The Friday 7-30-10 Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - July 31, 2010 - 10:30am

Willians started the show on illegal immigration again. He had the Univision anchor Jorge Ramos on to discuss it. Then Williams and Ramos both slammed Obama for not getting a bill done on immigration. And I have to say that this immigration issue is just being used by O'Reilly and everyone at Fox, to fire up the right-wing base to get out and vote. Once the election is over, you will barely hear about it, except on the Arizona law story.

They are doing the very same thing with the racism garbage, that is what Breitbart did. They are trying to claim Obama and the blacks are being racist, to get them out and vote. It's a political plan by the Republican Party, and Fox News. And if you can not see this is happening, you are blinded by your ideology.

In the next segment Williams had Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall on to talk about Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner screaming at Republican Peter King on the floor of the house. Of course Williams and Perino made Weiner out to be the bag guy, when he was in the right, and he was following the rules. Williams pulled another O'Reilly trick, he played a 20 second clip of Weiner screaming, but did not put it into context, or go into details of what he was talking about.

The bad guys are the Republicans, and Weiner was talking about how they were blocking a vote so they did not have to go on the record with a vote that would make them look bad. Williams never reported any of that, he just slammed Weiner for screaming. Which is the exact same dishonest garbage O'Reilly does, and more proof that Williams is a conservative.

Then Williams had Sandy Rios and Gloria Feldt on to talk about the crazy comments made by Phyllis Schlafly. She accused President Obama of trying to make unmarried women "dependent on government for their living." Which is just insane right-wing garbage, but of course Rios agreed with Schlafly. Feldt, who was the former head of Planned Parenthood, blasted Schlafly as offensive and wrong. "That was very demeaning and insulting to unmarried women. Almost all of us women have been unmarried at some time in our adult lives. I hope all women go to the polls and they pull those levers for candidates who support equal rights and equal pay."

Then Williams had a right-wing smear segment on Obama with no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint. Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone was on to slam Obama for the economy, etc. But it was all one sided right-wing propaganda so I did not report what she said.

Geraldo Rivera was up next to talk about the Wikileaks on Afghanistan. Juan asked Rivera if the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be prosecuted for publishing the information. Geraldo said this: "No, but let me parse my answer. The person we should focus our wrath on is the service member who was the source of these documents. That's the traitor!"

Then Williams had a re-run of the dumbest things of the week segment with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy, and it was just old clips from past shows, of what those 3 morons claim were dumb things. I vote for this segment as dumbest thing of the year, not just the week, it's not news, and it's worthless.

And finally Williams had another stupid tabloid garbage segment on the Chelsea Clinton wedding with the Washington Post's Sally Quinn. And I refuse to report on this garbage. But I will say this, Juan Williams tried to turn it into an Obama bashing segment. He SPECULATED that the Clinton's were snubbing Obama by not inviting him to the wedding.

Juan said this: "Chelsea Clinton's multi-million dollar wedding will be attended by hundreds of politicians and entertainers, but President Obama is not on the guest list. Quinn downplayed any suggestion that the Clintons intentionally snubbed President Obama."

Quinn said this: "It's not a snub at all. The Obamas and Clintons are not close family friends, but they have a good relationship. This is about the bride, and both families know that if President Obama went it would be about him."

Hey O'Reilly, what happened to that no speculation zone.

Only 1.38% of Fox Viewers Are African Americans
By: Steve - July 31, 2010 - 9:30am

While working on his article published Monday in the New York Times highlighting the right-wing media's misleading coverage, Brian Stelter did some background research into cable news viewership demographics.

While he did not include all the findings in his story, he found them notable enough to publish on Twitter.
STELTER: According to Nielsen, Fox News has averaged just 29,000 black viewers in primetime so far this television season (9/09-7/10). That represents 1.38% of its 2.102 million total viewer audience.

CNN and MSNBC, meanwhile, both have far more black viewers, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of their overall audiences.
Stelter also said this in the article: Conservative media outlets risk damage to their credibility when obscure or misleading stories are blown out of proportion and when what amounts to political opposition research is presented as news.

The National Association of Black Journalists has faulted Fox for years for inaccurately portraying blacks. And Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist last August, prompting an advertiser boycott that continues.

In the last month, Fox doggedly pursued an accusation of voter intimidation by a fringe hate group called the New Black Panthers on the day of the last presidential election. One news anchor, Megyn Kelly, devoted dozens of segments to the incident. (Kelly was even upbraided on the air by a Fox News contributor, Kirsten Powers, who accused her of doing the "scary black man thing."

Jane Hall, a communication professor at American University and a former contributor to Fox News, said partisan media outlets "look for something that will get an audience and that will whip up people in some kind of frenzy, warranted or not."

Hall said what Ms. Sherrod had endured was "classic propaganda."

And btw folks, O'Reilly and Fox News have said they did not report on the Sherrod video until after she was fired by Secretary Vilsack. But that is a lie, because they had reported and linked to the video on their website before she was fired. O'Reilly mentioned her in his Reality Check segment the night before she resigned.

And on the day she resigned, O'Reilly had taped his show and called for her to resign, before she did it. Stelter even confirms that, writing this: "Fox's newscasts did not cover the edited Sherrod video last Monday, nor did Glenn Beck, but Bill O'Reilly did call on her to resign. She resigned between the time O'Reilly taped his show and when that show was broadcast."

So anyone who says Fox News did not report on the video before she resigned is a liar.

Republican Economic Plan: More Tax Cuts For The Rich
By: Steve - July 31, 2010 - 9:00am

Here it is folks, read this and remember it. This is their plan for the economy, do what George W. Bush did from 2000 to 2009, billion in tax cuts for the wealthy. This is their actual plan, to do the same thing that caused the biggest recession we have seen in 50 years. It's the very same plan that turned a budget surplus under Clinton, into a massive deficit under Bush.

Here is what Florida GOP U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio wants to do. Basically he just want's to double down on the Bush tax cuts with an unspecified corporate tax cut thrown on top of that for good measure.

And how does Rubio plan to pay for all these tax cuts, when asked for comment, neither Rubio, or his campaign could give an answer to that question.

Monday, Rubio laid out a new plan to cut spending. The plan contains many ideas that would do very little in terms of paying down the debt and reducing the deficit, including reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, and cutting Congressional and White House budgets. Other cuts are outright gimmicks, such as allowing taxpayers to allocate taxes to the debt and calling for a balanced budget amendment.

And crazy Rubio also wants to end the Obama stimulus program:
IDEA #4: End The Stimulus Program And Use The Savings To Cut The Debt. We must end the wasteful stimulus program that has failed to create jobs. Stimulus money that has not been spent should be used for something that will actually help the economy and create jobs, or to pay down the debt. Canceling unspent stimulus funds could save over $300 billion.
Of course, it's a right-wing lie that the Obama stimulus bill failed to create any jobs, as Rubio claims. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office recently found that the Obama stimulus has created up to 2.8 million jobs and projects almost 4 million new jobs could be attributed to the stimulus by September.

Not to mention, ending the stimulus would eliminate the remaining funds that are set aside for middle class tax cuts. The stimulus provides a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans and $55 billion dollars have yet to be spent on tax benefits.

So, on one hand, Rubio wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy at a cost of $700 billion and has no idea how to pay for it (increasing the debt and deficit), while on the other hand, he wants to repeal middle class tax to pay down the debt. It's just insane, and it would only make the rich even more richer.

And how much money will Rubio's new spending cut plan actually save. Nobody knows, because his plan does not provide any figures, and his campaign has not responded to questions from the media.

Republican Admits Tax Cuts Increase Debt
By: Steve - July 31, 2010 - 8:30am

He admitted it, then he realized what he did so he went back to the GOP talking points and tried to cover up for his screw up. At the end of the year, President Bush's tax cuts are set to expire. President Obama and many Democrats in Congress favor extending those tax cuts, but only for the middle class. But Republicans are not worried about the $700 billion cost, and they want tax cuts for the rich included too.

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) is one of those Republicans. But when C-Span host Steve Scully asked the California Republican about the tax cut issue on the Washington Journal Thursday morning, Nunes screwed up:
SCULLY: Tax cuts, do they increase the debt or do they spur economic growth?

NUNES: Well, I think that they increase the debt. If you let them expire at the end of the year we're going to have a huge, the largest tax increase in American history.
Uh oh, that will most likely get him in trouble with the GOP leadership, because he actually told the truth, that tax cuts increase the debt. Then later he tried to backtrack on his rare moment of honesty. Nunes was back on message later in the interview, saying that the deficit is going to grow if all the Bush tax cuts expire. But when asked why, he could not come up with an answer.

Nunes is right about one thing: Tax cuts do increase the debt, but he's dead wrong in claiming that they reduce the deficit. In fact, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out, the Bush tax cuts will cause $3.4 trillion in deficits between 2009 and 2019 while the "debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amount to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period - over $330 billion in 2019 alone."

And the Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote just how the federal debt will skyrocket if the Bush tax cuts are extended as opposed to allowed to expire. "If they're willing to let the tax cuts expire," Klein writes, "it's good evidence that they're serious about cutting the debt. If they're not willing to let the cuts expire, it's irrefutable evidence that they're not."

What this shows is that Republicans know that tax cuts increase the debt, but that they will not admit that fact because the wealthy and the Corporations give them money to run for office and re-election, and basically legally bribe them to not admit the truth about tax cuts.

And here is the kicker, Republicans claim tax cuts to the wealthy will create new jobs, and grow the economy. They claim those millionaires will use the money to hire more people, and that will lead to economic growth, so it's worth it. But all of that is a lie, after the Bush tax cuts no new jobs were created with that money. The millionaires just put the money in the bank, invested it, or bought a new Limo with it.

The Bush tax cuts added to the debt, and did nothing to help the economy, that is a fact. All it did was make the wealthy, more wealthy, while adding to the debt we have. And think about this, these are people that do not need that extra money, so it will not hurt them at all.

That money should be spent on things that will actually help the economy, like middle class tax cuts, and job creation programs. Not on tax cuts to millionaires so they can get more wealthy.

More Proof Republicans Want Obama & America To Fail
By: Steve - July 31, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is more proof Republicans not only want President Obama to fail for political reasons, it proves they also want the economy to stay flat so they can gain seats back this November. This is an outrage, along with the other news I am reporting, notice that neither Bill O'Reilly or Laura Ingraham are reporting any of this news.

If the Democrats were doing stuff like this under a Republican President, O'Reilly would be screaming bloody murder, calling them un-American, and want to put them on trial for treason. But when Republicans do it, not only does O'Reilly not call them un-American or traitors, he ignores all the news about it.

So I will do it, the Republicans in Congress are un-American traitors for what they are doing.

Here is the AP story:

Republicans Block Small Business Lending Bill

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans have blocked a bill to increase small business lending, dealing a setback to President Barack Obama's jobs agenda.

The bill would have created a $30 billion government fund to help community banks increase lending to small businesses, combining it with about $12 billion in tax breaks aimed at small businesses. Some Republicans, however, likened it to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

Democrats and Republicans will continue to negotiate amendments to the bill. But Thursday's vote will make it difficult for Congress to pass the bill before lawmakers go on their summer vacation.

After reading this, if you vote Republican this November you are un-American. Because everything they are doing is, to hurt the economic recovery, to hurt Obama politically, and to gain back seats in Congress they lost 2 years ago. They are trying to stall the economic recovery, for political reasons, which is a fact, and a flat out outrage.

Shirley Sherrod Will Sue Andrew Breitbart
By: Steve - July 30, 2010 - 9:30am

SAN DIEGO -- Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue the conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who posted an edited video of her that implied she was making racially tinged remarks last week.

Sherrod made the announcement in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.

The edited video posted by Andrew Breitbart led Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to ask her to resign, a decision he reconsidered after seeing the entire video of her March speech to a local NAACP group. In the full speech, Sherrod spoke of racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.

And I hope she takes him for every fricking dime he has. But of course she will have to prove he edited the video and tried to smear her on purpose. Which may be hard to do, because he is clearly going to deny he did that, and he already has. He will claim he was fooled too, and that he simply made an honest mistake.

Even though she may not win, at least it will force him to pay legal fees to fight it, and who knows, maybe justice will be served and she will win. Good luck Shirley, go get him.

The Thursday 7-29-10 Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - July 30, 2010 - 9:00am

Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly so there was no TPM. And right away he had Bill O'Reilly on the phone to talk about Obama going on the View. Basically O'Reilly said Obama did very well, but that he knew he would because they are all Obama lovers, except for Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Then they talked a little about Obama's impact on jobs and the economy. Juan said this: "I think most Americans right now don't think that what Obama is doing is leading to more jobs for the country." Then O'Reilly said this: "It may be leading to more jobs, but it also might be leading to bankruptcy."

So Juan, the so-called moderate Democrat was harder on Obama than O'Reilly was. In fact, Juan sounded more like Laura Ingraham than he did a moderate Democrat. And btw, this economy was caused by Bush, Obama is still trying to fix the mess Bush left him. And all the polls show it, something like 70% still blame Bush, while only 30% blame Obama, but of course neither O'Reilly or Williams ever report that poll data. And the Obama stimulus is working, just not as good as they had hoped because all the Republican owned banks are not loaning money to create jobs, and they are doing that on purpose to hurt Obama politically. Which is something else O'Reilly and Williams never report.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it, and of course Goldberg said it was just a liberal dog and pony show for Obama to try and get his approval rating up among women and Independents. Then he spewed out some nonsense about how the conservatives are not unfairly attacking Obama, he claimed they are attacking him because the American people have opposed almost everything he has done. Which is just ridiculous, and the polls show it. On almost every issue, except one or two, the majority of people support most of what Obama has done, proving that Bernie Goldberg is a right-wing liar. Other than immigration and health care the majority of the people support everything he has done, and if the health care bill had a public option the majority would have supported that too.

Then Williams did a ridiculous segment asking if Obama going on the View diminishes the office of the President. And I will not even report on that right-wing garbage, I will just say this is coming from the so-called moderate Democrat, when it sounds more like something Ingraham would do. Williams had Mike Papantonio and Andrea Tantaros on to discuss it, and you can guess what they said. Papantonio said it does not diminish the office, and the crazy Tantaros said it does. To even do this segment shows that Juan Williams is almost as much of a conservative as O'Reilly. In fact, having Juan host is almost the same as having O'Reilly there, with less screaming and name calling.

In the next segment Williams had Kris Kobach, a former Bush Justice Department official who co-authored the Arizona law and Susan Church, an immigration attorney on to talk about the Federal Judge blocking parts of the Arizona law. And of course Kobach said it was a bad decision, while Church said it was a good decision. But what they never report is that the Judge was recommended by the Republican Senator Jon Kyl, so they are being dishonest when they do not report that. They try to claim all liberals oppose the law, and all conservatives support it, which is not true, even Judge Napolitano who works at Fox is opposed to the law, but they never have him on to discuss it.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to discuss Obama on the view, and Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Carlson did not like Obama going on the View, and did not like some of what he said. But hoover had no problem with it, and defended Obama. Which is a miracle, because they are both Republicans, but Hoover is a little more moderate. Carlson is a far right nut, and Hoover is less of a far right nut. And I am not going to report anything about Chelsea Clinton's wedding, because it's not news, it's tabloid garbage that should not even be discussed on a so-called hard news show.

Then A.B. Stoddard was on to talk about the Charlie Rangel ethics scandal. Rangel was charged with breaking 13 different regulations and laws. She basically reported the details of the story, without really giving an opinion about it. And here is what I have to say about it. If they find him guilty, he should resign, and if he does not resign, the Congress should boot his ass out, as fast as possible. If you break ethics rules you should be gone, Democrat, Independent, or Republican, no exceptions. I have no sympathy for ethics violations, just like when Newt Gingrich did it, he should be gone if he is found guilty.

In the last segment Juan pulled an O'Reilly and cried about the Democratic party saying they will try to link the Republicans to the Tea Party. Which is just laughable, because they are already linked to them, and pretty much everyone knows it. The Tea Party is the Republican Party, it's just a bunch of far right conservative who are not happy with the Republicans in Congress now, because in their mind they are not far right enough.

The Tea Party is basically a bunch of far right white Republicans who hate Obama because he is black, and because he is a liberal. Some of them are racists, and most are Republican. And that is a fact. What's really funny was watching Juan Williams defend the Tea Party, now that was funny, the so-called moderate Democrat sounded just like O'Reilly. Williams is 80% conservative, and 20% moderate, that makes him a Republican. Just as if I was 80% liberal, and 20% moderate I would be a Democrat.

Fox Admits They Lied About Sherrod Video Reporting
By: Steve - July 30, 2010 - 8:30am

In a rare moment of honesty, a Fox News official has admitted they did report on the Sherrod story before she resigned. Which is what I have been saying for a week, because I know they did, I saw it myself.

The question is whether or not Fox News jumped on Andrew Breitbart's bogus Shirley Sherrod smear campaign. We all know that on the day it broke online, Bill O'Reilly hyped the story on his primetime show, presented Sherrod as a racist, and demanded she "resign immediately."

Of course, at the time O'Reilly didn't have the slightest clue what the whole story of the Sherrod tape was. But that didn't stop him from unfairly smearing a black women in the Obama administration.

So if O'Reilly was demanding Sherrod resign, that meant Fox News covered the story before she was forced out, right? Yes and no. While his show tapes at 5 p.m., it doesn't air until 8 p.m., and Sherrod resigned shortly before 8 p.m. So technically Fox News, or so the claim goes, didn't cover the story before she resigned and so all those people who claim Fox reported the Sherrod attack are smearing Fox News.


Because of course, Fox did report the story before Sherrod resigned. Fox reported the story online, they reported it in two different online forums before Sherrod's resignation. And what almost everyone but me has missed, O'Reilly also reported on it the night before she resigned in his lame Reality Check segment. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying how difficult it was for her to provide assistance to a white farmer. The Factor's Check: "That is simply unacceptable. The federal government can not have skin color deciding any assistance, and we are requesting an explanation from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack."
That was the night before she resigned, and here is what he said the next day in his talking points memo:
O'REILLY: As we told you last night, Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod admitted that years ago she held back some government assistance to a white farmer because of the color of his skin. After hearing that I said 'Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately,' and that's exactly what happened.

But if you were watching the network news last night you would know nothing about the story. Once again, an embarrassing moment for the Obama administration was not covered. In the big picture this is a small story; every administration has had employees do dumb things. But why the news blackout when things become unpleasant for the Obama administration?

The answer has to be bias - the establishment press tilts left and is reluctant to do damage to a very liberal president. There's no other reason to spike stories that bring millions of viewers to Fox News.
So O'Reilly actually reported on it 2 times before she resigned, the day before, and the day she actually resigned. Notice that O'Reilly also slammed the media for not reporting it, saying it showed their bias, when they were doing the right thing, and what real journalists do. Then in a later show O'Reilly even slammed the media FOR reporting the doctored video. Making him a total lying, biased, idiot.

And in a new report from Politico, Fox News Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente said this about the story:
CLEMENTE: But did run a story about the existence of the video, titled "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer" at 5:58 p.m. on Monday, an hour before the Agriculture Department announced Sherrod's resignation.

"There was a breakdown in the system, and it is being addressed," he said.

Earlier in the day, Fox Nation, a website run by Fox News, posted a YouTube version of the video under the headline," Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer," with a link to Breitbart's post.

The first comment on the Fox Nation article is at 1:43 p.m., about five hours after Breitbart posted the video to his site.
Notice that Clemente does not say a word about O'Reilly talking about her in his Factor Reality Check the night before, or the fact that O'Reilly taped his show before she resigned, the show where he actually called for her to resign.

So even when they try to come clean about their dishonest journalism, they still do not admit all the dishonesty, only some of it.

Republicans Oppose Health Care To 9-11 Responders
By: Steve - July 30, 2010 - 8:00am

Note to voters, now the low-life Republicans are trying to block a bill that gives health care to the brave 9-11 responders who risked their lives to help after the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks. This is an outrage, and just another example of what Republicans do.

Now think about this, they are doing this while asking for the Bush tax cuts to millionaires be extended, and while they opposed the unemployment benefits extension to unemployed workers. This is what Republicans are all about, lobbying for the wealthy, and the Corporations, while sticking it to the little guy to pay for it.

The House Republican leadership is telling its members to vote against a bill that would aid 9-11 responders suffering from health problems. The GOP policy statement complains that the aid program, which will be paid for by closing "a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries, creates a massive new entitlement program."

So the bill would be paid for, by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies, and yet the Republican leadership is still telling their people to vote against it. So they are even lobbyists for foreign companies now, even after they said any bill must be paid for before they will vote yes. So the Obama administration pays for it, and they still plan to vote no.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, sponsored by New York City Rep. Carolyn Maloney(D), provides medical monitoring to those exposed to toxins at Ground Zero, bolsters treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on 9/11 and reopens a compensation fund to provide economic loss to New Yorkers.

And it's all paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries. But the Republican scum in Congress are still opposed to it, and this is just one more reason why you should vote against every Republican running for Congress this November.

Those 9-11 responders are heroes, they risked their life breathing toxic air to save people after the terrorist attack. And this is the thanks they get from Republicans, for the medical problems they have now, a big fat no to the care they deserve.

More Right-Wing Hate For O'Reilly To Ignore
By: Steve - July 29, 2010 - 9:30am

Once again the far right shows how much hate they really have, and as usual neither O'Reilly, Ingraham, or Fox News is reporting it. But if it was a doctored video from Breitbart they would be all over it. O'Reilly never reports any of this stuff, then later denies it is a reality.

A right-wing group that is against gay marriage has a new plan to deal with the gays who get married, put them to death, by hanging. The National Organization For Marriage (NOM) has started a 23-city Summer for Marriage Tour, spreading the gospel of one-man-one-woman marriage to their 40 supporters.

On Tuesday, Bill Browning attended a NOM rally in Indianapolis and found that while over 250 gay people protested the rally, only 40 NOM supporters showed up. Among the small crowd of so-called traditional marriage supporters was a man holding a sign. It showed two yellow nooses and a bible passage suggesting that gay couples should be put to death.

Here is a photo of a sign they were using at one of their hate filled protests.

Now if O'Reilly and Ingraham were real nonpartisan journalists, they would report this hate, condemn it, and call for them to stop the hate. As O'Reilly says, if you see hate and you do not condemn it, then you support it, especially if you are in the media business. So O'Reilly and Ingraham support it.

The Wednesday 7-28-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 29, 2010 - 9:00am

Once again the insane far-right propagandist Laura Ingraham was filling in for O'Reilly so I did not do a full show review. I will say is that it's ridiculous for O'Reilly to claim to be a nonpartisan Independent with a no spin zone, when you have Laura Ingraham as your full time fill-in host.

It would be like me saying I am a nonpartisan Independent, then I have James Carville write my blog postings for me. It would be just as ridiculous as O'Reilly saying it, while having Laura Ingraham host his show. And at the start of the show she even says "Caution You Are Entering The No Spin Zone" which is just laughable. Then at the end of the show she even says the spin stops here.

When Ingraham is hosting, the entire show is nothing but right-wing propaganda and spin. Which is about as far away from a no spin zone as you can get. Even when O'Reilly is hosting it's 95% right-wing spin, because he is a Republican, and he has 95% right-wing guests.

I will also add this, Ingraham called the ruling on the Arizona immigration law, a suprise ruling, ridiculous, and a sudden ruling. Which is just crazy, it was not a sudden ruling, or a surprise ruling, so she was even lying about that.

There is no way it could have been a sudden ruling, because the law was set to take effect on Thursday, and the ruling came down on Wednesday. So how the hell is that a sudden ruling, when it had to be made by Wednesday to block the law from being put in place the next day. Ingraham is just crazy, and a liar.

And it was not a surprise to anyone that the Judge ruled the way she did, except to the brainwashed and braindead right-wing idiots who had talked themselves into believing the judge would rule in their favor, which also includes O'reilly who also thought the judge would rule in favor of the state of Arizona.

Not to mention over the last few months, O'Reilly told every liberal he had on the show that they are wrong about the Arizona law, when he is the moron that was wrong. What's funny is how Ingraham made sure to mention that Judge Bolton was a BILL CLINTON appointee. But she failed to mention that the Republican Senator from Arizona Jon Kyl recommended her and praised her. Which is just more evidence that Ingraham is a dishonest partisan right-wing hack.

Ingraham and one of her right-wing guests also predicted that the Supreme Court will overturn judge Bolton in a 5 to 4 ruling. And that may be the only thing she could be right about in the entire show. Because the Supreme Court has a 5 to 4 right-wing bias, which is why almost every ruling comes down 5 to 4 for the Republicans. Bush stacked the court with a Republican justice, so they have the 5 to 4 majority now.

Fox Legal Reporter Gets Basic Facts Wrong
By: Steve - July 29, 2010 - 8:30am

Reporting on the breaking news that an Arizona federal judge has blocked parts of the new Arizona immigration law, Fox News Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream stated that an appeal of the case "will go to the Ninth Circuit, which is viewed as the most overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court."

And that is a lie. The Ninth Circuit was nowhere near the most overturned federal appeals court last year and has not been the most overturned court in many years. It's just more right-wing propaganda Fox likes to spin out, to make the Ninth Circuit seem like they are the most overturned court in the country.

This attack on the Ninth Circuit is a favorite talking point of the conservative media, including O'Reilly, even though it's wrong. According to, in the last Supreme Court term -- from October 2009 to June 2010, seven of the 13 appellate courts had a higher reversal rate than the Ninth Circuit.

The seven circuit courts with a higher rate were the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits. Funny how O'Reilly and Fox News never report this information, I guess they just forgot. Yeah right, and I'm Babe Ruth too.

Stock Market Up: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - July 29, 2010 - 8:00am

A couple months ago O'Reilly cherry picked a 3 week period where the stock market was down slightly, and hammered Obama for it. O'Reilly actually said the market is plummeting because of the liberal far left policies put in place by President Obama. Even though the market was simply going through a temporary short term drop.

O'Reilly said this on May 26, 2010:
O'REILLY: Well, the stock market is getting pounded, down another 23 points Tuesday. After a nice run-up last year, the Dow is down almost 900 points over the last three weeks. And along with the market's fall comes a drop in President Obama's job approval rating.
O'Reilly went on to blame it all on the liberal policies put in place by President Obama. But since then he has not said one word about the stock market, because it's been up every week since then. O'Reilly does not say anything now, because it makes Obama look good.

Since that day the market has went up hundreds of points, to over 10,400 as of Wednesday. Here are some stats on the DOW for the last 5 days, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and year to date. Notice they are all up but one time frame, and in some cases up a lot. But O'Reilly never says a word about any of that, as he is lying that the market was plummeting because of Obama, when the exact opposite has happened since Obama took office.

In the last 5 days the DOW is up - 3.01%

In the last 3 months the DOW was down - 4.60%

In the last 6 months the DOW is up - 4.12%

In the last year the DOW is up - 15.69%

In the year to date time frame, from January of 2010 until now, the DOW is up - 1.05%

Now you can see exactly what O'Reilly did, he cherry picked the short term drop where the DOW was down 4.60%, and then claimed it shows that the liberal Obama policies are crashing the stock market. While ignoring every other time frame that had the DOW up. Which is all of it, except 3 months ago.

This is what O'Reilly does to make Obama look bad, it's dishonest, and total right-wing propaganda. In the last year the DOW is up a whopping 15.69%, so what did O'Reilly do, he found the one time frame that had a drop in the DOW, then reported that to make it look like the market was crashing because of Obama.

Now that is about as partisan, and about as dishonest as a so-called journalist can get. And if anyone disputes the dishonest right-wing bias I just documented from O'Reilly, please e-mail me and tell me how I am wrong, I would sure love to hear that one.

More On The Arizona Immigration Ruling
By: Steve - July 28, 2010 - 2:00pm

Here is the best part, the judge who made the ruling was praised and recommended by the Republican Senator Jon Kyl(R-AZ), who is a supporter of the new law. On the recommendation of Sen. Jon Kyl, Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton in 2000. During her confirmation hearing, Kyl said this about her:
KYL: Well, there is one person in our state who's a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that's Judge Bolton. And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved, and she is right in the middle of this important litigation right now.

They will be very sorry to see her leave in Maricopa County Superior Court bench. So, I have some mixed emotions in helping to nominate or to confirm Judge Bolton, but that's how highly thought of she is.
Now remember that, because O'Reilly and the right will probably try to smear the judge as a crazy liberal. Even after she has been praised by Republicans, and one of them even recommended her.

Judge Bolton blocked the following sections of SB-1070 arguing that "the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that [they] are preempted by federal law" and the "United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm" in the absence of an injunction:
Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070: Requires police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if they reasonably suspect the person is in the country illegally.

Section 3 of S.B. 1070: Criminalizes the failure to apply for or carry immigration documents.

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070: Criminalizes the solicitation, application for, or performance of work by an undocumented immigrant.

Section 6 of S.B. 1070: Authorizes the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable.
Bolton also echoed the criticisms made by SB-1070 opponents over the past few months, noting that "requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked."

She also found that the burdensome verification requirement "will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities."

Before learning of Bolton's decision, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) said this: "I'm confident Arizona will prevail." WRONG!

And btw, judge Bolton has been described by her peers as an impeccable and fearless judge whose rulings are well-reasoned and unambiguous. But somehow I have the feeling O'Reilly and the right is not going to think that way now, haha.

Judge Blocks Big Part of Arizona Immigration Law
By: Steve - July 28, 2010 - 1:00pm

As I have been saying for months, the courts will block most of the new Arizona immigration law, and that is what they did on Wednesday. Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends predicted. For months they have been saying the law is fine, and the courts will rule against the Obama DoJ. Wrong, dumbass, haha.

Read it and deal with it, idiots.

PHOENIX - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents - including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

Fox News is flipping out, and if O'Reilly is back tonight he will flip out too. if Ingraham is still the fill in she will go crazy, haha. Too bad morons, suck on it.

The Tuesday 7-27-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 28, 2010 - 9:00am

Laura Ingraham filled in again for O'Reilly, so I will not do much of a review. I pretty much just counted the guest list and that's about it. All you need to know is that Ingraham spent the entire show spewing out right-wing propaganda, which is not really news to anyone, because she is an admitted partisan Republican.

The main reason I do this website is because O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to both sides. And we all know that is a lie, so I document his bias, his lies, his spin, his propaganda, his hypocrisy, and his double standards.

And it does not do much good to document what Ingraham says, because we all know she is a partisan liar. Instead of a big Factor review of her, I will just report on some other news that the people should know about.

To be honest, I can barely stand to listen to Ingraham spew out her dishonest right-wing garbage, so I only watched her enough to count the party of the guests. I mostly watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and for a change it was fun, plus I actually got some news out of it.

I will report 3 crazy things Ingraham said:

1) Ingraham said that under the new Arizona immigration law, you cannot use race as a factor at all. Which is just ridiculous, because the law in the entire country now says you can not use racial profiling, and yet, some cops do it anyway, just because the law says you can not do it, does not mean it will never happen. Pot is illegal, and yet, 30 million Americans still smoke it every day.

2) Here is the really crazy one: Ingraham claims that Obama has done more in 18 months to ruin the economy than George W. Bush did in 8 years. Now that is flat out insanity, Bush almost destroyed our entire economy, and the world economy for that matter, all Obama has done is try to fix the mess Bush left him, and he has. Ingraham should be locked in a padded room over that statement, right next to Glenn Beck.

3) Ingraham said it was an outrage that Obama did not speak at the boy scouts jamboree. Are you kidding me, I think the President has more important things to do then speak at a boy scouts meeting. And if Obama did speak to them, Ingraham would have attacked him for doing that. She would say he has more important things to do, and ask why he is wasting his valuable time at a boy scouts meeting. And that is about all I am going to say about crazy Laura Ingraham.

O'Reilly Busted For 1st Time Story Retraction Lie
By: Steve - July 28, 2010 - 8:30am

On The Monday Tonight Show with Jay Leno, O'Reilly claimed that his apology to Shirley Sherrod was the "first time in 13 years" he had to apologize or retract a story. In fact, O'Reilly has apologized for or corrected a story that he got wrong quite a few times. It is rare, but he has done it a few times.

Here is a partial transcript:
LENO: Do you find there's less fact-checking? I remember, it wasn't that long ago, I --

O'REILLY: No, no.

LENO: -- the swimmer, Michael Phelps.


LENO: I see this article, "Michael Phelps, $20,000 tax cheat," and they show his picture on the news. And I go, "I haven't heard anything about this." So we start writing --

O'REILLY: It's not so much fact-checking, it's just too much gossip.

LENO: Well, here's the thing. So we start writing jokes, and I go, you know, it doesn't sound right. And, three days later -- oh, wrong, some guy named Michael Phelps. It was the wrong guy. But it was on the Internet, it came up with a story --

O'REILLY: Right, right.

LENO: This happens all the time.

O'REILLY: It does, but it doesn't happen to me. This is the first time in 13 years -- it's true.

LENO: Is that the first time you've --

O'REILLY: Thirteen -- the first time in 13 years we've had to retract a story, and the problem was that it was all my fault. I couldn't blame anybody.

