Jon Stewart Makes O'Reilly Look The Fool (Again)
By: Steve - January 31, 2011 - 10:30am

I guess O'Reilly never heard the expression, stop digging that hole deeper. Because every time he tries to respond to what Jon Stewart said about Megyn Kelly, Fox, and all their Nazi rhetoric, he just digs that hole deeper.

For the third time in about a week, Jon Stewart has dedicated a "Daily Show" segment to dealing with angry, Nazi-related rhetoric used in media and politics. But what seems to bother him more than nonsensical Hitler comparisons is Fox News pundits' inability to see their own Nazi references as inappropriate.

After Stewart called out Steve Cohen's use of a Goebbels reference to describe GOP behavior, Megyn Kelly of Fox News said there is no Nazi rhetoric used on Fox News. But Stewart proved with a slew of clips that Fox was being hypocritical.

In one of those clips, Bill O'Reilly made a mind-boggling comparison between HuffPost and Hitler. Seeing it on "The Daily Show" didn't sit well with the Fox News host, who said on his next show that the clip was edited in a way took it out of context. Stewart responded:
STEWART: Why you used the Nazi reference doesn't really matter in this. The segment is for Megyn Kelly to take offense to, not you. It's not all about you, Bill!"
The point of the segment was to show that contrary to what Kelly said, Nazi references are all over Fox News. But since O'Reilly seemed so eager to provide context with his baseless claim, Stewart obliged him. The context that O'Reilly found suitable to compare to the work of Nazis.

It turned out to be a nasty comment one anonymous person wrote on a blog post about Nancy Reagan that violated the Huffington post commenting policy, and slipped by their comment moderators. Which was deleted as soon as they saw it.
STEWART: "That was a horrible thing for someone to write. But being a heartless douche isn't exactly the same as being a Nazi propagandist."
Like he does best, Stewart pointed out that the Fox News website also has some offensive comments, and produced a particularly bad one regarding Michelle Obama. But Stewart's point wasn't that people are mean, it was that Fox News does use Nazi rhetoric, and with his rebuttal O'Reilly was basically saying, "Yeah, but I had a good reason to use the Nazi comparison."

Stewart also said something like this:

Megyn Kelly says you guys never speed and I caught you speeding. Period. End of argument. Context doesn't matter. Why you were speeding doesn't matter. You were still speeding, then you lied about it.

And this:

Stewart said FNC uses Nazi references as often as a teenager uses the word like.

It was a slam dunk, Stewart not only made Megyn Kelly look like the biased lying right-wing fool she is, he also made O'Reilly look like a fool, not just once, but two times. O'Reilly just kept digging the hole deeper, but I suspect he will end it now, because I would bet he is tired of Stewart proving that he is a lying idiot.

Fox News Claims Snow Disproves Global Warming
By: Steve - January 31, 2011 - 9:30am

Yes you heard me right, the idiots at Fox (including O'Reilly) are saying that snow in winter disproves global warming. During their recent coverage of winter storms, Fox has repeatedly mocked former Vice President Al Gore and cited the cold and snowy weather to attempt to discredit global warming.

Fox routinely uses snow to cast doubt on global warming, and internal emails from the Fox News Washington bureau show that in the past Fox employees have been instructed to question climate science.

On his January 25 radio show, Glenn Beck suggested that cold weather and snow mean that global warming is not happening, saying "By the way, has anybody noticed the record temperatures and continual driving snow in Manhattan?"

Beck also used January snowstorms to mock Al Gore, saying on the January 14 edition of his radio show, "Al Gore, you suck for being so wrong."

On January 11, Fox Nation linked to a story about high amounts of snow in the U.S. with the headline, "Someone Tell Gore it's Snowing in 49 States Today, Including Hawaii."

Glenn Beck, Fox Nation, and the right-wing blogger Jim Hoft all used the December 2010 snowstorm and the collapse of the roof of the Minnesota Vikings football stadium to mock Gore and claim that global warming isn't happening.

After a February 2010 snowstorm in Washington, DC. Fox Nation and Fox News personalities Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, Stuart Varney, and Eric Bolling all used the DC snowstorm to attack Gore and the science supporting global warming, as did Rush Limbaugh and The Washington Times.

The New York Post used the snowstorm to suggest that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) was correct in saying that the snow "must be a sign from God" about the existence of global warming.

On the January 27 Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy reported from outside of Fox studios to show viewers how much snow fell in New York City during the latest storm. During the segment, he asked, "I wonder where Al Gore is this morning?" He then added: "That global warming is really taking its toll. Isn't it?"

During one segment about the recent snowstorm, Fox & Friends aired an on-screen graphic that read, "What Global Warming?"

During another segment, Fox & Friends mocked global warming by having a man in a polar bear costume appear on the sidewalk behind Steve Doocy, wearing a Hawaiian shirt and lei. Laughing, Doocy said "Somewhere, Al Gore's got to be giggling right now." In response, co-host Brian Kilmeade added, "At least there's one polar bear left."

Fox Nation linked to a Yahoo News article titled, "Obama caught in Washington's wintry weather" with the headline, "Hey Gore...Obama Motorcade Caught In Snowstorm."

Bill O'Reilly talked about the big snowstorm and said he had a call into Al Gore to explain snow in winter to him. Even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, O'Reilly still joined in with the partisan and ridiculous spin, that snow in winter disproves global warming.

And now the facts, for O'Reilly and all the fools at Fox:

Climate Scientists Say Storms, And Short-Term Weather Patterns Have No Relevance To Global Warming

Climate scientists completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone individual storms, bear any relevance to the global warming debate.
"The current downturn is not very unusual," said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts.

He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.

"When I get called to comment on a big summer storm, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard," Dr. Schmidt said. "It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change."
The WMO And NASA Confirm that 2010 Was The Warmest Year On Record, And That The Earth Warmed From 2000 To 2009

On January 20, 2011, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced that data showed that 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, along with 2005 and 1998. The WMO also reported that "arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record."

In December 2010, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies released data showing that 2010 was the hottest climate year on record.

And the point of reporting that, is that even after winters with massive snowstorms the long term climate data shows that the planet is getting warmer.

Now think about this, in the middle of the global climate change talks in Copenhagen in December 2009, The Fox News Managing Editor Bill Sammon sent out an email to Fox staff questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed in any given period.

So how can you trust Fox News to report on global warming, when their partisan Managing Editor is telling them to not report that the planet has warmed. Answer, you cant.

And btw folks, the great journalist Bill O'Reilly, who claims to tell the truth, has never once reported on the memo Sammon sent out, so he is helping to cover up their partisan bias. Not to mention, he never has any Global Warming experts on to discuss it, only right-wing partisan hacks who all spin it and dismiss it as a hoax.

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - January 30, 2011 - 9:30am

Think about this folks, have you ever seen O'Reilly do a segment on all the good economic news we have had in the last year under President Obama. The answer would be no, it never happens.

O'Reilly ignores all the good economic news because it makes Obama look good, and it also shows that all the sky is falling news O'Reilly reports about the economy under Obama is a lie.

And now we have even more good news, AP is reporting that the economy gained solid momentum at the end of last year, as Americans spent more freely and U.S. companies sold more abroad.

"The economy grew at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the final three months of 2010," after expanding at a 2.6 percent pace in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Friday morning.

What this shows is a pattern of improvement, an upward pattern, because the GDP was 2.6% in the 3rd quarter of 2010, then it increased to 3.2% in the 4th quarter. This proves things are getting better, while O'Reilly continues to say things are not getting better.

The main thing it shows is that no matter how much things improve under President Obama, O'Reilly will never give him credit for it. Jobs are coming back, the stock market is almost over 12,000, unemployment is slowly getting better, consumer spending is up, consumer confidence is up, and polls show that people think things are getting better.

And O'Reilly ignores almost all of it, while talking doom and gloom 24/7 because of the deficit and the debt. Now when Bush was President any good economic or financial news was reported by O'Reilly, early and often, and he always gave the credit to Bush. But with Obama in office, O'Reilly barely mentions any of it.

Moore Finally Admits Republicans Are Hypocrites
By: Steve - January 30, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you will never hear a word about any of this from Bill O'Reilly. Several GOP lawmakers who campaigned on and support repealing the new health care reform law have turned down their federally subsidized health insurance plans.

ABC News reports that 14 House Republicans have waived their federal health insurance plans. But all 242 House Republicans voted to repeal the law last week, leaving hundreds more GOPers benefiting from government subsidized health care while voting to repeal it for everyone else.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said last week that this could be seen as hypocritical. But on the online-only Overtime segment of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, conservative commentator and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore admited it was hypocritical:
MAHER: Isn't it hypocritical of Congress to repeal the health care reform bill but not their own government health care? Now, I don't know how you can defend that as not hypocritcal.

MOORE: It is hypocritical. Repeal both.

MAHER: Really? Repeal both. You think they should've given up their health care?

MOORE: Yeah. The Congress should give up their pension, their health care, all those things.
Monday on a local radio show, freshman Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) -- a fierce opponent of the new health care law -- said that she will take the government health care plan because, otherwise, it's too expensive.

"Unfortunately, being here in Washington is very expensive," Ellmers said, who is set to make $174,000 this year."

"Yes we do have a salary and we do have benefits. It costs a lot of money to be here. I've signed on to the private plan, just like so many in America are on. The benefit is available to me. People need to understand out there it costs a lot money to be here in Congress."

So she votes against health care for the people, while she takes it, as she makes $174,000 dollars a year. Now that is the ultimate hypocrisy, and if you do not agree with that you are a fool.

Now imagine what a guy making $40,000 dollars a year is thinking, he is thinking she is the queen of hypocrites. I say this, if you vote against health care for the people, then you can not take the government health care for yourself.

O'Reilly Spins Biased Poll On Spending
By: Steve - January 29, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is a classic Bill O'Reilly spinning a biased poll trick. To begin with, Gallup has a poll out that shows the majority of American people said they only favor cutting U.S. foreign aid, but more than 6 in 10 opposed cuts to education, Social Security, and Medicare. Smaller majorities objected to cutting programs for the poor, national defense, homeland security, aid to farmers, and funding for the arts and sciences.

So what does O'Reilly do, he totally ignores the Gallup poll, then he does a segment with Chris Wallace from Fox, and they report on a biased Rasmussen poll that says Americans oppose an increase in government spending by a margin of 50% to 41%.

That my friends is what you call biased reporting, because they should have at least mentioned the Gallup poll, especially when Gallup is seen as the gold standard of polling.

Instead O'Reilly has a partisan from fox on to discuss the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll, with nobody to give the counterpoint, or any mention of the Gallup poll that says most Americans oppose cuts to almost everything, except foreign aid. And yes I know they are two different polls, my main point is that O'Reilly reported the Rasmussen poll, and ignored the Gallup poll, while not having a guest on to give the counter point on the Rasmussen poll.

The Friday 1-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 29, 2011 - 8:30am

The TPM was called More danger in the Muslim world. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: There is chaos tonight in Cairo, Egypt, and throughout that country of 80-million people. Egyptians are revolting against Hosni Mubarak, a brutal dictator who has done little to improve the standard of living in Egypt but has done many favors for the United States.

The problem is that if Mubarak is overthrown, who will take his place? The fear in Washington is that the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power - they are jihadists who hate America and who will help Al Qaeda all day long. There is real danger here for you and me and every American.

If countries like Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and perhaps Jordan are taken over by Muslim fanatics, we will have a true world war on our hands. Al Qaeda is presently isolated in northern Pakistan, but if the Muslim Brotherhood takes power anywhere, Al Qaeda will have free reign wherever that might be.

There is no question that Mubarak and other Arab dictators are bad guys, but again, what is the alternative? So this is one big mess and there's very little President Obama can do about it. The folks are angry in Egypt and all over the Muslim world, and it doesn't look like they're going to take it anymore.
So what does O'Reilly do, have an Independent and impartial foreign policy expert on to discuss it, of course not, he had the partisan (Obama hating) right-wing hack Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it. This is what O'Reilly does, put these biased hacks on to discuss domestic and foreign issues, it's crazy, and it shows how biased O'Reilly is. Because nobody who is a real journalist would have this hack Peters on to discuss anything.

I will not even report what Peters said because it was biased garbage, but at the end of the segment O'Reilly made sure to promote his new book, with a photo of it and everything. So now we know the real reason O'Reilly had Peters on, so he could promote his stupid book. And btw folks, after Peters put out his spin on it, O'Reilly disagreed with him, proving that Peters is so far right that even O'Reilly could not agree with his nonsense.

Then O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on to discuss a new Rasmussen poll that says Americans oppose an increase in government spending by a margin of 50% to 41%. Wallace said this: "Most people want to see the total government budget cut, but people also support some targeted spending. So there's the possibility of a compromise where the GOP majority in the House gets an overall cut in spending, but with targeted increases in spending for things like education."

Billy said he is worried about the 41% of Americans who favor more government spending: "That disturbs me - do these people not understand that this whole economy could blow up if fiscal discipline is not imposed. This is getting to the tipping point."

In the next segment O'Reilly flipped out because the Democratic Congressman Jim Moran said there is some racism against Obama in America, even though he is right, O'Reilly went nuts and did an entire segment on it anyway. Geraldo was on and he defended Moran's assertion, he said this: "Race is a very large component in American politics, 99% of black people vote for Obama, but a majority of whites voted for John McCain. The parties are defined by race."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed with Rivera's argument, Billy said this: "You do have bigoted folks but, generally speaking, this country doesn't vote on what color you are. President Obama had a 70% approval rating upon his inauguration. Congressman Moran is a pinhead and that was a stupid statement."

O'Reilly is the pinhead and stupid, because Congressman Moran and Geraldo are right. A hell of a lot of white Republicans voted against Obama simply because he is black, and that is a fact that O'Reilly just can not admit. Not to mention, the Tea Party is mostly racist, and it was only started after a black man was elected the President. O'Reilly ignores all that as he claims there is no racism on the right, which is just laughable.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Global Fund. Bobby Shriver, who has raised money for The Global Fund, praised the organization for its self-investigation, he said this: "The Global Fund published this information about themselves, it is not being swept under the rug. They have the most transparent and open accounting system in the world, and all this 'stealing' of money is on their website.

It's just not possible to work in any part of the world and not expect some amount of fraud. There are six-and-one-half million people alive today in the developing world because of antiretroviral medicine, much of which has been paid for by The Global Fund. It's one of the most amazing international mechanisms that there is."

Now get this, Glenn Beck was on to talk about the Obama State of the Union speech, and here is what the crazy fool said: "Here's what the state of the union is. Look at the beating of a Wendy's employee in Brooklyn - nobody stepped in to help, they were just all videotaping it to put up on YouTube. There's the video of a woman in Nebraska who was minding her own business on a bus when two women came up and started to beat her. Nobody got up to help, and one of the women delivering the blows had two toddlers. What's happened to us, Bill? Just this week there were at least eleven cops shot. I think there's a feeling that nobody really matters."

Are you kidding me, what does a couple isolated crimes have to do with the State of the Union, nothing. My God Beck is a lunatic. The State of the Union is the economy, jobs, the stock market, unemployment, etc. It has nothing to do with a couple thugs beating someone up on a bus. Here is my question, why does O'Reilly even have this fool on, it's crazy.

And finally dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville, which I will not report on because it was just stupid. But I will report what O'Reilly picked. O'Reilly singled out actor Danny Glover, who blamed tea partiers and "vitriol" for the Tucson shootings, Billy said this: "I've been covering the tea party for almost two years," The Factor reported, "and I haven't seen one shred of violence in anything they've ever done."

Then you are not looking, because Palin had the target map with the rifle scope crosshairs, Bachmann told everyone in Minnesota to be armed and dangerous, and Sharron Angle said if votes dont work we have 2nd amendment remedies. Not to mention Tea Party signs have a military logo, they also had signs that said if ballots dont work bullets will, and Glenn Beck has called for revolution a million times, where he also asked for members of the military to join them, especially if they are in the special forces.

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

Insurance Company Drops Veteran Over 2 Cents
By: Steve - January 29, 2011 - 8:00am

Think about this folks, O'Reilly claims to look out for you, especially veterans. But if that is the case why is he ignoring this story, it's about one of the folks, and he is a veteran. If O'Reilly would report this story, and do a follow up, it might pressure the Insurance company to change their mind and let him pay the 2 cents so he can get his Insurance policy back.

One of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry is the practice of denying claims to pay for necessary care or revoking the coverage of policyholders for frivolous reasons. A Vietnam veteran from Thornton, Colorado, is the latest victim of this practice.

Vietnam vet Ronald Flanagan has been battling cancer for more than two years. Two weeks ago, Flanagan was getting prepped for a bone biopsy at his local Medical Center. But at the last minute, his wife called the hospital and told them to stop the procedure because she had just received notice that they no longer have insurance.

The reason why? They had accidentally underpaid their insurer by two cents and it decided to drop them from their plan:
Two pennies. That's the difference between a life-saving surgery, and a dropped insurance plan. Those two cents could cost Vietnam veteran Ronald Flanagan everything. "Everybody we talk to is very surprised that two cents is enough to do this," said Flanagan.

It was an innocent enough mistake, according to Ron's wife, Frances Flanagan. "If I only had just hit the nine instead of the seven," Frances said. When she was paying their monthly health insurance premium online in November, Frances swapped a 7 for a 9, leaving their $328.69 payment two cents short.
In a statement provided to a local news station, the couple's insurer, Ceridian Cobra Services, explained, "Since the payment was not full, it fit into the definition in the regulations of an 'insufficient payment' and Ceridian understands nothing is more important than one’s health."

Yeah right, the not only screwed them over for 2 cents, they did it to a veteran. And the great journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it. And btw folks, After intense media pressure, the insurer finally gave in and returned their benefits to the Flanagans.

No thanks to O'Reilly, who never said a word about the story, while claiming to care about the troops. At least someone in the media is a real journalist, but it sure as hell is not Bill O'Reilly. I guess he was too busy spinning out his Nazi rhetoric excuses, or having segments on MTV shows. That seems to be more important to O'Reilly than veterans.

The Thursday 1-27-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 28, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Battle between conservatives & liberals intensifies. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 2011 will feature a very intense battle between conservative Americans and their liberal counterparts. While President Obama seems to be moving toward the center, there is no question that the Democratic Party is still embracing big government.

On the other side, there's a split in the Republican Party between conservatives who want to dismantle just about everything President Obama has done and more moderate Republicans who are willing to compromise.

Let's illustrate each position: The former 'green jobs czar' Van Jones lays out the liberal position as well as anyone, saying he wants equal life outcomes for all Americans. Jones and many liberals are willing to spend trillions of dollars in their pursuit of social justice.

On the other side of the spectrum, Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia complains that President Obama wants the government to 'control everything in our lives.' Congressman Broun articulates the frustration on the right with big government intrusion.

So 2011 is off to a roaring start in the conservative vs. liberal arena; expect things to get very intense as the year progresses.
I will not get into all the crazy garbage O'Reilly talked about in the TPM, but I will say this. O'Reilly used Van Jones as an example of what ALL liberals want. Which is just ridiculous, because I am a liberal, but I do not want equal life outcomes for all Americans, as Van Jones does. O'Reilly takes the most far left liberal he can find and then claim his position is what ALL liberals want. It's ridiculous, but normal everyday right-wing spin for O'Reilly.

I just want the rich and the corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, so it lowers the burden on the middle and lower classes. Then after that, it is up to each person to figure out how to make their life better. This equal life stuff is nuts, and yet O'Reilly claims all the liberals want equal life outcomes, when it's a total lie.

Then O'Reilly has the far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss politics. Ingraham said Republicans are poised to win the ideological battle. "If this is really a debate about big government versus small government, the GOP as it is currently constituted is going to do pretty well."

I guess she only reads the polls she likes, because the polls I know of say different. The only thing the people support the GOP more then the Democratic party is taxes and the military. The majority of people support the Democratic agenda on almost every other issue.

Now get this, O'Reilly reported new poll data from Gallup showing just how evenly divided Americans are, Billy said this: "47% of the people have a favorable view of the Republican Party and 46% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party. There is an even split in this country right now."

What's funny is the Gallup poll he had was right above another Gallup poll at that said the majority of the people do not want cuts to education, social security, or medicare. And of course he ignored it, because it disputes what he wants and what Ingraham wants.

Then O'Reilly said something really crazy, he said he always says the country has an even split, which is a total lie. O'Reilly always says the country is center right, he never says it has an even split. Ingraham said it is center right and O'Reilly disagreed, wow is he insane. I can think of 4 or 5 blog postings I have done about O'Reilly saying the country is center right, and now he claims he always says it is an even split. Which is just a flat out lie.

Then Leslie Marshall was on, who actually sounded like a Democrat for once, she said this: "Polls show that the President is pretty popular right now and Americans are trusting him more. I agree that there is division on both sides, but in the GOP there is a three-way division. There are the moderate Republicans who want to compromise, there are the Republicans who are far-right and just want to unseat the President, and then there's the tea party faction. So I think there's more fragmentation on the right."

Marshall also said that President Obama's ballooning deficits are largely due to the wars he inherited. "Wars are the problem. Wars are costly, social programs don't cost that much."

And she is right, but of course O'Reilly disagreed. Because he is a far right spin doctor, who would not admit to the truth if you paid him.

Then the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Cheryl Casone were on to talk about Tiger Mothers, which I could care less about, so I will not report on it very much. Carlson and Casone sort of defended the crazy Tiger Mothers, while O'Reilly said they were nuts, and for once I agree with O'Reilly. Carlson even said she had a Tiger Mother, and she agrees with 80% of what is in the Tiger Mothers book. Proving that Carlson is also nuts.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about a California 2nd grade teacher who was suspended by her school after she reported a 7-year-old school bully to the local sheriff. How this is national news for a national tv news show is beyond me. Earth to O'Reilly, this is a local news story, moron. And of course O'Reilly called her a great teacher, said he knows about teaching because he did it, and that he would get her back in the classroom. Without reporting that he only took a teaching job "40 years ago" to get out of the draft. Then he told her she would be back to work Monday because he get her job back, and she thanked him, then I upchucked my dinner it was so pathetic, haha.

Then O'Reilly had Judge Jeanine Pirro on to talk about an abortion doctor charged with multiple murders. They spent the entire segment on this one story, because O'Reilly and Pirro are both pro-life, and they think abortion doctors are equal to the devil. I do not know the details of the case, but I sure as hell would not believe anything O'Reilly or Pirro reported about it, because they hate ALL abortion doctors. I would tell people to google it and see what the real story is.

And finally the Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy, which I do not report on, because it's not news and has nothing to do with the news.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote, which is just stupid.

O'Reilly Wants Al Gore To Explain Winter Snow
By: Steve - January 28, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Thursday Factor show, the very stupid Bill O'Reilly was talking about the big snowstorms in and around New York, and he said he had a call in to Al Gore to explain winter snow.

So let me get this straight, O'Reilly wants the former Vice President of the United States to explain to him why it's snowing in January. What next, would he like Stephen Hawking to explain gravity to him.

Let me explain it to O'Dummy, it snows in the winter you fricking idiot. What part of that do you not understand. Just because it snows in winter does not mean global warming is not real, and anyone who thinks that is a total idiot.

It's called short-term weather patterns, that do not disprove global warming. Global warming is measured by years and decades of weather, not by a week or a month. O'Reilly claims to be this smart well educated Harvard graduate, then he shows what an idiot he is by saying big snowstorms in the winter mean global warming is not real.

And remember this folks, O'Reilly has said in the past that he believes global warming is real, then he shows his true colors by making the Gore (snow in winter) global warming jokes. That only stupid Republicans make.

Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - January 28, 2011 - 9:30am

Get this folks, when a poll on an issue comes out that agrees with the position O'Reilly has on the issue, he reports it and says we must follow the will of the people. He has said that, and done that, so many times over the last 10 years I lost count.

But when a poll comes out on an issue that disagrees with the O'Reilly position, he does not report it, and he does not say we must follow the will of the people. In that case, he says to hell with the people, so what I want.

And now we have another poll that proves my point, that O'Reilly is a massive and biased hypocrite, who only calls for the will of the people to be followed when he agrees with a poll on that specific issue.

A new Gallup poll says that more than 6 in 10 opposed cuts to education, Social Security, and Medicare. Which is a majority Billy, over 60% is the majority of the people. But O'Reilly is calling for opposing the will of the people, he wants everything to be cut, and cut big, including education, social security, and medicare.

Even though the majority of the people oppose it, here are the numbers:

-- 67% oppose any cuts to education

-- 64% oppose any cuts to social security

-- 61% oppose any cuts to medicare

Notice that O'Reilly never reported this poll, or called for the will of the people to be followed. But when a slight majority of the people opposed the Obama health care plan O'Reilly said we must follow the will of the people.

Now he not only does not call for following the will of the people on these issues, he does not even report the results of the poll. In fact, the only issue the majority of the people want to cut is foreign aid. So the majority of the people oppose O'Reilly on these issues, but he never reports it.

More Republican Hate & Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - January 28, 2011 - 9:00am

Recently a Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen compared the Republican party propaganda on the Obama health care plan to the propaganda Hitler used. Which was wrong, and almost every Democrat said it was wrong. O'Reilly also had a segment on it, and said the left is wrong to do this stuff.

So now we have this from a Rush Limbaugh fan, and O'Reilly does not say a word about it. And this is 10 times worse than what anybody on the left has done, here is the story.

Last week, California State Sen. Leland Yee (D) called on right-wing hate radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for mocking Chinese President Hu Jintao and the Chinese language by speaking gibberish ching chong chang Chinese on his radio program.

Yee, who is Chinese-American and chairs the state Senate Select Committee on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, said Limbaugh owes the Chinese-American community an apology for his "pointless and ugly offense."

Naturally, Limbaugh did not apologize, and in fact, he instead slammed Yee the following day on his radio show, calling him out repeatedly by name.

Yee's call for civility did not sit well with one Limbaugh fan, who responded by sending several racist death threats to Yee's office this week. "Rush Limbaugh will kick your chink ass and expose you for the fool you are," the faxes read, threatening him with death:

As the San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The faxes include a drawing of a U.S. flag-adorned pickup truck towing a noose that is looped around an insulting caricature head of President Barack Obama."

The state Senate sergeant-at-arms and the California state police are investigating the threats. And Tuesday, Yee called for an advertising boycott of Limbaugh's show.

The faxes contained "similar graphics and language" as faxes Yee received in April, after he sought to expose how much former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was being paid to speak at a state university and whether tax-payer dollars were being used to pay her fee.

And O'Reilly did not report any of it, ever, he has ignored it all.

The Wednesday 1-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 27, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama and winning the future. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I'm not going to nitpick the President's State of the Union address, which would be boring. I would, however, like to analyze the central theme of his speech - 'winning the future.'

The President wants the federal government to lead the way by 'investing' in clean energy technology, high-speed rail, education, and on and on. Of course, the word 'invest' is code for 'spend' and we don't have the money.

However, the President's speech was uplifting, it was a 'yes, we can' event. The Republican response by Congressman Paul Ryan pointed out that Mr. Obama wants to continue a heavy spending agenda, but there is no money.

The problem with Mr. Ryan's presentation is that it was a 'yes, we can't' event. Unfortunately, Ryan's right, the country is broke. A charismatic guy like Barack Obama can sell his vision, even if there is no money, while the dour Republicans are labeled 'the party of no.'

One final thing: If a powerful central government is the key to winning the future, why does the Soviet Union no longer exist? Simply put, if America wants to win the future, let the folks do it. We always have.
Are you kidding me, the Soviet Union went down because they spent all their money on the military, that basically bankrupted the country. Which we will never do, as long as Democrats have any say in it, if the Republicans had their way they would bankrupt America with military spending just like the Soviet Union did.

And btw O'Dummy, liberals are ok with spending cuts, as long as the cuts are mostly on the wealthy and the corporations who can afford it. You and your right-wing friends want to cut it all from the poor and the middle class programs, the people who can least afford it. While not calling for any cuts that effect the wealthy or the corporations, who all got richer in the 8 years under Bush. Which I find totally revolting, and it just shows what right-wing idiots you are.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to talk about the Obama speech. And as usual Morris was totally ridiculous, he said this: "Americans know that every time you have a government effort and a private effort, the private effort usually works and the government effort fails. The private sector can do two things the government can't - it can fire you, and it can pay you a lot of money."

Morris also said this: "When Obama finished, I heaved a sigh of relief because I became certain he's going to be defeated in 2012. His speech was so vague and so boilerplate that he can not possibly control the agenda."

But even O'Reilly argued that President Obama's presentation was more important than his message, Billy said this: "He came across very well and his approval ratings are going to go up. A lot of Americans believe the President and a big federal apparatus can do what he says they can do."

So basically O'Reilly agreed with Morris, but he did not really come out and admit it. Then he says the people will believe Obama because he presented it well. Which is basically O'Reilly saying Obama is good at fooling the people. And I will bet Morris every dime I have that Obama is re-elected in 2012.

Then O'Reilly actually had a Democratic guest on, it's a miracle. New Jersey Congressman Rob Andrews said this: "I didn't hear him say he's going to spend more money. He said we want to freeze government spending on social and domestic programs for five years and reprioritize. So if he wants to spend more on the power grid or high-speed rail, something else has to go."

Andrews gave a specific example of what he considers a wise way for government to lead. "President Obama has a goal of getting 85% of our electric power from wind and solar and renewables by 2035, and you can accomplish that by a rule that would force utility companies to buy solar and wind and other sources."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed, because that is what he does, and he never agrees with anything a Democrat says. O'Reilly even said that if we do that utility rates will go up, which is a massive lie. Billy claimed that T. Boone Pickens got out of the wind business because he said it can not work. But he never said why, because Republicans are blocking the bills to make it work, they are in bed with the energy companies who burn coal and natural gas.

Here are the facts O'Reilly failed to mention: T. Boone Pickens only spent $60 million, not the billions O'Reilly claimed. The billionaire oil man is saying he will POSTPONE the project for at least a couple of years, not kill it as O'Reilly claimed.

The first hint that things weren't going as planned came last November, when Pickens couldn't get a loan to finance the farm. Pickens blamed the tight financial markets. But Pickens also told NPR that people still want renewables and that the wind farm will someday come to fruition.

Then Al Sharpton was on. Speaking to a union group, Al Sharpton warned tea partiers to avoid invoking the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Sharpton said this: "Dr. King died fighting for union members, so let's not distort that. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck don't believe in a lot of programs for people who are poor, while Dr. King called for government spending there. It is a distortion to act as though Dr. King would support a states-rights movement that does not believe in empowering government to help poor people."

Then O'Reilly attacked Jon Stewart, for simply pointing out that O'Reilly also uses Nazi rhetoric. O'Dummy said this: "In 2008, after Nancy Reagan was taken to the hospital, this appeared on The Huffington Post: 'She has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.'

I submit to you that my comparison to the vile Nazi propaganda machine is dead on. Jon Stewart didn't mention Nancy Reagan or the context of my remarks. If Stewart were a journalist I would pound him into pudding, but he's a comedian and he has license to take things out of context for entertainment purposes.

