like to order a large bucket of chicken. Goodbye. My first executive decision. That wasn't so tough.

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 01:53:18 PM by Sig Sauer P220

The enemy inside the gate.

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 02:04:14 PM by indylindy

Room service??? Where did you hide my prayer rug? I can’t pray to mecca on this stinky carpet with Clinton’s baby batter all over it.

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 02:04:25 PM by LetsRok

After hanging up: (thinking to self) Wait a minute, I'm the president now. I don't have to order KFC anymore. I'm gonna call Arthur Bryant's in Kansas City and order up a batch of ribs, and then send Air Force One out to pick the order up. Man, its good to be King.

posted on 01/21/2009 12:25:11 PM PST by Sig Sauer P220

“H-hello...uh..Steadman? Can you...uh..PLEASE tell Oprah to...uh...get out from under my desk and....uh...come home?”

posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 02:54:25 PM by gimme1ibertee

This is what Republicans do on the internet one day after President Obama was sworn in. But O'Reilly ignores it all, and claims there is no hate on the right. It's hate from the right, and racism.

The Tuesday 1-20-09 O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - January 21, 2009 - 12:30pm

Last night O'Reilly did an Obama Inauguration show, it was mostly positive and respectful to Obama, but I did have a few problems with it. O'Reilly talked about NBC doing some cheap shots on Bush, and he said he would report it tonight. Why talk about that on the Obama Inauguration show. Why not just wait until tonight to talk about it. It's hate from the right, and racism.

The biggest problem I had was the fact that we just elected the first black president in the history of America and O'Reilly does not have one black person on the whole show. The show was mostly white Republicans who work for FOX News. Hume, Kelly, Dobson, Waters, Jenkins, Hemmer, Geraldo, etc. all reporting from the Inauguration.

Only one Democrat got on the show, but he was white. Not one black person was on the whole show, no black Congressman, no black journalists, no black pastors, nothing. And the one Democrat was the former Clinton speech writer who was on with a Republican guest at the same time so he barely got a word in. And he was only allowed to talk about what it was like to write a speech for Bill Clinton.

And during the Jill Dobson segment about the Hollywood celebs, O'Reilly once again (for the 3rd time this week) called them pinheads, but when Hollywood celebs went to the Bush Inauguration they were not called pinheads. In O'Reilly world they are only pinheads if they support a Democrat, which is bias and a double standard from O'Reilly.

That was a low class biased move by O'Reilly, he loaded the show with white Republicans on the day America makes history by swearing in the first black president. All the other news shows had multiple black guests and mostly Democrats, Congressman, Pastors, Journalists, etc. Olbermann had mostly Democrats and a black Journalist. Anderson Cooper had multiple black guests from Congressman to Pastors. Every show had black guests and mostly Democrats but the factor.

It shows how biased O'Reilly really is, he should have had mostly Democrats on to talk about the Obama Inauguration, and he should have had at least 2 blacks on, if not 3 or 4, but he did not have any. The only person of color on the whole show was Geraldo, and he is a latino, not an African American.

I watched most of all the other news shows, and the factor was the only one I saw that did not have any black guests. Let alone black Democrats, as the other shows did. O'Reilly only had 1 Democrat on the whole show, he was white, and he was not even allowed to talk about the Inauguration. He got to say he liked the Obama speech, then O'Reilly cut him off and only let him talk about what it was like to write speeches for Bill Clinton.

The whole show was O'Reilly and 99% all white Republican guests talking about the Obama Inauguration. The right thing to do would have been to put mostly Democrats on to talk about a Democrat being sworn in as President. And some of those Democrats should have been black, but O'Reilly did not do any of that. It's bias and an insult to not have any black guests, and only one Democrat guest.

Rush Limbaugh Wants Obama to Fail
By: Steve - January 21, 2009 - 11:40am

Which means Rush Limbaugh wants America to fail and he is an America hater. Because if Obama fails so does America.

Barack Obama had not yet taken office, and Rush Limbaugh was already rooting for his failure. On his radio show last Friday, Limbaugh said, "I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, Well, I hope he succeeds."

Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by "a major American print publication" to offer a 400-word statement explaining his "hope for the Obama presidency." He responded with this:
So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
Even his own staff knows it was wrong to say, yet he said it anyway. The question is, will O'Reilly report this and call Limbaugh an un-American traitor who hates America, like he did when anyone on the left said they hope Bush fails. Over the last 8 years any time someone on the left said anything about Bush failing, O'Reilly would report it and say they are un-American traitors who hate America.

In fact, any criticism of Bush at all from anyone on the left was considered America hating by O'Reilly. Almost every day O'Reilly reported something said by a Democrat about Bush and then he called them un-American traitors who hate America. That is the standard set by O'Reilly during the Bush administration, will he follow his own standard and report what Limbaugh said?

Will O'Reilly consider any criticism from the right about Obama, America hating, will he report it, then call them un-American traitors?

Answer: Not a chance!

The Bush Presidency: 8 Years in 8 Minutes
By: Steve - January 20, 2009 - 6:00pm

Note to Bill O'Reilly, read this you right-wing fool. This is what your hero George W. Bush did in his 8 years as the President, and why his approval rating is now 22 percent. From Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

OLBERMANN: George Walker Bush, 43rd president of the United States, first ever with a criminal record. Our third story tonight, his presidency, eight years in eight minutes. Early in 2001, the U.S. fingered al Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole. Bush counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke had a plan to take down al Qaeda. Instead, by February, the NSC had already discussed invading Iraq, and had a plan for post-Saddam Iraq.

By March 5th, Bush had a map ready for Iraqi oil exploration, and a list of companies. Al Qaeda? Rice told Clarke not to give Bush at lot of long memos; not a big reader.

August 6th, 2001, a CIA analyst briefs Bush on vacation, “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” Bush takes no action, tells the briefer, quote, “all right, you covered your ass now.”

Next month, Clarke requests using new Predator Drones to kill bin Laden. The Pentagon And CIA say no.

September 11th, Bush remains seated for several minutes to avoid scaring school children by getting up and leaving. He then flies around the country and promises, quote, a full investigation to find those folks who did it.

Rumsfeld says Afghanistan does not have enough targets. We‘ve got to do Iraq. When the CIA traps bin Laden in Tora Bora, it asks for 800 Rangers to cut off his escape. Bush out sources the job to Pakistanis sympathetic to the Taliban. Bin Laden gets away.

In February, General Tommy Franks tells a visiting senator Bush is moving equipment out of Afghanistan so he can invade Iraq. One of the men who prepped Rice for her testimony that Bush did not ignore pre-9/11 warnings later explains, quote, we cherry-picked things to make it look like the president had been actually concerned about al Qaeda. They didn‘t give a bleep about al Qaeda.

July, and Britain‘s intel chief says Bush is fixing intelligence and facts around the policy to take out Saddam.

January ‘03, Bush and Blair agree to invade in March. Mr. Bush still telling us he has not decided, telling Blair they should paint an airplane in U.N. colors, fly it over Iraq and provoke a response, a pretext for invasion.

The man who said it would take several hundred thousand troops fired. The man who said it would cost more than 100 billion fired. The man who revealed Bush‘s yellow cake lie smeared, his wife‘s covert status exposed. The White House liars who did it and covered it up not fired. One convicted; Bush commutes his sentence.

Then in Iraq, stuff happens. Iraq‘s army disbanded. The government de-Baathified, 200,000 weapons, millions of dollars lost, foreign mercenaries immunized from justice, political hacks run the green zone. Religious cleansing forcing one out of six Iraqis from their homes.

Abu Ghraib, the insurgency, al Qaeda in Iraq. Other stuff does not happen; WMD, post-war planning, body armor, vehicular armor. The payoff, oil and billions for Halliburton, Blackwater and other companies, while Mr. Bush denies VA health care to 450,000 veterans, tries to raise their health care fees, blocks the new GI Bill and increases his own power with the USA Patriot Act, with the Military Commissions Act, public orders exempting himself from a thousand laws, and secretly from the Presidential Records Act, the Geneva Conventions, FISA, sparking a mass rebellion at the Justice Department.

Secret star chambers for terrorism suspects overturned by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Denying habeas corpus, overturned by Bomedine v. Bush. Two hundred renditionings, sleep deprivation, abuse. Rumsfeld warned in 2002 that he was torturing, that it would jeopardize convictions. Out of 550 at Gitmo, hundreds ultimately go free with no charges. Dozens are tortured, eight fatally, three are convicted.

On US soil, 1,200 immigrants rounded up without due process, without bail, without court dates, without a single charge of terrorism.

It wasn‘t just Mr. Bush no longer subject to the rule of law. He slashed regulations on everyone from banks to mining companies, appointed 98 lobbyists to oversee their own industries, weakening emissions standards for mercury and 650 different toxic chemicals.

Regulators shared drugs and their beds with industry reps. The Crandall Canyon Mine owner told inspectors to back off because his buddy, Republican Mitch McConnell, was sleeping with their boss. McConnell‘s wife is Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Cho (ph). Her agency over-ruled engineer concerns about Crandall Canyon and was found negligent after nine miners died in the collapse there.

Mr. Bush is hands off as Enron blacks out California, doubling electric bills. After months of rejecting price caps, many Bush bows to pressure. The blackouts end. Mr. Bush further deregulates commodity futures, mid-wifing the birth of unregulated oil markets, which, just like Enron, jack up prices to an all-time high, until Congress and both presidential candidates call for regulations and the prices fall.

Deregulating financial services and lax enforcement of remaining rules create a housing bubble, creating the mortgage crisis, creating then a credit crisis, devastating industries that rely on credit, from student loans to car dealers. Firms that had survived the Great Depression could not survive Bush. Those that did got 700 billion dollars, no strings, no transparency, no idea whether it worked.

Unlike the auto bailout, which cut workers salaries. A GOP memo called it a chance to punish unions. But Bush failed even when his party and his patrons did not stand to profit. Investigators blamed management, cost cutting communication for missed warnings about Colombia.

Bush administration convicts include sex offenders at Homeland Security, convicted liars, every kind of thief in the calendar.

If you count things that were not prosecuted, the vice president of the United States actually shot a man in the face. The man apologized.

Mr. Bush faked the truth with paid propaganda in Iraq, on his education policy, tried to silence the truth about global warming, rocket fuel in our water, industry influence on our energy policy, politicized the truth of science at NASA, the EPA, the National Cancer Institute, Fish and Wildlife, and the FDA.

His lies exposed by whistle blowers from the cabinet down. “Complete BS,” the Treasury secretary said about Mr. Bush on his tax cuts.

Rice‘s mushroom cloud, Powell‘s mobile labs, Iraq and 9/11, Jack Abramoff, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Pat Tillman again, Pat Tillman again.

The air at ground zero, most responders still suffering respiratory problems. Global warming, carbon emissions, a clear skies initiative lowering air quality standards, the Healthy Forest Initiative increasing logging, faith-based initiatives, the cost of Medicare reform, fired U.S. attorneys, politically synchronized terror alerts.