LENO: Right.

O'REILLY: I mean, I'm the writer of the show. I write the stuff. So I just didn't check it. I should have checked it. I will in the future.

LENO: Is that the first time you've apologized?

O'REILLY: Yeah, except for just being me.

LENO: Right, right.
Notice the part where O'Reilly said "This is the first time in 13 years -- it's true." After 13 years you see this -- in the transcript. That's a short pause where Leno and some of the audience laughed at what O'Reilly said, because Leno and most of the audience knew he was lying, so after the pause for the laughter O'Reilly said -- it's true.

Okay, so let's get to the facts. Here is why Leno and the audience were laughing at O'Reilly.

On the June 2009, broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly apologized for falsely claiming that "only Anderson Cooper on CNN covered the murder of Army Recruiter Pvt. William Long." Because three days earlier O'Reilly accused CNN of ignoring the story outside of Cooper's show, when in fact, six other CNN shows covered the story at least 15 times prior to O'Reilly's claim.
O'REILLY: We have a correction -- a rare correction on The Factor. Earlier this week, I said that only Anderson Cooper on CNN covered the murder of Private Long in Arkansas. Well, today, a snide and surly guy on CNN pointed out that the story was covered more extensively by that network, and that is true. I was wrong. My apologies to CNN. I was talking about primetime, but I did not say that. So, I was wrong. As they say in third grade, "My bad."
On the June 26th, 2006 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly apologized for "picking up" a quote from a South Florida Sun-Sentinel article which incorrectly reported that Rep. John Murtha had claimed the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran."

O'Reilly cited the Sun-Sentinel report to allege that Murtha's "kind of extreme thinking, based on little evidence, by the way, is putting all Americans in danger." After the Sun-Sentinel published its correction, O'Reilly stated on June 29th that "the newspaper has apologized, and since we picked up the paper's quote, we should apologize, as well," adding: "I should have checked it out myself and called Murtha's office. Next time, we will do that."

During the February 19th, 2008 Factor radio show, O'Reilly discussed Michelle Obama's assertion that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

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

Then on the February 21st, 2008, O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly apologized for his use of the phrase "lynching party," saying, "I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything."

So as you can see he has done a few retractions, and you now know why Leno was laughing at him when he said he has only had to do one retraction in 13 years. Not to mention the other 10,000 retractions he should have made, but did not do, because 99.9% of the time he will not admit he got anything wrong.

Remember This: The Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Work
By: Steve - July 28, 2010 - 8:00am

They added a Trillion dollars to the deficit, and made the rich, richer, and that's about all they did. But Republicans keep calling for them to be continued. Think about this, when the Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts they said they would create robust economic growth, it never happened. They said it would create millions of new jobs, it never happened. We were even told the tax cuts would balance the budget, and they actually turned the budget into massive deficits.

This was the Republican line, then and now, they claim tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase the deficit. They claim it will give the wealthy more money, and they will use that money to create jobs. And now we know that is all a lie, nothing they claim happened, and in fact, the opposite happened.

When Republicans passed the tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, they set the cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The point was to obscure the cost, play a dangerous budget game, and make it so that the GOP would not have to pay for their own 10 year tax cut shell game.

And while a few moderate Democrats may vote to keep the cuts in place, the Obama administration's plan is the right one. Here is what the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last Sunday, he made the case for letting the Bush tax cuts expire later this year.
Geithner said that letting tax cuts expire for those who make $250,000 a year or more would affect 2 percent to 3 percent of all Americans. He dismissed concerns that the move could push a teetering economy back into recession and argued that it would demonstrate America's commitment to addressing its trillion-dollar budget deficit.

On This Week on ABC, he said, "We think that's the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world that America is willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long-term deficits."
And btw, letting those Bush tax cuts expire would instantly cut $600 billion dollars off the deficit. And it would only be an increase in taxes on the top 2 percent of the most wealthy people in America.

The NY Times reported that the issue will move to the top of the agenda when lawmakers return to Washington in September from their summer recess, just as the midterm campaign gets under way in earnest.

Democrats say, Republicans who oppose the bill would be blocking a tax cut for more than 95 percent of Americans to defend tax cuts for a relatively few wealthy households.

Every time Republicans complain, the same answer should come to mind, it was their idea for the tax cuts to expire. And maybe if Bush had not left a $1.3 trillion deficit for Obama to clean up, it would be easier to talk about keeping more of those tax breaks for the wealthy the Republicans love so much.

The bottom line here is that Republicans only care about tax cuts for the wealthy that cost over $600 billion dollars. Even if they are not paid for. But if the average working man wants to get his unemployment benefits extended, that only cost $38 billion dollars, the Republicans oppose that unless it's paid for.

And they still can not explain how Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top 2 percent and the economy boomed. Proving they are massive hypocrites, and proving that they only care about the wealthy, because that is where they get most of their money to campaign on. Funny how O'Reilly never reports any of this, I guess he just forgot.

O'Reilly Spins Out 3 Big Lies On Jay Leno
By: Steve - July 27, 2010 - 9:30am

Now we know why O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham fill in for him Monday night, he was in California to do the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. And my God was it ridiculous. To begin with O'Reilly acted like he was a moderate who feels sorry for President Obama. When we all know that is just laughable.

Leno asked O'Reilly about the military kicking the gay man out who went to West Point and spoke Arabic. Leno said it was just stupid, and O'Reilly agreed. Without telling the people that he hates gay people, and is opposed to gay marriage, it was so ridiculous I was like wow is he a fraud.

Then O'Reilly said the BP oil spill and the Katina Hurricane were the exact same thing for Obama and Bush. That neither man could have done anything about it, but they were attacked for it anyway. O'Reilly said he feels sorry for Obama, because there was nothing he could do.

Without telling the people that he puts 5 to 7 right-wing idiots on his show every night who attack Obama for him. Not to mention, the Katrina Hurricane and the BP oil spill have nothing in common, zero.

Bush knew about the Katrina Hurricane 2 days before it hit, and he still did nothing. Then after 4 days of people starving and waiting on rooftops for rescue, Bush had to be showed video of the news about it, because he did not even know what was happening in New Orleans. Then he finally decided to send the troops in to rescue them. So he did nothing for 4 days, and did not even know people were starving and dying. Bush could have done a lot, but he did nothing because it was mostly poor and black people.

With Obama and the BP oil spill, it was all under the control of BP by law. They had the duty to deal with an oil spill, and they did not do it. Obama could not do anything, and it was nothing like Katrina and Bush. So anyone who claims it was the exact same thing is just a fricking idiot. How do you compare an oil well leak 5,000 feet under water to Bush ignoring Hurricane Katrina, it's just insane.

And then the biggest lie from O'Reilly was when Jay Leno asked O'Reilly about his Sherrod Apology. Leno praised O'Reilly for the apology, while not saying aword about how dishonest Breitbart was, it was a joke. Then O'Reilly said it's the first time in 13 years he has ever had to retract a story.

I was like huh? Are you fricking kidding me. He never retracts a story because he refuses to ever admit he got anything wrong, even though he gets at least one story a night wrong. It was a massive lie, because if O'Reilly would admit to things he got wrong, he would be doing a retraction every fricking day.

Another good one was when O'Reilly said he was taken out of context in the Al Sharpton dinner story, when he went to a black owned restaurant in New York. O'Reilly said he was accused of being a racist, and that they took him out of context. But he never told Jay or the people what he said, he left out the part where he said he was shocked they were not all running around screaming where is my M-Fing Iced Tea.

O'Reilly left all that out, and spun out this fantasy that he just went to dinner and he was called a racist for no reason. It was just laughable how he told the story, as if he never said anything racist. That the liberal media took it all out of context, and he was a victim of race baiting. But to claim that he had to leave out all the details, so it was pure fantasy.

And btw, when O'Reilly said Katrina and the BP oil spill were the exact same thing for Bush and Obama, you could hear people in the audience boo him, because they knew it was not even close to the same thing. Not to mention, Leno let him spew out all those lies, and never once did a follow up to question what he said. Leno just took his word for it, even though it was all lies.

The Monday 7-26-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 27, 2010 - 9:00am

The Factor was hosted by the crazy far right nut Laura Ingraham. Basically Ingraham used the entire show to trash Obama and everything he has done. She also had a ridiculous taped segment of O'Reilly doing a best of body language moments with the blonde body language bimbo.

What gets me is how in the hell O'Reilly can claim to be a nonpartisan Independent, when his fill-in host is Laura (far-right) Ingraham. She is an Ann Coulter wannabe, and the 2 of them just lie and spin to see who can get the most publicity for saying the most stupid and biased nonsense.

O'Reilly even once called her a right-wing kool-aid drinker, then he has her host his show when he takes a day or week off. Which proves the kool-aid name calling bit was all a fraud, it was just O'Reilly pretending to be a moderate by saying she is a kool-aid drinker. Because if he really though she was a kool-aid drinker, he would not have her hostr his show.

Ingraham used the entire talking points memo to spew out right-wing propaganda about President Obama. Then she predicted a big win for the Republicans in November, even though a Gallup poll out on Monday had Democrats ahead of Republicans 48 to 44 percent, but of course Ingraham never said a word about that. Then Brit Hume was on with Ingraham to discuss what she said in her talking points memo. And Ingraham even used the same old O'Reilly line where she says to Brit, tell me where I went wrong in the TPM. But of course Brit agreed with pretty much everything she said, just like he does with O'Reilly. Hume basically said Obama has put too many left-wing policies in place, and that he is in big political trouble for Obama.

Hume even said the Obama stimulus has been a failure, which is a lie, and just the same old right-wing talking points. Because without the Obama stimulus we would be 10 times worse off, and neither one of them mention that Bush caused the recession, and put us in this situation. It was the same old right-wing propaganda from Ingraham and Hume, with nobody from the left to provide any balance. Ingraham also said the Tea Party is a big political force in America now, which is just ridiculous, because only 18% of the people even support them, and of course Hume agreed with her.

And then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss politics. Ingraham talked about the netroots convention, which is mostly liberal, so she was freaked out about it. Ingraham thought it was all a big joke, and called the netroots people nuts and on the fringe. Ham said most people do not know about netroots, or care about them. Ingraham made a joke that when she hears about netroots she thinks it's a health food store. Williams basically agreed with Ham and Ingraham, and Hume btw, saying that netroots is a waste of time but that it helps Obama with his base. And what's with that Mary K. Ham, her mouth looks like the joker from the Batman movies.

So then the insane far right-wing nut Col. Ralph (I Hate Obama) Peters on to report on the wikileaks story about the 91,000 document leak on the Afghanistan war. And of course Peters trashed Obama and said these documents prove Obama does not know what he is doing, and that he is hiding this information from the people. Except Bush started the whole thing, and he was doing the same thing, but of course Col. Peters never said a word about it then. Not to mention, if Obama put that information out, then crazy Peters would say he is guilty of treason for publishing secret documents. Peters also claimed the Obama administration has run out of strategic ideas for the war, which is just ridiculous. Earth to Col. Peters, Obama has military advisors, who make the military decisions, pretty the same people Bush had, and you never complained about it then, you right-wing jackass.

Then Ingraham cried like a baby over Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire. She said it was raising taxes by Obama, which is a lie. It's simply letting the tax cuts expire that Bush put in place, Bush put the date to let them expire in the bill, and the Republican Congress agreed to that. Not to mention, the only tax cuts that will expire will be the top 5 percent. The other 95 percent will not have a tax increase.

Ingraham and Stuart Varney claimed that the tax increase will be on everyone, when Obama has said it will only be on the wealthy. Tyson Slocum was also on to say they are wrong, but it was a 2 on 1 and he barely got a word in. Slocum tried to point out that Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy took off like crazy, but Varney cut him off, said he was lying, and would not let him speak. Then Ingraham let Varney cut Slocum off. The whole segment was ridiculous, and when the one liberal got on they would not even let him talk. When he did talk he was cut off before he could get 5 words out, and told he was wrong.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the wikileaks on Afghanistan, and Obama going on the View. The NY Times published the documents, so Goldberg and Ingraham said it was ok, and the people need to know that information. But when stuff like this was leaked under Bush, these same two right-wing jerks said the leaker should be tried for treason. They even said the NY Times should be tried for treason when they published leaks under Bush. But now these massive right-wing hypocrites have the exact opposite view on this leak. Crazy Ingraham implied that because President Obama had Paul McCartney as a guest at the White House, he does not care about the war, which is so ridiculous it's just insane.

In one segment she trashed Oliver Stone for something he said about Hitler, as if anyone cares. Stone makes movies, he is not an elected official, or in politics. So who the hell cares what Oliver Stone says or does not say, not me, only far right-wing nuts like Laura Ingraham. Here is the new rule, do not report what anyone in Hollywood says about anything. Right or left, nobody cares what they think. Now if they run for office, and get elected, that's a different story. O'Reilly even calls them pinheads that know nothing, and people you should not listen to, then he reports every damn word they say, go figure.

And I have to say that watching this show with Nasal Nose Voice Laura Ingraham as the host is like torture. It's painful to listen to her, and annoying as hell. She is like Ann Coulter with an even more annoying voice. So I should get some kind of an award or something for just watching this garbage and writing a review about it.

O'Reilly is bad, but Ingraham is 10 times worse. O'Reilly should just have Coulter host instead of the wannabe Coulter. And btw, Ingraham usually has 3 or 4 liberals on the show so she can scream at them, talk over them, and tell them how wrong they are about everything. But in this show, only one liberal was put on to discuss anything. And no, Juan Williams is not a liberal, he is not even a Democrat. Hell he even admitted he is more conservative than he is liberal. And the Ingraham Factor was over, thank God.

O'Reilly Will Not Say The Name Andrew Breitbart
By: Steve - July 27, 2010 - 8:30am

The Breitbart/Sherrod doctored video story is a week old now, and the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has still not used the name of Andrew Breitbart in any of his reporting on the story. Not once has O'Reilly used his name, let alone hammer him for doctoring a video to make a black woman seem like a racist while working for the Obama administration.

Talk about corrupt journalism, this is it. How can you report on a story where one man posted a doctored video on his website, and not mention his name, or the name of his website. It's journalistic corruption at the highest level, by O'Reilly.

I watched every minute of the Factor last week, took notes, and reported on it all. And not one time did O'Reilly use the name Andrew Breitbart, or name his website. His name was mentioned a few times by guests on the show, but Bill O'Reilly never once said his name, in the whole week, not one fricking time.

He would just say "the video" or "some journalist" put the video out, or call it poor journalism, etc. In fact, O'Reilly even wrote an article about it on July 24th, and here is what he said in the article:
O'REILLY: A few days ago, Sherrod was fired by the Obama administration following some poor journalism.

A speech she gave became a hot story. In it, she said that more than 20 years ago -- as an administrator in Georgia -- she was ready to not treat a white farmer needing help as fairly as she would treat a black farmer. The speech came during a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People meeting in March. Sherrod is black.

The problem was that the speech was misrepresented. Sherrod was relating a story about an epiphany she had. After mulling over the white farmer's situation, she came to the conclusion that he deserved help because he was poor, and being white or black was unimportant.

Unfortunately, I was one of the culprits who overlooked her message in the initial reporting.

Regrettably, I did not examine the full transcript of Sherrod's remarks enough, and after hearing the false report that the white farmer had been hosed, I said she should resign. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack made the same mistake, as did the NAACP.

Like all Americans, Sherrod deserves to be treated fairly. However, the situation deserves a top-to-bottom examination by the government.
Notice that O'Reilly simply called it poor journalism, without even using the name Andrew Breitbart, and without reporting that it was not simply poor journalism. Because we all know it was dishonest and partisan journalism, by a right-wing hack of a pretend journalist named Andrew Breitbart. O'Reilly not only did not hammer Breitbart for his openly dishonest video propaganda, O'Reilly helps him do damage control by refusing to even mention his name.

Point #2, O'Reilly does not say he was sorry for using the doctored video, just as his bogus apology on the Factor show, there was no apology.

Point #3, After the so-called apology to Sherrod, O'Reilly wrote that article saying she is a racist, and that he would investigate her and dig up some more racism on her.

Point #4, The story is about a dishonest fraud of a right-wing journalist (Andrew Breitbart) doctoring a video to make a black woman look racist, which was not true. But O'Reilly ignores that, and then goes on a witch hunt to prove she is a racist, while ignoring everything about Breitbart.

Here is the bottom line, if Breitbart was a liberal that worked for MSNBC, who did that to a Republican, O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and focus the story on that person. He would mention his name 5 times a night, and do a hammer job on that person every night for a week.

But when the right-wing Breitbart does it, who is loved at Fox, O'Reilly not only does not hammer the guy every night for a week, he will not even say his name, or make him the focus of the story. His focus was on the Obama administration for firing her, and on the fact that she made some other (what he calls) racist statements.

More BP Oil Spill News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - July 27, 2010 - 8:00am

For anyone that does not know it, O'Reilly only does reports on BP that he can use to politically attack President Obama with. And if he does not want to do it (so he can pretend to be a moderate independent) he will put 5 to 7 Republicans on the show to do it for him. Basically so he can kill two birds with one stone, then he can get the attack done without getting his hands dirty.

But when real news about BP comes out, O'Reilly does not say a word about it. Not to mention, since the oill spill happened O'Reilly had not had one victim of the spill on his show, not one. No fisherman, no charter boat captains, no restaurant owners, nobody. Now, if a Democrat had pushed a Republican at a protest, or smashed a pie in Ann Coulters face, O'Reilly would do multiple segments on that, if not half the show, and follow up segments on other nights.

Over the last couple months I have published at least 8 to 10 BP stories that O'Reilly did not say one word about. And now here is another one.

In a deal negotiated last month, President Obama and BP officials agreed the company would pay $5 billion annually over the next four years into an escrow account for damage its oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused.

Kenneth Feinberg, who was appointed to administer the oil spill claims out of the BP escrow fund, has said he "hasn't been able to start writing claims checks" because BP has failed to deposit any money into the $20 billion fund it promised to create:
Feinberg, who was appointed to administer oil spill claims out of the fund, said he doesn't have the authority to force BP to deposit the money, but his hands are tied until it does. "I don't want the checks to bounce," he said.
The day after the escrow account was set up in June, BP CEO Tony Hayward told Congress that BP is "unwavering in our commitment to fulfill all our responsibilities" and the company "won't stop spending until the job is done."

And remember this, a hell of a lot of Republicans complained about Obama getting BP to set the fund up, even though they agreed to it, and the people were demanding it. Some Republicans claimed it was a slush fund, among other things, even though it had not even been set up yet.

These are the same Republicans who claim to care about the people, then they vote against unemployment benefits, they defend BP, and cry about a victims oil spill fund that would go to the very people they claim to care about. While they do nothing but kiss the ass of BP, and tell hard working Americans, who lost their jobs because of the Bush recession, that they do not deserve their unemployment benefits.

Sharron Angle called them spoiled, and Ben Stein called them lazy people that do not know how to work, and who do not want to work. Except they had jobs, and they were working, until they lost their jobs because of the Bush recession. It's crazy, but that's the way Republicans think.

O'Reilly Said His Racist Statements Taken Out Of Context
By: Steve - July 26, 2010 - 9:30am

Now this is another good one, over the years O'Reilly has made a series of racist statements, that pretty much prove he is a racist. But on the Friday O'Reilly Factor Billy said his statements were taken out of context to brand him as a racist.

Which is just laughable, because they were all put in context, and he is a racist. When you say racist things, you are a racist. And think about this, he made all those racist statements on a national tv news show, just think what he says in private when he is not on the air. If he said that on the air, I guarantee you he has said things that are 10 times worse off the air.

Here is a small sample of some racist statements made by O'Reilly, and this is not all of them, it's just a few.

April 2003: O'Reilly hosted a fundraiser for Best Friends, a charity benefiting inner-city black school children. As reported in the Washington Post, O'Reilly said this about the Best Men, who were all blacks and set to perform at the fundraiser: "Does anyone know where the Best Men are? I hope they're not in the parking lot stealing our hubcaps."

According to the Post report, even some of the conservatives in the audience were shocked at the racist joke O'Reilly made.

Two months before O'Reilly's hubcap joke, he used a racist slur on the air. Searching for a word to describe someone who assists immigrants crossing the border, O'Reilly came up with wetback. The incident was explained away by Fox officials as an unfortunate gaffe, but the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call reported that O'Reilly had used the same racist term in a speech earlier in the year: "O'Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out the wetbacks."

Then O'Reilly denied making the comment, but the Washington Post reporter stands by his reporting.

March 2000: Criticizing Democratic politicians who met with Rev. Al Sharpton, which O'Reilly compared to meeting with white supremacist David Duke: "Why would it be different? Both use race to promote themselves." O'Reilly also equated the Black Panthers with Duke: "You were promoting your people, black people, and he's promoting white people. So what's the difference?"

March 2003: After the "wetback" incident, O'Reilly wrote in a newspaper column that Americans "must realize that racial demonization is now organized and well-funded, and it will not end until everyday people begin condemning it." He wasn't talking about himself, though; he was referring to critics who label him a racist.

September 2007: Discussing his dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly said he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."

O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'"

Which is about as racist as it gets, O'Reilly implied that every black person in a black owned restaurant is screaming M-Fer I want more iced tea. And he was shocked that it was not like that. Here is the full quote, in context:

O'REILLY: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."

During the April 2006, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that guest Charles Barron, a minority New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate, which, O'Reilly said, was "to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America."

In a 2006 conversation with a caller about the disproportionately few jobs and contracts that have gone to locals in the rebuilding of New Orleans, O'Reilly said: "The homies, you know ... I mean, they're just not going to get the job."

Just recently he talked about how he would not go on a lynching party for Michelle Obama to get her for something she said about loving America now, which is also a very racist statement from O'Reilly. The words "lynching party" should never should never be used when talking about a black person. Especially when that black person is the first lady, and no matter what the context, it is racist to say it.

O'Reilly has also defended all the racist statements from people like Rush Limbaugh, saying nothing Limbaugh has ever said is racist. Then a list of 25 racist statements by Limbaugh was put out, and he never mentioned that list one time.

O'Reilly claims it was all taken out of context by groups like Media Matters. When that is just a lie, it was in context, with the full transcript, and or the video, or both. And that is just a small sample of the racist statements O'Reilly has made. Proving that he is a racist, and that he just tries to demonize anyone who reports the truth about him.

Rachel Maddow Lays The Smackdown On O'Reilly
By: Steve - July 26, 2010 - 9:00am

On the Thursday night Rachel Maddow show Rachel went to town on O'Reilly and his nonsense. Here is what she said:

MADDOW: Although this is the kind of thing I usually do not cover, I can't help myself, because Bill O'Reilly has called me something I'm not sure anyone has ever called me before.


MADDOW: A host at the FOX News Channel named Bill O'Reilly accuses us of, quote, howling with left-wing indignation over the Shirley Sherrod affair. We respond with subdued, dignified barking and yipping—next.


MADDOW: So, I have to tell you, I showed up in the weirdest place last night. It was almost like a dream. I was on TV talking about Shirley Sherrod and that phony reverse racism story and FOX News-except I was on FOX News. I was on The O'Reilly Factor. It was very spooky.


MADDOW: This is what FOX News does. This is how they're different from other news organizations. Just like the fake ACORN controversy, FOX News knows that it has a role in this distance. That's not new. That's not actually even interesting about this scandal. FOX does what FOX does.

O'REILLY: Which has kicked your network's butt every single night, madam. And you have to be kidding with this fake ACORN scandal stuff. Unbelievable. Did you live in this country?


MADDOW: If by this country you mean is my office right across the street from yours? Yes. Unless there's an unguarded border down the middle lane of Sixth Avenue, yes, I live in what you call this country.

And, no, though, I sometimes kid, I'm not kidding-as Mr. O'Reilly asks-when I say that FOX News manufactured the outrage over ACORN as surely as they manufacture the outrage over Shirley Sherrod. By playing over and over and over again the same very selectively edited tape that it made it looked like night was day and up was down.

In the case with ACORN, it was a tape designed to make it looked like an outlandishly dressed pimp got advised from ACORN workers about this underage brothel. In fact, the activist/entrapment guy wasn't dressed as an outlandish pimp. He did not get advice on his fake brothel. And in fact, what FOX said with him getting advice on his fake brothel was actually tape showing an ACORN guy collecting information on the alleged fake brothel to turn it over to the police.

And you can trust me that I'm kidding because ACORN has been exonerated by prosecutors in New York City and by the attorney general of California and by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Not that you've heard any of that reported on FOX.

But let's get back to the really important part of Mr. O'Reilly's show last night. His message to madam, by which he means me, which is so awesome, I can't believe it.


MADDOW: FOX does what FOX does.

O'REILLY: Which has kicked your network's butt every single night, madam.


MADDOW: Now, here, Mr. O'Reilly has a point. Mr. O'Reilly, you and FOX get great ratings. It is so awesome how great your ratings are. You have very big ratings this year.

Here's the score card from last night. It is in TVRatingsSpeak, but I think it will be clear enough. Here's Mr. O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor. That 757 would be him at 8:00. And that 245 would be me at 9:00. Different hour. But, you know, same point.

And don't tell Susan's mom, who's very sensitive about these things, but we are actually-this show is actually out-rated by all kinds of shows. Deadliest Catch kills us, head to head. That's about fishing, which makes me think sometimes we should run more photos like this on our show.

We also get killed by a show called The Closer, about which I know nothing except that it also kills us in the ratings.

We also get smaller ratings than WWE Wrestling, which is apparently on the USA Network, which means that they're corporate cousin of ours. So, goodie for the shareholders even if it's not goodie for us. Of course, all of those shows also kill Mr. O'Reilly's show in the ratings, as well as everything else on FOX, as well as SpongeBob, reruns of NCIS and Hannah Montana, Forever, which is totally understandable.

They are more watched than The O'Reilly Factor, my lord, which is totally immaterial to the discussion at hand, because when you got all kicked your network's butt, and madam on me, you weren't really trying to tout your network's ratings. You were trying to take the attention off me saying that your network, FOX News, continually crusades on flagrantly bogus stories designed to make white Americans fear black American, which FOX News most certainly does for a political purpose even if it upends the lives of individuals like Shirley Sherrod, even as it phrased the fabric of the nation, and even as it makes the American Dream more of a dream and less of a promise.

You can insult us all you want about television ratings, Mr. O'Reilly, and you'll be right that yours are bigger for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one watches us at all, except for my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters and that would be the facts, your highness.

O'Reilly Lied About The Black Panthers Again
By: Steve - July 26, 2010 - 8:30am

On the Friday 7-23-10 O'Reilly Factor, Billy claimed that members of the New Black Panthers were "standing in front of a polling place and saying they want to kill white babies."

And that is a 100% flat out lie, because the video that shows a member of the New Black Panther Party suggesting the murder of white babies is from a documentary produced prior to the November 2008 election. So once again O'Reilly has been caught lying, he just makes this stuff up in the hope that someone will believe it.

O'Reilly attacked the mainstream media for failing to cover the New Black Panthers case, which he described as "guys with batons standing in front of a polling place and saying they want to kill white babies."

And for the record, it was one member of the New Black Panther Party at the polling place with a baton. Not guys with batons, it was one guy, and he did not say he wants to kill white babies at that time. Here is what O'Reilly said to Goldberg:
O'REILLY: The establishment liberal media that you and I both talked about said, look, we don't like this tea party business. This could really amount to something, and it already has in places like Kentucky. So we don't like it -- and it's all primarily whites, so let's call them racists. Let's throw that charge out there, and there'll be a few nuts that help us with that. So that was established, all right.

So, then, conservative Americans or tea party supporters, whatever, they got angry about that. And then they started to look, all right, you know, OK, let's -- and then the Black Panthers show up. Oh, look at that. And then, as you pointed out, the media didn't cover that, and they're going, wait a minute, you're demonizing the tea party for being racist, but here we've got guys with batons standing in front of a polling place and saying they want to kill white babies, and you don't mention it.
All of that is ridiculous, O'Reilly implies that thousands of Black Panthers were all over the country intimidating voters at polling places. It was ONE GUY, at ONE polling place. And that polling place was in a 90% black district where Bush only got 12 votes in 2000, 8 years before the Black Panther was even there. So clearly there was not a lot of white voter intimidation at a 90% black district polling place.

Then O'Reilly claims the Black Panther said he wanted to kill white babies at the polling place, which is so much of a lie it's insane. O'Reilly just pulled that out of his ass, because it never happened. The Black Panther said that in a National Geographic Channel documentary that was produced in 2008, before the election even happened.

And now you have the facts, the facts O'Reilly did not report, on purpose. I would say he is just like Andrew Breitbart, a total liar, and that means you should never believe anything he ever says again.

Republicans & Fox Call For Obama Impeachment
By: Steve - July 26, 2010 - 8:00am

Some Republicans and the nuts on the Fox News website are calling for President Obama to be impeached. For what you might ask, treason, selling top secret information, no and no.

Echoing Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-TX) false claim that President Obama is awfully close to violating his oath of office by not securing the border, former Rep. Tom Tancredo published an error-ridden op-ed in Friday's Washington Times calling for Congress to impeach President Obama:
TANCREDO: Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside. Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense.

Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans desire to negotiate a comprehensive immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution.
Of course, Tancredo's argument is built on lies, even Kyl himself has walked back his false claim about Obama's border security intentions, and spending on border security has skyrocketed under Obama. Sadly though, Tancredo's ridiculous call to impeach Obama enjoys strong support with other right-wing lawmakers.

Thursday, Tea Party Caucus leader Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) explained that a GOP Congress entire agenda should be to "issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another."

Now what's really funny is that George W. Bush secured the border even less than President Obama has. Obama has spent far more money on border security than Bush did, and sent an extra 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, that's 1,200 more than Bush had down there. And yet, these same people never once called for Bush to be impeached for not securing the border. In fact, when Democrats called for Bush to be impeached, they said it was crazy.

Not to mention, President Obama wants to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would fix the problem, but the Republicans are blocking it. So these dishonest Republicans are calling for Obama to do something that his own Republican friends are blocking. Go figure.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Sanctuary Cities
By: Steve - July 25, 2010 - 8:30am

Once again the great journalist (and by great I mean terrible) Bill O'Reilly was caught lying about San Francisco and Houston and their sanctuary policies. O'Reilly said San Francisco and Houston are sanctuary cities that are violating federal law. Which is a lie that he puts out to make his position on illegal immigration seem stronger. And to make those cities look bad, by claiming they are breaking federal laws.

Now remember this folks, this is the guy who calls the rest of the media liars and corrupt. When here we have him caught lying for the millionth time, so when he claims to be a truth teller, you should laugh and view him as nothing more than a right-wing clown. Here are the facts, something O'Reilly has no clue about.

O'Reilly was lying about the law's requirements, and even the Bush administration's Justice Department concluded that Houston and San Francisco are not violating the applicable laws.

O'Reilly said that cities are required by law to "tell Homeland Security" if they have an illegal alien involved with the police for some reason.

During the July 19th Factor show, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: While the Justice Department is suing the state of Arizona over its new anti-illegal alien law, it has for years ignored sanctuary cities like San Francisco and Houston that have refused to enforce federal immigration law. That is, if local authorities there in those cities apprehend illegal aliens, they do not tell Homeland Security, as they are required to do.
O'Reilly claims the law says this:
O'REILLY: The law says, in San Francisco and Houston, when you have an alien, illegal alien involved with the police for some reason, either a crime or a traffic stop, a DUI, whatever it may be, that they have to give the feds a heads up, so the fed's data bank can see how bad these guys really are.
And that is a lie, the law says no such thing. Here is what David Leopold, the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said:
LEOPOLD: O'Reilly is "wrong" to suggest that federal law requires state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce civil immigration law. There is nothing that requires the collection of immigration information about a person and there is no requirement that state or local authorities inform the federal immigration authorities of civil immigration violations--ie out of status, overstay, present without lawful admission, failure to maintain status etc.
So clearly O'Reilly is lying, and we have even more to prove it. Two reports under George W. Bush said the same thing, that the cities with sanctuary policies are not violating any federal laws.

The Bush DoJ Inspector General said the San Francisco policy does not violate federal law. The Bush IG said he "cannot conclude" that San Francisco is violating the law. In 2007, the Justice Department Office of Inspector General reported that after reviewing the policies of seven jurisdictions, including the State of Texas, the local policy either did not preclude cooperation with ICE or else included a statement to the effect that those agencies and officers must assist ICE or share information with ICE as required by federal law."

The report further states that because San Francisco included "specific provisions requiring compliance with federal law, we cannot conclude that San Francisco's policies are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1373 [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.]" The report also concluded, "there is insufficient evidence to conclude that San Francisco fails to cooperate with ICE's efforts to remove undocumented aliens."

Houston was also included in the 2007 OIG review, but was not mentioned, indicating that "Houston has no official sanctuary policy," and that the city now participates in the Secure Communities program, which "enables fingerprints of arrested individuals to be checked against federal crime and immigration databases." also reported that Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks reductions in both illegal and legal immigration, "said that because the county and city have stepped up efforts to identify illegal immigrants, she no longer views the city as much of a sanctuary."