However, there are some Stewart viewers, and even media people, who form conclusions based upon Stewart's expositions. A vicious attack on Nancy Reagan prompted my analysis. I pointed out a hateful posting on The Huffington Post and I compared that to the Nazi propaganda dispatches."

What a joke, and O'Reilly totally ignored the main reason Stewart did his segment, to point out that Megyn Kelly said nobody at Fox uses Nazi rhetoric, when Stewart showed that almost everyone at Fox uses Nazi rhetoric, including O'Reilly. The insane O'Reilly never said a word about that, and if O'Reilly were a journalist I would pound him into a pile of crap, because that is what he is, dog crap. I have another blog post on this topic that shows what O'Reilly dishonestly did in his segment on Stewart.

And finally O'Reilly had the unfunny Dennis Miller on for his regular weekly segment, and the did you see that nonsense with Juliet Huddy. Miller did his usual biased unfunny jokes about Democrats, and Huddy played a clip of a Canadian sitcom called "Little Mosque on the Prairie." Really, who fricking cares, it's a show in Canada, why should I care, it was ridiculous garbage and a total waste of tv time.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. O'Reilly actually had 2 real Democrats on the show, what a shocker, I bet that never happens again.

O'Reilly's Nazi Comment Defense Was Laughable
By: Steve - January 27, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly's response to an exposition on "Nazi propaganda" by Jon Stewart Wednesday night was just laughable, but before I get into that let me give you ALL the facts.

For years O'Reilly has used Nazi comparisons, he used them on the Huffington Post, the DailyKos, Michael Moore, Al franken, and on and on.

-- On the June 14, 2004 O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly compared both Michael Moore and Al Franken to Goebbels.

-- On the July 16, 2007 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that the Daily Kos is "like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party. There's no difference here." A day later, O'Reilly said "That website traffics in hate, as do the Nazi websites. No difference."

-- On The March 5, 2008 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said this: "The Huffington Post, are the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people."

-- On February 27, 2008 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that "I don't see any difference between Arianna Huffington and the Nazis. ... I don't see any difference."

-- In his July 16, 2009, syndicated column, O'Reilly wrote that "Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media is pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930's."

-- On the March 2, 2010 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said liberals who support gun control are "today's totalitarians," adding that in the past people like "Hitler and Mussolini" held such positions in favor of "state control."

Okay, so now you know that O'Reilly uses Nazi rhetoric, it is a documented FACT.

Glenn Beck also uses Nazi rhetoric, even more than O'Reilly does. In fact, Beck uses Nazi rhetoric almost every day, and has ever since starting a show on Fox.

So recently Megyn Kelly told a guest, who said to her that Fox anchors use Nazi rhetoric all the time, he was wrong. Then she said she watches Fox News all day and all night, and nobody at Fox uses Nazi rhetoric.

Then Jon Stewart does a segment on what Megyn Kelly said, with clips of Fox anchors using Nazi rhetoric, that proved she was wrong. Then O'Reilly decides to respond to what Jon Stewart did.

But what O'Reilly said was ridiculous, to begin with O'Reilly never even talked about the claim from Megyn Kelly, which is what Jon Stewart did the segment about, her lies that nobody on Fox ever uses Nazi rhetoric.

O'Reilly totally ignored that, which was the main reason Stewart did the segment on Kelly, and then he said his Nazi rhetoric was ok, because when he compared the Huffington Post to the Nazis he was responding to a comment there about Nancy Reagan.

Now let me give you ALL the facts. The comment about Nancy Reagan at the Huffington Post was made by an anonymous poster on a blog posting. And after the monitors saw it, they deleted it. The comment was not made by anyone who works for the Huffington Post, it was made by someone who left a comment in the comments section.

For all we know, it could have been a Republican doing it to make them look bad, nobody knows for sure, because nobody knows who left the comment. So then O'Reilly compares the Huffington Post to the Nazis, based on one comment on one blog posting, made by an anonymous person, and not an employee at the Huffington Post.

Now get this, when someone found a terrible comment on the O'Reilly Factor website, after Ted Kennedy died, O'Reilly said you can not blame him for a comment left on his website. He said it was deleted as soon as they saw it, and he can not be held accountable for what people say on his website.

Which makes him a massive hypocrite. Then O'Reilly claims his Nazi comment about the Huffington Post was ok, because he was responding to what was said about Nancy Reagan. While not saying a word about the lie from Megyn Kelly, that nobody at Fox ever uses Nazi rhetoric.

On Wednesday night Bill O'Reilly had the option of humbly conceding Stewart's point, ignoring it, or rationalizing his own abuse of Nazi analogies. Guess which one he went for?

You guessed it, O'Reilly defended comparing the Huffington Post to the Nazi Party on the basis that Stewart failed to provide the full context. And that context was this: an insulting comment about Nancy Reagan.

Make that a deleted insulting comment. Because if you click on the relevant Huffington Post piece on Nancy Reagan, you'll see that all of the comments have been scrubbed. The nasty comment about Nancy Reagan has been immortalized only in the right-wing blogosphere, including in an indignant column on

So O'Reilly's defense for comparing the so-called "hate-filled blogs" to Nazis is that one random commenter on the Huffington Post said something cruel about Nancy Reagan in a comment that was later deleted. Funny how the full context doesn't actually make his Nazi analogy seem all that reasonable.

The whole defense from O'Reilly was laughable. O'Reilly acted like he had ONE Nazi comparison, when he had done it multiple times for years. Now here is what a real journalist would have done. Admit that Jon Stewart was right, say he was sorry for using Nazi rhetoric about the Huffington Post for what one anonymous poster wrote, promise to never do it again, and admit that Megyn Kelly was wrong.

O'Reilly did not do any of that, in fact, he never even mentioned what Megyn Kelly said. Then he put out some lame ass spin excuse on why it was ok for him to use Nazi rhetoric about the Huffington Post, but it's wrong for anyone else to use it. It was a joke, and it just shows that O'Reilly is not a real journalist, not to mention a massive hypocrite.

O'Reilly Thinks We Are Still In A Recession
By: Steve - January 27, 2011 - 9:00am

Yes he really thinks that, on the Tuesday night Factor show the insane Bill O'Reilly made a statement saying we are still in a recession. He said this:
O'REILLY: A CNN poll shows that 43% of Americans believe things are going 'well' in the country, which is up a whopping 14 points in one month. Some say it's because the economy is getting better and Americans are optimistic that bad times cannot last.

The truth is that things are still shaky - the feds have not cut back their spending and unemployment remains above 9%. Also, the battle between liberals and conservatives continues to rage in a very intense way.

So the poll is kind of inexplicable, but the more optimism there is in the country, the more consumers will spend, and that is the key to getting out of this recession.
Notice what he said, "and that is the key to getting out of this recession." As if we are in a recession, which we are not. In fact, the recession ended a year and a half ago.

Here is the official statement from the The National Bureau of Economic Research:
The National Bureau of Economic Research, a panel of academic economists based in Cambridge, Mass., says the recession lasted 18 months. It started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. That was the longest of any recession since World War II.

Previously the longest postwar downturns were those in 1973-1975 and in 1981-1982. Both of those lasted 16 months.

The decision makes official what many economists have believed for some time, that the recession ended in the summer of 2009. The economy started growing again in the July-to-September quarter of 2009, after a record four straight quarters of declines.

Thus, the April-to-June quarter of 2009, marked the last quarter when the economy was shrinking. At that time, it contracted just 0.7 percent, after suffering through much deeper declines. That factored into the NBER's decision to pinpoint the end of the recession in June of 2009.
Now who wants to tell me that O'Reilly does not lie to make Obama look bad. Here it is, he is lying that we are still in a recession, because he does not want to admit the economy has been doing good for a year and a half, then he would have to give Obama credit for it.

O'Reilly also claims we must cut spending to get us out of the recession, a recession we are not in, when the spending cuts will not create one job, and it will actually hurt the economy. Proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack, who lies and spin to make Obama look bad, while not giving him credit for anything.

When Bush left office the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month, we were in a recession, and we were on the edge of a depression. In 2 short years Obama has got the economy back to gaining 120,000 jobs a month, he ended the recession, prevented a depression, and the stock market even broke 12,000 on Wednesday.

All the economic news is good, and it's getting better. But O'Reilly ignores it all, because he can not give Obama credit for anything. In fact, O'Reilly still thinks we are in a recession, which is just ridiculous.

And this is the man who says he is an honest journalist that you can trust to report the truth. He even slams the rest of the media as corrupt, biased, and dishonest, when he is more corrupt, more biased, and more dishonest than anyone he criticizes. I document his lies every day, as he tells you he is a truth teller.

Perry Slammed Stimulus As He Took The Money
By: Steve - January 27, 2011 - 8:30am

Talk about hypocrisy, and talking out of both sides of your mouth, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) did it better than anyone. While trashing the Obama stimulus, Perry took most of the money and used it to balance his budget.

Perry raised his national profile by repeatedly criticizing the Obama stimulus bill, then we found out earlier this month that his state's deficit for the 2012-2013 fiscal year is double what he was reporting.

After months of criticizing the fiscal policies of the Obama administration and touting "the hard work that Texas and states like ours have done to make prudent fiscal decisions," Perry wound up facing a budget deficit equal to that in California.

And btw folks, O'Reilly is also a massive hypocrite in this. Because almost every other day O'Reilly slams California for being so much in debt, O'Reilly blames it on liberal policies, and he only slams California. While Texas, a state that is totally run by Republicans with conservative policies, is just as much in debt as California. But O'Reilly ignores that, because it kills his spin that California is so far in debt because of liberal policies.

Perry's previous budget would also have been in significantly worse shape were it not for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Obama stimulus), which the Texas legislature used to balance its budget, even as Perry scored tons of political points grandstanding against a small portion of the funds.

As it turns out, according to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, Texas relied more heavily on stimulus funding to fill its budget hole than any other state:
Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. But it filled nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.
When he made a show of rejecting some Recovery Act money, Perry said "this was pretty simple for us. We can take care of ourselves."

As The Wonk Room explained, in addition to filling nearly his entire budget gap with Recovery Act funds, Perry also used the Build America Bonds program -- created as part of the Obama stimulus -- to fund billions of dollars in infrastructure projects. He also grandstanded against -- and then promptly accepted -- federal funding meant to prevent teacher layoffs.

And Perry is hardly alone among GOP governors in bashing the stimulus and then turning around and taking advantage of the funding it provided. Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) and Chris Christie (R-NJ) have done the very same thing.

Where is the great Bill O'Reilly on this story, nowhere to be found. He is too busy doing the waste of time body language segments, and the Factor quiz segments with two morons from Fox.

The Tuesday 1-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 26, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Are things really getting better in America? Crazy O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: A CNN poll shows that 43% of Americans believe things are going 'well' in the country, which is up a whopping 14 points in one month. Some say it's because the economy is getting better and Americans are optimistic that bad times cannot last.

The truth is that things are still shaky - the feds have not cut back their spending and unemployment remains above 9%. Also, the battle between liberals and conservatives continues to rage in a very intense way.

So the poll is kind of inexplicable, but the more optimism there is in the country, the more consumers will spend, and that is the key to getting out of this recession.

As for the President's State of the Union address, he will say things are getting better, he will call for a five-year freeze in spending, and he will put a happy face on his administration. The GOP will say things are not really improving all that much and that the country needs cuts in spending, not freezes.

President Obama really helped himself last week in Arizona when he appealed for civility in the public discourse, but he still has a credibility deficit when it comes to the financial deficit and other economic matters. Words are fine, but actions always speak louder.
Okay two things, O'Reilly is Mr. poll, he reports polls all the time and says we must go by the will of the people. Except when he does not like a poll result, then he either ignores it, or if he does report it, he says he does not believe the poll. This is classic bias and spin from O'Reilly, because he only believes the polls he likes. How the hell is that being an honest and Independent journalist, it's not, it's being a biased dishonest hack.

Now in the Colmes/Crowley segment he admitted he does not know why the numbers jumped 14 percent in a month, but he does not believe them anyway, even after admitting he does not know why they went up so much. Hey O'Reilly, what happened to having the evidence to make a claim about something, and going by the will of the people, you fraud.

Second, O'Reilly said this: "The more optimism there is in the country, the more consumers will spend, and that is the key to getting out of this recession." Earth to O'Reilly, the recession is over, it ended in June of 2009. O'Reilly still has us in a recession, because he does not want to admit things are getting better under Obama. So he lies that we are still in a recession, when it ended a year and a half ago. Talk about dishonest journalism, that was as dishonest as it gets.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Crazy Crowley said this: "A lot of Americans are by nature optimistic, and a lot of people have 'recession fatigue.' They're sick and tired of being sick and tired about this economy, so even though the economic indicators show a mixed bag, people are trying to wish the economy into a better place."

Notice that Crowley also dishonestly said we are still in a recession, just like her idol Bill O'Reilly, one lies and the other one swears to it.

Colmes credited President Obama with inspirational leadership, he said this: "People saw both parties working together with the President compromising and giving tax cuts to the rich, then the President gave a very good leadership-quality speech after the Tucson tragedy. People are seeing no leadership on the Republican side."

But during the segment O'Reilly let Crowley speak without cutting her off one time, or telling her to shut up. When Colmes tried to speak he was constantly cut off by O'Reilly, and at one point O'Reilly even told Colmes nothing he ever says is true, and then he told him to shut up. Yes he actually said shut up to Colmes, after cutting him off 4 or 5 times and not letting him get 10 words out at a time. Talk about evidence of right-wing bias from O'Reilly just watch that segment.

The next segment was just ridiculous, O'Reilly claimed the White House had this secret meeting on Tuesday. But if it was a secret meeting, how did O'Reilly and all of the media know about it. O'Reilly had Kiki McLean on, who attended the White House meeting. Then he grilled her about what was said in the meeting, she refused to tell him, and he just kept grilling her about it anyway, it was ridiculous, and some of the worst journalism I have ever seen.

On the Factor website it actually said this: "The Factor interrogated strategist Kiki McLean, who attended the White House confab." As if she was a criminal, it was just stupid. O'Reilly also said this on his website: The Factor was irritated by McLean's unwillingness to reveal any details: "I want some information about the meeting but I'm not getting any. Millions of people want to know why Kiki McLean went to the White House and what happened, but you won't tell me."

So he wasted an entire segment asking her the same question over and over, even though she refused to answer, because it was a private meeting and it was none of his business. Then in the next segment with Krauthammer the two of them slammed her for not going into details of the private meeting. But when Republicans had private meetings with Bush, O'Reilly never once grilled someone who was there. It was total bias, and a massive waste of tv time.

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to say that pensions are bankrupting the states. Which is just ridiculous right-wing spin. And of course no Democratic guest was on to give an opposing view. O'Dummy and crazy Krauthammer called for letting the states file bankruptcy, just like a business does, so they can take all the pension money away. Are you kidding me, that would be a nightmare, can you imagine how bad the economy would crash if millions of people suddenly lost their pension money.

That may be the dumbest idea O'Reilly and Krauthammer have ever come up with. Not to mention, it will never happen, because as Krauthammer even admitted each state would have to pass a constitutional amendment to allow it, and Congress would also have to pass a law to allow states to file bankruptcy, which will never ever happen. So it was a total waste of time to even have a segment discussing it.

Basically it was just another one sided right-wing biased segment to bash the unions. Not to mention, the states are bankrupt because of Bush and the Republican policies he put in plce for 8 years, not union pensions. And btw, I agree those pensions are too high, but you can not take them away when they have signed contracts in place, you can try to cut them in the future, but you can not take them away after you agreed to the deal.

Then John Stossel was on to give a fake state of the union address, ummmm, why, who cares what Stossel thinks. Basically Stossel said we should get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and end all farm subsidies. He also said we should cut Medicare, Social Security and defense, and raise the retirement age. Dont you just love it when rich white Republicans tell us what to cut, what a joke. They want to balance the budget on the backs of the old and the sick and the poor, who built this country, when it's the rich white guys who got us in this mess.

Notice he said nothing about raising taxes on the rich, or cutting the tax loopholes for the corporations, or raising the payout on the wealthy who collect social security. Did you know that millionaires collect social security. Regis Philbin makes $30 million dollars a year for working an hour a day, and he collects a social security check. Hey Stossel, why not make them pay in more.

Then O'Reilly had is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about a court saying Rahm Emanuel is ineligible to run for Mayor of Chicago. All 3 of them think it was a bad ruling, and O'Reilly even predicted Rahm will win on appeal.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had James Rosen and Carl Cameron on to talk about the Obama State of the Union speech. Which I will not report on, except to say that there was no Democratic guest on to discuss it, just the 2 right-wing Fox News stooges.

On a side note, O'Reilly and the Republicans talk non-stop about spending cuts, but that will not create one job, and in fact, will lose jobs. Billy has even said we should cut everything across the board 5 percent a year, which would put us back into a recession. Where are the jobs bills, Republicans promised jobs, so where are they.

Neither O'Reilly or any Republicans are talking jobs, they just want to cut what they see as liberal programs. While not talking about cutting anything that involves the wealthy or the corporations. They basically want to balance the budget on the backs of the retired, the middle class, and the poor, which is just revolting to me.

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

The Glenn Beck Show Ratings Are Crashing
By: Steve - January 26, 2011 - 9:30am

Think back to 2010, Glenn Beck had his big right-wing rally in Washington, his ratings were going up, he was averaging about 2.6 million viewers a night, with shows that did a 2.7 and 2.9 rating, and one show even went over 3 million viewers and he beat O'Reilly for the first time ever.

Those days are now gone, and Glenn Beck is having a bad time in the ratings game. Back in February of 2010 Beck's lowest number was a 2.4, his highest number was a 3.8, and now we look at January of 2011.

For January of 2011 Beck's lowest number was a 1.5, and his highest number is a 2.9, with an average of 2.2 million total viewers.

Back in February of 2010 Beck was averaging 2.9 million viewers a night. And the last 3 days of last week the highest rating Beck had was a 1.7, with a 1.6 on Friday.

That means over the last 11 months, Beck has lost anywhere from 1 million viewers a night, to 1.6 million viewers a night. And yet, neither O'Reilly or Beck say a word about it. As they claim Beck is doing great and his ratings are through the roof.

When in reality, viewers are leaving Beck almost every day, and his ratings have crashed. But you never hear a word about it from Beck, or O'Reilly, even though they mentioned his ratings every day when they were around 2.9 million, and going up.

Jon Stewart Calls Out Fox & Megyn Kelly
By: Steve - January 26, 2011 - 9:00am

On Monday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart chose to pick up where he left off last week, with an expose on Nazi name-calling in Congress and the media.

Last week, Stewart had some strong words for Rep. Steve Cohen, who likened the Republican party's views on government-owned health care to Nazi lies. To his surprise, Stewart's comments were echoed all over Fox News, with everyone -- including Karl Rove -- saying Cohen should be ashamed of himself.

Stewart said this about Rove: "If that guy is telling you you should feel shame, that's like Charlie Sheen showing up at your intervention to tell you to take it down a notch."

Although the majority of Fox News pundits spoke out against Nazi name-calling, it was Megyn Kelly who took it to a hypocritical level by saying that kind of rhetoric doesn't exist on Fox News.

As he does best, Stewart produced an impressive slew of clips showing Fox News pundits using Nazi comparisons, including Bill O'Reilly's mind-boggling claim that there's "no difference" between what Hitler did and what HuffPost does.

But he didn't stop there. Stewart also showed more than just unfair Nazi comparisons on Fox News, but an instance of such name-calling within the same 24 hours of Megyn Kelly's comment, a Fox News pundit (Glenn Beck) making the same Joseph Goebbels comparison as Steve Cohen, Fox News President Roger Ailes calling someone Hitler, and another Nazi remark on Megyn Kelly's own show.

Then Stewart had this for Megyn Kelly: "Well, Ms. Kelly, Don't you look ridiculous now?"

And where was O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg in reporting this bias and hypocrisy, nowhere to be found. Even though O'Reilly does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg, they both ignored the entire story.

Not to mention, O'Reilly has Megyn Kelly on his own show once a week for the Kelly File segment, and he never said a word to her about her Fox does not use Nazi rhetoric lies.

O'Reilly Would Not Mention Olbermann's Name
By: Steve - January 26, 2011 - 8:30am

So get this, O'Reilly (the coward) does a segment on Keith Olbermann leaving MSNBC, but does not even say his name.

Not long after going to work for MSNBC in 2003, Keith Olbermann began calling Bill O'Reilly out on the air, which led to an often-vicious eight-year feud between the two cable news hosts.

On 'The O'Reilly Factor' Bill O'Reilly addressed Keith Olbermann's abrupt departure from MSNBC during a discussion with Bernie Goldberg.

"I need you to help me out in the beginning. I've been tied up all weekend watching football -- did somebody leave MSNBC?" Goldberg wondered.

"Yeah, they took one of their guys out, and then they're moving everybody else around. It doesn't really matter who the guy is or why they took him out," O'Reilly explained.

Not mentioning Olbermann by name has been a tactic O'Reilly has employed for the last few years.

Hey O'Reilly, what kind of a fraud of a journalist does a segment on someone and then refuses to use their name. You, because you are not a journalist.

Megyn Kelly Said Fox Does Not Use Nazi Rhetoric
By: Steve - January 25, 2011 - 11:30am

Yes, and pigs can fly too. Are you kidding me, if Fox did not allow Nazi rhetoric Glenn Beck would not be able to do his show any more. It's non-stop Nazi rhetoric almost every day.

Fox News (so-called straight news) anchor Megyn Kelly responded to her guest's statement that Fox News figures regularly invoke Nazi imagery by claiming "I watch our programming every night and you're wrong."

In fact, several Fox News, particularly Glenn Beck, have a long history of smearing President Obama, Democrats, and progressive figures by invoking Nazi and Holocaust imagery.

There are so many examples of Beck using Nazi rhetoric it would take me an hour to publish them all.

Here are just a few:

On April 28, 2010, Beck stated that progressives use "democratic elections" to push dictators, then stated, "You'll hear this when they talk about the 'democratically elected' leader of Iran; the democratic leader Chavez, 'democratically elected,' you know; Castro, 'democratically elected'; Hitler - 'democratically elected.'"

On April 8, 2010, Beck portrayed ad boycotts of his show as being orchestrated by the Obama White House in order to "destroy" his "career" and "silence" him, adding: "Is there absolutely no chance whatsoever that you might be a target at some point in the future? What's that poem? First they came for the Jews, and I stayed silent?"

On August 27, 2009, Beck said this:

BECK: I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to. Because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, 'I'm not comparing' -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS.

While discussing the auto company bailouts on April 1, 2009, after stating, "I am not saying that Barack Obama is a fascist," Beck said, "If I'm not mistaken, in the early days of Adolf Hitler, they were very happy to line up for help there as well. I mean, the companies were like, 'Hey, wait a minute. We can get, you know, we can get out of trouble here.

On April 2, 2009, while teasing the next day's show, Beck asked, "Is this where we're headed?" while airing photos of Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin.

On February 5, 2009, Beck Compared Gore To Goebbels, Says, "The Government And Its Friends Are Indoctrinating Our Children For The Control Of Their Minds."

On January 5, 2010, Beck predicted a possible future of hyperinflation he described as "the Great Depression times 100," adding: "This is the reason I told you two years ago, please study the Weimar Republic."

On August 2, 2010, Beck explained deflation and hyperinflation by saying, "See if you notice any similarities of the Weimar Republic" to the U.S. economy.

It goes on and on, all through 2009 and 2010 Beck used Nazi rhetoric almost every day, and yet Megyn Kelly saw none of it, yeah right, liar.

And it was not just Beck doing it, O'Reilly, Hannity, Gingrich, and Coulter all did it, even Roger Ailes did it. But somehow Megyn Kelly never saw any of it.

Just 2 months ago Roger Ailes apologized to the Anti-Defamation League for invoking the Nazis in his comments, but according to NPR, Ailes did not apologize to NPR executives themselves. Ailes said the executives at NPR "have a Nazi attitude, and that they are The Left Wing Of Nazism." But somehow Megyn Kelly missed that.

In 2010, Ann Coulter called websites like Media Matters "little Nazi block watchers" that "tattle on their parents, turn them in to the Nazis."

On March 2, 2010, O'Reilly said liberals who support gun control are "today's totalitarians," adding that in the past people like "Hitler and Mussolini" held such positions in favor of "state control."

On March 5, 2008, O'Reilly said this: "And I said that these tactics that are being used on this website, The Huffington Post, are the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people."

On February 27, 2008, O'Reilly said that "I don't see any difference between Arianna Huffington and the Nazis. ... I don't see any difference."

On July 16, 2007, O'Reilly said that the Daily Kos is "like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party. There's no difference here." A day later, O'Reilly said "That website traffics in hate, as do the Nazi websites. No difference."

On July 19, 2007, O'Reilly said of Daily Kos: "The hate this website traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites."

On July 28, 2004, Bill O'Reilly said that Michael Moore "has more power than probably anybody else other than [Senators John] Kerry and [John] Edwards," adding that Moore's purported "power" was "scary" because "this happened in Nazi Germany."

O'Reilly went on to ask: "Who was the most powerful person in Nazi Germany other than Hitler and Himmler and Goering, who? You guys know? ... Goebbels. The propaganda minister."

On June 14, 2004, Bill O'Reilly compared both Michael Moore and Al Franken to Goebbels. O'Reilly also likened a group of Hollywood celebrities who attended a premiere of Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 to "the people who would turn out to see Josef Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich."

Beck was making more Nazi comparisons, I guess Kelly never saw this either, maybe she is deaf dumb and blind, because this stuff happens almost every day on Fox.

And I quote:
BECK: Starting the modern propaganda: Edward Bernays. It was taken from him, used by the Nazis. He knew it was propaganda. It was such a bad name that he had to do what all progressives do: they just change the name of something that everyone went, "Ooh, that's bad." Just change the name. Don't change the tactics.

Just change the name. But that's what the tactics are: Nazi tactics. Nazi tactics are progressive tactics first. And so they use those tactics. That's the barking dogs around the herd.
Earth to Megyn Kelly, that is a Nazi comparison. On the very day Kelly said nobody at Fox does Nazi comparisons Glenn Beck did it. So Kelly you are wrong, the question now is will you admit it, haha, no chance.

The Monday 1-24-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 25, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama and the State of the Union. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The State of the Union address will be painful. Not because President Obama is speaking; all of these speeches are painful and every president tries to put a happy face on his administration.

Look for Mr. Obama to say the economy is getting better, the country's image is getting better, and he is doing a whale of a job. The President has two years to convince independent voters that he is making their lives better; if he can not do that, he won't be reelected.

Thus his move to the so-called center.

President Obama is being friendlier to business and is backing away from the enormous 'social justice' spending.

But he's still a liberal Democrat and always will be, so when he says he wants to rein in spending, some are skeptical. That will be the big debate this year - the GOP wanting deep spending cuts, the President resisting as much as he can.

I am very curious about just how Mr. Obama will solve some of the most vexing problems in the nation's history - for that alone he is worth listening to tomorrow night. So I will have to listen, and I will have to tape the Kardsahians.
Notice how O'Reilly says it will be painful, now go back and look at what he said before the Bush state of the union, not once did he say it would be painful. Then he says look for Obama to say things are getting better, and that he will put a spin on it, and that he has moved to the so-called center.

Basically O'Reilly is calling Obama a liar, by saying the economy is not improving Obama will just say it is, when it is, and that Obama has not really moved to the center, when he has. Earth to O'Reilly, open your eyes, the economy is improving, and if Obama has not moved to the center, why is the far-left mad at him, answer that smart guy.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on. Williams said this: "He's going to try to build confidence, and his buzzwords will be 'innovation' and 'investment' to create jobs and keep the economy going. He was the most liberal Senator but I now think he's a changed man because he wants to win reelection."

Wow, Juan is a total right-wing sell out. That Obama was the most liberal Senator crap was right-wing propaganda put out by the Heritage Foundation, it was not true, and not even close.

Ham warned that President Obama's actions may not match his words, she said this: "He has a singular ability to make people believe he's sincere in meaning what he's saying at the exact moment he's saying it, but the problem is that it changes pretty frequently. I think he is an ideologue who talks like a moderate."

Mary K. Ham is so far to the right she can not see straight, Obama is what he is, he does not try to fool anyone. He is trying to do exactly what he said he would do during his campaign, how is that being dishonest, she is like a wannabe Laura Ingraham. Not as good looking, and not as good at lying/spinning for the right. Basically she is a cheap (non-blonde) version of Laura Ingraham or Monica Crowley.

Then O'Reilly had the dishonest king of liars Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on to talk about Obama and his speech. Which was not worth reporting, except for this. During the segment O'Reilly told Bachmann that she is a 100% honest person who always tells the truth. Are you kidding me, Bachmann is one of the biggest liars in Congress, almost nothing she says is true. In fact, she has told so many lies you could fill a phone book with them. And the fact that O'Reilly said she was honest, proves he is a total 100% in the tank Republican.

Okay now get this, in the next segment O'Reilly had a headline that said this: Corruption revealed in major charitable fund. Then he had Niles Gardiner on to talk about the Global Fund, an international charity that receives billions of dollars from governments and individuals, that has been accused of corruption and misuse of funds.

Niles Gardiner of the conservative Heritage Foundation talked about the allegations. "I think we're looking at a potential major international scandal. The inspector general of the Global Fund has established that $34 million has gone missing, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. We could be looking at billions of dollars in missing funds, which would make this one of the biggest financial scandals of the 21st century. We need congressional investigations into where U.S. money is going."

The Factor headline said Corruption revealed, as if it was a fact. Then the guest said potential and allegations, not facts, just potential allegations. They even speculated it was billions of dollars, with no proof of that either. It was just laughable, when they only know of $34 million, not billions, and it has not been proven yet. Not to mention, O'Reilly said he does not allow speculation, as they both speculated.

Then O'Reilly had a waste of time segment on the Mexico drug war, that is not even happening in America, so I could care less. Billy had some look from Stratfor on to discuss it. Friedman said this: "After the Middle East, this is the biggest national security problem we face. If this violence comes across the border, the kind of civil war we're seeing just south of the border will be here."

Are you kidding me, what an idiot. This Stratfor lunatic compares the middle east to the drug war in Mexico. That alone shows you what a nut he is, and O'Reilly agreed with him. It was like watching dumb and dumber.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about Keith Olbermann leaving MSNBC, and my God was it ridiculous. Goldberg said this: "Saying that he had the highest ratings on MSNBC is true, but that's like saying he was the tallest midget in the room. This is an anchorman who went on and shouted into the camera at George W. Bush, 'Shut the hell up!"

Goldberg also said this: "He also asked whether George W. Bush was a pathological liar or an idiot. But a lot of 'mainstream' reporters share the same views as the dominant view on that network."

Then O'Reilly accused media reporters of manifest dishonesty, Billy said this: "If you look at the cable news rankings from 2010, the top twelve shows are all Fox News shows, and even Fox News daytime shows beat every one of MSNBC's prime time shows, which is almost unheard of. Yet if you read about the shakeup, you would think MSNBC's people are ratings monsters, which is outright deception by the liberal press."

Notice how O'Reilly thinks ratings equal quality and honesty, when they dont. O'Reilly and Goldberg complained that the media is dishonest, biased, and corrupt, except for Fox. It was laughable, they sit there crying about media bias, corruption, and dishonesty, as if they are honest and unbiased journalists. When the two of them are 10 times worse than anyone else, it's the classic pot calling the kettle black, it was so funny I was on the floor laughing.