The surge causing insurgents to switch sides, that abortion causes breast cancer, that his first recession began under Clinton, that he did not wiretap without warrants, that we do not torture.

That American citizen John Walker Lindh‘s rights were not violated, that he refused the right to counsel. Heck of a job, Brownie, some survivors still in trailers, New Orleans still at just two thirds 3 its usual population.

The lie that no one could have predicted the economic crisis, except the economists who did. No one could have predicted 9/11, except one ass covering CIA analyst, or 30. No one could have predicted the levee breach, except literally Mr. Bill in a PSA that aired on TV a year before Katrina.

Bush actually admitted that he lied about not firing Rumsfeld because he did not want to tell the truth. Look it up.

All of it and more leaving us with 10 trillion in debt to pay for 31 percent more in discretionary spending, the Iraq war, a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut, median income down 2,000 dollars, three quarters of all income gains under Bush going to the richest one percent, unemployment up from 4.2 to 7.2, the Dow down from 10,587 to 8,277, six million now more in poverty, seven million more now without health care.

Buying toxic goods from China, deadly cribs, out-sourcing security to Dubai, still unsecure at our ports and at our nuclear plants, more dependent on foreign oil, out of the International Criminal Court, off the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, military readiness and standards down, with two unfinished wars, a nuclear North Korea, disengaged from the Palestinian problem, destabilizing Eastern European diplomacy with anti-missile plans, and unable to keep Russia out of Georgia.

Two thousand miles of Appalachian streams destroyed by rubble from mountain top mining. At his last G-8 summit, he actually bid farewell to other world leaders, saying, quote, goodbye from the world‘s greatest polluter.

Consistently undermining historic American reference to the institutions that empower us, education now academic elites, and the law, activists judges capping jury awards.

And bin Laden live today unmolested in a Pakistani safe haven created by a truce endorsed and defended by George W. Bush. Among all the gifts he gave to bin Laden, the most awful, the most damaging not just to America, but to the American ideal was to further bin Laden‘s goal by making us act out of fear rather than fortitude, leaving us with precious little to cling to tonight, save the one thing that might yet suffice: hope.

Keith Names O'Reilly Worlds Worst Person
By: Steve - January 20, 2009 - 5:40pm

From the Friday 1-16-09 Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Our winner, Bill-O the clown, heartbroken that the end of his fantasy world is near, the one in which he is Jack Bauer and Bush is Jack Bauer and Cheney is also Jack Bauer. Also terrified at the prospect somebody somewhere might be held accountable.

O'REILLY: "Tearing the country apart over the Bush/Cheney anti-terror policies, the far left media has succeeded in convincing the world that USA is a nation of torture, a country that sadistically inflicts pain on both the innocent and the guilty."

OLBERMANN: No, that was done the other day, when Mr. Bush's head of prosecution for detainees said we tortured that man al Khatani.

O'REILLY: "These people at the New York Times and NBC News should be very proud. They have damaged their own country in a disgusting display of propaganda and outright lies. It all began with Abu Ghraib, a story featured more than 50 times on the front page of the New York Times."

OLBERMANN: Of course, you don't want anybody reporting the Bush administration's mistakes, because Mr. Bush was so diligent about owning up to them. Obviously, Abu Ghraib would have corrected itself if we had ignored it.

O'REILLY: "Now there's an insane call for fishing expeditions to find something that will lead to prosecuting the president and vice president. Again, this is poison, a destructive act toward America. Bush and Cheney protected Americans after 9/11 and they did it fast. So mistakes were inevitable, but they stopped the killing on American soil, did they not?"

OLBERMANN: If you don‘t count the anthrax killings, Bill. If you ignore the fact that Bush and Cheney didn't protect Americans before 9/11, and if you fell for all those Diet Coke and Mentos plots they foiled.

O'REILLY: "Talking Points despises those who, in the name of ideology, want to weaken the country, putting us all in danger. We‘re going to name names coming up in the future, ladies and gentlemen. It's going to stop right now."

OLBERMANN: How about starting with yourself, pal, because with the hateful bile you have been spilling for a decade, and the racism and the homophobia and the demonizing of dissent, you, Bill O'Reilly, have personally harmed this country far more than a John Walker Lindh ever did. Bill O'Reilly, today's worst person in the world.

The Monday 1-19-09 O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - January 20, 2009 - 9:40am

Billy opened the factor making no sense at all. He talked about the 9 year old pardon of Marc Rich by Bill Clinton. O'Reilly said Bush did not investigate that Clinton pardon so Bush should not be investigated by Obama about possible crimes by President Bush. That argument makes no sense at all. It's a comparison that only a crazy and biased right-wing nut would make.

To start with, Marc Rich was ONE guy who cheated on his taxes. He was guilty of the crime, not President Clinton. George W. Bush was a sitting President who might be guilty of crimes while he was in office, serious crimes. The actual President could have broke federal laws on torture, wiretapping, discrimination, and more.

There is a big difference in the President giving a pardon to ONE guy, and the actual President doing the crimes that violates the law and the Constitution. You have to be insane to even make that argument, and compare the two things. O'Reilly even called for the DOJ to release all their info on the Marc Rich pardon, a 9 year old pardon of ONE guy. Talk about bias and double standards, this is it.

Especially when O'Reilly has said we should not go back in time and investigate old crimes from the past, when it involves a Republican. Then he argues that we should go back 9 fricking years and investigate the pardon of Marc Rich by the Democrat Bill Clinton. It's hypocrisy, bias, and a double standard. And that is the kind of argument you expect to hear from a retarded 5 year old, not a guy with a news show who has a masters degree from Harvard.

O'Reilly said if they investigate Bush it will be a huge mistake and hurt America. HOW?

It would only be doing the right thing, because there is evidence that Bush broke the law while he was in office, and nobody is above the law, not even the President. O'Reilly put Karl Rove on to discuss it, and even the far right Karl Rove told O'Reilly to let it go and drop it, because it's a 9 year old pardon of ONE guy. Rove did agree it would be a mistake to investigate Bush, and that it would hurt America. No Democrat was put on to give the counter point.

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to discuss it even more. Of course Ham agreed with O'Reilly, but so did Williams, and he is a Democrat? No real Democrat would agree with O'Reilly on this. O'Reilly cried more about the possible investigation of Bush, even though it's all speculation right now. And he cried some more about Marc Rich, when it's a fricking 9 year old pardon, get over it already.

O'Reilly said it was a fishing expedition to get Bush, and once again he said there is no evidence of any crimes so there should not be an investigation. Which is insane, there is a ton of evidence. The top Bush official in charge of the prosecutions at Gitmo Susan J. Crawford just told the Washington Post that the Bush administration used torture on a guy at Gitmo. Earth to Billy, that's evidence you freaking jack ass.

There is a whistleblower in the NSA wiretapping case, he was in the program, he saw laws being broken, and he leaked out the info that they were breaking laws. That's evidence, you right-wing nut. People in the DOJ have given statements about Bush breaking laws on discrimination, etc. Bush, Cheney, and the CIA director even admitted that they waterboarded three guys, which is torture, they admit it. THAT'S EVIDENCE YOU IDIOT.

Earth to O'Dummy, there is a ton of evidence that Bush broke laws, so stop saying there is no evidence, it just makes you look like a fool who should be locked up in a padded room. It also shows what a right-wing stooge you are to even say such a crazy thing.

The crazy Mary K. Ham compared the Obama Inauguration to the 2004 Bush Inauguration. She said it was hypocrisy from the left to have the Obama Inauguration because it cost so much, because in 2004 the left was saying there should not be an expensive Inauguration for Bush. Which is just ridiculous right-wing garbage, O'Reilly and Williams just sat there and let her say that crazy propaganda.

Earth to right-wing nut Mary K. Ham, this is the FIRST Inauguration for Barack Obama, the FIRST ONE. In 2004 Bush was re-elected to a SECOND term. The left said Bush should not have a SECOND Inauguration after he was re-elected. But the left had no problem with Bush having his FIRST Inauguration in 2001. And if Obama is elected to a SECOND term he should not have an Inauguration in 2012 either, so there is no hypocrisy you idiot. The only hypocrisy is in your crazy right-wing head.

Then Bernie Goldberg was put on to trash Bill Moyers and smear everything liberal. No Democrat to give the counter point, Jane Hall used to be on with Bernie but I guess O'Reilly decided to never have her on again, and he dont say why, or say anything about her being gone. After that Billy put his two Republican culture warriors on to spin things Obama might do, just more speculation from a bunch of right-wingers. No Democrat culture warriors, just Crowley and Hoover.

Next we had the bogus reality check segment. It's basically O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on a news story, or what someone said. It's not reality, it's O'Reilly's spin on reality. And there is never a so-called reality check on any Republicans, all the reality checks are on Democrats. The best one was the factor producer talked to Jessica Alba, and she told him she had nothing to say to Billy except that he is an a-hole. Now that's some reality, for once.

Then pinheads and patriots, and as usual the Democrat is the pinhead, and a Republican was the patriot. Then during the e-mail segment Billy read a great e-mail. The guy said hey Bill, if God saved those people in the river plane crash (as O'Reilly claims) how come he didn't just have the Geese fly away so they did not get into the plane engines.

I thought to myself, what a great question. O'Reilly gave some crazy reply that made no sense, then he said you secular progressives will never understand. O'Reilly did not explain why God did not just have the Geese fly so they were not near the plane, so his reply was crazy, and made no sense.

Great Example of O'Reilly Bias & Poll Cherry Picking
By: Steve - January 19, 2009 - 11:30am

Last week when O'Reilly did the unfair and unbalanced Al Franken smearfest segment with two Republicans and ZERO Democrats, he cited a Survey USA poll. Billy said the poll showed that only 37% of the people in Minnesota liked Franken and then voiced astonishment that Franken can be a senator with those numbers.

What's funny is the rest of the 7 question poll, the part O'Reilly did not report. The poll asked if your opinion of Al Franken after the recount is favorable or unfavorable. It was 37% favorable and 45% unfavorable. What Billy (the moderate Independent?) failed to mention is that in the very same poll Coleman got 38% favorable and 44% unfavorable.

Which is only a 1% difference, and Coleman was the Senator for 6 years, after doing the job his favorable is only 38%, which is only 7% higher than the approval rating for George W. Bush. Al Franken has not been the Senator for one day yet. Note to Billy, a real Journalist reports all the poll results, not just 1 question out of the 7 in the poll

That Survey USA poll had 7 questions on the Minnesota recount, O'Reilly only cited the 1 question that mentioned Franken's unfavorable rating, no mention of the other 6 questions. That's called cherry picking poll results, and bias. O'Reilly proved his Republican bias once again by cherry picking a poll to make a Democrat look bad. When the very same poll makes the Republican look just as bad, if not worse, because he has actually done the job, franken has not had the job for one day yet.