This Is What Real Journalism Looks Like
By: Steve - July 25, 2010 - 8:00am

A real nonpartisan and objective journalist would have done this when they got the video of Shirley Sherrod. Look at the entire video, and if they did not have the entire video, not air it until they did. Then watch the entire video, or check with the person the video is about to get her side of the story. Especially is the person with the video is a Republican, and the person in the video is a Democrat.

That is what a real journalist who does not have an agenda would do, just look at what Shepard Smith said about the video, and why he did not air it, Shep said this:
SMITH: We here at Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons, among them: we didn't know who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of the videos on the site where it was posted, in short we do not and did not trust the source.

The edited videotape was posted on a widely discredited website that has had inaccurate postings of videos in the past–edited to the point where the world was deceived.
Now I do have a small problem with Shep not saying who did it (Andrew Breitbart) and the fact that he did not mention the name of the website it was put out on. But at least he was being a good journalist by not using the doctored video.

Okay, so think about this, when Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity got the video, how come they did not do what Shep Smith did and not air the video.

Answer: Because they are not journalists, and they have an agenda. They are right-wing hacks who have a right-wing agenda, just like Breitbart. They did not give a damn about journalism when they saw the video, they put the edited video on the air as fast as they could.

They (O'Reilly & Hannity) did not check to see who made the video, when it was made, if it was in context, what was edited out, or when it was edited. In other words, they did the opposite of what a real journalist would do. They used it because it looked like it made a black woman in the Obama administration look like a racist against white people. So journalism rules went out the window.

I expect this from Breitbart, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. but O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent with a no spin zone. And yet, he did the very same thing Hannity did, proving that he is no better than any of them. Not to mention, O'Reilly has said in the past that his crack staff never gets anything wrong.

And then on top of that, O'Reilly has said if you want the truth you have to watch his show. Then he gets caught pulling this biased garbage without even checking to see what the facts were. It shows the O'Reilly mindset, because if he had seen a video like that about a Republican, he would have checked it 6 ways to Sunday before he ever aired it, if he aired it at all.

Stock Market Up Again: O'Reilly Ignores It!
By: Steve - July 24, 2010 - 9:30am

On Friday 7-23-10 the DOW went up 102.23 points, to close at 10.424.62. And the DOW was up 4 out of the last 5 days, it went up 56 points on Monday, 75 points on Tuesday, it dropped 109 points on Wednesday, it went up 202 points on Thursday, and it went up 102 points on Friday. That's a 3.24% increase for the week.

And what a shocker, none of this was reported by Bill O'Reilly. This is what O'Reilly does, when the market is up, he ignores it and never says a word about it. But if it drops for a week, he is all over it, and he makes the ridiculous claim that the market dropped because of the far-left liberal policies of President Obama.

It's total bias, and total dishonesty. Because when the market goes up O'Reilly does not give Obama credit for it, he only blames him when it is down. And btw, for the record, the DOW is up almost 3,000 points since Obama took office. And yet, O'Reilly claims the market is plummeting because of the liberal Obama policies.

When the facts show the market is up close to 3,000 points since Obama took office. This is just more evidence that O'Reilly is a total right-wing fraud of a journalist. Because only dishonest biased partisans blame the President for a temporary drop in the market over a week or so, when the market is actually up over the last 18 months almost, from 8,000 to 10,400.

The Friday 7-23-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 24, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Media War Breaks Out In America. O'Reilly talked about the media war going on in America regarding the Shirley Sherrod story. The so-called war he talks about is between Fox News and the rest of the media. The rest of the media is attacking Fox, and O'Reilly is mad so he is attacking back. When the media is right, O'Reilly just don't like being called out on their bias and dishonesty. So instead of admitting they are biased, and trying to fix it, he uses diversion tactics to attack the attacker.

And btw, the fact that it's Fox vs the rest of the media proves that Fox has a right-wing bias, otherwise the rest of the media would not be attacking them. O'Reilly called Fox the new media, which is code word for conservative media, O'Reilly just don't have the guts to say it. And what's funny is O'Reilly claimed the attack on Fox by the rest of the media failed. Wow is he insane, it did not fail, it was the truth, and O'Reilly just can't admit it. The proof it failed by O'Reilly, the fact that they beat them in the ratings, which is laughable, because they always beat them in the ratings.

So guess who O'Reilly had on to discuss it, one liberal and one conservative, haha, get real. He had the far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss it, with nobody from the left to give an opposing view. Goldberg asked if anyone thinks O'Reilly, Fox, and him are racists, and I say yes I do. But Goldberg said nobody believes they are all racists, but I do, and so do a hell of a lot of other people. Basically O'Reilly and Goldberg did what they do, give a one sided biased opinion about Fox and the rest of the media.

Then they attack the rest of the media, with nobody there to give the other side. They actually think they are the good guys with no bias, and no racism, when it's all in their mind. The reality is something they can not comprehend. They deny all the racism, and claim everyone else is racist. All the while O'Reilly claims his ratings prove he is not a bad guy, which is just ridiculous. You can get high ratings and still be a bad guy, especially when the people giving you those high ratings are all right-wing idiots that agree with you. The whole segment was just laughable, it was 2 right-wing stooges spinning out a lie.

Then O'Reilly had Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall on to discuss it. And it was just more of the same, with Perino spinning it to the right, and Marshall sort of putting up a little of a fight against O'Reilly and Perino. Marshall was on with the 2 Republicans so even when she did finally get to talk, she barely got a word in. O'Reilly is pulling the old diversion trick, when you get accused of doing something wrong, you attack your attacker, to distract people away from the issue. And that is exactly what O'Reilly is doing with this whole story. Marshall, the so-called liberal, mostly agreed with O'Reilly and Perino. She called the right-wing media a hero, and praised O'Reilly for saying he was sorry to Sherrod, when O'Reilly never did say he was sorry. She did say Breitbart was a bad guy, but that's about it. And Marshall should no longer be called a liberal after her ridiculous statements in that segment.

In the next segment O'Reilly asked what happened to post-racial America, and he says wasn't President Obama's election lauded as a turning point for race relations in America. Which is just ridiculous, as if all this racism is Obama's fault. Obama has nothing to do with any of it, and in fact, he has not spoke out on racism at all. The racism issue was brought out by the tea Party, and by the right who are trying to use racial issues to fire up the right-wing base to get out and vote this November.

To blame it on Obama is not only ridiculous, it's even more right-wing racism. And nobody said racism would end when Obama took over as President. We just said it shows that we have moved forward by electing a black man to be the President. In fact, racism has got worse, because of the Tea Party, because of Fox News, and because of right-wing racist idiots like Andrew Breitbart. Former Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was on to discuss it. And he disagreed with O'Reilly that Obama is the cause of more racism, Brown said that is wrong, and that Obama has avoided the racism issue. Brown did say that race was still a major issue in America.

Listen up folks, O'Reilly, Fox News, and the right is talking about racial issues to fire up the far right to get out and vote, plain and simple, and I am not going to discuss it anymore, because it just helps them. All I will say is that Mayor Brown tried to talk some sense into O'Reilly, and he failed big time.

In the personal story segment O'Reilly asked if Newt Gingrich will run for President in 2012, and I say, who fricking cares. Only right-wing stooges even care, which puts O'Reilly in that camp. Gingrich was on to discuss it, and I could care less. O'Reilly admitted he would be a longshot, haha, which is an understatement. Newt has two chances, slim and none.

Then the insane Glenn Beck was on to talk about the Shirley Sherrod story. And I basically decided to mostly ignore what these two right-wing morons said because it was just more right-wing propaganda with no opposing views from anyone. It was really just a campaign ad for Newt, and then Beck went on and on with his usual insane right-wing garbage that he always spews out. Nobody cares about any of it, except O'Reilly and his right-wing viewers, and he pretty much only has them on to get ratings.

And finally, dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville. As I usually say, this segment is the dumbest thing of the week. It's basically 3 conservatives telling you what they think was dumb this week. Neville picked the Republican man who ran the high heels campaign ad, because it's a sexist insult to the woman running against him. Gutfeld picked Cyndi Lauper, because she said something negative about Bush and his AIDS policy. O'Reilly picked the NY Times over an article they wrote about the Shirley Sherrod story, that happened to mention O'Reilly, then he called them dishonest and corrupt, and said he is not dishonest or corrupt.

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

Olbermann Special Comment On The Sherrod Story
By: Steve - July 24, 2010 - 8:30am

Wednesday night Keith Olbermann took time off from his vacation and went in to the studio to tape a special comment of the Breitbart/Fox/Sherrod video smear job story. I will not publish the entire thing, because it's very long, but I have selected a few choice quotes from it.

From the 7-21-10 Countdown With Keith Olbermann Show:

KEITH OLBERMANN: With my thanks to Lawrence O'Donnell and my staff, as promised, my special comment on the witch hunt against Shirley Sherrod and those who made it possible.

We, the howling fools of the far right, the stand-aside pathetic bureaucrats of the Department of Agriculture, the whole of the cowering media, this network included, the whole of the government, this self-defeatingly above-it-all president, included.

And thanks to the perpetual fraud machine that is Fox News, and the scum that is this assassin Breitbart, there will be a portion of this country—the mindless, the hateful, the reactionary, the racist—to whom she is forever convicted and ever imprisoned.

I have sat behind this desk for seven years and pushed back at these counterfeit journalists, as a man might stand at the shore and try to push back the tide.

And today the proof lies in front of you, bleeding: the reputation of Shirley Sherrod, a woman who 24 years ago saw and overcame the vengeance in her own heart and achieved the kind of true greatness the rest of us can only hope we might express for one moment in the whole of our lives, a reputation assassinated by Fox News, assassinated by that scum Breitbart, assassinated by all their meager-brained imitators on other channels and other websites, their limp fellow travelers who never asked questions first, but simply shot, and shot, and shot, and laughed!

Let me make this utterly clear: what you see on Fox News, what you read on right wing websites, is the utter and complete perversion of journalism. And it can have no place in a civilized society. It is words crashed together, never to inform, only to inflame. It is a political guillotine. It is the manipulation of reality to make the racist seem benevolent, and to convict the benevolent as racist.

What you see on Fox News, what you read on right wing websites is a manipulation, not just of a story, not just on behalf of a political philosophy. Manipulation of a society, its intentional redirection from reality and progress to a paranoid delusion and the fomenting of hatred of Americans by Americans. And nearly every last word of it is never, in any tangible sense, true. Ask Shirley Sherrod.

But this evil has not become institutionalized just because of the soul-less work of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes and the scum Breitbart. Our society has not bought into the premise of this 24-hour parade of feces dressed up as news just because of a clever marketing plan.

The apologies are nice. They provide a thin line of self respect, but only a thin one. The legitimate media did not first look at the whole videotape. We didn't first ask if the doctored clip perverted by the scum Breitbart did not seem to be leading up to a "however." We didn't even today, when even this network let this pornographer of propaganda Breitbart come on and spew his lies and his venom and his fraudulent, obviously false self-defense, like a quack doctor attending a life-or-death surgery—we didn't once consider the source.

This false consensus has gotten us only the crucifixion of Van Jones, and a racist gold-shilling buffoon speaking from the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th Anniversary of Dr. King's speech. And now it has gotten us Shirley Sherrod.

Lastly. Ms. Sherrod? I've got no business speaking on behalf of the people of the United States. That's the President's job. But frankly I don't know why he hasn't done this yet, so I'm going to.

We all would like to apologize to you, and ask you to return to work on our behalf. Or if they want to make you Secretary of Agriculture, or especially White House Deputy Chief of Staff. The President could use somebody like you in there tonight.

But mostly I want to thank you for being honorably, quietly, and until these last few days, anonymously, such an outstanding American. Long ago, there was harm done to you and you responded as nearly all of us on this planet would have. And one day, 24 years ago, you realized that you were not ending that harm, you were just passing it along through vengeance and blindness. And you stopped.

Angle Runs From Reporters At Press Conference
By: Steve - July 24, 2010 - 8:00am

So get this, she ran away from the press at her own press conference. Wednesday, after dodging the press for more than a month, Sharron Angle, the Republican Senate candidate running against Sen. Harry Reid(D) in Nevada, held her first press conference since her primary win in early June.

But it wasn't much of a press conference because, like another Republican Senate candidate last month, she dodged reporters questions and rushed out the back door of the building. What happend is early on in her campaign she spoke to the press, and made some crazy statements, which made her look bad, so the Republican Party sent some people in to advise her. And their advice was for her to only talk to Fox News, because they will softball her.

So she only talks to right-wing media now, just like Sarah palin does. Because neither one of them are qualified to run for office, so they have to be protected from the real media, or they will look like the fools they are, and the people will see what they really are, stupid.

The Las Vegas Sun reported this:
In the warehouse of a clean diesel manufacturer in Sparks, Angle delivered a three-minute speech on her desire to permanently repeal the estate tax. When invited by the final speaker to stay and answer a few questions, she turned and rushed out a back door with a small cadre of staff members.

Reporters, including one who is six months pregnant, chased after her, calling out questions on unemployment benefits and other topics she has refused to address.
And btw, the estate tax is only paid by 1% of Americans who are very very wealthy. You only have to pay it if your estate is worth more than $3.5 million dollars when you pass away. So 99% of Americans will never pay an estate tax. And yet, this is what she talked about at her 1st press conference. With all the problems facing America, jobs, health care, the economy, etc. Angle is worried about the 1% of the very wealthy paying an estate tax, wow.

So here are my thoughts about this Sharron Angle nut, if you run for a political office, Mayor, Congress, the Senate, etc. You should be able to answer questions from the media. If you do not, or can not, then you should not be elected.

The people need to know how you answer questions to see how smart you are, to see what positions you have, and to make an informed vote for you, or not. So if you can not answer a few simple questions from the media, you are not qualified to be elected.

And if you refuse to answer any questions from the media, then you must be hiding something, either how smart you are, or what radical positions you have. Which means you should not be elected to any office, let alone the Senate.

The Bill O'Reilly Non-Apology Shirley Sherrod Apology
By: Steve - July 23, 2010 - 9:30am

Have you ever heard a person give an apology to someone that was not an apology, well you did on Wednesday, by Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly never did say he was sorry to Shirley Sherrod.

Here is the exact quote from O'Reilly, from the Wednesday 7-21-10 Factor show:
O'REILLY: On Monday night The Factor ran a tape of Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod speaking to a group of NAACP people last March. Ms. Sherrod's speech was more than 30 minutes long and we used just a small portion in which she said that years ago she did not help a white farmer as much as she could have because he was white. After hearing that, I said Ms. Sherrod should resign from the USDA, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack felt the same way, so the woman was fired.

What I did not know at the time was that Ms. Sherrod told the farmer story in order to make the point that 'we need to overcome the divisions that we have.' So I owe Ms. Sherrod an apology for not doing my homework, for not putting her remarks into the proper context.
Take note of EXACTLY what O'Reilly said, he said "So I owe Ms. Sherrod an apology for not doing my homework, for not putting her remarks into the proper context."

But then he never actually said he was sorry, he just said he owes her an apology, and then he never said it. Not once did he say he was sorry to her, he just said he owes her an apology, which is not an apology. It would be like me saying here is that $10.00 I owe you, then I walk away without giving you the $10.00.

Now everyone is giving O'Reilly credit for saying he was sorry, when he did not actually say he was sorry. Then after the non-apology he went on to smear her and imply she was a racist. And then Thursday night O'Reilly had a segment asking Megyn Kelly if Sherrod violated the Hatch Act, but Kelly said no. So O'Reilly tried to smear Sherrod again the very next night with made up claims that she violated the Hatch Act, even though he knew she did nothing wrong.

This was not an apology, it was a promise of an apology that never happened, with a right-wing smear job on top of it. Proving once again that O'Reilly is not a man of his word, that he is a biased right-wing hack, and that he has no integrity or credibility as a journalist.

The Thursday 7-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 23, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Money, Race, And The Media. O'Reilly talked about the Shirley Sherrod story, and gave you his opinion of how it happened. except his opinion is fantasyland, because he never once mentioned Andrew Breitbart in the whole TPM. So what does O'Reilly do, attack the rest of the media for what they said about Fox News. Rachel Maddow said Fox is drumming up scare tactics about blacks against whites, which is 100% true, but O'Reilly called it totally dishonest, when she is right, and it's all true. So instead of attacking Breitbart for the doctored video, O'Reilly ignored that and attacked the media.

Then Tamara Holder and Niger Innis were on to discuss it. Holder basically agreed with O'Reilly, and said he only made one mistake, not looking at the whole tape. Innis tried to defend the Tea Party over the charges of racism, which has nothing to do with the Sherrod story, so I have no idea why he said that. Then Tamara Holder agreed with O'Reilly that Fox has been treated unfairly in the story. Which is just ridiculous, because Fox was part of the reason why Sherrod was fired. And Breitbart is the main guy, but O'Reilly will not even mention his name. Holder was billed as a liberal, but then she agreed with O'Reilly on almost everything. The whole segment was only done so O'Reilly could get them to say he did nothing wrong, except not view the whole tape.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to discuss the Sherrod story even more. Ingraham admitted to making a mistake, and then she slammed Obama, for what, who fricking knows. Something about blaming Obama for thinking they read the entire transcript, and that she based her opinion on it by that, which makes no sense at all. So then Ingraham attacked Sherrod for what she said about Fox News, instead of attacking Breitbart for doctoring the video.

What gets me is these right-wing morons do not mention the name Breitbart, or attack him for doctoring the video. It's like he is an unknown person who did it, and they just ignore it. They spent the whole segment attacking Obama, Sherrod, and the media, while not saying a word about Breitbart. Which is just insane, and ignoring the real story. The story is how the right-wing fox News loving, Andrew Breitbart doctored a video to make a black woman in the Obama administration look racist. And how fox News jumped on the bandwagon to smear her without having the facts, or even trying to get the facts. But O'Reilly ignores that story, to attack Obama and the rest of the media, it's just ridiculous.

In the Impact Segment O'Reilly talked about the President calling Shirley Sherrod to say he was sorry. Major Garrett and James Rosen were on to discuss it, two Fox News stooges. And from what I can tell this segment was just a total waste of time, I guess it was just an excuse to talk more about the Sherrod story, and for O'Reilly to spin it to make Fox news look better. O'Reilly called them straight news reporters, which is just laughable. The whole segment was biased, with 3 Republicans from Fox. Basically O'Reilly used this segment to attack president Obama.

Then the two right-wing culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Courtney Friel. And if you did not know it, Friel is a blonde bimbo Maxim underwear model that got famous off her looks, and now she claims to be a culture warrior on Fox News. Billy and the so-called culture warriors cried about some liberal group that is urging action against BP. They are selling t-shirts etc. to raise money to help with the oil spill cleanup.

O'Reilly and the culture warriors hated their commercial. Billy pulled the old line he uses that he is just looking out for the kids. Yeah right, shut up. It was an internet ad, and it was fine, unless you still think it's 1960 and "Leave It To Beaver" is on the air. And then they talked about some Calvin Klein ad you can get sent to your phone, but you have to ask for it, so what's the fricking problem, if you don't want to see it, don't ask for it. This whole segment is garbage, and not even close to being news. It's almost as big of a waste of time as the stupid Factor News Quiz.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about whether or not Shirley Sherrod violated the Hatch Act. So once again O'Reilly went after Sherrod, instead of Breitbart. I'm still waiting for O'Reilly to have Breitbart on the air to hammer him for putting out a doctored video, haha, yeah right, that is never going to happen. Hell O'Reilly will not even mention his name, let alone hammer him. And then Kelly said Sherrod did not violate the hatch Act, so that killed the ridiculous partisan O'Reilly attack on Sherrod. But he still tried to claim she did violate it, and Megyn said no no no.

So once again this segment was a total waste of time, because there was no violation of the Hatch Act. O'Reilly just tried to use the segment to smear Sherrod once again, but it failed big time. Then at the end of the segment they talked about Blagojevich a little, and how he did not take the stand in his trial. They seem to think Blagojevich could be found not guilty, but kelly said she would find him guilty if she were on the jury. Even though it's impossible to decide a court case if you are not on the jury and you have not seen all the evidence, showing her right-wing bias once again.

And finally the total waste of tv time on a news show award goes to, the Factor News Quiz, with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, only one so-called liberal was on the entire show, and she agreed with O'Reilly on just about everything, which means you know what, she is a fake liberal.

Andrew Breitbart Has Lost All Credibility
By: Steve - July 23, 2010 - 8:30am

One screw up can be called a little mistake, two screw ups can even be called a mistake, but three strikes and you are out. Which is what we now have with Andrew Breitbart.

What little credibility he had is now gone, and he can never get it back. From now on nothing Breitbart ever puts out can be trusted, his name is mud, and nobody should ever believe anything he says again.

Lawrence O'Donnell said it best on Morning Joe. he said Breitbart has lost his standing to present videos to this country at any time.

Breitbart is a right-wing joke, his goal in life is to doctor videos to smear liberals, and get rich and famous doing it. And if you think the right will kick him out of the media, and never believe him again, you are sadly mistaken.

Just last night Ann Coulter defended him on Hannity and claimed he was set up. On the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly never even mentioned his name, or hammered him for being a dishonest right-wing hack. So they will let it slide and hope everyone just forgets about it. Shep Smith was the only one at Fox that did not use the video, so he is pretty much the only sort of journalist they have.

Journalism Experts Slam Fox News Over Sherrod Video
By: Steve - July 23, 2010 - 8:00am

And they wonder why they never win any journalism awards, because they do biased/racist garbage like the Sherrod video smear job. Andrew Breitbart, Bill O'Reilly, and Fox News are coming under fire by journalism experts for posting a video clip of former Agriculture Department Director Shirley Sherrod out of context, and without seeking her comment.

Sherrod said nobody from Fox News tried to contact her for a comment before the video was put on the air, and on their website.

Breitbert, who first posted the clip Monday at his website, has been under scrutiny after it was revealed the clip misrepresented Sherrod's message during a speech in March before a group of NAACP members.

"Basic journalism calls for getting information, checking it out, looking for context and trying to get to the truth," said Andy Schotz, ethics committee chair at the Society of Professional Journalists. "Gathering snippets and putting them out there is what happened. (Breitbart) is also someone with a specific agenda."

As for Fox, Schotz said: "Is it a legitimate news organization that seeks truth? Or do they have an agenda? You can see yourself the way they host Tea Party events and promote the Tea Party."

In the posting, Breitbart made it appear as though the story had occurred during her time as a federal official and not 24 years ago when she worked for a non-profit organization.

Breitbart also did not include the entire context of the speech, in which she later explained that she learned from the situation and ended up helping the farmer, Roger Spooner and his wife. Both Spooners spoke out several times Tuesday to support Sherrod and voice that they would have lost their farm if not for her help.

Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at The Poynter Institute, said: "When you excerpt a clip, you must make sure the editing process preserves the integrity of what the person is saying," she explains. "Here you have the exact opposite. It actually distorts what she was trying to say."

McBride also said: "There is an inherent danger in it because you risk getting it wrong. It would have been better if they had called her and tracked her down, especially when you are talking about issues of race."

Daniel Okrent, who served as the first public editor for The New York Times and is a respected author, said failing to contact Sherrod for comment was a major error. "You always have to give people a chance to comment. If you are representing yourself as a news organization, you have to give people the right to respond."

He also added, "One of the things you do to protect yourself is to check with the person involved."

PBS Ombudsman Alicia Shepard agreed: "Any journalist would seek comment. If Breitbart does not, he is not a journalist." She also added, "Fox has just as much of an obligation as any news organization to look at the video and check the facts."

Fred Brown, a Denver Post columnist and journalism professor at the University of Denver, said the video clip should have sparked some skepticism in both Breitbart and Fox. "What you have to be most skeptical about is your own skepticism," said Brown, also an SPJ ethics committee member. "They should have listened to the whole tape. They posted it with something in mind and decided they did not want to show it in context."

Tom Fiedler, Dean of the College of Communication at Boston University, said both news outlets broke two basic tenants of journalism: "One involves having your information correct. The other is giving someone a chance to comment."

So here is my advice to O'Reilly and Fox News, stop doing stories about racism, because your network is full of racists, and you are the last people who should be doing any racism stories.

Want Proof O'Reilly Is Nuts: Read This
By: Steve - July 22, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly now claims Fox News is the most powerful News Network in America. And that's not all, O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg also claim that Fox News is now the mainstream media. And that is not all, O'Reilly also claims that CNN is going down the drain, and all the rest of the media does not do their job, except Fox.

And these 2 right-wing lunatics have based all of these conclusions on one thing, ratings. They claim that because Fox has the #1 rated cable news show, that means they are the new mainstream media. Which is so ridiculous it's funny to even write about it.

To begin with, the highest rated show on Fox is the O'Reilly Factor, which gets an average of 2.5 to 3.1 million total viewers a night. That's total viewers, which is roughly 1% of the population. So how can you be the most powerful news network in America when 99% of the people do not watch you?

All 3 network news shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC, crush the Factor in the ratings. Even the 3rd place CBS news gets almost double the ratings the Factor does. And the 1st place NBC news gets about triple the ratings the Factor does.

Here are some details about what the crazy O'Reilly and Goldberg said on Monday night. And think about this, as they were saying it, not one time did they ever mention the National Tea Party dumping the racist Mark Williams from the Tea Party Express. It was the biggest story of the day on Google news, cable news, radio, and the internet. And yet, neither O'Reilly or Goldberg said a word about it. As they claim the mainstream media ignores important news stories based on partisan ideology.

O'Reilly took on Howard Kurtz, who said on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday that Fox News was "pushing" the story, and Bob Schieffer, who told Kurtz that he missed the story because he was on vacation. Schieffer also disputed O'Reilly's claim that the media had ignored the scandal to protect President Obama, saying instead that there were questions over how significant the story is.

"There is a growing split about how the news is covered in this country," O'Reilly said. "The old guard mainstream media makes decisions based upon ideology, race and elitism. The new media, of which Fox News is a part, covers what Americans believe is important to them. That's why we are a dominant No. 1, and I submit we have far more influence than the network news does."

O'Reilly, who asked if Schieffer was vacationing on Venus, added, "Believe me, President Obama, every senator, every congressperson know exactly what we are reporting here, even if Bob Schieffer does not. This indicates there is a changing of the guard as far as news flow is concerned in the USA. If you want to know what's really happening in America, you have to come here because you will not get it in much of the mainstream media."

O'Reilly continued to assert that Fox News does a better job than the "mainstream media" in the following segment, during which he hosted Bernie Goldberg.

Goldberg said that network news personalities like Schieffer, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer "fancy themselves sophisticated and worldly, but they are the most provicinal people out there. They don't know anything if it's not in their bible, the New York Times."
O'REILLY: My contention, and I think your contention, is that we report the news better, better, certainly than CNN which is going right down the drain. And the Washington Post, which misses story after story after story, seemingly because of ideological reasons. You know, so I guess Kurtz is just not getting that.

GOLDBERG: I want to emphasize, he's still better than the bozos that cover the media for lots of other papers. Having said that, we're in a transition period. The old media isn’t totally dead yet but it's dying. It really is dying and Howard still thinks, I guess, that the the Washington Post, the New York Times, the networks, that's the mainstream and Fox is not the mainstream. Here's the news, here's the news. No, no, Fox has become the mainstream in America.

O'REILLY: Well, there's a new sheriff in town and I'm going to have to arrest Howard Kurtz.
Now this is great, O'Reilly claims The Washington Post misses story after story after story, because of ideological reasons. Wow, he should get an award for hypocrisy. I would call it the pot meet kettle award. Fox News and O'Reilly miss every story that makes a Republican look bad, and they do it for ideological reasons. That's their job, and it's what they do every day. It's like Roman Polanski complaining about old men who have sex with young girls, the hypocrisy is stunning.

I would say the people at should take note of this, and if they have not already listed him as jumping the shark, they should do it now for sure.

The Wednesday 7-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 22, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Who is Shirley Sherrod? O'Reilly talked about the Sherrod story, and asked if she was unjustly fired by the Obama administration. Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly and the Fox News lies in the edited video are why she was fired. O'Reilly said Fox News is under fire over the story, duh, what a genius, not.

In his TPM O'Reilly admitted she was unjustly fired, wow. It's a miracle, for once O'Reilly admitted the truth. Then he admitted he used an out of context video quote, and he said he was sorry for doing it. But not once did he slam Breitbart for dishonestly editing the video, or say a word about Fox dishonestly running the story 24/7. But he could not leave it at that, because then he moved on to play more clips of Sherrod speaking, and claimed she is a racist.

Wow, if that's a real apology, I'm Donald Trump. O'Reilly went from doing the right thing, to smearing the woman once again. While not once attacking anyone at Fox for putting the dishonest video out in the first place, or anyone who reported it. Then he slammed the rest of the media again, and bragged about his ratings as evidence they are good journalists, which is not true. Earth to O'Reilly, high ratings do not equal truth telling. Not once was the name Andrew Breitbart mentioned by O'Reilly, not one time. Now Imagine what he would have said if a liberal had done this to a Republican.

Then of course O'Reilly only had a Republican on to discuss it, Dick Morris was the guest to talk about the story. Morris basically put his right-wing spin on it, and there was nobody there to disagree. Morris said Vilsack fired her with approval from the White House, when Vilsack said that was not the case, and even O'Reilly pointed out that Morris has no proof of that, and it's just his opinion. Hey Billy, what happened to that no speculation rule. You just let Morris speculate that Vilsack was lying. And what's funny is during the segment O'Reilly and Morris claimed they just made an honest mistake in reporting on the edited video. Yeah right, and if you believe that I have some land to sell you.

Here is my question, O'Reilly claims to be Mr. tough guy, who does these hard hitting interviews. Okay, so how come O'Reilly did not have Breitbart on the Factor to hammer him, like he would have done if he was a liberal. Hell he did not even mention the guys name, in the entire show, even though he works for Fox, and he is the one who edited the video and put it out. And btw, before the Factor started Shep Smith mentioned that Vilsack offered her a new job, and said the video was edited, but he did not mention Breitbart's name either. He just said it was based on a video on a website, without saying who did it, or what website it was put out on.

So then O'Reilly had Major Garrett and James Rosen from Fox News on to discuss the Sherrod story, with no Democratic guest. In fact, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to discuss the story. Garrett and Rosen basically put a right-wing spin on the story, defending Fox, and nothing they said was really worth reporting. The fact that O'Reilly did not have one Democrat on to discuss the story says a lot, it shows that O'Reilly does not want to hear what Democrats are saying about what O'Reilly and Fox did. Rosen actually mentioned the Breitbart name, but only one time, and O'Reilly still never used it. Then O'reilly attacked the media for reporting what O'Reilly and Fox did with the story.

And then O'Reilly finally reported on the Mark Williams story where he was kicked out of the Tea Party Express for racism. And what a shocker, O'Reilly only had a Republican guest from the tea Party on to discuss it, Dana Loesch. O'Reilly did say it hurts the Tea Party, but she denied it, she also tried to downplay it and claim she did not know exactly what he did. When she knew exactly what he did, and her playing dumb act is ridiculous. What gets me is O'Reilly did not have a liberal guest on to discuss it. So they only put out one side of the story. If a liberal had done something like this, O'Reilly would put a conservative (or two) on to slam the guy, but when a conservative does it he has another conservative on to downplay it, which she did.

In the Miller Time segment, O'Reilly asked Dennis Miller what he thought about the Sherrod story, but I did not report on it because Miller is a comedian, and I could care less what he thinks about anything. Basically Miller just made stupid jokes about it, which is not news, so I did not report what he said. And for some strange reason Miller did a bunch of movie reviews, as if anyone cares what movies he liked.

And finally the total waste of time did you see that segment with Juliet Huddy. Which is another non-news segment that I will not report on. It's basically tabloid type right-wing garbage for ratings, and it has nothing to do with journalism, or reporting the news.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Take note of the fact that not one liberal guest was on this entire show to discuss the edited video Breitbart put out about Sherrod, or the fact that Fox and O'Reilly used the dishonest video to smear her. Including O'Reilly it was 7 Republicans, to 0 Democrats. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, how do you discuss a right-wing edited video scandal at Fox, that got a Government official fired, with no liberal guests to provide the balance. What say you?

And believe me, they knew exactly what they were doing, O'Reilly only said he was sorry because the media slammed him all day Wednesday, so he was forced to say he was sorry. In fact, if the truth about the video had not been reported by the real media, O'Reilly would have slammed her again on Wednesday night.

In fact, he said he was going to have more attacks on her on the Thursday Factor, he claims he has found more racist statements from Sherrod, when there was no racist statements from her the first time. And then he wonders why she will not do any Fox shows, even when they begged her to, give me a break.

Crazy Ben Stein Slams The Unemployed
By: Steve - July 22, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is ridiculous, and it just goes to show what some of these right-wing idiots actually think. Wednesday the Senate extended unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans. Despite the terrible shape of the economy, and only have 2 Republican votes. Conservatives have resisted extending unemployment insurance for weeks for Americans who can't find work, launching a filibuster to even allow a vote on the benefits.