O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and most of Fox are the worst media network in America, they are more biased, more corrupt, and more dishonest than anybody. In fact, a new media study just reported that Fox is the least trusted news outlet in America. But here you have O'Reilly and Goldberg saying everyone except them are biased, corrupt, and dishonest. I was like wow, are you for real, it was like watching the Twilight Zone tv show.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had his totally ridiculous Factor Reality Check, that is so biased it is not even worth reporting on. It's just O'Reilly, all alone, putting his right-wing bias on what someone else said.

Not to mention, as O'Reilly and Goldberg are saying Fox is not biased, O'Reilly had 6 Republican guests, to 0 Democratic guests. So as he was crying about bias, he was being as biased as you can get, by not having any Democratic guests.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, that is just laughable, and the lame lame lame pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About China & India
By: Steve - January 25, 2011 - 10:00am

As usual O'Reilly was caught talking out his butt, because on the Monday Factor show, O'Reilly said China and India are not investing anything in their infrastructure.

Juan Williams was trying to explain to the clueless right-wing fool (Bill O'Reilly) that Obama is going to say we must invest in our infrastructre to keep up with China and India, and the moron O'Reilly said this:
WILLIAMS: But the idea here Obama's going to be selling tomorrow night is, look, China's more competitive, India's more competitive, so we've got to invest. It's not what the Republicans say, in terms of add additional spending, or what you, Bill O'Reilly, call social justice spending.

O'REILLY: Look, let me break this to you, Juan.

WILLIAMS: He's going to say it's investment spending.

O'REILLY: Let me break this to you, Juan, to President Obama, and to all the left-wingers out there. Alright?


O'REILLY: China and India don't invest anything in their infrastructure other than to saying, in China's situation, you do what we say or we shoot you. OK? India, it's chaos. Have you been to India? Absolute chaos, alright? So they're not investing.
And when O'Reilly said that (Let me break this to you Juan) line he was talking real loud and in a condescending way, as if he was a genius that was right, and Juan was a fool that did not know what he was talking about. But it turns out, O'Reilly was an idiot that was wrong.

The Washington Post reported this in June of 2010:
China's Economic Stimulus Is "Infrastructure, Infrastructure And More Infrastructure."

Unlike in the United States -- where President Obama's large stimulus plan was shaped to include tax cuts and aid to states -- Chinese leaders followed a simple mandate: Spend and build.

The stimulus allowed China to speed up some projects, begin digging on others and extend the building boom to less-developed areas in the country's west and north. The result, 18 months after the stimulus was introduced, is an astonishing frenzy of building -- highways, subways, airports, bridges, high-speed rail lines and even new cities constructed, literally, in the middle of nowhere.

China is building tens of thousands of miles of expressways at a pace unseen since the U.S. interstate boom in the 1950s, and it is on track to pass the United States in total highways in the next decade.

Among other infrastructure projects -- which now amount to 15 percent of China's gross domestic product -- are nearly 100 new airports, some serving isolated cities few outsiders have heard of, and dozens of subways.
March 25, 2010, A Pew press release titled, "Pew Study: China Leads G-20 Members in Clean Energy Finance and Investment"
For the first time, China led the United States and other G-20 members in 2009 clean energy investments and finance, according to data released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Last year, China invested $34.6 billion in the clean energy economy - nearly double the United States' total of $18.6 billion.
From a January 24 article in The Telegraph: China To Invest $190 Billion In Infrastructure Projects To Merge Nine Cities.
City planners in south China have laid out an ambitious plan to merge together the nine cities that lie around the Pearl River Delta.

The "Turn The Pearl River Delta Into One" scheme will create a 16,000 square mile urban area that is 26 times larger geographically than Greater London, or twice the size of Wales.

The new mega-city will cover a large part of China's manufacturing heartland, stretching from Guangzhou to Shenzhen and including Foshan, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Huizhou and Zhaoqing. Together, they account for nearly a tenth of the Chinese economy.

Over the next six years, around 150 major infrastructure projects will mesh the transport, energy, water and telecommunications networks of the nine cities together, at a cost of some 2 trillion yuan (190 billion). An express rail line will also connect the hub with nearby Hong Kong.
India To Spend $1 Trillion On Infrastructure, The Press Trust of India reported this on 1-24-11:
Seeking investments from Australia in the infrastructure sector, India today said that a free trade pact between the two countries would give a boost to the $13.79 billion bilateral commerce.

At a meeting with Australian Trade Minister Craig Emerson in Mumbai, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said, "There is a need for investments from Australia, especially in the infrastructure sector."

India has an ambitious plan to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure during the 12th plan period (2012-2017).
And now you have the facts, and those facts prove that O'Reilly was lying. I guess he thinks if he talks loud and confident, and tells the guest they are wrong, someone will believe it.

More Proof O'Reilly Wrong About Obama Stimulus
By: Steve - January 25, 2011 - 9:00am

For over a year now O'Reilly has said a million times that the Obama stimulus was a waste of taxpayer money that did not work. As the facts show, Obama had to do the stimulus, and at the time almost every economist in America said it was needed.

But O'Reilly does not let facts get in the way, because he is still spewing out the dishonest right-wing talking points that the Obama stimulus did not work.

In a Monday 1-24-11 USA Today article, economists are increasingly confident about economic recovery and have upgraded their outlook for 2011. Nine in 10 economic experts said they are more optimistic than they were three months ago, and expect the economy to grow at an annual rate of 3.2 percent to 3.4 percent each quarter this year.

Since Obama passed the stimulus, the DOW has went up to almost 12.000, jobs are coming back, unemployment claims have dropped slightly, and overall the economy is improving. And all that happened while the Republicans were blocking every bill Obama tried to pass.

When asked to predict, nine of 10 economists said they're more optimistic than three months ago, according to a USA TODAY survey of 46 economists conducted Jan. 13-19.

They expect the economy to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% to 3.4% each quarter this year. That's up from quarterly median forecasts of 2.5% to 3.3% in an October survey.

"This growth is now becoming self-reinforcing," says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics. "Businesses are going to take their stronger sales and begin to hire more aggressively, generate more income, and we're off and running."

Zandi expects the economy to grow 4.4% this year. That's better than last year's estimated 3% growth, but well short of the 5% to 7% expansion that followed previous severe recessions.

The economists say the more robust growth will help cut the unemployment rate to 9% by year's end from 9.4% in December. They expect employers to add 200,000 jobs a month by the second half of the year, more than double last year's rate.

Several economists said the brighter outlook is largely a response to a recent flurry of positive reports. Car and truck sales rose 11.1% last month from the year-ago period. Holiday retail sales appear to have jumped 5%, their best showing since 2005. Factory output is rising. Even the sluggish housing market has picked up.

Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers, says the recent stock market rally has restored much household wealth. "That's allowing consumer spending to strengthen," he says.

Americans are also loosening their purse strings, he says, as a more stable job market makes them less nervous about layoffs.

At the same time, cash-rich U.S. corporations are feeling more confident in the recovery's durability. That will prompt them to hire more, says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's.

But if you watch O'Reilly, you would think we are going downhill, when almost every sector of the economy is improving. Which proves that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing partisan, who slams Obama no matter what he does.

O'Reilly Lied About Health Care Repeal
By: Steve - January 24, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly has said a million times that the majority of the American people are opposed to the Obama health care plan, but he never reports the facts, that his claim is a lie.

-- An AP poll released just last Sunday revealed that only one-in-four Americans -- 26 percent-- want the health law repealed.

-- An ABC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week found that just 18 percent favor repealing it entirely.

-- And a New York Times/CBS poll released Friday found that just 20 percent of Americans want to fully repeal the health reform law.

As the Washington Post notes, even those numbers may be inflated.
The [NYT/CBS] poll then asked people who support repeal an open-ended question: Which parts of the law do you want done away with?

The number who said everything drops again, this time to eight percent. Eleven percent want the individual mandate repealed.

But guess what? The number who called for repeal of other key individual items in the bill -- the pre-existing conditions piece; the coverage for people up to age 26 -- was consistently one percent or less for each of them.
Republicans (that is you O'Reilly) are surely welcome to continue saying that the American people favor repeal -- unfortunately for them, it's simply not true. Even the former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill First understands this, and urged Republicans not to repeal the law this week.

But according to O'Reilly the American people do not want it, proving once again that he is a right-wing spin doctor. What this shows is that O'Reilly is part of the right-wig spin machine, they spew it out and he parrots it.

While he may not directly get their talking points from the RNC, he does not need to, he does it himslef, or he reads it somewhere, because his talking points usually mirror what the Republican party is saying. In fact, O'Reilly is so far up their butt, he should get his paycheck from the RNC, instead of Fox.

Republican Plan Raises Taxes On The Middle Class
By: Steve - January 24, 2011 - 9:00am

This is what you voted for folks, the Republicans financial plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and lower taxes on the wealthy.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) was announced as the Republican who will be responding to President Obama's State of the Union address next week. Ryan has gained an unearned reputation as a fiscal hawk due to his radical Roadmap for America's Future, under which the U.S. budget will eventually be balanced.

According to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, the Roadmap plan would raise taxes on 90 percent of Americans, while dramatically lowering them for the wealthy. In fact, a new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that Ryan's roadmap plan would ultimately translate into middle-class tax rates being higher than those for millionaires:
-- The Roadmap would lead to the wealthiest Americans paying a lower average tax rate than most Americans. Eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest, as the Roadmap proposes, would overwhelmingly help taxpayers at the top of the income distribution, who receive most or all of their income from capital.

-- Middle-class families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would see their average tax rate jump to 19.1% (from 17.7%) an increase of $900 on average.

-- Millionaires would see their average tax rate drop to 12.8%, less than half of what they would pay relative to current policy.
As EPI's Andrew Fieldhouse concluded, under the Roadmap, "a long tradition of progressive taxation would be abandoned, millionaires and Wall Street bankers would pay significantly lower tax rates than middle-class workers. Income inequality would soar."

And what a shocker, you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, NOT! Because O'Reilly is in bed with the right, he never reports any of this information to help them cover it up, so the people do not really know what the right is doing.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media (Again)
By: Steve - January 23, 2011 - 10:00am

On Tuesday January 18th, Bill O'Reilly accused the mainstream media of showing a bias by ignoring the story about Tucson shooting victim James Eric Fuller, who threatened a Tea Party leader at a town hall meeting. O'Reilly said the network news, the cable news networks, and the print press has ignored the story.

Here is exactly what O'Reilly said on 1-18-11, from his very own transcript:
O'REILLY: Over the weekend there was a disturbing development in the case that is being under-reported. 63-year-old James Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee by Jared Loughner, attended an ABC News event, where he made threats against a tea party leader and was taken into custody.

There's no question Fuller is troubled - he told the New York Post that some conservatives should be tortured and an 'ear necklace' should be made with the ears of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney.

Fuller's rantings were said well after the far-left began its campaign of vilification, blaming various people on the right for encouraging Loughner.

Did you hear this story reported on the network news, on our cable news competition, or in the liberal print press? Why not?

Because a logical argument can be made that the far-left encouraged an unbalanced guy to do bad things.

Talking Points believes you have a right to know the complete story about important situations like the Arizona murder. Now you have another piece of the big picture.
And guess what folks, all that is a lie from O'Reilly, it's a 100% flat out lie. Because every major media outlet in America covered the story immediately and repeatedly, including ABC, AP, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, The LA Times, The NY Times, NPR, Reuters, and The Washington Post.

-- ABC Repeatedly Covered Fuller's Threat And Arrest, Including During Broadcast Of This Week Town Hall.

-- even reported the story on it's website: "Police Arrest Arizona Shooting Victim After Tea Party Member Threatened."

-- The Associated Press ran several stories on Fuller's threats and subsequent psychiatric evaluation.

-- A Nexis search of CBS transcripts reveals three segments covering Fuller's threat and arrest in the days following the event.

-- also reported the AP story about it on it's website: A January 18 CBS/AP article on noted that Fuller "remained under psychiatric evaluation following his arrest Saturday for threatening a Tea Party leader during a televised town hall meeting."

-- A Nexis search of CNN transcripts reveals at least 13 mentions of Fuller's alleged death threat and arrest.

-- On January 15, the Los Angeles Times published an article about Fuller's death threat and arrest.

-- On the January 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that Fuller was "quite appropriately, arrested, and removed for psychological evaluation."

-- In an article posted the same day as the shooting, January 15, The New York Times covered Fuller's death threat and arrest.

-- The NY Times political blog The Caucus also covered Fuller's threat and arrest on January 15.

-- NPR's website published at least three Associated Press stories about Fuller's death threat against Humphries in the days following the event.

-- Reuters published at least three articles (over a 4 day period from 1-16-11 until 1-19-11) about Fuller's threat. In addition to two articles about Fuller's arrest and detainment, Reuters also published an article on January 19 including the update that "Fuller...was ordered by a judge to keep his distance from a local Tea Party leader he was accused of threatening over the weekend."

-- The Washington Post published one online article and one print article, as well as an AP article, on Fuller's threat and arrest.

On top of all that, as if that's not enough. Yahoo News, and Google News, had hundreds of articles listed about the story. So everyone who has a yahoo e-mail account saw the story headline when they logged into their yahoo e-mail account.

The Google top 20 most popular stories news page had the story listed at #1 on the day of his arrest.

If you do a google search on James Eric Fuller you get 227,000 results, and if you do a google news search on James Eric Fuller you get 647 results. That list links to articles about the story at virtually every media outlet and blog in America.

Think about that for a minute, O'Reilly said nobody in the media reported the story except Fox, those are his words. He said the mainstream network news ignored it, the cable news ignored it, and the print press ignored it.

And I just showed you that he was lying, because they all reported the story, and most of them reported it 2 or 3 times over a 2 or 3 day period. In fact, I can not find a media outlet that did not report the story, which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly said.

Now if you only watch Bill O'Reilly for your news, you would be totally misinformed. You would think nobody reported it but Fox, and you would think O'Reilly was reporting the truth. When the facts show O'Reilly to be a liar, yes I said liar, Bill O'Reilly is a bold faced liar.

And if someone says to you that O'Reilly never lies, just show them this blog posting.

Republican Mayor Admits Obama Stimulus Worked
By: Steve - January 23, 2011 - 9:00am

The Republicans in Congress have been saying for 2 years now the the Obama stimulus did not work, joining them is Bill O'Reilly, who almost nightly says the stimulus did not work. When the facts show it did work, the stock market is up to almost 12,000, unemployment claims are down, jobs are up, and the economy is slowly improving.

And now a Republican Mayor is admitting it worked, and saying the spin from the GOP that it did not work has to stop, because he says they need that money, and some Mayors are even calling for a 2nd stimulus.

Jim Jordan's (R-OH) new Spending Reduction Act not only scraps 15 percent of federal jobs but also eliminates "all remaining stimulus funding."

Unfortunately for Republicans, the American people don't live in their delusion. They live in states and cities -- both of which depend on the Recovery Act and will get screwed by this repeal.

Even Republican mayors like Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett are pointing out just how unfair a repeal of the Act would be. Speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in DC yesterday, Bartlett said it worked:
I would prefer them to at least give us an opportunity to use them for another reasonably supportive project.

In Washington for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Bartlett again made positive comments about the impact of the 2009 stimulus package, which was opposed by every Oklahoma Republican in Congress.

"It worked," said the mayor.

Bartlett made it clear he did not favor a repeal. "To me, that seems a little unfair," he said.
While at odds with the conservative anti-stimulus mantra, Bartlett is certainly not alone. Friday, more than 230 mayors attending the Conference called for a second wave of stimulus money. Forced to impose layoffs furloughs, service reductions and fee increases to deal with falling municipal revenue, the mayors, many of whom are Republicans, said cities are being deprived of the federal aid owed to them.

Burnsville, MN Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, also a Republican, said "We are in the middle of a 'jobs emergency' that demands decisive and swift action. We need the Senate to pass a Main Street jobs package now," she insisted.

The 4.5 million people kept out of poverty and the millions employed because of the Recovery Act might be inclined to agree. So would the numerous GOP governors who used these funds to balance their budgets if they weren't so wedded to hypocrisy.

And at least 114 of the GOP lawmakers who wanted to eliminate the stimulus package were only too happy to take credit for its successes. But, it seems the House GOP is hellbent on marching forward in their delusion, even if it means trampling on the economic recovery to do so.

New Poll Shows That O'Reilly Is An Idiot
By: Steve - January 23, 2011 - 8:30am

For months and months O'Reilly and all his insane right-wing friends have been saying that Obama is done, he is toast, he will not win a 2nd term. O'Reilly even predicted that Obama would drop into the 30's in job approval ratings.

And none of that happened, in fact, Obama is going up in the polls. A brand new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has Obama at 53% approval, which is an 8 point increase in a month, and he has not even given the State of The Union speech yet, that always give the President a bump in the polls.

Not to mention, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends also said the people want what the Republicans are selling, O'Reilly even claims the country has moved to the right, and his proof is that the Repubicans gained a majority back in the House. But what O'Reilly does not mention is that only 25% of the people say the Republican agenda is the answer.

None of this is ever reported by O'Reilly, because he is a right-wing spin doctor. Here are some facts from the poll, read it O'Reilly you hack.

According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Obama's approval rating has surged above 50 percent; confidence in the economy also has spiked; and the Democratic Party -- but not the GOP.

The poll found that 53 percent approve the job Obama is doing as president, an eight point jump from last month and his highest approval rating since July of 2009. Forty-one percent disapprove.

Just 25 percent say that the Republicans in Congress will bring 'the right kind of change' to the country.

In addition, a majority (55 percent) believe congressional Republicans will be too inflexible in dealing with President Obama, while an equal number (55 percent) say Obama will strike the right balance.

The survey also found 40 percent of Americans believe the U.S. economy will improve in the next 12 months, up eight points from December.

What the poll shows is that Obama is looking good, and the people do not trust the Republicans to fix the country. Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly is saying. O'Reilly claims the country has moved to the right and they want the Republican ideas put in place, but it turns out only 25% of the people want that.

The Friday 1-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 22, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Will illegal aliens decide the 2012 race? What a stupid question, illegal aliens (aka illegal immigrants or undocumented workers) can not vote stupid, and they are not aliens, they are people. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With the economy likely to improve over the next two years, President Obama has a real chance to be re-elected in 2012. But for that to happen, he needs the vast majority of Hispanic Americans to vote for him because he has lost so much independent support. The Republicans also need Hispanic American voters in states like Colorado, New Mexico and Florida.

Thus immigration reform becomes perhaps the most important issue facing both parties. The issue is complicated and emotional - you can't have more than 10-million illegal aliens without unintended consequences, and the vast majority of illegal narcotics come over the southern border.

This week we also learned that more than one-million foreign born people have found jobs since the recession began, and about 35% of them are illegal aliens, which obviously impacts the unemployment rate. There is no immigration reform legislation on the table, but you can be sure that President Obama will drive the issue soon.

The Republican Party should be ready with its own plan, and that will be tricky because many conservative Americans want tough border controls and a crackdown on illegals working in the USA. In the end, it will take a creative piece of legislation to stop the madness. That will be incredibly difficult, but the outcome may determine who the next president is.
Okay, now get this. The question from O'Reilly was (Will illegal aliens decide the 2012 race?) Then the whole TPM talked about legal hispanics that might vote for Obama. Which makes no sense, because illegals can not vote. How can illegal aliens decide the 2012 race when they can not vote, answer that moron.

Then O'Reilly says Obama has lost a lot of Independent support, and that is right-wing spin, because almost all the Independents that Obama lost are actually Republicans who are registered Independents. The experts call them right-leaning Independents. The entire TPM was ridiculous, because O'Reilly lumped illegal hispanics in with legal hispanics, I guess he is getting senile, and nobody on his staff has the balls to tell him he was not making sense.

so what does O'Reilly do, have a balanced debate on the issue with 1 or 2 immigration experts, of course not, he had the right-wing biased stooge Lou Dobbs on, who of course agreed with O'Reill that Hispanic Americans will be a crucial voting bloc in 2012. Dobbs said this: "I think you're absolutely right, but you and I may disagree over who those Hispanic Americans are. People overlook the fact that almost 40% of Hispanic Americans voted for Republicans on November 2nd, and the reality is that Hispanics are not any more monolithic than whites or anyone else."

So even Lou Dobbs killed one of the O'Reilly spin talking points, that all hispanics vote for Democrats. If you believe O'Reilly you would think all hispanics vote for the Democrats, which is just not true. This is what O'Reilly does, instead of having experts on to discuss an issue, he has mostly right-wing partisan hacks on to spin it with him. Hey O'Reilly, where are the experts, and where is the balance. Lou Dobbs is not an impartial Independent immigration expert, he is a paid right-wing spin doctor, just like you are.

Then Geraldo was on to discuss it, he said this: "I just interviewed Jeb Bush, the former Republican Governor of Florida. He got 60% of the Hispanic vote because he's a reasonable man who has a traditional Republican view on immigration, that it's necessary to the vitality of American business and our future. These are the young, strong, brown backs that will carry the nation forward. The tone of the immigration debate has been vile and obscene; it has offended Hispanic people from every corner of this country."

Then O'Reilly said there is a difference between legal immigrants and those who cross the border illegally, he said this: "I want a very robust legal immigration program because I agree that we need to have this labor, but it has to be legal."

Yeah but a lot of Republicans are racist idiots that do not want any Mexicans coming into the country. O'Reilly ignores that, and only mentions the moderate view on it. Try this folks, go to any Republican forum on the internet, and look at what they are saying, 80% of them do not want any Mexicans coming into America, legal or not. In fact, a hell of a lot of Republicans do not want anyone with brown skin coming into the country, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it.

Then O'Reilly has some right-wing Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce on to talk about a recall vote on Sheriff Dupnik. They both predicted they would get the 90,000 signatures they need, and he will be recalled. What they both fail to mention is that only the Republicans want to recall him, so it's a partisan thing, and O'Reilly supports it. But if the Democrats tried to recall a Sheriff, like Joe Arpaio, O'Reilly would flip out and call it un-American. Proving once again that he is nothing but a right-wing hack.

Then Chris Wallace was on to talk about Huckabee, Palin, and Romney, and a possible presidential run. While not saying a word about 2 of them working for Fox as long as possible, so they can get free publicity. But if Democrats did that at MSNBC O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for the FEC to investigate. Wallace said he does not think Palin will run, because her numbers with everyone but Republicans are terrible, and of course O'Reilly ignored that because he loves him some Palin.

In the next right-wing spin segment Glenn Beck was on to talk about President Obama's state dinner in honor of Chinese President Hu Jintao. And the best Beck could come up with was the fact that Hu came on an Air China commercial airliner. The whole segment was just stupid, because nobody cares what Beck thinks about anything, except O'Reilly and the right-wing suckers that buy his con game. And of course O'Reilly never said a word about the great Glenn Beck having his radio show dropped in two major media markets, New York and Philly.

And finally the last segment was dumbest things of the week. Arthel Neville nominated the folks who rode the New York City subway without pants, she said this: "I actually don't think it's dumb. This is called a flash mob, where you use social networking to get a group of random people to gather at a predetermined location and do these acts in order to get on YouTube. I didn't say I would do it, but I find it amusing."

Okay, let me get this straight, it's called dumbest things of the week, and Neville picks something she does not think is dumb, huh? Talk about dumb, that is dumb, you should pick what you think is dumb, moron.

O'Reilly nominated the government officials who designed a stretch of fence on the border with Mexico, Billy said this: "Two ladies climbed the fence in 18 seconds. Where is the barbed wire on top of the fence? In this country, as brilliant as private citizens are, the government is seriously idiotic."

So O'Reilly supports the fence, but then complains that it does not have barbed wire. Now that is dumb, so I nominate O'Reilly for dumest person of the year.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, Billy had 7 Republican guests, to zero Democratic guests. And as I predicted, O'Reilly did not say a word about the new media trust poll that says Fox is the least trusted News Network on cable, with everyone but Republicans, proving they have a big time right-wing bias, even though O'Reilly denies it.

Republican Hypocrisy On Health Care Insurance
By: Steve - January 22, 2011 - 10:30am

Think about this folks, and you will never hear about this from O'Reilly. Republicans do not want the people to have government-sponsored health insurance, they are even trying to repeal the Obama health reform bill.

While they use government-sponsored health insurance programs. They are the ultimate hypocrites, because they oppose government-sponsored health insurance for you, while they get it. And so far only 8 Republicans are saying they will not take the government-sponsored health insurance.

Only eight GOP congressman, or three percent of all House Republicans, have opted out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. And one Republican even complained about having his own government-sponsored health insurance delayed for four weeks.

Most Republicans have quietly continued to accept government-sponsored health care while loudly complaining that the government should not be in the business of providing health care to the American public.

Here is my question, if the American people do not deserve it, why are you getting it. And how can you say they should not get it, when you do, and you refuse to give it up. Especially when you can afford to buy your own health insurance, when a lot of the American people can not.

Not to mention, congressmen receive $700 a month in taxpayer subsidies to help pay for their health insurance.

Members use these subsidies to choose a health insurance plan available through a government-sponsored exchange which, among other regulations, bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions.

As ThinkProgress notes, "The federal system mirrors the reforms enacted by Democrats and President Obama, which end health insurance abuses by regulating coverage through an exchange, while offering subsidies to individuals and small businesses to make coverage more affordable."

Making these Republicans massive hypocrites, and of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, because they are his friends.

Beck & Hannity Dropped From Philly Radio Station
By: Steve - January 22, 2011 - 9:30am

Beck & Hannity Dropped From Philly Radio Station Wednesday, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had their nationally syndicated radio shows dropped from WPHT in Philadelphia, which is the second radio station to drop both of the conservative commentators.

Just a few weeks ago, Beck was also dropped from WOR in New York, but the most recent cancellation in Philadelphia hurts Beck even more. Beck got his start in Philadelphia, and many of his radio staffers still live in Philly, including Beck's side-kick Stu. Immediately after being dropped yesterday, Beck dropped all affection for the city where he got his start, saying, "Philly sucks."

Now of course WPHT says they only dropped Beck and Hannity because they wanted more local talk content, but the most recent cancellations is most likely part of a pattern in which advertisers and broadcasters have become wary over the violent rhetoric spouted by right-wing hate radio.

Color of Change reports that, so far, 81 companies have quit advertising on Beck's Fox News show. Something that O'Reilly never mentions, he covers it up then claims Beck is not spewing hate, while 81 corporate advertisers have pulled their ads from the Beck show because of his hate speech and his violent rhetoric.

O'Reilly also claims that Beck said he was sorry for calling Obama a racist, and that it has not hurt him at all. Which is another lie, because most of those 81 advertisers that pulled their ads, did so because Beck called Obama a racist.

The Thursday 1-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 21, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called A fissure between Obama and the left. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama's approval rating has gone up eight points in the last few weeks. Some of that improvement can be traced to the President's speech last week calling for more civility in the public debate, but apparently the committed left has not gotten the message.

During the House debate over the repeal of Obamacare, some far left people got downright nasty. Congressman Anthony Weiner accused Republicans of not telling the truth; Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee raised the specter of dying children; and Congressman Steve Cohen compared the GOP to Hitler's propaganda minster.

Talking Points submits that most Americans, including Democrats, do not respect rhetoric like that. So what is President Obama to do with his left flank - he needs them in 2012 as many independent voters have abandoned him.

But uber-liberals have been marginalized, largely because of their hateful talk. The question is whether President Obama can control the far left, and so far he hasn't really tried to. In the end, the far left will hurt Barack Obama.
What a shocker, O'reilly actually reported that the Obama job approval numbers are up 8 points. But he still used it to attack the left, and he never says a word about the Rasmussen poll having Obama at 53% disapproval, proving that the Rasmussen poll is biased.

Then O'Reilly slammed Congressman Steve Cohen for saying the GOP is using propaganda like Hitler did, which is wrong to do. But coming from O'Reilly it is laughable, because over the last few years O'Reilly has compared every liberal in America to the Nazis, so it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Then O'Reilly had the former White House spokesperson Dana Perino on to discuss the tone of the debate, she said this: "This reminds me of when we went through the immigration debate, President Bush tried to set a tone for a comprehensive immigration debate that would be civil, but in many ways he lost control of that to his right flank. President Bush invited conservative commentators in to talk about it, but some on the extreme right made the argument very personal. It left a stain that was almost impossible to get out."

Then O'Dummy said this: "Now we have Barack Obama appealing for civility, but the far left is absolutely ignoring him. It looks like President Obama can't control them, and I don't think he'll even try."

How ridiculous is that, the far left is not ignoring him, and simply saying the GOP is using Hitler type propaganda is not that bad, especially when it's true. It is wrong to use Hitler comparisons, but it was only done by one guy, it's not like everyone on the left is doing it. Then O'Reilly calls on Obama to control them, which he can not do, just as the Republicans can not control the far right. Then O'Reilly speculated that Obama would not even try, when he has no idea if he has or not, it's pure speculation, which he says he does not do.

Then Maria Cardona and Michael Brown were on to talk about Congressman Steve Cohen. Which is funny because 10 Republicans could make Nazi comparisons about liberals, and O'Reilly says nothing, including O'Reilly himself, but if ONE Democrat does it O'Reilly spends half the show reporting it. In fact, Beck compared progressives to Nazis on Thursday and O'Reilly never said a word about that.

Cardona said this: "I think other Democrats will tell him to tone it down, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that President Obama will do it, which would be in keeping with what he told all of us in Tucson. It doesn't help the President when there is this kind of rhetoric in his own party."

Brown suggested that President Obama can benefit by reprimanding Cohen. "I do think this Congressman will get a phone call and this could actually strengthen President Obama by showing he can stand up to that element of the party."

And of course O'Dummy questioned whether President Obama's plea for civility will be heeded by the left, Billy said this: "I'll submit that these far-left bomb-throwers, particularly in the media, are going to ignore it. Just hours after President Obama got off the dais in Tucson, they started again with the hateful invective. MSNBC makes a living out of personal attacks." Haha, as if O'Reilly and Fox dont, what a joke, pot meet kettle.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the Obama approval numbers. Crazy Laura said this: "He's actually benefitting a lot from people like Congressman Cohen and Sheila Jackson Lee going nuts on the House floor. President Obama looks moderate by comparison. He's also meeting with Republicans at the White House, he's extending the Bush tax cuts, and he's implicitly agreeing with the Bush anti-terror policies."

Except he banned torture, dumbass, I guess Laura the idiot forgot that. Ingraham identified some other reasons for President Obama's improved ratings. "The Dow is hovering at 12,000, which is a positive, and people are calmed down after the elections - they don't see this crazy left-wing cap and trade idea coming to kill the economy, and Obama has the perception of moving to the middle."

In the next segment O'Reilly had Megyn (the liar) Kelly on to comment on the FBI mafia raid. Kelly said this: "The FBI does this every couple of years, and they did this one because the mafia was supposedly showing a bit of a resurgence. They rounded up a bunch of guys, including some relatively big guys and all of the leadership of the Colombo crime family. They accuse a couple of them of murders going back thirty years."