Billy also failed to mention that the margin of error in the poll is 4.5%, so Franken could actually be at 41.5% approval, and Coleman could be at 33.5%. Don't you agree that a Journalist should give all the facts, not cherry pick partial results from a poll. No mention of the 4.5% margin of error from O'Reilly, that the Coleman favorable is only 38%, or the other 6 questions in the same poll.

And btw, question #7 asked if Norm Coleman should concede the race, 44% said Coleman should concede, only 8% think they should do another recount. Only 2% of Democrats think there should be another recount, 8% Independents, and only 15% Republicans. That means even 85% of the Republicans do not think there should be another recount. None of this was reported by O'Reilly, ever.

During the Franken segment O'Reilly and his two right-wing friends also implied that Franken bought the election with Hollywood money. When all they did was make legal political donations, which is what you do in a Democracy. No mention that Coleman actually raised more money than Franken, and spent more money, then lost, or that most of the Coleman money came from PAC's and Corporations. None of that was reported by O'Reilly, or the two stooges he had on to smear Franken.

Then O'Reilly went on a crazy rant about how Variety did another "hit piece" on him, according to Billy, the 100th article about him by the same author. He was talking about Brian Lowry, he is the media columnist and TV critic for Variety, and I can not find 10 columns from him about O'Reilly, let alone 100.

The so-called hit piece O'Reilly claims is about him, is in reality a column about the FOX News network giving Hannity and Beck their own shows.

Here is the actual name of the Column:

New flavor for Fox News: Change
Hannity, Beck mark shift in net's personality

In the entire column O'Reilly is only mentioned a few times. So it's not hardly the hit piece O'Reilly said it was. The column is about FOX News letting Hannity do his show without Colmes, giving Beck his own show, and the shift to the right by FOX News right before Obama is sworn in as the next President. Somehow O'Reilly thinks any column that mentions him is all about him.

The Franken segment with all Republican guests, the poll cherry picking, and the selective reporting prove once again that Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased right-wing fraud, pretending to be a moderate Independent.

And btw, O'Reilly claims that none of his critics actually watch the show. When that is another lie, I watch the factor every night, and I have for about 10 years. And if I happen to miss one I read the transcript the next day. The people at also watch every show, they even videotape it and put out a transcript. And the folks at Newshounds also watch every show and blog about it. So he cant even tell the truth about his critics.

Paul Krugman Explains Why Bush Must be Investigated
By: Steve - January 19, 2009 - 9:30am

Forgive and Forget?

by Paul Krugman

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. "I don’t believe that anybody is above the law," he responded, but "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

I'm sorry, but if we don't have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years -- and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama's remarks to mean that we won't -- this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. It's not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation's security. The fact is that the Bush administration's abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for "right-thinking Americans" -- their term, not mine -- and there's strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq -- an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security -- in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let's also not forget that country's failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.

There's much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years -- in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?

Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?

In fact, we've already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it's giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off -- which isn't too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

Now, it's true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable.

Bill O'Reilly is Hurting America
By: Steve - January 18, 2009 - 11:40am

Billy is crying all the time about things that hurt America, and he writes that people who hurt America are un-American. He even hammers the media for reporting things that make us look bad, like Gitmo torture etc. Even though that is their job and if they do not report it they are not doing their job.

The job of a Journalist is to report the news, no matter what it is, and how bad it makes us look. If you do not do that what is the point of having a free press, the right to a free press was put in the Constitution so they could report bad things the Government is doing. So the people can be informed and vote the crooks out of office.

But guys like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, FOX News, etc. want the media to ignore all the bad and possibly illegal things Bush has done. That's not Journalism, it's partisan bias from right-wing Journalists who want to cover everything up because it makes Bush look bad, and might get him prosecuted. The President puts his hand on a bible and takes an oath to enforce the Constitution, and he is not above the law.

And when someone is hurting America it should be reported, especially if that reporting could help to change it and get them to stop hurting America. I am talking about all these American corporations that use multiple subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to conduct business and avoid paying U.S. taxes. And it's really bad when they are getting some of the $750 Billion in bailout money.

The Government Accountability Office, released a new report yesterday by Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the report lists Citigroup and Morgan Stanley as having set up hundreds of tax haven subsidiaries, along with American International Group and Bank of America. Also in the tax-haven list are well-known companies and such federal contractors as American Express, Pepsi and Caterpillar.

The GAO determined that 83 of the 100 largest publicly traded corporations and 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors maintain subsidiaries in countries generally considered havens for avoiding taxes. Dorgan and Levin said they requested the updated report from one several years ago because they are focused on combating offshore tax abuses, which they estimated cause $100 billion in lost U.S. tax revenue each year.

And yet O'Reilly never says a word about these companies, they are hurting America by avoiding taxes. The reason he never says anything is because the Republican party let them get away with it. They refuse to pass a law making these offshore tax havens illegal. Which cost America at least $100 Billion dollars a year. But if the average Joe cheats the IRS out of $100 they come after you, get the $100 back, and make you pay a penalty on top of that.

But if a corporation sets up a phony offshore headquarters to avoid paying Billions in taxes they dont go after them, and in fact, they let them get away with it. The Republicans take money from them and then they vote to let them run these scam offshore headquarters so they can avoid paying taxes. Then the rest of us have to pay more in taxes to make up for it.

While so-called Journalists like O'Reilly ignore it and never say a word about any of it. I guess he's too busy reporting on anyone who dares to criticize Bush. Maybe he's too busy reporting on teachers who have sex with students. Maybe he's too busy reporting on what other people in the media are saying. Instead of reporting on Important things that might actually help America O'Reilly is wasting his time on partisan and tabloid crap.

He has the #1 show on cable, he could do some good with it. But he dont, instead he has decided to be a partisan right-winger and try to spin America into thinking the Republican party agenda is good for you. That is what he does, he cherry picks news stories then he puts his right-wing spin on the cherry picked news stories.

O'Reilly loads the show with 80 to 90 percent partisan right-wing guests, who are put on to agree with him. The Producer does a pre-interview so they know what they plan to say before they are put on the air. If they agree with Billy they are put on to reinforce his right-wing spin on everything. Then the viewer thinks O'Reilly must be right because everyone agrees with him.

When it's all a one sided biased right-wing con game. And dont just believe me, the next time O'Reilly makes a claim, quotes a poll, or reports a stat, do a google search and find out if he is accurate. If you do, you will find out 90% of what he says is either spin, or a flat out lie. He partially quotes something, or cherry picks poll results, or uses them from a biased source.

Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor, that is what he does, he is pretending to be a moderate Independent Journalist. He is no better than Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. It's all right-wing spin, all the time. And do not just believe me, check it out for yourself. Take notes of the things he says then look it up and you will see he spins everthing. And what is not spin, is usually a flat out lie.

All the spin is for Republicans, he never spins for Democrats, and that alone proves his bias. Show me one eaxmple of spin from O'Reilly that favored a Democrat, you cant, because it has never happened. All the spin, the bias, the hypocrisy, and the double standards favor the Republicans. Just look at his regular guest list, Rove, Morris, Ingraham, Gingrich, Miller, Goldberg, Carpenter, Crowley, etc. All Republicans.

That is what O'Reilly does, he spins and lies to the American people. And he is so dishonest he will not even admit he is a Republican. In a court of law the judge tells members of the jury that if a witness is caught lying you can throw out their entire testimony and not believe anything they said. O'Reilly spins and lies all the time, so how can you trust anything he says, if the Factor were in a court of law, everything he says would be thrown out by the jury.

Top 10 People Who Made Bush The Worst President Ever
By: Steve - January 17, 2009 - 11:40am

As President Bush wraps up his tenure as one of the worst presidents ever. He wasn't able to accomplish such an ignominious feat all by himself, he had a great deal of help along the way. heralds the conclusion of the Bush 43 presidency by bringing you their list of the top 43 worst Bush appointees. Here is the top 10, click here to read the rest.

1. Dick Cheney -- The worst Dick since Nixon. The man who shot his friend while in office. The "most powerful and controversial vice president." Until he got the job, people used to actually think it was a bad thing that the vice presidency has historically been a do-nothing position. Asked by PBS's Jim Lehrer about why people hate him, Cheney rejected the premise, saying, "I don’t buy that." His 19% job approval says otherwise.

2. Karl Rove -- There wasn't a scandal in the Bush administration that Rove didn't have his fingerprints all over -- see Plame, Iraq war deception, Gov. Don Siegelman, U.S. Attorney firings, missing e-mails, and more. As senior political adviser and later as deputy chief of staff, "The Architect" was responsible for politicizing nearly every agency of the federal government.

3. Alberto Gonzales -- Fundamentally dishonest and woefully incompetent, Gonzales was involved in a series of scandals, first as White House counsel and then as Attorney General. Some of the most notable: pressuring a "feeble" and "barely articulate" Attorney General Ashcroft at his hospital bedside to sign off on Bush's illegal wiretapping program; approving waterboarding and other torture techniques to be used against detainees; and leading the firing of U.S. Attorneys deemed not sufficiently loyal to Bush.

4. Donald Rumsfeld -- After winning praise for leading the U.S. effort in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001, the former Defense Secretary strongly advocated for the invasion of Iraq and then grossly misjudged and mishandled its aftermath. Rumsfeld is also responsible for authorizing the use of torture against terror detainees in U.S. custody; according to a bipartisan Senate report, Rumsfeld "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees."

5. Michael Brown -- This former commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association was appointed by Bush to head FEMA in 2003. After Katrina made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane, Brownie promptly did a "heck of a job" bungling the government's relief efforts, and was sent back to Washington a few days later. He was forced to resign shortly thereafter.

6. Paul Wolfowitz -- As Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2005, Wolfowitz was one of the primary architects of the Iraq war, arguing for the invasion as early as Sept. 15, 2001. Testifying before Congress in February 2003, Wolfowitz said that it was "hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself." Wolfowitz eventually admitted that "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction," as a justification for war, "because it was the one reason everyone [in the administration] could agree on."

7. David Addington -- "Cheney's Cheney" was the "most powerful man you've never heard of." As the leader of Bush's legal team and Cheney's chief of staff, Addington was the biggest proponent of some of Bush's most notorious legal abuses, such as torture and warrantless surveillance, and is a loyal follower of the so-called unitary executive theory.

8. Stephen Johnson -- The "Alberto Gonzales of the environment," EPA Administrator Johnson subverted the agency's mission at the behest of the White House and corporate interests, suppressing staff recommendations on pesticides, mercury, lead paint, smog, and global warming.

9. Douglas Feith -- Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 2001-2005, Feith headed up the notorious Office of Special Plans, an in-house Pentagon intelligence shop devised by Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to produce intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. A subsequent investigation by the Pentagon's Inspector General found the OSP's work produced "conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

10. John Bolton -- As Undersecretary of State, Bolton offered a strong voice in favor of invading Iraq and pushed for the U.S. to disengage from the International Criminal Court and key international arms control agreements. A recess appointment landed Bolton the job of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, despite his stringent animosity toward the world body. Today, he spends his time calling for war with Iran.

Friday 1-16-09 O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - January 17, 2009 - 11:40am

The friday propaganda factor started with a TPM on the river plane crash miracle, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends think God protected them and they call it a religious miracle. No billy it was a skilled pilot, good training, quick rescue boats in the area, and luck, God had nothing to do with it. Billy had two crash survivors and a retired pilot on to discuss/exploit the story for ratings. I changed the channel until he stopped talking about it.

Later in the show Billy had the far right nut Bernie Goldberg on to talk about Bush haters. O'Reilly was mad that Jay Leno did some plane crash jokes, and he asked Bernie if it was wrong, even Bernie the right-wing nut said he had no problem with it, so lighten up O'Reilly. Nobody has a problem with it but you.

Then they both cried about people who criticize Bush as he is leaving office, the so-called Bush haters. Shut up you whining cry babies, they are only telling the truth about the worst President we have ever had. Did you forget he has a 31% job approval, Katrina, Iraq, Pardongate, Leakgate, Prosecutorgate, Yellowcakegate, and the 294 other Bush scandals. Bush will be lucky if all they do is criticize him, he will be lucky if they dont prosecute him for crimes.

And btw, there was no Democrat media watchdog on with Goldberg, it used to be Jane Hall, but she is never on anymore. And even when she was on she agreed with O'Reilly and Goldberg half the time, so she was not much of a Democrat. But at least she got on, now O'Reilly just puts the far right nut Goldberg on all by himself. And all he does is trash Democrats and agree with O'Reilly on almost everything. Fair and Balanced?

Then it was Glenn Beck, who is getting his own show on FOX, and is even more of a far right nut than O'Reilly and Goldberg are. Beck should be in a straight jacket and a padded room, not hosting a tv show on a so-called news network. O'Reilly puts Beck on every friday night to spew out crazy right-wing propaganda, most of which dont even make sense. He is a nut, probably the biggest right wing nut in the business, except for maybe Coulter.

Then it was the culture icon crap, pinheads and patriots, and the fake e-mail segment. That makes 14 Republican guests this week, and 4 Democrat guests. How that's a fair and balanced no spin zone is beyond me. In my world 14 to 4 is not a balanced guest list.

And btw, with Alan Colmes gone, and Glenn Beck getting his own show, it's Beck, O'reilly, and Hannity in prime time. Three hours of non-stop one sided right-wing propaganda. Hey Billy, how come Dr. Hill dont have a show, how come Juan Williams dont have a show, where is the Democrat show on FOX, cant you at least have one just to make it look good.

So how in the hell can FOX claim to be fair and balanced when no Democrats have a show. It's all Republicans all the time, not one Democrat has a show on FOX, or even half a show. And yet O'Reilly has the nerve to complain that everyone but FOX has a bias, when FOX has more bias than anyone.

Thursday 1-15-09 O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - January 16, 2009 - 2:40am

Last night the first 15 minutes of the Factor was the lame Bush farewell speech. It was mostly Bush rewriting history and telling us how he prevented terrorist attacks for the last 7 years. Ignoring the fact that he let the 9-11 terrorist attack happen by not doing anything after he got the PDB warning him Bin Laden was going to attack us with planes. I guess he just forgot that part, yeah right.

Then O'Reilly spent most of the show putting FOX reporters on to talk about the river plane crash. Of course he found time to have the far right nut job Laura Ingraham on to talk about the Bush speech. And of course no Democrat was on to provide the balance and give an opposing viewpoint. It was Billy and Laura spewing out right-wing propaganda about what a patriot and a hero Bush was in his 8 years as the President.

Funny how they never mentioned he was the worst President America has ever had, with a 31% job approval. The only guy close to that was Nixon with a 27% job approval. And it's only 31% because 75% of the Republicans think he was a good president. The rest of America gives Bush about a 10% job approval rating. Only the kool-aid drinkers like O'Reilly and Ingraham think Bush was a good President.

And they never mentioned that a poll of 109 historians said 61% think Bush was the worst President ever. It never stopped O'Reilly and Ingraham from declaring Bush a great President, a patriot, and a hero. When in reality George W. Bush was a partisan corrupt right-wing fraud, who failed to stop the 9-11 attacks, then used them to push a partisan neo-con ageanda on the people.

The 8 years of Bush was a nightmare for the American people and the world, from Iraq to CIA leakgate to Torture to Illegal wiretapping to firing federal prosecutors to deleting white house e-mails to Abramoff, and the endless list of 300 different scandals the Bush Presidency has been a total disaster. Yet O'Reilly and Ingraham think he was great, a feeling only right-wing stooges have btw.

I have one thing to say to George W. Bush, thank you. I thank you for ruining the Republican party that let Obama become the next President. And that's the only thing I thank you for, everything else you did was partisan, corrupt, illegal, and wrong. I hope you go chop some wood on your ranch and we never hear from your dumb ass again.

Note to Billy: Waterboarding is Illegal & Torture
By: Steve - January 16, 2009 - 8:40am

During his confirmation hearing yesterday, Attorey General nominee Eric Holder unequivocally rejected torture. "No one is above the law," Holder said repeatedly during the hearing.

Bill O'Reilly and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) can not fathom that an Attorney General would reject a practice that both is unlawful and endangers Americans. Cornyn tried to get Holder to back off his anti-torture stance by presenting an absurd "ticking time bomb" hypothetical in which thousands of American lives are at stake.

"You would still refuse to condone aggressive interrogation techniques?" Cornyn asked. When Holder replied that waterboarding is not the only interrogation method, Cornyn insisted, Assume that it was:
HOLDER: I think your hypothetical assumes a premise that I'm not willing to concede.

CORNYN: I know you don't like my hypothetical.

HOLDER: No, the hypothetical's fine; the premise that underlies it I'm not willing to accept, and that is that waterboarding is the only way that I could get that information from those people.

CORNYN: Assume that it was.

HOLDER: [Laughs] Given the knowledge that I have about other techniques and what I've heard from retired admirals and generals and FBI agents, there are other ways in a timely fashion that you can get information out of people that is accurate and will produce useable intelligence. And so it's hard for me to accept or to answer your hypothetical without accepting your premise. And in fact, I don't think I can do that.
A few minutes later, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) identified where Cornyn most likely thought up his torture-is-the-only-option scenario: "I understand Senator Cornyn's questions. They are questions that anyone who watches Jack Bauer on 24? would ask."

Intelligence officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of a ticking time bomb scenario. Jack Cloonan, who spent 25 years as an FBI special agent and interrogated members of al Qaeda, said that he has "been hard pressed to find a situation where anybody" can say that they've ever encountered the ticking bomb scenario when interrogating terrorists. He said it is a "red herring" and "in the real world it doesn't happen."

And a law professor who has extensively researched interrogation, said she had heard of only one ticking time bomb scenario. "It's on the show 24. And that's the only one I know of." In the real world it never happens, and only right-wing neo-cons like O'Reilly and Cornyn use the tv show 24 to justify using illegal torture methods.

The Factor Was Back to ALL Republicans ALL The Time
By: Steve - January 15, 2009 - 4:20pm

Last night O'Reilly filled the show with 99% Republican guests who were put on to smear and lie about Torture by Bush and Cheney and to lie and smear Obama and everything liberal. The guest list was Col. David Hunt and Bob Beckel, Alexis Glick, Wendy Murphy, Amanda Carpenter, and Dennis Miller.

That's 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat, and the 1 Democrat was on with O'Reilly and another Republican so it was a 2 on 1 and Beckel barely got a word in. During the show O'Reilly proved once again that he is lying when he says he is opposed to the Death Penalty. He played a clip of his spot on Cavuto, they were talking about Bernie Madoff and what should happen to him.

O'Reilly told Cavuto he should be put to death, he said anyone who steals that much money from hard working Americans does not deserve to live anymore. Then O'Reilly said Madoff should be put to death.

During the Miller segment they made jokes about waterboarding, Miller said he was proud that they only waterboard people, and joked that it was just pouring water in their nose, then he said it's not torture. O'Reilly agreed and made jokes with him about waterboarding. The joke is Miller and O'Reilly who deny waterboarding is torture, and make jokes about it.

He had two tabloid crap segments, the teacher sex scandal, and the Politico gossip reporter segment about the Hollywood celebs who are going to the Obama inauguration. During the segment O'Reilly said he is not partisan, and that he does not do any partisan things, now that's funny, he is as partisan as it gets, as much as Hannity or Rush or any other known right-winger.

During the e-mail segment O'Reilly also lied about Newspapers, he said liberal Newspapers are going out of business because they have a liberal bias. That is a 100% total right-wing lie, Newspapers are having problems because older people who mostly read Newspapers are dying off, and because more people get their news from the internet than they do Newspapers. And that number is increasing, in the next 5 years or so a lot of Newspapers will be hurting because most people (if not all) will get their news from tv and the internet.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Obama AG Eric Holder
By: Steve - January 15, 2009 - 3:30pm

During the January 13 broadcast of the Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly advanced the falsehood that a 1995 memo written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick prohibited intelligence-sharing between the FBI and the CIA, thereby causing the intelligence failures that led to the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Referring to Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be attorney general, O'Reilly asserted, "He's the guy that, in conjunction with Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick, said that the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk to each other on investigative matters."

Earlier, O'Reilly stated of Holder: "He was the guy that ordered, along with Janet Reno, that the CIA not talk to the FBI, which allowed the 9-11 killers to get in and do what they did, because they wouldn't share information."

In fact, O'Reilly is wrong, and the BS he is putting out is nothing but right-wing propaganda. The Gorelick memo simply clarified long ago unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and the Justice Department's criminal division, and had no impact on communications between the FBI and the CIA, the Department of Defense, or any other agencies. The Bush administration even agreed with the Gorelick memo, and contined the wall rules after Bush took office in January of 2001.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft stated in his testimony before the 9-11 Commission that the Gorelick memo provided the "basic architecture" for the 1995 guidelines, which formalized rules for intelligence sharing that were already in place. And as the 1995 guidelines clearly state, the Gorelick memo and the guidelines applied only to intelligence sharing "between the FBI and the Criminal Division" within the Justice Department, not between the Justice Department and any other agency such as the CIA.

The wall was between the FBI and the Criminal Division of the DOJ, it was there to prevent the FBI from corrupting prosecutions by the DOJ, and at the time everyone agreed the wall should be there, Republicans and Democrats. John Ashcroft even approved the wall, and re-authorized it, and at no time did the wall prevent the FBI from sharing information with the CIA, as O'Reilly falsely claimed.

O'Reilly Goes Crazy Defending Bush & Cheney Torture
By: Steve - January 15, 2009 - 10:30am

In October of 2007 George W. Bush said his administration does not use torture, and that they follow U.S. and International law. President Bush defended his administration's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, insisting:
Bush said his administration sticks to "U.S. law and our international obligations." And this: "This government does not torture people."
Yesterday on 1-14-09 The Washington Post published an article that proves the Bush administration used torture at Gitmo. And yet not only did O'Reilly ignore the entire story, he wrote a talking points memo defending Bush and Cheney, he said they did not torture anyone, that there is no evidence of it, that they should not be investigated, and that the far left media is just reporting this stuff to hurt Bush and Cheney.

That was said last night by Bill O'Reilly, on the very same day the top Bush official admits they used torture on Mohammed al-Qahtani while he was at Gitmo. And after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney admitted they approved and signed off on the CIA waterboarding of three people.
O'REILLY: Yeah, mistakes were made at Guantanamo Bay and other places while suspected terrorists were being interrogated. Every one of those mistakes should be examined. But those things happen in every war, by every nation. Again, the far-left press is treating America like a pinata, whacking it at every opportunity because they don't like Bush and Cheney.

Now there's an insane call for fishing expeditions to find something! that will lead to prosecuting the president and vice president. Again, this is poison! A destructive act toward America. Bush and Cheney protected America after 9/11 and they did it fast, so mistakes were inevitable. But they stopped the killing on American soil, did they not?

But Talking Points despises -- despises -- those who, in the name of ideology, want to weaken the country, putting us all in danger. As loyal Americans, we owe the benefit of the doubt to leaders in a time of war, and both Bush and Cheney say flat out they did their duty.

It's also unAmerican.

Finally, all Americans want the economy fixed and their families kept safe from terror killers. That should be Obama's primary focus. Those who continue to run this country down, and divert attention from those things should be condemned by the rest of us. Condemned.

Now we're going to name names, coming up in the future, ladies and gentlemen. It's going to stop.
Then Billy had Hunt and Beckel on, at the end of the segment with Beckel and Col. David Hunt, Billy decided to unload some good old right-wing O'Reilly insanity on Beckel:
Bob Beckel: My last word is that we still have the fact that the general counsel to the Army under Ronald Reagan has made the determination that there was torture. And somehow or another, without punishing people who had, under difficult circumstances, had to do things. We need to get this clarified so in the future, people know what they're doing.

O'Reilly: (Yelled) Bob -- It happened one time, according to that woman! One time! OK, Bob? It's not across the board! We're not a terror nation!

Beckel: I did not say it was. I did not say it was.

O'Reilly: One time! One time!

OK, thank you gentlemen, I'm getting a little emotional, so I need to pull back now.
No Bill, it happened 4 times that we know of. And what happened to it never happened any times, and there is no evidence. The evidence shows they used torture 4 times, not one time, yet you deny it, ignore it, and still claim there is no evidence, and that no investigation is needed because Bush and Cheney did nothing.

Here are the facts Billy, something you ignore and deny for partisan reasons. In February of 2008 CIA Director Michael Hayden told Congress "In late 2001 and early 2002 waterboarding was used on three detainees." And recently Bush and Cheney admitted they approved the waterboarding.

But last night O'Reilly was still defending Bush and Cheney, saying they did not torture anyone, and telling people there is no evidence they used torture so there should be no Investigation. When you have Bush, Cheney, the CIA, and now the top Bush official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial admitting they used torture.

That's how dishonest O'Reilly is, when there is evidence he still says there is no evidence. Then he ignores all the stories that report the evidence, you can not get much more dishonest. O'Reilly even did a segment on the possible investigation of Bush and Cheney with Col. David Hunt and Bob Beckel.

During the segment O'Reilly was head exploding mad over the fact that Bush and Cheney might be investigated, he said they did nothing wrong, there is no evidence they did, and the far left media is unAmerican to report they did. All the time knowing the Susan J.Crawford story came out that day in The Washington Post proving they used torture at Gitmo.

At the end of the segment Bob Beckel mentioned the story and asked if he could ask Col. Hunt a question, that's when O'Reilly got head exploding mad and told Beckel no you can not ask Col. Hunt a question, then he gave him the last 20 seconds to talk. The reason O'Reilly got so mad is because Beckel mentioned the Washington Post story, the story O'Reilly was trying to not mention because it proves they did use torture.

This is an outrage, what O'Reilly is doing. He is trying to cover for Bush and Cheney. Everyone knows they used torture, at least 4 times, Bush, Cheney, the CIA, and Susan J. Crawford has admitted it. They admit they waterboarded 3 people in late 2001 and early 2002, and they admit they used torture on al-Qahtani at Gitmo. And that's what we know of, what they admit to, yet O'Reilly denies it all, claims there is no evidence, and that they broke no laws.

The Gitmo interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

And that does not even count Bush violating the federal wiretapping laws, there is also evidence of that, we have a whistleblower who saw it happening. And yet Bill O'Reilly ignores it all, just last night he was still saying they did nothing wrong, and hammered the media for reporting they did. He called them unAmerican, when he is the person who is unAmerican.

O'Reilly is unAmerican for trying to cover up known crimes by George W. Bush and his administration. Guess what Billy, you can not cover up what we already know, and the fact that you are even trying shows what a right-wing ass kissing Bush stooge you are. Instead of doing the right thing and report the crimes, you try to cover it up. That's not Journalism, it's partisan right-wing bias.

They not only used torture, they lied about using it, Bush and Cheney both said they have never used torture. Then O'Reilly lied for them too, when the facts show they did use torture. Yet the good little Republican O'Reilly still denies it and calls the media unAmerican for reporting it. O'Reilly is a pathetic right-wing stooge who should collect his paycheck from the RNC, you can not get any more partisan, or biased.

And even if they do investigate Bush and Cheney and prove they used torture, they will never prosecute them so O'Reilly is showing his true right-wing bias over something that will not lead to any prosecutions. The investigation will find people were tortured, and that Bush and Cheney approved it, then they will say it was wrong, decline to prosecute and say that it was done in the name of National Security.

BTW, O'Reilly had one Democrat on the whole show, ignored the Washington Post story, defended and lied for Bush and Cheney, called the media unAmerican for reporting the truth, which is their job, and in a later segment with the Politico gossip reporter he told her he is not partisan and that he does not do any partisan stuff. Yeah, and I'm Elvis too.

Bush & Cheney Admit to Crimes
By: Steve - January 14, 2009 - 2:50pm

Monday night O'Reilly said to Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams that the Bush administration should not be investigated for any crimes because there is no evidence they did anything wrong. Besides being a ridiculous statement, there is evidence, Bush and Cheney have admitted to approving torture, and to doing illegal wiretaps on American citizens without the proper warrants.

George W. Bush's acknowledgement in an interview Sunday with Brit Hume that he personally authorized the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and that may create legal and moral problems for President Barack Obama.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Monday, “We now have President Bush speaking quite candidly that he was in the loop, we have Dick Cheney who almost bragged about it. The question for Barack Obama is whether he wants to own part of this by looking the other way."

Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, “We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."

"If waterboarding is torture -- and Barack Obama has said that it is torture," Turley emphasized, “and torture is a war crime, then the president has committed a war crime if he did order waterboarding. You have to do some heavy lifting to avoid the simplicity of that logic."

Turley noted that individual CIA officers who carried out torture may be able to invoke the so-called “Gestapo defense" -- that they only followed orders they were assured were legal -- but that defense does not hold for those who gave the orders.

"It only works if you can reasonably rely on the advice, and it generally does not protect people like Bush," Turley explained. “You really can't go out and get radical lawyers, like John Yoo and Viet Dinh, and get them to enable you to do things that you know is a war crime."

"There's no real question that crimes were committed here by the Bush administration," concluded Turley, “and Obama can either begin his administration as a man of principle, and allow the law to take us wherever it may lead, or he will inherit the same type of moral relativism that corrupted the previous administration.

And yet O'Reilly says there is no evidence, so they should not even investigate it, when you have the actual whistleblower telling his story about the illegal wiretapping. And you have Bush and Cheney admitting they approved the torture. If that's not evidence, I'm a neo-con Republican. When they admit they approved the torture, and admit they did wiretaps on Americans without a warrant that's evidence. They admit it, what better evidence do you need Billy.

Keith Names O'Reilly Worlds Worst For Defending Torture
By: Steve - January 14, 2009 - 2:50pm

From the Tuesday Night 1-13-09 Countdown With Keith Olbermann Show:

OLBERMANN: But our winner, Bill-O the Clown.
O'REILLY: Unresolved problem segment tonight, the controversy of a coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects. According to a Pew poll, 48 percent of Americans say tough interrogation methods are justified. About 58 percent say they are not. Now, last night on the program '24' rough treatment of captured terrorists took center stage.
OLBERMANN: Then he showed a clip from "24." Bill, I'm supposed to take you seriously when your first evidence to support your argument on a vital issue of our time is a clip from one of the most ludicrous TV shows of all time?

OLBERMANN: Oh, wait, it just hit me. Billy doesn't know Jack Bauer isn't real. I'm sorry. Bill-O the clown, who thinks "24" is some sort of Fox documentary, today's worst person in the world!

O'Reilly Spinning The Liberal Agenda
By: Steve - January 14, 2009 - 2:30pm

Billy's right-wing delusions were front and center last night as he spewed out the conservative spin on what the Liberals want President Obama to do. He said the most important things the Liberals want Obama to deal with are gay marriage, a ban on harsh anti-terror tactics, and Investigating Bush for possible crimes.

Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The far left in America is on a rampage emboldened by the Democratic victory. They're attacking on all fronts, demanding gay marriage, a ban on harsh anti-terror tactics, and many other very liberal policies.
All of that is just bull, it's right-wing propaganda. The Liberals want Obama to fix the economy, get more jobs to the people, and lower the cost of health care, or give us universial health care. That is what we want done first, not the garbage O'Reilly is spewing out. Then once that is done we want him to do the other things. Like Close Gitmo, Investigate Bush, and stop using torture so we can be proud to be Americans again.

But we dont want any of that done until Obama gets to the real problems, Jobs, the economy, and health care. Gay marriage and the other stuff can wait, and we dont care if Obama does anything about it, we just want him to fix what George W. Bush has broken.

Then Billy said this garbage:
O'REILLY: The huge mistake the far left continues to make is that they believe Americans elected Barack Obama for ideological reasons. That's false. Obama won the contest because the economy collapsed and John McCain seemed clueless about it.
The clueless one here is Bill O'Reilly, the American people elected a Democrat because they saw what happens after 8 years with a Republican President. McCain was going to lose even if the economy did not collapse, Obama was ahead in the polls for the entire election except the 2 days after the RNC convention. McCain had 2 chances to win, slim and none.

The people voted Obama in to change things from the way Bush did them. Now we get to see what a Democrat does for 4 to 8 years, and O'Reilly cant stand it. Obama has a mandate from the people, and he is going to use it. So Bill O'Reilly can cry like a baby and lie about what his mandate is, but it will not do any good.

Not to mention, Obama is not even the President yet and O'Reilly is already hammering him over what he might do. And that is after he said he would give Obama one year to show what he will do. Yet a week before he is even sworn in as President O'Reilly is already ripping Obama to pieces over things he may do or not do, and has not done yet.

O'Reilly Thinks george W. Bush Was a Great President
By: Steve - January 13, 2009 - 10:30pm

That alone shows what a clueless right-wing stooge he is, because only right-wingers think Bush was a great President. Everyone else in America and the world think he was the worst President America has ever had. Just look at the state of the country, and the polls that have Bush at 28% job approval. The people hate him, and hate the job he did, only Republicans like Bush, and that's a fact.

Last night Billy had Marc Lamont Hill and larry Elder on to debate the Bush legacy. O'Reilly and the Conservative Elder said Bush was great and O'Reilly agreed, the only thing they give Bush a bad grade on is the economy. Ignoring the hundred different scandals Bush had, the Iraq War, Torture, CIA Leakgate, Katrina, Prosecutorgate, Pardongate, Yellowcakegate, Gonzalesgate, and on and on. In fact, Hugh's list has 300 scandals listed for Bush in the 8 years he was the President.

Yet O'Reilly and Elder ignore all that to only give him a bad grade on the economy. They even denied that America hasn't lost its moral standing in the world under Bush, when he causes massive protests in every foreign country he visits, they make signs saying death to Bush, call him a war criminal, call for him to be put on trial for war crimes, and burn a likeness of him, not to mention throw shoes at him in a country he says he liberated. Then the man who threw the shoes is made a national hero for throwing the shoes at Bush.

Then he talked to Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams, Billy hammered Obama for a possible Investigation of Bush and Cheney for crimes. Once again O'Reilly is jumping the gun, it may happen, it may not. Why dont we wait until it does happen before we waste time talking about something that might happen. O'Reilly claims there is no evidence so there should not be an Investigation, huh?

The purpose of an Investigation is to get the evidence to possibly prosecute. And the only way to get the evidence is to do the Investigation. Yet O'Reilly makes the crazy claim that there is no evidence so there should be no Investigation. How else can you get the evidence if you do not do an Investigation?

We have evidence they broke the law, they even admitted it, and the DOJ report proves it. But O'Reilly ignores all that and claims there is no evidence, when there is, he just wont admit it, just like he wont admit he is a Republican.

The Billy talked about coerced interrogation, which is code for torture by right-wingers. Billy refuses to use the word torture, it's called waterboarding, and it's torture. O'Reilly had the Conservative nut job Christopher Hitchens on to discuss it. During the segment O'Reilly said ALL LIBERALS oppose harsh interrogations, which is just a made up lie.

O'Reilly is lying, liberals just want the USA to stop torturing people, and by torture we are talking about the illegal waterboarding. It's illegal, and torture. Under US law, and International law. Torture is torture. Liberals do not care if you do any harsh interrogations, we just oppose waterboarding. Because it is illegal, and a crime. In fact, I could care less what we do to suspected terrorists, as long as we do not torture them and break the law.

Now if they change the law and make waterboarding legal, then I'm all for it. But as long as it's illegal, I'm opposed to it. And if Obama orders people to be waterboarded then I would want him Investigated for crimes too.

Then Billy had Ellis Henican on to talk about Ann Coulter, which was done to just give Coulter more publicity to sell her lie filled right-wing hate books. O'Reilly disagreed with everything Henican said, mostly because he is a Democrat. Then he had Margaret Hoover and Monica Crowley on to talk about Culture Warrior crap that nobody cares about and nothing they say will change it. Both Culture Warriors are conservatives btw.

Finally it was the reality check segment, and for once O'Reilly was exactly right and had an accurate reality check on one thing. Oil price speculation, he said it was enron type oil speculators bidding up the price of oil when it went to $147 a barrel, and he was exactly right. The oil prices were bid up by wall street traders to get rich, at a time when oil demand was dropping, and supplies were going up. Where is Cavuto, O'Reilly should put him on and hammer his right-wing ass for defending the oil speculators.

O'Reilly actually had a few Democrats on the show, but it's still rare, and he always disagrees with everything they say. Even when he does have a couple Democrats on they are almost always paired with a Conservative, so it's a 2 on 1 every time and the Democrat barely gets a word in. For once had 3 Democrat guests in the same show, but he also had 5 Republican guests, so it's still not balanced, especially when you add O'Reilly to the mix taking the Conservative side in every segment. And still no mention of Colemans money connections with 2 Democrat guests.

Factor Republican & Democrat Guest List Bias
By: Steve - January 11, 2009 - 8:30am

Friday night O'Reilly had 3 more Republican guests and no Democrats. For the week of 1-5-09 to 1-9-08 the Factor had 20 Republican guests and 1 Democrat guest. And the 1 Democrat was not a real Democrat, it was a fake FOX News Democrat Juan Williams.

During the segment where Juan was put on he agreed with O'Reilly, so in reality he is not a Democrat, but I counted him as one because every once in a while he does disagree with O'Reilly, even though it's rare.

For the people who forgot, back in October of 2008 O'Reilly said he personally makes sure the Factor has a balanced guest list each week of an equal number of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. The last week proves that he is a liar, he put 20 Republicans on, 0 Indpendents, and 1 Democrat, who works for FOX News.

That is not balance, in fact, it's not even close. Not to mention O'Reilly agrees with every Republican guest he has on, so it's like having 5 more right-wing guests on every night to argue the Republican side of everything. That's equal to having 45 Republican guests on every week, because O'Reilly does about 5 segments a night where he is giving the Republican point of view.

And O'Reilly does all that while claiming to be a moderate Independent with a no spin zone who is fair to both sides. But when you have 20 to 25 Republican guests on each week, and you agree with everything they say, while spening 90% of the show attacking and smearing Democrats and liberals you can not deny being a Republican.

In fact, when Dr. Marc Lamont Hill recently called O'Reilly a Republican he said he could sue him for defamation and slander. Then he claimed he is not a Republican, if he is not a Republican, then I'm not a liberal either. I wish O'Reilly would sue him, because any court in America would throw that lawsuit out in 2 seconds.

If it did go forward Dr. Hill could prove O'Reilly is a Republican by just showing a tape of any show he did last week. It was all right-wing propaganda, all the time, and mostly from O'Reilly himself. The biased Factor coverage of Al Franken alone is proof that O'Reilly is a 100% far right Republican.

When you have 20 Republican guests, and 1 fake FOX News Democrat you are a Republican with a right-wing show. It's that simple, and anyone with a working brain can see it by just watching one show. O'Reilly is being dishonest and biased, by denying he is a Republican, and by having such an unbalanced guest list.

This is a fact, not just my opinion. Just watch the show, and you will see all the Republican guests, the non-stop right-wing propaganda, and the bias. From all the Republican guests, but mostly from Bill O'Reilly, he is more biased than the guests.

O'Reilly Proves he is a Right-Wing Propagandist
By: Steve - January 10, 2009 - 11:30am

Last night O'Reilly did a segment called "Franken's Hollywood Money Connection" where he put two Republicans on to do a totally biased and one sided right-wing propaganda hit piece on Al Franken. The whole thing was bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard. Not one Democrat was on for the segment, and not once was the amount of money Coleman raised mentioned, or who he got it from.

If you want to see what total right-wing bias in the media looks like, you only had to watch that segment. Not only was it two Republican guests and no Democrats, one of the Republicans was a blogger, when O'Reilly has said in the past that you can not believe what any bloggers say.

He said bloggers do not have editors so they have no accountability to anyone, and that they can just say anything, whether it's true or not. Then he puts a right-wing blogger on the air to smear Franken. But he never allows any left-wing bloggers on the show, ever, that's the double standard.

They were crying about how much money Al Franken got from Hollywood for his Senate campaign. But did you know that Norm Coleman raised more money than Franken did, he raised $22,424,000, he spent $20,456,000, that left him $2,145,000.

Al Franken raised $20,488,000, he spent $19,339,000, that left him $1,148,000. And Franken only raised $586,000 from PAC contributions, that was 3% of his money. Coleman raised $4,090,000 from PAC contributions, that was 18% of his money. Franken got most of his money from real people, way more than Coleman did.

Funny how O'Reilly and his right-wing stooges never reported that. Coleman actually raised more money than Franken did, yet O'Reilly has a biased one sided segment on how much money Franken raised with two Republicans. And how sad is it that Coleman was the incumbent who raised more money than Franken, then outspent him, and still lost.

They claimed Franken and his Hollywood friends bought the election, when fricking Norm Coleman raised more, and spent more than Franken did. Talk about bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard, that is strike three and you're out Billy. Under political bias they should put a video of that segment, it was total one sided bias and hypocrisy.

During the segment O'Reilly put photos of the Hollywood donors to Franken on the screen. Then O'Reilly and the two biased right-wingers implied Franken bought the election with Hollywood money, as if there is something wrong with that. When Franken got 97% of his money from real people, while Coleman only got 82% of his money from real people.

Not once in the entire segment was it mentioned how much money Coleman raised, that he raised more than Franken did, who he got it from, or what percentage of it came from real people. The question is, when will O'Reilly do a segment called "Colemans Money Connection" with two Democrat guests, and tell his viewers how much Coleman raised and who he got it from?

Answer: NEVER!

The Conservative Factor: All Right-Wing All The Time
By: Steve - January 9, 2009 - 6:30pm

Once again last night the O'Reilly Factor was all Republican guests, Billy had Republicans, Danielle Crittenden, Laura Ingraham, Bernie Goldberg, and Megyn Kelly. That makes 17 Republican guests to 1 Democrat guest, and that 1 Democrat was Juan Williams who works for FOX News, and barely even qualifies as a Democrat because he agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time, which no real Democrat would do.

During the show O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends spent the whole hour trashing and smearing everyone on the left, defending Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, and basically putting out an entire hour of right-wing propaganda pretending to be Independent news analysis. Which is nothing new, it's the same thing O'Reilly does every night, and has for almost 13 years.

In 4 nights O'Reilly has had 17 Republican guests and 1 FOX News fake Democrat, if that's a fair and balanced no spin zone hosted by a moderate Independent, I'm Newt Gingrich.

O'Reilly Gets Worst Person in The World (Again)
By: Steve - January 9, 2009 - 1:30pm

Last night Keith Olbermann gave O'Reilly the Gold in Worst Persons for the first time this year. With an honorable mention, Michelle Malkin got the silver.

OLBERMANN: Runner up, Michelle Malkin, claiming the people conducting the recount in Minnesota were providing, quote, moral support and help to Senator Elect Al Franken and that some of the recounters were involved with Acorn, that some might have had conflicts of interests, that there were shenanigans, because Republicans were completely left out in the cold when it came to the canvassing board.

According to the "St. Paul Pioneer Press," the Minnesota state canvassing board, which conducted that count, consisted of five people, the state‘s chief justice, a Republican, appointed by the Republican governor, who used to be his law partner, one of the state Supreme Court's associate justices, who used to be the state Republican party lawyer, and was appointed by the Republican governor, one of the state's assistant chief judges, who was appointed by the former governor Jesse Ventura, who was an independent, one of the state's chief judges, who was elected in a non-partisan race, no political parties listed, and to this day refuses to say if she is aligned with any party, and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, the Democrat.

The Republican governor of Minnesota called this canvassing board, quote, fair, and the chief attorney for Norm Coleman in November said "the people of this state should feel good about who is on this panel." But Michelle Malkin wants to create the impression that the board of two Republicans, a Democrat and two independents was politically crooked. Why? It didn't fix the outcome the way she likes it, and because she thinks her readers are even dumber than she is.

But, in the winner's circle for the first time this year, it is Bill-O the clown, who has apparently decided to devote the show this year to scaring children, the gullible and those blighted souls who watch his comedy program into believing that a terror attack is imminent.

It began last night, with a banner reading Security Alert, while video rolled of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This after O‘Reilly had claimed, incorrectly again, that limiting interrogation of prisoners to what is in the Army Field Manual would mean no interrogation because, "the Army Field Manual says, quote, you are not to make any captured person uncomfortable in any way."

The field manual says no such thing, nor do the Geneva Conventions, which are quoted in the field manual. Billy also said, "I don‘t want the 'New York Times' or NBC News calling ideological shots when terror killers want to murder us."

Guess what? Neither does anybody else. Though clearly, neither NBC News or the "New York Times," either one of them could have done worse at protecting us than the Bush administration did in 2001. Bill-O, there's ratings in scaring people, the clown, today's worst person in the world!

Minnesota Recount Judge Blasts Wall Street Journal Editorial
By: Steve - January 9, 2009 - 9:30am


Recount judge blasts Wall Street Journal

By David Brauer | Tue, Jan 6 2009 5:00 pm

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published another fact-challenged editorial questioning the integrity of Minnesota's U.S. Senate election — specifically, the actions of the State Canvassing Board.

One of the board's members, Ramsey County Judge Edward Cleary, decided to fight back. Here's the text of a letter he sent Tuesday to the paper's editors:
Dear Sirs:

As a subscriber of your newspaper for almost three decades, I don't expect to always agree with your editorial viewpoint. Yet I am nevertheless very disappointed when I read an editorial long on partisan tone and short on accurate reporting.

As a member of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, appointed pursuant to statute, I have attended all nine Board open meetings held the past seven weeks. I am knowledgeable about the proceedings as well as Minnesota's election laws. Our members (two Supreme Court Justices, two District Court Judges, and Secretary of State Ritchie) came from all political backgrounds, openly expressed our opinions at the meetings, and can hardly be accurately described as "meek", unless you mean "meek" by New York in-your-face standards. Your groundless attack on Secretary Ritchie reflects poorly on the author; Ritchie worked assiduously at avoiding partisanship in these proceedings.

As to the Board as a whole, all of our major votes were unanimous. We consistently followed the law in limiting our involvement to a non-adjudicative role, declining both candidates' attempts to expand our mandate. Further, we painstakingly reviewed each challenged ballot, some more than once, to confirm that we were ruling in a consistent manner.

One can only assume, based on the tone of the editorial, the numerous inaccuracies, and the over-the-top slam at Al Franken ("tainted and undeserving?") that had Norm Coleman come out on top in this recount, the members of the Board would have been praised as "strong-willed, intelligent, and perceptive."

We won't hold our breath waiting for that editorial to appear.

Edward J. Cleary
Assistant Chief Judge
Second Judicial District
Minnesota State Canvassing Board

P.S. Notice that every time O'Reilly (who hates Franken with a passion) does a segment on the Minnesota recount he never has anyone on to represent Franken. Not once has he had a Democrat or anyone from the Franken campaign on to give the counter point. In fact, nobody from the State of Minnesota has been on either. O'Reilly only has right-wingers on to discuss it, which is a violation of Journalism 101.

The Conservative Factor Strikes Again
By: Steve - January 8, 2009 - 9:30am

About 2 months ago O'Reilly said he "personally" makes sure the Factor has a balanced guest list every week of Democrats and Republicans. Since then I have watched to see if this is true, and it is not, it's not even close.

On the Thursday 10-16-08 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said this in reply to an e-mail from a Bob in California that said his show was not balanced:
O'REILLY: Did Geraldine Ferraro not appear on your tv set, Bob? C'mon. On Tuesday I had three Democrats and just one Republican in the first two blocks. I make sure, personally make sure, that throughout the week we have equal representation of conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican. OK, I mean, if you have been watching the show I've been doing this now into our thirteenth year, and we have voices, and they're equal.
Some weeks only 2 or 3 Democrats get on the show, at the most it's 5 in 1 week, and that's if you count Juan Williams as a Democrat, which I do. Even though he works for FOX News, and he agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time. Something a real Democrat would not do, he is counted as one anyway. A real Democrat disagrees with O'Reilly about 90% of the time, and some nights like last night the entire show is all Republican guests, while it is never all Democrat guests.

For example, this week the guests have been almost all Republicans. On Monday it was Newt Gingrich, Mary K. Ham, Juan Williams, Margaret Hoover and Monica Crowley. That's 4 Republicans and 1 FOX News Democrat. On Tuesday it was Gary Bernstsen, Colonel David Hunt, Lis Wiehl and Megyn Kelly. That's 4 Republicans and 0 Democrats. On Wednesday it was Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Amanda Carpenter, Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter. That's 5 Republicans and 0 Democrats.

So far this week in just 3 days O'Reilly has had 13 Republican guests to 1 Democrat. And if you count O'Reilly as a Republican, it's 16 Republicans to 1 Democrat. In what world is that a balanced guest list. Especially when the 1 Democrat is barely a Democrat who works for FOX News. This is how the Factor works, it's 99% Republicans smearing and lying about Obama and every Democrat in the country.

Yet O'Reilly claims to be a moderate Independent with a no spin zone who is fair to both sides. How is that possibly fair to both sides. Is 13 to 1 fair? Is 16 to 1 fair?

The old line "believe what I say not what I do" comes to mind here, because O'Reilly does not do what he says. He says he has a balanced guest list, then it's almost all Republicans. I guess he thinks people are stupid, and they will just believe what he says. But when you document the guest list it's 99% Republican, which is not what a moderate Independent would do.

It's nothing but right-wing propaganda, and it shows that if the host of the show has 99% Republican guests to smear and lie about Obama and the Democrats (as he agrees with everything they say) you can see it's nothing more than a right-wing spin zone. It's 100% proof that O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased right-wing spin doctor. Only kool-aid drinking right-wingers doubt it, if you just look at the guest list and how the topics are covered you can see it.

List of Liars on The Franken Win
By: Steve - January 7, 2009 - 9:20am

As of today roughly 6 people have claimed the WSJ opinion piece is an actual news story that proves something shady happened in the Minnesota Senate recount. All 6 of those people are conservatives who hate Al Franken and are dishonestly lying about the WSJ opinion piece. Here is the list so far:

1) Rush Limbaugh
2) Bill O'Reilly
3) Ann Coulter
4) Sean Hannity
5) Joe Scarborough
6) Dick Morris

Those 6 people are the most dishonest liars in the media, almost nothing they say is true. They are all right-wing spin doctors who lie and spin the American people every single day. Everything they say is their right-wing spin on the news, and not one of them are being honest with the American people about the Franken win.

Al Franken won the recount fair and square, he did not steal it, in fact, he had nothing to do with the recount. The State of Minnesota did the recount, a State with a Republican Governor, and 2 of the 4 members of the Canvassing Board were Republicans. They all agreed on every ruling over a challenged ballot, and both State Supreme Court rulings went against Norm Coleman, even though the Court is bi-partisan.

The WSJ opinion piece has no evidence of anything, as O'Reilly and the other conservatives on the list above claim. It's an opinion piece (written by one person) that was published on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. And the op-ed does not cite any reporting, it's all an opinion from one Republican.

Notice that only Republicans have cited the WSJ op-ed, because they are biased, and they hate Al Franken. The recount was done by Minnesota State employees, not Al Franken, at each recount location both sides had an observer to watch every vote be counted. Then any challenged votes were set aside and looked at later.

About 940 votes were challenged, by the Franken team and the Coleman team. The 4 Judge panel of 2 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 1 Democrat looked at those votes with each sides observer watching. Then the 4 judge panel ruled on each challenged ballot, and all 4 of them agreed on every one. It was an honest recount, with observers from both sides to make sure of that.

The only people who claim different, are biased conservatives who want to make it look like Al Franken did not win the recount honestly. They are biased right-wing liars who hate Al Franken, and O'Reilly is right near the top of the list.

Notice that only conservatives who hate Al Franken are making these bogus claims. Because they are dishonest, and nobody should consider them journalists, they are pretty much spokesmen for the Republican party. Including O'Reilly, he is right there with Limbaugh and Coulter lying about the whole story, even though he claims he is not a conservative.

Note to Bill O'Reilly: If you agree with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter, you are not only a conservative, you are a far right conservative.

Joe Conason With Some Real Facts on The Franken Win
By: Steve - January 6, 2009 - 12:20pm

Joe Conason wrote all about this back in November of 2008, he detailed how the Republicans like O'Reilly, FOX News, and the WSJ would spin it if Franken won. Here are some quotes from his November 2008 article in

Rebuked and humiliated by American voters on Election Day, the right-wing noise machine continues to blare as loudly as ever, currently devoting special attention to the Minnesota Senate recount. From the Wall Street Journal editorial page to Fox News Channel, the message echoes the post-election strategy of incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman by discrediting the recount in advance.

As soon as the initial election results came in, showing that the race would be close enough to trigger the automatic recount mandated by Minnesota law, Coleman began campaigning to stop that normal and fair process. He claimed to be concerned about the cost of the recount and publicly asked Franken to "let the healing begin" by waiving the recount and conceding the election.

The Coleman camp is clearly worried and has turned up the noisemakers to discredit both the canvass and the recount. Nearly every movement of a few votes into Franken's column has elicited shrieks of "fraud" from the incumbent's friends. In each case, those shrill complaints have been thoroughly discredited by independent observers.

On Fox News and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, much was made of 32 absentee ballots allegedly kept overnight in an election official's car and then counted the next day. Nothing of the kind occurred, as Coleman's own attorney later admitted after apparently inventing the story himself. But the purpose of the false tale was clear enough -- and those spreading it didn't mind smearing innocent people.

The insinuation of cheating is utterly wrong, as Minnesota Public Radio, one of the state's most respected news organizations, discovered in a review of election results from the past 10 years. On average, the MPR analysis showed that vote totals in statewide elections changed by well over 1,000 votes -- so the "lopsided" difference in the Franken-Coleman race so far is below normal.

According to the editors of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the "conservative statistics" differ starkly from the reality-based data used by everyone else. The paper's editor in charge of computer-assisted reporting compared the actual numbers and found that "48 precincts changed their Franken totals for a net gain of 459 votes (37 precincts added 569 votes for Franken; 11 precincts took away 110 votes)."

In short, the Lott accusation, originally featured on Fox, was "simply wrong." Perhaps the old aphorism should be changed to "lies, damned lies, and conservative statistics."

What is really happening as the votes are canvassed has little to do with the dark fantasies of the far right. When a Star-Tribune reporter visited a county office where precinct totals were under review this week, observers from both the Coleman and Franken campaigns endorsed the process as careful and fair.

"I'm just watching like everyone else. It all seems pretty straightforward to me," said Democrat John Stiles. A Republican volunteer named John Nygaard concurred: "It's very transparent -- I'm impressed. I didn't realize how much work went into this."

Josh Marshall on The Bogus WSJ Op-Ed
By: Steve - January 6, 2009 - 11:40am

Cry (Lie) Me a River

By Josh Marshall

As you'd expect, the Journal editorial page is already coming up with a string of bogus insinuations about the Minnesota recount, all suggesting that the process has somehow been rigged in favor of Al Franken or even that there's some more Republican fantasy voter fraud involved.

One point they don't mention though: the canvassing board, the outfit making all the key decisions has at least as many Republicans as Democrats, and may actually have more Republicans than Democrats. What's more almost every key decision has been made unanimously.

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is an elected Democrat. He serves on the canvassing board automatically. For the rest he picked two Republican state Supreme Court Justices (justices appointed by Gov. Pawlenty (R)), one Independent judge appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jesse Ventura, and a fourth county judge who may be a Democrat or an Independent (we don't know because it was a non-partisan election).

Needless to say, the Journal doesn't mention this, but hints at it in this feeble excuse, claiming that the rest of the canvassing board has been "meek" in the face of Ritchie's "machinations."

Pretty pitiful, but standard fare from the Journal oped page.

O'Reilly & Limbaugh Both Caught Lying About Franken Win
By: Steve - January 6, 2009 - 10:40am

Last night O'Reilly said Al Franken won the Senate recount because the State cheated, he cited a Wall Street Journal article as evidence. Guess who else made the exact same argument, Rush Limbaugh. So once again O'Reilly and Limbaugh are both lying like the good little Republicans they are.

On the same day that the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the results in Al Franken's victory in the state's U.S. Senate race by 225 votes, Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Franken "stole the race" and asserted that "The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things." O'Reilly said the exact same thing, and cited the same article in his talking points memo.

However, the Journal's so-called "story" Limbaugh and O'Reilly refer to was an editorial, and op-ed written on the opinion page by an anonymous author. The op-ed "Funny Business in Minnesota" asserted there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman, and it did not cite any reporting to support its claim.

In the WSJ op-ed the anonymous author claims Franken got an extra 37 votes, if true, it means he still won by 188 votes, and they have no proof of their claims, they just give an opinion. Rumors have the far right John Fund as the author of the WSJ op-ed, a well known right-winger.

The WSJ article was not an article written by a journalist who works for the WSJ, it was an opinion piece on the op-ed page, it was the opinion of one person, and that person did not even have the balls to put their name to it. This is the bogus evidence O'Reilly and Limbaugh used to claim there was cheating in the recount.

What's worse is O'Reilly and Limbaugh never told their viewers the article was an anonymous opinion piece, they implied it was a real news article written by a real journalist. For all we know this op-ed could have been written by Norn Coleman, or his attorney. This is what O'Reilly and Limbaugh call evidence of cheating, I call it anonymous and biased right-wing opinion. There is no evidence, or facts, it's all one persons opinion.

As Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall noted, at no point in the editorial did the Journal note that the canvassing board, which reached a unanimous decision rejecting "challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots," is bipartisan and has, "at least as many Republicans as Democrats.

The WSJ op-ed also claims double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes. If true, Franken still wins the recount by 88 to 98 votes. So even if every claim made in the op-ed is accurate Coleman still comes up 88 to 98 votes short. Not to mention neither O'Reilly or Limbaugh reported that the Franken campaign has argued that the evidence does not show that double counting occurred. In a December 24 order, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the State Canvassing Board's decision.

They (O'Reilly & Limbaugh) only give one side of the story, they cite a WSJ article that turns out to be an anonymous opinion piece on the op-ed page, then claim it is a fact based article written by a journalist. When it's the opinion of one person, and we do not even know who they are.

This is dishonest journalism to the extreme, by O'Reilly and Limbaugh. The recount was done by an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the Republican Governor even approved it. Each side had an attorney at every location where the votes were recounted, they watched every vote be counted, and made challenges to votes they were not sure about. Then the board looked at them later and decided if it was a vote of not.

Now you have a bunch of right-wing losers claiming the recount was fixed, because their guy lost. And their evidence is not evidence at all, it's an opinion piece in a right-wing newspaper. Franken won the recount, and the only people who have a problem with it are right-wing nuts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

The proof they are both right-wing losers and dishonest liars, is the fact that they both lied to their viewers about the WSJ "article" that is not an article, it's a bogus and biased opinion piece written by an anonymous author on the op-ed page of a right-wing newspaper. Both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly lied to the people about the op-ed piece, and the so-called facts that are nothing but one persons biased opinion. There are no facts, or evidence, it's all biased opinion.

Al Franken Wins Senate Recount by 225 Votes
By: Steve - January 5, 2009 - 10:20pm

UPDATE: Today the Minnesota recount board certified Al Franken the winner of the recount. So the election is over, and Franken has won, but he will most likely not be certified the winner by the State until all legal cases are over. Coleman has promised to fight it in court, he will most likely lose anyway, but he does plan to file a lawsuit.

As expected O'Reilly did not say he was sorry for getting it wrong, in fact, he claims the State cheated in the recount. His evidence, a story in the right-wing Wall Street Journal that was planted there by a biased Republican. There was no cheating, and no evidence of it. The recount was managed by two Republicans and two Democrats, and each side had people watching the recount, so it was 100% honest.

But the right-wing nut O'Reilly claims the whole thing was rigged, when the Republican Governor and all the election monitors say it was an honest recount. The only people crying foul are the Coleman camp and right-wingers like O'Reilly.


Dont look now Billy, as soon as Monday you may have to eat your words and welcome Al Franken to the Senate. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

The battle over Minnesota's heated U.S. Senate race edged closer for Al Franken.
"At this stage, it appears that Franken will be certified the winner by the state Canvassing Board," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're keeping abreast of the situation and will make a decision with regard to Senate action at the appropriate point in the process."
For anyone who forgot (or did not know) O'Reilly declared Coleman the winner two times, and even said the State had certified Coleman the winner, when nobody has been certified the winner. Billy also named Franken a pinhead in the pinheads and patriots segment for losing the election to Coleman.

Now it looks like Franken is going to win, will O'Reilly say he is sorry for getting it wrong, dont bet on it. He will probably claim Franken stole the election and call for the feds to investigate.

O'Reilly Gets Dismal 7th in Wingnut of The Year Award
By: Steve - January 2, 2009 - 12:20pm

John at had a vote for his right-wing nut of the year award, and Billy placed a dismal 7th, I would have had him in the top 5 for sure. I bet he moves up for 2009 with Obama as President, so he might even make #1 this year.

1) Sarah Palin: (38%)
2) Sean Hannity: (18%)
3) Michelle Bachmann: (13%)
4) Bill Kristol: (10%)
5) Rush Limbaugh: (7%)
6) Joe the Plumber: (5%)
7) Bill O'Reilly: (5%)
8) Mike Huckabee: (2%)
9) Lou Dobbs: (1%)
10) Pastor John Hagee: (1%)

And btw, O'Reilly keeps saying he is not a Republican, if that's true why is he on the top 10 conservative idiot list at almost every week, and why is he #7 on the right-wing nut of the year award list. The answer is, we all know he is a Republican, he is just too dishonest to admit it.

O'Reilly Proves His Bias & Hypocrisy Once Again
By: Steve - January 1, 2009 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is so biased to the right he tried to defend the racist song the Rush Limbaugh radio show put out. It's called "Barack The Magic Negro" and the RNC chair candidate Chip Saltsman sent out a Christmas greeting to other Republicans that contained a CD with the now-infamous song.

O'Reilly did a segment about it on the Tuesday night Factor, as expected he had one Republican on to defend the song, and one Democrat. So it was the usual 2 on 1 with two Republicans against one Democrat. O'Reilly and the Republican guest both defended the racist song, they said it was not racist, and that it was simply satire.

Which is very odd, because when Al Franken and other comedians use satire about O'Reilly he said that was a farce. O'Reilly even wrote an op-ed for the NY Daily News in 2003 titled "Calling Al Franken a satirist is a farce" where he claims people just say it's satire to insult and smear someone. O'Reilly said they pull the satire card to get away with smearing people they disagree with politically.

Here is a quote from the O'Reilly op-ed:
O'REILLY: It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a satirist by The New York Times. Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire. If that were the case, Richard Nixon's Watergate plumbers would all be writing for "Saturday Night Live."

It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander. But this is a growing trend in America, where the exchange of ideas often degenerates into verbal mud wrestling with intent to injure.

The poo-bahs at The Times know what a smear campaign is, but apparently, if it's directed at an enterprise the paper disapproves of, it's okay. I wonder how The Times' editorialists would react if their faces graced a book cover accompanied by the word "liar." Oh, right, they'd consider it satire.
So when Al Franken uses satire to talk about O'Reilly, that's a sorry joke, propaganda, libel, and slander. But when a Republican writes a racist song about Obama O'Reilly pulls the satire card himself, and uses the very same excuse he said was wrong for Franken to use it.

During the segment O'Reilly even asked if the word "Negro" was offensive, now that's a sorry joke, of course it is, to even ask is a joke. To find out walk up to any black man and call him a negro, and you will find out real quick if it's offensive or not.

Guess who else defended the song, Rush Limbaugh. Only Republicans defend the song, yet O'Reilly claims he is not a Republican. Only one Republican has spoke out against the song, RNC chairman Mike Duncan issued a statement distancing himself from the situation.
"The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."
And yet O'Reilly thinks it's fine, that it's suddenly ok to use satire, and there is nothing wrong with using the word Magic Negro when referring to Barack Obama. It's total right-wing bias, total hypocrisy, and a double standard. Every Democrat and every Liberal is offended by this racist song, while pretty much all the Republicans love it and defend it.

When Liberals called Bush stupid and other names, O'Reilly hammered them and said you must respect the President. But it's a whole different story when you have a Democrat President. Now it's ok with O'Reilly to refer to the President as a Magic Negro. Suddenly if you disrespect the President it's ok with Billy when it's a Democrat, but when Bush was President it was not ok to say anything negative about him.