Writing at the American Spectator Tuesday, former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein downplayed the suffering unemployed Americans are experiencing by writing that the people who are unemployed right now are "generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities." He claims the unemployed are Americans with unpleasant personalities, who do not know how to do a day's work:
STEIN: The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say generally because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day's work.

They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job. Again, there are powerful exceptions and I know some, but when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative. To assure that a worker is not one of them, he should learn how to work and how to get along -- not always easy.
funny how they knew how to do a days work before the Bush recession. I guess this dumbass Ben Stein forgot that before Bush, wall street, and the big banks caused the current recession, the unemployment rate was 6%, so those people had jobs back then. They are only unemployed because of the recession, you giant a-hole.

Saying that the 15 million Americans who are unemployed right now are generally people with poor work habits is as offensive as it is wrong. The current recession is a global phenomenon caused by the collective bad behavior of the world's largest financial institutions.

It is insane to say that millions of Americans suddenly got lazier and less able to work within the span of a year or two.

And this nut job Ben Stein is a widely respected voice on the American right, who regularly appears on cable news to offer his thoughts on politics and policy. I wonder what his thoughts would be if he had lost his job due to the recession, and could not find another job that even paid as much as unemployment benefits do.

Here is a comment for Ben Stein, read this a-hole, then you might have an idea what it's like in the real world. Let's say you have a good job that pays $15.00 an hour, then a recession hits, and you get laid off. Now you have bills to pay, house payment, car payment, etc. You have to buy food, gas, etc. And your unemployment benefits are $350.00 a week.

So you already lost $250.00 a week, and your screwed. But if you cut back as much as possible you can barely get by on that $350.00 a week. Then you look for a new job and nothing pays more than $350.00 a week, so your are screwed again. And the rules say that as long as you are looking for a job you do not have to take anything that pays less that what you are making.

Now I'd like to see Ben Stein live on $350.00 dollars a week, hell I bet he could not make it 1 day on that. So shove it Stein, you are a fool, and an idiot.

One Big Reason Fox Viewers Are So Confused
By: Steve - July 22, 2010 - 8:00am

Because Stuart Varney from the Fox Business Network is a massive right-wing idiot. So if reducing the federal budget deficit is your goal (especially in a weak economy) the solution is hardly a secret, at least to most people with a working brain. The government will need some combination of tax increases and spending cuts to lower the deficit. This is economics 101, and even a first year economics student knows that.

But if you are a so-called "business expert" on Fox, you have a totally different understanding of reality. Stuart Varney was on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning, talking about how bad it would be to extend unemployment benefits, because it would be added to the deficit.

but in his very next breath, Varney was outraged by the notion that the Bush tax cuts would expire next year. Varney cried that Democrats are going to "swell the deficit" in the coming years by "raising taxes, which increases the deficit."

Which is just insane right-wing propaganda, first, Democrats are not raising taxes, they are just following the Republican plan to let tax breaks for the wealthy expire. If Varney don't like it, he should blame the GOP for coming up with the tax bill in the first place. Republicans and President Bush passed the tax cuts, and they are the people who put the tax cut expiration date into the bill. So to blame Democrats is just stupid.

Second, if this so-called Fox News business expert believes the deficit goes up when tax rates increase, he's in the wrong profession. It's pure insanity, and a reminder of why Stuart Varney is an embarrassment to himself, and why Fox News viewers are so misinformed. Because they are flooded with right-wing propaganda non-stop, even from their so-called nonpartisan business experts.

This is real simple, if you raise taxes, or let tax cuts expire, the Government will take in more money, and the deficit will go down, especially if you also make budget cuts to go with it. Someone should tell that to the dishonest Stuart Varney, because he is clearly lying.

And what he fails to also report is that all during the Bush years, people like him were saying they do not care about the deficit, they even made fun of Democrats who complained about Bush adding to the deficit. Back then they did not care about the deficit, because we had a Republican President spending money on things they agree with.

Now all the sudden they claim to care about the deficit, but only when we have a Democratic President. It's pure politics, massive hypocrisy, and big double standards. And btw, once the economy turns around, the deficit will go down, due to an increase in revenue from people getting jobs, people spening more, and from the money we save on the Bush tax cuts expiring.

More Details On The Shirley Sherrod Controversy
By: Steve - July 21, 2010 - 6:30pm

As it becomes increasingly clear that the video that brought down former USDA official Shirley Sherrod's career was deceptively edited to make her appear racist, the two white farmers she allegedly discriminated against vigorously defended her. The video shows how Sherrod racially discriminates against a white farmer, Andrew Breitbart claimed.

But that farmer, Roger Spooner, and his wife Eloise, flatly denied that on CNN, telling host Rick Sanchez, there is "no way in the world" Sherrod is a racist:
SANCHEZ: In all your time knowing Shirley Sherrod, has there ever been anything about her, either through her attitude, her words, her opinions or behaviors that would lead you to believe that she is in any way a racist?

ROGER SPOONER: No way in the world. No way. No way. I don't even want to talk about it. It don't make sense. She was just so nice to us as -- she didn't -- there wasn't no -- there wasn't no racism attitude at all in it. Let me say. They don't know what they're talking about, if you want to know my opinion.

ELOISE SPOONER: She always treated us really good. She was nice mannered, thoughtful, friendly. Good person.
New evidence shows that Breitbart selectively edited the video to grossly distort what actually happened. Context is everything, Breitbart wrote in his hit piece, but he failed mention this key context:
Sherrod told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that what online viewers weren't told in reports posted throughout the day Monday was that the tale she told at the banquet happened 24 years ago -- before she got the USDA job.

Sherrod said the short video clip excluded the part of the story about how she eventually worked with the man over a two-year period to help ward off foreclosure of his farm, and how she eventually became friends with the farmer and his wife.

"The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."
In fact, the wife of the white farmer in question, 82-year-old Eloise Spooner, confirmed the story and called Sherrod a friend for life. She told CNN that Sherrod "treated us really good and got us all we could. She's the one I give credit to with helping us save our farm."

Breitbart has the entire video, but he chose to exclude the parts that wouldn't serve their right-wing agenda. "Breitbart is trying to spur racial animosity, by taking the remarks of an African-American official to the NAACP, and removing the context, all in the hopes of generating white resentment," the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote. And none of that was ever reported by O'Reilly, ever, not one word of it.

Now think about this, O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent journalist with no right-wing bias. He also claims to have a crack staff that never gets anything wrong, and that he is the man to go to for the truth. Then he gets caught using the dishonest and highly edited Breitbart video to smear Shirley Sherrod. Without reporting all the facts, or showing all the video to put what she said into context.

And he did all that after spending 2 fricking days crying about how dishonest the mainstream media is, when he is as dishonest as anybody, in fact, he is way more dishonest than anyone in the media, except for maybe Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

UPDATE: Late Wednesday afternoon the Secretary of the Agriculture Tom Vilsack made an apology to Shirley Sherrod, and offered her a new job.

O'Reilly Busted For Smear Job On Shirley Sherrod
By: Steve - July 21, 2010 - 10:30am

Tuesday night Bill O'Reilly had an entire talking points memo on the so-called Shirley Sherrod scandal. O'Reilly played a video of a speech she gave at an NAACP meeting in March, the video was put out by Andrew Breitbart, the partisan Republican who works for Fox News. In the video it makes her look like a racist who discriminated against a white farmer, and that the actions Sherrod described in the video happened when she was the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development during the Obama administration.


The video was dishonestly edited by Andrew Breitbart. He cut out the part before what he showed, that show the actions she described in the video, happened 24 years ago, when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.

So this proves that Andrew Breitbart is a dishonest right-wing hack, who should be fired from whatever journalism job he has. He edited that video to make her look like she did it while working for the Obama administration, when it happened 24 years ago. Then O'Reilly used the edited video to smear the woman, he also spent half the show talking about it after that.

And then on top of that, Sherrod actually did help the white farmer at a later time, even though he was being rude to her. Not to mention, CNN had the actual white farmer she was talking about on the air, and he said she helped him a lot, and he said she should not have been fired. So this whole thing is nothing but a fake controversy, by everyone at Fox News, using a doctored video that was edited 6 ways to sunday.

The NAACP has posted the full video of Shirley Sherrod's March 27 speech, and it definitively proves false Andrew Breitbart's claim that the edited video he posted at his website is "evidence of racism."

In his first post about the video, Breitbart wrote: "In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white."

Breitbart's original post suggested that the actions Sherrod described in the video came in her capacity as the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development during the Obama administration. In fact, the actions she described came 24 years ago, when she when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund -- well before she began working for the Agriculture Department.

In the full video, Sherrod recounts how she ultimately helped the farmer avoid the foreclosure on his farm. While Breitbart's video included Sherrod saying that she initially didn't to everything she could, it omitted her explanation that later she went to much greater lengths to help the farmer.

She goes on to say how her encounter with the farmer "made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people" regardless of whether they were black, white, or Hispanic.

Breitbart's video edits out any of Sherrod's remarks about the true nature of her relationship with the farmer -- who Tuesday stated that Sherrod did her "level best to help him" -- and about the true meaning of her story.

And now you have the facts, that prove Andrew Breitbart is about as dishonest as you can get. Because he had the full video that showed all the facts, but he edited it to make her look like she was guilty of racism while working for the Obama administration.

Then O'Reilly used the same video to smear her, and all of this got her fired. When what she did was wrong, it happened 24 years ago, and she actually had a change of heart and helped the white farmer, so there was no racism in the end, and the white farmer has no problem with her. He even said she helped him and he did not want to see her fired.

None of these facts were reported Tuesday night by O'Reilly, in fact, he did the opposite, he ignored the facts and used the dishonest Breitbart video to smear her, and if O'Reilly does not correct the record on the Wednesday night factor, and say he is sorry to Sherrod, he is also a dishonest right-wing hack who should not have a job in journalism.

This was all done on purpose folks, Breitbart knew what the full video showed, so he edited it like crazy to misrepresent what she did, and when it happened. While cutting out all the parts that showed she did it 24 years ago, and that she actually did end up helping the white farmer. O'Reilly needs to correct the record, and Breitbart should never be trusted again.

And btw, Alan Colmes tried to tell O'Reilly that the video was dishonestly edited and that Breitbart left out a lot of important information, but O'Reilly would not have any of it, he dismissed what Colmes was saying, and made a stupid joke about how much of a joke he is as a journalist. So O'Reilly would not even listen to the truth from Colmes, beause he was on a Jihad to smear Sherrod no matter what the facts showed.

The Tuesday 7-20-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 21, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Another Obama Official Forced Out. O'Reilly talked about Shirley Sherrod being fired for admitting she discriminated against a white person. And of course O'Reilly was all over it, he also slammed the media for not reporting it enough. The woman should have resigned, because she was stupid, especially to admit it. But of course O'Reilly only played the edited out of context video, but the white person she claims to have discriminated against said she helped them and did not think she should have been fired. O'Reilly ignored all that and refused to talk about it.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Colmes pointed out that O'Reilly played a cherry picked edited version of the video, and that he did not report the whole story. Basically Colmes said she was forced out to avoid the controversy for the Obama administration. Crazy Crowley said it shows a pattern of racism in the Obama administration, which is just ridiculous. Colmes disagreed with O'Reilly and Crowley and called it McCarthyism. Colmes also called it a witch hunt, and O'Reilly said the media ignored the story, so Colmes said good, because it's not a big story. Colmes also pointed out that the Black Panther story is a non-story, and O'Reilly dismissed what he said and made a stupid joke.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the same topic, and Kirsten Powers was on to discuss it. Powers agreed with Colmes that the ACORN story and the Black Panther Story were both hyped by Fox, and not real news that was important enough to report on. Powers also said the Van Jones story that was hyped by Fox was also a non-story. So O'Reilly slammed her and went on about how his job is to inform the people with the truth, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too. Powers called the Black Panther story a Jihad against the DoJ, and said Fox reported the story way too much, and of course O'Reilly disagreed. Then he once again slammed the mainstream media for not reporting it as much as Fox News did. Basically O'Reilly only had Powers on to tell her how wrong she is about everything.

What's ridiculous here is O'Reilly complaining about the so-called liberal media ignoring news that could hurt Obama and the Democrats. When O'Reilly and Fox do the very same thing every day with news that makes the Republicans look bad, and do it 10 times more than the mainstream media does. It's massive hypocrisy, and a giant double standard, from O'Reilly. O'Reilly even ignored the Tea Party Mark Williams racism story. So he is as guilty of ignoring news as the mainstream media is, if not worse. And btw, who the hell is he to tell other news networks what news to cover and what not to, who made him God.

Then O'Reilly talked about Obama meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron to talk about the Lockerbie bomber's release that the UK and BP were involved with. Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, and he said it's pretty much a non-story and he does not think it should even be reported on. And of course, O'Reilly disagreed. To be honest, this segment was garbage, and a total waste of time, so I barely reported on it.

In the Stossel Matters Segment John Stossel was on to discuss the Congress passing the unemployment extension bill on Tuesday. What's funny is the name of the segment, because Stossel does not matter, and nobody cares what he says, except O'Reilly and a few right-wing idiots. The story is the Republicans blocking the benefits to 2.5 million people just to play politics, when they knew it was going to pass sooner or later. And if Democrats had done this under Bush, O'Reilly would have called them un-American traitors.

O'Reilly and Stossel said the Government is broke, and they should not have passed the unemployment extension bill. Stossel basically said too bad, starve for all he cares, he said give them nothing, zero. Even though they paid into unemployment when they were working. O'Reilly said he would give them some benefits, but only for a short time with no extension, even if unemployment is 10% or higher. Basically what this segment showed me is that Stossel is a 100% right-wing nut, and O'Reilly is only a 90% right-wing nut.

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about military decorations, and a judge who ruled it was unconstitutional. The ACLU stepped in and defended the guy, and the judge ruled for the ACLU. Wiehl, Guilfoyle, and O'Reilly, all said the judge was wrong. O'Reilly also called the judge a pinhead.

Then O'Reilly dug up the old right-wing spin that the Obama health care system is unconstitutional, which is a losing cause, but O'Reilly keeps digging it up. What got me was O'Reilly calling Wiehl a liberal, when she agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time. Real liberals would only agree with O'Reilly 10% of the time, if that. And then they talked about Lindsay Lohan, and Wesley Snipes, which I refuse to report on because it's tabloid garbage.

In the last segment O'Reilly talked about how some conservative Christians are changing their position on illegal immigration, and siding with president Obama. They support the Obama comprehensive immigration plan. Mat Staver was on to say he supports the Obama plan. Which O'Reilly is 100% opposed to. And this segment was kind of boring, so I did not report much on it. O'Reilly used kid gloves on Staver, because he is a Republican. But if he was a Democrat O'Reilly would have slammed him.

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

Democrats Set To Extend Unemployment Benefits
By: Steve - July 21, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is some News you will never see on the O'Reilly Factor. In fact, you will probably not hear any of this on any Fox news show.

Last month, Senate Democrats tried 3 times to pass extended unemployment benefits, and in each instance, Republicans (and the Democrat Ben Nelson) refused to allow the Senate to vote on the measure. If all goes according to plan on tuesday, the fourth time will be the charm.

Around 2pm, Carte Goodwin will be sworn in to temporarily fill the vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd, bringing the Senate Democratic caucus to 59 members. then a few minutes later, the Democratic leadership will bring the unemployment bill to the floor. Maine's Olympia Snowe(R) and Susan Collins(R) are set to break ranks with the corrupt Republicans, that should leave the majority with the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican obstructionism.

Republicans have spent the last few weeks arguing that $687 billion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy don't have to be paid for, so the GOP requirement that $33 billion in aid for jobless Americans be offset with cuts elsewhere is just ridiculous.

But it's also worth noting that what Boehner and his cohorts are demanding has no modern precedent. In recent decades, extended unemployment benefits have been considered emergency spending, and therefore added to the deficit:
Congress has, in fact, offset the cost of unemployment benefits -- but Congress has never substantially cut spending elsewhere in the budget to fully pay for them as Republicans now want to do.
And think about this, we are already in unprecedented territory: "In the history of America, Congress has never allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse at a time when the national unemployment rate is above 7.2 percent." Funny how neither O'Reilly or Rove mentioned that, I guess they just forgot, yeah right.

Another Poll You Will Never See On The Factor
By: Steve - July 21, 2010 - 8:30am

For months O'Reilly, Rove, Ingraham, Gingrich, Morris, and on and on, have said the Republicans are going to win the House back this November, and maybe even win the Senate back too. In fact, just 2 nights ago O'Reilly said the Republicans are going to win big this November.

Almost every night O'Reilly puts out this right-wing spin about how Obama is so bad of a far-left President that the people hate him, and will vote all the Republicans back into power in November. Ignoring the fact that the Obama job approval at Gallup has only dropped 1 point since August of 2009.

Well now there is a new poll at Gallup, and the results are not good news for O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends.

Democrats Jump Into Six-Point Lead on Generic Ballot

In the same week the U.S. Senate passed a major financial reform bill touted as reining in Wall Street, Democrats pulled ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections.

So if you believe O'Reilly, President Obama is this big far-left liberal that most of the people do not like. And that means the people are all going to vote Republican this November. But if that is true, how come the Obama job approval ratings at Gallup has not dropped more than 1 point over the last year, and how come the new Gallup poll has the Democrats with a 6 point lead over the Republicans.

What this shows is that O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor, in his mind the people hate Obama more and more every day, because he does, so he thinks that means the Republicans will kick ass this November. Based on his biased view of what Obama is doing. When the reality shows no such thing, even though the Democrats may lose some seats, it is not clear they will lose the House, or the Senate, as the crazy O'Reilly claims.

Fox News Ignores Senator Vitter Aide Scandal
By: Steve - July 21, 2010 - 8:00am

Over the weekend, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) went on Fox News Sunday to discuss the oil spill cleanup effort. Despite being in the middle of a widely reported scandal involving his former aide, Brent Furer, who worked on women's issues for Vitter until late last month and only resigned after his conviction for stabbing a woman in 2008 came to light. Fox News Chris Wallace did not even mention the subject. Then again this month, Vitter dodged reporters questions about the scandal:
REPORTER: You say your aide's arrest happened two years ago, I mean, he just resigned and you let him stay on the staff since the events happened in 2008, so it wasn't two years ago.

VITTER: Well, the event was two years ago, the discipline he got in the office was two years ago.

REPORTER: Why'd you let him, what kind of discipline did he get in the office?

VITTER: Anybody else have a question?
I guess Vitter's scandal and the avoidance of it is not newsworthy enough for the so-called fair and balanced News network. And btw, Ben Smith from Politico tried to get a comment from a Fox News spokesperson, and they would not even reply to him.

Okay, now think about this. O'Reilly said the mainstream media is corrupt for not reporting on the Black Panther voter intimidation story, even though it's a bogus controversy made up by the right. So here we have a real story, about an aide to a Senator, and not only has Fox News ignored the story, so has Bill O'Reilly.

Not to mention, O'Reilly has ignored the Mark Williams racism story, and the evidence of racism in the Tea Party. So if anyone is corrupt, it's O'Reilly and Fox News.

Republican Hypocrisy On Unemployment Benefits
By: Steve - July 20, 2010 - 9:30am

Monday night O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to spin the Republicans blocking the unemployment benefits extension to the 2.5 million Americans who need it. Basically O'Reilly and Rove dishonestly attacked Obama for calling them out, instead of attacking the Republicans for blocking the bill. So here are the facts, none of which O'Reilly or Rove reported.

President Obama took aim at Republican lawmakers Monday, accusing them of holding the public hostage to Washington politics by blocking extended unemployment benefits for millions of out of work Americans.

"It's time to do what's right, not for the next election, but for the middle class," Obama said in a presidential jawboning statement in the Rose Garden Monday morning.

Republicans have battled with the Democrats for weeks over legislation extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been out of a job for long stretches of time. The last such extension expired at the end of May, leaving some 2.5 million people without benefits, with hundreds of thousands more losing benefits each week.

On Monday, the Republicans once again blocked a vote on the bill. But the Senate is set to take up the measure again Tuesday, immediately after the swearing in of a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd. Filling that seat will give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block a Republican filibuster.

Obama also pointed out that his Republican opponents are hypocritical for having voted for extensions of unemployment benefits when his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, was in the White House, but not now with a Democratic President. Proving they are just playing politics with 2.5 million people's lives.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said extending unemployment benefits amounts to "emergency spending" that justifies higher deficits. Under GOP presidents, he told reporters, most Republican lawmakers agreed, but now they are insisting that extended benefits be paid for. While at the same time saying the Bush tax cuts that would cost $678 billion, do not have to be paid for.

And btw, the unemployment extension bill would only cost $33 billion dollars. Which is pretty much nothing when you have a $3 trillion dollar budget.

The Monday 7-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 20, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called The Media, The Black Panthers & Obama. And I refuse to report on this right-wing propaganda anymore. It's clear that O'Reilly and the right are using this bogus story to smear Obama and the Democrats, so I will not report on it ever again. It's a made up controversy by a partisan Republicans, and then O'Reilly and Fox spread the lies ever day.

O'Reilly claimed the mainstream media is afraid to cover the news, which is just ridiculous. They do not cover it because it's not news. O'Reilly also attacked Howard Kurtz at CNN for simply reporting that O'Reilly and Fox are pushing the bogus story, and he also attacked Bob Schieffer again. O'Reilly said it was not pushing the story, it was simply reporting it. And of course neither Kurtz or Schieffer were invited on to give their side of the story. It was a one sided biased hatchet job by O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing Bernie Goldberg on to make the claim that the media has been compromised, because they do not report on the Black Panther story. When the whole story is bogus, and it's just a partisan smear job on Obama. So if any of the media has been compromised, it's O'Reilly, Fox, and all the right-wing bloggers. They are the dishonest idiots who are reporting this bogus story. I mean wow, pot meet kettle. The compromised media here is Fox News, not the rest of the media who are not reporting the story. Basically O'Reilly and Goldberg claimed the mainstream media is corrupt and dishonest, when it's Fox who is corrupt and dishonest.

And btw, Bob Schieffer was on vacation when the Black Panther story first broke, that was only reported on Fox, and he said to Kurtz that he did not even know about the story when he did the Holder interview. So O'Reilly attacked Schieffer for not talking about a story that broke when he was on vacation, and a story he did not even know about when he did the Holder interview. Making O'Reilly a giant lying right-wing jackass who would not know what journalism is if it hit him in the face. Goldberg and O'Reilly also called the mainstream media the old media, and said it is not dead yet, but it's dying, and that Fox is the new mainstream media, and yes they actually said that. O'Reilly even said there is a new sheriff in town, haha.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss/spin it even more. And of course no Democratic guest was on to provide the balance, in fact, not one Democratic guest has been on at all, none. So far it's been nothing but total 100% right-wing spin with all Republican guests. Here is my question, how can you claim to be a journalist and report on the so-called liberal media, and not have one liberal on to give the other side of the story. That's not journalism, it's one sided biased right-wing propaganda.

Basically Hume agreed with Goldberg and O'Reilly, that the media has been compromised. Which is just ridiculous, and I will not report on this nonsense anymore. But I will say this, O'Reilly said he believes Schieffer, and Hume said he believes Shieffer, but then O'Reilly spent half the show slamming him anyway. And then O'Reilly said something that was just laughable, O'Reilly said CBS is still a big time news operation, but that he believes Fox News has eclipsed them. Which is ridiculous, CBS gets 7 to 8 million viewers a night, ABC News gets about 9 million, and NBC News gets about 10 million. The Factor gets about 3 million viewers a night, or less, sometimes 2.5 million, so Fox has not eclipsed anyone. It's all in the warped mind of Bill O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly said Fox News is now the most powerful News Network in the country, then he asked brit Hume if he agreed, and Hume said yes. Wow, that is just insane. Move over Glenn Beck, O'Reilly just passed you on the crazy right-wing idiot list. Earth to O'Reilly, Fox News is a joke and a laughing stock to everyone in America, except idiotic right-wing fools like you. Nobody even takes Fox serious, except Republicans. What you do is not news, it's right-wing propaganda pretending to be news.

And in the next segment Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about why the Obama administration is suing Arizona over its immigration law, but not going after sanctuary cities. Williams defended the cities to do what they do, because the federal government is in charge of immigration, not the cities. And of course Ham agreed with O'Reilly, because she is a right-wing stooge who is only put on to agree with O'Reilly on everything. This is just more right-wing propaganda, which O'Reilly is so good at. O'Reilly wants the cities to enforce federal immigration laws, which is just crazy, and more proof that he is simply a right-wing idiot.

Then a small miracle happened, O'Reilly actually reported on the Republicans who are blocking unemployment benefits to 2.5 million people. Even though it's a week old story he finally reported on it. But of course O'Reilly only had Karl Rove on to discuss it, so the 2 of them did nothing but put a right-wing spin on it. Obama said it was hurting Americans in a speech, so what O'Reilly did was put Karl Rove on to attack Obama for saying that, even though it's true.

It was basically another one sided biased right-wing hatchet job on Obama. Instead of attacking the Republicans for blocking the benefits, they attacked Obama for saying the Republicans are hurting Americans. Rove said it should not pass unless the Obama administration pays for it, and he called what Obama said a straw-man argument.

O'Reilly slammed Obama and said what he is doing with the unemployment benefits does not add up, and he said the other things Obama does are just plain dumb. Then he said he is not a partisan Republican, yeah right, and I'm not a liberal either. O'Reilly even said the media was spinning the story to make Republicans look bad, which is just laughable. So in a segment where the Republicans should have been attacked for blocking the benefits to 2.5 million people, it was turned into an Obama bashfest, where O'Reilly denied it was a partisan attack, when that is exactly what it was.

And finally in the last ridiculous segment, O'Reilly had the so-called Factor reality check. Which I do not report on, because there is no reality, and almost no checks. The whole segment is just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on something Obama or another Democrat said. Basically it's nothing more than right-wing spin, by O'Reilly, with no liberal guest to provide any balance.

Then the ever lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, as I predicted, O'Reilly did not say one word about the National Tea Party dumping Mark Williams for racism, or report on the Tea Party Hitler/Obama/Lenin billboard story in Iowa, as he said he would on Monday.

Republican Leaders Have No Plan For America
By: Steve - July 20, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is stunning, Republicans bitch and moan about what Obama is doing, and they say put us back in power and we will fix things. but when they are asked what they will do, they can not answer that question. All they do is say Obama is doing it the wrong way, but they have no plan to do anything different.

The heads of the Republican congressional campaign committees, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX), appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to discuss their party's strategy for the November elections. Sessions began by saying that everyone knows exactly what Republicans stand for, but he quickly proved that even he don't really know.

David Gregory repeatedly pressed the two campaign chiefs for substance, saying, these are not specifics, voters get tired of that. But all he got in return was right-wing talking points, like how Republican candidates are standing with the American people back home.

Gregory correctly dismissed what he was hearing from Sessions as gauzy, and turned to Cornyn, saying, I'm not hearing an answer here, what are the painful choices that Republicans are prepared to make to cut the deficit?

Instead of offering any ideas of their own, Cornyn responded that he would wait for President Obama's debt commission report, which will not come out until after the election. Gregory replied, wait a minute, conservatives need a Democratic president's debt commission to figure out what it is they need to cut?:
GREGORY: I think what a lot of people want to know is, if Republicans do get back in power, what are they going to do?

SESSIONS: It's quite simple that Americans do know the agenda that is before us. They understand what the President and the speaker stand for, and they understand what Republicans stand for. Republicans are standing with the American people back home.

GREGORY: Congressman, congressman, that's a pretty gauzy agenda so far. I mean, what specifics -- what painful painful choices are Republicans prepared to make? How do you balance the budget? Tell me how you do it. Name a painful choice that Republicans are prepared to say we have to make.

SESSIONS: Well first of all, we have to make sure as we look at all we spend in Washington, D.C., with not only the entitlement spending, but also the bigger government we cannot afford anymore. We have to empower the free enterprise system.

GREGORY: Congressman, these are not specifics, voters get tired of that.

SESSIONS: Oh they are. They are. Let's go right to it.

GREGORY: Senator, I'm sorry, I'm not hearing an answer here on specifics. What painful choices to really deal with the deficit -- is Social Security on the table? -- what will Republicans do that will give them, like 1994, there was the Contract with America, what are voters going to say, hey, this is what Republicans will say yes to.

CORNYN: Well, the president has a debt commission that reports December the first, and I think we'd all like to see what they come back with.

GREGORY: But wait a minute, conservatives need a Democratic president's debt commission to figure out what it is they need to cut?
The whole interview went like that, these Republican fools could not answer the question, and did not give one specific detail on any programs they would cut. Because they are going to wait until after the election.

Rich Lowry, the editor of the conservative National Review, called Cronyn and Sessions performance disappointing on Twitter, writing, "a consensus GOP agenda is badly needed so these guys have something to say."

And in a rare candid moment on Bill Bennett's radio show Congressman Peter King (R-NY) admitted why Republicans refuse to give specifics. Republicans shouldn't "lay out a complete agenda," King said, because people might not like it.

So they admit they do not give specific answers because many people will not like it. They are basically going to keep the voters in the dark about their plans for the country, until after the election. Which is about as dishonest as you can get, you are supposed to tell the people what your plan for the country are, not keep your plans secret until after the election.

O'Reilly & The Right Are Racist Idiots
By: Steve - July 20, 2010 - 8:00am

You can also add almost everyone at Fox News. Because they have all used the bogus Black Panther voter intimidation case to fire up the right-wing base to get out and vote this November, by using race to smear Obama.

This is a calculated plan by the Republican Party, Bill O'Reilly, everyone at Fox News, and all the right-wing bloggers etc. Their plan is to make Obama seem like a racist who supports the Black Panthers, and who told the DoJ to not prosecute any blacks. Then they add the NAACP into the mix, and you have a total racist smear job by the right to make white (Republican) voters mad so they will get out and vote.

The right-wing media is ginning up stories based on manufactured outrage and utter nonsense. And lately, they've all had one topic on their minds: race. Specifically the racism of black political figures, which they claim is nothing short of institutional policy in the Obama administration, and the racism of white tea partiers, which they claim doesn't exist.

We begin with the increasingly ridiculous New Black Panther Party "scandal," which revolves around the allegation -- and it's hard to believe that right-wingers actually profess to believe this -- that the Obama Justice Department dropped voter intimidation charges against members of this fringe hate group due to the administration's official policy of not pursuing cases in which the defendant is black and the victim is white.

Is there evidence for any of this? No. Does the partisan GOP hack/former DOJ attorney making this allegation have any facts to support it? No. But that's the story they're sticking to, and it has sparked a frenzy of race-baiting more explicit than anything we've seen so far during the Obama administration.

Fox News has been leading the charge, doing what Jon Chait called "the most widespread right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama." Glenn Beck nonsensically claimed that the New Black Panthers "have ties to the White House" and accused the administration of endorsing the "race war" he sees coming down the pike. Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, the so-called straight news driving force behind the bogus story, has been corrected on the facts more times than you can count, but continues to hype the story every day. While getting mad at anyone who calls her out for her lies.

Which is to be expected from Fox News. The danger is that, with not much else going on and the right-wing spin machine operating at high speed, the bogus story starts bleeding into the mainstream press. Kelly herself boasted that Fox News "dragged the media kicking and screaming" to the New Black Panther story, and already there have been segments about the non-scandal on CNN and in The Washington Post.

The opposite to the right-wing media's bogus claims of racism at the DoJ are their assurances, that there is no racism in the tea party movement. After the NAACP passed a resolution condemning the "racist elements" within the tea party, conservatives went ballistic, claiming that the many, many, many, many, many examples of tea party racism and bigotry simply don't exist. And nothing will convince them otherwise -- not the many photographs of racist placards at tea party rallies (if Bill O'Reilly Sean Hannity couldn't find them, they must not exist), nor the word of civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis.

Bigoted, racial attacks from conservatives against Obama aren't anything new. Hell, not even a week after he announced his intention to run for the presidency, they were excitedly spreading false rumors that he spent his childhood in a madrassa. But this past month has been something different. Gone are the code words, the winks and nods, and the dog whistles -- the right-wing media is openly trying to turn Obama's race into something scary.

It's the scary black man tactic, from O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends. They are trying to get the white Republicans to think Obama is giving unfair treatment to blacks, and that he is the racist. This is simply being done to get out the vote in November.

And it's sad to see the race card being played by Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. Especially when they claim to be fair and balanced, Independent, objective, and nonpartisan, which is just laughable. They have joined the GOP to play the scary black man racist card, and it's pathetic.

O'Reilly Ignored Tea Party Express Racism Story
By: Steve - July 19, 2010 - 9:00pm

As I predicted, on the Monday night Factor Bill O'Reilly did not say one word about the racist Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams being kicked out of the National Tea Party Federation for writing racist statements on his blog. And this story was listed as the #2 story on the Google News most popular articles page.

This was a big story that was all over the media on Monday, on tv, radio, and the internet. But neither O'Reilly or his media bias analyst Bernie Goldberg said one word about it. But they sure had plenty of time to complain about the media ignoring the bogus Blank Panther voter intimidation story. It's massive hypocrisy, and a giant double standard.