Then O'Reilly said that organized crime is not the powerful force it once was, as if he would know, Billy said this: "I'm glad the Attorney General did this, but these guys run sports betting parlors and shake down people for extortion money. They're not that much different than street thugs, they just eat at better restaurants."

Too bad he is wrong, because quite a few of them will be charged with murder, so as usual O'Reilly had no clue what he was talking about. And of course he never said a word about Kelly lying earlier in that very same day that nobody on Fox ever does Nazi comparisons. Which may be the biggest lie I have ever heard from anyone at Fox.

Then O'Reilly had the two right-wing Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to cry about a tv show on MTV called skins. They actually said it was porn, which is just laughable. Carlson said this: "I wish I wouldn't have seen it. This group of teenagers is dabbling in drugs, sex, prostitution and masturbation. The Justice Department is considering filing child pornography charges against MTV and the executives because in one episode there is the depiction of a naked and underage boy."

Hoover expressed sheer disgust, she said this: "I thought I might come to this with a little bit of mock outrage, but I got deeply disturbed. This was a very realistic depiction of 15-year-olds selling drugs and acting like I wouldn't want my 40-year-old friends acting. And the actors doing these things are teenagers."

Earth to idiots, it's a tv show, and it's on cable, so you pay to see it, and if you do not want to see it do not watch it. Nobody is forcing you to buy cable tv, or to watch the show, just change the channel, morons.

And of course O'Reilly agreed with the 2 culture cry babies, Billy denounced the executives who are profiting from the show, and said this: "MTV doesn't care about anything other than people watching MTV - they couldn't care less about child pornography or whether this is corrupting."

The same could be said for O'Reilly and Fox, O'Reilly once said all that matters is ratings, especially on cable, now he is crying that all they care about is ratings, which is what O'Reilly himself has said in the past. I would say to you, shut up and if you do not like it do not watch it. You are trying to take rights away from people who may want to see it, just because you do not like it, and that is un-American.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy on for the total waste of time Factor news quiz. And I have to say one thing, on one of the questions O'Reilly played a clip of Hillary Clinton falling down on the plane. While a few days ago he slammed Letterman for making a joke about Hillary falling, but then O'Reilly made fun of her and played the song free falling as she fell. Proving that once again O'Reilly is a massive hypocrite.

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

Fox News Least Trusted Cable News Network
By: Steve - January 21, 2011 - 9:30am

Guess who failed to report this poll, that would be Bill O'Reilly, I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it. Most likely he forgot to report it because it shows that Fox is the least trusted news network in all of cable news.

O'Reilly rails on and on about how Fox gets such high ratings because you can trust them to tell the truth. Except that is a total lie, what the PPP poll shows is that Fox is the least trusted cable news network, with everyone but Republicans.

What it also shows is that Fox gets high ratings only because a lot of Republicans watch their shows, plain and simple.

Now here are some findings from the second annual Public Policy Polling tv news trust poll.

A year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't. Conservatives haven't moved all that much - 75% said they trusted it last year and 72% still do this time around.

But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the Fox network - a 12 point gain from 48% to 60% for moderates and a 16 point gain from 66% to 82% for liberals.

Voters between left and center tend to be more trusting of the media across the board, which is why a fair number of them were still rating Fox favorably even a year ago at this time. But it looks like with a lot of those folks it has finally crossed the line to being too political to trust.

Fox was dead last in trust for cable news networks, it went from 49% trust and 39% distrust last year, to 42% trust and 46% distrust this year. Which is a 16 point increase in distrust in one short year.

Now think about this, since the very same poll taken last year had Fox at 49% trust and 37% distrust, O'Reilly can not claim it is just some liberal polling group out to smear Fox, which is the best part of the poll, and probably the #1 reason O'Reilly is not reporting it, after he did last year.

O'Reilly is not reporting it simply because he can not claim they are a liberal smear machine, and he is also not reporting it because it shows that only Republicans trust Fox to report the news.

And btw folks, PBS was the most trusted, even though O'Reilly said they were nothing but a bunch of liberal smear merchants. The people disagree, and voted PBS the most trusted news network in America. Which just goes to show you how dishonest O'Reilly is, because clearly he was lying about PBS.

Here are some more details from the poll.

All three of the traditional major networks- NBC, CBS, and ABC, have seen an increase in their trust levels over the last year. NBC continues to be the most trusted of the trio, breaking even this year at 41% who trust it and 41% who don't.

Conservatives distrust all three of the networks at pretty similar levels - 66% for ABC and NBC, 67% for CBS. But liberals range from 52% who trust ABC to 61% who trust CBS all the way up to 67% who trust NBC.

It's interesting to see that faith in these long standing organizations is on the rise but it may be that in a new media world where there's so much more information available than there's ever been before folks are looking to places with a proven track record of getting it right.

Democrats trust everything but Fox. Republicans don't trust anything but Fox. And independents don't trust much of anything.

-- For Democrats 73% trust PBS, 64% NBC, 61% CBS, 60% CNN, 56% ABC, and 22% Fox.

-- For Republicans 67% trust Fox, 29% PBS, 22% CNN, 21% NBC, 17% ABC, and 15% CBS.

-- For independents 44% trust PBS, 36% Fox, 34% CNN, 33% NBC, 27% CBS, and 26% ABC.

Overall PBS was #1, do you see this O'Reilly you lying right-wing jackass, PBS was the most trusted with 50% trust, to 30% distrust.

NBC News (including MSNBC) was #2, with 41% trust to 41% distrust.

CNN was #3, with 40% trust to 43% distrust.

Fox was last with 42% trust to 46% distrust.

Now read this carefully folks, because you will never see this reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox.

O'Reilly Proves He Is A Right-Wing Hack (Again)
By: Steve - January 21, 2011 - 9:00am

On Wednesday the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a repeal of the Obama health care bill, by a 245-189 vote. The Senate is not expected to take up the bill, and President Obama has said he will veto any attempt at repeal.

So what did O'Reilly say to that, he said it was an outrage that Harry Reid will not have a vote on the repeal in the Senate. Not only that, he also had the far right loon Karl Rove on to agree with him. How many Democrats were on to discuss it, none, zero, zip, zilch.

O'Reilly said this about it:
O'REILLY: "Democrats will pay a political price if they refuse to have an up-or-down vote on repeal. The Senate is going to be in a tough spot - if Harry Reid and the Democrats refuse to vote on it, that would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.
Okay, let me get this straight. O'Reilly (Mr. do not waste taxpayer money and time) wants the Senate to vote on a bill they know will not pass (because the Democrats have the majority) and he claims it will hurt the Democratic party if they do not allow a vote, on a bill they know will not pass, and even if it did somehow, Obama would veto it.

Not to mention the Republicans in the Senate have blocked hundreds of bills from getting a vote in the last 2 years, while O'Reilly was silent. Not once in the last 2 years has O'Reilly said one word about the Republicans in the Senate blocking bills from getting a vote, not once, ever.

And now, the Democrats block ONE bill from getting a vote, that will not pass, and they know it, and O'Reilly goes crazy screaming bloody murder. When even he has admitted it will not pass, so not only is he a hypocrite with double standards for Republicans and Democrats, he is a dishonest and biased journalist.

Now think about this too, O'Reilly is the guy who constantly complains about the Government wasting time and money with worthless partisan hearings and votes. But when the Republicans do it, he is fine with it, and he even gets mad when the Democrats refuse to have a vote on a bill he knows will not pass.

Making O'Reilly the king of biased hypocrites. As he claims to be a non-partisan Independent journalist, he is being a 100% partisan right-wing hack. The old saying judge someone on what they do, not what they say, fits here. Because O'Reilly is not doing what he says he is, he is doing the opposite, and he does not even follow his own rules.

Our Founding Father's Socialized Healthcare
By: Steve - January 21, 2011 - 8:30am

This blog posting is for crazy Bill O'Reilly, the clueless Tea Party, the stupid Republicans, and the ridiculous 14 Attorney Generals who think mandated Government health care is unconstitutional.

In July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act called "For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," establishing the Marine Hospital Service. Which mandated that the sailors pay for Government run health care.

Who was John Adams, he was one of the people who wrote the fricking constitution. So I would think he knows what is constitutional, and what is not.


While there were some who wished the new America could become self sustaining and avoid depending on foreign trade, it rapidly became apparent our economy couldn't stand alone without it. We relied on the private merchant ships of America to build our economy and fund our treasury, and the captains and owners of those ships relied, of course, on sailors to staff them.

The merchant mariner's job was physical and difficult, leaving them prone to injury. General illness, tropical diseases, wretched backs, sprained wrists, ankles and broken bones could leave a captain without enough crew to man the ship.

Our Founders realized that a healthy work force was essential to our economic health and growth. It was for this reason that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act "For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor's pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship's owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor's wages.

An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a "chit" for admission to the local hospital. Some of these healthcare facilities were private, but in the larger ports Federal maritime hospitals were built.

A year later, in 1799, the hospitals were opened to members of our Navy, until its own were established. (In 1936 the Merchant Marines were declared an auxiliary of the Navy during times of war and emergency, until then, they were always private employees.)

As America grew, this system was expanded to the inland ports along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and others. It eventually became our Public Health Service, led by the Surgeon General.

We should take a lesson from our Founders, and view today's health insurance issue through the same lens. A healthy work force is more productive. We have enough disadvantages as we compete in the global economy without having to bear the costly burden of a healthcare system that in too many ways works in opposition to its purpose.

We're draining consumer purchasing from other more productive areas of our economy to prop up a highly monopolized system that violates that forgotten third word of the free market phrase: competition.

True competition would allow the public to participate. There is no valid free market theory that would reject that idea. That some would describe personal responsibility as surrendering our national interest to the profit motive of the few is a result of thoughtless ideology, not reason.

If we ask the question "Are we being served, or served on a platter?" the answer reveals the action we, the people should take.

Those who disagree are free to do so, but now stripped of the pretense that they are representing the principles of our Founders, they should avoid that tidbit of sloganeering. Those saying the Constitution doesn't allow the citizens to provide for themselves are obviously wrong. What I have written about here is a prescription to cure that strain of ignorance.

The Wednesday 1-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 20, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called The attempt to repeal Obama-care continues. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: When President Obama ran for President, many Americans believed he was a moderate-liberal, but for the past two years, the President has governed to the left, spending trillions of dollars and trying to convince Americans that his vision of 'social justice' will make America a better country.

Because the economy has not improved much, Mr. Obama now finds himself on the defensive and his signature issue - health care reform - is under attack. Even in the face of repeal, though, Mr. Obama is not backing down, and it is the social justice component that continues to motivate him.

Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee articulated that when she asked, 'must my child die because I am disallowed from getting insurance?' Must your child die? Good grief! Hospitals are mandated to treat uninsured people and Ms. Lee is hysterical.

The Democratic reaction to the assault on Obamacare is primarily ideological, and some of the rhetoric is absolutely over the top. Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen compared Republicans to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

So you can see the intensity on the left, which wants cradle-to-grave entitlements. But liberalism has little momentum at the present - the country is turning to the right and the vote in the House on Obamacare proves it.
To begin with, O'Reilly is lying, because Obama ran for President as a liberal, and O'Reilly even slammed him for being too far left. Now he claims Obama ran as a moderate, which is just not true. And the Trillions in spending was done to save the country from going into a depression, that would have led to 20% unemployment, etc. Somehow O'Reilly fails to mention that, or the fact that Bush and the Republicans caused the problem that led to the spending.

And O'Reilly complains about Nazi comparisons, when he has used Nazi comparisons himself, when he talks about DailyKos etc. O'Reilly compares them to Nazis, not to mention, the right compares Obama to Hitler every day, and Beck makes a living using Nazi comparisons against liberals. But O'Reilly never says a word about any of that, making him a massive hypocrite.

O'Reilly also said this: "But liberalism has little momentum at the present - the country is turning to the right and the vote in the House on Obamacare proves it."

Are you for real, the partisan idiot Republicans in the House take a vote that is a total waste of time and taxpayer money, that will not do any good, and you claim that proves the country is moving to the right. My God man you are truly insane.

So what does O'Reilly do next, have a balanced debate on the issue with 2 Independent health care experts, no, have a balanced debate with a Democratic and a Republican analyst, no, he has the partisan hack Karl Rove on all alone to spin the issue. Rove said this: "If you're a red-state Democrat up for election in 2012, obviously you don't want to be on the record defending Obamacare. Democrats have been pouring water on this idea of having a vote on repeal, which Reid called 'political grandstanding.' The longer the country is looking at this, the worse off Democrats are."

And that is a 100% lie, because now that people are seeing what the Obama health reform bill actually does, more and more people support it. The more they see the truth about it, the more they like it, which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and Rove claim.

Then O'Reilly said that Democrats will pay a political price if they refuse to have an up-or-down vote on repeal, Billy said this: "The Senate is going to be in a tough spot - if Harry Reid and the Democrats refuse to vote on it, that would be a disaster for the Democratic Party."

Are you kidding me, what a massive hypocrite. For 2 years the Senate Republicans have blocked almost every bill the Democratic House passed from getting a vote, and O'Reilly said nothing, he was as silent as a mouse. Now the Democrats in the Senate block a vote on a bill that will never pass anyway, and O'Reilly flips out claiming it will be a disaster for the Democratic party.

What a joke, O'Reilly is losing his mind, what he has left of it. How is it going to hurt the Democratic party, they are just refusing to vote on a bill that will not pass, so they are doing what's best for the American people by not wasting their time on the Republicans political games. Not only is O'Reilly a massive hypocrite for not saying a word about all the votes the Republicans blocked over the last 2 years, he is showing his biased double standards.

Then Karl Rove was back for a 2nd segment, where he talked about the Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the White House. Which is just ridiculous, because once again no Democratic guest was on at all to give the counterpoint, not during the Rove segment, or after. Where is the balance O'Reilly, you fraud. And of course Rove trashed Obama, as he always does for everything.

Rove argued that the Obama White House is treating President Hu with too much deference. Rove said this: "President Bush didn't offer him a state dinner and I don't understand the thinking behind President Obama giving him a state dinner. The Chinese could be a heck of a lot more helpful on North Korea and Iran. Why are we honoring this guy?"

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the low approval (and high disapproval) ratings for Sarah Palin. With no Democratic guest for balance, of course. Morris said this: "The left plays Sarah Palin like a fiddle. They hit her with attacks that are outrageous and defamatory, and then she always answers in colorful rhetoric. As far as the public is concerned, they say a plague on both your houses, but the liberals who are criticizing her don't have to run for anything. By not being presidential and rising above it, she hurts herself."

Wow, for once Morris is mostly right. But O'Reilly and Morris never got into the details, that the Palin disapproval is at a record high of 53 percent, while her approval is at a record low of 38 percent. None of that was even reported, as O'Reilly claims Palin is great and that she is qualified to be the President. While the American people are telling Palin to go back to Alaska and leave the politics to the people with brains. morris admits it, and O'Reilly denys it.

Then body language with the big boob right-wing biased blonde bimbo, that I do not report on because it's nonsense. And then Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals, with no Democratic comedian to make jokes about conservatives, so I do not report on this segment either. Basically it's just Dennis Miller doing stupid jokes about liberals, so it's not worth reporting.

And finally in the did you see that segment O'Reilly had another right-wing spin doctor on alone to talk about a video. Juliet Huddy watched a clip of reporter Carl Bernstein referring to Sarah Palin as "a demagogue" who "didn't know where the hell Russia was on a map." She said this: "That's not quite how it went down. He was referring to the interview when Sarah Palin was talking about Russia being in close proximity to Alaska, and I'm sure if she was looking at a map she would identify Russia. Sometimes Sarah Palin can look a little befuddled in an interview, but Bernstein looked the same way."

And Huddy is wrong, what he was talking about is when Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, and that it gave her foreign policy experience, which was so ridiculous it was laughable and it made Palin look like the stupid moron she is. It had nothing to do with Palin being able to identify Russia, so Huddy was spinning her right-wing ass off, as usual.

Notice that not once did O'Reilly correct the record, he just let Huddy spin her ass off with no correction. And once again this is another biased one sided segment O'Reilly does, with no Democratic guest for balance.

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

O'Reilly Spins Health Care For The Uninsured
By: Steve - January 20, 2011 - 8:30am

Now O'Reilly is not stupid, so when he says it is no big deal that 60 million Americans do not have health care because they can just go to the emergency room, and the hospitals are mandated to treat them, it shows what a partisan spin doctor he is. Because he knows that is a stupid statement, and yet, he said it anyway to put out a right-wing spin on it.

On the Wednesday Factor O'Reilly downplayed concerns about Americans not having health insurance, saying, "Hospitals are mandated to treat uninsured people."

In fact, uncompensated care shifts the burden of providing care to the insured and to government budgets. Responding to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's concerns about the possibility of uninsured Americans dying if health care reform is repealed, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Good grief! Hospitals are mandated to treat uninsured people, even if they're in the country illegally. Also the feds already subsidize medical insurance for the poor.
Basically O'Reilly talks out of both sides of his mouth, one minute he says we must cut the deficit, then the next minute he is saying the uninsured do not need insurance because they can just go to the emergency room.

Which does not even take into account that 45,000 people die a year because of a lack of health insurance. Only 3,000 people died in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and O'Reilly flipped out over that and said spend whatever it takes to protect us, but when 45,000 people die every year because they do not have health insurance, O'Reilly does not give a damn about those people.

Not to mention, most of the people who file for bankruptcy do so because of medical bills they can not pay. This also cost everyone else more money, because then the hospitals and the insurance companies raise rates for everyone to get that money back.

Paying For Uninsured Care Increases Insurance Premiums, Burdens Government Budgets.

Because of the high cost of health care, uninsured people are less likely to get the care that they need when they need it, and they are more likely to delay seeking care for as long as possible. When a health problem becomes so serious that treatment can no longer be delayed, the uninsured seek care.

Then, they struggle to pay as much of their bills as they can: In 2008, the uninsured paid an average of 37 percent of the cost of care that they received out of their own pockets. However, they cannot usually afford to pay the whole bill on their own, and a portion goes unpaid (this is called "uncompensated care").

To cover the cost of this uncompensated care, health care providers charge higher rates when insured people receive care, and these increases are passed on to those who have insurance in the form of higher premiums, known as a "hidden health tax."

In 2008, for example, this "hidden health tax" increased premiums for family health coverage by an average of $1,017, and, for single individuals, by $368.

Uncompensated Care Estimated To Have Cost Federal, State, And Local Governments $42.9 Billion In 2008. The Kaiser Family Foundation also reported that the primary source of funding for uncompensated care of the uninsured is federal and state governments.

Now think about this, O'Reilly goes on and on about Federal and State debt, and yet, then he says who care if the poor have health insurance when they can just go to the emergency room. When that is a major cause of the debt the Federal and state Governments have.

To argue that the uninsured should get health care through the emergency room, and let the rest of us pick up the grossly inflated bill, is the exact opposite of everything (fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, etc.) that O'Reilly argues for every night. Proving that he let his partisan ideology get in the way of his own arguments, because he is talking out both sides of his mouth.

And btw folks, O'Reilly cried like a baby Wednesday night because the Democratic majority leader in the Senate (Harry Reid) will not even bring the health care repeal (passed by the Republicans in the House) up for a vote. While ignoring 2 years of filabustering by Republicans in the Senate, they blocked almost every single bill the Democrats in the House passed from getting a vote when they had the majority.

In fact, over 200 bills that were passed in the House by the Democrats were blocked from getting a vote by Senate Republicans in the last 2 years. And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, but as soon as the Democrats block a vote on ONE bill, even though it will never pass anyway, O'Reilly screams bloody murder. What a dishonest hypocrite.

Rasmussen Poll Biased Against President Obama
By: Steve - January 20, 2011 - 8:00am

As of Monday 1-17-11 the Rasmussen job approval poll is still biased against Obama, as it has been since Obama took office on 1-20-09. When you compare the Gallup poll on Obama to the Rasmussen poll it is stunning.

And while the approval is only 4 points different, the disapproval in the Rasmussen poll proves his polls are biased to the right. Here are the numbers:

Gallup Daily Presidential Tracking Poll -

Approve - 50%
Disapprove - 42%

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll -

Approve - 46%
Disapprove - 53%

Notice that in the Rasmussen poll they have Obama at 53% disapproval, which is 11 points higher than the Gallup poll, while the approval rating is only 4 points apart. That shows a clear right-wing bias in the Rasmssen poll, because an 11 point difference in disapproval is no accident.

And btw, for the month of January I could not find any other polls that have Obama with over a 50% disapproval. In fact, the highest poll I could find only has it at 47% disapproval. Rasmussen is the only poll in American that has the Obama disapproval over 50%, and they have it at 53% disapproval.

Not to mention, a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Obama at 53% APPROVAL, which is what Rasmussen has for his DISAPPROVAL. Now that is stunning, and it is 100% proof that Rasmussen runs biased right-wing polls.

Every poll I looked at had the Obama disapproval at 47% or lower, and only one has it at 47%, the rest of them have it from 46% to 42% disapproval. Two have it at 44%, one has it at 43%, and one has it at 42%, Rasmussen is the only one that has Obama over 50% disapproval, which tells you that his polls are biased to the right.

The Tuesday 1-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 19, 2011 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Another bizarre twist in Arizona shooting case. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: First, the good news: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is getting stronger and there is even talk of her being released from the hospital soon. But over the weekend there was a disturbing development in the case that is being under-reported.

63-year-old James Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee by Jared Loughner, attended an ABC News event, where he made threats against a tea party leader and was taken into custody. There's no question Fuller is troubled - he told the New York Post that some conservatives should be tortured and an 'ear necklace' should be made with the ears of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney.

Fuller's rantings were said well after the far-left began its campaign of vilification, blaming various people on the right for encouraging Loughner. Did you hear this story reported on the network news, on our cable news competition, or in the liberal print press? Why not? Because a logical argument can be made that the far-left encouraged an unbalanced guy to do bad things.

Talking Points believes you have a right to know the complete story about important situations like the Arizona murder. Now you have another piece of the big picture.
My God is O'Reilly out of his mind. Let me get this straight, a guy shoots a Democratic Congresswoman in the head, so the left slams the right for their violent gun rhetoric, especially Palin who had the scope crosshairs target map that had the Congresswomn on the map and her name listed, and somehow the far-left encouraged an unbalanced guy to do bad things. That is pure 100% insanity, and no logical person would make that argument.

Especially when the guy cited Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Bachmann. The argument of logic would be that he was mad that he got shot, and mad about the Congresswoman getting shot, who he was there to listen to, because the right used all the violent gun rhetoric. For O'Reilly to argue the left (or Sheriff Dupnik) encouraged him is just crazy.

Now get this, in the next segment O'Reilly had two mental health experts on to comment on what Fuller said. One of them said he had a clear ideological bent, the other did not. The one who said that was a Republican who agreed with O'Reilly. But the worst part is that that O'Reilly said Fuller may have been swayed by far-left ideologues, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: I have no evidence that shows Fuller was influenced by any of this controversy last week, but he used the same specific names that the far-left smear merchants used.
Are you kidding me, this is unreal. When the Democrats said the Palin target map, and other right-wing gun rhetoric, may have motivated Loughner to shoot Congresswoman Giffords, O'Reilly spent a week crying that they had no evidence to make those claims. Now he admits he has no evidence, but he claims the far-left smear merchants influenced him, wow is that insane. He is doing the same thing he complained about.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. And of course the crazy Crowley agreed with all the nonsense O'Reilly was spewing out, but Colmes took issue with one part of the Talking Points Memo, Colmes said this: "You said a logical argument could be made that the far-left encouraged an unbalanced guy. There's no more evidence for that than that the far-right encouraged Jared Loughner. You're doing the same thing you're accusing the left of doing."

Ding, Ding, Ding, you win the cupie doll. Colmes is exactly right. Then O'Reilly went into the twilight zone again, he insisted that He is only dealing in facts, and that the evidence is much more compelling than it was with Loughner. My God, O'Reilly really is nuts, because two minutes ago he said he had no evidence. Then he claims he has the facts and the evidence, and that is just crazy.

Then O'Reilly wasted another entire segment talking about the money that went to Haiti. Which I will not report on again, mostly because Fox did not even air the Haiti Telethon. But I will say this, O'Reilly called for President Bush and President Clinton to step up and demand Haiti tell us where the money went. As if that would work, it was just ridiculous.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about legalized gambling, he said we should make it legal everywhere because people are already doing it anyway, and we lose out on the tax revenue that they get by running some of the gambling websites in foreign countries. And for once Stossel is right.

But of course O'Reilly disagreed, he made some crazy argument that if we make gambling legal we will lose more money than we make, which is just nonsense. O'Reilly said everyone will get addicted to gambling and go bankrupt, so then we lose money covering for them. And all I can say to that is wow is he an idiot. His argument assumes that EVERYONE will get addicted and lose everything they have, and that argument is literally insane.

Then the is it legal segment was also ridiculous, O'Reilly and his two legal experts argued that the Obama memorial speech in Arizona helped Jared Loughner's defense team. And both legal experts said that was wrong, so why even make the argument and have a segment about it. Wiehl said, "What President Obama said is completely irrelevant." And Guilfoyle agreed, so the argument was just stupid, and yet O'Reilly did it anyway. I am guessing one of his insane staff had the idea and O'Reilly liked it so he did it, but it was just stupid.

And in the final segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to discuss the House Republicans vote to repeal President Obama's health care law. Krauthammer said that Democrats are on the defensive. "They have lost this debate for the last year-and-a-half, and they're going to continue to lose the debate. The price for this bill is $1-trillion in new spending, 138 new commissions and regulators, as well as 100,000 pages of new regulations."

But Krauthammer acknowledged that repeal will fail in the Senate, and he advised the GOP to then try another tactic. Even though it will not work, he tells them to waste taxpayer time and money anyway, he said this: "They ought to pass a repeal of just one provision - the individual mandate, which people hate. There are enough vulnerable Democrats in the Senate that you could get a majority on that."

And that will not work either, because President Obama would veto it, so the so-called genius Krauthammer is really an idiot.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. During the mail segment O'Reilly showed what a total fool he is. An e-mailer called O'Reilly out for his hypocrisy, he said O'Reilly slammed Cohen for calling Palin stupid, then he pointed out that O'Reilly called sheriff Dupnik an idiot. So he asked O'Reilly to admit he was a massive hypocrite.

And of course O'Reilly refused to admit it, then he went into some insane excuse saying that his calling Dupnik an idiot is totally different from Cohen calling Palin stupid. WTF? No it's not, it's the exact same thing. Cohen calling Palin a name is the exact same as O'Reilly calling Dupnik a name. But somehow O'Reilly argued that it was totally different, and his reason was so crazy it made no sense. In fact, it was so ridiculous I can not even explain it.

Earth to O'Reilly, you calling Dupnik an idiot is the EXACT same thing as Cohen calling Palin stupid. And the fact that you deny that, just goes to show what a dishonest fool you are. In fact, you are a stupid idiot for using the lame excuse you did, whatever the hell it was, it was so ridiculous I can not even explain what you were trying to say.

Scarborough Slams Palin & Beck For Violent Rhetoric
By: Steve - January 19, 2011 - 9:00am

In a January 18 Politico column, Republican Joe Scarborough criticized Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for their violent rhetoric, saying this: "Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords?"

More from Scarborough's column:
We get it, Sarah Palin. You're not morally culpable for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Ariz. All of us around the "Morning Joe" table agree, even if we were stunned that you would whine about yourself on Facebook as a shattered family prepared to bury their 9-year-old girl.

The same goes for you, Glenn Beck. You've attacked your political opponents with words designed to inspire hatred and mind-bending conspiracy theories from fans. Calling the president a racist, Marxist and fascist may be reprehensible, but it did not lead a mentally disturbed man to take a Glock to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's "Congress on Your Corner" event.

Good on you, buddy. You weren't personally responsible for the slaughter at the Safeway. Maybe you can put it on a poster at the next "Talkers" convention.

But before you and the pack of right-wing polemicists who make big bucks spewing rage on a daily basis congratulate yourselves for not being responsible for Jared Lee Loughner's rampage, I recommend taking a deep breath.

Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don't connect in this case doesn't mean you can afford to ignore the possibility -- or, as many fear, the inevitability -- that someone else will soon draw the line between them.

Actually, someone already has. When you get a minute, Google "Byron Williams" and "Tides Foundation" to see just how thin a layer of ice Beck skates on every day.
And now, I would like to point out a couple things. Palin is now crying that the left is trying to silence her and take away her free speech rights, because they simply call on her to tone down the violent gun rhetoric.

To begin with, that is ridiculous. Because nobody is saying she can not say what she wants to, they are just saying she could do it without the gun talk, like reload instead of retreat, and using scope crosshairs on a target map, so she is lying. Nobody is telling her to shut up, as she claims, they are just saying she should use different words to attack the people she does not like.

And 2nd, she claims that only the left is trying to shut her up, when a few Republicans have also slammed her for the scope crosshairs map, and the violent gun rhetoric. So she is lying again, because it is not only the left saying it, a few people on the right are saying it too, like Scarborough, Buchanan, and even Tim Pawlenty.

Think about this too, O'Reilly is doing the same thing Palin is, he is also saying the left is trying to shut her up. While also ignoring what Scarborough, Buchanan, and Pawlenty are saying.

O'Reilly does this on purpose, to make it look like the left is crazy to attack Palin, and that they only do it for partisan reasons, and because they hate her. As he ignores the fact that Scarborough, Buchanan, and Pawlenty like Palin, they are Republicans, and they are also saying the violent gun rhetoric and the crosshairs map was wrong.

O'Reilly ignores that, and does not report what those 3 Republicans have said about her and Beck. Because it would destroy his spin that only the left is saying it for partisan reasons.

Not to mention, O'Reilly never said a word about the Byron Williams attempted killing of liberals at the Tides Foundation, who did it based on what Beck was saying about them on his Fox News show.

Williams even admitted he was motivated to do it because of what Beck reported about them, and he called Beck his teacher. And O'Reilly ignored the entire story, he never said one word about it. Then he claims nobody has ever done anything violent based on what Beck or Palin have said or done.

When they have, and we can prove it. Williams said he was going to kill liberals at the TIDES Foundation because Glenn Beck told him they were evil. If that is not proof of a direct link to what Beck said and a violent act, nothing is, and I'm Elvis.

And if Palin is so innocent, why did she take the scope crosshair target map with Giffords name on it down the day of the shooting. If there was nothing wrong with it, as she claims, she would not have taken it down after the shooting. Taking it down is an admission that it was wrong to have it up in the first place.

Piers Morgan Gives O'Reilly A Reality Check
By: Steve - January 19, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is funny, Piers Morgan and his security team show O'Reilly that he is not as big of a celebrity as he thinks he is.

At a Welcome to America party at the home of Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, Morgan, who takes over the 9 p.m. slot from Larry King beginning Monday night, told a great story about his first meeting with Bill O'Reilly.

The two men crossed paths recently in the VIP suite at a Knicks game. Morgan introduced himself to O'Reilly, only to be blown off. But that didn't sit well with O'Reilly's teenage daughter, who turned out to be a fan of Morgan's America's Got Talent.

She insisted O'Reilly humbly go back to Piers and request a photo with him. But the big insult to O'Dummy happened when a security guard, who did not recognize O'Reilly, rushed over to block the shot, saying, "We must safeguard the privacy of our CELEBRITY guests."

Morgan said he ended the encounter by inviting O'Reilly to appear on his show, saying this: "I said, 'You've clearly got some celebrity-related issues. I can help with that.'"


Whoa, snap, haha. The security guard did not even know O'Reilly was a celebrity, now that's funny. And I will predict right now that O'Reilly will never be a guest on the Piers Morgan show, because he is a coward.

The Monday 1-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 18, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called President Obama's message not getting through. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On this Martin Luther King Day, where we honor the peace-loving civil rights legend, we are still experiencing hatred on the left. During an appearance on CNN, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen asked, 'how much time do we have left to talk about how stupid Sarah Palin is?'

Talking Points wonders what the editors of the Washington Post think about one of their veteran columnists saying stuff like that a few days after President Obama's speech in Arizona. Then we slide down a bit to left-wing entertainers. Bill Maher told tea partiers 'the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts.'

I don't hold Mr. Maher to the same standard as the Washington Post because he's a comedian, but apparently he is not embracing the President's call for more civility. Also, I've gotten a lot of mail asking why I don't come down on right-wing talk radio, and it's the same thing - talk radio is entertainment, not a news forum.

But when a paper like the Washington Post continues to feature columnists who flat-out hate conservatives, you have to wonder why. There is big money in the hate industry and it's easy for a guy like Cohen to call Governor Palin 'stupid.'

That statement in itself is stupid and lazy, but Cohen's game is attacking conservatives, and if you take that away from him, what does he have left?
To begin with, notice the 2 second mention of MLK day by O'Reilly, because that is all you will hear about it in the entire show. It was a national holiday, and the best O'Reilly could do is a 2 second mention, no segment about MLK, or what a great man he was, nothing, just a lousy 2 second mention in the TPM.

Now Richard Cohen saying Palin is stupid, is not what Obama was calling for, he was calling for people to stop the violent rhetoric, he was not telling everyone they could not call someone stupid, especially when it's true. O'Reilly just dont like it because the truth hurts.

Then he slammed Bill Maher, earth to O'Reilly, Maher is a comedian, so shut up already. And you crying about a comedian saying anything is a joke, because you put a comedian on your show every week to call liberals every name in the book. You are a massive hypocrite, and a giant idiot.

Then O'Reilly says he does not hammer right-wing talk because it is entertainment, and not a news forum. Are you freaking kidding me, shows on the Comedy Network are not news either, and O'Reilly is always slamming Stewart and Colbert. Not to mention, right-wing talk radio is news, to the people that listen to it, so the O'Reilly excuse on that is just laughable.

The truth is that O'Reilly is a hypocrite, he ignores all the hate and name calling on right-wing talk radio, and never reports any of it, because they are all his friends, and he agrees with most of what they say. And let's not forget about O'Reilly, he calls liberals nuts, loons, pinheads, idiots, delusional, and on and on. So O'Reilly complaining about someone else calling people names is like the Jets complaining about other teams using trash talk.

And finally, O'Reilly said this: "There is big money in the hate industry and it's easy for a guy like Cohen to call Governor Palin 'stupid.' That statement in itself is stupid and lazy, but Cohen's game is attacking conservatives, and if you take that away from him, what does he have left?"

Are you for real, to begin with Palin is stupid, so Cohen was just stating a fact. Then you say Cohes's game is attacking conservatives, and if he can not do that he has nothing left. Which also applies to you O'Reilly, and all of Fox News, and Limbaugh, and all the right-wing talk radio. If you guys did not spend your time attacking liberals, you would have nothing left. So you are just as bad as Cohen, actually worse, because at least Cohen was telling the truth, Palin is stupid and everyone knows it.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss it, and of course no Democratic guest was on to give the counterpoint. Hume sort of disagreed with O'Reilly about who Obama was calling on to tone it down, but basically they agreed on everything else. they cry about what they call hate on the left, while not saying a word about all the hate on the right, when it's 10 times worse. And calling Palin stupid is not really hate, it's simply stating a fact.

Then O'Reilly wasted an entire segment bashing NPR again, with Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham. Which I will not report on, because it was just more one sided and biased NPR bashing from O'Reilly, because he is mad that they fired Juan Williams.

Then O'Reilly had an entire segment about ONE local city chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, that advised Muslim Americans to avoid cooperating with the FBI. It was ONE chapter in ONE city.

CAIR spokesman Corey Saylor was on to set the record straight, he said this: "This was on the web site of one of our affiliate chapters in San Francisco, but it is not in line with CAIR's policy. We asked the chapter to remove this and they did, so this is a minor story of a small group making a mistake. CAIR has had a consistent policy of cooperating with law enforcement." And yet, O'Reilly did an entire segment on it anyway.

Now get this, then O'Reilly did a segment on the money that went to Haiti. He had Steve Harrigan from Fox on to discuss it. And what I have to say is that O'Reilly has no right to say a word about Haiti. Because when the Haiti Telethon was on Fox did not even show it, even though CNN and MSNBC showed every minute. Fox not only did not show it, they barely even mentioned it was on, and they never asked people to donate money to the Telethon.

That means O'Reilly and Fox have lost their right to say anything about Haiti, or where the money went. If you refuse to air the Telethon, you lose all your rights to report on the story, so shut up O'Reilly you fraud.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss lowering the tone in the media. Goldberg said this: "Dana Milbank lecturing us on civility, is like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lecturing us on human rights. Milbank and Cohen are really not talking about civility - if their goal was civility, they would lash out at their fellow liberals who spew hate for a living. Their real goal is to stifle the kind of opinions they detest by people like you, Beck, Palin and Limbaugh because you have big audiences. The left has lost power and they're trying to shut down other opinions and poison the well."

Wow, Goldberg is either stupid or delusionsl, maybe both, I vote for both. He claims the left spews all the hate, and that they only do it because O'Reilly, Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh get good ratings. And somehow in the world of Bernie Goldberg the left has lost all their power, even though we have a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Goldberg has jumped the shark, because he is insane. The right spews all the hate, O'Reilly even pointed out there is a lot of hate on the right too, and Goldberg denied it, he said the left has all the hate, which is just laughable. I'm thinking Bernie needs to up his meds, because he has gone off the deep end.

Then the ridiculous no-reality Factor Reality Check, that I do not report on, because it's just O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on what someone said, with no guest to comment.

And finally the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots.

O'Reilly Jokes About Brokaw Getting Shot
By: Steve - January 18, 2011 - 8:30am

Well it's pretty clear O'Reilly is not going to tone down the gun rhetoric, because last week in the middle of a heated debate over violent gun rhetoric from the right, O'Dummy made a shooting joke about Tom Brokaw.

Good job O'Reilly, you fricking idiot.

In his Dumbest Things of the Week segment Bill O'Reilly created his own dumbest thing of the week entry.

O'Reilly showed a clip of Tom Brokaw on Morning Joe saying that, given Arizona's concealed weapons laws, he would be worried to go into a restaurant or bar there.

O'Reilly, with a big smile on his face, mocked and them mimicked what it would be like for Brokaw to be shot and killed.

"Oh, that's right Tom. So, you're sitting there eating your can of peas, and somebody comes over, 'Oh, you're Tom Brokaw!' BAM!"

Greg Gutfeld went on to say, "it's kind of class warfare. People who don't know people who own guns, they see them as gun nuts."

Now clearly O'Reilly was kidding, and not actually calling for someone to go out and shoot Tom Brokaw. But is this sort of thing ever really funny, let alone less than a week after a mass shooting.

Not to mention, about a month ago O'Reilly made a joke about beheading Dana Milbank from the Washington Post. Over something O'Reilly claims he said, when he did not even say it, O'Reilly just made it up then joked with Megyn Kelly asking if we could get him beheaded.

And that does not even count all the waterboarding jokes O'Reilly has done over the last year or so, and they are all against liberals, he never jokes about waterboarding or beheading Republicans.

Fox News Chris Wallace Just Does Not Get It
By: Steve - January 18, 2011 - 8:00am

Now let me say this, I give Wallace Credit for what he is saying, but he is ignoring the heart of the issue, and not calling for Palin, Beck, Angle, Bachmann, etc. to stop the violent gun rhetoric, or the revolution talk.

Last Friday Wallace told the stooges on Fox & Friends that he was hoping for a more constructive dialogue, he said this:
WALLACE: You don't have to call the other side socialists, or fascists, or whatever. And maybe the tone -- maybe we can agree, or disagree, more agreeably.
That is not what the left has a problem with, we do not care if you call someone a socialist, or whatever. The problem is the rifle scope crosshair target map, that sends a message to get a gun and shoot someone. While a normal person can look at it and not go shoot someone, the crazy far right gun nuts look at it and see a target map of who to kill.

The problem is Glenn Beck calling for a new revoulution, which he has many time, it is documented, and asking the military to join the revolution, especially former or current special forces troops. This is borderline treason, it's a call to overthrow the Government.

Calling someone a socialist or a fascist, has nothing to with with that violent gun and military rhetoric. And Wallace, as all of Fox, ignore that.

You also have Sharron Angle saying if Congress does not listen to the people, we have 2nd amendment remedies. Which means you could take action with your guns. And when she said that the Democrats had total control of Congress, so she was basically sending a signal to the far right to use your guns to solve a political problem.

Then you also have Michelle Bachmann telling people they need to be armed and dangerous, this is just flat out wrong. It's sending a message to the right to go buy guns, or more guns, and be ready for the revolution.

Not to mention, the Tea Party flag is a military based logo. And at some of the Tea Party protests they had signs saying if ballots do not work bullets will.

Wallace, O'Reilly, and all of Fox ignore that kind of violent rhetoric, or if they do mention it, they defend it, as O'Reilly and Beck have. When even Palin knows it was wrong, because after the Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Giffords Palin took the scope crosshair target map down. That shows she knew it was wrong, but she attacked the media for reporting it anyway.

O'reilly never even mentioned that she took it down after the shooting, and in fact, he defended not only Palin, but all the violent gun rhetoric from the right. That is the problem, if people in the right-wing media would call for it to stop, and say it's wrong, it would probably stop.

The violent gun rhetoric must stop, and if it does not stop, it could lead to real problems, like an armed revolution, or more shooting of Democratic members of Congress.

And btw, O'Reilly says the left does just as much as the right, which is just ridiculous. You can only find one or two examples of gun rhetoric from the left, but it never leads to any gun violence, and the left does not run and go buy guns when they here that stuff, they just ignore it. The right goes and buys guns, and takes them to political protests, etc.

Name one Republican in Congress who has been shot or killed by a liberal over the last year or two, you cant. Name one Democratic Congressperson who calls for 2nd amendment remedies, or calls for people to be armed and dangerous, you cant. Name one Democrat who calls for a new revolution and tells the military to joing them, you cant. It's all from the right, and that is a fact O'Reilly has denied.

Sean Hannity Goes Off The Deep End
By: Steve - January 17, 2011 - 10:00am

I normally do not report anything Sean Hannity says, because just like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity is an admitted Republican partisan. But this was so crazy I had to write something about it.

On the Friday Hannity show Sean Hannity said because gas is back to $3.00 a gallon, and could go to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon, he said we should re-invade Iraq and Kuwait and take all their oil. He even said we have every right to go an take all their oil to pay for the liberation.

Okay, now let me get this straight, Mr. free market now wants to invade a country and take all their oil, because gas hit $3.00 a gallon. And they owe it to us because why, because we illegally invaded their country to find the WMD's. That is just insane, and it goes to show what some of these Republicans think.

During a discussion about high gas prices, which host Sean Hannity claimed are "now gonna go up to three, four, five dollars a gallon again." The panel noted that Arab sheiks possess great amounts of oil, and pointed out a recent statement by Kuwait's oil minister that he believes the market can withstand $100-per-barrel oil.

After noting that Kuwait is a country that "would not exist but for us," Hannity angrily offered his remedy:
HANNITY: I say why isn't Iraq paying us back with oil, and paying every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers -- and why didn't they pay for their own liberation? For the Kuwait oil minister -- how short his memory is.

You know, we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation, as these sheiks, etcetera etcetera, you know were living in hotels in London and New York, as Trump pointed out, and now they're gouging us and saying of course we can withstand these prices.
Not to mention Bush invaded Iraq illegally, In the most recent invasion of Iraq, there have been 4,442 American combat deaths and over 30,000 injuries, many of them traumatic and debilitating. The cost of the war is at $3 trillion and counting, and the invasion destroyed America's global standing. Apparently, Hannity would be willing to re-pay this cost for cheaper gas.

Hannity also acts as if Iraq should be grateful for the invasion and turn over its natural resources. Of course, anywhere from 100,000 to one million Iraqi civilians died during the unwanted and illegal invasion, which destroyed much of the country's infrastructure.

In closing, it is totally insane to use a Government military to invade a country to steal their oil. Not to mention, illegal under International law, and a violation of the U.N. rules of war, and many other treaties we have signed on to. It would cost Trillions, and thousands of lives, just to get cheaper gas, wow is he insane.

And this is the guy who rails on and on about the deficit, while calling for spending Trillions of dollars to steal another country's oil because gas MIGHT hit $4.00 a gallon. Not to mention, I looked on Monday and gas prices had actually dropped from $3.15 to $3.09 here in Peoria.

More Proof Republicans Are Racist
By: Steve - January 17, 2011 - 9:30am

Hey O'Reilly, when are you going to report this, oh yeah, I forgot you are not a journalist and you do not report real news, especially when it is news that destroys your argument that a hell of a lot of Republicans are not racist. Then explain this holmes.

After Saying He Will Skip MLK Day, Maine Tea Party Gov. Paul LePage Tells The NAACP To Kiss His Butt

Maine's tea party-backed Gov. Paul LePage (R) has gone from telling President Obama to go to hell to telling the NAACP to kiss my butt, after the storied civil rights organization criticized LePage for declining invitations to attend events honoring Martin Luther King Day.

The NAACP had invited LePage to events in Portland and Bangor, but a spokesman for the governor said he "already has personal and professional commitments scheduled for Monday."

Yeah, probably a klan meeting, haha.

"We don't want to misinterpret his intention, but the message we're getting is that we're not welcome and we're not part of the Maine he's preparing to lead," said local NAACP state director Rachel Talbot Ross.

LePage fired back at the group's chiding, telling WGME News 13 that the NAACP is just a "special interest group that can kiss my butt."

Rachel Talbot Ross, who is with the Portland Chapter of the NAACP, called LePage's comments "ignorant" and "sad", and said she was disappointed.

Sounds pretty racist to me, what say you Billy. Oh yeah I forgot, you do not report stories of racism by the right, then you can pretend there is no racism on the right, haha, good luck with that jerk.

Republicans Spin Illinois Tax Increase
By: Steve - January 16, 2011 - 9:30am

First let me say that I live in Illinois, and I have my entire life. Okay, so Illinois is going to raise taxes. How much you ask, if you watch the idiots at Fox they report it as a 66% tax increase, like it's some massive increase. But here are the facts.

It's a 2% tax increase, yes I said it's a 2% tax increase. Illinois tax rates will go from 3 to 5 percent, representing a total increase in tax rates of just 2 percent. This will allow Illinois to solve a $15 billion budget deficit without gutting state programs.

Now get this, on Wednesday Neil Cavuto and the Republican Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker put a spin on the Illinois tax increase that was actually stunning.

Walker is urging Illinois residents and businesses to move to Wisconsin to avoid such high taxes, he is calling for everyone in Illinois to head over to his state and avoid those high Illinois taxes.

But there is one tiny little problem with that, Wisconsin has higher tax rates than Illinois, even with the 2% increase Illinois still has lower tax rates than Wisconsin. And of course neither Neil Cavuto, or Governor Walker ever mentioned that.

Wisconsin has two different tax brackets; the lowest income rate is 6.15 percent. The highest rate is 7.75 percent. And the Illinois rate will be 5%, which is still lower than the lowest rate in Wisconsin. Bloomberg had this about it:
Absent from Walker's sales pitch was the fact that Wisconsin's income tax rates remain higher than Illinois even under the increase.
Cavuto even called it a tax storm, even though it's only a 2% increase, and still less than they pay in Wisconsin. And then on top of that, Cavuto has the dishonest Governor of Wisconsin on his show to spin it, when they both know it's dishonest to make such a claim. Here is a partial transcript:
CAVUTO: That blizzard in the northeast is nothing compared to this one -- a tax storm and in Illinois a big one. Democratic Governor Pat Quinn is set to sign a 66 percent hike in the state's income tax, Governor, what do you make of this?

WALKER: Well I got a simple message. I pulled this out of the archives, we used to have this for tourism, its a bumper sticker that says "escape to Wisconsin." And instead of sending it to tourists, we are going to send it to employers, because boy with their taxes going up through the roof we want them to come to Wisconsin.
Now think about this, if you only watch Neil Cavuto for the news, you would be totally misinformed on the Illinois tax increase. You would think Illinois was doing this massive tax increase, when it's only 2%, and even after the 2% increase they still have a lower state tax rate than Wisconsin does.

Notice that Cavuto and Walker only say it's a 66% tax increase, which is misleading, and they never once say the actual rate only goes up 2 percent.

Now that is about as dishonest as it gets, from Cavuto and Walker. But you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg in their media bias segments. They just ignore it, because it was done by Republicans at Fox.

And remember this, O'Reilly said Fox reports the truth, and that is why they get such high ratings. Now I just showed you that not only are Cavuto and Walker both liars, so is O'Reilly, because Fox can barely spell truth, let alone report it. It's all spin and lies, and I have just proven that.

O'Reilly Still Attacking Sheriff Dupnik
By: Steve - January 16, 2011 - 9:00am

Not only is O'Reilly still attacking Sheriff Dupnik, almost a week after the shooting, he is now calling for the Arizona Attorney General to investigate him, and yes I am serious. During a segment with Glenn Beck O'Reilly said this:

Now think about this, how many Republican Sheriffs has O'Reilly called for an investigation for something they said, answer: ZERO.

On top of that, O'Reilly even put the Republican Sheriff Arpaio on his show to give his opinion about Dupnik and the shooting, as he calls for the Democratic Sheriff Dupnik to be investigated for giving his opinion.

Can you spell hypocrisy, wow is O'Reilly an idiot. I guess in O'Reillyworld Republican Sheriffs can give an opinion, but Democratic Sheriffs can not. And if they do, they should be investigated and fired, even though they were legally elected to be the Sheriff.

Insane Republicans Attack Obama Memorial Speech
By: Steve - January 16, 2011 - 8:30am

If you wanted proof the lunatic fringe of the Republican party would attack President Obama for anything, here it is. The far right nut jobs attacked Obama for his speech at the Arizona shooting memorial. Even though the speech was praised by 99% of the people, these right-wing nut jobs just could not resist the attacks.

Following Obama's widely praised address at the memorial for the victims of the Tucson shooting, the right-wing media have somehow found a way to attack him. Their attacks have included the presence of T-shirts at the event -- which were handed out by the university -- the "pep-rally" atmosphere, and the timing of Obama's speech.

In a January 13 post on his right-wing blog Gateway Pundit, blogger Jim Hoft claimed Obama lied about Giffords opening her eyes for the first time. In fact, she did open her eyes, and Fox News even reported it on January 12, the day of the Obama speech.

A article said Giffords opening her eyes was like watching a miracle. Not to mention, her husband, who is an astronaut also said she opened her eyes after president Obama left her hospital room. So we have proof it was true, and yet Republicans still lied about it anyway.

In a January 12 Gateway Pundit post titled "They Couldn't Help It... Team Obama Hands Out T-Shirts at Pep Rally Memorial," Hoft wrote "Maybe it's something new? T-shirts at a pep rally memorial...Every memorial needs a special T-shirt. Doesn't it?"

The t-shirts were handed out by the University, and the President had nothing to do with it.

Ace of Spades: "While I Have No Evidence The T-Shirts Are Obama's Fault I'm Sure He Is Just The Same."

In a January 12 Ace of Spades post, Ace posted a picture of a volunteer laying the "Together We Thrive" T-shirts on the back of chairs and wrote "This has nothing to do with photo-ops. All memorial services and funerals have their own slogans and t-shirts these days. Didn't you know that?"

Notice he says he has no evidence Obama had anything to do with the t-shirts, but he blamed Obama anyway. Which is typical right-wing lies, blame Obama with no evidence, but when you say something about a Republican, they demand evidence to prove it or you have no credibility. As they blame Obama with no evidence.

On the January 13 edition of Fox & Friends, Michelle Malkin said the speech was at "the wrong time" and criticized the president for "waiting several days."

She continued, "You do have to question the timing of it, and as so many of my readers and viewers of that supposed memorial event reacted last night, the hooting, the hollering, the incredibly inappropriate tone and setting for something that should have been uniformly a somber occasion."

Note: The University of Arizona announced the Together We Thrive event -- and the campus initiated the logo/campaign. Obama had nothing to do with it, all he did was agree to give a speech.

The Fox Nation website said this: "Disrespectful: Memorial Turns Into Campaign Rally In Tucson."

These people are insane, and if Obama cured cancer they would find a way to slam him for it, simply because he is a Democratic President. As someone once said, If Obama parted the ocean and walked across on the ground, the right would slam him and say he only did it because he can not swim.

The Friday 1-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 15, 2011 - 9:30am

The TPM was called A turning tide against the American left? Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The shocking events this week in the aftermath of the Arizona mass murder have turned the tide against the American left. As Talking Points has stated, the viciousness leveled by some far-left pundits who tried to blame conservatives for the mass murder was unprecedented in this country, and the folks know it.

The far left is getting pounded because they used this terrible tragedy to hurt their political opponents. So now America is on a new track, and President Obama's appointment of moderate Bill Daley to be his chief of staff is another signal. Mr. Obama's big government vision and the huge spending that comes along with that has failed, and Americans are just saying 'no.'

The President understands this, and Talking Points believes you will see far less progressive legislation in the future. That is a good thing for those of us who believe the USA must live within its means and preach the gospel of self-reliance to its citizens.

Americans are a logical people, and a new poll demonstrates that - it says just 15% of Americans believe the Arizona mass murder was due to political rhetoric, and just 9% say it was due to lax gun control. Simply put, the folks 'get it' and now the country is taking a turn to the right, which puts pressure on conservatives to solve problems and be far less vicious than their liberal opposition.
What a joke, so the far left is done, again, for the millionth time. This is ridiculous, every time the far left does something O'Reilly and the right does not like, O'Reilly declares the far left dead. What an idiot, and the far left is not even close to dead, not to mention the only people that did not like what they were saying is the far right. And a week from now, nobody will even remember any of it. And take note of this, when the far right does something people do not like, O'Reilly never declares them dead, in fact, he usually ignores it because he is one of them.

What's really funny is how O'Dummy complains about progressive legislation, when it was conservative legislation that ruined the country under Bush, and O'Reilly supported that. Now he is opposed to any progressive legislation, even though it worked under Clinton for 8 years, and it is working now under Obama.

It's like the old twilight zone tv show, the Republicans ruin the country in 8 years and O'Reilly supports it, then a Democrat comes in to fix it and O'Reilly opposes it, even though it's working. Then he declares progressive legislation dead, when it's working, the economy is improving, jobs are coming back, the stock market is up 10% in the last year to over 11,000. And O'Reilly ignores it all, to say we must bring the conservative policies back, when they caused the problems we have now, what an idiot.

Then Geraldo was on to discuss whether Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, whose office was vandalized last year, should have had police protection when she went out to meet constituents last Saturday. Geraldo said at least one uniformed officer should be present when a member of Congress appears at a pre-announced public event.

Which sounds like a good idea to me, in fact, I am surprised they were not already doing that. Then of course O'Reilly used the segment to attack Sheriff Dupnik again, Billy said Dupnik is an idiot for not having at least one deputy there to provide security. Even though no other Sheriffs do it, even the Republican Sheriffs. So in O'Reillyworld only Sheriff Dupnik is an idiot for not providing security, what a joke.

Then O'Reilly had the joke of a political analyst Dick Morris on to say the far left has been seriously damaged by its accusations following the Arizona murders. Morris said this:

"The left is orphaned. This was the first time President Obama has moved to the center. His speech basically let the left out there with its accusations. Obama could have followed his soul mates over the cliff, but he didn't - he deliberately stopped short of embracing what his colleagues have done. The left and Obama were formerly indistinguishable, but now they're getting a divorce and Obama is attempting to craft a presidential path."

Morris also predicted that the left will "get increasingly angry at Obama and they will run a primary opponent against him, which could cost him the presidency." And I predict Morris will be wrong as usual, and none of what he said will happen. Because as far as I know the far left is not very mad at Obama. So Morris is an idiot, and the Democratic party will not run a primary opponent against him. As usual, Morris says what he wants to happen, not what might actually happen, that is why he is usually wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on to Loughner's odd behavior, why? Dobbs is just a right-wing spin doctor on the Fox business channel, who cares what he has to say about it. It makes no sense to have Lou Dobbs talk about loughner's odd behavior, I guess O'Reilly just loves putting right-wing guests on, even when they have no business discussing a topic. Dobbs said he was troubled, and somebody should have helped him, really, thank you Mr. Obvious, go away idiot.

In the next waste of time segment O'Reilly had the Republican Comedian Colin Quinn on to promote his Broadway show. Why, how is this news. Answer, it's not. O'Reilly simply put him on to promote his show, because he is a Republican who loves Fox, especially Steve Doocy. Quinn complained that O'Reilly has been too hard on Doocy lately, really, are you kidding me. Doocy is an idiot, and so is Quinn for liking him. And you could never be too hard on him, because he is a lying idiot.

Next up was Glenn Beck for his weekly segment. Beck has asked politicians to take a pledge. And only seventeen people have signed it, proving that is is a joke. In fact, Beck is a joke, and yet O'Reilly has this fool on his show every damn week. Then for some strange reason Beck talked about the musical Spider-Man. Beck said this: "It is unbelievable, it is the eighth wonder of the world and it will change theater. The music is great, the lyrics are right to today, and it's unlike anything I ever saw before."

Are you kidding me, who fricking cares about a Spider-Man musical in New York that 90% of the country will never see. At the end O'Reilly gave Beck a warning, he said this: "I'm going to see this Spider-Man thing, and if it's no good you're reimbursing me."

Finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on to name the dumbest people and events of the past week. Neville picked actress Winona Ryder, a technophobe who worried aloud that if she uses a computer she'll "suddenly be a member of Al Qaeda." "It's totally dumb," Neville said, "to think that if you're surfing the net you'll suddenly be in Al Qaeda."

Gutfeld singled out Nancy Pelosi, who described the Tucson mass murder as a "tragic accident." "It's a tragic accident," Gutfeld said, "whenever she opens her mouth, and it's an example of the cowardice of the left - they can't hold people responsible for their own actions." O'Reilly went with NBC's Tom Brokaw, who said he "would be nervous going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night, where people can carry concealed weapons."

And I go with O'Reilly, Gutfeld, and Neville, for doing this segment, it is dumber than the things they went with. It's not news, it's garbage. How the hell is Pelosi a coward for simply saying the shooting in Arizona was a tragic accident, and how is Brokaw wrong, I would also be nervous knowing all those people are carrying guns in bars and restaurants.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, 7 Republicans, 0 Democrats, and no Geraldo is not a Democrat, he is a moderate Republican who agrees with O'Reilly most of the time.

More Proof Laura Ingraham Is A Partisan Liar
By: Steve - January 15, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor Laura Ingraham said this: Nobody On Fox Will Say It, But Obama's Memorial Speech "Was A Campaign Rally."

Now that is ridiculous, and only a far right idiot would even say such a thing. President Obama gave a moving and great speech at the memorial. It was not political, and it was not a campaign rally. But somehow in the world of Laura Ingraham it was, and O'Reilly is just as bad as she is, for putting her on the air to say that garbage.

Ingraham is one of these dishonest right-wing stooges that slam Obama for everything, no matter what it is, but if he was a Republican she would praise everything he did. She does this every time she is on with O'Reilly, and he keeps bringing her back, so O'Reilly is as big of a jerk as she is.

The Thursday 1-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 14, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama and the smear merchants. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Most fair-minded Americans recognize that President Obama gave an excellent speech in Tucson last night. The President hit all the right points in defining the terrible atrocity that took place last Saturday. He then defined the current controversy, whereby far-left zealots blame the atrocious crimes on conservatives, and urged Americans to talk with each other 'in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.'

Nice thought, but unlikely to happen. Simply put, many liberals are furious that the progressive agenda is not working, and many conservatives are angry because they feel their country is being badly damaged by forces on the left. And so there is hatred in the air and it all bubbled up after the Arizona mayhem.

President Obama's call for civility is reasonable, but some of his most ardent supporters started the brawl by accusing the right of pushing Jared Loughner to violence. Talking Points well understands there is vicious rhetoric on the right as well, and both sides should heed Mr. Obama's call. Robust debate is needed, but enough's enough with the hateful ideological loons.
Nice spin O'Dummy, to begin with nobody on the far-left is saying the violent right-wing rhetoric is to blame for the shootings in Arizona. They are saying it might have helped to motivate the guy to get a gun and shoot a Democratic Congresswoman. The guy to blame is the shooter, but it is possible he was motivated to do it by all the gun rhetoric from the right. The left is using the shooting to tell the right to tone it down, not to blame the violent rhetoric on the right for the shooting. So O'Reilly is wrong about that.

And liberals are not furious because their agenda is not working, in fact, we are not furious at all. Mostly because the liberal agenda is working, wall street is up, the economy is improving, jobs are coming back, and Obama is doing a pretty good job. O'Reilly just refuses to admit it is working, it's all right-wing spin. Not to mention, the country was damaged by Bush and the Republicans in Congress. I guess O'Reilly forgot that, yeah right. Obama is just trying to fix what Bush did, and O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, when it was Bush that damaged the country.

Overall liberals are happy, no matter what spin O'Dummy puts out on it, and it just shows what a lying hack O'Reilly is, because he is wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to evaluate President Obama's call for civility. Goldberg said this: "He's absolutely right about our need to lower the rhetoric, but I don't think he understands how difficult that is going to be. This polarization doesn't stem from political differences; it goes much deeper than that. As a conservative, I think liberals are wrong on many issues, but I also think they mean well. Liberal elites, on the other hand, don't think conservatives are simply wrong, they think conservatives are morally inferior, which is why it's so easy for liberals to say prominent conservatives were accessories to murder. These liberal elites not only think they're smarter than those 'hicks and hayseeds' between Manhattan and Malibu, they think they're better and more decent. The disgusting snobbery is in their DNA."

Wow, is that insane garbage. Earth to Goldberg, Republicans were racist to President Obama, Republicans had signs of Obama as Hitler, Republicans sent out racist e-mails, and on and on, the Republican hatred is off the charts. That is why Democrats hate them, because of what they do. And after years and years of letting the Republicans kick their ass, they are finally fighting back.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to grade the Obama speech, and she did not want to do it, but she said if she had to she would give it a B. Then she spent the entire rest of the segment attcking everything that happened at the speech. Even though Obama had nothing to do with it, like the t-shirts, the shouts from a few people, etc. Ingraham said this: "Solemnity was required, but there were t-shirts printed up and you had the president of the university introducing President Obama like it's the kickoff of the 2012 campaign. It was a campaign rally!"

Which was so ridiculous that even O'Reilly disagreed with her. But that is Laura Ingraham, all lies because she hates Obama. Obama had nothing to do with his introduction, the t-shirts, the shouts, or anything else, he just gave a speech, and the far right went crazy with insane anger of it.

Then O'Reilly had Washington Post columnist Jeff Stein on, who said that Congressman Peter King's planned hearings on Muslim extremism are unnecessary. Stein said this: "We all want to know what's going on, and that's why we have the FBI and Homeland Security. We have people checking visas and we have people doing interviews in the communities."

O'Dummy disagreed and said he supports the hearings as long as they are fact-based. Are you kidding me, does he really think the Republicans are going to do a hearing on Muslim extremism that is fact-based, give me a break. It's just a smear job for no reason, other than to make all Muslims look bad. What good does it do, no good, as far as I can tell.

Then the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to talk about the silence from Palin, except for her stupid 8 minute "Blood Libel" video she put out on her website. Hoover said Palin made a mistake by not talking to the media, Carlson disagreed. O'Reilly even said he was shocked that Palin would hide from the media, and he wanted her to talk.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about how Jared Loughner had various encounters with police but was never arrested. She said he never did enough to get arrested. But of course O'Reilly said they should have got him on something, except that is not how it works, you have to be involved in a crime before they can arrest you. You can not be arrested for what you think someone might do, you have to wait until they do it. And hopefully you stop them before they do, and try to keep mentally unstable people from buying a gun.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had the former White House spokesperson Dana Perino on to talk more about Sarah Palin. To my surprise even Perino said Palin made a mistke by putting the 8 minute video out. But she also said Palin is damned if she does, and damned if she dont. So she sort of defended Palin, and also slammed her a little, for the video and for not talking to the media.

Let me also say this, not once in the entire show did O'Reilly (or anyone) say one word about the ridiculous Sarah palin "Blood Libel" comment, they just ignored it as if she never said it. And in the Dana Perino segment, while talking about the media reporting on the Arizona shootings, O'Reilly said the Fox News Network is outnumbered by the forces of evil. Wow, so he is saying all the media is evil but Fox, and that they are outnumbered. What a massive and delusional idiot he is, because to begin with, Fox is not a News Network, and if any media is evil it is Fox.

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

Boehlert Says Fox In Attack & Deny Mode
By: Steve - January 14, 2011 - 9:00am

Eric Boehlert said Fox is in attack and deny mode over their violent rhetoric, and he is exactly right. Here is the video from the Ed show.

Boehlert also said that if Roger Ailes is "ordering them to tone it down, is that not an admission that he knew the rhetoric was out of control?"

Which is a very good point, that O'Reilly has not talked about. If they were doing nothing wrong at Fox, why did Roger Ailes tell them to tone it down. It's the same as when Palin took the scope crosshair map down after the Arizona shooting, if she was doing nothing wrong, why did she take the map down after the shooting.

O'Reilly ignores all of this, to divert attention away from the issue, by attacking what other people are saying about Fox and the right and their violent rhetoric. It's the old O'Reilly diversion trick, and I have to say it is failing big time, because nobody is buying the spin O'Reilly is selling. Which btw, is the exact same spin Rush Limbaugh is using.

Facts On The Obama Arizona Memorial Speech
By: Steve - January 14, 2011 - 8:30am

Laura Ingraham and a few other right-wing nuts have attacked President Obama for what happened at the Arizona memorial for the shooting victims. When he had nothing to do with it, the University of Arizona planned the entire thing, all President Obama did was give a speech.

Ingraham and her crazy friends have said everything from Obama had the t-shirts made, to it was a pep rally, to it was a campaign rally. And none of it is true, remember this, they are the same people who demand evidence of any claims against Republicans, then they make all these false claims with no evidence against Democrats, can you spell hypocrisy boys and girls.

Here are the facts:

As part of their attacks on Obama over his widely praised speech at the memorial for the victims of the Tucson, Arizona shooting, conservative media figures cooked up the claim, absent any evidence, that the White House was behind the memorial's "branding."

They accused the White House of coming up with the memorial's slogan, "Together We Thrive," and the design logo of the T-shirts that were handed out to attendees. Some even admitted that they had no evidence on which to base their claim.

Thursday, the "Truth-O-Meter" at rated the conservative claim "False," writing that "officials at the University of Arizona said the White House had nothing to do with the name or the logo."

Discussing Michelle Malkin's post claiming that Obama was behind the event's branding, PolitiFact continued:
"The name of the event and the logo for the event were done entirely by the university," said Johnny Cruz, a spokesman for the University of Arizona. "Branding of the event was not done in consultation with the White House, or any elected officials or political organization."

The T-shirts were also the university's doing, Cruz said.

"That was the university's idea," he said. "We wanted to give people something to remember, to symbolize the community spirit."

"Almost everything was done by the university," Cruz said, including selection of the location for the event and planning the agenda. Once the president accepted an invitation, he said, the White House helped coordinate some logistics, such as security, but that was the extent of the White House involvement.

And "Together We Thrive" was conceived by a University of Arizona student, he said.
Politifact concluded with this:

University spokesman Cruz said all of the "stage prop details," as Malkin called them, were entirely conceived by and arranged by the college.

The burden of proof is on Malkin and she has failed to prove any White House involvement. She may believe she sees the handiwork of the White House at play, but there's no evidence to back that up.

Certainly not enough to justify her claim the White House used the shooting tragedy as an opportunity to orchestrate a "branded" political event. We rate Malkin's claim False.

And you should take note of this too, all these right-wing spooks make these crazy claims, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. He just ignores it, so he is actually helping them spread their lies by not exposing them.

O'Dummy does that on purpose to help his right-wing friends, by not making them look like the crazy liars they are. But if a Democrat made claims like that about a Republican, O'Reilly would spend an entire hour disputing it and asking for evidence. Dont you just love that fair and balanced no spin zone, haha.

ADL Slams Palin For Blood Libel Comment
By: Steve - January 14, 2011 - 8:00am

In the wake of last weekend's shooting in Arizona, Sarah Palin, Andrew Breitbart, and others in the conservative media have accused some journalists and progressives of manufacturing a "blood libel" against them.

Historically, the term "blood libel" refers to the grave anti-Semitic charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children in some religious rituals -- a myth that has long been the source of anti-Jewish violence.

And now the The Anti-Defamation League has condemned Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" to describe her opponents. Abraham Foxman from the ADL released this statement:
It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term "blood-libel" has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.
And so far Palin has refused to apologize for the comment, as expected, because she is an idiot. And because someone else probably wrote that for her, and she most likely did not even know what the term meant.

The Wednesday 1-12-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 13, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no O'Reilly Factor show because of the Obama speech and memorial about the Arizona shootings that killed a 9 year old girl, and where the Democratic Congresswoman was shot in the head.

So at least we got a night off from O'Reilly crying like the little right-wing jerk he is, about how the media is reporting the story, instead of actually reporting the story as a real journalist would.

Watching O'Reilly on Monday and Tuesday was like torture, and I could barely stand to watch it. It was not journalism, it was an hour long ridiculous partisan attack on the way other people in the media were covering the story. And it was no different than listening to Rush Limbaugh report on it. Even though O'Reilly claims he is a non-partisan Independent, it was totally partisan, and his words mirrored what Limbaugh was saying, proving that he is nothing more than a tv version of Rush Limbaugh.

And remember this folks, a Democratic Comgresswoman was the main target of the shooting, but O'Reilly had 7 Republican guests on Monday, to the 1 Democratic guest, who had to share her time with the Republican guest Tammy Bruce. Then on Tuesday O'Reilly had 7 Republican guests to the 1 Democratic guest again, and as usual she had to share her time with the Republican guest Monica crowley.

So including O'Reilly it was 8 to 1 Republicans to Democrats both nights, which is 16 to 2, and not even close to balance. And 6 of the 7 Republican guests were on alone both nights to spin out the right-wing side of the story. While none of the 2 Democratic guests were on alone to give their side of the story.

This is done on purpose by O'Reilly, to back up his spin, and to make it look like everyone agrees with him. Not to mention, the Democratic guest barely has time to speak, and everything they say is disputed by O'Reilly and the Republican guest who is on with her. While the 6 other Republicans guests are allowed to spin like a top, with no Democratic guest to dispute what they say.

That is not fair and balanced non-partisan journalism, it's 99% right-wing spin.

Flashback: GOP Un-Banned 30 Round Clips
By: Steve - January 13, 2011 - 10:00am

Think about this folks, those high capacity 30 round ammo clips Loughner used in the Arizona shootings used to be banned. Until 2004, when the Republican party let the ban expire under pressure from the NRA.

And it goes without saying, that neither O'Reilly or any of his right-wing guests have reported this information. Even though some of them have argued that we do not need a 30 round clip for anything, except mass killing, O'Reilly still hides the fact that the Republican party un-banned those 30 round clips in 2004.

Now guess who banned those 30 round clips back in the 90's, the Democratic party and Bill Clinton.


The high-capacity magazine used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

According to police and media reports, the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, legally purchased a semiautomatic Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine in November at a gun store in Tucson. Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each.

If Loughner had been using a traditional magazine, "it would have drastically reduced the number of shots he got off before he had to pause and reload -- Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Salon.

And Mr. I'm a non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly, never says a word about any of this. Probably because he is too busy wasting time doing a biased one sided attack on Sheriff Dupnik for simply telling the truth.

Another Republican Criticizes Palin Crosshair Map
By: Steve - January 13, 2011 - 9:30am

As far as I know this is the 3rd Republican to criticize Palin for the scope crosshairs map, and yet, O'Reilly spent an hour saying only the left was doing it. Which ignores Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Tim Pawlenty, who all said Palin should not have done it.

Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty is criticizing Sarah Palin, Pawlenty who is a Fox News contributor, and potential GOP presidential candidate took a shot at Palin for using the image of scope crosshairs on a map identifying vulnerable congressional districts during the 2010 election, including the district of the shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords from Tucson, Arizona.

Pawlenty said this:
Pawlenty said he would not have used gun crosshairs to target Rep Gabrielle Giffords and others.

"It would not have been my style to put the crosshairs on there," he said on Good Morning America on Tuesday, referring to a map like the one posted on Sarah PAC's website showing crosshairs on Giffords and other lawmakers who supported health care reform.
Palin has faced criticism in the days since the shooting of Giffords for targeting the Arizona Democrat's district and a national debate has broken out over the use of violent imagery and language in the country's political discourse.

Which just goes to show everyone how dishonest O'Reilly is in his biased reporting of the Giffords shooting story. O'Reilly claims that only the left is slamming Palin, when I have shown that at least 3 Republicans are saying the same thing.

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On State Budget Debt
By: Steve - January 13, 2011 - 8:30am

For months on end O'Reilly has been beating the drum that liberlals and Democratic policies are bankrupting America. He uses California as an example, because it is a State of mostly Democrats, even though the Governor was a Republican, which he usually ignores.

But almost every State in America is in debt, even the States run by mostly Republicans. That debt was caused by the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and the 9.6 percent unemployment rate. Not to mention the Bush tax cuts, and all the wars he started.

And yet, O'Reilly blames all this debt on Liberals and Democratic policies, even though those policies worked fine for 8 years under Bill clinton, and even led to an economic boom with a budget surplus, after Clinton raised taxes 3 percent on the wealthy. It only went to hell after 8 years of Bush and the Republicans running things.

O'Reilly flat out ignores States like Texas that have massive debt, that is about as right-wing as a State can get. The entire State is pretty much run by Republicans at every level.

Texas is run the the Republican Gov. Rick Perry, and on Mondy we found out he was lying about their debt, he told the people they were 10 to 11 billion in debt. Now we find out Texas is $27 billion dollars in debt, far more than Perry stated.
Texas is expected to collect $72.2 billion in taxes, fees and other general revenue during the 2012-13 budget, down from the $87 billion used in the current two-year budget, Comptroller Susan Combs announced Monday.

That puts the budget shortfall at $27 billion dollars.
And not only did Perry severely underestimate the depth of his state's budget woes, he has also spent the last few years lecturing Washington D.C. on its supposed fiscal improprieties, giving speech after speech in which he held up Texas as the economic model for the nation to follow.

Just last week, he said that Congress needs to propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or else "the hard work that Texas and states like ours have done to make prudent fiscal decisions will be washed away by Washington's growing avalanche of excess."

That is coming from a Republican who runs a State with a $27 billion dollar shortfall, and O'Reilly never says a word about it.

The Tuesday 1-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 12, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called When law enforcement gets political. O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: The Sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, is not only a law enforcement agent, he is also a left-wing activist. Mr. Dupnik has ignited a national discussion about whether political rhetoric may have motivated the killer Jared Loughner. Sheriff Dupnik believes 'right-wing rhetoric' contributed to the murders, although he admits he has no evidence to back that up.

Why would the sheriff say that? Well, one look at his resume provides the answer. When the tough illegal alien law was passed in Arizona last year, Sheriff Dupnik called it 'racist' and said 'we don't need this law.' So who is we, sheriff? Certainly not the people of Arizona, 70% of whom support the law. I guess we, Sheriff Dupnik, is you and your liberal pals. But as a sworn officer of the law, you have a duty to uphold it, and by saying you will not, you violated your oath.

Let's be honest: Sheriff Dupnik is an ideologue - along with many far-left pundits, he is using the murders of six people to make political points. He has turned a horrific murder case into a political circus. Who does that serve, sheriff? You have made a terrible mistake.
So what does O'Reilly do, he has the far right ideologue Sheriff Joe Arpaio on to discuss it. Arpaio said this: "It's tough to criticize a fellow sheriff," Arpaio began, "but he should have been careful making comments about the perpetrator, who will probably use some of those comments to defend himself. I believe politics is driving his comments and I don't agree with his rhetoric. He has a lot of law enforcement experience and I'm surprised that he made these comments during a very vicious situation."

Then O'Dummy pointed out the irony that while Sheriff Dupnik rails against the right, Sheriff Arpaio is under siege from the left: "You are a conservative guy and you are threatened all day long by left-wingers, you have death threats against you. Has Sheriff Dupnik ever said, hey, leave Sheriff Arpaio alone?"

Are you kidding me, O'Reilly compared private death threats against a Sheriff in Arizona, to violent gun rhetoric in print, on radio, and on tv, by partisan pundits who have millions and millions of viewers/listeners/readers. My God is that comparison insane, and O'Reilly even said it was the same thing. WHAT THE? It's not even close, and to even make that comparison shows what a massive a-hole O'Reilly is, because that comparison is insane.

Not to mention Arpaio said he does not know what Sheriff Dupnik has said or not said about him. And yet, O'Reilly still speculated that Dupnik has never said anything about the death threats against Arpaio.

Now in the next segment with Alicia Menendez and Monica Crowley, O'Reilly used the same comparison again. And the Democratic guest Menendez did not call him on the ridiculous comparison. The best Menendez could come up with is this: "He does have a right to an opinion and his perspective is worthwhile - he was trying to draw a connection between an assassination of a federal official and this rhetoric."

Then O'Reilly had the totally insane John Stossel on to discuss it, why, who knows, why does anyone care what Stossel thinks about anything, I sure dont. And the crazy Stossel said he is even against more security for members of Congress, which O'Reilly even disagreed with. Billy said they should have more U.S. Marshals to protect members of Congress. Proving that Stossel is just a far far right nut.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Elisabeth Hasselbeck from the View on to slam sheriff Dupnik even more. She said this: "We're looking at a law enforcement official, who is in a profession where evidence is mandatory to prosecute someone. Yet there's no evidence to back up anything he's saying. The sheriff is creating a more dangerous country by providing this justification that someone in the future could use."

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberley Guilfoyle, who predicted it will take years to prosecute Loughner. So then O'Reilly said the trial should be next week, which was so ridiculous that even the 2 right-wing legal analysts laughed at him. And btw folks, Billy had this is it legal segment, but never once mentioned that Tom Delay got 3 years in prison for violating campain money laws.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on, who used to be a psychiatrist, to get into the mind of Loughner. Krauthammer said he was very disturbed, and spoke about that a little, but then he Krauthammer denounced left-wing pundits and bloggers who blamed their political opponents for Loughner's crimes, he said this: "They have cynically seized upon a terrible tragedy, willfully ignored the evidence, and used it as a political club. It was cynicism, ignorance, and - in some cases - malice."

During the Krauthammer segment something funny happened to O'Reilly. Krauthammer said he thinks 1 percent of the country is crazy, and O'Reilly says yeah that is 30 million people. Then about 20 seconds O'Reilly says, wait it's 3 million people, 1 percent is 3 million. What happened is someone in the production room told him it was 3 million in his earpiece, you could see him pause and then say 3 million. What an idiot, he is a Harvard graduate and he though 1 percent of 300 million is 30 million, haha, dumbass.

Let me point something else out, O'Reilly claims that he is a non-partisan Independent, and not a Republican. But if you look at what he is saying about the Arizona shooting, and Sheriff Dupnik, it's the exact same thing Rush Limbaugh is saying. They are like twins, when you listen to Limbaugh report the story, and then listen to O'Reilly, it's the exact same thing. The only difference is that one guy is on radio and one guy is on tv. Limbaugh is about as far right as it gets, and O'Reilly is parroting what he is saying, so how can O'Reilly deny he is a Republican, what say you Billy?

What a joke the whole show was, and the 7 to 1 Republican to Democratic guest Factor show was finally over. As usual the 1 Democratic guest had to share her time with a Republican.

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

O'Reilly Says Sheriff Is Harming The Country
By: Steve - January 12, 2011 - 9:30am

Not only did crazy O'Reilly attack Sheriff Dupnik again on the Tuesday night Factor, he claimed the Sheriff is harming the country.

Here is my question, how is he harming the country when he is simply telling the truth. From what I can tell, he is not harming anyone, except maybe O'Reilly, Fox News, and the right, by telling the truth about their violent rhetoric.

Video Showing O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - January 12, 2011 - 9:00am

In this video O'Reilly claims that progressives are criticizing violent rhetoric on the right because of "The Failure Of The Far Left Agenda."

No Billy, the left is criticizing the violent rhetoric from the right, because people on the right have been trying to kill Democrats with guns, including the guy headed for the Tides Foundation, and now Congresswoman Giffords.

Here is the video:

So Billy, what's your take on someone who had a rifle scope gun target placed on her district by a far-right politician becoming the target first of vandalism, then of an assassin?

How do you defend that? You don't. You don't even attempt it. Instead, you pretend that this is all a trumped up false concern over a failed political agenda.

Stop the partisan spin and report the story honestly, or do not say anything about it.

O'Reilly Ignores Tom Delay Sentencing Story
By: Steve - January 12, 2011 - 8:30am

On Monday the Republican Tom delay was sentenced to three years in prison on conspiracy charges. And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though he has a weekly legal segment. Not to mention, he was found guilty a month ago, and O'Reilly also ignored that story too.

Now think about this, back in 2010 when Tom Delay was on Dancing with the stars, O'Reilly reported on it and predicted Delay would be found not guilty. So then he is put on trial and found guilty, none of which O'Reilly reported on, he never even reported on the trial. Then Delay gets 3 years in prison, and O'Reilly ignored that also.

This is what O'Reilly does folks, ignore any news that makes a Republican look bad. But if a Democrat gets a ticket for Jaywalking it's a top story on the Factor, and O'Reilly does a TPM on it. Then he does a follow up segment, with news about the trial, the sentencing, etc.

This was big news, most of the media reported it, and it was in the top 20 most popular google news stories of the day on Monday, and yet, O'Reilly never said a word about it.

The Monday 1-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 11, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Exploiting murder in Arizona. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona was an attack on every law-abiding American citizen. If politicians can not walk freely to talk with their constituents, we don't have a democracy, and Talking Points believes that any new laws that provide greater safety for public officials should be considered.

Besides the senseless violence, there is another disgusting display sweeping America - the exploitation of the murders by political zealots. Only moments after Giffords was shot, some far-left loons began to spew their hatred: Conservatives encouraged Loughner to pull the trigger; Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Fox News all spurred the psychopath.

The merchants of hate peddling this stuff should be accountable, so let's begin with the New York Times, which said 'it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible.' That is flat-out reprehensible and every American should condemn that editorial.

The Times does this all day long - if you disagree with their far-left views, you are 'hateful.' Even worse is Times columnist Paul Krugman, who accuses Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of inciting hatred because she said people in Minnesota should be 'armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax.' Obviously, Ms. Bachman was using a metaphor to make a point and it is morally repugnant that Krugman would smear Bachmann by connecting her to the murders.

And then there is Sarah Palin, who is being blamed for the murders as well because her website put 'crosshairs' on certain congressional districts. Governor Palin was very active in last year's election and using terms like 'targeting' certain districts is common political usage. The hypocrisies are stunning, but they pale beside the exploitation of these terrible murders in Arizona.

Decent people simply do not ascribe motivation to a psychopath like Loughner unless that motivation is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The New York Times, MSNBC, Paul Krugman and others are furious that their far-left vision is falling apart, so they are using a terrible tragedy to attack their perceived political enemies.

That's what this is all about - because the loons are furious, they're accusing people of being accessories to murder. How despicable is that?
While most of that is crazy right-wing propaganda, I will just say this. Not once in the entire show did O'Reilly say it was wrong for Palin, Bachmann, Beck, etc. to use the violent gun rhetoric, and in fact, O'Reilly defended it, as he attacked the left for saying it is wrong to use violent rhetoric in politics. Then O'Reilly put 7 Republicans on the show to spin it with him, while only 1 Democratic guest was on, and she had to split her time with 2 Republicans, so she was not even allowed to be on alone.

O'Reilly does this on purpose, so there is always a Republican on with the Democratic guest to counter what they say. And with him, it's a 2 on 1, but he never does that to Republicans, who are almost always on alone to spin their propaganda with nobody to counter it.

And let me add this, after that massive propaganda TPM, that lasted about 6 minutes, O'Reilly said he would spend the rest of the show reporting the shooting story. But he lied, because he spent the entire show attacking what liberals and the media were saying about the shooting. And it was just ridiculous, O'Reilly had Republican after Republican on to cry about how the media was reporting the story, and what they were saying about Palin and Bachmann.

Instead of actually reporting the story, which is what real journalists do, O'Reilly spent the entire hour crying about what the NY Times (op-ed page) said about it, Paul Krugman, Dick Durbin, and the rest of the media. It was just ridiculous, and I could barely even watch it.

O'Reilly also defended what Palin and Bachmann did, while at the same time he said the left does it too, which is mostly a lie. The left has done something similar, but it's very rare, and nobody from the left has ever got a gun and went and killed a Republican, so to say it's equal is just insane. Republicans go get guns and kill liberals, this is a fact, look at Dr. Tiller, and all the abortion doctors who have been shot or killed, the right does that.

And now we have Congresswoman Giffords who was shot. It's not equal, because nobody on the left is using guns to kill Republicans. That is the big difference O'Reilly does not seem to understand.

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to agree with him, which they did. The 3 of them slammed Clarence Dupnik, the Sheriff of Arizona's Pima County, who implied that "vitriolic" criticism of Gabrielle Giffords' politics played a role in Saturday's massacre. Without even reporting that the Congresswoman herself warned people that the Palin crosshair map could lead to violence. And not once did O'Reilly mention that Palin removed the crosshair map from her website after the shooting, which is pretty much admitting it should not have been there in the first place.

Then O'Reilly had Tammy Bruce and Leslie Marshall on to debate if violent rhetoric is ok in politics. And of course O'Reilly and Bruce said it is, but Marshall said it is not ok. Bruce even praised Sarah Palin, which is just laughable. I would also like to point out that the so-called Democrat lied for O'Reilly, she said he never uses violent rhetoric, and that is a lie.

Because just recently O'Reilly joked that Dana Milbank from the Washington Post should be be-headed, he has joked that many liberals should be waterboarded, and he called Dr. tiller, Tiller the Baby Killer, said he is the devil with blood on his hands, and said he was a baby murderer. And that is just what I remember off the top of my head.

Then he had Brit Hume on for a segment, and Bernie Goldberg for a segment. I will not report it all, but basically they both agreed with O'Reilly, and they spent their time attacking the left and the media for what they said about the shooting, instead of reporting the actual story, they just cried about what other people said about it.

Goldberg did one thing that was really crazy, he had O'Reilly put up a map of America from the DNC that was a few years old, and it had icons on it that showed what Republicans they want to beat. Then the crazy Goldberg said it was the very same thing as the Palin target map with the rifle scope crosshairs. WHAT? Are you fricking kidding me, what an idiot. The DNC map had circle shaped icons, that were not scope crosshairs, so there is no comparison, and Goldberg is crazy. Not to mention O'Reilly let him make the insane comparison without saying a word.

Earth to Goldberg and O'Reilly, circle shaped icons on a map are ok, rifle scope crosshairs are not. There is a big difference. Learn it, live it, then get a fricking clue. And btw, at the end of the Goldberg segment O'Reilly said the media's exploitation of the shooting is their "the lowest point ever." What an idiot.

In the final segment O'Reilly had 2 more Republicans on, James Rosen and Carl Cameron analyzed the prospective political ramifications of the Arizona tragedy. With no Democratic guests, none. Only 1 Democratic guest was on the entire show. So it was basically 99% right-wing spin on the shooting, and the media reporting on it.



In closing, this show was a joke. It was not journalism, not even close, it was a partisan attack on the left (and the media) for what they were saying about the shooting. And not once in the entire show did O'Reilly or any Republican guest say the Palin scope crosshair map was wrong to do, O'Reilly even defended it and then said the left does the same thing, when they do not.

Not once did O'Reilly or anyone say the violent gun rhetoric from Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Angle, etc. is wrong, except for the 1 Democratic guest Leslie Marshall. And the left is not saying they are to blame for the shooting, that is spin from O'Reilly, they are just saying the violent gun rhetoric may have helped to cause the guy shoot the Congresswoman.

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

A Few Republicans Admit Violent Rhetoric Wrong
By: Steve - January 11, 2011 - 9:30am

Most Republicans are defending the violent rhetoric from people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, etc. But a few are admitting it is wrong, and that it needs to stop.

And what makes it worse is that most Republicans are saying the left is wrong to attack Palin and Beck for the violent rhetoric, including O'Reilly, who went after the media and the left, for simply saying the violent rhetoric and rifle scope crosshairs on a target map is wrong.

Here is a question for O'Reilly, if the Palin scope crosshair icon target map was not wrong, why did she take it off her website after Giffords was shot, answer that one smart guy.

Conservatives and tea party activists have reacted with rage to what they view as accusations from the left that they are somehow responsible for this weekend's massacre in Arizona that targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

In reality, progressives are not trying to assign blame or argue that shooter Jared Lee Loughner is a member of any political movement, but rather to point out that words have consequences. Political and pundit leaders need to be aware that their words will reach the serious and the crazy, and that their rhetoric should not serve to inflame ignorance.

Some conservatives understand this. An unnamed senior Republican senator told Politico yesterday that "there is a need for some reflection here -- what is too far now?"

And on MSNBC Monday morning, former GOP congressman Joe Scarbrough and conservative Pat Buchanan agreed that right-wing firebrands like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) should apologize for their violent rhetoric -- not to assume any culpability for the tragedy, but to simply acknowledge that "they've been irresponsible in their rhetoric."
SCARBOROUGH: So Pat, is this not a time for people, like Sarah Palin, who have used violent imagery - she just has. I know some of my conservative friends and family members won't like that reality. Or, Michele Bachmann, who said she wants Minnesotans armed and dangerous.

Isn't this an opportune time for them to apologize -– not saying that it led to anything — but just saying that they've been irresponsible in their rhetoric and they're going to be more careful moving forward? I am just saying though, I mean, God, you've worked for two presidents. Would you not be in there if you were working for Sarah Palin right now, saying, go out and say it had nothing to do with this shooting, but you understand that it was irresponsible, and you’re going to be more careful moving forward. Wouldn't you give her that advice if you were her aide?

PAT: Well, I certainly would. I would give everybody the advice to tone down the rhetoric and get away from military and the armed metaphors and things that a lot of us have used in campaigns, especially at a time like this. You know, I sure would Joe.
Now think about this, you have two conservatives saying that, not liberals. But O'Reilly was spinning it to claim only the left is saying Palin, Beck, Angle, and Bachmann need to tone it down. Earth to O'Reilly, it's not just the left saying tone it down.

Dick Morris Caught Lying Again (What's New)
By: Steve - January 11, 2011 - 9:00am

Once again the insane Dick Morris (who is a weekly Factor regular) was caught lying again. And if you notice Morris is caught in all these lies, but O'Reilly never calls him on any of it.

Now Morris was caught lying about the economy and spending, he said this to Gretchen Carlson on Fox & Friends Friday morning:
MORRIS: Well, great. Cut spending. If Obama feels so strongly about it, hey, be my guest. Say yes. Go ahead with the spending cut, and then the Republicans will give them the debt limit. You can't have it both ways.

And the economic team -- if you call it that, what a group of schlemiels around Obama -- they say that the spending is crucial to our economic recovery. And the more they spend, the deeper we've gone into this recession. Now they want to spend more and continue that.

It is obvious that the thing you have to do to get out of this recession is cut government spending, so that you can give the private sector room to breathe and expand and grow. And Obama doesn't get this.

So the Republicans have got to jam it down his throat. And the way to get him to do that is to take a bill that he knows he has to sign and only give it to him with spending cuts included.
And now the facts: Most Economic Experts Agree That TARP, And The Stimulus Helped Avert A Depression.

-- Economists widely agree that the stimulus helped prevent an even worse economic collapse or even a depression.

-- An August 2010 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimated that the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate "by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and also "raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent."

-- The stimulus also increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and

-- The stimulus also increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise.

In July, former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alan Blinder and Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi issued a report showing that the "multifaceted and bipartisan" response to the financial crisis, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, had a "huge" effect on real GDP, jobs, and inflation, and "probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0."

Even the right-wing Chamber of Commerce supported the Obama stimulus. A July 14, 2010, article quoted Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as saying that the Chamber backed the stimulus because "we thought we were days away from a global recession."

The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12, 2010, that 70 percent of the economists they surveyed agreed that the stimulus boosted growth and slowed job losses.

And on top of all that, History shows that cutting spending slows growth and hurts an economic recovery. So who are you going to believe, the proven lying right-wing hack, Dick Morris, or everyone else.

I think I'll go with everyone else, especially when they are the economic experts, and Morris is just a paid right-wing spin doctor. Take note that O'Reilly never reports any of what I just did, making him just as bad as Morris for not correcting his lies.

O'Reilly Ignoring Job Growth Reducing Deficit
By: Steve - January 11, 2011 - 8:30am

Here is yet another example of how O'Reilly ignores good news that makes Obama look better. O'Reilly has fixated on debt and deficit spending in advance of an expected dust-up over a vote to extend the nation's debt ceiling.

But this ignores the effect that the recession has had on the nation's bottom line. Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that federal revenue in the final three months of 2010 was 8 percent higher than the same period a year earlier -- largely due to the improving economic conditions:
Revenues through December totaled about $531 billion, $43 billion more than in the same period last year.

Most of that net increase stems from higher withholding of individual income tax and social insurance payroll taxes, which rose by $33 billion (or 8 percent) in the first quarter because of strengthening economic conditions.

Revenues also increased because individual tax refunds were lower than the abnormally high amounts for the same period a year before.
It's really quite simple, as unemployed workers return to the workforce, they stop receiving unemployment insurance (a federal expenditure) and begin to pay withholding taxes (a federal revenue).

And O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, because it shows that job growth is lowering the deficit, and that makes Obama look good. O'Reilly screams bloody murder about the deficit, but when news comes out showing the deficit getting better, he is as silent as a mouse.

Republican Wants To Repeal Food Safety Law
By: Steve - January 10, 2011 - 9:30am

As if you needed more proof Republicans are insane, just read this. Tuesday, President Obama signed into law a food safety bill that upgrades the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to prevent and respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent last month, and the House passed it on a 215-144 vote, with ten Republicans joining all but eight Democrats in affirming the measure.

Despite this bipartisan support, the incoming Republican leadership in the House is threatening to defund the bill, the implementation of which requires $1.4 billion over the next five years, mostly to hire new food inspectors. The bill is officially deficit neutral, according to the Congressional Budget Office, as it raises fees to offset its cost, but Congressional appropriators still need to okay the FDA to spend the money.

Now think about that for a minute, it's a lousy $1.4 billion over 5 years, and it's paid for, so it does not add a dime to the deficit. But Republicans are still going to try and kill it by defunding it, when it will be used to hire new food inspectors so we can have safe food to eat.

And remember this, one out of six Americans suffer from a foodborne illness every year, with 128,000 of those resulting in hospitalization, and 3,000 people die from foodborne illness each year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The law gives the FDA the ability to force recalls, which it currently is barred from doing, and do more to inspect food coming into the country.

But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), the incoming chairman of the appropriations subcommittee charged with the FDA budget, says we do not need more food inspectors. Kingston said this:
KINGSTON: There's a high possibility of trimming this whole package back, Kingston said yesterday in a telephone interview.

While it's a great re-election tool to terrify people into thinking that the food they're eating is unsafe and unsanitary, and if not for the wonderful nanny-state politicians we'd be getting sick after every meal, the system we have is doing a darn good job.
This is madness, it cost nothing and we will have more food inspectors, who could be against that, I'll tell you who, the idiots in the Republican party, that's who.

Aside from the public health benefits, the bill will actually save taxpayers money, while costing them nothing. According to Georgetown University's Produce Safety Project, foodborne illness costs the U.S. $152 billion a year.

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about it, or call them pinheads, because he is a Republican and he does not want to make his friends look bad, so he ignores the whole story.

Lou Dobbs Caught Lying About Premium Increases
By: Steve - January 10, 2011 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on the Factor last week to talk about premium increases announced by Blue Shield of California. Where he promptly blamed the increases on the Obama health care reform plan. And O'Reilly did not dispute the claim, in fact, he agreed with Dobbs.
DOBBS: In the case of rising premiums, because drugs are costing more, medical care is costing more, but what is going on in the instances in which -- we talk about Blue Shield for example in California, a 59 percent hike in premiums. That is the result of a death spiral that has been initiated by Obamacare.
Even though it's a lie, they both put out the false claims. Think about this, O'Reilly did not have a spokesman from Blue Shield or anyone on to give the counterpoint, or to deny the Dobbs claims. When they knew that Blue Shield was saying the increases had nothing to do with the Obama health care reform plan.

This is evidence that they knew they were lying, otherwise O'Reilly would have had a spokesman from Blue Shield on the show to discuss it. Instead it was just 2 right-wing spin doctors (O'Reilly & Dobbs) spinning out lies about the premium increases.

And now the facts:

A Blue Shield spokesman said the rate increases "have almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law" and "reflect trends that were building long before health reform."

From a January 6 Bloomberg report:
Nonprofit insurer Blue Shield of California submitted a proposal to raise rates on individual policyholders by as much as 59 percent beginning March 1.

The San Francisco-based company said the increase was necessary because of rising provider fees, greater use of medical services by its members, and "the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy," Johnny Wong, a company spokesman, said today in an e-mail.

About 193,000 policyholders will see higher rates that will average about 30 percent, Blue Shield's Wong said. He couldn't cite a number for those who would face the 59 percent increase. Blue Shield of California has about 3.3 million members, he said.

The increases "have almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law," and "reflect trends that were building long before health reform," Wong said in the e-mail.
Take note of 2 things here: 1st, Blue Shield says the premium increases have almost nothing to do with the Obama health care plan. That was not reported by O'Reilly or Dobbs, which is dishonest journalism. Honest journalists would have at least reported that Blue Shield denies the rate increases are due to the Obama health care plan.

And 2nd, Blue Shield says the rate increases for about 200,000 policyholders will only be 30 percent, not the 59 percent O'Reilly and Dobbs claimed. In fact, Blue Shield spokesman Johnny Wong said they do not know how many people will actually see the 56 percent increase. While both O'Reilly and Dobbs implied EVERYONE was going to get a 56 percent increase.

The worst part is that neither O'Reilly or Dobbs reported any of the above information. As they claim to be fair and balanced non-partisan impartial journalists who tell the truth. Then they get caught spinning out lies to make Obama and his health care plan look bad.

This is not journalism, it's right-wing lies, and nothing but dishonest partisan propaganda, from not only Lou Dobbs, but Bill O'Reilly too. Now I would expect this from Sean Hannity, Beck, etc. But O'Reilly claims to be an honest non-partisan journalist, then he gets caught doing this.

Which proves once again that O'Reilly is no better than Hannity or Beck, and that he is as much of a right-wing partisan hack as they are. What say you O'Reilly, how come you did not report what Blue Shield said, you hack.

O'Reilly Busted For Lying About The Deficit
By: Steve - January 9, 2011 - 9:00am

In O'Reillyworld all the debt over the last 4 years is all to blame on Obama and the Democratic party. O'Reilly said this on Tuesday night:
O'REILLY: Many Factor viewers have emotion invested in the repeal of the federal health care takeover. It symbolizes to them all that is wrong in America -- an intrusive federal government, a curtailing of individual freedom, and an assault on the free marketplace. But it is not the most important issue facing Americans right now. Massive government spending is. And, of course, Obamacare is part of that.

Over the past four years since Democrats have control of Congress, the amount of money that the USA owes has increased by an astounding $5.2 trillion. That is simply unsustainable. Right now, every American citizen owes about $45,000 each. President Bush could have vetoed the big spending bills. He did not. And his successor, President Obama, has embraced spending at record levels. This must stop.
And now the facts, almost every word of that is a lie. Let's start with the Obama health care plan. O'Reilly claims Obamacare is part of that massive deficit, but the CBO report says the Obama health care bill will cut the "deficit" by $130 billion in the 1st 10 Years, and $1.2 trillion in the 2nd 10 Years. This is from the non-partisan CBO report, and yet O'Reilly claims it will add to the deficit, when the facts show the opposite.

Then O'Reilly said that over the past four years since Democrats have control of Congress, the amount of money that the USA owes has increased by an astounding $5.2 trillion.

And that is also mostly a lie, O'Reilly is lying to you. Not about the deficit increase, but who caused it. O'Reilly blames it all on the Democrats in Congress and President Obama. This is ridiculous, and about as big of a right-wing lie that you will ever see.

To begin with, Bush and the Republican party had the majority in the House and the Senate from 2001 to 2007. The Democrats only got control of the House in January of 2007, and during that 2 years from January 2007 until January 2009, they had no power, none, zero. They did nothing, because Bush was in the White House, and the Republican still had control of the Senate.

For that 2 years the only thing that passed was done by the Republicans, and Bush signed it. And yet, O'Reilly counts that 2 years of deficit increases on the Democrats, when they had no part in any of it, because they had no power. It was all done by George W. Bush and the Republicans. During that 2 years $3 trillion dollars was added to the deficit, by Bush and the Republicans. Which O'Reilly dishonestly blames on the Democrats.

Now we get to January of 2009, Obama is sworn in as President. He gets a $787 billion dollar stimulus bill passed, that saved the country from a depression, and he gets the monthly job losses down from 700,000 a month under Bush, to a positive monthly job gain by late 2009. Which O'Reilly gives him no credit for, and it actually kept us out of a depression.

And what O'Reilly also fails to mention is the date the federal budget (FY) goes from. The fiscal year budget goes from October to October. So Obama did not submit his first budget until after October of 2009, and it was not approved until a couple months after that, up to that point you are still on the Bush budget.

What O'Reilly did was count all the Bush debt against Obama, and then say Obama and the Democrats added $5 trillion to the debt in the last 4 years. Which is a 100% total right-wing propaganda lie. The Obama budget did not even really start until almost January of 2010, and yet, O'Reilly still counted it all against Obama, when it was mostly the Bush debt.

O'Reilly is spinning it like a right-wing lunatic, because since the Obama budgets have started the debt has gone up about $2 trillion, and $787 billion of that was the stimulus that saved us from going into a depression. Most of that $5 trillion was from Bush, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the Bsh tax cuts, and the recession Bush cause also added to the deficit.

Some of it was also from the financial bailout of the banks, that Bush signed, not Obama. But most of it was from the Bush tax cuts, on top of a recession. O'Reilly never mentions any of that.

Almost all the experts agree that most of the deficit is the result of the Bush policies, the Bush Wars, and the recession. But crazy O'Reilly blames it all on the Democrats who had no power from 2007 until 2009, and Obama.

Here are the FACTS:

In a January 7, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected, based on spending authorized under the Bush administration, that the federal deficit in FY2009 would total $1.2 trillion. According to the CBO, the actual federal deficit for FY2009 was $1.4 trillion. [CBO, January 2009 and January 2010]

In an August 2009 analysis, (CAP) concluded that about two-thirds of the then-projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 could be attributed to either Bush's policies or the economic downturn. Here is a quote from the report:
As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009.

Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent--despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies--fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping--contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation.

When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.

President Obama's policies have also contributed to the federal deficit--but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration. [CAP, 8/25/09]
As you can see the Obama deficit increases were 16 percent of the deficit, let me repeat that, the Obama deficit increases were 16 percent of the deficit. The other 84% of the defict is from the Bush administration and the Republican party. This is a FACT, a cold hard FACT.

That is not all either, the CBPP report said this: "Virtually The Entire Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Is Due To Bush Policies, And The Economic Downturn."

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, most recently updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers."

From the report:
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame.

Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies.

Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
A Harvard Business group even backs up their report. Here is what the Harvard Business Review Group Director said: "The Giant Deficit Is Mainly The Result Of The Collapse In Tax Receipts Brought On By The Recession."

In an October 2010 post on his Reuters blog, Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review Group, analyzed the deficit and concluded that it was "mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession."

But O'Reilly never reports any of that, then he blames it all on the Democrats who had control of the House for 2 years from 2007 to 2009, even though they had no power, and got no spending bills passed, and then he blames the rest on Obama, when 84% of it was from the past or current Bush budget and or policies, like tax cuts, a financial crisis, wars, and a recession.

What say you Billy, you lying right-wing idiot!

The Factor Pinheads & Patriots Is Just Stupid
By: Steve - January 9, 2011 - 8:30am

Let me give you 2 examples of the O'Reilly Factor pinheads and patriots. And you will see why I say it is lame and stupid.

Example #1:

Thursday night O'Reilly had his old right-wing viewers vote if Kevin Spacey was a pinhead or a patriot, for simply doing an impersonation of Johnny Carson on the Jimmy fallon show.

Here is what O'Reilly wrote on his website: "In Thursday's P or P voting, 78% of you thought Kevin Spacey's impression of Johnny Carson was downright patriotic."

Okay, so 78% voted patriot, now what kind of moron would vote him a pinhead for simply doing an impersonation of Johnny Carson. The Factor viewers, that's what kind. And then you have to wonder Spacey is a patriot, for simply doing an impersonation on a comedy show.

That is not being a patriot, or a pinhead, it was just comedy by doing an impersonation. So the whole question was just stupid. think about this, we have 309 million people in America, and that is what O'Reilly picked for the pinhead or patriot vote, are you kidding me.

A patriot is a fireman, policeman, EMT drivers, nurses, someone who joins the military, or donates big money to charity, those are patriots, not a movie star doing an impersonation on a comedy show. And how could he be a pinhead for doing it, that is also stupid, because it was done for comedy on a comedy show.

Example #2:

On the Friday show O'Reilly picked Vice President Joe Biden, who gave this advice to some young girls: "Remember, no dates until you're 30 years old." Is the VP's advice pinheaded or patriotic? You make the call.

Are you for real O'Dummy, Biden was joking, it was a joke, do you know what a joke is. So you pick that nonsense for the pinhead or patriot vote, give me a break.

And those are just 2 examples, most of them are even more stupid than that. In fact, O'Reilly almost never picks a real patriot or a real pinhead for the vote, it's usually tabloid garbage. Not to mention, half the time what they do does not make them a pinhead or a patriot.

So there is not always an either or choice, as in Kevin Spacey, I would not say he was a pinhead or a patriot for what he did. O'Reilly just mails it in, as if he did not take the time to find something to vote on that made sense.

So here is my advice to O'Reilly, dump the pinhead or patriot vote, it's a farse, and it does not even make sense most of the time. Go back to naming a pinhead and a patriot, and name some real patriots, like someone in the military, a nurse, fireman, doctor, policeman, etc. or drop the whole thing, because it just makes you look like a fool.

And if you do go back to naming a pinhead and a patriot, do it without the bias you had before, name a liberal pinhead, a conservative pinhead, a liberal patriot, and a conservative patriot. Otherwise, you should drop the whole thing because it's just stupid.

Democratic Congresswoman Shot In Arizona
By: Steve - January 9, 2011 - 8:00am

A gunman nearly unloaded a semiautomatic weapon at a busy supermarket Saturday during a public gathering for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, wounding the Democrat and killing Arizona's chief federal judge and five others in an attempted assassination that left Americans questioning whether divisive politics had pushed the suspect over the edge.

The shooting targeted Giffords and left the three-term congresswoman in critical condition after a bullet passed through her head. A shaken President Barack Obama called the attack "a tragedy for our entire country."

Giffords, 40, is a moderate Democrat who narrowly won re-election in November against a tea party candidate who sought to throw her from office over her support of the health care law. Anger over her position became violent at times, with her Tucson office vandalized after the House passed the overhaul last March and someone showing up at a recent gathering with a weapon.

The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it occurring in Arizona.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.


A 22 year old white male in Arizona shoots a Democratic Congresswoman, sounds like a right-wing gun nut to me, but right now that is just a guess.

And now the question is, will O'Reilly report this story, and will he call for the right to tone down the violence. I would also not be shocked to find out that the shooter watched Fox, and Glenn Beck. Not to mention Palin having the Congresswoman on her target list with a rifle scope crosshair map marker.

This is a warning to Palin and Beck, when you use those kinds of violent images and violent talk you are sending a message to the crazy people in your party, and this is the kind of thing that happens. I bet O'Reilly reports it on Monday, and denies Fox or Palin or Beck had anything to do with it.

Palin Removes Target Map After Shooting
By: Steve - January 8, 2011 - 7:30am

Critics of Sarah Palin have already drawn a link between the shooting and the fact that the former Alaska governor put Giffords on a "target list" of lawmakers Palin wanted to see unseated in the midterm elections.

In March, Palin released a map featuring 20 House Democrats that used crosshair rifle scope images to show their districts.

Critics suggested at the time that she was inciting violence by using the crosshairs imagery and for later writing on Twitter to her supporters, "'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!'"

"We're paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election," Palin wrote when she released the target list.

She specifically cited Giffords and then went to say: "We'll aim for these races and many others."

And now think about this, the Palin defenders are already saying her target map or violent language had nothing to do with it. Okayyyyy, if that's the case, why did Palin only take the crosshair target map down after the shooting, that is admitting it was wrong to have it in my book.

If Palin thinks the target map is ok, then why take it down after the shooting, what say you Sarah. And boy will I be waiting until Monday to see how O'Reilly spins this one. I bet he never says a word about the Palin target map.

O'Reilly Tells The Best Joke of 2011
By: Steve - January 8, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Thursday night O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly told the best joke of the year, so far. During a segment with Juan Williams O'Reilly said this: "What We Say Here Is Not Ideologically Driven. We Tell You The Truth."

And now I am not going to call O'Reilly a liar, I will just say that he is 100% wrong. And I will also say that he is just delusional. Not to mention, that is the funniest thing I have ever heard, because O'Reilly is as ideological as a person can get, and that is a fact. O'Reilly has a 95% Republican bias himself, and he has 95% Republican guests, that spin out the right-wing opinion 95% of the time.

So how in the hell is that not being Ideological. And he almost never tells the truth, most of the time it's his opinion on a story or an issue, or he just gives one side of the story, the right-wing side, or both, that's being Ideological, and to deny it is flat out dishonest.

The Friday 1-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 8, 2011 - 9:00am

The TPM was called NBC, John Boehner and Obama-care. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: You can make a case that NBC News is the most liberal major news agency in the country. Yesterday NBC anchor Brian Williams interviewed Speaker Boehner and health care was the headline. Williams asked Boehner where he is 'getting the notion that the American people want it repealed?'

A new Gallup poll says 46% of Americans favor full repeal of the health care law, while 40% oppose the repeal. It is the job of Brian Williams to challenge the Speaker; however, he used selective information in his questioning. The truth is that while most of the American media stand firmly behind Obama-care, the folks don't.

Many Americans do not want the federal government running the health care industry. There is no question that American health insurance companies are raising premiums big-time right now. Obviously this is killing jobs and individual budgets and the feds must do something to stop the madness.

But a takeover is not the answer; strict oversight and tough insurance regulations are. There are solutions to these complicated problems short of the feds dictating our health care needs. Find them, and repealing Obama-care could become a reality despite presidential resistance.
Now to begin with 46 percent is not even a majority, and 46 to 40 is pretty even, if just 3 percent more support the Obama health care plan it's 43 to 43, so by saying 46 to 40 means most Americans favor repeal, that is dishonest. Because to say MOST American oppose it you would need close to 70%, when just 51% would be a small majority. O'Reilly sure loves to spin polls, and this is a prime example.

Not to mention this, O'Reilly fails to report that some of that 46 percent would support it if it had the public option, which would have actually given the insurance companies some competition, and O'Reilly opposed that. Now he complains about higher rates, when he opposed the part of the bill that would have lowered rates. He is also basically telling the 40% that want it, to go to hell. So Mr. I am looking out for you, is saying to hell with you, because 6 percent more want it repealed.

And finally, you can not always do what's right for the country based on polls, I bet there was a time when 46% of the people supported slavery, but we made it illegal anyway. And what if 46% of the people want to legally carry machine guns, or what if 46% of the people want cocaine legal, we would not do that just because the people want it.

Now get this, then O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on to agree with him, which he did, the 2 of them debated it with no debate, because they both agreed with each other. What's funny is watching 2 multi-millionaires cry about a small increase in their health care bills, when they make the increase in about 2 seconds. Dobbs said it's a bad health care plan, and O'Reilly agreed, what a shocker, not. Here is my advice to O'Reilly and Dobbs, shut up already. If you jerks had supported the public option your rates would not have went up, and you can afford it anyway, so shut the hell up.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy far right Karl Rove on to discuss it, and he went political. But he went insane political, he said the repeal could pass the Senate, which is just ridiculous, and that will never happen. Rove said this: "I think repeal will be very close and it could pass the Senate. All the Republicans will vote to repeal."

Wrong, idiot. It will never pass the Senate, and you know it. Rove is just trying to justify the waste of time and money vote by the Republicans, he is spinning it, as usual. And if by some miracle it did pass, which it wont, Obama will veto it, and there will never be enough votes to cancel his veto, and Rove knows it. Because Obama is never going to sign a repeal of his own health care bill that he worked on for a year to get passed.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the far right (so-called analyst) Michael Scheuer on to talk about Sudan, terrorism and celebrities. What a joke, this guy Scheuer is abiased right-wing hack, pretending to be an impartial analyst. He is as political and biased as Rove or Ingraham, or any right-winger, so his opinion is biased.

Now get this, he attacked George Clooney for his work in Sudan, are you kidding me, what kind of a nut would attack Clooney for trying to help the Sundan, a nut called Michael Scheuer that's what kind. Scheuer said that celebrities like George Clooney may unwittingly be aiding terrorism, he said this: "The movie stars have been arguing for U.S. intervention, and now they're supporting the secession of the southern half of Sudan. That would rob the country of its oil reserves, taking it from a Muslim country and giving it to a new Christian country. Whether or not you are sympathetic with their goals, this is just making more trouble for the United States in the Muslim world."

That is so insane even O'Reilly disagreed with Scheuer, and defended Clooney, yes you heard me right, O'Reilly defended George Clooney, a man he hates. Billy said this: "When you have all of these people in the southern part of Sudan being raped and murdered, I don't think it's a bad thing for these movie stars to draw attention to it. We can't stand on the sidelines while hundreds of thousands of people are murdered and raped."

Then Geraldo was on to report on the case against Michael Jacksons doctor, dont care, this is tabloid news and I do not report it. This is a topic for Inside Edition, not a so-called real news show.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the total con man Glenn Beck on who totally endorsed the Republican effort to repeal the health care reform bill, beck said this: "It's going to destroy us, so let President Obama veto this repeal. He's a political coward who doesn't take responsibility for anything. Let him have this and own it alone."

Beck also wished for a speedy Supreme Court ruling on the bill, Beck said this: "It is unconstitutional and if this goes to the Supreme Court this year, that would be great. But if you allow the structure of Obama-care to be built and implemented, you're never going to take it apart."

And all I have to say to that is of course it will go down in the Supreme Court, because there are 5 Republicans on the court, and it will be a 5 to 4 vote. That does not make it right, it just shows how much power a party has when they stack the deck with right-wing Supreme Court judges.

Finally the last segment was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville. And I pick O'Reilly, for doing this segment, it is not only the dumbest thing of the week, it's the dumbest thing I have ever seen on a so-called real news show. Neville picked the Toddlers & Tiaras tv show on TLC, because a 3 year old girl did a lady gaga impersonation. Gutfeld picked the French publication Le Monde, which named WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange its Man of the Year. And O'Reilly picked Nancy Pelosi of course. Notice they never pick any Republicans.

And btw folks, look at the guest list. O'Reilly spent most of the show talking about the waste of time vote to repeal the Obama health care bill by the Republicans. Notice anything missing, DEMOCRATIC GUESTS to debate it. Not one DEMOCRATIC GUEST was on the entire show to discuss it. So how the hell do you debate an issue when you only have one side of the debate, with nobody to provide the counterpoint.

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

The Thursday 1-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 7, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Figuring out the Constitution. Billy said this:
O'Reilly: Today in the House of Representatives some members of Congress read the Constitution aloud. Right now the Constitution is in play because of Obamacare and a few other issues, so let's take a look. Talking Points has said from the jump that the federal government cannot force you to buy something unless there is a public safety component.

Yes, Congress has the power to tax and can use the money any way it wants, but forcing citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, in my humble opinion. Then there are the 'anchor babies' born to illegal aliens on American soil. Under the 14th Amendment they automatically become citizens.

Do you think the country wanted that when it ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868? Of course not! That amendment was designed to make sure that freed slaves got citizenship; now it's used to encourage foreigners to sneak across our borders to give birth. Thus the Constitution is being misused, and there are many other examples.

The Founding Fathers created the Supreme Court to deal with these matters, but the Supreme Court is now politicized. Some liberals believe the Constitution is an 'evolving' document, while some conservative jurists say the original intent should always be upheld. The bottom line: The Supreme Court still rules and what it says goes. Democracy is a messy thing. Our system is the best, but it's flawed.
And of course O'Reilly supported the Republicans reading the Constitution, but if the Democrats did it he would be outraged that they were wasting time on that. O'Reilly cries about what he calls anchor babies, when the 14th amendment is clear, if you are born here you are a citizen, and it will never be changed. Not to mention, O'Reilly supports the 2nd amendment 100 percent, but you know the founding fathers would not want people having semi-auto and fully automatic guns covered under the 2nd amendment. When it was written they only had single shot musket loaders, but O'Hypocrite never says a word about that.

Earth to O'Reilly do some research, the supreme court has already ruled on th anchor baby issue, at least two times, and they upheld the 14th amendment, you idiot.

Then O'Liar had Juan Williams on to talk about Ellen Weiss, the executive who fired Juan Williams. She resigned, but O'Reilly said over and over that she was fired. So much for accurate reporting, O'Reilly lied about it saying she was fired at least 3 times. Then later in the segment he admitted she resigned, but he called it a firing again anyway. proving that he knew he was lying when he said she was fired.

But the really crazy part is when O'Reilly complained that NPR was not fair and balanced, like Fox News is, hahahahaha, yeahhhhhhhhh right. And I'm God too. Are you kidding me, talk about delusional, O'Reilly is the king of delusion.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, what a joke. Not one liberal or anyone from NPR was on to give the counterpoint, nobody. Just O'Reilly, Williams, and Ingraham spinning the story. Ingraham even speculated that nothing will change at NPR, but wait a minute, what happened to that no speculation rule Billy.

Ingraham said this: "It will be just a matter of time, before the same old creeping liberal elitism rears its ugly head at NPR. It's all about promoting liberal ideas, and liberalism is not about diversity of opinion or thought."

And what she said is exactly what fox News is, total right-wing bias. But her best comedic line was when she said Fox is the best News Network in America. Yeah and pigs can fly too. To begin with, Fox is not even a News Network, it's a propaganda arm of the Republican party. And if you do not believe that you should be locked up in a padded room. Fox was started by a partisan Republican so the Republican party could have a national platform to get it's propaganda out, not report the news. And that is a fact, a fact that Ingraham does not seem to understand.

Then O'Reilly had the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to talk about an MTV abortion special with Dr. Drew. O'Reilly, who dd not watch the entire special, claimed the show was glorifying abortion. O'Reilly slammed Dr. Drew, but the culture warriors both disagreed, even the far right Carlson disagreed.

Carlson said this: "I watched the entire episode, and I'm going to call it neutral. I was compelled by the story of one young girl - it was not a cavalier decision she made. I actually felt that this might deter young people from having abortions." Hoover made a point of defending the show's host, Dr. Drew Pinsky. "He was not calling these girls 'courageous' for having abortions; he was calling them 'courageous' for coming on television and describing their traumatic experiences. People watching this came away with a far deeper understanding of the complexity of the issue."

As far as I can remember this is the 1st time both of them disagreed with O'Reilly, and O'Reilly even admitted he could be wrong. So after getting slammed for being wrong, O'Reilly still complained that MTV's presentation was simply not tough enough, Billy said this: "I favor telling kids that if you get pregnant and you can not support that baby, that is irresponsible and you may have to kill a potential human being."

Then the Comedian Roseanne Barr was on to talk about her new book, Roseannearchy. Which I will not report on because she is a comedian and this is not news. It was kind of funny though, because she got a few shots in on Palin and Reagan, and of course O'Reilly defended both of them because they are his heroes. On a side note, from what I can tell Rosanne is not too smart, and she does not impress me at all, she even admitted that she is a socialist.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the court cases on the Obama health care plan. Kelly said this: "All these cases are percolating, and they all will go to the same place, the Supreme Court. If I'm President Obama, I don't really like my odds with this current Supreme Court, and you'd have to bet with the conservatives. I think the individual mandate portion of the law may be thrown out."

And for once she may be right, with 5 Republicans on the court it is almost a sure thing it will come down 5 to 4 against Obama. Then they talked about a case where the ACLU is arguing that non-citizens with green cards should be allowed to carry guns. As usual O'Reilly had the story all wrong, he was shocked the ACLU supports people carrying guns, when that is not really the case. Kelly said this: "The ACLU is saying that if you're going to let citizens carry guns, then you have to let the folks with the green cards do it, and that it's not okay under the equal protection clause to treat green card holders differently."

And the ACLU is right, but of course O'Reilly disagreed, and said the ACLU is on shaky grounds, even though he is not an attorney and she is. Kelly thinks the ACLU could win that case, and so do I.

Then the Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy, which I do not report on because it's not news, the highly edited Factor mail segment, and the lame pinheads and patriots.

O'Reilly Claims The Constitution Is Being Misused
By: Steve - January 7, 2011 - 9:00am

Now let me get this straight, Bill O'Reilly, who is not an attorney, and not a Constitutional expert, now claims the Constitution is being misused because illegal immigrants are having babies in America.

Which is just ridiculous, because before you could believe that you would have to not know what the 14th amendment says, and I quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And btw, how can the Constitution be misused by the parents of Anchor babies when they are simply going by what the 14th amendment says. They are going by the Constitution, and O'Reilly is the one who is misuing it by spinning out a bunch of right-wing mumbo jumbo.

Not to mention O'Reilly did not cite one legal case or ruling, but I will. The Supreme Court recently took up the question and found that, yes, undocumented immigrants (and their children) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by simple virtue of the fact that they are in the United States.

(Funny how O'Reilly failed to mention that)

In the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, the court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not deny to the children of undocumented immigrants public school services offered to the children of citizens.

Bam, you have just been punked O'Reilly, and exposed as the dishonest right-wing fraud you are.

And just for good measure I will cite 2 more legal cases on the issue.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that the "respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country."

And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was "born in Louisiana" and thus "is an American citizen," despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas.

And what this really shows, is just how much of a right-wing stooge O'Reilly is, because even when the law is clear and the 14th amendment says ANY child born in the United States is a citizen, O'Reilly still tries to spin out the right-wing propaganda on it.

Republican Leaders Caught In A Lie Already
By: Steve - January 7, 2011 - 8:30am

Wow, it sure did not take long for the Republican leadership to get caught in a lie, as in one day. The day after getting the majority in the House Republican leaders are already breaking a campaign promise. During the election they said if you vote for them, as soon as they get the majority they will cut $100 billion dollars from the budget.

And that would be a lie, because now they are saying they will only seek budget cuts in the $50 to $60 billion dollar range, and maybe as little at $30 billion. Which is like a dollar when you have a $3 trillion dollar budget.

Just one day after getting the majority they have been caught in a lie, and where is the great journalist Bill O'Reilly on this story. Are you kidding me, ignoring it as usual. Even after he said the Republicans will cut spending if you vote them in.

In one day they went back on the open amendment rule they said they would allow, and now they are caught lying about budget cuts. And O'Reilly says nothing, but when Obama went back on a campaign promise O'Reilly reported it twice a week for a month.

O'Reilly Insults Pelosi for Her Looks (Again)
By: Steve - January 7, 2011 - 8:00am

Once again O'Reilly has insulted Nancy Pelosi for her looks, during a segment with Dennic Miller Billy said this: Pelosi "Can't Blink With All The Stuff She's Got In Her Forehead."

Now what makes this so bad is the hypocrisy and the double standard. Because O'Reilly complains when what he calls the liberal media make jokes about Republican women, especially Sarah Palin. O'Reilly screams bloody murder when a comedian does a Palin joke, or when someone in the media insults Palin for her looks, or anything else, O'Reilly flips out and calls for it to stop.

Then he does the very same thing he complains about, he insults Pelosi for her looks, as does Dennis Miller, which is total hypocrisy, and a 100% double standard by O'Reilly. Now I do not care if Dennis Miller does it, because he is a comedian. But O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent journalist, and he complains when liberals do jokes about Republican women.

Here are my questions for O'Reilly, if you are a non-partisan Independent journalist, how come you never insult Republican women for their looks, what say you?

If you are a non-partisan Independent journalist, how come you never complain when Republican comedians do jokes about liberal women, what say you?

And if you are a non-partisan Independent journalist, how come you let Dennis Miller do jokes about liberal women, on your very own show, when you tell liberal comedians and journalists to stop making jokes about Republican women, what say you Billy?

The Wednesday 1-5-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 6, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Will the Republicans be looking out for you. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: It was a huge dog and pony show in Washington today as Nancy Pelosi stepped down and John Boehner became Speaker of the House. But will the G.O.P. look out for us? First on the agenda is a vote to repeal ObamaCare. As we've discussed, the vote sets the stage philosophically -- but there is no way President Obama's veto will be overridden.

But as Talking Points said last night, far more important than boxing President Obama in is putting forth dramatic spending cuts. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out today the country is not governed from the House. A guy as smart as Newt Gingrich made a major mistake when he got power in '94 by overreaching. Then President Clinton was able to capitalize and become the moderate in the face of conservative ideology.

The cold truth is most Americans are not ideological. They just want an efficiently-run country with honest politicians. The Republican Party does have a big chance this year. But it must be methodical, disciplined and reasonable. In the end we're all in this together, conservatives and liberals alike. We should all want a vibrant, fair-minded country.
And that whole thing is just laughable, because it's coming from a partisan right-wing hack, who works for the Fox News Network, spinning out right-wing propaganda 95% of the time. Talk about delusional, O'Reilly is delusional if he thinks anything he said in that TPM is true. The Republican are in bed with the wealthy, the corporations, and their lobbyists, they only care about them, as they pretend to care about the people, and if you doubt that you are not paying attention.

So what does O'Reilly do to top that propaganda, he puts the right-wing idiot Dick Morris on of course. Morris thought that the American people believed that the economy was being hurt by "the actions of the Obama administration, particularly the huge government spending, and the creation of ObamaCare. And I think they feel, correctly, that if they repeal that stuff we could grow again, economically."

Which is just ridiculous, because the only people who thought that were the Republicans. Morris is just spinning out the right-wing talking points. Because the economy is already improving, and if the Republicans had not blocked almost everything Obama wanted to do over the last 2 years, it would be improving even more. Just today it was reported that 103,000 new jobs were added in December, and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4%, the lowest rate in 19 months.

Not to mention the DOW is up 15% over the last 6 months, and it all points to improvment in the economy, but Morris ignores all that to spin out his lies, and O'Reilly lets him. Even though they both know it's a lie.

Morris predicted a Government shutdown if the Republicans can not repeal the Obama health care plan, and even O'Reilly disagreed. Then O'Reilly had Dennis Kucinich on to respond to Morris. Kucinich didn't think the GOP would go that far trying to repeal ObamaCare: "I don't think that John Boehner is going to move to try to create any kind of a shutdown. There will be an attempt to try to repeal the President's health care legislation. Frankly, the repeal will not happen. It'll probably pass the House, but it will be a dead letter in the Senate."

And Kucinich is exactly right, making what the Republicans are doing a total waste of taxpayer time and money. And they know it will not work, they are just doing it because they promised their crazy voters they would. And stupid O'Reilly supports them, because he is also a right-wing idiot. If the Democrats were doing this O'Reilly would scream bloody murder, but when Republicans do it he says it is the honorable thing to do.

Then O'Reilly had the far right nut job Kris Kobach on who wants to change the law that says every baby born in the U.S. is an automatic citizen. Which is just insane, and it will never happen, because of the 14th amendment. So it's not even worth talking about, it will never ever happen, and even O'Reilly told him it will never happen. But these crazy Republicans are going to waste everyone's time trying it anyway.

The next segment was with the CBS News Travel Editor Peter Greenberg, who was on to say if it was ok to vacation in Mexico. Greenberg said it was ok to go to the tourist areas, but O'Reilly said nobody should go to teach Mexico a lesson, whatever that means. And btw, with all the news out there this is what O'Reilly reports on, if you should go to Mexico or not, who fricking cares.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly segment, that I do not report on because it is not news, it's just a waste of time segment where Miller does jokes about Democrats.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. First up for review was the Doritos commercial that featured a priest handing out the snack chips for Communion. The video caused such a stir that Doritos pulled it from the contest that would have landed it a spot on the Super Bowl.

O'Reilly thought that it could hurt the company with some Christians who were offended. Huddy disagreed, pointing out that it was an independent production company that created the ad, and that Doritos was simply presenting the ad on its website. Huddy thought the whole thing was a bit of a publicity stunt: "It really was done by the production company to get a lot of attention. And it did."

Next up was a clip of David Letterman with NBC News anchor Brian Williams. Letterman was mocking John Boehner's crying, making Williams uncomfortable. Huddy wasn't surprised by the mockery: "News flash. He's a Republican. Boehner is a Republican, and Republicans get parodied every time on every late night talk show." O'Reilly thought that Williams shouldn't have acted so shocked, given the liberal bias of his channel: "Compared to the NBC News division, Letterman is a Boehner fan."

Here we go again, hypocrisy alert. O'Reilly is crying about Letterman doing a Boehner joke, when he puts Dennis Miller on his very own show every week to make jokes about Democrats. Earth to O'Reilly, Letterman is a COMEDIAN who makes a living doing jokes, the same as Miller does. So shut up you massive hypocrite.

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

O'Reilly Ignoring Wall Street Gains Under Obama
By: Steve - January 6, 2011 - 10:00am

Over the past year O'Reilly has constantly beat the drum that Wall Street and the markets do not like the liberal Obama policies. O'Reilly based that on one short term drop in the market, while ignoring all the gains in the market.

So let me show you just how dishonest O'Reilly has been, and think about this, O'Reilly never reports these numbers, because they prove he is a biased right-wing partisan hack. Here are the numbers for the DOW, for the last month, 3 months, 6 months, and the last year.

1 month change - Up 2.9%
3 month change - Up 6.6%
6 month change - Up 15.31%
1 year change - Up 10.46%

Those are the facts, the DOW is up 10.46% in the last year, under President Obama, proving that O'Reilly was not only wrong when he said the market is down because Wall Street does not like the Obama policies, it proves that O'Reilly was lying. Because he knew the market was going up, and he ignored it, that shows that he knew he was lying.

And btw folks, O'Reilly also said things were not getting better because the wealthy who own most business were not sure if Obama was going to extend the Bush tax cuts for them too, but the DOW went up 10.46% during that time anyway. Which shows that the wealthy and wall street thought things were getting better, otherwise the DOW would have been down. O'Reilly did not report it because it makes his argument look stupid, so he just ignores the fact that the market was up over 10 percent in the last year.

Republican Hypocrisy Strikes Again
By: Steve - January 6, 2011 - 9:30am

And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about it, even though he reported on it when the Democrats were doing it, and he cried about Democrats not letting Republicans vote on amendments to bills. So not only are the Republicans hypocrites, so is O'Reilly.

After winning the House in the November midterms, Republicans, who have long complained about Democratic stewardship of the lower chamber, promised to run the House in an open and transparent process, allowing the minority party to offer amendments on legislation and permitting time for fair debate. But as Democrats now prepare to offer counter amendments to the GOP's health care repeal bills, the GOP is walking back its pledge.

As the Washington Post reported Tuesday, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is saying "that the GOP will not allow what's known as an open rule" which would allow Democrats to introduce amendments. "It's a straightforward document," Cantor said of the legislation that would repeal the largest reform of America's health care system.

The procedural move also contradicts what Republicans wanted from Democrats throughout the health care debate. When the House first passed reform in November 2009 and then again in March 2010, Republicans insisted that they should be able to offer unlimited amendments to the legislation on the House floor and argued that all parts of the bill must first be debated in the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, which the GOP's repeal bills would bypass.

Dreier, the incoming chairman of the Rules Committee, defended the GOP's strategy last night on Fox News. Challenged by host Greta Van Susteren, "And so what's the story? You promised that there would amendments to the rules, and right out of the box, you're not doing it," Dreier insisting that the bill was just one sentence long. "Greta, let me just tell you the commitment that was made. The commitment was made that we would repeal the job-killing health care bill," he said.

And btw folks, the Obama health care bill is not a job killing health care bill, it would actually create thousands of new jobs, when people join the system they would need to hire more people to care for them.

Where is the great journalist Bill O'Reilly on this national news story, nowhere to be found. I guess he is too busy reporting on horse races, and the atheist billboards that nobody will see unless they are on a New Jersey highway.

Major Media Markets Dropping Beck's Radio Show
By: Steve - January 6, 2011 - 9:00am

Beck's radio network that launched the one-time failed "Morning Zoo" jock to national stardom in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks is going downhill fast. Because of low ratings. Beck will be off the air in America's largest media market, New York City, in a matter of days.
WOR (710 AM), one of the city's two biggest talk radio stations, said Tuesday morning it is dropping Beck's syndicated show as of Jan. 17 and replacing him with a familiar New York name: Mike Gallagher.

"The reason is ratings," said WOR program director Scott Lakefield. "Somewhat to our surprise, the show wasn't getting what we wanted."
To call this a major embarassment for Beck is an understatement. After all, he's been based in New York, where he tapes his nightly television show for Fox News Channel for the last four years. And he's not being replaced by some hot new up-and-coming talent, but a lower-priced and unexciting retread in longtime veteran Gallagher -- a clear sign that WOR isn't bluffing or exaggerating to say that Beck's ratings in the Big Apple were truly awful.

And that's not all, by Jan. 17 Beck is all but certain to be off the air in another major U.S. market, Philadelphia. When it was announced last fall that Philly's WPHT, then known as "The Big Talker," was adopting a more locally oriented format and dumping both Beck and Sean Hannity, there was widespread speculation that another local station would rush to pick up the right-wing free agents. That has not happened, and their Philadelphia run is slated to end next week.

There is also evidence that New York and Philadelphia are not a fluke, that Beck is bombing generally in the nation's population center on the Eastern Seaboard:
Despite a lineup featuring Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, conservative-based "Rush Radio" has yet to gain any traction with listeners in Boston.

The latest Arbitron PPM rankings have Clear Channel's WXKS-AM mired toward the bottom of the Beantown ratings heap, with an overall 0.7 in the November PPM and a cume of 81,000.

The Boston Herald reported that WXKS has a 0.2 rating and 45th place in the 25-54 demographic. That's lower than when the station played Spanish music.
These developments could have a significant and concrete impact on the radio side of Beck's business empire, because major national advertisers typically demand exposure in all top-10 national media markets, something that Beck will soon no longer be able to provide.

Clearly, Beck's reactionary message doesn't resonate in some of the more progressive bastions of the East Coast; Beck's movie-theatre events like "The Christmas Sweater" or "Broke" performed poorly in seaboard venues.

There may be a deeper problem for the radio host. Beck's radical anti-Obama message "we surround them" struck a chord with a newly scared minority of hardcore conservatives, but since then Beck's warnings and pronouncements have grown increasingly apocalyptic and dire in order to build and hold his audience, yet his predictions, hyperinflation, for example, which he also uses to pitch gold coins -- have not come true.

His short-term-successful efforts to cash in on his popularity have led to a strategy of massive overexposure, epitomized by the 8/28 rally in Washington but also including several books, and a non-stop schedule of public events with massive ticket prices, often $130 a ticket to hear him speak.

One such appearance at New Jersey's Great Adventure, drew a tiny crowd, an early hint of his radio ratings problems. So now Beck starts 2011 not by retrenching but by expanding, with new offerings, more paid content on the Internet and more shrill and desparate warnings about the fate of the Republic.

Like I said folks, beck is a con man who is getting rich by lying to the right-wing suckers who believe his nonsense. He is getting as much money as he can, while he can, before his house of cards goes crashing down. But by then he will be wealthy enough to retire, on the backs of all you fools who bought into his massive con game.

The Tuesday 1-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 5, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The real problem in America. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Many Factor viewers have emotion invested in the repeal of the federal health care takeover. It symbolizes to them all that is wrong in America -- an intrusive federal government, a curtailing of individual freedom, and an assault on the free marketplace. But it is not the most important issue facing Americans right now. Massive government spending is.

And, of course, Obamacare is part of that. According to data assembled by CBS News, over the past four years since Democrats have control of Congress, the amount of money that the USA owes has increased by an astounding $5.2 trillion. That is simply unsustainable. Right now, every American citizen owes about $45,000 each. President Bush could have vetoed the big spending bills. He did not.

And his successor, President Obama, has embraced spending at record levels. This must stop. And liberal Americans must also stop distorting the situation. Nancy Pelosi said today that 'Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra -- pay as you go.' That is simply not true. It is an outrageous spin. I'm not going to call the woman a liar. But what she said is flat out not true.

If the United States continues to run up debt, our economy will collapse and there's not going to be any bailout for us. It is long past time to stop the social justice nonsense and speak clearly to the folks. The federal government cannot afford to provide cradle to grave entitlements. It cannot afford to run around the world spending billions of dollars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It cannot afford the far-left vision of income redistribution using punitive taxation on business and affluent.

It can no longer afford to allow foreign citizens live here without proper documentation. All of that must stop right now. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama, and other powerful liberal politicians should get this simple message. We tried it your way. It didn't work. We are now heading for disaster.
Wow, where do you start de-spinning all that right-wing spin. To begin with, the CBO says the Obama health care plan will cut the deficit over time, not add to it as O'Reilly claims. Then O'Reilly blames the Democrats for the $5 trillion in spending over the last 4 years, when Bush was president for 2 years of that, and the spending by Obama was done to keep us out of a depression, O'Reilly never mentions any of that.

Then O'Reilly says he will not call Pelosi a liar, he will just say what she said is 100% not true. Ummmmm, huh? Earth to O'Reilly, that's calling her a liar, even if you then try to back out of it by saying she is delusional. Can you imagine O'Reilly calling a Republican speaker of the House, delusional, it will never happen.

And what's really funny is O'Reilly saying we cannot afford to run around the world spending billions of dollars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. When he supported both of those wars 100%, he even promoted them, as did all the Republicans and everyone at Fox. And when liberals said we should not do those wars, O'Reilly called them un-American traitors. Give me a break, O'Reilly is an idiot.

Then the moron says all of that must stop right now. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama, and other powerful liberal politicians should get this simple message. We tried it your way. It didn't work. What a load of bull, it did work, the Obama stimulus kept us out of a depression, and the economy is getting better, as is wall street. I guess O'Reilly missed all that, Obama had to spend all that money to fix the mess Bush left him. And O'Reilly ignored all that, as he blames it all on the Democrats, when Bush caused it all, Obama just fixed it.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it. And of course Crowley the right-wing stooge agreed with every word from O'Reilly, but Colmes did not. Colmes said this: "They're not going to overturn it. They're doing it, as I see it, as a stunt because they know they don't have the votes to do it." Then O'Reilly disagreed, saying that the repeal vote was symbolically important for the Republicans: "I don't think it's a waste of time. But I do think that the emphasis should be on the wild spending."

Are you kidding me, a vote that they know will never pass is not a waste of time, get real O'Dummy.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about an Atheist group that put up a billboard in Alabama that says all religions are scams. Which I will not report on because nobody cares, it's a local news story, not a national story. If you do not live in Alabama you would not even know it happened, and it was just a stupid billboard, so who fricking cares. O'Reilly actually helped them by putting the guy on a national tv news show to discuss it, instead of just ignoring it, what an idiot, haha.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked again about using the term illegal alien. He had two guests on from the Society of Professional Journalist group, who recently said that the term "illegal alien" is offensive to Hispanics. Which it is, the proper term is illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant or worker. And get this, just to rub their face in it, all during the show O'Reilly used the term illegal alien, and even had it on the screen in a graphic. Basically O'Reilly mocked them and made fun of them, and said if he wants to say illegal alien he will, and they can not stop him.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about a special he has this week about New Year's resolutions. Are you kidding me, who cares, I could care less about New Year's resolutions, or what Stossel has to say about them. How is this news, and what is it doing on a so-called hard news show. It's tabloid garbage, and that is about all I will say about that.

Then it was is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle to talk about a killing. Guilfoyle said this: "He came here from Iraq with his daughter. His daughter refused a marriage that he wanted her to engage in." She went on to explain that the father eventually ran over her with a car, killing her.

Wiehl said this: "He's saying this is an honor killing." O'Reilly was shocked: "He's hiding behind his religion, saying it gives him the right to murder his daughter?"

Wiehl said that's right. "But he doesn't understand the criminal justice system." Then Billy predicted an open and shut case that would take about two days.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far right neo-con Charles Krauthammer on to discuss the GOP plan to kill the Obama health care plan, which O'Reilly calls Obamacare, the negative term Republicans use for it.

Krauthammer said he actually liked the plan for the House to vote for repeal: "That's a good idea... It will carry all the way through till the presidential election. It will be a millstone around the necks of the Democrats."

But what Krauthammer didn't like was the plan to cut off funding for certain parts of it. He pointed out that the GOP could never shut off all the money: "The Republicans will end up taking away the money for a commission here, a provision here, adding to the chaos and the incoherence of it. And when Obama care, which is intrinsically chaotic, incoherent, inefficient, and extremely expensive, collapses, the Republicans will take the blame."

O'Reilly agreed and said he saw a trap for the GOP in trying to repeal the law, Billy said this: "There's some good stuff in that bill. And that's what the Democrats are going to grab onto. They want the greedy insurance companies to be able to throw you off the rolls after you get sick."

Then the lame and highly edited Factor mail, and the ridiculous pinheads and patriots. And btw, the real problem in America is the Republican party and Fox News. Who support all the massive spending for wars, corporate welfare, the lobbyists, and giving the wealthy tax cuts, instead of the middle class who actually need it.

Obama Approval At 50% And O'Reilly Is Silent
By: Steve - January 5, 2011 - 9:00am

For months on end when the Obama job approval would drop a point or two, O'Reilly would report it every night and say it was going down and down, and could get under 40% approval. That was when Obama was between 43 to 45 percent.

But now that the Obama job approval has been at 50% approval since last Sunday, O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse, he has not said a word about it. Because it kills his talking points that Obama was going downhill more and more every week, when it's actually went up since the mid-term elections.

Not to mention the Obama job approval has held steady for over a year, making the O'Reilly claims of a steady downward trend flat out lies. When he does is only report the down days when it is down a point or two, but when it goes up a point or two O'Reilly ignores that.

This is what O'Reilly does, dishonest poll cherry picking to make Obama look bad. But when his ratings are up, O'Reilly never says a word. And btw, he does the same thing with the stock market, when it was going down O'Reilly blamed it on Obama, he said it shows that wall street does not like the Obama policies, but when it goes up, O'Reilly is silent.

And for the record, during the last year when O'Reilly was saying wall street does not like the Obama policies, the DOW is up, yes I said up, in the last year the DOW is up 10.46 percent, to 11.691.18.

Not once has O'Reilly mentioned that fact, and O'Reilly did not even report when the DOW broke 11.000, but when it broke 10.000 under Bush O'Reilly was all over it.

Cavuto Caught Lying About His Own Charts
By: Steve - January 5, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is funny, Cavuto is so much of a right-wing hack, he was caught lying about what his own on screen graphics were saying.

On his Monday Fox Business show, Neil Cavuto was overjoyed at the news that the stock market had gained on 2011's first day of trading. Of course, Cavuto linked the bull market to the tax cut extension Congress passed last month. "As we start off a new year, it's time to recognize a familiar historic fact," Cavuto boasted, "When you cut taxes, good things happen."

During the segment, two on-screen graphics appeared showing countries corporate tax rates and corresponding stock performance in 2010. One graphic illustrated that the stock markets in countries with lower corporate tax rates than the U.S. -- Canada, Russia, Turkey, and South Korea -- all improved in 2010.

Cavuto said this:
CAVUTO: Alright, I should just explain to our viewers what we're showing, top corporate rates across the globe here. Some of that may be a little bit of a misnomer for a lot of folks watching at home.

In Russia for example, some of these other countries, they've been drastically cutting those top rates so it isn't all it appears to be. The trend is what decides things, so the trend for you, when [the corporate tax rate] is down means markets and economies go up.
The other graphic appeared again, with the chyron reading "taxes down, stocks are up," but the accompanying information clearly doesn't support that claim nor does it back up Cavuto's corporate tax rate theory. Not to mention, Cavuto ignores the Clinton years. Where the stock market boomed after Bill Clinton raised taxes 3 percent on the wealthy and the corporations.

So let me get this straight, according to the facts -- and the information provided by Cavuto's own graphics -- the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate among any of the eight countries listed (even though the effective tax rate is much lower). And yet, the U.S. stock performance increased 11 percent in 2010.

While, Italy's corporate rate was lower than the American rate in 2010, yet its stock market declined 13 percent in 2010. But according to Cavuto, lower corporate tax rates equals increased market performance. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Cavuto still spins out the right-wing talking points.

The Monday 1-3-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 4, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called War breaks out in Washington. Billy went on and on about the possible war that could break out when Republicans get control of the house. He talked about all the hearings the Republican plan to have, and then he had the Republican Peter King on to discuss it. O'Reilly also said the Republicans would be making a mistake if they try to repeal the Obama health care plan. He said some of it is good, and they should keep those parts.

In the next segment O'Reilly had a Democratic Congressman on to give his opinion. The Democratic Congressman sort of agreed and disagreed with O'Reilly, he said the Republicans will have hearings, but he hopes they will also spend their time trying to create jobs, which is what the people tell him they want them to do.

I also have to say that O'Reilly has new show music for 2011, haha, who cares. I guess he thinks new music will help, good luck with that.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss the issues and the new Republican majority in the House. Hume agreed with O'Reilly that it would be a mistake to do a total repeal of the Obama health care plan. Hume also admitted that it is not possible, because it will never pass the Senate, and Obama would never sign a bill to kill his own health care plan.

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to spin the NY snow removal story. O'Reilly, Ham, and Williams all put out the right-wing spin on it, based on the statement of ONE Republican city councilman. With nobody from the union, or the city to provide the other side of the story. Which is terrible journalism, that breaks every ethics rule or report a story they have. Even if it's true, you are still supposed to give both sides of the story, and we do not even know if it's true or not.

O'Reilly pulled the old SOME people say garbage, then he had a one sided biased segment with 2 Republican guests to spin it with him. It was just laughable, and the SOME people turned out to be ONE Republican councilman. And I have 2 other blog postings about it with more details, all the details O'Reilly failed to report.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg on to talk about a group of journalists who say calling undocumented mexicans "illegal aliens" is wrong. Which is is, because they are not aliens, they are people. The proper term is undocumented immigrant, or undocumented mexican, or even illegal mexican. Earth to O'Reilly and Goldberg, they are people, not aliens.

But of course O'Reilly and Goldberg slammed the group of journalists and made fun of them as out of touch. When they are right, and the people out of touch are O'Reilly and Goldberg.

And the last segment was the ridiculous waste of time Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report because it's one sided biased garbage with O'Reilly by himself spinning what Democrats said. Now if he had 2 guests on to each give out 2 reality checks, one Democrat and one Republican, I would report this segment. But as long as it's O'Reilly on alone doing what he calls a reality check I will never report it.

By the way folks, here is an example of one of the so-called Factor Reality Checks. O'Reilly reported on a horse in a horse race, the name of the horse, The Factor. And what a shocker, the horse won. That was it, that was a reality check, O'Reilly played video of a horse named The Factor winning a horse race. How the hell is that a reality check on anything.

Then the usual pinheads and patriots garbage, and O'Reilly said he was making a change on the Factor mail segment. But the change turned out to be ridiculous.

O'Reilly said he is now going to debate the mail, except there was no debate, it was just him answering some e-mails. That is not a debate, it's O'Reilly giving his one sided biased spin on the mail, the same way he does with the bogus Factor Reality Checks. So it was the same old 95% right-wing biased O'Reilly Factor, with different music and a new bogus e-mail segment.

O'Reilly Spins Union Snow Removal Story
By: Steve - January 4, 2011 - 9:30am

Billy claims the reason the snow was not removed in a timely manner in NY, after the big snowstorm, is because union workers were protesting layoffs. He said SOME people are making that claim, yeah that SOME people is one Republican councilman.

Everyone at Fox, including the so-called Independent O'Reilly is reporting the so-called claims by the ONE Republican. And now here is the full story, the parts O'Reilly failed to report.

In the days following the blizzard in New York City, the right-wing media seized on a Republican NYC councilman's claim that a deliberate union slow-down was responsible for the city's widely criticized snow removal. In fact, numerous city officials, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, say there is no evidence for the claim and many reports have cited other factors likely to be responsible, such as the mayor's failure to declare a state of emergency and an inadequate number of sanitation workers.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg admitted to reporters in a December 30, 2010 press conference that the city's response to the storm was "inadequate."

Reports Indicate The Failure To Declare a Snow Emergency, and Poor Planning Was Responsible. And here is what O'Reilly did not report. Because of Bloomberg's attempt to privatize snow removal, there were 25% fewer trucks rolling this time than in past storms. But the private guys he counted on to pick up the slack didn't show up -- they got better paying gigs in Jersey and other locales.

"Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty admitted that the pool of private companies willing to do business with the City had shrunk."

"Harry Nespoli, head of the Uniformed Sanitation men's Association, was more forthright, "You can never count on the privates, because they don't have to show up. What obligation do they have? The mayor can't order them out. The commissioner can't order them out."

As usual, O'Reilly only reported one side of the story, and not once did he give the Mayors side of it, or have anyone on from the city on to discuss it. He simply reported what one Republican NYC councilman claimed, and then had the partisan political hacks Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to agree with him.

This was not anything close to fair and balanced journalism, it was a biased and partisan one sided hit job on the unions, with nobody from the union or the city to provide the counterpoint. In fact, it's an insult to even use the word journalism when discussing what O'Reilly did with this story. In real journalism you report both sides of the story, and O'Reilly sure as hell did not do that.

O'Reilly Ignored The Chris Christie Vacation Story
By: Steve - January 4, 2011 - 9:00am

The Republican Governor of New Jersey is Chris Christie, and what did he do during the biggest snowstorm of the year that dumped 20 inches of snow on New Jersey and New York. He took a vacation to Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, of course.

And what did O'Reilly say about it, nothing, zero, he never even mentioned his name. While crying about Mayor Bloomberg and the Sanitation unions. Here is a partial quote from the NY Daily News:
Critics are blasting the Republican governor's decision to remain on his Sunshine State vacation while New Jersey residents grapple with the aftermath of a devastating blizzard.

To make matters worse, Christie's Lieutant Governor Kim Guadagno is vacationing in Mexico, leaving Senate President Stephen Sweeny (a Democrat) in charge.

"We clearly made a mistake if we created the office lieutenant governor and wasted money if the lieutenant governor is not going to be here when the governor is out of state," New Jersey Democrat Sen. Raymond Lesniak told New Jersey's Star Ledger. "It's being handled very well by Sen. Sweeney, but you have to really question the purpose of the office."

Christie left for vacation on Sunday -- the same day Sweeney declared a state of emergency in New Jersey. He is expected to return on Thursday.
And here are some other reports on it:

WSJ.Com: Christie Facing "Political Storm" After Vacation.

Gloucester County Times: "Communications Experts" Slam Christie's Decision To Stay In Florida.

Ashbury Park Press: Local Officials Criticize State Response To Blizzard.

But the great journalist Billy O'Reilly, never said a word about any of it, because he was too busy attacking the Sanitation union, based on the story from one Republican city councilman. Who O'Reilly called SOME people, when it was not SOME people, it was one guy, a Republican.

GOP Plans Vote To Repeal Obama Health Plan
By: Steve - January 4, 2011 - 8:30am

Politico reported Monday that House Republicans will hold a vote on January 12th to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Even though it will never pass the senate, where the Democrats have the majority, and Obama will never sign a repeal of his own bill, that he fought a year to get passed.

So it's a massive waste of time, and taxpayer money, and yet, the Republicans plan to have a vote anyway. O'Reilly even reported on it with the Republican Congressman Peter King on Monday night. King said they were having the vote, even though they know it will not do any good, he said they were doing it to honor some campaign promises they made.

O'Reilly said it was a waste of time, but then in the very next segment with a Democratic Congressman, O'Reilly defended the vote and said it was the honorable thing to do.

Ar you kidding me, when Obama said he wanted to do things because he made campaign promises to the voters, O'Reilly hammered him and said it was stupid.

So let me get this straight, when Republicans do what they promised in their campaigns, it's the honorable thing to do, and it's ok with O'Reilly. But when Democrats do it, it's wrong and stupid, got it Billy. Now we have even more proof of what a biased one sided right-wing hypocrite you are.

The vote is a total waste of time, and it's the first thing the Republicans in the House plan to do after they get the majority. Not jobs, or the economy, they plan to vote on something they know will never pass, and they wonder why they are seen as partisan fools.

Even O'Reilly admits it will never pass, and that even if it did by some miracle, Obama will never sign a repeal of his own health care bill. And yet, he said the Republicans were honorable for having the vote. Now imagine what Billy would say if Democrats did this, he would rip them to pieces, but when Republicans do it, he defends it.

GOP Candidates Using PAC's Dishonestly
By: Steve - January 2, 2011 - 9:30am

Last week USA Today reported that 6 Republicans considering a run for president in 2012 -- Gov. Haley Barbour (MS), Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas governor MIke Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN) -- have all raised millions of dollars in political action committee accounts that allow them to get around federal campaign laws that limit presidential fundraising:
By law, presidential contenders cannot collect money for the race until they establish an exploratory or a presidential fundraising committee.

Campaign-finance watchdogs, such as Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center, say the activity skirts the intent of presidential fundraising accounts, which have stricter contribution limits. Individuals can donate up to $10,000 over a two-year election cycle to a federal PAC, but no more than $4,800 to a presidential campaign.

"Contribution limits exist to reduce the threat of corruption," Ryan said. "These slush funds that potential presidential candidates are setting up violate at the very least the spirit of those limits"
A USA Today analysis found that only 10 percent of the PAC funds raised by the 6 potential candidates were spent on federal candidates and committees through Nov. 22. While a Romney spokesperson said his PAC "was formed to help elect Republican candidates and promote conservative principles," they have spent only 14 percent of their funds for those purposes.

Not to mention, Romney and Barbour "have created fundraising accounts in states that allow their PACs to receive corporate donations. Even though Federal law bars corporations from giving directly to presidential and congressional candidates."

And what a shocker, you never hear O'Reilly, Beck, or Hannity ever say a word about any of it. But you can bet the farm if Democrats were doing it, they would cover it non-stop 24/7 for months on end.

Notice that O'Reilly and Fox also say nothing about Palin, Huckabee, etc. using Fox News for free presidential campaign commercials worth millions of dollars, $40 million at last count, even though it's unethical and wrong to do it. Now imagine what they would say if Democrats were doing it on MSNBC, O'Reilly would lose his mind, report it for a month, and call for the Feds and the FEC to investigate them for campaign violations.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: