|
Top Three Fox Shows Ignore Obama/GOP Event By: Steve - January 31, 2010 - 12:30pm Following President Obama's address, then the question and answer session with Republican members of Congress at the GOP House Issues Conference, Fox News three top-rated programs spent a combined total of four minutes and five seconds covering the event during their January 29 broadcasts. The event was widely praised across the political spectrum, and Marc Ambinder wrote that prominent Republicans "found their arguments simply demolished by the president." The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck, Fox News three top-rated programs for 2009, combined to devote a total of four minutes and five seconds of coverage to President Obama's address and question and answer session with House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore. Then you might say so what, who cares that their top three rated shows only spent 4 minutes covering it. Well you should care, because this was an important news event that all the news shows should be covering. It was important for a few reasons, so the American people can see that Obama is willing to work with Republicans. So you can see what the President looks like in a hostile environment. And so you can see that Obama wants to do whatever it takes to get the country on the right track. And yet Fox News did not even show all of it, they cut away with 20 minutes left, while CNN and MSNBC showed all of it, every minute. Then the top three shows only spent 4 minutes talking about it, and that's combined. That means they each spent (on average) about 1 minute and 20 seconds per show. And now I will tell you why the top three Fox shows ignored it. Because it kills the argument that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck make every day, that Obama is a far left radical who wants to impose his far left agenda on America. The Obama meeting with the GOP shows that he is not some far left radical, it shows that he wants to work with Republicans, they just do not want to work with him. Another reason they ignored it is because it made Obama look good to the American people. But the main reason they ignored it is because they do not want to show anything (to their mostly right-wing viewers) that makes Obama look good. So they ignore most of the meeting, then put Karl Rove and other Republicans on to spin it, so they can give you their opinion of what happened, instead of actually showing you what happened. To be honest, it's called propaganda. And this is from the News Network that says we report, you decide. Then they do not report, and they do not let you decide. Instead they ignore 80% of the meeting, and put right-wing spin doctors on to tell you what happened. But they did show all of the GOP response to the meeting with Obama. This was done to control the message, that Obama is bad, Republicans are good. Here is what they should have done, air the entire event, all of it. Then after it was over have one or two Republicans, and one or two Democrats on to discuss it. That is not what Fox News did, they cut away from Obama 20 minutes early. Then they had Rove on to spin it for you, then as soon as the GOP response was ready, they go to that and show it all. That's not we report, you decide. It's we spin, and you do not decide. O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck pretty much ignored the whole thing. Because it was actual real news, and they did not want to report it because it made Obama look good. It's called bias, and propaganda. Republicans Not Happy With Obama Q&A By: Steve - January 31, 2010 - 12:00pm House Republicans said they were fired up and ready to go for their conversation with President Obama at their annual retreat Friday. The New York Times reported that members of the conservative Republican House Conference said they were "itching to quiz the president and present their policy ideas rather than listen to another lofty presidential address." Although such sessions generally occur behind closed doors, Republicans agreed to open it up after the White House said it was willing to do so. But after Obama's strong performance, some Republicans are now regretting the decision. As Luke Russert reported on MSNBC: RUSSERT: Tom Cole, the former head of the NRCC said, "He scored many points. He did really well." For an hour and a half Barack Obama was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. It was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it.Which shows that they are more worried about the President looking good on tv, then they are working with him to get the problems in America solved. "Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months," writes the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish, the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness, his penchant for nuance, into a strength. Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president." Ezra Klein sarcastically wrote that, "It looks like transparency sounds better to Republicans in a press releases than it does in practice." What happened is the Republicans agreed to let cameras roll for the whole thing, then after they saw how good Obama looked, they admitted it was a mistake because it made Obama look too good. Proving that they are more interested in partisan politics, then working with him to pass any bi-partisan bills that would help the country. Fox The Only Network To Cut Away From Obama By: Steve - January 30, 2010 - 2:30pm During President Obama's meeting with Republican members of Congress at the GOP House Issues Conference yesterday, the Fox News Channel was the only cable news network to cut away and not show all of it. Then Fox aired all of the Republican response to Obama at the press conference held by House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) after the question and answer session with Obama. And they wonder why they are attacked for not being fair and balanced, this is just one reason why, because they are not fair and balanced. Fox cuts away 20 minutes before end of Obama's meeting with the House Republicans. With twenty minutes remaining, Fox News cut to The Live Desk co-host Trace Gallagher who asserted that Obama was "at times being a little bit combative" and that there was a little bit of lecturing there. While MSNBC and CNN aired the event in its entirety. Not only did they not show it all, Fox News featured Karl Rove's negative commentary on the event as they waited for the House Republican Response. Rove said Obama was just playing politics, and that he was not serious when he said he wants to work with the Republicans. Rove called it a political dog and pony show. And btw, O'Reilly said Fox News is fair and balanced, and nobody can prove him wrong. I just did. Not to mention, he also said if you have evidence of bias at Fox News, to send it to him and he will report it, so I have, a hundred times, and he never reports it. O'Reilly even does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg and they still do not ever report any bias at Fox News. O'Reilly Still Spinning The Fox Most Trusted Poll By: Steve - January 30, 2010 - 10:30am Last night O'Reilly had (his biased right-wing buddy) Scott Rasmussen on to back up his ridiculous claims that Fox News is the most trusted News Network in America. They both dishonestly claim that Fox News is the most trusted. Which is nothing but right-wing spin, put out by two Republican spin doctors. And to prove that, here are the facts, all the facts, not just the facts O'Reilly wanted you to see. As usual O'Reilly only reports half the story to fit his agenda. Fox came out as #1 in the most trusted poll, but the great journalist Bill O'Reilly failed to report a lot of the details, like almost everything. The poll sampled moderates, conservatives, and liberals. It was taken by 47% moderates, 39% conservatives, but only 14% liberals. So the poll was slanted to favor moderates and conservatives, because liberals were only 14% of the survey. Conservative trust of the Media, trust/don't trust: FOX: 75/13 CNN: 22/60 ABC: 16/67 NBC: 15/66 CBS: 14/68 Moderates trust of the media, trust/don't trust: -- CNN: 47/31 -- NBC: 44/33 -- CBS: 41/33 -- ABC: 39/34 -- FOX: 33/48 Liberal trust of the Media, trust/don't trust: NBC: 64/22 CNN: 63/21 CBS: 56/29 ABC: 50/31 FOX: 26/66 Fox News wins in the poll because conservatives overwhelmingly trust them by a 75 to 13 margin, so that put their overall average for trust the highest. But the moderates and the liberals all voted Fox dead last in trust, among moderates CNN was actually #1, NBC 2nd, CBS 3rd, ABC 4th, and Fox was last. With everyone else in America Fox News is the least trusted News Network. The conservatives were only 39% of the poll, yet O'Reilly claims their vote means the majority of Americans trust Fox. When all it shows is that 75% of the Republicans who took the poll trust Fox the most. The bottom line is this, only Republicans trust Fox News more than they do not trust them. The rest of the people in America trust Fox News the least. And what this segment by O'Reilly also shows, is that not only is he a dishonest right-wing hack, Rasmussen is too. The Friday 1-29-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 30, 2010 - 10:00am The TPM was called Obama, Haiti, and The Bold Fresh Tour. O'Reilly talked about his right-wing propaganda tour with Glenn Beck, and said that creepy far-left people are stalking them. O'Reilly said that after the first show, the loopy Media Matters rejoiced in saying that he had compared the South Side of Chicago to Haiti. Here's what O'Reilly said: "If you've ever been to the South Side of Chicago, it's a disaster. It's like Haiti." Then O'Reilly said, "Those comments deeply offended the far-left kool-aid drinkers." So let me get this straight, you compared the South Side of Chicago to Haiti, then media matters reports it, you admit you said it, then you complain about their reporting of the facts, and call them kool-aid drinkers, why? And they are in the media business, so how is that stalking you, when they are simply doing their job, just as everyone else in the media does. How is what you do not stalking people, when you send your camera crews to harass people that do not want to talk to you, now that's stalking sparky. Then O'Reilly dug the hole deeper by saying this, "If the President and I have one area of disagreement, it is big government. I believe it can not solve problems, he believes it can level the playing field, at least somewhat. That hasn't happened on Chicago's South Side, has it?" Earth to O'Reilly, no matter how bad it is on The South Side of Chicago, it's nothing like Haiti, you dumbass, and anyone who says that is just an idiot. You not only said it once, you said it twice, which makes you a double idiot. Then Karl Rove was on to discuss the story that the KSM trial will be moved out of NY City. Which is what O'Reilly and his Republican friends wanted, so Rove complained about it anyway, even though Obama did what he wanted him to. Rove also said, "This doesn't change the underlying problem, with the idea of trying the 9/11 defendants in criminal courts. The longer this goes on, the more American people are asking why we're doing this. It's unnecessary, it's dangerous, it's expensive, and it gives the terrorists a big platform to attack the United States." Rove is a joke, no matter what Obama does he complains about it, even when he does what Rove calls for him to do, he still finds something to complain about. Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't, no matter what he does they will never be happy, or say anything good about him. If Obama cured Cancer tomorrow Rove and the Republicans would find something to complain about. And this is the Factor go to guy for political analysis, a total right-wing idiot that never has anything good to say about Obama. Then O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall and the Washington Post's Sally Quinn on to discuss it. Quinn said, "This shows the President is willing to listen and change his mind. I couldn't agree more that the trial should be moved out of New York. Things have changed dramatically since the Christmas Day bombing attempt, people are a lot more focused on terrorism." Then O'Reilly said Marshall tried to rationalize the original decision to try KSM near the Twin Towers. Marshall said, "The President was trying to use symbolism, saying we're not afraid of you, we're going to show you American justice." Then crazy O'Reilly called the reversal an embarrassment for the administration, when he was one of many people that demanded the trial be moved out of NY City. So Obama does exactly what O'Reilly said he should do, then he calls it an embarrassment. When the only embarrassment here is that O'Reilly has a so-called nonpartisan news show. O'Reilly said, "For months people have been saying this is insane, you can't spend a billion dollars trying these thugs in New York. Why didn't the President see what everybody else saw?" Earth to O'Reilly, he did, he decided to move the trial you a-hole, but after the Mayor of NY asked him to, not because of your dumb ass calling for it, and it's not a Billion dollars for the trial, that is ridiculous. Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to do another ridiculous segment on the Hope For Haiti Telethon, that Fox News did not air. They complained about not knowing how the money would be spent, or how it will get to Haiti. O'Reilly said, The Hope for Haiti telethon raised some $66 million, but where is the money? Then crazy O'Reilly issued a warning to anyone raising money for Haiti. He said, "I'm not doing this segment to embarrass George Clooney and the others who showed up at the telethon. I'm doing this to put those people on notice that we expect them to get all the money to the Haitian people in a timely manner." And let me say this one more time, if you did not air the Telethon you have no right to ask about anything they do, idiot. Nobody cares what you or Geraldo think about the money from a Telethon your network did not even show. Then O'Reilly did another right-wing spin story about that ridiculous poll that claims Fox is the most trusted news network. And to back up his ridiculous claims he has the biased right-wing pollster Scott rasmussen on to discuss it. Billy said some liberals are outraged over a new poll showing that Fox News is far more trusted than any other TV news organization. Rasmussen said, "It's not surprising, there used to be a belief, spread by the old media, that they were objective and neutral, but nobody believes it." O'Reilly said that the survey was barely mentioned in the so-called mainstream media, "The media buried this story. If they see something they don't like, they don't even report it, which is killing these organizations." Which is ridiculous for a few reasons. 1) Rasmussen is a right-wing idiot, so his opinions are biased. 2) The survey was everwhere, especially on Fox, but I saw it on every blog and website I looked at. If the media buried it, how come I saw it everwhere. 3) O'Reilly claims the media ignores any story they do not like and it's killing them. When he does the very same thing, like the Scott Roeder trail and conviction for killing Dr. tiller, it was a week long story, he was found guilty yesterday, but O'Reilly never said a word about it, ever. Not to mention, NBC News is #1, so they are hardly being killed by not reporting the news you want them to. And let me say this one more time, Fox News is only the most trusted with CONSERVATIVES. With everyone else in America, moderates and liberals, Fox News is the least trusted. Fox News was only voted the most trusted by CONSERVATIVES. So stop spinning the poll, you dishonest hack. Then O'Reilly had the insane Glenn Beck on for his weekly segment. And to show just how insane Beck is, he hated the Obama SOTU speech, even though snap polls showed that 83% of the people liked it. Beck said, "The audacity of the lies was staggering, the delivery was good, but this was an excruciating, eye-bleeding seventy minutes." Beck also said, "The President is a committed leftist ideologue, who is following Saul Alinsky and as a radical progressive will step on the accelerator, because that's what Alinsky says to do." So 83% of the American people loved the speech, while Beck hated it, and called it an eye-bleeding seventy minutes of lies. Earth to Beck, the big men in white coats are looking for you. This is called political analysis on the Factor, when it's more like watching a movie with an escapee from a mental ward pretending to be a political expert. Beck is truly insane, and anyone who gives this nut a forum to spew out that nonsense is crazy too. The last segment has a great name, it's called dumbest things of the week, which is what this segment is, dumb. O'Reilly had two more right-wing idiots from fox on, Alisyn Camerota and Greg Gutfeld. And of course both of their dumbest things of the week were about Democrats. Gutfeld singled out the NAACP's Julian Bond, who said there was "hate on display" at last summer's tea parties, Gutfeld said that statement was dumb. When it's 100% true, there was a lot of hate. Camerota named gay activist Dan Savage, who accused Republicans of fomenting rage and fear. When he is also right, Republican do foment rage and fear about gay people. So both of their choices for dumbest things of the week were dumb, because Bond and Savage are right. And as I like to point out all the time, notice that O'Reilly does not have any Democrats for this segment. It's two Republicans that never find anything dumb said by Republicans, so it's one sided bias, with no Democrat to provide any balance. It's just more proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. Then pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly named Nancy Pelosi the pinhead, for simply saying she will get the health care bill passed somehow. O'Reilly Ignoring Scott Roeder Murder Trial By: Steve - January 29, 2010 - 11:00am UPDATE - 1-30-10 -- As I reported yesterday, O'Reilly did not say one word about the Scott Roder murder trial of Dr. tiller. Then on the Friday night Factor he also ignored the guilty verdict that was reported yesterday afternoon on the real news shows. During the week long trial, not one word was said about it on the Factor, even though he does two legal segments a week. He did not even have the integrity to report he was found guilty. If this is nonpartisan journalism, I'm Elvis. Wichita, Kan. - Scott Roeder, a 51-year-old airport shuttle driver, was convicted today of murdering George Tiller, one the nation's few physicians who performed late-term abortions. This right-wing nut, walked into a CHURCH and put a handgun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller, then he pulled the trigger and killed him, right in the CHURCH. The trial started a week ago, opening statements were last friday. He is a pro-life right-wing religious radical, the army of god even dedicated a website page to him where they call him a hero. They even compare Dr. Tiller to Hitler. Then on top of all that they even go after the wife and children of Dr. Tiller, the man who was murdered. They have this on the army of god Scott Roeder page: In memory of George 'The Babykiller' Tiller Psalm 109: [9] Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. [10] Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. [11] Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. [12] Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. [13] Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. [14] Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. [15] Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. And what gets me is that O'Reilly never said a word about the trial. Even though he does two legal segments every week with three different lawyers. Not a word of this trial was ever spoken by O'Reilly, or anyone on the Factor. That's because O'Reilly is also a right-wing, pro-life Republican, who hated Dr. Tiller, and even did numerous segments about him over the years where he even called him Tiller The Baby Killer. Hell I would not be surprised if O'Reilly donated money to his legal defense fund. The sad part is that if Roeder was a liberal who shot and killed an anti-abortion leader, O'Reilly would have been all over that story. He would have probably reported on the trial every day, or at least twice a week during his legal segments. O'Reilly is always talking about how radical and how dangerous liberals are, and saying that they have the possibility to commit violence. While here we have an actual case of violence, not the possibility, it happened. By a right-wing pro-life nut, and O'Reilly ignores it all. And this guy Roeder was even a fan of the O'Reilly Factor, he had made some message board postings on the internet talking about the great reporting O'Reilly had done on Dr. Tiller, and even said he was going to invite O'Reilly to one of his anti-abortion protests at the Tiller abortion clinic. And yet, O'Reilly ignored the entire trial for a week. He never said one word about the trial, in O'Reillyworld it never happened. Not to mention O'Reilly never said a word about the scum at the army of god website either, just imagine what he would say about them, if they were a liberal group who called a man that murdered an anti-abortion leader a hero. O'Reilly's silence speaks volumes. It means he basically supports what Roeder did, and that he supports what the army of god does. Because O'Reilly himself has said many times, that if someone does a serious crime like murder for political reasons, and you do not speak out against it, you support it. So that means O'Reilly supports it, because he has not spoken out against it. It's Official: Glenn Beck Has Lost His Mind By: Steve - January 29, 2010 - 9:00am It's time for the big men in white coats to pay Beck a visit, and escort him to the padded room. After the Obama SOTU speech Wednesday night Beck went crazy on his radio show, he said some of the most bizarre things I have ever heard. And remember this, O'Reilly, Fox News, and almost all the Republicans love this nut job, they worship him like a hero. O'Reilly even has him on his show every week, and they are on tour together. When the only place he should be is in a mental hospital under close observation. O'Reilly is a right-wing partisan, and a total spin doctor, but Beck is literally insane, just look at the things he said and then ask yourself what the hell is wrong with him. Responding to President Obama's State of the Union speech, Beck offered a series of bizarre comments, ranging from attacks on Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden, to baseless conspiracy theories. Beck claimed that Obama detailed his enemies list during the speech, a list he compared to similar lists from radicals including Lenin and Stalin, and warned his audience that we may be witnessing the beginning of a "dictorial kind of state" and that Obama will pick us off to send you a message. 1) Beck Called President Obama Arrogant, And a Liar. Beck attacked Obama by saying "there's no humility there," and cited the "the arrogance from the moment this guy walked in" and the "arrogance of the lies that he told last night." This is being totally disrespectful to the President of The United States. During the Bush years O'Reilly said everyone must respect and support the President, and even told then to shut up and support the President at a time of war. He even called Democrats who spoke out against Bush un-American America haters. But when Beck does it he says nothing, and even has him on his show every week, then goes on tour with the clown. O'Reilly even once did a segment with a legal expert a few years ago, asking if people who disrespected (and spoke out against) the President (while we are at war) could be put on trial for sedition. And of course the legal expert said no, but O'Reilly did an entire segment on it anyway. Then Beck does the very same thing, and O'Reilly is silent as a mouse. 2) Beck Compared Obama's Relationship With The American People to a Husband Cheating on His Wife. BECK: If you're cheating on your wife, and she's got pictures of you doing it with a chick, and you're like, Honey, no, absolutely not, do you have any respect for your wife? But if you're then treating her like an imbecile -- she's got access to the information -- there's no respect. No respect, and no fear. None. She's meaningless to you. That's what we have in the president.3) Beck said Obama is a punk for calling out an equal branch of government during State of the Union. After playing a clip of Obama disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United case in his address, Beck said: "This is an equal branch of government, and the president, humiliated -- like a punk -- calls them out last night." 4) Beck attacked Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, the Speaker of the House, and the Vice President of the United States, for the way they look: "Do you know how many children could be fed with just the amount of money in plastic surgery between Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden?" Beck added: "Did you see them sitting behind the president last night? Two things came to mind. First of all, I think Nancy Pelosi was just -- she may have a cold or something, she took NyQuil or whatever -- but she just like -- she was staring out in space, a few times I thought she was going to drool. I can't even look at her because of the plastic surgery." This is a personal attack on the 2nd and 3rd most powerful people in America. For the way they look, which even O'Reilly claims is wrong to do when liberals do it, but he never says a word about it when Republicans do it. Dennis Miller does the same thing every week on the Factor, but when liberals make fun of Sarah Palin O'Reilly flips out and attacks them for the jokes and the personal attacks. Beck does it and he is silent as a mouse. 5) After referencing Obama's criticism of TV pundits for "reducing serious debates to silly arguments, Beck suggested that Obama was talking about him, saying "Barack Obama, just mention us by name from here on out." He then concluded that Obama made an enemies list last night. He later added that "Keith, our phone screener, came in this morning and he said, Man, I pray for you every night. He said, Did you see that, what the president did? And I said, Yeah. And he said, The only thing he didn't say is, "Glenn Beck is an instigator." And it's -- and I looked at him and said, Oh, its coming. It's coming. Obama did not use any names, he was talking in general about the tv pundits on cable news who sidestep the real issues, and talk about silly stuff like death panels, etc. He was talking about pretty much everyone at Fox News, not just Glenn Beck. And it was not making an enemies list, he was just saying they should report the truth, instead of lying about things. That is not making an enemies list, it's just calling for them to stop being partisan liars. 6) Beck even claims that Obama's so-called enemies list is just like those made by Lenin, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez. Beck warned his audience that "if you look at the radicals in the past" -- of which Beck named Lenin, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez -- the enemies list is always the same." According to Beck, the enemies list always includes "the capitalists, the greedy industry owners, the banks, those who are speaking out against this movement and the dissenters in the media." 7) Beck also said that Obama will get away with his so-called lies because he "knows the media won't corner him." Beck then called the media traitors: Beck said, "The media is complicit. The media is damn near treasonous." 8) Beck warned his audience that they are coming to shut those people up who are dissenters, like Beck, and any one who has a megaphone or a microphone. He added that "they pick somebody out and make an example of them...all they have to do is pick us off to send you a message." Beck went on to say that he was begging his audience to do your homework now and know the news, know the constitution because there may come a time when there are no people speaking out in the media and there may be a time when you are the leader. You're the only voice that people will hear. He concluded: "Please, I beg of you, I beg of you: Pick the torch up, because there may come a time where you are the keeper of the flame, and if you do not pick up that flame when it is handed to you, if you don't pick that torch up, it will go out." WOW! Glenn Beck is a lunatic. And it's time for him to be put on some serious medication, that is crazy talk. That is the insane stuff you hear those nuts on the street who talk to themself say, it's pure insanity. And if anyone believes any of that insanity, I feel sorry for you. And remember this, O'Reilly and Fox News love this nut job, they worship him like a hero. The Thursday 1-28-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 29, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called Presidential Address. O'Reilly put out what he called a no spin analysis of the Obama SOTU speech. The first thing he said is the speech over yet, and criticized Obama for talking too long. O'Reilly is opposed to federal spending to create jobs, he wants, hold on, you guessed it, more tax cuts. Billy also said Obama should change health insurance, but do it his way, let them compete in all 50 states and include tort reform. So O'Reilly lied parts of the speech, but as usual he hated most of it, and said Obama talked too long. Before I get on to the Factor Review, I saw something funny today, in looking at the summary page for the Factor at billoreilly.com I saw this. Impact SegmentThe snap polls showed that 83% of the people liked the Obama speech, but look how the stooges who work for O'Reilly worded that summary. The polls "seems to indicate" a "small surge" of support for the President. They do not seem to indicate, they do, and 83% is not a "small surge" of support, it's massive. Now imagine what it would say if Bush had given a SOTU speech and the polls said 83% liked it. Then the totally biased corrupt fraud of a pollster Frank Luntz was on to discuss the Obama speech. And of course no Democratic pollster was on to talk about his focus group on the speech, just the biased right-wing fraud Frank Luntz. This fraud Luntz works for the Republican party, and even writes policy memos for them on how to defeat Obama and the Democrats, but O'Reilly never discloses any of that. So I refuse to report anything Frank Luntz says about anything, because he is a biased fraud. And think about this, he is the Factor pollster, him and Rasmussen, two proven right-wing spin doctors. O'Reilly even calls him Dr. Luntz, and has the PH.D. label after his name on the screen. Frank Luntz is as much of a PH.D. as I am. Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on to discuss the speech. O'Reilly asked her what the worst thing Obama said, she claims Obama lied when he said Republicans are not working with him, when Obama is exactly right, all they do is vote no to everything, with no plans of their own. Ingraham even claimed what the Republicans are doing is what they think is best for the country. Which is just ridiculous, what they are doing is voting no to everything and hoping Obama fails, when they are holding up way to get things fixed faster. O'Reilly then asked Ingraham what the best thing Obama said was, and she could not think of anything. She said the best thing Obama said was good night. Then O'Reilly forced her to come up with something, and she said he did well when he spoke about how great America is, and that's the only thing she could come up with. She also loved what Justice Alito did, by saying not true, which is the same as calling the President a liar, then both O'Reilly and Ingraham defended Alito, even though it's against protocol. O'Reilly did say it was a good speech, but that it was way too long. Ingraham said it was like a cold bowl of oatmeal, whatever the hell that means. And then finally O'Reilly had a Democrat on, just to make it look good, after 20 minutes of nothing but right-wing spin on the speech, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it. Dr. Hill asked for the worst and best things, Hill said it was hard to find anything bad. Hill said the speech was too far to the right, and Ingraham hated it, go figure. O'Reilly said Obama was giving the people the old Chicago razzle dazzle, by saying one thing and doing another. Dr. Hill also said the speech was too long. O'Reilly said if Obama does not get it together he is going to lose both houses in November, and Dr. Hill said, no way, O'Reilly had no comeback to that. Dr. Hill also said the Obama approval is so low because of the problems he has to deal with. Then finally O'Reilly asked Dr. Hill what the best thing he said was, and Dr. Hill said how it's ridiculous to need 60 Senate votes to pass anything. And I agree 100%, the Senate should be just like the House and only need a simple majority. That is why we have elections, so the majority can pass what they want. Dr. Hill finally called the Republicans obstructionists, which is what they are, and O'Reilly denied it. Billy said they can not be obstructionists because they do not have the votes, which makes no sense. The senate has to get 60 votes, so if they only have 59, one Republican vote can obstruct every bill from passing, which is what they are doing. Someone needs to explain it to O'Reilly, because he is clearly confused. The next segment was more on the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad put out by the pro-life Focus on the Family group. They also talked about don't ask don't tell, O'Reilly said nobody even cares about it, but if that's true why did Obama talk about it, and why did O'Reilly do a segment about it. The culture warriors were on to discuss it, Margaret Hoover and Cheryl Casone. They all basically said they are ok with gays in the military, as long as they stay in the closet. Casone had a slight problem with the pro-life Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad, Hoover and O'Reilly had no problem with it at all. Billy said this is America and they have a right to get their message out. When nobody is saying they don't, some people (liberals) are only upset because CBS denied a liberal political ad a few years ago, saying they do not accept political ads. And this is America, they do have a right to get their message out, but they do not have a right to get it out on the Super Bowl, that's a privilege, not a right. O'Reilly is just a stupid hypocrite, because he was opposed to the liberal ad on the Super Bowl. Then Megyn Kelly was on to cry about the Alito "not true" statement, she is mad at Obama for some reason. Billy asked about the law on foreign Corporations giving money to American politicians. Kelly was mad that Obama said the Supreme Court decision makes it legal for foreign Corporations to give money to American elections. She said Obama is wrong, when Obama is right. It does open the door to foreign money getting into our elections, through shell companies, partly foreign owned American Corporations, etc. Then they cried about KSM being put on trial in NY City. O'Reilly predicted the trial will never be held in NY City. As we all know, O'Reilly wants him put on trial by the military. The last segment was the worthless waste of time Great American News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, the right-wing nut who killed Dr. Tiller (Scott Roeder) was on trial all day on Court TV, but O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though he does a legal segment. He claims God told him to kill Dr. tiller, and is using the doomed to fail justifiable homicide defense. It's a big court case, that is on tv, and O'Reilly is ignoring it, because he is pro-life and is probably glad the nut killed Dr. Tiller. O'Reilly & Kelly Claim Obama Wrong On SC Ruling By: Steve - January 29, 2010 - 8:00am Last night on the Factor, O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly claimed that President Obama made a mistake when he criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, saying that it's not true the decision would, open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. In fact, four Supreme Court justices agreed that the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans" to make certain election-related expenditures. Funny how neither O'Reilly or Kelly mentioned that. Maybe it's because the segment was done with two biased Republicans who work for Fox News, and they really did not care about reporting ALL the facts, just the facts they wanted you to hear. They even set up a false straw man so they could knock it down with spin that had nothing to do with the arguments in the case. O'REILLY: I don't care about the spin; I just want the law.Notice how O'Reilly misrepresents the issue, and his little stooge Kelly played right along. It's not about someone in Poland (who owns a Corporation there) trying to give money to an American politician. That is not the issue, it's about someone in a foreign country who owns part (or all) of an American company, who then would give money from that American company to an American politician. That is the issue, not the straw man garbage O'Reilly was spinning out. And now let's look at some facts, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this, "The decision would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." That is a quote from an actual Supreme Court Justice, not Bill O'Reilly, a lame cable news host, or Megyn Kelly, a failed attorney who is also a lame cable news host. Notice that you never got that information during the Factor segment. All you got was a one sided biased debate on the issue with two Republicans that work for Fox News, who basically called the President a liar. And btw, the opinion of Justice Stevens is shared by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. So who are you going to believe, four US Supreme Court Justices, or O'Reilly and Kelly, two right-wing spin doctors on Fox. Justice Stevens also wrote this: The Court's blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.Funny how O'Reilly and Kelly never mentioned a word of this, they ignored it all, and only gave out one side of the story, the right-wing side. Not to mention, there are numerous other legal experts that say the decision does open the door to campaign money from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. It is a plausible inference from the court's opinion that foreign money can't be restricted, said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor. Campaign finance reform advocate Fred Wertheimer said this, "Under the Supreme Court decision foreign corporations and foreign individuals are now able to make campaign expenditures to directly support or oppose federal candidates, so long as these expenditures are made through foreign-controlled domestic corporations." Many legal experts fear the ruling will open up the floodgates for any corporation operating in the United States, no matter who owns them. J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of litigation at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said the existing prohibition on foreign involvement does not refer to foreign controlled domestic corporations. "With the corporate campaign expenditure ban now being declared unconstitutional, domestic corporations controlled by foreign governments or other foreign entities are now free to spend money to elect or defeat federal candidates. So there is a big difference of opinion on what exactly the recent SC ruling allows. But you would never know that by watching the Factor. They put out their spin on the issue, as if it was a fact, with nobody to give the counterpoint. It was basically a one sided biased segment, that only gave you one side of the story, which is a violation of journalism 101, something O'Reilly seems to do every night. And now you have all the facts on the issue, not just the partial facts O'Reilly wanted you to know. A New Type Of Ridiculous Hate Mail By: Steve - January 28, 2010 - 5:30pm Now this is a new one, not only did this right-wing nut send me hate mail, she also made a one cent donation to my paypal account, which does no good, except to make me think I got a donation, then after opening the e-mail notice, I see it's a one cent donation. She also sent me a little message with the one cent donation. Name: Carol Ard (The sender of this payment is Verified)Good job Carol, not only are you a right-wing fool that sends insane hate mail to people you do not even know, you are also a low life piece of shit who makes a bogus 1 cent donation to a man with a bad back who is unable to work, who also takes care of his senile 87 year old retired Father. I bet your mother would be so proud of you. P.S. I reported you to paypal, and I hope they terminate your account for abuse. More Money Needed For Liberal Websites & Blogs By: Steve - January 28, 2010 - 12:30pm I read a great article today about money for liberal media outlets, and liberal blogs, etc. Danny Goldberg wrote a brilliant piece on DWT that explains the real reason Air America failed: There is no will to sustain left-wing media, talk radio or support the liberal blogosphere if it doesn't turn an immediate profit. Right-wing millionaires realize that it takes years to develop any sort of model that works, but they also understand that making money isn't the point of their ventures. It's to get their message out to as many people as they can. And they are successful at it. Conservatives believe in doing whatever it takes to promote their ideas. Richard Viguerie wrote a book in 2004 called America's Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media To Take Power, in which he explains how the right wing used talk radio among other tools. Viguerie stresses that conservatives understand that ideological change does not usually occur over night, that it takes patience and long term thinking to build a movement.Air America scared the hell out of conservatives because they had never seen such an enterprise before, and that's why O'Reilly and Fox News did everything they could to smear them. The liberal blogosphere is in the same predicament. We need funds to survive and thrive and with a bad economy, because ad revenues dropped off to almost nothing in 2009. And I know Readers do not like to see ads on blogs for the most part, but without them www.oreilly-sucks.com could not survive and neither would most other liberal websites. Corporations are investing Millions of dollars, if not Billions, to try and buy their Internet real estate while most of us already have an imprint that is virtually impossible to find without multimillion-dollar investments for advertising. I would like to buy advertising for www.oreilly-sucks.com on the radio, big websites, and blogs, but I have no money to do it, none. In fact, I can not even raise the $50 a month I need to keep both my websites online. Almost every month I have to get my retired Father, who is on a small fixed income btw, to pay some or all of my internet bills. Which he can not afford to do, but I have no choice. Here is an example, I get 800 to 2000 page views a day, and for about the last 9 or 10 days I have been running a donation fund drive for the 1st quarter of 2010. In that time I have zero donations, as in none. That means I have four days left until the end of the month, and if I do not raise some money soon my websites could be offline until I do. So for anyone who can, please make a donation before the end of the month. Otherwise I will have to try and get my Father to pay my hosting fees, my bandwidth fees, and my ISP bill. Which he can not really afford to do, so I hate to ask him unless I have to. Not to mention, if he has a lot of bills next month he may not be able to pay my internet bills either. Even if it's only $5.00, it will help. Click Here Now To Make A Donation! Obama Scores 83% Approval On SOTU Speech By: Steve - January 28, 2010 - 11:30am I am sure O'Reilly will review the speech tonight, let's see what he has to say about it. But now we know that 83% liked it, who wants to bet me that 83% of the Factor guests hated it. And we know all the Republicans hated it, Beck called Obama a punk and an arrogant liar, Inhofe and many other Republicans also hated it and called Obama a liar. And yet, the majority of Americans (83%) in a CBS News poll found that 83 percent of the speech watchers liked President Obama's proposals and 70 percent said Obama shares their priorities for the country. Republicans even held their applause last night when President Obama declared that if bailed-out banks "can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need." Of course, everybody hates the bankers, except the Republicans who sat on their hands when the president called for taxing them. And what gets me is that these very same Republicans claimed to be mad when we gave the banks all that bailout money. They were worried that it would never be paid back, and for that reason most of them opposed it. So now that Obama wants to put a small tax on them to get ALL the money back, Republicans are also opposed to that. Proving they are nothing but political partisans, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Everyone supports a small tax on the banks to get ALL the money back we gave them, except Republicans. It's politics 101 in the Republican Party, claim you oppose the bailouts for financial reasons, pretend you hate the banks like the people do, then oppose getting ALL the money back for political reasons, because you actually love the banks and the money they give to your campaigns. If these Republicans had any integrity at all they would support the small tax on the banks to get ALL our money back, but they don't, and they have no integrity. And as usual O'Reilly is also opposed to it as all his right-wing friends are, he even claims it is unconstitutional, which is just ridiculous. If the Congress passes a tax, and the President signs it, then it's constitutional, plain and simple. O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Person Again By: Steve - January 28, 2010 - 10:30am From Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC: OLBERMANN: But our winner, Bill-O, summoning his inner Bill-O. This is from a public appearance on Long Island, in which O'Reilly fantasizes about being the main adviser to President Obama and to make it easier for Republicans to achieve, quote, detente with Democrats, calling in the CIA director Mr. Panetta giving him a secret job to do. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O'REILLY: You've got to kidnap Pelosi and Reid. Don't hurt them. Don't hurt them, OK? But take them to an undisclosed location. No waterboarding. Well, maybe with Nancy. So that's what I would do, I'd kidnap Reid and Pelosi. (END VIDEO CLIP) OLBERMANN: I know, every time I tell you about O'Reilly, somebody says, oh, it's just posturing, you're trying to get ratings, you're obsessed with O'Reilly, you're a less version of him. Then you hear a tape like that, from an unguarded moment, in an environment in which he thinks he's among friends, and starts with the violence fantasies. Just like the Tiller the Killer drum beat, Bill O'Reilly is, at heart, a danger to the safety of elected leaders in this country. Ha ha ha, how funny it is to joke about kidnapping the Speaker of the House and waterboarding her. He says it because he wants somebody to do it. When I call him on it, I don't care if fewer people watch this show as a result. This man is dangerous year in, year out. He was dangerous to George Tiller. He is dangerous to Nancy Pelosi. And if you want to live in a country where people like Bill O'Reilly can encourage hatred and violence, just pretend this is a phony showbiz feud. It isn't. Bill O'Reilly, who said all that in public, today's worst person in the world. ---------------------------- And let me add something to what Keith said, even though O'Reilly was joking about waterboarding Nancy Pelosi, it's still wrong by his own standards. Because every time a COMEDIAN makes a joke about Sarah Palin, O'Reilly does a segment on it saying it's wrong and they should stop it. Now what also makes it worse for O'Reilly is that he is NOT a COMEDIAN. He is a so-called journalist, on a so-called news show. It is ok for COMEDIANS to make jokes about anyone, Palin, Pelosi, anyone. The problem is the hypocrisy and the double standard from O'Reilly. You can not complain about COMEDIANS making Palin jokes, when that is their job and they are not in the news business. Then do jokes about Pelosi yourself, when you are in the news business, and not a COMEDIAN. It's massive hypocrisy, and a giant double standard. Then on top of that, O'Reilly has Dennis Miller on the Factor every single week in the Miller Time segment, where he does jokes about liberals. While he complains about COMEDIANS doing Palin jokes, he is having Miller do the very same thing to liberals on his own show. Especially Nancy Pelosi, in almost ever segment Miller does a joke or two about Pelosi and her looks, plastic surgery, etc. So somehow in O'Reillyworld it's wrong for COMEDIANS to do Palin jokes, but it's ok for Dennis Miller to do Pelosi jokes, and even do them on his show. The hypocrisy is off the charts. O'Reilly Spins Fox News Most Trusted Poll By: Steve - January 28, 2010 - 10:00am The real headline should have been this: Poll Shows Fox The Most Trusted By Republicans O'Reilly screamed from the high heavens that Fox News is the most trusted of all the media in America. But a quick look inside the numbers reveals that, for a strong majority of Americans, the exact opposite is true. The actual data in the poll tells us quite a different story: for more than three-fifths of Americans, Fox News is the least trusted media outlet of them all. And it's not even close. As usual O'Reilly only reports half the story to fit his agenda. Fox came out as #1 in the most trusted poll, but the great journalist Bill O'Reilly failed to report a lot of details, like almost everything. The poll sampled moderates, conservatives, and liberals. It was taken by 47% moderates and 39% conservatives, but only 14% liberals. So the poll was slanted to favor moderates and conservatives, because liberals were only 14% of the survey. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that. Here is how the moderates voted, trust/don't trust: -- CNN: 47/31 -- NBC: 44/33 -- CBS: 41/33 -- ABC: 39/34 -- FOX: 33/48 Notice that Fox was dead last in trust with moderates. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that. Conservatives (39 percent of the survey) are the only ideological group who trust Fox - liberals (14 percent of the survey) and moderates (the biggest group, 47 percent) don't. Conservative trust of the Media, trust/don't trust: FOX: 75/13 CNN: 22/60 ABC: 16/67 NBC: 15/66 CBS: 14/68 Liberal trust of the Media, trust/don't trust: NBC: 64/22 CNN: 63/21 CBS: 56/29 ABC: 50/31 FOX: 26/66 Fox News wins in the poll because conservatives overwhelmingly trust them by a 75 to 13 margin, so that put their overall average for trust the highest. But the moderates and the liberals all voted Fox dead last in trust, among moderates CNN was actually #1, NBC 2nd, CBS 3rd, ABC 4th, and Fox was 5th. The 75% vote by Republicans put Fox at the top, but only with Republicans. With everyone else in America Fox News is the least trusted News Network. But O'Reilly never reported any of this information, and he calls himself a journalist, I call that not being a journalist, by leaving out all the facts and only reporting what you want people to hear. Like the Republicans were only 39% of the poll, yet O'Reilly claims their vote means the majority of Americans trust Fox. When all it shows is that 75% of the 39% of the Republicans who took the poll trust Fox more than they do not trust them. The bottom line is this, only Republicans trust Fox News more than they do not trust them. The rest of the people, moderates and liberals trust Fox News the least. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of this, I guess he just forgot, or maybe he did not have time, yeah that's it. I know, he had to do a segment on Whale sperm, so he did not have time to report the details of the poll. Yeah, and I'm Tiger Woods too. The Wednesday 1-27-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 28, 2010 - 9:30am The TPM was called Media Revolution. O'Reilly basically claims the country is moving to the right, and the high Fox News ratings prove it. Then he bragged about the Fox ratings some more, when nobody cares. And they had a one time ratings bump last week because of the election that a Republican won. You can already see the Factor ratings back down to the normal 3.3 to 3.5 million, proving it was a one time one week ratings increase. He also talked about some poll that says Fox is the most trusted news network in America, which is just a joke. All it proves is that Republicans love Fox News, so they rate them high in trust. It was an entire talking points memo on how the right and Fox News are taking over America. Except what O'Reilly never told you is that only Republicans voted Fox as the most trusted News Network, 75/13. With Democrats and Independents, the we do not trust Fox rating was lower than the rating for trusting them. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that. O'Reilly also talked about the SOTU speech, and said it will be boring, before it even happened. The far right Dick Morris was on to discuss it. O'Reilly and Morris both claim all the Obama far left plans are done, and that he will now move to the center and stop with all the crazy left-wing policies. Then they talked about how great Fox News is, and how they are more fair and balanced than anyone. Which is so ridiculous it's just laughable, and to even say it you have to be nuts. O'Reilly asked Morris is Obama can make a comeback like Bill Clinton did, and of course Morris said no. But you watch, if the economy is doing good and jobs are back three years from now, Obama will have high approval ratings and he will be re-elected to a 2nd term. it's all about the economy and jobs, and we ill not know about that until 2012. They also talked about what Obama should do, and of course they claim it is not going to work. When it already has, the job losses are down more every month, and the stock market is back over 10,000, which they give Obama no credit for. Then O'Reilly had Democrat Joe Trippi on to discuss the speech, and to respond to what Dick Morris had to say. And for that I say good job O'Reilly, for once you are being fair and balanced in a political debate, sort of. And when I say sort of, it's because O'Reilly still has a 7 to 1 right-wing guest list. There is no overall balance, he just has a Democrat on once n a while to make it look good. Trippi said Obama should come out against the washington establishment, the crooks at the banks, etc. Change you can believe in etc. O'Reilly said Obama has to be specific, and that if he does not do that everyone will fall asleep, or watch Nic at Nite. Trippi agreed that he must get specific, and said he will. And btw, Trippi said he does not believe the country is not moving to the right. Trippi said it's a move against Washington, not against Obama or liberal policies. O'Reilly said Obama had 6 months and it did not work, and now the people are saying we do not want liberal policies. Trippi disagreed, and said it's not that they do not want liberal policies, they just want something done faster. O'Reilly said the people are fed up with liberalism, and that it does not work. Which is funny, because it sure worked good under Bill Clinton. The truth is that O'Reilly has not given Obama enough time to see it work, and conservatism sure did not work, just look what Bush did in 8 years. And btw, not once in 8 years of Bush did O'Reilly say conservatism does not work, let alone after one year, proving O'Reilly is a biased idiot. Now if Obama does not have things going good after 3 years you can make that claim, but not after one year. The next segment was with Matthew Littman and Mark Halperin on to discuss the Obama poll numbers of around 50 percent, Halperin gave Obama a B grade. Littman gave Obama a B or a B- grade. Littman said it's too early to give a complete grade before we know about health care etc. O'Reilly said health care is dead, and Littman disagreed. Halperin said they can still get it passed somehow, O'Reilly said no way. O'Reilly said even if they get it passed there will not be a public option. Littman said the job approval ratings for the President are tied to the economy and jobs. And they both disagreed with O'Reilly that the country is moving to the right. So everyone disagreed with O'Reilly that the country is moving right, except Dick Morris. The next segment was about the right-wing stooge James O'Keefe, that ran the sting on a few ACORN offices being arrested for trying to bug the phone line of a sitting Senator. Which btw, is a felony that carries a possible 10 years with a $250,000 fine. O'Reilly claims that ACORN lost federla funding because of him, but he never mentioned that the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. So Jane Skinner was on to discuss it. not only did these three idiots try to bug a sitting Senators phone line, they were filming it, what a bunch of morons. Skinner sort of defended the right-wing moron, and claims it was just a stunt. Yeah a stunt that will get them up to 10 years in the pokey, lol. O'Reilly even agreed it was insane for them to do it, so you know it was bad. Then they cried about some sexy PETA ad, zzzzzzzzzzzz, who cares, this is not news. It's on a website, and you even have to say you are over 18 to view it, so as O'Reilly would say, where's the problem. They have free speech, just as everyone else. Notice that O'Reilly never has any problems with any ads run by conservative groups, he only has problems with ads run by so-called liberal groups. Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about Obama and his State of The Union Speech. Which means he will be on to make jokes about Obama, the speech, and the Democrats, because that is why O'Reilly has him on the show. And btw, I have no problem with Dennis Miller making jokes about Obama, liberals, or anyone, because he is a COMEDIAN, and that is what he does. My only problem with this segment is with O'Reilly, because of his hypocrisy. I could care less that Miller does jokes about liberals, the problem is that O'Reilly complains when COMEDIANS make jokes about Palin. Then he has Dennis Miller on his show to make jokes about liberals, so the problem is the massive hypocrisy and double standard by O'Reilly. Not to mention, if O'Reilly is a nonpartisan independent as he claims, why does he only have a Republican comedian on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian to do jokes about Republicans. O'Reilly said it will be boring and that he can not stand to see Nancy Pelosi bobbing up and down, that it drives him crazy. But not once during the Bush years did he call his speeches boring, or that he could not stand to see the Republican House leader bobbing up and down. O'Reilly talked about the spending freeze, and Miller said someone should freeze Pelosi so she is not bobbing up and down like driftwood. The rest was of course all bad jokes about liberals. The last segment was with Carl Cameron and Major Garrett. They were on to discuss the Obama speech. Billy called it inside stuff. O'reilly asked Garrett if Obama was nervous, and Garrett said no, not at all. Then he went on to give out the usual right-wing angle on the speech. O'Reilly said it will be so boring he may not watch it all, that he might just read the transcript. Which is totally disrespectful to the President, and not once did O'Reilly do that with Bush. When the Bush speeches were boring too, and on top of that Bush was so stupid he could not even read the speech without screwing it up. Then Cameron was on next to spin out the same right-wing garbage as Garrett and O'Reilly, except Cameron is a little more partison than Garrett. Now get this, everyone knows that O'Reilly says he never speculates. So he asked Cameron if President Obama likes Pelosi, Cameron would not answer, so O'Reilly said he thinks Obama does not like Pelosi, with no proof, it was total speculation, something he said he does not allow on the Factor, and something that he claims he never does, then he did it. And btw, O'Reilly actually had three Democrats on the show, three whole Democrats in one show, I think that's a record. But of course he still had 5 Republican guests, plus himself, so it was still an unbalanced 6 to 3 situation. Then the show was over, with no pinheads and patriots, and no Factor e-mails. Your Money: Stock Market Update By: Steve - January 27, 2010 - 5:30pm Last Monday, one day before the special election to see who wins Ted Kennedys Senate seat, numerous on air Fox News anchors and guests, told people to vote for the Republican Scott Brown because for one reason the stock market will go up. Everyone from Start Varney to Gretchen Carlson to Charles Payne said it, they said if Brown wins your 401K will go up. Other than the fact it is unethical and wrong for anchors and guests on a news network to say that, they were wrong. Last Monday the DOW was at roughly 10,750, and today it closed at 10,230. That's a 500 point drop in a week, so not only did the stock market not go up at all, it dropped 500 points. On Wednesday, one day after the election the DOW was down 190 points, and closed down 123 points, and then almost every day since then the DOW has dropped, or went up very little. Remember that next time you hear someone on Fox News tell you what they think will happen if a Republican wins, remember that they were wrong. And remember this too, remember that Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it. Just imagine what O'Reilly would say if Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews from MSNBC said you should vote for the Democrat because the stock market will go up. O'Reilly would flip out, call for investigations, and ask for MSNBC to be shut down for unethical violations. But when Fox anchors and guests do it, he is silent as a mouse. Even though O'Reilly does a media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg, they never once mentioned it. More O'Reilly Insanity On The Haiti Telethon By: Steve - January 27, 2010 - 12:30pm ThinkProgress has this on O'Reilly and the Haiti Telethon: O'Reilly Gripes That Haiti Benefit Organizers Are Ignoring Him - After His Network Refused To Air The Event Monday night on his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly bashed the Hope for Haiti Now global benefit, which aired live on Jan. 22. The telethon has so far raised $61 million in donations from the general public for Haiti relief efforts. O'Reilly said that he had concerns about how the money was going to be distributed, and the fact that the telethon "could not or would not supply us a spokesperson" to go on his show was not a good sign: O'REILLY: Factor Follow-up segment tonight, getting charity to Haiti. As you may know, a TV telethon last Friday raised nearly $60 million dollars, but now comes the hard part: getting the money to the people who are suffering. Now, we tried to get someone attached to the telethon to speak with us tonight. We were not successful, and that is not a good sign.As most people, including myself pointed out, O'Reilly griping that the Hope for Haiti organizers are ignoring him rings hollow, considering Fox News was one of the few networks to not air the benefit concert, both CNN and MSNBC did. Ironically, today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto did a whole segment praising the benefit, saying that it made him wonder whether "the best way to raise aid for all the disaster victims is from celebrity-hosted television shows and not from the government trying to get it from taxpayers." Too bad his network didn't agree. O'Reilly is just a sad joke, and a stupid one at that. Fox does not air the Obama prime-time speech to the country, the only major network to not air it, then Obama refuses to give an interview to anyone at Fox. Then Fox refuses to air the Haiti Telethon, the only major network to not air it, then they refuse to provide a spokesman to Fox. Earth to O'Reilly, why are you surprised. Think about this, let's say you get in a fight with someone, and you beat his ass good. Then you see the guy a few days later and ask him to loan you some money, and he says no of course. It's the same as not airing a telethon, then asking them to provide a spokesman to talk to you. And in fact, you are stupid to even ask them to provide one. If I was in charge I would not provide a spokesman to you, or anyone at Fox after you refused to air the telethon, even if you paid me. And only a fool would even ask them to, then trash them when they refuse. Some News You Will Never Hear From O'Reilly By: Steve - January 27, 2010 - 11:30am As we all know the Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election for Ted Kennedys seat last week. O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends at Fox have been reporting that the main reason Brown won is because the people are opposed to the Obama health care plan. Which is sort of right, but not for the reason Fox and O'Reilly have reported. There are two important things O'Reilly and Fox are not telling you. If you ask the people if they would support a health care bill that has a public option, almost 60 percent say yes. Without the public option that support drops to about 40 percent. Most liberals were opposed to the bad bill that came out of the Senate. And without a public option it's just a giveway to the Insurance companies. The night of the Massachusetts election, there was a poll taken by a thousand people who voted for Obama in 2008 and either switched to support Republican Scott Brown for Senate or didn't vote. More than 80 percent of both groups favored a public option. So one of the main reason Brown won is because Democrats voted for him to kill the Senate version of the health care bill. Not because they do not want Government run health care, because it's a bad bill that does not include the public option, and they just do not want that specific bill passed. O'Reilly did not report any of that, he said the people do not want a public option, or a Government run health care plan. But he is wrong on both counts. If it's a good bill, with a public option, the vast majority of Americans support it. But you would never know any of that if you watch the Factor, because O'Reilly ignores it. Of the 48% who switched their vote to Brown, 36% of them said the Senate bill did not go far enough, so they voted for Brown because they wanted the Senate bill to die. And another thing O'Reilly did not report is that 80% of Democrats who voted for Obama stayed home, while only 4% of Republicans stayed home, and 7% of the Democrats actually voted for Brown. But here is the big story, none of which O'Reilly has reported. Just look at these numbers. In a Research 2000 poll they asked this: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans? A whopping 82% say yes, while only 14% say no, O'Reilly has never reported that information one time, ever. Because he only reports the polls that agree with his position. And btw, for that same question, 68% of Republicans even said yes, while only 24% said no, 83% of Independents said yes, and 89% of Democrats also said yes. In the very same poll when asked if you favor or oppose the health care reform proposal recently passed by the U.S. Senate, only 32% said yes, while 48% said no. Only 42% of Democrats said yes, while 46% said no. Only 11% of Republicans said yes, while 68% said no, and 33% of Independents said yes, while 47% said no. Now think about this, O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent journalist. But then he does not report any of the polling data I just showed you. Instead he reports what the Rasmussen poll says, because those polls are biased, and they agree with O'Reilly. This alone proves that O'Reilly has a right-wing bias, because a real nonpartisan journalist would have reported these numbers, and reported them a long time ago. What O'Reilly does is put out the GOP talking points, that the majority of Americans do not want a Government run health care plan, then he cherry picks a biased poll from Rasmussen that agrees with him, while ignoring the other polls that say the opposite, and then he claims that the majority of the people agree with him and his position on the issue. When it's all a lie, and nothing but right-wing spin, in what is supposed to be a no spin zone. O'Reilly Claims South Chicago The Same As Haiti By: Steve - January 27, 2010 - 11:00am And the award for dumbest statement of the year goes to..............Bill O'Reilly. During a January 23rd stop on his "Bold Fresh Tour," accompanied by Glenn Beck, O'Reilly said the south side of Chicago is the same as Haiti. Here is exactly what the fool said, the text and the video. O'REILLY: I'm seeing a guy who's very, very committed to the government. To government, the government's going to solve the problems, and I'm going I don't know how that's possible. If you've ever been to the South Side of Chicago, I mean, it's a disaster, all right? It's like Haiti, it's like -- I've been to Haiti a couple of times.And here is the video: Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a liberal compared an American city to Haiti. He would lose his mind, call for the Feds to investigate, and then call for them to be deported. The Tuesday 1-26-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 27, 2010 - 10:30am The TPM was called President Obama Moves to The Right. O'Reilly said that Obama is feeling major heat and has begun to change his tone. Because he has announced that he wants to freeze discretionary spending for three years. Billy said that is a good thing, but then of course he also had to say something negative about Obama, even though he likes the plan. So then O'Reilly President Obama already has plenty of money to fund whatever he wants because he's already raised domestic discretionary spending by 24%. And that he also has $522 billion in unspent stimulus money, "so it's clear the President isn't really biting the bullet here. If Mr. Obama is truly interested in shoring up the American economy in the long run, he would put at least $500 billion back into the U.S. treasury to pay down the national debt. Mr. Obama should also rescind the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed civilian trial. $200 million a year for that dog and pony show is disgraceful!" Then the far right Newt Gingrich was on to discuss it, and of course he was all alone with no Democratic guest to provide any balance. And of course Gingrich trashed Obama and called the whole thing a PR stunt. Gingrich said, "If you look at how much spending has gone up since Reid and Pelosi took over, and then you look at how much more it's gone up since Obama became President, a freeze is nothing. This is a PR stunt and a test of our ability to be suckered once again." As you read this blog think about this, O'Reilly only had Republicans on to discuss the Obama spending freeze. Who all claim it's a fraud, and a PR stunt. Not one Democrat was put on the show to talk about it. Alan Colmes was on later, but he was on with Crowley, and they did not talk about the Obama spending freeze, they only talked about the SOTU speech tonight. This is done on purpose folks, it's called bias. Do you think it's an accident O'Reilly only had Republicans on to discuss the spending freeze. If you do, you need a check up from the neck up. Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss the Obama SOTU speech. O'Reilly asked them what the President should say, and Crowley was so funny with her answer it was unreal. Crowley said, "What I would like to hear is a focus on jobs and the economy. I want him to say the Republicans have been right on how to create jobs and how to stimulate the economy, namely tax cuts. Wow, she is fricking nuts. Obama is never going to say that, and those great Bush tax cuts were a massive failure, did she forget that already. I guess she forgot that under Bill Clinton the economy added 22 million new jobs in eight years, and he raised taxes, while it lost 7 million jobs under Bush in eight years with his tax cuts. She is just a massive liar, and a giant right-wing spin doctor. Colmes said, "The President should defend his record, and that he should explain how his policies have worked. GM and Ford just announced they're hiring again and the stock market has rebounded. And for jobs, he should have another Works Progress Administration like Roosevelt. He should take billions of dollars and spend it through stimulus, which would put people to work building schools and roads." And then of course O'Reilly and Crowley both disagreed with him. Then O'Reilly talked about the Super Bowl ad with Tim Tebow. The pro-life group Focus on the Family is paying more than $2 million for a 30-second anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl. The spot features Tim Tebow, whose mother rejected medical advice to have an abortion while she was pregnant with him. O'Reilly had the liberal Jehmu Green, who wants CBS to ban the ad, on to discuss it. She said, "CBS has approved this ad, which contradicts their long-standing policy to not air advocacy ads. Pam Tebow was allowed to make a choice about her own reproductive health decisions that this ad is trying to take away from all American women. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine a woman's right to make decisions." And of course O'Reilly disagreed, because he is also pro-life and a Republican that supports the pro-life group. Billy argued that the ad, which has not been seen by anyone, seems to deliver an uplifting message. O'Reilly said, "This is a positive ad and the Tebows are happy with the choice they made. You're trying to muzzle this, which is not the American way." Okay now think about this, when moveon.org tried to run a political ad on the Super Bowl a few years ago CBS rejected it. At the time O'Reilly said they were right to reject it because they have a policy against political ads on the Super Bowl. But now that a right-wing pro-life group wants to run a political ad on the Super Bowl, O'Reilly supports it. Proving he is a biased Republican, and a massive hypocrite with double standards. Then the far right John Stossel was on with his analysis of President Obama's proposed tax on banks. Stossel said, "He wants to win votes by punishing some unpopular people who made money. He wants a small tax on all loans made by banks that have more than $5 billion in assets. Since when does the government have the right to say 'we don't like you and we're going to have a special tax on you?' This is wrong and counter-productive." Then of course O'Reilly agreed with Stossel, and Billy questioned the legality of the tax. O'Reilly said, "This is punishing an industry because a President and the Congress don't like the industry. I don't think that's constitutional." Which is just crazy right-wing spin. Show me some evidence that Obama does not like the Banking Industry, you can't, because there is none. And the constitutional argument is just nuts, it's the same insane argument the right-wingers made on the health care bill. The tax will be put on Banks to get back some or all of the money they lost by doing all those shady home loan deals. And since when is the Congress passing a tax unconstitutional, that is just ridiculous. Congress can tax anyone or anything, that is how it works, and how it has worked for hundreds of years. Then the two Republican legal experts were on for is it legal, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Billy asked them if the U.S. military can target and kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who is fighting for Al Qaeda in the Middle East. Wiehl said, "The CIA can go after him with a drone, if they have the administration's okay. That means they have to go to President Obama and say there is enough good intelligence, and the President would have to sign off on it." Guilfoyle agreed that al-Awlaki is fair game. She said, "People in the ACLU aren't going to like it, but too bad. Just because you're an American citizen doesn't give you license to commit acts of jihad against the United States." O'Reilly said there could be a wrongful death civil suit. That he has relatives in the USA, and if he's assassinated by a drone, the relatives could file a lawsuit. Which is just ridiculous, if you are fighting with Al Qaeda in a foreign country you are fair game, and the military can and should kill you. It's called war, and I'm shocked that O'Reilly thinks there could be a lawsuit. I am opposed to the death penalty, but war is a different story. If someone is trying to kill you, then you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force if needed. Get a grip man, if you were in Afghanistan and a member of Al Qaeda was trying to kill you, then you try to kill him if you can, American or not, and the guy is a traitor anyway so who fricking cares. The last segment was with the conservative Charles Krauthammer. He was on to discuss the political implications behind President Obama's partial spending freeze. Krauthammer said, "This is a fraud, and not just because Obama is excluding all the other spending and the military and the stimulus. So instead of reducing spending, the freeze is locking in these huge increases that were instituted last year." O'Reilly basically agreed with Krauthammer and said thank you for doing the show. Notice that there was no Democratic guest to give the other side or provide the balance. This is a violation of journalism 101, that says whenever you discuss a political issue you should give both sides of the story. And if you do not put a Democrat on with Krauthammer, you should at least have one on after him, which O'Reilly did not do. Every segment about the Obama spending freeze was with Republicans only, not one Democrat on the entire show was allowed to talk about the spending freeze, which is called right-wing propaganda. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. O'Reilly Spins Waterboarding Debate On Reality Check By: Steve - January 26, 2010 - 10:30am Here is a great example of what O'Reilly calls a reality check, which is in reality nothing but right-wing talking points. Read this, and then ask yourself how anyone can claim it's a reality check. Last night O'Reilly claimed the waterboarding of detainees at Gitmo by U.S. interrogators is the same as the training U.S. soldiers go through. In fact, military officials familiar with the techniques used in harsh interrogations and those used in military training programs have said that such a comparison is ridiculous, and that soldiers who go through interrogation techniques in military training programs are aware that there are safeguards, and know they can stop the training immediately if necessary. Here is what the old right-wing fool said: O'REILLY: Check one: Very divisive issue in America is coerced interrogation of captured terrorist suspects. Generally speaking, liberals oppose it, conservatives support it. The hot button is waterboardings; and once again, it was debated by former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, and CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour.Notice where O'Reilly stopped the video clip, at the cherry picked part of the interview he wanted you to see. Here is what was said after he stopped the tape: THIESSEN: I'm sorry. You went to S-21, the Khmer Rouge prison.Funny how O'Reilly never showed the rest of the interview. Especially after he complains when other people in the media use partial quotes to make him look bad, then he does the very same thing to Christiane Amanpour from CNN. And let's not forget this little fact O'Reilly failed to report: In a 2005, OLC memo, Steven Bradbury, the Bush administration's deputy assistant attorney general, wrote that individuals undergoing the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation, they know it will last only a short time, and they have assurances that they will not be harmed by the training."And btw, Marc Thiessen is a former speech writer for George W. Bush, something O'Reilly also failed to disclose. In that interview Thiessen was attacking Amanpour for a segment she did in 2008 where she simply reported that George W. Bush used waterboarding just like they did in the Khmer Rouge regime, and during the Spanish Inquisition. She did nothing more than report the facts, because that is exactly what Bush did. As David Corn notes, there wasn't "much difference between the Bush administration's interrogation policy and the techniques used by the Khmer Rouge." In 2006, a journalist e-mailed him a photograph of a painting done by a former Khmer Rouge prisoner depicting the torture he was subjected to, which shows interrogators pouring water on the suspect's face - exactly what was authorized by President Bush. ![]() And Matt Duss at the Wonk Room writes, "What was Thiessen's point. Oh yeah, to waste people's time arguing over whether a technique developed by torturers as a method of torture should really be called torture when employed by the Bush Administration. So then O'Reilly plays a partial cherry picked clip of the interview to defend Thiessen, and to make Amanpour look like she was in the wrong. This is called a reality check on the Factor. When the reality is, it's nothing more than right-wing spin. Amanpour simply reported that Bush used the same torture methods as the Khmer Rouge regime, and during the Spanish Inquisition. That is all she did, and for that she was attacked by Thiessen, and then O'Reilly. If that's a reality check, I'm donald Trump. More Tea Party Info O'Reilly Is Ignoring By: Steve - January 26, 2010 - 10:00am It's funny how O'Reilly has ignored this entire story, but he sure has time to report on Whaling and wild horses. This is a big story, and O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it. Tea Party Activists Criticize Financing And Cost Of National Convention, saying It Smells Scammy Tea party activists will meet next month at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN with the goal of bringing the Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation. But, infighting among tea party activist and leaders has already cast a shadow on the inaugural convention. Much of the controversy surrounds convention leader Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who controls the for-profit corporation Tea Party Nation, because of his intention to make money off of the event: "I'm not a socialist. I don't begrudge people trying to make money," but that's not what the tea party is about, said Antonio Hinton of the Knoxville Tea Party. "That convention has nothing to do with the tea party movement, as far as I'm concerned.""I think it is a great con of people making money off the passions of others," RedState's Erick Erickson told the Washington Independent recently. A Nashville-based tea party activist called Phillips Tea Party Nation dishonest and that it is hijacking the tea party movement. And Politico reported last week that three major sponsors have withdrawn support because of "the convention's unusual finances." Other groups followed suit: American Majority, a leading training outfit for tea party organizers, canceled two planned sessions at the convention and withdrew its sponsorship after learning about the convention's for-profit structure and the criticisms of Phillips.Besides the issue of Phillips money making venture, other tea party activist have balked at the convention's cost and the fact that Tea Party Nation is paying Sarah Palin $100,000 to attend. "When I've talked to our members, they've said this is entirely too expensive," said Jenny Beth Martin, the national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. It smells scammy, Erickson said, adding, "A $500+ per person fee to a for-profit organization run by people most people have never heard of is neither populist nor accessible for many tea party activists." At the same time, Politico adds that some tea party activists are considering staging protests outside the National Tea Party Convention. And just yesterday The New York Times reported that the National Precinct Alliance announced it will no longer participate in the convention. National director Philip Glass said he was concerned that the Tea Party Nation was "profiteering" and exploiting the tea party movement. So you know it's a big story when The NY Times reports on it, and yet, the great journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about the entire story. But he sure has plenty of time to report on anything that shows a problem in the Democratic party. Not to mention O'Reilly complains when the media ignores a big story, when he does the very same thing with the Tea Party story. O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Persons By: Steve - January 26, 2010 - 9:30am From the Monday 1-25-10 Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC: OLBERMANN: our winner, Bill-O the clown. About 60 networks carried the Haitian Earthquake telethon Thursday night. CNN did, we did. Fixed News didn't. At least, most of them did not, in lieu of the telethon, instead run a pathetic program whose lead story was about how great the program was and how great its coverage of Haiti had been. Bill-O did. O'REILLY: Fox News had almost six times as many viewers as MSNBC primetime, five times the audience of CNN. That's not a victory. Now, most of the liberal media ignore that story, and will not tell you how dominant Fox News has become. That's why many newspapers are failing. They simply don't tell you the truth. But writing in The Miami Herald, TV critic Glenn Garvin did tell the truth.He then proceeded to read a quote from Glenn Garvin, for years the hands down winner in any poll of newspaper TV writers or of TV people as the TV critic the most in Fox's pocket, the farthest down the lunatic fringe rabbit hole. Here we read Glenn Garvin in hopes of seeing something shrill and reactionary to reaffirm that we're on the money. Instead of two hours to help Haiti, Fox gives us Bill-O. Instead of here is the phone number to help Haiti, Bill-O gives himself -- patting himself on the back and this comic relief Garvin smooching his hiney. Then the coup de grace: O'REILLY: To be fair, CNN has covered the Haiti story very well. There's no question about it. And I applaud the CNN correspondents who have done such a good job. But our Fox News correspondents are just as good.Then why don't you put them on, instead of stroking yourself in front of the American public? Just once. Just an hour off from your desperate attempt to bring validation and meaning into your purposeless little life, by reading out the ratings again. Bill, this is a new emotion for me. I don't know how else to say this: I am now embarrassed for you. Bill "I Have Big Ratings; That Makes My Whole Life Worthwhile" O'Reilly, today's worst person in the world. --------------------- Keith also added this at the end of the show: That's COUNTDOWN for this the 2,461st day since the previous president declared mission accomplished in Iraq. One other late bit of news. Bill O'Reilly's lead story tonight was again Bill O'Reilly. I'm Keith Olbermann, good night and good luck. Low Life O'Reilly Casts Doubt On Honesty Of Haiti Telethon By: Steve - January 26, 2010 - 9:00am And why you might ask, because they failed to provide someone to be a guest on the O'Reilly Factor to talk with Bill about where the money is going and how it's getting there. So what this low life scum (Bill O'Reilly) did was smear the people who donated millions of dollars of their own money, and the people who also donated their time to man the phone lines and perform on the show. This is what the great Bill O'Reilly does with his time, speculate about people who raised $60 million dollars for Haiti in one night. And btw, O'Reilly has no evidence, none, that the money will not get to Haiti, and that it will not all be spent to help the people of Haiti. But he still did an entire segment (SPECULATING) that the money may not be spent in the right way. Even though he claims to never speculate, and to not allow speculation on the Factor. Here is the video, watch it, then write to O'Reilly ([email protected]) and tell him what a low life scum he is for attacking the Haiti Telethon, with no evidence that they have done anything wrong. Ask him to provide some evidence they are not doing the right thing with the money. And if not, ask him why he would smear people who raised $60 million dollars for charity with no evidence. I have to say this is one of the most shameful things O'Reilly has ever done, and that is saying a lot. He is attacking more than 100 people who spent two hours raising $60 million dollars for earthquake aid. It's disgusting and revolting, and the man should be horse whipped for it, or better yet, waterboarded. Here is my question for O'Reilly, how do you sleep at night pal. You are a pathetic embarrassment of a human being. And if you did this shameful segment just for ratings, it makes you even worse than scum. How anyone can watch this joke of a fake news show is beyond me. What kind of person attacks the people who raised $60 million dollars for earthquake aid in two hours, with baseless speculation, Bill O'Reilly, that's what kind. The Monday 1-25-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 26, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called Being Bold & Fresh. O'Reilly did an entire talking points memo talking about the ridiculous tour Beck and O'Reilly are doing, which I refuse to report on because it's just stupid. I will say this, if O'Reilly is a nonpartisan independent as he claims, why is he on a tour with the far right nut job Glenn Beck. O'Reilly even cried about the liberal media attacking him and Beck, ummmmm who cares, and good. Billy played clips of the show, and the whole thing was basically shameless self-promotion. The top story was about why the GOP can not put out a united front. Basically O'Reilly is wondering why the GOP is not doing better in the polls, and he asked what they can do to take more of an advantage of the low Obama approval numbers. It more or less sounded like a strategy meeting for the Republican party, then it did a segment on a so-called nonpartisan no spin zone news show. The biggest attack O'Reilly could come up with against the GOP is that they are rudderless. Brit Hume was on to discuss it. And Hume sort of disagreed with O'Reilly, but not much. He said the GOP is united, about as much as they can be. Then he cited the falling Obama job approval numbers, and the Senate win for Brown. But what Hume ignores is that the Republicans are worse in the polls then the Democrats are, and as O'Reilly pointed out Brown won because the Independents voted for him instead of Coakley. Hume is about 99% Republican, where O'Reilly is only about 95% Republican, so they disagree once in a hile, but not very often. They did point out that there is no leader of the Republican party right now. Notice that no Democrat was in this segment, so it was basically two Republicans spinning the story out. Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. And O'Reilly finally reported about the Fox poll that shows if the election were held today Obama would beat all the Republicans, but he never put the poll results on the screen, or discussed it. Then he cited some other poll that said Obama would lose by one point to Huckabee. Williams said those polls are worthless 3 years before an election, and for once he is right. And of course Ham just kissed O'Reilly's ass and agreed with every word he said, as she always does. Here is one thing they never talk about, if the conservatives run a Tea Party candidate and a Republican party candidate against Obama in 2012, they will split the vote with conservatives and that will cause Obama to win, just as it did in 2000 when Nader ran with Gore and Bush. These great so-called news analysts never say a word about that. The big question from Billy was can the Tea Party overtake the Republican party and beat their candidate. But they never say a word about splitting the vote, which will help Obama win his re-election. The next segment was about Michelle Bachmann & Arlen Specter facing off on Dom Giordano's radio show. Billy wanted to know what was going on between them. I really do not care, and I did not think it was that big of a deal, but O'Reilly cared enough to do an entire segment on it. Billy called Giordano his pal, who btw is a right-wing radio host. Basically Specter and Bachmann had a heated debate about the Obama health care plan. Specter told Bachmann to not interrupt him, and to act like a lady, that he did not interrupt her. O'Reilly played a short clip of their debate, maybe 30 seconds. And of course O'Reilly had Michelle Bachmann on to discuss it, with nobody there to defend Specter, or Arlen Specter himself. O'Reilly even called Specter a crusty old guy, and said Bachmann was brilliant in the debate, and that she destroyed him. Which is insanity, Bachmann is a right-wing nut, and Specter made her look like a fool. The whole segment was ridiculous, and nothing but one sided right-wing spin. With no Arlen Specter to give his side, or anyone to speak for him. Making it the usual biased one sided right-wing garbage from O'Reilly and crazy Michelle Bachmann. Then O'Reilly did a segment asking where the $60 million raised from the Haiti Telethon is going. The nerve of this guy, Fox News does not even air the Telethon, or mention it, and then O'Reilly does a segment asking where the money is going. O'Reilly wants to know where the $60 million is going, and says he is going to investigate where it goes. Here is my message to O'Reilly, if you do not air it, you can not question anything about it, jerk. If your news network does not even have the decency to air the fricking Telethon, then you have no right to ask any questions about anything they do, jackass. O'Reilly said nobody from the telethon would go no the Factor to discuss it, and then he said that is a bad sign. He even had some right-wing fool on to trash the telethon with him, who I will not name. Here is my question, Fox news did not even air the telethon, so then you wonder why they refuse to do a Fox News show to talk about it, get a grip man, you have lost it. O'Reilly and this right-wing nut basically smeared the telethon, and implied all the money will not get there, which is baseless total speculation, which O'Reilly said he never does. Then at the end of the segment he even implied they did something wrong, with no evidence to back that claim up, and said you should donate to Haiti, but only through the Red Cross and other charities, as if the Hope For Haiti Telethon was not a valid and honest charity. My God man, you are scum. Here is another message for O'Reilly, shove it a-hole. Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on to give us his biased right-wing opinions on the Obama State of The Union Speech Wednesday night. Billy played clips of people from the Obama administration on the Sunday talk shows. Then O'Reilly and Goldberg hammered the Sunday talk show hosts for not being tough enough. The whole segment was nonsense, from two right-wing fools. O'Reilly called it a powderpuff situation, when he did a powderpuff interview with Palin, so he does the same damn thing. Goldberg said they did ok, but it was still not that good, and that he is not as upset about it as O'Reilly was. It's the pot calling the kettle black, Fox does softballs with all the Republicans, yet O'Reilly and Goldberg never say a word about any of that. These two fools never say anything about Fox or any conservative bias in the media, they ignore all that. Making them biased one sided right-wing hypocrites. They also cried some more about the Obama administration being at war with Fox News, how it's a big mistake, ummmmm who cares, get over it and move on morons. The last segment was the ridiculous, biased, one sided Factor reality check, or what O'Reilly calls a reality check. There is usually no reality, and almost no checks. Just O'Reilly putting his spin on what some liberal said, which is not reality, and usually has no checks. I will report one from Monday night just to give you an example of what O'Reilly calls a reality check. Check #4 - get ready for the jet pack, it will have 30 minutes of flying time, cost $100,000, and weigh 250 lbs. How is that a reality check on anything, and who cares. And btw, check #5 was a video from youtube of a dog playing a piano, and it was even a fake, the dog was not playing the piano. How in the hell is that a reality check on anything. And as I reported many times, the first three reality checks were just spin on what a liberal said. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Sean Penn was the pinhead, but O'Reilly called him a recovering pinhead. Remember this, O'Reilly is the guy who cried that liberals do all the name calling. And btw, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, it was all Republicans all the time. Beck & O'Reilly Claim Liberals Do All The Name Calling By: Steve - January 25, 2010 - 12:00pm I guess they forgot about a thing called the Tea Party protests. Where Obama was called everything from Hitler to Mao, from Communist to the Devil, it was endless. Not to mention all the names they call Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, etc. And a hell of a lot of it happens right on the Fox News Network, and the Fox website. I guess they forgot all that. During an event for their Bold Fresh Tour, portions of which aired during the January 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Bill O'Reilly asked Glenn Beck why progressives "want to hurt us," and Beck replied: BECK: If you can't win the argument, you have to shout them down, you have to call them racist, you have to call them names. You have to do whatever it is you have to do."In fact, Beck himself has a history of calling people, including President Obama, racist, shouting at those who disagree with him, and resorting to calling progressives names like evil, socialists, communists, and Marxists. Under hypocrisy in the dictionary it says see Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly is also a giant hypocrite, and notice that O'Reilly says why do they want to hurt us, when nobody wants to hurt them, it's the conservatives who use religion and a gun to go shoot and kill liberals. Name one liberal who has grabbed a gun and killed a conservative, it has never happened. But many onservatives have killed abortion doctors, and they are proud of it, they even call the killer a hero, just do a google search on the "army of god" to see what I am talking about. Funny how Beck and O'Reilly never mention any of that. Beck says those against him "can't win the argument," so they resort to shouting, race-baiting, and name-calling.: O'REILLY: Why do you think there's a level of hatred against you and against me that there is? I mean, look, I was kidding about Bill Maher before. I don't hate Bill Maher.And that may be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Earth to Beck and O'Reilly, you two are the guys that lose the argument, and the conservatives are the people that want to hurt their political enemies. Just do a google search on it, and you will see the facts. Not to mention O'Reilly calls people names every night, but only liberals, he calls them nuts, loons, stupid, etc. Not to mention O'Reilly has a segment on his show where he calls someone a pinhead every single night. What I do is just give you some of your own medicine, you call liberals names so I call you names. The difference is, I do not cry and lie about it like a little bitch, like you two punks do. Beck even wrote a book called arguing with idiots/liberals, and on top of that he calls people more names than anyone in the media, except for maybe O'Reilly. Beck has called people Racists, Marxists, Vampires, Bloodsuckers, Nazis, Fascists, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pinheads, and on and on. Then he complains that liberals call him names, it's pure insantity, and the pot calling the kettle black. And btw, people hate Beck and O'Reilly because they are partisan right-wing spin doctors who spin and lie about everything, it has nothing to do with jealousy. And it's the Republicans who shout people down, look at what they did in the town hall meetings last year. They stormed the town hall meetings of Democrats, and only Democrats, then shouted all the liberals down so nobody could hear what they had to say. And yet crazy Beck and O'Reilly sit there and claim the liberals shout the conservaties down, it's ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing lies. Another Poll O'Reilly Will Never Report By: Steve - January 24, 2010 - 12:30pm And guess what, it's from Fox News, the very network O'Reilly works for, he ignores his own poll because it disagrees with his partisan opinions. In the days since Scott Brown won the special election for the Senate Fox News has been giddy. They have predicted the end of everything from health care to the Obama presidency. The only problem is that nobody told the voters. A new poll from Fox News taken January 21st, shows that Barack Obama is favored over every Republican they surveyed against him. In hypothetical head-to-head matchups, President Obama tops each of the Republican candidates tested. By 47 percent to 35 percent Obama bests former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The president has an even wider edge over former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (55 percent to 31 percent), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (53 percent to 29 percent).And that is what a Fox News poll says, just imagine what a real poll would say. On top of that, we now know that the Tea Party is movement is largely a mirage created by the conservative media (Fox News). Because almost half the country does not even know they exist. As proof of that, this new poll from Fox has Obama against a generic candidate from the Tea Party and Obama wins by more than two to one (48% to 23%). Even among Republicans a majority (54%) reject the Tea Party candidate. Ask yourself this question, if O'Reilly is an honest nonpartisan journalist, as he claims, why does he ignore his own news networks polls. Instead he reports the polls from the biased Rasmussen, who is even more biased than the Fox polls. What say you Billy? Hope For Haiti Raises Record $58 Million By: Steve - January 24, 2010 - 10:00am No thanks to Fox News, who were the only cable news network to not air it. During the two hour telethon Fox News ran their regular programming, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity. And what is really sad is that while the telethon was on O'Reilly did not even mention it, he did not mention their phone number, the number to text $10, their website address, tell anyone to make a donation, or say one word about any of it. O'Reilly has the #1 rated show in all of cable news, and he never once said one word about the telethon. And they still raised a record $58 million dollars in one night. Now imagine what they would have raised if say, at the start of the Factor O'Reilly said this: Hi folks, tonight the O'Reilly Factor will not be seen, instead we will air the Hope For Haiti Telethon, so everyone who watches my show should watch the telethon and make a donation.Imagine how much they would have raised if even half the 3 to 4 million viewers O'Reilly gets would have made a donation. Instead, he ran his regular show, and never even said one word about the telethon. And neither did Hannity btw, who also gets 2 to 3 million viewers a night. And btw, O'Reilly hates all the hollywood actors, and calls them pinheads, simply because they have mostly liberal views. But when a major disaster happens, like 9-11 or the Haiti earthquake, they are the first people to volunteer their time to raise money for the victims. And yet O'Reilly does nothing but trash them, simply because they support liberal ideas. In O'Reillyworld that's a sin. Not to mention, they also donate million of dollars of their own money. And not only did O'Reilly not mention the Haiti Telethon, he never said a word about people like George Clooney and Brad Pitt donating a million dollars of their own money. But when a Republican singer plans a concert, and says he will match the ticket sales and donate them to Haiti, O'Reilly reports that, and names him a patriot. But if a hollywood liberal donates a million dollars to Haiti, O'Reilly does not say a word, and they are not named patriots. George Clooney donated a million dollars to Haiti, O'Reilly said nothing. Leonardo DiCaprio donated a million dollars to Haiti, O'Reilly said nothing. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie donated a million dollars to Haiti, O'Reilly said nothing. Giselle Bundchen donated $1.5 million dollars to Haiti, O'Reilly said nothing. Madonna donated $250,000 dollars to Haiti, O'Reilly said nothing. Not to mention all the hollywood celebs who donated their time to man the phone lines, or perform at the telethon for free, and O'Reilly said nothing, not a word. Friday night's telethon set a new record for disaster relief telethons, said Lisa Paulsen, head of the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Some of the world's top celebrities took part in the broadcast from New York, Los Angeles, London and Haiti. It was shown on all major US TV channels, YouTube and on MTV, except for the Fox News Network. More than 100 Hollywood and music stars took part. Some of them performed while others, including director Steven Spielberg, singer Stevie Wonder and TV star Ellen DeGeneres, took telephone pledges from viewers. The actor George Clooney, who organized the event, said: "At the core of every religion is the belief that we care for one another, we take care of each other especially in times of need. The Haitian people need our help, they need to know they're not alone, they need to know that we still care." CNN and MSNBC both aired every minute of it, Fox did not even mention it, let alone air it. Think about that for a minute, then ask yourself who the patriots are, and who has the real cable news networks. The Truth About Ratings For News Shows By: Steve - January 23, 2010 - 11:30am O'Reilly sure loves to brag about his ratings, he has even said his show is the highest rated news show in the world. Which is just sad, because it's not even the highest rated news show in America, let alone the world. In fact, it's the 4th highest rated news show in America. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it's cable news, fake wrestling gets more viewers than you do. Here are some facts about ratings, for O'Reilly and his giant ego. The top four rated News Shows in America are: 1) NBC Nightly News - 10.3 MillionThe O'Reilly Factor is #4, it averages 3.2 to 3.8 million total viewers a week. Now think about that for a minute, we have roughly 310 million people in America. That means less than 1% of the American people watch the O'Reilly Factor. And he has the highest rated show on Fox, so less than 0.5% watch the rest of Fox. Look at who is #1, #2, and #3, the so-called liberal media, according to O'Reilly. He claims that Fox is #1 because nobody wants to see liberal news, while NBC, ABC, and CBS all beat him in the ratings. As Spock would say, that does not compute. Only a partisan right-wing idiot would say nobody in America wants to see liberal news, when the top 3 news programs are all liberal, and O'Reilly even admits they are liberal. As he claims nobody wants to watch them, while the majority of Americans are watching them. His arguments are so biased they do not even make sense. This is what I call O'Reilly propaganda, say it loudly and for long enough and pretty soon maybe someone will believe it. You can not claim NBC, ABC, and CBS, are liberal media sources, then argue nobody watches them because they are liberal, when they have the top 3 rated news shows in America, except in O'Reillyland. Now let's talk about who watches the news, and why. Over the years internet news and blogs have exploded, places like yahoo news, google news, huffingtonpost, etc. Not to mention all the big blogs like thinkprogress, dailykos, du.com, etc. That is where most liberals get their news, we barely watch any tv news shows anymore because they are mostly corporate driven garbage. I stopped watching CNN years ago, because they moved to the right when they hired Lou Dobbs, Paula Zahn, etc., and most the liberals I know of stopped watching them too. The only tv news shows I watch anymore are Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Bill O'Reilly, and once in a while Rachel Maddow. And I do not even watch them every night, except for the Factor. So I get 90% of my news from the internet, as do a hell of a lot of other people, especially liberals. We have mostly stopped watching the tv news shows because they are a joke, all they care about are ratings. Which is not what the news was supposed to be about, the news is supposed to inform you on important issues so you can make an informed vote. That is not what tv news shows do today, they do what it takes to get ratings. They talk about bears falling out of trees, they talk about models prancing down a runway in their underwear, they talk about tabloid garbage, hollywood celebs, etc. etc. etc. This is not news folks, it's tabloid/sexist garbage to get ratings. Then you have demographics and age. Republicans watch more news than Democrats. And older people watch and read more news, that is a fact. The average age of an O'Reilly Factor viewer is 71 years old, yes I said 71 years old. So basically the average Factor viewer is a 71 year old conservative. A Pew media survey shows that 72% of the Factor viewers are conservatives, which is 2nd in all the media, behind only Rush Limbaugh with 77% conservatives who listen to him. So what this proves is that O'Reilly gets high ratings by targeting his news coverage to that 72% of conservatives who watch his show. That is not mainstream America, it's the old right-wing America. It's why you see Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc. on the Factor every night. To get ratings from his mostly old right-wing viewers. It's really a simple formula, if you have a news show on a right-wing news network, you target your demographic and give them what they want, all right-wing news, all the time. And it works, that is why O'Reilly has the #1 rated show in cable news. But if you took the O'Reilly Factor and put in on CNN, or MSNBC. He would be lucky to get a million viewers a night, like all the other news shows that are not on Fox. Outside of Fox news Keith Olbermann has the highest rated show on cable, and he gets about a million total viewers a night. That is pretty much the limit for a non-Fox news show. Because people that do not watch Fox get their news from a lot of other places, not to mention the liberals that do watch tv news split their numbers between CNN and MSNBC. Where ALL the conservatives watch Fox. If CNN was not on the air all the liberals would watch MSNBC, then it would be a more fair comparison. Conservatives have one news network, Fox, while liberals have two, CNN and MSNBC. To prove my point, look what happens to Fox News shows when they do a news show that is not on the Fox News Network, it bombs in the ratings. Last week the Fox News Sunday news show was dead last in the ratings, as they are every week. 1) NBC - 3.62 MillionAs you can see when you take a Fox news show off of the Fox news network nobody watches it. Fox news shows only get high ratings when they are on the Fox news network. That is 100% proof they do so well in the ratings because of what network they are on, and who is watching them. And let's not forget what news shows are supposed to do, they are supposed to inform the people with the news they need to know to make an informed vote. Not just put anything they can on the air to get the most ratings. Which is what O'Reilly and Fox news do. All they care about is ratings, and putting out right-wing biased news while doing it. This is not what the founding fathers wanted when they put freedom of the press in the 1st amendment. In fact, I bet if they were alive today they would be ashamed that Fox is even called a news network. Because it is not news, it's infotainment passed off as news. And on top of that it's right-wing biased infotainment. News shows should not even have ratings, only entertainment shows like American Idol, etc. should have ratings. The news shows should not even care about ratings, what they should care about is telling the truth in an unbiased way, so the people are informed with the truth. Which is not what we have now, today all they care about are ratings. And the O'Reilly Factor is proof that it's all about ratings, instead of honest and truthful journalism. O'Reilly does whatever it takes to get ratings and spin out his ideology, and to hell with informing the people or the truth. It's all right-wing spin and tabloid garbage, slanted to the right, to get ratings from his targeted demographic, old Republicans. It works, but it's not objective news. It's simply a biased news show, on a biased news network. Where less than 1% of the people watch it, so about all it does is make O'Reilly rich and famous, it does not inform the people with honest and objective reporting. Ratings do not equal truth, or honesty, it just means you can get high ratings by giving a specific demographic of people what they want. And btw, the WWE Monday Night Raw wrestling is the #1 rated show on all of cable, and it's all fake, none of it is real, so that proves you can get high ratings with fake and dishonest tv shows, just as the Factor on Fox news. It's fake and biased news, but it does get high ratings. Proving that ratings do not equal truth or honesty. Two Videos That Prove O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Idiot By: Steve - January 23, 2010 - 10:30am If you want a good laugh, and a good look into what the O'Reilly Factor is all about, watch these two videos. In the first video O'Reilly talks about how fair and balanced Fox News is, and he even claims they are more balanced than the competition. Which is just laughable, and everyone knows it, yet he still lies about it with a straight face. And then after you stop laughing from that comedy bit, try this one. A few minutes after O'Reilly had just said Fox News is more balanced than the other cable news networks he had his little slip of the tounge with Chris Wallace. O'Reilly says Fox is a conservative network, ummmm no it's not a conservative network, we just give voice to conservatives. O'Reilly said Fox is a conservative news network, then he suddenly realized what he said, so then he says Fox is not a conservative news network. Then he tried to explain the statement by saying we are not conservative, we just give conservatives a forum to speak. Billy have you ever had a mental evaluation, because that sounds like something a retarded 5 year old would think of. When you say you give conservatives a forum to speak, you have just admitted you have a conservative news network, you fool. Are you sure you went to Harvard? Because a high school dropout could come up with a better excuse than that. But I doubt a high school dropout would be dumb enough to say you have a conservative network to begin with, let alone try to retract it by saying you only give voice to conservatives, which is the same damn thing. Thanks for the laugh Billy, I enjoyed it, and I'm sure a lot of other people will too. The Friday 1-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 23, 2010 - 10:00am The TPM was called Far-Left Collapse. O'Reilly talked about Air America going out of business and then he claimed it shows the far-left media is collapsing. Except NBC Nightly News is the #1 rated News Show in America, and has been for years, not to mention MSNBC is not going anywhere. So O'Reilly is crazy, because there is no collapse. It's a slow economy and the internet gets a lot of people to read the news, so clearly some news outlets are having a hard time. Notice that O'Reilly does not mention that right-wing news outlets are having trouble too, like the Washington Times, he ignored that. O'Reilly used a graphic from Johnny Dollar to claim Fox is fair and balanced, who is a total far right nut, just do a google search on him. O'Reilly claims that high ratings equal fair and balanced coverage and reporting the truth, which is just ridiculous. You can either claim that ABC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-NBC-NPR-NYT-WAPO etc. are the "liberal media," or that there is no market for liberal media -- but not both. O'Reilly says they are all part of the liberal media, then he says the liberal media is collapsing, when none of them are collapsing. And btw, The Washington Times has been losing money for two decades, and in the early days of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch paid cable companies $11 per person to carry Fox. The point here is that the conservative media outlets have succeeded not only because of market forces, as conservatives like O'Reilly would have you believe, but because right-wing billionaires like Murdoch and Rev. Moon have been willing to subsidize them. And btw, most of the progressive talk radio shows will stay on the air, because they were not part of Air America, something O'Reilly never said a word about. Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller are all still on the air. O'Reilly never mentioned any of that. He implies that because Air America is gone, so are all the liberal talk radio hosts, which is just not true. And he called it a collapse, which is pure right-wing spin. Not to mention O'Reilly was just giddy that Air America went out of business, when in a Democracy you need both points of views represented. O'Reilly don't care about that, all he cares about is Fox getting high ratings. Then O'Reilly had Dennis Kucinich on to discuss it. And of course O'Reilly tried to get him to agree with what he said, and Kucinich said he disagrees. So he did not agree with O'Reilly, no matter how hard he tried. O'Reilly claims that liberals are getting killed on all fronts, but if that is true why do they have all the power and control everything. Billy claims the folks are saying no to everything the Democratic party wants, and Kucinich told O'Reilly he is not being honest. Then O'Reilly said the left-wing media is dying all over the place, when it was one radio station that went bankrupt. The whole segment was a joke, one radio station going out of business is not a collapse. Then O'Reilly had a ridiculous segment about how the USA is moving to the right, simply because the Democrats lost one Senate seat, which is just insane. I guess he forgot the Democrats have the White House, the House, and the Senate. And not once in 8 years of Bush did O'Reilly say the USA is moving to the left when Democrats started winning elections during the Bush years. The whole segment was garbage, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. The Republican Chris Wallace was on to discuss it, and he disagreed with O'Reilly. He said Kucinich is right, and that there is no big shift to the right. He said liberals are in trouble, but that there is no big shift to the left. And then O'Reilly disagreed with Wallace again, but Wallace did not change his opinion. So the last two guests both disagreed with O'Reilly, one Democrat and one Republican, yet O'Reilly still made his ridiculous claim, because he can never admit he is wrong. Then O'Reilly talked about his ratings from this week again, which has nothing to do with telling the truth or doing a fair and balanced news broadcast. Wallace even pointed out that CNN had big ratings when Obama won, and that Fox had big ratings when Brown won, which proves nothing. O'Reilly denied it all, proving he is a pinhead. O'Reilly then slipped up and admitted the truth to Wallace, he said Fox is a conservative news network, then he realized what he said and changed that to we are not really conservative, we just provide a conservative point of view. When it's the same damn thing, O'Reilly was busted and admitted Fox is a conservative news network, then he tried to deny it with a ridiculous excuse. Saying you are conservative, then changing it to you just give a conservative point of view, is the very same thing, dumbass. Then Geraldo was on to talk about the Haiti earthquake, and to have an update on the missing kids of the guests O'Reilly had on Wednesday night. Geraldo was live in Haiti at the hotel where the kids were staying, and he thinks anyone still under the collapsed hotel Montana is most likely dead after 10 days. Geraldo said they got there quickly but they did not have the heavy equipment to rescue the people trapped in it. Then the body language bimbo was on to do the ridiculous body language segment. Which I refuse to report on because it's nothing but mumbo jumbo nonsense, it's not news, and has no news value at all. It's a segment you expect to see on Geraldo, or Inside Edition, not a so-called real news show. Then O'Reilly had the insane right-wing nut Glenn Beck on for his regular weekly segment. Beck did his usual insane routine where he spins out all his right-wing nonsense, then the two of them sit around and trash Obama and all the Democrats. They brag about their great ratings, and how they are the only people in the media who tell the truth. Then they promoted the Beck and O'Reilly road show, which is for morons only, and if you pay to see this crap you need a check up from the neck up. If you pay to see O'Reilly and Beck do any kind of a show, you are truly a fool. It's the one year anniversary of the Glenn Beck show going to Fox. O'Reilly told him how great he is, and what a great decision he made to come to Fox News. Here is the funny part, the top three shows at Fox are O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. Yet O'Reilly claims they are not a conservative news network, after he said they were, then said they were not. Earth to O'Reilly, if your top three shows are run by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, you are a conservative news network sparky. And the last segment was the lame dumbest things of the week segment with two more right-wing fools, Greg Gutfeld and Alisyn Camerota. They sit around and tell you about what they think are the dumbest things of the week. My question is, how is this news, and why should anyone care what these three right-wing morons have to say about anything. Nobody knows who they are, and nobody cares what they think about anything. What a shocker the dumbest things of the week they picked involved President Obama and John Edwards, and some deer that lives in a house video. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Fox News Did Not Air Hope For Haiti Telethon By: Steve - January 22, 2010 - 10:00pm Now get this, on the Friday night Factor Bill O'Reilly talked about how great Fox News is, how high their ratings are, and how great a job everyone at Fox did in their reporting on the Haiti earthquake. O'Reilly even hammered the people who criticized Fox for their lack of prime-time reporting on the Earthquake on Wednesday night. So what does Fox do when the Hope For Haiti Telethon is on from 8pm to 10pm Friday night, they ignored it, and instead aired their regular programming, the O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity. What did CNN and MSNBC do, they showed every minute of the telethon. Yes Fox News was the only cable news network to not show the telethon. And not only did they not show it, neither O'Reilly or Hannity said one word about it, or told anyone to watch it and donate money. Because it was on at the same time their shows were on and they wanted to get the ratings. Talk about low life scum, O'Reilly and Hannity are at the top of the list. Over at CNN and MSNBC their 8 to 10 anchors allowed the network to air the Haiti Telethon. Not at Fox, Billy and Hannity had to do their regular shows so they could get their ratings, and to hell with the people in haiti, or the Haiti Telethon. I have to say this is a new low for O'Reilly, Hannity, and Fox News. I counted 19 tv stations that aired it, even the Comedy Channel showed it, but not Fox News. No coverage at all, nothing, not even a mention. Almost every tv network we have showed it, except for Fox News. Talk about an outrage, this is it. Then O'Reilly has the nerve to say his show and Fox have done a good job in reporting on Haiti. When they did not even show the fricking Haiti Telethon, they could not cancel their regular programming for two lousy hours to help the victims of the Haiti earthquake, and that is pretty damn sad. Here is my message to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the Fox News Network. You should be ashamed, how do you sleep at night. How can you ignore the Haiti Telethon, when all the other cable news networks showed every minute of it. Then on top of that, not even mention it, or tell anyone to watch it and make donations. You are scum, all of you, you are nothing but greedy right-wing a-holes. And I mean every word of what I just wrote. People say I am outraged at this or that, but this is a real outrage. And every person who works for Fox is a joke, a partisan joke. You should be ashamed to call yourself a News Network, you should be ashamed to call yourself Americans, and you should be shamed to cash your dirty paychecks. Hate Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Lover By: Steve - January 22, 2010 - 2:00pm Today I got this insane e-mail from another one of O'Reilly's idiot viewers, notice that it's nothing but personal insults against me, and that he does not mention one thing on the website that is not true. Proving he has nothing, and that he is just a mindless O'Reilly loving right-wing idiot. Subject: CommentTalk about idiots, this guy Sal must be the king of idiots. After ONE Senate loss, ONE year into the Obama Presidency, he already has Obama the worst Presidet ever. When the Democrats still have 59 Senate seats, and a big majority in the House, not to mention Obama still has 3 years to turn things around. And btw, it's impossible for Obama to be the worst, because nobody could be worse than George W. Bush was. You also have to remember that Clinton and Reagan also had below 50% approval ratings after their first year in office, and yet they both got re-elected to a 2nd term and went down in history as great Presidents. This moron Sal is a classic O'Reilly loving right-wing idiot, clueless and biased. And one last thing, it's Olbermann, not Oberman, genius. The Thursday 1-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 22, 2010 - 9:00am The TPM was called Political Revolt. O'Reilly said Chaos is breaking out amongst liberals over the Brown win. Which is just ridiculous, he won and now we move on, the Democrats still have a majority in the House, and 59 Senate seats so they are still doing ok. I have not seen any liberals in Chaos because Brown won. O'Reilly used the Brown win to claim the left is falling apart, which is the same thing he said in 2004 after Bush was re-elected. It's nonsense, and total right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly claims all hell is breaking loose, why, because a few Democrats argued on tv over why Brown won. That's not all hell breaking loose, it's political argument. Once again it's just a made up story by O'Reilly because he knows his right-wing viewers love to hear about liberals in Chaos. Of course a few liberals disagree on why Coakley lost, and what Obama should do about it, but that is normal and nowhere near Chaos. Calling it Chaos is just ridiculous right-wing propaganda. Basically liberals disagree with moderate Democrats, which is the way it's always been, no Chaos, just the usual disagreement. O'Reilly played clips of a few Democrats talking about the Brown win on tv, and claimed it's Chaos and all hell breaking loose. O'Reilly loved it, and thought it was funny as hell. Then he said the Democrats have no message and no plan. WTF? Earth to O'Reilly, the Democrats have the White House, the House, and the Senate, you moron. He even said none of this happened with Republicans when McCain lost to Obama, huh? They flipped out and started the insane tea party protests, did you miss that, the right went into crazy land when Obama won, somehow O'Reilly forgot all that. Then O'Reilly had Lanny Davis and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it. Hill pretty much agreed with O'Reilly, which was a surprise to me. Davis said Obama needs to move to the center and that if he does not do it they will lose more seats. Davis also pointed out that they said Clinton was done in 1994 and he came back to win re-election in 1996. Davis also said some liberals attacked him over a column he wrote saying Obama has to move to the center. Then O'Reilly bragged about his ratings again. Billy asked Dr. Hill how the left can say he was partly to blame for 9-11, and Dr. Hill said only 7 people think that, not the entire far left, O'Reilly said good point. Then O'Reilly said he had almost 7 million viewers last night (Wednesday) that's a lie, he had exactly 4,632,000 million viewers Wednesday night, and Tuesday night he had exactly 5,228,000 million viewers. Earth to O'Reilly, 4.6 and 5.2 is not almost 7 million. Then Laura (far right) Ingraham was on to discuss the Brown victory some more. O'Reilly and Ingraham love to talk about it because the Republican won, but if the Democrat had won they would have stopped talking about it two days ago. It's Thursday and O'Reilly is still doing half the show on the Brown victory. Earth to O'Reilly, the election is over, so why don't you move on and report some real news for a change. Ingraham said it is really getting ugly in the Democratic party, and they spent another entire segment talking about the so-called Chaos on the left. O'Reilly said this stuff only happens with people on the left, which is ridiculous, it also happens on the right, and even worse. They go out and kill people they disagree with politically, I guess O'Reilly and Ingraham forgot all that stuff. This whole segment was totally ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin and lies. They act like the left are the only people who get mad when they lose an important election, and that stuff like this never happens on the right, when it does, and even worse. Yes it's bad that the Democrats lost that Senate seat, but it's nowhere near as bad as O'Reilly and Ingraham claim. Then the two Republican culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson, were on to discuss the Brown victory even more. What his win has to do with culture is beyond me, I guess O'Reilly just wants to talk about it as much as possible because he knows his mostly right-wing viewers love to hear about it, and it's getting him good ratings. He claims Brown was not hurt by his nude photo spread, but that if a woman had done the same thing she would have been hurt by it. This is tabloid trash, and I could care less about any of it. They said it was a double standard, now tell us something we don't know, Billy also believes it is a double standard, and no-body cares. They spent the entire segment talking about this crap, zzzzzzzzzzz. Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the Supreme Court that struck down some parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, it was a 5 to 4 ruling of course. The 5 conservatives voted one way, and the 4 liberals voted the other way. Which means even more money will go into elections, and that is not a good thing. Then they talked about the Ft. Hood shooting, and some report by Togo West that said it was not a Muslim related shooting. O'Reilly and Kelly were outraged, and said it was ridiculous. Then some more sexting garbage, that is not news, and I refuse to report on. They also talked about some ridiculous lawsuit by Weight Watchers against the Jenny Craig weight loss operation, which I also refuse to report on because it's tabloid trash. Then O'Reilly talked about the Nicholas Kristof column on Haiti in the New York Times. Kristof said we should help Haiti, and that if they do the right things it can be a productive country one day. O'Reilly talked about it because in one small part of the column Kristof says O'Reilly is wrong about Haiti. So basically O'Reilly has an ego so big that if anyone dares to say he is wrong about anything, he does a segment about it on his show, to get back at the person who dared to say the great O'Reilly was wrong. Of course O'Reilly said Kristof was wrong, and that he mislead his readers. Billy had Lesly Jacques from Radio Haiti on to discuss it. And he said Kristof is right, and that O'Reilly is wrong. Jacques said to keep sending money to Haiti, just make sure you send it to a valid charity. Then O'Reilly talked about Clooney and some hollywood celebs doing a Haiti telethon, O'Reilly asked if that was doing a good thing, I say of course it is, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. How can it be a bad thing to do a Haiti telethon. Only an idiot like O'Reilly would even question if it was a good thing or not. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. O'Reilly Caught Lying About Haiti Attacks On Fox By: Steve - January 22, 2010 - 8:00am Monday night O'Reilly said the far-left is attacking Fox News for it's Haiti coverage. Which is a bold faced lie. Here is exactly what he said. O'REILLY: The far left is trying to say that Fox News doesn't care about Haiti, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Writing in The Los Angeles Times, Fox News hater James Rainey says: "CNN does it right in Haiti, but Fox drops the ball. O'Reilly even devoted the first quarter of his hour-long program to the quake, focusing mostly on his concerns that U.S. aid will be lost if it can't be kept away from thugs and Haiti's corrupt leaders."To begin with Rainey is only talking about the top three Fox shows, O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity. The night the Earthquake story broke Fox only devoted seven minutes to the story, on all three top shows combined. That is what Rainey was talking about, he did not criticize "all of Fox News" for all of their Haiti coverage, he was only talking about O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck on Wednesday night. Notice that O'Reilly does not mention that, he implies Rainey criticized all of Fox News for their Haiti coverage, which is just a lie. In the Rainey article he specifically cites their prime-time shows with Hannity and O'Reilly, and Beck, and he also says he was only unhappy with their Wednesday coverage. None of this was reported by O'Reilly, in fact, he did not report it on purpose so he could dishonestly attack Mr. Rainey for his reporting. O'Reilly also said this: O'REILLY: "Check" thinks it is disgraceful for these Kool-Aid drinkers to exploit the suffering in Haiti by attacking their political rivals. We think it's hateful and demonstrates how low these people are.This is classic O'Reilly, misrepresent what someone said about him and Fox, then attack them as the liars and the kool-aid drinkers. When all they did was point out that on Wednesday night the top three rated shows on Fox, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, only spent 7 minutes on the Haiti story combined. While the top three shows on MSNBC spent two hours on the story Wednesday night. This is a fact, and they are right, notice that O'Reilly does not dispute any of it. He just lies about what they said, when they were exactly right. Then he says Fox had triple the ratings so that shows that people know where to go for the truth. To begin with, ratings have nothing to do with the time you spend on a story, how good your coverage is, or if it's the truth, so that statement is just insane. And nobody is saying the day time Fox reporting was bad, they are only talking about Wednesday night, something O'Reilly totally misrepresented. The Fox News reporting on Haiti has been good, except for "Wednesday night" on the O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck shows. And that is all the critics were talking about. O'Reilly implied that everyone is attacking ALL of Fox News for their Haiti reporting, which is just not the truth. O'Reilly lied about the whole thing, then bragged about his ratings, which have nothing to do with anything, and said it shows he tells the truth, as he was lying about the whole story. Here are the facts, on Wednesday night O'Reilly did a short talking points memo on the Haiti earthquake that lasted about 2 minutes. Then he spent the rest of the show doing his regular right-wing garbage with all right-wing guests to get ratings. Including a segment with Bo Derek talking about Whaling ships and wild horses, and those are the facts. That same night between O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity they only spent 7 minutes combined reporting on Haiti. Those are the facts. So a few people criticized the lack of Haiti reporting by the top three shows at Fox, then O'Reilly attacked them for simply reporting the facts. It was just the same old dishonest garbage from O'Reilly, they were caught ignoring the Haiti story in prime-time so he attacked the people who reported it. This is what O'Reilly does, when you report the truth about him, he attacks you, and tries to make you the bad guy, when he is the bad guy, and he is just using diversion tricks. The facts are the facts, just read my Wednesday night blog on O'Reilly and you will see exactly what he did. And you will see that O'Reilly is a liar. Majority Of Americans Do Not Want Palin In 2012 By: Steve - January 21, 2010 - 10:00am O'Reilly claims that only liberals hate Sarah Palin because they fear her, which I have said is ridiculous, and the polls back me up. I have said that the majority of America does not like Sarah Palin because she is an unqualified moron, it has nothing to do with fear, it's about her lack of intelligence, and her far right positions. And now a news poll shows that I am right. A new CBS News poll finds that a large majority of Americans say they do not want former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to run for president.Notice that 56% of Republicans do not want her to run, and 65% of Independents do not want her to run. Not to mention overall 71% of the American people do not want her to run. This destroys the O'Reilly lie that only liberals do not want her to run, and that they attack her because they fear her. How could they fear Palin when 71% of the people do not like her. This poll shows just how much O'Reilly is in the tank for Palin, and how much he will lie for her to make her look good. If the majority of Americans in every party are opposed to you, that means you are not well thought of. It also shows that it has nothing to do with fear, it's about being qualified, and about being a far right nut. The people oppose Sarah Palin because she is an unqualified right-wing idiot. And yet O'Reilly claims she is smart and qualified to be the President, and he has even lied for her to make people think she is, when everyone can see she is not. The Wednesday 1-20-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 21, 2010 - 9:30am The TPM was called Deteriorating Power. O'Reilly talked about the Brown win and how it will lead to Obama having less power. And being a Republican O'Reilly sure loved it, he was practically giddy talking about the loss by Coakley. Then O'Reilly said Obama has lost so much power he can forgot about cap and trade and all his other liberal plans. And then O'Reilly attacked Obama once again over terrorism, which is partisan garbage. Billy said the loss means nobody wants his far left policies. Then Dick Morris was on to spin it even more and agree with O'Reilly, as he almost always does. Morris claims Obama has moved too far left and that if he does not move to the center he is done and will not have a 2nd term. Morris also claims that Obama has pissed off so many people with his far left policies that nobody will work with him now. And even O'Reilly disagreed, proving that Morris is just an idiot. O'Reilly even admitted that Obama is not done, and that he can turn things around. Morris also said he does not think health care is dead, and that the House might agree to pass the Senate version. O'Reilly is confused, he thinks the Senate has to vote again because there is no bill, which is not right, and O'Reilly is clueless. The health care bill can pass without another vote, if the House agrees to the Senate version. And the great O'Reilly is so stupid he did not even know that. How can a so-called journalist with the #1 cable news show be that confused, even I knew it could pass without another vote if the House agrees to the Senate version. Maybe he should spend more time in the research department, instead of kissing Palins ass and doing softball segments about her. The next segment was more on the Brown win, O'Reilly had Democrat Joe Trippi on to discuss it. Billy played a clip of Obama talking about the Brown win, saying he won because people are angry. Trippi agreed with Obama, and said Obama better get it together. Basically Trippi was on to be the token Democrat so somewhere down the road when O'Reilly is accused of having a right-wing bias he can say he had Joe Trippi on. But he still has almost a 7 to 1 Republican to Democrat guest count. Billy asked Trippi what Obama should do, Trippi said create more jobs, take on the banks, take on the Insurance companies etc. Then O'Reilly said he can not do that because he has lost all credibility. Which is ridiculous, the Democrats lose ONE Senate seat and somehow O'Reilly thinks that means Obama has lost all credibility, that's just a stupid thing to say. And something only a total right-wing spin doctor would say. Yes the Brown loss hurt Obama and the Democratic party, but it sure as hell did not cause him to lose all his credibility. O'Reilly is crazy with that statement, can you imagine him saying a Republican lost all his credibility because they lost ONE Senate seat, it would never happen. And in fact, O'Reilly would spin it to help the Republican. Then O'Reilly had the total fraud right-wing corrupt pollster Frank Luntz on to discuss the political ads run by Brown and Coakley. This guy Luntz is a fraud, and a corrupt pollster. And yet O'Reilly puts him on his show and tries to pass him off as an honest independent pollster. When he is nothing but a right-wing partisan fraud. And btw, he admitted he could not get any Coakley supporters for his focus group, and yet he did it anyway without them. Talk about corrupt, that's it. Then O'Reilly had him on anyway to do his one sided biased focus group report. And of course they trashed Coakley and the ads she ran, while praising Brown and the ads he ran. Luntz also smeared Obama because he did not help Coakley win, when it's not his fault she lost, it's her fault. And btw, on the screen it said Political Consultant, not Republican Political Consultant, which is what it should have said. O'Reilly did not disclose that Luntz is a Republican Political Consultant. When he complains if MSNBC does it with a Democrat, then he does the very same thing with a Republican. Then O'Reilly did a segment on Haiti. Billy talked about some American girls who were in Haiti at a hotel who are missing. O'Reilly had the parents of two missing kids on, Len Gengel and Angie Hayes. Gengel said it's an outrage the US military has not been to the hotel they were at yet. Hayes was also outraged that they were not working fast enough to find their missing kids. O'Reilly defended the military by saying they are doing the best they can. But the two guests say the military was not doing enough, that they had people who got there by bus and by helicopter, and they were mad. Billy said he understands their pain. Then O'Reilly said he will get them in there to find em, and if they had come to him sooner he could have done more. O'Reilly also said he will update this story on Friday. Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about the Brown win, and makes jokes about liberals. Which is what he does every Thursday, so there was really not much to report, except that Miller was on to do his usual unfunny insult jokes about liberals and President Obama. Miller made a joke about the founding fathers in a toga, which was not funny, and made no sense. Then the two of them basically sat around and trashed Obama, they more of less called him a fraud who just made a bunch of campaign promises and then never followed through on them. After ONE year Miller has wrote him off, even though he still has three years left. Miller called Obama a failed intellectual elitist. Mostly because he did not torture the underwear bomber. What gets me is O'Reilly screams bloody murder if a COMEDIAN makes a joke about Sarah Palin, but somehow it's ok for Dennis (the has been that never was) Miller to make jokes about the President and insult him. It's some of the worst hypocrisy I have ever seen. The last segment was the total waste of tv time garbage about what Sarah Palin does in her spare time. How is this news, and what is it doing on a news show. I refuse to report on this nonsense, but I will say it was more like an RNC campaign ad then it was a news segment. This is not news, it's O'Reilly trying to help Sarah Palin look better for her possible run to be the President in 2012. My God O'Reilly, just quit the Factor and sign on to be her campaign manager if you want to do partisan crap like this. O'Reilly asked her what she does for fun. She said she hunts, Moose, Caribou, etc. O'Reilly was very impressed that she actually shoots a Moose and eats it. Then he insulted Hillary Clinton with some lame joke, by saying he does not think Hillary is out shooting Moose. Earth to O'Reilly, it's not a big deal to get a gun and shoot some animal, it's a simple thing to do, and not very impressive, except to right-wing morons like you. Here in Illinois lots of people hunt and kill Deer, are you impressed with that too. You get a gun, load it, then shoot an animal, it's not that impressive. My God this segment was just pathetic. At the end O'Reilly praised Palin for her b-ball skills, and said he is going to set up a basketball game with Obama, Palin, and himself. Then I barfed my dinner up from watching this softball ass kissing segment with Palin. Then the pinheads and patriots and the Factor e-mails. O'Reilly named Martha Stewart the pinhead for doing a sexy dance on her show with two other women, fully clothed btw, in long pants and a big baggy sweater. Fox News Said Brown Win Will Cause Market Rally By: Steve - January 20, 2010 - 12:30pm UPDATE - 1-21-10 -- The DOW closed DOWN 121 points yesterday, the day after Brown won. Yesterday on Fox & Friends Stuart Varney, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade all said if Brown wins the stock market will go up. CARLSON: Are you concerned about the money in your 401(k)? Who's not, right? Well, you may want to make a call to Massachusetts and get some people out to the polls? That's because our next guest, and a friend, says that your portfolio could look much better if Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat. Who's that friend? Stuart Varney is here.TheFoxNation.com also posted this headline "Brown Win Could Cause Huge Stock Rally" and linked to a post on NewsBusters.org. Charles Payne also predicted a market increase if Brown wins. On the January 19 edition of the Fox Business Network's Varney & Co., host Stuart Varney asked contributor Charles Payne if a Brown victory "sends a huge message to Washington." Payne responded that "it fertilizes the soil for an incredible longer-term stock market rally. Wall Street will be so happy. You will hear the corks popping from Wall Street in this studio." Guess what, they were all wrong, as usual. Right now as I type this at 12:30pm on Wednesday afternoon the Dow is DOWN 198 points, yes I said the DOW is down 198 points. Proving that the people at Fox News are idiots you should never listen to. O'Reilly Upset You Can Not Make Fun Of Arabs Anymore By: Steve - January 20, 2010 - 10:00am Last Friday Bill O'Reilly had the singer Ray Stevens on the Factor, who proudly described himself as "right of Attila the Hun" to discuss Stevens new right-wing parody song about Obamacare. O'Reilly praised Stevens, who performed parodies on the Andy Williams Show, and said he has been a fan since he was a kid. O'Reilly then highlighted one of Stevens songs from 1962 called "Ahab the Arab" about a cartoonish sheik of the burning sands who rides a camel, and lamented "you could never get away with that today: STEVENS: That was 1962. The Council on American-Islamic Relations wasn't around. You know, there wasn't evil or an intent in that song except for fun.Of course, many Arab-Americans find Stevens parody offensive. In fact, the term Ahab has become a racial slur thanks to Stevens song. This doesn't seem to bother O'Reilly, who also joked that Islamic women cover themselves because "the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." Basically O'Reilly is saying he is upset that you can not make fun of Arabs now like you could 48 years ago, and he pretty much wished it was still 1962 when you could make fun of people without anyone saying anything about it. What O'Reilly does not seem to understand is that you can still make fun of Arabs, or Asians, or anyone. If you are a COMEDIAN. Because that is their job, making jokes, and making fun of people. But when you are a so-called journalist with a so-called news show, you are supposed to be reporting the news, not making jokes, or making fun of people. The worst part is the hypocrisy, O'Reilly has Dennis Miller on every week in a regular segment to make fun of liberals. Then he complains when COMEDIANS make fun of Sarah Palin, it's ridiculous, and total hypocrisy. And when Stevens said he is right of Attila the Hun, O'Reilly had no problem with that either. But he hates everyone who is far left, and trashes them on a daily basis. So in O'Reillyland it's ok to be on the far right, but if you are a far left liberal there is something wrong with you, and O'Reilly hates you. The Tuesday 1-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 20, 2010 - 9:30am No TPM, and O'Reilly did his show live for once, usually it is taped so he can edit out anything that makes him look bad. Billy talked about a Politico poll out today that had Brown up by 9 points. Then O'Reilly played a minute or two of Fox News video clips from the campaign of Coakley and Brown. O'Reilly had Carl Cameron and Bret Bair on to discuss the campaigns, they were live at each campaign headquarters. O'Reilly talked about a report of Coakley pollster Selinda Lake blaming Obama for her loss. It's an unconfirmed internet rumor, yet O'Reilly reported it anyway. And of course the White House blames Coakley for losing, and that's if she does lose, nobody knows yet. Crazy O'Reilly said that even if Coakley wins there is still chaos in the Democratic party, whatever that means. It was basically a biased one sided report with three Republicans who work for Fox, with no Democrats, none. Then Newt Gingrich was on to discuss the election, with no Democrat guest to provide the balance. Billy said whatever happens America will change, then he asked Newt what will happen if Brown wins. Of course Newt praised him, and said it will be a big change in politics. Newt also predicted Brown will win, of course. O'Reilly said 22% of the Democrats voted for Brown, if that is true why in the hell are they in the Democratic party. The info came from Rasmussen, so I would not bet it is accurate. Then O'Reilly said if Coakley wins nothing will change and Obama will ram his liberal agenda down our throats. Basically O'Reilly and Newt spent 4 minutes trashing Obama and the Democrats, and talking about how they hope Brown wins so the Republicans can stop the Obama agenda. I would like to note that no Democrats were on to discuss the election, none. So much for fair and balanced reporting, it was all Republicans all the time. Newt rambled on for minutes non-stop with political spin, and O'Reilly sat there and let him. And btw, the people voted Obama into office in November of 2008 to give us his agenda, something O'Reilly never seems to mention. The next segment was Barack & a Hard Place with Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley. And finally a Democrat got on the show, but he had to split his time with crazy Crowley and O'Reilly. So even when a Democrat does get on he was not on alone. Crowley predicted Brown by 4 points, Colmes had no prediction. So O'Reilly trashed Colmes for not making a prediction, and said he could get a 6 year old to do the same thing. Crowley laughed her ass off and though it was really funny. Then O'Reilly said if Brown wins all hell will break loose in the Obama White House tomorrow, whatever that means. Crowley said the Democratic party is already in chaos, even though they have the White House the House, and the Senate, making Crowley an idiot. And btw, Fox News promoted the Brown campaign, they told people if Brown wins the stock market will go up, had Brown on numerous Fox shows to raise money, and one Fox anchor (Gretchen Carlson) even told people to get out and vote for Brown, while Dick Morris asked for people to give Brown money. Yet O'Reilly never said a word about it, now imagine what he would say if an MSNBC anchor did the same thing for a Democrat, he would go crazy, yet a Fox News anchors does it and he says nothing. Basically O'Reilly and Crowley dominated the time, and Colmes barely got a word in. At the end Crowley said if Brown wins the Obama job approval will drop to 40% and he will be hurt by it a lot. Colmes disagreed, and said it will not hurt Obama very much at all. The next segment was with Geraldo, O'Reilly cried about France and Chavez complaining about what the USA is doing in Haiti. It was basically a garbage segment for O'Reilly and Geraldo to trash France and Chavez. Then they talked a little about the actual earthquake, and Geraldo said it was the worst thing he has ever seen. Then O'Reilly bragged about how great the USA is, and what a noble nation we are. Which nobody doubts, and he is right, but the USA also does some bad things that O'Reilly never talks about, and he acts like we never do anything wrong. After trashing France and Chavez they spent the rest of the segment talking about the dire situation in Haiti. Then O'Reilly had the two Republican legal experts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on for the is it legal segment. And as I like to point out, there are no Democratic legal experts for this segment, just the two Republicans. They talked about what will happen if Brown wins, and when will he be certified and sworn in, which could take weeks. They speculated it could end up in the courts, when O'Reilly said they never speculate. Then O'Reilly hammered the ACLU for asking for information on the drone attacks. Guilfoyle and O'Reilly both said this is ridiculous, and O'Reilly wondered if we could get a drone with a hellfire missile to hit the ACLU headquarters. Then he realized what he just said, and he said I am not calling for that, after he just did. Then they talked about the Letterman bribery scandal trial over his sexual relations with CBS employees. The last case was about a group of kids who pointed a drunk girl towards a swamp, and the girl drowned. Billy said the mother may sue, and the so-called legal experts say she has no case. The last segment was more on the Senate election. Billy had Mary Anne Marsh and Howie Carr on to discuss it. O'Reilly said it looks like Brown will win. O'Reilly asked Marsh if she was going to cry, which was a little harsh. Carr said he thinks Brown will win and that the Obama visit did not help Coakley. Carr even called the race for Brown, with only 35% of the vote in, with Coakley down by 5 points, 52 to 47. So basically O'Reilly had a Democrat on at the end of the show with Howie Carr so the two of them could gloat about how it looks like Brown will win. Two Democrats were on the entire show, Colmes and Marsh, and both of them had to go on with a Republican, neither one of them were on alone. At the end of the segment O'Reilly made a joke about Marsh being on suicide watch and asked if she needed any help, she said no, and that she was just sad that Coakley lost. Even though it's technically not over yet, as of 7:55 CST. Brown will most likely win, but it's not over yet. Then the totally ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the Factor e-mails. O'Reilly named Jennifer Lopez the pinhead, for simply making a Sarah Palin joke on the George Lopez show, a comedy show. She said Palin is only the fourth dumbest person on Fox now, haha. I'm guessing it's Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, then Palin, or maybe Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, then Palin. Personally I would have Palin #1, then Beck, then Hannity, then O'Reilly. I will say that O'Reilly is not stupid, he is just a partisan right-wing liar, the rest of them are actually stupid. And btw, at the end of the show O'Reilly said it looks like Brown is the winner, then 5 seconds later Hannity came on and said it's too close to call. Then later it was reported that Brown did win. Three Gitmo Prisoners May Have Been Killed By: Steve - January 19, 2010 - 1:30pm This is a big story, three Gitmo detainees may have been killed, and yet the Great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not even mentioned it, not a word, ever. This story was reported last year in July, and even before that in 2006, but O'Reilly has not reported it one time. Now we have new information, men who were there in the military are speaking out, and they are saying they think those three Gitmo detainees were killed by interrogators. And that the military did a cover up to make it look like suicides. But O'Reilly never says a word about it, I guess he is too busy bashing Obama and doing segments on Whales and Wild Horses. Here is the story O'Reilly is ignoring, and remember that he complains when the media ignores big news stories, then he does the very same thing. On June 9th 2006, three prisoners at Guantánamo Bay died suddenly and violently. The commander of Guantanamo at the time, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, immediately declared that the deaths were suicides, adding that he believed that the suicides were not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us. The conclusion that the deaths were suicides was accepted by the press at the time, and the matter was considered closed. Then, late last year an investigation by Seton Hall law school faculty and students found serious and unresolved contradictions in the military's report on the incidents, and even declared that it was an obvious cover-up. Now, following the Seton Hall investigation, Sergeant Joe Hickman and other soldiers stationed at Guantanamo have informed Harper's Scott Horton that they suspect that the three prisoners did not commit suicide but rather were killed by interrogators. Horton reports that Hickman - a stalwart solder who enlisted after being inspired by Ronald Reagan, was told by Navy guards and clinic staff that the men had been died because they had rags stuffed down their throats. Hickman teamed up with Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux and met with officials in the Justice Department and Capitol Hill throughout 2009, relaying their knowledge. Then, on November 2, 2009, a Justice Department official called Denbeaux and informed him that the investigation was closed. And yet O'Reilly said nothing, but think about this, Billy did a segment on the THREE Black Panthers who were accused of voter intimidation at ONE polling place in 2008. Then he did a follow up segment last week, saying it was an outrage that the DOJ would drop the case and not prosecute the THREE Black Panthers, even though he admitted it was small ball. But here we have evidence the Gitmo detainees might have been killed, and the DOJ drops the case yet O'Reilly never says one word about it, and this is not small ball. The detainees were found hanging by the neck, with rags stuffed down their throats, hoods over their heads, and their hands tied. Which is impossible to do, not to mention for some reason the guards that night ignored the 10 minute check in rule, and did not check on them for 2 hours. So it's pretty clear they were killed and then the military did a cover up to make it look like suicide. And some journalists are reporting it, but not at Fox, they ignore it. Horton appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last night and told the host that the Justice Department is "not behaving like a law enforcement agency, finding facts of criminal activity. The Department of Justice appears to be acting like a criminal defense law firm that realizes it's closely connected to people who are involved with some serious heavy-lifting crimes and it wants to cover them up. That's not what we expect of our Justice Department." But we have no reporting from O'Reilly, no outrage, no nothing. He just ignores the entire story because it happened under Bush, and it would prove that prisoners were killed, which O'Reilly has denied, and defended Bush by saying nobody was killed while being tortured. Remember this when O'Reilly complains about the media ignoring an important story, and remember that he is ignoring this story. Racist Tea Party Leader Mad GOP Ignoring Him By: Steve - January 19, 2010 - 11:30am The Washington Times reports today that Dale Robertson, head of TeaParty.org, is complaining of being ignored by the GOP. "I have called into the RNC many times, and they still haven't called me back," Robertson said. "I've called them, lots of times. I called them this morning. I called them yesterday. It's like they ignore you as they try to figure out a strategy on how to defeat you." Maybe they are ignoring him because he is a racist idiot who was caught with a protest sign using the N-Word, and he did not even spell it right. I guess he is so stupid he can not understand why they are ignoring a proven racist. ![]() While the RNC can't seem to return Robertson's phone calls, it is more than happy to pander to the tea partiers. Last year, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said, "Change is being delivered in a tea bag. And that's a wonderful thing." More recently, Steele has said he embraces the tea party movement and has claimed he'd be a protester if he weren't in his current position. And btw, O'Reilly has still not said a word about the Tea Party leader Dale Robertson being a racist, and his N-Word sign. I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it. Even though he has denied the Tea Party has any racism, and that they are all not Obama hating right-wing nuts. Proving once again that O'Reilly has a right-wing bias, and that he only reports the news he wants you to know about. And if the Tea Party is not a bunch of right-wing nuts, as O'Reilly claims, why are they trying to get the GOP to work with them. O'Reilly Said Health Care Dead If Brown Wins By: Steve - January 19, 2010 - 11:00am Last night O'Reilly said if Brown wins the special election for the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts, the Obama health care bill is dead. But Karl Rove disagreed with O'Reilly, and said it could still pass even if Brown wins. Then today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said health care reform will succeed, regardless of the outcome in today's special senate election in Massachusetts. "Let's remove all doubt, we will have health care - one way or another," Pelosi said. "Back to the drawing board means a great big zero for the American people." We will see who is right, O'Reilly or Pelosi. I'm betting on Pelosi, because I think they will find a way to pass it no matter what happens in the Massachusetts election. But what's really funny is how O'Reilly claims to be looking out for the folks, then he opposes health care for all, so he is on the side of the Insurance Companies, not the folks. Real News: Will O'Reilly Report It By: Steve - January 19, 2010 - 10:30am Here is a real news story out just today, in the Washington Post, the question is: will O'Reilly report it or ignore it. I am guessing he will ignore it, because it proves that liberals were right when we said Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans, that O'Reilly denied btw. FBI Broke Law For Years In Phone Record Searches The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions. E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed. FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni said in an interview Monday that the FBI technically violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when agents invoked nonexistent emergencies to collect records. ------------------- And remember this, at the time O'Reilly said it was not proven, and even if it is, they were justified because it involved terrorism. I also remember that Keith Olbermann and MSNBC reported the story at the time, and O'Reilly dismissed them as Bush haters, and basically called them lying traitors. But now we know MSNBC was right, and O'Reilly was wrong. Now it is proven, and we also know they lied to get the wiretaps when it had nothing to do with terrorism or any emergency. So let's see if the great journalist O'Reilly reports this and hammers Bush or the FBI for it, haha, don't bet on it. The Monday 1-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 19, 2010 - 9:30am The TPM was called High Political Stakes, and the entire TPM was about the race. O'Reilly talked about Obama going to Massachusetts to campaign for the Democrat Martha Coakley who might be in trouble in her run to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat because polls show her 5 points down. And of course O'Reilly said it was bad news for Democrats that she is behind in the polls, and that Obama had to campaign for her. When the election is not until Tuesday and she might just win, nobody knows yet. As usual O'Reilly jumps the gun and uses anything he can to smear a Democrat and President Obama. O'Reilly said Obama was putting his credibility on the line by trying to help her win, and he also said Obama sounded like a preacher. And that if they lose that seat it will be doom for Obama. Basically O'Reilly trashed Obama, when he is not running Coakley is. O'Reilly cited one poll that had Brown up by 9 points, when the other polls have it from 1 to 5 points. Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, and of course he said Brown will win. But even Rove said the poll that has it at 9 points is probably not right, but that is the one poll O'Reilly cited, while ignoring all the other polls that have it closer. Rove basically trashed Obama, as he always does, so it was just more one sided right-wing bias. Then O'Reilly said if Brown wins all hell will break loose for Obama, and the health care bill is done. O'Reilly had Sally Quinn and Chris Metzler on to discuss it. O'Reilly keeps saying if Brown wins Obama will be hurt big time, Rove disagreed, and so did Quinn. She said Brown is a hunk, and he has an advantage because he posed naked in a magazine, who cares about any of that. Metzler is the typical right-winger who was only put on to agree with everything O'Reilly said, which he did. Then they talked about Haiti, and O'Reilly said the USA is doing good there. Metzler and Quinn both agreed, which is what everyone thinks, except for Limbaugh and a few other far right idiots. This segment was a joke, and just more Obama smearing. Then Brit Hume was on to discuss the Massachusetts Senate race. And as expected Hume said it shows that the Democratic agenda is in trouble, and that Coakley should be winning by a mile. But when you have a slow economy with a lack of jobs, the party in power always suffers because rightly or wrongly they get punished for it. Hume said it will be good for the Democrats if Brown wins. Becuase the health care bill will die, and the people will forget it, which will help the Democrats. And of course O'Reilly disagreed, he said it's a different world now. And O'Reilly said if Brown wins it will hur the Democratic party for a year and the Republicans will take back both houses of Congress. It's all speculation, which O'Reilly said he never does, it was nothing but 100% pure speculation. Hume and O'Reilly both sat around speculating for 4 minutes. Hume would not make a prediction, but he said it looks like Brown will win. Then O'Reilly cried about the liberals who are saying "Fox News" did a bad job of reporting on Haiti, which is not what they said. They said their prime-time shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck did a bad job of reporting on Haiti, which is 100% true. O'Reilly twisted that into they are saying ALL of Fox News did a bad job reporting it, which is not what they said. Then O'Reilly had another smear segment on President Obama by saying he is not keeping his campaign promises. When he knows that no president can possibly keep all his campaign promises, and O'Reilly never does any segment on Republicans who did not keep their campaign promises. Bush broke every campaign promise he made, except for the tax cuts, and not once did O'Reilly do a segment smearing him for it. Not to mention Obama has only been in office for a year, so he still has time to keep some of those promises, so it's too soon to claim he has not kept his promises, when he might do them in the next year. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. O'Reilly said the nation is turning against President Obama, based on one question in an ABC News poll, and Juan said it's because of jobs. Juan did point out though that it's not a big disapproval, O'Reilly acts like it's 70/30 or something like that. As usual O'Reilly put his spin on it to make Obama look as bad as possible. And then of course Ham agreed with everything O'Reilly said, as she always does. The nation is not turning against Obama, he has a 50% approval to 43% disapproval at Gallup, with an average approval of 57% for his first year, that means most people still approve of the job he is doing. O'Reilly is just a right-wing idiot who wants to smear Obama any way he can. After just a year in office, proving what a right-wing partisan he is. When jobs come back his approval ratings will go up, and then O'Reilly will probably ignore the numbers then. Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss the Leno/O'Brien/NBC story. Which is a tabloid news story that I refuse to report on. O'Reilly is only reporting it because it makes NBC look bad, because he hates them, and so he can hammer them while the story is hot. It's a TMZ.com type story, not something so-called real news shows should be reporting on. This is just another one sided biased right-wing segment with two Republicans. Then for some reason they trashed the Boston Globe for not reporting on one poll that showed Brown ahead, they claim it was liberal bias. But if they run that one poll it might actually help Coakley, by getting more liberals out to vote, so how is that a liberal bias. Even Goldberg said he does not believe they ignored the poll for partisan reasons. But once again O'Reilly speculated they did, when he says he never speculates. Just because they did not report one poll that O'Reilly said they should have reported, he speculates they did it for partisan reasons and that they have a liberal bias. This is total made up right-wing nonsense. I can barely stand to watch this garbage, it's nothing but right-wing spin and propaganda. The last segment was the totally one sided and biased Factor reality check. I do not report it because it's so biased and frankly lame, but I will say what it is. O'Reilly plays video clips of things a Democrat said, then he gives you what he claims is a reality check on what they said. Here is the real reality check, there is no reality, and usually there are no checks. It's basically just O'Reilly's opinion of what a Democrat said. About 99% of the so-called reality checks are on Democrats, O'Reilly rarely ever does one on a Republican, and when he does it's just to make it look good so he can claim the segment is fair and balanced. I will say this, in one so-called reality check O'Reilly said that the Factor and Fox News did a great job in reporting on the Haiti earthquake. Which is just ridiculous, their prime-time reporting was a joke, and as I reported here the top three shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck did a total of seven minutes for all three shows on the day the news broke. The very same night the top three shows on MSNBC did two full hours, seven minutes to two hours, you be the judge. During the day Fox did a pretty good job with their Haiti reporting, but at night on O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck they were terrible. O'Reilly claimed that the far left media attacked ALL of Fox News for their Haiti reporting, which is just a lie. They only criticized the Fox News prime time shows for their lack of reporting on the earthquake on Wednesday night of last week. So as usual O'Reilly was spinning and lying about the story. Then he attacked Media Matters for reporting the truth about Fox and their 7 minutes of prime-time Haiti reporting on Wednesday, and then he bragged about his ratings for some reason, which has nothing to do with their lack of reporting on the story in prime time. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Basically the entire shows was just a smear job on Obama, with 99% right-wing guests, as it usually is. The Factor is pretty much the Obama smear Factor, because O'Reilly spends 90% of his time attacking Obama. O'Reilly named Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep pinheads for kissing at the Critics Choice Movie Award show, he showed the video of it, and even showed it a 2nd time with a close up in slow motion. But when the two men kissed in the Adam Lambert video they blurred it out. Proving O'Reilly and Fox have a gay bias, but only against gay men. And btw, we have an African American President and it was Martin Luther King Day, but O'Reilly did not have a segment about it, or even mention what day it was. Every other News show I saw at least mentioned it, and even ESPN was saying something about him after the commercials before they returned to live programming. The great journalist Bill O'Reilly, never even had the courtesy to even mention that it was MLK Day. O'Reilly Running Google Ads For His Townhall.com Page By: Steve - January 18, 2010 - 3:30pm O'Reilly claims he is not a Conservative, and that he is a nonpartisan independent journalist. If that is true, why is he a columnist for the far right townhall.com website, where he has his own page that is labeled "Bill O'Reilly, Conservative, Political News." And why is he running google ads that when you click on them it takes you to this page: http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly The townhall.com website is one of the most Conservative websites on the internet, other columnists who write for them are Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, etc. So how can O'Reilly claim he is not a Conservative when he has a column, his very own page at townhall.com that actually calls him a Conservative, and he is running google ads that take you to his townhall.com page. What say you Billy? Obama Average Approval Same As Reagan After 1st Year By: Steve - January 18, 2010 - 2:30pm O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends report on the Obama job approval numbers almost every day, and claim it shows that the people are not happy with how he is doing the job as President. And they are reporting it so often for partisan political reasons, to make Obama look bad. But they never tell you that President Obama has the same one year job approval average as Ronald Reagan. Who Republicans claim was the greatest President we ever had. Barack Obama has only been the President for one year, and he took over a disaster that the Republican President George W. Bush left him. Anyone who is the President right now would have low numbers, because of the economy, two wars, health care, etc. So the low job approval numbers are to be expected. What's funny is that when Bush had the 35% approval, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends defended him. They said Bush was a good President who was a victim of being the President during the housing market crash, and the wall street financial meltdown. What they fail to mention is that the Bush policies, and other Republican policies in the past that led to less oversight is what caused the problems. And Bush himself said he had to make tough decisions that may not be popular with the people, decisions that can not be made based on polls, but a strong leader makes those decisions. O'Reilly defended Bush for that, and continued to defend him until the very end of his 2nd term, when things got so bad he could no longer cover for the Bush mistakes. Now it's a whole different story, because O'Reilly hates Obama and his policies. Even though Obama has the exact same job approval after one year as Ronald Reagan had. Here are the numbers from Gallup, the numbers O'Reilly will ignore because it shows that even if you have low numbers after one year you can still end up being a great President. After one year of a four year term it's ridiculous to judge a President, except on that one year only. 1-18-10 -- PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama averaged 57% job approval during his first year in office. Compared with the first-year averages of other presidents elected to office since World War II, Obama's average ranks on the low end, tied with Ronald Reagan's, but better than Bill Clinton's historical low of 49%. Obama's job approval ratings averaged 51% for his fourth quarter in office. In the 1st quarter he averaged 63%, in the 2nd quarter he averaged 62%, and in the 3rd quarter he averaged 53% job approval. Despite all that, O'Reilly has declared Obama a failure, and said he will not be elected to a 2nd term. Something he would never say about a Republican President. Not to mention, Obama still has 3 full years to make things better, and to get his approval ratings back up. If two years from now, in January of 2012, things are about the same, the economy has not improved very much, jobs are not back, and Obama is still at 51% job approval, then I would say O'Reilly was right. But one year into a four year term it's way too soon to declare Obama a failure, and predict he will not win a 2nd term. That is all wishful thinking from O'Reilly at this point. President Obama still has 3 years to get his ratings back up, and to show people he can be a good President. If not, he will lose in 2012, but nobody can predict the future, and we will have to wait and see what happens in the next three years. Anyone who says he is a failure now, is nothing but a partisan right-wing spin doctor. Frank Rich: The Great Tea Party Rip-Off By: Steve - January 18, 2010 - 11:30am Here is a great article for anyone who wants to see the truth about the bogus Harry Reid "Negro" statement story, how RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, and the entire tea party is one big scam to raise cash and make people wealthy. It's a must read, and I suggest everyone read it. Here are some highlights: RICH: Even given the low bar set by America's bogus conversations about race, the short-lived Harry Reid fracas was a most peculiar nonevent. For all the hyperventilation in cable news land, this supposed racial brawl didn't seem to generate any controversy whatsoever in what is known as the real world. Eugene Robinson, the liberal black columnist at The Washington Post, wrote that he was "neither shocked nor outraged" at Reid's less-than-articulate observation that Barack Obama benefited politically from being "light-skinned" and for lacking a "Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Besides, Robinson said, Reid's point was "surely true." Steele is representative of a fascinating but little noted development on the right: the rise of buckrakers who are exploiting the party's anarchic confusion and divisions to cash in for their own private gain. In this cause, Steele is emulating no one if not Sarah Palin, whose hunger for celebrity and money outstrips even his own. As many suspected at the time, her 2008 campaign wardrobe, like the doomed campaign itself, was just a preview of coming attractions: she would surely dump the bother of serving as Alaska's besieged governor for a lucrative star turn on Fox News. Both Steele and Palin claim to be devotees of the tea party movement. "I'm a tea partier, I'm a town-haller, I'm a grass-roots-er" is how Steele put it in a recent radio interview, wet-kissing a market he hopes will buy his book. Palin has far more grandiose ambitions. She recently signed on as a speaker for the first Tea Party Convention, even though she had turned down a speaking invitation from the annual Conservative Political Conference. The conservative conference doesn't pay. The Tea Party Convention does. Palin's price for the event was $120,000. The entire Tea Party Convention is a profit-seeking affair charging $560 a ticket - plus the cost of a room at the Opryland Hotel. Among the convention's eight listed sponsors is Tea Party Emporium. This emporium's Web site offers a bejeweled tea bag at $89.99 for those furious at "a government hell bent on the largest redistribution of wealth in history." This is almost as shameless as Glenn Beck, whose own tea party profiteering has included hawking gold coins merchandised by a sponsor of his radio show. Last week a prominent right-wing blogger, Erick Erickson of RedState.com, finally figured out that the Tea Party Convention "smells scammy," likening it to one of those Nigerian e-mails promising untold millions. Such rumbling about the movement's being co-opted by hucksters may explain why Palin used her first paid appearance at Fox last Tuesday to tell Bill O'Reilly that she would recycle her own tea party profits in political contributions. But Erickson had it right: the tea party movement is being exploited - and not just by marketers, lobbyists, political consultants and corporate interests but by the Republican Party, as exemplified by Palin and Steele, its most prominent leaders. Full Story Here: www.nytimes.com/rich.html More Tea Party Info For O'Reilly To Ignore By: Steve - January 17, 2010 - 9:30am O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends have said a hundred times that the Tea Party is not just a bunch of Glenn Beck loving right-wing nuts. Even though the evidence that they are exactly that is everywhere, including this story. Which btw, O'Reilly has totally ignored. Only Right-Wing Publications Will Get Credentials To Cover The Tea Party Convention Having previously announced that the National Tea Party Convention would be closed to the press, organizers suddenly announced yesterday that they have changed their mind. But, the Nashville Post is reporting that only five media organizations will receive credentials for the entire convention: The five approved outlets are: Fox News, Breitbart.com, Townhall.com, World Net Daily and The Wall Street Journal. And what a shocker, all five are Right-wing organizations, not. The press release explains that the requests for credentials have been overwhelming and that to preserve the nature of the event they are limiting press availability. Yeah, limiting it to all right-wing media so they can control the coverage they get, and makes sure it's all positive. Sarah Palin will deliver the key note address at the convention, and she will be paid $100,000 to do it. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if the tea party were all Democrats and they claimed Republicans and Independents were part of the party, then they only gave out credentials to the liberal media outlets. What say you Billy, Palin is the keynote speaker, and only the right-wing media can cover it. Are you still claiming the Tea Party is not a bunch of right-wing idiots. Fox News Moron Caught Lying About Obama Spending By: Steve - January 17, 2010 - 9:00am O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News claim they are fair and balanced, and that they get such high ratings because they report the truth. So how do you explain the bias, the lies, the spin, and the lack of facts, that all make Obama or a Democrat look bad, they never do this to Republicans. Stuff like this right-wing idiot Eric Bolling put out Friday on the Glenn Beck show. And btw, this guy Bolling has been the fill-in for Beck and O'Reilly, look at these lies he put out, then ask yourself why you should ever believe anything he says. Then ask yourself how O'Reilly and Beck can use these proven liars to host their shows when they claim to be honest journalists. During the January 15th broadcast of the Glenn Beck show, Eric Bolling presented a chart titled "Obama's Checkbook" that showed what he claims is the Obama administration's new spending, but in fact it included a lot of spending from the Bush administration. BOLLING: The Obama administration certainly likes to spend your and my taxpayer dollars. Recently -- check it out -- they spent $700 billion on TARP, $787 billion on stimulus. $180 billion is either spent or lent to AIG. Don't forget the $115 billion -- these are all B's -- billion to Fannie and Freddie. $83 billion to cars. We're not going to see a dime of this. Don't forget the $1 trillion on health care, cap and trade, et cetera, et cetera. ![]() And now let's take a look at the actual facts, the facts Bolling failed to report in his lie filled segment. 1) Bolling included $700 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for TARP -- but Bush signed that check. TARP passed under George W. Bush, President Bush signed it into law on October 3, 2008, before Obama was even elected the next President, and a full 4 months before Obama took office on January 20, 2009. 2) Bolling included $180 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for the AIG bailout -- but $150 billion of that was authorized during the Bush administration. On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department announced a restructuring of AIG's bailout, increasing its total loan package to $150 billion. Then the Obama administration added $30 billion more to the AIG bailout in March of 2009. So Bush spent $150 Billion of the $180 Billion, yet Bolling counted it all against Obama. 3) Bolling included $115 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for the Fannie May and Freddie Mac bailout. But the Bush administration seized Fannie and Freddie in Sept. 2008, then they pledged up to $200 billion to them. On September 8, 2008, the federal government seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury agreed to provide up to $200 billion in capital to the two entities. This was all done by George W. Bush, yet Bolling counted it against Obama. 4) Bolling also included $83 billion in "Obama's Checkbook" for the GM/Chrysler bailout -- of which Bush allocated $17.4 billion. President Bush allocated $17.4 billion to GM and Chrysler in Dec. 2008. On December 19, 2008, President Bush made available $13.4 billion of TARP funds to General Motors and Chrysler and agreed to release an additional $4 billion to G.M. under this plan in February 2009. And yet, Bolling counted it all against Obama. And the rest of the $64 Billion Obama gave them in 2009 was a follow up to the plan Bush started, so they would not go out of business. This right-wing a-hole Bolling lied his ass off, and you can bet that every one of the people watching the Beck show that day now think Obama spent all that money, when the facts show that Bush spent most of it. And the money Obama did spend, was to keep the programs Bush started going. Not to mention Bolling never said a word about Bush spending any of that money, or the fact that what Bush did to the financial markets, the housing markets, and the economy when he was the President, are why any of that money had to be spent in the first place. Bolling blames it all on Obama like he caused it, without once saying Bush caused about 99% of it. This is what passes as journalism on the Fox News Network. Lies, and partisan attacks on President Obama to make him look bad, when the facts show the Republican George W. Bush is to blame for almost all of it. This is not journalism, it's partisan Republican propaganda, and the powers at Fox let it happen, in fact, they approve of it, when they know it's all lies. Then O'Reilly and Beck tell us they are reporting the truth so watch them, which is just laughable. Here it is in black and white, look at it, Bolling reported almost all lies, to smear Obama and make him look bad, when Bush did 99% of it. More Proof The Tea Party = Conservatives By: Steve - January 17, 2010 - 8:30am Remember that O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends reported that the tea party was not all Republicans, that it had Democrats and Independents too. Over the last few months we found out he was lying, as he usually is, because it's pretty clear liberals were right when we said the tea party is just a bunch of far right idiots that hate Obama. Every day we get new information about the people in the tea party, and every day we get more evidence that the tea party is full of far right conservatives, who are fed up with the Republican party because they are not conservative enough. And now the NY Times reported last week that the tea party is basically trying to become another Republican party, but even more conservative. HOLLAND, Pa. - 1-14-10 -- The Tea Party movement ignited a year ago, fueled by anti-establishment anger. Now, Tea Party activists are trying to take over the establishment, ground up.And they even admit they are conservatives, it says this right on their mission statement page at www.nationalprecinctalliance.org: We are a constitutionally conservative organization that has come together for the expressed and sole purpose of encouraging and educating Citizens in how to take part in the political process by becoming a Precinct Executive.It's who they consider "liberals in Republican clothing" that's perhaps most scary. Today's Republican establishment is, as far as the tea party is concerned, a bunch of sellouts. Just as the Republican Party has become as far-right and ideological as it's ever been, this fringe "tea party movement" insists the Republicans are not conservative enough. We're talking about a passionate, but deeply confused group of people -- the folks who believe Democrats are "fascists," the president is Hitler, and programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs that need to be abolished. There's nothing wrong with passionate citizens getting involved in the political process. But the American mainstream may not appreciate the fact that uninformed crazies, who think death panels are real, but global warming isn't, intend to take over the Republican infrastructure, more than they already have. And that is the tea party plan, take over and make the Republican party even more conservative than it already is. But for months O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News has denied the tea party are just far right Republicans who hate Obama, and to this day has still not reported the truth about them. O'Reilly even helps them by promoting and propping up their hero Sarah Palin. For anyone who does not know, O'Reilly has told Palin she should run for President in 2012 as the tea party candidate. He also pretends she is qualified to do it, and helps her spin out the false claims that she is smart and qualified to be the President. When everyone with a working brain, who is not a right-wing partisan, knows that she is a moron who is not qualified to be the Vice President, let alone the President. Palin will be the keynote speaker at the tea party convention, for which she will be paid $100,000. And here is more of what O'Reilly does not tell you. Palin is setting up a run for President in 2012 as the tea party candidate, the speech to them is step 1, step 2 is getting the job at Fox, step 3 is using the Fox News Network as a campaign outlet to get her views out for free, and actually get paid to do it. It's actually a brilliant move, but I doubt Palin thought of it, someone who works for her most likely came up with the idea, or someone in the tea party, she is getting paid to run her campaign through the Fox News Network. This not only saves her money, she has a platform on the #1 cable news network in America. She will use Fox News for about a year, then quit and run for President as the tea party candidate. And O'Reilly is more than happy to help her, he even told her she is welcome any time on the Factor to use his show to respond to anything anyone says about her. Because he loves him some Sarah Palin, and he helps her by pretending she is smart and qualified to be the President. Then he also helps her by ignoring the truth about the tea party, and by giving her a forum to speak her far right views any time she wants. And remember this important fact, Bill O'Reilly is the guy who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone who is fair to both sides, yeah and I'm Donald Trump too. Doomsday Clock Moved Back Because Of Obama By: Steve - January 16, 2010 - 10:30am And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it. Because the clock was moved back under Obama, and it was moved forward under his hero George W. Bush. Here is what they wrote. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced Thursday that it would push their Doomsday Clock back one minute - to six minutes to midnight - in recognition of President Obama's efforts to combat nuclear proliferation and climate change. 1-14-10 -- Citing a more "hopeful state of world affairs" in relation to the twin threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of its famous Doomsday Clock one minute away from midnight. It is now 6 minutes to midnight. The decision by the BAS Science and Security Board was made in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes 19 Nobel Laureates.And as usual, O'Reilly gives no credit to President Obama for any of that, instead he does an hour every night bashing Obama with 95% right-wing spin doctors. Not to mention, O'Reilly claims Obama is making us less safe, when the Doomsday clock is being moved back because Obama is making the world more safe. Proving that O'Reilly is a clueless partisan liar who simply wants to hurt Obama (and the Democratic party) politically so Sarah Palin will have a chance to beat him in the 2012 election. Except I have some bad news for Billy, and you heard it here first. Sarah Palin will not even win the Republican Primary, let alone beat Obama in the General election. By November of 2012 the economy will be doing well, jobs will be coming back, Obama will have higher job approval numbers, and President Obama will be re-elected for a 2nd term no matter who the Republican is they run against him. Bet on it. Factor Regular Karl Rove Caught Lying Again By: Steve - January 16, 2010 - 10:00am Here is my question, does Karl Rove ever tell the truth, it sure don't look like it. And this is a Factor regular that is put on by Bill O'Reilly to give the American people an honest political analysis. When all he does is put out right-wing lies and propaganda, this is the type of people O'Reilly uses, proven liars and partisan hacks. Last week Karl Rove wrote in the Washington Post that Obama and the Democrats in Congress "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years." That is just a flat out 100% LIE. So today David Axelrod replied to the Rove lies with some actual facts, and truth. Something Rove clearly knows nothing about. Here are some highlights of what Mr. Axelrod wrote: AXELROD: Rove has some impressive campaign victories to his credit. But given the shape in which the last administration left this country, I'm not sure I would solicit his advice. And given the backhanded advice he offered, I'm not sure he was all that eager to help.Basically what Bush, Cheney, and Rove did was pass all those spending bills and tax cuts, without paying for them, they sort of took out a loan to pay for it all. Now the bills for it are coming in and Rove blames it on Obama, when Bush is the one who spent all the money, then left it to Obama to pay for. President Obama has only added about $500 Billion to the debt so far, the rest is from the Bush administration. But Rove blames it all on Obama, when Bush caused 80% of it, proving that Rove is nothing but a lying partisan idiot, and that nobody should ever believe a word he says. This is the Senior political analyst for the O'Reilly Factor, a proven partisan spin doctor, which says as much about O'Reilly and how he operates, as it does about Karl Rove. The Friday 1-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 16, 2010 - 9:00am The TPM was called The Great Satan. O'Reilly talked about how some anti-American people oversees call the USA the Great Satan. Then he talked about how we have done more good on this Earth than any other nation in history. He said President Obama has pledged $100 million to help the Haitian people, and that's in addition to the almost $3 billion we've already given them since 1992. The he cried about Russia, who has only pledged one mobile hospital and twenty doctors, how Hugo Chavez only sent one plane of relief supplies, and Saudi Arabia has pledged nothing. Then O'Reilly said everyone can see who the good guy in the world really is. Which is true, we do a lot of good. But we also do a lot of bad, like the invasion of Iraq that was illegal, that got thousands of innocent Iraqi people killed after 9-11, when they had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, and no WMD's. O'Reilly ignores all that, he refuses to talk about it, and other things like that, and he pretends we never do anything bad, especially if a Republican does it. America is a great country, and we should be proud. I am a proud American and I love my country. But the reality is, we also do some bad things that are none of our business, and that is most of the reason the muslim terrorists want to attack us. We have a lot of American troops on foreign soil, mostly because of the oil they have. It's pretty much all about the oil, and we have pissed off a lot of muslims because of it. This leads to terrorism against us, which has nothing to do with them hating us because of our culture etc. They hate us because we have put American troops on Arab soil and killed them. Something O'Reilly refuses to admit, or talk about. So O'Reilly is half right, we are a great country, but we also make some big mistakes being the police to the world. And O'Reilly ignores it all, to pretend we never do anything wrong. Here is my question, where in the Constitution does it say we must be the police for the world. Unless I'm crazy it says we must defend our borders, I do not remember seeing anything about making our borders the entire world. Then O'Reilly had two Fox News reporters on live from Haiti, Steve Harrigan and Jonathan Hunt were on to discuss the earthquake. And btw, it was the first report on the earthquake O'Reilly did with reporters who are there. Before Friday night he just talked about it a little, with no report live from Haiti. I guess after two days of criticism about how little coverage the prime time Fox shows had on Haiti, O'Reilly finally decided to do some actual journalism, instead of the same old right-wing crap to get ratings. Harrigan and Hunt gave live reports talking about the devastation, and the heartbreak of seeing it in person. They said it is one of the worst things they have ever seen, and there is the smell of death everywhere. Then O'Reilly had a segment where he actually defended President Obama, the first one I can ever remember. But he had two right-wing guests on when he did it. Martha Zoller and Mike Gallagher were on to discuss the Obama response to Haiti. For some reason a few conservative idiots like Rush Limbaugh etc. are hammering Obama for responding more rapidly to the Haiti earthquake than the underwear bomber. Which is just ridiculous, and only shows what morons they are. NOBODY was killed in the failed underwear bomber attack, NOBODY, not one person. So what would be the hurry to speak about it, not to mention it happened while Obama was on vacation. When the same thing happened under Bush with the shoe bomber, while he was on vacation, he waited 6 days to talk about it, but these same conservatives never said a word about it then, while Obama only waited 72 hours, so their hypocrisy and double standards are stunning. With the Haiti earthquake THOUSANDS of people were KILLED, maybe as many as 50,000, and the experts say most people DIE in the 3 days after an earthquake. So it was very important for Obama to respond quickly to get the word out for donations, and to get help to the people of Haiti as fast as possible. How any conservative could have a problem with the President responding quickly to a disaster like this is beyond me, it's crazy. And even Mike Gallagher said it is wrong for conservatives to attack Obama for his quick response. but the other right-wing nut Zoller still had a problem with it, proving she should be locked in a padded room. Mike Gallagher denounced his conservative colleagues. GALLAGHER: Sometimes we conservatives shoot ourselves in the foot - people should not take an earthquake and use that as an opportunity to criticize a sitting president. And we shouldn't be doing it. The White House is doing plenty with which we can find fault; we don't need an earthquake to beat up Barack Obama.Then O'Reilly actually defended Obama saying that President Obama has performed well: "I'm tough on people in power, but in this case President Obama did exactly what he should do." Wow it's a miracle, O'Reilly actually said Obama did something right for once. Don't get crazy though, it will probably never happen again. The next segment was with Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. The token Factor Democrat, he was put on to discuss Danny Glover, and his statement that the destruction in Haiti is a result of global inaction at the Copenhagen climate conference. O'Reilly called him crazy, and basically trashed him for giving his opinion. Dr. Hill said that what he was trying to express is a failure of leadership in the global community towards the third world, particularly the Caribbean. He's saying the leadership dropped the ball in Copenhagen, and this is an example of what happens when leadership drops the ball. And Glover might be right, who knows, he has a right to his opinion, and who in the hell cares what Danny Glover says about anything anyway. He is a Hollywood actor, not a Congressman or a Senator. So I could care less what Danny Glover thinks about anything, even though he has a right to his opinion. O'Reilly is the crazy one, he says do not listen to these Hollywood pinheads, then he reports everything they say. Then O'Reilly had one of his non-news right-wing garbage for ratings segments. He talked about the Obama health care bill, and had one of Obama's most vocal opponents on the show, 71-year-old singer Ray Stevens, who did a protest song. Which is funny, because when liberals did protest songs about Bush, O'Reilly trashed them and called them un-American. But when conservatives do them about Obama, O'Reilly praised him and told him what a great song it is. Stevens told The Factor that this song came along and he thought, 'yeah, let's do this.' We the people have awakened." Then O'Reilly thanked Stevens for joining the debate and said this: O'REILLY: We need all the levity we can get in this country - it's a very funny song and you do it very well."O'Reilly the so-called nonpartisan independent sure loves it when conservatives trash Obama with lame right-wing protest songs. Funny how a nonpartisan independent would think that way, especially when he called liberals that do protest songs about Republicans un-American. Then O'Reilly did his regular weekly segment with Glenn Beck, he was on to talk about his Sarah Palin interview, and to promote the Beck/O'Reilly Bold & Fresh propaganda tour. Basically it was the same old right-wing garbage with O'Reilly and Beck talking about how great they are, trying to be funny with insult jokes about each other, and how smart Palin is, when we all know that's a lie, and the people are too smart to fall for it. O'Reilly just puts this fool on because he gets good ratings, and he knows his right-wing viewers love Beck. People should remember this, everything O'Reilly does is to get higher ratings, make him more money, make him more famous, make Democrats look as bad as possible, and make Republicans look as good as possible. He does not care about journalism, or informing the people with the information they need to make an informed vote. All he cares about are ratings, money, ratings, fame, ratings, and making Democrats look bad. The last segment was the total waste of tv time, dumbest things of the week with Alisyn Camerota and Greg Gutfeld. It's two more Republicans who go on the Factor and talk about what they think was the dumbest thing that happened that week. Gutfeld picked Pat Robertson, and Camerota picked the man who invented a suitcase that doubles as a floatation device. Okay now get this, the segment is called dumbest things of the week, but Camerota said the invention is brilliant, so her opinion is that it's not dumb, it's brilliant. Wow, she might be dumber than even Sarah Palin. Here is my dumbest thing of the week, Alisyn Camerota, and this segment. Then the ever ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the hand picked highly edited Factor e-mails. The pinhead was a circus that named a baby elephant Baby Barack. Who cares what a circus names an elephant, and why are they a pinhead for it. And here is my question, why are no Republicans ever named pinheads. I could name you 5 Republican pinheads a day, yet O'Reilly never names any of them pinheads, probably because he agrees with most of them. And btw, Mr. fair and balanced had 8 Republican guests and only 1 Democrat, but he was only on to discuss what the actor Danny Glover said. Right-Wing Hate Speech O'Reilly Has Ignored By: Steve - January 16, 2010 - 8:30am The other day O'Reilly said can you imagine what the media would say if Rush Limbaugh or someone like him used the word Negro, he said they would go nuts and call for him to be fired. Besides the fact that Limbaugh uses the word Negro all the time, he even put out a song called Barack The Magic Negro, that I guess O'Reilly forgot about, haha, yeah right. And just three days ago, Limbaugh used the word Negro again, this time when talking about the late Senator Ted Kennedy. As previously reported former President Bill Clinton was quoted in 2008 saying "a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee" In reference to then Senator Obama at that time. When that comment was made, Ted Kennedy was reportedly offended and denounced the comment. Well according to Rush, the real reason Senator Kennedy was offended was not because of the remark's racial implications but because "negroes brought Ted Kennedy his booze." According to Rush Limbaugh women brought Ted Kennedy his coffee while negroes supplied the senator with his booze. Rush Limbaugh said this just three days ago on 1-12-10. And O'Reilly never said a word about it, but when the Democratic Senator Harry Reid used the word Negro a year and a half ago, O'Reilly spends two days talking about it on the Factor. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said that President Obama was going to try to use the devastating Haitian earthquake to boost his credibility with the "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community" in the United States. He also argued against government aid for the nation. Today, a woman named April from Paducah, called into Limbaugh's show and asked where he got the cojones to make such statements. Limbaugh insisted that he never meant to discourage private donations to Haiti, but stood by his remarks that Obama will try to exploit the disaster for political gain: LIMBAUGH: What I'm illustrating here is that you're a blockhead. What I'm illustrating here is that you're a closed-minded bigot who is ill-informed. And if you had listened to this program for a modicum of time you would know it. But instead you're a blockhead. You're mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read.White House spokesman Robert Gibbs commented on Limbaugh's remarks from yesterday: "In times of great crisis, there are always people who say stupid things. I don't know how anybody could sit where he does, having enjoyed the success that he has, and not feel some measure of sorrow for what has happened in Haiti." And that is not the only right-wing hate speech O'Reilly has recently ignored, this time from a fellow Fox News employee, Don Imus. Now imagine if someone at MSNBC (like Keith Olbermann) had said this about Pat Robertson. O'Reilly would make it his top story and report it for two or three days, but when the Fox News Don Imus says it, O'Reilly says nothing. Right-Wing televangelist Pat Robertson adding to what Limbaugh said took it one step futher, saying the earthquake happened because Haitians "swore a pact with the devil." Then yesterday on his Fox Business show, Don Imus went after Limbaugh and Robertson. Imus said: "One would think that you could just wait a few days - Rush - until you know you can run your fat mouth about it then," he said. But Imus had some particularly harsh words for Robertson: IMUS: You know, I'm not sure whether sometimes I'm ambivalent about whether I support the death penalty or not. I guess I do if I didn't have to do it, but in his case, I'd pull the switch on him myself. I mean he should be put to sleep. How does that contribute anything? It's insanity.And every word of that has been totally ignored by the great journalist Bill O'Reilly. Just think what O'Reilly would say if Olbermann, Maddow, or Matthews from MSNBC said Pat Robertson should be put to death. What would O'Reilly say, and how much would he cover that, a lot. But when Don Imus says it O'Reilly is silent as a mouse. More E-Mail From Braindead Factor Viewers By: Steve - January 15, 2010 - 10:30am I got this e-mail yesterday, notice that they think I am Bill O'Reilly, even though I say that I am not Bill O'Reilly right on my e-mail page. Proving that O'Reilly may have the dumbest viewers in all of cable news. Not to mention they wrote it in all caps, which is what 5 year olds do. Enjoy: Subject: JANE SKINNER ON LAST NIGHTS PROGRAMAnd O'Reilly claims he has the smartest viewers in all of television, yeah right, I guess he just ignores all the morons like this. Let's See If O'Reilly Can Spin This Poll By: Steve - January 15, 2010 - 10:00am Wednesday night O'Reilly said the American people were not happy the way Obama handled the Christmas day terrorist attack, then a guest on the Factor (CAROLINE HELDMAN, PH.D.) told O'Reilly that there are polls that show the majority of Americans think Obama did a good job on the Christmas day underwear bomber attack. O'Reilly said yeah, one poll, and that he does not believe it. Here is a partial transcript: O'REILLY: Well, there's no doubt the poll numbers are not good news, doctor. And I think there's a terrorism component here as well, that President Obama's reaction to the underwear guy was kind of slow. And there's a perception growing among people who are not committed to President Obama, Independents, maybe conservative Democrats as well, that the guy is just not handling the job properly. Am I wrong?They were talking about the CBS poll that said 57% approve of the way Obama handled the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack, but now we have another poll that says the same thing. And guess who ran this poll, FRICKING FOX NEWS. ![]() It even says Obama did a good job, 51% approve, and only 33% disapprove, in a FRICKING FOX NEWS POLL. It was 70% approve to 17% disapprove with Democrats, 52% approve to 28% disapprove with Independents, when O'Reilly claimed Independents did not approve either. Let's see O'Reilly spin that one. My guess is that he will never even mention it, and ignore it, like he does with everything that proves he is a biased, lying, right-wing fool. Top 3 Fox Shows Ignoring Haiti Earthquake Story By: Steve - January 15, 2010 - 9:30am Remember how O'Reilly complained about the rest of the media ignoring the ACORN story, he said it was an outrage that the media would ignore such an important story, now think about this. The Fox News Channel's three highest-rated shows have all but ignored the Haiti earthquake story. During Wednesday night's programming, Fox News repeatedly ran a promotion of their coverage of the earthquake in Hati where the announcer asserted: "After a devastating earthquake kills thousands and leaves a country stranded, Fox News has the very latest information as events unfold. Stay with Fox News for the latest reports and up to the minute coverage of the horror in Hati." Then the three top-rated Fox News programs -- The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck -- devoted a combined total of less than 7 minutes of coverage to the earthquake in Haiti, instead choosing to air such things as Beck's hour-long interview with Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly's discussion of Comedy Central host Jon Stewart, and Sean Hannity's advocacy for Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown's Senate campaign. By contrast, the content of MSNBC's three top-rated shows underscored the significance of the Haiti disaster; Countdown, The Rachel Maddow Show, and Hardball devoted a total of more than two hours to the earthquake. O'Reilly was even flooded with mail from people who were stunned at his lack of reporting on the story, and his focus on money and corruption in Haiti. Like this one: Denise Austin, Dana Point, CA: "O'Reilly, I am stunned at your insensitivity. This is not a time to criticize Haiti, but a time of sorrow." O'Reilly claims he did his job, which is just laughable. The entire show was the same old garbage, Jon Stewart, Whaling, Wild Horses, Oprah, Tiger, etc. He pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake story to get ratings with his usual cast of right-wing characters and tabloid garbage segments. The Thursday 1-14-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 15, 2010 - 9:00am The TPM was called $100 Million For Haiti. O'Reilly talked about all the money Obama is going to send to Haiti, and then he asked if the money will be spent wisely. Who knows, but what is he supposed to do, not send the money because it might not be spent wisely. Then you right-wing a-holes would attack him for not sending the money. It's like giving to charity, even if you know a very small percentage of the money may not be spent wisely, you still give them the money. As usual it was a ridiculous argument by O'Reilly, and Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. Obama did a good thing by giving the money, but somehow crazy O'Reilly found a way to attack Obama for it. Then O'Reilly had two guests on to discuss it, Sophie Delaunay from doctors without borders and Richard Grennell who worked for the Republican John Bolton. Billy asked her if the gangsters bothered her, and she said of course not. O'Reilly seemed more interested in reporting on the corruption and the gangs in Haiti, then actually reporting on the earthquake. He said over and over how we gave them $3 Billion dollars over the years and nothing ever gets better. O'Reilly asked Grenell where the $3 Billion went, and he did not know. The angle O'Reilly used to report the story was ridiculous. All he cared about was how much money we give them, and where it goes, he never said anything about the actual story. At the end of the segment O'Reilly said he is going to monitor the situation very closely, and that he may even go to Haiti, yeah right. What kind of idiot cries about the money situation right after the earthquake, Bill O'Reilly that's what kind. The next segment was with the crazy far right Laura Ingraham. For some reason Ingraham was on to discuss the earthquake in Haiti, why, who knows, and who cares. Ingraham even supported Obama giving them the $100 million, but then she complained about how much money we give to foreign countries. Then for some reason O'Reilly attacked Bill Clinton for helping Haiti when he was the President, and not getting them straightened out. So the Haiti earthquake story turned into a Clinton bashing segment with O'Reilly and Ingraham. What's funny is that Ingraham even sort of defended what Clinton did in Haiti, which shows just how crazy O'Reilly is. This whole segment was garbage, and just more partisan political crap that nobody cares about, except O'Reilly. Then the two Republican culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on. They talked about the Danes being the happiest people in the world, ummmmm who cares. Billy also cried about Oprah saying how great things are in Denmark, he played a clip of Oprah saying how great it is to live there, and wow did O'Reilly hate that for some reason. Then O'Reilly implied that Oprah does not know the real situation there, as in she is stupid. And of course the two right-wing culture warriors agreed with O'Reilly and went into some 2 minute spin about it. Guess what, I don't care, this is not news, why do we care what happens in fricking Denmark. The whole topic was ridiculous and worthless, and not news. This is nonsense, why is it being reported on a so-called no spin news show. It went on and on forever, for the whole fricking segment. Earth to O'Reilly, nobody cares what you or the culture warrior stooges think about Denmark, no-body, especially here in America. In the Factor follow up segment O'Reilly was crying about the Justice Department refusing to investigate the Black Panther Party in a case of polling place intimidation. This case is over a year old, from November of 2008, and O'Reilly is still crying about it. My God man get a fricking clue, it's over, and has been for more than a year. The DOJ dismissed the case in May of 2009, it was against 3 people at one polling place in all of America, so let it go man, you are making a fool of yourself. You can cry about it for a hundred years and it will not change anything. It's crazy to cry about a year and a half old case that was dropped, especially when there are more important things to report on. Billy even had the right-wing nut Kris Kobach on to discuss it, and of course they attacked Obama and AG Eric Holder for not prosecuting the three guys, which would have been a massive waste of taxpayer money. O'Reilly even admitted it was small ball, but then he does a full segment crying about it with some right-wing fool a year and a half later. Not to O'Dummy, the DOJ has more important cases to prosecute, real crimes, so let it go idiot. It's over, dead, done, move on jackass. After they went to commercial I saw something really funny, it was an ad for FOX News, it said Fox is the News Network America turns to for hard news and real reporting. Hahahahaha, yeah right, after O'Reilly just did 4 minutes talking about what fricking Oprah thinks about Denmark. Yeah that's some hard news and real reporting, not. Then Bernie Goldberg was in for Megyn Kelly to do the Kelly File segment. Goldberg was on to defend Senator Reid over the Negro statement. But when asked about it, Bernie said yes and no. So he sort of defended reid, but not really. He said Negro is not a racist slur, and he also said he should not have to resign over it. Because there is a Negro college fund etc. Goldberg did say it was hypocrisy, but he does not think it was racist. They also talked about Palin and her first day at Fox. O'Reilly and Goldberg defended Palin, of course, because they love her. Goldberg was honest about one thing, he said the right-wing media anchors love Palin and are never going to be tough on her, and for once he was right. The last segment was the biased one sided O'Reilly Reality Check, where Billy puts his spin on what a liberal said, it mostly has no reality, and usually no checks. I do not report the reality checks because usually they are just biased and stupid, but I do have to say that O'Reilly did a reality check on Pat Robertson, and for once he actually had a real reality check on a Republican. Billy said he does not believe Haiti is cursed as Pat Robertson claims it is. First time for everything I guess. Then of course all the other so-called reality checks were about Democrats and liberals. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Palin Caught Lying About 60 Minutes Contact By: Steve - January 15, 2010 - 8:30am On the Tuesday O'Reilly Factor O'Reilly talked about the piece 60 minutes did about Sarah Palin. Billy asked her if 60 minutes tried to contact her to get her side of the story, and she said no. Well, well, well, now we know that was a lie, and guess who busted her, Bernie Goldberg. Last night Bernie Goldberg was on the Factor to fill in for Megny Kelly, during the segment he said he talked to the people at 60 minutes, and they told him they did try to contact Sarah Palin for their story. So Palin is busted once again for lying her right-wing ass off. Here is the video: And btw, O'Reilly defended his girl Palin by speculating that Sarah herself must not have got the message that 60 minutes had tried to contact her, he said that her people probably got it and never told her. Which is all speculation, that O'Reilly claims he never does. Funny how he never speculates, except when he does, like almost every night. Not to mention, Goldberg said that is a cop out, and he is not buying it. Goldberg said 60 minutes did try to contact her, and if she did not talk to them that is on her, and her fault. Then O'Reilly ended the segment because he sure did not want to talk about it anymore. O'Reilly Ignores Haiti To Cover Wild Horses & Whaling By: Steve - January 14, 2010 - 3:30pm Last night O'Reilly mostly ignored the earthquake in Haiti, to cover whaling, wild horses and Jon Stewart. O'Reilly mentioned Haiti in his "Talking Points Memo" -- "Haiti, Liberalism, and America" -- arguing that the U.S. will do more than any country to aid the people of Haiti but that much of that aid will be stolen. But then it was on to business as usual -- attacking President Obama. O'Reilly discussed polls on Obama's approval with Dana Perino. O'Reilly used his second segment to attack Jon Stewart because he had made fun of O'Reilly and his Factor guests for their discussion of Obama's reaction to the underwear bomber. Attacking the media (and anyone who makes fun of him) is O'Reilly's shtick. O'Reilly even brought on a political analyst to break down the comments a comedian made on a comedy show -- rather than, say, a political analyst to explain how and whether Haiti's government would respond to the crisis. The third segment brought another attack on the Obama administration, this time from Michael Scheurer, who once said, "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States." Scheurer spent most of the interview trashing Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan. During the fourth segment, while most Americans were looking for more information on the crisis in Haiti, O'Reilly brought on actress Bo Derek to discuss Japanese whaling and the possible roundup of wild horses in Nevada. One might think that bringing on comedian Dennis Miller to crack jokes while survivors of the earthquake were still trapped under rubble might be just a little insensitive. Not O'Reilly. Sarah Palin, Harry Reid and Leno/Conan were far more important topics of discussion Wednesday night. Miller might have provided insight on how comedians consider humor in times of great tragedy - but then again, Miller hasn't been funny since the "Off-White Album." O'Reilly then discussed an attack ad produced by Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe. After airing the ad in full, O'Reilly said: O'REILLY: Very slick. That was one of the slickest pieces of propaganda - and I say propaganda because it is. It's designed to make President Obama look bad by a group that opposes the president.It should come as no surprise to anyone that more Leno/Conan, Jeff Zucker, more Palin and Tiger Woods were the subjects of the rest of O'Reilly's show. Visitors to PerezHilton.com on Wednesday would have learned more about the crisis than from watching O'Reilly's prime-time Fox News show. Perino Caught Lying About The Obama Stimulus Bill By: Steve - January 14, 2010 - 11:30am Last night the Republican Dana Perino was on the O'Reilly Factor, she was on to talk about President Obama. And of course she had nothing good to say about anything he has done, she even claimed the Obama poll numbers are down because the stimulus failed. During the segment she said the stimulus failed at least 3 times, and not once did O'Reilly correct her, or dispute what she said. Here are the facts: 1) To begin with, the stimuls is working. President Obama passed a $787 Billion dollar economic stimulus plan about 10 months ago. So far only $263 Billion of the $787 Billion has been spent. It's a 2 year plan, and yet after 10 months Perino has declared it a failure. Even when less than 40% of the money has been spent. 2) Her claims fly in the face of reality, because almost everyone knows the stimulus is working, and will continue to work as more money is spent. Can you imagine what she would say if Democrats declared a Bush stimulus bill a failure after 10 months, when less than 40% of it had even been spent. She would flip out and call them clueless, which is exactly what she is. 3) Just yesterday a Congressional report that is mandated said the stimulus is working, in its latest progress report on the $787 billion stimulus program, they said both the overall economy and employment continued to be in better shape at the end of 2009 than they would have been without the government's help. 4) The council's report, the second of the quarterly assessments mandated by Congress, said that in the fourth quarter the stimulus plan's tax cuts and spending added about 2 percentage points to the gross domestic product. 5) Though unemployment reached 10 percent at year's end, the number of jobs was between 1.5 million to 2 million greater in the fourth quarter than it would have been without the recovery plan. 6) President Obama signed the stimulus plan into law late in the first quarter of 2009, when the economy shrank by 6.4 percent. It shrank by a much smaller 0.7 percent in the second quarter before growing 2.2 percent in the third. 7) Economists project that the economy grew about 4 percent in the year's final quarter. That would be the first time that the economy grew by an amount greater than the boost attributed to the stimulus plan. 8) The public and private estimates together suggest "that the Recovery Act has played a key role in the turnaround of the economy that has been occurring over the past three quarters," the report said. 9) As of the end of 2009, about one-third of the $787 billion economic recovery act - $263 billion - has gone out the door, according to the report. That share rises to more than half counting nearly $150 billion more that has been obligated to projects such as public works construction, but which has not yet been spent. 10) Every mainstream economist in America said the stimulus worked to prevent a much deeper downturn. Even the right wing think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, last week, put out a report saying the stimulus worked. Mark Zandi, one of John McCain's economic advisers during the campaign against Obama, has been willing to admit publicly that the stimulus worked. And yet we have Dana Perino on the O'Reilly Factor saying (three times) that the stimulus failed, and O'Reilly said nothing, he was as silent as a mouse. Proving that Dana Perino is a liar, and it also proves that O'Reilly let her lie because he knows the truth. And remember, this is the same woman who said there were no terrorist attacks when George W. Bush (her boss) was the President. So her credibility is zero, and nothing she says can be believed. This is a standard tactic for O'Reilly, put a partisan Republican on to lie about President Obama, do not correct the lie, or dispute it, then let everyone think her statement was true by not correcting her lie. And remember this too, O'Reilly calls it a no spin zone. Not to mention he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, when it's clear he is a partisan right-wing hack who spends 99% of the show smearing and lying about President Obama, with 95% right-wing guests. If that's a no spin zone, I'm Elvis. More Proof Sarah Palin Is Not Very Smart By: Steve - January 14, 2010 - 11:00am Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly had some great observations on the Palin segment with O'Reilly, that pretty much show what a dummy she is, here is what he wrote: BENEN: There's certainly not much point in going over every detail or, perish the thought, trying to fact-check Palin's on-air comments, but there was one relatively important thing to note about the on-air chat with Bill O'Reilly. In her debut as a contributor to Fox News, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin admitted Tuesday that leading up to her 2008 vice presidential debate she thought Iraq may have been behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Interviewed by Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on his show "The O'Reilly Factor," Palin trashed many of the critical accounts of her candidacy in the new book "Game Change." But one story from the book that Palin did not say was "made up" or "a lie" was the description of her uncertainty as to whether Iraq had a hand in the planning of the September 11 attacks. "I did talk a lot to [campaign strategist] Steve Schmidt about the history of the war and where the attackers could have come from," Palin said of her debate prep during the fall of 2008.... "I do admit to asking questions about that," she said. That's quite an admission. In fact, that Palin considers this a mild acknowledgement says something important about her. Consider what Palin conceded on the air -- by the late summer of 2008, Sarah Palin still thought Saddam Hussein may have been involved with the 9/11 attacks. That's seven years after the attacks themselves, and more than five years after the invasion of Iraq began. In October 2003, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of Americans' knowledge about current events, particularly on issues related to national security and foreign policy. The notion of Iraq being responsible for 9/11 was used as a baseline for ignorance -- those who still believed that six months after the war began were considered confused and ill-informed. Five years later, the governor of a state (Sarah Palin) and a major political party's candidate for national office, still hadn't quite grasped this simple, basic detail -- a fact she's willing to acknowledge on national television in 2010. Palin, in other words, isn't just ignorant, she's also comfortable with her ignorance. John Heilemann explained the scene during her pre-debate prep in 2008: "Her foreign policy tutors are literally taking her through, 'This is World War I, this is World War II, this is the Korean War. This is the -- how the Cold War worked.' Steve Schmidt had gone to them and said, 'She knows nothing.'" ------------------------- And let me add this, O'Reilly called Palin smart, and even said she was qualified to be the President. This is 100% proof that Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing nut who denies reality. Because a lot of Republicans even admit she is not qualified, and the polls all show the majority say she is not qualified. In a November 2009 poll, just 2 months ago, only 28% of the American people thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be the President. Less than 30%, and yet O'Reilly has ignored all that to claim she is qualified. Which says as much about O'Reilly as it does Palin. Imagine if a liberal, say Rachel Maddow from MSNBC, was thinking about running for President, and the polls showed that only 28% of the American people thought she was qualified. Bill O'Reilly would trash her up and down, and tell her to not even waste her time running for President. But when Palin has 28% who think she is qualified O'Reilly calls her smart and qualified, and says she can be the President. If that does not show people just how biased O'Reilly is, nothing ever will. Beck & Palin -- Stupid In Stereo By: Steve - January 14, 2010 - 9:00am O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends claim Sarah Palin is not stupid, when the evidence proves she is, like this. Simon Maloy at Media Matters wrote this about the Beck/Palin interview on the Glenn Beck show. MALOY: I'm watching the Glenn Beck interview of Sarah Palin, and it's really leaving me speechless that two people who are so woefully and determinedly uninformed have such an impact on the national discourse. Beck just asked Palin if she'd heard about the Federal Reserve's record profits for last year, and then bemoaned that "nobody's having hearings on the Fed, nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed, we can't even open the Fed's books." Palin responded by thanking Beck for "bringing this to light," adding: "I don't know anybody else who is." There's a very simple reason why no one else is talking about taxing the Fed's profits or having hearings or even discussing this -- because people who care to know what they're talking about already know that 100 percent of the Fed's profits go to the Treasury. Every single cent. There is no talk of a windfall profits tax because it's already effectively at 100 percent. Perhaps if Beck put his crack research staff on the case, or if Palin spent a little less time lying on Facebook, they would know basic facts like these before making (greater) fools of themselves on national television. The Wednesday 1-13-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 14, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called Saving Haiti. Billy reported on the earthquake in Haiti, and asked how much the USA should do to help them. O'Reilly said we have given $1 Billion to Haiti, and asked the rest of the world to donate more. He also talked about how poor a country it is, and said the country is in chaos. And of course O'Reilly used the TPM to attack President Obama and the Democrats. Then O'Reilly reported on two polls about Obama, they asked if Obama is a failure, and it was about 45 to 45, but O'Reilly never once mentioned that reagan was down to 41% and he got re-elected for a 2nd term. The far right Republican Dana Perino was on to discuss it, and of course no Democrat guest. She said the Obama poll numbers are down because the stimulus did not work, when all the economic experts say it did, including the conservative AEI. The stimulus is working, and it will continue to work, because only 30% of it has been spent. Perino said it has been a failure at least 3 times, when that is a flat out lie, and it did work. Not once did O'Reilly correct her, he just let her lie. Perino also said the people had a high standard for Obama and he let them down, when he had to deal with a nightmare left by Bush, and it will take a couple years to fix it. Caroline Heldman was also on to discuss it, and she pointed out that some polls have Obama higher, O'Reilly admitted that, but said he does not believe those polls. So O'Reilly cherry picked the lowest polls, then said he only believes them, proving his bias. According to O'Reilly you are only supposed to believe the polls he picks for you to believe, which is ridiculous. Heldman said in a year Obama will have higher numbers, just like Reagan did. Then O'Reilly wasted a whole segment on Jon Stewart from the Daily Show. O'Reilly calld him one of Obama's biggest supporters, and for some reason he had a problem with that. Probably because Stewart did a segment on how ridiculous Crowley and O'Reilly were for attacking Obama over terrorism. Let me say this for the last time, Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN, his show is on the COMEDY NETWORK, he does JOKES, that is his JOB. Jon stewart is not in the NEWS BUSINESS, so get over it O'Reilly, and stop wasting your time on this nonsense. O'Reilly had Laura Schwartz on to discuss it. She basically said who cares, he is a comedian. And btw, O'Reilly even said he does not care what Stewart does, and that he has no problem with it. But he still did an entire segment on it, so clearly he must care or he would not have done the segment on it. O'Reilly is just mad that Stewart nailed him and Crowley for being partisan idiots with their biased and unfounded attacks on President Obama over terrorism. This whole segment was nonsense, because Jon Stewart is a COMEDIAN. The next segment was about the terrorism head John Brennan, O'Reilly says "some people" think he is not up to the job. Yeah those "some people" are Republicans. O'Reilly does this all the time, he says "some people" but he never names anyone, and he never tells you those "some people" are all Republicans. Which is dishonest and unethical journalism. O'Reilly had the far right nut Michael Scheuer on to discuss it. This guy Scheuer is a partisan right-wing hack who hates Obama and every Democrat in America. So he has no credibility, none, because he is a partisan spin doctor. Yet O'Reilly puts him on the Factor all the time and tries to pass him off as an independent analyst. I refuse to report what he said, because it's partisan garbage. I will say this, Scheuer trashed Brennan, and he also hammered Obama for giving him the job. This segment was a biased, one sided, partisan smear job, on Brennan and Obama, with no Democrat to give the opposing point of view, or provide the balance. Scheuer is also the nut who said we need Bin Laden to do another major terrorist attack on the USA to save us from the Obama agenda. So he is off the chart nuts, yet O'Reilly has him on the Factor as his terrorism expert. The next segment was about the anti-whaling speedboat getting hit by a Japanese whaling ship. O'Reilly had Bo Derek on to discuss it. She is mad at Japan for doing the whaling, and for the whaling ship hitting the speedboat. There is not much else to say, just that O'Reilly had Bo Derek on to complain about the issue. I have no problem with this segment, but I do think there is more important news O'Reilly could be covering. I am guessing O'Reilly did it just to have Bo Derek on his show, but that is just a guess. I will say Bo still looks pretty good for her age, but I would also bet she has had a ton of plastic surgery to look that good these days, and of course I am guessing again, haha. Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly segment, which I refuse to report on. All you need to know is that Miller does nothing but jokes on liberals, and that it is total hypocrisy and a double standard by O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly complains when comedians do jokes about Sarah Palin, then he has Miller on his very own show to do jokes about liberals. Making him the biggest hypocrite in America, maybe the world. And btw, during this segment O'Reilly told Miller that he asked Palin the toughest questions anyone in the world ever asked her. Which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, his interview was 99% softball, 1% tough questions. The last segment was the total waste of tv time did you see that, with Jane Skinner. O'Reilly and Skinner sit around and talk about some lame videos that nobody cares about, and are usually years old. It's one of the dumbest segments O'Reilly does, it's right up there with the stupid body language segment. They talked about the bogus political ad attacking Obama over terrorism that Liz Cheney and some right-wing group put out. The thing is full of lies, and basically worthless partisan garbage. It claims Obama waited 100 hours before he spoke on the underwear bomber, when Bush waited 6 days before he spoke on the shoe bomber, yet they never said a word about that when Bush did it. They cry about Obama waiting 72 hours, when Bush waited 6 days, it's called a partisan attack, and total hypocrisy. O'Reilly called it one of the slickest things he has ever seen, he called it devastating, but then he said it was propaganda. Yet he showed it anyway, giving them free publicity. If it's propaganda how can it be devastating when only Republicans will believe it. And O'Reilly never pointed out the lie about the 100 hour claim. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Sarah Palin On How Fox Is Fair & Balanced By: Steve - January 13, 2010 - 9:30am Here are two great videos of Sarah Palin on the O'Reilly Factor. In this video she explains how the American people tune in to Fox to get away from the bias in journalism, and yes she said it with a straight face. In this video Palin claims she is going to personally provide the fair and balanced reporting the voters in this country deserve, and yes she said it with a straight face. And btw, did you notice that tough hard hitting interview O'Reilly had with Palin, no, me either. It was a total softball, O'Reilly just let her spin out whatever right-wing propaganda she had, with no follow up questions, or any tough questions at all. In fact, O'Reilly told her that she could use his show any time she wants, as a forum to get back at anyone who says anything about her. Me thinks O'Reilly loves him some Sarah Palin. And btw, O'Reilly pulled some big time spin with a couple questions he asked her. O'Reilly claimed the book "Game Change" says she did not know the difference between North and South Korea, that's wrong, it said she did not know why there are two Korea's, so O'Reilly did not even have his facts right. And to show how dumb Palin is, the book pointed out that Palin thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and even after telling her it was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, she still went on the air and blamed it on Iraq more than one time. But O'Reilly ignored that to spin out lies about what the book said, to let her dispute them, when the book never said it in the first place. Proving O'Reilly will do anything to make Palin look good, even lie to help her. Take note of this, O'Reilly lies to make Obama look bad, then he lies to make Palin look good. Could it be he wants her to run for President in 2012 and beat Barack Obama, of course he does, he has even said she can do it, and that she is qualified, even though 74% of the people say she is not qualified. O'Reilly said we should listen to the polls, well the polls say 74% of the people think she is not qualified, yet O'Reilly ignores that poll to claim she is, proving his bias, and proving he is a right-wing spin doctor. O'Reilly Caught Spinning CBS Poll About Obama By: Steve - January 13, 2010 - 9:00am Last night O'Reilly cited a CBS poll announcing a drop in Obama's approval ratings and commented, "Talking Points predicted that last week with Dick Morris, I predicted that Americans were not thrilled with President Obama's rather unemotional response to the Christmas Day terror situation." But the new CBS poll O'Reilly cited found that Americans approve of the Obama administration's response to the attempted terrorist attack by a 57 percent to 29 percent margin. O'Reilly claims the American people did not like the way President Obama handled the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack, and predited the Obama poll numbers would drop because of it. But he was wrong, and yet he still claims the people did not like the way Obama handled the attack, when the CBS poll conducted January 6-10 and released on January 11, found that "57% of Americans approve of the way the Obama administration has responded to the attempted terrorist attack, and 29% disapproved. This is classic Bill O'Reilly, make a prediction, get it wrong, misrepresent what the American people thought on the issue, then take credit for being right anyway. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, 57% approved, and only 29% disapproved. That means the vast majority of the American people disagreed with you, and the 29% who did were probably all Republicans. Which means you were wrong, moron. And it also proves (once again) that you spin out right-wing propaganda. Because only Republicans had a problem with how Obama handled the attempted attack on Christmas day. The opposite of what you said the people would think about it. O'Reilly hates Obama so much he lies about him using a poll, just to make him look bad, even when the poll disagrees with O'Reilly, he still uses it to misrepresent what it found. That's called biased, dishonest, partisan, right-wing journalism. The Tuesday 1-12-0-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 13, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called President Obama's Poll Problems. O'Reilly reported the CBS poll and the Rasmussen poll on Obama, they both have Obama at 46% approval. Which is a slight drop from a couple weeks ago, and O'Reilly said he predicted it. Except the Gallup poll has Obama at 50% approval, so his numbers are virtually unchanged. And once again O'Reilly reported the Rasmussen poll to claim the Obama numbers are dropping, while ignoring the Gallup poll that still has him holding steady at 50% approval. Then it was all about Palin, O'Reilly had Sarah Palin on to talk about her new job at Fox News. And my God was it pathetic. O'Reilly made the whole thing out to be everyone is scared of Palin, and that she is a threat to them. When nobody is scared of her, and she is not a threat to anyone. O'Reilly asked her why the Obama poll numbers are dropping, and she said it's because Obama is a far left liberal that does not represent the real people, like her and her supporters. What a joke, her supporters are right-wing nuts, not mainstream America. It was ridiculous, and just more right-wing spin from another biased Republican. And Palin is probably the dumbest analyst working at Fox. Palin also cried about Obama not keeping his campaign promises, when all Presidents break campaign promises. Palin also said Obama has not worked with Republicans in a bi-partisan way as he promised, when he tried, but the Republicans refused to work with him. Then O'Reilly asked Palin about the statement Reid made, she said most people like her do not think that way. Which is just laughable, because a hell of a lot of Republicans are racist, and they use far worse words than Negro. Basically Palin is a joke, she is just another right-wing moron who was only put on because she is loved by the right, and that is who watches Fox. O'Reilly even loves Palin so much, he held her over for a 2nd segment. Billy asked Palin about 60 minutes doing a segment on her, basically it was just to give Palin a chance to deny what they said about her. Palin claims the guys with the Game Change book are lying when they said she did not know there was a North and South Korea. O'Reilly gave her 20 minutes of his show to spew out her spin, and she denied it all, so everyone is lying but her. Then O'Reilly said there is a perception that she is not very smart, ummmm no Billy, it's not a perception, it's a fact. Palin is a dope, a dummy, a fool, a moron, and an unqualified lightweight. At the end Palin said she loves the tea party, and talked about giving the keynote speech at a tea party convention. And O'Reilly also said his viewers love her, and that the tea party folks will also love her. Of course they will, because she is a right-wing nut, just like they are. Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss the Palin segment. They were on to do ana analysis of O'Reilly and the Palin interview. Colmes made a joke that she might quit this job too. And btw, O'Reilly said everyone who is reporting on Palin are crazy far left loons that just hate her. Billy also said he thinks Palin is smart, and that everyone who thinks she is stupid is wrong. Colmes said a few other things, and O'Reilly said he has no idea what Colmes is talking about then went to Crowley. And of course Monica Crowley loves Palin and thinks she is smart, just like O'Reilly. Basically O'Reilly disagreed with everything Colmes said, and agreed with Crowley, as he always does. Crowley said that the liberals just think Palin is stupid. Which is ridiculous, we do not think she is stupid, we know it, from listening what she says, the woman is as dumb as a rock, maybe dumber. Then John Stossel was on to talk about the global warming conference in Copenhagen. They cried about the cost of Government employees going to the conference. Which is funny, because they never cried about any of this same stuff when Bush did it. Somehow it's only a scandal when Democrats do it. And btw, I agree they spent too much money, but they never report it when Republicans do it. The problem is the hypocrisy and the double standards. O'Reilly also once again called the conference a fraud and a sham. Even though the Pope supported it, and of course O'Reilly ignored it as I reported it here. Stossel also reported on the unfounded fear of terrorism, when the odds of you getting killed by a terrorist is higher then getting hit by lightning. Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. And as I always mention, there are no Democratic legal experts, just the two Republicans that work for Fox. Almost everyone on the Factor is a Republican, that is why the guest list count is usually 6 or 7 Republicans, to less than 2 Democrats every night. They talked about an old terrorism case being tried in federal court, and his attorney wants the case to be thrown out because he did not get a speedy trial. Which will never happen and O'Reilly knows it, so he did this story for partisan reasons to attack Obama over it. O'Reilly even admitted he does not think it will be thrown out. Both legal experts also said it will not be thrown out. The next case was tabloid garbage, it's about a teacher being suspended for breaking up a fight between two girls. And now the male teacher may lose his job for breaking the fight up with the two girls. They even said there will be no charges filed, and the teacher will get his job back, so why do the fricking story. The last case was even more ridiculous, it was the about the ACLU ad some case saying that a woman could be naked, or some crap I do not care about. These is it legal segments are almost as worthless as the pinheads and patriots, they are just done for ratings by having two right-wing legal babes on the show. The last segment was more tabloid trash about Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien. Once again O'Reilly speculated Conan may go to Fox, which is pure speculation, that he says he never does. Billy had the tabloid king from TMZ Harvey Levin on to discuss it. O'Reilly is predicting that Conan O'Brien will do an 11pm show on Fox, remember that folks, because O'Reilly is usually wrong on his predictions. Levin sort of disagreed, and said he thinks it would be risky for Fox, because Conan got bad ratings at that time. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Fox Claims Cold In Winter Disproves Global Warming By: Steve - January 13, 2010 - 8:00am I am not kidding, this is real, people at Fox News are saying cold weather (in the middle of winter) proves that Global Warming is not real. Are they really this stupid, I would think not, which means they are just partisan right-wing spin doctors, because nobody could be this stupid, I hope. Anyway here is the story. For the past week, Fox News host Neil Cavuto has been giving a daily Fox News global warming alert, which consists of him telling viewers how cold it is. "It is still cold," Cavuto said yesterday, adding that "it's not your recent garden variety global warming. It's freezing across the entire globe," Cavuto shouted on Saturday. Former Nixon speechwriter and actor Ben Stein responded, "Maybe somebody in the government will wake up and say, Hey, it's colder. It's not hotter. Maybe all this talk about global warming needs to be rethought." And a few other right-wing nuts also claim cold weather in the winter means Global Warming is a fraud. Newsbusters Mark Finkelstein said "Hey Al Gore: we want our global warming, and we want it now." In his newsletter, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wondered about "Al Gore's explanation for this miserable, persistent chill," and the National Review's Mona Charen claimed that the "cold snap has spurred the warmists to spin control." This is all nonsense from Cavuto and the rest of them. A short-term cold snap in a few isolated regions does not disprove global climate change. In fact, the cold snap appears unrelated to climate change. As the AP reported, "experts interviewed did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change," instead they pointed to arctic oscillation: In the atmosphere, large rivers of air travel roughly west to east around the globe between the Arctic and the tropics. This air flow acts like a fence to keep Arctic air confined. But recently, this air flow has become bent into a pronounced zigzag pattern, meandering north and south.And of course Cavuto never reported any of this information, hell he probably does not even know what it means. Not to mention temperatures in most places are actually above average for this time of year. Record high and low temperatures are set every year, but there have been consistently more highs than lows in recent decades, as the National Center for Atmospheric Research shows. What the temperature data shows is that every 10 years since 1980 the record highs have outnumbered the record lows, and there are more record highs than lows in every following ten year period. For the dummies like Cavuto, it means since 1980 the planet has been getting warmer, when you measure the temperature average for every 10 year period. Of course all this is hard to follow, and most likely too much for Cavuto's right-wing brain to understand. The last decade was the hottest decade on record by far, and 2009 was also one of the hottest years on record. Climate Progress Joe Romm notes that this decade will likely have even higher temperatures. But according to Neil Cavuto at Fox News, it's cold in the middle of winter so Global Warming must be a hoax. Proving that Cavuto is not only an idiot, he is a partisan right-wing idiot. Only Conservatives Comparing Reid & Lott Statements By: Steve - January 12, 2010 - 9:30am Responding to Senator Reid's recently reported controversial comments about President Obama, numerous conservative media figures have accused Democrats of having a "double standard" regarding racially insensitive remarks made by Republicans, specifically citing the outrage over former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's past comments in support of Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. Including Bill O'Reilly, who just last night made the very same comparison throughout his entire show. O'Reilly compared what Lott said, to what Reid said, he even called it stunning hypocrisy by the Democrats. When the two statements are totally different, and there is no comparison. People like Al Sharpton, and the NAACP's Hilary Shelton have argued that the two comments are not comparable, because Reid was praising an African-American's advancement, whereas Lott was expressing support for a segregationist. In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) said of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign -- which Thurmond conducted on a segregationist platform: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Al Sharpton said that what Harry Reid said is nowhere near comparable to saying you wish a segregationist had been the president. Sharpton also said Reid's words were very poorly chosen but that his comments are nowhere near comparable to Lott's because Lott commended a Dixiecrat for running for office, who left the Democratic Party to fight integration. Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart argued that people comparing Reid's comments to Lott's are getting it all wrong. Strom Thurmond was a segregationist candidate. Senator Lott at the time said we wouldn't have had all these problems if Strom Thurmond had won that presidential election. That has all sorts of negative implications for the country, and for African-Americans. Harry Reid is guilty of insensitive language, but for him to have to resign over this goes way too far. The NAACP Washington bureau director Hilary Shelton said Lott's and Reid's comments are not the same because Lott was actually supporting and embracing the agenda of Strom Thurmond, which was a segregationist agenda. For him to hold those up and say, if he had become president our country will be a better place on a race relations issue, raises some major concerns. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is someone that has fought for racial inclusion. He's fought for fairness, and he's fought for democracy for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. And here is an important point to remember, notice that only Republicans are making the Lott/Reid comparison. That includes O'Reilly, he even spent half his show last night making the comparison, even though O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, he is at the head of the right-wing line using the bogus comparison to smear Senator Reid. The Lott/Reid comparison is ridiculous, there is no comparison. And only right-wing spin doctors are using it, which proves that O'Reilly uses the Republican talking points to smear Democrats just as Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, or any other far right spin doctor would. Which also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that O'Reilly is as much of a Republican as Rove or any of them. Not to mention, it proves that O'Reilly is a flat out liar, because if he will lie about the simple fact that he is a Republican (when everyone knows he is) how can you believe anything else he says. O'Reilly Ignores Pope Statement On Global Warming By: Steve - January 12, 2010 - 9:00am Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI denounced the failure of world leaders to agree to a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen last month, saying Monday that world peace depends on safeguarding God's creation. And the great Catholic (and so-called global warming believer) Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it, nothing, zero, nada. Billy probably ignored what the Pope said because he also criticized the 'political resistance' to fighting environmental degradation. Which is a direct shot at the Republicans who fight it and deny global warming. So O'Reilly ignores the whole story, because the Pope attacked Republicans for all the political resistance to the climate treaty. And btw, O'Reilly called the Copenhagen climate meetings a sham, a fraud, and a joke. Which is another reason he did not report what the Pope said, because it also makes O'Reilly look bad himself. "To cultivate peace, one must protect creation!" Benedict told the ambassadors, many of whom wore their national dress or medal-draped formal attire for the audience in the frescoed Sala Regia of the Vatican's apostolic palace. The pontiff said the same "self-centered and materialistic" way of thinking that sparked the worldwide financial meltdown was also endangering creation. To combat it will require a new way of thinking and a new lifestyle -- and an acknowledgment that the question is a moral one, he said. "The protection of creation is not principally a response to an aesthetic need, but much more to a moral need, inasmuch as nature expresses a plan of love and truth which is prior to us and which comes from God," he said. Pope Benedict's theme was similar to the message he issued for the church's World Day of Peace, on Jan. 1, where he argued that climate change and natural catastrophes threaten people's rights to life, food, health -- and ultimately peace. And it was reminiscent of the exhortation to world leaders that he issued ahead of Copenhagen summit, on Dec. 6, in which he called for them to "identify actions that respect creation and promote sustainable development," noting that they would have to adopt "sober and responsible lifestyles" to do so. "In this sense, to guarantee full success at the conference, I invite all those people of good will to respect God's laws of nature and rediscover the moral dimension of human life," he said at the time. And O'Reilly, a man who claims to support the Catholic faith, ignored every word the Pope said. Because he disagrees with the Pope, and he does not want it to be known. Not to mention he has made fun of people that actually believe in global warming. Hey Billy, why don't you make fun of the Pope, like you do Al Gore. The Monday 1-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 12, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called Palin announcement. Billy reported that Fox News has hired Sarah Palin, and of course O'Reilly said it was great. Then he said if she decides to run for President in 2012 she will be a well qualified candidate. Proving he is a total right-wing stooge, because only Republicans think that. And btw, O'Reilly plans to have her on the Factor Tuesday night. Billy called the Reid Negro word story, a BIG BIG racial controversy. When it's only a big story with Republicans, nobody else cares, and President Obama said people using the story to attack Senator Reid are shameless and foolish. Brit Hume was on to discuss the Reid story, O'Reilly called it Democratic hypocrisy and asked Hume if he agreed. O'Reilly then compared it to what Trent Lott said, when there is no comparison. And anyone who makes the comparison is a fool. Hume said it was a little bit of hypocrisy, but that Democrats get a pass more than a Republican would. Yeah, because a lot of Republicans are racist, when most Democrats are not. O'Reilly criticized Reid and the Democrats, and said just imagine if Limbaugh said something like that, he would be hammered. Earth to O'Reilly, Limbaugh says stuff like that all the time, he even put out a song called Barack The Magic Negro, did you forget that you moron. They also talked about Palin, O'Reilly said it was a smart move for Fox to hire her, and said she has a political future, Hume agreed. Which proves they are both right-wing idiots, because nobody likes Sarah Palin but far right fools. And of course no Democrats were on to discuss any of it. Then O'Reilly had Lanny Davis and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss the Reid negro story. Billy said the hypocrisy with the Democratic party is stunning, when he is the biggest hypocrite in the world, so he has no right to talk. Dr. Hill defended Reid, because of his record with the NAACP. O'Reilly said he does not buy it, and I say who cares what Bill O'Reilly thinks about it. Davis said it was wrong to say, and that he used the wrong word. I agree it was the wrong word to use, but he is not a racist, and his NAACP ranking proves it. O'Reilly once again used the Trent Lott comparison, which is ridiculous, because Lott was a known racist, and what he said was far worse. But O'Reilly said he knows Trent Lott and that he is not a racist. When O'Reilly is ignoring the fact that Trent Lott was a member of a racist group. The whole thing is garbage, and the Republicans are trying to use it to smear Senator Reid, it's nothing but a partisan political attack. And only Republicans are making a big deal about it, President Obama said he was not offended, and agreed that Reid should have just worded his statement differently. So once again O'Reilly proves that he runs with all these right-wing smear attacks, like a good little Republican. The next segment was about a NY Times column by Maureen Dowd, she talked about President Obama, and called him no drama Obama. Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss the two stories. Even Juan Williams said it was not hypocrisy by the Democrats, and said what Trent Lott said was far worse, Williams also said he was not offended. Then O'Reilly went to Ham to discuss the no drama Obama column, and what a shocker Ham agreed with O'Reilly and Dowd. They claim that Obama is too clam when dealing with powerful issues, when do we not want a President who is calm, and not flip out. This whole segment was just more right-wing garbage from O'Reilly, to smear Obama as being too cool in the face of danger. Earth to O'Reilly, we want a calm President, not some emotional fool that flips out in the face of danger. O'Reilly actually mocked Obama for being too low key, and for not screaming and yelling at everything like he does. Billy wants a General Patton President, instead of President Obama. He basically attacked President Obama for not screaming and yelling about the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas. Which is just ridiculous right-wing propaganda. And yet he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, yeah and I'm Donald Trump too. The next segment was a report on Michelle Obama getting more involved in politics in the future. O'Reilly even admitted he does not know if it is true, he still reported it, even though he said he never speculates, after he just speculated on it. Then he has Laura Ingraham on to discuss the rumor. And of course Ingraham hated it, and said it was a risky move. And the rumor is about Michelle Obama getting involved in child obesity, which is not a political issue, because nobody is opposed to that. But somehow Ingrham had a problem with it, and even O'Reilly said Ingraham was wrong. This was just a segment for O'Reilly to use Laura Ingraham to smear Michelle Obama. Here is my question, why do this segment when it is a rumor, and why have Ingraham on to discuss it. Then O'Reilly talked about NBC and the Jay Leno show, Billy claims NBC is on the verge of collapse. Which is insanity, it's one show out of hundreds, and NBC is a billion dollar network that makes a ton of profit. They will never go out of business, to claim they are is crazy talk. O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to discuss it. They both hate NBC, especially O'Reilly, so he uses anything he can to smear them. When all they are doing is moving Leno back to his regular time. O'Reilly said NBC is on the verge of collapse at least 3 times, which is pure right-wing insanity. Billy asked Goldberg if anyone should care what NBC does, and Goldberg said yes. Then they both attacked Jeff Zucker and Jeffery Immelt at NBC. This whole segment was just another partisan right-wing attack, this time on NBC. O'Reilly hates them because they have Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC. In fact, Goldberg said Zucker will be fired within a year, and you can take that to the bank. And btw, this whole story is tabloid News and should not be on a so-called real news show. Then they speculated that Conan O'Brien might go to FOX, the broadcast network not the news network. Which is more speculation, which O'Reilly said he never does. These two guys are classic right-wing spin doctors, they think their opinions are the way everyone thinks. In reality, only right-wingers agree with them. And of course, there is no Democratic media analyst, just Bernie Goldberg. The last segment was the ridiculous Factor reality check, where there is no reality, and very few checks. It's basically O'Reilly giving you his opinion of what some liberal said, it's not reality, it's spin, and most of them have no check. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Cartoonist Gets Death Threats After O'Reilly Segment By: Steve - January 11, 2010 - 11:00am During the 1-6-10 O'Reilly Factor, he discussed a tea party cartoon on the NPR website with Jane Skinner. In the segment O'Reilly trashed the guy who made the cartoon, and O'Reilly also called him a left-wing Jihadist. For simply making a cartoon O'Reilly did not like, because it made fun of his friends in the tea party. O'Reilly also complained that his money pays for these cartoons at NPR. Here is a video of the segment. In this case, the target is Mark Fiore, an online cartoonist for NPR who poked fun at the Tea Party movement. Apparently that's not allowed in right-wing America (free speech? what free speech?), so the right-wing PC police basically tagged Fiore as an enemy combatant, and naturally the death threats started to flow, Mark wrote this on his blog: FIORE: The death threats keep coming this fine morning. I guess the Tea Party crew is determined to have "death panels" one way or another.Notice the hypocrisy and the double standards, when right-wingers make cartoons O'Reilly says nothing. When the NY Post did the racist monkey cartoon that showed the cops shooting a money that represented President Obama, O'Reilly never said a word about it, he never mentioned it one time. But when a liberal does a cartoon, O'Reilly calls him a Jihadist. Basically what happened is this: O'Reilly did the segment on his show about the tea party cartoon, then every right-wing nut who watches his show put the word out on the internet and the man was flooded with death threats. All because of Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly Ignoring The Big Michael Steele Scandal By: Steve - January 10, 2010 - 10:00am There is a big story in the media about the head of the RNC, Michael Steele, and yet O'Reilly has ignored the entire thing, he has not even said one word about it. But he sure has plenty of time to attack Obama an hour a night. In recent days, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has been under fire from members of his own Party for making controversial public statements, such as ones that show a lack of confidence in the GOP's readiness to lead. Thursday he tried to defend himself by (falsely) stating, "I mean, I didn't ask for, I didn't seek this job, I didn't ask for it." Yesterday, Steele told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he believes that it was God who put him in the position for a reason: STEELE: I'm not defined by this job. When this job is over I will go back to doing something else. But God, I really believe, has placed me here for a reason because who else and why else would you do this unless there's something inside of you that says right now you need to be here to do this?Steele's assertion that he didn't seek the chairmanship of the RNC is odd considering he had to win an election to obtain the position. In fact, when Steele confirmed his desire to be chairman he told Hannity and Colmes, I want the job. Last week Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele also surprised his fellow Republicans by releasing a new book, Right Now: A 12-Step Program For Defeating The Obama Agenda. The book, and Steele's efforts to promote it, have angered congressional Republicans and GOP operatives, who feel he is putting them "in tremendously difficult situations." In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show, Steele tried to deflect criticism of the book by saying that he wrote it before he became the chairman of the RNC: STEELE: So, all the talk and chatter right now means nothing because my job is determined by whether I do those two things. And I'm happy to do it and I'm around the country. You know, I've got this period - I wrote this book before I became chairman and as, because of the clock and the calender, I wind up doing it now.Steele's claim that he wrote the book before he was elected to head the RNC on Jan. 30, 2009 is a bit odd considering that it contains many references to events that have happened after his election. For instance, Steele's book talks about the NY-23 special election, an Obama administration cost estimate that was made public in September 2009 and Sen. Arlen Specter's (D-PA) April 2009 party switch. Steele's book "mentions at least 5 people, 1 piece of legislation and 1 term that did not become evident until well after he was elected to head the RNC." And TPM's Eric Kleefeld notes that in his book, "Steele refers to himself on pages 14, 28, and 73, as being the chairman of the Republican National Committee." Steele even blasted his Republican critics, he said this yesterday: "I'm the chairman. Deal with it," GOP chairman Michael Steele tells KTRS Radio in St. Louis. Critics should "shut up, step back and get in the game," he says.He even cancelled two interviews because of the controversy, one with ABC News, and one with a Tea Party member that has a radio show. According to ABC's Rick Klein, Steele backed out just 30 minutes before he was scheduled to talk to him. The RNC said that the scheduling conflict was because of a noon meeting at the organization, but officials stressed that it wasn't an emergency meeting. Less discussed was the fact that Steele also canceled an interview with conservative radio host and Tea Party activist Dana Loesch. Loesch was incensed when Steele canceled his interview with her, writing on Twitter that it was indicative of his failure to connect with Tea Party protesters. Loesch ended up doing a fake interview with Steele, where she asked the questions she was planning to ask and then also gave mock answers as the RNC chairman, whom she called a "butt sniffer" for standing her up. While the interview was fake, Loesch's mock answers for Steele reflected real dissatisfaction with the RNC. There is also speculation that Steele will be fired. Loesch responded to fake Steele by asking, "Why should we believe in you? Let's look at what you've done. We don't have a clear leader for 2012. We don't even have a clear leader congressionally for 2010. The RNC screwed up NY-23. The RNC has failed to get behind Scott Brown adequately; they haven't give him enough support. You endorsed Dede Scozzafava for crying out loud! You guys come in and you try to co-opt this movement and that movement. You have egg on your face. And donations to the RNC are down." But O'Reilly has not even reported it, can you imagine what he would say if a liberal blogger like DailyKos called the head of the DNC a butt sniffer and said he has egg on his face, O'Reilly would report it every night, and until the story ended. This is a big big story, between Republicans, it's all over the news and the internet, except for the Factor, where O'Reilly has not even mentioned it. GOP Senator Says Criticism Of Obama Unfair By: Steve - January 10, 2010 - 9:00am I found another honest Republican, that makes two. Republicans are exploiting the recent attempted terrorism attack on Christmas day for political gain, using the incident to smear unions, call for ethnic profiling, rally voters around their political campaigns, and to deride President Obama as a terrorist appeaser. But Republican Senator Dick Lugar has struck a different tone in analyzing the Obama administration's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day. In an interview for Bloomberg this weekend, Lugar responded to attacks from former Vice President Cheney, who has crowed that Obama "is trying to pretend we are not at war" with a low-key response. Lugar forcefully said such such criticism is unfair: Its unfair, I think the president is focused. He also said, Obama has demonstrated "firmness and decisiveness," That's been the antidote to the criticism.And what a shocker, you never see him on the Factor, or Ron Paul. While right-wing partisans have demanded executions of detainees and an increase in the use of the word terrorism, Lugar, a top senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, talked about a sustainable response to the threat of terrorism. As airline security improves, al Qaeda and other terrorists targeting the U.S. will seek other ways to attack, Lugar noted in the interview. "We have to see the comprehensive nature of this, how many countries have potentially failing governments or very weak governments in which Al Qaeda could." Republican Ron Paul has also disagreed with Dick Cheney, Ron Paul said this on Larry King: KING: All right, Congressman Paul, what about - he's in - he's in your party. What about Dick Cheney's complaints?On Sunday, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan said that either the vice president or others have "willfully mischaracterized President Obama's position and actions or they're just ignorant of the facts," referring to Cheney's comments about the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt. In an op-ed, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) writes that it's "Cheney, not President Obama, who has misdiagnosed the problem and gotten us off track." And you could also add Bill O'Reilly to the list, because he is in agreement with Cheney. He is spewing out the same right-wing propaganda that Cheney and all the rest of them are. It's all a partisan Republican political smear job on President Obama to make him look bad, with O'Reilly nd a bunch of right-wing idiots leading the charge. And the proof that it's an unfounded biased political smear job by a group of right-wingers, is that this very same stuff happened under Bush, 5 times, and yet O'Reilly and the Republicans never once criticized Bush for it back then. O'Reilly Lied About Bush Keeping Us Safe After 9-11 By: Steve - January 9, 2010 - 11:00am Last night O'Reilly said Bush kept us safe after 9-11 by putting tough terrorism policies in place, like waterboarding, etc. Except that is a lie, and Bush did not keep us safe. Because we had 5 terrorist attacks after 9-11, a fact that O'Reilly has forgot. Here they are, maybe someone could tell O'Reilly about them. 1) In 2001 we had the anthrax attacks. A March 2004 State Department report on "Significant Terrorist Incidents from 1961 to 2003" quotes then-Attorney General John Ashcroft saying: "When people send anthrax through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it's a terrorist act." 2) In late 2001 the shoe bomber Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airplane with a show bomb. In June of 2008, then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described Reid's December 2001 attempt as an attempt to "carry out terrorist operations for Al-Qaeda." 3) In 2002 we had a terrorist attack against a ticket counter at LAX. In July 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet opened fire on an El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport killing two people and wounding four others before being shot dead. A 2004 Justice Department report stated that Hadayet's case had been "officially designated as an act of international terrorism." 4) In 2004 we had the DC sniper terrorist attack. The state of Virginia indicted Washington, D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad -- along with his accomplice, for "an act of terrorism" for murders he committed during a three-week shooting spree across Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Muhammad was convicted, sentenced to death, and subsequently executed for the crime. 5) In 2006 we had the UNC SUV terrorist attack. In March 2006, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill graduate Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV into an area of the campus, striking nine pedestrians. According to reports, Taheri-azar said he acted because he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world." Taheri-azar also stated in a letter: "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11/01 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree." This all happened on Bush's watch, yet O'Reilly never once criticized Bush for terrorism, and in fact, he defended Bush and called anyone who dared to criticize him, America hating traitors who should just shut up and support the President in a time of war. Not one Republican criticized Bush for these terrorist attacks, ever. But now they criticize Obama for an attemted attack that was a failure. When real attacks under Bush wer ignored, it's called hypocrisy and a double standard. Not to mention, O'Reilly claims that the harsh Bush terrorism policies he put in place in 2001 kept us safe from terrorism, when we had 5 more terrorist attacks after Bush put his harsh policies in place. Proving that O'Reilly is a lying partisan hack of a biased journalist, who has joined the Republicans in Congress to unfailrly attack President Obama with these unfounded partisan political attacks. Back then we had a Republican President and it was un-American to criticize the President in a time of war. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends attacked anyone who criticized Bush, they said you must support the President while we are at war, and even told them to shut up and support Bush. Even as the 5 terrorist acts I reported above were happening. But now that Obama is in office, suddenly it's ok to attack the President in a time of war, and the biggest critic of the attacks on Bush (Bill O'Reilly) is now doing what he said was wrong and un-American then to Obama. Making him the biggest, two faced, lying, biased, partisan hypocrite in the world. O'Reilly: One More Attack & Obama Is Done By: Steve - January 9, 2010 - 10:00am If this is not partisan right-wing bias, nothing is. Wednesday night O'Reilly had a Talking Points Memo, and the following segment about it with Dick "The Hooker Toe Sucker" Morris saying that, if another terrorist attack occurs on President Obama's watch, he is done. Never mind that not one person has died from an actual terrorist attack on Obama's watch. O'Reilly is counting the Fort Hood shootings as a terrorist attack btw, even though it has not been ruled a terrorist attack by the military or anyone, except O'Reilly and his Republican friends. And you have to wonder where O'Reilly and Morris were back in the Bush years, in the wake of a real terrorist attack that actually killed 3,000 people. Oh I forgot, they were busy saying that any blame against Bush was beyond any acceptable criticism. And If you dared to suggest that Bush had been asleep at the wheel before 9-11, you were accused of being a traitor who hated America by O'Reilly. Now why don't we take a look back in time and review exactly what happened under Bush. The stuff O'Reilly never talks about, because it actually shows the facts. After the 9-11 attacks, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the press: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Fact: That exact scenario had been foreseen by intelligence officials in 1998, as Rice later admitted. Then there was the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," which concluded: We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a -- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S. held extremists.So what did Bush do after the PDB warning about Bin Laden, he cut firewood on his ranch in Texas, no airline warnings, nothing, he just ignored the entire report. What did O'Reilly say about it, nothing, and in fact, he defended Bush and called him a strong leader. Not to mention, anyone who dared to criticize Bush about terrorism was called an un-American traitor by O'Reilly. A later report on the Bush administration had this information: Tenet briefed Condi Rice about a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States on July 10, 2001. Rice ignored the briefing, just as she and Bush both ignored the August 6 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo, when Bush told the CIA briefer who delivered the memo to him that he had "covered his ass" and then went fishing for the rest of the day.What criticism did O'Reilly have for Condi Rice or George W. Bush, none. Even though Rice and the Bush administration went to great measures to cover up their own incompetence, O'Reilly was silent as a mouse, and even defended them against criticism from Democrats. Then there was the Hart-Rudman Commission report, which warned the White House in May 2001 that it needed to take serious steps to prevent a terrorist attack. The report was ignored. So was Richard Clarke's memo of January 2001 warning of the terrorist threat. All this is consistent with what Clarke and other insiders reported about the Bush White House's pre-9/11 approach to terrorism: They viewed it as a "Clinton thing," and thus dismissed it as a minor concern for largely ideological reasons. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce the DOJ anti-terrorist budget but also shift the DOJ mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force.What was never excusable is that Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9-11 regarding his duty to keep us safe, and no amount of historical revisionism by O'Reilly or his right-wing friends will change that fact. Not to mention, the Bush war on terror has actually made us less safe, and more likely to suffer future terrorist attacks, as the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate made clear: An assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.So in other words, Bush failed to keep us safe, both during his time in office, and into the future. But if we suffer another terrorist attack as a result of that failure, of course it will be Obama's fault, according to Bill O'Reilly. The Friday 1-8-10 O'Reilly Factor review By: Steve - January 9, 2010 - 9:00am The TPM was called Are Conservatives Undermining Obama. Now this is funny, O'Reilly only did this bogus TPM to pretend he is fair and balanced by going after the Conservatives for undermining President Obama and the way he is handling terrorism. O'Reilly said this: O'REILLY: The President appealed for a united front against terror, saying 'now is not a time for partisanship.' President Obama is under withering criticism because his anti-terror policies are deemed 'too soft' by some Americans.Yeah, the some Americans are Bill O'Reilly, and all the other right-wing nuts who are simply attacking President Obama over terrorism for partisan political reasons, just to make him look bad. When Bush was the President we had 9-11, that killed almost 3,000 people, and at least 5 other known terrorist attacks under his watch after that. And yet, not one time did O'Reilly or any Republican go after Bush for allowing the terrorist attack, or attempted attack. O'Reilly said trying the underwear guy in civilian courts is one of the worst political decisions he has ever seen. But George W. Bush did the exact same thing in 2002 with the shoe bomber Richard Reid, back then O'Reilly never said a word about that. Now that Obama does it, he attacks him and calls it the worst political decision he has ever seen. Proving that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack, because he had no problem with it when Bush did it, he only has a problem with it when OBama does it. In fact, O'Reilly defended Bush after all the attacks, and claimed that the tough Bush terrorism policies kept us safe, even though we had 5 more terrorist attacks under Bush after 9-11, and after he put his tougher policies in place. So the tougher Bush terrorism policies did not keep us safe, but O'Reilly keeps saying they did. I guess he thinks we are too stupid to remember all the other attacks that happened under Bush. And most terrorism experts believe Bush caused more terrorism (and created more terrorists) by using torture, opening Gitmo, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and by invading Iraq. Then O'Reilly had the far right Karl Rove on to discuss it. And of course he agreed with O'Reilly because he is one of the right-wing nuts attacking President Obama over terrorism for partisan political reasons. Rove said, "It is possible to take criticism too far, but a disagreement over the handling of this Christmas bomber is a legitimate matter for public debate." Except when Democrats had any criticism of Bush over his terrorism policies they were told to shut up and support the President. O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News said they were wrong to criticize the President in a time of war. O'Reilly even called them un-American traitors, and had a guest on to see if they could be tried for sedition. Of course the guest said no, but O'Reilly wanted to do it anyway. Now he is doing exactly what he called treason back when the Democrats did it to Bush. But somehow it's not treason now, so not only is it ok, he is doing it too, along with Rove and the rest of them. Then O'Reilly actually had an honest Conservative on, Bob Barr said the Republicans are just being partisans, and that Obama is doing a good job. Barr said, "I think the President has done a good job of laying out the problems we have, and those problems long predate January 20th when Mr. Obama took office. I don't know why people are so fearful of treating this Nigerian idiot as a criminal. He violated U.S. law over U.S. airspace and our legal system will work properly." Barr also denounced Dick Cheney for criticizing President Obama. And of course O'Reilly disagreed, he said Obama has dismantled the Bush-Cheney anti-terror apparatus. Which is a lie, Obama has mostly kept all the Bush policies in place, the only policy he changed was to ban torture. So O'Reilly basically lied his ass off to back up his positions, Barr was right, but O'Reilly barely let him get a word in. Billy shouted him down and cut him off constantly. And no matter what Barr said O'Reilly dismissed it and denied it. In fact, O'Reilly said he was shocked that a smart man like him was saying all this stuff, when Barr is right, and all these attacks on Obama are garbage, it's just a political smear job to make Obama look bad, even though he is using almost all the same terrorism policies Bush did. Then O'Reilly had two liberal guests on, but they were not allowed to talk about the political attacks from O'Reilly and the Republicans on the Obama terrorism policies, they were put on to talk about the health care conference committee not being broadcast on C-SPAN. Billy had Ellis Henican and Leslie Marshall on to discuss it. Basically O'Reilly spent the entire segment trying to get the two of them to admit it is an embarrasment to Obama to not have it on C-SPAN. Even though it's Pelosi and Reid who decide that, Obama can not force them to have it on C-SPAN. Yet, O'Reilly tried to make them admit it was an embarrasment to Obama, which is ridiculous and more proof he is a right-wing nut. And btw, neither one of them would admit it, and Ellis said he is worried about real things, like terrorism and the economy. O'Reilly called him a pinhead and said he was dodging the issue. The whole segment was just done to try and get two liberals to agree with O'Reilly that it's an embarrasment to Obama, and to smear Obama some more, and he failed. During the segment Henican was at the table with O'Reilly, and he was looking into the camera as he talked, instead of at O'Reilly. So Billy told him to look at him and not the camera, then at the end of the segment he told Henican if he ever does that again he is going to slap him. Name one time O'Reilly ever said anything like that to a Republican guest, haha, never. And btw, during the segment O'Reilly also told Marshall he is not a partisan Republican, which is just ridiculous. Since he got back from his two week vacation he has done nothing but smear and attack President Obama, virtually non-stop with 99% right-wing guests. If that is not being a partisan Republican, there is no such thing. Then Geraldo was on to talk about the story of Michael Jacksons doctor being charged with involuntary manslaughter. Geraldo said the DA's office is denying the story. Then he reported a rumor report that 150,000 older Americans have resigned from AARP because they support the Obama health care plan. When CBS News is reporting it's 60,000, and they are all Republicans. Something Geraldo failed to mention. Here is what CBS News reported: CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care.Basically 60,000 (not 150,000) Republican senior citizens have quit AARP to join a Conservative alternative, because they do not like AARP supporting the Obama health care plan. Geralo failed to report that, and even got his numbers wrong. Proving that Geraldo is also a lying spinning right-wing idiot who ignores the facts. Then Glenn Beck was on for his weekly segment. O'Reilly said Beck spent all week eviscerating his critics at Media Matters with facts. Which is just laughable, Beck tried to spin what they said about him, and had no facts, he ignored the facts, and lied abour what he said. If you want the actual facts, go to mediamatters.org and read actual quotes of what Beck said. Billy called Media Matters a bug, he said they are liars and partisan left-wing loons. When all they do is publish videos and transcripts that show exactly what Beck, O'Reilly, and all the other right-wingers in the media say. They simply publish their own words, and yet O'Reilly calls that lying. The reality is that Beck and O'Reilly have to try and discredit them so people will think him and Beck are telling the truth. So he is the liar, because all they do is quote Beck and O'Reilly word for word, and sometimes even post the video of it. In O'Reillyworld, quoting someone word for word is lying. The last segment was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Alisyn Camerota. Camerota singled out CNN for hiring comedian Kathy Griffin to co-host the network's live New Year's Eve special, during which she dropped the f-bomb. Gutfeld went with Media Matters. He made a stupid cartoon about them, O'Reilly played the cartoon and loved it. Then O'Reilly said his pick is Joy Behar, who joked that Sarah Palin's base doesn't even read. She said Palin's book had big sales, even though her base can not read. But O'Reilly picked Joy Behar for making a joke about Sarah Palin, when the joke from Behar was an attack on her stupid right-wing supporters, not her. And btw, Behar is a COMEDIAN, who made a joke about how stupid Palin's supporters are. When Dennis Miller does the very same thing every week, when he makes jokes about liberals, and does it on the Factor, yet O'Reilly has no problem with that. It's total hypocrisy and a double standard from O'Reilly. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, because it was his birthday O'Reilly named Elvis the patriot, even though he is dead. Which is kind of stupid in my book, the patriot should at least be alive, and why not make it a fireman, a cop, or someone in the military. I'm sure there are plenty of living patriots, yet O'Reilly picked Elvis. Ridge Says One Thing Giuliani Says Another By: Steve - January 9, 2010 - 8:30am Here is a perfect example of what you get from an honest Republican, and what you get from a dishonest Republican. Talking about conservatives who have been attacking the Obama administration and Janet Napolitano, Ridge said their criticism is misplaced. Here is what the honest Republican Tom Ridge said. RIDGE: Neither the Secretary of Homeland Security, nor can the department, act on anything until they get the information. And the Department of Homeland Security could not have revoked the visa. The Department of Homeland Security could not have put his name on the National Counterterrorism Center. So while there is obviously some criticism pointed in the department's direction and at the Secretary, I think by and large it is misplaced.And last month, Ridge (who served under Bush) also defended Napolitano against the right-wing attacks on her initial statement, saying, "I don't think any right-thinking person actually believed that Secretary Napolitano thought the system worked." "I think what she was referring to was that after the incident occurred, there are certain procedures and protocols to put in place," Ride said. "That worked smoothly." What he is saying, is that Republicans are dishonestly attacking Obama and Napolitano for partisan political reasons, which is exactly what I have been saying here in my blog for a week. And then you have a totally dishonest Republican, Rudy Giuliani, who is not only a massive hypocrite with double standards, he can not even get his facts right. Conservatives have tried to politicize the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day by complaining that President Obama waited three days before publicly addressing it. "The President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it's over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke today," said Karl Rove, while failing to mention that his old boss former President Bush waited six days before commenting on the 2001 attempted shoe bombing. But now Rudy Giuliani is claiming that Obama waited 10 days to respond. On Larry King Live last night, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed that Obama responded 10 days too late: GIULIANI: I think the president has to make a major correction in the way he is dealing with terrorism because I think he has mishandled the situation. First of all, it was 10 days too late. This is something you react to immediately, not 10 days later. The president of the United States, when there is a potential massive attack on this country, which is what this guy was going to do, should have been on top of this immediately, not 10 days later, 11 days later, 12 days later.When Larry King pointed out that President Bush took six days once in a similar incident, Giuliani responded that "six days is less than 10" and that he believed "that six days was before the September 11th attack." King then clarified that Bush waited six days on the shoe bomber, to which Giuliani responded, "that's correct." For the record, President Obama spoke about it 3 days after the attempted attack, not 10 days, or 11 days, or 12 days, 3 days. And Karl Rove even admitted by complaining that Obama waiting 72 hours was too long. Proving that Giuliani is a massive liar. And btw, The attempted shoe bombing by Richard Reid took place three months after 9-11 on December 22, 2001. President Bush (who was on vacation in Texas at his ranch) didn't say a single word about the incident until a press conference six days later, where he simply said that he was "grateful for the flight attendant's response" and that "we've got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country." In contrast, when President Obama first spoke about the Christmas Day plot on Dec. 28, three days later, he gave a lengthy statement in order to "update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack." And one last thing, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr is defending the Obama administration's response, saying that the GOP's criticism has demonstrated "childishness." Then O'Reilly ignores it all, and never says a word about any of this, because he is also hammering Obama over it, for partisan political reasons. President Obama And The Word Terrorism By: Steve - January 8, 2010 - 9:30am This is getting ridiculous, even though President Obama has used the word terrorist and terrorism many many times, Republicans are still saying he never uses the word terrorist or terrorism. In a Washington Times op-ed yesterday, Monica Crowley advanced the false right-wing talking point that President Obama does not use the word "terror" when describing attacks on the United States; on the January 6 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade echoed Crowley's attack, falsely claiming that the Obama administration "won't even acknowledge that we're in the war on terror or that a terror strike could occur." Republican Senator Jim DeMint and Republican Congressman Peter King have also made the same dishonest claims. And now here are the facts. 1) President Obama routinely uses the word "terror" and did so in discussing the attempted Christmas Day attack. In his weekly address only 24 hours before DeMint made his claim, Obama used the term 'terror,' 'terrorism,' or 'terrorists' a half dozen times. 2) In response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day, President Obama addressed the nation on the incident and repeatedly described the attack as a "terrorist attack." From his December 28 remarks: OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. I wanted to take just a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country.That was said on 12-28-09, of last year. Obama used the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" and suspected "terrorist" over and over, and that was in just one speech. Then on 12-29-09 President Obama talked about it again, and used the words terrorist and terrorism. OBAMA: Good morning. Yesterday I updated the American people on the immediate steps we took -- the increased screening and security of air travel -- to keep our country safe in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day.Call me crazy, but it looks to me like President Obama used the word "terrorist" at least 3 times, in just that one day on 12-29-09. Then on 12-31-09 President Obama used the word terrorism again. OBAMA: This morning, I spoke with John Brennan about preliminary assessments from the ongoing consultations I have ordered into the human and systemic failures that occurred leading up to the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas Day.Earth to right-wing idiots, President Obama uses the word "terrorism" all the time, so stop lying about it. He even said it again on 1-2-10 and 1-5-10. In his January 2nd weekly address, President Obama repeatedly used "terror" or some variation of the word to discuss the attempted Christmas Day attack and other terrorist actions. On January 5th, President Obama used some form of the word "terror" at least eight different times. In his January 5 remarks on the attempted Christmas Day attack, Obama used the words "terrorist," "terrorism," "counterterrorism," or some variation of the word at least eight different times. Case closed, game over. The facts are in, and they show the Republicans and Fox News to be proven liars, and that is a fact. Notice that O'Reilly has not said a word about these right-wing lies, he has not defended President Obama, and he has not reported on these lies from Monica Crowley, Jim DeMint, Peter King, or the people at Fox News. Fox News & Republicans Still Lying About President Obama By: Steve - January 8, 2010 - 9:00am Fox News and a lot of Republicans are still lying that President Obama refuses to use the word terrorism. On Monday, ThinkProgress pointed out how conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) were complaining that President Obama and his administration are not willing to use the word terror - a claim that is refuted by Obama's own statements and speeches. In response to Obama's remarks Tuesday on the Christmas Day terror plot, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) whined that "he still refuses to use the word terrorism." Asked on Good Morning America yesterday for a specific recommendation for the president, King said "I think one main thing would be to just use the word terrorism more often." And now we have Fox and Friends also lying about it, Wednesday morning they featured two chyrons claiming that the Obama administration avoids the word terror. ![]() ![]() And that's not all, Asked on MSNBC Wednesday morning to defend the GOP's rush to politicize the attempted terrorist attack, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said it was justified because President Obama "can't call a thing what it is." Steele then claimed that Obama denies that what America is dealing with "is terrorism, a war on terror, and what we're dealing with individually is a terrorist." The conservatives semantic attack is all the more ridiculous considering that in President Obama's statement Tuesday afternoon, he made eight references to terrorism, terrorists and counterterrorism. This is a blatant 100% lie, from the Republicans and Fox News. And yet, O'Reilly does not say a word about it, then he wonders why the Obama administration hates Fox News. Now imagine if Bush was President, and MSNBC put these lies out about him, O'Reilly would be on it like stink on crap. But when Fox News does it to Obama, O'Reilly is silent as a mouse. The Thursday 1-7-10 O'Reilly Factor review By: Steve - January 8, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called Terrorism Address. Billy said Obama got tough on terrorism today, but then asked if he really means it. So he questioned it, which he would never do with Bush. Basically O'Reilly is saying that Obama is just all talk on being tough on terrorism. O'Reilly played some clips of the Obama speech today, where he said the word terrorist amd called it a war. Then O'Reilly mocked everything he said, and even had the guts to say he was not knocking Obama, when that is exactly what he was doing. O'Reilly just made a bunch of smart ass sarcastic comments and made Obama look like he was just giving us lip service. Then O'Reilly had the insane far right Col. Ralph peters on to smear and attack President Obam even more. Billy asked Col. Peters if he was right with his TPM, and Col. Peters said he is 100% correct. And of course there was no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint or provide any balance. O'Reilly also complained that he is tired of hearing the words "systemic failure" and said he would make sure no Factor guest used those words. Basically O'Reilly and Peters spent 4 minutes trashing Obama with right-wing spin and propaganda, with nobody from the left to give an opposing point of view. O'Reilly said Obama just does not get it, then asked Peters when Obama will get it, Peters said probably after it's too late. Then O'Reilly called for the world to get together and blow the hell out of Al Qaeda. They also trashed Janet Napolitano, Peters said she was out of her league, and O'Reilly agreed, then he blamed Obama for giving her the job. Which implies they are right, when it's just speculation, and O'Reilly said he never speculates. At the end O'Reilly said he just wants Obama to get tough on terrorism, whatever that means. Then the far right nut job Laura Ingraham was on for her regular weekly segment. Funny how O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, but he only has one Democrat on the entire show who gets his own segment, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. And he is not on every week, like Ingraham and all the rest of the Republicans are, which makes it even more biased. Basically Ingraham agreed with everything Col. peters and O'Reilly said, so there is no need to report everything she said. It was the usual right-wing attack from Ingraham, Obama is weak, and soft on terrorism, blah, blah, blah. the whole segment was just another one sided biased smear job on President Obama by two right-wing nuts, Ingraham and O'Reilly. They complain that Obama dod not use the words terrorism, or call it a war on terror, so he does, and they still complain, so you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And btw, Ingraham said Col. Peters is brilliant, when the guy is an Obama hating right-wing neo-con nut. The Factor has basically turned into an arm of the Republican party, every night it's just an hour long attack on President Obama with 99% right-wing loons. Then O'Reilly had a segment on a new immigration bill coming out of the House. Lou Dobbs was on to discuss it, what a joke. He was fired from CNN for being a racist anti-immigration idiot, so what does O'Reilly do, put him on the Factor to talk about immigration of course. It's like putting a KKK member on to discuss racial issues for black people, it was ridiculous. Nobody even knows what is in the bill, and yet O'Reilly does a segment on it. He asked Dobbs what he wants in the bill, haha, what a joke. Earth to O'Dummy, why not wait until the bill is out before you discuss it, moron. Billy and Lou sat around dreaming about what they want in the immigration bill, good luck with that, because nobody cares what you two right-wing morons want in the bill, and you would be the last people to ask. The next segment was with the two Republican culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. And of course there are no Democratic culture warriors, just Hoover and Carlson. They talked about Beyonce, she was paid $2 million dollars to sing for Kadafi, who fricking cares. It's tabloid garbage, and I refuse to report this crap. Then they talked about a study that shows kids under 12 who are spanked do better in life, ummmm ok. It's ridiculous, each child is different and these studies are worthless. Hoover even pointed out that you can find a study to show anything, and O'Reilly said good point. Then they talked about Jay Leno possibly moving back to 11:30pm because of low ratings. It's more tabloid news, and I could care less what Jay Leno does, or don't do. Then the Kelly File segment with the Republican Megyn Kelly, she was on to talk about PETA using the first lady Michelle Obama in one of their ads. PETA used the image of Michelle Obama without her permission, and she does not like it. O'Reilly said she should sue PETA, and Barack should sue a company that used a photo of him in a coat without his permission. Which is just ridiculous, and it's never going to happen, which is exactly what Megyn Kelly said. They also talked about some parents who had tattoos put on their children, and that is a crime in Georgia. Billy said it was wrong, and the parents should be prosecuted. They also talked about a 9-11 caller refusing to tell a woman how to save her child from choking, and the 9-11 employee is getting sued. They both predicted the family will lose the lawsuit. And finally they talked about a drunk school bus driver who put the kids in danger for driving drunk. The woman bus driver got 24 days in jail, and O'Reilly said that was too light. Then the ridiculous Factor reality check segment, that has no reality, and usually no checks. Basically O'Reilly plays video clips of what some liberal said, then he gives you what he calls a reality check. In reality, it's just the biased right-wing opinion of O'Reilly on what they said. I do not report what O'Reilly says in this segment, because it's biased one sided garbage. One so-called reality check was just a song against the Obama health care plan, with no check, and boy did O'Reilly love it. The rest were not even worth reporting. Then the pinheads and patriots and the hand picked (highly edited) Factor e-mails. And what a shocker, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, it was 7 Republicans to 0 Democrats. That makes 31 Republicans to 3 Democrats, in just 4 shows. Laura Ingraham Caught Lying About President Obama By: Steve - January 8, 2010 - 8:00am Here is a perfect example of why you should never listen to anything (all these right-wing partisan hacks O'Reilly puts on the Factor) say, like Laura Ingraham. Last night she was caught in a blatant lie about what President Obama said yesterday in a press conference he held. Then after she was called on her lie by O'Reilly himself, she still denied Obama said it. Now what gets me is O'Reilly keeps putting these blatant partisan liars on his show, even though they are nothing but biased partisan fools that get caught lying over and over, and he still has them back to lie some more. Last night on the Factor, Laura Ingraham claimed that "the number one thing President Obama is not doing to fight terrorism is identifying what the real threat is, suggesting that Obama has not addressed the threat posed by Al Qaeda. Here is exactly what Ingraham said to O'Reilly: INGRAHAM: The number one thing he's not doing, of course, is identifying what the real threat is. He renamed the war on terror, "overseas contingency operations."Right there it is in black and white, the lie from Ingraham. She claims that Obama did not say we are at war with Al Qaeda yesterday. If you want to see it with your own eyes, go to this website. www.whitehouse.gov/remarks-president And here is exactly what President Obama said yesterday on 1-7-10, this is a quote from the actual whitehouse.gov transcript: OBAMA: Over the past two weeks, we've been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands.That is exactly what president Obama said, he said we are at war, then he repeated it and said we are at war against Al Qaeda. But Ingraham claims he never said it, proving she is a bold faced right-wing liar that should never be trusted. And it also shows that she is a partisan hack with no credibility. Not to mention, it makes O'Reilly look bad too, for putting all these lying right-wing hacks on his show every week. They spew out lie after lie about the President, week after week, and O'Reilly just keeps putting them back on his show for their regular segment. Then he talks about the ridiculous three strikes for Obama, here is a challenge for O'Reilly, if someone on your show is caught lying three times, ban them, or you are just as much as a partisan hack with no credibility as they are. O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Persons By: Steve - January 7, 2010 - 1:00pm This is from Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Time for COUNTDOWN's number two story, it's tonight's worst persons in the world. Our winner, Bill-O the Clown. And this is clown college time. I mentioned this last night, but it deserves the full read: O'REILLY: "Simply put, al Qaeda thugs have no rights, none. They should be killed on the spot. And they are being killed by the drones. So if they're captured, they should undergo harsh interrogation and be placed in military prisons."OK, were you planning to still put them in the military prisons after you killed them on the spot? Or do you need to rephrase your plan? Seriously, Bill, we need to walk you through the idea of why we have trials? Ultimately, why we ask questions first and shoot later? That's not about rights. It's not about who's a thug. It's not about how much sadistic joy and the sickos like you get from the thought of harsh interrogation. It's so we get the right guy. Mankind figured this out thousands of years ago and we replaced them that old method of kill them, then ask them if they're guilty because the dead men proved to be mediocre at answering questions. And then it often turned out that we were killing the wrong guys, which was inconvenient, especially for them. Because under your system all that has to happen is that someone says, hey, that Bill O'Reilly, he's an al Qaeda thug, and then, under your system, the government would have the right to kill you on the spot. Bill, if this still isn't clear, I'll draw you a picture in crayon and messenger it over. Bill-O the Thug, today's worst person in the world! ------------------------- And let me add this to what Keith said, how can O'Reilly claim to support the Constitution, the laws, and also claim to oppose the death penalty when he calls for people to be shot on sight. Who is going to shoot them, and if they are wrong do they go on trial for murder. Who decides if they are Al Qaeda, or not, O'Reilly? Let's say we shoot a muslim man on sight (who somebody thinks is Al Qaeda) and it turns out he is not Al Qaeda, don't you think that will cause thousands and thousands of muslims to join Al Qaeda, and just lead to 10 times more terrorism. Clearly O'Reilly has not thought it through, or maybe he has, and he is really that stupid. The Wednesday 1-6-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 7, 2010 - 10:00am The TPM was called Will Al Qaeda Destroy Obama. O'Reilly said that some conservatives are saying Obama does not take terrorism seriously enough, funny how he does not include himself, when he is saying it too. O'Reilly even goes farther and says Obama is soft and weak on terrorism, simply because Obama does not torture them. It's a ridiculous argument that is only being put out by conservatives, especially O'Reilly, even though he acts like he is not one of them. O'Reilly said Obama has three strikes, the Muslim terrorist who killed a soldier in Arkansas, the Fort Hood massacre, and then the underwear bomber struck on Christmas. Billy said that's three strikes in six months. Which is insane, they happened while Obama was the President, but none of them were real terrorist attacks. In two cases it was one guy, and they were not in Al Qaeda, and the 3rd one failed. But my main point is that we had 5 or 6 terrorist attacks, or attempted terrorist attacks under Bush, and not once did O'Reilly give Bush three strikes, or say he is done. It's total right-wing spin, yes you can call them terrorist attacks, but they are not like 9-11, which was a real terrorist attack that killed thousands of people. Then O'Reilly had the far right Dick Morris on to discuss it. O'Reilly said the issue of terrorism could bring down the Obama administration, and one more successful attack on this country and all hell will break loose. When the last attack failed, but O'Reilly counts it as a strike against Obama anyway. Even the crazy Dick Morris disagreed and said it's not one more attack and Obama is out. Then O'Reilly cut him off and said that President Obama is one attack away from losing mass support, and that we now have three attacks on American soil in six months. O'Reilly talks like these were real terrorist attacks, as in hundreds or thousands of dead, when all three cases were just one guy, and in one case nobody was killed, or even hurt. O'Reilly acts like we had three 9-11 type terrorist attacks and that Obama is not keeping us safe because he does not torture them after we catch them. It's ridiculous right-wing garbage. And if a Republican were President O'Reilly would be defending him and saying how great a leader he is. After 9-11, that actually killed close to 3,000 people O'Reilly called Bush a strong leader. But when one guy has a failed terrorist attack under Obama, O'Reilly calls it an attack, as if it worked and killed people, then says Obama is done if there is one more attack. When Obama does not work the security at the airport in Amsterdam, so he is hardly to blame. Then a Democrat was finally on, O'Reilly had Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it. They talked about the Obama job approval numbers, and for the first time ever O'Reilly also mentioned the Gallup numbers for Obama after he reported the Rasmussen numbers. But of course the Rasmussen numbers were far lower on the approval, and far higher on the disapproval. Dr. Hill pointed out that his poll numbers are not this low because of his treatment of the war on terror, and O'Reilly even admitted he might be right. Then he said in the long term, most of the American people will appreciate the civilian court process. Then of course O'Reilly disagreed, and said they should be tortured by the military and put on trial in military courts. Even though the shoe bomber did the very same thing under Bush and he was put on trial in the civilian courts. Funny how it was on then when it happened under Bush, but suddenly it's not ok under Obama when it's the exact same thing. And btw, on Monday night O'Reilly said anyone from Al Qaeda should be shot on sight, ummmmm Billy, how do we know they are in Al Qaeda, who decides, you, and what happened to rights and laws, and the Constitution. I'll have more on this later. The next segment was just stupid, O'Reilly had the British radio talk show host Neil Seanon the show to discuss why France was voted the #1 best Country to live, and why the USA dropped from 3rd to 7th. He was on from London, and the survey is put out by a foreign magazine. Here is my question, who cares, why should we care what rank they give us. And btw, O'Reilly acted like he did not know why we dropped from 3rd to 7th, when right in the article it says because of the economic collapse we had under President Bush, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that. Then O'Reilly implied it was because of the economy now under Obama, when that is not what the article said, I read it so I know. It specifically said because of the economic collapse that happened under Bush. The guy from London even predicted we would move back up as our economy improves, and that they like Obama, all of which O'Reilly ignored of course. Then the next two segments were the usual Factor garbage, the body language segment and Dennis Miller. The body language bimbo did three body language readings, all negative, and all on liberals, especially Nancy Pelosi, no readings on any Republicans. Then Dennis Miller smeared and attacked Obama for not torturing the underwear bomber. Miller said we should ask him to talk, and if he says no, put the underwear back on him and blow him up. Which is insane, and he was serious. But remember that Miller also said we should blow up a Nuke just to show the world we still have them, when asked later about the Nuclear fallout he said just do it when the wind is blowing in the right direction. Proving just how stupid Dennis Miller is. Both segments were one sided biased right-wing attacks on all liberals, especially President Obama. In fact, the whole show was, except for the Dr. Hill segment. The last segment was did you see that with the right-wing Jane Skinner from Fox. Billy complained about a cartoon about the teabaggers on the NPR website. Which is funny, because he never complains about any right-wing cartoons, even when it was done by the NY Post, which is owned by Fox, and they had a cop shooting a gorilla that was Obama, O'Reilly never said a word. But when NPR does a cartoon on their website O'Reilly want's to pull their funding and shut them down. It's bias, and massive hypocrisy, not to mention a double standard. Billy said if they are not fair and balanced that is wrong, and they should have their taxpayer money taken away. Which is ridiculous, because he does not call for any right-wing cartoons to be fair and balanced, not to mention, it's a fricking cartoon, so who cares. Then he admitted he does not even know if they are fair and balanced, Billy said he did not have time to look at all their cartoons. He asked Jane Skinner if she knows if they are fair and balanced, and she did not know either. So they did the segment anyway attacking NPR for a lame cartoon, when neither one of them knows if they are fair and balanced or not. And that is called journalism on the Factor, what a fricking joke. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And another 99% right-wing biased O'Reilly Factor was over, with all Republican guests but one. Crowley Claims Obama Wants Americans To Be Killed By: Steve - January 7, 2010 - 9:00am I have heard a lot of insane stuff from Republicans, but this has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard. And this nut Monica Crowley was allowed to say this insanity on the O'Reilly Factor, by Bill O'Reilly. He gave this lunatic the forum to say this nonsense, and then will have her back again next week. On the 1-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Monica Crowley suggested that President Obama wants Americans to be killed in order to fulfill some crazy Alinsky agenda. Here is the video: A real journalist would tell her to stop with the right-wing insanity or they will not be allowed back on the show. O'Reilly not only did not say that, he continues to have her on to spew out this right-wing nonsense. Just imagine what O'Reilly and the Republicans would say if a Democrat said this about a Republican President, they would go nuts. When the Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson called the k-street lobbyist a whore they flipped out, so what do you think they would say if a Democrat said a Republican President wants Americans to be killed. they would call for him to be put to death, yet Crowley does it and O'Reilly says nothing, and she even said it on his show. Keith Olbermann calls Dick Cheney A Traitor By: Steve - January 7, 2010 - 8:30am And I for one agree 100% with Mr. Olbermann, what Dick Cheney is doing would be called treason by O'Reilly if a former Democratic Vice President said that about a Republican President. Here is a special comment on the issue from Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: And now as promised, the premiere of a new nightly segment, the Quick Comment. We are at war, Dick Cheney came down last week from "mount megalomania" to announce and, "When President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." If Mr. Cheney believes we are at war, then he, as the most recent former occupant of the vice presidency, is under the strictest obligation to put aside his case of terminal partisanship and rally to the support of his president at a time of war. Instead, his remarks not only give encouragement to the enemies of this country, they give them an exact measure as to how successful they have been in damaging our freedoms. In a previous time, Mr. Cheney's pathetic exploitation of human fears, his undermining of our courage and resolve and clear-headed calm thinking, would have resulted in his being chased off the national stage by a public sick to death of the personal industry he has made of undermining American freedom and of undermining the authority of this elected government. And in a previous, more resolute time, among journalists in this country, nobody would be pretending that this obvious fact was not true. It would have been in every newspaper, and on every broadcast-after his disgraceful performance since Christmas when a terrorist attempted an attack in this country, Dick Cheney is the beneficiary. And if he cannot summon exactly the same kind of absolute apolitical patriotism he demanded of everyone else while he was in office, he is, by his own terms, nothing more or less, morally if not legally, than a traitor to the United States of America. Tea Party Founder Is A Racist By: Steve - January 7, 2010 - 8:00am And not only is he a racist, he is a stupid racist who can not even spell the racist words he uses right. Then you might ask, how do I know he is a stupid racist. I would say one word: Photo. ![]() That my friends is a photo of Dale Robertson at a Tea party protest last year. Then you ask, who is Dale Robertson. He is the founder of www.teaparty.org, one of the biggest Tea Party websites on the internet. And yes he is so stupid he even spelled the n-word wrong. Here is a little something from his about us page at teaparty.org: A Word From The Founder;And I bet the wife and kids are proud to have a stupid racist as a Father too. Folks, this is that all American Tea Party O'Reilly and Fox News promote 24/7, it's run by a fricking racist idiot. Remember that O'Reilly and just about everyone at Fox News said the teabaggers are not racist, and that you can not prove they are. OOPS, yes we can Billy, and yes they are. And now who wants to bet me the great journalist Bill O'Reilly never reports this story, or shows that photo, or ever mentions the name Dale Robertson. Anyone? More Republican Lies About President Obama By: Steve - January 6, 2010 - 9:50am Has anyone noticed this, O'Reilly does not report any of this news, ever. But when Bush was in office O'Reilly would report everything any Democrat ever said about Bush. It's hypocrisy, bias, and a total double standard. When Bush was in office and a Democrat criticized him about terrorism, O'Reilly would always report it, and call them traitors who should support the President. O'Reilly would say they are helping the terrorists by not supporting the President, but that was when Bush was the President. Now that Obama is the President and Republicans unfairly criticize him over terrorism, O'Reilly says nothing, and never says a word about any of it. Because he likes it, and he wants them to spread lies that hurt Obama. So he does not report that they are lying, not to mention not callimg them traitors either, which he did to Democrats when Bush was in office. Then on top of that, he puts Rove, Gingrich, etc. on the Factor to spread the lies, which is directly helping them. Last week, Dick Cheney attacked the Obama administration's approach to terrorism, saying that Obama has been trying to pretend we are not at war. The White House aggressively hit back at Cheney, saying he either "willfully mischaracterized" Obama or is ignorant of the facts. Politifact called Cheney's criticism ridiculously false because a review of Obama's statements of the past year makes it clear he has often said the United States is at war against terrorist organizations. And O'Reilly never reported any of it, he just left it out there as if what Cheney was saying is true. But Cheney's ridiculous attack wasn't the only lie launched by conservatives at Obama over things he supposedly doesn't say. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) complained both yesterday and today that Obama is not "willing to use the word" terror. The New Republic's Editor Marty Peretz rejoiced on his blog yesterday that Obama finally used "the word terror" in his weekly address on Saturday. But as Greg Sargent pointed out, DeMint's claim has no merit. And a simple google search would have let Peretz know that it had actually been only two days since Obama referred to the Christmas Day plot as an "attempted act of terrorism" that underlined the need for continued vigilance on homeland security and counterterrorism efforts. Then in Obama's address at West Point announcing his escalation in Afghanistan on Dec. 1, 2009, he used variations of the word "terror" six times: -- America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.Yet, all these right-wing nuts claim Obama has never said the words, terror, terrorism, etc. when he has said it a hundred times. And not once has O'Reilly reported on these right-wing lies. O'Reilly has even joined the Republicans in attacking Obama for being weak on terrorism, last night he said Obama was weak and soft on terrorism, and that he is making us less safe. Even though he has continued all the Bush terrorism policies, except for torture, and there has not been a terrorist attack under Obama, only a failed attack, which also happened many times under Bush. Republican Says Liberals Worse Than Terrorists By: Steve - January 6, 2010 - 9:30am Some right-wing nut says liberals are worse than terrorists. And the great nonpartisan independent journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it. Now imagine if a Democrat had said conservatives are worse than terrorists, it would be the top story on the Factor, and O'Reilly would do half the show on it, with future follow up segments. But when a Republican says it, he does not even mention it, let alone make it the top story or do one segment on it. Former state legislator Allan Quist is a Republican running to replace Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) in 2010. As the Minnesota Independent reports, Quist told an audience at the Wabasha County Republicans Christmas party that the big battle he thinks conservatives should be fighting is not against terrorists, but liberals in Washington: Quist told attendees of the Wabasha County Republicans Christmas Party in mid-December that beating the radical liberals in Washington, D.C., is a bigger battle than beating terrorism.On NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, White House homeland security adviser John Brennen remarked, "I think we have to remember who the enemy here is. The enemy is al Qaeda. And as this finger-pointing is going on in Washington here, these partisan politics and agendas, quite frankly, I find it very disappointing that people would use this issue, issue of tremendous import of national security and forget that it is al Qaeda that is killing our citizens." And where is O'Reilly on this story, nowhere to be found, except to put Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove on to help them smear the President with these partisan lies. Rasmussen Caught Lying About Political Past By: Steve - January 6, 2010 - 9:00am Reporting on criticisms of right-leaning pollster Scott Rasmussen, Politico presented as fact his official bio as "an independent pollster" who has never been a campaign pollster or consultant. The article quotes Rasmussen's critics, but fails to question his supposed independence: While Scott Rasmussen, the firm's president, contends that he has no ax to grind - his bio notes that he has been "an independent pollster for more than a decade" and "has never been a campaign pollster or consultant for candidates seeking office" -- his opponents on the left insist he is the hand that feeds conservative talkers a daily trove of negative numbers that provides grist for attacks on Obama and the Democratic Party.According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush's 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as survey, survey cost and voter data. Bush's campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for survey research. In 2000 Rasmussen wrote for the right-wing World Net Daily website. In 2001 Rasmussen published a book that supported the Bush plan for privatizing Social Security. Rasmussen also ran political campaign ads on his polling website in 2008, but only for John McCain the Republican, no ads for Barack Obama the Democrat were run. After President Obama proposed his stimulus plan Rasmussen asked voters whether they "favored or opposeed the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats." While other pollsters, such as Gallup and CBS News, found stimulus support rising as high as 60 percent, Rasmussen never saw it rise above 45 percent. He was the only pollster to find support for the plan falling below opposition. Not to mention, Bill Kristol got an early look at the data and used it to make the case against the plan, Republicans such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) cited Rasmussen to argue that support for the Democratic version of the stimulus was tumbling. At a Feb. 10 briefing, Pence quibbled with a reporter who cited Gallup instead of Rasmussen. "If we're gonna talk polls for a minute," said Pence, support for the stimulus bill has been dropping every week since it was first introduced. I expect there'll be more polls that come out that demonstrate that public support is continuing to drop using the same methods and the same research." But he was wrong, a poll being conducted that day and the day after would actually reveal that President Obama's campaign for the stimulus was driving its support back up. Still, the Rasmussen poll was invaluable to Republican arguments that they were standing with the country against an unpopular bill. Even though it was the only poll with those results. And btw, If Rasmussen does not have a Republican bias why is Bill Kristol getting an early look at his data. Rasmussen is influential with Republicans because his carefully crafted questions produce answers that conservatives like -- like a poll he ran that said 59 percent of voters agree with Ronald Reagan's view of big government, a 10-point plurality of voters trusting their economic judgment over President Obama's. The result is that polls with extremely favorable numbers for Republican stances leap into the public arena every week, quickly becoming accepted wisdom. Bill O'Reilly is at the top of the list of Republicans who mostly use Rasmussen polls. And for the record, I would have no problem with O'Reilly using the Rasmussen polls, if he also showed the results of two or three other polls. My problem is that O'Reilly only uses Rasmussen, when most the other polls disagree with his numbers. It's biased and unfair to only cite the Rasmussen poll that always has the lowest numbers for President Obama and the Democrats, and it is not what an honest journalist would do. An honest journalist would cite two or three other polls (like Gallup) along with the Rasmussen poll so that there is a true fair and balanced poll report. Not to mention, an honest journalist would not try to pass Rasmussen off as an independent pollster, as O'Reilly did Monday night, when everyone knows he is a Republican with a right-wing bias. The Tuesday 1-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 6, 2010 - 8:30am The TPM was called Al Qaeda Victory. O'Reilly claims the attempted Christmas Day terror attack is a victory for Al Qaeda, even though it failed. Which is ridiculous, because it failed. And if a liberal had said this when Bush was the President O'Reilly would have called them an un-American America hater. Then O'Reilly used the TPM to attack Obama, he said the President looks weak and confused. Billy also attacked Obama over the use of drones, and basically smeared Obama once again over terrorism as weak and soft. He also questioned whether Obama has the will to be tough on terrorists. The Top Story was about the Council on American Islamic Relations protesting the profiling of Muslims and Arabs at airports and border checkpoints. Billy called it airport anarchy. O'Reilly had Ibrahim Hooper on to discuss it. Hooper said it is wrong to profile them, and of course O'Reilly disagreed. Hooper called O'Reilly out, and said he is putting out propaganda. O'Reilly denied that, and said he is not putting anything out. Hooper tried to explain how profiling does not work, but O'Reilly kept cutting him off and shouted him down, so he could barely get his explanation out. Basically O'Reilly got mad and yelled at Hooper the whole interview because he would not agree with him. O'Reilly supports profiling, when the experts say it does not work. Hooper said even the Bush administration said profiling does not work, O'Reilly said he does not care who says it, he don't care. And then called for all young arab muslims to be profiled. Then John Stossel was on to discuss it. O'Reilly said Stossel looks arab so he should be profiled, and Stossel said he would not like it. O'Reilly was surprised that he would be offended, but Stossel said he would not like to be profiled. Basically Stossel is opposed to profiling, and then O'Reilly spent the whole segment trying to explain why people should be profiled. Even though the experts say profiling does not work. But then at the end Stossel said the political correctness must be stopped, proving he is a right-wing nut who can not even make up his mind. They also talked about trans fat, and how the Government regulates it. Stossel is opposed to the Government regulating it, and I could care less. The next segment was with the far right nut Ann Coulter, she was on to talk about airport security. Coulter is actually opposed to the body scanner, which is a shocker, because she usually supports everything, no matter what the privacy concerns. Maybe she does not want them to see her skinny ass body on the scan. Now she is suddenly opposed to body scanners because it's an invasion of privacy, which btw is the same position the ACLU has. Basically Coulter is opposed to the full body scan, because they can see your naked body. Then she made a stupid joke about Bill Clinton signing up to be a body scan machine operator. And of course O'Reilly promoted her book, as he always does with right-wing guests. As far as profiling, Coulter supports it 100 percent. And when Coulter says muslims, she says it like mooselims, it's muslims you moron. And btw, who cares what Ann Coulter thinks about anything, nobody, except O'Reilly and the other right-wing nuts in America. Yet Billy puts her on the Factor as a regular to spew out her right-wing propaganda. Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on for the Barack & A Hard Place segment. They talked about Obama and terrorism. Obama said once again he will close Gitmo. O'Reilly referred to the Sarah Palin facebook posting, he said Palin crushed Obama, Colmes just laughed. Billy asked Colmes if Obama was strong enough on the attempted airplane bomber statement, Colmes said yes, and O'Reilly was shocked. Of course O'Reilly disagreed and said Obama was not strong enough. Crowley said Bush and Cheney kept us 100% safe after 9-11, and that Obama is letting all kinds of terrorist attacks happen. Which is ridiculous, because it failed, there have been 0, as in zero, terrorist attacks under President Obama. O'Reilly said what about the shoe bomber, somehow Crowley said that does not count, ummmm, huh? How does it not count, it was the same damn thing, proving that Crowley is a total right-wing idiot. Colmes said what Crowley said is a ridiculous smear job on Obama, and that it's all partisan politics. And Colmes is exactly right. Then the Republicans Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for the Is It Legal segment. And of course there are no Democratic legal experts on the Factor. They talked about a possible plea deal with the underwear bomber. Wiehl said there will not be a plea deal, how she knows is beyond me, because it has not happened yet. Guilfoyle said the whole federal court thing was a mistake, and that the military should handle it. Bascially O'Reilly and Guilfoyle want the military to torture him to get more information. The next case was about a Judge who gave a child rapist $10,000 bail, and then the guy was arrested again for another child rape. Billy sent Jesse Watters to ambush the Judge, and of course the Judge refused to talk, as they always do. They all agreed the bail should have been at least $200,000. The next case was about what O'Reilly called a good Judge, for giving a woman 20 years for having sex with a minor. They all loved that one, and said he is a good Judge. But if O'Reilly is asked to pay higher taxes to house all these prisoners he says no way, keep your hands off my money. The last segment was the Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. And I refuse to report on this nonsense because it is worthless tabloid garbage, and not news. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, Monday night O'Reilly named an out of control 6 year old elephant in India that was marching in a religious procession the pinhead, and tonight he named a sexy weather girl in MEXICO the patriot. Which is why I call the pinheads and patriots segment ridiculous. Some Bush Officials Support The Obama Terrorism Policy By: Steve - January 5, 2010 - 11:30am Just last night O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich said Obama is weak (and soft) on terrorism, and that his policies are making us less safe. But today we find out that Obama has basically continued all the Bush terrorism policies, except for torture, aka waterboarding. And some experts say that Obama has took the Bush terrorism policies even farther. And yet O'Reilly spent the entire show last night saying Obama is making us less safe than Bush did. Now we have proof that O'Reilly and Gingrich were lying, and just using their spin as a partisan political attack on Obama to make him look bad. Peter Baker has a New York Times Magazine piece out about "Obama's War on Terrorism." And there is an interesting passage from the article revealing the truth from a group of former Bush administration officials: BAKER: A half-dozen former senior Bush officials involved in counterterrorism told me before the Christmas Day incident that for the most part, they were comfortable with Obama's policies, although they were reluctant to say so on the record.None of which has ever been reported by O'Reilly or anyone on the Factor. Matt Yglesias said this about it: "It's really staggering what this says about the ethical caliber of the people we're talking about. Some of them don't want to say Obama's doing the right thing because that might make Dick Cheney mad and they're timid, gutless careerists? And others don't want to say he's doing the right thing because their feelings are hurt that a Democrat said bad things about his grossly unpopular Republican predecessor?" Basically they support the Obama terrorism policies, but they will not say it, because they are afraid of what Cheney will say about them, and they do not want to help Obama because he has criticized former President Bush. And O'Reilly says nothing about the story, then on top of that he does a whole show smearing Obama as weak on terrorism with all Republican guests. When he knows that is a lie, and that Obama has kept almost all of the Bush terrorism policies in place except for waterboarding. This is called nonpartisan independent journalism by O'Reilly, when in reality it's nothing more than biased partisan right-wing political garbage, and the attacks on Obama are unfair. Proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing partisan hack of a pretend journalist. Notice that last night not one DEMOCRATIC guest was on the Factor, none. O'Reilly had 7 REPUBLICANS on to attack and smear President Obama with lies about his terrorism policies, as he claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, which is just laughable. Brit Hume Digs It Deeper Over Tiger Woods By: Steve - January 5, 2010 - 10:30am On Fox News Sunday last week, Brit Hume became the focus of controversy for saying that golfer Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity to deal with his marriage infidelities: HUME: He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."Many Buddhists quickly criticized Hume's dismissal of their faith. "I don't like to point out other's faults, but given the record, I would think Christians would show a little more humility about offering advice to the sexually wayward," wrote Barbara O'Brien on her Buddhism blog. Then last night, Hume went on The O'Reilly Factor and complained about all the negative feedback he has received, saying that it amounted to religious persecution of him for being Christian: HUME: I've heard a lot of terrible comments from people who claim that I was a pompous jerk who had no business mouthing off on the subject and that I shouldn't have belittled the Buddhist faith and so on. I really wasn't trying to belittle and demean.Notice what Hume and O'Reilly did here, one lied, then the other one swears to it. Hume said the negative feedback he received amounted to religious persecution of him for being Christian, then O'Reilly says what do you think drives the negative comments about Christianity. This is ridiculous right-wing garbage. Hume was not attacked for being a Christian, he was attacked for bad-mouthing the Buddist religion, and for saying Tiger should convert to a Christian. He basically implied the Christian religion is the only one where Tiger can get redemption. Then he tried to convert Tiger, and you know who else does that, the Taliban, and some religious fanatics in Arab countries. And O'Reilly plays along with the lie by asking Hume what he thinks drives the negative comments about Christianity. When there were no negative comments about Christianity, Hume was attacked for telling Tiger the only way to get redemption is to become a Christian. Which was an attack on Buddism, and an insult to all Buddists. Then on top of that it's just wrong to try and get people to switch their religion, especially when the Constitution grants everyone freedom of religion. Hume screwed up, then he tried to make himself the victim, and O'Reilly helped him spin out this sham. Then Hume dug it even deeper. He tried to back away slightly from his initial comments by saying that he never meant to denigrate Buddhism, but he still insisted that Christianity "especially provides redemption and forgiveness" as if Buddism does not, which it does. Hume also said that Tiger should convert because "he would feel the extraordinary blessing that would be. It would be a shining light, and I think it would be a magnificent thing to witness." This is a prime example of the bias from Brit Hume and O'Reilly, Hume goes on the Factor and lies, then O'Reilly swears to it, and backs him up. Nobody should be telling anyone what to do with their life, or what religion to practice. Unless that person is asking them for that type of advice. Let alone tell them to dump their religion and convert to Christianity, because that is the only religion that will get you redemption, which is exactly what Hume did, then he tried to scam people into believing he is the victim. And O'Reilly helped, now imagine what Hume and O'Reilly would say if a Muslim said Tiger should convert to the Muslim faith, and say that was the only way to get redemption. They would rip that person to pieces, tell them to shut up and mind their own business, and say it is an outrage to try and convert Tiger to the Muslim faith. But when Brit Hume does it, O'Reilly praised it and put out this sham that he is the victim, it's just ridiculous. Hume is like these people who make racist statements, then they get attacked for it, then they claim they are not racist and they are getting unfairly attacked. Earth to Brit Hume, you are a moron who said something stupid, just own up to it and say it was wrong to say, then say you are sorry. And then maybe you can get some redemption, dumb ass. The Monday 1-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 5, 2010 - 9:30am O'Reilly was back and the TPM was called America's Security. O'Reilly talked about the Christmas day airplane attack. And of course he put out the right-wing talking points about what Napolitano said, which was taken out of context, and he knows it. Basically O'Reilly used the TPM to smear Obama as weak on terrorism. Billy said Obama did away with the torture Bush was using and that has made us less safe. Even though torture had nothing to do with it, and the security in place was the same as what Bush had. O'Reilly cited the biased Rasmussen poll. The poll says (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act. What O'Reilly never reports is that Rasmussen is a Republican who has polls that lean right. And no other polling company is even doing polls on that question, so the Rasmussen poll is basically worthless. Not to mention, only Republicans cite the biased Rasmussen polls, proving that O'Reilly is a Republican. Newt Gingrich was on to talk about it, haha, now there is n objective guest to discuss it, not. And of course Newt played along with O'Reilly and blamed it all on Obama. When the shoe bomber Richard Reid did the same damn thing under Bush, and he had all the torture policies in place. this whole thing is a purely partisan attack on President Obama. Newt told O'Reilly we are not safe, and that we are in much more danger under Obama. Basically this segment was O'Reilly and Gingrich sitting around for 4 minutes smearing Obama with a ridiculous political attack. While nobody from the Obama administration was on to give his side, and no Democrat to provide any balance. They claim Obama has made us less safe, when he did exactly what Bush did, who also had the shoe bomber tried in federal court. The only thing Obama has done different is that he said we will not torture anyone, which has not made us less safe. And if this had happened under a Republican President Gingrich and O'Reilly would not say a word. Which it did in 2002, the shoe bomber did the same thing under Bush and these guys never said a word then. Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. I will not go into all the details, but I will say that Williams and Ham basically agreed with O'Reilly, and they spent the whole segment doing an unfair and biased partisan political attack on President Obama. Williams did point out the shoe bomber case, and how it is the same, but O'reilly just ignored him, and said this case is different, how I have no idea. O'Reilly called it chaos in the system, and said Obama is making us less safe. Ham agreed with every word O'Reilly said, like a good little right-wing ass kisser. Williams mostly agreed with O'Reilly, but he disagreed on one thing, making him an enemy combatant. O'Reilly and Ham think Obama should classify the guy as an enemy combatant, and let the military have him, Williams disagreed. Then O'Reilly cut him off and went to Ham, because Juan was disagreeing with him, and he does not like that. The next segment was with the biased pollster Scott Rasmussen. O'Reilly even attacked liberals for calling Rasmussen a biased pollster, and then gave Rasmussen a forum to spin out why his polls are different. With nobody from the other side to give the counterpoint or to give the details why the Rasmussen polls are biased. Having only rasmussen on for this segment is just more proof that O'Reilly is also has a right-wing bias. Because a real journalist would have someone from Gallup on too, not just the known biased pollster Rasmussen. Everyone knows that Rasmussen is a biased pollster, and that he does his polls different from other pollsters. This whole segment was just to give Rasmussen a public forum to spin out how he is not biased. Just look at all the other polls, they all have Obama higher on the approval side than Rasmussen. The Rasmussen polls are always lower, and they were always higher for Bush. O'Reilly put his buddy on to cover for him, because he always uses the Rasmussen polls. Then Brit Hume was on to attack President Obama even more, and of course there was no Democratic guest to provide the balance. Hume attacked Obama for being weak on terrorism. What's funny is not one Democrat has been on the whole show, none, zero. It's been a non-stop attack on Obama, and for what, a failed terrorist attack. But when we had a real terrorist attack on 9-11 under Bush these same right-wingers called him a hero and a great leader. But when we have a failed terrorist attack under Obama they attack him as weak and soft on terrorism. It's pure right-wing propaganda. Then Hume talked about how he said Tiger Woods should convert from Buddism to the christian faith and he can have his redemption. What a joke, who is he to tell Tiger what religion he can have. Hume implied he can not have his redemption as a Buddist. Here is my message to Brit Hume, shut the hell up jerk. Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the media. And of course there is no liberal media analyst on the Factor, just Bernie. They talked about airport profiling, and of course Goldberg is in favor of it. Even though the experts say it does not work. even a lot of Republican terrorism experts say it does not work. Goldberg attacked Obama and the Attorney General Eric Holder for being weak on terrorism. Goldberg even claimed Obama would waterboard someone if they had his daughters, but he will not do it if they have your daughters, which is pure speculation, and O'Reilly said nothing, even though he said he does not allow speculation. It was just ridiculous right-wing propaganda. And O'Reilly sat there saying nothing to all the crazy garbage Goldberg was spewing out, except to agree with him at the end. Then they talked about Diane Sawyer taking over for Charlie Gibson at ABC News. Goldberg said he does not care, and nobody else does either, which is once again pure speculation. Goldberg said the big three News Anchors do not matter as much anymore because over the last 20 years they have had a 28% drop in viewers, from 32 million to 24 million. Then he said they all watch Fox News now, which is ridiculous because the big three get 3 to 4 times more viewers than any Fox show. Goldberg is just a right-wing idiot, and that is why O'Reilly has him on. The last segment was the ridiculous O'Reilly reality check segment. It's a one sided biased segment with just O'Reilly, he plays 5 or 6 clips of something a liberal said, then he gives you what he calls a reality check on what they said. And here is what you need to know about this segment, it's biased garbage. All the so-called reality checks are on liberals and what they said, O'Reilly never does a reality check on what a conservative said. So it's just more bias, it is nothing more than O'Reilly's opinion of what a liberal said. So it's not a real reality check with an objective guest, it is simply O'Reilly's right-wing opinion of what they said. Then the usual pinheads and patriots nonsense, and the highly edited hand picked Factor e-mails. And the first O'Reilly Factor for 2010 was over, as expected it was no different than a 2009 show, it was 100% right-wing spin with 100% right-wing guests. Great E-Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Lover By: Steve - January 4, 2010 - 11:00am My hate mail is almost down to zero, but I do get one once in a while from a totally clueless O'Reilly lover, here is one I got this morning. Notice that he does not dispute one thing on the website, or give me an example of something I wrote that is not true, he simply calls me a nut case who should watch O'Reilly, when I have watched O'Reilly every night for almost 10 years now. Subject: Bill the great!To claim O'Reilly is truthful and honest is just laughable. I would rank O'Reilly the most dishonest person in the media, because he claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone. But if you just watch one O'Reilly Factor show you can see he is a totally biased right-wing partisan who does nothing but spin everything for the right. And that is a fact, unless you are a clueless partisan O'Reilly lover, like the moron that wrote me the insane e-mail you see above. And btw, O'Reilly does some good things for children and chairty, but that does not excuse him for being a partisan right-wing spin doctor. If bernie Madoff donated money to charity and did good things for children that would not make a him a good guy either. Republican Hypocrisy On Terrorism Is Stunning By: Steve - January 4, 2010 - 10:30am As we all know the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas day. Since then many Republicans (And Fox News Hosts) have flipped out and called for President Obama to declare him an enemy combatant and put him on trial in the military courts. They even claim it is a mistake, and refer to the Clinton administration putting terrorists on trial in a federal court. What they fail to mention is that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION did the very same thing. But they never mention that, they claim only liberals and Democrats are doing it. Which is a total 100 percent lie. Here is what Steve Doocy said this morning on Fox News, and btw, Doocy is a regular on the Factor. He does the news quiz with O'Reilly once a week, but O'Reilly never calls Doocy out on any of his lies or hypocrisy. Here is what he said this morning: DOOCY: This takes us back to the days of the Clinton administration, when things like this were treated as a law enforcement issue, and not as a national security issue.So if you were watching Fox & Friends this morning you would think only Democratic Presidents have prosecuted terrorists in federal courts, and that all the Republicans put them on trial in military courts. And you would be 100 percent wrong. Because the BUSH ADMINISTRATION put many terrorists on trial in federal courts. Proving Doocy is a biased serial misinformer. Here are the facts, the facts Doocy and all these moron Republicans are ignoring. In late 2001, while George W. Bush was the President, Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) attempted the exact same thing as the underwear guy. Richard Reid was armed with the same kind of explosive. He was also an al Qaeda operative. He was also trying to bring down an American airliner. He was also overtaken by his fellow passengers. That plane also landed safely and he was arrested. And btw, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino recently said no terrorist attacks happened while Bush was the President, which is just laughable, you had the 9-11 attacks, the shoe bomber attack, and the anthrax attacks. That's 3 that we know of, and they even claim they stopped more than that, but it's classified and they refuse to talk about it. So we know of 3, and probably more, yet Perino said there were zero. The Bush administration tried Richard Reid in federal court. Just as the Obama administration is going to try the Christmas Day underwear bomber in federal court as well. The Bush administration even bragged about Richard Reid's criminal conviction after it happened. JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: In Boston, Richard Colvin Reid pled guilty to all counts in the indictment for attempting to ignite a bomb on American Airlines Flight 63, and to murder 197 passengers and crew. Today is a victory for justice and for the citizens who are vigilant in the pursuit of justice.In fact, at the time Reid's prosecution was not even an issue. Everyone, including the Homeland Security Department head at the time Tom Ridge was happy about the fact that Richard Reid is serving out a life sentence in obscurity at a super max prison in Colorado. That was when George W. Bush was the President, but now when Obama is the President, these same people know there is political hay to be made, so they attack Obama for doing the same thing Bush did, the only difference is that Obama is a Democratic President. While not one of them said a word when Bush did it, they only claim it's a mistake when Obama does it. It's called partisan hypocrisy, and just total nonsense. And btw, here are some more facts people need to know, the facts Fox News does not tell you. The Bush administration also tried other terrorism suspects in civilian courts, in addition to Richard Reid. 1) Zacarias Moussaoui was tried, convicted, and imprisoned through the federal justice system. Moussaoui was found guilty by a federal court for his role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Moussaoui is serving his sentence at the ADX Supermax prison, in Florence Colorado. 2) John Walker Lindh, the so-called 'Taliban American,' was tried in federal court in 2002, he plead "guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a criminal charge that he carried a rifle and two hand grenades while fighting on the Taliban's front lines in Afghanistan." Lindh is now being held at the Federal Correctional Institute in Terre Haute, Indiana. 3) There are currently more than 350 terrorists in U.S. prisons. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of them have been locked up since the early 1990s. None of them has ever escaped. And at the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped. 4) The Former Navy lawyer Charles Swift said this: "There is no increased threat posed to the United States by bringing some of the detainees to the U.S. for trial." In an October interview, Charles Swift, a Navy attorney who took the case of a Guantanamo detainee to the Supreme Court in 2006, said that "anyone knowledgeable about al-Qaida operations will tell you that there is no increased threat posed to the United States by bringing some of the detainees to the U.S. for trial." Swift added that "[Suspected terrorists] Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla were held and, in Hamdi and al-Marri's case, eventually tried in the United States without any consequence." And now you have the facts, all the facts, not just the facts Fox News wanted you to know. The attacks on President Obama for putting the attempted airplane bomber on trial in federal court are ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical, and partisan. They are only coming from Republicans, who are attacking him for the very same thing George W. Bush did, except they did not attack him when he did it. More Obama Racism For O'Reilly To Ignore By: Steve - January 3, 2010 - 9:30am Since Barack Obama was elected President the Republicans have been spewing racism about him everywhere. I have documented some of it in my blog and on the website, maybe 25% of it, but not all. And here is another example, all of which O'Reilly has ignored. In fact, he has even denied there is any racism from the right against Obama, he says they just oppose his policies, and they are not racist. Which is a ridiculous statement that only a right-wing moron would say. Because there have been hundreds of examples of racism by Republicans against Obama, O'Reilly just ignores it all, and never reports any of it, then he claims there is no racism. O'Reilly ignored the photoshopped watermelon patch photo of the White House lawn, the Obama Waffles, the racist Obamabucks fake money with watermelon and fried chicken on it, the hundreds of racist t-shirts sold online, the bumber stickers, the racist signs at the Tea Party Protests, and on and on. O'Reilly has ignored it all. And now we have another racist e-mail sent out by Republicans. DENVER (AP) -- A Colorado state employee could be disciplined for sending an e-mail showing President Barack Obama shining the shoes of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. ![]() The 73-year-old Colorado Department of Transportation worker forwarded the e-mail to at least four co-workers and others on Dec. 22 using her state e-mail account. One of the recipients outside the agency complained. The original sender of the e-mail, who isn't a state employee, wrote "It appears he (Obama) has found his niche." CDOT spokeswoman Mindy Crane says the worker could face discipline ranging from a written reprimand to suspension. Employment rules require that she meet with personnel officials first and have a chance to respond in writing. That meeting is scheduled for next week. --------------------- And yet O'Reilly said he can not find any racism against Obama from the right, when it happens almost every week, if not more. Basically he ignores it, then denys it, then says he can not find it, when I find it all the time, using a simple home computer. Not to mention, I am just one person, and I do not have a staff of people working for me. It's just another example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, by what he does not report. He is almost as biased in what he ignores, as in what he does not ignore. I would guess I have seen 40 or 50 examples of racism against Obama from the right, in the last 11 months or so. And O'Reilly has ignored all of it, then he claims there is no racism against Obama, and he has the nerve to call himself a journalist. One Poll You Will Never See On The Factor By: Steve - January 3, 2010 - 9:00am O'Reilly loves to report on polls, but he usually only reports the polls from the biased Rasmussen, or when another poll makes Obama or the Democrats look bad. When polls make Republicans look bad, somehow they never make it on the air on the Factor, by O'Reilly, or anyone. And here is one of the polls he never reports on, and never will, because it makes Republicans look bad. From 12-27-09 to 12-31-09 Research 2000 ran a poll on a few political issues. And btw, this poll is taken once a week, and yet O'Reilly has never reported it, ever. They asked if you approve or disapprove of President Obama, 56% approved, 40% disapproved. And btw, Rasmussen has it 46% approve, 53% disapprove for Obama. Gallup has it 53% approve, and 40% disapprove. Proving that Rasmussen has a Republican bias, because they have it way lower than anyone else on the approval, and way higher than anyone on the disapproval. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the majority House leader Nancy Pelosi, 42% approved, 49% disapproved. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the majority Senate leader Harry Reid, 32% approved, 57% disapproved. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the Republican minority House leader John Boehner, 18% approved, 62% disapproved. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the Republican minority Senate leader Mitch McConnell, 18% approved, 64% disapproved. Not take note of this, O'Reilly hammers and smears Pelosi (42%) and Reid (32%) almost every night, and he has even called for them to be voted out of office in the next election because their job approval is so low. While the two Republican minority leaders of the House and Senate Boehner (18%) and McConnell (18%) have approval ratings far lower than Pelosi and Reid, but O'Reilly says nothing about them, and has not called for them to be voted out of office, even with approval ratings of 18 percent. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the Democrats in Congress, 40% approved, 55% disapproved. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the Republicans in Congress, 17% approved, 66% disapproved. And yes I have that correct, Republicans in Congress have a 17% approval rating. Yet O'Reilly never says a word about it, and has never once cited this weekly poll. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the Democratic Party, 42% approved, 54% disapproved. They asked if you approve or disapprove of the Republican Party, 29% approved, 61% disapproved. And Bill O'Reilly has never reported a word of it, not one time, ever. He has totally ignored this weekly poll, while he reports the Rasmussen poll that has a known Republican bias at least once a week, if not more. Which is just more proof O'Reilly has a Republican bias, and that he is not an honest nonpartisan independent journalist as he claims. Official Report: Bush Admin Neglected Afghan War By: Steve - January 3, 2010 - 8:30am O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends deny that the Bush administration has neglected the Afghanistan war. Even though the facts show otherwise, and now it's official, O'Reilly was wrong. During President Obama's December speech announcing a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, he noted that the effort was finally getting the resources it needed. During the previous administration, Obama said, "commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive." In early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq, Obama said, and "for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention." Former Bush administration officials fired back, claiming the Iraq war did not deprive resources from Afghanistan. Former White House adviser Karl Rove said "the United States had, at the time what the military felt was an appropriate level of resources." Bush's Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called Obama's comments a "bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense." Later, Rumsfeld spokesperson Keith Urbahn turned up the heat, accusing Obama distorting the facts. Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, Rove and their neo-con allies, the Army's official history of the first four years of the war completely contradicts their claims. The New York Times reported this week that according to the official history, as early as late 2003, the Army historians assert, "it should have become increasingly clear to officials at Centcom and (the Department of Defense) that the coalition presence in Afghanistan did not provide enough resources" for a proper counterinsurgency campaign. Paraphrasing the history, the Times notes that American forces were "hamstrung by inadequate resources and missed opportunities to stabilize Afghanistan during the early years of the war." "A Different Kind of War," the title of the account, to be published this Spring, is written by a team of seven historians at the Army's Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth and covers the period from October 2001 until September 2005. Rumsfeld was secretary of defense during this entire time. The Army writes such reports after major military engagements in order to train future commanders. Contradicting Rove and Rumsfeld, the historians blame the Iraq war for the lack of resources in Afghanistan, as well as top Bush officials and the president himself: The historians say resistance to providing more robust resources to Afghanistan had three sources in the White House and the Pentagon.The historians also note that, as was the case in Iraq, Bush officials neglected to properly plan for what to do after the government fell. "There was no major planning initiated to create long-term political, social and economic stability in Afghanistan," the historians write. "In fact, the message from senior D.O.D officials in Washington was for the U.S. military to avoid such efforts."Despite Rove and Rumsfeld's attempts to salvage their legacies, it's widely accepted that the Bush administration neglected the Afghan war. But as the Times notes, these new findings are "notable for carrying the imprimatur of the Army itself." And btw, this report was not done by some Bush hating liberal group, it was done by the Army. So O'Reilly and his spinning lying friends can not dismiss the report for being partisan. I am guessing O'Reilly will just ignore the report and not even mention it, as he does with almost everything that makes Bush or any Republican look bad. Tea Party Scam O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored By: Steve - January 2, 2010 - 9:00am This is a perfect example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, and not in the way he reported a story, in the way he has ignored a story. Because it shows what a scam these Tea Party protests were. O'Reilly (and all of Fox News) said the Tea Party is a grassroots movement with real people, who are opposed to higher taxes and Government spending. O'Reilly said it was people from all walks of life, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, he even denied it was run by GOP front groups, and called anyone who made those claims America haters. Now we know that was all a lie, because Republicans have admitted the Tea party movement is almost all right-wingers who hate Moderate Republicans, and Obama. Now on top of that there is a Tea Party money scam, which has not been reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on the Factor. And btw, this story has been around since last September. Here are some details. Last September TPMMuckraker reported this: Legendary GOP Bamboozler Hitches Wagon To Tea Party Remember Howard Kaloogian? He was the Republican House candidate who in 2006 tried to pass off a picture of a quiet Istanbul street as having been taken during a trip he made to Baghdad -- then told a string of additional lies in trying to explain what happened. Kaloogian is the chair of Our Country Deserves Better, a GOP-affiliated PAC which has just launched what it calls the "Tea Party Express" bus tour. The tour -- which made a stop over the weekend in Elko, Nevada, where it kicked off the latest effort to organize the Tea Partiers into a cohesive movement. Also involved in the effort is Sal Russo, the heavy-hitting California Republican political consultant and former Reagan aide who ran Kaloogian's ill-fated congressional campaign. In 2005, Kaloogian and Russo teamed up to create Moving America Forward, which used conservative radio hosts to, "report the good news on Operation Iraqi Freedom you're not hearing from the old line news media." It was a "Truth Tour," organized by MAF and the Defense Department's Office of Media Outreach, that Kaloogian claimed his Istanbul picture came from. Now it looks like Kaloogian and Russo may have spotted their latest opportunity for political agit-prop. As with other Tea-Party-branded rallies, the anti-government types who are showing up for the tour's events appear motivated by a range of issues, like an unfounded fear of government control of the internet. The savvy activist who can cohere this inchoate anxiety into some kind of movement could turn himself into a powerful player in GOP circles. Never mind that Kaloogian and Russo's GOP insider operation doesn't do much for the supposed grassroots cred of the Tea Party brand. The PAC's vice chair, talk radio host Mark Williams, said as much to NPR: "It's about time for somebody to run to the front of the parade. To say follow me and to try to herd all these cats into a semi-coherent message." Then on December 28th, TPMMuckraker reported this: Majority Of Tea Party Group's Spending Went To GOP Firm That Created It The political action committee behind the Tea Party Express -- which already has been slammed as inauthentic and corporate-controlled by rival factions in the Tea Party movement -- directed almost two thirds of its spending back to the Republican consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place. Our Country Deserves Better spent $1.33 million from July through November. Of that sum, a total of $857,122 went to Sacramento-based GOP political consulting firm Russo, Marsh, and Associates. OCDB, which built the Tea Party Express, is essentially a Russo, Marsh creation. The PAC's site was registered in July 2008 by Sal Russo. That site also lists Russo as the PAC's "chief strategist." Tea Party Express fundraising emails, sent by OCDB and obtained by TPMmuckraker, come from another Russo, Marsh employee, Joe Wierzbicki. Just for good measure, legendary GOP bamboozler Howard Kaloogian is also on OCDB's board, and has close ties to Russo and Marsh. From July through November 2009, the firm received $832,403 from OCDB, according to the FEC records. Russo and Marsh took in several hundred thousand dollars for what OCDB listed in the FEC filings as "PAC Email Newsletter Costs - Generic Fun." That would appear to refer to the numerous fund-raising and activism emails sent to volunteers to promote and build the Tea Party Express -- a nationwide bus tour to build opposition to the Obama agenda -- many of them by Wierzbicki. But one expert on political action committees told TPMmuckraker it was unusual for a PAC to direct so much spending back to the entity that created it. And the spending details raised hackles among members of the Tea Party Patriots, a rival faction of conservative activists who have denounced TPE as a creature of Republican political professionals that lacks grassroots authenticity. In an email to a Patriots group that was obtained by TPMmuckaker, one TPer who had examined the filings asked, "What would the true grassroots people think if they knew their money is being spent in this manner?" ---------------- Now where is the great journalist Bill O'Reilly on this story, nowhere to be found. O'Reilly and the Factor have totally ignored the story, and my guess is he will never report it. Because it shows what a scam this Tea Party is, and what a fraud of a journalist O'Reilly is. Because if this was a story about Democrats doing this, O'Reilly would be all over it, and everyone reading this knows it. Coulter Caught Lying On The Factor (Again) By: Steve - January 2, 2010 - 8:30am Eric Bolling was the host, and he let Coulter lie her right-wing ass off, with no correction, ever. She brought out the old lie about President Obama going to school at a madrassa. Basically Bolling did exactly what O'Reilly does, he puts right-wing liars on the air and they put out lies. Then those lies are never questioned, and there is never a correction. Then the great Bill O'Reilly says he has never had to do a correction in the 13 years of the Factor. Even though there has been thousands of lies reported, he just refuses to correct them. O'Reilly claims to be a truth teller, and says that his ratings are so high because he tells the truth. Despite the fact that he constantly spins and lies, and so do all his right-wing guests. It's called denial, just put out lies and spin then if you get caught deny, deny, deny, then attack them and call them the liar. I call it O'Reilly 101, lie your right-wing ass off, when caught, deny it, then attack the people who caught you in the lie. The Friday 1-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - January 2, 2010 - 8:00am The Friday (New Years Night) O'Reilly Factor was a re-run, Billy called it the best of Dennis Miller. It was basically an entire hour of Dennis Miller making jokes about liberals, like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. Even though O'Reilly complains when COMEDIANS make jokes about Sarah Palin, he still has Dennis Miller on his show every week, and does a best of Dennis Miller show, to make jokes about liberals. Making O'Reilly the biggest hypocrite to ever walk the face of the earth. More Important News The Factor Has Ignored By: Steve - January 1, 2010 - 10:00am One Republican Senator, Jim DeMint, is blocking a vote on President Obama's nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration. And yet, the story has not been reported one time on the Factor. So now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is saying he will force a vote on President Obama's nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration when Congress reconvenes in three weeks. Reid's announcement Tuesday that he will file a motion for cloture, a procedural step to limit debate and lead to a roll-call vote, follows the alleged attempt by a Nigerian extremist to blow up a Detroit-bound commercial flight on Christmas Day. Reid had sought Senate consent to confirm TSA nominee Erroll Southers without floor debate, along with multiple other nominations, before the Senate adjourned for its winter break Christmas Eve. But Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) objected, temporarily halting the confirmation. The alleged terrorist plot involving Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian whose name was in a terrorism database but who boarded a plane with explosive material, has brought new urgency to the nomination. White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro said Tuesday that although the acting TSA administrator is "very able," DeMint and any others inclined to delay the vote "should put their short-term political interests aside." In a statement, DeMint said Tuesday that Reid had "completely ignored this nominee for weeks until the recent terror attempt" and was now grandstanding. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said DeMint was being "petty and vindictive" and that "he can't have his cake and eat it too. The fact is he objected to us confirming this nominee. The one who's grandstanding is Sen. DeMint." And btw, Southers is a former FBI special agent, is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence. He is also the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, and he served as a deputy director of homeland security for California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. O'Reilly Ignoring Slimy Republican Senate Candidate By: Steve - January 1, 2010 - 9:40am Read this blog posting, then imagine what O'Reilly would say if a Democratic Senate Candidate said this garbage. Illinois Republican Andy Martin is about as slimy as they come. He proudly took credit for starting a nasty smear campaign against President Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, and continues to ramp up the hate as he runs for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Martin, a noted conservative dirty trickster, put out a spot on local radio in which he pushes a rumor that fellow Senatorial aspirant, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), is a homosexual: MARTIN: Today, I am fighting for the facts about Mark Kirk. Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a 'solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual.' Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals.The slimy radio spot is right out of the Karl Rove playbook, in which allegations of homosexuality are pushed by innuendo and demands for the truth. In a statement to a local Illinois station, the Kirk camp vehemently condemned and denied its content. Then in a stunning move, the Illinois Republican Party has denounced Martin and his tactics. The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements. His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party. Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican Candidate by the Illinois Republican Party.And O'Reilly has ignored it all, not one person on his show has reported the story, nobody. In O'Reillyworld it just never happened. But if this was done by a Democrat, it would be the lead story and O'Reilly (or his fill in host) would spend half the show talking about how low and dirty the Democrats are. |