Which just proves once again that O'Reilly is a fraud of a journalist, as he claims the rest of the media is corrupt for ignoring the Black Panther story, he is doing the very same thing by ignoring the Mark Williams Tea Party racism story. Even after he said he could not find any racism in the Tea Party.

More Proof The Tea Party Is Racist
By: Steve - July 19, 2010 - 10:00am

And btw, when I say the Tea Party is racist, I do not mean everyone in the Tea Party. I am just talking about some of them, not all of them. It would be crazy to say they are all racists, which I would never do, and have never done.

Now here is more proof that some people in the Tea Party are racists, read this O'Reilly, then maybe you will have a clue.

Sunday on the CBS Face the Nation New show, TeaParty365 co-founder David Webb said that the National Tea Party Federation has expelled Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express, in the last 24 hours, for his clearly offensive satirical letter saying coloreds supported slavery.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that is racism, he did it, just a few days ago. Mark Williams wrote a racist letter using the word coloreds, saying blacks supported slavery. Then after he took some heat for it, he removed it, but it was too late because people had already seen it and taken screen captures of it.

Dear Bill O'Reilly, that is direct evidence of racism in the Tea Party. And not from just any Tea Party member, from the head of the freaking Tea Party Express, Mark Williams. Which is the same Tea Party Express Fox News promoted the hell out of, all day and all night for a month.

The National Tea Party Federation kicked him out for racism, so report that jackass, and stop denying there is racism in the Tea Party. What say you Billy?

More Details On The Tea Party Racism Story
By: Steve - July 19, 2010 - 9:30am

Here are some more details about the National Tea Party Federation expelling a member group after its spokesman wrote an online post satirizing a fictional letter from what he called "Colored People" to President Abraham Lincoln.

And let me add this, Google News has a Most Popular page, this article is the #2 most popular story as of Sunday night, so if O'Reilly ignores this story on the Mondy night Factor, you know he is not a journalist. To be clear, I predict O'Reilly will not say one word about this story, ever.

Tea Party federation expels group over racial writing

WASHINGTON — The Tea Party political movement saw a major split over the weekend, with the National Tea Party Federation expelling a member group after its spokesman wrote an online post satirizing a fictional letter from what he called "Colored People" to President Abraham Lincoln.

On its website, the federation stated it had given the Tea Party Express, through direct contact with one of its leaders, a deadline to rebuke and remove spokesman Mark Williams.

"That leader's response was clear: they have no intention of taking the action we required for their group to continue as a member of the National Tea Party Federation," the federation stated.

Therefore, effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership."

Federation spokesman David Webb, interviewed Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," called the blog post "clearly offensive."

Williams, who said his letter was satirical, started it like this:
"Dear Mr. Lincoln, We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!"

"Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for?" he added. "What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us Coloreds!"
A conservative talk radio host, Williams later removed the post as criticism grew.

Williams post was a reply to a resolution by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) earlier this month that called on Tea Party leaders to "repudiate the racist element and activities" within the political movement.

Immediately after the resolution, Williams said it was unfortunate that the NAACP had chosen to "profiteer off race-baiting and fear mongering" when it could be doing so much to help the black community.

"I'm not surprised they are jumping into the fray here because the NAACP just tapped a Gulf oil well full of cash contributions that will arrive from this resolution," Williams said. "And I know Al (Sharpton) and Jesse (Jackson, Jr.) want their piece of it. The slave traders of the 16th century should have been as good at exploiting Africans as these people are, because it's just disgusting."

Okay Billy, the ball is in your court, will you report this Tea Party racism, or will you continue to be a shill for the Tea Party, and help them cover up their racism. As I said, I predict you will ignore this entire story.

Dear Bill O'Reilly: The Obama Job Approval Is 49%
By: Steve - July 19, 2010 - 9:00am

Over the last week O'Reilly once again made the claim that the Obama job approval is crashing, over and over he spews out this right-wing propaganda. When it's a flat out lie, yes it goes up and down, but it's the same now as it was a week ago, and two weeks ago, and three weeks ago.

The Obama job approval has not dropped at all over the last month, and it's only dropped 1 point since August of 2009, which is 11 months ago.

As I type this on Sunday July 18th, Gallup has the Obama job approval at 49 percent, yes I said 49 percent. Which is a 2 point increase from the 47% it was at, showing that it goes down, then goes back up. Just go look for yourself.

What O'Reilly does is cherry pick the numbers during a temporary down period, but he never reports them when they are up during the temporary up periods. It goes down a few points, then it goes back up a few points, and it stays right around 50 percent.

But you never hear about the numbers during the up periods, O'Reilly just goes on and on about how the Obama job approval numbers are going down and down and down. When they have not changed for almost a year, his approval was 50% in August of 2009, and it's 49% approval now.

Proving that Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a fraud, a con-man, a liar, and basically nothing more than a biased right-wing partisan hack. What he does is not objective journalism by an Independent in a no spin zone, it's partisan right-wing propaganda in an all spin zone, and that is a fact.

Bob Schieffer Responds To O'Reilly Attack
By: Steve - July 19, 2010 - 8:30am

Last week O'Reilly spent two nights attacking Bob Schieffer for his interview of Attorney General Eric Holder. He attacked him in a segment with Brit Hume one night, and then again with Dennis Miller another night. And each time nobody from CBS was on to discuss it, or anyone to give the other side of the story. O'Reilly had only Republican guests, which is anything but fair and balanced.

Now we find out that Bob Schieffer from CBS News told Howard Kurtz Sunday that not one person from Fox News ever called him to ask him anything about the Holder interview. Here is the video:

So O'Reilly and Fox News basically smeared him, and attacked him, without even calling him to ask him about the interview. Which is what O'Reilly complains about when someone does it to him, or someone at Fox News. Then he does the very same thing he complains about. And then on top of that O'Reilly did not have Bob Schieffer on the Factor to defend himself, or have anyone on to represent him and give his side of the story. Which is a violation of journalism rules.

Schieffer also said it was absurd for O'Reilly to claim the media is protecting Obama on New Black Panthers case, and he dismissed it as nonsense. Here is the video:

And the reason it's absurd, is that the decision to not file criminal charges against the Black Panthers was made during the Bush administration, before Obama even took office in January of 2009. but O'Reilly does not report than, because he is a biased and dishonest right-wing hack.

And if O'Reilly thinks the police in Arizona are not going to check a persons papers just because they look Mexican, he is not living in reality. It's called racial profiling, it is happening now, and it will happen more, especially if the new Arizona law goes into effect. Which is the point Mr. Schieffer was making in the Holder interview, and he was right.

Just because the law says you can not racially profile someone, does not mean it will never happen. Especially when we know for a fact that making racial profiling illegal has not stopped it, surveys have shown that it is still happening. Just like making pot illegal has not stopped people from smoking it.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The NAACP President
By: Steve - July 19, 2010 - 8:00am

Once again Bill O'Reilly was caught red handed lying about what the NAACP has done, or in this case he was lying about what he claimed they had not done. Read what O'Reilly said, and remember that these are his own words from his very own transcript, taken from his very own website.

On Wednesday July 14th O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This week the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People held its annual convention and racism was a featured topic. NAACP President Ben Jealous warned that 'racism and hate is still alive in America.' Jealous also claimed tea party folks were carrying signs that read 'lynch Barack Hussein Obama.'

We could not find those signs and it is impossible for anybody to take responsibility for everything their members do. If Mr. Jealous thinks there's no racism in his own organization, he's insane. From the beginning of the tea party ascent, the far-left has labeled it a racist organization.

That's what these people do - if they don't like you, you're a bigot. Talking Points is very disappointed that the NAACP is buying this nonsense and it is perplexing because the organization does not condemn the New Black Panther member who urged people to 'kill some crackers.'

We didn't hear a word about the New Black Panthers from the NAACP, so a case could be made that the NAACP is color blind on racism. If blacks are the perpetrators, they ignore it.
Okay, now think about this, O'Reilly said he could not find any signs that said lynch Barack Hussein Obama, so in O'Reillyworld that means if he could not find them it never happened. Which is just ridiculous, it's like saying if you never witness any racism it never happened, or like saying if a tree fell in the woods, and you never saw it, then it never happened.

But if some right-winger in the DoJ claims he was told not to prosecute any blacks, O'Reilly believes that, even though he did not witness it, and he has no evidence to prove it. Making him a giant hypocrite, and a dishonest journalist. Not to mention many racist signs have been seen, and photos of them have been published on tv and the internet.

O'Reilly also has a double standard, because when a Democratic Congressman says something about a Republican, O'Reilly links him to President Obama and says it will hurt him. Even though the president can not control what every Democrat in America says, especially when you have free speech, O'Reilly blames Obama anyway. But when you have some racists in the Tea Party, O'Reilly says it is impossible for anybody to take responsibility for everything their members do. So his double standard is stunning.

And then on the same show O'Reilly had professor Marc Lamont Hill on as a guest, who stood up for the NAACP. Hill said this:
HILL: They have every right, to say they want the tea party to expel racists from the organization and a strong case can be made that there's racism in the tea party movement. I have been to tea party rallies where I've heard things about lynching the President and beating the President up.
And then O'Reilly challenged Hill's claim and denounced the NAACP's Ben Jealous for selective outrage. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Can you point to one thing he has criticized in the African American community as racist? Not only does the NAACP ignore the New Black Panthers, they ignored Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. They ignore everything that isn't white-generated alleged racism.
So basically he's calling Dr. Hill a liar, which he never does when a Republican guest tells him he heard something at a protest. O'Reilly also said the NAACP never speaks out against blacks that do bad things, or the Black Panther Party. Which is a 100% flat out lie. And the NAACP's Ben Jealous has condemned the Black Panthers, many times.

In fact, he did it last week on CNN, and he did it again on Face The Nation this Sunday, he said we "absolutely denounce" the New Black Panther Party, here is a video of it.

In closing, if you want to see a classic example of the lies, the right-wing bias, the hypocrisy, the denial, and the double standards from O'Reilly, it's all right here in this one blog posting.

Crazy Neil Cavuto Proven Wrong Once Again
By: Steve - July 18, 2010 - 10:00am

Remember when Cavuto used to blame the housing crisis on the little people who took out home loans they knew they could not afford, even though we later found out most of the defaulted loans went to people with homes over a million dollars.

Well now we have even more evidence that Cavuto was wrong. Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to settle federal claims that it misled investors in a subprime mortgage product as the housing market began to collapse.

The settlement with the SEC would rank among the largest in the 76-year history of the agency, but represent only a small financial dent for Goldman, which reported $13.39 billion in profit last year. And they are not alone, many other smaller home loan companies have been found to mislead people to get the loan, so they could make a commission. So basically Cavuto was wrong about almost all of it.

Funny how Cavuto never reports any of this news, I guess he just forgot. Yeah and if you believe that I have some land to sell you.

More Tea Party Racism For O'Reilly To Ignore
By: Steve - July 18, 2010 - 9:30am

Last week, the NAACP approved a resolution condemning racist elements within the Tea Party movement. Conservatives and tea partiers immediately took offense.

Rush Limbaugh called the resolution not true, while Sarah Palin said it is false and appalling. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both claimed they can not find any racism in the Tea Party, while Tea Party Express founder Mark Williams attacked the NAACP, claiming it makes more money off race than any slave trader ever. Which is a racist statement right there, I guess O'Reilly just missed it.

But as many people have documented, including myself many times, there is racism in the Tea Party. And a new report from the Kansas City Star digs deeper into the racist elements of the Tea Party, citing various examples of racism, the article concludes that "it's clear that some with racist agendas are trying to make inroads into the party," noting that in several instances, tea party members have racist backgrounds:
Billy Roper is a Tea Party write-in candidate for governor of Arkansas and an unapologetic white nationalist. And he has said this: "I don't want non-whites in my country in any form or fashion or any status."

Roper says he has been gathering support for his cause by attending tea party rallies. "We go to these tea parties all over the country," Roper said. "We're looking for the younger, potentially more radical people."
But somehow O'Reilly missed that, yeah right. The Star also found that white nationalist groups are encouraging their members to attend tea parties:
The Council of Conservative Citizens, a St. Louis-based group that promotes the preservation of the white race, has sponsored its own tea parties in some Southern states.

The council's website has referred to blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity" and said non-white immigration would turn the country into a "slimy brown mass of glop." Gordon Baum, the group's founder, told The Star that the council encourages members to participate in tea parties.
"Liberals think the Tea Party are all poor, angry, working-class whites, but that's not true," said white nationalist movement scholar Leonard Zeskind. "It's a solid middle class. The belief that these are people hit by the economic downturn is a myth. It's people who have what they want and don't want it taken away. They're defending white privilege. Their slogan is We want our country back."

So you have a bunch of all white racist groups admitting they are a big part of the Tea Party, and yet O'Reilly and the right still deny it, even though the evidence is staring them right in the face.

Partisan Rove Group Attacks Reid Over Stimulus Money
By: Steve - July 18, 2010 - 9:00am

Okay get this, the Karl Rove political group (American Crossroads) is attacking Democratic Senator Harry Reid, for not spending enough Obama stimulus money in Nevada. Yes you heard me right, even though Rove and everyone in the group oppose the stimulus money, and claim it's not doing any good, they still attacked Reid for not spending more of what they are against.

American Crossroads, is a 527 committee, formed to spend tens of millions of dollars on Republican House and Senate races this year. The group recently launched an ad in Nevada attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D):
It's bad enough that Nevada has the highest unemployment in the nation. And Harry Reid claims to be helping the jobs situation? Really Harry?

Recent data show Nevada ranks 50th in the money received from Harry's stimulus bill. That's right, Senate leader Harry Reid has gotten his own state less help than every other state but one.

And along with bailouts, deficits, and Obamacare, that's what Harry Reid's done for Nevada. Really Harry? That's not the kinda help Nevada needs.
So let me get this straight, Rove and his group oppose the Obama stimulus money and claim it's not working. But then they attack a Democratic Senator for not spending more of the stimulus money in his state. Ok, that is just insane. It's like me saying I oppose extending unemployment benefits for the 2 million Americans that need them, then attacking the Republicans for blocking it. Which would be crazy, and that's exactly what Rove and his group are, crazy.

And btw, here are some facts for crazy Karl and his group of dishonest partisan spin doctors. Nevada is one of the smallest states in the country, so the stimulus money went mostly to the bigger states with larger public sectors and higher Medicaid bills.

In fact, Harry Reid has been trying to get unemployment benefits extended for out of work Americans, while Senate Republicans have been blocking it. "Almost two million people are long-term unemployed. These are not numbers. They are real people," Reid said.

This shows how dishonest Rove and his group are, and it also shows that you should never believe any of their ads, because they are done by partisan right-wing spin doctors. They raise millions of dollars to lie to you, and that is exactly what they are doing.

Obama Slams GOP For Obstructing Economic Progress
By: Steve - July 18, 2010 - 8:30am

Notice that O'Reilly never reports on this at all, he just ignores it. But if we had a Republican President and the Democrats were blocking all these bills to help the economy, O'Reilly would flip out, call them un-American traitors, and report it every other night for a month.

Republicans in Congress, Wall Street, big banks, and Corporations are all doing it. Because they give most of their money to Republicans, so they are trying to make the economy as bad as possible to hurt Obama politically. This is a fact, and in my mind it makes them bad Americans. I will not call them traitors, as O'Reilly did with Democrats when Bush was in office, but I will say they are being bad Americans.

From AP -- WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is taking aim at Senate Republicans, accusing them of playing politics with measures that would extend benefits to the unemployed and increase lending to small businesses.

In his weekly Saturday radio address, Obama said the GOP leadership has chosen to "filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress" by blocking votes on agenda items the president says would breath life into the economic recovery.

"These steps aren't just the right thing to do for those hardest hit by the recession," Obama said. "They're the right thing to do for all of us."

Lawmakers have been battling for weeks over extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been out of a job for long stretches of time. The last extension ran out at the end of May, leaving about 2.5 million people without benefits.

The House has already passed a bill to extend the benefits through November, but with the death of Sen. Robert Byrd, Senate Democrats don't have the 60 votes they need to overcome a GOP filibuster. The Senate plans to take up the measure again on Tuesday.

Obama said lawmakers obligation to extend benefits is both moral and practical, citing some economists who believe extending unemployment insurance is one of the most cost-effective ways to jump-start the economy because it puts money in the pockets of people who are likely to spend it quickly.

Obama pushed back in his address, accusing Republicans of making their stand at the expense of the unemployed "after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit."

Obama also called on lawmakers to send him a package of tax breaks and credit extensions for small businesses. Democrats are hoping to force Republicans to vote on the small business bill by the time Congress breaks for its August recess.

Another Poll You Will Never See On The Factor
By: Steve - July 17, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly and most of his right-wing friends (especially at Fox) claim Sarah Palin is qualified and smart enough to be President. Except almost everyone else in America (who is not a conservative) disagree, and the polls show it.

The problem is O'Reilly never reports on any of those polls. And now a new Time poll has more bad news for Stupid Sarah. According to a new Time poll, Palin would lose to Obama by 21 points.

The new Time poll shows Sarah Palin losing to President Obama 55% to 34%, a lopsided margin that leads some Republican strategists to predict a wipeout if Palin is eventually chosen as the party's nominee.

So I am saying run Sarah run, and I hope you win the Republican nomination in 2012, then it will guarantee 4 more years of President Obama. Because Obama will crush your dumb ass like a bug.

And btw, on the Friday night Factor with Monica Crowley as the fill in host, she found some bogus poll that had Palin in a tie with Obama at 46 percent. But that is the only poll she reported, she failed to mention the Time poll, or the 9 other polls that have Palin losing big. She learned from the master poll cherry picker, Bill O'Reilly, ignore the 9 polls that disagree with you and only report the one that agrees with you.

The Friday 7-16-10 O'Reilly/Crowley Factor Review
By: Steve - July 17, 2010 - 9:00am

The far right nut job Monica Crowley was the fill in for O'Reilly, so I did not do a full review. The so-called nonpartisan Independent Bill O'Reilly had the crazy Monica Crowley fill in for him, what, Ann Coulter was not available, are you kidding me.

This is ridiculous, how can you claim to be a non-partisan Independent, when your two fill in hosts are the far far right conservatives Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley.

Only a far right nut would let either one of them host his show. Because they are both as far right, and as partisan as you can get. I will say this much, crazy Crowley did an entire talking points memo speculating that Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2012. Even though O'Reilly has said the Factor is a no speculation zone. Then she spent half the next segment with 2 Democrats speculating about it some more.

The whole show was laughable, Crowley claimed the Tea Party was mainstream, and that polls show Palin can beat Obama in 2012. On what planet, wow. The Tea Party is not even close to mainstream, only 18% of Americans support them. And the poll I saw show Palin losing 55 to 34 to Obama, that's a 21 point loss, which is a slaughter. It's hard to believe, but Crowley is even a bigger liar than Ingraham, ok maybe it's a tie.

Crazy Crowley even had the super crazy, Col. Ralph Peters on to talk about Russia and nukes, and of course he slammed Obama and said he does not have a clue what he is doing. I think Crowley had peters on to make her look less crazy, because Peters is the king of crazy. They both called Obama weak, and basically said Obama is stupid, even though he may be the smartest President we have ever had.

To close the show crazy Crowley had the right-wing moron Greg Gutfeld on to slam Kathy Griffin for making jokes about Scott Brown, Sarah Palin, and Brown's daughters. Earth to morons, Kathy Griffin is a COMEDIAN, let me repeat that, she is a COMEDIAN. She makes jokes about people, mostly Republicans. And what's funny is the Factor cry babies never slam any Republican COMEDIANS who make jokes about Democrats, like Dennis Miller, who even does it every week on the Factor, proving that they are massive hypocrites with giant double standards.

Republican Comes Clean About GOP Dishonesty
By: Steve - July 17, 2010 - 8:30am

I know it's hard to believe, but in this rare case we actually have a Republican who is telling the truth about the GOP and their leaders in Congress. Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) recently lost a GOP primary run-off to keep his seat in the House of Representatives, and since then, the South Carolina Republican has felt liberated to speak the truth about the state of his Party and the conservative movement.

Last week, Inglis criticized Palin's death panel claims, Glenn Beck's dishonesty, and slammed the right's divisive rhetoric. Then Thursday on C-Span, Inglis continued to hammer his own Party, again calling out the their misinformation about death panels and slamming Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) recent claim that he supports challenging President Obama's citizenship status in court:
INGLIS: As to the Birther matter, let me be clear. The president is obviously a citizen of the United States. So, we really do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. Why do we do that? We do it because we want to vilify the other side. We want to make them into the bad guys.
Inglis also didn't have very supportive words for House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). "I think that to some extent we're getting what we deserve," with Boehner and Cantor leading the Party, Inglis said, adding, "We have basically decided to stir up the base, and that's a bad decision for the country."

Later in the segment, Inglis criticized those on the right who blamed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for causing the 2008 financial crisis:
INGLIS: What I'm supposed to do as a Republican is just echo back to you Anne that yes, CRA was the cause of the financial meltdown in October of 2008. And if I said that to you I'd be clearly wrong because if you think about it, CRA had been around for decades. So how could it be that it caused the problem suddenly in October of 2008?

So therefore we can just establish it as a scapegoat. Democrats like it and we can of course put the racial hue on that and that makes it even more powerful. But if we do that, we go further away from the solution, the solution is to deal with those fundamental things, not pick up on scapegoats and run with it.
And it's not just one Republican saying things like that about the GOP and the leaders of the Party. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) has been similarly critical of the GOP. He said this a couple weeks ago: "I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas."

And there you have it folks, two honest Republicans. Read it and enjoy it now, because you may never see it again, because the other 99.9% of them are dishonest partisans who never tell the truth.

Fox News Still Lying About Unemployment Benefits
By: Steve - July 17, 2010 - 8:00am

Even though this has been proven to be a lie, at least 100 times, Fox News continues to spew out the lie that unemployment benefits do not stimulate the economy.

On the Thursday Fox & Friends show they continued to attack House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and advanced the false claim that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to look for jobs. In fact, economists agree that extending unemployment benefits has a strong stimulative effect on GDP and employment, and does not discourage people from seeking jobs during a recession.

In a July 4th op-ed, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that some "honestly misinformed" people "who believe, for example ... that extending benefits would make unemployment worse" hold a belief that is "dead wrong."

Krugman explains that although "it's a real effect when the economy is doing well, it's an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation" because there are fewer available jobs:
When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise.

But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn't booming -- again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work -- but they can't take jobs that aren't there.
The Harvard labor economist Lawrence Katz also said that the claim that unemployment benefits prolong unemployment "should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce."

And the MarketWatch chief economist Irwin Kellner said this: "There are now more than five applicants for every job. Clearly, this is not caused by more benefit checks."

Alan Greenspan, who Republicans love, said this: "When you're in a period of job weakness, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous."

And finally, CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate the economy. Proving that the people at Fox News are biased right-wing idiots, who basically lie to you in the hope that some of you will believe it.

The Most Undateable Man in America
By: Steve - July 16, 2010 - 9:30am

You don't need to own a shed to know a tool when you see one. But if you do own a shed, clean out a space in the back so we can lock Bill O’Reilly up from now until Fox News wins the Emmy for most lies told in an hour (which, if they actually had the award, would be a clean sweep by the faux network).

Oh, Billy boy - what else can you say that hasn't already been said? Not that most are interested, but O'Reilly not only stinks, he's also the most undateable man in America. Not necessarily Bill himself, as he's married to some poor hostage whose name escapes me, just his type in general - that in-your-face, lies-trump-logic, I-scream-therefore-I-scam hogwash. The physical ugliness aside, the mindset of an O'Reilly couldn't be more fanatical right-wing if it was wearing a hood in a whites-only bathroom.

We're living in a unique age, a period of time, obviously, never before seen. With so much instant information and ease of access, people are taking different approaches to their professional lives and, increasingly, their personal lives. Online dating is absolutely exploding.

But there's a downside to the land of Inter-dates. You never really know what you're getting. Tall, dark and handsome in the tagline can easily turn into loud, obnoxious and crazy in person. One must be careful when approaching the dating world and be on the lookout for the O'Reilly types.

Okay. So the person you meet is attractive, has a good job, a good education. What's the problem there? Well, if you land a Bill O'Reilly type, you're in for a world of hurt that morphine couldn't numb.

Imagine being lied to on a daily basis. That's one of Bill's key traits. An O'Reilly personality would lie, cheat and steal to have his or her way. This means zero trust in the relationship. This person could be leading a double life and would never even flinch, even when confronted with the facts.

Imagine being yelled at on a daily basis. Yes, this is yet another one of Bill's go-to weapons. If you dated an O'Reilly, not only would you be losing every argument due to your voice not even being heard, but they would actually start the fight just to yell. You'd be begging for a commercial break by the time the third expletive fell on your overloaded ears.

Imagine being constantly patronized. Billy's the condescending type and then some. This type of person treats you like you're stupid 24/7. There's never a break. Their view is the only view, and you're a pinheaded jackanapes if you don't realize it.

Life with an O'Reilly is an everyday authoritative struggle. And not necessarily a struggle for relationship supremacy on your end, but a struggle just to avoid the fight. Bill is constantly looking for ways to get his "man" on at someone else's expense. He's the man with the microphone. And if you're saying something he doesn't like, consider yourself cut off, yelled over, insulted or worse.

There are countless types of people to date out there in the world. Just take care to make sure you never end up with an O'Reilly type. There's not enough therapy to help you after that.

Some George W. Bush News For O'Reilly & Fox
By: Steve - July 16, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are slamming President Obama every day, and some of them are even saying Bush was not that bad, and we want him back. Except all that is ridiculous, and almost nobody thinks he was a good President, let alone want him back.

O'Reilly has even said that nothing happening today is the fault of Bush, so Obama should stop blaming Bush for any of it. Even though polls say the opposite, oops, I forgot O'Reilly only follows the polls that agree with him, my bad.

In reality, not much has changed, the American public still does not miss Bush at all. From a new Time poll:
-- 71 percent blame the Bush for the shaky economy, while only 27 percent blame Obama.

-- 53 percent favor Obama over Bush (33 percent).

-- 55 percent favor Obama over Sarah Palin (34 percent) in a hypothetical 2012 presidential campaign.
The Siena Research Institute also just released a poll of presidential scholars, who rated Bush in the bottom five of U.S. presidents throughout history. They rated him 39th. Other presidents in the bottom five were Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce. Obama was ranked 15th, and he is only half way through his first term, so he has time to move up.

And all of this directly disputes all the claims made by O'Reilly and the right, especially about Palin, who can not even get 35% in the 2012 election.

The Thursday 7-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 16, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Mainstream Media and the New Black Panthers. O'Reilly talked about how the mainstream media is saying that the story about the New Black Panther Party is trumped up, which it is, by O'Reilly, Fox News, and the right. But of course, O'Reilly disputed that and claimed the story is valid, when it's not. The whole thing is garbage, the conservative media is putting it out in an attempt to link Obama with the Black Panthers, and to make it look like he will not prosecute any blacks, when he is prosecuting blacks every day.

Not to mention, he never reports that the decision to not file criminal charges was made by the Bush DoJ, before Obama was even the President. O'Reilly slammed a Newsweek journalist for saying the story is trumped up, he called him a cub scout because he looks young. Then he implied he is a bad journalist because he is so young, and called his article a hatchet job on the right. This non-story needs to just go away, it's not a story. And what's really funny is O'Reilly complaining about journalism by someone else, when he can not even spell journalism.

Then the right-wing biased Megyn Kelly was on to discuss it, who has also been reporting the story almost non-stop. And of course there was no guest from Newsweek or anywhere to give the counterpoint. Megyn Kelly was the only guest, and she is spinning it as much as O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing idiots. O'Reilly and Kelly put their spin on it, without reporting all the facts. There was no voter intimidation, none, ever, so there was no case. And as of right now I am not going to report this non-story anymore. It's nothing but right-wing propaganda, and that is a fact.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall on to talk more about the head of the NAACP Ben Jealous calling out the Tea Party for racism. Marshall said Jealous is doing a good job, as the head of the NAACP. O'Reilly is just milking this story because it gets good ratings from his right-wing viewers. Then O'Reilly tried to link the Black Panthers to the NAACP, when they have nothing to do with each other. Perino even defended Marshall, and then O'Reilly said they are both wrong.

O'Reilly also said he is not sure the Iowa Tea Party billboard that had Obama, Hitler, and Lenin photos was funded by the Tea Party. He said he would look into it, haha, yeah right. Not to mention, O'Reilly never talked about it until Leslie Marshall mentioned the billboard. Then he said he would look into it, which he never will. And btw O'Dummy, it was funded by the Iowa Tea Party, they admitted it, and then they took it down when they were flooded with complaints about it.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the NAACP, the Tea Party, and the Black Panther story. And btw, O'Reilly is still saying there is no racism in the Tea Party, when photos of it are online, including here in my blog. Geraldo said the head of the NAACP went way overboard, so he agreed with O'Reilly. Geraldo did admit there is racism, but he thought Ben Jealous went too far calling the Tea Party racist. Proving that Geraldo is not a Democrat, as O'Reilly tries to claim. Here he is basically agreeing with everything O'Reilly said. Geraldo called on the NAACP to stand down, and I would say shut up Geraldo, who do you think you are to tell them what to do.

O'Reilly also admitted that Wednesday night Karl Rove speculated about Obama and the NAACP working together to fire up blacks to get out and vote this November, and then he called it interesting speculation. Geraldo said that it's a serious charge with no evidence to back it up, and O'Reilly said it's sounds logical to him. So in the no speculation zone, it's ok to speculate, but only if you are a Republican speculator.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Michael Jacobson on to discuss why some advocacy group is pushing McDonald's to stop including toys in its Happy Meals. What gets me is with all the real news out there, why is O'Reilly reporting this waste of tv time story. It's news, but it's not a big enough story to be talking about on a tv news show. O'Reilly asked him why they want to hurt McDonald's, and he said they don't. Then O'Reilly said yes you are, like the jerk he is. O'Reilly called it extortion, which was just ridiculous. Jacobson said they are trying to keep kids from getting so fat, and the toy makes them want the high fat meals even more.

Then the far right idiot Glenn Beck was on to talk about black liberation theology, why, who knows, hell Beck probably don't even know. Beck was on to do his weekly right-wing garbage, that nobody cares about. I think only O'Reilly has him on to try and get ratings from the morons that watch Beck. Most of the time they just make jokes about each other, and try to be funny. Beck had some conspiracy garbage about Obama and black liberation theology, it's crazy, and even O'Reilly was not buying all of it. They even attacked Michelle Obama for saying kids should not eat so much junk, like pie and cake. The whole segment was a joke, and if you believe any of this right-wing nonsense you are a fool.

And finally the last segment was the ridiculous non-news Factor News quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. It's a total waste of tv time, and not news, so I do not report on it.

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

Another Poll Shows The Massive O'Reilly Hypocrisy
By: Steve - July 16, 2010 - 8:00am

Almost every night O'Reilly slams Obama for the lawsuit against Arizona for their new illegal immigration law. He cites the polls that show 52% of the American people support the law. So O'Reilly claims that because a slim majority of Americans support the new law Obama should let it stand, and not try to block it using the DoJ.

But when it comes to Afghanistan, the majority of Americans want Obama to set a timeline to get the troops out. O'Reilly is opposed to that, and he says it is wrong to set a timeline. In this case he is basically saying to hell with what the American people want, because he is opposed to it.

A news CBS poll found that most Americans-- 54 percent -- think the U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Most Americans continue to say things are going badly for the U.S. in Afghanistan, and those assessments are more pessimistic now than they were just two months ago. Just 35 percent are willing to have troops stay longer than two years.

Making O'Reilly a massive hypocrite. Who claims the President should only do what the majority of Americans want him to do, when Bill O'Reilly agrees with them. Sorry Billy, it does not work that way. Especially when it's you, because only the Republicans agree with you, and the racists.

This is what O'Reilly does, call for the President to do what the majority of Americans want, unless O'Reilly does not want what they want. Then he does not call for the President to do what the majority wants, if he disagrees on the issue he says forget the majority and listen to me. Which is just ridiculous, and massive hypocrisy.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tea Party Racism
By: Steve - July 15, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Wednesday night O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly said over and over to 3 different guests that he can not find one racist sign from anyone in the Tea Party, at any Tea Party event. Ever, he can not find it, nothing, no signs, no racism.


Using a personal home computer and a simple google search, I found a racist sign from a Tea Party event in 0.3 seconds, and not just from any run of the mill Tea Party member, it's from Dale Robertson. Who is Dale Robertson you ask, he is the founder of, yes I said the founder.

He was caught with a racist protest sign at a Tea Party event, here is a quote from the article about it at the Washington Independent:
Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates, is getting stung for an old photo -- taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston -- in which he holds a sign reading "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar."
Oh yeah I forgot something, here is the photo, the photo O'Reilly and his crack staff could not find, maybe because they never even looked, as he was lying about not finding any racism in the Tea Party.

And the dumbass even spelled the n-word wrong. Making him not only a racist, but a stupid racist. Which also proves that O'Reilly is not even a good liar, besides the fact that he is also a biased right-wing idiot. What say you Billy?

The Wednesday 7-14-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 15, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Racism And The NAACP. And as I expected, instead of talking about the racism in the Tea Party, O'Reilly claimed they are race-baiters and that they only cry racism to raise money. Basically O'Reilly denied reality to attack the NAACP for claiming racism, which is what he always does, ignore the issue, and then attack the accuser. O'Reilly ignores all the Tea Party racism, then denies it's even out there.

Then he thinks everyone will believe him, when the only people who buy his nonsense are the braindead people who watch him. And of course O'Reilly cried about the president of the NAACP talking about Sarah Palin. O'Reilly actually complained about them talking about racism, but he did admit there is racism, for about 1 second. Then he instantly moved on to attacking the NAACP. O'Reilly said he could not find any racist signs by any Tea Party members, which is just laughable, because they have been published everywhere, except on the Factor. And finally he said there is racism at the NAACP, but that they will not talk about that.

Then O'Reilly had Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it. And Dr. Hill said O'Reilly is wrong, wrong, wrong. All O'Reilly could say was wait a minute, I'm not getting this. Instead of talking about the racism from the Tea Party, O'Reilly switched the topic to how come the NAACP does not speak out about black who are racist. When the issue is the racism from the Tea Party. It was the classic O'Reilly tactic, change the topic and attack the attackers. And once again he said he could not find any racist signs from anyone in the Tea Party, which is just ridiculous.

Dr. Hill tried to talk some sense into O'Reilly, but it was a total waste of time. O'Reilly even tried to pull his insulting comment where he tells the guest you are much smarter than he is, and Dr. Hill said I agree, which was funny as hell. O'Reilly said if the NAACP calls out white people for racism then they must also call out blacks for being racist. Which is just insane, it's the NAACP, they call out white people for racism, that's what they do, it was ridiculous. It's like saying if a Republican calls out a Democrat for hypocrisy, then they must also call out Republicans for it too, which is never going to happen. O'Reilly is just an idiot.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, but only after Dr. Hill was gone. Because Rove is scared to debate Dr. Hill, and because O'Reilly wants to control the message with a fellow right-winger. Rove said Dr. Hill tied himself in knots he was spinning so much. And then of course Rove agreed with everything O'Reilly said. O'Reilly and Rove both agreed the racism charges from the NAACP are bogus, and that they are just trying to demonize the Tea Party to make them look bad. Rove also said he can not find a single racist sign from anyone in the Tea Party at any protests. Rove called it dishonest, and said it was pure politics. When I could publish at least 10 racist signs that I have seen at Tea Party protests. O'Reilly and Rove just pretend they have never seen any, and they are liars.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about some made us fued between Pelosi and Gibbs, which O'Reilly loves to do. He dreams up these wars that are not wars, just to try and make it look like the Democrats are all fighting with each other. And the idiot Dick Morris was on to discuss it. Pelosi and Gibbs had a disagreement on one thing, that does not mean they are fighting, or that they hate each other. It's not news, it is just a biased segment for O'Reilly to smear Pelosi, because that's what O'Reilly does. Morris and O'Reilly both hate Pelosi, and they love to hammer her. Morris even predicted that the Democrats will lose the House and the Senate. Morris also said "we" will win back the Senate, which O'Reilly called him on, saying do you have a mouse in your pocket. Proving that he is a Republican, as if we did not already know it.

Then the two right-wing culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. They talked about sex ed in public schools, which is another topic O'Reilly semms obsessed with. And it's an issue that mostly only Republicans object to, most liberals are ok with teching sex ed in public schools.

It's another right-wing wedge issue that only Republicans care about, just like abortion and religion, which is why O'Reilly talks about it all the time. The real deal is that O'Reilly objects to them teaching the kids that being gay is ok, and that having gay sex is ok. That's the real story, O'Reilly is just mad that they want to teach the kids that gay sex is ok. O'Reilly even called it indoctrination, which is just insane. What's funny is that O'Reilly supports teaching religion in schools, which could also be called indoctrination, but he's ok with that because he is a right-wing religious nut.

And then it was Miller time with the comedian Dennis Miller. As usual I do not report what Dennis Miler says, because it is not news, and has nothing to do with the news. O'reilly only puts him on to make jokes about Obama and other Democrats, which would be no problem if O'Reilly had a comedy show on the comedy network. But O'Reilly has a news show, or so he says, and there is no place for this garbage.

Finally the really lame did you see that with Juliet Huddy. O'Reilly and Huddy sit around talking about videos they claim are a must see. Once again, it's not news and has nothing to do with the news. I believe it's just an excuse for O'Reilly to have another blonde Fox News bimbo on to get ratings. It used to be Jane Skinner, but she quit, so now it's Juliet Huddy. He just replaced one blonde with another blonde, and it's all about ratings, because it's sure not news. The videos were lame, and not even worth talking about, except one.

O'Reilly pulled a fast one, he played a campaign ad for the Republican Sharron Angle. O'Reilly run the ad to help her by giving her free air time on the #1 rated cable news show. It's basically a free political ad, that would have cost her a lot of money to buy, and he ran it for free. This is dishonest, O'Reilly acted like he was discussing the campaign race between her and Reid just so he could run her ad, while not ever running any ads from Harry Reid. It's a partisan, biased, dirty right-wing trick, that O'Reilly and everyone on Fox do, and the FEC should investigate them for doing it.

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

O'Reilly Calls Angle Ad He Ran A Home Run
By: Steve - July 15, 2010 - 8:30am

If you want more proof Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than a right-wing shill for every Republican in America, even the crazy ones, here it is.

O'Reilly pulled the oldest trick in the book, he acted like he was discussing the Nevada Senate race between the Republican Sharron Angle and the Democrat Harry Reid. So he could run a campaign ad for Sharron Angle, basically giving her a fre ad on the #1 rated cable news show. To be fair and balanced he would have also run an ad for Harry Reid, which he did not.

And not only did O'Reilly not run a counter ad for Harry Reid, he called the Angle ad a home run, and predicted she would win. Implanting the idea that she is a winner, and Reid is a loser. Not to mention, O'Reilly never reports on all the crazy things she says, or the crazy positions she has on the issues.

Which also helps her by not informing the people with the information they need about her to make an educated vote. Stuff like this, Angle used to think flouride in the water was a communist plot to poison Americans. She recently said no abortions should ever be allowed, even in the case of rape or incest. She even said that if a Father raped his own daughter she would still oppose an abortion. Not to mention, she wants to get rid of social security, and the department of education.

Notice that O'Reilly only does this to help Republicans, you sure don't see him doing anything like this to help any Democrats. In fact, he smears every Democrat he can, as often as possible. While protecting Sharron Angle, and calling her campaign ad a home run, when the truth is that she is a far right nut.

Iowa Tea Party Makes Big Mistake
By: Steve - July 15, 2010 - 8:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it. Here is the story. A billboard with huge photos of President Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin was put up in North Iowa. The billboard was put up by an Iowa group of Tea Partiers in downtown Mason City last week and is receiving huge criticism from many people, including other people in the Tea Party. The billboard is being called extremely offensive and a total waste of money.

Above the photos on the billboard are the words, Democrat Socialism, National Socialism, and Marxist Socialism. Below the photos, it says, "Radical Leaders pray on the fearful & naive."

Bob Johnson, the co-founder of the Des Moines, Iowa Tea Party group admits that the anti-socialist message intended was lost due to the huge photos of Hitler and Lenin.

Iowa Tea Party leaders now say they disagree with the use of the pictures, but not the Obama-is-Hitler message. North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson stated that while the the pictures might be overwhelming, the sign highlights the right message. Iowa state Tea Party coordinator John White agrees that while the sign goes where the Tea Party doesn't want to be, everything Obama has done is lock-step with what Hitler did in his day.

Which is just ridiculous, but that's what these idiots in the Tea Party think. And btw, this kind of insanity is why the Tea Party is only supported by 18% of the American people. And I predict that after stuff like this it will be less than 18% very soon.

The Tuesday 7-13-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 14, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Michelle Obama Talking Politics. O'Reilly talked about Michelle Obama giving a speech at the NAACP meeting. She implied that blacks are still the victims of racism, and that the NAACP should keep up the fight. O'Reilly said he did not have a big problem with what she said, but he denied it was as bad as she claims. Basically, once again O'Reilly tried to tell black people what racism is, and how much of it they are dealing with. According to O'Reilly, there is very little racism in America anymore, and he does not like what the NAACP does.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. And of course Crowley agreed with every word O'Reilly said, while Colmes disagreed. The funny part is when Colmes mentioned the resolution passed by the NAACP that slammed the Tea Party for their racism. The story that O'Reilly refused to report on. After Colmes said they are right, that there is a lot of racism in the Tea Party, O'Reilly got mad and disagreed with Colmes.

O'Reilly said there is no racism in the Tea Party, and you have no evidence of it. So Colmes gave him evidence, and cited a few examples, but the crazy O'Reilly still denied it, and he once again told Colmes he is wrong. Which was ridiculous, because even after Colmes gave O'Reilly evidence of the racism, O'Reilly still denied reality. And the crazy Monica Crowley sat there and agreed with O'Reilly that it was crazy to say they are racist, when the facts show they are, O'Reilly and Crowley just refuse to admit it.

Then O'Reilly has a segment with the NAACP member Zaki Baruti who called an African-American Tea Party member an Uncle Tom. O'Reilly thought the man would back off his statement, but he did not, and he said he stands by the Uncle Tom comment. So O'Reilly spent the entire segment slamming the Baruti. O'Reilly also implied the man who was beat up was telling the truth about what happened, because the two other men were charged. Baruti pointed out that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that there are two sides to the story. But of course O'Reilly only reported the Tea Party side of the story, while not saying a word about the other two guys and witnesses that dispute what happened.

Next up was crazy Laura Ingraham who talked about her stupid book about Obama, that has no facts, it's a fake diary written by her pretending to be President Obama, the book critics have called lazy and unfunny. And O'Reilly also asked her what she thinks about the French ban on Muslim face veils for women. Are you serious, who fricking cares, it's France not America. I could care less what the French do in France, report on what's happening in America you moron. The whole segment was garbage, and not even worth reporting on.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about what he believes the greatest threats to our freedom are. As if he would know, and anyone would care, which they don't. I could care less what John Stossel thinks is a threat to our freedoms. But basically he said you should be able to do almost anything, any time. He would make all drugs legal, and on and on. Even O'Reilly called that crazy, and made a joke about a meth head living on his front lawn. Stossel said you would be able to remove him, and protect your property. But O'Reilly still called it crazy, and pretty much disagreed with everything Stossel said. Okay, so why have the far right freak on the show, and this segment was about as stupid as the Ingraham segment.

Then the is it legal team, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss the judges ruling in the DOMA case. The judge ruled it was unconstitutional, and the three of them basically called him an idiot. Wiehl said the ruling has a small chance of standing on appeal, but O'Reilly and Guilfoyle said it has no chance, none. And then O'Reilly made his stupid comparison to getting married to a duck. Which had no place in the debate, but O'Reilly used it anyway. And btw, nobody will ever marry a duck, or a goat, or a dog, for one big reason, it's ILLEGAL. And no state in the country is going to make it legal to marry an animal. So the O'Reilly marry a duck comments are just stupid, and not funny.

And finally the last segment was another biased right-wing propaganda smear job on Obama, by O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer. Then spent the entire segment slamming Obama over his illegal immigration policies. With of course no liberal guest to provide any balance. It was just O'Reilly and Krauthammer spewing out non-stop right-wing spin.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And another 99% right-wing biased O'Reilly Factor was over.

O'Reilly Ignoring The Stock Market Again
By: Steve - July 14, 2010 - 9:30am

For people that did not see it, a few weeks ago O'Reilly said the stock market is plummeting because of the far-left liberal Obama economic policies.

Then over the next week or so the DOW was up almost every day, and up about 5% over the last year. I reported what O'Reilly does, he only reports on the market when there is a day or two when the market is down. But when it's up every day for a week, or two, or three, he never says a word. And he does the very same thing with the Obama job approval numbers, he only reports them when they are down a little for a short time.

So I check the stock market Tuesday to see what it's been doing recently, and what do you know, the DOW is up 6.36% over the last 5 days, it's went up every day for 5 straight days.

The DOW was up 275 points Wednesday, 121 points Thursday, 59 points Friday, 18 points Monday, and 147 points Tuesday. That's a 620 point increase in just the last 5 days, to close at 10.363.02. And yet O'Reilly has not said a word about it, even though a few weeks ago he said the market is plummeting because of Obama.

Now think about this, the DOW is UP to over 10,000 points today under President Obama. But when Bush left office the DOW had dropped to 6,500, so during the Obama presidency (1.5 years of it) the DOW has went up over 3,500 points.

So what does O'Reilly do, give Obama credit for that, hell no, he dishonestly claims the market is plummeting because of Obama, when the fricking market is up over 3,500 points under Obama. Now that is about as dishonest as you can get.

And when it goes up because of Obama, O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing shill, that should be getting his check from the RNC, instead of Fox News.

O'Reilly Obsessed With Marrying A Duck
By: Steve - July 14, 2010 - 9:00am

On the Tuesday night Factor O'Reilly had a legal discussion about a judge who ruled that straight marriage is unconstitutional. So once again O'Reilly turned that into can you marry a duck, which is just stupid, and had nothing to do with the issue.

Here is the video:

O'Reilly seems obsessed with marrying animals, because many time in the past he has said that if gay marriage was legalized, "you could have married a duck, and that gay marriage could lead to goat, duck, dolphin, and turtle marriage.

Except that would be illegal, and nobody in their right mind is ever going to make it legal to marry an animal. In the warped mind of Bill O'Reilly, gay marriage would be a slippery slope that will lead to marrying an animal. And now he even talked about marrying a duck in a discussion about straight marriage.

It's a ridiculous thing to say in a discussion on gay marriage, and even more ridiculous to say in a discussion about a judge that ruled straight marriage is unconstitutional. Proving that O'Reilly is not only a biased right-wing partisan, he is also a plain idiot.

More BP News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - July 14, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is BP News story #147 that O'Reilly has ignored. This is the biggest oil spill in history, and the so-called great journalist Bill O'Reilly does not report any of this news.

Now BP is not paying the Fisherman. Hundreds of fishermen from Lake Charles to Moss Point, Miss., were supposed to get checks from BP last Wednesday but didn't.

Jeffrey Briet represents more than 500 fishermen, and he said the payment system he set up with BP required his clients to be paid every 30 days. Now that process has suddenly changed without warning, Briet said.

"Not only did they spring it on us that the process has changed, but the people I've been dealing with for six weeks who've done a good job said, 'We don't know what the process is going to be. We're not authorized to talk to you about it. Someone from BP will contact you,'" he said.

But Briet said he hasn't heard from BP or its lawyers. He said the claims people have been given so much conflicting information about the process that they can't provide answers.

"They couldn't tell me," he said. "And I said, 'I've got 500 people I'm meeting on Saturday. They want to know what the process is.'"

And that's not all, BP is also forcing clean-up workers to re-use contaminated and damaged gloves. And people are eating, drinking and smoking in a contaminated zone. But if you watch the O'Reilly Factor every night to get your news, you would not know any of that. Because O'Reilly has not reported it, and never will.

Mel Gibson Flips Out: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - July 14, 2010 - 8:00am

The audio of the Mel Gibson racist insane rant to hiss girlfriend is out, including this from Gibson:
GIBSON: If you get raped by a pack of [ni----s], it will be your fault.
Gibson also said he could kill her and bury her in his garden and get away with it. And what a shocker, O'Reilly has not said a word about it. But if Sean Penn, or Rosie, or George Clooney, or Robert Redford say one word about anything, O'Reilly writes a TPM about it, does a full segment on it, and reports it almost every night for a week.

In fact, when an insulting audio of a phone call from the liberal Alec Baldwin to his daughter was put out, O'Reilly was all over that link stink on you know what, he reported it almost every night for a week. But when it's his right-wing friend Mel Gibson he ignores the entire story.

Billy sits there every night with his right-wing friends creating this myth along with Bernie Goldberg about a "Hollywood Liberal Elite" Never mind the likes of John Wayne, Reagan, Heston, Norris, Voight, Heaton, Grammer, Robert Duvall etc.

Whenever say Sean Penn makes an provoctive comment Billy is all over it. He has a habit of cutting and pasting clips from Bill Maher's show and using them for his own agenda. Yet when one of his own, Mel Gibson, who is a co-religionist and a friend of his is involved in a situation involving threats, domestic violence and racist comments, fair and balanced gets tossed out the window, and then he claims we are fair here.

If Gibson was a liberal, O'Reilly would be reporting this story every night. And btw. You can toss the Black Panther story out with the trash, along with the so-called Climategate, ACORN and WMD in Iraq.

Fox Admits To Promoting Tea Party
By: Steve - July 13, 2010 - 9:30am

But ratings are not the only reason they promoted the tea Party, they also promoted them because they agree with 99% of what they stand for. Hell they have 2 of the top Tea Party members working for the network, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

Bill Hemmer, a co-anchor of Fox News America's Newsroom, revealed in a profile of him published on Monday why his network decided to highlight the congressional town hall meetings last year. In an interview with Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, Hemmer suggested that the program's decision to promote the Tea Party town hall insanity was based on attracting viewers:
HEMMER: We covered those town hall meetings with greater vigor than our competition, and we were rewarded with viewers. It was better television.
But most people think that Fox just used all the video footage of angry Tea Party members shouting at Democratic members of Congress, because it undermined the president's push for health care reform.

As Mediaite's Steve Krakauer pointed out in a post Monday morning, "It's hard to argue that better television didn't also mean more polarizing, politically one-sided television."

Fox News, of course, has an extensive record of promoting and hyping Tea Party and anti-Obama protests. Chuck Todd said earlier this year that the Tea Party's "favorable rating among Fox viewers is through the roof."

And you must remember that Fox's Tea Party coverage is just part of the network's stated goal to serve as the Obama administration's number one enemy. Basically they promote anyone who does not like Obama, while ignoring everyone who likes him. As they claim to be the fair and balanced News Network.

The Monday 7-12-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 13, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Economic Disaster On The Horizon. O'Reilly basically claimed that economic disaster is on the horizon, simply because we have a Democratic President who is putting policies in place he does not like. What's really funny is that when Bush was the President, if a liberal dared to say something like that O'Reilly would say they are a Bush hating un-American traitor. Now he not only does not speak out against saying such things, he is the one saying it.

Frankly it's ridiculous, because things are improving, and they are a hell of a lot better since Bush left office. No it's not great, but we are still coming out of the worst recession we have seen in 50 years, thanks to Bush and Cheney. Which O'Reilly never mentions btw, he blames it all on Obama, when all he is doing is trying to fix the giant mess Bush left him. And what it shows the most is that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack. Every night he used his lame TPM to attack and smear Obama, and most of the time it's an attack for something caused by Bush.

And here is the kicker, when it gets bad enough the Government will do what is needed to take care of the debt we have, once the recession is over. O'Reilly speculated that Obama will not fix the problem, even though he says he never speculates. He also speculated Obama will raise taxes on everything, which is more speculation he claims to never do.

Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it, and of course Juan and Ham agreed with O'Reilly. They could not kiss his ass fast enough, both of them. Juan even praised O'Reilly for his reporting on it. Then O'Reilly said Juan Williams is a liberal, and not a kool-aid drinker. Which is just laughable, because Williams agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time and has even said he is more conservative than liberal. O'Reilly did mention that it's not all Obama's fault, that Bush spent like crazy, but that was only talked about for 2 seconds. The rest of the time was Obama bashing, by Williams and Ham. This right-wing loser Mary K. Ham even called it an icky situation, which is something a 5 year old would say.

Then the right-wing spin doctor Brit Hume was on to agree with O'Reilly, to make it look like he is right. That's what O'Reilly does, he spews out all this right-wing propaganda, then he has 95% right-wing guests on who agree with him. Which gives everyone the impression he is always right, when in reality all it does is prove he is a biased partisan who spins everything to the right. What gets me is during the Bush years O'Reilly and the Republicans made fun of Democrats who talked about the deficit, back then they said the deficit does not matter. Now all the sudden they are worried about the deficit, which is just laughable.

They also cried about the Face The Nation interview of Eric Holder by Bob Schieffer, about the Arizona immigration law. O'Reilly said Schieffer was being dishonest, and that when he saw the interview his head almost exploded. Basically Hume and O'Reilly, two of the most biased people on tv, spent almost the entire segment slamming Schieffer for his interview. Then O'Reilly said he is not here to bash Bob Schieffer, which is exactly what he did, he spent the whole segment bashing him.

Hume sort of defended him, but not much. O'Reilly said Hume should call him up and clue him in to what the law says, and made a joke about it. Then O'Reilly called Schieffer a pinhead, after he said he was was not going to bash him. Hume called it a simple mistake, and journalistic misinformation. O'Reilly said that is why he is there, to correct misinformation. Billy even said he is a journalist who reports the facts, and then my head almost exploded from laughing so hard.

In the Impact segment O'Reilly cried some more about the Attorney General Eric Holder not filing charges against the Black Panthers. Which I refuse to report on anymore because it's a non-story, it's made up right-wing propaganda by O'Reilly and the right. And btw, there was no guest in this segment, just O'Reilly spinning his right-wing ass off with out of context video clips and quotes from members of the Black Panthers. O'Reilly also cried about the media not covering the story, when it's a non-story, it's over. Except with O'Reilly and a few partisan stooges on the right.

In the personal story segment O'Reilly talked about a spokesman from an African American group calling a man who was beat up at a Tea party rally an Uncle Tom. Dana Loesch was on to discuss it, with of course no other guest to give the other side. And this Loesch is a right-winger that has her own radio show. It's pretty much a non-story with 99% of the media, O'Reilly seems to be the only one reporting on it. O'Reilly and Loesch also cried about the media not reporting on the story. And btw, Loesch is a big shot in the St. Louis Tea Party.

In the weekdays with Bernie segment Bernie Goldberg was on to spin out more right-wing propaganda, with no liberal guest to provide any balance. O'Reilly and Goldberg sit around crying liberal bias in the media, while ignoring all the right-wing bias in the media, especially from O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, they never mention any of that. Goldberg also trashed Bob Schieffer, and speculated again that Hillary Clinton could run against Obama in 2012. The usual right-wing garbage, that is 100% speculation, that O'Reilly claims to not allow.

The next Presidential election is over 2 years away, and these two right-wing stooges are talking about how Hillary might run against Obama, it's ridiculous. O'Reilly even speculated that Obama is going to drop into the 30's in job approval. Hey O'Reilly, what happened to the no speculation rule. And then, basically they spent the rest of the segment trashing Bob Schieffer over his interview of Eric Holder. What's funny is watching 2 of the most biased right-wing partisans in the media business (O'Reilly and Goldberg) complain about bias in the media. Pot meet kettle, the hypocrisy is stunning.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the ridiculous Factor reality check, that has no reality, and almost no checks. It's nothing more than O'Reilly sitting there by himself putting his right-wing spin on something a Democrat said. The whole segment is a fraud, as is O'Reilly. I did not see one reality check in the whole thing, and the last one was a promotion for a Factor poll, which had no reality and no check. This segment is even worse than the stupid body language segment, and that's saying a lot.

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

Republican Says Bush & Cheney Should Be Indicted
By: Steve - July 13, 2010 - 8:30am

And on top of that, he works for Fox News. When the law authorizing Bush's wiretapping program expired in 2008, Fox News Senior legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano railed against the program as an affront to the Constitution. He also slammed Bush last year for authorizing the use of torture, saying that he had "committed a felony for each act of torture."

In an interview with Ralph Nader on C-Span this weekend, Napolitano said Bush and Vice President Cheney "should have been indicted" for torture:
NADER: What's the sanction for President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

NAPOLITANO: They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants.

NADER: So you think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should even though they've left office, they haven't escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted?

NAPOLITANO: The evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great Vincent Bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. The purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but I do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings.
Now think about this, O'Reilly would disagree with every word the Judge said, and he has, in fact, O'Reilly does not even want to talk about anything that happened in the past when Bush was the President.

Okay, but remember this, O'Reilly wants the Feds to go back 11 years and investigate the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich, who simply cheated on his taxes. But he does not want to investigate Bush, for torture, and illegal wiretaps. That alone tells you what a partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly is.

And you can bet the farm you will never see the Judge on the Factor to talk about this, even though he works for Fox, O'Reilly rarely ever has him on because he actually speaks the truth sometimes. O'Reilly has also not had the Judge on to talk about the new Arizona immigration law, because he is opposed to it.

NAACP Calls Out Tea Party For Racism
By: Steve - July 13, 2010 - 8:00am

Think back a few months ago, O'Reilly said there is no racism in the Tea Party, they just do not like the spending by President Obama. Other than the fact that's ridiculous, and the racism is everywhere in the Tea Party, now the NAACP is considering a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party.

At their national convention this week, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) will propose a resolution condemning racism within the tea party movement.

The resolution calls upon "all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."

NAACP leaders said the resolution was necessary to make people seriously consider what leaders believe is a racist element within the tea party movement.

Tea Party leaders, however, vehemently deny allegations of racism, which puts them in the O'Reilly camp, partisan and clueless. Because the Tea Party has a well documented history of racism. Last year, Tea Party members uded the n-word on a protest poster, they called President Obama a monkey, a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, and on and on.

In March, Tea Party protesters hurled racist epithets at civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and spit at Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). At a recent July 4 rally in Lexington, KY, Tea Party members were selling shirts that said: "Yup, I'm a Racist!"

So some of them are even proud of it. And I have personally heard some conservatives using the n-word when talking about President Obama. I was in a building with some conservatives, who did not know who I am, or that I am a liberal, and the things they were saying about President Obama would make your skin crawl if you heard it.

Now just imagine what they say in private, when they know nobody will hear it. To say there is no racism in the Tea Party is like saying Fox News has no bias, it's dishonest, and flat out ridiculous. And of course, as expected, O'Reilly ignored this story last night, because he would have to talk about the racism in the Tea Party. Racism he claims is not there.

Hey O'Reilly: Explain This Gallup Poll
By: Steve - July 12, 2010 - 10:30am

Ever since the Tea Party was formed, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends have been trying to convince the American people that it is not just a bunch of right-wing nuts. They claim the Tea Party is a group of people from all walks of life, and a grassroots movement.

They claim there are Liberals, Independents, Moderates, and Conservatives in the Tea Party. Even though if you just watch their protests and read their signs they are mostly conservatives who hate Obama. Not to mention the protests are 99% white people, with almost nobody of color, as in blacks, mexicans, etc.

Well now we have a Gallup poll that once and for all proves that O'Reilly and his right-wing friends were lying. And of course O'Reilly will never report this poll, because it proves he is a liar.

The Gallup poll from July 2, 2010 says that 80% of the Tea Party are REPUBLICANS. And I quote:
PRINCETON, NJ -- There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene.
Which is exactly the opposite of what O'Reilly, Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. said they were.

And that's not all, the poll also shows that ONLY 3% are LIBERALS. So basically the Tea Party is just a bunch of Republicans who are not happy with the Republican party. Which is what I have been saying ever since they showed up on the political scene.

That means I have been telling you the truth, and O'Reilly has been lying to you. And you can bet the farm you will never see this poll reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. Because they are a bunch of dishonest, biased, lying, Republicans.

More Stunning Republican Hypocrisy
By: Steve - July 12, 2010 - 9:30am

The Republicans argue that nothing Obama does can be paid for unless there is an offset somewhere else, so the deficit does not go up. Even though that rule did not apply during the 8 years of Bush, that is what they argue now. And they have even blocked unemployment benefits because there was no offset by Obama. when it would stimulate the economy, not to mention give millions of people the money they need to pay the bills and live on.

Unless it involves the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire this year, tax cuts that mostly go to the wealthy btw. Then it's a whole different story with the corrupt Republicans, suddenly they claim the Bush tax cuts do not have to be paid for, or offset in anyway. Here is what the Republican Senator Jon Kyl said.

On Fox News Sunday, Kyl threw his concerns about the deficit out the window when discussing tax cuts. Kyl said Congress should not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, but when host Chris Wallace asked, "How are you going to pay the $678 billion to keep Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?" Kyl wouldn't answer. And in fact, he went so far as to say tax cuts should never have to be paid for:
WALLACE: We're running out of time, so how are you going to pay $678 billion just on the tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year?

KYL: You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority and it would be right, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that's what republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.
Proving that Kyl is just another corrupt Republican hypocrite, and he's also a deficit fraud. On one hand, he attacks Obama for rising deficits but at the same time says that multibillion dollar tax cuts never have to be offset.

Then earlier this year, Kyl defended Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) for blocking a measure to extend unemployment benefits. "All Senator Bunning was saying quite correctly is it ought to be paid for," Kyl said. So while Kyl advocates on behalf of the wealthy, he has no problem reverting back to being a deficit hawk at the expense of the poor.

Basically he is saying tax cuts that mostly go to the people making over $250,000 a year NEVER have to be offset, but if some average hard working American wants his unemployment benefits, then Obama must pay for it with an offset. Which proves that these Republican slime do not care about the average working American, all they care about are the wealthy and the Corpotations who give them all their campaign money.

And thinks about this, anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year, then donates money to a Republican in office, or running for office, is a fricking idiot. Because you are helping them help the wealthy and the Corporations get more wealthy, while the little guy gets screwed.

Not to mention, O'Reilly never reports any of this, even though he claims to be looking out for the little guy, as he supports every right-winger in America. It's just laughable for O'Reilly to claim he looks out for the little guy, when he only looks out for Republicans, the wealthy, and the Corporations.

Bush Rigged The U.S. Civil Rights Commission
By: Steve - July 12, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is some more news you will never see reported on the O'Reilly Factor, or anywhere on Fox News either. Did you know that George W. Bush illegally loaded the U.S. Civil Rights Commission with more than the allowed 4 Republicans.

Media figures have said that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is "bipartisan" to hype its investigation of the Justice Department's actions in the New Black Panther Party case. In reality, the commission's chair has acknowledged that conservatives "gamed the system" and packed the panel with conservative activists, and the commission's two Democrats, as well as one Republican, have criticized the investigation.

In a November 6, 2007, Boston Globe article, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charlie Savage reported that the "Bush administration used a controversial maneuver to put the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under conservative control."

Bush installed a fifth and sixth Republican on the panel in December 2004, after two commissioners, both Republicans when appointed, re-registered as independents.

In April of 2010 NPR's All Things Considered reported this, "Today the commission has four Republicans, two Independents and two Democrats. In theory, the commission is following the rules. In practice, three quarters of the members are reliably conservative."

The article quoted law professor and former Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Bill Yeomans, who said that the USCCR "charter says that no more than four commissioners can belong to any one political party," but that "under the Bush administration, two of the Republican commissioners changed their registration to Independent so that two more Republicans could be put on the commission."

Funny how O'Reilly has never reported any of this, I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it, he just forgot. I guess showing video of babes in bikinis washing a plane was more important.

And the media spin doctors sure love to claim it's a bipartisan government agency. Here is what a few of them have reported.

Megyn Kelly: USCCR is an "independent, bipartisan government agency."

Mika Brzezinski: Reports on investigation by "bipartisan panel."

Washington Examiner: USCCR is "bipartisan."

And they are all liars, because it's anything but bipartisan, it's partisan. Julian Bond, chair of the NAACP said "The commission barely resembles its former incarnation. It's the most conservative commission ever and the one least disposed toward defending, protecting and reporting on civil rights. It has become a political arm of the conservative movement in America."

A February 8 article at the legal news website Main Justice reported, "The makeup of the commission has been called into question; four of the eight current members of the Civil Rights Commission are Republicans, two are Democrats and two are independents who switched their affiliation from Republican to independent. Months ago Michael Yaki, one of the commission's two Democrats, complained, 'This is basically going to be a partisan kangaroo court, convened by my partisan colleagues.'"

Now imagine what O'Reilly and Fox News would have said if a Democratic President had done what Bush did, and stacked the Commission with 2 more Democrats who re-registered as Independents. O'Reilly would scream bloody murder for a week, and all of Fox News would cry foul. But when George W. Bush does it, they not only do not cry foul, they ignore the entire story and not say a word about it.

Then on top of that they lie to everyone and say the Black Panther case is being investigated by a bipartisan commission. Talk about bias, and bad journalism, this is it.

More Proof Cavuto Is A Right-Wing Liar
By: Steve - July 11, 2010 - 9:30am

Remember when Neil Cavuto and almost everyone at Fox News blamed the housing crisis on the poor, who they claim got home loans that they could not afford, so that caused the housing crisis.


An investigation by the New York Times finds that the biggest mortgage defaulters are wealthier Americans.

"More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent," while only "one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent."

Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.

There it is Cavuto, proof that you are nothing but a right-wing liar, who could care less about the truth. What say you?

Republican Slams Republicans For Fear & Hate Tactics
By: Steve - July 11, 2010 - 9:00am

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), is speaking out about the influence of hate radio and right-wing fear mongering in the Republican Party. In an interview with the AP, Inglis called out reactionaries like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for spreading demagoguery and hatred in society:
Noting that Palin had spread the death panel smear, Inglis said, "there were no death panels in the bill, and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership."

Inglis slammed GOP leaders for following hate radio talkers, rather than leading on principle: "I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those (television and talk radio) personalities and not leading. What it takes to lead is to say, "You know, that's just not right."

Inglis on the right-wing's effort to divide America: "It's a real concern, because I think what we're doing is dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni. It's very difficult to come together to find solutions."

Although Inglis did not hear the racial slurs hurled at Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) at a tea party protest on Capitol Hill during the health reform vote, he did see threatening and abusive behavior. "I caught him at the door and said, 'John, I guess you've been here before,'" said Inglis, referring to Lewis role in the Civil Rights movement.
When liberals say that about Palin, O'Reilly claims we are just scared of Palin because she is a strong and pretty conservative woman who could win a Presidential election. He also claims liberals say things about Beck because he is right, and we don't like him telling the truth. But both things are ridiculous, and the fact that you have another conservative saying the same thing proves it.

Notice that O'Reilly never has anyone like this on the Factor, because it makes Republicans like Beck and Palin look bad, who he not only supports, he works with them, and likes what they do. Liberals do not like Palin because she is a stupid liar, who is not qualified to be the President, it has nothing to do with her being a pretty woman. And liberals hate Beck because he is a right-wing liar, one of the biggest liars in America.

CNBC Host Slams Right-Wing Nut Over Jones Act Lies
By: Steve - July 11, 2010 - 8:30am

Since BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico began, a common right wing lie has been that the Jones Act -- a 1920 law stipulating that commerce between U.S. ports needs to occur on U.S. ships -- has been hindering the cleanup effort by forcing the federal government to reject aid from foreign nations. This lie has been spread all over Fox News, with virtually everyone on the network repeating the lie.

Conservative lawmakers and pundits have been claiming that the Obama administration is refusing to waive the Jones Act out of deference to the will of labor unions. Even though earlier this month, the McClatchy Newspaper demolished the lie, but that hasn't stopped the lies, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) going so far as to say that aid from 17 countries has been rejected because of the Jones Act.

friday, on CNBC, Hans Bader of the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute repeated the lie again, but this time he ran into a host who had done his homework. CNBC's Mark Haines noted that 68 different offers of foreign cleanup help have been accepted, and then challenged Bader to cite examples of the Jones Act causing a problem:
HAINES: How many rejections under the Jones Act?

BADER: I don't know how many.

HAINES: Excuse me, you can't tell us how many there are? I want the facts, give us hard facts, give us evidence, not innuendo, not baseless accusations, okay? It's offensive to intelligence. The fact is sir, you have told us there are examples of rejections and you can not name a single one.
Wow, snap, good job Mr. Haines. finally someone hammered one of these right-wing nuts for lying, it's about damn time. Too bad we don't have more real journalists like this, that do not let these paid liars spin out their right-wing lies. This guy Haines should get an award for doing some real journalism.

Gutfeld Tells O'Reilly He Is High Over NASA Comment
By: Steve - July 11, 2010 - 8:00am

One night last week O'Reilly was asked by Byron York (another right-wing fool) why he did not cover the NASA muslim comment story. So O'Reilly said he did not think it was an important story, and that he did not have a problem with what the NASA official said.

Then during the Friday dumbest things of the week segment Greg Gutfeld said this to O'Reilly: "You are high" to think there's nothing wrong with NASA's Muslim outreach.

And btw, in the Factor show summary that comment by Gutfeld to O'Reilly was scrubbed from the transcript. So if you missed the show and only read the summary on the Factor website, you would never know Gutfeld said it.

Not to mention, Gutfeld is a far-right nut, and the proof is that his lame Fox show is on at 3am in the morning. Basically he is just a little farther right than O'Reilly. Because other than that one issue, they pretty much agree 99% of the time. O'Reilly even has him on the Factor once a week as a regular.

The Friday 7-9-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 10, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Sarah Palin on Solving Illegal Immigration. Which is just laughable, and anyone who even cares what she thinks about it is an idiot. O'Reilly used the TPM to slam Obama once again for filing the lawsuit against Arizona for their immigration law. Even though most legal experts say the law is unconstitutional, including the Fox legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who O'Reilly never has on to discuss it. O'Reilly even lied that Obama was spending millions of dollars to prosecute the case, when he knows as well as I do, that the Federal Prosecutors are on the payroll, and it will not cost any extra money, except for the state of Arizona.

Then O'Reilly had the moron Sarah Palin on, O'Reilly asked what President Palin would do to solve the immigration problem. As if she is qualified to be the President, which she is not. Then the strangest thing happened, O'Reilly sat there and gave her all her answers. He did not ask her a regular question, like what would you do. He said I think you would not give them amnesty, is that right, then she said that's right. O'Reilly said would you put 10,000 or more troops on the border, and she said yes.

And the whole interview went like that, he basically gave her all her answers, and she just said yes. That's not an interview, it's giving a dummy the answers to make her look smarter. And something O'Reilly would never do with a liberal. He should have asked one question, what would you do about illegal immigration. But he did not do that, he gave her the answers because he knows she is so stupid if he had not done that she would have come off looking alike a fool, which she is.

Then Leslie Marshall and Dana Perino were on to discuss what Palin said. Both Marshall and Perino were not impressed, Perino a little, but not at all from Marshall. They both said Palin was not specific enough, and that her idea of deporting some or all of the 12 million illegals is a pipe dream. Even O'Reilly admitted it would be pretty much impossible to deport them, if you could even find them all. But not even the so-called liberal Leslie Marshall, confronted O'Reilly for giving Palin all the answers. What was really funny is O'Reilly gave her all her answers, then in the next segment he complained about some of her ideas, when they were all his ideas.

Then at the end of the segment O'Reilly lied that President Obama does not want to secure the border. And said he's been in office for 18 months and he has not done anything. Which is a massive lie, because Obama has ordered more troops to the border, so that's something. Not to mention, Obama wants to pass an immigration reform bill this year, but the Republicans are blocking it, they will not even let it come up for a vote to debate it, let alone a vote to pass it. But somehow O'Reilly blames that on Obama, which is just ridiculous right-wing propaganda. Republicans do not want immigration reform because the Corporations (who are their masters) want cheap labor. Obama also wants to pass a bill to put big fines on any company that hires an illegal, and the Republicans are blocking that too. But O'Reilly never mentions any of that, and just blames it all on Obama.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about how some of the city leaders in San Francisco are considering banning the sale of most household pets. O'Reilly had a public defender Jeff Adachi on who supports the proposed law. And let me say that I am with O'Reilly on this one, it's ridiculous to ban the sale of pets, and frankly it's un-American. But I do have a problem with this segment, it was not needed and it's not news. Because the law has not passed, so there is nothing to complain about, at least not yet. Now if it ever passes, then it would be time to report it and slam the idiots who voted it in. O'Reilly jumped the gun just to smear the city leaders in San Fran, because he hates them. So he smeared them for a law that has not even passed yet, and most likely will never pass. Making O'Reilly a massive jackass.

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to talk about some rioters in Oakland who went on a looting rampage after the police officer who shot and killed 22-year-old Oscar Grant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter rather than murder. O'Reilly defended the police officer, even though his defense was ridiculous, and even Geraldo said it did not pass the smell test. The policeman claimed he thought he had a taser in his hand, and not his handgun, and that when he shot the guy he did not know he had a gun in his hand. And the jury bought that garbage, as did O'Reilly. The police are trained professionals, who clearly know the difference between a taser and a handgun, so his defense was laughable, and yet O'Reilly still defended it.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Glenn Beck on to talk about the Black Panther Party. They said they will be at the Beck political rally in Washington. O'Reilly implied they made a threat against Beck, which they did not, they just plan a counter protest, which is perfectly legal. Hey Billy, why don't you stop jumping the gun on reporting what might happen, in journalism you are supposed to report what happened after it happens, not report what might happen, before it even happens, dumbass. Then Beck talked about the new online Beck University, where for $9.95 a month you can go to Beck U. Which is so ridiculous, and so laughable I can not even bring myself to discuss it. Even O'Reilly made fun if it, so he even knows it's a fricking con game to make Beck more money.

And finally Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville were on to name the dumbest things of the week. Neville picked the college students whose satirical video mocked President Obama. "They made a mistake," Neville said, "when they brought in Sasha and Malia. They didn't listen to Governor Palin, the kids are off limits." Gutfeld singled out NASA boss Charles Bolden, who said the space agency's top priority is reaching out to Muslim nations. "John Glenn used to be our inspiration," Gutfeld observed, "but now we have Stuart Smalley. This is Oprah, this is a Benetton ad. There was nothing about space, this was about feelings."

O'Reilly named Univsion anchor Jorge Ramos, who appeared on Wednesday night's program and repeatedly refused to answer a direct question about criminal illegal aliens. Except he did answer the question, he just did not answer it in the way O'Reilly wanted him to.

And btw, during the dumbest things of the week segment Gutfeld told O'Reilly he must have been high to say the NASA muslim comment story was not important enough to report on. Which was scrubbed from the Factor summary on the segment. Not to mention, O'Reilly had a segment on Russian babes in bikinis washing a plane, in a commercial for a Russian airline. So important news stories is not really a good excuse for him not to cover a story.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And for anyone who is counting, including O'Reilly there were 7 Republicans to 2 Democratic guests on the show. So how in the hell is that being fair and balanced.

Fox vs Fox: Arizona Immigration Law Debate
By: Steve - July 10, 2010 - 9:30am

Fox News does not know which way is up in the debate over the controversial Arizona immigration law. Most of the legal experts say the law is un-American and unconstitutional. But people at Fox like O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. all claim the law is just fine and they support it.

On the July 9 edition of Fox & Friends, senior legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. claimed that the Justice Department's lawsuit against the state of Arizona over its controversial illegal immigration law is "fallacious," "baseless," "garbage," "nonsense," and "almost laughable."

But even Fox's own Judge Napolitano -- dispute this claim, saying the Arizona law is "un-American" and "unconstitutional."

On the July 7 edition of Fox Business Network's Varney & Co., Fox legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano railed against the Arizona law, calling it "un-American." Napolitano called the law "unconstitutional" and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that immigration laws are "strictly a federal issue."
NAPOLITANO: The Supreme Court has held that when the states formed the federal government they truly gave away their power to have relations with foreign countries and with foreigners including immigration. Directly on point a Pennsylvania case in which the state of Pennsylvania sought to find Nazi sympathizers which is pre-World War II amongst its aliens so it ordered all aliens to register with the state of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court said you have nothing to do with aliens. It is strictly a federal issue.

Arizona can't do that. It can't write a law that says the federal law means something different in Arizona than it does in the other 49 states.

If I fall asleep in the sun at a resort in Scottsdale and I haven't shaved in three days and I go jogging, they may stop me. And I will have no proof of my papers on me and they will arrest me because I can't prove who I am. That is un-American. That is unconstitutional. That's what will happen.
Napolitano later said to host Stuart Varney: "It would be nice if you studied the Constitution."

And he is not the only legal expert with that opinion, here is what other legal experts have said:

On June 6th, Yahoo News reported that constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky said "federal law clearly pre-empts the Arizona measure, rendering the state law unconstitutional."

New Republic reported that constitutional law expert Walter Dellinger said the DoJ "had no choice but to bring this suit."

In a July 9th article titled "Arizona immigration law unlikely to survive federal lawsuit," and subtitled "Legal experts cite the longstanding principle that the federal government has exclusive control over immigration," the L.A. Times reported that "most legal experts predict" that the Arizona law "is likely to be struck down."

And yet, Fox News continues to claim the DoJ lawsuit is baseless and a waste of time. Including O'Reilly, who said it is an outrage for Obama to allow the DoJ to sue Arizona over the law. Even though he is not an attorney, and clearly not a legal expert.

Another Republican Proves He Is Insane
By: Steve - July 10, 2010 - 9:00am

Wow, are there any normal Republicans left in America. They all seem to get crazier and crazier. Now this right-wing nut job Stephen Moore is calling for Obama to raise taxes on the poor. Even though he has said he is opposed to any tax increase, now all the sudden he supports raising taxes on the poor.

And I mean poor, he wants to raise the lowest tax rate of 10% on the poorest Americans to 15%, and not only that, he wants to lower the taxes on the rich, so he is a double moron.

Wednesday night on CNBC, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore advocated that taxes be raised on the poorest Americans in order to finance more tax cuts for the rich. Here is what he said:
MOORE: In fact, if I could have my druthers, I'd raise the ten percent tax rate to fifteen percent and lower the top rates.
Yeah that's a great idea, NOT! In the middle of a recession raise taxes on the people who spend every dime they make, and give the millionaires a tax cut, so what, they can go buy another mansion, or buy more gold. What an idiot, in fact, he may be the king of idiots.

Adopting such a plan would only make income inequality (that is already the worst it has been since the 1920's) even worse than it is now. According to the latest data, "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007."

The top 1 percent of families now receive nearly 25 percent of the country's income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970's. And not only that, this year the Bush tax cuts will give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will make in total income for an entire year.

As Keith Olbermann would say, Stephen Moore, you are the worst person in the world, ever.

Angle Calls BP Victims Account A Slush Fund
By: Steve - July 10, 2010 - 8:30am

Another insane Republican is caught being an idiot. On a local Nevada radio show wednesday, the state's GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle agreed that the BP escrow account is a slush-fund:
CALLER: I wanted to know what you think of the $20 billion slush fund and whether or not the government should be able to do that to a private company.

ANGLE: Well, the short answer is no, government shouldn't be doing that to a private company. And, I think you named it clearly, it's a slush fund.

But everyone in the petroleum industry shouldn't be penalized for one bad person's actions. It would be like throwing us all in prison because one person committed murder. And that's exactly what's going on here is it's an overreaction by government for not the right reasons.
Angle also claimed the White House is following "Saul Alinky's rule for radicals. They are using this crisis now to get in cap-and-trade and every fine and penalty and slush fund."

Angle's comments are very wrong and dishonest, because by using the words "slush fund" you imply corruption and a violation of law. Of course, the escrow is not a "slush fund" considering there is no bribery involved, and BP's money is allotted for a specific purpose: helping victims of the disastrous oil spill which resulted from BP's negligence.

Not to mention, BP agreed to set it up and in comments after BP made the deal to set up the account, CEO Tony Hayward took full responsibility and called the escrow account the right thing:
HAYWARD: From the outset we have said that we fully accepted our obligations as a responsible party. This agreement reaffirms our commitment to do the right thing. The President made it clear and we agree that our top priority is to contain the spill, clean up the oil and mitigate the damage to the Gulf coast community. We will not rest until the job is done.
Maybe someone should explain to Angle that when a company agrees to set up an escrow account to pay for the damage they caused, it is neither a "slush fund" corrupt, or illegal. And I say someone should explain it to her, because she is clearly too stupid to understand what the hell she said.

GOP Nut Wants To Ban Gay Sex, Abortion, & Porn
By: Steve - July 10, 2010 - 8:00am

Do you want more proof most Republicans are nuts, here it is. Ernest J. Pagels Jr. is running in the Wisconsin GOP Senate primary, trying for the opportunity to run against Sen. Russ Feingold (D) this September. What is his platform, he wants to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and all forms of pornography.

Yes you heard me right, he claims he will make being gay illegal, make all abortions illegal, and make all porn illegal. Which proves the man is a stark raving lunatic, and this is the kind of person the Republican party is running to be a United States Senator.

He said this in a campaign ad on a local Milwaukee television station:
PAGELS: Hi my name is Ernest J. Pagels Jr., I'm a born again Christian, a U.S. veteran and a very conservative Republican. I'm running for U.S. Senate from the state of Wisconsin and if elected I will initiate a bill to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and all forms of pornography.

I think these are three ills that are plaguing our nation and bringing it down. And if elected, I will also initiate a bill for a Constitutional amendment which prohibits Congress and the President from spending more money than they bring in. My name is Ernest J. Pagels, Jr. and I hope you vote for me on September 14th.
Okay, I have a few questions for Mr. Pagels. How do you make it illegal to be gay, and how do you enforce it. How could you possibly make abortion illegal, when the majority of Americans support it, including the Supreme Court, who would have to vote to make it illegal. And how in the hell would you outlaw porn, when it's everywhere, including foreign countries where any American could access it, even if it was illegal in the United States.

Mr. Pagels, you are a fricking nut job, worse than Glenn Beck, and that's saying a lot. Because even the total lunatic Glenn Beck would not even try to make those things illegal. Here is some advice for you, stop wasting any more money on your campaign, because you are never going to win.

The Thursday 7-8-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 9, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Obama Appoints Liberal to Top Job. Billy was shocked that President Obama would appoint a liberal to the top spot at Medicare & Medicaid. Earth to O'Reilly, Obama is a liberal so why are you shocked. And if Obama was a conservative, who appointed a conservative, O'Reilly would not say a word, in fact, he would support it. Proving once again what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is.

O'Reilly called it sneaking him in, because Obama did a recess appointment. But Bush also did the same thing many times, and back then O'Reilly never said a word, because a Republican did it. Basically O'Reilly cried like a baby over the recess appointment, and I say too bad, shut up and deal with it. If he was a Republican O'Reilly would not only not care, he would not even say a word about it.

And what a shocker (Not) the far-right Newt Gingrich was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest to provide the balance. O'Reilly asked Newt if he had any idea Obama was so much of a liberal. Of course Newt said no, and then slammed Obama for doing the recess appointment. Then O'Reilly called Newt the smartest political guy in the country, wow, really? Maybe in the right-wing world, but nowhere else.

O'Reilly called Obama the farthest left President in the history of America. Not to mention, if you think Newt Gingrich is the smartest political guy in the world you are a far-right nut, that's you O'Reilly. Billy had his head so far up Newt's ass he can't see straight. Then Gingrich called Obama a radical, simply because Obama did a recess appointment, when Newt never said a word when Bush did the very same thing, and more than Obama did it. Basically O'Reilly and Gingrich said Obama is ruining the country with his far left agenda.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the Black Panther case, again, for the millionth time. Which I refuse to report on because it's a non-story, it's basically a made up right-wing propaganda story. O'Reilly called it a major scandal for Obama, when it's not even a story for anyone but the right-wing nuts. They spent almost the entire segment on this garbage. Then they talked about a big lawsuit the ACLU has filed against Walmart. It was about an employee who used medical marijuana, but not on the job, and they fired him. O'Reilly and Kelly both said the ACLU has a good case. But they ignored the story about Walmart spending millions of dollars in legal fees to get out of paying a $7,000 fine, O'Reilly ignored that story.

Then the far-right Byron York was on to cry about the so-called mainstream media ignoring a bunch of news stories. But one story over a guy at NASA making a muslim comment, York cried about was not even reported by O'Reilly, and O'Reilly even said he did not think it was a story worth reporting. Then they both flipped out over the lack of reporting on the Black Panther story by the mainstream media. And btw, this Byron York is just another Bernie Goldberg wannabe. He's a biased far-right nut who only finds liberal bias in the media. Of course no Democratic guest was on to provide the balance. So they are crying about media bias, while they are being biased.

Then Lanny Davis was on to talk about having people try to be civil in campaign ads, on tv, etc. He sent out letters to everyone in Congress and only one person replied. O'Reilly talked about people with cell phone cameras ambushing Congressman, and he said it was wrong. This is the king of the ambush interview saying that, my God it's the ultimate hypocrisy by O'Reilly. Billy basically told Lanny it will never work, and that he is living a pipe dream. O'Reilly said if he is civil to people the Factor is off the air.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to discuss a Sarah Palin PAC tv ad, and the Vampire movies. The Palin ad said something about Mama Grizzlies, and Carlson called it brilliant, brilliant I tell you, then she said it would lead Palin into running for President in 2012. WOW, really, are you kidding me, Carlson is a fricking idiot. It was so ridiculous I am not even going to report on it any more than I already have.

And finally the stupid Factor news quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. It's the ridiculous news quiz, that has no news value at all. I guess the only reason he does it is to give away prizes to his viewers, because that's about the only reason I can think of for doing it.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And let me point out that only one Democratic guest was on the entire show, including O'Reilly, it was 8 Republicans to 1 Democrat. And btw, the 1 Democratic guest (Lanny Davis) was not asked about any of the issues discussed on the show, he was only allowed to talk about the letter he sent out to Congress asking them to be civil with each other. Not to mention, Davis is a moderate Democrat, so not one liberal was on the entire show to discuss anything.

Good job O'Reilly, you are the king of bias, and you have the nerve to complain about bias in the media, WOW!

Right-Wing Media Smearing Black Attorney General
By: Steve - July 9, 2010 - 9:00am

The right-wing media continued to spin out the completely unsubstantiated allegations that the Department of Justice -- and Attorney General Eric Holder -- dismissed voter-intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party because the defendants were African-American.

Including Bill O'Reilly, who blamed it on Obama, and claimed they did not prosecute because the Black Panthers are black, Obama is black, and the AG Eric Holder is black. Which is all ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda, and yet, O'Reilly jumped on the dishonest bandwagon as fast as he could.

In fact, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testified that the charges were dropped after attorneys at the Civil Rights Division determined that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the three defendants.

Perez: The decision not to pursue additional charges against three of the four defendants was made because the "allegations did not have sufficient evidentiary support."

Contrary to O'Reilly, Doocy, Perino, and Morrissey's claims, Perez directly addressed the decision not to pursue additional charges in May 14 testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

He testified that after the Civil Rights Division conducted an inquiry into the NBP voter-intimidation case and "reviewed the totality of the evidence in the applicable law," it decided to drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party, its leader, and another defendant for insufficient evidentiary support and also decided to enjoin another defendant against displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia.
Based on the careful review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence collected supported the allegations in the complaint against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from otherwise violating Section 11(b).

The Department considers this injunction to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the constitutional requirements and will fully enforce the injunction's terms.

The Department concluded that the allegations in the complaint against Jerry Jackson, the other defendant present at the polling place, as well as the allegations against the national New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, did not have sufficient evidentiary support. The Department reviewed the totality of the evidence in the applicable law in reaching these decisions.
So basically, the case is over, done. But all these right-wing idiots like O'Reilly, etc. keep bringing it up for political reasons to smear Obama and his AG as racists who let blacks break the law. When they did not have enough evidence to prosecute, and they did put an injunction on them to stay more than 100 feet away from any polling place.

Case closed, so let it go you right-wing a-holes. That means you O'Reilly, you partisan liar.

What Republicans In Congress Are Really Doing
By: Steve - July 9, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is what the Republicans in Congress are really doing, and notice that Bill O'Reilly does not report any of this. I guess he is too busy reporting on Russian girls in bikinis washing planes.

A few months ago, House Republicans launched an effort called Americans Speaking Out, which claimed to give average Americans the ability to offer their input on what Congress should do. It quickly became apparent that the enterprise was no more than a taxpayer-funded PR gimmick to help Republicans market their agenda for this fall's elections, even as they ignored any ideas they didn't already support.

Now, under the banner of Americans Speaking Out, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has summoned advice from those who he truly seems interested in listening to, lobbyists. Roll Call reports that Boehner has invited senior Republican lobbyists and top officials from several large trade groups to a meeting at Boehner's office to discuss their suggestions for a new GOP agenda:
The meeting is part of the House leaders initiative called America Speaking Out, which is intended to draw broad input to create a new policy agenda for the party to launch in the fall.

An e-mail invitation sent to more than 20 trade representatives and obtained by Roll Call summoned guests to Boehner's second-floor office on July 16 to discuss House Republican efforts to produce a new policy agenda with a small group of trade association leaders.

Invitees included Dan Danner, head of the National Federation of Independent Business; Bruce Josten, top lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Jay Timmons of the National Association of Manufacturers; and Joe Stanton of the National Association of Home Builders.
And as the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo has documented, congressional Republicans have "organized a pow-wow with lobbyists in order to devise a strategy" for nearly every piece of major legislation over the past year, from health care reform, to Wall Street reform, to climate change, to a jobs bill.

Hey O'Reilly: Put Up Or Shut Up About MSNBC
By: Steve - July 9, 2010 - 8:00am

Wednesday night O'Reilly told Dick Morris that MSNBC lies every day, which is funny, because O'Reilly, Morris, and Fox News tell 50 times more lies than MSNBC, pot meet kettle. And btw, O'Reilly did not provide any examples of their lies, he just said they lie, with no evidence. But when someone claims he lied, he says show me an example, and if they don't, he says they have nothing and that they made a false claim.

O'Reilly's comment raises something I have been wondering for years, if MSNBC is telling all these liberal lies, how come there are no right-wing groups that document their lies and expose what they are doing. Why don't conservatives fact check MSNBC every day and detail all the so-called lies.

If you believe the partisan right-wing hacks like O'Reilly, the liberal lies are jumping off the screen at MSNBC, and especially during prime time when the two left-leaning anchors are on. So why don't conservatives detail all the lies and regularly post their findings online like Media Matters does with Fox.

That's what they do at Media Matters with all the Fox News misinformation. They publish at least a dozen items a day, sometimes twice that, detailing how the right-wing News Network distorts the news and spreads propaganda. So why doesn't O'Reilly fact check Olbermann and Maddow every night and detail the lies they tell.

I'll tell you why, nobody fact checks the so-called liberal lies at MSNBC, especially during primetime, because MSNBC does not tell any lies. Unlike Fox News, MSNBC's programming is not built around fitting as much provably inaccurate right-wing misinformation into hour-long broadcasts as is humanly possible. In others words, MSNBC is not in the propaganda business the way Fox News is.

And the fact that neither O'Reilly, or any other right-wing group, fact check MSNBC, is proof that they do a pretty good job of informing the people with accurate news. If they were putting out all these liberal lies 24/7 as O'Reilly claimed, surely some right-wing group would fact check them, but they don't, so that alone shows that they are not telling any lies.

I would say this to O'Reilly, what lies are you talking about at MSNBC, prove it, document them and report it, where are they, show us. Otherwise, shut the hell up with your bogus claims. If you can not prove it, and show examples, you have nothing. And btw, if O'Reilly is the Independent nonpartisan he claims to be, why does he only care about the so-called liberal lies at MSNBC, how come he does not complain about all the right-wing lies put out by Fox News.

The Wednesday 7-7-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 8, 2010 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The Truth About Illegal Immigration. And for once O'Reilly told a little truth. He pointed out that a Republican Congressman who was on Fox, and said 50% of the illegals commit a crime was wrong. He said the stats show that 15% of illegals commit crime, which is also a rough estimate. Because they do not really know how many people cross illegally, so how can they put a percentage on it, O'Reilly never pointed that out, I did.

And he also never called the Republican Congressman a liar, he just said he had his facts wrong. But if a Democratic Congressman had told a lie like that O'Reilly would have called him a liar, and a far-left loon, as he always does. Then O'Reilly had a liberal anchor from a latino tv station on to discuss it. O'Reilly talked about stats that show 1,100 illegals are in custody in one Arizona county.

Ramos seemed much less concerned about this statistic than O'Reilly was, citing numbers that showed national crime diminishing in recent years, as well as specifically in Arizona, according to the FBI. Ramos explained that most illegal immigrants are not criminals, and that "they are here because many Americans, thousands of American companies, are hiring them, and millions of Americans, including you and me, benefit from their work."

O’Reilly lost his patience and began shouting "You're dodging the question" repeatedly at Ramos. O'Reilly's conclusion on the Ramos argument. "You're not saying anything wrong, but you just simply don't know what to do with violent criminal aliens, so you lose your authority to criticize the state of Arizona."

Then O'Reilly had two ridiculous segments with all right-wing guests, one about Obama getting involved in racial politics, and the other was more garbage asking why Obama did not prosecute the Black Panthers. Both segments were ridiculous right-wing propaganda, so I decided not to report on any of it. I will only say this, O'Reilly simply did it to smear Obama, even though none of it is true. Obama is not using race in politics, and the Black Panther case is over, o-v-e-r. It's not news anymore, so move on to some real news, jackass.

Then the body language segment with the blonde bimbo, and Dennis Miller the so-called comedian was on after that. I do not report on either segment, because it's not news, and it has nothing to do with the news. It's just right-wing garbage for the mostly Republican Factor viewers to enjoy.

And finally did you see that with Juliet Huddy. O'Reilly bills this segment as video you must see, but most of the time, like Wednesday night, it was just sexy video to get ratings. And it was not even from America, which makes it even more ridiculous. O'Reilly and Huddy showed a sexy video of Russian babes in bikinis washing a plane in a commercial for a Russian airline, and I have to admit it was a great video, with close ups of the girls ass and boobs.

But it was ridiculous, because it is not news, and it was run in Russia, it was not even run in America. In fact, if O'Reilly had not showed it I would have never even seen it. O'Reilly gave a viewer warning, when it was just girls in bikinis, which is what you can see every day on any beach in the world, and they did not even have g-strings, it was a regular full size bikini. The whole thing was just nonsense to get ratings, because in the last couple months the Factor ratings have dropped.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Media Matters
By: Steve - July 8, 2010 - 9:00am

This is not only sad, it's pathetic. Here is what happened, Tuesday night, Media Matters pointed out that Bill O'Reilly and his 2 right-wing legal analysts criticized the Obama administration for not pursuing criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. They pointed out that the criticism didn't make any sense, since it was President Bush's Justice Department that actually decided not to pursue criminal charges in the case.

Then Wednesday night, O'Reilly attacked Media Matters, and said that they were "amazingly dishonest," and called the headline of their item ("O'Reilly Factor ludicrously blames Obama for not pressing criminal charges in New Black Panthers case") a "total lie."

When in fact, Media Matters were exactly right, and nothing they said was a lie. O'Reilly simply used a dishonest attack on them to label them as liars, when he is the only liar, and all they did was report what he said.

Rather than actually attempt to dispute their statements -- which he can't do, because they accurately characterized his comments -- O'Reilly aired a different, entirely irrelevant part of that evening's show, in which he said this: "The evidence clearly shows the men breaking the law. So why give them a pass? Talking Points cannot answer that question. And Mr. Holder will not answer it either. Very disturbing. And President Obama should order his attorney general to clarify the matter."

As the full video from last night makes clear, the comments O'Reilly aired in no way undercut their point that he criticized Obama's Justice Department for not pressing criminal charges, even though it was the Bush DOJ that actually made that decision.

This is classic O'Reilly, when someone reports he lied, he attacks them and claims they are the liars. When all they did was simply report what he said, then he lies about what they said to try and ruin their credibility. Which does not work, except with the braindead viewers that love him. And basically it just makes him look like a fool, but he does it anyway.

I would ask you to look at what O'Reilly said, then look at what Media Matters said, then you will see for yourself that they did not lie about anything. And that the only dishonest liar here is Bill O'Reilly.

Republican Signs Law That Allows Guns In Church
By: Steve - July 8, 2010 - 8:30am

Okay, first let me say that I am a 100 percent 2nd amendment supporter. I am even a former member of the NRA, I love guns, have guns, and shoot them all the time. But even I oppose taking guns to church, I also oppose taking guns to school, and bars.

You have a right to own a gun, but nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say you have a right to take a gun to a church, a school, or a bar. And yet, this right-wing fool Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) signed a bill into law Tuesday that will allow people to bring concealed weapons into houses of worship.

The bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.

The bill also allows a house of worship to hire off-duty police or security guards to protect congregants.

Burns said that he proposed the bill so that religious institutions in declining neighborhoods can have extra protection against crime. "I was born and raised with Mayberry, riding my bicycle any time of the day or night," said Burns. "But we live in different times."

To be clear, however, houses of worship can authorize any person to receive a concealed handgun permit after eight hours of training -- whether or not the purpose is to help them fight crime.

Last year, Ken Pagano, pastor of the New Bethel Church in Louisville, KY, invited his congregation to bring their firearms to church. "God and guns were part of the foundation of this country," said Pagano, adding, "I don't see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist."

And last year, state Rep. Ernest Wooten's (R) bill allowing concealed weapons on college campuses failed to make it through the legislature. "It is not a gun bill, it is a rights bill," said Wooten at the time.

Funny how O'Reilly never reported any of this, oh yeah, he was too busy doing stupid body language segments, and showing video of Russian babes in bikinis washing a fricking plane.

O'Reilly Constitution Hypocrisy Is Stunning
By: Steve - July 8, 2010 - 8:00am

On The Tuesday O'Reilly Factor, crazy O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to criticize the four Supreme Court justices who dissented from the court's recent gun rights ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. Though she only joined the dissent written by Justice Steven Breyer, O'Reilly focused his attack on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, claiming that she doesn't care about the Constitution:
O'REILLY: But my contention is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg in particular -- and I'm trying to convince Megyn Kelly of this -- doesn't care about the Constitution. That all of her rulings are based upon her personal belief system about what is good and bad for American society.

You don't like it? Get a constitutional amendment and overthrow the Second Amendment. Two thirds of the states got to do it. Go ahead and put it on the ballot.

But Ginsburg doesn't want to do that. She wants to be the end-all dictator here about her ideology.
Okay, now think about this. Bill O'Reilly is the very same guy who has said he does not care about the constitution. Not to mention, he is speculating when he says Ginsberg does not care about the constitution. Because he can nt read her mind, so it has to be speculation, even though he denies he ever speculates.

In Nov. 2009, O'Reilly declared, "I don't care about the Constitution!" when Fox News top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told him that the Constitution supported Attorney General Eric Holder's push to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad -- in New York City. Then he said this:
O'REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he's arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don't want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.
Making O'Reilly a massive hypocrite. So not only is he speculating that Ginsberg does not care about the constitution, he himself has said he does not care about the constitution. And btw, just because a Supreme Court Justice does not rule the way you want them to, does not mean they do not care about the constitution.

The Tuesday 7-6-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 7, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Black Panthers And Illegal Aliens. O'Reilly talked about the so-called Black Panther voter intimidation case. He cited a Republican named J. Christian Adams, who quit the Justice Department last month because he claims Attorney General Eric Holder would not prosecute the Black Panthers. Even though it was under the Bush DOJ that the decision to not prosecute was made. And O'Reilly also cried some more about Obama filing a lawsuit to stop the Arizona immigration law.

Then O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to discuss it. Wiehl said this: "The Justice Department never pursued criminal charges, and said there wasn't enough evidence. But just look at the video! I would have prosecuted." Guilfoyle accused DOJ of outright racial bias. "They are not being race-neutral in their enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. J. Christian Adams is a well-respected prosecutor who said under oath that he was told not to prosecute certain cases."

O'Reilly denounced the Obama Attorney General: "I don't like Eric Holder, I don't think he's representing the United States in a fair and balanced way, and I think his far-left ideology comes into every decision. But President Obama backs him up every time on these crazy things."

But what they failed to report is that the Bush DOJ made the decision to not file criminal charges. Because they did not have one person who claimed any voter intimidation. And yet, these 3 right-wing idiots blamed it all on Obama and Holder anyway.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on, he asked him why President Obama is staking out positions opposed by a majority of Americans. "There are times," Hume explained, "when the approval ratings on a particular issue fail to measure intensity. The President may be calculating that on the Arizona case the intensity within his base is all against this Arizona law, and that if he doesn't try to act against it he will lose support from Hispanic voters. He needs his base to be animated and active in the fall to try to save him and his party from an electoral debacle."

O'Reilly said President Obama is a far cry from candidate Obama: "Isn't it interesting that a guy who ran such an effective campaign has put himself against the majority of the American public on almost every issue?"

Which is just ridiculous, because Obama is only going against the majority of the people on one issue, the Arizona immigration law. But O'Reilly implies that the people are opposed to Obama on everything, which is just not true. And btw, back in the days of slavery the majority of the people supported it, but they still made it illegal, so sometimes it is right for the President to go against the will of the majority. Stupid O'Reilly does not seem to understand that.

So then O'Reilly had the one Democrat on the entire show to discuss it. Alan Colmes endorsed the administration's recent decisions, including its handling of the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Colmes said this: "The prosecutors felt there was not enough evidence, and the issue was whether anybody was stopped from voting by intimidation."

"Justice felt there was not enough evidence to prove that people were intimidated." Colmes also disputed the notion that President Obama is in political jeopardy. "This is a marathon, not a sprint, and I don't think he's going to lose the House of Representatives. Republicans will gain seats, but Democrats will not lose the House." Of course O'Reilly disagreed and eagerly challenged Colmes to a wager - the loser will donate $100 to Habitat for Humanity. Wow, an entire $100, give me a break.

Then O'Reilly talked about the Michael Steele controversy, who said we can not win in Afghanistan and then a bunch of Republicans called for him to resign. So O'Reilly had a couple Republicans on to talk about it, WRONG! He had the crazy libertarian John Stossel on to discuss it. Which is just crazy, why not have one of the actual Republicans on who called for Steele to resign. And what's really funny is O'Reilly basically said the same thing as Steele recently, even after he said liberals who take that position are traitors. But when the Republican Steele says we can not win, O'Reilly did not call him a traitor, or call for him to resign.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about what Bill Clinton said about Robert Byrd, who was trying to make up for being in the KKK early in his life. Goldberg said Clinton lied, and that Byrd did not spend the rest of his life trying to make up for it, when he did, and Goldberg was the liar. In fact, back in the day most of the people in the KKK were Republicans. The entire south was run by Republicans who were in the KKK, just go read about it. And people make mistakes when they are young, then they straighten their act up and they change, which is what Byrd did. They also trashed Larry King and CNN, O'Reilly even speculated that CNN forced King to quit. When he has no proof of that, and he claims to never speculate.

And finally, O'Reilly had Krauthammer on to discuss the 5 to 4 vote that overturned Chicago's ban on handguns. Krauthammer blasted the liberal dissenters. He said this: "I didn't think I'd ever see a time, when the liberals on the Supreme Court would argue 'states rights' in opposition to an individual right that is in the Constitution. It seemed as if they were willing to use whatever arguments they could find. A right is a right and it's written into the Constitution. You ought to be very careful about how and when you curtail it."

Then O'Reilly attacked Ginsberg once again, as being far out of the mainstream, he said this: "My contention is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't care about the Constitution and that all of her rulings are based on her personal belief system about what is good and bad for society. She wants to be the all-out dictator."

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And the usual O'Reilly Factor was back in business, with O'Reilly hosting, and a 7 to 1 Republican to Liberal guest list.

O'Reilly Tells Massive Lie In Black Panther Story
By: Steve - July 7, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly has been known to tell some big lies, but this may be the biggest lie he has ever spewed out of his right-wing mouth. On The Tuesday night O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle all criticized President Obama's administration for not pursuing criminal charges against the Black Panther Party.

Which is just ridiculous, because it was the Justice Department under President Bush that decided not to pursue criminal charges in the case. Referencing the decision not to pursue criminal charges, O'Reilly said that Attorney General Eric Holder did it because "his ideology comes into every decision."

Wiehl replied that "it's not just the criminal charges, ok, let's say we can differ about that, maybe that the criminal charges shouldn't have been brought."

O'Reilly interjected, "Nobody differs about that." Wiehl continued, saying that the Obama Justice Department "won the civil complaint, they had them and they let them go." O'Reilly replied, "it's on Holder, with a very strong Obama component."


It was under the Bush DOJ that it was decided not to press criminal charges.

The Bush administration (Not the Obama Administration) decided to file a civil, not a criminal, complaint. In his May 14 testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but instead decided to "file a civil action on January 7, 2009." From Perez's testimony:
PEREZ: Moving to the matter at hand, the events occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became aware of these events on Election Day and decided to conduct further inquiry.

After reviewing the matter, the Civil Rights Division determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under 11(b) against four defendants.
In other words, the decision on whether to file criminal charges against the Black Panthers was made during the Bush administration, before Obama was even sworn in as the President. And yet, the insane right-wing jackass Bill O'Reilly, and his stooge legal team blamed Obama for it anyway.

It's the most ridiculous and insane thing I have ever heard from O'Reilly, and that's saying a lot considering all the lies O'Reilly puts out.

And btw, to have a case of voter intimidation you need to have a voter who was intimidated, but they could not find one voter who said they were intimidated, which is why no criminal charges were filed. In an April 23rd hearing on the DOJ's decision in the case, Civil Rights Commissioner Arlan Melendez noted that "no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting," which was clear to the Justice Department last spring. From the April 23 Civil Rights Commission hearing:
MELENDEZ: Citizens should be able to vote without intimidation, and it is our Commission's duty to investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights have been infringed.

In this case, however, no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting at the Fairmount Avenue Polling Station in 2008. This absence of voter intimidation was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did.
Neither O'Reilly, or his so-called crack legal team ever mentioned any of this. Instead, they ignored all the facts, and blamed the whole thing on Obama. When the decision was made before he was even sworn in as the President.

More Republicans Call For Steele To Resign
By: Steve - July 6, 2010 - 9:00am

This past Friday, video surfaced of RNC Chairman Michael Steele speaking at a fundraiser in Connecticut about the war in Afghanistan. While some of Steele's comments at the fundraiser were clearly a lie, such as his claim that the Afghan war was of "Obama's choosing," when it was started by George W. Bush, he also made arguments that engaging in a prolonged land war in Afghanistan is not very smart.

Since then numerous leading conservatives have responded to Steele's comments by lashing out at the chairman, with some even asking for him to step down from his post. Their message is clear, in the modern Republican Party, you are not allowed to question the wisdom of engaging in a war:
-- Leading conservative pundit Bill Kristol called Steele's comments "an affront to the commitment of our soldiers" in Afghanistan and demanded that the chairman step down.

-- RedState founder, and conservative, Erick Erickson said that Steele "has lost all moral authority and he must resign."

-- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Steele's remarks were "totally unacceptable" and said that he should "apologize and resign."

-- Former Bush State Department official Liz Cheney said that Steele's Afghanistan comments were "deeply disappointing and wrong" and that it is "time for Steele to step down."

-- Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) demanded that Steele "apologize to our military" and said that "Republicans need a chairman who's focused."

-- On CBS’s Face The Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Steele's remarks "unwise" and said "we must win this war." The senator was thankful, however, that Steele was "backtracking so fast he's gonna be here fighting in Kabul soon."
And while leading conservatives may be ok with firing the head of their party for daring to question the wisdom of a long and protracted war in Afghanistan, they risk marginalizing themselves politically among an American public that is increasingly opposed to America's longest war in history.

Because a recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans agree with President Obama's stated timeline of July 2011 to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan. Which is also another poll you never see O'Reilly report, because he is opposed to the timeline. But when a poll supports his position on an issue, he reports that every night.

The Monday 7-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 6, 2010 - 8:30am

The Monday show was a best of the Factor News Quiz, so it was basically old clips of the lame news quiz from past shows, with Steve Doocy, Martha MacCallum, etc.

And of course it was not even worth reporting on, so there was no review for the Monday show. In my opinion the Factor news quiz is just a waste of tv time, so even when they do it live I still refuse to report on it. O'Reilly claims to have a hard news show, but then he has all this garbage, like the news quiz, the body language segment, Dennis Miller, etc. None of which is hard news, in fact, none of it is news at all.

More BP News You Will Never See On The Factor
By: Steve - July 6, 2010 - 8:00am

Before you read this, think about what kind of BP news you see O'Reilly report on the Factor. Nothing like this, he ignores all this kind of news. The only thing O'Reilly does it put right-wing spin doctors, who work for Fox, on to smear Obama over the BP oil spill.

No news like this is ever reported by O'Reilly, none, ever. This is real journalism, it's what real journalists do, the garbage O'Reilly does is not journalism, it's partisan right-wing spin, and half tabloid garbage.

Now read this, it's stunning.

Transocean, the company that owns the failed Deepwater Horizon rig that caused the Gulf oil spill, used a well-known tax haven in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland to lower its U.S. corporate tax rate by almost 15 points. And due to a break in the U.S. tax code, BP was also allowed to write off the rent it paid to Transocean on its own tax bill, saving it hundreds of thousands of dollars per day:
The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes. At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig.

According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon - a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.
So basically, the American taxpayers paid BP to lease an oil rig that was incorporated in a foreign country for the purpose of avoiding the U.S. corporate tax rate. And the U.S. tax code is actually full of tax breaks for the oil industry, despite their record billions and billions in profits over the last few years.

The CAP Senior Policy Analyst Sima Gandhi found nine different subsidies that the U.S. government gives to the oil industry, including refunds for drilling costs and refunds to cover the cost of searching for oil.

If this corporate welfare were cut, it would save the country $45 billion per year, and according to the Office of Economic Policy at the Department of Treasury, "affect domestic production by less than one-half of 1 percent."

"The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, heavy and constant. There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Fox & The Right Lying About Unemployment Stimulus
By: Steve - July 5, 2010 - 9:00am

Last week the Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said unemployment insurance stimulates the economy. Then Fox News and all the lying fools on the right went nuts, they called her remarks laughable and lunacy.

-- Hot Air: Pelosi's statements were "laughable" and "provably incorrect."

-- Powers: "Lunacy of this magnitude is known as a 'cry for help.'"

-- On the July 2nd edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Alisyn Camerota, after playing Pelosi's comments, called them curious and said it was hard to parse the logic of them. After playing the clip, co-host Clayton Morris said, "I would love to know what economists say about that."

Well Clayton you right-wing idiot, I have the answer to that. And Pelosi was right, economists agree that unemployment insurance has a strong stimulative effect on GDP.

The CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate the economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated this:
Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.
In other words, people getting unemployment benefits spend every dime they get, so that stimulates the economy, especially the local economy where they are spending the money. But somehow these right-wing idiots do not understand that.

And that's not all, according to a table in the report, the CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effects on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost, and the second highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.

In January 2009, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress that policies such as unemployment insurance "have a significant impact on the GDP." He said this:
ELMENDORF: Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.

A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved. The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.
And then you have this, from the (Republican) Mark Zandi. In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist and former adviser to John McCain, rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year change in real GDP for a given reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending. Extending unemployment Benefits was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps."

So not only are unemployment benefits a good way to stimulate the economy, it's the 2nd best way to do it. Proving that Fox News and all those right-wing idiots who say Pelosi was wrong, are total right-wing liars, yes I said liars. They are liars, and they know it, yet they lie about it anyway.

Bill Kristol Calls For Steele To Resign
By: Steve - July 5, 2010 - 8:30am

At a fundraiser in Connecticut Friday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made some startling declarations about the war in Afghanistan that put him on wrong side of the facts and in opposition with his own party's position.

While slamming Obama for not being a good enough student of history, Steele declared that the war - started nine years ago by President Bush btw - was of Obama's choosing, explaining that America had not "actively prosecuted or wanted to engage" in it before Obama took office.

So not only is he in idiot, he is a liar, because the fricking war was started by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, not President Obama.

Steele went on to argue that the U.S. shouldn't be in Afghanistan because the war is a lost cause:
STEELE: Keep in mind, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.

It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?

All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.
Steele's suspicion of the war effort completely contradicts his party's position, but it also conflicts with his own prior statements. After President Obama was hammered by opponents on the right last year for what they claimed was taking too long to announce his plan for the campaign, Steele called the war a crucial fight. Steele even attacked Obama for "sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground," which he said "undermines their ability to succeed."

Then Bill Kristol, the neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard called for Steele to resign over the comments. "There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican party."

Steele then issued a statement re-framing what he said, and standing by his views on the war, saying this, "As we have learned throughout history, winning a war in Afghanistan is a difficult task. There is no question that America must win the war on terror. We must also remember that after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the war is also a necessary one."

And for once I agree with Bill Kristol, Steele should resign, for being a fool, and a liar.

Utah Radio Station Drops Fox News Sean Hannity
By: Steve - July 5, 2010 - 8:00am

Last week, Utah's KSL Radio announced that it will be dropping radio personality Sean Hannity from its regular programming lineup. Although the company was tight-lipped about why it chose to end its relationship with Hannity, Utah's ABC-4 speculated that Hannity's uncivil behavior was behind the move:
SALT LAKE CITY -- KSL Radio announced that they will no longer air Sean Hannity's syndicated radio show.

The last KSL broadcast of the Sean Hannity show will air on October 1, 2010. The announcement comes after speculation that Hannity's on-air style was not in line with Deseret Media Company's mission statement that calls for civility and other ethical stances.

Deseret Media Companies (DMC) is a for-profit arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and manages KSL radio and other media outlets. The DMC Mission Statement calls for the dissemination of light and knowledge along with the promotion of "integrity, civility, morality, and respect for all people."
I would bet they dumped him because in the past, Hannity has said that every Democrat in the U.S. Congress should be "tortured and killed" at Gitmo, and that anyone who believes homosexuality is a natural phenomenon is "brainwashed."

KSL CEO Mark Wiles said this: "At the end of the day, we simply feel our future success and competitive advantage reside in creating unique local content, and that is our objective for developing replacement programming."

So basically they dumped the right-wing idiot for being an uncivil partisan jackass, which he is, and I hope more stations do the same thing. People like Hannity do not help the country, they hurt it, by spreading right-wing lies that just divide us even more.

Senator Graham Predicts Tea Party Will Die Out
By: Steve - July 4, 2010 - 9:30am

The Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called the tea party movement unsustainable, and said it will die out because it lacks vision. Graham argues that the Republican Party will eventually move away from the fringe (Tea Party) and join him closer to the political middle but that, for now, it has shifted too far to the right.

In the NY Times article Graham said this:
GRAHAM: The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.

We don't have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats. Ronald Reagan would even have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.
And btw, Senator Graham, I made the very same prediction about 3 months ago. The Tea Party is just a bunch of right-wing idiots who hate Obama, and have no valid mainstream ideas on how to fix the country, they just hate Obama, that's their entire platform.

Greta Van Susteren Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - July 4, 2010 - 8:30am

Once again the so-called fair and balanced moderate at Fox, Greta Van Sustren was caught lying with right-wing propaganda. Remember that she is billed as a straight news journalist with no bias, and crazy O'Reilly even claims she is a Democrat, even though she has denied that, and refused to say what political party she is registered with.

But if you watch her show, it's pretty clear she is a Republican, because all the lies she is caught in are in favor of the Republicans. And here is a good one, that is about the police in Arizona who oppose or favor the new immigration law.

Friday night Greta Van Susteren falsely suggested that President Obama is "cherry-picking" law enforcement officers who oppose Arizona's immigration law "in an effort to be less than candid about the seriousness of the problem."

In fact, major national and state-wide police chiefs associations representing the police departments of a large number of cities have spoken against the law. During his July 1st speech on immigration, President Obama stated that the Arizona law is "ill conceived" and that law enforcement officers "will tell you" that it could hurt their efforts to keep communities safe.
OBAMA: Laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -- driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.

And you don't have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.
Then in an interview with the Republican Arizona Governor who signed the law, Van Susteren implied that Obama was "cherry-picking" a couple of officers who agree with his position on the Arizona law. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stated of Obama's remarks: "Everybody that I come across in law enforcement, other than a couple of sheriffs in a couple of areas -- other than that, you know, the majority of law enforcement support the bill." So Van Susteren and Brewer both claim the President was lying, and that only a couple police officers oppose the law.


FACT: The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association oppose the immigration law.

From AACOP's statement on the bill:
The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) remains in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.

While AACOP recognizes immigration as a significant issue in Arizona, we remain strong in our belief that it is an issue most appropriately addressed at the federal level. AACOP strongly urges the U. S. Congress to immediately initiate the necessary steps to begin the process of comprehensively addressing the immigration issue to provide solutions that are fair, logical, and equitable.
Earth to Brewer and Van Susteren, that is more than just a couple police officers opposed to it, it's the entire fricking Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. And btw, the AACOP "represents police departments in more than 80 cities."

The AACOP president said the law "makes it very difficult for us to police our communities." ABC News reported this on May 26:
"It's very divisive," said John W. Harris, president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and police chief of Sahuarita, Arizona. "It puts Arizona law enforcement right in the middle. You have one side saying that we're going to do racial profiling. You have another side saying we're not doing enough... It makes it very difficult for us to police our communities."
Earth to Brewer and Van Susteren, that's not just a regular police officer saying he is opposed to the law, it's the president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police.

And that is not the only Police Chief group opposed to it, USA today reported this on April 26, 2010: "San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said the group stands by its 2006 policy that 'immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.'"

The (MCCA) Major Cities Chiefs Association "is the association of the Chiefs of the 56 largest municipal police departments in the United States.

And now you have the facts, something Greta failed to report while she was spinning out her right-wing propaganda, just like all the other Fox News stooges. She is not much different than Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, she just puts her right-wing spin out in a nicer way.

18 Senators Blocking Unemployment Benefits
By: Steve - July 3, 2010 - 9:30am

Since the beginning of the Bush Recession, about 15 million Americans have lost their jobs. Almost half of them have been out of work for six months or more, and there are currently five workers actively seeking work for every one available job.

But the Senate has been unable to extend job benefits because of a Republican filibuster, which has been joined by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). On three separate occasions, the real Democrats tried to break the filibuster but were unsuccessful. And while no senator voting to continue the filibuster should be allowed to escape responsibility, many voting to sustain it are from states that have been hit particularly hard by the unemployment crisis.

Here are the 17 Republican senators from states with double-digit unemployment, who are willing to leave their constituents without a safety net:
1) Jeff Sessions - Alabama
2) Richard Shelby - Alabama
3) George LeMieux - Florida
4) Saxby Chambliss - Georgia
5) Johnny Isakson - Georgia
6) Richard Lugar - Indiana
7) Mitch McConnell - Kentucky
8) Jim Bunning - Kentucky
9) Roger Wicker - Mississippi
10) Thad Cochran - Mississippi
11) John Ensign - Nevada
12) Richard Burr - N. Carolina
13) George Voinivich - Ohio
14) Lindsey Graham - S. Carolina
15) Jim DeMint - S. Carolina
16) Bob Corker - Tennessee
17) Lamar Alexander - Tennessee
Make a note of their names and vote every one of them out of office, and I mean all of them, even the so-called Democratic Senator Ben Nelson. Who seems to vote with the Republicans more than he does the Democrats.

Those 17 Republicans and 1 Democrat are keeping millions of people from getting their unemployment benefits. In just the last month alone 1.3 million people have lost their benefits, and this is actually a historic step on the part of the Senate, as "never before has Congress cut off benefits when unemployment was this high."

Maybe these Republicans in the Senate agree with Sharron Angle that unemployed people are simply "spoiled" and "afraid to get a job."

The Friday 7-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 3, 2010 - 9:00am

The Friday show was a re-run from June 16th. So there is no review, but I will say it was the usual 90% Republican guests who were on to smear President Obama with right-wing propaganda. Dick Morris, Dennis Miller, etc. were on, and of course O'Reilly picked the re-run with Sheriff Paul Babeu of Arizona's Pinal County.

He is the right-wing Sheriff who was in the dishonest John McCain ad about the border and illegal immigration. They did a campaign ad talking about how bad the border is, when Pinal County is not even on the border, it's 80 miles away.

In the ad McCain says "Complete The Danged Fence" as they stand by a fence on the border. They talk as if Babeu is a Sheriff on the border, they never disclose the fact that Pinal County is not on the border.

But the big deception is the fact that in 2006 McCain Voted AGAINST Border Security Funding, and he also voted against an amendment that would appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a prorata basis. The amendment failed 71-29.

Not to mention, in a 2006 interview with Larry King McCain said putting the National Guard on the border is a PR move. Then in 2003 on Fox News McCain said, "We can't secure our borders. We can never build an impenetrable wall to the north and south of us."

But now all the sudden he supports a fence and troops on the border. Which is just a political play, because J.D. Hayworth is a far right nut who is running against McCain in the Republican primary. So McCain has to pretend he is as far right as Hayworth to win the primary.

And this is the show O'Reilly picked to re-run, that had the dishonest segment about the border, the fence, and the misleading McCain ad.

Right-Wing Media Has Obama Derangement Syndrome
By: Steve - July 3, 2010 - 8:30am

Over the past few weeks, the right-wing media have been consumed by "Obama Derangement Syndrome," accusing President Obama of being insane, of colluding with Russian spies, of trying to create a civil war and implement one world government, while also claiming that his administration is trying to control everything under the sun, including the Internet and, even your toilet.

On June 10th, Glenn Beck turned to his blackboard, on which he had outlined his theory that "the politicians had joined with the revolutionaries so they could gain power," and said that now is the "time to break apart" that conspiracy.

He then warned his viewers that the "summer of rage is about to begin." Other conservative media figures, including Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Jay Severin, and Pam Geller, have similarly elevated their anti-government rhetoric to new heights, not only spewing baseless facts and utter falsehoods, but alluding to violent revolution and civil war, all to attack and undermine the Obama administration and progressives.

Here are some of the crazy things they have said:

Geller: Obama "is itching for a civil war. And at the rate he is going, he is going to get one"

Beck: "I think we're headed for a civil war"

Beck suggests Obama is "trying to destroy the country" and is pushing America toward civil war

Limbaugh on LA's Arizona boycott: "This is the kind of stuff that starts civil wars folks; this is not coincidental"

Savage: "I almost feel as though Obama's trying to create a civil war in America for his own reasons"

Erickson: "At what point do the people ... march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp?"

Savage: "We're going to have a revolution in this country"; "These people are pushing the wrong people around."

Newsmax columnist Perry asserts Obama "is inviting" a "military intervention."

Quinn calls for "riots": "Our country was built on revolution, and it's about time we took it back."

Chuck Norris: "Will history need to record a second American Revolution?"

I could go on forever, this is maybe 1/10th of 1 percent of the right-wing nonsense out there. And the great journalist Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. They even think Obama is the anti-Christ, but O'Reilly says nothing. He just ignores it, because if he reported it his viewers would get mad at him for making their idols look like the lunatics they are.

NY Times News O'Reilly Will Never Report
By: Steve - July 3, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly has claimed for 10 years (or more) that the NY Times is a big far left liberal newspaper that slants everything to the left, and basically called it a left-wing rag about a million times. But now we find out the reason they stopped calling waterboarding torture, why, because the Bush Administration asked them to.

You hear that O'Reilly, when are you going to report this, oh yeah, never. Thanks to the work of Yahoo's Michael Calderone, and helped by Andrew Sullivan -- we find out why they abruptly stopped referring to waterboarding as torture.
The Times acknowledged that political circumstances did play a role in the paper's usage calls. "As the debate over interrogation of terror suspects grew post-9/11, defenders of the practice (including senior officials of the Bush administration) insisted that it did not constitute torture," a Times spokesman said in a statement.

"When using a word amounts to taking sides in a political dispute, our general practice is to supply the readers with the information to decide for themselves. Thus we describe the practice vividly, and we point out that it is denounced by international covenants and in American tradition as a form of torture."
In other words, waterboarding was called torture for decades, until someone from the Bush White House got on the phone, then they backed down. This is the newspaper O'Reilly calls a liberal front for the Democratic party. But here they are admitting they stopped calling waterboarding torture, because people in the Bush Administration told them to stop calling it torture. What say you Billy?

The Thursday 7-1-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 2, 2010 - 11:00am

The far right nut job Laura Ingraham was in for O'Reilly again so I did not do a full review. But I will say that it was the usual 99% right-wing propaganda, and it was painful to watch. Basically Ingraham spent the entire show smearing Obama with mostly right-wing guests, and a few Democrats were on for her to tell how wrong they are on everything.

I will also say this, Ingraham is a terrible host, but she does have way more Democrats on than O'Reilly does. At least 3 per show, where O'Reilly usually only has 1, and sometimes none.

Ingraham had Karl Rove on for 2 full segments, which was just unwatchable. And that's pretty much my review of that garbage, to be honest, Ingraham is so painful to watch I only saw parts of it, even I could not watch the whole thing. It's like watching a female Sean Hannity, which is like torture, especially with that nasal nose voice that drives me crazy.

Ingraham Shows What A Total Idiot Looks Like
By: Steve - July 2, 2010 - 9:00am

All she has to do is look in the mirror. On the Thursday O'Reilly Factor she had the crazy Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss military issues, Afghanistan, the McChrystal firing, etc. Here is the video:

During the segment, the insane right-wing a-hole Laura Ingraham implied that Obama only picked General Petraeus to replace McChrystal because it was the only other general's name he knew. Which is nothing but total right-wing propaganda, not to mention lies.

And this is the far right nut that O'Reilly has host his "so-called" fair and balanced no spin zone. It's ridiculous, because she is nothing but a crazy right-wing bomb thrower. So not only does this make Ingraham look like a biased fool, it makes O'Reilly look bad too, for letting this nut host his show.

The Latest Right-Wing Spin On Jobs & Stimulus
By: Steve - July 2, 2010 - 8:30am

First, the facts, from 2007 until President Obama took office in January of 2009 the Bush recession lost 8 million jobs. Then President Obama passed a $700 billion dollar stimulus bill, which has not even fully kicked in yet. So now we have new jobs being created, anywhere from 25,000 to 400,000 a month, which means we are headed in the right direction, and news jobs are being created.

And now, here is the crazy right-wing spin on it. They claim that because the Obama stimulus bill did not create 8 million news jobs, to make up for the 8 million jobs lost under Bush, then the stimulus bill has been a failure. Even though Obama got the 700,000 a month job loss, to a 400,000 a month job gain, they still claim it's been a failure.

Which is so ridiculous, I barely know where to start. To begin with, Obama did not lose those 8 million jobs, Bush did, so to blame him for not creating 8 million news jobs is just insane. Especially when he was trying to do it in the middle of the biggest recession this country has seen in the last 50 years. None of that is Obama's fault, because Bush caused it.

The Obama stimulus bill has worked, and is working, and that is a fact. Obama even said that the stimulus bill was not going to gain back all those jobs and fix the economy. Obama wrote this in a July 12, 2009, Washington Post op-ed:
OBAMA: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not expected to restore the economy to full health on its own but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall.

Government on its own can't replace the 8 million jobs that have been lost. The true engine of job growth in this country has always been the private sector.
Independent economists believe that, thanks to the Obama stimulus, about 2 million people are on the job today who would not have had work otherwise.

The CBO estimated in May that as of the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus package "increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million" and "increased the number of full-time jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise." The CBO also estimated that the unemployment rate would be 0.7 percent to 1.5 percent higher today without the stimulus package.

And now you have the facts, not this right-wing propaganda that says the Obama stimulus has been a failure because it did not create 8 million new jobs. When it was never meant to do that, and Obama never said it would.

Not to mention, Obama wanted it to be more than $700 billion so it would create more jobs, and the Republicans voted no on that. So if anyone is to blame it's the Republicans in Congress, and George W. Bush.

Fox News Megyn Kelly Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - July 2, 2010 - 8:00am

Think about this, O'Reilly and Fox News claim Megyn Kelly is a straight news reporter who has no bias, and who only reports the hard facts. And then you see the truth when she reports lies like this.

Megyn Kelly claimed that the health exception to a ban on late-term abortions that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan advised President Clinton to endorse essentially would have allowed women to "get an abortion in the third trimester" because of a headache. Discussing issues Republicans were likely to use to attack Kagan during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Kelly distorted Kagan's record on abortion. From the June 29 edition of America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Critics of partial-birth abortion, say you put a health exception into that ban and women -- women can go in essentially who abuse the law for a headache, and get an abortion in the third trimester in a way that's very gruesome.
In fact, Kagan advised Bill Clinton to endorse a proposal banning late-term abortions that included a narrower health exception that would apply only with physician-certified risk of "grievous injury" to a pregnant woman's health.

Which is a far cry from saying a woman could get an abortion simply because she had a headache. And now you see that Megyn Kelly is as big of a right-wing liar as O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, or any other partisans at Fox. Even though she is billed as a straight news journalist, with no partisan bias, it's clear she is a biased Republican.

O'Reilly Wins Bronze In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - July 1, 2010 - 10:00am

From the 6-30-10 Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Get out your pitchforks and torches, time for tonight‘s worst persons in the world.

The bronze to Bill-O the clown, talking to someone named Anne Mullins about a conservative website's list of the top ten right wing nut jobs liberals are supposed to hate the most.
O'REILLY: Palin, Coulter, Malkin and Bachmann are all attractive women. They're all good looking. But I think that liberals, they resent that. They think that all women who are good looking should be liberal women.
Miss Mullins then says, yes, there are no ugly women in the top ten. Palin, Coulter, Malkin, Bachmann--anybody want to volunteer to break it to Miss Mullins and Mr. O'Reilly? Leave me out of it.

Our runner up, Michele Bachmann, number ten on the list, but still the leader for Operation Enduring Stupidity.


BACHMANN: President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy, where all of our nations come together in a global economy.


OLBERMANN: She went on to insist that a global economy would lead to literally a one-world government. Put that aside for a moment. Let me just review that sentence again. "President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy where all of our nations come together in a global economy."

What kind of-what kind of global economy do you know of that isn't a global economy? But our winner, Cheryl Casone, who used to do news cut-ins here and is now somehow on the Fixed Business News Channel, and she has the whole debt thing beat.


CASONE: A new government report showing 40 percent of income tax filers are paying no income taxes at all, and are getting money back. And this has someone here saying enough is enough. You want America's debt mess cleaned up? It's time for all Americans to pay up.


OLBERMANN: Is she really saying we need to tax the poor? I mean the really, really poor? I mean, there was this report from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that said 40 percent of filers pay nothing. But it pointed out that half of them had incomes under 19,000 dollars a year. She's not talking about increasing taxes on the really poor, is she? She's not talking about the CBO report?


CASONE: You know, Chris, the CBO report-granted it's for 2007. But the fact that most Americans are not paying any income tax, at the end of the day, kind of shows the imbalance. What if everybody pays just a little bit, we're out of debt in this country. So, Jonathan, did we just find a way to solve America's debt crisis, do you think?


OLBERMANN: Next on Fox Business Channel with Cheryl Casone, Swift's modest proposal that hunger could be solved by eating the children of impoverished families? Was it satire or was he just a far thinking economist ahead of his time. Cheryl "Tax the Poor" Casone of Fox, today's worst person in the freaking world.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: